بقلم الدكتورة زينب عبد العزيز
فى زمن باتت فيه الأكاذيب المتراكمة هى المعيار ، وتحنيث الوعود هو الأمر المتّبع ، فلا بد من استعراض أهم تلك الملامح المكوّنة للوضع الراهن ، بمناسبة ذكرى مرور أربعين عاما على نكسة يونيو 1967 – ويا لها من نكسة !
وقبل أن نتناول وضع الكيان الصهيونى المحتل لأرض فلسطين ، على ضوء الحفائر الأثرية الجديدة ، تجدر الإشارة إلى دور الركائز الأساسية التى قام عليها وبفضلها ذلك الكيان و تم احتلاله لأرض لا حق له فيها بكل المقاييس ، فلولا الأكاذيب المتراكمة وتحنيث الوعود المتكرر لما كان لذلك الكيان الغاشم أى أثر فى الوجود ! و من أهم هذه الركائز الأساسية : السياسة الأمريكية و السياسة الفاتيكانية.
ولا أتناول هنا الركيزة الأساسية الثالثة ، ألا وهى موقف أصحاب القرار المسلمين والعرب ، الذين لولا تواطؤهم وتنازلاتهم المتواصلة لما كان من الممكن أن تتم هذه المأساة/ الفضيحة ولا هذا الإقتلاع للشعب الفلسطينى من أرضه !.. لعل التطورات الناجمة عن الحفائر الأثرية الجديدة فى أرض فلسطين المحتلة وفى سيناء أيام إحتلالها ، والتى تغيّر بلا شك من مكونات القضية ، أن تلهم من يمكنهم أخذها فى الإعتبار و إعادة النظر فى الوضع برمته على أسس واقعية جديدة ..
ولا يسع المجال هنا لتناول كل الأكاذيب التى قامت عليها السياسة الأمريكية ولا كل الوعود التى حنثتها على مدى عمرها القصير، لكن تكفى الإشارة إلى أن نفس كيانها وحضارتها قد قاما على ما شبّت عليه وهو : القتل العرقى وتفريغ الأرض من سكانها الأصليين لاحتلالها بالمجازر والتدمير والأكاذيب والوعود المحنثة .. وهو نفس الخط الذى تتبعه هذه السياسة بعامة ، منذ نشأت ، وحتى يومنا هذا. وآخر فصولها مجزرة سريبرينيتشا و الإحتلال الوقح لأرض أفغانستان والعراق ، القائم على أكذوبة 11/ 9/ 2001 التى اختلقتها بأيديها للتلفع بشرعية دولية لمحاربة الإسلام تحت مسمى الإرهاب !. ويكفى الإطلاع على كل ما صدر من كتب وأبحاث تدين هذه المسرحية منذ بداية عرضها أو بمناسبة مرور الذكرى الخامسة لإبتداعها...
كما لا يسع المجال أيضا لتناول كل الأكاذيب التى قامت عليها المؤسسة الفاتيكانية أو المؤسسة الكنسية الرومية ، وكل ما قامت به من مجازر طوال قرابة الفى عام لنشر عقيدة قائمة على الأكاذيب وتحريف النصوص والتاريخ والحقائق. وتكفى الإشارة هنا إلى تبرأة اليهود من دم المسيح فى مجمع الفاتيكان الثانى عام 1965 ، رغم وجود أكثر من مائة إتهام صريح ضدهم من السيد المسيح وغيره ، وهى آيات لا تزال من النصوص المتداولة فى الأناجيل الأربعة. فلولا هذه التبرأة التى سمحت بالإعتراف بالكيان الصهيونى، وفرض هذا الإعتراف على الدول الغربية المسيحية التى كانت رافضة الإعتراف به، لما انغرس ذلك الكيان الإستيطانى القائم على فكرة "أرض بلا شعب لشعب بلا أرض" كما يقولون بكل جبروت ، وهو ما يقومون بتنفيذه فعلا ! فهى فى الواقع عملية قتل عرقى أخرى تتم بالتدريج وفى وضح النهار – وتكفى مهانة وصف مجلة ليبراسيون للبابا بنديكت السادس عشر الشهر الماضى بأنه "كذاب محترف "، من كثرة ما اختلقه من فريات، ومن كثرة ما تحمله المؤسسة التى يترأسها من أكاذيب ..
و الجديد فى مسألة الحفائر الأثرية هو أنه فى 23 مايو 2007 ، نشرت وكالة الأنباء الفرنسية أن جنودا إسرائيليين قاموا بعمليات قتل غير مشروعة فى الأراضى الفلسطينية .. وذلك نقلا عن تقرير منظمة العفو الدولية لسنة 2006 المنشور يوم الأربعاء. ويضيف التقرير : " إن الحواجز التى أقامها الجيش وعمليات الإقتلاع المتزايدة وتقييد حرية حركة الفلسطينيين ، واستيلاء الإسرائيليين على الحقوق الجمركية للسلطات الفلسطينية قد أدت إلى تدهور حالة الفلسطينيين" ! ثم يواصل التقرير قائلا : " إن الفقر وتردى الحالة الغذائية والمشكلات الصحية والبطالة قد وصلت إلى مستوى ينذر بالخطر" .. كما يوضح التقرير " أن عدد الفلسطينيين الذين قتلهم الجيش الإسرائيلى قد تضاعف أكثر من ثلاث مرات سنة 2006 عنه فى 2005 ، بينما قد تناقص عدد الذين قتلهم الفلسطينيون من الإسرائيليين فى نفس الفترة إلى أقل من النصف ".. وينتهى عرض التقرير بما أوضحه الكاتب قائلا : " من مصلحة الشعب المختار العودة إلى حدود 1967 التى لا يدين بها لإلهه العاجز و إنما يدين بها لهيئة الأمم المتحدة " !!
أى ان الحجة المزعومة التى تذرعوا بها بأن إلههم قد منحهم هذه الأرض عبارة عن أكذوبة يعرفها الجميع ، وأن من منحهم هذه الأرض فعلا هى الأمم المتحدة بناء على الأكاذيب المختلقة ! وعندما لم تتمكن تلك المنظمة من فرض قرارها بالإعتراف بالكيان المحتل لأرض فلسطين على جميع الدول، لجأت السياسة الأمريكية إلى حليفها الأكبر ، الفاتيكان المجيد ، الذى قام بتلك الفضيحة الأخرى جهاراً نهاراً ، ألا وهى : تبرأة اليهود من دم المسيح ، رغم اللعنات التى لم تكف الكنائس عن صبها عليهم فى قداس كل يوم أحد.. و عدم أحقية اليهود فى أرض فلسطين هى المعلومات التى صارت تذخر بها الكتب والأبحاث الجديدة فى العقود الماضية.
ومن أهم المراجع التى ظهرت كتاب "كشف النقاب عن الكتاب المقدس" ( 2002 )، بقلم كل من إسرائيل فينكلشتاين ، مدير معهد الآثار بجامعة تل أبيب ، ونيل سيلبرمان ، رئيس قسم التاريخ فى معهد الآثار والتعريف بالميراث ، فى بلجيكا، والإثنان يهوديان ولهما مكانتهما العلمية المعترف بها.
وقد إلتزم المؤلفان بالتعريف العلمى للإكتشافات الجديدة و توصلا إلى نتائج تختلف تماما عما يتم نشره. فقد أعادا النظر فى تاريخ الشعب اليهودى وقاما بتحليله على ضوء ما أسفرت عنه هذه الحفائر. وأول ما توصل إليه العديد من العلماء اليهود العاملين على هذه الحفائر، وليس المؤلفان وحدهما ، هو أن هذه الإكتشافات قد أكدت عدم مصداقية الكتاب المقدس ، وأنه لا يمكن إعتباره كتاب تاريخ يُعتد به ، وإنما هو كتاب دعاية تمت صياغته لأغراض سياسية ، أو كما أوضحا : " أنها قصص متفرقة تمت حياكتها من الذاكرة ، من أنقاض عادات قديمة وأساطير حول مولد شعوب مختلفة فى المنطقة والإهتمامات التى أثارتها المعارك المعاصرة"..
وبالنسبة للمؤلفان ، فإن الكتاب المقدس " يتفق وبداية ظهور مملكة يهودا فى الجنوب كقوة محلية فى القرن السابع قبل الميلاد. أما مملكة اليهودية فى الشمال فقد انتقلت إلى سيطرة ملوك آشور ، وهو ما أدى إلى أفولها. وبذلك تحول الكتاب المقدس إلى أداة دعاية لأحلام استيطانية. أى ما معناه أن عظمة دولة إسرائيل القديمة عبارة عن إختراع سياسى".. ثم يؤكدان : "من الواضح اليوم أن عددا كبيرا من الأحداث الواردة فى التاريخ الإنجيلى لم تحدث لا فى المكان المذكور ولا بالطريقة المكتوبة. والأدهى من ذلك ، أن بعض الفقرات الأكثر شهرة فى الكتاب المقدس لم تحدث مطلقا ، وهو ما يقلب النظرة إلى ذلك الكتاب رأسا على عقب ".. وهو ما يسمح بوصف حضارة الغرب المسيحى بأنها قائمة سياسياً ودينيا على أكاذيب !ً
وأهم ما يخرج به الكاتبان من ذلك البحث : " أنه من الممكن أن يفتح آفاقا جديدة بالنسبة للفلسطينيين ، لأن اليهود لم يعد من حقهم إدعاء أن أرض فلسطين ملكا لهم بزعم أنهم غزوها قديما بمساعدة الإله يهوه. حقا ، لقد عاش عليها أجدادهم منذ أكثر من ثلاثة آلاف سنة ، لكنهم كانوا يتقاسمونها مع الكنعانيين الذين كانوا يمثلون الأغلبية آنذاك ، و هم أجداد الفلسطينيين. وأيا كان الأمر فلا حق لليهود فى هذه الأرض التى غابوا عنها طوال عشرين قرنا" !!
وهى نفس الفكرة التى كان قد خرج بها الأب جان لاندوزى فى الرسالة الجامعية التى تقدم بها فى المعهد الكاثوليكى فى باريس وتمت طباعتها عام 1978 ، وهى بعنوان : " هبة أرض فلسطين" والتى يوضح فيها بالنصوص أن اليهود لا حق لهم فى هذه الأرض .. ويقول الأب لاندوزى فى البحث الذى تقدم به فى مؤتمر "مسيحيو الشرق" المنعقد فى باريس عام 1987 : " إن الوضع الصهيونى يرمى إلى تبرير وجود دولة إسرائيل بفعل أنه يرد فى الكتاب المقدس أن الرب قد أعطى أرض فلسطين لإسرائيل. إلا أن المشكلة تبدأ بالنسبة لنا حينما يحاولون دفع المسيحى منا إلى تأكيد نفس القول بناء على الكتاب المقدس ".. ثم يضيف بعد ذلك قائلا : " من ناحية أخرى كان وعد الأرض مشروطا بالإستقامة والإخلاص للعهد الذى تم إبرامه بين الرب وشعبه. وإن الأرض سوف تُسحب منهم إذا ما خانوا العهد". والمعروف من نفس نصوص الكتاب المقدس أنهم خانوا العهد وعادوا إلى عبادة العجل وإلى تعدد الآلهة وإلى قتل الأنبياء.. ثم يضيف موضحا : "إن أرض فلسطين لا يمكن أن تكون ملكا لجماعة واحدة باسم القرار الإلهى لأن القرار الإلهى كان شاملا لكل من على تلك الأرض ولم يستبعد أحدا ومنهم الفلسطينيين أساسا". أى إن الأمناء من الكنسيين محرجون ما بين النصوص الصريحة الوضوح وبين انسياق الكنيسة وتورطها فى الأكاذيب السياسية ..
وفى بحث كتبه جان بيير شافاز عام 2006 يقول " حتى سنة سبعين كان لعلم الآثار فى الأراضى المقدسة فكرة ثابتة لا تتغير ، هى : محاولة إثبات وتقديم الأدلة والبراهين على أن القصص الإنجيلية صادقة. إلا أن هذه الأبحاث قد باءت بالفشل. فعلى الرغم من أن كتبة الكتاب المقدس قد حاولوا تقديم الأدلة على مصداقيتهم ، مستشهدين ببعض المعطيات التاريخية ، بالإشارة إلى أحد ملوك الفراعنة أو إلى غيره هنا وهناك ، إلا أن الإكتشافات الحديثة قد بددت مزاعم كل تلك التأييدات وأطاحت بمصداقية كل مجريات تاريخ اسرائيل قديما". ثم يضيف قائلا : " من الواضح أنه منذ فترة ليست بالقصيرة لم يعد الكثير من رجال اليهود والكاثوليك والبروتستانت يأخذون الكتاب المقدس على أنه كتاب تاريخ يُعتد به .. ومن المؤكد أن كتبة سفر التثنية لم يكونو ملهمين من الرب ، وإلا فذلك يعنى أنه يعانى من فقدان الذاكرة " !..
وفى العدد رقم 391 من مجلة "البحث العلمى" الصادرة فى نوفمبر 2005 ، توجد ملزمة من 29 صفحة بها عدة مقالات لأقلام أثريين قاموا بالحفائر فى منطقة سيناء وفى فلسطين ، ليؤكدوا نفس المعلومة بأن العهد القديم قد كُتب من أجل الدعاية السياسية الدينية. أى بقول آخر " أنه عبارة عن إعداد وتلفيق وثائق معينة من أجل هدف بعينه " !.. ولا داعى لإضافة أنه ما من أحد منهم أصبح ينظر للكتاب المقدس على أنه " منزّل " ..
ويقول بيير دى ميروشدجى ، الأثرى ومدير الأبحاث بالمعهد الفرنسى للبحوث فى القدس : "هناك الكثير من الإكتشافات التى تناقض النصوص الإنجيلية ، بحيث يمكن الجذم بأن ما يقدمه الكتاب المقدس على أنها فترة غزو الإسرائيليين للأرض الموعودة يبدو اليوم ، على ضوء الإكتشافات الأثرية الجديدة ، على أنه فترة قلاقل سياسية وإقتصادية وإجتماعية .. وفيما يتعلق بالفترات الحديثة فنحن بصدد تاريخ أعيدت صياغته كليةً من أجل منظور أيديولوجى .. فهناك أدلة قاطعة تناقض ما هو وارد بالعهد القديم ، مثال مسلة مرنبتاح ، سنة 1210 ق م ، التى يرد بها إنهزام شعب إسرائيل تماما " .. ثم يؤكد قائلا : "إن الأثريين قد أثبتوا أن غزو اليهود للأرض الموعودة عبارة عن أسطورة ... وكل هذه الإكتشافات الجديدة تعطى تفسيرا جديدا لنصوص الكتاب المقدس وتظهر أن غزو الأرض الموعودة عبارة عن أصداء شديدة البُعد لظاهرة تاريخية مسُت مجمل الحوض الشرقى للبحر الأبيض المتوسط ، وأنه قد تمت إعادة كتابة وصياغة النصوص على مر العصور لأغراض سياسية ودينية لإفتعال ملحمة عبرية أو قصة تاريخية أسطورية بعيدة عن الواقع " !!
وفى عدد فبراير 2005 من مجلة "هيستوريا" العلمية الفرنسية ، ملزمة من 42 صفحة حول "الكتاب المقدس واختبار الزمان" . ونخرج من هذه الصفحات العلمية بتأكيد أن الكتاب المقدس عبارة عن نصوص متعددة صاغها البشر فى فترات زمانية مختلفة وبأقلام متعددة يصعب حصرها. وعلى الرغم من محاولات جحافل المفسرين لإثبات مصداقية هذه النصوص إلا أن الحفائر الأثرية الجديدة تثبت قطعا عكس ما يقولونه ، وأن هذه النصوص أصبح يُنظر إليها على أنها مجرد أساطير تمت صياغتها لأغراض دينية وسياسية .
وفى مقال بعنوان "الأرض الموعودة هى ملك للغير" ، يقول المؤرخ ريشار لوبو : " إن ما يحكيه سفر يشوة عن مولد شعب إسرائيل وغزوه لأرض كنعان عبارة عن أسطورة خرافية جديرة بأحد أفلام هوليود !.. إن المؤرخين يعتبرون هذه النصوص مجرد أساطير.. فخلال هذه الفترة كانت أرض كنعان تحت الحماية المصرية القديمة. وكان المصريون قد تصدوا قبل ذلك للحيثيين ، وشجاعتهم معروفة مسجلة ، ثم كيف يمكن قول أن اليهود قد هربوا من مصر وهاجروا إلى أرض خاضعة للمصريين ؟ إن الحفائر الأثرية تناقض ما هو وارد فى سفر يشوة " ..
ويقدم لوبو نموذجا من تلك الصياغة الأسطورية النزعة قائلا : "تقول النصوص أن مدينة أريحا هى أول ما غزاها اليهود فى أرض كنعان وان أصوات الأبواق والنفير قد هدت بأصدئها الأسوار الشاهقة للمدينة ! وتوضح الحفائر أن بلدة أريحة لم تكن سوى قرية صغيرة جدا وبلا أية أسوار على الإطلاق" !..
بينما يوضح روبير سباتييه فى مقاله : " أن العهد القديم يقدم مملكة اليهودية على أنها مملكة ذات سيادة ، إلا أن الإكتشافات الحديثة تؤكد ان ذلك عبارة عن قصص مختلقة تم سردها لخدمة طموحات أرضية استيطانية ودينية... ومنذ عشرات السنين والحفائر لم تثبت أى شىء مما هو وارد فى العهد القديم، أى أنه يمكن إعتبار الكتاب المقدس مجرد عمل سياسى دينى استراتيجى خاص بكيفية استيلاء شعب على السلطة ... ولا يمكن تقديم أى دليل أثرى يثبت حقيقة أسماء الشخصيات الواردة بالكتاب المقدس ولا الأماكن الواردة به ، وما هو موجود منها فيرجع إلى زمن مختلف وكلها قصص وأساطير تم تجميعها من شعوب المنطقة وقد أضيفت إليها الإهتمامات العسكرية المغرضة... إن كل الحفائر الأثرية بما فيها تلك التى تمت فى المنطقة القريبة من سيناء لا تقدم أى دليل وتناقض النصوص "..
ولا تعنى هذه الشذرات أنها تمثل كل ما كتب فى السنوات الماضية حول عدم أحقية اليهود فى هذه الأرض شرعا وقانونا أو حتى من الناحية الأثرية والدينية ، إذ ان عدد الكتب والمراجع والأبحاث العلمية التى ظهرت يصعب حصرها فى مثل هذا المقال المحدود ، لكنها حقائق أضعها تحت أعين الجميع، وخاصة أمام كل من يمكنهم الإستعانة بها للحد من ذلك الإحتلال الوقح لأرض فلسطين ، و الحد من الإبادة الجماعية المتعمّدة للفلسطينيين ..
وأول من أتوجه إليهم بهذه الحقائق هم أصحاب القرار ، فى كل مكان ومجال، من المسلمين والعرب . فالدفاع عن هذه الأرض أمانة فى عنق كل مسلم ومسلمة. ولا أقول شيئا عن عمليات تهويد مدينة القدس وتغيير معالمها ، ولا عن السيناريو المعَد لهدم المسجد الأقصى ، ولا عن كل ما هو مكتوب ومعروف .. وعار علينا أن نكتفى بالإحتجاج والإعتراض أو حتى بمجرد الإدانة .. عسى الله أن يلهم المسلمين والعرب الشجاعة والقدرة على العمل والتحرك ، فما أصبح متاحا من حقائق ، بفضل الحفائر الأثرية الجديدة ، يستوجب تغيير الوضع الآسن الذى نغوص فيه منذ عشرات السنين ..
كما أضع هذه الحقائق تحت أعين تلك السياسة الأمريكية الظالمة ، هى ومؤسساتها ، وتحت أعين ذلك الغرب المسيحى المتعصب وقيادته الفاتيكانية ، خاصة وقد احترف الجميع الكذب والتسويف وتحنيث الوعود..
إن ما قام به الصهاينة ولا يزالوا يقومون به ضد الفلسطينيين لا يمكن الدفاع عنه بأى حجة ، ولا بأى سبب من الأسباب ، والمقاطعة الإقتصادية والسياسية التى فرضتها أمريكا و الإتحاد الإوروبى منذ أكثر من عام على الشعب الفلسطينى ، بمناسبة إنتخابه الشرعى لمنظمة حماس ، ترمى إلى تجويعه وخنقه وتطويعه تحت إمرة الصهاينة الإقتلاعية : إنها كارثة إنسانية معدّ لها عمدا و مسبقا..
والزعم الدارج الذى ظلوا جميعا يخدعون و يلوحون به ، من أن اليهود قد عانوا من المحرقة وأنه من حقهم ارض يقيمون عليها ، فلا ذنب للفلسطينيين فى أن يتم إقتلاعهم من أرضهم وإبادتهم ، تبريرا وتكفيرا لعقدة ذنب يشعر بها ذلك التحالف الأمريكى الغربى ، القاتل ، الذى الف الصمت ... الصمت على كل المخازى التى تعترى تاريخه الملطخ بدماء الأبرياء ، فى كل مكان ، وفى كل فترة من فترات الزمان ، ولا تزال ..
وها هى الأدلة الجديدة الناجمة عن الحفائر الأثرية تدين كل تلك الحجج ، وثتبت بالقطع تحريف النصوص المقدسة للأحداث والتاريخ ، كما تثبت بالقطع أيضا أنه لا يحق لليهود إحتلال أرض فلسطين التى إغتصبوها من أهلها ولا يحق لهم البقاء عليها !..
هناك ٢٨ تعليقًا:
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((قصة الحمار العنيد والغلام الشهيد)))))))))))))))))))
((جمال ابن الاسلام ))
دخل حمار غريب شارد مزرعة رجل
وبدأ يأكل من زرعه الذي تعب في حرثه وبذره وسقيه؟
وهنا فكر الرجل كيف يُـخرج ذلك الحمار الغريب الأجنبى؟؟
سؤال محير؟؟...
ثم قال لابد من حكمة السياسة ثم أسرع الرجل إلى البيت
فالقضية لا تحتمل التأخير
فأحضر عصا طويلة، ومطرقة، ومسامير، وقطعة كبيرة من الكرتون المقوى
ثم كتب على الكرتون
"يا حمار أخرج من مزرعتي"
ثبت الكرتون بالعصا الطويلة
بالمطرقة والمسمار
ذهب إلى حيث الحمار يرعى في المزرعة
رفع اللوحة عالياً
وقف رافعًا اللوحة منذ الصباح الباكر
حتى غروب الشمس
ولكن الحمار لم يخرج
تعجب الرجل واستغرب من هذا الحمار الذي لا يستجيب للنداء السلمي، ثم قال في نفسه:
"ربما لم يفهم الحمار ما كتبتُ على اللوحة"
رجع إلى البيت ونام وهو يفكر في حل سياسي
وفي الصباح التالي
صنع عددًا كبيرًا من اللوحات
ونادى أولاده وجيرانه
واستنفر أهل القرية
"يعني عمل مؤتمر قمة"
فندد وشجب المجتمعين ما صنعه الحمار واقترحوا أن يخرج الناس في طوابير
يحملون لوحات كثيرة تحمل يافطة: "الموت للحمير"
وأن تهتف الجماهير: "أخرج يا حمار من المزرعة"
الموت للحمير
يا ويلك يا حمار من راعي الدار، وتحلقوا حول الحقل الذي فيه الحمار
وبدءوا يهتفون
اخرج يا حمار. اخرج ياحمار، اخرج أحسن لك
والحمار حمار، لايلتفت إليهم
بل يأكل ولا يهتم بما يحدث حوله.
غربت شمس اليوم الثاني
وقد تعب الناس من الصراخ والهتاف وبحت أصواتهم
فلما رأوا الحمار غير مبالٍ بهم رجعوا إلى بيوتهم
يفكرون في طريقة أخرى.
في صباح اليوم الثالث
جلس الرجل في بيته يفكر في خطة سياسية جديدة
لإخراج الحمار
فالحمار أوشك على أكل الزرع كله، ولم يبق إلا القليل على نهايته
خرج الرجل باختراعه الجديد
مبادرة لإحراج الحمار وتهديده عبارة نموذج مجسم لحمار
يشبه إلى حد بعيد الحمار الأصلي
ولما جاء إلى حيث الحمار يأكل في المزرعة
وأمام نظر الحمار
وحشود القرية المنادية بخروج الحمار
سكب البنزين على النموذج
وأحرقه
فكبّر الحشد
نظر الحمار إلى حيث النار ولم يهتم
ثم رجع يأكل في المزرعة بلا مبالاة
يا له من حمار عنيد
لا يفهم
أرسلوا وفدًا ليتفاوض مع الحمار
قالوا له: صاحب المزرعة يريدك أن تخرج،
وهو صاحب الحق
وعليك أن تخرج
الحمار ينظر إليهم
ثم يعود للأكل
لا يكترث بهم
بعد عدة محاولات
ومفاوضات
اقترح أهل القرية والقرى المجاورة الذين اجتمعوا كي يشاهدوا الحمار تدخل وسيط محايد من قرية أخرى، واختاروا رجلاً من بينهم
قال الوسيط للحمار
صاحب المزرعة مستعد
للتنازل لك عن بعض من مساحته
الحمار يأكل ولا يرد
ثلثه
الحمار لا يرد
نصفه
الحمار لا يرد
طيب
حدد المساحة التي تريدها ولكن لا تتجاوزه
رفع الحمار رأسه
وقد شبع من الأكل
ومشى قليلاً إلى طرف الحقل
وهو ينظر ببلادة إلى الجموع المحتشدة
وهنا فرح الناس
لقد وافق الحمار أخيراً
أحضر صاحب المزرعة الأخشاب
وسيَّج المزرعة وقسمها نصفين
وترك للحمار النصف الذي هو واقف فيه
في صباح اليوم التالي
كانت المفاجأة لصاحب المزرعة
لقد ترك الحمار ماتركوه له من حدود وهم كارهين
ودخل في حدود صاحب المزرعة الجديدة
وأخذ يأكل
فكر صاحب المزرعة فى الحل السياسى وكتابة اللوحات
والمظاهرات
لكن يبدو أنه لا فائدة
هذا الحمار لا يفهم
إنه ليس من حمير المنطقة
انه حمار غريب أجنبي جاء من قرية أخرى بعيدة جداً
بدأ الرجل يفكر في ترك المزرعة بكاملها للحمار
والهجرة إلى قرية أخرى لعله يبدأ حياته من جديد لتأسيس مزرعة أخرى
وأمام دهشة جميع الحاضرين وفي مشهد من الحشد العظيم
حيث لم يبقَ أحد من القرية إلا وقد حضر
ليشارك في المحاولات اليائسة
لإخراج الحمار المحتل العنيد المتكبر المتسلط الهمجى
جاء غلام صغير
خرج من بين الصفوف
دخل إلى الحقل
تقدم إلى الحمار
وضرب الحمار بعصا صغيرة بقوة على قفاه
فإذا به يركض خارج الحقل..
"يا الله" صاح الجميع....
لقد فضحَنا هذا الصغير
وسيجعل منا أضحوكة القرى التي حولنا
فما كان منهم إلا أن قـَـتلوا الغلام وأعادوا الحمار إلى المزرعة
ثم أذاعوا خبراً أن الطفل قتيل، وأنه خائن للأمة، لكن الخبر انتشر فى القرى كلها أن الطفل شهيد!!
منقول
(((((((((((((((أخوتي النصاري هذه قصص خيالية مملوءة بالاخطاء وكاتبها مبتديء كان يرسلها لمجلة سمير منذ 2000سنة ثم قدسها بعض القوم ضعاف العقول:::حاول ان تكتشف بنفسك اكبر عدد من الاخطاء وأرسل بها الي البابا (أي بابا لكي يحذفها من الطبعة القادمة ولكم الشكر)) ))))))))))))))============ :::؟؟؟""""" ولمَّا وُلِدَ يَسوعُ في بَيتَ لَحْمِ اليَهودِيَّةِ، على عَهْدِ المَلِكِ هِيرودُسَ، جاءَ إلى أُورُشليمَ مَجوسٌ. مِنَ المَشرِقِ 2وقالوا: "أينَ هوَ المَولودُ، مَلِكُ اليَهودِ؟ رَأَيْنا نَجْمَهُ في المَشْرِقِ، فَجِئْنا لِنَسْجُدَ لَه".
3وسَمِعَ المَلِكُ هِيرودُسُ، فاَضْطَرَبَ هوَ وكُلُّ أُورُشليمَ. 4فجَمَعَ كُلَ رُؤساءِ الكَهَنةِ ومُعَلَّمي الشَّعْبِ وسألَهُم: "أينَ يولَدُ المَسيحُ؟" 5فأجابوا: "في بَيتَ لَحْمِ اليَهودِيَّةِ، لأنَّ هذا ما كَتَبَ النَبِـيٌّ: 6"يا بَيتَ لَحْمُ، أرضَ يَهوذا، ما أنتِ الصٌّغْرى في مُدُنِ يَهوذا، لأنَّ مِنكِ يَخْرُجُ رَئيسٌ يَرعى شَعْبـي إِسرائيلَ".
7فَدَعا هيرودُسُ المَجوسَ سِرُا وتَحقَّقَ مِنْهُم مَتى ظَهَرَ النَّجْمُ، 8ثُمَّ أرسَلَهُم إلى بَيتَ لَحْمَ وقالَ لَهُم: "اَذْهَبوا واَبْحَثوا جيَّدًا عَنِ الطَّفلِ. فإذا وجَدْتُموهُ، فأَخْبِروني حتى أذهَبَ أنا أيضًا وأسْجُدَ لَه".
9فلمَّا سَمِعوا كلامَ المَلِكِ اَنْصَرَفوا. وبَينَما هُمْ في الطَّريقِ إذا النَّجْمُ الذي رَأَوْهُ في المَشْرقِ، يَتَقَدَّمُهُمْ حتى بَلَغَ المكانَ الذي فيهِ الطِفلُ فوَقَفَ فَوْقَه. 10فلمَّا رَأوا النَّجْمَ فَرِحوا فَرَحًا عَظيمًا جِدُا، 11ودَخَلوا البَيتَ فوَجَدوا الطَّفْلَ معَ أُمَّهِ مَرْيَمَ. فرَكَعوا وسَجَدوا لَه، ثُمَّ فَتَحوا أَكْياسَهُمْ وأهْدَوْا إلَيهِ ذَهَبًا وبَخورًا ومُرًّا.
12وأنْذَرَهُمُ الله في الحُلُمِ أنْ لا يَرجِعوا إلى هيرودُسَ، فأخَذوا طَريقًا آخَرَ إلى بِلادِهِم.
الهرب إلى مصر
13وبَعدَما اَنْصرَفَ المَجوسُ، ظَهَرَ مَلاكُ الرَّبَّ لِيوسفَ في الحُلُمِ وقالَ لَه: "قُمْ، خُذِ الطِفْلَ وأُمَّهُ واَهربْ إلى مِصْرَ وأقِمْ فيها، حتى أقولَ لكَ متى تَعودُ، لأنَّ هيرودُسَ سيَبحَثُ عَنِ الطَّفْلِ ليَقتُلَهُ". 14فقامَ يوسفُ وأخذَ الطَّفْلَ وأُمَّهُ ليلاً ورحَلَ إلى مِصْرَ. 15فأقامَ فيها إلى أنْ ماتَ هيرودُسُ، ليتِمَّ ما قالَ الربٌّ بِلسانِ النبـيَّ: "مِنْ مِصْرَ دَعَوْتُ اَبني".
مقتل أولاد بيت لحم
16فَلمَّا رَأى هيرودُسُ أنَّ المَجوسَ اَستهزَأوا بِه، غَضِبَ جدُا وأمرَ بقَتلِ.كُلٌ طِفْلٍ في بَيتَ لحمَ وجِوارِها، مِنِ اَبنِ سَنَتَينِ فَما دونَ ذلِكَ، حسَبَ الوَقتِ الَّذي تحقَّقَهُ مِنَ المَجوسِ، 17فتَمَ ما قالَ النبـيٌّ إرْميا: 18"صُراخٌ سُمِعَفي الرٍامَةِ، بُكاءٌ ونَحيبٌ كثيرٌ، راحيلُ تَبكي على أولادِها ولا تُريدُ أنْ تَــتَعزّى، لأنَّهُم زالوا عَنِ الوجودِ".
الرجوع من مصر إلى الناصرة
19ولمَّا ماتَ هِيرودُس ظهَرَ ملاكُ الرَّبَّ ليوسفَ في الحُلمِ، وهوَ في مِصْرَ 20وقالَ لَه: "قُمْ، خُذِ الطَّفْلَ وأُمَّهُ واَرجِـــعْ إلى أرضِ إِسرائيلَ، لأنَّ الَّذينَ أرادوا أنْ يَقتُلوهُ ماتوا". 21فقامَ وأخَذَ الطَّفْلَ وأُمَّهُ ورَجَعَ إلى أرضِ إِسرائيلَ. 22لكِنَّهُ سَمِعَ أنَّ أرخيلاوُسَ يَملِكُ على اليَهودِيَّةِ خلَفًا لأبيهِ هِيرودُسَ، فخافَ أن يذهَبَ إلَيها. فأَنذَرَهُ الله في الحُلُمِ، فلَجأَ إلى الجَليلِ. 23وجاءَ إلى مدينةٍ اَسمُها النّاصِرَةُ فسكَنَ فيها، لِيَـتمَّ ما قالَ الأنبياءُ: "يُدعى ناصِريًّا".
أول ما يخطر على البال هنا هو أمر أولئك المجوس: من أين لهم العلم بأن هناك مَلِكًا لليهود قد وُلِد؟ أوقد ذُكِر ذلك فى كتبهم؟ لكن أين النص عندهم على ذلك؟ ولماذا يُذْكَر مثل هذا الأمر لديهم، وهم ليسوا من بنى إسرائيل، الذين إنما أُرْسِل لهم وحدهم السيد المسيح وليس إلى المجوس بأى حال؟ وإذا غضضنا النظر عن هذا فإن السؤال سرعان ما يجلجل فى الذهن: فما فائدة عِلْم المجوس بولادة عيسى؟ هل آمنوا؟ إنهم لم يقولوا: لقد جئنا لنعلن إيماننا بعيسى، بل ليسجدوا له. وهل السجود من علامات الإيمان أو مقتضياته؟ لقد أجاب المسيح، حسبما سنقرأ بعد قليل، بأنه قد قيل: للرب إلهك وحده تسجد! ولا يمكن القول بأنهم كانوا يعتقدون أنه ابن الله أو الله، إذ كل ما قالوه عنه هو أنه "ملك اليهود" كما مرّ. كما لا يمكن القول بأنهم أرادوا أن يعظموا هذا الملك، أولا لأنه لم يصبح ملكا بعد (ولن يصبح أبدا طبعا)، وثانيا لأنه ليس ملكا فارسيا ولا مجوسيا، فلماذا يسجدون له؟ وعلى أية حال لماذا لم نسمع بهؤلاء المجوس بعد ذلك؟ الطبيعى أن يظهروا بعد هذا حين يئين الأوان ويكبر عليه السلام ويبلغ مبلغ الأنبياء ويعلن دعوته كى يكونوا من حوارييه ما داموا قد تجشموا المجىء من بلادهم وتعرّضوا بسبب ذلك للخطر كما رأينا! أليس كذلك؟ واضح أن كاتب هذه التخاريف لا يستطيع أن يَسْبِك التأليف كما ينبغى، ولذلك ترك فيه ثغرات كثيرة! ثم من هؤلاء القوم؟ من أى بلد فى فارس؟ ما أسماؤهم؟ ماذا كانوا يعملون فى بلدهم قبل أن يفدوا إلى فلسطين؟ ثم كيف أَتَوْا إلى فلسطين؟ وماذا صنعوا عند عودتهم إلى بلادهم؟ ولماذا لم يدعوا قومهم إلى الدخول فى دين عيسى؟ إن فارس تكاد أن تكون هى البلد الوحيد فى الشرق الأوسط الذى لم يعتنق النصرانية رغم أن ذلك النفر المجوسى هم أول البشر معرفةً بميلاد المسيح وإظهارًا لمشاعرهم نحوه وتبجيلهم له؟
ثم أليس غريبا أن يعتمد هيرودس، الذى أهمّه مولد عيسى كل هذا الهم، على أولئك المجوس الغرباء فى معرفة المكان الذى وُلِد فيه المسيح؟ أليس عنده العيون والجواسيس الذين يستطيعون أن يأتوه بهذا الخبر؟ ألم يكن بمقدوره على الأقل أن يرسل فى أعقابهم من يرقب حركاتهم وسكناتهم حتى يعرف بيت الوليد الجديد بدلا من أن ينتظر حتى يأتوه هم بالخبر كما قال المؤلف السقيم الخيال؟ ثم هناك حكاية النجم، وهذه فى حد ذاتها بَلْوَى مُسَيَّحة! كيف يا ترى يمكن أىَّ إنسان التعرفُ على بيت من البيوت من وقوف أحد النجوم فوقه؟ إن هذا لهو المستحيل بعينه! إن الكاتب الجاهل يظن أن النجم المذكور قد ظهر إثر ميلاد عيسى، غافلا (لأنه مغفل) أن الضوء الذى زعم أن المجوس كانوا يَرَوْنَه آنذاك إنما صدر من النجم قبل ذلك بآلاف السنين، ولم يأت لتوه كما توهم بجهله! ولقد كتب لى أحدهم منذ أَشْهُرٍ رسالةً مشباكيةً يحاول أن يقنعنى فيها بأنه كان من السهل على أولئك المجوس أن يعرفوا أن النجم واقف فوق بيت الطفل الوليد خَبْط لَزْق باستعمال بعض الآلات الفلكية! يا حلاوة يا أولاد! معنى ذلك أنهم كانوا علماء فى الفلك والرياضيات (ولعلهم من أحفاد عمر الخيام، لكن بالمقلوب!)، جاؤوا من بلادهم ومعهم مرصد وضعوه على ظهر حمار مثلا (تخيلوا مرصدا على ظهر حمار!)، فنصبوه فى زقاق من أزقة بيت لحم وأخذوا يرصدون ويكتبون ويحسبون ويتجادلون برطانتهم الفارسية، وفى أيديهم الآلات الحاسبة ومسطرة حرف "تى" لزوم المنظرة، والناس تنظر إليهم وتتفرج عليهم (كما كنا نفعل ونحن لا نزال فى الجامعة حين نرى طلاب كلية الهندسة أثناء تدريباتهم على أعمال المساحة والقياس فى حديقة الأورمان)، لينتهوا فى آخر المطاف بعد فشلهم فى حسابات الفلك إلى اللجوء للطريقة التقليدية فى بلادنا التى لا يوجد أحسن منها للشعوب المتخلفة (أما كان من الأول بدلا من تضييع كل هذا الوقت؟) فينادوا فى الشوارع عن "عَيِّل مولود حديثا يا أولاد الحلال، ولابس بيجامة كستور مقلّمة وفى فمه بزّازة، وفى رجله فردة لَكْلُوك واحدة بأبزيم صفيح، فمن يدلنا على بيته له مكافأة ثمينة! وشىء لله يا عَدَوِى"! ثم كيف يا ترى كان النجم يتقدمهم أثناء سفرهم، والنجوم لا تظهر إلا ليلا؟ هل معنى هذا أنهم كانوا ينامون نهارا ثم يستيقظون ليلا ليستأنفوا المسير؟ أم ترى مخترع الإنجيل كان يظن أن المسافة بين فارس وبيت لحم فى فلسطين لا تزيد عن "فَرْكَة كَعْب" وتُقْطَع فى بضع ساعات من الليل؟ أليس ذلك أمرا يبعث على الاشمئزاز؟ ثم إذا أردنا أن ننصحهم ونأخذ بيدهم كى ننتشلهم من هذا التخريف لأن حالهم يصعب علينا شتموا نبينا وأقلّوا أدبهم عليه!
كما أشار الكاتب فى النصّ الذى بين أيدينا إلى النبوءة الخاصة بولادة المسيح فى بيت لحم: "مِنكِ يَخْرُجُ رَئيسٌ يَرعى شَعْبـي إِسرائيلَ"، وهى تعنى (كما هو واضح) أن المسيح سوف يكون راعيا لبنى إسرائيل. فهل تحقق شىء من هذا؟ أبدا، فقد كفر به بنو إسرائيل واتهموا أمه فى شرفها وتآمروا على قتله، بل إنهم والنصارى يقولون إنهم قد استطاعوا فعلا أن يقتلوه. وعلى أية حال فإنه لم تُتَحْ له قَطُّ الفرصة لرعاية بنى إسرائيل لا روحيا ولا سياسيا! إنها إذن نبوءةٌ فِشِنْك كمعظم نبوءات الكتاب المقدس بعهديه القديم والجديد! ولا ننس ما أبديته قبل قليل من استغرابى اهتمام المجوس بولادة المسيح، إذ ليسوا من بنى إسرائيل، الذين إنما أُرْسِل عليه السلام إليهم لا إلى المجوس. كذلك سمى المجوس سيدنا عيسى: "ملك اليهود"، وهى أيضا تسمية كاذبة، إذ متى كان المسيح مَلِكًا لليهود؟ لقد قال عليه السلام مرارا إن مملكته ليست من هذا العالم، فما صلته إذن بالمَلَكِيّة والملوك؟ ثم ألم يجد المجوس من الألطاف ما يتحفونه به عليه السلام إلا الذهب؟ وهل يحتاج ابن الله إلى مثل هذه الأشياء، وهو الذى فى يد أبيه كل كنوز الأرض والسماء؟ إن الكاتب الأبله يقيس أبناء الآلهة على أبناء حكام الدول المتخلفة الذين لا يشبعون من المال والذهب رغم أن ميزانية الدولة كلها فى أيديهم يغرفون منها ما يشاؤون، أو على الباباوات المغرمين غرامًا مرضيًّا باستعراض أنفسهم فى الإستبرق والسندس والذهب والياقوت وسائر الجواهر الثمينة رغم ما يزعجوننا به من كلام عن الوداعة والتواضع والزهد والرهبانية والتشبه بالمسيح فى الانصراف عن زخارف الحياة الدنيا! يا له من خيال سقيم! يا مَتَّى يا ابن الحلال، الله لا يسوءك، أولاد الآلهة هؤلاء أولاد عِزّ شَبْعَى لا ينظرون إلى ذهب أو ألماس! والعجيب، كما سوف نرى، أن المسيح يدعو إلى مخاصمة الدنيا خصومة لا هوادة فيها ولا تفاهم بأى حال مما من شأنه أن يوقف دولاب الحياة ويشجع على العدمية والموت، فكيف لم يلهم الله سبحانه وتعالى المجوس أن يقدموا لابنه شيئا يليق به وباهتماماته من أشياء الروح لا من ملذات الدنيا، وليكن نسخة مصورة من العهد القديم للأطفال مثلا؟
وتقول الفقرة الثالثة عشرة من الإصحاح: "وبَعدَما اَنْصرَفَ المَجوسُ، ظَهَرَ مَلاكُ الرَّبَّ لِيوسفَ في الحُلُمِ وقالَ لَه: "قُمْ، خُذِ الطِفْلَ وأُمَّهُ واَهربْ إلى مِصْرَ وأقِمْ فيها، حتى أقولَ لكَ متى تَعودُ، لأنَّ هيرودُسَ سيَبحَثُ عَنِ الطَّفْلِ ليَقتُلَهُ". 14فقامَ يوسفُ وأخذَ الطَّفْلَ وأُمَّهُ ليلاً ورحَلَ إلى مِصْرَ". ونقول نحن بدورنا: ولماذا اهتمام السماء بإنقاذ الطفل يسوع من القتل إذا كان قد أتى إلى العالم كما يزعم القوم ليُقْتَل تكفيرًا عن الخطيئة البشرية؟ ألم يكن الأفضل أن تتركه السماء يموت فى صغره فتنتهى مهمته سريعا بدل الانتظار إلى أن يكبر وتضيع كل الجهود التى بذلتها أمه فى تربيته وتعليمه والإنفاق عليه فى الهواء؟ وخير البر عاجله كما يقولون، وما دام مقتولاً مقتولاً فالأفضل الآن، والذى تعرف ديته اقتله وانته من أمره سريعا، فالوقت من ذهب! آه، لكن فاتنا أننا فى منطقة الشرق الأوسط حيث الوقت لا قيمة له، فهو يُعَدّ بالكوم وليس بالثوانى ولا الدقائق، فضلا عن الساعات أو الأيام، ودعنا من السنين!
أما اتخاذ القوم من عبارة "مِنْ مِصْرَ دَعَوْتُ ابني" دليلا على أنه، عليه السلام، هو ابن الله حقا، فالرد عليه بسيط جدا جدا أسهل مما يتصور الإنسان، إذ الأناجيل مفعمة بعبارة "أبناء الله" و"أبوك أو أبوكم الذى فى السماوات" على قفا من يشيل، وكلها من كلام المسيح ذاته: "هنيئًا لِصانِعي السَّلامِ، لأنَّهُم أبناءَ الله يُدْعَونَ" (متى/ 5/ 9)، "أحِبّوا أَعداءَكُم، وصَلّوا لأجلِ الَّذينَ يضْطَهِدونكُم، فتكونوا أبناءَ أبيكُمُ الَّذي في السَّماواتِ" (5/ 44- 45)، "فكونوا أنتُم كاملينَ، كما أنَّ أباكُمُ السَّماويَّ كامِلٌ" (5/ 48)، "إيَّاكُمْ أنْ تعمَلوا الخَيرَ أمامَ النَّاسِ ليُشاهِدوكُم، وإلاَّ فلا أجرَ لكُم عِندَ أبيكُمُ الَّذي في السَّماواتِ" (6/ 1)، "فإذا صَلَّيتَ فاَدخُلْ غُرفَتَكَ وأغلِقْ بابَها وصَلٌ لأبيكَ الَّذي لا تَراهُ عَينٌ، وأبوكَ الَّذي يَرى في الخِفْيَةِ هوَ يُكافِئُكَ"، "لا تكونوا مِثلَهُم، لأنَّ الله أباكُم يَعرِفُ ما تَحتاجونَ إلَيهِ قَبلَ أنْ تسألوهُ" (6/ 8)، "فصلّوا أنتُم هذِهِ الصَّلاةَ: أبانا الَّذي في السَّماواتِ، ليتَقدَّسِ اَسمُكَ" (6/ 9)، "فإنْ كُنتُم تَغفِرونَ لِلنّاسِ زَلاّتِهِم، يَغفِرْ لكُم أبوكُمُ السَّماويٌّ زلاّتِكُم. وإنْ كُنتُم لا تَغفِرونَ لِلنّاسِ زلاّتِهِم، لا يَغفِرُ لكُم أبوكُمُ السَّماويٌّ زلاّتِكُم" (6/ 14- 15)، "... حتى لا يَظهَرَ لِلنّاسِ أنَّكَ صائِمٌ، بل لأبيكَ الَّذي لا تَراهُ عَينٌ، وأبوكَ الَّذي يَرى في الخِفْيَةِ هوَ يُكافِئُكَ" (6/ 18)، "انظُروا طُيورَ السَّماءِ كيفَ لا تَزرَعُ ولا تَحْصُدُ ولا تَخزُنُ، وأبوكُمُ السَّماويٌّ يَرزُقُها" (6/ 26)، "فإذا كُنتُم أنتُمُ الأشرارَ تَعرِفونَ كيفَ تُحسِنونَ العَطاءَ لأَبنائِكُم، فكَمْ يُحسِنُ أبوكُمُ السَّماويٌّ العَطاءَ للَّذينَ يَسألونَهُ؟" (7/ 11)، "وأمّا الأبرارُ، فيُشرِقونَ كالشَّمسِ في مَلكوتِ أبـيهِم" (13/ 43)، "وهكذا لا يُريدُ أبوكُمُ الَّذي في السَّماواتِ أنْ يَهلِكَ واحدٌ مِنْ هَؤلاءِ الصَّغارِ" (18/ 14)، "ولا تَدْعوا أحدًا على الأرضِ يا أبانا، لأنَّ لكُم أبًا واحدًا هوَ الآبُ السَّماويٌّ" (23/ 9)، فضلا عن أن المسيح عليه السلام كثيرا ما سمى نفسه: "ابن الإنسان" كما هو معروف، كما أكد أن أمه وإخوته الحقيقيين هم المؤمنون الذين يطيعون الله ويخلصون له سبحانه، وهو ما يدل دلالة قاطعة على أن بنوة البشر لله إنما تعنى فى مثل هذه السياقات الإيمان والطاعة المطلقة له عز وجل: "وبَينَما يَسوعُ يُكلَّمُ الجُموعَ، جاءَتْ أمٌّهُ وإخوَتُهُ ووقَفوا في خارِجِ الدّارِ يَطلُبونَ أن يُكلَّموهُ. فقالَ لَه أحَدُ الحاضِرينَ: "أُمٌّكَ وإخوتُكَ واقفونَ في خارجِ الدّارِ يُريدونَ أنْ يُكلَّموكَ".فأجابَهُ يَسوعُ: "مَنْ هيَ أُمّي؟ ومَنْ هُمْ إخْوَتي؟" وأشارَ بـيدِهِ إلى تلاميذِهِ وقالَ: "هؤُلاءِ هُمْ أُمّي وإخوَتي. لأنَّ مَنْ يعمَلُ بمشيئةِ أبـي الَّذي في السَّماواتِ هوَ أخي وأُختي وأُمّي" (12/ 46- 50).
ثم إن ابن الإله لا يمكن أن ينزل بنفسه إلى مرتبة النبى أبدا، لكننا نسمع عيسى بأذننا هذه التى سيأكلها الدود يقول لأهل الناصرة حين رفضوا الإيمان به: "لا نبـيَّ بِلا كرامةٍ إلاّ في وَطَنِهِ وبَيتِهِ" (13/ 57). كذلك ففى كل من العهد القديم وكلام الرسل فى العهد الجديد كثيرا ما نقابل عبارة"أبونا" مقصودا بها الله سبحانه وتعالى، ومنها قول إشعيا مثلا: "تطلَّعْ من السماء، وانظر من مسكن قدسك...، فإنك أنت أبونا، وإن لم يعرفنا إبراهيم، وإن لم يدرنا إسرائيل. أنت يا رب أبونا" (إشعيا/ 63/ 15- 16)، "والآن يا رب انت ابونا. نحن الطين وانت جابلنا وكلنا عمل يديك" (إشعيا/ 64/ 8)، "هو يدعوني ابي انت. الهي وصخرة خلاصي" (مزامير/ 89/ 26، والمتكلم هو الله، والحديث عن داود)، "ارجعوا ايها البنون العصاة، يقول الرب... وانا قلت كيف اضعك بين البنين واعطيك ارضا شهية ميراث مجد امجاد الامم. وقلت تدعينني يا ابي ومن ورائي لا ترجعين" (إرميا/ 3/ 14، 18)، "نعمة لكم وسلام من الله ابينا" (إفسوس/ 1/ 2، وكورنثوس/ 1/ 2، وتسالونيكى/ 1/ 1)، "يثبّت قلوبكم بلا لوم في القداسة امام الله ابينا" (تسالونيكى/ 3/ 13). هذا، ولمعلوميّة القارئ نشير إلى أن هناك فرقة تنسب نفسها إلى الإسلام ظهرت فى العصر الحديث (لكن المسلمين يتبرأون منها ويرمونها بالكفر، وهى فرقة القاديانية) لها تفسير غريب لميلاد عيسى من غير أب، إذ يقولون بالحَبَل الذاتى اعتمادا على ما قاله بعض الأطباء من أنهم لا يستبعدون أن يتم الحمل فى رحم امرأة دون تلقيح من رجل (انظر تفسير الآية 47 (48 عندهم) من سورة "آل عمران" فى التفسير الكبير (5 مجلدات) الذى وضعه ميرزا بشير الدين محمود (الخليفة الثانى للمسيح الموعود عندهم غلام ميرزا أحمد نبى قاديان المزيف): Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad (1889-1965)، وترجمه أتباعه إلى الإنجليزية بعنوان "The Holy Quran"/ م 1/ ص 398/ هـ 337). أى أنه لم يكن هناك روح قدس ولا يحزنون. ولا شك أن هذا التفسير، رغم عدم اتساقه مع ظاهر القرآن ورغم أنى لا أوافق عليه وأراه حيلة من الحيل التى يلجأ إليها القاديانيون لإنكار المعجزات كى يبدوا عصريين يحترمون كلمة العلم، هو أفضل ألف مرة من الكفر الذى يرتفع بمقام السيد المسيح عليه السلام عن مقام البشرية ويقول إنه هو الله أو ابن الله، تعالى الله عن ذلك الشرك تعاليا عظيما يليق بجلال ألوهيته!
ونأتى لما قاله مؤلف السفر من أن هيرودس قد أمر بقتل أطفال بنى إسرائيل من سن سنتين فنازلا، وهذا نص كلامه حرفيا: "فَلمَّا رَأى هيرودُسُ أنَّ المَجوسَ اَستهزَأوا بِه، غَضِبَ جدُا وأمرَ بقَتلِ.كُلٌ طِفْلٍ في بَيتَ لحمَ وجِوارِها، مِنِ اَبنِ سَنَتَينِ فَما دونَ ذلِكَ، حسَبَ الوَقتِ الَّذي تحقَّقَهُ مِنَ المَجوسِ، 17فتَمَ ما قالَ النبـيٌّ إرْميا: 18"صُراخٌ سُمِعَ في الرّامَةِ، بُكاءٌ ونَحيبٌ كثيرٌ، راحيلُ تَبكي على أولادِها ولا تُريدُ أنْ تَــتَعزّى، لأنَّهُم زالوا عَنِ الوجودِ". ولست أطمئن لهذا الكلام الذى لم يسجل التاريخ عنه شيئا ولا تكلمت عنه الأناجيل ولا السيد المسيح بعد ذلك وكأن هؤلاء الأطفال "شويّة لبّ فى قرطاس" قزقزهم هيرودس فى سهرة قدّام التلفزيون وانتهى الأمر! أما النبوءة الجاهزة التى ساقها المؤلف عقب القصة كعادته فى كل خطوة يخطوها وكأنه خالتى بَمْبَة التى لم تكن تكفّ عن الاستشهاد بالأمثال فى برنامج المرأة فى الإذاعة المصرية، فلا معنى لها هنا كما هو الحال فى كثير من المواضع، لأن راحيل هذه هى أم يوسف، فلا علاقة لها من ثم بتلك الواقعة غير القابلة للتصديق. ومن قال إنها فى القصة لم تتعزّ عن موت أولادها بل ظلت تصرخ وتنتحب وتبكى فى حرقة، وقد رأينا أن أحدا لم يبال بالأطفال المساكين أو يذرف عليهم دمعة؟ وهل الرامة هى بيت لحم؟ إن الرامة تقع إلى الشمال من أورشليم على بعد عدة كيلومترات، أما بيت لحم فشىء آخر. وأقرب شىء إلى أن يكون هو المراد من تلك النبوءة رجوع بنى إسرائيل من المنفى إلى بلادهم، وليس قتل هيرودس المزعوم لأطفال بنى إسرائيل، لأنها تفتقد التناظر الذى ينبغى أن يتوفر فى الرمز. إننى لأتعجب فى كل مرة أقرأ فيها لأمثال زيكو حين يتكلمون عن نبوءات الكتاب المقدس ويحاولون تفسيرها، وأتساءل: ترى هل تَغَطَّوْا جيدا قبل الإخلاد إلى الفراش فلم تتعرّ أردافهم وهم نائمون؟ الواقع أن النبوءة المذكورة التى رآها إرميا حسبما جاء فى العهد القديم (إرميا/ 31/ 15- 17) لا علاقة لها بحادثة قتل هيرودس أطفال بنى إسرائيل من سِنّ عامَيْن فهابطًا، إذ الكلام عن تغيب أبناء راحيل عن البلاد فى أرض العدو. وهذا نص النبوءة كما ورد فى ترجمة جمعيات الكتاب المقدس المتحدة: "صوتٌ سُمِع فى الرامة. نَوْحٌ، بكاءٌ مُرّ. راحيل تبكى على أولادها وتأبى أن تتعزى عن أولادها لأنهم ليسوا بموجودين، هكذا قال الرب. امنعى صوتك عن البكاء وعينيك عن الدموع لأنه يوجد جزاء لعملك، يقول الرب، فيرجعون من أرض العدو، ويوجد رجاء لآخرتك، يقول الرب، فيرجع الأبناء إلى تُخْمهم". وفى "دائرة المعارف الكتابية" تحت عنوان "راحيل" نقرأ أن "النبى (أى النبى إرميا) صوَّر فى عبارة شعرية عويل راحيل على أبنائها، إما لأنه سبق فرأى أن المسببِّين من يهوذا وبنيامين سيجتمعون فى الرامة بعد سقوط أورشليم وقبل اقتيادهم إلى السبى فى بابل (إرميا 40: 1)، أو لأن الرامة كانت أكمة مرتفعة فى أرض بنيامين يمكن منها رؤية الخراب الذى أصاب البلاد". وطبعا هذا كله لو أن النبى إرميا قال فعلا ذلك الكلام؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
الثالوث المقدس في المسيحة وعلاقته بالديانات الوثنية
نظرة تفصيلية في العقائد المسيحية - الثالوث المقدس في المسيحة وعلاقته بالديانات الوثنية :
موقف العقيدة الإسلامية من الثالوث :
قبل ان نبدأ في سرد شروحاتهم أريد التنبيه إلي شئ مهم من ناحية العقيدة الإسلامية , العقيدة الإسلامية قائمة على التفكير والتدبير والتأمل , العقيدة الإسلامية عقيدة الفطرة السوية المتوافقة مع العقل والمنطق .
يقول الله عز وجل في كتابه الكريم بخصوص ما يتعلق بالتثليث والتوحيد :
[ المؤمنون:91 ]-[ مَا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ مِن وَلَدٍ وَمَا كَانَ مَعَهُ مِنْ إِلَهٍ إِذاً لَّذَهَبَ كُلُّ إِلَهٍ بِمَا خَلَقَ وَلَعَلَا بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ ]
( سورة المؤمنون )
[ المائدة:73 ]-[ لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلاَثَةٍ وَمَا مِنْ إِلَـهٍ إِلاَّ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ وَإِن لَّمْ يَنتَهُواْ عَمَّا يَقُولُونَ لَيَمَسَّنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِنْهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ
( سورة المائدة )
[ الحجر:96 ]-[ الَّذِينَ يَجْعَلُونَ مَعَ اللّهِ إِلـهاً آخَرَ فَسَوْفَ يَعْلَمُونَ ]
( سورة الحجر )
[ الإسراء:22 ]-[ لاَّ تَجْعَل مَعَ اللّهِ إِلَـهاً آخَرَ فَتَقْعُدَ مَذْمُوماً مَّخْذُولاً ]
( سورة الإسراء )
[ الشعراء:213 ]-[ فَلَا تَدْعُ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَهاً آخَرَ فَتَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُعَذَّبِينَ ]
( سورة الشعراء )
[ ق:26 ]-[ الَّذِي جَعَلَ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَهاً آخَرَ فَأَلْقِيَاهُ فِي الْعَذَابِ الشَّدِيدِ ]
( سورة ق )
[ الذاريات:51 ]-[ وَلَا تَجْعَلُوا مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَهاً آخَرَ إِنِّي لَكُم مِّنْهُ نَذِيرٌ مُّبِينٌ ]
( سورة الذاريات )
[ المؤمنون:117 ]-[ وَمَن يَدْعُ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَهاً آخَرَ لَا بُرْهَانَ لَهُ بِهِ فَإِنَّمَا حِسَابُهُ عِندَ رَبِّهِ إِنَّهُ لَا يُفْلِحُ الْكَافِرُونَ ]
( سورة المؤمنون )
[ الأنعام:19 ]-[ قُلْ أَيُّ شَيْءٍ أَكْبَرُ شَهَادةً قُلِ اللّهِ شَهِيدٌ بِيْنِي وَبَيْنَكُمْ وَأُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ هَذَا الْقُرْآنُ لأُنذِرَكُم بِهِ وَمَن بَلَغَ أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ مَعَ اللّهِ آلِهَةً أُخْرَى قُل لاَّ أَشْهَدُ قُلْ إِنَّمَا هُوَ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ وَإِنَّنِي بَرِيءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ ]
( سورة الأنعام )
[ النحل:22 ]-[ إِلَهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ فَالَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالآخِرَةِ قُلُوبُهُم مُّنكِرَةٌ وَهُم مُّسْتَكْبِرُونَ ]
( سورة النحل )
[ فصلت:6 ]-[ قُلْ إِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ مِّثْلُكُمْ يُوحَى إِلَيَّ أَنَّمَا إِلَهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ فَاسْتَقِيمُوا إِلَيْهِ وَاسْتَغْفِرُوهُ وَوَيْلٌ لِّلْمُشْرِكِينَ ]
( سورة فصلت )
[ الكهف:110 ]-[ قُلْ إِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ مِّثْلُكُمْ يُوحَى إِلَيَّ أَنَّمَا إِلَهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ فَمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو لِقَاء رَبِّهِ فَلْيَعْمَلْ عَمَلاً صَالِحاً وَلَا يُشْرِكْ بِعِبَادَةِ رَبِّهِ أَحَداً ]
( سورة الكهف )
[ الأنبياء:108 ]-[ قُلْ إِنَّمَا يُوحَى إِلَيَّ أَنَّمَا إِلَهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ فَهَلْ أَنتُم مُّسْلِمُونَ ]
( سورة الأنبياء )
أظن من الواضح جدا , كم هو مهم في الإسلام , ان لا تجعل مع الله إله آخر , وان التثليث مرفوض نهائيا في الإسلام , هناك آيات أخرى كثيرة جدا جدا تحث على عدم إتخاذ عقيدة التثليث وان التوحيد وإفراد الله بالألوهية هو أهم شئ على الإطلاق في الإسلام . أريد التنبيه على شئ مهم جدا جدا من ناحية العقيدة المسيحية , يقول الموقع التبشيري :
[ تعتبر عقيدة التثليث المسيحي من العقائد الحياتية الهامة في حياة المسيحي، فلا يستطيع الإنسان المسيحي أن يحيا دون الإيمان بالثالوث القدوس، وعمله في حياة الإنسان. ]
أريد التنبيه أيضاً عن شئ مهم جدا جدا , السيد المسيح ما جاء بالتثليث قط , وسوف نرى ان عقيدة التثليث نتاج فكر الآباء القديسيين كما تقول الآية الكريمة :
[
التوبة:31 ]-[ اتَّخَذُواْ أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَاباً مِّن دُونِ اللّهِ وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَمَا أُمِرُواْ إِلاَّ لِيَعْبُدُواْ إِلَـهاً وَاحِداً لاَّ إِلَـهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ سُبْحَانَهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ ]التوبة:31 ]-[ اتَّخَذُواْ أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَاباً مِّن دُونِ اللّهِ وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَمَا أُمِرُواْ إِلاَّ لِيَعْبُدُواْ إِلَـهاً وَاحِداً لاَّ إِلَـهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ سُبْحَانَهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ ]
( سورة التوبة )
العهد الجديد كما فصلنا من قبل هو مكون من الأناجيل ( إنجيل متى , إنجيل مرقس , إنجيل لوقا , إنجيل يوحنا ) التي هي حياة السيد المسيح وتعاليمه وباقي العهد الجديد عبارة عن تعاليم لبولس المدعو رسولاً وباقي تلاميذ السيد المسيح , أريد فقط ان تركزوا في النصوص التي سوف يستشهد به الآباء الكهنة والمواقع التبشيرية , هل هي من كلام السيد المسيح على حسب زعمهم , أم هي تعاليم القساوسة والرهبان ؟
الثالوث القدوس بالمفهوم المسيحي :
سوف أنقل لكم مفهوم الثالوث القدوس من موقع تبشيري مسيحي :
بدأ الموقع التبشيري بإقتباس مقولة من مقولات أحد الآباء القديسيين عند المسيحيين :
[ أن للآب أقنوما متميزاً والإبن أقنوما متميزاً، والروح القدس أقنوما متميزا كذلك. ولكن الآب والإبن والروح القدس لاهوت واحد، ومجد متساوي، وجلال أبدي، الآب غير محدود والإبن غير محدود، والروح القدس غير محدود، لكن ليسوا ثلاث آلهة غير محدودين ].
القديس أثناسيوس الرسولي
ثم يستمر الموقع بالقول ان الثالوث لا يمكن إستيعابه بالعقل وأنها عقيدة فوق حدود العقل !
[ وقبل أن نبدأ الخوض في الحديث عن هذه العقيدة الهامة نذكر هذه القصة الشهيرة عن القديس أغسطينوس
(354 – 430م)
أسقف هيبو : "أنه وبينما كان سائراً على شاطئ البحر ، وكان يفكر في إعداد كتابه عن الثالوث القدوس، رأى طفلا صغيراً يحمل ماء من البحر ويصبه في حفرة صغيرة على الشاطئ كان قد حفرها بنفسه ، وحينما سأله القديس: ماذا تفعل يا بني؟ أجابه إنني أقوم بإفراغ البحر في هذه الحفرة. فسأله القديس وكيف تسع حفرتك الصغيرة هذا البحر الواسع؟ أجابه الطفل – وكان ملاكاً من الله – وأنت كيف تستوعب عقيدة الثالوث القدوس بعقلك البشري المحدود؟وهذا حق فإننا لو استطعنا احتواء الله بالكامل في عقولنا المحدودة لكان الله محدوداً ، وحاشا لله أن يكون محدوداً. ]
ويقول الموقع ان السبيل في راحة عقلك الذي لا يمكن له من إحتواء عقيدة الثالوث القدوس أو فهمه , هو التسليم بهذه العقيدة والإيمان به بدون اي فهم أو إدراك أو إستيعاب للعقيدة , فقط إيمان بدون فهم .
[ ولكننا لا يجب أن ننزعج من هذه الحقيقة ، حقيقة صغر عقولنا وضعف فهمنا أمام حقيقة الثالوث القدوس لأن الله أعلن لنا هذه الحقيقة بوضوح في الكتاب المقدس، وحينما نقبل هذه الحقيقــة بالإيمان، نجد أن عقولنا ستجد راحة كاملة في الاقتناع بهذا الإعلان ونجد إنه من المستحيل الإيمان بشيء آخر سوى الإله الواحد المثلث الأقانيم. ]
ثم يقوم الموقع بشرح كلمة أقنوم , فـ الثالوث القدوس يقول ان الإله مكون من ثلاثة أقانيم الآب والإبن والروح القدس , إله واحد آمين
ما معنى كلمة اقنوم؟
كلمة أقنوم كلمة سريانية معناها ” الذات المتميزة غير المنفصلة” وهي باليونانية ” هيبوستاسيس “ وهي تحمل المعنى الحقيقي للتمايز بين اقانيم اللاهوت، وهي الاصطلاح الذي يطلق على كل من الآب والإبن و الروح القدس.
ويخطئ من يظن أن الأقانيم الثلاثة مجرد صفات أو ألقاب عادية لأننا نرى الاقنوم الواحد يكلم الآخر ويتحدث عن نفسه، ويرسل الواحد منها الآخر، وهكذا … وبديهي أن الصفات أو الألقاب العادية لا يمكن أن يخاطب بعضها أو أن يتكلم أحدهـا عن الآخر.
وهذه الأقانيم ثلاثة في وحدة جوهرية خاصة بكيان الله ، فهو واحد في جوهره مثلث في أقانيمه.
وكل أقنوم يدعى الله ،
فالآب يدعى الله كما يقول الكتاب (يع 1 : 27) ، والابن يدعى الله ( تي 3 : 16) ، والروح القدس يدعى الله (أع 5 : 3 ، 4).
والمقصود بهذه الأسماء تقريب المعنى للعقل البشري المحدود، ولا يخفى على أحد أنه ليس مقصوداً بالإبن والآب العلاقة الناتجة عن التزاوج أو التناسل، إنما هي أسماء تقريبية أعطاها الله ليفهم البشر الحديث عن الله الكائن بذاته، الناطق بكلمته ، الحي بروحه. ]
نلاحظ ان الإستشهادات بنصوص ليست من كلام السيد المسيح , وسيكون هناك تفصيل لكل هذه الإستشهادات ولكن ما يهمني كمسلم ان الإستشهادات ليست على لسان السيد المسيح في أي حال من الأحوال .عندما نرجع إلى شرح كلمة أقنوم نرى التالي :
[ ويخطئ من يظن أن الأقانيم الثلاثة مجرد صفات أو ألقاب عادية لأننا نرى الاقنوم الواحد يكلم الآخر ويتحدث عن نفسه، ويرسل الواحد منها الآخر، وهكذا ... وبديهي أن الصفات أو الألقاب العادية لا يمكن أن يخاطب بعضها أو أن يتكلم أحدهـا عن الآخر. ]
فهل هم ثلاثة أشخاص مختلفين ؟ يكلمون بعضهم البعض ويرسلون بعضهم البعض ؟
تذكر يا مسلم ان الثالوث لا يُعقل , فقط آمن
[ كل أقنوم يدعى الله ] طبعاً كل أقنوم يدعى الله ولكن هم ليسوا ثلاثة آلهة بالتأكيد يا مسلم , تذكر , الثالوث لا يعقل , فقط آمن
من العجيب جدا , ترى ان المسيحي يقول ان الثالوث القدوس عقيدة موجودة في العهد القديم , يقول الموقع التبشيري :
[ الكتاب المقدس، الموحى به من الله يؤكد على هذه العقيدة بقوة من خلال عهديه القديم والجديد ]
يقول موقع الأنبا تكلا أيضاً عن الثالوث القدوس :
[ نحن لا ننفرد وحدنا بعقيدة الثالوث Holy Trinity، لأنها كانت موجودة في اليهودية، ولها شواهد كثيرة في العقد القديم ولكن بإسلوب مستتر وأحياناً مباشر، ولكنه كان مكشوفاً فقط للأنبياء ومحجوباً عن عامة الشعب لعدم قدرتهم على إستيعاب حقيقة جوهر الله. وتوقع سوء فهمهم له في مرحلة طفولة معرفتهم به وبداية إعلان ذاته لهم، وحرصاً منه على عدم وقوعهم في الإعتقاد بتعدد الآلهة، الأمر الذي تسربت معرفته لآبائنا قدماء المصريين، فوقعوا في عقيدة الثالوث الوثني ]
العهد القديم خاص باليهود , هل كان اليهود مؤمنون بالثالوث ؟ هل وصل المسيحيون إلى هذه الدرجة ؟ انهم يفرضوا معتقداتهم على ديانات الآخرين ؟ أتحدى أي مسيحي ان يأتي بأي موقع يهودي أو أي شخص يهودي يؤمن بالثالوث القدوس ! , الله المستعان
الجميل في الموضوع ان كل مسيحي يحاول ان يشرح التثليث , له فهم خاص بالثالوث , وقد نرى تضارباً بين شرح كل مُبشر والآخر كما هو موجود في فهمهم عن الثالوث , ولكننا نقول في النهاية , لو عقلك تعب من التفكير في الثالوث آمن فقط وسَّلِم بالثالوث وأرح عقلك من التفيكر :
يقول الموقع التبشيري الأول : [ ويخطئ من يظن أن الأقانيم الثلاثة مجرد صفات أو ألقاب عادية ]
يقول الموقع التبشيري الثاني : [ كلمة أقنوم هى صفة .. الله ليس ثلاثة او أثنين بل هو إله واحد ، فلننظر بتأمل للآقانيم الثلاثة ، الله الآب كائن (من الكينونة) بذاته ، الآبن هو عقل الله الناطق ، و هو حى بروحة الذى هو الروح القدس .. إذن فهى صفات متحدة و هى الله الواحد الكامل ]
مفيش داعي للتفكير , وليس هناك داعي للنظر إذا كان التفسير الأول هو الصحيح أو التفكير الثاني هو الصحيح , فقط آمن بالثالوث , لأن في نهاية المطاف , عقلك البسيط الغير محدود , مستحيل ان يستوعب الثالوث القدوس . سبحان الله العظيم , هل يطلب الله عز وجل من خلقه ان يؤمنوا بعقيدة لا تعقل ! ما لكم كيف تحكمون .
وبخصوص كلمة [الثالوث Holy Trinity ]
ذكر في دائرة المعارف الكتابية تحت حرف الثاء , كلمة ثالوث :
[ لم ترد كلمة " الثالوث " في الكتاب المقدس، حيث لا يذكر الكتاب المقدس هذا اللفظ بالذات تعبيرا عن مفهوم انه ليس هناك سوى الله الواحد الحقيقي
The term “Trinity” is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God ]
في الموسوعة الكاثوليكية أيضا تأكيد على ان لفظة الثالوث نفسها غير موجودة في أي مخطوطة من مخطوطات العهد الجديد !
[ In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together ]
الترجمة : في المخطوطات ليس هناك مصطلح واحد يبين الثلاثة أقانيم كشخص واحد , أي ان الآب مذكور واحده والإبن مذكور واحده والروح القدس مذكور وحده ولكن كون ان الثلاثة مع بعضهم إسمه ثالوث او أي لفظه غيرها توحدهم في كيان واحد , للأسف غير موجود !
أيضاً كلمة ثالوث غير موجودة في قاموس الكتاب المقدس , لأنها ببساطة لم ترد في الكتاب المقدس ! .
(( كلمة ثالوث مُبتدعة وليست من الكتاب المقدس ))
هل تتخيل يا مسلم ان يكون مثلاً دينك إسمه الإسلام , وكلمة الإسلام غير واردة في القرآن الكريم ؟ هل تتخيل يا مسلم ان مثلاً تكون معتقد ان من أسماء الله عز وجل هو الرحمن وان كلمة الرحمن غير واردة في القرآن الكريم ؟ والله لا أتخيل أمر كهذا !
________________________________________
خلاصة الثالوث المسيحي :
الثالوث مكون من الآب والإبن والروح القدس , كل واحد منهم إله كامل بكل ما تعني الكلمة من معنى , ولكنهم ليسوا ثلاثة آلهة مختلفين ولكنهم إله واحد , وعقيدة الثالوث لا يمكن لك ان تفهمها ولابد لك من الإيمان بها هكذا كما هي كي تريح عقلك !
________________________________________
الثالوث المسيحي في العقائد الوثنية :
الثالوث المقدس لم يكن موجوداً فقط في المسيحية ولكنه مأخوذ من بعض الديانات الوثنية وديانات أخرى هندوسية وغيرها :
__________
الثالوث المقدس الهندوسي والذي يظهر فيه الرب براهما مع الاله فيشنو و الالهه شيفا وفي هذا الثالوث يكون براهما هو الروح القدس.
الروح القدس الهندوسي
الروح القدس المسيحي
تثليث هندوسي
تثليث المسيحية
إختصار الآلهة المثلثة فى صورة يسوع ….. مُنتهى التبسيط و التوحيد ! ….. و هكذا نجد أن هناك عِلم يُسمى باليسوعوت أو المسيحوت ، أو علم لاهوت اليسوعى، فى مُقابل اللاهوت الإلهى، الذى عفا عليه الزمن !
الثالوث المُقدس كما تصوره الهنود الحُمر …. ربما كان فى أحد أساطيرهم … أو وسيلة لتقريب مفهوم التثليث لدى المُستعبدين من الهنود الحمر من قَبل مُستعمرى أمريكا الأوائل من الإنجليين …. الذين كانوا يعتبرون مُهمتهم فى أمريكا مُهمة مُقدسة …. و كانوا يُسمون أنفسهم بالحُجاج …… و كأنهم فى رحلة للأرض المُقدسة …… و من ضمن مُهمتهم المُقدسة تنصير ما تبقى من هنود أمريكا، ممن نجى من المذابح التى إرتكبها هؤلاء الحُجاج !
الأب الإله، فى الأعلى ….. و ربما كان إسمه الدب الأكبر
الروح القُدس هنا ليست حمامة بيضاء ، بل صقر جارح !
الإبن الإله، و قد وقفت الروح القُدس على رأسه … و يحمل رمز الشمس (أو إله الشمس) على سترته !
________________________________________
السيد المسيح في العهد الجديد قد قال جملة في غاية الروعه , قد دمر فيها أي مفهوم للثالوث , وجعل الوحدانية واضحة جلية
Joh 17:3 وَهَذِهِ هِيَ الْحَيَاةُ الأَبَدِيَّةُ: أَنْ يَعْرِفُوكَ أَنْتَ الإِلَهَ الْحَقِيقِيَّ وَحْدَكَ وَيَسُوعَ الْمَسِيحَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلْتَهُ.
النص بإختصار يقول : ان الدخول للجنة = أشهد ان لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له , وأشهد ان عيسى رسول الله , المسيح ليس إله , الروح القدس ليس إله , الله خالق السموات والأرض هو فقط الإله الحقيقي الوحيد المستحق للعبادة .
أشهد ان لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له
وأشهد ان محمد عبد الله ورسوله
وأشهد ان عيسى عبد الله ورسوله
وآخر دعوانا ان الحمد لله رب العالمين
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((القديس بولس وجهلة بأهمية الختان))))))))))))))
لقد كان بولس اليهودي ينظر الي الختان على أنه شعيرة دينية جاءت في شريعة موسى أو الناموس ليس إلا ، وانه أي الختان لم يعد لازماً بعد موت المسيح المزعوم ، وبحسب اقواله فإنه قد أظهر جهله في فوائد الختان وأهميته والحكمة منه ، ( انظر رسالته إلى روما 2 : 28 - 29 ، 4 : 9 - 11 ورسالته إلى غلاطية 5 : 2 - 6 ، 6 : 15 ، ورسالته إلى كورنثوس الأولى 7 : 19 ورسالته إلى كولوسي 2 : 11 و اعمال الرسل 15)
وجاء العلم الحديث واثبت ان للختان فوائد كثيرة تنعكس بالايجاب على الطفل في طفولته وكبر سنه وهي :
- طهارة ونظافة الطفل .
- التقليل من الاصابة بعدوى المسالك البولية.
- يمنع الاصابة بالتهاب قناة مجرى البول.
فعملية الختان، التي لم يدرك أهميتها بولس الطرطوسي ، قد اثبتت نتائج الدراسات والأبحاث الغربية أن هناك نتائج عضوية ونفسية كبيرة ومهمّة تتركها عملية الختان على الطفل. وبذلك اثبت العلم ان ما كان يقوله بولس اليهودي ليس وحيا من عند الله . .
لماذا تراجع الغرب عن عدائه للختان ؟
الدكتور حسان شمسي باشا
حتى سنوات قليلة فقط،كان الناس في أمريكا ينظرون إلى الختان على أنه شعيرة دينية يمارسها اليهود هناك والمسلمون.
وكان الأطباء هناك يناهضون فكرة إجراء الختان على الوليدين بشكل روتيني . ولكن إرادة الله تعالى قضت أن تتبدى لهم الفوائد العلمية لخصلة من خصال الفطرة التي قال عنها الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام : " الفطرة خمس : الختان والاستحداد وقص الشارب وتقليم الأظافر ونتف الإبط " .
وقد أكدت مقالة نشرت في مجلة : Postgraduate Medicine أن مليون طفل أمريكي يختن الآن كل عام في أمريكا . وأكدت دراسات أخرى أن 60 – 80 % من الوليدين في أمريكا يختنون بشكل روتيني . لماذا تراجع أعداء الختان عن موقفهم ؟ وكيف تجلت لهم الحكمة من وراء الختان ؟ نشرت في السنوات القليلة الماضية عشرات الأبحاث والمقالات العلمية التي أكدت فوائد الختان في الوقاية من التهاب المجاري البولية عند الأطفال ، ومن المشاكل الطبية في القضيب .
وكان هناك عدد من الأطباء الذين يعارضون فكرة إجراء الختان بشكل روتيني عند الوليدين . وكان من أشهر هؤلاء البروفسور ويزويل – رئيس قسم أمراض الوليدين في المستشفى العسكري في واشنطن - . وقد كتب هذا البروفيسور مقالا قال فيه : " لقد كنت من أشد الناس عداء للختان . وقد شاركت حينئذ في الجهود التي بذلها الأطباء آنذاك للإقلال من نسبة الختان . ولكن الدراسات العلمية التي ظهرت في الثمانينات أظهرت بيقين ازديادا في نسبة الالتهابات البولية عند الأطفال غير المختونين . وما ينطوي عليه من خطر حدوث التهاب مزمن في الكلى وفشل كلوي في المستقبل .
وبعد إجراء المزيد من الأبحاث ، وإجراء تمحيص دقيق لكل الدراسات العلمية التي أجريت في هذا المجال ، وصلت إلى نتيجة مخالفة تماما ، وأصبحت من أشد أنصار الختان . وأيقنت أن الختان ينبغي أن يصبح أمرا روتينيا عند كل مولود . ولم يكن البروفيسور ويزويل الوحيد الذي نادى بضرورة إجراء الختان ، بل إن الأكاديمية الأمريكية لطب الأطفال قد تراجعت تماما عن توصياتها القديمة ، وأصدت توصيات حديثة أعلنت فيها بوضوح ضرورة إجراء الختان بشكل روتيني عند كل مولود .
الختان يوفر على الدولة ملايين الدولارات :
وحتى من الناحية الاقتصادية التي تهم أصحاب المال والتخطيط ، فإن الختان عملية توفر على الدولة مبالغ طائلة . ويشرح ذلك البروفيسور ويزويل فيقول : " إذا افترضنا أن عملية الختان تكلف 1000 دولا تقريبا ، فإن الكلفة السنوية لختان جميع الأطفال الذين يولدون في أمريكا ستبلغ ما يقرب من 180 مليون دولا . فما هي الكلفة السنوية لهؤلاء لو تركناهم دون ختان ؟
إن الحقائق تقول أن 10 – 15 % من الأطفال الذكور غير المختونين سوف يحتاجون إجراء الختان في سن متقدم من العمر بسبب حدوث تضيق في القلفة أو التهاب متكرر في الحشفة ، وأن إجراء الختان عند الأطفال الكبار عملية مكلفة تصل إلى 2000 – 5000 دولا للعملية الواحدة .
فلو تركنا 1.8 مليون طفل يولدون سنويا في أمريكا دون ختان ، ولنفرض أن 10 % منهم فقط سوف يحتاجون للختان في المستقبل ، فإن كلفة ذلك سوف تصل إلى 360 – 900 مليون دولار سنويا ( وهي أضعاف ما هي عليه لو ختن كل هؤلاء بعد الولادة ) .
هكذا يحسبون .. ويقدرون .. وتأتي حساباتهم موافقة للفطرة السليمة .
ولكن العناية الإلهية قضت بألا تنتظر أجيال وأجيال من المسلمين ألفا وأربع مئة عام حتى تكتشف تلك الحقائق العلمية في الغرب ، ثم نتبعهم فيما يفعلون !!
هل تغني العناية الصحية بنظافة الأعضاء الجنسية عن الختان ؟ يقول البروفيسور ويزويل : " لقد ادعى البعض أن العناية الصحية بنظافة الأعضاء الجنسية يعطي وقاية مماثلة لتلك التي يمنحها الختان ، ولكن هذا مجرد افتراض ، وحتى اليوم لا توجد أية دراسة علمية تؤيد هذا الافتراض . ولا يوجد أي دليل علمي يشير إلى أن النظافة الجيدة في الأعضاء التناسلية يمكن لها بحال من الأحوال أن تمنع الاختلاطات التي تحدث عند غير المختونين " .
وقد أكد هذا القول الدكتور شوين الذي كتب مقالا رئيسا في إحدى أشهر المجلات الطبية في العالم N.E.T.M. عام 1990 جاء فيه : " أن الحفاظ على نظافة جيدة في المناطق التناسلية أمر عسير ، ليس فقط في المناطق المختلفة من العالم ، بل حتى في دولة كبرى ومتحضرة كالولايات المتحدة ، وكذلك الحال في إنجلترا ، فقد أكدت دراسة أجريت على أطفال المدارس الإنجليز غير المختونين أن العناية بنظافة الأعضاء التناسلية سيئة عند 70 % من هؤلاء الأطفال .
هكذا يقول خبراؤهم في الغرب .. ولكن الله تعالى جعل لتلك المشكلة علاجا منذ القدم ،فكان إبراهيم عليه السلام أول من اختتن تطبيقا للفطرة الحنيفية الخالصة . قال تعالى :
" ما كان إبراهيم يهوديا ولا نصرانيا ولكن كان حنيفا مسلما "
وقد جاء في الصحيحين من حديث أبي هريرة – رضي الله عنه – أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال :
" اختتن إبراهيم وهو ابن ثمانين سنة بالقدوم "
الختان وقاية من سرطان القضيب :
يقول الدكتور روبسون في مقال أن هناك أكثر من 60 ألف شخص أصيب بسرطان القضيب في أمريكا منذ عام 1930 . ومن المدهش حقا أن عشرة أشخاص فقط من هؤلاء كانوا مختونين .
واليهود لا يصابون عادة بسرطان القضيب وهو يختنون أطفالهم في اليوم الثامن من العمر .
ويؤكد الدكتور شوين فائدة الختان في الوقاية من سرطان القضيب ، فيقول : " إن الختان الروتيني للوليدين يقضي تقريبا بشكل تام على احتمال حدوث سرطان في القضيب " .
ويقول الدكتور كوتشين أن نسبة حدوث سرطان القضيب عند المختونين في أمريكا هي صفر تقريبا . وأنه لو كان رجال أمريكا غير مختونين ، لأصيب أكثر من ثلاثة آلاف شخص سنويا بهذا السرطان المخيف .
هل يقي الختان من الأمراض الجنسية :
ليس هناك أدنى شك في أن الأمراض الجنسية أكثر شيوعا عند غير المختونين . فقد ذكر الدكتور فنك – الذي ألف كتابا عن الختان وطبع عام 1988 في أمريكا – أن هناك أكثر من 60 دراسة علمية أجمعت على أن الأمراض الجنسية تزداد حدوثا عند غير المختونين .
وقد قام الدكتور باركر بإجراء دراسة على 1350 مريضا مصابا بأمراض جنسية مختلفة ، فوجد ازديادا واضحا في معدل حدوث ثلاثة أمراض جنسية شائعة عند غير المختونين . وهذه الأمراض هي :
1. الهربس التناسلي Genital Herpes
2. السيلان Gonorrhea
3. الزهري Syphilis
وقد أكدت الدراسات العلمية الحديثة انخفاض حدوث مرض الإيدز عند المختونين .
ولكن ينبغي ألا يخطر ببال أحد أنه إن كان مختونا فهو في مأمن من تلك الأمراض ، فهذه الأمراض تحدث عند المختونين وغير المختونين ممن يرتكبون فاحشة الزنا أو اللواط ، ولكن نسبة حدوثها عند المختونين أقل .
الختان وقاية من التهاب المجاري البولية عند الأطفال :
أثبتت دراسة أجريت على حوالي نصف مليون طفل في أمريكا أن نسبة حدوث التهاب المجاري البولية عند الأطفال غير المختونين بلغت عشرة أضعاف ما هي عليه عند المختونين .
والتهاب المجاري البولية عند الوليدين قد لا يكون أمرا بسيطا ، فقد وجد الباحثون أن 36 % من الوليدين المصابين بالتهاب المجاري البولية قد أصيبوا في الوقت ذاته بتسمم من الدم ، كما حدثت حالات الفشل الكلوي والتهاب السحايا عند البعض . وقد يحدث تندب في الكلية عند 10 – 15 % من هؤلاء الوليدين .
وأكدت دراسة أخرى أن حدوث التهاب المجاري البولية عند الأطفال غير المختونين يبلغ 39 ضعف ما هو عليه عند المختونين .
وقد أكد الدكتور جينـزبرغ أن جعل الختان أمرا روتينيا في أمريكا قد جعل منع حدوث 20.000 حالة من حالات التهاب الحويضة والكلية عند الأطفال سنويا .
وكانت نتائج هذه الدراسات هي العامل القوي الذي دفع أعداء الختان في أمريكا إلى العدول عن عدائهم ، والمطالبة بجعل الختان أمرا روتينيا عند كل طفل . وفي ذلك يقول البروفيسور ويزويل : " صوت أعضاء الجمعية الطبية في كاليفورنيا بالإجماع على أن ختان الوليد وسيلة صحية فعالة . لقد تراجعت عن عدائي الطويل للختان ، وصفقت مرحبا بقرار جمعية الأطباء في كاليفورنيا " .
وهكذا يصفقون مرحبين بإحدى خصال الفطرة ، بعد أن تأكدت لهم فوائدها العظيمة .
ورحم الله ابن القيم حين قال : " والفطرة فطرتان : فطرة تتعلق بالقلب ، وهي معرفة الله ومحبته وإيثاره على ما سواه. وفطرة عملية : هي هذه الخصال ، فالأولى تزكي الروح وتطهر القلب ، والثانية : تطهر البدن ، وكل منهما تمد الأخرى وتقويها ، وكان رأس فطرة البدن : الختان " .
________________________________
من شاء التوسع فليراجع كتابنا " أسرار الختان تتجلى في الطب الحديث " ، وقد نشرته مكتبة السوادي بجدة .?????????????(((((((((((عقاب غريب ... لموضوع عجيب
يوسف عبد الرحمن
يتحدث كاتب سفر الملوك الثاني عن النبي أليشع فيقول:
" ثُمَّ صَعِدَ مِنْ هُنَاكَ إِلَى بَيْتِ إِيلَ. وَفِيمَا هُوَ صَاعِدٌ فِي الطَّرِيقِ إِذَا بِصِبْيَانٍ صِغَارٍ خَرَجُوا مِنَ الْمَدِينَةِ وَسَخِرُوا مِنْهُ وَقَالُوا لَهُ: اصْعَدْ يَا أَقْرَعُ! اصْعَدْ يَا أَقْرَعُ! فَالْتَفَتَ إِلَى وَرَائِهِ وَنَظَرَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَعَنَهُمْ بِاسْمِ الرَّبِّ. فَخَرَجَتْ دبتان مِنَ الْوَعْرِ وَافْتَرَسَتَا مِنْهُمُ اثْنَيْنِ وَأَرْبَعِينَ وَلَداً. وَذَهَبَ مِنْ هُنَاكَ إِلَى جَبَلِ الْكَرْمَلِ، وَمِنْ هُنَاكَ رَجَعَ إِلَى السَّامِرَةِ." ( 2 ملوك 2 : 23 - 25 فاندايك )
من خلال هذا النص يتضح لنا أن أليشع كان " أقرع " مما جعل الصبيان الصغار يُعيّرونه ويسخرون منه ويقولون له : " اصعد يا أقرع .. اصعد يا أقرع " !
فماذا فعل أليشع ؟؟
قام بلعن الصبيان الصغار باسم الرب ، وذلك انتقاماً لسخريتهم منه ، فما كان من الرب إلا أن أخرج لهم دبتان من الْوَعْرِ وَافْتَرَسَتَا مِنْهُمُ اثْنَيْنِ وَأَرْبَعِينَ وَلَداً.
في هذه القصة نقطة تدل بما لا يدع مجالاً للشك بأن الكاتب يكتب دون معرفة وتدقيق. كيف؟
نلاحظ بأن الكاتب يقول بأن عدد الصبيان الذين تم افتراسهم هو 42 ، وهو عدد لا يمكن أن يصدق ، لأنه ريثما يتم افتراس الصبي الأول و الثاني أو حتى العاشر ، فإن بقية الصبيان يكونوا قد هربوا بلا شك ... اللهم إلا إذا أراد كاتب سفر الملوك أن يقنعنا بأن الصبيان قد اصطفوا بالدور منتظرين نهايتهم السعيدة واحداً تلو الآخر؟!!
فانظر أيها القارئ وتعجب ......
والآن لنفترض جدلاً أن القصة صحيحة ، فإن الكنيسة دائما ما تتغنى بأن الله محبة ، فأين هي محبته مع هؤلاء الصبية الصغار؟ ان قتل هؤلاء الصبية الصغار لمجرد استهزاءهم بشخص حتى لو كان خادما لله عز وجل ,,, هو أمر غريب على من يدعون أن الله نفسه هو من ضحى بنفسه أو ابنه لأجل البشرية!!!
اسأل نفسك أخي القارئ ماذا فعل هؤلاء الصبية الصغار حتى يكون جزائهم القتل بهذه الوحشية؟ أين هو العدل وأين هي المحبة؟
والآن لنفترض أن صبياً مسيحياً صغيراً ضحك على رجل أصلع فقام هذا الرجل فقتله، هل يا ترى سيتفهم أبو الطفل المسيحي الموضوع؟ أم انه سيتهم هذا الرجل بالوحشية والاجرام؟
ما أكثر كلام المبشرين المسيحيين عن المحبة وما أكثر الضجيج الذي يحدثونه بهذه الكلمة في كل مكان وزمان!! الحقيقة ان المحبة كقيمة جديرة بكل اهتمام ولكنها لا يمكن أبدا أن تتناغم مع ما يعرضه الكتاب المقدس ، ويكفى أن نعرف بأن الإله بحسب تصور الكنيسة لا يغفر بدون سفك دم ، ( عبرانيين 9 : 22 ) وهذا ينقض ادعاءات نظريتهم في الخلاص المجاني المزعوم!
وأمور أخرى عديدة تجعل من كلام المسيحيين عن المحبة مجرد مزايدات وتنكر لأوضح المعطيات الكتابية والعقلية ....???????????=========================================================================((((((((( الصلاة الربانية))))))))))))))))))))
الصلاة الرّبانية هي الصلاة التي قام المسيح بتعليمها لتلاميذه بحسب متي 9:6-13 وقد جاءت خاتمتها هكذا : " لأَنَّ لَكَ الْمُلْكَ ، وَالْقُوَّةَ ، وَالْمَجْدَ ، إِلَى الأَبَدِ. آمِينَ ". ( ترجمة فاندايك )
وما زال المسيحيون يرددون هذه الخاتمة في صلواتهم ظانين ان المسيح قد تلفظ بها ... إلا أن المفاجأة هي أن هذه الخاتمة لم ترد في أقدم المخطوطات المعول عليها ، كما أشارت لذلك الترجمة الامريكية القياسية في حاشيتها :
" This clause not found in early mss". ( The New American Standard Bible )
لذلك فإن بعض الترجمات تضع هذه الخاتمة بين قوسين ، والبعض الآخر يحذفها من نص الترجمة :
The New American Standard Bible : And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]
The Holman Christian Standard Bible : And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. [ For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]
The American Standard Version : And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil [one.]
English Standard Version : lead us not into temptation,but deliver us from evil.
New International Version : And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
The Revised Standard Version : And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil.
The Darby Translation : and lead us not into temptation, but save us from evil.
New Century Version : And do not cause us to be tempted, but save us from the Evil One.
والآن نقول للمدافعين عن صحة وأصالة الخاتمة المذكورة ، ما هو ردكم على هذه الترجمات العالمية ؟
وإذا كانت الخاتمة المذكورة اصيلة وصحيحة ولا غبار عليها ، فلماذا لم يدرج نصها ضمن الترجمات السابقة ؟!
ثم من المسئول عن ملايين الملايين من البشر الذين ماتوا وهم يكررون هذه الخاتمة في صلواتهم ظانيين انها من تعليم المسيح ؟
فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ لِيَشْتَرُوا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلا فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ [ الآية 79 من سورة البقرة ] ???????????===============((((((((((((((((((((((اديني عقلك)))))))))))))
الدكتور/ شريف حمدي
هذه القصة الشهيرة تبدأ بآخر آية في الإصحاح 7 : 53 : " فمضى كل واحد الى بيته " ثم تستكمل فى الإصحاح التالي يوحنا 8 : 1 – 11 : " أما يسوع فمضى الى جبل الزيتون 2 ثم حضر ايضا الى الهيكل في الصبح وجاء اليه جميع الشعب فجلس يعلّمهم. 3 وقدم اليه الكتبة والفريسيون امرأة أمسكت في زنا.ولما اقاموها في الوسط 4 قالوا له يا معلّم هذه المرأة أمسكت وهي تزني في ذات الفعل. 5 وموسى في الناموس اوصانا ان مثل هذه ترجم.فماذا تقول انت. 6 قالوا هذا ليجربوه لكي يكون لهم ما يشتكون به عليه.واما يسوع فانحنى الى اسفل وكان يكتب باصبعه على الارض. 7 ولما استمروا يسألونه انتصب وقال لهم من كان منكم بلا خطية فليرمها اولا بحجر. 8 ثم انحنى ايضا الى اسفل وكان يكتب على الارض. 9 واما هم فلما سمعوا وكانت ضمائرهم تبكّتهم خرجوا واحدا فواحدا مبتدئين من الشيوخ الى الآخرين.وبقي يسوع وحده والمرأة واقفة في الوسط. 10 فلما انتصب يسوع ولم ينظر احدا سوى المرأة قال لها يا امرأة اين هم اولئك المشتكون عليك.أما دانك احد. 11 فقالت لا احد يا سيد.فقال لها يسوع ولا انا ادينك.اذهبي ولا تخطئي ايضا "
يكاد يكون هناك اجماع كامل على أن هذه القصة مضافة الى انجيل يوحنا بين العلماء وسنورد موقف هذا النص العجيب من المخطوطات :
النص غير موجود فى المخطوطات الاتيه :
المخطوطات (اليونانية) السينائيه ، الفاتيكانية ، السكندريه ، الافرايمية ، البرديات 66 ، 75 ، 45( 200 م تقريبا، القرن الثالث الميلادى بالتتابع وهى أقدم برديات انجيل يوحنا)
والمخطوطات L ريجاس 019 (قرن 8) ، 022 N (السادس ومحفوظه بليننجراد) ، المخطوطة بوريجانيوس 029 T (القرن الخامس محفوظة فى روما) ،المخطوطه W فرير 032 (القرن الخامس وأواخر الرابع محفوظة فى واشنطن) ، المخطوطة X (القرن العاشر ومحفوظه فى ميونخ) ، المخطوطه 034 Y بكامبردج (القرن التاسع) ، المخطوطة دلتا القرن التاسع 037 ، المخطوطه ثيتا (نص قيصرى) 038 محفوظه فى جورجيا من القرن التاسع، المخطوطه ساى (القرن السابع والثامن ومحفوظه فى اليونان)
والمخطوطات 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 070
المخطوطات السريانية :
يقول متزجر :
In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc.s. and the best manuscripts of syrp)
فى الشرق فإن هذه الفقره غير موجوده فى أقدم النسخ السريانية (الاراميه) مثل : SYR-C Syr-S Syr-P
المخطوطات القبطيه :
يقول أيضا :
as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts
وأيضا غير موجوده في المخطوطات الصعيدية ، والاخميميه ، وأقدم النسخ البحيريه .
المخطوطات الارمينيه وأقدم المخطوطات الجورجيه ، والمخطوطات القوطيه والعديد من المخطوطات اللاتينية القديمة a , b , f , q , l
أما الآباء وكتاباتهم فيكفى أن ننقل عن متزجر قوله التالى :
" No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it. "
لا أحد من آباء الكنيسة اليونانية قبل يوثيميوس زيجابينوس (القرن الثانى عشر الميلادى) علق على هذه الفقرة (قصة الزانية) ، وحتى يوثيميوس أعلن وصرح أن النسخ الدقيقه من الأناجيل لا تحوى تلك الفقرة .
اى ان أول تعليق عليها في كتابات الآباء اليونان كان فى القرن الثاني عشر وتضمن إشارة إلى إنها فقره غير أصليه !
ماذا عن باقي الآباء ( مثلا الذين استخدموا لغات أخرى إضافة لليونانية ) ؟
غير موجودة عند اوريجن (القرن الثانى الميلادى) ، او ترتليان ، كيبريان ، كريسوستوم ، كيريل السكندرى و نونناس Nonnus وغيرهم في تعليقاتهم على الأناجيل ، بل ونسخ لاوجستين أيضا لا تحوى هذه الفقره ، ويقول البعض ان صمت اوريجن عنها لا يثبت انه لم يسمع بها ، لكن صامويل تريجيل في كتابه الشهير المذكور هنا رد على هذا بقوله :
" Samuel P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London, 1854), pages 236-243 "
" Origen and Chrysostom show in their Commentaries, that they were not aware of its existence. It has been indeed objected that nothing is proved by Origen's silence; because he often passes by portions of St. John's Gospel, and he had no occasion to mention this narrative: but, in reading his Commentary on this part of the Gospel, it is difficult (if not impossible) to imagine that he knew of anything between vii. 52 and viii. 12: for he cites and comments on every verse from vii. 40 to 52, and then at once continues from viii. 12 in the same manner "
اوريجن وكريسوستوم اظهرا في تعليقاتهما على الإنجيل عدم معرفه بوجودها أصلا ، والبعض اعترض أن لا شيء مثبت بصمت اوريجن لأنه غالبا ما يترك أجزاء من انجيل يوحنا (أمر غريب فعلا !!!) ، والرد انه بقراءة تعليق اوريجن على هذا الجزء من الإنجيل نجده من الصعب (لو لم يكن من المستحيل) تخيل انه كان يعرف بوجود أي شيء بين الأعداد 52 فى الإصحاح السابع و 12 الإصحاح الثامن (موضع القصه) حيث انه قام بالتعليق على الأعداد ، عددا عددا من أول العدد 40 فى الإصحاح 7 حتى 52 ويكمل بالعدد 12 في الإصحاح 8 بصورة طبيعية تماما وبنفس الأسلوب
أما جيروم الشهير صاحب الفولجات فيقول عنه تريجيل في كتابه السابق ذكره :
" The Vulgate resolves itself into the testimony of Jerome, who mentions that copies existed of both kinds,--those which contained it and those which did not "
اما الفولجات فتحل مشكلتها بنفسها (مشكلة احتوائها على النص) بشهادة جيروم نفسه الذى ذكر ان نسخا (من الفولجات) وجدت من النوعين بعضها يحوى النص والاخر لا .
ملحوظة : المخطوطات السكندريه والافرايميه لا تحوى الإصحاحات 7-8 من انجيل يوحنا اصلا ، فصفحاتها مفقوده لكن العلماء حسبوا من أرقام الصفحات الموجوده كم صفحة مفقوده وبحساب أسلوب الكتابة أكدوا انه من المستحيل تماما ان تحتوى اى من المخطوطتين هذه الفقرة لان مساحتها الكبيرة لن تتسع لها مساحة الصفحات المفقودة ، ولهذا أكدوا ان المخطوطتين من المستحيل ان يحتوى ايا من هما على تلك القصة لان المساحة المفقودة اصغر من ان يكتب فيها هذا النص .
حسنا ماذا عن المخطوطات التى تحوى هذا النص ؟
أقدمها على الاطلاق هي المخطوطه D (مخطوطة بيزا وتعود لنهايات القرن الخامس وأوائل السادس) لكن القراءات تختلف عما لدينا كثيراً وسوف نتحدث عنها فيما بعد ، وبعض المخطوطات الغربيه التى تعود للقرون التالية (مع اختلافات غريبه سنوضحها فى حينها )
أما كتابات الآباء فإن أقدم الآباء اليونان سبق ان ذكرناه فى القرن الثاني عشر ، اما اللاتين ، فإن أقدمهم هو جيروم ، وامبروز (أواخر القرن الرابع) ، وبعض نسخ اوجستين (القرن الخامس)
حسنا ماذا عن المخطوطات التي تحوى النص ومدى علاقتها بالنص الحالى ؟
فى الحقيقة ان كثير من المخطوطات التى تحويه ، اما تحوى اختلافات فى القراءات كثيره وسنوضحها ، واما تحذف اجزاء كامله من الفقره ، واما لا تحوى فى الحقيقه الا عدد او عددين فقط منها مثل :
المخطوطه 047 تحذف الأعداد 7 : 53 الى 8 : 2
المخطوطه F لا تحوى الا آخر عدد (8: 11)
المخطوطه باى لا تحوى إلا الفقرة حتى 8 : 6
المخطوطه 0233 يقول العلامة روبنسون إن الفقرة لم يستطع قراءتها لتلفها ، وفشل حتى باستخدام الاشعه فوق البنفسجيه !
هذه المخطوطات التي تحوى النص تحوى أيضا علامات تستخدم للإشارة إلى انه غير أصلى وانه مشكوك فى صحته مثل المخطوطات E , M , S , (ما بين القرن الثامن الى العاشر الميلادى) و المخطوطه لمدا (القرن التاسع باكسفورد وتسمى تشايندروفيانوس) ، المخطوطه باى (بيتروبوليتانوس القرن التاسع فى لننجراد) ، اوميجا ( القرن التاسع ومحفوظه باليونان)
وغيرهم وليس هذا كل شىء فهناك مخطوطات اخرى تحوى النص فعلا لكن فى اماكن اخرى غير مكانه الحالى فيقول متزجر فى هذه المسألة :
" Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John's narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52 " (D E F G H K M U G P 28 700 892 )
الكنائس الغربيه والتى أضافت النص إلى المخطوطات المختلفة بصورة متعاقبة وفى مواضع مختلفة من الإنجيل ، معظم النساخ بوضوح ظنوا ان اقل مكان يمكن اضافة هذا النص فيه فى يوحنا بأقل اثار انقطاع تسلسل الاحداث فى يوحنا كان بعد 7 : 52 وهذا فى المخطوطات D E F G H K M U G P 28 700 89
ويكمل كلامه :
Others placed it after 7.36 (ms. 225) or after 7.44 (several Georgian mss.) or after 21.25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss) or after Luke 21.38 (f13).
البعض الآخر وضعها بعد 7: 36 ( مخطوطه 225)
او بعد 7: 44 (العديد من المخطوطات الجورجيه)
او بعد 21: 25 مثل المخطوطات 1 565 1076 1570 1582 والمخطوطات الارمينيه او بعد لوقا 21 : 38 (تصور وضعوها بداخل نص لوقا نفسه هل رأيت هذا الخلط) وهذا في عائلة المخطوطات 13 F وليس فى مخطوطه واحده .
وسأضيف الى ما ذكره متزجر اشياء اضافيه
فالبعض وضعها فى نهاية انجيل يوحنا مثل بعض مخطوطات عائلة المخطوطات f1 و 565 و al 23
بعد 8 :12 مثل al17
بعد 8: 14 مثل 2691
بعد 8 : 20 مثل 981
البعض وضعها فى نهاية انجيل لوقا بعد نهاية المخطوطه بحبر مختلف مثل 1333 والتى لا تحوى نص القصة إلا في هذا الموضع أما انجيل يوحنا فخالي منها .
نقطة أخرى وهى أن هناك مخطوطه من النوع السكندرى تعود للقرنين السادس والسابع الميلادى تذكر هذا النص (مع بعض الخلافات فى القراءات) لكنها ايضا تذكر المصدرالذى أوصل لها تلك القصة على الهامش فتقول ( وجدت فى انجيل مارا ، اسقف أميد) ويرجح ان مارا هذا سافر للاسكندريه فى منتصف القرن السادس الميلادي ومعه بعض كتبه ، ومن انجيل يحتوى هذه القصة فأضافها النساخ اقتباسا منه على هذه المخطوطه فى اواخر القرن السادس واوائل السابع ليكون او اقحام للقصه فى النص السكندرى ( الكلام عن بارت اهرمان تلميذ متزجر واحد اشهر علماء المخطوطات المعاصرين الان وذلك فى تعليقه على الموضوع)
هذا عن المخطوطات التى تحوى القصه ورأينا كم من الخلط (ولم نتعرض بعد لاختلاف القراءات) موجود فيها واقدمها يعود للقرن السادس الميلادى كما ذكرنا
ماذا عن كتابات الاباء التى يتم الاستشهاد بها على صحتها ؟
فى الحقيقه ان امرها مماثل للمخطوطات وسنعرض لهم واحدا واحدا :
اولا بابياس :
يدعى البعض ان بابياس (القرن الثانى) (نقلا عن يوزيبيوس (القرن الرابع) الذى ذكر هذا لان الاصل الذى يفترض ان بابياس كتبه مفقود ) قال الاتى
" تحدث بابياس عن قصة امرأه اتهمت بخطايا كثيره امام المسيح ، والتى يحويها انجيل العبريين"
وكما ترى ان الكلام لا يحدد شيئا معينا فهى متهمه بخطايا كثيره (وقصتنا تقتصر على الزنا فقط) والقصة التى يشير اليها يزيبيوس موجوده فى انجيل العبريين ولم يقل لا يوزيبيوس ولا بابياس انها فى يوحنا او لوقا او غيره ، فالاستدلال هنا ضد القصه لا فى صالحها .
ثانيا فى انجيل يعقوب Protogospel of james يذكر البعض انه كتب جملة " انا لا أدينك" وباليونانيه " اودى ايجو كرينو اوماس" وكما نرى ان هذا انجيل يعقوب لا يوحنا وهو ابوكريفى ومعروف انه كتب فى القرن الثانى الميلادى ، اضافة الى ان هذه الجمله لا تعنى شيئا لانها قد تكون بخصوص اى شىء خاصة ان المسيح كان يرفض ان يدين احدا او يقضى بين الناس حتى ، فالاستدلال هنا اسخف من ان يناقش .
ثالثا أمبروز :
بعض النصوص التى يعتمدون عليها هى فى كتب مجهولة الكاتب ويظن انها لامبروز الذى عاش فى القرن الرابع وكان يعتقد انها لاوجستين ، وحتى ان فرضنا انها له فهى لا تقول شيئا عن وجود هذا القصه فى يوحنا وانما هو تلخيص مخل بالقصه حيث يقول باختصار ان حكماء اليهود جاءوا له بامرأه خاطئه ليقيم عليها الحكم ورحلوا (مباشرة) فسألها هو هل ادانوك يا بنتى ؟ فقالت لا يا سيدى فقال ولا انا ادينك اذهبى فى طريقك"
والقصة قد تشبه لكنها تختلف فى تفاصيل كثيره فلا ذكر لقوله من كان بلاخطيئه فليرمها بحجر مثلا بل انهم رحلوا مباشرة ، اضافة الى انه لم يقل لها لا تخطئى ثانية ويبدوا انها لم تخطىء اولا ، اضافة الى انه لم يذكر ان هذا فى يوحنا
رابعا ديديموس الاعمى Blind didymus :
يقول " وجدنا فى أناجيل معينه ( لاحظ هذا ) ، امرأة أدينت بالخطيئة من قبل اليهود (لاحظ ان قصتنا تقول انهم لم يدينوها) ، فأخذوها إلى مكان الرجم (ولم يذهبوا الى يسوع) فرآهم المخلص فقال لهم " من كان بلا خطيئة فليرمها بحجر ، من يعلم يقينا فى نفسه انه لم يخطىء أبدا فليضربها بالحجر ويبصق عليها ، فلم يجرء احدهم على ضربها "
وواضح انه لم يذكر يوحنا ، والاختلافات أوضح من أن تنكر .
خامسا اوجستين (القرن الخامس) من الآباء اللاتين :
يقول " أشخاص معينين من قليلي الايمان ، او أعداء الإيمان الحقيقي ، يخافون ان تنزلق زوجاتهم الى الزنا فأزالوا (ولاحظ مدى خطورة الاتهام) فعل غفران المسيح للزانيه "
اى ان الأخ اوجستين يتهم كل آباء الكنيسة اليونان السابقين واللاحقين بأنهم قليلى الإيمان وأعداء للإيمان الحقيقي وأنهم حرفوا الإنجيل عن عمد ، ويتهم ايضا النساخ جميعا قبل القرن السادس الميلادى بانهم جميعا مزورون ومحرفون واعداء الايمان ، وهذا الرأى المنفرد لاوجستين فى القرن الخامس لم يلق اى اهتمام من علماء المخطوطات لانه لا يعقل ان يتم اتهام الالوف بهذه التهمه بهذه البساطه خاصة ان القصة غير موجوده فى اية برديه او مخطوطه قديمه بل ولا حتى اناجيل الابوكريفا نفسها
وباختصار شديد فإن القصة لا وجود لها على الاطلاق قبل القرن الرابع الميلادى فى اى مخطوطه او كتاب ، وأول اضافه لها يعتقد انها كانت فى الكنيسة الغربيه اللاتينية كما يذكر صامويل تريجيلز :
" In the fourth century, this section seems to have obtained a place in some copies (first perhaps in the West, where it was first mentioned), but even then it is spoken of doubtfully "
فى القرن الرابع هذه الفقره يبدوا انها اتخذت مكانها فى بعض النسخ اولا فى الغرب على ما يبدو حيث ذكرت اولا ، لكن حتى فى ذلك الوقت كان الحديث عنها بشك .
ومن المحتمل انه فى اواخر القرن الثالث الميلادى كانت ملامح من القصة معروفه عند بعض الهراطقه الاراميين الا انها قطعا لم يبدأ احد فى دمجها فى الانجيل الى فى اواخر القرن الرابع الميلادى والبدايه فى النسخ اللاتينيه ثم اليونانيه بعد ذلك (اواخر القرن الخامس واوائل السادس كمخطوطة بيزا)
وفى افضل الاحوال لدى المدافعين عن القصه فإنهم يرغبون فى بقاءها لا لانها اصليه فهم يقرون باضافتها، وانما لانه لا يوجد ما يدعوا لحذفها (مثل كالفن ) فى كتابه :
" Commentary on the Gospel of John, on John 8:1"
"It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here. But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches "
من الواضح ان هذه الفقره كانت (غير معروفه ) للكنائس اليونانيه القديمه ، والبعض يرى انها وضعت فى مكانها الحالى هنا كما تسلمناها من الكنائس اللاتينيه .
ويكمل مدافعا :
" there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage "
لا يوجد سبب يجعلنا نرفض وضعها فى موضعها ونقبلها .
وهذا الرأى يرفضه العلماء وان كانوا ايضا فى حيره فيقول صامويل تريجيلز مثلا :
" It may be felt by some to be a serious thing to conclude, that twelve whole verses which they have been accustomed to read are no part of Holy Scripture; and yet if they are only in possession of a moderate share of information, they must know well that they are and have always been regarded as of unproved genuineness: I would also ask such, if it is not a very serious thing to accept, as part of the word of God, what (as they have the full opportunity of knowing) rests on precarious grounds, and is contradicted by the best testimonies? Would it not render all Scripture doubtful, and go far to undermine all true thoughts of its authority, if all that rests on utterly insufficient evidence, and all that is supported by unquestionable testimonies, were placed on the same ground? It is impossible to give real and sufficient sanction to that which is not attested to be a genuine part of a book of Scripture, and thus, while it is in vain to attempt to raise it to the place of authority, the only consequence will be to depress the true Scripture to the low and unsatisfactory level of such unattested additions "
الأدله الداخليه :
وانا هنا أعنى دراسة الالفاظ نفسها ومدى استخدامها من قبل نفس المؤلف
وفى الصورة الملحقة ستجدون قائمه بأهم هذه الكلمات ، والملاحظ هنا شىء فى منتهى الغرابه ، ان معظم الكلمات التى لا تتكرر ابدا فى يوحنا وتختلف مع اسلوبه ، تتكرر فى لوقا وفى اعمال الرسل المنسوب للوقا ايضا ، واذا تذكرت ما سبق ان قلناه عن ان بعض المخطوطات تضع تلك القصه فى انجيل لوقا ، والسبب غير معروف حتى الان
لكن هذا لا يعنى ان لوقا هو صاحب القصه الحقيقى لان لا مخطوطات قبل القرن الثامن الميلادى تضمن القصه فى لوقا كما قلنا ، كما ان الاسلوب يحتوى اشياء لم يستخدمها لوقا ابدا ، بل ولم توجد ابدا فى العهد الجديد ولا القديم (السبعينيه)
المشكله الكبرى فى دراسة الادله الداخليه هو كثرة الاختلافات فى القراءات بين المخطوطات التى تذكر القصه فلا نستطيع تحديد اى قراءه هى اصل القصه
كما ان حذف بعض الايات يحمل لغزا اخر لا حل له ، فلماذا تحذف بعض المخطوطات مثلا اول اربع اعداد او ايات من القصه
والعجيب ان الآيات المحذوفة تشبه آيات من لوقا 21 : 37 وهى تتحدث ايضا عن ذهابه لجبل الزيتون ثم عودته للهيكل والتشابه في الألفاظ اليونانية أيضا .
واذا وصلنا الايات 7 : 52 بالآية 8 : 12 سنحصل على حوار مكتمل لا نشعر معه أن شيئا ما حذف مما يؤكد ان القصة تم إقحامها في منتصف الحوار بهذا الأسلوب .
انظر يوحنا 7 : 52 : " اجابوا وقالوا له ألعلك انت ايضا من الجليل.فتّش وانظر.انه لم يقم نبي من الجليل. (SVD) "
يوحنا 8 : 12 : " ثم كلمهم يسوع ايضا قائلا انا هو نور العالم.من يتبعني فلا يمشي في الظلمة بل يكون له نور الحياة. "
ولن تجد اى معنى لذهابه الى جبل الزيتون ثم حضوره للهيكل والحوار مكتمل تماما ، بل ان قوله انا هو نور العالم كما يرى النصارى نفسهم هو الرد على سؤالهم انه لم يقم نبى من الجليل وهى من اشعياء 9 : 1-2 : " البحر عبر الاردن جليل الامم. 2 الشعب السالك في الظلمة ابصر نورا عظيما.الجالسون في ارض ظلال الموت اشرق عليهم نور."
هكذا يقولون انه هو النور لهذا قال انا هو نور العالم الذى سيخرج من جليل الامم ، وهذا يعنى ان الايات متتاليه وان القصه مقحمه هنا
اختلافات القراءات :
يقول بلامر Plummer فى شروحاته للقصه ان هناك اكثر من 80 اختلافا فى القراءات فى هذه القصه رغم انها فقط مكونه من 183 كلمه تقريبا ، مما يجعلها اكثر اجزاء العهد الجديد اختلافا فى القراءات ( خلاف فى القراءة لكل كلمتين وربع تقريبا)
ويقول روبنسون هنا ان هناك اكثر من عشرة انواع للقصه ( يذكرنا هذا بالانواع المتعدده من خواتم مرقس)
وسأكتفى هنا بوضع جدول يوضح اهم هذه الانواع واهم مخطوطاتها وعددها ، ومتوسط عدد الاختلافات بين تلك المخطوطات والنص العام لعائلتها (لا النص الحالى)
اما الاختلافات نفسها والاختلافات فى المخطوطه بيزا فسنشرحها باذن الله فى مقال منفرد نعتبره جزءا ثانيا لهذا المقال ، وذلك لكبر الموضوع واحتياجه لان يكون مستقلا بذاته
وفى خاتمه موضوعنا هنا سأنقل فقط ماقاله سكرنفير :
" on all intelligent principles of mere criticism the passage must needs be abandoned: and such is the conclusion arrived at by all the critical editors . . . we cannot help admitting that if this section be indeed the composition of St. John, it has been transmitted to us under circumstances widely different from those connected with any other genuine passage of Scripture whatever."
على كل الاسس الذكيه للنقد فإن هذه الفقره لابد ان تنبذ ، وهذا الاستنتاج وصل لنا عن طريق كل نقاد نصوص الكتاب المقدس ، فنحن لن نستطيع الاعتراف بانها من وضع القديس يوحنا ، وقد انتقلت الينا تحت ظروف تختلف بصورة كبيره عما حدث مع غيرها من النصوص التى نعتبرها اصليه"
أهم المراجع :
Samuel P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London, 1854), pages 236-243.
F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (4th edition. London, 1894), volume ii, pages 364-368.
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 219-221.
Maurice Robinson " Preliminery observations regarding the pericope adultrae Based Uponfresh collation of nearly all continous Mss and all lectionary Mss containing the passage"2000 Fil Neot XIII
?????================================================================??((((((((((((((((( الكتاب المقدس واكذوبة بركة يعقوب المسروقة بالغش!))))))))))))))
إليك أيها المتصفح الكريم هذا النموذج من الكذب الواضح الذي يشبه الخرافة الذي يرويه الكتاب المقدس عن بركة يعقوب المسروقة بالغش والخديعة :
يحكي سفر التكوين في إصحاحه السابع والعشرين أن نبي الله إسحاق عليه وعلى رسولنا الصلاة والسلام وكان قد كف بصره قال لأبنه عيسو: يا بني ها أنا قد شخت ولست أعرف متى يحين يوم وفاتي فالآن خذ عدتك : جعبتك وقوسك ، وامض إلى الْبَرِّيَّةِ وَاقْتَنِصْ لِي صَيْداً. وجهز لي طعاماً شهياً كما أحب وائتني به لآكل ، لتباركك نفسي قبل أن أموت .
إلا أن امرأة إسحاق واسمها رفقة وهي أم عيسو ويعقوب قد أرادت أن يختص ابنها يعقوب بهذه البركة ، فدبرت حيلة لتحقيق غرضها ، فأمرت يعقوب أن يأخذ جديين وتصنع هي منهما طعاماً لإسحق ، ويأتي بهما يعقوب إلى إسحق أبيه فيقدمهما إليه ليباركه ، وأن يعقوب قال لأمه انني أخشى أن يكشف أبي هذه الخديعة حينما يتحسس جسمي فيجدني أجرد ، مع أن جسم أخي عيسو مكسو بفروة شعر ، فأجلب على نفسي لعنة لا بركه ! فقالت له سأدبر حيلة لذلك ، فأخذت ثياب عيسو ابنها الأكبر وألبستها يعقوب ، ووضعت جلود الجديين على يديه وعلى حلقه ، حتى إذا تحسس اسحق جسمه ظن أنه جسم عيسو !! . وأعطت يعقوب الطعام فجاء به إلى أبيه ، وقال يا أبي ، فقال له إسحق : من أنت يا ولدي ؟ قال يعقوب أنا ابنك عيسو بكرك ( أي أكبر ولديك ) صنعت جميع ما قلت لي ، فاجلس وكل من صيدي وبارك علي ! فقال اسحق تقدم لأتحسس جسمك ولأتبين هل انت عيسو أم لا . فتقدم يعقوب فجسه اسحق ، وقال الصوت صوت يعقوب واليدان يدا عيسو . وقال هل انت ابني عيسو ؟ فقال نعم أنا ابنك عيسو . فبارك عليه وقال له في بركته : تخدمك الأمم ، وتخضع لك الشعوب ، وتكون مولى اخوتك ، ويسجد لك بنو أمك .
وحدث بعد ذلك أن عيسو أتى بالطعام إلى اسحق ، فعرف اسحق الخديعة والغش التي عملها ابنه يعقوب ، ولكن اعتذر لعيسو ، وقال له قد خدعني أخوك يعقوب واختص ببركتي ، وصيرته سيداً لك ، وجعلت جميع اخوته عبيداً له ولأولاده ، فماذا عسى أن أعمله لك بعد ذلك ؟! فقال عيسو لأبيه ألك بركة واحده يا أبي ، باركني أنا أيضاً . ورفع عيسو صوته وبكى . فأجابه أبوه قائلاً : سيكون مسكنك في بلد مجرد من دسم الأرض وغيث السماء ! ، وستعيش مما يفيئه عليك سيفك . ولأخيك تكون عبداً ، ولكنك ستجمع وتكسر نير الاستعباد عن عنقك ! .
وقد بين العلامه ابن حزم ، في نقد لاذع وتحليل رائع ، ما في هذا النص من أكاذيب وخرافات ومتناقضات إذ يقول : وفي هذا الفصل فضائح وأكذوبات وأشياء تشبه الخرافات . فأول ذلك اطلاقهم على نبي الله يعقوب عليه السلام أنه خدع أباه وغشه وهذا مبعد عمن فيه خير من أبناء الناس مع الكفار والأعداء . فكيف من نبي مع أبيه وهو نبي أيضاً ؟! هذه سوءات مضاعفات .
ثانياً : اخبارهم أن بركة يعقوب إنما كانت مسروقه بغش وخديعة وتخابث . وحاشا للأنبياء عليهم السلام من هذا . ولعمري انها لطريقة اليهود ، فما تلقى منهم إلا الخبيث الخادع والا الشاذ .
ثالثاً : اخبارهم أن الله أجرى حكمه وأعطى نعمته على طريق الغش والخديعة ، وحاش لله من هذا .
رابعاً : أنه لا يشك أحد في أن اسحق عليه السلام لما بارك يعقوب حينما خدعه ، كما زعم النذل الذي كتب لهم هذا الهوس ، إنما قصد بتلك البركة عيسو ، وأنه دعا لعيسو لا ليعقوب . فأي منفعة للخديعة ها هنا ؟ لو كان لهم عقل .
وأما وجوه الكذب فكثيرة جداً . من ذلك نسبتهم الكذب إلى يعقوب عليه السلام وهو نبي الله ورسوله ، في أربع مواضع :
أولها وثانيها قوله لأبيه اسحاق أنا ابنك عيسو وبكرك . فهاتان كذبتان في نسق ، لأنه لم يكن ابنه عيسو ولا كان بكره وثالثها ورابعها قوله لأبيه صنعت جميع ما قلت لي فاجلس وكل من صيدي .فهاتان كذبتان في نسق ، لأنه لم يكن له شيئاً ولا أطعمه من صيده . وكذبات أخرى هي : بطلان بركة اسحق إذ قال ليعقوب تخدمك الأمة وتخضع لك الشعوب وتكون مولى اخوتك ، ويسجد لك بنو أمك . وبطلان قوله لعيسو تستعبد لأخيك . فهذه كذبات متواليات . فوالله ما خدعت الأمم يعقوب ولا بنيه بعده ، ولا خضغت لهم الشعوب ، ولا كانوا موالى اخوتهم ، ولا سجد لهم ولا له بنو أمه . بل ان بني اسرائيل هم الذين خدموا الأمم في كل بلدة وخضعوا للشعوب قديماً وحديثاً في أيام دولتهم وبعدها .
وأما قوله تكون مولى اخوتك ويسجد لك بنو أمك ، فلعمري لقد صح ضد ذلك جهاراً ، إذ في توراتهم أن يعقوب كان راعياً لأنعام ابن عمه لابان بن ناحور بن لامك وخادمه عشرين سنة ، وأنه بعد ذلك سجد هو وجميع ولده _ حاشا من لم يكن خلق منهم بعد _ لأخيه عيسو مرارا كثيرة .
وما سجد عيسو قط ليعقوب ، ولا ملك قط أحد من بني يعقوب بني عيسو . وقد تعبد يعقوب لعيسو في جميع خطابه له ، وما تعبد قط عيسو ليعقوب . وقد سأل عيسو يعقوب عن أولاده فقال له يعقوب هم أصاغر من الله بهم على عبدك . وقد طلب يعقوب رضاء عيسو وقال له : اني نظرت الى وجهك كمن نظر إلى بهجة الله ، فارض عني ، واقبل ما اهديت اليك . فما نرى عيسو وبنيه إلا موالى يعقوب وبنيه .
فما نرى تلك البركة عزيزى القارىء الا انها معكوسة منكوسة ! ونعوذ بالله من الخذلان .
والطريف ان الكتاب المقدس يحكي ان يعقوب اشترى النبوة من أخيه عيسو فى مقابل طبق عدس وقطعة لحم :
تكوين 25: 29-34 " وَطَبَخَ يَعْقُوبُ طَبِيخاً فَأَتَى عِيسُو مِنَ الْحَقْلِ وَهُوَ قَدْ أَعْيَا. فَقَالَ عِيسُو لِيَعْقُوبَ: أَطْعِمْنِي مِنْ هَذَا الأَحْمَرِ لأَنِّي قَدْ أَعْيَيْتُ. ( لِذَلِكَ دُعِيَ اسْمُهُ أَدُومَ ). فَقَالَ يَعْقُوبُ: بِعْنِي الْيَوْمَ بَكُورِيَّتَكَ. فَقَالَ عِيسُو: هَا أَنَا مَاضٍ إِلَى الْمَوْتِ فَلِمَاذَا لِي بَكُورِيَّةٌ؟ فَقَالَ يَعْقُوبُ: احْلِفْ لِيَ الْيَوْمَ. فَحَلَفَ لَهُ. فَبَاعَ بَكُورِيَّتَهُ لِيَعْقُوبَ. فَأَعْطَى يَعْقُوبُ عِيسُوَ خُبْزاً وَطَبِيخَ عَدَسٍ فَأَكَلَ وَشَرِبَ وَقَامَ وَمَضَى. فَاحْتَقَرَ عِيسُو الْبَكُورِيَّةَ. "
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((المجوس))))))))))))))))))
ولمَّا وُلِدَ يَسوعُ في بَيتَ لَحْمِ اليَهودِيَّةِ، على عَهْدِ المَلِكِ هِيرودُسَ، جاءَ إلى أُورُشليمَ مَجوسٌ. مِنَ المَشرِقِ 2وقالوا: "أينَ هوَ المَولودُ، مَلِكُ اليَهودِ؟ رَأَيْنا نَجْمَهُ في المَشْرِقِ، فَجِئْنا لِنَسْجُدَ لَه".
3وسَمِعَ المَلِكُ هِيرودُسُ، فاَضْطَرَبَ هوَ وكُلُّ أُورُشليمَ. 4فجَمَعَ كُلَ رُؤساءِ الكَهَنةِ ومُعَلَّمي الشَّعْبِ وسألَهُم: "أينَ يولَدُ المَسيحُ؟" 5فأجابوا: "في بَيتَ لَحْمِ اليَهودِيَّةِ، لأنَّ هذا ما كَتَبَ النَبِـيٌّ: 6"يا بَيتَ لَحْمُ، أرضَ يَهوذا، ما أنتِ الصٌّغْرى في مُدُنِ يَهوذا، لأنَّ مِنكِ يَخْرُجُ رَئيسٌ يَرعى شَعْبـي إِسرائيلَ".
7فَدَعا هيرودُسُ المَجوسَ سِرُا وتَحقَّقَ مِنْهُم مَتى ظَهَرَ النَّجْمُ، 8ثُمَّ أرسَلَهُم إلى بَيتَ لَحْمَ وقالَ لَهُم: "اَذْهَبوا واَبْحَثوا جيَّدًا عَنِ الطَّفلِ. فإذا وجَدْتُموهُ، فأَخْبِروني حتى أذهَبَ أنا أيضًا وأسْجُدَ لَه".
9فلمَّا سَمِعوا كلامَ المَلِكِ اَنْصَرَفوا. وبَينَما هُمْ في الطَّريقِ إذا النَّجْمُ الذي رَأَوْهُ في المَشْرقِ، يَتَقَدَّمُهُمْ حتى بَلَغَ المكانَ الذي فيهِ الطِفلُ فوَقَفَ فَوْقَه. 10فلمَّا رَأوا النَّجْمَ فَرِحوا فَرَحًا عَظيمًا جِدُا، 11ودَخَلوا البَيتَ فوَجَدوا الطَّفْلَ معَ أُمَّهِ مَرْيَمَ. فرَكَعوا وسَجَدوا لَه، ثُمَّ فَتَحوا أَكْياسَهُمْ وأهْدَوْا إلَيهِ ذَهَبًا وبَخورًا ومُرًّا.
12وأنْذَرَهُمُ الله في الحُلُمِ أنْ لا يَرجِعوا إلى هيرودُسَ، فأخَذوا طَريقًا آخَرَ إلى بِلادِهِم.
الهرب إلى مصر
13وبَعدَما اَنْصرَفَ المَجوسُ، ظَهَرَ مَلاكُ الرَّبَّ لِيوسفَ في الحُلُمِ وقالَ لَه: "قُمْ، خُذِ الطِفْلَ وأُمَّهُ واَهربْ إلى مِصْرَ وأقِمْ فيها، حتى أقولَ لكَ متى تَعودُ، لأنَّ هيرودُسَ سيَبحَثُ عَنِ الطَّفْلِ ليَقتُلَهُ". 14فقامَ يوسفُ وأخذَ الطَّفْلَ وأُمَّهُ ليلاً ورحَلَ إلى مِصْرَ. 15فأقامَ فيها إلى أنْ ماتَ هيرودُسُ، ليتِمَّ ما قالَ الربٌّ بِلسانِ النبـيَّ: "مِنْ مِصْرَ دَعَوْتُ اَبني".
مقتل أولاد بيت لحم
16فَلمَّا رَأى هيرودُسُ أنَّ المَجوسَ اَستهزَأوا بِه، غَضِبَ جدُا وأمرَ بقَتلِ.كُلٌ طِفْلٍ في بَيتَ لحمَ وجِوارِها، مِنِ اَبنِ سَنَتَينِ فَما دونَ ذلِكَ، حسَبَ الوَقتِ الَّذي تحقَّقَهُ مِنَ المَجوسِ، 17فتَمَ ما قالَ النبـيٌّ إرْميا: 18"صُراخٌ سُمِعَفي الرٍامَةِ، بُكاءٌ ونَحيبٌ كثيرٌ، راحيلُ تَبكي على أولادِها ولا تُريدُ أنْ تَــتَعزّى، لأنَّهُم زالوا عَنِ الوجودِ".
الرجوع من مصر إلى الناصرة
19ولمَّا ماتَ هِيرودُس ظهَرَ ملاكُ الرَّبَّ ليوسفَ في الحُلمِ، وهوَ في مِصْرَ 20وقالَ لَه: "قُمْ، خُذِ الطَّفْلَ وأُمَّهُ واَرجِـــعْ إلى أرضِ إِسرائيلَ، لأنَّ الَّذينَ أرادوا أنْ يَقتُلوهُ ماتوا". 21فقامَ وأخَذَ الطَّفْلَ وأُمَّهُ ورَجَعَ إلى أرضِ إِسرائيلَ. 22لكِنَّهُ سَمِعَ أنَّ أرخيلاوُسَ يَملِكُ على اليَهودِيَّةِ خلَفًا لأبيهِ هِيرودُسَ، فخافَ أن يذهَبَ إلَيها. فأَنذَرَهُ الله في الحُلُمِ، فلَجأَ إلى الجَليلِ. 23وجاءَ إلى مدينةٍ اَسمُها النّاصِرَةُ فسكَنَ فيها، لِيَـتمَّ ما قالَ الأنبياءُ: "يُدعى ناصِريًّا".
أول ما يخطر على البال هنا هو أمر أولئك المجوس: من أين لهم العلم بأن هناك مَلِكًا لليهود قد وُلِد؟ أوقد ذُكِر ذلك فى كتبهم؟ لكن أين النص عندهم على ذلك؟ ولماذا يُذْكَر مثل هذا الأمر لديهم، وهم ليسوا من بنى إسرائيل، الذين إنما أُرْسِل لهم وحدهم السيد المسيح وليس إلى المجوس بأى حال؟ وإذا غضضنا النظر عن هذا فإن السؤال سرعان ما يجلجل فى الذهن: فما فائدة عِلْم المجوس بولادة عيسى؟ هل آمنوا؟ إنهم لم يقولوا: لقد جئنا لنعلن إيماننا بعيسى، بل ليسجدوا له. وهل السجود من علامات الإيمان أو مقتضياته؟ لقد أجاب المسيح، حسبما سنقرأ بعد قليل، بأنه قد قيل: للرب إلهك وحده تسجد! ولا يمكن القول بأنهم كانوا يعتقدون أنه ابن الله أو الله، إذ كل ما قالوه عنه هو أنه "ملك اليهود" كما مرّ. كما لا يمكن القول بأنهم أرادوا أن يعظموا هذا الملك، أولا لأنه لم يصبح ملكا بعد (ولن يصبح أبدا طبعا)، وثانيا لأنه ليس ملكا فارسيا ولا مجوسيا، فلماذا يسجدون له؟ وعلى أية حال لماذا لم نسمع بهؤلاء المجوس بعد ذلك؟ الطبيعى أن يظهروا بعد هذا حين يئين الأوان ويكبر عليه السلام ويبلغ مبلغ الأنبياء ويعلن دعوته كى يكونوا من حوارييه ما داموا قد تجشموا المجىء من بلادهم وتعرّضوا بسبب ذلك للخطر كما رأينا! أليس كذلك؟ واضح أن كاتب هذه التخاريف لا يستطيع أن يَسْبِك التأليف كما ينبغى، ولذلك ترك فيه ثغرات كثيرة! ثم من هؤلاء القوم؟ من أى بلد فى فارس؟ ما أسماؤهم؟ ماذا كانوا يعملون فى بلدهم قبل أن يفدوا إلى فلسطين؟ ثم كيف أَتَوْا إلى فلسطين؟ وماذا صنعوا عند عودتهم إلى بلادهم؟ ولماذا لم يدعوا قومهم إلى الدخول فى دين عيسى؟ إن فارس تكاد أن تكون هى البلد الوحيد فى الشرق الأوسط الذى لم يعتنق النصرانية رغم أن ذلك النفر المجوسى هم أول البشر معرفةً بميلاد المسيح وإظهارًا لمشاعرهم نحوه وتبجيلهم له؟
ثم أليس غريبا أن يعتمد هيرودس، الذى أهمّه مولد عيسى كل هذا الهم، على أولئك المجوس الغرباء فى معرفة المكان الذى وُلِد فيه المسيح؟ أليس عنده العيون والجواسيس الذين يستطيعون أن يأتوه بهذا الخبر؟ ألم يكن بمقدوره على الأقل أن يرسل فى أعقابهم من يرقب حركاتهم وسكناتهم حتى يعرف بيت الوليد الجديد بدلا من أن ينتظر حتى يأتوه هم بالخبر كما قال المؤلف السقيم الخيال؟ ثم هناك حكاية النجم، وهذه فى حد ذاتها بَلْوَى مُسَيَّحة! كيف يا ترى يمكن أىَّ إنسان التعرفُ على بيت من البيوت من وقوف أحد النجوم فوقه؟ إن هذا لهو المستحيل بعينه! إن الكاتب الجاهل يظن أن النجم المذكور قد ظهر إثر ميلاد عيسى، غافلا (لأنه مغفل) أن الضوء الذى زعم أن المجوس كانوا يَرَوْنَه آنذاك إنما صدر من النجم قبل ذلك بآلاف السنين، ولم يأت لتوه كما توهم بجهله! ولقد كتب لى أحدهم منذ أَشْهُرٍ رسالةً مشباكيةً يحاول أن يقنعنى فيها بأنه كان من السهل على أولئك المجوس أن يعرفوا أن النجم واقف فوق بيت الطفل الوليد خَبْط لَزْق باستعمال بعض الآلات الفلكية! يا حلاوة يا أولاد! معنى ذلك أنهم كانوا علماء فى الفلك والرياضيات (ولعلهم من أحفاد عمر الخيام، لكن بالمقلوب!)، جاؤوا من بلادهم ومعهم مرصد وضعوه على ظهر حمار مثلا (تخيلوا مرصدا على ظهر حمار!)، فنصبوه فى زقاق من أزقة بيت لحم وأخذوا يرصدون ويكتبون ويحسبون ويتجادلون برطانتهم الفارسية، وفى أيديهم الآلات الحاسبة ومسطرة حرف "تى" لزوم المنظرة، والناس تنظر إليهم وتتفرج عليهم (كما كنا نفعل ونحن لا نزال فى الجامعة حين نرى طلاب كلية الهندسة أثناء تدريباتهم على أعمال المساحة والقياس فى حديقة الأورمان)، لينتهوا فى آخر المطاف بعد فشلهم فى حسابات الفلك إلى اللجوء للطريقة التقليدية فى بلادنا التى لا يوجد أحسن منها للشعوب المتخلفة (أما كان من الأول بدلا من تضييع كل هذا الوقت؟) فينادوا فى الشوارع عن "عَيِّل مولود حديثا يا أولاد الحلال، ولابس بيجامة كستور مقلّمة وفى فمه بزّازة، وفى رجله فردة لَكْلُوك واحدة بأبزيم صفيح، فمن يدلنا على بيته له مكافأة ثمينة! وشىء لله يا عَدَوِى"! ثم كيف يا ترى كان النجم يتقدمهم أثناء سفرهم، والنجوم لا تظهر إلا ليلا؟ هل معنى هذا أنهم كانوا ينامون نهارا ثم يستيقظون ليلا ليستأنفوا المسير؟ أم ترى مخترع الإنجيل كان يظن أن المسافة بين فارس وبيت لحم فى فلسطين لا تزيد عن "فَرْكَة كَعْب" وتُقْطَع فى بضع ساعات من الليل؟ أليس ذلك أمرا يبعث على الاشمئزاز؟ ثم إذا أردنا أن ننصحهم ونأخذ بيدهم كى ننتشلهم من هذا التخريف لأن حالهم يصعب علينا شتموا نبينا وأقلّوا أدبهم عليه!
كما أشار الكاتب فى النصّ الذى بين أيدينا إلى النبوءة الخاصة بولادة المسيح فى بيت لحم: "مِنكِ يَخْرُجُ رَئيسٌ يَرعى شَعْبـي إِسرائيلَ"، وهى تعنى (كما هو واضح) أن المسيح سوف يكون راعيا لبنى إسرائيل. فهل تحقق شىء من هذا؟ أبدا، فقد كفر به بنو إسرائيل واتهموا أمه فى شرفها وتآمروا على قتله، بل إنهم والنصارى يقولون إنهم قد استطاعوا فعلا أن يقتلوه. وعلى أية حال فإنه لم تُتَحْ له قَطُّ الفرصة لرعاية بنى إسرائيل لا روحيا ولا سياسيا! إنها إذن نبوءةٌ فِشِنْك كمعظم نبوءات الكتاب المقدس بعهديه القديم والجديد! ولا ننس ما أبديته قبل قليل من استغرابى اهتمام المجوس بولادة المسيح، إذ ليسوا من بنى إسرائيل، الذين إنما أُرْسِل عليه السلام إليهم لا إلى المجوس. كذلك سمى المجوس سيدنا عيسى: "ملك اليهود"، وهى أيضا تسمية كاذبة، إذ متى كان المسيح مَلِكًا لليهود؟ لقد قال عليه السلام مرارا إن مملكته ليست من هذا العالم، فما صلته إذن بالمَلَكِيّة والملوك؟ ثم ألم يجد المجوس من الألطاف ما يتحفونه به عليه السلام إلا الذهب؟ وهل يحتاج ابن الله إلى مثل هذه الأشياء، وهو الذى فى يد أبيه كل كنوز الأرض والسماء؟ إن الكاتب الأبله يقيس أبناء الآلهة على أبناء حكام الدول المتخلفة الذين لا يشبعون من المال والذهب رغم أن ميزانية الدولة كلها فى أيديهم يغرفون منها ما يشاؤون، أو على الباباوات المغرمين غرامًا مرضيًّا باستعراض أنفسهم فى الإستبرق والسندس والذهب والياقوت وسائر الجواهر الثمينة رغم ما يزعجوننا به من كلام عن الوداعة والتواضع والزهد والرهبانية والتشبه بالمسيح فى الانصراف عن زخارف الحياة الدنيا! يا له من خيال سقيم! يا مَتَّى يا ابن الحلال، الله لا يسوءك، أولاد الآلهة هؤلاء أولاد عِزّ شَبْعَى لا ينظرون إلى ذهب أو ألماس! والعجيب، كما سوف نرى، أن المسيح يدعو إلى مخاصمة الدنيا خصومة لا هوادة فيها ولا تفاهم بأى حال مما من شأنه أن يوقف دولاب الحياة ويشجع على العدمية والموت، فكيف لم يلهم الله سبحانه وتعالى المجوس أن يقدموا لابنه شيئا يليق به وباهتماماته من أشياء الروح لا من ملذات الدنيا، وليكن نسخة مصورة من العهد القديم للأطفال مثلا؟
وتقول الفقرة الثالثة عشرة من الإصحاح: "وبَعدَما اَنْصرَفَ المَجوسُ، ظَهَرَ مَلاكُ الرَّبَّ لِيوسفَ في الحُلُمِ وقالَ لَه: "قُمْ، خُذِ الطِفْلَ وأُمَّهُ واَهربْ إلى مِصْرَ وأقِمْ فيها، حتى أقولَ لكَ متى تَعودُ، لأنَّ هيرودُسَ سيَبحَثُ عَنِ الطَّفْلِ ليَقتُلَهُ". 14فقامَ يوسفُ وأخذَ الطَّفْلَ وأُمَّهُ ليلاً ورحَلَ إلى مِصْرَ". ونقول نحن بدورنا: ولماذا اهتمام السماء بإنقاذ الطفل يسوع من القتل إذا كان قد أتى إلى العالم كما يزعم القوم ليُقْتَل تكفيرًا عن الخطيئة البشرية؟ ألم يكن الأفضل أن تتركه السماء يموت فى صغره فتنتهى مهمته سريعا بدل الانتظار إلى أن يكبر وتضيع كل الجهود التى بذلتها أمه فى تربيته وتعليمه والإنفاق عليه فى الهواء؟ وخير البر عاجله كما يقولون، وما دام مقتولاً مقتولاً فالأفضل الآن، والذى تعرف ديته اقتله وانته من أمره سريعا، فالوقت من ذهب! آه، لكن فاتنا أننا فى منطقة الشرق الأوسط حيث الوقت لا قيمة له، فهو يُعَدّ بالكوم وليس بالثوانى ولا الدقائق، فضلا عن الساعات أو الأيام، ودعنا من السنين!
أما اتخاذ القوم من عبارة "مِنْ مِصْرَ دَعَوْتُ ابني" دليلا على أنه، عليه السلام، هو ابن الله حقا، فالرد عليه بسيط جدا جدا أسهل مما يتصور الإنسان، إذ الأناجيل مفعمة بعبارة "أبناء الله" و"أبوك أو أبوكم الذى فى السماوات" على قفا من يشيل، وكلها من كلام المسيح ذاته: "هنيئًا لِصانِعي السَّلامِ، لأنَّهُم أبناءَ الله يُدْعَونَ" (متى/ 5/ 9)، "أحِبّوا أَعداءَكُم، وصَلّوا لأجلِ الَّذينَ يضْطَهِدونكُم، فتكونوا أبناءَ أبيكُمُ الَّذي في السَّماواتِ" (5/ 44- 45)، "فكونوا أنتُم كاملينَ، كما أنَّ أباكُمُ السَّماويَّ كامِلٌ" (5/ 48)، "إيَّاكُمْ أنْ تعمَلوا الخَيرَ أمامَ النَّاسِ ليُشاهِدوكُم، وإلاَّ فلا أجرَ لكُم عِندَ أبيكُمُ الَّذي في السَّماواتِ" (6/ 1)، "فإذا صَلَّيتَ فاَدخُلْ غُرفَتَكَ وأغلِقْ بابَها وصَلٌ لأبيكَ الَّذي لا تَراهُ عَينٌ، وأبوكَ الَّذي يَرى في الخِفْيَةِ هوَ يُكافِئُكَ"، "لا تكونوا مِثلَهُم، لأنَّ الله أباكُم يَعرِفُ ما تَحتاجونَ إلَيهِ قَبلَ أنْ تسألوهُ" (6/ 8)، "فصلّوا أنتُم هذِهِ الصَّلاةَ: أبانا الَّذي في السَّماواتِ، ليتَقدَّسِ اَسمُكَ" (6/ 9)، "فإنْ كُنتُم تَغفِرونَ لِلنّاسِ زَلاّتِهِم، يَغفِرْ لكُم أبوكُمُ السَّماويٌّ زلاّتِكُم. وإنْ كُنتُم لا تَغفِرونَ لِلنّاسِ زلاّتِهِم، لا يَغفِرُ لكُم أبوكُمُ السَّماويٌّ زلاّتِكُم" (6/ 14- 15)، "... حتى لا يَظهَرَ لِلنّاسِ أنَّكَ صائِمٌ، بل لأبيكَ الَّذي لا تَراهُ عَينٌ، وأبوكَ الَّذي يَرى في الخِفْيَةِ هوَ يُكافِئُكَ" (6/ 18)، "انظُروا طُيورَ السَّماءِ كيفَ لا تَزرَعُ ولا تَحْصُدُ ولا تَخزُنُ، وأبوكُمُ السَّماويٌّ يَرزُقُها" (6/ 26)، "فإذا كُنتُم أنتُمُ الأشرارَ تَعرِفونَ كيفَ تُحسِنونَ العَطاءَ لأَبنائِكُم، فكَمْ يُحسِنُ أبوكُمُ السَّماويٌّ العَطاءَ للَّذينَ يَسألونَهُ؟" (7/ 11)، "وأمّا الأبرارُ، فيُشرِقونَ كالشَّمسِ في مَلكوتِ أبـيهِم" (13/ 43)، "وهكذا لا يُريدُ أبوكُمُ الَّذي في السَّماواتِ أنْ يَهلِكَ واحدٌ مِنْ هَؤلاءِ الصَّغارِ" (18/ 14)، "ولا تَدْعوا أحدًا على الأرضِ يا أبانا، لأنَّ لكُم أبًا واحدًا هوَ الآبُ السَّماويٌّ" (23/ 9)، فضلا عن أن المسيح عليه السلام كثيرا ما سمى نفسه: "ابن الإنسان" كما هو معروف، كما أكد أن أمه وإخوته الحقيقيين هم المؤمنون الذين يطيعون الله ويخلصون له سبحانه، وهو ما يدل دلالة قاطعة على أن بنوة البشر لله إنما تعنى فى مثل هذه السياقات الإيمان والطاعة المطلقة له عز وجل: "وبَينَما يَسوعُ يُكلَّمُ الجُموعَ، جاءَتْ أمٌّهُ وإخوَتُهُ ووقَفوا في خارِجِ الدّارِ يَطلُبونَ أن يُكلَّموهُ. فقالَ لَه أحَدُ الحاضِرينَ: "أُمٌّكَ وإخوتُكَ واقفونَ في خارجِ الدّارِ يُريدونَ أنْ يُكلَّموكَ".فأجابَهُ يَسوعُ: "مَنْ هيَ أُمّي؟ ومَنْ هُمْ إخْوَتي؟" وأشارَ بـيدِهِ إلى تلاميذِهِ وقالَ: "هؤُلاءِ هُمْ أُمّي وإخوَتي. لأنَّ مَنْ يعمَلُ بمشيئةِ أبـي الَّذي في السَّماواتِ هوَ أخي وأُختي وأُمّي" (12/ 46- 50).
ثم إن ابن الإله لا يمكن أن ينزل بنفسه إلى مرتبة النبى أبدا، لكننا نسمع عيسى بأذننا هذه التى سيأكلها الدود يقول لأهل الناصرة حين رفضوا الإيمان به: "لا نبـيَّ بِلا كرامةٍ إلاّ في وَطَنِهِ وبَيتِهِ" (13/ 57). كذلك ففى كل من العهد القديم وكلام الرسل فى العهد الجديد كثيرا ما نقابل عبارة"أبونا" مقصودا بها الله سبحانه وتعالى، ومنها قول إشعيا مثلا: "تطلَّعْ من السماء، وانظر من مسكن قدسك...، فإنك أنت أبونا، وإن لم يعرفنا إبراهيم، وإن لم يدرنا إسرائيل. أنت يا رب أبونا" (إشعيا/ 63/ 15- 16)، "والآن يا رب انت ابونا. نحن الطين وانت جابلنا وكلنا عمل يديك" (إشعيا/ 64/ 8)، "هو يدعوني ابي انت. الهي وصخرة خلاصي" (مزامير/ 89/ 26، والمتكلم هو الله، والحديث عن داود)، "ارجعوا ايها البنون العصاة، يقول الرب... وانا قلت كيف اضعك بين البنين واعطيك ارضا شهية ميراث مجد امجاد الامم. وقلت تدعينني يا ابي ومن ورائي لا ترجعين" (إرميا/ 3/ 14، 18)، "نعمة لكم وسلام من الله ابينا" (إفسوس/ 1/ 2، وكورنثوس/ 1/ 2، وتسالونيكى/ 1/ 1)، "يثبّت قلوبكم بلا لوم في القداسة امام الله ابينا" (تسالونيكى/ 3/ 13). هذا، ولمعلوميّة القارئ نشير إلى أن هناك فرقة تنسب نفسها إلى الإسلام ظهرت فى العصر الحديث (لكن المسلمين يتبرأون منها ويرمونها بالكفر، وهى فرقة القاديانية) لها تفسير غريب لميلاد عيسى من غير أب، إذ يقولون بالحَبَل الذاتى اعتمادا على ما قاله بعض الأطباء من أنهم لا يستبعدون أن يتم الحمل فى رحم امرأة دون تلقيح من رجل (انظر تفسير الآية 47 (48 عندهم) من سورة "آل عمران" فى التفسير الكبير (5 مجلدات) الذى وضعه ميرزا بشير الدين محمود (الخليفة الثانى للمسيح الموعود عندهم غلام ميرزا أحمد نبى قاديان المزيف): Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad (1889-1965)، وترجمه أتباعه إلى الإنجليزية بعنوان "The Holy Quran"/ م 1/ ص 398/ هـ 337). أى أنه لم يكن هناك روح قدس ولا يحزنون. ولا شك أن هذا التفسير، رغم عدم اتساقه مع ظاهر القرآن ورغم أنى لا أوافق عليه وأراه حيلة من الحيل التى يلجأ إليها القاديانيون لإنكار المعجزات كى يبدوا عصريين يحترمون كلمة العلم، هو أفضل ألف مرة من الكفر الذى يرتفع بمقام السيد المسيح عليه السلام عن مقام البشرية ويقول إنه هو الله أو ابن الله، تعالى الله عن ذلك الشرك تعاليا عظيما يليق بجلال ألوهيته!
ونأتى لما قاله مؤلف السفر من أن هيرودس قد أمر بقتل أطفال بنى إسرائيل من سن سنتين فنازلا، وهذا نص كلامه حرفيا: "فَلمَّا رَأى هيرودُسُ أنَّ المَجوسَ اَستهزَأوا بِه، غَضِبَ جدُا وأمرَ بقَتلِ.كُلٌ طِفْلٍ في بَيتَ لحمَ وجِوارِها، مِنِ اَبنِ سَنَتَينِ فَما دونَ ذلِكَ، حسَبَ الوَقتِ الَّذي تحقَّقَهُ مِنَ المَجوسِ، 17فتَمَ ما قالَ النبـيٌّ إرْميا: 18"صُراخٌ سُمِعَ في الرّامَةِ، بُكاءٌ ونَحيبٌ كثيرٌ، راحيلُ تَبكي على أولادِها ولا تُريدُ أنْ تَــتَعزّى، لأنَّهُم زالوا عَنِ الوجودِ". ولست أطمئن لهذا الكلام الذى لم يسجل التاريخ عنه شيئا ولا تكلمت عنه الأناجيل ولا السيد المسيح بعد ذلك وكأن هؤلاء الأطفال "شويّة لبّ فى قرطاس" قزقزهم هيرودس فى سهرة قدّام التلفزيون وانتهى الأمر! أما النبوءة الجاهزة التى ساقها المؤلف عقب القصة كعادته فى كل خطوة يخطوها وكأنه خالتى بَمْبَة التى لم تكن تكفّ عن الاستشهاد بالأمثال فى برنامج المرأة فى الإذاعة المصرية، فلا معنى لها هنا كما هو الحال فى كثير من المواضع، لأن راحيل هذه هى أم يوسف، فلا علاقة لها من ثم بتلك الواقعة غير القابلة للتصديق. ومن قال إنها فى القصة لم تتعزّ عن موت أولادها بل ظلت تصرخ وتنتحب وتبكى فى حرقة، وقد رأينا أن أحدا لم يبال بالأطفال المساكين أو يذرف عليهم دمعة؟ وهل الرامة هى بيت لحم؟ إن الرامة تقع إلى الشمال من أورشليم على بعد عدة كيلومترات، أما بيت لحم فشىء آخر. وأقرب شىء إلى أن يكون هو المراد من تلك النبوءة رجوع بنى إسرائيل من المنفى إلى بلادهم، وليس قتل هيرودس المزعوم لأطفال بنى إسرائيل، لأنها تفتقد التناظر الذى ينبغى أن يتوفر فى الرمز. إننى لأتعجب فى كل مرة أقرأ فيها لأمثال زيكو حين يتكلمون عن نبوءات الكتاب المقدس ويحاولون تفسيرها، وأتساءل: ترى هل تَغَطَّوْا جيدا قبل الإخلاد إلى الفراش فلم تتعرّ أردافهم وهم نائمون؟ الواقع أن النبوءة المذكورة التى رآها إرميا حسبما جاء فى العهد القديم (إرميا/ 31/ 15- 17) لا علاقة لها بحادثة قتل هيرودس أطفال بنى إسرائيل من سِنّ عامَيْن فهابطًا، إذ الكلام عن تغيب أبناء راحيل عن البلاد فى أرض العدو. وهذا نص النبوءة كما ورد فى ترجمة جمعيات الكتاب المقدس المتحدة: "صوتٌ سُمِع فى الرامة. نَوْحٌ، بكاءٌ مُرّ. راحيل تبكى على أولادها وتأبى أن تتعزى عن أولادها لأنهم ليسوا بموجودين، هكذا قال الرب. امنعى صوتك عن البكاء وعينيك عن الدموع لأنه يوجد جزاء لعملك، يقول الرب، فيرجعون من أرض العدو، ويوجد رجاء لآخرتك، يقول الرب، فيرجع الأبناء إلى تُخْمهم". وفى "دائرة المعارف الكتابية" تحت عنوان "راحيل" نقرأ أن "النبى (أى النبى إرميا) صوَّر فى عبارة شعرية عويل راحيل على أبنائها، إما لأنه سبق فرأى أن المسببِّين من يهوذا وبنيامين سيجتمعون فى الرامة بعد سقوط أورشليم وقبل اقتيادهم إلى السبى فى بابل (إرميا 40: 1)، أو لأن الرامة كانت أكمة مرتفعة فى أرض بنيامين يمكن منها رؤية الخراب الذى أصاب البلاد". وطبعا هذا كله لو أن النبى إرميا قال فعلا ذلك الكل ??????????????==============((((((((((((((=بشارة يوحنا المعمدان)))))))))))))
بواسطة: trutheye
وفي تِلكَ الأيّامِ جاءَ يوحنّا المَعمدانُ يُبشَّر في برَّيَّةِ اليهودِيَّةِِِ 2فيقولُ: "تُوبوا، لأنَّ مَلكوتَ السَّماوات اَقتربَ!" 3ويوحَنّا هوَ الذي عَناهُ النبـيٌّ إشَعْيا بِقولِهِ: "صوتُ صارِخِ في البرّيّةِ: هَيَّئوا طريقَ الربَّ واَجعَلوا سُبُلَهُ مُستَقيمةً".
4وكانَ يوحنّا يَلبَسُ ثوبًا مِنْ وبَرِ الجِمالِ، وعلى وسَطِهِ حِزامٌ مِنْ جِلد، ويَقْتاتُ مِنَ الجَرادِ والعَسَلِ البرَّيَّ. 5وكانَ النّاسُ يَخرُجونَ إليهِ مِنْ أُورُشليمَ وجَميعِ اليَهودِيَّةِ وكُلٌ الأرجاءِ
المُحيطَةِ بالأُردنِ. 6ليُعَمَّدَهُم في نَهرِ الأردُنِ، مُعتَرِفينَ بِخَطاياهُم.
7ورأى يوحَنّا أنَّ كثيرًا مِنَ الفَرَّيسيّـينَ والصَدٌّوقيّـينَ يَجيئونَ إلَيهِ ليَعتَمِدوا، فقالَ لَهُم: "يا أولادَ الأفاعي، مَنْ علَّمكُم أنْ تَهرُبوا مِنَ الغَضَبِ الآتي؟ 8أثْمِروا ثمَرًا يُبَرْهِنُ على تَوْبتِكُم، 9ولا تقولوا لأنفسِكُم: إنَّ أبانا هوَ إبراهيمُ. أقولُ لكُم: إنَّ الله قادرٌ أنْ يَجعَلَ مِنْ هذِهِ الحِجارَةِ أبناءً لإبراهيمَ. 10ها هيَ الفأسُ على أُصولِ الشَّجَرِ. فكُلُّ شجَرَةٍ لا تُعطي ثَمرًا جيَّدًا تُقطَعُ وتُرمى في النّارِ. 11أنا أُعمَّدُكُمْ بالماءِ مِنْ أجلِ التَّوبةِ، وأمّا الَّذي يَجيءُ بَعدي فهوَ أقوى مِنَّي، وما أنا أهلٌ لأنْ أحمِلَ حِذاءَهُ. هوَ يُعمَّدُكُم بالرٌّوحِ القُدُسِ والنّارِ، 12ويأخذُ مِذراتَه. بيدِهِ ويُنَقّي بَيدَرَه، فيَجمَعُ القَمحَ في مَخزَنِه ويَحرُقُ التَّبنَ بنارٍ لا تَنطَفئُ.
يوحنا يعمّد يسوع
13وجاءَ يَسوعُ مِنَ الجليلِ إلى الأُردنِ ليتَعَمَّدَ على يدِ يوحنّا. 14فمانَعَهُ يوحنّا وقالَ لَه: "أنا أحتاجُ أنْ أَتعمَّدَ على يدِكَ، فكيفَ تَجيءُ أنتَ إليَّ 15فأجابَهُ يَسوعُ: "ليكُنْ هذا الآنَ، لأنَّنا بِه نُــتَمَّمُ مَشيئةَ الله". فَوافَقَهُ يوحنّا.
16وتعمَّدَ يَسوعُ وخَرَجَ في الحالِ مِنَ الماءِ. واَنفَتَحتِ السَّماواتُ لَه، فرأى رُوحَ الله يَهبِطُ كأنَّهُ حَمامَةٌ ويَنزِلُ علَيهِ. 17وقالَ صوتٌ مِنَ السَّماءِ: "هذا هوَ اَبني الحبيبُ الَّذي بهِ رَضِيتُ".
من الغريب غير المفهوم أن يستقبل يحيى عليه السلام من أتاه من الفَرِّيسيّين والصَّدُوقيين ليتعمدوا على يديه ويعترفوا بخطاياهم، بهذه الشتائم، مع أنهم بمجيئهم إليه قد برهنوا على أنهم يشعرون بالذنب ويريدون التوبة، وإلا فهل يحق لنا أن نشق عن قلوب الناس ونقول إننا نعرف ما فى طيات ضمائرهم أفضل مما يعرفونه ثم نتهمهم بأنهم لا يصلحون للتوبة؟ أليس هذا افتئاتا منا على شأن من شؤون الله؟ ألم يكن ينبغى أن يعطيهم يحيى عليه السلام فرصة يجربهم فيها قبل أن يُسْمِعهم تلك الشتائم القارصة المهينة دون داعٍ؟ إننى لا أصدّق أبدا أن يحيى كان بهذه الخشونة مع من جاء ليتوب حتى لو كانت توبته ظاهرية لم تخرج من الأعماق! إن عبارة كاتب السفر تقول: "وفي تِلكَ الأيّامِ جاءَ يوحنّا المَعمدانُ يُبشَّر في برَّيَّةِ اليهودِيَّةِِِ". والواقع أن هذا ليس تبشيرا على الإطلاق، بل هو تنفير من التوبة وتعسير لها وتبغيض للناس فى الدين والعمل الصالح كله!
ثم إننا نسمعه يقول: "11أنا أُعمَّدُكُمْ بالماءِ مِنْ أجلِ التَّوبةِ، وأمّا الَّذي يَجيءُ بَعدي فهوَ أقوى مِنَّي، وما أنا أهلٌ لأنْ أحمِلَ حِذاءَهُ. هوَ يُعمَّدُكُم بالرٌّوحِ القُدُسِ والنّارِ، 12ويأخذُ مِذراتَه. بيدِهِ ويُنَقّي بَيدَرَه، فيَجمَعُ القَمحَ في مَخزَنِه ويَحرُقُ التَّبنَ بنارٍ لا تَنطَفئُ". وتعليقنا على هذا أن المسيح عليه السلام لم يعمد أحدا بالنار، وهذه هى الأناجيل بين أيدينا، فلْيُرِنى فيها المعترض على كلامى ما يخالفه! ولا يقل أحد إن الكلام هنا على المجاز، لأن النار إنما ذُكِرَتْ فى مقابل الماء، والماء هنا على الحقيقة، فقد كان يحيى يعمّد الناس (كما يقول الكاتب) فى نهر الأردن، كما أنه عليه السلام قد قال بنفسه إنه إذا كان يعمّدهم فيه بالماء فسوف يأتى ذلك الشخص الآخر (الذى يفسره النصارى بأنه السيد المسيح) فيعمدهم بالنار، مع أنه لا نار هناك ولا دياولو! والعجيب، وكل أمور القوم عجب، أن النصارى إنما يعمّدون أولادهم والمتنصرين من أهل الأديان الأخرى بالماء رغم ذلك لا بالنار. ثم نقول، من أجل ذلك ومن أجل غير ذلك، إن كتابهم محرَّف فيردّ سفلة المهجر بسبّ الرسول الكريم ويتطاولون عليه سَفَهًا منهم وإجرامًا وكفرًا!
كذلك يقول يحيى حسب كلام المؤلف: "وأمّا الَّذي يَجيءُ بَعدي فهوَ أقوى مِنَّي، وما أنا أهلٌ لأنْ أحمِلَ حِذاءَهُ". ومرة أخرى يرى القوم أن المقصود هو السيد المسيح، ومع هذا نراه يعمّد السيد المسيح، فكيف ذلك؟ ولقد جاء فى الترجمة التفسيرية لكتاب الحياة على لسان عيسى حين امتنع يحيى فى البداية عن تعميده: "أسمح الآن بذلك، فهكذا يليق بنا أن نُتِمّ كل بِرّ"، وهو ما يعنى أن المسيح من دون هذا التعميد سوف يكون ناقصًا بِرًّا، فكيف يكون ابن الله ناقصًا بِرًّا؟ بل كيف يكون الآتى لتكفير الخطايا البشرية من لدن آدم إلى يوم الدينونة ناقصًا بِرًّا ويحتاج من ثم للتعميد؟ على رأى المثل: "جئتك يا عبد المعين تعيننى، فوجدتك يا عبد المعين تُعَان". أما فى الترجمة التى أعتمد عليها هنا فقد جاء كلام المسيح هكذا: "ليكُنْ هذا الآنَ، لأنَّنا بِه نُــتَمَّمُ مَشيئةَ الله"، ويا له من فارق فى المعنى! ثم نقول لهم إن فى كتابكم تحريفات وتخريفات كثيرة فيسبوننا ويهدوننا بأمريكا! يا للعجب، وهل تستطيع قوة أمريكا أن تغير من حقائق الأمور؟ وهل يليق بمن يزعمون أنهم على الحق وأنهم لا يعتمدون إلا على "قوة الله" أن يستقووا بأمريكا؟ ليس أمامى إلا أن أقول أنا إذن كما كان يقول فريد شوقى: "يا قوة الله"!
وفى الفقرة الأخيرة نقرأ الآتى: "16وتعمَّدَ يَسوعُ وخَرَجَ في الحالِ مِنَ الماءِ. واَنفَتَحتِ السَّماواتُ لَه، فرأى رُوحَ الله يَهبِطُ كأنَّهُ حَمامَةٌ ويَنزِلُ علَيهِ. 17وقالَ صوتٌ مِنَ السَّماءِ: "هذا هوَ اَبني الحبيبُ الَّذي بهِ رَضِيتُ"، ثم نتساءل: كيف يا ترى انفتحت السماوات؟ هل كانت مغلقة؟ إن التصور الكامن وراء هذه العبارة يشى بالكثير، إذ من الواضح أن كاتب هذا الكلام المضحك يحسب أن السماء سقف معدنى ينفتح وينغلق كسقف جراج ألكترونى مثلا. ثم من أدرانا أن الحمامة التى رآها المسيح (لو كانت هناك حمامة فعلا وليست من بُنَيّات خيال الكاتب) هى الروح القدس؟ إن هناك أغنية مصرية جميلة من أغانى أواسط الخمسينات من القرن المنصرم تغنيها المطربة أحلام بصوتها الناحل الخجول تقول كلماتها: "يا حَمَام البَرّ سَقَّفْ * طِيرْ وهَفْهَفْ * حُومْ ورَفْرَفْ * على كِتْف الحُرّ وقَّفْ * والْقُطِ الغَلَّة"، فإذا نظرنا فى هذه الأغنية وجدنا هاهنا أيضا حماما ينزل على كتف إنسان كما هبطت الحمامة على السيد المسيح إن صحت القصة، لكننا لا نستطيع أن نقول إن الحمامة هنا هى الروح القدس، لأن الروح القدس ليس مسألة هينة يدّعيها كل من هب ودب، فما الدليل إذن على أن الحمامة الواردة فى القصة الإنجيلية هى الروح القدس فعلا؟ لقد ذكرت القصة أن ثمة حمامة نزلت على المسيح، وهذا كل ما هنالك، فبأى حق يقال إنها الروح القدس؟ إنها لم تنطق ولم تأت من التصرفات ما يمكن أن يكون أساسا لبحث هذه المسألة، بل نزلت وحسب. وكم من الحمام يطير وينزل على كتف الحُرّ وعلى رأس العبد وفى الأجران وفوق الأغصان وعلى ضفاف الأنهار وأسلاك البرق... إلخ، فكيف نميز بين حمامة هى روح القدس وحمامة أخرى هى روح البؤس؟ إنه كله حمام، والحمام أكثر من الهم على القلب، أفكلما رأينا حمامة تهبط من الفضاء قلنا إنها الروح القدس؟ كلا وحاشا! ثم من الذى رأى هذه الحمامة وروى قصتها؟ لا يمكن أن يكون هو السيد المسيح لأنه كان دائم الحرص على ألا يعرف أحد بما يعمله من آيات، فمن هو إذن يا ترى؟ وكيف عرف أن الحمامة هى الروح القدس؟ فإذا كان الناس هم الذين رَأَوْها فهل من الممكن أن يكونوا قد رَأَوْها ثم سكتوا رغم ذلك فلم يعلقوا على هذه الحادثة العجيبة؟ وهل كلَّ يوم ينزل الروح القدس؟ لقد كان ينبغى أن يكون هذا الأمر حديث المدينة والقرية والنَّجْع والكَفْر والدنيا كلها! وهذا إذا صدّقنا أوّلاً أن متى هو كاتب هذا الإنجيل، وثانيًا أنه أهل للتصديق، وثالثًا أن الذى حكى له القصة صادق أيضا، ورابعًا أنها لا تناقض العقل والمنطق. وأين نحن من هذا؟
ثم هذا الصوت النازل من السماء، من يا ترى سمعه غير المسيح، إذ النص قد سكت عن هذا؟ ذلك أن الناس جميعا، كما رأينا، كانوا يقولون إنه ابن يوسف النجار لأن كل الظواهر والمظاهر تقول ذلك، وهو ما شاركهم فى ترديده الكاتب عدة مرات على ما سيأتى بيانه! وتعالَوْا نتأمل فى العبارة التالية: "هذا هوَ اَبني الحبيبُ الَّذي بهِ رَضِيتُ": ما معناها يا ترى؟ هل كان الله قبل ذلك غير راض عن ابنه؟ ولماذا؟ أم هل سبب الرضا أنه أصبح أخيرا، وبعد طول انتظار، أبًا بعد أن كاد اليأس يستولى عليه من أن تحمل زوجته وتنجب له طفلا بعد كل تلك الأحقاب الطويلة؟ وهل يمكن أن يقال بعد ذلك إن عيسى (الذى هو الأقنوم الثانى، أى الابن) هو نفسه الأقنوم الأول، لكن من وجهٍ آخر، فى الوقت الذى يتحدث فيه الله (الآب، وهو الأقنوم الأول) عنه بوصفه شخصا ثانيا مختلفا تمام الاختلاف، مثلما هو نفسه الأقنوم الثالث، لكن من وجه آخر أيضا، فى الوقت الذى يعمّد هو فيه الناس بالروح القدس بما يدل على أن الروح القدس شخص ثالث مختلف تمام الاختلاف؟ والذى يغيظ أننا كلما قلنا إن دين القوم محرّف هبّوا يشتمون وينادون "ماما أمريكا" يهددوننا بها، ولا يريدون أبدا أن يفكروا معنا ولو مرة واحدة بالعقل والمنطق! ??????????????=======================================================================((((((((((((((("إبليس يجرب يسوع)))))))))))))
وقادَ الرٌّوحُ القُدُسُ يَسوعَ إلى البرَّيَّةِ ليُجَرَّبَهُ إِبليسُ. 2فصامَ أربعينَ يومًا وأربعينَ لَيلةً حتَّى جاعَ. 3فَدنا مِنهُ المُجَرَّبُ وقالَ لَه: "إنْ كُنْتَ اَبنَ الله، فقُلْ لِهذِهِ الحِجارَةِ أنْ تَصيرَ خُبزًا". 4فأجابَهُ: "يقولُ الكِتابُ: ما بِالخبزِ وحدَهُ يحيا الإنسانُ، بل بكلٌ كَلِمَةٍ تَخرُجُ مِنْ فمِ الله".
5وأخذَهُ إبليسُ إلى المدينةِ المُقَدَّسَةِ، فأوْقَفَهُ على شُرفَةِ الهَيكل 6وقالَ لَه: "إنْ كُنتَ اَبنَ الله فأَلقِ بِنَفسِكَ إلى
الأسفَلِ، لأنَّ الكِتابَ يقولُ: يُوصي ملائِكَتَهُ بكَ، فيَحمِلونَكَ على أيديهِم لئلاَّ تَصدِمَ رِجلُكَ بِحجرٍ".
7فأجابَهُ يَسوعُ: "يقولُ الكِتابُ أيضًا: لا تُجرَّبِ الرَّبَّ إلهَكَ".
8وأخَذَهُ إبليسُ إلى جبَلٍ عالٍ جدُا، فَأراهُ جَميعَ مَمالِكِ الدٌّنيا ومجدَها 9وقالَ لَه: "أُعطِيكَ هذا كلَّهُ، إنْ سجَدْتَ لي وعَبدْتَني". 10فأجابَهُ يَسوعُ: "إِبتَعِدْ عنّي يا شَيطانُ! لأنَّ الكِتابَ يقولُ: للربَّ إلهِكَ تَسجُدُ، وإيّاهُ وحدَهُ تَعبُدُ".
11ثُمَّ تَركَهُ إبليسُ، فجاءَ بَعضُ الملائِكةِ يخدِمونَهُ.
يسوع يبشر في الجليل
12وسَمِعَ يَسوعُ باَعتِقالِ يوحنّا، فرجَعَ إلى الجليلِ. 13ثُمَّ ترَكَ النّاصِرةَ وسكَنَ في كَفْر َناحومَ على شاطِـىءِ بحرِ الجليلِ في بلاد زَبولونَ ونَفتالي، 14ليَتِمَّ ما قالَ النَّبـيٌّ إشَعْيا: 15"يا أرضَ زَبولونَ وأرضَ نَفتالي، على طريقِ البحرِ، عَبْرَ الأردنِ، يا جليلَ الأُمَمِ! 16الشَّعْبُ الجالِسُ في الظَّلامِ رأى نورًا ساطِعًا، والجالِسونَ في أرضِ المَوتِ وَظِلالِهِ أشرَقَ علَيهِمِ النٌّورُ". 17وبدأَ يَسوعُ مِنْ ذلِكَ الوقتِ يُبشَّرُ فيَقولُ: "توبوا، لأنَّ مَلكوتَ السَّماواتِ اَقتَرَبَ".
يسوع يدعو التلاميذ الأوّلين
18وكانَ يَسوعُ يَمشي على شاطئِ بحرِ الجليلِ، فرأى أخَوَينِ هُما سِمعانُ المُلقَّبُ بِبُطرُسَ وأخوهُ أندراوُسُ يُلقِيانِ الشَّبكَةَ في البحرِ، لأنَّهُما كانا صيَّادَيْنِ. 19فقالَ لَهُما: "إتبَعاني، أجعَلْكُما صيَّادَيْ بشرٍ". 20فتَركا شِباكَهُما في الحالِ وتَبِعاهُ.
21وسارَ مِنْ هُناكَ فَرأى أخوَينِ آخَرينِ، هُما يعقوبُ بنُ زَبدي وأخوهُ يوحنّا، مَعَ أبيهِما زَبدي في قارِبٍ يُصلِحانِ شِباكَهُما، فدَعاهُما إلَيهِ. 22فتَركا القارِبَ وأباهُما في الحالِ وتَبِعاهُ.
يسوع يعلّم ويبشّر ويشفي المرضى
23وكانَ يَسوعُ يَسيرُ في أنحاءِ الجليلِ، يُعلَّمُ في المجامعِ ويُعلِنُ إنجيلَ المَلكوتِ ويَشفي النّاسَ مِنْ كُلٌ مَرَضٍ وداءٍ. 24فاَنتَشرَ صيتُهُ في سوريةَ كُلَّها، فجاؤوا إلَيهِ بِجميعِ المُصابينَ بأوجاعِ وأمراضٍ متنوَّعَةٍ: مِنْ مَصروعينَ ومُقْعَدينَ والذينَ بِهِمْ شياطينُ، فشفاهُم. 25فتَبِعَتْهُ جموعٌ كبيرةٌ مِنَ الجليلِ والمُدُنِ العَشْرِ وأُورُشليمَ واليهوديَّةِ وعَبْرِ الأُردن"ِ.
والآن أى إله ذلك الذى يقوده إبليس ليجربه؟ إن الإله هو الذى يجرِّب لا الذى يجرَّب! وأى إله ذلك الذى يجوع ويعطش ويحتاج من ثم إلى الطعام والشراب؟ هذا ليس إلها ولا يمكن أن يكونه. هذا مخلوقٌ فانٍ ضعيفٌ محتاجٌ إلى أن يملأ معدته بالأكل والشرب حتى يمكنه الحياة، وإلا مات. وأى إله أيضا ذلك الذى يتجرأ عليه إبليس ويعرض عليه أن يسجد له؟ لقد عَيَّلَت الألوهية تماما! ثم أى إله أو أى ابن إله ذلك الذى لا يعرفه أبو العفاريت ويتصرف معه على أساس أنه ليس إلا عبدا مخلوقا يستطيع أن يخدعه ويتلاعب به ويمسكه فى قبضته أربعين يوما ويدفعه إلى الصوم والمعاناة، والمفروض أن أبا العفاريت يعرف الكُفْت ذاته؟ إن الشيطان مخلوقٌ عاصٍ: نعم، لكنه لا يمكن أن يكون جاهلا بهذا الشكل، فليس هذا عهدنا بأبى الأباليس ولا عشمنا فيه! وأى إله ذلك الذى لا يستطيع أن يرى العالم وممالكه إلا إذا أراه إياها إبليس؟ إن إبليس هو مخلوق من مخلوقات الله، فما الذى جعل له كل هذا السلطان يا ترى على خالقه، أو على الأقل: على ابن خالقه؟ ولا تقف الطامة عند هذا الحد، فقد عرض إبليس على ابن الله (أو قل: على الله نفسه، فلا فرق) أن يعطيه ملك الدنيا، وهو ما لا معنى له إلا أن المسيح لم يكن ابن الله بحق وحقيق، بل مجرد كلام وابن عمه حديث، وإلا لجاء رده على الفور: ومن أنت يا صعلوك، حتى تحشر نفسك بين الآلهة والملوك؟ ألا تعرف من أنا؟ قم انهض وأنت تكلمنى! لكننا ننصت فنجد عجبا، إذ كل ما قاله له: "ابتعد عنى يا شيطان. مكتوب أنه للرب إلهك وحده تسجد"! وواضح ما فى الرد من تخاذل! والحمد لله أن الكاتب لم يجعله يبكى ويقول له: ابعد عنى، وإلا ناديت لك ماما!
وفى هذا الفصل أيضا نقرأ أن الشيطان قد اقترح عليه أن يحول الحجارة خبزا، لكنه رفض بحجة أنه "ما بِالخبزِ وحدَهُ يحيا الإنسانُ، بل بكلٌ كَلِمَةٍ تَخرُجُ مِنْ فمِ الله". فكيف يرفض عيسى أن يقوم بمعجزة هنا، ولسوف نراه بعد ذلك يقوم بمعجزات طعاميّة وشَرَابِيّةً فيحوّل الماء خمرا ويحوّل الكِسَر اليابسة القليلة والسمكات المعدودة إلى أرغفة وأسماك مشوية لا تُحْصَى حتى لتَأكل منها الجموع وتفيض عن حاجتها؟ كيف نسى المسيح المبدأ الذى استند إليه فى رفض القيام بتلك المعجزة؟ كما أن الحجة التى استند إليها السيد المسيح فى رفض عمل المعجزة هى من الضعف والتهافت بحيث لا تقنع أحدا، إذ لا أحد يشاحّ فى أنه ليس بالخبز وحده يحيا الإنسان، لكن فى نفس الوقت لا أحد يشاح أيضا فى أننا، وإن لم نعش بالخبز وحده، لا يمكننا أن نعيش بدون الخبز أيضا، وهو ما يعنى أن هناك مكانا هاما للخبز فى حياتنا، وكذلك لمثل هذه المعجزة فى منظومة الإيمان العيسوى، وهو ما سنراه بعد ذلك حين يقوم عليه السلام بمعجزات طعاميّة وشرابيّة كما قلنا. ثم ما الفرق بين هذه المعجزة ومعجزات الشفاء من البَرَص والخَرَس والعَمَى والمسّ والنزيف والشلل والحُمَّى؟ إنها أيضا يصدق عليها ما يصدق على معجزة الخبز فى أنها أيضا ليس مما يحيا بها وحدها الإنسان. فما العمل إذن؟ إنها مشكلة دون شك!
كما أن قوله عليه السلام للشيطان ردا على طلبه منه السجود له: "للربّ إلهِكَ تَسجُدُ، وإيّاهُ وحدَهُ تَعبُدُ" لا يعنى إلا شيئا واحدا لا غير، ألا وهو أن العلاقة بين عيسى والله سبحانه وتعالى هى علاقة الألوهية بالعبودية لا علاقة الأبوة بالبنوة أبدا، وإلا فلا معنى لشىء اسمه اللغة. فلنفضَّها سيرةً ولْنُلْغِ اللغة فنريح ونستريح! ونتابع فنقرأ: "أخذَهُ إبليسُ إلى المدينةِ المُقَدَّسَةِ، فأوْقَفَهُ على شُرفَةِ الهَيكل 6وقالَ لَه: "إنْ كُنتَ اَبنَ الله فأَلقِ بِنَفسِكَ إلى الأسفَلِ، لأنَّ الكِتابَ يقولُ: يُوصي ملائِكَتَهُ بكَ، فيَحمِلونَكَ على أيديهِم لئلاَّ تَصدِمَ رِجلُكَ بِحجرٍ".7فأجابَهُ يَسوعُ: "يقولُ الكِتابُ أيضًا: لا تُجرَّبِ الرَّبَّ إلهَكَ". وهنا كذلك يقر المسيح عليه السلام أن العلاقة بينه وبين الله هى علاقة العبد بإلهه، لا جدال فى ذلك!
لكن ثمة مشكلة كبيرة لا حل لها، ألا وهى قول القصة إن إبليس أخذ المسيح وأوقفه على شرفة الهيكل... إلخ، إذ هاهنا يثور فى التوّ سؤال يحتاج لجواب عاجل: أين كان الناس يا ترى، والمسيح يعتلى شرفة الهيكل ويدور بينه وبين إبليس ذلك الحوار المُسَلِّى؟ من المؤكد أنه كان سيكون منظرا مثيرا يخفف من جهامة الواقع اليومى الكئيب آنذاك حيث لم يكن هناك تلفاز ولا مذياع ولا دور خيالة ولا كاتوب ولا... ولا...، فكيف لم نسمع بأن الناس قد اجتمعوا يشاهدون هذا المنظر الفريد، منظر إبليس (وهل كلَّ يوم يرى الناس إبليس؟) وهو يحاول إغراء المسيح بالقفز فى الهواء كالرَّجُل العنكبوت؟ لا شك أنها كانت ستكون نمرة ساحرة من نمر السيرك الإبليسى تساوى أن يقطع الناس لها تذكرة بالشىء الفلانى! ثم كيف يا ترى أخذه إبليس من فوق قمة الجبل إلى هناك؟ أساقه أمامه ماشيا على قدميه أم أخذه على جناحه أم قذفه فى الهواء فانتقل فى غمضة عين من الجبل إلى شرفة الهيكل أم ماذا؟ وأين كان الناس طوال كل ذلك الوقت؟ وقبل ذلك كله ما الذى كان يجبر المسيح على طاعة الشيطان طوال تلك الفترة ويصبر على قلة أدبه معه إلى هذا الحد؟ إن القصة تريد أن تقول إنه، لعنه الله، لم تكن له على عيسى عليه السلام أية سلطة. آمَنّا وصَدَّقْنا! لكن ألا يقول المنطق إنه كان ينبغى أن يشخط فيه عيسى منذ أول لحظة شخطة عنترية تجعل رُكَبه تسيب ويتبول على نفسه، ومن ثم لا يعطيه فرصة للتساخف كما يتساخف أوغاد المهجر ويُقِلّون أدبهم على سيد الأنبياء، بل يسكعه قلمين على صُدْغه تعيد له رشده المفقود وتجعله يمشى على العجين فلا يلخبطه؟ أظن أن هذا هو ما كان ينبغى أن يكون، فما رأيكم أنتم أيها القراء الأعزاء؟
وإذا كان المسيح هو ابن الله، والملائكة فى خدمته بهذا الاعتبار، فلماذا لم يهتم بإنقاذ يحيى عليه السلام من المصير السئ الذى انتهى إليه، أو على الأقل بإعادته للحياة كرة أخرى كما فعل مع ناس آخرين؟ أيكون يحيى أرخص عنده من فلان وعلان وترتان ممن رَدَّ فيهم الروحَ بعد أن كانوا قد فارقوا الحياة؟ لكننا ننظر فنجده عليه السلام، حسبما كتب مؤلف الإنجيل، ما إن يتم القبض على يحيى حتى يتحول للجليل وكأن شيئا لم يكن. وحين وُضِع يحيى فى السجن لم يهتم المسيح به، اللهم إلا عندما جاءه تلاميذ يحيى وسألوه عن بعض الأمور وانصرفوا، فعندئذ أثنى المسيح عليه وعلى إيمانه، ثم لا شىء آخر البتة: "2وسمِعَ يوحنّا وهوَ في السَّجنِ بأَعمالِ المَسيحِ، فأرسَلَ إلَيهِ بَعضَ تلاميذِهِ 3ليقولوا لَهُ: "هلْ أنتَ هوَ الَّذي يَجيءُ، أو نَنتظرُ آخَرَ؟" 4فأجابَهُم يَسوعُ: "اَرْجِعوا وأخْبِروا يوحنّا بِما تَسمَعونَ وتَرَوْنَ: 5العميانُ يُبصرونَ، والعُرجُ يمشونَ، والبُرصُ يُطهَّرونَ، والصمٌّ يَسمَعونَ، والمَوتى يَقومونَ، والمَساكينُ يَتلقَّونَ البِشارةَ. 6وهنيئًا لمن لا يفقُدُ إيمانَهُ بـي".7فلمّا اَنصَرَفَ تلاميذُ يوحنّا، تَحدَّثَ يَسوعُ لِلجُموعِ عَنْ يوحنّا فقالَ: "ماذا خَرَجتُم إلى البرَّيَّةِ تَنظُرونَ؟ أقَصَبةً تَهُزٌّها الرَّيحُ؟ 8بلْ ماذا خَرَجتُم ترَوْنَ؟ أرَجُلاً يلبَسُ الثَّيابَ النّاعِمَةَ؟ والَّذينَ يَلبَسونَ الثَّيابَ النّاعِمَةَ هُمْ في قُصورِ المُلوكِ! 9قولوا لي: ماذا خَرَجتُم تَنظُرونَ؟ أنبـيُا؟ أقولُ لكُم: نعَم، بلْ أفضَلَ مِنْ نَبِـيٍّ. 10فهوَ الَّذي يقولُ فيهِ الكِتابُ: أنا أُرسِلُ رَسولي قُدّامَكَ، ليُهيَّـئَ الطَّريقَ أمامَكَ. 11الحقَّ أقولُ لكُم: ما ظهَرَ في النّاسِ أعظمُ مِنْ يوحنّا المَعمدانِ، ولكِنَّ أصغَرَ الَّذينَ في مَلكوتِ السَّماواتِ أعظمُ مِنهُ. 12فَمِنْ أيّامِ يوحنّا المَعمدانِ إلى اليومِ، والنَّاسُ يَبذُلونَ جَهدَهُم لِدُخولِ مَلكوتِ السَّماواتِ، والمُجاهِدونَ يَدخُلونَهُ. 13فإلى أنْ جاءَ يوحنّا كانَ هُناكَ نُبوءاتُ الأنبـياءِ وشَريعَةُ موسى. 14فإذا شِئتُم أنْ تُصَدَّقوا، فاَعلَموا أنَّ يوحنّا هوَ إيليّا المُنتَظرُ. 15مَنْ كانَ لَه أُذُنانِ، فَلْيَسمَعْ!".
وهو ما سوف يتكرر عندما يُقْتَل عليه السلام: "3وكانَ هيرودُسُ أمسَكَ يوحنّا وقَيَّدَهُ وسَجَنَهُ مِنْ أجلِ هيرودِيَّةَ اَمرأةِ أخيهِ فيلبٌّسَ، 4لأنَّ يوحنّا كانَ يقولُ لَه: "لا يَحِلُّ لَكَ أنْ تَتَزوَّجَها". 5وأرادَ أنْ يَقتُلَهُ، فخافَ مِنَ الشَّعبِ لأنَّهُم كانوا يَعدٌّونَهُ نَبـيُا. 6ولمّا أقامَ هيرودُسُ ذِكرى مَولِدِهِ، رقَصَتِ اَبنَةُ هيرودِيَّةَ في الحَفلةِ، فأعجَبَتْ هيرودُسَ، 7فأقسَمَ لها أنْ يُعطِيَها ما تَشاءُ. 8فلقَّنَتْها أمٌّها، فقالَت لِهيرودُسَ: "أعطِني هُنا على طَبَقٍ رَأسَ يوحنّا المَعمدانِ!" 9فحَزِنَ المَلِكُ، ولكنَّهُ أمَرَ بإعطائِها ما تُريدُ، مِنْ أجلِ اليَمينِ التي حَلَفَها على مسامِـعِ الحاضرينَ. 10وأرسَلَ جُنديُا، فقَطَعَ رأسَ يوحنَّا في السَّجن 11وجاءَ بِه على طبَقٍ. وسلَّمَهُ إلى الفتاةِ، فحَمَلْتهُ إلى أُمَّها. 12وجاءَ تلاميذُ يوحنّا، فحَمَلوا الجُثَّةَ ودَفَنوها، ثُمَّ ذَهَبوا وأخبَروا يَسوعَ. 13فلمّا سَمِعَ يَسوعُ، خرَجَ مِنْ هُناكَ في قارِبٍ إلى مكانٍ مُقْفِرٍ يَعتَزِلُ فيهِ. وعرَفَ النّاسُ، فتَبِعوهُ مِنَ المُدُنِ مَشيًا على الأقدامِ. 14فلمّا نزَلَ مِنَ القاربِ رأى جُموعًا كبـيرةً، فأشفَقَ علَيهِم وشفَى مَرضاهُم. 15وفي المساءِ، دَنا مِنهُ تلاميذُهُ وقالوا: "فاتَ الوقتُ، وهذا المكانُ مُقفِرٌ، فقُلْ لِلنّاسِ أنْ يَنصرِفوا إلى القُرى لِـيشتَروا لهُم طعامًا". 16فأجابَهُم يَسوعُ: "لا داعيَ لاَنصرافِهِم. أعطوهُم أنتُم ما يأكلونَ". 17فقالوا لَه: "ما عِندَنا هُنا غيرُ خَمسةِ أرغِفةٍ وسَمكتَينِ".18فقالَ يَسوعُ: "هاتوا ما عندَكُم". 19ثُمَّ أمَرَ الجُموعَ أنْ يَقعُدوا على العُشبِ، وأخَذَ الأرغِفَةَ" (متى/ 14)! أين الرحمة؟ أين عاطفة القرابة؟ إنه لم يذرف عليه دمعة واحدة وكأنه لم يكن هناك شخص اسمه يحيى تربطه به قرابةٌ وثيقةٌ أسريةٌ وروحيةٌ كما لم يكن بينه وبين أى شخص آخر: "وسَمِعَ يَسوعُ باَعتِقالِ يوحنّا، فرجَعَ إلى الجليلِ".
أولو كان المسيح ابن الله على الحقيقة أكان يمكن أن يتصرف هكذا أمام تلك المأساة الدموية التى كانت كفيلة بتحريك قلب الحجر، وكأنه عليه السلام بلا قلب؟ إن هذا لو وقع من بشر يستطيع أن يبادر لإنقاذ يحيى ثم لم يفعل لكانت سبة الدهر وفضيحة الأبد، فما بالنا بابن الله؟ أيعقل أن يهتم بتوفير الطعام لبعض الناس ولا يهتم بإنقاذ قريبه هذا الذى كان نبيا مثله والذى بشر به ومهد له الطريق وعمّده ليكمل بِرّه؟ ولنلاحظ أن المعجزات التى عملها هنا إنما هى المعجزات التى رفض عملها من قبل بالحجة التى ذكرناها ووجدنا أنها ليست بحجة على الإطلاق! إن هذا وغيره من الأسباب لدليل على أن فى الأمر خللا، ونحن نستبعد أن يكون المسيح على ذلك النحو من تبلد الإحساس وموتان القلب واللامبالاة بموت قريبه وصديقه وصاحب الفضل عليه فى المعمودية ورصيفه بل رائده فى النبوة، ونقول إنه بالأحرى العبث بالإنجيل. إن الإنجيل الذى نؤمن نحن المسلمين به والذى يغالط المبشرون الكذابون فيحاولون أن يوهموا الأغرار منا قائلين لهم إن المسلم لا يكمل إيمانه إلا بالإيمان بالأناجيل الحالية، هذا الإنجيل لا علاقة له بالأناجيل التى بين أيدينا الآن. إن الأناجيل التى بين أيدينا شىء، والإنجيل الذى نزل على عيسى عليه السلام شىء آخر. الإنجيل السماوى ضاع، وإن كنا نرجّح أن يكون قد بَقِىَ منه بعض العبارات التى تُنْسَب للمسيح فى الأناجيل الحالية، أما ما نقرؤه الآن فهو مجموعة من السِّيَر العيسوية تشبه السِّيَر النبوية لدينا، وإن لم تقم على نفس الأساس الذى تقوم عليه سِيَر الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام من الرغبة على الأقل فى التمحيص وإعلان أسماء الرواة حتى يكون لدى من يهمه الأمر الفرصة للتحقق بنفسه من مدى مصداقية هذه الروايات؟ وكيلا يمارى القوم مراءهم المشهور فيقولوا إنه لم يكن هناك إلا هذه الأناجيل التى بين أيدينا أنبه القراء إلى قول الكاتب ذاته لا قولى أنا: "وكانَ يَسوعُ يَسيرُ في أنحاءِ الجليلِ، يُعلَّمُ في المجامعِ ويُعلِنُ إنجيلَ المَلكوتِ". فأين ذلك الإنجيل الذى كان يعلنه عيسى عليه السلام ويعلمه للناس؟ اللهم إلا إذا قيل: لقد أكلته القطة!
Questions and Answers on
Islamic Doctrine
Translated by
Munzer A. Absi with contributionm from
Ahmad Sheik Bangura
Interrogating Islam:
Questions and Answers on Islam
Abha Communities Centre
Abha-Saudia Arabia
A
Introduction
Praise be to Allah, God of the people, Lord of them all. Creator of all creatures, the Luminous Truth, who created man of mud, the angels from lustrous light, and the ginn from blazing fire, who sent prophets, and made of paradise a home for the faithful, and fire the end for the blasphemous. The prayers and the peace of God be on the last of His prophets, who was dispatched as an envoy of mercy to all creation, heralding the rightful religion, and pointing out the straight path. He called on people to follow God, dilegently toiled for this aim, established minarets and centres for knowledge, salvation, profusion and justice. He solidified the verdicts of Islam among the best nation ever created, and formed the most righteous society that ever appeared on earth.
I proceed
To guide people to worship the One God in the manner He advocates and condones is one of the most sublime pursuits, the loftiest objectives and the noblest activities. Such is the occupation of peophets, and messengers, peace be upon them, for the sake of which they were dispatched, and in the pursuit of which they faced injury, affliction, armed conflict, hostility, comabt and false charges. Such were natural consequences of the clash between truth and falsehood, virtue and vice, and righeteousness and waywardness. Promulgators and religious scholars are the prophets’ heirs. Each enjoys a share of the burden of prophecy in proportion to his knowledge and achievement. They suffer as much as did their predecessors—injury, accusation and skepticism. At present we note that each one devotes himself to one or another of the aspects of the da’wa (the call to Islam), and undertakes to propagate it among people. Each adopts the method that suits his mission. Some are occupied in writing and authorship; others undertake preaching and oratory; a third party follows up instruction and pedagogy; while some are preoccupied in matters connected with charity and alms.
A number of promulgators channel the da’wa to non-Muslims with a view to guiding them to salvation and deliverance, both here and hereafter. For this purpose they adopt whichever ways and means conducive to the realization of these and similar objectives, and consequently make use of appropriate procedures and measures. This category of promulgators stood up to such an ardous task, faced what others had to face, and what once had been the lot of the prophets, that is falsification of the creed, acustion, neglect, repulse and indifference to the faith they preach. Examples of such devoid ways are posing questions implying skepticism, protest suggesting disrespect, and queries promoting unequivocal answers, requests masking objections aimed at rejecting, defying and denying truth. Such are qualities in our times where diseases of skepticism, hedonism and sensual urges have become deeprooted, and are being taught and propounded, sanctified by centres of learning and mass media, and backed by forces buttressing and protecting them. In this tumultuous vortex, and unfavourable atmosphere, a group of highly revered Muslims took up the task of inviting some newcomers to the Arab peninsula, who belonged to other faiths and ideologies. With the grace and guidance of God, some converted; others, however, on the brink of conversion and about to witness the light, drew back on account of doubt and hesitation, residua of their sombre past, and remains of doubts and misgivings. Instead, they resisted those who sought to clear up such clouds with satisfactory replies and sufficient data.
Like other proponents of virtue, these promulgators, too, need backing of knowledge and sagacity to repel doubt, unmask falsehood, reveal truth and illustrate proof. With all these and other objectives in mind, this book has been formulated, through the efforts of a number of revered religious leaders and distinguished men of learning and virtue, having applied themselves to strenuous studies, research and dialogue.
Before delving into the depths of this book and tackling queries and responses, it is pertinent to introduce a number of issues which might raise certain ambiguities responsible for protests among whoever has not been vouchsafed the comfort of faith in his heart. Some of these issues are as follows:
1. CULTURAL BACKGROUND:
Man is likely to be influenced by such a background which takes years to consolidate and crystallize prejudicing his judgements and decisions which are likely to run counter to the judicious criteria conducive to sound vision. Consequently, such a man may have his path refracted and aim wide of the mark or at best be undecided as to which is true and which is false. Take for instance someone who is living in a jungle or on a distant mountain among people who believe in pagan fables and lead a retarded life as to patterns of behaviours, ethical premises and the rest of the living activities. Suppose, further, that suhc a man moved into an intellectually developed community offering sophisticated ideas, systems and ways of living. As soon as such set of ideas and modes of behaviours clash with the symbols of underdevlopment prevalent in the jungle, we expect such a man to undergo a serious reassessment of the earlier hocus-pocus culture which once governed his earlier primitive life, and a close scrutiny of the unprecedented patterns he never knew under the law of animalism, anarchy and licentiousness.
Would this reassessment, this scrutiny, be valid? Would such a person reach any set of truths or gain any benefits? Many are those who protest to Islam on vindicative grounds, or through devious and indirect ways. They resemble the underdeveloped man of the jungle when assessing the values of a highly advanced academic centre against his native cultural background. Such people project their prefigured vision of Islam without committing themselves to an academic methodology or a true dialectic which should distinguish right from wrong, true from false.
A Christain for example brings in defective a priori arguments concerning God Almighty and His prophets, then begins to pose questions which accord with these fallacious presuppositions. He says, for instance, that Muslims assume that they worship One God while they actually commit themselves, in the manner the Christians do invoke the Trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in as much as they say “In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate”.
Similar assumptions are also propounded, which are built on erroneous assumptions and faulty cultural backgrounds. It is incumbent on man to look for truth through authenticated evidences and proofs, and not be dominated by prior cultural precepts. He has to examine such a culture under the microscope of truth, and reality, on grounds of proof and evidence.
Because of the domination of prior cultural backgrounds—whether old or contemporary—we meet with wrong questions based upon equally defective data. All talk about freedom and equality is but one more clear example of such a category of vitiated questions. It is possible even to argue that most questions promoted by ostensible openmindedness or masked skepticism belong to this category. Therefore, we have found it imperative that we should illustrate this issue and rectify the thought of those who tackle Islam as if it was a refractory religion or a number of erroneous theories, the product of human minds and unpropped by a true scientific methodology.
2. FREEDOM:
Here we are up against one of the most recurrent quibblings motivated by skepticism or the wish to destabilize Islamic faith. It is only one among many samples induced by wrong cultural backgrounds resulting in equally erroneous judgements.
The modern world is infatuated by the so called “freedom” which is considered the cornerstone of civilization, justice, distinction, progress and promotion. This is so because Europe had long emerged from despostism and injustice which prevailed before the French Revolution. It came in the wake of an extended period of confiscation of the rights and the freedom of the small man and the individuals who were unable to werest their rights. The church and its advocates were the mightiest and most tyrannical agents who solidified the foundations of domination among the classes of the society and its individuals. They were foremost in justifying the corrective measures adopted by the ruling classes.
People in Europe staged more than one revolt, basically the French Revolution which propounded the slogans of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Organizations and directives, motivated by egocentric ambitions, exploited the slogan of liberty, expanded its implications, magnified its range, making use of people’s ignorance and regression, and rendering them victims to the heonistic sensualism, voluptuousness and mental degenerecy.
The conspiracy of unconditioned, unbridled, and uncontrolled liberation proved a volcano ejecting its lava and submerging logic, ethics, as well as people’s interests on both the individual and the collective planes. The giants of corruption among the Jews and their stooges exploited exploited this uncontrollable morbidity among peole. They enkindled the fire, extended its periphery further and further. Soonl it comprehended all creeds, ethical values and behavioural control, through descrating all sanctities, disfiguring all religions and moral precepts. It stamped out all religious and deterrents in individuals and societies alike under the banner of the novel religion and the worshipped god in flagrant challenge of the One Supreme God. They called this new deity “Liberty and Liberalism”.
The aim behind these seditious manoeuvrings was the obliteration of the dignity and the humanity of man and the transformation of such a being into a terrible monster, a ranging beast. Man would corrupt, destroy and trample down all principles, values, morals and virtues, and all under the maligned liberty.
Men ranged as far afield as their instincts took them, infatuated by these placards, each wading in corruption and self-demoralization with utmost energy and drive. The wayward in thought and creed used the slogan of liberty to crush the sound beliefs, raise doublts in their validity, and circulate atheism, nihilism, and deviant capricious creeds.
So did the rebels against settled systems—social, administrative, political, etc. They used the slogan of liberty to destabilize societies, sidetrack institutions through fraudulent schemes, monopolies, ususry, speculations, intriguing parties and by rigging elections.
As the slogan of liberty widened in scope and surreptitiously dominated the minds and hearts of the majority of people, every control examplified in profound creed, sound religion, and every judicious restriction of behaviour, values, conventions, or authorities, were deemed, among the worshippers of such unbridled liberty, enemies to man, detrimental to self-esteem, despots that impede his rights.
Thus stiffened the coils of this sinister conspiracy to such an extent that a disinterested favour or good turn was anathema, anathema a good turn. Analogously, the corrupter was pictured as a reformer, the reformer a corrupter. A highly perceptive man, rationally minded, and sagacious, one possessing moral integrity, would be thought of as a cocooned, underdeveloped, and a reactionary, while the sensualist imbecile is deemed shrewd, civilized and progressive. An investigation of the sort of liberty which fascinates humanity in our times reveals that it has become a slogan raised to justify licentiousness, corruption and anarchy.
A close scrutiny of the true identity of “liberty” would convince us that there can be no absolute freedom, limitless or unbound, because man has got an innate disposition to commitment to, and control by, specific laws which he is constrained to implement. Should man find no outer commitment to curb his actions he would still impose upon himself specific issues wherewith he would bind himself in response to his inherent desire for self-commitment. His individual life can never do away with a commitment to a definite discipline. There are times for waking up, going to bed, partaking of food, working and rest. These activities govern his individual life. As to social patterns, man is not without taut relations binding him to his family and society. It is common knowledge that the life of society is not devoid of specific systems governing social, political and economic relations as well as behavioural and moral patterns.
In short, it is onconceivable to visualize either an individual or a social life devoid of regulations, control or commitment. All these are restrictions to uncontrolled liberty. They should go to prove that there can be no absolute liberty in the sense of being free from all restrictions. This being so, the call for unshackled liberty becomes none other than a call for something non-exixtent, even in the actual life of its exponents. It is a deceptive slogan implying fraud and confusion, for an unconditional liberty does not and cannot exist, because it does not inhere in the nature of man whom God created with an innate disposition to restraint. What lies behind this continuous yelling, this clamorous call for freedom? In a word, it is a response to a call for egotism, propounded by “…and who is more astray than one who follows his own lusts, devoid of guidance from Allah?” (Holy Qur’an: 28: 50). Among the so called “progressive peopl,” freedom of thought is concomitant with atheism, denial of religion, God’s inspiration, and the Call. Among the “liberals” it denotes skepticism as to the religion of God and His prophets, as well as practising moral degeneracy, sensous anarchy, injustice to the folks, plundering the wealth of countries, self-deception, manipulating the minds of poepl, practising monopoly, economic, legal and political maneouvering, and all the atrocities that come under the mask of “liberty.” Such misdemeaners are rife under the slogan of freedom of thought, while the real objective is self-interest, caprice, sensuality, ad base desires. The ultimate target is to realize private claims. The intellectual aspect is none other than a screen to conceal their bondage to wantonness and sensualism, under the ostensible claim of being intelletually emancipated.
3. EQUALITY:
This is one more contemeraneous slogan through which infiltrated the stench of agnosticism in the minds of a substantial number of people as well as the problems in their lives, owing to the clashes among the individuals and the classes of society, motivated by their void claim to eqaulity.
This motto brought in various misconceptions and forms of deception among people. With the expansion of its boundaries and the enlargement of its content, this motto has grown into a colossal attraction for mankind, specially as it has now culminated, among thinkers and authors, into a mainspring of human principles, a basis of advancement, modernism and supremacy.
Under the canopy of this deceptive banner the storms of injustice, coercion and aggresison were launched, and the unemployed and the indolent ranged ahead, claiming equality with the diligent, assiduoud, and persistent workers. The ignorant claimed to be treated on a par with the connoisseurs and the learned. And the trash and subversive stretched out and claimed equality with the prestigious in all walks of life. Analogously, the dependent failures claimed equality with the successful and the hardworking. Thus criteria dimmed and tottered, and the controls of life got mixed up. A number of countries witnessed revolts which disrupted all stability. Others saw the rise of organizations and associations that claimed unjustly grounded equality regarding the laws of God. These laws which regulate the life of man and are the permanent cosmic premises whereupon are based the principles of distinction and meritorious priority.
A profound and a practical scrutiny of the issue of equality would reveal that it runs counter to identicality. And existence presents us with no two absolutely identical entities in all facets. It is, therefore, unjust to equalize intrinsically competitive entities or reasons. Distinction—a cosmic law—exists in all things, animate as well as inanimate, in the floral as much as in the faunal, worlds, including man.
Iron is distinct from gold, so is myrrh in relation to the palm tree. So is a hog dissimilar to a stag. Consequently, an ignorant person is not to be equated with the connoisseur, nor is the quick-witted with the daft, nor, again, the useful with the harmful.
Whether we apply intellectual or practical standards of judgment and discrimination we cannot equalize all races, species or individuals. In actual fact, each is distinct from the other. Therefore, contemporary theories, systems and philosophical principles have failed to establish equality among people. Two obvious examples are socialism and communism. This is not to exclude democracy. It, too, abounds in all sorts of the current injustice represented in the name of equality, but it is sugar-coated by a colossal propaganda and the media as well as by an embellished web of democratic intrigues.
A call for absolute equality runs counter to the principles of justice. It is a contradiction to the reality of things, an invalidation of the issue of distinctiveness which God has ingrained in His creation. To adopt such a call for assumed eqaulity results in verdicts being based on prejudice and life being steered away.
No doubt humanity lived and is living through various manifestations of despotism, injustice and tyranny, represented by individual and social classes. Therefore, people sought that principle of equality which has lately been propounded. They assumed that it would be a saviour from such injustice and oppression, but such an action resembles escape from Scylla to Charybdis.
It would have been more pertinent to adopt the principle of justice based on the dictates of the truth, including observation of the practically existent and deeply rooted facets of distinctness and priorities, qualities referred to by God in His dictum:
“It is He who has made you (His) agents, inheritors of the earth: He hath raised you in ranks, some above others: that He may try you in the gifts He has given you: for your Lord is quick in punishment: yet He is indeed Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Holy Qur’an: 6: 165).
This is the type of distinction wherewith God Almighty examines man to grant him that grace and that charity destined to him. He said:
“Of the bounties of thy Lord We bestow freely on all these as well as those: the bounties of your Lord are not closed (to anyone). See how We have bestowed more on some than on others; but verily the Hereafter is more in rank and gradation and more in excellence” (Holy Qur’an: 17: 20-21).
Owing to such difference in God’s bounty to people the Almighty enjoined the faithful not to covet others’ grace:
“And in no wise covet those things in which Allah hath bestowed His gifts more freely on some of you than on others: to men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn: but ask Allah of His bounty. For Allah hath full knowledge of all things...” (Holy Qur’an: 4: 32).
In view of this difference God granted man the right to preside over woman. It is a distinction based on qualities of physique, creation, ability, disposition, as well as bodily, intellectual, and emotional qualification. He granted each sex an appropriate function that qulifies him/her for the social role in a proper manner:
“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means...” (Holy Qur’an: 4: 34).
Therefore, equality between rivalries for precedence is both unjust and impracticable. It is a transgression, a contradiction to the intellectually evidenced, a violation of actual considerations. In the revered Book there are proofs regarding equality of different things. Indeed, the Holy Qur’an illustrates that such equality is neither proper nor will it last, nor, again, can it be acceptable. We read:
“…Say: ‘Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition’.” (Holy Qur’an: 39: 9).
“Say: ‘Not equal are things that are bad and things that are good, even though the abundance of the bad may dazzle you…’.” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 100).
“The blind and the seeing are not alike. Nor are the depths of darkness and the light. Nor are the (chilly) shade and the (genial) heat of the sun. Nor are alike those that are living and those that are dead...” (Holy Qur’an: 35: 19-22).
“Verily, for the righteous, are gardens of delight, in the presence of their Lord. Shall We then treat the people of faith like the people of sin? What is the matter with you? How judge you?...” (Holy Qur’an: 68: 34-36).
Seeing that distinction and priorities exist, then justice does require inequality. However, as regards things which are equal in reality they have rightfully to be equal in assessment. For example people are equal in creation. They all descend from Adam, a creature from dust. They are also equal in being servants to God, as well being under constraint to worship the One God.
Equality also extends to immunity of individual rights from being unrighteously infringed. Such rights pertain to body, finance, chastity, mind and soul, etc. Men are equal in recognition of their rights and preservation of their belongings, as well as in the right to litigation and legal proceedings in case of prosecution or defence.
Analogously, men are equal in the right to ownership, buying and selling, dealing in their possessions, the right to work, acquisition and learning whatever they need to learn with a view to promoting their living conditions here and hereafter. Such are occasions for equality, and justice expresses itself in the pursuit of the above fields. Similarly, where people are different, justice requires inequality; for justice is placing a thing in its proper perspective, affords each man his rights while inequality would be to give the undeserving what another has a right to, or making both share the same right, in which case it is an unjust action and a violation of rights.
4. SUBSERVIENCE TO GOD ALMIGHTY:
Man cannot afford to disengage himself from two issues: first, submission to some power that is superior and more potent than his own beings. Secondly, following in the footsteps of another. These are amongst basic foundations in man; they constitute the major stimuli to man’s actions, sensations and relations. Their presence in man is a must, like love, hate and volition.
Therefore, God directed man’s actions in such a way as to secure his guidance, righteousness and hsppiness, pursuant to these issues. God argued that in no way can man rescue himself except by his sound orientation in the pursuit of these targets. He indicated such an orientation and provided such evidences, proofs and bases as to boast and enhance this orientation. As for the first issue, God delivered man from subservience to whatever causes misery and chargin. He oriented man to serve His Almighty Self alone, thus securing honour, self-esteem, prestige and happiness. Should man refuse, he will never get rid of slavery. Rather, he will get lost in a labyrinth of vain, evanescent and mock idols, thereby lose prestige and fall into ignominious humility.
This is an inevitable issue from which there can be no deliverance in any way. It exists in reality. Its imperative nature stems from the fact that in man inheres a need and an impoverishment for some sort of service. He is torn between two issues, either to serve God, in which case he is monotheistic, obedient, happy here and hereafter, or worship something other than God, some mock idol among diverse deities, viz. caprice, voluptuousness, money, hedonism, laws, conventions, parties, indeed any of the excesses that are today cherished, adopted and obeyed.
Such being the reward—and it is so in reality—in no way can man reach a state of well being except in subservience to his Creator, the All Potent, the dominant Power over him and all things. Should he abide by this true worship, man is promoted up the scale of human perfection. His life acquires an exalted value other than that whereto falls the one who worships other than God Almighty. The more righteous man’s subservience to God, the greater are his rewards. Thus the true Muslim is keen on cherishing the quality of serving God, an act which means complete acquiescence and resignation to God’s commands and admonitions, without protest or doubt because he has become confident that no deliverance or success can be gained except by practising such a service, following up its pathway which eventually leads him to satisfying God Almighty, the penultimate objective of each man who has faith in God.
One of the fundamental cornerstones of this subservience is that the believer in the sole Diety of God proceeds under the canopy of obedience, implementing all that God requires, whether or not he realizes the aim or the moral behind this, because when he has testified that there is no deity other than God he has thereby committed himself to absolute acquiescence that harbours no perplexity, hesitation or swerving. Such a composite and complementary action illustrates the meaning, the importance, and the urgency of an undivided allegiance to God.
No wonder that whoever fails to understand such glorious meanings as they are would protest thereto and experience doubts for his mind cannot emerge from the deep depth of ignorance and wayward servilities. As regards the second issue, God has set an example in the person of the revered prophets who are the best and most perfect of men. To follow in their footsteps is the way to the good, to virtues and delight. They are the lifeboats among the waves, the terrors and the darkness of the human example since olden times. This being inevitable, God made faith in His prophets concomitant with faith in His Almighty Self.
An obvious proof is that the first pillar of Islam is the testimony that there is no deity execpt God, and that Muhammad is His messenger. One of the results incumbent upon God’s commandments is that the prophet (pbuh) is the practical example of applying absolute service to God Almighty. Consequently, he should be the model and the example that imperatively must be followed by every Muslim. Thus become complete all the symbols of service and imitation without one straightforward track that guides man to the grace of God and paradise.
Whoever fails to understand such exhortations resembles an idiot, born blind, unable to comprehend whatever beauty coulours possess. Analogously, the one who fails to realize the composite meaning and the plenteous consequences of service is bound to pose questions like: why kiss the black stone in the Ka’ba? Why immolate on the immolation day (during the pilgrimage)? Why pray four cycles at midday and three times in the evening? Such and similar questions stem from the heart of whomsoever fails to grasp the truth about worship, neither does he taste its sweetness, fruits or man’s dire need for them.
We request God’s guidance and succour in what pleases and satisfies Him. May the prayers of God and His peace be upon our prophet and his family and companions.
Chapter 1:
Belief in Almighty God
Question 01: So long as the three principal religions have emanated from God, why should differences appear as to the essence of God among their adherents? Why should a Christian or a Jew be required to abandon his religion and adopt Islam?
Answer 01: There is no doubt that the three religions acknowledge one source, God. They all agree as to the uniquness, the absolute omniscience and omnipresence of God, to the exclusion of any parallel power to be worshipped. All agree as to attributing to God all perfection and excluding all defects and blemishes. Whatever differences may appear is sporadic extraneous, accretious developing over the ages from distortions interpolated by members of both Judaism and Christianity. Herein came differences as to the essence of God. The difference, therefore, is between Islam, which God entrusted His prophet with, and other religions which have been distorted and adulterated. The difference is not between authentic religions, rather, it is between a true religion and others that have been invalidated and turned away. The latter category has been manipulated by vicious hands which misdirected them.
When we call upon a Jew or Christian to discard his/her religion and adopt Islam, we are in reality asking him/her to revert to the true religion which has been preached by all prophets. Should an impartial thinker consider Islam in relation to other religions, he/she is bound to acknowledge the radical difference between both categories. He/she is likely to find in the former the truth and monotheism, while the latter would reveal innovations and polytheism. Moreover, Islam advocates justice and tolerance, while the others imply racism and discrimination. In the one there are moral commitment and decency; in the other, disintegration and corruption.
Question 02: What is the penultimate reason behind the creation of man? Does God need man’s worship?
Answer 02: Man has been created in order to worship God: “And I (God) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship me (alone)” (Holy Qur’an: 51: 56). The Primary incumbency on man is to know God through His oneness, and thence to worship Him truly. Secondly, man is required to act his role as God’s vicegerent on earth, so as to enjoy bliss both here and hereafter. Indeed, his/her need to acknowledge the supremacy of God exceeds his/her need and drink: “O mankind! It is you who stand in need of God. But God is rich, worthy of all praise” (Holy Qur’an: 35: 15).
God is above the need for man’s worship. He does not benefit from man’s devotion, nor would He be adversely affected by man’s blasphemy. From beginning to end the story of man’s existence on earth, no matter how many are its incidents, is an ordeal, a test, whether for him/her as an individual or for all humanity. Man’s performance in this test determines either his praise and reward or reproof and punishment.
Question 03: You Muslims claim that you worship One God, while in actual fact you resemble the Christians who say “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,” for you say “In the name of God, the Mercifu; the Compaasionate.” How would you account for this resemblence?
Answer 03: In the Christian creed, God is the Creator. The Son is Jesus the Deliverer. And the Holy Spirit is His life or one of His creations chosen by Him as a messenger and/or prophet imparting God’s inspiration or cosmic order to whoever He wishes. Whatever the mission carried out by the Holy Spirit, the Christians believe in the above powers as three entities, three aspects, three qualities. They say: “Oneness in Trinity and Trinity in Oneness.” They are all phenomena of one God, etc. Therefore, the One God, they claim, consists of three separate categories, which they call the Trinity. As a matter of fact, God, as they take Him, is not one but three. In the Qur’an God says: “Surely, disbelievers are those who said: ‘God is the third of the three (in aTrinity)’.” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 73). The verse means that God the Creator is the third in relation to the Son and the Holy Spirit.
As for the Muslim dictum “In the name of God, the Mercifu, the Compaasionate,” it means three names of God which exceed ninety nine, all denoting one Entity. A name is not separate from the named. The Being named and described is not to be conceived except by His names and qualities, unlike the case of the Christian Entities, for they are three dimentional, but separate, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Question 04: How can you claim that your God is Mercifu and Compasionate, while He created evil in the world, expressed in illnesses, volcanoes, toxics, earthquakes, hatred, etc.?
Answer 04: The answer to this question is threefold:
1. God almighty is a universal God, the God of all creation. This is obvious in the following verse: “And your God is One (God), there is none who has the right to be worshipped but He, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful…” (Holy Qur’an: 2: 163).
2. Undoubtedly, God’s mercy is comprehensive. It encompasses all creatures under its canopy. The evidence is clear: “…And My Mercy embraces all things...” (Holy Qur’an: 7: 156). Such a spacious clemency expresses itself in bestowing upon His creation so much bliss: material sustenance, the gifts of sight and hearing. Indeed, such blesisngs are countless.
3. Whatever adversities may befall man in this world, like pain, illness, poison, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc., are not exclusively evils. They are mixed blessings. For some who are harassed by such evils they are a punishment for their disobedience or heresy, while for some others they are a reminder, a nudge, to awaken them from their slumber. They also indicate the absolute power of God, His ability to deal with His creation, the sphere of His dominion, in the ways He deems just and wise. All that God decrees emanates from His compassion, wisdom and justice.
Question 05: Does God allow prostration to any power or creature other than Himself? If the answer is negative how can we account for the prostration of Jospeh’s brothers and parents before him?
Answer 05: Initialy, it is to be maintained that there are two kinds of prostration:
1. Expressive of worship and favour-seeking, which is permissible only to God. If it is practised to appease some other power, this is polytheism.
2. Indicative of man’s desire to glorify an absolute power, in which case the action of prostration is not polytheistic. Kneeling down and/or prostration before human beings as a way of showing respect or greeting was quite acceptable in earlier creeds. But it has been abrogated in Islam. Joseph’s brothers did not worship him. They bent down before him in a expression of esteem and reverence. Such a posture was permissible in their creed, but abolished and abrogated in Islam. Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa was reported to have said that on coming from Sham (currently greater Syria) Mu’az ibn Jabal knelt down before the prophet (pbuh) whereupon the prophet enquired what the man meant. In explanation, Mu’az said that in Sham he had seen people bending down before their bishops and patriarchs, so he thought it would be fit to do so in front of the prophet. In response the prophet denied this by saying: “Muslims may not bow down to anybody except God…”.
It was obvious that Mu’az’s postutre before the prophet implies reverence, a sentiment he noted in the case of the faithful, but in no way does it denote worship, which is exclusive to God. When the prophet knew that Mu’az’s posture did not denote worship, he still exhorted him not to perform such an action. Consequently, abrogation was applied to kneeling down and prostration in glorification of human grandeur.
It is true that Joseph’s father and brother prostrated before him, and equally true that God almighty enjoined the angels to prostrate before Adam, but in neither case did the posture imply worship, rather it meant a gesture of honour and recognition of merit.
Chapter 2:
Belief in Prophets and Missions
Question 06: What is the indisputable evidence that the teachings of Muhammad have all come from God?
Answer 06: There are numerous irrefutable evidences indicating that such teachings originated from God almighty. Here are some:
1. All that has been enjoined, and denied, can be found highly propitious and useful to all mankind, everywhere and at any time. They are commensurate with the sound mind and the chaste insight. Examples are commandments on solidifying family ties, preserving superior moral qualities, avoiding usury and all misdemeanors. All that the prophet (pbuh) has been told in inspiration has been proved valid. Such material falls in two categories:
A. Pertaining to the past. These are corroborated by former books as well as authenticated evidence confirmed by science and modern discoveries, e.g. finindgs in geology as the era of the deluge, in archeology as the relics from the epochs of Thamud and the Pharaos.
B. Pertaining to the future. Certain incidents were predicted by the prophet, e.g. the fire which blasted Medina in 654 hijra, the good offices performed by Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib in reconcilating between two major factions of Muslims, the gathering of the Jews in Palestine today, the emergence of nudist women who earn their living in immodest ways, and the spread of ususry, corruption, murder, etc.
C. Evidences derived from the prophet’s own life and morals, a study of both of which can only cofirms that such actions can never emerge except from one who is both true and honest. Whoever considers God’s support of His prophet (pbuh), the victory over his enemies, and the spread of his religion, must come to the conclusion that this prophet was sustained by God and that all he preached had come from the Almighty.
D. Some contemporary scientific discoveries support the prophet’s tenets, e.g. stages of the life of the embryo, the way in which milk comes into being in the mammals, the existence of the aquarian barrier between two adjecent seas, the fact that the Dead Sea is the nethermost place on earth, etc.
E. The miracles performed by him: these were simultaneously witnessed by both his followers and antagonists, e.g. the fissure of the moon surface, the springing of water from his fingers, the healing of the sick, etc. His greatest miracle remains the glorious Qur’an that has proved the authenticity of its contents over the ages.
Question 07: Who is the prophet?
Answer 07: He is a man chosen by almighty God, inspired by Him, and enjoined to proclaim the call to the people he was sent to.
Question 08: How can prophet Muhammad (pbuh) be the imam (leader) of all the prophets when he is the last messenger?
Answer 08: Preference is God’s own prerogative. It is exclusive to such and not to others, in accordance with His emmiscience and wisdom. Preference has no relation with precedence or antecedence in time. Moses and Jesus are are among the latter batch of prophets, still they are the best among all those who preceded them except Noah and Abraham (peace be uponh them). Furthermore, prophet Muhammad’s religion, in terms of creeds and the morals, conforms to those preached by the previous prophets. As for the rules of these religions, the prophet (pbuh), by commandments from almighty God, nullified some, modified others; altered some, and augmented others. Accordingly, his call has become more comprehensive, more perfect, hence has dominion over precedences. The one in charge of such a call deserves being an imam to those who preceded him. Those were made to pledge to the be faithful to him and support him, almighty God says:
“And (remember) when God took the covenant of the prophets, saying: ‘Take whatever I gave you from the book and hikmah (understanding of the laws of God), and afterwards there will come to you a messenger (Muhammad) confirming what is with you; you must, then, believe in him and help him.’ God said: ‘Do you agree (to it) and will you take up my covenant (which I conclude with you)?’ They said: ‘We agree.’ He said: ‘Then bear witness; and I am with you among the witnesses (for this)’.” (Holy Qur’an: 3: 81).
Such favours prove that he is the best.
Question 09: What evidence proves that Jesus was not a God, but only a messenger from God?
Answer 09: Jesus Christ (pbuh), following both the Gospels and the Qur’an, was born of the virgin Mary, who was just like any other human being. It is common knowledge that whoever is born cannot be deified. Jesus Christ was a human being who used to eat and drink just like anybody else. He was susceptible to hunger, grief and/or merriment. He experienced all the paraphernalia pertaining to human life. His miraculous creation from no father is no stranger than that of Adam, a being who was both fatherless and motherless. This is an evidence of God’s omnipotence. Jesus Christ was no more than a servant to, and messenger of God, who revealed the scripture in order to promulgate it and carry out His call. On the day of judgement Jesus Christ is not to be judged because of those who deified him in exclusion of God or thought of him as parallel. In the Qur’an we have a mentioning of this, where in the hereafter God will ask Jesus if he had asked his followers to deify him, whereby Jesus will answer God by saying: “If you punish them, they are your slaves, and if you forgive them, verily, you, only you, are the all-Mighty, the all-Wise” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 118). Here is one more reply to the one who seeks an evidence as to the deification of Jesus Christ, while he has none of the qualities of God. Whatever miracles he performed emanated from God, just as He supported other prophets.
Question 10: In what way was Jesus Christ a Muslim, as well as all the other prophets?
Answer 10: There is no doubt that all prophets (peace be upon them), beginning with Adam and ending in Muhammad, preached one religion—the worship of God alone and disregarding all other powers. This is something advocated by Islam. God says: “Truly, the true religion with God is Islam” (Holy Qur’an: 3: 19). About Abraham (pbuh), God says: “Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but was a true Muslim (hanif: monotheist—a worshipper one God alone) and he was not a mushrik—a polytheist” (Holy Qur’an: 3: 67). On the question of the disciples of Jesus, God says: “And when I (God) inspired al-hawariun (the disciples of Jesus) to believe in Me and My Messenger, they said: ‘We believe. And bear witness that we are Muslims’.” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 111). Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) confirmed this in his saying: “Prophets are paternal brothers; their mothers are different, but their religion is one.”
Question 11: If people have managed to distort the message of Christ, is not this sufficient evidence that he failed in his mission? If he was great, how could God allow his call to peter out into failure?
Answer 11: Christ (pbuh) cannot be said to have failed in his mission. God supported him with astounding miracle and convincing arguments. Whatever distortion has befallen the scripture preached by Christ, it must have happened after his ascention to heaven. Failure and disintegration are the works of the followes who fell a prey to whims and caprice. In this connection God says:
[And (remember) when God will say (on the day of reurrection): ‘O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto men: ‘worship me and my mother as two gods besides God?’ He will say: ‘Glory is to You! It is not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely, have know it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours; truly You, only You, are the All-Knower of all that is hidden (and seen). Never did I say to them aught except what You (God) did command me to say: worship God my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when you took me up, You were the Watcher over them; and You are a Witness to all things’.”] (Holy Qur’an: 5: 116-117)
Question 12: Seeing that God’s message to humanity is one and the same, why was it partitioned among more than one prophet and not revealed in one package?
Answer 12: The message entrusted to all prophets is one and the same. It finds expression in a call for the worship of the one God and the avoidance of false dieties, God says: “And verily, we have sent among every ummah (community/nation) a messenger (proclaiming): ‘Worship God (alone), and avoid taghut (all false deities)’.” (Holy Qur’an: 16: 36). God almighty also said: “And We did not send any messenger before you (Muhammad) but We revealed to him (saying): ‘None has the right to be worshipped but I (God), so worship Me (alone and none else)’.” (Holy Qur’an: 21: 25). As for the multiplicity of the prophets, it has been caused by various motives:
1. So that people in any age may not have the pretext as to have been ignorant of God’s commandments. God says: “Messengers as bearers of good news as well as of warning in order that mankind should have no plea against God after the (coming of) messengers.” (Holy Qur’an: 4: 165).
2. Specifying individual laws for each nation which shall conform to its nature and circumstances. God says: “…To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way…” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 48).
3. The differences among languages and their multiplicity, required entrusting more than one prophet/messenger, each speaks the language of a certain nation. This is obvious in the Almighty’s words: “And We sent not a messenger except with the language of his people in order that he make (the message) clear for them” (Holy Qur’an: 14: 4).
Question 13: Is the Muslim entitled to blend his/her faith with other faiths or creeds?
Answer 13: In no way should a Mulslim adopt other creeds or principles which conflict with the fundamentals underlying the Islamic doctrine. Monotheism runs counter to polytheism, nor does sunna (prophet’s words and deeds) agrees with innovations. Likewise, the love of God is incompatiable with the love of some other power, etc.
Question 14: Why were the first batch of prophets sent to certain geographical areas and not others? How can we judge those areas which received no prophets? Why were they left without the word of God?
Answer 14: Judging by the accounts given by the prophet’s hadiths (sayings) God sent to various folks 124,000 prophets, while God’s messengers numbered 314. Such a large number of prophets and messengers prove that not one nation or area went without one (or some). In this regard God almighty says: “…And there never was a nation but a warner had passed among them” (Holy Qur’an: 35: 24). And again, He also says: “And verily, we have sent among every ummah (community/nation) a messenger (proclaiming): ‘Worship God (alone), and avoid taghut (all false deities)’.” (Holy Qur’an: 16: 36).
Question 15: Why should Muhammad (pbuh) be considered the last prophet while Jesus Christ will reappear?
Answer 15: Muhammad (pbuh) is actually the last of all prophets, according to what he siad. The descent of Jesus Christ (pbuh) from heaven is not a new mission. It is a return whose aim is to reinforce Islam and its shari’a (Islamic laws and rules) our propeht called for, and the last celestial techings. This is clear in his words: “The coming of Jesus is imminent. He will come as a just ruler, destroy the cross, and nullify the poll tax. There would be so much money that no one would accept charity.” In another long hadith, he says: “…He (Jesus Christ) will call peope to Islam and God would abolish all religions leaving Islam alone.”
It is quite obvious from the above evidences that whatever Jesus Christ preaches is nothing but Islam and the law of Muhammad (peace be upon them both). He will even pray behind a Muslim. The prophet says: “How will you be when the son of Mary (Jesus Christ) descends among you, while you are praying behind an imam (a prayer leader) from among you?”
Muslim scholars referred to the return of Jesus Christ (pbuh) at the end of time. They mentioned that his return will be especially significant to:
1. Empashize the facts of Islam as preached by prophet Muhammad (pbuh);
2. Reply to the claims of the Jews and the Christians as to his death, crucifixion.;
3. His return indicates the approach of the end of his life and his his burial.
4. The prophet’s report about Jesus Christ must be the truth, because it is something that had been revealed to him from God.
Question 16: How can you claim that Jesus did not die while his death is actually mentioned in Surrat Al-Imraan (Chapter 3 of the Holy Qur’an)?
Answer 16: No verse in the Qur’an relates the death of Jesus Christ (pbuh). The term used in the chapter ‘wafaat‘ does not refer to death as much as it refers to departure from earthly existence. His appointed time on earth had elapsed. Accordingly, God says: “And (remember ) when God said: ‘O Jesus! I will take you and raise you to Myself and clear you of those who disbelieve…’.” (Holy Qur’an: 3: 55). This can be paraphrased thus: I have teken you body and soul. The term wafaat can also be used to indicate sleep. God says: “It is He who takes your sould by night (when you are asleep), and has knowledge of all that you have done by day…” (Holy Qur’an: 6: 60).
Contrary to what the Chrstians claim, the Qur’an confirms that Jesus Christ (pbuh) was not killed. God raised him up to Himself: “…For Surely, they killed him (Jesus) not. But God raised him up (with his body and soul) unto Himself…” (Holy Qur’an: 4: 157-158). The truth of the matter is that Jesus was ascended alive and will come back alive.
Question 17: How can you prove that Jesus Christ was not crucified?
Answer 17: This question can be answered from different angles:
1. There are many ambiguities surrounding the issue of Christ’s crucifixion in the canonical Gospels. How was the Crucifixion carried out? For how long did Jesus hung on the cross? What are the precise dates? Who carried the cross? What was his prayer while he was on the cross? How do you explain his cry of despair? Who were the witnesses? What happened after the crucifixion? There is no consensus on these questions. So much of the crucifixion story is based on mere conjecture.
2. The issue of crucifixion is based on the belief in the original sin and redemption by blood. This issue contradicts common sense, and it is irreconcilable with God’s justice and mercy. How can the innocents be held accountable for the actions of the guilty?
3. Finally, the Qur’an has unambiguously refuted the Bible’s crucifixion story. God says: “…They killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely, they killed him (Jesus) not. But God raised him up (with his body and soul) unto Himself. And God is ever all-powerful, all wise” (Holy Qur’an: 4: 157-158).
Chapter 3:
Belief in the Divine Scriptures
Question 18: You always say that the Old and New Testaments contain fabrications. Why then do you sometimes use them as references when it is convenient for you?
Answer 18: I would like to clarify that Muslims believe that books were revealed by God to His prophets; and among these are the Torah, the Gospels, David’s Psalms, and the Qur’an and accounts of prophet Abraham’s life. Their belief in these reveations is a fundamental aspect of islamic teachings. Therefore, the Muslims believe that, generally speaking, the Torah and the Gospels are divinely revealed. But people who follow these revelations have introduced fabrications in them. God has revealed this fact to us in the Qur’an. Therefore not all of the Bible is fabricated. And not all that Jews and Christians claim to be true of the Bible is wholly from God. As a result Islamic scholars have articulated a sound position regarding these books which can be summerized as follows:
1. Whatever is in acordance with the Qur’an, we believe in and quote for the benefit of those who follow these scriptures.
2. Whatever contradicts the Qur’an, we reject, knowing that it is a fabrication. We do not quote it, and do not believe in it.
3. We maintain silence over what neither agrees nor contradicts Qur’anic teachings. This is due to our fear of refuting what may be well true or accepting what might be false.
The latter attitude is imposed by the teachings of the prophet (pbuh), who said: “Do not give credence to what the people of the Book (Jews and Christians); and do not refute it outright.” Therefore, when we quote te Bible, we are in fact quoting what finds support in the qur’an, and not arbitrarily.
Question 19: Why do you believe that the divine reveltions were not preserved in the same way that you claim the Qur’an was?
Answer 19: God made the preservation of earlier scriptures the responsibilities of the followers of these books. God says: “…For to them was entrusted the protection of God’s books, and they were witnesses thereto” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 44). But they were negligent of this; distorted the books with their interpolations and the reversal of some facts. This is not a total loss, because God intended another scripture whose teachings and principles will serve the good of man and under all conditions.
God did not give the responsibility of protecting the Qur’an to man. He pledged to protect it Himself, knowing that this was the last revelation to mankind. This is the absolute necessity that it be preserved intact. God says: “Verily, it is We Who have sent down the dhikr (the Qur’an) and surely, we will guard it (from corruption)” (Holy Qur’an: 15: 9). Due to this divine pledge, the Qur’an has been preserved. It is impossible for anyone to do to the Qur’an what was done to previous scriptures.
Question 20: To what extent, do you think, are the present Gospels authentic?
Answer 20: The present Gospels, as attested by Christian scholars, were written by historians. They are therefore not totally authentic. Parts of these books are authentic, others are fabricated. The falsehood in them supercedes the truth, espacially in those parts which deify Jesus Christ (pbuh) and make him the son of God. The Muslim accepts what is in accord with the Islamic teachings and rejects what contrdicts them. He is silent over aspects that are not clearly in agreement or disagreement with Islamic teachings.
Question 21: How can you tell a true religion from a false one?
Answer 21: All the religions that God revealed through His prophets are true. Any discernible corruption in these religions is a result of human interpolation. People had been entrusted with the preservation of these religions, but failed to fully care for this trust. We can mention here a few criteria that can help distinguish a true religion from a false one.
1. Examine the core contents of the religion both in terms of the foundational texts and how they have been transmitted from generation to generaion. See if there is internal consistency in the texts. Do the prescriptions of the religion uplift man or oppress him?
2. Examine the methods of transmission in terms of their reliability and the claims of transmision.
3. Look into the life of the founder of the religion (the prophet), if applicable.
4. Look into the lives of the disciples of the prophet.
5. Is the religion monotheistic or ploytheistic?
6. Are the religion’s teachings in clear contradiction with known facts about the world?
Question 22: Can Muslisms read scriptures, other tha the Qur’an? Explain with regards to the prophet’s position on this question?
Answer 22: The prophet (pbuh) once showed displeasure when he saw Umar ibn al-Khattab reading the Bible. Umar asked the prophet: “Sometimes we hear fine words from the Jews, can we write some of these words?” The prophet replied: “Are you confused about your religion, just as the Jews and the Christians are about theirs? I have brought you a crystal clear teaching. Had Moses been alive, no doubt he would have been my follower.” In the beginnig of the prophet’s mission he disallowed his disciples from meddling with Torah for fear of confusing it with the Qur’an, which was being revealed. The Qur’an having, been completely revealed, the prophet told his disciples to teach about the Jews. The prophet says: “Do not believ the people of the Book or disbelieve them, but say ‘We believ in God and that which has been sent down to us (Holy Qur’an: 2: 136)’.” The study of different sacred texts can only strengthen a Muslim’s faith. What is true in these faiths has been confirmed by the Qur’an; and falsehood in them had likewise been made manifest in the Qur’an.
Question 23: Where in the Bible was the prophet’s name mentioned?
Answer 23: In John 14: 16. “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever” (John: 14: 16).
Parclete means “Muhammad” or “Ahmad.” The statement that the “Parclete will remain with us forever points to the eternal validity of Muhammad’s religion, book and way of life. God vowed to protect and preserve them. This is what is meant by “He will remain with you forever.”
Question 24: Why did God reveal the Qur’an in Arabic, rather than in another language? What is the wisdom behind this choice?
Answer 24: It was God’s choice to reveal Qur’an in Arabic, just as it was his choice to reveal previous scriptures in other languages. God does as He pleases. No one has the right to question His will; He can question the actions of His creatures. The wisdom behind the choice of Arabic to be the vehicle in which the Qur’an was revealed can be summed up in the follwoing points:
1. The prophet through whom the Qur’an was revealed was an Arab, and Arabic was his language. How could God have revealed to him a scripture in a foreign tongue?
2. The past people to whom the prophet was sent were Arabs. Had the book been revealed in other than their language, that would have given them a pretext to reject it. They would have accused him of absurd innovations and would have refused to heed his call.
3. Arabic os best equipped to articulate the nuance of the revelatin.
Chapter 4:
Questions on Sects and Schools of Thoughts
Question 25: If only those who follow Muhammad will be admitted into paradise, what about the generations who lived before his advent?
Answer 25: Those who lived before the prophet’s mission fall into two groups:
A. Those who worshipped God, the One, and kept his laws as revealed through a succession prophets. They will be rewarded or punishe according to their own deeds. Ultimately, they will enter paradise.
B. Those to whom a divine scripture was not revealed. They will be tested by God on the day of reckoning. Those who, then, manifest obedience to God will enter paradise, and those who manifest disobedience will enter hell.
Question 26: What are the differences and similarities netween Sinnism and Shi’ism? Are there other sects that are considered belonging to the fold of Islam?
Answer 26: Both Sunnis and Shi’as believe in God, His angels, His scriptures, His prophets, the day of judgement, fate, and the pillars of Islam, generally speaking.
Sunnis and Shi’as differ in some respects which include:
1. The Shi’as believe in the inerrancy and infalliablity of the imams coming from the prophet’s family.
2. Their belief that imams are divinely inspired, but to a lesser degree than prophets.
3. Their practice of tactical dissimulation in their dealings with their adversaries, whereby they believe that they are allowed to hide their beliefs.
4. The practice of mut’a, or temporary marriages. From a sunni perspective such marriages constitute adultry. There are many hadiths condemn this practice.
Undoubtedly, many other sects claim to belong to the fold of Islam. The mainstream Islamic population considers such sects in relation to their closeness to, or distance from, the teachings of mainstream Islam.
Judaism and Christianity are not accepted as viable religions after the advent of Islam. Islam has superseded them God says: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers” (Holy Qur’an: 3: 85).
Question 27: Since Muslims have been allowed to build a mosque in Rome, why should not Christians be permitted to build churches in Arabia? Also, why are non-Muslims banned from entering Mecca and/or Medina, while Muslims have access to the Vatican?
Answer 27: Rome is just like any other place in the world. There is no particular sacredness attached to it. Building a mosque in Rome, therefore, should not be considered unusual. The prophet of Islam specifically proscribed the existence of two faiths in the Arabian penninsula. Hence, there are no churches in the penninsula. The Arabian penninsula is the bedrock of Islam, its nursery and the home of its sacred sites.
We can compare the Vatican and Mecca only to a certain extent. In the Qur’an, God explicitly conferred sacredness to Mecca. The Vaticsn enjoys no such status even from a biblical point of view. In fact only the Cathoic denomination in Christendom attaches a special importance to the Vatican. Moreover, every country in the world has visa and entry regulations. Only those fulfilling such conditions are admitted. The only condition for entry to Mecca is to verify the Oneness of God and the belief in the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh).
Question 28: If Islam is viable for all times and places, why is that Muslims are the world’s most backward people today?
Answer 28: It is a fact that Islam is valid for all times and places. Islamic civilization flourished for many centuries, especially at a time when the rest of the world was steeped in ignorance and backwardness. The west learnt a great deal and benefitted from the Islamic culture. The west built upon this past at the time Muslims became materialistic and lost their spiritual and civilizational focus. The backwardness of contemporary Muslims is the fault of Muslims not of Islam. Their backwardness is due to their deviation from Islamic teachings. However, Muslims still have the potential and the ability to achieve civilizational greatness. They have the elements of strength and progress. God gave us teachings to follow, and granted us geographical, natural and human resources. If we build upon these assets, we can enter into new renaissance, provided that we adhere to the teachings of Islam. Indeed the future belongs to the God-conscious. Islam’s future is bright. And It is a known fact that the achievement of a given system can only be sustained if the right people continue to work for it.
Question 29: Muslims claim to love Jesus, honour him, and believe in his message. Why then do they prefer Muhammad to him? Jesus is after all not only a messenger, but also the son of God.
Answer 29: There are two parts to this question:
A. We, as Muslims, truly believe that Jesus, son of Mary, is one of the prophets belonging to the eleveated category of ulu al’azm prophets (possessors of steadfastness). Muslims love him, honour him and do believe in his message. However, Muslims consider him to be a servant to God and not a son of Him.
B. It is up to God to establish hierarchy among his messengers based on His divine wisdom. He made prophet Muhammad (pbuh) special in certain repects. He is the seal of the prophets. His message completes and abrogates all that came before him. He was also known as God’s intimate. Also, he was sent to all of the creation.
Question 30: Some Christian missionaries claim that Islam is not a rvealed religion. It is a distorted derivative version of Judaism and Christianity. Please comment.
Answer 30: What these missionaries are claiming is simply a misleading conjecture. While the prophet was preaching the new faith, the Jews and the Christians were, at the same time, practising their own religions. The new faith clearly contradicted Judaism and Christianity in very fundamental issues. Islam contradicted such beliefs held by Christians and Jews such as: ascribing human qualities to God (Jews witness that Uzair is the son of God). Their claim that Jesus was an illigitimate child and that they killed him. They also ascribed major sins to the prophets. They also claimed themselves to be the chosen people of God, His children and His beloved. The Christians claimed that Jesus is the son of God; that God is one person in a trinity and their belief in Jesus’s crucifixion and death. They also believe in the original sin an the Jesus’s atonement from the sins of mankind. The prophet’ teachings strongly refuted such beliefs. And in their stead he taught radical monotheism, God’s transcendence, and that He neither had a spouse, nor an offspring.
Islam also taught that all prophets were free from committing major sins. Also, the blessed Virgin Mary was not an adultress, and her son, Jesus, was God’s servant and messenger. He was neither crucified nor killed. The doctrine of trinity is false. The atonement for sins is also false. Jews are not a chosen people, rather all humans are God’s creation and equal in His sight except for those who manifest faith and God-consciousness.
Islam also brought many new rules which contradict with those of Judaism and Christianity. How then can one hold that Islam is a distorted copy of Judaism and/or Christinaity?
Question 31: Christians are civilized and rational. They therefore look critically at their scriptures. Muslims, on the other hand, avoid such practice. Do not you think that this shows regressive thinking and lack of rational thought?
Answer 31: This question calls for a multifaced answer:
1. The claim that Christians are civilized and rationa is counter-factual. How can a progressive man believe in superstitions, obscurist dogmas? How can we account for the moral decay through which their societies are passing?
2. It is not a civilized theory, nor it is progressive to criticize God.
3. The Christian’s criticism of their scriptures is due to the fact that these books have been distorted and changed. They have been added to and removed from. As a result some of these teachings clearly contradict reason, the facts and the common sense. The critical approach towards these scriptures is therefore only normal. Nonetheless, such criticismdid not clarify the issues as much as it obscured them and made many people lose faith in God.
4. The Qur’an and the prophet’s tradition are both divinely revealed. They are authentic. They do not abuse human reason, or contradict the facts of science. No critical approach in this case is, therefore, useful or warranted. No matter how educated a man is, he/she is still a created being. Human criticism of God is therefore an irrational proportion.
Man has to receive all that is authentically revealed by God with humility and submissiveness. Man needs to practice the revelation and live his life accordingly. Following such an attitude is not putting contraints on the mind, rather, it frees the mind to explore reality within what is humanly possible.
Question 32: Where do Jews and Christians stand today? Do you, Muslims, consider them believers or non-believers?
Answer 32: This question calls for a two-faced answer:
1. Their religious doctrines include a degradation of God’s ststus, as well as what amounts to insulting Him. These doctrines imply attributing partners to God, and ascribing to Him human biological qualities such as having an offspring, procreating, getting tired, oblivion, weeping and regretting. God’s prophets are also degraded by imputing to them major moral defects. All the above in addition to other contradictory and fabricated issues exist in their books. To Muslims, whoever holds such beliefs is a disbeliever without doubt.
2. Sincet the commandment of Muhammad’s prophetic mission, it has become incumbent upon all human beings to believe in his message. Anyone who has heard the call of Muhammad to embrace Islam and refute it is a disbeliever and will dwell in hell.
Question 33: Is Islam ready to accord to Christians in Mulsim countries the kind of freedom that Muslims enjoy in Christians countries? Can Christians enter mosques? Can they freely express their religious views? And can they freely proselytize?
Answer 33: Islam has historically granted to Christians living in Musim countries far more rights in than the rights Muslims have enjoyed in Christian countries. These rights and freedoms include:
1. The Christians’ right to retain their faith and pay some tax (jizya) in return for their protection.
2. They are granted security in terms of their lives, their properties and their religious institutions.
3. Islam forbade alcohol for Muslims, but allowed it for non-Muslims. This ruling also applies for the consumption of pork.
4. A dimension of this tolerance is Islam’s prescription of moderation and sound reason in their dialogue with Christians and Jews. God says: “And argue not with the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner)” (Holy Qur’an: 29: 46).
5. We call Jews and Christians living in Muslim dominions as ahl al-dhimmah (the protected people). The full designation is dhimatu al-Lah was ‘ahdihi wa ri’ayatihi (people under the protection, covenant and care of God). Muslims are forbidden from harming them. Instead they are urged to maintain good relationship with them. The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) taught: “Whoever verbally insults a dhimmi (a jew or a Christian living in a Mulsim country) will be flogged in the hereafter with whips from hellfire.”
Can you say, then, that Muslims in Chritians countries enjoy the same privillages as accorded to Christians in Muslim countries? Even today, Muslim girls living in the west are being deprived of their right to wear their Muslim clothes at school.
As regarding admission of Christians and Jews in mosques, see answer to question 120.
Finally, Muslims, convinced as they are of the false nature of Jewish and Christian teachings, how can they be expected to allow the spread of such techings in Muslim communities?
Question 34: It was said that God created all human beings equal, in rights and responsibilities. Why there is then disparity in the religious rights of Muslims, on the one hand, and Jews and Chriastians on the other?
Answer 34: It is said:
1. Absolute equality between human beings is logically and practically groundless. Human beings are not equal. Islam simply advocates justice. God says: “Verily God enjoins justice and the doing of good…” (Holy Qur’an: 16: 90).
2. Undoubtedly a Mulsim cannot be equal to a non-Muslim, because God is pleased with those who have embraced the truth of Islam, not withstanding the prohibition of forced conversion to Islam. Muslims enjoy equal status in the sight of God: “The believers are nothing but brothers (in Islamic religion)…” (Holy Qur’an: 49: 10). Anyone who rejects this teaching cannot be deemed equal to those who embrace it.
God decrees the following: “Is he who walks prone (without seeing) on his face, more rightly guided, or he who (sees and) walks uprighly on the straight way (Islamic monotheism)?” (Holy Qur’an: 67: 22). Based on these divine revelations, it becomes inonceivable to equal Muslims and non-Muslims: “Shall We then treat the Muslims like the mujrimun (criminals, disbelievers)? What is the matter with you? How judge you? (Holy Qur’an: 68: 35-36).
Question 35 (A): If one of the spouses embraces Islam while the other remains Christian, is their marriage still islamically valid?
Answer 35 (A): If God guides the husband to Islam, then it is his duty to invite his family to Islam. If it is the wife who embraces Islam, while the husband remains Christian, she should invite her husband to Islam with wisdom and beautiful exhortations. Should he still refuse to become Muslim, then she is obligated to sever their marital relationship. A husband is practically the leader in any family, and it is unacceptable for a believer to be subjected to the leadership of a non-Muslim.
Question 35 (B): When the man is Muslim and the woman is a Christian, can the wife take the children to church?
Answer 35 (B): As stated above, the newly converted Muslim husband should invite his Christian spouse to the path of Islam. Should he fail to persuade her, he must not allow their children to practice any religion beside Islam.
Question 36: Why is it prohibited for non-Muslims to be buried in Muslim symmetries?
Answer 36: In Islamic understanding death is simply a transition from one life to another. Out of respect and honour, Muslims upon their departure from this life should be assigned a special place of burial. Being dead, man can no longer take care of himself. It is therefore incumbent upon the living to look after his comfort and needs. It is expected of Muslims to visit the departed in the symmetries and make supplications on their behalf and ask God for their forgiveness. When Muslims are buried with non-Muslims, the sanctity of the dead is compromised. Islam proscribes the making of supplications on behalf of those who have ascribed partners to God.
Question 37: God says “Let there be no compulsion in religion”. How can we reconcile this teaching and the principle of killing Islam’s apostates?
Answer 37: No one should be compelled to become Muslim, as the statement above instructs. If one after knowing about the true religion of Islam, chooses any other path, one is accountable to God with regards to one’s choice in life. However, once any one freely makes a choice to become a Muslim, this choice becomes a perpetual commitment to Islam and the community of Muslims. Betrayal of that commitment is treasonable and calls for the death penalty. Islam is not only a religion in the conventional sense, it is also a community. One who seeks membership in a new community, such as a nation, is obligated to protect the interests of that community or nation. Failure to do so, is an act of treason.
Whoever freely enters Islam becomes obligated to abide by the legal statutes of Islam, one of which regards apostasy. This stern measure is designed to discourage opportunistic adventurism that places security of the Muslim community in peril. This measure, thus, protects the interests of Islam and the security of the Muslim community.
Question 38: Does God reward one who believes in Him without necessarily following any particular religion? If there is indeed such a reward what then would be the importance of following a particular prophet? If this is not the case, does it mean that it is mandatory to follow one religion such as a monotheistic creed?
Answer 38: It is not possible for one to believe in God and worship Him as He would like to be worshipped without following a prophet. Consequently, there is no recompense for any one who does not follow the religion, which God has chosen for His people, and revealed to them, through a prophet. Faith in God is acceptable only if its object is God and God alone, and if it is based on authentic teachings of a prophet. All prophets preached Islam which is monotheism, observing of God’s laws, and assenting to the revelation which God sent through them.
Question 39: Some person says “He is Christian, but he believes in total submission to God”. Will this save him from God’s wrath?
Answer: 39: True and total submission to God implies obeying all the commandments of almighty God and observing all His prohibitions, and believing the prophet and the teachings that he brought. God sent His prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to all mankind and has shut all accesses to Him, leaving only one open: Islam as taught by the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The submission of the person mentioned above is neither genuine nor complete. If it were genuine, he would have been one of the followers of prophet Muhammad (pbuh). And that would have sufficed for his salvation.
Question 40: We Christians have many denominations, and so do you Muslims. You have Shi’as, Druzes, Isma’iliyyas. Why all these sects, and what are the differences between them?
Answer 40: Sectarian divisions occurred in Islam as they occurred in previous religious communities. The prophet (pbuh) had predicted this phenomenon by stating that his community will split up, but only one sect will be on the right path, that is the people of the prophet’s way, the orthodox community (ahl al-sunnah wal jama’a). They will remain true to the path of the prophet and his companions. As for the other sects, which developed in the Islamic world, they have, generally speaking, deviated from the truth. The reasons for this
1. Ignorance about the religion, whims and ethnocentrism.
2. Conspiracy against its people.
Our stance towards these sects depends on how much they have deviated from the truth. Accordingly, we place some of these sects, such the Druze and Isma’ilis, beyond the pale of Islam.
Question 41: Why do you believe that you are the people of truth, while the rest are pagans and have strayed away from the truth?
Answer 41: The case is not a matter of mere claims of superiority, as much as it is an issue of sound common sense, and conclusive proofs which confirm the absolute truth in Islam’s claims, which call for pure monotheism.
Jews for example believe in Yahweh, to whom they attribute qualities that are denigrate God’s majesty. They say for example that He has a son named Uzair, [“And the Jews say: ’Uzair (Ezra) is the son of God’.”] (Holy Qur’an: 9: 30). How can we attribute a son to Him when non of His creation resembles Him? They also ascribed miserliness to Him, God says: “The Jews say ‘God’s hand is tied up’ (i.e. He does not give and spend of His bounty” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 64). They also attributed to Him qualities that are incmopatiable with His majesty, perfection, and power.
Then came the Christians and claimed likewise, that Jesus Christ (pbuh) is the son of God. They also attributed divinity to Jesus and his mother. God says in the Qur’an:
[And (remember) when God will say (on the day of reurrection): “O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto men: ‘worship me and my mother as two gods besides God?’ He will say: ‘Glory is to You! It is not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely, have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours; truly You, only You, are the All-Knower of all that is hidden (and seen). Never did I say to them aught except what You (God) did command me to say: worship God my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when you took me up, You were the Watcher over them; and You are a Witness to all things’.”] (Holy Qur’an: 5: 116-117).
Then Islam came with pure monotheism. God says:
“Say ‘He is God, (the) One. God is self-sufficnet. He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none co-equal or comaprable unto Him’.” (Holy Qur’an: 112: 1-4).
He also says:
“There is nothing like Him; and He is the All-Hearer, the All-seer” (Holy Qur’an: 42: 11).
The religious wars erupted in Europe as a result of the unresolved doctrinal controversies surrounding the person of Jesus. In Islam there are no controversies as to who God is, His names, His essence, and His attributes. The Qur’an’s call remains ever relevent: “Surely, in disbelief are they who say that ‘God is the Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary)’.” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 17).
Our refutation of Christian teachings in this regard are not based on personal whim or malice. We are simply stating God’s judgement on the matter. Whoever ascribes partners to God has rejected faith. God says:
“And verily, this is my straight path, so follow it, and follow not (other) paths, for they will separate you away from His path. This he has ordained for you that you may become the pious” (Holy Qur’an:6: 153).
Question 42: What is Islam’s position with regards to nationalism?
Answer 42: It is natural to love one’s country and people, as long as it does not lead to unjust dealings with other nations and peoples. A Muslim is also expected to show compassion and concern for people outside his country.
Nationalism, according to the contemporary proponents implies a kind of identity based on nationhood without reference to religious considerations. This understanding is clearly false. Nationalism, tribalism and regionalism had great influence on the lives of the people. When Islam came it refined these concepts and set rules and regulations to them, these include: no blind allegiance to nationality, race, country, and skin colour. Loyalty is first and foremost to God, and to His prophet and the community of believers wherever they may be. Love to one’s country must now be defined by the supreme allegiance to God’s religion.
Question 43: Is the one dies defending his country considered a martyr?
Answer 43: Intention is a vital issue here. Whoever is killed while defending his country with the intention of upholding the truth as revealed by God is a martyr. Whoever dies defending his country with the intention of safeguarding his honour and wealth is a martyr. However, if one dies while fighting to gain personal wealth and fame is not a martyr. One has to be a Muslim and be driven by Muslim ideals to be a candidate for martyrdom. The prophet says: “Whoever fights so that God’s word remain supreme is indeed striving on the path of God.”
PART TWO
Questions and Answers on
Islamic Jurisprudence:
Wisdom & Purposes
Translated by
Ahmad H. Al-Hout
Chapter 1:
Islamic Jurisprudence: Wisdom and Purposes
Question 44: What is the meaning of Islam?
Answer 44: Islam is total surrendering to almighty God’s command and obeying Him in all of His legislation and rules whose basis is the well-known five pillars: The two words, prayer, zakat, fasting and pilgrimage.
The perfect form of Islam is achieved when the Muslim’s life is completely involved in Islam. almighty God said: “[Our sibghah (religion) is] the Sibghah (religion) of God (Islam) and which Sibghah (religion) can be better than God’s? And he is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower. (Holy Qur’an: 2: 138) and ‘Say (O Muhammad) Verily, my prayer, my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for God, the Lord of all that exists’.”) (Holy Qur’an: 6:162).
Question 45: What does faith mean?
Answer 45: Faith is the absolute belief in God, whose location is the heart. It is associated with the saying of the tongue and the observation of the senses. The basis of this faith is the belief in God, His angels, books, messengers, the doom’s day, fate (both good and evil) are all from almighty God. Therefore, the saying of the tongue indicates this absolute belief in those fundamentals and rules. The perfect action can best be testified by the implementation of Islam in the private and public life.
Question 46: What is the meaning of “perfect worship”?
Answer 46: This means “to worship God as if you were seeing Him; as you cannot see Him, He sees you”, as Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) related. It is a high degree of emotional feeling to the Muslim when dealing with God as if he were seeing Him before his own eyes in terms of ability, greatness, authority and power, mercy, assistance and generosity. One who feels these divine qualities and other ones in all his conditions, will be whole-heartedly sincere and good in all his acts, behavior, manners, and will not be affected by his materialistic and personal interests and benefits. When Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was asked by `Uqbah bin Nafi’ about the perfect manners, he said, “O `Uqbah, visit those who refrained from visiting you, be kind to whoever deprived you, and do not harm those who have harmed you.” This kind of honesty makes the self of the Muslim pure, immaculate privately and publicly, whether one is alone or with others, in times of prevention and bounty, in loyalty, and in integrity—indeed, in all matters, small and big, it is a self that believes in God and attached to Him while looking at him all the time. If man’s eye may sleep sometimes, it believes, nevertheless that God’s eye does not sleep and continues to see him, that is perfect worship (ihsan).
Question 47: When did man known faith for the first time? Did people in ancient times believe in almighty God, or were they unbelievers, as anthropologists claim?
Answer 47: Belief in God is deeply rooted in the human nature. It is intrinsic in people. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: “Every child is born intrinsically believing in God, but his parents make him a Jew, a Christian or a Magi,” i.e. every newborn is born with spontaneous belief in almighty God and surrendering to him. Islam has its own concept about the beginning of creation and human evolution. The gist is that almighty God created Adam from earth and soul was then blown into him. Next Eve was created from Adam. Then marriage began and people multiplied and populated the earth.
Adam was the first believer. He recognized God’s power and greatness. Therefore, when he sinned, he soon regretted and asked God to pardon him: he prostrated before Him implored for reconciliation and forgiveness. Almighty God said; “They said ‘Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If you forgive us not, and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers”(Holy Qur’an: 7: 23). Almighty God has already said to them: “And We said; ‘O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in paradise, and eat both of you freely with pleasure and delight, of things therein as wherever you will, but come not near this tree or you both will be of thewrong-doers.’ Then Satan made them slip therefrom (paradise), and got them out from that in which they were. We said: O get you down, all, with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be a dwelling place for you and an enjoyment for a time.” Then Adam received from his Lord Words. And his Lord pardoned him (accepted his repentance). Verily, he is the One Who forgives, the Most Merciful.”
It is clear from the holy verses that Adam was a true believer in God. He lived in Paradise with his spouse, then he sinned because of the insinuations of Satan. But Adam soon repented, and God accepted his repentance. This incident indicates that faith occurred before disobedience, unbelieving and polytheism took place. Prophet Muhammad confirmed this fact by saying: “God created people to be intrinsically believing, but they were deceived by the devils.” This means that devils ornamented polytheism for people and they deviated from the right path.
Question 48: Since no one has able to see God, and since no dead person was resurrected to tell us what happened to him after death, how could we believe in any religion?
Answer 48: This question is based on the material world, where sense becomes the reference to determine the facts of the universe. Fundamentally, this basis is a void one. In this life we believe in many things without being able to see them or feel them tangibly. We do not know for example the essence of the soul, its secrets, and where does it inhabit our bodies? So far this field has been immune to scientists and scientific laboratories, fine radiology and microscopes, which biologists and doctors use. We absolutely believe in the presence of the soul although we do not see it. We also believe in the existence of many other things like magnetism, electric current, air and many other things, which we do not touch physically.
All religions are based on miracles, which God performs on the hands of the prophets. Ordinary human beings cannot perform these miracles. Only prophets could carry out these actions in order to confirm the fact that they are true emissaries of God. All prophets were sent to people and performed miracles in front of them, so that they believed them. These are well-known historical facts.
Prophet Moses (pbuh) performed miracles: his club was transformed into a snake, the sea was split into two parts through a hit with his club, and the bursting of the water from the rock in the form of twelve springs good for drinking.
Prophet Jesus (pbuh) healed the blind and the leprous, and gave life to the dead through God’s will.
Prophet Muhammad also had many miracles including the splitting apart of the moon, the gushing of water from his hands and the night journey from Mecca to Jerusalem and his ascension though the heaven. But the most enduring and challenging miracle revealed through him is the Qur’an.
Belief in almighty God and in the unseen is therefore an intuitive matter, without which life cannot be right; without which the human self does not feel fully contented. People’s lives, both today and land in the past, testify this if only they are truthful about their thoughts, feelings, and ideas.
Question 49: Do people inherit the religion of Islam from their parents?
Answer 49: It has already been stated above that people are born to be intrinsically God believing, i.e. Muslims. Islam regards a child before puberty to be subordinate to his father in terms of religion and belief. Coming of age, he/she becomes responsible and will be held accountable for his/her deeds. This requires him/her to embrace the religion of Islam as a result of conviction, thinking and choice. However, if the child dies before puberty age (15 years) he/she will be considered as one of the escapees from Hell even though his parents are non-believers. This is a prerequisite of the justice of God who says: “… and no burdens shall bear the burden of another” (Holy Qur’an: 6: 164).
Question 50: Is Islam to be imposed on people or do people have to embrace it willingly?
Answer 50: Islam is the religion of God, He knows human self better than human beings themselves. He also knows what is good and what is bad for them. It is to the best interest and righteousness to man of mankind if they follow the right path revealed by God out of conviction, choice, love and desire, so that they could be salvaged. Almighty God made this clear in the holy book: “There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut (false deities) and believes in God, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And God is All-Hearer, All-Knower” (Holy Qur’an: 2: 256). It has never occurred in history that Muslims compelled anyone to embrace Islam even when they were at the height of their power.
Question 51: Is it possible that the whole system of this universe has occurred by coincidence?
Answer 51: This can never be the case at all. In fact, no rational person could ever envisage that this world has come into existence without a wise capable and knowing creator. With the least contemplation, a rational person can recognize the invalidity of coincidence in this case. When a person looks at a beautiful building that is architecturally organized, wonderful and firm, foe example, he intuitively believes that someone must have built, organized and planned its plan and designed its foundations, lounges and balconies. When we look at the watch on our wrists, we cannot believe that its first maker found it by coincidence in that shape. So how could we believe that the creation of man to have come by coincidence? And how could this universe which runs according to an absolute accurate system (in terms of night and day, stars, planets and galaxies) how could it have come by pure coincidence? The idea of coincidence is something obsolete and has become outside the rational circle in the world of science and knowledge, and the world of reason and cause.
Question 52: If a person embraces Islam for mere secular benefits, like marriage, can he/she be still be regarded as true Muslim?
Answer 52: Islam is the religion of almighty God. It should be embraced exclusively for His sake. God says: “Surely the religion is for God only” (Holy Qur’an: 39:3). Almighty God does not accept anyone who converts for a particular interest while implying infidelity, his Islam. Prophet Muhammad reported that deeds will be judged by God according to people’s intentions:
“Deeds are rated according to the intentions of the people who carry them out. Each person is to be rewarded according to his/her intention. Anyone who migrates for the sake of God and His prophet, his migration will be to them then, and anyone who migrates for worldly interests, or a woman he wants to marry, his migration will be to what he has migrated to.”
There are, however, some people who embrace Islam for mere personal interests; but after a while, they become committed and truthful in their intention of faith. God will forgive this group of people and grant them salvation.
Muslims are required to deal with anyone who proclaims Islam publicly according to his/her actions and/or deeds. Only God can tell about people’s hearts and motivations. The word Muslims scholars most use in such likely contexts is: “We have to judge the apparent and only God judges the actual.” If this fake Muslim continues to be elusive, then he/she is deceiving the community and God will count him/her among the hypocrites. If the true character of this “hypocrite” is revealed to the community, then he/she will be held responsible and the divine rules of apostasy will apply upon him/her.
Question 53: Is person’s intention sufficient for him/her to be a Muslim or does he/she have to say the two testimonies: that there is no deity but God and that Muhammad is His messenger?
Answer 53: Intention is not sufficient. The two testimonies must be proclaimed, as announcing them is what distinguishes a Muslim from a non-Muslim. It is the proof of honesty and of being convinced of Islam, because it is difficult to know that person is a Muslim if he/she does not claim so? How could a Muslim perform his duties towards other Muslims if he does not know them and they do not know him? However, there are cases when intention becomes sufficient, especially if this person is afraid of being killed in case he/she announces Islam in a fanatic non-Muslim environment. In this case, he/she may practice Islam secretly and say the two testimonies privately until he/she could move to a safer environment and could perform their rituals in public.
Question 54: Is it possible for a convert to say the two testimonies in a language other than Arabic if he/she does not know this language?
Answer 54: Yes, it is possible to say the two testimonies in any language. Arabic is not required at this stage. However, once the convert is able to say the two testimonies in Arabic, it is advisable that he/she does so, in which case other Muslims could be more acquainted with him/her. If he cannot do that, it is not obligatory.
Question 55: Is it obligatory for a sister wanting to embrace Islam to be dictated the two testimonies by a Muslim female or should only a Muslim male achieve this?
Answer 55: Islam is the religion of God, it is an open invitation for everybody to join in. Anyone who says the two testimonies out of truthful intention has entered the gate of Islam. A convert does not have to be dictated how to become a Muslim if he/she knows how to. But in the likely case he/she does not know what to do, instructions become indispensable for mere educational purposes.
A convert is never required to have witnesses testifying his/her Islam. Embracing Islam starts with saying the two testimonies, which are followed by manner and conduct: all rites, like prayer, and fasting must be performed. These acts of worship when are performed well become enough witness for someone’s faith.
When need is required that someone proves his/her Islamic faith, like the cases and matters related to law and religious courts, then witnesses are rendered necessary in this case.
Question 56: What is the meaning of polytheism? And why does Islam reject it?
Answer 56: Polytheism means worshipping something else with God whether this thing is animate like a prophet, a messenger, a leader, a wealthy man, or a prominent person; or inanimate, like a stone, a planet and the like. Islam rejects polytheism altogether. It is regarded as the antithesis of faith, as there are different reasons that prove this, the most important of which are:
1. Anyone who really knows God, through His most beautiful Names, Qualities, Acts and Virtues, will despise having a peer to God.
2. Polytheism does not go with the true nature that God gave to man. A God-believing person feels contented, safe and psychologically settled, while a polytheist experiences an uneasy kind of life. His/her feelings are mostly distracted, and psychology unsettled. The least social study will show the great differences between the Islamic societies and other ones, the reason being the dogmas that direct each of these societies.
3. Polytheism contradicts reason. Rightful minds do not place the creator and created on equal grounds. The same applies to learned and ignorant persons, and the able and disable. When contemplating the world around us, we realize it inevitable that there exists a great, all-knowing and able creator of this universe, and all that it includes, according to a very accurate and meticulous system. Normal minds absolutely believe that this creator must be single and all alone, because if there were more than one deity, conflict and difference would have emerged. If there had been more than one deity, things would have gone wrong, and one of them would have dominated the other.
Question 57: What are the qualities of spirit?
Answer 57: Spirit is God’s most ambiguous and invisible secret. Only Him knows and realizes its everlasting truth and essence. Almighty God relates: “And they ask you (O Muhammad, concerning the spirit; say: ‘the spirit is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord. And of knowledge, you (mankind) have been given only a little’.” (Holy Qur’an: 17: 85).
Contemporary scientists have attempted tom make some research on the truth of this secret. They have held conferences for the same purpose. But their conclusion was that the spirit is an unknown secret which mankind has not known its truth yet.
One of the conferences is the one which was held in New York in 1959, when six scientists from different parts of the world met at a round table in an attempt to understand something about the origin and evolution of life on the surface of this earth. The Russian scientist Alexander Obarin, a biochemist in he Soviet Academy of Sciences, and greatly interested in the evolution of life, was among the participants. The end of the conference was no better than its beginning. It did not lead to any findings, but confirmed the fact that the secret of life is unknown, and that there is no hope that science will reach one day.
We believe in the existence of the spirit because of its outstanding effects in a tangible world, which is replete with life and living creatures. The difference between the life of human beings and that of animals is that the life of the animal is instinctive and confined to the world of concrete material of food, drink and desire, while the life of man is distinguished to be above that, as it belongs to a world of values, manners, ideals, virtues and noble feelings, and the life of science, thought, and search for the secrets of the universe and benefiting from them. If human beings try to do without these values, they regresses into the world of animals. This fact is typically portrayed in the Qur’an, God says: “while those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat as cattle eat; and the Fire will be their abode” and “And surely, We have created many of the jinn and mankind for Hell. They have hearts wherewith they understand not, and they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones.” (Holy Qur’an: 7:179)
Question 58: What is the relationship between life, death and the hereafter?
Answer 58: Almighty God is the one who created both life and death to see who is better in terms of deeds. This is the core of the matter “to see who is better in deeds” (Holy Qur’an: 67: 2). God has created this universe and showed the wonders of His capability so that His creatures could really know Him, give Him His due, and observe the system that He designed for them and live according to His decree. The entire universe is bound to show true submission due to God’s supreme power. This worldly life is the experimental setting, God wanted to see on it the obedient and the disobedient, the deviant and the straight, the just and the oppressive, the lost and the guided, the believer and the infidel. This is why God gave man wisdom and freedom, and granted him the authority and ability to choose between good and evil, guidance and aberration. He sent messengers and supported them with miracles in order to warn people and inform them that they should play the role of His vicegerent on earth, and implement His law accordingly.
God has provided man, through His prophets/messengers, with a complete system for life that goes well with his/her mind and nature.
Almighty God has announced to all people that this worldly life is an arena, or a wrestling ring. Reward or punishment is to be delayed to the hereafter, to which all people will go. This worldly life is limited and narrow, and cannot be sufficient for obtaining rights according to God’s criteria. This life is, therefore, a place for work. Death is only a bridge across which human beings move to the eternal life so that each could obtain his/her rights in accordance with fair judgment, which saves nothing, however it is small or big. God said: “So whosoever does good equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant) shall see it. And whosoever does evil equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant) shall see it.” (Holy Qur’an: 100: 7-8). A poet expressed his view about the meaning of life by saying: “Death is but a journey from this perishing abode to the eternal one.”
Question 59: Will the other non-human creatures be resurrected beside man?
Answer 59: On the Doom’s Day almighty God will resurrect all living creatures and then will rule justly among them all. He will obtain the right of the oppressed from the oppressor, even the animals. Then He dignifies his honest worshippers by allowing them into Paradise and granting them eternal stay in it. He will punish the infidels and polytheists by forcing them into Hell and granting them eternal stay in it.
What indicates the resurrection of animals on the doom’s day is the prophet’s saying: “(On the doom’s day) everybody will get his/her due, even the hornless goat will be redressed from the one with horns.”
Question 60: Is man by nature sinful?
Answer 60: God created man and granted him an intrinsic nature of belief in the true religion. He provided him with a potential to do good or evil, right or wrong. He gave him talents and abilities, which enable him to do all of that completely at his own free will. God then sent messengers for man’s guidance, to follow the straight path, and warn people of the grave consequences in case they strayed off. With this perception, test and examination become fair, and man eventually may either succeed this test or fail it; hence, gain reward or punishment. If man had been born to be good and infallible only, how does he/she deserve reward then? On the other hand, if people were created to be evil only, how could they deserve punishment for something they themselves did not choose to do?
Question 61: If man dies as a non-Muslim, will he/she eternally stay in paradise or hell?
Answer: 61: God’s true religion is Islam; all previous religions were no more than preparations for this final and eternal religion, Islam. Before the advent of Islam, religions were limited to a certain time and place, and they were deemed to prepare people for the acceptance of the final divine religion embodied in the message of the last and seal of prophets, Muhammad (pbuh). God almighty says: “And whosoever seeks a religion other than Islam it will never be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers” (Holy Qur’an: 3: 85).
Question 62: What does make man eligible to enter Paradise?
Answer 62: Paradise, in the concept of Islam, is a delightful abode prepared for the believers to enter in the Hereafter. Every true Muslim that dies will ultimately enter paradise. This means that if a Muslim commits sins but who repents before his death, will be granted forgiveness by almighty God. God said: “And He it is who accepts repentance from His slaves, and forgives sins, and He knows that you do” (Holy Qur’an: 42: 25). If, however, a sinful Muslim dies before repenting, it will be up to God, whether He punishes or forgives him/her. Prophet Muhammad reported that no single Muslim would eternally stay in hell, so long as he/she has the slightest amount of faith in his/her heart. The un-committed Muslims in this case will have to be tortured in Hell for a period God knows; then they come out to enter Heaven so that it could be their everlasting abode if God wills. Muslims believe that people would be admitted into paradise not because of their good deeds as much as the mercy of almighty God.
It is reported that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: “None of you will enter Paradise owing to his good deeds”. They asked: “Not even you, Messenger of God?” He said: “Not even me, unless God has bestowed mercy and blessing upon me.” However, the prophet confirmed the fact that God does not neglect the good deeds of anyone—the ultimate goal being to encourage Muslims to keep in touch with God, to resort to Him and plead Him. This helps to improve the conduct of Muslims in both their private and public lives.
Question 63: Is the reciting of the Holy Qur’an without understanding its meanings considered to be a kind of worship?
Answer 63: Reciting the Qur’an is indeed some kind of worship. However, there is a big difference between the one who recites it passively, and/or the one who deeply contemplates its meaning while reciting it. God rewards both types, but on varying level. The happy life in the shadows of the Noble Qur’an is difficult to achieve, except for one who contemplates ponder it when he reads or listens to it. The Holy Qur’an, has a great influences on man’s life and can easily change the course of people’s history. It did have its great influence on the prophet’s companions when it was being revealed upon the prophet.
Question 64: What is the wisdom behind each of Islam’s five pillars?
Answer 64: The pillars of Islam are five in number, they are:
1. The testimony that there is no deity except God and that Muhammad is His messenger,
2. Performing prayer,
3. Paying zakat,
4. Fasting the month of Ramadhan, and
5. Performing greater pilgrimage to Mecca for the one who can afford it.
It is on these foundations that Islam is built. The question cited above is too wide to handle in a limited period of time. Besides, it requires a comprehensive knowledge of this religion, its fundamentals and branches. This, however, does not prevent us from mentioning some part of the wisdom of these fundamentals and branches in accordance with God’s will and help.
There is no deity except God and Muhammad is His messenger: This is the testimony of truth and the foundation of Islamic faith, as there is no deity except God to be worshipped, to be surrendered to and resorted to in all times especially in crisis. This is the monotheistic creed, which guarantees tranquility and safety that is homogeneous to human nature. If there were two deities in heaven and earth, they would have been corrupted, and one of would have dominated the other. Muhammad is the messenger of God. He is the guide to God, and the conveyor of His system and rules of life according to which God runs life. The prophet is the one who guides people to their God and acquaints them with the methods of virtuous and happy life.
Through this testimony the sources of slavery to God and the revelation from Him are unified. Beyond it, no man lives a lost or uneasy life. Through this testimony, man becomes able to know where he is going and to whom to surrender. With the testimony man cannot be confused as to the path he is leading in his life. It is drawn clearly as it was shown by the messenger who received revelation from God in the form of a complete and integrated system, which is lenient and easy in terms of perception and conduct, and as a method of public and private life.
Performance of prayer: It is the link between man and God. It implies submission to God and surrendering to Him. It is man’s address to the creator, supplication and request to Him for guidance in this world, which is the footstep to the hereafter. It is expressive of man’s willingness to follow God’s commands and avoid what He prohibits. Prayer is the food for spirit, it plants in the human soul emotions, love for purity, and order. A performance of prayer five times a day refreshes the feelings and purifies the soul every now and then. No sooner than man surrenders to life and its worldly affairs, which distract his/her spirit and overwhelm his/her mind and thought, than prayer is called for. When the prayer is called for, the Muslim promptly stands up to prepare himself/herself for the prayer (by cleaning up and/or making ablution). Then men (it is preferable that women perform their prayers at home) move to the mosque to stand in one respectable row addressing the Lord through reading supplications, invocations, and recitation of the Qur’anic verses. The Muslim’s attention in this context is revived and enlivened, his/her heart and conscience are awakened; and all are to be reflected on his/her personal qualities, manners and dealings with the society surrounding him/her, starting with the family and ending up with the society.
There is a huge difference between the life of a committed Muslim and a non-committed one in terms of hygiene, psychology, personality, society, and even private and public life.
Paying Zakat: Paying zakat in Islam is the basis of social solidarity in the Muslim community. It is the guarantor of the rights of the poor, set to them by God in order to sustain communication and mutual mercy among the various classes of society; and to nourish the feelings of love and cooperation among them. It is also meant to put an end to the incentives of grudge and vanity amongst the believers. Zakat is a symbol of an integrated economic structure in Islam, and a clear indication of the fact that this religion is not merely emotions inside the human self; rather a comprehensive system of life; in addition to being a dogma strong and alive in the human self. Islam is a religion that lives up to people’s demands and concerns, and tries to solve whatever problems Muslims face. As such, it paves the way to respectable and virtuous life; eventually makes everybody happy. By this, zakat is deemed to achieves security and stability to the community.
Fasting the month of Ramadhan: Fasting is abstaining from food, drink, and sexual desire for the from dawn to sunset in accordance with almighty God commandment. There is strength in fasting for both man self and will so that it goes above the captivity of necessities and desire and rises to transcendental horizons, and it implies control and order which should be familiar to Muslims in their lives. Thus he does not become negligent or careless.
Fasting makes Muslims accustomed to fasting at a specific time, to abstain from food and drink and at the same time to break their fast at a specific time. When the month of Ramadhan ends, the Muslims become God’s guests on the occasion of the Feast and he is prohibited from fasting that day after fasting was obligatory the day before. It is order, obedience, and noble education of the magnanimous selves.
Fasting in Islam is deemed to remind the rich and healthy of the concerns of the poor, the sick and the weak. When a wealthy person feels hungry, he/she will mostly remember the needy who might always be hungry. This will make the rich sympathize with them and takes interest in their affairs. Thus, a fasting person may conclude from his fast great spiritual, psychological and social lessons.
Pilgrimage to Mecca: Pilgrimage is also one of the great pillars of worship in Islam. It encourages Muslims to sacrifice their money, and comfort for the sake of God, in order to go above the material, and aspire to the world of values and ideals.
Pilgrimage is a strong link in the structure of Islamic system, which is used to bring up the Muslim society on values, like acquaintance, cooperation and consultation. Let us look at the educational array in this community: Islam legislated congregational prayer, which calls Muslims on a street level to meet five times a day, where they get acquainted with the concerns, pains and situations of each other. Islam legislated a meeting on the village or town level in the form of the Friday prayer, so that a preaching scholar from among them would remind, advice and guide them to the best of their interest. The Friday preacher treats the problems, which may have happened on a week’s term from a conscious Islamic educational perspective so that people leave the mosque after having known and taken a dose of guidance, and knowledge by which they make their way to the future.
Still, Islam legislated a larger meeting on the level of the whole Islamic world every year, i.e. the day of the Greater Pilgrimage to Holy Mecca, that blessed meeting when people are required to abandon their local customs, conventions, dress and languages, and perform universal rituals of the state of consecration, standing in `Arafat, circumambulating the Holy Kaabah, strolling between Safa and Marwa, and uttering devotional calls, standing around the Kaabah in heir prayers seeing one another, and calling altogether most of their time: “Here I am, O my Great God, answering Your call. I am indeed here to do Your bidding. You have no partner. Here I am to do Your bidding. Indeed, praise, bounty, grace and sovereignty are Yours. You have no partner.”
The Islamic world meets in pilgrimage to benefit, and show the power and greatness of Islam in the form of one aim, one power and one unity. They exchange opinion and consultation pertaining to their urgent local and international concerns and problems and conclude useful lessons, wisdom and experience, which lighten their path in life and help them to achieve their purpose and great tasks. Pilgrimage, thus becomes sacrifice, cooperation, consultation, acquaintance with others, order, education, a symbol of unity and power, and many benefits from which each Muslim takes a specific part.
This is a quick reply and an expressive glimpse of wisdom and secrets of the pillars of Islam. What is more important is the taste of sweetness of slavery to almighty God through the scientific implementation of those pillars, while observing Islam sincerely and honestly, oneself and one’s strong keenness to follow the method of the prophet and imitating the guiding prophet (pbuh) in all rules and situations. From the altar of slavery, the lights of guidance rise and the darkness of life vanishes. Almighty God said:
“Is he who was dead (without Faith by ignorance and disbelief) and We gave him life (by knowledge and Faith) and set on him a light (of Belief) whereby he can walk amongst men–like him who is in the darkness (of disbelief, polytheism and hypocrisy) from which he can never come out?” (Holy Qur’an: 6:122)
Question 65: Can a Muslim consider his failure in life as a kind of test by almighty God?
Answer 65: Failure in one’s life may have different reasons:
1. Failure to understand the rules of life and failure to recognize the law of causality and its effects on the results. Islam demands action and taking one’s way in life to search for rules, earning one’s living, and desiring God’s graces. Anyone who does not act and does not acquire anything but surrender to despair and gloom, and wait for the goodness and Godspeed to come to him effortlessly must be violating the command of almighty God and the teachings of Islam. God says: “… so walk in the path thereof and eat of His provision. And to Him will be the Resurrection” (Holy Qur’an: 67:15)
2. The reason for one’s failure in life might be due to a punishment by God for his evil acts and intentions. Success in life is a blessing from God that might be denied to certain people. For instance, one who does not cooperate with people, help those in adversity, give a hand to the weak, relieve those having difficulties, and does not meet the needs of the paupers, such a person, if he/she has a problem or suffers from some difficult circumstances and God does not save him from his/her agony and gloom, he has to know that reward is the same as the act, and prophet Muhammad says: “Anyone who helps one in difficulty, God will help him in this life and in the hereafter, and almighty God said: “As for him who gives (in charity) and keeps his duty to God and fears Him, And believes in al-Husna, We will make smooth for him the path of ease (goodness). But who is greedy miser and thinks himself self-sufficient. And belies Al-Husna, We will make smooth for him the path for evil.” (Holy Qur’an: 92:5-10) and said also: “But the evil plot encompasses only him who makes it.” (Holy Qur’an: 35:43)
3. The visitation could be from God to his slaves in order to test their patience and faith. Surely, there might not be any lack of understanding of the divine rules which run life, and man might not be remiss in his/her action, and he/she might not have an evil intention towards others, yet he/she finds obstacles in the path of his life. In this way, the visitation is from God to probe the extent of the faith of the one inflicted, the extent of his strong belief and his adherence to principles. Almighty God said: “…and we shall make a trial of you with evil and with good. And to us you will be returned” (Holy Qur’an: 21:35). When a true believer inflicted he/she is patient, satisfied, contented, not feeling sorry for what he misses from the joys of life because his hopes will be much concentrated on the God’s reward in the hereafter. Prophet Muhammad says: “The case of the believer is fascinating, all of his situations are good for him; if he is granted provision he thanks God, which is good for him; and if he is inflicted with adversity, he is patient, and that is good for him too. That is not meant for anyone but the believer.”
Question 66: If there is no celibacy in Islam, why do the Sufi groups exist?
Answer 66: Truly, in Islam, there is no celibacy, that is, to abstain from marriage and prevent oneself from legal desires and pleasures. Islam has replaced this term with what goes along with its rules, as Prophet Muhammad said: “Jihad (holy war) is the celibacy of Islam.” Some people understood the meaning of celibacy to be abstaining from life and having a passive stance towards it. Islam considers jihad in the path of God to spread the religion of God and defend the truth that God has revealed as celibacy of Muslims. It is the Islamic positivety versus negativity of others.
It is a fact that many Sufi groups exist in the Islamic world. These groups originally emerged as a reaction against the kind of luxurious life certain Islamic societies were enjoying. This motivated them to adopt the call for asceticism and reduce the interest in life at the expense of the hereafter and the necessity to keep away from all that drives the attention from almighty God. None of these groups did really call for celibacy; if they had done, their action would undoubtedly be sinful. Islam renders enjoying good things legal; it prohibits abominations and calls for marriage. It even made marriage and reproduction desirable so that the nation would increase in number, and goodness increases alongside it. Those are taken-for-granted matters, which all people know and do not need a proof or evidence for. This is how the story of Sufism began, and in the course of time and as a result of ignorance in religion and having little or no contacts with scholars, deviation and extremism spread among many of these groups. By the time they became, however, at complete distance from the guidance of Islam, its orthodox teachings and rules. In order to achieve all goodness Muslims should commit themselves to the guidance of the Noble Qur’an, the path of the prophetic traditions, as they contain all that makes one do without the thought and understanding of people.
Question 67: How can you interpret the contradiction between a Muslim’s acts (like prayer, fasting, pilgrimage) and his/her daily behavior and manner, especially when dealing with people?
Answer 67: It goes without saying that Islam should guide the Muslim in both his/her private and public life. The purpose of prayer is to proscribe adultery and evil, as almighty God said: “Verily, the prayer prevents from great sins of every kind, and every kind of evil wicked deed” (Holy Qur’an: 29:45). This should be the norm, but, often, we do not find the proper effect of prayer and the other forms of worship on a good number of people. It seems that a great deal of them are not sincere and in their worship and do not take their prayers seriously. They lack the education and enlightenment that help them perform their rituals perfectly. It is only when these people take their religious affairs more carefully, honestly, and faithfully that their worshipping rituals will have its true effect on their lives; consequently, end any likely contradiction between their worships and daily interactions with the society.
Chapter 2:
Matterss of Physical and Moral Cleanness
Question 68: When is a person considered to be pure from the Islamic point of view?
Answer 68: Purity in Islam has two meanings: moral and physical. Moral purity is embodied in the belief in almighty God only and not believing in another deity besides Him. It also involves belief in God’s messengers/prophets, in His books, in the hereafter and the prerequisites of faith. What is also involved here is the cleanliness of the heart from grudge, from vanity, from hypocrisy, from pride and jealousy; and the acquisition of all virtues so that one may aspire above any immoral act or sinful custom.
As to the physical purity (hygiene and cleanliness), this can be of two kinds for man:
1. Purity or purification from major hadath (for men and women after a sexual intercourse; for women, after the menstruation period) by bathing. And purity from a minor hadath (after sleep and in case something comes out from the human body, whether material or immaterial) by ablution. All of that has a great deal of details, but they have no place here to discuss.
2. Cleanliness from impurities: one should keep away from all forms of impurities in terms of body, and clothes, and should remove any likely traces of such things as blood, urine, excrescence, wine, etc. If man’s heart is clear from polytheism, and endowed with moral virtues; and if man abstains from bad manners and cleans his body from impurities and dirt, he/she will be completely pure in the view of Islam.
Question 69: What is the relationship between the purity of the soul and that of the body?
Answer 69: Islam insists on purity (which of course include cleanliness and hygiene), as it accounts for half of the religion. Almighty God said: “Truly, God loves those who turn unto Him in repentance and loves those who purify themselves (by taking a bath and cleaning and washing thoroughly their private parts, bodies, for their prayers)” (Holy Qur’an 1: 222). Prophet Muhammad: “Cleanliness constitutes half man’s faith.” He also said: “God is gracious and loves graciousness, He is Pure and loves purity and.”
Purity, as such is values and beauty. But cleanliness of the soul and the heart from moral abominations is more important than the cleanliness of the body from material dirt and impurities. Islam insists on purity in general and the purity of the soul and the heart in particular. Anyone whose heart is pure and clean, his/her appearance is bound to be so, and vice-versa. This is the basis and the principle upon which the Islamic values are based. If this principle is missing in people’s lives, they will never know cleanliness, neither spiritually nor physically. The manifestations of physical cleanliness, which non-Muslims seem to enjoy, are not more than a deceptive appearance from afar. If one approaches any of them, he/she would mostly likely sense a disgusting smell coming out of them. This is not to mention purity of their soul and heart, which has no place in those who do not really believe in God. The least contemplation of the situation of the non-Islamic societies would give us so much evidence and proof.
Question 70: When a person embraces Islam, is it obligatory upon him/her to have a bath or shower?
Answer 70: Bathing or taking a shower for those who embrace Islam is a divine requirement. It is required and strongly recommended both physically and morally. What a beautiful beginning for one who embraces this religion, after saying the testimony, with the intention of starting a new period in his life based on physical and moral cleanliness. Also, it could be possible that the one who has embraced Islam has had a sexual intercourse with his wife. This, as such, confirms bathing and it becomes obligatory, as it is seen by the majority of scholars. The purpose of this bathing is the emphasis of the cleanliness.
Question 71: When a person embraces Islam, will ablution suffice for a bath, or is a bath obligatory?
Answer 71: Ablution does not exempt one who has embraced Islam from having a bath.
Question 72: If a person wants to embrace Islam and does not find water, what can he do?
Answer 72: Absence of water does not prevent one from embracing Islam. He embraces Islam and says the testimony: “There is no deity by God, and Muhammad is His Messenger”, then he/she can bathe when water becomes available.
Question 73: Is removing hair for one wanting to embrace Islam obligatory? And is that a part of purity and/or cleanliness?
Answer 73: The question about hair here is a vague one, for it does not specify which hair should be removed. However, if it refers to the hair of the head, it is not required to be removed, as it is not considered part of cleanliness to remove it. However, prophet Muhammad (pbuh) related: “Any man who has long hair, should honor it”, i.e. keep it clean and tidy. As to the moustaches and the beard, Islam shows their rule in the saying of the prophet: “Trim the moustaches and leave the beards.” So Muslims are required by this hadith to cut the hair of the moustache so that the edge of the upper lip could be seen; and to leave without shaving it, because it is an emblem of Islam and a sign of manhood.
As to the hair of the armpit and pubic hair (round the private parts) it is recommended to be removed whenever it gets long, but it should not be left for more than forty days. This as well as other things, like trimming the fingernails, is the natural signs according to which God created people.
Question 74: Can a convert wear garments he/she used to put on before his/her conversion while these clothes still have some of his/her sweat on the same clothes?
Answer 74: Sweat is not considered to be an impurity. If these clothes were known to have some impurity on them, like urine, it would suffice to wash them before wearing them again.
Question 75: Is not it self-contradictory in Islam when it urges its followers to be clean and to use water before prayer for cleanliness, and then requires them to use earth when water is not available?
Answer 75: There is no contradiction whatsoever between Islam’s legislative system and any of its rules. As mentioned above, Purity and/or cleanliness is a fundamental requirement in Islam. Using clean earth (or sand) in Islam does not contradict hygiene. The whole process can be summarized as follows: a Muslim can tap the earth with one’s hands without carrying anything, then rubbing the face with his hands. It is a symbolic meaning of the moral cleanliness, which should precede prayer when water is not available to be used in ablution, or when one is unable to use water for some reason, like illness. Observing almighty God’s commands and obeying Him in every matter is the deeper aim of washing one’s face with earth, though it is not regarded as a real cleaning material as much as a symbol of worship and compliance with God’s commands in the establishment of prayer and getting ready for it.
Question 76: In matters related to bathing, why do Muslims waste large amounts of water for bathing, while it might be possible to wash the private parts only, like an apple falling from a bag, it is enough to wash it in isolation of the other apples in the bag.
Answer 76: This sound to be a naïve question and far removed from truth. It is not rational to compare the refined human being (with all his/her qualities, feelings, emotions, texture, cells, nerves, etc.) to a bag of apples! I do not think that it is feasible to compare the sexual intercourse, in which the whole human being interacts and from which the extraction of man’s blood and genes comes, to an apple falling from a bag. This operation may cause a psychological change and form a new creature that has both its development and intricate living world. Islam requires bathing, because it is a rule of the all-knowing God, blessed by the Lord, the Best of Creators.
Question 77: What is Islam’s position regarding women’s circumcision? Isn’t it a savage act and a loss of dignity and abuse of their sexual rights?
Answer 77: Circumcision of women is legal if not desirable in Islam, depending on the state of the woman and her environment. In some countries with hot climate, woman circumcision might become a necessity for a perfect conjugal life with her husband. What harm or bestiality happens to the woman if she is circumcised? There is no difference between the circumcision of a male and that of a female. It is an extra piece of flesh in the body of a little child, which can carefully be removed and for the sake f purity, beauty; which verify the aspects of manhood in the circumcised little boy and the qualities of womanhood in the little girl. We see no wrong with it, and there is no loss whatsoever in dignity.
Question 78: Are Muslims allowed to eat from the food and/or slaughtered animals of the People of the Scripture (Christians and Jews)?
Answer 78: Muslims can at any time eat from the food and/or the slaughtered animals of the people of the book. Almighty God says: “The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals) of the People of the Scripture is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them” (Holy Qur’an: 5:5). This testifies the ease of Islam and its tolerance in dealing with non-Muslims, so that they come closer to Muslim and cohabit with them peacefully. This is the beginning of the way to understand Islam closely through action and behavior, not through speech and pretension only.
Chapter 3:
Matters Relating to Prayer
Question 79: Is it all right for a Muslim to say his/hers prayer in a languages other than Arabic? Can he/she read surah al-fatiha (the opening chapter of the Qur’an) and any other (short) surah in a different language than Arabic? Also, is it obligatory to supplicate and revere God in Arabic only?
Answer 79: Saying one’s prayer cannot not be considered acceptable unless it is read in Arabic. Every non-Arab Muslim should learn some Arabic so that he/she could at least perform his obligatory religious rituals. Arabic is the language of the Qur’an and Islam. However, it is possible only temporarily to read the meaning of the surat al-fatiha in another language (other than Arabic) until the person has learnt to read it in Arabic. It should be emphasized at the same time that learning to read Arabic is easy, especially the Noble Qur’an. Almighty God says: “And We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember; then is there an one who will remember (or receive admonition)?” (Holy Qur’an: 54: 17).
As to supplication and glorification in languages other than Arabic it is lawful, though it is preferable to be performed in the language of the Qur’an itself.
Question 80: What is the divine rule regarding a non-committed Muslim who does not perform his/her prayer, not out of denial, but negligence? Is he/she considered to be an infidel?
Answer 80: Prayer is one of the basic pillars of Islam, if not the most important one. It comes second to the declaration of faith (the two testimonies). It is the pillar, which distinguishes the Muslim from the infidel. It is usually the last thing that Muslims maintain from Islam. Any Muslim who abandons it becomes so close to infidelity, if not considered an infidel indeed. Some scholars believe that when a Muslim neglects prayer because of laziness, he/she becomes an infidel. Others regard it as sinful and very close to infidelity, so long as this lazy Muslim recognizes it and believes it is obligation.
Question 81: Is the prayer performed when one is absent-minded or busy about worldly affairs considered to be invalid?
Answer 81: Prayer is not considered invalid when one is absent-minded or busy, but the worshipper will not obtain the reward of this prayer. Full reward cannot be achieved except through humble and content prayer.
Question 82: Does it suffice a Muslim to perform his/her prayer only verbally? Are the physical movements (of bowing, prostrating, etc.) integrated in the prayer itself?
Answer 82: Prayer is worshipping God, and it is made in a particular manner which Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) taught us. Almighty God instructed the prophet to perform it this manner through the revelation of angel Gabriel. The prophet (pbuh) said: “Pray in the manner you saw me doing.” Following the prophet’s tradition is an Islamic obligation, whether we realize the purpose of some of his deeds or not. However, when we do not fully comprehend the purpose and surrender to God’s commands, that is a kind of belief in the unseen and a testimony to the belief in God—although we can never see Him.
Question 83: Is it permissible for a Muslim to pray in a church if he/she does not have time or could not find a more appropriate place?
Answer 83: Praying in a church is undesirable because it is a place for non-Muslims. A Muslim can perform his/her prayer in any other place on earth, so long as it is clean pure. The prophet says that whole of the globe has been made a place for worshipping. A Muslims who does not have enough time to pray while he is in a church for some reason could go out and pray nearby the church, in the street, or in any other clean place. However, prayer in a clean church for a Muslim can still be valid though it may not be favourable.
Question 84: What is the divine rule concerning the convert’s past obligatory prayers, which he had missed before conversion? She he/she perform them all?
Answer 84: Islam is a religion of tolerance. “It nullifies everything before it,” as related by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Accordingly, a person who has embraced Islam is not required to compensate for any Islamic obligations before embracing Islam.
Question 85: Is the prayer of someone who has converted but not yet circumcised, acceptable?
Answer 85: The prayer of one who has embraced Islam and has not been circumcised is acceptable if he insures that he cleans the circumcision location properly, i.e. if he is sure that he has cleaned the inner part of the piece to be cut in circumcision, and he has to do circumcision as soon as possible, for it is one of the requirement of Islam.
Chapter 4:
Matters Relating to Zakat
Question 86: If a Muslim struggles hard in order to achieve his own wealth, why should he/she give a certain amount of this wealth in the form of zakat? Is not all the money his/hers? Cannot God give the poor money?
Answer 86: Islam has its own comprehensive educational system which takes care of both the individual and the society at the same time. It maintains balance in rights and duties, chastens and purifies the soul from greed and miserliness, and makes man feel that he/she is an integral part of the society. Islam preaches that there is no complete happiness unless all are happy; a well known Muslim poet says: “No clouds should ever rain on me or on my land/ Unless it rains all over the place.” Islam has established a society based on cooperation, solidarity, reciprocal connection, mercy, love, benevolence and altruism. A true Muslim’s conscience suffers and gets tormented if people around him are under distress or hardship. A Muslim, who has been endowed, by God, with health and strength to collect money, is supposed to give thanks to his Lord for His gifts. The best way for a Muslim to give thanks is to help brethrens in Islam who need help, to give the deprived and poor from what God has given him. Love and intimacy as such would be established and maintained between the poor and the rich. In this way, society would feel better; and the spirit of cooperation and harmony would prevail among the members of the same community. Besides, the one who is poor and frugal might become rich one day, and vice versa; he who gives today might be in need in the future. Every right has one duty against it, and vice versa.
If we look at the modern advanced societies, we find them imposing different systems of social security, collecting taxes, and trying all the time to protect these systems by the force of law. Islam legislated the system of zakat, which is fundamentally is a test, in order to achieve solidarity for the sake of brotherhood, love, and goodwill. However, the rebellion of some people against this system obliges the Islamic state to take zakat from them by force so that the right of the society continues to be maintained before the right of individuals, so that happiness can prevail. Almighty God relates: “Help you one another in al-Birr and al-Taqwa (virtue, righteousness and piety); but do not help one another in sin and transgression” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 2) and prophet Muhammad related: “He is not a believer in me that who sleeps full at home while his neighbor beside him is hungry and he knows about him.”
It is in this way that Islam brought people up so that society could be a civilized one. History has not witnessed a similar example. Islam still has the aptitude to form such society based on these values and high ideals if it has the enlightened and conscious leadership and if people are enjoying an atmosphere of freedom and dignity.
Question 87: Is it permissible for a convert to give zakat to non-Muslim relatives for reconciliation so that they may embrace Islam?
Answer 87: Yes, it is possible to give zakat to relatives for reconciliation so that they may embrace Islam. In fact they are entitled to get such zakat. Almighty God says: “As-sadaqat (here it means zakat) are only for the poor, and to the needy (but do no beg) and those employed to collect (the funds), and to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Islam)” (Holy Qur’an: 9: 60). Though non-Muslims, these people must be given from the money of zakat so that they may, hopefully, embrace Islam. Many people have embraced Islam out of their desire to get money, but later they became interested in the religion and became good Muslims.
Question 88: Out of the eight ways of spending zakat comes “and those who are in the path of God.” Does this include sponsoring Islamic promulgators and buying books for free distribution?
Answer 88: Zakat should go to those specified by almighty God in the Qur’an. According to the majority of scholars, the type mentioned above, in the path God, means jihad (holy war) against the enemies of God. As to those who have devoted their time for Islamic call and have nothing to earn their living from, they are entitled to the zakat money. As to buying books and distributing them free, if the books are useful to those who are going to receive them, especially in the field of religion, and they were among those entitled to zakat money, there is no objection to this. Generally speaking, distributing books to the poor and to the needy, it is one of the most useful deeds which bring the Muslim closer to God and it is the most important kind of the ways to spread the Islamic call, but this should not come from the zakat money. The charitable people should assign an amount of money as alms for this kind of activity.
Chapter 5:
Matters Relating to Fasting
Question 89: Can not the fasting of Ramadhan be regarded as a kind of starving, self-torment and physical infliction when Muslims deprive themselves from food and drink for many hours every day and for a duration of a month? Why do not they fast as others (Jews and Christians) do?
Answer 89: Fasting in Islam–like every other ritual–invokes admiration of this religion and of its educational method in life. Islam is not a religion based on the satisfaction of emotions or benumbing of feelings. Also, it is not a religion which follows the inclinations of people or pleads them to meet around it like foam. It is a heavenly religion which came to build up the good man who qualifies for becoming of God’s vicegerent on earth, multiply in number, and establish both truth and justice. Great tasks like these require strong will and patience on the burden of life and its oddities. Nothing like fasting could sharpen the will. When a man feels hungry, out of his/her own will, at a time when nothing could prevent him/her from food; when man chooses to abstain from food and drink until a specific time, his/her will becomes subordinate to the mind and thought. As such a Muslim becomes able to abstain from things on the occasion of abstaining and moves forward in the location of action, and does and leave what he/she thinks right after thinking and contemplation, away from emotions and quick excitement, and respond to ideas and various obsessions. Fasting is also a kind of education of the rich and the well-to-do to taste the meaning of need and the sting of hunger which the poor always suffer from. When those feel as the others do, cooperation, solidarity and mercy prevail among the individuals of all society, but when fasting is merely superficial, as the followers of some other religions do, this does not go with the comprehensiveness of Islam and its distinction. This religion is characterized by its own rules and distinction of thoughts from other creeds so that what is good is known to be different from the bad. Scum always goes in vain, and what avails the people stays in the land.
Question 90: Islam is a religion of ease. What did God in his Almighty enjoins such a difficult task as fasting on the Muslim, especially those who live in hot areas?
Answer 90: There is no hardship in Islam and God does not charge man to do more than he/she could. Any obligation in Islam that is too difficult for man and may cause him too much difficulty will not continue to be an obligation. On the one hand, anyone who cannot fast may not do so provided that he/she compensate for not fasting by feeding a needy person for each day he/she did not fast. On the other hand, Islam is a heavenly religion with a great heavenly message which intends to build a nation, establish a civilization, and take care of society by defending its rights, and achieving a great role on the international level. Such a religion should in the first place prepare its followers to endure difficulties and hardships so that they could be qualified to build nations and develop civilizations. May God bless the soul of that who said: “If the souls are great the bodies will be tired because of their will.”
Desiring comfort and living in slackness, dullness and laziness are the qualities of one who is impatient, the kind of people who are not expected to be good to themselves or to others. Has ever a nation risen in history and was important while it was sitting dull, neither struggling nor getting tired or exhausted? Could such people know the taste of real comfort, unless they were exhausted because of work? Could people feel the pleasure of recovery without knowing the meaning of disease? Could people know the taste of freedom without suffering the agony of suppression?
By contemplating these great meanings, we realize that the obligation of fasting is a heavenly educational one and the difficulty in it may be intentional and deliberate, otherwise it would not achieve the desired aim in the formation of the nation and its preparation for grand tasks.
Question 91: How could a Muslim fast while living in a country where the sun does not set most of the hours of the day, as in the Scandinavian countries for instance?
Answer 91: Fasting is a kind of worship. It is a way of getting accustomed to patience and developing a serious will; and a Muslim has to be as strong as possible in terms of religion, will and body. The Muslims of such cold countries as the Scandinavian, where the sun does not set most of the hours of the day, should fast and be patient until the sun sets even though the day is much longer than the night. If someone, due to a certain defect or illness, feels unable to endure fasting for such a long time, he/she can choose not to fast but must make up for that when he/she becomes able to do so. Otherwise, if there is no possibility that the Muslim would be able to fast, then he has to compensate in terms of feeding a needy Muslim by providing him/her with average food, which he often offers to his family, for lunch or dinner for everyday he did not fast.
Chapter 6:
Matters Relating to Pilgrimage
Question 92: How does Islam command its followers to kiss a stone in Makka with the aim of getting closer to God? Why should Muslims circumambulate a stone building, or stand on a mount of stones and rocks while, in the meantime, it ordains its followers to keep from statues and idols which are made of stone. Is not that self-contradictory?
Answer 92: The acts of pilgrimage, such as circumambulate the Holy Kabah, kissing the stone, and standing on a mount of Arafaat are not considered in any way to be a statue worship, which is strongly prohibited in Islam. The case of worshipping idols implies intention and a heart attached to these solid stones with the belief that these statues have power and can affect man’s life. Such beliefs are regarded by Islam as a matter of mental setback, for how could an inanimate object a living creature?
The whole rituals of pilgrimage represent complete obedience to God, which God Himself requested from man. Whether one can realize the secrets behind these rituals or not, a Muslim should follow the commands of God so long as He commands us to do so. God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, and He commands His slaves to do only what is beneficial and good to them.
The pilgrimage rituals imply great educational intentions, which have their effect on the life of the Islamic nation. They are the landmarks around which Muslims from all over the world meet, stand and move in the same direction. Circumambulating the Kaabah together in the same direction while all are clad in white, and repeating the same call is a real submission to God Will. All this reminds Muslims of their emotional, intellectual and dogmatic unity and the unity of their orientation towards great matters in life and the unity of their path and destiny.
It also reminds them of equality in rights and duties; people are equal, no one is unimportant or important, there is neither ruler nor ruled, neither a prince nor a commoner, and no one is distinguished from others in dress, circumambulating, standing or in any related ritual. Great must be the effect of pilgrimage on the rich and the famous when they are considered to be equal to the poor and the needy. Their pride is bound to be lessened—something which makes them feel the life of simplicity, deprivation and exhaustion; consequently they would reconsider the nature of their social relationship with the public.
Pilgrimage also has educational effects, when languages, colors and localities of the Islamic world meet and live together for a few days every year with the unity of feelings, language, behavior and intentions.
Now, could any rational person think that the pilgrimage rituals and acts are like the rituals of humbleness before an idol made of stone which cannot cause any harm or good to itself or to others?.
Question 93: What is the idea behind circumambulating the Kaabah? Do Muslim worship the this building?
Answer 93: Muslims worship God only and do not worship anything else besides Him. Circumambulating the Holy Kaabah is not a ritual of worshipping the stone building in itself. Rather, it is a symbol of total submission to God’s commands; around which the Muslims’ words and intentions unite, and on which their opinions unit. Despite all the differences in their colours, languages, countries, all Muslims meet around the Kaabah, which makes them feel their greatness, strength and unity, as mentioned before. On the other hand, there is a variety of worship thorough which the Muslims get closer to almighty God, the physical reason behind which is not known for sure; rather they are the emblem of yielding to That Great God Whom Muslims knew as enjoying strength, greatness, mercy and perfection. Muslims love God and believed in Him. One of the effects of that love is the haste a Muslim shows to carry out His command without knowing its effects. The obvious aim is their trust in God, and the desire to obtain the reward both here and hereafter
The matter of worship whose desired effect in particular is not known to Muslims is a kind of spiritual food them, so that their soul can be balanced and their nature be settled, as man is made from body, mind and spirit. The body is physical and has its material and concrete food, and the mind is the container of science and knowledge and has its food in Islam, as God opened before him the horizons of the universe and life and urged him to research and probe the depths of the universe and benefit from it. Also, God praised the mind and appreciated it so much in order to give it a confidence, testimony, and a value which helps him to achieve his tasks in life. As for the spirit, it is that transparent unknown being whose nature and essence has not been recognized yet. As to the spirit, God made its food from worships, and particular supplications, which provide for this basic element in man its growth, balance and coordination with the body and mind so that man could become complete, good and straight.
Chapter 7:
Family and Women Affairs
Question 94: Why did Islam limit the number of wives to four? And why does it confine man’s sexual pleasure to marriage commitments, home and tasks?
Answer 94: Islam limited the number of wives to four as the maximum number for a variety of reasons. On the one hand nature and reality have proved the righteousness of this rule, especially when we take into account the rising percentage of women compared to that of men. On the other hand men are more exposed than women to dangers and mortality like wars and perilous jobs. If man’s marriage is limited to one woman only, a number of women will be deprived from the bliss of marriage which is an instinctive demand in all human beings; which provides shelter, intimacy and marital life for every member of the family. When allowing man to marry more than one wife Islam does not make the case obligatory, but rather something lawful. As a matter of fact, Islam encourages marrying only one wife for those men who do not have the ability to be fair amongst their wives. It proscribes its male followers to marry more than one if they cannot fulfill marital duties equally well among the wives. Almighty God says: “…then marry (other women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one...” (Holy Qur’an: 3: 3). However, the percentage of those who marry more than one wife is limited, as most men limit themselves to one wife. The percentage is lesser among those who marry three or four women.
Islam prohibits intercourse between man and woman outside wedlock as this cause harm on to both the individual and on society. It causes many diseases, it leads to loss of lineage and it brings about the destruction of the family, which is the nucleus of any society.
It remains to say in this context that it is difficult to find a man or a woman in the western societies not having one or concubines. This is something that often happens at the expense of the family and its structure. It is strange how developed people would justify having concubines but not wives!
Question 95: Why does Islam allow polygamy for men but not polyandry for women? Where is justice here?
Answer 95: Only those who regard marriage as purely sexual relationship propagate this point of view. They ask: “Why cannot a woman have the same right as men, of marrying more than one man? The answer can be as follows: if a woman marries more than one man, the lineage will be lost, as the woman is responsible for pregnancy. If land is not good for planting more than one kind of plant at the same time, how could a woman be good for planting more than one kind of semen at the same time? Science has proved that out of millions of sperms, only one is able to fertilize the egg. If the relationship of the woman is with one man within marriage, we know for sure that this fertilization has come from her single husband, not anybody else, even though the sperms are millions, but if the woman is married to more than one man, how could we know whose sperm it was that fertilized the egg of the woman; eventually, to whom should the child belong? And which of these husbands will be responsible for this family? Is it then justifiable that for the sake of equality with man in polygamy the lineage of children will be lost?
Naturally speaking, the majority of women reach the age of menopause early. The age of menopause ranges between 40 and 50. As to men, their potency continues until very late, on the one hand, and some women do not desire their husbands, which causes them sexual frigidity, which is much more common in women than in men. Women have their menstruation and confinement periods, and some of them have long menstruation periods. This prevents men from having sexual intercourse with them.
Question 96: Why is it not lawful for man to have sex with his wife when she is having her menstrual period?
Answer 96: What is forbidden during the menstrual period is the vaginal sexual intercourse only. All other forms of sexual pleasure are lawful, as almighty God said:
“They ask you concerning menstruation. Say: that is an adha (a harmful thing for a husband to have a sexual intercourse with his wife while she is having her menses), therefore keep away from women during menses and go not unto them till they are purified (from menses and have taken a bath). And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as God has ordained for you (go in unto them in any manner as long as it is in their vagina). Truly God loves those who turn unto Him in repentance and loves those who purify themselves (by taking a bath and cleaning, and washing thoroughly their private parts, bodies, for their prayers) (Holy Qur’an: 1:222).
Almighty God commands men to keep away from women during their menstrual period, that is, not to have vaginal sexual intercourse in the vagina. intercourse in the vagina during menstruation has been proved medically harmful. In fact it comprises every kind of harm, as straight natures hate mixing with impurities. Judaism prohibited cohabiting with the woman during her menstruation, eating with her, and having sexual intercourse with her. Islam is a medial religion, it allows men and women to enjoy each others in any way except sexual intercourse.
Question 97: Does Islam encourage marriages arranged by the parents without prior consent from the son or the daughter?
Answer 97: Islam does not encourage arranged marriages without the consent of the son or the daughter, even though the guardian is the father, which is clear in what Prophet Muhammad said:
“A widow is not married until she gives her consent, and a virgin is not married until she gives her permission.’ They asked, “O, Messenger of God, how can she give her permission?” He said, “By keeping silent.” And in other words “A widow has more right than her guardian to give her consent, and a virgin is asked and her permission is her silence.”
Khansa’ Bint Huzam related that her father married her off when she was a widow. She, therefore, came to the prophet (pbuh) to complain about it. The prophet annulled her marriage. It was also related that the a virgin maid came to the messenger of God and told him that her father had married her off by force, and the prophet gave her the choice to stay with her husband or to leave him.”
It was related too that a girl came to the messenger of God and told him: “My father married me off to his nephew for reputation;” whereupon the prophet gave her the choice to stay with her husband or to leave him. She said: “I have accepted what my father had done, but I wanted to tell the women that a father does not have the right to do so.” These traditions and many others confirm that Islam does not allow a father or a guardian to marry his daughter or sister off except when she gives her full consent. And in the likely case she is forced to marry out of her consent, she can file a case to the court or to the authorities, which have the right to nullify the marriage.
Question 98: Why does not Islam allow a Muslim woman to marry a Jew or a Christian at the time it allows the Muslim man to marry a Jewess or a Christian woman? Also why does not Islam allow Muslim men to marry other women than Jews or Christians (People of the Scripture)?
Answer 98: Islam allows Muslim men to marry Jewish or Christian women. This is a clear indication of the extent to which it tolerates and honours the followers of these two heavenly religions. It deals with them in a special way which does not apply to the followers of other religions, in terms of eating from their food and marrying women from them. In all religions, the guardianship is in the hand of the man. In this case if a Jew or a Christian man marries a Muslim woman, he might deal arbitrarily with her and use his right to force her (and their children if any) to abandon Islam. But for this, Islam might have allowed equal treatment in marriage, like equal treatment in food. Almighty God says:
“Made lawful to you this day are at-tayyibat [all kinds of halal (lawful) food, which God had made lawful (meat of slaughtered eatable animals, milk products, fats, vegetables and fruits). The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them. (Lawful to you in marriage) are chaste women from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) before your time when you have given their due mahr (bridal-money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), desiring chastity (i.e. taking them in legal wedlock) not committing illegal sexual intercourse, nor taking them as girl-friends. And whosoever disbelieves in Faith [i.e. in the Oneness of God and in all the other Articles of Faith, i.e. His (God’s) Angles, His Holy Books, His Messengers, the Day of Resurrection and al-Qadar (Divine Preordainments)], then fruitless is his work; and in the hereafter he will be among the losers” (Holy Qur’an: 3:5)
Islam gives equal treatment to the chaste Christian or Jewish woman as one as the Muslim women in terms of wage (dowry), prohibition of unlawful sexual intercourse, or making them concubines: it allows them to keep their religion while they are wives to Muslim men. As to marriage of non-Muslim men to Muslim women, it is prohibited for particular reasons:
1. Man has the authority and guardianship on his wife, in which likely case he might affect her behavior, conduct, thought and beliefs.
2. In terms of equal treatment, Christianity and Judaism do not allow the marriage of Christian or Jewish woman to marry a Muslim man.
3. In order to prevent the authority of non-Muslims over Muslims, almighty God said: “And never will God grant to the disbeliveers a way (to triumph) over the believers” (Holy Qur’an: 4: 141).
Question 99: Why can a Muslim divorce his wife any time likes, while a woman is not allowed to do so except after long and inconvenient procedures?
Answer 99: Islam does not allow man to divorce his wife arbitrarily and unjustly. If he does so that means he has not maintained his responsibility efficiently. Islam legislated several measures which a man should adhere to before he can take the decision to divorce his wife. These include:
1. advising her,
2. desertion her in bed,
3. beating her harmlessly,
4. arbitration, i.e. asking (any of her and/or his relations) for intervention,
5. first divorce (revocable),
6. second divorce (revocable),
7. third (or final) divorce (irrevocable).
Almighty God said: “As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)” (Holy Qur’an: 4: 34). After all of these stages, the irrevocable divorce can take place, and there are several stages that the husband has to follow, otherwise his divorce will be arbitrary and unfair to his wife. On the other hand, there are several things to do, like:
1. man is usually less hasty or excited and has more self-control of nerves and emotions than woman;
2. man has authority and guardianship at home which commands him to spend on the wife and family.
3. man is the one who pays the marriage portion, whereas the woman takes it.
Question 100: Why should a woman wait if her husband has been away from her for a very long time until a judge can give a verdict of her divorce?
Answer 100: It is not a matter of waiting as much as there should be confirmation and proof of the complete absence of news about the husband. Marriage is a real bondage and contract which implies intimacy, mercy, stability and tranquility. Almighty God says:
“And among His Signs is this, that He created for you wives from among yourselves, that you may find repose in them, and He has put between you affection and mercy. Verily, in that are indeed signs for a people who reflect” (Holy Qur’an: 30: 21).
It is known that whenever the contract has grand effects, it is more difficult for the legislator to dissolve it and that depends on the contractors themselves. If the absence of the husband allowed the dissolution of the contract accordingly, there must be patience and confirmation, as mentioned before, in dissolving this contract, so that neither of the contractors would be done any harm because of haste. This happens depending on the cause of absence and its justifications. The judge should estimate such matters and try to avoid harm to anyone as much as possible.
Question 101: Why should there be a guardian and two righteous witnesses at the time of the marriage contract in Islam? Is it not possible for a woman to have her complete freedom in this respect, and not wait for someone to humiliate her in choosing and allow her to marry? Since men have the right to marry whenever they like, why, women are not granted the same status? And why her guardian’s consent is a prerequisite in this instance?
Answer 101: Part of the answer has already been given in (Answer 97). Here is the rest of the answer. At the time of marriage, there should a guardian (usually the father) and two righteous witnesses. Marriage is different from unlawful adultery, and a woman is not allowed to marry without the consent of her guardian; the guardian in turn is not allowed to marry her off without taking her consent. The responsibility here is mutual; it cannot be achieved except through the consent of the two sides, both the guardian and the girl. This signifies a respect for the woman and maintenance of her right. It takes care of her and does not cause her any harm or humiliation. If she happens to choose a suitable man and her guardian prevents her from marrying him, or in the likely case she has no guardian, the judge can be in charge of marrying her off in spite of the objection of her guardian. In Islamic jurisprudence the judge is the guardian of anyone who does not have a guardian, i.e. he can marry a woman off if she has no guardians.
If a woman wants to marry a man and there is another one who is better than him, the consent of the guardian and the witnesses will be superfluous, and her freedom will not be limited. But if the husband she has chosen is not an appropriate one (to the best of the guardian’s knowledge), her guardian can interfere. Preventing her from such a marriage is deemed to her interest. Not all kinds of freedom necessarily bring benefit to man, and every kind of limitation is harmful to hime/her. Almighty God says: “…and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. God knows but you do not know” (Holy Qur’an: 2: 216).
Question 102: Is it lawful for a woman to divorce her husband if he is infertile, ill or having a chronic disease? And is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife if she is barren or has a chronic disease?
Answer 102: As mentioned above, divorce is in the hand of man not woman because of reasons, most important of which is his right of guardianship. However, Islam has made it lawful for woman to dissolve the marriage contract (In Islamic jurisprudence–mukhaala’a), which happens when a woman asks the judicial authorities to dissolve the marriage contract, either because of the infertility of her husband or because of some harm caused by the husband to her, as is the case when the husband is chronically ill. This matter will be different if the woman knows about her husband’s situation before her marriage to him.
Question 103: Why is not lawful for girls in some Muslim countries to choose any man she wants to marry?
Answer 103: Islam should not be judged through the practices of some of its followers; people should be judged according to their implementation of Islam. Islam does respect the will of the girl, as mentioned above. However, the consent of the girl’s guardian should be achieved when she would like to marry and the marriage contract will not be valid without it.
A woman is free to choose any man she wants to marry; she is also free to reject any man she does not want to marry. This is alright as long as her choice is right. As to the choice based on socialization between man and woman or unlawful courtship, it is undoubtedly a failing one. In this case, the guiding guardian, who takes in his consideration the benefit of his daughter or ward, should interfere. Prophet Muhammad said: “Any woman married off by an angry guardian, her marriage is invalid.”
If the guardian is fair, he should interfere, as his consent is beneficial not only for the girl in this case, but also it goes beyond that to include his family and clan. Islam stresses familial and social relations. The fact that Islam is the religion of equality is true and right, because it holds similar things as equal, it draws distinctions between contradictions, antitheses and differences. If it regards different things as equal it would be unfair and unjust. Man and woman are the same in terms of humanity, in reward and in punishment, in rights and in responsibility, and in many duties. The same applies to the marital home, as almighty God said: “And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable…” (Holy Qur’an: 2: 228). As man is responsible for work and expenditure for his family, and is exposed to more struggling in life, he was given an extra degree: “but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them” (Holy Qur’an: 2: 228). Almighty God also said: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means” (Holy Qur’an: 4: 34).
Suspicion comes from adopting corrupt criteria; difference in jobs leads to differences in concepts. When a European woman wants to work, earn her living, and spending money, as man does, undoubtedly she will demand equality. Troubles emerge from asking a woman to do what is not her duty. For this, and besides other reasons, Islam does not regard man and woman as equal in a variety of respects, including testimonies, inheritance, guardianship, custody, confinement after divorce, and the areas of the private parts of the body which should be covered, and the duty of expenditure, divorce, etc. It is a well know fact that organic and functional build of woman is different from that of the man. The French scientist Alex Carrel stated:
The difference between man and woman does not come from the particular shape of their genitalia, or from the presence of womb in woman, or from the method of education, as the difference is of a more important nature than this. The differences come from formation of texture itself, and from the fertilization of the body with specific chemical materials which the ovary exudes. Ignoring those essential facts by feminists led them to believe that both sexes should receive the same kind of education, and that both sexes should be given the same authorities and similar responsibilities. In fact, woman differs considerably from man, as every cell of her body carries the nature of her sex.
Question 104: Since Islam is the religion of equality, why it gives man double what it gives to woman in matters of inheritance?
Answer 104: Islam gave man double what it gave to woman in inheritance for several reasons:
1. Man’s need for money is more than that of woman, because he is charged of the financial burdens of life which are double the burdens of woman. When he becomes adult, he is required to spend on himself (marriage expenses for example), at the time girl continues to be spent on by her guardian until she gets married. When she accepts to marry a man, her future husband gives her the marriage portion. When she gets married, her husband becomes in charge of spending on her.
2. Money is the nerve of life and proper management of finance is both an individualistic and collective duty. Man is often better at handling inherited money and better at managing and investing it.
3. Islam observed the possibility that the inheritors may share the inherited money: men mostly participate in running the business of their fathers, whom they inherited while women do not.
4. Giving man double the amount of the inheritance to woman man is not always the case, as both man and woman may get the same amount in some cases, as in the case of the brother of a mother, and the sister of a mother, and the father and mother from their son, if the son has inheriting descendents, and so on.
5. Inheritance is one of the forms of support, and men are much more supportive to their dependants more than women.
Question 105: Why does not an infidel brother inherit his Muslim brother, and vice versa?
Answer 105: Inheritance is an expression of loyalty, connection and relation. If the inheritor is different from the testator in terms of religion, there will not be guardianship or relation between them, since the most important relation is that of Islam. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: “Neither an infidel inherits a Muslim nor a Muslim inherits an infidel.” Prevention of inheritance is a prevention of the forms of sympathy and relation, both of which might corrupt the Muslim’s faith. When Islam prevents inheritance between a Muslim and an infidel, it affirms the rule “profit against loss” and vice versa, which does not negate justice, but a kind of equal treatment.
Question 106: Why does Islam prohibit an heir from inheriting his testator in case this latter was killed by his inheritor? In this case what is the fault of the killer’s children if they did not take part in the murder?
Answer 106: Depriving the killer from inheriting his testator is a kind of prevention of a greater evil, as there could be more murders of testators. It is also a treatment of man according to the opposite intention of the killer and punishing him in a similar kind. The jurisprudential rule for this is: “Anyone who makes haste to get something before it is the right time is punished by depriving him from it.” Depriving the killer from inheriting does not prevent his children from inheritance, as long as they are not prevented by other heirs because of other reasons of prevention, than killing.
Question 107: Why cannot a woman travel on her own, while man can? Why should she always be escorted by a mahram (unmarriageable relative man) if she wants to travel? Also, why she can not travel without her guardian’s consent?
Answer 107: A woman may travel without a mahram but only for short distancees–less than a day and a night. In case she wanted to take more than this, she is required to be accompanied by a mahram or by a trusty group. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: “A woman may not travel for more than one day and night on her own without a mahram.” Islam disallows a woman from traveling on her own for a long distance for the sake of her safety, protection, reputation and to preventing any evil which might befall her. Of course she can always travel for any distance with a good company or a group of people provided that her safety is maintained and confirmed. Unless accompanied and/ or escorted by amahram a woman may not even travel to perform her pilgrimage, which is one of the greatest Islamic forms of worship.
Question 108: Why would a woman wait for the consent of her husband or the companionship of one of her unmarriageable relatives if she wants to perform pilgrimage, although pilgrimage is an obligatory duty for women as well as for men who are allowed to travel without the consent of their wives?
Answer 108: This question has already been answered (answer 107). However, we can also say that God Himself out of mercy and compassion with His people wanted to make life easier for them people. Some scholars mentioned that one of the conditions for women to perform pilgrimage is to be accompanied by a mahram. This is not a condition of duty as much as a condition of performance. It is not a condition for acceptance: if she performs pilgrimage without mahram the pilgrimage is deemed to right and she would have fulfilled this ritual. But God did not oblige her to do what she could not do and she is rendered sinful if she dies without performing pilgrimage if she does not find an accompanying mahram or a trustworthy company.
The consent of the husband for the wife to go with one of her unmarriageable relatives to perform pilgrimage remains a controversial matter among religious scholars.
Question 109: Could you comment on the prophetic tradition which says: “The people who give the leadership to a woman would never be successful.”
Answer 109: This tradition has its own historical context. It was stated by the prophet as a response to the political change in the crumbling Persian Empire in the 6th century. In a failing attempt to save their empire, the Persian crowned Khosrau’s daughter, Buran, as their leader. When the prophet learned about this incident, he (pbuh) said: “The people who give the leadership to a woman would never be successful.”
Some scholars interpret this saying according to its historical context only, that is when the prophet foretold the downfall and the breaking-up of the Persian Empire—which is an historical fact. However, there are scholars who take the words in a more general sense. They say that the authority of the woman will always be lacking because she might be exposed to difficult situations over which she might have no control because of her nature and weaknesses.
Question 110: Why does not Islam allow women to take judicial positions, i.e. become judges?
Answer 110: Depending on the prophetic hadith in question 109, most scholars believe that women cannot become judges, because of the discrepancy of their nature as dealing with legal problems requires more reason than passion. However, Abu Hanifah, the well known leader of an Islamic school, stated that women may become judges but only in affairs where her testimony is indispensable and/or crucial. Ibn Jareer at-Tabari and the Malikis have no objection to women’s judicial positions.
Question 111: What is meant by the prophetic statement regarding women that they have “Women have their own deficiencies in both minds and religion”?
Answer 111: It has been reported that the prophet (pbuh) once addressed women by saying: “O womenfolk, give alms. I have seen that the majority of the people in hell are women.” The women asked: “O, Messenger of God, why?” He said: “You keep swearing, and deny your husbands, I have not seen people with incomplete minds and religions who could affect the mind of the strict men like you. Then they asked: “What is our lack of mind and religion, O, Messenger of God?” He said: “Is not the testimony of woman half that of a man?” They said: “Yes.” He said: “That is the lack in her mind.” He added: “Does not she abstain from praying and fasting when she has her period?” They said: “yes.” He concluded: “That is their lack of religion.” It is obvious from the answer of the prophet that the lack of woman’s mind is in the matter of testimony, which needs control and affirmation. Man is more affirmative and controlling in this respect than woman. Also, he could afford to witness a crime more than a woman could do, that is because of the nature of woman who could not endure to do as a man can. A woman needs another woman’s testimony to confirm hers, as women are often busy with their children, and home, which usually distracts her mind and thinking. The first part of the tradition alludes to the cunning of women in some respect, that they affect the strict man’s mind. This is the most rhetorical description of women, as the self-controlled man is sometimes led by their intrigues. As such, one who is not self-controlled is more likely to be led by others.
As to the lack in woman’s religion, the prophet referred to that in the sense that when she menstruates, she neither prays nor fasts, which makes her more exposed to the devil’s insinuations. If she strengthens herself with supplication and giving alms, she will be more protected from the devil, God willing.
It has medically been proved that when a woman is menstruating, or in confinement she usually goes through an uncomfortable psychological and physical situation. This is a part of the prophetic miracle, as it shows us that woman is exposed to such emergent lack, which is not a permanent lack in the nature of woman.
Question 112: Prophet Muhammad said: “Woman was created from a bending rib.” What does this mean and is it also applicable on men?
Answer 112: This tradition has been mentioned to take care of women and not to prejudice them, as some might think. The original saying stated by the prophet in this respect was: “I command you to take care of women, as they were created from a rib, and if a rib bends, it does at the top part of it. If you try to straighten it, it breaks, and if you leave it, it will continue to be bending. Therefore, take care of women.” This can be taken to mean: accept my command of women and behave accordingly. Take care of women and be kind when dealing with them, because of their delicate nature.
Traditions say that Eve was created from one of Adam’s ribs, i.e. she came out of it as a palm tree comes out from a nucleus—something that has been affirmed by other heavenly religions.
The meaning of “the most bending part of the rib is its top” could be a reference to the most bending part of woman, which is her tongue. The tradition connotes that the woman has a definite nature according to which she was created; it is difficult to change natures and men should cope with this fact. Anyone who tries to straighten a bending rib will break it, and breaking means divorce and/or separation.
It is a fact that almighty God created Adam from earth and water (clay) and created woman from his (Adam’s) rib, and created the jinn from fire.
Question 113: Is it lawful for woman to enter the domain of political and parliamentary life? Is she allowed to vote to choose a certain ruler?
Answer 113: Within the framework of the Islamic law, it is quite possible for women to involve in political and/or parliamentary lives. She is also free to vote for the political ruler of her choice. Abdurrahman ibn `Awf consulted with women in their rooms when he was charged of choosing `Uthman or Ali as the third caliphate the death of Omar.
Question 114: Why does Islam consider the testimony of a woman half that of a man? Are not men and women treated equally well in Islam?
Answer 114: The number of witnesses has nothing to do with respecting the witness or humiliating him. This is due to the kind of testimony and its requirements. In many legal cases, especially those exclusively related to women, men’s testimonies are invalid; only the testimonies of women are to be accepted. This of course does not degrade men. Also there are cases where the testimonies of both men and women are accepted, because they have the same thing witnessed, like the proof of seeing the moon of the month of Ramadhan. There are also cases where the testimonies of men and women are accepted, but because of the lack of interest of women in them, and the probability of women’s forgetfulness, the testimonies of two women are equaled to one testimony of man. The aim here is to maintain right. The Holy Qur’an says: “…so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her.” (Holy Qur’an: 1: 282). This applies to financial matters; as it is the concern of men to work in markets, attend the contracts of financial negotiations, contrary to women who are not usually concerned with financial contracts.
Question 115: Isn’t it a savagery of Islam to order for the stoning of the married adulterer and whip the unmarried one?
Answer 115: There is no savagery in stoning a married adulterer and whipping an unmarried one, as their acts themselves are ones of bestiality and savagery. Adultery is a transgression of God’s right and natural law. All heavenly religions and conventions have agreed that adultery is heinous crime. Therefore, secular laws are not fair, and Islam’s incurring of such punishments, of the adulterer and adulteress, is to curb man from committing such crime.
The stoning of an adulterer had existed in the creed of the Jews before that of Islam in the books of the Old Testament (the creed of the Jews and the Christians), but the followers of those two religions changed that creed and the scriptures remained until the time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh). When two Jewish adulterers were brought him, he told them that their rule existed in their Torah, but they concealed it from him. To this denial God revealed to His prophet the following Qur’anic verse: “But how do they come to you for decision while they have he Torah, in which is the (plain) Decision of God; yet even after that, they turn away. For they are not (really) believers” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 43). The punishment of the unmarried adulterer according to the Jewish faith was to soil his/her face with black color and to make him/her ride backwardly on an animal while it is led through streets of the village, town or city.
Inflicting a painful punishment on the adulterer and adulteress is not a savage matter, especially after discovering its destructive effects, which threaten societies with perdition. AIDS, syphilis, leukorrhea, to mention only few, are well know fatal diseases which are caused by illegal practices of sex.
Question 116: Why does Islam restrict woman with niqab (hijab)l? Is not that a form of humiliating woman in every way in life? Is not faith in the heart? Is not it lawful for woman to enjoy the bliss of eyesight?
Answer 116: Islam commanded woman to use the veil in order to protect and maintain her from harm and aggression. She is like a jewel that is to be wrapped up with the finest pieces of cloth, and placed in the most protected location, far away from the hands of the corrupted people. This explanation is testified by almighty God’s words:
“O, Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters, and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks. That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And God is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Holy Qur’an: 33: 59).
This means the following:
1. Islam in its creed surrounds the woman with a halo of decency, which goes with her nature of instinctive shyness—something that exists in every heavenly religion. In Christianity, for example, a nun is made to be dressed decently, a way which is different from other women in her religion, whereas Islam made this rule apply to every woman, as religion is meant to be for all and not specific to a particular section, and this is the way in all of its rules.
2. It is true that faith lies in the heart, but man’s action and behaviour are supposed to testify to faith or belie. Commitment to God’s commands is a proof of the existence of faith, and violating almighty God’s commands is a proof of the absence of faith and its weakness.
3. Islam does not prevent woman from enjoying any bliss, provided that the bliss is lawful. Hence, Islam does not prohibit women from enjoying lawful eyesight. Unlawful eyesight mostly lead to unlawful things, and what might be deemed to be a joy becomes a killing arrow, and a sigh in the heart. Islamic philosophy is based on the injunction of preventing evil, for everything that leads to unlawful things is unlawful.
Chapter 8:
Islamic Society and Human Relationships
Question 117: Why do Muslim countries apply Islamic law upon non-Muslims when problems arise in Islamic society?
Answer 117: Islam does not enjoin the People of the Scripture to use or follow the divine creed of Islam. The method of Islam is as follows: if they resorted to Islamic methodology for arbitration, then the Islamic rule should be applied in this case, almighty God says:
“So if they come to you (O Muhammad), either judge between them, or turn away from them. If your turn away from them, they cannot hurt you in the least. And if you judge, judge with justice between them. Verily, God loves those who act justly” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 42)
In any other likely case, they could at any time follow their creeds, so long as these creeds have a heavenly origin. Also, God says: “But how do they come to you for decision while they have the Torah, in which is the (plain) Decision of God; yet even after that, they turn away. For they are not (really) believers” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 43). This has already been mentioned in the matters related to creeds and familial dealings and in case they are citizens in the Islamic countries.
As regards civil and financial cases, all people living in Muslim countries must commit themselves to observe the Islamic rules, as these rule serve the opinion of the majority of the citizens. This criteria, the rule of the majority, is applied everywhere in the world, especially in the west. In the various dealings of the common affairs (like traffic, health, education), Muslims themselves almost always refer to civil laws. This also includes many other matters, which have nothing to do with dogma, liberty of belief, familial relationships (like marriage and other things so that they cannot collide with the religion of the Islamic society). As it is decided, contract is the law of the contractors; and anybody coming into the Islamic country will beforehand sign his commitment to the divine laws and manners; consequently, accept the rules of Islam to be applied, if required. This is one form of proving sovereignty to the state, something which is applicable almost everywhere in the world. Constitutions of almost all world countries decree that in the likely case any crime takes place on the land or within the territorial boundaries of any country, then the law and rules of that particular countries are the ones to be applied, without discriminating between the nationalities of the people involved in the crime.
Question 118: Since it is claimed that Islam has undertaken the question of liberating slaves and bondwomen, why do Muslims make of men slaves and women bondwomen when they go to wars? Does not that signify a contradiction in Islamic principles?
Answer 118: It is a fact that Islam has called for the liberation of slaves. There are many proofs to attest for this:
1. Liberating a slave is a kind of atonement for some sins, like indeliberate murder, and dhihar (divorce), oath breaking, corruption of one’s fast in Ramadhan by sexual intercourse and so on.
2. God promised a great reward for those who voluntary liberate any of their slaves.
3. The right of the slave to liberate himself by buying himself from his master;
4. A Muslim is encouraged to pay a portion of his zakat money to those slaves willing to purchase themselves from their masters;
5. The Islamic rule of what is called “arrangement,” which incurs the liberation of the slave upon the death of his master, especially if the master does not have the desire to liberate him during his lifetime. So the choice of freeing oneself is open after the death of the master. The master may say to his slave: “You are be free after my death,” whereupon the slave becomes free immediately after the death of the master.
6. The Islamic rule regarding the women slaves in case they become mother of children to their master upon a sexual intercourse they might have with them. If the bondwoman conceives in this case, she may neither be sold nor rented; soon after her master’s death, she becomes free.
When a war takes place between Muslims and others, and Muslims come out victorious, if an agreement takes place between the Muslims and their enemies regarding the captives, the Muslims are bound to keep their word according to what they have pledged. If there is no such agreement or reconciliation, then Muslims are free to opt for one of the following choices:
1. Ransoming their captives with captives from the enemies, or money is given instead.
2. Setting the captives free against nothing, out of kindness and charity.
3. Killing them to relieve mankind from their evil, and killing only the fighters from them.
4. Enslaving them as a kind of charity so that they could know Islam closely with the hope that they might become Muslims themselves. It is in the right of Islam to kill those who stood in the face of Islam as fighters, but in most cases they are kept alive and enslaved. This is some kind of showing the power of Islam and the humiliation of its enemies. The caliph is the only one who could command enslaving up, it is not left to individuals.
Question 119: Why, upon the birth of a baby, Muslims slaughter one sheep for the girl but two for the boy?
Answer 119: Following the tradition of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Muslims slaughter one sheep for the newly-born girl but two for the newly-born boy. The rationale behind the difference could be to stress the fact that there are differences between man and woman in terms of physical capability and the right of guardianship and responsibility. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: “The baby-boy is ransomed by his slaughtered animal.” Since man fights in the path of God and carries the burden of struggle and earning living, he is more exposed to dangers and accidents than woman. Therefore, he is more required to be ransomed with two slaughtered animals for the protection of his body and optimism for his safety.
Question 120: Is it lawful for a non-Muslim to enter the Holy Mosque in Mecca? If not, why?
Answer 120: It is not lawful for a non-Muslim to enter the Holy Mosque in Mecca in accordance with what almighty God has said: “Verily, the mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolatries, disbeliveers in the Oneness of God, and in the Message of Muhammad) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near al-Masjidal-Haram (at Mecca) after this year” (Holy Qur’an: 9: 28). As to other mosques, the reason for a non-Muslim entering a mosque should be taken into account before admitting him/her to do so. If it is for the sake of learning about Islam or for any other reason which meets the needs of Muslims, then it is lawful for non-Muslims to enter the mosque. Entering mosques for touristic or sightseeing purposes is not lawful.
Question 121: According to the Qura’nic verse “So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them” (Holy Qur’an: 8: 57), we believe that Islam spread by the sword. What is your explanation regarding this?
Answer 121: Islam did not spread by sword, and had it spread by sword or by force, people would have apostatized at the first chance they had, but the situation is just the opposite. Once those people embraced Islam, they turned into proselytize Islam in terms of tongue, money and sword. Holy fight in Islam is meant for overcoming the barriers before the call for Islam to people. If it had been possible to call to Islam without facing barriers or objection by force, Muslims would not have used arms or force on the one hand. On the other hand, many countries, especially in South East Asia and the biggest part of Africa and those who embrace Islam in Europe today, the spread of Islam was in those countries by peaceful call, respectable Islamic dealing of Muslim traders, and Islamic missions in those countries. The west used its colonial influence, societies, preaching missions sometimes in the name of medical AIDS and, sometimes in the name of schools and education. It used those means to spread Christianity; hence, the intention was not completely pure or for purely humanitarian reasons. It was for the sake of exploiting those peoples and reverting them off their various creeds. Through its stooges, the west executed all of its terrorist and aggressive plans. The Christian west wanted to establish secular governments, which had nothing to do with religions, on the basis that those governments had nothing to do with Islam, which was considered by the west as archenemy without justifications.
Question 122: Tobacco did not exist at the time of prophet Muhammad, yet it is considered by many scholars today as unlawful. Why?
Answer 122: Some prohibits have been rendered unlawful by Qur’anc texts, things like wine, eating flesh of dead meat, and pig’s meat. Some other prohibits were declared as unlawful because they were included in a total divine rule, or a general principle rule, things like impurities, and all that is harmful to the body or in wasting money uselessly. All of these things have their right divine evidence. The prophet related: “No harm should be done to oneself or to others.” This saying involves all kinds of harm one might cause to oneself, his money, or to others. It has been proved that smoking is harmful to the body. Islamic beliefs render everything good as lawful and everything bad as unlawful.
If we examine all prohibits, we find that they lead to harm to others because of what they cause. The creed produced general rules according to which things are considered throughout history and place. Analogical deduction In Islam is one of the sources of legislation after the Noble Qur’an, prophetic tradition, and consensus of the companions of the prophet, which is one of the forms of the recognized independent reasoning, and approved by Muslims scholars, which is itself the secret of the survival of Islam, as it meets the renewed needs of Islam and judges their new acts of conduct. To this end, the scholars rendered smoking as unlawful on the basis that it is harmful to the health of the smoker, and a waste for his/her money. Smoking is closer to the group of impurities than to that of purifies. Almighty God said:
“he commands them for al-ma`rouf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained); and forbids them from al-munkar (i.e. disbelief, polytheism of all kinds, and all that Islam has forbidden); he allows them as lawful at-tayyibat (i.e. all good and lawful as regards things, deeds, beliefs, person, foods), and prohibits them as unlawful al-khab`ith (i.e. all evil and unlawful as regards things, deeds, beliefs, persons and foods), he releases them from their heavy burdens (of God’s Covenant with the children of Israel), and from the fetters (bonding) that were upon them” (Holy Qur’an: 7: 157).
Question 123: Almost all banks do not observe the religious teachings and they deal with interest. But dealing with the bank has almost become a necessity. What harm is there if one deposit his/her money in a bank, with and without interests?
Answer 123: Putting money in interest banks is lawful because of necessity, and necessity is estimated according to its real situation. Accordingly, putting money in interest banks in a country which has monetary institutions, like Islamic banks and its subsidiaries, not dealing in interest is unlawful. Putting one’s money in a bank is originally unlawful if one is not worried about the safety of his money from theft or robbery. If one feels unsafe about the money, there is no objection to putting it in an interest bank, because of the jurisprudential rule which says: “Necessities render prohibits as lawful.”
Anyone who puts his money in an account because he is obliged to keep it safe, can take interest on it, which is better than leaving it to the banks dealing with interest, but he cannot spend the money in the way he wants, as he does with his lawful money. He can give it to the poor and needy people, as they are the only people who could use the money. Any kind of money whose owner is unknown has the reward of delivering it to the poor and needy, but does not have the reward of alms, as alms is given from his completely lawful money.
If the Muslim is obliged to put his money in an interest bank without taking the interest it is lawful too, and once he is able to do without dealing with that bank, he has to withdraw his money.
Question 124: In Islam there is a saying, which goes like this: “Wisdom is supposed to be the goal of every Muslim, he/she should seek it wherever it is.” Can a Muslim in this case follow and/or adopt good western principles a lifestyle?
Answer 124: Muslins are always encouraged to follow what is good and avoid what is bad.
However, when it comes to creed, worship, manners and many things, which have to do with personal dealings, Islam recommended everything good and prohibited everything evil. Almighty God said:
“Verily, God enjoins al-adl (i.e. justice and worshipping none but God Alone–Islamic monotheism) and al-ihsan [i.e. to be patient in performing your duties to God, totally for God’s sake and in accordance with the sunah (legal ways) of the Prophet (pbuh) in a perfect manner], and giving (help) to kith and kin (i.e. all that God has ordered you to give them e.g., wealth, visiting, looking after them, or any other kind of help, and forbids al-fahisha (i.e. all evil deeds, e.g. illegal sexual acts, disobedience of parents, polytheism, to tell lies, to give false witness, to kill a life without right), and al-munkar (i.e. all that is prohibited by Islamic law: polytheism of every kind, disbelief and every kind of evil deeds), and al-baghy (i.e. all kinds of oppressions). He admonishes you, that you may take heed.” (Holy Qur’an: 16: 90)
Islam urges Muslims to learn useful sciences and advanced system especially in the domain of technology experimental sciences, and the like. Accordingly, there is no harm for a Muslim to benefit from what the west has used to advance itself, if what is used does not contradict the fixed and determined Islamic fundamentals, which are known as being good and useful to mankind.
There is, however, one thing that should be taken into consideration, i.e. some things might be useful temporarily and accidentally. Such things cannot be rendered as lawful though they might be useful temporarily from one point of view. They could be subject to the conventions, customs and tastes of some people. All of this cannot render something lawful, as everything of those principles; conventions and customs should go with the Islamic fundamentals, and people should not differ as to whether people believe it is useful or beneficial. Almighty God said:
“And no example or similitude do they bring (to oppose or to find fault in you or in this Qur’an), but We reveal to you the truth (against that similitude or example), and the better explanation thereof” (Holy Qur’an: 25: 33)
Question 125: What is the purpose of prohibiting usury when both partners (the usurer and the one paying interest) are completely satisfied with the transaction?
Answer 125: The satisfaction of both contractors does not render prohibited things lawful, as two adulterer and an adulteress accept to commit adultery, and the agreement of buyer and seller of drugs does not make such matters lawful.
Those who consider matters from a limited point of view want a quick or private benefit, regardless of what disasters of destruction and corruption of the Islamic nation such transactions may cause. Anyone, whether it is a person or a country, who resort to borrow money with interest must be in dire need for that money. What kind of humanity is this that exploits the need and adversity of that man or nation?
When the interest loan is intended for production, and the borrower loses, he shoulders the responsibility and is the only loser, which could be disastrous to him. Had he been able to support himself he would not have resorted to borrowing an interest loan. The two partners should agree from the beginning on both profit and loss. If they make a profit, the profit is mutual and the same applies to loss. The one working will have lost his efforts and time and the lender will lose his money. Almighty God announced war on the borrower and lender dealing with interest. Almighty God says:
“And if you do not do it, then take a notice of war from God and His Messenger but if your repent, you shall have your capital sums. Deal not unjustly (by asking more than your capital sums), and you shall not be dealt with unjustly (by receiving less than your capital sums). And if the debtor is in a hard time (has no money), then grant him time till is easy for him to replay…” (Holy Qur’an: 2: 278-80)
Question126: Since the Prophet (pbuh) referred to the acceptability of entertaining oneself, are we allowed to play chess or cards for a mere passing of time?
Answer 126: There are certain Islamic rules and regulations that govern the use of different pleasure facilities and entertaining oneself. These rules and regulations conclude any form of entertainment that has been evidently forbidden may not be used for entertaining oneself. Some scholars say they have grounds to believe that chess was forbidden; therefore, Muslims should not play it.
Playing any other kind of game, which is good for health and/or mind, is permissible, provided that there is no evidence of its prohibition. However, playing lawful games should not distract us from fulfilling our duties or indulge us in sinful deeds.
Muslim scholars agree that playing chess is forbidden if it is played as a form of gambling, or if it causes one to neglect a duty like performing prayer. It is also disallowed if it implies lying or cause swearing and/or leads to any kind of harm. Yet, scholars have different opinions: some of them prohibit paying chess altogether, others say it is not recommended; others still, say it is allowed provided that players do not swear, that Muslims should not play with non-good Muslims in the streets, and that it should not be played very often because it may waste the time of Muslims and make them heedless of their religious obligations such as remembering God and worshipping. However, scholars recommend that Muslims are better off not playing such games because the prophet (pbuh) says: “Leave doubtful things, and do things that are certain (to be allowed).”
PART THREE
Questions and Answers on
The Holy Qur’an and
the Tradition of the Prophet (pbuh)
Translated by
Muhammad Kheir Nadman
Ahmad H. Al-Hout
Chapter 1:
Issues Concerning the Holy Qur’an
Question 127: Is the Holy Qur’an the word of God or that of Mohammad (pbuh)?
Answer 127: The Holy Qur’an is the word of God, and it was revealed to Prophet Mohammad through the Angel Gabriel. God made the Holy Qur’an Prophet Mohammad’s miracle, and He challenged people to bring about anything similar, but they couldn’t meet the challenge, and the miracle and the challenge are still valid now, and they will be until the Day of Judgment. Allah says: “Or do they say ‘He forged it’? Say: ‘Bring then a sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can, besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!” (Holy Qur’an: 10: 38). This challenge to bring just one sura, no matter how short it is, similar to the ones that are in the Holy Qur’an is a testimony that this holy book was not written by Man, for had Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) fabricated it, another human would have been able to bring something similar.
It is interesting and valuable to know, in this respect, the difference between the style of the Holy Qur’an and that of the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh). We have at our disposal thousands of books containing the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh), and anyone with any knowledge of Arabic stylistics can easily recognize the great difference between the two styles. The style of the Holy Qur’an is far superior to that of the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh), and beyond the ability of any human to imitate. The Arabs at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) knew him very well, and knew his linguistic abilities before the Qur’an was revealed to him, for they were eloquent and articulate people, and they used to hold public festivities for reciting poetry. Yet, given the clear stylistic differences between the language of the Holy Qur’an and that of the Prophet (pbuh), none of them could say with fairness that the Qur’an was invented by Mohammad (pbuh). Moreover, for all his life before the Revelation, he was never known to have any oratory or poetic abilities, and he never took part in any of the cultural activities they used to hold, because, as everybody knew, he was an illiterate person. A close investigative look at the Holy Qur’an shows many facets of its miraculous nature that further proves that it was revealed by almighty God to the Prophet:
1. The language and style of the Holy Qur’an. We have already mentioned that the prophet challenged the Arabs to bring something similar, but they failed to meet that challenge. The Holy Qur’an still poses the same challenge to people all over the world: “Say: ‘If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support’.” (Holy Qur’an: 17: 88)
2. The way it was composed. The Holy Qur’an was not revealed all at once. Rather, it was revealed throughout more than a twenty-year period, and every time new verse(s) was/were revealed to the Prophet, he asked his companions to place it/them at a certain place in the Qur’an to form a unique sequence. Nevertheless, the Holy Qur’an was completed in its present form as a homogeneous unit, so much so the reader would think that it was revealed all at once.
3. The knowledge it contains. The Holy Qur’an contains a lot of information and knowledge that guides people to the right path. The kind of information it contains is so deep and profound that it would have been impossible for an illiterate person like Mohammad (pbuh), or for any other human, to fabricate it.
4. Its fulfillment of human needs at all times. This makes the Holy Qur’an unique, because It reformed all beliefs, worships and ethics. It also reformed society through guiding people to be united and relinquish tribalism because they are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and that no human is better than another except through piety. The Qur’an teaches people that they are all equal before God. It also preaches justice, forbids usury, allows trade, and so on and so forth.
5. What the Holy Qur’an had revealed after a long wait. The Holy Qur’an contains many verses that dealt with great issues, yet they were only revealed after a long wait. This shows that the Holy Qur’an is the word of almighty God; had it been that of Mohammad (pbuh), there would have been no need for the long wait, as was the case in the verses commenting on the hadith of calumny, and the delay in answering the question of the infidels about the nature of the spirit.
6. Some suras (chapters) of the Holy Qur’an start by the command “say”, and more than 332 verses contain the same command which was addressed to the prophet (pbuh). This clearly indicates that the Holy Qur’an was not the word of Mohammad (pbuh), but that of God.
7. The scientific evidence it contains. The Holy Qur’an contains many scientific facts that were not known at the time of revelation. To save time and space only few examples can be mentioned here; those who want a more detailed account can always refer to the many many books dealing with the Scientific Inimitability in the Holy Qur’an. The Holy Qur’an states:
“Man we did create from a quintessence (of clay); then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed; then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (fetus) lump; then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the Best to create!” (Holy Qur’an: 23: 12-14).
These verses contain a detailed description of the developmental stages of the embryo, a description that has only been verified by contemporary scientists. So who could have told Mohammad (pbuh) about these stages of embryological development? It has been only possible for modern scientists to learn about these stages through the help of modern X-ray and other technological equipments. Therefore, some scientists converted to Islam as soon as they came across verses like these in the Holy Qur’an, because they knew that no human could have known these facts 1400 years ago. These verses could have only come from the Creator.
Another example is the description of the forming of clouds and rain, something that nobody knew anything about at the time. Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an says:
“Seest thou not that Allah makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them into a heap? -then wilt thou see rain issue forth from their midst. And He sends down from the sky mountains masses (of clouds) wherein is hail: He strikes therewith whom He pleases and He turns it away from whom He pleases. The vivid flash of its lightening well-nigh blinds the sight” (Holy Qur’an: 24: 43).
Almighty God explains in this verse how small clouds get together in the sky, and when they form a big cloud rain falls. It is doubtful that anybody had known about this mechanism before modern times.
The Holy Qur’an also talks about the breathlessness caused by ascending to the sky. Allah says in the Holy Qur’an:
“Those whom Allah willeth to guide, -He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying, -He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah lay abomination on those who refuse to believe (Holy Qur’an: 6: 125).
This verse describes the condition of the aberrant as that of a person ascending towards the sky where there is a lack of oxygen: the higher he gets, the more breathless he feels. So who could have told Mohammad (pbuh) about that other than the Great Master of the universe?
There are so many other verses that testify to the fact that the Holy Qur’an is the Word of God through exposing scientific evidence relating to man, the earth, the sky, the sea, the stars, and the planets.
Question 128: How do you prove that the Qur’an Muslims read today is the same that was revealed upon Mohammad (pbuh), and that it has not been altered or that it does not contain fabrications?
Answer128: The Holy Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet (pbuh) through Angel Gabriel. The prophet’s sole and initial concern was to memorize every single piece of it. However, God Himself has promised to preserve this holy book in the prophet’s memory and to enable him to read it. In the Qur’an God says:
“Move not thy tongue concerning the (Qur’an) to make haste therewith. It is for Us to collect it and to recite it, follow though its recital (as promulgated): Nay more, it is for Us to explain it (and make it clear)” (Holy Qur’an: 75: 16-19).
Every time the prophet received revelations, he would peruse that to his companions slowly so that they could learn it well and understand its secrets. Night after night the Prophet would spend teaching his companions the Qur’an. He also used to read it during prayers, and Angel Gabriel used to read it with him once a year, and in the last year of his life the Angel read it with him twice.
The Prophet’s companions made every single effort to make sure that they memorized the Qur’an from the very beginning, and they used to pride themselves on having memorized more of the Holy Qur’an. Thus, memorizers and/or reciters of the Qur’an were so many during the prophet’s life. Moreover, the prophet himself (pbuh) had writers of the Divine Revelation, and every time something new was revealed to him he used to say “place it after God’s saying so and so and before His saying so and so.” By the time the prophet (pbuh) passed away, the Holy Qur’an had been already written and memorized. Then it was collected in one book, and later on it was collected again and copied during the era of caliph Uthman (3rd caliph) and distributed these copies all over the Islamic State. Thus, the Holy Qur’an was passed from generation to generation through its memorization and written form, and this is a unique honor to the Islamic nation. Muslims have spread all over the world since, carrying with them copies of the Holy Qur’an; nevertheless, there is no difference whatsoever in the Qur’an that Muslims read in Africa, Asia, Europe, America or Australia, and we have never heard that they have disagreed ever about the precision of the Qur’an, for all of them have agreed that the Holy Qur’an that they have today is the same Qur’an that was revealed to prophet Mohammad (pbuh) by God. Moreover, God promised to preserve the Qur’an. He says: “We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; And We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)” (Holy Qur’an: 15: 9).
Question 129: What are the similarities and differences between the Qur’an and the other earlier Holy Books?
Answer 129: Islam is Allah’s sole and true religion, all prophets preached Islam. Islam means full submission to God through unqualified obedience and relinquishing polytheism, because all religions preach monotheism. Almighty God says: “Not a messenger did we send before thee without this inspiration sent by Us to him: that there is no God but I; therefore worship and serve Me” (Holy Qur’an: 21: 25).
As far as basic beliefs and worship practices are concerned all religions are also similar. In the Qur’an God says:
“The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined On Noah-the which We have sent by inspiration to thee- and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should Remain steadfast in Religion, and make no divisions therein: to those who worship other things than Allah, hard is the (way) to which thou callest them. Allah chooses to Himself those whom He pleases, and guides to Himself those who turn (to Him)” (Holy Qur’an: 42: 13).
Thus, all prophets preached monotheism, informed people about God and the hereafter, and advocated the basic belief in the same messages of divine Books.
The main differences, however, lie in the legislative and commandment laws, because the divine laws are based on looking after the interests of those required to worship. However, what might be feasible for one nation might not necessarily be the same for another. Therefore, the details kept changing without touching the basics, until human societies developed and matured. It was then that God sent His final and eternal religion, Islam. God points to the differences in religious legislations when He says: “To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way.” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 48).
Question 130: How has it been possible to preserve the Holy Qur’an until the present time? And what is the methodology that was followed to preserve it without change?
Answer 130: The Holy Qur’an has been preserved with great care, and no other book has ever received such attention. During the period of revelation, the prophet (pbuh) did his utmost best to memorize the Holy Qur’an, so much so that God promised His prophet to preserve it:
“Move not thy tongue concerning the (Qur’an) to make haste therewith. It is for us to collect it and to recite it: But when we have recited it, follow thou its recital (as promulgated).” (Holy Qur’an: 75: 16-18).
Every time new verse(s) was/were revealed to him, the prophet (pbuh) used to memorize it/them himself, teach them to his companions and request some of his companions to write and arrange it/them in a special place before or after specific previously revealed verses. The companions of the prophet (pbuh), and the Arabs in general, were (and still) great memorizers. Ibn Masoud said: “I memorized from the mouth of the prophet seventy suras of the Holy Qur’an while Zaid ibn Thabit (another memorizer) was still a young boy playing with the kids.” Ibn Masoud also said: ”I know where and why every verse of the Holy Qur’an was revealed, and had I known someone who knew more about the Holy Qur’an than me I would have ridden my camel and gone to him”. The prophet’s companions were truly hard workers, and many of them memorized the entire Holy Qur’an such as Zaid ibn Thabet, Ibn Masoud, and Ubai ibn Ka’b, to name but a few.
The complete Holy Qur’an was written during the time of the prophet, but it was written on separate sheets of paper that were not unified in one volume. After the death of the prophet, the first caliph Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with him) decided to collect the Holy Qur’an in one volume. Therefore, he commissioned a group of the memorizers of the Holy Qur’an, headed by Zaid ibn Thabet, to do the Job. The chosen committee followed a great methodology in collecting the written sheets of the Holy Qur’an and comparing what was written with what was memorized. One of the main stipulations of that committee was the presence of at least two written copies of the same verses. They did not accept the written version unless it corresponded to the memorized one, and vice versa. Zaid and his colleagues did their utmost best to insure the authenticity of their work. It was related that Zaid asked to be exonerated from this task when he was first selected, but upon the insistence of both Omar and Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them), he agreed reluctantly. He described his great sense of responsibility towards the great task by saying: “I swear by Allah that had they asked me to move a mountain from one place to another I’d would have felt more at ease.”
The Holy Qur’an was first written in one volume during the era of Abu Bakr, and it was kept in his safekeeping until he died. Then Omar took it into his safekeeping, and when Omar died, Hafsa (his daughter and the prophet’s widow) took over the task of taking care of the –till then- only complete volume of the Holy Qur’an.
When Uthman became caliph after Omar, he instructed another committee headed, again, by Zaid ibn Thabet, to write many copies of the Holy Qur’an in order to distribute them in all parts of the Islamic Empire that was growing bigger and bigger.
From what has been said so far, we may conclude the following:
1. Muslims took a great care in writing and memorizing the Holy Qur’an.
2. The Holy Qur’an was written at a very early stage during the life of the Prophet (pbuh). Shortly after his death (within two years), the Holy Qur’an was collected in one volume, and in the era of Uthman, copies of it were distributed in all parts of the Islamic Empire.
3. This great care continues until our modern time. Generations after generations of Muslims have memorized the Holy Qur’an and kept written records of it until now, and every effort has been directed towards keeping the Holy Qur’an safe from any deduction or addition in all parts of the Islamic world. Therefore, it can be said, with absolute accuracy, that the Holy Qur’an that Muslims read in the East and West, South and North is the same one that God revealed to His messenger hundreds of years ago.
It is worth mentioning that the style of the Holy Qur’an is so unique that if someone makes a mistake while reciting it, it is usually possible for the person listening to the recitation to recognize the mistake even if the listener does not memorize the Holy Qur’an.
Above all, God took upon Himself to keep His Book safe. He says: “We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)” (Holy Qur’an: 15: 9). One of the indications of this divine preservation is materialistic means that God has facilitated in order to preserve this Qur’an, such as making its memorization easy. Hod says: “And We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?” (Holy Qur’an: 54: 32).
Nowadays, the methods of preserving the Holy Qur’an have become more advanced, especially after employing modern audiovisual equipments to serve this purpose. Some excellent reciters have recorded the complete Qur’an, adding to the Islamic audio library hundreds of different beautiful voices reciting the Holy Qur’an, and many of these recitations have been recorded on audiovisual tapes, compact disks, and it has been made available for access on the Internet as well. Thus, almighty God has inspired Muslims to write the Holy Qur’an and take care of it since it was first revealed to the prophet (pbuh) until now, and this will continue to be true till the Day of Judgment.
Question 131: Is the convert’s reward for reading a translation of the meanings of the Holy Qur’an the same as that he/she can get for reading the actual Arabic text of the Holy Qur’an?
Answer 131: The actual Arabic text of the Holy Qur’an is the word of almighty God that He revealed to His prophet Mohammad (pbuh). Therefore, reading the actual text is not the same as reading the translation. Muslims are supposed to get one hasanah (merit) for each letter they read from the Qur’an, and each merit is doubled ten times. The translations of the meanings of the Holy Qur’an are the words of humans, and the reward for reading them is similar to that which we get for reading Islamic books and commentary interpretations of the Holy Qur’an.
Question 132: How can a non-Muslim learn about the Holy Qur’an if he/she is not allowed to touch it?
Answer 132: Non-Muslims can learn about the Holy Qur’an through listening to it or reading it over the Internet for example. He may also read books that talk about Islam and explain the meanings of the Qur’an. Otherwise, he could be taught about Islam and invited to be a Muslim, and if he/she reverts to Islam he/she will be able to handle the Holy Qur’an and read it.
Question 133: The Holy Qur’an includes precise and similar verses, as well as abrogating and abrogated verses. What is the wisdom behind such divisions?
Answer 133: The Holy Qur’an is precise and perfect book because God formed it in such a meticulous way that no stylistic or semantic corruption can ever affect it. It is also all-similar because the rules mentioned in it are similar and do not contribute to ambiguity in its verses and vocabulary. The wisdom of having precise verses is clear from its definition. As for the similar, Islamic scholars divided it into three types:
1. A type that cannot be known like the time of the Day of Judgment and so on.
2. Another type that man can know like foreign expressions and some rules.
3. A third type that has features of both types (1) and (2), and this type is only understood by well-educated scholars like Ibn Abbas for whom the prophet made the following du’aa, prayer: “May Allah make him well-versed in the religion (of Islam) and teach him interpretation (of the Holy Qur’an)”.
The wisdom of having similar verses can be summarized in the following:
1. God’s mercy upon the weak human being who cannot bear learning everything. If the mountain collapsed and Moses fell unconscious when God revealed Himself, what would it have been like if He had revealed Himself to ordinary humans? It is partly for this reason that God kept the time of the Day of Judgment as a secret.
2. Putting man to affliction and trial: would people believe in the unseen simply because the truthful Prophet told us about it or not? Those who are guided to the right path say we believe! And those who have doubts in their hearts deny it and follow the similar verses as a way of getting around religion.
3. To give an evidence of the weakness and ignorance of man regardless of how technologically advanced people become, and to show the superior powers of God the All-Knowing, so that man would obey and say what the angels said in the Holly Qur’an: “They said: “Glory to Thee: of knowledge we have none, save What Thou hast taught us: in truth it is Thou Who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom” (Holy Qur’an: 2: 32).
4. To accomplish the miraculous quality of the Holy Qur’an.
As for abrogation, we say that it occurred in Islamic law in the sense that God abrogated all previous religions by Islam, and abrogated some Islamic principles by other Islamic ones. The wisdom behind abrogating all other religions by Islam is due to the fact that the latter has the most perfect laws that satisfy the needs of human beings at all times. The teachings of different religions came to satisfy the specific needs of human beings at certain times of historical developments. Islam, however, came only when man was developed enough to receive this perfect religion as the last divine set of laws that combines the benefit of humans with the flexibility of rules, and the needs of both body and soul. It also compromised religion with science and regulated the relationship between God and humans on the one hand, and humans with the world around them until the Day of Judgment.
On the other hand, we can say that God’s wisdom behind abrogating some Islamic rules by other Islamic rules is due to the policy of the Islamic nation, where rules are stipulated step by step to make them easier to follow until they reach perfection. This was possible by guiding Muslims from easy rules to more difficult ones, until success was achieved. The wisdom of abrogating difficult rules by easier ones was to make things easier for Muslims and to show the bounty of God. The wisdom of abrogating a rule with an equally difficult or easy one was to put Muslims to the test so that hypocrites would be known and punished, and believers would be known and rewarded. The wisdom of abrogating easy rules by more difficult ones was to train Muslims and get them ready for what was to come, such as the attitude of Islam towards alcoholic drinks where Muslims were prepared step by step for the acceptance of its final prohibition. This principle of gradual prohibition is unique to Islam.
Question 134: How were the suras (chapters) of the Holy Qur’an arranged? And who gave the suras their present names?
Answer 134: The majority of the Islamic scholars are of the opinion that the arrangement of the suras in the Holy Qur’an came about through revelation. There are some who believe that only part of the arrangement was done through revelation and that the other part was done through the jurisprudence of the prophet’s companions. However, ever since caliph Uthman compiled the Holy Qur’an and arranged it in its present form, the whole Islamic nation accepted it without any alteration or reservation. Therefore, it is a duty upon all Muslims to respect this arrangement and abide by it to preserve the sacredness of the Word of God. As for naming the suras of the Holy Qur’an, there are different opinions: some scholars, such as Al-Suyti, believe that the names were revealed to the prophet; others believe that it was the prophet’s companions who gave these names. However, the existence of more than one name for some suras is evidence that these names were given to suras by the companions. Dr. Subhi Al-Saleh argues that we do not have strong evidence that the names of suras were revealed.
Chapter 2:
Tradition of the Prophet (pbuh):
Question135: What are the differences among the following terms: Holy Qur’an, the hadith (saying, action or approval of the prophet pbuh) and the qudsi (sacred) hadith?
Answer 135: The Holy Qur’an is the primary source of Islamic law. It tells how a good Muslim should be and how he should behave with his family and in society at large. The rules set by the Qur’an are religiously binding and no Muslim is allowed to break these rules. The Qur’an was revealed to prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in a sequence and on certain occasions that necessitated certain rules. Each sura was either revealed in full or in part according the occasion. The prophet (pbuh) used to ask the revelation writers of his companions to write down what was revealed, and that is how the Holy Qur’an was preserved. The prophet used to recite verses of the Holy Qur’an in his prayers and during his Friday sermons, and teach it to his companions. Ibn Masoud said: “I memorized from the mouth of the Prophet seventy suras of the Holy Qur’an.” . The companions used to memorize the Holy Qur’an to recite it in their prayers.
It was the divine inspiration that was used to reveal the verse and show its location in the Holy Qur’an. This is why the arranged sequence of the verses and suras in the Holy Qur’an is divine and cannot be tampered with by humans. The Holy Qur’an challenged the Arabs, who were well versed in language, to write an equivalent book to the Qur’an, ten suras, or even one sura. But they failed to do so, and so did the one who followed until our present day, and those who attempted came out with some funny texts.
The tradition or hadith of the prophet is defined as any “sayings and/or actions of the prophet (pbuh)”. The differences between the Holy Qur’an and the hadith can be summarized in the following points:
1. The Holy Qur’an is the word of God, which is unique in its style, rhythm and content.
2. The wording, meaning, style, stories, proverbs and laws of the Holy Qur’an are miraculous.
3. God has promised to preserve this miracle, the Holy Qur’an, from any changes or alterations till the Day of Judgment. He says: “We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)” (Holy Qur’an: 15: 9). Therefore, it is one of the conditions of correct reading that the style of writing should be identical to that which was written in era of caliph Uthman, which was in turn identical to the version that was written in the time of prophet Mohammad (pbuh).
4. The Holy Qur’an has been transmitted from one generation to the other in a traditionary way (tawatur), whereby reciters of the Holy Qur’an have been groups of people who could not have conspired to lie. Therefore, the Holy Qur’an has been the most correct book on earth since it was revealed through Angel Gabriel to the Prophet (pbuh).
5. Anyone denying the authenticity of the Holy Qur’an –or part of it- is regarded as blasphemous (kafir).
6. The Holy Qur’an consists of a limited number of chapters (suras) amounting to 114 suras, and each sura is divided into smaller parts called verses (ayat).
7. Reciting certain verses of the Holy Qur’an in each prayer is obligatory, and no prayer is true unless verses of the Qur’an are recited in it.
8. Anyone with minor ritual impurity is not allowed to touch the Holy Qur’an, and anyone with a major ritual impurity is not allowed to recite it.
9. Muslims are rewarded one merit for reading each letter of the Holy Qur’an.
10. The Holy Qur’an should be recited literally and not in the form of interpretation.
The above are the main characteristics of the Holy Qur’an that distinguish it from all other religious texts, including the traditions of the prophet hadith.
The qudsi (sacred) hadith are those that did not originate from the prophet (pbuh), but from God. Thus, the qudsi hadith occupies an intermediate place between the Holy Qur’an and the tradition of the prophet (nabawi hadith). The wording, meaning and sequence of the Holy Qur’an were revealed from God directly to the prophet (pbuh). The qudsi hadith was revealed as meaning only to the Prophet (pbuh) from almighty God, but the wording was from the Prophet (pbuh) himself. Therefore, the qudsi hadiths share with the Holy Qur’an the quality of being ascribed to almighty God, and differ with it in all other qualities. The qudsi hadith shares the qualities of the nabawi hadith in being subject to categorization: true, sound, or weak hadith. The qudsi hadith can not be recited in prayers, a person with minor ritual impurity may touch the book containing it, a person with a major ritual impurity may recite it, and it can be related in the form of interpretation, etc.
The tradition of the Prophet (pbuh) differs from the qudsi hadith, although they were both inspired by almighty God in the light of what He says in the Holy Qur’an: “For Allah hath sent down to thee the Book and Wisdom and taught thee what thou knewest not (before)” (Holy Qur’an: 4: 113); and
“Nor does he (the Prophet) say (aught) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him” (Holy Qur’an: 53: 3-4).
The prophet (pbuh) also says “I have been given the Holy Qur’an and another similar thing” in a reference to the fact that the qudsi hadith was revealed by God like the Holy Qur’an. But while the Qur’an was a direct revelation, the qudsi hadith was a mere inspiration. It must be stressed that the tradition of the prophet was guided by God so that the prophet (pbuh) would not do anything against the teachings of Islamic laws. It is in this sense that the tradition of the prophet is ascribed to divine inspiration as well.
Question 136: What is the difference between the tradition (sunnah) of the prophet and the biography (sirah) of the prophet (pbuh)?
Answer 136: The tradition (sunnah) of the prophet is, as we have already defined it, the collections of recorded words, actions, and sanctions of prophet Mohammad (pbuh). It is a recommended, rather compulsory deed. It is usually organized according to the subject under discussion, such as belief, prayer, purity, alms, fasting, pilgrimage, etc. On the other hand; the biography (sirah) of the prophet (pbuh) is the story of the life of the prophet. It tells the actions that happened to him in a historical order. However, sunnah and sirah do sometimes, because sunnah itself is one of the sources of the sirah. And any prophetic saying relates what happened with the prophet at a certain time is recorded as part of the sirah.
Sirah is the practical application of the Holy Qur’an and sunnah, and thus it is more general because it incorporates sunnah as well as what the Prophet as the leader of the Islamic nation and as a human, i.e. actions that did not have religious implications.
Chapter 3:
The Prophetic Biography (the Sirah)
Question 137: How can I really know that Mohammad was a true messenger of God?
Answer 137: We have to point out that:
A. The belief that Mohamed (pbuh) is a messenger of God is a sub-issue that is based on the belief in God. It is illogical to give a single proof that Mohammad (pbuh) is a true messenger of God to an atheist.
B. Looking back into the history of mankind, we realize that God sent a messenger and/ or prophet to each nation to teach them His book(s) and wisdom, and to show them the right path they should follow to enjoy a comfortable and peaceful life, so that they would form a virtuous society and apply His system on earth. No society would ever enjoy righteousness unless its members follow the commands of their Creator, because He knows best what is good for them in this life and the hereafter, since, originally, He ordains what is good for them. But if ordaining is left to people, the society will not be safe. Man-made systems have never been complete, because the human mind cannot comprehend what is good for them in this life and the hereafter.
However, in order to answer the original question we can say:
1. I refer the reader to the argument above in which I gave evidence that the Holy Qur’an is the word of God. To prove that the Holy Qur’an is the word of God is at the same time to prove that Mohammad (pbuh) is His prophet and messenger, because it is universally agreed that the Holy Qur’an was revealed to Mohammad (pbuh).
2. Mohammad (pbuh) claimed that he is a messenger of God fourteen centuries ago; since then, God has not sent any other messenger to contradict this claim. On the contrary, we have seen that God supported Mohammad (pbuh) by giving him many miracles to corroborate his claim of being a true messenger of God.
3. Prophethood is claimed either by an absolutely truthful person, or by a complete liar, and only the ignorant won’t be able to distinguish between the two. There are many ways to distinguish between a liar and a truthful person in matters that are even less important that the claim of prophethood, so it should be easier to distinguish between the two in such matters.
No liar has ever claimed prophethood without being exposed by aspects of ignorance, lying and profligacy, and without showing signs of being obsessed by demons. A true messenger/prophet has to tell about things, give commands and do things that show either his lying or truthfulness. Those who knew the messenger and his truthful nature, knew for sure that he was not lying in his claim of prophethood. A knowledgeable person can tell when a man is satisfied, and when he is in the state of, love, hatred, happiness, sadness, and other states of mind that show on the face of a person. God says
“Had We so willed, we could have shown them up to thee, and thou shouldst have known them by their marks: but surely thou wilt know them by the tone of their speech! And God knows all that ye do (Holy Qur’an: 37: 40).”
Uthman ibn Affan (the third caliph) said: “No one has ever intended something secretly without getting exposed by God by showing signs of his secrets on his face and making the person say accidentally what he is hiding”. If this is true of normal daily matters, it is even more so when a crucial issue like prophethood is involved.
Khadijah (the prophet’s first wife) knew his truthfulness and honesty. Therefore, when the messenger (pbuh) told her, having received the first revelation, that he was afraid, she said to him:” Nay. God will never let ye down. For you keep good relations with your kith and kin, tell the truth, look after the sick, receive your guests hospitably, give to the poor, and help people in their daily affairs”. She praised his high values and character, and, surely, God never lets down people with these qualities and values. Khadija soon accompanied the messenger to Warqa’ ibn Nawfal (one of her relatives who was well known Christian priest and among the first to write the Bible in Arabic) and asked him: “Hear thee, uncle, what (Mohammad) says.” Having heard Muhammad, Waraqa’ said “This is the kind of revelation (Angel) that used to come to Moses.”
Negus, who was Emperor of Ethiopia during the messenger’s time, said about him: “His preaching and that of Moses come from the same source”.
Hercules, the Roman emperor, having received a letter from Mohammad (pbuh) inviting him to Islam, summoned all Arabs who were in Al-Sham (greater Syria) at the time, including Abu Sufian who was there on business. Hercules asked about the qualities and status of Mohammad (pbuh), and he realized from Abu Sufian’s answers that he (Mohammad) carried all the signs and qualities of all the true messengers mentioned in the Old and New Testaments, and which Hercules knew only too well. It was documented that Hercules would have become a Muslim had he not feared the wrath of his people, and the loss of reign. The following conversation took place between Hercules (H) and Abu Sufian (AS).
H: ”Has anyone claimed (prophethood) before him?”
AS: ”No”.
H: “Does he have a good lineage among the Arabs?”
AS: “Yes he has”.
H: “Has he ever been accused of lying before he claimed prophethood?”
AS: “Not really, we have never known him to be a liar”.
H: “Was he followed by the weak people or the rich and powerful ones?”
AS: “The weak ones”.
H: “Was anyone of his ancestors a king?”
AS: “No”.
H: “Are his followers on the increase or decrease?”
AS: “They are on the increase”
H: “Has any of his followers apostatized?”
AS: “No”
H: “Does he betray?”
AS: “No”
H: “Have you fought him?”
AS: “Yes”
H: “How is your war with him progressing?”
AS: “Sometimes we win sometimes, somettimes he does.”
H: “What does he ask you to do?”
AS: “To worship one God only and associate Him with nothing; to abandon the commands of our ancestors, perform prayer, be truthful, chaste, and to have good relations with our kith and kin”
H: “I asked you about his ancestry, you said he had good lineage, and messengers are usually chosen from good ancestry. I asked you if anyone of you claimed to be a prophet before him, you said no, and I say had someone before him claimed to be a prophet I would have said that he was just emulating other people. I asked if any of his ancestors was king, you said no, and I say that had any of his ancestors been king I would have accused him of seeking his ancestor’s reign. I asked if you ever accused of being a liar before he claimed prophethood, and you said no. I say that he wouldn’t have left lying to people to lying to God. I asked if his followers were the weak or noble people, and you said that they were the weak, and those are the followers of messengers. I asked if his followers were increasing or decreasing, you said they were increasing, and this is the way of faith until it is complete. I asked if any of his followers apostatized, and you said no, and that is how faith is when it touches the heart. I asked if he betrays, and you said no, and messengers never betray. I asked what he orders you to do, and you said to worship God and associate no one with Him, and forbids you from worshipping idles, and orders you to pray and be truthful and chaste. If all what you say is true, he will conquer my own kingdom. I knew he was forthcoming, but I did not expect him to be one of you (an Arab). If I knew I could reach him, I would have made an effort to meet him, and if I were with him I would wash his feet.”
4. The holy Qur’an that was revealed by God to Mohammad (pbuh) foretold many future events that happened later on in the same way the Qur’an said they would. These events include:
a. God says in the Holy Qur’an: “Truly did God fulfill the vision for His messenger: Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, if God wills, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut, and without fear. For He knew what ye Knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory” (Holy Qur’an: 48: 27).. And this is what exactly happened, the prophet’s companions entered the Holy Mosque with their heads shaved or their hair cut, feeling secure.
b. God says in the Holy Qur’an: “God has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion –the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived ), to one of security and peace: ‘they will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me.’ If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked” (Holy Qur’an: 24: 55). And, truly, God fulfilled His promise in a short time, for within thirty years of the caliphate era, Muslims reached the borders of China in the East, and the Atlantic Ocean in the West.
c. God says in the Holy Qur’an: “When comes the Help of God, and Victory * And thou dost see the people enter God’s Religion in crowds” (Holy Qur’an: 110: 1-2). Later on, Mecca was conquered, and people entered the religion of God in crowds.
d. God says in the Holy Qur’an: “Say to those who reject Faith: ‘Soon will ye be vanquished’.” (Holy Qur’an: 3: 12). And this is exactly what happened later on, and the non-believers became vanquished.
5. The messenger (pbuh) foretold many events before they actually happened. Some of these events include:
a. When he described the immigration to Medina to his companions, and it happened as he described.
b. He predicted that Muslims would conquer Mecca, Jerusalem, Yemen, Al-Sham (greater Syria) and Iraq.
c. He prophesied that security would prevail in the Arabian Peninsula so much so that a woman would be able to travel from Hira to Mecca fearing nothing but God.
d. Once he told his companions that Ali would conquer the town of Kheibar the next day, and he did.
e. He predicted that Muslims would distribute the treasures of the Persian and Roman Emperors.
f. He said that Persian women would serve in the homes of Muslims, and this happened during the life of his companions.
g. He foretold that the era of the companions would last for one hundred years, and the last companion died in the year 110 H.
h. He predicted that sedition amongst Muslims would not appear as long as Omar, the second caliph was alive.
i. He said that Uthman, the third caliph, would be killed while reading the Holy Qur’an.
And there are plenty of other similar events.
6. In order for people to believe messengers in their claims to be true messengers of God, and in order to strengthen their positions, God aided them with miracles. Some miracles are physical such as the camel of Saleh, Moses’ club, and the miracles given to Jesus such as curing the blind and the leprous and bringing the dead back to life, etc. Miracles could also be abstract and mind challenging such as the Holy Qur’an. Since Mohammad (pbuh) is the last prophet and messenger, God blessed him with many physical, abstract and mind challenging miracles. Some of these are: splitting the moon, the flow of water from between his fingers, increasing the quantity of food and drink, talking to animals, foretelling future events that happened later, being greeted and obeyed by trees and stones, curing the sick, and many other miracles. We recommend the reader here to refer to the book of the Prophet’s Miracles, which is written by Al-Hafiz Abi Al-Fida Ishmael ibn Katheer. However, Mohammad’s greatest everlasting miracle is the Holy Qur’an, which is miraculous in many ways: the choice of its vocabulary, its rhetorical structure that challenged humans and Jin to bring forward a similar one and they failed, then the Holy Qur’an challenged them to bring forward ten suras like the ones it contains and they failed, and they even failed to meet its challenge to bring forward one sura. Such a challenge would only emanate from a Source that is sure that the Holy Qur’an cannot be imitated by humans. Had it been produced by a human being, such a challenge would not have been posed. The Holy Qur’an is also miraculous because it is so precise in relating the history of ancient nations and their stories with their prophets. It also foretold future events that actually happened later on in the way the Holy Qur’an said they would. These are all miracles, especially since Mohammad (pbuh) was illiterate, and did not study history. The fact that these historical and future events were told by an illiterate man can only serve to give evidence that he was a true messenger of God. The just and comprehensive laws and regulations stipulated in Holy Qur’an provide a further proof that it is miraculous. Thus, the Holy Qur’an is miraculous in its entirety: its choice of vocabulary, telling of events, and its verdicts. It is a physical and mind challenging evidence on the true prophethood and message of Mohammad (pbuh).
Question 138: Islamists are nowadays accused of being terrorists and fundamentalists because they often resort to violence, which they call jihad. Is this religiously justifiable?
Answer 138: In order to answer this question, we have to take some matters inot consideration:
1. We have to keep in mind that the media steers the public to the direction that its owners desire. Today, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the only remaining enemy of the West is Islam, because it is the only religion that the West could not, and will not be able to, distort its teachings, suppress its voice, and stop its spread throughout the world. People of knowledge should not become victims of the media that tries to make the general public think that Muslims are terrorists and fundamentalists who exploit the name of jihad in their terrorism and fundamentalism.
2. We need to ask: Who does describe Islamists as terrorists? The enemies of Islam who live inside and outside Islamic countries, and who are afraid of Islam, are the ones who invented this label to Muslims with the aim of degrading Islam and Muslims, alienating people from it, and to put Muslims in the position of the accused in the eyes of international community that is dominated by the USA. In his book The Arab World Today Murd Burger says:
The fear of the Arabs and our interest in the Arab nation does not stem from the existence of oil in huge quantities in their area, but because of Islam! Islam has to be fought to prevent the unification of the Arabs, because this unification could strengthen them. The strength of the Arabs has always coincided with the strength and spread of Islam” .
Dan Quail, the former American vice president said: “The only remaining enemy of the West is Islam” . Quail classified Islam in the same category as Communism and Nazism, and the Western media coined a new word to describe Islam “fundamentalism.” The Times magazine once published on its cover a picture that combines a mosque minaret with a machine gun under the headline: “Islamic Danger.” Our natural response to such a description cannot be taken seriously because it comes from an enemy, and enemies have never been fair. Moreover, those who follow the biased Western media that invented these descriptions of Muslims, and those who follow the writings and declarations of Western thinkers and politicians realize that using these descriptions of Muslims when Muslims defend their religion, usurped Holy places, occupied lands, stolen rights and their dignity. This was the case when Afghanis and their Muslim bretherns fought the occupying forces of Communism, which violated international law by occupying other people’s land and killing the people of this land. The West, represented in its media and politics, did not describe then such actions as terrorism or violence, but when the Afghani people rose to defend themselves, their land and religion, their enemies condemned that and described them as terrorists and fundamentalists, and the lying Jewish media promoted these accusations that spread very quickly throughout the international community. This is quite natural given the fact that almost the whole world listens to the West and its media, thinkers, and politicians. They want Muslims to surrender to their enemy, give up their religion and abandon their rights without any resistance; when they do so they resist they will be called terrorists, and what was said about the Afghani people is being said now about the Palestinians in their struggle against Israel. The struggle of the Palestinians is being called terrorism and violence, because they are defending themselves, their Holy places and their land.
On the other hand, what the Jews did in Qubayyah, Deir Yaseen, Sabra and Shatilla, Qana, and other ugly massacres that were carried out against the Palestinian people were not in the eyes of the West and its media terrorism nor violence, but self defense.
The most obvious example in our modern day are the fabrications surrounding the Bosnian war that was witnessed by the whole world, and the international tribunal in The Hague prosecuted its war criminals. We pose the question: has the West found one Muslim war criminal? Weren’t all the criminals either from the Serbs or the Croats? So who should be called terrorists: Muslims or the others?
The same can be said about what is happening to Muslims in Germany, where extremists are killing Muslims and burning their houses, and in France, where Muslim women have been prevented from wearing the Islamic veil. So who should be called terrorists, those who simply want to practice their religion, or those who massacre innocents, burn houses, and deprive others from their basic personal freedom and religious rights? Many events like these are taking place all over the world, where Muslims are being persecuted and deprived from their personal human rights that should be respected by all international laws, yet the international media promotes the idea of Muslims being terrorists and extremists!
This is the twisted logic and reckless judgment of the international community today, a community that turns away from the message of God, suffers from ignorance, and does not follow the right path of God. God says in the Holy Qur’an:
“But whosoever turns away from My Message, verily for him is a life narrowed down, and We shall raise him up blind on the Day of Judgment” (Holy Qur’an: 20: 121).
Muslims are, now more than ever, required to be strong in order to raise the Islamic nation above, and feared by all other nations, so that no side will ever think of hurting Muslims or attacking their beliefs, God says:
“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of God, and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know” (Holy Qur’an: 8: 60).
Concerning this Qur’anic verse Sayyed Qutb says gives the following commentary:
Islam has to have the sort of power that enables it to advance throughout the world to free Man, and the first domain where this power should be used is the domain of Da’wa (preaching Islam): to make sure that those who chose to be Muslims are free to do so, and are not afraid of getting persecuted for becoming Muslims. Secondly, this power should be used to intimidate the enemies of Islam, so that they do not contemplate attacking the Muslim nation that is protected by this power.”
Thus, Muslims are requested to frighten the enemies of God and His messenger who defend His religion, because such enemies should live in humiliation and disgrace, for this is the way of God with His creatures, and not the laws of Darwen who says:
It is natural disposition that only those who prove to be fit should survive, and those who perish do so because they are too weak that they deserve to perish, and those who survive deserve to survive.
What “natural disposition” is he talking about? This is certainly not the way God has meant humans to be.
However, when Muslims deal with each others they are requested to show humbleness, sympathy and and provide each other with valuable advice. This is how our forefathers were “…Lowly with the Believers, mighty against the Rejecters…”(Holy Qur’an: 5: 54).
The West, which promotes the image of Muslims as terrorists, aims at keeping Muslims busy defending themselves to exhaust their resources while they try to clear themselves of the accusations that have been wrongly thrown at them, and thus they do not find the time to unveil the bad face of the Western culture which talks carries the banners of Human Rights and other colorful slogans, while dominating other peoples’ fortunes, and to keep silent while massacres take place here and there to achieve their goals.
As for the second part of the question:(Do they accuse all Islamists of being terrorists?), we can say that it is noted that enemies of Islam target their accusations mainly on ardent and committed Muslims, who seek the application of the Islamic Law, refuse to make alliances with anyone but God and His messenger and call for the unity of Muslims, of being terrorists because they do not yield to the wishes and commands of enemies of Islam, and decline to facilitate the theft of the fortunes of the Islamic nation by these enemies. But so-called Muslims who ally themselves with the West and its civilization, and accept to be lead by the West in obvious contradiction with Islamic teaching, are called “moderates” by the West.
However, there are some individuals who commit acts of aggression against innocent civilians in different parts of the world in the name of jihad, and some of these acts are attributed to Islam although they are committed by non-Islamic organizations. To this we say: jihad has its rules and means, and killing innocent civilians is not part of it. Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) forbid the killing of women, children and covenanters. He says:”He who kills a covenanter will not (even) smell paradise, (although) it can be smelled from a forty year walking distance” . There are many proofs and a lot of evidence in the Holy Qur’an and the tradition of the Prophet that prohibit killing innocent civilians and destroying towns. If someone goes against these teachings of Islam, blame should no be put on Islam, but on the person himself.
Question 139: Why did prophet Muhammad marry several women and limited the marriage of Muslim men to only four women?
Answer 139: This question has some confusion appearing in “limited the marriage of Muslim men to only four women.” Every Muslim knows that Muhammad (pbuh) is a messenger whose basic task is to convey what has been revealed to him from God. He can not limit out of his own will and does not make something legal to himself. God the Almighty allowed Muslims to marry more than one woman, He says:
“but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice” (Holy Qur’an: 4: 3).
Concerning the prophet (pbuh), God the Almighty said:
“O Prophet (Muhammad (pbuh)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their mahr (bridal-money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses – whom God has given to you, and the daughters of your khal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your khalah (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her – a privilege for you only, not for (the rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And God is Ever oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. You (O Mhammad can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive whom you will. And whomsoever you desire of those whom you have set aside (her turn temporarily), it is no sin on you (to receive her again); that is better that they may be comforted and not grieved, and may all be pleased with what you give them. God knows what is in your hearts. And God is Ever All-Knowing, Most Forbearing. It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses. And God is Ever a Watcher over all things”(Holy Qur’an: 4: 3).
Examine the above holy verses which show that God the Almighty who allowed the prophet to marry the wives whom he had granted bridal-money, and God took the responsibility to explain that in order to silence all who talk about the messenger of God (pbuh), as if God the Almighty said, “We made you marry those women, and that is the original thing, i.e. God sent him to his creatures and he was being taken care of by God the Almighty as he was in his care in all of his matters, including marriage.
We also see that in those holy verses, God the Almighty prevented him from marrying any more women after those whom he married by saying to him “It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this” i.e. those are your wives only, so you cannot marry other ones. So lawfulness and unlawfulness, permission and prevention are God’s concern, not the messenger’s.
Polygamy was a common practice in the human and Arab environment before Islam; it was familiar to previous prophet and their followers. The prophet (pbuh) said that one of the prophets of the Jews, married one hundred wives, and Solomon (pbuh) married more than that.
As to why the prophet married several women and limited Muslims to four, that was one of the specialties, i.e. it is not lawful for any other Muslim to imitate him in this. He has other specialties, like continuing to fast after sunset; when his companions continued their fast after sunset, he prohibited them by saying: “I am not like you, God provides me with food and drink;” and like the unlawfulness of his wives’ marriage after death, as they are the mothers of believers; and like the unlawfulness to marry more than his nine wives or divorce one of them.
Pondering into his biography, we find that the prophet (pbuh) did not marry more than one until he emigrated to Medina, and that was after exceeding fifty three of his age, an age when, usually, no one marries for purely sexual purposes or desires. All the ladies whom he married in Medina were widows, except Aishahh; as was mentioned earlier, the prophet married these ladies for legislative and reformative purposes, including:
1. Spread of education: It suffices to know that half the society were women, and they needed culture and education exactly as men did and that are, two or three could not perform their role in transmission, education and guidance. Therefore, a group of women were indispensable to educate the other women of the society, especially in matters relating to women, as they feel shy to ask men about it. For example, it is cited in Bukhari and Muslim that Aysha reported that one Ansari woman asked the prophet about the after-menstruation-bath. The prophet told her what to do by saying: "Purify yourself with a piece of cloth scented with musk." The woman asked, "How shall I purify myself with it." The prophet felt shy to clarify it any further; at which appropriate time, I (Aysha) pulled the woman aside and told her: "Use the cloth to rub the place soiled with blood."
The prophet’s various houses were centres for teaching women their religious rules, and especially to enlighten men about matters relating to women. Verses of the Holy Qur’an were revealed in support of this by addressing the mothers of believers (the prophet’s wives):
“And remember (O you the members of the Prophets family, the Graces of Your Lord), that which is recited in your houses of the Verses of God and al-Hikmah (i.e. Prophet’s Sunnah – legal ways, so give your thanks to God and glorify His Praises for this Qur’an and the sunnah). Verily, God is Ever Most Courteous, Well-Acquainted with all things” (Holy Qur’an: 33: 34).
2. Completing the Legislation: The prophet (pbuh) married several women for legislative purposes, like abolishing the adoption custom , and contributing to the subject of relating the prophetic traditions, which are the second source of legislation after the Holy Qur’an. The prophet’s wives contributed to the narration and conveyance of every tradition they heard from him and every act of the messenger they saw. In this way, a big number of prophetic traditions reached the Muslim community through his wives. Narrators of the traditions mentioned that the number of hadith the prophet’s wives related were more than three thousands.
3. Achievement of solidarity: The prophet (pbuh) married women who had nobody to look after them, especially after they had lost husbands. He married them out of mercy, like the Makhzomite lady Hind Ummu Salamah, Ramlah bint Abi Sufyan and other ladies whose biographies had been mentioned in the biographies of the prophet (pbuh), which show us that his mercy (pbuh) upon women like these, his care for orphans, sponsorship of widows and consoling those inflicted with calamities.
4. Exemplification: The messenger of God (pbuh) is the good example and high ideal of good treatment of his wives and achievement of justice among them and respect of their opinions, helping them in their household works, and loyalty to those who died from them. Anyone who looks for a good example and a high idea in dealing with wives, he needs to learn about the guidance of the prophet (pbuh) in the books of his biography, which embodied and portrayed to us his life with his wives, as if we were living with him (pbuh) and in his homes.
Question 140: There is a contradiction between the Qur’an and the events in the prophetic traditions. God promised Muhammad and his companions victory, but they were defeated in Uhud, for example. How do you explain this?
Answer 140: The first side of this question involves the victory, which God promised His messenger and believers and means the outcome of the struggle between them and their enemies. God the Almighty crowned the jihad of His prophet, and the companions who supported him, with decisive victory. All Arab tribes pledged their obedience to the prophet and became subjects to the state of Islam—something that appeared clearly in the Delegations Year (the tenth year after hijra) as delegations came one after another to Medina from the various Arab tribes and pledged their obedience to the messenger of God for Islam. All these tribes ultimately became subject to Islam and recognized the state of Islam. The messenger of God with his own eye witnessed this victory during his lifetime. Also The prophet foretold great victories to his companions, victories which were achieved after his death. Only a few years passed after his death when Muslims conquered the two greatest empires of the day, the Persian and Roman empires; and subjected their territories and most of their peoples to the Islamic rule. Thus, God’s promise of victory to his believing servants was achieved.
On the way to reach final victory the prophet (pbuh) and his companions were exposed to various kinds of pain, wounds, losses in property and souls, but that is God’s law. God says:
“Or think you that you will enter Paradise without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? They were afflicted with severe poverty and ailments and were so shaken that even the Messenger and those who believed along with him said, “When (will come) the Help of God?” Yes! Certainly, the Help of God is near!”’ (Holy Qur’an: 2: 214).
This is the nature of conflict between truth and its supporters on the one hand and falsity and its party.
The way of calling to God is a thorny one paved with obstacles, hardships, wounds and pains, which are like lessons to the believing league which may have its violations, or they are like examinations to test the believers and purify the Muslim row from the greedy, the vindictive and opportunistic. That is what happened in Uhud Battle when Muslims learned a real and practical lesson as a punishment for violating the order of their prophet and leader (pbuh). After the notorious victory the Muslims had achieved in Badr Battle (the first battle in Islam), some Muslims thought they would never lose a battle whatsoever, so long as they were Muslims and others infidels. In the Battle of Uhud the Muslims were shocked by what had befallen to them. God says:
“(What is the matter with you?) When a single disaster smites you, although you smote (your enemies) with one twice as great, you say: “From where does this come to us?” Say (to them), “It is from yourselves (because of your evil deeds.” (Holy Qur’an: 3: 165).
The other side of the question is that the Muslims not only were defeated in Uhud Battle, but many were killed and injured. Militarily speaking, the Muslims achieved victory in spite of the great losses they had in the battle. Victory can be explained in this way: first, the Muslims were victorious in the beginning; they chased the polytheists out of their camp and surrounded their women and property, and dropped their banner in the field of war, but when, after the end of battle, the Muslim hurlers violated the prophet’s order and abandoned their strategic positions and hurried down to take their shares, Khalid Bin al-Waleed (a polytheist then) returned to the battlefield again, ambushed the Muslim army, and caused them a great deal of loss. Yet those polytheists were unable to destroy the Islamic movement, neither physically nor morally. Later, the Muslims were able under the leadership of the messenger of God (pbuh) to overcome this crisis and gained the upper hand in the battle; soon the enemies ran away. Had the polytheists been triumphant, the euphoria of victory would have urged them to stay in the battlefield in order to conquer the Muslim army, or at least its leading figures, about whom Abu Sufyan asked at the end of the battle; they are the Messenger of God (pbuh) Abu Bakr and Umar Bin al-Khattab. The polytheists would have attacked Medina in which there were only women, old people and supporters of the polytheists of hypocrites and Jews. It would have been an opportunity for them, but Abu Sufyan, the leader of the polytheists, realized that what happened in the second round of the battle was not because of the bravery and courage of his soldiers; he knew them in the first round of the battle when they ran away before the Muslims, and that was only because of the mistake of the Muslims. That is how it happened as a matter of fate destined by God for some reasons He wanted. The Muslims under the leadership of the prophet (pbuh) the following morning chased the polytheists to Hamrah al-Asad. When the polytheists learned about this, they continued their way hurriedly towards Makkah for fear of the Muslims, whose spirits were high and whose will was strong. Here I ask: “Does a defeated army chase its enemy, and does a victorious army flee? This cannot happen from a military point of view and cannot be accepted by wise people.
The third aspect of the truth of the victory of the Muslims in Uhud Battle can be recognized when we know the fact that every single nation must make some mistakes, and those mistakes are natural in the lives of nations, but nations have different attitudes towards their mistakes in their lives. Some nations make mistakes, and then more mistakes but they do not learn a lesson from them (not to make the same mistakes later on). Such nations are ones whose insight has been blinded, so they stumble on their way of construction and their pursuit for reaching their aim was impossible; and some nations make mistakes but they learn lessons from them, so their mistakes decrease in their lives, and goodness and building excel evil and destruction. So their conditions improved and their building developed. Such nations have insight and achieve victory. That is what happened to Muslims in Uhud Battle. The companions made use of this newly learned lesson and learned a great deal from their mistakes. We know that from what happened the following morning, when the prophet declared jihad among his companions who were injured the day before in Uhud battle, all of them attended in spite of their wounds and pains, although some of them were not able to walk except between two men to lean on. The benefit of the Muslims from their mistakes is itself considered a great victory. If the Muslims make use of their mistakes and learn lesson, as their ancestors did, their situation will change considerably. God the Almighty, after this battle, addressed Muslims to show them that what happened was a natural law, the law of God, that you will defeat or be defeated, and that the natural result will be in your favor, but after jihad, infliction and putting you to test. The triumph of the polytheists over the Muslims in the second round of the battle is not an established law, but a transitory event behind which there is a lot of heavenly wisdom and lessons. God said:
“Many similar ways (and mishaps of life) were faced by nations (believers and disbelievers) that have passed away before you (as you have faced in the battle of Uhud), so travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who disbelieved (in the Oneness of God, and disobeyed Him and His Messenger. This (the Qur’an) is a plain statement for mankind, a guidance and instruction to those who are al-muttaqun (the pious). So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior(in victory) if you are indeed (true) believers. If a wound (and killing) has touched you, be sure a similar wound (and killing) has touched the others. Ad so are the days (good and not so good), We give to men by turns, that God may test those who believe, and that He may take martyrs from among you. And God likes not the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers). And that God may test (or purity) the believers (from sins) and destroy the disbelievers. Do you think that y will enter Paradise before God tests those of you who fought (in His Cause) and (also) tests those who are as-sabirun (the patient)” (Holy Qur’an: 3: 137-142).
Question 141: Are Muslims required to follow the example of the prophet (pbuh) according to what came in his biography?
Answer 141: The prophetic biography as a whole is a true method of life pure of any stains and blemishes. It suffices that it is a true picture of the life of a man chosen by God as a mercy for mankind. Therefore, every Muslim who hopes for escape for himself and success in this life and in the hereafter is required to study and contemplate the biography of the prophet (pbuh) to benefit from his worship, to call to Islam, jihad and all of his life. His life (pbuh) is all lessons and wisdom, those who follow it succeed and escape and those abandon it lose and perish.
Dr. Rajih Abdulkareem al-Karm says:
Understanding the biography of the Messenger (pbuh) is, in fact, part and parcel of understanding Islam, for its is a practical and lively witness showing the fruit of faith and absolute belief in his religion embodied by the Messenger of God (pbuh) as a practical and high ideal.
He adds:
Studying the Messenger’s biography plays an important role in the interpretation of the Holy Qur’an, which is the trusted record of actions and events of the biography and the invasions, events and causes of revelation and method of calling to God, bases of legislation and direction, which the Messenger of God pointed out and implemented practically. So, the prophet’s biography is an explanation of the Holy Qur’an and an interpretation of it. Studying it is a study of the interpretation of the Holy Qur’an. As such, understanding Islam is connected with the understanding of the Holy Prophetic biography.
Furthermore, studying the prophetic biography is a legal necessity to imitate the prophet (pbuh) about whom God said: “Indeed in the Messenger of God (Muhammad (pbuh) you have a good example” (Holy Qur’an: 33: 21). Studying the prophetic biography carefully and sincerely helps the sincere Muslims to imitate the prophet (pbuh). I conclude that the major part of his biography (pbuh) especially the one related to his life after the mission until his death (pbuh) includes a great deal of divine rules relating to peace, war, settlement and travel; to health, illness, worship, dealings and other things we are required to follow and worship God by doing so. On the other hand, the other side of his biography (pbuh), especially those relating to that period before the mission, does not show divine rules and Muslims do not have to follow them. They are personal or general matters Muslims can read for the sake of knowledge and not worship. For example, his biography shows that as a baby, he was breastfed in the desert of Bani Sa`d. In his youth he worked sometimes as a shepherd, sometimes in trading, and so on. No Muslim is required to follow this side of his life (pbuh), but may be some lessons could be deduced and more feedback acquired about the true personality of the prophet. God says, “Or is it that they did not recognize their Messenger (Muhammad) so hey deny him?” (Holy Qur’an: 23: 69).
Question 142: Muslims say that Muhammad had performed miracles. How can one differentiate between these miracles and magic?
Answer 142: A miracle is originally a supernatural event that goes against the natural law. People witness it and God allows it to happen at the hands of his prophets, while “magic” is an event whose cause is unseen and imagined to be something different. It uses the method of camouflage and misleading, and it is all seen as true and accurate.
The most famous kind of magic of is the one based on the use of earthly spirits like jinn, where magicians usually get assistance. Magicians also rely on a devil or a goblin to achieve something he wants; hence, magic is associated with blasphemy. God said,
“They followed what the shayatin (devils) gave out (falsely of the magic) in the lifetime of Sulaiman (Solomon). Sulaiman did not disbelieve, but the shayatin (devils) disbelieved, teaching men magic and such things that came down at Babylon to the two angels. Harut and Marut, but neither of these two (angels taught anyone (such things) till they had said, ‘We are only for trial, so disbelieve not (by learning this magic from us)’.” (Holy Qur’an: 1:102).
Al-Nisai mentioned that Abu Hurayrah related that the prophet (pbuh) said:
“Any one who knots a knot then blows in it, he has performed magic and anyone who performs magic has associated another deity with God, and anyone who hangs am amulet, he is given to it.”
There is also the magic of deceiving and misleading the eyes, as God said about the Pharaoh’s sorcerers:
“they bewitched the eyes of the people, and struck terror into them, and they displayed a great magic” (Holy Qur’an: 7:116), i.e. they camouflaged what they did until people thought that the ropes and sticks were moving. God said, “And their sticks, by their magic, appeared to him as though they moved fast” (Holy Qur’an: 20: 66).
Hence we can know some differences between a miracle and magic, like a miracle is a support from God to his prophet or messenger to prove his prophecy and message, so what he performs is miraculous, and the Holy Qur’an mentioned many of them, while magic is a support of the devil to his followers. A good servant of God, a messenger or a prophet performs a miracle, and a good servant cannot be a magician because magic is blasphemy. God may allow a good servant to perform miraculous things, a servant who is not a prophet or a messenger, and that is a blessing while magic comes from someone who denied God, associated someone with Him, and followed the Devil. Therefore, if you see something miraculous performed by someone, we should examine his state. If he is a servant of God, does what God orders and abstains from what God prohibits, pure in appearance and heart away from every kind of evil action, then learn that it is a miracle that he is performing, and if he is an evil lecherous malignant person who commits sins and disobeys God, then he is a sorcerer.
A miracle changes the reality of things and makes it a real fact, and that is the secret of the embracement of Islam of Pharaoh’s sorcerers when Moses threw his stick which tuned into a snake that swallowed the sticks and ropes of the magicians, which we see to have been transformed under the effect of sorcery into snakes, except the magicians who were not charmed themselves. They saw Moses’ stick, which was transformed into a snake eating their sticks and ropes. God said:
“And the sorcerers fell down prostrate. Saying: “We believe in the Lord of the alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists), the Lord of Moses and Aaron” (Holy Qur’an: 26: 46-47).
Magic does not change the reality of things, but a sorcerer affects the senses of people so that they feel that the things before them have taken new forms and shapes, while the things themselves continue to be the same, without changing their reality, as the sorcerers of Pharaoh did, they bewitched the eyes of people when people were made to imagine that the sticks and ropes became snakes in the arena, and in fact, they remained the same, unchanging ropes and sticks.
A miracle is performed to achieve a noble intention like healing the blind and the leprous, healing patients, supporting messengers, and strengthening the believers, etc. It always achieves something good, whereas magic is used for evil purposes, like separation between husband and wife, inflicting people with disease and illness and maybe death.
Miracles and magic are, then, essentially two things different in essence and purpose and those who perform them are dissimilar except in some apparent effects, but it is easy for every understanding person to differentiate between them. In addition, any act if it is magic and not a heavenly miracle; it means that it is a human act that can be performed by magicians on earth, whereas God makes a miracle. Therefore, it can be achieved in the same manner by any human being.
Question 143: God says about Muhammad: “God will protect you from mankind” (The Holy Qur’an: 5: 67). How was he bewitched, poisoned and, more than once, wounded?
Answer 143: The verse mentioned in this question is part of the fifth verse of chapter (sura) 67 (Holy Qur’an: 5: 67) from al-Maida. God said:
“O Messenger (Muhammad (pbuh)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord, And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message. God will protect you from mankind. Verily, God guides not the people who disbelieve.” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 67).
In this holy verse, there is an order from God the Almighty to his Messenger to pursue his call to Islam and inform others of what he has been informed regardless of the enemies, their intrigues and conspiracies against him (pbuh). Before the revelation of this verse, while calling to God, the prophet felt afraid about himself that he might be killed or assassinated, and God the Almighty knew what went on in the heart of his chosen prophet, and knew that the enemies intended to kill His Messenger. He, therefore, revealed this verse to him to appease him and tell him that he is in His protection, care and maintenance, and anyone who is under God’s care and protection, what could the weak enemies do to him? Imam Ahmad related that Aishah related: “The Messenger of God stayed up late at night while I was beside him. She said, she addressed the prophet saying ‘What is wrong, Messenger of God?’ He answered: ‘I wish one righteous companion of mine would guard me tonight.’ She said, ‘While I was listening to him, I heard a weapon cluttering.’ He said, “Who is there?” He [the one outside] said, ‘I am Sa`d ibn Malik.’ He said, ‘What brought you here at this moment?’ Sa’d said, ‘I’ve come to guard you.’ She said, ‘Then I heard the Messenger of God soundly asleep.” Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned that Aishah said: “The prophet used to be guarded until the verse “And God will protect you from people” was revealed. She said, “The prophet watched out of the dome and said, “O, people! You could leave, God has protected us.” What is meant by the Arabic word (‘Isma) in the prophetic tradition is God the Almighty will protect His messenger (pbuh) from killing. The prophet (pbuh) was exposed, especially after hijra to Medina, to many assassination attempts by the Jews, the hypocrites, the pagans and others. Except for the protection of God, the prophet would have been killed from the very early days of his public call to Islam. Anyone interested in learning about those attempts, he could refer to the book entitled And God will Protect You from People by Ahmad aj-Jadi` in which he described the attempts of assassination of the prophet (pbuh) starting with that big attempt by Quraish, so God saved him from them, and allowed him to emigrate to Medina. As to verbal and practical harm less than killing, the Messenger of God (pbuh) was exposed to many incidents, especially in Makkah, and this is the situation of callers to God everywhere all the time and that is God’s law of testing and trying, as He said:
“Verily, (many) Messengers were denied before you (O Muhammad (pbuh), but with patience they bore the denial, and they were hurt; till Our help reached them, and none can alter the Words (Decisions) of God. Surly there has reached you the information (news) about the Messengers (before you)” (Holy Qur’an: 6: 34).
And the prophet himself said, “The most inflicted amongst you are the messengers, then those who are similar to them, and then those are similar to them” and God’s protection of his Messenger from killing was particular to him (pbuh) unlike other callers and conveyers, as he is the one conveying the message of God. Therefore, he was protected from killing until he conveys God’s message in the manner that God wanted.
Question 144: There is a controversy and ambiguity around the marriages of the prophet to Zainab Bint Jahsh. Could you clarify this ambiguity and explain the circumstances of this marriage clearly?
Answer 144: Zainab Bint Jahsh is the prophet’s cousin on his father’s side. Her mother is Umaymah Bint Abdulmuttalib and she is the sister of Abdullah Bin Jahsh who was martyred in Uhud Battle. The Messenger of God married her after she was divorced by his slave Zayd ibn Haritha without a human contract, because it was God the Almighty who married her off to him, in order to cancel the custom of adoption and the custom of prohibiting marriage to the wife of adopted sons, which was common then amongst Arabs. God the Almighty revealed some verses to be recited from the Holy Qur’an to show that. He says:
“And (remember) when you said to him (Zayd bin Harithah the freed-slave of the Prophet) on whom God has bestowed Grace (by guiding him to Islam) and you (O Muhammad (pbuh) too) have done favor (by manumitting him): “Keep your wife to yourself, and fear God.” But you did hide in yourself (i.e. what God has already made known to you that he will give her to you in marriage) that which God will make manifest, you did fear the people (i.e., their saying that Muhammad (pbuh) married the divorced wife of his manumitted slave) whereas God had a better right that you should fear Him. So when Zaid had accomplished his desire from her (i.e. divorced her), We gave her to you in marriage, so that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the believers in respect of (the marriage of) the wives of their adopted sons when the latter have no desire to keep them (i.e. they have divorced them). And God’s Command must be fulfilled” (Holy Qur’an: 33: 37).
God also says,
“But you did hide in yourself (i.e. what God had already made known to you that He will give her to you in marriage) that which God will make manifest, you did fear the people” (Holy Qur’an: 33: 37)
The minds of people started wondering as to what the prophet concealed from them and forgot about God’s words which is understood to mean that God the Almighty revealed in His words what the Messenger had concealed. The verse is clear that God the Almighty revealed in it that Zainab being a wife of Muhammad, not anything else. The right thing to do was to contemplate the Holy Qur’an and not give a free rein to their imagination and to say about the prophet (pbuh) what should not be said. Let’s explain the story of this blessed marriage:
Zayd ibn Harithah is an Arab from the tribe of Bani Kalb. One tribe attacked his and took him captive as this usually happened before Islam and sold him. Hakeem ibn Hizam bought him to his aunt Khadeejah and she, in turn, offered him to her husband, the prophet. His folks had been looking for him to restore him; they learned about his whereabouts, in Makkah. They came to the prophet (pbuh) and asked him and begged him to give them their son back. They were the caretakers of the Holy Mosque and deserve this good deed. The prophet, in turn, made them another offer, i.e. to come to Zayd and make him choose between his father and folks or staying with Muhammad. He chose Muhammad after seeing his sublime manners, good treatment and nice dealing. His folks said to him, “Do you prefer slavery to freedom?”
The prophet (pbuh) announced in Quraish Club the adoption of Zaid and that he could inherit him. Zayd was called afterwards Zayd ibn Muhammad, then God revealed Islam and Zayd was the first slave to embrace Islam. When he grew under the care of the prophet (pbuh), the prophet wanted to reward him back, he married him to his cousin on his father’s side, Zainab, to confirm his freedom and adoption of him, and to raise his social status.
The prophet proposed to Zainabl for Zayd. She declined as she was Quraishi from a noble family and she found Zayd below her social status. So God the Almighty revealed: “It is not for a believer, man or woman, when God and His messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision” (Holy Qur’an: 33: 36). So Zaynab said, “O, messenger of God, I have accepted what you have accepted for me.” Zayd married her and lived with her for around a year.
This has been related by as-Sadi. He said, “We learned that this verse was revealed for Zainab Bint Jahsh, whose mother is Umayyma Bint Abdulmuttalib, the aunt of the prophet (pbuh) who wanted to marry her to Zayd Bin Haritha – his slave – so she was reluctant to do so. Then she accepted what the prophet did and he married her to him, then God informed His prophet (pbuh) that she is one of his wives. The prophet was shy to inform her of her divorce, and people knew that Zainab and Zayd were married. The prophet (pbuh) told him to keep his wife and to fear God and was afraid that people would blame him and say that he married his daughter-in-law as he had already adopted Zayd as his son. What the prophet (pbuh) concealed was not love to Zaynab, as some liars claimed, as had it been love to Zainab, God the Almighty would have showed that in the Holy Qur’an, and the prophet would not have done that as he was infallible, and as he was described by God in this way “And Verily, for you (O Muhammad are on an exalted (standard of) character” (Holy Qur’an: 68: 4). What he really feared was that people would say and the hypocrites and Jews would say: “How could he prohibit marrying the daughter-in-law and he himself marry the wife of his (adopted) son? The marital life did not last between Zayd and Zaynab, so she was divorced.
Anas said, “When Zainab finished her confinement after divorce, the Messenger of God (pbuh) said to Zayd, ‘Propose to her for me.’ He said, ‘I set out and said to her “O, Zainab, I have a good news for you. The prophet wants to propose to you.’ She said, ‘I’m not doing anything unless I am ordered by my Lord God. She went then to her prayer room and the verse was revealed to the prophet (pbuh) and he went in to see her without permission’.” Ibn Hajar said:
That was the greatest event to happen then, and that her previous husband would be an in-between in order that nobody would think that it was done by force without his satisfaction, and it tests whether he has feelings towards her: “Did anything remain there?
And God the Almighty says:
“So when Zaid had accomplished his desire from her (i.e. divorced her), We gave her to you in marriage, so that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the believers in respect of (the marriage of) the wives of their adopted sons when the latter have no desire to keep them (i.e. they have divorced them)” (Holy Qur’an: 33: 37).
So, prophet (pbuh) married her to nullify two pre-Islamic customs which were common then; the custom of not marrying the wife of the adopted son, and the habit of superiority and pride of belonging to a noble family, as a nobility would not conventionally marry someone humble, and to confirm the basis of preference, God says: “Verily, the most honorable of you with God is that (believer) who has at-taqwa [i.e. he is one of the muttaqun (the pious)]” (Holy Qur’an: 49: 13).
PART FOUR
Questions and Answers on
The Inimitability of the Holy Qur’an
Translated by
Ahmad H. Al-Hout
Chapter 1:
Selections from the Inimitability of the Holy Qur’an
Question 145: What are the forms of inimitability found in the Holy Qur’an and holy prophetic traditions?
Answer 145: The miraculous forms of the Holy Qur’an and true prophetic traditions share common totalities, which include:
1. The Linguistic Inimitability: The Holy Qur’an is of the highest degree of eloquence and rhetoric in the Arabic language and has always rendered the people of eloquence and rhetoric incapable of producing something similar.
2. The Legislative Inimitability: The Holy Qur’an contains a perfect code of life to secure the interests of the servants of God in this world and save them from punishment in the Hereafter. It is valid for all times and places.
3. The Informative inimitability: A great deal of news was given in the Holy Qur’an as to what would happen in the future; events took place accordingly. It also gave news about past events that had happened long time before, like telling about the peoples of Noah, Hud, Salih and others. Without what was revealed in the Holy Qur’an, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) , he would not have known anything himself.
4. The Scientific Inimitability: Some verses in the Noble Qur’an indicate scientific facts which had not been known before, and science has been discovering them with the course of time. These verses include empirical, human, natural as well as other kinds of science.
5. The Inimitability of Guidance: This is embodied in various examples; anyone wanting to learn about them, he can refer to the books written on scientific inimitability in the Noble Qur’an, in the Prophetic traditions and in the Inimitability magazine, which is issued by the Islamic World Association.
Question 146: How did the modern scientific discoveries confirm the truth of the well-known saying that “the Qur’an’s inimitability does not know an end?”
Answer 146: God the Almighty has pointed out that He taught His prophet what he had not known before. He says:
“God has sent down to you the book (The Qur’an), and al-Hikmah (Islamic laws, knowledge of legal and illegal things i.e. the Prophet’s Sunnah–legal ways), and taught you that which you knew not. And Ever Great is the Grace of God unto you (O Muhammad (pbuh).” (Holy Qur’an: 4: 113).
These types of knowledge conveyed through the messenger of God (pbuh) were brought in the form of revelation from God the Almighty and from the kinds of knowledge the prophet had. The God’s prophet (pbuh) said: “Every prophet was given knowledge which made his people believe him and I hope I will be the most followed prophet on the Resurrection Day.” Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) showed that the miracles of his predecessor prophets (peace be upon the all) were kinds of miracles admitted by the peoples in their own times. They were supernatural and could not be challenged neither in their own times nor in times to come; all confirming the prophethood of those who showed them.
The miracles of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) were both scientific and intellectual. They were heavenly revelations. It will take a man’s life-long to realize and recognize essence and truth of the heavenly revelation (the Qur’an). Yet, the miracles of this holy book do not end in the course of time; in every age a clear sign of this revelation is confirmed and a bright proof is seen—all conforming to the true revelation, the Holy Qur’an, from God upon His prophet/messenger. This also confirms the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh). We see in every age natural scientists producing facts after a long reach and efforts. These facts are taken for granted by the Muslim who reads the book of God the Almighty and contemplates its meanings.
Embryology, for example, is considered to be one of the most modern sciences which scientists could not explore until modern civilization provided them with instruments that could show what was happening in the womb of the mother without hurting the mother or the fetus. They reached some facts which had been taken for granted by Muslims, things like the beginning of the formation of the fetus, when the sperm enters the ovum of the woman. Almighty God said: “And that He [God] creates the pairs, male and female, from Nutfah (drops of semen – male and female discharges) when it is emitted.” (Holy Qur’an: 53: 45-46). God also said: “Was he not a nutfah (mixed male and female sexual discharge) of semen emitted (poured forth)?” (Holy Qur’an: 75: 37).
Out of the millions sperms man ejaculates during his sexual intercourse, only one fertilizes the ovum. Human semen forms 99% of the ejaculated liquid, while the sperms form between 0% and 1% from the total amount of the semen. Only one sperm out of millions in the semen is made to fertilizes the ovum, according to the will of God, so that it grows and becomes a fetus, then a child, then a young boy or girl, then a man or a woman. Abi Saeed al-Khudri related that the messenger of God (pbuh) was once asked about ejaculation outside the vagina during sexual intercourse (for contraceptive purposes), he said: “The child does not come from all the liquid (sermen) and if God intends to create anything, nothing can prevent it (from coming into existence). This prophetic hadith show that a woman perceives from some of the semen, as modern science says, and that there might be ejaculation without conception. Also conception is not necessarily formed after each sexual intercourse, and that there might be ejaculation without conception. This is explained by gynaecologists who say that the days between the menstruation periods are not the same with respect to the possibility of pregnancy, and that sperms might not be strong enough to fertilises the ovum. Science has proved that the sperms in the semen must be lively, active and gushing forth, which is one condition for fertilisation, as science has proved. Science has also proved that the woman’s liquid, which contains the ovum, comes out flowingly to the womb canal (Fallopian canal) and that the ovum must be lively, active and flowing so that fertilisation could be achieved. God the Almighty said: “So let man see from what he is created! He is created from a water gushing forth” (Holy Qur’an: 86: 5-6).
Determination of the baby’s sex (male or female):
Scientists have found out that the number of genes in every human cell is 23 pairs, one gene from each pair is responsible for determining the sex of the baby in all dimensions of man, physical and psychological, and that the key to the determination of the sex of the baby exists in this pair of genes. It was noticed that this pair in the male is different and it is referred to as (XY). Also, the feminine ova have only one chromosome of one shape (XX), while the sperms of man have two shapes of genes (X) and (Y).
The determination of the baby’s sex as such becomes obvious. The sperm is responsible for the determination of the sex of the baby for it contains the contrasted shapes of sexual genes. If the sperm has a (Y) gene, and it combines with an (X) gene in the ovum, the bay will be a baby-boy, and if an (X) gene unites with an (X) gene in the ovum, the baby will be a baby-girl. Here are some formulas clarifying the point further:
A (Y) gene + (X) = baby-boy (YX)
An (X) gene + (X) = baby-girl
Four possibilities:
1) XX female 2) YX male 3) XX female 4) YX male
This is what has been mentioned in the Noble Qur’an fourteen hundred years ago, when it attributed the responsibility of determining the sex of the baby to the sperm of the man. God Almighty said: “And that He [God] creates the pairs, male and female, from Nutfah (drops of semen – male and female discharges) when it is emitted.” (Holy Qur’an: 53: 45-46). The prophetic tradition expresses this fact accurately. If the sperm of the man dominates, i.e. (Y) gene dominates and united with an (X) chromosome – the baby will be a boy, and if the liquid of the woman dominates, the baby will be a girl. Thawban related that a Jew once approached the prophet and asked him about the (sex) of the child. The prophet (pbuh) said:
“The reproductive substance of man is white and that of woman (i. e. ovum central portion) yellow, and when they have sexual intercourse and the male's substance (chromosomes and genes) prevails upon the female's substance (chromosomes and genes), it is the male child that is created by Allah's Decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the male, a female child is formed by God’s decree.”
After fourteen hundred years, nobody can speak more clearly than what the prophet has stated.
Question 147: Modern technology has helped contemporary scientists to understand the scientific inimitability in the Qur’an and the prophetic traditions. How could the Muslim ancestors understand this inimitability without possessing the modern technology?
Answer 147: The Muslim surely believes that the Noble Qur’an is the words of God the Almighty, and that the prophetic traditions are what He revealed to His messenger, prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Everything mentioned in either source is completely true, and should be taken for granted by every faithful believer whether he/she knew know that before, or could not know it practically. These above mentioned scientific matters like the embryo, for example, are regarded as absolutely true by the Muslim. It is taken for granted as absolutely true, because it is the word of God, although the Muslim could not see what happened in the womb of the woman. Modern technology has only made these facts clearer. The same applies to other matters: for example, Muslims believe that mountains are pegs to fix the land although he does not know that a third of the mountain height goes above the land while two thirds are deeply planted under the earth, like pegs. The same could be said about the formation of mountain-like clouds in the sky. The hale stones come down from those mountains of clouds. The Muslim believes that although he did not ascend to sky. He knows that clouds gather together in the form of mountains. He absolutely believes and acknowledges every scientific discovery that had already been mentioned in the Qur’an or concorded with it, or even came mentioned in the tradition of the prophet. The Noble Qur’an, therefore, refers to the scientific discoveries that will show people the miracles of God the Almighty. God says: “We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur’an) is the truth.” (Holy Qur’an: 43: 53).
Question 148: Muslims believe that only God knows what exists in the wombs, how could they reconcile between this and the modern technology that could show the embryo and know its sex before birth?
Answer 148: This question refers to the saying of God the Almighty:
“Verily, Allah, with Him (Alone) is the knowledge of the Hour, he sends down the rain, and knows that which is in the wombs. No person knows what he will earn tomorrow, and no person knows in what land he will die. Verily God is All-Knower, All-Aware (of things) (Holy Qur’an: 31:34).
Abdullah Bin Umar related that the prophet (pbuh) said: “The keys to the unseen world are five and nobody knows them except Allah,” then he quoted the above verse from the Noble Qur’an. It is God alone who knows absolutely what is in the wombs in every moment and at every stage; He knows everything small and big. No doubt that He knows every conception when it comes into existence, when the conception does not even show a sign of weight or form; and He knows whether the sex of the conception is male or female, at the time when no one could have the ability to know anything about at the first moment of the uniting of the sperm and the ovum, and the features, the characteristics, the condition and readiness of the embryo. This knowledge is absolutely exclusive to God, the All-Knowing, and the All-Aware. The term “what is in the womb” is more general than the embryo, and mean more than its sex, whether it is perfect or imperfect in physically, sane or insane, believing or non-believing.
We have already mentioned in a previous answer the possible equation of the determination of the sex of the embryo, whether male or female. The same could be said about every characteristic of the embryo, as to what colour of the complexion and body will be, the colour of the eyes, the size of every organ, etc. All this is subject to the law of possibilities, according to medical specialists. This is an uncontrolled law, and nobody knows how the chromosomes will combine in the embryo, how the new features will be. No one knows when the baby will be a boy or a girl. Man is unable to know that before and during its happening. It is only God who knows this. As to the period after its determination, it becomes a fact and is not more a part of the unseen. Man may know something about the embryo, as he knew the stages of the formation of the embryo. The verse and the prophetic traditions speak about the stage when the baby is a part of the unseen. If it becomes a part of the factual world that man can know, there is no objection to knowing it.
Question 149: I would like you to explain the following Qur’anic verses scientifically:
A. “The likeliness of those who take (false deities as) Auliya’ (protectors, helpers) other than God is the likeness of a spider who builds (for itself) a house; but verily, the frailest (weakest) of houses is the spider’s house – if they but knew. Verily, God knows what things they invoke instead of Him. H e is the Al-Mighty, the All-Wise. And these similitudes We put forward for mankind; but none will understand them except those who have knowledge (of God, and His Signs)” (Holy Qur’an: 29: 41-43).
B. “So I swear by the setting of the stars. And verily that is indeed a great oath, if you but know” (Holy Qur’an: 56:75-76).
C. “See they not that We gradually reduce the land (of the disbelievers, by giving it to the believers, in war) from its outlying borders” (Holy Qur’an: 13:41).
D. “With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof” (Holy Qur’an: 51:47).
E. “And whomsoever God will s to guide, He opens his breast to Islam, and whomsoever He wills to send astray, He makes his breast closed and constricted, as if he is climbing up to the sky” (Holy Qur’an: 3:26).
F. “And has made the moon a light therein and made the sun a lamp” (Holy Qur’an: 71:16).
Answer 149: The answer to this question is as follows:
A. The esteemed verses are given as sayings for those who worship deities other than God the Almighty, they depend on, trust, and give them their pledges and charters ignoring that resorting to those powers, whether they are in the hands of individuals or groups, are like the resort of the spider to its web. The spider’s web is weak, powerless and defenseless against its molluscan physique: spiders are helpless against their weak houses. God, the Almighty, and the all-Powerful protect them. It is this great fact that the Noble Qur’an is interested in establishing in the selves of the faithful. It is with this fact that the faithful were more powerful than all the powers that tried to block their way, and treaded on the pride of the oppressors on this earth and destroyed their fortresses and castles. The enemies of the call for God who seek the help of supporters other than Him, who knows the truth about those supporters, it is the truth described in the previous saying, a spider seeking refuge in its web. The witty scholar is the one who understands this saying, and realizes that everyone on earth is as powerless and weak as the spider’s web. The inimitability in this verse is the reference to the web rather than to its threads. Scientifically speaking, the threads of the spider, in terms of length and diameter, are four times stronger than cast iron. The weakness lies in the web not in the threads. The spider’s web, despite the strength of its threads, is weak from within, as it stands for the killing of its household. The female spider kills its male mate after impregnation if it does not run away from it quickly, and it eats its offspring when they hatch if they do not flee, and the little ones each other. The spider’s web, then, is the most rhetorical example of what man may imagine about the best house which becomes the worst in destiny. The conclusion of the holy verse “if they but knew” has come as a reference to the fact that there will come a time when man will know that fact though this might come late. It is known that these biological secrets have been scientifically proved only recently.
B. Those addressed in this verse, “So I swear by the setting of the stars. And verily that is indeed a great oath, if you but know” (Holy Qur’an: 56:75-76) knew only little about the setting of the stars which they saw with their naked eyes, yet they felt the greatness of their setting in their hearts. Despite our limited knowledge of the settings of the stars; yet, we do recognize the greatness of this oath (which is related to God who swear by His own creation). We know for example that the star galaxy our solar system belongs to comprises billions of starts, some of these stars could see with the naked eye, others can only be seen with microscopes/ and or telescopes, still others cannot be seen. All these stars swim in the mysterious space, and there is no possibility that one magnetic orbit can come near another, or that one star would run into another orbit. The location of each star, which must be far from its fellow stars, has been situated carefully and wisely: it is well-coordinated in terms of effects and mutual effects with all the other stars and planets so that all of them could be balanced in this vast space. The positions of stars in their orbits are the secrets of their balance; neither a star goes near another, nor a planet goes near another, nor a sun goes near another. Each has its own position in which it revolves and does not go beyond or exceed. If a star deviates from its position and moves in another track, it will be gravitated into another space and will collide with another star, which adds to the size of the new star formed from the collision of the two stars. Eventually, its gravitation increases and attracts a third star, and so on and so forth until the end of the universe as a whole. This is what is referred to, according to scholars, by God’s words “the perforating star”, which is described by space scientists as “the black hole.” Therefore, God’s oath by the setting of stars, which He created for us, is an allusion to contemplate and know that this universe is run under the management of the Lord of the heavens and earth. One of the examples of the setting of stars is the sun, as mentioned in the French magazine Science and Life (issue: June, 1986) which includes the following facts: if the position of the earth with respect to the sun where the ray of its orbit around the sun is 4% less than it is now, i.e. 144 km instead of 150 million km, the temperature of the earth will increase gradually to 450 centigrade, will cause the water to evaporate and life will disappear, as it is on Venus. Likewise, if location of the earth is 1% more, i.e. 151.5 million km, the temperature of the earth will be go down gradually to –4 centigrade, and water will freeze and life will be impossible on its surface, as the case is on mars. It is said that the galaxies and stars may seem static, but they are mobile and their distances increase continuously, as it is the case in the theory in the expansion of the universe. Eventually, the star acquires new positions continuously and with those new positions of billions of galaxies and stars, the balance of the powers of the universe remain as gravitation forces. All of this makes the oath in the verse so great.
C. “See they not that We gradually reduce the land (of the disbelievers, by giving it to the believers, in war) from its outlying borders.” (Holy Qur’an: 13:41). This verse means that the land is gradually reduced from its outlying borders and that people can see that? How does this happen?
First, the reduction of the land from its northern and southern sides should include its two poles. It is known that the land is not completely globular, it is elliptical, i.e. the equator is longer than the line going through the two poles. Scientists have found out that the equator is 21 km longer and that this length increases gradually in the course of time and the globe becomes more elliptical, and the line going through the two poles is getting shorter and shorter.
Second, the crust of the earth is exposed to sunshine, rain, wind and the various elements of corrosion and erosion—something that reduces the crust of the earth gradually. Scientists expect that the continuous corrosion is the cause of the earthquakes and giving away of the earth. This also indicates that the earth is reduced from its outlying borders, which is one of the things that man can see in all parts of the earth. It is a clear scientific miracle throughout all ages.
D. This verse shows that God the Almighty created the vast sky including the stars, planets and suns and moons; it continues to expand throughout time, and this verse, which proves the expansion of the universe. The well-known theory of the expansion of the universe has come into existence in the scientific field. In 1912, this theory was affirmed by the scientist Silipher who said that certain galaxies are moving away, increasingly, from our galaxy. In 1916, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has come to confirm the theory of the universe expansion. He tried to calculate the speed of that expansion associating it with the speed of the light, 300,000 km/s. In 1929, the two scientists Hobble and Humoson confirmed the theory of the expansion of the universe. Hobble has set a law carrying his name, which estimates the increasing distance of the galaxies from each other and from ours. By virtue of this law, it was possible to use the reverse way to calculate the approximate age of the universe. With the progress of modern physics and the introduction of the study of specter, it was possible to study the light of stars and galaxies, and the turning of the specter into red, and eventually calculated the speed of the departing of the galaxies away from each other according to the theory. The further the galaxies and stars depart from our galaxy, the redder their specter turns. For instance, the distance of the galaxy Amos de Lavierge from ours, the milky way, increases at 1200 km/s, and the distance of Amos de Lavierge increases at 60 km/s. It is two billion light year speed. Contemporary astrologists confirm that theory. Hubert Reeves said: “We can say that the expansion of the universe is almost certain.” Maurice Bukaille said: “The expansion of the universe is the greatest phenomenon modern science has discovered and completely confirmed today. The discussion deal only with the pattern through which the expansion is happening.” One of the phenomena that support this theory is what is called the “night darkness.” In spite of the big number of galaxies in the sky, and although they consist of billions of stars, there are not enough stars to fill the sky with light. Moreover, the expansion of the universe disperses the light of the stars. Therefore, the light seems insufficient although it is very strong and the night appears dark. The point of inimitability in this Qur’anic verse is that suppose there was a man in the present age who knew nothing about astronomy and scientific laws, did not have any modern technology, especially optical one, furthermore if he had lived in a remote unknown jungle, a desert or a mountain, stated such laws, and reached those conclusions which scientists reached only after spending a great deal of efforts, long research and coordinated efforts of cooperation, people would consider that a sort of fiction and an impossibility. Eventually they would attribute such information to an external supernatural power. What could be said then about this man, the prophet, who lived fourteen hundreds ago? He was illiterate, living in a desert far from the centers of any science and civilization then, and in age whose people knew nothing about the universe, its beginning, life and its evolution. This man states his theory firmly and in a certain manner, while connecting it firmly with other phenomena and theories. What could be said then? It is undoubtedly, the information coming from revelation from God the Almighty.
E. “And whomsoever God will s to guide, He opens his breast to Islam, and whomsoever He wills to send astray, He makes his breast closed and constricted, as if he is climbing up to the sky” (Holy Qur’an: 3:26). This verse gives a picture of two personalities:
First, the Islamic personality which believes in God and the prophethood of Muhammad; whose breast opened, expanded and felt the spaciousness of the world crated by God the Almighty; and recognized the universal and Qur’anic miracles
Second, the non-believing personality which is fed up with Islam and does not get guided to the right path. It feels breathless because disbelief is a kind of contrition and stagnation. It is discomfort, deviation from the easy human common sense; it is hardship, deprivation and worry. God the Almighty gave an example of this kind of personality and described it as feeling breathless like the one who climbs to the sky.
But why does one’s breast feel closed when climbing to the sky? One may wonder, who told Muhammad (pbuh) in the 6th century A.D. that the layers of air get looser the more we rise up in the sky? Oxygen decreases and breathing becomes difficult. It is well know that scientists have discovered this fact only recently. There is no doubt that these words in this verse were the revelation of God upon His prophet. Man feels more difficult to breathe the more he goes up into the sky, which is well-known, scientifically speaking, as the upper air layers are looser and their pressure is lower. Now, who taught Muhammad (pbuh) this scientific truth, which was unknown to the people of his age and even to the people of the later ages after him until the present age with its amazing advanced technology to prove the scientific truth? It is the Lord of mankind and the jinn, the Lord who created everything, then proportioned it, and who has measured preordainments, then guided, and Who taught us what we had not known.
F. “And has made the moon a light therein and made the sun a lamp” (Holy Qur’an: 71:16). In this verse, we find that God the Almighty differentiates in His description between His two creations the sun and the moon. He describes the sun as a “lamp.” In another verse of the Holy Qur’an God says: “and We have made (therein) a shining lamp (the sun) (Holy Qur’an: 78:13). The sun is described a glowing lamp. It is the heat-generating machine, on whose power so many things in life depend. It affects the formation of the clouds, through the evaporation of water from the vast ocean one earth and raising it to the upper layers of air. In the lamp, there is burning, heat and light; all are available in the sun. The choice of the word “lamp” is so accurate and has been chosen carefully to suit reality. As for the moon, God describes it as illuminating only, something which does not mean that it is a source of heat: it only conveys light. The scientific discoveries have come to prove that the sun is a source of heat. The temperature degree of it mounts to 15 million centigrade. The sun only reflects the sunlight, not more. It is not a source of light; it only reflects as a mirror does. Therefore, the Qur’anic expression about the moon is also an accurate one. Astronomers have established this fact only recently. The sun light consists of seven shining waves known as “white light” which constitutes the spectrum colors (from ultra to infra violet). It also contains gamma rays, radio short waves, and some unknown kinds of rays. The accuracy of the Qur’anic description is crystal clear in God’s words: “It is He Who made the sun a shining thing and the moon as a light.” So the light that comes from the moon is not more a reflection of the sunshine, which falls on its surface. As to the sunlight, it consists of seen shining (light and heat), and unseen ray (which scientists use in the lighting, x-ray films, astronomy and biology).
Question 150: Why does the Holy Qur’an focus on man’s forelock and not other parts of the body in God’s words “if he ceases not, We will catch him by the forelock”— The frontal lobe is mentioned in another verse: “I put my trust in Allah, my Lord and your Lord! There is not a moving (living) creature but He has the grasp of its forelock. Verily, my Lord ion the Straight Path (the truth)” (Holy Qur’an: 11: 56).
Answer 150: At to the top of the forehead, there is one bone in the skull called frontal bone. It protects the frontal lobe which contains many neural centers: the main and secondary centers of motion, the frontal eye field, the centers of articulation movements, and the most important part, the pre-frontal cortex which represents the biggest part of the frontal lobe of the brain. The function of the frontal cortex is associated with the formation of the individual’s personality; it performs an organized role in the depth of the individual’s senses and feelings. It influences the taking of initiative and judgment. It directs some of man’s acts which express his personality, like honesty, lying, right and wrong.
The destruction of this cortex because of a certain disease, tumor, or an accident, leads to the loss of initiative taking and recognition. Some emotional changes may take place also; which leads to cheering up and trance. One loses his interest in his social appearance. Instead of being wise, observing others’ affairs around him, he becomes indifferent, irresponsible for himself and for others around him. The intoxicating drinks affect the tissues of the frontal areas of the brain.
The frontal folds of the brain are important for the mind, for they are connected with the supreme mental acts. We do those plans inside these folds. Thus, they affect the acts and functions of the other parts of the brain, like our thoughts, feelings and emotions.
The frontal lobe, then, is the location that controls the behavior of animals; eventually those ayas which were mentioned in the Noble Qur’an in the seventh century (A.D.) include knowledge understanding the whole functions of the frontal folds of the brain.
Chapter 2:
Selections from the Inimitability of the Prophet’s Tradition (Sunnah)
Question 151: What is the attitude of modern science towards the prophetic hadith: “When a dog licks a utensil belonging to any one of you, (the thing contained in it) should be thrown away and then (the utensil) should be washed seven times, the first one with earth.”
Answer 151: This hadith was reported by Abu Hurayrah, who was one of the prophet’s close companions. Jurisprudents and scholars were surprised by that fact that earth could be used as a purifier: they thought that it soils, rather than cleans. However, it was (and still) believed to be a matter of worship which must be taken for granted. So, Muslims have to wash pots which dogs have licked (or eaten in) seven times including one with earth. Muslims just follow the apparent meaning of the words of the hadith because it came to us from the prophet.
The Noble Qur’an has come with its studies, researches and advanced means that facilitate research and prove things that were difficult for people to conduct in the previous ages simply because of lack of advanced technology.
One of the researches was conducted on the relationship between earth and rabies. Rabies is a disease whose bacteria lie in the saliva of the dog and they are transmittable to man. The dog may have this kind of bacteria even though the symptoms of rabies do not appear on the dog. It may have the disease, just like any animal or living being having or carrying the disease without being infected by it. Research on this matter was conducted in Spain long time ago; recently by a Pakistani doctor. It was found that rabies and its germs no matter how much are washed with water; the germs will not be removed completely unless rubbed at least once with earth. Earth kills germs completely. The same applies to other diseases, which confirms the prophetic tradition.
Question 152: What is the form of inimitability in each of the following matters:
A. Women’s menstruation/period.
B. Circumcision of sexes, males and females.
C. Eating the meat of dead animals.
D. Prohibition of eating the pig’s meat.
E. Fasting during the “white days”.
F. AIDS spread as a result of adultery.
Answer 152: The answer to this question comprises the following:
A. In the Holy Qur’an God the Almighty say:
“They ask you concerning menstruation. Say: “That is the an adha (a harmful thing for a husband to have a sexual intercourse with his wife while she is having her menses), therefore keep away from women during menses and go not unto them till they are purified (from menses and have taken a bath. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as God has ordained for your (go in unto them in any manner as long as it is in their vagina). Truly, God loves those who turn unto Him in repentance and loves those who purify themselves by taking a bath and cleaning and washing thoroughly their private parts, bodes, for their prayers) (Holy Qur’an: 1: 222).
Clearly, this was God’s revelation to this enquiry which was once raised by one of the companions of the prophet about menstruation (the monthly menstruation of the woman). God calls it adha (a harmful thing). Therefore, men should refrain from an sexual intercourse with their wives during their period, as it might cause harm for either the man or woman, or both. In this context, the prophet (pbuh) said: “Do everything except sexual intercourse.” In the same context it was reported that Hakeem Bin Huzam once asked the prophet (pbuh): “What can I do with my wife while she is having her period?” The prophet’s answer was: “Everything above the waist wrapper is yours.” Concerning menstruation, research has proved the following facts:
-Harmful bacteria exist plentifully in the vagina during the period, while dederline organisms disappear. Dederline organisms exist naturally in the vagina, they are considered as a natural guard against harmful germs. These organisms live on the sugar preserved in the vagina walls. Their number decreases until they disappear completely a few hours before menstruation and during it. Doderlins reach their highest number of growth and activity half way during the absence of menstruation period. Their normal rate is 5x1 mm, but it decreases sharply before menstruation.
-During menstruation, the degree of acid ionization of the vagina changes from acid to alkaline. This makes the organisms die while blood takes them out of the vagina on its way.
-During the period, the vagina becomes the most appropriate place for the production, development, and activity of the harmful germs.
-In the absence of these organisms, with the change of acid ionization into an alkaline one, and in the presence of blood, the vagina becomes extremely liable all kinds of the harmful germs, that find a fertile soil for growing and reproduction. The activity is not limited to those organisms, but also to its accompanying anus and urine pass way germs while the guard, the doderline organisms, are absent. There is no harmful germs than those which might penetrate into the womb’s broken walls at this particular time, as they might go into the abdomen; consequently, into the body. They can quite easily find their way to the loose tissues which become so soft in that critical time; nothing would prevent them except the blood stream coming in the opposite direction from top to bottom. It is not wise or logical then at all to defy nature by breaking into the first defense line and other lines of menstruation.
Studies have found out that the parasite trichomonas vaginalis becomes guardable during menstruation. This parasite exists the tope of the vagina during menstruation awaiting its chance and watching its catch. It is known that it causes infection in the urinal and reproductive system of man. It is conveyed to man only through sexual intercourse. Both the Qur’anic text and prophetic hadith in this context lay the condition for the intercourse after the menstruation that cleanliness is a must. In order to achieve cleanliness, blood should stop first; then it traces must be removed with clean water. It was reported by Aishah (the prophet’s wife) that a woman once asked the prophet about bathing after menstruation. He told her how to bathe by saying: “Take a clean and perfumed piece of cotton and bathe three times.” She asked: “How can I purify?” The Prophet (pbuh) was shy to answer her. So, Aishah says, “I took her by the hand and told her what the Prophet (pbuh) meant, i.e. “follow the path of the blood.”
In that way of purifying, the harmful germs disappear at the time when there is no running current of blood to wash them naturally and prepare the atmosphere for the existence of doderline once more, especially that the prophetic tradition commands the use of musk (perfume), which germicides, not to mention its fragrance.
B. Circumcision of sexes, males and females:
Abu Hurayrah related that the prophet (pbuh) said: “There are five things that ever man should naturally do: circumcision, shaving the public hair, taking out the armpit hair, nail trimming, moustache cutting.”
Circumcision is cutting off the piece of skin which covers the glans. It is recommended that the whole piece should be removed. Shaddad Bin Aws related the following hadith from the prophet (pbuh): “Circumcision is obligatory for men, and a dignitary act for women.” Circumcision is a regulation for Muslims and a discriminatory mark and an emblem. The Jews share Muslims this tradition, because the first prophet to command it was Ibrahim (Abraham, pbuh).
In 1987 The Medical British Magazine published an article stating: “Penis cancer is rare among the Jews, and in the Muslim countries, where circumcision is done during infancy...” The American magazine Pediatrics stated: “The Jewish and Muslim religious obligation plays an essential role in urging them to practice this natural deed, circumcision. In other words, the foreskin surrounding the glans is like a moor, where most disease circumstances develop, and urine irrigates it; white material is formed on the walls of this pocket resulting from the remaining germs and fungi, the excretions of the fat and sweat glands with the phosphate of the mucous tissue, and the remains of urine and its elements.
It is easy for us now to imagine the interference of disease factors, like urine meatus with the uncircumcised. This substance goes into the urethra, then into the bladder, then the kidney. It may continue its way to prostate, the testicle and epididymis; it may cause infertility to men as a result of testitis and epididymitis. Circumcision prevents the top-of-the-penis cancer, as this kind of circumcision rare with the uncircumcised men. Any likely infection in the penis may quite easily be transmitted to the woman, which causes her aidoiitis/vulvitis, and elytritis bartholinitis, it may cause the womb neck to be infected or to ulcerate. This infection could develop further ominously and affect the womb, or its accessories, which may lead to infertility. I do not say the circumcision prevents, or reduces those infections significantly only, but there are certain diseases, which can be prevented only by circumcision, such diseases as the narrowing of the back foreskin, or front and back foreskin infection, the sticking of the foreskin with the glans, and some forms of frequent urinary continence caused by the foreskin. The husband’s circumcision plays an important role in preventing the wife of most of the women’s gynecological infections.
As for women’s circumcision, which is known in Islamic sharia as khafdh, it is optional. Women are urged to circumcise, especially when the outer genitals, like the clitoris, or labia minora, are overgrown—cases which might cause repellence or disgust. Also, this overgrowth and dangling outside may cause in the future continuous sexual excitement because of constant friction, which may lead to lack of shyness at her, and she may deviate to perversion and disobedience, and that is whey the God prophet called it a “noble” deed.
When those genitals overgrow to the extreme, they may prevent sexual intercourse: it prevents the penis from penetrating the vagina. If the girl has no overgrown genitals to be cut off, or if her genitals are moderate in length, there is no justification for circumcision.
It is generally noticed that women’s outer genitals are longer the colder they get to the Equator, and the shorter they the further we move north. This becomes rare in the northern people.
C. Eating the meat of a dead animal:
Dr. Jon Hanover, a Profess at the Department of bacteriology, Guess Hospital, the governmental and biggest hospital in Copenhagen stated: “the meat of dead animals is a reservoir of germs, and – reservoir of killing diseases. Therefore, laws were legislated in Europe to prohibit eating it.” He mentioned that animals that die because of suffocation, the germs in which are transmitted to their meat eaters, as the wall of the large entrails, where the excrement is, works as a barrier that prevents the transmission of germs from the large entrails to the body of the animal and to its blood as long as the animal is alive.
It is known that the large entrails are a big reservoir of germs, which are harmful to man. The internal wall of these entrails prevents the movement of those germs to the body of the animal. Also, in the blood of the animals there is another wall that prevents to movement of the germs to the animal’s blood. If an animal is suffocated, it dies slowly, and the danger lies in this kind of death, as the resistance of the wall coating the large entrails loses its strength gradually which eventually allows the harmful germs to penetrate the wall of the entrails and go into the blood and neighbouring flesh, then they move through the blood cycle to the rest of the body, for the animal is not dead yet. The germs go out from the wall of the veins to the flesh due to the lack of resistance in the walls of the veins, which consequently makes the animal a big reservoir of these harmful germs, which attack the health of the animal until it dies. The death of the animal in this way means there is a big danger in the body of the creature which has been strangled to death. Dr. Hanover added that all this might happen any animal that dies in any other way except slaughtering. Muslims slaughter the animal in order to purify it animal from such likely germs. In this light we can understand God’s words better:
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: al-maitah (the dead animals – cattle – beast not slaughtered), blood, the flesh of swine, and that one which Allah’s name has not been mentioned while slaughtering, (that which has been slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allah, or has been slaughtered for idols) and that which has been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by the goring of horns – and that which has been (partly) eaten by a wild animal – unless you are able to slaughter it (before its death)” (Holy Qur’an: 5: 3).
D. Prohibition of eating the pig’s meat (and its derivatives: pork, ham, etc.):
Dr. John Hanover Larsen stated that he discovered a new germ called “parsina.” This germ exists only in pigs, and lives only at low temperature degrees, 4 centigrade. Many Europeans contract it and many diseases that infect the backbone and joints are attributed to this germ (See Inimitability Magazine, No. 3). Besides, he discovered tapeworms and their coated eggs in their meat, blood and bowls in spite of the many attempts of the veterinarians to burn quantities of pig’s meat to get rid of that tapeworms, as they re-appear constantly. Psychoanalysts have found that a man eating the meat of a certain animal might become infected by certain qualities of this animal. The pigsty is one of the filthiest places and this animal is least jealous among animals about its females. The lack of jealousy about one’s own mother, sister(s), spouse, and daughter(s) in the west might be attributed to their devouring of vast quantities of pork.
E. Fasting 6 days of the 10th Hijri month, Shawwal (the month that comes after the fasting month of Ramadhan):
These are known as the “white days.” Many prophetic traditions urged Muslims to fast three days of every month, the three days whose nights are white because of the moonlight when it is a full moon. They are 13, 14 and 15 of every lunar month. Abu Dhar reported that the prophet (pbuh) “commanded us to fast the three white days: the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth.”
Researchers have found out that during these three days, the moon becomes a full at night and the sea ebbing reaches its highest level—something that causes a big excitement. They also noticed that this excitement during those days, particularly in sexual activities, affects man. They also found out that during these three days of every month crimes increase. Other researchers connected between what happens on earth with that in the human body, as the percentage of water on the globe is 75% and that in the body of the human being is approximately the same. Fasting had been the only medicine, which reduces man’s tension and/or his sexual excitement. It is a fact that the strongest motives in man are the natural ones, then the motive for food, then sexual motives. Fasting reduces the strength of man’s motive for food, drink and sex. Thus, we realize that God the Almighty gave man a natural and useful medicine to appease him in the time of agitation and excitement. The prophet’s tradition echoes this.
F. AIDS spread as a result of the spread of adultery:
Sodomy (homosexuality) is one of the most wicked and ugliest crimes. It indicates the deviation of inborn nature, corruption in the mind and perversion. It denotes sexual intercourse between two males, or between a male and a female where male has sex with a female in the anus. God the Almighty said: “You - Go you in unto the males of the alamin (mankind),” and leave those whom God has created for your to be your wives? Nay, you are a trespassing people!” (Holy Qur’an: 26:164-5). In Arabic it was is known as Liwaat, adjective of Lut’s people, who were the first people to have practiced this act, “which none has preceded you in committing” in the alamin (mankind and jinn,” as God said. God the Almighty punished the people of Lut most severely by making the earth sink under them; they were rained with stones as a punishment for their dirty act. Qur’anic verses were revealed condemning their act, which is still being recited throughout the world and will continue to be recited for generations to come. God said:
“So when Our Commandment came, We turned (the towns of Sodom in Palestine) upside down, and rained on them stones of backed clay, in a well-arranged manner one after another, marked from your Lord; and they are not ever far from the zalimun (polytheists, evil-doers)” (Holy Qur’an: 11:34).
This has been proved in the history of mankind. God punished them by killing them all, so that not a single criminal would remain alive would remain to transmit any social and/or physical diseases to ancestor generation. God wants man’s life to be clean of the dirt of vice and perversion; hence, the prophet’s guidance cam to show us the great atrocity of this crime in the prophetic traditions which made the path of truth clear to be taken. Jabir ibn Abdullah related that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: “The most thing I fear about my nation is the act of the people of Lut (homosexuality).” Ibn Abbas reported another hadith from the prophet, who said: “God does not look at a man who went in unto a man, or woman in her anus.” Abu Hurayrah also reported that the prophet said: “May he be cursed, he who does the deed of the Lutians (homosexuality).” “Curse” means here the dismissal from the mercy of God the Almighty. This is deserved only because of the one of the heinous acts of sin and disgust of it, the repetition of that in the crime of sodomy is a clear proof of the heinousness of this sin, and the one who does it deserves every kind of punishment. There are many prophetic traditions in this respect.
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) warned us against the committing of sins as a whole and particularly committing sin public. Abdullah ibn Amr related that the prophet said: “O, folk of immigrants, there are five sins I take resort in God from that you do not see: ‘No people amongst whom adultery appears publicly will escape being plagued with pestilence, diseases which did not appear among their ancestors, and if they do not weight properly what they sell, they will be inflicted with famine, adversity and the oppression of the ruler. If they do not pay zakat from their money, they will not have rain from the sky. Had it not been for the animals, they would not be rained. If they disobey God and His messenger, God will allow an enemy from others to take some of what they have. If their rulers do not implement Allah’s book and choose from what God has revealed, God will make their strength among themselves’.”
Those crimes which the prophet (pbuh) mentioned are inflicted upon anyone who avoids Islam partly or completely. Every criminal act has its own consequence: sodomy and its spread in the human society brings about new diseases which did not exist before among the ancestors, which is what we live in this century.
In the 20th century God decreed to send to those who commit sodomy a wild dragon in order to awaken the sleepy and cause horror in the hearts of those whose insight has been blinded by false civilization. How could they be prevented without having any deterrent system or considerable values? The 20th century civilization has paddled in the liberty of sex, and did not leave any virtue without fooling with it, or honour or chastity without destroying its pillars, nor left women’s dignity without desecrating it.
AIDS hs been a cry that turned the life of the west upside down. it has been a stigma on those who avoided marriage and practiced sodomy as a way of living.
Dr. George Dunia wrote: “The demonstrations of the sexual perverts in the streets had disappeared. The public water closets have closed their doors and the call for purity, chastity and marriage to one woman has returned, and he fear of AIDS has many restored the moral and social values of the 50s to reappear and the sanctifying of the virgin woman may come back again.”
“Purity,” “chastity” and “virgin women” are words that are being repeated by millions. They had been absent for long years in vice and immorality. Statistics classified AIDS patients into four kinds:
1. Sexual perverts, whose percentage in Britain is 84% out of the total number.
2. Drug addicts who take drugs by syringes.
3. Adulterers who commit adultery with more than one woman.
4. Patients who have contracted AIDS through blood transfusion.
AIDS also appeared among women, especially whores and drug addicts. The several perverts or drug addicts are to be blamed for the spread of AIDS. They are responsible for the spread of AIDS in the society. The only way to avoid AIDS is the confinement of men to an honest marital relationship. If man had done so, and the wife to her relationship with her husband only, the possibility of contracting this disease will be almost impossible; hence, the accuracy of the Islamic rules explained by the prophetic traditions.
The punishment of this act, killing the doers, the positive and the negative, came to wipe out the effect of the crime both physically and morally. The inimitability of the prophetic traditions in this subject t when it stated that the spread of vice in society is a cause for the appearance of illnesses which have not been known before, and this is what has our present century has witnessed.
Question 153: What is the form of scientific inimitability in prophetic medicine? Can you give some examples?
Answer 153: The form of inimitability in prophetic traditions appear in all fields of anatomy, physiological, pathological medicines. Because of time and space, I am going to give only a few examples. Annuman ibn Basheer related that the prophet said: “the believers in mutual intimacy and mercy are like one body; if one organ suffers, the whole body will suffer.”
The portrayal of the tradition is an accurate scientific description of what happens in the body. The body temperature rises and the body is affected with fever that prevents it from sleeping and is worried at night, and torments him during the day. This connection is not only related to the organs of the body, but it goes beyond that to the psychological aspect as well. Also, the prophet said: “There is in the body one morsel, if it is good, the whole body will be good, and if it is corrupted, the whole body will be corrupted too, it is the heart.” So it is void of diseases, free of illnesses, the whole body will be sound as a whole. Abdullah ibn Abbas related that the prophet said: “Use antimony as kohl, it makes the hair grow and sharpens the eyesight.” Ali ibn Abi Talib related that the prophet of God said: “Use antimony, it makes the hair grow, dismisses the motes and sharpens the eyesight.” Antimony is used as an ingredient of the medicine used for the treatment of trachoma. If studies continue, other results may be discovered. Al-Miqdad ibn Ma`d Yathrib related that he heard the prophet say: “Man not filled more harmful pot than his stomach. It suffices man to have a few morsels to give him strength. If it is impossible to do this, he can give a third of his stomach to food, a third to drink and a third to breath.” This hadith gives us an accurate organization of man’s food, so that it does not go beyond the need and does not become less than what I necessary. In this manner, man lives comfortably away from obesity which tires the body and the heart which is the 20th century plague. Abullah ibn Abbas related that the messenger of God said: “Nothing replace food and drink except milk.” In another version: “I do not know any drink that can replace food except milk.” Here the prophet refers to the useful substances which are necessary for the human body whether it is small or big. He referred to the value of nutritional value of milk in a time when people did not know the ingredients of milk and the elements it contains, and the important ingredients of vital food which cannot be found together in another drink. Aishah related that the prophet said: “A home in which there are no dates is a home whose householders are hungry” and in another version: “A home without dates is like a foodless home.” This shows that dates are a sufficient food of man and it satiates him so he does not need other kinds of food. It has been proved that dates contain so many minerals that they are called a mine of minerals. Dates form a complete and excellent meal containing vitamin A and B. It is easy to digest their sugar, unlike the starchy substances. The prophet (pbuh) said: “Every intoxicating substance is wine, and every kind of wine is prohibited.”
All the modern studies confirm the harm of wine on man’s health; it causes many physical and psychological diseases. The prophet (pbuh) set a rule: Every mind-killing and intoxicating drink is wine, and the rule of wine applies to it, prohibition. Abdullah ibn Abbas related that the messenger of God said: “Two blessing many people are many people wish to have, good health and free time.”
Abu Hurayrah related that the prophet said: “There is no supplication of the servant better than “O, God, I ask you for good health in this life and in the hereafter.” In these two hadiths, and in many many more, the prophet (pbuh) stresses the importance of health and fitness; and this is what is being done by the health authorities in all countries all over the world for the sake of preserving the health and fitness of individuals. Osama ibn Zayd related that the prophet said: “If you hear of a plague in a land, do not go into it, and if it inflicts a land you are in, do not leave it.” This hadith sets the essential rule of health quarantine performed by countries to protect the people from the coming diseases and there are many examples of prophetic inimitability.
Conclusion
Praise be to God Who has facilitated the completion of this humble work, and we ask Him to accept it purely for His sake, and benefit us and all Muslims by it. We ask Him to reward everyone who contributed to the realization of this book, and make that in their good deeds balance in the Day of Judgment.
We have to remind readers that this book included answers to some questions that were asked by different people who were considering converting (or reverting) to Islam, by some new Muslims, and by some people living in close proximity to Muslims because of their work, common interests, or general life. The answers in this book have been directed to these groups of people in general, and all the questions that have been included here real enquiries, rather than anticipated or selected questions.
This book could be considered a beginning and an incentive for more in-depth studies that interest those who are active in the field of preaching and spreading Islam amongst non-Muslim minorities living in Muslim communities. Those who are working actively for Islam may dedicate part of their precious time to investigate the needs of inviting different non-Muslims to Islam and the ideas these people could have about Islam, and provide some writings that clarify misconceptions about Islam, and support these writings with solid proof.
Contemporary preachers of Islam are supposed to reflect modern life and realize the challenges and dangers of backward thinking. They should also prepare themselves to shoulder their great responsibilities in such a way that reflects their deep belief in God and His messenger, prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
True Guidance and Light series (5)
The Promised Prophet of the Bible
By:
Munqidh Bin Mahmoud Assaqqar, PhD
AKNOWLEDGMENT
First, all praise and thanks to God Almighty – Allah. It is with great honor that I present this humble work to my reader, hoping that God Almighty will help him to benefit from it, and makes him and me among those who know the truth and among those who are guided.
Following the tradition of prophet Mohammad (PBUH) in thanking people who did us a favor, I would like to thank many people who I benefited from in completing this work, and possibly my success in this work was a result of their prayers to God Almighty to help me to do so.
I wish to express my appreciation and gratitude to my noble parents, who have done the greatest favor for me, in continuously fostering and cherishing me. I also extend my appreciation to my faithful wife, for her continuous support, help, and for her standing beside me during the completion of this work.
I would also wholeheartedly like to express my thanks and gratitude to the translation team, who played a major role in enabling this book to reach the English speaking reader, Mr. WALEED FADHL ALLAH, the translator, and Mr. ALI QASSEM, the proofreader.
Finally, I express my thanks and appreciation to Dr. JOHN EALES, who has done me a great favor by doing the final proofreading, even though he is of a different faith, he managed to do so, for he concerned about searching for the truth, and following scientific methods in study and discussion.
My thanks and appreciations I also extend to all my brothers, friends and colleagues, who played any role in the completion of this book.
Munqidh Bin Mahmoud Assaqqar, PhD
Praise to Allah the cherisher and sustainer of the worlds, and may peace and blessings be upon all of His messengers and may the best of blessings and peace be upon our prophet Muhammad.
There is no doubt that the prophet-hood of our prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is one of two important tasks that the Muslim is carrying to humanity.
Muslims believe that to prove the prophet-hood of Muhammad (PBUH) is one of many essential tasks in their religion; therefore, it is a compulsory duty for Muslims to present this evidence and proof. There are many and various ways to prove that, but the most important way is by understanding the prophecies given by the previous prophets that prophesize and confirms the arrival and the authority of a final prophet to humanity, in order to re-establish the religion that God Almighty accepts until the Day of Judgment.
The reason that these prophecies are most important, and why Muslims are concerned, is that they exist in the Jewish and Christian sacred writings, and that they indicated the coming of Muhammad (PBUH) centuries ago and in various eras.
Jews and Christians acknowledge the existence of these prophecies and affirm that they indicate the coming of "the final prophet" or "the great prophet"; however, they still insist that he is a man who is a descendant from the children of Israel. The Christians claim that he is Jesus (PBUH) son of Mary, while the Jews are still expecting him. We aim here to prove that he, the expected prophet, is Muhammad (PBUH) and not any of the previous prophets peace be upon them all.
Regarding the books that contain these prophecies, we have explained their conditions and credibility in other books of this series, by using these books as a reference, it is not to complement them; however, it is merely an attempt to search between the lines for some traces from the previous prophets. We as Muslims believe in those traces and we do not deny them, because they meet an agreement with what we believe.
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) brought to our attention that these books contain some truth, He said:
{When you ask them about anything if they tell you the truth do not call it a lie, and when they tell you lies do not believe in it}.
In other words, if the previous books contain information, that match verses of the Holy Quran, and the tradition of Muhammad (PBUH), then this is proof that, it is true and has not been altered. “The Unbelievers say: "No apostle art thou." Say: "Enough for a witness between me and you is Allah, and such as have knowledge of the Book.” (Al-Ra'd: 43).
In spite of the alterations made to the Holy Bible, it still contains many prophecies that foretell the arrival of the "Final prophet". It has been almost 2000 years since Jesus (PBUH) came to this earth; yet, these prophecies have not been fulfilled; therefore, we ask when will it be? To claim that these prophecies are still to come, as the years go by, is to reduce the credibility of the Holy Bible to its readers.
Therefore, we send an honest true invitation to examine the prophecies in the Holy Bible, and to read it again carefully considering the appearance of Islam and the prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and we are confident that this will uncover the truth of the belief of the prophet-hood of Muhammad (PBUH). We do not just simply say that, but it is a historical fact admitted by all those who have studied the life of this prophet.
Hercules, the Roman king, had acknowledged the prophet-hood of prophet Muhammad (PBUH). When he received a letter from prophet Muhammad (PBUH), inviting him to embrace Islam, then he sent a messenger to Rome inquiring about the "Final Prophet". When Hercules received the response to his inquiry, he said to his people:
"O' Romans, I have requested you to gather for good news. I received a letter from this man, inviting me to join his faith, and by God I testify that he is the prophet we've been waiting for, and he is the one mentioned in our holy books, so let us follow him and believe in his message to be saved in our life and the hereafter" .
The same story mentioned in Bukhari’s narration is as follows:
Hercules said, "O' Romans, if you are seeking success and guidance and for your empire to hold strong, then you should believe in this prophet, so immediately they rushed to the gates but to find the gates locked. When Hercules saw that he commanded the people to return, and then he said, I said what I said only to test your faith, and I saw what you did. Then they prostrated to him with satisfaction". 1
Hercules did not adhere to his testimony and did not embrace Islam, just like many who know the truth but deny it and never follow its path. The Negus king of Abyssinia believed in the prophet (PBUH). He said to the priests of his Kingdom:- "O' you priests and monks, what they say (the Muslims) about the son of Mary is not more than what you say, you messengers of Muhammad are welcomed here and so he is. I bear witness that he (Muhammad) is the messenger of God, and that he is the one Jesus gave glad tidings of his coming. And if I wasn't occupied with this kingdom I would go to the prophet and personally carry his shoes". 2
The reversion of tens of well-known Christians and Jews to Islam such as; Al-Hassan Bin Ayoub, Zyadah Alnasb Alrasy, priest/ Abdul Ahaad Dawood, Ibrahim Khalil, Moris Bokay and many more, assured the glaring fact about the existence of these prophecies in the Holy Bible.
In this research, we will name the coming prophet as "the expected prophet", or "the expected messiah", following the celebrated studies of Dr. Ahmad Hejazy Al-Saqqa, who has amazingly researched this subject, and because it is the term used by the Jews to indicate the promised prophet.
I ask God Almighty to open our hearts to get to know this prophet (Muhammad, PBUH), and to bless us with the gift of believing in him, and to be among the people who believe in him on the Day of Judgment, God is Almighty and is capable of making it happen.
Munqidh Bin Mahmoud Assaqqar, PhD
Makkah, Saudi Arabia / 2005 Email: munqidh@maktoob.com
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHECIES OF THE HOLY BIBLE
The Holy Scriptures call the coming prophet by many names, such as the king or the prophet, the Mesia, and the Messiah, which means the “savior”, all these names are titles given to the coming prophet, and they also give a description of this great prophet. However, the title “the Messiah” is the most famous title, and that is because of the importance of this title among the Jews.
Some may claim that this title is exclusively meant for Jesus (PBUH). To answer that, we say that calling him the Messiah is a title and not a personal name. The Jews call their prophets, kings and even other kings by that title. This title “Messiah” comes from the Semitic word "Masaha" which means to anoint, for the Jews used to anoint the bodies of their kings and prophets, they used to call them Messiahs even though they were not anointed.
Cyrus, the Persian king, was called Messiah "Thus said the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus" (Isaiah 45:1). David also was called a messiah "And shows mercy to his anointed, to David, and to his seed forevermore" (Psalms 18:50)
Saul, the king, was called messiah "And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not: for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?" (1 Samuel 26:7-9)
In Psalms, "Touch not my anointed, and do my prophets no harm." (Psalms 105:15), and in the Book of Kings, regarding the messiah priests, we read: "And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume you and your fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty." (2 Kings 1:10)
It is clear that this honorable title “messiah” was not an exclusive title for Jesus (PBUH). It was a title given to the "expected prophet" for whom, the Jews, the children of Israel have been waiting, because God will grant him a kingdom, success and blessings far much greater than those that given to the anointed kings of the Jews.
The messiah is a title for the "expected prophet" for whom the Jews were waiting and expecting, that is why they wondered when they saw John the Baptist whether if he was the next messiah or not, "he admitted and did not deny it, but admitted, "I am not the Messiah." So they asked him, "What are you then? Are you Elijah?" (John1/21-22)
When the crowd of Jews saw the miracles of Jesus (PBUH), they used the title “messiah”: "When the Messiah comes, will he perform more signs than this man has done?" (John 7/30-31)
The "expected prophet" was also called messia which gives the same meaning of messiah, that can be found in the Book of John "We have found the Messiah" 29 (which is translated Anointed)." (John 1/41) the Serianic word "ma sheeh" is pronounced "messia" in languages that do not have the letter ح"" which has no equal in English but it is close to the letter "H".
Some people and they have the right of doing so, might demand that we have to present the verse or verses which clearly and indisputably indicate the name and description of Muhammad (PBUH). However, there are two issues related to the Holy Bible and its translations, which block the clarity of these prophecies. These two issues are well known to those who are acquainted with the Holy Bible, those who know the reason why these prophecies are lost or intentionally suppressed.
The first issue is that the Jews and the Christians have the habit of translating names into their meanings, stating the meaning only without the name, and they may add a commentary to the sentence and insert it into the context. Consequently, many clear prophecies will lose their indications. An example of these prophecies is Jesus’ prophecy about the “Parakletos”, which is “the comforter” in modern translation. Another example is the prophet Haggai’s prophecy, that indicates the coming of (Mehmaad), but the translators of the Holy Bible changed it in order to suppress this clear and direct indication. “and the treasures of all the nations will come in” (Haggai 2/7).
In Psalms (84/6), (KJV 1959 and the majority of English translations), the name of the messiah’s city is mentioned. It called it “Bacah valley” “Hebrew [בְּעֵמֶק הַבָּכָא]. The translators of the Holy Bible translated it into “the valley of weeping”, only to misguide the reader of knowing that "Bacah" is the town of Muhammad’s (PBUH) nativity. {Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for Al-'Alamîn (the mankind and jinns) } (Al-Emran: 96).
In his celebrated work (Eth harul Haq) “The truth revealed", Rahmatu Allah Al-Hindi, gives 13 examples of these mistranslations, he made a comparison between different translations of the Bible, to prove how these actions suppress the original context.
He said, “In (1811) Holy Bible’s edition "Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will mercy its visitors" (Genesis 22/14), the translator replaced the Hebrew name by its meaning, in Darby edition (1889), “Called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh”. By doing so, the correct name was lost, and the intended meaning of the verse was completely changed”.
He added:
“We have no doubt that these translators, who had done that, were capable of changing the fragment (Messenger of God) to different words, as they have changed other words”.
In this regards, Al-Hindi quoted from Haydar Al-Qurashee’s book "Kholasat Sayf Al-Muslemeen" (the Essence of Muslim’s sword), “that the Armenian priest Auskan translated the Book of Isaiah into the Armenian language in the year 1666, and it was printed in 1733 by Anthony Portolly press. In this translation, in chapter 42 it was written: “Sing to the Lord a new song, the mark of his authority is in his back, and his name is Ahmad”.
The second issue is that the Holy Bible is metaphoric and full of symbols and indications specially when talking about the future.
Dr. Samaan Kahloon wrote in his book "the Precious Holy Bible seekers’ guide", “expressions in the Holy Bible are very metaphoric and mysterious especially in the Old Testament”.
He also wrote, “Expressions in the New Testament are also very metaphoric, specially "causerie of our Savior", and because some of the Christian teachers used literal interpretation methods, many of the false and corrupted opinions were spread around…”2
Therefore, the reader should realize the difficulties we are facing while we search for the original word or name that was suppressed by the translators. The reader will also realize, using his own intuition, the nature of the Holy Bible’s use of metaphors and puzzles to explain facts.
The people who use either the Gematriacal method or the like to prove that their books contain many prophecies, that have been realized, such as the establishment of the Soviet Union and Israel, and even individuals like Henry Kissinger, will not notice these difficulties.
They also claim that there are hundreds of prophecies indicating the arrival of Jesus (PBUH). They believe that there are one thousand prophecies about Jesus (PBUH) in the Old Testament.
Is it possible that the Holy Bible does not contain any prophecy about the man (Muhammad, PBUH) who changed the course of history in the name of Allah? Should not he have a share of all these prophecies, at least just one prophecy warning or foretelling about him or his message? Those who claim that they are the only qualified individuals to solve the Holy Bible’s puzzles and symbols are tongue-tied when answering this question.
The appearance of Muhammad's (PBUH) word and religion is the key that opens the door to the prophecies of the Old and the New Testament. In the Torah, there is a prophecy that uncovers the truth and clearly gives the condition and description of the prophet. In the Book of Deuteronomy "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die… thou shall not be afraid of him. " (Deuteronomy 18/20-22)
Gamaleil, the Pharisee, spoke true words: "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to naught But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it; lest haply you be found even to fight against God" (Acts 5:38-39). The message of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has not perished; instead, it ruled the world for many centuries.
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was saved from murder attempts, he conquered his enemies, and his message and religion spread all over the world, this is evidence and proof of his honesty, sincerity and his prophet-hood. "For the Lord knows the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish." (Psalms 1/6).
“You shall destroy them that speak leasing: the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man." (Psalms: 5/6).
These verses indicate the truthfulness of Muhammad's (PBUH) prophet-hood and message, because he was saved from harm, was able to deliver the message, and because of how his message was spread across the world.
THE EXPECTED KING
In 63, B.C.E. Jerusalem & Palestine were under occupation of the pagan Romans, to start a new period of torture, abuse and suffering for the children of Israel. The people who had waited long for a great savior to return the lost kingdom and the ruling power to them.
The children of Israel awaited the fulfillment of the prophecies given by Jacob, Moses and David and other prophets regarding the "expected prophet". They had no doubt in the "Victorious king and prophet" appearance, the prophet who will lead his followers to the glory of life and the happiness of the hereafter. Therefore, when the great Jesus (PBUH) came, and when they saw the miracles that God allowed him to perform, many of them followed him (PBUH), hoping that he is the "victorious great prophet", the "savior prophet". This is a fact clearly understood by those who are acquainted with the sayings of the Jews who were contemporary with Jesus (PBUH).
The Holy Scriptures told us about some of those who awaited the "victorious expected king". Simeon was one of them, described by Luke "And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Spirit was upon him." (Luke: 2:25), Simeon was one of those who were awaiting salvation.
Nathaniel, who openly confessed to Jesus (PBUH) about his feelings and his thoughts, was one of them, "Nathaniel answered and said to him, Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel. Jesus answered and said to him, Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these." (John: 1/49- 50)
When the rumors that Jesus (PBUH) was crucified spread, some of them were very sad because the salvation they hoped for had ended. When Jesus (PBUH) –disguised- appeared to two of the disciples after resurrection they were surprised, "And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that you have one to another, as you walk, and are sad? One of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Are you the only visitor in Jerusalem, and has not known the things that happened there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done." (Luke: 24/17-21). They were awaiting the salvation to come through him, as foretold in the scriptures of the Torah about the coming of the "victorious king" that will free his people, and lead them to victory. In the contrary, they just heard of his crucifixion.
The disciples said to Jesus (PBUH) after the resurrection, "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, will you at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, it is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in his own power." (Acts: 1/6-7). He meant that it is not the time for the "expected king”.
Awad Samaan said: " those who examined the relationship between the disciples, apostles and Jesus (PBUH), will find that they only considered him as a man…they were waiting for the messiah, but the messiah, according to the ideas inherited from their ancestors, was nothing more than an excellent messenger sent by God.1
The people of Israel, who waited long for the coming of the "victorious great prophet", thought that John the Baptist was the expected messiah " And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he was the Christ, or not; " (Luke: 3/15).
These crowds, who were waiting for salvation, when they saw Jesus (PBUH), they said about him what they have said before about John the Baptist "And said unto the woman, now we believe, not because of your saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world." (John: 4/42).
Andrews said to his brother Simon, "He first found his own brother Simon, and said unto him, we have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ." (John: 1/41). He, Andrews, - as the priest Al-Khodary said:- "By this sentence, he meant nothing more than what a pious Jew, who awaited the arrival of the messiah to save and free Israel from the foreign slavery then refresh the spiritual life ". 1
The Samaritan woman when she saw his wonders " The woman said unto him, I know that Messiah will come, which is called Christ: when he comes, he will tell us all things.” (John: 4/25-30).
This news had spread among the children of Israel, until the high priests feared the revenge of the Romans if they found out that the "victorious great expected messiah" appeared in the person of Jesus (PBUH). Therefore, they started to plan to frame him, accusing him of corrupting the nation, and claiming that he is the "expected savior", "Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, what do we? For this man does many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, You know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." (John: 11/47-50).
Then they said to Pilate, "And they began to accuse him, saying, we found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding giving tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. And Pilate asked him, saying, Are you the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, you said it. Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man." (Luke: 23/2-4). Pilate found out that Jesus (PBUH) was innocent of what they accused him, as he did not claim that he is the expected king of the Jews.
THE DISCIPLES’ LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPHECIES ABOUT THE MESSIAH
The Bible writers were fond of the prophecies of the Torah, and they intentionally and obviously altered many of the meanings of the Torah's text to make it fit Jesus (PBUH). Their love for Jesus (PBUH) or their alteration habits, resulted in making them misunderstand many of the prophecies that mentioned the "expected messiah".
An example of this is what we find the Book of Psalms about the "expected prophet "A psalm of David? The Lord says to my lord, "Sit at my right-hand, while I make your enemies your footstool" (Psalms: 110/1), this particular prophecy was not meant in any way as to indicate Jesus (PBUH) the son of Mary.
Peter, or whoever related that to Peter, was mistaken when he interpreted it. Saying:
"For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts: 2/29-37).
The proof that Peter, and the Christians after him, were mistaken is that Jesus (PBUH) said that he is not the "expected messiah" who was mentioned by David. "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What do you think of Christ? Whose son is he? They said unto him, The Son of David. He said unto them, how then did David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord; Sit in my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool? If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word; neither dares any man from that day forth to ask him any more questions." (Matthew: 22/41-46). The answer that Jesus (PBUH) gave was firm, indicating that the expected prophet is not a descendant of David because David called him his Master, and the father does not call his son so.
Jesus (PBUH) asked the Jews about the "expected messiah" the one prophesized by David and other prophets "what do you think of the messiah? Whose son is he?" The Jews answered him: "he is the son of David", Jesus (PBUH) told them that this was wrong, and he said:- "If David called him a God, then how can he be his son!", so the next messiah was not a descendant of David because David called him my Lord or my master.
It is known that Jesus (PBUH) - according to Matthew and Luke is a descendant of the prophet David - he was often called "O' son of David" (look in Matthew: 1/1, 9/27 and Luke: 19/38).
In the Book of Mark, Jesus (PBUH) said, “David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?" (Mark: 12/37). It is also mentioned in Luke "And he said unto them, how they say that Christ is David's son? David himself said in the book of Psalms, the LORD said unto my Lord, Sit in my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool. David therefore called him Lord, how is he then his son?" (Luke: 20/40-44). In spite of these statements, the Christians still insist that Jesus (PBUH) is the prophet whom David foretold of in his prophecy, even though they said that Jesus (PBUH) is the son of David.
In his Epistle to the Hebrews about God’s good news to David, that God will bless his son Solomon, Paul, or the unknown writer, made it a prophecy of Jesus (PBUH), he said, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, you are my son, this day I have begotten you? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" (Hebrews: 1/5).
The writer of this letter quoted the phrase from the Book of Second Samuel (7/14); he made it a prophecy about Jesus (PBUH). It says, "I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to me". The writer thought that this phrase was about Jesus (PBUH), so he wrote it in his epistle. This quotation is not correct. The context of the sentence was to David, because God ordered the prophet Nathan to tell him: "Now therefore thus you shall say unto my servant David, .. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will rise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my steadfast love shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you: your throne shall be established forever. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David." (Samuel (2): 7:8 -17)
The prophesized person is a son of David and not one of his grandchildren. He will be the king of the children of Israel after David’s death. He will build the house of God, and he has been warned of God’s punishment if he drifts away from the path of God, all of the above mentioned was fulfilled in the person of Solomon as mentioned in the Torah.
However, none of the mentioned prophecies applied to Jesus (PBUH), for, according to Christians, Jesus (PBUH) is God, and could not be warned by God. He was perfect, and did not sin. Jesus (PBUH) did not build any house for God on earth, and he was never a king to the children of Israel. He had no kingdom on earth as he said, "Jesus answered, my kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but my kingdom is not from hence.” (John: 18/36).
In the Book of First Chronicles, it reads that the name of the prophesized is Solomon. David received these words, "Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.” (Chronicles (1): 22/9)
Another example of these fabrications or the misunderstandings is what Matthew said about Jesus (PBUH) and his return from Egypt, when he was a child. "When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew: 2/14-15), he claimed that this confirms the Torah's prophecy, that comes in the Book of Hosea (11/1-2).
The mentioned verse in the Book of Hosea has nothing to do with Jesus (PBUH). Instead, it tells about the return of the nation of Israel from Egypt with Moses. Originally, the context is about Jacob, and then it moves on to talk about his sons and their return from Egypt, their idol worshipping, and ignoring God’s commandments and orders. He said:- "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baal, and burned offerings to the idols." (Hosea: 11/1-2).
This verse has nothing to do with Jesus (PBUH); the worshipping of idols mentioned, took place before Jesus (PBUH), and it cannot be applied to the people who were contemporary with him (PBUH). The Jews had left idol worshipping centuries before Jesus (PBUH) was born, after their released from the captivity of Babylon, and they never withdrew from that repentance, as the history books tell us.
The use of the form (my son) is commonly used in the Torah, as in: "And the LORD said unto Moses, When you go to return into Egypt, …….. And you shall say unto Pharaoh, Thus said the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto you, Let my son go, that he may serve me:." (Exodus: 4/21-23).
Jesus (PBUH) suffered long from his disciples’ misunderstandings of his words, and during his life, he had corrected many of their mistakes in understanding the prophecies, and even most of his sayings. They failed to understand the simplest of his sayings. If such is the case, how could they understand the prophecies?
In one incident, he advised them saying: "And he cautioned them, saying, watch out, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and the leaven of Herod. And they began discussing with one another the fact that they had no bread. And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? are your heart hardened? Having eyes, do you not see? and having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember? “(Mark: 8/15-18). How could you not understand that, I did not mean real bread?
In another, Jesus (PBUH) talked to them and they did not understand him, "Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said: this is a hard saying; who can hear it?" (John: 6/60).
They used to misunderstand his simple words, and then they were afraid to ask him to explain what they did not understand. Mark said: "For he taught his disciples, and said to them, The Son of man is delivered to the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they did not understand that saying, and were afraid to ask him." (Mark: 9/31-32).
These misunderstandings of the scripture’s indications extended even to the educated and the elite individuals of the children of Israel. Nicodemus misunderstood the words of Jesus (PBUH) when he said, "Jesus answered him, truly; truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said to him, how can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born? ……….. Jesus answered, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and you do not understand these things?" (John: 3/3 -10) Nicodemus did not understand the meaning of the spiritual re-birth; he thought that to be born again means that the person has to go back inside his mother's womb!
Nicodemus was the teacher of the children of Israel. If this was the way that he understood; how about Matthew, the tax collector, and John and Peter the fishermen? They were just two illiterate disciples according to the Book of Acts. "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they astonished.” (Acts: 4/13).
The disciples of Jesus (PBUH) were the illiterates of the world as Paul reported, he said "But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong." (Corinthians (1): 1/27).
The relationship between Jesus’ (PBUH) words and deeds– during his life on earth- and the scriptures’ prophecies were unclear to the disciples. Then after his ascent, they thought that the prophecies were for him (PBUH). "And Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your King is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt. His disciples did not understand these things at first, but when Jesus was glorified, and then they remembered that these things had been written about him, and had been done him." (John: 12/14-16).
The children of Israel had been longing for the savior. They assumed that he was Jesus (PBUH), "when they heard these words, some of the people said, “This really is the prophet”. Others said, “This is the Christ”. But some said, “is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture said, that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" (John: 7/38-41).
The crowds also, in spite of their different cultures, were trying to find salvation through the person of Jesus (PBUH). "But you, oh Bethlehem Ephrata, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel; whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. Therefore, he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has given birth; then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel. And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. and they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. And he shall be their peace. when the Assyrian comes into our land and treads in our palaces, then we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princes of men. They shall shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod at its entrances; and he shall deliver us from the Assyrian when he comes into our land and treads within our borders. “(Micah: 5/2-6).
In fact, Jesus (PBUH) did not fulfill this prophecy. The Jews were looking for the one who would be their king, save them from the Assyrians, and bestow the peace among them.
Dr. Ahmad Shalaby quoted Parry’s words regarding Jesus (PBUH):- “Because of his eloquence he was able to attract many of his followers (the Jews who awaited the messiah), and they gave him this title.”
They attribute to him what he did not say, as we will see later.
DID JESUS (PBUH) CLAIM THAT HE IS THE "EXPECTED MESSIAH"?
If many of the contemporaries of Jesus (PBUH) claimed that, he is the expected messiah, as they claimed the same before about John the Baptist, did Jesus himself (PBUH) claim or even tell his disciples that he is. Did he (PBUH) fulfill the prophecies about the expected messiah?
Once he asked his disciples about what the people say about him, then he asked them "And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ”. And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him. And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed." (Mark: 8/29-31). He strongly forbade them to say that about him, and he told them that he would be subject to conspiracy and murder. There is no doubt that, this was not what they expected from the "victorious messiah". In other words, he explained to them that he was not the victorious messiah who they were waiting for; whom they were sure would bring victory, triumph and perseverance, not to suffer pain and death.
Luke confirms, "Peter answered, “The Christ of God”. And he strictly charged and commanded them to tell this to no one". (Luke: 9/20-21). By doing so, Jesus (PBUH) forbade the disciples to attach the title (expected messiah) to him. It was not because he was afraid of the Jews, since he had informed them that that conspiracy would happen. Therefore, it was meaningless, if he was the "expected messiah", to deny it. He forbade them because what they said was not the truth.
Peter, the head of the apostles, refused to accept that Jesus (PBUH) was the man who was subject to pain and death and not the "expected victorious king", he went on to blame Jesus (PBUH) for announcing such news about himself.
Let us see what Matthew said regarding that scene:
"From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside, and began to rebuke him, saying, “far be it from you, Lord: this shall never happen to you”.
Jesus answered him seriously:
“But he turned, and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan: you are a hindrance to me. for you are not sitting your mind on the things of God , but on the things of man.” (Matthew: 16/21-23).
Peter was shocked and so were the rest of the disciples, for, they heard him say:- “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself”. He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.” (John: 12/32-33). Then they expressed their objection to this idea about the suffering messiah, and they asked whether Jesus (PBUH) was talking about himself.
"So the crowd answered him, “we have heard from the law that the Christ remains for ever. How can you say that The Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?" (John: 12/34), they were shocked to hear the truth from Jesus (PBUH); the truth that destroyed their chimera that he is the great victorious messiah.
Priest Al-Khudary agrees with us that Jesus (PBUH) was not the "victorious messiah" awaited for by the Jews but he was the spiritual messiah. Then he alerted to us, "to a very important fact that Jesus (PBUH) had always tried not to show himself as the messiah to the people, it was the reason why when he saw any gaps from which the people would see him as a messiah, he would close them".1
Father Matta Al-Meskeen, an Egyptian scholar, says:- “the disciples had collected evidence during the life of Jesus (PBUH) that was enough to confirm to them that he was the messiah; however, every time they tried to proof this implication, Jesus (PBUH) forbade them… The scholars were exhausted that Jesus (PBUH) constantly hid his identity as the messiah, and they had to say whatever they could about him". 2
Jesus (PBUH), from time to time, kept denying that he is the messiah. “When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world. Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself." (John: 6/14-15). Why did he escape? Indeed, he was not the "expected king", but they insisted on making him so because of his miracles, and because of the hope and longing within themselves, that he will save them from the injustice and cruelty of the Romans.
Priest Al-Khodary said: "the enthusiast group was waiting for the political messiah. When they saw Jesus, who was preaching the near kingdom of God, they thought that he was truly that political messiah, for that they wanted to make him their king and leader. Thinking that he could gather and support them, but Jesus used to leave alone and head to the mountains, because his kingdom is not in this world, and he does not need this kingdom that causes people to fight and to kill.”1
Philips said to his friend Nathaniel: "we found what Moses wrote about in the Torah and the prophets Jesus son of Josef who is from Nazirah ……….".
Nathaniel went to Jesus (PBUH) and asked him, "Nathanael said to him, Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel. Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, “I saw you under the fig tree,” do you believe? You will see greater things than these." (John: 1/49-50). Jesus (PBUH) answered him by a question, and told him that he will see more miracles. He did not tell him that he was the expected king.
In Pilate’s palace, he denied that he could be the Jews’ expected king as they claimed and rumored. "Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." (John: 18/36). His kingdom is spiritual, which is in heaven, it is not the expected kingdom of the Jews; the material timely kingdom feared by the Romans, "it is known from the prophecies that the messiah will be a king and a priest". 2
His innocence from this accusation clearly proved in Pilate’s palace, who asked him saying, "And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a King." (Luke: 23/2), it is unlikely to consider the answer given by Jesus (PBUH) as a confession, as he said to him, “you are saying so not me”, and Pilate was convinced of his innocence and said: "...I find no guilt in him." (John: 18/38).
In the Gospel of John, Jesus (PBUH) explained to Pilate that the reason of his message was to bear witness for the truth, and not be a king of human beings. He said:- "you say that I am a king. For this purpose, I was born and for this purpose, I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth listens to my voice." (John: 18/37).
Among those who realized that, Jesus (PBUH) was not the expected messiah was Judas Iscariot. Who - as seen by the priest Al-Khodary - betrayed Jesus (PBUH) because he was a member of the enthusiast group who dreamed of the appearance of the victorious messiah. He was disappointed, and he became suspicious as to whether or not Jesus was the messiah. “When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, “Dos your teacher not pay the tax?” He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?” and when he said, “from others” Jesus said to him, and then the sons are free. however, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself." (Matthew: 17/24-27) 1
Others realized that Jesus (PBUH) was not the expected messiah. Knowing Jesus’ origin, family and tribe, while the expected messiah is a stranger and not known to the Jews. "Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, “Is not this, the man whom they seek to kill? And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him. Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ? But we know where this man comes from, and when the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from." (John: 7: 25-27) that is because the expected messiah is a stranger to the children of Israel.
Jesus (PBUH) confirmed the authenticity of the sign they mentioned about the absent messiah, he said:
"So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple, “you know me, and you know whence I come from? But I have not come of my own accord. he who sent me is true, and him you do not know. I know him, for I come from him, and he sent me.” ……. yet many of the people believed in him. They said, “When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?" (John: 7: 25-31) Jesus (PBUH) mentioned that he is a messenger sent by God, and that he is not the one they are expecting, because they do not know that one.
Those he had spoken to believed in him, and they understood that he is not the expected messiah. Let us look at what John said, "Yet many of the people believed in him. They said, “When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?" (John: 7:30-31)
Jesus (PBUH) is a descendant of David as mentioned by Matthew and Luke, and his people repeatedly called him by that name. "And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me." (Mark: 10/47), (see Matthew: 1/1, 20/31) and Luke: 18/28, and many other verses.
The expected messiah or the next king is not a descendant of David, as Jesus testified: "now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, Saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The Son of David.” He said to them, “How is then that David, in the spirit, call him Lord, saying, “The LORD said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” And no man was able to answer him a word, nor from that day do any one dare to ask him any more questions." (Matthew: 22/41-46). Jesus (PBUH) openly testified that he was not the expected messiah.
Jesus (PBUH) cannot fulfill the prophecies of the next great king, and cannot be a king on the throne of David or anyone else. He is a descendant of the sinful king "Jehoiakim son of Josiah", one of Jesus (PBUH) grandfathers as mentioned in the Book of Chronicles (1). "Amon his son, Josiah his son. The sons of Josiah: Johanan the fristborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum." (Chronicles (1): 3:14-15)
Jehoiakim was a grandfather to Jesus (PBUH) (as mentioned in the Holy Bible), Matthew dropped the name Jehoiakim from Jesus’ ancestry list, between Josiah and his grandson Yeknia.
God forbade the dominion from descendants of Jehoiakim according to the Torah, "Therefore thus says the LORD concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out in the heat by day and the frost by night." (Jeremiah: 36/30). How can the Christians - who claimed that Jesus (PBUH) is a descendant of Yeknia the son of the sinful Jehoiakim - believe that the person who fulfills these prophecies is Jesus (PBUH)?
Pondering upon the biography of Jesus (PBUH), his words and his habits, will prove that he was not the next king or the expected king. He was never a king of the children of Israel even for one day; his message did not contain any secular salvation for them unlike the awaited prophet. Instead, Jesus (PBUH) often escaped fearing the assault of the Jews; so, how can we compare him to the victorious king? The king who will defeat his enemies by the will of God, and whom the planet will bow to and to his nation.
The coming prophet will smash and defeat the kings and nations of his time as told by Jacob. "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s stuff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples." (Genesis: 49/10).
Prophet David said about him:
"Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one, in your splendor and majesty. In your majesty ride out victoriously fro the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness; let your right hand teach you awesome deeds. your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; the peoples fall under you. Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. the scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness." (Psalms: 45/1-6).
Jesus (PBUH) paid his taxes to the Romans "when they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to peter and said, “does your teacher not pay the tax?” He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?” and when he said “from others,” Jesus said to him, Then the sons free. however, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.” “(Matthew: 17/24-27). How could we compare a taxpayer with a king that nations will fall under his feet and comply with his rulings?
Jesus (PBUH) refused to be a judge between two men; so, could he then claim authority and dominion? "Someone in the crowd said to him, “teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” But he said to him, Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you? “(Luke: 12/13-14).
Even if the Christians insist in conflicting with the Bible by saying that Jesus (PBUH) is the promised victorious king, the one that nations will obey, and that all this will happen on his second return, the angel refutes this claim’s prophecy mentioned to Mary. He told her that Jesus (PBUH) would only be a king of the house of Jacob; as such, the maximum extent of his kingdom is the nation of Israel. "And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Luke: 1/33). The promised messiah “and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples” (Genesis: 49/10), and "your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; the peoples fall under you." (Psalms: 45/5). The promised messiah’s kingdom is greater than the kingdom of the children of Israel.
I need to Mention here, that God's promise to the children of Israel of the coming king on the throne of David, was with a condition of their obedience to God and to their deeds according to His will. Just like many other promises to them. For, God Almighty does not take side with any of His creatures, giving them what they do not deserve.
The promise has been broken many times, and then God rejected them forever "O God, why do you cast us off forever? Why does your anger smoke against the sheep of thy pasture? Remember your congregation, which you have purchased of old; which you have redeemed to be the tribe of your heritage. Remember Mount Zion, where you have dwelt." (Psalms: 74/1-2), God rejected this tough cruel nation, and the rejection was eternal, the promised king will not be from them, because they did not keep their covenant.
The story of the Samaritan woman may create confusion. When she went to Jesus (PBUH), seeing his miracles and hearing his words, she told him that she believed that the messiah will come, and he answered her that he is the messiah, "The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things. Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he." (John: 4/25-26).
I have no doubt that this phrase is a fabrication. The text contradicts the habits of Jesus (PBUH), because none of the disciples - including John who wrote the story - had heard the conversation. They did not know what the subject of the conversation between them was. "Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he. Just then, his disciples came back. They marveled that he was talking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you seek?” or, “Why are you talking with her?" (John: 4/26-27), so they never really heard there conversation and they did not ask him about what went on between them.
The clearest evidence proving that the story is a fabrication is that the woman, who saw his miracles and Jesus (PBUH) said to her what they claimed, did not believe that Jesus (PBUH) is the expected messiah. She never heard that from him. If she did hear it she would have believed; instead, she left and started to spread the news about his coming. She was not certain that he was the expected messiah. “So the woman left her water jar, and went a way into town and said to the people, Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?" (John: 4/28-29).
Accordingly, it is very clear that Jesus (PBUH) did not claim that he was the expected messiah, even if his contemporaries claimed this to be so, those who longed for the arrival of the great savior sent by God to defeat his enemies.
In his book "Jesus", Boltman was correct when he said:- "Jesus did not consider himself the messiah". Many modern scholars agreed with him, as told by Bishop Bernar Bartman, they said:- “Jesus did not consider himself the messiah; it is the disciples who gave him this title after his death and resurrection, a title that he strongly rejected during his life on earth".
We conclude with what Charles Gene Pier said, "The firm conclusion of the researcher’s studies is that, Jesus never claimed that he is the expected messiah, and he never called himself the Son of God". 1?????
DID MUHAMMAD (PBUH) CALL HIMSELF THE EXPECTED PROPHET?
We have seen that Jesus (PBUH) did not claim that he was the expected prophet. Did Muhammad (PBUH) inform us that he was that promised prophet as the previous prophets stated?
The prophecies of the coming of Muhammad, which we find in the books of the prophets, are one of many important issues emphasized by the Quran and the traditions of Muhammad. The Quran mentions that every prophet reminded his people about the coming prophet. These prophets had vowed that when Muhammad comes, they would all believe in him. {And (remember) when Allâh took the Covenant of the Prophets, saying: "Take whatever I gave you from the Book and Hikmah (understanding of the Laws of Allâh, etc.), and afterwards there will come to you a Messenger (Muhammad) confirming what is with you; you must, then, believe in him and help him." Allâh said: "Do you agree (to it) and will you take up My Covenant (which I conclude with you)?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness; and I am with you among the witnesses (for this)."} (Al-Emran: 81).
Ali, son of Abu Talib, (May Allah be pleased with him) said: (Allah took the Covenant of the Prophets, Adam and afterwards there will come to you a Messenger (Muhammad) must, then, believe in him and help him). 1
Among these prophets, who gave prophecies of the next prophet, was prophet Abraham (PBUH), when he said the prayer {"Our Lord! Send amongst them a Messenger of their own (and indeed Allâh answered their invocation by sending Muhammad Peace be upon him ), who shall recite unto them Your Verses and instruct them in the Book (this Qur'ân) and Al-Hikmah (full knowledge of the Islamic laws and jurisprudence or wisdom or Prophet-hood, etc.), and sanctify them. Verily! You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise."} (Al Baqara: 129).
Jesus (PBUH) {And (remember) when 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), said: "O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allâh unto you, confirming the Taurât [(Torah) which came] before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me. Whose name shall be Ahmed. But when he (Ahmed i.e. Muhammad) came to them with clear proofs, they said: "This is plain magic."} (Al Saff :6).
Muhammad (PBUH) said, (God considers me the last and final prophet, since Adam is twisted in his clay, and I will inform you of my beginning. I am the answer of Abraham's prayer, and the prophecy of Jesus, and the dream that my mother saw when she delivered me, as a very bright light came out of her, where the palaces of Syria shined). 2
Naturally, the prophets’ great attention to the "final prophet” should make them talk about him in their writings, his description and conditions.
The Holy Quran confirmed that, these prophecies exist in the books of the Christians and Jews. {Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write (i. e. Muhammad) whom they find written with them in the Taurât (Torah) (Deut, xviii, 15) and the Injeel (Gospel) (John xiv, 16) , - he commands them for Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained); and forbids them from Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief, polytheism of all kinds, and all that Islâm has forbidden); he allows them as lawful At-Taiyibât [(i.e. all good and lawful) as regards things, deeds, beliefs, persons, foods, etc.], and prohibits them as unlawful Al-Khabâ'ith (i.e. all evil and unlawful as regards things, deeds, beliefs, persons, foods, etc.), he releases them from their heavy burdens (of Allâh's Covenant), and from the fetters (bindings) that were upon them. So those who believe in him (Muhammad), honour him, help him, and follow the light (the Qur'ân) which has been sent down with him, it is they who will be successful.} (Al-Aaraf: 157).
Allah, informing us about the existence of these prophecies about prophet Muhammad (PBUH), his nation and his companions in the Torah and the bible, said: {Muhammad is the Messenger of Allâh, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and falling down prostrate (in prayer), seeking Bounty from Allâh and (His) Good Pleasure. The mark of them (i.e. of their Faith) is on their faces (foreheads) from the traces of (their) prostration (during prayers). This is their description in the Taurât (Torah). But their description in the Injeel (Gospel) is like a (sown) seed which sends forth its shoot, then makes it strong, it then becomes thick, and it stands straight on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the disbelievers with them. Allâh has promised those among them who believe (i.e. all those who follow Islamic Monotheism, the religion of Prophet Muhammad till the Day of Resurrection) and do righteous good deeds, forgiveness and a mighty reward (i.e. Paradise). } (Al-Fath: 29).
The Noble Quran did not tell in detail about the description of Muhammad (PBUH) and his conditions mentioned in the books of the Jews and Christians. However, it informs us about one important fact, that the Jews and the Christians know this messenger of God as they know their own children. He was mentioned many times by their prophets and through their books. {Those to whom We have given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) recognize him (i.e. Muhammad as a Messenger of Allâh, and they also know that there is no Ilah (God) but Allâh and Islâm is Allâh's Religion), as they recognize their own sons. Those who destroy themselves will not believe. (Tafsir At-Tabarî)} (Al-Anaam: 20)
With no doubt, this knowledge comes from the number of or the clarity of the prophecies mentioned in their books about him (PBUH).
We will try to touch some of these prophecies in the following pages, hoping that we can succeed in clarifying the alterations that come in these books, avoiding many of the misunderstandings that happen to Christians trying to understand these prophecies.
ISHMAEL'S BLESSED NATION
Abraham (PBUH) left of the land of Iraq heading to the blessed land, the land of Palestine. The Torah mentioned that he was seventy-five years old, and he had no children. He left after God had given him good news and said: "And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing…..and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Genesis: 12/2-3).
In the land of Palestine, Hagar (Sarah's servant) became pregnant with her son Ishmael (PBUH). The Torah mentions Sarah's jealousy of Hagar for having a child, while Sarah was deprived of children and offspring until that time.
At that time, Sarah humiliated Hagar, and Hagar had to escape from her mistress "And the angel of the LORD said to her, “Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has listened to your affliction. He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen." (Genesis: 16/11-12), the angel gave her good news of a great son who will dominate over everyone, but sometimes it will be the opposite of that, and he will be dominated by everyone.
Hagar gave birth to her son Ishmael (PBUH), he was the eldest of Abraham's children "Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram." (Genesis: 16/16).
When Abraham (PBUH) turned ninety-nine, as the Torah tells us, God renewed his blessing on him ".I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. That I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly… for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. And I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant" (Genesis: 17/1-8).
When God tested Abraham (PBUH) by commanding him to sacrifice his only son at that time - Ishmael (PBUH)-, they both accepted and obeyed the order of God. "and the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven And said, “By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son:" (Genesis: 22/1-17).
Abraham (PBUH) asked God to make his son Ishmael righteous: "And Abraham said to God, “O that Ishmael might live before you!" (Genesis: 17/18)
God accepted his prayer, and told him that Ishmael would be blessed and so will another son God will give him. God had given him the good news of the birth of Isaac from his wife Sarah when God said: “I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her. …….and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; Behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. " (Genesis: 17/16-20)
Isaac (PBUH) was fourteen years younger than Ishmael (PBUH) “Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him." (Genesis: 21/5)
Abraham (PBUH) had other children from his wife Keturah, but God did not promise blessings for them "Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah." (Genesis: 25/1-2), therefore, no prophets came from their children because they were not promised blessings.
What is mentioned in the Torah in this regard agrees to large extent with what the Quran says. The Quran indicates blessings and a covenant to Abraham for the righteous from his offspring from his two blessed sons Ishmael and Isaac: {And (remember) when the Lord of Ibrâhim (Abraham) [i.e., Allâh] tried him with (certain) Commands, which he fulfilled. He (Allâh) said (to him), "Verily, I am going to make you a leader (Prophet) of mankind." [Ibrâhim (Abraham)] said, "And of my offspring (to make leaders)." (Allâh) said, "My Covenant (Prophethood, etc.) includes not Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers)."} (Al-Baqara: 124).
God mentioned the blessing of the two sons and that it was conditional on "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless. (Genesis: 17/1-2). There will be righteous people, who deserve rewards, and some will be wrong and they will get nothing from the covenant when He spoke about Ishmael: {We blessed him and Ishâque (Isaac), and of their progeny are (some) that do right, and some that plainly wrong themselves.} (Al-Saffat: 113).
This agrees with what comes in the Torah. When it indicates that the covenant and choice comes on the condition of good deeds, and the blessing that God gave to Abraham was because of his good deeds. "I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed;" (Genesis: 26/4).
The blessings on Abraham's children continue according to that condition "walk before me, and be blameless. That I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly. " (Genesis: 17/1-2), and as He said about him and his blessed offspring: "Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.” (Genesis: 18/18-19). Therefore, obeying God's commands is the reason for this blessing, as God said to Abraham: "And in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice." (Genesis: 22/18).
According to this condition, the blessing and covenant were granted to the sons of Levi "so shall you know that I have sent this command to you, that my covenant with Levi may stand, says the LORD of hosts. My covenant with him was one of life of and peace, and I gave them to him. It was a covenant of fear, and he feared me. He stood in awe of my name. True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts." (Malachi: 2/4-7).
The blessing of God is for the righteous, and his curse is the unbelievers’ share. God said to Moses:
"See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse. The blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today. And the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way that I commanding you today. To go after other gods that you have not known. " (Deuteronomy: 11/26-28).
Again, God said to Moses, "you shall therefore be careful to do the commandments and the statutes and the rules that I command you today. And because you listen to these rules and keep and do them, the LORD your God will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love that he swore to your fathers :" (Deuteronomy: 7/11-13), (see also Deuteronomy: 28/1-68). As such, the blessing of God is conditional on obeying Him and following His religion. When the children of Israel drifted away from it, God showered them with curses and losses.
Indeed, the blessing on Abraham started with his second son Isaac, but that does not mean that Ishmael had no share. "But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year." (Genesis: 17/21).
The Torah mentions that after Sarah weaned Isaac, Hagar immigrated with her son. "And God heard the voice of the boy; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is. Up, lift up the boy, and hold him fast with your hand, for I will make him into a great nation. Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water. And she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. And God was with the boy, and he grew up. He lived in the wilderness and became an expert with the bow. he lived in the wilderness of Paran, and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt." (Genesis: 21/17-21).
The Torah ignores Ishmael's privilege in the blessed water well (Zamzam) in Makkah, and indicates that the immigration story happened in Bir sabaa south of Palestine, where it calls it "Paran Wilderness" 1.
Regarding the promised blessing on Abraham’s two sons, what was that blessing that God gave Isaac and Ishmael? It is with no doubt the blessing of the prophet-hood, the message and the dominion ordered by God and representing Him. {And indeed We gave the Children of Israel the Scripture, and the understanding of the Scripture and its laws, and the Prophet hood; and provided them with good things, and preferred them above the 'Alamîn (mankind and jinns) (of their time, during that period),} (Al-Jathiah: 16).
The Jews and Christians consider that, the promise to Isaac is an eternal promise and that it will not be transferred to anyone but them. Saying: “God said, “No, but Sarah, your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.…… But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year. ”(Genesis: 17/19-21) They understand that the word (forever) means that the covenant is for the children of Israel until the Day of Judgment. That it is unconditional and not related to their righteousness by following the commands of God.
However, the word (forever) does not necessarily mean continuation until the Day of Judgment, but only means a period of time. The Torah uses this word several times and with the same meaning.
In the book of Kings: “Therefore the leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you and to your descendants forever.” (2 Kings: 5/27) Eternity is not meant here, otherwise we would see his offspring today as a large nation procreating and infected with leprosy.
In the Book of Chronicles, “he said to me, “it is Solomon your son who shall build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.” (Chronicles 1:28/6) Their kingdom ended after about twenty five hundred years at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian, so eternity here meant just a long period.
The Book of Deuteronomy times “forever” to be equal to ten generations. It says, “Yes, he loved his people; all his holy ones were in his hand, so they followed in your steps, receiving direction from you. When Moses commanded us a law, as a possession for the assembly of Jacob.” (Deuteronomy: 33/3-4) The eleventh generation of the Moabites was not deprived from the group of the Lord, and is not beyond eternity and Judgment Day.
Similar to it, what Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar: “Then Daniel said to the king, “king, live forever.” (Daniel: 6/21) Meaning live long
The blessing has been replaced with curses and expelling. God despised them and replaced them with others after they denied His law “And now, O priests, this command is for you. If you will not listen, if you will not take it to heart to give honor to my name, says the LORD of hosts, then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings. Indeed, I have already cursed them, because you do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will rebuke your offspring, and spread dung on your faces.” (Malachi: 2/1-3)
Based on that, we say that the covenant started with Isaac (PBUH), and is an eternal promise extended to further generations, which ended when God sent prophets to the Children of Israel, sent books to them, supported them with His power, conquering the neighboring nations, and established for them a victorious kingdom for some time.
Jews and Christians agree with Muslims that Isaac’s (PBUH) blessing resulted in the prophet-hood, the kingdom, the book, the abundance and prevailing; but they considered that Ishmael’s (PBUH) promise and blessing resulted in abundance only. “Behold, I will rebuke your offspring, and spread dung on your faces, the dung of your offerings, and you shall be taken away with it” (Genesis: 17/20).
This favoritism is against what comes in the scriptures. It does not favor neither in words nor in meaning between the blessed brothers. Hence, the blessing of Ishmael is the same as Isaac’s blessing, Prophet-hood, book, kingdom and abundance. When was this blessing implemented? When did all this happen to Ishmael?
We say that this did not happen to him until our prophet, who is from Ishmael’s offspring, was sent. It transformed his weak children and scattered tribes into a great kingdom that ruled the world. They had the prophet-hood and the book, implementing what God had promised Abraham and Hagar to their son Ishmael.
If not, when did Ishmael’s (PBUH) blessings happen? The blessing that the Scripture mentioned about him, saying: “And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.” (Genesis 6/12) meaning that he will at one time win and dominate everyone and everyone will dominate him in another time.
Arab Muslims dominated the nations by Muhammad (PBUH) and his nation. Before that, they were the most humiliated and the weakest among nations. They were the last to be blessed by God, because there cannot be blessings to atheist, unjust and cruel tribes who gather to worship idols.
If we look at the old Hebrew Scriptures, which talk about Ishmael, we find a passage concerning Gematria. Saying, “As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly (mad mad). He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. (lajwi jadwal)” (Genesis 17:20) The words (mad mad) and (lajwi jadwal) are two symbols used in place of the prophet’s name (PBUH). The word (mad mad) -according to Gematria 1 which concerns the Jews who use it in their books and prophecies- is equal to 92, and likewise the word “lajwi jadwal” is equal to the word “Muhammad”.
Al Samawal, one of the Jewish rabbis who reverted to Islam, had mentioned this issue, and so did the guided rabbi Abdul Salam in his dissertation “The Guiding Message”.
What came in the Book of Genesis about the blessings amongst the Arabs had implemented in the prophet-hood and the kingdom that God gave to them. This is the main arguing point between us, and the people of the book, (the Jews and the Christians). It is the main introduction to the prophecies of the Holy Bible. Muslims believe that many of the Torah’s verses, noticed by them, are prophecies about the messenger Muhammad (PBUH). The Christians see many of these verses as prophecies of Jesus or other prophets of the Jews, and they refuse to extend them outside the Children of Israel.
WHO IS THE BLESSED SLAUGHTERED? AND WHERE IS THE BLESSED LAND?
The Torah told the story of God’s commandment to Abraham to slaughter his only son, and instead of calling him Ishmael, it called him Isaac, and because of this change, the time and the place, where the story occurred, has changed.
Some of what comes in the Torah is as follows:
“he said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah;……. and went to the place of which God had told him…. He said, “don’t lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, , seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me….. So Abraham called the name of that place, “The LORD will provide”; as it is said to this day, “on the mount of the LORD it shall be provided.” I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall posses the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.” (Genesis: 22/1-18).
As mentioned earlier, there are several prophecies of the coming of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and we can see the hand of alteration and prejudice trying to conceal these prophecies.
It is a clear alteration to insert the name of Isaac, who was never the only son of Abraham, instead of Ishmael. Describing the slaughtered as “the only son” repeated three times, and we have seen that Ishmael was the only son of Abraham for fourteen years.
The fact that Ishmael was Abraham’s first son is kept even though he was the son of Hajar, Sarah’s servant, whom he took as a wife later. The status of the mother does not change the fact that he was the first son, nor does it change his status.
In the Torah, “If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn, but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first fruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.” (Deuteronomy: 21/15-17) This divine command to the children of Israel expresses God’s justice, and Israel should be the first to implement it. Was God unjust to Ishmael the son of the servant? Did He contradict the justice that He will impose over his servants?
Among the evidence, proving that Isaac was not the slaughtered is that Abraham was promised blessings and offspring before Isaac was even born. That he will be as many as the number of the stars. (See Genesis 17/21) The command to slaughter him was not a test, because he knew that this son would have a blessed offspring.
Jesus, according to Barnabas’ Bible, which we use here only as a supportive quotation, stated this. The disciples said to him, “O master, it is written in the Book of Moses, that the promise was made in Isaac." Jesus answered with a groan: "It is so written, but Moses did not write it, nor Joshua, but rather our rabbis, who do not fear God! Truly I say to you, that if you consider the words of the angel Gabriel, you shall discover the malice of our scribes and doctors …..." How is Isaac firstborn, if when Isaac was born Ishmael was seven years old?” (Barnabas: 44/1-11), and in the common Torah, there were fourteen years between them (See Genesis: 16/16, 21/5).
Therefore, the slaughtered one is Ishmael and God’s mountain is located in the land he lived in, and the blessing is preserved for Abraham in his offspring after he surrendered to the command of God and almost went ahead to slaughter his only son.
Jews and Christians have altered the name of the slaughtered, and they altered the name of the holy place in which the story took place. The Samaritan Torah called it “the guided land”, while the Hebrew Torah called it “al marya” and possibly it is an alteration of the word “al marwa”, which is the name of a mountain located inside the Holy Mosque in Mecca that is the place, where Ishmael grew up.
Both the Hebrew and Samaritan texts agree on calling this location “God’s mountain”, and that name was not used for any place at that time; therefore, the Jews did not agree in specifying its location. The Samaritans said: It is the mountain of Garzeem. The Hebrews said that it is the mountain of Jerusalem, on which the tabernacle was built several centuries after the story (Chronicles 2:3-1).
In the Holy Bible’s Dictionary, Doctor Post says, “most people think that the location of the tabernacle is the same location where Abraham was getting ready to sacrifice Isaac; however, according to the Samaritan tradition the location to slaughter Isaac was on the mountain of Garzeem. 1
The Jesuit priesthood edition proofreaders say, “The second book of Chronicles (3/1) matches between Morya and Alrabya over which the Jerusalem tabernacle will be built. However, the text points to a land by the name of Morya, that is not mentioned in any other location and the slaughtering location remains unknown”.
The fact is that the location is known, because the slaughtering story took place in the guided land, which is the land of worship, and that is Mecca or Paran. Their disagreement is proof that this is right, and their agreement that the name of the location is God’s mountain is correct. However, their disagreement on locating the place was due to their guessing, and they have connected it to names that only appeared several centuries after the incident. They have ignored the holy house that was built in this spot at that time, and it was called God’s house, just as the mountain in that spot was called God’s mountain.
This disagreement remains one of the most important disagreements that distinguish the Samaritans and the Hebrews. Jesus realized this disagreement, as at one time a Samaritan woman went to him, and asked him about the real location designated for worship. Jesus told her that the place is not the Samaritan Garzeem Mountain nor was it the Hebrew Aybal Mountain on which the tabernacle was built. The woman said to him: "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where the people ought to worship." Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth, for the father is seeking such people to worship him. God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.".” (John: 4/19-24).
Who are the true people who prostrate in a direction other than the one of the Samaritans and the Hebrews? They are the new nation that has not been born yet, because no other nation claimed holiness of their prayer's direction other than Muslims, the direction in which millions of Muslims travel every year.
The words uttered by Jesus, about the time of the true prostrates “But the hour is coming, and is now here”, meaning soon not immediately. In Matthew: "Jesus said to him, “you have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Mathew: 26/64) and all the addressed have died and no longer exist, and they did not see him coming on the clouds.
Similarly, Jesus said: "And he said to him, “truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man." (John: 1/51), and see (Samuel 1: 15/28).
The prophet Micah mentioned Mecca, the Holy mosque and people going for pilgrimage to the mountain of Arafat. "It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and it shall be lifted up above the hills; and peoples shall flow to it. And many nations shall come, and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD," (Micah: 4/1-2).
The prophet Isaiah called Makkah "the barren” and talked about the crowds that will come to it. He promised them safety, blessings and glory. He said: "Sing, O barren one, who did not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud, you who have not been in labor, for the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her who is married,” says the LORD. Enlarge the place of your tent, and let the curtains of your habitations be stretched out; do not hold back; lengthen your cords and strengthen your stakes; For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left, and your offspring will possess the nations and will people the desolate. Fear not, for you will not be ashamed; be not confounded, for you will not be disgraced; for you will forget the shame of your youth, and the reproach of your widowhood you will remember no more. For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called. For the LORD has called you like a wife deserted and grieved in spirit, like a wife of youth, when she is cast off, says your God. For a brief, I deserted you, but with great compassion I will I gather you. In overflowing anger for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you,” says the LORD, your Redeemer. “this is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, and will not rebuke you. For the mountains may depart, and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,” says the LORD, who has compassion on you. O afflicted one, storm-tossed and not comforted, behold, I will set your stones in antimony, and lay your foundations with sapphires. I will make your pinnacles of agates, your gates of carbuncles, and all your wall of precious stones. All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children. In righteousness you shall be established; you shall be far from oppression; for you shall not fear; and from terror; for it shall not come near you. If anyone stirs up strife, it is not from me; whoever stirs up strife with you shall fall because of you. Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. I have also created the ravager to destroy; No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their vindication from me, declares the LORD." (Isaiah: 54/1-17).
There is a comparison between Jerusalem and Makkah in the text, he called Makkah "the barren" because it did not give any prophet before the prophet Muhammad (PBUH). It cannot be that he used "the barren" for the Jerusalem, because it is the house of prophets and the core of revelation. One may say that if the prophecy about Ishmael happened in Makkah, then, the word “barren" will not be used. What it means is a comparison between him (Mohammad PBUH) and the prophets of Jerusalem.
Isaiah’s saying: for the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her who is married” means that its children or its visitors are more than those of Jerusalem. These words, “the children of the desolate” indicate the children of Ishmael, who has a description in the Torah as a "And the angel the LORD said to her, “Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has listened to your affliction. He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen." (Genesis: 16/11-12).
Psalms also talk about the city of the savior messiah, the blessed city that has the house of God where the rewards are multiple. Good deeds in this city are equal to thousands in other cities, and he called it by its real name (Baca). It says, "Blessed are those who dwell in your house, ever singing your praise. Selah. Blessed are those whose strength is in you, in whose heart are the highways to Zion. As they go through the valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs; the early rain also covers it with pools. They go from strength to strength; each one appears before God in Zion. O LORD, God of hosts, hear my prayer, give ear. O God of Jacob, Selah. Behold our shield, O God; look on the face of your anointed. For a day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere. I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of wickedness." (Psalms: 84/4-10).
The Hebrew text called it Baca, saying, [בְּעֵמֶק הַבָּכָא], and it reads: (be’eamaq Habaka), meaning the valley of Baca. The text as it appears in the catholic translation is as follows: "Passing through the vale of tears, they make it a place of springs. For the lawgiver shall give a blessing, they shall go from virtue to virtue: the God of gods shall be seen in Zion" (Psalms 84/6-7).
This great name (Baca) is Muhammad's (PBUH) hometown name. The name that the Holy Quran uses to name the holy town of Makkah {Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for Al-'Alamîn (the mankind and jinns).} (Al-Emran: 96) The blessing of this house is the multiple rewards that God gives its residents and visitors. One prayer (as Muhammad (PBUH) said) is equal to more than one thousand prayers anywhere else , and that agrees with what comes in Psalm: "For a day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere."
However, the Holy Bible’s scholars will not agree that “the weeping valley” is Baca valley. They changed the "Baca valley" from a geographical name to a degraded idea; you will not be able to find its location on any map. They say, "Regarding the weeping valley that is mentioned in Psalms 84:6 it is possibly a geographical location. However, it is probably a thought that has a deep meaning, as those who have a good experience with the Lord, with his blessings, the misery in their lives will turn into joy". 1
However, some international translations have deleted the name (Baca and the weeping valley) completely, replacing it with the word (the Balsan valley) as in the Jesuit priesthood edition and other editions, in doing that they depended on old writings.
In the Jesuit priesthood edition, the Jesuit fathers comment on why they use the phrase "the Balsan valley": "the Balsan valley" in old translations and in some of the writings "the weeping valley” and the pronunciation of the two are the same". 2
In spite of the deliberate alteration of changing the name (Baca) to (the weeping or the Balsan valley), there is clear evidence that these two words, which used commonly in the editions and translations, are an indication to Mecca and no other.
Baca was named after the Balsan tree, from which glue that looks like tears is extracted. These trees grow in Makkah as stated by the Holy Bible’s scholars. The writers of the Holy Bible’s dictionary say about the weeping trees: "Maybe it meant the balsam trees or something similar to it. In the Arab countries, near Makkah, trees with that name can be found, similar to the balsam or Balsan trees, and it has a hot white juice, it was named the weeping tree, because these trees produce glue, or in relation to the mist drops that fall on it". 3
The Clerical Knowledge Encyclopedia gives us affirmation that the valley of Balsan is the valley of Makkah, it says, “The original balsan that was mentioned by the old authors, it is "Makkah's Balsam" which Egypt still imports from the Arabian Peninsula as in the old times. It is the juice of the tree that is scientifically known as (Balsamo Dendron Apabatsmum) which grows in the south of the Arabian Peninsula and in Abyssinia. It is a small tree with an irregular shape, its bark is yellow, the same as that of the plane-tree ". 4
WERE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL EXCLUSIVELY THE CHOSEN?
The Bible talks with clear contradiction about salvation. According to John, Jesus (PBUH) told the Samaritan woman in his talk about the messiah: "for salvation is from the Jews." (John: 4/22). However, this issue has been refuted by many other biblical texts, which throw suspicion as to whether or not this statement was actually uttered by Jesus, especially, that it is clear it was inserted into the text.
It is important to mention, at this point, the Holy Bible's texts that indicate the possibility of transferring the prophet-hood from the Children of Israel to another nation like the Arabs.
God had sent many prophets to the Children of Israel, and they denied and killed them. Let us ponder upon what the prophets said about this rebellious nation, to see if they were worthy of keeping the blessing. Moses said about them: "For they are a nation void of counsel, and there is no understanding in them.” (Deuteronomy: 32/28).
He said, “They are a crooked and twisted generation. Do you thus repay the LORD, you foolish and senseless people?” (Deuteronomy: 32/5-6).
The prophet Elijah said: "He said, “I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts. For the people of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away." (1Kings: 19/10).
God's description of them in the prophet Ezekiel's Book is the same: "And he said to me, "Son of man, I send you to the people of Israel, to nations of rebels, who have rebelled against me. They and their fathers have transgressed against me to this very day. The descendants also are impudent and stubborn: I send you to them, and you shall say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD.' whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house) they will know that a prophet has been among them. And you, son of man, be not afraid of them, nor be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions. Be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they are a rebellious house. And you shall speak my words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear, for they are a rebellious house. (Ezekiel: 2/3-8)
Similarly, the Prophet Isaiah said, " Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, “children have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey his master's crib, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand. Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly, they have forsaken the LORD, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged. Why will you still be struck down? Why will you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up or softened with oil." (Isaiah: 1/1-6).
God's anger with them continued, until he lifted the blessing from them, and exchanged it with his curses and revenge "And now, O priests, this command is for you. If you will not listen, if you will not take it to heart to give honor to my name, says the LORD of hosts, then I will send a curse upon you and I will curse your blessings. Indeed, I have already cursed them, because you do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will rebuke your offspring, and spread dung on your faces, the dung of your offspring, and you shall be taken away with it." (Malachi: 2/1-3).
When Jesus (PBUH) came he called Jerusalem: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets” (Matthew: 23/37) because of the number of God's honorable prophets whom they had killed on its soil.
Jesus (PBUH) said, while addressing the crowds:- "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! Hypocrites!..... Woe to you, ye blind guides, …. You blind fools ….. you serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues, ……..O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to you," (Matthew: 23/13-37).
For that, God deprived them from being the nation who the next promised prophet will come from, because they broke the promise and covenant of God. The next prophet will not be from the offspring of David (PBUH), meaning that he will not be Jesus (PBUH).
The main reason that the Jews hated Jesus (PBUH) was that he confronted them with the truth. He told them that God's kingdom and His choice will be taken away from them, and given to another nation. In order to prove that, we have to go back to the first time they tried to kill him. That is when he told them about the prophet Elijah, leaving the children of Israel's widows for a Sidon widow, and that the prophet Joshua cleansed Neman the Assyrian without cleansing the rest of the leprous that were among the children of Israel. (See Luke: 4/25-27)
The result was that “When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff." (Luke: 4/28-29), and that was the beginning of the hate between the Jews and Jesus (PBUH).
Now I ask the respected reader, did the nation that was threatened by prophets deserve that the blessing and prophet-hood remain with it? If the answer is no then which nation is the selected and chosen one? Who else could be, except the nation that was promised the blessing many times, from the offspring of Ishmael (PBUH)? None of the nations claimed to be this chosen nation.
THE DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW KINGDOM’S NATION
When the children of Israel had altered and changed, God took away the prophet-hood and the message from them and gave it to another nation. What the prophets warned the children of Israel had happened, and that is transferring the goodness to another nation. Who is the new nation, and what are their descriptions?
To answer this important question we will ponder on the scriptures of the Holy Bible.
Isaiah said, quoting the revelation, "I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me; I was ready to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, “her am I, here am I,” to a nation that was not called by my name.. I spread out my hands all the day to a rebellious people, who walk in a way that was not good, following their own devices; A people who provoke me to my face continually; …." (Isaiah: 65/1-3).
The text mentioned transferring the prophet-hood and the command from the cruel disobedient nation to a nation that had not asked God before, and did not possess the name of God. It is the illiterate nation, to whom no book was ever revealed.
Ezekiel confirms the withdrawal of kingdom and statute from the children of Israel, giving it to a low and neglected nation. saying:- "And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD; I bring the high tree, and make high the low tree, dry up the green tree, and make the dry tree flourish. I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it." (Ezekiel: 17/24).
John the Baptist said, as he was warning the children of Israel of the following anger that God will instigate upon them: “even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy spirit, and with fire:" (Matthew: 3/10-11), (check the example about the fig tree that is not fruitful in Luke: 13/6-9).
Jesus was the last chance of keeping the choice and selection, he said that any tree, which does not bring forth good fruit, will be hewn down, and when the Jews denied him and tried to kill him, the green tree was cut and dried. It was thrown into the flame, the flame of God's anger and misguidance, and another tree bloomed.
Indeed, God dried the children of Israel's tree and burned it, sprouted another tree that was dry and never had prophets from the offspring of Ishmael (PBUH). It is the nation that, God instigated upon the children of Israel.
Those who are well acquainted and have examined the life of Muhammad (PBUH), have complete knowledge of this issue; and how he dealt with the Jewish sects. Bane nadeer, Bane Qaynoqaa and Bane Quoraydah were Jewish tribes who were cast out of the Arab peninsula by Muslims.
The prophet Ezekiel also said: "And you, O profane wicked one, prince of Israel, whose day has come, the time of your final punishment, Thus says the Lord GOD: Remove the turban, and take off the crown. Things shall not remain as they are. Exalt that which is low, and bring low that which is exalted. A ruin, ruin, ruin I will make it. This also shall not be, until he comes, the one to whom judgment belongs, and I will give it to him." (Ezekiel: 21/25-27).
When the ruler comes, the final prophet, everything will be reversed and the turban will be lifted, meaning that the statute will be taken away from the children of Israel. The turban was a symbol for the Aronian priests who were in charge of the statute affairs for the children of Israel's tribes. They were given special uniforms; and the turban was one of them. (See Exodus: 28/36-37) the throne was also lifted (the kingdom).
The despicable nation becomes the chosen, and the chosen nation becomes despicable, as David said, "This stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes." (Psalms: 118/22-23) However, it is true.
Jesus (PBUH) gave an example to the disciples, he said, " have you ever read in the scriptures: “The stone that the builders rejected has become cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken a way from you and given to a people producing bringing its fruits." (Matthew: 21/42-43).
Jesus told his disciples after he gave them one of the kingdom’s examples (same as the crops): "Take then how you hear, for the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken a way." (Luke: 8/18).
The scriptures mention the first description of the nation of the kingdom that is a despicable and humiliated nation that never worshipped God and His statutes were not sent to them. A nation, which the children of Israel wondered how the leadership and selection could be transferred to them?
God mentions another description of the new nation. The nation that will inherit the blessing and the prophet-hood from the children of Israel: “the LORD saw it and spurned them, because of the provocation of his sons and his daughters. And he said, “I will hide my face from them; I will see what their end will be, for they are a perverse generation, children in whom is no faithfulness. They have made me jealous with what is no good; they have provoked me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are no people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation." (Deuteronomy: 32/19-21) The chosen nation, the nation that is despised, is an illiterate and ignorant nation which God used to tease the children of Israel, God said about Muhammad (PBUH) and his honorable companions: {that He may enrage the disbelievers with them.} (Al-Fateh: 29).
The children of Israel had conspired on this new nation, they said, "We tease them with a stupid nation" even though stupidity cannot be used to describe nations, even if they are labeled illiterate and cruel. Who is this illiterate or stupid nation, which God will use to revenge the children of Israel? They are the Arab nation {He it is Who sent among the unlettered ones a Messenger (Muhammad) from among themselves, reciting to them His Verses, purifying them (from the filth of disbelief and polytheism), and teaching them the Book (this Qur'ân, Islamic laws and Islamic jurisprudence) and Al-Hikmah (As-Sunnah: legal ways, orders, acts of worship, etc. of Prophet Muhammad). And verily, they had been before in mainfest error;} (Al-jomoa: 2).
Paul made a mistake by saying that the stupid nation is the Greek nation. He says confirming the transfer of kingdom from the children of Israel and mistakenly failing to appoint the nation that will inherit the kingdom: " For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is lord for all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him …….. But I ask, Did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry. Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me. But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people. “(Romans: 10/12-21) He believed that the Kingdom would be transferred from the children of Israel, but he assumed that the new nation is the Greek nation to whom he went to preach. The Greeks believed in him as many others, so there was no point to their exclusivity of him. What he meant by the Kingdom is the response to his invitation, and it is incompatible to what was meant by the great kingdom nation.
The Greek nation cannot be the stupid nation that will inherit the kingdom, because the Greeks were civilized and scientific nation. Paul himself affirms that when he said, "For Jews demand signs, and Greeks seek wisdom:" (Corinthians 1: 1/22) how can the wisdom seekers be described as stupid or ignorant?
Certainly, the new nation is the Arab nation, which was promised the blessing out of all the nations. Isaiah, predicting the prophet who will come out of it, mentioned that this prophet will run away from his people, and then he will conquer them, and make their glory disappears then a new glory will start. He is the prophet into whose hands the Persian Babylonian state will fall, and their carved Gods will break at his feet, he said, "For thus the Lord said to me; “Go, set a watchman; let him announce what he sees. When he sees riders, horsemen in pairs, riders on donkeys, riders on camels, let him listen diligently, very diligently.” Then he who saw cried out:” Upon a watchtower I stand, O lord, continually by day, at my post I am stationed whole nights. And, behold, here come riders, horsemen in pairs.” And he answered, fallen, fallen is Babylon; and all the carved images of her gods he has shattered to the ground. O my threshed, and winnowed one, what I have heard from the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you. The oracle concerning Dumah. One is calling to me from Seir, Watchman, what time of the night? Watchman, what time of the night?” The watchman says, “morning comes, and also the night. if you will enquire, enquire ; come back again.”. The oracle concerning Arabia. In the thickest in Arabia you will lodge, O caravans of Dedanites. To the thirsty bring water, meet the fugitive with bread, O inhabitants of the land of Tema. For they have fled from the swords, from the drawn sword, from the bent bow, and from the press of battle. For thus the Lord said to me, “Within a year, according to the years of a hired worker, and all the glory of Kedar come to an end:" (Isaiah: 21/6-16).
The following text talks about the Dedanites who were among the people of Temaa. It asks them to protect the fugitive who fled to their rough land, and gives them good news of the vanishing glory of the children of Quedar son of Ishmael after a short while.
The Dedanites as mentioned by the Holy Bible's dictionary are residents of Temaa north of Al-Hejaz1, and it is a rough land. The text prophesizes the Muslims’ victory over the children of Quedar a year or eight years later in the battle of Bader or the Victory of Makkah. Quedar was the second son of Ishmael. (Genesis: 25/13).
The name Quedar is also used to name the countries in which Quedar's offspring are its majority, he said: "Concerning Kedar and the kingdoms of Hazor that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon struck down. Thus says the LORD: “Rise up, advance against Kedar, destroy the people of the east." (Jeremiah: 49/28), and that is what was meant by saying "All Quedar's glory will vanish", he is giving the good news of the Muslims victory over the land of Quedar's children.
Isaiah said describing this nation: "Who stirred up one from the east whom victory meets at every step? He gives up nations before him, so that he tramples kings underfoot; he makes them like dust with his sword, like driven stubble with his bow. He pursues them, and passed safely, by paths his feet have not trod. Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." (Isaiah 41/2-4)
If this passage is a prophecy, then in whom did it come true? Who is empowered by God over the other nations, the one who comes from the east? The land of the east is the Arab’s land as mentioned in Jeremiah "Concerning Kedar and the kingdoms of Hazor, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon struck down. Thus says the LORD: “Rise up, advance against Kedar, destroy the people of the east.” (Jeremiah: 49/28).
God punished the children of Israel by the Muslims’ hands, after he had punished them by the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. "Therefore as the tongue of fire devours the stubble, and as dry grass sinks down in the flame, so their root will be as rottenness, and their blossom go up like dust; for they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts, and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. Therefore, the anger of the LORD was kindled against his people, and he stretched out his hand against them and struck them, and the mountains quaked; and their corpses were as refuse in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still." (Isaiah: 5/24-25).
The text continues to tell about another punishment that will come by the hands of a nation, a powerful nation, and will be different from the first punishment. “He will raise a single for nations afar off, and whistle for them from the ends of the earth; and behold, quickly, speedily they come. None is weary, none stumbles, none slumbers or sleeps, not a waistband is loose, not a sandal strap broken; their arrows are sharp, all their bows bent, their horses' hoofs seem like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind. Their roaring is like a lion, like young lions, they roar; they growl and seize their prey; they carry it off, and none can rescue. They will growl over it on that day, like the growling of the sea. And if one looks to the land, behold, darkness and distress; and the light is darkened by its clouds." (Isaiah: 5/26-30), this text tells about the bravery of the companions of Muhammad (PBUH) as God said, {Muhammad is the Messenger of Allâh, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and falling down prostrate (in prayer), seeking Bounty from Allâh and (His) Good Pleasure. The mark of them (i.e. of their Faith) is on their faces (foreheads) from the traces of (their) prostration (during prayers). This is their description in the Taurât (Torah). But their description in the Injeel (Gospel) is like a (sown) seed which sends forth its shoot, then makes it strong, it then becomes thick, and it stands straight on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the disbelievers with them. Allâh has promised those among them who believe (i.e. all those who follow Islâmic Monotheism, the religion of Prophet Muhammad till the Day of Resurrection) and do righteous good deeds, forgiveness and a mighty reward (i.e. Paradise).} (Al-Fateh: 29).
In another passage, Isaiah talks about the joy, cheerfulness and glory that will take place in the homes of Quedar after the victory of this prophet "Let the desert and its cities lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar inhabits; let the inhabitants of Sela sing for joy, let them shout from the top of the mountains. Let them give glory to the LORD, and declare his praise in the coastlands. The LORD goes out like a mighty man, like a man of war he stirs up his zeal; he cries out, he shouts aloud, he shows himself mighty against his foes." (Isaiah: 42/11-13).
The text talks about the reason for this joy, and that is the appearance of the expected prophet "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him: he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street. A bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law." (Isaiah: 42/1-4), who is the conqueror that cannot be broken, the one with the statute, who is the one that revealed the truth to all the nations of the earth? He is Muhammad (PBUH).
The prophet Isaiah threatens the children of Israel who are altering the book of God and are not observing his statute. He threatens them with the prophet who has the sealed scripture. The prophet who does not know how to read, he says: "For the LORD has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes (the prophets), and covered your heads (the seers). And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot read.” And the Lord said: because this people draw near me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is commandment taught by men. Therefore, behold, I will again do wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder, and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden. Ah, you who hide deep from the LORD your counsel, whose deeds are in the dark, and who say, “Who sees us?” who knows us?” you turn things upside down shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”? Is it not yet a very little while until Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be regarded as a forest? In that day the deaf shall hear the words of a book, and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see." (Isaiah: 29/10-18)
It is the same meaning that the texts are talking about, a green tree that will fade, another dry one will become green and will have leaves, and that is when the hand of the illiterate prophet will open the sealed scripture.
His saying: "And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray you: and he said, I am not learned.", recorded the great moment when the revelation started coming to Muhammad (PBUH). Bukhari's Saheeh narrated that Aisha (Muhammad's (PBUH) wife) said:
“The truth came to him, while he was in Heraa's cave, then the angel came to him and said: read, he said: I cannot read, then he said: he took me and he hugged me until I was exhausted. Then he let me go and said: read, I said: I cannot read, then he took me and hugged me the second time until I got exhausted, then he let me go and said: read, I said: I cannot read, then he took me and hugged me for the third time then he let me go and said: {Read! In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists), has created man from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood). Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous,} (Al-Alaq:1-3). 2
What Isaiah said about the Jewish nation, Jesus (PBUH) confirmed it, when he said to the Jews, "he need not honor his father. so for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said; “This people honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching us doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew: 15/6-9).
This prophecy of the prophet Isaiah did not come true until the time of Jesus (PBUH), "Therefore, behold, I will again do wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden. Ah, you who hide deep from the LORD your counsel, whose deeds are in the dark, and who say, “Who sees us? Who knows us?” You turn of things upside down shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, “he did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “he has no understanding”? Is it not yet a very little while until Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be regarded as a forest? In that day the deaf shall hear the words of a book and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see." (Isaiah: 29/14-18).
He is threatening them by the prophet with the sealed scripture, the prophet that cannot read nor write. Before this, he talks about the literate prophet who cannot read the sealed scripture. Even though the literate prophet is Jesus (PBUH), (Luke: 4/16-18) he will not be able to read the sealed scripture which will be read by the illiterate prophet. "And the vision of all this has become to you as the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, “Read this,” he says, I can not read."
JACOB'S PROPHECY OF SHILON
The prophets continued to give prophecies about the coming of the final prophet. They mentioned his description and his attitudes. The most important description is that he is not from the children of Israel. He brings a law that lasts forever, crushes his enemies and his message will be for the good of all nations.
These descriptions did not exist in anyone who claimed the prophet-hood except him. The Christians admit that these were prophecies but they could not attach them to anyone other than Muhammad (PBUH). Moses and Jesus (PBUT) were prophets sent only to the children of Israel. Moses had a rite and his followers were victorious over their enemies. Jesus did not come with a new law or rite, as he came to fulfill the Law of Moses. He said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew: 5/17) He did not defeat his enemies; more over, the Christians claim that his enemies had captured him and crucified him. How can they say that he is the chosen who will crush his enemies and be the one expected by nations?
The oldest clearly written prophecy that talks about the final prophet comes in Jacob's will to his sons before he died. When he said to them: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the people be." (Genesis: 49/10) He was telling them about the time in which the dominion and the statute will be removed from them at the end of days.
In the Jesuit Priesthood's edition, the text is as follows: "Judah will hold the royal scepter, and his descendants will always rule. Nations will bring him tribute and bow in obedience before him. "
According to Jonathan’s translation, the passage is clearer:
"Neither the kings and rulers nor the rabbis will stop from Judah’s family nor does his offspring till the Messiah King, his younger child, come.” 1
The translations differ in three of words in the text, some have exchanged the word "bar" with the king or the scepter, and both have the same meaning. The word "ruler" was replaced with “planner”, “disposer”, or “swagger stick”. The meaning for all these words is close to the meaning of the phrase “with a rite who disposes his people.”
The most important difference in these words is about the word "Shilon" which was kept as it is by most of the translations. In other Hebrew translations, it is said, "Until the messiah comes". The priest Ibrahim Luka interpreted "Shilon" as the messiah, and he considered it a correct translation of the Hebrew word "Shiloh", [שִׁילֹה]. The American edition of the Holy Bible, mentions it as a footnote that the word "Shilon" means: safety, or the one who has.
Thus, we ask, what is the exact meaning of the word (shilon)?
In answering this question, Abdul Alahad Dawood, the ex-priest and scholar in ancient languages, sees that the word "shilon" in its Hebrew origin has different meanings; the following are the most important ones:
1) It may be derived from an Assyrian word that consists of the two words "bsheta" and "lowh". The first "bsheta” means "he" or "the one" and the second "lowh" means "his". According to his interpretation, the meaning of the prophecy becomes “The forecasted kingdom seal will not be taken from Judas until the arrival of the person that the seal belongs to, and to him the nations will submit".
2) It may be an alteration of the word "Shelwah" which means "the messenger of God", as an exception, the word is also used for the divorced wife because she is sent away. Saint Jerome preferred interpreting the word as the message, so he translated the phrase “he who was sent". 1
Whatever the meaning is the prophecy talks about a person and calls him “Shilon”, it does not talk about the place "Shilon" as claimed by some interpreters, so who is Shilon?
What was said about the kingdom vanishing did not mean to eliminate it, but it is the elimination of the right to have it from God, because taking the kingdom from the Jews was not consistent with the appearance of a prophet, whomsoever this prophet was, what was meant, was the elimination of the selection and blessing.
No one can say that Shilon is Moses, because the kings of Judas came centuries after him. No one can say he is Solomon, because the kingdom continued after him, represented in his offspring and the statute was not lifted after him, as it was not lifted with Jesus (PBUH) who did not neither came to revoke the statute nor the nations did submit to him. Not even the nation of Judea to whom he was sent, as he said, "He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew: 15/24).
Jesus (PBUH) was never, even for one day, a king of the children of Israel. He escaped from them when they wanted to make him their king “Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself." (John: 6/15).
Before Pilate, When the Jews accused him that he called himself a king, he denied it, and he talked about a spiritual kingdom metaphorically, not a real one. "Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." (John: 18/36).
This prophet, who was called “Shilon”, could not have been from the children of Israel, because his arrival ends the Scepter and the Law of Israel as understood from the text, so who is Shilon?
He is the prophet whom Hagar and Abraham gave prophecies about “He shall be a wild donkey of a man; his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen." (Genesis: 16/12), and he is the one the prophet Ezekiel said about him: “A ruin, ruin, ruin I will make it. This also shall not be, until he comes, the one to whom judgment belongs, and I will give it to him." (Ezekiel: 21/27).
Jesus (PBUH) said about the one who will destroy all the Laws with his Law: "do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Matthew: 5/17-18). He "the one that has it all" is "the one that has the rule".
He is the prophet, who was called "the perfect" by Paul and that only with his coming, the law will be invalid." But love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." (Corinthians 1: 13/8-10).
MOSES (PBUH) PROPHESIES ABOUT THE COMING OF A PROPHET AND A MESSENGER LIKE HIM
Moses (PBUH) descended from Al-Tor Mountain after God had spoken to him, and he said addressing the children of Israel: "And the LORD said to me “They are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods that same prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, How many we know the word that the LORD has not spoken? When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come true, that is a word the LORD has not spoken, the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. you need not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy: 18/17-22).
The text as it clearly shows, talks about a great prophet that will come after Moses (PBUH), and it mentions the characteristics of this prophet, from which we can deduce who he is.
The Christians claim that this prophet had already come, and that he is Jesus (PBUH), as Peter said in his speech about Jesus (PBUH) " Moses said, “ the Lord will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers, you shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people. and all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.” (Acts: 3/22-26) Peter’s opinion is that the prophecy of Moses was fulfilled in the person of Jesus (PBUH).
However, the passage when analyzed shows a lot of evidence that it indicates only our prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and the Christians have no evidence that it was exclusive to Jesus (PBUH). The Torah mentions the description of this person whom it prophesized:
1) He is a prophet. “A Prophet from among their brethren ", the Christians claim divinity for Jesus, and the Orthodox claim that he is God himself, so how could he tell them: I will raise a prophet, and not say: I will raise myself, or I will raise a God?
2) That he is not from the children of Israel, but he is among their brothers meaning their cousins "among their brothers", the cousins of the children of Israel are the children of Esau the son of Isaac, and the children of Ishmael, the son of Abraham.
It is common in the Torah to use the word “brother" to call the cousin; an example is what Moses said to the children of Israel:
“And command the people, “you are about to pass through the territory of your brothers, the people of Esau, who live in Seir” (Deuteronomy: 2/4), and the children of Esau son of Isaac - as mentioned before - are cousins to the children of Israel.
It also came in the description of Edom, who is from Esau's offspring "Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, Thus says your brother Israel: you know all the hardship that we have met:" (Numbers: 20/14), and in another passage "You shall not abhor an Edomite; for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian; because you were a sojourner in his land." (Deuteronomy: 23/7). He called him a brother, and what he meant was that he was one of the cousins of Israel.
Similarly, the Book of Chronicles called King Zedekiah a brother of the king Jehoiachin, it said, "In the spring of the year king Nebuchadnezzar sent and brought him to Babylon, with the precious vessels of the house of the LORD, and made his brother Zedekiah king over Judah and Jerusalem." (Chronicles 2: 36/10) in reality, he is his uncle according to the book of Kings. It says: "And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, king in his place, and changed his name to Zedekiah.” (Kings 2: 24/17-18), it used the word brother, but it meant the uncle, which confirms the validity of this use when saying: "their brothers", when he meant their cousins.
Based on that, it is possible that this prophet is from the Arabs as a validation to the blessing promised to the offspring of Ishmael, and it is possible that he is from the children of Esau the elder son of Isaac. None of the children of Esau ever claimed to be the expected prophet.
3) One of this prophet's characteristics is that he is like Moses, whom the children of Israel had not had a prophet like him. "And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face," (Deuteronomy: 34/10), in the Samaritan originals of the Torah it says, "And there will never arose a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD had spoken to" (Deuteronomy: 34/10).
This description, of being like Moses, is a fact can fit only our prophet Muhammad, and not Jesus (peace and blessings be upon all of them). There are many similarities between Moses and Muhammad (PBUT), which we cannot find in Jesus. Moses’ and Muhammad’s (PBUT) natural birth, their marriage, both came with a statute, both were sent with swords over their enemy, each of them lead his nation, and became a king, and both were human, while the Christians claim that Jesus is divine, and that refutes every similarity.
Jesus described the expected prophet to be similar to Moses, driving it away from himself, he said; “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuses you, Moses, on whom you have set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? (John: 5/45-47) Jesus called the expected prophet “the awaited for or the expected Moses” due to his similarity with Moses.
Regarding the ones who complain about the children of Israel, Jesus (PBUH) says, "Jesus answered, I do not have a demon; but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. Yet I do not seek my own glory, there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge." (John: 8/49-50).
4) He is illiterate, cannot read nor write, and the revelation that comes to him is a verbal revelation, unlike the written books that came to the prophets before him “and I will put my words in his mouth;” and Jesus (PBUH) was able to read (See Luke: 4/16-18).
5) He will be able to deliver his message completely, “and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.". Which is a description that matches Muhammad (PBUH), as in what was revealed to him in the later parts of the Quran when God said: {This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion} (Al-Maeda: 3).
In the Parakletos prophecy (which will be explained later ) Jesus (PBUH) described him, he said: "But the helper, the Holy spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." (John: 14/26).
It is impossible that Jesus (PBUH) is that prophet who delivers all what God commands him; as Jesus (PBUH) was lifted to God when he still had a lot to complete. However, he gave them prophecies of the next prophet who will tell them the whole truth, because he is the prophet whose message will be completed and nothing will prevent him delivering his message. Jesus said (PBUH):
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own authority; but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. “(John: 16/12-13).
6) Whoever does not listen to this prophet's words, God will
punish, “whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” Peter interpreted this passage as: "And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.”, for he is a prophet, adherence and obedience to him is a duty to everyone.
Those who will not adhere to him will be subject to God's punishment, and that is exactly what happened to all of Muhammad's (PBUH) enemies. God took revenge on all the polytheists who denied him, Arabs or Persians. Jesus (PBUH) said about him in the prophecy of the husbandmen (to be explained later): "And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.” (Matthew: 21/44), so he is the solid rock that will erase his disobedient enemies, the one whom the prophet Daniel gave prophecies of his arrival " And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever. Just as you saw that the stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold; a great God has made known to the king that shall be after this. The dream is certain, and the interpretation sure." (Daniel: 2/21-45).
As for Jesus (PBUH), he did not have this strength. He did not even threaten his murderers, so what about those who did not adhere to his words. Luke said in the course of the crucifixion story "And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Luke: 23/34), where is Jesus from that prophet “whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”?
7) One of the descriptions of this prophet is that he will not be killed; instead, God will spare his soul from being taken by the hands of the foolish. The false prophet will be punished “even that prophet shall die ", meaning to be killed, as killing is part of death, and because everyone will die. The Christians claim that Jesus was killed, so it is not possible that he is the promised prophet. Referring to the old translations of this passage we will find that some alterations took place during the translation, as in what came in the 1844 edition "for this prophet to be killed", and it is not a secret why this alteration took place.
8) He talks about the unknown, and the reality matches his words. That type of miracles is described in the Quran and the tradition of Muhammad (PBUH) in uncountable volume. However, I will mention here only one of the prophecies Muhammad (PBUH) made, and it took place exactly as he mentioned.
In 617 C.E., the Persians almost erased the Roman Empire from the world map, as the troops of “Caesar Eiberweez the second” arrived in the Nile Valley, and captured great parts of the Roman Empire. In a few years, the Persian army was able to control Syria and parts of Egypt, and their troops took over Antioch in the north, which was a clear picture showing the end of the Roman Empire. Even Hercules wanted to flee from Constantinople, but the highest Roman priest convinced him to be tolerant and to request a humiliated truce with the Persians.
In the middle of all these events and against the entire expectations, prophet Muhammad (PBUH) announced that the Romans would be victorious over the Persians in few years, not more than nine years, as in what was revealed to him by God: {The Romans have been defeated. In the nearer land (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine), and they, after their defeat, will be victorious, within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after (these events) is only with Allâh, (before the defeat of Romans by the Persians, and after, i.e. the defeat of the Persians by the Romans). And on that Day, the believers (i.e. Muslims) will rejoice (at the victory given by Allâh to the Romans against the Persians), With the help of Allâh, He helps whom He wills, and He is the Almighty, the Most Merciful.} (Al-Room: 2-5).
What had happened is exactly what he predicted. In 623, 624, 625 C.E., Hercules was able to get rid of his own foolishness, and he waged three successful war campaigns that threw the Persians out of Syria. In 627 C.E., the Romans continued advancing, until they arrived at the Tigris shores inside the border of the Persian state, which forced the Persians to request a truce with the Romans, and they returned the Holy Cross back to them after it fell into their hands.
Who told Muhammad (PBUH) about this great prophecy? He, Muhammad (PBUH) is the prophet that Moses (PBUH) prophesized.
The historian Edward Gibbon says: "at that time, when the Quran came with this prophecy, no other prophecy went that far, because the first twelve years of Hercules’ ruling was indicating the end of the Roman Empire". 1
Al-Termethy narrated that Ibn Abbas said about God's words: {The Romans have been defeated. In the nearer land (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine), and they, after their defeat, will be victorious, within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after (these events) is only with Allâh, (before the defeat of Romans by the Persians, and after, i.e. the defeat of the Persians by the Romans)}
The polytheists wanted the Persians to defeat the Romans, because both of them worshiped idols. The Muslims wanted the Romans to defeat the Persians because they were believers of the Holy Books. They mentioned that to Abu Bakr, and he mentioned it to Muhammad (PBUH). Then Muhammad (PBUH) replied, “Indeed they will defeat them”. Abu Bakr told the Muslims what Muhammad (PBUH) said to him, and then they said, ‘let us set a date between us and you, so if we win we get this and that, and if you win you get this and that’. He set a time of five years, and they did not win, so they mentioned this to the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and he said, ‘couldn't you make it less than ten years’? “Few are less than ten”.
Then the Romans became victorious, afterwards, he said, that is found in God's words: {The Romans have been defeated. In the nearer land (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine), and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after (these events) is only with Allâh, (before the defeat of Romans by the Persians, and after, i.e. the defeat of the Persians by the Romans)}. 1
It is clear to every just observer that the description of the prophet that prophet Moses prophesized, were not matched in the person of the great Jesus (PBUH), but matched in the person of Muhammad (PBUH).
To confirm that not all these characteristics do match any of the other prophets before Muhammad (PBUH) is that the Jews do not claim that this messiah came in the past, but they are still expecting him.
When John (PBUH) was sent, the Jews thought he was the promised prophet, and they asked him "And they asked him, what then? Are you Elijah? He said, “I am not.” Are you the prophet? And he answered, no." (John: 1/21), meaning that I am not the prophet whom you are expecting.
The disciples wanted the prophecy to match Jesus (PBUH), as one time when they saw his miracles “when the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world. Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself." (John: 6/14-15), the disciples of Jesus (PBUH) wanted to appoint him as a king in order to fulfill the prophecy they had about the expected prophet, the one who rules and brings victory to his people, and since Jesus (PBUH) knew that he was not the expected prophet, he escaped.
The Christians declare that there is a problem in the Torah's text (Deuteronomy: 18/17-22) that will refute the Muslims’ claim. At the beginning of the Passage, God spoke to Moses and said:
“The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from among you, from your brothers. It is to him you shall listen; just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, or see this great fire any more, lest I die. And the LORD said to me, They are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a Prophet from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak to them all that I command him.” (Deuteronomy: 18/15-18) it describes the prophet as “a Prophet from among you” meaning from the children of Israel. Therefore, the second sentence should be connected to the first sentence, so the prophet “a Prophet from among you” or as in what came in some of the translations “among you” that he is an Israeli.
However, researchers see this passage as an alteration, an addition, and the proof is that Moses (PBUH) never mentioned it when he repeated the news about the prophet to the children of Israel, he said, “And the LORD said to me “They are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak to them all that I command him...” (Deuteronomy: 18/17-18), if it was from the words of God, Moses (PBUH) would not drop it.
In addition, this passage is not found in Peter and Stevenson’s quote of the text, as in the book of Acts, Peter said: “Moses said, the Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you.” (Acts: 3/22).
Stevenson said: “This is the Moses, who said to the Israelites, God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.” (Acts: 7/37) he also did not mention this passage; if it was genuine it would have been mentioned in all quotations.
MOSES PROPHECY ABOUT THE PROMISED BLESSING IN THE LAND OF PARAN
Prior to Moses’ (PBUH) death, he gave the children of Israel blessed news, mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy: “This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the people of Israel before his death. He said, “The LORD came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from mount Paran, he came from the ten thousands of holy ones, with flaming fire at his right hand. Yes, he loved his people; all his holy ones were in his hand; so they followed in your steps, receiving direction from you.” (Deuteronomy: 33/1-3).
The prophet Habakkuk confirmed this prophecy, when he mentioned the news that made him afraid, because it indicated the transfer of the prophet-hood away from his people the children of Israel. He says, “God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. His splendor covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. Saleh. His brightness was like the light; rays flashed from his hand, and there he veiled his power. Before him went pestilence, and plague followed at his heels. He stood and measured the earth; he looked and shook the nations; then the eternal mountains were scattered; the everlasting hills sank low. his were the everlasting ways.” (Habakkuk: 3/3-6).
Before analyzing this passage, let us look at the major differences in its translations.
In the Seventieth translation: “and he was informed from the mountain of Faran, and on his right there was thousands of the purified angels, so he gave to them and he loved them, and he was merciful to there people, and he blessed them and blessed raising him, when they realized your footsteps, and accept your words. Moses submitted similar to it to us, and gave them an inheritance to Jacob's people”
In the Jesuit priests’ translation: “God will come from the south, and the holy one from mount Pharan: His glory covered the heavens, and the earth is full of his praise.”
In the Basic English Translation (1965): “shining out from Mount Paran, coming from Meribath Kadesh: from his right hand went flames of fire”. the meaning of Meribath Kadesh is ‘Thousands of saints’, as what came in the Douay-Rheims Bible 1899 " he hath appeared from mount Pharan, and with him thousands of saints, in his right hand, a fiery law.
This Passage talks about the three places that the blessing will come, the first: Sinai Mountain, where Moses (PBUH) spoke to God. The second: Sair, a mountain in the land of Judas, (See Joshua: 15/10), and the third: Paran mountain.
The Holy Bible’s passages in which "Paran" is mentioned tell us that it is located in the southern part of the Palestinian desert. However, the Torah also mentions that Ishmael grew up in the wilderness of Paran. (See Genesis: 21/21), and historically agreed that he grew up in Makkah in Hijaz.
Muslims believe that this passage is a prophecy about the appearance of Jesus (PBUH) in Sair in Palestine, then Muhammad (PBUH) on the Paran Mountain, where he comes with thousands of the purified people supported by the statute from God Almighty.
This has been established with Muhammad (PBUH) because of the following:
1) Paran Mountain is the mountain of Makkah, where Ishmael resided. The Torah said about Ishmael: "And God was with the boy; and he grew up. He lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt." (Genesis: 21/20-21).
His children were scattered in this area, as the Torah says, "These are the sons of Ishmael and these are their names, by their villages and by their encampments, twelve princes according to their tribes. These are the years of the life of Ishmael: 137 years. He breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people. They settled from Havilah to Shur, which is opposite Egypt in the direction of Assyria. He settled over against all his kinsmen. (Genesis: 25/16-18), and Avila, as in the Holy Bible’s dictionary, is an area in the north of Yemen, while Shur is in the south of Palestine. 1
It is known that Ishmael and his children resided in this land north and south of Hijaz, including the land of Paran in which Ishmael resided.
The historical evidence indicates that Paran is Hijaz, where Ishmael and his father build the Ka’aba, and where the well of Zamzam sprang under his feet. This was professed by a number of historians as the Indian historian Moulana Abdul Haq Fedyatee mentioned in his book "Muhammad in the religious international scriptures".
The Historian Jerome and the theologian Eusebius were among those historians that said that Paran is Makkah.2 Furthermore, what came in Strong's Hebrew Bible Dictionary is that Paran is in the Arab desert, saying, "Paran, a desert of Arabia".
2) The existence of an area named Paran located in the south of Sinai does not mean that there is no other Paran where Ishmael resided. It is common to use the name Sair to name the area in the land of Edom which is now located in Jordan. This is repeated in many places in the book, and in spite of the many times it is used, it did not prevent the name being used to name a mountain in the middle of Palestine west of Jerusalem in the land of the Judas tribe. (See Joshua: 15/10).
We have the right to ask those who insist that Paran is in Sinai: who is the holy one that glittered from that mountain which is not related in any way to any important human events. Who was he?
3) To say the passage talks about an issue in the past is not acceptable, because it is common in the Holy Bibles' language to talk about future events using the past tense. Espinosa said, “The oldest writers used the future tense to indicate the present and the past, with no differentiation, as they used the past to indicate the future, and as a result of that there was a lot of confusion.”
4) Why the mountain of Paran was particularly mentioned? If it was just an indication to the spreading of the glory of God as claimed by some of the Jewish writers, the glory of God did not stop at the border of Paran or Sair.
5) Some translations mention "the cleansed among angels" meaning the cleansed among the followers, that is what confirms that the issue is related to the prophecy, talking about the thousands of saints, as this expression is used and it means: the followers, as in what came in the Book of Revelation that
"Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back," (Revelation: 12/7). When did Paran witness such thousands of the cleansed except when Muhammad (PBUH) and his companions appeared?
6) What came in the Book of Habakkuk supports the Muslims claim when it said, “God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. His splendor covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. Saleh. His brightness was like the light; rays flashed from his hand, and there he veiled his power. Before him went pestilence, and plague followed at his heels. He stood and measured the earth; he looked and shook the nations; then the eternal mountains were scattered; the everlasting hills sank low. His were the everlasting ways.” (Habakkuk: 3/3-6). This passage is a witness that, there is a victorious prophet-hood will shine like a light, and the call to the prayer will fill the universe with the praise of God.
The word “Timan”, as mentioned by the Holy Bible’s editors, is a Hebrew word that means "the south". In the Catholic Torah: "God comes from the south, and the holy comes from the mountain of Paran", as the addressed were in Palestine, the revelation in the prophecies comes from the south meaning from the Arabian peninsula, which means that the holy one will be sent from Paran mountain.
Therefore, and based on all that, the glittering holy one from Paran mountains is the prophet of Islam, Muhammad (PBUH), for all the characteristics mentioned about the prophet of Paran, are validated in him, and not in any of the other honored prophets.
PSALMS GIVES PROPHECIES OF THE END OF TIME’S PROPHET
Psalms give prophecies of the final prophet, describing him as a king saying, "To the choirmaster: according to Lilies. A Maskil of sons of Korah, love song. My heart overflows with a pleasing theme; I address my verses to the king; my tongue is like the pen of a ready scribe. You are the most handsome of the sons of men; grace is poured upon your lips: therefore, God has blessed you forever. Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one, in your splendor and majesty. In your majesty ride out victoriously for the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness; let your right hand teach you awesome deeds. Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; the people fall under you. Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions. Your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia. From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad; daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir. Hear, O daughter, and consider, and incline your ear: forget your people and your father's house, and the king will desire your beauty. Since he is your Lord, bow to him. The people of Tyre will seek your favor with gifts, the richest of the people. All glorious is the princess in her chamber, with robes interwoven with gold. In many-colored robes she is led to the king with her virgin companions following behind her. With joy and gladness they are led along as they enter the palace of the king. In place of your fathers shall be your sons; you will make them princes in all the earth. I will cause your name to be remembered in all generations; therefore nation will praise you forever and ever." (Psalms: 45/1-17).
Christians agree that this passage is a prophecy of the expected prophet, and they claim that he is Jesus (PBUH). While Muslims believe that, the characteristics symbolized in it belong to Muhammad (PBUH), and reject that it was for Jesus (PBUH) or any of the other noble prophets. There are nine characteristics of this prophet in the passage had fit Mohammad (PBUH) and they are:
1) He has a pleasant look that no one else has. “You are the most handsome of the sons of men." The Christians have no right to claim that he is Jesus (PBUH) as they believe that Jesus fits the prophecy of (Isaiah 52/ 2). We disagree with them on that 1 even though their scholars confirm it. Clement the Alexandrian said: "his beauty was in his soul and his actions, as for his look he was ugly". Turtilian said, "As for his (Jesus) look, he lacked the physical beauty, in other words he was far from any physical glory", and similarly said Martyr, Oreganos, and others. 2
Whoever had said that about Jesus (PBUH) has no right to say that he is also: "more handsome than all men".
Traces told us about the beauty of our prophet Muhammad (PBUH) after God has dressed him with the prophet-hood. No one more handsome than him was ever seen. In the authenticated traces, Al-Baraa Ibn Malek said, [The messenger of God (Muhammad PBUH) had the nicest face of all people, and he had the best shape, not too tall and not too short]. 3
2) The message and its words came out of his lips. “Grace is poured upon your lips “He was an illiterate, and his revelation was verbal unlike Moses and Abraham (PBUT) who had written revelation. Jesus (PBUH) also was literate. (Luke: 4/16).
Many Holy Bible passages confirm the illiteracy of the expected prophet. In the book of Deuteronomy " and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak to them all that I command him." (Deuteronomy: 18/18), and what came in Isaiah "And when they give the book to one who can not read, saying, “Read this,” he says, I can not read. " (Isaiah: 29/12).
3) He is blessed forever, the owner of an everlasting message "God has blessed you for ever … your throne, O God, is forever and ever"
4) He is the holder of a sword that is used to defeat his enemies to establish the truth and justice. “Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one, in your splendor and majesty. In your majesty ride out victoriously for the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness, let your right hand teach you awesome deeds. Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; the people fall under you. Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness." However Jesus (PBUH never carried a sword, and he never defeated his enemies. He never aimed his arrows to the hearts of his enemies to spread the message of the truth; also, he was not a king among his people.
5) He likes good deeds and goodness and hates sins and evil, like all of the prophets, but God preferred him above them “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."
6) Gifts were brought to him for his glory, and the daughters of kings are at his service or among his women. “Daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir."
Prophet (Muhammad PBUH) married Safeya the daughter of Hoyay Bin Ahktab the master of his people, also the Coptic Maria was given to him, and Shahrbeno, daughter of Izdger the king of Persia, was the wife of his grand son Al-Hussein.
7) The nations bow to him, and the nations accept his faith with joy and cheerfulness All glorious is the princess in her chamber, with robes interwoven with gold. In many-colored robes she is led to the king with her virgin companions following behind her."
8) He replaces the humiliation of his people with glory " In place of your fathers shall be your sons; you will make them princes in all the earth."
9) A decent memory is written for him for eternity. “I will cause your name to be remembered in all generations; therefore, nation will praise you forever and ever." Therefore, he is “the praised” Ahmad and Muhammad (PBUH).
DAVID (PBUH) GIVES PROPHECIES OF A PROPHET WHO IS NOT OF HIS OFFSPRING
David talks about the expected prophet saying, "A Psalm of David. The LORD said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool. The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies. Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments from the womb of the morning; the dew of your youth will be yours. The LORD has sworn, and will not change his mind, “you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord is at your right hand, he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth." (Psalms: 110/1-6).
The Christians and the Jews consider this passage as a prophecy of the expected messiah, who is from the offspring of David.
However, Jesus (PBUH) canceled their claim, and he explained to his contemporaries that the expected messiah will not be from the offspring of David. In Matthew: “now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, Saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The Son of David.” He said to them, “How is then that David, in the spirit, call him Lord, saying, “The LORD said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” And no man was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did any one dare to ask him any more questions.” (Matthew: 22/41-46), and in Mark "David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son? And the great throng heard him gladly." (Mark: 12/37), and (Luke: 20/41-44), and we have explained earlier the issue of Jesus calling the prophet "the messiah".
The title "the expected Messiah", concerns a messiah who will rule and crush his enemies. Jesus (PBUH) denied it several times. He told Pilate that: “Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." (John: 18/36) He meant it is a spiritual kingdom.
In addition, it is not the kingdom prophesized by David in his psalms, as he said, “The LORD said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool. The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies. Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments from the womb of the morning; the dew of your youth will be yours. The LORD has sworn, and will not change his mind, “you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord is at your right hand, he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth. "
He is the one prophesized by Jacob, he said, “and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples." (Genesis: 49/10).
The priest Dr. Faheem Aziz, the dean of the Theology College for Protestants in Egypt, quotes the western scholars denial that “Jesus was acting and talking as a messiah for the Jews or the messiah whom the Old Testament was waiting for".
Solomon gave prophecies in psalms of the prophet king saying: “may he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth. My desert tribes bow down before him\ and his enemies lick the dust. May the kings of Tarshish and of the coastlands render him tribute, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts. May all kings fall down before him, all nations serve him. For he delivers the needy when he calls, the poor and him who has no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life and precious is their blood in his sight. Long may he live, may gold of Sheba be given to him, may prayer be made for him continually; and blessing invoked for him all the day. May there be abundance of grain in the land, on the tops of the mountains may it wave; may its fruit be like Lebanon; and may people blossom in the cities like the grass of the field. May his name endure forever: his fame continue as long as the sun, may people be blessed in him. Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, who alone does wondrous things. Blessed be his glorious name forever, may the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen." (Psalms: 72/8-19)
To whom did the kings disgracefully kneel and bow and who is the one that God glorifies in all ages?
No doubt, that he is Muhammad (PBUH), where the greatest kings of his time, including the Romans and the Persians bow to his authority.
PROPHECIES OF THE KINGDOM
Some of the titles that the Holy Bible gives to the new religion and its followers are "the kingdom" or "the kingdom of the heavens". It is the new religion that Jesus (PBUH) confirmed its transfer from the Jewish nation to another nation. Saying, "Therefore, I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits." (Matthew: 21/43).
In addition, the prophets kept on giving prophecies of this kingdom "The law and the prophets were until John: since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one forces his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to become void." (Luke: 16/16-17).
The prophet John the Baptist gave prophecies that the kingdom’s time is close, Matthew said: "In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew: 3/1-2).
Threatening the Jews, the Baptist talked about the next kingdom, he said,: " In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, “Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Now John wore a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about Jordan were going out to him in, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “you brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” bear fruit in keeping with repentance: And do not presume to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father, for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. I baptize you with water for repentance: but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy spirit, and with fire. his winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. Then Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan to John to be baptized by him. " (Matthew: 3/1-13). 1
Let us take a glance at the characteristics that John the Baptist gave about the king of the kingdom.
First: the prophet will come after him. Therefore, the coming cannot be Jesus (PBUH) who was contemporary with John the Baptist.
Second: He is strong, and his strength exceeds the strength of John the Baptist. Such a description does not fit Jesus (PBUH), who was as claimed by the Christians, killed on the cross and close to John the Baptist. There is no comparison between that and Muhammad's (PBUH) victories over all his enemies. He reached a level of strength that enabled him to cleanse the earth from paganism, using soul and fire with his great message and his mighty strength. None of the above mentioned, fit anyone but Muhammad the messenger of God (PBUH).
After John the Baptist died, Jesus (PBUH) renewed the prophecy that the kingdom is getting closer, "From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew: 4/17). "And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. "(Matthew: 4/23). "Soon afterward he went on through cities and village, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him," (Luke: 8/1).
Not only had Jesus (PBUH) considered prophesizing about the kingdom as his first mission, but also the only one. He said: " But he said to them, "I must preach the Good News of the Kingdom of God to other towns as well, for I was for this purpose." (Luke: 4/43).
He ordered his disciples to spread the news that the kingdom is at hand, he said: "And proclaim as you go, saying, “the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew: 10/7).
Then Jesus (PBUH) taught his disciples to say a phrase in their prayers. “Father hallowed be your name; Your kingdom come.” (Luke: 11/2) this phrase, the Christians still practice until this day.
Through all this, we can say that the message of Jesus (PBUH) was a prophecy of the kingdom that John the Baptist had told and described some of what will happen to it. This kingdom comes after Jesus in a nation that will work for it, and will not lose it as the Jews did.
What is this kingdom?
The Christians’ answer is that “the kingdom is the prevailing of the Christian faith all over the world after the coming of Jesus". Some interpreted it, as being the victory of the church over atheists. Others interpreted it, as it is the prophecy of salvation with the blood of Jesus (PBUH). Priest Tadros Jacob Malaty, in his commentary of the book of Matthew, said, "The kingdom that was announced by Jesus is "the good news kingdom “or "the Gospel kingdom ", represented the salvation’s happy news that God gave us in His son Jesus".
Muslims wonder how the Christians neglect the meaning of the kingdom; instead, they are attaching it to a chimera. The church was victorious and it ruled Europe for many centuries, but we have not seen anything that was worth being a prophecy given by the Baptist, Jesus or the disciples.
Similarly, the claimed salvation news cannot be the prophecy, which Jesus walked around telling about in towns and villages. Even his dearest disciples did not understand this meaning. Among them were the two disciples that were headed towards Emmaus after the crucifixion, they were crying because the salvation had ended with the death of Jesus (PBUH). "And he said to them, ‘What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk, and they stood still, looking sad? Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days? And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, And how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened."(Luke: 24/17-21).
The two disciples were ignorant about the issue of salvation with the death of Jesus; they were looking for another salvation, which is worldly salvation, which the children of Israel were waiting for.
The crowds of believers that witnessed the crucifixion did not know that the crucifixion was the happy prophecy, which Jesus (PBUH) gave. They returned crying, beating their chests and weeping "And all the crowds that had assembled for this spectacle, when they saw what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts.” (Luke: 23/48-49).
The promised kingdom could not have been salvation with the blood of Jesus. The texts mentioned things and signs that will take place before the coming of the kingdom. Among these signs is the establishment of a new nation and a new kingdom. Which did not take place before the spreading of Christianity in the world, nor did it occur when Jesus was crucified, Matthew says: "As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down. And they asked him, “teacher, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place? And he said, “see that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, I am he; and “the time is at hand, do not go after them. And when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified: for these things must first take place; but the end will not be at once. Then he said to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences. And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake. This will be your opportunity to bear witness. Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate beforehand how to answer. For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. You will be delivered up by parents and brothers and relatives and friends; and some of you they will put to death. You will be hated by all for my name's sake. But not n hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your lives. But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let these who are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let those who are inside the city depart; and let not those who are out in the country enter it. For these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days, for there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars; and on the earth distress of nations, in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves. People fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads; because your redemption is drawing near. And he told them a parable; “look at the fig tree, and all the trees.” As son as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away: but my words will not pass away. But watch yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a trap. For it will come upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth. But stay awake at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are going to take place, and to stand before the Son of man." (Luke: 21/6-36).
His saying: “and to stand before the Son of man” connects the kingdom to the coming and the expected person. He was not talking about the spreading of Christianity, but he was talking about the appearance of the final prophet; the son of man, and he was asking them to be prepared to meet him.
The kingdom is a nation that will work according to the will and the satisfaction of God, the cherisher and sustainer of the universe.
"The kingdom is a society on earth, which executes the will of God just as it is in the heavens," says William Barclay in his commentary on Acts.
In one of Jesus’ parables for the kingdom, he explained to his disciples the reason why the kingdom it will be transferred from the children of Israel. He said:
"Hear anoth¬¬er parable: There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put fence round it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants and went into another country. When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruits. And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. Finally he sent his son to them, saying, “They will respect my son.” But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, “This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and have his inheritance. And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore the owner the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus said to them, “have you never read in the scriptures, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes? Therefore, I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him. When the chief priests and Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. “(Matthew: 21/33-45), (Also Luke: 20/9-19),
Who is that great nation that will crush any nation it invades, and if a nation wanted to harm it will be disappointed? They are, with no doubt, the Muslims who defeated the greatest two states of their time, the Romans and the Persians. They are the Muslims who spread all over the world, and ruled, for an entire century, the land between China and France.
The previous prophesy of Matthew refers to a prophesy in the prophets’ books, which is what came in David's Psalms about the one who will come in the name of God "I thank you that you have answered me and have become my salvation. The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is the LORD'S doing; it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day that the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it. Save us, we pray, O LORD: O LORD, we pray, give us success." (Psalms: 118/21-25).
Muhammad (PBUH) said: “Narrated By Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "My similitude in comparison with the other PROPHETS BEFORE ME, is that of a man who has built a house nicely and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people go about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: 'Would that this brick be put in its place!' So I am that brick, and I am the last of the Prophets.”. 1 He was the brick that completed the prophet-hoods.
We should point to the mistake that Peter made when he claimed that Jesus (PBUH) is the brick that the builders rejected. He said: " let it be known to all of you and the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him his man is standing before you well. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts: 4/10-12), though, the stone that David and Jesus talked about was a victorious prophet-hood and a winning nation, and it was not in the children of Israel as Jesus (PBUH) testified.
However, Peter had an excuse for his mistake. He was an illiterate man with no education as stated by those who heard his words and wondered about the miracles. We knew that from the writer of Acts, as he said in this regard, "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished." (Acts: 4/13).
This unusual parable, that Jesus (PBUH) told, talks about the Jews denial of God’s graces and tenders, and of His choice of them by killing his prophets and abandoning his Law. It tells about the transfer of the kingdom to a nation who will follow the commands of God, a nation that will become stronger over their enemies, and crush them.
This nation is despicable and despised " The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner"; however, God chose this nation in spite of the Jews’ astonishment about the transfer of the kingdom to this despicable nation. It is the great fate and will of God " this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes ".
Who is this despicable nation? It is the Arab nation, the children of the servant Hagar, whom the Holy Bible despised, as Sarah said:
“So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac." (Genesis: 21/10).
Proudly despising the Arabs, Paul said, "but what does the scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman. So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman." (Galatians: 4/30-31).
Jesus (PBUH) gave more parables about the next kingdom. In one of them, he explained that the kingdom will not be of the children of Israel, the nation that did not deserve God's choice.
Matthew says: "And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king gave a wedding feast for his son, And sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, “Tell those who are invited, see, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast. But they paid no attention made and went off their ways, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, entreated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said he to his servants, “The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find. And those servants went out into the roads and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests. but when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?” And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, “Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, for many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew: 22/1-14)
In another parable, he explained to them the people’s acceptance of the kingdom and submission to it, and he asked his disciples to accept it and submit to it. He said: "And he told them many things in parables, saying, “a sower went out to sow.” And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose, they were scorched; and since they had no root, they withered away. Other seeds fell among thorns; and the thorns grew up, and choked them: other seeds fell on good soil, and produced grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears, let him hear. Then the disciples came, and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “to you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance: but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “you will indeed hear but never understand; and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it; and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. “Hear then the parable of the sower. When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receive it with joy. Yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while: and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, on one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty." (Matthew: 13/1-23).
This biblical parable matches the one that Muhammad (PBUH) gave about the way people reacted to his message. He said: (Narrated By Abu Musa: The Prophet said, "The example of GUIDANCE and knowledge with which Allah has sent me is like abundant rain falling on the earth, some of which was fertile soil that absorbed rain water and brought forth vegetation and grass in abundance. (And) another portion of it was hard and held the rain water and Allah benefited the people with it and they utilized it for drinking, making their animals drink from it and for irrigation of the land for cultivation. (And) a portion of it was barren which could neither hold the water nor bring forth vegetation (then that land gave no benefits). The first is the example of the person who comprehends Allah's religion and gets benefit (from the knowledge) which Allah has revealed through me (the Prophets and learns and then teaches others. The last example is that of a person who does not care for it and does not take Allah's GUIDANCE revealed through me (He is like that barren land.). 1
Jesus told his disciples about the spread of the kingdom, which is the smallest among the seeds, but it is the greatest in spreading. Matthew says:
"He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest all seeds, but when it has grown it is the larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches. He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened. All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable. "(Matthew: 13/31-34). (Also Mark: 4/30-32).
Athanasius, an Egyptian priest, said in his interpretation of the book of Matthew, "the examples that Jesus gave in this chapter describe the kingdom on earth from the beginning to the end. The first example teaches us that the kingdom will be planted in the heart. The second, the devil will fight against it and plant a thorn, but the Kingdom will grow and become a large tree (the Mustard seed). The spirits of the people of the Kingdom must merge in order to save and cleanse the world internally, as the yeast".
In another passage, he talked about the control of the new Law over the previous Law, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field; which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had, and bought it." (Matthew: 13/44-46).
Prophesizing the Prophet who will abolish the statutes with his statute, Jesus (PBUH) said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Matthew: 5/17-18), so who is the one that has it all?
He is the same prophet whom Paul named “the perfect", and just by his arrival the statute will be canceled and abolished. "To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom; and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit. To another faith by the same Spirit; to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit. To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another the ability to distinguish between spirits; to another various kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:" (Corinthians 1: 12/8-10).
That Jesus (PBUH) not only talked about this prophet, but also explained that his time is late compared with the previous prophets. However, that will not deprive his nation from receiving great rewards, so he gave this example and said, "For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, And to them he said; “you go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you. So they went. Going out again about the sixth and the ninth hour, he did the same. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and he said to them, Why do you stand here idle all day? They said to him, Because no one has hired us. He said to them, you go into the vineyard too; and when evening come, the owner of the vineyard said to his foremen, Call the laborers, and pay them their wages, beginning wit the last up to the first. And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, Saying, These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat. But he replied to one of them, , Friend, I am doing you no wrong: did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go, I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity? So the last will be first, and the first last." (Matthew: 20/1-16). Therefore, the latter won the reward and compensation.
The latter are the first ones as Jesus (PBUH) said and confirmed by Muhammad (PBUH) when he said: ((We are the latest the first))1,and ((Narrated By Abu Musa: The Prophet said, "The example of Muslims, Jews and Christians is like the example of a man who employed laborers to work for him from morning till night for specific wages. They worked till midday and then said, 'We do not need your money which you have fixed for us and let whatever we have done be annulled.' The man said to them, 'Don't quit the work, but complete the rest of it and take your full wages.' But they refused and went away. The man employed another batch after them and said to them, 'Complete the rest of the day and yours will be the wages I had fixed for the first batch.' So, they worked till the time of 'Asr prayer. Then they said, "Let what we have done be annulled and keep the wages you have promised us for yourself.' The man said to them, 'Complete the rest of the work, as only a little of the day remains,' but they refused. Thereafter he employed another batch to work for the rest of the day and they worked for the rest of the day till the sunset, and they received the wages of the two former batches. So, that was the example of those people (Muslims) and the example of this light (GUIDANCE) which they have accepted willingly.)). 1
THE PROPHET DANIEL PROPHESIZES THE TIME OF THE KINGDOM
The Holy Bible contains some of the prophet's prophecies about the time of the kingdom. When Belteshazzar, the Babylonian emperor, had dream that scared him, and neither the fortunetellers nor the psychics were able to interpret it, the prophet Daniel interpreted it for him. Saying: "You saw, O king, and behold a great image. This image, mighty and of exceeding brightness, stood before you; and its appearance was frightening. The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet that were of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. This was the dream; now we will tell the king its interpretation. You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory. And into whose hand has given, wherever they dwell, the children of man, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, making you rule over them all, you are the head of gold. Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things. And like iron that crushes, it shall break and crush all these. And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potters' clay, and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay. And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly brittle. As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever. Just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold; a great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure." (Daniel: 2/21-45).
Hodgkin says in his book "Jesus in all books": “As for the stone that cuts without two hands holding it and crushes the great statue, it is a metaphor about the kingdom of the "messiah": meaning the expected messiah.
In the Practical interpretation: "As for the stone that was cut from the mountain, it leads to the Kingdom of God that will be ruled by the messiah the king of kings for eternity". 2
The dream was about the states that will arise at the same time in the hands of the people of the kingdom. The first one is the kingdom of Babylon that is ruled by Belteshazzar, which was symbolized by the golden head.
Followed by the Persian kingdom that was established by Kosro, and its king Cyrus received authority over Babylon in the year 593 (BC), and it was symbolized by the chest and the two silver arms.
Then it was followed by the Macedonian kingdom that destroyed the Persian kingdom, and it was established by the Macedonian Alexander in the year 336 (BC), and it was symbolized by the stomach and the copper thighs.
Then finally it was followed by the Roman Empire, that was established by the emperor Bovbios in the year 63 (BC). It was symbolized by two steel legs, and two feet, one of which is clay and one of steel, and it might be the Persian and Roman states are what he meant, or the division of the Roman Empire. 1
“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed.” The stone that was rejected by the builders had come to destroy the Romans and the Persians, and had built the Kingdom for centuries and its strength did not stop until this century.
This prophecy might prophesize that this weakness is just temporary and the sun of an Islamic Era will rise again.
Similar to Belteshazzar’s dream, is Danial’s dream of the Four Beasts:
“And four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: then as I looked its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground, and made to stand on two feet like a man, and the mind of a man was given to it. And behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear, it was raised up on one side, it had three ribs in the mouth between its teeth: and it was told, Arise, devour much flesh. After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth: it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another horn a little one , before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of days took his seat, his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool: his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and came out from before him; thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened. I looked then because of the sound of the great words that the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was killed, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. As for the rest of the beasts their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. As for me, Daniel, my spirit within me was anxious, and the visions of my head alarmed me. I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of the things. These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever. “(Daniel: 7/3-18).
The Christians agree that the four kingdoms were Babylon, Persia, Greece, and the Roman Empire. They believe that the kingdom was established on the appearance of the religion of Jesus and the establishment of the church, when the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples when they were gathered in Jerusalem.
However, the spiritual kingdom that was established by the Apostles could not have been the promised kingdom. Daniel talked about four real kingdoms, and the last was crushed by a true king not a spiritual one. "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever...” (Daniel: 2/44).
In addition, he said about the kingdom and its prophet: " And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." (Daniel: 7/14).
The disciples understood from Jesus (PBUH) that the next kingdom is real and not spiritual. They asked him, after the crucifixion, thinking that his hands would establish it: "so when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, wilt you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts: 1/6), Jesus (PBUH) tried hard to explain to them that his kingdom is spiritual, while the next kingdom is a real kingdom.
In addition, the disciple's kingdom did not defeat the Roman state; instead, the Romans defeated Christianity after sometime, when they inserted their paganism into it.
Amazingly, how could the Christians say that they defeated the Romans, when they claim that Jesus (PBUH) died on Roman crossbars.
The Muslims were the nation who crushed the Romans, cast them out of the land of Palestine, Syria and Egypt, and then took Constantinople, the capital of the Roman state, as the capital of Islam, the religion of the kingdom.
THE PROPHECY OF (MEHMAD), THE NATION’S DESIRE
To reduce their sadness, after they returned from captivity, the prophet Haggai told the Children of Israel a prophecy from God. It reads as follows:
"For thus says the LORD of hosts; yet once more, it a little while, I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land. And I will shake all nations, so that the treasure of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory, says the LORD of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the LORD of hosts. The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, declares the LORD of hosts." (Haggai: 2/6-9).
This prophecy, in no doubt, is talking about the expected prophet whom Abraham had promised. Jacob, Moses and David (PBUT) had also prophesized about him.
The previous priest Abdul Ahad Dawoud, who is an expert with ancient languages, quoted the text in Hebrew and translated it as follows:
“I will shake all the whole earth, and (Mehmad) will come to all the nations… and in this place I will give peace". The word "Mehmad" or "Hamdet" comes in the Hebrew language as it comes in another new reading. It is usually used in Hebrew to mean "the great wish" or "the desired", and the text according to the common Hebrew translation: (fabaaou Hamdat kol hagoyeem).
However if we leave the name as it is without translation (which is what is supposed to be done with names), then we will find the word "Mehmad" is the Hebrew pronunciation of the Arabic name Ahmad, which was lost by translators when they also translated names.
Commenting on this, the great prominent historian William James Durant said: “the word “Mehmad” (the praised) was derived from praising, and it is an exaggeration of it. It seems that he was praised time after time, and possibly that some of the passages in the Torah prophesized him”.
The talk about the last house of God came on the completion of the prophecy, which has greater glory than the first house. then he says: "in this place I will give peace", the Hebrew translation used the word "shalom" which can mean "Islam", as "Al Salam" or peace and "Al Islam" derived from the same word. 1
His words: "in this place I will give peace", might be talking about the peace that covered this land, which Omar Bin Al Khatab gave to the people of Jerusalem when he conquered it. The prophecy then was about providing peace and was not related to the desired prophet, because it happened at the hands of his kind followers and companions after his death.
There is no doubt that this prophecy is not talking about Jesus (PBUH). There is no relationship between the prophecy’s words and his name, or between its meanings and what is known about him (PBUH). Peace was not stabilized in Jerusalem during his mission; instead, he told the Jews of the destruction of the temple after a while. Moreover, he was a messenger to the Children of Israel, and not to all nations, while the expected prophet was the desire of all nations, and was not exclusive to the house of Jacob as mentioned in the description of Jesus several times.
The use of the word peace or "Al salam" to mean "Islam" was seen by Abdul Ahad Dawood as needed in another passage of the Holy Bible. The Book of Luke mentions that the angels sang at the birth of Jesus saying: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those whom he is pleased." (Luke: 2/14).
He wonders; which peace came to earth after the birth of Jesus (PBUH)? The killing continuously went on, and the wars took turns one after another until the Day of Judgment. Therefore, the correct translation of the Greek word "Erena" in Hebrew is "shalom", which is equal to "Islam" in Arabic as "Al Salam”.
If the Christians insist on interpreting the word "Erena" as peace or "Al Salam", then they have made Jesus contradict himself, as he said: "I am come to cast fire on the earth; and would that it were already kindled? I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division:" (Luke: 12/49-51), and in Matthew: "do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth: I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew: 10/34).
Based on that, Abdul Ahad Dawood sees that the peacemakers are the Muslims, and that is in the words of Jesus: "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God." (Matthew: 5/9), so he sees that the accurate translation is "blessed the Muslims", and not the imaginary peacemakers, which were not and will never exist on earth.
None of the people who belong to the different Christian sects, who are fighting and disagreeing along its history, can say that peace took place in the hearts of the believers, as the ongoing hatred between them denies all that.
In the completion of the so-called angels hymn "and Joy be to the people", the Greek text used the word "Yodekia" which is a word derived from the Greek verb "Dokio", and it means "nice, kind, charitable" as in the Greek dictionary, it also means joy, love, satisfaction, desire, fame…
All of these expressions are valid in translating the word "Yodekia", which can also be translated in Hebrew to (Mahmad, Ma Hamoud) which is extracted from the verb "Hamd" praise. The word (Mahmad, Ma Hamoud) means, “the very much desired, the cheerful, the wonderful, the loved or the gentle”. All of these agree with the meanings that come out of the word Muhammad or Ahmad, which are close in extraction to the two Hebrew words (Hemda and Mehmad), such closeness indicates that they have one common root as it is always the case in many of the Semitic languages.
Abdul Ahad Dawood also alerts to the existence of this text in the Greek Book of Luke at the time the phrases were in Assyrian. It was not possible, even with a lot of effort and being honest in translation, to translate a word from one language to another, and reach the exact original meaning of the word. Thus, it is impossible, with the loss of the originals, to verify the accuracy of the translation.
The correct translation for the hymn as seen by Abdul Ahad Dawood is: "Thanks to God in heavens, and submission or "Islam" on earth, and Ahmad to the people". 1
THE PROPHECY ABOUT ELIJAH
One of the names that the Holy Bible uses referring to the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is "Elijah", and according to Gematria is equal to 53. 2
It is also a name of a great prophet sent by God to the Children of Israel in the ninth century (BC), whose name in the Quran is Elias.
The prophet Malachi in his short book talks about the disobedience of the Children of Israel and about Elijah or the new coming Elijah, who is different from Elias who died seven centuries before.
Malachi said that God said, "Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to his temple, and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight: behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming? and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:" (Malachi: 3/1-2).
The text in the prophet Malachi's scripture talks about two prophets. One of them is the one who paves the road for the one that is coming from God. The second one is the one who will suddenly come to the temple, and he names him the master and the angel of the covenant, and that is the one that the Children of Israel are seeking and waiting for.
Malachi, while he still talking about the expected prophet and about the Children of Israel's alteration and denial, says at the end of his book,: "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and rules that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD:" (Malachi: 4/4-5).
Malachi called the next prophet Elijah after he reminded them about Moses’ commandment on the mountain of Horeb, the mountain on which Moses (PBUH) mentioned the coming of a prophet like him among the brothers of Children of Israel. The interpreter who wrote "The masterpiece of the generation" says:-
"The messenger Elijah, who was mentioned at the end of Malachi's Book, is a puzzle, and he is the rabbi of the world who will come at the end of time". 1
Christians think that the prophet who paved the road is John the Baptist whose name was Elijah, in the text in Mark says: "As it is written in Isaiah the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “prepare they way of the lord, make his paths straight,” John appeared baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judaea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Now John was clothed with camel's hair, and wore a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey. And he preached, saying, after me comes he who is mightier than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I have baptized you with water: but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan." (Mark: 1/2-9), which is what Luke told quoting Jesus (PBUH):
“What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you. I tell you; among those born of women, none is greater than John: yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. “(Luke: 7/26-28).
Therefore, according to Christians, the one who will prepare the road is John the Baptist, and the one whom the road is prepared for is Jesus (PBUH).
They consider the first one to be Elijah due to what Matthew said quoting Jesus (PBUH) in the course of his talk about John the Baptist: "what then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you. Truly, I say to you, among those born of women, none is greater than John: yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew: 11/9-15).
Matthew also mentioned that Jesus (PBUH) said: "And the disciples asked him, “then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come? He answered, Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you, That Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of man will certainly suffer at their hands. Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist." (Matthew: 17/10-13).
Therefore, Christians believe that the prophesier, the one who will prepare the road, is John the Baptist, and the prophesized, the one whom the road is prepared for is Jesus (PBUH). The fact is that Elijah was a symbol for the expected prophet and not to the prophet who prepared the road for him.
Before we unveil the truth of this prophecy, we must alert readers to the alterations that have happened in some of these texts. In Malachi he says "the covenant angel", which is in the old translations: "the messenger of Circumcision", also in the modern translation he says: "I will send my angel" but in the old translation "I will send my messenger", and in some editions "the master will come", but in some others "the Guardian", and in another "Elijah".
In the Gospel’s text, there is an alteration made to the quotes from Malachi who used the first person object pronoun “Me” “he shall prepare the way before me ", but in the Gospels the pronoun became the third person object pronoun “You” referring to Jesus " he shall prepare the way before thee”.
We can also see clearly, that the alterations have reached the words of Jesus (PBUH) and the Baptist when the Evangelists claim that Jesus considered the Baptist to be the one who prepared for his message. "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way. " (Luke: 7/26), and that he called him the expected Elijah "But I tell you, that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also, the Son of man will certainly suffer at their hands. Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist."(Matthew: 17/12-13).
It is an alteration when they said that the Baptist told that the strong one that he prophesized of his coming, is Jesus (PBUH). "John answered them, I baptize with water: but among you stands one you do not know; even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie. These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me. I myself did not knew him , but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel. And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained of him. I myself did not knew him, but he who sent me to baptize with water, said to me, he on whom you see the Spirit descend, and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy spirit. And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God. the next day again John was standing with two of his disciples; And he looked at Jesus he walked by and said, “Behold the Lamb of God! the two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. Jesus turned and saw them following, and said to them, “What are you seeking? And they said to him, Rabbi, (which means teacher) where are you staying? He said to them, Come and you will see. So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour. One of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother." (John: 1/26-40).
Our claim of the alterations is not to say that the texts did not agree with the issue that we are trying to prove. It is that John the Baptist denied that he is the prophet Elijah. Elijah, who was supposed to prepare the way for the coming master, The Baptist denied it when the priests and the Levites Jewish messengers came to him "And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, who are you? He confessed, and did not deny; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Are you Elijah? He said, I am not. Are you the prophet? And he answered, no." (John: 1/19-21), this is a clear confession where John denies that he is Elijah who will prepare the road, and that he is neither the expected messiah nor the expected prophet.
This confession leaves us with three choices. Either Jesus lied when he said that Elijah had come, that the Baptist lied when he denied that he was Elijah or we should say that the disciples did not understand the words of Jesus (PBUH). The last analysis is more likely, as Matthew made a mistake when he said, "Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist ". They thought that they understood, but in fact, they did not. He was talking to them about himself " Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to his temple, and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight: behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts.” In addition, the description of Elijah does not match that of the Baptist, because he comes after Jesus, as Jesus said about him: "Elijah expected to be come" but Jesus and the Baptist were contemporaries.
When Elijah comes, he "will return everything", and "And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers". There is no report about the Baptist as such. The one who, according to Matthew, lived in the desert, feeding on Locusts and honey, and his clothing was made of camel skin, and the best thing he did was to baptize whoever came to him repenting. (See Matthew: 3/1-5).
It is impossible to accept that the Baptist was a prelude to Jesus. The Baptist, according to the Gospels, before his death did not know the truth about Jesus, and he sent his disciples to ask Jesus (PBUH) "And said to him, Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?" (Matthew: 11/3).
How could it be that he was sent at this time, when he did not know the truth about him? What did John do before the coming of Jesus? Did he do something related to Jesus’ mission that the Gospels are claiming?
There is no report on The Baptist other than giving the prophecy of the kingdom, the same as what Jesus (PBUH) did after him. (See Matthew: 3/1). He used to baptize those who came to him confessing about their sins. (See Matthew: 3/6), and that is what Jesus did. That confirms that they had the same message that was to prophesize and tell about the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) the prophet of the kingdom. As he said: "but he said to them, I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to other towns as well: for I was sent for this purpose. " (Luke: 4/34), he was sent to give good news of the next kingdom.
The fact is that the Baptists and Jesus (PBUH) came with the same message. Both of them were sent to preach about the final prophet. they were preachers of the final prophet, which Matthew called the Heavens Kingdom, as the prophet John the Baptist preached about the closeness of expected prophet’s time, "In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. " (Matthew: 3/1-2).
After the death of John the Baptist Jesus renewed the good news of the kingdom, "and from that time Jesus began to preach, saying, repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew: 4/17), "And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom." (Matthew: 4/23).
Moreover, he ordered his disciples to give the good news of the closeness of the kingdom’s time, so he said, "And proclaim as you go, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew: 10/7), they had the same message, and that is to preach and prepare the road to the expected prophet.
Not only did these descriptions not match the Baptist, but also did not match Jesus (PBUH) the Baptist said:
"I baptize you with water for repentance, but he, who is coming after me is mightier than I. Whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire: his winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, and gather his wheat into the barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him." (Matthew: 3/11-13).
The expected prophet that had the good news would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. While Jesus (PBUH) never baptized anyone during his life, even though this was spread among the people, but in reality, he did not. His disciples did it in his name "now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John, (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples,)" (John: 4/1-2).
The Baptist also mentioned that the expected prophet would baptize with spirit and fire. Meaning that he will have the control over religion and life, in order to change the wrong and encourage repentance. He would not stop at the external cleansing of washing the body with water, but he pays attention to internal cleansing, and his tool to do this is what the Holy Spirit (Gabriel) comes with, revelation, information and explanation, as he cleansed with fire many places on earth from paganism.
Such baptism was not performed by Jesus (PBUH), whom his disciples baptized with water, and where his preaching was a continuation of the baptism of the Baptist. That is to give the good news about repentance and forgiveness of sins, for Jesus, after the crucifixion and resurrection, asked everyone of his disciples "And that the repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke: 24/47), so his baptism (PBUH) was not different from the baptism of the Baptist. (See John: 3/22-23).
His disciples continued after him to baptize with water like John the Baptist, and when Paul went to Ephesus, “and there he found some disciples, and he said to them, did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? And they said, no, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit. And he said, into what then were you baptized? They said, into John's baptism. And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus. On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts: 19/1-5). If Jesus (PBUH) had a baptism different from the Baptist’s, then it should have been well known and spread among the disciples.
The Baptist also described the expected prophet as stronger than him. There was nothing about the message or the life of Jesus that indicated such strength. Both John the Baptist and Jesus did not come with a new Law, nor were they kings over their people, and both of them never had any influence or authority. Not only had they no power, but also Christians, falsely, claim that they were both killed! Where is the strength that the Baptist mentioned?
Moreover, Jesus (PBUH) did not match the Baptist’s statement about the expected prophet. “Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.". That is a metaphor, which Dr. William Edie explained as:
"it is a metaphor indicating the end of the whole mission, and it is possible that this metaphor was an indication of God's discipline of the people and his revenge on them in this life". In fact, it goes further than that, as it explains the power that purifies God’s giving of the Law to his prophets, and whatever was associated with it.
Based on that, the expected prophet is Muhammad (PBUH), and he is the only one that came to the Holy Land and the temple suddenly, when he flew on his Night Journey to the Holy House, While Jesus and John grew up in the area of the temple.
He is also the prophet that, is named by some translations "the messenger of Circumcision", as he did call for, and alerted the Muslims that it is one of the guidance traditions, and the Muslims kept this tradition after him.
THE SMALLER IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD
Another prophecy that Jesus gave, tells us about the expected messiah. It confirms that he is the greatest of all prophets, he is the prophet named Elijah, and that he is the prophet whom the previous prophets took turns prophesizing. Jesus (PBUH) said, "Truly, I say to you, among those born of women, none is greater than John: yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. From the days of John, the Baptist, until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. " (Matthew: 11/11-15) thus, the smaller in the Kingdom of heavens is Elijah, the one proclaimed to come, the one the prophets told about one after another, ending by John the Baptist.
Who is Elijah, the smaller in the kingdom of heavens? He is Muhammad the messenger of God (PBUH). Who is small by his delay in time compared to the rest of the prophets, but he exceeded them all by the completion of his message, and with God granting his faith to be the final religion until the Day of Judgment, so if he was not Muhammad (PBUH), who will he be?
It is not acceptable that a Christian claim that Jesus (PBUH) is the last messenger and prophet, basing their claim on believing in his disciples’ message and even in others’ like Paul. Moreover, his message (PBUH) was not completed, for the correction and the editing made by the apostles in the First Jerusalem Council claiming that it is to make it easy for the new Christians convert, so they cancelled circumcision, and allowed some of what the Torah made unlawful.
Based on that, the word "the smaller" does not match Jesus (PBUH), because he was not the last prophet. In addition, it was not stated or understood that he was talking about himself when he said, " Truly, I say to you, among those born of women, none is greater than John: yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. From the days of John, the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, who is to come. He, who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Mathew: 11/11-15).
That smaller comes with the kingdom of heavens, which has not been established at that time, and he was proclaimed to come but he has not come yet, he is Muhammad (PBUH).
JESUS PROPHESIZES THE PARAKLETOS
The greatest prophecies about the expected prophet, in the New Testament, are the prophecies of Jesus (PBUH) about the arrival of the Parakletos to this world.
John is the only evangelist who mentioned these continuous prophecies in his book. Advising his disciples, Jesus said:
"If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another helper, to be with you forever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him; for he dwells with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more; but you will see me: because I live, you also will live. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. Whoever has my commandments, and keeps them, he it is who loves me: and he; who loves me, will be loved by my Father, and I will love him, and manifest myself to him. Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, Lord, how is it that you manifest yourself to us, and not to the world? Jesus answered him, If anyone loves me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words: and the word that you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me. These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance, all that I have said to you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you: not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let them be afraid. You heard my say to you, I am going away, and I will come to you. If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father: for the Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe. I will no longer talk much with you: for the ruler of this world is coming, and has no claim on me." (John: 14/15-30).
In chapter 15, Jesus advised his disciples asking them to keep his commandments. He says, "But when the helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me: And you also will bear witness, because you have been with from the beginning. These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: "I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me. But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you. "I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, 'Where are you going?' But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. " (John: 15/26 - 27, 16/ 1 -14).
In these sentences, Jesus (PBUH) talks about the characteristics of the prophet who comes after him, so who is that prophet?
The Parakletos according to Christians
Christian’s response is, that the coming is the Holy Spirit that came to the disciples on the fiftieth day to give them condolences for their loss of Jesus (PBUH), and there “when the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them, and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts: 2/1-4). The New Testament does not mention anything, other than what mentioned above, regarding this event.
In his interpretation of the Book of John, priest Athanasius says:
“The Parakletos is the Holy Spirit himself, the Comforter, "The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name." (John: 14/26), and he is the one who came to them on the fiftieth day, (Acts: 2/1-4) whereby, they were filled with him, and set out to preach, and he is with the church within believers, and he is a grace joined with belief and baptism.
The Clerical Dictionary of Theology said: "The Greek word Parakletos, was derived from saint John's writing. It does not represent the nature of a person, but his job. It is for the one who plays the role as a positive assistant, an attorney and a supporter. The one who works this assignment is Jesus. Who is, an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins" (John 1: 2/1-2), also the Holy Spirit works this assignment too, who makes the presence of Jesus reality as he is his witness and his defender among believers". 1
The Parakletos according to the Muslims:
Muslims believe that what came in the Book of John about the Comforter, the coming leader of this world, is a prophecy from Jesus (PBUH) about our prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and that is clear for several reasons:
One of these reasons is that, the phrase "The Comforter” is a modern phrase that was replaced in the new translations of the New Testament, while the ancient translation (Douay-Rheims Bible1899) used the Greek word (Parakletos) as it is which is practiced by many international translations.
To interpret the Greek word "Parakletos" we say, This Greek originated word can only be one of two words.
The first word is "Paraklee tos", which means “the Comforter, the helper or the agent” as the Christians say.
The second word is "Peroklotos", which is close in meaning to “Muhammad and Ahmad”.
In his interpretation of the Book of John, priest Athanasius says:
"If the pronunciation of the word “parakleet” is slightly changed, it becomes " Perklet", which means “thankfulness” or “ Praising” which is close to the word Ahmad".
Dr. Carlo Nelno, a PhD holder in Jews ancient Greek literature, once questioned by Abdul Wahab Al Najar about the meaning of the word " PERKLOTOS" and he said: "the one who praised continuously”.
What confirms this translation error is that the Greek word (PERKLOTES) is a name and not an adjective, as the Greeks used to add an "s" at the end of names, but they do not, to adjectives.
ABDUL AHAD DAWOOD sees the church's translations of the word “PARAKLETOS" as "a person to be called for assistance, an interceder, an attorney or an intermediate" is incorrect. He said that, the Greek word “PARAKLETOS” is not equal to any of these words. He added that, the condolences giver in Greek is (PARAKALON OR PAREGORETS), the attorney is (SANGRES), and as for the intermediate or the interceder, they use the word "MEDETIA". Based on that, the church ignorance of the word’s correct meaning, which is “praising”, is a fabrication.
Dr. Smeson in "The Holy Spirit or a power in heavens", says, "the condolences giver name is not a very accurate translation".
The Clerical Dictionary of Theology confirms it, when the authors wrote, “the meaning of "the condolences giver" which was probably extracted from the wrong linguistic origin is not listed in the New Testament". 1
From the aforementioned, we find that there is a disagreement between the Muslims and the Christians about the Greek origin of the word "Parakletos". Muslims believe that its origin is "Perklotos" and there was a fabrication done by the Christians to hide the word's indication to the prophet's name (PBUH) Ahmad (the one who is praised continuously). Such fabrication is an easy task for those whose book is a calamity, full of conflicts, fabrications and contradictions
Changing names is common in the Bible when translating from language to language and in editions. The name "Barabas" in the Protestant translation, is "Baraba", in the Catholic translation, and (messia, mashih) and (shilon, Shiloh) and many more. The word "Perklotos" is translated from Assyrian, the original language of Jesus (PBUH), it is possible that such change can happen during the translation.
To clarify the fabrication in this paragraph, Edwin Jones in his book "The Origin of the Christian Religion" confessed that the word "Parakletos" means Muhammad. Nevertheless, he suppressed his confession with a lie and a calamity that knowledgeable people and scholars will never buy. He said, “The Christians inserted this name in the Book of John out of ignorance of the appearance of Islam and they were affected by the Muslims’ religious culture”.
In his book about the life of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the Austrian fanatic Oriental Luis Springer (D.1893 C.E), solved the problem in a different way. A way will astonish and amaze the reader and make him wonder. He claimed that the real name of the prophet is QATHM, and that the prophet (PBUH) was named Muhammad in MADINA after he mixed with the Christians, and that he picked this name through his readings of the bible's prophecies about the PARAKLETOS (MANHAMNA in Assyrian).
Many orientalists supported him, the French Jewish orientalist Hartwig Derenbourg (1908), and the German fanatic orientalist Theodore Noldekh (1930) the author of the book "The History of the Quran", and the Italian orientalist Prince Lyon Caytani in his famous book “nnalli dell' Islam”. 1
The PARAKLETOS is a human prophet, not the Holy Spirit:
Whatever the meaning of PARAKLETOS is Ahmad or the comforter, the description and the introductions, which Jesus (PBUH) gave to the PARAKLETOS, prove that they were not meant for Holy Spirit. They confirm that he is a human being that God gives the prophet-hood. This is clear through John's passages about the PARAKLETOS.
- When he talked about the Parakletos, John used transitive verbs (talking, hearing and blaming). When he said: "whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak ", these descriptions does not fit the fire tongues that came on the disciples on the fiftieth day. There is no trace of evidence that these tongues have said anything. The best that the spirit can do is an inspiration, talking is a human characteristic and not spiritual.
The early Christians interpreted John's words as a prophecy about a human being. Monotones in the second century (187) claimed that he is the coming Parakletos. Mane in the fourth century did the same, he claimed to be the Parakletos, and acted like Jesus by choosing twelve disciples and seventy bishops and sent them to the eastern countries. If their understanding were that the Parakletos is the third person in Trinity, the Holy Spirit, they would not dare to make this claim. 1
-Another description of the coming prophet is that he comes after Jesus (PBUH) departs this earth. Jesus and this comforter messenger cannot gather in this world. This, once again, affirms that the comforter cannot be the Holy Spirit, which supported Jesus throughout his life. Where the comforter does not come to this world while Jesus still in it. “If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you ".
The Holy Spirit existed before Jesus (PBUH), and he existed in the disciples before the departure of Jesus. The Holy Spirit was a witness for the creation of the heavens and earth, (Genesis: 1/2), and he was with the children of Israel for a long time " where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?" (Isaiah: 63/11).
The Holy Spirit also, had a role in the birth of Jesus (PBUH), for his mother “was found with child of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew: 1/18), and that indicated his presence. They were together in the day when Jesus was baptized. "And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him." (Luke: 3/22) Jesus gave him to the disciples before he left when he said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit." (John: 20/22), and according to the Jesuit priest hood edition: "and he blew in them, and said: take the Holy Spirit".
The Holy Spirit existed with Jesus and before him, and he was given to the disciples, but as for the comforter or the coming Holy Spirit, he was "if I do not go he will not come to you", so he was not the Holy Spirit as the Christians claim.
- What indicates the humanness of the Holy Spirit is that, he is from the same kind as Jesus (PBUH), and Jesus was human. Jesus said about him: "and I request from the father and he will give you another comforter". The Greek text uses the word (allon) which is used to indicate another person but from the same kind, while the word (hetenos) is used to indicate another person but from a different kind. It will make sense, if we say that another messenger is what was meant by that, but saying that another Holy Spirit is what was meant, does not make any sense, because the Holy Spirit is one and not many.
-The coming Holy Spirit was subject to denial from the Jews and the disciples, that is why Jesus (PBUH) repeated his request to believe in him and to follow him. He said to them, "if you love me then keep my commandments", and he said: "I told you before he will be, so if it happens you will believe” and he confirms his honesty saying: "he does not speak from himself, but all what he hears he speaks ".
These commands have no meaning if the coming was the Holy Spirit, as he descended as fire tongues, affected them to learn different languages, such a thing that does not need a command or an affirmation of his honesty, because it stays in the heart without a need to reject him or a power to deny him.
-The Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity, and according to the Christians faith, the disciples must have believed in him, so why did Jesus (PBUH) command them to believe in him?
-According to Christians, The Holy Spirit is God, who is equal to the Father in his divinity; therefore, he is able to speak for himself, but the coming spirit of the truth " does not speak from himself, but all what he hears, he speaks ".
-John's passage indicated that the time in which the Parakleetos will come would be later. Jesus said to them, “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you to all truth ". There are certain issues, which this prophet will tell but the disciples could not comprehend at that time if Jesus told it. The reason is that humanity at that time has not reached a condition of understanding this complete and comprehensive religion, a religion that contains all aspects of life. It is not possible that the disciples’ understanding has changed within ten days from the ascendance of Jesus to heaven, and there is nothing indicates such a change.
The Christians even reported about them that after the Holy Spirit descended on them, they have dropped many of the statute rules and they allowed the forbidden. Dropping the rules was easier for them than accepting anew Law, which they were not able to bear or handle at the time of Jesus. The Parakletos comes with a statute with rules that will be heavy on the weak assigned ones, as God said: {Verily, We shall send down to you a weighty Word (i.e. obligations, legal laws, etc.)} (Al-Muzamel: 5).
-Jesus told that, before the coming of the Parakletos, great and important events would happen. "They will cast you out of the councils, even there is a time that who kills you will think that they are serving God by doing that". That had happened after the fiftieth, even centuries after the resurrection of Jesus (PBUH). The passage does not talk about the Romans’ or the Jews’ persecution to the followers of Jesus, it talks about the clergymen persecuting the monotheistic followers of Jesus. They (the clergymen) think that, by doing such, they were doing well and good deeds, and that they are serving God and His religion. Their councils decided to kick monotheists, Arius and others, they kicked them out of the church councils, and they sentenced them to deprivation and abuse. This abuse and deprivation continued until the monotheists became rare prior to the appearance of Islam.
-John mentioned that Jesus (PBUH) told his disciples about the description of the Parakletos, Which does not match the Holy Spirit that came to the disciples on the fiftieth day. The Holy Spirit is a witness whose testimony about Jesus will support the disciples’ testimony. “He will testify to for me, and you will testify too" When did the Holy Spirit testify for Jesus, and with what?
Muhammad (PBUH) is the messenger of God, who testifies for Jesus (PBUH). He declared his innocence of atheism and of claiming divinity. He testified for his mother’s innocence of what the Jews have accused her {And because of their (Jews) disbelief and uttering against Maryam (Mary) a grave false charge (that she has committed illegal sexual intercourse);} (Al-Nesaa: 156).
- Jesus told that the coming Holy Spirit will glorify him. Saying: "he will glorify me, because he takes from what is mine and tells you" No one came after Jesus glorified him the way the prophet of Islam did. Mohammad praised and glorified Jesus, and explained his favor to humanity.
None of the New Testament's scriptures reported to us that the Holy Spirit praised Jesus or glorified him in the fiftieth day, when he descended shaped as fire tongues.
- Jesus told that the Parakletos would last forever, meaning his religion and statute. While we find that whatever power and capability, that were given to the disciples on the fiftieth (if it was true), disappeared with there death, and no report about the churchmen after them of doing such. Our messenger Muhammad (PBUH) will last forever with his guidance and his message, and there is no prophet or message will come after him.
- The Parakletos as Jesus (PBUH) mentioned "reminds you of all what I said to you". There was no need to such a reminder ten days after his resurrection. In addition, the New Testament did not report that the Holy Spirit reminded the apostles of anything. In the contrary, we find that their writings and epistles contain what indicates that some of them had forgotten to write details mentioned by others. The messenger of God, Muhammad (PBUH), reminds us of God's commands that were unknown to humanity, in which he revealed to his prophets including Jesus (PBUH).
The Parakletos has duties that the Holy Spirit did not perform on the fiftieth day. "And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment."
The Holy Spirit did not blame or correct anyone on the fiftieth day, but that was the doing of Muhammad (PBUH) with atheists and pagans.
Abdul Ahad Dawood sees, that Jesus explained the blame on the righteousness. "as of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and you see me no more”. It means that, he will blame those who believed in his crucifixion, and denied that he was saved from his wicked enemies. He told them that they will seek him but they will not find him, because he will ascend to heaven. “Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and just as I said to the Jews, so now I also say to you, 'Where I am going you cannot come.' (John: 13/33)
The coming prophet will blame the devil too, and indict him with the guidance and revelation that he will announce "Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.". 1
Blaming does not match the one who was named the “comforter”, as it is told that he came to give condolence to the disciples for the loss of their master and prophet. Nevertheless, the condolence is given in calamities, and Jesus (PBUH) gave them good news of his departure and the arrival of the coming prophet after him.
In addition, the condolence is offered at the time of the calamity or a little after, but not ten days, (the time the Holy Spirit came to the disciples), and why did not the comforter offer condolences to the mother of Jesus, as she deserves it more than anyone else?
Christians have no right to consider killing Jesus (PBUH) a calamity that requires condolences. They believe that it is the reason for humanity’s salvation and everlasting happiness. Its occurrence should be an unmatchable joy; therefore, if Christians insist that the disciples were in need for condolences from the Holy Spirit, then the Atonement creed is meaningless.
The above mentioned proved that the Holy Spirit is not the Parakletos. The Parakletos’ descriptions are descriptions of a prophet who will come after Jesus (PBUH). The prophet that Moses (PBUH) prophesized, "He does not speak from himself, but all what he hears he speaks ", and, "I will put my words in his mouth, so he speaks to them with all what I command him ". These are the descriptions of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as God said: {Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only an Inspiration that is inspired. He has been taught (this Qur'ân) by one mighty in power [Jibrael (Gabriel)].} (Al-Najm: 3-5).
Not only that, but also whatever mentioned about the Parakletos has signs in the Quran and the tradition of Muhammad (PBUH). These signs indicate that this prophecy is Muhammad’ (PBUH). He was the testifier for Jesus (PBUH), he was the one who told about the future, and he is the final prophet, who God has accepted his faith until the Day of Judgment.
PRIEST FENDER’S OBJECTIONS AND ALHINDI’S RESPONSE
Priest Fender raised some issues, which he thinks they could refute the Muslims’ saying that the Parakletos is prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
First: It was mentioned three times that the Parakletos is “the spirit of the truth”, and in a fourth time that he is “the Holy Spirit” 1 and, as the priest Fender said, these words are a like and indicate the Holy Spirit.
In his great book “the Truth Revealed”, the learned Muslim scholar Rahmatu Allah Al Hindi agrees with the likeness of these words. He confirms that, the phrase (the spirit of God) is an indication to the prophets too, as in what came in John's first epistle: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God: for many false prophets have gone out into the world. But this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." (John 1: 4/1-2), the true honest prophets are the spirit of God, while the false prophets are the spirit of devil.
John explained how to differentiate the spirit of truth from the spirit of misguidance. in other words, to know the true honest prophets and differentiate them from the false prophets. He said, " But this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God .And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming; and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them: for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world, therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God: whoever knows God listens to us; by this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." (John1: 4/2-6).
Our prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the spirit of truth as John said. He recognizes Jesus (PBUH) as a human and a messenger from God, that he is flesh and blood, and that he is from God just as the rest of humanity is from God, meaning that God created them. Paul was the spirit of misguidance, who considered Jesus God, and he who was in the world at that time.
Second: In the Book of John the addressing was towards the apostles as in his saying "to teach you" and "I will send him to you", so the Parakletos must have been in their time.
Rahmatu Allah Al Hindi did not agree with this understanding, He said that Jesus meant Christians in general. This way of expression is common in the New Testament, as what came in Matthew regarding the Jesus’ speech to the high persists, the elders and the council. "Jesus said to him, you have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matthew: 26/64), and the addressees have died and perished, and they did not see him coming on the clouds of the heaven.
Similarly, is what Jesus (PBUH) said: "And he said to him, truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man." (John: 1/51)
Third: That people will not see or know the Parakletos, as in the verse, "the world cannot accept him, because they cannot see him or know him, but you will know him because he is staying with you, and he will be among you" while Muhammad (PBUH) was known and seen by people.
Rahmatu Allah Al Hindi’s response to this, that this is nothing, because according to them the Holy Spirit is God or the spirit of God, and the world knows their God more than they know Muhammad (PBUH), so it is not applicable to their interpretation in anyway.
In addition, Al Hindi sees that what was meant with the verse is that, the world does not know this prophet the true knowledge (meaning his prophecy), but the Christians and the Jews knew him, because Jesus (PBUH) and the prophets informed you about him.
The rest of the people, they are as Jesus said: "This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." (Matthew: 13/13). 1
When Jesus said, "the world cannot accept him, because they cannot see him or know him, but you will know him because he is staying with you, and he will be among you". He did not mean the sight seeing or the actual knowledge, but the heart knowledge. He mentioned the same about himself when he said, "They said to him therefore, where is your Father? Jesus answered, you know neither me, nor my Father: if you know me, you would know my Father also." (John: 8/19). There are many of similar verses in the Gospels. In his interpretation to the Book of John, Mathew Henry said, that “the word (to see) in the Greek text does not mean the eye sight, but the insight.”
Moreover, perhaps they do not know the expected coming prophet because he was a stranger and not Jewish "but we know where this man comes from: and when the Christ appears, no one will know whence he comes from." (John: 7/27).
Fourth: It was mentioned that the Parakletos "resides by you and that he is among you", that indicated (according to priest Fender's opinion) that he was with the apostles, and that does not apply to Muhammad (PBUH).
Rahmatu Allah Al Hindi sees that the text in other translations and editions stated as, "stable with you and he will be among you", and in others, "staying with you and he is with you". That in any case means the future and not that time; in other words, he will reside by you or stay with you.
That is because the text indicated that. It tells that the Parakletos was not among them at that time. "I said to you before he will be, so when he comes you will believe", and "if I do not go the Parakletos will not come to you", and that is what the Christians say, as they believe that his coming and his arrival was in the fiftieth day.
Similarly, Ezekiel told about the appearance of the Gog and the Magog people in the present tense, while they did not appear yet. He said, "Behold, it is coming, and it will be brought about, declares the Lord GOD; this is the day of which I have spoken." (Ezekiel: 39/8), and the same in (John: 5/25).
Fifth: In Acts: "And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, you heard from me. For John baptized with water; but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." (Acts: 1/4-5) Fender sees that this "indicates that the Parakletos is the spirit that came down on the fiftieth day, because the Parakletos is what was meant by the father's promise".
Responding to this, Rahamtu Allah Al Hindi explains that what came in the Book of Acts is a different promise that is not related to the Parakletos that John mentioned, as they were promised with the coming of the Holy Spirit in another occasion, and the promise was fulfilled with what Luke mentioned in the Book of Acts. What John mentioned about the coming of the Parakletos has nothing to do with this issue.
Some other Christians object that this prophecy is applicable to prophet Muhammad (PBUH), because Jesus (PBUH) is the one who will send the Parakletos. "But if I left I will send him to you", similarly, when he said, "The comforter that I will send to you from the father", while Muhammad is the messenger of God and not Jesus.
Christians forgot the words of God, "The comforter, the Holy Spirit, who will be sent by the father", so he is a messenger of the father, and saying that Jesus will send him is metaphoric and not real. Similarly, what came in Genesis, "The angel of the LORD also said to her, I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude." (Genesis: 16/10) even though, the multiplier and the one who blesses the offspring of Hagar and others God is and not his angel. However, since the angel was the informer, then the act attributed to him.
In addition, what came in the Book of Kings, when Prophet Elijah attributed the divine punishment to himself, the punishment that God meant for the king Ahab. "Ahab said to Elijah, Have you found me, O my enemy? He answered; I have found you, because you have sold yourself to do what is evil in the sight of the LORD. Behold, I will bring disaster upon you, I will utterly burn you up, and will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel," (Kings 1: 21/20-21)
Prophet Elijah attributed to himself what is in reality the act of God, so this attribution was not real, but he deserved it by being God's informer of this punishment. Similarly is what Jesus (PBUH) said in his prophecy about the Parakletos.
Consequently, we find in the Parakletos the prophecy that is mentioned in the Holy Quran {And (remember) when 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), said: "O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allâh unto you confirming the Taurât [(Torah) which came] before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed . But when he (Ahmed i.e. Muhammad) came to them with clear proofs, they said: "This is plain magic."}
(Al-Saf: 6).
CONCLUSION
We saw that the prophets one after another prophesized and foretold about the final prophet "The Law and the prophets until the time of John gave glad tidings of the kingdom of God".
They fulfilled their covenant that God took on them, and that is to believe and support the final prophet when he comes. {And (remember) when Allâh took the Covenant of the Prophets, saying: "Take whatever I gave you from the Book and Hikmah (understanding of the Laws of Allâh, etc.), and afterwards there will come to you a Messenger (Muhammad) confirming what is with you; you must, then, believe in him and help him." Allâh said: "Do you agree (to it) and will you take up My Covenant (which I conclude with you)?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness; and I am with you among the witnesses (for this)."} (Al-Emran: 81).
The prophets reported to their people the news of this prophet "all the prophets and the statute until John prophesized, and if you wanted to accept to there is Elijah the proclaimed to come".
The Holy Bible (in spite of the alteration it is exposed to) preserved for us some of these prophecies about this great prophet, that he is the prophet who will fulfill God’s promise to Abraham and his wife Hagar with the blessing in her son Ishmael, and he is the one "that nations submit to".
He is the prophet who was like Moses (PBUH), whom Moses had told his people, the children of Israel. He is the prophet whose prophet-hood will glitter near the mountains of Paran, and he will be from a nation that will practice the Law of the kingdom of God, which will be taken away from the children of Israel. "And it will be given to a nation that will work for its fruits", and that's because they "replaced me with another God, and they angered me with their fake worships, and I will also replace them with another nation, and with an illiterate nation that angered them".
Therefore, the prophet-hood and the choice were transferred to the despised Arab nation "the brick which the builders refused became the corner stone".
The Gospels’ and the Torah’s texts mentioned the name of the prophet and his characteristics, as Jesus (PBUH) called him "The Parakletos", which means Ahmad, and the angels promised of him "and the submission is on earth, and Ahmad to the people" (according to the translation of the previous priest Abdul Ahad Dawood).
The scriptures also talked about the land in which he will immigrate to "revelation from the side of the Arab land, in the wilderness of the Arab land", and called on supporting and sympathizing with him "O you residents of the Temaa land provide the fugitive with his bread".
It also talked about the victory of this prophet, that his religion will reach the whole world. He is the one that "his hand is on everyone, to him nations will submit, nations under you are falling, He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries, and He shall not be tired or weak until he put the truth to the world.
He is the wrath that comes to the unbelievers, such as the Jews whom John the Baptist warned. Saying, "O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?… he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner. but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.", and "Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. ".
We have seen also, that the prophets had mentioned that this coming prophet is the last and final prophet. That, his kingdom, meaning his statute, will last forever. "The Lord of heavens establishes a kingdom that will never Extinct … and it will stay forever", and "as for the upper saints they will take the kingdom, and they will keep the kingdom for eternity and forever". Muhammad (PBUH) said, “a group of my followers will remain steady until God’s will comes.), and in Muslim's narration: (until judgment day) 1, and that he is the one that Jesus (PBUH) prophesized to his nation when he said: “He will give you another Comforter to stay with you forever".
The message of this prophet is not exclusive of the Arabs or the children of Israel, instead it is for all nations, as, he "blames the world for a sin" and "to him nations will submit", and he is "the desire of all nations", the one "for all nations, states and tongues to worship".
Moreover, he is the illiterate prophet whom the Torah and the Gospels described. "and I will put my words in his mouth", and he is the illiterate, who was prophesized with the prophet-hood in the cave of Hiraa "And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.".
He is the one who does not speak from his own desire "does speak not from himself, but all what he hears he speaks with", and he will deliver all his message, and death or murder will not stand against his mission "so he speaks to them with all what I command him with".
Like Moses (PBUH), he has a statute "and the isles shall wait for his law.", and his law is supported by strength "and from his right hand went a fiery law for them.” His law is comprehensive of all the aspects of life as he "teaches you everything", and "he guides you to all the truth", and with his appearance the Law of Moses will be abolished "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come;"
He is the greatest being, while women did not give birth to someone such as John the Baptist, but "notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." (PBUH)
Christopher Davis, a professor of comparative religion, was right when he said, "Indeed, all these prophecies with it is meanings and descriptions does not match anyone except the Arabian prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
Sources and References:
• The Holy Quran
• The Holy Bible, English Standard Version.1981
• The Holy Bible, The Middle East Holy Bible’s publishers edition, Protestant’s copy
• The Holy Bible, The Middle East Holy Bible’s publishers edition, Orthodox’ copy
• The Holy Bible, the Jesuit priest hood edition, Catholic’s copy, issued by the Jesuit fathers, and distributed by the Holy Bible's organizations in the East, Beirut. (Translated from the Good News Bible, Today’s English Version, 2nd Edition 1992)
• The Bible in Basic English, 1965
• Douay-Rheims Bible, 1899
• Darby Bible, 1889
• The Holy Bible (The Hebrew Holy Scriptures and the Greek Holy Scriptures) new world translation, (Jehovah witnesses’ edition)
• The Samaritan Torah, Translated by Priest Abu Al Hassan Isaac Assory, Published by Ahmad Hijazy Al Saqa (1st edition) Al Ansar publishing, Cairo, 1398 lunar calendar
• The Gospel of Barnabas, Translation of Khalil Saada. Al Wathaeq publishing's edition. Kuwait, 1406 lunar calendar,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Analytical and critical study of the Book of Mark, historically and subjectively, Muhammad Abdul Halim Mustafa Abu Al Saad, 1st edition 1404 lunar calendar.
• John the Baptist between Islam and Christianity, Ahmad Hijazy Al Saqa, 1st edition, Al Turath Al Araby publishing, 1399 lunar calendar
• Muhammad in the Holy Bible, by: David Benjamin (Abdul Al Ahad Dawood), translation of Fahmy Shamma, revised by Ahmad Mohammad Al Sediq, Doha Modern press.
• Muhammad in the Torah, Bible and the Quran, Ibrahim Khalil Ahmad, The commercial bookstore, Mecca, 1409 lunar calendar
• Muhammad the prophet of Islam in the Torah, Bible and the Quran, Muhammad Ezzat Al Tahtawy, Al Noor booksstore
• The Truth Revealed, Rahamtu Allah Al Hindi, revised by Muhammad Ahmad Malkawy, Al Hadith publishing, Cairo, 1404 lunar calendar
• The Gospel and the Cross, Abdul Ahad Dawood, Cairo 1351 lunar calendar
• The Clerical knowledge Encyclopedia, 3rd edition, Al Thaqafa publishing 1995
• The Expected Messiah the prophet of Islam (PBUH), Ahmad Hijazy Al Saqa, 1st edition, Al Thaqafa Al Deeneya bookstore, Egypt, 1398 lunar calendar
• The prophecies of the prophet of Islam in the Torah & the Gospel, Ahmad Hijazi Al Saqa, Albayan Al Araby publishing, Cairo, 1977
• The History of Arabs in Islam, Jawad Ali, 1st edition, Al Hadatha publishing, Beirut, 1983
• The History of the Christian Ideology, the Priest Dr Hana Gerges Al Khodary, Dar Al Thaqafa publishing, Cairo, 1981
• The Interpretation of John’s Gospel, Priest Athnasius, 4th edition, Dar AlJeel, Cairo, 1995
• The Holy Bible’s dictionary, a selection of professors and theologians, editors, Botros Abdul Malik, John Alexander Thomson, Ibrahim Mattar, 9th edition, Al Thaqafa publishing, 1994
• The Practical Interpretation of the Holy Bible, group of theology scholars, Cairo
• What do the Holy Bible and the west say about Muhammad (PBUH)? , Ahmed Deedat, 1st edition, the Egyptian house of publishing and distribution, Cairo, 1404 lunar calendar
Index:
SUBJECT Page No.
Introduction 1
Introduction to the Holy Bible's prophecies 4
The expected king 9
The Disciples’ lake of understanding the Messiah’s prophecies 12
Did Jesus (PBUH) claim that he is the expected messiah? 18
Did Muhammad (PBUH) call himself the expected prophet 27
Ishmael's blessed offspring 30
Who is the blessed slaughtered? and where is the blessed land? 38
Were the children of Israel exclusively the chosen? 46
The description of the new Kingdom’s nation 49
Jacob's (PBUH) prophecy of Shilon 59
Moses (PBUH) prophesies about the coming of a prophet and a messenger like him
63
Moses prophecy about the promised blessing in the land of Paran 72
Psalms gives prophecies of the description of the end of time’s prophet 76
DAVID (PBUH) GIVES PROPHECIES OF A PROPHET WHO IS NOT OF HIS OFFSPRING
80
Prophecies of the Kingdom 83
Prophet Daniel prophesize of the time of the Kingdom 96
The prophecy of (Mehmad), the nations desire 101
The prophecy about Elijah 105
The least in the Kingdom of God 113
Jesus prophesizes the Parakletos 115
Conclusion 131
Sources and References 134
True Guidance and Light series (3)
IS ALLAH (S.W) ONE OR THREE?
By:
Munqidh Bin Mahmoud Assaqqar, PhD
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, all praise and thanks to Allah - God Almighty. It is with great honor that I present this humble work to my reader, hoping that God Almighty will help him benefit from it, and makes him and me among those who know the truth and among the guided.
Following the tradition of prophet Mohammad (PBUH) in thanking people who did us a favor, I would like to thank the many people who I benefited from in completing this work, and possibly my success in this work was a result of their prayers to God Almighty to help me to do so.
I wish to express my appreciation and gratitude to my noble parents, who have done the greatest favor for me, in continuously fostering and cherishing me. I also extend my appreciation to my faithful wife, for her continuous support, help, and for her standing beside me during the completion of this work.
I would also wholeheartedly like to express my thanks and gratitude to the translation team, who played a major role in enabling this book to reach the English speaking reader, Mr. Mahmoud Salah, the translator, and Mr. Ali Qassem, the proofreader.
Finally, I express my thanks and appreciation to Dr. John Eales, who has done me a great favor by doing the final proofreading. Even though he is of a different faith, he managed to do so, for he is concerned about searching for the truth, and following scientific methods in study and discussion.
I also extend my thanks and appreciation to all my brothers, friends and colleagues, who played any role in the completion of this book.
Munqidh Bin Mahmoud Assaqqar, PhD
INTRODUCTION
(Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him) (Holy Quran, 112: 1- 4)
(Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!) (Holy Quran, 5: 75)
(He was no more than a servant: We granted Our favour to him, and We made him an example to the Children of Israel.) (Holy Quran, 43: 59)
(They say, "((Allah)) Most Gracious has begotten a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son for ((Allah)) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of ((Allah)) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to ((Allah)) Most Gracious as a servant. He does take an account of them (all), and hath numbered them (all) exactly. And everyone of them will come to Him singly on the Day of Judgment.) (Holy Quran, 19: 88 -95)
These noble verses have summarized the Muslim’s concept, faith and belief in Allah (S.W) , the One and only, and His prophet Jesus (PBUH) . He is a noble prophet and a great messenger whom Allah (S.W) sent to declare monotheism, and supported him with signs and guidance.
Monotheism, which is what Mohammad (PBUH) carried to humanity, is the faith and belief of all the prophets (PBUT) before him. (Not an apostle did we send before thee without this inspiration sent by us to him: that there is no god but I; therefore worship and serve Me.) (Holy Quran, 21: 25)
However, Christians believe contrary to the Muslims, as they believe that Jesus (PBUH) is the Son of Allah (S.W), and some of them believe that he is Allah (S.W) himself. They also believe that He, (Allah (S.W)) came down from heaven, incarnated, was slapped, suffered and crucified, for the atonement of the sin of humanity, which they inherited from their father Adam.
I question, where did they derive this belief, and is there some evidence in their books that support it? (Say, "Bring your convincing proof.) (Holy Quran, 21: 24)
In this third part of my series, considering the importance and the seriousness of this issue, I put forward my important questions, was Jesus (PBUH) a messenger or God? Is Allah (S.W) One or three?
In order to answer these questions, I will search and investigate the Holy Bible, the Old and the New Testaments, supported by the clergymen’s and the western free thinker’s statements.
O Allah, show and guide us to the truth that we argue about, indeed, you guide, whom you will, to the straight path.
Munqidh Bin Mahmoud Assaqqar, PhD
Makkah, Saudi Arabia / Rabee Awal, 1424 (Lunar year)
Email: munqidh@maktoob.com
JESUS CHRIST IN MUSLIM BELIEF
The Muslims’ belief in Jesus (PBUH), in summary, is that he is the son of the truthful and honored Mary; he was born miraculously without any male intervention or contact. Allah (S.W) sent him as a prophet and messenger to the Children of Israel, to declare monotheism and to prophesize the coming of the final prophet. Allah (S.W) also supported him with great miracles. Challenging the Jews, who wanted to kill him as was their habit of killing prophets, he continued his mission, and Allah (S.W) saved him from their wicked conspiracy and lifted him to the heavens.
Muslims also believe that Jesus (PBUH) will come back again before the Day of Judgment, calling all to worship Allah (S.W), the One and only, following His statute and Law, breaking the cross and raising the flag of monotheism.
To clarify this belief and for more illustration, we will review the verses of the Holy Quran, that Allah (S.W) has revealed regarding Jesus (PBUH).
The Holy Quran mentions that Allah (S.W) has honored Jesus (PBUH) by making him the son of the pure Virgin Mary, whom Allah (S.W) had chosen above the women of all nations. “Behold! The angels said, "O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations.” (Holy Quran, 3: 42)
It also mentions that, Allah (S.W) honored her with many graces, “Right graciously did her Lord accept her: He made her grow in purity and beauty: To the care of Zakariya was she assigned. Every time that he entered (her) chamber to see her, he found her supplied with sustenance. He said: "O Mary! Whence (comes) this to you?" She said: "From Allah. for Allah Provides sustenance to whom He pleases without measure.” (Holy Quran, 3: 37), that Zachariah adopted her after her mother took a covenant on herself to give her child to Allah (S.W), and that He ordered her to worship Him. "O Mary! Worship Thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down." (Holy Quran, 3: 43)
Mary (PBUH) became pregnant with her child after Allah (S.W) had given her a glad tiding by the angel, and He gave him a name. “Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah. (Holy Quran, 3: 45)
The verses declare that Allah (S.W) created this coming child, Jesus (PBUH), by a word from Him, without any human intervention. He created him with no father, and that would not make him divine, as Allah (S.W) also created Adam in an unusual way. “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, and then said to him: "Be". And he was. (Holy Quran, 3: 59) Allah (S.W) created Both, Jesus and Adam (PBUT) by the word “Be”.
The Holy Quran also mentions the birth of this holy child and it was without a father, being his first miracle (PBUH). “And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign” (Holy Quran, 23: 50) then Allah (S.W) Made him speak while he was still in his cradle, to refute the Jews’ wicked accusation to his mother, the pure virgin. “They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" He said, I am indeed a servant of Allah. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet, and He hath made me blessed wherever I be, and hath enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. (He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable, so peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"
(Holy Quran, 19: 28 -33)
"He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous." (Holy Quran, 3: 46)
When he (PBUH) grew up as a man, Allah (S.W) sent him as he sent many prophets before him. “And in their footsteps we sent Jesus the son of Mary”. (Holy Quran, 5: 46)
His message was to complete the message of Moses (PBUH). “'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you” (Holy Quran, 3: 50), therefore, Allah (S.W) had given him the knowledge of the Torah, “Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel” (Holy Quran, 5: 110) and He revealed the Gospel to him (PBUH). “We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light” (Holy Quran, 5: 46)
Allah (S.W) had supported Jesus (PBUH) with miracles, and had given him many signs, that were enough to convince his people to believe in him. “Behold! thou makes out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathes into it and it becomes a bird by My leave, and thou heals those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou brings forth the dead by My leave.” (Holy Quran, 5: 110)
Moreover, as a support, Allah (S.W) gave him the knowledge of the unseen, “I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe” (Holy Quran, 3: 49) and supported him with the Holy Spirit, Gabriel (PBUH). “We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.” (Holy Quran, 2: 87)
The Holy Quran illustrates that Jesus’ (PBUH) message was for the Children of Israel only, "And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel, (with this message): " (Holy Quran, 3: 49) and he delivered that message to them. “And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.” (Holy Quran, 61: 6)
The Holy Quran declares Allah’s (S.W) warning of committing excesses or exaggerating Jesus (PBUH). “O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him” (Holy Quran, 4: 171) and this is his true nature and identity “Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.” (Holy Quran, 19: 34-35), for Allah (S.W) Created him by His word (Be), God does not need to have a son, Jesus or any other.
Furthermore, the Holy Quran declares that Jesus (PBUH) did not claim divinity. On the contrary, he will reject and deny everyone who claims his divinity, and that will be when Allah (S.W) asks him: “And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things”. (Holy Quran, 5: 116-117) He (PBUH) would say that, for he is just a man.
Therefore, Christian belief in him as divine, and as a son of God is false. “Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.” (Holy Quran, 19: 34), “and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth” (Holy Quran, 9: 30), the verses also condemn those who say that Jesus (PBUH) is Allah (S.W) himself. “In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all, everyone that is on the earth”? (Holy Quran, 5:17)
Thus, the belief in this great prophet is one of the pillars of the Muslim faith, and Allah (S.W) will not accept one without this belief. “The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His apostles. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His apostles” (Holy Quran, 2: 285). May Allah’s (S.W) mercy and peace be upon them all!
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE FOR CHRIST’S DIVINITY
In spite of their various opinions about Jesus (PBUH), Christian sects believe that he is God incarnate, supporting this claim with many passages from both the Old and the New Testaments, which speak of his Divinity. These passages, calling him Lord, God or the Son of God, convey that Allah (S.W) had incarnated in him, and that he had created some creations. They consider that his foretelling about the unknown and his raising of the dead is the greatest evidence of his Divinity.
An Introduction to the Discussion on Christian Evidence for Christ’s Divinity
It is important, before we start to discuss this evidence, to mention and consider these following few notes:
1) There is no passage in the entire Bible, Old or New Testaments, where Jesus (PBUH) himself declared divinity or that he asked people to worship him. Furthermore, not one of his contemporaries worshipped him. The Jews considered him as someone who claimed prophethood, some believed him, but the majority of them rejected the entire idea.
There is no base in the Holy Bible for Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity. Regarding this, Deedat challenged the Swedish archbishop, in their televised debate saying: “I will put my head in a guillotine if you show me one verse where Jesus himself says ‘I am God’ or where he says ‘Worship me’.”
In his book (The Secrets Key), Priest Fender explained why Jesus (PBUH) did not openly declare divinity in the New Testament. He said:
“No one could understand this relationship and unity before his resurrection and ascension. If he did so, they would understand that he is God in a human body… the Jewish high priests wanted to catch him and stone him, the fact is that he did not declare his divinity except by puzzles and parables.”
The fear from the Jews is an unacceptable reason for Allah (S.W) or even for Jesus (PBUH) to hide his identity. He used to face and condemn the Jews every now and then as is recorded in the Gospels. “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces, for ye neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in…. ye blind guides…. you fools and blind…. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you are like whitewashed tombs, you serpents, you generation of vipers, how can you escape being sentenced to hell? (Matthew 23/13-34) Surprisingly, how and why did he hide his identity from humanity? Doing so creates misguidance and confusion.
2) Not one of Jesus’ (PBUH) disciples considered him God, for none of them worshipped him. In addition, the disciples and Jesus’ (PBUH) contemporaries did not think of him as more than a prophet. (I will explain later)
3) The strongest evidence, which Christians present to prove Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity, is only in the Gospel according to John and in Paul’s Epistles, while the Synoptic do not contain a clear passage proving that.
The fact is that the non-existence of this evidence in the Synoptic was the reason that forced John - or the writer - to write a Gospel about Jesus’ (PBUH) Divinity. In this Gospel, we find that he wrote what the others did not write, and that this Gospel is full of metaphors and philosophy, which differs from Jesus’ (PBUH) simple environment and style, which made many commoners follow him.
4) The non-existence of a clear passage, which proves Jesus’ (PBUH) Divinity in the Synoptic, was the reason that led Christians to fabricate and alter the Bible’s editions. An example for that is that they have added the only clear passage that declares the Trinity in the First Epistle of John (John 1, 5:7).
Another example is in Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy. The editor’s fabrication is so clear. It says, “great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh”. (Ti 1, 3:16)
This verse, and according to Chrispach, is a fabrication. He said,
“It is a fabrication, as the word ‘God’ does not exist in the original codex, instead it contains the third person subject pronoun ‘He’ or the demonstrative pronoun ‘That or which’ ”.
Explaining the reason, history and time for this fabrication, Priest James Anas says,
“What makes the reading with the word ‘which’ more accurate, is that the old theologians did not mention it among the many verses, which they produced while they were refuting Arius. The reason for that change in the New Greek Manuscripts is the similarity between the two words. They both look alike in writing; the only difference between them is a small hyphen or a little dot. Most probably, the writers added this little line to clarify the meaning, thus, changing the word from ‘which’ to ‘God’. Then it spread over many copies in the middle centuries; conflicting what was found in the ancient copies, which contain only the word ‘That’”.
If we read Paul’s above-mentioned verse correctly, apart from the editor’s intended fabrication, we will find that it talks about the appearance of godliness in a living body, but the new translations changed it to evidence for God’s incarnation in Jesus (PBUH).
The Catholic Jesuits edition, the Douay-Rhiems Bible, and the Murdock Bible deleted the fabrication and corrected the verse. It reads, “Great is the mystery of godliness: which was manifest in the flesh”. (Ti 1, 3:16), replacing the word ‘God’ with the accurate word, ‘which’. Consequently, changing the meaning and the evidence for God’s incarnation in Jesus (PBUH) had disappeared.
Another example of these fabrications is the translators’ alteration in the Epistle of Jude. In the most famous and popular Protestant Edition, the Revised King James Version, we find what would deceive and delude the reader. It reads, “Now to him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Savoir, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever.” (Jud 1:24-25)
The fact is, that the verse mentions the ‘Savior God’ that would save people by Jesus’ (PBUH) mission and message, but not about Jesus himself. In the Catholic Jesuits' edition, and in the American Standard Version, we find the verse as follows: “to the only wise God our Savoir, through Jesus Christ our lord, be glory and majesty, dominion and power” (Jud 1: 25)
In the Protestant edition, they omit Jesus’ name to indicate that he is the Savior and not that he was the way to be saved. It calls Jesus (PBUH) ‘the only wise God’, but in the Catholic edition, the passage talks about Allah (S.W) ‘the only wise God our Savior’. Christians fabricated the verses when they could not find any evidence proving Jesus’ divinity (PBUH).
Dear brother, whoever searches for the truth, I invite you to join me in order to study scientifically, together and hand in hand, the Christians’ written evidence in which they claim that they prove Jesus’ Divinity (PBUH).
There are six categories of this evidence,
1. Verses that attribute divinity and lordship to Jesus (PBUH), which they call “God’s titles”
2. Verses mentioning his son-ship to God
3. Verses mentioning God’s manifestation in him
4. Verses that attribute God’s characteristics to him
5. Verses that attribute God’s deeds to him
6. Jesus’ miracles as a proof of his Divinity
1- VERSES THAT ATTRIBUTE DIVINITY AND LORDSHIP TO JESUS (PBUH)
Christians present some passages attributing divinity and lordship to Jesus (PBUH), and they believe that these words are evidence for his Divinity. The first is his name “Yashua”, which derives from the Hebrew word “yehwa khalas” which means, “God has saved”.
Another passage is what comes in the Book of Isaiah, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6).
They also believe that David’s description of the coming savior is undisputable proof because David called him “Lord”. “The LORD says to my Lord; Sit at my right hand, until I you’re your enemies your footstool. The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies! Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours. The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." ” (Psalms 110: 1-4)
Ibrahim Saeed, an Egyptian priest, says:
“Any one, who is not convinced with Jesus’ Divinity after reading Psalm 110, is one of two people. Either he is an illiterate and ignorant, whose eyes are covered with stupidity so he will not be able to see, or he is an arrogant, whose heart is filled with stubbornness and he does not want to see”.
There is another passage, which they also believe is proof of Jesus’ Divinity, that passage is in the Book of Isaiah, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14) for the word “Emanuel” means, “God with us”.
They believe that Jesus’ birth (PBUH) was a fulfillment of this prophecy, as the angel foretold Mary’s fiancé, Joseph the Carpenter. “She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). (Matt. 1:18-23) According to Christians, calling him Emanuel, “God with us” is evidence of his divinity.
In addition, they present Paul’s, Thomas’, and Peter’s sayings in the New Testament regarding this issue. “According to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. (Rom. 9:5)
“Thomas answered and said to him: ‘My Lord and my God’.” (John. 20: 28)
“Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, “Be it far from you, Lord: this shall never happen to you”. (Matt. 16:22)
“As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all).”(Acts 10:36)
In Revelation, there is another passage in this regard, “For he is Lord of lords, and King of kings.” (Revelation 17:14)
Names Do Not Prove Their Holders’ Divinity
None of these words makes Jesus (PBUH) God. Many of these words are used as names only, and if someone’s name is god, that does not make him God. According to the New Testament, people named Paul and Barnabas gods when they had performed some miracles. “And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!"”(Acts 14:11)
The Romans had the tradition of naming people, who had done something good for the nation, gods. This naming does not change the fact, does not change the creature to a creator, and does not change the mortal servants to immortal gods.
The meaning of Ishmael’s name is “God hears”, the meaning of Jehoecham is “God raise” and of Joshua is “God saved”. These people are not gods, even though they had these names.
We read in the Book of Revelation, “The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.” (Revelation 3:12) and in the Book of Numbers, “And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel” (Num. 6:27) but they are not gods.
Was “God”, Jesus’ (PBUH) name?
Muslims do not accept many of these passages, which the New Testament claims came from Jesus’ (PBUH) disciples, as true. They also believe that Christians intentionally fabricated these passages, as we found in the First Epistle of John (5:7). The fabrication and alteration may also happen because of bad and inaccurate translation.
The word “Lord" (capitalized), which we find in the Holy Bible’s translations, used to implicate the word “God”, but we find that some English translations are using the word “lord (with small “L", which means, “Master" or "Mister”. In the French translation, they use the word “Le mait” which means, “teacher”, and the same in other translations such as the German, the Italian and the Spanish.
The word “Rab”, which came in the Arabic translation, is not new; it is the Aramaic word “Rabbi”, which is of Jesus’ (PBUH) and his contemporary’s Aramaic language. This word, “Rabbi” is used as a respectful attribution to a master or a teacher.
The Gospel according to John mentions that the disciples used to call Jesus “Rabbi" or "Rabbony” and they meant teacher. Mary Magdalene turned to Jesus (PBUH) and said, “Rabboni; which is to say, Master…. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord” (John 20:16-17) in another passage, two of his disciples called him, “Rabbi, (which means teacher.” (John 1:38)
None of the disciples ever meant “God” when using that word to call Jesus (PBUH). What they really meant was teacher or master. Thus, they considered him like John the Baptist, as they said, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.” (Luke 11:1)
Using this word “lord” to mean master, is also common in the Greek language. Stephen Nail said, “The original Greek word that means ‘Master’, can be used as a way of respect. The prison guard spoke to Paul and Silas calling them rabbi or master. “And bringing them out, he said: Masters, what must I do, that I may be saved? And they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.”(Acts, 16:30), and this word is a word of honor”.
What proves this explanation is, Paul’s words, when he described Jesus (PBUH) as “Rabbi” (lord), but he still put him as a servant of Allah (S.W). “That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ; the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom, and revelation in the knowledge of him.” (Eph. 1:17)
Thomas’ response was not a direct speech to Jesus (PBUH). When he saw Jesus (PBUH) alive, and he thought he was dead, it was a great surprise for him, so he gave an exclamation, and it was “My Lord and my God.” (John. 20: 28)
This meaning may be obscure in some translations, but it is clear in the Greek originals. In the Greek manuscripts, we find the words as follows, “apok-ree’-nom-ahee” which means (that was his reaction).
The proof for this explanation is that Jesus (PBUH) said, in the same paragraph, that he would be ascending to his God. (John 20:17) If Jesus (PBUH) understood Thomas’ words as if he meant his divinity, he would not accept it. He refused even calling him good, for once, when his disciple called him so, he answered, “Why did you call me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.” (Matt. 19:17) If this was the case, how could he accept that someone call him God in reality?
Regarding Psalms (110:1), it did not mean Jesus (PBUH) in any way, but it meant the expected messiah whom the Jews were awaiting, and he is the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).
Peter made a mistake when considering the passage as it was for Jesus (PBUH), he said, “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' Let all the house of Israel; therefore, know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart.” (Acts: 2:34-37)
The proof of Peter’s misunderstanding, and the Christians after him, was that Jesus (PBUH) denied that he was the expected messiah, whom David mentioned. “While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, What do you think about the Christ? (Whom the Jews were awaiting) Whose son is he? They said to him, The Son of David. He said to them, how is it then that David, in spirit, called him Lord, saying, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool? If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, nor from that day anyone dare to ask him any more questions.” (Matt. 22:41-46)
Jesus (PBUH) asked the Jews about the expected messiah who David and other prophets had prophesized. “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he? They said to him, The Son of David.” He showed them that they were wrong and said, “If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
Mark also mentioned it, “"How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.' David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son? (Mark12: 35-37)
We also find the same in Luke. "How can they say that the Christ is David's son? For David himself says in the Book of Psalms, "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' David thus calls him Lord, so how is he his son?" (Luke 20:40-44)
The expected messiah is not a descendant of David, and Christians believe that Jesus (PBUH) is from David’s offspring as recorded in his genealogy in Matthew and Luke. Does Priest Ibrahim Saeed still insist in considering us as illiterates and unreasonable contenders because we say that that passage was not for Jesus (PBUH)?
What came in Isaiah regarding Emanuel was not for Jesus (PBUH) either, for that was never his name, and no one had ever called him that. The story in the Book of Isaiah speaks about an event, which happened centuries before Jesus (PBUH), when Rosin, the King of Edom, conspired with Faqah ben Ramlia, the King of the Northern Israelite Kingdom, against the Southern Kingdom and its King Ahaz.
The birth of Emanuel was Allah’s (S.W) sign of the end of punishment on Judea’s Kingdom, the destruction of Rosin’s and Faqah’s Kingdoms, and the death of the two kings by the hands of the Assyrians.
Isaiah says, “Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz… Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey. when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. The LORD will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah--the king of Assyria." In that day the LORD will whistle for the fly that is at the end of the streams of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. ” (Isaiah 7:10 – 18)
“Then the LORD said to me, "Take a large tablet and write on with the pen of man, 'for Maher-shalal-hashbaz.'… and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hashbaz; for before the boy knows how to cry 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."” (Isaiah 8:1- 4)
It is clear that this passage is about the Assyrian invasion of Palestine, which happened centuries before Jesus (PBUH). During that time, the boy was born, his father gave him a name after King Ahaz’s victory, which is “Mahershalalhashbaz”, and that name means, “Dashing to pillage and robbery” “Because God is with him”.
This prophecy came true, and King Ahaz had his victory when the Assyrian king came and captured the two conspiring kings. “The LORD spoke to me again: … therefore, behold, the Lord is bringing up against them the waters of the River, mighty and many, the king of Assyria and all his glory. And it will rise over all its channels and go over all its banks, and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel." Be broken, you peoples, and be shattered; give ear, all you far countries; strap on your armor and be shattered. Take counsel together, but it will come to nothing; speak a word, but it will not stand, for God is with us. ” (Isaiah: 8: 5-10)
I have to mention here, that Luke’s author used a fabricated passage from the Book of Isaiah. Neither in the old Hebrew originals, nor in the Torah’s old translation, have we found any trace of the word “betolah”, that means, “virgin”, which was invented and fabricated by the Seventieth Translation writers, and the evangelists copied it from them after that, for it suited them.
The word in the old Torah’s translations such as ecoela, thehodoshen, and semix translations, which belong to the second century, is “Alma” which means, “Young woman”. In the Revised Standard Version, 1952, the editors had changed the word “Virgin” into “Young woman”, but only in the English translation.
None of the names, which are in the passage in Isaiah (Isaiah 9:6), were names for Jesus (PBUH). “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)
Where and when did any one call him wonderful, counselor, the mighty, the everlasting Father, or the Prince of Peace? There is not a single passage in the entire Bible that can show proof of that.
If the Christians say that these were characteristics of Jesus (PBUH) and not names, we also say that these titles were not for him in any way. These characteristics speak of a victorious king who will rule his people and inherit David’s kingdom, and that is too far from Jesus (PBUH) according to the facts and the Gospels’ passages. Jesus (PBUH) was never a King of his people even for a day. On the contrary, he was a fugitive, scared and worried of the Jews; he also fled when his people wanted to make him a king. “Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.” (John 6:15)
He fled because his kingdom was not of this world and not on the throne of David, but was a spiritual kingdom in the hereafter. “Jesus answered, "My kingdom doesn't belong to this world. If it did, my followers would have fought to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. No, my kingdom doesn't belong to this world." ” (John 18:36)
In addition, Isaiah talked about the Prince of Peace and that cannot be an attribution to Jesus (PBUH), because the Gospels mentioned the opposite about him. “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.” (Matt.10:34-36) Could this Gospels’ Jesus be a prince of peace?
Furthermore, Isaiah talked about a capable person, he did not talk about an incapable one, who cannot do anything by himself. “I can do nothing on my own: as I hear, I judge” (John 5:30)
“"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. ” (John 5:19)
THE USE OF THE DIVINITY AND LORDSHIP TERMS IN THE BIBLE
Calling Jesus (PBUH), “lord" or "god” is not evidence of his divinity, for they are commonly in use in the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible uses these two words to name many creatures, among them are the angels.
In the Book of Judges, we read, “The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God." ” (Judges 13:21-22) (ESV), but he meant “the angel of Allah (S.W)”.
Allah’s (S.W) angel appeared to Sarah and gave her good news about Isaac. “And the angel of the LORD said to her… she called the name of the LORD that spoke to her, ‘you are the God of seeing.’ (Gen. 16:11-13)
Another example is in the Book of Exodus, which talks about the angel who accompanied the Israelites when they departed from Egypt and the passage calls him god. “And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them along the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; that they might travel by day and night…. And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them.”
(Ex.13:21, 14:19)
The Torah also gives these names to some prophets, but it does not mean the real meaning of the word. Allah (S.W) spoke to Moses regarding Aaron (PBUT), “He will be to you as a mouth and you will be to him as God.” (Ex.4:16) (ESV), “And the LORD said to Moses, see, I have made you a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.” (Ex. 7:1)
The prophets named Gods in the Torah metaphorically, and it meant “messengers of God”, as mentioned in the First Book of Samuel, “(Formerly in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, he said, "Come, let us go to the seer," for today's "prophet" was formerly called a seer.) ” (Sam.1 9:9)
The Torah also mentions the word “God” and it refers to Judges, because they Judge according to Allah’s (S.W) Law. “But if the servant shall plainly say… then his master shall bring him to God, and shall bring him to the door.”(Ex.21:5-6)
In the next chapter of the same book, we read, “If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to God to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor's property… The one whom God condemns shall pay double to his neighbor.” (Ex.22: 8-9)
In the Book of Deuteronomy, we read, “then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests” (Duet. 19:17)
In the Book of Psalms, “God stands in the congregation of God; He judges among the gods. How long will you judge unjustly, and respect the persons of the wicked?”(Psalms 82:1) It is clear that this passage talks about the Judges and the noble Israelites.
The use of this word has spread even further to call all the Israelites, as mentioned in Psalms. “I said, you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you shall die like men.” (Psalms 82:6) This passage is what Jesus (PBUH) quoted while he was speaking to the Jews. “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, you are gods? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say you of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent to the world, you blasphemes; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10:34)
The Holy Books continue in giving these names even to devils and nations’ false gods. Not only that Paul called the devil god, but also the belly. He said about the devil: “In whom the god of this world had blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ.” (Cor.2 4:4)
He said the following about people who follow their desires: “whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame.” (Phi. 3:19)
We find the same thing in Psalms. “For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.” (Psalms 135:5).
The divinity of the belly and the others is metaphoric and not real.
In “Explanation of the Faith’s principles” the authors wrote, “Moses was called god by God himself as he was acting on God’s behalf, and not because he was divine. The same goes for the Judges because they judge according to God’s Law. The belly, the statues and the money, it was called as such because some people had taken it as gods, and the devil was called god because he controls our world”.
This is the Holy Bible’s language and way of expression; whoever insists on taking its words literally, is wrong. The lordship mentioned above was just metaphoric, and the same goes for Jesus (PBUH).
In his book "the Precious Holy Bible seekers’ guide", Dr. Samaan Kahloon wrote, “Expressions in the Holy Bible are very metaphoric and mysterious especially in the Old Testament”.
He also wrote, “Expressions in the New Testament are also very metaphoric, specially "the words of our Savior", and because some of the Christian teachers used literal interpretation methods, many of the false and corrupted opinions were spread around…”2
In addition, when Jesus (PBUH) heard about these metaphoric gods, he declared that there is only One True God who is Allah (S.W), he said, “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3) which clearly means that heaven and eternal life will be obtained by bearing witness that Allah (S.W) is One, and that Jesus (PBUH) is his messenger, and this is what all Muslims believe.
2- VERSES ATTRIBUTING DIVINE SON-SHIP TO JESUS (PBUH)
The Gospels speak of Jesus (PBUH) as the Son of God, and Christians consider that as evidence of his divinity. Is that consideration correct, and what is the meaning of “the Son of God”?
Did Jesus (PBUH) call himself the “Son of God”?
The first issue that we have to consider is that Jesus (PBUH) did not call himself “the Son of God” except once (John 10:36). The rest of the Gospels’ passages tell us that his disciples and his contemporaries also said so. This is what made some scholars doubt that Jesus (PBUH) or his disciples had truly uttered these words.
In his book, “The Gospel Dictionary”, Senger wrote, “That Jesus himself used this term is uncertain”. In this regard, Charles Gene Pair said, “The firm conclusion of the researchers’ studies is, that Jesus never claimed that he was the expected messiah, and he never called himself the Son of God… for this language was not in use except by Christians who were influenced by the Greek Culture."
Coleman, the prominent scholar, said regarding this title, “The disciples, mentioned in Acts, were influenced by their master who did not use this title and he did not want it, and then they followed his steps”.
Jesus (PBUH) is also the “Son of Man”
There are eighty-three passages in the Gospels, which mention that people repeatedly call Jesus (PBUH) “the Son of Man”, and these passages contradict and refute the few passages that call him (PBUH) the “Son of God”.
Jesus (PBUH), according to the Egyptian Christian scholar Matta El Meskeen, had given himself this title “in order to hide his true divine son-ship when he spoke about himself”.
If these passages, which call Jesus (PBUH) “the Son of God”, are proof of his divinity, the other passages, which call him “the Son of Man”, are solid proof of his humanity, dismissing the divinity passages to their metaphoric meaning.
In Matthew, we read the following, “And Jesus said to him, the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.” (Matt. 8:20)
In Mark, “The Son of man indeed goes, as it is written of him” (Mark 14:21)
The Torah mentions that, “God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent” (Numbers 23:9) therefore, Jesus (PBUH) is not God.
There are many sons of God in the Bible, are they all Gods?
The title “Son of God”, which was attributed to Jesus (PBUH), was attributed to many others, and they were not considered as gods. However, their son-ship was metaphoric, meaning, believers and righteous. According to the Bible, the following people are sons of God:
Adam was the Son of God. “Adam, which was the son of God.”(Luke 3:38)
David was the Son of God. “I will declare the decree: the LORD has said to me, you art my Son; this day have I begotten you.” (Psalms 2:7)
Solomon was the Son of God. “He shall build me a house, and I will establish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (Chro.1 17:12-13)
The writer of Luke gave this title to the angels, because the use of it was common. “For they are equal to the angels; and are the children of God.” (Luke 20:36)
Other passages named others as sons of God or that God is their father. The disciples were sons of God, but no Christian said that they were Gods. “But go to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:17) “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48)
The entire Jewish race is also the Children of God. “They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father--even God." ” (John 8:41)
What come in Psalms and Job are alike. “For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? Who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD?” (Psalms 89:6)
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD.” (Job 1:6)
We also see that the Torah had given this title to the strong and noble people, and no Christian or others considered them as Gods. “The sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. ” (Gen. 6:2 - 4)
Therefore, Christians cannot take these passages as evidence of Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity, and prevent using the same for Adam, Solomon and the others. In order to do so, they have to present solid predominant evidence, which they do not and will never be able to have.
When the Jews wanted to fabricate an accusation for Jesus (PBUH), they said that he blasphemed by saying that he was the Son of God and meaning it in reality. Jesus (PBUH) rebuked them, and explained that it was metaphoric and not reality, as used in their books, which made all of the Jews sons of God.
He (PBUH) said, “If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemes; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.” (John 10: 35-37), meaning, if your book called you “sons of God” metaphorically, me too, I am saying that we are equal and I am the “son of God” metaphorically.
The Correct Meaning of “Son-ship”
The meaning of the son-ship of Jesus (PBUH) and others has a figurative and metaphoric meaning, which are, the one who is dear to God, the one who is obedient to God or the one who believes in God.
Mark, when he spoke about the centurion, who saw the crucified person, wrote, “And when the centurion, whom stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, truly this man was the Son of God.” (Mark 15:39)
When Luke mentioned the event, he changed the sentence to its equal. He says, “Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, certainly this was a righteous man.” (Luke 23:47)
We find the same use of this meaning in the Gospel according to John when he spoke about the believers. He said, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” (John 1:12) and he said, “He that is of God hears God's words” (John 8:47)
Paul declared the same fact, he said, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Rom. 8:14)
This metaphoric use is common in the Holy Books that speak about the children of evil and the children of the world. (John 8:44) (Luke 16:8).
When the devils mentioned the real meaning of the son-ship to Jesus (PBUH), he condemned them. “And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuked them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.” (Luke 4:41) He is the Christ only and not a real Son of God.
Did Jesus (PBUH) claim that he is a real son of Allah (S.W) and he is equal to Him?
One of the Christians’ allegations of Christ’s (PBUH) divinity is that he declared that he is equal to Allah (S.W) considering what came in the Gospel according to John. “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” (John 5:18) No doubt, that reading this passage out of context would make it evidence that indicates Jesus’ (PBUH) declaration of his real son-ship to God. This, only the unknowledgeable and ignorant people can accept, for, it is not true.
To understand this passage, we have to read it in context. Jesus (PBUH) had treated an ill person on the Sabbath, which the Jews considered wrong; therefore, “the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day.” (John 5:16) but he explained to them why he had done so. “But Jesus answered them, My Father worked hitherto, and I work.” (John 5:17), which means that, as God works on all days, I am also doing a good deed.
The Jews, who wanted to create a problem with Jesus (PBUH), considered his words “My father worked” as praising himself and a claim of the real son-ship to God. They considered this son-ship, which they commonly used metaphorically, as blasphemy and it meant that he was making himself equal to Allah (S.W); therefore, increased their desire to kill him. “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” (John 5:18)
With a long meaningful speech, Jesus (PBUH) answered them, explaining and refuting their claim, and proving to Christians their incorrect understanding. (John 5:19 -47) I will summarize these meaningful points according to their subject.
1- Jesus (PBUH) assured all that he was following Allah’s (S.W) path when he worked on the Sabbath, for he did not do something but what agrees with Allah’s (S.W) statute. “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he see the Father do: for what things so ever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (John 5:19)
2- He spoke about many great things that Allah (S.W) has given him, “For as the Father raised up the dead, and quicken them; even so the Son quicken whom he will. For the Father judges no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son… For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also.” (John 5: 21- 27), but all these gifts, were from Allah (S.W), and that did not mean that Jesus (PBUH) is Allah (S.W), for Allah (S.W) can do all that Himself without needing any one to give Him anything.
Jesus (PBUH) had clarified why he did so. It was because Allah (S.W) has given him these things considering his humanity and not divinity. He says, “And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.” (John 5: 27)
He affirmed that he had no authority by himself, and he could not do any thing except what Allah (S.W) permitted him to do. “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” (John 5: 30) That is to prove that he is the son of man, not the Son of Allah (S.W) in reality, or the second hypostasis in Trinity as the Church’s Councils claimed.
The great miracles that Allah (S.W) gave to Jesus (PBUH) were for two reasons. The first, is as he (PBUH) said, “For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that himself doeth”. The second is to prove his prophet-hood and make the people believe in him. “And he will show him greater works than these that ye may marvel. That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him… for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.” (John5:20, 23, 36)
3- Jesus (PBUH) assured that Allah (S.W) confirms his honesty. He said, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true… And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.” (John 5:31, 37)
The record of this testimony is in the previous sacred books that foretold about him. “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me… For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.” (John5:39, 46)
Moses’ (PBUH) books, which Jesus (PBUH) and the Jews accept, do not contain a line regarding any prophecy about an incarnated or crucified God. They testify the coming of a noble prophet. Do the Christians not claim that Moses had prophesized Jesus (PBUT) when he said, “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee? (Deut. 18:18)
One of the people, who testify for Jesus (PBUH), is John the Baptist (PBUH). However, Jesus (PBUH) dispensed this true testimony with Allah’s (S.W) one-ness, which is in their scriptures. “Ye sent unto John, and he bore witness unto the truth. But I receive not testimony from man… But I have greater witness than that of John” (John 5:33, 36)
There is nothing in the Baptist’s (PBUH) words that conveys the divinity of Christ, for he sent his disciples to ask Jesus (PBUH) whether he was the expected prophet or not. (Matt. 11:3)
4- Jesus (PBUH) declared that there was a difference between him and Allah (S.W) when he said, “For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that himself doeth…There is another that beareth witness of me… And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me… Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father”. (John5:20, 32, 37, 45) All these prove that Jesus (PBUH) is not Allah (S.W), for the lover is unlike the beloved, the witness is unlike the one who witnessed for, the sender is unlike the consignee, and the complainant is unlike the judge.
5- Jesus (PBUH) told the Jews that the way to eternal life is to believe in him and in his words. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” (John 5:24)
Those who did not believe in him will face as he said. “And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? (John 5:40 - 44)
From the above mentioned, we have seen that Jesus (PBUH) did not claim that he was equal to Allah (S.W), neither did he claim that the authority he had was his own, but he declared that Allah (S.W) had honored him and given it to him.
The Son Who Was Descended from Heaven
Christians believe that we should distinguish the son-ship of Jesus (PBUH) from the son-ship of the others. They do not argue that the passages, which mentioned the son-ship of others, are metaphoric, but Jesus (PBUH) is the Son of God in reality, for he is the only son who is descendant from above or from heaven. “He that cometh from above is above all.” (John 3:31)
They believe that the sign of his divinity shines in his saying, “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. (John 8:23) and that shows, according to Christians, that he is a unique divine son unlike the other sons.
The meaning of this heavenly descending is the descending of the signs and the statutes, and not the descending of the person himself and that makes him equal to all prophets. John the Baptist (PBUH) is one of them. Jesus (PBUH) asked the Jews, saying, “The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, of men; we fear the people.” (Matt. 21:25-26)
I need to mention also that there are many true heavenly descendants in the Bible, but Christians do not consider them gods.
The angel of Allah (S.W) was descended from heaven. “And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven.” (Matt. 28:2)
The disciples were also descendants from above or from Allah (S.W), as mentioned in the Gospels, which means they believe in his name. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” (John 1:12). This is a spiritual birth, which gives the heart of the sinner a great, complete and continuous change, as he or she is born again, and this happens when he or she believes and repents.
The believers in Jesus (PBUH) are born from above by the faith that Allah (S.W) has given them. They are alike with other believers, as Jesus (PBUH) said, “Truly, truly I tell you, unless a person is born from above he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3), “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.” (John1 5:1), and “that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.” (John1 2:29)
Jesus’ (PBUH) saying, “I am not of this world”, is not a proof of his divinity in any way, for he meant that he is different from other humans by refusing this secular world, for which other people are longing.
He (PBUH) said the same about his disciples when he felt that they wanted the eternal life, leaving this secular world. “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:19)
In another passage, he said, “I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” (John 17:14),
He (PBUH) said about his disciples what he said of himself, they were not of this world. If those words could make him God, it should also make all the disciples gods as well, but his expression was metaphoric as if we say, “this person is not from this world” and we mean, that he or she do not desire this materialistic world, but seeking Allah’s (S.W) love and the eternal life in the hereafter.
????????
3- VERSES OF THE DIVINE INCARNATION IN JESUS (PBUH)
Christians believe that some of the Holy passages convey divine incarnation in Jesus (PBUH). The following are some of these passages:
“That ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.” (John 10:38), “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father… I am in the Father, and the Father in me.” (John 14:9-10)
His saying, “I and the father are one” (John 10:30), remains the strongest evidence that Christians present to prove the divinity of Christ (PBUH). These passages, according to Christians, declare that Jesus (PBUH) is Allah (S.W) himself, and that Allah (S.W) is incarnated in him.
God’s Metaphoric Incarnation in His Creations
Scholars have analyzed these passages and proved the Christians’ misunderstanding of them. The Christians’ understanding of the verses that contain Allah’s (S.W) incarnation in Jesus (PBUH) - as they understand - is wrong. It is an indisputable fact that Allah’s (S.W) incarnation in his creations is a metaphorical incarnation, and it is the same for Jesus (PBUH).
Allah (S.W), according to the Holy Bible, incarnates in many, which means the divine gifts (or attributes) are incarnated and not Allah (S.W) himself. In the First Epistle of John we read, “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelled in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelled in love dwelled in God and God in him.” (John (1) 4:15-16). Therefore, Allah’s (S.W) incarnation or dwelling in those who believe in Jesus (PBUH), is not a true self-incarnation, otherwise, they will all be Gods.
In addition, Allah (S.W) incarnates or dwells in anyone who keeps the commandments, but that does not mean that that person becomes God. “And he that kept his commandments dwelled in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abided in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.” (John (1) 3:24). The meaning here is that Allah’s (S.W) guidance and support are with and upon them.
sake, and this, we find in the same Epistle. “No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit.” (John (1) 4:12-13). The same is in the Gospel according to John. “I in them and you in me” (John 17:23)
These verses denote and imply divine incarnation in all believers; it is, without doubt, a metaphorical incarnation, therefore, it is the same for Jesus (PBUH), and if some one wishes to claim otherwise, he or she should present the evidence.
Furthermore, the Torah mentions a real incarnation of Allah (S.W) in his creations, but Christians do not consider them gods.
In Exodus we read, “In the place, O LORD, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in.” (Exodus 15:17) and in Psalms, “Why leap ye, ye high hills? This is the hill which God desires to dwell in; yea, the LORD will dwell in it for ever.” (Psalms 68:16), and no one worships that mountain.
There are two important claimed incarnation passages, which are, (John 10:30), and (John 14:9), do these two verses prove Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity?
A) “I and the father are one” (John 10:30)
This sentence, which is attributed to Jesus (PBUH), is one important verse for those who believe in Jesus’ divinity. They understand that there is a real unity between him and Allah (S.W), which he (PBUH) himself had declared in front of the Jews and, that he meant his divinity.
In order to understand this passage, we have to read it from the beginning. During the Feast of Dedication, Jesus (PBUH) was walking in Solomon’s porch, the Jews came and said, “How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.” (John 10:24-30)
The passage from the beginning talks about a metaphoric issue. His sheep, which means his disciples, will follow him, so he will give them eternal life, which is heaven, and no one will take his sheep away from him, which means from his way and guidance, for, Allah (S.W) has given him and no one can take that from Allah (S.W), who is the greatest. Allah (S.W) and Jesus (PBUH) want good for these sheep; thus, the unity is of the objective and not the essence.
The Jews in Solomon’s porch misunderstood Jesus’ (PBUH) words, exactly, like the Christian’s, therefore, ‘the Jews took up stones again to stone him…For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus (PBUH) realized their misunderstanding, and was surprised how they could misunderstand his words since they are well acquainted with the Bible’s metaphoric language.
Quoting what comes in Psalms 82:6, he answered them, ‘Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?’ He meant that, how could you be surprised with my words since it is common in your book, which made all Israelites gods metaphorically? Therefore, Jesus (PBUH) deserves being a metaphoric god, more than all the Israelites. ‘If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came…Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. (John 10:35-37)
Giving his opinion about this passage, Matta El Meskeen said, “Jesus quoted Psalm 82, for God’s angel gives this attribute to the council that gathered to judge according to God’s word… and that is an answer to their claim, which considered Jesus as committing blasphemy, while all those who received God’s words are considered in the Torah as gods.”
Therefore, with this verse from Psalms, Jesus (PBUH) corrected the Jews’ and the Christians’ misunderstanding about his unity with Allah (S.W).
This way of expression about the similarity of will and objective, is common in the Christians’ sacred writings, especially in the Gospel according to John. Quoting Jesus, about the disciples, John said, ‘That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they ( the disciples) also may be one in us that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me’ (John 17:20-23). This dwelling and incarnation are metaphoric; otherwise, we should consider the disciples as gods.
The passage uses the word “as”, which denotes similarity between the two parties, and the meaning is, (as Jesus and the father are one, also the disciples, Jesus and the father are one), meaning, similar in objective, and not self-similarity, for no Christian speaks of a real self unity of Jesus and his disciples.
In another passage, Jesus (PBUH) mentioned the same meaning. He said about the disciples, ‘Holy Father, keep through your own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. (John 17:11). That means as our unity is an objective unity; therefore, their unity should be like ours as well.
Similarly, a verse comes in another chapter. ‘At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (John 14:20).
Paul said the same, ‘For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.’ (Co. (2) 6:16). Again, Paul said, ‘I have planted, Apollos watered… Now he that plants and he that waters are one… For we are laborers together with God’ (Co.1 3:6-9). Paul’s unity with Apollo, is also the shared objective unity.
Describing the relationship between husband and wife, the Torah says, ‘therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.’ (Gen. 2:24). Means they are the same, not because their two bodies became one body.
Therefore, we should not understand these verses shallowly and literally, as Matthew said, ‘And said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?’ (Matt. 19:5). The same is for Jesus (PBUH) when he said, “I and the father are one”.
The Quran mentions the same about Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), but the Muslims do not understand or take it as real God incarnation in Mohammad (PBUH). “Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to God.” (Holy Quran 48:10)
No Muslim said, or will say, that Allah (S.W) and His Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) are one self, unlike what Christians say regarding Jesus’ (PBUH) saying, “I and the father are one”.
B) Jesus saying, who has seen me, has seen the Father.
Another important passage for Christians, which they consider as evidence of Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity, is what we find in the Gospel according to John, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). They understand that the father is Jesus, and seeing Jesus is in fact seeing Allah (S.W).
This shallow understanding is poor, faulty and feeble, and creates many problems that suggest blasphemy to Allah (S.W), who is above all problems and any human faults. If seeing Jesus (PBUH) is considered as seeing the Father, it is compulsory to consider slapping Jesus and spitting in his face (Matt. 27:30) as slapping and spitting on the Father Himself, Allah (S.W), Creator of the heavens and earth.
Similarly, Jesus’ ignorance of the Day of Judgment is considered as a nescience to Allah (S.W) (Mark 13:32-33). When Jesus ate and drank (Luke 24:42-43) it was also considered, according to this shallow understanding, food and drink for the Father.
Can anyone imagine that Allah (S.W), who created everything, eats, drinks, micturates, and defecates?
To understand the passage correctly, we read from the beginning, and it says, “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to myself”, the place that he mentioned is the kingdom. Thomas did not understand and said, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” (John 14:5).
He understood that Jesus (PBUH) spoke about a real road and a real journey. Correcting him and explaining that it is a spiritual journey, Jesus (PBUH) said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”, meaning, following God’s statute and His religion alone will lead to the kingdom of heaven.
Then, Philip asked him to show them Allah (S.W); thus, Jesus (PBUH) scolded him, saying, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
(John 14:10) meaning, how could you ask such a thing, since you are a Jew, and you know that Allah (S.W) cannot be seen? Who ever has seen me, has seen the Father, when he witnessed Allah’s deeds – the miracles –, which I performed.
This passage is the same as in Matthew, “Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' (Matt. 25:34-40) and no one in this world will say that the hungry one was the king; it is just an example and a metaphor.
Similarly, Mark said, "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but Him who sent me." (Mark 9:37). This passage does not mean that the boy is Jesus (PBUH) himself, or that Jesus (PBUH) is Allah (S.W) Himself. It means that, he (PBUH) tells us that whoever does good deeds for the child, is the same as doing it for him, and is obeying Allah (S.W) and His orders.
Similarly, as anyone who has seen Jesus (PBUH) is considered as if he or she has seen Allah (S.W), then whoever accepts Jesus (PBUH) and his disciples, has accepted Allah (S.W), and whoever has denied their message, he or she – in fact- has denied Allah’s Law. Therefore, Jesus (PBUH) said, "The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Luke 10:16)
He (PBUH) confirms that again when he said, “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me.” (Matt. 10:40) similarly, whoever has seen Jesus (PBUH) it is the same as seeing Allah (S.W), because, as he said, “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.” (John 14:10).
In the Book of Acts, when Peter spoke to Ananias regarding the field’s money, is similar. “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.” (Acts 5:4-5). To lie to people is to lie – in fact - to Allah (S.W), and that does not mean that people and Allah (S.W) are the same.
The seeing, when he said “Who has seen me has seen the Father” is metaphoric, which is the insight seeing and not the sight, and this insight seeing is for all believers, who are from Allah (S.W). Jesus (PBUH) said, “not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.” (John 6:46) and all the believers are from Allah (S.W). “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of Him.” (John (1) 5:1)
Another proof is what Jesus (PBUH) said after that. “Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.” (John 14:19) He is not talking about real sight, since he is talking about his ascension to heaven and at that time, the world and the disciples will not see him. He is talking about the faith and spiritual insight, in which the believers and the disciples will be able to see and feel, but not the others.
What comes in Matthew supports this. Matthew said, “And no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son.” (Matt. 11:27)
Another passage, which is similar, that comes in the Gospel according to John: “And Jesus cried out and said, "Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in Him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees Him who sent me. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has Himself given me a commandment--what to say and what to speak. And I know that His commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me." (John 12:44-51) and it meant insight.
His saying, “Who has seen me has seen the one who has sent me”, does not mean that who has seen the one sent – the Son – has seen the sender – the Father-- unless they both are one. Furthermore, this can be refuted by his saying, “You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28) and “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.” (John 10:29). No Christian would affirm that the Father is the Son, but they are different personalities, even though they claim that they – the Son and the Father- are united.
In his book, "Commentaries on John’s Gospel", Priest Matta El Meskeen said, “Christian belief is that, the hypostases of God are different. The Father is not the Son, nor the Son is the Father, and each hypostasis has his own divine characteristics.” Therefore, who has seen the Son, did not see the Father.
Finally, according to the Bible, it is impossible to see Allah (S.W) in this world: “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.” (John 1:18) “who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. (Ti. 1 6:16) Therefore, taking this verse “Who has seen me has seen the Father” as evidence for Jesus’ divinity is weak and feeble, and is the insight kind of seeing as I mentioned above.
C) Jesus’ (PBUH) Everlasting Presence
Those who claim Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity cling to some of his words, which speak of his presence with his disciples and their followers, which come in the Gospels. They believe that it is an eternal presence. He said, while he was ascending to heaven, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matt. 28:20). He said, “Whenever two or three are gathered in my name, I will be among them”.
They understand that it is a real physical presence and they consider it as evidence to his divinity, for Jesus (PBUH) is present everywhere and at any time, as Allah (S.W) is everywhere and at any time.
The Holy Bible does not speak of a real physical presence of Allah (S.W) nor of Jesus (PBUH), for Allah (S.W) does not incarnate or dwell in His Creations. His presence is metaphoric; it is a support, and guidance type of presence and the same is for Jesus (PBUH) in showing the right path and instruction.
The passages that contain this kind of presence in the Holy Bible are uncountable. “You will not need to fight in this battle. Stand firm, hold your position, and see the salvation of the LORD on your behalf, O Judah and Jerusalem.' Do not be them, and the LORD will be with you." (Chron.2 20:17) “for the LORD your God is He who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to give you the victory.” (Duet. 20:4)
Allah (S.W) is with them by His salvation and support, and not that He came from heaven and physically fought with them.
Allah’s (S.W) presence requires a response from the Jews, which is their acceptance of His Law and worshipping Him. “and he went out to meet Asa and said to him, "Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: The LORD is with you while you are with Him. If you seek Him, He will be found by you, but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.” (Chr.2 15:2). And this is proof that it is a metaphoric presence.
Regarding this claimed real presence of Jesus (PBUH), Jesus (PBUH) denied it and refuted this claim, when he told his disciples that he was leaving earth and would not be amongst them. He said, “For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.” (Matt. 26:11) Jesus then said, "I will be with you a little longer, and then I am going to Him who sent me.” (John 7:33)
His presence with them was spiritual, as Paul said in his Epistles to the Colossians and the Corinthians. “Or though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.” (Col. 2:5) “For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing.” (Cor.1 5:3)
D) Christ, the Image of Allah (S.W)
Among the evidence Christians present to prove Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity, are Paul’s words about him. “the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (Cor.2 4:4) “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” (Phi. 2:6-7) “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Col. 1:15)
These words are Paul’s words. Paul, who did not have the honor of meeting Jesus (PBUH) nor did he study under him. We do not see the disciples mention such words, and that is sufficient to throw doubts on them.
Moreover, the image is different from the self. God’s image here means His representative to declare His Law, as Paul said in another passage, “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.” (Cor. (1) 11/7). Which means that Allah (S.W) delegated man in his power over woman.
Jesus’ (PBUH) being of the same image as Allah (S.W) does not prove his divinity, for Adam – according to the Bible – shared Allah’s (S.W) image, as mentioned in the Book of Genesis about his creation. “Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female."
E. Prostrating to Jesus
The Gospels mention the prostrating of some people, who were contemporary with Jesus (PBUH), to him. Christians believe that this prostrating is evidence of his divinity, and that he is worthy of worship.
The father of the bleeding girl did it once, “While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live." (Matthew 9/18), the leprous kneeled to him as well, “And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." (Matthew 8/2), and the Magi prostrated to him when he was a child. “And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.” (Matthew 2/11).
There is no doubt that prostrating is an indication of worship, but it does not mean that all prostrating must be worship. Prostrating could be to show esteem and glorification; as Abraham (PBUH) prostrated honoring the people of Hath, “Abraham rose and bowed to the Hittites, the people of the land.” (Gen. 23/7).
Jacob (PBUH) and his family prostrated to Esau, the son of Isaac, when they met him. (Gen. 33/3-7)
Moses (PBUH) prostrated to his father in law when he came from Median to visit him (Ex. 18:7), and Joseph’s brothers (PBUH) prostrated to him not to worship, but to honor him. (Gen. 42:6).
All these examples and many more do not mean more than respect, and the same goes for prostrating to Jesus (PBUH).
4- PASSAGES RELATING ALLAH (S.W)’S CHARACTERISTICS TO JESUS (PBUH)
A. Jesus’ Eternity
Christians speak about Jesus (PBUH), the God who existed before creation, and they present their proof in many ways. One of them is to present what comes in the Gospel of John, which the writer attributed to Jesus (PBUH). He said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (John 8/56-58)
Christians – wrongly – understand from this, that Jesus (PBUH) existed before Abraham (PBUH), which means – according to them – that he is eternal. They support their proof with what John has said about Jesus (PBUH). “Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, …"I am the Alpha and the Omega." (Rev. 1/7-8) (Means the first and the last)
The beginning of the Gospel according to John indicates an eternal existence for Jesus (PBUH) before the creation of the world. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (John 1/1-2).
These passages – according to Christians- declare the eternity and immortality of Jesus (PBUH); therefore, it is evidence of his divinity.
Scholars do not agree with Christians’ conclusions. The existence of Jesus before Abraham (PBUT) does not mean the real existence of him, but the existence of Allah’s (S.W) decree and choice of him. That means, that Allah (S.W) had selected him long before He created him, as Paul said, - according to the Monastic Jesuit edition- “He was foreknown before the foundation of the world” (Peter (1) 1/20).
Paul said the same about himself and his followers. “Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy” (Eph. 1/4) meaning ‘Allah (S.W) chose us by his decree as he chose Jesus’ (PBUH), and that does not indicate his or their existence at that time.
This old existence of Jesus (PBUH), which is the divine selecting and Allah’s (S.W) love of him, is the glory that Allah (S.W) gave to Jesus, as he said, “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” (John 17/5)
This glory is the same glory that Jesus (PBUH) gave to his disciples when he chose them to be his followers, as Allah (S.W) selected him to deliver the message. “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.” (John 17/24). Loving a thing does not need its existence, as one can love the nonexistent or the impossible, which never and will not exist.
Abraham’s acquaintance with Jesus (PBUT) before his earthly existence and creation does not mean knowing him personally; for he never saw him. Therefore, his saying, “he saw me and he was delighted”, is a figurative and metaphoric seeing, an acquaintance seeing. Otherwise, Christians have to present evidence, proving that Abraham had seen the Son, who is the second hypostasis in the Trinity, or prove the existence of Jesus’ body in Abraham’s time (PBUT).
Jesus’ (PBUH) saying, “Before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8/56-58) does not prove his existence in the beginning or the eternity. What the passage indicates - if we take it as it is- is that Jesus (PBUH) existed since Abraham’s (PBUH) time, but even Abraham’s time does not mean eternity.
In addition, if Jesus was before Abraham (PBUT) and all creatures, prophet Jeremiah shared the same existence with him. Allah (S.W) knew Jeremiah and sanctified him before he was born. He said about himself, “Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1 /4-5), and Sirach said in his wisdom, “who nevertheless was a prophet, sanctified in his mother's womb” (Sirach 49:7)
This divine acquaintance with Jeremiah, without doubt, is older and more honored than Abraham’s acquaintance with Jesus (PBUT), and does not mean his real existence on earth.
Among those who share Jesus’ (PBUH) claimed immortality, is Melchizedek, who was a saint in Abraham’s time (PBUH). Paul claimed that Melchizedek had neither father nor mother, and no beginning or end, which means he is eternal. Paul said, “For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, … He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.” (Heb. 7/1-3)
Why Christians do not consider him as God since he and the Son of God are alike in many ways? He is superior to Jesus (PBUH), whom Christians confess that he was crucified, died, had a mother, and even a father, according to Matthew and Luke, whereas Melchizedek was far above all that.
Furthermore, among those who were before Abraham (PBUH) and deserved eternity- if we do not understand the passages clearly- is human wisdom or, the wise Prophet Solomon (PBUH). He said about himself and about the wisdom, which he and many other humans had, “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion… "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. I was anointed from everlasting, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth.” (Pro. 8/12-25 Modern King James Version). Thus, Solomon (PBUH), or the wisest of humankind – according to the shallow and literal understanding – is Allah’s (S.W) Christ for eternity.
Christians have no evidence for their claim that this passage in Proverbs talks about Jesus (PBUH). Solomon (PBUH) wrote Proverbs, as its introduction says. “The proverbs of Solomon; son of David.” (Pro. 1/1).
Many passages in Proverbs indicate that Solomon (PBUH) continued to speak these passages when he said, “My son, be attentive to my wisdom” (Pro.5/1), and (Proverbs 1/8, 3/1, 3/21, 7/1 and others) the speaker is Solomon (PBUH) and the embodied wisdom in him.
The Holy Bible described Solomon (PBUH) as a wise man, but one may ask which wisdom was it? Was it Allah’s (S.W) wisdom, as those, who were contemporary with him, saw in him? “And all Israel heard of the judgment that the king had rendered, and they stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him to do justice.” (Kings (1) 3/28).
The sentence, “I was anointed from everlasting” (Modern King James Version) does not refer to Jesus (PBUH) the son of Mary (PBUH), as the word ‘Messiah’, which means anointed, was an attribute for many beside Jesus (PBUH), whom Allah (S.W) had blessed, namely the prophets David and Isaiah (PBUT). (See Psalms 45:7, and Isaiah 1/61). There is no reason to distinguish Jesus’ (PBUH) anointment from the anointment of others.
Facing the interdiction that is caused by the above passage in Proverbs, some Christians say, “the speaker in Proverbs is God’s wisdom, which is his personal characteristic that exists in Him from the beginning, and it is not His act which He gave to His prophet Solomon (PBUH). This reasoning is unacceptable, for the passage is talking about a prophet who was anointed with blessing and anointment oil, “I was anointed from everlasting”. Allah’s (S.W) characteristic, which exists in Him, can never be anointed, and why should it be?
In addition, the passage is talking about a created wisdom; even though it was old, as the wisdom said, “The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work …Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth.”
The Good News Bible (1978-1997), uses the word “Created”. It says, “The lord created me” instead of (The Lord possessed me).
The Monastic Jesuit Edition uses the same word ‘Created’. “The lord created me first, before his acts”, thus, the wisdom is an old entity, even before the mountains and the hills.
In Sirach wisdom, “Wisdom had been created before all things” (sirach1/4), specifically, “He created me from the beginning before the world, and I shall never fail.” (Sirach 24/9). It is not Allah’s (S.W) eternal wisdom, but the wisdom He gave to the wise men and incarnated in them. The first one of them was the wise Solomon (PBUH), whom “they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him.” (Kings (1) 3/28).
Whoever reads the passage thoughtfully, will find no difficulty in understanding which kind of wisdom it was. It is a valuable wisdom; “for wisdom is better than jewels, and all that you may desire cannot compare with her.” (Pro. 8/11) and it is human; “The mouth of the righteous brings forth wisdom.” (Pro. 10/31).
The first rank of this human wisdom is Allah (S.W)-fearing; “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Pro. 9/10) and it is Allah’s (S.W) gift to man. “For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding” (Pro. 2/6).
This wisdom is always attached with understanding, the writer advises, “Say to wisdom, "You are my sister," and call insight your intimate friend, to keep you from the forbidden woman.” (Pro. 7/4-5)
With this wisdom, kings, the rich and the judges, had authority over others. “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence,… I have counsel and sound wisdom; I have insight; I have strength. By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; by me princes rule, and nobles, all who govern justly. I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me. Riches and honor are with me, enduring wealth and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, even fine gold, and my yield than choice silver. I walk in the way of righteousness, in the paths of justice, granting an inheritance to those who love me, and filling their treasuries. "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work...” (Pro. 8/ 12-22)
Whoever reads this thoughtfully, will – without doubt - determine that this wisdom is not Allah’s (S.W) eternal characteristic, which exists in Him, because there are no jewels or money equal to Allah’s (S.W) wisdom, and it brings no wealth, power or dominion. In addition, Allah’s (S.W) wisdom does not come from any human mouth, and - of course - it does not include “Allah (S.W)-fearing”, because it is His characteristic.
B.The Beginning of the Gospel According to John
Taking the beginning of the Gospel according to John as evidence for Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”(John 1/1-3), made scholars point out many important points:
- Scholars brought to our attention, that the writer of this Gospel had plagiarized this passage from Philo Alexandrian (40 C.E.). Phelisian Shali says, “The idea of the Word (logos) comes from the Stoical philosophers and from the Jewish philosopher (Philo), and borrowed from these creeds and theories by Saint Justin, and, by the writer of the first lines of the Gospel, which is attributed to Saint John.
Scholars believe that the term (word) with its philosophical structure is different from Jesus’ (PBUH) culture, the simplicity of his words, and the language of his disciples, especially John whom the Book of Acts describes as illiterate and slang-spoken. It says, “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished.” (Acts 4/13)
- Deedat mentioned that there is a fabrication in the English translation, which is the origin of all other translations of the Holy Bible.
To understand the passage clearly, the prominent scholar Deedat brings us back to the Greek original codex.
The actual translation of that passage is, “in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God”. The Greek translation uses the word (hotheos), which translates as “God”, in English with the capital ‘G’ referring to the real divinity.
The passage continues saying, “the word was god”, here, the Greek original uses the word (tontheos). The English translation should use the word (god) with a small letter, to indicate the figurative divinity as the Bible uses in many places; I will list a few examples below.
In the Book of Exodus, we read, “I have made you like God to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7/1).
When he was talking about the devil that Paul called him the “god of age”, who blinded the mind of the unbelievers (see, Cor.2 4:4). The Greek original used the word (tenthoes) in Paul’s Epistle, and it translated to (god) in English, using the indefinite article (a).
The Holy Bible English translators changed the Greek passage of John’s Gospel, using the word “God” which refers to the real divinity, instead of (god) which refers to the figurative meaning, which makes the confusion in this passage, and that - without doubt – is a kind of fabrication.
Some translations realized this mistranslation and used the correct form of the word; one of them is the New World Translation, in its various universal translations, it says, (and the word was a god).
In addition, I have designated a special appendix to show the distortion in many different copies in reading this word. Some of what I mentioned is, “In John’s sentence, whether the Word or Logos was (god) or (divine) or (as god), does not mean that God was with God; it is only a characteristic of the Word or Logos, and it does not determine its identity as God Himself”.
I quoted from Phillip Horner, a writer in the Holy Bible Literature Magazine, his saying in (volume 92/87), “I think the description indication in (John 1:1) is so obvious, we cannot consider the name definite”
In his Commentary on John’s Gospel, the Egyptian priest Matta Al Meskeen said,
“Here the word (God), in the Greek origin, came without the definite article (the)… and since the word (the God) means the whole self. In the second sentence, (the word was god), it is to show the nature of the Word, that it is divine, and does not mean that it is God himself.
Be cautious not to read (God) with the definite article (the) in the sentence, (the word was god). In that case, there will be no difference between the Word and God; consequently, there will be no difference between the Father and the Son. That is the heterodoxy from Sabelius, who said that it is only names, while the Christian belief says: the hypostasis in God is distinctive, the Father is not the Son, nor the Son is the Father, each hypostasis has his special divine function, thus, God is not the Word and the Word is not God.”
Even If scholars ignored all that, many things in the passage prevent Christians taking it as evidence of Jesus’ divinity:
First: what does the word “beginning”, mean? The Christians’ answer is “the eternity”.
That is not strong evidence, as the word “beginning” comes in the Holy Bible with many other meanings:
-The beginning of creation, as mentioned in “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1/1)
Jesus’ (PBUH) description of the devil, that he existed from the beginning, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him.” (John 8/44)
What Matthew said quoting Jesus (PBUH), when he was debating the Jews, “They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matthew 19:7-8) meaning, “That was not permitted when the creation began”. The beginning of creation is a created moment and not eternity, which may precede any time.
-The word “Beginning” also means a period, as mentioned in Luke, “just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us.” (Luke 1/2), means in the beginning of Jesus’ (PBUH) mission.
Likewise, John’s saying, “Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard.” (John (1) 2/7)
When Jesus (PBUH) answered the Jews when they asked him, is similar, “So they said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning.” (John 8/25)
These uses of the word “beginning” do not mean “eternity”, but it means, “Created specific time”.
Thus, Christians do not have the right to say that the word “beginning” means “eternity”, unless they can prove it undisputedly.
Second: what does the word “Word” mean? Does it mean Jesus (PBUH), or does it have other meanings?
In fact, the Holy Bible mentioned the word “Word” indicating different meanings, some of them are as follows:
- The Holy Bible uses it to indicate God’s Books and His inspiration, “the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah.” (Luke3/2), “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it." (Luke 8/21), “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” (Rom. 9/6)
- It uses it to indicate the divine orders and authority, which made the creatures. “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. … For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.” (Psalms 33/6-9)
That is the reason that Jesus (PBUH) was called a word, because he was created by Allah’s (S.W) command, without any human reason (meaning without a father), or because he declared Allah’s (S.W) word.
- Allah’s (S.W) word can also mean His promise; prophet Jeremiah told about the Israelite people and their urging for the day of curse and punishment, which Allah (S.W) had promised them. “Behold, they say to me, "Where is the word of the LORD? Let it come!" I have not run away from being your shepherd, nor have I desired the day of sickness.” (Jeremiah 17:15-16)
Jesus (PBUH), according to this, is Allah’s (S.W) word, meaning he is the promised word, the good tidings that Allah (S.W) had foretold us by his prophets. (Peace be upon them)
The Christians claimed meaning of the word “Word”, which is “Logos”, as the second hypostasis of Trinity, does not exist in all the prophet’s books.
Third: the sentence “and the word was God”, indicates that Jesus (PBUH) was called as God, the same as the judges in the Torah, “God has taken His place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods He holds judgment. How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? (Psalms 82:1),
David (PBUH) called the Jewish nobles gods, “I give you thanks, O LORD, with my whole heart; before the gods I sing your praise” (Psalms 138:1)
Allah (S.W) told Moses about Aaron (PBUT), “He shall speak for you to the people, and he shall be your mouth, and you shall be as God to him.” (Exodus. 4:16), and the same for others as stated previously.
Fourth: his saying “the word was with God”, the word ‘with’ here is a preposition; it neither means sameness nor equality. It means Allah (S.W) created the word, as Eve said, “I have gotten a man from the LORD.” (Gen. 4:1 KJV). Cain is not equal to Allah (S.W) or like Him, even though he came from Allah (S.W). The same meaning came in another passage. “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven. (Gen. 19:24)
5- THE ATTRIBUTION OF ALLAH’S (S.W) DEEDS TO JESUS (PBUH)
A. The Attribution of Creation to God Almighty by Jesus
Some passages attribute the creation to Allah (S.W) by Jesus (PBUH); Christians take it as evidence of his divinity. Among these passages, Paul’s words, “For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through Him and for Him.” (Col. 1:16 - 17)
In another passage, he said, “God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.” (Eph. 3:9 KJV)
The same is mentioned in John’s Gospel, “He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. (John 1:10), and the same is in the Epistle to the Hebrews, (Heb. 1:2) and other passages.
First, we notice that the Holy Bible passages attribute the creation only to Allah (S.W). The Book of Genesis says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1/1). It did not mention another creator, who shared with Allah (S.W) this creation or was a means by which the creation happened. In the Book of Isaiah, we read, “Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens” (Isaiah 42:5). In addition, Paul and Barnabas said to the people of Lystra, “we bring you good news that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.” (Acts 14:15). The Holy Bible never mentions a creator but Allah (S.W).
Paul and John’s words are talking about Allah (S.W), who created things by Jesus (PBUH) as He made him perform his miracles(Acts 2/22). It did not mention that Jesus (PBUH) is the creator.
The meaning of all these passages, if we consider them genuine, is that Allah (S.W) has created the creatures and things by Jesus (PBUH). Talking about Trinity hypostasis and its different acts, Priest James Anis said, “An example of the distinction of their acts is, that the Father created the world by the Son”.
This is a strange meaning, which neither the Old Testament’s prophets nor Jesus (PBUH) did ever mention. However, Paul’s Epistles and John’s philosophical Gospel, which derived from the Platonic and the Gnostic philosophies, mention it. The Gnostics believe that God is much honored to create by himself; therefore, He authorized the Word or the angels to act on behalf of Him.
Furthermore, Jesus (PBUH) cannot be the creator of heavens and earth; for he himself is a creature. Even though Christians claim that he is the first creature, he is still a creature, and the creature is different from the Creator. “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation (Col. 1/15).
Moreover, he who could not bring himself back to life after he died cannot be the creator of heavens and earth or even to be the means of that creation: “This Jesus God raised up.” (Acts 2/32). If Allah (S.W) did not raise him, he would not be able to rise from the dead. “And you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead.” (Acts 3/15), and Paul’s words, “God the Father, who raised him from the dead.” (Galatians 1/1).
Scholars believe that the word creation in these passages means the creation of guidance and leading, and not the real creation from nothing, for that is only Allah’s (S.W) work. The creating, which Jesus (PBUH) performed, is the new kind of creating, the guidance creating, which David (PBUH) spoke of when he was praying to Allah (S.W), saying, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” (Psalms 51:10).
Paul said the same about those who believe in Jesus (PBUH). “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” (Cor.2, 5/17)
He also said, “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation,” (Galatians 6/15)
On that basis, James considered the disciples as the first creations, he said, “Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.” (James 1/18), meaning the first guided, who underwent a new creation. Thus, Jesus’ (PBUH) creating of beings is a spiritual creation; for Allah (S.W) made him awaken the hard-hearted.
One may refute our reasoning and understanding of these passages with what he/she reads in them about the creation of heavens and earth by Jesus (PBUH). He/she may also consider that these passages, which Christians present, do not refer to humans only, but include heaven and earth. This, for those who are not accustomed with the Bible’s expression, will prevent the reasoning of this new creation, which I have explained.
Those who are accustomed with the Bible’s expression consider these passages as a usual exaggeration of the Old and the New Testaments. Some of these descriptions, I will list below:
The New Testament describes Jesus (PBUH) and the disciples as the light of the world. John said, “Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8/12),
Jesus (PBUH) said to his disciples, "You are the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14). As we know, they all were the light, which showed the believers the right path; and was rejected by others whom their hearts were still in darkness.
Christians cannot claim that the light is for animals and the inanimate entities, for, when John describes Jesus (PBUH) and his disciples as the light of the world, they did not light anything except the heart of the believers. He described Jesus (PBUH) as the means of the new creation of the world, meaning the believers only.
Likewise, what Paul said about the conciliation by Jesus’ (PBUH) blood, he said, “and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” (Col. 1/20). Even though this conciliation was for the people, not animals or other unbelieving creatures, these have no share in this conciliation, which we may understand from the passages that they were included.
In Ephesus, Paul spoke about those whom Allah (S.W) has sent Jesus (PBUH) to redeem, He sent him in order to, “as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Ephesus 1/10).
James Anas said, “the word ‘everything’ does not mean the universe with its living and inanimate entities, such as the sun, the moon, and the stars, because they cannot be reconciled with God. In addition and for the same reason, it does not mean all the animals and the degraded creatures; for Jesus did not come to ransom the degraded angels (Heb. 2/16), and it does not mean all humans, because the Book knows that not all the people can be reconciled with God.”
Likewise, is Paul’ saying, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (Cor.(1) 15/22) If death included all people because of Adam’s sin, those whom Jesus brings to life are the believers only, not all the dead that died because of Adam’s sin.
Thus, we see in these passages, a general meaning for the word ‘Creation’ that was not intended for a real creation. It was intended for a special creation that is the guidance creation, which is only for the believers.
B. Judgment’s Attribution to Jesus
The Bible speaks of Jesus (PBUH) as the Judge of all creations on the Day of Judgment. Paul said, “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom.” (2Ti. 4/1) Christians present this passage as evidence of his divinity, because the Torah says, “for God himself is judge.” (Psalms 50: 6).
However, other passages prove the contrary, and prevent Jesus (PBUH) from being judge, “For God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3/17 ASV). Therefore, Jesus will never judge anyone.
John confirmed this again by saying, “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him. For, I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge. Allah (S.W) and his statute) the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.” (John 12:47-48)
Jesus (PBUH), whom Christians claim to be the Judge of all, could not guarantee heaven for his cousins and disciples, sons of Zebedee, because Allah (S.W) did not give him this authority. He, who cannot do so, is incapable of having absolute Judgment. The mother of the two sons came to Jesus (PBUH). After he asked her about her inquiry, she said, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom. Jesus answered,… but to sit at my right hand, and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” (Matthew 20/20-22).
If Christians still insist that the judgment is one of Jesus’ (PBUH) acts (PBUH), then many others share that with him. Among those are his twelve disciples, including the betrayer Judas. “Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’’ (Matthew19/28), (see also Luke 22/30)
Paul and the other saints will judge not only the people, but also the angels and the entire world as well. He said, ‘Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world?... Do you not know that we are to judge angels?’ (Cor.(1) 6/2-3). They will judge the angels and the whole world but they are not gods, thus, judgment cannot be evidence of divinity, unless we consider all of the above mentioned, gods.
It is worth mentioning here that Jesus’ judgment of people -if it is true – is a gift from Allah (S.W) to Jesus the man; he performs it based on his humanity, “And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.” (John 5/27).
C- Jesus’ Forgiveness of Sins
Among the evidence, which Christians present for Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity, is what comes in the Gospels regarding his forgiveness of the paralytic and the sinner woman’s sins. Forgiveness, as they believe, is a divine characteristic; thus, Jesus (PBUH) is Allah (S.W) who forgives, as he said to Mary Magdalene, “Your sins are forgiven.” (Luke 7/48), and he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” (Matthew 9/2). The Jews, at that moment, accused him of blasphemy, “some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming.” (Matthew 9/3) which means: he claims divinity when he forgives the people.
If we read the story of these events, when he forgave these people, we would realize clearly that Jesus (PBUH) was not the one who forgave them. In the sinner woman’s story, when people suspected Jesus (PBUH), and after he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” Explaining the confusion, since he is only a human, Jesus (PBUH) told the woman that it is her belief that had redeemed her.
I need to mention here, that Jesus (PBUH) did not claim that he was the one who forgave her. He told her that her sin was forgiven, and the one who forgives, of course, is Allah (S.W).
The story according to Luke is as follows, “but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven--for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little. And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven. Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins? And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” (Luke 7/46-50), Allah (S.W) forgave her because of her belief, and Jesus (PBUH) told her that she was covered with Allah’s (S.W) mercy. He also made it clear to the people, who were present that he did not commit blasphemy and that he did not claim sins’ forgiveness.
Likewise, Jesus did not claim that he was the one who forgave the paralytic. He said to him, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” He told him that his sins were forgiven, but he did not mention that he was the one who forgave.
When the Jews thought that Jesus (PBUH) had blasphemed, he scolded them and corrected their evil thoughts. He explained to them that this forgiveness was not from him, but it is Allah’s (S.W) authority, and Allah (S.W) permitted him to do so, as He permitted him to perform all his miracles. They understood what he meant, and their misunderstanding disappeared. “When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.” (Matthew 9/8)
This authority is not Jesus’ (PBUH) characteristic; it is Allah’s (S.W) permission, who gave it to him. If Jesus (PBUH) is God, that would be his own characteristic and his own authority, but he cannot perform anything except what Allah (S.W) permitted him to do. He is a servant of Allah (S.W), as he said, “All things have been handed over to me by my Father.” (Luke 10/22), he has no power without Allah (S.W). He said in another place, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28/18).
He said about his capability, “I can do nothing on my own.” (John 5/30). If it was not with Allah’s (S.W) help, he would not be able to forgive a sin.
The Jews asked Jesus (PBUH), “Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority?” (Luke 20/2-4). Jesus (PBUH) did not claim that it was his own authority, which he gained from his eternal divinity, instead, he asked them about John the Baptist’s (PBUH) authority of forgiveness, where was it from. He said, “I also will ask you a question. Now tell me Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?” (Luke 20/2-4). This means that all he did, forgiveness and other things, were by the same authority as that of John the Baptist (PBUH); and it was no more than the prophet-hood authority.
Forgiveness was not only for Jesus (PBUH), it was the authority of his disciples, but they were not gods, although, they were able to forgive sins, not only related to their own rights, but also all sins. Regarding forgiveness related to their own rights, Jesus said, “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew 6/14-15).
John gave the disciples open authority to forgive any sin, he said, “If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.” (John 20/23). Hence, they were like Jesus (PBUH), but no one considers them gods.
The church gave itself the claimed authority of Peter and the disciples. Priests were able to forgive sinners by confession or by the indulgence, claiming that they had inherited this authority from Peter. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be lost in heaven.” (Matthew 16/19). Therefore, if Peter or the Pope – his successor- forgave one’s sin, he or she will be forgiven, and that will not make Peter or the Pope god.
This authority was not only for Peter and his successors, but also for all the disciples. “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 18/18-20). That –obviously- does not mean that they are gods, because it is not a personal right for them, but a gift from Allah (S.W) to them and to their master, Jesus (PBUH), this is what the Holy Bible says.
6- JESUS’ MIRACLES AS EVIDENCE OF HIS DIVINITY
The Gospels mention thirty-five miracles, which Jesus (PBUH) performed, and Christians take these miracles as proof of his divinity. These miracles are, his birth without a father, giving life to the dead, curing the sick and telling the unseen.
Miracles are Divine Gifts
The Quran mentions and confirms Jesus’ (PBUH) great miracles, and affirms that he did these miracles by the will and the help of Allah (S.W). “And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel. (with this message), "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God's leave, And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by God's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses.” (Holy Quran 3: 49)
The Gospels’ passages confirmed this, and reported about Jesus (PBUH), as when he performed his miracles he declared that they were from Allah (S.W), he did not attribute them to himself. Jesus (PBUH) said, “It is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons.” (Matthew 12/28)
He also said, “It is by the finger of God that I cast out demons.” (Luke 11/ 20).
When he (PBUH) came to give life to Lazarus, “And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” (John 11/40-41). He thanked Allah (S.W) for His acceptance of his prayer, and supplication when he raised his eyes to Allah (S.W), then God responded to him and gave life to Lazarus.
He also prayed to Allah (S.W) to help him when he wanted to feed the crowd with the five loaves and two fish. “And taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing. Then he broke the loaves.” (Matthew 14/19).
When he cured the deaf, he prayed to Allah (S.W) as well, “And looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, "Ephphatha," that is, "Be opened”. And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly.” (Mark 7/34-35). Allah (S.W) did not disappoint him in his supplication, praying and asking for help.
Talking about his miracles and wonders, Jesus (PBUH) said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Means from Allah (S.W)) (Matthew 28/ 18). All what he had were gifts from Allah (S.W). If he was God, his miracles would come from his divine nature, and need no one to help or give them to him.
In addition, the same authority was given to the devil without being God, he said to Jesus (PBUH), trying to mislead him of the earth’s property. “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.” (Luke 4/6).
Jesus (PBUH) declared also that he was helpless without Allah’s (S.W) help and aid. He said, “I can do nothing on my own.” (John 5/30), and these miracles were Allah’s (S.W) gifts, which prove his prophethood only. “For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing bear witness about me that the Father has sent me.” (John 5/36).
Furthermore, those who witnessed Jesus’ (PBUH) miracles knew that what he was performing were miracles, which Allah (S.W) gave to his messengers. No one understood that those miracles were evidence of his divinity. When the boy recovered from the unclean spirit, everyone was astonished by the greatness of Allah (S.W). “And all were astonished at the majesty of God.” (Luke 9/43)
Moreover, when he cured the hunchback woman, she stood straight and praised Allah (S.W). “And immediately she was made straight, and she glorified God.” (Luke 13/13)
When the crowd saw Jesus (PBUH) curing the paralytic, they were astonished, and praised Allah (S.W) who gave man such power. “They were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.” (Matthew 9:8)
They considered Jesus (PBUH) as one of the people, a man, and not God, and his ability to cure was from Allah (S.W), the Healer.
The blind man, whom Jesus (PBUH) healed, according to the Gospel of John, considered Jesus (PBUH) as a man only. “So they said to him, "Then how were your eyes opened? He answered, "The man called Jesus”.” (John 9/10-11) Do those people, who conclude Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity for curing the blind man, know, love and care for Jesus more than that blind man?
When Jesus (PBUH) rebuked the wind and the sea and they obeyed him, the witnesses did not understand that he was divine, in spite of the greatness of this miracle, but instead they wondered about the power of Jesus the man. Matthew said, “And the men marveled, saying, "What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?” (Matthew 8/27).
At the time when Martha, Lazarus’ sister, asked Jesus (PBUH) to give life to her brother, she assured him of her knowledge that these miracles were from Allah (S.W), who gave it to Jesus (PBUH) to aid and support him. She said, “But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.” (John 11/22).
Confirming the same idea, Peter, the leader of the disciples said to the crowd, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him.” (Acts 2/22).
Nicodemus, the teacher of The Law, realized the secret of Jesus’ (PBUH) great miracles, and that they were from Allah (S.W) and because of His help and aid to Jesus (PBUH). He said to Jesus (PBUH), “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” (John 3/2).
The Gospels also declare that these miracles are no more than gifts from Allah (S.W), and Jesus (PBUH) was cautious that he could not do it all the time. Therefore, when he came to the dead man Lazarus, he was worried that he might not be able to do a miracle. “Some of them said, "He gives sight to the blind. Why couldn't he have kept Lazarus from dying? Jesus was still terribly upset.” (John 11/37-38. Contemporary English Version)
At other times, the Pharisees asked him for signs, and he (PBUH) could not or did not do them. “The Pharisees came out and started an argument with Jesus. They wanted to test him by asking for a sign from heaven. Jesus groaned and said, "Why are you always looking for a sign? I can promise you that you will not be given one!” (Mark 8/11-12).
When the crowd of the Jews gathered asking him (PBUH) for a sign, he did not respond. Instead, he said, “Jesus replied: You want a sign because you are evil and won't believe! But the only sign you will get is the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matthew. 12/38-39).
Moreover, if what Jesus (PBUH) was doing and performing were evidence of his divinity, why did he ask people to hide it, even though it was the way, which people will know his identity? Jesus (PBUH) said to the leprous that he healed, “Don't tell anyone about this.” (Mark 1/44),
Regarding the healing of the two blind people, Matthew said, “and Jesus strictly warned them not to tell anyone about him.” (Matthew 9/31 International Standard Version) Jesus (PBUH) also said to a third blind man, when he healed him, "Don't go into the village or tell anyone in the village.” (Mark 8/26).
He (PBUH) said that frequently: “Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all. and ordered them not to make him known.” (Matthew 12/15-16). By hiding his miracles, Jesus (PBUH) did not want the people to be occupied by his miracles and forget his real mission. If it was evidence of his divinity , he should have told them.
Miracles Do Not Indicate - According to the Bible – Prophethood, Never Mind Divinity
I wonder that Christians consider Jesus’ (PBUH) miracles as evidence of his divinity, since the Holy Bible declares that other people had performed such great miracles, without considering that as evidence of their divinity.
The Holy Bible confirms these miracles and many more magnificent miracles, to all those who believe in Jesus. Jesus (PBUH) said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do.” (John 14/12). This means that those who believe in Allah (S.W) can heal the sick, give life to the dead, and can do greater than that; thus, it is not evidence of divinity.
Performing miracles- according to the Bible- cannot be evidence for a true belief or of the honesty of its performer. Then, how can it be proof of prophethood or divinity? Jesus (PBUH) mentioned that liars could perform miracles and claim doing it by his name.
Quoting Jesus (PBUH), Matthew said, “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name? And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” (Matthew 7/21-23)
Those hypocrites and liars could do miracles, but it did not prove their honesty, nor will it prove their prophethood or divinity.
Further more, according to the Holy Bible, even a sinner can perform many miracles and wonders, and that does not prove his honesty or divinity, for he or she performs these miracles and wonders, by the aid of Satan and his power. Paul said, “The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders.” (Thessalonians (2) 2/9).
Others Who Shared Jesus' Power of Performing Miracles
Scholars have noticed - after reading the Bible - that messengers and others had shared Jesus' (PBUH) power in performing his miracles, and Christians do not consider these people divine. That indicates that these miracles are proof and evidence that they are prophets, otherwise, Christians have to attribute divinity to all those who performed the same miracles as Jesus (PBUH), which Allah (S.W) made possible for Jesus (PBUH).
A. The Virgin Birth
Jesus’ (PBUH) birth, without a father, was one of his greatest miracles. Those who believe in his divinity use it as their evidence. Yaseen Mansour said, “If Jesus was not born of a virgin, he would be just a man”.
It is a fact that Jesus (PBUH) was just a man; the proof is that some creatures shared with him this great miracle. The origin of all creatures, including humans, was without father or mother. The creation of Adam (PBUH), who was a complete and perfect creature, is bigger and greater than the creation of Jesus (PBUH), who was a fetus in his mother’s womb, born, and then grew up.
No doubt, that being born without a father is a miracle, but it does not conclude or indicate one’s divinity. If so, it must have concluded the divinity of many animals and the divinity of Adam and Eve, for Adam was born without a father or mother, and Eve came from Adam without a mother.
Regarding that, Allah (S.W) tells us in the Holy Quran, saying, “The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.” (Holy Quran 3:59).
In spite of the likeness between Jesus and Adam (PBUT) in their birth, Adam ranks higher than Jesus does in many ways. Adam (PBUH) did not come from a woman’s womb covered with blood; God commanded the angels to kneel to him, God taught him all the names, and heaven was his home. In addition, Allah (S.W) spoke to him by Himself without a messenger, and many other things, which neither Jesus (PBUH) nor the others had. Thus, since Adam has all these characteristics, why do Christians not consider him divine?
The same goes for angels, for Allah (S.W) created them without father or mother. They are not made of mud, but Christians do not consider them Gods. Therefore, the virgin birth cannot be evidence of divinity, even though it is a unique event in man’s history.
B. Giving Life to the Dead
No doubt, giving life to the dead was one great miracle among the many that Jesus (PBUH) performed, which the Quran confirms and tells that it was from Allah (S.W). “and I quicken the dead, by God's leave.” (Holy Quran 3:49).
However, Christians refuse to relate Jesus’ power to Allah’s (S.W) will, and believe that he was doing that by himself and by his own will. One of their reasons is that he (PBUH) said, “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” (John 5/21-26).
If we read the passage carefully, we will see that it talks about the gifts that Allah (S.W) gave to Jesus (PBUH), “He has granted the Son”, which he has no power to do or to have without Allah (S.W) giving them to him.
If Christians continue reading the passage, they will find an obvious answer from Jesus (PBUH) to their claim. He said, “I can do nothing on my own.” (John 5/30).
He (PBUH) continued and explained to them that his will, when he gives life to the dead, is dependant on Allah’s (S.W) will. “Because, I seek not my own will but the will of Him who sent me” (John 5/30).
Christians insist that giving life to the dead is evidence of Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity, and ignore many passages, which attribute that deed to others. Why do Christians not consider them gods?
Indeed, Christian avoidance in considering the divinity of those is evidence of their false claim. If Jesus gave life to Lazarus, (John 11/41-44), the prophet Elijah gave life to the son of the widow. In the First Book of Kings we read, “And he cried to the LORD, "O LORD my God, have you brought calamity even upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by killing her son? Then he stretched himself upon the child three times and cried to the LORD, "O LORD my God, let this child's life come into him again. And the LORD listened to the voice of Elijah. And the life of the child came into him again, and he revived.” (Kings (1) 17/20-22) Therefore, Joshua the son of sirach told him, “Who didst raise up a dead man from death” (sirach 48\5).
Elijah (PBUH) - with Allah’s (S.W) will - also raised two dead people. He raised one of them during his life and the other after his death. He gave life to the Israelite woman’s son, who came to him. (Kings (2) 4/32-36)
Not only did Elijah (PBUH) raise a dead man while he was alive, but also his bones, after his death, gave life to another dead man. The relatives of that dead man put him inside Elijah’s grave. He returned to life after touching Elijah’s bones, and he stood up. “And as a man was being buried, behold, a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha, and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet.” (Kings (2) 13/21)
I wonder how Christians could use Jesus’ (PBUH) miracles – especially raising the dead - as proof of his divinity, even though they believed that the disciples had done the same.
In the Book of Acts, we read that Peter gave life to Tabitha after she had died and was washed by her family. “Now there was in Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, means Dorcas. In those days she became ill and died, and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room. But Peter put them all outside, and knelt down and prayed; and turning to the body he said, "Tabitha, arise." And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up.”(Acts 9/36-41)
I wonder, what is the difference between Jesus’ (PBUH) and Peter’s miracles? Both miracles were by Allah’s (S.W) will and aid.
According to the Holy Bible, all disciples were capable of giving life to the dead. Jesus (PBUH) said, “And proclaims as you go, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, and cleanse lepers, cast out demons.” (Matthew 10/7-8) so, are all of them gods?
Christians who speak of Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity ignore the passages that speak of his death, and his being unable to escape it. He was unable to get his life back until Allah (S.W) gave it to him and raised him from the dead.
Thus, this wonderful miracle, which is giving life to the dead, cannot be used as evidence of Jesus’(PBUH) divinity, but it is a great miracle that Allah (S.W) gave Jesus (PBUH) the ability to perform them as proof of the prophethood of this great prophet, peace be upon him.
C. Healing the Sick
Christians conclude their belief in Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity by his miracle of healing the sick. If Jesus (PBUH) had healed the leprous, (Matthew 8/3) Elijah had also healed a leper. In addition, he caused another and his descendants to be leprous. “And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, "Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean. The leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you and to your descendants forever. So he went out from his presence a leper, like snow.” (Kings (2) 5/10-27)
D. Telling the Unseen
Jesus (PBUH) predicted many invisible and unseen matters, and it came as he said. He told the two disciples whom he sent to slaughter the sacrifice at Easter, of what would happen. (Mark 14/12-16)
In addition, Peter said to Jesus (PBUH), "Lord, you know everything.” (John 21/17). Jesus also knew that no one had ridden the foal, which was tied in ‘Bet Fajy’ village. This according to priest Ibrahim Saed is solid proof. He said, “It is new evidence of Jesus knowing the unseen in details, with no doubt or interpretation, and that also is evidence of the humble glory that Jesus had”.
Jesus (PBUH) was not the only one who predicted the unseen. Jacob (PBUH) predicted the unseen before Jesus (PBUH), as he said to his children, “Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you what shall happen to you in days to come.” (Gen. 49/1-27)
The same happened with Samuel and Elijah (Samuel (1) 10/2-9), Kings (1) 21/21-24), and their prediction came true, as we read in the Second Book of Kings. (Kings (2) 10/1-17, 9/30-37) Many other similar passages are in the sacred books. (Samuel (1) 19/23-24, Kings (2) 4/8-18, 8/12-13, John 11/49-52)
E. Controlling Devils
Jesus (PBUH) had control or power over devils. (Matthew 12/27-28), but it was also a miracle that was performed by others.
When the Jews accused him of casting out devils by the aid of the devils’ leader, he said, “And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out?” (Matt. 12:27). As such, he proved that the Jews have the same ability of controlling devils.
Jesus (PBUH) warned us of liars who would succeed in casting out devils. He said, “On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty work in your name?” (Matthew 7/22-23). False prophets are able to bring out devils, but that does not prove their prophethood, their righteousness, or their divinity.
F. Other Miracles
The Gospels mention many other miracles of Jesus (PBUH); turning the water into wine (John 2/7-9); feeding a large crowd with five loves and two fish (Matthew 14/19-21); and the drying up of the fig tree by his words. (Matthew 21/18-19) Christians also mention the great darkness that happened on the day of his claimed death on the cross. (Matthew 27/45). All of these wonders – according to Christians -prove his divinity and that he is the son of Allah (S.W).
In addition, Christians conclude his divinity (PBUH) from the wind and the sea’s obedience to him, and that he had power over nature. “There arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. And they went and woke him, saying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing. And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?" Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, "What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?” (Matthew 8:24-27)
Who is the controller of the winds and the sea? Christians find no answer, according to their simple understanding, except saying, he is
Jesus (PBUH). He also fasted for forty days without feeling hunger. That is supernatural and no man can do that, and thus, – according to Christians - is proof that Jesus is Allah (S.W). (Matthew 4:1-2)
Others performed the same miracles and no Christian would claim their divinity. If Jesus (PBUH) turned the water into wine, (see John 2:7-9), Moses (PBUH) could turn the water into blood. “You shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground, and the water that you shall take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground.” (Exodus. 4:9)
Elijah performed greater miracle than that. He filled the empty vessels with oil. "Go outside, borrow vessels from all your neighbors, empty vessels and not too few. Then go in and shut the door behind yourself and your sons and pour into all these vessels. And when one is full, set it aside. So she went from him and shut the door behind herself and her sons. And as she poured they brought the vessels to her. When the vessels were full, she said to her son, "Bring me another vessel." And he said to her, "There is not another." Then the oil stopped flowing. She came and told the man of God, and he said, "Go, sell the oil and pay your debts, and you and your sons can live on the rest.” (Kings (2) 4:3-7)
If Jesus (PBUH) fed five hundred people with five loaves and two fish, (See, Matt. 14:19-21) Moses (PBUH) fed the Children of Israel, who numbered about six hundred thousand people, Manna and honey for forty years, and all that was by the blessings of Allah (SW). (See Ex. 16:35-36)
In addition, if Jesus (PBUH) turned the fig tree into a dry one, (Matthew 21/18-19), Moses (PBUH) turned a stick into a snake, (Ex. 7/9), which is greater. We can relate the drying of the tree to the laws of nature, but turning a stick into a snake is a miracle in every way.
Regarding the darkness, which Christians claim occurred at Jesus’ (PBUH) crucifixion; it is not – in any way – greater than the darkness, which lasted for three days in Egypt when the Egyptians did not believe Moses (PBUH). “So Moses stretched out his hand toward heaven, and there was pitch darkness in all the land of Egypt three days. They did not see one another, nor did anyone rise from his place for three days.” (Ex. 10:22-23)
Similarly, is what happened when Joshua fought the Amorites, and it was Saturday night; he prayed to Allah (S.W) and said, “in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.” (Joshua 10:12-13). What happened on that day does not indicate Joshua’s divinity, even though it is greater than what happened during the crucifixion. If the sun had set for three hours, it could be hidden by clouds, and that is normal, but for the earth to stop rotating, is much more significant.
Prophet Isaiah performed greater miracles than both of them did; Allah (S.W) turned the sun backwards for him answering his prayer, to prove to King Hezekiah the truth and the accuracy of Allah’s (S.W) decrees. (See, Kings (2) 20/10-11). This is confirmed by Sirach; “In his time the sun went backward.” (Sirach 48/23). In spite of this, no one claims Isaiah’s divinity.
If nature obeyed Jesus (PBUH), many other prophets were able to control it as well, as the fire and the sea obeyed Elijah. The Bible says, "If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty." Then fire came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.” (Kings (2) 1:10) “Then Elijah took his cloak and rolled it up and struck the water, and the water was parted to the one side and to the other, till the two of them could go over on dry ground.” (Kings (2) 2:8),
Jesus (PBUH) fasting for forty days does not prove his divinity, for he felt hungry eventually. “He was hungry” (Matthew 4:2) If his fasting and his patience indicate his divinity, then his hunger refutes that and proves his humanity.
I have to remind the reader that Moses and Elijah (PBUT) also fasted for forty days and forty nights. Moses (PBUH) said, “I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water.” (Duet. 9:9), “went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights to Horeb, the mount of God.” (Kings1 19:7-8)
VERSES THAT CONTRADICT JESUS’(PBUH) DIVINITY
Scholars have agreed that human deeds, which Jesus (PBUH) performed all his life, prevent and refute calling him Allah (S.W) or the Son of Allah (S.W). It is impossible and incorrect to believe that Allah (S.W) was born, ate, circumcised, beaten, then died.
It is unacceptable reasoning from Christians to say that these deeds were done by the human part of him and not the divine, for they do not believe that Allah’s (S.W) incarnation in Jesus (PBUH) was like a dress, which he can put on some times and take off at other times.
What he (PBUH) did must be from the incarnated God, as they claim. Otherwise, they have to agree that he is human, which is fact.
In his letter to Theodosius Caesar, Saint Kerliss, the Bishop of Alexandria, said, “We do not split the human part of Jesus from the divine, nor do we split the word from the human part after that unknown unity, which we cannot explain. We confess that Jesus is from two wills that united and became one, not by destroying the two natures or by their mixture, but by an amazing and noble unity.”
Pope Euthenasius said, “This one God is the Son of God spiritually, and he is the Son of man bodily, but that does not mean that the only Son has two natures, one divine and one human, but one nature of the incarnated God’s Word, to whom we prostrate, the same as we prostrate to Jesus.”
Translating the sentence ‘this is my beloved son’, Saint Gregarious said, “If I see that my son is hungry, thirsty, sleepy or tired…do not think it is for his body without his divinity. If you see him cure the ills, clean the lepers and make eyes of mud, do not think that he is doing so by his divine part without the human part, because it is not that the great deeds are for one and the humble ones for another.”
We will be able to understand this – claimed- unity relationship, which is the unity of the human and the divine parts of Jesus (PBUH), when we realize two different deeds that Jesus performed, one through his human part and the other through his divine part. In the story of the bleeding woman, we read, “She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. And Jesus said, "Who was it that touched me?" When all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you! But Jesus said, "Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.” (Luke 8:44-46). In the blink of an eye, Christians compile total divinity with total humanity; Jesus did not know who touched him by his human part, and he cured her by his divine part and all in one moment.
In order to refute this strange unity, all one has to do is to imagine mixing two different elements completely and the properties of each remain the same; if we mix sweet with sour, supposedly – according to Christian understanding- the mixture could be sweet-sour at the same time.
Tens of the Gospels’ passages speak of Jesus’ (PBUH) human weaknesses, driving him away from divine rank, and answer and refute those who claim his divinity. These passages fall under four categories:
First Category
These are verses and passages, which declare his incapability and weaknesses. Therefore, he cannot be completely human and completely divine at the same time as Christians claim, but only human.
Jesus (PBUH) did not know many things. One of them, which is too important, was that he did not know the time of the Day of Judgment. He said, "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32). How can Christians claim that he is Allah (S.W) since the nescience of the unknown disputes it?
Not only that Jesus (PBUH) did not know the time of the Day of Judgment, but also he did not know anything except what Allah (S.W) showed him. That is why, when he wanted to raise Lazarus again, “he was deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled. And he said, "Where have you laid him?" (John 11:33-34)
When a man came to Jesus (PBUH) and asked him to cure his insane son, Jesus (PBUH) did not know how long that son had been sick. “And Jesus asked his father, "How long has this been happening to him?" And he said, "From childhood.” (Mark 9:21)
Jesus (PBUH) also showed, while he was performing his miracles, that he could not do them without the will and the help of Allah (S.W). He said, "I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.” (John 5:30)
He (PBUH) affirmed this meaning when he said, "I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.” (John 8:28-29). In another passage, he said to the Jews, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.” (John 5:19)
In addition, Jesus (PBUH) had no authority for good or bad even for himself, except by the mercy and the will of Allah (S.W). When the mother of Zabadee’s children, who were his disciples, came to him, “he said to her, "What do you want?" She said to him, "Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” Jesus answered, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”(Matt.20:20-22)
The Holy Bible also, in many passages, describes Jesus (PBUH) as a servant of Allah (S.W). In Matthew we read, “My servant whom I have chosen.” (Matt. 12:18) and in Acts, “glorified his servant Jesus, the Holy and Righteous One.”(Acts 3:13-14); “God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first” (Acts 3:26), “your holy servant Jesus.” (Acts 4:30)
Some translations, like the famous Vandyke translation, changed the word ‘servant’ to the word ‘Child’, which indicates son-ship. The Jesuit Fathers’ translation and the majority of other translations still use the word ‘Servant’.
To explain this misguiding change clearly, we read Matthew’s words. He said, “This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "Behold My Child whom I have chosen; My Beloved, in whom My soul is well pleased. I will put My Spirit on Him, and He shall declare judgment to the nations.”(Matt. 12:17-18) Matthew used the word ‘Child’, but in Isaiah, from which Matthew quoted, the word is ‘servant’. “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations.” (Isaiah 42:1)
Second Category
These are verses and passages, which declare his human deeds (PBUH), which are the same as any human being.
Scholars studied the life of Jesus (PBUH) - as mentioned in the Gospels- and they found that he is not different from the rest of human beings. They studied it from the time of the angel’s good news to his mother, his birth, his usage of nappies, his circumcision, his growth and education with children, his baptism by John the Baptist, until his assumed death, after his grief praying to Allah (S.W) to save him. Like the rest of us, he was born, he grew, he ate, he slept and died, so what is the thing that makes him different from us and makes him divine?
Covered with blood, he came out of a woman’s womb. “And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth.” (Luke 2:6)
He was breastfed, “As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” (Luke 11:27). One may ask the following question, did Mary know that her child, who came out of her womb and whom she took care of as any child, is Allah (S.W), as Christians claim, or did she not?
They circumcised him (PBUH) when he was eight days old. “And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus” (Luke 2:21). Did the person who circumcised him know that he was circumcising a God, and what happened to that piece of flesh when split from the incarnated Gods’ body? Did it become un-divine or did it remain divine and lost or buried?
John the Baptist baptized Jesus (PBUT) in the River Jordan. “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him” (Matt. 3:13). Did the Baptist not know that he was baptizing Allah (S.W)? Baptism is for repentance and the cleaning of sins, as mentioned in Matthew. “And they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. I baptize you with water for repentance. Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.” (Matt. 3:6-13). Was Allah (S.W) a sinner looking for someone to forgive him?
Furthermore, Jesus (PBUH) did what any human needs to do. He slept, “he was asleep” (Matt. 8:24) he felt tired as every human does, “so Jesus, wearied as he was from his journey” (John 4:6) he needed a donkey to ride; therefore, he sent his disciples to bring it. “The Lord has need of it” (Mark 11:3)
He (PBUH) also felt upset and depressed, “And began to be greatly distressed and troubled” (Mark 14:33) and sometimes, he felt upset and sorrowful. “He began to be sorrowful and troubled.” (Matt.26:37)
Crying is the habit of human beings when they face difficulty and sadness, and such was what Jesus (PBUH) did. “Jesus wept.” (John 11:35)
The devil tried to seduce him, but could not. He took Jesus (PBUH) to a high mountain, and showed him the whole world and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours. And Jesus answered him, "It is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.” (Luke 4:6-8)
People beat and scolded him, “When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?” (John 18:22) but he could not defend himself except by words, because he was bound. “So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him.” (John 18:12).
He felt hungry, he was looking for some food, “In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he became hungry” (Matt. 21:18) and he was thirsty. “Said, "I thirst.” (John 19:28) Then he ate and drank. “They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.” (Luke 24:42-43)
He needed the food and the drink in order to grow physically and mentally. “And the child grew.” (Luke 2:40) “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.” (Luke 2:52) The food helped him to grow physically, and the teaching of the teachers and the elders helped him grow mentally. “They found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.” (Luke 2:46)
We are not supposed to mention here, while talking about Allah (S.W), that eating and drinking need other human actions; micturition and defecation. (God forbid and forgive us for that)
Bringing this issue to our attention, Allah (S.W) mentions this to us in the Holy Quran. (Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food.) (Holy Quran, 5:75).
Anyone who eats and drinks needs to excrete the waste of that food, and it is blasphemy even to think about that for Allah (S.W).
The Gospels also mention Jesus’ (PBUH) sadness the eve of the crucifixion, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death.” (Mark 14:34) and when he was exhausted, an angel from heaven came to strengthen him. “And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him.” (Luke 22:43)
According to the Gospels, when he was on the cross, he was exhausted and cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34)
Not only did Jesus (PBUH) do the above mentioned, but also, as the Gospels claim, he died, how could anyone imagine a dead God? “And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last.” (Mark 15:37)
If someone tries to answer this question, saying that the dead was the human part and not the divine, and Allah (S.W) is immortal, I remind the reader, that the person who died on the cross is the Son of God and not the Son of Man. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish.” (John 3:16)
Trying to answer this fatal question, Turtellian (third century) could not find an answer except to say, “The Son of God had died! That is incredible; because it is something unbelievable and unacceptable by the mind. He was buried with the dead; it is certain, because it should have been impossible.” In spite of this saying, Turtillian and Christians after him still believe that he is Allah (S.W).
The Gospels also mention Jesus’ (PBUH) prayer and supplication to Allah (S.W). “Prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will”. (Matt. 26:39) “And there he prayed” (Mark 1:35)
Describing his prayer, Luke said, “and knelt down and prayed” (Luke 22:41) “he went out to the mountain to pray, and all night he continued in prayer to God. And when day came, he called his disciples” (Luke 6:12-13)
One may ask, to whom did Jesus (PBUH) pray all night, was he praying to himself or to the Allah (S.W) that dwells in him? Why would people leave worshipping the worshipped, to worship the worshipper?
Luke also mentioned that Jesus’ sweat was like drops of blood. He says, “And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose from prayer, he came to the disciples.” (Luke 22:44) Explaining that, Yohanna Fam Ethahab said, “Who cannot be surprised, seeing God Kneeling and praying?”
The description of Jesus’ condition (PBUH) when he raised Lazarus, which we find in The Gospel according to John, shows his weakness and his need for Allah’s (S.W) help. “And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” (John 11:41-42)
Prayer and worship are servants’ deeds, and it is unacceptable to attribute these deeds to Allah (S.W) or to the person in whom Allah (S.W) was incarnated.
Paul mentioned Jesus’ (PBUH) victory on everything including death, but he also mentioned his weaknesses and total submission to Allah (S.W). He said, “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” (Co.1 15:28)
Finally, what proves that Jesus (PBUH) is human, is what he (PBUH) said regarding entering heaven, which Allah (S.W) has prepared for His faithful believers, and that he will eat and drink as his disciples, who are among those believers. “In my Father's house are many rooms. I go to prepare a place for you. That where I am you may be also.” (John 14:2-3) “I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” (Matt. 26:29)
The Kingdom of God is heaven, where he (PBUH) will meet his disciples again and he will drink with them. Is the Son going to incarnate in the Hereafter again, and what is the point of doing so, or will he be back as human and live in Allah’s (S.W) heaven as all believers?
The conclusion of all the above, we take it from what Jesus (PBUH) mentioned about himself. He said, “A man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.” (John 8:40). Should we not take his testimony (PBUH)? If he is Allah (S.W), it is not right for him to hide this fact from us by saying this plain and clear sentence, which proves that he is only human.
When Christians insist on his divinity, they are ignoring and throwing Jesus’ (PBUH) and his disciples’ words in the ocean, and denying all these passages, which do not speak about incarnated God nor about a human that Allah (S.W) dwells in.
Third Category
These are verses and passages, which declare Jesus’ (PBUH) disciples, his contemporaries and his enemies’ ignorance of the divinity concept. These verses and passages prove that neither Jesus (PBUH) nor his disciples had anything to do with the concept of divinity, but it is an invention, which came much later after his time, and that is sufficient to refute the case.
These passages and verses are many; the following are some examples.
1- His virgin mother’s (PBUH) ignorance of his divinity is one of them. While Jesus (PBUH) was going back with his mother and Joseph the carpenter, something, which proved his mother’s ignorance of his divinity occurred. If his pure mother did not know of his divinity, who else would?
In the Book of Luke, we read, “And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the group they went a day's journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances, and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching for him. After three days, they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.” (Luke 2:43-48). Their worries about Jesus (PBUH) were meaningless if she knew that he was Allah (S.W).
Jesus (PBUH) answered his mother’s question, saying, "Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?’ (Luke 2:49). Did she and Joseph understand from his words that he meant that he is Allah (S.W) or a real son of Allah (S.W)? Of course not, for they did not know anything about this strange belief. Luke says, “And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them.” (Luke 2:50)
When Simon carried the baby – Jesus (PBUH) – and praised Allah (S.W) because he had seen the Messiah, his mother (PBUH) heard and saw the happiness in his face. She and Joseph the Carpenter did not understand what he said and they were surprised and confused. “And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.” (Luke 2:33)
2- Simon Peter, who was the dearest to Jesus (PBUH), said while he was full of the Holy Spirit, "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know. This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” (Acts 2:22-23) He did not mention in this important speech, supported by the Holy Spirit, anything about a divine human nor about God incarnate.
3- When Jesus (PBUH) appeared – after his assumed crucifixion- to two of his friends who were upset because of the rumors of his crucifixion, he asked them about the reason for their sadness. They said, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people. and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel.” (Luke 24:19-21). There is nothing in their answer about a murdered divine human, nor anything about incarnated God who had concurred death. What they saw in him was not more than a man, a savior, who was the expected Messiah of whom the prophets had foretold.
Ibrahim Saeed, an Egyptian priest, regarding these two disciples, said, “Until that moment they did not believe in his divinity… but we do not deny that they were believers of his prophethood.”
4- When his disciples witnessed his miracles, they were surprised. If they considered him (PBUH) Allah (S.W), there would have been no surprise in the performance of those miracles. When he passed by the fig tree and did not find any fruit on it, Jesus (PBUH) said, “And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once. When the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, "How did the fig tree wither at once?” (Matt. 21:18-22). Their surprise was an indication that they knew nothing of what today’s Christians claim, for there is no surprise if Allah (S.W) is able to make a green tree dry.
The disciples' and Jesus’ (PBUH) contemporaries did not think of him as more than the Messiah; the great-expected prophet. They did not even think of his divinity or his son-ship to Allah (S.W).
Bishop Matta El Meskeen said, “The disciples thought of him as only a prophet, but he performed deeds which no prophet had performed… that made them think of him as more than a prophet, but what was he? The disciples had collected sufficient evidence which assured them that he was the Messiah.”
Seeing Jesus’ (PBUH) miracles, the Samaritan woman said, “"Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.” (John 4:19) and she did not add a word. Jesus’ (PBUH) reaction to her was not of any kind of scolding or correction, he did not correct her because that was what people – including his disciples- believed.
The same happened when Jesus (PBUH) cured the blind man, who witnessed Allah’s (S.W) power after his eyes opened. The people asked him, “"Then how were your eyes opened? He answered, "The man called Jesus.” (John 9:10-11). However, Christians believe from this event more than that man, who confessed that Jesus (PBUH) was just a man.
The crowds, who used to see Jesus (PBUH) in Jerusalem and went to welcome him when he entered like a hero, considered him as human and a prophet. “And the crowds said, "This is the prophet Jesus” (Matt. 21:11)
Even his Jewish enemies thought of him the same. They were asking for a sign, but he told them that they would only see a sign like the sign of Jonah (PBUH). “Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you. But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” (Matt. 12:38-39)
Those Jews, without doubt, were asking for a sign, proving his prophethood and not his divinity. If Jesus (PBUH) claimed divinity-- which he did not – the Jews would not accept that sign, and they would ask him to perform miracles that are greater than Jonah’s and the other prophets’.
Doubting Jesus’ (PBUH) prophethood, a Pharisee was watching Jesus (PBUH) while a crying sinful woman came to Jesus and cleaned his feet with her hair, kissed them and applied some perfume on them. He said, “Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.” (Luke 7:39)
In his heart, the Pharisee denied Jesus’ prophethood – not divinity- because Jesus (PBUH) did not know the identity of that woman, and that proves that he (PBUH) claimed that he is just a prophet.
In this regard, Matta El Meskeen said, “The Pharisee, when he saw that Jesus had accepted what the woman did, took it as a confession against Jesus that he was not a prophet, like the people said.”
In addition, the Jews wanted to kill him for they considered him a criminal, and they charged him with claiming prophethood, not divinity. They said to Nicodemus, "Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.” (John 7:52). They accused him of lying by saying that he is a prophet, since no prophet came out of Galilee.
The devil also did not consider Jesus (PBUH) more than a man. He dared to seduce him; he took him to the mountain for forty days without food or drink-- testing, seducing and promising him the world if he would prostrate to him just one time. “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me. Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.” (Matt. 4:8-10) Did the devil promise Allah (S.W) – who has everything and everything belongs to him – the world?
In his commentaries in Matthews’s Gospel and quoting Jerome’s words in this regard, priest Tadress Yaakoob Malatee, wrote, “The devil’s intention of doing that was to know whether or not Jesus was truly the Son of God, but the savior was good in his answers, leaving the devil in doubt.” It is clear that the devil was and remained ignorant of Jesus’ (PBUH) claimed divinity.
Furthermore, if Jesus (PBUH) was Allah (S.W), how could one explain Judas’ betrayal? Can anyone betray Allah (S.W)?
How can one explain Peter’s denial - three times - and condemnation of Jesus (PBUH), the night of his arrest? What is said of Jesus (PBUH) as divine or God, creates many questions, which will remain without answers.
Finally, not only his contemporaries said that he was human, but also the previous prophecies, which Christians believe, affirm the same. They said that he (PBUH) has fulfilled these prophecies, but as we all know, these prophecies did not foretell about a coming God, but about a noble righteous prophet.
Fourth Category
These are verses and passages, which declare Jesus’ (PBUH) prophethood, and that is more proof against his divinity.
Jesus’ (PBUH) contemporaries professed of his prophethood and message, which are human characteristics and not Allah’s (S.W). In the Book of John, we read, “You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am.” (John 13:13). In this, Jesus (PBUH) accepted and confirmed their belief as they called him lord and master. It was common during his time to call him such, “And he said to him, Teacher” (Mark 10:20). Was it moral not to call him “God” and use this humble title “Master” instead?
Jesus (PBUH) started his mission as a prophet when he was thirty, “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age” (Luke 3:23) and there was a time that the Holy Spirit had not been given to him. “For as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (John 7:39)
In addition, Jesus (PBUH) himself confessed that his God is one and that he is just a messenger. “You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3). Similarly, he said, “And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” (Matt. 13:57). He considered himself like the rest of the prophets, whom are not honored among their people.
When the Pharisees threatened Jesus (PBUH) with Herod, he confirmed, once again, that he is just a prophet. He said, “I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it.” (Luke 13:33-34) He confessed his prophethood and he was afraid of murder, like many other prophets; therefore, he left Jerusalem calling it ‘killer of prophets’ not ‘Killer of Gods’.
When he (PBUH) performed his miracles, he used to pray to Allah (S.W), linking his miracles to his message and prophethood. “But I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” (John 11:42)
When the Jews tried to kill him once, he made a statement, in which he made a clear confession that he is human and just a messenger of Allah (S.W). “But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.” (John 8:40).
Confirming that, he told his disciples many times that he is a messenger, and his words are infallible, for he speaks with inspiration from Allah (S.W). “Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” (John 20:21)
He affirmed that again, when he said, “the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment--what to say and what to speak” (John 12:49) and he said, “the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.” (John 14:24)
"My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.” (John 7:16) he also said, “Nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.” (John 13:16)
That everyone during his time believed in him as a prophet, and confronting him with that, without his objection, is another confirmation that he (PBUH) was just a prophet. “Fear seized them all, and they glorified God, saying, "A great prophet has arisen among us!" and "God has visited his people!” (Luke 7:16) and when he fed the crowd with the five loaves and two fish, people said, “"This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” (John 6:14) even Paul, “for there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (Tim.1 2:5)
In his book ‘The Spreading Universe’ Sir Arthur Findlay was right. He said, “Jesus was not God or savior, but he was a messenger of God who served, during his short life, to cure the sick and to tell news about the hereafter. He taught that life in this world is just a preparation for the Kingdom of God, which is a better life for every righteous.”
From the above, we see the proof that Jesus (PBUH) was a servant of Allah (S.W), and great messenger from Him, which is identical to the Muslims belief. “He was no more than a servant: We granted Our favour to him, and We made him an example to the Children of Israel.” (Holy Quran 43:59)
THE PURPOSE OF INCARNATION
Christians believe that Allah (S.W) was incarnated in Jesus (PBUH), and their evidence for that is what comes in the Gospel according to John. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14)
To understand this passage, we read what the Monastic Jesuits Edition’s scholars said regarding the incarnation of the wisdom, which is in Proverbs (8:22). They said, “The idea of the incarnated wisdom, which is just a literature art as in Proverbs (14:1), was developed in Israel at the time of the captivity; when worshipping idols ceased to be a threat to the right religion. In all passages that mention the incarnation of the wisdom, the word or the spirit, it is difficult to distinguish between the poetic art, the old religious belief and the new inspiration.”
Thus, it is possible that the passage, which speaks of the word incarnation, is just a literature art, which is the same as the metaphoric incarnation of the wisdom, when it went out, “Wisdom cries aloud in the street, in the markets she raises her voice; at the head of the noisy streets she cries out.” (Pro. 1:20-21) and considering ignorance as a wild woman. (Pro. 9:13-18)
In this regard, scholars are asking about the reason for the incarnation of the Son and why it is not the Father’s or the Holy Spirit’s incarnation. They also ask why Allah (S.W) had to incarnate into a human figure: come down from His high throne, enter the womb of a woman and finally, be born from her.
Clergymen have been working hard to answer these questions, and when they did not find any answer in their books, they used their thoughts. Consequently, they have different opinions, and as they cannot find proof for Paul’s claim of God's incarnation, they also cannot find a reason for that incarnation.
Their answers and conclusions are as follows:
First: This is a mystery, which we cannot understand, but we have to believe.
Second: The incarnation is to fill the gap between Allah (S.W) and humanity, and to reconcile it with seeing Allah (S.W).
Third: The incarnation is a way to make people return to Allah (S.W) and worship Him and to leave the worship of idols and other creations; therefore, Allah (S.W) incarnated Himself into a human figure in order to be worshipped. Saint Ephraim said, “God saw us (humans) worshipping idols and creations, that is why He wore a created body to hunt us to worship Him.”
Fourth: The incarnation is necessary to reconcile Allah’s (S.W) justice and His mercy, for His justice ordained the death of humans and His mercy ordained that they live; for that, Jesus (PBUH) was the sacrifice.
Regarding that, Ethanasius, who was one of the most important people on the Nicene Council, said, “That is why the word of God had to bring forth the sinful man to righteousness. At the same time, fulfill what the father requires, and since he – Jesus- is God’s word, he was the only suitable one, who can renew everything and bear the pain instead of everyone else before the father. For that, he came down to our world without body, clean and without sin. He did bear the pain of death in order to prevent the death of humans, because then his father’s creation would be a waste. He took a body like our bodies. If he did not come and dwell among us, then that would be the end of the human race.”
Did Jesus’ death (PBUH) change the death issue for humans, or do people still die until now?
Answering this question, Ethanasius said, “Death entered this world by the devil’s envy. After that, people started to sin and to die; the devil had authority more than it was supposed, because he came as a result of God’s threat in the case of sin.”
I wonder what death’s natural authority is, and I wonder what is the difference between people’s death before and after Jesus (PBUH). One has the right to ask, what is the secret about death taking other creatures’ lives?
Ethanasius also mentioned another reason for Allah’s (S.W) incarnation, which is to comfort humans. He said, “When God, the controller of everything, created humans by His word and saw their weaknesses in knowing God or even having a concept of Him, He came down to show them Himself. He did not leave them without knowledge of Him, in order to prevent them thinking that their existence is useless.”
According to this, the reason for Allah’s (S.W) incarnation is for humankind to know their God and to destroy the gap between the Creator and the creation. This is what Snout mentioned in his book “The Original Christianity”, as he said, “there is an endless big gap, …. In addition, if God did not begin and amend the matter, it would remain the same. Humans would be hopeless, wondering, but God spoke and declared Himself.”
Dr Abdul Karim Al Khateeb wonders, “How was the relation between the prophets and their God with such a gap?
Did they know their God with sufficient knowledge, which led them to worship and obey Him?
Was their faith in Allah (S.W) weak and untrue?
What changes happened to humankind after Allah’s (S.W) incarnation? Did all people believe in Allah (S.W) and know Him? Did Atheism disappear from the world?”
What kind of pleasure is there for humanity in seeing their God slapped, beaten, and whipped? This reduces every belief about Allah (S.W) in their minds, as humans are created with eagerness and curiosity longing to know the invisible; the unseen things. If they know about it, if the unknown was revealed, there would be no more longing, their desire would be less towards the thing they were looking for and searching for so hard.
What about the other generations, who did not have the pleasure of seeing the incarnated God? Would it be fair to exclude them? How could they know their God if they did not see Him?
Why was our pleasure and comfort in seeing Allah (S.W) in His childhood and His youth, but not in His middle and old age?
Muslims refuse these justifications, which offend the greatness of Allah (S.W), make Him incapable of forgiveness, and make Him confused between His mercy and His justice. Such issues do not occur with wise people, how could we accept them for Allah (S.W)? These justifications make Allah (S.W) unable to guide people to worship Him except in a polytheistic way that they know.
Charles Gene Pier has the same opinion - he agrees in the weakness of these justifications. He affirms that Paul was the one who created the idea of the incarnated God. He explains the reasons, which led Paul to do that. Paul came up with the incarnation idea after realizing that “the new polytheist followers will not accept the crucifixion scandal, and, there must be a good explanation for Jesus’ shameful death, which the enemy did not stop from relating matters to it. That explanation must be sufficient to make the crucifixion event an event of deep religious significance.
Paul (the apostle) dealt with this problem… he developed a solution, which had a huge influence; he ignored the idea of Jesus of Nazareth, which was the major concept of the twelve. He mentioned nothing but the crucified Jesus, imagining him as a divine character, who existed before the world itself and considered him as a kind of personification. The apostle found the basic elements of secrets; he found them without even looking for them…”
Paul faced another difficulty while he was finishing the crucified incarnated God, and that was, what was he going to say about Jesus’ death on the cross, since the Torah states that every crucified person is cursed? (Deuteronomy 21:23), Thus, this shameful death was an insult to Jesus, and made him cursed according to the Jewish Law.
To solve this fatal matter, Paul decided to make the cursed as an example of sacrifice, and make him God, who descended and incarnated to redeem humans’ sins. He became a curse to redeem them from the Law’s curse, as Paul says, “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” (Romans 5:8-10), he became a curse to save us from the Law’s curse.
Finally, what Christians say about Allah (S.W), multiplicity and incarnation, is a kind of a human trifling, and a clear insult on Allah (S.W). The sculptor, as the guided Mohammad Majdi Murjan said, “When he makes a statue he can destroy it, and no one can say that the statue will claim that it was made of the same substance as its maker, or that it is part of him.
The powerless human, who is one of Allah’s (S.W) creations, dared to insult his Creator; he became arrogant and ignorant, and then turned these facts upside down. He reformed his Maker, and, from his own imagination, divided Him into three parts, making each part as God, consequently, transferring the one and only God into three. He also divided the work and the burden on his three gods, which he did to pity the one God so as not to carry all these burdens alone by Himself. How miserable is man!”
In fact, the idea of incarnation is one of the most important reasons for the spread of Atheism among Christians. Human beings tend to glorify and esteem their Creator by their own spirits and instincts, and consider Him the most adorable and far above being equal to anyone; Christianity, all the while, makes Allah (S.W) as a human, who came from the womb of an Israeli woman.
Cranes Airsold said, “From the scientific point of view, I cannot imagine God materially, who can be seen or replaced anywhere”
Consequently, people face difficulty in choosing between the wrong belief and the true instinct, which their minds support. Many of them find no alternative other than to disbelieve in the church that whipped and crucified God, which increases Atheism. Allah (S.W) is far above what they say.
One of the disadvantages of the incarnation creed is that it weakens the morals and principles that Jesus taught and made him a good example for his followers. The call of Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity affects all that, as people cannot follow and do what Allah (S.W) has done.
The writers of The Encyclopedia Americana said, “If Jesus was God, then the morals and principles, which he performed and gave to us during his humble life, would be invaluable, as he has power which we do not have, and humans cannot imitate God.”
In his book “on Jesus steps” Tomas Ecembesphy said, “If Jesus was God, then one cannot follow him and follow his tradition.
THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
The Holy Spirit, for Muslims, is a name for the angel Gabriel (PBUH), and a name for Allah’s (S.W) inspiration and His support for his prophets.
The Holy Quran calls the angel Gabriel (PBUH) as the Holy Spirit. Allah (S.W) Says, “Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth” (Holy Quran 16:102), also, Allah (S.W) says, “Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit.” (Holy Quran 5:110)
In addition, the Holy Quran calls Allah’s (S.W) inspiration to his prophets as Spirit. Allah (S.W) says, “And thus have We, by Our Command, sent inspiration to thee.” (Holy Quran 42:52), He also says, “Raised high above ranks (or degrees), (He is) the Lord of the Throne (of Authority): by His Command doth He send the Spirit (of inspiration) to any of His servants he pleases.” (Holy Quran 40:15)
It is important to mention, that what the Holy Quran says about the Holy Spirit is not far from what the Bible says, but it does not agree with the Constantinople Council meaning.
The Holy Bible mentions that various creatures hold the name ‘Holy Spirit’:
1- The human spirit, which Allah (S.W) creates in his creations, is Allah’s (S.W) Spirit, which He creates in them. “And to the spirits of the righteous made perfect.” (Heb. 12/23), “when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.” (Psalms 104/29-30) Allah (S.W) gave life to Adam by the same spirit. “and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” (Gen. 2/7). This spirit is called ‘the spirit of Allah (S.W)’ because it came from Allah (S.W), and to Him it will return. “And the spirit returns to God who gave it.” (Ecc. 12/7).
2- The inspiration that the angels carry to prophets, “David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared” (Mark 12/36), also “And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1/67), Peter said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David.” (Acts 1/16). Allah (S.W) called the prophets and what they bring of this inspiration as the Holy Spirit, as He said scolding the people of Israel, "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?” (Acts 7/51-52)
3- The Holy Spirit is also a name for the aid and wisdom, which Allah (S.W) gives to His prophets and others, and the angels or others can deliver it. Jesus said, “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons.” (Matt. 12:28) and what Pharaoh said to his servants, when he was looking for a wise man. "Can we find a man like this, in whom is the Spirit of God?” (Gen. 41/38) “Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.” (Luke 2/25), also, the Holy Spirit supported the disciples on the fiftieth day “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts 2/4). This is the same as what the prophet Haggai said, “My Spirit remains in your midst. Fear not.” (Haggai 2/5)
4- The strong wind also called the Holy Spirit. Describing the destroying wind, the Torah says, “The grass withers, the flower fades when the breath of the LORD blows on it.” (Isaiah 40/7), the same is in Genesis, “And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” (Gen. 1/2), there is a mistranslation in this passage that leads to this confusion. The passage, as the great critic Espinoza said, ‘means a strong wind came from God, and ceased darkness.’
Moreover, relating the spirit to Allah (S.W) in the last two passages is glorification and esteem, not deifying, as it says, “The mountains of God” (Psalms 36/6)
Those who worship the Holy Spirit do not accept all the meanings that I have mentioned. They do not accept the idea that the Holy Spirit is just a power or angel from Allah (S.W). The Holy Spirit, according to the Christian concept is God, is the third hypostasis of the Trinity. What is the Holy Spirit according to their concept? What evidence do they have for considering him as a God? When did that happen?
In 381 C.E, by the order of the Emperor Tedious, the Council of Constantinople formed, to discuss Bishop Macedonius’ belief. He denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit; and he believed what the Holy Books mentioned about him. He believed that, “The Holy Spirit is a divine work spread in the world, not a divine person who is different from the Father and the Son”, and, “He is like all the creations”, and he saw him as a servant of the Son just like one of the angels.
One hundred and fifty priests attended this council. These priests decided to deprive Macedonius of his office, and they made one important decision never made by the church councils before, which was deifying the Holy Spirit. They considered him as a complement to the Trinity. They said, “We have no other meaning for the Holy Spirit except the Spirit of God, God is nothing except his life, and saying that the Holy Spirit is a creation, is the same as saying that God is a creation.”
Priest Yasin Mansor said, “The Holy Spirit is the eternal God, he existed before the creation, and he is the creator of everything, able to do anything. He is present everywhere, and he is the everlasting and the unlimited”.
He also said, “The Holy Spirit is the third hypostasis of the Trinity. He is not just a power or characteristic, but a real self, a living person, and a distinct divine being. He is not separate; he is a divine unit different from the Father and the Son, but equal to them in power and position, sharing with them the basic and the same divinity.
Christians refer to John’s Gospel when talking about the divinity of the Holy Spirit: “God is spirit” (John 4/24). They also believe that he is the spirit that existed from the beginning of creation, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” (Genesis 1/1-2). Many other passages also mention spirit, God spirit, or the Holy Spirit.
Refuting Christian Evidence for the Divinity of the Holy Spirit
I suppose that what I have mentioned about the meaning of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Bible is enough to disprove this strange belief. Moreover, the meaning of the words “the Holy Spirit”, which Christians believe, does not exist in the Holy Bible. If we attentively study the passages, which mention the Holy Spirit, we will be certain about the strangeness of this belief.
The Holy Spirit incarnated itself into different images - one as a pigeon, which descended on Jesus (PBUH) while he was praying, “and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove” (Luke 3/22). Was that pigeon Allah (S.W)?
At another time, it came as fiery tongues, when it overshadowed the disciples on the fiftieth day. “And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2/2-4)
Why do Christians not accept that the Holy Spirit could be Gabriel (PBUH) or Allah’s (S.W) angel as mentioned in their Holy Book? The Holy Spirit came to Cornelius and Peter, and he was one of Allah’s (S.W) angels “the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you. Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them. And Peter went down to the men…. And they said, Cornelius…. Was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what you have to say.” (Acts 10/20-22) The Holy angel was the Spirit that spoke to Peter and it was he, who asked Cornelius to send his men to Peter.
The enemy of the Israelites from among the angels is Gabriel (PBUH). He is the Holy Spirit who saved them many times, then when they insisted on disbelieving, he became angry with them, tutored them, and became their enemy. “And the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them.” (Isaiah 63/9-10) They upset Allah’s (S.W) Holy Spirit, the angel, thus, turning his love to enmity.
The Holy Spirit was with the people of Israel when they left Egypt. “Then he remembered the days of old, of Moses and his people. Where is he who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is he who put in the midst of them his Holy Spirit, Who divided the waters before them to make for himself an everlasting name.” (Isaiah 63/11), but he was an angel not a divine person. "Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared.” (Exodus 23/20) The Holy Spirit is the angel that was with them.
Allah’s (S.W) Spirit is not a name for Gabriel, but it is the name for many other angels as well. “And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.” (Revelation 5/6). The Spirits that John saw were not gods; otherwise the Christian Trinity would not be a threesome, but a ten-some.
Revelation mentions these seven Spirits of Allah (S.W) in two other places: “From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God.” (Revelation 4/5), "And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: 'The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars.” (Revelation 3/1).
Whoever the Holy Spirit is, he is not Allah (S.W). If he is God, he should do everything by himself, but he cannot. Peter said, “But men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (Peter (2) 1/21). If the Holy Spirit were an everlasting God and equal to the Father in every thing, he would make people speak his own words.
What disproves the divinity of the Holy Spirit is his ignorance – just like others - of the time of the Day of Judgment, as no one knows it except the Father. "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13/32)
Another fact disproving the Holy Spirit’s divinity is that the passages speak of him as a gift from Allah (S.W) to men, as Jesus said, “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11/13). It does not make sense that Allah (S.W), as the third divine being, is a gift that is given to and owned by people.
Moreover, if the Holy Spirit is God, we should consider the people who he descended on, as God. He descended on many people, like David, “And I will dwell among the children of Israel and will not forsake my people Israel.” (Kings (1) 6/13); Simon, “Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.”(Luke 2/25); the disciples, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses.” (Acts 1/8). Finally, he descended on the people of Corinth, who believed in Paul. Paul said, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you?” (Corinthians (1) 6/19). All these are worth worshipping if God – the Holy Spirit - is in them and fills them.
Not only does the Holy Bible consider those who believe in the Holy Spirit as believers, but it also considers the same for people who do not hear of the Holy Spirit. In addition, it considers them as disciples even though they do not know this claimed God. “And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” (Acts 19/1-2) This, without doubt, disproves the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
What Christians refer to, regarding the divinity of the Holy Spirit in “God is spirit” (John 4/24), is wrong. The passage does not tell about the nature of Allah (S.W), but about one of His characteristics, as in “God is love” (John (1) 4/16), “God is light” (John (1) 1/5)
John meant that no one could see God almighty, because He is not a material body of flesh and blood, and Luke affirmed this as he said, “For a spirit does not have flesh and bones.” (Luke 24/39)
supported this meaning. Answering the question: 'why do people say that God is a Spirit?', they answer, “It is said that he is a Spirit because he is far above materiality and cannot be decayed.”
Therefore, scholars believe that the Holy Spirit is not God, and the concept of the Trinity is a fabricated creed; made by the church councils according to the popes’ and the emperors’ wishes, without referring to any evidence proving this belief. A belief of which the prophets had never heard, was never mentioned by Jesus, and was unknown to the disciples.
The Modern Catholic encyclopedia was right in saying that “making one God into three persons was not established in Christian life or in their belief before the end of the fourth century.”
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE OF THE TRINITY
It is common, when talking about the most important creed in Christianity, which is the Trinity, to find evidence for it in many passages uttered by the prophets, then Jesus (PBUT) and his disciples after him.
However, looking attentively at the Holy Bible, we cannot find the clear evidence that we are looking for, in the Old or the New Testaments. It is incorrect to judge hastily. Let us read what the Holy Bible mentions regarding this important belief.
First: The Torah Passages and the Trinity
Christians refer to some of the Torah passages and claim that they are divine signs of the Trinity. One of these passages uses the plural Hebrew word ‘Eloheem’ when talking about Allah (S.W). “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1/1). Likewise, it uses what refers to plurality for the deeds that were done by Allah (S.W): “Come, let us go down and there confuse their language.” (Genesis 11/7)
There are other passages, which Christians refer to as signs of the Trinity in the Torah. The angels’ saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts.” (Isaiah 6/3) mentions the word (Holy) three times. Likewise, the animals, which John saw in his revelation said, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty” (Revelation 4/8)
A Critique of the Passages of the Torah
Christians admit there is nothing in those passages that is clear evidence of the Trinity, which the clear monotheistic passages refute. On the other hand, the readers of the Old Testament, starting from the early prophets to the children of Israel, did not understand that these passages, as Christians claim, are indications to the Trinity.
Priest Potter admits that, saying, “After God created the world, and completed it by creating human beings, for some time he did not declare anything about Himself except monotheism, as mentioned in the Torah. However, there are still many signs behind this monotheism, because if you read attentively you will find sentences such as, (God’s word), (God’s wisdom), (God’s spirit). Those, to whom the Torah was sent, knew about the intended meaning only from the Gospel… as, what the Torah hinted, the Gospel declared and explained.”
One wonders, why did Allah (S.W) conceal the Trinity from Moses (PBUH) and the Israelites? Why did He deceive them with many monotheistic passages, which made them rebel against the Trinity and deny it? Will He forgive them and others, for not finding the real meaning in these puzzles?
Scholars thought about the Christians’ claim, found it deceitful, unacceptable by intelligent minds, and it does not fit with the real meaning of the context. What these passages indicate are multiple gods, without specification of three or four.
The plurals mentioned in the Torah, (Eloheem, Let us, we descend, etc.) are for glorification, as nations are accustomed to talk of their great people using plural verbs. One may say, “we, we believe, we ordered”, meaning himself. The listener understands that he is talking about himself, and not himself and others.
It is common to use plurality for glorification, even in the Holy Bible. There are many examples, such as the woman, the fortune-teller, who saw Samuel’s spirit after his death; she talked about him using the plural form. The Torah says, “When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, "I saw gods ascending out of the earth.” He said to her, "What is his appearance?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel.” (Samuel (1) 28/12-14 KJV). She was talking about Samuel, and even though she saw him as an old man, she talked of him in the plural (gods). Thus plurality does not necessarily indicate multiple numbers; it means glorification.
When the Children of Israel worshipped the calf, it was one, which the Torah mentions as plural three times. “And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” They have made for themselves a golden calf and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it and said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” (Exodus 32/4-8)
This chapter continues to reassure us that using the plural means one. “So Moses returned to the LORD and said, "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin. They have made for themselves gods of gold.” (Exodus 32/31)
Simlarly, we find this plurality in the Holy Quran, as Allah (S.W) says, “We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).” (Holy Quran 15: 9). “We” refers to the One and Only, Allah (S.W).
Repeating words three times, as the angels and the animals, which John saw, cannot be evidence in any way. If we continue to use them as evidence, we will find many gods.
The Holy Bible mentions the word, (holy) three times twice; it also mentions it forty times as one word. This repetition is for reassurance only, as in many passages of the Gospels and the Torah.
In one of these passages, the Jews say: “but they kept shouting, "Crucify, crucify him!” (Luke 23/21). The same also happened when Jesus (PBUH) asked Peter, he repeated it three times: “When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you…He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?"…. He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" (John 21/15-17).
The Gospels’ Passages and the Trinity
Christians believe there is much evidence of the Trinity in the New Testament, which is much clearer than that mentioned in the Torah. They present passages such as: “And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him. And behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3/16-17)
This passage contains the Father, the beloved Son, and the Spirit that descended in the shape of a dove. In another passage Paul said, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” (Corinthians (2) 13/14).
Whoever reads Matthew’s passage attentively, will find three selves, different in names and acts. Each of them has a different self-being; one came out from the water after baptism, the second descended as a dove, and the third is in the sky saying, (this is my beloved son). How can one say, after all this, that they are only one being?
Moreover, Christians believe that Jesus is the Son. Here the passage indicates that the spirit is incarnated in Jesus (PBUH), and assures that in many places, (Luke 3/22, Matthew 12/18) while other passages indicate that the Father is incarnated in him. (John 17/21, 14/9-10). Then which divine hypostasis is incarnated in Jesus (PBUH)?
The Holy Bible does not mention the three hypostasis of the Trinity together, except in two passages: the passage of the three witnesses in John’s First Epistle, and the end of Matthew’s Gospel.
A. The Passage of the Three Witnesses
The following is the more important of the two passages, of which I have spoken. John’s First Epistle says: “For there are three that testify: The Spirit, the water, and the blood-and these three are one.” (John (1) 5/7-8 International standard version).
This passage clearly shows that the three are only one God. However, it does not exist in all the old manuscripts of the Holy Bible, nor does it exist in the first printed book. It was added later.
Christian scholars admit adding it. Among them, Heron, the collectors of Henry Weskit Commentary, Adam Clark, and Fender. In addition, Saint Eckstein, when he debated in the fourth century with those who were against the Trinity, did not mention this passage. Moreover, he wrote ten dissertations commenting on John’s Epistle, but he did not mention this passage.
The Revised Standard Version and some universal translations deleted it from its English version. It still exists in most of the other translations, such as Douay-Rheims Bible, the International Standard Version, James Murdock New Testament, and the Modern King James Version.
The passage in the English Standard Version and some other translations is: “because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and these three agree” (John (1) 5/6-8). The Monastic Jesuit Translation mentioned, in its introduction, the reason for the deletion. It says, “This passage was never mentioned in the manuscript before the fifteenth century or in the old ones, neither in the best Latin translations. Most likely, it was a comment written in the margin, and then was inserted into the text while in use in the west.”
Benjamin Wilson, the translator of the Greek manuscripts, said the same. He said, “This sentence, which is evidence of the divinity, is not found in any of the Greek manuscripts before the fifteenth century. None of the Greek writers nor did any of the ancient Latin popes ever mention it, even when it was necessary for the topic; therefore, frankly, it is a fabrication”.
B- The Last Verses of Matthew’s Gospel
The second passage, which Christians consider as evidence of the Trinity, is Matthew’s verse in his last chapter. This verse speaks of Jesus (PBUH) before his ascent to heaven, as he gave his command to his disciples. “And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28/18-20)
The first critical point in this passage is, although it is a very important one, the other three Gospels do not mention it. These Gospels agree that Jesus (PBUH) entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey. Was his riding on a donkey more important than the Trinity, which no one mentioned except Matthew?
In addition, at the end of Mark’s Gospel, when Jesus (PBUH) gave the command to the disciples, he did not mention the Trinity. Mark said, “And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16/15-16). That indicates the fabrication of the Trinity passage in Matthew’s Gospel and shows that it is not genuine.
Moreover, this passage is a fabrication, as western scholars confirm. Wills said, “There is no proof that the apostles believed in the Trinity.”
Adolph Harnack said, “The Trinity passage, which talks about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is a strange issue to Jesus and it was not mentioned by him, and never existed in the Apostles’ time. Only in the later teachings of Christianity, do we find that Jesus was giving instructions after his resurrection, for, Paul knew nothing about that.” (Paul did not quote Jesus’ saying, which called for the spreading of Christianity among nations.)
When the historian Eusebius quoted this passage, he did not mention the Father or the Holy Spirit, but said, “they went to all nations to preach about the Gospel, relying on Jesus’ power, who said to them: ‘go, and teach all nations by my name’.”
Moreover, what assures us is that the newly discovered Hebrew manuscripts for Matthew’s Gospel, which were originally written in Hebrew, do not contain this passage. This, according to Dr. G. Recart, a theology professor in the Anglican Missionary College, is strong evidence that the passage is a fabrication. He said, “Indeed, the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox have lied to the world regarding the last verses in Matthew, for, anyone who was baptized in this way, had a wrong baptism and died without salvation.”
Dr. Recart also reminds us of many other passages that speak of the baptism by Jesus Christ only, as what comes in Peter’s famous speech. Peter said, “"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38).
The Samaritans were baptizing by the baptism of John the Baptist, when they heard Peter, “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5) Peter did not ask them to baptize by the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The history of the disciples assures us that they did not know about that passage. They did not go to preach to all people as Jesus told them in that claimed passage. On the contrary, he told them to avoid preaching anyone other than the Jews. “These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans. but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10/5-6).
This corresponds with a second century historical testimony, which contradicts the command of preaching to the nations and contradicts baptizing them with the Trinity. Apollonius, the historian, said, “I have received from the elders that Jesus, before ascending to heaven, commanded his disciples not to go far from Jerusalem for twelve years.”
The disciples followed what Jesus (PBUH) said. They did not leave Jerusalem until circumstances forced them to leave. “Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews.” (Acts 11/19).
If the disciples had heard Jesus (PBUH) commanding them to preach to all nations by the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they would follow what he said willingly, and preach his message to the gentiles.
When the idolatrous Cornelius, after his conversion to Christianity by Peter, called Peter to know about Christianity, the disciples blamed Peter for doing so. Then Peter said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.” (Acts 10/28).
We notice here that Peter did not mention that Jesus (PBUH) asked them to do so, but he said “to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people.” (Acts 10/41-42), meaning the Jews only.
When he returned to Jerusalem, he faced more blame. “So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” (Acts 11/2-3) Then he told them about his dream, of eating with the gentiles, “But Peter began and explained it to them in order: "I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat. But I said, 'By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth. But the voice answered a second time from heaven, 'What God has made clean, do not call common. This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven.” (Acts 11/4-10), and how the Holy Spirit came and asked him to go: “And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me.” (Acts 11/12)
After this convincing explanation from Peter, the disciples agreed to let him go to preach to the gentiles. “When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11/18)
Thus, all these people, including Peter, knew nothing about Matthew’s passage, which calls of baptizing the nations in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, why? Because Jesus (PBUH) did not mention it and they did not hear it from him, and if Jesus (PBUH) had said it, there would be no blame attached.
In addition, the disciples agreed with Paul that he would preach to the gentiles, and they would preach to the Jews. Paul said, “when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised. They gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” (Galatia 2/7-9). How could they disobey Jesus’ (PBUH) command - if Matthew’s passage was true - and neglect preaching to the nations, and leave it only to Paul and Barnabas?
All of this evidence disproves Matthew’s passage, and proves that it is a fabrication. Jesus (PBUH) did not speak these words.
Even if we overlook all that I have mentioned, there is nothing in the passage that says the Holy Trinity is one self. It talks about three different selves and using (and) indicates that he is talking about three different things. The correct meaning of Matthew’s passage is “go by the name of Allah (S.W) and Jesus, his messenger, and the inspiration that Allah (S.W) sent to him, with Allah’s (S.W) commandments.”
Matthew’s verse is similar to what Paul said in his Epistle to Timothy. However, Christians do not refer to it as evidence of the Trinity. Paul said, “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality” (Tim. (1) 5/21). No one understands from this passage the divinity of the angels, or that they are the third hypostasis in the Trinity. The judgment on Paul’s passage is the same as for Matthew’s passage.
The Book of Exodus mentions the same when talking about calling the Children of Israel to believe in Allah (S.W) and Moses (PBUH), and no one believes that Allah (S.W) and Moses (PBUH) are one and equal. “So the people feared the LORD, and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses.” (Exodus 14/31)
This way of expression is common in languages and books, as it is also in the Quran in many verses. “O ye who believe! Believe in God and His Apostle, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Apostle and the scripture which He sent to those before (him).” (Holy Quran 4:136)
A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE TRINITY
If we cannot find any evidence supporting the Trinity, is there any evidence in the Holy Bible supporting the contrary, which is Monotheism?
One who studies the Holy Bible will find that the Trinity is a strange concept, and that the Holy Bible is full of obvious facts declaring monotheism in Christianity. There are many passages in the Holy Bible, which clearly declare that Monotheism was the belief of Jesus (PBUH), his disciples, and all the prophets (PBUT) before him.
First: Monotheistic Passages in the Old Testament
Monotheism is obvious in the Old Testament. Prophets (PBUT) spoke of it and remind us many times about it, and the passages strongly reassure this belief. Some of these passages are the following:
- What we find in the Book of Deuteronomy about Moses’ (PBUH) commandments, which Allah (S.W) wrote on two stones and ordered the Children of Israel to keep, and Jesus (PBUH) after him confirmed them. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” (Deut. 6:4-9)
- "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.” (Deut. 5:6-7)
- Allah’s (S.W) commandment to Moses (PBUH) and to the Children of Israel, "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” (Ex. 20:2-4)
- In the First Book of Kings “that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other.” (Kings(1) 8:60)
- In Psalms “All the nations you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name For you are great and do wondrous things; you alone are God.” (Psalms 86:9-10). That means He is the One and Only God, and no one – including Jesus (PBUH) - shares that with Him.
- In the Book of Isaiah, we read, “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. I declared and saved.” (Isaiah 43:10 -12)
- “So now, O LORD our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are the LORD.” (Isaiah 37:20)
- "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.” (Isaiah 44:24) this is totally contrary to the concept of the Trinity.
- “I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5)
- In Isaiah’s prophecy, we read, “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me…. Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.” (Isaiah 44:6 - 8)
- There are many other passages in the Old Testament. (Malachi 2:10, Kings 1 8:27, …)
Second: Monotheistic Passages in the New Testament
The books of the New Testament clearly declare that Allah (S.W) is the One and Only God, Lord and Creator. The Gospels' writers indicate that Jesus (PBUH) and his disciples were the people who uttered these words.
- Jesus’ saying, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.” (Matt 22: 9 – 10)
- “A man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life? And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.” (Matt 19:16-17)
- In the Book of John, “When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you. Since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:1 – 3) . Therefore, there is no true God except One, and he is Allah (S.W).
- When trying to tempt Jesus (PBUH), the devil said, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.” (Matt. 4:10) the same is in Luke. (Luke 4:8)
- Jesus (PBUH) told the Jews, “You are doing what your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father--even God.” Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.” (John 8:41- 42)
These passages and many others speak about One God, and there is nothing in them that speak about three beings uniting in one person as the Christians claim.
The Trinity is a Mystery Unacceptable by the Mind
With this clear contradiction between the Church Councils' decisions and the Bible’s monotheistic passages, Christians had to use their minds to solve this matter. They had to solve these contradictions, which are impossible to put together, and explain to people the issue about the three who are one, and about the one who is three.
In addition, with the weakness of this dogma, and the impossibility of understanding it by the human mind, Christians have no choice but to say that the Trinity is a mystery that is impossible to comprehend. Moreover, some Christians confess that Christianity conflicts with the mind.
Saint Augustine said, “I believe because that is unacceptable by our mind”.
Kier Cougard said, “Each attempt to make Christianity a credible religion would result in destroying it.” In ‘The Christian Teachings’ we read, “It is not allowed to ask about God’s secrets, because we cannot comprehend the belief’s secrets.”
In his book, ‘The Catholic Teachings’, priest De Grout said, “The Holy Trinity is a puzzle in the truest sense, and our mind cannot digest a Tri-God, but this what the inspiration taught us.”
Describing the Trinity, Zaki Shnouda said, “It is one of the divine mysteries, which is impossible for our mind to comprehend.”
Father James Ted said, “Christianity is beyond the mind’s understanding”
Priest Anis Shoroush said, “One in three and three in one, are mysteries you do not have to understand, but you have to accept.”
In his book ‘Eternity Secret”, priest Tawfiq Jayed made understanding the Trinity impossible, and there is no point in trying to do so, because, as he said, “whoever tries to understand it completely, is like he who wants to put the ocean’s water in his palm.”
Due to all of this misleading, the truth will disappear, which is that the Trinity is an impossible creed to understand; not because of the weakness of our mind, but because it conflicts with common sense and human nature.
THE STORY OF MONOTHEISM AND THE TRINITY IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY
“And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.” (Holy Quran 5: 116- 117)
If Jesus (PBUH) and his contemporaries did not claim that he is divine, how did these creeds come into Christianity?
Answering the question, I say, “It was Paul who inserted them into Christianity.” It was Paul, the Jew, who was the enemy of Christianity, who claimed seeing Jesus (PBUH) after Allah (S.W) lifted him up to heaven. He took these creeds from many pagans, which make some people holy, considering them sons of God. “And the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” (Holy Quran 9: 30).
The Importance of Paul in Christianity
Paul is the most famous writer amongst the New Testament writers, and he is absolutely the most important evangelist. He wrote fourteen Epistles, which are almost half of the New Testament, and only in these Epistles do we find many of the Christian creeds. Paul is the founder of Christianity and its creeds, and he is the only evangelist who claimed prophethood among the others.
Paul’s Epistles are the supportive pillar of this altered Christianity. His Epistles were the first written documents in the New Testament, and are slightly similar to the others, especially the Book of John. The Church had rejected many other epistles that conflict with Paul’s Christianity, which suppressed Jesus’ and his disciples’ Christianity.
The influence of Paul in Christianity is undeniable. That made Michael Hart, in his celebrated work, “the 100, a ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History”; place Paul among the most important influential people in history. He placed Jesus (PBUH) third, and Paul sixth.
Regarding the reason for placing Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) at the followers are the majority on earth, Michael Hart said, “Christianity was not established by one person but by two: Jesus and Paul. Therefore, the honor of establishing it must be divided between both of them. Jesus had established the moral principles of Christianity, its spiritual views, and everything about human behavior; and Paul was the one who developed its Theology.”
He added, “Jesus did not preach any of Paul’s sayings, and Paul is considered responsible for Jesus’ Divinity”. Hart also brought to our attention that Paul did not use the term ‘Son of Man’, which Jesus (PBUH) used to call himself.
In his book ‘The Expanded Universe’, Sir Arthur Findlay said, “Paul was the one who established the religion called Christianity.”
Paul and Jesus’ Divinity
If the Gospels – excluding the Book of John – have nothing to prove Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity, Paul’s Epistles are full of passages that exaggerate Jesus (PBUH) and passages considering him as a rare and unique person. Then, what did Paul say about Jesus (PBUH), did he consider him as a prophet, God incarnate or…?
Reading Paul’s Epistles carefully, we find contradictory answers from one Epistle to another, for some passages declare his humanity (PBUH), and others declare his divinity. Does this contradiction come from Paul’s fickle changes according to his listeners, was it because of his thought development about Jesus (PBUH), or was it because of these Epistles’ alterations and fabrications? All these are just possibilities, without certainty.
Among these passages, which talk about Jesus (PBUH) as a servant of Allah (S.W) but different from other people because he was loved and chosen by Allah (S.W), Paul said, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (Ti.1 2:5)
Confessing the Oneness of Allah (S.W), Paul said, “to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. which he will display at the proper time--he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords. who alone has immortality.” (Ti.1 6:14 - 16). Thus, Jesus is lord, but only Allah (S.W) is the Lord of lords. These passages and many more talk about Jesus (PBUH) as being human, yet different from others; for, Allah (S.W) loves him and chose him to deliver His message.
Other passages are full of Jesus’ (PBUH) exaggeration, making him – almost - a real son of Allah (S.W), which may indicate that there is a difference between Jesus’ son-ship and other son-ships in the Holy Bible. This is clear in some other passages, which consider Jesus (PBUH) as God’s image or God incarnate.
He said, “By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3)
“He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up” (Rom. 8:32)
He added, “God sent forth his Son, born of woman” (Gal. 4:4) which indicates a real son-ship of Jesus (PBUH), for, all believers are sons of God – metaphorically – and are born of women.
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Col. 1:15)
“Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. But made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” (Phil. 2:6-7)
“Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh” (Tim.1 3:16)
“And at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior.” (Titus 1:3). Therefore, Paul is the only one among the New Testament writers who talked of Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity.
Scholars talked about the conditions that made Paul say what he said about Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity, and the resources, from which Paul derived this belief.
The areas, in which Paul preached, were full of myths that spread and were accepted by the naïve, who were the majority of the people at that time. In addition, those communities were idolatrous; they believed in multiple gods, their incarnation, and their death. In their journey to Lystra, Paul and Barnabas performed some miracles: “And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men! Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes.” (Acts 14/11-12) Zeus and Hermes, according to the editors of the Holy Bible Dictionary, are names for two of the Greek gods; the first is the great god and the second is the god of eloquence.
Thus, those simple people believed that Paul and Barnabas were gods, just because they did some miracles. Moreover, the Book of Acts mentions that the priests offered a sacrifice for them, but they did not because Paul and Barnabas rejected that. (Acts 14:13-18)
What would those people say about Jesus (PBUH) who brought the dead to life, he himself rose from the dead, and performed many miracles?
The idea of the incarnated gods was acceptable for pagans, who made dates and celebrations for the incarnated gods’ birth, death, and resurrection. Therefore, Paul spread the story of God’s descent to the earth for the Romans to see, and to be close to them.
The churches in which Paul preached adopted and accepted this belief more than other churches, accepting the idea of the human God, as it was worshipping idols before that.
Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity became an official belief in Christianity after the First Nicene Council, which decided Jesus’ divinity, and the First Council of Constantinople completed the Trinity when they deified the Holy Spirit.
First: The First Nicene Council
In 325 C.E., by the order of the Pagan emperor Constantine, who declared a few years before, the law of the religious indulgence in the empire -The Nicene Council - was formed.
Constantine realized that the conflict between Christian churches was affecting the people in the empire, and threatening the existence of the country. Thus, he decided to set up a general council gathering all Christian parties. He personally set up the council, and 2048 priests from different churches were present. The negotiations lasted for three months without agreeing on one opinion.
The emperor conciliated the conflicting parties, and they presented the Nicene Creed, which made the belief in Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity an official belief for Christians and then for the Roman Empire.
The Nicene Council did not discuss the Holy Spirit or his divinity. The negotiations about him continued between churches until they settled the matter at the First Council of Constantinople.
Second: The First Council of Constantinople
The First Council of Constantinople was formed in 381 C.E., to discuss Macedonius, the Arian who was the bishop of Constantinople, who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He said, “The Holy Spirit is a divine work spread in the world, he is not a divine person, who is different from the Father and the Son.”
The council was formed by order of the emperor Theodosius I (D.395 C.E.). One hundred and fifty bishops were present, deciding to annul the Arian belief. In addition, they decided that the Holy Spirit is Allah’s (S.W) spirit and His life, and that he is the third hypostasis of the Trinity, and they added one passage to the Nicene Creed; thus, the Trinity became the official creed of Christianity.
There were many monotheists, who in spite of their minor contribution and presence refuted the Trinity and Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity even after the Nicene Council for many centuries, despite the existence of the church’s power and authority.
The reason for this minor contribution and presence was the existence of the Inquisitions and the churches’ power. It is enough here to mention some of these parties, whom the church considered heretics for denying Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity and the Trinity. They were the Nazarenes, the Arians, the Ebonites, the Apollinaris, and the Nestorians.
Monotheism After the Reformation
With the reduction of the authority and the power of the church, the unitary parties reappeared, and the Trinity became unstable. This was Martin Luther and others’ expression. Luther said, “The Trinity is a weak expression, lacks convincing power, and is never mentioned in the holy books.”
In his book “The History of the Unitarians”, Filbert said, “Calvin announced that, “it is more suitable for the Nicene Creed, which was issued by the Nicene Council, to be a song instead of being a statement of belief.”
When Calvin wrote his book, “The Institutes of Christian Religion”, he seldom mentioned the Trinity.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the number of Unitarians increased; their contribution became more and yielded about four hundred churches in Britain and its colonies; the same happened in the United States. Besides two theological colleges in Britain that teach Unitarianism - Manchester and Oxford - another two colleges exist in America - one in Chicago and the other in Prickly in California. There are around one hundred and sixty churches or colleges in Hungary, and many others in the Christian European countries.
In 1921 C.E, at a conference held in Oxford, which was attended by many religious scholars, the chairperson was the bishop of Carlyle, Dr. Rachel. He said in his speech, “That his reading of the Holy Bible, does not make him believe in Jesus as God, and for what is mentioned in John’s Gospel, which is never mentioned in the synoptic, cannot be considered as historical.” He also believed that all that was said about Jesus (PBUH): his birth of a virgin, healing diseases, or saying that his spirit preceded human existence - do not mean his divinity. Many of the attendees also shared with him the same opinion.
Emil Lord says, “Jesus did not believe himself to be more than a prophet, even though sometimes he believed that he was less than a prophet. He never mentioned what makes one believe - that he has different views and thoughts from those that are human. Jesus used a new word to express his modesty when he said that he is the Son of Man. In the past, prophets called themselves sons of man to show the difference between them and God.”
In 1977 C.E., seven theologians wrote a famous book titled, “The Myth of the Incarnated God”. In this book, we find that “This group approved that the books of the Holy Bible were written by a group of people in different circumstances, and their words could not be considered as divine. Those who contributed in writing this book believe that there will be some development in theology by the end of the twentieth century.”
Eight theologians in Britain wrote a book called “Jesus is Not the Son of God”. They confirmed what the first book mentioned - they said “The possibility of a human becoming God is unlikely and unbelievable nowadays.”
In April 1984 C.E, London’s Weekend Television had an interview with Bishop David Jenkins, who holds the fourth position among thirty-nine bishops, which are the top of the Anglican Church. He mentioned that, “Jesus’ divinity is not a definite fact, and that he does not believe that the virgin birth and Jesus’ resurrection are historical events.” (Meaning they are untrue).
His words had a huge effect on those who follow the Protestant Church. The Daily-News newspaper gave a questionnaire to thirty-one bishops, out of the thirty-nine, about what Jenkins has said. They published the result of that questionnaire on 25/6/1984 C.E, and it was as follows:
“11 bishops insisted that Christians must consider Jesus both God and human. While 19 said that, “it is enough to consider Jesus as God’s high representative”. Nine bishops doubted the idea of Jesus’ resurrection, and said that it was a series of experiences or feelings, which convinced his followers that he was alive among them. Fifteen bishops said, “The miracles, which are mentioned in the New Testament, were added to Jesus’ story later”. This means it cannot be evidence of his divinity.
Thus, the church, and its bishops, doubt the idea of Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity and reject it. They confess that it is an additional belief to Christianity. They also affirm that neither Jesus (PBUH) nor his disciples knew it, and that Paul, those who followed him and wrote the Gospels and the Epistles, and the church councils, originated it.
From the above, we find that Monotheism is an original movement in the Christian community. This movement renews whenever those who are faithful look in their Holy Books. It refreshes their vision, and announces the clear truth, that there is no God but Allah (S.W).
THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT OF JESUS’ DIVINITY
Christian beliefs were completed in the forth century, after deifying Jesus (PBUH) and the Holy Spirit, and confirming the Holy Bible. Paul established a new Christianity after Jesus (PBUH), so where did Paul and the later Church Councils, derive these new beliefs?
To answer that question we quote what Charles Gene Pier said in his book “Christianity, its Beginning and its Development”, he said, “Detailed study of Paul’s longer Epistles, results in finding a mixture of strange ideas, both Jewish and idolatrous Greek concepts.
To explain and illustrate further, we review some of the old religions before Christianity, to show the similarity between ancient Paganism and Christian Paganism. This similarity has touched the basis and the branches of Christian creeds, so we could know the origin and the source, from which Christianity takes its beliefs and creeds.
First: God’s Incarnation in Ancient Pagan Religions
Believing in an incarnated God, the second divine hypostasis of God, incarnated to forgive people’s sins, is an old and known belief in ancient religions, such as Hinduism. In his book “India”, the historian Allen said, “Krishna is the greatest of all the incarnated gods, and much superior to them, for they were only partly divine, but He (Krishna) appeared as god in a human figure.
Mentioned in the Indian book “Baha Kavat Boron”, Krishna said, “I will incarnate in Yedwa house, and come out from Devaki womb, I will be born and die, the time has come to show my power, and relieve the earth of its burden”. Therefore, the Hindus considered him a divine incarnation that made him worthy of worship.
The prominent historian Dwain talked about Buddha in his book “The Myths of the Torah, the Gospel, and Their Similarity in Other Religions”. He said, “Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, whom the Buddhists in India and other countries worship. They say about him, “He left the heaven and descended to appear as a human figure, as mercy to people to save them from their sins and to guide them”.
The historian Dawn also mentioned that the Europeans were astonished when they went to Comorine, west of India, from seeing the people worship a god called Silvahana, and he was born of a virgin.
Among humans that people said were incarnate, is the god Fuhi in China, and Wisten Nonick and Hwankty, and others. People used to say of the god Bromesus, “He was a real man and a real god.
Thus, we can say that God’s incarnation existed in ancient Pagan religions before Christianity, from which Paul and the Councils took the belief of Jesus’ divinity.
Second: The Incarnation for Forgiveness and Salvation
What Christians believe about the reason for the incarnation corresponds with that of the ancient Pagan religions, as Christians say, the incarnation was for Jesus to die and save humanity from their sins.
The prominent scholar Hawk quoted the same about the Indian incarnated gods. He said, “Indians believe that, one of the gods had incarnated, and sacrificed himself to save the people from their sins”.
The same was quoted about Buddha, whom the historian Morris William mentioned in his book (Indian Religion), “of his mercy (meaning Buddha) he left the heaven and came to the earth, to save humanity from their sins and pains, and from the punishment they deserve.”
Dawn mentions in his book “The Myths of the Torah, the Gospel, and Their Similarity in Other Religions”; Indians call Bokhas, the son of Jupiter, the nations’ savior.”
The same was said about Hercules, Mithra, the Persians' savior, and Bacob, the Mexican crucified god, and others, whom their followers believed to be gods, incarnated to forgive sins.
Third: The Incarnated God and Creation
Similar to the Christians’ belief that Jesus the Son is the creator, is the ancient religions' belief in their incarnated gods. The Indians’ sacred books mention that “Krishna the son of god from the virgin Divacki, is the second divine hypostasis in the Holy Trinity, created heavens and earth, and for them (the believers) he is the first and the last”.
In the holy book “Bhagwad Geeta”, Krishna said to his student Argon, “I am the god of the all creations, I created them and humans… know me, I am the creator of humans”.
The Chinese believe that the Father created nothing, and the son Latotho, who was born from a virgin, created everything.
In their prayers to Adermizd, the Persians say, “to Adermizd I pray, for he created everything that was created or will be. He is the wise, the strong, who created the sky, the sun, the moon and the stars.”
The Assyrians believe the same of the first son “Nerdock”, also those who deify “Adonis”, and “Laokion”, and others.
Likewise, in the old Egyptian tradition, the god “Atom” created every living thing by the word, which created life and everything edible, and all what humans love or hate.
Forth: Eternity and Immortality of the Incarnated Gods
John described Jesus in his Revelation, as the first and the last, and the Alpha and Omega. This description corresponds exactly with the description of the idolatrous and their incarnated gods, of which they believe in their eternity and immortality.
In the Indian book “Geeta”, Krishna said, “It never happened that I was nonexistent, I made everything, and I am the everlasting and the eternal, the creator who existed before everything. I am the strong ruler, who has power over the universe; I am the first, the middle, and the last of everything’.
From Argon’s prayers to Krishna, “you are the everlasting, the great, whom we must know, who controls the beings; you are the god who existed before gods”.
The book “Fishno Borani” describes him: “he has no start, no middle, and no end”.
Mentioned in the Indian scriptures about Buddha: “he is Alpha and Omega, there is no start or end to his existence, and he is the god, the owner, the powerful and the everlasting”. The same was said about Lawken, Lawtz, Armizd, Zios, and many others, who were called the “Alpha and Omega”.
Fifth: The Dates of Gods’ Birth, Worship, and Traditions
Not only do Christian beliefs correspond with other religions on some issues, but also on worshipping and dates as well. The idolatrous believe, in spite of the differences of their gods, that their incarnated gods were born on 25th of December, such as the god Mithra and others.
That is what the Orthodox Christians say of their dates. It was fixed in 530 C.E. by the priest Deunesus. He wanted to draw Christians away from the idolatrous celebrations, and occupy them with Christian celebration. The same happened in many other idolatrous celebrations, so the Christians took the dates and the traditions from them.
In his book, “The History of the Anglican Church”, Priest Beid quoted Pope Gregory’s first speech, (601C.E), in which he quoted Pope Mellitus’s advice, which forbade the destruction of the idolatrous temples. In addition, he believed in turning them away from worshipping the devil to worship the true God, to clean the people’s hearts of sins, and make it easier for them to visit the temples, which they used to visit.
Thus, the new Christian will not find any difference, in the place or the content, between Christianity and what he/she believes, which will make it easier to spread Christianity.
The Trinity in Ancient Paganism
Not only did Christians take the belief of Jesus’ divinity and God’s incarnation from the idolatrous, but they also took their belief in the Trinity.
To prove that, we will review the ancient pagan nations’ history that was before the time of Jesus (PBUH). History proves that many of the idolatrous believed in the Trinity before Christians, and what the Christians say about the Trinity was taken from these nations with little alteration in the Trinity hypostasis, by changing the names of the idolatrous Trinity.
The belief of the triple god existed four thousand years before the birth of Christ (PBUH). The Babylonians believed in it, when they divided the gods into three groups, (the god of sky, the god of earth, and the god of sea).
Then, the Trinity developed as it is now in Christianity, in the tenth century before Christ. The Indians believe that their Trinity consists of Brahma, Fishna, and Seva, and these three are one.
Mentioned in the pious Atnis prayers, “oh, three gods know that I believe in one god. Tell me, which of you is the real god, to pray for and present my vow? Then the three gods appeared and said to him: you, the worshipper, know that there is no difference between us, the three you see is in the shape and the sameness, but there is only one divine person in the three”.
Found in Indian remains, was an idol with three heads and one body, indicating the Trinity.
The Trinity was known by the ancient pagans, such as the Egyptian Trinity (Ozirous, Izes, and Hoars), the Persian Trinity (Ormizd, Mitras, and Ahraman), the Scandinavian Trinity (Aowen, Tora, and Freie), and the Mexican Trinity (Tzikliboka, Ahotzlipo Shtiki, and Tlakoma). The Greek philosophers, whose belief was similar to the Christians’, also believed in their Trinity (existence, knowledge, life), and many others, which will take too long to mention.
Even the Nicene Creed, which the Nicene Council produced, was from old religions. The historian Malver quoted from the Indian books about their belief, saying, “we believe in Bsafstri (the sun), the controller of all, who created heavens and the earth, and in his only son “Ani” (the fire), light from light, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, was incarnated by Faya (the spirit) of the virgin Maya. We believe in Fayo, the spirit who proceeded from the Father and the son, who is the father, and the son glorifies and kneels to him.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions that, “the concept of the Trinity is of Greek origin, with Jewish input and is a strange mixture made by Christians, because the religious concepts are taken from the Holy Bible, but they are filled with foreign philosophies.
The concepts (The father, the son, and the Holy Spirit) come from the Jews, and the last concept (The Holy Spirit) was rarely used by Jesus.
Leon Joteh says, “Christianity absorbed many ideas and concepts from Greek philosophy. Christian theology is taken from the same source, which is Platonism, and that is why we find many similarities between them”.
Greek philosophy spread through Alexandria, where Plato the Alexandrian was (207C.E). He believed in the treble (God, mind, spirit). Thus, the Alexandrian saints were the first to believe in the Trinity and defend it.
Will Durant and others said, that paganism spread through Rome. Will Durant also said, “When Christianity conquered Rome, the new religion was influenced by the old pagan rituals, such as the titles, the great cardinal, and the worshipping of the great mother.”
In his book “Christian Paganism”, Robertson supports this idea; he believes that those beliefs arrived in Rome, brought by the Persians, in the year 70 B.C.E.
Others believe that those beliefs spread by the ancient Pharaohs ideology passed to Christianity because of their close proximity.
Other scholars believe that the spread of these concepts was from Torsos, which had great schools of Greek literature, and was where Paul grew up and was influenced by these concepts.
The spread of paganism into Christianity is a clear fact, which made some honest and brave writers confess.
Among them, the archeologist Garslafe Creny, in his book “Ancient Egyptian Religion”, he said, “The Trinity was added to the real Christianity, and it was taken from the pagan Pharaohs’ belief”.
In his book, “Christian Paganism” the prominent scholar Robertson talked in detail about Christian adoption of paganism. He said, “It is a pleasure to say, that among those who criticized my book, no one disagreed with the facts that I mentioned in it, and this convinced me that most Christian beliefs are taken from paganism.”
The authors of the book, “The Myth of God’s Incarnation”, mentioned the same; “The belief that Jesus is God, the son of God, or God incarnated in him, is no more than pagan myth and legend.”
From that, I can say that the Trinity is a pagan adoption, which led away from natural instinct, strayed from the prophets’ guidance, and worshipped other than Allah (S.W), the greatest.
Allah the Greatest tells us, about the origin of Christian disbelief, He says, “The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” (Holy Quran 9:30).
Conclusion
Thus, I have reached the end of this book, hopefully answering my question, is Allah (S.W) one or three?
We saw, while studying the passages of the Holy Bible that Jesus (PBUH) was one of the greatest messengers of Allah (S.W). He (PBUH) did not claim Lordship or divinity, and he did not stop, even for a moment, worshipping Allah (S.W), and commanding his people to do the same.
It is certain that Christians' claimed evidence of Jesus’ (PBUH) divinity is a mirage, easily disproved by a little examination of the Holy Bible passages, which prove Jesus’ (PBUH) humanity and prophethood.
We also know, following this critical study, the source, from which Paul derived this pagan belief, by which he wanted to alter Christianity by making it a pagan religion. He left the path of Jesus (PBUH) and his disciples, and made Christianity appear in a new style. Thus, the disciples and the apostles disappeared during the Roman persecution, to await the new dawn that is the last Testament, which is Islam and its great Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).
While thanking the reader for reading these lines, I invite him to read the next episode of this series “True Guidance and Light”, with the title, “Did Jesus (PBUH) Sacrifice His Life on the Cross?”
O Allah, show and guide us to the truth, that we argue about, indeed, you guide whom you will, to the straight path. Amen.
Sources and References:
• The Holy Quran
• The Holy Bible, English Standard Version.1981
• The Holy Bible, The Middle East Holy Bible’s publishers edition, Protestant’s copy
• The Holy Bible, The Middle East Holy Bible’s publishers edition, Orthodox’ copy
• The Holy Bible, the Jesuit Priesthood edition, Catholic’s copy, issued by the Jesuit fathers, and distributed by the Holy Bible's organizations in the East, Beirut. (Translated from the Good News Bible, Today’s English Version, 2nd Edition 1992)
• The Bible in Basic English, 1965
• Douay-Rheims Bible, 1899
• Darby Bible, 1889
• The Holy Bible (The Hebrew Holy Scriptures and the Greek Holy Scriptures) new world translation, (Jehovah witnesses’ edition)
• The Samaritan Torah, Translated by Priest Abu Al Hassan Isaac Assory, Published by Ahmad Hijazy Al Saqa (1st edition) Al Ansar publishing, Cairo, 1398 lunar calendar
• The Gospel of Barnabas, Translation of Khalil Saada. Al Wathaeq publishing's edition. Kuwait, 1406 lunar calendar,
------------------------------------------
• John the Baptist Between Islam and Christianity, Ahmad Hijazy Al Saqa, 1st edition, Al Turath Al Araby publishing, 1399 lunar calendar
• The Truth Revealed, Rahamtu Allah Al Hindi, revised by Muhammad Ahmad Malkawy, Al Hadith publishing, Cairo, 1404 lunar calendar
• The Clerical Knowledge Encyclopedia, 3rd edition, Al Thaqafa publishing 1995
• The History of the Christian Ideology, the Priest Dr Hana Gerges Al Khodary, Dar Al Thaqafa publishing, Cairo, 1981
• The Interpretation of John’s Gospel, Priest Athnasius, 4th edition, Dar AlJeel, Cairo, 1995
• The Holy Bible’s Dictionary, a selection of professors and theologians, editors, Botros Abdul Malik, John Alexander Thomson, Ibrahim Mattar, 9th edition, Al Thaqafa publishing, 1994
• The Practical Interpretation of the Holy Bible, group of theology scholars, Cairo
Index:
SUBJECT Page No.
AKNOWLEDGMENTS
1
INTRODUCTION
3
JESUS CHRIST IN MUSLIM BELIEF
4
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE FOR CHRIST’S DIVINITY
8
1- VERSES THAT ATTRIBUTE DIVINITY AND LORDSHIP TO JESUS (PBUH)
12
2- VERSES ATTRIBUTING DIVINE SON-SHIP TO JESUS (PBUH)
23
3- VERSES OF THE DIVINE INCARNATION IN JESUS (PBUH)
33
4- PASSAGES RELATING ALLAH (S.W)’S CHARACTERISTICS TO JESUS (PBUH)
45
5- THE ATTRIBUTION OF ALLAH’S (S.W) DEEDS TO JESUS (PBUH)
56
6- JESUS’ MIRACLES AS EVIDENCE OF HIS DIVINITY
64
VERSES THAT CONTRADICT JESUS’(PBUH) DIVINITY
76
THE PURPOSES OF INCARNATION
91
THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
97
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE OF THE TRINITY
104
A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE TRINITY
114
THE STORY OF MONOTHEISM AND THE TRINITY IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY
119
THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT OF JESUS’ DIVINITY
127
Sources and References
135
IndeX
137
(((((((((((إبطال الرسول لدين النصارى))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
من أعظم أدلة نبوته
إن ما جـاء به القرآن الكريم في إبطال دين النصرانية، وفساد عقائدهم لهو من أعظم الأدلة على أن محمداً صلى الله عليه وسلم هو رسول الله حقاً وصدقاً، فقد كان حظ العرب المشركون من فهم عقائد النصارى أن اعتقدوا أن آلهتهم خير من المسيح بن مريم!! كما قال تعالى عنهم: { وَلَمَّا ضُرِبَ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ مَثَلًا إِذَا قَوْمُكَ مِنْهُ يَصِدُّونَ (57) وَقَالُوا أَآلِهَتُنَا خَيْرٌ أَمْ هُوَ مَا ضَرَبُوهُ لَكَ إِلَّا جَدَلًا بَلْ هُمْ قَوْمٌ خَصِمُونَ (58) } سورة الزخرف.
وأما القرآن فإنه دحض جميع حجج النصارى، وبين كذبهم وفساد معتقدهم في عيسى عليه السلام، وأنه لم يصلب ولم يقتل، وأنه لم يكن إلا عبداً صالحاً ورسولاً كريماً أعلن عبوديته منذ ولادته: { قَالَ إِنِّي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ آتَانِيَ الْكِتَابَ وَجَعَلَنِي نَبِيًّا (30) وَجَعَلَنِي مُبَارَكًا أَيْنَ مَا كُنتُ وَأَوْصَانِي بِالصَّلَاةِ وَالزَّكَاةِ مَا دُمْتُ حَيًّا (31) وَبَرًّا بِوَالِدَتِي وَلَمْ يَجْعَلْنِي جَبَّارًا شَقِيًّا (32) وَالسَّلَامُ عَلَيَّ يَوْمَ وُلِدتُّ وَيَوْمَ أَمُوتُ وَيَوْمَ أُبْعَثُ حَيًّا (33) } سورة مريم.
وفي هذا أعظـم رد على الذين قالوا إنه إله من إله، وأنه هو خالق للسماوات والأرض، لأنه ليس من شأن الإله الخالق أن يولد ويموت، وتكون له والدة، وليس من شأن الإله أن يصلي!! ولا أن يزكي ولا أن يعلم كتاباً!!
وكان في كل أدوار حياته يعلن بشريته وعبوديته لإلهه ومولاه الذي في السماء { لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَقَالَ الْمَسِيحُ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ اعْبُدُواْ اللّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ إِنَّهُ مَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللّهِ فَقَدْ حَرَّمَ اللّهُ عَلَيهِ الْجَنَّةَ وَمَأْوَاهُ النَّارُ وَمَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ مِنْ أَنصَارٍ } سورة المائدة آية 72
وفي الإنجيل: "أبانا الذي في السماء نقدس اسمك"
وجاء القرآن ليعلن كفر من اعتقد أن عيسى عليه السلام إلهاً خالقاً رازقاً فقال: { لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَآلُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ قُلْ فَمَن يَمْلِكُ مِنَ اللّهِ شَيْئًا إِنْ أَرَادَ أَن يُهْلِكَ الْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَأُمَّهُ وَمَن فِي الأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا وَلِلّهِ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاء وَاللّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ } سورة المائدة آية 17.
وقال جل وعلا أيضاً: { لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَقَالَ الْمَسِيحُ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ اعْبُدُواْ اللّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ إِنَّهُ مَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللّهِ فَقَدْ حَرَّمَ اللّهُ عَلَيهِ الْجَنَّةَ وَمَأْوَاهُ النَّارُ وَمَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ مِنْ أَنصَارٍ (72) لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلاَثَةٍ وَمَا مِنْ إِلَهٍ إِلاَّ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ وَإِن لَّمْ يَنتَهُواْ عَمَّا يَقُولُونَ لَيَمَسَّنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِنْهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ (73) أَفَلاَ يَتُوبُونَ إِلَى اللّهِ وَيَسْتَغْفِرُونَهُ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (74) مَّا الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدِّيقَةٌ كَانَا يَأْكُلاَنِ الطَّعَامَ انظُرْ كَيْفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الآيَاتِ ثُمَّ انظُرْ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ (75) قُلْ أَتَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِ اللّهِ مَا لاَ يَمْلِكُ لَكُمْ ضَرًّا وَلاَ نَفْعًا وَاللّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ (76)} سورة المائدة.
وفي هذه الآيـات من الدلالات الواضحات على إبطال دين النصرانية ما لا يتسع لشرحه المقام، فقد أعلن أولاً كفر من زعم أن عيسى عليه السلام هو الله، ومن جعله ثالث ثلاثة، وبين أن عيسى وأمه كنا يأكلان الطعام وهذا دليل حاجة، وللطعام ضرورته المعروفة، وفضلاته التي لا تليق بالإله!!
وفي الآيـات أن الإله لا يكون إلا واحداً لأن الإله هو من يملك نفع عبده وضره ومن هو خالقه ورازقه، وعيسى لم يكن كذلك فلم يكن خالقاً ولا رازقاً للبشر، وهو لا يملك لنفسه نفعاً ولا ضراً فضلاً أن يملكه لعابده، ولما كان الخلق واحداً فإن الخالق لا بد وأن يكون واحداً بالضرورة ولو كانـوا ثلاثة لذهب كل إله بما خلق ولعلا بعضهم على بعض!! { قُل لَّوْ كَانَ مَعَهُ آلِهَةٌ كَمَا يَقُولُونَ إِذًا لاَّبْتَغَوْاْ إِلَى ذِي الْعَرْشِ سَبِيلاً }سورة الإسراء آية 42 ( أي لمغالبته ).
وقال تعالى: { لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَا آلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتَا فَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَرْشِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ } سورة الأنبياء آية 22
وقال تعالى: { بَلْ أَتَيْنَاهُم بِالْحَقِّ وَإِنَّهُمْ لَكَاذِبُونَ (90) مَا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ مِن وَلَدٍ وَمَا كَانَ مَعَهُ مِنْ إِلَهٍ إِذًا لَّذَهَبَ كُلُّ إِلَهٍ بِمَا خَلَقَ وَلَعَلَا بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ (91) } سورة المؤمنون.
وهذه قضية عقلية لا يماري فيها عاقل، وقد كان البشر جميعاً وقت نزول الوحي على غير ذلك تماماً فقد اعتقد كل منهم بإله غير الله خالق السموات والأرض وعبدوا بشراً وملائكة وجناً وشمساً وقمراً، وحجراً وشجراً... الخ عبادة ذل وخضوع وتقرب ومحبة!
وجـاء الرسول الأمي صلي الله عليه وسلم ليعلن لهؤلاء جميعاً أن الإله لا يكون إلا واحداً وذلك لأن الإله الحق من خلق ورزق، ومن يدبر السماوات والأرض، ومن يتصرف في الملك كله، وليس هذا إلا لخالق السماوات والأرض وحده سبحانه وتعالى... وأنه لو كان معه إله آخر لفسد الكون واضطـرب، وتنازع الآلهة الخلق ولعلا بعضهم على بعض وأنى لرجل أمي لم يقرأ ولم يكتب، ولم يطالع ما عند الأمم من العقائد أن يعلم عقائد الجميع بل أسرار عقائدهم وحقيقة قولهم، ثم ينكر على هذه العقائد فيبطلها بالحجة الدامغة، والقول الذي لا يمكن أن يعارض.
أليس هذا من أعظم الأدلة على أن محمد بن عبد الله صلي الله عليه وسلم هو رسول الله حقاً وصدقاً.
دلائل صدق محمد رسول الله عقليا
الواقع أنني أحاول أن أستشف ما يفكر به عقل المسيحي مما زرعوه فيه على مر عمره وأجيب عليه بهدوء وعقلانية ولذلك أصبح كلامي عن رسول الله كما ترون دفاع عن بشريته وزواجه وبيان أنه نبي من الأنبياء تزوج كما تزوجوا جميعا !
ولكن دعنا ننظر نظرة علمية .. لم يطرح مهاجمي الإسلام تلك القضايا ويثيرون مسألة مثل زواج الرسول ؟!
الواقع أنها حيدة كبيرة وهروب من التفكير المنطقي .. فمحمد –صلى الله عليه وسلم- لم يدعونا لعبادته هو ...فلو دعانا لذلك ..لربما نضع تلك المسائل تحت البحث ..لكن دعوته كانت مختلفة ..لقد دعانا لعبادة الله !!
نعم...لم يدعنا لنكون محمديين بل دعانا لنكون مسلمين لله – عز وجل- وتنزيهه عما يعتقد به الوثنيون أو النصارى أو اليهود فالله أعلى وأكبر من من شتم اليهود والنصارى له ..وقد بيننا صفات الإله في المبحث السابق!
فالواجب على الذي يدعي العقلانية أن يفند الإعتقاد ..لا أن يحاول الهرب بجرنا إلى قضية أخرى !!
والذي يطعن في شخص مدعي نبوة فالواجب أن تكون طعوناته مستنده على أساسات جلية
1- ما هدف محمد –صلى الله عليه وسلم- من إدعاء النبوة ؟!
2- كيف إستطاع محمد –صلى الله عليه وسلم- تأليف القرآن ؟!
الواقع أن الأسئلة تبدو سهلة بالنسبة لنصراني سمع ما يردده قساوسته..لكن غياب حقائق أخفاها عنه القساوسة ومع جهل عوام النصارى بديننا ويكتفون بسماع زكريا بطرس أو غيره من جهلة وكذابين الكنائس ..ولذلك فالحقائق مشوشة للغاية !
ولا نخرج من كونه حوار عقلي على أساس التسليم بالمصادر من الجانبين –كما إتفقنا-
ونبدأ بالسؤال الأول : ما هدف محمد –صلى الله عليه وسلم- من إدعاء النبوة ؟
قد يقول قائل : الأمر بسيط إنه حب السلطة والملك والمال !
وهذا جواب يمكن أن يبدو منطقيا إلا أنه غاب عن ذهن قائله حقائق جلية .. فكونك سلمت بأن الهدف هو حب السلطة والزعامة والمال ..هذا يعني بأنه لم يكن ذو رسالة ولا يأبه لتابعيه ..وهذا ما لا يمكن أن يتخيل من شخصية رسول الله
ناهيك أنه –حسب فرضك- لو أتته الرئاسة والزعامة والمال فقد حصل مراده من إدعائه النبوة ..ويكفيني أن تعرف –عزيزي القارئ – أن النبي محمد –صلى الله عليه وسلم- جاءه كل ذلك مقابل أن يتخلى عن إدعاءه النبوة ...!
إجتمع كفار مكة وتكلم عنهم عتبة بن الوليد وهم مجتمعين حول رسول الله فقال عتبة : إن كان إنما بك الباه فاختر أي نساء قريش شئت حتى أزوجك عشرا
وإن أردت الملك ملكناك علينا
و إن كان إنما بك الحاجة جمعنا لك حتى تكون أغنى قريش مالا
وإن أردت ... وإن أردت ....
وجاءه عمه "أبو طالب" فعرض عليه العروض السخية التي عرضتها له قريش .. فقال رسول الله كلمته الشهيرة "والله يا عمي لو وضعوا الشمس في يميني والقمر في يسارى على أن أترك هذا الأمر ما تركته"
وهكذا سقطت إدعائات النصارى أنه كان يسعى للسلطة أو المال أو النساء لأن هذا كان متاحا بلا مصاعب ثلاث عشرة سنة تعذيب ونكال في مكة وبعدها سنوات من الجهاد والنصب والتعب في المدينة ..وكان منذ البداية كل شئ متاح له في مكة ... فأين الدافع...أين الهدف ؟
الواقع أن إدعاء النبوة والكذب جريمة كبيرة ..وكل جريمة لابد لها من دوافع ..فلو وجدت رجلا مقتولا له إبن وقد تنازل الأب لإبنه عن كل أملاكه منذ سنوات عديدة ..فبالطبع يصعب تخيل أن الإبن قد قتل الآب...لأن الأموال أمواله فلم يقتل أبيه ..ما هدفه..ما مصلحته ؟
وكانت الدنيا بحذافيرها من مُلك لبلد مهم مثل مكة وأموال وجاه ومنصب وشرف عند محمد –صلى الله عليه وسلم- فلم يستمر في طريق ربما ينجح أو يفشل طالما جاءه ما يطلب ؟!
وهنا تسقط كل دواعي الكذب ويظهر صدق محمد –صلى الله عليه وسلم- في دعوته ورسالته...ولعله لا يماري في هذا إلا جاحد !
ولعل الإنسان المثقف البسيط يعرف أن النبي رغم أنه كان له من خمس الغنائم وكان حاكما للأمة إلا أنه عاش حياة بسيطة فتروي نسائه أنه ما شبع آل بيت محمد ثلاث أيام متتابعة ..وكان يمر الشهر ولا يوقد في بيته نار..وكان طعامه الأسودان "الماء والتمر" وكان يربط على بطنه حجرين من الجوع في غزوة الخندق ..وسأله أعرابي ذات مرة بغلظة قال "أعطني من مال الله لا من مال أبيك ولا أمك" فأعطاه الرسول قطيعه من الغنم كاملا ..فكان النبي يعطي إعطاء الذي لا يخاف من الفقر..ولم يسكن الفيلات ولا القصور ..بل تروي عائشة أن كان يصلي بالليل وهي نائمة ومن ضيق الغرفة كان يضطر أن ينبهها أن تسحب رجلها حتى يتمكن من السجود ..وفي مرض موته كانت كل ثروته 7 دنانير أمر أن يتصدق بها قبل موته..وليلة موته لم يجدوا زيتا يضيئوا به المصابيح...فأي فائدة رجاها من إدعاء النبوة ؟
الواقع أن لكل جريمة هدف ...و جريمة كبيرة كالكذب على الله بإدعاء النبوة ..بلا هدف ..إدعاء سخيف !!
؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟هل كان العالم محتاجا لنبي آخر بعد المسيح ؟
الواقع يقول : نعم ...إن العبرة بالتأثير في البشر ..فملايين من البشر يؤمنون بالمسيح مخلصا وفاديا حول العالم ..فهل رفع ذلك من أخلاقياتهم في شئ ؟
للأسف إن الناظر في ثقافة الفداء يجد أنها تجعل الإنسان لو كان ملاكا تجعله شيطانا .. لماذا؟
سمعت مسيحيا يقول "المسلم لو سألته هل سيدخل الجنة أو لا ؟ سيقول لك "بإذن الله" ولا يستطيع أن يجزم لنفسه بالجنة أما نحن فنقول أننا 100% في الجنة بل مليون% في الجنة "
وأنا أسأل ألا يخلق لنا هذا أوربا وأميركا من عري وزنا وجريمة وفساد ولواط...وكل يفعل ما يحلو له فيسوع حمل عنه خطاياه وطالما آمن بيسوع إلها ...فهو في الجنة ؟!!
ألا يخلق ذلك مؤمنين بنظرية الرهان التي حاول أن يرشد إليها الناس زكريا بطرس -كما فصلنا- ..وبالتالي يعيشون تائهين إن كان الإلحاد حقا فهم لم يخسروا شيئا إن جربوا المسيحية..وإن كانت المسيحية حقا فمحمولة عنا خطايانا فلنفعل ما نشاء!!!
فهذا هو إجابة السؤال الكبير..أهذا دين الخالق ؟
الله عز وجل يريد للأرض إصلاحا لا فسادا !
فبولس اليهودي لما فشل بتدمير دين المسيح من توحيد وأخلاق حميدة بالقتل والسيف لجأ للنفاق لكي يجعل المسيحيين بلا أخلاق وكل شعب بلا دين وأخلاق لا يستطيع أن يستمر أبدا وتلك سنة الله في الخلق ..فنشر بولس مبدأ الفداء وهو أكبر تدمير لكل خلق حميد نشره المسيح ودائما هذا هو إسلوب اليهود بجمعياتهم الماسونية ..هدفهم الوحيد القضاء على كل الديانات ليبقى الدين الوحيد هو دين اليهود !
أما الإسلام فعلى خلاف المسيحية فقد جاء بمنهج الترغيب والترهيب ... بالجنة والنار ...بالثواب والعقاب .. ولو قطع لنا ديننا بالجنة أو قطعنا لأنفسنا بالجنة من الآن لإتكلنا ولأصبحنا امة مثل أمة النصارى بلا أخلاق ولكن ترجو ثواب الله وتخشى عقابه ولذلك نجتنب المعاصي ونعمل الخيروهذا ما يقوله المسيح نبوؤة عن أمة الإسلام :
مت 21:43 لذلك اقول لكم ان ملكوت الله ينزع منكم ويعطى لأمة تعمل اثماره.
وأمة النصارى على العكس تماما
غل 5:4 قد تبطلتم عن المسيح ايها الذين تتبررون بالناموس.سقطتم من النعمة
فالواقع المرئي أن الجميع يشهد أن المسيحيين الشرقيين نسبة الزنا عندهم أقل كثيرا من الغرب لا لشئ إلا لأنهم يعيشون بين المسلمين ...بل كونهم متمسكين ببعض من دينهم مثل لبس الصليب وحضور القداسات لا لشئ إلا لأنهم وسط المسلمين....أما طبيعة ما تنجبه المسيحية بثقافة الفداء والذنوب المحمولة مقدما فنراها جلية في الغرب بكنائسه المختلفه حتى قال البابا شنودة عن الكنائس التي تحلل الزواج المثلي "فضحتونا" !!
فوالله لا صلاح لهذا العالم إلا بالإسلام !
ناهيك أن السبب الأعظم هو أنه قد تم تحريف الإسلام الذي جاء به عيسى وموسى إلى سب لله الخالق كما بينا !!
؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟محمد رسول الله
والله يعجز البيان عن الكلام عن رسول الله وبيان أنه حقا وصدقا لا مرية في نبوته بل فاقت دلائل نبوته موسى وعيسى وكل نبي .. والمؤسف أن كثير من أهل الكتاب هم من يكذبونه حقدا وحسدا والله...أما الحق فإتبعه ملايين من أهل الكتاب الذين أسلموا شرقا وغربا حتى أصبحت بلدا مثل مصر كانت 90% مسيحيين أصبح أهلها 90% مسلمين ..ونسأل كيف ذلك؟ هل حدث للمسيحيين مذابح جماعية فينبغي أن تثبتوا ذلك ..أم باعوا دينهم مقابل الدراهم السنوية للجزية التي يدفع المسلم أضعافها زكاة..أم ماتوا جميعا وبقى المسلمون المحتلون..أم ماذا....أين ذهب المسيحيون الشرقيون....الواقع والحقيقة أن أكثر من 70% منهم أسلموا طواعية والواقع يشهد ...فهل كل هؤلاء ضللوا أم باعوا أنفسهم أم بالفعل وجدوا الحقيقة فإتبعوها ؟!
وطالما كان النبي محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم أول المستهدفين من النصارى الحاقدين أمثال زكريا بطرس بحقد غير مبرر وغير علمي ..كان من الواجب بيان الحق وإزهاق الباطل.
وأقول لهم مازلنا في دعوة للتفكير العلمي .. لماذا تكذبون محمد –صلى الله عليه وسلم-؟
الواقع أن النصارى أصبحوا مثل الملاحدة تماما في هذه النقطة...مثلا ربما ينكر علي ملحد ما أمر زواج الرسول وليس هذا غريبا لأن هؤلاء الملاحدة إنما ينظرون إلى الغرب كأنه الإله فما قال لهم عنه الغرب أنه صواب فهو الحق ولا جدال مهما كان قذرا ومستشنعا وما قال لهم الغرب أنه خطأ كان باطلا محضا مهما كان جيدا أو طبيعيا !
لكن النصارى أهل كتاب وليسوا ملاحدة !
قد يتسائلون .. وما الفارق؟...إن الفارق –عندنا- بين أهل الكتاب والملاحدة ليس في العقيدة فنحن نكفر النصارى والملاحدة ولكن الفرق هو أن النصارى يملكون كتابا به بقايا من الحق ..فهل يقرأون ويتفكرون فيما جاء في كتبهم ويهتدون بهديها ؟!
إن الله –عز وجل- عندما كان يخاطب النصارى أو اليهود في القرآن يقول لهم "يا أهل الكتاب" وهذه إشارة للرجوع لما في كتبهم من بقايا الحق المطموس.
فأهل الكفر يعاندون لمجرد التفكير أن بشر مثله بعثهم الله ليبشروهم وينذروهم ويأمروهم بعبادة خالقهم {أكان للناس عجبا أن أوحينا إلى رجل منهم أن أنذر الناس}؟ وقال تعالى: {ذلك بأنه كانت تأتيهم رسلهم بالبينات فقالوا أبشرا يهدوننا} وقال فرعون وملؤه: {أنؤمن لبشرين مثلنا وقومهما لنا عابدون}؟ وكذلك قالت الأمم لرسلهم: {إن أنتم إلا بشر مثلنا تريدون أن تصدونا عما كان يعبد آباؤنا فأتونا بسلطان مبين}.
(وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا نُوحاً إِلَى قَوْمِهِ إِنِّي لَكُمْ نَذِيرٌ مُبِينٌ (25) أَنْ لا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا اللَّهَ إِنِّي أَخَافُ عَلَيْكُمْ عَذَابَ يَوْمٍ أَلِيمٍ (26) فَقَالَ الْمَلَأُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ قَوْمِهِ مَا نَرَاكَ إِلَّا بَشَراً مِثْلَنَا ) سورة هود
بل وهذا هو سبب الكفر بجميع الأنبياء من قبل
{وَمَا مَنَعَ النَّاسَ أَن يُؤْمِنُواْ إِذْ جَاءهُمُ الْهُدَى إِلاَّ أَن قَالُواْ أَبَعَثَ اللّهُ بَشَرًا رَّسُولاً} (94) سورة الإسراء
ومن هذا الذي يخفيه قساوسة وأحبار ورهبان النصارى عن عامة النصارى هو أمور مختصة بالأنبياء والمرسلين وهنا يفضح الله حقدة النصارى بقوله
(وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا قَبْلَكَ مِنَ الْمُرْسَلِينَ إِلَّا إِنَّهُمْ لَيَأْكُلُونَ الطَّعَامَ وَيَمْشُونَ فِي الْأَسْوَاقِ) سورة الفرقان
وقال تعالى : وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلاً مِّن قَبْلِكَ وَجَعَلْنَا لَهُمْ أَزْوَاجاً وَذُرِّيَّةً (الرعد : 38 )
إن النبي بشر يأكل ويشرب ويمشي في الأسواق ويتزوج ..!
أليس هذا كلام منطقي وعلمي للمؤمنين من أهل الكتاب ؟!
أن التفكير العلمي في مسألة مدى صدق نبوة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم يتطلب بأن يقلب النصراني صفحات كتابه ليرى ما هي صفات الأنبياء والمرسلين ؟!
ما صفات داود وسليمان وإشعياء وإرمياء وموسى وحزقيال وملاخي وهارون ... وغيرهم ممن يزخر بهم الكتاب المقدس !
هل كانوا ملائكة لا يأكلون الطعام ؟!
هل كانوا لا يتزوجون النساء مثلا أو يتزوجون بإمرأة واحدة ؟!
الواقع أن جلهم عدد نساءه فمحمد صلوات الله وسلامه عليه تزوج بإحدى عشرة أمرأة طوال حياته ليست فيهم إلا بكر وحيدة وهي عائشة الصديقة بنت الصديق وكانت بعضهن عجائز بمعنى الكلمة وماتت إثنتين منهما في حياته ..بينما في مجتمعه كان الزواج متزامنا مع البلوغ تماما ...فعمرو بن العاص مثلا فرق بينه وبين إبنه الأول في العمر عشر سنوات مما يعني أنه تزوج في التاسعة أو في العاشرة على أقصى تقدير وبالطبع تزوج بفتاة أصغر منه أو في مثل عمره ..وهذه تقاليد المجمتع وأعرافه !
و النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أولى زوجات الرسول هي خديجة –رضي الله عنها- تزوجها وعمره 25 عاما وعمرها جاوز الأربعين ولم يتزوج إلى أن ماتت رضي الله عنها!
فهل يظن في شخص مثل رسول الله أي سوء ؟!
ونأتي لأمر "أهل الكتاب" هل هم مستعدين ليعرفوا أن جل الأنبياء قد عددوا أزواجهم ؟!
وطالما قال محمد أنه "نبي" و "رسول من عند الله" لم يدعي الإلوهية يوما ما ...!
فهلم نرى قول الله (وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلاً مِّن قَبْلِكَ وَجَعَلْنَا لَهُمْ أَزْوَاجاً وَذُرِّيَّةً (الرعد : 38 )
هل تؤمن بإبراهيم و يعقوب وموسى و جدعون و داود و رحبعام و سليمان و هوشع كأنبياء كان يأتيهم الوحي من عند الله؟ ....... هل تعلم أن تعدُّد الزوجات أباحها الله فى الشريعة التي انزلها الله على هؤلاء الانبياء؟ و هذا من الكتاب المقدس الذي لم تقراه:
نساء النبي الملك وابن الله عندكم سليمان الف امراة هن:
-1وَأَحَبَّ الْمَلِكُ سُلَيْمَانُ نِسَاءً غَرِيبَةً كَثِيرَةً مَعَ بِنْتِ فِرْعَوْنَ: مُوآبِيَّاتٍ وَعَمُّونِيَّاتٍ وَأَدُومِيَّاتٍ وَصَيْدُونِيَّاتٍ وَحِثِّيَّاتٍ 2مِنَ الأُمَمِ الَّذِينَ قَالَ عَنْهُمُ الرَّبُّ لِبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ: لاَ تَدْخُلُونَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَهُمْ لاَ يَدْخُلُونَ إِلَيْكُمْ، لأَنَّهُمْ يُمِيلُونَ قُلُوبَكُمْ وَرَاءَ آلِهَتِهِمْ. فَالْتَصَقَ سُلَيْمَانُ بِهَؤُلاَءِ بِالْمَحَبَّة ِ. 3وَكَانَتْ لَهُ سَبْعُ مِئَةٍ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ السَّيِّدَاتِ، وَثَلاَثُ مِئَةٍ مِنَ السَّرَارِيِّ. فَأَمَالَتْ نِسَاؤُهُ قَلْبَهُ. ملوك الأول 11 1-3 :
وزوجات النبي يعقوب 4 هن:
1- ليئة
2- راحيل
3- زلفة
4- بلهة
وبذلك يكون النبي يعقوب قد جمع 4 زوجات فى وقت واحد.
زوجات النبي إبراهيم 13 هن:
1- سارة زوجته و أخته لأبيه سفرالتكوين 20: 12
2- هاجر سفرالتكوين 16: 15
و كان عمر إبراهيم عندما تزوج هاجر 85 أنجب إسماعيل وعمره 86 سنة تكوين 16: 16. وكان عمر هاجر عندما تزوجها إبراهيم حوالى 25 إلى 30 سنة فقد أُعطِيت لسارة من ضمن هدايا فرعون له وتزوجها بعد هذا الموعد بعشر سنوات هى مدة إقامته فى أرض كنعان. فمتوسط عمرها عندما أُهدِيت لسارة بين 15 - 20 سنة.
وبذلك يكون الفرق فى العمر بين إبراهيم وهاجر بين 55 و 60 سنة.
3- قطورة سفرالتكوين 25 1 :
4- يقول سفر التكوين: 6 وَأَمَّا بَنُو السَّرَارِيِّ اللَّوَاتِي كَانَتْ لإِبْرَاهِيمَ فَأَعْطَاهُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمُ عَطَايَا وَصَرَفَهُمْ عَنْ إِسْحَاقَ ابْنِهِ شَرْقاً إِلَى أَرْضِ الْمَشْرِقِ وَهُوَ بَعْدُ حَيٌّ. تكوين 25: 6
ومعنى ذلك أنه كان سيدنا إبراهيم يجمع على الأقل ثلاث زوجات بالإضافة إلى السرارى التى ذكرها الكتاب بالجمع. فإذا ما افترضنا بالقياس أن سيدنا إبراهيم كان عنده 10 سرارى فقط بالإضافة إلى زوجاته، يكون قد جمع تحته 13 زوجة وسريرة.
وزوجات النبي موسى 2 هن:
1- صفورة سفرالخروج 2: 11-22
2- امرأة كوشية وهو فى سن التسعين سفر العدد 12 1-15 :
وبذلك يكون نبى الله موسى قد تزوج من اثنتين يؤخذ فى الإعتبار أن اسم حمى موسى جاء مختلفاً: فقد أتى رعوئيل سفر الخروج 2: 28) ويثرون (سفر الخروج 3: 1 وحوباب القينىسفر القضاة 1: 16 وقد يشير هذا إلى وجود زوجة ثالثة لموسى عليه السلام ؛ إلا إذا اعترفنا بخطأ الكتاب فى تحديد اسم حما موسى عليه السلام.
وزوجات النبي جدعون 23 هن:كان لجدعون سبعون ولداً خارجون من صلبه لأن كانت له نساء كثيرات سفرالقضاة 8 30-31:
وإذا ما حاولنا استقراء عدد زوجاته عن طريق عدد أولاده نقول: أنجب إبراهيم 13 ولداً من 4 نساء. فيكون المتوسط التقريبى 3 أولاد لكل امرأة.
وكذلك أنجب يعقوب 12 ولداً من 4 نساء فيكون المتوسط التقريبى 3 أولاد لكل امرأة.
ولما كان جدعون قد أنجب 70 ولداً: فيكون عدد نسائه إذن لا يقل عن 23 امرأة.
ولم يشتمهم العهد الجديد ويقول أنهم شهوانين بل قال :
Heb:11:32 وماذا اقول ايضا لانه يعوزني الوقت ان اخبرت عن جدعون وباراق وشمشون ويفتاح وداود وصموئيل والانبياء 33 الذين بالايمان قهروا ممالك صنعوا برا نالوا مواعيد سدوا افواه اسود (SVD)
وزوجات النبي داود 69 امرأة على الأقل هن:
1- ميكال ابنة شاول سفر صموئيل الأول 18 20-27 :
2- أبيجال أرملة نابال سفر صموئيل الأول 25: 42
3- أخينوعيم اليزرعيلية سفر صموئيل الأول 25: 43
4- معكة ابنت تلماى ملك جشور سفر صموئيل الثانى 3 2-5 :
5- حجيث سفر صموئيل الثانى 3: 2-5
6- أبيطال صموئيل الثانى 3: 2-5
7- عجلة صموئيل الثانى 3: 2-5
8- بثشبع أرملة أوريا الحثى صموئيل الثانى 11 27 :
9- أبيشج الشونمية ملوك الأول 1: 1-4
وجدير بالذكر أن زوجة نبى الله داود أبيشج الشونمية كانت فى عُمر يتراوح بين الخامسة عشر والثامنة عشر وكان داود قد شاخ أى يتراوح عمره بين 65 و 70 سنة. أى أن العمر بينه وبين آخر زوجة له كان بين 45 و 50 سنة.
12وَعَلِمَ دَاوُدُ أَنَّ الرَّبَّ قَدْ أَثْبَتَهُ مَلِكاً عَلَى إِسْرَائِيلَ، وَأَنَّهُ قَدْ رَفَّعَ مُلْكَهُ مِنْ أَجْلِ شَعْبِهِ إِسْرَائِيلَ. 13وَأَخَذَ دَاوُدُ أَيْضاً سَرَارِيَ وَنِسَاءً مِنْ أُورُشَلِيمَ بَعْدَ مَجِيئِهِ مِنْ حَبْرُونَ، فَوُلِدَ أَيْضاً لِدَاوُدَ بَنُونَ وَبَنَاتٌ. سفر صموئيل الثانى 5: 12-13
ويمكن استقراء عدد نساء داود فى أورشليم كالآتى:
ملك داود فى حبرون على سبط يهوذا نحو 7 سنين تزوج فيها ست زوجات أى بمعدل زوجة جديدة كل سنة.
ولما ا نتقل داود إلى أورشليم ملكاً على إسرائيل كان عمره 37 سنة وقد بدأت المملكة تستقر. فمن المتوقع أن يستمر معدل إضافة الزوجات الجدد كما كان سلفاً، أى زوجة جديدة كل سنة.
وإذا أخذنا عامل السن فى الاعتبار فإننا يمكننا تقسيم مدة حياته فى أورشليم التى بلغت 33 سنة إلى ثلاث فترات تبلغ كل منها احدى عشر سنة ويكون المعدل المقبول فى الفترة الأولى زوجة جديدة كل سنة وفى الفترة الثانية زوجة جديدة كل سنتين وفى الفترة الثالثة زوجة جديدة كل ثلاث سنوات.
وبذلك يكون عدد زوجات داود الجدد الائى أخذهن فى أورشليم 20 زوجة على الأقل.
أما بالنسبة للسرارى فيقدرها العلماء ب 40 امرأة على الأقل. فقد هرب داود خوفاً من الثورة التى شنها عليه ابنه أبشالوم مع زوجاته وسراريه وترك عشر نساء من سراريه لحفظ البيت. صموئيل الثانى 15: 12-16.
وبذلك يكون لداود 29 زوجة و 40 سرية أى 69 امرأة على الأقل. وهذا رقم متواضع إذا قورن بحجم نساء ابنه سليمان الذى وصل إلى 1000 امرأة.
نساء النبي رحبعام78 امراة هن:
21وَأَحَبَّ رَحُبْعَامُ مَعْكَةَ بِنْتَ أَبْشَالُومَ أَكْثَرَ مِنْ جَمِيعِ نِسَائِهِ وَسَرَارِيهِ لأَنَّهُ اتَّخَذَ ثَمَانِيَ عَشَرَةَ امْرَأَةً وَسِتِّينَ سُرِّيَّةً وَوَلَدَ ثَمَانِيَةً وَعِشْرِينَ ابْناً وَسِتِّينَ ابْنَة. ًسفر أخبار الأيام الثانى 11: 21
نساء النبي هوشع بن نون (فتى موسى) زوجتين هن:زوجتين هوشع 1: 2- 3 و هوشع 3 1-2 :
سليمان 1000 أمرأة ....700 زوجة
1Kgs:11:3: وكانت له سبع مئة من النساء السيدات وثلاث مئة من السراري فأمالت نساؤه قلبه. (SVD)
سليمان لم يقل عنه المسيح شهواني بل قال :
Lk:11:31 ملكة التيمن ستقوم في الدين مع رجال هذا الجيل وتدينهم.لانها أتت من اقاصي الارض لتسمع حكمة سليمان !!
و نجد ايضا أبيـــــــــــا له نساء
2Chr:13:21: 21 وتشدّد ابيا واتخذ لنفسه أربعة عشرة امرأة وولد اثنين وعشرين ابنا وست عشرة بنتا. (SVD)
يعقوب له نساء
Gn:31:17: 17. فقام يعقوب وحمل أولاده ونساءه على الجمال. (SVD)
جدعون أيضا له نساء
Jgs:8:30: 30 وكان لجدعون سبعون ولدا خارجون من صلبه لأنه كانت له نساء كثيرات. (SVD)
داوود الملك النبي أيضا له سراري ونساء
Mk:11:10 مباركة مملكة ابينا داود (SVD)
ولطالما دعي المسيح بن داود!
2Sm:5:13: 13 واخذ داود أيضا سراري ونساء من أورشليم بعد مجيئه من حبرون فولد أيضا لداود بنون وبنات. (SVD)
2Sm:12:11: 11 هكذا قال الرب هاأنذا أقيم عليك الشر من بيتك وآخذ نساءك أمام عينيك وأعطيهن لقريبك فيضطجع مع نسائك في عين هذه الشمس. (SVD)
2Sm:15:16: 16 فخرج الملك وجميع بيته وراءه.وترك الملك عشر نساء سراري لحفظ البيت. (SVD)
و عيسو ايضا له نساء
Gn:36:2: 2 اخذ عيسو نساءه من بنات كنعان.عدا بنت إيلون الحثّي وأهوليبامة بنت عنى بنت صبعون الحوّي. (SVD)
Gn:36:6: 6 ثم اخذ عيسو نساءه وبنيه وبناته وجميع نفوس بيته(SVD)
شرع الله قال بتعدد الزوجات :
Dt:21:15. إذا كان لرجل امرأتان احداهما محبوبة والأخرى مكروهة فولدتا له بنين المحبوبة والمكروهة.فان كان الابن البكر للمكروهة (SVD)
هل تؤمن بهؤلاء كانبياء؟
وأسأل كل عاقل ..كيف تحترم دينا مثل "المسيحية" يقوم فيه رجال الدين –مثل زكريا بطرس- بإخفاء تلك المعلومات عليكم طاعنين في النبي محمد بأنه عدد أزواجه؟
أليس ذلك من الكفر لمجرد الكفر والحقد الغير مبرر والغير علمي ؟!
يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لِمَ تَكْفُرُونَ بِآَيَاتِ اللَّهِ وَأَنْتُمْ تَشْهَدُونَ. يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لِمَ تَلْبِسُونَ الْحَقَّ بِالْبَاطِلِ وَتَكْتُمُونَ الْحَقَّ وَأَنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ.
حسنا ربما يتبادر على ذهن أحدهم أن المسيح بن مريم لم يتزوج ويوحنا المعمدان كذلك
وبالطبع من يأتي في خاطره هذا الفكر إما جاهل لم يقرأ كتابه أو يعرف السبب ولكنه يدلس !
والواقع أن من أحكام الله لبني إسرائيل حسب العهد القديم
Ex:13:2 قدس لي كل بكر كل فاتح رحم من بني اسرائيل من الناس ومن البهائم.انه لي. (SVD)
وعيسى بن مريم ويحيي بن زكريا عليهما الصلاة والسلام هما بكر امهاتهم!
يقول إنجيل لوقا (“ولما تمت ثمانية ايام ليختنوا الصبي سمي يسوع كما تسمى من الملاك قبل ان حبل به في البطن ولما تمت ايام تطهيرها حسب شريعة موسى صعدوا به الى اورشليم ليقدموه للرب. كما هو مكتوب في ناموس الرب ان كل ذكر فاتح رحم يدعى قدوسا للرب. ولكي يقدموا ذبيحة كما قيل في ناموس الرب زوج يمام او فرخي حمام” (لو 2:21-24)
فكون المسيح لم يتزوج فليس لعيب فيه هو –حاشاه- وليس لعيب في الزواج نفسه ولكن لأن تشريع بني إسرائيل كان البكر لا يتزوج وهو منذور لله !
فالنصارى لو أرادوا الحقيقة حقا لبحثوا عن صفات الأنبياء وبعد ذلك طبقوها على النبي محمد –صلى الله عليه وسلم- وبعد ذلك يوضع على ميزان بقية الأنبياء ليروا هل هو نبي أم لا ؟!
والواقع أن صفات الأنبياء عندهم مريعة وهم يعرفون ذلك ويصرحون بذلك بلا إستحياء
إن هذا الكتاب –المقدس- يأبى إلا أن يشوه صورة أنبياء الله الذين هم أطهر خلق الله فقد إتهم النبي إبراهيم أنه باع عرضه (تكوين 12: 11-16) و نبى الله داود أنه زنى بامرأة جاره (صموئيل الثانى 11: 2-5) و نبى الله سليمان أنه يعبد الأوثان (ملوك الأول 11: 5 ( ؟
ناهيك عن بقية الأنبياء الذين لم يذكر لهم الكتاب المقدس إلا حوادث الزنا والتعري والسكر والظلم و....وما ذكره الكتاب المقدس من الأعمال الجيدة أقل كثيرا من الشر والفواحش والآثام !
والواقع أن هذا ليس عيبا في الأنبياء كما يقول النصارى وآبائهم ..لا ..حاشا وكلا بل إن العهد القديم هو العيب ..لأن هؤلاء اليهود عليهم لعنة الله لم يتركوا نبيا إلا وكذبوه وشكوا فيه وحاولوا قتله أو قذفوه وإتهموه .
لكي يكون كل أنقى الخلق أنجاس مثلهم فلا ينكر عليهم منكر أنهم أصحاب زنا أو سرقة أو ما شابه فالنبي عندهم يزني ..فما بالك بالشخص العادي !
وكم قالهم المسيح (يا أورشليم يا أورشليم يا قاتلة الأنبياء وراجمة المرسلين) فهل من تجرأ على قتل نبي ألا يتجرأ من باب أولى على سبه وشتمه والطعن فيه ؟!
فالعيب في العهد القديم أنه وضع من شأن الأنبياء وكذب عليهم !
سليمان من هو حسب العهد القديم ؟
((سفر الملوك الأول 11 : 4 وكان في زمان شيخوخة سليمان ان نساءه أملن قلبه وراء آلهة اخرى ولم يكن قلبه كاملا مع الرب الهه كقلب داود ابيه. 5 فذهب سليمان وراء عشتروث الاهة الصيدونيين وملكوم رجس العمونيين. 6 وعمل سليمان الشر في عيني الرب ولم يتبع الرب تماما كداود ابيه. 7 حينئذ بنى سليمان مرتفعة لكموش رجس الموآبيين على الجبل الذي تجاه اورشليم.ولمولك رجس بني عمون. 8 وهكذا فعل لجميع نسائه الغريبات اللواتي كنّ يوقدن ويذبحن لآلهتهنّ. 9. فغضب الرب على سليمان لان قلبه مال عن الرب اله اسرائيل الذي تراءى له مرتين 10 واوصاه في هذا الامر ان لا يتبع آلهة اخرى.فلم يحفظ ما أوصى به الرب.))
إذن سليمان مرتد حسب العهد القديم .. والإسلام جاء ليكذب ذلك ويقول أنه كان نبي عظيم من اعظم أنبياء بني إسرائيل !
فما رأي المسيح في سليمان ؟!
Mt:12:42 ملكة التيمن ستقوم في الدين مع هذا الجيل وتدينه.لانها اتت من اقاصي الارض لتسمع حكمة سليمان.وهوذا اعظم من سليمان ههنا. (SVD)
المسيح لا يزكي سليمان فقط..لا ..بل ويقارن نفسه به ويقول أنه أعظم من سليمان ..فبالله عليكم هل يقارن نفسه بمرتد عابد أوثان...فبالتأكيد أقل مؤمن ضعيف الإيمان كبطرس المنكر للمسيح وتوما الشكاك أعظم من المرتد عابد الأصنام وحتى المقارنة لا تجوز مع المؤمن العادي فكيف بالمسيح ... كيف يقارن المسيح نفسه بسليمان إن لم يكن المسيح يؤكد أنه نبي عظيم حكيم هل يعقل أن تخرج الحكمة من مرتد ؟ وهل يعقل أن يكتب الكتاب المقدس كلام الله عابد أصنام ؟
Mt:7:16 من ثمارهم تعرفونهم.هل يجتنون من الشوك عنبا او من الحسك تينا. (SVD)
فالمسيح يؤكد أن ما قيل عن إرتداد سليمان وعبادته للأصنام هو كذب وإفتراء .
والمسيح كثيرا ما يذكر إبراهيم بالخير .. وبل وداود الذي ينسب إليه الزنا بإمرأة أوريا ..!!
وهنا يثبت بما لا يدع مجالا للشك أن المسيح يتهم العهد القديم بالتحريف ولا شك في هذا على الإطلاق !
إن المسيحي ينظر إلى الأنبياء في العهد القديم بفحشهم وزناهم وكفرهم ..وينظر على الجانب الآخر للمسيح في العهد الجديد فبالطبع يرى الفارق جليا بين الزناة عبدة الأصنام وبين المسيح الطاهر النقي ..بل والعهد الجديد جاء بغلو في المسيح خصوصا في رسائل بولس !
والواقع أنك لم تخطئ حينما نظرت للمسيح أنه طاهر نقي بلا غلو ولكنك أخطأت حينما نظرت للأنبياء أنهم زناة عراة بنظرة العهد القديم !
ولكن إن أردت الحياد فإنظر للأنبياء كما نقل عنهم القرآن (أولئك الذين هداهم الله فبهداهم إقتده )
فالواقع أن الإسلام منهجا وسطا بكل معاني الكلمة ..فلسنا نفترى على الأنبياء الكذب بأنهم زناة كفرة –كما قال اليهود- ولسنا نقول أنهم آلهة –كما قال النصارى عن عيسى- ولكن أمة وسطا ...نقول أن الأنبياء بشرا ولكنهم خير خلق الله !
من ناحية أخرى لسنا ننظر إلى الحياة بمادية الغرب الآن ..فإنهم يعيشون كالبهائم من العمل لكسب العيش ثم يعيش لشهوته مع الخلائل من النساء ولو كان متزوجا .. بل ولم تتزوج أساسا ؟! فمادية الغرب متفشية وأصبحت مقدمات الجنس تحدث في الشوارع !!
وهناك فئة أخرى مثل فكر العهد الجديد رأت أن الجنس خطيئة ورجس من عمل الشيطان وأن الرهبانية بالنسبة للنساء أفضل لرضا الرب والرجال عليهم أن يختصون .. إلخ
-الطبعة الكاثوليكية -متى 19 : 12فهُناكَ خِصْيانٌ وُلِدوا مِن بُطونِ أُمَّهاتِهم على هذِه الحال، وهُناكَ خِصْيانٌ خَصاهُمُ النَّاس، وهُناك خِصْيانٌ خَصَوا أَنفُسَهم مِن أَجلِ مَلكوتِ السَّمَوات. فَمَنِ استَطاعَ أَن يَفهَمَ فَليَفهَمْ! )).
فهذه نظرة المسيحية لذكورة الرجل وإنوثة المرأة ...!
أما عندنا في الإسلام .. فلا نعيش معيشة البهائم كما يعيش الغرب من الخلائل والخليلات (قال الله " ولا متخذي أخدان" وقال "ولا متخذات أخدان" ) !
ولا عندنا نظرة المسيحية للشهوة أنها رجس من عمل الشيطان وللجنس بأنه خطية ... لا..بل رشد الإسلام مسألة الشهوة وجعلها محصورة في الزواج !
وحصن المسلم بأن أمره بغض البصر عن غير محارمه وأمر النساء بالإحتجاب عن الرجال الأجانب ..كل هذا لضمان سعادة الأسرة المسلمة وبالتالى المجتمع المسلم وأظن أن السعادة أهم ما يستطيع أن يتحصل عليه المرء خلال هذه الحياة !
فالواقع أن الشهوة طاقة أعطاها الله للإنسان ليعمر الأرض وهي ضرورة للحفاظ على النسل ..ولذلك فالإسلام جاء بترشيد إستخدام الشهوة في الزواج فقط وحدد ضوابط لضبط الشهوة من الحجاب وغض البصر وغيره وهو ترشيد لإستخدام الشهوة في المكان الصحيح فقط ولكن ليس قتل الشهوة لأنك لن تستطيع قتلها بل تنميها وتصبح وحشا والدليل هو فساد الأديرة وكان مثلا شعبيا أجنبيا شهيرا يوكد ما يؤديه الكبت الجنسي في الأديرة فيقول ((تحتاج إلى شيطان واحد لأشباع فساد أخلاق قرية ، ولكنك تحتاج إلى أكثر من ألف لتشبع فساد أخلاق دير))
فالإسلام جاء متوافق مع الفطرة التي خلقها الله في الإنسان ولذلك فهو أدعى أن يكون من عند الخالق ..لأنه يتعامل مع الإنسان تعامل الخبير ..ليس تعامل جامد سطحي جاهل كتعامل المسيحية أو تعامل شهواني جسدي مادي كتعامل الغرب !!
وَكَذَلِكَ جَعَلْنَاكُمْ أُمَّةً وَسَطاً لِّتَكُونُواْ شُهَدَاء عَلَى النَّاسِ وَيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ عَلَيْكُمْ شَهِيداً (البقرة : 143 )
فالدين الوحيد الواقعي هو دين الإسلام ... !
- شبهات حول السنة النبوية
الرد على شبهة مباشرة رسول الله لزوجته وهى حائض
ذكر المعترضون ما ورد فى الصحيحين من حديث ميمونة بنت الحارث الهلالية (رضى الله عنها) قالت: كان النبى إذا أراد أن يباشر إمراة من نسائه أمرها فاتزرت و هى حائض. و لهما عن عاشة نحوه. و ظنوا بجهلهم أن ذلك يتعارض مع قوله تعالى (( وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْمَحِيضِ قُلْ هُوَ أَذًى فَاعْتَزِلُواْ النِّسَاء فِي الْمَحِيضِ وَلاَ تَقْرَبُوهُنَّ حَتَّىَ يَطْهُرْنَ فَإِذَا تَطَهَّرْنَ فَأْتُوهُنَّ مِنْ حَيْثُ أَمَرَكُمُ اللّهُ إِنَّ اللّهَ يُحِبُّ التَّوَّابِينَ وَيُحِبُّ الْمُتَطَهِّرِينَ)) (البقرة 22)
و سبب ذلك أنهم أناس لا يفقهون فالمباشرة المنهى عنها فى الأية الكريمة هى المباشرة فى الفرج أما ما دون ذلك فهو حلال بالإجماع و قد روى الإمام أحمد و أبو داوود و الترمذى و ابن ماجة عن عبد الله بن سعد الأنصارى أنه سأل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ما يحل لى من امرأتي و هى حائض؟ فقال صلى الله عليه وسلم : " ما فوق الإزار", و روى إبن جرير أن مسروقاً ركب إلى عائشة ( رضى الله عنها) فقال: السلام على النبى و على أهله, فقالت عائشة: مرحباً مرحباً فأذنوا له فدخل فقال: إنى أريد أن أسألك عن شىء و أنا أستحى فقالت : إنما أنا أمك و أنت إبنى فقال: ما للرجل من إمرأته و هى حائض؟ فقالت له : " كل شىء إلا الجماع" و فى رواية ما" فوق الإزار"
و قد راينا فى حديث ميمونة أن نبى الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان إذا ما أراد أن يباشر إمرأة من نسائه أمرها" فاتزرت " فأين التعارض المزعوم إذاً يا ملبسى الحق بالباطل.
و لعل ما دفعهم إلى الاعتراض هو وضع المرأة الحائض فى الكتاب اللا مقدس (( وَإِذَا حَاضَتِ الْمَرْأَةُ فَسَبْعَةَ أَيَّامٍ تَكُونُ فِي طَمْثِهَا، وَكُلُّ مَنْ يَلْمِسُهَا يَكُونُ نَجِساً إِلَى الْمَسَاءِ. كُلُّ مَا تَنَامُ عَلَيْهِ فِي أَثْنَاءِ حَيْضِهَا أَوْ تَجْلِسُ عَلَيْهِ يَكُونُ نَجِساً، وَكُلُّ مَنْ يَلْمِسُ فِرَاشَهَا يَغْسِلُ ثِيَابَهُ وَيَسْتَحِمُّ بِمَاءٍ وَيَكُونُ نَجِساً إِلَى الْمَسَاءِ. وَكُلُّ مَنْ مَسَّ مَتَاعاً تَجْلِسُ عَلَيْهِ، يَغْسِلُ ثِيَابَهُ وَيَسْتَحِمُّ بِمَاءٍ، وَيَكُونُ نَجِساً إِلَى الْمَسَاءِ. وَكُلُّ مَنْ يَلَمِسُ شَيْئاً كَانَ مَوْجُوداً عَلَى الْفِرَاشِ أَوْ عَلَى الْمَتَاعِ الَّذِي تَجْلِسُ عَلَيْهِ يَكُونُ نَجِساً إِلَى الْمَسَاءِ. وَإِنْ عَاشَرَهَا رَجُلٌ وَأَصَابَهُ شَيْءٌ مِنْ طَمْثِهَا، يَكُونُ نَجِساً سَبْعَةَ أَيَّامٍ. وَكُلُّ فِرَاشٍ يَنَامُ عَلَيْهِ يُصْبِحُ نَجِساً.))(لاوين-15-19)
فهذا هو كتابهم الذى يجعلها فى حيضها كالكم المهمل الذى لا يقترب منه أحد و كأنها ( جربة ) و قد ورد عن أنس أن اليهود كانت إذا حاضت المرأة منهم لم يواكلوها و لم يجامعوها فى البيوت فسأل الصحابة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فى ذلك فأنزل الله تعالى ((البقرة22)) فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : " اصنعوا كل شىء إلا النكاح" فبلغ ذلك اليهود فقالوا: ما يريد هذا الرجل أن يدع من أمرنا شيئاً إلا خالفنا فيه .
و من المعروف فى قواعد علم مقارنة الأديان عدم مؤاخذة دين وفقاً لشرية دين أخر فما بالك و الإسلام أعدل و أسمى و قد أنصفت شريعته المرأة فى هذا المقام و غيره !!.
الرد على شبهة قراءة النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم للقرأن فى حجر عائشة و هى حائض
روى البخارى عن عاشة قالت: كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يأمرنى فأغسل رأسه و أنا حائض و كان يتكىء فى حجرى و أنا حائض فيقرأ القرأن .
و هذا أيضاً لا شبهة فيه و ما دفعهم إلى الإعتراض على ذلك الحديث إلا نفس السبب الذى دفعهم للإعتراض على الحديث السابق و هو تصورهم المتطرف لوضع المرأة الحائض و جعلها كالقاذورات التى تنجس كل ما تمسه و هذا ليس من شريعة الإسلام الوسطية العادلة فالمرأة إن كانت لا يمكنها الصلاة أو الصيام و هى حائض إلا أنها لا تنجس زوجها إذا ما مسته و لا ينظر إليها فى حيضها بهذا الإزدراء حتى أن المرأة الحائض عندهم مذنبة !!
((28وَإِذَا طَهُرَتْ مِنْ سَيْلِهَا تَحْسِبُ لِنَفْسِهَا سَبْعَةَ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ تَطْهُرُ. 29وَفِي الْيَوْمِ الثَّامِنِ تَأْخُذُ لِنَفْسِهَا يَمَامَتَيْنِ أَوْ فَرْخَيْ حَمَامٍ وَتَأْتِي بِهِمَا إِلَى الْكَاهِنِ إِلَى بَابِ خَيْمَةِ الاجْتِمَاعِ. 30فَيَعْمَلُ الْكَاهِنُ الْوَاحِدَ ذَبِيحَةَ خَطِيَّةٍ وَالْآخَرَ مُحْرَقَةً وَيُكَفِّرُ عَنْهَا الْكَاهِنُ أَمَامَ الرَّبِّ مِنْ سَيْلِ نَجَاسَتِهَا))(لاويين 28:15-30)-
فأين ذلك من شريعة الإسلام الطاهرة التى تحترم المرأة لذا لستدل العلماء من حديث أم المؤمنين عائشة بجواز ملامسة الحائض وأن ذاتها وثيابها على الطهارة ما لم يلحق شيئا منها نجاسة وفيه جواز القراءة بقرب محل النجاسة , قاله النووي : وفيه جواز استناد المريض في صلاته إلى الحائض إذا كانت أثوابها طاهرة , قاله القرطبي بل و يمكن للمرأة نفسها أن تتعبد بقراءة القرآن دون النطق به ويمكنها تقليب صفحاته باستعمال سواك أو بارتداء قفاز أو ما شابه ذلك بل و عند ابن حزم يمكنها الجهر بقراءة القران و هى حائض دون مس
==================
الرد على شبهة معاتبة أم المؤمنين حفص لرسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم )
جاء فى تفسير قوله تعالى (( يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ لِمَ تُحَرِّمُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكَ تَبْتَغِي مَرْضَاتَ أَزْوَاجِكَ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (1) قَدْ فَرَضَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ تَحِلَّةَ أَيْمَانِكُمْ وَاللَّهُ مَوْلَاكُمْ وَهُوَ الْعَلِيمُ الْحَكِيمُ (2) وَإِذْ أَسَرَّ النَّبِيُّ إِلَى بَعْضِ أَزْوَاجِهِ حَدِيثاً فَلَمَّا نَبَّأَتْ بِهِ وَأَظْهَرَهُ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ عَرَّفَ بَعْضَهُ وَأَعْرَضَ عَن بَعْضٍ فَلَمَّا نَبَّأَهَا بِهِ قَالَتْ مَنْ أَنبَأَكَ هَذَا قَالَ نَبَّأَنِيَ الْعَلِيمُ الْخَبِيرُ (3)))(التحريم) عدة روايات إنتقى الخبثاء بعضها و نفخوا فيها ليغيروا معانيهاو يحمّلوها أكثر مما تحتمل بكثير و مفاد هذه الروايات أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أصاب ماريا أم إبنه إبراهيم فى البيت المخصص لحفص فقالت : أى رسول الله فى بيتى و فى يومى؟
فقال صلى الله عليه وسلم : ألا ترضين أن اًحرمها على فلا أقربها ؟ فقالت : أى رسول الله كيف يحرُم عليك الحلال ؟ فحلف بالله ألا يصيبها و قال لا تذكرى ذلك لأحد .
و وردت عدة روايات لهذا الحديث كثير منها ضعيف و منها روايات تفيد بأن ذلك كان يوم عائشة و الصحيح أن ذلك كان يوم حفص كما دلت الكثير من النصوص و الله أعلم
و قد أمسك السفهاء بهذه الرواية و أخذو يخوضون فى عرض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حقداً عليه بل و بثوا سمومهم و سفالاتهم و قالوا أن أم المؤمين حفص قد و جدت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فى وضع (الخيانة الزوجية)!! و أنه صلى الله عليه و أله و سلم طلب منها ألا تفضحه إلى غير ذلك من ترهات عقولهم السفيهة و قلوبهم المريضة بل و وصل الحقد إلى درجة تحريف الكلم عن مواضعه و التطاول على الله تعالى .
و نقول لهؤلاء الجهلة أين هذه الخيانة الزوجية؟ و هل معاشرة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لسريته و أم ولده تعتبر عندكم خيانة زوجية و العياذ بالله ؟
بالطبع لا فهى من نسائه اللاتى أحل الله له و هذا أمر معروف و لا حرج فيه و أما معاتبة أم المؤمنين حفص لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فلم تكن بسبب الخيانة كما يزعمون و إنما بسبب غيرتها عندما خلا رسول الله بأم إبراهيم فى البيت المخصص لها و كانت فى ذلك اليوم عند والدها عمر بن الخطاب( رضى الله عنه) فالمسألة كلها تتعلق بترك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم للقسمة فى ذلك اليوم و كما هو واضح فهذا لم يكن عن عمد و لم يقصد به رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إيذاء حفص التى كانت شديدة الغيرة عليع عليه السلام بدليل أنه طيب خاطرها و حرّم ماريا على نفسه إرضاءً لها .
و قد طلب منها صلى الله عليه وسلم عدم إخبار أحد لأمر من إثنين: (1) إما لأن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يشأ ان تعلم عائشة فتحزن لذلك و قد كانت أقرب زوجاته إلى قلبه (صلوات الله و سلامه عليه)ذلك على الأخذ بالروايات التى أشارت إلى أن ذلك كان يومها و هذا لا حرج فيه فهذه حياته الخاصة عليه السلام و هؤلاء هن زوجاته أمهات المؤنين (2) الأمر الثانى و هو الأرجح و دلت عليه كثير من الروايات أن رسول ال له صلى الله عليه وسلم طلب من حفص عدم إخبار أحد "بكونه سيُحرم ماريا على نفسه "لأن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كره ذلك و إنما فعله إرضاءً لها و لم يشأ أن يسُن ذلك لأمته فيحرم الناس على أنفسهم طيبات أحلها الله لهم فأنزل الله (التحريم) .
و من الروايات التى تؤكد ذلك المعنى مارَوَى الْعَوْفِيّ عَنْ اِبْن عَبَّاس قَالَ : قُلْت لِعُمَرَ بْن الْخَطَّاب مَنْ الْمَرْأَتَانِ ؟ قَالَ عَائِشَة وَحَفْصَة وَكَانَ بَدْء الْحَدِيث فِي شَأْن أُمّ إِبْرَاهِيم مَارِيَة أَصَابَهَا النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي بَيْت حَفْصَة فِي نَوْبَتهَا فَوَجَدَتْ حَفْصَة فَقَالَتْ يَا نَبِيّ اللَّه لَقَدْ جِئْت إِلَيَّ شَيْئًا مَا جِئْت إِلَى أَحَد مِنْ أَزْوَاجك فِي يَوْمِي وَعَلَى فِرَاشِي قَالَ " أَلَا تَرْضَيْنَ أَنْ أُحَرِّمَهَا فَلَا أَقْرَبَهَا " قَالَتْ بَلَى فَحَرَّمَهَا وَقَالَ لَهَا " لَا تَذْكُرِي ذَلِكَ لِأَحَدٍ " فَذَكَرَتْهُ لِعَائِشَةَ فَأَظْهَرَهُ اللَّه عَلَيْهِ فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى " يَا أَيّهَا النَّبِيُّ لِمَ تُحَرِّم مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّه لَك تَبْتَغِي مَرْضَات أَزْوَاجك " الْآيَات .
كما وردت روايات أخرى عن أسباب نزول هذه الأية الكريمة منها ما رواه البخارى عن عائشة قالت: كَانَ النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَشْرَب عَسَلًا عِنْد زَيْنَب بِنْت جَحْش وَيَمْكُث عِنْدهَا فَتَوَاطَأْت أَنَا وَحَفْصَة عَلَى أَيَّتِنَا دَخَلَ عَلَيْهَا فَلْتَقُلْ لَهُ : أَكَلْت مَغَافِير إِنِّي أَجِد مِنْك رِيح مَغَافِير . قَالَ" لَا وَلَكِنِّي كُنْت أَشْرَب عَسَلًا عِنْد زَيْنَب بِنْت جَحْش فَلَنْ أَعُود لَهُ وَقَدْ حَلَفْت لَا تُخْبِرِي بِذَلِكَ أَحَدًا "
فهل طلب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فى هذه الرواية من حفص عدم إخبار أحد خشية الفضيحة أيضاًً يا عبّاد الصليب؟ !!
و لو كانت المسألة بهذه الصورة الشوهاء التى رسمتموها فهل كانت تُذكر فى قرأن يُتلى على المؤمن و الكافر إلى يوم القيامة و يتدارسه المؤمنون فى كل وقث و حين؟ كما قال أبى عبد الرحمن السلمى حدثنا الذين كانوا يقرئوننا القرأن كعبد الله بن مسعود و عثمان بن عفان و غيرهما أنهم كانوا إذا تعلموا عن النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم عشر أيات لم يتجاوزوها حتى يتعلموا ما فيها من العلم و العمل قال: فتعلمنا القرأن و العلم و العمل جميعاً ), و نحن لم نسمع مثل هذه التعليقات السخيفة من عبدة الصليب فى عهد النى صلى الله عليه وسلم و صحابته لا من يهودى و لا منافق و لا حتى صليبى و بدأت سخافاتهم تظهر فى العصور اللاحقة شأن 99% من شبهاتهم المريضة.
أما عن ترك القسمة فى ذلك اليوم فهو حالة إستثنائية عارضة كما أوضحنا أنفاً و ما لا يعرفه هؤلاء الجهال أن القسمة لم تكن ((فريضة شرعية)) فى حق رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حيث أن القسمة الشرعية وُضعت عنه فى قوله تعالى((تُرْجِي مَن تَشَاء مِنْهُنَّ وَتُؤْوِي إِلَيْكَ مَن تَشَاء وَمَنِ ابْتَغَيْتَ مِمَّنْ عَزَلْتَ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكَ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَن تَقَرَّ أَعْيُنُهُنَّ وَلَا يَحْزَنَّ وَيَرْضَيْنَ بِمَا آتَيْتَهُنَّ كُلُّهُنَّ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلِيماً حَلِيماً)) (الاحزاب51)
لأن عالم الغيب سبحانه قد علم أن نبيه الكريم سيبقى على القسمة حتى لو لم تكن واجبة عليه فرفع عنه ذلك التكليف حتى إذا ما قسم لهن إختياراً استبشرن به و حملن جميلته فى ذلك و إعترفن بمنته عليهن فى إبقاءه على القسمة و قد ابقى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على هذه القسمة و كان يقول ( اللهم هذا فعلى فيما املك فلا تلمنى فيما تملك و لا أملك) و ظل على هذا إلى مرض موته عليه السلام و لم يُطبب فى بيت عائشة إلا بعد ان جمع أزواجه و أستئذنهن فى ذلك
و الأيات فى سورة التحريم تتضمن معجزة من معجزاته صلى الله عليه و سلم, فى قوله تعالى (( وَإِذْ أَسَرَّ النَّبِيُّ إِلَى بَعْضِ أَزْوَاجِهِ حَدِيثاً فَلَمَّا نَبَّأَتْ بِهِ وَأَظْهَرَهُ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ عَرَّفَ بَعْضَهُ وَأَعْرَضَ عَن بَعْضٍ فَلَمَّا نَبَّأَهَا بِهِ قَالَتْ مَنْ أَنبَأَكَ هَذَا قَالَ نَبَّأَنِيَ الْعَلِيمُ الْخَبِيرُ))(3 التحريم)
و الحديث الى أسره النبى لزوجته حفص هو تحريمه ماريا و أكل العسل على نفسه , فلما أنبأت حفص عائشة بذلك أطلعه الله تعالى على ما دار بينهما فأخبرها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ببعض ما وقع منها و أعرض عن بعض بكرم خلقه فتعجبت و قالت من أنبأك هذا؟!! قال صلى الله عليه وسلم نبانى العليم الخبير.
فما الذى يعترض عليه الحاقدون و قد قالت أم المومنين عائشة (( و الله ما مست يد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إمرأة لا تحل له)) و أين ما ذكرناه من سيرة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم العطرة التى نُقلت إلينا كاملة ساطعة البياض من سير داوود الذى زنى بإمراة جاره و لوط الذى زنى بابنتيه أو يهوذا الذى زنى بأرملة إبنه و إبراهيم الذى أراد إستغلال عرض زوجته ليكون له من وراءها خير كثير! و القى بإحدى زوجاته فى الصحراء إرضاءًً لأخرى !!!.
===================
الرد على شبهة أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم طلق سودة لأنها أسنت
إعترضوا بان رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم طلق أم المؤمنين سودة لمجرد انها أسنت و استدلوا استدلال خاطىء بما جاء فى الصَّحِيحَيْنِ مِنْ حَدِيث هِشَام بْن عُرْوَة عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ عَائِشَة قَالَتْ : لَمَّا كَبِرَتْ سَوْدَة بِنْت زَمْعَة وَهَبَتْ يَوْمهَا لِعَائِشَة فَكَانَ النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقْسِم لَهَا بِيَوْمِ سَوْدَة وَفِي صَحِيح الْبُخَارِيّ عن عروة قال:لَمَّا أَنْزَلَ اللَّه فِي سَوْدَة وَأَشْبَاههَا وَإِنْ اِمْرَأَة خَافَتْ مِنْ بَعْلهَا نُشُوزًا أَوْ إِعْرَاضًا وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ سَوْدَة كَانَتْ اِمْرَأَة قَدْ أَسَنَّتْ فَفَرَقَتْ أَنْ يُفَارِقهَا رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَضَنَّتْ بِمَكَانِهَا مِنْهُ وَعَرَفَتْ مِنْ حُبّ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَائِشَة وَمَنْزِلَتهَا مِنْهُ فَوَهَبَتْ يَوْمهَا مِنْ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِعَائِشَة فَقَبلَ ذَلِكَ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
قلت بعد الحمد لله و الصلاة و السلام على رسول الله: إن زواج رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من سودة رضى الله عنها كان من الأساس زواج رحمة و رأفة لا زواج رغبة فقد تزوجها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم و هى فى السادسة و الستين من عمرها و كانت قد أسلمت مع زوجها و هاجرا إلى الحبشة فراراًً من أذى الجاهلين من قريش و مات بعد أن عادا و كان أهلها لا يزالون على الشرك فإذا عادت إليهم فتنوها فى دينها فتزوجها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لحمايتها من الفتنة و لكن بعد زمن وصلت أم المؤمنين إلى درجة من الشيخوخة يصعب معها على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يعطيها كامل حقوقها و فأراد تطليقها أيضاً رأفةً بها كى لا يذرها كالمعلقة (و كى لا يأتى الجهال فى عصرنا و يقولوا أن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يكن يعدل بين أزواجه) فقالت رضى الله عنها (فإنى قد كبرت و لا حاجة لى بالرجال و لكنى أريد أن اُبعث بين نسائك يوم القيامة) فأنزل الله تعالى ((وَإِنِ امْرَأَةٌ خَافَتْ مِن بَعْلِهَا نُشُوزاً أَوْ إِعْرَاضاً فَلاَ جُنَاْحَ عَلَيْهِمَا أَن يُصْلِحَا بَيْنَهُمَا صُلْحاً وَالصُّلْحُ خَيْرٌ وَأُحْضِرَتِ الأَنفُسُ الشُّحَّ وَإِن تُحْسِنُواْ وَتَتَّقُواْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيراً)) (البقرة)
و علمتنا هذه الأية المباركة أن إذا إمرأة خافت من زوجها أن ينفر عنها أو يعرض عنها فلها أن تسقط عنه بعض حقوقها سواءً نفقة او كسوة أو مبيت و له أن يقبل ذلك فلا حرج عليها فى بذلها ذلك له و لا حرج عليه فى قبوله, فراجعها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم و كان يحسن إليها كل الإحسان.
=================
الرد على شبهة أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم طلق إحدى زوجاته لأنه وجد فيها بياض
ذكر الطبرانى و غيره عن سهل بن سعد أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم تزوج امرأة من أهل البادية فرأى بها بياضا ففارقها قبل أن يدخل بها و كالعادة إعترض النصارى !!!!!!!!!
قلت بعد الحمد لله و الصلاة و السلام على رسول الله: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم " خير النساء من إذا نظرت إليها سرتك و إذا أمرتها أطاعتك و إذا أقسمت غليها أبرتك و إذا غبت حفظتك فى نفسها و مالك" و من هذا الحديث الشريف نجد أن من حقوق الزوج أن يتزوج إمرأة يسره النظر إليها و تكون على خلق و دين, و رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كانت معظم زيجاته كما هو معلوم لأغراض إنسانية بحته و هو لم يعدد الزوجات إلا بعد الخمسين و لكن هذا لا يمنع انه كان رجل جميل الخُلق و الخلق و عندما تزوج هذه المرأة كان يسره النظر إليها و لكنه وجد فيها هذا العيب الجلدى الذى نفره منها نفرة شديدة و كانت قد أخفته عليه فمتّعها و ردها إلى بيت أهلها قبل أن يمسها ولم تكتمل هذه الزيجة فما الحرج فى ذلك؟!!
و عندما خطب المغيرة بن شعبة إمراة فأخبر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال عليه السلام"اذهب فانظر إليها فإنه أحرى أن يؤدم بينكما"أى تدوم بينكم المودة و العشرة و كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا أراد أن يتزوج يرسل بعض النسوة ليتعرفن ما قد يخفى من العيوب فيقول لها" شمى فمها,شمى إبطيها...." فمن هذه الأحاديث الطيبة نجد أن رسول الله قد سنّ لنا ما إن فعلناه كان سبباً فى إستمرار المحبة و المودة و حسن المعاشرة , و الإسلام دين واقعى فهو يعطى كل ذى حق حقه و هل يعقل أن يطالب إنسان بأن يستمر فى معاشرة إمرأة وجد منها ما ينفره؟؟ أو تستمر إمرأة فى معاشرة رجل وجدت منه ما ينفرها؟؟ الإجابة هى بالطبع لا , و الحياة الزوجية فى الإسلام شعارها المعاشرة بالمعروف أو التسريح بإحسان و إلم تقم الحياة بين الزوجين على الصدق و المودة والرضى قامت على نفاق أو إكراه !!
و هذا لا وجود له فى دين الله, فالإسلام و إن كان يحث على الصبر كما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم " لا يفرك مؤمن مؤمنة إن كره منها خلقاً رضى منها أخر" إلا أن هناك أشياء قد لا يطيقها الإنسان و يشتد نفوره منها مما قد يذهب بأسس المودة و أداء الحقوق لذا فالإسلام هنا يرخص بالطلاق كما ورد فى البخارى عن ابن عباس قال" جاءت إمراة ثابت بن قيس إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالت: يا رسول الله ما أعتب عليه فى خلق و لا دين و لكنى أكره الكفر فى الإسلام ( تعنى كفران العشير) فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : أتردين عليه حديقته؟ قالت: نعم, فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لثابت : إقبل الحديقة و طلقها.
اما الحال عند النصارى فهو مأساة تشريعية بمعنى الكلمة و كثير منهم يستنجدون بالشريعة الإسلامية فالكنيسة المظلمة لا تكاد تبيح الطلاق إلا فى أضيق الحدود كحال الزنى أو تغيير الدين أما الكاثوليك فلا طلاق عندهم أساساً و لكن إنفصال جسدى !! و كثير من النصارى البائسين الذين لم يوفقوا فى إختيار شركاء الحياة يلجأون إلى الحيل و يغيرون مللهم ليحصلوا على حرياتهم و لا حول و لا قوة إلا بالله.
و انا اذكر هنا قصة من التراث النصرانى و هو ما حدث مع فيليب أغسطس أحد أشهر ملوك الحملات الصليبية الذى كان قد تزوج الأميرة الدنماركية( انجبورج) و لم يشعر معها بأى سعادة فهجرها و إستغرق عام كامل فى إقناع مجلس الأساقفة حتى يحصل على الطلاق و لكن البابا سلستين الثالث أبى أن يوافق على هذا, فتحدى فيليب البابا و تزوج (أنى) الميرانية فحرمة سلستين!! و لكن فيليب ظل على موقفه و قال ( خير لى أن أفقد نصف أملاكى من أن افارق أنى) و امره انوسنت الثالث أن يرجع انجبورج فلما رفض حرمه من كثير من حقوقه فقال فى حسرة (( ما أسعد صلاح الدين ليس فوقه بابا يتحكم فى حياته)) و هدد بإعتناق الإسلام وواصل كفاحه دفاعاً عن المرأة التى أحبها أربع سنين و لكن الشعب إنضم إلى الكنيسة فى الضغط عليى خوفاً من عذاب النار الذى هدد به البابا!!! فطرد فيليب زوجته انى و لكنه أبقى إنجبورج محبوسة فى ايتامب حتى عام 1202 بعد أن قضت أفضل سنين عمرها فى هذا الجحيم و كل ذلك بسبب الفهم النصرانى المتطرف للزواج .
================
الرد على شبهة موت الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم متأثرا بسم الشاة
إعترض النصارى على إفتخار المسلمين بأن الله قد جمع للنبى الكريم صلى الله عليه وسلم الشهادة إلى سائر فضائله فمات متأثراً بسم الشاة التى أهدته إياها إمرأةُ يهودية يوم خيبر,على أساس أن ذلك يتنافى مع عصمته ( صلوات الله و سلامه عليه) و ذلك يرجع إلى جهلهم بالمعانى الشرعية فعصمة رسول الله قد تمت كما وعده ربه عز و جل لأن هذه العصمة هدفها تمكينه من تبليغ الرسالة و هى مقترنة بها كما قال تعالى"يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَاللّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ (67)" ( المائدة)
و ذلك قد حدث بنعمة الله , فإذا ما بلغ الرسول الأمين الرسالة فهو بلا شك عائدٌ إلى ربه و أفضل الموت ما كان فى سبيل الله و قد قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم :- ( تضمن الله لمن خرج في سبيله، لا يخرجه إلا جهادا في سبيلي، وإيمانا بي، وتصديقا برسلي. فهو علي ضامن أن أدخله الجنة. أو أرجعه إلى مسكنه الذي خرج منه. نائلا ما نال من أجر أو غنيمة. والذي نفس محمد بيده! ما من كلم يكلم في سبيل الله، إلا جاء يوم القيامة كهيئته حين كلم، لونه لون دم وريحه مسك. والذي نفس محمد بيده! لولا أن يشق على المسلمين، ما قعدت خلاف سرية تغزو في سبيل الله أبدا. ولكن لا أجد سعة فأحلهم. ولا يجدون سعة. ويشق عليهم أن يتخلفوا عني. والذي نفس محمد بيده! لوددت أن أغزو في سبيل الله فأقتل. ثم أغزو فأقتل. ثم أغزو فأقتل ) لما علم من أجر الشهيد. فقدّر الله له هذه الوفاة الطيبة لتكتمل فضائله عليه السلام, و الله تعالى يقول "إِنَّكَ مَيِّتٌ وَإِنَّهُم مَّيِّتُونَ"و يقول "وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَن يَنقَلِبْ عَلَىَ عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَن يَضُرَّ اللّهَ شَيْئاً وَسَيَجْزِي اللّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ " و يقول "كُلُّ نَفْسٍ ذَآئِقَةُ "
وقصة شاة خيبر هى من شمائل نبوته و دلائل عصمته لو كانو يعلمون فقد روى ابن كثير عن ابن إسحاق قال:- لما إطمأن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أهدت له إمرأة يهودية شاة مصلية و قد سألت أى عضو أحب إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ؟ فقيل لها الذراع فأكثرت من السم فيها, ثم سممت الشاة ثم جاءت بها , فلما وضعتها بين يديه تناول الذراع فلاك منها مضغة لم يسغها و معه بشر ابن براء قد أخذ منها كما أخذ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فأما بشر فأساغها و أما رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فلفظها ثم قال"إن هذا العظم يخبرنى أنه مسموم" (( و هذا من معجزاته عليه السلام )) ثم دعا بها فاعترفت, فقال" ما حملكى على ذلك؟" قالت بلغنى ما لم يخف عليك فقلت إن كان كذّابا إسترحنا منه و إن كان نبيا فسيخبر" فتجاوز عنها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم و مات بشر من أكلته , أما رسول الله فلم يمت إلا بعد هذه الواقعة بثلاث سنوات كاملة كانت هذه السنوات الثلاث من أهم مراحل الدعوة النبوية ففيها فَتحت مكة و دخل الناس فى دين الله أفواجا و حج النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم حجة الوداع و إكتملت الشريعة.
و قد جاءت الإرهاصات التى تشير إلى قرب أجل النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم قبل مرض موته و بينما كان فى أوج فتوحاته و إنتصاراته و منها ما جاء فى القرأن الكريم من قوله تعالى : "الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإِسْلاَمَ دِيناً "(المائدة) و لم ينزل بعد هذه الأية أى من أيات الأحكام و لا يقولن جاهل أن سورة المائدة فيها أحكام فى مواضع لاحقة عن هذه الأية لأن ترتيب كان وفق ما يقرره الوحى فكان رسول الله يقول "ضعوا هذه الأية على رأس المائة من سورة كذا" و" ضعوا تلك الأية على رأس المائتين من سورة كذا" و كذلك من الإرهاصات التى جاءت فى القرأن الكريم قوله تعالى "إِذَا جَاء نَصْرُ اللَّهِ وَالْفَتْحُ (1) وَرَأَيْتَ النَّاسَ يَدْخُلُونَ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ أَفْوَاجاً (2) فَسَبِّحْ بِحَمْدِ رَبِّكَ وَاسْتَغْفِرْهُ إِنَّهُ كَانَ تَوَّاباً (3)"(النصر)
فكانت هذه السورة إشارة رقيقة إلى أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أدى الرسالة و بلغ الأمانة و نصح للأمة و عليه الأن أن يستعد للرحيل من هذه الدار بسلام إلى دار السلام فكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لا ينقطع عن القول فى ركوعه" سبحانك اللهم ربنا و بحمدك, اللهم اغفر لى" فى كل صلواته عليه السلام
و أيضا ما رواه البخارى عن ابن عباس قال:- كان رسوا الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أجود الناس و كان أجود ما يكون فى رمضان حين يلقاه جبريل و كان يلقاه فى كل ليلة من ليالى رمضان فيدارسه القرأن فكان جبريل يقرأ و النبى يسمع حينا و النبى يقرأ و جبريل يسمع حينا حتى كان العام الذى توفى فيه الرسول فعارضه جبريل بالقرأن مرتين لذا قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم " ما أرى ذلك إلا لاقتراب أجلى" و قد شهد العرضة الأخيرة أحد مشاهير كتاب الوحى و هو زيد بن ثابت الأنصارى.
و منها ما ورد عن أبو مويهبة مولى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: أيقظنى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ليلة و قال:إنى أٌمرت أن أستغفر لأهل البقيع فإنطلق معى فانطلقت معه صلى الله عليه وسلم فسلم عليهم ثم قال :- ليهنئكم ما أصبحتم فيه, قد أقبلت الفتن كقطع اليل المظلم ثم قال:- قد أُوتيت مفاتيح خزائن الأرض و الخلد فيها ثم الجنة و خُيرت بين ذلك و بين لقاء ربى فإخترت لقاء ربى , ثم استغفر لأهل البقيع ثم انصرف . فبدأ مرضه الذى قبض فيه.
و منها ما ورد عن أم المؤمنين عائشة قالت:- فما رجع من البقيع وجدنى و أنا صداعا و انا أقول:- وارأساه! قال صلى الله عليه وسلم : بل أنا والله يا عائشة وارأساه! ثم قال: ما بالك لو مت قبلى فقمت علبك و كفنتك و صليت عليك و دفنتك؟ فقلت: فكأنى بك و الله لو فعلت ذلك فرجعت إلى بيتى فعرُست ببعض نسائك.
فتبسو و تتام به وجعه و تمرض فى بيتى. فخرج منه يوماً بين رجلين أحدهما الفضل بن العباس و الأخر على قال الفضل: فأخرجته حتى جلس على المنبر فحمد الله و كان أول ما تكلم به النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم أن سلم على أصحاب أحد فأكثر و استغفر لهم ثم قال: أيها الناس إنه قد دنا منى حقوق من بين أظهركم فمن كنت جلدت له ظهراً فهذا ظهرى فليستقد منه و من كنت شتمت له عرضاً فهذا عرضى فليستقد منه و من أخذت له مالاً فهذا مالى فليأخذ منه و لا يخش الشحناء فإنها ليست من شأنى و إن أحبكم إلى من أخذ منى حقاً إن كان له أو حللنى فلقيت ربى و أنا طيب النفس ثم نزل فصلى الظهر ثم رجع إلى المنبر فعاد إلى مقولته الأولى فادعى عليه رجل بثلاثة دراهم فأعطاه عوضها ثم قال صلى الله عليه وسلم : أيها الناس من كان عنده شىء فليؤده و لا يقول فضوح الدنيا ألا و إت فضوح الدنيا أهون من فضوح الأخرة زُم صلى على أصحاب أحد و استغفر لهم ثم قال : إن عبداً خيّره الله بين الدنيا و ما عنده فاختار ما عنده .فبكى أبو بكر و قال: فديناك بأنفسنا و أبائنا! فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يبقين فى المسجد باب إلا باب أبى بكر فإنى لا أعلم أحداً افضل فى الصحبة عندى منه و لو كنت متخذاً خليلاً لاخذت أبا بكر خليلاً و لكن أُخوَة الإسلام.
و منها أيضا ما ورد أن لما إشتد الوجع برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم و نزل به الموت جعل يأخذ الماء بيده و يجعله على وجهه و يقول :- واكرباه فتقول فاطمة:- واكربى على كربتك يا أبتى فيقول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم :- لا كرب على أبيك بعد اليوم, فلما رأى شدة جزعها استندها و سارها , فبكت ثم سارها فضحكت , فلما توفى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سالتها عائشة عن ذلك فقالت :- أخبرنى أبى أنه ميت فبكيت ثم أخبرنى أنى أول أهله لحوقا به فضحكت .
( و قد ماتت رضى الله عنها بعد ر سول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بستة أشهر ).
و قالت أم المؤمنين عائشة: و كنت أسمع رسول اله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول كثيراً: إن الله لم يقبض نبى حتى يخيره . فلمل احتضر كانت أخر كلمة سمعتها منه و هو يقول: بل الرفيق الأعلى. قالت: قلت إذاً ؤالله لا يختارنا و علمت أنه يخيّر .
و نقول للمتمطعين الذين يقولون أن عصمة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ليست معجزة و أن أى إنسان يمكنه إدعاؤها, فأقول لهم: و هل كان الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم كأى إنسان؟ إنه بإعتراف مؤرخى الشرق و الغرب أعظم شخصية عرفها التاريخ و أعظم قائد دينى و سياسى و أعدائه كانوا أكثر من أن يحصوا من اليهود و النصارى و الوثنيين و المجوس و المنافقين و كلهم حاول إغتياله و القضاء على دعوته المباركة و كان الرسول العظيم صلى الله عليه وسلم يحرسه الصحبة من كيد الكافرين فلما أنزل الله (( يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَاللّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ )) "المائدة 67"
قال النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم : "أيها الناس إنصرفوا عنا فقد حرسنا الله " فصرف الحراس فى أشد مراحل الخطر و التهديد فيا له من نبى يتوكل على ربه الحفيظ الذى هو على كل شىء وكيل.
أخيرا نوجه السؤال إلى عباد الصليب و نقول قد جاء فى كتابكم"(( إِذَا ظَهَرَ بَيْنَكُمْ نَبِيٌّ أَوْ صَاحِبُ أَحْلاَمٍ، وَتَنَبَّأَ بِوُقُوعِ آيَةٍ أَوْ أُعْجُوبَةٍ. 2فَتَحَقَّقَتْ تِلْكَ الآيَةُ أَوِ الأُعْجُوبَةُ الَّتِي تَنَبَّأَ بِهَا، ثُمَّ قَالَ: هَلُمَّ نَذْهَبْ وَرَاءَ آلِهَةٍ أُخْرَى لَمْ تَعْرِفُوهَا وَنَعْبُدْهَا. 3فَلاَ تُصْغُوا إِلَى كَلاَمِ ذَلِكَ النَّبِيِّ أَوْ صَاحِبِ الأَحْلاَمِ، لأَنَّ الرَّبَّ إِلَهَكُمْ يُجَرِّبُكُمْ لِيَرَى إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُحِبُّونَهُ مِنْ كُلِّ قُلُوبِكُمْ وَمِنْ كُلِّ أَنْفُسِكُمْ. . . .5أَمَّا ذَلِكَ النَّبِيُّ أَوِ الْحَالِمُ فَإِنَّهُ يُقْتَلُ ))" التثنية 13: 1-5"
فكيف الحال و قد قتل المسيح كما تزعمون بعد بدء دعوته بعام و نصف أو ثلاثة أعوام فقط على أحد الأقوال و بذلك يصدق فيه ذلك النص حرفياً و مسألة قيام المسيح لم يشهدها أحد من اليهود (الذين كان يُفترض أن يٌقدم لهم الأية) حتى تحتجوا بها !!
رد عام
مما سبق من شبهات نجد أنها تعكس حقداً أصيلاً على محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم فإذا ما تزوج إعترضوا و إذا ما طلق إعترضوا !! بل و اتخذوا هذه الإعتراضات الواهية ذريعةًً ليكفروا بربهم العظيم و نبيه الكريم صلى الله عليه وسلم و حقيقة الأمر أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى لو لم يكن قد تزوج على الإطلاق كانو سيكفرون به لأن الله تعالى يقول (( وَلَن تَرْضَى عَنكَ الْيَهُودُ وَلاَ النَّصَارَى حَتَّى تَتَّبِعَ مِلَّتَهُمْ قُلْ إِنَّ هُدَى اللّهِ هُوَ الْهُدَى وَلَئِنِ اتَّبَعْتَ أَهْوَاءهُم بَعْدَ الَّذِي جَاءكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ مَا لَكَ مِنَ اللّهِ مِن وَلِيٍّ وَلاَ نَصِيرٍ ))
أما عن شبهاتهم الوهمية فمرجعها كلها إلى ثقافة هؤلاء القوم عن الزواج فهو عندهم شر لابد منه بل و عند البعض شر محض فهو الحلال الدنس!!
يقول ترتليانوس" و الشهوة فى الحقيقة هى سبب الزنا ألا يوجد مظهر من مظاهر الزنا فى الزواج حيث أنه متضمن فيه حيث أن نفس الأفعال تحدث فى الإثنين؟ و المسيح قال ( من نظر إلى إمرأة ليشتهيها فقد زنى بها فى قلبه)
و يستطرد قائلاً: و قد يسأل أحدهم (هل أنت بذلك تهدم أساس الزواج بإمراة واحدة أيضاً ) نعم! و لكن ليس دون سبب وجيه , لأنه حتى هذه الزيجات أساسسها نفس هذا الخزى و هو الزنى !!!!!!, و لذلك "حسن للرجل ألا يمس إمراة"(كورنثوس الأولى1:7) , فلتشعر أنك بمركز أفضل إذا أتاح الله فرصة الزواج مرة واحدة و إلى الأبد!! و أنك مدين بالشكر إذا علمت أنه لم يدعك تتورط مرة أخرى!!!!!! و إلا فأنت تسىءإلى نفسك بالإنغماس حيث أنك تستعمل الزواج بدون مقياس , أفلا يكفيك أن تسقط من قمة مرتبة البتولية الطاهرة إلى مرتبة أدنى بالزواج؟ فإنك بلا شك ستنحدر إلى هوة سحيقة بالزواج الثالث و الرابع !!!!!!
ففى ذلك اليوم ينطق بكلمة (الويل) على الحبالى و المرضعات!!! (مرقس 17:13 و متى 19:24 و لوقا 23:21) سوف يحدث ذلك اى (الويل) قيل عن المتزوجين و غير الطاهرين لأن الزواج يعطى دوراً للأرحام و الأثداء و الرضع!!!!!!
و قد حاول شنودة تبرير زواج أبراهيم بل و أكثر من مرة بأن السبب كان إحياء نسل فى زمن لم يكن فيه إيمان.
و يبرر بولس هذه الدعوة التى زرعها فى الفكر النصرانى قائلاً " واما العذارى فليس عندي امر من الرب فيهنّ ولكنني اعطي رأيا كمن رحمه الرب ان يكون امينا. فاظن ان هذا حسن لسبب الضيق الحاضر انه حسن للانسان ان يكون هكذا" " كورنثوس1 25:7" فها هو يفتينا برأيه و يقول صراحة هذا ليس بوحى ثم نجده فى الكناب المقدس مسطوراً و يقول أيضاً" فاريد ان تكونوا بلا هم.غير المتزوج يهتم في ما للرب كيف يرضي الرب. واما المتزوج فيهتم في ما للعالم كيف يرضي امرأته""كورنثوس 1 32:7_34"
و قد قال البابا المتفزلق يوحنا الذهبى: "إن للبتولية مزايا عملية فالعذراء تهرب من المشاغل و الأحزان التى تشغل المرأة المتزوجة و تقلقها على عائلتها"!!!! و عندما سئل عن إحتمال فتاء البشرية لو إمتنع الناس عن الزواج فقرد قائلاً:" إنها دائماً إرادة الله و ليس النشاط الجنسى هو الذى سخلق شعباً جديداً" !!!
و طبعاً هذا الكلام المتهافت الصادر عن أناس إنتكست فطرتهم فرأوا الحق باطل و رأو الباطل حق لا يحتاج إلى جهد فى تفنيده فهؤلاء الذين يعيشون فى الوهم لم يفهموا أن قول المسيح ( من نظر إلى إمرأة ليشتهيها فقد زنى بها) لا يعنى أن الناس كلهم زناة حتى لو نظروا لزوجاتهم؟!! و إنما يقصد من يطلق البصر للنساء الأجنبيات و ذلك كقوله تعالى" قُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يَغُضُّوا مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِمْ وَيَحْفَظُوا فُرُوجَهُمْ ذَلِكَ أَزْكَى لَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا يَصْنَعُونَ (30)"النور"
==================
أما القول بأن الزواج مثل الزنى لأنه يتضمن نفس الأفعال و أن الزواج أكثر من مرة هو سقط فى الهاوية على حد زعم هؤلاء الضلال فهو كذب و إفتراء .
فالزواج هو شىء فطرنا الله عليه و منّ علينا به إذ يقول تعالى (( وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجاً لِّتَسْكُنُوا إِلَيْهَا وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَكُم مَّوَدَّةً وَرَحْمَةً إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ )) (الروم)
و نحن نرى اناس يسجدون للشمس و أناس يسجدون لله فهل يُذم الذين يسجدون الله العظيم لمجرد ان أخرين يسجدون بنفس الطريقة لألهتهم الباطلة فأين هذا الهراء من قول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم " أوليس قد جعل الله لكم ما تصدقون به إن بكل تسبيحة صدقة وبكل تكبيرة صدقة وبكل تحميدة صدقة وبكل تهليلة صدقة وأمر بالمعروف صدقة ونهي عن المنكر صدقة وفي بضع أحدكم صدقة قالوا يا رسول الله: أياتي أحدنا شهوته ويكون له فيها أجر قال: أرأيتم لو وضعها في الحرام أليس كان يكون عليه وزر فكذلك إذا وضعها في الحلال يكون له أجر" فإن الله لم يخلق فينا الغرائز ليعذبنا بها و إنما أمرنا أن نحسن إستعمالها فيما أرشدنا إليه و حينها نكون قد وصلنا إلى قمة العبودية لله تعالى"وَنَفْسٍ وَمَا سَوَّاهَا (7) فَأَلْهَمَهَا فُجُورَهَا وَتَقْوَاهَا"(الشمس) .
أما عن قول شنودة بأن زواج إبراهيم كان لغرض إحياء النسل المؤمن فهو قول فهو حق اراد به باطل! و إلا فبماذا يفسر ذلك الضال زواج إبراهيم من قطورة بعد إنجابه إسماعيل و إسحاق؟ (تل 1:22) و إذا كان التعدد ضد إرادة الله أساساً فلماذا لم يجعل الله نسل إبراهيم خليله كله من سارة وحدها و قد علمنا كيف أن الله مكنها من الإنجاب و هى عجوز, ألم يكن الله قادراً على جعلها تحمل مرة ثانية و ثالثة إذا أراد بدلاً من أن يسمح لإبراهيم بالزواج الثانى الذى يعتبره النصارى جريمة نكراء؟!!
أما إدعاء بولس بأن الزواج يبعد الانسان عن ربه وهو كما رأينا لا يكاد يبيح الزواج إلا فى حالة الخوف من الوقوع فى الزنا فجعله زواج إضطرارى أو شر أهون من شر!!!!فأين ذلك من أسوتنا و قدوتنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الذى يقول (يا معشر الشباب من أستطاع منكم الباءة فليتزوج, فإنه أغض للبصر و أحصن للفرج و من لم يستطع فعليه بالصوم فإنه له وجاء) و الله تعالى يقول " وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجاً لِّتَسْكُنُوا إِلَيْهَا وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَكُم مَّوَدَّةً وَرَحْمَةً إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ "(الروم21)
فقد علمنا الله و رسوله كيف نجعل من الزواج المبارك سبب فى التقرب أكثر من طاعة الله و تأسيس أسرة مسلمة و نسل صالح و إدخال السعادة على الأباء بزواج أبناءهم و بذرياتهم و فى الوقت ذاته علمنا عدم الإنشغال بالأهل عن خدمة دين الله تعالى فقال تعالى"سَيَقُولُ لَكَ الْمُخَلَّفُونَ مِنَ الْأَعْرَابِ شَغَلَتْنَا أَمْوَالُنَا وَأَهْلُونَا فَاسْتَغْفِرْ لَنَا يَقُولُونَ بِأَلْسِنَتِهِم مَّا لَيْسَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ قُلْ فَمَن يَمْلِكُ لَكُم مِّنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئاً إِنْ أَرَادَ بِكُمْ ضَرّاً أَوْ أَرَادَ بِكُمْ نَفْعاً بَلْ كَانَ اللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيراً"(الفتح)
و قال تعالى "الْمَالُ وَالْبَنُونَ زِينَةُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَالْبَاقِيَاتُ الصَّالِحَاتُ خَيْرٌ عِندَ رَبِّكَ ثَوَاباً وَخَيْرٌ أَمَلاً "(الكهف) و قال تعالى" يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تُلْهِكُمْ أَمْوَالُكُمْ وَلَا أَوْلَادُكُمْ عَن ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْخَاسِرُونَ"(المنافقون)
و قد كانت الفترة التى عدد فيها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم زوجاته هى أكثر فترات عمره عملاً و تضحيةً و جهاداً و تعليماً و أعباءً كما أنه كان أزهد الناس و أبعدهم عن الدنيا و زينتها و كان الله يريد لزوجاته أيضاً ان يكن بعيدات عن الدنيا و زينتها إذ يقول تعالى"يا ايها النبى قل لأزواجك" فهذا هو الفكر السوى الذى نتبعه فى اللإسلام العظيم
ونحن نتسائل ماذا عن موسى و يعقوب و جدعون و سليمان و داوود و غيرهم من الأنبياء الذين تزوجوا بل و عددو بل ووصل عدد نساء البعض منهم إلى مئات الزوجات و هم أتقى الناي و اعبدهم و أعلمهم بالله ؟!!
فهل سقط هؤلاء فى الهاوية التى نجى منها بولس و ترتليانوس و أشباههم .
و بالنسبة للبابا يوحنا الذهبى الذى يتحدث عن إرادة الله فنقول لذلك الجاهل أن إرادة الله كانت فى خلق أدم و حواء و نسلهما و إعطاءهما الأعضاء المناسبة لذلك و العواطف المؤدية لذلك و قد أثبت العلم أن تأخير سن الزواج له مضار صحية و نفسية كإلتهابات الجهاز البولى و التناسلى عند الرجل و الأمراض الخبيثة عند المرأة و مرجع ذلك لإختلال وظائف الغدد و كبت عمل الأعضاء المخصصة للتناسل, و هل عدم الزواج خال من المشاكل؟
إن عدم الزواج هو المشاكل نفسها فأين تذهب المودة و الرحمة و السكن؟!!!
و كما هو واضح فإن الجميع يتمسك بوصايا بولس رغم ما تحمله من أفكار خاطئة و مبادىء هدامة لا يقبلها عقل قويم أو فكر مستنير, و هل خلقنا الله لنكون ملائكة يمشون على الأرض؟ نعبده ليل نهار و لا تفتر أبداً؟؟ يا مغلقى العقول إن الله خلق الإنسان إنساناً و خق الملاك ملاكاً و أمر الإنسان بما لا يفوق طاقته و هو عبادة الله وحده بإخلاص و بالوالدين إحساناً و أن نجتنب الفواحش ما ظهر منها و ما بطن ولم يطلب منا أن نخرج من نطاق أدميتنا و نتحدى فطرتنا فى ما نعتقده و ما نفعله كما تفعلون أنتم .
حتى أنى قرأت عن (قديسة) فى الكنيسة الكاثوليكية تركت ابنها الصغير من أجل الرهبنة فجرى الطفل المسكين وراءها و نام على الأرض أمام الدير كى لا تمر أمه فمرت من فوقه و تخطته بكل قسوة و وقاحةو هو يبكى بشدة و لو كانت هذه الأنانية تفقه لعلمت أن كل إنسان راع و كل انسان مسئول عن رعيته فهى التى جاءت بالطفل إلى الحياة ثم يتمته و حرمته من حنان الأمومة فى أشد فترات الاحتياج إليها لتسكن كالبلهاء فى دير و تركت ابنها للضياغ و هذه القصة المثيرة للغثيان يذكرها هؤلاء بافتخار فهل توجد انتكاسة أكبر من هذه
شبه حديث رأيت القَسّ
ابن مريم
ذكر القاضي ابن الطيب اختلاف الناس في أول ما نزل من القرآن فقيل : المدثر وقيل : اقرأ وقيل : الفاتحة . وذكر البيهقي في دلائل النبوة عن أبي ميسرة عمرو بن شَرَحبيل أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لخديجة : ( إني إذا خلوت وحدي سمعت نداء وقد والله خشيت أن يكون هذا أمراً ) قالت : معاذ الله ما كان الله ليفعل بك فوالله إنك لتؤدي الأمانة وتصل الرحم وتصدق الحديث . فلما دخل أبو بكر - وليس رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم - ذكرت خديجة حديثه له قالت : يا عتيق اذهب مع محمد إلى ورقة بن نوفل . فلما دخل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أخذ أبو بكر بيده فقال : انطلق بنا إلى ورقة فقال : ( ومن أخبرك ) . قال : خديجة فانطلقا إليه فقصا عليه فقال : ( إذا خلوت وحدي سمعت نداء خلفي يا محمد يا محمد فأنطلق هاربا في الأرض ) فقال : لا تفعل، إذا أتاك فاثبت حتى تسمع ما يقول ثم ائتني فأخبرني . فلما خلا ناداه : يا محمد ! قل { بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله رب العالمين - حتى بلغ - ولا الضالين } ، قل : لا إله إلا الله . فأتى ورقة فذكر ذلك له، فقال له ورقة : أبشر ثم أبشر، فأنا أشهد أنك الذي بشر به عيسى ابن مريم وأنك على مثل ناموس موسى وأنك نبي مرسل وأنك سوف تؤمر بالجهاد بعد يومك هذا، وإن يدركني ذلك لأجاهدن معك . فلما توفي ورقة قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( لقد رأيت القَسّ في الجنة عليه ثياب الحرير لأنه آمن بي وصدقني ) يعني ورقة . قال البيهقي رضي الله عنه : هذا منقطع . يعني هذا الحديث، فإن كان محفوظا فيحتمل أن يكون خبرا عن نزولها بعد ما نزل عليه { اقرأ باسم ربك } . و { يا أيها المدثر }
===================
لماذا حاصر الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم يهود خيبر ، وسمل أعين العرنيين؟
اليكم السؤال والأجابة كما هى ننقلها لكم
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم ..
بعد الدعاء لكم بالتوفيق لجهودكم فسؤالي عن عدة نقاط وأرجو الإجابة عليها بشكل واضح جزاكم الله خيرا :1 -قبل أيام دخلت في نقاش مع أحد النصارى و الذي كان يتهم الإسلام و الرسول صلى الله عليه و سلم بعدم الرحمة و ادعى أن الرسول صلى الله عليه و سلم قام بعد حصار اليهود في موقعة خيبر قام بتعذيب الأسرى و قتلهم و استدل بحديث ادعى أنه من صحيح البخاري و قال إنه مذكور في الحديث أنه (أقامهم في الحرة و سمرت أعينهم)
و قد سمعت بهذا الحديث من قبل و لكن سؤالي هو هل هذا الحديث ورد في يهود خيبر و إذا كان كذلك فهل عذبهم الرسول فعلا وإن فعل فلماذا ؟
وهل هو حديث صحيح أصلا أم لا و كيف نرد على من ادعى أن الرسول صلى الله عليه و سلم ليس برحيم وأنه اتهم المرأة بأنها نجس ؟
فتوى
الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وصحبه أما بعد:
فقد حاصر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يهود خيبر في السنة السابعة من الهجرة ، وذلك لدورهم السيئ في تحريض الأحزاب ضد المسلمين، وإثارة بني قريظة على الغدر والخيانة، واتصالهم بالمنافقين المتآمرين. وما ذكر محاورك النصراني من أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قام بتعذيب الأسرى وقتلهم كذب، وإنما قتل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كنانة بن الربيع، حين خالف بنود الصلح وأخفى كنزاً عنده لبني النضير، فقال صلى الله عليه وسلم: " أرأيت إن وجدناه عندك أأقتلك؟" قال: نعم. فلما وجد المسلمون الكنز أمر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم صلى الله عليه وسلم بقتله. وأما حادثة سمل الأعين فليست في هذه الغزوة قطعاً، وإنما هي في العرنيين الذين قتلوا رعاة الإبل واستاقوها.
وحديثها صحيح أخرجه البخاري ومسلم عن أنس رضي الله عنه قال: قدم على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نفر من عكل فأسلموا، فاجتووا المدينة، فأمرهم أن يأتوا إبل الصدقة فيشربوا من أبوالها وألبانها، ففعلوا فصحوا، فارتدوا وقتلوا رعاتها، واستاقوا الإبل، فبعث في آثارهم فأتي بهم، فقطع أيديهم وأرجلهم، وسمل أعينهم، ثم لم يحسمهم حتى ماتوا" وقد فعل بهم صلى الله عليه وسلم هذا الفعل لأنهم كانوا قد فعلوا ذلك بالراعي، فكان قصاصا: (وجزاء سيئة سيئة مثلها) .
وأما القول بنجاسة المرأة ونسبة ذلك إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فهو من الكذب البين.
فقد روى مسلم في صحيحه عن عائشة رضي الله عنها أنها قالت كنت أشرب وأنا حائض، ثم أناوله النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فيضع فاه على موضع فمي. فهذا الحديث صريح في إباحة أكل الحائض وشربها مع زوجها، وأن لعابها طاهر، وأن الحيض لا يجعل الحائض ولا شيئاً منها نجساً. واليهود هم الذين يقولون بنجاسة المرأة في الحيض. روى مسلم عن أنس أنه قال: إن اليهود كانوا إذا حاضت المرأة فيهم لم يؤاكلوها، ولم يجامعوهن في البيوت (أي لم يخالطوهن ولم يساكنوهن في بيت واحد) فسأل أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فنزل قوله تعالى: ( ويسألونك عن المحيض قل هو أذى فاعتزلوا النساء في المحيض ولا تقربوهن حتى يطهرن) فقال صلى الله عليه وسلم "اصنعوا كل شيء إلا النكاح" فبين هذا الحديث الصحيح أن معنى الآية أي :اعتزلوا وطأهن ولا تقربوه. وما سوى ذلك من المؤاكلة والمجالسة والسكن في بيت واحد فكل ذلك مباح.
وأما القول بأنه صلى الله عليه وسلم ليس برحيم فهو من الافتراء والكذب للطعن فيه صلى الله عليه وسلم، وليست هذه القضية جديدة في ساحة العلاقات بين المسلمين وغيرهم، بل هي قضية متلازمة مع الحركة الإسلامية في كل زمان ومكان، فقد قام أعداء الدعوة الإسلامية في مهدها الأول -وهم مشركو قريش - بوسم الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم بكل الصفات السلبية، وبعد انتقال الدعوة إلى المهد الثاني وهو: المدينة المنورة حمل لواء العداء لشخصية الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وتوجيه الشبهات والمطاعن لها أعداء الدعوة الجدد وهم: اليهود والمنافقون.
وقد دافع الله تعالى عن رسوله الكريم صلى الله عليه وسلم، وذلك من خلال آيات القرآن الكريم ورد كل الشبهات والافتراءات بأبلغ الردود، وفندها بأوضح البراهين والحجج.
وللرد على أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم ليس برحيم، يقول تعالى (وما أرسلناك إلا رحمة للعالمين ) [الأنبياء:107] وسيرته صلى الله عليه وسلم مع أهله والمسلمين من حوله، بل ومع خصومه من كفار قريش والمنافقين في المدينة دالة على اتصافه بالرحمة والرأفة والإحسان. وحسبه صلى الله عليه وسلم موقفه يوم الفتح، وقوله لصناديد قريش: " اذهبوا فأنتم الطلقاء" .
والله أعلم.
المفتي: مركز الفتوى بإشراف د.عبدالله الفقيه
===================
شبهات حول حجية السنة
ظهرت في حِقَب من التاريخ الإسلامي فرق وطوائف أنكرت السنة والاحتجاج بها ، فمنهم من أنكرها صراحة ودعا إلى نبذها بالكلية سواءً أكانت متواترة أم آحادية زعماً منهم أنه لا حاجة إليها ، وأن في القرآن غنية عنها ، ومنهم رأى الحجية في نوع منها دون غيره .
وكان أول من تعرض لهذه المذاهب وردَّ على أصحابها ودحض شبهاتهم الإمام الشافعي رحمه الله حيث عقد فصلاً خاصاً في كتاب " الأم " ذكر فيه مناظرة بينه وبين بعض من يرون ردَّ الأخبار كلِّها ، كما عقد في كتاب " الرسالة "فصلاً طويلاً في حجية خبر الآحاد .
وكادت تلك الطوائف التي أنكرت السنة جملة أن تنقرض ، حتى نبتت نابتة جديدة - في عصرنا الحاضر - غذَّاها الاستعمار بنفسه وأيدها مادياً ومعنوياً ، في محاولة منه للقضاء على الإسلام وهدم أصوله وأركانه .
وكان أحد هؤلاء الذين دعوا إلى ترك الحديث والاعتماد على القرآن فقط : الدكتور توفيق صدقي الذي كتب مقالين في مجلة المنار بعنوان " الإسلام هو القرآن وحده " .
وتبع ذلك ظهور جماعة في شبه القارَّة الهندية دعت إلى الأخذ بالقرآن فقط ، وأنكرت أن يكون للأحاديث أي قيمة تشريعية ، وهم الذين عرفوا بـ " بالقرآنيين " أو " جماعة أهل القرآن " ، مردِّدين نفس الحجج والشبه التي استند إليها توفيق صدقي .
ومن ذلك ما فهموه من قوله تعالى { مَا فَرَّطْنَا فِي الْكِتَابِ مِنْ شَيْءٍ } (الأنعام 38) ، وقوله سبحانه : { وَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ تِبْيَاناً لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ } (النحل 89).
فقالوا : إن هذه الآيات وأمثالها تدل على أن الكتاب قد حوى كل شيء من أمور الدين ، وكلَّ حُكم من أحكامه ، وأنه بيَّن ذلك وفصَّله بحيث لا يحتاج إلى شيء آخر ، وإلا كان الكتاب مفرِّطاً فيه ، ولما كان تبياناً لكل شيء ، فيلزم الخُلْف في خبره سبحانه وتعالى .
وجواباً على هذه الشبهة يقال : ليس المراد من الكتاب في قوله تعالى: { مَا فَرَّطْنَا فِي الْكِتَابِ مِنْ شَيْءٍ } (الأنعام 38) القرآن ، وإنما المراد به اللوح المحفوظ ، فإنه هو الذي حوى كل شيء ، واشتمل على جميع أحوال المخلوقات كبيرها وصغيرها ، جليلها ودقيقها ، ماضيها وحاضرها ومستقبلها ، على التفصيل التام ، بدلالة سياق الآية نفسها حيث ذكر الله عز وجل هذه الجملة عقب قوله سبحانه : {وَمَا مِنْ دَابَّةٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلا طَائِرٍ يَطِيرُ بِجَنَاحَيْهِ إِلَّا أُمَمٌ أَمْثَالُكُمْ } (الأنعام 38) أي مكتوبة أرزاقها وآجالها وأعمالها ، كما كتبت أرزاقكم وآجالكم وأعمالكم كل ذلك مسطور مكتوب في اللوح المحفوظ لا يخفى على الله منه شيء .
وعلى التسليم بأن المراد بالكتاب في هذا الآية القرآن ، كما هو في الآية الثانية وهي قوله سبحانه : { وَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ تِبْيَاناً لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ } (النحل 89) فالمعنى أنه لم يفرِّط في شيء من أمور الدِّين وأحكامه ، وأنه بيَّنها جميعاً بياناً وافياً .
ولكن هذا البيان إما أن يكون بطريق النص مثل بيان أصول الدين وعقائده وقواعد الأحكام العامة ، فبيَّن الله في كتابه وجوب الصلاة والزكاة والصوم والحج ، وحِلِّ البيع والنكاح ، وحرمة الرِّبا والفواحش ، وحِلِّ أكل الطيبات وحُرْمة أكل الخبائث على جهة الإجمال والعموم ، وتَرَك بيان التفاصيل والجزئيات لرسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم .
ولهذا لما قيل لمُطَرِّف بن عبد الله بن الشِخِّير : " لا تحدثونا إلا بالقرآن قال : والله ما نبغي بالقرآن بدلاً ولكن نريد من هو أعلم منا بالقرآن .
وروي عن عمران بن حصين أنه قال لرجل يحمل تلك الشبهة : إنك امرؤ أحمق أتجد في كتاب الله الظهر أربعا لا يجهر فيها بالقراءة ، ثم عدد إليه الصلاة والزكاة ونحو هذا ، ثم قال أتجد هذا في كتاب الله مفسَّرا ، إن كتاب الله أبهم هذا وإن السنة تفسر ذلك " .
وإما أن يكون بيان القرآن بطريق الإحالة على دليل من الأدلة الأخرى التي اعتبرها الشارع في كتابه أدلة وحُجَجاً على خلقه .
فكل حكم بينته السنَّة أو الإجماع أو القياس أو غير ذلك من الأدلة المعتبرة ، فالقرآن مبَيِّن له حقيقة ، لأنه أرشد إليه وأوجب العمل به ، وبهذا المعنى تكون جميع أحكام الشريعة راجعة إلى القرآن .
فنحن عندما نتمسك بالسنة ونعمل بما جاء فيها إنما نعمل في الحقيقة بكتاب الله تعالى ، ولهذا لما قال عبد الله بن مسعود رضي الله عنه : " لعن الله الواشمات والموتشمات والمتنمصات والمتفلجات للحسن ، المغيرات خلق الله " بلغ ذلك امرأة من بني أسد يقال لها أم يعقوب ، فجاءت إليه وقالت : إنه بلغني عنك أنك لعنت كيت وكيت ، فقال وما لي لا ألعن من لعن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ومن هو في كتاب الله ، فقالت : لقد قرأت ما بين اللوحين فما وجدت فيه ما تقول ، قال : لئن كنت قرأتيه لقد وجدتيه ، أما قرأتِ { وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا } ( الحشر 7) ؟! قالت : بلى ، قال : فإنه قد نهى عنه .
وحُكِي أن الشافعي رحمه الله كان جالساً في المسجد الحرام فقال : لا تسألوني عن شيء إلا أجبتكم فيه من كتاب الله تعالى ، فقال رجل : ما تقول في المُحْرِم إذا قتل الزُّنْبُور ؟ فقال لا شيء عليه ؟ فقال : أين هذا في كتاب الله ؟ فقال : قال الله تعالى : { وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ } ( الحشر 7) ، ثم ذكر إسناداً إلى النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - أنه قال : ( عليكم بسنتي وسنة الخلفاء الراشدين من بعدي ) رواه الترمذي وغيره ، ثم ذكر إسناداً إلى عمر رضي الله عنه أنه قال " للمُحْرِم قتل الزُّنْبُور " فأجابه من كتاب الله .
قال الإمام الخطابي رحمه الله " أخبر سبحانه أنه لم يغادر شيئا من أمر الدين لم يتضمن بيانَه الكتابُ ، إلا أن البيان على ضربين : بيان جَلِيّ تناوله الذكر نصاً ، وبيان خفِيّ اشتمل عليه معنى التلاوة ضمناً ، فما كان من هذا الضرب كان تفصيل بيانه موكولاً إلى النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وهو معنى قوله سبحانه : { لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ } (النحل44) ، فمن جمع بين الكتاب والسنة فقد استوفى وجهي البيان " أهـ .
وبذلك يتبين ضلال هؤلاء وسوء فهمهم وتهافت شبهاتهم ، وأنه لا منافاة بين حجية السنة وبين كون القرآن تبياناً لكل شيء ، والحمد لله أولاً وآخراً .
تقدمت الإشارة - في الجزء الأول من هذا الموضوع - إلى بعض الشبه التي استند إليها منكروا حجية السنة في العصر الحديث ، حيث استدلوا ببعض الآيات التي أساءوا فهمها وتأوَّلوها على غير وجهها ، محرفين فيها الكلم عن مواضعه .
وإضافة إلى ما استدلوا به من آيات ، فقد تمسكوا أيضاً بجملة أخبارٍ منسوبة إلى النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - تؤيد - بحسب زعمهم - ما ذهبوا إليه من عدم الاحتجاج بالسنة ، ووجوب عرض ما جاء فيها على كتاب الله .
ومن هذه الأخبار ما روي أنه - صلى الله عليه وسلم - دعا اليهود فحدّثوه فخطب الناس فقال : ( إن الحديث سيفشو عنِّي ، فما أتاكم يوافق القرآن فهو عنِّي ، وما أتاكم يخالف القرآن فليس عنِّي ) ، فقالوا : إذا أثبتت السنة حكماً جديداً فإنها تكون غير موافقة للقرآن ، وإن لم تثبت حكماً جديداً فإنها تكون لمجرد التأكيد فالحجة إذاً في القرآن وحده .
ومن هذه الأخبار التي استدلوا بها ما روِي أنه - صلى الله عليه وسلم- قال : ( إذا حُدِّثتم عنِّي حديثاً تعرفونه ولا تنكرونه ، قلته أم لم أقله فصدّقوا به ، فإني أقول ما يُعرَف ولا يُنكَر ، وإذا حُدِّثتم عنِّي حديثاً تنكرونه ولا تعرفونه فلا تصدِّقوا به ، فإني لا أقول ما يُنكَر ولا يُعرَف ) ، فقالوا هذا يفيد وجوب عرض الحديث المنسوب إليه - صلى الله عليه وسلم - على المستحسن المعروف عند الناس من الكتاب أو العقل ، فلا تكون السنة حجَّة حينئذ .
ومن تلك الأخبار أيضاً ما رُوِي أنه - صلى الله عليه وسلم - قال : ( إني لا أحلُّ إلا ما أحلَّ الله في كتابه ، ولا أحرِّم إلا ما حرَّم الله في كتابه ) ، وفي رواية : ( لا يمسكنَّ الناس عليَّ بشيء ، فإني لا أحلُّ لهم إلا ما أحلَّ الله ولا أحرَّم عليهم إلا ما حرَّم الله ) .
هذه هي خلاصة الشبه التي أوردوها ، وهي شبه ضعيفة متهافتة لا تثبت أمام البحث والنظر الصحيح ، وتدل على مبلغ جهلهم وسوء فهمهم .
وجواباً على ما أوردوه من أحاديث يقال :
أما الحديث الأول : ( إن الحديث سيفشو عني .... ) فإن أحاديث العرض على كتاب الله ، كلها ضعيفة لا يصح التمسك بشيء منها كما ذكر أهل العلم ، فمنها ما هو منقطع ، ومنها ما بعض رواته غير ثقة أو مجهول ، ومنها ما جمع بين الأمرين ، وقد بَيَّن ذلك ابن حزم ، و البيهقي ، و السيوطي ، وقال الشافعي في الرسالة : " ما روَى هذا أحدٌ يثبت حديثه في شيء صغير ولا كبير ، وإنما هي رواية منقطعة عن رجل مجهول ونحن لا نقبل هذه الرواية في شيء " ، بل نقل ابن عبد البر في جامعه عن عبد الرحمن بن مهدي قوله : " الزنادقة والخوارج وضعوا هذا الحديث " ، ثم قال : " وهذه الألفاظ لا تصح عنه - صلى الله عليه وسلم - عند أهل العلم بصحيح النقل من سقيمه " .
بل إن الحديث نفسه يعود على نفسه بالبطلان ، فلو عرضناه على كتاب الله لوجدناه مخالفاً له ، فلا يوجد في كتاب الله أن حديث رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - لا يقبل منه إلا ما وافق الكتاب ، بل إننا نجد في القرآن إطلاق التأسي به - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ، والأمر بطاعته ، والتحذير من مخالفة أمره على كل حال ، فرجع الحديث على نفسه بالبطلان .
ومما يدل على بطلانه كذلك معارضته الصريحة لقوله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - : ( لا ألفين أحدكم متكئا على أريكته يأتيه الأمر من أمري مما أمرت به أو نهيت عنه ، فيقول : لا ندري ما وجدنا في كتاب الله اتبعناه ) رواه أبو داود .
وعلى التسليم بصحة الخبر فليس المراد منه أن ما يصدر عن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم نوعان : منه ما يوافق الكتاب فهذا يُعمل به ، ومنه ما يخالفه فهذا يُردُّ ، بل لا يمكن أن يقول بذلك مسلم ، لأن في ذلك اتهاماً للرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام بأنه يمكن أن يصدر عنه ما يخالف القرآن ، وكيف لمؤمن أن يقول ذلك وقد ائتمنه الله على وحيه ودينه وقال له : { قُلْ مَا يَكُونُ لِي أَنْ أُبَدِّلَهُ مِنْ تِلْقَاءِ نَفْسِي } (يونس 15) .
فالرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام معصوم من أن يصدر عنه ما يخالف القرآن ، ولا يمكن أن يوجد خبر صحيح ثابت عنه مخالفٌ لما في القرآن .
فيكون معنى الحديث إذاً : " إذا رُوِي لكم حديث فاشتبه عليكم هل هو من قولي أو لا فاعرضوه على كتاب الله ، فإن خالفه فردُّوه فإنه ليس من قولي " ، وهذا هو نفسه الذي يقوله أهل العلم عندما يتكلمون على علامات الوضع في الحديث ، فإنهم يذكرون من تلك العلامات أن يكون الحديث مخالفاً لمحكمات الكتاب ، ولذلك قال " فما أتاكم يوافق القرآن : فهو عنِّي ، وما أتاكم يخالف القرآن فليس عنِّي".
وعندما نقول : إن السنة الصحيحة لابدَّ وأن تكون موافقة للقرآن غير مخالفة له ، فلا يلزم أن تكون هذه الموافقة موافقة تفصيلية في كل شيء ، فقد تكون الموافقة على جهة الإجمال ، فحين تبين السنة حكماً أجمله القرآن ، أو توضِّح مُشْكِلاً ، أو تخصص عامَّاً ، أو تقييد مطلقاً ، أو غير ذلك من أوجه البيان ، فهذا البيان في الحقيقة موافق لما في القرآن ، غير مخالف له .
بل حتى الأحكام الجديدة التي أثبتتها السنة ودلَّت عليها استقلالاً ، هي أيضاً أحكام لا تخالف القرآن ، لأن القرآن سكت عنها على جهة التفصيل ، وإن كان قد أشار إليها وتعرض لها على جهة الإجمال حين قال : { وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا } ( الحشر 7) .
وأما الحديث الثاني : ( إذا حُدِّثتم عنِّي حديثاً تعرفونه ولا تنكرونه ....) ، فرواياته ضعيفة منقطعة كما قال البيهقي و ابن حزم وغيرهما ، فضلاً عما فيه من تجويز الكذب عليه - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وذلك في عبارة : ( ما أتاكم من خبر فهو عنِّي قلته أم لم أقله ) ، وحاشا رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - أن يسمح بالكذب عليه وهو الذي تواتر عنه قوله : ( من كذب عليَّ متعمداً فليتبوَّأ مقعده من النار ) أخرجاه في الصحيحين .
وقد رُوي هذا الحديث من طرق مقبولة ليس فيها لفظ ( قلته أم لم أقله ) منها رواية صحيحة أخرجها الإمام أحمد : ( إذا سمعتم الحديث عني تعرفه قلوبكم وتلين له أشعاركم وأبشاركم وترون أنه منكم قريب فأنا أولاكم به ، وإذا سمعتم الحديث عني تنكره قلوبكم وتنفر منه أشعاركم وأبشاركم وترون أنه منكم بعيد فأنا أبعدكم منه ) .
والمراد منه أن من أدلَّة صحة الحديث وثبوته أن يكون وفق ما جاءت به الشريعة من المحاسن ، وأن يكون قريباً من العقول السليمة والفطر المستقيمة ، فإن جاء على غير ذلك كان دليلاً على عدم صحته ، وهذا هو الذي يقوله علماء الحديث عند الكلام على العلامات التي يعرف بها الوضع وليس هذا مجال بسطها .
نعم قد تقصر عقولنا عن إدارك الحكمة والعلَّة ، فلا يكون ذلك سبباً في إبطال صحة الحديث وحجيته ، فمتى ما ثبت الحديث عن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وجب علينا قبوله وحسن الظن به ، والعمل بمقتضاه ، واتهام عقولنا ، قال ابن عبد البر : كان أبو إسحاق إبراهيم بن سيار يقول : " بلغني أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم نهى عن الشرب من فم القربة ، فكنت أقول : إن لهذا الحديث لشأناً ، وما في الشرب من فم القربة حتى يجيء فيه هذا النهي ؟ فلما قيل لي : إن رجلاً شرب من فم القربة فوكعته حية فمات ، وإن الحيات والأفاعي تدخل أفواه القرب علمت أن كل شيء لا أعلم تأويله من الحديث أن له مذهباً وإن جهلته ".
وأما الحديث الثالث : ( إني لا أحلُّ إلا ما أحلَّ الله في كتابه ....) ، فهو حديث منقطع في كلتا روايتيه كما قال الشافعي و البيهقي و ابن حزم .
وعلى فرض صحته فليس فيه أيُّ دلالة على عدم حجية السنة بل المراد بقوله : ( في كتابه ) ما أوحى الله إليه - كما قال البيهقي - فإن ما أوحى الله إلى رسوله نوعان : أحدهما وحي يتلى ، والآخر وحي لا يتلى ، ففسَّرَ الكتاب هنا بما هو أعم من القرآن .
وقد ورد في السنة استعمال الكتاب في هذا المعنى في الحديث الذي رواه الإمام البخاري حيث قال - صلى الله عليه وسلم - لأبي الزاني بامرأة الرجل الذي صالحه على الغنم والخادم : (والذي نفسي بيده لأقضين بينكما بكتاب الله ، الوليدة والغنم ردٌّ ، وعلى ابنك جلد مائة وتغريب عام ، اغد يا أنيس إلى امرأة هذا فإن اعترفت فارجمها ) فغدا إليها فاعترفت فأمر بها رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم- فرُجِمت ، فجعل - صلى الله عليه وسلم -حكم الرجم والتغريب في كتاب الله ، مما يدُلُّ على أن المراد عموم ما أوحي إليه .
وحتى لو سلمنا أن المراد بالكتاب القرآن ، فإن ما أحلَّه رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - أو حرمه ولم ينص عليه القرآن صراحة ، فهو حلال أوحرام في القرآن لقول الله تعالى : { وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا } ( الحشر 7) ، ولقوله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - : ( ألا هل عسى رجل يبلغه الحديث عني وهو متكئ على أريكته فيقول : بيننا وبينكم كتاب الله ، فما وجدنا فيه حلالا استحللناه وما وجدنا فيه حراما حرمناه ، وإن ما حرم رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - كما حرم الله ) رواه الترمذي وغيره .
وأما رواية : ( لا يمسكنَّ الناس عليَّ بشيء ...) ، فقد قال فيها الشافعي إنها من رواية طاووس وهو حديث منقطع .
وعلى افتراض ثبوتها فليس معناها تحريم التمسك بشيء مما جاء عنه - صلى الله عليه وسلم - أو الاحتجاج به .
وإنما المراد أنه -صلى الله عليه وسلم - في موضع القدوة والأسوة ، وأن الله عز وجل قد خصَّه بأشياء دون سائر الناس فأبيح له ما لم يبح لغيره ، وحُرِّم عليه ما لم يُحرَّم على غيره ، فكان المعنى : لا يتمسكن الناس بشيء من الأشياء التي خصني الله بها ، وجعل حكمي فيها مخالفاً لحكمهم ، ولا يقس أحدٌ نفسه عليَّ في شيء من ذلك ، فإن الحاكم في ذلك كله هو الله تعالى ، فهو الذي سوى بيني وبينهم في بعض الأحكام ، وفرَّق بيني وبينهم في بعضها الآخر
وبهذا يتبين أن الأحاديث التي استند إليها أصحاب هذه الشبهة منها ما لم يثبت عند أهل العلم ، ومنها ما ثبت ولكن ليس فيه دليل على دعواهم ، فلم يبق لهؤلاء المبتدعة - الذين نابذوا السنة ، وتأولوا القرآن على غير وجهه - من حجة إلا اتباع الهوى ، وصدق الله إذ يقول : {فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَجِيبُوا لَكَ فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّمَا يَتَّبِعُونَ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَمَنْ أَضَلُّ مِمَّنِ اتَّبَعَ هَوَاهُ بِغَيْرِ هُدىً مِنَ اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ } (القصص 50) ، نعوذ بالله من اتباع الهوى ، ومن الزيغ بعد الهدى .
===================
التشكيك فى صحة الأحاديث والاستغناء عنها بالقرآن
هناك مَنْ يكتفون بالقرآن الكريم.. ويشككون فى صحة الأحاديث ، ويظهرون التناقضات بينها ، ويذكرون الحديث الذى ينص على عدم زيارة المرأة للقبول ، والحديث الذى يقول (فى معناه) أن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم قال إننى قد أمرتكم بعدم زيارة القبور من قبل ، والآن أسمح لكم بزيارة القبور.. فيشيرون إلى ذلك بأنه تناقض.. ويدللون على ذلك بأن الأمة قد فقدت الكثير من الأحاديث النبوية عبر الزمان ، أو أن هذه الأحاديث قد حرفت عن معانيها الصحيحة.. (انتهى).
الرد على الشبهة:
فى بداية الجواب عن شبهة هؤلاء الذين يشككون فى الأحاديث النبوية. ننبه على مستوى جهل كل الذين يثيرون مثل هذه الشبهات حول الحديث النبوى الشريف.. ذلك أن التدرج والتطور فى التشريع الذى يمثله حديث النهى عن زيارة القبور ثم إباحتها.. هذا التدرج والتطور فى التشريع لا علاقة له بالتناقض بأى وجه من الوجوه ، أو أى حال من الأحوال.
ثم إن التشكيك فى بعض الأحاديث النبوية ، والقول بوجود تناقضات بين بعض هذه الأحاديث ، أو بينها وبين آيات قرآنية.. بل والتشكيك فى مجمل الأحاديث النبوية ، والدعوة إلى إهدار السنة النبوية والاكتفاء بالقرآن الكريم.. إن هذه الدعوة قديمة وجديدة ، بل ومتجددة.. وكما حذّر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من الكذب عليه.. فلقد حذّر من إنكار سنته ، ومن الخروج عليها.
ونحن بإزاء هذه الشبهة نواجه بلونين من الغلو:
أحدهما: يهدر كل السنة النبوية ، اكتفاء بالقرآن الكريم.. ويرى أن الإسلام هو القرآن وحده.
وثانيهما: يرى فى كل المرويات المنسوبة للرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم سنة نبوية ، يكفر المتوقف فيها ، دونما فحص وبحث وتمحيص لمستويات " الرواية " و " الدراية " فى هذه المرويات. ودونما تمييز بين التوقف إزاء الراوى وبين إنكار ما ثبت عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم..
وبين هذين الغلوين يقف علماء السنة النبوية ، الذين وضعوا علوم الضبط للرواية ، وحددوا مستويات المرويات ، بناء على مستويات الثقة فى الرواة.. ثم لم يكتفوا ـ فى فرز المرويات ـ بعلم " الرواية " والجرح والتعديل للرجال ـ الرواة ـ وإنما اشترطوا سلامة " الدراية " أيضًا لهذه المرويات التى رواها العدول الضابطون عن أمثالهم حتى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم.
أى أن هؤلاء العلماء بالسنة قد اشترطوا " نقد المتن والنص والمضمون " بعد أن اشترطوا " نقد الرواية والرواة " وذلك حتى يسلم المتن والمضمون من " الشذوذ والعلة القادحة " ، فلا يكون فيه تعارض حقيقى مع حديث هو أقوى منه سندًا ، وألصق منه بمقاصد الشريعة وعقائد الإسلام ، ومن باب أولى ألا يكون الأثر المروى متناقضًا تناقضًا حقيقيًّا مع محكم القرآن الكريم..
ولو أننا طبقنا هذا المنهاج العلمى المحكم ، الذى هو خلاصة علوم السنة النبوية ومصطلح الحديث ، لما كانت هناك هذه المشكلة ـ القديمة..
المتجددة ـ.. ولكن المشكلة ـ مشكلة الغلو ، بأنواعه ودرجاته ـ إنما تأتى من الغفلة أو التغافل عن تطبيق قواعد هذا المنهج الذى أبدعته الأمة الإسلامية ، والذى سبقت به حضارتنا كل الحضارات فى ميدان " النقد الخارجى والداخلى للنصوص والمرويات ".. وهذه الغفلة إنما تتجلى فى تركيز البعض على " الرواية " مع إهمال " الدراية " أو العكس.. وفى عدم تمييز البعض بين مستويات المرويات ، كأن يطلب من الأحاديث ظنية الثبوت ما هو من اختصاص النصوص قطعية الثبوت.. أو من مثل تحكيم " الهوى " أو " العقل غير الصريح " فى المرويات الصحيحة ، الخالية متونها ومضامينها من الشذوذ والعلة القادحة..
وهناك أيضًا آفة الذين لا يميزون بين التوقف إزاء " الرواية والرواة " ـ وهم بشر غير معصومين ، وفيهم وفى تعديلهم وقبول مروياتهم اختلف الفقهاء وعلماء الحديث والمحدثون ـ وبين التوقف إزاء " السنة " ، التى ثبتت صحة روايتها ودرايتها عن المعصوم صلى الله عليه وسلم.. فتوقف العلماء المتخصصين ـ وليس الهواة أو المتطفلين ـ إزاء " الرواية والرواة " شىء ، والتوقف إزاء " السنة " التى صحت وسلمت من الشذوذ والعلل القادحة شىء آخر.. والأول حق من حقوق علماء هذا الفن ، أما الثانى فهو تكذيب للمعصوم صلى الله عليه وسلم ، والعياذ بالله..
أما الذين يقولون إننا لا حاجة لنا إلى السنة النبوية ، اكتفاء بالبلاغ القرآنى ، الذى لم يفرط فى شىء..
فإننا نقول لهم ما قاله الأقدمون ـ من أسلافنا ـ للأقدمين ـ من أسلافهم ـ:
إن السنة النبوية هى البيان النبوى للبلاغ القرآنى ، وهى التطبيق العملى للآيات القرآنية ، التى أشارت إلى فرائض وعبادات وتكاليف وشعائر ومناسك ومعاملات الإسلام.. وهذا التطبيق العملى ، الذى حوّل القرآن إلى حياة معيشة ، ودولة وأمة ومجتمع ونظام وحضارة ، أى الذى " أقام الدين " ، قد بدأ بتطبيقات الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم للبلاغ القرآنى ، ليس تطوعًا ولا تزيّدًا من الرسول ، وإنما كان قيامًا بفريضة إلهية نص عليها القرآن الكريم ( وأنزلنا إليك الذكر لتبين للناس ما نزل إليهم ولعلهم يتفكرون ) .
فالتطبيقات النبوية للقرآن ـ التى هى السنة العملية والبيان القولى الشارح والمفسر والمفصّل ـ هى ضرورة قرآنية ، وليست تزيّدًا على القرآن الكريم.. هى مقتضيات قرآنية ، اقتضاها القرآن.. ويستحيل أن نستغنى عنها بالقرآن.. وتأسيًا بالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وقيامًا بفريضة طاعته ـ التى نص عليها القرآن الكريم: (قل أطيعوا الله والرسول ) (2) (أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول ) (3) (من يطع الرسول فقد أطاع الله ) (4) (قل إن كنتم تحبون الله فاتبعونى يحببكم الله ) (5) (إن الذين يبايعونك إنما يبايعون الله ) (6).
تأسيًا بالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وطاعة له ، كان تطبيق الأمة ـ فى جيل الصحابة ومن بعده ـ لهذه العبادات والمعاملات.. فالسنة النبوية ، التى بدأ تدوينها فى العهد النبوى ، والتى اكتمل تدوينها وتمحيصها فى عصر التابعين وتابعيهم ، ليست إلا التدوين للتطبيقات التى جسدت البلاغ القرآنى دينًا ودنيا فى العبادات والمعاملات.
فالقرآن الكريم هو الذى تَطَلَّبَ السنة النبوية ، وليست هى بالأمر الزائد الذى يغنى عنه ويستغنى دونه القرآن الكريم.
أما العلاقة الطبيعية بين البلاغ الإلهى ـ القرآن ـ وبين التطبيق النبوى لهذا البلاغ الإلهى ـ السنة النبوية ـ فهى أشبه ما تكون بالعلاقة بين " الدستور " وبين " القانون ". فالدستور هو مصدر ومرجع القانون..
والقانون هو تفصيل وتطبيق الدستور ، ولا حُجة ولا دستورية لقانون يخالف أو يناقض الدستور.. ولا غناء ولا اكتفاء بالدستور عن القانون.
إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، ليس مجرد مبلّغ فقط ، وإنما هو مبلّغ ، ومبين للبلاغ ، ومطبق له ، ومقيم للدين ، تحوّل القرآن على يديه إلى حياة عملية ـ أى إلى سنة وطريقة يحياها المسلمون.
وإذا كان بيان القرآن وتفسيره وتفصيله هو فريضة إسلامية دائمة وقائمة على الأمة إلى يوم الدين..
فإن هذه الفريضة قد أقامها ـ أول من أقامها ـ حامل البلاغ ، ومنجز البيان ، ومقيم الإسلام ـ عليه الصلاة والسلام.
والذين يتصورون أن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم مجرد مبلِّغ إنما يضعونه فى صورة أدنى من صورتهم هم ، عندما ينكرون عليه البيان النبوى للبلاغ القرآنى ، بينما يمارسون هم القيام بهذا البيان والتفسير والتطبيق للقرآن الكريم !.. وهذا " مذهب " يستعيذ المؤمن بالله منه ومن أهله ومن الشيطان الرجيم !.
(1) النحل: 44.
(2) آل عمران: 32.
(3) النساء: 59.
(4) النساء: 80.
(5) آل عمران: 31.
(6) الفتح: 10
كتبه د. محمود حمدى زقزوق - وزير الأوقاف المصرى
((((((((((زواجه من خديجة
عقد المؤلف هذا المبحث ليتسائل سؤالاً يتوصل به للطعن في النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم والسؤال هو التالي:
فلماذا اذاً تزوج هذا الشاب ثيباً في الاربعين من عمرها ولديها طفلان؟ فهل يجوز انه تزوجها من اجل مالها؟ وانه عندما كان في عنفوان شبابه، لم يتزوج غيرها، خوفاً من ان تحرمه مالها، ولما ماتت وعمره خمسون عاماً تزوج اربع عشرة امرأة او يزيد؟
الجواب:قصة زواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بالسيدة خديجة رضي الله عنها من فضائله عليه الصلاة والسلام فلا أدري كيف أنتكست القيم عند الكاتب إلى هذه الدرجة .وذكر الكاتب شبهتين : الأولى :زواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بالسيدة خديجة وهي أكبر منه سناً ولم يتزوج عليها ؟الشبهة الثانية : زواجه بعدد من النساء بعد وفاتها.
فأما جواب الشبهة الأولى :1ـ فإن المرأة عادةً تنكح لمميزات عديدة والنساء تتفاوق في ذلك وأعظمهن من يجمع كل تلك المميزات ،وهذا لا يرتاب فيه عاقل وأعظم المميزات الديانة والخلق الحسن فإن أضافت إلى ذلك الجمال ،والمال ،والنسب الشريف غير الوضيع ،فإن الرغبة فيها تزيد بلا ريب .ولا يستنكر أن يتزوج الإنسان بامرأة حوت كل تلك الإضافات بعد أن تميزت بأعظم خصلة من الخصال وهي الخلق والدين. حتى قال صلى الله عليه وسلم ((كمل من الرجال كثير، وكمل من النساء أربع: آسية بنت مزاحم، ومريم بنت عمران، وخديجة بنت خويلد، وفاطمة بنت محمد )) .وأما غمزك باحتمال كونه طامعاً في مالها فحاشاه صلى الله عليه وسلم فلم نعرفه إلا عاش فقيراً ومات مديوناً ديناً مضموناً بدرع رهنه لصاحب الدين فأين الطمع.وعرضت عليه الدنيا فرفضها
ثم أن المشهور أنها هي التي أرسلت إليه من يعرض عليه الزواج منها .فقد ذكر جميع أهل السير عن نفيسة بنت منية قالت: كانت خديجة بنت خويلد امرأة حازمة ، قوية، شريفة مع ما أراد الله تعالى لها من الكرامة والخير، وهي يومئذ أوسط قريش نسباً، وأعظمهم شرفاً، وأكثرهم مالاً، وأحسنهم جمالاً وكانت تدعى في الجاهلية بالطاهرة، قد طلبها جلّ رجال قومها، وذكروا لها الأموال، فلم تقبل فأرسلتني خفية إلى محمد(صلى الله عليه وسلم)، بعد أن رجع في عيرها من الشام فقلت: يا محمد ما يمنعك أن تتزوج؟..فقال: ما بيدي ما أتزوج به..
قلت: فإن كفيت ذلك... ودعيت إلى المال... والجمال... والشرف... والكفاية.. ألا تجيب؟قال: فمن هي؟..قلت: خديجة بنت خويلد..)).أنتهى
وأما ماذكر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من قوله ، ((وآستني بمالها اذ حرمني الناس)) فغاية ما فيه أنه يدافع عنها في مقام ذكر فضائلها .وغاية ما فيه أن المرأة أحسنت إلى زوجها ،حين فرضت قريش عليه المقاطعة الاقتصادية المشهورة فوقفت معه في الشدائد.وزوجها صلى الله عليه وسلم أقر بفضلها ولم يتنكر لذلك كما يفعله كثير من الناس اليوم.وليس فيه أي طمع منه في ذلك فإنها هي الباذلة لذلك ،ونعلم من سيرته أنه عاش الفقر المالي طوال حياته ولو كان يريد المال لكان أغنى العالمين مالاً.وكم الفرق بين إنسانة تبذل المال حباً لزوجها وإيماناً برسالته عن طيب نفس منها.وأخرى تعاني الظلم واستنزاف أموالها بشتى أنواع الإهانة والتعذيب والابتزاز ؟!
2ـ أن العهد المكي ركز على أسس العقيدة في أغلب ما أنزل إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ،وأما التعدد فكان من فروع الشريعة التي أجازها الشرع ،ولم تكن أهداف النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم دنيوية شهوانية بل كانت تحقيقاً لمصالح ومكاسب للدعوة الخالدة ، فشغلته عن الزواج بالأبكار حتى استقر في المدينة.
3ـ أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان جميع زوجاته ثيبات إلا عائشة رضي الله عنها .والعرب لم تكن تستنكر ذلك بل كان هذا أمر اعتيادي .
ولم تكن العرب تستنكر زواج الرجال بصغيرة السن كما حصل في زواجه من عائشة رضي الله عنها ،ولو كان أمر منكراً في عرفهم أو في الذوق السليم لسبقوا إلى إنكاره ، ولكن لم يكن كذلك.
وأما أسباب زواجه : فإن العرب وغيرهم من الأمم في ذلك الزمان عادة يتزوجون بالجم الغفير من النساء فجاء الإسلام وأذن للرجال في الجمع بين أربع من النساء فقط دون زيادة وإن خشي الإنسان من عدم العدل فلا يزد عن واحدة فقط . وشرع للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يتزوج بأكثر من أربع لمصالح تعود على الدعوة الإسلامية ولم يكن فيهن بكراً إلا واحدة فقط فلم يكن التشريع لشهوة أو رغية من الرغبات التي تحوم في ذهن الكاتب وغيره .
وإليك الحكم العظيمة من زواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم :
1ـ زواجه بسودة بنت زمعة : قال أ ـ د :أحمد زقزوق :وهنا أقول للمرجفين الحاقدين: هذه هي الزوجة الأولى للرسول بعد خديجة، فهي مؤمنة هاجرت الهجرة الأولى مع من فرّوا بدينهم إلى الحبشة وقد قَبِلَ الرسول زواجها حماية لها وجبرًا لخاطرها بعد وفاة زوجها إثر عودتهما من الحبشة.وليس الزواج بها سعارَ شهوة للرسول ولكنه كان جبرًا لخاطر امرأة مؤمنة خرجت مع زوجها من أهل الهجرة الأولى إلى الحبشة ولما عادا توفي زوجها وتركها امرأة تحتاج هي وبنوها إلى من يرعاهم.أنتهى ولم يعدم النبي صلى اله عليه وسلم نفعاً منها فقد قا بعاة أولاده أيضاً فكان من باب التكال التعاون على الخير .
2ـ زواجه بعائشة بنت صاحبه أبي بكر الصديق :قال أ ـ د أحمدزقزوق:لم يدهش مكة نبأ المصاهرة بين أعز صاحبين؛ بل استقبلته كما تستقبل أمرًا متوقعاً؛ ولذا لم يجد أي رجل من المشركين في هذا الزواج أي مطعن - وهم الذين لم يتركوا مجالاً للطعن إلا سلكوه ولو كان زورًا وافتراء.وتجدر الإشارة هنا إلى أن زواج الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم بفتاة بينه وبينها قرابة خمسين عامًا ليس بدعا ولا غريبًا لأن هذا الأمر كان مألوفًا في ذلك المجتمع. لكن المستشرقين ومن تحمل قلوبهم الحقد من بعض أهل الكتاب - على محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم - جعلوا من هذا الزواج اتهامًا للرسول غافلين بل عامدين إلى تجاهل ما كان واقعًا في ذلك المجتمع من زواج الكبار بالصغيرات كما في هذه النماذج:فقد تزوج عبد المطلب جد الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم من هالة بنت عم آمنة التي تزوجها أصغر أبنائه عبد الله ـ والد الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم. وتزوج عمر بن الخطاب ابنة على بن أبى طالب وهو أكبر سنًّا من أبيها. وعرض عمر على أبى بكر أن يتزوج ابنته الشابة " حفصة " وبينهما من فارق السن مثل الذي بين المصطفي صلى الله عليه وسلم وبين عائشة " كان هذا واقع المجتمع الذي تزوج فيه الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم بعائشة.
والخلاصة : أن زواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم شرف لأي امرأة وأنه لحكم اجتماعية ودينية عظيمة ذكرت بعضها سابقاً.وسيأتي مزيد في أحد الفصول القادمة لن الكاتب يكر الكلام كثيراً. [1]
________________________________________
((((((((الرد1
((((((((زواج الرسول من امنا صفية))))=========== الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم وعلى آله وصحبه ومن تبعهم بإحسان إلى يوم الدين ، أما بعد ..
فإن النصارى أثاروا شبهة زواج النبي عليه السلام من أم المؤمنين صفية رضي الله عنها ، وقالوا كيف يدخل بها دون عدة بعد سبيها في غزوة خيبر ؟؟؟
وللرد نقول وبالله تعالى نتأيد :
إن أصل الإشكال عند أصحاب الشبهة هو جهلهم بعدة المسبية وعدم التفريق بينها وبين غيرها ، فعدة المسبية هي أن تستبرئ بحيضة واحدة ، لما رواه أبو داود والإمام أحمد عن أبي سعيد ( أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال في سبي أوطاس : لا توطأ حامل حتى تحيض ، ولا غير حامل حتى تحيض حيضة ) . وصححه الألباني ، وهو مخرج عنده في الإرواء .
وقال الإمام الشوكاني في نيل الأوطار عقب الحديث (حديث أبي سعيد أخرجه أيضا الحاكم وصححه وإسناده حسن ) .
وقال الإمام الصنعاني في سبل السلام في كلامه عن حديث أبي سعيد وأخرج أحمد أيضا { من كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر فلا ينكح شيئا من السبايا حتى تحيض حيضة } .
وعند أبي داود عن حنش الصنعاني عن رويفع بن ثابت الأنصاري قال ( قام فينا خطيبا قال أما إني لا أقول لكم إلا ما سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول يوم حنين قال لا يحل لامرئ يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر أن يسقي ماءه زرع غيره يعني إتيان الحبالى ولا يحل لامرئ يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر أن يقع على امرأة من السبي حتى يستبرئها ولا يحل لامرئ يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر أن يبيع مغنما حتى يقسم ) ورواه أحمد في مسنده .
والحديث حسّنه الألباني في صحيح أبي دواد .
أما إن كانت المسبية حاملاً فعدتها أن تضع حملها وبرهان ذلك حديث أبي سعيد الذي مرّ معنا و ما أخرجه الترمذي من حديث العرباض بن سارية (أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حرم وطء السبايا حتى يضعن ما في بطونهن ) .
والآن بعد هذا الشرح نأتي لزواج النبي عليه السلام من صفية لنرى هل دخل بها النبي عليه السلام دون أن يستبرئها ؟؟؟؟
الجواب لا ، فالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يدخل بها إلا بعد استبرائها ، وبرهان قولنا ما رواه البخاري في صحيحه – كتاب المغازي – غزوة خيبر :
حدثنا عبد الغفار بن داود حدثنا يعقوب بن عبد الرحمن ح و حدثني أحمد حدثنا ابن وهب قال أخبرني يعقوب بن عبد الرحمن الزهري عن عمرو مولى المطلب عن أنس بن مالك رضي الله عنه قال :
(( قدمنا خيبر فلما فتح الله عليه الحصن ذكر له جمال صفية بنت حيي بن أخطب وقد قتل زوجها وكانت عروسا فاصطفاها النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لنفسه فخرج بها حتى بلغنا سد الصهباء ، حَلَّتْ فبنى بها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم صنع حيسا في نطع صغير ثم قال لي آذن من حولك فكانت تلك وليمته على صفية ثم خرجنا إلى المدينة فرأيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يحوي لها وراءه بعباءة ثم يجلس عند بعيره فيضع ركبته وتضع صفية رجلها على ركبته حتى تركب )) .
فكما نرى أنّه يقول ( حَلَّتْ ) أي طهرت ، قال الحافظ ابن حجر في الفتح :
(( قوله : ( حَلَّتْ ) أي طهرت من الحيض )) .
وعند مسلم من طريق ثابت عن أنس :
( ثم دفعها - أي صفية - إلى أم سليم تصنعها له وتهيئها قال وأحسبه قال وتعتد في بيتها ) .
قال الإمام النووي في شرح الحديث (( أما قوله : ( تعتد ) فمعناه تستبرئ فإن كانت مسبية يجب استبراؤها وجعلها في مدة الاستبراء في بيت أم سليم , فلما انقضى الاستبراء جهزتها أم سليم وهيأتها أي زينتها وجملتها على عادة العروس بما ليس بمنهي عنه من وشم )) .
فكما نرى أن النبي عليه السلام لم يدخل على أم المؤمنين صفية حتى استبرئها ، وفي هذا كفاية لردّ هذه الشبهة التي بنيت على جهل قائلها وعدم تفريقه بين المسبية وغيرها .
والحمد لله الذي بنعمته تتمّ الصالحات .
كتبه bilal
==================================================================((((((((((((نسب النبي الكريم))))))))))))))=========== الرد على الطعن في نسب النبي صلى الله عليه الصلاة
زائر المراسل "الشيخ الفلوجة
الرد العلمي على الطعن في نسب الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم
الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وصحبه ومن والاه.
نتناول في يأتي من سطور الرد على الطعن في نسب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم استدلالا ببعض الروايات الساقطة الواردة في بعض كتب التراث التي كان أصحابها معروفين بعدم اقتصارهم على نقل الصحيح من الروايات بل كانوا إذا ذكروا الرواية بسندها لم يجدوا ضرورة في التعليق عليها لأن ذكر السند بمثابة ذكر الحكم على الرواية وإلا لماذا يتعب هؤلاء العلماء أنفسهم بذكر أسماء الرواة وأنسابهم وتعريفهم للقارئ فلو كانت هذه الروايات مقبولة كلها لما ذكروا لها سندا. الطعن مبني على ان عبد الله بن عبد المطلب وأبوه هاشم تزوجوا في نفس اليوم بينما ولد لهاشم سيدنا حمزة قبل أربع سنين من ولادة النبي بناء على أن حمزة رضي الله عنه أكبر من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم. الآن نورد الروايات التي تمسكوا وبها ونحققها بإذن الله.
1- الرواية الأولى: التي تتحدث أن عبد الله بن عبد المطلب وأبوه تزوجوا في نفس اليوم.
الطبقات الكبرى ج: 1 ص: 94
ذكر تزوج عبد الله بن عبد المطلب آمنة بنت وهب أم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال حدثنا محمد بن عمر بن واقد الأسلمي قال حدثني عبد الله بن جعفر الزهري عن عمته أم بكر بنت المسور بن مخرمة عن أبيها قال وحدثني عمر بن محمد بن عمر بن علي بن أبي طالب عن يحيى بن شبل عن أبي جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين قالا كانت آمنة بنت وهب ابن عبد مناف بن زهرة بن كلاب في حجر عمها وهيب بن عبد مناف بن زهرة فمشى اليه عبد المطلب بن هاشم بن عبد مناف بن قصي بابنه عبد الله بن عبد المطلب أبي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فخطب عليه آمنة بنت وهب فزوجها عبد الله بن عبد المطلب وخطب اليه عبد المطلب بن هاشم في مجلسه ذلك ابنته هالة بنت وهيب على نفسه فزوجه إياها فكان تزوج عبد المطلب بن هاشم وتزوج عبد الله بن عبد المطلب في مجلس واحد فولدت هالة بنت وهيب لعبد المطلب حمزة بن عبد المطلب فكان حمزة عم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في النسب وأخاه من الرضاعة قال أخبرنا هشام بن محمد بن عن أبيه وعن أبي الفياض الخثعمي قالا لما تزوج عبد الله بن عبد المطلب آمنة بنت وهب أقام عندها ثلاثا وكانت تلك السنة عندهم إذا دخل الرجل على امرأته في أهلها.
الرواية ساقطة لانها من رواية محمد بن عمر الواقدي قال عنه العلماء:
الضعفاء والمتروكين لابن الجوزي ج: 3 ص: 87
3137 محمد بن عمر بن واقد أبو عبد الله الأسلمي الواقدي قاضي بغداد قال أحمد بن حنبل هو كذاب كان يقلب الأحاديث يلقي حديث ابن أخي الزهري على معمر ونحو ذا وقال يحيى ليس بثقة وقال مرة ليس بشيء لا يكتب حديثه وقال البخاري والرازي والنسائي متروك الحديث وذكر الرازي والنسائي أنه كان يضع الحديث وقال الدراقطني فيه ضعف وقال ابن عدي احاديثه غير محفوظة والبلاء منه.
الرواية الثانية:
المستدرك على الصحيحين ج: 2 ص: 656 مجمع الزوائد ج: 8 ص: 230
4176 أخبرنا أبو جعفر محمد بن محمد بن عبد الله البغدادي حدثنا هاشم بن مرثد الطبراني حدثنا يعقوب بن محمد الزهري حدثنا عبد العزيز بن عمران حدثنا عبد الله بن جعفر عن أبي عون عن المسور بن مخرمة عن بن عباس عن أبيه قال قال عبد المطلب قدمنا اليمن في رحلة الشتاء فنزلنا على حبر من اليهود فقال لي رجل من أهل الزبور يا عبد المطلب أتأذن لي أن أنظر إلى بدنك ما لم يكن عورة قال ففتح إحدى منخري فنظر فيه ثم نظر في الأخرى فقال أشهد أن في إحدى يديك ملكا وفي الأخرى النبوة وأرى ذلك في بني زهرة فكيف ذلك فقلت لا أدري قال هل لك من شاعة قال قلت وما الشاعة قال زوجة قلت أما اليوم فلا قال إذا قدمت فتزوج فيهم فرجع عبد المطلب إلى مكة فتزوج هالة بنت وهب بن عبد مناف فولدت له حمزة وصفية وتزوج عبد الله بن عبد المطلب آمنة بنت وهب فولدت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالت قريش حين تزوج عبد الله آمنة فلح عبد الله على أبيه قال الإمام الهيثمي مجمع الزوائد ج: 8 ص: 230 رواه الطبراني وفيه عبدالعزيز بن عمران وهو متروك
هذه الرواية كذلك ساقطة لأن فيه سندها عبدالعزيز بن عمران قال عنه العلماء
الضعفاء والمتروكين لابن الجوزي ج: 2 ص: 111
1957 عبد العزيز بن عمران بن عبد العزيز أبو ثابت ويعرف بابن أبي ثابت المدني الزهري قال يحيى ليس بثقة وقال البخاري لا يكتب حديثه وقال النسائي متروك الحديث وقال الترمذي والدارقطني ضعيف وقال ابن حبان يروي المناكير عن المشاهير
كما أن لفظ تزوج لا تعني الدخول بل هي تعني إبرام العقد وقد يتأخر الدخول عن الزواج بسنين فالروايات ليس فيها أن عبد الله بن عبد المطلب وأبوه دخل كل واحد على زوجته في نفس اليوم حتى يكون هنا استعجاب من تأخر ولادة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن عمه حمزة رضي الله عنه.
2- الرواية الثالثة: التي تفيد أن حمزة رضي الله عنه أكبر من النبي بأربع سنين
الطبقات الكبرى ج: 3 ص: 10
قال أخبرنا محمد بن عمر قال حدثني موسى بن محمد بن إبراهيم عن أبيه قال كان حمزة معلما يوم بدر بريشة نعامة قال محمد بن عمر وحمل حمزة لواء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في غزوة بني قينقاع ولم يكن الرايات يومئذ وقتل رحمه الله يوم أحد على رأس اثنين وثلاثين شهرا من الهجرة وهو يومئذ بن تسع وخمسين سنة كان أسن من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بأربع سنين وكان رجلا ليس بالطويل ولا بالقصير قتله وحشي بن حرب وشق بطنه وأخذ كبده فجاء بها إلى هند بنت عتبة بن ربيعة فمضغتها ثم لفضتها ثم جاءت فمثلت بحمزة وجعلت من ذلك مسكتين ومعضدين وخدمتين حتى قدمت بذلك وبكبده مكة وكفن حمزة في بردة فجعلوا إذا خمروا بها رأسه بدت قدماه وإذا خمروا بها رجليه تنكشف عن وجهه فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم غطوا وجهه وجعل على رجليه الحرمل.
هذه الرواية ساقطة فقد اجتمع فيها محمد بن عمر الواقدي وقد قدمنا كلام العلماء فيه وكذلك موسى بن محمد بن إبراهيم وقد قال فيه العلماء:
أبو حاتم في كاتبه المجروحين ج: 2 ص: 241
موسى بن محمد بن إبراهيم بن الحارث التيمي من أهل المدينة يروي عن أبيه ما ليس من حديثه فلست أدري أكان المتعمد لذلك أو كان فيه غفلة فيأتي بالمناكير عن أبيه والمشاهير على التوهم وأيما كان فهو ساقط الاحتجاج.
3- الرواية الرابعة: حول طعن قريش في نسب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم
سنن الترمذي ج: 5 ص: 584
3607 حدثنا يوسف بن موسى البغدادي حدثنا عبيد الله بن موسى عن إسماعيل بن أبي خالد عن يزيد بن أبي زياد عن عبد الله بن الحارث عن العباس بن عبد المطلب قال قلت ثم يا رسول الله إن قريشا جلسوا فتذاكروا أحسابهم بينهم فجعلوا مثلك كمثل نخلة في كبوة من الأرض فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إن الله خلق الخلق فجعلني من خيرهم من خير فرقهم وخير صليت ثم تخير القبائل فجعلني من خير قبيلة ثم تخير البيوت فجعلني من خير بيوتهم فأنا خيرهم نفسا وخيرهم بيتا قال أبو عيسى هذا حديث حسن وعبد الله بن الحارث هو أبو نوفل
أولا من بفهم من الرواية طعن قريش في نسب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم هو جاهل باللغة العربية لأن الرواية تقول الأحساب جمع حسب ولا ذكر للنسب في الرواية ومعنى الحسب مخالف للنسب كما جاء في كتب اللغة:
مختار الصحاح ج: 1 ص: 57
و الحَسَبُ أيضا ما يعده الإنسان من مفاخر آبائه وقيل حسبه دينه وقيل ماله والرجل حَسِيبٌ وبابه ظرف وقال بن السكيت الحَسَبُ والكرم يكونان بدون الآباء والشرف والمجد لا يكونان إلا بالآباء
النهاية في غريب الحديث ج: 1 ص: 381
الحَسب في الاصل . الشَّرَف بالآباء ومايَعُدُّه الناس من مَفاخرهم . وقيل الحَسب والكَرم يكونان في الرجُل وان لم يكن له آبَاء لهُم شَرف والشَّرف والمَجْد لايكونان إلاَّ بالآباء
فهم أرادوا الانتقاص من قبيلة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بني هاشم في مفاخرهم ولهذا جعلوا النبي مثل النخلة وهي شيء مكرم عند العرب فالنبي عند قريش إنسان عظيم وجعلوا بني هاشم كالكبوة وهي أن تلقى الكناسة أي أن النبي كرجل فهو عظيم معروف بأخلاقه العالية لكن قبيلته لا مكانة لها وما يدل على ذلك صراحة الرواية التالية:
مجمع الزوائد ج: 8 ص: 215
وعن عبدالله بن عمر قال إنا لقعود بفناء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذ مرت امرأة فقال رجل من القوم هذه ابنة محمد فقال رجل من القوم إن مثل محمد في بني هاشم مثل الريحانة في وسط النتن فانطلقت المرأة فأخبرت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فجاء النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يعرف في وجهه الغضب ثم قام على القوم فقال ما بال أقوال تبلغني عن أقوام إن الله عز وجل خلق السموات سبعا فاختار العليا منها فسكنها وأسكن سمواته من شاء من خلقه وخلق الخلق فاختار من الخلق بني آدم واختار من بني آدم العرب واختار من العرب مضر واختار من مضر قريشا واختار من قريش بني هاشم واختارني من بني هاشم فأنا من خيار إلى خيار فمن أحب العرب فبحبي أحبهم ومن أبغض العرب فببغضي أبغضهم رواه الطبراني في الكبير والأوسط إلا انه قال فمن أحب العرب فلحبي أحبهم ومن أبغض العرب فلبغضي ابغضهم وفيه حماد بن واقد وهو ضعيف يعتبر به وبقية رجاله وثقوا
ونذكر رواية تذكر الليلة التي ولد فيها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وكيف كان معروفا لدى قريش في اليوم الذي ولد فيه أنه ابن عبد الله بن عبد المطلب:
المستدرك على الصحيحين ج: 2 ص: 656
4177 حدثنا أبو محمد عبد الله بن حدثنا يعقوب بن سفيان حدثنا أبو غسان محمد بن يحيى الكناني حدثني أبي عن بن إسحاق قال كان هشام بن عروة يحدث عن أبيه عن عائشة رضي الله عنهما قالت ثم كان زفر قد سكن مكة يتجر بها فلما كانت الليلة التي ولد فيها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال في مجلس من قريش يا معشر قريش هل الليلة مولود فقالوا والله ما نعلمه قال الله أكبر أما إذا أخطأكم فلا بأس فانظروا واحفظوا ما أقول لكم ولد هذه الليلة نبي هذه الأمة الأخيرة بين كتفيه علامة فيها شعرات متواترات كأنهن عرف فرس لا يرضع ليلتين وذلك أن عفريتا من الجن أدخل أصبعيه في فمه فمنعه الرضاع فتصدع القوم من مجلسهم وهم متعجبون من قوله وحديثه فلما صاروا إلى منازلهم أخبر كل إنسان منهم أهله فقالوا قد ولد لعبد الله بن عبد المطلب غلام سموه محمدا فالتقى القوم فقالوا هل سمعتم حديث اليهودي وهل بلغكم مولد هذا الغلام فانطلقوا حتى جاءوا اليهودي فأخبروه الخبر قال فاذهبوا معي حتى أنظر إليه فخرجوا حتى أدخلوه على آمنة فقال اخرجي إلينا ابنك فأخرجته وكشفوا له عن ظهره فرأى تلك الشامة فوقع اليهودي مغشيا عليه فلما أفاق قالوا ويلك ما لك قال ذهبت والله النبوة من بني إسرائيل فرحتم به يا معشر قريش أما والله ليسطون بكم سطوة يخرج خبرها من المشرق والمغرب وكان في النفر يومئذ الذين قال لهم اليهودي ما قال هشام بن الوليد بن المغيرة ومسافر بن أبي عمرو وعبيدة بن الحارث بن عبد المطلب وعتبة بن ربيعة شاب فوق المحتلم في نفر من بني مناف وغيرهم من قريش هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ولم يخرجاه وقد تواترت الأخبار أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولد مختونا مسرورا وولد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في الدار التي في الزقاق المعروف بزقاق المدكل بمكة وقد صليت فيه وهي الدار التي كانت بعد مهاجر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في يد عقيل بن أبي طالب في أيدي ولده بعده
إذن قريش كانت تقر أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ابن عبد الله بن عبد المطلب وفي صحيح مسلم في قصة صلح الحديبية دليل قاطع على عدم اعتراض قريش على نسب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم:
صحيح مسلم ج: 3 ص: 1411
1784 حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة حدثنا عفان حدثنا حماد بن سلمة عن ثابت عن أنس ثم أن قريشا صالحوا النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فيهم سهيل بن عمرو فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لعلي اكتب بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم قال سهيل أما باسم الله فما ندري ما بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم ولكن اكتب ما نعرف باسمك اللهم فقال اكتب من محمد رسول الله قالوا لو علمنا أنك رسول الله لأتبعناك ولكن اكتب اسمك واسم أبيك فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم اكتب من محمد بن عبد الله فاشترطوا على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن من جاء منكم لم نرده عليكم ومن جاءكم منا رددتموه علينا فقالوا يا رسول الله أنكتب هذا قال نعم إنه من ذهب منا إليهم فأبعده الله ومن جاءنا منهم سيجعل الله له فرجا ومخرجا
فقد اعترضت قريش على انه رسول الله وطلبوا منه كتابة اسمه واسم أبيه فكتب محمد بن عبد الله ولم يعترض أحد فأين الاعتراض المزعوم؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟ ونختم برواية صحيحة تذكر بوضوح كيف كان نسب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم معروفا لدى العرب:
صحيح ابن خزيمة ج: 4 ص: 13
2260 حدثنا محمد بن عيسى حدثنا سلمة يعني بن الفضل قال محمد بن إسحاق وهو بن يسار مولى مخرمة وحدثني محمد بن مسلم بن عبيد الله بن شهاب الزهري عن أبي بكر بن عبد الرحمن بن الحارث بن هشام المخزومي عن أم سلمة بنت أبي أمية بن المغيرة قالت ثم لما نزلنا أرض الحبشة جاورنا بها حين جاء النجاشي فذكر الحديث بطوله وقال في الحديث قالت وكان الذي كلمه جعفر بن أبي طالب قال له أيها الملك كنا قوما أهل جاهلية نعبد الأصنام ونأكل الميتة ونأتي الفواحش ونقطع الأرحام ونسيء الجوار ويأكل القوي منا الضعيف فكنا على ذلك حتى بعث الله إلينا رسولا منا نعرف نسبه وصدقه وأمانته وعفافه فدعانا إلى الله لتوحيده ولنعبده ونخلع ما كنا نعبد نحن وآباؤنا من دونه من الحجارة والأوثان وأمرنا بصدق الحديث وأداء الأمانة وصلة الرحم وحسن الجوار والكف عن المحارم والدماء ونهانا عن الفواحش وقول الزور وأكل مال اليتيم وقذف المحصنة وأن نعبد الله لا نشرك به شيئا وأمرنا بالصلاة والزكاة والصيام قالت فعدد عليه أمور الإسلام فصدقناه وآمنا به واتبعناه على ما جاء به من ثم الله فعبدنا الله وحده ولم نشرك به وحرمنا ما حرم علينا وأحللنا ما أحل لنا ثم ذكر باقي الحديث.
فنسب النبي كان معروفا لا اعتراض حوله جدير بالذكر أن هذه الواقعة التي كانت في بلاط النجاشي حضرها سيدنا عمرو بن العاص وهو كافر يومئذ جاء يسترد المسلمين الذي هاجروا إلى الحبشة وحاول في سبيل ذلك كل طاقته وهو سمع هذا الكلام وكيف أن نسب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم معروف لا اعتراض عليه وقد سكت ولم يعترض فأن الاعتراض المزعوم؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
في الأخير ارجوا أني قد وفقت إلى الرد على هذا الافتراء فإن كان حقا فمن الله وإن كان غير ذلك فمن نفسي والشيطان والصلاة والسلام على محمد بن عبد الله وعلى آله وصحبه و آخر دعوانا أن الحمد لله رب العلمين
لا تنسونا من صالح دعائكم
…...................................
نقلا عن موقع شبكة ردود الاسلامية لدعوة النصارى
====================================================================((((((((لغة الاناجيل))))))======= ما هى طبيعة وأسلوب اللغة التى كتبت بها الأناجيل ؟
مرقس: يلفت (جرانت) الأنظار إلى خشونة وعامية اللغة التى حرر بها مرقس إنجيله. ويذكر (الكتور بوكاى) نقلاً عن (كولمان) قوله: “إن هناك الكثير من تراكيب الجمل فى هذا الإنجيل تدعم الغرض القائل بأن مؤلف هذا الإنجيل يهودى الأصل”. ويرى (بوكاى) نفسه أن “نص هذا الإنجيل يُظهِر عيباً رئيسياً أولياً لا جدال فيه ، فلقد تحرر دون اهتمام بالتعاقب الزمنى للأحداث .. .. كما أن هذا المبشر يبرز افتقاراً كاملاً للمعقولية”.
ويُنقل عن الأب (روجى) قوله: “إن مرقس كان كاتباً غير حاذق ، وأكثر المبشرين ابتذالاً ، فهو لا يعرف أبداً كيف يحرر حكاية”.
ويرى كولمان (أن لوقا يحذف أكثر الآيات اليهودية عند مرقس ، ويبرز كلمات المسيح فى مواجهة كفر اليهود وعلاقته الطيبة مع السامريين الذين يمقتهم اليهود ، على حين يقول متى فى إنجيله إن المسيح طلب إلى حوارييه تجنب السامريين).
وذلك مثال جلى ـ بين أمثلة كثيرة ـ على أن المبشرين يضعون على لسان يسوع ما يتناسب مع وجهات نظرهم الشخصية ، كما يقول دكتور موريس بوكاى.
أما كاتب إنجيل يوحنا فهو متأثر جداً بالأسلوب الإغريقى الفلسفى ، الذى كان منتشراً فى نهاية القرن الأول وبداية القرن الثانى الميلادى ، عندما انتشرت نظرية الغنوصية ، التى تزيد من تبجيل يسوع فجعلته شبحاً بلا وجود أو مخلوقا إلهياً تجسَّدَ مؤقتاً ولم يعان عذاباً ولم يذق موتاً).
وتقول دائرة المعارف الكتابية عن مفردات مرقس (مادة إنجيل مرقس): (يبلغ عدد المفردات فى إنجيل مرقس (فى الأصل اليونانى) 1.330 كلمة ، منها ستون كلمة أسماء أعلام ، و 79 كلمة ينفرد مرقس باستخدامها (فيما يختص بأسفار العهد الجديد) ، و 203 كلمة لا توجد إلا فى الأناجيل الثلاثة الأولى ، و 15 كلمة فى إنجيل يوحنا ، و 23 كلمة فى كتابات الرسول بولس (بما فيها الرسالة إلى العبرانيين) وكلمتان فى الرسائل الجامعة (واحدة فى يعقوب والثانية فى بطرس الثانية) ، وخمس كلمات فى سفر الرؤيا . ونحو ربع الكلمات التسع والسبعين التى ينفرد بها مرقس ، هى كلمات غير بليغة ، بالمقابلة مع السُّبع فى لوقا ، وأكثر من السُّبع قليلاً جداً فى متى.
أما بالنسبة لزمن الأفعال التى استُخدِمَت فى إنجيل مرقس: فقد استخدم صيغة (الفعل فى المضارع 151 مرة ، مقابل 78 مرة فى متى ، وأربع مرات فى لوقا ، وذلك فى غير الأمثال حيث أن مرقس لا يستعمله مطلقاً فى الأمثال ، بينما يستخدمه متى 15 مرة ، ولوقا خمس مرات. ويستخدم يوحنا صيغة الفعل المضارع 162 مرة (أكثر قليلاً من مرقس).
وبالنسبة للإقتباسات فتقول دائرة المعارف الكتابية مادة (إنجيل مرقس): (اقتباسات: مما يسترعى النظر أن متى فى كثير من الفصول ، يجذب الأنتباه إلى أن يسوع قد أكمل النبوات، بينما نجد أن مرقس لا يقتبس سوى مرة واحدة من العهد القديم ويضع هذا الاقتباس فى صدر إنجيله . والجزء المقتبس من إشعياء يظهر فى الأناجيل الأربعة ، أما الجزء المقتبس من ملاخى ، فلا يذكر إلا فى إنجيل مرقس فقط ، على الرغم من وجود تلميح لهذا الجزء فى إنجيل يوحنا (3: 28) .
يذكر مرقس فى إنجيله 19 اقتباساً بالمقارنة مع 40 اقتباساً يذكرها متى، 17 اقتباساً فى لوقا، 12 اقتباساً فى يوحنا – وثلاثة من هذه الاقتباسات التسعة عشر، لا توجد فى مكان آخر من العهد الجديد وهى (9: 48، 10: 19، 12: 32) ، وكل الاقتباسات فى العهد الجديد هى 160 اقتباساً.
وإذا أخذنا فى الاعتبار الإشارات إلى العهد القديم ، الصريحة والضمنية ، فيذكر وستكوت وهورت (فى كتابهما : العهد الجديد فى اليونانية) لمتى 100 استشهاد ، ولمرقس 58 ، وللوقا 86 ، وليوحنا 21 ، ولسفر الأعمال 107.
تقول دائرة المعارف الكتابية عن معجزات يسوع مادة (إنجيل مرقس): (وليس غريبا أيضاً أن تكون المعجزات أكثر عدداً من الأمثال . ويقول وستكوت (فى مقدمة لدراسة الأناجيل – 480- 486) أن مرقس يذكر تسع عشرة معجزة وأربعة أمثال ، بينما يذكر متى 21 معجزة و15 مثلاً ، ولوقا 20 معجزة و19 مثلاً ومن المعجزات ينفرد مرقس بذكر اثنتين ، كما ينفرد بذكر مثل واحد . كما يسجل البشير مرقس أعمال المسيح أكثر مما يسجل أقواله . وهذه الحقائق تقدم لنا نقطة التقاء أخرى مع حديث بطرس (أع 10: 37-43) ، فهى أعمال خير وإحسان (أع 10: 38) ولها دلالات قوية (أع 2: 22، أنظر مرقس 1: 27، 2: 10 إلخ).
ويبين مرقس أن معجزات الشفاء كثيراً ما كانت فورية (1: 31، 2: 11و12، 3: 5) ، واحياناً تمت شيئاً فشيئاً أو بصعوبة (1: 26، 7: 32-35 ، 9: 26- 28) ، كما لم يستطع مرة أن يصنعها " بسبب عدم إيمانهم (6: 5و6).
أما عن معرفة مؤلف إنجيل مرقس لفلسطين فتقول دائرة المعارف الكتابية (مادة مرقس): إنه جليلى من أورشليم ، أما H. Conzelmann فى كتابه (Arbeitsbuch zum Neuen Testament) صفحة 304 و 305 أن مؤلف إنجيل لوقا لا يعرف فلسطين.
وهذا كله يدل إذاً على أن كاتبوا الأناجيل غير موحى إليهم ، ولكنهم أشخاص اجتهدوا فى كتابة هذه الإناجيل بأسلوبهم الخاص ، مستندين فى ذلك على مصادر لديهم ، كما تقول دائرة المعارف الكتابية (مادة إنجيل مرقس): (سادسا – المصادر: رأينا أنه طبقاً لشهادة الآباء ، كانت كرازة بطرس وتعليمه ، هما – على الأقل – المصدر الرئيسي ، وأن الكثير من معالم الإنجيل تؤيد هذا الرأي. وقد رأينا أيضاً أسباباً دقيقة ، ولكن لها وزنها ، تدفعنا إلى الاعتقاد بأن مرقس نفسه قد أضاف القليل.
يعتقد "وايس" أن مرقس استخدم وثيقة مفقودة الآن كانت تضم أساساً أقوال يسوع يطلق عليها فى الكتابات المبكرة "اللوجيا" أى الأقوال ، وكان يرمز لها بالحرف "سا" ولكنها تعرف الآن بالحرف “ Q ” ، وقد أيده فى هذا مؤخراً ، ساندى وستريتر. وقد حاول هارناك والسيرجون هوكنز وفلهاوزن إعادة إنشاء “ Q ” على أساس ما لا ينتمى لمرقس فى متى ولوقا ، أما " ألن" فيستخلصها من متى فقط معتقداً أن مرقس أيضاً يحتمل أن يكون قد أخذ أقوالاً قليلة منه. والبعض يفترض مصدراً معيناً للأصاح الثالث عشر، ويعتبره ستريتر وثيقة كتبت بعد سقوط أورشليم بزمن وجيز، متضمنة أقوالاً قليلة مما نطق به يسوع، وقد أدمجها مرقس فى إنجيله. ويفترض بيكون وجود مصادر أخرى شفهية كانت أو مكتوبة، لأجزاء صغيرة من الإنجيل، وسماها بالرمز ““ X ، ويزعم أن الكاتب الأخير لإنجيل مرقس ( ويرمز له بالرمز R ) ليس مرقس، بل شخصاً من مدرسة بولس من نوع راديكالي.)
ويقول لوقا فى إنجيله: (1إِذْ كَانَ كَثِيرُونَ قَدْ أَخَذُوا بِتَأْلِيفِ قِصَّةٍ فِي الأُمُورِ الْمُتَيَقَّنَةِ عِنْدَنَا 2كَمَا سَلَّمَهَا إِلَيْنَا الَّذِينَ كَانُوا مُنْذُ الْبَدْءِ مُعَايِنِينَ وَخُدَّاماً لِلْكَلِمَةِ 3رَأَيْتُ أَنَا أَيْضاً إِذْ قَدْ تَتَبَّعْتُ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ مِنَ الأَوَّلِ بِتَدْقِيقٍ أَنْ أَكْتُبَ عَلَى التَّوَالِي إِلَيْكَ أَيُّهَا الْعَزِيزُ ثَاوُفِيلُسُ 4لِتَعْرِفَ صِحَّةَ الْكَلاَمِ الَّذِي عُلِّمْتَ بِهِ.) لوقا 1: 1-4
وعن هذا النص تقول دائرة المعارف الكتابية (مادة لوقا) (منهج لوقا : لقد صرح لوقا بمنهجه فى مقدمته الرائعة البليغة (1: 1-4) ، فهنا نرى لمحة من شخصية الكاتب ، وهو ما لا نجده فى إنجيل متى ومرقس ، وإن كنا نراه فى لمحات عابرة فى الإنجيل الرابع. ولكنا هنا نجد الكاتب يأخذ القارئ موضع ثقة ويكشف عن موقفه ومؤهلاته للقيام بهذا العمل العظيم ، فهو يكتب كمعاصر عن الماضى القريب، وهذا النوع من أعسر الكتابات التاريخية فى تفسيره ، ولكنه فى الغالب من أهمها ، فهو يكتب عن "الأمور المتيقنة عندنا" التى حدثت فى زمننا. وكما سبق القول ، لا يدَّعى لوقا أنه كان شاهد عيأن لهذه الأمور" ،فكما نعلم، كان لوقا أممياً ومن الظاهر أنه لم ير يسوع فى الجسد ، فهو يقف فى مكان خارج الأحداث العظيمة التى يسجلها. وهو لا يخفى اهتمامه الشديد بهذه القصة ، ولكنه يذكر أيضاً أنه يكتب بروح المؤرخ المدقق. أنه يريد أن يؤكد لثاوفيلس هذه الأمور "لتعرف صحة الكلام الذى علمت به" ، ويقرر أنه قد تتبع أو فحص "كل شئ من الأول بتدقيق" ، وهو ما يجب على كل مؤرخ صادق . ومعنى هذا أنه حصل على مقتطفات من مصادر مختلفة ومحصها وسجلها فى قصة مترابطة "على التوالى" حتى يعرف ثاوفيلس تماماً التتابع التاريخى للأحداث المرتبطة بحياة يسوع الناصرى. وحقيقة أن " كثيرين قد أخذوا بتأليف قصة فى هذه الأمور" لم تمنع لوقا عن العمل . بل بالحرى دفعه ذلك العمل "رأيت أنا أيضا " لكتابه تاريخه عن حياة يسوع وعمله كما جمعه من بحثه ، ولم يكن الزمن قد بعد به عن الجيل الذى عاش فيه يسوع ومات . فقد كان أمراً بالغ الأهمية عنده كأحد أتباع يسوع المثقفين ، أن يتتبع أصل هذه الدعوة التى قد أصبحت حركة عالمية، وكان قادراً على الوصول إلى الحقائق لأنه تقابل مع شهود العيان ليسوع وعمله كما سلمها إلينا الذين كانوا منذ البدء معاينين وخداماً للكلمة ". لقد كانت هناك فرصة واسعة أمام لوقا خلال السنتين اللتين قضاهما مع بولس فى قيصرية (أع 24- 26) ليقوم بدراسته وابحاثه الدقيقة ، فقد كان عدد كبير من أتباع المسيح ، مازالوا أحياء (1كو 15: 6) وكانت هذه فرصة ذهبية للوقا ، كما كان عنده القصص المكتوبة التى "كان كثيرون قد أخذوا " فى كتابتها. ولا شك فى أننا ننتظر أن نرى فى إنجيل لوقا كتاباً مشابهاً لسفر الأعمال فى الأسلوب والمنهج ، مع غرام المؤرخ بالدقة والترتيب ، ومع استيعاب الكاتب واستفادته من كل ما سمع وقرأ ، ولا يمكن أن نتوقع من مثل هذا الكاتب أى تهاون أو عدم مبالاة ، بل نتوقع منه المزج الذكى بين ما جمعه من مواد ليجعل منه عملاً فنياً متكاملاً.)
وهنا تطرح نفسها عدة أسئلة :
- لماذا أوحى الرب عدة أناجيل تختلف فى التفاصيل، وتختلف فى الأسلوب اللغوى وتختلف فى إهتمامات المؤلفين، وتختلف محتوياتها تبعاً لإختلاف مصادرها التى كتب منها مؤلف الإنجيل؟
- لماذا لم يوحى الرب إنجيلاً واحداً يجمع كل هذه التفاصيل فى كتاب واحد؟ أليس ذلك أبلغ وأقوى فى البشارة به؟
- لماذا أوحى الرب لأناس ما هم بأنبياء وبعضهم غير معروفة هويته أو مُختَلَف فيها اختلاف كبير ، ولم يوحى إلى نبيه؟
- فأين إنجيل نبيه عيسى عليه السلام؟ فإن كنت تقولون إنه هو الرب فكيف لم يتمكن من الحفاظ على إنجيله وكلمته؟ أهو إله ضعيف إلى هذا الحد؟ ألا يتمكن من الحفاظ على حياته ، ولا كلامه؟ فكيف أصدق أن هذا هو الإله الذى يجب أن أستأمنه على نفسى وحياتى؟
- ولماذا اختلف وحى الرب وأسلوبه فى الكتابة باختلاف ثقافة الكاتب؟
- ألا يدل ذلك على مبادرة شخصية منهم للكتابة مثل لوقا؟
- ولماذا لم تتبقى إلا كتابات بولس وتلاميذه؟
أما دائرة المعارف البريطانية فكانت أكثر وضوحاً وصراحة فى اعترافاتها، فقالت عن إنجيل يوحنا: (أما إنجيل يوحنا فإنه لا مرية ولا شك كتاب مزور ، أراد صاحبه مضادة اثنين من الحواريين بعضها لبعض ، وهما القديسان يوحنا بن زبدى الصياد ومتى ، وقد ادعى الكاتب المزوَّر فى متن الكتاب أنه هو الحوارى الذى يحبه يسوع ، فأخذت الكنيسة هذه الجملة على علاَّتها ، وجزمت بأن الكاتب هو يوحنا الحوارى .. .. .. مع أن صاحبه غير يوحنا الحوارى يقيناً ، ولا يخرج هذا الكتاب عن كونه مثل بعض كتب التوراة التى لا رابط بينها وبين من نسبت إليه ، وإنا لنشفق على الذين يبذلون أقصى جهدهم ليربطوا ـ ولو بأوهى رابطة ـ ذلك الرجل الفلسفى .. الذى ألف هذا الكتاب فى الجيل الثانى بالحوارى يوحنا الصياد الجليلى ، وأن أعمالهم تضيع عليهم سُدى لخبطهم على غير هدى).
كتبه الأخ أبو بكر
(((((((((رسالة إلى الغـــــــــــرب)))))))))
(هذا هو محمد الرسول الذي يعظّمه المسلمون)
فضيلة الشيخ فرج هادي
خريج الجامعة الإسلامية بالمدينة المنورة
داعية وإمام وخطيب جمعة
نبذة عن الكتاب:
الكتاب دراسة علمية لأبرز ملامح شخصية الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم مع نفسه ومع اسرته ومع الناس واقوال المنصفين فيه كل ذالك بأسلوب علمي مجرد يخاطب غير المؤمنين بالاسلوب الذي يؤثر فيهم
أرجو ترجمة الكتاب إلى لغات غير المسلمين ونشره حتى يكون وسيلة مقنعة لإسلامهم ان شاء الله
مقدمــــــة:
كان جوّ الظلم والإعتداء والسلب والنهب والكراهية يخيّم على العالم قبل ظهور الإسلام فجاء محمد الرسول ، فغيّر الواقع من الظلم إلى العدل ومن التوحّش إلى المدنية وحّول القلوب من الكراهية والحقد إلى المحبّة والإخاء وقشع عن الوجوه سحب التقطيب والقسوة ورسم مكانها الفرحة والإبتسامة , فجعلها راية للسعادة التي غمرت الأرواح والقلوب .
أبرز ملامح شخصيّة محمد الرسول :
مع نفســـــــــــــــــه :
كان رجلا عظيما , صنع العظمة ولم تصنعه، بل بنى عظمته من خلال ثقته وثباته على مبدئه في شخصية جلّلتها الأخلاق الحسنة و المعاملة المستقيمة مع العدوّ والصديق وظلّلتها صفة التواضع واليسر والسهولة بعيدا عن التعقيد وعقد التمظهر والتصنع والتكلّف .
كان صادقا مع نفسه مقتنعا بمبدئه، أهدافه محددة ورؤيته واضحة .
ثبت على مبدئه حتى بلّغ رسالته الإلهية ونشر مبادئه النبيلة التي يجهلها كثير ممّن يعاديه أو ينتقصه .
جمع جميع خصال الخير التي ترتضيها الفطرة وجميع صفات الكمال البشري الذي يأمله العقلاء ,
جمال خلقي عانق جمالا أخلاقيا وجمالا عقليا فأزهر بدرا أنار العالم وفجّر ينبوعا أعاد الحياة لبشرية أماتها الجهل والأنانية .
مـــــــــــــــــــــع أسرتـــــــــــــــــــه :
الناظر في الحياة الخاصّة لمحمد الرسول يعجب لرجل انحدر من بيئة صحراوية جبلية قاسية يعمّها الجهل والفوضوية كيف بلغ أعلى مستوى من النجاح الأسري المنقطع النظير
فمحمد كان لأهله ينبوعا لا ينضب من الحبّ والحنان والدفئ ورقة المشاعر والعاطفية.
وكان يمثلّ لأهله الحبيب المتودّد , حيث كان يلاعب أهله ويمازحهنّ و يخاطب دفئ مشاعرهنّ ، فها هو مثلا بأسلوب رقيق يلقي دفئ الحب في قلب زوجته عائشة إذ كان يتعمّد أن يضع فمه على موضع شربها من الإناء مرسلا برسالة خفيّة تسعد قلبها وتهزّ مشاعرها, ومثيلات هذه الشاعرية كثيرة في حياة الرسول.
كما كان محمد الرسول أيضا يمثّل الحبيب الوفيّ في أسرة هانئة سعيدة , فهو لم ينس زوجته خديجة التي ماتت, بل كان يذكر فضلها ويحسن إلى أقاربها ، وغضب لها عندما انتقص منها في حضرته , روى أبو نجيح في قصة استئذان هالة بنت خويلد أخت خديجة : ( قالت عائشة :فقلت أبدلك الله بكبيرة السنّ ــ تقصد خديجة ــ حديثة السنّ فغضب حتى قلت : والذي بعثك بالحق لا أذكرها بعد هذا إلاّ بخير) .
ورغم أعباء محمد الرسول الثقيلة كرئيس للدولة وقائد للجيش ومرشد فكري وأخلاقي لأتباعه فإنّه لم يغفل أن يكون الحبيب المعين لأسرته , حيث كان يخدم زوجاته ويساعدهنّ في أعمالهنّ المنزلية مشعرا إيّاهنّ بأهمّية المرأة وقيمتها العالية في دينه الإسلامي .
فعن الأسود قال:( سألت عائشة : ما كان النبيّ يصنع في أهله ؟ فقالت : كان في مهنة أهله فإذا حضرت الصلاة قام إلى الصلاة ) (رواه البخاري)
محمد مع الناس في حال الســـــــلم :
1ــ محمد الرسول رجل الحق والعدالة :
كان رجلا يحب الحق والعدل ويحكم به ، لا تأخذه في الحق لومة لائم ، فما كان يجامل أحدا لجاهه أو ماله أو نسبه , بل كان الضعيف قويّا عنده حتى يأخذ له حقه وكان القويّ ضعيفا عنده حتى يسترجع منه حق غيره .
وبلغ من عظمة عدله وتمسكّه بالحق أن لا يجامل حتى أحبّ الناس إليه, فقد حدث أن سرقت امرأة وجيهة في قومها واستحقت عقوبة جريمتها، فذهب أهلها إلى رجل من أتباعه - هو من أحب الخلق إليه - ليتوسّط لهم في رفع الحكم عنها, فذهب الرجل وعرض الأمر على الرسول , فغضب محمد غضبا شديدا من سعي رجل لإنتهاك حرمة العدالة بعد أن عرف الإسلام , ولو كان هذا الشخص من أحبّ الناس إليه.
فعن عائشة قالت : إن قريشا أهمّهم شأن المرأة المخزومية التي سرقت فقالوا:ومن يجترئ عليه إلا أسامة بن زيد حب رسول الله ، فكلمه أسامة ، فقال: رسول الله : ( أتشفع في حد من حدود الله ؟ ثم قام فخطب ، ثم قال:إنما أهلك الذين قبلكم أنهم كانوا إذا سرق فيهم الشريف تركوه وإذا سرق فيهم الضعيف أقاموا عليه الحد ... )
2ــ محمد الرسول رجل الأخلاق الحميدة :
من أجمل ما تميّز به محمد الرسول أخلاقه الرفيعة الراقية مع القريب والبعيد , مع العدوّ والصديق وهذا ما يشهد له به كل منصف .
فقد كان رجلا حسن المقابلة لا تغادر الإبتسامة محيّاه , طيب الكلام ، يقابل الإساءة بالإحسان، ويترفع عن سفاسف الأمور.
علّم أتباعه أنّ خير الناس أحسنهم أخلاقا فهو القائل : (إنّ من خياركم أحسنكم أخلاقا )
بل علّم أتباعه أنّ أقربهم منه منزلة في الجنة أحسنهم أخلاقا .
فقال : ( إنّ من أحبّكم إليّ وأقربكم منّي مجلسا يوم القيامة أحاسنكم أخلاقا...)
ولم يكن حسن خلق محمد الرسول حكرا على أتباعه فحسب , بل إنّه شمل أعداءه أيضا ، فعندما طلب منه الدعاء على المشركين قال:
(إنّي لم أبعث لعّانا ، وإنّما بعثت رحمة) (رواه مسلم)
3ــ محمد الرسول رجل ا لتسامــــح :
إنّ الدعايات المغرضة والإتّهامات الباطلة التي تفتقر إلى أدنى مقاييس الأمانة العلمية والتي صوّرت محمدا الرسول على أنّه زعيم يعادي التسامح والحوار شوّهت حقيقة هذا الرجل , وإلا فمحمد الرسول داعية السماحة في كل شؤون الحياة , وحياته العمليّة مليئة بصور و أحداث التسامح الجمّ ، فمن ذلك أنّ بعض اليهود كانوا يدعون عليه بالموت ويوهمونه أنهم يسلّمون عليه , حيث كانوا يقولون السام (الموت) عليكم عوض السلام عليكم , فتفطّن محمد الرسول لذلك , ولكن تسامحه كان عجيبا لكل منصف.!!! فتصور نفسك في هذا الموقف وماذا سيكون رد فعلك ؟ ثم أخبرك برد فعل محمد الرسول ،
تصور نفسك حاكما مطاعا وقائدا آمرا ثم يدعو عليك رجل بالموت وأنت تسمعه والأدهى من ذلك أنّه يخادعك.
فإنّك في هذا الموقف حتى ولو تسامحت في الدعاء فلن ترضى لنفسك بالإستبلاه والمخادعة ؟.
والآن أيّها القارئ المنصف أخبرك بموقف محمد الرسول من هذا المشهد الإستفزازي لتكون بنفسك أنت الحكم .
ففي يوم من الأيام كان محمد الرسول جالسا مع زوجته عائشة فمرّ به بعض اليهود وتظاهروا بالسلام عليه وهم يقصدون شتمه ففطنت زوجته وحبيبته وقرّة عينه عائشة لحقيقة كلامهم فبادلتهم المشاتمة في الحال .
والسؤال الآن هل رضي محمد بذالك ؟ وهل فرح لأنها لعنت من شتمه ؟
الجواب : أنّ شيئا من ذالك لم يكن , بل وقع العكس حيث عاتب محمد زوجته الحبيبة وأمرها بالتسامح والرفق ونهاها عن الشدة والعنف، فعن عائشة قالت :
( كان اليهود يسلمون على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقولون السام عليك ففطنت عائشة إلى قولهم فقالت عليكم السام واللعنة فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : مهلا يا عائشة إن الله يحب الرفق في الأمر كلّه...)
4ــ محمد الرسول رجل العلم والحضـــارة :
ربما حكم متعجل غير منصف أو دارس غير نزيه على محمد الرسول أنّه رجل يعادي العلم والحضارة، وربّما كان ذالك بسبب النظر إلى واقع بعض المسلمين ثم الحكم من خلالهم على محمد وعلى الإسلام الذي جاء به , وفي الحقيقة هذا ليس من الإنصاف والتجرد في أخلاقيات البحث العلمي ، إذ الباحث بموضوعية وتجرد علمي لا يمكن إلا أن يعترف بأنّ محمدا الرسول رجل بنى لأتباعه أسس العلم ومنهج الحضارة التي بنوا عليها دولتهم والتي عمّرت القرون وغزت الآفاق فنشرت العلم والحضارة والأخلاق والمبادئ على كل شبر بلغته , فنهل العالم من نورها واستضاء بشمسها , ولازالت البشرية تذكر إلى الآن فضل حضارة الأندلس المسلمة على الثورة العلمية والحضارية في أروبا بالخصوص وفي العالم .
فكيف لا يكون رجل علم وحضارة وأوّل كلمة نزلت عليه في كتابه المقدس (القرآن) هي الأمر بالقراءة (اقرأ )
كما توجد سورة كاملة في كتابه المنزّل (القرآن ) اسمها (القلم ) وهو أداة العلم الأولى .
بل إنّه رجل حضارة راقية أصولها ثابتة، فلا يمكن لأي رجل مهما بلغ أن يحّول أمّة جاهلة متوحشة تعيش على السلب والنهب والظلم إلى أمّة قمّة في الأخلاق والمعاملة الحسنة وسبّاقة إلى العلوم والثقافة.
فمحمد الرسول استطاع أن يخرج أمّته من الجهل والتخلف والظلم والعدوان إلى العلم والرقيّ فبني لهم أسس حضارة توازن بين مطالب الروح والجسد مكّنت أتباعه من قيادة العالم لقرون عندما تمسّكوا بتلك الأسس .
وأمّا ما أصاب أتباعه من ضعف علمي وتأخّر حضاري في هذا العصر فهو التراث الإستعماري الأوربي والأمريكي الذي مكّن لعملائه في العالم الإسلامي من السيطرة على زمام الأمور وعرقلة أي نهضة علمية أو حضارية تقوم على أسس حضارة محمد الرسول.
5ــ محمد الرسول رجل الرحمة للعالـــم :
ــــ رحمته بالمرأة :
كانت المرأة قبل محمد الرسول مهضومة الحقوق تهان وتذل بل وتدفن حيّة على مرأى ومسمع من دولة أروبا وفارس في ذلك الزمان التي كانت لا تفكر سوى في أطماعها التوسعية .
فجاء محمد الرسول فأعاد للمرأة الحياة وأنقضها من جحيم العبودية للبشر حيث عاملها كإنسان له كرامته وإنسانيته , موازية للرجل ومساوية له في الحقوق والواجبات إلاّ فيما تقتضيه الفطرة من اختلاف .
فمنع قتلها ودفنها وأذيتها وظلمها والإساءة إليها حتى جعل خير أتباعه أحسنهم معاملة لها , فهو القائل : ( خياركم خياركم لنسائهم )
والقائل أيضا : ( أكمل المؤمنين إيمانا أحسنهم خلقا وخيارهم خيارهم لنسائهم )
وأمر أمّته بالرفق بالنساء , فهو القائل : (رفقا بالقوارير ) أي النساء لرقّتهن
وشدّد على من يظلمهن حقّهن فقال( اللّهم إنّي أحرّج حقّ الضعيفين اليتيم والمرأة ) الْمَعْنَى َأُحَذِّر مِنْ ذَلِكَ تَحْذِيرًا بَلِيغًا وَأَزْجُر عَنْهُ زَجْرًا أَكِيدًا
بل الأكبر والأعظم من ذلك وهو مالم يفعله أيّ زعيم في العالم أن يوصي محمد ويؤكّد على حقوق المرأة عند معاينة الموت .
فهل سمعت يوما بعظيم من العظماء في آخر لحظات حياته يوصي بحق المرأة و الإحسان إليها ؟
لن تجد أبدا من فعل ذلك ، فعند الموت كل إنسان منشغل بنفسه.
أمّا محمد الرسول فقد تجلت عظمته واحترامه للمرأة والدفاع عنها والرحمة بها في مثل هذا الموقف العصيب فهو يصارع سكرات الموت ، وأوصى الرجال بالإحسان إلى المرأة بل حثهم على أن يوصى بعضهم بعضا بالإحسان إلى المرأة.
قال : ( استوصوا بالنساء خيرا)
ـــ رحمته باليهود والنصـــــارى :
لم يكن محمد الرسول رحيما بأتباعه فحسب بل إنّه كان رحيما حتى بأعدائه من اليهود والنصارى وهاك على ذلك هذا المثال :
كان لمحمد الرسول جار يهودي مؤذ , حيث كان يأتي كل يوم بقمامته ويضعها أمام بيت محمد الرسول ومحمد يعامله برحمة ورفق ولا يقابل إساءته بالإساءة بل كان يأخذ القمامة ويرميها بعيدا عن بيته دون أن يخاصم اليهودي ، وذلك لأن محمدا كان يعيش لأهداف سامية وأخلاق راقية وهي تخليص البشرية من العناء وإسعادها بعد الشقاء .
وفي يوم من الأيام انقطعت أذية الجار اليهودي لمحمد الرسول , فلم يعد اليهودي يرمي القمامة أمام بيته , فقال محمد الرسول لعلّ جارنا اليهودي مريض فلابد أن نزوره ونواسيه،
أنظر بنفسك أيّها القارئ إلى هذه الرحمة من محمد كيف أشفق على الرجل الذي يؤذيه بالقمامة !
فذهب إليه في بيته يزوره فوجده مريضا كما ظنّ , فلاطفه بالكلام واطمأنّ على حاله .
إنّه نبل الأخلاق وسموّ النفس بل قل عظمة العظماء .
اندهش اليهودي من زيارة محمد الرسول الذي جاء يواسيه في مرضه ولطالما كان هو يؤذيه عندما كان صحيحا معافى ، فعلم أنّه رسول الحق ولم يملك إلاّ أن يؤمن برسالة محمد ويدخل في دين الإسلام فقال: أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأنّ محمدا رسول الله .
ــــــ رحمته بالمشركيــــــن :
كان محمد الرسول يحب الخير للقريب والبعيد رحيما بالعدوّ والصديق , ملك بين أضلعه قلبا ملئ رحمة وشفقة , لا يعرف القسوة والشدة إلاّ في الحق .
كان المشركون يؤذونه بكل ما استطاعوا من أذيّة ولكنه كان يقابل إيذائهم له بالإحسان و قسوتهم عليه بالرحمة ، فكان شديد الحرص على هدايتهم حتى كاد قلبه يتفطر ، حتى نزل عليه القرآن يأمره بتخفيف حرصه على هدايتهم والرحمة بهم التي تجاوزت الممكن لكي لا ينفطر قلبه فيموت.
فقال القرآن له ( فلا تذهب نفسك عليهم حسرات).
ـــ رحمته بالمسكين والمضطرّ والمحتاج :
لم يصب محمد الرسول بغرور العظمة رغم امتلاكه لقلوب أتباعه امتلاكا لم يكن لأحد قبله ولا بعده حيث كان الآمر المطاع والصاحب المحبوب والعظيم الموقّر، لا يُعصى له أمر ولا يُخالف له توجيه , فرغم هذه المكانة وهذه العظمة كان محمد الرسول متواضعا يحب المساكين ويشفق عليهم،ويواسيهم بما استطاع من مال وطعام ويواسيهم بحسن الخلق وطيب الكلام، كان يجالسهم،يحادثهم،يلاطفهم ،يمازحهم حتى يُدخل عليهم السرور.
وأما الغريب الذي جاء من أرض بعيدة وانقطعت به الطريق فهو عند محمد ليس بغريب, بل هو من أهل البلد , بل يعامل أفضل مما يعاملون.
لم يلزمه محمد الرسول بوثيقة إقامة أو تأشيرة بل أمر بالإحسان إليه كائنا من كان، ففي دستور محمد الرسول له حق المساعدة في المطعم والملبس والمسكن والعمل والصحة والتعليم
فلا أحد في دستور محمد يُهمل مهما كان ضعيفا أو ذا احتياجات خاصة
بل شرع لأتباعه المنافسة في مساعدة الغريب وتقديم الخدمات المجانية له .
إنّ محمدا الرسول كان رحمة للجميع .
ـــ رحمته بالشعـــــــوب :
إنّ الشعوب في هذا العالم المعاصر في أمسّ الحاجة إلى نظام إداري يرعاه نظام أخلاقي ييسّر معاملات البشر ويعطي كل ذي حق حقّه ، فينعم البشر بقضاء حوائجهم في سهولة واطمئنان ، ويغتنمون أوقاتا طويلة تضيع في الجري وراء معاملات معقّـدة وحقوق ضائعة .
وإذا نظرنا إلى تعليمات محمد الرسول وجدنا أنّ أساس نظامه الإداري مبني على تيسير معاملات الناس وتسهيل إجراءاتهم , حيث أمر موظفيه بالتيسير و التسهيل والنزاهة وحسن معاملة المراجعين.
فعندما أرسل اثنين من موظفيه قاضيين على اليمن خارج المدينة قال لهما: ( بشّروا ولا تنفّروا ويسّروا ولا تعسّروا )
كما تميّز النظام الإداري لمحمد الرسول أيضا بالحزم والصرامة , فقد منع منعا باتا أن يعّين موظفا في وظيفة مع وجود من هو أكفؤ منه .
كما كان النظام الإداري الذي أسّسه محمد الرسول نظاما صارما في محاسبة الموظفين والإداريين والمقصّرين
فحذر محمد الرسول موظفيه أشدّ العقوبة إن هم غشّوا في أعمالهم وهي الحرمان من الجنّة التي بشّر بها البشر .
قال : ( ما من عبد يسترعيه الله رعية يموت يوم يموت وهو غاش لرعيته إلا حرم الله عليه الجنة )
بل وصل الأمر إلى درجة التبرئ ممن يغشّ الشعب , وذلك عندما وجد رجلا يغشّ النّاس في البيع .
فعن ابي هريرة قال : ( مرّ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم برجل يبيع طعاما فأدخل يده فيه فإذا هو مغشوش فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( ليس منا من غش )
ـــ رحمته بالحيــــــــــوان :
إنّه ليس من العجب أن ينعم الحيوان بعطف محمد وحنانه ورحمته , فما كان محمد يؤذي أحدا , بشرا أو حيوانا ، بل نهى أتباعه عن إذاية الحيوان , ومنعهم من الإساءة إليه .
- فنهى أن تحمّل الدواب أكثر مما تستطيع من الحمولة
- ونهى عن تقليل طعامها وإجهادها بالعمل
- ونهى عن قتلها بغير وجه حق
- ونهى عن اتخاذها هدفا للرماية لما في ذالك من التعذيب لها
- ونهى عن التسلية بمشاجرتها فيما بينها .
وهاهو في يوم من الأيام يغيب عن أصحابه قليلا ثمّ يرجع فيجد طائرا يحوم ويصيح بعد أن أخذوا فرخيه فيسألهم محمد عمن فجع الطائر في ولده ثمّ يأمرهم أمرا ملزما بإرجاع الفرخين للطائر .
فعن عبد الله عن أبيه قال: كنّا مع رسول في سفر فانطلق لحاجته فرأينا حمّرة معها فرخان فأخذنا فرخيها فجاءت الحمّرة فجعلت تعرش (ترفرف) ،فلما جاء الرسول قال : من فجع هذه بولدها؟ ردوا ولدها إليها)
كما كان محمد الرسول يصغي (يميل) للهرّة الإناء رفقا ورحمة بها فتشرب بين يديه.
- وغير ذلك من الأعمال والتوجيهات التي تنضح بفيض من الرفق والشفقة والرحمة بالمخلوق بشرا كان أو حيوانا.
إنّه محمد : الرحمة العظمى ...
6ـــ محمد الرسول رجل الدين والدولة :
كم من الزعماء والعظماء عبر التاريخ حاولوا بناء مجد وتأسيس رسالة إنسانية ولكن لم يستطع أحد منهم عبر التاريخ أن يصنع للعالم نظاما متجانسا دقيقا يتعانق فيه مطلب الروح مع مطلب الجسد , بل كان الرجحان حليف أحد الأمرين.
غير أن محمدا الرسول استطاع أن يأتي بشيء جديد للعالم ، يمزج فيه الجانب الروحي بالمادي في تناغم وتناسق لم يسبق له مثيل , فبني دولة لاحياة لها بدون دين , ودينا لا يرضى عن الدولة بديلا .
لقد استطاع محمد أن يداوي جرح الروح الذي أحدثته الحياة المادية واستطاع أن يملأ فراغ المطالب المادية الذي أحدثه الإنقطاع الخاطئ إلى الروح
فكان بذلك المعلّم الروحي الصادق والسياسي النزيه والحاكم العادل , حيث وحّد قبائل متوحشة في شعب متحضّر ووحّد الشعوب في أمّة بنت المجد وصنعت الحياة تحت راية عقيدة الإله الواحد (لا إلـه إلا الله محمد رسول الله )
7ـــ محمد الرسول رجل النظافة والعناية بالبيئة :
من الأمور التي تميّزت بها حياة محمد ودينه عن باقي الديانات والنظريات هي التعاليم الصارمة التي سنّها لأتباعه , والتي تلزمهم الإهتمام الشديد بالنظافة والحفاظ على البيئة .
فمحمد الرسول شرع لأتباعه غسل أعضاء البدن التي تواجه التلوث وتباشر الأعمال مثل الوجه والفم والأنف واليدين والرجلين في اليوم الواحد خمس مرات أو أكثر, وأما غسل كامل البدن فينبغي على أتباع محمد أن يكثروا من ذلك ما استطاعوا .
- و حذر من تلويث الأماكن القريبة من الناس بالقاذورات ،
- وشدد على أتباعه في ضرورة النظافة التامة الكاملة من فضلات الإنسان القذرة.
- وألزم أتباعه بوجوب تنظيف ملابسهم من النجسات ،
- وعلّم أتباعه مبدأ الحجر الصحي حيث أمرهم بعدم دخول الأرض التي دخلها الوباء وعدم الخروج منها إن كانوا بها , حفاظا على الصحة العامة للبشرية
وبهذه التعليمات والكثير غيرها بنى محمد منظومة اجتماعية متكاملة في محيط صحي وبيئة نظيفة .
فلا مجال في تعاليم محمد الرسول للأوساخ والتلوث في اللباس أو الجسد أو البيئة العامة.
8 ـــ محمد الرسول رجل الذوق والجمال:
لو سألت عن أحبّ الأشياء إلى محمد الرسول ؟ لجاءك الجواب بأنها ثلاثة أشياء بدأها بذكر الطيب , فقد كان شديد الحب للروائح الطيبة وكان يكثر استعمال العطور، ولا يتصوّر أبدا أن يشمّ منه أحد ريحا غير طيّبة.
إلى هذا أضاف محمد الرسول ذوقا رفيعا لم يضاهه فيه أحد فكان أجمل الناس مظهرا وأحسنهم مطلعا يتلألأ في ثيابه كالبدر متربعا على عرش السماء .
ومما يزيد هذا الأمر عظمة أن يظهر محمد الرسول بهذا المظهر الأخّاذ في عالم يموج بانحطاط الذوق والزهد في النظافة والتجمل.
حيث كان كالزهرة الجميلة الساحرة في الأرض الصحراء الجدباء القاحلة .
وكالنار الدافئة في الصحراء الجليدية المتجمدة ، وكينبوع الحياة في الأرض الموات
9 ـــ محمد الرسول شعاره الإبتسامة :
ما أحوج الإنسان في زمن كثرت فيه الضغوط الإجتماعية و الأمراض النفسية إلى ابتسامة تعلو الوجوه كالإبتسامة التي رسمها محمد على وجوه من آمن برسالته .
فمحمد الرسول تجاوز بأتباعه المؤمنين به الملتزمين بتعاليمه متاعب الحياة وضغوط المجتمع , وترفع بهم عن الأزمات النفسية التي تنكد حياة البشر ، وعانق بهم السعادة وراحة القلب ،
فكانت الإبتسامة شعار محمد الرسول في حلّه وترحاله , حيث كان لا يرى إلا مبتسما , فتمسح ابتسامته العذبة آلام من يقابله وتداوي جراح من يرافقه .
فعن عبد الله بن الحارث قال: ( مارأيت أحدا أكثر ابتسامة من رسول الله ) .
ولكن ما كان محمد الرسول ليخرج عن حدود اللياقة والوقار بكثرة الضحك والقهقهة إنّما كان يبتسم في أدب واحترام .
فعن عبد الله بن الحارث قال: (ما كان ضحك الرسول إلا تبسما )(رواه الترمذي)
أي أنّه كان يضحك دون أن يفتح فاه ودون قهقهه تنافي الإتزان وكمال الوقار.
10ــــ محمد الرسول رجل السهولة واليسر :
كان محمد يحب التيسير على الناس وتسهيل أمورهم وكان لا يحب التشديد على البشر وتضييق الأمر عليهم.
فهو القائل لأتباعه :( بشّروا ولا تنفّروا ويسّروا ولا تعسّروا )
وهو القائل أيضا : (إنّما بعثتم ميسّرين ولم تبعثوا معسّرين)
11ــــ محمد الرسول رجل الحلم و الصفح الجميل :
من تصفح تاريخ العظماء والزعماء حين انتصاراتهم بعد هزيمة أو جولة خاسرة وجد فيهم صفة تجمعهم جميعا لم يسلم منها إلاّ الأنبياء ألا وهي الإنتقام .
ولكن محمدا الرسول ضرب أروع الأمثلة في نبل المنتصر، فرغم أنّه طُرد من مكة وصُودرت ممتلكاته وأُوذي من أهلها إذاية شديدة في بداية نبوّته , إلاّ أنّه حينما دخلها منتصرا نصرا ساحقا تاما ما كانت عظمة شخصيته وكرم أخلاقه لتسمح له بالإنتقام ، بل عفا عن كل من ظلمه وصفح عن جميع الناس عفوا عاما وهو قادر على الإنتقام منهم إنتقاما شديدا.
فقال لهم: (اذهبوا فأنتم الطلقاء )
وهكذا ربّى الإسلام محمدا وأتباعه على هذه الأخلاق الراقية التي تحرّرت من قيود الذاتية والأنانية.
كيف لا وكتابه المنزّل يقول : (خذ العفو وأمر بالعرف وأعرض عن الجاهلين )
12 ـــ محمد الرسول رفيق رقيق :
ماذا لو كنت تحبّ شيئا حبّا يملأ قلبك ويملك كيانك , ثمّ جاء إنسان فانتقص قدره وأهانه ؟ ماذا لو كنت رجلا متدّينا ثمّ جاء رجل فدنّس مكان عبادتك بأسلوب فجّ ؟
لاشك أنّك ستغضب وتنفعل وتعاجل من فعل ذلك بالعقوبة ، لكن محمدا الرسول لم يفعل ذلك , لأنّه ما كان يؤمن بردود الأفعال المتعجلّة , بل كان رجلا شديد التحكّم في انفعالاته , يحكّم عقله قبل أن يفعل .
كان يعالج كل حادثة بأفق واسع ونظرة بعيدة ، وإليك هذه الحادثة التي تبرهن على ما نقول .
فهاهو رجل يأتي من البادية لم يكن له احتكاك بالمدنية الجديدة التي بناها محمد بين أتباعه في عاصمته الجديدة , تصرف هذا البدوي تصرّفا عجيبا على أهل المدينة المتحضرة ,
ترى ماهو هذا التصرّف والسلوك الغريب ؟
نعم إنّ من أغرب السلوكيات أن يأتي إنسان في مكان عام ومحترم ويبول أمام العموم , وهذا ما فعله ذالك البدوي في مكان تجمع محمد وأتباعه , حيث قام هذا الرجل يبول في المسجد وهو أقدس مكان عندهم , كان منظرا فظيعا ومشهدا مريعا لم يتماسك بسببه أتباع محمد أنفسهم من أن يصيحوا به بشدّة مطالبين إيّاه بالإنقطاع عن سلوكه المقزّز ,
ولكن ورغم أنّ الحدث استغرق لحظات إلاّ أنّ ذلك الزمن اليسير ماكان ليسبق فيه انفعال محمد عقله ، ففي تلك اللحظات حلّل محمد شخصية البدوي الذي قام يبول في موضع عبادته وموضع تسيير شؤون دولته ، فأراه عقله أنّه رجل غير متعلّم وفعله لا يحمل أيّ نيّة عدوانية , فلا يعدو أن يكون ذالك التصرف تخلف عن حضارة النظافة واللياقة والأدب التي بناها محمد في عاصمته , فما كان منه إلاّ أن أمر أتباعه بترك البدوي والسكوت عنه وعدم تعنيفه ، ثم بعد انتهاء البدوي من بوله ، جاءه محمد بنفسه في لطف ومسامحة ورقّة وسهولة وعلّمه أنّ هذا المكان لا يصلح لمثل ما فعل .
ففرح البدوي من حسن تعليم محمد وحسن معاملته وجمال أخلاقه
فقال : (اللهم ارحمني ومحمدا ولا ترحم معنا أحدا )
13ــ محمد الرسول لم تمنعه الجدّيّة و الحزم من أن يكون رجلا بشوشا يمازح الكبير والصغير:
ما كان محمد رجلا عبوسا مقطّبا ولكنّه كان طيّب النفس بشوش المعاشرة في أدب ووقار .
فما كان يمزح مزاحا يذهب المهابة والوقار, وما كان يمزح بما يؤذي الآخرين في مشاعرهم
بل كان يمزح مزاحا يدخل البهجة والسرور على من حوله من الأهل والأصحاب فعن أنس :
أن رجلا من أهل البادية كان اسمه زاهرا كان يُهدي للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم الهدية من البادية فيجهزه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا أراد أن يخرج فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إن زاهرا باديتنا ونحن حاضروه وكان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يحبه وكان رجلا دميما فأتاه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يوما وهو يبيع متاعه فاحتضنه من خلفه وهو لا يبصره فقال الرجل أرسلني من هذا فالتفت فعرف النبيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فجعل لا يألو ما ألصق ظهره بصدر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حين عرفه وجعل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول من يشتري العبد فقال يا رسول الله إذا والله تجدني كاسدا فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لكن عند الله لست بكاسد أو قال لكن عند الله أنت غال
14ـــ محمد الرسول يشجع على الرياضة النبيلة الراقية :
شجع محمد الرسول أتباعه على الرياضة الراقية التي أساسها تقوية البدن والترويح عن النفس وجلب النفع للمجتمع دون إضاعة المال والنفس وإفساد الأخلاق .
وقد مارس بعض الرياضات بنفسه مثل العدو والمصارعة والفروسية .
ولكن شرط الرياضة في دستور محمد الرسول ، أن تكون بروح رياضية نبيلة وأخلاق راقية وأهداف سامية.
15ـــ محمد الرسول باني التخطيط العمراني المميّز :
بنى محمد الرسول في صحراء قاحلة لم تعرف المدنية نظاما عمرانيا رائعا تميّز بدقّة التخطيط ومراعاة مصالح الدولة والمجتمع في منظر فنّي جذاب أخّاذ ,
فقد كان المسجد هو مركز العاصمة وهو مركز القيادة ومركز اجتماع أبناء الشعب عند الأحداث الهامة والظروف الطارئة
وكان هذا المركز (المسجد ) أيضا ملاذ الفقراء , حيث توفر لهم الدولة والجهات الخيرية المأكل والملبس والمسكن، وكان أيضا مأوى الغرباء الذين يأتون من خارج الدولة فيطعمون ويسكنون في جانب من هذا المركز.
واعتمد التخطيط العمراني الذي بناه محمد الرسول في عاصمته على بناء الأسواق والمساكن حول المسجد حيث يسهل على أهل الأسواق وأهل المساكن سرعة الاتصال في ما بينهم ومع مركز القيادة
فالشعب في مدينة محمد وحدة متماسكة في حلقة متصلة.
فالكل في قلب الحدث دون تمييز أو تعتيم .
16ــ محمد الرسول رجل التربية والتعليم :
إن الباحث المنصف ليعجب من القدرة العجيبة التي امتلكها محمد الرسول حتى استطاع أن يحوّل شعبا لا يعرف القراءة والكتابة إلى شعب يفتخر بالعلم ويتربع فيه العلماء على أعلى درجات سلّم المكانة في الدولة والمجتمع ، وعندما يدقق الباحث في سرّ هذا النجاح يرى أنّ محمدا الرسول أعطاه الله قدرات تربوية جبّارة , فهو الخطيب الفصيح والأديب البليغ والمحاضر المقنع والمربي الناجح .
ولعلّ ما ساعده في ذالك النجاح هو إتقانه لأساليب الحوار, وشدّ الإنتباه ,وتنبيه الذهن إلى المعلومة , والتي كان له تأثير أساسي في نجاح محمد التربوي والتعليمي.
فانظر إليه في هذا المثال وهو يسأل أتباعه عن المفلس ؟ ثم ينتظر منهم الإجابة مع علمه المسبق بأنها ستكون خاطئة , ولكنّه أسلوب المحاورة العقلية لتثبيت المعلومة , وبعد التفكير يجيب طلابه إجابة خاطئة , فيسمع منهم , ثم يعطيهم الإجابة الصحيحة , ونظير هذه الطريقة التربوية الناجعة كثير جدا في تعليمات محمد الرسول .
كما أنّ إصدار محمد لتعليمات تلزم جميع أبناء الشعب ذكورا وإناثا بالتعلّم إلى سقف علمي محدّد , ثمّ تشجيع من استزاد عليه , كان له دور فعّال في النقلة النوعية التي أحدثها محمد الرسول في مجال التربية والتعليم ,
فمن تعاليمه : ( طلب العلم فريضة على كل مسلم) والمسلم في خطابات محمد و خطابات الكتاب المنزّل عليه يشمل الذكور والإناث .
محمد مع الناس في حال الحـــــــرب ( المحارب النبيل) :
1- نبله مع جنود أعدائه في قلب المعركة :
محمد بأخلاقه النبيلة وتعاليم كتابه المنزّل الرّاقية كان لا يغدر بأحد كائنا من كان ولو كان عدوّا ، ولا يخلف معاهدة مع أحد حتى يكون الطرف الثاني هو الذي ينقض , كما أنّه كان في حربه مع أعدائه سواء كانت له الجولة أو لعدوّه لا يعذب الجرحى والأسرى ولا يمثّل بجثثهم بل كان يحظر على جنوده وأركان جيشه فعل ذلك مهما كان الأمر .
و ضرب بذالك هو وأتباعه أروع الأمثلة للإنسانية على نبل الأخلاق في الحروب .
2ــ نبله مع المرأة وهي في صفوف العدوّ :
إليك هذا المثال العجيب الذي يأخذ بمجامع الذهن ويهز الوجدان .
ففي إحدى المعارك الحاسمة التي خاضها محمد مع أعدائه رأى أحدُ أركان جيشه الذي تربى في مدرسته العسكرية ـ وهو ابن عمه على بن أبي طالب ـ رأى جنديا ملثما من الأعداء ينتقل بين جثث الجرحى والقتلى من جيش محمد ويشوههم تشويها فظيعا ممثلا بجثثهم حتى بلغ به الأمر إلى التمثيل بأقرب الأقربين له ـ عمّه حمزة وعمّ قائده الأعلى محمد الرسول ـ فهال المشهد هذا القائد وعزم على الإنتقام من هذا الجندي والقضاء عليه، فقصده كالسهم , ولكنّه فوجئ وهو يرفع عليه سيفه ليقضي عليه بأنّه امرأة من العدوّ متسترة في زيّ رجل .
هنا المشهد العجيب , وهنا المبادئ العظيمة , ففي لحظات رفع سيفه فوق رأس العدوّ وازن هذا القائد بين الإنتقام وبين المبادئ السامية التي تشرّبها في مدرسة محمد الرسول ، فغلب على نفسه الخلق المحمدي النبيل , فما كان منه إلاّ أن أنزل سيفه وكظم غيظه وترك هذه المرأة رغم أفعالها الشنيعة في أصحابه تسير في حال سبيلها !!!
فأيّ خلق هذا ؟ وأيّ مبادئ سامية هذه ؟ وأيّ عظمة هي ؟ وأيّ احترام للمرأة ورحمة بها حتى ولو كانت في صفّ العدوّ ؟ ولكنّها عظمة محمد وأتباعه , وعظمة الإسلام الذي علّمهم ذلك .
3ـــ نبله مع الأســـــــــــــــــرى :
رغم مواثيق حقوق الإنسان والمعاهدات الدولية إلاّ أنّ الأسير وهو في القرن الواحد والعشرين لازال يئنّ تحت وطأة التعذيب النفسي والبدني والإنتهاك الصارخ لحقوق الإنسان .
إلاّ أنّ محمدا الرسول ومنذ ما يزيد عن أربعة عشر قرنا شرّع للعالم منهجا عظيما لمعاملة الأسير لو طبقته البشرية لخرجت من أزمة الأسرى في هذا العالم الحيران , والتي مازالت تهزّ وجدان كلّ صاحب ضمير حيّ وخلق نبيل ، ذلك أنّ محمدا الرسول منع منعا باتا انتهاك حقوق الأسرى تحت أي تبرير .
فلا يجوز عنده تعذيب الأسير جسديا أو معنويا ولا يجوز سبه ولاشتمه ولا قطع المأكل والمشرب عنه .
بل بلغ الأمر بمحمد وأتباعه أن يقدّموا الأسير على أنفسهم في مأكلهم ومشربهم , و لك أن تحكم على هذا التصرف العظيم في هذا المشهد النبيل مع الأسير من قبل أتباع محمد .
هذا المشهد نزل فيه قرآن من السماء يصفه ويثني عليه , فقال مادحا لأتباع محمد (ويطعمون الطعام على حبه مسكينا ويتيما وأسيرا )
أي أنّ محمدا وأتباعه يؤثرون اليتيم والمسكين والأسير بطعامهم رغم قلته وشدة حاجتهم إليه !!!
فما أحوج الأسرى في هذا الزمان إلى محمد الرسول ليداوي جراحهم ويكفكف دموعهم ويرتجع لهم حقوقهم بل وإنسانيتهم التي نزعتها حضارة السلاح المدمّر والحروب القذرة تحت مسمّيات كاذبة .
وبعد هذا نقول : لمحمد أن يفتخر بكل قوّة على المدنية المعاصرة لسبقه وتقدّمه الكامل في مجال حقوق الإنسان عمليّا , لا على مستوى الدعاية والشعارات فقط كما فعلت وتفعل الدول المعاصرة ، كيف لا وهو يتحدى البحث العلمي النزيه البعيد عن الإنفعال والإدعاء والأفكار المسبقة أن يجد ولو حالة واحدة في حياة محمد الرسول أنتهكت فيها حقوق الأسير بالتعذيب الجسدي أو المعنوي .
ماذا قال فيه غير المسلمين :
هذه أقوال بعض الباحثين المنصفين في رسول الله محمد عليه الصلاة والسلام :
1- يقول ( مهاتما غاندي ) في حديث لجريدة "ينج إنديا" : " أردت أن أعرف صفات الرجل الذي يملك بدون نزاع قلوب ملايين البشر.. لقد أصبحت مقتنعاً كل الاقتناع أن السيف لم يكن الوسيلة التي من خلالها اكتسب الإسلام مكانته، بل كان ذلك من خلال بساطة الرسول ، مع دقته وصدقه في الوعود، وتفانيه وإخلاصه لأصدقائه وأتباعه، وشجاعته مع ثقته المطلقة في ربه وفي رسالته. هذه الصفات هي التي مهدت الطريق، وتخطت المصاعب وليس السيف. بعد انتهائي من قراءة الجزء الثاني من حياة الرسول وجدت نفسي أسِفاً لعدم وجود المزيد للتعرف أكثر على حياته العظيمة".
2-يقول البروفيسور ( راما كريشنا راو ) في كتابه " محمد النبيّ " : " لا يمكن معرفة شخصية محمد بكل جوانبها. ولكن كل ما في استطاعتي أن أقدمه هو نبذة عن حياته من صور متتابعة جميلة.
فهناك محمد النبيّ، ومحمد المحارب، ومحمد رجل الأعمال، ومحمد رجل السياسة، ومحمد الخطيب، ومحمد المصلح، ومحمد ملاذ اليتامى، وحامي العبيد، ومحمد محرر النساء، ومحمد القاضي، كل هذه الأدوار الرائعة في كل دروب الحياة الإنسانية تؤهله لأن يكون بطلا ".
3- يقول المستشرق الكندي الدكتور ( زويمر ) في كتابه " الشرق وعاداته " : إن محمداً كان ولا شك من أعظم القواد المسلمين الدينيين، ويصدق عليه القول أيضاً بأنه كان مصلحاً قديراً وبليغاً فصيحاً وجريئاً مغواراً، ومفكراً عظيماً، ولا يجوز أن ننسب إليه ما ينافي هذه الصفات، وهذا قرآنه الذي جاء به وتاريخه يشهدان بصحة هذا الإدعاء.
4-يقول المستشرق الألماني ( برتلي سانت هيلر ) في كتابه "الشرقيون وعقائدهم" : كان محمد رئيساً للدولة وساهراً على حياة الشعب وحريته، وكان يعاقب الأشخاص الذين يجترحون الجنايات حسب أحوال زمانه وأحوال تلك الجماعات الوحشية التي كان يعيش النبيُّ بين ظهرانيها، فكان النبي داعياً إلى ديانة الإله الواحد ، وكان في دعوته هذه لطيفاً ورحيماً حتى مع أعدائه، وإن في شخصيته صفتين هما من أجلّ الصفات التي تحملها النفس البشرية ، وهما : العدالة والرحمة.
5- يقول الانجليزي ) برناردشو ) في كتابه "محمد" ، والذي أحرقته السلطة البريطانية: إن العالم أحوج ما يكون إلى رجلٍ في تفكير محمد، هذا النبي الذي وضع دينه دائماً موضع الاحترام والإجلال ، فإنه أقوى دين على هضم جميع المدنيات، خالداً خلود الأبد، وإني أرى كثيراً من بني قومي قد دخلوا هذا الدين على بينة، وسيجد هذا الدين مجاله الفسيح في هذه القارة (يعني أوروبا).
إنّ رجال الدين في القرون الوسطى، ونتيجةً للجهل أو التعصّب، قد رسموا لدين محمدٍ صورةً قاتمةً، لقد كانوا يعتبرونه عدوًّا للمسيحية، لكنّني اطّلعت على أمر هذا الرجل، فوجدته أعجوبةً خارقةً، وتوصلت إلى أنّه لم يكن عدوًّا للمسيحية، بل يجب أنْ يسمَّى منقذ البشرية، وفي رأيي أنّه لو تولّى أمر العالم اليوم، لوفّق في حلّ مشكلاتنا بما يؤمن السلام والسعادة التي يرنو البشر إليها.
6- ويقول ( سنرستن الآسوجي ) أستاذ اللغات السامية ، في كتابه "تاريخ حياة محمد" : إننا لم ننصف محمداً إذا أنكرنا ما هو عليه من عظيم الصفات وحميد المزايا، فلقد خاض محمد معركة الحياة الصحيحة في وجه الجهل والهمجية، مصراً على مبدئه، وما زال يحارب الطغاة حتى انتهى به المطاف إلى النصر المبين، فأصبحت شريعته أكمل الشرائع، وهو فوق عظماء التاريخ.
7- ويقول المستشرق الأمريكي ) سنكس ) في كتابه "ديانة العرب" : ظهر محمد بعد المسيح بخمسمائة وسبعين سنة، وكانت وظيفته ترقية عقول البشر، بإشرابها الأصول الأولية للأخلاق الفاضلة، وبإرجاعها إلى الاعتقاد بإله واحد، وبحياة بعد هذه الحياة.
8- ويقول (مايكل هارت) في كتابه "مائة رجل في التاريخ" : إن اختياري محمداً، ليكون الأول في أهم وأعظم رجال التاريخ، قد يدهش القراء، ولكنه الرجل الوحيد في التاريخ كله الذي نجح أعلى نجاح على المستويين: الديني والدنيوي.
فهناك رُسل وأنبياء وحكماء بدءوا رسالات عظيمة، ولكنهم ماتوا دون إتمامها، كالمسيح في المسيحية، أو شاركهم فيها غيرهم، أو سبقهم إليها سواهم، كموسى في اليهودية، ولكن محمداً هو الوحيد الذي أتم رسالته الدينية، وتحددت أحكامها، وآمنت بها شعوب بأسرها في حياته. ولأنه أقام جانب الدين دولة جديدة، فإنه في هذا المجال الدنيوي أيضاً، وحّد القبائل في شعـب، والشعوب في أمة، ووضع لها كل أسس حياتها، ورسم أمور دنياها، ووضعها في موضع الانطلاق إلى العالم. أيضاً في حياته، فهو الذي بدأ الرسالة الدينية والدنيوية، وأتمها.
9- ويقول الأديب العالمي (ليف تولستوي) الذي يعد أدبه من أمتع ما كتب في التراث الإنساني قاطبة عن النفس البشرية : يكفي محمداً فخراً أنّه خلّص أمةً ذليلةً دمويةً من مخالب شياطين العادات الذميمة، وفتح على وجوههم طريقَ الرُّقي والتقدم، وأنّ شريعةَ محمدٍ، ستسودُ العالم لانسجامها مع العقل والحكمة.
10- ويقول الدكتور (شبرك) النمساوي: إنّ البشرية لتفتخر بانتساب رجل كمحمد إليها، إذ إنّه رغم أُمّيته، استطاع قبل بضعة عشر قرنًا أنْ يأتي بتشريع، سنكونُ نحنُ الأوروبيين أسعد ما نكون، إذا توصلنا إلى قمّته.
11- ويقول الفيلسوف الإنجليزي ( توماس كارليل) الحائز على جائزة نوبل يقول في كتابه الأبطال : " لقد أصبح من أكبر العار على أي فرد متحدث هذا العصر أن يصغي إلى ما يقال من أن دين الإسلام كذب ، وأن محمداً خدّاع مزوِّر .
وإن لنا أن نحارب ما يشاع من مثل هذه الأقوال السخيفة المخجلة ؛ فإن الرسالة التي أدَّاها ذلك الرسول ما زالت السراج المنير مدة اثني عشر قرناً لنحو مائتي مليون من الناس ، أفكان أحدكم يظن أن هذه الرسالة التي عاش بها ومات عليها هذه الملايين الفائقة الحصر والإحصاء أكذوبة وخدعة ؟!.
12- جوتة الأديب الألماني : " "إننا أهل أوربة بجميع مفاهيمنا ، لم نصل بعد إلى ما وصل إليه محمد ، وسوف لا يتقدم عليه أحد، ولقد بحثت في التاريخ عن مثل أعلى لهذا الإنسان ، فوجدته في النبي محمد … وهكذا وجب أن يظهر الحق ويعلو، كما نجح محمد الذي أخضع العالم كله بكلمة التوحيد".
ماذا قال فيه أصحابه الذين رأوه :
1- يقول فيه علي بن أبي طالب :
" كان رسول الله دايّم البشر سهل الخلق لين الجانب ، ليس بفظ ولا غليظ ، ولا صخّاب، ولا فحّاش، ولا عيّاب،ولا مُشَاحٍّ يتغافل عما لايشتهي، ولايؤيس منه راجيه ، ولا يجيب فيه ، قد ترك نفسه من ثلاث :المراء والإكثار ، وما لا يعنيه، وترك الناس من ثلاث:كان لا يذم أحدا ولا يعيبه ولا يطلب عورته ، ولا يتكلم إلا فيما رجا ثوابه ، إذا تكلم أطرق جلساؤه كأنّما على رؤوسهم الطير ، فإذا سكت تكلموا، لا يتنازعون عنده الحديث، ومن تكلّم عنده أنصتوا له حتى يفرغ، حديثهم عنده حديث أوّلهم، يضحك مما يضحكون منه، ويتعجب مما يتعجبون منه ، ويصبر للغريب على الجفوة في منطقه ومسألته، حتى إن كان أصحابه ليستجلبونهم ويقول: إذا رايتهم طالب حاجة يطلبها فأرفدوه ، ولا يقبل الثناء إلاّ من مكافئ ، ولا يقطع على أحد حديثه حتى يجوز فيقطعه بنهي أو قيام "
2- وتقول عائشة بنت أبي بكر: " لم يكن فاحشا ولا متفحشّا ولا صخّابا في الأسواق ولا يجزي بالسيئة ، ولكن يعفو ويصفح "
3- وتقول عائشة بنت أبي بكر أيضا :
" ما ضرب رسول الله بيده شيئا قط ...ولا ضرب خادما ولا امرأة "
4- وتقول عائشة بنت أبي بكر أيضا :
" ما رأيت رسول الله منتصرا في مظلمة ظلمها قط ، ما لم ينتهك من محارم الله شيء ،فإذا انتهك في محارم الله شيء كان من أشدهم في ذلك غضبا ،وما خير بين أمرين إلا اختار أيسرهما ما لم يكن مأثما "
5- ويقول البراء بن عازب :
"كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أحسن الناس وجها وأحسنه خَلقا ليس بالطويل البائن ولا بالقصير "
6- ويقول أبو الطفيل :
" كان الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم , أبيض مليح الوجه "
7- ويقول البراء بن عازب :
" كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم رجلا مربوعا بعيد ما بين المنكبين عظيم الجمّة إلى شحمة أذنيه عليه حلة حمراء ما رأيت شيئا قط أحسن منه صلى الله عليه وسلم "
8- ويقول جابر بن سمرة :
" كان وجهه مثل الشمس والقمر وكان مستديرا "
9- ويقول كعب بن مالك :
" كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا سُرّ استنار وجهه، حتى كأنّ وجهه قطعة قمر "
10- ويقول عبد الله بن عباس :
" كان أفلج الثنيّتين، إذا تكلم رُئِيَ كالنور يخرج من بين ثناياه "
11- ويقول أبو هريرة :
" كان أبيض كأنّما صيغ من فضة ، رَجِل الشعر"
12- ويقول هند بن أبي هالة :
" كان فخما مفخّما ، يتلألأ وجهه تلألؤ القمر ليلة البدر..." ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
شبهة أن الوحى مقتبس من اليهودية والنصرانية
الشيخ عماد الشربيني
لقد زعم المستشرقون أن الوحى انبثق فى الدرجة الأولى عن اليهودية والنصرانية ولكن محمد كيفه تكيفاً بارعاً وفقاً لمتطلبات شعبه الدينية([1])
ويرشح لنا جولد تسيهر كيف تم له ذلك، وكيف أصبحت تعاليم اليهودية والنصرانية، وحياً تبناه محمد صلي الله عليه وسلم، فيقول
: "فتبشير النبى العباس ليس إلا مزيجاً منتخباً من معارف وآراء دينية، عرفها أو استقاها بسبب اتصاله بالعناصر اليهودية والمسيحية وغيرها،
ولم يخف جولد تسيهر قوله فى أن النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم
قد تتلمذ على رهبان النصارى مثل ورقة بن نوفل، وبحيرا، ونسطورا، وصهيب الرومى، وسلمان الفارسى، المسيحى الأصل، وأحبار اليهود مثل عبد الله بن سلام، الذين كانوا أساتذة له([2]) وكيف تم الاتصال بأولئك؟
يرى بروكلمان أن ذلك تم من خلال رحلاته، والذين عاشوا معه بعد إسلامهم([3])
وقد حاول المستشرقون الرجوع فى كثير من شعائر الإسلام إلى اليهودية أو النصرانية أو الاثنين معاً([4])
إن ما زعمه هؤلاء الملحدون هنا، هو باطل من القول سودوا به صفحات التاريخ إذ الحق الذى لا مناص عنه، ثبوت العصمة لسيدنا محمد صلي الله عليه وسلم
فى دعواه النبوة، وفى كل ما يخبر به من الوحى عن ربه عز وجل، على ما مر سابقاً فى دلائل عصمته فى تبليغ الوحى من خلال القرآن والسنة([5]) كما أنه لم يكن لأحد عليه فضل فيما جاء به، غير الله تعالى؛ فأنى لأحد من البشر كائناً من كان أن يكون له قبل بما جاء به صلي الله عليه وسلم فينصبونه معلماً له؟
ثانياً : أين هذه الرحلات التى يتكلم عنها جولدستيهر، وبروكلمان، ومن شايعهما، والتى التقى فيها النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم بأحبار اليهود، ورهبان النصارى، وأخذ عنهم؟ ومتى كانت؟ وأين تم هذا اللقاء؟ وكم مدة قضاها ليتلقى تلك الدروس حتى يهضمها ويستوعبها؟ ومن هم الذين أخذ عنهم؟ وماذا أخذ؟
أسئلة يعجز المستشرقون عن إجابتها، لأنها لا إجابة لها البتة، إذ الإجابة عنها من صنع الخيال، وترهات الأفكار
إن ما زعموه بأنه من الممكن أن يكون رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم تلقف هذا الذى جاء به من بحيرا([6]) ونسطورا([7]) الراهبين، زعم باطل. وذلك لأن المعروف الثابت تاريخياً أن النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم ، لم يلق "بحيراً" هذا إلا مرة واحدة، وهى المرة الأولى التى سافر فيها إلى الشام، وكان معه عمه أبى طالب، وكان عمره صلي الله عليه وسلم
، إذ ذاك لا يتعدى اثنتى عشر عاماً([i]) ولا يعقل أن يكون سيدنا محمد صلي الله عليه وسلم
قد أخذ عنه، وهو فى هذه السن شيئ
وأنى "لبحيرا" وما حواه الوحى الإلهى قرآناً وسنة، من علوم وأخبار ماضية ومستقبلة؟ هذا لو فرضنا أنه يمكن أن يكون قد أخذ عنه شيئ
إن الباحث المصنف لو استنطق التاريخ، ما زاد على أن يقول له : إن الراهب "بحيراً" لما رآه تظله سحابة من الشمس، ورأى فيه بعض أمارات النبوة ذكر لعمه، أنه سيكون له شأن، وحذره أن تناله اليهود بأذى
وكذلك الحال عندما مر رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم بالراهب نسطور، وهو فى طريقه إلى الشام، يعمل فى تجارة خديجة بنت خويلد رضى الله عنها، وكانت هذه هى المرة الثانية والأخيرة فى رحلاته خارج مكة، وكان صلي الله عليه وسلم إذ ذاك شاب فى الخامسة والعشرين من عمره، وفى صحبته غلام خديجة ميسرة([ii]) والذى تحدث به الراهب نسطورا عن رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم
كان مع مسيرة، ولما تحقق الراهب من صفات النبوة فى رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم
، ما زاد على أن جاء إلى رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم
، وقبل رأسه وقدميه، وقال : آمنت بك، وأنا أشهد أنك الذى ذكره الله فى التوراة، ثم قال لميسرة بعد أن خلا به : يا ميسرة! هذا نبى هذه الأمة، والذى نفسى بيده إنه لهو تجده أحبارنا منعوتاً فى كتبهم([iii])
ولم تذكر الأخبار أنه كان حتى هناك مجرد حديث بين الغلام الصغير محمد وبين "بحيرا" و"نسطورا" وإنما الذى ذكرته الأخبار أن كل الحديث الذى تحدث به الراهب بحيرا عنه، كان مع عمه أبى طالب([iv]) والذى تحدث به الراهب نسطورا عنه كان مع غلام خديجة ميسرة! فماذا – يا ترى – سمع الشهود – عمه أبى طالب، وميسرة – من علوم هذا الأستاذ؟ هلا نبأنا التاريخ بنبأ ما جرى خلال هذا الحديث المزعوم الذى جمع فى تلك اللحظة القصيرة علوم القرآن والسنة كاملة؟!
([1]) ينظر : تاريخ الشعوب الإسلامية لبروكلمان ص69، ومقالة فى الإسلام لجرجس سال ص11، وحياء محمد لدر منغم ص125، 126، والاستشراق فى السيرة لعبد الله النعيم ص38، والفكر الإسلامى نقد واجتهاد للدكتور محمد أركون ص137، والإسلام بدون حجاب، بحث مستل من شبكة الإنترنت لمؤلف مجهول ص11
([2]) العقيدة والشريعة ص13، 14، وحياة محمد لدر منغم ص125، 126، ودائرة المعارف الإسلامية ترجمة أحمد الشنتناوى وغيره المجلد 8/232، والاستشراق فى السيرة النبوية لعبد الله محمد الأمين ص65، ومناهج المستشرقين فى الدراسات العربية الإسلامية لجماعة من العلماء 1/37، 38، والوحى القرآنى فى المنظور الاستشراقى ونقده للدكتور محمود ماضى ص117، 145
([3]) ينظر : تاريخ الشعوب الإسلامية ص34
([4]) ينظر : العقيدة والشريعة ص17، 18، وتاريخ الشعوب الإسلامية ص47، 48،71، 79، وتاريخ العرب ص181 – 183، وملوك الطائف ص4 5، والرسول فى كتابات المستشرقين ص137
([5]) يراجع : ص264 – 277
([6]) بحيرا : راهب. قيل إنه كان يهودياً من يهود تيماء، وقيل كان نصرانياً من عبد القيس، يقال له جرجس، لقيه النبى e قبل البعثة، له ترجمة فى : أسد الغابة 1/355 رقم 371، وتجريد أسماء الصحابة 1/44، والبداية والنهاية 2/213، 214
([7]) هو : بطريرك الإسكندرية سنة 431م، وهو الذى قال بأن مريم لم تلد إلا الإنسان فهى بذلك أم الإنسان، وليست أماً لإله، وأتباعه هم النساطرة، ومذهبهم وضع الأساس للقول بطبيعتين فى المسيح. ينظر : الموسوعة المسيرة فى الأديان والمذاهب المعاصرة ص5 2، 5 3، والملل والنحل للشهرستانى 2/251 – 253
القصة رواها ابن إسحاق فى السيرة النبوية لابن هشام 1/236 – 238 نص رقم 177، 178، والترمذى فى سننه كتاب المناقب، باب ما جاء فى بدء نبوة النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم 5/55 رقم 362 ولم يرد اسم (بحيرا) فى القصة، وقال : حسن غريب لا نعرفه إلا من هذا الوجه، وأخرجه الحاكم فى المستدرك 2/672 رقم 4229 وقال : صحيح على شرط الشيخين، وخالفه الذهبى قائلاً : أظنه موضوعاً فبعضه باطل أهـ ورواه أبو نعيم فى دلائل النبوة 1/168 رقمى 1 8، 1 9، والبيهقى فى دلائل النبوة 2/24، وابن سعد فى الطبقات الكبرى 1/12 ، وذكره ابن كثير فى البداية والنهاية 2/213، 266، من طريقى ابن إسحاق والترمذى وقال : "فيه من الغرائب أنه من مرسلات الصحابة، فإن أبا موسى الأشعرى راوى الحديث إنما قدم فى سنة خيبر، سنة سبع من الهجرة، ولا يلتفت إلى قول ابن إسحاق فى جعله له من المهاجرة إلى أرض الحبشة من مكة. وعلى كل تقدير فهو مرسل. فإن هذه القصة كانت ولرسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم من العمر فيما ذكره بعضهم اثنتا عشرة سنة، ولعل أبا موسى تلقاه من النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم، فيكون أبلغ، أو من بعض كبار الصحابة رضى الله عنهم، أو كان هذا مشهوراً مذكوراً أخذه من طريق الاستفاضة"أهـ قلت : ذهب إلى صحة القصة فضيلة الشيخ عرجون فى كتابه محمد رسول الله 1/167، ووجه الغرائب الواردة فى ألفاظ الحديث بما يزيل غرابتها، فراجعه إن شئت، وصحح الحافظ ابن حجر رواية الترمذى بإسناد قوى فى فتح البارى= =8/587رقم4953،وكذا الألبانى فى هامش فقه السيرة للغزالى ص68، والدكتور سعيد صوابى فى المعين الرائق ص74،وأبطلها عبد العزيز راشد فى أصول السيرة المحمدية ص22،وكذا أبطلها جعفر مرتضى العاملى فى كتابه الصحيح من سيرة النبى 2/93، وتوقف فيها هاشم معروف الحسينى فى سيرة المصطفى صلي الله عليه وسلم ص53
([ii]) القصة أخرجها ابن سعد فى طبقاته 1/129، وابن إسحاق فى السيرة النبوية لابن هشام 1/242 نص رقم 184، وأبو نعيم فى دلائل النبوة 1/172 رقم 11
([iii]) ينظر : المصادر السابقة
([iv]) يراجع : رواية لقائه صلي الله عليه وسلم مع بحيرا الراهب فى تخريج قصته السابقة قريب
إن تلك الروايات التاريخية التى تتحدث عن اللقاء العابر بين رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم
وبين بحيرا ونسطورا تحيل أن يقف كل من بحيرا ونسطورا موقف المعلم المرشد لسيدنا محمد صلي الله عليه وسلم
، لأن كلا منهما بشر عمه وميسرة، بنبوته، وليس بمعقول أن يؤمن رجل بهذه البشارة التى يزفها، ثم ينصب نفسه أستاذاً لصاحبها الذى سيأخذ عن الله، ويتلقى عن جبريل، ويكون هو أستاذ الأستاذين، وهادى الهداة المرشدين! وإلا كان هذا الراهب متناقضاً مع نفسه!!
إن هذه التهمة لو كان لها نصيب من الصحة، لفرح بها قومه وقاموا لها وقعدوا، لأنهم كانوا أعرف الناس برسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم
، وكانوا أحرص الناس على تبهيته وتكذيبه وإحباط دعوته بأية وسيلة([iv])
ثالثاً : ما زعموه من أن محمداً صلي الله عليه وسلم
، أخذ ما زعمه أنه وحى من الله تعالى، من ورقة ابن نوفل. هو – أيضاً – باطل كسابقه، وفى الرواية نفسها التى التقى فيها رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم
بورقة([iv]) ما يبين بطلان مزاعم المستشرقين، وتهافت أقوالهم، وفسادها. وذلك فى النقاط التالية :
أ- تبين الرواية أن ورقة قد تنصر فى الجاهلية، ولكن المحدثين والمؤرخين استقصوا كل ما عرف عنه مم صح سنده، ومما لم يصح، فلم يعثروا على رواية تبين أنه كان داعية إلى النصرانية
ب- لم ينقل أن النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم
قد لقى ورقة قبل هذا اللقاء أو رآه
جـ- لقد تم هذا اللقاء بعد مجئ ملك الوحى فى الغار، ونزول صدر سورة "اقرأ" وقد حضرت هذا اللقاء خديجة رضى الله عنها، وشهدته، وقد آمنت بنبوة محمد صلي الله عليه وسلم
بعد ذلك، فلو كان هنالك تعلم وتلقى ما غاب ذلك عن بالها أبداً، ولكان صارفاً لها عن الإيمان به صلي الله عليه وسلم
د- إن موقف ورقة على ما جاء فى هذا اللقاء، كان موقف المستطلع المستخبر لا موقف المعلم، فلما أخبره النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم
، خبر ما رأى، كان موقفه موقف المبشر المصدق المؤمن، المتطوع لمناصرة الحق، المؤيد للنبى صلي الله عليه وسلم
فيما نزل عليه من الوحى "هذا الناموس الذى نزل على موسى، ليتنى فيها جذعاً، ليتنى أكون حياً إذ يخرجك قومك…، وإن يدركنى يومك حياً، أنصرك نصراً مؤزرا"
هـ- لم تذكر الروايات أنه ألقى إلى النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم
درساً أو عظة فى أى جزء من جزئيات الإسلام، كما لم يثبت أنه كان صلي الله عليه وسلم
، يتردد عليه لتلقى تلك الدروس، والذى يفهم من كلمته المختصرة السابقة، أنه كان يتمنى أن يبقى حتى يصبح ناصراً لدين الله، وجندياً مخلصاً، وتلميذاً ناجحاً للنبى صلي الله عليه وسلم
، لا أستاذاً مربياً، ولا عالماً معلم
و- ثم إن ورقة لم يلبث بعد هذا اللقاء، إلا أن توفى وفتر الوحى عن رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم
، فكيف تكون هذه المقابلة الخاطفة ينبوعاً لما جاء به عليه الصلاة والسلام من الوحى؟
ز- لو ثبت أنه صلي الله عليه وسلم
، أخذ ذلك من ورقة لما سكت أعداؤه أبداً، ولروجوا ذلك، وساروا به فى الناس جميعاً، وهم الذين تشبثوا بما هو أوهى من ذلك([iv])
رابعاً : إنما زعموه من أنه صلي الله عليه وسلم
، أخذ ما جاء به من صهيب الرومى([iv]) لهو من أبطل الباطل. إذ أن صهيباً هذا كان حداداً يصنع السيوف، أعجمى اللسان، لا يعدو كلامه أن يكون رطانة([iv]) ولا يكاد يبين([iv]) ولذا قال القرآن الكريم : }لسان الذى يلحدون إليه أعجمى وهذا لسان عربى مبين{([iv])
والمعنى : كيف يتعلم من جاء بهذا القرآن، فى فصاحته وبلاغته، ومعانيه التامة الشاملة، التى هى أكمل من معانى كل كتاب نزل على نبى أرسل؛ كيف يتعلم من رجل أعجمى؟! لا يقول هذا من له أدنى مسكة من العقل([iv]) وليت شعرى : لو كان لصهيب أن يكون مرجعاً علمياً كما أرادوا أن يصفوه، فما الذى منع كفار مكة أن يأخذوا عنه، كما أخذ صاحبهم؟ وبذلك كانوا يستريحون من عنائه، ويداوونه من جنس دائه، بل ما منع صهيب أن يبدى للعالم صفحته، فينال فى التاريخ شرف الأستاذية، أو يتولى بنفسه تلك القيادة العالمية؟ بل ما منعه أن يدعى النبوة، فينسب لنفسه هذا المجد والفخار؟([iv]) إن فى عدم ادعاء صهيب شئ مما سبق، وعدم ثبوته عنه، مع صحة إيمانه برسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم
، دليل على صدق رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم
، فى دعواه النبوة، وفى عصمته صلي الله عليه وسلم
فى كل ما بلغ من وحى ربه
ثالثاً : ما زعموه من أن محمداً صلي الله عليه وسلم ، أخذ ما زعمه أنه وحى من الله تعالى، من ورقة ابن نوفل. هو – أيضاً – باطل كسابقه، وفى الرواية نفسها التى التقى فيها رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم بورقة([iv]) ما يبين بطلان مزاعم المستشرقين، وتهافت أقوالهم، وفسادها. وذلك فى النقاط التالية :
أ- تبين الرواية أن ورقة قد تنصر فى الجاهلية، ولكن المحدثين والمؤرخين استقصوا كل ما عرف عنه مم صح سنده، ومما لم يصح، فلم يعثروا على رواية تبين أنه كان داعية إلى النصرانية
ب- لم ينقل أن النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم
قد لقى ورقة قبل هذا اللقاء أو رآه
جـ- لقد تم هذا اللقاء بعد مجئ ملك الوحى فى الغار، ونزول صدر سورة "اقرأ" وقد حضرت هذا اللقاء خديجة رضى الله عنها، وشهدته، وقد آمنت بنبوة محمد صلي الله عليه وسلم
بعد ذلك، فلو كان هنالك تعلم وتلقى ما غاب ذلك عن بالها أبداً، ولكان صارفاً لها عن الإيمان به صلي الله عليه وسلم
د- إن موقف ورقة على ما جاء فى هذا اللقاء، كان موقف المستطلع المستخبر لا موقف المعلم، فلما أخبره النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم، خبر ما رأى، كان موقفه موقف المبشر المصدق المؤمن، المتطوع لمناصرة الحق، المؤيد للنبى صلي الله عليه وسلم فيما نزل عليه من الوحى "هذا الناموس الذى نزل على موسى، ليتنى فيها جذعاً، ليتنى أكون حياً إذ يخرجك قومك…، وإن يدركنى يومك حياً، أنصرك نصراً مؤزرا"
هـ- لم تذكر الروايات أنه ألقى إلى النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم درساً أو عظة فى أى جزء من جزئيات الإسلام، كما لم يثبت أنه كان صلي الله عليه وسلم، يتردد عليه لتلقى تلك الدروس، والذى يفهم من كلمته المختصرة السابقة، أنه كان يتمنى أن يبقى حتى يصبح ناصراً لدين الله، وجندياً مخلصاً، وتلميذاً ناجحاً للنبى صلي الله عليه وسلم، لا أستاذاً مربياً، ولا عالماً معلم
و- ثم إن ورقة لم يلبث بعد هذا اللقاء، إلا أن توفى وفتر الوحى عن رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم، فكيف تكون هذه المقابلة الخاطفة ينبوعاً لما جاء به عليه الصلاة والسلام من الوحى؟
ز- لو ثبت أنه صلي الله عليه وسلم، أخذ ذلك من ورقة لما سكت أعداؤه أبداً، ولروجوا ذلك، وساروا به فى الناس جميعاً، وهم الذين تشبثوا بما هو أوهى من ذلك([iv])
رابعاً : إنما زعموه من أنه صلي الله عليه وسلم، أخذ ما جاء به من صهيب الرومى([iv]) لهو من أبطل الباطل. إذ أن صهيباً هذا كان حداداً يصنع السيوف، أعجمى اللسان، لا يعدو كلامه أن يكون رطانة([iv]) ولا يكاد يبين([iv]) ولذا قال القرآن الكريم : }لسان الذى يلحدون إليه أعجمى وهذا لسان عربى مبين{([iv])
والمعنى : كيف يتعلم من جاء بهذا القرآن، فى فصاحته وبلاغته، ومعانيه التامة الشاملة، التى هى أكمل من معانى كل كتاب نزل على نبى أرسل؛ كيف يتعلم من رجل أعجمى؟! لا يقول هذا من له أدنى مسكة من العقل([iv]) وليت شعرى : لو كان لصهيب أن يكون مرجعاً علمياً كما أرادوا أن يصفوه، فما الذى منع كفار مكة أن يأخذوا عنه، كما أخذ صاحبهم؟ وبذلك كانوا يستريحون من عنائه، ويداوونه من جنس دائه، بل ما منع صهيب أن يبدى للعالم صفحته، فينال فى التاريخ شرف الأستاذية، أو يتولى بنفسه تلك القيادة العالمية؟ بل ما منعه أن يدعى النبوة، فينسب لنفسه هذا المجد والفخار؟([iv]) إن فى عدم ادعاء صهيب شئ مما سبق، وعدم ثبوته عنه، مع صحة إيمانه برسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم، دليل على صدق رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم، فى دعواه النبوة، وفى عصمته صلي الله عليه وسلم فى كل ما بلغ من وحى ربه
خامساً : ما زعموه من أنه صلي الله عليه وسلم، تلقى الوحى من علماء أهل الكتاب فى عصره محض افتراء يرده القرآن الكريم الذى حفل بجدالهم ومحاوراتهم فى العقائد والتواريخ والأحكام
فالناظر فى محاورات القرآن لهم يرى بأى لسان يتكلم عنهم القرآن الكريم. إنه يصور علومهم بأنها الجهالات، وعقائدهم بأنها الضلالات، ومعارفهم بأنها الخرافات، وأعمالهم بأنها المنكرات
نعم. لا يعقل أن يصفهم القرآن بذلك ثم يقفون من صاحب هذه النبوة موقف المرشد والناصح! اقرأ إن شئت قول الله تعالى : }وقالت اليهود عزيز ابن الله وقالت النصارى المسيح ابن الله ذلك قولهم بأفواههم يضاهئون قول الذين كفروا من قبل قاتلهم الله أنى يأفكون. اتخذوا أحبارهم ورهبانهم أرباباً من دون الله والمسيح ابن مريم وما أمروا إلا ليعبدوا إلهاً واحداً لا إله إلا هو سبحانه عما يشركون{([iv]) وقال تعالى : }وبكفرهم وقولهم على مريم بهتاناً عظيماً وقولهم إنا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله وما قتلوه وما صلبوه ولكن شبه لهم{ إلى أن قال عز وجل : }وبصدهم عن سبيل الله كثيراً. وأخذهم الربا وقد نهوا عنه وأكلهم أموال الناس بالباطل{([iv])
وغير ذلك كثير مما هو منثور فى ثنايا سور القرآن الكريم، وهو سهل المنال لمن طلبه. مما يفيدك بأن قوماً أمثال هؤلاء لا يعقل – وحالهم هكذا – أن يتلقى عنهم رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم، بل إنك ترى فيه معلماً يصحح لهم أغلاطهم، وينعى عليهم سوء حالهم
فلو كانوا معلمين له صلي الله عليه وسلم، لمدحهم، وجاملهم، وتودد إليهم، وتقرب منهم، ولم يقف منهم هذا الموقف العدائى، حتى لا يفضحوا أمره، ويكشفوا حاله
ثم إن كثيراً من هؤلاء الذين يزعمون أنهم كانوا مصدر الوحى، قد أسلموا، وإسلامهم حجة قائمة على صدق نبوة رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم، وعصمته فيما بلغ من الوحى الإلهى، ولو كان هؤلاء أعانوا النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم على الوحى، وأنه ليس من عند الله، لكانوا أدرى الناس حينئذ بحقيقة الإسلام، وبالتالى كانوا سيكونون أبعد الناس عنه، لأنهم يعرفون أنه دين ليس صحيحاً، ولكن أما وقد أسلموا وأخلصوا لله تعالى، لاسيما وأنه كانت هناك منافسة كبيرة بين أصحاب الأديان المختلفة فى ذلك الوقت، فإن ذلك كان لاستئصال ألسنة الخراصين، حتى يصابوا بالخرس رحمة بالتاريخ الذى كم لوثوه بألسنتهم هذه. وصدق رب العزة : }ويقول الذين كفروا لست مرسلاً قل كفى بالله شهيد بينى وبينكم ومن عنده علم الكتاب{([iv]) وقال عز وجل : }قل أرءيتم إن كان من عند الله وكفرتم به وشهد شاهد من بنى إسرائيل على مثله فآمن واستكبرتم إن الله لا يهدى القوم الظالمين{([iv])
سادساً : من أقوى ما يدل على أن الإسلام لم يكن مقتبساً من اليهودية أو النصرانية، وجود الخلاف فى كثير من العقائد والأحكام؛ بل جعل الشارع الحكيم جنس مخالفتهم أمراً مقصوداً له، ومن متطلبات الشرع، وهناك كثير من الأحكام جعلت العلة فيها هى مخالفة اليهود أو النصارى من ذلك :
1- قوله صلي الله عليه وسلم : "إن اليهود والنصارى لا يصبغون فخالفوهم"([iv])
2- وقوله صلي الله عليه وسلم : "خالفوا اليهود فإنهم لا يصلون فى نعالهم ولا خفافهم"([iv])
3- عن أنس بن مالك رضى الله عنه، أن اليهود كانوا إذا حاضت المرأة فيهم، لم يؤاكلوها، ولم يجامعهن فى البيوت. فسأل أصحاب النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم، النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم، فأنزل الله تعالى : }ويسألونك عن المحيض قل هو أذى فاعتزلوا النساء فى المحيض ولا تقربوهن حتى يطهرن فإذا تطهرن فأتوهن من حيث أمركم الله إن الله يحب التوابين ويحب المتطهرين{([iv]) فقال رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم : "اصنعوا كل شئ إلا النكاح" فبلغ ذلك اليهود فقالوا : "ما يريد هذا الرجل أن يدع من أمرنا شيئاً إلا خالفنا فيه"([iv]) قال الإمام ابن تيميه([iv]) : "فهذا الحديث يدل على كثرة ما شرعه الله لنبيه من مخالفة اليهود، بل على أنه خالفهم فى عامة أمورهم، حتى قالوا : "ما يريد أن يدع من أمرنا شيئاً إلا خالفنا فيه"([iv])
فهذا إقرار من اليهود عليهم لعائن الله، بمخالفة النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم لما كانوا عليه من شعائر حتى اشتهر ذلك بينهم، ألا يكفى ذلك برهاناً ساطعاً على بطلان قول المستشرقين : أنه كيف شعائر الإسلام لتتفق مع شعائر اليهود؟([iv])
أولم يكفهم أنه صلي الله عليه وسلم، أخرج اليهود أذلاء حقيرين من المدينة، وأجلاهم عنها لما نقضوا عهودهم معه، وأبى عليهم أن يساكنوه فى بلد واحد؟([iv]) وإلى هذا أشار الله تعالى بقوله : }هو الذى أخرج الذين كفروا من أهل الكتاب من ديارهم لأول الحشر{([iv]) أما وقف المستشرقون على الآيات والأحاديث العديدة الذامة لليهود الهاتكة لستورهم؟ أفى ذلك أيضاً دلالة على أن النبى كان يتقرب منهم ويتزلف لهم لكسبهم وإرضائهم؟
إن النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم، منذ أن بعث وحمل رسالة الإسلام، نسخ الأديان السابقة، وأبطل شرعيتها، فلا نجاة لأحد من الخلق يهودياً كان أو نصرانياً إلا بالتزام شرعه، والسير على نهجه، وهو القائل صلي الله عليه وسلم : "والذى نفس محمد بيده، لا يسمع بى أحد من هذه الأمة يهودى ولا نصرانى، ثم يموت ولم يؤمن بالذى أرسلت به، إلا كان من أصحاب النار"([iv])
والحديث هنا بياناً وتأكيداً لقوله تعالى : }قل يا أيها الناس إنى رسول الله إليكم جميعاً الذى له ملك السماوات والأرض لا إله إلا هو يحيى ويميت فآمنوا بالله ورسوله النبى الأمى الذى يؤمن بالله وكلماته واتبعوه لعلكم تهتدون{([iv])
فلا بقاء لدين مع دينه صلي الله عليه وسلم، ولا شريعة مع شريعته، بل دينه هو الحاكم والمهيمن على كل الأديان. قال تعالى : }وأنزلنا إليك الكتاب بالحق مصدقاً لما بين يديه من الكتاب ومهيمناً عليه فاحكم بينهم بما أنزل الله ولا تتبع أهواءهم عما جاءك من الحق لكل جعلنا منكم شرعة ومنهاجاً{([iv])
سابعاً : ما زعموه من إرجاع كثير من شعائر الإسلام إلى اليهودية أو النصرانية، أو الاثنين معاً، زعم باطل لما يلى :
أ- لأن استدلالهم بصوم عاشوراء على موافقة اليهود فيه، بناء على ما روى عن ابن عباس رضى الله عنهما قال : "قدم النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم المدينة، فرأى اليهود تصوم يوم عاشوراء فقال : ما هذا؟ قالوا : هذا يوم صالح، هذا يوم نجى الله بنى إسرائيل من عدوهم، فصامه موسى، قال : فأنا أحق بموسى منكم فصامه، وأمر بصيامه"([iv]). فعلة الموافقة الواردة فى الحديث هى التى بنى عليها المستشرقون شبهتهم السابقة، ويجاب بالآتى :
1- لقد ثبت أن النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم، كان يصوم عاشوراء فى الجاهلية قبل قدومه المدينة، ويدل على ذلك قول عائشة رضى الله عنها : "كان يوم عاشوراء تصومه قريش فى الجاهلية، وكان رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم، يصومه، فلما قدم المدينة، صامه وأمر بصيامه، فلما فرض رمضان ترك يوم عاشوراء، فمن شاء صامه، ومن شاء تركه"([iv])
وفى رواية : "وكان يوم تستر فيه الكعبة"([iv]) فدل بهذا على أنه صلي الله عليه وسلم، لم يصمه موافقة لليهود واقتداء بهم، وإنما صامه وأمر بصيامه تقريراً لتعظيمه وتأكيداً، وأخبر صلي الله عليه وسلم أنه وأمته أحق بموسى من اليهود، فإذا صامه موسى شكراً لله، كنا أحق أن نقتدى به من اليهود، لاسيما إذا قلنا : شرع من قبلنا شرع لنا ما لم يخالفه شرعنا([iv])
2- إن النبى صلي الله عليه وسلم، بين نوع مخالفة لليهود فى صيام عاشوراء، عندما شرع صيام يوم قبله، أو بعده، فعن ابن عباس قال : حين صام رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم، يوم عاشوراء، وأمر بصيامه، قالوا : يا رسول الله. إنه يوم تعظمه اليهود والنصارى. فقال رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم : "فإذا كان العام المقبل، إن شاء الله، صمنا اليوم التاسع" قال : فلم يأت العام المقبل، حتى توفى رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم"([iv]) وعنه أيضاً مرفوعاً : "صوموا يوم عاشوراء، وخالفوا فيه اليهود، صوموا قبله يوماً أو بعده يوماً"([iv]) فدل ذلك على مخالفته لهم فى صيامه
ب- وأما زعمهم أن المؤمنين كانوا لا يصلون فى مكة إلا مرتين فى اليوم، ثم أدخلت صلاة ثالثة عندما ذهبوا إلى المدينة على غرار اليهودية، فهو زعم فى وهن خيط العنكبوت، إذ الصلوات الخمس فرضت بمكة ليلة الإسراء، حين عرج بالنبى صلي الله عليه وسلم، إلى السماء، ولا خلاف بين أهل العلم، وأهل السير فى ذلك([iv])
وهذا الذى دلت عليه الأحاديث الصحيحة، التى وردت فى صفة الإسراء والمعراج فى الصحيحين وغيرهما، من أحاديث جماعة من الصحابة رضى الله عنهم([iv]) وفى أحدها قوله صلي الله عليه وسلم : "فلم أزل أرجع بين ربى تبارك وتعالى، وبين موسى عليه السلام، حتى قال : يا محمد إنهن خمس صلوات كل يوم وليلة، لكل صلاة عشر، فذلك خمسون صلاة"([iv])
جـ- وأما زعمهم أنه جعل الجمعة، يوم صلاة عامة، على غرار السبت عند اليهود، فهو أيضاً قول مخالف للصواب، لأن الله سبحانه شرع لعباده المؤمنين الاجتماع لعبادته يوم الجمعة، فقال تعالى : }يا أيها الذين آمنوا إذا نودى للصلاة من يوم الجمعة فاسعوا إلى ذكر الله وذروا البيع ذالكم خير لكم إن كنتم تعلمون{([iv])
وقد ثبت أن الله أمر الأمم السابقة بتعظيمه، فضلوا عنه، واختار اليهود السبت، والنصارى الأحد، وفضل الله هذه الأمة بيوم الجمعة لفضيلته([iv]) فعن أبى هريرة وحذيفة قالا : قال رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم : "أضل الله عن الجمعة من كان قبلنا، فكان لليهود يوم السبت، وكان للنصارى يوم الأحد، فجاء الله بنا، فهدانا الله ليوم الجمعة، فجعل الجمعة والسبت والأحد، وكذلك هم تبع لنا يوم القيامة. نحن الآخرون من أهل الدنيا، والأولون يوم القيامة، المقضى لهم قبل الخلائق([iv]) ففى الحديث ذم لأهل الكتابين، على تفريطهم فى يوم الجمعة، ثم شرع صلي الله عليه وسلم، صيام يوم السبت ويوم الأحد مخالفة لهما، كما جاء فى حديث أم سلمة رضى الله عنها، قالت : "كان رسول صلي الله عليه وسلم، يصوم يوم السبت ويوم الأحد أكثر مما يصوم من الأيام، ويقول : إنهما عيد المشركين، فأنا أحب أن أخالفهم"([iv])
قال الحافظ ابن حجر : : "يوم السبت عيد عند اليهود، والأحد عيد عند النصارى، وأيام العيد لا تصام، فخالفهم بصيامها"([iv])
بعد هذا يتضح لك، أن وحى الله تعالى (كتاباً وسنة) والذى بلغه رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم، بعصمة الله له، لم يكن مأخوذاً من اليهودية أو النصرانية، وإنما هو وحى مستقل، لم يتأثر بغيره، وبالتالى دين الإسلام، دين قائم بذاته، متميز عن غيره، وإذا وجد تشابه بين نسك إسلامى، وبين عمل سابق منسوب إلى شريعة اليهود أو النصارى. دل ذلك على أن أصل الدين الذى جاء به رسل الله واحد. لقوله تعالى : }شرع لكم من الدين ما وصى به نوحاً والذى أوحينا إليك وما وصينا به إبراهيم وموسى وعيسى أن أقيموا الدين ولا تتفرقوا فيه{([iv]) وبياناً لذلك وتأكيداً له، قال صلي الله عليه وسلم : "أنا أولى الناس بعيسى ابن مريم فى الدنيا والآخرة، والأنبياء إخوة لعلات، أمهاتهم شتى ودينهم واحد"([iv]) والمراد بـ (إخوة لعلات) الذين أمهاتهم مختلفة، وأبوهم واحد. أراد أن إيمانهم واحد، وشرائعهم مختلفة([iv]) أهـ.
=============
اتهام الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم بالإرهاب
إن الحمد لله الذي جعل سيدنا محمدا رسول الله أشرف البشر وأعظمهم على مر التاريخ، فهو إمام الأنبياء والمرسلين، وسيد الشفعاء يوم القيامة، ولن تستطيع أقلام مأجورة ولا أفكار مسعورة ولا حملات إعلامية مضللة من أن تنال منه ولا من دينه وأخلاقه بعد أن قال عنه ربه مادحا: (وَإِنَّكَ لَعَلَى خُلُقٍ عَظِيمٍ) (القلم:4) ، فمدح الله تعالى له يغنيه عن كل إطراء، ويدفع عنه كل شبهة.
لقد كان من صفات هذا الرسول العظيم صلى الله عليه وسلم العفو عند المقدرة، والرحمة لمن حوله من المؤمنين، قال تعالى: (لَقَدْ جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ عَزِيزٌ عَلَيْهِ مَا عَنِتُّمْ حَرِيصٌ عَلَيْكُمْ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَؤُوفٌ رَحِيمٌ) (التوبة:128)، بل إن رحمته تمتد لتشمل الكون كله، فما هو إلا رحمة لكل شيء، قال تعالى: (وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ) (الانبياء:107)، وكان عليه السلام يستشعر أهمية الرحمة في حياته ودعوته، فسمى نفسه نبي الرحمة، روى أبو موسى الأشعري، قال: كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يسمي لنا نفسه أسماء فقال: (أنا محمد، وأحمد، والمقفي والحاشر، ونبي التوبة، ونبي الرحمة) رواه مسلم[1]
والعجب من أن يتهم بعض المغرضين في عصرنا نبي الرحمة والسلام صلى الله عليه وسلم بالألفاظ النابية التي تدل على جهلهم أو حقدهم، فمن ذلك أنهم وصفوه بالإرهاب، وهو أبعد الناس عن ذلك صلى الله عليه وسلم[2]، فهو أرحم البشر، وأبعدهم عن الظلم والثأر والعدوان، وأحرصهم على فرض النظام والشريعة، وأكثرهم عفة ورفقا ولينا وتواضعا، ولقد أحسن شوقي حين شبه النبي عليه السلام بالأب الرحيم الذي يعفو عن زلات أولاده، فقال: [3]
وإذا عفوت فقادرا ومقدرا لا يستهين بعفوك الجهلاء
وإذا رحمت فأنت أم أو أب هذان في الدنيا هما الرحماء
أسباب وصف النبي بالإرهاب
الأسباب التي تدعو بعض الكتاب والمغرضين إلى وصف النبي بالإرهاب لا تعدو أن تكون في مجملها ستة، وهي:
1- اجتزاء النصوص الدينية وعدم النظر إليها كوحدة متكاملة، فالتشريع الإسلامي يشمل الدين والدنيا والحرب والسلام، فقراءة النصوص التي تنظم قواعد الحرب وآدابها بمعزل عن النصوص التي تنظم حياة السلام قد يوقع في الخلط وسوء الفهم.
2- عدم فهم الظروف التي أحاطت بالنصوص، فهنالك ما يسمى أسباب النزول، ومعرفتها ضرورية جدا لفهم ملابسات نزول النص.
3- الجهل باللغة العربية، فقراءة النص الديني بلغته الأصلية تزيل كثير من اللبس والغموض عنه، فهناك العام الذي يراد منه الخاص وبعكسه الخاص الذي يراد منه العام، وهناك الترادف والمشترك والمبهم وغير ذلك، ومعرفة قواعد البلاغة العربية مهمة جدا لفهم القرآن الكريم.
4- الجهل بفلسفة الحياة، فالحياة فيها السلم وفيها الحرب، ولا بد للدين الحق من أن ينظم قواعد الحياة في الحالتين، ولا يترك شئون الحرب ليدبرها الناس بأنفسهم، فيكون دينا ناقصا لا يصلح لواقع الحياة.
5- الجهل بالسيرة النبوية وأحداث التاريخ، وتفسير أحداثه من زاوية طائفية أو مذهبية بعيدا عن الموضوعية بفهم أحداثه.
6- الأسباب النفسية من حقد وكراهية، وهي أسباب قلما ينجو منها متعصب حاقد على الدين الحنيف ورسوله الكريم، قال تعالى: (وَدُّوا لَوْ تَكْفُرُونَ كَمَا كَفَرُوا فَتَكُونُونَ سَوَاءً )(النساء: من الآية89)
ما الإرهاب؟
وقبل أن نفند فرية الإرهاب بحق النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام نود أن نعرف الإرهاب ونفرق بينه وبين الجهاد في سبيل الله تعالى، إذ كثيرا ما يخلط الناس بين المصطلحات، مما يوقع اللبس في العقول والنتائج، فمن حيث اللغة: الإرهاب يرجع في اللغة إلى أصل ثلاثي وهو رهب كعلِم، ومعناه: خاف، ورَهَبوت خير من رحموت: أي لأن ترهب خير من أن ترحم، وأرهبه واسترهبه: أخافه، والمرهوب: الأسد[4]
فالإرهاب إذا يرجع إلى الخوف، والخوف يحصل بأسباب كثيرة، يبدأ بالأمور النفسية، فالخوف من التكذيب والازدراء ونحو ذلك هو أدنى درجات الإرهاب ونسميه بالإرهاب النفسي، وقد يخاف الإنسان من أن يتحول التكذيب إلى تشهير دائم فيتطور الإيذاء النفسي إلى إيذاء إعلامي واجتماعي، وقد يقاطع الناس هذا الإنسان اقتصاديا، فيتحول الضرر من معنوي إلى حسي، مما يتسبب له بالفقر والضرر، وفي خطوة أخيرة قد يحاولون إيقاع الأذى الجسمي به أو بأهله وضيوفه، وهنا يدخل الإرهاب مرحلة خطيرة وهي مرحلة التصفية والإبادة، مما يبرر لهذا المتضرر بالدفاع عن نفسه حفاظا على حقه في الحياة.
من هذه المقدمة نستطيع تعريف الإرهاب بأنه: هو إيقاع الأذى المادي أو المعنوي بالآخرين ورفض الاستماع إليهم أو التحاور معهم، ويبدأ الأذى بالتكذيب والتشهير، وينتهي بحرب الإبادة والتصفية الجماعية، وبين هاتين المرحلتين مراحل كثيرة من العدوان الإعلامي والاقتصادي والاجتماعي والأخلاقي.
براءة الأنبياء والرسل عليهم السلام من الإرهاب
من التعريف السابق للإرهاب نجد أنه لا ينطبق على الأنبياء والرسل جميعا، فقد كانوا يريدون من أقوامهم مقارعة الحجة بالحجة، وأن يسمحوا لهم بتبليغ رسالات ربهم دون أذى، وإنما ينطبق على أعدائهم، حيث يقعد أعداء الرسل في طريق الحق لقطعه على كل من يريد الوصول إلى الهدى، وأول من فعل ذلك إبليس لعنه الله، حيث جاء على لسانه في القرآن الكريم: (قَالَ فَبِمَا أَغْوَيْتَنِي لَأَقْعُدَنَّ لَهُمْ صِرَاطَكَ الْمُسْتَقِيمَ) (لأعراف:16)، ويستخدم أعداء الرسل كافة الأساليب الإرهابية لصرف الناس عن الهدى، فيدعو الإرهابيون من أعداء الأنبياء والرسل إلى الحرب الإعلامية متمثلة بصور شتى منها بذاءة اللسان مع الأنبياء، ونعتهم بالألفاظ النابية، قال تعالى: (كَذَلِكَ مَا أَتَى الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ مِنْ رَسُولٍ إِلَّا قَالُوا سَاحِرٌ أَوْ مَجْنُونٌ) (الذريات:52)، وقد يحاصرون المؤمنين اقتصاديا، ويشيعون الفاحشة ويلوثون الأعراض وسمعة المؤمنين بالإفك ونحوه، ثم تبدأ التصفية الجسدية ومن آثارها مقابلة الحجة بالسوط، والحق بالسيف، والحقيقة بالجلد، إذ ينطلق الإرهاب من فكرة رفض التعايش مع الآخر، وينتهي بالتصفية الجسدية ومحاولة الاستئصال الدموي لذاك الآخر ولو كان نبيا مرسلا مثل موسى عليه السلام، قال تعالى: (وَقَالَ رَجُلٌ مُؤْمِنٌ مِنْ آلِ فِرْعَوْنَ يَكْتُمُ إِيمَانَهُ أَتَقْتُلُونَ رَجُلاً أَنْ يَقُولَ رَبِّيَ اللَّهُ وَقَدْ جَاءَكُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ)(غافر: من الآية28)
وكثيرا ما حاول أعداء الرسل التضييق على رسلهم ومحاولة إخراجهم من أرضهم وكأن الأوطان حكر للكفرة قال تعالى: (وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لِرُسُلِهِمْ لَنُخْرِجَنَّكُمْ مِنْ أَرْضِنَا أَوْ لَتَعُودُنَّ فِي مِلَّتِنَا فَأَوْحَى إِلَيْهِمْ رَبُّهُمْ لَنُهْلِكَنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ) (ابراهيم:13) ، وربما امتدت أيديهم الآثمة لقتل الأنبياء وأتباعهم، (إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْفُرُونَ بآيَاتِ اللَّهِ وَيَقْتُلُونَ النَّبِيِّينَ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ وَيَقْتُلُونَ الَّذِينَ يَأْمُرُونَ بِالْقِسْطِ مِنَ النَّاسِ فَبَشِّرْهُمْ بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ) (آل عمران:21)
وقد تعرض النبي الخاتم عليه السلام إلى مختلف أنواع الإرهاب من قومه حتى نجاه الله منهم، قال تعالى: (وَإِذْ يَمْكُرُ بِكَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لِيُثْبِتُوكَ أَوْ يَقْتُلُوكَ أَوْ يُخْرِجُوكَ وَيَمْكُرُونَ وَيَمْكُرُ اللَّهُ وَاللَّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ) (الأنفال:30)
شبهة وردها
وردت مادة رهب ومشتقاتها في القرآن الكريم في اثني عشر موضعا، منها: الرهب ورهبانية ورهبان وغير ذلك[5]، ولم ترد بمعنى الأمر بإرهاب العدو أبدا، وإنما وردت لتعليل الإعداد لملاقاة الأعداء في المعركة، وذلك موضع واحد من الذكر الحكيم، وهو قوله تعالى: (وَأَعِدُّوا لَهُمْ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ مِنْ قُوَّةٍ وَمِنْ رِبَاطِ الْخَيْلِ تُرْهِبُونَ بِهِ عَدُوَّ اللَّهِ وَعَدُوَّكُمْ) (لأنفال:60)، والإرهاب المقصود هنا يكون في المعركة، فقد (أمر تعالى بإعداد آلات الحرب لمقاتلتهم حسب الطاقة والإمكان والاستطاعة)[6]، ومعلوم بأن المعارك كلها تهدف إلى كسب الحرب وإرهاب العدو وإحراز الغنائم، فالحرب ليست لعبا، والقوي هو الذي ينتصر في النهاية، لذلك تحرص الدول والجيوش جميعا على كسب المعارك منذ الجولة الأولى، وبث الرعب في نفوس أعدائها، وهذا ما أراده القرآن، ولم يرد قط إرهاب الآمنين، أو تصفية الخصوم بالأساليب الغادرة كما يفعل الطواغيت في الأرض، لأن المبدأ الذي قام عليه الدين احترام حقوق الآخرين في العقيدة والحياة الكريمة والمشاركة الفاعلة في المجتمع، وعدم البدء بالعدوان على الآخرين، يقول سبحانه: (والذين إذا أصابهم البغي هم ينتصرون، وجزاء سيئة سيئة مثلها فمن عفا وأصلح فأجره على الله إنه لا يحب الظالمين، ولمن انتصر بعد ظلمه فأولئك ما عليهم من سبيل، إنما السبيل على الذين يظلمون الناس ويبغون في الأرض بغير الحق أولئك لهم عذاب أليم)(39-42: الشورى).
الفرق بين الإرهاب والجهاد
هنالك خلط متعمد بين الإرهاب والجهاد، فأبواق الضلال تسمي الجهاد إرهابا، وشتان ما بينهما، ويقتضي الخلط وصف النبي عليه السلام بما ليس فيه لأنه حمل السيف وقاتل في سبيل الله، وليس كل من حمل السيف إرهابيا، وإلا لكان عامة الأنبياء والرسل عليهم السلام وكافة الملوك والفاتحين في التاريخ إرهابيين، وهذا باطل بحكم العقل والشرع والواقع، فالإرهاب أعمال عدوانية غير مشروعة كما سبق، تنفرد بها عصابة أو مجموعة أو دولة كما في الكيان الصهيوني لأغراض خاصة، والإرهاب هنا هو إفساد في الأرض، وتدمير للحياة الإنسانية، وهو ما ترفضه جميع الأديان والشرائع، وقد وقف الإسلام منه موقفا حاسما، قال تعالى: ( وَلا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْأِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ )(المائدة: من الآية2)، وفرض الإسلام أشد العقوبات على الأعمال التي تهدد الأمن العام كعمل قطاع الطريق ونحوه، مما يستلزم أقصى العقوبة، وفي هؤلاء المجرمين وأمثالهم نزل قوله تعالى: (إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَاداً أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلافٍ أَوْ يُنْفَوْا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ ذَلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَلَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ) (المائدة:33)
أما الجهاد في سبيل الله فهو جزء من منهج الأنبياء والمرسلين بمن فيهم نبينا محمد عليه السلام، وهو عبارة عن حرب عادلة لدفع العدوان أو لإزالة الديكتاتوريات الظالمة التي تحول دون الناس وبين حرية العقيدة، قال تعالى: (لا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ) (البقرة:256)، وليس الجهاد لإرغام الناس على الدخول بالإسلام، فالله تعالى هو المتكبر، وهو ملك الملوك، وقد دعا الناس إلى عبادته لما فيه مصلحتهم، والقرآن مأدبته في الأرض، فمن رفض الدعوة لا يقبل الله عمله ولا يجبره على اعتناقها، لأن من عادة الملوك التكبر، ولو أن إنسانا أقام دعوة ثم رفض بعض المدعوين إجابتها هل يجبرهم على الحضور أم يعرض عنهم ويسخط عليهم؟ إن عماد التواصل في العلاقات بين الناس هو الرغبة والمحبة وليس الكره والإجبار، وهو مع رب الناس وملك الناس وإله الناس قائم على هذا الأساس أيضا، يقول غوستاف لوبون في هذا السياق: (وقد أثبت التاريخ أن الأديان لا تفرض بالقوة، فلما قهر النصارى عرب الأندلس، فضل هؤلاء القتل والطرد عن آخرهم، على ترك الإسلام، ولم ينتشر القرآن بالسيف إذن، بل انتشر بالدعوة وحدها، وبالدعوة وحدها اعتنقته الشعوب التي قهرت العرب مؤخرا كالترك والمغول)[7].
وقد ابتدأ الجهاد دفاعا عن حقوق المهاجرين الذي أبعدوا عن ديارهم بغير حق، قال تعالى: (أُذِنَ لِلَّذِينَ يُقَاتَلُونَ بِأَنَّهُمْ ظُلِمُوا وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى نَصْرِهِمْ لَقَدِيرٌ) (الحج:39)، وانتهى ليصبح دفاعا عن الإنسان حيث كان، وتحريرا للإنسانية بكافة أشكالها وألوانها، وعلى مختلف الأمكنة والعصور من كل الأغلال والديكتاتوريات التي تكبلها، قال تعالى: (يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ يَلُونَكُمْ مِنَ الْكُفَّارِ وَلْيَجِدُوا فِيكُمْ غِلْظَةً وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ) (التوبة:123)
وقد كان المسلمون يضحون بأموالهم وأنفسهم من أجل نشر العدالة وإتاحة حرية الاختيار أمام الآخرين، في عصور لم تكن تعرف شيئا من الحرية السياسية والدينية، ولم تكن تعترف بكرامة الإنسان. وهذا سبق عالمي ينبغي للمسلمين أن يفتخروا به، فهم لم يقاتلوا من أجل نهب ثروات الآخرين، والاستيلاء على مقدراتهم، وإنما من أجل نشر العدالة والحرية بين الناس حتى يختاروا العقيدة الصحيحة أو يبقوا إذا شاؤوا على عقيدتهم من دون خوف من حسيب أو رقيب. ومثل هذه الحرب لم تعرفها البشرية في كل عصورها، فالحرب عبر التاريخ وإلى يومنا هذا سببها المكاسب المادية والجشع والطمع بما عند الآخرين.
وإذا كان العصر الحديث قد وفر للناس نوعا من الحرية والحماية في ظل القانون، وسلطة الدولة إلى حد ما، وإذا كانت الدول الكبرى بدأت تفكر بما تسميه حقوق الإنسان وتسعى للتدخل لحمايتها كما تزعم، فإن هذا الأمر لم يكن موجودا البتة في العصور الوسطى، ولذلك كان الجهاد في ذلك الوقت استنقاذا للحرية الإنسانية والكرامة البشرية وتحريرا للعقل البشري من وصاية أية قوة طاغية تحول بينه وبين اتباعه للدين الذي يراه دون خوف أو وجل من كافة القوى المتحكمة بمصير الفرد والمجتمع آنذاك.
وإذا استطاع القانون إنصاف الناس فلا هجرة ولا حاجة للقتال، ودل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أصحابه على ما هو خير لهم من الجهاد، وذلك في أوقات السلم والأمن، وهو ذكر الله، فقال لهم: (ألا أنبئكم بخير أعمالكم، وأزكاها عند مليككم، وأرفعها في درجاتكم، وخير لكم من إنفاق الذهب والورق؟، وخير لكم من أن تلقوا عدوكم فتضربوا أعناقهم ويضربوا أعناقكم؟). قالوا: بلى. قال: (ذكر الله)[8]. وأما إذا عجز القانون إنصاف الناس عن ذلك فالقتال يبقى حقا مشروعا من أجل تحقيق العدالة إلى يوم القيامة.
قبول الآخر أساس الحرية الدينية في الإسلام
الناس أحرار في أديانهم ومعتقداتهم حسب تصور الشريعة الإسلامية التي لا ترى وصاية على عقول الناس ومعتقداتهم، فلا إكراه في الدين، قال تعالى: (لا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَي)(البقرة: من الآية256) ولا يقبل كفر بالإكراه، ولا إيمان بالإكراه كذلك، فالأساس في الإيمان والكفر هو الحرية الإنسانية الكاملة بلا وصاية ولا إكراه، وبناء على الاختيار تكون المسئولية أمام الله تعالى يوم القيامة.
وهنا يثير بعضهم تساؤلات حول آية السيف، وأننا يجب أن نجبر الآخرين على عقيدتنا، وقد رد العلامة ابن كثير على فكرة نسخ آية السيف لآيات السلام، فقال عند قوله تعالى: (وَإِنْ جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ) (الأنفال:61): (وقال ابن عباس، ومجاهد، وزيد بن أسلم، وعطاء الخراساني، وعكرمة، والحسن، وقتادة : إن هذه الآية منسوخة بآية السيف في براءة [قاتلوا الذين لا يؤمنون بالله ولا باليوم الآخر] وفيه نظر أيضا، لأن آية براءة فيها الأمر بقتالهم إذا أمكن ذلك، فأما إذا كان العدو كثيفا، فإنه يجوز مهادنتهم، كما دلت عليه هذه الآية الكريمة، وكما فعل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يوم الحديبية، فلا منافاة ولا نسخ ولا تخصيص، والله أعلم)[9].
أحوال غير المسلمين في الدولة الإسلامية
والأصل في العلاقات الإسلامية مع غير المسلمين ممن لم يشهر سلاحه في وجه الإسلام، أن تكون علاقة بر وعدل وصلة وتعاون، سواء كانوا يعيشون داخل الدولة الإسلامية أو خارجها، قال تعالى: (لا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُمْ مِنْ دِيَارِكُمْ أَنْ تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ) (الممتحنة:8)
وأما من شهر سلاحه على الدعوة وحاربها فإنه يعاقب بالمثل، سواء كان غير مسلم أصلا، أو مسلما ارتد عن دينه، أو مسلما خرج على الأمة وحمل السيف على السلطان الشرعي، قال تعالى: (الشَّهْرُ الْحَرَامُ بِالشَّهْرِ الْحَرَامِ وَالْحُرُمَاتُ قِصَاصٌ فَمَنِ اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُوا عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ) (البقرة:194)، وأما العدوان من جانب المسلمين على غيرهم فمحرم، قال تعالى: (وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ) (البقرة:190).
وفي ضوء هذه القوانين السامية التي سنتها شريعة الله سبحانه، تعايش المسلمون مع غيرهم من أبناء الديانات الأخرى، وقد تبادل المسلمون وأهل الكتاب الطعام، حيث أحل الله لكل فريق أن يأكل طعام الآخر، قال تعالى: (الْيَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلٌّ لَهُم)(المائدة: من الآية5)
وقد حرم الإسلام شتمهم أو شتم دينهم، أو تسميعهم ما يكرهون، وحرم سفك دمائهم، وسمح بزيارتهم، وبدخولهم المساجد، وبصلاة المسلمين في الكنائس، وبلبس ملابسهم، وعيادة مرضاهم، والاستعانة بهم في الشدائد عند الضرورة، وبالتبادل التجاري معهم، والزواج من نسائهم .. إلخ.
شهادة المستشرقين على سماحة الإسلام
وقد أشاد كثير من المستشرقين بسماحة الإسلام، ومنهم زيغريد هونكة التي نوهت بموقف الإسلام من النصارى حين قالت: "إن التسامح العربي العريق هو الذي حمل فاتح مصر القائد عمرو بن العاص على تحاشي أي أعمال سلب أو نهب أو تدمير للمدن المفتوحة، بل آلى على نفسه المحافظة على ضمان ممارسة حضارتهم المتوارثة، كما جاء في وثيقة الاستسلام المبرمة حرفيا، وللوقوف على البعد الحقيقي لهذا التسامح غير المعهود في أوروبا"
وقد بدأ التسامح من عهد النبي عليه السلام، واستمر هذا الخلق الإسلامي الكريم عند ملوك المسلمين وخلفائهم، يقول غوستاف لوبون في حديثه عن نتائج الحروب الصليبية: (ولم يشأ صلاح الدين أن يفعل في الصليبيين مثل ما فعله الصليبيون الأولون من ضروب التوحش، فيبيد النصارى على بكرة أبيهم، فقد اكتفى بفرض جزية طفيفة عليهم، مانعا سلب شيء منهم)[10].
برناردشو يشيد بشجاعة النبي محمد
لم يكن سيدنا محمد إرهابيا في نظر كثير من مفكري الغرب وعلمائه ومنهم: برناردشو، بل كان نبيا كريما وقائدا عظيما يفهم فلسفة الحياة، ويعمل وفق ما تقتضيه قوانينها، والحرب عنده وسيلة وليست غاية، وهي الرؤية التي تبناها برناردشو للحرب نفسها، فقد صور برناردشو موقفه من الحرب في الحوار الذي تخيله بين عيسى ومحمد على النحو التالي:
- القتل حرام في ديانتي
- هذا صحيح حين يتعلق الأمر بنزاعات شخصية، ولكننا يجب أن نقتل أولئك الذين لا يصلحون للحياة.
- ومن الذي يحكم ما إذا كنا نصلح للحياة؟ إن أعلى السلطات والحكام الإمبراطوريين وكبار رجال الدين قضوا كلهم بأني لا أصلح للحياة.
- كان هذا هو نفس ما حدث بالنسبة لي، وكان عليَّ أن أنجو بنفسي وأن أتوارى عن الأنظار، حتى تمكنت من إقناع عدد كاف من الفتيان الأقوياء بأن كبارهم قد جاروا في حكمهم عليَّ، ثم عدت بعد ذلك وأزلت الأعشاب من الحديقة.
- أنا معجب بشجاعتك وبحكمتك العملية، ولكني لست من نفس الطراز.
- ا تعجب بهذه الصفات، إنني أخجل منها أحيانا، كل رؤساء القبائل يملكون منها الكثير، وأنا إذا كان لي قيمة فهي ناتجة عن ذلك السمو الروحي الذي جعل مني أداة للوحي الإلهي[11]
وحبذا لو أن هؤلاء الذين ينعتون محمدا بالإرهاب قد قرأوا كلام برناردشو وفكروا قبل إصدار أحكامهم، لقد حاول أعداء المسيح أن يقتلوه ولم يستطيعوا، وهم يزعمون أنه قد صلب، فهل ينبغي أن يكون مصير كل المرسلين هو القتل أو الصلب كما يزعمون حتى لا يكونوا إرهابيين، ومن الذي يعطي الشرعية للقاتل دون المقتول؟ ولماذا يقف الناس مع الجزار دوما ضد الضحية، أليس هذا منطق شريعة الغاب في النهاية، حيث يفترس القوي الضعيف؟ وما فضيلة مجتمع الإنسان عن مجتمع الغابة آنذاك؟.
الطعن بمحمد طعن بالمسيح
هذه هي الحقيقة التي ينادي بها برناردشو، يقول الأستاذ محمود علي مراد في هذا الصدد:"وفيما يتعلق بالأخلاق عامة، فإن شو رغبة منه في إنصاف نبي الإسلام من ناقديه وناقدي ديانته من المسيحيين، ذكَّر هؤلاء في أكثر من موضع من كتاباته بأن محمدا كان يعترف برسالة السيد المسيح، وكان يوقره بنفس الدرجة التي كان يوقر بها المسيح نفسه يوحنا المعمدان الذي عاصره وبشر بقدومه، والذي أراد شو أن يقوله بالتشديد على هذه الحقيقة هو أن محمدا لو كان شريرا أو مخاتلا أو كاذبا كما تدعي أكثرية المسيحيين تحت لواء الكنيسة، لهاجم المسيح بدل أن يعترف به، وإن اعترافه به هو اعتراف بأخلاقيات رسالته، وإن اعترافه بهذه الرسالة يجب منطقيا أن يقيه شر عدوانهم، ولهذا فإن الطعن في محمد هو طعن بطريق غير مباشر في الأخلاقية التي ينادي بها، وهي نفس القيم التي تنادي بها الديانة المسيحية"[12]
الحروب الصليبية تشهد على سماحة الإسلام
ولا ريب أن بعض النصارى في الغرب رأوا في انتصار الإسلام وانتشار نفوذه خطرا يهدد مصالحهم، فأعلنوا العداوة له، وكانت خطيئة هؤلاء بحق محمد تشبه خطيئة اليهود بحق عيسى، فكل منهما رفض الاعتراف بالحق والإقرار به، فعمدوا على إشعال فتيل الحرب بين النصرانية والإسلام، يقول أحد شعراء الأرمن على لسان ملكه من قصيدة طويلة:[13]
سأفتح أرض الله شرقا ومغربا وأنشر دينا للصليب بصارمي
فعيسى علا فوق السماوات عرشه يفوز الذي والاه يوم التخاصم
وصاحبكم بالترب أودى به الثرى فصار رفاتا بين تلك الرمائم
ومن شأن مثل هذه القصائد أن تشعل حروبا إعلامية، وقد رد ابن حزم الأندلسي على قصيدة هذا الشاعر بنقيضة لها[14].
وقد قامت الحروب الصليبية، وتم إجلاء المسلمين عن الأندلس بسبب الحقد الذي أشعله ملوك الصليبيين، لأغراض ظاهرها دينية وحقيقتها سياسية، لأنه لا تعارض في إمكانية التعايش بين المسيحية والإسلام كما ذكرنا آنفا، وفي سنة 492هـ (أخذت الفرنج بيت المقدس بعد حصار شهر ونصف، وقتلوا أكثر من سبعين ألفا، منهم جماعة من العلماء والعباد والزهاد، وهدموا المشاهد، وجمعوال اليهود في الكنيسة وأحرقوها عليهم)[15]. ويصف غوستاف لوبون ما أحدثه الصليبيون من كوارث فيقول: (ولم يكتف الفرسان الصليبيون الأتقياء بذلك، فعقدوا مؤتمرا أجمعوا فيه على إبادة جميع سكان القدس من المسلمين واليهود وخوارج النصارى، الذين كان عددهم نحو ستين ألفا، فأفنوهم على بكرة أبيهم في ثمانية أيام، ولم يستثنوا منهم امرأة ولا ولدا ولا شيخا، وأراد الصليبيون أن يستريحوا من عناء تذبيح أهل القدس قاطبة، فانهمكوا بكل ما يستقذره الإنسان من صنوف السكر والعربدة)[16].
وفي مقابل هذا الغزو المتكرر من الصليبيين،لم يتورط المسلمون في حروب دينية استئصالية مع الآخرين، فقد تعايشوا مع كافة الأديان والطوائف التي وجدت في بلاد الإسلام، وحين دحروا القوى الصليبية قدموا الخدمات والمعونة لمن أراد أن يرجع من الصليبيين إلى بلاده، وعفا صلاح الدين عن ملوكهم، (وأطلق السلطان خلقا منهم بنات الملوك بمن معهن من النساء والصبيان والرجال، ووقعت المسامحة في كثير منهم، وشفع في أناس كثير، فعفا عنهم)[17]، ولم يثأر من كنائسهم أو من النصارى الذين يعيشون جنبا إلى جنب بجوار المسلمين في ديار الإسلام، وهو ما لم يتحقق لمسلمي الأندلس عندما استولى النصارى على الحكم فيها، حيث أحرقت المساجد ودمرت المآثر الإسلامية وتم إجلاء المسلمين جميعا عن تلك البلاد.
أسباب الحروب الصليبية
يحلل برناردشو أسباب الحروب الصليبية، فهو يرى "أن تقديس المسيحيين للعهد القديم باعتباره جزءا لا يتجزأ من كتابهم المقدس كان هو المسئول عن زرع العقلية العسكرية في نفوس العالم الغربي، كما كان له دخل كبير في كافة الحروب التي اشترك فيها العالم المسيحي، وإن كلا من الطرفين في هذه الحروب، بما في ذلك الحرب العظمى الأولى التي جاءت كتابته في هذا الصدد تالية لها كان يمسك بالبندقية أو بالمدفع أو بالقنبلة في يد، وبالعهد القديم أو بكتابات تستلهم العهد القديم في اليد الأخرى، وأن استئصال فكرة الحرب من نفوس الناس لن يتسنى إلا إذا أنزل العهد القديم من السحب، وتم تقويمه والنظر إليه باعتبار حقيقته الفعلية لا باعتباره كتابا منزلا لا يأتيه الباطل من بين يديه ولا من خلفه"[18]
الاستعمار الحديث وجذوره الصليبية
وقد اتخذت حروب الاستعمار في العصر الحديث الدين المسيحي غطاء لأطماعه الاقتصادية، فلقد كان نشيد الجنود الطليان عندما أرادوا فتح ليبيا:
(يا أماه . أتمي صلاتك ولا تبكي، بل اضحكي وتأملي
ألا تعلمين أن إيطاليا تدعوني، وأنا ذاهب إلى طرابلس فرحا مسرورا.
لأبذل دمي لسحق الأمة الملعونة.
ولأحارب الديانة الإسلامية التي تجيز البنات الأبكار للسلطان.
سأقاتل بكل قوتي لأمحو القرآن…)[19]
ومثل هذا النشيد لا يقبل به السيد المسيح عليه السلام بكل تأكيد فقد كان رسولا للمحبة والسلام، وهو القائل: (أحبوا أعداءكم).
نتائج البحث
1- إن السلام هو الأصل في دعوة الأنبياء، ولكن أعداءهم حملوا السيف عليهم، فصار القتال قدر الأنبياء جميعا، حتى المسيح الذي لم يقاتل في حياته يوما واحدا، سينزل السماء قبل قيام الساعة ليقتل الدجال الذي هو ألد أعداء الله في الأرض، ففي الحديث أن المسيح سيحمل السيف ويتصدى للدجال: (حتى يدركه بباب لد فيقتله) [20]
2- إن أعداء الرسل والأنبياء هم البادئون بالعدوان، فهم الإرهابيون الحقيقيون في الحياة، ومن دافع عن نفسه من الأنبياء والمرسلين فهذا من حقه الشرعي، قال تعالى: (أَلا تُقَاتِلُونَ قَوْماً نَكَثُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ وَهَمُّوا بِإِخْرَاجِ الرَّسُولِ وَهُمْ بَدَأُوكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ )(التوبة: من الآية13)
3- إن كثيرا من الأنبياء والرسل عليهم السلام قد حملوا السيف قبل محمد عليه السلام، منهم موسى وداود وسليمان عليهم السلام، فلو كان حمل السيف لا يليق بالصالحين والأنبياء، لما حمله أولئك، بل الذي لا يليق بهم أن يتركوا الطغاة والمفسدين يعيثون في الأرض فسادا دون التصدي لهم، لأنه لا بد للحق من قوة تحميه وتدافع عنه.
4- إن قتال الأنبياء والرسل عليهم السلام محكوم بقواعد أخلاقية، فلا يطال البيئة بأذى ولا الحيوان ولا ضعاف البشر ولا الرهبان والأديرة والكنائس ونحوها، بعكس قتال أعدائهم فإنه استئصالي يدمر كل شيء. قال تعالى: (فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ بِالْحَقِّ مِنْ عِنْدِنَا قَالُوا اقْتُلُوا أَبْنَاءَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مَعَهُ وَاسْتَحْيُوا نِسَاءَهُمْ )(غافر: من الآية25)
5- إن الجهاد في الإسلام ابتدأ دفاعا عن المهاجرين والأنصار، وانتهى دفاعا عن حقوق الشعوب والأقليات في الأرض، وتحريرا لهم من الأغلال التي تكبلهم قال تعالى: (وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالْأَغْلالَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ)(لأعراف: من الآية157) فالجهاد هدفه التغيير والتجديد نحو الأفضل، وإطلاق الحريات للأمم والشعوب، فهو ليس صنوا للإرهاب أبدا، وإذا كانت الدول المتقدمة اليوم تعطي لنفسها الحق في التدخل بشئون الدول الأخرى وشن الحروب عليها من أجل إشاعة جو من الديمقراطية وحقوق الإنسان، فمن باب أولى أن يكون هذا الحق للدين الذي يعلو ولا يعلى عليه.
6- إن محمدا عليه السلام هو أرحم الناس وأبعدهم عن الانتقام لنفسه، ويكفي قولته المشهورة لأهل مكة عند فتحها: (اذهبوا فأنتم الطلقاء) وكل وصف له يتنافى مع الأخلاق السامية والرحمة الشاملة إنما هو كذب وافتراء على الحقيقة والتاريخ، والمنصفون من علماء الغرب بل ومن كل الأمم يشهدون بعظمة خلقه ونبله عليه الصلاة والسلام.
7- إن التعايش مع الآخرين من فطرة الإسلام وشرعه، وما كان الرسول ليظلم أحدا أو يجبره على الدخول في دينه وربه يقول له: (وَلَوْ شَاءَ رَبُّكَ لَآمَنَ مَنْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كُلُّهُمْ جَمِيعاً أَفَأَنْتَ تُكْرِهُ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَكُونُوا مُؤْمِنِينَ) (يونس:99)
8- إن التفريق بين الجهاد والإرهاب أمر حتمي، فالإرهاب بمعنى العدوان، وقتل النفس الإنسانية بغير حق، وتهجير الناس من أوطانهم، وهدم بيوتهم والاعتداء على أموالهم وأعراضهم، وتدمير البيئة الإنسانية كل ذلك مرفوض بكافة صوره وأشكاله، ولا يتفق مع نصوص الشريعة و ومقاصدها، وفتاوى العلماء أكثر من أن تحصر في نبذ الإرهاب وتحريمه.
9- إن الإرهاب هو ما صنعه الاستعمار الذي مزق العلاقات الإنسانية بين الشعوب، واستخدم أفتك الأسلحة لإذلالها وقهرها، ثم هاهو ذا يتهجم على الدين الحق ونبيه الكريم ظلما وعدوانا، ولله در المسيح حين قال لبني إسرائيل: (يا أولاد الأفاعي، يرى أحدكم القذاة في عين أخيه ولا يرى الخشبة في عينه).
وآخردعوانا أن الحمد لله رب العالمين.
-----------------------------------------
[1] - انظر: مشكاة المصابيح، للتبريزي، بتحقيق الألباني، (3/1609).
[2] - انظر مقالاتهم في مقال: هل الإسلام سلاح دمار شامل للدكتور عصام نعمان في صحيفة الخليج العدد (8602) السبت 7 ديسمبر 2002م.
[3] - انظر: الهمزية النبوية في ديوان الشوقيات (1/34-41).
[4] - انظر: القاموس المحيط، مادة (رهب).
[5] - انظر: المعجم المفهرس لألفاظ القرآن الكريم، محمد فؤاد عبد الباقي، مادة (رهب)
[6] - مختصر تفسير ابن كثير، للصابوني، (2/115).
[7] - حضارة العرب، ص (128).
[8] - رواه مالك وأحمد والترمذي وابن ماجة، إلا أن مالكا وقفه على أبي الدرداء، قال الألباني: وإسناده صحيح مرفوع. ، انظر: مشكاة المصابيح للتبريزي، (2/702). [مصدر سابق]
[9] - تفسير القرآن العظيم، (2/356-357).
[10] - حضارة العرب، ص (329)، [مصدر سابق]
[11] - انظر: من الأعمال المختارة: بيوت الأرامل، العابث، جورج برناردشو، مقدمة المترجم محمود علي مراد، ص (66) نشر وزارة الإعلام الكويتية، يونيو 1972م، ضمن سلسة من المسرح العالمي، 33/1.
[12] - المرجع السابق، ص (67).
[13] - البداية والنهاية لابن كثير، ( 11/247).
[14] - انظر: البداية والنهاية لابن كثير، ( 11/244-252)، [مصدر سابق]
[15] - تاريخ الخلفاء للسيوطي، تحقيق إبراهيم صالح، ص (504).
[16] - حضارة العرب، ص (327)، [مصدر سابق]
[17] - البداية والنهاية لابن كثير، ( 12/324)، [مصدر سابق]
[18] - انظر: من الأعمال المختارة، ص(64-65). (مرجع سابق).
[19] - الاتجاهات الوطنية في الأدب المعاصر، د. محمد محمد حسين، (2/164-165)، دار النهضة العربية، بيروت، الطبعة الثالثة، 1392هـ/1972م.
[20] - رواه مسلم عن النواس بن سمعان، انظر مشكاة المصابيح، للتبريزي، بتحقيق الألباني، (3/1508).
نشر في مجلة منار الإسلام، ربيع الأول 1424هـ/مايو 2003م.
بقلم د. محمد رفعت زنجير
جامعة عجمان للعلوم والتكنولوجيا،
كلية التربية والعلوم الأساسية، أبو ظبي
شبهة الطاعنين فى حديث "خلوة النبى بامرأة من الأنصار" والرد عليها
الدكتور/ عماد الشربيني
روى الإمام البخارى فى صحيحه بسنده عن أنس رضى الله عنه قال : "جاءت امرأة من الأنصار إلى رسول الله ,، ومعها صبى لها، فكلمها رسول الله ,، فقال : "والذى نفسى بيده، إنكم أحب الناس إلى مرتين"([1])
بهذه الرواية طعن أعداء السيرة العطرة فى صحيح الإمام البخارى، وأوهموا القارئ بأن الحديث يطعن فى عصمة رسول الله , فى سلوكه، وفى خلقه العظيم، حيث جاء فى الرواية أنه ، خلا بامرأة، ثم قال : "إنكم أحب الناس إلى"
يقول أحمد صبحى منصور : "والرواية تريد للقارئ أن يتخيل ما حدث فى تلك الخلوة التى انتهت بكلمات الحب تلك، وذلك ما يريده البخارى بالطبع"([1])0
والجواب :
أولاً : أقول لهؤلاء النابتة الضالة التى تريد الطعن والتشكيك فى صحيح الإمام البخارى، لتسقط مكانته كأصح كتاب بعد كتاب الله عز وجل، ولتسقط بسقوطه كل كتب السنة التى تليه، إذ هو بمثابة الرأس، لكتب السنة، وبسقوط الرأس يسقط كل الجسد0
أقول لهم : إن كنتم صادقين فى دعاكم تنزيه الرسول ، مما يشكك فى سيرته العطرة، وأخلاقه العظيمة، وعصمته فى سلوكه، وتزعمون أن البخارى بإخراجه لهذه الرواية فى صحيحه قد افترى كذباً على الرسول ، وشكك فى أخلاقه وعصمته - وعصم الله عزوجل - البخارى وغيره من أئمة السنة من ذلك
وإن كنتم حقاً أهل علم، وبحث عن الحقيقة فلماذا تعمدتم عدم ذكر اسم عنوان الباب الذى ذكر تحته الإمام البخارى هذا الحديث؟ وهو باب "ما يجوز أن يخلوا الرجل بالمرأة عند الناس"
ولماذا تجاهلتم ما قاله شراح الحديث فى بيانهم للمراد من الخلوة، وكيف كانت تلك الخلوة، ولماذا اختلى بها النبى؟
نعم تعمدتم عدم ذكر ذلك تلبيساً منكم وتضليلاً للقارئ، ولأنكم تعلمون كما تعلم الدنيا بأسرها، أن فقه الإمام البخارى فى تراجم أبوابه، التى أعيا فحول العلماء حل ما أبداه فى هذه العناوين من أسرار! إنكم تعلمون أنكم بذكركم عنوان الباب، ينكشف سريعاً كذبكم وتضليلكم! كما أنكم تجاهلتم ما قاله شراح الحديث من أئمة المسلمين، والذين تحرصون على وصفهم بأنهم يقدسون البخارى، ويعبدونه من دون الله "وعصمهم الله من ذلك" تجاهلتم ما فسروه وبينوه من معنى "خلوة الرجل بالمرأة عند الناس" وكيف كانت تلك الخلوة؟
والنتيجة من تجاهلكم كل ذلك أنكم سفهتم عقول أئمة المسلمين، واستخففتم بعقل القارئ لكم
ثانياً : تعالوا بنا لنظهر للقارئ ما حرصتم على كتمانه؛ ولنترك له الحكم بعد ذلك؛ فيمن الصادق البخارى أم أنتم؟ ومن الطاعن والمشكك فى عصمة النبى البخارى أم أنتم؟ ومن المحترم لعقل القارئ البخارى أم أنتم؟
يقول الحافظ ابن حجر – رحمه الله – شارحاً المراد من عنوان الباب الذى ذكر الإمام البخارى تحته حديث أنس. قال : قوله : "باب ما يجوز أن يخلوا الرجل بالمرأة عند الناس" أى : لا يخلوا بها بحيث تحتجب أشخاصهما عنهم، بحيث لا يسمعون كلامهما، إذا كان مما يخافت به؛ كالشئ الذى تستحى المرأة من ذكره بين الناس، وأخذ المصنف قوله فى الترجمة : "عند الناس" من قوله فى بعض طرق الحديث "فخلا بها فى بعض الطرق أو فى بعض السكك" وهى : الطرق المسلوكة التى لا تنفك عن مرور الناس غالبا
وقوله : "فخلا بها رسول الله " أى : فى بعض الطرق، ولم يرد أنس أنه خلا بها بحيث غاب عن أنصار من كان معه، وإنما خلا بها، بحيث لا يسمع من حضر شكواها، ولا ما دار بينهما، من الكلام، ولهذا سمع أنس آخر الكلام فنقله، ولم ينقل ما دار بينهما، لأنه لم يسمعه
وفى رواية مسلم عن أنس : "أن امرأة كان فى عقلها شئ، فقالت : يا رسول الله! إن لى إليك حاجة، فقال : يا أم فلان! أى السكك شئت، حتى أقضى لك حاجتك، فخلا معها فى بعض الطرق، حتى فرغت من حاجتها"([2])
قال الإمام النووى – رحمه الله – قوله : "خلا معها فى بعض الطرق" أى : وقف معها فى طريق مسلوك، ليقضى حاجتها، ويفتيها فى الخلوة، ولم يكن ذلك من الخلوة بالأجنبية، فإن هذا كان فى ممر الناس، ومشاهدتهم إياه وإياها، لكن لا يسمعون كلامها، لأن مسألتها مما لا يظهره"([3])
ومن هنا استفاد الأئمة من هذه الرواية : "أن مفاوضة الأجنبية سراً لا يقدح فى الدين عند أمن الفتنة، ولكن الأمر كما قالت عائشة رضى الله عنها، "وأيكم يملك أربه كما كان يملك أربه"([4]) قلت : وإيانا أيضاً معصوم كعصمته
ثالثاً : ليس فى قوله : "إنكم أحب الناس إلى – مرتين – وفى رواية : ثلاث مرات" ما يطعن فى عصمته فى سلوكه وهديه، لأن هذه الكلمة قالها النبى جهاراً على ملأ من الناس لنساء وصبيان من الأنصار كانوا مقبلين من عرس
يدل على ذلك ما أخرجه البخارى عن أنس بن مالك رضى الله عنه قال : أبصر النبى ، نساءاً وصبياناً مقبلين من عرس فقام ممتناً فقال : "أنتم من أحب الناس إلى"([5]) وهو على طريق الإجمال، أى : مجموعكم أحب إلى من مجموع غيركم
فالكلمة إذن لم يقلها رسول الله مغازلاً للمرأة الأنصارية التى اختلى بها ليقضى حاجتها؛ كما يحاول أن يزعم، ويستنتج أعداء الإسلام! وإنما قالها ، خطاباً لمجموع الأنصار. وتأمل قوله : "إنكم" ولم يقل "إنك"
وليس أدل على ما سبق أن الراوى للحديث أنس بن مالك، سمع هذه الجملة "إنكم أحب الناس إلى" وسمع كم مرة كررها رسول الله فإذا كانت الكلمة مقصوداً بها المغازلة؛ فلم جهر بها حتى سمعها أنس؟!
ولم لم يسر بها حتى لا يسمعها أنس إن كان مقصوداً بها ما يزعمه أعداء عصمته ؟
إن هذه الجملة : "إنكم أحب الناس إلى" قالها المعصوم : منقبة للأنصار، حيث جعل حبهم من علامات الإيمان، وبغضهم من علامات النفاق، فقال : "الأنصار لا يحبهم إلا مؤمن، ولا يبغضهم إلا منافق، فمن أحبهم أحبه الله، ومن أبغضهم أبغضه الله"([6]) وفى رواية : "آية الإيمان حب الأنصار، وآية النفاق بغض الأنصار"([7])
قال الحافظ ابن حجر : وخصموا بهذه المنقبة العظمى، لما فازوا به دون غيرهم من القبائل من إيواء النبى ,، ومن معه، والقيام بأمرهم، ومواساتهم بأنفسهم وأموالهم، وإيثارهم إياهم فى كثير من الأمور على أنفسهم، فكان صنيعهم لذلك موجباً لمعاداتهم، جميع الفرق الموجودين من عرب وعجم، والعداوة تجر البغض، ثم كان ما اختصوا به مما ذكر موجباً للحسد، والحسد يجر البغض، فلهذا جاء التحذير من بغضهم، والترغيب فى حبهم، حتى جعل ذلك آية الإيمان والنفاق، تنويهاً بعظيم فضلهم، وتنبيهاً على كريم فعلهم، وإن كان من شاركهم فى معنى ذلك مشاركاً لهم فى الفضل المذكور، كل بقسطه"([8])
وبعد : فقد ظهر واضحاً جلياً لكل ذى عقل، وقلب سليم، أن الحديث صحيح رواية ودراية، وأن ما زعمه أهل الزيغ من أن لفظ الخلوة فى الحديث محمول على الخلوة المحرمة؛ مردود عليهم بما جاء فى بعض طرق الحديث "فخلا بها فى بعض الطرق أو بعض السكك" وهى الطرق التى لا يخلو منها المارة من الناس
كما اتضح جلياً أن تلك المرأة التى خلى بها النبى ,، كانت لها مسألة أرادت أن تستفتى فيها النبى ، وتلك المسألة مما تستحى من ذكره النساء بحضرة الناس، وكانت إجابة النبى , لها أن تلتمس بعض الطرق أى تلتمس أى جانب من الأماكن العامة التى لا تخلو من مرور الناس غالباً حتى يسمع حاجتها، ويقضيها لها، وكل هذا صرحت به رواية الإمام مسلم من حديث أنس، راوى الحديث الذى طعنوا فيها من رواية البخارى! ليقطع لسان كل فاجر، ويدفع افتراء كل آثم يطعن فى عصمته
وما ختم به النبى ,، حديثه مع المرأة من قوله : "والذى نفسى بيده إنكم أحب الناس إلى" هذا منه ,، تأكيداً لما قاله مراراً من جعله علامات الإيمان حب الأنصار، ومن علامات النفاق بغضهم، ثم إن هذه الكلمة قالها رسول الله , جهاراً على ملأ من الناس، لنساء وصبيان من الأنصار كانوا مقبلين من عرس، كما سبق من حديث أنس عند البخارى0
فهل بقى بعد كل هذا حجة فى الحديث لمن أرادوا أن يشوشوا به على عصمة سيدنا رسول الله , فى سلوكه، وفى خلقه العظيم؟! وهم يوهمون البسطاء أنهم من المحبين للنبى ,، المدافعين عنه، فى الوقت الذى يجحدون فيه سنته العطرة، ويطعنون فى عدالة الإمام البخارى، وفى صحيحه الجامع، ويسفهون عقول المسلمين القائلين بقول سلفهم الصالح رضى الله عنهم، ويستخفون بعقل من يقرئ لهم!0
وبالجملة : أيخشى عاقل، فضلاً عن مؤمن من رسول الله ,، على زوجه، أو ابنته، أو أمه، وهو الذى لم يستطيع كافر أو جاحد، أن يلمس هذا الجانب فى حقه؟0
وقد قال الله تعالى فى حقه : }النبى أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم{([9]) إن رسول الله ,، مؤتمن على الوحى، وحامل الرسالة، والأسوة الحسنة، والقدوة الصالحة، ولا يثير مؤمن فضلاً عن عاقل مثل ما أثاره أعداء السنة المطهرة فى حديثنا هذا، للإيمان بعصمته , من الشيطان. وإن ما طنطن به أعداء عصمته ,، يشبه ما طنطنوا به فى قصة أخرى، وكذبوا البخارى فيها، لأنه رواها، وهى قصة أم سليم وأم حرام رضى الله عنهما0
من كتاب شُبهات حول عصمة النبي
([1]) لماذا القرآن ص91، 92، وقراءة فى صحيح البخارى ص22، كلاهما لأحمد صبحى منصور، وينظر: دين السلطان لنيازى عز الدين ص39، 64، 309، ودفع الشبهات عن الشيخ الغزالى لأحمد حجازى السقا ص210 0
([2]) أخرجه مسلم (بشرح النووى) كتاب الفضائل، باب قرب النبى , من الناس وتبركهم به 8/90 رقم 2326، وأبو داود فى سننه كتاب الأدب، باب الجلوس فى الطرقات 4/257 رقمى 4818، 4819 0
([3]) المنهاج شرح مسلم للنووى 8/91 رقم 2326 0
([4]) سيأتى تخريجه ص473 وينظر : فتح البارى 9/245 رقم 5234 0
([5]) أخرجه البخارى (بشرح فتح البارى) كتاب مناقب الأنصار، باب قول النبى , للأنصار : أنتم أحب الناس إلى 7/142 رقم 3785، وكتاب النكاح، باب ذهاب النساء والصبيان إلى العرس 9/156 رقم 5180 0
([6]) أخرجه البخارى (بشرح فتح البارى) كتاب مناقب الأنصار، باب حب الأنصار من الإيمان 7/141 رقم 3783، ومسلم (بشرح النووى) كتاب الإيمان، باب الدليل على أن حب الأنصار وعلى رضى الله عنهم من الإيمان وعلاماته، وبغضهم من علامات النفاق 1/340 رقم 75 من حديث البراء بن عازب رضى الله عنه0
([7]) أخرجه البخارى (بشرح فتح البارى) فى الأماكن السابقة نفسها برقم 3784، وفى كتاب الإيمان، باب علامة الإيمان حب الأنصار 1/80 رقم 17، ومسلم (بشرح النووى) فى الأماكن السابقة نفسها برقم 128 من حديث أنس بن مالك رضى الله عنه0
([8]) فتح البارى 1/81 رقم 17 0
([9]) الآية 6 الأحزاب0
===================
سؤال : ما معنى قول عائشة للرسول : (( ما أرى ربك إلا يسارع في هواك )) عندما رأت خولة بنت حكيم من اللائي وهبن أنفسهن له ؟
د/هشام عزمي
بسم الله والحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وصحبه ومن والاه . . .
أما بعد ،
قال القرطبي رحمه الله ونقله عنه ابن حجر في فتح الباري ووافقه عليه : (( هذا قول أبرزه الدلال والغيرة , وهو من نوع قولها ما أحمدكما ولا أحمد إلا الله , وإلا فإضافة الهوى إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لا تحمل على ظاهره , لأنه لا ينطق عن الهوى ولا يفعل بالهوى , ولو قالت إلى مرضاتك لكان أليق , ولكن الغيرة يغتفر لأجلها إطلاق مثل ذلك )) .
قلت : بل نطقت عائشة رضي الله عنها بالصواب ، فالله شرع لنبيه الذي وافق ما يهواه ويشتهيه , فأي سوء عبارة في ذلك ؟!
والحديث في الصحيحين عن عائشة رضي الله عنها قالت : ( كنت أغار على اللاتي يهبن أنفسهن لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم , وأقول : أتهب المرأة نفسها ؟!
فلما أنزل الله تعالى : { ترجي من تشاء منهن وتؤوي من تشاء ومن ابتغيت ممن عزلت فلا جناح عليك }
قلت : ما أرى ربك إلا يسارع في هواك !!)
وبعض المسلمين المتصدين للرد على الشبهات يجردون رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من رجولته وفحولته التي هي من صفات الكمال البشري التي تحمدها العرب ظنًا منهم أنهم بذلك ينزهونه صلى الله عليه وسلم عما يشين مقام النبوة فيجعلونه كالعنين ناقص الذكورة الذي لا يهوى ولا يشتهي النساء .. فهذا مسلك غير حميد ؛ لأنه يخرج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن آدميته ويجعله في مقام من لا تميل نفسه إلى شهوة مباحة أبدًا ، وبعد هذا يظن أنه ينزهه فيكون قد أعطاه صفة سلب لا مدح فيها .
ثم إنه ينبغي التفريق بين أمرين :
1- الهوى والشهوة المستقرة في النفس البشرية وهي مجبولة عليها .
2- اتباع الهوى ومخالفة الشرع في ذلك .
فأما النوع الأول فليس بمذموم لأنه ليس للأنسان يدٌ في ذلك البتة , فكيف يذم في شيء قد ركز في الطباع ؟
بل أذهب أبعد من ذلك - ولست أبالغ - , أن من لم يكن ذا شهوة فهو ناقص عن أقرانه , فمن لا يشتهي النساء رجل ناقص الذكورة ؛ فلا يمدح بذلك عرفًا ولا يرغبه الناس , بل هو عيب يحق للقاضي أن يفرق بين الزوجين بسببه وهو ما يسمى العنين .. فإذا كان نقص هذه الشهوة عيب ، فما يقابلها كمال بشري يمدح صاحبها .
وأما النوع الثاني وهو اتباع الهوى ومخالفة الشرع في ذلك ؛ فهذا هو المذموم وقد جاءت النصوص بذلك كما هو معلوم .
لهذا يجب فهم قول عائشة رضي الله عنها في ضوء هذا التفريق لأن ما فهمه الصحابة والمسلمون أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بشر يتزوج ويشتهي النساء كبقية البشر وليس في ذلك تثريب - كما تقدم - , وأما الكفار فهم الذين ذكر الله عنهم أنهم يستنكرون هذا على رسل الله , فأجابهم الله بقوله : { ولقد أرسلنا رسلاً من قبلك وجعلنا لهم أزواجاً وذرية } [الرعد:38].
قال ابن الجوزي رحمه الله : (( سبب نزولها أن اليهود عيروا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بكثرة التزويج، وقالوا: لو كان نبياً كما يزعم ، شغلته النبوة عن تزويج النساء ، فنزلت هذه الآية، قاله أبو صالح عن ابن عباس )) زاد المسير (4/336) .
فأهل القلوب المريضة هم الذين يجعلون هذا طعناً في النبوة , أما أهل الفطر السليمة والعقول المستقيمة , فيعلمون ان ذلك لا يضر الرسالة بأدنى ضرر.
وآخر دعوانا أن الحمد لله رب العالمين
===================
محاولة النبى محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم الانتحار
الرد على الشبهة:
الحق الذى يجب أن يقال.. أن هذه الرواية التى استندتم إليها ـ يا خصوم الإسلام ـ ليست صحيحة رغم ورودها فى صحيح البخارى ـ رضى الله عنه ـ ؛ لأنه أوردها لا على أنها واقعة صحيحة ، ولكن أوردها تحت عنوان " البلاغات " يعنى أنه بلغه هذا الخبر مجرد بلاغ ، ومعروف أن البلاغات فى مصطلح علماء الحديث: إنما هى مجرد أخبار وليست أحاديث صحيحة السند أو المتن (1).
وقد علق الإمام ابن حجر العسقلانى فى فتح البارى (2) بقوله:
" إن القائل بلغنا كذا هو الزهرى ، وعنه حكى البخارى هذا البلاغ ، وليس هذا البلاغ موصولاً برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وقال الكرمانى: وهذا هو الظاهر ".
هذا هو الصواب ، وحاش أن يقدم رسول الله ـ وهو إمام المؤمنين ـ على الانتحار ، أو حتى على مجرد التفكير فيه.
وعلى كلٍ فإن محمداً صلى الله عليه وسلم كان بشراً من البشر ولم يكن ملكاً ولا مدعيًا للألوهية.
والجانب البشرى فيه يعتبر ميزة كان صلى الله عليه وسلم يعتنى بها ، وقد قال القرآن الكريم فى ذلك:(قل سبحان ربى هل كنت إلا بشراً رسولاً) (3).
ومن ثم فإذا أصابه بعض الحزن أو الإحساس بمشاعر ما نسميه - فى علوم عصرنا - بالإحباط أو الضيق فهذا أمر عادى لا غبار عليه ؛ لأنه من أعراض بشريته صلى الله عليه وسلم.
وحين فتر (تأخر) الوحى بعد أن تعلق به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يذهب إلى المكان الذى كان ينزل عليه الوحى فيه يستشرف لقاء جبريل ، فهو محبّ للمكان الذى جمع بينه وبين حبيبه بشىء من بعض السكن والطمأنينة ، فماذا فى ذلك أيها الظالمون دائماً لمحمد صلى الله عليه وسلم فى كل ما يأتى وما يدع ؟
وإذا كان أعداء محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم يستندون إلى الآية الكريمة: (فلعلك باخع نفسك على آثارهم إن لم يؤمنوا بهذا الحديث أسفاً) (4).
فالآية لا تشير أبداً إلى معنى الانتحار ، ولكنها تعبير أدبى عن حزن النبى محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم بسبب صدود قومه عن الإسلام ، وإعراضهم عن الإيمان بالقرآن العظيم ؛ فتصور كيف كان اهتمام الرسول الكريم صلى الله عليه وسلم بدعوة الناس إلى الله ، وحرصه الشديد على إخراج الكافرين من الظلمات إلى النور.
وهذا خاطر طبيعى للنبى الإنسان البشر الذى يعلن القرآن على لسانه صلى الله عليه وسلم اعترافه واعتزازه بأنه بشر فى قوله - رداً على ما طلبه منه بعض المشركين-: (وقالوا لن نؤمن لك حتى تفجر لنا من الأرض ينبوعاً * أو تكون لك جنة من نخيل وعنب فتفجر الأنهار خلالها تفجيراً * أو تسقط السماء كما زعمت علينا كسفاً أوتأتى بالله والملائكة قبيلاً * أو يكون لك بيت من زخرف أو ترقى فى السماء ولن نؤمن لرقيك حتى تنزل علينا كتابا نقرؤه). فكان رده:(سبحان ربى) متعجباً مما طلبوه ومؤكداً أنه بشرٌ لا يملك تنفيذ مطلبهم:(هل كنت إلا بشراً رسولاً) (5).
أما قولهم على محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه ليست له معجزة فهو قول يعبر عن الجهل والحمق جميعاً.
حيث ثبت فى صحيح الأخبار معجزات حسية تمثل معجزة الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم ، كما جاءت الرسل بالمعجزات من عند ربها ؛ منها نبع الماء من بين أصابعه ، ومنها سماع حنين الجذع أمام الناس يوم الجمعة ، ومنها تكثير الطعام حتى يكفى الجم الغفير ، وله معجزة دائمة هى معجزة الرسالة وهى القرآن الكريم الذى وعد الله بحفظه فَحُفِظَ ، ووعد ببيانه ؛ لذا يظهر بيانه فى كل جيل بما يكتشفه الإنسان ويعرفه
(1) انظر صحيح البخارى ج9 ص 38 ، طبعة التعاون.
(2) فتح البارى ج12 ص 376.
(3) الإسراء: 93.
(4) الشعراء: 3.
(5) الإسراء: 93.
المصدر : موقع الأزهر
حقائق الإسلام فى مواجهة شبهات المشككين / حقائق حول الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم
شبهة : معاملة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لبني قريظة والرد عليها
بقلم د. جمعة بن علي الخولي
"...حدث في العام الخامس من الهجرة أن مر المسلمون بظروف قاسية عندما تجمعت أكبر قوة معادية للمسلمين في ذلك الوقت للقضاء عليهم داخل المدينة، وأحاطت جيوش الأحزاب بالمدينة في عشرة آلاف مقاتل..."
بالنسبة لمعاملة الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم لبني قريظة. لا نريد أن نتعجل الحكم ونقول إنه عليه الصلاة والسلام عالج الأمر بالعلاج الوحيد الذي لا ينفع غيره، أو حل عقدته بالسلاح الذي يناسبه.. لا نريد أن نتعجل الحكم بذلك قبل أن نقف على حيثياته وظروفه.. معروف أنه بمجرد قدوم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم المدينة عقد بينه وبين اليهود الموجودين بها معاهدة رائدة بمثابة أقدم دستور مسجل في العالم[1].
كان من بنود هذه المعاهدة: أ- التزام كل من المسلمين واليهود بالمعايشة السلمية فيما بينهما وعدم اعتداء أي فريق منهما على الآخر في الداخل[2].
ب- تعهد كل من الطرفين بالدفاع المشترك عن المدينة ضد أي اعتداء خارجي وعلى اليهود أن يتفقوا مع المؤمنين ما داموا محاربين[3].
وحدث في العام الخامس من الهجرة أن مر المسلمون بظروف قاسية عندما تجمعت أكبر قوة معادية للمسلمين في ذلك الوقت للقضاء عليهم داخل المدينة، وأحاطت جيوش الأحزاب بالمدينة في عشرة آلاف مقاتل[4] من مشركي قريش وقبائل غطفان وأشجع وأسد وفزارة وبني سليم على حين لم يزد عدد المسلمين على ثلاثة آلاف مقاتل[5]، وكان المتوقع أن ينضم يهود بني قريظة إلى صفوف المسلمين ضد القوات الزاحفة على المدينة بناء على نصوص المعاهدة المبرمة بين الفريقين..
لكن الذي حدث هو عكس هذا، فقد فوجئ المسلمون ببني قريظة يخونهم في أخطر أوقات محنتهم ولم يرعوا للجوار حقاً، ولا للعهود حرمة، ولقد كانوا يسعون من وراء انضمامهم هذا إلى صفوف الأحزاب التعجيل بسحق المسلمين والقضاء عليهم قضاء تاماً. ولقد أحدث نقض بني قريظة لعهدهم مع المسلمين وإعلانهم الانضمام إلى صفوف الغزاة فزعاً شديداً في صفوف المسلمين لأنهم ما كانوا يتوقعون أن يحدث هذا في مثل تلك الظروف، لدرجة أن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم حرص أول الأمر على كتمان الخبر على المسلمين لما كان يخشى من وقعه على نفوسهم.
وبمجرد أن انتهى إلى سمعه النبأ أرسل وفداً مكوناً من سعد بن معاذ سيد الأوس، وسعد بن عبادة سيد الخزرج، وعبد الله بن رواحة، وخوات بن جبير ليذكروا القوم بما بينهم وبين المسلمين من عهود، ويحذروهم مغبة ما هم مقدمون عليه، وأوصاهم قائلا: "انطلقوا حتى تنظروا أحق ما بلغنا عن هؤلاء القوم أم لا، فإن كان حقاً فألحنوا لي لحناً أعرفه. أي ألمحوا لي في الكلام تلميحاً دون تصريح، حتى لا يفت ذلك في عضد الناس، وأما إن كانوا على الوفاء بيننا وبينهم فاجهروا به للناس.." فخرجوا حتى أتوهم فوجدوهم على أخبث ما بلغهم عنهم. وقالوا عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، من رسول الله؟ لا عهد بيننا وبينه، فرجع الوفد وأخبر رسول الله تلميحاً لا تصريحاً. بأن قالوا له عضل والقارة، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، الله أكبر، أبشروا يا معاشر المسلمين[6].
وهكذا ركب القوم رؤوسهم، وقرروا الانضمام الفعلي للغزاة، وأخذوا يمدونهم بالمال والعتاد.. وكانت خيانتهم الأثيمة تلك بمثابة طعنة للمسلمين من الخلف أشق على نفوسهم من هجوم الأحزاب من خارج المدينة، لأنهم ما كانوا يظنون أن يأتيهم الروع من مأمنهم الحصين، وعند ذلك عظم البلاء، واشتد الخوف. وأتاهم عدوهم من فوقهم ومن أسفل منهم حتى ظن المؤمنون كل ظن، وظهر النفاق من بعض المنافقين يفتون بذلك في عضد المسلمين ويرجفون به في المدينة، حتى أن أحدهم ليقول كان محمد يعدنا أن نأكل كنوز كسرى وقيصر، وأحدنا اليوم لا يأمن أن يذهب إلى الغائط[7].
هكذا كان الوضع إبان معركة الأحزاب حتى لتصور السيدة أم سلمة زوج رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ظروف المسلمين وقتئذ بقولها : "شهدت مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مشاهد فيها قتال وخوف، شهدت المريسيع، وخيبر، وكتاب الحديبية، وفي الفتح، وحنين، لم يكن ذلك أتعب لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا أخوف عندنا من الخندق، وذلك أن المسلمين كانوا في مثل الحرجة، وأن قريظة لا نأمنها على الذراري. فالمدينة تحرس حتى الصباح تسمع فيها تكبير المسلمين حتى يصبحوا خوفاً[8]، لكن عناية الله تدخلت لنصرة الإيمان وأهله وهزيمة الشرك وحزبه، وشاء الله أن يندحر ذلك التحالف الوثني اليهودي { وَرَدَّ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِغَيْظِهِمْ لَمْ يَنَالُوا خَيْراً وَكَفَى اللَّهُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ الْقِتَالَ } (الأحزاب الآية 25).
وبعد أن ولى المشركون وحلفاؤهم الأدبار، يحملون معهم كل معاني الإخفاق رجع المسلمون إلى منازلهم بالمدينة يغسلون أنفسهم من وعثاء الجهاد والتعب ويلتقطون أنفاسهم بعد قلق نفسي بالغ دام شهرا كاملا.. ويبدو أن البعض ظن أن الموضوع انتهى إلى ذلك الحد لكن أيترك الناكثون للعهود دون محاسبة وتأديب.. ذلك ما لا يكون.. وتأباه العدالة الإلهية، ولذلك كان عقابها عاجلاً، فبينما رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يغتسل من وعثاء المرابطة في غزوة الأحزاب في بيت أم سلمة رضي الله عنها إذ تبدى له جبريل عليه السلام فقال: "أوضعت السلاح يا رسول الله، قال: نعم. قال: ولكن الملائكة لم تضع أسلحتها، وهذا أوان رجوعي من طلب القوم، ثم قال: إن الله تبارك وتعالى يأمرك أن تنهض إلى بني قريظة فإني عامد إليهم فمزلزل بهم[9]، فنادى عليه الصلاة والسلام في المسلمين "ألا لا يصلين أحد العصر إلا في بني قريظة"، فسار الناس فأدرك بعضهم العصر في الطريق، فقال بعضهم لا نصلي حتى نأتيها، وقال بعضهم بل نصلي، ولم يرد منا ذلك فذكر ذلك للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فلم يعنف واحداً منهم[1] .. وتبعهم عليه الصلاة والسلام بعد أن استخلف على المدينة عبد الله بن أم مكتوم، وحاصر القوم شهراً أو خمسة وعشرين يوماً[11] ..
ولما طال عليهم الحصار.. عرضوا على الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يتركهم ليخرجوا إلى (أذرعات).. بالشام تاركين وراءهم ما يملكون، ورفض عليه الصلاة والسلام إلا أن يستسلموا دون قيد أو شرط واستسلم يهود بني قريظة، ونزلوا على حكم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فوكل عليه الصلاة والسلام الحكم فيهم إلى سعد بن معاذ أحد رؤساء الأوس[12].
وفي اختيار سعد دلالة على حكمة الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، وبعد نظره، وإدراكه لنفسيات هؤلاء القوم، لأن سعدا كان حليف بني قريظة في الجاهلية، وقد ارتاح اليهود لهذا الاختيار، وظنوا أن الرجل قد يحسن إليهم في حكمه، لكن سعداً نظر إلى الموقف من جميع جوانبه. وقدره تقدير من عاش أحداثه وظروفه. وشاهد كروبه ومآزقه وعرف النذر المستطيرة التي تراءت في الأفق فأوشكت أن تطيح بالعصبة المؤمنة لولا عناية الله عز وجل التي أنقذت الموقف..
وسعد هو نفسه الذي شفع لديهم بادئ ذي بدء ليرجعوا عن غدرهم وغيهم، لكن القوم مضوا في عنادهم لا يقدرون للنتائج عاقبة، ولا يراعون الله في حلف ولا ميثاق، ولذلك لما كلم في شأنهم أكثر من مرة قال رضي الله عنه "لقد آن لسعد ألا تأخذه في الله لومة لائم"[13].
وبعد أن أخذ رضي الله عنه المواثيق على الطرفين أن يرضى كل منهما بحكمه[14] أمر بني قريظة أن ينزلوا من حصونهم وأن يضعوا السلاح ففعلوا، ثم قال: "إني أحكم أن تقتل مقاتليهم وتسبى ذريتهم وأموالهم، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: لقد حكمت بحكم الله تعالى من فوق سبع أرقعة[15]، أي سموات.. وأمر عليه الصلاة والسلام بتنفيذ الحكم فسيقوا إلى خنادق في المدينة، فقتل رجالهم وسبي نساؤهم وذرا ريهم ومن لم ينبت من أولادهم ولاقى بنو قريظة أسوأ مصير على أفظع خيانة.. وهذا مصداق قول الله عز وجل: { وَأَنْزَلَ الَّذِينَ ظَاهَرُوهُمْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ مِنْ صَيَاصِيهِمْ وَقَذَفَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمُ الرُّعْبَ فَرِيقاً تَقْتُلُونَ وَتَأْسِرُونَ فَرِيقاً. وَأَوْرَثَكُمْ أَرْضَهُمْ وَدِيَارَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ وَأَرْضاً لَمْ تَطَأُوهَا وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيراً } (الأحزاب الآية 26. 27)..
وهنا يحلو للبعض أن يتقولوا على الإسلام. وأن يتطاولوا على تصرف الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم ومعاملته لبني قريظة ويعتبروا أن الإعدام الجماعي الذي تم لهؤلاء الناس يتسم بالوحشة والقسوة، وأنه كان من الممكن أن يعاقبوا بأي عقاب آخر كالإجلاء أو النفي..
ونقول لهؤلاء:
أولاً: ماذا لو أن نتيجة غزوة الأحزاب تمت حسبما كان يخطط لها بنو قريظة وأحزابهم، ألم تكن هي الإبادة التامة للمسلمين أجمعين.
على أن اليهود لم يقدِموا على هذا العمل الخسيس إلا بعد أن تكون لديهم ما يشبه اليقين بأنهم- بمساعدة المشركين- سوف يقومون بتدمير الكيان الإسلامي تدميراً كاملاً، واستئصال شأفة المسلمين استئصالاً كلياً، ولهذا لم يترددوا في الغدر بحلفائهم المسلمين وعلى تلك الصورة البشعة[16] .
ولقد كانوا حريصين الحرص كله على المصير إلى هذه النتيجة. حتى لقد طلبوا من الأحزاب والمشركين أن يسلموا إليهم سبعين شاباً من أبنائهم رهائن عندهم ليضمنوا أن جيوش الأحزاب لن تنسحب من منطقة المدينة إلا بعد أن تفرغ من المسلمين وتقضي عليهم قضاء تاماً[17]..
على أن اليهود ترددوا في الاشتراك مع صفوف المشركين في بداية الأمر وأخذ كعب بن أسد القرظي يقول لحيي بن أخطب الذي جاءه يغريه بالانضمام إليهم أخذ يقول له: "إنك امرؤ مشئوم وإني قد عاهدت محمداً فلست بناقض ما بيني وبينه[18] لكنهم لما تلقوا تأكيدات تفيد أن وضع المسلمين يائس، وأنهم لن يصمدوا طويلاً أمام تلك الأعداد الضخمة سارعوا بالانضمام إليهم، فاليهود - لا قدر الله- لو أمكنهم القدر من رقاب المسلمين ما ترددوا لحظة في القتل والإبادة تمشياً مع مزاجهم الدموي الذي لا يرى بأسا في قتال الآخرين واستحلال دمه { ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا لَيْسَ عَلَيْنَا فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ سَبِيلٌ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ } (آل عمران الآية 75).
وفي سفر التثنية : "حين تقترب من مدينة لكي تحاربها استدعها للصلح فإن أجابتك وفتحت لك فكل الشعب الموجود فيها يكون لك للتسخير ويستعبد لك، وإن لم تسالمك بل عملت معك حرباً فحاصرها، وإذا دفعها الرب إلهك إلى يدك فاضرب جميع ذكورها بحد السيف، وأما النساء والأطفال والبهائم وكل ما في المدينة كل غنيمتها فتغتنمها لنفسك، وتأكل غنيمة أعدائك التي أعطاك الرب إلهك، هكذا تفعل بجميع المدن البعيدة منك جداً، التي ليست من مدن هؤلاء الأمم هنا، وأما مدن هؤلاء الشعوب التي يعطيك الرب إلهك نصيباً فلا تستبق منها نسمة ما بل تحرمها تحريماً[19] أي تستأصلها استئصالاً.
ولذلك يعلق مولانا محمد علي، على هذا النص في كتابه ((حياة محمد ورسالته)) بقوله ((وهكذا حكم سعد وفقا للشريعة الموسوية بقتل ذكور بني قريظة وبسبي نسائهم وأطفالهم وبمصادرة ممتلكاتهم.. ومهما بدت هذه العقوبة قاسية، فقد كانت على درجة الضبط للعقوبة التي كان اليهود ينزلونها- تبعاً لتشريع كتابهم- بالمغلوبين من أعدائهم، فأي اعتراض على قسوة هذه العقوبة هو في الواقع انتقاد لا شعوري للشريعة الموسوية، وتسليم بأن شريعة أكثر إنسانية يجب أن تحل محلها، وأيما مقارنة بالشريعة الإسلامية في هذا الصدد خليق بها أن تكشف- في وضوح بالغ- أي قانون رفيق عطوف رحيم قدمه الإسلام إلى الناس"[20].
ثانياً: أن اليهود لم يلقوا من المسلمين طيلة الأعوام التي تلت المعاهدة إلا كل بر ووفاء، كما شهدوا أنفسهم بذلك، فعندما ذهب حيي بن أخطب إلى كعب بن أسد القرظي يغريه بنقض العهد مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: دعني وما أنا عليه فإني لم أر من محمد إلا صدقاً ووفاءً[21].. لكنه لم يزل به حتى أقنعه بالخيانة ونقض العهد.
ثالثاً: هذا الحكم وإن كان صادراً من سعد بن معاذ، إلا أنه بمثابة الحكم الصادر من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إذ هو أقره، وتقرير الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم كقوله وفعله مما هو معروف عند أهل الحديث.. ورسول الله لا ينطق عن الهوى، فكأن ذلك هو حكم الله والرسول في هؤلاء الخونة الغادرين، ولذلك قال عليه الصلاة والسلام لسعد، لقد حكمت فيهم بحكم الله من فوق سبعة أرقعة[22]، وفي رواية الطبري: لقد حكمت فيهم بحكم الله وحكم رسوله[23]..
ثم أليس جبريل عليه السلام هو الذي وقف على النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام وهو يغسل رأسه إبان مرجعه من غزوة الأحزاب ويأمره بالمسير إلى بني قريظة ويقول له إن الله يأمرك يا محمد بالمسير إلى بني قريظة، فإني عامد إليهم فمزلزل أركانهم، وفي رواية: "قم فشد عليك سلاحك فو الله لأدقنهم كدق البيض على الصفا[24]..
فعلام يدل هذا إلا أن يكون الهلاك التام والعقاب الصارم من رب العالمين لكل مجرم خائن. رابعاً: أن قانون أي دولة الآن يحكم بالإعدام على من يخون وطنه ويقيم اتصالات مع العدو أو يتجسس لحسابه، ويقول أحد الكتاب المعاصرين، لو درس الذين يطعنون في حكم سعد على بني قريظة القوانين المعاصرة دراسة نافذة وطبقوها على قضية بني قريظة لرأوا أن قوانين القرن العشرين لا تختلف في شيء عما أصدره سعد بن معاذ، لقد كان بين الرسول وبين يهود بني قريظة معاهدة تحفظ حقوق الفريقين وتقضي على كل فريق أن ينصر الآخر إذا واجهه خطر في حرب، ولكن اليهود تآمروا فانضموا إلى أعدائه وأوقعوه بين شقي الرحى في المدينة مصطليا بنار أعدائه المشركين من جهة واعتداء حلفائه اليهود في ساعته العسرة من جهة ثانية فاقترفوا بذلك الغدر ثلاث جرائم :
1- رفع السلاح ضد سلطان المدينة مع الأجنبي المعتدي.
2- دس الدسائس لدى العدو ضد المسلمين.
3- تسهيل دخول العدو للبلاد.
وقوانين العقوبات العصرية تجعل الإعدام عقوبة كل جريمة من الجرائم الثلاث[25].
خامسا: قد يقال: كان من الممكن أن يعامل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يهود بني قريظة كما يعامل القائد المنتصر رجال جيش عدوه الذي انهزم أَمامه واستسلم، أو يعاملهم كما عامل يهود بني النضير وبني قينقاع.. والجواب على ذلك أن بني قريظة لم يكونوا أسرى حرب حتى يميل بهم إلى الشفقة، ولم يكونوا في حالة حرب مع المسلمين، وإنما كانوا جيرانا متحالفين يشكلون مع المسلمين وحدة وطنية ملزمة بالدفاع المشترك عن المدينة ضد أي عدوان، لكنهم ظهروا أخطر من الأعداء، وشراً منهم، إذ يبيتون لأناس يأمنونهم ويخصونهم بحقوق الجار، وواجبات الذمام، فكانوا بمثابة الخائن المتآمر المتواطئ مع العدو على أمته ووطنه في حالة الحرب القائمة وهذه خيانة عظمى ليس لها في جميع الشرائع إلا الإعدام السريع.. وموقفهم هنا يختلف اختلافا واضحا عن موقف بني قينقاع وبني النضير، فالأولون قد أبدوا البغضاء من أفواههم وأشاعوا الرعب والشكوك ورأوا في الدعاية المغرضة سلاحا لا يفل..
وبنوا النضير ائتمروا على قتل الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، وتحالفوا مع بعض المنافقين على المناجزة دون أن تتيح لهم الفرصة طريقا يصلون منه إلى التنفيذ، وهؤلاء وأولئك أَهون خطبا من الذين سلوا السيوف ووقفوا في صفوف العدو وأوقعوا الهلع في قلوب يحيط بها الروع من كل ناحية، فتعادل الكفتين بينهما طيش لا يقره إنصاف، وقد جلا بنو قينقاع وبنو النضير عن المدينة، فكانوا مثار القلق والفتنة ومبعث الضيق للمسلمين فهم الذين حزبوا الأحزاب وجمعوا القبائل مع المشركين ليوم الخندق فأعطوا بمؤامراتهم المزعجة محمداً درسا حاسما يحتم استئصال شأفتهم، وتتبع أفاعيهم في كل مكمن، ليطفئ لهيبا يستعر إذا هبت عليه الريح[26].
فعلى الذين يستبشعون الحكم على بني قريظة، ويصفونه بأنه كان قاسيا شديدا، عليهم أن يحيطوا علما بجوانب الموضوع وظروف القضية ليدركوا أن اليهود هم الذين جروا الوبال على أَنفسهم (وعلى نفسها جنت براقش) والله يقول الحق وهو يهدي السبيل.
----------
[1] مجموعة الوثائق السياسية للعهد النبوي والخلافة الراشدة د/ محمد حميد الله ط ثالثة سنة 1389.
[2] سيرة ابن هشام جـ1/51 ط ثانية سنة 1375.
[3] المرجع السابق.
[4] المرجع السابق جـ2/217 ط ثانية.
[5] السيرة لابن هشام جـ2/22 ط ثانية.
[6] السيرة النبوية لابن هشام جـ 2/222 ط ثانية.
[7] المرجع السابق. نفس الصحيفة.
[8] في ظلال القرآن جـ21/548 ط سابعة سنة 1391هـ.
[9] السيرة لابن هشام جـ2/232 ط ثانية.
[10] صحيح البخاري، باب مرجع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من الأحزاب.
[11] تاريخ الرسل والملوك للطبري جـ2/583 والسيرة لابن هشام جـ2/234.
[12] تاريخ الرسل والملوك جـ2/586.
[13] المرجع السابق 587.
[14] تاريخ الرسل والملوك جـ2/587.
[15] الطبقات الكبرى جـ2/75 ط بيروت 1376.
[16] غزوة بني قريظة – محمد أحمد باشميل – 243.
[17] السيرة الحلبية جـ2/347 ط التجارية سنة 1382.
[18] عيون الأخبار لابن سيد الناس جـ2/59.
[19] سفر التثنية – الإصحاح العشرون 1: .
[20] حياة محمد ورسالته ص 175 نقلا عن غزوة بني قريظة / محمد أحمد باشميل 179.
[21] البداية والنهاية 4/13 ط 1966.
[22] السيرة لابن هشام جـ 2/24 ط ثانية.
[23] تاريخ الرسل والملوك جـ 2/587.
[24] عيون الأثر لابن سيد الناس جـ 2/68 ط دار المعرفة بلبنان.
[25] غزوة بني قريظة – محمد أحمد باشميل نقلا من مقال للدكتور محمد رجب البيومي بمجلة الحج العدد 12 السنة 88.
[26] المرجع السابق – 274.
عن موقع القلم
===================
رد الشيخ محمد الغزالي على شبهة تعدد زوجات الرسول عليه الصلاه والسلام
شبهة تعدد زوجات الرسول
الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله
كل من قرأ بإنصاف عن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وعرف سيرته لا يملك إلا أن يثني على هذا الرجل العظيم ،الذي أفنى حياته في سبيل الله ،وتبليغ رسالته ،والعارف بسيرته صلى الله عليه وسلم ليعلم أنه لم يكن صاحب شهوة ،فقد تزوج من السيدة خديجة وهو ابن خمس وعشرين ،وكانت هي في الأربعين من عمره،ولم يتزوج معها غيرها طيلة حياتها ،وقد ماتت وهو فوق الخمسين ،فهل من المعقول أن الزواج بعد الخمسين كان لشهوة،بعد أن أمضى زهرة شبابه مع امرأة عجوز؟!!
ثم إن الأمانة التي تحملها النبي صلىالله عليه وسلم لم تكن لتترك له فرصة أن يستمتع بحياته كمااستمتع الآخرون.
واللآئي تزوجهن الرسول صلىالله عليه وسلم كلهن باستثناء عائشة سبق لهن الزواج ،فلو كان يبغي الشهوة والجمال لتزوج الحسان ،وهو نبي الأمة !!
والقارئ لقصة زواجه ليعلم أنه ما تزوج لشهوة ،وإنما كان تخفيفًا عن اللائي تزوجهن،وحفاظا عليهن من صروف الزمان .
يقول الشيخ محمد الغزالي رحمه الله :
انطلقت هذه الشائعة بين الأوروبيين حتى كادت تكون بينهم يقينًا! قالوا: كان لمحمد تسع نسوة يتقلب في أحضانهن ويشبع شبابه المنهوم، لا يسأم من واحدة حتى يتجدد هواه مع أخرى.. وقالوا: إن ساغ ذلك لواحد من الناس فما يسوغ من داع إلى الروحانية يصل الناس بالسماء، ويحدثهم عن الله والدار الآخرة!.
إن هذا العشق المشبوب للمرأة له دلالة واسعة، فالرجل رجل دنيا وليس رجل دين، وما نصدق مزاعمكم معشر المسلمين عن تجرده وتقواه.
قلت: إذا كان ما قلتموه صحيحًا فما استنتجتموه حق! لكن هذا الذي ذكرتم لون من تحريف الكلم عن مواضعه يجعله أدنى إلى الكذب.. إن تاريخ محمد من ألسنة العدو والصديق يشهد بغير ما ذكرتم، فقد تزوج في الخامسة والعشرين من عمره بامرأة في الأربعين من عمرها، وظل معها وحدها قريبًا من ثمان وعشرين سنة حتى ماتت فأين هذه المتع التي تصفون؟.
عندما كان في الأربعين من عمره كانت شيخة في الخامسة والخمسين، وعندما كان في الثالثة والخمسين كانت تقترب من السبعين فأين الحسناوات اللاتي يتنقل بين صدورهن كما تزعمون؟ وهو كما يقرر العدو قبل الصديق لا يعرف إلا الوفاء للسيدة العجوز التي قضى معها شبابه كله.
ثم ماتت زوجته خديجة في عام أطلق عليه عام الحزن، فاستقدم إلى داره امرأة تقاربها في السن هي التي هاجرت معه إلى المدينة..
وصحيح أنه في السنوات العشر الأخيرة من حياته اجتمعت لديه نسوة أخريات! من هن؟ مجموعة من الأرامل المنكسرات أحاطت بهن ظروف صعبة، لم يشتهرن بالجمال ولا كان لهن من السن المبكرة ما يحدد الحياة اللهم إلا بكرًا واحدة بنت صديقه أبي بكر تزوجها توثيقًا لعلاقاتهما. وتزوج بعدها حفصة بنت صديقه عمر، ولم تعرف بجمال، بل بدا أن البناء بها بعد موت زوجها كان جبر خاطر ودعم مودة وجهاد!!..
وتزوج أم حبيبة المهاجرة إلى الحبشة، إنه لم يرها هناك بيد أنه يعرف إسلامها برغم أنف أبيها زعيم المشركين يومئذ، وبقاءها على الإسلام برغم أنف زوجها الضائع فهل يتركها في وحشتها وعزلتها؟ لقد أرسل يخطبها ويعز جانبها.
وكلما أحاطت ظروف سيئة بامرأة ذات مكانة، ضمها إليه، وما كان للشهوة موضع يلحظ، وأدركت النسوة القادمات هذه الحقيقة، وعرفن أن هذا الوضع فوق طاقة الإنسان العادي، فعرض بعضهن في صراحة أن يبقى منتسبًا للبيت النبوي مكتفيًا بهذا الشرف، ومتنازلاً عن حظ المرأة من الرجل، فإن الرسول آواهن مستجيبًا لنداء إنساني لا لبواعث الغريزة! أين مكان الغريزة والحالة على ما شرحنا؟
وفي استبقاء أولئك الزوجات على ما ارتضين نزلت آيات كريمة. منها قوله تعالى: "وإن امرأة خافت من بعلها نشوزًا أو إعراضًا فلا جناح عليهما أن يصلحها بينهما صلحًا. والصلح خير" ومنها قوله "ترجي من تشاء منهن وتؤوي إليك من تشاء. ومن ابتغيت ممن عزلت فلا جناح عليك. ذلك أدنى أن تقر أعينهن ولا يحزن ويرضين بما آتيتهن كلهن..".
إنه لا يستطيع إلا ذلك، فإن دوافع الشهوة كانت ميتة وراء هذا التعدد الذي فرضته أزمات أحاطت ببعض المؤمنات العريقات..
ولنفرض جدلاً أن الإعجاب بالجمال هو الذي أوحى بتزوج بعضهن، أفكانت أيام الحصار المضروب على الدعوة، والأزمات الخانقة التي يتعرض لها المسلمون عامة، وأهل البيت النبوي خاصة، تيسر للمؤمنين ونبيهم طعم الراحة؟ ما أشقى ربات البيت عندما يكون رب البيت أبًا لأمة كبيرة وملاذًا للمستضعفين واللاجئين وناشدي العون في الصباح والمساء، إنه يؤثر غيره بما لديه ويبيت هو واللاتي معه – على الطوى..
روى البخاري ومسلم عن عائشة قالت: ما شبع آل محمد من خبز الشعير يومين متتابعين حتى قبض رسول الله –صلى الله عليه وسلم-..
وعند مسلم قالت عائشة: لقد مات رسول الله وما شبع من خبز وزيت في يوم واحد مرتين..
وعند الترمذي، قال مسروق: دخلت على عائشة فدعت لي بطعام وقالت: ما أشبع فأشاء أن أبكي إلا بكيت! قلت: لم؟ قالت: أذكر الحال التي فارق عليها رسول الله الدنيا! والله ما شبع من خبز ولحم مرتين في يوم!
وعند البيهقي قالت: ما شبع رسول الله ثلاثة أيام متوالية، ولو شئنا لشبعنا، ولكنه كان يؤثر على نفسه!
وعند الطبراني ما كان ما كان يبقى على مائدة رسول الله شيء من خبز الشعير قليل ولا كثير! قال الحسن: "كان رسول الله –صلى الله عليه وسلم- يواسي الناس بنفسه، حتى جعل يرقع إزاره بالأدم" ما أكثر العفاة الطارقين، يلتمسون المطعم والملبس!!
وكان الناس ربما اقتحموا البيت النبوي قبل إعداد الطعام بوقت طويل، أو جلسوا بعد الفراغ منه وقتًا طويلاً، ولا ريب أن ذلك كان يشق على رسول الله –صلى الله عليه وسلم- ويجد منه الحرج فلم يكن بد من تنزل الوحي الإلهي يضع نظامًا صارمًا لهذا التسيب قال تعالى: "يأيها الذين آمنوا لا تدخلوا بيوت النبي إلا أن يؤذن لكم إلى طعام غير ناظرين إناه، ولكن إذا دعيتم فادخلوا، فإذا طعمتم فانتشروا ولا مستأنسين لحديث إن ذلكم كان يؤذي النبي فيستحي منكم والله لا يستحي من الحق..".
إن زوجات النبي –صلى الله عليه وسلم- تعبن معه طويلاً في خدمة المجتمع وتعليم الناس ومعاونة الضعفاء واستقبال الوفود.
وكان مألوفًا أن يصحو النبي للصلاة، ويصلي بالناس في المسجد ثم يعود إلى بيته ليسأل عن شيء يفطر به فلا يجده فينوي الصيام.. وربما وجد بعض الخل فلا يضجر ولا يشقى بل يقبل عليه راضيًا قائلاً: نعم الأدم الخل..!! هذا هو نهج الحياة التي يزعم الأوربيون أنها كانت تلذذًا بالنساء واستمتاعًا بالدنيا بين أحضانهن.. أين هذه الدنيا الناعمة؟؟
وقد ذكر كتاب السيرة جميعًا كيف ضاقت الزوجات بهذا الشظف، وكيف اجتمعن على المطالبة بتغييره، وكيف تطلعن إلى حياة أهدأ وأهنأ.. فلما بوغتن بالرد الصارم: هذا أو الفراق! ثابت إلى نفوسهن مشاعر الإيمان وآثرن انتظار الآخرة، والعيش في ظل النبوة المكافحة على استعجال الطيبات في هذه الدنيا..
كان مفروضًا على بيت الوحي أن يعيش كأضعف بيت في الدنيا، وأن يتحمل المقيمات به كل ما يتحمله المهاجرون الذين أخرجوا من ديارهم وأموالهم، وعاشوا من بعد على ما تيسر..
وكافأهن الله سبحانه على هذا البذل، بأن صرن أمهات للمؤمنين، وهو لقب –كما رأيت- فيه من التكليف مثل ما فيه من التشريف..
أكانت هناك ديانة أرضية أو سماوية تنهي عن تعدد الزوجات؟ أو ترى فيه أدنى شائبة؟ لا، بل إن أنبياء العهد القديم ألفوا التعدد دون حدود! والمذكور عن سليمان وحده أنه تزوج بثلاثمائة امرأة.
وليس في النصرانية نهى عن التعدد، وقد حكى "ويل ديورانت" في قصة الحضارة عن آثام الأحبار والرهبان ما يثير الاشمئزاز! فلنترك الدين إلى الفلسفة! ولننظر إلى فلاسفة الإغريق لنرى كيف يعيش قادة الفكر القديم..!
وقد كنت راغبًا عن ذكر هذه الدنايا، ولكني رأيت الطاعنين في محمد يجمعون بين قلة الحياء وكثرة الافتراء فقلت: ما بد من حمل العصا..
كتب ماجد نصر الدين في صحيفة اللواء الأردنية مقالاً عنوانه "لماذا ينهل المثقفون من تراث موبوء بالشذوذ؟" نقتطف منه هذه الجملة "إن الفلاسفة الذين يعتبرهم البعض مثله الأعلى هم لواطيون، شاذون جنسيًا، يفخرون بشذوذهم، ويتباهون بمضاجعة الغلمان!! وقد كرهت امرأة سقراط رجلها وعافت عشرته لتعلقه بأحد تلاميذه، وقس على ذلك أفلاطون الذي تعرف على سقراط وهو صغير، وسقراط مشهور بهذا الداء ومتهم بإفساد الشباب..
ويزعم أرسطو أن نسبة الشواذ في عصره تعادل نسبة الطبيعيين وقد جرت على لسانه عبارات لا نجرؤ على نقلها هنا. وتقول مؤلفة "الجنس في التاريخ: إن معظم المجتمعات حرمت اللواط، أو تجاهلته إلا اليونان، فإن البغاء المذكر كان شائعًا، ويمكن استئجار الغلمان!".
والحضارة الغربية الحديثة ورثت عن اليونان والرومان مباذل وضيعة مخزية، ومع ذلك فهي تتغافل بخبث عن عللها، وتتناسى الدنس الذي تصبح فيه وتمسى، وتبسط لسانها بالأذى في سيرة أمير الأنبياء، ومعلم الأمم الطهر والعفاف!!
ربما قال قائل: آمنا بأن تعدد الزوجات كان مألوفًا في الديانات الأرضية والسماوية حتى جاء الإسلام فوضع عليه القيود، فلماذا لم يلتزم نبي الإسلام بالعدد الذي وقف المسلمين عنده؟ ألم يجيء في الأحاديث الصحاح أنه أمر رجلاً لديه عشر زوجات أن يمسك أربعًا ويسرح الباقيات؟
قلت: سؤال صحيح! فلنتدبر الإجابة عليه! إن النسوة الست التي طلقهن صاحب العشرة سيتركن بيته ويجدن بيوتًا أخرى، فلهن حق الزواج ممن أحببن، ولا حرج على أحد في التزوج منهن!.
لكن ماذا عسى يفعل زوجات الرسول إذا كان الوحي قد نزل من قبل يقول للمسلمين: "وما كان لكم أن تؤذوا رسول الله، ولا أن تنكحوا أزواجه من بعده أبدًا إن ذلكم كان عند الله عظيمًا".
لقد صرن أمهات للمؤمنين وفق النص القائل: "النبي أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهن وأزواجه أمهاتهم.." وما كان لمؤمن أن يتزوج أمه! فهل يسوغ بعد هذا تسريحهن ليعشن في وحدة وإياس؟
ولنفرض زورًا أن تسريحهن مطلوب فهل هذا هو الجزاء الإلهي لنسوة تحملن مع صاحب الرسالة شظف العيش ومشقات الحصار المضروب على أمته؟
لقد اخترن البقاء معه عندما خيرهن، وأبين العودة إلى أهلهن في بيوت أملأ بالسمت والعسل، وحملهن الإيمان على البقاء في جو التهجد والصيام والكفاح مع النبي الذي انتصب لمقاومة الضلال في العالمين، فهل يكون الجزاء بعد هذا الوفاء الخلاص منهن؟
إن الله أذن ببقائهن، والاقتصار عليهن، وصدر لهن تشريع خاص "لا يحل لك النساء من بعد ولا أن تبدل بهن من أزواج ولو أعجبك حسنهن، إلا ما ملكت يمينك وكان الله على كل شيء رقيبًا".
وإن أسائل الهاجمين على محمد من خلال هذه الثغرة المزعومة في حياته: أهي محاكمة خاصة لهذا الإنسان الشريف؟ ومحاولة متعمدة للنيل منه وحده؟ أعرف أن مساءات كثيرة وجهت لأنبياء من قبله، وتعرض الرجال الصالحون لأقبح التهم! ألم يتهم النبي الطاهر لوط بأنه زنى بابنتيه كلتيهما بعد ما أفقدته الخمر وعيه وأنجب منهما؟ ألم يتهم النبي يعوقب بأنه سرق منصب النبوة من أخيه الأكبر عيصو بعد عملية احتيال ماكرة على أبيه الذي كف بصره؟ أم يتهم سليمان بأنه انطلق في شوارع القدس يبحث عن الحبيب المجهول ليأخذه إلى فراشه، مع أن عنده ألف امرأة؟ إن هذا البحث الماجن استغرق عدة صفحات مليئة بجمل طائشة تحت عنوان نشيد الإنشاد الذي لسليمان! من شاء قرأه في العهد القديم.
ومع جنون الاتهام الذي سيطر على كاتبي هذه الصحف، فإن المتهمين بقوا أنبياء مكرمين! أما سليمان فقد جعله اليهود ملكًا، ولكن أي ملك؟ إنه باني الهيكل الذي يجب أن يعاد بناؤه ليكون مسكنًا للرب يتجلى فيه بهاؤه ويحكم العالم كله من سدته بوساطة شعبه المختار من بني إسرائيل!
أما محمد الصوام القوام لله طوال حياته، والذي جمع آخر عمره بضع نسوة من الأرامل والمصابات عشن معه على مستويات الضرورة، وتمحضن لله والدار الآخرة فهو وحده الذي يستباح وتتوارث الضغائن عليه، ويتجمع حلف الأطلسي لحماية شاتميه!!
ومن أولئك الشاتمون الغاضبون؟ أهم رهبان وقذتهم العبادة وكبتوا حب النساء في دمائهم فهم يشتهون ويميتون شهواتهم ابتغاء رضوان الله كما يزعمون؟ كلا، إنهم أفراد وشعوب شربوا كؤوس الشهوات حتى الثمالة، ولم يتركوا بابًا للذة إلا افتتحوه دون تهيب أو حياء.
وحضارة أوروبا تميزت بأنها يسرت للدهماء من المتع ما كان حكرًا على الملوك والرؤساء فأضحى الصعلوك قادرًا على الاتصال بسبعين امرأة كلما ذاق جديدًا طلب مزيدًا ما تحجزه عن دناياه تقاليد ولا قوانين، وفي هذا الوسط من الدنس يذمون محمدًا وينالون منه! أي منطق هذا المنطق الجائر الظلوم؟
إن الإسلام لم يأمر بتعدد الزوجات، فإن الزواج ليس نشدانًا للذة فقط وإنما هو قدرة على التربية ورعاية الأسرة، فمن عجز عن ذلك كلفه الإسلام بالصوم، ونحن نوجه للأوروبيين سؤالاً لا مهرب منه: هل التعدد الذي أذن الإسلام به أفضل أم الزنى.
إنني أسائل كل منصف صادق: هل المجتمعات الأوروبية تكتفي بالواحدة أم أن التعدد قانون غير مكتوب يخضع له الكثيرون؟ وثم سؤال آخر: هل الضرورات هي التي تدفع إلى التعدد الحرام أم إن الإثارات المتعمدة في الاختلاط المطلق وفي تقاليد الرقص التي لا آخر لها من وراء هذا الفيضان من العلاقات الآثمة؟؟
وأختم هذا القول بسؤال حاسم: هل وعي التاريخ الجاد سيرة رجل أعف خلقًا وأشرف ثوبًا وأغير على الحرمات وأبعد عن الشبهات من محمد؟ ..؟.
هل حكى عن أحفال في بيته رصت فيها الموائد وعليها زجاجات الخمور، وأطايب الأطعمة، وأنواع المشهيات والهواضيم؟
لقد كانت عيدان الحصير تنطبع على جلده وهو نائم، أو جالس، فإذا ظفر مع أصحابه بالخبز واللحم عد ذلك من النعيم الذي يسأل الناس عنه يوم القيامة!!
فهل هذا النبي الفارس المخشوشن الجلد يوصف بأنه من أصحاب الشهوات ومن الذي يصفه؟ الذين ابتلاهم الله "بالإيدز" بعد ما ابتلاهم بالزهري وغيره من أمراض الإسفاف والإسراف والسقوط!!
وطاولت الأرض السماء سفاهة وعيرت الشهب الحصا والجنادل!
وقال السها للشمس أنت ضئيلة وقال الدجى للصبح: لونك حائل!
فياموت زر إن الحياة ذميمة ويا نفس جدي إن دهرك هازل
والله أعلم
شبهة : سجود المرأة لزوجها فى الإسلام
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم.
الحمد لله على ما أنعم و له الشكر على ما ألهم .
و أفضل الصلاة و أزكى التسليم على خير الخلائق أجمعين محمد و آله الطاهرين .
و اللعن الدائم المؤبد على أعدائهم أجمعين إلى قيام يوم الدين .
هل سمعت بالحديث الشريف عن الرسول الأكرم ( لو أمرت أحداً أن يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها ) ؟ ما مدى صحة هذا الحديث ؟ و ما معناه ؟ و هل فيه تحقير و إهانة للمرأة ؟ .
أولاً : أما الحديث فقد رواه الشيعة و السنة بصيغ متقاربة و حوادث متعددة , و هو حديث صحيح عند الشيعة و السنة .
ثانياً : لا يجوز السجود إلا لله تعالى , و ليس في الحديث أمر أو تجويز بأن تسجد المرأة لزوجها .
ثالثاً : الحديث يدل على عظم حق الزوج على زوجته و على لزوم طاعته .
رابعاً : ليس في الحديث أي توهين أو تحقير للمرأة , فما يتصوره بعض الناس من كون هذا الحديث منافياً لتكريم المرأة يناظر ما قاله إبليس { قَالَ أَنَا خَيْرٌ مِّنْهُ خَلَقْتَنِي مِن نَّارٍ وَخَلَقْتَهُ مِن طِينٍ } سورة ص – 76 . فإبليس رأى أن سجوده لآدم توهين و تحقير له فرفض ذلك , و كذلك بعض الناس رأى أن في هذا الحديث توهين و تحقير للمرأة فسارع إلى الطعن فيه مع أنه صحيح السند بل لو نظرنا إلى جميع مصادر المسلمين فهو متواتر .
خامساً : يدل هذا الحديث الصحيح على أن الله تعالى أعطى الرسول الأكرم – صلى الله عليه و آله – حق التشريع من عنده , و ذلك أن صيغة الحديث تدل على أن الرسول له حق أن يأمر هو لكنه لم يأمر أحداً بالسجود لبشر .
- الكافي - الشيخ الكليني ج 5 ص 507 :
6 - محمد بن يحيى ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، عن ابن محبوب ، عن مالك بن عطية ، عن سليمان بن خالد ، عن أبي عبد الله ( عليه السلام ) أن قوما أتوا رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) فقالوا : يا رسول الله إنا رأينا أناسا يسجد بعضهم لبعض فقال رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) : لو أمرت أحدا أن يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها .سند الحديث : صحيح .
- من لا يحضره الفقيه - الشيخ الصدوق ج 3 ص 438 :
4515 - وروى الحسن بن محبوب ، عن مالك بن عطية ، عن سليمان بن خالد عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال : " إن قوما أتوا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فقالوا : يا رسول الله إنا رأينا اناسا يسجد بعضهم لبعض ، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله : لو كنت آمرا أحدا أن يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها ". سند الحديث : صحيح .
- مسند احمد - الإمام احمد بن حنبل ج 3 ص 158 :
حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبى ثنا خلف بن خليفة عن حفص عن عمه أنس بن مالك قال كان أهل بيت من الأنصار لهم جمل وان الجمل استصعب عليهم فمنعهم من ظهره وان الأنصار جاؤوا إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالوا انه كان لنا جمل نسنى عليه وانه استصعب علينا ومنعنا ظهره وقد عطش الزرع والنخل فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لأصحابه قوموا فقاموا فدخل الحائط والجمل في ناحية فمشى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نحوه فقالت الأنصار يا نبي الله انه قد صار الكلب الكلب و إنا نخاف عليك صولته . فقال ليس على منه بأس , فلما نظر الجمل إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أقبل نحوه حتى خرّ ساجدا بين يديه فاخذ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بناصيته أذل ما كانت حتى أدخله في العمل فقال له أصحابه يا رسول الله هذه بهيمة لا تعقل تسجد لك ونحن نعقل فنحن أحق أن نسجد لك فقال لا يصلح لبشر أن يسجد لبشر ولو صلح لبشر أن يسجد لبشر لأمرت المرأة ان تسجد لزوجها من عظم حقه عليها والذي نفسي بيده لو كان من قدمه إلى مفرق رأسه قرحة تنبجس بالقيح والصديد ثم أستقبلته فلحسبته ما أدت حقه .
راجع أيضاً المواضع التالية من مسند أحمد بن حنبل : ج 4 ص 381 , ج 5 ص 227 ,ج 6 ص 76 .
- سنن الدارمى - عبدالله بن بهرام الدارمي ج 1 ص 342 :
( أخبرنا ) محمد بن يزيد الحزامي ثنا ححبان بن علي عن صالح بن حبان عن أبي بريدة عن أبيه قال جاء أعرابي إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال يا رسول الله ايذن لي فلأسجد لك قال لو كنت آمر أحداً يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة تسجد لزوجها .
- سنن ابن ماجة - محمد بن يزيد القزويني ج 1 ص 595 :
1852 - حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبى شيبة ثنا عفان ثنا حماد بن سلمة عن على ابن زيد بن جدعان ، عن سعيد بن المسيب ، عن عائشة ، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال " لو أمرت أحدا أن يسجد لأحد ، لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها . ولو أن رجلا أمر امرأة أن تنقل من جبل أحمر إلى جبل أسود ، ومن جبل أسود إلى جبل أحمر ، لكان نولها أن تفعل " .
في الزوائد : في إسناده على بن زيد ، وهو ضعيف . لكن للحديث طرق أخر . وله شاهدان من حديث طلق بن على . رواه الترمذي والنسائي . ومن حديث أم سلمة ، رواه الترمذي وابن ماجة .
1853 - حدثنا أزهر بن مروان . ثنا حماد بن زيد ، عن أيوب ، عن القاسم الشيباني ، عن عبد الله بن أبى أوفى ، قال : لما قدم معاذ من الشام سجد للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال " ما هذا يا معاذ ؟" قال : أتيت الشام فوافقتهم يسجدون لأساقفهم وبطارقتهم . فوددت في نفسي أن نفعل ذلك بك . فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم " فلا تفعلوا . فإنى لو كنت آمرا أحدا أن يسجد لغير الله ، لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها . والذي نفس محمد بيده ! لا تؤدى المرأة حق ربها حتى تؤدى حق زوجها. ولو سألها نفسها ، وهى على قتب ، لم تمنعه
في الزوائد : رواه ابن حبان في صحيحه . قال السندي : كأنه يريد أنه صحيح الإسناد .
- سنن الترمذي - الترمذي ج 2 ص 314 :
1169 حدثنا محمود بن غيلان أخبرنا النضر بن شميل أخبرنا محمد بن عمرو ، عن أبى سلمة ، عن أبى هريرة ، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، قال ( لو كنت آمراً أحدا أن يسجد لأحد ، لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها ) . وفى الباب عن معاذ بن جبل وسراقة بن مالك ابن جعشم وعائشة وابن عباس و عبد الله بن أبى أوفى وطلق بن على وأم سلمة وأنس وابن عمر . حديث أبى هريرة حديث حسن غريب من هذا الوجه ، من حديث محمد بن عمرو ، عن أبى سلمة ، عن أبى هريرة .
- المستدرك - الحاكم النيسابوري ج 4 ص 171 :
حدثنا على بن حمشاذ العدل ثنا محمد بن المغيرة السكرى ثنا القاسم بن الحكم العرني ثنا سليمان بن أبي سليمان عن يحيى بن أبي كثير عن أبي سلمة عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه قال جاءت امرأة إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فقالت يا رسول الله أنا فلانة بنت فلان قال قد عرفتك فما حاجتك قالت حاجتى ان ابن عمى فلان العابد قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله قد عرفته قالت يخطبني فأخبرني ما حق الزوج على الزوجة فان كان شئ اطيقه تزوجته وان لم اطقه لا اتزوج قال من حق الزوج على الزوجة ان سال دما وقيحا وصديد افلحسته بلسانها ما ادت حقه ولو كان ينبغي لبشر ان يسجد لبشر لأمرت الزوجة ان تسجد لزوجها إذا دخل عليها لما فضله الله تعالى عليها قالت والذي بعثك بالحق لا أتزوج ما بقيت في الدنيا . هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ولم يخرجاه .
أخبرنا أبو عبد الله محمد بن عبد الله الصفار ثنا احمد بن مهدى بن رستم الأصفهاني ثنا معاذ بن هشام الدستوائي حدثني ابي حدثني القاسم بن عوف الشيباني ثنا معاذ بن جبل رضي الله عنه أتى الشام فرأى النصارى يسجدون لأساقفتهم وقسيسيهم وبطارقتهم ورأى اليهود يسجدون لأحبارهم ورهبانهم وربانيهم وعلمائهم وفقهائهم فقال لأي شيء تفعلون هذا قالوا هذه تحية الأنبياء عليهم الصلاة والسلام قلت فنحن أحق أن نصنع بنبينا فقال نبي الله صلى الله عليه وآله إنهم كذبوا على أنبيائهم كما حرفوا كتابهم لو أمرت أحداً أن يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها من عظيم حقه عليها ولا تجد امرأة حلاوة الإيمان حتى تؤدى حق زوجها ولو سألها نفسها وهي على ظهر قتب . هذا حديث صحيح على شرط الشيخين ولم يخرجاه .
حدثني محمد بن صالح بن هانئ ثنا السرى بن خزيمة ثنا عبد العزيز بن الخطاب ثنا حبان بن علي عن صالح بن حبان عن عبد الله بن بريدة عن أبيه أن رجلا أتى النبي صلى الله عليه وآله فقال يا رسول الله علمني شيئا ازداد به يقينا قال فقال ادع تلك الشجرة فدعا بها فجاءت حتى سلمت على النبي صلى الله عليه وآله ثم قال لها ارجعي فرجعت قال ثم أذن له فقبل رأسه ورجليه وقال لو كنت آمر أحداً أن يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة ان تسجد لزوجها . هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ولم يخرجاه .
- السنن الكبرى - البيهقي ج 7 ص 84 :
( أخبرنا ) أبو عبد الله الحافظ ثنا على بن حمشاذ العدل ثنا محمد بن المغيرة السكرى بهمذان ثنا القاسم بن الحكم العرنى ثنا سليمان ابن داود اليمامى عن يحيى بن أبى كثير عن أبى سلمة عن أبى هريرة قال جاءت امرأة إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالت يا رسول الله انا فلانة بنت فلان قال قد عرفتك فما حاجتك قالت حاجتى إلى ابن عمى فلان العابد قال قد عرفته قالت يخطبني فأخبرني ما حق الزوج على الزوجة فان كان شيئا اطيقه تزوجته وان لم اطق لا اتزوج قال من حق الزوج على الزوجة ان لو سال منخراه دما وقيحا وصديدا فلحسته بلسانها ما ادت حقه لو كان ينبغى لبشر أن يسجد لبشر لأمرت المرأة ان تسجد لزوجها إذا دخل عليها لما فضله الله عليها قالت والذي بعثك بالحق لا اتزوج ما بقيت في الدنيا .
و راجع أيضاً الموضع التالي : ج 7 ص 291
- مجمع الزوائد - الهيثمى ج 4 ص 307 :
وعن أبى هريرة قال جاءت امرأة إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالت يا رسول الله إنى فلانة بنت فلانة قال قولى حاجتك قالت حاجتى أن فلانا يخطبني فأخبرني ماحق الزوج على زوجته فان كان شيئا أطيقه تزوجته وإن لم أطقه لا أتزوج قال إن من حق الزوج عل زوجته أن لو سال منخراه دما وقيحا فلحسته ما أدت حقه ولو كان ينبغى لبشر أن يسجد لبشر لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها إذا دخل عليها قالت والذي بعثك بالحق لا أتزوج ما بقيت في الدنيا . رواه البزار وفيه سليمان بن داود اليماني وهو ضعيف ....
وعن معاذ بن جبل أنه أتى الشام فرأى النصارى يسجدون لأحبارهم وعلمائهم وفقهائهم فقال لأي شيء تفعلون هذا قالوا هذه تحية الأنبياء قلنا فنحن أحق أن نصنع بنبينا صلى الله عليه وسلم فلما قدم على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم سجد فقال ما هذا يا معاذ قال إنى أتيت الشام فرأيت النصارى يسجدون لأساقفتهم وقسيسيهم ورهبانهم وبطارقتهم ورأيت اليهود يسجدون لأحبارهم وفقهائهم وعلمائهم فقلت أي شيء تصنعون هذا وتفعلون هذا قالوا هذه تحية الأنبياء قلت فنحن أحق أن نصنع بنبينا فقال نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنهم كذبوا على أنبيائهم كما حرفوا كتابهم لو أمرت أحداً أن يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها من عظم حقه ولا تجد امرأة حلاوة الإيمان حتى تؤدى حق زوجها ولو سألها نفسها وهى على ظهر قتب . رواه بتمامه البزار وأحمد باختصار ورجاله رجال الصحيح وكذلك طريق من طرق أحمد وروى الطبراني بعضه أيضاَ .
وعن صهيب أن معاذ بن جبل لما قدم الشام رأى اليهود يسجدون لعلمائهم وأحبارهم ورأى النصارى يسجدون لاساقفتهم ولرهبانهم وفقهائهم فلما قدم على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم سجد له فقال ما هذا يا معاذ قال إني قدمت الشام فرأيت اليهود يسجدون لعلمائها وأحبارها ورأيت النصارى يسجدون لقسيسيها وفقهائها ورهبانها فقلت ما هذا قالوا هذه تحية الانبياء قال كذبوا على أنبيائهم كما حرفوا كتابهم لو أمرت أحدا أن يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها . رواه البزار والطبراني وفيه النهاس بن فهم وهو ضعيف .
وعن زيد بن أرقم قال بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم معاذ بن جبل إلى الشام فلما قدم معاذ قال يا رسول الله رأيت أهل الكتاب يسجدون لاساقفتهم وبطارقتهم أفلا نسجد لك قال لا لو كنت آمراً أحدا أن يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها . رواه البزار والطبراني في الكبير والأوسط وأحد إسنادى الطبراني رجاله رجال الصحيح خلا صدقة بن عبدالله السمين وثقه أبو حاتم وجماعة وضعفه البخاري وجماعة .
وعن ابن عباس أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لو أمرت أحدا أن يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها . رواه البزار وفيه الحكم بن طهمان أبو عزة الدباغ وهو ضعيف .
وعن سراقة بن ملك قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لو كنت آمرا أحدا أن يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها . رواه الطبراني من طريق وهب بن على عن أبيه ولم أعرفهما ، وبقية رجاله ثقات .
وعن عائشة أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان في نفر من المهاجرين والأنصار فجاء بعير فسجد له فقال أصحابه يا رسول الله تسجد لك البهائم والشجر فنحن أحق أن نسجد لك قال أعبدوا ربكم وأكرموا أحاكم ولو كنت آمرا أحد أن يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها ولو أمرها أن تنقل من جبل أصفر إلى جبل أسود ومن جبل إلى جبل أبيض كان ينبغى لها أن تفعل قلت روى ابن ماجه بعضه بغير سياقه رواه أحمد وفيه على بن زيد وحديثه حسن وقد ضعف . وفى علامات النبوة غير حديث من هذا النحو.
وعن عصمة قال شرد علينا بعير ليتيم من الأنصار فلم نقدر على أخذه فجئنا إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فذ كرنا ذلك له فقام معنا حتى جاء الحائط الذي فيه البعير فلما رأى البعير رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أقبل حتى سجد له فقلنا يا رسول الله لو أمرتنا أن نسجد لك كما يسجد للملوك قال ليس ذاك في أمتى لو كنت فاعلا لأمرت النساء أن يسجدن لازواجهن . رواه الطبراني وفيه الفضل بن المختار وهو ضعيف .
وعن غيلان بن سلمة قال كنا مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في سفر فقال لو كنت آمراً أحداً أن يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها . رواه الطبراني وفيه شبيب بن شيبة والاكثرون على تضعيفه وقد وثقه صالح جزرة وغيره .
- مجمع الزوائد - الهيثمى ج 9 ص 4 :
عن أنس بن مالك قال كان أهل بيت من الأنصار لهم جمل يسنون عليه وانه استصعب عليهم فمنعهم ظهره وان الأنصار جاءوا إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالوا إنه كان لنا جمل نستني عليه وانه استصعب علينا ومنعنا ظهره وقد عطش الزرع والنخل فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لاصحابه قوموا فقاموا فدخل الحائط والجمل في ناحيته فمشى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نحوه فقالت الأنصار يا رسول الله قد صار مثل الكلب الكلب نخاف عليك صولته قال ليس على منه بأس فلما نظر الجمل إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أقبل نحوه حتى خر ساجدا بين يديه فأخذ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بناصيته أذل ما كانت قط حتى أدخله في العمل فقال له أصحابه يا رسول الله هذا بهيمة لا يعقل يسجد لك ونحن نعقل فنحن أحق أن نسجد لك قال لا يصلح لبشر أن يسجد لبشر ولو صلح لبشر أن يسجد لبشر لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها لعظم حقه عليها لو كان من قدمه إلى مفرق رأسه قرحة تنبجس بالقيح والصديد ثم استقبلته فلحسته ما أدت حقه . رواه أحمد والبزار ورجاله رجال الصحيح غير حفص ابن أخى أنس وهو ثقة . ...
وعن ابن عباس أن رجلا من الأنصار كان له فحلان فاغتلما فأدخلهما حائطا فسد عليهما الباب ثم جاء إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأراد أن يدعو له والنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قاعد مع نفر من الأنصار فقال يا نبي الله إني جئت في حاجة وان فحلين لي اغتلما و إني ادخلتهما حائطا وسددت عليهما الباب فأحب أن تدعوا لي أن يسخرهما الله لي فقال لأصحابه قوموا معنا فذهب حتى أتى الباب فقال افتح فأشفق الرجل على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال افتح ففتح الباب فإذا أحد الفحلين قريب من الباب فلما رأى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم سجد له فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إئتني بشيء أشد برأسه وأمكنك منه فجاء بخطام فشد رأسه وأمكنه منه ثم مشى إلى أقصى الحائط إلى الفحل الآخر فلما رآه وقع له ساجدا فقال للرجل ائتنى بشيء أشد رأسه فشد رأسه وأمكنه منه ثم قال اذهب فإنهما لا يعصيانك فلما رأى أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ذلك قالوا هذان فحلان لا يعقلان سجدا لك أفلا نسجد لك قال لا آمر أحدا ان يسجد لأحد ولو أمرت أحدا يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها . رواه الطبراني وفيه أبو عزة الدباغ وثقة ابن حبان واسمه الحكم بن طهمان ، وبقية رجاله ثقات ..... .
وعن أبى هريرة أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم دخل حائطا فجاء بعير فسجد له فقالوا نحن أحق أن نسجد لك فقال لو أمرت أحدا أن يسجد لأحد لأمرت المرأة أن تسجد لزوجها . رواه البزار وروى الترمذي طرفا من آخره وإسناده حسن .
================
نصراني يستنكر حديث أبوال الابل وألبانها
الرد :
عَنْ أَنَسٍ رَضِي اللَّهُ عَنْهُ أَنَّ نَاسًا اجْتَوَوْا فِي الْمَدِينَةِ فَأَمَرَهُمُ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنْ يَلْحَقُوا بِرَاعِيهِ يَعْنِي الابِلَ فَيَشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَلْبَانِهَا وَأَبْوَالِهَا فَلَحِقُوا بِرَاعِيهِ فَشَرِبُوا مِنْ أَلْبَانِهَا وَأَبْوَالِهَا حَتَّى صَلَحَتْ أَبْدَانُهُمْ فَقَتَلُوا الرَّاعِيَ وَسَاقُوا الإبلَ فَبَلَغَ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَبَعَثَ فِي طَلَبِهِمْ فَجِيءَ بِهِمْ فَقَطَعَ أَيْدِيَهُمْ وَأَرْجُلَهُمْ وَسَمَرَ أَعْيُنَهُمْ . رواه البخاري
أولاً : نقول لك ما قاله المسيح في إنجيل لوقا [ لوقا 6 : 41 ] : (( لماذا تنظر القذى الذي في عين اخيك .واما الخشبة التي في عينك فلا تفطن لها )) ألم يرد في كتابك المقدس أن الرب أمر نبيه ( حزقيال ) بأكل الخراء وهو البراز : (( وتأكل كعكعاً من الشعير على الخـرء الذي يخرج من الانسان وتخبزه أمام عيونهم )) [ حزقيال 4 : 12 _ 13 ]
ثانياً : العجب أنك تتكلم على نصح الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم للأعرابيين بشرب ألبان الإبل وأبوالها ولا تتكلم على ان الاعرابيين تم شفائهم فعلاً بهذه الإلبان والابوال ولم يبدوا اعتراضاً لهذا الأمر، فذكر الحديث : ( حتى صلحت ابدانهم ) وفي راوية : ( فلما صحو )
ثالثا : ان الطب شاهد بصحة هذا الحديث وليس في الحديث إلزام للأنسان بشرب ألبان الابل وأبوالها لأن الانسان لا يؤمر بأكل ما تعافه نفسه ولا بشرب ما تعافه نفسه كما ثبت عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه أباح أكل الضب ولم يأكله ، وقال : (( لم يكن بأرض قومي فأجدني أعافه ))
رابعاً : اليك الآن تجربة علمية أثبتت امكانية علاج مرض الاستسقاء بالافراز البولي للإبل :
الخرطوم ـ علي عثمان
دراسة علمية تجريبية غير مسبوقة اجرتها كلية المختبرات الطبية بجامعة الجزيرة بالسودان عن استخدامات قبيلة البطانة فى شرق السودان ( بول الابل) فى علاج بعض الامراض حيث انهم يستخدمونه شرابا لعلاج مرض (الاستسقاء ) والحميات والجروح. وقد كشف البروفسور احمد عبدالله محمدانى تفاصيل تلك الدراسة العلمية التطبيقية المذهلة داخل ندوة جامعة الجزيرة حيث ذكر ان الدراسة استمرت 15 يوما حيث اختير 25 مريضا مصابين بمرض الاستسقاء المعروف وكانت بطونهم منتفخة بشكل كبير قبل بداية التجربة العلاجية. وبدأت التجربة باعطاء كل مريض يوميا جرعة محسوبة من (بول الابل) مخلوطا بلبن الابل حتى يكون مستساغا وبعد 15 يوما من بداية التجربة أصابنا الذهول من النتيجة اذ انخفضت بطونهم وعادت لوضعها الطبيعى وشفى جميع افراد العينة من الاستسقاء. وتصادف وجود بروفسور انجليزى اصابه الذهول ايضا واشاد بالتجربة العلاجية.
وقال البروفسور احمد: اجرينا قبل الدراسة تشخيصا لكبد المرضى بالموجات الصوتية فاكتشفنا ان كبد 15 من الـ25 مريضا يحتوى (شمعا ) وبعضهم كان مصابا بتليف فى الكبد بسبب مرض البلهارسيا وجميعهم استجابوا للعلاج بـ( بول الابل) وبعض افراد العينة استمروا برغبتهم فى شرب جرعات بول الابل يوميا لمدة شهرين آخرين. وبعد نهاية تلك الفترة اثبت التشخيص شفاءهم من تليف الكبد وسط دهشتنا جميعا.
ويقول البروفسور احمد عبدالله عميد كلية المختبرات الطبية عن تجربة علاجية اخرى وهذه المرة عن طريق لبن الابل وهى تجربة قامت بها طالبة ماجستير بجامعة الجزيرة لمعرفة اثر لبن الابل على معدل السكر فى الدم فاختارت عددا من المتبرعين المصابين بمرض السكر لاجراء التجربة العلمية واستغرقت الدراسة سنة كاملة حيث قسمت المتبرعين لفئتين : كانت تقدم للفئة الاولى جرعة من لبن الابل بمعدل نصف لتر يوميا شراب على (الريق) وحجبته عن الفئة الثانية. وجاءت النتيجة مذهلة بكل المقاييس اذ ان نسبة السكر فى الدم انخفضت بدرجة ملحوظة وسط الفئة الاولى ممن شربوا لبن الابل عكس الفئة الثانية. وهكذا عكست التجربة العلمية لطالبة الماجستير مدى تأثير لبن الابل فى تخفيض او علاج نسبة السكر فى الدم.
واوضح د. احمد المكونات الموجودة فى بول الابل حيث قال انه يحتوى على كمية كبيرة من البوتاسيوم يمكن ان تملأ جرادل ويحتوى ايضا على زلال بالجرامات ومغنسيوم اذ ان الابل لا تشرب فى فصل الصيف سوى 4 مرات فقط ومرة واحدة فى الشتاء وهذا يجعلها تحتفظ بالماء فى جسمها فالصوديوم يجعلها لاتدر البول كثيرا لانه يرجع الماء الى الجسم. ومعروف ان مرض الاستسقاء اما نقص فى الزلال او فى البوتاسيوم وبول الابل غنى بالاثنين معا.
وهذا رابط باللغة الانجليزية يخدم الموضوع : http://www.answering-christianity.com/urine.htm
وآخر دعوانا أن الحمد لله رب العالمين
شبهات حول حديث الذباب
من الأحاديث التي أثيرت حولها العديد من الشبهات قديماً ولا تزال حتى اليوم تثار وتردد بصيغة أو بأخرى - على الرغم من التقدم الطبي والتكنولوجي والذي أثبت بما لا يدع مجالاً للشك تصديقها وكونها معجزة من معجزات نبينا - صلى الله عليه وسلم - أحاديث وقوع الذباب في الإناء ، مع أنها أحاديث في غاية الصحة أخرجها البخاري وغيره ، وسنقف مع هذه الأحاديث والروايات والألفاظ الواردة ، ومجمل الشبه التي أثيرت حولها ، وردود العلماء والأئمة وأجوبتهم عن ذلك كله .
روايات الحديث
روى البخاري في صحيحه عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه أن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - قال : ( إذا وقع الذباب في شراب أحدكم فليغمسه ثم لينزعه ، فإن في إحدى جناحيه داء والأخرى شفاء ) ، وفي رواية : ( إذا وقع الذباب في إناء أحدكم فليغمسه كله ثم ليطرحه ، فإن في أحد جناحيه شفاء وفي الآخر داء ) .
وروى الإمام أحمد عن أبي سعيد الخدري أن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - قال: ( إذا وقع الذباب في طعام أحدكم فامقلوه ) وفي رواية ( فإنه يقدم السم ويؤخر الشفاء ) ، وفي رواية لأبي داود : ( وإنه يتقي بجناحه الذي فيه الداء شبهات حول الحديث
طعن أهل البدع والضلال قديماً في صحة هذا الحديث بحجة أنه مخالف للعقل والواقع ، وأثاروا حوله العديد من الشبه ، فانبرى للرد عليهم ودحض شبهاتهم أئمة الحديث وعلماؤه الذين جمعوا بين المعقول والمنقول فبينوا فساد تلك الشبه وبطلانها بالأدلة البينة والحجج الدامغة ، ومن أولئك الإمام ابن قتيبة الدينوري رحمه الله فقد ذكر في كتابه " تأويل مختلف الحديث " أنه حديث صحيح ، وأنه روي بألفاظ مختلفة ، وذكر أن الطعن في الأحاديث بغير وجه حق يعتبر انسلاخاً من الإسلام وتعطيلاً للأحاديث ، وأن دفع الأخبار والآثار مخالف لما جاء به الرسول - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ولما درج عليه الخيار من صحابته والتابعين .
ومن أولئك أيضاً الإمام الطحاوي رحمه الله في كتابه " مشكل الآثار ، والإمام الخطابي في " معالم السنن " ونقله عنه الحافظ في الفتح ، والإمام ابن القيم في " زاد المعاد " وغيرهم ، وجاء بعض المعاصرين فطعنوا في هذا الحديث كما طعن فيه أسلافهم من أهل الابتداع قبلهم ، وزادوا شبهاً من عند أنفسهم أنتجتها عقولهم السقيمة التي جهلت حرمة النصوص ، وأساءت فهمها ، فسارعت إلى إنكارها والطعن فيها كما هو منهجها مع كل نص لا يتماشى مع أهوائهم وعقولهم ، ويمكن تلخيص شبهاتهم حول الحديث في جملة أمور :
الأول : أن إخراج البخاري للحديث لا يمنع من التماس علة في رجاله تمنع من صحته ، وهذه العلة - كما زعموا - هي كونه من رواية أبي هريرة وقد ردوا له أحاديث كثيرة ، وكذلك انفراد ابن حنين به ، وقد تكلم فيه من وجوه عدة .
الثاني : أنه حديث آحاد يفيد الظن ، فلا إشكال في رده ، وهو غريب عن التشريع لأنه ينافي قاعدة تحريم الضار ، واجتناب النجاسة ، وغريب عن الرأي لأنه يفرق بين جناحي الذباب ، فيدعي أن أحدهما به سم ضار ، والآخر ترياق نافع .
الثالث : أن العلم يثبت بطلانه لأنه يقطع بمضار الذباب .
الرابع : أن موضوع متنه ليس من عقائد الإسلام ولا من عباداته ، ولا من شرائعه ، ولا التزم المسلمون العمل به ، بل لم يعمل به أحد منهم لأنه لا دخل له في التشريع ، وإنما هو في أمور الدنيا كحديث " تأبير النخل " ، وبالتالي من ارتاب فيه لم يضع من دينه شيئاً.
الخامس: أن تصحيحه من المطاعن التي تنفر عن الإسلام ، وتكون سبباً في ردة بعض ضعاف الإيمان ، كما أنه يفتح على الدين شبهة يستغلها الأعداء .
ادعاء أن الحديث معلول :
أما ما يتعلق بالشبهة الأولى فإن البخاري رحمه الله لم ينفرد بإخراج هذا الحديث ، كما أن أبا هريرة لم ينفرد بروايته عن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ، وكذلك عبيد ابن حنين لم ينفرد بروايته عن أبي هريرة .
فالحديث أخرجه البخاري و أبو داود و ابن ماجه ، و الدارمي و البيهقي ، و ابن خزيمة ، و أحمد ، و ابن حبان ، و البغوي و ابن الجارود من حديث أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه .
وأخرجه النسائي ، و ابن ماجه ، و البيهقي ، و أحمد ، و ابن حبان ، و البغوي من حديث أبي سعيد رضي الله عنه .
كما أخرجه البزار و الطبراني من حديث أنس بن مالك رضي الله عنه .
ورواه عن أبي هريرة جماعة من التابعين ، وهم عبيد بن حنين ، و سعيد المقبري ، و ثمامة بن عبد الله بن أنس ، و أبو صالح ، و محمد بن سيرين .
ولو لم يرد هذا الحديث إلا في صحيح البخاري ، لكان ذلك كافياً للحكم عليه بالصحة لما علم من إجماع الأمة على تلقي أحاديثه بالقبول ، ولم يستدرك هذا الحديث على البخاري أحد من أئمة الحديث ، ولم يقدح في سنده أي منهم ، بل هو عندهم مما جاء على شرط البخاري في أعلى درجات الصحة .
وحتى لو تفرد به أبو هريرة لما كان لطعنهم فيه من سبيل وحجة ، لما ثبت من حجيته وجلالته وحفظه ، ويمكن مراجعة ما كُتب حول هذا الصحابي الجليل في موضوع سابق بعنوان ( أبو هريرة الصحابي المفترى عليه ) .
وأما عبيد بن حنين فهو ثقة لا مطعن فيه ، ولم يذكره الحافظ في مقدمة الفتح فيمن تُكُلِّم فيهم من رجال البخاري ، وحتى لو فرض أنه تفرد برواية الحديث عن أبي هريرة لقبل تفرده لأن تفرد مثله لا يقدح في صحة الحديث .
وأما كونه من أخبار الآحاد ، فإن الأدلة شاهدة من كتاب الله ، وحديث النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وأقوال السلف ، بل وإجماعهم - كما نقله غير واحد كالشافعي و النووي و الآمدي وغيرهم - على الاحتجاج بحديث الآحاد ، وقبول الاستدلال به في العقائد والعبادات على حد سواء ، وهي أدلة كثيرة لا تحصى ، وليس هذا مجال سردها ، وقد سبق الكلام عنها في مواضيع مستقلة بعنوان ( حجية خبر الآحاد ، والشبهات حوله ) ( حديث الآحاد حجة في العقائد والأحكام ) يمكن للقارئ الكريم الرجوع إليها ، ففيها الكلام مستوفى .
غرابته عن الرأي والتشريع
وأما الادعاء بأنه غريب عن التشريع لأنه ينافي قاعدة تحريم الضار واجتناب النجاسة ، فيرده بأن الحديث لم ينف ضرر الذباب بل أثبت ذلك حيث ذكر أن في أحد جناحيه داء ، ولكنه زاد ببيان أن في الآخر شفاء ، وأن ذلك الضرر يزول إذا غمس الذباب كله .
قال ابن القيم رحمه الله في زاد المعاد ( 4/112) : " واعلم أن في الذباب عندهم قوة سمية يدل عليها الورم ، والحكة العارضة عن لسعه ، وهي بمنزلة السلاح ، فإذا سقط فيما يؤذيه ، اتقاه بسلاحه ، فأمر النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم- أن يقابل تلك السمية بما أودعه الله سبحانه في جناحه الآخر من الشفاء ، فيغمس كله في الماء والطعام ، فيقابل المادة السمية المادة النافعة ، فيزول ضررها ، وهذا طب لا يهتدي إليه كبار الأطباء وأئمتهم ، بل هو خارج من مشكاة النبوة ، ومع هذا فالطبيب العالم العارف الموفق يخضع لهذا العلاج ، ويقر لمن جاء به بأنه أكمل الخلق على الإطلاق ، وأنه مؤيد بوحي إلهي خارج عن القوة البشرية " .
والقول بنجاسة الذباب لا دليل عليه ، لأنه لا ملازمة بين الضرر والنجاسة ، ولذا كان هذا الحديث من أدلة العلماء على أن الماء القليل لا ينجس بموت ما لا نفس له سائلة فيه ، فالحديث لم يفَصِّل بين موت الذباب وحياته عند غمسه .
قال الإمام الخطابي رحمه الله في معالم السنن (5/340- 341) : " فيه من الفقه أن أجسام الحيوان طاهرة إلا ما دلت عليه السنة من الكلب وما ألحق به ، وفيه دليل على أن ما لا نفس له سائلة إذا مات في الماء القليل لم ينجسه ، وذلك أن غمس الذباب في الإناء قد يأتي عليه ، فلو كان نجسه إذا مات فيه لم يأمر بذلك ، لما فيه من تنجس الطعام وتضييع المال ، وهذا قول عامة العلماء " .أهـ .
وقال ابن القيم في زاد المعاد 4/111- 112: " هذا الحديث فيه أمران : أمر فقهي ، وأمر طبي ، فأما الفقهي ، فهو دليل ظاهر الدلالة جداً على أن الذباب إذا مات في ماء أو مائع ، فإنه لا ينجسه ، وهذا قول جمهور العلماء ، ولا يعرف في السلف مخالف في ذلك . ووجه الاستدلال به أن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - أمر بمقله ، وهو غمسه في الطعام ، ومعلوم أنه يموت من ذلك ، ولا سيما إذا كان الطعام حاراً . فلو كان ينجسه لكان أمرا بإفساد الطعام ، وهو - صلى الله عليه وسلم - إنما أمر بإصلاحه ، ثم عدى هذا الحكم إلى كل ما لا نفس له سائلة ، كالنحلة والزنبور والعنكبوت وأشباه ذلك ، إذ الحكم يعم بعموم علته ، وينتفي لانتفاء سببه ، فلما كان سبب التنجيس هو الدم المحتقن في الحيوان بموته ، وكان ذلك مفقودا فيما لا دم له سائل انتفى الحكم بالتنجيس لانتفاء علته " أهـ .
أما الادعاء بأنه غريب عن الرأي لأنه يفرق بين جناحي الذباب فيدعي أن أحدهما يحمل سماً والآخر شفاء ، فهو قول مناهض للحديث ، فرسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم- هو الذي فرق بينهما ، كما أن هذا الادعاء مخالف للواقع الذي يجوز اجتماع كثير من المتضادات في الجسم الواحد كما هو مشاهد معروف .
ولو رجع أحدهم إلى أجوبة العلماء المتقدمين عن ذلك لوجد الجواب الشافي ، قال الخطابي معالم السنن ( 5/341- 342) : " وقد تكلم على هذا الحديث بعض من لا خلاق له ، وقال : كيف يجتمع الداء والشفاء في جناحي الذبابة وكيف تعلم ذلك حتى تقدم جناح الداء وتؤخر جناح الشفاء وما أربها إلى ذلك ؟.
قلت : وهذا سؤال جاهل أو متجاهل ، وإن الذي يجد نفسه ونفوس عامة الحيوان قد جمع فيها بين الحرارة والبرودة ، والرطوبة واليبوسة ، وهي أشياء متضادة إذا تلاقت تفاسدت ، ثم يرى الله عز وجل قد ألف بينها وقهرها على الاجتماع ، وجعلها سببا لبقاء الحيوان وصلاحه ، لجدير أن لا ينكر اجتماع الداء والدواء في جزأين من حيوان واحد ، وأن الذي ألهم النحل أن تتخذ البيت العجيب الصنعة وأن تعسل فيه ، وألهم النملة أن تكتسب قوتها وتدخره لأوان حاجتها إليه هو الذي خلق الذبابة ، وجعل لها الهداية أن تقدم جناحاً وتؤخر آخر ، لما أراد من الابتلاء الذي هو مدرجة التعبد ، والامتحان الذي هو مضمار التكليف ، وفي كل شيء عبرة وحكمة وما يذكر إلا أولوا الألباب " أهـ .
وقال ابن قتيبة في " تأويل مختلف الحديث " ( 230- 231) : " فما ينكر من أن يكون في الذباب سم وشفاء ، إذا نحن تركنا طريق الديانة ورجعنا إلى الفلسفة ؟ وهل الذباب في ذلك إلا بمنزلة الحية ؟ فإن الأطباء يذكرون أن لحمها شفاء من سمها إذا عمل منه الترياق الأكبر ، ونافع من لدغ العقارب وعض الكلاب الكلبة .... إلخ .
وكذلك قالوا في العقرب : إنها إذا شق بطنها ، ثم شدت على موضع اللسعة نفعت ....إلخ
والأطباء القدماء يزعمون أن الذباب إذا ألقي في الإثمد وسحق معه ثم اكتحل به زاد ذلك في نور البصر ، وشد مراكز الشعر من الأجفان في حافات الجفون ... وقالوا في الذباب : إذا شدخ ووضع على موضع لسعة العقرب سكن الوجع .
وقالوا من عضه الكلب احتاج إلى أن يستر وجهه من سقوط الذباب عليه لئلا يقتله وهذا يدل على طبيعة فيه شفاء أو سم " أهـ .
والمهم من إيراد هذا الكلام أن اجتماع المتضادات في الجسم الواحد ليس بمستغرب شرعاً ولا حساً ولا واقعاً .
هل أثبت العلم بطلانه؟
وأما أن العلم يثبت بطلان الحديث لأنه يقطع بمضار الذباب ، فإن الحديث كما سبق لم ينف ضرر الذباب بل نص على ذلك صراحة .
وهل علماء الطب وغيرهم أحاطوا بكل شيء علماً حتى يصبح قولهم هو الفصل الذي لا يجوز مخالفته ، بل هم معترفون بأنهم عاجزون عن الإحاطة بكثير من الأمور ، وهنالك الكثير من النظريات التي كانت تؤخذ إلى عهد قريب على أنها مسلمات تبين بطلانها وخطؤها فيما بعد ، بينما الذي نطق به رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم- وحي من عند الله تعالى الذي يعلم السر وأخفى ، وأي إشكال في أن يكون الله تعالى قد أطلع رسوله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - على أمر لم يصل إليه علم الأطباء بعد ؟ وهو سبحانه خالق الحياة والأحياء { أَلا يَعْلَمُ مَنْ خَلَقَ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ } ( الملك 14) ، فلماذا لا يكون ما يحمله الذباب على جناحه من شفاء مما خفي علمه عن الأطباء اليوم ؟.
ومن قال بأن عجلة الطب قد توقفت بما لا مزيد عليه ، ولا يزال الأطباء يطلون على العالم في كل يوم باكتشافات جديدة ، وعلاجات لأمراض كانت إلى عهد قريب مستعصية ، وأدوية وعقاقير لم تكن معروفة من قبل .
وهل يتوقف إيماننا بصدق كل حديث ورد فيه أمر طبي عن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - حتى يكشف لنا الأطباء بتجاربهم صدقه أو بطلانه ؟ فأين إيماننا بالغيب إذاً ، وأين إيماننا بصدق نبوة رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ووحي الله إليه ؟!.
إن حديث رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - برهان قائم بنفسه لا يحتاج إلى دعم خارج عنه ، والذي يجب على الأطباء وغيرهم من عامة الناس هو التسليم بما جاء فيه وتصديقه ، فإن هذا هو مقتضى الإسلام والإيمان بغض النظر عن موقف الطب منه ما دام ثابتاً عن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم- .
هذا كله يقال على فرض أن الطب الحديث لم يشهد لهذا الحديث ولم يؤيد ما جاء به ، مع أن الواقع خلاف ذلك فقد وجد من الأطباء المعاصرين - لا نقول المسلمين منهم بل حتى الغربيين - من أيد مضمون ما جاء به الحديث من الناحية الطبية ، وأنه من معجزات نبينا - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وهنالك العشرات من البحوث والمقالات في هذا الجانب ،
ولسنا بصدد ذكر الأبحاث العلمية التي تفسر الحديث وجوانب الإعجاز فيه ، والخوض في تفصيلات ذلك ، فهذا له موضع آخر ، وقد سبقت الإشارة إلى شيء من ذلك عند الكلام على الإعجاز في الحديث النبوي في موضوع خاص بعنوان ( حديث الذباب ) ، وكل هذه الأبحاث تؤكد بل تجزم بعدم وجود أي تعارض بين الحديث وبين المكتشفات الطبية الحديثة .
لا دخل له في التشريع
أما الزعم بأنه ليس من عقائد الإسلام ولا من عباداته ، ولا دخل له في التشريع ، وإنما هو من أمور الدنيا التي يجوز على النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - فيها الخطأ ، كحديث " تأبير النخل " ، فالغرض منه تحقير الحديث والتهوين من أمره وتنفير الناس عنه ، وبالتالي فإن من ردَّه أو ارتاب فيه لم يؤثر ذلك على دينه في شيء ، وهو أمر في غاية الخطورة والتلبيس ، لأن أمور الدنيا منها ما هو خاضع لأحكام الشرع ، فهي داخلة تحت الأمر بطاعة رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - والنهي عن مخالفته ، وأمره - صلى الله عليه وسلم - قد يكون واجباً وقد يكون مستحباً ، وقياس حديث الذباب وغيره من أحاديث الطب النبوي على أحاديث تأبير النخل قياس غير صحيح لأن معظم أحاديث الطب إن لم تكن كلها ساقها النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - مساق القطع واليقين مما يدل على أنها بوحي من الله سبحانه وداخلة في التشريع ، فقال في حديث الذباب : ( فإن في أحد جناحيه داء وفي الآخر دواء ) فأتى بـ ( إن ) المفيدة للتأكيد ، بخلاف أحاديث تأبير النخل التي ساقها عليه الصلاة والسلام مساق الرجاء والظن لأنها في أمور الدنيا ومعايشها فقال : ( لعلكم لو لم تفعلوا كان خيرا ) وفي رواية ( ما أظن يغني ذلك شيئا ) وفرق كبير بين الأسلوبين ، ولذلك قال الإمام النووي عند شرحه لقول النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - في حديث تأبير النخل : ( وإذا أمرتكم بشيء من رأي فإنما أنا بشر ) : " قال العلماء : قوله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ( من رأي ) أي في أمر الدنيا ومعايشها لا على التشريع ، فأما ما قاله باجتهاده - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ورآه شرعاً يجب العمل به ، وليس أبار النخل من هذا النوع بل من النوع المذكور قبله " أهـ.
فما وقع في حديث التأبير كان ظناً منه - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وهو صادق في ظنه وخطأ الظن ليس كذباً ، وقد رجع عن ظنه الذي ظنه في قوله : ( إن كان ينفعهم ذلك فليصنعوه ) بخلاف ما جاء في حديث الذباب ، فإنه أخبر بأن في أحد جناحيه داء والآخر شفاء وهذا لا يكون إلا بوحي من الله تعالى ، وهو أمر لا يحتمل خلاف ما أخبر به ، ثم أمر بغمس الذباب ، بناء على العلة السابقة ، ولم يأت ما ينقض هذا الأمر ولا ذاك فوجب التسليم والإذعان وعدم الإنكار .
وادعاء أن المسلمين لم يلتزموا به ، ولم يعمل به أحد منهم ، ادعاء كاذب يخالفه ما ثبت عن بعض الصحابة والتابعين ، فقد ذكر الحافظ في الفتح أن عبد الله بن المثنى روى عن عمه ثمامة أنه حدثه قال : " كنا عند أنس فوقع ذباب في إناء ، فقال أنس بأصبعه فغمسه في ذلك الإناء ثلاثاً ثم قال : بسم الله ، وقال : إن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم- أمرهم أن يفعلوا ذلك " .
وروى أحمد من طريق سعيد بن خالد قال : " دخلت على أبي سلمة فأتانا بزبد وكتلة ، فأسقط ذباب في الطعام ، فجعل أبو سلمة يمقله بأصبعه فيه ، فقلت : يا خال ! ما تصنع ؟ فقال : إن أبا سعيد الخدري حدثني عن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - : ( إن أحد جناحي الذباب سم والآخر شفاء فإذا وقع في الطعام فأمقلوه فإنه يقدم السم ويؤخر الشفاء ) ، فأنس صحابي و أبو سلمة تابعي ، وقد عملا بمضمون هذا الحديث ، فكيف يزعم بأن أحداً من المسلمين لم يعمل به ؟ .
في تصحيح الحديث تنفير للناس عن الإسلام
وأما القول بأن تصحيح الحديث من المطاعن التي تنفر عن الإسلام ، وتكون سبباً في ردة بعض ضعاف الإيمان ، وأنه يفتح على الدين ثغرة يستغلها الأعداء للاستخفاف بالدين والمتدينين ، فهو قول يحمل في طياته استدراكاً على النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - الذي كان أحرص الناس على الدين ، وأنصح الخلق للخلق ، وأكثر العباد خشية وتقوى لله ، وهو الذي حمى جناب الإسلام ، وسد كل منافذ الطعن والقدح فيه ، وكان أحرص الناس على هداية الخلق وإبلاغهم رسالة الله ، وشريعة الله تعالى ليس فيها ما ينفر ، لأنها شريعة تقبلها القلوب السليمة ، وتقتنع بها العقول الصحيحة
فما هو وجه التنفير في الحديث ؟ وما هي الثغرة التي يفتحها على الدين حتى يستغلها أعداء الإسلام ؟ هل لأنه لا يتماشى مع أذواقنا وأمزجتنا ؟ وهل سيقف الأعداء فيما يثيرونه حول الإسلام عند حديث الذباب وسيكتفون بذلك ، ونحن نراهم يثيرون الشكوك والشبه في أمور لا تخفى على أحد ، بل حتى القرآن الذي نقل بالتواتر جيلاً بعد جيل لم تسلم نصوصه وأحكامه من شبههم وتشكيكهم ، فهل إذا رددنا حديث الذباب بل ورددنا السنة كلها ، سكيف عنا ذلك شرهم ويستجيبون لديننا ويلتزمون بشريعتنا .
لماذا هذا التنازل وهذه الانهزامية ؟ وهذه الروح الهزيلة ، التي تنطلق من موقف الضعيف الخائف مما عنده ، ما دمنا موقنين بأن ما عند الله حق ، وماجاءنا به رسولنا - صلى الله عليه وسلم - صدق ، وما يقذف به أعداء الإسلام شبه باطلة داحضة لا أساس لها من الصحة .
ثم إن الأمر بغمس الذباب في الإناء أو الطعام الذي وقع فيه ، إنما هو للإرشاد والتعليم وليس على سبيل الوجوب ، وليس في الحديث أبداً أمر بالشرب من الشراب ، ولا أمر بالأكل من الطعام بعد الغمس والإخراج ، بل هذا متروك لنفس كل إنسان فمن أراد أن يأكل منه أو يشرب فله ذلك ، ومن عافت نفسه ذلك فلا حرج عليه ، ولا يؤثر ذلك على دينه وإيمانه مادام مصدقاً بحديث رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ، والشيء قد يكون حلالاً ولكن تعافه النفس كالضب مثلاً ، فقد كان أكله حلالاً ومع ذلك عافته نفس رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ، ولم يأكل منه لأنه لم يكن بديار قومه .
والعلماء والمحدثون حين يصححون الحديث رواية ومعنىً لا يعنون عدم حض الناس على مقاومة الذباب وتطهير البيوت والطرقات ، وعدم حماية طعامهم وشرابهم منه ، كلا فالإسلام دين النظافة ودين الوقاية ، وقد جاء الإسلام بالطب الوقائي كما جاء بالطب العلاجي ، وسبق إلى كثير من المكتشفات في هذا الجانب لم يُتَوصل إليها إلا في العصور الحديثة ، ثم ماذا يقول هؤلاء بعد أن جاء العلم بتأييد هذه الأحاديث من الناحية الطبية ، فكشف عما ينطوي عليه من أسرار اعتبرها المنصفون والعقلاء من معجزات النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم .
وأخيراً وبعد هذا التطواف لعل القارئ الكريم قد ازداد يقيناً بصحة هذا الحديث رواية ودراية ، واطمأن إلى أن الإذعان والقبول لما صح عن الرسول - صلى الله عليه وسلم - هو اللائق بالمؤمن ، وأنه في كل يوم تتقدم فيه العلوم والمعارف البشرية يظهر الله من الآيات النفسية والكونية ما يدل على أن الكتاب حق من عند الله لا يأتيه الباطل من بين يديه ولا من خلفه تنزيل من حكيم حميد ، وأن الرسول - صلى الله عليه وسلم - لا ينطق عن الهوى إن هو إلا وحي يوحى ، وصدق الله حيث يقول : { سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَتَّى يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيد } ( فصلت 53) .
_________________
المراجع :
- موقف المدرسة العقلية الأمين الصادق الأمين .
- دفاع عن السنة أبو شهبة .
- الأنوار الكاشفة المعلمي .
عن الشبكة الاسلامية
أبي سعيد الخدري أن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - قال: ( ) وفي رواية ( ) ، وفي رواية : ( ) .طعن أهل البدع والضلال قديماً في صحة هذا الحديث بحجة أنه مخالف للعقل والواقع ، وأثاروا حوله العديد من الشبه ، فانبرى للرد عليهم ودحض شبهاتهم أئمة الحديث وعلماؤه الذين جمعوا بين المعقول والمنقول فبينوا فساد تلك الشبه وبطلانها بالأدلة البينة والحجج الدامغة ، ومن أولئك الإمام ابنالدينوري رحمه الله فقد ذكر في كتابه " تأويل مختلف الحديث " أنه حديث صحيح ، وأنه روي بألفاظ مختلفة ، وذكر أن الطعن في الأحاديث بغير وجه حق يعتبر انسلاخاً من الإسلام وتعطيلاً للأحاديث ، وأن دفع الأخبار والآثار مخالف لما جاء به الرسول - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ولما درج عليه الخيار من صحابته والتابعين .ومن أولئك أيضاً الإمامرحمه الله في كتابه " مشكل الآثار ، والإمامفي " معالم السنن " ونقله عنه الحافظ في الفتح ، والإمامفي " زاد المعاد " وغيرهم ، وجاء بعض المعاصرين فطعنوا في هذا الحديث كما طعن فيه أسلافهم من أهل الابتداع قبلهم ، وزادوا شبهاً من عند أنفسهم أنتجتها عقولهم السقيمة التي جهلت حرمة النصوص ، وأساءت فهمها ، فسارعت إلى إنكارها والطعن فيها كما هو منهجها مع كل نص لا يتماشى مع أهوائهم وعقولهم ، ويمكن تلخيص شبهاتهم حول الحديث في جملة أمور :الأول : أن إخراج للحديث لا يمنع من التماس علة في رجاله تمنع من صحته ، وهذه العلة - كما زعموا - هي كونه من روايةوقد ردوا له أحاديث كثيرة ، وكذلك انفرادبه ، وقد تكلم فيه من وجوه عدة .الثاني : أنه حديث آحاد يفيد الظن ، فلا إشكال في رده ، وهو غريب عن التشريع لأنه ينافي قاعدة تحريم الضار ، واجتناب النجاسة ، وغريب عن الرأي لأنه يفرق بين جناحي الذباب ، فيدعي أن أحدهما به سم ضار ، والآخر ترياق نافع .الثالث : أن العلم يثبت بطلانه لأنه يقطع بمضار الذباب .الرابع : أن موضوع متنه ليس من عقائد الإسلام ولا من عباداته ، ولا من شرائعه ، ولا التزم المسلمون العمل به ، بل لم يعمل به أحد منهم لأنه لا دخل له في التشريع ، وإنما هو في أمور الدنيا كحديث " تأبير النخل " ، وبالتالي من ارتاب فيه لم يضع من دينه شيئاً.الخامس: أن تصحيحه من المطاعن التي تنفر عن الإسلام ، وتكون سبباً في ردة بعض ضعاف الإيمان ، كما أنه يفتح على الدين شبهة يستغلها الأعداء .:أما ما يتعلق بالشبهة الأولى فإن رحمه الله لم ينفرد بإخراج هذا الحديث ، كما أنلم ينفرد بروايته عن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ، وكذلكلم ينفرد بروايته عن أبي هريرة .فالحديث أخرجهوو، وو، و، و، و، وومن حديثرضي الله عنه .وأخرجه، و، و، و، و، ومن حديثرضي الله عنه .كما أخرجهومن حديثرضي الله عنه .ورواه عنجماعة من التابعين ، وهم، و، و، و، و.ولو لم يرد هذا الحديث إلا في صحيح، لكان ذلك كافياً للحكم عليه بالصحة لما علم من إجماع الأمة على تلقي أحاديثه بالقبول ، ولم يستدرك هذا الحديث على البخاري أحد من أئمة الحديث ، ولم يقدح في سنده أي منهم ، بل هو عندهم مما جاء على شرطفي أعلى درجات الصحة .وحتى لو تفرد بهلما كان لطعنهم فيه من سبيل وحجة ، لما ثبت من حجيته وجلالته وحفظه ، ويمكن مراجعة ما كُتب حول هذا الصحابي الجليل في موضوع سابق بعنوان ( أبو هريرة الصحابي المفترى عليه ) .وأمافهو ثقة لا مطعن فيه ، ولم يذكره الحافظ في مقدمة الفتح فيمن تُكُلِّم فيهم من رجال، وحتى لو فرض أنه تفرد برواية الحديث عنلقبل تفرده لأن تفرد مثله لا يقدح في صحة الحديث .وأما كونه من أخبار الآحاد ، فإن الأدلة شاهدة من كتاب الله ، وحديث النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وأقوال السلف ، بل وإجماعهم - كما نقله غير واحدوووغيرهم - على الاحتجاج بحديث الآحاد ، وقبول الاستدلال به في العقائد والعبادات على حد سواء ، وهي أدلة كثيرة لا تحصى ، وليس هذا مجال سردها ، وقد سبق الكلام عنها في مواضيع مستقلة بعنوان ( حجية خبر الآحاد ، والشبهات حوله ) ( حديث الآحاد حجة في العقائد والأحكام ) يمكن للقارئ الكريم الرجوع إليها ، ففيها الكلام مستوفى .وأما الادعاء بأنه غريب عن التشريع لأنه ينافي قاعدة تحريم الضار واجتناب النجاسة ، فيرده بأن الحديث لم ينف ضرر الذباب بل أثبت ذلك حيث ذكر أن في أحد جناحيه داء ، ولكنه زاد ببيان أن في الآخر شفاء ، وأن ذلك الضرر يزول إذا غمس الذباب كله .قالرحمه الله في زاد المعاد ( 4/112) : " واعلم أن في الذباب عندهم قوة سمية يدل عليها الورم ، والحكة العارضة عن لسعه ، وهي بمنزلة السلاح ، فإذا سقط فيما يؤذيه ، اتقاه بسلاحه ، فأمر النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم- أن يقابل تلك السمية بما أودعه الله سبحانه في جناحه الآخر من الشفاء ، فيغمس كله في الماء والطعام ، فيقابل المادة السمية المادة النافعة ، فيزول ضررها ، وهذا طب لا يهتدي إليه كبار الأطباء وأئمتهم ، بل هو خارج من مشكاة النبوة ، ومع هذا فالطبيب العالم العارف الموفق يخضع لهذا العلاج ، ويقر لمن جاء به بأنه أكمل الخلق على الإطلاق ، وأنه مؤيد بوحي إلهي خارج عن القوة البشرية " .والقول بنجاسة الذباب لا دليل عليه ، لأنه لا ملازمة بين الضرر والنجاسة ، ولذا كان هذا الحديث من أدلة العلماء على أن الماء القليل لا ينجس بموت ما لا نفس له سائلة فيه ، فالحديث لم يفَصِّل بين موت الذباب وحياته عند غمسه .قال الإمامرحمه الله في معالم السنن (5/340- 341) : " فيه من الفقه أن أجسام الحيوان طاهرة إلا ما دلت عليه السنة من الكلب وما ألحق به ، وفيه دليل على أن ما لا نفس له سائلة إذا مات في الماء القليل لم ينجسه ، وذلك أن غمس الذباب في الإناء قد يأتي عليه ، فلو كان نجسه إذا مات فيه لم يأمر بذلك ، لما فيه من تنجس الطعام وتضييع المال ، وهذا قول عامة العلماء " .أهـ .وقالفي زاد المعاد 4/111- 112: " هذا الحديث فيه أمران : أمر فقهي ، وأمر طبي ، فأما الفقهي ، فهو دليل ظاهر الدلالة جداً على أن الذباب إذا مات في ماء أو مائع ، فإنه لا ينجسه ، وهذا قول جمهور العلماء ، ولا يعرف في السلف مخالف في ذلك . ووجه الاستدلال به أن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - أمر بمقله ، وهو غمسه في الطعام ، ومعلوم أنه يموت من ذلك ، ولا سيما إذا كان الطعام حاراً . فلو كان ينجسه لكان أمرا بإفساد الطعام ، وهو - صلى الله عليه وسلم - إنما أمر بإصلاحه ، ثم عدى هذا الحكم إلى كل ما لا نفس له سائلة ، كالنحلة والزنبور والعنكبوت وأشباه ذلك ، إذ الحكم يعم بعموم علته ، وينتفي لانتفاء سببه ، فلما كان سبب التنجيس هو الدم المحتقن في الحيوان بموته ، وكان ذلك مفقودا فيما لا دم له سائل انتفى الحكم بالتنجيس لانتفاء علته " أهـ . أما الادعاء بأنه غريب عن الرأي لأنه يفرق بين جناحي الذباب فيدعي أن أحدهما يحمل سماً والآخر شفاء ، فهو قول مناهض للحديث ، فرسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم- هو الذي فرق بينهما ، كما أن هذا الادعاء مخالف للواقع الذي يجوز اجتماع كثير من المتضادات في الجسم الواحد كما هو مشاهد معروف .ولو رجع أحدهم إلى أجوبة العلماء المتقدمين عن ذلك لوجد الجواب الشافي ، قالمعالم السنن ( 5/341- 342) : " وقد تكلم على هذا الحديث بعض من لا خلاق له ، وقال : كيف يجتمع الداء والشفاء في جناحي الذبابة وكيف تعلم ذلك حتى تقدم جناح الداء وتؤخر جناح الشفاء وما أربها إلى ذلك ؟.قلت : وهذا سؤال جاهل أو متجاهل ، وإن الذي يجد نفسه ونفوس عامة الحيوان قد جمع فيها بين الحرارة والبرودة ، والرطوبة واليبوسة ، وهي أشياء متضادة إذا تلاقت تفاسدت ، ثم يرى الله عز وجل قد ألف بينها وقهرها على الاجتماع ، وجعلها سببا لبقاء الحيوان وصلاحه ، لجدير أن لا ينكر اجتماع الداء والدواء في جزأين من حيوان واحد ، وأن الذي ألهم النحل أن تتخذ البيت العجيب الصنعة وأن تعسل فيه ، وألهم النملة أن تكتسب قوتها وتدخره لأوان حاجتها إليه هو الذي خلق الذبابة ، وجعل لها الهداية أن تقدم جناحاً وتؤخر آخر ، لما أراد من الابتلاء الذي هو مدرجة التعبد ، والامتحان الذي هو مضمار التكليف ، وفي كل شيء عبرة وحكمة وما يذكر إلا أولوا الألباب " أهـ .وقالفي " تأويل مختلف الحديث " ( 230- 231) : " فما ينكر من أن يكون في الذباب سم وشفاء ، إذا نحن تركنا طريق الديانة ورجعنا إلى الفلسفة ؟ وهل الذباب في ذلك إلا بمنزلة الحية ؟ فإن الأطباء يذكرون أن لحمها شفاء من سمها إذا عمل منه الترياق الأكبر ، ونافع من لدغ العقارب وعض الكلاب الكلبة .... إلخ .وكذلك قالوا في العقرب : إنها إذا شق بطنها ، ثم شدت على موضع اللسعة نفعت ....إلخ والأطباء القدماء يزعمون أن الذباب إذا ألقي في الإثمد وسحق معه ثم اكتحل به زاد ذلك في نور البصر ، وشد مراكز الشعر من الأجفان في حافات الجفون ... وقالوا في الذباب : إذا شدخ ووضع على موضع لسعة العقرب سكن الوجع .وقالوا من عضه الكلب احتاج إلى أن يستر وجهه من سقوط الذباب عليه لئلا يقتله وهذا يدل على طبيعة فيه شفاء أو سم " أهـ .والمهم من إيراد هذا الكلام أن اجتماع المتضادات في الجسم الواحد ليس بمستغرب شرعاً ولا حساً ولا واقعاً .وأما أن العلم يثبت بطلان الحديث لأنه يقطع بمضار الذباب ، فإن الحديث كما سبق لم ينف ضرر الذباب بل نص على ذلك صراحة . وهل علماء الطب وغيرهم أحاطوا بكل شيء علماً حتى يصبح قولهم هو الفصل الذي لا يجوز مخالفته ، بل هم معترفون بأنهم عاجزون عن الإحاطة بكثير من الأمور ، وهنالك الكثير من النظريات التي كانت تؤخذ إلى عهد قريب على أنها مسلمات تبين بطلانها وخطؤها فيما بعد ، بينما الذي نطق به رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم- وحي من عند الله تعالى الذي يعلم السر وأخفى ، وأي إشكال في أن يكون الله تعالى قد أطلع رسوله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - على أمر لم يصل إليه علم الأطباء بعد ؟ وهو سبحانه خالق الحياة والأحياء {} ( الملك 14) ، فلماذا لا يكون ما يحمله الذباب على جناحه من شفاء مما خفي علمه عن الأطباء اليوم ؟.ومن قال بأن عجلة الطب قد توقفت بما لا مزيد عليه ، ولا يزال الأطباء يطلون على العالم في كل يوم باكتشافات جديدة ، وعلاجات لأمراض كانت إلى عهد قريب مستعصية ، وأدوية وعقاقير لم تكن معروفة من قبل .وهل يتوقف إيماننا بصدق كل حديث ورد فيه أمر طبي عن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - حتى يكشف لنا الأطباء بتجاربهم صدقه أو بطلانه ؟ فأين إيماننا بالغيب إذاً ، وأين إيماننا بصدق نبوة رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ووحي الله إليه ؟!.إن حديث رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - برهان قائم بنفسه لا يحتاج إلى دعم خارج عنه ، والذي يجب على الأطباء وغيرهم من عامة الناس هو التسليم بما جاء فيه وتصديقه ، فإن هذا هو مقتضى الإسلام والإيمان بغض النظر عن موقف الطب منه ما دام ثابتاً عن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم- .هذا كله يقال على فرض أن الطب الحديث لم يشهد لهذا الحديث ولم يؤيد ما جاء به ، مع أن الواقع خلاف ذلك فقد وجد من الأطباء المعاصرين - لا نقول المسلمين منهم بل حتى الغربيين - من أيد مضمون ما جاء به الحديث من الناحية الطبية ، وأنه من معجزات نبينا - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وهنالك العشرات من البحوث والمقالات في هذا الجانب ، ولسنا بصدد ذكر الأبحاث العلمية التي تفسر الحديث وجوانب الإعجاز فيه ، والخوض في تفصيلات ذلك ، فهذا له موضع آخر ، وقد سبقت الإشارة إلى شيء من ذلك عند الكلام على الإعجاز في الحديث النبوي في موضوع خاص بعنوان ( حديث الذباب ) ، وكل هذه الأبحاث تؤكد بل تجزم بعدم وجود أي تعارض بين الحديث وبين المكتشفات الطبية الحديثة . أما الزعم بأنه ليس من عقائد الإسلام ولا من عباداته ، ولا دخل له في التشريع ، وإنما هو من أمور الدنيا التي يجوز على النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - فيها الخطأ ، كحديث " تأبير النخل " ، فالغرض منه تحقير الحديث والتهوين من أمره وتنفير الناس عنه ، وبالتالي فإن من ردَّه أو ارتاب فيه لم يؤثر ذلك على دينه في شيء ، وهو أمر في غاية الخطورة والتلبيس ، لأن أمور الدنيا منها ما هو خاضع لأحكام الشرع ، فهي داخلة تحت الأمر بطاعة رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - والنهي عن مخالفته ، وأمره - صلى الله عليه وسلم - قد يكون واجباً وقد يكون مستحباً ، وقياس حديث الذباب وغيره من أحاديث الطب النبوي على أحاديث تأبير النخل قياس غير صحيح لأن معظم أحاديث الطب إن لم تكن كلها ساقها النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - مساق القطع واليقين مما يدل على أنها بوحي من الله سبحانه وداخلة في التشريع ، فقال في حديث الذباب : () فأتى بـ ( إن ) المفيدة للتأكيد ، بخلاف أحاديث تأبير النخل التي ساقها عليه الصلاة والسلام مساق الرجاء والظن لأنها في أمور الدنيا ومعايشها فقال : () وفي رواية ( ) وفرق كبير بين الأسلوبين ، ولذلك قال الإمامعند شرحه لقول النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - في حديث تأبير النخل : ( ) : " قال العلماء : قوله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ( من رأي ) أي في أمر الدنيا ومعايشها لا على التشريع ، فأما ما قاله باجتهاده - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ورآه شرعاً يجب العمل به ، وليس أبار النخل من هذا النوع بل من النوع المذكور قبله " أهـ.فما وقع في حديث التأبير كان ظناً منه - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وهو صادق في ظنه وخطأ الظن ليس كذباً ، وقد رجع عن ظنه الذي ظنه في قوله : ( ) بخلاف ما جاء في حديث الذباب ، فإنه أخبر بأن في أحد جناحيه داء والآخر شفاء وهذا لا يكون إلا بوحي من الله تعالى ، وهو أمر لا يحتمل خلاف ما أخبر به ، ثم أمر بغمس الذباب ، بناء على العلة السابقة ، ولم يأت ما ينقض هذا الأمر ولا ذاك فوجب التسليم والإذعان وعدم الإنكار .وادعاء أن المسلمين لم يلتزموا به ، ولم يعمل به أحد منهم ، ادعاء كاذب يخالفه ما ثبت عن بعض الصحابة والتابعين ، فقد ذكر الحافظ في الفتح أن روى عن عمهأنه حدثه قال : " كنا عندفوقع ذباب في إناء ، فقالبأصبعه فغمسه في ذلك الإناء ثلاثاً ثم قال : بسم الله ، وقال : إن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم- أمرهم أن يفعلوا ذلك " .وروىمن طريققال : " دخلت علىفأتانا بزبد وكتلة ، فأسقط ذباب في الطعام ، فجعليمقله بأصبعه فيه ، فقلت : يا خال ! ما تصنع ؟ فقال : إنحدثني عن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - : ( ) ، صحابي وتابعي ، وقد عملا بمضمون هذا الحديث ، فكيف يزعم بأن أحداً من المسلمين لم يعمل به ؟ .وأما القول بأن تصحيح الحديث من المطاعن التي تنفر عن الإسلام ، وتكون سبباً في ردة بعض ضعاف الإيمان ، وأنه يفتح على الدين ثغرة يستغلها الأعداء للاستخفاف بالدين والمتدينين ، فهو قول يحمل في طياته استدراكاً على النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - الذي كان أحرص الناس على الدين ، وأنصح الخلق للخلق ، وأكثر العباد خشية وتقوى لله ، وهو الذي حمى جناب الإسلام ، وسد كل منافذ الطعن والقدح فيه ، وكان أحرص الناس على هداية الخلق وإبلاغهم رسالة الله ، وشريعة الله تعالى ليس فيها ما ينفر ، لأنها شريعة تقبلها القلوب السليمة ، وتقتنع بها العقول الصحيحة .فما هو وجه التنفير في الحديث ؟ وما هي الثغرة التي يفتحها على الدين حتى يستغلها أعداء الإسلام ؟ هل لأنه لا يتماشى مع أذواقنا وأمزجتنا ؟ وهل سيقف الأعداء فيما يثيرونه حول الإسلام عند حديث الذباب وسيكتفون بذلك ، ونحن نراهم يثيرون الشكوك والشبه في أمور لا تخفى على أحد ، بل حتى القرآن الذي نقل بالتواتر جيلاً بعد جيل لم تسلم نصوصه وأحكامه من شبههم وتشكيكهم ، فهل إذا رددنا حديث الذباب بل ورددنا السنة كلها ، سكيف عنا ذلك شرهم ويستجيبون لديننا ويلتزمون بشريعتنا .لماذا هذا التنازل وهذه الانهزامية ؟ وهذه الروح الهزيلة ، التي تنطلق من موقف الضعيف الخائف مما عنده ، ما دمنا موقنين بأن ما عند الله حق ، وماجاءنا به رسولنا - صلى الله عليه وسلم - صدق ، وما يقذف به أعداء الإسلام شبه باطلة داحضة لا أساس لها من الصحة .ثم إن الأمر بغمس الذباب في الإناء أو الطعام الذي وقع فيه ، إنما هو للإرشاد والتعليم وليس على سبيل الوجوب ، وليس في الحديث أبداً أمر بالشرب من الشراب ، ولا أمر بالأكل من الطعام بعد الغمس والإخراج ، بل هذا متروك لنفس كل إنسان فمن أراد أن يأكل منه أو يشرب فله ذلك ، ومن عافت نفسه ذلك فلا حرج عليه ، ولا يؤثر ذلك على دينه وإيمانه مادام مصدقاً بحديث رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ، والشيء قد يكون حلالاً ولكن تعافه النفس كالضب مثلاً ، فقد كان أكله حلالاً ومع ذلك عافته نفس رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ، ولم يأكل منه لأنه لم يكن بديار قومه .والعلماء والمحدثون حين يصححون الحديث رواية ومعنىً لا يعنون عدم حض الناس على مقاومة الذباب وتطهير البيوت والطرقات ، وعدم حماية طعامهم وشرابهم منه ، كلا فالإسلام دين النظافة ودين الوقاية ، وقد جاء الإسلام بالطب الوقائي كما جاء بالطب العلاجي ، وسبق إلى كثير من المكتشفات في هذا الجانب لم يُتَوصل إليها إلا في العصور الحديثة ، ثم ماذا يقول هؤلاء بعد أن جاء العلم بتأييد هذه الأحاديث من الناحية الطبية ، فكشف عما ينطوي عليه من أسرار اعتبرها المنصفون والعقلاء من معجزات النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم .وأخيراً وبعد هذا التطواف لعل القارئ الكريم قد ازداد يقيناً بصحة هذا الحديث رواية ودراية ، واطمأن إلى أن الإذعان والقبول لما صح عن الرسول - صلى الله عليه وسلم - هو اللائق بالمؤمن ، وأنه في كل يوم تتقدم فيه العلوم والمعارف البشرية يظهر الله من الآيات النفسية والكونية ما يدل على أن الكتاب حق من عند الله لا يأتيه الباطل من بين يديه ولا من خلفه تنزيل من حكيم حميد ، وأن الرسول - صلى الله عليه وسلم - لا ينطق عن الهوى إن هو إلا وحي يوحى ، وصدق الله حيث يقول : {} ( فصلت 53) ._________________المراجع : - موقف المدرسة العقلية الأمين الصادق الأمين .- دفاع عن السنة أبو شهبة . - الأنوار الكاشفة المعلمي .عن الشبكة الاسلامية
شِرْلُوك هُولْمِز والرسول الكريم؟! كيف؟
بقلم : د. إبراهيم عوض
ibrahim_awad9@yahoo.com
فى هذه المرحلة البائسة من التاريخ الإسلامى يتعرض الإسلام والمسلمون لهجمةٍ رهيبةٍ تستهدف محو كل شىء يتعلق به أو بأهله، هجمةٍ تُسْتَخْدَم فيها كل الوسائل والخطط التى لم يحلم بها الشيطان نفسه يوما من الأيام، ويتم الكذب والتدليس بشأنه علانية دون خجل أو حياء، إذ المسلمون حكوماتٍ وشعوبًا هم الآن فى أسوإ حالاتهم وأوضاعهم، وهو ما يغرى الغرب بالاعتقاد بأن هذه فرصة عظيمة لا تتكرر للعمل على تدمير هذا الدين والقضاء على أهله إن استطاع، أو على الأقل: العمل على تغيير هويتهم وانتمائهم، واجتيالهم عن معتقداتهم وعباداتهم وأخلاقهم وعاداتهم وتقاليدهم، مستخدما فى ذلك، ضمن ما يستخدم، خَوَنة المسلمين الذين يَسْهُل، عن طريق الفتات التافه الحقير مثلهم من بقايا المناصب والشهرة والمال والجنس، شراؤهم واقتيادهم من أنوفهم للقيام بمهمة "الكَبْش" الذى تُحَطَّم به أبواب القلاع والحصون، تلك المهمة التى ينهض بها هؤلاء الكِبَاش الأقذار المنحطّون بحماسة منقطعة النظير وكأنهم مؤمنون متبتلون يتقربون إلى الله لنيل رضاه لا إلى المستعمر المجرم الذى ظل يذيق أمتهم العذاب قرونًا ويسرقها ويقتّل رجالها ويعتدى على أعراض نسائها وييتّم أطفالها ويذبّحهم أيضا. وفى إطار هذه الهجمة المجرمة الشرسة ينبغى النظر إلى تلك الكتابات العجيبة التى نعرض لبعضها هنا بين الحين والحين بُغْيَةَ تنبيه الغافلين والمغفَّلين من أبناء الأمة التى تنتسب زورا إلى سيد المرسلين لعلها أن تُفِيق وتستيقظ وتنهض من رقدة العدم فتستعيد شرف الانتماء إلى دين سيد الرسل عليه السلام وتسترجع ما كان لها من عز غابر ومجد تالد بدل هذا الهوان والذل والاستخذاء الذى يحاصرها من كل جانب والذى لا يليق بها وبأعدادها وإمكاناتها المهولة وتاريخها العريض ورقيّها الذى كان ثم أصبح فى خبر "كان". ويدخل فى نطاق هذه الهجمة المقالُ الذى نترجمه اليوم ونعلّق عليه، والذى كتبه رجل فرنسى سبق أن عرضْنا له الاقتراح المجنون بنَكْت شوارع المدينة المنورة بغية التأكد من وجود "الخندق" الذى يصر بخبلٍ عقلىٍّ غريبٍ على أنه لم يكن له وجود، مما يعده برهانا لا تمكن المماراة فيه على أن محمدا نفسه لم يكن له وجود!
ولكن قبل أن نسوق ترجمة المقال المذكور ننقل تلك السطور التى قرأناها اليوم (الجمعة الموافق للثامن عشر من نوفمبر 2005م) فى صحيفة "القدس العربى" المشباكية تحت عنوان "انتفاضة البؤساء في فرنسا... الأخطر منذ 1968" للكاتب عمر نجيب، والتى تقول: "جزء من ثورة البؤساء في فرنسا نابع كذلك عن ردة الفعل علي الحملة الشرسة التي شُنَّتْ ضد الإسلام والمسلمين خاصة في أوروبا منذ هجمات 11 سبتمبر 2001 ضد الولايات المتحدة. ففي كل مكان بأوروبا استغل أنصارُ الفكر العنصري وأتباعُ الصهيونية الأحداثَ ليشنوا حملة ضد الإسلام والمسلمين. وقد وصل تردي الأوضاع إلى درجة أصبح فيها حتي على الذين لهم أسماء عربية وإسلامية مميزة أن يبدلوها إذا أرادوا أن تكون لهم حظوظ مهما كانت صغيرة للحصول علي عمل ينقذهم من البطالة. ما حدث ويحدث في فرنسا منذ الأيام الأخيرة من شهر أكتوبر 2005 ولَّد يقظة لدي بعض الحريصين علي إقامة مجتمع عادل بدون عنصرية. في هذا الإطار قال المفكر الفرنسي البارز إيف لوكوك إنه اصبح من الضروري على الغرب الآن أكثر من أي وقت مضي تجاوز عقدة الإسلام والمسلمين وإظهار احترامٍ أكبر لمعتنقي هذه الديانة في أوروبا لضمان التعايش السلمي بين الجميع. وقال المفكر الفرنسي في مقابلة مع رويترز: لم يعد مقبولا أن يتم دَوْس كرامة الآخرين وعدمُ احترام ديانتهم، وخصوصا الديانة الإسلامية التي أضحت هدفا لهجوم من الغرب بلا هوادة. وأضاف لوكوك، وهو وجه وصوت تلفزيوني معروف في فرنسا: إن ما يحدث من شَغْب في ضواحي العاصمة باريس وغيرها طبيعي بالنظر إلى عدد من العوامل التي أدت لغضب المسلمين. واعتبر لوكوك الذي اشتهر بجرأة النقد في برنامجه أعمال الشغب أمرا غير مقبول، لكن يبدو أن تراكم الإحساس بالتهميش والاحتقار وعدم احترام خصوصية المسلمين هو الذي جعل الأمر يصل إلى هذا الحد من الغضب. وانتقد المفكر الفرنسي أداء حكومة باريس في إدارة هذه الأزمة قائلا: من الأفضل معالجة المسألة بالاستماع إلى الجالية المسلمة وتوفير مقومات العيش الجيد لها، وخصوصا توفير مزيد من فرص العمل عِوَضَ الالتجاء الفوضوي إلى القوة مباشرة لردع هذه الفئة التي تشعر بالتهميش اجتماعيا واقتصاديا ودينيا. واستغرب لوكوك ربط هذه الأعمال بجماعات إسلامية منظمة مثلما أشارت بعض التقارير الصحافية الغربية معتبرا أن أي حادث مهما كانت سذاجته أو بساطته في فرنسا أو أوروبا من الآن فصاعدا سيتم تحميل المسؤولية فيه للإسلام والمسلمين. وهذا أمر مخجل، ويجب ألا يتواصل حتي تُسْتَأْنَف العلاقات بشكل جيد مع المسلمين". والآن بعد أن انتهينا معا من مطالعة هذه السطور الكاشفة لأوضاع المسلمين فى الغرب وكيف أنها لا تمكن مقارنتها بأوضاع الأقليات فى البلاد الإسلامية التى تعيش فى فردوس ثم تتطاول مع ذلك على الأكثرية المسلمة وتنسب لها المعايب وتختلق لها التهم اختلاقا، فلنذهب، أيها القارئ العزيز، إلى نص ترجمة المقال المخبول الذى يحاول صاحبه التشكيك فى وجود الرسول نفسه صلى الله عليه وسلم بطريقة تافهةٍ مضحكةٍ فاضحةٍ للعقلية الغربية عند تعاملها مع الإسلام والمسلمين، وهذه هى الترجمة:
"ترى أكان محمد وشِرْلوك هُولْمز شخصيتين تاريخيتين حقيقيتين أم لم يكونا إلا أسطورتين من بنات الوهم والخيال؟ أكانا فعلا بشرا من البشر فى يوم من الأيام أم لا يزيدان فى واقع الأمر عن أن يكونا تجسيدا لتطلعات بعض بنى الإنسان؟ أهما يمتّان إلى الحقيقة أم هما مجرد زيف ليس له فى الحقيقة أى وجود؟ أم تراهما قد تم مزجهما من هذا وذاك كى يصدق الناس أنهما كانا موجودين يوما وأن كل ما يمتّ إليهما بسبب هو حقيقى صحيح؟ ربما تبدو المسألة غريبة، ذلك أنك متى عرفت من هو محمد فإنك تعرف أنه كان موجودا، وإذا عرفت من هو شرلوك هولمز فإنك تعرف أنه لم يكن له وجود. لكن هل أنت متأكد من هذا؟ بالنسبة لمحمد فإن أكثر من عشرين فى المائة من سكان الأرض يؤمنون أنه شخص حقيقى كان موجودا فى يوم من الأيام، فهل نستخلص من هذا أن مليار نسمة لا يمكن خداعهم فى مسألة يمكن التحقق من صحتها بهذه البساطة، ومن ثم فإنه كان فعلا موجودا؟ إن كان الجواب بـ"نعم" فإنه ينبغى الوصول إلى نتيجة مشابهة فيما يتعلق بشرلوك هولمز، إذ ذكرت "الويكيبيديا" فى مادة "شرلوك هولمز" أنه، طبقا لاستطلاع قامت به الـ"بى بى سى" عام 1959م، قد تبين أن أكثر من نصف الإنجليز يعتقدون أن شرلوك هولمز كان شخصا حقيقيا وأن 25 مليونًا من الإنجليز بالذات لا يمكن أن يكونوا مخدوعين فى مسألة يسهل التحقق منها إلى هذا الحد. أليس كذلك؟
الحق أنه من الأفضل أن تقول إنك تَحْسَب أو إنك تعتقد أن محمدا كان موجودا. وفيما يخصك فأنت فى الواقع لم تقابل محمدا، لكن عدم مقابلتك إياه لا يعنى أنه كان موجودا، وإن لم يَعْنِ أيضا أنه لم يكن له وجود. ولسوف يكون الكلام أصحّ لو قلتَ إنك تظن أو إنك تعتقد أن شرلوك هولمز لم يكن له وجود، فأنت فى الحقيقة لم تقابل قَطّ شرلوك هولمز ذاته، لكن عدم مقابلتك شخصا ما لا يعنى أنه لم يكن موجودا، وإن لم يعن أيضا أنه كان له وجود. إن هذا، فيما يبدو، ليبعث على الاضطراب، لكنك إذا اتجهت أخيرا إلى جوهر الموضوع، فعليك أن تجيب على السؤال التالى: ترى ما الذى تعرفه على وجه اليقين فينا يختص بمحمد لأنك قد تحققت منه؟ وكذلك ما الذى تعرفه على وجه اليقين فيما يختص بشرلوك هولمز لأنك قد تحققت منه؟ وعلى أى أساس إذن قد أقمتَ رأيك فى محمد وفى شرلوك هولمز؟
وهاتان الشخصيتان قد عاشتا فى زمنٍ جِدّ مبكِّر بحيث لا يمكن القول بأن هناك من معاصرينا من عرفهما فى حياتهما. وبالنسبة لمرورهما على الأرض، فسواء كان ذلك صحيحًا أو مفترضًا فإننا لا نستطيع إلا أن نشير إلى الآثار التاريخية التى خلّفاها، أو لم يخلّفاها، وراءهما. ولسوف نلقى الآن نظرة على تلك الآثار التى خلفتها هاتان الشخصيتان. ولحسن الحظ فلسنا بحاجة إلى السفر إلى بلاد العرب ولا إلى إنجلترا لنقوم بذلك البحث، إذ هناك من قام بهذا بالنيابة عنا. وبفضل المِشْبَاك فسيكون من السهل الوصول مباشرة إلى المعلومات التى وضعها أولئك الأشخاص تحت تصرف جميع المِشْباكيين المهتمين بالموضوع كى يستطيع كل فرد أن يكوّن بسرعةٍ رأيه الشخصى بكل حرية واستقلال.
فى خُطَى شرلوك هولمز على أعقاب محمد
وسوف نبحث المسألة بطريقتين: الطريقة الأدبية والطريقة الآثارية، ولن نستعين عند الكلام عن كل من الشخصيتين إلا بأفضل المتخصصين. وسوف يكون مرجعنا بالنسبة لمحمد هو المعلومات التى وردتنا عن أشخاص متحمسين لسيرة حياته وشخصيته يُسَمَّوْن: "أهل السنة أو الشيعة"، ويطلَق عليهم جميعا فى فرنسا دون تفرقةٍ اسم "المسلمين". وهذا هو الاسم الذى سوف نعتمده، ولن نستمد أية معلومة إلا من المواقع الإسلامية الناطقة بالفرنسية، وبالذات "إسلام فرانس". أما رأى غير المسلمين، أى الأشخاص الذين لم يدرسوا الوثائق الضخمة المتعلقة بسيرة محمد بعمقٍ، فلن يكون لهم بطبيعة الحال نفس الوزن الذى للمسلمين العارفين بكل ما يتعلق به. وبالنسبة لبعض غير المسلمين فإنهم يفسرون الإحالات والتناقضات فى سيرة محمد على أساس أنه ليس أكثر من أسطورة لفقها على مدار القرون من هنا ومن ههنا كتّاب كانوا يشتغلون بخدمة بعض السادة فى عصرهم بغية تحريك رجال الجيش لشن الحروب من أجلهم. وفى نظر غير المسلمين فإن هؤلاء ظلوا يرددون هذه الأسطورة لأكثر من ألف عام. بيد أن علماء المسلمين يردون بأن هذه الإحالات وتلك التناقضات ليست كذلك فى الحقيقة، بل فى الظاهر فقط، وأن محمدا هو أعظم الأنبياء جميعا وخاتمهم. وقد أضحى وضع الدراسات التى تهدف إلى تأكيد وجود محمد وإثبات أنه أمر لا يقبل المماراة فنا من الفنون. وهناك عدد هائل من الدراسات التى تتعلق بمحمد، بل هناك جامعة تُعَدّ مرجعا عالميا فى هذا الموضوع.
والآن كما فعلنا مع محمد سوف نفعل مع شرلوك هولمز. وسوف يكون مرجعنا بالنسبة لشرلوك هولمز هو المعلومات التى وردتنا عن أشخاص متحمسين لسيرة حياته وشخصيته يُسَمَّوْن: "الهولمزيين أو الشرلوكيين". وفى فرنسا يُسَمَّى الشرلوكيون الإنجليز بـ"الهولمزيين"، وهم أعرف الناس بكل ما يتعلق بشرلوك هولمز، وهذا أمر من الوضوح التام بمكان. وسوف يقتصر اعتمادنا على المراجع الهولمزية، وهى مواقع كثيرة ناطقة بالفرنسية، وبالذات موقع "سوسييتيه شِرْلوك هولمز فرانس". أما رأى غير الهولمزيين، أى الأشخاص الذين لم يدرسوا الوثائق الضخمة المتعلقة بسيرة شرلوك هولمز بعمقٍ، فلن يكون لهم بطبيعة الحال نفس الوزن الذى للهولمزيين العارفين بكل ما يتعلق به. أما غير الهولمزييين فإنهم يفسرون الإحالات والتناقضات فى سيرة شرلوك هولمز على أساس أنه ليس أكثر من أسطورة لفَّقها، من هنا ومن ههنا على مدى أربعين سنةً، كاتبٌ كان يشتغل بخدمة أحد رجال الصحافة فى عصره بغية دفع القراء لشراء صحيفته. وفى نظر المكذِّبين فإن أتباع هولمز ظلوا يرددون كذبةً مضحكةً لأكثر من قرن. بيد أن الهولمزيين، بفضل ما كتبه واطسون، يردّون بأن هذه الإحالات وتلك التناقضات ليست كذلك فى الحقيقة، بل فى الظاهر فقط، وأن شرلوك هولمز هو أعظم مخبرى عصره. وقد أضحى وضع الدراسات التى تهدف إلى تأكيد وجود شرلوك هولمز وإثبات أنه أمر لا يقبل المماراة فنا من الفنون. وهناك عدد هائل من الدراسات التى تتعلق بشرلوك هولمز، وإن لم تكن هناك جامعةٌ يُرْجَع إليها فى هذا الموضوع.
وفى النهاية فإنه من الناحية الرياضية لا توجد بالنسبة لمحمد وهولمز إلا أربعة احتمالات: إما أن محمدا وهولمز كليهما كانا موجودين، وإما أن هولمز كان موجودا، أما محمد فلا، وإما أن محمدا كان موجودا، أما هولمز فلا، وإما أنه لا محمد ولا هولمز كان موجودا.
أ- المنهج الأدبى:
المعتقدات: بالنسبة للمسلمين يعد محمد شخصًا حقيقيًّا فَعَل كل ما يُحْكَى عنه فى سيرته، تلك السيرة التى وردتنا من خلال معارفه المباشرين، أى صحابته، مثل علىّ وعمر... إلخ. وقد أملى محمد القرآن على أولئك الصحابة. ويتكون القانون العثمانى من مائة وأربع عشرة سورة هى القرآن، وهذا القرآن هو أساس معتقدات المسلمين جميعها. ويوصَى حميع المسلمين بقوةٍ بقراءة ذلك القانون العثمانى فى لغته العربية، لكن لأن هذا غير ممكن بالنسبة لكل العالم نجد أن هناك ترجمات فرنسية للقرآن.
وبالنسبة للهولمزيين فإن شرلوك هولمز هو أيضا شخص حقيقى فَعَل كل ما يُحْكَى عنه فى سيرته، تلك السيرة التى وردتنا من خلال شاهد مباشر هو صديقه الدكتور واطْسون، الذى روى له شرلوك هولمز أحداث حياته. ويتكون القانون الهولمزى من أربع روايات وست وخمسين قصة قصيرة هى أساس معتقدات الهولمزيين جميعها. ويوصَى حميع الهولمزيين بقوةٍ بقراءة القانون الهولمزى فى لغته الإنجليزية، لكن لأن هذا غير ممكن بالنسبة لكل العالم نجد أن هناك ترجمات فرنسية له.
الحالة المدنية- على الجانب الإسلامى: محمد بن مُطَّلِب (570م؟- 8 يوليه 633م). وُلِد فى مكة، ومات فى المدينة عن 63 عاما. من ذرية إسماعيل، وينتسب لقبيلة قريش التجارية. أبوه عبد الله بن عبد المطلب، وعمه أبو طالب، وأمه آمنة. اتخذ زوجات كثيرات، ورُزِق أطفالا كثيرين مات ذكورهم جميعا فى سن صغيرة، ولم تعش بعده من بناته إلا فاطمة التى رُزِقت ذرية ممتدة. كان يعيش فى بلاد العرب: فى مكة أولا، ثم هاجر فيما بعد إلى المدينة.
وعلى الجانب الآخر: شرلوك هولمز (6 يناير 1854م- 1957م). مسقط رأسه مجهول، ومات (؟) فى ساسِكْس عن مائة وثلاثة أعوام. ينتسب إلى صغار ملاك الأراضى. حفيد أخت الرسام الفرنسى فرنيه. أخوه مايكروفت، الذى يكبره بسبعة أعوام. لا يُعْرَف أى قريب آخر له. لم يتزوج أو يُرْزَق أطفالا. كان يسكن لندن: أولا فى مونتاج ستريت، ثم انتقل إلى 221ب بيكر ستريت. اعتزل العمل وأخلد للراحة فى ساسِكْس، وأنفق بقية عمره فى تربية النحل.
السيرة المحمدية:
حياته قبل أن يصبح أعظم الأنبياء: لا نعرف عن طفولته وصباه شيئا يذكر. أثناء رحلته خارج بلاد العرب فيما بين بيت المقدس ودمشق قابل راهبا اسمه بَحِيرَا وجد لديه استعدادا ليكون أعظم الأنبياء جميعا.
نشاطه بعد أن أصبح أعظم الأنبياء: بعد أن اقترن فى سن الخامسة والعشرين بأرملة ثرية أكبر منه سنا لم يبدأ تعاونه مع الملاك جبريل إلا عندما شارف سنه الأربعين. وكانت نصوص الوحى قليلة فى أول الأمر، ثم تضاعفت بعد ذلك حتى بلغت فى النهاية عدة آلاف. منذ فراره من مكة ووصوله إلى المدينة حتى آخر حياته نجده يكرّس حياته لتحطيم النظام الوثنى للمجتمع المكى. ولأنه لم يكن بارعا فى المبارزة فقد أوكل لأتباعه مهمة اغتيال مناوئيه. اتخذ من نبوّته مسوِّغا لقتل المئات فى المعارك الحربية الكثيرة. كان هذا وذاك سببا فى شيوع الرعب منه فى أرجاء الجزيرة العربية. بعث برسل إلى ملوك الأرض من حوله، فبعضهم آمن به، وبعضهم رد الرسل دون مراعاة لاعتبارات المجاملة. بعد نجاحه فى سحق مكة عسكريا والقضاء على المجتمع الوثنى عاد إلى المدينة حيث مات عام 632م عقب مرض لم يدم طويلا بعد أن قام بمهمة أعظم الأنبياء لمدة ثلاث وعشرين سنة. خارج نطاق النبوة كان محمد يكن كراهية عميقة للفنون بوجه عام (الرسم والنحت والعمارة)، وكان يكره الموسيقى ويحطم آلاتها، ويعجز عن تذوق أى شىء غير التراتيل الدينية.
السيرة الهولمزية:
حياته قبل أن يصبح مخبرا: لا نعرف عن طفولته وصباه شيئا ذا بال. أثناء العامين اللذين قضاهما فى الكلية انتبه إلى أن بمستطاعه كسب رزقه من براعته فى الملاحظة والاستنتاج. اكتشف والد صديقه الوحيد آنذاك لديه ميولا لأن يكون مخبرا سريا عظيما.
حياته بعد أن أصبح مخبرا: بدأ نشاطه عام 1878م وعنده أربع وعشرون سنة. شرع يتعاون مع واطسون بدءا من عام 1881م أو 1882م. كانت تحرياته فى البداية قليلة، ثم تضاعفت مع الأيام. منذ نهاية ثمانينات القرن التاسع عشر حتى عام 1891م كرّس كل نشاطه للقضاء على منظمة البروفيسير مورياترى الإجرامية. وقعت بينهما مبارزة فى الرابع من مايو عام 1891م على قمة قلاع رايشنباخ بسويسرا. لقى مورياترى حتفه، على حين اختار هولمز أن يختفى رسميا. استأنف نشاطه من عام 1894م حتى 1901م. نجح فى حل غموض المئات من الجرائم. فى هذه الأثناء استطاع واطسون تحويل مسار هولمز بعيدا عن المخدرات. أهّلته خدماته للتاج البريطانى لمقابلة الملكة فكتوريا عام 1895م، بَيْدَ أنه رفض لقب "الشيفالييه" فى يونيه 1902م. ترك هولمز وظيفة "المخبر" وأخلد إلى الاستراحة فى نهاية 1903م أو بداية 1904م بعد أن مارس مهنته على مدار ثلاث وعشرين سنة مع فترة توقف لمدة ثلاث سنوات من 1891م إلى 1894م قضاها فى الأسفار. اختار الاعتزال وحده فى مزرعةٍ بسَاسِكْس حيث أخذ يقضى وقته فى تربية النحل. عشية اندلاع الحرب العالمية الأولى كان آخر نشاط معروف له هو القبض على الجاسوس الألمانى فون بورك. خارج نطاق عمله كمخبر كان شرلوك هولمز مغرما بالفنون بوجه عام، وكان مغرما بالموسيقى شديد التحمس لها حتى إنه لم يكن عازفا شديد المهارة للكمان فحسب، بل كان ملحنا ذا موهبة غير عادية.
الوصف الجسدى لمحمد: لم يكن مفرط الطول ولا القصر، مع غلظ الكفين والقدمين. كان متوسط القامة عريض الكتفين ضخم الرأس مهيب الملامح. لم يكن شَعْره قصيًرا جَعْدًا، كما لم يكن طويلا بائن الطول، وكان كَثّ اللحية. كان شَعْر صدره يهبط نازلا إلى سُرّته فى خط طويل. كان واسع الفم أدعج العينين دقيق العظام على نحو ملحوظ حريصا على الإبانة فى أحاديثه كى يسمع الجميع كلامه ويفهموه بسهولة. وكان يميل إلى الصمت ما لم تكن هناك حاجة إلى الكلام.
الوصف الجسدى لهولمز: أول ما يأخذ العَيْنَ منه طولُ قامته ونحافتُه. يبلغ من الطول 180 سنتيمترا، إلا أن واطسون كان يرى أنه أطول من ذلك كثيرا. ضيق الوجه، عريض الجبين، أسود الشعر، داكن الحاجبين كثيفهما، رقيق الشفتين تبدو فيهما أمارات الحزم. كما كان أنفه دقيقا يشبه منقار الصقر، وعيناه رماديتين يقظتين نافذتين تضفيان عليه سيما الاستغراق أثناء تفكيره، وصوته عاليا حادا ذا إيقاع سريع.
أ - المنهج الآثارى:
المخلَّفات التى تركها محمد وراءه: يوجد متحف يضم المئات من هذه المخلفات. وهنا عَرَض الكاتب صورة غريبة غير واضحة لرجلٍ جاثٍ على ركبتيه قال إنها للرسول الكريم عليه الصلاة والسلام. أما فى خانة التمثال فقد ذكر أن الإسلام يحرم نحت التماثيل للكائنات الحية. ثم عَرَض بعض الأشياء التى قال إن الرسول كان يتخذها لاستعماله الشخصى، مُتْبِعًا إياها بصورة لما سماه عمامته، بعدها صور لبعض السيوف وقوسين وعدة أشياء أخرى كمثال على الآلات المفضلة عنده، فضلا عن رسالة من الرسائل التى بعث بها إلى الملوك من حوله، وتسجيل تجميعى لسيرته على قرص دى فى دى، وصورة لقارئ للقرآن كمثال على الصوت المنغم الذى كان شائعا فى عصره، وصور أخرى لمكة والمدينة وجموع الحجيج فى طوافها حول الكعبة، ولغار حراء الذى كان يأوى إليه أثناء تأملاته، ولمقابر البَقِيع التى يزعم أنها مما لا يسع حاجًّا ألا يزوره، وكذلك جبل أُحُد، الذى دارت عنده رَحَى ثانى غزوة من غزواته وأشيع فيها أنه عليه السلام قد قتل، ثم قبره، ليختم هذه الجولة بالقول بأنه، من خلال ما أرسى محمد من مبادئ، قد أضحى مناط إلهام لعدد من العمليات الانتحارية التى يقوم بها هذه الأيام مسلمون يوقنون تمام الإيقان أنهم متى ماتوا فإن كل شىء سوف يقع الضبط كما سبق أن أخبر به الرجل الذى يتخذونه مثلا أعلى.
المخلَّفات التى تركها هولمز وراءه: متحف يضم المئات من هذه المخلفات. ثم يعرض لهولمز صورة شخصية وثلاثة من تماثيله، وقبعته وغليونه وقلمه وعدسته التى كان يستخدمها فى القراءة وبعض أوراقه ومصباحه وساعته، وكتابا له عن كيفية التفرقة بين رماد الأتباغ المختلفة، وتسجيلا تجميعيا لحياته على قرص دى فى دى، ثم صورة لعازف موسيقى كمثال على الصوت المنغم الذى كان شائعا فى عصره، ثم صورا لبيكر ستريت ولندن، ولحجرة الجلوس التى كان يأوى إليها هولمز أثناء تأملاته، ولتجمُّع حاشد فى لندن فى عصرنا، وموضعين من المواضع التى يحرص عشاق هولمز على زيارتها فى سويسرا. أما بالنسبة للمكان الذى دُفِن فيه فيقول إنه غير معروف. ثم يختم الكاتب جولته هذه بالقول بأن هناك هولمزيًّا قد أقدم مؤخرا على الانتحار موقنا تمام الإيقان أنه متى مات فإن كل شىء سوف يقع الضبط كما سبق أن أخبر به الرجل الذى يتخذه مثلا أعلى.
النتيجة: نخرج من هذا بأننا متى استندنا للمعلومات التى يقدمها لنا الهولمزيون استطعنا أن نلاحظ وجود عدد من البراهين الدالة على أن شرلوك هولمز شخص حقيقى. وبالمثل فإننا بالاستناد للمعلومات التى يقدمها لنا المسلمون نستطيع أن نلاحظ وجود عدد من البراهين الدالة على أن محمدا شخص حقيقى، وأن هذه البراهين ذات طبيعة واحدة.
وعلى هذا
فلو أن هولمزيًّا أحضر طفلا هنديا من أبناء الأمازون إلى أوروبا وحفّظه عن ظهر قلب، وهو يضربه فوق رأسه بالمقرعة، ومن خلال اللغة الإنجليزية التى لا يفهمها، القانون الهولمزى فى مدرسة هولمزية، ثم أزاره المتاحف الهولمزية، والأماكن التى يتخدث عنها القانون الهولمزى، والمدن التى ينتصب فيها تمثال لشرلوك هولمز، وتلك التى تحمل لوحات تذكارية باسم شرلوك هولمز، فمن المؤكد أن هذا الفتى الأمازونى الشجاع لن يساوره بعد ذلك أدنى شك فى وجود المخبر العظيم شرلوك هولمز. وما إن يعود الفتى الأمازونى إلى موطنه فى قلب الأمازون حتى يشرع فى الكلام عن حياة ذلك المخبر العظيم، فيصبح شرلوك هولمز بهذا حقيقة لا تقبل المماراة بالنسبة للقبيلة جمعاء. ولسوف يكون بمستطاع كل فرد من أفراد القبيلة أن يأتى بدوره إلى أوروبا للتحقق بنفسه من وجود شرلوك هولمز، وأن هناك فعلا متاحف خاصة بشرلوك هولمز وعدساته وغلايينه، وأن هناك أيضا لوحة تذكارية تحمل اسم الدكتور واطسون على أحد الممرات فى طريق المحطة بلوزان بسويسرا. ولسوف تعود القبيلة بعد ذلك إلى موطنها أكثر اقتناعا بوجود شرلوك هولمز رغم أن شرلوك هولمز لم يكن له يوما وجود!
وبالمثل
فلو أن مسلما أحضر طفلا هنديا من أبناء الأمازون إلى بلاد العرب وحفّظه عن ظهر قلب وهو يضربه فوق رأسه بالمقرعة ومن خلال اللغة العربية دون ترجمة القانون العثمانى فى مدرسة قرآنية، ثم أزاره المتاحف الإسلامية، والأماكن التى يتخدث عنها القانون العثمانى، والمدن التى عاش فيها محمد، وتلك التى تخلد ذكراه، فمن المؤكد أن هذا الفتى الأمازونى الشجاع لن يساوره بعد ذلك أدنى شك فى وجود النبى العظيم محمد. وما إن يعود الفتى الأمازونى إلى موطنه فى قلب الأمازون حتى يشرع فى الكلام عن حياة ذلك النبى العظيم، فيصبح محمد بهذا حقيقة لا تقبل المماراة بالنسبة للقبيلة جمعاء. ولسوف يكون بمستطاع كل فرد من أفراد القبيلة أن يأتى بدوره إلى بلاد العرب للتحقق بنفسه من وجود مكة كما قالوا له، وأن هناك فعلا متاحف خاصة بسيوف محمد وبعض مخلفاته، وأن هناك أيضا مقابر خاصة بأصحابه فى المدينة. ولسوف تعود القبيلة بعد ذلك إلى موطنها أكثر اقتناعا بوجود محمد رغم أن محمدا ... إلخ! ذلك أنه بالرغم من الدلائل التى يسوقها المسلمون والهولمزيون على وجود هاتين الشخصيتين فإن هناك شكوكا واضحة تتعلق بحقيقتهما التاريخية.
ومن الواضح أنه لا ينبغى الاعتماد على المعطيات المقدمة من قِبَل الهولمزيين لمعرفة ما إذا كان شرلوك هولمز له وجود حقيقى أو أنه لا يزيد عن كونه مجرد أسطورة. إن هولمز ليس فى الواقع إلا قصة مخترعة أو شخصية خيالية. ومع ذلك فالملاحظ أن مفهوم "هولمز" يجسّد على نحوٍ كافٍ أحلام صنف من البشر لدرجة قيام بعض الأشخاص من تلقاء أنفسهم بصنع جميع العناصر المكونة لوجود تلك الشخصية وجودا حقيقيا وتكوين جماعة تقوم على اعتناق تلك الأكذوبة وحراستها وتخليدها لضمان استمرار المتعة التى يحصلون عليها من ورائها.
وبالمثل
فمن الواضح أنه لا ينبغى الاعتماد على المعطيات المقدمة من قِبَل المسلمين لمعرفة ما إذا كان محمد له وجود حقيقى أو أنه لا يزيد عن كونه مجرد أسطورة. إن محمدا ليس فى الواقع إلا قصة مخترعة أو شخصية خيالية. ومع ذلك فالملاحظ أن مفهوم "محمد" يجسّد على نحوٍ كافٍ أحلام صنف من البشر لدرجة قيام بعض الأشخاص من تلقاء أنفسهم (فى القرن السادس الميلادى) بصنع جميع العناصر المكونة لوجود تلك الشخصية وجودا حقيقيا وتكوين جماعة تقوم على اعتناق تلك الأسطورة وحراستها وتخليدها لما يكفله لهم ذلك من ممارسة سلطان شامل يسوّغ لهم كل ما يريدون.
والحق أننا، عندنا نبحث مسألة وجود محمد، سرعان ما نصطدم بركام من الأسئلة هى فى النهاية أسئلة بسيطة من شأنها أن تثير أجوبة لا تقل عنها بساطة، إلا أن هذه الأسئلة لا تجد فى الجواب عليها سوى الصمت المطبق. لماذا؟ ربما لأن أتباع محمد لا يهتمون بالجواب على نوع معين من الأسئلة، إذ يعرفون جيدا ما سيجدونه، أو بالأحرى ما لن يجدوه، عند البحث عن جواب لها".
هذا ما قاله الرجل الباذنجان، والآن لننظرْ فى ما قاله ذلك الأخرق المتهور المتظرف فى غير موضع التظرف، المتظرف الذى دمه مثل دم البق، المتظرف بجهل ورعونة، المتظرف تظرف الشياطين الحاقدين الهدامين المدمرين، لعنة الله عليه وعلى أشباهه من بنى الشياطين وإخوانهم وآبائهم وأقاربهم أجمعين! إنه لم يجد من البشر فى دنيا الله الوسيعة أحدًا يقارنه بالرسول الكريم سوى شرلوك هولمز، المخبر السرى الذى لا وجود له إلا فى بطون القصص البوليسية التى لا يقرؤها غالبا إلا العوام وأشباههم للتسلية وإزجاء الفراغ، وكأن النبوة موضوع من موضوعات التسلية وتضييع الوقت فى الكلام الفارغ. هذا ما يريده ذلك الرجل الباذنجان، الرجل الذى ليس هناك مكان يليق به سوى الخانكة على حسب ما قلت فى مقال لى من قبل، فهو ذاته الرجل الأحمق بل المجنون الذى يريد من المسلمين أن ينكتوا طرقات المدينة المنورة وشوارعها ويهدموا بيوتها ومؤسساتها ومساجدها ويشردوا أهلها كى يشبعوا شهوة الحقد والدمار عنده وعند أمثاله من حَوَارِيِّى نيرون الذين يتلذذون برؤية الخراب وسماع نعيق البوم، وهم يعزفون ألحان الفناء التى لا تطرب نفوسهم الخربة المظلمة إلا على أنغامها، والذى كتبتُ عنه من قبل دراسة بعنوان "خذوه فغُلُّوه! ثم فى الخنكة أَوْدِعُوه!". ذلك أن كلامه لا يمكن أن يكون كلام إنسان عاقل، أو حتى من فى عقله مُسْكَة من ترابط! ولذلك قلت إنه هارب من الخانكة، ولا بد من إرجاعه إلى حيث كان مرة ثانية كى نكون فى مأمن من جنونه الخطر، وإلا آذانا فعض أحدنا عضة مسعورة يمكن أن تتسبب فى وفاته، عليه لعائن الله (عليه هو بطبيعة الحال كما لا بد أن يكون القراء الكرام قد فهموا، لا على المعضوض المسكين)!
إنه يريد أن يُضْحِك قراءه من ملاحدة أوربا ومبشريها ومستشرقيها وأذيالهم الأوباش عندنا، وما أكثرهم هذه الأيام من كل عتل زنيم، يريد أن يضحكهم من الرسول الكريم، غير دار فى غمرة خُرْقه وحُمْقه أن القمر لا يناله بل لا يصله نباح الكلاب المسعورة مهما هَرَّتْ وعَوَتْ، إذ القمر عالٍ فى السماء، أما الكلاب العاوية الحمقاء فهى تجرّر أذيالها النجسة مثلها بين ساقيها فى ذلةٍ وضَعَةٍ على هذه الغبراء! ترى بالله من شرلوك هولمز؟ بل من كُونَان دُويِل نفسه من الرسول الكريم العظيم (نعم، الكريم العظيم رغم أنف هذا المجنون اللئيم!)؟ لقد تحولت الكتابة والفكر إلى لعب عيال وأصبح كل من هب ودب ويستطيع أن يمسك بقلم وورقة يتخيل أنه قادر على العبث والتساخف دون معقب ولا حسيب! لا يا أخا الفرنسيس! لا يا من لا يزال يؤرقكم الرسول الكريم ويطير النوم من عيونكم ويحيل حياتكم إلى جنون مطبق رغم وفاته قبل أربعة عشر قرنا! تنبه وحُطّ عينك التى تستأهل خَرْمها فى راسك، واعمل لخلاصك! نعم نحن المسلمين الآن فى عز ضعفنا وتخاذلنا وبلادتنا (وامض فى مثل هذا اللون من الزراية علينا من هنا للصبح بل ليوم الدين، فلن تجد من يخالفك كثيرا!)، لكن هذا شىء، والاقتراب من سيد الأنبياء بجهل ورعونة وقلة أدب شىء آخر!
هل يجوز فى شرعة العقل (العقل الذى حرمك الله منه، شفى الله الكلاب وضَرَّك!) أن يقارَن رجلٌ قد غيَّر مسار التاريخ والحضارة، وفَضَح زُيُوف أديانٍ وأقوامٍ، وعدّل مسار عقائدها وعباداتها وشرائعها بعد أن اختل ميزانها حُقُبًا طويلاً، وأنهض أمما من العدم وأعطاها فرصة قيادة البشرية فأثبتت أهليتها لهذه القيادة، هل يجوز فى شرعة العقل (يا من حرمك الله من العقل!) أن يقارَن سيد الأنبياء من قِبَل أحد الجهلاء النَّوْكَى الموتورين مثلك بـ"شرموط هولمز"؟ من هولمز هذا الذى تُوجِع به دماغنا؟ ما كُنْيَته؟ ما إنجازاته؟ إنه مجرد شخصية وهمية ليس لها من موضع على هذه الأرض "التى تتسع للبشر والكلاب النابحة العاوية معا للأسف!" إلا فى روايات كونان دُويِل البوليسية، وهى روايات كنا نقرؤها ونحن أطفال صغار ثم نَسِيناها مع اتساع مداركنا وتعمق ثقافتنا، روايات لا تُعَدّ فى الطبقة الأولى ولا الثانية بين هذا اللون من الروايات كما هو معروف رغم تدنّيه بالنسبة للروايات الأخرى، وليس له إلا الإنجازات الوهمية مثله، وهى رغم وهميتها وعدم حقيقيتها تنحصر فى الكشف عن بعض اللصوص والقتلة وما أشبه! فكيف تصحّ مقارنته بعظيم من عظماء البشرية، بل بأعظم عظمائها؟ عظيم هو نبى من الأنبياء، بل سيد الأنبياء وزعيمهم وقائدهم وخاتمهم ومصحِّح الانحرافات والوثنيات التى وقع فيها أقوامهم من بعدهم، ومحوِّل مسار الحضارة والتاريخ، والمتسبب فى رفع أقوام واتضاع آخرين على سنة العدل والإنصاف والعمل الجاد والثمار الطيبة المباركة؟ طيب يا أخى (ولست لى بأخ، ولا يشرفنى أبدا أن تكون، لكنها اللغة وعباراتها!)، طيب يا أخى، خَلِّ فى عين البعيد الأَخِر حصاة ملح، أو "خلِّ عندك مزيّة" كما يقول أهل قريتى وقارِنْه (رغم التسامح الشديد والتنازل البعيد من جانبنا!) بأحد زعماء التاريخ السياسيين أو مصلحيه الاجتماعيين أو قواده العسكريين كى يكون للكلام بعض المعنى الجادّ! أما أن تقول لى: "شرلوك هولمز وكونان دُويِل!"، فليس لهذا معنى عندى ولا عند أى عاقل يحترم نفسه إلا أن البعيد ليس عنده تمييز، أو بالتعبير البلدى: أن البعيد لا يشمّ!
وقبل أن ندخل فى التفاصيل نحب أن نقول إننا نستطيع بهذا الأسلوب المضحك أن نشكك فى أى شخص وفى أى شىء حتى وجود هذا الرجل الباذنجان نفسه، إذ ما أدرانا أنه فعلا موجود، وأنه هو الذى كتب هذا الكلام؟ ومن أدرانا أن نابليون أو القائد الإنجليزى ويلسون أو الرئيس الأمريكى نيكسون أو حتى بوش الأب هم أشخاص حقيقيون؟ إننا، لو استخدمنا هذا النوع من المقارنة بشرلوك هولمز، لانتهينا إلى ذات النتيجة التى يريدنا هذا الأخرق الأحمق المتهور أن ننتهى إليها، ألا وهى أن هؤلاء الناس لم يكن لهم أى وجود! كيف؟ بأن نقول، كما قال هو، إن هؤلاء الناس لهم سِيَرٌ مكتوبةٌ، وتركوا وراءهم من المخلفات الشخصية ما تركوا، ولهم من المعجبين والحواريين كذا وكذا... إلى آخر السخف الذى قاله هذا البعيد، لكن شرلوك هولمز كان له كل هذا، ومع ذلك نحن نعرف أن شرلوك هولمز لم يكن له وجود حقيقى، ومن ثم فهؤلاء الناس لم يكن لهم أيضا وجود حقيقى! إن هذا ليس قياسا منطقيا، بل عته وجنون، وهو يدل على مدى الاضطراب العقلى الذى يصيب القوم حين تأتى سيرة النبى الكريم، إذ تراهم بعد أن كانوا يفكرون تفكيرا سليما قد اختلط فى أذهانهم كل شىء وارتبكت عقولهم وانقلبت أفكارهم رأسا على عقب! والسبب؟ السبب هو محمد، الذى يعرفون أن مبادئه فى التوحيد والكرامة والعزة والعدل والجهاد فى سبيل الله ضد سفلة التاريخ وقراصنة الشعوب وجلاديها وباقرى بطون النساء ومفجِّرى مصارين الأطفال وملطِّخى أجساد الرجال بالخراء ومُرْسِلى الكلاب عليهم تنهش خُصَاهم وغراميلهم ومسلِّطى الآباء والأبناء بعضهم على بعض يتلاوطون قسرا وإجبارا وسارقى ثروات الأمم ومدمِّرى الحضارات الأثيلة الأصيلة والمتشامخين بأنوفهم على "خلق الله" كذبا وزورا ناسين أنهم كانوا لقرونٍ قليلةٍ خَلَتْ متخلفين كما البهائم السائمة! محمد هذا (صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولعن كل من يتطاول على عظمته ونبله، أو يفرح بمن يتطاول على عظمته ونبله، أو حتى يوافق مجرد موافقة على من يتطاول على عظمته ونبله)، محمد هذا يمثل لهؤلاء الأوغاد الأوساخ لقمة ضخمة كبيرة لا يستطيعون أكلها، إذ تقف فى حلوقهم وتخنقهم فى كل مرة يحاولون فيها ازدرادها، فهو لذلك يصيبهم، كلما ذُكِر اسمه الكريم، بالرعب ويبرجل عقولهم رغم كل التخلف والهوان الذى فيه أتباعه. وهذا من أعجب العجب!
نعم ليس هذا قياسا منطقيا، بل عته وجنون! إذ ما الذى فى المقدمة الخاصة بهولمز مما يؤدى إلى النتيجة التى انتهى إليها الرجل المنكوس العقل والتفكير؟ هل معنى أن لهوملز مخلفات باسمه وكتبا كُتِبَتْ عنه أو ناسا يؤمنون بغبائهم بأنه كان موجودا فعلا (إن صح هذا الذى يقوله ذلك المأفون!)، هل معنى هذا أن هذا الرجل لم يكن له وجود؟ كلا، إن هذا لا يؤدى لذاك! ومن ثم لا يصح أبدا أن نقيس حياة الرسول أو أى شخص آخر على حالة هولمز. ليس ذلك فقط، بل إن تلك النتيجة معروفة سلفا، ولا تحتاج إلى أى تدليل، ولا علاقة بينها وبين المقدمات المذكورة. وحتى لو كان هناك فعلا تشابه بين المقدمات الخاصة بهولمز والرسول مثلا، وكانت هناك صلة بين المقدمات الهولمزية والنتيجة التى يرتّبها المأفون عليها، فهل يكفى هذا أن تكون النتيجة هنا هى نفسها هناك؟ لا، لأنه لا يكفى أن يكون هناك تشابه بين الطرفين فى الأمور الظاهرية أو العارضة، بل لا بد أن يكون هذا التشابه فى الجوهر والأصول. هذا واضح وضوح الشمس، لكن المخبول يتظارف رغم أن الأمر لا يحتمل شيئا من التظارف على الإطلاق! ترى هل يصح أن نقول مثلا إنه ما دام لكل من الكلب والإنسان رأس وعينان وأذنان وأنف وقلب وكبد... إلخ، فلا بد أن يكون الكلب من الناطقين كالإنسان، أو لا بد أن يكون الإنسان نابحًا كالكلاب، أو أن يكون الكلب من ذوات الاثنين لا الأربع وليس له ذيل، أو أن يكون الإنسان بالعكس من ذوات الأربع لا الاثنين وله ذيل؟ أو هل يمكن القول بأنه ما دامت السيارة تأخذ سائلا وتصدر صوتا وتجرى وتخرج دخانا من خلفها، فلا بد أن يكون عندها عقل كما عند الإنسان، وتتزاوج وتكوّن أُسَرًا وتنجب أطفالا كما يفعل البشر، ولا بد أن لها حكومات ومدارس ومساجد كما للبشر، لأن البشر مثلها يشربون السوائل ويصدرون الأصوات ويجرون ويخرجون ريحا من خلف؟ بالطبع لا. فهذا مثل ذاك.
إن الرجل الإستنجلينا يعرف، بل يقول ويعترف بلسانه النجس مثله أن شرلوك هولمز ليس له وجود! معنى هذا أنه دخل الميدان، وهو يعلم أنه بَكّاش كبير، ويعلم أننا نعلم أنه بَكّاش كبير، ومع ذلك لا يبالى بمنطق ولا بعقل. ولم لا؟ أليس يتكلم عن الإسلام؟ إنه إذن ليقتحم ساحة مفتوحة على الباهلى لكل من هَبَّ ودَبَّ من الأنعام أمثاله. وهو يقصد هذا كله قصدا بغية النيل من الرسول الكريم ودين الرسول الكريم وأتباع الرسول الكريم، وذلك من خلال الربط بين شرلوك هولمز وهذا الرسول الكريم! فانظر، أيها القارئ العزيز، كيف يريد هذا الملتاث العقل أن يهبط بالرسول الكريم من عليائه إلى مستوى شرلوك هولمز والتسالى التى ترتبط بشرلوك هولمز، وهى تَسَالٍ كتسالى اللُّبّ التى نغرم بها فى مصر غراما كبيرا! ألا تَعْسًا لهذا الكائن الضال المضل الذى يتصور أنه قادر على الإساءة لسيد الأنبياء والمرسلين وسيده وتاج رأسه ورأس الذين نفضوه وخلّفوه رغم أنه وإياهم لا يستحقون شيئا من هذا الشرف العظيم الذى يعود على كل من ينتسب له صلى الله عليه وسلم ولو انتساب العبد للسيد! طيب يا ابن الذين، ما الذى أدخلك هذا المدخل الضيق؟ ألم تجد إلا سيدك أنت وأهلك تتطاول عليه؟ أليس فى وجه الأبعد "بعضشى" من الحياء؟ أليس عنده أنف يشم به ويميز بين ما هو طيب وغير طيب؟ أَوَكُلّ الطائر يُؤْكَل لحمه؟ إن ظُفْر محمد لأشرف منك ومن بلدك جميعا! فاستيقظ أيها الوغد من أوهامك، تلك الأوهام الغبية مثلك والتى سولت لك أن التواقح والتسافه والتباذُؤ على الرسول الكريم يمكن أن يمضى فى سلام ودون تعقيب أو حساب كما يمكن أن يمر التواقح والتسافه والتباذؤ على الذين ينتسبون له زورا وبهتانا ممن يظنون أنهم على سنته وخطاه، لكنهم لا على سنته ولا على خطاه، وإلا ما بلغوا الذى بلغوه الآن من الحضيض الأوطإ من نار الدنيا، وما سيبلغونه كذلك من الدرك الأسفل من جحيم الآخرة إن استمروا على هذا الحال المذل المهين! أين الثريا من الثرى؟ وأين الرسول الكريم من ناس يزعمون أنهم أتباع له، وما هم له بأتباع، بل مجرد كائنات بليدة ترضى بالضَّيْم وكانت سببا بتخلفها وهوانها ومذلتها فى أن يتطاول الأوغاد عليه صلى الله عليه وسلم؟
لقد جرَّأوا من لم يكونوا يتصورون أنهم يستطيعون فتح فمهم النتن يوما بالإساءة إلى رسول الله، حتى لقد تجرأ مع المتجرئين "زيكو العجيب!"، زيكو الذى ترددتُ طويلا قبل أن أُثْبِت هنا ما أَرْسَله لى بشأنه بعض القراء الغَيَارى، ثم قلت أخيرا: لا بد أن يعرف زيكو حجمه، وكيف ينظر إليه الناس المحترمون. وهذا ما وصلنى عنه: "زيكو أبو طاجن، زيكو المعجون من كل عاجن، زيكو الملسوع الملطوع، زيكو الملدوغ المدموغ، زيكو المحفور المخبور، لعن الله زيكو ومَنْ وراء زيكو، وبالمناسبة فإن أحدا لا يأتى زيكو إلا مِنْ وراء! هذا الزيكو المحتاس، الملعوب منه فى الأساس، يقول عن الرسول الأعظم، صلى الله عليه وسلم، بصوتٍ كلّه تغنُّج وتهيُّج، وتفتُّر وتكسُّر، وتثنٍّ وتغنٍّ، وتخنُّث وتأنُّث، شأن كل عاهرة فاجرة، من الصنف البئيس الرخيص: "الرسول النكَّاح" (يا اختى عليها: ننّوس عين "أبوها"! ملعون أبوها وأخوها وحَمُوها وفُوها (النتن) وهَنُوها (الأشدّ نتنًا ونتانةً وإنتانًا)، وخذ بالك من "هنوها" هذه، وملعونٌ كذلك ذُوها وذَوُوها، وكل الذين نفضوها)، وذلك حقدا من زيكو فَرْخ بيوت البغاء، على الرجال الأسوياء، لوَعْيه أن "النَّكّاح"، خيرٌ مليارَ مرة منه هو وأشباهه "المثقوبى الأركاح"، من كل راهبٍ "شائبٍ عائب، ومشلوحٍ مبطوحٍ منكوح"، كلما ثارت به "وَجْعَاؤه" وأكلته وآلمته وهيّجته وطيّرت البرج الفاضل من عقله هاج وماج، وركبه الانزعاج، وتحول إلى دجاجة من الدجاج، تطلب التكسير والإيلاج، ولو عَكَمه أى فحل وأشبعه مما يتشهاه، وتتحرق إليه عيناه، لهدأت أحواله وسكن بلباله! مسكين يا ناس، شوفوا له حَلاًّ، حَلّ وسطه ووسط الذين وضعوا بذرة هذا الدَّنِس النَّجِس سليل الأنجاس الأدناس! ومنكم لله أيها المنتسبون لمحمد، ومحمد فى الحقيقة منكم براء! منكم لله يا من لا تستحون أن تتظلموا كالأطفال، وتنوحوا إلى هذا وذاك من أشباه الرجال، ممن لا يشرفكم فى شىء أن يُسْكِتوا عنكم زيكو المبطوح، ولن يُسْكتوه، إذ كيف يُسْكتونه، وزيكو المنكوح إنما ينطق عن إشارة منهم كما ينطق التلفاز ويسكت، أيها البُغُول، بالريموت كونترول؟ أوليس فيكم رجل من الفحول، يقول لكم: عيب أن تَتَشَكَّوْا من عاشق المُلْمُول؟ ألا إنكم لأغبياء، ولم تكن أمة محمد لتوصف يومًا بالغَبَاء والعَيَاء! ولسوف يكون حسابه سبحانه وتعالى لنا عنيفا ووَعْرًا ومريرا يوم القيامة، وسوف يؤاخذنا مؤاخذة عزيز مقتدر، إذ أتاح لنا أعظم الفُرَص وكرَّمَنا باصطفائنا للقيام على رسالة النبى المصطفى ثم رزقنا فى عصرنا هذا "الذهب الأسود" فـ"ذهبت" منا الكرامة، وأصبح يومنا "أسود"! لقد قصَّرْنا بل تقهقرنا بل تمردنا ثم نافقنا فزعمنا أننا نسير على سبيله عليه السلام وأننا نحبه عليه السلام رغم كل ما نحن فيه من قهر وارتكاس مما هو فى ذاته أعظم دليل على كذب ما نزعمه، فاستحققنا أن يخلع عنا سبحانه الكرامة والفضيلة وأن يُحَكِّم فينا أوساخ البشر الذين لا يَرْعَوْن فيمن تُوقِعه الأقدار تحت سلطانهم إلاًّ ولا ذمة!" انتهى.
كذلك فالرجل المخبول يسمِّى القرآن الكريم بـ"القانون العثمانى"، وهذا ليس اسم القرآن على أى معنى من المعانى، بل كل ما يُنْسَب لعثمان من كتاب الله هو "الرسم"، الذى يوصف بـ"الرسم العثمانى"، أى الخط والإملاء، وهذا كل ما هنالك! وبالمثل يسمِّى هذا الأخرقُ رسولَ الله بـ"محمد بن مطلب"، ولا أدرى من أن أتى بهذه التسمية العجيبة، وبخاصة أنه عقب ذلك يعود فيقول إنه "محمد بن عبد الله بن عبد المطلب" غير دار بالتناقض السخيف الذى وقع فيه! ومع المخبول نمضى فنجد أنه يَكْذِب كذبا حقيرا مثله، إذ يقول إنه لن ينقل عن غير المسلمين أى شىء يتعلق به عليه السلام، لنفاجأ به بعد قليل يقرر أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم "بدأ التعاون مع جبريل وعنده أربعون عاما"، مدلسا على القارئ الذى لا يعرف شيئا فيظن بسلامة طويّته أن هذا ما تقوله المراجع الإسلامية، مع أنه لا أحد من المسلمين يمكن أن يقول هذا بتاتا، علاوة على أن ما تم بين جبريل والرسول لم يكن تعاونا، فنحن لسنا بإزاء خطة ومؤامرة، بل كان وحيا من السماء نزل به الروح الأمين على قلب الرسول الكريم. ونحن حين نقول هذا لا نقصد أن نملى على المغفل المخبول عقيدتنا فيه صلى الله عليه وسلم، بل أن يقول إن هذا هو ما يعتقده المسلمون، لا أكثر، وذلك من باب الأمانة العلمية لا غير!
ليس ذلك فقط، بل إن الرجل الملتاث العقل والفكر يزعم أن الرسول، لكونه لا يحسن المبارزة، كان يكلف أتباعه باغتيال المناوئين. وهذا كذب صراح وقاح، فالرسول هو الذى دُبِّرَتْ له أولاً، ودون داعٍ أو استفزاز من جانبه، خطة لاغتياله لولا أن الله قد أمره بالهجرة، تلك الهجرة التى يسميها الأحمق: "فرارا". أما بعد الهجرة ونشوء دولة للإسلام فى المدينة فقد قامت المعارك بين المسلمين وبين كل من الكفار واليهود والروم اسْتُخْدِمَتْ فيها الأسلحة والخطط الحربية، ومع ذلك لم يتوقف الكفار واليهود عن محاولة اغتيال الرسول لولا لطف الله به فى كل مرة، كما نجح الكفار فى اغتيال عدد كبير من أتباعه عليهم رضوان الله غدرًا وخيانةً وعدمَ إنسانية. ولم يلجأ المسلمون إلى أسلوب القتل فى السر إلا مع الأعداء الألداء الذين تكرر منهم الغدر وخيانة المعاهدات القائمة بينهم وبين المسلمين ونَفِدَ معهم حبل الصبر! وهو تصرف مشروع تماما فى ظل قيام حالة حرب بين الطرفين وتكرر اغتيالات المسلمين على يد الوثنيين المجرمين، ولم يكن الأمر، كما يحب البكاش أن يوهم القراء، مجرد رغبة فى الأذى لدى رسول الله. ومثله القول بأنه، عليه الصلاة والسلام، كان يتخذ من الوحى مسوغا لقتل المئات فى المعارك الحربية، وكأن قتل الأعداء فى الحروب يحتاج إلى تسويغات كالتى يتحدث عنها أحمقنا، أو كأن الرسول والمسلمين هم المعتدون أو على الأقل هم الذين كانوا يبدأون العدوان. إن البشر، منذ ظهورهم على الأرض، وهم يمارسون القتل والقتال دون أن ينتظروا من السماء نصوصا تبرر لهم ما يفعلون، وظلوا حتى الآن يقتل بعضهم بعضا ويقاتل بعضهم بعضا دون حاجة إلى مثل تلك النصوص. فلماذا إفراد الرسول بهذا، وكأنه عليه السلام كان قاتلا دمويا، ولم يكن يدعو إلى الوئام والسلام، على حين أن أعداءه هم الذين كانوا يدعون إلى الحرب، وهم الذين كانوا يبادئونه بها؟ أم إن المجنون كان يريد من الرسول أن يقدم رقبته ورقاب المسلمين جميعا على مذبح الوثنية والأحقاد اليهودية كى يُرْضِىَ شهوة الدماء والبغضاء لدى أحمق الفرنسيس الخِنِّيس؟
ثم هناك قوله عنه صلى الله عليه وسلم إنه "كان يكن كراهية عميقة للفنون بوجه عام (الرسم والنحت والعمارة)، وكان يكره الموسيقى ويحطم آلاتها، ويعجز عن تذوق أى شىء غير التراتيل الدينية"، وهو قول سطحى تافه، إذ كل ما كان الرسول يضعه نصب عينيه هو ألا يعود العرب على أعقابهم كرة أخرى إلى الوثنية التى أنقذهم الله منها على يديه المباركتين، ومن ثم كان نهيه عن التماثيل التى لم يكن عند العرب فى ذلك الوقت فرق بينها وبين الأصنام، علاوة على أن التماثيل لديهم حينئذ كانت مجرد نحت بدائى لا فن فيه ولا جمال، إذ كل ما كان يهمهم هو ما فيها من معنًى وثنىٍّ شِرْكِىّ. أما العمارة والموسيقى، فهل كانت هناك آنذاك عمارة أو موسيقى عربية يمكن أن تُحَبّ أو تُكْرَه؟ ومع هذا فقد أُثِرَ عنه عليه السلام ما يُفْهَم منه أن الغناء (النظيف بطبيعة الحال) هو لون من ألوان الترويح عن النفس والاحتفال بالمناسبات الاجتماعية والعامة. بيد أنه من غير المعقول أن يوافق على مثل ذلك الغناء التافه المبتذَل الذى يطالعنا الآن فى كل مكان، دَعْ عنك الغناء الداعر الذى يستشير الشهوات باللفظ واللحظ والحركات والتلوِّيات وكشف العورات بل السوءات بغية القضاء على كل مقومات التماسك العقيدى والخلقى والاجتماعى كى يَسْهُل اجتياح الأمة التى بناها على عينه وتدميرها والقضاء على كل ما أنجزه بتضحياته الجليلة النبيلة وتضحيات أتباعه الكرام!
وجَرْيًا من الكاتب الأحمق على خطته فى الربط الساخر بين الرسول الكريم وشرلوك هولمز نراه يقول إن "بعض غير المسلمين (وهو يقصد بذلك نفسه وأمثاله من الملتاثين) يفسرون الإحالات والتناقضات فى سيرة محمد على أساس أنه ليس أكثر من أسطورة لفقها على مدار القرون من هنا ومن ههنا كتّاب كانوا يشتغلون بخدمة بعض السادة فى عصرهم بغية تحريك رجال الجيش لشن الحروب من أجلهم. وفى نظر غير المسلمين فإن هؤلاء ظلوا يرددون هذه الأسطورة لأكثر من ألف عام"، وهو نفسه تقريبا ما قاله عن هولمز: "أما غير الهولمزييين فإنهم يفسرون الإحالات والتناقضات فى سيرة شرلوك هولمز على أساس أنه ليس أكثر من أسطورة لفقها من هنا ومن ههنا على مدى أربعين سنة كاتب كان يشتغل بخدمة أحد رجال الصحافة فى عصره بغية دفع القراء لشراء صحيفته. وفى نظر المكذبين فإن أتباع هولمز ظلوا يرددون كذبةً مضحكةً لأكثر من قرن". إنه يحاول أن يوهمنا أن المسلمين كانوا يعرفون ما تعرفه أوروبا ثم العالم كله تبعا لها فى عصرنا الحديث من تسويق للمنتجات عن طريق الدعاية والإعلانات التجارية الكاذبة.
ثم فلنفترض أن الأمر كان كذلك حقا، أفلم يكن هناك أحد له رأى آخر يخالف به الرأى السائد مثلما هناك الآن ناس فى أنحاء العالم أجمع لا تُعَدّ ولا تُحْصَى يعرفون ويؤكدون أن شرلوك هولمز ليس سوى شخصية قصصية بوليسية لا حقيقة لها، وأنه ليس له أب ولا أم ولا أقارب يمكن الرجوع إليهم بشأنه؟ وفوق هذا فليس هناك بين الأدباء أو النقاد أو المؤرخين من كتب عنه بوصفه شخصية حقيقية لها وجود خارج روايات كونان دويل وخيالاته. وهذا إن صدقنا بوجود من يعتقدون فعلا أنه كان شخصا حقيقيا! يا إلهى، إن هذا ضد طبيعة الأشياء، إذ ما من رأى أو موقف فى عالم البشر إلا وهناك من له رأى أو موقف يناقضه ويعمل على نشره ومعارضة آراء مخالفيه ومواقفهم. وهب أن المسلمين كلهم على بكرة أبيهم فى مشارق الأرض ومغاربها وجهات الشمال منها والجنوب كانوا أولاد ستة وستين، أَوَعلينا أن نتهم البيزنطيين والفرس والبربر ولا أدرى مَنْ أيضا مِنَ البشر الذين عاصروا خلق الأسطورة المحمدية بأنهم اشتركوا فى هذه اللعبة: إما بتواطؤ منهم مع المسلمين، وإما بغباء منهم وسذاجة جعلتهم يبتلعون الطعم بعد أن سقاهم المسلمون "حاجة أصفرة" رغم أن المسلمين "من فرط خيابتهم" لا يلجأون إلى سُقْيَا أحد هذه "الحاجة الأصفرة" لسبب بسيط هو أن دينهم المزيف الملفق يحرّمها تحريم مالك للخمر (وأرجو ألا يضحك القارئ الكريم من العبارة الأخيرة وما فيها من لف ودوران)! وهذا أيضا لو أن البيزنطيين وغيرهم قد اكتفَوْا بذلك الموقف السلبى فسكتوا ولم يتكلموا رغم توفر جميع الدواعى عندهم للكلام وفضح المسلمين الكذابين الملفقين المزورين الذين قَضَوْا على زعامتهم وحرموهم من سيادتهم ومستعمراتهم وجردوهم من السلطان والعز والنغنغة التى كانوا فيها وأذاقوهم من الويلات والمذلات جزاء بغيهم وإجرامهم ما لم يعرفوه طوال تاريخهم! أمّا، ونحن نعرف أن البيزنطيين قد هبّوا منذ البداية فهاجموا الرسول واتهموه بما اتهموه به (بغض النظر الآن عن مدى صدق ذلك أو كذبه) مما يعد دليلا لا يمكن نقضه على أنه عليه السلام حقيقة لا مراء فيها، فمعنى ذلك أن كاتبنا الأخرق يهرف بما لا يعرف. لا، بل يكذب كذبا وقحا، ودون أن يطرف له جفن أو تختلج فى وجهه عضلة! ودعنا كذلك مما عثر العلماء عليه من رسائل بعث بها صلى الله عليه وسلم لملوك الأرض من حوله! ودعنا كذلك من الشعر الجاهلى الذى سجَّل جانبٌ منه أحداث سيرته صلى الله عليه وسلم بما فى ذلك المعارك الطاحنة التى اشتعلت بين الدين الجديد والوثنية البائدة كقصائد حسان وكعب بن مالك وابن رواحة وأبى سفيان بن الحارث وعبد الله بن الزِّبَغْرَى وكعب بن زهير وأمية بن أبى الصلت وغيرهم! ودعنا أيضا من أنه لو كان ما يقوله هذا المأفون صحيحا لما سكت الأمويون مثلا عما تقوله كتب السيرة والتاريخ الإسلامى عن أجدادهم وآبائهم مما لا يشرفهم كما هو معروف ما دامت المسألة تلفيقا فى تلفيق! أم للقراء رأى آخر؟ فلْيأتونى به، ولهم جزيل الشكر منى، والمثوبة من رب العالمين! ودعنا فوق هذا من أن أحدا من الباحثين على مدار القرون الأربعة عشر الماضية من مسلمين وغير مسلمين لم يفكر مجرد تفكير فى إنكار وجود محمد، إلى أن هَلّ علينا بطلعته البليدة غير المأسوف على غبائه وحمقه فأراد أن يحدث حدثا أحمق أخرق مثله، وهيهات. والتاريخ لا يكتبه المجانين المخابيل، وإلا فعلى الدنيا العفاء! ألم يكن هناك، كما لا يزال بيننا الآن، كفار لا يؤمنون بالقرآن ولا بالرجل الذى يقال إنه هو الذى نزل عليه هذا القرآن من السماء، فيفتحوا أفواههم ليهتكوا هذا الزيف الذى ترفضه عقولهم وضمائرهم؟ وإذا كان البكاش المناور يزعم أن الرسول والقرآن جميعا قد لُفِّقَا تلفيقا من أجل مصالح بعض المتسلطين المستبدين سَفَكَة الدماء، أفلم يكن هناك من بين المسحوقين الذين كان يستغلهم هؤلاء المتسلطون السفاكون من فكّر فى فضح تلك اللعبة الحقيرة؟ لقد وصلنا، كما قلنا، شعرٌ لمشركين ويهود كانوا يهاجمون الدين الجديد ويكذّبون رسوله بما يفيد أنه كان عليه السلام شخصا حقيقيا، لكن لم يصلنا قَطّ شعر ولا نثر يقول إن محمدا هذا لم يكن له وجود، بل مجرد صناعة بشرية قام بها فلان وفلان وفلان من أجل الغاية الفلانية أو العلانية؟ أليس هذا ما يقضى به العقل والمنطق؟ أم هل كان العرب والمسلمون جميعا أمة من الكذابين، أو الكذابين من جهة، والسذَّج الذين يصدقون كل ما يقال لهم كذبًا وافتراءً من جهة أخرى؟ ثم دعنا فوق هذا وذاك من أن القرآن لا يعكس روحا بشريا ولا يشبه أسلوبه أن يكون أسلوب أحد ممن يُتَّهمون بأنهم هم ملفقوه، وإلا فليقل لنا هذا المخبول مَنْ مؤلفه ما دام يقول إنه مصنوع صناعة على يد من يُسَمَّوْن بـ"المسلمين" بعد التاريخ الذى يقال إن محمدا كان يعيش فيه. ونتحدى أى مسعور من أمثال صاحبنا أن يدلنا على الشخص الذى ألف القرآن، لسبب بسيط ومنطقى تمام المنطقية هو أنه ليس من
تأليف أحد، بل من وحى السماء!
ثم إن المأفون يقول إنه ليس بحاجة للذهاب لإنجلترا ولا لبلاد العرب للتحقق من الأمر، بل يكفى الرجوع إلى ما كتبه الكاتبون على المشباك. فكيف، وهو المتشكك فى كل شىء، يسارع هنا إلى تصديق ما يقرؤه على المشباك وينسى جميع ارتياباته فى كل ما يتعلق بالإسلام؟ كما أنه يقول إن التناقضات التى لاحظها هو وأمثاله على تاريخ الرسول (بافتراض أن هناك فى سيرته عليه السلام تناقضات لا يمكن حلها وتوجيهها) هى دليل على أن أمر محمد كله أسطورة. أترى هذا دليلا سليما فعلا على ما يقول؟ إنه ما من شىء فى الدنيا يخلو من المتناقضات، ادعاءً كانت هذه المتناقضات أو حقيقةً، فلو اتخذنا إذن من وجود المتناقضات دليلا على أسطورية الأشياء والأشخاص لما كان لشىء فى الدنيا وجود البتة! إن عشرات الملايين من الأمريكان مثلا تقول فى صدام حسين ما قال مالك فى الخمر ("مالكٌ" مرة أخرى فى مقال واحد، لاحظ!)، وتقول فى بوش كل ما يستطيع العقل تخيله من قصائد المديح، على حين أن أنصاره يقولون فيه أحسن ما يقال، وفى بوش أسوأ ما يمكن تصوره، وكل ما تسمعه هنا يتناقض تمام التناقض مع ما تسمعه هناك، فهل نخلص من هذا إذن إلى القول بأن الرجلين ليس لهما وجود؟ وهذا مجرد مثال فقط.
أما قوله إنه "من خلال ما أرسى محمد من مبادئ، قد أضحى مناط إلهام لعدد من العمليات الانتحارية التى يقوم بها هذه الأيام مسلمون يوقنون تمام الإيقان أنهم متى ماتوا فإن كل شىء سوف يقع الضبط كما سبق أن أخبر به الرجل الذى يتخذونه مثلا أعلى" فهو، كمعظم ما جاء فى مقاله التافه مثله، خطأ فى خطإ: فالرسول قد شدد فى أحاديثه الكريمة على تحريم الانتحار موضحا المصير البشع الذى ينتظر المنتحر فى الآخرة، كما حذر القرآن المجيد والسنة النبوية المشرفة من اليأس من رَوْح الله ووضّحا أنه ما من مصيبة أو أذيّة تصيب المؤمن ويصبر عليها ولا يتسخط منها إلا كُتِبَ له بها يوم القيامة أجر كبير، وهو ما من شأنه أن يشيع فى نفس المؤمن السكينة والطمأنينة ويغرس فى قلبه أن عين الله تكلؤه ولا تنساه، ومن ثم لا يمكن أن يخطر الانتحار على باله، على عكس كل ملحدٍ كفّار: "إنه لا ييأس من رَوْح الله إلا القوم الكافرون"، "ومن يَقْنَطُ من رحمة ربه إلا الضالون؟"، "فإن مع العسر يسرا* إن مع العسر يسرا"، "ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ لا يُصِيبُهُمْ ظَمَأٌ وَلا نَصَبٌ وَلا مَخْمَصَةٌ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَلا يَطَئُونَ مَوْطِئًا يَغِيظُ الْكُفَّارَ وَلا يَنَالُونَ مِنْ عَدُوٍّ نَيْلاً إِلاّ كُتِبَ لَهُمْ بِهِ عَمَلٌ صَالِحٌ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يُضِيعُ أَجْرَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ* وَلاَ يُنْفِقُونَ نَفَقَةً صَغِيرَةً وَلا كَبِيرَةً وَلا يَقْطَعُونَ وَادِيًا إِلاّ كُتِبَ لَهُمْ لِيَجْزِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ". وفى "صحيح البخارى" عن أبى هريرة رضى الله عنه عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: "من تردَّى من جبلٍ فقتل نفسه فهو في نار جهنم يتردَّى فيه خالدًا مخلَّدًا فيها أبدا، ومن تحسَّى سُمًّا فقتل نفسه فسُمّه في يده يتحسّاه في نار جهنم خالدًا مخلَّدًّا فيها أبدا، ومن قتل نفسه بحديدة فحديدته في يده يَجَأ بها في بطنه في نار جهنم خالدًا مخلَّدًا فيها أبدا"، وفى "مسند أحمد" عنه أيضا أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: " من قتل نفسه بحديدة فحديدته بيده يَجَأ بها في بطنه في نار جهنم خالدا مخلدا فيها أبدا، ومن قتل نفسه بسُمٍّ فسمّه بيده يتحسّاه في نار جهنم خالدا مخلدا فيها أبدا، ومن تردَّى من جبل فقتل نفسه فهو يُرْدَى في نار جهنم خالدا مخلدا فيها أبدا".
فهذا عن السخط والانتحار فى الإسلام بإيجاز خاطف، أما ما يقوم به الأبطال المسلمون الأشاوس من أجل أمتهم فى فلسطين المباركة وعراق المجد والنبالة وأفعانستان التى حطمت فَقَار ظهر الاتحاد السوفييتى وسوف يكتب الله لها هى وسائر بلاد الإسلام المحتلة المظلومة شرف تحطيم فَقَار ظهر الأمريكان بمشيئته تعالى وعونه وكرمه إذا استمرت المقاومة واستعانت فى كفاحها بالنفس الطويل والإيمان الذى لا يتزعزع والاطمئنان إلى وعد الله، أما ما يقوم به أبطالنا فى تلك البلاد وأمثالها من بلاد المسلمين فهو استشهادٌ وقُرْبَى إلى الله، وهو ضريبة الدم والحياة يبذلها أولئك الكرام الأحرار الذين يدوّخون الحضارة الغربية الشيطانية الأنانية رغم قلة الحيلة وضيق ذات اليد، وهو ما يجنّن رجال تلك الحضارة المجرمة المستبدة المتغطرسة القاتلة الناهبة المغرمة بقتل الشعوب المستضعفة وسرقة خيراتها وتمزيق أوطانها ثم الزعم بعد ذلك كله بأنهم إنما يعملون على تحضيرهم وترقيتهم والأخذ بيدهم إلى المعالى (شوفوا البجاسة والجبروت والإجرام وقلة الأدب)! إن الانتحار يأسٌ وكفرٌ وسخطٌ وجَزَعٌ وضعفٌ مَشِينٌ لا يليق بالرجال ونزوعٌ إلى الموت والدمار فرارًا من أثقال الحياة، أما الشهادة فهى حياة لأمم الشهداء، وخلود ونعيم أخروىّ وانغمار فى الرضوان الإلهى لأولئك المغاوير أبد الآبدين. فأين هذا من ذاك؟ إن المأفون وأشباهه إنما يبذلون كل ما عندهم من تدليس وتشكيك وتسخيف من أجل إشاعة الهزيمة فى صفوفنا وقلوبنا وإغرائنا بالاستسلام لسكاكينهم ومدّ رقابنا لهم فى خنوعٍ وضراعةٍ كى يجزروها. هذه كل الحكاية لا أكثر ولا أقل، أما ما يروّجه أولئك الشياطين ومن يُسَمَّوْن بهتانًا ومَيْنًا بـ"علماء الدين" عندنا ممن باعوا ضمائرهم جبنًا أو خبثًا لأعداء الملة والأمة فهو على الجزمة القديمة الملطَّخة بما يليق بأولئك الأبالسة البُعَداء الملاعين، وبهؤلاء العبيد الأنجاس المناكيد! وهل هناك غيره؟ إن أباليس الغرب إنما يحبون الحياة حُبًّا جَمًّا مجنونًا لأنهم لا يؤمنون بالآخرة أبدا، ولا يريدون أن يُحْرَموا من نعيم هذه الدنيا طرفة عين ولا أن يموتوا فيذهبوا كما يعتقدون إلى العدم والخواء، ومن ثم يعرفون أن سر قوتنا فى هذه المرحلة العجيبة الغريبة من تاريخنا إنما هو إيمان أبطال المسلمين بالجنة والشهادة، إذ لا سلاح غيره تقريبا فى أيدينا، فهم يريدون تجريدنا حتى من هذا السلاح (الذى لا يستطيعون أن يقفوا فى وجهه) حتى يسهل عليهم ابتلاعنا والتهام لحومنا ولحوم الذين خلّفونا ومصمصة عظامنا أيضا فوق البيعة حتى لا تقوم لنا من بعدها قائمة. ثم يأتى الأراذل من جُهَلاءِ السَّوْءِ (عليهم دائرةُ السَّوْء) فيُفْتُونهم بما يريدون. ألا لعنة الله على المدلسين الخائنين الملعونين فى كل كتاب وبكل لسان إلى يوم يُبْعَثون، الذين يتبرأ منهم الله والرسول والملائكة والأرض والسماء والأحرار فى كل الأمم والديار!
ويقول الكذاب المداور المناور أيضا: "لو أن مسلما أحضر طفلا هنديا من أبناء الأمازون إلى بلاد العرب وحفّظه عن ظهر قلب، وهو يضربه فوق رأسه بالمقرعة ومن خلال اللغة العربية التى لا يفهمها، القانون العثمانى فى مدرسة قرآنية، ثم أزاره المتاحف الإسلامية، والأماكن التى يتحدث عنها القانون العثمانى، والمدن التى عاش فيها محمد، وتلك التى تخلد ذكراه، فمن المؤكد أن هذا الفتى الأمازونى الشجاع لن يساوره بعد ذلك أدنى شك فى وجود النبى العظيم محمد. وما إن يعود الفتى الأمازونى إلى موطنه فى قلب الأمازون حتى يشرع فى الكلام عن حياة ذلك النبى العظيم، فيصبح محمد بهذا حقيقة لا تقبل المماراة بالنسبة للقبيلة جمعاء. ولسوف يكون بمستطاع كل فرد من أفراد القبيلة أن يأتى بدوره إلى بلاد العرب للتحقق بنفسه من وجود مكة كما قالوا له، وأن هناك فعلا متاحف خاصة بسيوف محمد وبعض مخلفاته، وأن هناك أيضا مقابر خاصة بأصحابه فى المدينة. ولسوف تعود القبيلة بعد ذلك إلى موطنها أكثر اقتناعا بوجود محمد رغم أن محمدا ... إلخ"! وهذا الذى يقوله الكذاب، ما عدا حكاية اللغة الأجنبية التى يلقَّن بها التلميذ ما يراد له معرفته وحفظه وترديده والإيمان به، وكذلك كلامه عن المقرعة وضرب التلميذ بها فوق دماغه تهكما منه علينا وعلى طريقتنا فى التعليم رغم أن الأساتذة الآن لم يعودوا يضربون أحدا من التلاميذ تقريبا ورغم أن عقاب التلميذ البليد والمشاكس المفسد ليس شرا كله، فى الوقت الذى يعلّمنا هؤلاء الأرجاس عن طريق الضرب بالقنابل النووية مما يسير على آخر طراز تربوى وتعليمى بطبيعة الحال، هذا الذى يقوله الكذاب ليس خاصا بالتعليم الإسلامى، بل هو مبدأ عام من مبادئ التعليم فى كل مكان وزمان، ألا وهو التكرار وضرب الأمثلة وزيارة المتاحف والمؤسسات المتعلقة بالمادة المدروسة ومعاينة ما فيها على الطبيعة... إلخ. أما زعمه بأن ذلك إنما يتم بلغة لا يعرفها التلميذ فليس له من رد عندى إلا أن البعيد قد تفوَّق فى بجاسته وبجاحته على المومسات والقحاب، إذ السؤال هو: وكيف سيعرف الطفل ما يقال له حتى ليصل إيمانه وإيمان القبيلة كلها إلى هذا المدى المتصلب الذى ذكره ذلك الإبليس دون أن يفهم ما يقال له؟ أعرفتم لماذا قلت إنه قد تفوق على القحاب العاهرات؟
ويتبقى بعد هذا ما سَخَّمَ به هذا الباجسُ البَجِحُ شاشةَ المشباك قائلا:"إن محمدا ليس فى الواقع إلا قصة مخترعة أو شخصية خيالية، ومع ذلك فالملاحظ أن مفهوم "محمد" يجسّد على نحوٍ كافٍ أحلام صنف من البشر لدرجة قيام بعض الأشخاص من تلقاء أنفسهم (فى القرن السادس الميلادى) بصنع جميع العناصر المكونة لوجود تلك الشخصية وجودا حقيقيا وتكوين جماعة تقوم على اعتناق تلك الأسطورة وحراستها وتخليدها لما يكفله لهم ذلك من ممارسة سلطان شامل يسوّغ لهم كل ما يريدون". والسؤال هو: أى صنف من البشر يا ترى يقصده المأفون، هذا الذى يرى فى الأسطورة المحمدية الملفقة تجسيدا لأحلامه وآماله؟ وما تلك الأحلام والآمال؟ إن الذين يضحون بأنفسهم وراحة بالهم وحياتهم وأموالهم وبيوتهم والدنيا جميعا ويتركون أولادهم من بعدهم فى حماية المولى وحده لا يمكن أن يقول عنهم ما قاله مأفوننا (لا شفاه الله من اختلال عقله) إلا وقح سافل، إذ أية مصلحة يا ترى يمكن اتهام أبطال الإسلام الاستشهاديين بأنهم إنما يجرون خلفها، وهم الذين يضحون بكل شىء كما هو معروف؟ وهل من مصلحةٍ أو سلطةٍ يمكن أن يتطلع إليها أو يبكى عليها طالب الشهادة، وقد جاد بالحياة ذاتها؟ إن المصالح والسلطات إنما هى مع الأمريكان والفرنسيس والبريطان، لكن استشهاديينا الكرام قد نفضوا ذلك كله عن نفوسهم ونبذوه وراء ظهورهم واشْتَرَوْا به ثمنا غاليا هو ما عند الله من بِرٍّ ورحمةٍ وجنةٍ عَرْضها السماوات والأرض أُعِدَّت للمتقين المناضلين فى سبيل الوطن والدين مع النبيين والصِّدّيقين، وحَسُنَ أولئك رفيقا!
((((((((طبيعة غذاء الرسول وكيفية الوقاية من الأمراض
كان النبي { حينما يستيقظ من نومه وبعد فراغه من الصلاة وذكر الله عز وجل يتناول ..كوباً من الماء مذاباً فيه ملعقة من عسل النحل ويذيبها إذابة جيدة،
لأنه ثبت علمياً أن الماء يكتسب خواص المادة المذابة فيه، بمعنى أن جزيئات الماء تترتب حسب جزيئات العسل.
وروي عن النبي { أنه قال: "عليكم بشراب العسل" وهذا إنما يدل على الفوائد العظيمة لشراب العسل أي الماء المذاب فيه العسل، فقد اكتشف الطب الحديث أن شراب العسل حينما يتناوله الإنسان ينبه الجهاز الهضمي للعمل بكفاءة عن طريق زيادة قدرة عمل الحركة الدورية للأمعاء، وبعدها يعمل العسل كمادة غذائية متكاملة بسبب احتوائه على السكريات الأحادية التي تُمت مباشرة ولا يجري عليها هضم،
وتتولد مركبات يسمونها أدونزين ثلاثي الفوسفات وهو ما يطلق عليه (وقود العضلات) وهذا ما جعل علماء التغذية يأخذون الماء ويكسبوه طاقة وهو ما يطلق عليه الآن في أوروبا اسم (العلاج بالماء) لأن الماء يكتسب صفات ما يضاف عليه من مواد ولذلك فإن الطب في أوروبا أكثر تقدماً حتى أعمارهم أطول لأنهم يتبعون في أساليب التغذية الخاصة بهم نهج الطب النبوي الذي ثبت أنه أصلح وسيلة لجسم حي وسليم،
وما زال الطب الحديث حتى الآن يبحث في أسرار الغذاء الذي كان يتناوله النبي
{ وكيف أن هذا الغذاء لم يكن جزافاً بل له أسس وقواعد علمية ما زال الطب الحديث يستكشف ويبحث في أسرارها حتى الآن، وهذا من أسرار الإعجاز الإلهي التي اصطفى بها النبي { في يومه.
إفطار الرسول
بعدما يتناول النبي { شراب العسل يتكئ قليلاً وبعد العبادة المهجورة التي كان يؤديها- { صلوات الله وتسليمه عليه- وهي التفكر في طاعة الله وبعد صلاة الضحى، يتناول النبي { سبع تمرات مغموسة في كوب لبن } كما روي عنه وحدد النبي { الجرعة بسبع تمرات } في حديثه الذي رواه أبو نعيم
وأبو داود .
أن النبي الصلاة والسلام عليه { قال: "من تصبّح بسبع تمرات لا يصيبه في هذا اليوم سم ولا سحر" }.
وقد ثبت بالدليل العلمي أن هناك إنزيماً يرتفع أداؤه في حالة التسمم، وعندما يتم تناول سبع تمرات لمدة شهر يومياً نلاحظ أن هذا الإنزيم قد بدأ في الهبوط والعودة لوضعه الطبيعي،
وهذا من الإعجاز الإلهي الذي خُصّ به النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم .
ومن الظواهر التي أثبتها العلم الحديث المتعلقة بسبع تمرات: ظاهرة التليباثي أو الاستجلاء البصري أو الاستجلاء السمعي أو ما يطلقون عليه (التخاطر عن بعد). (( للمهتمين بمواضيع البراسيكولوجي )
وقد بحث العلماء في جامعة الملك عبدالعزيز وجامعة القاهرة وتوصلوا لنفس النتائج، من أن العمال الذينيعملون بالمناجم وبالرصاص وبالمواد السامة، أي الأكثر عرضة للسموم، عندما يتناولون سبع تمرات يومياً يتوقف تأثير المواد السامة تماماً، وهذا ما نشره العالم اليهودي اندريا ويل (الذي أعلن إسلامه بعد ذلك)
في بحثه تحت عنوان "سبع تمرات كافية" الذي أثبت فيه أن سبع تمرات تعد علاجاً للتسمم ونصح جميع العاملين المعرضين للتسمم بتناولها يومياً،
وهذا ما يثبته حديث النبي .. الذي رواه الترمذي في سننه من أن (التمر من الجنة وفيه شفاء من السم)
والدليل ...
من القرآن يساقط عليك رطبا جنيا.. وهذا ما أيده العالم اندريا ويل في كتابه (الصحة المثلى)
واستشهد فيه بأحاديث النبي عن التمر وفوائده العظيمة للصحة وللإنسان وكيفية الوقاية من الأمراض.
غداء الرسول
بعد تناول النبي { لوجبة الإفطار التي ذكرناها سابقاً، يظل حتى يفرغ من صلاة العصر، ثم يأخذ ملء السقاية (تقريباً ملء ملعقة) من زيت الزيتون وعليها نقطتا خل مع كسرة خبز شعير، أي ما يعادل كف اليد.
وقد ذكرت بعض الآيات القرآنية بعض الفوائد لزيت الزيتون إذ يقول تعالى: شجرة مباركة زيتونة
لا شرقية ولا غربية ..
يكاد زيتها يضيء وأيضاً والتين والزيتون... وقد أثبت العلم الحديث أن هناك أنواعاً عديدة من السرطان، مثل سرطان العظم (سركوما)، استخدم زيت الزيتون لعلاجها وهي ما قال فيها الله عز وجل ... وصبغ للآكلين فكلمة صبغ للآكلين تعني، كما فسرها ابن كثير والقرطبي وكل التفاسير، أنها تصبغ الجسم أي لها صفة الصبغية،
وقد أيد الطب الحديث في اكتشافاته أن زيت الزيتون يحتوي على أحماض دهنية وحيدة التشبع يعني غير مشبعة، ولذلك يقول العالم أندريا ويل: إنه وجد بالتجربة أن زيت الزيتون يذيب الدهون وهذا من قدرة الله، دهن يذيب الدهون، فهو يعالج الدهون مع أنه دهن لأنه يحتوي في تركيبه على (أوميجا 3) بعدد كبير وأوميجا 3 تعالج الدهون.
كما ثبت علميا أن زيت الزيتون يحمي من أمراض تصلب الشرايين والزهايمر وهو مرض الخرف وضعف الذاكرة ويضيع المخ، واستطاع العالم أندريا ويل أن يثبت كيف يقوم زيت الزيتون بالتدخل في الخلية المصابة بالسرطان ويعالجها ويؤثر فيها، ووصف كلمة صبغ للآكلين التي جاءت في القرآن
على أنها الصبغيات (الكرموسومات) ووصف السرطان بأنه اتساع بين الخلايا الواحدة بعض الشيء،وثبت أن زيت الزيتون يقوم بتضييق هذا الاتساع ويحافظ على المسافات بين الخلايا. وهنا
تتجلى قدرة الله عز وجل ..
في انتقائه لغذاء نبيه محمد { فكان النبي { يغمس كسرة الخبز بالخل وزيت الزيتون ويأكل.
وقد اكتشف العلم الحديث أن الخل الناتج من هضم المواد الكربوهيدراتية في الجسم هو مركب خليّ اسمه (أسيتو أستيت) والدهون تتحول إلى أسيتو أستيت ويبقى المركب الوسطي للدهون والكربوهيدرات والبروتين
هو الخل فعند تناول الخل وحدوث أي نقص من هذه المواد يعطيك الخل تعويضاً لهذا النقص،
وتبين بالعلم الحديث أن زيت الزيتون مع الخل يقومان كمركب بإذابة الدهون عالية الكثافة التي تترسب في الشرايين مسببة تصلّبها، لذلك أطلق العلماء على الخل مع زيت الزيتون (بلدوزر الشرايين)لأنه يقوم بتنظيف الشرايين من الدهون عالية الكثافة التي قد تؤدي إلى تصلب الشرايين.
وليس مهمة الخل فحسب القيام بإذابة الدهون، بل يقوم مع الزيتون كمركب بتحويل الدهون المذابة إلى دهون بسيطة يسهل دخولها في التمثيل الغذائي ليستفيد الجسم منها، ثم بعد أن يتناول النبي { غداءه كان يتناول جزرة حمراء
من التي كانت تنبت في شبه الجزيرة العربية، وقد أثبت العلم الحديث بالدليل والتجربة أن الجزر الأحمر يوجد به (أنتوكسيدات) وهي من الأشياء التي تثبط عمل مسببات السرطان، كما أثبت الطب الحديث أن الجزر يساعد
على نمو الحامض النووي والعوامل الوراثية، وهذا من الإعجاز الإلهي، لذلك فإن الكثير من الأطباء ينصحون
بتناول الجزر كمصدر لفيتامين (أ) ومصدر لتجدد العوامل الوراثية بالحام ض النووي، كما أنه يؤخر ظهور الشيب.
عشاء النبي
كان النبي { بعد أن ينتهي من صلاة العشاء والنوافل والوتر وقبل أن يدخل في قيام الليل، كان يتناول وجبته الثالثة في اليوم وهي وجبة العشاء، وكانت تحتوي على اللبن الروب مع كسرة من خبز الشعير،
وقد أثبت العلم الحديث أن تناول كوب من اللبن الروب في العشاء يعمل على إذابة الفضلات المتبقية في المصران الغليظ، ويقوم بتحليلها إلى مركبات بسيطة يسهل الاستفادة منها ومن الفيتامينات الموجودة بها. وقد جرت بعض الدراسات العلمية، قام بها عدد من خبراء التغذية في الغرب وأيضاً الدراسات التي أجريت في جامعة القاهرة وجامعة الملك عبدالعزيز، بينت فوائد اللبن الروب عند تناوله ليلاً،
فهو يجعل الترسبات غير المرغوب فيها تتفتت ويستفيد منها الجسم،وهذا من الإعجاز في تناول النبي { لهذه الوجبة ليلاً كوجبة عشاء هامة وضرورية وسريعة الهضم، وتجعل الجهاز الهضمي يعمل بكفاءة، لذلك هناك عدد من الأطباء دائماً يصفون لمرضاهم اللبن الروب ليلاً في وجبة العشاء لأنه مريح للقولون ولا يسبب تقلصات في المعدة، وأكدت هذه المعلومات الطبية الدراسة التي أجراها الدكتور عبدالباسط سيد محمد في كتابه (الاستشفاء بطعام النبي) الذي أوضح فيه أن معظم طعام النبي له جانبان من الفائدة، جانب القيمة الغذائية التي يمد بها الجسم وأثبتها العلم الحديث، وجانب الوقاية من الأمراض،
وهذا إنما يدل على الإعجاز الإلهي في اختيار رب العالمين لطعام نبيه ومصطفاه سيد الخلق أجمعين.
وفي النهاية نقول...
انطلاقاً من قوله تعالى:
لقد كان لكم في رسول الله أسوة حسنة
... فلو تأملنا جيداً سنجد أن النبي { كان خير قدوة لنا في مأكله ومشربه وملبسه، كان قدوةً ومعلماً للبشرية، فقد أعجز بعلمه العلماء، وفاقت فصاحته البلغاء والأدباء، فكان إذا تحدث صدق وما ينطق عن الهوى... ولو تأملنا جيداً أحاديث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم
{ عن الطعام لوجدنا أنه أخبرنا من آلاف السنين بما لم يستطع العلم الحديث اكتشافه،
منقول
صورة حقيقية لسيدنا رسول الله؟؟؟(((((((((((((((((((صورة الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم ا.)))))))))).
خلق أفضل الخلق يقول عنه ربه تبارك وتعالى ( وإنك لعلى خلق عظيم)وتقول عنه أم المؤمنين عندما سئلت عن خلقه فقالت ( كان خلقه القرآن)
وإن المسلم ليشتاق لرؤيته صلى الله عليه وسلم وكذلك لمعرفة خلقه وليستمع لتوجيهه وأقواله ليقتدي به ويقتفي أثره , ولن أطيل عليكم وسأنقل لكم هذه الأحاديث التي جمعتها من صحيح الجامع فلعلها تذكرنا بخلقه صلى الله عليه وسلم وكذلك كيف كانت هيئته وصورته التي صوره الله عليه فنشتاق إليه أكثر ونحبه أكثر بأبي هو وأمي ... فتعالوا معي واقرأوا هذه الأحاديث
كان ابغض الخُلق إليه الكذب
كان ابيض ، كأنما صيغ من فضه ، رجِل الشعر
كان ابيض ، مشرباً بحمره ، ضخم الهامة ، أهدب الأشفار
كان ابيض ، مشربا بيض بحمره ، و كان اسود الحدقة ، أهدب الأشفار
كان ابيض مليحا مقصدا
كان احب الألوان إليه الخضرة
كان احب الثياب إليه الحبرة
كان احب الثياب إليه القميص
كان احب الدين ما داوم عليه صاحبه
كان احب الشراب إليه الحلو البارد
كان احب الشهور إليه إن يصومه شعبان [ ثم يصله برمضان ]
كان احب العرق إليه ذراع الشاه
كان احب العمل إليه ما دووم عليه و إن قل
كان احسن الناس خلقا
كان احسن الناس ربعه ، إلى الطول ما هو ، بعيد ما بين المنكبين ، أسيل الخدين ، شديد سواد الشعر ، اكحل العينين ، أهدب الأشفار ، إذا وطئ بقدمه وطئ بكلها ، ليس له أخمص ، إذا وضع رداءه عن منكبيه فكأنه سبيكة فضه
كان احسن الناس ، و أجود الناس ، و أشجع الناس
كان احسن الناس وجها ، و أحسنهم خلقا ، ليس بالطول البائن ، و لا بالقصير
كان أخف الناس صلاه على الناس ، و أطول الناس صلاه لنفسه
كان أخف الناس صلاه في تمام
كان إذا أتى باب قوم لم يستقبل الباب من تلقاء وجهه ، و لكن من ركنه الأيمن أو الأيسر ، و يقول : السلام عليكم ، السلام عليكم
كان إذا أتى مريضا ، أو أتي به قال : اذهب البأس رب الناس ، اشف و أنت الشافي ، لا شفاء ألا شفاؤك ، شفاء لا يغادر سقما
كان إذا أتاه الأمر يسره قال : الحمد لله الذي بنعمته تتم الصالحات ، و إذا أتاه الأمر يكرهه قال : الحمد لله على كل حال
كان إذا أتاه الرجل و له اسم لا يحبه حوله
كان إذا أتاه الفيء قسمه في يومه ، فأعطى الأهل حظين ، و أعطى العزب حظا
كان إذا أتاه قوم بصدقتهم قال : اللهم صل على آل فلان
كان إذا أتى بباكورة الثمرة وضعها على عينيه ثم على شفتيه ، ثم يعطيه من يكون عنده من الصبيان
كان إذا أتى بطعام سال عنه اهديه أم صدقه ؟ فان قيل : صدقه ، قال لأصحابه : كلوا و لم يأكل و إن قيل : هديه ، ضرب بيده ، فأكل معهم
كان إذا اخذ أهله الوعك أمر بالحساء فصنع ، ثم أمرهم فحسوا ، و كان يقول : انه ليرتو فؤاد الحزين ، و يسرو عن فؤاد السقيم ، كما تسرو إحداكن الوسخ بالماء عن وجهها
كان إذا اخذ مضجعه جعل يده اليمنى تحت خده الأيمن
كان إذا اخذ مضجعه قرا { قل يا أيها الكافرون } حتى يختمها
كان إذا اخذ مضجعه من الليل قال ( بسم الله وضعت جنبي ، اللهم اغفر لي ذنبي و اخسأ شيطاني ، و فك رهاني ، و ثقل ميزاني ، و اجعلني في الندى الأعلى))
كان إذا اخذ مضجعه من الليل ، وضع يده تحت خده ثم يقول ( باسمك اللهم أحيا ، و باسمك أموت ،)) وإذا استيقظ قال ( الحمد لله الذي أحيانا بعدما أماتنا و إليه النشور ))
كان إذا أراد أن يحرم تطيب بأطيب ما يجد
كان إذا أراد أن يدعو على أحد أو يدعو لأحد قنت بعد الركوع
كان إذا أراد أن يرقد وضع يده اليمنى تحت خده ثم يقول : اللهم قني عذابك ، يوم تبعث عبادك ( ثلاث مرات )
كان إذا أراد إن يستودع الجيش قال : استودع الله دينكم ، و أمانتكم ، وخواتيم أعمالكم
كان إذا أراد أن يعتكف صلى الفجر ثم دخل معتكفة
كان إذا أراد أن ينام و هو جنب توضأ وضوءه للصلاة، و إذا أراد أن يأكل أويشرب و هو جنب غسل يديه ، ثم يأكل و يشرب كان إذا أراد سفرا اقرع بين نسائه ، فأيتهن خرج سهمها خرج بها معه
كان إذا أراد غزوه ورى بغيرها
كان إذا استجد ثوبا سماه باسمه قميصا أو عمامة أو رداء ثم يقول : اللهم لك الحمد ، و أنت كسوتنيه ، أسألك من خيره ، و خير ما صنع له ، و أعوذ بك من شره ، و شر ما صنع له
كان إذا استراث الخبر تمثل ببيت طرفه : و يأتيك بالأخبار من لم تزود
كان إذا استسقى قال : اللهم اسق عبادك و بهائمك ، و انشر رحمتك ، و أحيي بلدك الميت
كان إذا استفتح الصلاة قال : سبحانك اللهم و بحمدك ، و تبارك اسمك ، و تعالى جدك ، و لا اله غيرك
كان إذا استن أعطى السواك الأكبر ، وإذا شرب أعطى الذي عن يمينه
كان إذا اشتد البرد بكر بالصلاة ، وإذا اشتد الحر ابرد بالصلاة
كان إذا اشتدت الريح قال : اللهم لقحا لا عقيما
كان إذا اشتكى أحد رأسه قال : اذهب فاحتجم ، و إذا اشتكى رجله قال : اذهب فاخضبها بالحناء
كان إذا اشتكى رقاه جبريل قال : بسم الله يبريك ، من داء يشفيك ، و من شر حاسد إذا حسد ، و من شر كل ذي عين كان إذا اشتكى نفث على نفسه بالمعوذات و مسح عنه بيده
كان إذا اصبح و إذا أمسى قال : أصبحنا على فطره الإسلام ، و كلمه الإخلاص ، ودين نبينا محمد ، و مله أبينا إبراهيم ، حنيفا مسلما و ما كان من المشركين
كان إذا اطلع على أحد من أهل بيته كذب كذبه ، لم يزل معرضا عنه حتى يحدث توبة
كان إذا اعتم سدل عمامته بين كفتيه
كان إذا افطر عند قوم قال : افطر عندكم الصائمون ، و أكل طعامكم الأبرار ، و تنزلت عليكم الملائكة
كان إذا افطر قال : ذهب الظمأ ، و ابتلت العروق و ثبت الأجر أن شاء الله
كان إذا افطر عند قوم ، قال : افطر عندكم الصائمون ، و صلت عليكم الملائكة
كان إذا اكتحل اكتحل وترا ، و إذا استجمر استجمر
كان إذا أكل أو شرب قال : الحمد لله الذى أطعم و سقى ، و سوغه و جعل له مخرجا
كان إذا أكل طعاما لعق أصابعه الثلاث
كان إذا أكل لم تعد أصابعه بين يديه
كان إذا انزل عليه الوحي كرب لذلك و تربد وجهه
كان إذا انزل عليه الوحي نكس رأسه و نكس أصحابه رؤوسهم ، فإذا اقلع عنه رفع رأسه
كان إذا انصرف انحرف
كان إذا انصرف من صلاته استغفر ثلاثا ، ثم قال : اللهم أنت السلام ، و منك السلام ، تباركت ياذا الجلال و الإكرام
كان إذا أوى إلى فراشه قال : الحمد لله الذى أطعمنا ، وسقانا ، و كفانا ، و آوانا فكم ممن لا كافي له ، و لا مؤوي له
كان إذا بايعه الناس يلقنهم : فيما استطعت
كان إذا بعث أحدا من أصحابه في بعض أمره قال : بشروا و لا تنفروا ، و يسروا و لا تعسروا
كان إذا بلغه عن الرجل شيء لم يقل : ما بال فلان يقول ؟ ولكن يقول : ما بال أقوام يقولون كذا و كذا
كان إذا تضور من الليل قال : لا اله إلا الله الواحد القهار ، رب السموات و الأرض و ما بينهما العزيز الغفار
كان إذا تكلم بكلمه أعادها ثلاثا ، حتى تفهم عنه ، و إذا أتى على قوم فسلم عليهم ، سلم عليهم ثلاثا
كان إذا تهجد يسلم بين كل ركعتين .......
اللهم صلي وسلم على سيدنا محمد وال سيدنا محمدنا محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0نبيل لوقا بباوي)))))))))))))))))
هو الدكتور المصري، نبيل لوقا بباوي، مواليد قرية بهجور، نجع حمادي، محافظة قنا عام 1944،تخرج في كلية الشرطة عام 1966 حصل على 2 دكتوراة، إحداهما في الاقتصاد والأخرى في القانون، عمل أستاذا للقانون في كلية الشرطة، وخرج على المعاش برتبة لواء عام 1992
ناقش فى شهر 6 / 2004 دراسة في الفقه الإسلامي عن حقوق وواجبات غير المسلمين في الدولة الإسلامية. وذلك من خلال دكتوراة ثالثة أشرف عليها د. حمدي زقزوق وزير الأوقاف المصرية. ويستعد حاليا لمناقشة رسالة دكتوراة عن الدور الوطني للكنيسة المصرية وأثره على الأمن القومي، تحت إشراف الدكتور زقزوق أيضا بالاشتراك مع البابا شنودة الثالث بابا الإسكندرية.
ومن أهم مؤلفاته: “الوحدة الوطنية.. نموذج طنطاوي وشنودة”، و”الوحدة الوطنية ومأساة التعصب”، و”السيدة العذراء وادعاءات المفترين”، و”السيد المسيح وادعاءات المفترين”، و”مشاكل الأقباط في مصر”، و”خطورة مناقشة العقائد في الإسلام والمسيحية”.
وفي الجانب الإسلامي: “محمد الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وادعاءات المفترين”، و”انتشار الإسلام بحد السيف بين الحقيقة والافتراء”، و”الإرهاب ليس صناعة إسلامية”، و”زوجات الرسول والحقيقة والافتراء في سيرتهن”، و”الجزية على غير المسلمين.. عقوبة أم ضريبة؟”. ويستعد الآن لإصدار كتاب عن غزوات الرسول.
رشحه مجمع البحوث الإسلامية لجائزة الدولة التقديرية في العلوم الاجتماعية، تقديرا لكتاباته التي أنصف فيها الإسلام، وفند آراء المستشرقين الذين دأبوا على الهجوم والافتراء على الإسلام، وهي أول مرة يرشح فيها مجمع البحوث شخصية مسيحية منذ إنشائه.
وفي حوار خاص لـ”إسلام أون لاين.نت” مع الدكتور نبيل لوقا بباوي، أكد على ضرورة فهم الحكمة الإلهية في اختلاف الأديان السماوية، وترك مناقشة العقائد والاهتمام بنشر السلام الاجتماعي الذي دعت إليه جميع الأديان. وهذا نص الحوار:
* كيف بدأ مشوار الاهتمام بالثقافة الإسلامية والرد على افتراءات المستشرقين عليها؟
- درَست الشريعة الإسلامية عندما كنت طالبا في كلية الحقوق، كما أصبح عندي قاعدة عريضة من الثقافة الإسلامية من خلال جمع المادة العلمية لرسالة الدكتوراة التي أعددتها في الشريعة الإسلامية بعنوان: “حقوق وواجبات غير المسلمين في المجتمع الإسلامي”، وقد دفعني الهجوم الشرس الذي يتعرض له الإسلام والمسلمون من بعض المنظمات الغربية والأمريكية إلى الكتابة عن الإسلام لتوضيح الصورة الصحيحة عنه وعن رموزه، خاصة بعد أحداث 11 سبتمبر 2001. وتصديت في كتابي الأول للرد على الافتراء القائل بأن الإسلام قد انتشر بحد السيف، وفي كتابي الثاني رددت على من يقولون بأن الإسلام يحرض على الإرهاب، وكان عنوان الكتاب: “الإرهاب ليس صناعة إسلامية”، وقد تمت مراجعة هذه الكتب في الأزهر الشريف، وقوبلت بترحاب كبير برغم حساسية موقفي كمسيحي.
* ما الدافع الذي جعلك تتحمس للدفاع عن الإسلام في ندواتك ومؤلفاتك؟
- أنا لا أدافع عن الإسلام، فالإسلام بما فيه من مبادئ سامية في القرآن والسنة قادر على الدفاع عن نفسه، ولكنني في حقيقة الأمر باحث علمي محايد أؤمن بالمسيحية الأرثوذكسية، أتناول ما يردده الغرب تجاه الإسلام والمسلمين بالافتراء والغمز واللمز، وأرد عليه كباحث علمي فقط، بحيث أتناول الموضوع بحيدة شديدة وبموضوعية دون تعصب، حتى لا أدخل في متاهات المتعصبين من المسيحيين أو المسلمين.
وقد انتابني نوع من الاستياء الشديد بسبب الهجمة الشرسة التي زادت على الإسلام والمسلمين بعد أحداث 11 سبتمبر، فقبل هذه الأحداث كان بعض المستشرقين يهاجمون الإسلام والمسلمين وهم يرتدون نظارة سوداء من الحقد والكراهية لتشويه صورة الإسلام، ولكننا فوجئنا بعد أحداث سبتمبر أن اشترك في هذه الحملة الشرسة الساسة الأمريكيون والإعلاميون الغربيون، وأخذوا يرددون كلاما يقطر سما وحقدا وكراهية، وللأسف اشترك معهم بعض القساوسة المتعصبين من الغرب وأمريكا، منهم القسيس جبريل أحد زعماء الائتلاف المسيحي في أمريكا، وردد ألفاظا أقل ما يقال عنها أنها غير حضارية، فكيف يقال عن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم الذي أنزلت عليه رسالة سماوية يؤمن بها اليوم أكثر من مليار وربع المليار نسمة إنه إرهابي وقاطع طريق؟!.
* في رأيك، ما الأسباب الحقيقية لهذه الهجمة الشرسة على الإسلام؟ وما الهدف منها؟.
- الغرض سياسي معروف، حيث تحاول أمريكا تنفيذ نظرية صموئيل هنتنجتون أستاذ العلوم السياسية بجامعة هارفارد، المستشار السياسي للمخابرات المركزية الأمريكية، التي نشرها في كتاب صراع الحضارات ونظام الدولة الجديد عام 1998م. والغرض من هذه النظرية هو هدم الحضارات السابقة وفرض الحضارة الغربية.
فأمريكا الآن في مرحلة تكوين النظام العالمي الجديد الأحادي القيادة، وتفعل ذلك من خلال محورين:
1– القيادة المطلقة لأمريكا، وفرض الحضارة الغربية على حضارات العالم. وما يحدث في أفغانستان والعراق وفلسطين ما هو إلا نوع من فرض الهيمنة الأمريكية والحضارة الغربية بالعنف. وتجلى ذلك أيضا من خلال مشروع الشرق الأوسط الكبير.
2- التشكيك والافتراء على الإسلام ورموزه لإزالة الحضارة الإسلامية، ووضع الإسلام في حالة المدافع عن نفسه. وهو ما يقوم به الإعلام الغربي بكل قوته.
* بعد تعمقك في دراسة الدين الإسلامي، ما الحقيقة التي تحب أن يفهمها العالم عن الإسلام والمسلمين؟.
- لا بد أن يحرص الدعاة المسلمون على تصدير الثقافة الإسلامية صحيحة للغرب، كما أن الإسلام يجب أن يكون حجة على تصرفات تابعيه، وليس تصرفات تابعيه حجة عليه. إن الغرب يكيل بمكيالين، وينسب للإسلام تصرفات بعض المسلمين التي لا يقرها الإسلام، فالإسلام لا يقر الإرهاب وقتل النفس.
ومن ناحية أخرى فالإرهاب ظاهرة عالمية مارسها أتباع كل الأديان، ففي عام 1995 وضعت جماعات التعصب المسيحي في أوكلاهوما طنا ونصف الطن من الديناميت أمام أحد المباني الفيدرالية، وفجروا هذه الكمية من المتفجرات عن بُعد، ودُمر المبني، وقُتل 168 وأصيب 320 أمريكيا، وقُتل 20 طفلا كانوا موجودين في حضانة أبناء الموظفين بالمبنى. وذكرت وكالات الأنباء أن من قام بهذا العمل 3 أشخاص ملامحهم شرق أوسطية، ثم ثبت أن مرتكب الحادث شخص ينتمي لجماعة متطرفة مسيحية. فهل قال أحد إن هذا إرهاب مسيحي؟!.
وفي عام 1996 قامت جماعات العنف المسيحية بمهاجمة بعض المباني في فرنسا، ووضعوا متفجرات في محطات مترو الأنفاق، وقتلوا 194 شخصا. هذا بالإضافة إلى ما يفعله الإسرائيليون كل يوم، وما فعلوه في قانا وفي صبرا وشاتيلا. وكلنا نتذكر الإرهابي الإسرائيلي الذي دخل المسجد الإبراهيمي عام 1996، وقتل بمدفع رشاش 94 مسلما، فهل قال أحد إن هذا إرهاب يهودي؟!.
فالغرب إذن يركز على مهاجمة الإسلام لأغراض سياسية، وهو ما يضع على عاتق الدعاة المسلمين مسئولية خطيرة، وهي توضيح صورة الإسلام الحقيقية التي تدعو للسلام، حيث يقول الله تعالى في سورة البقرة، الآية 208: (يَا أَيهَا الذِينَ آمَنُوا ادْخُلُوا فِي السلْمِ كَافة)، وفي سورة الأنفال، الآية 61: (وَإِن جَنَحُوا لِلسلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكلْ عَلَى اللهِ إِنهُ هُوَ السمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ)، وتحية الإسلام نفسها تدل على السلام والرحمة.
لقد أنزل الله تعالى 3 ديانات سماوية، لا ليتشاجر أتباع كل ديانة، فالقرآن الكريم يقول: (وَإِن جَنَحُوا لِلسلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكلْ عَلَى اللهِ إِنهُ هُوَ السمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ)، وفي الإنجيل نفس المعنى، فقد ورد في إنجيل لوقا إصحاح 2: (المجد لله في الأعالي وعلى الأرض السلام). كما ورد في إنجيل لوقا أيضا إصحاح 10: (وأي بيت دخلتموه فقولوا سلام لأهل البيت فإن كان ابنا للسلام يحل سلامكم عليه).
فحجر الزاوية في الأديان السماوية هو عبادة الله الواحد. والتنافس بين أتباع كل دين في العمل الصالح والبعد عن المفاسد، ففي القرآن الكريم يقول الله تعالى في سورة التوبة الآية 105: (وَقُلِ اعْمَلُوا فَسَيَرَى اللهُ عَمَلَكُمْ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ) ونفس المعنى في إنجيل متى إصحاح 5: (يروا أعمالكم الحسنة فيمجدوا أباكم الذي في السماوات).
والديانات السماوية ديانات محبة وتآخٍ، حتى مع الأعداء، يقول إنجيل متى في الإصحاح الخامس: (أما أنا فأقول لكم: أحبوا أعداءكم، وباركوا لاعنيكم، وأحسنوا إلى مبغضيكم). ويقول محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم بعد فتح مكة في العام السابع الهجري لمن حاولوا قتله: (اذهبوا فأنتم الطلقاء).
كما تهدف الأديان السماوية إلى السلام الاجتماعي بين البشر إلى أن يرث الله الأرض ومن عليها، يقول تعالى في سورة هود الآية 118: (وَلَوْ شَاءَ رَبكَ لَجَعَلَ الناسَ أُمة وَاحِدَة وَلاَ يَزَالُونَ مُخْتَلِفِينَ)، وتدل الآية الكريمة على أن الاختلاف أمر بمشيئة الله وليس بمشيئة البشر، وبالتالي يجب ألا يكون التنافس في العقائد، وإنما في المبادئ الاتفاقية مثل المحبة، والتعاون، والسلام… إلخ، ويترك الحساب لرب العباد وليس للبشر.
وحتى نعيش في سلام اجتماعي يجب أن أحترم خصوصياتك، حتى ولو لم أعترف بها، وفي المقابل يجب أن تحترم خصوصياتي حتى ولو لم تعترف بها.
* هل حدثت لك أية مضايقات بسبب اهتمامك بالرد على افتراءات المستشرقين الغرب؟
- بالتأكيد قابلت متعصبين مسيحيين ومسلمين رفضوا ما أدعو له، وقاموا بسبي وقذفي على صفحات الجرائد والإنترنت، واتهموني بأنني عميل للحكومة. ولكني أتجاهل كل هذا ولا ألقي له بالا، فقد قاموا بسب البابا شنودة سابقا واتهموه بنفس التهم. فأنا باحث علمي أقابل الحجة بالحجة ولا أمل مناقشة أفكاري طالما أنها في الإطار العلمي بعيدا عن الافتراءات والأكاذيب.
* “مشاكل الأقباط في مصر” كان عنوان أحد كتبك، فما هي هذه المشاكل؟
- للأقباط في مصر مشاكل داخلية مثلهم في ذلك مثل المسلمين، وهذا لا يعني أنهم مضطهدون كما يزعم بعض المغرضين، وقد قصدت في كتابي أن نحل هذه المشاكل داخليا بدلا من ترديد مزاعم القلة المتعصبة التي تجري خلف بعض المنظمات المغرضة. وقد تحدثت في كتابي “مشاكل الأقباط وحلولها” عن هذه المشاكل، ومنها مشكلة الخط الهمايوني لبناء وترميم الكنائس، فقد كان هناك قرار منذ أيام الحاكم العثماني يقضي بضرورة موافقة الحاكم شخصيا على البناء أو الترميم، وزعم بعض المتعصبين أن هذا القرار معمول به حتى الآن. لكن الحقيقة أنه صدر قرار جمهوري عام 1998 يقضي بأن يتولى المحافظون إصدار هذه التراخيص. ولقد ذكر البابا شنودة أن عدد الكنائس التي تمت الموافقة على بنائها في عهد الرئيس مبارك أكثر منها في أي عهد آخر.
ومن المشاكل التي ذكرتها في كتابي أيضا إذاعة القُداس في الإذاعة والتليفزيون، واختيار بعض الوزراء من الأقباط، وإبراز التاريخ المشرف لبعض الأقباط ضمن تاريخ مصر، وتنقية الخطاب الديني الإسلامي والمسيحي من التعصب. وغالبية هذه المشاكل تم حلها.
* لماذا لم يتحرك مسيحيو العالم للدفاع عن المقدسات المسيحية بفلسطين؟
- الحادث أن الضمير المسيحي في الغرب -خاصة الحكام المسيحيين- في حالة سبات ونوم عميق حتى لا يُغضبوا أمريكا ويقعوا تحت طائلة العقوبات الأمريكية. فما حدث في كنيسة المهد التي وُلد بها السيد المسيح ومحاصرتها وضربها بالقنابل كان يحرك الحجر، لكنه لم يحرك ضمير الحكام المسيحيين؛ لأن السياسة العالمية اليوم هي سياسة المصالح، ماذا تعطيني في مقابل ما أعطيك؟ إن العالم تحكمه مصالح سياسية بعيدة عن التعصب الديني، ففي أمريكا 6.2 ملايين يهودي أمريكي، لا يستطيع حزب من الأحزاب -الديمقراطية أو الجمهورية- تجاهل هذه الأصوات الانتخابية، خاصة بعد نجاح بوش الابن في الانتخابات الأخيرة بفارق 825 صوتا عن آل جور. ومن جانب آخر نجد اللوبي الإسرائيلي يحمي حمى الدفاع عن إسرائيل في كل تصرفاتها، ويقوم بدور كبير في تحريك العالم في الجهة التي يريدها.
* في رأيك، كيف تعود الحضارة الإسلامية لقوتها السابقة؟
- يحدث هذا لو تمسكنا بمبادئ وتعاليم الدين الإسلامي الحنيف، يقول الله تعالى في قرآنه الكريم: (وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِحَبْلِ اللهِ جَمِيعا وَلاَ تَفَرقُوا)، ولكن الملاحظ اليوم أن الحروب بين الدول الإسلامية بعضها البعض أكثر من حروبها مع الدول غير الإسلامية. التعاون والتكامل بين الدول العربية والإسلامية أقل بكثير من التعاون مع الدول غير الإسلامية مما أدى إلى إثراء الاقتصاد الغربي وضعف وفقر الاقتصاد الإسلامي. كما أن الخصام بين الحكام العرب والمسلمين ظاهرة حياتية في كل العصور والأزمان، وحرص الحكام العرب على الخطب الرنانة التي تمجد أعمالهم وسياستهم بعيدا عن الاهتمام بالأخذ بأساليب القوة.
كتاب جديد لمؤلف مسيحي ينصف الإسلام والمسلمين
أوصى الأزهر بترجمته إلى لغات العالم
هذا الكتاب “انتشار الإسلام بحد السيف: بين الحقيقة والافتراء”، يكتسب أهميته، ليس من موضوعه أو عنوانه الذي تطرق إليه عشرات المؤلفين العرب والمسلمين والمستشرقين، وإنما من ديانة مؤلفه وثقافته، فالمؤلف د. نبيل لوقا بباوي، مسيحي أرثوذكسي، من جمهورية مصر العربية، حصل على دكتوراه في القانون، ودكتوراه في الاقتصاد، ويعدّ للحصول على درجة الدكتوراه في الشريعة الإسلامية تحت إشراف الدكتور محمود حمدي زقزوق وزير الأوقاف المصري، وعنوانها: “حقوق وواجبات غير المسلمين في المجتمع الإسلامي”. ويكتسب الكتاب أهمية مضاعفة من وطنية المؤلف وموضوعيته.
سبب تأليف الكتاب:
نظراً لما لاحظه المؤلف من تعرض الإسلام دائماً للهجوم الشديد من قبل أعدائه في الغرب، وفي مقدمتهم المستشرقون، وخاصة بعد أحداث الحادي عشر من سبتمبر عام 2001م، ومشاركة عدد من السياسيين الغربيين والأمريكيين في الهجوم على الإسلام، وادعائهم أن الإسلام دين عنف يحرض أتباعه على هذا العنف، وأنه انتشر بحد السيف، عندئذ وجد المؤلف أن الواجب العلمي والقومي والوطني يفرض عليه التصدي لهذه الحملة الشرسة التي يتعرض لها الإسلام.
وللمؤلف كتابين آخرين في هذا الإتجاه، وهما: كتاب (الإرهاب ليس صناعة إسلامية) و كتاب (زوجات الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وادعاءات المفترين)
الإسلام وخرافة السيف!
استعرض المؤلف الاتهام الموجه للإسلام بأنه “دين انتشر بحد السيف والقوة، وأنه أجبر الناس على اعتناقه”، مشيراً إلى قراءته عشرات الكتب التي تتعلق بانتشار الإسلام، وعشرات الكتب في التاريخ الإسلامي، كتبها كُتَّاب مسلمون وكُتَّاب مسيحيون، وخاصة من الغرب، بعضهم يعرض المسألة بموضوعية تاريخية بعيداً عن التعصب الأعمى، وبعضهم يعرضها بالغمز واللمز الذي يقطر السم فيه من مداد قلمه.
وبعد أن ناقش المؤلف هذه التهمة -مع ما كُتب عنها- بموضوعية علمية وتاريخية، وحللها تحليلاً محايداً بفطرته البشرية السليمة التي تسعى - كما ورد في تقرير الأزهر الشريف عن الكتاب ومؤلفه - وراء معرفة الحقيقة لتسجيلها ونشرها، وترفض الظلم وتناصر الحق والعدل… انتهى المؤلف- عن قناعة -إلى أن الإسلام كدين سماوي لم ينتشر بحد السيف، ولم يجبر الناس على الدخول فيه واعتناقه بالقوة، وإنما اعتنقه المسلمون الذين دخلوا في الإسلام بقبول خالٍ من الإكراه، وأنه ثبت من جميع المصادر التاريخية أن الحكام المسلمين الذين فتحوا البلاد كانوا يخيّرون الناس في تلك البلاد التي يتم فتحها بين البقاء على دينهم مع ضمان حرية إقامة شعائر دينهم الذي هم عليهم وبين الدخول في الإسلام تنفيذاً لقوله تعالى: لا إكراه في الدين وإذا اختاروا البقاء على دينهم فإن لهم نفس الحقوق التي للمسلمين وعليهم نفس الواجبات التي على المسلمين، إعمالا للمبدأ الإسلامي “لهم ما لنا وعليهم ما علينا”.
محتوى الكتاب:
يتألف الكتاب من (192) صفحة من الحجم المتوسط، موزعة على خمسة أبواب، اختتمها بذكر أسماء المراجع العربية والأجنبية.
فالباب الأول يشرح انتشار الإسلام في عهد الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، ويتكون من أربعة فصول، بدأها بالحديث عن مولده -عليه الصلاة والسلام - من حيث المكان والزمان، عارضاً سيرته الشريفة، ومواقفه مع المشركين في مكة، ومع المهاجرين والأنصار واليهود في المدينة المنورة، ومواقعه الحربية، ورسائله إلى الملوك والرؤساء، وانتهاء بحجة الوداع، ووفاة الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم.
ويتناول الباب الثاني بالشرح انتشار الإسلام في عهد الخليفة أبي بكر الصديق -رضي الله عنه- ويتكون من فصلين: بدأهما بطريقة اختياره خليفة للمسلمين، ثم الحديث عن حروب الردة، وعن المواجهات العسكرية، وعن انتشار الإسلام خارج الجزيرة العربية في عهده، ثم الحديث عن وفاته.
وفي الباب الثالث يشرح المؤلف انتشار الإسلام في عهد الخليفة عمر بن الخطاب - رضي الله عنه- ويتكون من ثلاثة فصول: بدأها بطريقة اختياره خليفة للمسلمين، ثم الحديث عن الفتوحات الإسلامية، الواسعة في عهده في دولتي الفرس والروم، وعن نظام الحكم الذى اتبعه في قيادته للدولة الإسلامية، ثم عن قتله.
أما الباب الرابع، فيتعلق بشرح انتشار الإسلام في عهد الخليفة عثمان بن عفان رضي الله عنه - ويتكون من ثلاثة فصول: بدأها بطريقة اختياره خليفة للمسلمين، ثم الحديث عن الفتوحات الإسلامية المحدودة في عهده، وعن الفتنة التي حدثت داخل الدولة الإسلامية في عهده وأسبابها ونهايتها التي انتهت بقتله.
وأما الباب الخامس والأخير: فقد شرح فيه المؤلف انتشار الإسلام في عهد الخليفة علي بن أبي طالب - رضي الله عنه- ويتكون من ثلاثة فصول: بدأها -أيضاً- بطريقة اختياره خليفة للمسلمين، ثم الحديث عن الفتنة التي حدثت بين المسلمين في عهده والحروب الداخلية التي دارت بين المسلمين بعضهم مع بعض والتي كانت سبباً في عدم انتشار الإسلام في مناطق جديدة خارج حدود الدولة الإسلامية، التي كانت في عهد الخليفة عثمان بن عفان -رضي الله عنه- وعن الصراع الدموي الذي دار بين مؤيديه ومعارضيه والذي انتهى بقتله.
المقولات الأساسية للكتاب:
لقد تعرض المؤلف -في كتابه- للاضطهاد والتعذيب والتنكيل والمذابح التي وقعت على المسيحيين الأرثوذكس في مصر من الدولة الرومانية ومن المسيحيين الكاثوليك، لا سيما في عهد الإمبراطور دقلديانوس الذي تولى الحكم في العام 284م، فكان في عهده يتم تعذيب المسيحيين الأرثوذكس في مصر بإلقائهم في النار أحياء، أو كشط جلدهم بآلات خاصة، أو إغراقهم في زيت مغلي، أو صلبهم ورؤوسهم منكسة لأسفل، ويتركون أحياء على الصليب حتى يهلكوا، ولا يتم إنزال جثثهم من الصليب، بل تترك للغربان لتأكلها .. إلخ ما ذكره من ألوان التعذيب وصوره، إضافة إلى المغالاة في الضرائب التي كانت تفرض عليهم في كل شيء حتى على دفن الموتى .. كما تعرض المؤلف للإشارة إلى الاضطهاد والتعذيب والقتل الذي وقع على المسيحيين البروتستانت من المسيحيين الكاثوليك.
وكان المؤلف يستهدف من ذكر هذا الصراع المسيحي: عقد مقارنة بين هذا الاضطهاد الديني الذي وقع على المسيحيين الأرثذوكس من الدولة الرومانية ومن المسيحيين الكاثوليك، وبين التسامح الديني الذي حققته الدولة الإسلامية في مصر، وحرية العقيدة الدينية لغير المسلمين التي أقرها الإسلام، وتركهم أحراراً في ممارسة شعائرهم الدينية داخل كنائسهم، وتطبيق شرائع ملتهم في الأحوال الشخصية، وتحقيق العدالة والمساواة في الحقوق والواجبات بين المسلمين وغير المسلمين، كما استهدف المؤلف إثبات أن تجاوز بعض الولاة للمسلمين، أو بعض الأفراد، أو بعض الجماعات من المسلمين في معاملاتهم لغير المسلمين، إنما هي تصرفات فردية شخصية لا تمتّ لتعاليم الإسلام، ولاعلاقة لها بمبادئ الدين الإسلامي وأحكامه.
كما تعرض المؤلف لشرح الجزية التي فرضت على غير المسلمين في الدولة الإسلامية بموجب عقود الأمان التي وقعت معهم، وبيّن أنها ضريبة دفاع عنهم في مقابل حمايتهم والدفاع عنهم، لإعفائهم من الاشتراك في الجيش الإسلامي حتى لا يدخلوا حرباً يدافعون فيها عن دين لا يؤمنون به، وهي في الوقت ذاته نظير التمتع بالخدمات التي تقدمها الدولة للمواطنين مسلمين وغير مسلمين، والتي ينفق عليها من أموال الزكاة التي يدفعها المسلمون، وأن هذه الجزية لا تمثل إلا قدرا ضئيلاً متواضعاً لو قورنت بالضرائب الباهظة التي كانت تفرضها الدولة الرومانية على المسيحيين في مصر ولا تعفي أحد منها مهما كان، في حيث أن الدولة الإسلامية كانت تعفي أكثر من 70% من الأقباط من دفع هذه الجزية، فقد كان يعفى من دفعها: القاصرون، والنساء، والشيوخ، والعجزة، وأصحاب الأمراض، والرهبان…
رؤية تقديرية:
لقد بذل المؤلف جهداً كبيراً بموضوعية رائعة في تأليف هذا الكتاب القيم، حيث أقام الأدلة والبراهين على كذب الاتهام الموجه للإسلام بأنه “دين انتشر بحد السيف، وأن الناس أجبروا على اعتناقه”، وثبت أن هذا الاتهام افتراء على الإسلام من جانب أعدائه الحاقدين عليه، المتعصبين ضده.
ومما يحسب للمؤلف في هذا الكتاب: التزامه في نهاية كل مبحث من مباحث كل فصل بالتعليق على الأحداث، وانتهاؤه بالاستدلال على أن الإسلام كدين لم ينتشر بحد السيف، ولم يفرض على الناس، وإنما اعتنقه من اعتنقه بالاختيار المطلق الخالي من أي إكراه، وكذا ربطه بين التجاوزات التي حدثت من بعض الولاة المسلمين، أو من بعض الأفراد، أو من بعض الجماعات الإسلامية في معاملاتهم لغير المسلمين، واعتبار أن هذه التجاوزات إنما هي تصرفات فردية شخصية لا تمتّ لتعاليم الإسلام بصلة، ولا علاقة لها بالمبادئ والأحكام الإسلامية، مثلها في ذلك مثل التجاوزات التي حدثت من الدولة الرومانية، ومن المسيحيين الكاثوليك ضد المسيحيين الأرثوذكس والمسيحيين البرنستانت، وأن المسيحية كدين لا تقرّ هذه التجاوزات ولا توافق عليها.
وانطلاقاً من موضوعية المؤلف، فقد انتقد موقف المستشرقين من الإسلام وتغاضيهم عما حدث من تجاوزات في جانب المسيحية، كما طلب من المسلمين إعادة النظر في أسلوبهم ومنهجهم عندما يخاطبون غير المسلمين وأن يسيروا في الطريق السليم الذي رسمه لهم دينهم الإسلامي، وسار فيه الرسول -صلى الله عليه وسلم- والخلفاء الراشدون من بعده، لاسيما بعد الهجوم الشرس الذي يتعرض له الإسلام حالياً بعد أحداث الحادي عشر من سبتمبر من العام 2001 في مدينتي واشن ونيويورك الأمريكيتين.
رأي الأزهر في الكتاب:
وافق الأزهر الشريف على هذا الكتاب، محيياً مؤلفه على جهده المشكور، ورأى الأزهر أن هذا الكتاب يصحح مفهوماً خاطئاً عن الإسلام، ويزهق فرية باطلة عنه اتهمه بها أعداؤه المتعصبون ضده، داعيا إلى طبعه ونشره وتداوله وترجمته إلى اللغات الأجنبية، مع نشره خارج نطاق الوطن العربي، لأن غير الناطقين باللغة العربية هم الأشد حاجة إليه.
وقد طبع الكتاب هذا العام 2002م، عن دار البباوى للنشر بالقاهرة.
سماحة الإسلام تتجسد في7 يناير
بقلم: د. نبيل لوقا بباوي
أستاذ القانون الجنائي
لقد أعاد لنا الرئيس الزمن الجميل في الوحدة الوطنية في ايام سعد زغلول, وحتي زمن سعد زغلول الذي يضرب به المثل في الوحدة الوطنية لم يصل في مصداقيته في الوحدة الوطنية مثل زمن مبارك, لقد اصبحت الوحدة الوطنية حقيقة واقعية نعيشها يوميا في محاورنا الحياتية وحقيقة لا ينكرها, احد تعبر عنها بصدق هذه العلاقة الحميمة في الصداقة بين البابا شنودة والامام سيد طنطاوي والرئيس حينما اطلق قرار7 يناير عيدا قوميا لكل المصريين يأخذ فيه جميع المصريين اجازة لكي يهنيء المسلمون أخوانهم المسيحيين بالعيد مثل عيد الاضحي وعيد الفطر فإنه ينفذ سماحة الدين الاسلامي مع غير المسلمين
وانا لا اقول ذلك من فراغ ولكن من واقع دراستي للشريعة الاسلامية فرغم انني مسيحي اعتز بمسيحيتي الارثوذكسية الا اني اعد لرسالة دكتوراه ثالثة في الشريعة الاسلامية وهي تحت اشراف وزير الاوقاف دكتور محمود حمدي زقزوق والدكتور محمد حافظ رضوان وموضوعها حقوق وواجبات غير المسلمين في الدولة الاسلامية وهذه اول مرة في مصر قبطي يعد رسالة دكتوراه في الشريعة الاسلامية علي حد علمي المتواضع وقد انتهيت من كتابة95% من الرسالة وسوف اناقشها بإذن الله في منتصف العام القادم لذلك استطيع أن أوكد من خلال دراستي أن تسامح الاسلام مع غير المسلمين لا حدود له لأن الاسلام يحترم الانسان لكونه انسانا بغض النظر عن ديانته وعن جنسيته او لونه فقد ورد في سورة الاسراء آية70 ولقد كرمنا بني آدم وحملناهم في البر والبحر ورزقناهم من الطيبات وفضلناهم علي كثير ممن خلقنا تفضيلا وعلي ذلك لكل انسان كرامته واحترامه لكونه انسانا وقد روي البخاري في صحيحه عن جنازه مرت علي الرسول( صلي الله عليه وسلم) فقام لها واقفا فقيل له يارسول الله انها جنازه يهودي فقال الرسول( صلي الله عليه وسلم) اليست نفسا رغم ان الجنازة ليهودي وما أكثر ما لقاه الرسول( صلي الله عل
يه وسلم) من اليهود في بداية الدعوة الاسلامية ولكن الرسول( صلي الله عليه وسلم) وقف احتراما للجنازة رغم ان صاحبها يهودي ولكنه في النهاية انسان والاسلام ينظر الي مختلف الاديان السماوية نظرة متحضرة وهو يعترف بجميع الاديان السماوية السابقة, وان اختلاف الاديان امر وارد بمشيئة الله وارادته والله أنزل الديانات السماوية الثلاث اليهودية والمسيحية والاسلام ومنح الإنسان حرية الاختيار وان يتبع اي دين سماوي بارادته الحرة وقد ورد ذلك في سوة الكهف آيه29 فمن شاء فليؤمن ومن شاء فليكفر ولذلك فالاسلام في سماحته مع كل اجناس الارض يقرر احترام اصحاب الديانات الاخري ولا يفرض علي أحدا تغيير ديانته وقد ورد ذلك في سورة البقرة256 لا إكراه في الدين قد تبين الرشد من الغي ولا يجوز لاحد من المسلمين حتي الرسول ذاته ان يجبر أحد علي تغيير ديانته فقد ورد في سورة يونس الآيه99 أفأنت تكره الناس حتي يكونوا مؤمنين مما تقدم يتضح مدي احترام الانسان لكونه انسانا ومدي احترام الانسان لاصحاب الديانات الاخري من مباشرة عقائدهم لذلك كان جميلا من الرئيس مبارك ان ينحاز لسماحة الاسلام مع غير المسلمين ويطلق صيحته التاريخية في اسوان باعتبار يوم7 يناير عيد القيامة اجازة لجميع المصريين والرئيس في ذلك ينفذ سماحة الاسلام مع غير المسلمين واسوق واقعة تؤكد انحياز الرئيس مبارك لسماحة الإسلام فقد قام الرسول( صلي الله عليه وسلم) ببناء مسجده في المدينة في عام622 م في العام الثاني للهجرة وزاره وفد من النصاري من آل نجران ودار بين وفد النصاري والرسول( صلي الله عليه وسلم) حوار لكي يدخل النصاري تحت حماية الدولة الاسلامية علي ان يمارسوا شعائرهم الدينية بحرية في كنائسهم ووافقهم الرسول علي ذلك علي أن يحميهم المسلمون من اي اعتداء خارجي, وافق الرسول دون دفع الجزية لأنها لم تكن قد فرضت بعد وأثناء وجودهم داخل مسجد الرسول كان الوقت بعد العصر فكان وقت صلاة النصاري المسيحيين وأرادوا الصلاة داخل المسجد. ولكن الصحابة منعوهم من الصلاة ولكن الرسول قال للصحابة دعوهم يصلون داخل المسجد وصلي المسيحيون داخل المسجد صلاتهم هذا هو صحيح الدين الاسلامي الذي نفذه الرئيس مبارك وجعل الوحدة الوطنية حقيقة واقعية في مصر, وجعل ولاء المسيحيين والمسلمين لمصر ولاء من الاعماق يجري في شرايين كل انسان مصري مع دمه وانطلاقا من ولائي لمصر وجدت من واجبي القومي والعلمي ان اتعرض للهجمة الشرسة
التي اطلقها الغرب وامريكا علي الاسلام والمسلمين بعد احداث11 سبتمبر بأن الاسلام انتشر بحد السيف وان الارهاب خرج من رحم الاسلام وتناولوا بالغمز واللمز زوجات الرسول لذلك تصديت كباحث علمي محايد لهذه الموضوعات وذلك بلا تعصب وبلا مجاملة وبموضوعية شديدة تصديت لهذه الحملة الغربية ونشرت ثلاثة كتب هي انتشار الاسلام بحد السيف بين الحقيقة والافتراء وكتاب الارهاب ليس صناعة اسلامية وكتاب زوجات الرسول( صلي الله عليه وسلم) وادعاءات المفترين ومما هو جدير بالذكر في وحدتنا الوطنية هذه التلقائية والفرحة بين المسلمين قبل الاقباط بصدور قرار الرئيس عن7 يناير فأنا اذكر اني كنت استمع لخطاب الرئيس في مكتب استاذي الدكتور عبدالكريم درويش بالدقي وكان يجلس معنا سبعة من الاصدقاء المسلمين بينهم داعية اسلامي معروف وعندما ذكر الرئيس قراره عن7 يناير وجدنا ذلك الداعية الاسلامي يقول الله ياريس واذا بالدكتور عبدالكريم درويش اول من حمل شعلة تطوير جهاز الشرطة بالعلم ومن معه من زملائه يقولون ان الرئيس يعبر بصدق عن الوحدة الوطنية في عهده وعند عودتي للمنزل اتصل بي أكثر من ثلاثين من اقاربنا اقباط المهجر يعبرون عن فرحتهم بقرار الرئيس مبارك وانه وجه لطمة قوية لكل القوي التي تدعي أن الاقباط في مصر مواطنون درجة ثانية, لذلك فانني ارسل67 مليون قبلة علي جبين الرئيس مبارك من المسلمين ومن المسيحيين لفرحتهم بذلك القرار الذي اكد ان الوحدة الوطنية حقيقة لا ينكرها الا الاعمي او المتعصب وفي النهاية اقول لكل المصريين ان المحبة تبني والتعصب يأكل اليابس والاخضر
الاسلام برئ من افعال الارهاب
بقلم: دكتور نبيل لوقا بباوي
استاذ القانون الجنائي
اثر احداث الحادي عشر من سبتمبر في امريكا التي غيرت خريطه العالم السياسيه والاقتصاديه والاجتماعيه والثقافيه وكنا في الماضي نقسم تاريخ العالم ما قبل الحرب العالميه الثانيه وما بعدها وها هو التاريخ يعيد نفسه, فعالم ما قبل11 سبتمبر ليس هو عالم ما بعدها وما حدث بعد11 سبتمبر سوف تتناول احد جوانبه وهي استطاعه اللوبي الصهيوني المسيطر علي الاعلام الامريكي ان يصنع مقوله باطله ويلبسها ثوب الحقيقه وهي ان الارهاب صناعه اسلاميه واستطاع بامكاناته ان يصدر هذه المقوله الباطله الي الاعلام الغربي.
ولكن حقيقه الامر ان الاسلام وصحيح الدين الاسلامي منذ نزول الوحي علي الرسول عليه الصلاه والسلام يمنع اي تعد علي اصحاب الديانات المخالفه وعلي المتحدين معهم في الديانه لان صحيح الدين الاسلامي في الكتاب والسنه واضح كل الوضوح في عدم التعدي علي اصحاب الديانات المخالفه.
فعلي سبيل المثال لا الحصر ما ورد في القران الكريم لا اكراه في الدين قد تبين الرشد من الغي سوره البقره256, وكذلك وقل الحق من ربك فمن شاء فليومن ومن شاء فليكفر سوره النحل125, وكذلك ولا تجادلوا اهل الكتاب الا بالتي هي احسن الا الذين ظلموا منهم وقولوا امنا بالذي انزل الينا وانزل اليكم والهنا واحد ونحن له مسلمون العنكبوت46 وكذلك ما ورد في السنه الشريفه من اذي ذميا فقد اذاني ومن اذاني فقد اذي الله ومن هذه الايات التي ذكرتها من القران والاحاديث يتبين ان صحيح الدين الاسلامي ينهي عن التعدي علي اصحاب الديانات المخالفه والذي يحدث في الواقع العملي ان بعض المحسوبين علي الدين في جميع انحاء العالم وخاصه في الدول الاسلاميه والعربيه وفي جميع العصور حتي اليوم يرتدون ثوب الاسلام لتحقيق غرضهم الاساسي وهو سياسي دائما وهو الحصول علي السلطه وكرسي الحكم. وهم يومنون بالاسلوب الميكافلي في ان الغايه تبرر الوسيله.
والارهابيون لا يعرفون الحوار العقلاني الهادئ اما ان تكون معهم وتومن بمبادئهم او تكون عدوهم وهنا قتل اعدائهم في المبادئ حلال ومبرر فقهيا والارهابيون يفرضون الظلام علي المناخ الفكري لانهم يحاولون فرض افكارهم المتخلفه علي الراي العام تحت ستار ان ذلك هو صحيح الدين وان ماعداهم من فكر هو ضلاله وجهاله وهم يضعون الفكر الديني علي هواهم لتحقيق اهدافهم السياسيه في الوصول للحكم, فبينما العالم كله يحقق التقدم العلمي والتكنولوجي حيث العالم كله قريه واحده صغيره نجد ان الارهابيين يفرضون علي دولهم الظلام الدامس بهذه التصرفات المجنونه التي تشوه سماحه الدين لدي العالم الخارجي.
ان الارهابيين يفرضون علي الراي العام الداخلي والعالمي جهاله عقليه تحرمهم من الحياه العصريه والتكيف مع الحضارات العصريه, ففي افغانستان مشاهده التليفزيون والاستماع الي الراديو حرام وخروج المراه من بيتها حرام وعمل المراه حرام.
هل يوجد تشويه للدين اكثر من ذلك ان الصهيونيه العالميه لو صرفت المليارات من الدولارات لتشويه صوره الاسلام فلن تصل الي ما يفعله الارهابيون من افعالهم واقوالهم واخطر شئ يشوه الاسلام هو تصرفات وفتاوي الجماعات الارهابيه لمصلحه افكارهم السياسيه وهو الوصول للحكم والجماعات الارهابيه ترتدي عباءه الاسلام كغرض تكتيكي استراتيجي لذلك فان الاسلام برئ من تصرفات الجماعات الارهابيه لتحقيق اهدافهم السياسيه والجماعات الارهابيه التي تشوه الاسلام بارهابها والاسلام برئ منها لها عده ملامح اساسيه وهي:
1- جميع التنظيمات الارهابيه تستخدم الدين كعباءه لها لتغطيه هدفها في الوصول للحكم.
2- الجماعات الارهابيه تعتمد علي مصدر مالي من جهات مختلفه لتحقيق اغراضها السياسيه في الوصول للحكم.
3- ان الجماعات الارهابيه يكون لها جهاز سري لقتل من لا يرغبون فيهم او يعترضون علي تصرفاتهم.
4- الجماعات الارهابيه تتبع مبدا التقيه اي اخفاء حقيقه تصرفاتهم وافعالهم والظهور بمظهر يخالف جميع تصرفاتهم في الاغتيال والسرقه.
5- الجماعات الارهابيه يعتقدون ان المجتمع القائم مجتمع جاهلي كافر لابد من السعي لتغييره بالعنف.
6- الجماعات الارهابيه يعتقدون انهم يمثلون صحيح الدين وان غيرهم من الجماعات علي ضلاله, فهم اهل الحل والعقد الذين يحافظون علي صحيح الدين ويكفرون ما عداهم.
7- الجماعات الارهابيه يعتقدون بنظريه البيعه فعضو الجماعه يبايع الامير او المرشد وينفذون اوامر الامير الذي بايعوه سواء اكانت هذه الاوامر مقنعه او غير مقنعه, والمسئول امام الله هو الامير او المرشد الذي اعطي الاوامر وبذلك يكون المسئول امام الله عن جميع افعال الجماعه هو الامير او المرشد وان عضو الجماعه غير مسئول امام الله وبذلك يطيع طاعه عمياء في كل الاوامر التي تصدر اليه بالقتل او السرقه او التخريب, وبذلك يكون الامير هو المتحكم في شئون الجماعه الارهابيه.
8- الجماعات الارهابيه تحمل الحاكم في بلادها كل الاخطاء التي تحدث في عهده وتحمله المسئوليه عن الفساد حتي يسهل تغييره.
9- امريكا لها دور فعال في تقويه الجماعات الارهابيه في المنطقه العربيه والاسلاميه حتي يحدث عدم الاستقرار في البلاد العربيه وحتي تسهل السيطره علي منطقه البلاد العربيه من بترول منذ مولت ودربت المجاهدين الافغان في اثناء حربهم ضد الروس وبعد انتهاء الحرب مع الروس تمت اعاده المجاهدين الافغان الي بلادهم الاصليه مدربين علي احدث الاسلحه تدريبا عاليا ليهزوا الاستقرار في بلادهم.
10- الارهاب له خط استراتيجي تكتيكي لجميع الجماعات الارهابيه وهو مسلك مبدئي للضغط علي الحاكم ولا وسيله للجماعات للوصول للحكم الا بالافعال الارهابيه.
11- الجماعات الارهابيه لا تملك مشروعا قوميا سياسيا او اقتصاديا او اجتماعيا لحل مشاكل المجتمع المعاصر نحو زياده الصادرات ومشاكل الميزان التجاري وميزان المدفوعات وغيرها والعلاقات مع الدول الاجنبيه خاصه الدول المسيحيه فكل مالديها شعارات فضفاضه.
12- الجماعات الارهابيه لاتقبل الحوار فاراءها هي الصحيحه دائما ومن يخالفها يتهم بالكفر والالحاد والزندقه والخروج علي صحيح الدين, اي انهم يملكون الحقيقه المطلقه في جميع الاراء.
13- الجماعات الارهابيه تحاول افساد السياسيات التعليميه والاعلاميه للترويج لسياسه التطرف التي تخدم اهدافها.
14- الجماعات الارهابيه تفرق بين ابناء الوطن الواحد علي اساس ديني وليس التفرقه علي اساس المواطنه.
لذلك اقول في النهايه بعد ان بينت ان صحيح الدين الاسلامي يرفض الارهاب ان الاسلام برئ من افعال الارهاب التي لا يقرها صحيح الدين
(((((((الوحم .. في الكتاب المقدس))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
بين الحقيقة والخيال
ما هو الوحم ؟
تشهد فترة الحمل حدوث تغيرات انفعالية تكون واضحة تماماً في المرحلة المبكرة منه، مثل شعور بعض السيدات بعدم القدرة على التركيز والشعور بالدوار والإغماء، كما تصاب بعضهن بنوبات من الصدام أو الاكتئاب والحزن وحدة الطبع.
وهناك من يعتقد بان الحامل لو نظرت الي شخص معين إثناء وحمها... يأتي الطفل شبه هذا الشخص ...فإذا كان ذات عيون زرق أو خضر يأتي الطفل عينه زرقاء أو خضراء ..أو إن الحامل اذا أكلت أو أكثرت من أكل طعام معين تؤثر علي لون بشرة الجنين ..أو لون عينه ....فلو أكثرت الحامل من أكل الخضروات الخضراء ...يولد المولد ذات عيون خضراء ...وهكذا
اتفاقه مع العلم
هذا الكلام لا يتفق مع العلم مطلقا
سفهذا رأي احد الأطباء
علماً بأن الجنين لا يتأثر بنوع الوحم ولا بوجوده من عدمه
سويقول اخر
وعادة ما تكون الأورام الدموية التي تصيب الجنين لا علاقة لها بما حرمت منه إلام إثناء الحمل , كما تعتقد الكثيرات , حيث تعتقد الأم ان الورم الذي يظهر على جسم المولود بسبب عدم تناولها الفراولة أو التوت الذي اشتهته في اشهر الحمل وهذا لا يوجد فيه دليل
ساما الاعتقاد بان الحامل لو نظرت الي شخص معين إثناء وحمها ... يأتي الطفل شبه هذا الشخص ...أو أكلت أكل معين يؤثر على صفات الجنين ...كل هذا يخالف العلم ....فكل هذا ينتقل عن طريق الوراثة
سالوراثة هي انتقال الصفات الوراثية من الأسلاف الى الاخلاف , وبتعبير اخر هي انتقال الخصائص البيولوجية التي تتسبب في تشابه الذرية من جيل الى جيل بواسطة عملية التناسل .
سوالثروة الوراثية تكمن عند الانسان في نواة كل خلية على شكل جسيمات تسمى الكروموسومات او الصبغيات . وعبر هذه الكروموسومات وبوسطة ما تحمله من الجينات او الموروثات او الناسلات , تنتقل الصفات الوراثية منتقاه مختارة من الاسلاف الى الاخلاف , الشئ الذي يعطي كل مخلوق خصائصه وميزاته: كالفصيلة الدموية , كلون الجلد والشعر والعينين , كطول القامة او قصرها .. , اذا فالمورثات تحكم ادق تفاصيل تخلق الانسان منذ تكونه وحتى موته .
تقول لي ما علاقة هذا بالكتاب المقدس ؟
تابع معي باذن الله .. وسف تعرف ????يعقوب ....ووحم الماشية
؟يحكى ان ....ان يعقوب عندما سرق البركة من أخيه عيسو ....هرب وسكن عند خاله لأبان
وتزوج ابنتيه {ليئة و راحيل }مقابل العمل عنده بدون اجر مدة أربع عشر عاماً عن كل بنت سبع سنوات
وبعد ان قضى هذه المدة طلب من خاله الرحيل
ولكن خاله توسل اليه ان يبقى ويأخذ ما يطلبه من أجرة
فطلب يعقوب ان يأخذ كل أشاة و ماعز { رقطاء ..وبلقاء ..وسوداء} ....من مواشي خاله ...الحالية وما سوف يولد ..
؟وتم فرز المواشي
واخذ أبناء يعقوب نصيب والدهم
وظل يعقوب يرعى غنم خاله مقابل ان يحصل على المواشي التي تولد بالمواصفات التي حددها مع خاله
{ رقطاء ..وبلقاء ..وسوداء} بالنسبة للخراف
{رقطاء ..وبلقاء } بالنسبة الي الماعز
فماذا فعل يعقوب { كما يدعي الكتاب المقدس }؟
؟احضر قطعة خضراء من أشجار { اللُّبْنَى وَاللَّوْزِ وَالدُّلْبِ} ....وقلمها بخطوط بيضاء { وذلك بتقشير جزء فيظهر البياض الذي اسفل القشرة وترك جزء بدون تقشير وهكذا }....ثم وضع هذه القطعة من الأشجار التي قام بتقليمها عند مساقي الماشية حيث تتردد الماشية ....فتتوحم عليها الماشية حين تقبل لتشرب .....فتلد غنماً { مُخَطَّطَةً وَرَقْطَاءَ وَبَلْقَاءَ}
؟ليس هذا فحسب بل كان ينتقي الماشية القوية ....فينصب أمامها قطعة الخشب المقلمة ... فتتوحم فتلد غنم قوي { مُخَطَّطَةً وَرَقْطَاءَ وَبَلْقَاءَ} والضعيفة لا ينصب أمامها الخشب المقلمة فتلد شكلها وتكون لخاله
اقتباس:
25وَعِنْدَمَا وَلَدَتْ رَاحِيلُ يُوسُفَ، قَالَ يَعْقُوبُ لِلاَبَانَ: «أَخْلِ سَبِيلِي فَأَنْطَلِقَ إِلَى بَلَدِي وَإِلَى أَرْضِي، 26وَأَعْطِنِي نِسَائِي وَأَوْلاَدِي الَّذِينَ خَدَمْتُكَ بِهِمْ، وَدَعْنِي أَمْضِي، فَأَنْتَ تُدْرِكُ أَيَّةَ خِدْمَةٍ خَدَمْتُكَ». 27فَقَالَ لَهُ لاَبَانُ: «إِنْ كُنْتُ قَدْ حَظِيتُ بِرِضَاكَ فَأَرْجُوكَ أَنْ تَمْكُثَ مَعِي، لأَنَّنِي عَرَفْتُ بِالتَّفَاؤُلِ بِالْغَيْبِ أَنَّ الرَّبَّ قَدْ بَارَكَنِي بِفَضْلِكَ». 28وَأَضَافَ: «عَيِّنْ لِي أُجْرَتَكَ فَأُعْطِيَكَ إِيَّاهَا». 29فَقَالَ لَهُ يَعْقُوبُ: «أَنْتَ تَعْلَمُ كَيْفَ خَدَمْتُكَ، وَمَاذَا آلَتْ إِلَيْهِ مَوَاشِيكَ تَحْتَ رِعَايَتِي، 30فَالْقَلِيلُ الَّذِي كَانَ لَكَ قَبْلَ مَجِيئِي ازْدَادَ أَضْعَافاً كَثِيرَةً، فَبَارَكَكَ الرَّبُّ مُنْذُ أَنْ قَدِمْتُ عَلَيْكَ، وَالآنَ مَتَى أَشْرَعُ فِي تَحْصِيلِ رِزْقِ عَائِلَتِي؟» 31فَسَأَلَهُ: «مَاذَا أُعْطِيكَ؟» فَأَجَابَهُ يَعْقُوبُ: «لاَ تُعْطِنِي شَيْئاً. وَلَكِنْ إِنْ أَرَدْتَ، فَاصْنَعْ لِي هَذَا الأَمْرَ الْوَاحِدَ فَأَذْهَبَ وَأَرْعَى غَنَمَكَ وَأَعْتَنِيَ بِهَا: 32دَعْنِي أَمُرُّ الْيَوْمَ بَيْنَ مَوَاشِيكَ كُلِّهَا، فَتَعْزِلَ مِنْهَا كُلَّ شَاةٍ رَقْطَاءَ وَبَلْقَاءَ وَسَوْدَاءَ مِنْ بَيْنِ الْخِرْفَانِ، وَكُلَّ بَلْقَاءَ وَرَقْطَاءَ بَيْنَ الْمِعْزَى، فَتَكُونُ هَذِهِ أُجْرَتِي. 33وَتَكُونُ أَمَانَتِي شَاهِدَةً عَلَى صِدْقِ خِدْمَتِي فِي مُسْتَقْبَلِ الأَيَّامِ. فَإِذَا جِئْتَ تَفْحَصُ أُجْرَتِي، وَوَجَدْتَ عِنْدِي مَا لَيْسَ أَرْقَطَ أَوْ أَبْلَقَ بَيْنَ الْمِعْزَى وَأَسْوَدَ بَيْنَ الْخِرْفَانِ، يَكُونُ مَسْرُوقاً عِنْدِي». 34فَقَالَ لاَبَانُ: «لِيَكُنْ وَفْقاً لِقَوْلِكَ». 35وَعَزَلَ لاَبَانُ فِي ذَلِكَ الْيَوْمِ التُّيُوسَ الْمُخَطَّطَةَ وَالْبَلْقَاءَ، وَكُلَّ عَنْزٍ رَقْطَاءَ وَبَلْقَاءَ، كُلَّ مَا فِيهِ بَيَاضٌ وَكُلَّ خَرُوفٍ أَسْوَدَ. وَعَهِدَ بِهَا إِلَى أَبْنَاءِ يَعْقُوبَ. 36وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ يَعْقُوبَ مَسَافَةَ ثَلاَثَةِ أَيَّامٍ، وَاسْتَمَرَّ يَعْقُوبُ يَرْعَى مَوَاشِي لاَبَانَ.
37وَأَخَذَ يَعْقُوبُ قُضْبَاناً خَضْرَاءَ مِنْ أَشْجَارِ اللُّبْنَى وَاللَّوْزِ وَالدُّلْبِ وَقَلَّمَهَا بِخُطُوطٍ بَيْضَاءَ كَاشِفاً عَمَّا تَحْتَ الْقِشْرَةِ مِنْ بَيَاضٍ، 38وَنَصَبَ الْقُضْبَانَ الَّتِي قَلَّمَهَا تِجَاهَ الْغَنَمِ فِي أَجْرَانِ مَسَاقِي الْمَاءِ حَيْثُ تَرِدُ الْمَوَاشِي، فَتَتَوَحَّمُ عَلَيْهَا إِذَا مَا أَقْبَلَتْ لِتَشْرَبَ. 39فَكَانَتِ الْغَنَمُ تَتَوَحَّمُ عِنْدَ الْقُضْبَانِ، فَتَلِدُ غَنَماً مُخَطَّطَةً وَرَقْطَاءَ وَبَلْقَاءَ. 40وَفَرَزَ يَعْقُوبُ الْحُمْلاَنَ، وَجَعَلَ مُقَدِّمَةَ الْمَوَاشِي فِي مُوَاجَهَةِ كُلِّ مَا هُوَ مُخَطَّطٌ وَأَسْوَدُ مِنْ غَنَمِ لاَبَانَ، وَأَقَامَ لِنَفْسِهِ قُطْعَاناً عَلَى حِدَةٍ بِمَعْزِلٍ عَنْ غَنَمِ لاَبَانَ. 41فَكَانَ يَعْقُوبُ كُلَّمَا تَوَحَّمَتِ الْغَنَمُ الْقَوِيَّةُ يَنْصِبُ الْقُضْبَانَ أَمَامَ عُيُونِ الْمَوَاشِي فِي الأَجْرَانِ لِتَتَوَحَّمَ بَيْنَ الْقُضْبَانِ. 42وَحِينَ تَكُونُ الْغَنَمُ ضَعِيفَةً، لاَ يَضَعُ الْقُضْبَانَ أَمَامَهَا، فَصَارَتِ الضَّعِيفَةُ لِلاَبَانَ وَالْقَوِيَّةُ لِيَعْقُوبَ. 43فَاغْتَنَى الرَّجُلُ جِدّاً، وَكَثُرَتْ مَوَاشِيهِ وَجَوَارِيهِ وَعَبِيدُهُ وَجِمَالُهُ وَحَمِيرُهُ.....التكوين 30 / 25: 43
كما وضحنا سابقا .... الجنين لا يتأثر بنوع الوحم ولا بوجوده من عدمه..ولا تتأثر صفاته بما تشاهده الأم ......فالمتحكم في صفات الجنين هو عامل الوراثة ....فما قصه علينا الكتاب المقدس ليس له سند من العلم ....بل يتعارض معه??????????
ننظر للموضوع من الناحية الأخلاقية
> ما قام به يعقوب {طبقا للكتاب المقدس } يخالف الأخلاق السوية ويناقض الأمانة ....التي تعهد بها يعقوب لخاله {وَتَكُونُ أَمَانَتِي شَاهِدَةً عَلَى صِدْقِ خِدْمَتِي فِي مُسْتَقْبَلِ الأَيَّامِ }
اين هذه الأمانة ؟ > طلب ان تكون أجرته ...الغنم ذات لون معين .....فيستخدم الحيلة والغش ليجعل الغنم ينجب له هذا اللون ليستحوذ على اكبر عدد ممكن من الغنم
> كيف بنبي ابن نبي ابن نبي يفعل ذلك فهو يعقوب بن إسحاق بن إبراهيم ...عليهم السلام جميعا
بل أبو أنبياء بني إسرائيل جميعا ومنهم على سبيل المثال { يوسف ..موسى ..هارون ..يشوع ..داوود ...سليمان ....اشعياء ..زكريا ..يحيى ..عيسى } عليهم جميعا السلام
> اين القدوة .....اين اصطفاء الله تعالى ؟!!!!!!!!!!!
يعقوب عليه السلام ..برئ من هذا الافتراء كما وضحنا من ناحية العلم
يتبع بإذن الله
???????هذا كتابهم يخالف العلم ويقولون كلمة الله .....ويكذبون الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم الصادق الذي جاء بما يتفق مع العلم
واليك هذا الموضوع المنقول
الاسس العلمية للوراثة البشرية ودلالاتها في الاسلام
: الوراثة هي انتقال الصفات الوراثية من الاسلاف الى الاخلاف , وبتعبير اخر هي انتقال الخصائص البيولوجية التي تتسبب في تشابه الذرية من جيل الى جيل بواسطة عملية التناسل .
: والثروة الوراثية تكمن عند الانسان في نواة كل خلية على شكل جسيمات تسمى الكروموسومات او الصبغيات . وعبر هذه الكروموسومات وبوسطة ما تحمله من الجينات او الموروثات او الناسلات , تنتقل الصفات الوراثية منتقاه مختارة من الاسلاف الى الاخلاف , الشئ الذي يعطي كل مخلوق خصائصه وميزاته: كالفصيلة الدموية , كلون الجلد والشعر والعينين , كطول القامة او قصرها .. , اذا فالمورثات تحكم ادق تفاصيل تخلق الانسان منذ تكونه وحتى موته .
: وتجدر الاشارة الى ان الخلية الانسانية الجسدية تحتوي على 23 زوجا من الحاملات للصفات الوراثية: منها 22 زوجا من الصبيغات الجسدية , وزوجا واحدا من الكرموسومات الجنسية س س اي XX عند الانثى او س ص اي XY عند الذكر . فالانسان من الوجهة الوراثية , ويرجع في نصف ثروته الوراثية الاخر الى الاب او الذرية القريبة او البعيدة التي انحدر منها الاب . وهكذا فكل العمليات التي تحدد خلق الانسان وتعطيه خصائصه البيولوجية منذ نشأته وحتى مماته , تحكمها هذه الثروة الوراثية المؤلفة من 23 زوجا من الصبغيات التي وضعها الله سبحانه وتعالى في نواة الزيجوت او النطفة الأمشاج , بعد اندماج البويضة او نطفة المرأة الحاملة لـ 22 صبغيا جسديا وواحد جنسيا هو س أي (X) والحيوان المنوي او نطفة الرجل الحامل لـ (22) صبغيا جسديا وواحدا جنسيا إما س اي (X) او ص اي (Y) , ليتقرر عندئذ خلق انسان جديد بوجود خلية بشرية كاملة تحمل 46 كروموسوما . فقد صدق الله تعالى حين قال في الايات 17 و18 و19 من سورة عبس: (قتل الانسان ما اكفره * من اي شئ خلقه * من نطفة خلقه فقدره) .
: وعلم الوراثة هو دراسة الآليات التي تحكم انتقال الصفات الوراثية من المخلوق الى نسله , ولم تصبح الوراثة علما بالمعنى المتعارف عليه الان الا منذ اواخر القرن التاسع عشر الميلادي ,عام 1865م على يد العالم النمساوي (جريجور جوهان مندل) الذي عاش من سنة 1822م الى سنة 1884م , حيث تمثل اعماله القاعدة التي بنيت عليها القوانين الاساسية لعلم الوراثة هذا .
: وليس المقصود من التطرق هنا الى اساسيات الوراثة البشرية , الدخول في علم الوراثة الطبي , فبابه واسع جدا وفيه مؤلفات عديدة وبلغات مختلفة , ولكن المقصود هو اظهار إعجاز ما جاء به الاسلام في مجال علم الوراثة .
(فعن ابي هريرة رضي الله عنه ان اعرابيا اتى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: إن امرأتي ولدت غلاما اسود واني انكرته ,فقال له رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: هل لك من إبل؟ قال: نعم . قال: فما ألوانها ؟ قال: حمر . قال: هل فيها من اورق . قال: ان فيها لورقا . قال: فأنى ترى ذلك جاءها ؟ قال: يا رسول الله عرق نزعها . قال: ولعل هذا عرق نزعه . ولم يرخص له في الانتقاء منه) .
وفي رواية اخرى (عن ابي هريرة رضي الله عنه ان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جاءه اعرابي فقال: يارسول الله , ان امرأتي ولدت غلاما اسود ,فقال:هل لك من ابل ؟ قال: نعم قال: ما الوانها ؟ قال: حمر. قال: فيها من اورق؟ قال: نعم , قال: فأنى كان ذلك ؟ قال: أراه عرق نزعه. قال: فلعل ابنك هذا نزعة عرق).
: فهذا الاعرابي لما ولدت امرأته غلاما اسود , وليس السواد لونه ولا لون امه دخله الشك من زوجته ,فأتى الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم الذي سأله عن لون ابله , فقال: حمر جمع احمر , قال صلى الله عليه وسلم: هل فيها اورق؟ اي اسمر او ما كان لونه كلون الرماد , فأجابه الاعرابي بأن فيها ورقا كثيرة جمع اورق ,قال صلى الله عليه وسلم: فمن اين ؟ قال ابو الولد لعله نزعة عرق اي جذبه لون كان في احد اصوله , فرد عليه الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم: وهذا كذلك , فمخالفة اللون لا تدل على ان الولد من الزنا فربما كان لونه في احد اصوله .
(وعن عائشة رضي الله عنها قالت: دخل علي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ذات يوم مسرورا تبرق اسارير وجهه فقال: ياعائشة ألم تر ان مجززا المدلجي دخل علي فرأى اسامة وزيدا وعليهما قطيفة قد غطيا رؤسهما وبدت اقدامهما , فقال: ان هذه الاقدام بعضها من بعض).
: فالسيدة عائشة زوج النبي , تقول إنه صلى الله عليه وسلم دخل عليها وهو مسرور يتهلل وجهه من الفرح فقال: اما علمت ان مجززا المدلجي , وهو شخص يعرف الشبه ويميز الاثر , رأى زيد بن حارثة وابنه اسامة مستوردين بقطيفة لكن ظهرت اقدامهما , فقال: ان هذه الاقدام بعضها من بعض , فزيد هذا كان لونه ابيض وولده اسامة كان لونه اسود لان امه بركة الحبشية كانت سوداء ,فكان بعض الناس يرتاب في نسبه لسواده وبياض ابيه , فلما قال المجزز هذه الاقدام بعضها من بعض اي فأحد هذين ولد للاخر فرح النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لظهور الحق .
: فمن خلال ماورد في اقوال الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم هذه , يتبين بأن الشبه بين المولود ووالديه قد يكون ظاهرا وقد يكون غير ظاهر بل بعيد كل البعد عن كلا الابوين , الشئ الذي اكده علم الوراثة حديثا . وتعليل ذلك علميا ومن الوجهة الوراثية دائما , هو انه عندما ينصهر الحيوان المنوي مع البويضة , تتكون النطفة الامشاج او الزيجوت حيث تتجمع صبغيات كل من الاب والام بما تحمله من صفات وراثية متعددة في جيناتها , هذه الجينات التي تحكم مستقبل الانسان البيولوجي اذ تمنحه الخصائص التي تميزه وتجعله يشابه تقريبا اباه جسديا او اجداده . ليس هذا فحسب بل ان هذه المورثات تعمل والى ابعد الحدود على اظهار الطباع المميزة الخاصة بالعائلة لفترة اجيال متوالية . وهكذا فتقدير صفات الانسان الوراثية وبالتالي تحديدها , منذ نشأته وحتى مماته , يعبران عن عمل الناسلات . وحسب قوانين الوراثة , فإن الصفات الوراثية عند شخص ما اما ان تكون مسيطرة او سائدة تظهر دائما في نسله المباشر , واما ان تكون منتحية او خاضعة فلا تظهر في النسل المباشر وانما بعد سلالات واجيال . ومن ثم يكون العلم الحديث قد كشف ان ضمن هذه الناسلات تكمن اسرار واسرار يظهرها الله متى يشاء , ومن ضمن تلك الاسرار الصفات والميزات الخلقية التي تعطي الفرد اوصافه وملامحه وشكله ولونه واستعداده السلوكي والعقلي , بل واستعداده لتقبل هذا الميكروب أو قدرته على مناعته وإمكانية اصابته بهذا المرض اوذاك . وهذا ما يجعل الزواج بين الاقارب من اولاد عم او خال او عمه او خالة , يظهر الصفات الوراثية المتنحية التي كانت مختفية . فالمتقاربون في النسب يحملون كثيرا من الصفات المشتركة والخاضعة التي لاتبرز عليهم , وبالزواج فإن احتمال ظهور هذه الصفات المتنحية يصبح كبيرا جدا عند بعض مولوديهم , لان الاب لن يعطي الا جينا واحدا فقط لكل صفة من الصفات , فإذا كانت هذه الصفة موجودة ايضا في البويضة , كان ذلك ايذانا بتكوين جين مكثف من كلا الوالدين , وفي هذه الحالة فقط تبرز الصفات المتنحية في الذرية التي يستلزم ظهورها وجود نفس الصفة مورثة من كلا الاب والام , وما عدا ذلك فيعتبر المولود حاملا للصفة فقط دون ان تظهر عليه هذه الاخيرة . وتجدر الاشارة الى ان الامر لا يتوقف دائما عند مجرد انتقال صفات وراثية عادية من جيل الى جيل كاللون مثلا , بل احيانا يتعداه الى انتقال امراض قد تكون خطيرة . ولمزيد من الايضاح , نستدل بشجرة النسب الاتية كنموذج , ولتكن الصفة المراد تتبع انتقالها عبر الاجيال هنا هي سواد لون الجلد .
: نلاحظ من خلال الشجرة النسب هذه , بأن الصفة المتنحية اي سواد لون الجلد عبر الجيلين الاول والثاني دون ان تظهر على احد الابناء رغم ان بعضهم يعتبر حاملا لها وهم المرقمون: 4 و8 و12 و15 و17 و20 . وبزواج صلبي بين 15 و17 برزت هذه الصفة المتنحية عند احد ابناء الجيل الثالث وهو المرقم 27 المتميز بلونه الاسود عن باقي افراد عائلته على مر ثلاثة اجيال . ونادرا جدا ما يقع زواج بين حاملي الصفة المتنحية من غير الاقارب كبين 19 و20 لنحصل على نفس النتيجة اي مولود اسود اللون وهو المرقم 30 . ومن ثم نفهم حديث الاعرابي الذي انته امراته بغلام اسود .
: فمما سبق , ندرك بأن ما جاء به الاسلام ومنذ القرن السابع الميلادي في مجال علم الوراثة البشرية يعتبر بحق اعجازا?????????????وأخيرا اليك هذه الابتسامة بخصوص موضوع الوحم
منقول
أستاذ مدرسة أجته بعثة على دول أوروبية،
فأخذ
مرته وراح ، وما في تسع شهور وإلا مرته حامل
وجابتله ولد أشقر
عيونه ملونة ، فاستغرب الاستاذ وسألها: شو
هاد.
فجاوبته:شو بدي ساوي أنت بتروح ع
المدرسة وأنا بقعد عالبلكون أوروبي رايح
وأوروبي جاية
الظاهر إني توحمت على شي أوروبي.
فهز راسه الاستاذ وقلها:ما في مشكلة إذا
هيك.
وبعد فترة أجته بعثة على دول جنوب افريقيا
وكمان
ما في تسع شهور وإلا مرته حامل وجابتله ولد
أسود
شفافه كبار
وشعره
مكزبر، نط الاستاذ وقلها: شوهاد يامرة.
قالت له: شو بدي ساوي أنت بتروح على
المدرسة وأنا بقعد بالبلكون جنوب إفريقي
رايح وجنوب
إفريقي
جاية
الظاهر إني توحمت على شي جنوب
إفريقي.
قلها إذا كان هيك ما في
مشكلة.
وبعد كل ها الشغل رجع على بلده على بيت
أهله وهونيك استقبلته أمه، واستغربت أشد
الاستغراب
وقالتله مين
هدول.
قلها:
ولادي،
قالتله:
وكيف هيك ،
فشرح
لها أن مرته مرة توحمت على أوروبي ومرة على
جنوب
إفريقي،
فهزت راسها وقالتله : بتعرف يا ابني أنا صار
هيك معي
وقت ولدتك
قلها: معقول ماما ولا مرة حكيتيلي ها
الشي.
قالتله : أبوك كان يروح على الأرض وأنا
قاعدة بأرض الدار، حمار رايح حمار جاية!!!?????هههههههههههههههههه
ملعوبة يا أبو تسنيم
طبعا وأكيد هذا الحمار تم الضحك عليه بعد أن إستشهدت حرمة المصون بنص الكتاب المقدس الذي ذكرته أخي الحبيب أبو تسنيم .
وعليه لا يحق له التشكيك في بنوة اللأولاد له وإلا يعتبر كافر بكتابه .
يعني من الآخر كده يا نصاري هذا النص في الكتاب المقدس يمكن للزانية ان تستشهد به لتخرج من ورطة الزنا .
--------------------------------------------------------------------
شوف بقي يا أخي الحبيب / أبو تسنيم :
الكلام ده ينفع نعمل بيه فيلم دعوي علمي
.
يتم فيه سرد الوقائع الأولي من قصة الحمار أقصد الأستاذ .
إلي أن نصل إلي دهشته لوجود الأولاد بهذا الشكل " الأشقر , الأسمر أبو شعر أكرد "
ثم يتغير الحوار بين شد وجذب بين الأستاذ وحرمة المصون .
فيتكلم هو بشكل علمي بحت عن العوامل الوراثية وتدخلها في شكل الجنين .
وتتكلم هي بالكتاب المقدس .
ثم ينتهي الفيلم بهذا الشريط .??????...............أيها النصاري ...............
هذا كتابكم الذي تقدســون ..............وهذا العلم الذي تدرســــــــون .
والله منحكم العقل لتفكرون ...............وبنعمة هذا العقل ستحاسبون .
وأعطاكـــم حرية الإختيــــار .............فإختاروا ماتشـــــــــــــــاؤن .
فقد إقيمت عليكم الحجــــــة .............حتـــــــــــــي لا تـــُظلمـــــون .????????بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم والحمد لله رب العالمين
وبعــــــــــــــــد
وللنصاري القراء للقصة أو المشاهدين للعرض حق الإختيار بين الحقائق العلمية والكتاب المقدس .
فمنهم من يختار طريق العقل ويعي ويفهم أن هذا الكتاب من تأليف البشر .
ومنهم من يختار الضلال ويقول كما قال علمائهم الضالين
(( أما فيما إذا كانت تعاليم الدين المسيحي تتوافق مع العلم الحديث وتؤيده نقول: "لا شك أن الدين المسيحي يتوافق مع العلم الحديث ولا ندري لماذا يعتقد البعض أن العلم والدين لا يتفقان. فالدين المسيحي مبني على كلمة الله، ونحن نعلم أن الله نفسه هو مبدع هذا الكون بما فيه علوم وفنون. فعندما نقول إن العلم والدين لا يتّفقان، فكأننا نقول بطريقة غير مباشرة إن الله يعرف أشياء دون الأخرى. وحاشا لله القادر على كل شيء والعليم بكل شيء أن يكون محدود المعرفة. ولكن ما يحدث أحياناً أن بعض الناس ينظرون إلى الكتاب المقدس ككتاب علمي ويتوقّعون أن يجدوا فيه بعض المعادلات الكيميائية، وأخبار الاكتشافات وغزو الفضاء وغيرها. وعندما لا يجدونها يعتقدون أن العلم والدين لا يتفقان وهذا خطأ. إذ أن الكتاب المقدس يحتوي على كلمة الله، ويحدثنا عن خلق الله للعالم ومحبته له وعن فدائه للبشر بواسطة المسيح، ولم يقصد به أن يكون كتاباً علمياً يتحدث به الله عن الاكتشافات والاختراعات. فكل ما يفعله الإنسان بهذا الصدد، يفعله بواسطة عقله الذي منحه إياه الله )) ?????? موضوع أكثر من رائع أخي أبوتسنيم
بارك الله فيك وفي علمك
________
يا سادة يا اهل العقل
يا أهل القرن الواحد والعشرين
فيه إله لا يعلم حقيقة ما يخلق؟!!!!
فيه إله يجهل أن الوحم لا يُورث صفة؟!!!!
______
والله يا ابوتسنيم ... نكتك وابتسامتك الأخيرة دي حثجة على كل نصراني
ويحق لكل خائة تخون زوجها أن تتعلل بانها توحمت برؤية جنوب أفريقي أو سويسري.....
أليس هذا هو العلم الإلهي التوراتي؟!!!!
لاحول ولا قوة إلا بالله
_________
بارك الله فيك ورعاك
ويعلم الله أني أحبك في الله
وأسأل الله أن يكفر كل نصراني بتلاعب الشيطان به
وأن يتوجه لله وحده بالإيمان
ولا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله
والحمدلله على نعمة العقل
وعلى نعمة العلم ,
وعلى نعمة الإسلام.
__________________
_____________
"يا أيُّها الَّذٍينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قوَّاميِنَ للهِ شُهَدَاء بِالقِسْطِ ولا يَجْرِمنَّكُم شَنئانُ قوْمٍ على ألّا تَعْدِلوا اعدِلُوا هُوَ أقربُ لِلتّقْوى
رحم الله من قرأ قولي وبحث في أدلتي ثم أهداني عيوبي وأخطائي
********************************************
موقع نداء الرجاء لدعوة النصارى لدين الله
****
أبلغ عن موضوع مُخالف..أو أسلوب غير دعوي
****
حديث شديد اللهجة
********************************************
ضيْفتنا المسيحية ...الحجاب والنقاب ..حكم إلهي أخفاه عنكم القساوسة
يعقوب (الرسول) أخو الرب يُكذب و يُفحِم بولس الأنطاكي
الأرثوذكسية المسيحية ماهي إلا هرْطقة أبيونية ?????? الاخ الحبيب أبوتسنيم ..و الله انها لمقالة أكثر من رائعة...انها نموذج صارخ على الهرطقات الغريبة الموجودة فى الكتاب (المقدس ).. و جزاك الله خيرا عن الوقت الذى تقضيه لقراءة هذه " المضحكات " و ايصالها لنا جاهزة بدون مجهود منا ..و لا أجد هنا الاالمقارنة ببعض مما قاله الله سبحانه و تعالى فى القرآن الكريم و هى تظهر تماما الفرق بين الشىء الحقيقى و الشىء المزور
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
هُوَ الَّذِي يُصَوِّرُكُمْ فِي الأَرْحَامِ كَيْفَ يَشَاءُ لاَ إِلَـهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
هُوَ اللَّهُ الْخَالِقُ الْبَارِئُ الْمُصَوِّرُ لَهُ الْأَسْمَاء الْحُسْنَى يُسَبِّحُ لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ }الحشر
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
اللَّهُ الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمُ الْأَرْضَ قَرَاراً وَالسَّمَاء بِنَاء وَصَوَّرَكُمْ فَأَحْسَنَ صُوَرَكُمْ وَرَزَقَكُم مِّنَ الطَّيِّبَاتِ ذَلِكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّكُمْ فَتَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ ??????
اقتباس:
بواسطة نور الامل
ما شاء الله و الله ان يقيني ليزداد و اني احبكم جميعا . و الله اني سعيدة . جزاكم الله الواحد الاحد الصمد الذي لا اله غيره كل الخير.
اننا نحن السعداء ، ان الذين يؤمنون بالحق و لا يخشون فى الله لومة لائم ، هم أصحاب القلوب الورعة و الضمائر الحية التى لا تخشى من اعتناق الحقيقة و لديهم الشجاعة التى يفتقدها معظم الناس ، و انت قد كسبت محمدا عليه الصلاة و السلام و لم تخسرى المسيح لان الاسلام يؤمن به ولكن بحقيقته كرسول و نبى و برسالته ( الحقيقية)، انى ادعوك لتدبر قول الله عز و جل فى كتابه الكريم :
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا رَبُّنَا اللَّهُ ثُمَّ اسْتَقَامُوا تَتَنَزَّلُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ أَلَّا تَخَافُوا وَلَا تَحْزَنُوا وَأَبْشِرُوا بِالْجَنَّةِ الَّتِي كُنتُمْ تُوعَدُونَ{30} نَحْنُ أَوْلِيَاؤُكُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَفِي الْآخِرَةِ وَلَكُمْ فِيهَا مَا تَشْتَهِي أَنفُسُكُمْ وَلَكُمْ فِيهَا مَا تَدَّعُونَ{31} نُزُلاً مِّنْ غَفُورٍ رَّحِيمٍ{32} وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ قَوْلاً مِّمَّن دَعَا إِلَى اللَّهِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحاً وَقَالَ إِنَّنِي مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ ?????
النّصرانيّة وإلغاء العقل
منذ سنوات طويلة وأنا عاكف على قراءة بعض كتب النّصارى، وما يتعلّق بالدّيانة النّصرانيّة من أناجيل وما كُتب عنها، مدحًا أو قدحًا، وخلال تلك الفترة اتّصلت بعشرات القساوسة ورجال الدّين والأشخاص العاديّين من الذين يدينون بهذا الدّين، فخرجت من تلك التّجربة بعدّة إشكاليات وتساؤلات محيّرة ومربكة، بحثت لها عن أجوبة في الكتب فلم أعثر لها على جواب فتوجّهت إلى الكنائس لعلّي أجد ما يشفي غليلي، ويزيل عن عقلي تلك الغشاوات الكثيفة من التّساؤلات المحيّرة، حول كلّ آية أو إصحاح أو سفر من أسفار الكتاب المقدّس، لكنّني ككلّ مرّة كنت أعود بخفي حنين، فلم يزدني رجال الدّين وأجوبتهم إلاّ حيرة وغشاوة على غشاوة، ومن الطّريف أنّ تلك الأجوبة التي تلقّيتها من بعضهم كانت تعقد المسائل أكثر فأكثر، فأضحت بذلك قواعد لتساؤلات أكثر وأشدّ خطورة وحيرة، لأنّها كانت أجوبة دفاعيّة متعصّبة، لا تستند إلى الحقّ بقدر ما هي محاولات فاشلة وهزيلة للدّفاع العشوائيّ المتخبّط.
في تلك الفترة دخل عقلي معركة محتدمة مع نفسه فكلّما بدأ يستخدم آليّات الفهم في تفكيك ألغاز الكتاب المقدّس وأسراره تعطّلت تلك الآليّات عند أوّل وهلة، وأصابها الشّلل في بداية الطّريق، إذ لا يمكن لأيّ عقل مهما أُوتي من علم وذكاء إدراك كنه وجوهر النّصوص "المقدّسة" التي يتعاطاها.
لم يكن عقلي قادرًا على السّباحة في بحر الألغاز والأسرار الكنسيّة المقدّسة، فقد كانت أمواج التثّليث والكفارة والخطيئة وألوهيّة المسيح وبنوّته وصلب الله وغيرها تقذف بعقلي مدًّا وجزرًا هنا وهناك دون الوصول إلى الشّاطئ.
كنت كلّما عثرت على رجل دين نصرانيّ (من جميع الطّوائف والرّتب العالية من الأكليريوس) أطلب منه تفسيرًا أو إيضاحًا أو بيانًا لما لا أفهمه أو أدركه امتنع عن مخاطبة عقلي وهرع إلى إثارة عاطفتي، كان كلّ واحد منهم يقول ويكرّر حين يواجه بسؤال عن تلك العقائد: »لكن الله مات من أجلك، الله نزل بنفسه ليصلب عن خطاياك، الله محبّة، الله بذل ابنه الوحيد لتعيش أنت، الله سفك دم ابنه لتدخل الملكوت...« وغير ذلك من الكلام العاطفي الذي يلفظه العقل ( ).
وثمّة وصفة سحريّة تقدّمها الكنيسة لكلّ من يريد الالتحاق بالنّصرانيّة أو التمسّك بأهدابها أو البقاء عليها، وتتضمّن تلك الوصفة خطوات بسيطة لا تكلّف المريد أكثر من تنفيذها بحرفيّة ليدخل ملكوت الله وينال الخلاص وتتلخّص في البنود التّالية:
ألغ عقلك وانس أنّك تملك أداة للفهم والإدراك.
آمن بكلّ ما يأمرك به القسّ في الكنيسة.
لا تناقش، لا تجادل، لا تعترض، لا تبحث.
لا تسأل غير القسّ ولا تأخذ الجواب من سواه.
كلّ ما لا تفهمه أو تدركه أو يستسيغه عقلك فهو سرّ إلهيّ
ولغز كنسيّ مقدّس.
وإذا ما طبّقت هذه البنود الخمسة، فقد انضممت إلى سلك النصارى، وأصبحت في شركة المسيح، وخروفًا من خرفانه التي ترعاها الكنيسة وتسوقها إلى الحياة الأبديّة، وكلّ من يخلّ بأحد هذه البنود فهو زنديق، مهرطق، ملعون، ابن الشّيطان، تحت سلطة الخطيّة، لن ينال الكفّارة من الذّبيحة الإلهيّة التي سفكت على الصّليب من أجله !
بل أكثر من ذلك فإنّ الذي يخلص لتلك "الوصايا الخمس" سوف ينال الجهالة التي تقوده إلى القداسة، ألم يكن القدّيس أوغسطين يقول »إنّ الجهلاء هم الذين يحظون بملكوت السّماء « !
يقول محمّد قطب في كتابه ( مذاهب فكريّة معاصرة ) منتقدًا هذا الأسلوب الذي تمارسه الكنيسة: »إنّ ادّعاء الكنيسة أنّ العقل لا ينبغي له أن يسأل وأن يناقش في أمر العقيدة، وإنّما عليه أن يسلم تسليمًا أعمى، ويترك الأمر للوجدان، هو ادّعاء ليس من طبيعة الدّين كما أنزله الله، إنّما كان هذا من مستلزمات الأديان الوثنيّة التي تحوي أوهامًا لا يمكن أن يستسيغها العقل لو فكّر فيها، فتُسكت صوت العقل وتمنعه من التّفكير بالسّحر تارة وبالتّهديد بغضب الآلهة المدعاة تارات !
وإذا كان هذا الأمر، وهو إسكات صوت العقل ومنعه من التّفكير، غير مستساغ حتّى في بداوة الإنسان أو ضلالة البشريّة، فهو من باب أولى غير مستساغ في دين تزعم الكنيسة أنّه الدّين المنزّل من عند الله، وأنّه يمثّل مرحلة راشدة في تاريخ البشريّة، ولو كانت هذه الأسرار من الدّين حقًّا، ومن أمور العقيدة التي يلزم الإيمان بها، ما منع الله النّاس أن يناقشوها بعقولهم ليتبيّنوا ما فيها من الحقّ ويؤمنوا به !فإنّ الله لا يقول للنّاس – في وحيه المنزّل – آمنوا بي دون أن تفكّروا وتعقلوا، ولا يقول لهم: إنّي سأضع لكم الألغاز التي لا تستسيغها عقولكم ثمّ أطالبكم أن تخرّوا عليها صمًّا وعميانًا لا تتفكّروا وإلاّ طردتكم من رحمتي «.
ولا يتحرّج النّصارى وقساوستهم أبدًا من عدم فهم هذه الأفكار والعقائد فهم يعتقدون ببساطة – فرارًا من تفسيرها– أنّها أسرار إلهيّة مقدّسة !!
نعم، يجب على كلّ نصرانيّ أن يؤمن بكلّ شيء تقرّره الكنيسة، وإذا لم يفهم شيئًا وطلب توضيحًا أو بيانًا قيل له: ألغ عقلك فهذا سرّ من الأسرار الإلهيّة التي لا يليق ولا يجوز السّؤال عنها أو البحث فيها !
ولمّا كانت كلّ تلك العقائد مناقضة للمنطق ومصادمة له، كانت كلّ تلك العقائد والأفكار أسرارا مقدّسة، فهناك قائمة طويلة منها سرّ المعموديّة، سرّ التّثبيت، سرّ القربان المقدّس، سرّ التّوبة والاعتراف للكاهن، سرّ المسحة، سرّ الزّواج، سرّ الكهنوت، سرّ حقائق الإيمان، سرّ الصلب، سرّ التّثليث، سرّ العشاء الربّاني، سرّ القيامة، سرّ الكفارة، سرّ الخطيئة، سرّ اللاّهوت، سرّ الناسوت، سرّ التجسّد، والحبل على الجرار !
وإذا كانت كلّ هذه أسرارًا - وغيرها كثير - فليت شعري ماذا بقي للنصراني ليعرفه ويطّلع على حقيقته وهو ليس بسرّ، وهكذا فكلّ سؤال لا يجد له رجال الكنيسة جوابًا يُحال إلى قائمة الأسرار السماويّة، ويعترف القساوسة بعجزهم عن فهم هذه الأسرار وحلّ إشكالاتها، ويدعون المتديّن السّاذج إلى التّسليم بتلك المستحيلات العقليّة والإيمان بها، دون اعتراض وإلاّ ناله العقاب والطرد من ملكوت الله تماشيًا مع قاعدة الصّوفيّة: » من اعترض انطرد « .
يقول زكيّ شنودة صاحب كتاب (تاريخ الأقباط) عن هذه الأسرار: »وهذه حقيقة تفوق الإدراك البشريّ « .
ويقول القسّ توفيق جِيد في كتابه (سرّ الأزل) عن سرّ الثّالوث: »إنّ الثّالوث سرّ يصعب فهمه وإدراكه، وإن من يحاول إدراك سرّ الثّالوث تمام الإدراك كمن يحاول وضع مياه المحيط كلّها في كفّه« .
ولئن كان ما قاله القسّ توفيق خاصًّا بسرّ الثّالوث لكنّه ينطبق على الأسرار الأخرى كافّة، إلاّ أنّ سرّ الثّالوث هو أكثر الأسرار غرابة وإثارة للعجب، يقول بازيليوس إسحاق في كتابه (الحقّ):» إنّ هذا التّعليم عن التّثليث فوق إدراكنا ولكن عدم إدراكه لا يبطله«، فيا له من فهم غريب!
ولم يتوقّف الأمر – كما قلنا سابقًا – عند اعتبار الأمر سرًّا، بل تجاوزه إلى حجر العقول عن التّفكير فيها ومحاولة تبسيطها، وإلاّ فكيف نفهم قول القسّ توفيق حين يقول في كتابه (سرّ الأزل):» إنّ تسمية الثّالوث باسم الأب والابن وروح القدس تعتبر أعماقًا إلهيّة وأسرارًا سماويّة لا يجوز لنا أن نتفلسف في تفكيكها وتحليلها ونلصق بها أفكارًا من عنديّاتنا«، وهـذا ما يدعى في الأدب المعاصر: بـ" الإرهاب الفكريّ "، ثمّ إنّ الذين ضربوا بكلام هذا القسّ عرض الحائط، وحاولوا التفلسف في فهم تلك العقائد أخفقوا ولم تغنهم فلسفتهم شيئًا.
ويقرّر ذلك الأستاذ النّصرانيّ عوض سمعان في كتابه (الله ذاته ونوع وحدانيّته): » إنّنا لا ننكر أنّ التّثليث فوق العقل والإدراك، ولقد حاول كثيرون من رجال الفلسفة توضيح إعلانات الكتاب المقدّس عن ذات الله، أو بالأحرى عن ثالوثه ووحدانيّته فلم يستطيعوا إلى ذلك سبيلاً « ، ويعلّق الأستاذ محمّد مجدي مرجان – وهو رجل دين نصرانيّ أسلم – وقد نقل بعض هذه الاعترافات في كتابه البديع (الله واحد أم ثالوث) فيقول: » تُرى إذا كان الفلاسفة والعلماء قد عجزوا عن فهم الثّالوث، فمن يا ترى يستطيع فهمه؟ وما موقف البسطاء والعامّة إذا ما حاولوا الفهم، وإذا لم نستطع إدراك عقائدنا الدّينيّة بعقولنا وأفهامنا فبماذا يمكن إدراكها؟ وإذا كنّا نحن وهم لا ندرك هذا الثّالوث فكيف يمكن لكلٍّ منّا أن يتّبعه أو يسير عليه !؟ «( ).
ويقول أحد القسس لرعاياه عندما يكثرون من الأسئلة حول ما لا يستطيع الإجابة عنه، وذلك في إذاعة مونت كارلو: » علينا ألاّ نناقش، ولكن علينا أن نؤمن فقط بكلّ ما في الكتاب المقدّس وإلاّ فإيماننا باطل«.
أمّا القدّيس سانت أغسطين، أكبر منظّر عرفته النّصرانيّة، فقد كان يعلن قائلاً بصراحة متناهيّة عندما يريد قطع مناقشة المشكّكين في النّصرانيّة: » أنا مؤمن لأنّ ذلك لا يتّفق مع العقل !«.
وفي مناظرة بين باحثة يابانيّة ورجل دين من الكنيسة الإنجليزيّة يُدعى الأب جيمس، سألت الباحثة القسّ أن يفسّر لها بعض العقائد التي لم تتمكّن من الإحاطة بها، أو حتّى فهم ظاهرها، فردّ الأب جيمس:» إنّ هذا سرّ لاهوتي فوق عقول البشر، وليس من الممكن تفسيره حسب تفسير وتصوّر هؤلاء البشر! «
فردّت الباحثة اليابانيّة: » كيف تدعون النّاس إلى عقيدة لا يفهمها هؤلاء البشر؟ وما مهمّة الرّسل والأنبياء.. إن لم يبيّنوا ما أمروا بتبليغه من قبل الخالق إلى هؤلاء البشر؟
.. لقد كنت بوذيّة من قبل .. غير أنّ السّلبيّة، التي تتّسم بها هذه العقيدة جعلتني أبحث عن غيرها بين الدّيانات والملل، وقد اخترت في دراستي التخصّص في مقارنة الأديان، وقد جئت إلى بريطانيا من أجل هذا الهدف، ويبدو أنّني لن أصل إلى غايتي وسط هذه الظّلمات المتراكم بعضها فوق بعض، فإذا حاولت التعرّف على الحقيقة وقف "الأكليريوس" أو "الكهنوت" في وجهي بقوانين الحظر والادّعاء بأنّ هذه القضايا أسرار لاهوتيّة فوق العقل،. أنا لن أسألك عن هذه الأسرار التي أرفضها كلّها...! ذلك لأنّ الدّين .. أي دين يجب أن يكون واضحًا، وألاّ ينطوي على أسرار وخفايا، وإلاّ فلماذا جاء الدّين أصلاً إن لم يكن واضحًا في عقول كلّ الرّعايا !؟ «
وبعد احتدام المناظرة قال الدّكتور عبد الودود شلبي( ) ، وهو أحد المشاركين في ذلك النّقـاش، موجّهًا تعليقًا لاذعًا للقسّ جيمــس: » لو أتينا بكلّ علماء الرّياضيات وبُعث " آينشتاين " مرّة ثانية إلى الحياة، وعقدنا له امتحانًا في حلّ هذه الطّلاسم والألغاز لما حصل هذا العلاّمة إلاّ على صفر في هذا الامتحان، ولكن لحسن الحظّ أنّ "آينشتاين" لم يكن مسيحيًّا وإلاّ ما سمع أحد بنظريّته النّسبيّة التي تفوّق بها على علماء الرّياضيّات«.
وهنا قال الأب جيمس: » إنّ مفهوم البساطة ليس له مجال في فهم العقيدة المسيحيّة، كما لا يجب أن توزن به هذه العقيدة، لأنّ العقيدة المسيحيّة تعلو على فهم العقل« !!.
فردّ عبد الودود شلبي بقوله: » إذا كانت المسيحيّة ليست بهذه البساطة فمعنى هذا أنّها دين خاصّ للفلاسفة، وبالتّالي فلا شأن لهذا الدّين بالبسطاء من النّاس وهم الأغلبيّة السّاحقة، وإذا كان كما تقول بأنّها عقيدة تعلو على فهم العقل، فذلك يعني أيضًا إخراج كلّ عاقل ومفكّر عن دائرة الإيمان الذي لا يقبله العقل ولا الفكر، فإذا كان البسطاء وعامّة النّاس، وإذا كان العقلاء والمفكّرون لا يفهمون هذه العقيدة فإنّي استحلفك بالله ربّي وربّك لم جاءت هذه العقيدة إذن، ولمن جاءت !؟«.
جاء في المانيفستو " البيان " الكاثوليكي لاتّباع الكنيسة: إنّنا لا نستطيع فهم هذه العقيدة لأنّها سرّ غيبيّ، وفي الآخرة سيكون هناك فهم أكثر لهذه الأسرار، ولكن لن يكون فهمًا تامًّا وأبديًّا !
ولذلك فلا يطمع أحد أن يطّلع على تلك الأسرار، لأنّ عقله قاصر في الدّنيا وسيبقى كذلك في الآخرة، وهكذا يكون البشر قد خُلقوا وهم جاهلون بربّهم ودينهم وسيموتون على ذلك الجهل، وسيولدون لحياة أخرويّة لا تختلف كثيرًا عن حياتهم الأولى، إذ سيكون الجهل بالعقيدة سمة رئيسة للعباد في ملكوت الله !! أليس من حقّنا أن نتساءل هل بلغ بالله – جلّ شأنه – الضّعف العلميّ والمعرفيّ حتّى إنّه عجز عن التّعريف بنفسه ومخاطبة النّاس على قدر عقولهم وأفهامهم ومداركهم !؟ وإذا كان الله على كلّ شيء قدير، ألم يكن من الواجب عليه تزويدنا بعقول أكثر نضجًا وقدرة على استقبال رسالاته السّماويّة دون كلّ هذا العناء في فهم آية واحدة فضلاً عن الكتاب المقدّس كلّه !؟
وإذا كانت كلّ هذه الأسرار صعبة الإدراك فلماذا يخاطبنا الله بها؟ وإذا كانت سرًّا فما الحكمة من تكليفنا بالعمل بالأسرار والألغاز، كأنّنا دمى صغيرة يتسلّى الله بنا عندما يشاهدنا نكابد من أجل حلّها والتّفكير فيها !، وإذا كانت تلك الأسرار فوق عقولنا فالتّبليغ بها ضرب من العبث وتضييع للوقت والجهد، لأنّ الألغاز والأسرار التي لا حلّ لها لا تعود على البشر بفائدة عمليّة وظيفيّة، دينيّة كانت أو دنيويّة، أم إنّ الله يحبّ أن يرانا منشغلين بها، يتلذّذ ونحن نتألّم في البحث فيها، و يستمتع حين نتعذّب نفسيًّا وعقليًّا في محاولاتنا المتكرّرة والمريرة عبر القرون الطّويلة للوصول إلى الحقيقة السّهلة والبسيطة والواضحة، أليس هذا نوعًا من "السادية " التي يوصف بها الله - شئنا أم أبينا – تعالى الله عن ذلك( ).
وإنّ إلهًا مثل هذا الإله الذي تؤمن به النّصارى هو إله لا يستحقّ العبادة ولا التّقديس، طالما لم يتمكّن من إثبات ألوهيّته وقدسيّته بتوضيح ما يريده في كتابه المنزّل: " الكتاب المقدّس "، وهنا أذكر أنّي منذ بدأت البحث في مقارنة الأديان وبالتّحديد دراسة إيمان النّصارى واعتقادهم وأنا أشفق، لا على النّصارى الذين يعانون الأمرّين في فهم اعتقادهم، وإنّما على هذا الإله الذي عجز عن التّعريف بنفسه، فقد أعوزته البلاغة في التّعبير عن ذاته، إنّني أشفق على هذا الإله الذي لم يجد الكلمات السّهلة والتّعبيرات الواضحة للإفصاح عن ماهيته وطبيعته.
والذي أراه أنّ عدم القدرة على الإفصاح عن تلك الطّبيعة وبيان تلك العقائد كان سببها بولس الذي تولّى صناعتها و ترويجها، وقد كان النّاس في زمانه يجدون استحالة في فهمها، مثل ما نجد نحن، فخاطبهم في رسالة كورنثوس زاعمًا بقوله (كلامي وتبشيري لا يعتمدان على أساليب الحكمة البشريّة في الإقناع، بل على ما يظهره روح الله وقوّته، حتّى يستند إيمانكم إلى قدرة الله، لا حكمة البشر)( ).
لقد جمعت عقيدة النّصارى من المتناقضات و المستحيلات العقليّة ما جعل الأمم تسخر من تلك العقائد وتنتقدها، وعلى الرّغم من انحرافات مثيلة في بعض الأديان الوثنيّة، كالبوذيّة والبراهميّة والمتراسية واليهودية .. إلاّ أنّ عقيدة النّصارى فاقتها بكثير، وفي هذا يقول شيخ الإسلام بن تيميّة – رحمه الله – في كتابه (الجواب الصّحيح لمن بدّل دين المسيح ): » قالت طائفة من العقلاء في وصف عقيدة النّصارى: إنّ عامّة مقالات النّاس في عقائدهم يمكن تصوّرها إلاّ مقالة النّصارى، وذلك أنّ الذين وضعوها لم يتصوّروا ما قالوا، بل تكلّموا بجهل وجمعوا في كلامهم بين النّقيضين، ولهذا قال بعضهم لو اجتمع عشرة نصارى لتفرّقوا عن أحد عشر قولاً وقال آخر: لو سألت بعض النّصارى وامرأته وابنه وخادمه عن توحيدهم لقال الرّجل قولاً، وامرأته قولاً آخر وابنه قولاً ثالثًا وخادمه قولاً مخالفًا لسابقيه«.
أمّا ابن القيّم – رحمه الله – فيذكر في كتابه ( إغاثة اللّهفان ) عن ملك من ملوك الهند أنّه قال عندما ذُكرت له الأديان الثّلاثة المشهورة "اليهوديّة والنّصرانيّة والإسلام" :» أمّا النّصارى فإن كان محاربوهم من أهل الملل يحاربونهم بحكم شرعيّ، فإنّي أرى ذلك بحكم عقليّ، وإن كنّا لا نرى بحكم عقولنا قتالاً ولكن أستثني هؤلاء القـوم – النّصارى – من بين جميع العوالم، لأنّهم قصدوا، بعقيدتهم و إيمانهم مضادة العقل وناصبوه العداوة وحلّوا ببيت الاستحالات، وحادوا عن المسلك الذي انتهجه غيرهم من أهل الشّرائع، فشذّوا عن جميع مناهج العالم الصّالحة العقليّة والشّرعيّة، واعتقدوا كلّ مستحيل ممكنًا، وبنوا على ذلك شريعة لا تؤدّي البتّة إلى صلاح نوع من أنواع العالم، إلاّ أنّها تُصَيِّر العاقل إذا تشرّع بها أخرق والرّشيد سفيهًا والمحسن مسيئًا«.
ربّ قائل: إنّ أكثر الأمم تقدّمًا وازدهارًا اليوم هي تلك التي تعتنق النّصرانيّة، أي أوروبا الغربيّة وأمريكا الشّماليّة .. وهذه مغالطة صريحة والشّواهد على ذلك متوافرة؛ فالتّاريخ يحدّثنا أنّ النصارى لم يعرفوا طريق الحضارة والتقدّم إلاّ عندما تخلّوا عن نصرانيّتهم المحرّفة ونبذوا أحكام الكنيسة وراء ظهورهم، فلقد عاش الغرب في ظلمات حالكة إبّان سيطرة البابوات على مصائرهم في القرون الوسطى، حتى قامت حركات النهضة والتنوير والثورة ضدّ مؤسّسات الكنيسة والإنجيل، فقام الغرب من رقدته ونهض من سُباته العميق فاستحالت إلى ما هي عليه اليوم – على الرّغم من السّلبيّات والعورات الكثيرة التي يعاني منها الغرب الآن – ذلك أنّ طغيان الكنيسة وتعاليمها دفعه إلى طغيان الإلحاد واللاّدينيّة، وتطرّف رجال الدّين قاد الغرب إلى التطرّف ضدّ الله وضدّ فطرة التديّن.
إنّ نصارى الغرب اليوم لا يعرفون من النّصرانيّة إلاّ خرافاتها وألغازها وبعض طقوسها، ولا يتعدّى من يذهبون إلى الكنيسة يوم الأحد إلاّ القليل لأسباب كثيرة، ليست بالضّرورة دينيّة، أمّا خارج جدران الكنيسة فمفاهيم الدّين النّصرانيّ ملغاة ولا يكاد يوجد لها ذكر، وهذا يعود بنا إلى موضوعنا؛ إذ إنّ الغرب بعد ظهور عصر العقلانيّة والتّنوير لم يعد يصدّق بخرافات الكنيسة وعقائدها الباطلة المضادة للعقل، وزاد نفور الغرب من الدّين تصرّف رجال الكنيسة المشين، وقد سجّل لنا التّاريخ الأحداث المرعبة للعصور المظلمة في أوروبا Dark Ages وكيف سامت الكنيسة العلماء أشدّ العذاب، فحرقت المفكّرين والمخترعين والمبدعين بحجّة الخروج عن الدّين، وحرّمت قراءة أو اقتناء كتب العلم، لأنّها زندقة وهرطقة.
تقول زيغريد هونكه في كتابها (شمس العرب تسطع على الغرب): » … والضّلال عند الكنيسة هو البحث عن الحقيقة في غير الكتاب المقدّس«، وكانت الكنيسة ترى أنّ الكتب المقدّسة تحتوي على كلّ أنواع العلوم، وأنّها المصدر الوحيد للمعرفة، وأنّ أيّ قول أو نتيجة تأتي خلافًا لما جاءت به تلك النّصوص المقدّسة يعتبر كفرًا وإلحادًا، وفي هذا يقول القدّيس ترتوليان: » إنّ أساس كلّ علم هو الكتاب المقدّس وتقاليد الكنيسة، وإنّ الله لم يقصر تعليمنا بالوحي على الهداية إلى الدّين فقط، بل علمنا بالوحي كلّ ما أراد أن نعلمه من الكون؛ فالكتاب المقدّس يحتوي من العرفان على المقدار الذي قدّر للبشر أن ينالوه فجميع ما جاء في الكتب السّماويّة من وصف السّماء والأرض وما فيهما، وتاريخ الأمم ممّا يجب التّسليم به مهما عارض العقل، أو خالف الحسّ، فعلى النّاس أن يؤمنوا به أوّلاً ثمّ يجتهدوا ثانيًا في حمل أنفسهم على فهمه أي على التّسليم به «.
ولمّا بلغ الاضطهاد الذي مارسته الكنيسة ضدّ العقل والعلم ذروته بدأت بوادر التذمّر والاحتجاج تظهر هنا وهناك؛ فظهرت حركة الإصلاح البروتستانتيّة، التي قامت ضدّ الكنيسة الكاثوليكيّة، لكنّها اقتصرت على نقد تصرّفات البابا وبعض التّفسيرات الخاطئة للكتب المقدّسة، ولم يختلف البروتستانت عن غيرهم في محاربتهم للعقل والعلم وتعصّبهم للعقائد الموروثة غير المعقولة، بل يذكر المؤرّخون أنّ البروتستانت عادوا العقل والعلم أكثر من الكاثوليك والأرثودكس، يقول مثلاً وول ديورانت في كتابه (قصّة الحضارة): » إنّ موقف البروتستانت من العقل كان في غاية الاستخفاف، ويذكر عن مارثن لوثر قوله: أنت لا تستطيع أن تقبل كلاًّ من الإنجيل والعقل فأحدهما يجب أن يفسح الطّريق للآخر«، وقد اختار لوثر إفساح الطّريق أمام الإنجيل بإلغاء عقله ودفنه حيًّا حتّى لا يزاحم قداسة الكتب لذلك نراه يقول: » إنّ العقل هو أكبر عدوٍّ للدّين … وإنّه كلّما دقّ العقل واحتدّ كان حيوانًا سامًّا برؤوس سعلاة، وكان ضدّ الله وضدّ ما خلق«.
ولمّا كان موقف البروتستانت وزعماء الإصلاح الديني كمن سبقهم في محاربة العلم والعقل لم يشفع لهم " إصلاحهم " في بعض الميادين أمام زحف العقليّين والملاحدة والعلمانيّين الذين هبّوا في كلّ مكان يطالبون بإقصاء الدّين عن الحياة وإغلاق المؤسّسة الدّينيّة وطبعها بالشّمع الأحمر، بل وصل بعضهم إلى الاستهزاء والسّخريّة من الله وجميع مظاهر وجوده.
ولقد كانت عقائد النّصرانيّة المحرّفة، والمضادّة للعقل سببًا رئيسًا في ظهور الإلحاد بجميع أنواعه كالشّيوعيّة والعلمانيّة والبرجماتيّة والوجوديّة .. إلخ.
يقول ابن القيّم – رحمه الله – وقد عاش قبل ظهور هذه المذاهب في كتابه (إغاثة اللّهفان): » وهؤلاء النّصارى هم الذين أوجبوا لأعداء الرّسل من الفلاسفة والملاحدة أن يتمسّكوا بما هم عليه، فإنّهم شرحوا لهم دينهم الذي جاء به المسيح على هذا الوجه المحرّف، ولا ريب أنّ هذا دين لا يقبله عاقل فتواصى أولئك بينهم أن يتمسّكوا بما هم عليه وساءت ظنونهم بالرّسل والكتب، ورأوا ما هم عليه من الآراء أقرب إلى المعقول من هذا الدّين، وقال لهم هؤلاء النّصارى الضُّلال إنّ هذا هو الحقّ الذي جاء به المسيح فترتّب من هذين الظّنّين الفاسدين إساءة الظنّ بالرّسل، وإحسان الظنّ بما هم عليه«.
وفي نهاية هذا المدخل أقول: إنّ هذا الكتاب قد يثير اندفاع بعض الدّوائر النّصرانيّة للردّ علينا بأنواع شتّى من الرّدود، التي لا يعلمها إلاّ الله، ولا سيّما الرّدود العاطفيّة التي ذكرتها آنفًا كقولهم حين قراءة بعض حقائق هذا الكتاب " لكن الله مات من أجلك، الله بذل ابنه الوحيد لخلاصك، الله سفك دمه على الصّليب لفدائك " وغير ذلك من تلك الرّدود التي تسمع عند كلّ مناظرة لا يقدر النّصارى الإجابة فيها بما يقنع العقول، والرّدود العاطفيّة لا تملك قدرة على الإقناع بإيمان خرافيّ واعتقاد باطل وفاسد، خصوصـًا إذا علمنا أنّها صادرة من أناس لا يفهمونها، وغير مقتنعين بها، وصدق أبيلار Abelard أحد رجالات الكنيسة ومنظريها في القرون الوسطى حين يقول » إنّ من المضحك أن نعظ الآخرين بما لا نستطيع أن نُفهِمهم إيّاه ولا نفهمه نحن «.
الخطيــئـة الأصـليّـــة
يمكننا اعتبار مفهوم الخطيئة المفهوم الرّئيس والأساس في الإيمان النّصرانيّ كلّه، إذ إنّ هذا المفهوم يرتبط بجميع العقائد الأخرى: كالكفارة والصّلب والتّثليث والقيامة … وبدون الخطيئة لن يعود للنّصرانيّة مسوغ وجود أصلاً، ويُجمِع الباحثون الموضوعيّون قديمًا وحديثًا، النّصارى والمسلمون واللاّدينيّون، على أنّ مفهوم الخطيئة الأصليّة من الأمور التي لا يقبلها العقل، ولا يُسلّم بها المنطق، وذلك لأسباب عدّة يأتي بيانها بعد حين.
في البداية نتساءل ما هي الخطيئة التي يتحدّث كلّ نصرانيّ وتُروِّج لها كلّ كنيسة؟ إنّ الخطيئة الأصليّة التي لُعن من أجلها جنس البشريّة هي تلك " الغلطة " التي اقترفها آدم، أبو البشريّة قبل آلاف السّنين، عندما كان في الجنّة ومدّ يده إلى شجرة، فقطف ثمرة وأكلها هو و زوجته حوّاء، وكان من المطلوب ألاّ يفعل ذلك، لأنّ الله أباح له الأكل من جميع ثمار الجنّة إلاّ من تلك الشّجرة بعينها، لكن آدم خالف أمر الله فوقع في المحظور وجلب على نفسه وأبنائه اللّعنة والخسارة الأبديّة - على حدّ تعبيرهم - ! !
جاء في العهد القديم: ( وأوصى الربّ الإله آدم قائلاً: من جميع شجر الجنّة تأكل أكلاً، وأمّا شجرة معرفة الخير والشرّ فلا تأكل منها، لأنّك يوم تأكل منها موتًا تموت )( )، هذه هي البداية؛ فالله تعالى خلق آدم، ولم يعطه الحقّ في الأكل من شجرة المعرفة، فكأنما يريد أن يبقيه جاهلاً، وماذا يضرّ الله لو عرف آدم الخير والشرّ ! !؟ والرّواية القرآنيّة لهذه الأحداث لم تذكر نوع الشّجرة وسبب المنع، الذي هو امتحان وليس حسدًا من الله لجنس البشر، كما يُفهم من الرّواية التّوراتيّة !
ورد في الكتاب المقدَّس قصة التهام التفاحة ونيل اللعنة كما يلي (وكانت الحيّة أحْيلَ جميع حيوانات البرّيّة التي عملها الربّ الإله، فقالت للمرأة أحقًّا قال الله لا تأكل من كلّ شجر الجنّة؟، فقالت المرأة للحيّة من ثمر الجنّة نأكل، وأمّا ثمر الشّجرة التي في وسط الجنّة فقال الله لا تأكلا منه، ولا تمسّاه لئلاّ تموتا، فقالت الحيّة للمرأة لن تموتا، بل الله عالم أنّه يوم تأكلان منه تنفتح أعينكما، وتكونان كالله عارفين الخير والشرّ، فرأت المرأة أنّ الشّجرة جيّدة للأكل، وأنّها بهجة للعيون، وأنّ الشّجرة شهيّة للنّظر فأخذت من ثمرها وأكلت وأعطت رجلها أيضًا معها فأكل، فانفتحت أعينهما وعلما أنّهما عريانان، فخاطا أوراق تين ووضعا لأنفسهما مآزر، وسمعا صوت الربّ الإله ماشيًا في الجنّة عند هبوب ريح النّهار فاختبأ آدم وامرأته من وجه الربّ الإله في وسط شجر الجنّة، فنادى الإله آدم، وقال له أين أنت! ؟ فقال سمعت صوتك في الجنّة، فخشيت لأنّي عريان فاختبأت، فقال من أعلمك أنّك عريان، هل أكلت من الشّجرة التي أوصيتك أن لا تأكل منها! ؟)( ).
إنّ كاتب هذا السّفر يصوّر الله كأنّه رجل يتجوّل في حديقته، ويحدّث صوتًا بأقدامه التي تدوس التّراب والحشيش، ثمّ ينادي الربّ آدم (آدم .. آدم .. أين أنت ! ؟) و هو سؤال الجاهل بمكان مخلوقه .. ثمّ يسأله مَن أعلمك أنّك عريان، هل أكلت من الشّجرة …؟ أسئلة وأسئلة تدلّ على أنّ الكاتب لهذه الرّواية لا يستطيع أن يتصوّر الله إلاّ بتصوّر البشر الذي يعتريه الجهل والغفلة والحيرة والعي، فلذلك حاك هذه المسرحيّة بأبطالها، لكنّها مسرحيّة فاشلة بجميع مقاييس البشر فضلاً عن مقاييس الإله، ثمّ يستمرّ سفر التّكوين في هذه المشاهد المسرحيّة ! ( فقال آدم: المرأة التي جعلتها معي هي أعطتني من الشّجرة فأكلت، فقال الربّ للمرأة: ما هذا الذي فعلت، فقالت المرأة: الحيّة غرّتني فأكلت)( )، والحمد للّه أنّ القصّة كما جاءت في القرآن لم تذكر البادئ بالأكل أهو المرأة أم الرّجل بعكس الرّوايتين التّوراتيّة والإنجيليّة، فقد ذهبتا إلى حدّ الحطّ من المرأة وجعلها منشأ شقاء البشريّة وسبب غواية آدم.
جاء في الإنجيل في رسالة بولس الأولى لتيموثاوس ( وعلى المرأة أن تتعلّم بصمت وخضوع تامّ، ولا أجيز للمرأة أن تُعلِّم ولا أن تتسلّط على الرّجل، بل عليها أن تلزم الهدوء، لأنّ آدم خلقه الله أوّلاً ثمّ حوّاء وما أغوى الشّريرُ آدمَ، بل أغوى المرأة فوقعت في المعصية …)( )، والذي يقرأ عن مكانة المرأة في الكتاب المقدّس، وفي كتابات قساوسة النّصارى يرى مدى الاحتقار والحيف الذي تعرّضت له المرأة بسبب تلك التّهمة؛ فقد وصف العهد القديم المرأة [ بأنّها أمَرُّ من الموت ]، ويقول قدّيس النّصارى ترتوليان: » إنّ المرأة مدخل الشّيطان إلى نفس الإنسان، ناقِضة لنواميس الله، مشوّهة لصورة الله«، وقال القدّيس سوستام: » إنّها شرّ لا بدّ منه، آفة مرغوب فيها، وخطر على الأسرة والبيت، ومحبوبة فتّاكة، ومصيبة مطلية مسموم«، وأعلن البابا أينوسنتوس الثّامن » إنّ الكائن البشريّ والمرأة يبدوان نقيضين عـنيدين «.
وأكبر دليل على تخبّط النّصارى في تقييم المرأة هو عقد مؤتمر ماكون في القرن الخامس الميلادي، الذي بحث موضوع "هل المرأة مجرّد جسم لا روح فيه أم لها روح ! ؟ "، ومؤتمر فرنسا في القرن السّادس الذي بحث موضوع " هل المرأة إنسان أم غير إنسان !؟ "، وقد سبق جميع القدّيسين في احتقار المرأة القدّيس بولس صاحب الرّسائل التي أُدخلت في الإنجيل، والذي أزرى بالمرأة أيّما زراية، فجعلها بسبب الخطيئة مخلوقًا من الدّرجة الثّانية أو الثّالثة!
ونعود إلى الخطيئة، فإذا كان النبيّ محمّد يقول: » إنّ العلماء ورثة الأنبياء وإنّ الأنبياء لم يورثوا درهمًا ولا دينارًا، وإنّما ورٌثوا العلم فمن أخذه أخذ بحظٍّ وافر « وإذا كان النّاس يرون أنّهم يرثون عن آبائهم وأجدادهم الأموال والثّروات والعقارات … فإنّ النّصارى ترى أنّ آدم أورث أبناءه وأحفاده ذنوبه وآثامه التي اقترفها في الجنّة، ولا سيّما الخطيئة العظيمة، عندما أكل من الشّجرة الممنوعة ! !.
إنّ منطق الكنيسة يقول: إنّ البشريّة كلّها تلوّثت بدنس الخطيئة، وبفعل ناموس العدل استحقّت الهلاك الأبديّ والطّرد من الرّحمة الإلهيّة، وانتُزعت منها إرادة فعل الخير ! فقد جاء في العهد الجديد (بإنسان واحد دخلت الخطيئة إلى العالم وبالخطيئة الموت، وهكذا اجتاز الموتُ إلى جميع النّاس إذ أخطأ الجميع)( ).
أيّها القارئ لو كان أبي سارقًا فهل من العدل أن تحكم عليّ محكمة أرضيّة بأنّي مذنب لمجرّد كوني ابنا لأب سارق!؟ ويبدو أنّ المحكمة الإلهيّة عند النّصارى لها معايير قضائيّة أخرى، فهي تجعل بلايين البشر مذنبين بسبب ذنب لم يقترفوه ولم يعلموا عنه شيئًا، فهل المحاكم الأرضيّة أرحم و ألطف من المحاكم السّماويّة !؟
ويصرّ رجال الكنيسة على هذا المنطق المقلوب، ويستميتون دفاعًا عنه، وفي هذا الصّدد يقول جان كالفين، زعيم البروتستانتيّة: » حينما يقال إنّنا استحققنا العقاب الإلهيّ من أجل خطيئة آدم، فليس يعني ذلك أنّنا بدورنا كنّا معصومين أبرياء، وقد حملنا – ظلمًا – ذنب آدم .. الحقيقة أنّنا لم نتوارث من آدم " العقاب " فقط، بل الحقّ أنّ وباء الخطيئة مستقرّ في أعماقنا، تلك الخطيئة التي تعدت إلينا من آدم، والتي من أجلها قد استحققنا العقاب على سبيل الإنصاف الكامل، وكذلك الطّفل الرّضيع تضعه أمّه مستحقًّا للعقاب، وهذا العقاب يرجع إلى ذنبه هو، وليس من ذنب أحدٍ غيره«.
ويقول سانت أغسطين: » وكان الواقع أنّ جميع أفراد الإنسان الذين تلوّثوا بالخطيئة الأصليّة، إنّما وُلدوا من آدم و تلك المرأة التي أوقعت آدم في الخطيئة والتي شاركت آدم نيْل العقاب«، ويصرّح الإنجيل في عدّة آيات (بالخطيئة حَملت بنا أمّهاتنا)، وتنتقل الخطيئة عبر الرّوح من الأجداد إلى الأحفاد، كما يقرّر ذلك القدّيس توماس الإكويني حين يقول: » ومثل ذلك أنّ الذنب في الواقع تقترفه الرّوح، ولكنّه بالتّالي ينتقل إلى أعضاء وجوارح في الجسم «.
وكأنّ كاتب الآيات التي تحمِّل الإنسانيّة ذنب أبيها آدم نسي الفصول التي كتبها من مسرحيّته، والتي تناقض تمامًا العقاب الجماعيّ للمذنبين وغير المذنبين، وكذلك يتناسى قساوسة النّصرانيّة تلك الآيات العديدة في العهدين القديم والجديد، التي تحكم على عقيدة وراثة الخطيئة بالبطلان والفساد .. وتعالوا ننظر سويًّا في بعض تلك الآيات التي وردت في أسفار العهد القديم ومنها: ( لا يُقتل الأباء عن الأولاد، ولا يُقتل الأولاد عن الآباء، كلّ إنسان بخطيئته يُقتل )( )، فهل هذه الآية من سفر التّثنية منسوخة أم ملغاة!؟ وماذا يقول رجال الكنيسة في قول العهد القديم (.. وأنتم تقولون لماذا لا يحمل الابن من إثم الأب، أمّا الابن فقد فعل حقًّا وعدلاً وحفظ جميع فرائضي وعمل بها فحياة يحيا، النّفس التي تخطئ هي تموت، الابن لا يحمل من إثم الأب، والأب لا يحـمل من إثم الابن، بـرُّ البار عليه يكون وشرُّ الشرّير عليه يـكون )( ).
وهذه الآية من سفر حزقيال هل هي من الأسفار غير القانونيّة "الأبوكريفا " أم من الأناجيل التي لا تعترف بها المجاميع المسكونيّة!؟ فلماذا تتجاهلونها !؟ ثمّ هل من العدل أن يعاقب البريء بجريرة المذنب، كيف يعاقب من لم يرتكب ذنبًا؟ إنّ قوانين العقل والمنطق وجميع الأديان السّماويّة والوضعيّة تأخذ بمبدأ [ كلّ فرد بريء حتّى تثبت إدانته ]، فلماذا خالفت النّصرانيّة هذا المبدأ وضربت به عرض الحائط، وجعلت البشريّة كلّها مذنبة حتّى تُثبِت براءتها !!؟ وأين قول الكتاب المقدّس (فتقدّم إبراهيم وقال: أفتُهلك البارّ مع الأثيم؟، عسى أن يكون خمسون بارًّا في المدينة، أفتُهلك المكان ولا تصفح عنه من أجل الخمسين بارًّا الذين فيه؟، حاشا لك أن تفعل مثل هذا الأمر، أن تميت البارّ مع الأثيم فيكون البارّ كالأثيم، حاشا لك، أديّان كلّ الأرض لا يصنع عدلاً !؟ فقال الربّ: إن وجدتُ في سدوم خمسين بارًّا في المدينة فإنّي أصفح عن المكان كلّه من أجلهم)( )، وأين قوله (في تلك الأيّام لا يقولون بعدُ الآباء أكلوا حصرمًا وأسنان الأبناء ضرست، بل كلّ واحد يموت بذنبه، كلّ إنسان يأكل الحصرم تضرّس أسنانه)( )، وقوله (سيجازي كلّ واحد حسب أعماله)( ).
وبعد صفحات سنرى أنّ الله نفسه – في زعم النّصارى – أضاف إلى هذه المحاكمة الجائرة ظلمًا آخر حين أراد التخلّص من الخطيئة بصلب إنسان بريء، وتعذيبه أشدّ العذاب على يد اليهود والرّومان، إنّ منهج القرآن الكريم يختلف جذريًّا عن هذا الظّلم الشّديد الذي وقع على الإنسان واقرأوا إن شئتم آيات الله تعالى في القرآن: لا يجزي والدٌ عن ولده، ولا مولود هو جاز عن والده شيئًا لقمان 33.
من عمل صالحًا فلنفسه ومن أساء فعليها وما ربّك بظلاّم للعبيد فصّلت 46.
ألاّ تزر وازرة وزر أخرى وأن ليس للإنسان إلاّ ما سعى النّجم 38.
فأيّ هذه الآيات هي أقرب إلى العقل، والمنطق، أهذه التي تحمِّل الفرد وحده مسؤوليّة أفعاله الخيّرة والشرّيرة، أم تلك الآيات الإنجيليّة المقدّسة، التي تجعل الجنين والرّضيع مجرمين ملعونين هالكين مطرودين من ملكوت السّموات … !
وثمّة مسألة أخرى هامّة تعصف بمفهوم الخطيئة، وهي أنّ الله عاقب البشريّة عقوبات عديدة شديدة لم يكن من العدل بعدها لعن الجنس البشريّ، ونزع إرادته على فعل الخير، ولم تكن هناك حاجة للتّكفير عن الخطيئة الأصليّة بصلب المسيح..
جاء في سفر التّكوين (وقال الربُّ الإله للحيّة لأنّك فعلت هذا ملعونة أنت من جميع البهائم ومن جميع وحوش البرّيّة، على بطنك تسعين وترابًا تأكلين كلّ أيّام حياتك، وأضع عداوة بينك وبين المرأة وبين نسلها، هو يسحق رأسك وأنت تسحقين عقبه، وقال للمرأة تكثيرًا أُكثر أتعاب حبلك، بالوجع تلدين أولادًا( ) وإلى رجُلك يكون اشتياقك وهو يسود عليك، وقال لآدم لأنّك سمعت لقول امرأتك وأكلت من الشّجرة التي أوصيتك قائلاً لا تأكل منها، ملعونة الأرض بسببك، بالتّعب تأكل منها كلّ أيّام حياتك، وشوكًا وحَسَكًا تُنبت لك وتأكل عشب الحقل، بعرق وجهك تأكل خبزًا حتّى تعود إلى الأرض التي أخذت منها، لأنّك من تراب وإلى تراب تعود)( ).
فسبحان الله من هذا الإله !كيف يعاقب بكلّ هذه العقوبات القاسية المتتالية؛ عقوبات خاصّة بالحيّة وبالمرأة وبالرّجل، ثمّ لم يكتف بذلك فلعن الأرض كذلك، ولا أدري ما ذنبها! ثمّ واصل سلسلة العقوبات بطرد الإنسان من الجنّة خوفًا من أن يأكل من شجرة الخلد فيبقى هنالك في ملكوته ! يقول سفر التّكوين: (وقال الربّ الإله هو ذا الإنسان قد صار كواحدٍ منّا عارفًا الخير والشرّ، والآن لعلّه يمدّ يده ويأخذ من شجرة الحياة أيضًا، ويأكل ويحيا إلى الأبد، فأخرجه الربّ الإله من جنّة عدن ليعمل الأرض التي أُخذ منها، فطرد الإنسان وأقام شرقي جنّة عدن الكروبيم ولهيب سيف متقلّب لحراسة طريق شجرة الحياة)( ).
أليست كلّ هذه العقوبات كافية لتحقيق ناموس العدل!؟ فهل من العدل أن يُضيف إلى تلك القائمة الطّويلة عقوبة الخطيئة المميتة !؟
إنّ هذا المنطق الغريب الذي يصوّر الله بهذا الحقد والجبروت هو الذي دفع أحد الغربيّين إلى السّخريّة بقوله: » إنّ الله أنانيّ وقاس جدًّا، فلقد لعن البشريّة كلّها وطردها من رحمته، وحكم عليها بالشّقاء المؤبّد لمجرّد أنّ فردًا واحدًا منها تجرّأ على أكل تُفّاحة من حديقته ! «.
وثمّة ملاحظات أخرى وأخرى فقوله: ( لعلّه يمدّ يده ..) دليل على عدم تأكّد الله من أنّ آدم سيفعل ذلك أصلاً، لكنّه هذه المرّة لم يشأ أن يراهن كما فعل مع شجرة المعرفة؛ لذلك أخذ التّدابير والاحتياطات اللاّزمة لقطع الطّريق على آدم حتّى لا يصل إلى شجرة الخلد !، إنّ الله تعلّم درسًا في السّابق فلا يريد أن يُلدغ من جحر مرّتين، فطرد آدم من الجنّة حماية لمكتسباته لئلاّ يتطلّع إلى الأكل من شجرة الخلد في غفلة من الله – ! جلّ شأنه وتعالى عمّا يقولون – فيصبح آدم كالله تمامًا !
إنّ هذه الاستنتاجات نوردها إلزامًا فقط، وليس اعتقادًا منّا بها، والقارئ العاديّ لهذه الأسفار يشمّ رائحة كاتب يهوديّ عاجز عن تصوّر الذّات الإلهيّة بصفاتها العليا المنزّهة عن مشابهة الخلق، فتراه يصف ويصوّر الله كأنّه إنسان يحسد آدم، ويتحرّك بموجب غريزة التملّك والبقاء والسّيطرة ليحيك المؤامرات خشية على ذهاب عرشه ومصالحه الشّخصيّة المهدّدة بظهور منافس محتمل، وأتساءل: ما هي الحكمة من خلق شجرة الحياة هذه! هل لمجرّد استمتاع الله برؤيتها عند تجوّله في حديقته!؟
إنّ أهمّ أساس في الإيمان النّصرانيّ هو الخطيئة الأصليّة، وإنّ اعتقادًا كهذا يجرّنا إلى سلسلة طويلة من التّساؤلات، يقول سفر التّكوين: إنّ الحيّة هي التي أغوت المرأة والرّجل، فلماذا لم يكتف الله بمعاقبة الحيّة وقد كانت الرّأس المدبّر للجريمة والسّبب في جميع ذنوب بني آدم !؟
لماذا لم يتكلّم الأنبياء والرّسل الذين ذُكروا في التّوراة والعهد القديم عن هذه العقيدة "الخطيئة " !؟ لماذا لم يُشر إليها نوح، إبراهيم، إسحاق، يعقوب، داود .. بل حتّى موسى أعظم نبيّ في بني إسرائيل لم يُلمِّح إلى الخطيئة من قريب ولا من بعيد، كيف يمكن لأنبياء عظماء مثل هؤلاء أن يتجاهلوا هذه العقيدة؟ هل كانوا جاهلين بها؟ وهي أخطر عقيدة في الملكوت، هل كتموا خبرها عن النّاس وأبقوها سرًّا بينهم؟ لماذا لم يرفعوا أيديهم إلى السّماء ليدعوا ويتوسّلوا إلى الله ليرفعها عن الإنسانيّة؟ أتعرف لماذا لم يفعلوا ذلك؟ لأنّهم ببساطة لم يكونوا يؤمنون بوجود خطيئة ما، بل كانوا يؤمنون بقول الكتاب المقدّس (برُّ البارّ عليه يكون وشرّ الشرّير عليه يكون)( ).
ثمّ هل كان هؤلاء الأنبياء كنوح وإبراهيم وموسى وداود وسليمان .. أجداد المسيح خطاة ومدنّسين بالخطيئة الأصليّة التي ارتكبها أبوهم آدم؟ فإذا كانوا كذلك لماذا اختارهم الله لهداية البشر، وهم لا يختلفون عن غيرهم لكونهم منغمسين في الخطيئة كباقي أفراد جنسهم؟، لماذا كان "يهو" jeovah وهو الله في العهد القديم – راضيًا عن أنبيائه؛ فكان يدعو بعضهم بالرّجل البارّ، ورجل الله، والصّالح، يقول الكتاب المقدّس (كان نوح رجلاً بارًّا كاملاً في أجياله وسار نوح مع الله)( )، (وسار أخنوخ مع الله ولم يوجد لأنّ الله أخذه)( )، بل إنّ العهد الجديد يجزم بأنّ أولئك الأنبياء الذين سبقوا المسيح كانوا كاملين في إيمانهم، ولم يكونوا خطاة، ولم تكن تنقصهم عقائد التّثليث والفداء والكفّارة، جاء في رسالة يعقوب في العهد الجديد (أنظر إلى أبينا إبراهيم أما برره الله بالأعمال، حين قدّم ابنه إسحاق على المذبح، فأنت ترى أنّ إيمانه وافق أعماله فصار إيمانه كاملاً بالأعمال، فتمّ قول الكتاب آمن إبراهيم بالله فبرّره الله لإيمانه ودُعي خليل الله)( ).
كيف وُفّق الأنبياء إلى فعل الخير وجميع الطّوائف النّصرانيّة ترى بموجب الخطيئة أنّ الله نزع من بني الإنسان إرادة فعل الخير، وإنّ ما يعمله الإنسان هو شرّ، وذلك رغم اعتراف المسيح بوجود أبرار على الأرض، فعندما لام أناس المسيح على دعوته الأشرار والخطاة، ردّ المسيح عليهم قائلاً: (لأنّي لم آت لأدعو أبرارًا بل خطاة إلى التّوبة)( ).
وأخيرًا لماذا كتم الله سرّ الخطيئة فلم يبده لعباده إلاّ بعد قصّة صلب المسيح، إنّ المدّة الزّمنيّة التي تفصل بين آدم والمسيح ليست بالقصيرة، فأين كان مفهوم الخطيئة خلال تلك القرون الطّويلة؟.
يقول عبد الأحد داود – رأس الكنيسة الكلدانية وقد أسلم – في كتابه (الإنجيل والصّليب): » إنّ من العجب أن يعتقد المسيحيّون أنّ هذا السرّ اللاّهوتيّ، وهو خطيئة آدم وغضب الله على الجنس البشريّ بسببها ظلّ مكتومًا عن كلّ الأنبياء السّابقين، ولم تكتشفه إلاّ الكنيسة بعد حادثة الصّلب« ويقرّر الكاتب أنّ هذه المسألة هي من المسائل التي حملته على ترك النّصرانيّة واعتناق الإسلام لأنّها أمرته بما لا يستسيغه عقله.
ومن أغرب العجائب أنّ أسفار العهد القديم لم تدع جزئيّة من الجزئيّات التّافهة كأعداد قبائل بني إسرائيل وأسمائهم، وطول وعرض ووزن الأشياء في أسفار اللاوين والتثنية والعدد، وأكاذيب زنا داود بحليلة جاره، وزواج سليمان بـ 1000 امرأة، وزنا لوط بابنتيه !.. كلّ هذه التّفاصيل سُردت في أكثر من 1200 صفحة بتفصيل مملّ، ومقزز يدعو للغثيان؛ في حين أنّ الخطيئة التي هي أهمّ عقائد النّصرانيّة على الإطلاق لا تجد لها مكانًا بين ذلك الرّكام لا تلميحًا ولا تصريحًا!
أليس هذا الأمر محيّرًا ؟ بلى.
أليس هذا الأمر غير معقول ؟، بلى.
إنّ أكثر التّحليلات العلميّة للدّيانة النّصرانيّة تُرجع منبت هذه العقائد المنحرفة عن العقل والدّين "كالخطيئة " إلى الجهود المشبوهة التي قام بها أعداء التّوحيد في تدمير الدّين وتحريفه، وعلى رأس أولئك جميعًا بولس "شاؤول " الذي يعتقد النّصارى أنّه رسول المسيح، لقد لعب بولس دورًا خطيرًا في الهدم من الدّاخل، كان يصعب – إنّ لم يكن من المستحيل – فعله من الخارج، ولقد كان ذكيًّا – بل خبيثًا – عندما لم يخترع ديانة جديدة من عنده، إنّما عمد إلى عقائد فاسدة كانت موجودة في أديان الوثنيّين " البوذيّة، البراهميّة، المتراسيّة، المصريّة القديمة، وفلسفة الإغريق والرّومان ..الخ " فأخذ من هنا وهناك أشياء كانت شائعة في ذلك الزّمان، ثمّ ألصقها بالدّيانة النّصرانيّة الجديدة في غفلة من أهل العلم، وقد تزامن ذلك مع حملة اليهود والرّومان الشّرسة على الحواريّين وتلاميذ المسيح، فضاع الحقّ وأخذ مكانه الباطل المزخرف، الذي دعّمته فيما بعد سلطة الدّولة الرّومانيّة لما تنصرت.
وبخصوص الخطيئة يذكر علماء تاريخ الأديان وجود فكرة الخطيئة في أكثر الأديان الوثنيّة التي سبقت النّصرانيّة، يقول م. ويليام في كتابه (الهندوسيّة): »يعتقد الهنود الوثنيّون بالخطيئة الأصليّة، وممّا يدلّ على ذلك ما جاء في تضرّعاتهم التي يتوسّلون بها بعد "الكياتري" وهي: إنّي مذنب، ومرتكب للخطيئة، وطبيعتي شرّيرة، وحملتني أمّي بالإثم، فخلّصني يا ذا العين الحندقوقيّة، يا مخلّص الخاطئين يا مزيل الآثام والذّنوب«، ويقول هوك في كتابه (رحلة هوك): »يعتقد الهنود الوثنيّون بتجسّد أحد الآلهة وتقديم نفسه ذبيحة فداء عن النّاس والخطيئة« ويقول »ومن الألقاب التي يُدعى بها كرشنا: الغافر من الخطايا، والمخلص من أفعى الموت«.
وختامًا فإنّ الإيمان بالخطيئة ولّد عند الإنسانيّة كثيرًا من الآلام، والعقد النّفسيّة، يحدّثنا عن بعضها، كاتب نصرانيّ ما يزال على نصرانيّته ألّف كتابًا بعنوان (محمّد الرّسالة والرّسول) أنصف فيه الإسلام ونبيّه وانتقد بشدّة فكرة الخطيئة والعقائد النّصرانيّة.
يقول الدّكتور نظمي لوقا: » وإنّ أنسى لا أنسى ما ركبني صغيرًا من الفزع والهول من جرّاء تلك الخطيئة الأولى، وما سيقت فيه من سياق مروّع، يقترن بوصف جهنّم، ذلك الوصف المثير لمخيّلة الأطفال، وكيف تتجدّد فيها الجلود كلّما أكلتها النّيران، جزاء وفاقًا على خطيئة آدم بإيعاز من حوّاء، وأنّه لولا النّجاة على يد المسيح الذي فدى البشر بدمه الطّهور، لكان مصير البشريّة كلّها الهلاك المبين، وإن أنسى لا أنسى القلق الذي ساورني وشغل خاطري عن ملايين البشر قبل المسيح أين هم؟ وما ذنبهم حتّى يهلكوا بغير فرصة للنّجاة ؟ فكان لا بدّ من عقيدة ترفع عن كاهل البشر هذه اللّعنة، وتطمئنهم إلى العدالة التي لا تأخذ البريء بالمجرم، أو تزر الولد بوزر الوالد، وتجعل للبشريّة كرامة مصونة، ويحسم القرآن( ) هذا الأمر، حيث يتعرّض لقصّة آدم، وما يُروى فيها من أكل الثّمرة؛ فيقول وعصى آدم ربَّه فغوى، ثمّ اجتباه ربُّه فتاب عليه وهدى طه 121 – 122… والحقُّ أنّه لا يمكن أن يقدِّر قيمة عقيدة خالية من الخطيئة الأولى الموروثة إلاّ من نشأ في ظلّ تلك الفكرة القاتمة التي تصبغ بصبغة الخجل والتأثّم كلّ أفعال المرء، فيمضي في حياته مضيّ المريب المتردّد، ولا يُقبِل عليها إقبال الواثق بسبب ما أنقض ظهره من الوزر الموروث.
إنّ تلك الفكرة القاسية – الخطيئة الأولى وفداءها – تُسمّم ينابيع الحياة كلّها، ورفعُها عن كاهل الإنسان منّة عظمى، بمثابة نفخ نسمة حياة جديدة فيه، بل هو ولادة جديدة حقًّا، وردٌّ اعتبار لا شكّ فيه، إنّه تمزيق صحيفة السّوابق، ووضع زمام كلّ إنسان بيد نفسه«.
قطعت جهيزة قول كلّ خطيب، يعجبني الإنصاف من أمثال الدّكتور نظمي لوقا، وهو المتبحّر في دراسة الإنجيل والكتب السّماويّة، وأين هو ممّن ادّعوا اعتناق النّصرانيّة في بعض البلاد الإسلاميّة – كبعض البربر مثلاً عندنا في الجزائر – الذين ناقشت بعضهم فوجدتهم لم يقرأوا شيئًا عن الإنجيل ولا يعرفون نصوص الكتاب المقدّس، وعند التّحقيق اكتشفت أنّ اعتناق النّصرانيّة عند أكثرهم – إن لم أقل كلّهم – كان مطيّة للحصول على تأشيرات سفر إلى أوروبا وأموال وامتيازات أخرى من جمعيّات وهيئات وسفارات غربيّة مشبوهة !!
الفــــداء والكفّــــارة
ترتبط عقيدة الكفارة بعقيدة الخطيئة ارتباط اليد بالمعصم، فالمقصود بالكفارة هو رفع الخطيئة الأصليّة وتكفيرها عن كاهل البشريّة لإنقاذها من الموت الأبديّ، الذي أصابها جرّاء أكل آدم من الشّجرة.. ويُعتبر علماء الأديان قاطبة أنّ الكفّارة أُسّ الدّين النّصرانيّ، ومركز الدّائرة ونقطة التقاء جميع العقائد النّصرانيّة الأخرى، فهي ذات علاقة بالخطيئة من حيث إنّ هذه الأخيرة سبب لها وذات علاقة بالتجسّد والصّلب والقيامة .. من حيث كون هذه العقائد نتيجة حتميّة للكفّارة، وهي في الواقع أكثر تعقيدًا والتواءً، الأمر الذي أضنى الدّارسين والباحثين في أعماقها، وأحرج الكنيسة ورجالها، وأعجزهم عن الإجابة عن التّساؤلات العديدة حولها، لذا تراهم يأمرون أتباعهم بالإيمان بها دون البحث في جوهرها و ماهيّتها.
كيف نشأت فكرة الكفّارة ؟
نشأت هذه الفكرة بعد نزاع مرير بين صفتين من صفات الله تعالى، وهما صفة العدل وصفة الرّحمة، فإذا عدنا إلى الوراء قليلاً نجد أنّ الله حذّر آدم من الأكل من الشّجرة بقوله: (يوم تأكل منها موتًا تموت)( )، فهذا الحكم بالإعدام – على آدم وذرّيته – نافذ وغير قابل للاستئناف أو الطّعن أو التّخفيف؛ لأنّ مقتضى العدل عند الله أن ينفّذ وعده بمعاقبة المسيء بالموت، وقانون العدل الإلهيّ يُلزم الله بعدم التّساهل والتّراخي في تطبيق العقوبة.
وحتّى لا يوصف الله بالجور وعدم الإنصاف أو بالإخلال بقانون العدل بدأ بتنفيذ سلسلة العقوبات التي ذكرناها سابقًا، وكان آخرها طرد الإنسان من الجنّة والحكم عليه باللّعنة وإلصاق الخطــيئة برقبته إلى الأبد – وفي زعم النّصارى – يكون الله قد حقّق العدل بهذه الخطوات !!
واستمرّ الوضع على ما هو عليه دهرًا، وفجأة ظهرت صفة أخرى من صفات الله، وهي الرّحمة، فراودت الله على غفران خطيئة الإنسان؛ لأنّ من رحمة الله بالنّاس ومحبّته لهم ألاّ يتركهم على هذه الحالة التّعيسة؛ فكان على الله بمقتضى هذه الصّفة أن يعفو عن البشر ويغفر لهم ويرفع عنهم اللّعنة والشّقاء !
إنّ هذا المنطق الكنسيّ يبرز الله حائرًا بين صفتين من صفاته، أيّهما يغلب على الأخرى؟، فكلّما أراد الإماتة واللّعنة بمقتضى العدل عاقته الرّحمة، وكلّما أراد رحمة خلقه والمغفرة لهم وقفت صفة العدل بالمرصاد !إنّه خيار صعب بين طرفين أحلاهما مرّ، فإلى ماذا سيؤول نزاع الصّفتين وكيف يوفّق الله بينهما لحلّ المشكلة التي أوقع نفسه فيها وتورّط في براثنها ؟!( ) ولا ندري كيف يمتلك رجال الكنيسة الجرأة بمنطقهم هذا ليلزموا الله بإلزامات كهذه !فكان لزامًا – إذن – على الله أن يصل إلى حلّ وسط ينال بموجبه العدل حقّه وتأخذ الرّحمة مكانها، فما السّبيل لذلك الحلّ السّحريّ ؟
وبما أنّنا، الآن، نكتب بمنطق النّصارى فلنترك أكبر ممثّل للفكر النّصرانيّ بولس "شاؤول" يبيّن لنا السّبيل لحلّ أزمة "العدل والرّحمة"، ولا سيّما أنّ بولس أكبر مدافع عن عقيدة الكفّارة، إن لم يكن هو مخترعها، يقول في العهد الجديد: (لا يوجد مغفرة بدون سفك دم)( )، ويبدو أنّ بولس ما يزال متأثّرًا بيهوديّته؛ إذ إنّ الإله "يهو" في العهد القديم كان مغرمًا بدم القرابين، فلم يكن يرضى عن بني إسرائيل إلاّ حين يشمّ رائحة مشاوي ودم الذّبائح التي يقدّمها كهنة اليهود، حين يسترضون ربّهم عند غضبه بذبيحة ليغفر لهم موبقاتهم.
كذلك كانت عقيدة سفك الدّم من أجل المغفرة والخلاص سائدة في العديد من الدّيانات الوثنيّة القديمة، لدى المصريّين والبوذيّين والإغريق والهنود.. فقد كانت تلك الأقوام تدفع للمذابح الرّجال والنّساء والأطفال والحيوانات بل والآلهة وأبناء الآلهة قربانًا إلى الله، فركِب بولس الموجة وسار مع التيار فاستعار الفكرة، أو قل سرقها وطبّقها على النّصرانيّة، ونسبها إلى تعاليم المسيح فأضلّ بها خلقًا عظيمًا إلى أيّامنا هذه، وسنعود بعد صفحات إلى شهادات علماء الأديان لنطّلع على عقيدة الكفّارة والفداء في الوثنيّة التي سبقت مولد المسيح بآلاف السّنين.
لا بدّ من سفك دم!! ولكن ما هو حجم الذّبائح التي يقبلها الله لفداء البشر، كم مترًا مكعّبًا من الدّماء تكفي لغسل خطيئة الأكل من تفّاحة الجنّة، من يتبرّع ليكون فاديًا، وما نوع الذّبيحة المناسبة !؟، أيكون حيوانًا؟( )؛ لا يقدر حيوان على فداء إنسان لفرق القيمة، أو ملَكًا؟؛ الملائكة لم تشارك في الخطيئة وربّما لا تملك دمًا، أو إنسانًا؟، كلّ النّاس تدنّسوا بالخطيئة، ولا يصلح أن يكون فاديًا إلاّ طاهرٌ، أو إلها؟؛ أغلق بولس جميع منافذ الفداء إلاّ هذا المنفذ، فالفادي يجب أن يكون طاهرًا ولا طاهر إلاّ الله، إذن الفادي هو الله لا غيره ! !وكيف يكون الله فدية، هل ينتحر أو يزهق روحه أو يتركها تقتل على أيدٍ، أيًّا كانت، فيبقى العالم بدون إله!؟
دبّر الله حيلة التجسّد – وهو اختراع آخر لبولس – والتجسّد متاهة لا يُعرف لها مدخل من مخرج، سنحاول إلقاء بعض الضّوء عليها بعد قليل، وإن كان كلّ ضوء الدّنيا لا يقدر على إنارة ظلمتها، فقد خرج بولس بلازمة أنّ حلّ أزمة الخطيئة لا يتحقّق إلاّ أن يفدي اللّه بنفسه البشريّة، لأنّه طاهر من الخطيئة الأصليّة، و ذلك قادر على التجسّد، بأخذ جسم إنسان، حتّى ينوب عن الإنسان المخطئ، ومفاد "حيلة" التجسّد أنّ الله نزل من عليائه حاملاً معه صفات الألوهيّة، ثمّ دخل رحم العذراء مريم ومكث هناك تسعة أشهر كما يمكث أيّ جنين في بطن أمّه، ثمّ خرج إلى الوجود بالولادة عن الطّريق المعهود، فاختلط الإله المولود بدم الحيض والنّفاس، واستقبلته الأيدي ووضعته في القماط، وناولته أمّه ثديها ترضعه وتعطف عليه عطف الأمّ على ولدها.
لقد أصبح الإله إنسانًا وصار واحدًا منّا، فهو إله كامل وإنسان كامل، وتتّفق جميع الطّوائف النّصرانيّة على هذه العقيدة، وقد وردت في قانون الإيمان كالآتي: [.. الذي لأجلنا نحن البشر ومن أجل خلاصنا نزل من السّماء وتجسّد من الرّوح القدس ومن مريم العذراء، وتأنّس وصُلِب عنّا على عهد بيلاطس البنطي..].
وسنشفق على القارئ فلا ندخله في صراعات الطّوائف النّصرانيّة التي دارت حول طبيعة المولود، هل هو الأب أم ابنه أم الثّالوث؟، هل ولدت مريم الله أم المسيح؟ هل المولود هو اللاّهوت أم النّاسوت.. إلخ !؟
وسنشير إلى بعض ذلك فيما بعد، ولا ننصح أحدًا بالبحث فيها؛ لأنّه حينها تفنى الأعمار ولا يخرج المرء بنتيجة تذكر، اللهمّ إلاّ الشكّ والحيرة وربّما الإعاقة النّفسيّة والعقليّة والوقاية خير من العلاج فتنبّه !
كبُر المولود الذي دعي المسيح، وتقدّم في السنّ، وبدأ بدعوته بين اليهود في فلسطين، وكانت دعوته كلّها تنصبّ على عبادة الله وحده لا شريك له، والاستمساك بالتّوراة الموسويّة ، ولم يذكر المسيح في حياته نصًّا عن الخطيئة أو الكفّارة أو الصّلب أو الثّالوث، فتلك عقائد طبخها بولس والقساوسة بعد رفع المسيح .. واستمرّ المسيح يدعو إلى تطبيق شريعة العهد القديم، وكان هو نفسه يعمل بمقتضاها ويسير على هداها؛ قال المسيح: (لا تظنّوا أنّي جئت لأبطل الشّريعة وتعاليم الأنبياء، ما جئت لأبطل بل لأكمل)( )، لكن اليهود خافوا على مصالحهم ومكتسباتهم بعد أن هدّدهم المسيح وفضحهم على رؤوس الأشهاد، فتآمروا وخطّطوا فأُلقي القبض عليه، فحاكموه وأهانوه، ثمّ قدّموه إلى الصّليب فصلبوه – حسب الأناجيل – وبعدما صُلب زعم النّصارى أنّ صلبه كان تكفيرًا وفداء لخطيئة آدم و تخليصًا للبشريّة من اللّعنة التي أصابتها منذ فجر التّاريخ، ويجمــع النّصارى – على اختلاف مللهم ونحلهم – على أنّ المسيح صلب من أجل خطايا البشر بإرادته وطواعيته، وبموته رُفعت الخطيئة الأبديّة واسترجع الإنسان حرّيته، وغفرت لبني آدم جميع زلاّتهم وسيّئاتهم، واستحقّ المسيح أن يلقّب بالمخلّص لأنّه خلّص البشر من عبوديّة الشّيطان.
وأكثر الآيات الإنجيليّة التي تقرّر عقيدة الكفّارة والفداء توجد في الرّسائل الأربع عشرة لبولس، الذي كان متحمّسًا تحمّسًا مريبًا لهذه الفكرة، حتّى إنّه لم يكن مستعدًّا لقبول فكرة أخرى غيرها إلاّ تلك، يقول بولس (إنّي لم أعزم أن أعرف شيئًا بينكم إلاّ يسوع المسيح وإيّاه مصلوبًا)( )، ويقول بولس مروّجًا سلعة الفداء (المسيح مات من أجل خطايانا حسب الكتب)( )، ولا أدري ما هي الكتب التي يقصدها بولس !؟، وللملاحظة فكثيرًا ما نجد في العهد الجديد إحالات مبهمة كهذه دون ذكر الكتب بأسمائها وأسفارها، لتعويم القارئ وإيهامه بصدق الإحالة دون إعطائه فرصة الاطّلاع عليها، وقد اكتشف العديد من الباحثين عدم صدق الكثير من تلك الإحالات فتنبّه، ويقول بولس: (الذي فيه لنا الفداء بدمه غفران الخطايا)( )، وجاء في رؤيا يوحنا (الذي أحبّنا وقد غسلنا من خطايانا بدمه)( ).
أمّا أشهر آية إنجيليّة في هذا الباب والتي يفتخر رعاة الكنائس بترديدها في كلّ صلاة وقدّاس فهي (هكذا أحبّ الله العالم حتّى بذل ابنه الوحيد، لكي لا يهلك كلّ من يؤمن به بل تكون له الحياة الأبديّة)( )، إنّ الكنيسة برجالها وأناجيلها تقرّر أنّ المسيح وُلد ليموت ونزل من السّماء ليُقتل، إنّه عطيّة الله للنّاس، لم يأت المسيح ليعيش بل جاء ليموت عن آخرين، أرسل الله المسيح ليغسل بدمه خطيئة آدم، وبذلك يمحو جميع الخطايا التي ورثناها بفعل الخطيئة الأصليّة، ويفهم من عقيدة النّصارى أنّ المسيح حضر إلى الأرض لأداء مهمّة "الانتحار" على يد اليهود والرّومان !
وقد يُصدّق بعض من لا يقرأ الأناجيل بتلك المسرحيّة المحبوكة، لكن من يتمعّن قليلاً في نصوص العهد الجديد يستغرب أشدّ الاستغراب من استماتة المسيح في الدّفاع عن نفسه، ورفضه للموت وحرصه على البقاء حيًّا، وليس من العجب أن نراه يقوم بجميع المحاولات للنّجاة بنفسه من أعدائه، لقد كان المسيح إنسانًا يحبّ الحياة، لقد جاء ليعيش، وهذا حقّه الطّبيعيّ، على الرّغم من المحاولات الفاشلة للأناجيل وشرّاحها الذين أرادوا إجبار المسيح على الموت رغم أنفه، ونرى أنّ رجال الكنيسة إذا أرادوا إقناع النّاس بقصّة الفداء يستدلّون بأقوال المسيح في التّنبّؤ بآلامه ومنها قوله (.. كيف هو مكتوب عن ابن الإنسان أن يتألّم كثيرًا ويُرذل)( ).
وقوله: (كذلك ابن الإنسان أيضًا سوف يتألّم منهم)( ) فهل هذه أدلّة يُركن إليها وأين الفداء و الخلاص و الصّلب من هذه الأقوال…؟، إنّ ما فعله المسيح بأقواله هذه هو تحضير أصحابه إلى الآلام التي يعانيها كلّ صاحب دعوة، فالطّريق وعرة ومحفوفة بالمخاطر، ومنهج الأنبياء مليء بالعقبات والأشواك، وقد أصابت تلك الاضطهادات المؤلمة الدّعاة إلى الله منذ فجر التّاريخ وما تزال، قال محمّد رسول الله : "الأنبياء أشدّ بلاء ثمّ الأمثل فالأمثل".
لكن البوْن شاسع بين أن يتعرّض الدّاعية لاضطهاد الكفّار والمجرمين وأن يستسلم للموت كالنّعجة طواعية وعن اختيار !وقد استبعد المسيح فكرة الموت الاختياري والفداء بلسان حاله ومقاله، ونستشفّ ذلك من عدّة آيات إنجيليّة: (أجابهم يسوع وقال تعليمي ليس لي بل للذي أرسلني .. أليس موسى قد أعطاكم النّاموس، وليس أحدٌ منكم يعمل بالنّاموس، لماذا تطلبون أن تقتلوني؟)( )، (أنا عالم أنّكم ذريّة إبراهيم، لكنّكم تطلبون أن تقتلوني، لأنّ كلامي لا موضع له فيكم.. لو كنتم أولاد إبراهيم لكنتم تعملون أعمال إبراهيم، ولكنكم الآن تطلبون أن تقتلوني وأنا إنسان قد حدّثكم بالحقّ الذي سمعه من الله، هذا لم يفعله إبراهيم)( )، حاول المسيح بهذه الكلمات العاطفيّة إقناع اليهود بأنّه نبيّ مرسل يتكلّم بالحقّ من عند الله، وأعلّمهم بأنّ أيّ مؤامرة لقتله ستكون ظلمًا وعدوانًا على الكتب السّماويّة وتعاليم الأنبياء، ثمّ عزف المسيح على وتر العاطفة حين ذكّرهم بإبراهيم، فقد كان اليهود يفتخرون به ويحبّون الانتساب إليه، محاولة منه لحماية نفسه من شرّهم، وجاء في الإنجيل: (.. وجاءوا إلى حافّة الجبل الذي كانت مدينتهم مبنية عليه حتّى يطرحوه أسفل، أمّا هو "المسيح" فجاز في وسطهم ومضى)( )، وفي مرّة أخرى (فلمّا خرج الفريسيّون تشاوروا عليه لكي يهلكوه، فعلم يسوع وانصرف من هناك)( )، ومرة ثالثة (فرفعوا حجارة ليرجموه أمّا يسوع فاختفى وخرج من الهيكل مجتازًا في وسطهم ومضى)( )، (كان يسوع يتردّد بعد هذا في الجليل؛ لأنّه لم يرد أن يتردّد في اليهوديّة لأنّ اليهود كانوا يطلبون أن يقتلوه)( )، (فمن ذلك اليوم تشاوروا ليقتلوه، فلم يكن يسوع أيضًا يمشي بين اليهود علانية بل مضى من هناك إلى الكورة القريبة من البرّيّة)( ).
هل هذه تصرّفات من يريد الموت أو من جاء ليصلب لخلاص البشريّة!؟، لماذا المماطلة، لماذا التخفّي عن أعين اليهود والهرب من وجه الأعداء خوفًا من أذيّتهم، لقد حاولوا قتله كما نرى عدّة مرّات، وطلبوا إزهاق روحه في عدّة مناسبات، فلماذا لم يُسلّم نفسه لهم منذ البداية !؟ لماذا هذا التّأخير الذي يكلّف الإنسانيّة العناء الشّديد، لماذا أصرّ المسيح على إطالة معاناة البشريّة التي تنتظر فداءها بفارغ الصّبر، فهلاّ أسرع في إنقاذها بقوله لليهود: "من فضلكم خذوني وارجموني واصلبوني من أجلكم أيّها الخاطئون ثقيلو الأحمال !" لكن نرى المسيح في الإنجيل، من خلال تلك الآيات كأنّه يريد ترك الفداء البطوليّ إلى آخر الفيلم، وما فائدة فيلم يموت البطل في أوّله !، لقد أصرّ المسيح على اللّعب مع اليهود لعبة 'السّارق و الشّرطيّ' وتقاعس عن أداء واجبه الذي كلّف به !؟
سيجيب أيّ قسّ عن هذا المنطق بأنّ ساعة المسيح لم تكن قد حانت بعد، فعندما تأتي ساعته يسلّم نفسه لليهود والرّومان بكلّ هدوء وبرودة أعصاب وبلا خوف ولا وجل من رعب الصّلب وأفعى الموت !.. فهل حدث هذا، وهل جاءت تلك السّاعة!؟
رغم أنّ النّصارى يقولون بحدوث ذلك ومجيء تلك السّاعة، إلاّ أنّ روايات الأناجيل عن آخر ساعات المسيح على هذه الأرض تعصف بفكرة الفداء وتجعلها قاعًا صفصفًا، وتحكم على الكفّارة بالخرافة المحضة، وتعال – أيّها القارئ الموضوعيّ – نتابع سلوك رجل يريد أن يموت بكلّ قواه من أجل الآخرين في آخر لحظات حياته كما ترويها الأناجيل الأربعة.
عندما اقتربت ساعة القبض على المسيح قال لتلاميذه: (عندما أرسلتكم بلا مال ولا كيس ولا حذاء هل احتجتم إلى شيء؟ قالوا: لا، فقال لهم: أمّا الآن فمن عنده مال فليأخذه، أو كيس فليحمله، ومن لا سيف عنده فليبع ثوبه ويشتر سيفًا… فقالوا: يا ربّ معنا هنا سيفان، فأجابهم يكفي)( ).
يأمر المسيح تلاميذه بالتزوّد بالمال، وبيع ثيابهم لشراء السّيوف، فالمال قد يساعدهم في التسلّح والدّعم اللّوجيستي، وفعلاً امتلك التّلاميذ سيفين، ولو كان باستطاعتهم اقتناء أكثر من ذلك لفعلوا، ولو كان المسيح في عصرنا لأمر أتباعه بشراء القنابل والبنادق الرشّاشة… وما فائدة السّيوف يا ترى التي يأمر المسيح باقتنائها، هل هي سيوف للزّينة والدّيكور، أم كما يقول أحمد ديدات لنزع قشر الموز والبرتقال!!
السّيوف لم تصنع لذلك، فقد كانت الدّعوة لاقتنائها استنفارًا عامًّا قبل أن يداهم اليهود التّلاميذ، وقد ظنّ المسيح أنّ التّلاميذ الأحد عشر الأقوياء الأشاوس – مزوّدين بالسّيفين والعصيّ – قادرون على ردّ عدوان شرذمة من حرس اليهود، فلم يكن المسيح عالمًا بأنّ اليهود سيستعينون بجنود الرّومان.
وما يزال السّؤال مطروحًا، الذي يأتي حقًّا لتسليم نفسه للموت كالنّعجة المسالمة والخروف الوديع ماذا عساه أن يفعل بالسّيوف، أجيبوا أيّها القساوسة !؟.
(ثمّ جاء يسوع مع تلاميذه إلى موضع اسمه جتسماني فقال لهم: اقعدوا هنا حتّى أذهب وأصلّي هناك وأخذ معه بطرس وابني زبدي.. ثمّ قال لهم: انتظروا هنا واسهروا معي)( ).
يقول أحمد ديدات في تعليقه على هذه الآيات في كتابه (مسألة صلب المسيح بين الحقيقة والخيال): » ولستَ بحاجة إلى عبقريّة عسكريّة، لكي تدرك أنّ المسيح يوزّع قوّاته كأستاذ في فنّ التّكتيك… والسّؤال الذي يفرض نفسه على أيّ مفكّر هو لماذا ذهبوا جميعًا إلى ذلك البستان؟ ألكي يصلّوا؟ ألم يكونوا يستطيعون الصّلاة في تلك الحجرة( )؟ ألم يكونوا يستطيعون الذّهاب إلى هيكل سليمان، ولقد كان على مرمى حجر منهم وذلك لو كانت الصّلاة هي هدفهم؟ كلاّ ! لقد ذهبوا إلى البستان ليكونوا في موقف أفضل بالنّسبة لموضوع الدّفاع عن أنفسهم!. ولاحظ أيضًا أنّ المسيح لم يأخذ الثّمانية لكي يصلّوا معه إنّه يضعهم بطريقة استراتيجيّة في مدخل البستان، مدجّجين بالسّلاح كما يقتضي موقف الدّفاع والكفاح.. لقد وزّع ثمانية لدى مدخل البستان، والآن على أولئك الشّجعان الأشاوس الثّلاثة – مسلّحين بالسّيفين – أن يتربّصوا ويراقبوا ويقوموا بالحراسة!، الصّورة هكذا مفعمة بالحيويّة، إنّ يسوع لا يدع شيئًا نُعمل فيه خيالنا«.
ويستمرّ الإنجيل في سرده آخر تفاصيل حياة المسيح فيذكر عن ملابسات اعتقاله (وأخذ معه بطرس ويعقوب ويوحنّا، وبدأ يشعر بالرّهبة والكآبة، فقال لهم: نفسي حزينة حتّى الموت انتظروا هنا واسهروا! وابتعد قليلاً ووقع إلى الأرض يصلّي حتّى تعبر عنه ساعة الألم إن كان ممكنًا فقال أبي، يا أبي ! أنت قادر على كلّ شيء، فابعد عنّي هذه الكأس، ولكن لا كما أنا أريد بل كما أنت تريد)( )، ويقول متّى إنّ المسيح صلّى تلك الصّلاة المفعمة بالعواطف ثلاث مرّات، في حين يضيف لوقا بعض التّفاصيل الدراميّة في هذا المشهد؛ فيقول: (وابتعد عنهم مسافة رمية حجر ووقع على ركبتيه وصلّى فقال: يا أبي، إن شئت، فأبعد عنّي هذه الكأس !، ولكن لتكن إرادتك لا إرادتي، وظهر له ملاك من السّماء يقوّيه، ووقع في ضيق فأجهد نفسه في الصّلاة، وكان عرقه مثل قطرات دم تتساقط على الأرض)( ).
يا له من موقف تتقطّع له الأكباد حزنًا وضحكًا، لم أعد أفهم شيئًا، أين سيصنف نقّاد أفلام السّينما هذا المشهد، مع المشاهد الدّراميّة أم الكوميديّة!؟ فإنّ من المفترض أنّ المسيح ُقدّر له بقضاء الله قبل ميلاد آدم صاحب الخطيئة أن يموت من أجل البشريّة طواعية، وكان من المتّفق أن يتأنّس الله وينزل إلينا ويصبح واحدًا منّا ليُسلّم نفسه فيموت عنّا، لكنّ المسيح يفاجئ الجميع في هذه الآيات عندما يدعو الله أن يجيز عنه تلك الكأس، ويطمع أن يعفيه الله من تلك الآلام ومن تلك المهمّة، إن كان ممكنًا، لقد وقّع المسيح على صفقة إعدامه قبل آلاف السّنين، فلماذا يراوغ الآن ويحاول التهرّب من تنفيذ الصّفقة – طبعًا إن كان ممكنًا – هل أدرك المسيح أنّ هذه الصّفقة كانت خاسرة، أم أنّ الله جعله يوقّع على بياض ثمّ …؟ أم أنّ المسيح الذي وظّفه الله لتلك المهمّة الفدائيّة لم يكن مطّلعًا على تعليمات الوظيفة التي تقلّدها؟ فبماذا يمكن تفسير الحزن والكآبة والرهبة، وقطرات عرق كالدم، والبكاء، والصّلاة، والدّعاء بالنّجاة…؟
إنّ الأقنوم( ) الثّاني "المسيح" كان له رأي آخر مخالف لرأي الأقنوم الأوّل "الأب" في معالجة قضيّة الخطيئة، لكن يبدو أنّ الأقنوم الأوّل فرض رأيه ونفذ إرادته بلا مشاورة الأقنوم الثّاني، وأتساءل لماذا يكفِّر الله خطيئة البشر بتقديم غيره كفداء؟
إنّ المسيح كغيره من الأنبياء لم يكن يؤمن بعقيدة الخطيئة، ولا بحاجة البشريّة لتكفيرها، فقد رفض بتصرّفاته الفداء، فلماذا يجبره الله على فعل شيء لا يريده؟ لماذا لم يقدّم الأب حينها نفسه للفداء بدل ابنه؟ فما ذنب المسيح حتّى يقاسي كلّ تلك الآلام وهو يصرخ ويصيح ويتألّم؟ في حين أنّ آدم الذي أكل من الشّجرة يتنعّم في الجنّة بعد رفع الخطيئة عنه.
نعود مرّة أخرى للسّاعات الأخيرة للمسيح على الأرض، لقد صوّرت الأناجيل المسيح المخلّص بصفات مزرية، وهي لا تشرّفه، بل هي عارٌ وعيب في حقّ المجاهدين والأبطال، الذين يصلّون ويدعون الله أن ينالوا الشّهادة في سبيله، وكم من مسلم يتمنّى الشّهادة، وعندما يلقاها يحسده عليها المخلصون من أصحابه ويتمنّون لو كانوا مكانه، أمّا المسيح هنا فهو يبكي كالمرأة الضّعيفة، ويدعو ويصلّي حتّى ينقذه الله من أيدي اليهود، أي منطق هذا؟ لماذا يصرّ الله على تعذيب المسيح بتخويفه وإرهابه، ألا يقدر الله على إرسال رجل !؟ ألم يكن قادرًا على فداء النّاس بفاد أكثر عزيمة وأقوى شكيمة بدل هذا الجبان البكّاء( ).
ويعلّق أحمد ديدات على هذا الوضع المؤسف للمسيح إزاء الكفّارة في الكتاب السّابق تحت عنوان "مضحٍّ على الرّغم منه ": » لو كانت تلك هي خطّة الله في التّكفير عن خطايا البشر "موت المسيح" فإنّ الله – وحاشا لله – يكون – وفق النّصارى – قد تنكب الصّواب، إنّ الممثّل الشّخصيّ للّه كان حريصًا على ألاّ يموت، فهو يصرخ ! يتباكى ! يعرق !يجأر بالشّكوى !على النّقيض من أشخاص مثل القائد الإنجليزيّ لورد نلسون، بطل الحرب الذي قال لشبح الموت – فيما يروي -: "شكرًا لله، لقد أديّت واجبي" .. لقد كان يسوع – كما يصوّره النّصارى – ضحيّة راغبة عن التّضحية، ولو كانت تلك هي خطة الله أو مشيئته من أجل الخلاص، فإنّها إذن خطّة أو مشيئة لا قلب لها، كانت عمليّة اغتيال بالدّرجة الأولى، ولم تكن خلاصًا قائمًا على أساس من تضحية تطوّعيّة«.
ومن محاولات المسيح كذلك للنّجاة من الموت أنّه حاول الهرب من أيدي أعدائه، ومغادرة المكان الذي حاصره فيه اليهود ليلة القبض عليه إذ يذكر عن المسيح قوله: ( قوموا ننصرف اقترب الذي يسلّمني)( ).
ولمّا رأى المسيح أنّ قوى اليهود كانت أكبر ممّا توقّع أعرض عن فكرة المقاومة، وطلب من تلاميذه مغادرة المكان، لكنّ اليهود باغتوهم في آخر لحظة، وحدثت مناوشات (وكان سمعان بطرس يحمل سيفًا، فاستلّه وضرب خادم رئيس الكهنة فقطع أذنه اليمنى …)( )، والسّؤال المطروح لماذا أحضر المسيح معه تلاميذه الأحد عشر إلى البستان فلقد كان عازمًا على الاستسلام، فلماذا لم يذهب وحده !! ؟
نعود إلى صراخ المسيح في تلك اللّيلة الرّهيبة، وإلى تضرّعاته وصلواته حتّى يصرف الله عنه تلك السّاعة العصيبة، يقول لوقا على لسان المسيح: (قال يا أبي، إن شئت فأبعد عنّي هذه الكأس! ولكن لتكن إرادتك لا إرادتي، وظهر له ملاك من السّماء يقوّيه)( )، فما هو دور هذا الملاك الذي ظهر فجأة ليقوّي المسيح، وبماذا يقوّيه ولماذا؟، هل يحتاج الإله المتجسّد إلى دعم من ملاك مخلوق، أم أنّ هذا الملاك جاء لإقناع المسيح بنبل عمله البطوليّ، وتذكيره بواجبه!؟
نحن لا نفهم هذه الآية بهذه الطّريقة، لقد كان المسيح نبيًّا من الأنبياء، دعا الله في حالة الشدّة، فأرسل الله إليه ملاكًا يرشده إلى الصّبر ويعدّه بالنّصر، ويبشّره بالنّجاة من الموت، وقد نجّاه لتقواه ولكونه من عباد الله الصّالحين؛ قال تعالى: كتب الله لأغلبنّ أنا ورسلي إنّ الله قويّ عزيز المجادلة 21، وجاء هذا المعنى بشكل واضح في رسالة بولس للعبرانيّين، الذي ذكر أنّ الله سمع للمسيح دعاءه وأنقذه في ساعة المحنة لتقواه، قال بولس: (وهو الذي في أيّام حياته البشريّة رفع الصّلوات والتضرّعات بصراخ شديد، ودموع إلى الله القادر أن يخلّصه من الموت، فاستجاب له لتقواه)( )، وهذا دليل آخر على نجاة المسيح من الصّلب، وأنّه لم يأت للانتحار بسبب تفّاحة أكلت قبل آلاف السّنين، قال الله تعالى وقولهم إنّا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله وما قتلوه وما صلبوه ولكن شبّه لهم، وإنّ الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شكّ منه، ما لهم به من علم إلاّ إتباع الظنّ وما قتلوه يقينًا، بل رفعه الله إليه وكان الله عزيزًا حكيمًا النّساء 157 – 158.
ورنّم داود في المزامير: ( الآن عرفت أنّ الربّ مخلص مسيحه يستجيب له من سماء قدسه بجبروته خلاص يمينه )( ).
وبعد اعتقال المسيح، قُدّم للمحاكمة في عدّة مجالس عند اليهود والرّومان، ويتناقض روّاة الأناجيل الأربعة تناقضًا خطيرًا في وصف المحاكمات، فبينما يعمل متّى على إبراز المسيح في تلك المحاكمات كنعجة مستسلمة، وخروف وديع، لا يدافع عن نفسه، ولا يُعارض أعداءه اليهود فيما ينسبونه إليه من زوّر و بهتان، ولا ينبس ببنت شفة، حين يُضرب ويُجلد، ويصدر عليه حكم الإعدام، استنادًا لبشارة إشعياء (و لم يفتح فاه كشاة تساق إلى الذّبح وكنعجة صامتة أمام جازريها فلم يفتح فاه)( )، قال متّى: (وكان رؤساء الكهنة والشّيوخ يتّهمونه، فلا يجيب بشيء، فقال بيلاطس أما تسمع ما يشهدون به عليك؟ فما أجابه يسوع عن شيء، حتّى تعجّب الحاكم كثيرًا)( ).
ويفاجئنا مرقس ولوقا ويوحنّا برواية تفاصيل أخرى، مخالفة لرواية متّى، فجعلوا المسيح يدافع عن نفسه ببراعة فائقة؛ قال مرقس: (فقام رئيس الكهنة في وسط المجلس وسأل يسوع: أما تجيب بشيء؟ ما هذا الذي يشهدون به عليك؟ فظلّ ساكتًا لا يقول كلمة، فسأله رئيس الكهنة أيضًا، وقال له أأنت المسيح ابن المبارك؟، فقال يسوع أنا هو، وسوف تبصرون ابن الإنسان جالسًا عن يمين القوّة وآتيا في سحاب السّماء)( )، وقال لوقا عن أحداث المحاكمة: (وقالوا له إن كنت المسيح، فقل لنا، فأجابهم إن قلت لكم لا تصدّقون، وإن سألتكم لا تجيبون ولا تخلون سبيلي، لكنّ ابن الإنسان سيجلس بعد اليوم عن يمين الله، فقالوا كلّهم أأنت ابن الله !؟ فأجابهم: أنتم تقولون إنّي أنا هو، فقالوا أنحتاج بعد إلى شهود؟ ونحن بأنفسنا سمعنا كلامه من فمه)( ).
فاليهود يرفضون الحقّ مهما كان جواب المسيح، لذا لا فائدة من أن يجيب المسيح الذي يعرف موقف اليهود منه مسبقًا، ولم يخف اعتقاده بتعصّبهم ضدّه وحرصهم على إيذائه، أمّا يوحنّا فهو يقدّم تفاصيل أكثر إثارة في دفاع المسيح عن نفسه في أثناء المحاكمات، ويستحقّ المسيح أن يصنّف في سلك المحامين البارزين لو كان في عصرنا.
وتأمّل معي هذا النصّ بكامله: (وسأل رئيس الكهنة يسوع عن تلاميذه وتعليمه، فأجابه يسوع: كلمتُ الناس علانية وعلّمت دائمًا في المجامع وفي الهيكل حيث يجتمع اليهود كلّهم، وما قلت شيئًا واحدًا في الخفية، فلماذا تسألني؟ إسأل الذين سمعوني عمّا كلّمتهم به، فهم يعرفون ما قلت، فلما قال يسوع هذا الكلام، لطمه واحدٌ من الحرس كان بجانبه وقال له: أهكذا تجيب رئيس الكهنة؟ فأجابه يسوع: إن كنتُ أخطأت في الكلام، فقل لي أين الخطأ؟ وإن كنت أصبت، فلماذا تضربني ؟)( ).
لقد فتح المسيح فاه مرات ومرات ودافع عن نفسه بجدارة فبطلت نبوة اشعياء وبطل استشهاد متى بها.
إنّ دفاع المسيح عن نفسه في هذا النصّ يعصف بادّعاءات متّى وإشعياء، فيما إذا كان المسيح فتح فاه أو لا، ودافع عن نفسه أم بقي ساكتًا !، ألم يطّلع متّى على تلك الكلمات، أم أنّها وردت من المسيح كتابيًّا، وليس شفهيًّا ليقال إنّه لم يفتح فاه !؟
ولنتأمّل حجج المسيح في دفاعه عن نفسه، إنّه يخبر رئيس الكهنة بأنّه ليس عنده ما يخيفه، لأنّ دعوته واضحة ومعلنة، فهو يدعو النّاس للعمل بالنّاموس وعبادة الله لا شريك له، فأيّ محاولة لإيذائه ستكون بلا ريب محاربة للدّين وعدوانًا على الله، وعندما لطمه ذلك الجنديّ دافع المسيح عن ذاته ورفض أن يُضرب من غير ذنب، وإذا كان المسيح يعلم أنّه سيموت ويعدم، فما فائدة العناء في الردّ على لطمة جنديّ؟.
إنّ المسيح رجل يحبّ الحياة، كما نحبّها، وتأخذه الغيرة على نفسه ويتأثّر نفسيًّا ووجدانيًّا للطمة فضلاً عن صلب وإعدام، ولا غرابة في ذلك لمن علم أنّ المسيح رجل أرسله الله لهداية البشريّة يصيبه ما يصيب النّاس، ويتألّم كما يتألّم النّاس، وليس إلهًا يتلقّى اللكلمات واللّطمات من جنديّ حقير.
وفي مشهد آخر داخل محكمة أخرى لدى بيلاطس، فتح المسيح فاه مرّات ومرّات مدافعًا عن حقّه في الحياة، واعتبر نفسه بريئًا من كلّ تهمة ألصقت به (فعاد بيلاطس إلى قصر الحاكم ودعا يسوع وقال له: أأنت ملك اليهود؟ فأجابه يسوع: هذا من عندك، أم قاله لك آخرون، فقال بيلاطس: أيهوديّ أنا !؟ شعبك ورؤساء الكهنة أسلموك إليّ فماذا فعلت؟ أجابه يسوع ما مملكتي من هذا العالم، لو كانت مملكتي من هذا العالم، لدافع عنّي أتباعي حتّى لا أسلَّم إلى اليهود، لا، ما مملكتي من هنا، فقال بيلاطس: أملِك أنت، إذن؟ أجابه يسوع: أنت تقول إنّي ملك، أنا وُلدت وجئت إلى العالم حتّى أشهد للحقّ، فمن كان من أبناء الحقّ يستمع إلى صوتي، فقال له بيلاطس: ما هو الحقّ؟، قال هذا وخرج ثانية إلى اليهود وقال لهم: لا أجد سببًا للحكم عليه)( ).
وعلى الرّغم أنّ اليهود ورؤساءهم اتّهموا المسيح بتهم سياسيّة باطلة وأحضروا شهود زور، وأوغروا صدر بيلاطس عليه، وورّطوه بتهم تتعلّق بأمن الدّولة، مثل ادّعائه الملك على اليهود، ومحاولته التمرّد على السّلطة الرّومانيّة، والثّورة على الأوضاع في فلسطين، وهي تُهم يعاقب بها السّلاطين والملوك عادة بالإعدام أو السّجن المؤبّد على الأقلّ، إلاّ أنّنا نرى بيلاطس ينصت إلى دفاع المتّهم، وينظر في حججه فيقتنع مرّة بعد مرّة ببراءته، حتّى إنّه رفض بشدّة صلب المسيح (ها أنا أخرجه إليكم لتعرفوا أنّي ما وجدت شيئًا للحكم عليه)( )، وإضافة إلى تلك التّهم الخطيرة زادوا عليها تهمًا دينيّة كادّعاء المسيح الألوهيّة أو بنوّة الله، أو التّجديف على الله .. إلخ، ولكنّ المسيح أقنع بيلاطس مرّة تلو أخرى ببراءته من تلك الاتّهامات الملفّقة، فقال بيلاطس: (أي شرّ فعل هذا الرّجل لا أجد عليه ما يستوجب الموت فسأجلده وأخلي سبيله)( )، لكنّ اليهود رفضوا، وأبوا إلاّ أن يصلب (فلمّا رأى بيلاطس أنّه ما استفاد شيئًا، بل اشتدّ الاضطراب أخذ ماءً و غسل يديه أمام الجموع وقال: أنا بريء من دم هذا الرّجل الصّالح !دبّروا أنتم أمره)( ).
لو كان المسيح ساكنًا صامتًا مغلق الفم، فهل تراه يقنع سكوته بيلاطس! لقد دافع المسيح عن نفسه وردّ التّهم جميعها، ممّا جعل بيلاطس يقتنع تمام الاقتناع بصلاحه، وكونه ضحيّة لليهود، فحاول إنقاذه عدّة مرّات، ولو كان المسيح يريد حقيقة الموت على يد بيلاطس بإيعاز من اليهود، فلماذا لم يسكت في تلك المحاكمات، ولماذا يدافع ويتكلّم، ولماذا لم يقرّ بالتّهم فيريح ويستريح!؟
لماذا لم يقلها مدويّة لبيلاطس، 'نعم أنا ملك اليهود جئت لأخلّص الشّعب الإسرائيليّ من اضطهاد الرّومان، نحن لا نريدكم في بلادنا، عودوا من حيث جئتم أيّها الرّومان الكفّار المستعمرون'، فحينها سيأمر بيلاطس بإحضار المقصلة ليرى رأس المسيح يطير في الهواء بلا انتظار ولا تضييع وقت، لكنّ المسيح أخفى تلك التّهم، التي كان بعضها صحيحًا – في زعم الأناجيل –( ) ويستمرّ في إصراره على لعب لعبة "السّارق والشّرطيّ ".
لقد بدأت أشعر أنّ الحديث عن الكفّارة طال عمّا توقّعته وما يزال في جعبتي الكثير، لكن سأعمل على اختصار ما تبقّى، وأنتقل مباشرة إلى يوم "الجمعة الحزين"، وإلى المسيح وهو على الصّليب، في تلك اللّحظات المثيرة، في آخر السّاعات بل الدّقائق بل الثّواني يتلفّظ المسيح بكلمات قليلة أثبت فيها أنّه ضحيّة مؤامرة شارك فيها الثّالوث 'الله واليهود والرّومان' وليس للمسيح فيها ناقة ولا جمل.
كلمات عصفت بالخطيئة والكفّارة والفداء والتجسّد.
كلمات كشفت أدران القساوسة.
كلمات فضحت تعاليم الإنجيل والكنيسة.
فما هي تلك الكلمات؟
قال متّى: (وعند الظّهر خيّم على الأرض كلّها ظلام حتّى السّاعة الثّالثة، ونحو السّاعة الثّالثة صرخ يسوع بصوت عظيم: إيلي، إيلي لماذا شبقتني؟ أي إلهي، إلهي لماذا تركتني؟)( )، في حزن وكآبة وضجر يصرخ المسيح بصوت عظيم قائلاً لماذا تركتني !؟
إلهي لماذا تركتني أموت !؟
لماذا تركتني أقتل على يد اليهود، أنا الذي لم أعمل خطيئة !؟
لماذا تركتني لهذا المصير، وتلك النّهاية!؟
لماذا تركتني وحدي أتعذّب وأتألّم، أنا الذي مجّدتك !؟
لماذا تركتني، أنا ابنك الوحيد، فأين رحمتك بابنك !؟
لماذا تركتني أصلب بغير ذنب ارتكبته !؟
لماذا تركتني أُقتل، لا أريد أن أموت من أجل أحد ولا كفّارةً
عن أحد.
أريد أن أعيش، أريد أن أعيش …
"إلهي لماذا تركتني" كلمات تتحدّث بنفسها عن نفسها لتخبرنا بأنّ "صلب المسيح كفّارة عن خطيئة البشريّة" أكبر أكذوبة في التّاريخ، وأخطر خرافة أضلّت الملايين من البشر بدل إنقاذهم من الشرّ.
(وعند الظّهر خيّم على الأرض كلّها ظلام حتّى السّاعة الثّالثة)( )، ثمّ (انشق حجاب الهيكل شطرين من أعلى إلى أسفل، وتزلزلت الأرض وتشقّقت الصّخور وانفتحت القبور، فقامت أجساد كثير من القدّيسين الرّاقدين، وبعد قيامة يسوع، خرجوا من القبور ودخلوا إلى المدينة المقدّسة وظهروا لكثير من النّاس)( )، لقد ختمت الظّلمة وانشقاق الهيكل والزّلزال… مشهد الصّلب وكأنّ هذه الأحداث المريعة جاءت لتعبّر عن فرحة وسرور ورضى الله بموت ابنه الوحيد، وتُعدّ الفرحة الغامرة بالزّلازل والظّلمة وانشقاق الصّخور، بدل تفتح الورود وزقزقة العصافير، ونسيم فجر جديد .. سابقة في عالم السّرور والرّضى! و راح التّلاميذ والنّساء يعبّرون عن فرحتهم بإنقاذ البشريّة بتلك السّابقة على غرار فرحة ربّهم ! يقول الكتاب المقدّس: (وتبعه جمهور كبير من الشّعب ومن نساء كنّ يلطمن صدورهنّ وينحن عليه)( )، (وبعدما قام يسوع في صباح الأحد، ظهر أوّلاً لمريم المجدليّة( ) التي أخرج منها سبعة شياطين، فذهبت وأخبرت تلاميذه وكانوا ينوحون ويبكون)( )، ويبدو أنّ النّساء والتّلاميذ لم يكونوا قد علموا بضرورة موت المسيح، وقتل المسيح على يد الرّومان بإيعاز من اليهود، هؤلاء الذين يحار المرء أين يضعهم، في زمرة القتلة والمجرمين والكفّار الطّالحين، لصلبهم المسيح ظلمًا وعدوانًا أم في زمرة المتّقين الصّالحين لتنفيذهم أمر الله ومراده !
لقد يسّر اليهود خلاص العالم ونفّذوا خطّة الله الأزليّة في صلب المسيح، فهل يا ترى كان الله راضيًا عنهم أم ناقمًا؟ لا شكّ أنّه لا بدّ من تقديم الشّكر لهم على هذه الخدمة الجليلة التي أسدوها للإنسانيّة، لكنّ النّصارى ينسون هذا الجميل ويُصرّون على لعن اليهود وتحميلهم جريمة اغتيال المسيح !؟
عجبًا للمسيح بين النّصارى
أسلموه إلى اليهود وقالوا
فإذا كان ما يقولون حقًّا
حين خلى ابنه رهين الأعادي
فلئن كان راضيًا بأذاهم
وإذا كان ساخطًا فاتركوه
وإلى أيّ والد نسبوه
إنّهم بعد قتله صلبوه
فسلوهم أين كان أبوه ؟
أتراهم أرضوه، أم أغضبوه !
فاشكروهم لأجل ما فعلوه
واعبدوهم لأنّهم غلبوه
أمّا نصوص الإنجيل فهي تنطق بالحقد والضّغينة واللّعنة على أولئك الذين أسلموا المسيح للموت؛ يقول المسيح: (ويل لذلك الرّجل الذي به يُسلم ابن الإنسان، كان خيرًا له لو لم يولد)( ).
أيّها المسيح أتدري أنّه لو لم يولد يهوذا الإسخريوطي الذي أسلمك لليهود من أجل ثلاثين من الفضّة، فمن يسلمك إذن للموت عنّا وعن خطايانا؟، أيّها المسيح أتدري ما معنى قولك عن يهوذا "الويل له"؟، لقد سهّل وصولك للصّليب لفدائنا، ألم يكن من المناسب شكره لفضله علينا؟ فإذا كان الخير ليهوذا ألاّ يولد، أليس من الخير أن يسلمك من أجلنا، فأيّ خير أفضل من الثّاني ! !؟، لماذا تحمل – أيّها المسيح – يهوذا الإسخريوطي كلّ هذا الوزر وهو "أداة خلاصنا"، هل يعقل أن يلعن المريض الدّواء المرّ، ويقول خيرًا له لو لم يخترع !؟، ثمّ ما معنى قولك لبيلاطس: (أمّا الذي أسلمني إليك فخطيئته أعظم من خطيئتك) ؟( ).
لم أعد – أيّها المسيح – أفهمك، فمرّة تريد أن تموت من أجلنا ثمّ تخطئ من يعين على موتك لأجلنا، كيف أوفّق بين الأمرين، رويدًا ارفق بعقلي، الذي يلهث وراء تساؤلاتي العديدة ولا يكاد يدركها.
أيّها المسيح، ألم يكن الله قادرًا على صلبك دون توريط اليهود والرّومان ويهوذا الإسخريوطي، الذي تلقّى العقاب بدل الإحسان من جانبك؛ إذ (إنّه وقع على رأسه وانشقّ من وسطه واندلقت أمعاؤه كلّها…)( )*.
لقد كلَّ عقلي عن مجاراة البحث في متاهات الكفّارة والفداء، وبدأت أشعر أنّ الموضوع يحتاج إلى مجلّد أو أكثر، وأعمل على اختصار بعض ما تبقّى من الملاحظات وليس كلّها.
إنّ الله تجسّد في المسيح، فأصبح المسيح أقنومًا من الأقانيم الثّلاثة التي تُدعى الثّالوث، وإن المسيح إله كامل وإنسان كامل… فعلى أيّ أقنوم من الثّالوث وقع الصّلب: على الأب، أم الابن أم الرّوح القدس!؟ سيقول النّصارى: إنّ الصّلب وقع على الأقنوم الثّاني وهو المسيح ابن الله، لكن الابن "المسيح" جزء من الثّالوث الذي لا ينفصل عن الأقنومين الآخرين، وبموت الأقنوم الثّاني يموت الجميع، أي يموت الثّالوث كلّه، وسيقول بعض النّصارى أنّ للمسيح طبيعتين لاهوتيّة وناسوتيّة، والصّلب وقع على الجانب النّاسوتيّ، وهذا الذي أريد الوصول إليه.
ما معنى الجانب النّاسوتيّ؟ فالمسيح كان إلهًا تامًّا وإنسانًا تامًّا، والصّلب وقع على المسيح باعتباره إنسانًا تامًّا، وكان من المفترض، حتّى لا ننسى، أن يكون الفادي إلهًا طاهرًا من الخطيئة الأصليّة، لكنّ الله فشل عندما صلب ناسوت المسيح "الإنسان التّامّ والكامل "، ويكمن وجه الفشل في كون هذا الإنسان مدنّسًا بالخطيئة؛ لأنّها انتقلت إليه من أمّه مريم، فيكون بذلك قد مات إنسان من أجل إنسان وهذا مرفوض، ولم يكن هناك داع للتجسّد فقتلت المسألة نفسها بنفسها، ونستنتج أنّ خطايانا للأسف لم ترفع، واللعنة باقية في أعناقنا، لأنّ الذي مات من أجلنا كان مخطئًا حسب الجسد مثلنا، وكنّا نأمل بموت الله الطّاهر، وليس الجسد، ناموس الله، الإنسان التّامّ المدنّس بالخطيئة كبقيّة أبناء جنسه، مما يعني أن المسيح مات عبثا.
ويقول بعضهم إنّ الله طهّر مريم من الخطيئة الأصليّة قبل إرسال المسيح إلى رحمها ! ولا دليل على هذا التّطهير، ثمّ لو كان الله قادرًا على تطهير بعض خلقه كما فعل مع مريم، بلا كفّارة ولا صلب ولا دم، فلماذا لم يفعل ذلك مع بقيّة البشريّة!؟
ونصيحتي لقساوسة النّصارى أن يعترفوا بأخطائهم، ويُذعنوا للحقّ بدل أن يتخبّطوا في الدّفاع والردّ بأيّ كلام، ممّا يجعل دفاعاتهم وردودهم تنقلب عليهم، وتكون حجّة أخرى على ضلالهم وتهرّبهم من سلطان العقل وقانون المنطق.
- أين ذهب المسيح بعدما صُلب؟
يجيبنا الإنجيل بجواب مذهل ومحيّر يدلّ على خبث بولس والمحرّفين لكلمة الله، يقول بولس: (المسيح افتدانا من لعنة النّاموس، إذ صار لعنة لأجلنا لأنّه مكتوب ملعون كلّ من عُلّق على خشبة)( ).
قال القسّ جواد بن ساباط: »كما أنّ المسيح مات لأجلنا ودفن، فلا بدّ أن يعتقد أنّه دخل جهنّم«، وزاد الرّاهب فيلبس كودانوس: »يسوع الذي تألّم لخلاصنا و هبط إلى الجحيم ثمّ في اليوم الثّالث قام من بين الأموات«.
ويذكر القساوسة استنادًا لرسالة بطرس في قوله: (الذي فيه أيضًا ذهب ليكرّز للأرواح التي في السّجن)( )، أنّ المسيح مكث في جهنّم ثلاثة أيّام، استغلّ فيها فرصة وجوده هناك ليدعو الذين ماتوا ودخلوا جهنّم ولم يكونوا قد آمنوا به ! !
ويقول القدّيس كريستوم: »لا ينكر نزول المسيح إلى الجحيم إلاّ الكافر«، فهل وصلت الجرأة بالنّصارى أن يؤمنوا بلعن المسيح "ربّهم ومخلصهم"، وإدخاله جهنّم إلى جوار فرعون والكفّار الآخرين!؟ نحن لا نؤمن بذلك، لأنّ المسيح من الصّالحين الذين وعدهم الله بالجنّة، وإذا كان الفادي المخلص ملعونًا فليت شعري كيف يقدر ملعون أن يفدي غيره من الملاعين !؟، وببساطة فإن بولس في هذه الآية يقول صراحة إنّ الله ملعون.
- من العادة أنّنا نقول عن الكريم إنّه كريم إذا قدّم أمواله وخدماته وضيافته للنّاس بمحض إرادته وعن طواعية، أمّا إذا أُخذ المال منه بالقوّة فهل يقال عنه كريم!؟ كذلك حتّى يقال عن صلب المسيح إنّه كان تضحية فلا بدّ أن يكون في موضع قوّة، لا أن يُجبر على التّضحيّة وهو راغب عنها؛ جاء في الإنجيل (لأنّه وإن كان صلب المسيح عن ضعف …)( )، فالذي يصلب عن ضعف أيحقّ أن يقال عنه بذل، وأعطى، وضحّى، لقد صلب المسيح وفق هذا النصّ الإنجيليّ حين ضعفه، رغم أنفه، فكيف يمكن التّوفيق بين الصّلب فداء والصّلب قسرًا !؟
- إذا كان الله يريد أن يخلّص البشريّة بكفّارة، فلماذا لم يبذل نفسه فدية، بتقديم الأقنوم الأوّل "الأب" إلى الصّلب بدلاً من إجبار الأقنوم الثّاني "الابن" على تلك الكفّارة التي رفضها، لقد كانت قضيّة الكفّارة محلّ اختلاف بين الأقنوم الأوّل والثاني، ممّا جعل الثّالوث في حيرة من أمره، فالأقنوم الأوّل "الأب" قاتل والأقنوم الثّاني "الابن" ضحيّة والأقنوم الثّالث "الرّوح القدس" أطرش في الزفّة !( ).
- إنّ المدّة الزّمنيّة بين آدم والمسيح ليست بالقصيرة، وقد عاش خلالها ملايين البشر على أقلّ تقدير، فأين كانت رحمة الله خلال تلك المرحلة الطّويلة، لماذا تركهم بلا فداء ولا خلاص، هل كانت هذه الفترة فترة حيرة بين العدل والرّحمة عند الله أم فترة تفكير في إيجاد مخرج للأزمة بينه وبين الإنسان!؟
- لقد رفع المسيح الخطيئة الحقيرة "الأكل من الشّجرة" فكيف بالأخطاء الأخطر والأعظم: كالإلحاد وسبّ الإله، والإشراك به وعدم التّصديق بوجوده، وقتل ابن الله… كيف تكفّر خطايا الزّندقة والهرطقة، وهي كما ترى أعظم بكثير من أكل ثمرة من شجرة ممنوعة، كيف تكفّر خطايا الزنا، والشّذوذ والاغتصاب والقتل والاختلاس والاستعمار والإمبريالية والعنصريّة، التي يضرب نصارى الغرب بها الرّقم القياسيّ !؟
- إذا كانت هذه الخطايا كلّها قد غفرت بموت المسيح على الصّليب فما فائدة المعموديّة، وسرّ الاعتراف للقسّ بالآثام والأخطاء، وما فائدة صلاة النّصارى إلى اليوم في كلّ مجلس " أبانا الذي في السّماء … اغفر لنا ذنوبنا " ؟.
- ألم يكن من الأفضل والأعقل والأقرب إلى الأفهام أن يقول الله – والله محبّة – إلى عباده: اذهبوا فقد غفرت لكم على نحو ما جاء في القرآن: قل يا عبادي الذين أسرفوا على أنفسهم لا تقنطوا من رحمة الله إنّ الله يغفر الذّنوب جميعًا إنّه هو الغفور الرّحيم الزّمر 53.
لقد رفع الله – بزعم النّصارى – الخطيئة عن البشريّة بصلب المسيح، والحقّ أنّه أوقعها في خطيئة أعظم، فالدّعوة للإيمان بالخطيئة الأصليّة، خطيئة في حدّ ذاتها لا تقلّ ضررًا عن سابقتها، وجعل الإيمان بموت المسيح أو الله أو أحد أجزائه، كفّارة عن تلك الخطيئة الأسطوريّة، خطيئة أخرى تحتاج إلى كفّارة أعظم!!.
التّثـليــــــث
رغبة في الاختصار ونفورًا من التّطويل لم أشأ الدّخول في متاهات شديدة الوعورة والظّلمة ترتبط بموضوع التّثليث، ومن تلك المتاهات ألوهيّة المسيح وبنوّته، وطبيعة الله اللاّهوتيّة والنّاسوتيّة .. إلخ، رغم أهمّيّة تلك المواضيع وعلاقتها الوطيدة بعقيدة التّثليث، وعدم رغبتي في دخول تلك المتاهات هو لشعوري أنّ البحث حينها سيطول جدًّا، وسيتشعّب ممّا يخرجه عن الهدف من وضعه؛ ذلك أنّ الهدف من كتابي ليس أن يصنّف ضمن الدّراسات العلميّة المتقدّمة، فيكون في متناول الباحثين المتخصّصين فقط، وإنّما الغاية منه أن يكون رسالة إعلاميّة سريعة يصل إليها النّصرانيّ العاديّ، ورجل الشّارع، دون أن يثقل كاهله كتابي إضافة إلى مشاغله اليوميّة، ومن ثمّ فضّلت التّعبير عن مناقضة التّثليث للعقل ومصادمته لكلّ منطق وعلم وتفكير بشريّ ببعض هذه الخواطر، وأعترف للقارئ أنّي وجدت صعوبة بالغة في اختياري النّقطة التي أنطلق منها في حديثي عن التّثليث، فمن أين أبدأ؟
التّثليث أهمّ اعتقاد يؤمن به النّصارى، فلا خلاص ولا غفران ولا دخول للجنّة إلاّ بالإيمان بأنّ الله هو ثلاثة أقانيم: الأب، الابن، الرّوح القدس، وهؤلاء الثّلاثة – في نظر النّصارى – ليسوا ثلاثة بل هم واحد، فالأب إله تامّ، والابن إله تامّ، و الرّوح القدس إله تامّ، لكنّ هؤلاء الآلهة التّامين ليسوا ثلاثة آلهة بل هم إله واحد تامّ!!
أنا أعلم أنّك – أيّها القارئ – لا تفهم شيئًا ممّا أقوله، لكن اعذرني فهذا قول القساوسة، هم ثلاثة آلهة… لكن يستدركون فيقولون لكنّهم واحد، وهو إله واحد، لكن يستدركون فيقولون لكنّهم ثلاثة آلهة، ثلاثة في الواحد وواحد في الثّلاثة!
وإذا كان من واجبي كباحث في هذا الموضوع أن أشرح لك هذا الكلام، فأعتذر إليك مسبقًا بقولي: "إنّ فاقد الشّيء لا يعطيه"؛ لأنّي كسائر علماء اللاّهوت ورجال الدّين والفلاسفة والمفكّرين لم أصل لغاية السّاعة لشرح أو فهم لذلك الكلام !
والتّثليث عند المسلمين كفر بالله لقد كفر الذين قالوا إنّ الله ثالث ثلاثة وما من إله إلاّ إله واحد وإن لم ينتهوا عمّا يقولون ليمسّنّ الذين كفروا منهم عذاب أليم المائدة 73.
وهي عند الفلاسفة والمفكّرين أكبر خرافة في هذا الكون، جاء في مجلّة التّايم عدد 4 سنة 1966، ص 57، "إنّ الكتاب المقدّس – بما فيه من خطيئة وكفّارة وتثليث – هو أكبر مجموعة من الخرافات في تاريخ الحضارة الغربيّة ".
وهي عند المؤرّخين وعلماء مقارنة الأديان حلقة من حلقات الوثنيّة التي بدأت منذ فجر التّاريخ.
أمّا عند القساوسة والكنيسة فهي سرّ ولغز مقدّس! لا يمكن فهمه في هذه الدّنيا ولا تصوّره على حقيقته، جاء في أحد المجامع الكنسيّة، وهو مجمّع لاتيران، الذي عقد سنة 1315 م [ إنّنا نؤمن إيمانًا جازمًا من أعماق قلوبنا بأنّ هناك إلهًا واحدًا خالدًا لا نهائيًّا لا يحول ولا يزول، إلهًا لا نفهمه، عظيمًا لا يمكن التّعبير عنه: الأب والابن وروح القدس ..] ويقول القسّ بوطر بعد استعراضه عقــيدة التّثليث: » قد فهمنا ذلك على قدر طاقة عقولنا ونرجو أن نفهمه فهمًا أكثر جلاء في المستقبل، حيث ينكشف لنا الحجاب عن كلّ ما في السماوات والأرض، وأمّا في الوقت الحاضر ففي القدر الذي فهمناه الكفاية«.
ولننتقل الآن إلى تعريفات النّصارى للثّالوث وما هو المفهوم الذي يولونه لهذا المصطلح؛ يقول القسّ سامي حنا غابريال في كتابه (الله واحد أم ثالوث؟): » المسيحيّة تعلم أنّ الله الذي لا شريك له هو واحد في الجوهر موجود بذاته، ناطق بكلمته، حيّ بروحه، و يمكن أن نقول إنّ الله واحد في ثلاثة أقانيم والثّلاثة هم واحد، هم الله، دون انفصال أو تركيب، متساوون، إنّهم جميعًا الله، وكلّ أقنوم منهم هو الله، وهو ما تعلنه المسيحيّة بوضوح، الله موجود بذاته "الأب"، الله ناطق بكلمته "الابن" الله حيّ بروحه "الرّوح القدس"… والأقانيم الثّلاثة: الأب والابن والرّوح القدس واحد في الجوهر متساوون في كل شيء، في السرمدية ( الأزلية والأبدية ) وفي القدرة وفي كل ما يخص الله الواحد«.
يقول الأب بولس إلياس اليسوعي في كتابه ( يسوع المسيح ): من الناس من يقولون لماذا يا ترى إله واحد في ثلاثة أقانيم؟ أليس من الأفضل أن يقال إله واحد وحسب؟ لكننا إذا اطلعنا على كنه الله لا يسعنا إلا القول بالتثليث، وكنه الله محبة، ولا يمكن إلا أن يكون محبة، ليكون الله سعيدا، فالمحبة هي مصدر سعادة الله، ومن طبع المحبة أن تفيض وتنتشر على شخص آخر فيضان الماء وانتشار النور، فهي إذن تفترض وجود شخصين على الأقل يتحابان، وتفترض مع ذلك وحدة تامة بينهما، وليكون الله سعيدا، ولا معنى لإله غير سعيد، وإلا انتفت عنه الألوهية، كان عليه أن يهب ذاته شخصا آخر يجد فيه سعادته ومنتهى رغباته، ويكون بالتالي صورة ناطقة له.
ولهذا ولد اللهُ الابن منذ الأزل نتيجة لحبه إياه ووهبه ذاته، ووجد فيه سعادته ومنتهى رغباته وبادل الابنُ الأب هذه المحبة ووجد فيه هو أيضا سعادته ومنتهى رغباته، وثمرة هذه المحبة المتبادلة بين الأب والابن كانت الروح القدس، هو الحب إذن يجعل الله ثالوثا وواحدا معا…ولا يصح أن يكون هذا الكائن الذي حبس اللهُ الأبُ محبته عليه إلا الابن، ولو كان غير الابن، ولو كان خليقة غير محدودة، بشرا أو ملاكا، لكان الله بحاجة إلى من دونه كمالاً، وعُدّ ذلك نقصًا في الله والله منزّه عن النّقص، فتحتّم إذًا على الله والحالة هذه أن يحبس محبّته على ذاته فيجد فيها سعادته؛ لهذا يقول بولس الرّسول: إنّ الابن هو صورة الله غير المنظور… ليس الله إذًا كائنًا تائهًا في الفضاء، منعزلاً في السّماء، لكنّه أسرة مؤلّفة من أقانيم ثلاثة تسودها المحبّة، وتفيض منها على كلّ الكون براءته، وهكذا يمكننا أن نقول إنّ كنه الله يفرض هذا التّثليث «.
إنّ هذا التّفكير وإن كان يثير السّخريّة إلاّ أنّه منتشر جدًّا بين رجال الكنيسة، فهم يرون أنّ الله يجب أن يكون كائنًا مركّبًا حتّى يستطيع ممارسة صفاته الأزليّة كالسّمع والبصر والمحبّة وغيرها؛ أي أنّ الله قبل خلق العالم لم تكن صفاته معطّلة، لأنّه كان يمارس تلك الصّفات مع نفسه أو مع ابنه، لذلك وُجد الثّالوث كضرورة، لأنّه لو قلنا إنّ الله لم يكن يمارس صفاته وأفعاله قبل خلق العالم ثمّ مارسها بعد خلق العالم لحكمنا على صفات الله وأفعاله بأنّها كانت معطّلة، وعلى الله بالتغيّر من حالة إلى حالة، وهذا مستحيل لأنّ الله لا يتغيّر.
يقول القسّ سامي غابريال: » إذا كان الله محبًّا، سميعًا، عليمًا.. ناطقًا.. وأنّه غير متغيّر فماذا عن قبل الخلق؟ هل كانت صفات الله موجودة؟ نعم فهو غير متغيّر … وإن كان الله ناطقًا محبًّا، قبل أن يخلق.. فمع من كان يمارس صفاته وأعماله؟ هل كانت عاطلة… قبل خلق العالم… ثمّ صارت عاملة بعد الخلق؟ كلاّ و لو أنّ الله مطلق الوحدانيّة في الجوهر؛ فقبل أن يخلق ما معنى إذا سميع.. ناطق.. محبّ.. إذًا لا يمكن أن تكون وحدانيّة الله وحدانيّة مطلقة، مجرّدة، بل لا بدّ أن يكون الله الواحد في الجوهر جامعًا في وحدانيته، وبذلك يمارس صفاته بينه وبين نفسه لا بالوحدانيّة المجرّدة بل بوحدانيّته الجامعة الشّاملة الواحدة، وحيث أنّ صفات الله لا يمكن أن تكون قائمة في ممارستها إلاّ بين كائنين، أو أكثر أو بين عاقلين أو أكثر… وبما أنّ الله مع وحدانيّته وتفرّده بالأزليّة وعدم وجود تركيب فيه… كان يمارس الصّفات الإلهيّة بينه وبين ذاته… إذًا فوحدانيّة الله مع عدم وجود تركيب فيها هي وحدانيّة ليست مجرّدة، بل وحدانيّة من نوع لا مثيل لها في الوجود يمكن أن نسمّيها الوحدانيّة الشّاملة أو الجامعة «. وهي ما دعاها هذا القسّ وسمّتها الكنيسة وحدانيّة الثّالوث.
لقد أوردت كلام القساوسة السّابقين على طوله ليعرف النّصارى وغيرهم مقدار تفكير القسس والحجج التي يستندون إليها لتجويز الاعتقاد بالثّالوث، وإنّ هذا الاحتجاج السّخيف جدًّا ينقلب ضدّ القسس وضدّ الكنيسة وضدّ عقيدة التّثليث؛ إذ لو اعتقدنا أنّ صفات الله وأفعاله يجب أن تكون موجودة قبل خلق العالم وأنّ تلك الصّفات تمارس بين الأقانيم الثّلاثة وجب علينا إذًا أن لا نقتصر على الأمثلة التي يضربها القساوسة عن الصّفات الإلهيّة بل وجب التّعميم على جميع الصّفات والأفعال الإلهيّة، وهنا أتساءل أليست من صفات وأفعال الله الخلق وأنّ الله خالق؟ ستقولون بلى، وأقول هل كانت صفة الخلق معطّلة قبل خلق العالم ؟، ستقولون كلاّ.
وسأقول فإذن مع من كان يمارس صفة الخلق؟
لا شكّ وفق تفكيركم السّابق أنّ الله كان يمارسها مع نفسه أو ابنه أو مع الثّالوث 'الوحدانيّة الشّاملة كما يسمّيها القسّ غابريال'، فهل يمكن أن تشرحوا لنا كيف كان يمارس الله صفة وفعل الخلق مع نفسه أو ابنه أو ثالوثه، هل كان الله يخلق ذاته؟ فإذًا الله مخلوق ! هل خلق الله الابن؟!، لكنّ الكتاب المقدّس يقول عن الابن مولود غير مخلوق !، ماذا كان الله يخلق قبل خلق العالم حتّى يقال عنه خالق، وإنّه يملك صفة الخلق العاملة المعطّلة! ؟ أرأيتم أنّكم أيّها القساوسة تتورّطون في دفاعات متخبّطة عشوائيّة توقعكم في ورطات لا مخرج منها؟ وهذا مثال واحد عن صفة واحدة ضربته لكم فكيف بعشرات، بل بمئات الصّفات والأفعال التي تُنسب إلى الله؟
نعود الآن إلى الأقانيم الثّلاثة، ما معنى كلمة أقنوم؟
يقول النّصارى إنّ "الأقنوم" كلمة سريانيّة تعني كلّ ما تميّز عن سواه دون استقلال، وفي موضوع الثّالوث تعني وجود ثلاثة أشخاص متّحدين دون امتزاج ومتميّزين دون انفصال.
نسأل النّصارى هل لكم أن تضربوا لنا مثالاً واحدًا في هذا الكون "غير الثّالوث" يصدق عليه مصطلح الأقنوم،… لن تستطيعوا ذلك لأنّ المعنى 'المفبرك' الذي أضفيتموه على مصطلح الأقنوم لا تقبله العقول؛ لذا لا يصدق على أيّ مثال واقعيّ مادّيّ أو معنويّ، ثمّ لماذا يرد هذا المصطلح الفريد من نوعه بالسّريانيّة دون اللّغات الأخرى كالعبريّة مثلاً وقد كانت لغة العهد القديم؟ ألم يكن لذلك المصطلح وجود حينها؟ ثمّ لماذا لم يرد هذا المصطلح في العهد الجديد؟!
وأخاطب الآن نصارى العرب، ما هي ترجمة مصطلح أقنوم إلى العربيّة؟ ستقولون عجزت اللّغة عن إيجاد مصطلح مطابق للمعنى الذي ورد بالسّريانيّة، فيا سبحان الله ! اللغة العربيّة الغنيّة بمصطلحاتها والثّريّة بمترادفتها تعجز أمام السّريانيّة !، اللغة العربيّة التي تحتوي على عشرات المفردات المترادفة لمعنى واحد عاجزة أن تجد كلمة تعبّر بها عن أهمّ شيء في هذا الكون وهو الله أو أحد أجزائه !
مع ذلك نرى في بعض كتب النّصارى محاولات لترجمة قريبة، مع كونها منتقدة من النّصارى أنفسهم لإيحائها بالشّرك؛ فممّا قيل عن الأقانيم أنّها: خواصّ، صفات، أجزاء، أشخاص، أعضاء، أطراف، أقسام، أشياء، عناصر، تعينات … إلخ.
ولمّا استعصى فهم مصطلح الأقانيم راح رجال الكنيسة يضربون للثّالوث الأمثال ليقربوا معناه للأفهام، فقال بعضهم إنّ الثّالوث كالشّمس متكوّنة من ثلاثة أجزاء: القرص، الحرارة، الشعاع، لكن هل القرص هو الشعاع؟ وهل القرص هو الحرارة ؟ و هل الشّعاع هو الحرارة؟ فالمثال لا ينطبق على الثّالوث لأنّ الأب هو الابن، والابن هو ذاته الرّوح القدس، والأب هو عينه روح القدس، وبعضهم يمثّل الثّالوث بالتفّاحة، لأنّها متكوّنة من شكل وطعم ورائحة، وهل الرّائحة هي التفّاحة كاملة، وهل الشّكل هو التفّاحة كاملة، وهل الطّعم هو التفّاحة كاملة؟ ولا شكّ أنّ هذا المثال يلحق بسابقه.
ويضرب سانت أغسطين مثالاً معقّدًا، وهو 'أنّ الثّالوث يشبه الدّماغ، فالدّماغ يعلم بوجود ذاته، وأداة العلم هي الدّماغ نفسه، فالعلم هو الدّماغ، والمعلوم هي الدّماغ، وأداة العلم هي الدّماغ فهي إذن ثلاث صفات لشيء واحد، لكن لا يقال إنّ الدّماغ ثلاثة'، وهذا المثال لا يستقيم؛ لأنّ الدّماغ المذكور واحد في الحقيقة وتثليثه اعتباريّ ليس حقيقيًّا، في حين أنّ النّصارى يؤمنون في الإله بالتّوحيد الحقيقيّ والتّثليث الحقيقيّ، والدّماغ كعالم ليس كائنًا متميّزًا ولا منفصلاً ولا مستقلاً عن الدّماغ كمعلوم، ولا عن الدّماغ كأداة علم؛ في حين أن أقانيم الثّالوث منفصلة عن بعضها، فالأب كائن متميّز ومستقلّ عن الابن، والابن كائن متميّز ومستقلّ عن الرّوح القدس، وروح القدس كائن متميّز ومستقلّ عن سابقيه.
وقد انتقد بعض رجال الكنيسة كلّ هذه التّمثيلات والتّشبيهات، وقالوا بعدم جواز ضرب الأمثال مهما كانت، لأنّ تلك الأمثال مخلوقة يمكن إدراكها بالعقل، أمّا الثّالوث فهو كائن غير مخلوق لذا لا يمكن إدراكه بالعقل، وأيّ تمثيل أو تشبيه هو تمثيل وتشبيه مع الفارق.
قال البوصيريّ في فضح التّثليث:
ليت شعري هل الثّلاثة في الوا
أإله مركّب!، وما سمعنا
أتراهم لحاجة واضطرار
أهو الرّاكب الحمار فيا عجز
أم جميع على الحمار لقد جلّ
أم سواهم هو الإله فما نسبة
أم أردتم بها الصّفات فلمّا
أم هو ابن الإله ما شاركته
قتلته اليهود فيما زعمتم
حدّ نقص في عدّكم أم نماء؟
بإله، لذاته أجزاء
خلطوها وما بغى الخلطاء
إله يمسّه الإعياء
حمار يجمعهم مشّاء
عيسى إليه والانتماء؟
خُصّت ثلاث بوصفه وثناء؟
في معاني النبوّة الأنبياء
ولأمواتكم به إحياء
هل ورد ذكر الثّالوث والأقانيم الثّلاثة في العهد القديم، أو على لسان الأنبياء و الرّسل الذين سبقوا المسيح؟
لم يحدث ذلك إطلاقًا ! فأسفار العهد القديم خالية من أيّ تثليث ولم تشر إلى أنّ الله مكوّن من ثلاثة أقانيم أو أجزاء، ولم يُعلم أو يُسمع أنّ الله أخبر نوحًا أو إبراهيم أو موسى أو داود أنّه إله واحد في ثلاثة آلهة؛ وإذا تصفّحت بإمعان أسفار العهد القديم فلا يمكن أبدًا أن تقع عينك على كلمة ثالوث أو على صيغة الأب والابن والرّوح القدس، كما يعتقد بها النّصارى اليوم، أليس غريبًا حقًّا ! أنّ عقيدة مثل هذه، وبهذه الأهمّيّة والخطورة، يتوقّف عليها هلاك النّاس أو نجاتهم لا نرى لها أيّ إشارة في التّوراة وكتب الأنبياء لا تصريحًا ولا تلميحًا، فلماذا؟
ألم يكن الله قد قرّرّ بعد إخبار البشر بها، أم أنّ البشر لم يكونوا في ذلك الوقت قادرين على استيعابها وإدراكها مثلما لم يستوعبها أحد حتّى الآن !؟
وإنّ الإنسان ليزداد حيرة وتعجّبًا إذا وقعت عيناه في أسفار العهد القديم المقدّسة على تفاصيل زنى داود بزوجة قائد جيشه، وتفاصيل زنى لوط بابنتيه، وتفاصيل جسد المرأة في نشيد الإنشاد لسليمان، وزنى يهوذا بكنته، وإنّ الإنسان ليملّ من تفاصيل الأعداد والأرقام والأحجام والأوزان والمسافات التي تقدّمها أسفار العهد القديم عن قبائل اليهود وأنسابهم وأملاكهم وأحصنتهم وحميرهم، ثمّ تفاصيل أبعاد هيكل سليمان.. حتّى إنّك إذا اطّلعت على بعض الأسفار وجدتها أقرب إلى دفتر الحسابات منها إلى كتاب هداية، كلّ هذه التّفاصيل ذكرت حسب النّسخة الموجودة عندي الآن في 1358 صفحة، وضاق العهد القديم فلم يفسح مجالاً لجملة واحدة عن الثّالوث يقول فيها الله مثلاً: 'أنا ثالوث مكوّن من ثلاثة أقانيم: أب وابن و روح قدس'، أليس هذا غريبًا حقًّا !؟
وفي مقابل ذلك نعثر على مئات الآيات في العهد القديم التي تصف الله بالوحدانيّة وتقرّر تفرّده بالألوهيّة والرّبوبيّة.
(اسمع يا إسرائيل الربّ إلهنا ربّ واحد)( ).
(فاعلم اليوم وردّد في قلبك أنّ الربّ هو الإله في السّماء من فوق وعلى الأرض من أسفل ليس سواه)( ).
(انظروا الآن أنا أنا هو وليس إله معي)( ).
(أنا الربّ وليس آخر، لا إله سواي)( ).
(أليس أنا الربّ ولا إله آخر غيري، إله بارّ ومخلص ليس سواي التفتوا إلي وأخلصوا يا جميع أقاصي الأرض لأنّي أنا الله وليس آخر)( ).
والآيات كثيرة وكلّها تتّفق على وحدانيّة الله، بلا ثالوثيّة أو أقنوميّة، أمّا ما يذهب إليه بعض رجال الدّين بأنّ العهد القديم لمّح إلى التّثليث في بعض الآيات فهو غير صحيح، وما يفعلونه هو لَيُّ أعناق الآيات لتطابق هواهم، لكن هيهات هيهات، وأكبر دليل على غياب التّثليث في العهد القديم هو موقف اليهود – أصحاب العهد القديم- من المسيح إذ اعتبروا أقوال المسيح الغامضة حول البنوّة والألوهيّة تجديفًا وكفرا ولذلك عارضوه أشدّ المعارضة فصلبوه في زعم الإنجيل.
أمّا في العهد الجديد فالآيات التي ذكرت عن الثّالوث قليلة جدًّا جدًّا خاصّة في الأناجيل الأربعة، ولعلّ أكثر الآيات المصرّحة بالتّثليث، والتي يعتمدها القساوسة كأساس لذلك الاعتقاد هو ما جاء في رسالة يوحنّا الأولى (فإنّ الذين يشهدون في السّماء هم ثلاثة الأب والكلمة والرّوح القدس، وهؤلاء الثّلاثة هم واحد، والذين يشهدون في الأرض هم ثلاثة الرّوح والماء والدم والثّلاثة هم في الواحد)( ).
إنّ هذه الآية لغز غامض! هل تعلم أيّها القارئ النّصرانيّ أنّ هذه الآية مزيّفة 'مفبركة' ملحقة بالنصّ الإنجيليّ، الأصلي وليست منه، فقد حكم كبار علماء النّصارى على هذه الآية بأنّها إلحاقيّة منهم هورن وجامعو تفسير هنري وسكات وآدم كلارك في تفسيره وغيرهم، والأسباب هي:
- أنّها لا توجد في نسخة من النّسخ اليونانيّة التي كُتبت قبل القرن
السّادس عشر للميلاد.
- أنّها لا توجد في أيّ ترجمة من التّراجم القديمة غير اللاّتينيّة.
- أنّها لا توجد في معظم النّسخ القديمة اللاّتينيّة.
- لم يتمسّك بها أحد من القدماء ومؤرّخي الكنيسة.
- إنّ البروتستانت أسقطوا الآية من كتبهم ووضعوا عليها علامة
الشكّ.
- إنّ الكاثوليك والأرثودكس بدأوا ينزعونها من الإنجيل شيئًا فشيئًا.
ولذلك اختلفت طبعات الكتاب المقدّس حول إثبات أو حذف هذه الآية فبعضها يثبتها والبعض الآخر يحذفها، نجد الآية مثلاً في الكتاب المقدّس، طبعة دار الكتاب المقدّس بالقاهرة سنة 1970: (فإنّ الذين يشهدون في السّماء هم ثلاثة: الأب والكلمة والرّوح القدس وهؤلاء الثّلاثة هم واحد)، وجاء في الكتاب المقدّس، طبعة دار الكتاب المقدّس في الشّرق الأوسط سنة 1988، (فإنّ الذين يشهدون في السّماء هم ثلاثة: الأب والكلمة والرّوح القدس وهؤلاء الثّلاثة هم واحد).
والآية ذكرت في طبعة العهد الجديد الثّانية 1980 والثّالثة 1984، وعلى طاولتي الآن ثلاث طبعات أخرى للعهد الجديد حُذفت منها الآية المذكورة منها الطّبعة الرّابعة للعهد الجديد إصدار اتّحاد جمعيّات الكتاب المقدّس سنة 1993، وكذلك طبعة 1994، للنّاشر نفسه حيث جاء في الآية: (والذين يشهدون هم ثلاثة الرّوح والماء والدم وهؤلاء الثّلاثة هم في واحد)، ونلاحظ هنا – أخي القارئ – أنّ اتّحاد جمعيّات الكتاب المقدّس الذي أشرف على طباعة العهد الجديد، وحذف الآية الدّالّة على التّثليث هو نفسه الذي أشرف على الطّبعات السّابقة التي وردت فيها الآية !.
جاء في الكتاب المقدّس العهد الجديد، منشورات دار المشرق، بيروت، الطّبعة الحادية عشرة: وهي نسخة كاثوليكيّة (والذين يشهدون ثلاثة: الرّوح والماء والدم وهؤلاء متّفقون)، وورد تعليقً على ذلك في هامش الصّفحة في بعض الأصول ما يلي: "الأب والكلمة والرّوح القدس، وهؤلاء الثّلاثة هم واحد، لم يرد ذلك في الأصول اليونانيّة المعوّل عليها، والأرجح أنّه شرح أُدخل إلى المتن في بعض النّسخ، والرّوح: الرّوح القدس، والماء: المعموديّة، الدم: دم المسيح ".
وجاء في طبعة الإنجيل كتاب الحياة ترجمة تفسيريّة للعهد الجديد، صدرت سنة 1973، (فإنّ هنالك ثلاثة شهود: الرّوح والماء والدم وهؤلاء الثّلاثة هم في الواحد)، وهناك طبعات عديدة للبروتستانت تضع الآية المذكورة بين هلالين موضّحة أنّ ما داخل الهلالين غير موجود في الأصل.
وبين يديّ الآن نسخة للكتاب المقدّس باللّغة الفرنسيّة من منشورات الاتّحاد العالميّ للكتاب المقدّس، 1982 ورد في الصّفحة الأولى لهذه الطّبعة ما يلي: Traduction oecumenique de la bible.
وفي مقدّمة هذه النّسخة جاء فيها شرح كلمة oecumenique بأنّها تعني نسخة متّفق عليها من قبل الكاثوليك والأرثودكس والبروتستانت، وقد اطّلع على النّسخة قبل طبعها عشرات المتخصّصين من الطّوائف الثّلاثة وأقرّوا جميع ما فيها، وعند بحثنا عن الآية التي نحن بصددها في رسالة يوحنّا الأولى 5: 7 نجدها قد حُذفت، وباتّفاق الطّوائف الثّلاثة وحُذفت كذلك في النّسخة الأخيرة باللّغة الإنجليزيّة!
وإن تعجب فعجبك من طبعة جديدة للإنجيل باللّغتين العربيّة والفرنسيّة، نُشرت سنة 1995، وطُبعت بحيث تكون كلّ آية باللّغة العربيّة تقابل أختها بالفرنسيّة، إلاّ أنّني ذهلت عندما وجدت الآية "المشكلة" أُثبتت بالعربيّة بين هلالين [ ] في حين لم أجد ما يقابلها بالفرنسيّة، أي حُذفت بالمرّة، فلو كان القارئ لا يفهم اللّغتين المذكورتين لما تنبّه لذلك، ولتتأكّد بنفسك أضع لك صورة عن تلك الآية المحيّرة!
وضعت الآية بين هلالين دلالة على عدم وجودها في الأصول، و الغريب أنّها في التّرجمة المقابلة بالفرنسيّة محذوفة نهائيا.
هكذا بعد قرون طويلة، بعدما كانت هذه الآية تُقرأ كجزء مُوحي به من الله يتّفق رجال الكنيسة على حذفها من الكتاب المقدّس!، إنّها أهمّ آية في التّثليث، ومع ذلك فقد توصّل الجميع إلى الاتّفاق على حذفها، ألم يقل بولس في رسالته إلى تيموثاوس (كلّ الكتاب موحى به من الله)( )، لقد تبين لكل ذي عقل أنه ليس كل الكتاب موحى به من الله، والآن بعد حذفها، هل الله هو الذي أمر بذلك! ؟.
هل الله هو الذي أمر بوضعها بين قوسين أو هلالين !؟.
هل الله هو الذي أمر بوضع الحواشي والهوامش التي تشير إلى إلحاقيّتها و"فبركتها " !؟.
ويتساءل أستاذنا أحمد عبد الوهّاب البهيدي عن المسؤول عن مصائر الملايين من النّصارى الذين هلكوا، وهم يعتقدون أنّ عقيدة التّثليث التي تعلموها تقوم على نصّ صريح في كتابهم المقدّس، بينما هو نصّ زائف دخيل؟!.
وإذا طالعنا أسفار العهد الجديد نجد عوض التّثليث عدّة آيات صريحة واضحة تقرّر وحدانيّة الله في ذاته وصفاته وأفعاله منها: (لا تدعوا لكم أبًا على الأرض لأنّ أباكم واحد الذي في السّماوات)( ).
(اذهب يا شيطان لأنّه مكتوب للربّ إلهك تسجد وإيّاه وحده تعبد)( )، وفي آية تُصرح بدخول المسيح تحت مسمى الرسالة والعبودية قول الكتاب المقدس (وهذه هي الحياة الأبديّة أن يعرفوك أنت الإله الحقيقيّ وحدك ويسوع المسيح الذي أرسلته)( )، ومعنى هذه الآية لا إله إلاّ الله والمسيح رسول الله، وورد كذلك (نعلم أنّه ليس وثن في العالم وأن ليس إله آخر إلاّ واحد)( )، (لكنّ الله واحد)( )، (أنت تؤمن أنّ الله واحد حسنًا تفعل)( ).
وغيرها من الآيات المتواترة، وكما نرى فإنّ آيات التّوحيد كثيرة وصريحة الدّلالة وجليّة المعنى، بينما شبهات التّثليث تكاد تكون معدومة، والموجود منها إمّا غير صريح أو أنّه 'مفبرك' لا أصل له. ودعونا الآن ننتقل إلى نقاط تالية مختصرين.
يرى النّصارى أنّ المسيح "ابن الله" أحد الأقانيم الثّلاثة المكوّنة لله، لذلك فهم يثبتون للمسيح الألوهيّة، مع أنّ أسفار العهد الجديد تتحدّث عن المسيح بأنّه وُلد من بطن مريم، اختتن، جاع، بكى، خاف، لُطم، صلّى، تألّم، صُلب، وأخيرًا مات… وغيرها ممّا لا يحدث لإله، فهل يُعقل أن يختتن الإله أو يُبصق في وجهه أو يموت ويُدفن ؟!
أعبّاد عيسى لنا عندكم
إذا كان بزعمكم إلهًا
فكيف اعتقدتم أنّ اليهود
وكيف اعتقدتم أنّ الإله
سؤال عجيب فهل من جواب؟
قديرًا عزيزًا يُهاب
أذاقوه بالصّلب مُرّ العذاب؟
يموت ويُدفن تحت التّراب؟
ولله درّ من قال:
أعبّاد المسيح لنا سؤال
إذا مات الإله بصنع قوم
وهل أرضاه ما نالوه منه؟
وإن سخط بالذي فعلوه فيه
وهل بقي الوجود بلا إله
وهل خلت الطّباق السّبع لما
وهل خلت العوالم من إله
وكيف تخلّت الأفلاك عنه
وكيف أطاقت الخشبات حمل
وكيف دنا الحديد إليه حتّى
وكيف تمكّنت أيدي عداه
وهل عاد المسيح إلى حياة
ويا عجبًا لقبرٍ ضمّ ربًّا
أقام هناك تسعًا من شهور
وشقّ الفرج مولودًا صغيرًا
ويأكل، ثمّ يشرب، ثمّ يأتي
تعالى الله عن إفك النّصارى
أعبّاد الصّليب، لأيّ معنى
وهل تقضي العقول بغير كسر
إذا ركب الإله عليه كرهًا
فذاك المركب الملعون حقًّا
يُهان عليه ربُّ الخلق طُرا
فإن عظمته من أجل أن قد
وقد فُقد الصّليب، فإن رأينا
فهلاّ للقبور سجدت طُرا
فيا عبد المسيح أفِق، فهذا
نريد جوابه ممّن وعاه
أماتوه فما هذا الإله؟
فبشراهم إذا نالوا رضاه
فقوّتهم إذا أوهت قواه
سميع يستجيب لمن دعاه؟
ثوى تحت التّراب وقد علاه؟
يدّبرها، وقد سُمرت يداه؟
بنصرهم، وقد سمعوا بكاه؟
الإله الحقّ مشدودًا قفاه؟
يخالطه، ويلحقه أذاه؟
وطالت حيث قد صفعوا قفاه؟
أم المحيي له ربّ سواه؟
وأعجب منه بطن قد حواه
لدى الظّلمات من حيض غذّاه
ضعيفًا، فاتحًا للثّدي فاه
بلازمِ ذلك، هل هذا إله؟
سيسأل كلّهم عمّا افتراه
يعظم أو يقبح من رماه؟
وإحراق له، ولمن بغاه؟
وقد شدّت لتسمير يداه
فدسّه، لا تبسّه إذ تراه
وتعبُدُه ! فإنّك من عداه
حوى ربّ العباد وقد علاه
له شكلاً تذكرنا سناه
لضمّ القبر ربّك في حشاه؟
بدايته وهذا منتهاهُ
لكنّ المشكلة أنّ النّصارى يلعبون على حبلي اللاّهوت والنّاسوت فإذا قيل لهم: المسيح إنسان، قالوا كيف يكون إنسانًا؟ ألا ترون ميلاده العجيب ومعجزاته الباهرة…؟ لا يمكن لإنسان أن يفعل ذلك إنّه إله، وإذا قيل لهم: ألا ترون كيف إختتن وضًرب وقُتل، هل يحدث ذلك لإله !؟ قالوا: إنّ ذلك وقع على النّاسوت لا اللاّهوت! وهكذا فالمسيح يظهر كمهرّج سرك بقبّعتين يضع الواحدة فيصبح إلهًا جليلاً، ثمّ يضع الأخرى فيصير في الحال إنسانًا ذليلاً !.
وإذا كان النّصارى يؤمنون بألوهيّة المسيح فإنّ الإنجيل يطفح بالآيات التي ترفض هذه الفكرة فلا تكاد تقرأ في آيات إنجيليّة إلاّ وجدتها تجعل من المسيح ابنا للإنسان، ونبيًّا مرسلاً وعبدًا لله، ولنتأمّل بعض هذه الآيات، (صعد يسوع إلى الهيكل وكان يُعلم فتعجب اليهود قائلين كيف هذا يعرف الكتب وهو لم يتعلّم أجابهم يسوع وقال: تعليمي ليس لي، بل للذي أرسلني، إن شاء أحد أن يعمل مشيئته يعرف هل هو من الله أم أتكلّم أنا من نفسي)( ).
(لم أتكلّم من نفسي لكنّ الذي أرسلني هو أعطاني وصيّة ماذا أقول وبماذا أتكلّم، وأنا أعلم أنّ وصاياه هي حياة أبديّة فما أتكلّم أنا به، فكما قال لي الأب هكذا أتكلّم)( )، لو كان المسيح هو الله أو أحد الأقانيم الثّلاثة فلماذا يعزو رسالته إذن للذي أرسله ولم يعزها لنفسه!؟ (لو كنتم تحبّونني لكنتم تفرحون لأنّي قلت أمضي إلى الأب لأنّ الأب أعظم منّي)( ).
إنّ هذه الآية ظاهرة في أنّ المسيح الابن 'الأقنوم الثّاني' أضعف من الأب، والأب أعظم من الابن بصريح العبارة، فكيف تقول الكنيسة إنّ الابن هو الأب، وإنّ أقنوم الابن يساوي أقنوم الأب؟، وهذا غير صحيح بشهادة المسيح نفسه، ألاّ ترون أنّ الأقنوم الثّاني يخبركم أنّ الأقنوم الأوّل أعظم منه، والأعظم هو دائمًا الله وما دونه في العظمة لا يستحقّ أن يًعبد أو يؤلّه.
(وسأله رئيس قائلاً: أيّها المعلّم الصّالح ما أعمل لأرث الحياة الأبديّة، فقال له يسوع: لماذا تدعوني صالحًا ؟ ليس أحد صالحًا إلاّ واحد وهو الله) ( )، قبل أن يجيب المسيح السّائل صحح له معتقدًا هامًّا وهو أنّ الصّلاح الكامل صفة للّه لا يشاركه فيها النّاس حتّى المسيح نفسه، ولو كان المسيح هو الله أو أحد الأقانيم الثّلاثة لما كان هناك مسوّغ لإنكار صلاحه.
(أنا لا أقدر أن أفعل من نفسي شيئًا، كما أسمع أدين ودينونتي عادلة، لأنّي لا أطلب مشيئتي بل مشيئة الأب الذي أرسلني)( )، فالمسيح ينفي قدرته على فعل شيء من تلقاء نفسه، فهل تختلف مشيئة الأقنوم الأوّل عن الثّاني، ولماذا مشيئة الأقنوم الثّاني تابعة لمشيئة الأقنوم الأوّل وليس العكس ؟!.
(لا يقدر الابن أن يعمل من نفسه شيئًا إلاّ ما ينظر الأب يعمل؛ لأنّ الأب يحبّ الابن ويريه جميع ما هو يعمل)( ).
(من قبلني فليس يقبلني أنا بل الذي أرسلني)( )، فالله هو مصدر الرّسالة وليس المسيح وما المسيح، إلاّ رسول من عند الله.
(ذلك اليوم وتلك السّاعة فلا يعلم بها أحد ولا الملائكة الذين في السّماء ولا الابن إلاّ الأب)( )، الآية واضحة جدًّا في أنّ المسيح ابن الله الأقنوم الثّاني للثّالوث يجهل، ويجهل شيئًا هامًّا جدًّا، وهو ساعة انتهاء العالم أو يوم القيامة، وهذه معلومة لا يجوز بحال من الأحوال أن يجهلها الله أو أحد أقانيمه الثّلاثة، والجاهل بالشّيء لا يمكن أن يرتقي إلى مصاف الآلهة! أيّها النّصارى!.
جاء في العهد الجديد (الله لم يره أحد قطّ)( )، فلماذا يُصرّ النّصارى على أنّ الله تأنّس وعاش بين النّاس، والعهد القديم يصرّ في عدّة آيات على أنّ الله لا يُرى وغير منظور؟، فكيف نؤمن بإله عاش بين النّاس أزيد من ثلاثين سنة يرونه صباح مساء!؟
(في تلك الأيّام خرج إلى الجبل ليصلّي وقضى اللّيل كلّه للصّلاة للّه)( )، هل كان الله يصلّي لنفسه، وهل كان الأقنوم الثّاني يصلّي للأقنوم الأوّل، والعجيب أنّ الأقنوم الثّالث لا دور له في اللّعبة، فهو دائمًا ذو الدّور الهامشيّ مقارنة بالأوّل والثّاني !!
وثمة آيات كثيرة تُظهر المسيح بمظهر العابد الخاضع لله وحده لا شريك له، من استعانة واستغاثة ورجاء، ممّا لم نذكره في هذه العجالة، حتّى المعجزات التي كان يفعلها المسيح لم تكن بحوله وقوّته، بل بقدرة الله الذي منحنه إيّاها، وقد سبق للأنبياء والصّالحين أن أظهروا معجزات أعظم في العهد القديم، فلا داعي لتأليه كلّ من يظهر معجزة وإلاّ للزمنا تأليه العشرات من الأنبياء أصحاب المعجزات، والمسيح الذي جرت المعجزات على يده لم يدّع أنّها من فعله فنراه قبل كلّ معجزة يرفع رأسه إلى السّماء فيدعو الله ويستعين به، وبعد حدوث المعجزة يرفع رأسه مرّة أخرى فيحمد الله على إجابة دعوته، جاء في الإنجيل على سبيل المثال: (ورفع يسوع عينيه إلى فوق وقال: أيّها الأب، أشكرك لأنّك سمعتني وأنا علمت أنّك في كلّ حين تسمعني ولكن لأجل هذا الجمع الواقف قلت ليؤمنوا أنّك أرسلتني)( ).
إنّ بشريّة المسيح ودخوله في عبوديّة الله لم يعد يشكّ فيها أحد ممّن يحترم عقله ودينه، وأيّ إخراج للمسيح من زمرة الأنبياء الصّالحين إلى أعلى من ذلك فهو تعدٍّ سافرٍ على المسيح وتعاليمه.
وأذكر هنا أنّ الأناجيل ذكرت من معجزات المسيح في صباه وفي حياته ما لذّ وطاب: كإحياء الموتى وشفاء المرضى وإطعام آلاف النّاس بقليل الخبز و السّمك… خلا معجزة واحدة أشار إليها القرآن، وعزفت الكتب المقدّسة عن الإشارة إليها وتجاهلتها، ألا وهي تكليم المسيح للنّاس في المهد صبيًّا، فلماذا؟
يقول الله سبحانه و تعالى في القرآن على لسان المسيح ابن مريم وهو في المهد: فأشارت إليه قالوا كيف نكلّم من كان في المهد صبيّا قال إنّي عبد الله آتاني الكتاب وجعلني نبيًّا وجعلني مباركًا أينما كنت وأوصاني بالصّلاة والزّكاة ما دمت حيًّا وبَرًّا بوالدتي ولم يجعلني جبّارًا شقيّا والسّلام عليّ يوم ولدت ويوم أموت ويوم أبعث حيّا، ذلك عيسى ابن مريم قول الحقّ الذي فيه يمترون ما كان لله أن يتّخذ من ولد سبحانه إذا قضى أمرًا فإنّما يقول له كن فيكون، وإنّ الله ربّي وربّكم فاعبدوه هذا صراط مستقيم مريم 29 – 36.
ولا يمكن لأنصار التّثليث المؤلّهين للمسيح قبول معجزة يعترف المسيح فيها بأنّه عبد الله ونبيّه، مأمور بالصّلاة والزّكاة كغيره من البشر، وأنّه ليس الله ولا ابنه ولا أحد الأقانيم الثّلاثة للإله المثلّث.
لقد جنت الكنيسة على نفسها أعظم جناية عندما آمنت بالثّالوث؛ فعندما تؤمن الكنيسة بذلك الاعتقاد فإنّها تكفر بكلّ آيات الكتاب المقدّس بعهديه التي ترفض الثّالوث، ولمّا لم يسع رجال الدّين العمل بنصوص كتابهم الصّريحة الثّابتة في دخول المسيح في العبوديّة، ووحدانيّة الله بلا أقانيم ولا شريك، عاقبهم الله بالعيِّ والحيرة والتخبّط، ووصفهم القرآن بالضّالّين، لأنّهم يعبدون الله على جهل وفق عقيدة مستحيلة التّصديق، عديمة المعنى، تجعل المؤمن أهوج، فاقد العقل، بليدًا، عديم الوعي، وهذا جزاء من كفر بالعقل السّليم والنّقل الصّحيح وآمن بعقل الشّيطان وردّ وحي الله وقبل بوحي بولس وإبليس.
وثـنيّــة التّـثـليـث
لو يعلم نصارى الغرب اليوم أنّهم لم يعرفوا دين المسيح قطّ لأصابتهم الصدّمة، وإنّما كانوا وثنيّين وبقوا على وثنيّتهم إلى ساعتنا هذه، يقول شارل جان بيير: » إنّ الغربيّين لم يكونوا مسيحيّين قطّ في يوم من الأيّام«
نعم، لم يعرف الغــــرب النّصرانيّة؛ لأنّ أسلافهم الرّومان – الممثّلون للغرب آنذاك – لم يتنصروا ولم يسلكوا النّصرانيّة الحقيقيّة، بل العكس هو الذي حدث فالثلّة القليلة التي كانت على دين المسيح هي التي تروّمت واعتنقت وثنيّة الرّومان، وتركت دينها بسبب الاضطهاد السّياسيّ، والهدم من الدّاخل الذي باشره بولس وتابعه المنافقون من بعده، وكذلك بفعل قرارات المجاميع المسكونيّة التي كانت تصنع الآلهة كما تُصنع علب 'الكوكا كولا'.
إنّ النّصرانيّة الحقيقيّة جاءت بدين خال من الفلسفة اليونانيّة والغنوصيّة والأفلاطونيّة وخرافات الوثنيّين، لقد جاءت بالتّوحيد الخالص لله وبعبوديّة المسيح له، وكلّ ما عدا ذلك من خرافات الصّلب والفداء والكفّارة والتجسّد والتّثليث وغيرها من الأسرار الكنسيّة المقدّسة هي امتداد تاريخيّ للوثنيّة، التي وقع فيها الإنسان منذ مئات القرون.
يقول أرنست رينان: »إنّ الدّراسات التّاريخيّة للمسيحيّة وأصولها تثبت أنّ كلّ ما ليس له أصل في الإنجيل مقتبس من أسرار الوثنيّة«.
ويقول مؤرّخ الأديان أندريه نايتن في كتابه (المفاتيح الوثنيّة للمسيحيّة): » إنّنا لا نستطيع أن نفهم مسيحيّتنا حقّ الفهم إذا لم نعرف جذورها الوثنيّة، فقد كان للوثنيّة قسط وافر في تطوّر الدّين المسيحيّ… ونحن لا نبالغ إذا قلنا إنّ ما ُيعرف بالأسرار الدّينيّة في المسيحيّة مستوحى من الأديان الوثنيّة القديمة… ودراسة المسيحيّة تُثبت أنّ الآلهة الوثنيّة لم تمت بعد، ولا شكّ في أنّ الكاتب "كومون " قد عنى ذلك حين عنون كتابه الشّهير حول تاريخ المسيحيّة بعنوان: (لا جديد تحت الشّمس).
وينبغي لنا الآن توضيح السّبل التي سلكتها المسيحيّة والتي أتاحت للوثنيّة بأن تسهم هذه المساهمة الكبيرة في تأسيس أركانها، إنّ أصحاب النّقل المباشر وغير المباشر عن الوثنيّة معروفون، ويجب علينا أن نتذكّر دائمًا أنّ معظم الذين آمنوا بالمسيحيّة في بدايتها لم يكونوا يهودًا بل كانوا عبدة أصنام، ولا بدّ من الإشارة أيضًا إلى أنّ هؤلاء المؤمنين شهدوا فترة عصيبة محتدمة تساعد على تلفيقات كثيرة، وممّا لا شكّ فيه أنّ هذه المسيحيّة وضعت المؤمنين بها على دروب الوثنيّة القديمة… إنّ الكنيسة ابتلعت بعض العناصر الوثنيّة، لكنّها أضفت عليها طابعها الخاصّ، لاستقطاب ما يمكن استقطابه من عبدة الأصنام، وكذلك أرادت تعزيز نفسها وابتلاع العقائد القديمة المترسّخة، وهذا ما أدّى إلى دخول عناصر وثنيّة جديدة على المسيحيّة«.
وممّا يؤكّد هذه الحقيقة أنّ بولس قبِل كثيرًا من العقائد الوثنيّة ليقرّب بين أتباع هذه العقائد والدّيانة النّصرانيّة فيقول في كورنثوس الأولى: (استعبدت نفسي للجميع لكي أربح الكثيرين فصرت لليهود كيهوديّ، لكي أربح اليهوديّ، وللذين تحت النّاموس كأنّي تحت النّاموس، لأربح الذين تحت النّاموس، وللذين بلا ناموس كأنّي بلا ناموس، لأربح الذين بلا ناموس، صرت للكلّ كلّ شيء لأخلّص على كلّ حال قومًا)( ).
إنّه بدلاً من أن يغيّرهم فهو يتغيّر من أجلهم، بل و يغيّر التّعاليم وفق أديانهم وأهوائهم ليربحهم كما يزعم، ولا شكّ أنّ هذه الطّريقة تسبّبت في خلط التّعاليم الصّحيحة بالتّعاليم السّقيمة وهذا منشأ الخلل.
يقول العالم الألمانيّ جاكوبسون في كتابه: (دراسة العقائد الدّينيّة عند ملوك مصر) وذلك بعد إظهاره أوجه الشّبه بين عقائد النّصارى وعقائد المصريّين القدماء: »لا بدّ من القول إنّه لا صحّة لما يقول اللاّهوتيّون المسيحيّون المعاصرون حين يزعمون أنّ مصر القديمة لم يكن لها أثر في قيام الأفكار والعقائد المسيحيّة… وإنّني لا أفهم كيف أنّ البروتستانت يعملون المستحيل لإقناعنا بأنّ الأفكار المسيحيّة الحاليّة هبطت من السّماء ولم تتأثّر بشيء قبلها«.
ويقول غوستاف كارل يونغ عالم النّفس المشهور في كتابه (علم النّفس والدّيانة الغربيّة): » من الواضح أنّ كلّ اللاّهوت الذي سبق المسيحيّة وكلّ لاهوت الغنوصيّة في منطقة الشّرق الأوسط، بل اللاّهوت الذي تضرب جذوره في أعمق أعماق التّاريخ قد حجب المسيح الحقّ عنّا، وجعله مجرّد شكل عقائديّ لا يحتاج معه إلى أساس تاريخيّ، ففي مرحلة مبكّرة جدًّا يختفي الحقّ وراء المشاعر والإسقاطات التي حامت حوله وانهالت من القريب والبعيد، وهكذا سرعان ما تمّ ابتلاعه من قبل الأنظمة الدّينيّة المجاورة "الوثنيّة"، كما تمّت صياغته من جديد وفقًا لأساطيرهم الأساسيّة، بذلك صار المسيح الصّورة الجماعيّة الملفّقة التي كان ينتظرها لاوعي المعاصرين له، وبذلك صار السّؤال عن حقيقته سؤالاً بدون جواب«.
وفيما يخصّ موضوع التّثليث الذي نحن بصدده فلم يعد يخفى على المنصفين من العلماء والباحثين أنّه، بالإضافة إلى الأساطير الأخرى، التي ذكرناها آنفًا، عقيدة وثنيّة محضة ابتكرها الإنسان المنحرف عن دين "التّوحيد"، وبقيت منتشرة في العديد من الأقوام الوثنيّة، وقد كشف الله تلك الحقيقة بقوله تعالى في القرآن مخبرًا عن النّصارى:
يضاهئون قول الذين كفروا من قبل التّوبة 30، ومعنى ذلك أنّهم يقولون بقول الوثنيّين الكفّار، الذين افتروا تلك العقائد الباطلة وتديّنوا بها، ثمّ جاء علماء الغرب في هذا القرن ليقيموا دراساتهم المعمّقة على هذا الأساس وليتوصّلوا إلى ما أقرّه القرآن قبل أربعة عشر قرنًا.
يقول يونغ: » إنّ عقيدة التّثليث أو الآلهة المثلّثة ظهرت مبكّرًا وعلى مستوى بدائيّ، إنّ التّثليث في الأديان القديمة، وفي الشّرق بشكل خاصّ مسألة منتشرة وشائعة إلى الحدود التي لا نستطيع أن نحصيها أو نذكرها جميعًا، ولعلّ تنظيم الآلهة المثلّثة من أبرز الظّواهر في تاريخ الأديان، ولا شكّ أنّ هذا النّموذج الدّينيّ القديم قد كان وراء عقيدة التّثليث في الدّيانة المسيحيّة… لقد ثبت أنّ الآلهة المثلّثة كانت عقيدة لاهوتيّة أكثر ممّا كانت قوّة حيّة، والواقع أنّ التّثليث أقدم المعتقدات الدّينيّة الوثنيّة وأعرقها… ولقد رافقت عقيدة التّثليث الفكر الإنسانيّ وصارت جزءًا منه، صحيح أنّها تختفي فترة لكنّها ما تلبث أن تظهر هنا حينًا وهنالك أحيانًا بأشكال مختلفة«.
ونشير إلى أنّ الدّراسات الأركيولوجيّة والأنثروبولوجيّة والتّاريخيّة كلّها تجزم بوجود أسطورة الثّالوث، ليس في منطقة الشّرق الأوسط فحسب بل حتّى في آسيا وأمريكا، ولقد بلغت الآلهة المثلّثة من الكثرة ما لا يمكن عدّها أو حصرها.
يقول إدغار ويند، أستاذ التّاريخ الفنّيّ في جامعة أكسفورد في كتابه (الأسرار الوثنيّة في عصر النّهضة): »تنتمي عقيدة التّثليث إلى الأسرار التّأويليّة الخفيّة، وهي الأسرار التي يتشاطرها المسيحيّون وعبدة الأصنام… وقد أقرّ المسيحيّون في عصر النّهضة ما جاء في كتب القدّيس أوغسطين وبركلوس عن أنّ التّثليث المقدّس كان معروفًا لدى الوثنيّين… وانطلاقًا من هذه القناعة تمّ الكشف عن عدد هائل من الآلهة المثلّثة "بالمئات" في الكتب الوثنيّة القديمة وكان الباحث الألمانيّ المعاصر أوزينير قد جرّد أكثر من 120 إلهًا مثلّثًا في الأديان الوثنيّة القديمة«.
يقول بريتشارد في كتابه (خرافات المصريّين الوثنيّين):» لا تخلو كافّة الأبحاث الدّينيّة المأخوذة عن مصادر شرقيّة من ذكر أحد أنواع التّثليث أو التولّد الثّلاثيّ، أيّ الأب والابن والرّوح القدس«.
ويقول موريس في كتابه (Indian antiquites): » كان عند أكثر الأمم البائدة الوثنيّة تعاليم دينيّة جاء فيها القول باللاّهوت الثّالوثيّ أي أنّ الإله ذو ثلاثة أقانيم«.
ويقول دوان في كتابه: (Bible myths and their parallels religions) » إذا نظرنا نحو الهند نرى أنّ أعظم وأشهر عباداتهم اللاّهوتيّة هو التّثليث… ويدعون هذا التّثليث "ترمورتي" وهي جملة مركّبة من 'تري' ومعناها ثلاثة و'مورتي' ومعناها هيئات أو أقانيم«.
ويذكر ألن في كتابه: (India : ancient and modern) قصّة عن ظهور الآلهة الثّلاثة البراهميّة ومخاطبتها أحد العبّاد بقولها: اعلم أيّها العابد أنّه لا يوجد فرق حقيقيّ بيننا وبين ما تراه من ثلاثة، فما هو إلاّ بالشّبه أو بالشّكل، والكائن الواحد الظّاهر بالأقانيم الثّلاثة واحد بالذّات.
ويقــول فابر في كتابه: ( Idolatry origin of heathen): » وكما نجد عند الهنود ثالوثًا مؤلّفًا من براهما وفشنو وسيفا، نجد ذلك عند البوذيّين، فإنّهم يقولون: إنّ بوذا إله ويقولون بأقانيمه الثّلاثة«.
ويقول هليسلي في كتابه: (Development of religion and thought in ancient egypt) » يعتقد الهنود بإله مثلّث الأقانيم… ويقولون إنّ هذا الثّالوث المقدّس حاضر في كلّ مكان بالرّوح والقدرة«.
ويقول فسك في كتابه (Myth and myth makers): » كان الرّومانيّون الوثنيّون القدماء يعتقدون بالتّثليث، هو أوّلاً الله، ثمّ الكلمة، ثمّ الرّوح«.
ويقول نيت في كتابه: (The symbolical language of ancient art and mythology) » إنّ سكّان الجزر في المحيط عبدوا إلهًا مثلّث الأقانيم فيقولون: الإله الأب، والإله الابن، والإله روح القدس، ويصوّرون روح القدس بهيئة الطّير– مثلما صُوّر في الإنجـيل «.
و قال كينغسبورو في كتابه (Antiquities of Mexico): » المكسيكيّون يعبدون إلهًا مثلّث الأقانيم يسمونه تزكتليبوكا«.
ويقول سكير في كتابه: (The serpent symbol) » الهندوس الكنديّون يعبدون إلهًا مثلّث الأقانيم ويصوّرونه بشكل صنم له ثلاثة رؤوس على جسد واحد، ويقولون إنّه ذو ثلاثة أشخاص بقلب واحد وإرادة واحدة«.
في الختام نذكر شهادة أندريه نايتن في كتابه (المفاتيح الوثنيّة للمسيحيّة) إذ يقول: » إنّنا نعثر على هذه المجموعات "الآلهة المثلّثة" في مختلف البلدان الوثنيّة القديمة، ففي مصر: بتاح، توت، حورس، وفي الهند: ميترا، فارونا، أريامان، وفي إيران: أهورا مازدة، أناهيتا، ميترا، وفي بابل: سين، شمس، عشتار، وفي اليونان: زيوس، هيرا، ديوفيزوس، وعند الرّومان: جوبيتر، جنون، مينرفا… وهي لائحة طويلة جدًّا من الآلهة المثلّثة عند الشّعوب القديمة، وهذا يعني أنّ التّثليث المسيحيّ لم يولد من عدم، وأنّه لا بدّ قد استوحى ما ذكرناه«.
إنّ هذه النّقولات التي ذكرتها باختصار ليست صادرة من مسلمين أو يهود أو وثنيّين، بل هي من علماء غربيّين، بعضهم ملتزم بالنّصرانيّة، كما أنّهم ليسوا كتّابًا عاديّين، بل هم من كبار الباحثين والمتخصّصين في تاريخ الأديان والأنثروبولوجيّة والأركيولوجيّة وغيرها من التخصّصات الدّقيقة ذات العلاقة، والتي تستند إلى الدّراسة المتفحّصة الميدانيّة، وهذا غيض من فيض ومن أراد المزيد فما عليه إلاّ الاطّلاع على المؤلّفات التي ذكرناها آنفًا.
وبعد هذا العرض الوجيز لعقيدة التّثليث وبيان بطلانها من المنقول عنهم، وفسادها على ضوء التّوراة والإنجيل، ننتقل إلى نقد عقليّ للتّثليث في هذه النّقط المختصرة والمركّزة:
- يؤمن النّصارى بثلاثة أقانيم متّحدة في إله واحد، ونعلم أنّ الأقنوم الثّاني مات على الصّليب فيلزم من ذلك موت الثّالوث كلّه، وإلاّ فأخبرونا على من وقع الصّلب، هل وقع على الأقنوم الثّاني كإله أم على ابن الله أم على الكلمة أم على الثّالوث أم على الله أم على ماذا؟
وهنا تحضرني قصّة طريفة رواها علماؤنا قديمًا حيث تنصّر ثلاثة أشخاص وعلّمهم أحد القسس العقائد الضّروريّة، ولا سيّما عقيدة التّثليث أيضًا وكانوا في خدمته، فجاء محبّ من أحبّاء هذا القسّيس، وسأله عمّن تنصّر فقال: ثلاثة أشخاص تنصّروا، فقال هذا المحبّ: وهل تعلموا شيئًا من العقائد الضّروريّة؟، قال: نعم، وطلب واحدًا منهم فسأله عن عقيدة التّثليث، فقال: إنّك علّمتني أنّ الآلهة ثلاثة أحدهم الذي هو في السّماء، والثّاني تولد من بطن مريم العذراء، والثّالث الذي نزل في صورة الحمام على الإله الثّاني بعدما صار ابن ثلاثين سنة، فغضب القسّ وطرده وقال: هذا مجهول، ثمّ طلب الثّاني منهم وسأله، فقال: إنّك علّمتني أنّ الآلهة كانوا ثلاثة وصُلب واحد منهم فالباقي إلهان، فغضب عليه القسّ أيضًا وطرده، ثمّ طلب الثّالث وكان ذكيًّا بالنّسبة للأوّلين وحريصًا في حفظ العقائد فسأله فأجاب: يا مولاي حفظت ممّا علّمتني حفظًا جيّدًا وفهمت فهمًا كاملاً بفضل الربّ المسيح أنّ الواحد ثلاثة والثّلاثة واحد، وصُلب واحد منهم ومات، فمات الكلّ لأجل الاتّحاد ولا إله الآن وإلاّ يلزم نفي الاتّحاد.
- عندما مات الإله على الصّليب، كيف بقيت الحياة والكون دون مدبّر !؟، ولمّا قام المسيح بعد ثلاثة أيّام هل أحياه الأب أم الثّالوث أم هو أحيا نفسه، كما تقول الكنيسة، والحقيقة أنّ الميّت لا يستطيع إقامة نفسه إلاّ إّذا كان ميّتًا ميتة سرّيّة مقدّسة!
- إذا كان النّصارى يؤمنون بالثّالوث على أساس مساواة الأب بالابن وبالرّوح القدس، فهذا يعني الاتّحاد الكامل الذي يسمح بتغيير الأدوار والوظائف والصّفات بين الأقانيم الثّلاثة، فيلزم من ذلك جواز قولنا إنّ الأب مولود غير مخلوق والرّوح القدس ابن الله الوحيد، والمسيح نزل على هيئة حمامة، لأنّه لا فرق بين الثّلاثة وكلّهم واحد، أليس كذلك؟ ! ونستطيع أن نقول: الأب هو المخلّص والمسيح هو معطي الحياة والرّوح القدس هو مكوّن الكائنات، ونستطيع أن نقول للمساواة المطلقة إنّ الرّوح القدس ولدَ الأب، والابن انبثق من الرّوح القدس على أساس التّساوي !، ثمّ إذا نظرنا لصيغة التّثليث نجدها مقيّدة بترتيب معيّن وهو الأب والابن والرّوح القدس، فلا أخال إلاّ أنّ هناك سببًا في تقديم الأب على الابن ثمّ الرّوح القدس، فتقديم الأب ليس عبثًا أو صدفة إنّما لفضل لا يملكه الأقنوم الثّاني والثّالث، وإذا كان للأب فضل لا يملكه الآخران فيعني ذلك أنّهم أقلّ مرتبة منه، وإلاّ لماذا لا يبدأ رجال الدّين الموعظة أو القُداس بصيغ مثل "باسم الابن والرّوح القدس والأب" أو "باسم الرّوح القدس والأب والابن"،؟ أعلم يقينًا أنّ من يفعل ذلك ربّما يتّهم بالهرطقة، وهذا دليل آخر على فساد فكرة الأقانيم المتساوية مساواة تامّة.
- تحكي الأناجيل أنّ المسيح 'الأقنوم الثّاني' بعد قيامته صعد إلى السّماء وجلس عن يمين الأب 'الأقنوم الأوّل'، فدعونا نحلّق بخيالنا بعيدًا في السّماء لنتخيّل الابن جالسًا عن يمين الأب، فما معنى الجلوس عن اليمين، فهل إذا جلس زيد عن يمين عمرو نستطيع أن نقول إنّ زيدًا هو عمرو!؟ كيف نقول ثلاثة آلهة لكنّهم إله واحد، ثلاثة أقانيم غير منفصلة ولا مستقلّة ولا متميّزة عن بعضها بعض، ثمّ يجلس أقنوم عن يمين الثّاني وبينهما مسافة سّنتيمترات أو أمتار !…؟ وإلاّ ما معنى اليمين في جميع لغات العالم ؟ وبأيّ لغة يتحدّث الإنجيل؟
إنّ جميع لغات العالم تفهم اليمين كما نفهمه نحن، وإنّ اللّغة كما يُعرّفها علماء الاتّصال هي جملة من الرّموز المتعارف عليها، والتي تعبّر عن معان مشتركة بين المرسل والمستقبل، لكنّ الدّارس لكلمات الإنجيل لا يمكنه فهم شيء، لأنّ الرّموز موجودة، لكنّها لا تدلّ على المعاني المتعارف عليها، فما العمل !؟ وما فائدة مخاطبة الله للبشر برموز يعرفونها تحمل معان لا يعرفونها ولا يفهمونها، لأنّها غير مشتركة !؟ فالمستقبل الذي يتلقّى الرّسالة الإنجيليّة ويجد أنّ أقنوم الأب هو نفسه أقنوم الابن ثمّ يقرأ في الإنجيل أنّ الابن جلس عن يمين الأب يقع في حيرة من أمره، هل يرفض هذه الرّسالة الإنجيليّة أم يقبلها بعد إلغاء عقله؟ ولا عذر للنّصارى في الاحتجاج بقصّة اللاّهوت والنّاسوت، لأنّه لا يمكن أن يجلس ناسوت المسيح عن يمين الله ولاهوته داخل الله ! ! خاصّة إذا عرفنا أنّ ناسوت المسيح صُلب ومات وانتهى دوره على الأرض.
- إذا تحدّثنا عن النّاحية الزّمنيّة فمن الأسبق الأب أو الابن أو الرّوح القدس!؟ فإذا لم يكن الأب هو السابق للابن فما معنى قولكم عن المسيح مولود غير مخلوق؟ ما معنى مولود أخبرونا؟، وإذا كان الرّوح القدس موجودًا غير مسبوق بالأب والابن فما معنى قولكم عنه إنّه منبثق من الأب فقط حسب الكاثوليك؟ ومنبثق من الأب فقط حسب قول الأرثودكس؟ ما معنى قولكم منبثق أخبرونا؟، هل مضى زمن لم يكن ثمّة ولادة ولا انبثاق؟ ستقولون لم يمض، فسنقول إذن هاتان الكلمتان عبث لا فائدة منهما، وسفسطة لا جدوى منها، ثمّ إنّكم تقولون عن الابن مولود غير مخلوق وعن الرّوح القدس منبثق غير مخلوق فهل شرحتم لنا ما الفرق بين الولادة والانبثاق هنا ؟
والغريب كذلك أنّ الأرثودكس يؤمنون بالثّالوث المقدّس المتساوي الأقانيم، إلاّ أنّهم انشقّوا عن الكنيسة الكاثوليكيّة لقولهم إنّ الرّوح القدس منبثق من الأب دون الابن وهذا يعني أنّ الأب ليس الابن، ومع ذلك فما يزالون يؤمنون بالثّالوث والجنون فنون!
- يعتقد النّصارى أنّ الله تجسّد ونزل إلى الأرض في شكل الأقنوم الثّاني وهو الله، ويلزم من ذلك أنّ النّاس رأوا الله على الأرض، وهذا مخالف للكتب حيث جاء في سفر الخروج (لا تقدر أن ترى وجهي لأنّ الإنسان لا يراني ويعيش)( ).
ويقول يوحنّا (الله لم يره أحد)( )، وفي تيموثاوس (الله لم يره أحد من النّاس ولا يقدر أن يراه)( ).
يقول الأستاذ عوض سمعان في كتابه (الله طرق إعلانه عن ذاته): »إنّ المتفحّص لعلاقة الرّسل والحواريّين بالمسيح يجد أنّهم لم ينظروا إليه إلاّ على أنّه إنسان، ولم يتصوّروا على الإطلاق أنّه إله، ولكن لماذا، لأنّهم – أي الرّسل والحواريّين – كيهود كانوا يعلمون تمام العلم أنّ الاعتراف بأنّ إنسانًا هو الله يعتبر تجديفًا يستحقّ الرّجم في الحال، ولأنّهم كيهود أيضًا كانوا يستبعدون أن يظهر الله في هيئة إنسان، نعم، كانوا ينتظرون المسيا لكنّ المسيا بالنّسبة إلى أفكارهم التي توارثوها عن أجدادهم لم يكن سوى رسول ممتاز يأتي من عند الله، وليس هو ذات الله«.
ومع أنّ الثّالوث ومنه التجسّد قصّة خرافيّة إلاّ أنّ التعصّب النّصرانيّ للباطل لا يكاد ينقضي، فهذا القسّ وهيب عطا الله يصرّح في كتابه (طبيعة السيّد المسيح): »إنّ التجسّد قضيّة فيها تناقض مع العقل والمنطق والحسّ والمادّة والمصطلحات الفلسفيّة، ولكنّنا نصدّق ونؤمن أنّ هذا ممكن حتّى ولو لم يكن معقولاً«.ويقول الدّكتور الخوري جورجس فرج: »لا تقل في قلبك كيف يمكن أن يتجسّد الله ويصير إنسانًا، فدع ذلك لأنّه من شأنه الخاصّ«.
هناك دليل صريح على أنّ الابن ليس الأب، ونستنتج ذلك من قول المسيح للفريسيّين (في ناموسكم مكتوب أنّ شهادة رجلين حقّ، أنا هو الشّاهد لنفسي ويشهد لي الأب الذي أرسلني)( )، ومعنى ذلك أنّ المسيح ذات، وأنّ الأب ذات أخرى، فهما اثنان متغايران وشهادة المسيح حقّ لشهادة اثنين عليها "الله والمسيح "، ولو كان المسيح هو الله؛ أي أنّ المسيح والله ذات واحدة، لمّا كانت شهادته كافية؛ لأنّها ستصبح بمثابة شهادة واحدة.
- نعلم جميعًا أنّ عقيدة الثّالوث لم تكن معلومة ولا منتشرة بين النّصارى في القرون الأربعة الأولى، وإنّما فُرض جزء منها في مجمّع نيقية بقوّة الإمبراطور قسطنطين، فعندما نطّلع عـلى قرارات مجمّع نيقيّة في سنة 325 م نجد أنّ المجمّع قرّر تأليه الأب والابن فقط؛ أي أنّ الإله كان حينها ثنائيًّا، وبعد عشرات السّنين وبالضّبط في مجمّع القسطنطينيّة سنة 381 م تمّ إعلان عن صنع إله ثالث وهو الرّوح القدس، فاكتمل الثّالوث، وهذا دليل تاريخيّ على أنّ الثّالوث كما هو معروف، الآن، لم يكن معروفًا ولا مكتملاً قبل سنة 381 م، فهل كان السّابقون لهذا التّاريخ يعبدون إلهًا ثنائيًا ناقصًا، أو جزءًا من إله!؟
وفي نهاية المطاف نخلص إلى القول: لم يعد من المقبول لدى الجميع الزّعم بوجود طلسم التّثليث، أو الإيمان بأنّه حقيقة فوق العقول، وأنّه سرّ إلهيّ مقدّس، ولن يجدي نفعًا كلّ هذا التهرّب من مواجهة الحقيقة، وسيكشف العلم والتّاريخ، والله تعالى، أنّ الكنيسة كانت تحمل أكبر عقيدة منافية لكلّ وحي سماويّ وتفكير أرضيّ، أمّا النّصارى البسطاء فما عليهم إلاّ الإذعان للحقّ، فهو سبيل النّجاة بدل القبول باغتيال العقول من أجل كذبة ابتكرها بولس وروّجتها الكنيسة فيما بعد تحت غطاء الأسرار المقدّسة !.
يقول يونغ: »وكان لزامًا عليّ أن أُسائل نفسي مساءلة جادّة عمّا إذا لم يكن أضرّ وأخطر أن تقضي الأسرار المسيحيّة عن حيّز التّفكير الجادّ، وأن نكتفي بنبذها إلى حيّز الألغاز المقدّسة المحرّمة، إنّ هذه الأسرار المسيحيّة قد تشتط في شطحاتها ممّا يحيل لاعقلانيّتها إلى هراء وتخريف، إنّ الإيمان المسيحي ليس مشاعًا لكلّ النّاس غير أنّ كلّ النّاس يملكون موهبة التّفكير التي تجهد للوصول إلى أعمق الأمور…
إنّ الذين يؤمنون ولا يفكّرون، إنّما يتناسون أنّهم يعرّضون أنفسهم لأخطر أعدائهم وأعني الشكّ، أمّا الذين يفكّرون فيرحّبون بالشكّ لأنّه أداتهم إلى معرفة أفضل، وعلى المسيحيّين أن يكونوا أكثر تسامحًا ممّا هم عليه تجاه التّفكير«.
وعلى الرّغم من كلّ ما قيل عن عقيدة الثّالوث والإيمان النّصرانيّ فإنّ القساوسة يستميتون في الدّفاع لآخر رمق؛ يقول القسّ حبيب سعيد: »إنّ الإنسان لن يبلغ هذا الإيمان عن طريق المطارحات النّظريّة، بل بإلهام من الله وإعلان منه«، أمّا القسّ ناشد حنا فيقول في كتابه (الإيمان المسيحيّ هل هو معقول؟): » إنّنا نعرف الله بموجب الإعلان الإلهيّ، ونؤمن به بالقلب، أمّا العقل فينحني خاشعًا للإعلان الإلهي ولا يستطيع أن يعترض عليه، لأنّه ليس ضدّ العقل بل هو أكبر منه ويسمو فوقه«.
ويضيف: »ليس الإيمان الحقيقيّ اقتناعًا عقليًّا بمبادئ صحيحة، والاعتراف بها، والدّفاع عنها، بل هو الثّقة التامّة بإعلان الله عن ذاته وطبيعته في كلمته«، وأمّا عن الثّالوث فيزعم ناشد حنا أنّ لامعقوليّته وعدم موافقته للمنطق والفهم البشريّ هو الدّليل على صحّته!!
وإليك زعمه: »تبدو هذه الحقيقة "الثّالوث" معقّدة فعلاً وصعبة الاستيعاب، ولكن أليس هذا دليلاً واضحًا على صحّتها وعلى أنّ الله نفسه هو الذي أعلن ذاته بها؟ لأنّ الإنسان إذا أراد أن يزيّف إيمانًا أو يصنعه فإنّه يصنعه وفق الفطرة البشريّة وفي مستوى العقل ليسهّل قبوله واستيعابه، أمّا إذا كان الأمر خاصًّا بحقيقة الله غير المحدود فلا بدّ أن يكون الإعلان كبيرًا فوق الفهم الطّبيعيّ وأسمى من العقل..« !!!
فهل يمكننا الموافقة على هذا المنطق !؟ لا والله، لأنّه إذا كان الإيمان النّصرانيّ صحيحًا لكونه فوق الإدراك ومخالفًا للعقل والمنطق، للزمنا الإيمان بعشرات الأديان والعقائد التي لا تستند لأيّ ذرّة من عقل بشريّ، كعبادة البقر أو تلك العبادة الشّهوانيّة لفرج المرأة والرّجل مثلما هو واقع في بعض البلدان الآسيويّة .. !؟
يقول يونغ في كتابه (علم النّفس والدّيانة الغربيّة): »لقد ظلّ الإنسان على مدى القرون الطّويلة محيرًا بالتّثليث، مضطرًّا إلى أن يعمل فكره بحماسة شديدة جدًّا ليهتمّ بقضايا ومسائل غريبة تبدو لنا الآن غامضة مبهمة إن لم تكن عبثيّة، ولا بدّ لنا من القول أوّل كلّ شيء أنّه يصعب علينا أن نفهم ما يعنيه التّثليث لنا، سواء على المستوى العمليّ أو المستوى الأخلاقيّ أو الرّمزيّ، إنّ اللاّهوتيّين أنفسهم يشعرون أحيانًا بأنّ المناقشات حول هذه القضيّة تظهر وكأنّها نوع من أنواع الشّعوذة الفارغة وغير المجدية، وكان الباحث الألمانيّ د. ف ستراوس قد كتب يقول:"الحقيقة أنّ كلّ من يعلن إيمانه بهذه العقيدة إنما يعلن تخليه عن قوانين التّفكير البشريّ "، ولا شكّ في أنّ الإنسان الوحيد القادر على مثل هذا القول هو الإنسان الذي نزع القداسة عن هذه الأفكار واستعاد نشاطه الذّهنيّ … ولا شكّ أنّ كلّ من يحاول التعرّض لمسألة التّثليث من وجهة نظر فكريّة أو عقلانيّة سيضطرّ إلى الجدل والخصام والتعرّض لغوغائيّة آباء الكنيسة الفارغة المعنى«.
ويضيف »إنّ عودة الإنسان، وخصوصًا رجل اللاّهوت إلى العقل والمنطق وأشباههما يدلّ على أنّ كلّ الجهود التي بذلتها المجامع المسيحيّة واللاّهوت قد فشلت، ولم تستطع أن تقدّم للأجيال تصوّرًا فكريًّا لهذه العقيدة يجعلهم يدعمونها أو يتعاطفون معها على الأقلّ، وهنا لا يبقى إلاّ الإذعان للإيمان والإقلاع عن الفهم، فالإيمان هنا كما دلّت التّجربة يفوز، لكنّه يخلي مكانه للنّقد الذي قد لا يكون جديرًا بالتعرّض لموضوع الإيمان، وهذا النّقد غالبًا ما ينشر مناخًا تنويريًّا عقليًّا، ولكن لم يخطر ببال أحد من هؤلاء النقّاد أنّ طريقة معالجة هذا الموضوع خاطئة وأنّها لا تتناسب معه أبدًا، إنّهم يعتقدون أنّهم يعالجون حقائق عقليّة ويتناسون أنّ هذه المسألة كانت دائمًا ظاهرة نفسيّة لاعقلانيّة«.
هذه خلاصة بعض تلك العقائد العليلة الهزيلة، ولم يكن هدفي التعمّق في غياهبها، والولوج في مجاهلها، إنّما حسبي أنّني أثرت تساؤلات عدّة تضع رجال الدّين في زاوية ضيّقة، لا يخرجون منها إلاّ بالاعتراف ببطلان تلك العقائد ممّا سيكون تمهيدًا لاعتناقهم الحقّ، فإن أبوا إلاّ المكابرة، فنقول لهم: قد علمتم الحقّ وعرفتم الصّواب، فلا حجّة لكم عند الله يوم القيامة، ولكن ليقضي الله أمرًا كان مفعولا ليهلك من هلك عن بيّنة ويحي من حي عن بيّنة وإنّ الله لـــسميع عليم الأنفال 42.
فشل الإقناع بالبيان واللّجوء إلى الحيلة
والاستهواء
في تحقيق إذاعيّ عن النّصرانيّة قبل سنوات وصفت إذاعة فرنسا الدّوليّة RFI الكنائس "الخالية" في إسبانيا بأنّها صحراويّة désertique، رغم ما عرف الإسبانيون به من التديّن، أكثر من الشّعوب الأوروبيّة الأخرى … وفي سنة 2002 ذكرت دراسة سويديّة أنّ الكنائس السّويديّة أصبحت خاوية على عروشها، خصوصًا من الذين يدفعون اشتراكات للكنيسة، لذلك بدأت الكنائس السّويديّة تبحث عن مصادر تمويل أخرى، لقد هجر النّصارى دينهم وكنيستهم منذ زمن بعيد لكنّهم لم يكونوا قادرين على التّعبير عن ذلك؛ لما كانت تتمتّع به الكنيسة من نفوذ وإرهاب دينيّ وسلطة مطلقة.
وقـد جاءت الثّورة الفرنسيّة لتقضي على التّحــالف 'الكنسيّ – الملكيّ'، فأَمِنَ النّاس من الخوف، وخرجت جحافل الثّائرين إلى شوارع باريس تصيح وراء ميرابو "لنشنق آخر ملك بأمعاء آخر قسّيس"، وكان ذلك إعلانًا صريحًا – ليس في فرنسا فحسب بل في أوروبا كلّها – عن المفاصلة بين الكنيسة والمجتمع، فبرزت عشرات المذاهب الإلحاديّة التي وقفت في وجه رجال الكنيسة وأفكارها، بل ذهبت إلى حدّ الكفر بالدّين والاستهزاء به ونقده بعلم وبغير علم، والسّؤال لماذا حدث كلّ هذا؟ والجواب طويل سنحاول اختصاره.
قد يقول قائل: إنّ الفرار الجماعيّ من الكنيسة كان نتيجة الطّغيان الرّوحيّ والعقليّ والسّياسيّ والماليّ … الذي مارسه رجال الكنيسة طيلة قرون على الشّعب، ولن نخالف من يقول ذلك، بل نجزم به، ولكن لم يكن ذلك الطّغيان هو السّبب الوحيد، إنّما السّبب الأساسيّ لذلك النّزوح عن النّصرانيّة هو عدم اقتناع الأفراد بها والتّصديق بفلسفتها، وقد عاش معتنقو هذه الدّيانة في حيرة وارتباك وصراع بين العقيدة والعقل، ولم تكن عقيدة غامضة ومستحيلة ومضطربة كتلك لتشبع غريزتهم الدّينيّة وحاجاتهم الرّوحيّة وتوائم فطرتهم البشريّة.
وهناك بعض النّظريّات في علم النّفس مفادها أنّ الإنسان بطبعه يبحث عن التّوازن النّفسيّ والدّاخليّ في حياته ولا يهدأ حتّى يبلغ حالة يقضي فيها على التوتّر الذي يكتنفه ويُخلّ بتوازنه، فلهذا يحاول الفرد أن يزيل هذا التّأثير الخارجيّ أو الدّاخليّ ليجد الرّاحة النّفسيّة التي يرجوها، وانطلاقًا من هذا المبدأ فإنّ كثيرًا من النّصارى لجأوا إلى إزالة هذا التوتّر، الذي أقحمتهم فيه الكنيسة وورثوه عن آبائهم وأجدادهم؛ فمنهم من ترك النّصرانيّة إلى الإلحاد واللاّدينيّة وتبنى مناهج شتّى في التّعبير عن سخطه على الدّين، ومنهم من ذهب يتلمّس الحقيقة في أديان الهند والصّين الشاذّة، وبعضهم انغمس في المسكّرات والمخدّرات والشّهوات الماليّة والجنسيّة وفي كلّ الملهيّات التي تنسيه معاناته الرّوحيّة، وأمّا أسعد النّاس منهم فهم أولئك الذين اعتنقوا الإسلام فوجدوا ضالّتهم، ولله الحمد والمنّة.
حاول رجال الكنيسة استرجاع النّصارى المتفلتين إلى حظيرة الكنيسة، لا حرصًا منهم على هدايتهم ولكن طمعًا في عودة نفوذهم الضّائع، ولقد فشلوا فشلاً ذريعًا في ترويج عقيدتهم والدّعاية للإيمان بأسرارها والتّبشير بألغازها؛ إذ لم تعد الخطب الرنّانة والعظات في يوم الأحد تجدي نفعًا، الأمر الذي دفع الكنيسة وسدنتها إلى ابتكار طرق عديدة واختراع أساليب أعظم إثارة وأكثر جاذبيّة؛ ففتحوا بابًا واسعًا من التّلاعب بالعقول والخداع باستخدام الحيل المختلفة.
وليست بوادر تلك التّلاعبات حديثة؛ فقد وجدت منذ البداية عندما حوّل القساوسة النّصرانيّة إلى مجموعة من المعجزات والخوارق، التي أجراها الله تعالى على يد المسيح فأضحت بذلك تلك الخوارق غاية، وليست وسيلة لإحقاق الحقّ، وفي غمار ذلك تناسى الجميع الأصل، وهو التّعليمات والتّوجيهات في العقيدة والشّريعة والأخلاق المسطرة في الإنجيل، فلا تكاد تسمع الآن تلك النّصوص الهادية، بينما كلّ حين وكلّ وقت تكرّر عليك قائمة كاملة من الخوارق كإحياء الموتى، شفاء المرضى، المشي على الماء، إطعام الآلاف بقليل السّمك والخبز… فأصبحت هذه الطّريقة الدّعائيّة رائجة، مع أنّ الله تعالى أجراها على أيدي أنبيائه للحاجة ولإقامة الحجّة، ومساندة شريعة وعقيدة واضحة سهلة خالية من التّعقيد، تتفيّأ ظلالها الربّانيّة والهداية الإلهيّة، لذلك كانت أعظم المعجزات الإسلاميّة هي بلاغة القرآن، وقوّة الحجّة والبيان بدل إحياء الموتى وإبراء المرضى.. إلاّ فيما ندر.
وبعد رفع المسيح استغلّ القساوسة هذا الأسلوب وادّعوا في كلّ مكان أنّ لهم قدرات وخوارق، ونفّذوا بعضها بطرق ملتوية، ولكن هذه الأشياء يحسنها كلّ واحد حتّى البوذيّون والهندوس وسحرة "السيرك"، وهل ذلك كافٍ ليشفع لهم أمام بساط العلم والعقل والحقيقة !!؟ بل عمد رجال الكنيسة إلى الحيل الكاذبة والخداع المموّه ومن أمثلتها:
تلفيق تمثال للعذراء مريم يدرّ اللّبن، انخدع به العديد من النّاس، وتبيّن وجود شمّاس وراء الجدار يصبّ اللّبن عبر أنبوب موصول بالثّدي!!، أو تلك الكنيسة التي زعم النّاس أنّ في المواسم تنزل نار من السّماء فتضيء الشّموع، وتبيّن كذلك أنّ المسؤولين في الكنيسة ركّبوا سلكًا مطليًّا بمواد قابلة للاشتعال يقوم الشمّاس بإشعال الفتيلة خفية عند السّاعة المطلوبة!!
وتجاوزوا في عصرنا تلك الأساليب البالية إلى استغلال الاختراعات الإلكترونيّة والتكنولوجية، لإحداث بعض الظّواهر الإعجازيّة في الكنائس ثمّ نسبتها إلى روح القدس، كما حدث في بعض الكنائس بمصر، والقصص في ذلك كثيرة اكتشفت بعضها وما يزال الكثير!، وأين كلّ هذا من التّعاليم والمبادئ السّامية والأخلاق التي جاء بها المسيح ؟!
وكان من الحيل وأساليب الجذب الأكثر استخدامًا التّنصير بوسائل غير أخلاقيّة؛ كاستغلال الفقر والجوع والمرض والجهل والعوز، فانظر – رحمك الله – إلى المنصّرين كيف يصطادون في الماء العكر؛ إذ لا توجد بقعة في العالم يعاني فيها البشر من ظروف المعيشة الصّعبة "فقر، جوع، مرض، جهل" أو يصارعون الموت في الحروب والكوارث الطّبيعيّة إلاّ ووجدت "خدّام الكلمة" يحومون حولهم، يحملون في أيديهم الدّواء والقوت والمال، وفي اليد الأخرى الإنجيل والصّليب، وتحت تلك الضّغوط القاسية والمحن الشّديدة يستسلم المساكين لأولئك المنصّرين، لا طمعًا في ملكوتهم السّماويّ، ولا في حياتهم الأبديّة ولكن طمعًا في دفع المرض وسدّ الرّمق، وهنا نتساءل هل هذه طرق ووسائل تحترم الإنسان وحقوقه، وتقدر النّفس البشريّة وتعرف الضّمير والأخلاق؟ ثمّ تفتخر بعدها الكاثوليكيّة بإنجازاتها الهائلة في أدغال إفريقيا!!؛ في حين يعظم البروتستانت "إنتاجيّتهم" المكتسبة في الأمازون وللّه في خلقه شؤون!!.
ولا حيلة "لخدّام الكلمة" المتنافسين إلاّ تلك الطّريقة؛ لأنّهم حين يتبنّون الإقناع بالبرهان والدّليل يفشلون عند أوّل وهلة ويتعثّرون في أوّل الطّريق، لأنّهم في هذا المجال خواء وبلقع وفاقد الشّيء لا يعطيه.
وأذكر قصّة سمعتها من أحد كبار المنصّرين في الشّرق الأوسط، وقد أسلم وفضح أساليب المنصّرين والإرساليّات، في محاضرة له قال: »كنت أدفع "33 " ألف جنيه مصريّ لكلّ من يتنصّر في قرى السّودان، وكان أن تنصّر أحد الذين أقعدهم الفقر والجوع مقابل ذلك المبلغ، وسافر معي في الباخرة فدخلت عليه الغرفة فجأة فوجدته يصلّي صلاة المسلمين، فقلت له كيف تصلّي هذه الصّلاة، وقـد أخذت "33 " ألف جنيه لدخول النّصرانيّة؟ فقال لي: لقد بعت لك جسدي بـ "33 " ألف جنيه أمّا روحي فهي لله والإسلام ولا يمكنني بيعها لأحد«.
وتتواتر حلقات الابتكار عند المنصرين وتزداد تفنّنًا، فكان من آخرها ولوج باب التّبشير بالفنّ والموسيقى والرّقص والنّساء، وتكاد تكون هذه الوسيلة أنجحها في استقطاب الهاربين من الكنيسة؛ فقد نظر خدّام الكلمة إلى المجتمع فألفوا النّاس يقدّسون الفنّ وتنشرح صدورهم الخاوية للغناء والموسيقى واللّهو، ووجدوا عبوديّة الجنس والهيام بالأضواء والأنوار والألوان والأصوات الصّاخبة، وباختصار كلّ مظاهر الجمال والزّينة والدّيكور .. وكلّ الملهيّات والملذّات، فقالوا في أنفسهم ولماذا لا ننقل هذه الأشياء كلّها إلى ساحة الكنائس، فلن نخسر شيئًا أكثر ممّا خسرنا، بل سنعيد مجدنا التليد ونفوذنا وغفران المسيح المصلوب، وأمّا الوسيلة لذلك فلا تزعجنا، إذا كانت النّتيجة ترضي المسيح؛ فالغاية تبرّر الوسيلة والعبرة بالمقاصد !.
وشيّدت الكنائس والكاتدرائيّات بهندسة حديثة، وأبدع المعماريّون في الدّيكور والزّخارف والأشكال والألوان.. وحلّت محلّ تلك الكنائس الموحشة، المغبّرة، المخيفة، العتيقة كنائس أشبه بالمسارح وقاعات العرض واللّهو.. جدران زجاجيّة، أضواء حمراء، وخضراء، وزرقاء.. أثاث عصريّ، ورود وأزهار، صور وتماثيل… وتقلّصت المساحة الزّمنيّة للعظات المملّة والخطب الجامدة ومُلئت الأوقات ببرامج مغرية… وبأمسيات الشّاي والكعك وحفلات التّعارف والسّهرات الموسيقيّة، وكثر المرنّمون وارتفعت أصوات التّرانيم المصحوبة بالسّنفونيّات وأحيانًا بموسيقى الجاز والبلوز والروك والهيب هوب والجوسبل، وشهد نشاط الكنيسة كثافة خلال الأسبوع كلّه لا الأحد فقط، وتعدّدت أعياد القدّيسين( ) وتنوّعت المناسبات الدّينيّة والكرنفالات، فسقط كثير من هوّاة الملهيّات في شراك خدّام الكلمة فرجع بعضهم إلى أماكن العبادة، عفوًا اللّهو !!
وصدق عليهم قول ابن القيّم – رحمه الله – في كتابه (إغاثة اللّهفان من مصائد الشّيطان): »ولمّا علمت الرّهبان والمطارنة والأساقفة، أنّ مثل هذا الدّين تنفر عنه العقول أعظم نفرة، شدّوه بالحيل والصّور في الحيطان بالذّهب والأزورد والزّنجفر والأرغل "آلة موسيقيّة " وبالأعياد المحدثة، ونحو ذلك ممّا يروج على السّفهاء وضعفاء العقول والبصائر «.
هذا كلّه يحدث داخل جدران الكنيسة أمّا المهرجانات والتجمّعات والاحتفالات والرّحلات التّرفيهيّة التي تنظّمها النّوادي الكنسيّة، والتي تجري في البرّ والخلاء فالله أعلم بما فيها من أسرار تبشيريّة لاهوتيّة مقدّسة، وهكذا التّبليغ والتّبشير وإلاّ فلا!
وهذا الإنجلوكاثوليكيّ الإنجليزيّ B. Devis يقول: » إنّ كثيرًا من النّاس أخذ يفلت من قبضة المسيحيّة ولا سيّما الجيل النّاشئ، فبدت الكنيسة عاجزة عن التصرّف مع الوضع الحالي المتأزّم فحاولت استهواء أتباعها بالبخور المعطّر والأضواء، وملابس الكهنوت الملوّنة، وبالصّلوات والتّراتيل المطوّلة للقدّيسين، وبكثير من وسائل الاستهواء«.
وعلى نفس النّغمة برز توجّه قويّ لاستغلال هذه المغريات في وسائل الإعلام التّنصيريّة، كالإذاعات ومحطّات التّلفزيّون، وأكبر دليل على ذلك تلفزيون الشّرق الأوسط التّنصيريّ، الذي يبثّ يوميًّا برامج ببراعة إعلاميّة فائقة توظّف فيها أحدث التّقنيّات الاتّصاليّة، وأشهر البرامج المبثوثة برنامج 'نادي 700' '700 CLUB ' الذي يستضيف طابورا من الممثّلين والمغنّين، والمخرجين والكتّاب ولاعبي كرة السلّة، والبيزبول "Base ball " والملاكمة وغيرهم من المشاهير، وتعرض لقطات من الألعاب والسكتشات والتّمثيليّات المحبوكة بإتقان، والموسيقى والتّرانيم، ويجري البرنامج مقابلات مع أصحاب السّوابق التّائبين بعدما عرفوا طريق الكنيسة، ومرضى السّرطان والسكّريّ والعلل الغريبة الذين شفوا منها بمعجزة يسوعيّة خارقة!! أو أولئك الذين يأتون لحكاية قصصهم العائليّة والحوادث والمصائب التي تجاوزوها أو نجوا منها بأعجوبة وببركة الإنجيل طبعًا !!
هذا باختصار شديد وصف هذه الظّاهرة الإعلاميّة الفريدة، لكن لا يفوتني أن أذكر اللّسان المعسول، وبراعة الكلام التي يمتلكها مقدّمو البرنامج "باث روبرتسون" والقسّيسة خادمة الكلمة! " تيري ميوسن" هذه المبشّرة البروتستانتيّة، التي لا يقلّ دورها عن زميليها "باث" و"بن كينشو"، بل يتجاوزه إلى تزيين المجلس والشّاشة بضحكاتها وشعرها الأشقر وأحيانًا كثيرة بساقيها "الجميلتين" عندما يرتفع الثّوب القصير فوق الرّكبة، وهي من مستلزمات أسرار التّبشير، طبعًا!، وأتساءل هل كانت هذه الثّياب المغرية التي ترتديها القسّيسة!؟ وزميلاتها في برامج التّنصير تشبه تلك التي ارتدتها سارة زوجة إبراهيم أو رفقة زوجة إسحاق أو مريم أم المسيح !؟ مع العلم أنّ ثمّة ثلاث آيات في العهد القديم و ثلاث أخرى في الجديد تدعو للتستّر وتمنع الزّينة والتبرّج، لكن من يسمع !؟، فإدخال المسلمين في النّصرانيّة هو أولى الأولويّات عندهم، وقد أشغلهم هذا العمل النّبيل عن الالتفات لأنفسهم وستر عوراتهم.!
والمرأة الآن في المجتمع الكنسيّ شبكة صيد لا مثيل لها، يجلب بها الشّباب "الضالّ" إلى الكنيسة، فلا يكاد يخلو برنامج تلفزيونيّ تنصيريّ من الشّابات الجميلات والفتيات المتغنجات، وفي الكنائس من المرنّمات المراهقات الفاتنات بألبسة وأثواب مغرية تأخذ الألباب، وتنظّم حفلات مختلطة بين الجنسين في قاعات جانبيّة داخل كلّ كنيسة، يختلط فيها الحابل بالنّابل ويترك الحبل على الغارب.
وتجد الفتيات النّصرانيّات – وأكثرهنّ من الطّالبات – الكنيسة مكانًا ملائمًا للالتقاء بالزّملاء والأصدقاء، خاصّة في مجتمعنا الشّرقيّ، الذي تخشى الفتاة فيه الخروج إلى الشّوارع والملاهي مـع صديقها، خوفًا من كلام النّاس! أمّا الشّباب فلماذا لا يـذهب إلى دار "اللّهو والعبادة "! و هو يعلم أنّ ثمّة ما يثلج صدره من جلسات ووقفات وحركات… مع الأجساد الملتهبة، والأبدان المثيرة، والابتسامات، والنّظرات… إلخ.
كنت أظنّ أنّ هذه الأمور تحدث في كنائس الغرب فقط، ولكن عندما دخلت عدّة كنائس في بلدان عربيّة شرقيّة، رأيت بعيني ما يشيب الرّأس ويحيّر العقل، دخلت يومًا كنيسة معمدانيّة في الأردن، كنت وقتها طالبًا في قسم الصّحافة، وكان عندي موعد مع القسّ فواز، فوجدت حفلة مختلطة مريبة فحاول القسّ إغرائي بالحضور والمشاركة؛ فقال: "يوجد طالبات من جامعتك" واعترضني أحد المعمدانيّين داخل الكنيسة ودعاني للدّخول في الحفلة فقلت: "لكن أنا مسلم "فقال: "نعم وأنت كذلك أخونا في الربّ " !، إنّها أساليب ميكيافيليّة لست أدري ماذا يكون ردّ فعل المسيح أو أحد حواريّيه لو سمعوا بمثلها !؟
لقد بلغ حجم اختراق العلمانيّة واللاّدينيّة الكنيسة إلى أكثر من ذلك، فيقول علي جريشة في كتابه (الإعلام والدّعوة الإسلاميّة): »وامتدّت العلمانيّة داخل الكنيسة نفسها، حتّى إنّ بعض رجال الدّين لم يجدوا بدًّا للتّرويج لبضائعهم إلاّ بالتّرويج الجنسيّ للفتيان والفتيات؛ فشرّعوا حفلات رقص تعقب الصّلوات، التي تؤدّى في الكنائس تحت رعاية رجال الدّين وتشجيعهم«.
وأنقل تجربة حيّة وواقعيّة من إحدى مقالات سيّد قطب – رحمه الله – وكتبها فور رجوعه من أمريكا، وقد كان في الأربعينات من هذا القرن مقيمًا فيها، وعضوًا في عدّة نواد كنسيّة فإليك كلامه على طوله: »إذا كانت الكنيسة مكانًا للعبادة في العالم المسيحيّ كلّه، فإنّها في أمريكا مكان لكلّ شيء إلاّ العبادة، وإنّه ليـصعب عليك أن تفرّق بينها وبين أيّ مكان آخر مـعدّ للّهو والتّسلية، أو ما يسمّونه بلغـتهم الـ Fun ومعظم قصّادها إنّما يعدّونها تقليدًا اجتماعيًّا ضروريًّا، ومكانًا للّقاء والأنس، ولتمضية وقت طيّب، وليس هذا شعور الجمهور وحده، ولكنّه كذلك شعور سدنة الكنيسة ورعاتها.
ولمعظم الكنائس ناد يتألّف من الجنسين، ويجتهد راعي كلّ كنيسة أن يلتحق بالكنيسة أكبر عدد ممكن، وبخاصّة أنّ هناك تنافسًا كبيرًا بين الكنائس المختلفة المذاهب؛ ولهذا تتسابق جميعًا في الإعلان عن نفسها بالنّشرات المكتوبة وبالأنوار الملوّنة على الأبواب والجدران للفت الأنظار، وبتقديم البرامج اللّذيذة المشوّقة لجلب الجماهير، بنفس الطّريقة التي تتبعها المتاجر ودور العرض والتّمثيل، وليس هناك من بأس في استخدام أجمل فتيات المدينة وأرشقهنّ، وأبرعهنّ في الغناء والرّقص والتّرويح، وهذه مثلاً محتويات إعلان عن حفلة كنسيّة، كانت ملصقة في قاعة اجتماع الطّلبة في إحدى الكلّيّات: "يوم الأحد أوّل أكتوبر – في السّاعة السّادسة مساء – عشاء خفيف، ألعاب سحريّة، ألغاز، مسابقات، تسلية.. ".
وليس في هذا أيّة غرابة، لأنّ راعي الكنيسة لا يحسّ أنّ عمله يختلف في شيء عن عمل مدير المسرح، أو مدير المتجر، النّجاح يعود عليه بنتائجه الطيّبة: المال والجاه، فكلّما كثر عدد الملتحقين بكنيسته عظم دخله، وزاد كذلك احترامه ونفوذه في بلده؛ لأنّ الأمريكيّ بطبيعته يؤخذ بالفخامة في الحجم أو العدد، وهي مقياسه الأوّل في الشّعور والتّقدير.
كنت ليلة في إحدى الكنائس ببلدة جريلي بولاية كولورادو – فقد كنت عضوًا في ناديها، كما كنت عضوًا في عدّة نوادٍ كنسيّة في كلّ جهة عشت فيها؛ إذ كانت هذه ناحية هامّة من نواحي المجتمع تستحقّ الدّراسة عن كثب، ومن الدّاخل – وبعد أن انتهت الخدمة اللّيليّة في الكنيسة، واشترك في التّراتيل فتية وفتيات من الأعضاء، وأدّى الآخرون الصّلاة، دلفنا من باب جانبيّ إلى ساحة الرّقص، الملاصقة لقاعة الصّلاة، يصل بينهما الباب، وصعد "الأب" إلى مكتبه وأخذ كلّ فتى بيد فتاة، وبينهم وبينهنّ أولئك الذين واللّواتي كانوا وكنّ يقومون بالتّرتيل ويقمن!.
وكانت ساحة الرّقص مضاءة بالأنوار الحمراء والصّفراء والزّرقاء، وبقليل من المصابيح البيض، وحمي الرّقص على أنغام "الجراموفون" وسالت السّاحة بالأقدام والسّيقان الفاتنة، التفت الأذرع بالخصور، والتقت الشّفاه بالصّدور.. وكان الجوّ كلّه غرامًا حينما هبط "الأب" من مكتبه، وألقى نظرة فاحصة على المكان ومن في المكان، وشجّع الجالسين والجالسات ممّن لم يشتركوا في الحلبة على أن ينهضوا فيشاركوا، وكأنّما لاحظ أنّ المصابيح البيض تفسد ذلك الجوّ "الرّومانتيكيّ" الحالم، فراح في رشاقة الأمريكانيّ وخفّته يطفئها واحدًا واحدًا، وهو يتحاشى أن يعطّل حركة الرّقص، أو يصدم زوجًا من الرّاقصين في السّاحة، وبدا المكان بالفعل أكثر "رومانتيكيّة" وغرامًا، ثمّ تقدّم إلى "الجراموفون" ليختار أغنية تناسب الجوّ، وتشجّع القاعدين والقاعدات على المشاركة فيه.
واختار.. اختار أغنية أمريكيّة مشهورة اسمها: 'But baby it is cold out side '، 'ولكنّها يا صغيرتي باردة في الخارج'، و هي تتضمّن حوارًا بين فتى وفتاة عائدين من سهرتهما، وقد احتجزها الفتى في داره، وهي تدعوه أن يطلق سراحها لتعود إلى دارها فقد أمسى الوقت، وأمّها تنتظر.. وكلّما تذرّعت بحجّة أجابها بتلك اللاّزمة: "ولكنّها يا صغيرتي باردة في الخارج! " وانتظر الأب حتّى رأى خطوات بناته وبنيه، على موسيقى تلك الأغنية المثيرة، وبدا راضيًا مغتبطًا، وغادر ساحة الرّقص إلى داره، تاركًا لهم ولهنّ إتمام هذه السّهرة اللّذيذة .. البريئة!.
وأب آخر يتحدّث إلى صاحب لي عراقي، فقد توثّقت بينهما عرى الصّداقة، فسأله عن "ماري" زميلته في الجامعة: "لم لا تحـضر الآن إلى الكنيسة؟" ويبدو أنّه لا يعنيه أن تغيب الفتيات جميعًا وتحضر "ماري "، وحين يسأله الشّابّ عن سرّ هذه اللّهفة يجيب: "إنّها جذّابة، وإنّ معظم الشبّان إنّما يحضرون وراءها! ".
ويحدّثني شابّ من شياطين الشبّان العرب الذين يدرسون في أمريكا، وكنّا نطلق عليه اسم "أبو العتاهية " – وما أدري إن كان ذلك يغضب الشّاعر القديم أو يرضيه! – فيقول لي عن فتاته – ولكلّ فتى فتاة في أمريكا – إنّها كانت تنتزع نفسها من بين أحضانه أحيانًا؛ لأنّها ذاهبة للتّرتيل في الكنيسة، وكانت إذا تأخّرت لم تنج من إشارات "الأب" وتلميحاته إلى جريرة "أبي العتاهية" في تأخيرها عن حضور الصّلاة ! هذا إذا حضرت ودها من دونه، فأمّا إذا استطاعت أن تجرّه وراءها، فلا لوم عليها ولا تثريب!.
ويقول لك هؤلاء الآباء: إنّنا لا نستطيع أن نجتذب الشّباب إلاّ بهذه الوسائل!، ولكنّ أحدًا منهم لا يسأل نفسه: وما قيمة اجتذابهم إلى الكنيسة، وهم يخوضون إليها مثل هذا الطّريق، ويقضون ساعاتهم فيه؟ أهو الذّهاب إلى الكنيسة هدف في ذاته، أم آثاره التّهذيبيّة في الشّعور والسّلوك؟، ومن وجهة نظر "الآباء" التي أوضحتها فيما سلف، مجرّد الذّهاب هو الهدف، وهو وضع لمن يعيش في أمريكا مفهوم« !.
هذا غيض من فيض، ممّا لا يمكن حصره في هذه العجالة، وتسعى الكنائس الآن إلى تفادي مناقشة المواضيع المتعلّقة بالأسرار الإلهيّة، وعدم طرحها في الكنيسة، خصوصًا على الشّباب؛ لأنّها تعلم أنّ تلك القضايا "مشكلات" تنفّرهم من الكنيسة، وتجعل الكثير منهم يعتنقون الإسلام، إذ إنّ نسبة النّصارى الذين يعتنقون الإسلام في العالم يتجاوز عشرات الآلاف كلّ سنة، أغلبهم من الشّباب والمثقّفين والجامعيّين.
شهادات نصارى اعتنقوا الإسلام
يحوي هذا الفصل شهادات مثيرة ورائعة لمجموعة من النّصارى الذين اعتنقوا الإسلام، ورضوا به عقيدة وشريعة، وكلّ واحد من هؤلاء كانت له أسبابه الخاصّة لهذا التحوّل، بيد أنّهم أجمعوا على أنّ أهمّ الأسباب التي جعلتهم ينفرون من النّصرانيّة هو عدم اقتناعهم بها؛ لأنّ الإيمان النّصرانيّ يصادم الفطرة البشريّة، ويدخل في نزاع مع العقل والمنطق، الأمر الذي قلب حياة معتنقيها إلى صراع دائم بين عقولهم وعواطفهم، هذا الصّراع الدّاخليّ أزعجهم وقضّ مضاجعهم، كيف ينامون وتقر أعينهم !؟ وهم يؤمنون بعقيدة غامضة، صعبة غير مقتنعين بها ولا مصدّقين بأسرارها التي يتلقّونها كلّ يوم "أحد" من أفواه رجال الكنيسة، والأمر ليس هيّنًا بل هو عظيم يتعلّق بحياتهم الدّنيويّة، وبعدها بمصيرهم الأبديّ، فبدأوا بالتّفكير والبحث، وإعمال العقل فاهتدوا إلى دين الإسلام، الذي أقر أعينهم ومنحهم الرّاحة النّفسيّة وسينالون الفوز في الآخرة، إن شاء الله.
وكلّهم يشهدون للإسلام: لا أسرار، ولا مستحيلات عقليّة، ولا إلغاء للعقل، ولا خرافات، ولا تجديف على الله، ولا رجال دين، ولا طاعة عمياء، ولا إتباع بدون دليل، ولا إيمان بلا تدبّر وتفكّر.
فالعقيدة الإسلاميّة واضحة وضوح الشّمس، والشّريعة جليّة للعيان، فشتّان بين النّصرانيّة والإسلام وكلّ إناء بما فيه ينضح، وتأتي هذه الشّهادات للتّمثيل لا الحصر من علماء وأطبّاء وأساتذة جامعيين وباحثين وسياسيّين بل من قساوسة ورجال دين.
1
1. محمّد فؤاد الهاشميّ
أبدأ هذا الفصل بشهادة مطوّلة لأحد الشّمامسة( ) العرب، الذين عرفوا النّصرانيّة عن كثب، ثمّ تحوّلوا إلى الإسلام؛ فقد كتب الأستاذ محمّد فؤاد الهاشميّ هذه الكلمات التي نقلتها رغم طولها من كتابه (سرّ إسلاميّ) يقـــول: » أثناء دراستي للدّين المسيحيّ، وتعمّقي في جنباته صادفتني مشاكل عقليّة متعدّدة؛ كنت في البداية أطرحها جانبًا إلى حين، ثمّ أعاود الرّجوع إليها فيكون نصيبها التّأجيل كالمرّة الأولى، وكلّ يوم تزداد المشاكل عن ذي قبل، حتّى كوّنت عندي ما يشبه العقد، وولّدت عندي اليأس من فهم تلك المشاكل المعقّدة.
بعد الدّرس كنت أخلد أحيانًا إلى نفسي؛ محاولة منّي لإيجاد الحلول للمسائل المعقّدة، وكانت توجد حلول، لكنّها حلول لا ترضي العقل ولا يستريح بها الضّمير إلاّ مؤقّتًا؛ طمعًا في أنّي يومًا ما ربّما تكون قد اتّسعت مداركي واستطعت حلّها، و لكن بعد سنوات الدّراسة الثّلاث في اللاّهوت لم أجد البياض النّاصع الذي يعتبر أساسًا للدّين، ولم أعثر على الوضوح والبساطة، الذي يجب أن تتحلّى بها العقيدة، إنّما كنت أجد بقعًا عديدة من الأصباغ ظننتها بادئ ذي بدء زينة الدّين، ولكنّي كلّما تعمّقت واستعملت العقل وذهبت بالفكر؛ أي مذهب بين الكتب والمتون والشّروح، أعود إلى النّقطة التي بدأت منها دون الخروج بأيّ جواب شاف عن أسئلة العقل المتلاحقة بغير هوادة، وشككت في عقلي، واتّهمت ملَكة فهمي بالضّعف، وأيقنت أنّ ذلك تصوّر منّي وربّما وجدت المخرج عند أساتذتي الكهنة والقساوسة والدّعاة الأكليريكيّين.
كان كلّ منهم يريد أن يظهر قدرته ومدى مساهمته في هذا الدّين، فحمّلوا الدّين ما لا يُطيق من الإضافات والتّفسيرات، ووصل الحال في بعضها إلى أن أصبحت هذه الإضافات والتّعليقات هي الأصل، والدّين ذاته في المرتبة الثّانية من حيث الأهمّيّة، ويبدو أنّ أدعياء الدّين أو محترفيه لم تعجبهم بساطته وأرادوا له أن يكون معقّدًا؛ لأنّه كلّما كان معقّدًا اتّجه النّاس إليهم يسألونهم تفسيرًا لكلّ ما يحويه من ألغاز، على أن تظلّ شوكتهم قويّة ويبقى سلطانهم راسخًا، فمن جهة المتديّنين فرضوا لهم طقوسًا، ورسموا طرقًا، وابتدعوا احتفالات، وصمّموا ملابس، وألّفوا ترانيم وصلوات، وتفنّنوا في خزعبلات، واستغلّوا مجريات الأمور لأنفسهم فجعلوا مصائر النّاس في أيديهم؛ ليظلّوا المهيمنين عليهم والمرشدين لهم.
أمّا من جهة خالقهم فأرادوا أن يزيدوا في درجة احترامه سبحانه وتعالى، فابتدعوا له مؤنسًا في وحدته زوجة ثمّ ابنًا، ثمّ قالوا عن الابن: إنّه هو الإله ثمّ احتاروا فقسّموا بين الأب والابن السّلطات ورسموا لهما الأقانيم، ممّا سبق لم أجد جواب الأساتذة إلاّ كجواب الكتب أو أشدّ تعقيدًا، وعسير على العقل المتحرّر أن يقبل أجوبة على علّتها، كما قال بعضهم قولتهم المشهورة: " أدّ الطّقوس التي تعلّمتها كما تعلّمتها ولا تتعب عقلك، فقد تعب قبلك كثيرون و باءوا بالخسران المبين، وطُردوا من ملكوت السّموات".
من هنا بدأ شكّي وفقدت الثّقة واستولى علي عدم الإيمان، فيما أدرس لا فيما أدين؛ لأنّ المسيحيّة دين سماويّ أتى به المسيح، وبشّر به من سبقه من الأنبياء واعترف به من بعده، ولذا بدأت أبحث وأنقّب مصمّمًا على أن لا ألغي عقلي لأنّه عسير على العقل الواعيّ أن يأخذ الأمور على علالتها، كما أنّه من العسير على إنسان وُهب شيئًا من حرّيّة الفكر أن يصمّ أذنيه عن النّداء المنبعث من وحي العقل والضّمير، واثقًا أنّي لن أطرد من ملكوت، بل هدفي أن أدخل الملكوت ومن سار على الدّرب وصل، ومن جدّ وجد؛ لأنّه من العبث ألاّ يبحث أيّ إنسان أمر دينه حتّى يؤمن إيمانًا صحيحًا، أو يترك ما لم يستطع عقله وعقول أساتذته إلى ما يفهمه العامّة، قبل الخاصّة حتّى يستريح الضّمير، ويكون ذلك دين القيمة، وإلى القارئ أقدّم بحثي الذي انتهى بي إلى الإيمان بدين القيمة – الإسلام -«.
2. حسين رؤوف (إنجلترا) Hussain Rofe
» … دفعتني فطرتي إلى البحث عن دين يروي غليلي فلسفيًّا واجتماعيًّا، فلم يكن منّي إلاّ أن قرّرت أن أفحص بدقّة كلّ الدّيانات الرّئيسيّة المعروفة في العالم… نشأت في ظلّ تقليد الكنيسة الإنجليزيّة.. وبدأت في سنّ مبكّرة أعقد المقارنات بين العقائد والطّقوس في كلٍّ من اليهوديّة والمسيحيّة، ودفعتني فطرتي إلى رفض عقيدتيْ تجسيد الإله وتكفيره لذنوب البشر، كما أنّ عقلي لم يستطع قبول تعدّد الأناجيل ونصوصها، أو الإيمان بعقيدة لا ترتكز على منطق العقل، كما هي التّقاليد المرعية في الكنيسة الإنجليزيّة.
ورغم أنّني كنت أشهد الصّلوات المسيحيّة في الكنيسة الإنجليزيّة، كما أحضرها في الكنيس اليهوديّ، وأشارك في كليهما، إلاّ أنّني في الواقع لم أكن أدين بأيّ من الدّيانتين ورأيت في الكاثوليكيّة الرّومانيّة كثيرًا من الغموض، ومن الخضوع لسلطة البشر، وأنّها تصمّ البشريّة بالنّقص بعكس ما تنسبه إلى البابا وأتباعه من تقديس يكاد يرقى بهم إلى شبه الألوهيّة«.
3. سيسيليا محمودة كانولي (أستراليا) Cecilia Mahmuda Canoolly
»لماذا أسلمت؟ أوّلاً وقبل كلّ شيء، أودّ أن أقول إنّني أسلمت لأنّني كنت في قرارة نفسي مسلمة دون أن أعلم ذلك من حداثة سنّي؛ كنت قد فقدت الإيمان بالمسيحيّة لأسباب كثيرة أهمّها: أنّني ما سألت مسيحيًّا سواء كان ممّن يقال عنهم رجال الكهنوت والأسرار المقدّسة، أو من العامّة، عن أيّ شيء يبدو لي غامضًا في تعاليم الكنيسة، إلاّ تلقّيت الجواب التّقليديّ: "ليس لك أن تناقشي تعاليم الكنيسة، ويجب أن تؤمني بها فقط"، وفي ذلك الوقت لم تكن عندي الشّجاعة الكافية لأقول لهم: "إنّني لا أستطيع الإيمان بشيء لا أعقله".
وتعلّمت من خلال تجاربي أنّ غالبيّة الذين يسمّون أنفسهم مسيحيّين لا يجدون هذه الشّجاعة كذلك… كان كلّ ما فعلته أنّي هجرت الكنيسة "الرّومانيّة الكاثوليكيّة" وتعاليمها، وركّزت إيماني في الإله الواحد الحقّ؛ لأنّ الإيمان به أيسر على النّفس من الإيمان بثلاثة آلهة كما تقول الكنيسة، وعلى النّقيض من التّعاليم الكنسيّة الغامضة البعيدة عن الإدراك، بدأت أرى الحياة أوسع وأرحب طليقة من الطّقوس والفلسفات، فكنت حيثما وجّهت وجهي أجد آيات الله… حتّى الطفل الوليد، أصبحت أحسّ أنّه معجزة رائعة جميلة، وليس كما كانت الكنيسة تصوّره لنا، تذكّرت كيف أنّني في صغري إذا نظرت إلى طفل حديث الولادة تصوّرته "مغطّى بسواد الخطيئة الموروثة"، أمّا الآن فلم يعد للقبح مكان في خيالي، بل لقد أصبح كلّ شيء أمامي جميلاً، وهنا أيضًا تهتّكت الأستار التي كانت تحد ما بيني وبين الإسلام، فما خطر لي من سؤال إلاّ كنت أتلقّى عنه الجواب المقنع الدّقيق، على النّقيض تمامًا من ذلك الهراء، الذي كنت أسمعه حينما كنت أناقش المسيحيّة «.
4. محمّد ألكسندر راسيل (الولايات المتّحدة) Mohamed Alexander Russel
(كنت لحسن حظّي ذا عقليّة فاحصة، أميل إلى أن أتحرّى الأمور، وأن أجد لكلّ شيء علّة وسببًا، ووجدت أنّ النّاس بين علمانيّين، ورجال دين – المسيحيّ – عجزوا عن إقناعي بوسائل عقليّة ومنطقيّة بحقيقة هذه العقيدة، ولكن كلا الفريقين كانوا يقولون: إنّ هذه أمور غامضة وخفيّة، أو يقولون إنّها مسائل فوق مستوى إدراكي، وأودّ أن أقرّر هنا بأنّني عندما كنت صبيًّا كانت تنقصني الحماسة الدّينيّة، التي تبدو على كثير من الصّبيان بالفطرة، ولمّا بلغت العشرين عامًا وأصبحت حر التصرّف في نفسي، ضاق صدري بجمود الكنيسة وكآبتها فهجرتها إلى غير رجعة«.
5. عبد الله أرشبالد هاملتون (إنجلترا) Abdullah Archibal Hamilton رجل دولة و بارون
» ما كدت أبلغ سنّ الإدراك والتّمييز، حتّى راود قلبي جمال الإسلام وبساطته ونقاؤه، ورغم أنّني وُلدت ونشأت مسيحيًّا، فإنّني لم أستطع مطلقًا أن أؤمن بالعقائد التي تسلّم بها الكنيسة وتفرضها، وكنت دائمًا أجعل العقل والإدراك فوق الإيمان الأعمى، ومع مرور الزّمن أردت أن أحيا وفق مشيئة خالقي، لكنّني وجدت كلاّ من كنيسة روما والكنيسة الإنجليزيّة لا يقدّمان لي ما يروي غليلي، وما كان اعتناقي للإسلام إلاّ تلبية لنداء ضميري، ومنذ تلك اللّحظة بدأت أشعر أنّني أصبحت أقرب إلى الإنسانيّة الصّحيحة«.
6. ديفيس وارنجتون – فراي (أستراليا) Devis Warrington – Fry
» حقًّا لقد انساب الإسلام في نفسي انسياب الرّبيع المشرق إلى الأرض الباردة في أعقاب شتاء مظلم، فأشاع الدّفء في روحي، وغمرني بما في تعاليمه من روعة وجمال، وكم فيها من روعة وكم فيها من جمال، كم فيها من وضوح في بنائها المنطقيّ الرّصين: "لا إله إلاّ الله، محمّد رسول الله". أيمكن أن يكون هناك ما هو أسمى من ذلك وأنقى؟ أين هذا من غموض عقيدة "الأب والابن والرّوح القدس"، التي قد تشيع الرّهبة في القلوب، ولكنّها لا تكاد تقنع العقل الواعي«.
7. جلال الدّين لودر برنتون (إنجلترا) Jalaluddin Louder Brunton رجل دولة وبارون
»يقولون: إنّ العقائد المسيحيّة تستند إلى الإنجيل ولكنّني وجدتها متنافرة، متضاربة، فهل من الممكن أن يكون الإنجيل وتعاليم المسيح قد أصابها التّحريف؟ عدت ثانيًا إلى الإنجيل أوليه دراسة دقيقة، فشعرت أنّ هناك نقصًا لم أستطع تحديده«.
8. إبراهيم فو (الملايو) Ibrahim Voo
» قبل إسلامي كنت كاثوليكيًّا رومانيًّا، ومع أنّي لم أكن مقتنعًا بعقائد التّثليث والعشاء الربّانيّ المقدّس والتّكريس والتّقديس وما إلى ذلك من الأمور الغامضة، إلاّ أنّني لم أفقد إيماني بالله، ولم يكن في استطاعة أي قسّيس كاثوليكيّ أن يقنعني منطقيًّا بهذه العقائد الغامضة وكان قولهم التّقليديّ: "إنّها أسرار وستبقى أسرارًا، إنّ عيسى هو خاتم الأنبياء، وما محمّد إلاّ دجّالاً".
لقد تضاءل إيماني بذلك الدّين، إلى أن خالطت كثيرين من مسلمي الملايو، وتحدّثت معهم عن الدّين، وكان الجدل يحتدم بيننا في بعض الأحيان، وبمرور الزّمن ازداد اقتناعي بأنّ الإسلام هو دين العقل والحقّ، العبادة فيه لله دون سواه، فلا ترى في المساجد صورًا أو تماثيل أو لوحات«.
9. ت. هـ. مكباركلي (أيرلندة) T.H. Mc Barklie
نشأت على المذهب البروتستانتي، وكنت منذ حداثة سنّي غير مقتنع بالتّعاليم المسيحيّة، فلمّا انتهيت من المدرسة والتحقت بالجامعة، أضحى هذا الشكّ يقينًا، فالكنيسة المسيحيّة – كما رأيتها – لم تكن تعني عندي شيئًا مذكورًا، وكنت في حالة يأس من أن أجد عقيدة قائمة تتضمّن كلّ ما كنت أتصوّره من مقوّمات، ولقد ذهلت للوهلة الأولى عند مقارنة التّسامح الإسلاميّ بتعصّب المذاهب المسيحيّة، وعلمت أنّ البلاد الإسلاميّة في العصور الوسطى كانت مشرقة بالعلم والحضارة، في الوقت الذي كان الجهل مطبقًا والخرافات سائدة في غيرها من البلاد، كما أقنعتني نظريّة الإسلام المنطقيّة في الجزاء بعكس نظريّة الفداء في المسيحيّة«.
10. توماس ارفنج (كندا) Thomas Irving
»عندما كنت في السّنة الأولى في دراسات الآداب الشّرقيّة، قرأت عن تطوّر الفكر البشريّ في محاولاته لمعرفة الله، وقد تبلورت رسالة المسيح في تصويره بأنّه ربّ ودود، لكنّ هذا التصوّر يضيع وسط سحب من صلوات غير مفهومة وطقوس وثنيّة، وتختفي صفات الرّحمة والجود وراء تصويره في ذات الوقت ربًّا متعاليًا لا يمكن الوصول إليه إلاّ من خلال وسيط شفيع«.
11. مسعودة ستينمان (إنجلترا) Massudah Steinman
»لا أعرف دينًا آخر – غير الإسلام – يقبله العقل ويجذب النّاس إليه، وله من المؤمنين به مثل هذه الجموع الضّخمة، ويبدو لي أنّه ما من طريق أقرب منه إلى الاقتناع العقليّ والرضا في الحياة، ولا أعظم منه أملاً للنّجاة في الحياة الآخرة… والمسيحيّة تولي جلّ اهتمامها للجانب الرّوحيّ من الحياة، فتدعو إلى نوع من المحبّة يثقل كاهل المسيحيّ بالمسؤوليّات، ودعوى المحبّة مقضي عليها بالفشل، إذ كان الوصول إليها خارجًا عن حدود طبيعة البشر، وتتعارض مع إدراكه ومفاهيمه، ولا يستطيع أحد أن يداني ذلك المستوى المثاليّ للمحبّة، كما تدعو إليه المسيحيّة إلاّ أن يؤتى حظًّا موفورًا من معرفة النّوازع البشريّة المتباينة، وأن يتّصف مع هذه المعرفة بالعطف والإدراك السّليم، مع الشّعور بالمسؤوليّة، وحتّى في هذه الحالة، فإنّ على مثل هذا الإنسان أن يتخلّى عن عقله في سبيل هذه المحبّة.
ويقول س.ت. كوليردج S.T. Coleridge في كتابه (Aids reflection): "إنّ الذي يبدأ بحبّ المسيحيّة أكثر من حبّه للحقّ سيقوده ذلك إلى حبّ طائفته أو كنيسته أكثر من حبّه للمسيحيّة، ثمّ ينتهي به الأمر إلى حبّ نفسه أكثر من أيّ شيء آخر"، وفي ذات الوقت يدعونا إلى تقديس الله، وأن نخضع لشريعته، ويشجّعنا على استعمال العقل مع مراعاة عواطف الحبّ، والتّفاهم جنبًا إلى جنب..«.
12. هـ. ف. فيلوز (إنجلترا) H. F. Fellowes
»كنت دائمًا أتصوّر الربّ هاديًا للبشر، ومتّصفًا بالعفو والرّحمة والعدل، وعلى هذا يستطيع الإنسان أن يطمئنّ إلى عدالة حسابه وإلى رحمته ومراعاة ظروفه المحيطة به… أنت مسؤول في حياتك عن أعمالك وسلوكك شخصيًّا، فإذا كنت تعمل محاسبًا ودلّست في حسابات مخدومك، فإنّ مكانك إلى السّجن لا محالة، وإذا كنت تقود سيّارة بسرعة زائدة في طريق منعرج منزلق فإنّك لا شكّ معرّض للحوادث، هذه أخطاؤك أنت وأنت الذي ارتكبتها، ومن الجبن أن تلقي بالمسؤوليّة على الآخرين، ولا أعتقد أنّنا ولدنا آثمين تعساء، فهذا ينافي العاطفة النقيّة نحو الأطفال الأبرياء، لقد علّمتني الأيّام أنّ من طبيعة البشر إدخال السّرور إلى قلوب الآخرين ما لم يكن الآخرون من الأشرار، وعلى هذا القياس، نرى أنّ عقيدة تحمّل المسيح خطايا البشر، عقيدة مضطربة لا تقبلها العقول.
لقد بدأنا نقرأ في الصّحف في الآونة الأخيرة أقوالاً لفلاسفة وكتّاب، مؤدّاها أنّ الأديان الحالية أصبحت عتيقة بالية، وأعتقد أنّ هذه الأقوال تعكس على مرآتها مدى تشكّك الغربيّين وارتيابهم في المفاهيم المعقّدة والغامضة في الدّين المسيحيّ، وهؤلاء الذين ينادون – في زعمهم – إلى الإصلاح والتّجديد إنّما يقعون في الخطأ نفسه، الذي وقع فيه قبلهم مارتن لوثر لأنّ الإسلام، وهو الدّين الذي يحقّق كلّ هذه الرّغبات في الإصلاح قائم فعلاً بين أيدينا«.
13. أمينة موسلر (ألمانيا) Amina Mosler
»سمعت ولدي يتوسّل إليّ وفي عينيه دموع: "يا أمّي لا أريد أن أبقى مسيحيًّا بعد الآن، إنّني أريد أن أكون مسلمًا، وأنت أيضًا يا أمّي، يجب أن تنضمّي معي إلى هذا الدّين الجديد"، فما لبثت أن اقتنعت أنّ الإسلام هو الدّين الحقّ الذي أرتضيه، كان الإيمان بالثّالوث الذي تدعو إليه المسيحيّة أمرًا مستحيلاً بالنّسبة لي، حتّى عندما كنت شابّة في العشرين من عمري، وبعد دراسة الإسلام رأيتني أيضًا لا أقرّ بالاعتراف ولا تقديس البابا، أو الاعتراف بسلطاته العليا، ولا عمليّة التّعميد المسيحيّة وما شاكل ذلك من عقائد«.
14. إيفلين زينب كوبولد (إنجلترا) Evelyn Zeinab Cobbold
»كثيرًا ما سُئلت: متى ولماذا أسلمت؟… وقد صدق أحد علماء الغرب إذ يقول "الإسلام دين العقل والفطرة"، وكلّما زادت دراستي وقراءتي عن الإسلام، زاد يقيني في تميّزه عن الأديان الأخرى، بأنّه أكثرها ملاءمة للحياة العمليّة، وأقدرها على حلّ مشكلات العالم العديدة والمعضلة، وعلى أنّ يسلك بالبشريّة سبل السّعادة والسّلام، لهذا لم أتردّد في الإيمان بأنّ الله واحد، وبأنّ موسى وعيسى ومحمّدًا – عليهم صلوات الله – ومن سبقهم كانوا أنبياء أوحي إليهم من ربّهم، لكلّ أمّة رسول، وبأنّنا لم نولد في الخطيئة، وبأنّنا لا نحتاج إلى من يحمل عنّا خطايانا، أو يتوسّط بيننا وبين الله، وفي وسعنا أن نصل أرواحنا به في أيّ وقت نشاء، وبأنّه حتّى محمّد أو عيسى – صلوات الله عليهما – لا يملك أحدهما لنا من الله شيئًا، وبأنّ نجاتنا إنّما هي وقف على سلوكنا وأعمالنا …والإسلام يقوم على وحدانيّة الله وليس على اللاّهوتيّة المعقّدة الثّقيلة، وفي مقدّمة كلّ مميّزاته أنه عقيدة إيجابيّة دافعة«.
15. إسماعيل ويسلو زيجريسكي (بولندا) Ismail Weislaw Zejerski عالم اجتماع
»عندما كنت مراهقًا في السّادسة عشرة من عمري كنت كثير الرّيب في العقائد المختلفة، التي تدعو إليها الكنيسة الرّومانيّة الكاثوليكيّة "التي لا تخطئ" فلم يكن في استطاعتي أن أؤمن بالثّالوث المقدّس، ولا بتحويل القربان إلى لحم ودم المسيح، ولا في وساطة القساوسة بين النّاس والله، أو بين الله والنّاس، ولا في تنزيه البابا عن الخطايا، ولا في فاعليّة الكلمات والإشارات التي يؤدّيها القساوسة في الكنيسة.
لم أكن أستسيغ عبادة السيّدة مريم أو القدّيسين أو التّماثيل والصّور والآثار وما إليها، وانتهى بي الأمر إلى إنكار ما كنت أؤمن به، وإلى عدم الاكتراث بأمور الدّين، بيْد أنّ الإنسان في عصرنا هذا لا يمكنه بأيّ حال أن يؤمن بدين كلّ عقائده وطقوسه تأباها عقول المفكّرين، وأدركت كذلك أنّ الدّين الذي يقدّم للبشريّة تشريعًا كاملاً وشاملاً وينظّم حياة الفرد و حياة الجماعة هو وحده القادر على أن يقود البشريّة ويهديها سواء السّبيل، وأخيرًا اكتشفت الإسلام«.
16. ج.و. لوفجروف (إنجلترا) J.W. Lovegrove
»لا نعلم إلاّ القليل النّادر عن الدّيانات الأخرى، من حيث تعاليمها الأصليّة؛ إذ لم يصلنا عنها إلاّ روايات متناثرة تضمّ قليلاً من المبادئ الأخلاقيّة، وهي مبادئ أصليّة لا يصحّ الاعتراض عليها، وسيرة أصحاب هذه الرّسالات يكتنفها كثير من الغموض، ممّا لا يساعدنا على استقراء تعاليمهم، على ضوء أعمالهم و تصرّفاتهم… كنت أبحث عن دين عملي بسيط، وخال من الفلسفات المعقّدة ويقنعني دون إلغاء عقلي، أنّ أداء حقّ الله هو ولا شـــكّ – يجب أن يكون – الهدف الأوّل لجميع الأديان، ولكنّ الإسلام هو الذي وضع هذا المبدأ موضع التّطبيق العمليّ «.
17. محمود جونار إيركسون (السّويد) Mahmud Gunnar Erikson
» إنّ ما أعجبني في الإسلام – وما زال يعجبني – هو أسلوبه المنطقيّ، فلا يطلب إليك الإيمان بشيء قبل أن تدركه وتعرف أسبابه، وناحية أخرى في الإسلام أعجبتني، هي عالميّته، فالقرآن الكريم لا يحدّثنا عن الله على أنّه ربّ العرب، أو أي شعب بذاته بين الشّعوب كلاّ، بل وليس على أنّه ربّ هذه الدّنيا، ولكن على أنّه ربّ العالمين، بينما تتحدّث الكتب السّابقة عن إله بني إسرائيل( ) «.
18. مافيز. ب. جولي (إنجلترا) Mavis. B. Jolly
»كان مولدي في بيئة مسيحيّة، وتعميدي في الكنيسة الإنجليزيّة، ثمّ التحقت بمدرسة تابعة للكنيسة، وقرأت في سنّ مبكّرة قصّة المسيح، كما جاءت في الإنجيل.. وأعتقد أنّني كنت في تلك السّنوات القليلة، مسيحيّة متحمّسة، ومع تقدّمي في الدّراسة واستمرار اتّصالي بالإنجيل وكلّ ما يتعلّق بالمسيحيّة اتّسعت أمامي فرصة التّفكير فيما قرأت وشاهدت وفيما مارست من عبادة وعقيدة، وسرعان ما وجدتني أمام أشياء كثيرة لا أستطيع الاقتناع بها، وما إن وصلت إلى نهاية هذه المرحلة الدّراسيّة حتّى أصبحت ملحدة لا أؤمن بالدّين ثمّ شرعت أدرس الأديان الرّئيسيّة الأخرى في العالم، "اليهوديّة والبوذيّة ثمّ الإسلام"، ومن ثمّ بدأت نفسي تطمئنّ إلى الحقّ الذي جاءت به تعاليم الإسلام فأعلنت إيماني به واعتناقي إيّاه، ليس عن عاطفة خاطفة مؤقّتة إلى حين، إنّما عن اقتناع كامل ودراسة واعية طويلة وتفكير دائب قرابة عامين، ولم أجد أمامي إلاّ أن أسلك هذا السّبيل، طارحة كلّ العواطف الأخرى التي كانت تشدّني إلى الطّريق المضاد«.
19. علي سلمان بنوا (فرنسا) Ali Selman Benoit طبيب
»أنا دكتور في الطبّ وأنتمي إلى أسرة فرنسيّة كاثوليكيّة، وقد كان اختياري لهذه المهنة أثره في انطباعي بطابع الثّقافة العلميّة البحتة، وهي لا تؤهّلني كثيرًا للنّاحية الرّوحيّة، ولا يعني هذا أنّني لم أكن أعتقد في وجود إله، إلاّ أنّني أقصد أنّ الطّقوس الدّينيّة المسيحيّة عمومًا والكاثوليكيّة بصفة خاصّة، لم تكن تبعث في نفسي الإحساس بوجوده، وعلى ذلك فقد كان شعوري الفطريّ بوحدانيّة الله يحول بيني وبين الإيمان بعقيدة التّثليث، وبالتّالي بعقيدة تأليه عيسى المسيح؛ لهذا فإنّني أعتبر أنّ الإيمان بعالم الغيب وما وراء المادّة هو الذي جعلني أدين بالإسلام، على أنّ هناك أسبابًا أخرى حفّزتني لذلك أيضًا، منها مثلاً، أنّني كنت لا أستسيغ دعوى القساوسة الكاثوليك أنّ من سلطانهم مغفرة ذنوب البشر نيابة عن الله، ومنها أنّني لا أصدّق مطلقًا ذلك الطّقس الكاثوليكيّ عن العشاء الربّاني والخبز المقدّس، الذي يمثّل جسد المسيح عيسى، ذلك الطقس الطّوطميّ الذي يماثل ما كانت تؤمن به العصور الأولى البدائيّة، حيث كانوا يتّخذون لهم شعارًا مقدّسًا يحرم عليهم الاقتراب منه ثمّ يلتهمون جسد هذا الطقس بعد موته حتّى تسري فيهم روحه«.
20. مؤمن عبد الرزّاق صلاح (سيلان) Mumin Abdul – Razzaque Salah
»أشعر بمحبّة الإسلام، لما لمست فيه من استقامة نبيلة وخلّوه من الغموض، إنّه دين النّظافة واليسر.. قرأت شيئًا من سور القرآن الكريم، فإذا العجب يتملّكني، كنت فيما مضى أرى أنّه لا شيء يداني الإنجيل، فإذا بي أراني كنت على خطأ عظيم، ليس من شكّ في أنّ القرآن الكريم يشعّ فيه الحقّ، وأنّ تعاليمه إيجابيّة عمليّة، وخالية من الطّقوس والعقائد الغامضة… وقد أقنعني بالإسلام فوق ذلك خلّوه من التّعقيدات فهو مثاليّ وعمليّ، وهو دين العقل والقدرة على التطوّر، وهو كذلك مثاليّ في عقيدة وحدانية الله وفي نواحيه الرّوحيّة، وبهذا فهو الدّين الوحيد الذي تصلح به البشريّة جميعًا؛ لأنّه عمليّ في نظريّاته ومعتقداته، ولأنّه منطقيّ ومتجدّد تجدّد الحياة«.
21. عبد الله يومورا (اليابان) Abdulah Uemura
»كنت أبحث عن الحقيقة فوجدت ضالّتي في الإسلام، أما المسيحيّة أو بالأحرى أناجيلها – بوضعها الرّاهن – فليست على نفس نقائها الذي نزلت عليه من عند الله، بل تعرّضت للتّبديل مرّة تلو أخرى… وأكثر الأمور ارتباكًا في المسيحيّة هي عقيدة التّثليث التي يجب الإيمان بها دون إدراك ماهيّتها؛ لأنّها ليس لها تفسير تقبله العقول.
ومن المستغرب – إلى جوار ذلك – أن نسمع أنّ جزاء الآثمين هو الموت الأبديّ، ويدخل في ذلك غير المسيحيّين بطبيعة الحال؛ لأنّهم في نظر المسيحيّة الآثمون بعدم إيمانهم بتعاليمها، ولو أنّ الآثمين اقتنعوا بأبديّة موتهم لكان ردّ الفعل الطّبيعيّ عندهم أن ينغمسوا في رذائلهم، وملذّاتهم إمعانًا في إرضاء شهواتهم، قبل انتهاء أجلهم، لأنّ الموت في نظرهم هو نهاية النّهاية«.
هذه بعض الشّهادات التي اخترتها، والتي دار حديث أصحابها في معظمه حول النّصرانيّة ومصادمتها للعقل والمنطق، واقتناعهم بالإسلام الواضح والخالي من جميع التّعقيدات والمستحيلات العقليّة، وقد وردت أكثر التّصريحات التي نقلتها في الكتب والمقالات والمقابلات التي كتبها أصحاب هذه الشّهادات، وجُمع بعضها في كتاب (لماذا أسلمنا؟).
فهل تسير على هدي هؤلاء الذين نجوا من الضّلال والحيرة، أم أنّك تصرّ على إلغاء عقلك وتعيش بين الإيمان والإلحاد حائرًا، شاكًّا، إلى أن يدركك الموت؟.
خـــاتمة
ثمّة قضيّة أرى من الضّروريّ التّنبيه عليها في هذه الخاتمة، وهي أنّ رجال الدّين النّصارى كثيرًا ما يقولون عقب حديثهم عن الثّالوث والخطيئة والكفّارة وموت الإله وقيامته وصلبه.. إنّها حقائق لا يستطيع العقل البشريّ إدراكها، لأنّها تتجاوز قدرته على ذلك، وعدم إدراكه لها لا ينفي صحّتها وصدقها!
وهذا المنطق الكنسيّ لا يستقيم؛ إذ يجب التّفريق بين "ما لا يدركه العقل"، و"ما لا يقبله العقل"، وهما أمران مختلفان تمامًا، فإذا كنّا نسلّم أنّ العقل البشريّ محدود فإنّه لا يكفر بما هو غير مدرك وغير ممتنع عقلاً، فمثلاً قد نؤمن بوجود ملائكة أو جنّة أو نار مع أنّنا لا ندركها بحواسّنا وعقولنا، والسّبب أنّ تلك الأمور ممّا لا يمتنع وجوده، فهو يدخل في باب الجائز عقلاً وشرعًا، لكن هل ينطبق ذلك على عقائد غيبيّة غير مدركة وممتنعة عقلاً وشرعًا كتلك التي تقول إنّ الإله مات ! أو أنّه واحد وثلاث ! أو إنّ الله يلعن البشريّة جميعًا لذنب لم تقترفه، أو إنّ اليهود صلبوا أحد الأقانيم، أو إنّ الربّ القاهر تلقّى اللّكمات والبصقات والإهانات!!
لا شكّ أنّ هذا كلّه ممتنع في العقول، لأنّ تلك العقول لها منطق يقرّر أنّ الله واحد، عادل، عظيم، قاهر، قويّ، جبّار… لا يصلح ولا يمكن ولا ينبغي ومن المستحيل أن يهان أو يقتل أو يسفك دمه على أيد رخيصة، فالمنطق العقليّ قد يقبل ما هو جائز حدوثه في عالم الغيبيّات، لكنّه يمتنع عن التّصديق بالممنوع حدوثه، وذلك المنطق العقليّ السّليم مغروز في فطرة كلّ إنسان.
ثمّ إنّ الزّعم بأنّ الشّرع لا يفهم بالعقل بل بالتّسليم له دون إعمال العقل لإدراكه والوصول إلى مراد الله به، زعم باطل، لأنّ الله لا يكلّف النّاس الإيمان بما هو خارج عمّا يقدر العقل على استيعابه، والله لا يكلّف النّفس إلاّ وسعها، والتّكليف مناط بالاستطاعة سواء كان التّكليف بالعبادات البدنيّة أو الرّوحيّة أو العقليّة.
كما أنّ الله لا يكلّف الإنسان صيام الشّهور دون إفطار، أو القيام والصّلاة دون نوم ولا انقطاع لعدم قدرة البشر على تحمل ذلك، فمن باب أولى أنّه لا يكلّفه التّصديق بما لا يصدّق أو الاعتقاد بما لا يدخل في دائرة التصوّر والخيال فضلاً عن دائرة الوجود والواقع، خصوصًا إذا كان ما أمر الإيمان به يناقض الكتب السّماويّة والمراجع الدّينيّة.
أمّا الذين يتبعون الهوى بعد كلّ هذا، ويصرّون على إلغاء عقولهم فكأنّما يتراجعون إلى مستويات أدنى من الإنسانيّة، ولننظر إلى حكمة الله في إسقاط التّكليف عن المجنون والنّائم والصبيّ الصّغير… إنّ هؤلاء جميعًا – وبالأخصّ المجنون – لا يملكون أدوات التلقّي التي يستقبلون بها رسالة الله المتمثّلة في تعاليمه، ومن – ثمّ بلا شكّ – لا يستطيعون إدراكها وفهمها والعمل بمقتضاها، ولذلك انتفى عنهم التّكليف لانتفاء العقل كلّيًّا أو جزئيًّا، وحين يلغي العاقل عقله، فكأنّما يخرج نفسه من زمرة العقلاء إلى زمرة غير العقلاء من أمثال المجانين والمهابيل والصّبيان الرضّع!!.
والذي يجب معرفته وعدم الغفلة عنه، هو أنّ الأديان السّماويّة جميعها اتّفقت على تمجيد العلم والإعلاء من شأنه، ودعوة الأديان إلى العلم والحرص على تحصيله يتنافى مع الأسرار والألغاز؛ فليس من المقبول الآن أن يدّعي القساوسة – أدعياء العلم – أنّ الجهل هو السّبيل الوحيد لدرء الهلاك الأبديّ عن البشر.
وها هو الإسلام يرفع من قيمة العلم والعلماء ومن الفكر والمفكّرين، ويجعل التأمّل في النّفس والكون والتّاريخ وملكوت الله عبادة يؤجر عليها الأفراد، وكم هي كثيرة مصطلحات العلم ومشتقّاته في القرآن الكريم، وما أكثر مفاهيم البحث والنّظر "يعقلون، يتدبّرون، ينظرون، يتفكّرون، يفقهون… إلخ"، فشتّان بين دين يدعو إلى احترام العلم والعمليّات العقليّة، ودين يقتل الفكر ويرفع شعار "الجهالة أم التّقوى" و"الغباوة أم اليقين".
لا شكّ أنّك أيّها القارئ الفطن، لاحظت فيما قرأت في هذا الكتيّب المتواضع جدًّا، كثرة النّقول من الكتاب المقدّس بعهديه القديم والجديد، ووفرة الاقتباسات من الأدبيّات الغربيّة، والعديد من تلك الأدبيّات يرجع أصلها إلى كٌتّاب نصارى، أو ممّن خبروها وتخلّوا عنها، وإنّ هذا المسلك الذي تبنيّته في إقامة الحجّة ينطبق تمامًا على قول المسيح : (من فمك أدينك)، فلم أعتمد في دراستي على القرآن الكريم أو أركن لرأي علماء الإسلام إلاّ على سبيل الاستئناس، لا الاعتضاد والاستدلال، توخيًّا للموضوعيّة وابتعادًا عن الذّاتيّة، وهذا المنهج في عرض الحقائق لا يدع مجالاً للقارئ النّصرانيّ الموضوعي أن يتهرب أو يُغمض عينيه أمام هذا الكم الهائل من الأدلّة والبراهين، أو على الأقلّ التّساؤلات والإشكاليّات المطروحة في ثنايا هذا البحث، والتي تثبت بالنّقل والعقل أنّ الأناجيل الحاليّة و النّصرانيّة المعاصرة، التي يدعو إليها المبشّرون ويتحمّس لها المنصّرون، لا تتّفق مع الدّين الصّحيح الذي أُنزل على المسيح قبل ألفي عام.
إنّ كلّ ما في الأمر أنّ عقائد النّصرانيّة من تثليث، وخطيئة، وكفّارة، وصلب الإله، وقيامته...، هي من اختلاق الوثنيّين الأوائل الذين دخلوا في النّصرانيّة - أمثال بولس - وما لبثت أن قاومتها عقول البشر وفطر النّاس، لكن تدخّل أباطرة الرّومان وكيد المنافقين جعلها المنتصرة على الحقّ إلى أن ظهر الإسلام فكشف زيفها وفضح انحرافها واعوجاجها، فلله الحمد والمنّة.
ونعود ونقول بعد هذا، لم يعد مقبولاً لدى كلّ من يفكّر أو يعقل، القول بأنّ النّصرانيّة - بما تتضمّنه من عقائد لا تمّت إلى الحقّ والصّواب والمنطق بصلة - ديانة موحى بها من الله، ولا يمكن البتّة الإيمان بدين 99% منه أسرار وألغاز؛ لأنّ الدّين أيًّا كان يجب أن يكون – بل محكوم عليه أن يكون – واضحًا وضوح، وإلاّ كان عدمه أفضل من وجوده؛ ذلك أنّ الإنسان منذ أن وُجد على ظهر هذا الكوكب وهو يبحث عن ماهيّته وجوهره ومصيره، ويروم الإجابة عن أسئلة طالما حيّرته.. من أين جاء؟ ولماذا جاء؟ وكيف جاء؟ وإلى أين مصيره بعد الموت؟.. إنّها حقًّا أسئلة كبيرة، ومحيّرة ومقلقة، تحتاج إلى قوّة عظمى تملك الإجابة الشّافية عنها… فهل قدّمت النّصرانيّة تلك الأجوبة المنشودة!؟.
لا أظنّ ذلك، بل العكس هو الذي حدث، فجميع الذين علّقوا آمالهم عليها ومنحوا ثقتهم العمياء لها رجعوا بخفّي حنين، عادوا أشدّ حيرة وقلقًا ممّا كانوا عليه، من جهة بسبب ما طرحته تلك الدّيانة من تعاليم غامضة، ومن جهة أخرى بما أحدثته من شرخ في البناء الفطريّ والفكريّ للإنسان.
لقد آن الأوان لتعود فلول النّصارى إلى رشدها وتصحّح مسيرتها وتعتنق الفطرة، وتصالحها بعدما جافتها وعادتها كلّ هذه المدّة.
فطرة الله التي فطر النّاس عليها لا تبديل لخلق الله الرّوم 30.
إنّي وجّهت وجهي للذي فطر السّماوات والأرض حنيفًا وما أنا من المشركين الأنعام 79.
ومالي لا أعــبد الذي فطرني وإلـــيه ترجعـــون يس 22.
قل يا أهل الكتـاب تعالوا إلى كلمة ســـواء بيننا وبينكم ألاّ نعــبد إلاّ الله ولا نشرك به شيئًا ولا يتّـــخذ بعضنا بعضًا أربابًا مـن دون الله فإن تولّوا فقـولوا اشهدوا بأنّا مسلمـــون آل عمـران 64.
وبعد، فلقد حاولت أن أقدّم صورة واضحة عن مغالطات النّصارى وبعض معتقداتهم، وأرجو من الله أن أكون وفّقت في مقصدي، فإن كان هذا فللّه وحده الحمد والمنّة، وإن كانت الأخرى فحسبي أنّي قدّمت جهدي – وهو جهد المقلّ – ولم أدّخر منه شيئًا، وجزى الله كلّ من ساهم معي في إخراج هذا الكتيّب إلى حيز الوجود، وحتّى لا أتشبّع بما لم أعط أقول جزى الله كذلك كلّ من استفدت من كتاباته باقتباس أو نقل ولم أشر إلى مرجعه.
وسبحانك اللّهمّ و بحمدك أشهد ألاّ إله إلاّ أنت أستغفرك وأتوب إليك.
إعداد يزيد حمزاوي
Y_hamzaoui@hotmail.com
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((خرافة نقل جبل المقطم.))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
القصة باختصار أن الخليفة الفطمي المعز لدين الله تحدى الأقباط أن ينقلوا جبل المقطم , لأنه حسب إحدى فقرات الإنجيل أن المسيح عليه السلام قال لهم لو عندكم إيمان تستطيعون نقل الجبال , فاجتمع بعض النصارى وتلوا صلوات فانتقل المقطم أمام أعين السلطان , فترك السلطان المعز لدين الله الإسلام ودخل في المسيحية .
(لاحظ المكتوب باللون الأحمر في القصة, فهو إما متروك لفهم القارئ أو سيتم الرد عليه ).
حسب المصادر المسيحية , تبدأ وقائع القصة, والتي يتبناها ويصدقها الأرثوذكس فقط كما يلي:
في القرن العاشر الميلادي في عهد الخليفة الفاطمي المُعز لدين الله (952-975) والبطريرك القبطي أبرآم السرياني (البطريرك الثاني والستين—975-978). كان المسئول على جباية الخراج رجل يدعى يعقوب بن كلس الذي تحوّل من اليهودية إلى الإسلام حتى يحصل على منصب عالي في الحكومة. كان يعقوب يمقت المسيحية والمسيحيين. قد حاول أن يثبت أن المسيحية ديانة كاذبة وباطلة.
دخل الوزير اليهودى عند المعز وقال : " مكتوب فى إنجيل النصارى: من كان فيه إيمان مثل حبة خردل فإنه يقول للجبل إنتقل وإسقط فى البحر فيفعل والنص الإنجبلى هو: لو كان لكم إيمان مثل حبة خردل لكنتم تقولون لهذا الجبل إنتقل من هنا إلى هناك فينتقل ( متى 17 : 20 "فَالْحَقَّ أَقُولُ لَكُمْ: لَوْ كَانَ لَكُمْ إِيمَانٌ مِثْلُ حَبَّةِ خَرْدَلٍ لَكُنْتُمْ تَقُولُونَ لِهَذَا الْجَبَلِ: انْتَقِلْ مِنْ هُنَا إِلَى هُنَاكَ فَيَنْتَقِلُ وَلاَ يَكُونُ شَيْءٌ غَيْرَ مُمْكِنٍ لَدَيْكُمْ". )) فليرى أمير المؤمنين رأيه فى مطالبتهم بتنفيذ هذا القول لأنه من المستحيل أن يتم هذا وإنه كذب فإن هم لم يفعلوا فلنفعل بهم ما يستحقوه على إيمانهم الكاذب " فلنختبر النصارى بهذا القول ولنا فى ذلك إحدى فائدتين فإن صح زعمهم به فهذا جبل مكتنف القاهرة سمى فيما بعد بالمقطم (تذكر مخطوطة بدير الأنبا أنطونيوس , أن جبل المقطم سُمى بذلك لأن سطحه كان متساوياً أى متصلاً فأصبح بعد نقله ثلاث قطع واحده خلف الأخرى ويفصل بينهما مسافة لهذا سمى بالمقطم أو المقطع أو المقطب) , وإذا إبتعد عنها كان هوائها أنقى ومناخها أجمل ونكسب مكاناً نبنى فوقه المدينه ونوسعها , وإن لم يصح كان المسلمون أولى بمساكن هؤلاء الكفرة والإستيلاء على أملاكهم وإذا طردناهم ومحونا أثرهم من الوجود ويبقى لا ذنب علينا من قبل الله .
فوافقه المعز وأرسل فى طلب الأنبا أبرآم البطريرك وقال له : " ماذا تقول فى هذا الكلام , هو فى إنجيلكم أم لا ؟ " فقال البطريرك : " نعم هو فيه " قال له : " هوذا أنتم نصارى ألوف ألوف وربوات ربوات فى هذه البلاد وأريد أن تحضر لى واحد منهم تظهر هذه الآية على يدية وأنت يا مقدمهم ( رئيسهم ) يجب أن يكون فيك هذا الفعل وإلا أفنيكم وأمحيكم بالسيف أو أمامك ثلاثه لتختار إما قبول الإسلام أنت والنصارى أو هجر البلاد ( طرد الأقباط من البلاد) أو نقل جبل الشرقى ( سمى بعد ذلك بالمقطم ) " .
حينئذ ذهل البطرك وخاف خوفاً عظيماً ولم يدرى بماذا يجيبه وألهمة الرب فقال : " إمهلنى ثلاثة أيام حتى أبحث وأطلب من الرب إله السماء أن يطيب ويسر قلب أمير المؤمنين على عبيده " .. وعاد البابا إلى منزلة بمصر وأحضر الكهنة والآراخنة بمصر وجميع الشعب القبطى وعرفهم ما حدث وهو يبكى .
وجزع النصارى لهذا النبأ ولبس كبارهم وصغارهم المسوح وفرشوا الرماد وذروا التراب على رؤوسهم وصرخ الشيوخ والأطفال إلى الرب وألقت الأمهات المرضعات صغارهن بلا رضاعة أمام الكنائس وصعد العويل والصراخ إلى الرب من كل حدب وصوب (الخريده النفيسه فى تاريخ الكنيسة للأسقف الأنبا إيسوزورس طبع القاهره 1923 الجزء الثانى ص 246).
أما البطريرك صام صوماً إنقطاعياً فى الكنيسة المعلقة ولم يفطر طيلة النهار من الليل إلى الليل يأكل خبزاً وملحاً وماء يسير وظل واقفاً فى صلاه يبكى وتنهمر دموعه بين يدى الرب كل تلك الأيام ولياليها وفقد القوة على الحركة ولكنه جاهد فى الصلاه أكثر وفى صباح اليوم الثالث سقط البطرك القديس على الأرض من تعبه وحزن قلبه وصيامه الشديد وغفى غفوه قصيرة فرأى السيدة العذراء الطاهرة مريم وهى تقول له بوجه فرح: " ما الذى أصابك " .. فقال لها : " أنظرى حزنى يا سيدتى فإن ملك هذه الأرض هددنى قائلاً إن لم تفعل آية ومعجزة وتنقل جبل سأقتل جميع النصارى فى مصر وأبيدهم من خلافتى جميعاً بحد السيف " .. فقالت له السيدة العذراء :" لا تخاف فإنى نظرت إلى دموعك التى ذرفتها وسكبتها فى كنيستى هذه , قم الآن وأترك المكان وأخرج من باب درب الحديد الذى يؤدى إلى السوق الكبير وفيما أنت خارج ستجد إنسان على كتفه جرة مملوءه ماء وستعرفة من علامته أنه بعين واحدة فإمسكه فهو الذى سوف تظهر عليه العلامه على يديه " فإستيقظ البطريرك فى الحال وهو مرتعب وكان جالساً على الأرض فنهض بسرعة ولم يدع أحد يعلم بإستيقاظه وخروجه وذهب فى الطريق الذى ذكرته السيدة العذراء حتى وصل إلى الباب فوجده مغلقاً فشك فى قلبه وقال : " اظن أن الشيطان لعب بى " ثم دعا البواب ففتح له فأول من دخل من الباب كان هو الرجل الذى ذكرت علامته السيدة العذراء له فمسكه وظل يربطه بعلامة الصليب قائلاً : " من جهه الرب , إرحم هذا الشعب ثم أخبره ما حدث فى إجتماعهم بالكنيسة المعلقه "
فقال له الرجل : " إغفر لى يا أبى فإنى إنسان خاطئ ولم أبلغ هذا الحد ( يقصد من القداسة ) " وعندما قال له ذلك اخبره البطريرك بما قالته السيدة العذراء مريم عند ظهورها له ثم قال له ما صناعتك وعملك...
وبعد أن قص عليه قصته قال سمعان الخراز : الذى أقوله لك إفعله أخرج أنت وكهنتك وشعبك كله إلى الجبل الذى يقول لك الملك عنه ومعكم الأناجيل والصلبان والمجامر والشمع الكبير وليقف الملك وعسكره والمسلمين فى جانب وأنت وشعبك فى الجانب الآخر وأنا خلفك واقف فى وسط الشعب بحيث لا يعرفنى احد وإقرأ أنت وكهنتك وصيحوا قائلين : "كيرياليصون" ... "كيرياليصون" , ( تعنى يارب إرحم ) ساعة طويلة ثم إصدر أمراً بالسكوت والهدوء وتسجد ويسجدون كلهم معك وأنا أسجد معكم من غير أن يعرفنى أحد وإفعل هكذا ثلاث مرات وكل مرة تسجد وتقف ثم تصلب على الجبل فسترى مجد الرب " . فلما قال هذا القول هدأت نفس البطريرك بما سمعه .
وجمع البطريرك الشعب وذهبوا إلى الخليفة المعز وقالوا له : " أخرج إلى الجبل " فأمر جميع عساكره ومشيريه وحكماؤه ووزراؤه وكتبته وجميع موظفين الدولة بالخروج وضربت الأبواق وخرج الخليفه ورجاله وفى مقدمتهم موسى اليهودى .. وفعل البابا كما قال سمعان الدباغ ووقف المعز ورجاله فى جانب وجميع النصارى فى جانب آخر ووقف سمعان الرجل السقى خلف البطرك بثيابه الرثه ولم يكن فى الشعب يعرفه إلا البطرك وحده وصرخوا "كيرياليصون" ... "كيرياليصون" (يارب إرحم ) مرات كثيرة ثم أمرهم البابا بالسكوت وسجد على الأرض وسجدوا جميعا معه ثلاث مرات وكل مره يرفع راسه يصلب على الجبل كان الجبل يرتفع عن الأرض وظهرت الشمس من تحته فإذا سجدوا نزل الجبل وإلتصق بالأرض وحدثت زلزله إرتجت لها كل جهات الأرض – فخاف المعز خوفاً عظيماً وصاح المعز ورجاله : " الله أكبر لا إله غيرك " وطلب المعز من البطرك أن يكف عن ذلك لئلا تنقلب المدينة رأساً على عقب ثم قال المعز بعد ثالث مرة يا بطرك عرفت أن دينكم هو الصحيح بين الأديان فلما سكن الناس وهدأوا إلتفت البابا خلفه يبحث عن سمعان الدباغ الرجل القديس فلم يجده , ثم قال المعز للبطرك أنبا أفرآم : " تمنى أى أمنية " فقال البابا : " أتمنى أن يثبت الرب دولتك ويعطيك النصر على أعدائك " وسكت البطرك فكرر المعز ما قاله ثلاث مرات وأخيراً قال : " لا بد أن تتمنى على شئ , فقال البطرك إذا كان لا بد فأنا أسأل مولانا أن يأمر إن أمكن من بناء كنيسة الشهيد العظيم ابو مرقورة فى مصر القديمة لأنها لما هدموها لم يكن بإمكاننا أن نبنيها مرة أخرى وحولوها شونة قصب – والمعلقة بقصر الشمع إنهدمت حوائطها وظهرت الشروخ فيها فطلب الإذن بترميمها وإعادة ما تهدم منها " فأمر المعز فى الحال بأن يكتب سجل ( أمر مكتوب من الخليفة) بالتصريح له بذلك .
وقد أكد أبو المكارم حادثة إعادة بناء الكنائس السابقة فى زمن الخليفة المعز لدين الله الفاطمى أما جاك تاجر فى كتابه أقباط ومسلمون: " ويؤكد المؤرخون النصارى أن المعجزه حدثت بالفعل ( هامش الموضوع : لا يؤمن رينودو بهذه المعجزة , وهو يلاحظ أن مكين النصرانى والمقريزى إمتنعا عن الإشارة إلى هذا الحادث .) وأن الخليفة أبدى دهشته وأمر بإعادة بناء جميع الكنائس المخربة ثم أرسل فى طلب كبار الأقباط والعلماء المسلمين وأمر بقراءة الإنجيل والقرآن أمامه , ولما إستمع إلى النصين , ما كان منه إلا أن أمر بهدم المسجد القائم أمام كنيسة أبو شنودة وبناء كنيسة مكانه وتوسيع كنيسة أبى سيفين
ومن أسباب السلام الذى حل على الكنيسة هو ما قيل عن الخليفة المعز نفسه (20) , كما ذكر الفريد بتلر - ص 78 ، ص 79 : " سمع الخليفة المعز مؤسس القاهرة كثيرا عن حياة النصارى الروحية وعن إخلاصهم ليسوع وعن الأمور العجيبة التي يحويها كتابهم المقدس فأرسل لكبيرهم وأرسل لكبير الشيوخ وأمر بإجراء تلاوة رسمية للإنجيل ثم للقرآن وبعد أن سمع كلاهما بعناية شديدة قال بمنتهي العزم - محمد مفيش - أي بما بمعناه لا شئ وامر بتوسيع كنيسة أبي سيفين وهدم المسجد الذي أمامها وزاد على ذلك بأنه تعمد في كنيسة القديس يوحنا "
تكمل المصادر المسيحية القصة بأن الأنبا ساويرس مات بالسم عام 970 كما يلي :
الأنبا ساويرس إحتمل المشاق من أجل محاربه الفواحش والتسرى بالجوارى بين الأقباط وضحى بحياته فى سبيل مقاومة الميسارين ومن الذين لم ينجح معهم بنصائحه وتهديداته فإن إنسان قبطى من الأراخنة إسمه أبى سرور الكبير كان على علاقة بكبار رجال الدولة أبى أن يصدع لأوامره ويخضع لناموس الإنجيل الذى يحرم تعدد الزوجات وكان له سرارى كثيرة فطلب منه ألا يضاجعهم وإستمر يرعى البغى والطغيان ولم يفعل فحرمه ومنعه من القربان ومنعه من دخول الكنيسة فتحايل ومكر ودعاه لمنزله بحجه كونه يريد أن يتوب عن فعلته الشنعاء ويطرد البغى من عنده ويكتفى بحلاله حتى سقاه شيئاً به سم ومن ذلك الوقت إعتلت صحته وقضى نحبه ومضى إلى الرب بسلام فى 6 كيهك سنة 970م وايد الحدث السابق الأنبا يوساب اسقف فوه وهو من آباء القرن 12 (تاريخ الاباء البطاركة للأنبا يوساب أسقف فوه من آباء القرن 12 أعده للنشر للباحثين والمهتمين بالدراسات القبطية الراهب القس صموئيل السريانى والأستاذ نبيه كامل ص 83)– وإستمر على كرسى رئاسة الكهنوت ثلاث سنين وستة أيام وبكاه الناس أقباطا ومسلمين .
وتبين المصادر المسيحية اعمال البطريرك , الذي فرض على الأقباط صوم ثلاثة أيام , لا يزالون يصومونهم تقربا" إلى الرب, بما بما لم يأمر به الله فتقول :
لما حل الصوم الكبير صام شعب الكنيسة القبطية جمعة هرقل التى إنفرد بصومها الأقباط (لخريده النفيسه فى تاريخ الكنيسه للأسقف الأنبا إيسوزورس) عن عموم المسيحيين فصامها البطرك الأنبا أبرآم الأنطاكى الأصل معهم إذ كان من غير الائق أن يفطر فى الوقت الذى فيه أولاده صائمين ولما حان صوم يونان صام البطرك فإقتدى به بنوه ومن ثم حافظت الكنيسة القبطية على هذه العادة إلى يومنا هذا .ومن مآثره أيضاً أنه أضاف ثلاثة أيام إلى صوم الميلاد بعد أن كان يصام أربعين يوماً فقط وسبب هذه الزياده الحادثة الشهيرة المتواتره والمتناقله عبر الأجيال ويحكيها الآباء لأبنائهم ومسجله فى جميع كتب التاريخ القبطى المعروفه بمعجزه نقل جبل المقطم وقد فرضها على الكنيسة حين أرغمه المعز على نقله فجعلها تذكاراً لهذه المعجزة وفريضه لكى يقى الرب الكنيسة من مثل هذه المحنة ولا يعرضها لمثلها فى المستقبل.
وقال القس المتنيح منسى يوحنا (تاريخ الكنيسه القبطيه للمتنيح القس منسى 1899- 1930م طبع على مطابع شركة تريكرومى للطباعة – مكتبة المحبة – سنة 1983 ص 377): " ومن مآثر البابا آبرام أنه أدخل فى الكنيسة القبطية فرض صوم نينوى الذى يصومه السريان وذلك لأنه لما حل أول الصوم الكبير صامت الكنيسة القبطية أسبوع هرقل فجاراهم البطريرك إذ لم يرى لائقاً أن يكون فاطراً وأولاده الأقباط صائمين ولما جاء ميعاد صوم نينوى صامه فإقتدى به بنوه ومن ثم حافظت الكنيسة القبطية على هذه العاده حتى يومنا .
تحدد المصادر المسيحية الوقت الذي حدثت فيه المعجزة فتقول :
ولكن ما هى السنة التى حدثت فيها المعجزة ؟ (سيرة القديس سمعان الخراز " الدباغ" – المؤلف والناشر – كنيسة القديس سمعان الدباغ بالمقطم – الطبعة الرابعة إبريل 1996) لإستنتاج تاريخ السنة التى حدثت فيها المعجزة نستعرض الحقائق التالية :-
حدثت المعجزة فى عهد الأنبا أبرآم الذى جلس على كرسى مار مرقس الرسول فيما بين عامى 975م- 979م .. لأنه رُسِمَ بطريركاً سنة 975م وتنيح سنة 979م , لابد أن تكون المعجزه حدثت فى سنة تجديد كنيسة أبى سيفين لأن تجديد هذه الكنيسة كانت نتيجة من نتاج هذه المعجزة ..إذاً فالسنة التى حدثت فيها المعجزة هى السنة التى تم فيها تجديد كنيسة أبى سيفين والثابت فى كتب التاريخ أن إعادة بناء كنيسة أبى سيفين قد حدث سنة 979م .
وقد نشر شخصا" اسمه " واصف سميكة باشا " مؤسس المتحف القبطي في حصن بابليون بمصر القديمة هذه الخرافة في جريدة الأهرام العدد الصادر 8 أغسطس 1931م , وقد استقى معلوماته من كتاب ألفريد بتلر ومن كتاب الخريدة النفيسة في تاريخ الكنيسة ( وهما الذان نقلا عن مذكرات أحد الرهبان عن الموضوع ) .
فقال : " إن المعز بعد حادث جبل المقطم تخلى عن كرسي الخلافة لإبنه "العزيز" وتنصر ولبس زي الرهبان وقبره إلى الآن في كنيسة أبي سيفين " .
وكما ذكرنا جاء في كتاب ( الفريد بتلر - ص 78 ، ص 79 ).
سمع الخليفة المعز مؤسس القاهرة كثيرا عن حياة النصارى الروحية وعن إخلاصهم ليسوع وعن الأمور العجيبة التي يحويها كتابهم المقدس فأرسل لكبيرهم وأرسل لكبير الشيوخ وأمر بإجراء تلاوة رسمية للإنجيل ثم للقرآن وبعد أن سمع كلاهما بعناية شديدة قال بمنتهي العزم - محمد مفيش - أي بما بمعناه لا شئ وامر بتوسيع كنيسة أبي سيفين وهدم المسجد الذي أمامها وزاد على ذلك بأنه تعمد في كنيسة القديس يوحنا "
الملاحظات على الموضوع حسب رواية الكنيسة :
1- جبل المقطم لم يسمى بهذا الاسم قبل الواقعة.
2- الواقعة حدثت أمام الآلاف من الناس وكان الجبل يرتفع وتظهر الشمس من تحته .
3- الواقعة حدثت 979 ميلادي وحضرها المعز لدين الله الفاطمي , وتنصر بعدها.
4- الواقعة ذكرها المؤرخ الفريد بتلر.
وسنبين بعون الله تعالى, خطأ كل النقاط السابقة, التي لو اكتفينا ببيان خطأ واحد , لتهدمت الرواية , ولكن بعون الله تعالى سنبين العديد من أخطاء الخرافة .
كما يتبين من القصة السابقة ما يلي :
1- موت البابا مسموما" , مخالفا" ( مرقس 16 : 17 وهذه الآيات تتبع المؤمنين.يخرجون الشياطين باسمي ويتكلمون بألسنة جديدة. 18 يحملون حيّات وان شربوا شيئا مميتا لا يضرهم........).
2- تشريعات الصيام والعبادة من صنع الآباء وليست أوامر إلهية !!.
3- الاستغاثة تمت بالسيدة العذراء والتلبية جاءت منها .
??????????????الرد
أولا" : نحن لانتحدث عن واقعة نقل كوب داخل كهف , شهدها شخص أو اثنان , نحن نتحدث عن معجزة كبيرة لنقل جبل ضخم كان يرتفع فتظهر الشمس من تحته وينتقل من مكانه إلى مكان أخر أمام عشرات الألاف من الشهود وفي وضح النهار في القرن العاشر الميلادي,
فمن الغريب أن لا نجد أي ذكر لهذه القصة إلا في مذكرات راهب واحد فقط ويتم اكتشافها بعد موته !!.
فكيف لم يذكرها مئات المؤرخين المسيحيين ومئات المؤرخين اليهود والمسلمين , أو على الأقل يوجد لها مذكرات من داخل الأديرة تؤيد الواقعة التي سبقها حزن عميق واعقبها فرح غامر .
ثانيا" : ذكرت المصادر المسيحية أن المعجزة حدثت في زمن الخليفة الفاطمي المعز عام 979 ميلادية , والخليفة المعز توفي قبل هذا التاريخ !, ويمكن مراجعة تاريخ وفاة المعز من أي مصدر تاريخي فيتبين أن الخليفة الفاطمي المعز لدين الله توفي قبل تنصره المزعوم بأربعة سنوات !!.
وهذه بعض التواريخ المهمة في حياة المعز لدين الله والخاصة بهذه الحادثة.
- ولى المعز لدين الله الخلافة الفاطمية في سنة 341هـجري الموافق 952 ميلادي خلفا لأبيه المنصور أبي طاهر إسماعيل.
- عين المعز لدين الله القائد جوهر الصقلي اشهر واكفأ قادته لفتح مصر وتم الفتح في 17 من شعبان 358هـجرية الموافق 6 يوليو 969 ميلادي.
- بعد ان استقرت الاوضاع في مصر ارسل جوهر الصقلي داعيا المعز لدين الله لمصر ووصلها في 7 من رمضان 362هـجري الموافق 11 من يونيو 972 ميلادي.
- لم يقضي المعز لدين الله سوى 3 سنوات في مصر من مجموع سنين خلافته وتوفي في 16 من ربيع الآخر 365 هـ الموافق 23 من ديسمبر 975م.
.أي توفى قبل موعد الخرافة ( 979م ) بأربعة سنوات !!.
جاء في كتاب " تاريخ مصر إلى الفتح العثماني " تأليف : عمر الإسكندري , أ . ج سفدج
" ضمن مجموعة صفحات من تاريخ مصر " نشر مكتبة مدبولي - ص214, 215
" ولي "العزيز بالله أبو منصور نزار" (365 – 36 : 975 – 996 ) , ( وهو ابن المعز لدين الله الفاطمي ) , ......كان مثل أبيه شديد التسامح مع المسيحيين وكثيرا ما كان يجلس للمناقشة في الأمور الدينية , وجدد لهم كنيسة "أبي سيفين خارج الفسطاط بعد أن كانت مستترة في شكل مخزن للبضائع .
ومن تسامحه في الدين أن كان أكبر وزرائه "يعقوب بن كلس " و"عيسى بن نطرون" والأول اسرائيلي أسلم والثاني مسيحي "
فالتجديد كان في عهد ابن المعز لدين الله وليس في عهد المعز نفسه, مما يؤكد أن كل مصادرهم وروايتهم غير صحيحة.
ثالثا" : ذكرت الخرافة أن حدوث المعجزة أدى لتسمية جبل المقطم بهذا الأسم , لأن معنى المقطم هو المقطع !!.
ولنسف هذا الزعم من أساسه، نثبت بإذن الله تعالى بالدليل القاطع أن " المقطم " عُرِف " بهذا الاسم ، قبل زمان هذه الحادثة المزعومة .
فلو كان " المقطم " سمى بذلك نتيجة لتقطيعه فى تلك الحادثة المفتراة ، لكان معنى ذلك أن الاسم لم يطلق عليه من قبل ، وإنما أطلقه الناس عليه ، لما رأوه مقطعاً بعد المعجزة.
والثابت تاريخياً أن فتح مصر بأمر المعز لدين الله الفاطمى كان سنة 358 هـ .. فلنبحث إذن عن ذكر للفظة " المقطم " كاسم لجبلنا المنشود ، على لسان أحدهم قبل سنة 358 هـ .
المثال الأول :
الجاحظ - المتوفى سنة 255 هـ .. له رسالة تسمى " البرصان والعرجان ". يقول فيها [ص 120]:
" ومن البرصان، أيمن بن خريم بن فاتك، كان عند عبد العزيز بن مروان ، فدخل عليه نصيب أبو الحجناء ، مولى بني ضمرة ، فامتدحه، فقال عبد العزيز: كيف ترى شعره؟ قال: إن كان قال هذا فليس له ثمن، وإن كان رواه قيمته كذا وكذا، فقال عبد العزيز: هو والله أشعر منك، قال: لا والله، ولكنك طرف ملول!.. قال: أنا طرفٌ ملولٌ وأنا أؤاكلك منذ كذا وكذا؟ .. وكان بأيمن بياضٌ في يده، فتركه أيمن ولحق ببشر بن مروان، وقال:
ركبت من المقطم في جمادى .. .. .. .. .. إلى بشرٍ بن مروان البريدا " ا.هـ.
المثال الثاني :
أبو الفرج الأصفهانى ، صاحب كتاب " الأغانى " ، يروى الحادثة السابقة التى رواها الجاحظ ، مسترسلاً مع بعض الأبيات ..
ركبت من المقطم في جمادى .. .. .. .. .. إلى بشر بن مروان البريدا
ولو أعطاك بشرٌ ألف ألفٍ .. .. .. .. .. رأى حقاً عليه أن يزيدا
أمير المؤمنين أقم ببشرٍ .. .. .. .. .. عمود الحق إن له عمودا
ودع بشراً يقومهم ويحدث .. .. .. .. .. لأهل الزيع إسلاماً جديدا
[الأغانى : ص 552]
أما عن " بشر " بن مروان الممدوح فى الأبيات ، فقد توفى سنة 74 هـ .
أى أن " المقطم " قد تقطم وعرف بهذا الاسم واشتهر به قبل سنة 74 هـ !
وتوفى الأصفهانى سنة 356 هـ .. والمعز الفاطمى لم يدخل مصر إلا سنة 362 هـ.
المثال الثالث :
فى نفس كتاب " الأغانى " يقول الأصفهانى :
" حمل عبد العزيز بن مروان [الحاكم] النصيب [الشاعر] بالمقطم "مقطم مصر" على بختيٍّ قد رحله بغبيطٍ فوقه، وألبسه مقطعات وشيٍ، ثم أمره أن ينشد؛ فاجتمع حوله السودان وفرحوا به، فقال لهم: أسررتكم؟ قالوا: إي والله. قال: والله لما يسوءكم من أهل جلدتكم أكثر " [ص566]
المثال الرابع :
قال أبو تمام المتوفي 281 هـ :
أَيُّ اِمرِىءٍ مِنكَ أَثرى بَينَ أَعظُمِهِ .. .. .. .. .. ثَرى المُقَطَّمِ أَو مَلحودُهُ الرَمِلُ
وقال :
بِمِصرَ وَأَيُّ مَأرُبَةٍ بِمِصرٍ .. .. .. .. .. وَقَد شَعَبَت أَكابِرَها شَعوبُ
وَوَدَّأَ سَيبَها ما وَدَّأَتهُ .. .. .. .. .. يَحابِرُ في المُقَطَّمِ بَل تُجيبُ
المثال الخامس :
قال منصور بن إسماعيل الفقيه المتوفي 306 هـ ، فى أبيات يمدح بها الشافعى رحمه الله :
أَكرِم بِه رَجُلاً ما مثله رجلٌ .. .. .. .. .. مشارِكٌ لِرَسولِ اللَّهِ في نَسَبِه
أَضحى بمصر دفينا في مقطَّمِها .. .. .. .. .. نِعم المُقَطَّم وَالمَدفون في تُربِه
المثال السادس :
قال المتنبىالمتوفي 354 هـ :
وَسَمنا بِها البَيداءَ حَتّى تَغَمَّرَت .. .. .. .. .. مِنَ النيلِ وَاِستَذرَت بِظِلِّ المُقَطَّمِ
المثال السابع :
" النجوم الزاهرة فى ملوك مصر والقاهرة " لابن تغرى بردى المتوفى سنة 874 هـ ..
ذكر أبيات قالها المسور الخولانى ، يحذر ابن عم له من مروان ، ويذكر قتل مروان ( مروان بن محمد آخر خلفاء بنى أمية توفى سنة 132 هـ ) لحفص ابن الوليد ، ورجاء بن الأشيم ، وآخرين من أشراف أهل مصر .... يقول المسور الخولانى ( في القرن الثاني الهجري ) :
وإن أمير المؤمنين مسلط .. .. .. .. .. على قتل أشراف البلاد فاعلم
فإياك لا تجني من الشر غلطة .. .. .. .. .. فتودي كحفص أو رجاء بن الأشيم
فلا خير في الدنيا ولا العيش بعدهم .. .. .. .. .. وكيف وقد أضحوا بسفح المقطم
[ج:1 ص:293]
والشاهد : أن المسور الخولانى يذكر " المقطم " كاسم لذلك الجبل الذى اشتهر بدفن الموتى به ، وهذا يثبت أن المقطم كان " مقطماً " من قبل سنة 132 هـ على الأقل !
وفى نفس الكتاب، ينشد بعض شعراء البصرة ، ليرثى إسحق بن يحيى الذى مات سنة 237 هـ :
سقى الله ما بين المقطم والصفا .. .. .. .. .. صفا النيل صوب المزن حيث يصوب
وما بى أن يسقى البلاد وإنما .. .. .. .. .. مرادى أن يسقى هناك حبيب
[النجوم الزاهرة ج:2 ص:285].
المثال الثامن :
" فتوح الشام " .. كتاب لأبى عبد الله محمد بن عمر الواقدى .. توفى سنة 207 هـ .. يروى عن ابن إسحق بسنده إلى من فوقه ، بعض الأحداث التى جرت فى فتح مصر فيقول : " ان الملك المقوقس كان من عادته أنه في شهر رمضان لا يخرج الى رعيته ، ولا يظهر لأحد من أرباب دولته ... " [ج2:ص52].....وبعد عدة صفحات يواصل الواقدى قائلاً : " قال ابن اسحق ـ رحمه الله ورضي عنه ـ : هكذا وقع له مع القبط ، وكان عمرو إذا ذكر ذلك يقول : لا والذي نجاني من القبط .. قال : وعاد الرسول وأخبر الملك بما قاله عمرو ، فعند ذلك قال [أى الملك] : أريد أن أدبر حيلة أدهمهم بها .. فقال الوزير : اعلم أيها الملك أن القوم متيقظون لأنفسهم ، لا يكاد أحد أن يصل إليهم بحيلة ، ولكن بلغني أن القوم لهم يوم في الجمعة يعظمونه كتعظيمنا يوم الأحد ، وهو عندهم يوم عظيم ، وأرى لهم من الرأي أن تكمن لهم كميناً ، مما يلي الجبل المقطم ، فاذا دخلوا في صلاتهم يأتي إليهم الكمين ، ويضع فيهم السيف ..... " [ج2:ص56]
ولا يهمنا في هذه الرواية إلا ان كل رجال السند الذين ذكروها قد توفوا قبل الحادثة المزعومة بعشرات السنين وذكروا " المقطم " في الرواية.
فالمقطم " كان علماً على ذلك الجبل الشهير ، قبل عشرات السنين من تلك الحادثة الملفقة وهو المطلوب إثباته فى هذا المقام دون سواه .
يقول الواقدى (توفى سنة 207 هـ ): " وساروا حتى قربوا من الجبل المقطم فرأوا جيش القبط .... [فتوح الشام ج:2 ص:62]
المثال التاسع :
" فتوح مصر وأخبارها " .. كتاب لأبى القاسم عبد الرحمن بن عبد الله القرشى .. توفى سنة 257 هـ .. يقول :
" حدثنا عبد الله بن صالح ، حدثنا الليث بن سعد ، قال : سأل المقوقس عمرو بن العاص أن يبيعه سفح المقطم بسبعين ألف دينار ، فعجب عمرو من ذلك ، وقال : أكتب في ذلك إلى أمير المؤمنين.... [ج:1 ص:274،275]
وفي موضع أخر : " وتوفي عمرو بن العاص يوم الفطر ، سنة ثلاث وأربعين ، وصلى عليه عبد الله بن عمرو ، ودفن بالمقطم من ناحية الفج .. يكنى أبا عبد الله ، وكان طريق الناس يومئذ إلى الحجاز ، فأحب أن يدعو له من مر به " .[فتوح مصر وأخبارها ج:1 ص:426]
المثال العاشر :
" الطبقات الكبرى " .. مختصر من كتاب الواقدى على يد كاتبه محمد بن سعد .. كانت وفاة محمد بن سعد كاتب الواقدى سنة 230 هـ .
وفي موضع أخر : .. فقدم عمرو المدينة ، فأقام بها ... ثم ولاه معاوية مصر ، فخرج إليها ، فلم يزل بها والياً ، وابتنى بها داراً ونزلها ، إلى أن مات بها يوم الفطر ، سنة ثلاث وأربعين ، في خلافة معاوية ، ودفن بالمقطم مقبرة أهل مصر وهو سفح الجبل " .[ج:7 ص:493]
بذلك يتضح أنه ذكرت العديد من المصادر أسم المقطم في القرن الأول والثاني الهجري , أي قبل الحادثة المزعومة بأكثر من مائتي عام.
ما أوردنا إلا أمثلة من أكثر من موضع وغطت الأمثلة عدة مصادر متنوعة.
وبهذا نصل إلى أن لفظة " المقطم " كانت علماً معروفاً على ذلك الجبل بمصر ، قبل عشرات السنين ـ إن لم تكن مئات ـ من حدوث تلك المعجزة المزعومة
حتى الآن وصلنا إلى :
1- وفاة المعز قبل الحادثة .
2- الحادثة غير مسجلة تاريخيا" ولم توجد إلا في مذكرات راهب .
3- المقطم كان معروفا" بهذا الاسم قبل الحادثة .
رابعا" : معنى المقطم 0
قالت الرواية أن جبل المقطم , سمي بهذا الاسم لأن المعجزة قطعته , ويكفي الرد بأن أسمه كان المقطم قبل تاريخ الخرافة , ولكن للزيادة نقدم معنى اسم المقطم .
من معانى " ق ط م " الأخرى التى صرحت بها المعاجم اللغوية :
" القطم ( بالتحريك ) : شهوة اللحم والضراب و... والقطم : الغضبان " . [لسان العرب]
يقول ياقوت الحموى : " المقطم ... الجبل المشرف على القرافة مقبرة فسطاط مصر والقاهرة ، وهو جبل يمتد من أسوان وبلاد الحبشة على شاطىء النيل الشرقي ، حتى يكون منقطعه طرف القاهرة ، ويسمى في كل موضع باسم ، وعليه مساجد وصوامع للنصارى ، لكنه لا نبت فيه ولا ماء غير عين صغيرة تنز في دير للنصارى بالصعيد ...
فالذي يتصور أن هذا اسم أعجمي , " فإن كان عربياً ، فهو من القطم ، وهو العض بأطراف الأسنان ، والقطم : تناول الحشيش بأدنى الفم ، فيجوز أن يكون المقطم : الذي قُطم حشيشه ، أي أُكل ؛ لأنه لا نبات فيه ..
" أو يكون من قولهم " فحل قطم " ، وهو شدة اغتلامه ، فشبه بالفحل الأغلم ؛ لأنه اغتلم ، أي هزل ، فلم يبق فيه دسم ، وكذلك هذا الجبل لا ماء فيه ولا مرعى ..".
" قال الهنائي : المقطم مأخوذ من القطم ، وهو القطع ، كأنه لما كان منقطع الشجر والنبات سمي مقطما .,
" وظهر لي بعد وجه آخر حسن ، وهو أن هذا الجبل كان عظيماً طويلاً ممتداً ، وله في كل موضع اسم يختص به ، فلما وصل إلى هذا الموضع قطم ، أي قطع عن الجبال ، فليس بعده إلا الفضاء " ا.هـ.
[معجم البلدان ج:5 ص:176]
وخلاصة الأمر : أن وجود القطع كأحد معانى " ق ط م " ، لا يعد دليلاً على أن إطلاق اسم " المقطم " على ذلك الجبل نسبة لما جرى له فى تلك الحادثة المزعومة .
خامسا" : الاستشهاد بكتبة ألفريد بتلر 0
ألفريد بتلر نقل واقعة نقل جبل المقطم في كتابه, ويستشهدون بألفريد بتلر كإثبات لصحة الواقعة والغريب أن : ألفريد بتلر كتب في كتابه عند سرده للواقعة : وتقول هذه ال ( ليجند Legend ) كذا وكذا .
فقام المترجم الغير أمين بترجمتها
وتقول الرواية , بدلا" من أن يترجمها وتقول الأسطورة .
فكلمة legend التي تعني أسطورة أو خرافة.
فتحول إنكار ألفريد بتلر للخرافة وتسميته لها ( خرافة أو أسطورة ) , بفضل المترجم إلى دليل على صحتها , فيقولون : "" لقد ذكرها ألفريد بتلر في كتابه "" , ولا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله .
ملاحظة: تعبير ( محمد مفيش ) من غير الممكن أن يكون أتى من شخص , يتكلم العربية , مثل الخليفة الذي كان يكتب شعرا" , فالتعبير ( محمد مفيش ) , لم يأت أو لم يؤلفه إلا ( خواجه خايب ) في اللغة العربية !!!.
سادسا" : مستندات منها :
1 - إنكار لويزا يوتشر للواقعة .
2- تعليق المترجم العربي على كتابها بعد قيامه باختصاره .
3- صورة ضؤية من مجلة الحياة القبطية , تنشر الخبر على شعب الكنيسة .
4- صورة ضؤية من حوار قامت به صفحات من مجلة الأهرام الرياضي مع راهب من دير سمعان الخراز , يحكي الواقعة ويذكر التاريخ !!0
5 – صورة من 3 مواقع على النت تسوق للموضوع ( معجزة نقل الجيل !!).
سابعا" :
نرجو تكرار الأمر , ولو على مستوى صغير . ( كوم من الزلط فقط )
نرجو البحث عن دليل علمي .
نرجو البحث عن صحة وصدق الروايات .
(((((((((((((((((((((حتى ليلى يا زكريا بطرس تكذب عليها ؟!!))))))))))))))))
بقلم: د. محمد جلال القصاص
ينقل الكذاب اللئيم زكريا بطرس عن الدكتورة عائشة بنت عبد الرحمن ( بنت الشاطئ ) من مقدمة كتابها ( نساء النبي ) ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ هذا النص
لابد لي أن أشير إلى رغبة كريمة أبداها بعض السادة القراء، ممن يؤثرون أن نطوي بعض الأخبار، عن حياة الرسول الخاصة، تعلقت بها شبهات أعداء الإسلام .غير أني في الحق ألفيت أن طي هذه الأخبار، لا تقره أمانة البحث، ولا هو من هدى القرآن الكريم، الذي حرص على أن يسجل منها ما يؤكد بشرية الرسول ... وما كان لي أن أطوي ما لم يطوه الله تعالى، عن بيت نبينا صلعم في آيات نتعبد بها ... فلم يعد يحل لدارس مسلم أن يضرب الصفح عن ذكرها .وأنا بعد لا أرى في هذه المواقف آية عظمَة في نبينا.
وهو هنا بتر النص من سياقه العام فغير المعنى ، وبالتالي تكلم على لسان الدكتورة عائشة بما لم تتكلم به ، بل وغير في النص ذاته .. وضع قلمه فيه .. . كما هي عادته مع النصوص الشرعية ، وهذا هو النص الأصلي من كتاب الدكتورة بنت الشاطئ الطبعة الثالثة عشر . تقول : ( ولا بد لي أن أشير إلى رغبة كريمة ، أبداها بعض السادة القراء ، ممن يؤثرون أن نطوي بعض أخبار عن حياة الرسول الخاصة ، تعلقت بها شبهات أعداء الإسلام .
غير أني في الحق ، ألفيت أن طي هذه الأخبار ، لا تقره أمانة البحث ، ولا هو من هدي القرآن الكريم الذي حرص على أن يسجل منها ما يؤكد بشرية الرسول ، كي يعصمنا مما تورط فيه غيرنا ، حين جردوا رسلهم من بشريتهم ، وأضفوا عليهم من صفات الألوهية ما يشوب عقيدة التوحيد التي هي جوهر الدين كله .
وما كان لي أن اطوي ما لم يطوه الله تعالى ، عن بيت نبينا ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ في آيات نتعبد بها ونتلوها قياما وقعوداً وعلى جنوبنا ، فلم يعد يحل لدارس مسلم أن يضرب الصفح عن ذكرها ، فيما يتناول من حياة النبي ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ ، وقد نزل بها الوحي في سور وآيات محكمات .
وأنا بعد لا أرى في هذه المواقف ، إلا آية عظمة في نبينا الذي استطاع وهو بشر مثلنا أن يضطلع بآخر رسالات السماء ، وأن ينقل بها الإنسانية إلى مرحلة الرشد ، ويحررها من ضلال الوثنية وشوائب الشرك ، ويقودها على مراقي طموحها إلى تحقيق وجودها الأسمى .
آية البطولة في محمد بن عبد الله ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ أنه استطاع وهو بشر مثلنا أن يدخل التاريخ كما لم يدخله سواه ، وأن يوجه سيره على امتداد الزمان والمكان منذ اصطفاه الله تعالى خاتما للنبيين عليهم السلام.
أريد لأقول : ( والكلام لبنت الشاطئ )
إنني في كل ما تناولت من حياة رسول الله ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ لم أر في شيء منه قط ما أتحرج من تعريضه لضوء البحث الأمين ، وقد كان مرجعي فيها جميعاً القرآن الكريم والحديث الشريف ، ومصادر إسلامية في السيرة والتاريخ ، لا يرقى إليها أي شك في حسن المقصد وصحة الإيمان ) انتهى كلامها .
التعليق :
تقرأ ما نقل بطرس الكذاب اللئيم على لسان بنت الشاطئ فتخال أن على بيت النبي ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ أُلقيت سُتُرٌ غليظة ، وتخال المسلمين وقد تجمعوا حول بيت النبي ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ يخفون شيئا معيباً تستره جدران البيت ، وأن بنت الشاطئ جاءت لتزيح هذه السدود وتلك الستر الغليظة وتكشف للناس الحقيقة بعد ألف وأربعمائة عام !!
نقل بطرس الكذاب كلامها ليقول للناس أن المسلمين يخفون أشياء كان النبي ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ يفعلها وإن عرفها الناس انفضوا عنه.! .
وحين تقرأ كلام الدكتورة بنت الشاطئ كاملاً بدون تحريفات هذا الكذاب اللئيم تجد أنها تفاخر بحياة النبي ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ وترد على الكذاب اللئيم زكريا بطرس وإخوانه ما تكلموا به في حقه ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ بل وتنال من معتقدهم صراحة . .
فما أقبح الكذب!! .
والمقصود أن هكذا يستدل بطرس .. يبتر الكلام ويدخل عليه بعد التعديلات ( البسيطة ) التي تخرجه عن معناه الأصلي ???????????????========================================================(((((((((((((((?بحث عن الروح القدس التى تسمى الاقنوم الثالث))))))))))))))
هذا بحث عن الروح القدس الاقنوم الثالث عند النصارى
لنبدأ ببعض الاسئلة اعتبرها دعوة للتفكير بطريقة علمية منطقية بعيدا عن الموروثات التى عفا عليها الزمن و اصبحت لا تصمد امام اى مناقشة علمية و الله المستعان وحده ..........
السؤال الاول :
لماذا لا يذكر بولس الروح القدس فى مقدمة اى رسالة من رسائله ؟؟؟؟
هل من الطبيعى ذلك لم يذكرها و لا مرة واحدة و ذكر الاب و يسوع فقط فى جميع المرات بلا استثناء واحد و اليكم مثل واحد للتوضيح :
1بُولُسُ لْمَدْعُوُّ رَسُولاً لِيَسُوعَ لْمَسِيحِ بِمَشِيئَةِ للهِ وَسُوسْتَانِيسُ لأَخُ 2إِلَى كَنِيسَةِ للهِ لَّتِي فِي كُورِنْثُوسَ لْمُقَدَّسِينَ فِي لْمَسِيحِ يَسُوعَ لْمَدْعُوِّينَ قِدِّيسِينَ مَعَ جَمِيعِ لَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ بِاسْمِ رَبِّنَا يَسُوعَ لْمَسِيحِ فِي كُلِّ مَكَانٍ لَهُمْ وَلَنَا. 3نِعْمَةٌ لَكُمْ وَسَلاَمٌ مِنَ للهِ أَبِينَا وَلرَّبِّ يَسُوعَ لْمَسِيحِ.
كما ترى لو راجعت النصوص فى بدايات كل رسائل بولس لن تجد اى اثر للروح القدس الا يحتاج هذا الى تفسير لماذا تعامل الروح القدس كانها اقل درجة من بقية الاقانيم و لم تذكر و لو مرة واحدة فى بداية الرسائل ؟؟؟؟؟؟ اريد تفسير منطقى عقلى ............
و لماذا ايضا لا يذكر اى كاتب من الاباء الاوائل اى شىء عن الوهية الروح القدس حتى بداية القرن الرابع
السؤال الثانى :
هناك نصوص متعددة تذكر ان يسوع سوف يجلس فى النهاية على يمين الاب وله مكان او عرش اخر بجوار الاب ولا يوجد اى ذكر لمكان الروح القدس على يمين الله مثلا مثل يسوع لا نعرف لها موقع محدد او مكان محجوز لها مثل يسوع راجع اعمال 7 : 55 و كولوسى 3 : 1 و رؤية يوحنا 5 : 1 و 7 : 10 .
هل من سبب لذلك غير ان بولس لا يفهم انها اقنوم اساسى فى التثليث و هل تستطيع احد ان يحدد موقعها هل هى على يمين العرش ام يساره ام خلفه ام اين مكانها بالضبط و اين ستجلس اليست مساوية لبقية الاقانيم ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟.
و اليك مثال واحد رؤية 7 : 10
10وَهُمْ يَصْرُخُونَ بِصَوْتٍ عَظِيمٍ قَائِلِينَ: «الْخَلاَصُ لِإِلَهِنَا لْجَالِسِ عَلَى لْعَرْشِ وَلِلْخروف».
اين الروح القدس اليس لها خلاص هى ايضا لماذا يتجاهلها الجميع لماذا لا يصرخ الجميع بصوت عظيم لخلاص الروح القدس هل هى اقل درجة من بقية الاقانيم ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟. انها حتى لا تساوى الخروف .........
حتى لو اعتبرنا الجلوس على يمين الاب رمز لماذا اختفى هذا الرمز مع الروح القدس ؟؟؟؟؟.
السؤال الثالث :
فى 1 كورنثوس
3وَلَكِنْ أُرِيدُ أَنْ تَعْلَمُوا أَنَّ رَأْسَ كُلِّ رَجُلٍ هُوَ لْمَسِيحُ. وَأَمَّا رَأْسُ لْمَرْأَةِ فَهُوَ لرَّجُلُ. وَرَأْسُ لْمَسِيحِ هُوَ للهُ.
اين الروح القدس هنا اين مكانها فى هذه الرؤوس المتبادلة لا ذكر لها اطلاقا .................... هل تعتبر راس يسوع ام راس الرب ام هناك من هو راسها ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
السؤال 4
افسس 5 : 5
5فَإِنَّكُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ هَذَا أَنَّ كُلَّ زَانٍ أَوْ نَجِسٍ أَوْ طَمَّاعٍ، لَّذِي هُوَ عَابِدٌ لِلأَوْثَانِ لَيْسَ لَهُ مِيرَاثٌ فِي مَلَكُوتِ لْمَسِيحِ وََللهِ.
كما ترى ملكوت المسيح و الله فقط لا يوجد ملكوت للروح القدس هل يعترض احد على ذلك ......... هل هناك تفسير لهذا التجاهل .؟؟؟؟؟
هل يريد بولس ان يعقد الامور يجب ان ندرك انه من اهم شروط العقيدة الالهية الصحيحة ان تكون واضحة و مفهومة لكل البشر حتى البسطاء منهم و لا نبحث عن نصوص نأولها لاثبات ما نريد و نهمل النصوص التى لا تثبت ما نريده ؟؟؟؟.
السؤال الخامس :
الاب و يسوع يتحدثا مع بعضهما هل تحدث احد منهم مع الروح القدس هل نادى مثلا يسوع و هو على الصليب الروح القدس و سالها لماذا تركته الا تساوى الاب لماذا لم يطلب منها المساعدة على الصليب ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
السؤال السادس :
هناك بعض الصفات الموجوة فى الروح القدس ليست موجودة فى يسوع مثل انها تستطيع ان تملا الناس انظر اعمال 2 : 4
4وَامْتَلأَ لْجَمِيعُ مِنَ لرُّوحِ لْقُدُسِ وَبْتَدَأُوا يَتَكَلَّمُونَ بِأَلْسِنَةٍ أُخْرَى كَمَا أَعْطَاهُمُ لرُّوحُ أَنْ يَنْطِقُوا.
اذا كانت الروح القدس مساوية للاب و يسوع هل يستطيع يسوع ان يملا الناس و يجعل الناس تنطق بلغات اخرى ؟
و كذلك النص فى اعمال 2 : 17
17يَقُولُ للهُ: وَيَكُونُ فِي لأَيَّامِ لأَخِيرَةِ أَنِّي أَسْكُبُ مِنْ رُوحِي عَلَى كُلِّ بَشَرٍ فَيَتَنَبَّأُ بَنُوكُمْ وَبَنَاتُكُمْ وَيَرَى شَبَابُكُمْ رُؤىً وَيَحْلُمُ شُيُوخُكُمْ أَحْلاَماً. 18وَعَلَى عَبِيدِي أَيْضاً وَإِمَائِي أَسْكُبُ مِنْ رُوحِي فِي تِلْكَ لأَيَّامِ فَيَتَنَبَّأُونَ.
و هذا النص السابق يدل على ان الاب له الفعل و الروح القدس عليها التنفيذ و لكن الا ترى ان تفسير النص السابق هو ان هذه الروح هى قوة الرب او تاييده للبشر ما الخطأ فى هذا التفسير ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
نفس الشىء و نفس التعليق فى هذا النص الذى يحدد ان الروح القدس ممكن ان نشربها
13لأَنَّنَا جَمِيعَنَا بِرُوحٍ وَاحِدٍ أَيْضاً عْتَمَدْنَا إِلَى جَسَدٍ وَاحِدٍ يَهُوداً كُنَّا أَمْ يُونَانِيِّينَ عَبِيداً أَمْ أَحْرَاراً. وَجَمِيعُنَا سُقِينَا رُوحاً وَاحِداً
و اذا اعتبرت هذا على سبيل المجاز او الرمز يكون لى الحق ان اعتبر ذلك فى اى نص اختاره و يكون المعنى المراد هنا ايضا هو قوة من الرب او تاييد منه للبشر .
و كذلك هذا النص
22الَّذِي خَتَمَنَا أَيْضاً، وَأَعْطَى عَرْبُونَ لرُّوحِ فِي قُلُوبِنَا
ما هو العربون او مقدم الاتعاب هذا هل هو اله منفصل او اقنوم من الاقانيم ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
و هذا النص ايضا :
3ظَاهِرِينَ أَنَّكُمْ رِسَالَةُ لْمَسِيحِ، مَخْدُومَةً مِنَّا، مَكْتُوبَةً لاَ بِحِبْرٍ بَلْ بِرُوحِ للهِ لْحَيِّ، لاَ فِي أَلْوَاحٍ حَجَرِيَّةٍ بَلْ فِي أَلْوَاحِ قَلْبٍ لَحْمِيَّةٍ.
و كل النصوص السابقة لا يفعلها يسوع و ممكن تفسيرها بكل وضوح انها قوة الرب و تاييده
و اليك هذا النص لتوضيح كل ما سبق
9وَأَمَّا أَنْتُمْ فَلَسْتُمْ فِي لْجَسَدِ بَلْ فِي لرُّوحِ إِنْ كَانَ رُوحُ للهِ سَاكِناً فِيكُمْ. وَلَكِنْ إِنْ كَانَ أَحَدٌ لَيْسَ لَهُ رُوحُ لْمَسِيحِ فَذَلِكَ لَيْسَ لَهُ. 10وَإِنْ كَانَ لْمَسِيحُ فِيكُمْ فَالْجَسَدُ مَيِّتٌ بِسَبَبِ لْخَطِيَّةِ وَأَمَّا لرُّوحُ فَحَيَاةٌ بِسَبَبِ لْبِرِّ.
ما هو التفسير للاعداد السابقة فى العدد الثامن روح المسيح فيهم و فى العدد التاسع المسيح نفسه فيهم و نفس الشىء فى روح الرب انها الهام الرب و تاييده و ليست اله منفصل و هذا ما يفهم من هذا العدد
و هذا النص :
34لأَنَّ لَّذِي أَرْسَلَهُ للَّهُ يَتَكَلَّمُ بِكلاَمِ للَّهِ. لأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ بِكَيْلٍ يُعْطِي للَّهُ لرُّوحَ.
هذا النص يوضح ان الرب اعطى يسوع الروح القدس هل هذا يعنى انها كانت غير موجودة عنده اليس هو مساوى للاب هل يستقيم هذا النص مع تصور ان الروح القدس اله مساو للاب و الابن ؟؟؟؟؟
و هذا النص
«وَمَتَى جَاءَ لْمُعَزِّي لَّذِي سَأُرْسِلُهُ أَنَا إِلَيْكُمْ مِنَ لآبِ رُوحُ لْحَقِّ لَّذِي مِنْ عِنْدِ لآبِ يَنْبَثِقُ فَهُوَ يَشْهَدُ لِي. 27وَتَشْهَدُونَ أَنْتُمْ أَيْضاً لأَنَّكُمْ مَعِي مِنَ لاِبْتِدَاءِ».
يثبت اتحاد الاب و الابن لارسال الروح القدس و لكن يسوع يستدرك انه رغم اشتراكه فى الارسال الا ان روح الحق من عند الاب .............................................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
السؤال السابع :
ما هو موقف الروح القدس من هذا النص ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
35اَلآبُ يُحِبُّ لاِبْنَ وَقَدْ دَفَعَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ فِي يَدِهِ. 36اَلَّذِي يُؤْمِنُ بِالاِبْنِ لَهُ حَيَاةٌ أَبَدِيَّةٌ وَلَّذِي لاَ يُؤْمِنُ بِالاِبْنِ لَنْ يَرَى حَيَاةً بَلْ يَمْكُثُ عَلَيْهِ غَضَبُ للَّهِ»
هنا اهمال كامل للروح القدس لماذا لا يوجد اى نص يثبت ان الاب يحب الروح القدس و ان من يؤمن بها له الحياة الابدية مثل من يؤمن بيسوع و لم يدفع الاب اى شىء فى يديها ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟ ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟.
السؤال الثامن :
يلجأ النصارى للتفسير الحرفى حين يفيد و تلجأ للتاويل و الرمز حين لا ينفع الحرف ساوضح بمثال
انظر هذا النص من رومية
11لأَنَّ لْخَطِيَّةَ وَهِيَ مُتَّخِذَةٌ فُرْصَةً بِالْوَصِيَّةِ خَدَعَتْنِي بِهَا وَقَتَلَتْنِي.
بولس يتحدث عن الخطية و يقول انها خدعته هل الخطية شخص يخدع هذا يسمى مجاز اذكر القاعدة التى تتبعها فى المجاز و متى تلجأ له و متى تلجأ للتفسير الحرفى ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟. و نطبق هذا على النصوص الخاصة بالروح القدس ...........
السؤال التاسع :
لغويا هل الروح القدس مؤنث ام مذكر ام لا جنس لها بديهى انا اريد الاجابة من النصوص الاصلية اليونانية و العبرية .
و فى اليونانية باركيليتوس مذكر و لكن بينوما لا جنس لها اى تاخذ الضمير
It فى الانجليزية
انظر طبعة الملك جيمس رومية 8 : 16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God
الروح هنا لا جنس لها و يستعمل الضمير المناسب لذلك طبعا المشكلة غير متواجدة فى اللغة العربية التى تنص على :
16اَلرُّوحُ نَفْسُهُ أَيْضاً يَشْهَدُ لأَرْوَاحِنَا أَنَّنَا أَوْلاَدُ للهِ.
و هنا نقطة فرعية للتامل اذا نظرت لكتاب المقدس طبعة كتاب الحياة تجد النص تحول الى
16فَالرُّوحُ نَفْسُهُ يَشْهَدُ مَعَ أَرْوَاحِنَا بِأَنَّنَا أَوْلاَدُ اللهِ
هل الروح يشهد لاروحنا حسب نص فان دايك ام يشهد مع اروحنا حسب نص كتاب الحياة .!!!!!!!!.
و لا يزال التحريف مستمرا ............................. و لكن هذه قصة اخرى
انظر النص فى يوحنا 14 : 17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
هنا يعتبر الروح مذكر هل عندك تفسير ام هى كالعادة مجرد اختلاف ترجمة و لكن الاصل اليونانى لكملة روح المستخدمة فى هذا النص لا جنس لها و الدليل من الانجيل الامريكى الكاثوليكى الجديد يعترف بخصوص العدد 14 : 17 فى يوحنا الكلمة اليونانية الروح لا جنس لها و استعمال الضمائر الشخصية معها خطأ .
و هذا النص من الملك جيمس يستعمل ضمير غير العاقل او ما لا جنس له منسوبا الى الروح يوحنا 3 : 8
The wind bloweth where it listeth
بعكس هذا النص
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
يعتبر الروح شخص عاقل ......
السؤال العاشر
يقول يسوع فى يوحنا 13 : 16
16اَلْحَقَّ لْحَقَّ أَقُولُ لَكُمْ: إِنَّهُ لَيْسَ عَبْدٌ أَعْظَمَ مِنْ سَيِّدِهِ وَلاَ رَسُولٌ أَعْظَمَ مِنْ مُرْسِلِهِ.
هل توافق على قول يسوع هنا اذن كيف تفسر هذا النص ؟؟؟؟؟ فى يوحنا ايضا
26وَأَمَّا لْمُعَزِّي لرُّوحُ لْقُدُسُ لَّذِي سَيُرْسِلُهُ لآبُ بِاسْمِي فَهُوَ يُعَلِّمُكُمْ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ وَيُذَكِّرُكُمْ بِكُلِّ مَا قُلْتُهُ لَكُمْ.
الاب يرسل الروح القدس اذن الاب اعظم من الروح القدس اذن الروح القدس لا تساوى الاب ما رايكم فى هذا المنطق ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
السؤال الحادى عشر
الاب و الابن و الروح القدس فى اعتقاد النصارى اله واحد هل نطمع فى ان نعرف ما اسم هذا الاله الواحد الذى لا يتغير بمرور الوقت او اختلاف اللغات هذا السؤال يستحق موضوع منفرد اذا لم يجب عليه احد ساضعه فى موضوع منفرد ..................
و نكتفى بهذه الاسئلة و اضع الان بعض النصوص التى تثبت ان الروح القدس هى قوة الله و تاييده و ليست اله او اقنوم منفصل .............. و هى القوة التى اقام بها ابنه على حسب اعتقادكم من الاموات .............
رومية 8 : 11
11وَإِنْ كَانَ رُوحُ لَّذِي أَقَامَ يَسُوعَ مِنَ لأَمْوَاتِ سَاكِناً فِيكُمْ فَالَّذِي أَقَامَ لْمَسِيحَ مِنَ لأَمْوَاتِ سَيُحْيِي أَجْسَادَكُمُ لْمَائِتَةَ أَيْضاً بِرُوحِهِ لسَّاكِنِ فِيكُمْ.
1 كورونثوس 6 : 14
14وَاللَّهُ قَدْ أَقَامَ لرَّبَّ وَسَيُقِيمُنَا نَحْنُ أَيْضاً بِقُوَّتِهِ
افسس 1 : 19
19وَمَا هِيَ عَظَمَةُ قُدْرَتِهِ لْفَائِقَةُ نَحْوَنَا نَحْنُ لْمُؤْمِنِينَ، حَسَبَ عَمَلِ شِدَّةِ قُوَّتِهِ 20الَّذِي عَمِلَهُ فِي لْمَسِيحِ، إِذْ أَقَامَهُ مِنَ لأَمْوَاتِ، وَأَجْلَسَهُ عَنْ يَمِينِهِ فِي لسَّمَاوِيَّاتِ،
افسس 3 : 20
20وَالْقَادِرُ أَنْ يَفْعَلَ فَوْقَ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ أَكْثَرَ جِدّاً مِمَّا نَطْلُبُ أَوْ نَفْتَكِرُ، بِحَسَبِ لْقُوَّةِ لَّتِي تَعْمَلُ فِينَا،
ما هى القوة التى تعمل فينا اليست هى المعروفة بالروح القدس من النصوص السابقة اذن هى قوة الرب التى تعمل فينا .....................
لوقا 1 : 35
35فَأَجَابَ لْمَلاَكُ: «اَلرُّوحُ لْقُدُسُ يَحِلُّ عَلَيْكِ وَقُوَّةُ لْعَلِيِّ تُظَلِّلُكِ فَلِذَلِكَ أَيْضاً لْقُدُّوسُ لْمَوْلُودُ مِنْكِ يُدْعَى بْنَ للهِ.
هذا مثل واضح ان الروح القدس هو قوة الرب او العلى كما فى النص . و اى تفسير اخر يدخلنا فى متاهة نحن فى غنى عنها تماما
و هذا النص ايضا يذكر قوة من الاعالى ....
لوقا 24 : 49
49وَهَا أَنَا أُرْسِلُ إِلَيْكُمْ مَوْعِدَ أَبِي. فَأَقِيمُوا فِي مَدِينَةِ أُورُشَلِيمَ إِلَى أَنْ تُلْبَسُوا قُوَّةً مِنَ لأَعَالِي».
انها قوة الروح القدس التى تعمل فيكم حسب اعتقادكم .....
الخلاصة :
الروح القدس ليست اقنوم ثالث و كلمة اقنوم التى اختارها شخص ما فى اللغة العربية لتساعد على اظهار المعنى و هى طبعا غير موجودة فى اى نص فى الكتاب المقدس و لكن اذا كنا نتحدث بالانجليزية سيكون التعبير كلمة شخص و لى الحق ان استخدم كلمة شخص و لك الحق ان تستخدم كلمة اقنوم التى ليس لها اى اساس فى الكتاب المقدس .
اذن الروح القدس ليست شخص قائم بذاته منفصل و مساو للاب و الابن انها على اقصى تقدير قوة الرب او منحة الهية منه و ليست مساوية له النصوص تثبت ذلك .....
و الان نناقش ما ذكره احد المحاورين من نصوص لاثبات الوهية الروح القدس و الله المستعان :
النص الاول متى 10 : 20
20لأَنْ لَسْتُمْ أَنْتُمُ لْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ بَلْ رُوحُ أَبِيكُمُ لَّذِي يَتَكَلَّمُ فِيكُمْ.
بديهى بعد العرض السابق هذه ليست الا قوة الرب او تاييده للمتكلمين هنا ......
النص الثانى غلاطية 4 : 6
6ثُمَّ بِمَا أَنَّكُمْ أَبْنَاءٌ، أَرْسَلَ للهُ رُوحَ بْنِهِ إِلَى قُلُوبِكُمْ صَارِخاً: «يَا أَبَا لآبُ»
نفس الشىء بل ان النصين معا يثبتوا ان الروح اقل درجة من الاب و من الابن لان الاب هو الذى يرسل راجع ما سبق ان ذكرته .....
1 بطرس 1 : 11
11 بَاحِثِينَ أَيُّ وَقْتٍ أَوْ مَا لْوَقْتُ لَّذِي كَانَ يَدُلُّ عَلَيْهِ رُوحُ لْمَسِيحِ لَّذِي فِيهِمْ، إِذْ سَبَقَ فَشَهِدَ بِالآلاَمِ لَّتِي لِلْمَسِيحِ وَلأَمْجَادِ لَّتِي بَعْدَهَا.
لاحظ فى هذه الترجمة الروح مذكر فيقول سبق فشهد
نفس النص من طبعة الملك جيمس يستعمل الضمير غير العاقل
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
و بديهى هذا تناقض يجب تفسيره و الامر معقد لا ينفع فيه التبسيط او التسطيح .
و ملخص الكلام فىا لنصوص السابقة
تارة يقول الكتاب ان روح الله الآب يسكن في المؤمنين ، وتارة اخرى روح الابن يسكن في المؤمنين
هل تريد ان تقول اذا كان روح الاب يسكن و روح الابن يسكن اذن الروح تساوى الاب و تساوى الابن اذن هى اله او اقنوم ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟ اقول هذا بعيد جدا و لا يعتبر اكثر من راى و الراى المضاد له نفس واجهته ان لم يكن اقوى مع الشواهد الاخرى ....................
لنستمر مع النصوص التى تذكر لاثبات الوهية الروح القدس :
كورنثوس 6 : 19
19أَمْ لَسْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّ جَسَدَكُمْ هُوَ هَيْكَلٌ لِلرُّوحِ لْقُدُسِ لَّذِي فِيكُمُ لَّذِي لَكُمْ مِنَ للهِ وَأَنَّكُمْ لَسْتُمْ لأَنْفُسِكُمْ؟
اول ملاحظة كون الروح القدس من الله ينفى الوهيتها على حسب القاعدة التى قالها المسيح نفسه كما سبق و لان الله هو الذى اعطاهم هذه الروح .
ثانيا راجع النص من اوله يثبت لك ان الموضوع كله مجاز لتنفير الناس من ارتكاب الزنا .
2 كورنثوس 6 : 16
من طبعة فان دايك
16وَأَيَّةُ مُوَافَقَةٍ لِهَيْكَلِ للهِ مَعَ لأَوْثَانِ؟ فَإِنَّكُمْ أَنْتُمْ هَيْكَلُ للهِ لْحَيِّ، كَمَا قَالَ للهُ: «إِنِّي سَأَسْكُنُ فِيهِمْ وَأَسِيرُ بَيْنَهُمْ، وَأَكُونُ لَهُمْ إِلَهاً وَهُمْ يَكُونُونَ لِي شَعْباً.
من طبعة كتاب الحياة
16وَأَيُّ وِفَاقٍ لِهَيْكَلِ اللهِ مَعَ الأَصْنَامِ؟ فَإِنَّنَا نَحْنُ هَيْكَلُ اللهِ الْحَيِّ، وَفْقاً لِمَا قَالَهُ اللهُ : «سَأَسْكُنُ فِي وَسَطِهِمْ، وَأَسِيرُ بَيْنَهُمْ، وَأَكُونُ إِلهَهُمْ وَهُمْ يَكُونُونَ شَعْباً لِي.
هل لاحظت الاختلاف الطبعة الاولى تقول انتم هيكل الله الحى و الطبعة الثانية تقول نحن هيكل الله الحى .
ساترك التعليق على التحريف هنا
و الاختلاف الثانى القاتل النص الاول يقول ساسكن فيهم و النص الثانى يقول ساسكن فى وسطهم
هذا اولا اما ثانيا هذه اشارة للمذكور فى اللويين 26 : 12
11وَأَجْعَلُ مَسْكَنِي فِي وَسَطِكُمْ وَلاَ تَرْذُلُكُمْ نَفْسِي. 12وَأَسِيرُ بَيْنَكُمْ وَأَكُونُ لَكُمْ إِلَهاً وَأَنْتُمْ تَكُونُونَ لِي شَعْباً.
و النص هنا يؤكد انه يسكن فى وسطهم و ليس يسكن فيهم كما فى طبعة فان دايك ................ و الفرق كبير بين التعبير الاول و التعبير الثانى
رومية 8 : 9 يذكر النصارى جزء من النص
و لكن هذا هو النص كاملا
9وَأَمَّا أَنْتُمْ فَلَسْتُمْ فِي لْجَسَدِ بَلْ فِي لرُّوحِ إِنْ كَانَ رُوحُ للهِ سَاكِناً فِيكُمْ. وَلَكِنْ إِنْ كَانَ أَحَدٌ لَيْسَ لَهُ رُوحُ لْمَسِيحِ فَذَلِكَ لَيْسَ لَهُ. 10وَإِنْ كَانَ لْمَسِيحُ فِيكُمْ فَالْجَسَدُ مَيِّتٌ بِسَبَبِ لْخَطِيَّةِ وَأَمَّا لرُّوحُ فَحَيَاةٌ بِسَبَبِ لْبِرِّ. 11وَإِنْ كَانَ رُوحُ لَّذِي أَقَامَ يَسُوعَ مِنَ لأَمْوَاتِ سَاكِناً فِيكُمْ فَالَّذِي أَقَامَ لْمَسِيحَ مِنَ لأَمْوَاتِ سَيُحْيِي أَجْسَادَكُمُ لْمَائِتَةَ أَيْضاً بِرُوحِهِ لسَّاكِنِ فِيكُمْ.
باختصار هذا النص يثبت اختلاف روح المسيح عن روح الرب لانه هو الذى اقامه من الاموات حسب اعتقادك و هذا بالمناسبة يثبت ايضا عدم الوهية يسوع و لكن هذا امر لم يحن وقته بعد ..... ...........
يوحنا 6 : 63
63اَلرُّوحُ هُوَ لَّذِي يُحْيِي. أَمَّا لْجَسَدُ فلاَ يُفِيدُ شَيْئاً. اَلْكلاَمُ لَّذِي أُكَلِّمُكُمْ بِهِ هُوَ رُوحٌ وَحَيَاةٌ
هل توضح مرة اخرى ماذا يثبت هذا النص فى التثليث او حتى فى الوهية الروح القدس ؟؟؟؟ هذا النص لا يثبت اى شىء
و هذا بحث فى نص موجود فى رسالة بطرس الاولى 4: 14
14 إِنْ عُيِّرْتُمْ بِاسْمِ لْمَسِيحِ فَطُوبَى لَكُمْ، لأَنَّ رُوحَ لْمَجْدِ وَللهِ يَحِلُّ عَلَيْكُمْ.
التى يقول احد الزملاء انها تثبت ان الروح القدس اله لان النص يقول روح المجد و ليس مجيد الا الله و يستنج بالتالى ان الروح القدس اله ......!!!!!!!!!
و هذا هو الرد على بعون الله و توفيقه :
اقرا النص فى طبعة فان دايك : و ارجو ان تلاحظ انى لابد ان اشير الى الطبعة التى ارجع اليها حتى لا تحدث لخبطة كما سترى بعد قليل ..........
14 إِنْ عُيِّرْتُمْ بِاسْمِ لْمَسِيحِ فَطُوبَى لَكُمْ، لأَنَّ رُوحَ لْمَجْدِ وَللهِ يَحِلُّ عَلَيْكُمْ.
هنا شخصيتان منفصلتان روح المجد و الله و لانه حسب كلامك ليس مجيد الا الله اذن روح المجد هى ايضا اله رغم انك لم توضح كيف عرفت ان روح المجد هى الروح القدس ؟؟؟؟؟؟ ام ذكر اى روح فى الكتاب المقدس يعتبر ذكر للروح القدس ........سنتحدث عن هذه النقطة لاحقا رغم ان الاجابة واضحة .....
تقول ليس مجيدا الا الله هل الكنيسة اله ؟؟؟؟؟ اقرا النص
Eph:5:27:
27 لكي يحضرها لنفسه كنيسة مجيدة لا دنس فيها ولا غضن او شيء من مثل ذلك بل تكون مقدسة وبلا عيب. (SVD)
هنا الكنيسة مجيدة هل ممكن ان نضيف الكنيسة كاقنوم جديد !!!!!!!!! (حقوق الاكتشاف محفوظة) ....
و هذا سليمان ممكن ان ينضم الى القائمة :
Mt:6:29:
29 ولكن اقول لكم انه ولا سليمان في كل مجده كان يلبس كواحدة منها. (SVD)
قد تقول ان مجد سليمان هنا اقل درجة من مجد الله و بالتالى كيف عرفت ان روح المجد مساو للاب فى المجد و ليس اقل او اكثر ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
و هنا مجد الاب منفصل و استعاره الابن منه :
Mt:16:27:
27 فان ابن الانسان سوف يأتي في مجد ابيه مع ملائكته وحينئذ يجازي كل واحد حسب عمله. (SVD)
لماذا قيل مجد ابيه لم يقال مجد ابن الانسان ..........!!!!!! اسئلة كثيرة .
و هذا النص و يحتاج توضيح منهم عن المجد و الامجاد :
Hb:2:16:
16 قد شبعت خزيا عوضا عن المجد.فاشرب انت ايضا واكشف غرلتك.تدور اليك كاس يمين الرب.وقياء الخزي على مجدك. (SVD)
و هذا ملك بشرى اخر :
Dn:4:30:
30 واجاب الملك فقال أليست هذه بابل العظيمة التي بنيتها لبيت الملك بقوة اقتداري ولجلال مجدي. (SVD)
اذن حكاية ليس مجيد الا الله غير مقنعة ......
طبعة فان دايك السابقة تقول روح المجد و الله كما سبق
انظر هذه الطبعة :
روح المجد و روح الله اى روح المجد مضافة الى روح الله
New International Version (NIV)
1 Peter 4
14If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.
و هذه الطبعة :
تقول روح الله و مجده
The Message (MSG)
1 Peter 4
14If you're abused because of Christ, count yourself fortunate. It's the Spirit of God and his glory in you that brought you to the notice of others.
و هذه الطبعة :
روح الله المجيدة بدون حرف عطف اى اقنوم واحد فقط ؟؟؟؟
New Living Translation (NLT)
1 Peter 4
14Be happy if you are insulted for being a Christian, for then the glorious Spirit of God will come upon you.
و هذه الطبعة :
روح المجد و روح الله
King James Version (KJV
1 Peter 4
14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
وهذه الطبعة :
روح المجد و روح الله مثل النص السابق و لكن تعجب معى ماذا كتب فى هامش هذه الطبعة :
بعض النسخ الاصلية تضيف روح القوة ؟؟؟؟ اى النص هكذا روح المجد و روح الله و روح القوة ؟؟؟؟؟؟
هل هذه هى الثلاثة اقانيم التى تبحث عنها و لماذا مذكورة فى بعض المخطوطات و غير مذكورة فى الاخرى ؟؟
English Standard Version (ESV
1 Peter 4
14If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory[1] and of God rests upon you.
Footnotes
1. Some manuscripts insert and of power
و هذه الطبعة :
تضع كلمة روح بين قوسين اى هى غير موجودة فى الاصل .......
:: Darby Translation (DARBY)
1 Peter 4
14 If ye are reproached in [the] name of Christ, blessed [are ye]; for the [Spirit] of glory and the Spirit of God rests upon you: [on their part he is blasphemed, but on your part he is glorified.]
و هذه الطبعة :
و الجديد فى هذه الطبعة انها تقول ان بقية العدد محذوفة فى احدى النسخ الاصلية :
New King James Version (NKJV)
1 Peter 4
14If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.[1] On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified.
Footnotes
1. 4:14 NU-Text omits the rest of this verse.
و اليك بعض النصوص من المخطوطات الاصلية و ساذكر اختصار للمخطوطة و اذا شئت التفصيل اهلا و سهلا
النص الاول
"the Spirit of glory and of God rests"
روح المجد و روح الله
موجود فى المخطوطات الاتية
p72 B K Psi some Byz
النص الثانى :
"the Spirit of glory and of power and of God rests"
روح المجد وروح القوة وروح الله ...
موجود فى المخطوطات الاتية و هى اكثر من السابقة و هى الموجودة فى احدث طبعة من النسخة القياسية المعتمدة :
S A P 33 81 104 945 1241 1739 1881 some Byz Lect four lat cop(north)
النص الثالث :
"the Spirit of glory and of the power of God rests"
روح المجد و روح قوة الله ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
موجود فى النصوص الاتية :
614 630 2495 one lat syr(h) cop(south)
النص الرابع :
"the Spirit of the glory of God rests"
روح مجد الله !!!!!!!!!!!
موجودة فى النصوص الاتية :
three lat earlier vg syr(p)
باختصار نصوص متعارضة غير دقيقة لايسع الشخص العاقل الا اهمالها من حسابه
هل يستطيع احد ان يخبرنا ماذا يقول النص الاصلى ام نحذف هذا النص ايضا من القائمة و نستمر فى رحلة البحث عن الاقانيم ...................
...................................................................
اخوكم eeww2000???????????????=======================================================(((((((((((((((إله المحبة مستوجب نار جهنم؟))))))))))))))))
كثيراً ما يتناقش المسلمون والنصارى ويتحاورون فى العديد من النقاط ، وما يأخذه النصارى على المسلمين (بغير فهم وبدون علم) على سبيل المثال وليس الحصر هو كيفية انتشار الإسلام ، وقد أفرزت بفضل الله ومنته له العديد من الصفحات للرد عليهم، وقد بيَّنت لهم أن الذى انتشر بالسيف وبالقتل والإبادة الجماعية هى النصرانية واليهودية من قبلها ، وسأذكر نصاً واحداً من كتابهم لأذكرهم بهذا: (وَكَثِيرُونَ مِنْ شُعُوبِ الأَرْضِ تَهَوَّدُوا لأَنَّ رُعْبَ الْيَهُودِ وَقَعَ عَلَيْهِمْ.) أستير8: 17
لكن الغريب أنهم يلتزمون عند المناقشة بكلمة ليس لها أدنى مدلول عندهم ، وهى كلمة (الله محبة) ، ويشيرون بها إلى أن عيسى عليه السلام هو (إله المحبة).
1- إله المحبة يدعوا إلى ذبح كل من لا يتخذه ملكاً :
تندهش حين يحاول النصارى تبرير هذا النص ، فتارة يقولون إنه حال الكفار فى الآخرة ، وتارة يقول لك اقرأ النص كاملاً ، لأنك تبتر بقولك هذا معنى النص ، وعندما تقرأه كاملاً ، لا تجد أية رابط بين كلامه والنتيجة التى وصل إليها فى النص: (27أَمَّا أَعْدَائِي أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُرِيدُوا أَنْ أَمْلِكَ عَلَيْهِمْ فَأْتُوا بِهِمْ إِلَى هُنَا وَاذْبَحُوهُمْ قُدَّامِي».) لوقا 19: 27
2- إله المحبة أتى من أجل دمار البشرية :
(49«جِئْتُ لأُلْقِيَ نَاراً عَلَى الأَرْضِ فَمَاذَا أُرِيدُ لَوِ اضْطَرَمَتْ؟ 50وَلِي صِبْغَةٌ أَصْطَبِغُهَا وَكَيْفَ أَنْحَصِرُ حَتَّى تُكْمَلَ؟ 51أَتَظُنُّونَ أَنِّي جِئْتُ لأُعْطِيَ سَلاَماً عَلَى الأَرْضِ؟ كَلاَّ أَقُولُ لَكُمْ! بَلِ انْقِسَاماً. 52لأَنَّهُ يَكُونُ مِنَ الآنَ خَمْسَةٌ فِي بَيْتٍ وَاحِدٍ مُنْقَسِمِينَ: ثَلاَثَةٌ عَلَى اثْنَيْنِ وَاثْنَانِ عَلَى ثَلاَثَةٍ. 53يَنْقَسِمُ الأَبُ عَلَى الاِبْنِ وَالاِبْنُ عَلَى الأَبِ وَالأُمُّ عَلَى الْبِنْتِ وَالْبِنْتُ عَلَى الأُمِّ وَالْحَمَاةُ عَلَى كَنَّتِهَا وَالْكَنَّةُ عَلَى حَمَاتِهَا»)لوقا12: 49-53
(34«لاَ تَظُنُّوا أَنِّي جِئْتُ لِأُلْقِيَ سَلاَماً عَلَى الأَرْضِ. مَا جِئْتُ لِأُلْقِيَ سَلاَماً بَلْ سَيْفاً. 35فَإِنِّي جِئْتُ لِأُفَرِّقَ الإِنْسَانَ ضِدَّ أَبِيهِ وَالاِبْنَةَ ضِدَّ أُمِّهَا وَالْكَنَّةَ ضِدَّ حَمَاتِهَا. 36وَأَعْدَاءُ الإِنْسَانِ أَهْلُ بَيْتِهِ.) متى 10: 34-36
فتبريرات النصارى فى هذا الشأن متهافتة ، فهم يقولون بتحليل الأنبا شنودة ، بأن مجىء ديانة جديدة كانت لابد أن تثير القلاقل بين متبعيها وبين رافضيها داخل البيت الواحد.
والإله فى زعمهم يفترض بذلك أنه لن يؤمن به بيت كامل بالمرة ، بل سيكون الإنقسام داخل كل بيت: منهم الكافرون ومنهم المؤمنون.
فرسالته ينبغى أن تكون هى رسالة الحب ، ومن لا يتبعها يكن من الآثمين ، فكان ينبغى لهذا الإله أن يكن من المتفائلين ، وأن ينظر إلى النور الذى تشعه رسالته ، وليس إلى ظلام قلوب الآثمين.
أضف إلى ذلك أن عسى عليه السلام لم يأتى بدين جديد ، فما كان له أن يُعلِّم ديناً جديداً فى معبد اليهود وبين أظهرهم وينشره فى ربوع اليهودية. فكم من مرة احتكم إلى التوراة؟ وكم من مرة أعاد على أذهان مستمعيه من اليهود أقوال التوراة والأنبياء فى القضايا المختلفة؟ وكم من مرة صحح أفهامهم ومعتقداتهم بشأن كتب موسى والأنبياء؟ فيبقى الغرض من مجيئه لتدمير الأسر والحياة الإجتماعية الهادئة غير معروف ، إلا إذا أقرت الكنيسة بأن هذا النص ليس من أقوال عيسى عليه السلام.
3- إله المحبة يدعوا إلى اقتناء السيف واستعماله:
وعجبت لأحد المتناقشات أن ذكرت لها نص طلب عيسى عليه السلام لإقتناء السيف بل واستعماله ، فبررت المحبة أنه أبرأ أذن عبد رئيس الكهنة ، ولم تجيبنى على السؤال:
فبعد أن أعلن لهم يسوع أنه قد اقترب وقت القبض عليه قال لهم: (35ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُمْ: «حِينَ أَرْسَلْتُكُمْ بِلاَ كِيسٍ وَلاَ مِزْوَدٍ وَلاَ أَحْذِيَةٍ هَلْ أَعْوَزَكُمْ شَيْءٌ؟» فَقَالُوا: «لاَ». 36فَقَالَ لَهُمْ: «لَكِنِ الآنَ مَنْ لَهُ كِيسٌ فَلْيَأْخُذْهُ وَمِزْوَدٌ كَذَلِكَ. وَمَنْ لَيْسَ لَهُ فَلْيَبِعْ ثَوْبَهُ وَيَشْتَرِ سَيْفاً. 37لأَنِّي أَقُولُ لَكُمْ إِنَّهُ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَتِمَّ فِيَّ أَيْضاً هَذَا الْمَكْتُوبُ: وَأُحْصِيَ مَعَ أَثَمَةٍ. لأَنَّ مَا هُوَ مِنْ جِهَتِي لَهُ انْقِضَاءٌ». 38فَقَالُوا: «يَا رَبُّ هُوَذَا هُنَا سَيْفَانِ». فَقَالَ لَهُمْ: «يَكْفِي!». 48فَقَالَ لَهُ يَسُوعُ: «يَا يَهُوذَا أَبِقُبْلَةٍ تُسَلِّمُ ابْنَ الإِنْسَانِ؟» 49فَلَمَّا رَأَى الَّذِينَ حَوْلَهُ مَا يَكُونُ قَالُوا: «يَا رَبُّ أَنَضْرِبُ بِالسَّيْفِ؟» 50وَضَرَبَ وَاحِدٌ مِنْهُمْ عَبْدَ رَئِيسِ الْكَهَنَةِ فَقَطَعَ أُذْنَهُ الْيُمْنَى. 51فَقَالَ يَسُوعُ: «دَعُوا إِلَى هَذَا!» وَلَمَسَ أُذْنَهُ وَأَبْرَأَهَا.) لوقا 22: 35-51
وسؤالى كان: لماذا طالب تلاميذه ببيع كل ما لديهم حتى ملابسهم لشراء سيف؟
وماذا كانت إجابته على بطرس عندما سأله قائلاً: («يَا رَبُّ أَنَضْرِبُ بِالسَّيْفِ؟»)؟ فهل أطاع بطرس الذى قال له يسوع: («طُوبَى لَكَ يَا سِمْعَانُ بْنَ يُونَا إِنَّ لَحْماً وَدَماً لَمْ يُعْلِنْ لَكَ لَكِنَّ أَبِي الَّذِي فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ. 18وَأَنَا أَقُولُ لَكَ أَيْضاً: أَنْتَ بُطْرُسُ وَعَلَى هَذِهِ الصَّخْرَةِ أَبْنِي كَنِيسَتِي وَأَبْوَابُ الْجَحِيمِ لَنْ تَقْوَى عَلَيْهَا. 19وَأُعْطِيكَ مَفَاتِيحَ مَلَكُوتِ السَّمَاوَاتِ فَكُلُّ مَا تَرْبِطُهُ عَلَى الأَرْضِ يَكُونُ مَرْبُوطاً فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ. وَكُلُّ مَا تَحُلُّهُ عَلَى الأَرْضِ يَكُونُ مَحْلُولاً فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ». ـ متى 16: 17-19) ربه (؟) أم عصاه؟
4- إله المحبة نار فتَّاكة:
(29لأَنَّ إِلَهَنَا نَارٌ آكِلَةٌ.) عبرانيين 12: 29
5- إله المحبة يدمِّر فى البيئة:
تدعى الأناجيل أن عيسى عليه السلام دعا على شجرة التين فيبست: (18وَفِي الصُّبْحِ إِذْ كَانَ رَاجِعاً إِلَى الْمَدِينَةِ جَاعَ 19فَنَظَرَ شَجَرَةَ تِينٍ عَلَى الطَّرِيقِ وَجَاءَ إِلَيْهَا فَلَمْ يَجِدْ فِيهَا شَيْئاً إِلاَّ وَرَقاً فَقَطْ. فَقَالَ لَهَا: «لاَ يَكُنْ مِنْكِ ثَمَرٌ بَعْدُ إِلَى الأَبَدِ». فَيَبِسَتِ التِّينَةُ فِي الْحَالِ. 20فَلَمَّا رَأَى التَّلاَمِيذُ ذَلِكَ تَعَجَّبُوا قَائِلِينَ: «كَيْفَ يَبِسَتِ التِّينَةُ فِي الْحَالِ؟» 21فَأَجَابَ يَسُوعُ: «اَلْحَقَّ أَقُولُ لَكُمْ: إِنْ كَانَ لَكُمْ إِيمَانٌ وَلاَ تَشُكُّونَ فَلاَ تَفْعَلُونَ أَمْرَ التِّينَةِ فَقَطْ بَلْ إِنْ قُلْتُمْ أَيْضاً لِهَذَا الْجَبَلِ: انْتَقِلْ وَانْطَرِحْ فِي الْبَحْرِ فَيَكُونُ. 22وَكُلُّ مَا تَطْلُبُونَهُ فِي الصَّلاَةِ مُؤْمِنِينَ تَنَالُونَهُ».) متى 21: 18
بغض النظر عن الاختلاف فى هذه القضية ، وهل يبست التينة فى الحال أمام أعين التلاميذ ، أم يبست فى اليوم التالى كما يقول مرقس: (12وَفِي الْغَدِ لَمَّا خَرَجُوا مِنْ بَيْتِ عَنْيَا جَاعَ 13فَنَظَرَ شَجَرَةَ تِينٍ مِنْ بَعِيدٍ عَلَيْهَا وَرَقٌ وَجَاءَ لَعَلَّهُ يَجِدُ فِيهَا شَيْئاً. فَلَمَّا جَاءَ إِلَيْهَا لَمْ يَجِدْ شَيْئاً إلاَّ وَرَقاً لأَنَّهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ وَقْتَ التِّينِ. 14فَقَالَ يَسُوعُ لَهَا: «لاَ يَأْكُلْ أَحَدٌ مِنْكِ ثَمَراً بَعْدُ إِلَى الأَبَدِ». وَكَانَ تَلاَمِيذُهُ يَسْمَعُونَ. 20وَفِي الصَّبَاحِ إِذْ كَانُوا مُجْتَازِينَ رَأَوُا التِّينَةَ قَدْ يَبِسَتْ مِنَ الأُصُولِ 21فَتَذَكَّرَ بُطْرُسُ وَقَالَ لَهُ: «يَا سَيِّدِي انْظُرْ التِّينَةُ الَّتِي لَعَنْتَهَا قَدْ يَبِسَتْ!») مرقس 11: 12-14 و 20-21
فإن القضية التى سأعالجها هنا: من صاحب هذه الشجرة؟ وكم أضرَّ به إله المحبة وبأسرته؟ وكم من الأفراد لحقهم الضرر وهم كانوا يستفيدون من وجودها؟ سواء بتنفس الأكسجين الذى تخرجه نهاراً أو الأفراد الذين يبيعون تين هذه الشجرة ويتربحون من وراء هذه التجارة ، أو من المستهلك الذى ينعم بأكل هذه الثمار.
وما الغرض التربوى ونموذج الحب الذى أراد أن يعلمه البشرية من جراء هذا العمل التخريبى؟
6- إله المحبة يقتل الحيوانات ويخرب بيت صاحبها ويلوث مياه البحر:
(11وَكَانَ هُنَاكَ عِنْدَ الْجِبَالِ قَطِيعٌ كَبِيرٌ مِنَ الْخَنَازِيرِ يَرْعَى 12فَطَلَبَ إِلَيْهِ كُلُّ الشَّيَاطِينِ قَائِلِينَ: «أَرْسِلْنَا إِلَى الْخَنَازِيرِ لِنَدْخُلَ فِيهَا». 13فَأَذِنَ لَهُمْ يَسُوعُ لِلْوَقْتِ. فَخَرَجَتِ الأَرْوَاحُ النَّجِسَةُ وَدَخَلَتْ فِي الْخَنَازِيرِ فَانْدَفَعَ الْقَطِيعُ مِنْ عَلَى الْجُرْفِ إِلَى الْبَحْرِ - وَكَانَ نَحْوَ أَلْفَيْنِ فَاخْتَنَقَ فِي الْبَحْرِ. 14وَأَمَّا رُعَاةُ الْخَنَازِيرِ فَهَرَبُوا وَأَخْبَرُوا فِي الْمَدِينَةِ وَفِي الضِّيَاعِ فَخَرَجُوا لِيَرَوْا مَا جَرَى.) مرقس 5: 11-14
فأين ترون المحبة فى هذا العمل التخريبى؟ وماذا سيفعل أصحاب الخنازير بعد أن دمَّر إله المحبة ممتلكاتهم؟ وما الذى جنته البشرية ليلوث إله المحبة مياه البحر؟ كيف يوافق إله المحبة الشياطين على هذا العمل الشيطانى؟ ولماذا أراد إله المحبة بث الرعب فى كل من تقع مسامعه على هذه القصة؟
7- إله المحبة يسرق حماراً وأتانة ويركبهما فى آن واحد:
(28وَلَمَّا قَالَ هَذَا تَقَدَّمَ صَاعِداً إِلَى أُورُشَلِيمَ. 29وَإِذْ قَرُبَ مِنْ بَيْتِ فَاجِي وَبَيْتِ عَنْيَا عِنْدَ الْجَبَلِ الَّذِي يُدْعَى جَبَلَ الزَّيْتُونِ أَرْسَلَ اثْنَيْنِ مِنْ تَلاَمِيذِهِ 30قَائِلاً: «اِذْهَبَا إِلَى الْقَرْيَةِ الَّتِي أَمَامَكُمَا وَحِينَ تَدْخُلاَنِهَا تَجِدَانِ جَحْشاً مَرْبُوطاً لَمْ يَجْلِسْ عَلَيْهِ أَحَدٌ مِنَ النَّاسِ قَطُّ. فَحُلاَّهُ وَأْتِيَا بِهِ. 31وَإِنْ سَأَلَكُمَا أَحَدٌ: لِمَاذَا تَحُلاَّنِهِ؟ فَقُولاَ لَهُ: إِنَّ الرَّبَّ مُحْتَاجٌ إِلَيْهِ».) لوقا 19: 28-31
وعلى الرغم من وجود تساؤل من صاحب الحمارين عند لوقا ، إلا أنه عند متى لم يعلم صاحب الحمارين بهذه القصة: (1وَلَمَّا قَرُبُوا مِنْ أُورُشَلِيمَ وَجَاءُوا إِلَى بَيْتِ فَاجِي عِنْدَ جَبَلِ الزَّيْتُونِ حِينَئِذٍ أَرْسَلَ يَسُوعُ تِلْمِيذَيْنِ 2قَائِلاً لَهُمَا: «اِذْهَبَا إِلَى الْقَرْيَةِ الَّتِي أَمَامَكُمَا فَلِلْوَقْتِ تَجِدَانِ أَتَاناً مَرْبُوطَةً وَجَحْشاً مَعَهَا فَحُلَّاهُمَا وَأْتِيَانِي بِهِمَا. 3وَإِنْ قَالَ لَكُمَا أَحَدٌ شَيْئاً فَقُولاَ: الرَّبُّ مُحْتَاجٌ إِلَيْهِمَا. فَلِلْوَقْتِ يُرْسِلُهُمَا». 4فَكَانَ هَذَا كُلُّهُ لِكَيْ يَتِمَّ مَا قِيلَ بِالنَّبِيِّ: 5«قُولُوا لاِبْنَةِ صِهْيَوْنَ: هُوَذَا مَلِكُكِ يَأْتِيكِ وَدِيعاً رَاكِباً عَلَى أَتَانٍ وَجَحْشٍ ابْنِ أَتَانٍ». 6فَذَهَبَ التِّلْمِيذَانِ وَفَعَلاَ كَمَا أَمَرَهُمَا يَسُوعُ 7وَأَتَيَا بِالأَتَانِ وَالْجَحْشِ وَوَضَعَا عَلَيْهِمَا ثِيَابَهُمَا فَجَلَسَ عَلَيْهِمَا. .. .. .. .. 10وَلَمَّا دَخَلَ أُورُشَلِيمَ ارْتَجَّتِ الْمَدِينَةُ كُلُّهَا قَائِلَةً: «مَنْ هَذَا؟» 11فَقَالَتِ الْجُمُوعُ: «هَذَا يَسُوعُ النَّبِيُّ الَّذِي مِنْ نَاصِرَةِ الْجَلِيلِ».) متى 21: 1-11
فبأى حق يأخذ ممتلكات غيره دون استسماحه وطلب الإذن منه والموافقة على طلبه؟ وأين الحب فى الاستهانة بالغير وبحقوقه الشرعية وممتلكاته؟
8- إله المحبة إله متعصب لليهود:
متى 10: 5-7 (5هَؤُلاَءِ الاِثْنَا عَشَرَ أَرْسَلَهُمْ يَسُوعُ وَأَوْصَاهُمْ قَائِلاً: «إِلَى طَرِيقِ أُمَمٍ لاَ تَمْضُوا وَإِلَى مَدِينَةٍ لِلسَّامِرِيِّينَ لاَ تَدْخُلُوا. 6بَلِ اذْهَبُوا بِالْحَرِيِّ إِلَى خِرَافِ بَيْتِ إِسْرَائِيلَ الضَّالَّةِ. 7وَفِيمَا أَنْتُمْ ذَاهِبُونَ اكْرِزُوا قَائِلِينَ: إِنَّهُ قَدِ اقْتَرَبَ مَلَكُوتُ السَّمَاوَاتِ.)
متى 15: 24 (24فَأَجَابَ: «لَمْ أُرْسَلْ إِلاَّ إِلَى خِرَافِ بَيْتِ إِسْرَائِيلَ الضَّالَّةِ».25فَأَتَتْ وَسَجَدَتْ لَهُ قَائِلَةً: «يَا سَيِّدُ أَعِنِّي!» 26فَأَجَابَ: «لَيْسَ حَسَناً أَنْ يُؤْخَذَ خُبْزُ الْبَنِينَ وَيُطْرَحَ لِلْكِلاَبِ».)
تثنية 14: 21 (21«لا تَأْكُلُوا جُثَّةً مَا. تُعْطِيهَا لِلغَرِيبِ الذِي فِي أَبْوَابِكَ فَيَأْكُلُهَا
أَوْ يَبِيعُهَا لأَجْنَبِيٍّ لأَنَّكَ شَعْبٌ مُقَدَّسٌ لِلرَّبِّ إِلهِكَ.)
تثنية 23: 20 (20لِلأَجْنَبِيِّ تُقْرِضُ بِرِباً وَلكِنْ لأَخِيكَ لا تُقْرِضْ بِرِباً لِيُبَارِكَكَ الرَّبُّ إِلهُكَ فِي كُلِّ مَا تَمْتَدُّ إِليْهِ يَدُكَ فِي الأَرْضِ التِي أَنْتَ دَاخِلٌ إِليْهَا لِتَمْتَلِكَهَا.)
9- إله المحبة إله يسُب ويشتم:
أ ) لقد رفض علاج ابنة المرأة الكنعانية قائلاً لها: («لَيْسَ حَسَناً أَنْ يُؤْخَذَ خُبْزُ الْبَنِينَ وَيُطْرَحَ لِلْكِلاَبِ».) متى 15: 26
ويا لعجبى! فالمرأة الموصوفة بالكلبة كانت من المؤمنات دون أن يعرف من تدعونه إلاهكم ، علام الغيوب: ويا لعجبى! كانت المرأة مُفوَّهة ، وأكثر حباً وحُجة وإقناعاً من إله المحبة! فقد أجابت إله المحبة بما لم يتوقعه، أى أفحمته، وجعلته يتراجع عن قراره، وتعيبون على المنسوخ فى بعض آيات أحكام القرآن! فقالت: («نَعَمْ يَا سَيِّدُ. وَالْكِلاَبُ أَيْضاً تَأْكُلُ مِنَ الْفُتَاتِ الَّذِي يَسْقُطُ مِنْ مَائِدَةِ أَرْبَابِهَا». 28حِينَئِذٍ قَالَ يَسُوعُ لَهَا: «يَا امْرَأَةُ عَظِيمٌ إِيمَانُكِ! لِيَكُنْ لَكِ كَمَا تُرِيدِينَ». فَشُفِيَتِ ابْنَتُهَا مِنْ تِلْكَ السَّاعَةِ.)متى 15: 27-28
أين: أحبوا أعداءكم يا إله المحبة؟ أين: صلوا إلى مُبغضيكم؟ أين: صَلُّوا لأَجْلِ الَّذِينَ يُسِيئُونَ إِلَيْكُمْ وَيَطْرُدُونَكُمْ؟ أين كمالك الذى تطالب أتباعك أن يكونوا كاملين مثل أبيهم الذى فى السماوات؟ (43«سَمِعْتُمْ أَنَّهُ قِيلَ: تُحِبُّ قَرِيبَكَ وَتُبْغِضُ عَدُوَّكَ. 44وَأَمَّا أَنَا فَأَقُولُ لَكُمْ: أَحِبُّوا أَعْدَاءَكُمْ. بَارِكُوا لاَعِنِيكُمْ. أَحْسِنُوا إِلَى مُبْغِضِيكُمْ وَصَلُّوا لأَجْلِ الَّذِينَ يُسِيئُونَ إِلَيْكُمْ وَيَطْرُدُونَكُمْ 45لِكَيْ تَكُونُوا أَبْنَاءَ أَبِيكُمُ الَّذِي فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ فَإِنَّهُ يُشْرِقُ شَمْسَهُ عَلَى الأَشْرَارِ وَالصَّالِحِينَ وَيُمْطِرُ عَلَى الأَبْرَارِ وَالظَّالِمِينَ. 46لأَنَّهُ إِنْ أَحْبَبْتُمُ الَّذِينَ يُحِبُّونَكُمْ فَأَيُّ أَجْرٍ لَكُمْ؟ أَلَيْسَ الْعَشَّارُونَ أَيْضاً يَفْعَلُونَ ذَلِكَ؟ 47وَإِنْ سَلَّمْتُمْ عَلَى إِخْوَتِكُمْ فَقَطْ فَأَيَّ فَضْلٍ تَصْنَعُونَ؟ أَلَيْسَ الْعَشَّارُونَ أَيْضاً يَفْعَلُونَ هَكَذَا؟ 48فَكُونُوا أَنْتُمْ كَامِلِينَ كَمَا أَنَّ أَبَاكُمُ الَّذِي فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ هُوَ كَامِلٌ.) متى 5: 43-48
وأين الرحمة التى تريدها يا إله المحبة؟ هل كنت تنوى أن تترك ابنة المرأة دون أن تعالجها وفى يدك العلاج؟ أم أردت أن تذلِّها وتمسح بكرامتها الوحل قبل العلاج؟ (13فَاذْهَبُوا وَتَعَلَّمُوا مَا هُوَ: إِنِّي أُرِيدُ رَحْمَةً لاَ ذَبِيحَةً لأَنِّي لَمْ آتِ لأَدْعُوَ أَبْرَاراً بَلْ خُطَاةً إِلَى التَّوْبَةِ».) متى 9: 13
ألا تعرف يا إله المحبة أنك أنزلت إلى عبادك أن الظالمون والشتَّامون لا يرثون الملكوت؟ فقلت: (9أَمْ لَسْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ لاَ يَرِثُونَ مَلَكُوتَ اللهِ؟لاَ تَضِلُّوا!لاَ زُنَاةٌ وَلاَ عَبَدَةُ أَوْثَانٍ وَلاَ فَاسِقُونَ وَلاَ مَأْبُونُونَ وَلاَ مُضَاجِعُو ذُكُورٍ 10وَلاَ سَارِقُونَ وَلاَ طَمَّاعُونَ وَلاَ سِكِّيرُونَ وَلاَ شَتَّامُونَ وَلاَ خَاطِفُونَ يَرِثُونَ مَلَكُوتَ اللهِ) كورنثوس الأولى 6: 10
ألا تعرف يا إله المحبة أنك قلت:من قال لأخيه يا أحمق يدخل النار: (22وَأَمَّا أَنَا فَأَقُولُ لَكُمْ: إِنَّ كُلَّ مَنْ يَغْضَبُ عَلَى أَخِيهِ بَاطِلاً يَكُونُ مُسْتَوْجِبَ الْحُكْمِ وَمَنْ قَالَ لأَخِيهِ: رَقَا يَكُونُ مُسْتَوْجِبَ الْمَجْمَعِ وَمَنْ قَالَ: يَا أَحْمَقُ يَكُونُ مُسْتَوْجِبَ نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ.) متى 5: 25
فهل كنت تنوى يا إله المحبة أن تكون يوم الدينونة ظالماً وتحكم بعكس ما أنزلت؟
ب) وصف تلاميذه بأنهم:
قليلوا الصلاة والصوم: (28وَلَمَّا دَخَلَ بَيْتاً سَأَلَهُ تَلاَمِيذُهُ عَلَى انْفِرَادٍ: «لِمَاذَا لَمْ نَقْدِرْ نَحْنُ أَنْ نُخْرِجَهُ؟» 29فَقَالَ لَهُمْ: «هَذَا الْجِنْسُ لاَ يُمْكِنُ أَنْ يَخْرُجَ بِشَيْءٍ إلاَّ بِالصَّلاَةِ وَالصَّوْمِ».) مرقس 9: 28-29
ليس عندهم الإيمان الكافى:(19فَقَالَ لَهُمْ:«أَيُّهَا الْجِيلُ غَيْرُ الْمُؤْمِنِ إِلَى مَتَى أَكُونُ مَعَكُمْ؟ إِلَى مَتَى أَحْتَمِلُكُمْ؟ قَدِّمُوهُ إِلَيَّ!».) مرقس 9: 19
وأيضاً: (26فَلَمَّا أَبْصَرَهُ التَّلاَمِيذُ مَاشِياً عَلَى الْبَحْرِ اضْطَرَبُوا قَائِلِينَ: «إِنَّهُ خَيَالٌ». وَمِنَ الْخَوْفِ صَرَخُوا! .. .. .. 31فَفِي الْحَالِ مَدَّ يَسُوعُ يَدَهُ وَأَمْسَكَ بِهِ وَقَالَ لَهُ: «يَا قَلِيلَ الإِيمَانِ لِمَاذَا شَكَكْتَ؟») متى 14: 26-31
أغبياء ، يفضِّلون الجهل عن العلم ، وليس عندهم تحمُّل لمسئولية التعلُّم لتعليم الأجيال القادمة: (30وَخَرَجُوا مِنْ هُنَاكَ وَاجْتَازُوا الْجَلِيلَ وَلَمْ يُرِدْ أَنْ يَعْلَمَ أَحَدٌ 31لأَنَّهُ كَانَ يُعَلِّمُ تَلاَمِيذَهُ وَيَقُولُ لَهُمْ إِنَّ ابْنَ الإِنْسَانِ يُسَلَّمُ إِلَى أَيْدِي النَّاسِ فَيَقْتُلُونَهُ وَبَعْدَ أَنْ يُقْتَلَ يَقُومُ فِي الْيَوْمِ الثَّالِثِ. 32وَأَمَّا هُمْ فَلَمْ يَفْهَمُوا الْقَوْلَ وَخَافُوا أَنْ يَسْأَلُوهُ.) مرقس 9: 30-32
وأيضاً: (16فَقَالَ يَسُوعُ: «هَلْ أَنْتُمْ أَيْضاً حَتَّى الآنَ غَيْرُ فَاهِمِينَ؟) متى 15: 6
(27وَلَمْ يَفْهَمُوا أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَقُولُ لَهُمْ عَنِ الآبِ.) يوحنا 8: 27
(6هَذَا الْمَثَلُ قَالَهُ لَهُمْ يَسُوعُ وَأَمَّا هُمْ فَلَمْ يَفْهَمُوا مَا هُوَ الَّذِي كَانَ يُكَلِّمُهُمْ
بِهِ.) يوحنا 10: 6
(16وَهَذِهِ الأُمُورُ لَمْ يَفْهَمْهَا تلاَمِيذُهُ أَوَّلاً وَلَكِنْ لَمَّا تَمَجَّدَ يَسُوعُ حِينَئِذٍ تَذَكَّرُوا أَنَّ هَذِهِ كَانَتْ مَكْتُوبَةً عَنْهُ وَأَنَّهُمْ صَنَعُوا هَذِهِ لَهُ.) يوحنا 12: 16
(25فَاتَّكَأَ ذَاكَ عَلَى صَدْرِ يَسُوعَ وَقَالَ لَهُ: «يَا سَيِّدُ مَنْ هُوَ؟» 26أَجَابَ يَسُوعُ: «هُوَ ذَاكَ الَّذِي أَغْمِسُ أَنَا اللُّقْمَةَ وَأُعْطِيهِ». فَغَمَسَ اللُّقْمَةَ وَأَعْطَاهَا لِيَهُوذَا سِمْعَانَ الإِسْخَرْيُوطِيِّ. 27فَبَعْدَ اللُّقْمَةِ دَخَلَهُ الشَّيْطَانُ. فَقَالَ لَهُ يَسُوعُ: «مَا أَنْتَ تَعْمَلُهُ فَاعْمَلْهُ بِأَكْثَرِ سُرْعَةٍ». 28وَأَمَّا هَذَا فَلَمْ يَفْهَمْ أَحَدٌ مِنَ الْمُتَّكِئِينَ لِمَاذَا كَلَّمَهُ بِه 29لأَنَّ قَوْماً إِذْ كَانَ الصُّنْدُوقُ مَعَ يَهُوذَا ظَنُّوا أَنَّ يَسُوعَ قَالَ لَهُ: اشْتَرِ مَا نَحْتَاجُ إِلَيْهِ لِلْعِيدِ أَوْ أَنْ يُعْطِيَ شَيْئاً لِلْفُقَرَاءِ.) يوحنا 13: 25-29
(وَإِذْ كَانَ الْجَمِيعُ يَتَعَجَّبُونَ مِنْ كُلِّ مَا فَعَلَ يَسُوعُ قَالَ لِتَلاَمِيذِهِ: 44«ضَعُوا أَنْتُمْ هَذَا الْكَلاَمَ فِي آذَانِكُمْ: إِنَّ ابْنَ الإِنْسَانِ سَوْفَ يُسَلَّمُ إِلَى أَيْدِي النَّاسِ». 45وَأَمَّا هُمْ فَلَمْ يَفْهَمُوا هَذَا الْقَوْلَ وَكَانَ مُخْفىً عَنْهُمْ لِكَيْ لاَ يَفْهَمُوهُ وَخَافُوا أَنْ يَسْأَلُوهُ عَنْ هَذَا الْقَوْلِ.) لوقا 9: 43-45
(34وَأَمَّا هُمْ فَلَمْ يَفْهَمُوا مِنْ ذَلِكَ شَيْئاً وَكَانَ هَذَا الأَمْرُ مُخْفىً عَنْهُمْ وَلَمْ يَعْلَمُوا مَا قِيلَ.) لوقا 18: 31-34
فلماذا أمسك إله المحبة عقولهم عن الفهم؟ أليسوا هم حملة دعوته ورسالته من بعده؟ فما حكمته من ذلك؟ ولماذا لم يختارهم من أصحاب العقول النيَّرة ، إذا كان علمه أزلى؟
وصف رئيس التلاميذ الذى قال فى حقه: (18وَأَنَا أَقُولُ لَكَ أَيْضاً: أَنْتَ بُطْرُسُ وَعَلَى هَذِهِ الصَّخْرَةِ أَبْنِي كَنِيسَتِي وَأَبْوَابُ الْجَحِيمِ لَنْ تَقْوَى عَلَيْهَا. 19وَأُعْطِيكَ مَفَاتِيحَ مَلَكُوتِ السَّمَاوَاتِ فَكُلُّ مَا تَرْبِطُهُ عَلَى الأَرْضِ يَكُونُ مَرْبُوطاً فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ. وَكُلُّ مَا تَحُلُّهُ عَلَى الأَرْضِ يَكُونُ مَحْلُولاً فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ».)
بأنه شيطان: (23فَالْتَفَتَ وَقَالَ لِبُطْرُسَ: «اذْهَبْ عَنِّي يَا شَيْطَانُ. أَنْتَ مَعْثَرَةٌ لِي لأَنَّكَ لاَ تَهْتَمُّ بِمَا لِلَّهِ لَكِنْ بِمَا لِلنَّاسِ».) متى 16: 18-23
ج) وشتم الكهنة والفريسيين والكتبة ومعلمى الشريعة ودعا عليهم بالويل قائلاً: (7فَلَمَّا رَأَى كَثِيرِينَ مِنَ الْفَرِّيسِيِّينَ وَالصَّدُّوقِيِّينَ يَأْتُونَ إِلَى مَعْمُودِيَّتِهِ قَالَ لَهُمْ: «يَا أَوْلاَدَ الأَفَاعِي مَنْ أَرَاكُمْ أَنْ تَهْرُبُوا مِنَ الْغَضَبِ الآتِي؟) متى 3: 7
متى 23: 13-36 (13«لَكِنْ وَيْلٌ لَكُمْ أَيُّهَا الْكَتَبَةُ وَالْفَرِّيسِيُّونَ الْمُرَاؤُونَ لأَنَّكُمْ تُغْلِقُونَ مَلَكُوتَ السَّمَاوَاتِ قُدَّامَ النَّاسِ فَلاَ تَدْخُلُونَ أَنْتُمْ وَلاَ تَدَعُونَ الدَّاخِلِينَ يَدْخُلُونَ!
14وَيْلٌ لَكُمْ أَيُّهَا الْكَتَبَةُ وَالْفَرِّيسِيُّونَ الْمُرَاؤُونَ لأَنَّكُمْ تَأْكُلُونَ بُيُوتَ الأَرَامِلِ ولِعِلَّةٍ تُطِيلُونَ صَلَوَاتِكُمْ. لِذَلِكَ تَأْخُذُونَ دَيْنُونَةً أَعْظَمَ.
15وَيْلٌ لَكُمْ أَيُّهَا الْكَتَبَةُ وَالْفَرِّيسِيُّونَ الْمُرَاؤُونَ لأَنَّكُمْ تَطُوفُونَ الْبَحْرَ وَالْبَرَّ لِتَكْسَبُوا دَخِيلاً وَاحِداً وَمَتَى حَصَلَ تَصْنَعُونَهُ ابْناً لِجَهَنَّمَ أَكْثَرَ مِنْكُمْ مُضَاعَفاً!
16وَيْلٌ لَكُمْ أَيُّهَا الْقَادَةُ الْعُمْيَانُ الْقَائِلُونَ: مَنْ حَلَفَ بِالْهَيْكَلِ فَلَيْسَ بِشَيْءٍ وَلَكِنْ مَنْ حَلَفَ بِذَهَبِ الْهَيْكَلِ يَلْتَزِمُ!
17أَيُّهَا الْجُهَّالُ وَالْعُمْيَانُ أَيُّمَا أَعْظَمُ: أَلذَّهَبُ أَمِ الْهَيْكَلُ الَّذِي يُقَدِّسُ الذَّهَبَ؟ 18وَمَنْ حَلَفَ بِالْمَذْبَحِ فَلَيْسَ بِشَيْءٍ وَلَكِنْ مَنْ حَلَفَ بِالْقُرْبَانِ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِ يَلْتَزِمُ!
19أَيُّهَا الْجُهَّالُ وَالْعُمْيَانُ أَيُّمَا أَعْظَمُ: أَلْقُرْبَانُ أَمِ الْمَذْبَحُ الَّذِي يُقَدِّسُ الْقُرْبَانَ؟ 20فَإِنَّ مَنْ حَلَفَ بِالْمَذْبَحِ فَقَدْ حَلَفَ بِهِ وَبِكُلِّ مَا عَلَيْهِ 21وَمَنْ حَلَفَ بِالْهَيْكَلِ فَقَدْ حَلَفَ بِهِ وَبِالسَّاكِنِ فِيهِ 22وَمَنْ حَلَفَ بِالسَّمَاءِ فَقَدْ حَلَفَ بِعَرْشِ اللَّهِ وَبِالْجَالِسِ عَلَيْهِ!
23وَيْلٌ لَكُمْ أَيُّهَا الْكَتَبَةُ وَالْفَرِّيسِيُّونَ الْمُرَاؤُونَ لأَنَّكُمْ تُعَشِّرُونَ النَّعْنَعَ وَالشِّبِثَّ وَالْكَمُّونَ وَتَرَكْتُمْ أَثْقَلَ النَّامُوسِ: الْحَقَّ وَالرَّحْمَةَ وَالإِيمَانَ. كَانَ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ تَعْمَلُوا هَذِهِ وَلاَ تَتْرُكُوا تِلْكَ. 24أَيُّهَا الْقَادَةُ الْعُمْيَانُ الَّذِينَ يُصَفُّونَ عَنِ الْبَعُوضَةِ وَيَبْلَعُونَ الْجَمَلَ!
25وَيْلٌ لَكُمْ أَيُّهَا الْكَتَبَةُ وَالْفَرِّيسِيُّونَ الْمُرَاؤُونَ لأَنَّكُمْ تُنَقُّونَ خَارِجَ الْكَأْسِ وَالصَّحْفَةِ وَهُمَا مِنْ دَاخِلٍ مَمْلُوآنِ اخْتِطَافاً وَدَعَارَةً!
26أَيُّهَا الْفَرِّيسِيُّ الأَعْمَى نَقِّ أَوَّلاً دَاخِلَ الْكَأْسِ وَالصَّحْفَةِ لِكَيْ يَكُونَ خَارِجُهُمَا أَيْضاً نَقِيّاً.
27وَيْلٌ لَكُمْ أَيُّهَا الْكَتَبَةُ وَالْفَرِّيسِيُّونَ الْمُرَاؤُونَ لأَنَّكُمْ تُشْبِهُونَ قُبُوراً مُبَيَّضَةً تَظْهَرُ مِنْ خَارِجٍ جَمِيلَةً وَهِيَ مِنْ دَاخِلٍ مَمْلُوءَةٌ عِظَامَ أَمْوَاتٍ وَكُلَّ نَجَاسَةٍ. 28هَكَذَا أَنْتُمْ أَيْضاً: مِنْ خَارِجٍ تَظْهَرُونَ لِلنَّاسِ أَبْرَاراً وَلَكِنَّكُمْ مِنْ دَاخِلٍ مَشْحُونُونَ رِيَاءً وَإِثْماً!
29وَيْلٌ لَكُمْ أَيُّهَا الْكَتَبَةُ وَالْفَرِّيسِيُّونَ الْمُرَاؤُونَ لأَنَّكُمْ تَبْنُونَ قُبُورَ الأَنْبِيَاءِ وَتُزَيِّنُونَ مَدَافِنَ الصِّدِّيقِينَ 30وَتَقُولُونَ: لَوْ كُنَّا فِي أَيَّامِ آبَائِنَا لَمَا شَارَكْنَاهُمْ فِي دَمِ الأَنْبِيَاءِ! 31فَأَنْتُمْ تَشْهَدُونَ عَلَى أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَنَّكُمْ أَبْنَاءُ قَتَلَةِ الأَنْبِيَاءِ. 32فَامْلَأُوا أَنْتُمْ مِكْيَالَ آبَائِكُمْ.
33أَيُّهَا الْحَيَّاتُ أَوْلاَدَ الأَفَاعِي كَيْفَ تَهْرُبُونَ مِنْ دَيْنُونَةِ جَهَنَّمَ؟ 34لِذَلِكَ هَا أَنَا أُرْسِلُ إِلَيْكُمْ أَنْبِيَاءَ وَحُكَمَاءَ وَكَتَبَةً فَمِنْهُمْ تَقْتُلُونَ وَتَصْلِبُونَ وَمِنْهُمْ تَجْلِدُونَ فِي مَجَامِعِكُمْ وَتَطْرُدُونَ مِنْ مَدِينَةٍ إِلَى مَدِينَةٍ 35لِكَيْ يَأْتِيَ عَلَيْكُمْ كُلُّ دَمٍ زَكِيٍّ سُفِكَ عَلَى الأَرْضِ مِنْ دَمِ هَابِيلَ الصِّدِّيقِ إِلَى دَمِ زَكَرِيَّا بْنِ بَرَخِيَّا الَّذِي قَتَلْتُمُوهُ بَيْنَ الْهَيْكَلِ وَالْمَذْبَحِ. 36اَلْحَقَّ أَقُولُ لَكُمْ: إِنَّ هَذَا كُلَّهُ يَأْتِي عَلَى هَذَا الْجِيلِ!) متى 23: 13-36
د) وشتم اثنين من المؤمنين من الشعب الذين شهدا له بالإيمان الحسن، فقالا: (13وَإِذَا اثْنَانِ مِنْهُمْ كَانَا مُنْطَلِقَيْنِ فِي ذَلِكَ الْيَوْمِ إِلَى قَرْيَةٍ بَعِيدَةٍ عَنْ أُورُشَلِيمَ سِتِّينَ غَلْوَةً اسْمُهَا «عِمْوَاسُ». 14وَكَانَا يَتَكَلَّمَانِ بَعْضُهُمَا مَعَ بَعْضٍ عَنْ جَمِيعِ هَذِهِ الْحَوَادِثِ. 15وَفِيمَا هُمَا يَتَكَلَّمَانِ وَيَتَحَاوَرَانِ اقْتَرَبَ إِلَيْهِمَا يَسُوعُ نَفْسُهُ وَكَانَ يَمْشِي مَعَهُمَا. 16وَلَكِنْ أُمْسِكَتْ أَعْيُنُهُمَا عَنْ مَعْرِفَتِهِ. 17فَقَالَ لَهُمَا: «مَا هَذَا الْكَلاَمُ الَّذِي تَتَطَارَحَانِ بِهِ وَأَنْتُمَا مَاشِيَانِ عَابِسَيْنِ؟» 18فَأَجَابَ أَحَدُهُمَا الَّذِي اسْمُهُ كَِلْيُوبَاسُ: «هَلْ أَنْتَ مُتَغَرِّبٌ وَحْدَكَ فِي أُورُشَلِيمَ وَلَمْ تَعْلَمِ الأُمُورَ الَّتِي حَدَثَتْ فِيهَا فِي هَذِهِ الأَيَّامِ؟» 19فَقَالَ لَهُمَا: «وَمَا هِيَ؟» فَقَالاَ: «الْمُخْتَصَّةُ بِيَسُوعَ النَّاصِرِيِّ الَّذِي كَانَ إِنْسَاناً نَبِيّاً مُقْتَدِراً فِي الْفِعْلِ وَالْقَوْلِ أَمَامَ اللهِ وَجَمِيعِ الشَّعْبِ.)
أما هو فشتمهما قائلاً: (25فَقَالَ لَهُمَا: «أَيُّهَا الْغَبِيَّانِ وَالْبَطِيئَا الْقُلُوبِ فِي الإِيمَانِ بِجَمِيعِ مَا تَكَلَّمَ بِهِ الأَنْبِيَاءُ) لوقا 24: 25
10- ويا ليت إله المحبة سكت إلى هذا الحد ، بل تعداه لسب الأنبياء:
(8جَمِيعُ الَّذِينَ أَتَوْا قَبْلِي هُمْ سُرَّاقٌ وَلُصُوصٌ وَلَكِنَّ الْخِرَافَ لَمْ تَسْمَعْ لَهُمْ.) يوحنا 10: 8
فهل نسى إله المحبة أن هؤلاء الأنبياء أسلافه وأجداده ، أيسب إله المحبة أجداده؟ وما هى القدوة التى يتركها لمتبعيه من سبِّه لأجداده؟
ألم يقل إله المحبة؟ (21«قَدْ سَمِعْتُمْ أَنَّهُ قِيلَ لِلْقُدَمَاءِ: لاَ تَقْتُلْ وَمَنْ قَتَلَ يَكُونُ مُسْتَوْجِبَ الْحُكْمِ. 22وَأَمَّا أَنَا فَأَقُولُ لَكُمْ: إِنَّ كُلَّ مَنْ يَغْضَبُ عَلَى أَخِيهِ بَاطِلاً يَكُونُ مُسْتَوْجِبَ الْحُكْمِ وَمَنْ قَالَ لأَخِيهِ: رَقَا يَكُونُ مُسْتَوْجِبَ الْمَجْمَعِ وَمَنْ قَالَ: يَا أَحْمَقُ يَكُونُ مُسْتَوْجِبَ نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ.) متى 5: 21-22
11- إله المحبة يسب أباه إبراهيم ويتهمه بالدياثة لتحقيق مكاسب دنيوية، ويتهمه أنه أمر زوجته بالكذب:
(11وَحَدَثَ لَمَّا قَرُبَ أَنْ يَدْخُلَ مِصْرَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ لِسَارَايَ امْرَأَتِهِ: «إِنِّي قَدْ عَلِمْتُ أَنَّكِ امْرَأَةٌ حَسَنَةُ الْمَنْظَرِ. 12فَيَكُونُ إِذَا رَآكِ الْمِصْرِيُّونَ أَنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ: هَذِهِ امْرَأَتُهُ. فَيَقْتُلُونَنِي وَيَسْتَبْقُونَكِ. 13قُولِي إِنَّكِ أُخْتِي لِيَكُونَ لِي خَيْرٌ بِسَبَبِكِ وَتَحْيَا نَفْسِي مِنْ أَجْلِكِ».14فَحَدَثَ لَمَّا دَخَلَ أَبْرَامُ إِلَى مِصْرَ أَنَّ الْمِصْرِيِّينَ رَأَوُا الْمَرْأَةَ أَنَّهَا حَسَنَةٌ جِدّاً. 15وَرَآهَا رُؤَسَاءُ فِرْعَوْنَ وَمَدَحُوهَا لَدَى فِرْعَوْنَ فَأُخِذَتِ الْمَرْأَةُ إِلَى بَيْتِ فِرْعَوْنَ 16فَصَنَعَ إِلَى أَبْرَامَ خَيْراً بِسَبَبِهَا وَصَارَ لَهُ غَنَمٌ وَبَقَرٌ وَحَمِيرٌ وَعَبِيدٌ وَإِمَاءٌ وَأُتُنٌ وَجِمَالٌ.) تكوين 12: 11-16
12- إله المحبة يتهم جده يعقوب بالكذب على أبيه وسرقة البركة والنبوة من أخيه: (تكوين صح 27)
13- إله المحبة يتهم شكيم بالزنى بابنة نبى الله يعقوب دينة: تكوين24: 20
14- إله المحبة يتهم جده لوط بالسكر والزنى بابنتيه: (30وَصَعِدَ لُوطٌ مِنْ صُوغَرَ وَسَكَنَ فِي الْجَبَلِ وَابْنَتَاهُ مَعَهُ لأَنَّهُ خَافَ أَنْ يَسْكُنَ فِي صُوغَرَ. فَسَكَنَ فِي الْمَغَارَةِ هُوَ وَابْنَتَاهُ. 31وَقَالَتِ الْبِكْرُ لِلصَّغِيرَةِ: «أَبُونَا قَدْ شَاخَ وَلَيْسَ فِي الأَرْضِ رَجُلٌ لِيَدْخُلَ عَلَيْنَا كَعَادَةِ كُلِّ الأَرْضِ. 32هَلُمَّ نَسْقِي أَبَانَا خَمْراً وَنَضْطَجِعُ مَعَهُ فَنُحْيِي مِنْ أَبِينَا نَسْلاً». 33فَسَقَتَا أَبَاهُمَا خَمْراً فِي تِلْكَ اللَّيْلَةِ وَدَخَلَتِ الْبِكْرُ وَاضْطَجَعَتْ مَعَ أَبِيهَا وَلَمْ يَعْلَمْ بِاضْطِجَاعِهَا وَلاَ بِقِيَامِهَا. 34وَحَدَثَ فِي الْغَدِ أَنَّ الْبِكْرَ قَالَتْ لِلصَّغِيرَةِ: «إِنِّي قَدِ اضْطَجَعْتُ الْبَارِحَةَ مَعَ أَبِي. نَسْقِيهِ خَمْراً اللَّيْلَةَ أَيْضاً فَادْخُلِي اضْطَجِعِي مَعَهُ فَنُحْيِيَ مِنْ أَبِينَا نَسْلاً». 35فَسَقَتَا أَبَاهُمَا خَمْراً فِي تِلْكَ اللَّيْلَةِ أَيْضاً وَقَامَتِ الصَّغِيرَةُ وَاضْطَجَعَتْ مَعَهُ وَلَمْ يَعْلَمْ بِاضْطِجَاعِهَا وَلاَ بِقِيَامِهَا 36فَحَبِلَتِ ابْنَتَا لُوطٍ مِنْ أَبِيهِمَا. 37فَوَلَدَتِ الْبِكْرُ ابْناً وَدَعَتِ اسْمَهُ «مُوآبَ» -وَهُوَ أَبُو الْمُوآبِيِّينَ إِلَى الْيَوْمِ. 38وَالصَّغِيرَةُ أَيْضاً وَلَدَتِ ابْناً وَدَعَتِ اسْمَهُ «بِنْ عَمِّي» - وَهُوَ أَبُو بَنِي عَمُّونَ إِلَى الْيَوْمِ.) تكوين19: 30-38
15- إله المحبة يتهم جده يهوذا بالزنى بثامار زوجة ابنه: (تكوين الإصحاح 38)
16- إله المحبة يتهم جده داود بالزنى بجارته ”امرأة أوريا“ وخيانته العظمى للتخلص من زوجها وقتله: فى (صموئيل الثانى صح 11) !!!
17- إله المحبة يتهم جده داود بقتل أولاده الخمس من زوجته ميكال لإرضاء الرب: (صموئيل الثاني 21: 8-9) وقد عُدِّلَت فى التراجم الحديثة من ميكال إلى ميراب. ومن المسلم به أن ميكال زوجة داود وأخت ميراب الصغرى، فعُدِّلَت حتى لا يكون داود قد قتل أولاده، بل أولاد ميراب إبنة شاول الذي أراد الإمساك به وقتله .
18- إله المحبة يُسْلِم نساء جده للزنى: صموئيل الثانى 12: 11-12!!!
19- إله المحبة يتهم جده داود بأنه لا ينام إلا فى حضن امرأة عذراء: (ملوك الأول 1: 1-4)
20- إله المحبة يتهم أجداده أبناء صموئيل بأنهم قضاة مُرتشون: (صموئيل الأول 8: 2-5 و أخبار الأيام الأول 6: 28)
21- إله المحبة يتهم جده شاول بالكفر لذهابه لعرَّافة: (8فَتَنَكَّرَ شَاوُلُ وَلَبِسَ ثِيَاباً أُخْرَى, وَذَهَبَ هُوَ وَرَجُلاَنِ مَعَهُ وَجَاءُوا إِلَى الْمَرْأَةِ لَيْلاً. وَقَالَ: «اعْرِفِي لِي بِالْجَانِّ وَأَصْعِدِي لِي مَنْ أَقُولُ لَكِ». 9فَقَالَتْ لَهُ الْمَرْأَةُ: «هُوَذَا أَنْتَ تَعْلَمُ مَا فَعَلَ شَاوُلُ, كَيْفَ قَطَعَ أَصْحَابَ الْجَانِّ وَالتَّوَابِعِ مِنَ الأَرْضِ. فَلِمَاذَا تَضَعُ شَرَكاً لِنَفْسِي لِتُمِيتَهَا؟» 10فَحَلَفَ لَهَا شَاوُلُ بِالرَّبِّ: «حَيٌّ هُوَ الرَّبُّ, إِنَّهُ لاَ يَلْحَقُكِ إِثْمٌ فِي هَذَا الأَمْرِ».) صموئيل الأول 28: 9-10
22- إله المحبة يتهم جده ناثان بالتآمر مع أمه والكذب والنصب على أبيهما داود لإختيار سليمان نبياً: (ملوك الأول 1: 11-31)
23- أين المحبة يا إله المحبة فى أنك تعلمنا كيف يزنى الأخ بأخته ثم تنتقم من الزانى بالقتل: (أمنون بن داود يزنى بأخته ثامار أخت أبشالوم بن داود) اقرأ سيناريو هذا الفيلم فى (صموئيل الثانى صح 13).
ثم اقرأ عقوبة ازانى والزانية: وكانت عقوبته الرجم حتى الموت للرجل والمرأة [10وَإِذَا زَنَى رَجُلٌ مَعَ امْرَأَةٍ فَإِذَا زَنَى مَعَ امْرَأَةِ قَرِيبِهِ فَإِنَّهُ يُقْتَلُ الزَّانِي وَالزَّانِيَةُ.] (لاويين 20: 10 ، تثنية 22: 24).
وحتى قبل وقوع الزواج، إذا ارتكبت امرأة مخطوبة الزنا مع رجل آخر، كان كلاهما يرجمان حتى الموت: [23«إِذَا كَانَتْ فَتَاةٌ عَذْرَاءُ مَخْطُوبَةً لِرَجُلٍ فَوَجَدَهَا رَجُلٌ فِي المَدِينَةِ وَاضْطَجَعَ مَعَهَا 24فَأَخْرِجُوهُمَا كِليْهِمَا إِلى بَابِ تِلكَ المَدِينَةِ وَارْجُمُوهُمَا بِالحِجَارَةِ حَتَّى يَمُوتَا. الفَتَاةُ مِنْ أَجْلِ أَنَّهَا لمْ تَصْرُخْ فِي المَدِينَةِ وَالرَّجُلُ مِنْ أَجْلِ أَنَّهُ أَذَل امْرَأَةَ صَاحِبِهِ. فَتَنْزِعُ الشَّرَّ مِنْ وَسَطِكَ.] (تثنية 22: 23 و 24).
24- إله المحبة يتهم جده رأوبين بالزنى بزوجة أبيه بلهة: (تكوين 35: 22 ؛
49: 3-4)
25- إله المحبة يتهم جده حزقيال بتشجيع النساء على الزنى والفجور (حزقيال
16: 33-34)
26- إله المحبة يتهم جده هارون بعبادة العجل والدعوة لعبادته خروج32: 1-6)
27- إله المحبة يتهم جده سليمان بعبادة الأوثان: 9فَغَضِبَ الرَّبُّ عَلَى سُلَيْمَانَ لأَنَّ قَلْبَهُ مَالَ عَنِ الرَّبِّ إِلَهِ إِسْرَائِيلَ الَّذِي تَرَاءَى لَهُ مَرَّتَيْنِ، 10وَأَوْصَاهُ فِي هَذَا الأَمْرِ أَنْ لاَ يَتَّبِعَ آلِهَةً أُخْرَى. فَلَمْ يَحْفَظْ مَا أَوْصَى بِهِ الرَّبُّ. (الملوك الأول 11: 9-10)
على الرغم من أنه نسخ هذا الحكم وشهد له بالحكمة: (وَهُوَذَا أَعْظَمُ مِنْ سُلَيْمَانَ هَهُنَا!) متى 12: 42 و (31مَلِكَةُ التَّيْمَنِ سَتَقُومُ فِي الدِّينِ مَعَ رِجَالِ هَذَا الْجِيلِ وَتَدِينُهُمْ لأَنَّهَا أَتَتْ مِنْ أَقَاصِي الأَرْضِ لِتَسْمَعَ حِكْمَةَ سُلَيْمَانَ وَهُوَذَا أَعْظَمُ مِنْ سُلَيْمَانَ هَهُنَا.) لوقا 11: 31
28- إله المحبة يتهم زوجة جده سليمان مقلة ابنة أبشالوم بأنها كفرت وعملت
تمثالاً لسارية: (ملوك الأول 15: 13 و أخبار الأيام الثانى 15: 16)
29- إله المحبة يتهم جده جدعون ببناء مذبحاً لغير الله وإضلال بنى إسرائيل:
(قضاة 8: 24-27)
30- إله المحبة يتهم جده آحاز بعبادة الأوثان: (ملوك الثانى16: 2-4 ، وأيضاً
أخبارالأيام الثانى28: 2-4)
31- إله المحبة يتهم جده يربعام بعبادة الأوثان: (ملوك الأول 14: 9)
32- إله المحبة يتهم جده بعشا بن يربعام بعبادة الأوثان (ملوك الأول 15:
33-34)
33- إله المحبة يتهم جده يفتاح الجلعادى بتقديم أضحية للأوثان (قضاة 11:
30-31)
34- إله المحبة يتهم جده أخاب بن عُمرى بعبادة البعل والسجود له (ملوك الأول
16: 31-33)
35- إله المحبة يتهم جده يهورام بعبادة العجل (ملوك الثانى 3: 1-25)
36- إله المحبة يتهم جده أمصيابعبادة الأوثان (أخبار الأيام الثانى 25: 14)
وكلهم أنبياء! لك أن تتخيل أن إله المحبة يختار أكثر خلقه شراً وضلالاً كقدوة لعباده ، وكنموذج يُحتَذى ، ثم يحاسب عباده فى الآخرة على ما اقترفوه من آثام ، كانت قدوتهم فيها أنبياء وأجداد إله المحبة الذى يعبدوه ، فيهلكهم جميعا!
37- إله المحبة يغتاب هيرودس بالغيب:
(32فَقَالَ لَهُمُ: «امْضُوا وَقُولُوا لِهَذَا الثَّعْلَبِ: هَا أَنَا أُخْرِجُ شَيَاطِينَ وَأَشْفِي الْيَوْمَ وَغَداً وَفِي الْيَوْمِ الثَّالِثِ أُكَمَّلُ.) لوقا 13: 32
38- إله المحبة يُهين أمه أمام الناس:
(3وَلَمَّا فَرَغَتِ الْخَمْرُ قَالَتْ أُمُّ يَسُوعَ لَهُ: «لَيْسَ لَهُمْ خَمْرٌ». 4قَالَ لَهَا يَسُوعُ: «مَا لِي وَلَكِ يَا امْرَأَةُ! لَمْ تَأْتِ سَاعَتِي بَعْدُ».) يوحنا 2: 3-4
وانظر ماذا تقول دائرة المعارف الكتابية عن الشخص الذى يهين والديه أو لا يسمع كلامهما: إهانة الوالداين: لم يكن فقط التعدي على الوالدين يعتبر جريمة كبرى [15وَمَنْ ضَرَبَ أَبَاهُ أَوْ أُمَّهُ يُقْتَلُ قَتْلاً.] (خروج 21: 15) , بل [17وَمَنْ شَتَمَ أَبَاهُ أَوْ أُمَّهُ يُقْتَلُ قَتْلاً.] (خروج 21: 17) "دمه عليه" (لاويين 20: 9)
بل كان الابن يعتبر مذنبا يستوجب القتل إذا كان معاندا أو متمردا "لا يسمع لقول أبيه ولا لقول أمه" أو كان مسرفا سكيراً، وفي هذه الحالة كان على أبويه أن يأتيا به إلى شيوخ مدينته ويقدما الشكوى ضده [18«إِذَا كَانَ لِرَجُلٍ ابْنٌ مُعَانِدٌ وَمَارِدٌ لا يَسْمَعُ لِقَوْلِ أَبِيهِ وَلا لِقَوْلِ أُمِّهِ وَيُؤَدِّبَانِهِ فَلا يَسْمَعُ لهُمَا. 19يُمْسِكُهُ أَبُوهُ وَأُمُّهُ وَيَأْتِيَانِ بِهِ إِلى شُيُوخِ مَدِينَتِهِ وَإِلى بَابِ مَكَانِهِ 20وَيَقُولانِ لِشُيُوخِ مَدِينَتِهِ: ابْنُنَا هَذَا مُعَانِدٌ وَمَارِدٌ لا يَسْمَعُ لِقَوْلِنَا وَهُوَ مُسْرِفٌ وَسِكِّيرٌ. 21فَيَرْجُمُهُ جَمِيعُ رِجَالِ مَدِينَتِهِ بِحِجَارَةٍ حَتَّى يَمُوتَ. فَتَنْزِعُ الشَّرَّ مِنْ بَيْنِكُمْ وَيَسْمَعُ كُلُّ إِسْرَائِيل وَيَخَافُونَ.] (تثنية 21: 18-21)، فكان جميع رجال مدينته يرجمونه بحجارة حتى يموت، ليصير عبرة، فلا يفعل سائر الشباب مثله، فيحل الخراب والكوارث بهم جميعا.) وها هو إله المحبة يفعلها.
39- إله المحبة يطلب من تلاميذه عدم إفشاء السلام في الطريق:
(3اِذْهَبُوا. هَا أَنَا أُرْسِلُكُمْ مِثْلَ حُمْلاَنٍ بَيْنَ ذِئَابٍ. 4لاَ تَحْمِلُوا كِيساً وَلاَ مِزْوَداً وَلاَ أَحْذِيَةً وَلاَ تُسَلِّمُوا عَلَى أَحَدٍ فِي الطَّرِيقِ.) لوقا 10: 3-4 ، فأين المحبة يا أتباع إله المحبة؟
40- إله المحبة يصنع سوطاً من الحبال ويطرد به البائعين والصيارفة:
(13وَكَانَ فِصْحُ الْيَهُودِ قَرِيباً فَصَعِدَ يَسُوعُ إِلَى أُورُشَلِيمَ 14وَوَجَدَ فِي الْهَيْكَلِ الَّذِينَ كَانُوا يَبِيعُونَ بَقَراً وَغَنَماً وَحَمَاماً وَالصَّيَارِفَ جُلُوساً.15فَصَنَعَ سَوْطاً مِنْ حِبَالٍ وَطَرَدَ الْجَمِيعَ مِنَ الْهَيْكَلِ اَلْغَنَمَ وَالْبَقَرَ وَكَبَّ دَرَاهِمَ الصَّيَارِفِ وَقَلَّبَ مَوَائِدَهُمْ.) يوحنا 2: 13-15
41- إله المحبة يتهم إخوتــه بالكفر: فقد أوحى إلى كتبة الأناجيل:
(5لأَنَّ إِخْوَتَهُ أَيْضاً لَمْ يَكُونُوا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِهِ.) يوحنا 7: 5
42- إله المحبة يصف اليهود طالبى القدس بالكلاب والخنازير:
(6لاَ تُعْطُوا الْمُقَدَّسَ لِلْكِلاَبِ وَلاَ تَطْرَحُوا دُرَرَكُمْ قُدَّامَ الْخَنَازِيرِ لِئَلَّا تَدُوسَهَا بِأَرْجُلِهَا وَتَلْتَفِتَ فَتُمَزِّقَكُمْ.) متى 7: 6
43- إله المحبة يكذب على إخوتــه:
فبعد أن رفض أن يصعد إلى اليهودية لتكون أعماله علانية ليؤمن به أكبر عدد من الناس فى هذا الجمع من الحاضرين للعيد ، صعد هو أيضاً خفية. فهل كان يشك فى ولاء اخوته غير المؤمنين به وأمانتهم؟ (2وَكَانَ عِيدُ الْيَهُودِ عِيدُ الْمَظَالِّ قَرِيباً 3فَقَالَ لَهُ إِخْوَتُهُ: «انْتَقِلْ مِنْ هُنَا وَاذْهَبْ إِلَى الْيَهُودِيَّةِ لِكَيْ يَرَى تلاَمِيذُكَ أَيْضاً أَعْمَالَكَ الَّتِي تَعْمَلُ 4لأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ أَحَدٌ يَعْمَلُ شَيْئاً فِي الْخَفَاءِ وَهُوَ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَكُونَ علاَنِيَةً. إِنْ كُنْتَ تَعْمَلُ هَذِهِ الأَشْيَاءَ فَأَظْهِرْ نَفْسَكَ لِلْعَالَمِ». .. .. .. 6فَقَالَ لَهُمْ يَسُوعُ: «إِنَّ وَقْتِي لَمْ يَحْضُرْ بَعْدُ وَأَمَّا وَقْتُكُمْ فَفِي كُلِّ حِينٍ حَاضِرٌ. 7لاَ يَقْدِرُ الْعَالَمُ أَنْ يُبْغِضَكُمْ وَلَكِنَّهُ يُبْغِضُنِي أَنَا لأَنِّي أَشْهَدُ عَلَيْهِ أَنَّ أَعْمَالَهُ شِرِّيرَةٌ. 8اِصْعَدُوا أَنْتُمْ إِلَى هَذَا الْعِيدِ. أَنَا لَسْتُ أَصْعَدُ بَعْدُ إِلَى هَذَا الْعِيدِ لأَنَّ وَقْتِي لَمْ يُكْمَلْ بَعْدُ». 9قَالَ لَهُمْ هَذَا وَمَكَثَ فِي الْجَلِيلِ. 10وَلَمَّا كَانَ إِخْوَتُهُ قَدْ صَعِدُوا حِينَئِذٍ صَعِدَ هُوَ أَيْضاً إِلَى الْعِيدِ لاَ ظَاهِراً بَلْ كَأَنَّهُ فِي الْخَفَاءِ. 11فَكَانَ الْيَهُودُ يَطْلُبُونَهُ فِي الْعِيدِ وَيَقُولُونَ: «أَيْنَ ذَاكَ؟») يوحنا 7: 3-11
44- إله المحبة يكذب ويتهم تلاميذه زوراً بالكذب:
لقد سمَّى وحى متى ووحى مرقس شهادة الشهود على قول يسوع بهدم الهيكل وإعادة بنائه مرة أخرى فى ثلاثة أيام شهادة زور. فكيف يسبُّهم الوحى وهم قد شهدوا بما علموا وسمعوا من يسوع؟
أليس هو القائل؟ (18فَسَأَلَهُ الْيَهُودُ: «أَيَّةَ آيَةٍ تُرِينَا حَتَّى تَفْعَلَ هَذَا؟» 19أَجَابَ يَسُوعُ: «انْقُضُوا هَذَا الْهَيْكَلَ وَفِي ثلاَثَةِ أَيَّامٍ أُقِيمُهُ». 20فَقَالَ الْيَهُودُ: «فِي سِتٍّ وَأَرْبَعِينَ سَنَةً بُنِيَ هَذَا الْهَيْكَلُ أَفَأَنْتَ فِي ثلاَثَةِ أَيَّامٍ تُقِيمُهُ؟» 21وَأَمَّا هُوَ فَكَانَ يَقُولُ عَنْ هَيْكَلِ جَسَدِهِ. 22فَلَمَّا قَامَ مِنَ الأَمْوَاتِ تَذَكَّرَ تلاَمِيذُهُ أَنَّهُ قَالَ هَذَا فَآمَنُوا بِالْكِتَابِ وَالْكلاَمِ الَّذِي قَالَهُ يَسُوعُ.) يوحنا 2: 18-22
من النص السابق يتضح لكم أن الكذَّاب هو الرب نفسه وليسوا الشهود ، وهو بذلك يكون قد سبَّهم وهم أكثر براً منه ، وهو بذلك قد حكم على نفسه بأنه مستوجب نار جهنم؟ ألم يقل إله المحبة؟ (21«قَدْ سَمِعْتُمْ أَنَّهُ قِيلَ لِلْقُدَمَاءِ: لاَ تَقْتُلْ وَمَنْ قَتَلَ يَكُونُ مُسْتَوْجِبَ الْحُكْمِ. 22وَأَمَّا أَنَا فَأَقُولُ لَكُمْ: إِنَّ كُلَّ مَنْ يَغْضَبُ عَلَى أَخِيهِ بَاطِلاً يَكُونُ مُسْتَوْجِبَ الْحُكْمِ وَمَنْ قَالَ لأَخِيهِ: رَقَا يَكُونُ مُسْتَوْجِبَ الْمَجْمَعِ وَمَنْ قَالَ: يَا أَحْمَقُ يَكُونُ مُسْتَوْجِبَ نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ.) متى 5: 21-22
ولو افترضنا حُسن النية لكان هذا الذى أوحى هذا الكلام بشراً سريع النسيان. الأمر الذى ينفى عنه صفة الألوهية ، لأن الرب قدوس، منزَّه عن كل نقص فى البشر لا تأخذه سنة ولا نوم ، ولا ينسى ، وإلا ضاعت حقوق العباد بنسيانه ، كما رأينا أنه اتهم أناس بأنهم شهود زور ، فما مصير هؤلاء الناس فى الآخرة؟ هل هم من أهل الجنة؟ أم سيظل الرب ناسياً قوله هذا فيدخلهم ظلماً وعدواناً النار؟
أما تحليل الكاتب أن يسوع كان يتكلم عن هيكل جسده ، فهذا أمر غير محتمل بالمرة ، لأنه يقدح فى أمر الدين كله:
فهل يُرسل الرب نبياً (يسوع) ولا يوضح مراده ، ويتفوَّه بأمور مزدوجة المعنى ويترك الناس تتخبَّط فى فهمها؟ فما بالك لو هو الإله نفسه؟ ألم يكن عنده أسلوب أفضل وأيسر وأوضح من هذا وهو الرب الخالق كل شىء على زعمكم؟
أضف إلى ذلك أن هذا الكلام أيضاً لا ينطبق على جسده ، لأنه لم يمكث فى القبر ثلاثة أيام: فقد مات يوم الجمعة ودُفِنَ أيضاً مساء يوم الجمعة (مرقس 15: 42) ، ومع طلوع شمس أول يوم فى الأسبوع (يوم الأحد) لم يكن بالقبر. فيكون بذلك قد بقى الإله فى المقبرة حوالى 32 ساعة.
45- إله المحبة يتجرد من الرحمة ويترك ابنه يلقى أبشع أنواع العذاب وسط
......................................................
تابع: إله المحبة مستوجب نار جهنم؟ ?????????????????المجرمين:
(28فَعَرَّوْهُ وَأَلْبَسُوهُ رِدَاءً قِرْمِزِيَّاً 29وَضَفَرُوا إِكْلِيلاً مِنْ شَوْكٍ وَوَضَعُوهُ عَلَى رَأْسِهِ وَقَصَبَةً فِي يَمِينِهِ. وَكَانُوا يَجْثُونَ قُدَّامَهُ وَيَسْتَهْزِئُونَ بِهِ قَائِلِينَ: «السَّلاَمُ يَا مَلِكَ الْيَهُودِ!» 30وَبَصَقُوا عَلَيْهِ وَأَخَذُوا الْقَصَبَةَ وَضَرَبُوهُ عَلَى رَأْسِهِ. 31وَبَعْدَ مَا اسْتَهْزَأُوا بِهِ نَزَعُوا عَنْهُ الرِّدَاءَ وَأَلْبَسُوهُ ثِيَابَهُ وَمَضَوْا بِهِ لِلصَّلْبِ.) متى 27: 28-31 ،
(الرجال الذين كانوا ضابطين يسوع كانوا يستهزئون به وهم يجلدونه، وغطُّوه وكانوا يضربون وجهه قائلين: تنبأ) لوقا 22: 63-64 ،
(لطم يسوعَ واحدٌ من الخدام كان واقفاً ...) يوحنا 18: 22-23
وتركه يناديه ويسترحمه دون أن ينقذه ، على الرغم أنه وعده أن ينقذه: (41وَانْفَصَلَ عَنْهُمْ نَحْوَ رَمْيَةِ حَجَرٍ وَجَثَا عَلَى رُكْبَتَيْهِ وَصَلَّى 42قَائِلاً: «يَا أَبَتَاهُ إِنْ شِئْتَ أَنْ تُجِيزَ عَنِّي هَذِهِ الْكَأْسَ. وَلَكِنْ لِتَكُنْ لاَ إِرَادَتِي بَلْ إِرَادَتُكَ». 43وَظَهَرَ لَهُ مَلاَكٌ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ يُقَوِّيهِ. 44وَإِذْ كَانَ فِي جِهَادٍ كَانَ يُصَلِّي بِأَشَدِّ لَجَاجَةٍ وَصَارَ عَرَقُهُ كَقَطَرَاتِ دَمٍ نَازِلَةٍ عَلَى الأَرْضِ. 45ثُمَّ قَامَ مِنَ الصَّلاَةِ وَجَاءَ إِلَى تَلاَمِيذِهِ فَوَجَدَهُمْ نِيَاماً مِنَ الْحُزْنِ.) لوقا 22: 41-45
هل تعرفون لماذا ترك إله المحبة ابنه؟ وهل لم يكن يعرف ابنه أنه لابد أن يُصلَب لفداء البشرية؟ فهل أراد بصلاته ودعائه ألا يفدى البشرية؟ (46وَنَحْوَ السَّاعَةِ التَّاسِعَةِ صَرَخَ يَسُوعُ بِصَوْتٍ عَظِيمٍ قَائِلاً: «إِيلِي إِيلِي لَمَا شَبَقْتَنِي» (أَيْ: إِلَهِي إِلَهِي لِمَاذَا تَرَكْتَنِي؟)) متى 27: 46
ألم يعد إله المحبة أن ينقذ ابنه من اليهود؟ فلماذا لم يوف بوعده؟ (32سَمِعَ الْفَرِّيسِيُّونَ الْجَمْعَ يَتَنَاجَوْنَ بِهَذَا مِنْ نَحْوِهِ فَأَرْسَلَ الْفَرِّيسِيُّونَ وَرُؤَسَاءُ الْكَهَنَةِ خُدَّاماً لِيُمْسِكُوهُ. 33فَقَالَ لَهُمْ يَسُوعُ: «أَنَا مَعَكُمْ زَمَاناً يَسِيراً بَعْدُ ثُمَّ أَمْضِي إِلَى الَّذِي أَرْسَلَنِي. 34سَتَطْلُبُونَنِي وَلاَ تَجِدُونَنِي وَحَيْثُ أَكُونُ أَنَا لاَ تَقْدِرُونَ أَنْتُمْ أَنْ تَأْتُوا».) يوحنا 7: 32-34
بل أكد لهم أنهم لن يعثروا عليه: (21قَالَ لَهُمْ يَسُوعُ أَيْضاً: «أَنَا أَمْضِي وَسَتَطْلُبُونَنِي وَتَمُوتُونَ فِي خَطِيَّتِكُمْ. حَيْثُ أَمْضِي أَنَا لاَ تَقْدِرُونَ أَنْتُمْ أَنْ تَأْتُوا» .. .. .. «أَنْتُمْ مِنْ أَسْفَلُ أَمَّا أَنَا فَمِنْ فَوْقُ. أَنْتُمْ مِنْ هَذَا الْعَالَمِ أَمَّا أَنَا فَلَسْتُ مِنْ هَذَا الْعَالَمِ. 24فَقُلْتُ لَكُمْ إِنَّكُمْ تَمُوتُونَ فِي خَطَايَاكُمْ لأَنَّكُمْ إِنْ لَمْ تُؤْمِنُوا أَنِّي أَنَا هُوَ تَمُوتُونَ فِي خَطَايَاكُمْ». .. .. .. 28فَقَالَ لَهُمْ يَسُوعُ: «مَتَى رَفَعْتُمُ ابْنَ الإِنْسَانِ فَحِينَئِذٍ تَفْهَمُونَ أَنِّي أَنَا هُوَ وَلَسْتُ أَفْعَلُ شَيْئاً مِنْ نَفْسِي بَلْ أَتَكَلَّمُ بِهَذَا كَمَا عَلَّمَنِي أَبِي. 29وَالَّذِي أَرْسَلَنِي هُوَ مَعِي وَلَمْ يَتْرُكْنِي الآبُ وَحْدِي لأَنِّي فِي كُلِّ حِينٍ أَفْعَلُ مَا يُرْضِيهِ».) يوحنا 8: 21-29
فلماذا حكم الجميع على إله المحبة بالموت؟ هل بسبب شتمهم وسبهم وإهانتهم؟ أم بسبب تخريب ممتلكاتهم؟ أم لم يعرفوا بالمرة أنه إله المحبة وأخفى عنهم رسالته فى الحب؟ (فالجميع حكموا عليه أنه مستوجب الموت) مرقس 14: 64،
(فأجابوا وقالوا: إنه مستوجب الموت) متى 26: 66
وهل بعد هذا العمل الهمجى الذى تُمجدونه ، يستحق إله المحبة أن يوصف بعدم الرحمة وعدم المحبة؟
(31فَمَاذَا نَقُولُ لِهَذَا؟ إِنْ كَانَ اللهُ مَعَنَا فَمَنْ عَلَيْنَا! 32اَلَّذِي لَمْ يُشْفِقْ عَلَى ابْنِهِ بَلْ بَذَلَهُ لأَجْلِنَا أَجْمَعِينَ كَيْفَ لاَ يَهَبُنَا أَيْضاً مَعَهُ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ؟) رومية 8: 31-32
وهل يستحق إله المحبة اللعن بدلاً من التسبيح والحمد والإستغفار؟
(13اَلْمَسِيحُ افْتَدَانَا مِنْ لَعْنَةِ النَّامُوسِ، إِذْ صَارَ لَعْنَةً لأَجْلِنَا، لأَنَّهُ مَكْتُوبٌ: «مَلْعُونٌ كُلُّ مَنْ عُلِّقَ عَلَى خَشَبَةٍ».) غلاطية 3: 13
46- إله المحبة يتخلص من كل أتباعه:
ففى الوقت الذى أوحى فيه إله المحبة إلى أتباعه أن يلعنوه قائلاً: (13اَلْمَسِيحُ افْتَدَانَا مِنْ لَعْنَةِ النَّامُوسِ، إِذْ صَارَ لَعْنَةً لأَجْلِنَا، لأَنَّهُ مَكْتُوبٌ: «مَلْعُونٌ كُلُّ مَنْ عُلِّقَ عَلَى خَشَبَةٍ».) غلاطية 3: 13
فقد خدعهم وقال: (9أَمْ لَسْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ لاَ يَرِثُونَ مَلَكُوتَ اللهِ؟ لاَ تَضِلُّوا! لاَ زُنَاةٌ وَلاَ عَبَدَةُ أَوْثَانٍ وَلاَ فَاسِقُونَ وَلاَ مَأْبُونُونَ وَلاَ مُضَاجِعُو ذُكُورٍ 10وَلاَ سَارِقُونَ وَلاَ طَمَّاعُونَ وَلاَ سِكِّيرُونَ وَلاَ شَتَّامُونَ وَلاَ خَاطِفُونَ يَرِثُونَ مَلَكُوتَ اللهِ.) كورنثوس الأولى 6: 10
وقال أيضاً: (22وَأَمَّا أَنَا فَأَقُولُ لَكُمْ: إِنَّ كُلَّ مَنْ يَغْضَبُ عَلَى أَخِيهِ بَاطِلاً يَكُونُ مُسْتَوْجِبَ الْحُكْمِ وَمَنْ قَالَ لأَخِيهِ: رَقَا يَكُونُ مُسْتَوْجِبَ الْمَجْمَعِ وَمَنْ قَالَ: يَا أَحْمَقُ يَكُونُ مُسْتَوْجِبَ نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ.) متى 5: 25
فما بالكم لو لعن شخص إلهه؟
(7لاَ تَنْطِقْ بِاسْمِ الرَّبِّ إِلَهِكَ بَاطِلاً لأَنَّ الرَّبَّ لاَ يُبْرِئُ مَنْ نَطَقَ بِاسْمِهِ بَاطِلاً.) خروج 20: 7.
وكان النهي أشد عن سب اسم الله [28«لاَ تَسُبَّ اللهَ وَلاَ تَلْعَنْ رَئِيساً فِي شَعْبِكَ.) خروج 22: 28
وأول حادثة يسجلها الكتاب عن كسر هذه الوصية، أُعْدِمَ مرتكبها رجما بالحجارة (11فَجَدَّفَ ابْنُ الْإِسْرَائِيلِيَّةِ عَلَى الاسْمِ وَسَبَّ. فَأَتُوا بِهِ إِلَى مُوسَى. (وَكَانَ اسْمُ أُمِّهِ شَلُومِيَةَ بِنْتَ دِبْرِي مِنْ سِبْطِ دَانٍ). 12فَوَضَعُوهُ فِي الْمَحْرَسِ لِيُعْلَنَ لَهُمْ عَنْ فَمِ الرَّبِّ. 13فَقَالَ الرَّبُّ لِمُوسَى: 14«أَخْرِجِ الَّذِي سَبَّ إِلَى خَارِجِ الْمَحَلَّةِ فَيَضَعَ جَمِيعُ السَّامِعِينَ أَيْدِيَهُمْ عَلَى رَأْسِهِ وَيَرْجُمَهُ كُلُّ الْجَمَاعَةِ. 15وَقُلْ لِبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ: كُلُّ مَنْ سَبَّ إِلَهَهُ يَحْمِلُ خَطِيَّتَهُ 16وَمَنْ جَدَّفَ عَلَى اسْمِ الرَّبِّ فَإِنَّهُ يُقْتَلُ. يَرْجُمُهُ كُلُّ الْجَمَاعَةِ رَجْماً. الْغَرِيبُ كَالْوَطَنِيِّ عِنْدَمَا يُجَدِّفُ عَلَى الاسْمِ يُقْتَلُ. .. .. .. 23فَكَلَّمَ مُوسَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنْ يُخْرِجُوا الَّذِي سَبَّ إِلَى خَارِجِ الْمَحَلَّةِ وَيَرْجُمُوهُ بِالْحِجَارَةِ. فَفَعَلَ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ كَمَا أَمَرَ الرَّبُّ مُوسَى.) لاويين 24: 11-23
وبذلك يكون قد وعدكم إله المحبة بنار وبئس المصير، إذا اتخذتموه إله واعتبرتم أن هذا اللعن موجه له.
47- إله المحبة يخدعكم ويُضلِّلكم:
فإذا كنتم تعبدون عيسى عليه السلام على إنه هو الله الخالق ، البارىء ، الواحد، الأحد، القادر ، الرزَّاق، المُخلِّص ، الناصر، المنتصر، العزيز، القدوس، فقد خدعكم ولم يقل فى نص واضح الكلمات: (إننى أنا الله فاعبدونى ، وأقيموا الصلاة لذكرى)، ولم يُصرِّح لأحد من أتباعه أن يسجد له ، ويتعبد باسمه ، ولم تعرف ذلك أمه القديسة الطاهرة ، أشرف نساء العالمين ، ولم يُذكر أنه عبدته.
فكيف بإله المحبة ينزل من سمائه ومن أعلى عرشه ولم يخبركم بدينه ، ويترك ذلك لبولس الكذاب المنافق؟: (7فَإِنَّهُ إِنْ كَانَ صِدْقُ اللهِ قَدِ ازْدَادَ بِكَذِبِي لِمَجْدِهِ فَلِمَاذَا أُدَانُ أَنَا بَعْدُ كَخَاطِئٍ؟) رومية 3: 7
(19فَإِنِّي إِذْ كُنْتُ حُرّاً مِنَ الْجَمِيعِ اسْتَعْبَدْتُ نَفْسِي لِلْجَمِيعِ لأَرْبَحَ الأَكْثَرِينَ. 20فَصِرْتُ لِلْيَهُودِ كَيَهُودِيٍّ لأَرْبَحَ الْيَهُودَ وَلِلَّذِينَ تَحْتَ النَّامُوسِ كَأَنِّي تَحْتَ النَّامُوسِ لأَرْبَحَ الَّذِينَ تَحْتَ النَّامُوسِ 21وَلِلَّذِينَ بِلاَ نَامُوسٍ كَأَنِّي بِلاَ نَامُوسٍ - مَعَ أَنِّي لَسْتُ بِلاَ نَامُوسٍ لِلَّهِ بَلْ تَحْتَ نَامُوسٍ لِلْمَسِيحِ - لأَرْبَحَ الَّذِينَ بِلاَ نَامُوسٍ. 22صِرْتُ لِلضُّعَفَاءِ كَضَعِيفٍ لأَرْبَحَ الضُّعَفَاءَ. صِرْتُ لِلْكُلِّ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ لأُخَلِّصَ عَلَى كُلِّ حَالٍ قَوْماً. 23وَهَذَا أَنَا أَفْعَلُهُ لأَجْلِ الإِنْجِيلِ لأَكُونَ شَرِيكاً فِيهِ.) كورنثوس الأولى 9: 19-23
فكيف بإله المحبة ينزل من سمائه ومن أعلى عرشه ويتجسد فى صورة بشر فانٍ ولم يخبركم بدينه ، ولم يحافظ على إنجيله ويترك ذلك لقسطنطين الوثنى فى مجمع نيقية عام 325م ، الذى يُشكُّ فى اعتناقه النصرانية قبل موته ب 18 يوم فقط؟
48- إله المحبة ينسى تشريعه:
كيف لو يوح إله المحبة إلى بولس رأيه فى العذارى؟ (25وَأَمَّا الْعَذَارَى فَلَيْسَ عِنْدِي أَمْرٌ مِنَ الرَّبِّ فِيهِنَّ وَلَكِنَّنِي أُعْطِي رَأْياً كَمَنْ رَحِمَهُ الرَّبُّ أَنْ يَكُونَ أَمِيناً.) كورنثوس الأولى 7: 25
(38إِذاً مَنْ زَوَّجَ فَحَسَناً يَفْعَلُ وَمَنْ لاَ يُزَوِّجُ يَفْعَلُ أَحْسَنَ. 39الْمَرْأَةُ مُرْتَبِطَةٌ بِالنَّامُوسِ مَا دَامَ رَجُلُهَا حَيّاً. وَلَكِنْ إِنْ مَاتَ رَجُلُهَا فَهِيَ حُرَّةٌ لِكَيْ تَتَزَوَّجَ بِمَنْ تُرِيدُ فِي الرَّبِّ فَقَطْ. 40وَلَكِنَّهَا أَكْثَرُ غِبْطَةً إِنْ لَبِثَتْ هَكَذَا بِحَسَبِ رَأْيِي. وَأَظُنُّ أَنِّي أَنَا أَيْضاً عِنْدِي رُوحُ اللهِ.) كورنثوس الأولى 7: 38-40
49- إله المحبة ظالم:
فقد مات ودُفِنَ لمدة ثلاثة أيام، ونزل إلى الجحيم لمدة ثلاثة أيام،أى ابتعد عن عباده ستة أيام ، فمن الذى كان يحيى ويميت ، ويرزق عباده ويشفى مرضاهم ، ويقضى حوائجهم
وهو عنهم من الغافلين؟
50- إله المحبة هضم حق المرأة:
(34لِتَصْمُتْ نِسَاؤُكُمْ فِي الْكَنَائِسِ لأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ مَأْذُوناً لَهُنَّ أَنْ يَتَكَلَّمْنَ بَلْ يَخْضَعْنَ كَمَا يَقُولُ النَّامُوسُ أَيْضاً. 35وَلَكِنْ إِنْ كُنَّ يُرِدْنَ أَنْ يَتَعَلَّمْنَ شَيْئاً فَلْيَسْأَلْنَ رِجَالَهُنَّ فِي الْبَيْتِ لأَنَّهُ قَبِيحٌ بِالنِّسَاءِ أَنْ تَتَكَلَّمَ فِي كَنِيسَةٍ.) كورنثوس الأولى 14: 34-35
وأمر بتشويهها إذا صلت بدون غطاء الرأس، وهى ليست صورة لله ومجده: (3وَلَكِنْ أُرِيدُ أَنْ تَعْلَمُوا أَنَّ رَأْسَ كُلِّ رَجُلٍ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ. وَأَمَّا رَأْسُ الْمَرْأَةِ فَهُوَ الرَّجُلُ. وَرَأْسُ الْمَسِيحِ هُوَ اللهُ. 4كُلُّ رَجُلٍ يُصَلِّي أَوْ يَتَنَبَّأُ وَلَهُ عَلَى رَأْسِهِ شَيْءٌ يَشِينُ رَأْسَهُ. 5وَأَمَّا كُلُّ امْرَأَةٍ تُصَلِّي أَوْ تَتَنَبَّأُ وَرَأْسُهَا غَيْرُ مُغَطّىً فَتَشِينُ رَأْسَهَا لأَنَّهَا وَالْمَحْلُوقَةَ شَيْءٌ وَاحِدٌ بِعَيْنِهِ. 6إِذِ الْمَرْأَةُ إِنْ كَانَتْ لاَ تَتَغَطَّى فَلْيُقَصَّ شَعَرُهَا. وَإِنْ كَانَ قَبِيحاً بِالْمَرْأَةِ أَنْ تُقَصَّ أَوْ تُحْلَقَ فَلْتَتَغَطَّ. 7فَإِنَّ الرَّجُلَ لاَ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يُغَطِّيَ رَأْسَهُ لِكَوْنِهِ صُورَةَ اللهِ وَمَجْدَهُ. وَأَمَّا الْمَرْأَةُ فَهِيَ مَجْدُ الرَّجُلِ. 8لأَنَّ الرَّجُلَ لَيْسَ مِنَ الْمَرْأَةِ بَلِ الْمَرْأَةُ مِنَ الرَّجُلِ. 9وَلأَنَّ الرَّجُلَ لَمْ يُخْلَقْ مِنْ أَجْلِ الْمَرْأَةِ بَلِ الْمَرْأَةُ مِنْ أَجْلِ الرَّجُلِ.) كورنثوس الأولى 11: 2-9
فإذا كان إله المحبة خلق المرأة من أجل الرجل ، وحرَّضَ الرجال على أن يخصوا أنفسهم ، فكيف ستقضى شهوتها، ومع من؟ هل يجب أن نفهم كما فهم بعض الموتورين فى الغرب أن هذا النص يبيح السحاق (العلاقة الجنسية الآثمة بين أنثتين)؟ وكيف يهضم حقوقها إلى هذه الدرجة وهو إله المحبة فى زعمكم؟: (12لأَنَّهُ يُوجَدُ خِصْيَانٌ وُلِدُوا هَكَذَا مِنْ بُطُونِ أُمَّهَاتِهِمْ وَيُوجَدُ خِصْيَانٌ خَصَاهُمُ النَّاسُ وَيُوجَدُ خِصْيَانٌ خَصَوْا أَنْفُسَهُمْ لأَجْلِ مَلَكُوتِ السَّمَاوَاتِ. مَنِ اسْتَطَاعَ أَنْ يَقْبَلَ فَلْيَقْبَلْ».) متى 19: 12
وأنزل الرجل بمنزلة إله المحبة من المرأة ، وعلى ذلك عليها الطاعة العمياء: (22أَيُّهَا النِّسَاءُ اخْضَعْنَ لِرِجَالِكُنَّ كَمَا لِلرَّبِّ، 23لأَنَّ الرَّجُلَ هُوَ رَأْسُ الْمَرْأَةِ كَمَا أَنَّ الْمَسِيحَ أَيْضاً رَأْسُ الْكَنِيسَةِ، وَهُوَ مُخَلِّصُ الْجَسَدِ. 24وَلَكِنْ كَمَا تَخْضَعُ الْكَنِيسَةُ لِلْمَسِيحِ، كَذَلِكَ النِّسَاءُ لِرِجَالِهِنَّ فِي كُلِّ شَيْءٍ.) أفسس 5: 22-24
(11لِتَتَعَلَّمِ الْمَرْأَةُ بِسُكُوتٍ فِي كُلِّ خُضُوعٍ. 12وَلَكِنْ لَسْتُ آذَنُ لِلْمَرْأَةِ أَنْ تُعَلِّمَ وَلاَ تَتَسَلَّطَ عَلَى الرَّجُلِ، بَلْ تَكُونُ فِي سُكُوتٍ، 13لأَنَّ آدَمَ جُبِلَ أَوَّلاً ثُمَّ حَوَّاءُ، 14وَآدَمُ لَمْ يُغْوَ لَكِنَّ الْمَرْأَةَ أُغْوِيَتْ فَحَصَلَتْ فِي التَّعَدِّي) تيموثاوس الأولى 2: 11-14
ونسب إليها خطيئة عصيان الله والأكل من الشجرة: (خَدَعَتِ الْحَيَّةُ حَوَّاءَ بِمَكْرِهَا) كورنثوس الثانية 11: 3
(14وَآدَمُ لَمْ يُغْوَ لَكِنَّ الْمَرْأَةَ أُغْوِيَتْ فَحَصَلَتْ فِي التَّعَدِّي) تيموثاوس الأولى 2: 14
وأمرإله المحبة ببيعها، فمن حق الأب أن يبيع ابنته: (وإذا باع رجل ابنته أمةً لا تخرج كما يخرج العبيد) خروج21: 7
إله المحبة دفع نساء داود للزنى: (11هَكَذَا قَالَ الرَّبُّ: هَئَنَذَا أُقِيمُ عَلَيْكَ الشَّرَّ مِنْ بَيْتِكَ، وَآخُذُ نِسَاءَكَ أَمَامَ عَيْنَيْكَ وَأُعْطِيهِنَّ لِقَرِيبِكَ، فَيَضْطَجِعُ مَعَ نِسَائِكَ فِي عَيْنِ هَذِهِ الشَّمْسِ.) صموئيل الثانى 12: 11
إله المحبة يُشوِّه النساءيُصلِعُ السيد هامة بنات صهيون ويُعرّى الرب عورَتَهُنَّ) أشعياء 3: 17
هانت المرأة على إله المحبة فجعل مهرها (غلفة ذكر رجل ميت): (25فَقَالَ شَاوُلُ: «هَكَذَا تَقُولُونَ لِدَاوُدَ: لَيْسَتْ مَسَرَّةُ الْمَلِكِ بِالْمَهْرِ, بَلْ بِمِئَةِ غُلْفَةٍ مِنَ الْفِلِسْطِينِيِّينَ لِلاِنْتِقَامِ مِنْ أَعْدَاءِ الْمَلِكِ». وَكَانَ شَاوُلُ يَتَفَكَّرُ أَنْ يُوقِعَ دَاوُدَ بِيَدِ الْفِلِسْطِينِيِّينَ.) صموئيل الأول 18: 25
كما حقَّرَ إله المحبة الطفلة الرضيعة ، فبسببها تكون أمها نجسة ضعف المدة التى تقضيها إذا أنجبت ولداً: فالمرأة التى تلد ابنا تكون نجسة أسبوع و 33 يوم حتى تطهر.
وإذا أنجبت ابنة تكون نجسة أسبوعين و 66 يوم حتى تطهر. (لاويين 12: 1-8)
(ومن يتزوج مطلَّقة فإنه يزنى) متى 5: 32 فأين إنسانية المطلقة؟ أين حقها الطبيعى فى الحياة؟ لماذا تعيش منبوذة جائعة متشوقة للزواج ولا تستطيعه؟
(10«إِذَا خَرَجْتَ لِمُحَارَبَةِ أَعْدَائِكَ وَدَفَعَهُمُ الرَّبُّ إِلهُكَ إِلى يَدِكَ وَسَبَيْتَ مِنْهُمْ سَبْياً 11وَرَأَيْتَ فِي السَّبْيِ امْرَأَةً جَمِيلةَ الصُّورَةِ وَالتَصَقْتَ بِهَا وَاتَّخَذْتَهَا لكَ زَوْجَةً 12فَحِينَ تُدْخِلُهَا إِلى بَيْتِكَ تَحْلِقُ رَأْسَهَا وَتُقَلِّمُ أَظْفَارَهَا 13وَتَنْزِعُ ثِيَابَ سَبْيِهَا عَنْهَا وَتَقْعُدُ فِي بَيْتِكَ وَتَبْكِي أَبَاهَا وَأُمَّهَا شَهْراً مِنَ الزَّمَانِ ثُمَّ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ تَدْخُلُ عَليْهَا وَتَتَزَوَّجُ بِهَا فَتَكُونُ لكَ زَوْجَةً. 14وَإِنْ لمْ تُسَرَّ بِهَا فَأَطْلِقْهَا لِنَفْسِهَا. لا تَبِعْهَا بَيْعاً بِفِضَّةٍ وَلا تَسْتَرِقَّهَا مِنْ أَجْلِ أَنَّكَ قَدْ أَذْللتَهَا.) تثنية 21: 10-14
51- إله المحبة طردكم من رحمته ، ويُخرجكم من عهده:
فقد ذكر العهد الأبدى بينه وبين أمته وهو الختان ، فقال: (10هَذَا هُوَ عَهْدِي الَّذِي تَحْفَظُونَهُ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَ نَسْلِكَ مِنْ بَعْدِكَ: يُخْتَنُ مِنْكُمْ كُلُّ ذَكَرٍ 11فَتُخْتَنُونَ فِي لَحْمِ غُرْلَتِكُمْ فَيَكُونُ عَلاَمَةَ عَهْدٍ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَكُمْ. 12اِبْنَ ثَمَانِيَةِ أَيَّامٍ يُخْتَنُ مِنْكُمْ كُلُّ ذَكَرٍ فِي أَجْيَالِكُمْ: وَلِيدُ الْبَيْتِ وَالْمُبْتَاعُ بِفِضَّةٍ مِنْ كُلِّ ابْنِ غَرِيبٍ لَيْسَ مِنْ نَسْلِكَ. 13يُخْتَنُ خِتَاناً وَلِيدُ بَيْتِكَ وَالْمُبْتَاعُ بِفِضَّتِكَ فَيَكُونُ عَهْدِي فِي لَحْمِكُمْ عَهْداً أَبَدِيّاً. 14وَأَمَّا الذَّكَرُ الأَغْلَفُ الَّذِي لاَ يُخْتَنُ فِي لَحْمِ غُرْلَتِهِ فَتُقْطَعُ تِلْكَ النَّفْسُ مِنْ شَعْبِهَا. إِنَّهُ قَدْ نَكَثَ عَهْدِي».) تكوين 17: 10-14
إلا أنه قد قام بإلغائه عند القديس بولس، ليخرجكم من عهده. فهل هذا هو إله المحبة الذى تتكلمون عنه؟ (25فَإِنَّ الْخِتَانَ يَنْفَعُ إِنْ عَمِلْتَ بِالنَّامُوسِ. وَلَكِنْ إِنْ كُنْتَ مُتَعَدِّياً النَّامُوسَ فَقَدْ صَارَ خِتَانُكَ غُرْلَةً! 26إِذاً إِنْ كَانَ الأَغْرَلُ يَحْفَظُ أَحْكَامَ النَّامُوسِ أَفَمَا تُحْسَبُ غُرْلَتُهُ خِتَاناً؟ 27وَتَكُونُ الْغُرْلَةُ الَّتِي مِنَ الطَّبِيعَةِ وَهِيَ تُكَمِّلُ النَّامُوسَ تَدِينُكَ أَنْتَ الَّذِي فِي الْكِتَابِ وَالْخِتَانِ تَتَعَدَّى النَّامُوسَ؟ 28لأَنَّ الْيَهُودِيَّ فِي الظَّاهِرِ لَيْسَ هُوَ يَهُودِيّاً وَلاَ الْخِتَانُ الَّذِي فِي الظَّاهِرِ فِي اللَّحْمِ خِتَاناً 29بَلِ الْيَهُودِيُّ فِي الْخَفَاءِ هُوَ الْيَهُودِيُّ وَخِتَانُ الْقَلْبِ بِالرُّوحِ لاَ بِالْكِتَابِ هُوَ الْخِتَانُ الَّذِي مَدْحُهُ لَيْسَ مِنَ النَّاسِ بَلْ مِنَ اللهِ.) رومية 2: 25-29
وقال أيضاً: (4قَدْ تَبَطَّلْتُمْ عَنِ الْمَسِيحِ أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ تَتَبَرَّرُونَ بِالنَّامُوسِ. سَقَطْتُمْ مِنَ النِّعْمَةِ. 5فَإِنَّنَا بِالرُّوحِ مِنَ الإِيمَانِ نَتَوَقَّعُ رَجَاءَ بِرٍّ. 6لأَنَّهُ فِي الْمَسِيحِ يَسُوعَ لاَ الْخِتَانُ يَنْفَعُ شَيْئاً وَلاَ الْغُرْلَةُ، بَلِ الإِيمَانُ الْعَامِلُ بِالْمَحَبَّةِ.) غلاطية 5: 4-6
52- إله المحبة حكم عليكم فى حياتكم بالرجم:
ففي الوقت الذي يدعوا فيه إله المحبة للتمسك بالناموس والعمل به، بل ويعمل هو به ، ويعلمه بنى إسرائيل فى المعبد ، ويطلق على كل من يخالفه "أصغر في ملكوت الله" و "ملعون من لا يفهم كلمات هذا الناموس" (17«لاَ تَظُنُّوا أَنِّي جِئْتُ لأَنْقُضَ النَّامُوسَ أَوِ الأَنْبِيَاءَ. مَا جِئْتُ لأَنْقُضَ بَلْ لِأُكَمِّلَ. 18فَإِنِّي الْحَقَّ أَقُولُ لَكُمْ: إِلَى أَنْ تَزُولَ السَّمَاءُ وَالأَرْضُ لاَ يَزُولُ حَرْفٌ وَاحِدٌ أَوْ نُقْطَةٌ وَاحِدَةٌ مِنَ النَّامُوسِ حَتَّى يَكُونَ الْكُلُّ. 19فَمَنْ نَقَضَ إِحْدَى هَذِهِ الْوَصَايَا الصُّغْرَى وَعَلَّمَ النَّاسَ هَكَذَا يُدْعَى أَصْغَرَ فِي مَلَكُوتِ السَّمَاوَاتِ. وَأَمَّا مَنْ عَمِلَ وَعَلَّمَ فَهَذَا يُدْعَى عَظِيماً فِي مَلَكُوتِ السَّمَاوَاتِ.) متى 5: 17-19
(49وَلَكِنَّ هَذَا الشَّعْبَ الَّذِي لاَ يَفْهَمُ النَّامُوسَ هُوَ مَلْعُونٌ».) يوحنا 7: 49
(17وَلَكِنَّ زَوَالَ السَّمَاءِ وَالأَرْضِ أَيْسَرُ مِنْ أَنْ تَسْقُطَ نُقْطَةٌ وَاحِدَةٌ مِنَ النَّامُوسِ.) لوقا 16: 17
إلا أن إله المحبة قد أوحى إلى بولس عكس ما أكده هو على الأرض، فقال: (10لأَنَّ جَمِيعَ الَّذِينَ هُمْ مِنْ أَعْمَالِ النَّامُوسِ هُمْ تَحْتَ لَعْنَةٍ، لأَنَّهُ مَكْتُوبٌ «مَلْعُونٌ كُلُّ مَنْ لاَ يَثْبُتُ فِي جَمِيعِ مَا هُوَ مَكْتُوبٌ فِي كِتَابِ النَّامُوسِ لِيَعْمَلَ بِهِ». 11وَلَكِنْ أَنْ لَيْسَ أَحَدٌ يَتَبَرَّرُ بِالنَّامُوسِ عِنْدَ اللهِ فَظَاهِرٌ، لأَنَّ«الْبَارَّ بِالإِيمَانِ يَحْيَا») غلاطية 3: 10-11
وقال: (16إِذْ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّ الإِنْسَانَ لاَ يَتَبَرَّرُ بِأَعْمَالِ النَّامُوسِ، بَلْ بِإِيمَانِ يَسُوعَ الْمَسِيحِ، آمَنَّا نَحْنُ أَيْضاً بِيَسُوعَ الْمَسِيحِ، لِنَتَبَرَّرَ بِإِيمَانِ يَسُوعَ لاَ بِأَعْمَالِ النَّامُوسِ. لأَنَّهُ بِأَعْمَالِ النَّامُوسِ لاَ يَتَبَرَّرُ جَسَدٌ مَا.) غلاطية 2: 16
وقال: (4أَمَّا الَّذِي يَعْمَلُ فَلاَ تُحْسَبُ لَهُ الأُجْرَةُ عَلَى سَبِيلِ نِعْمَةٍ بَلْ عَلَى سَبِيلِ دَيْنٍ.) رومية 4: 4
وقال: (4قَدْ تَبَطَّلْتُمْ عَنِ الْمَسِيحِ أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ تَتَبَرَّرُونَ بِالنَّامُوسِ. سَقَطْتُمْ مِنَ النِّعْمَةِ. 5فَإِنَّنَا بِالرُّوحِ مِنَ الإِيمَانِ نَتَوَقَّعُ رَجَاءَ بِرٍّ. 6لأَنَّهُ فِي الْمَسِيحِ يَسُوعَ لاَ الْخِتَانُ يَنْفَعُ شَيْئاً وَلاَ الْغُرْلَةُ، بَلِ الإِيمَانُ الْعَامِلُ بِالْمَحَبَّةِ.) غلاطية 5: 4-6
لذلك: (18فَإِنَّهُ يَصِيرُ إِبْطَالُ الْوَصِيَّةِ السَّابِقَةِ مِنْ أَجْلِ ضُعْفِهَا وَعَدَمِ نَفْعِهَا، 19إِذِ النَّامُوسُ لَمْ يُكَمِّلْ شَيْئاً. وَلَكِنْ يَصِيرُ إِدْخَالُ رَجَاءٍ أَفْضَلَ بِهِ نَقْتَرِبُ إِلَى اللهِ.) عبرانيين 7: 18-19
ويقول: (20لأَنَّهُ بِأَعْمَالِ النَّامُوسِ كُلُّ ذِي جَسَدٍ لاَ يَتَبَرَّرُ أَمَامَهُ. لأَنَّ بِالنَّامُوسِ مَعْرِفَةَ الْخَطِيَّةِ. 21وَأَمَّا الآنَ فَقَدْ ظَهَرَ بِرُّ اللهِ بِدُونِ النَّامُوسِ مَشْهُوداً لَهُ مِنَ النَّامُوسِ وَالأَنْبِيَاءِ .. .. .. .. 27فَأَيْنَ الافْتِخَارُ؟ قَدِ انْتَفَى! بِأَيِّ نَامُوسٍ؟ أَبِنَامُوسِ الأَعْمَالِ؟ كَلاَّ! بَلْ بِنَامُوسِ الإِيمَانِ. 28إِذاً نَحْسِبُ أَنَّ الإِنْسَانَ يَتَبَرَّرُ بِالإِيمَانِ بِدُونِ أَعْمَالِ النَّامُوسِ.) رومية 3: 20-28
ويوحى إله المحبة ليعقوب فى رسالته عكس كل هذا الكلام. قائلاً: (10لأَنَّ مَنْ حَفِظَ كُلَّ النَّامُوسِ، وَإِنَّمَا عَثَرَ فِي وَاحِدَةٍ، فَقَدْ صَارَ مُجْرِماً فِي الْكُلِّ. 11لأَنَّ الَّذِي قَالَ: «لاَ تَزْنِ» قَالَ أَيْضاً: «لاَ تَقْتُلْ». فَإِنْ لَمْ تَزْنِ وَلَكِنْ قَتَلْتَ، فَقَدْ صِرْتَ مُتَعَدِّياً النَّامُوسَ. 12هَكَذَا تَكَلَّمُوا وَهَكَذَا افْعَلُوا كَعَتِيدِينَ أَنْ تُحَاكَمُوا بِنَامُوسِ الْحُرِّيَّةِ. 13لأَنَّ الْحُكْمَ هُوَ بِلاَ رَحْمَةٍ لِمَنْ لَمْ يَعْمَلْ رَحْمَةً، وَالرَّحْمَةُ تَفْتَخِرُ عَلَى الْحُكْمِ. 14مَا الْمَنْفَعَةُ يَا إِخْوَتِي إِنْ قَالَ أَحَدٌ إِنَّ لَهُ إِيمَاناً وَلَكِنْ لَيْسَ لَهُ أَعْمَالٌ؟ هَلْ يَقْدِرُ الإِيمَانُ أَنْ يُخَلِّصَهُ؟ 15إِنْ كَانَ أَخٌ وَأُخْتٌ عُرْيَانَيْنِ وَمُعْتَازَيْنِ لِلْقُوتِ الْيَوْمِيِّ، 16فَقَالَ لَهُمَا أَحَدُكُمُ: «امْضِيَا بِسَلاَمٍ، اسْتَدْفِئَا وَاشْبَعَا» وَلَكِنْ لَمْ تُعْطُوهُمَا حَاجَاتِ الْجَسَدِ، فَمَا الْمَنْفَعَةُ؟ 17هَكَذَا الإِيمَانُ أَيْضاً، إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ أَعْمَالٌ، مَيِّتٌ فِي ذَاتِهِ. 18لَكِنْ يَقُولُ قَائِلٌ: «أَنْتَ لَكَ إِيمَانٌ، وَأَنَا لِي أَعْمَالٌ!» أَرِنِي إِيمَانَكَ بِدُونِ أَعْمَالِكَ، وَأَنَا أُرِيكَ بِأَعْمَالِي إِيمَانِي. 19أَنْتَ تُؤْمِنُ أَنَّ اللَّهَ وَاحِدٌ. حَسَناً تَفْعَلُ. وَالشَّيَاطِينُ يُؤْمِنُونَ وَيَقْشَعِرُّونَ! 20وَلَكِنْ هَلْ تُرِيدُ أَنْ تَعْلَمَ أَيُّهَا الإِنْسَانُ الْبَاطِلُ أَنَّ الإِيمَانَ بِدُونِ أَعْمَالٍ مَيِّتٌ؟)رسالة يعقوب 2: 10-20
فهل هذا من باب الرحمة أم من باب العذاب وبث الفرقة بين المؤيدين والمعارضين ، وبين الضالين والمهتدين؟
53- إله المحبة يدفعكم لإرتكاب كل المحرمات ليضمن خلودكم فى الجحيم:
وبإلغائه الناموس ، وإقراره الخطيئة الأبدية ، وأن الإيمان بها وبه مصلوباً هو الطريق الصحيح للحياة الأبدية، جعل التعلق بالجنة ودخولها فقط بالإيمان دون العمل بالناموس، فإنه كان قد أصدر من قبل حكمه برجم كل من يُخالف الناموس أو يستهين به:
فمن لا يستريح ويقلع عن العمل يوم السبت، كان قد خالف ناموس الرب، ولابد أن يُرجم: (14فَتَحْفَظُونَ السَّبْتَ لأَنَّهُ مُقَدَّسٌ لَكُمْ. مَنْ دَنَّسَهُ يُقْتَلُ قَتْلاً. إِنَّ كُلَّ مَنْ صَنَعَ فِيهِ عَمَلاً تُقْطَعُ تِلْكَ النَّفْسُ مِنْ بَيْنِ شَعْبِهَا. 15سِتَّةَ أَيَّامٍ يُصْنَعُ عَمَلٌ. وَأَمَّا الْيَوْمُ السَّابِعُ فَفِيهِ سَبْتُ عُطْلَةٍ مُقَدَّسٌ لِلرَّبِّ. كُلُّ مَنْ صَنَعَ عَمَلاً فِي يَوْمِ السَّبْتِ يُقْتَلُ قَتْلاً.) خروج 31: 14-17
وقد نفذ هذا الحكم في رجل وجد يحتطب حطباً في يوم السبت: [32وَلمَّا كَانَ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيل فِي البَرِّيَّةِ وَجَدُوا رَجُلاً يَحْتَطِبُ حَطَباً فِي يَوْمِ السَّبْتِ. 33فَقَدَّمَهُ الذِينَ وَجَدُوهُ يَحْتَطِبُ حَطَباً إِلى مُوسَى وَهَارُونَ وَكُلِّ الجَمَاعَةِ. 34فَوَضَعُوهُ فِي المَحْرَسِ لأَنَّهُ لمْ يُعْلنْ مَاذَا يُفْعَلُ بِهِ. 35فَقَال الرَّبُّ لِمُوسَى: «قَتْلاً يُقْتَلُ الرَّجُلُ. يَرْجُمُهُ بِحِجَارَةٍ كُلُّ الجَمَاعَةِ خَارِجَ المَحَلةِ». 36فَأَخْرَجَهُ كُلُّ الجَمَاعَةِ إِلى خَارِجِ المَحَلةِ وَرَجَمُوهُ بِحِجَارَةٍ فَمَاتَ كَمَا أَمَرَ الرَّبُّ مُوسَى.] (عدد 15: 32-36)، والذي أمر الرب برجمة حتى الموت، و ذلك لأن عدم حفظ السبت كان لابد أن يؤدي إلى كارثة قومية كما حدث فيما بعد، وقد حذر إرميا النبي الشعب من ذلك في أواخر عهود الملكية (إرميا 17: 27)
فكل من يُخالف الناموس ساهياً ، كان يمكن أن يكفر عن خطايا السهو بتقديم عنز حولية ذبيحة خطية (عدد 15: 27)، "أما النفس التي تعمل بيد رفيعة" (أي إنها ترفض عن عمد الخضوع لناموس الله وتزدري به)، فكانت عقوبتها الموت أو على الأقل أن تقطع من بين شعبها (عدد 15: 30 و 31).
بل كانت توقع عقوبة الموت رجماً على كل من لا يخضع لقرار الكهنة في خيمة الاجتماع أو في الهيكل فيما بعد، لأن كلام الكاهن يُمثل كلام الرب ، فهو يحكم بما أنزله الرب: (8«إِذَا عَسِرَ عَليْكَ أَمْرٌ فِي القَضَاءِ بَيْنَ دَمٍ وَدَمٍ أَوْ بَيْنَ دَعْوَى وَدَعْوَى أَوْ بَيْنَ ضَرْبَةٍ وَضَرْبَةٍ مِنْ أُمُورِ الخُصُومَاتِ فِي أَبْوَابِكَ فَقُمْ وَاصْعَدْ إِلى المَكَانِ الذِي يَخْتَارُهُ الرَّبُّ إِلهُكَ 9وَاذْهَبْ إِلى الكَهَنَةِ اللاوِيِّينَ وَإِلى القَاضِي الذِي يَكُونُ فِي تِلكَ الأَيَّامِ وَاسْأَل فَيُخْبِرُوكَ بِأَمْرِ القَضَاءِ. 10فَتَعْمَلُ حَسَبَ الأَمْرِ الذِي يُخْبِرُونَكَ بِهِ مِنْ ذَلِكَ المَكَانِ الذِي يَخْتَارُهُ الرَّبُّ وَتَحْرِصُ أَنْ تَعْمَل حَسَبَ كُلِّ مَا يُعَلِّمُونَكَ. 11حَسَبَ الشَّرِيعَةِ التِي يُعَلِّمُونَكَ وَالقَضَاءِ الذِي يَقُولُونَهُ لكَ تَعْمَلُ. لا تَحِدْ عَنِ الأَمْرِ الذِي يُخْبِرُونَكَ بِهِ يَمِيناً أَوْ شِمَالاً. 12وَالرَّجُلُ الذِي يَعْمَلُ بِطُغْيَانٍ فَلا يَسْمَعُ لِلكَاهِنِ الوَاقِفِ هُنَاكَ لِيَخْدِمَ الرَّبَّ إِلهَكَ أَوْ لِلقَاضِي يُقْتَلُ ذَلِكَ الرَّجُلُ فَتَنْزِعُ الشَّرَّ مِنْ إِسْرَائِيل.) تثنية 17: 8-12
فالاستهانة بقرار السلطة العليا في الأمة كان يعادل تهمة الخيانة، ويجب أن تقابل بكل حزم.
فلماذا غيَّرَ إله المحبة يوم الراحة من السبت إلى الأحد ، وجعلكم تُخالفون الناموس بالكلية؟ ألا يعرف عقوبة ذلك فى الدنيا والآخرة؟
54- إله المحبة حرَّمَ الزنا وأوحى ما يُلهب مشاعر الشهوة:
على الرغم من أن أحد الوصايا العشر تنص صراحة ودون لبث بتحريم الزنى ، وعلى الرغم من وجود عقوبات صارمة للزانى ، ما بين القتل والرجم والحرق (لاويين 20: 10-21)، إلا أنك ترى نصوصاً تثير الغرائز ، وتجعلك تقترب من الزنى ، بل وتعلمك كيفية رسم خطة ، للإيقاع بأختك فى الزنى والرجاسة. والأمرُّ من ذلك أن ترى نصوصاً فى الكتاب المقدس يأمر فيها الرب نبيه بالزنى! ونصوصاً يعاقب الرب مخالفيه بأن يوقعهم فى الزنى! ونصوصاً يفضح الرب فيها مخالفيه ويعرِّى عورتهن! فهل هذا من باب المحبة ليُقتَل الزانى أو يُحرق أو يُرجَم؟
(لاَحَظْتُ بَيْنَ الْبَنِينَ غُلاَماً عَدِيمَ الْفَهْمِ 8عَابِراً فِي الشَّارِعِ عِنْدَ زَاوِيَتِهَا وَصَاعِداً فِي طَرِيقِ بَيْتِهَا. … 10وَإِذَا بِامْرَأَةٍ اسْتَقْبَلَتْهُ فِي زِيِّ زَانِيَةٍ … 13فَأَمْسَكَتْهُ وَقَبَّلَتْهُ. أَوْقَحَتْ وَجْهَهَا وَقَالَتْ لَهُ: … 16بِالدِّيبَاجِ فَرَشْتُ سَرِيرِي بِمُوَشَّى كَتَّانٍ مِنْ مِصْرَ. 17عَطَّرْتُ فِرَاشِي بِمُرٍّ وَعُودٍ وَقِرْفَةٍ. 18هَلُمَّ نَرْتَوِ وُدّاً إِلَى الصَّبَاحِ. نَتَلَذَّذُ بِالْحُبِّ. 19لأَنَّ الرَّجُلَ لَيْسَ فِي الْبَيْتِ. ذَهَبَ فِي طَرِيقٍ بَعِيدَةٍ. 20أَخَذَ صُرَّةَ الْفِضَّةِ بِيَدِهِ. يَوْمَ الْهِلاَلِ يَأْتِي إِلَى بَيْتِهِ». 21أَغْوَتْهُ بِكَثْرَةِ فُنُونِهَا بِمَلْثِ
شَفَتَيْهَا طَوَّحَتْهُ. 22ذَهَبَ وَرَاءَهَا لِوَقْتِهِ كَثَوْرٍ يَذْهَبُ إِلَى الذَّبْحِ أَوْ كَالْغَبِيِّ إِلَى قَيْدِ الْقِصَاصِ.) (أمثال7: 7-22)
(وَافْرَحْ بِامْرَأَةِ شَبَابِكَ 19الظَّبْيَةِ الْمَحْبُوبَةِ وَالْوَعْلَةِ الزَّهِيَّةِ. لِيُرْوِكَ ثَدْيَاهَا فِي كُلِّ وَقْتٍ وَبِمَحَبَّتِهَا اسْكَرْ دَائِماً.) أمثال 5: 18-19
(1فِي اللَّيْلِ عَلَى فِرَاشِي طَلَبْتُ مَنْ تُحِبُّهُ نَفْسِي طَلَبْتُهُ فَمَا وَجَدْتُهُ. 2إِنِّي أَقُومُ وَأَطُوفُ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ فِي الأَسْوَاقِ وَفِي الشَّوَارِعِ أَطْلُبُ مَنْ تُحِبُّهُ نَفْسِي. طَلَبْتُهُ فَمَا وَجَدْتُهُ. 3وَجَدَنِي الْحَرَسُ الطَّائِفُ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ فَقُلْتُ: «أَرَأَيْتُمْ مَنْ تُحِبُّهُ نَفْسِي؟» 4فَمَا جَاوَزْتُهُمْ إِلاَّ قَلِيلاً حَتَّى وَجَدْتُ مَنْ تُحِبُّهُ نَفْسِي فَأَمْسَكْتُهُ وَلَمْ أَرْخِهِ حَتَّى أَدْخَلْتُهُ بَيْتَ أُمِّي وَحُجْرَةَ مَنْ حَبِلَتْ بِي. 5أُحَلِّفُكُنَّ يَا بَنَاتِ أُورُشَلِيمَ بِالظِّبَاءِ وَبِأَيَائِلِ الْحَقْلِ أَلاَّ تُيَقِّظْنَ وَلاَ تُنَبِّهْنَ الْحَبِيبَ حَتَّى يَشَاءَ.) نشيد الإنشاد 3: 1-5
(1مَا أَجْمَلَ رِجْلَيْكِ بِالنَّعْلَيْنِ يَا بِنْتَ الْكَرِيمِ! دَوَائِرُ فَخْذَيْكِ مِثْلُ الْحَلِيِّ صَنْعَةِ يَدَيْ صَنَّاعٍ. 2سُرَّتُكِ كَأْسٌ مُدَوَّرَةٌ لاَ يُعْوِزُهَا شَرَابٌ مَمْزُوجٌ. بَطْنُكِ صُبْرَةُ حِنْطَةٍ مُسَيَّجَةٌ بِالسَّوْسَنِ. 3ثَدْيَاكِ كَخِشْفَتَيْنِ تَوْأَمَيْ ظَبْيَةٍ. 4عُنُقُكِ كَبُرْجٍ مِنْ عَاجٍ. عَيْنَاكِ كَالْبِرَكِ فِي حَشْبُونَ عِنْدَ بَابِ بَثِّ رَبِّيمَ. أَنْفُكِ كَبُرْجِ لُبْنَانَ النَّاظِرِ تُجَاهَ دِمَشْقَ. ... 6مَا أَجْمَلَكِ وَمَا أَحْلاَكِ أَيَّتُهَا الْحَبِيبَةُ بِاللَّذَّاتِ! 7قَامَتُكِ هَذِهِ شَبِيهَةٌ بِالنَّخْلَةِ وَثَدْيَاكِ بِالْعَنَاقِيدِ. 8قُلْتُ:«إِنِّي أَصْعَدُ إِلَى النَّخْلَةِ وَأُمْسِكُ بِعُذُوقِهَا». وَتَكُونُ ثَدْيَاكِ كَعَنَاقِيدِ الْكَرْمِ وَرَائِحَةُ أَنْفِكِ كَالتُّفَّاحِ) نشيد الإنشاد 7: 1-8
(1لَيْتَكَ كَأَخٍ لِي الرَّاضِعِ ثَدْيَيْ أُمِّي فَأَجِدَكَ فِي الْخَارِجِ وَأُقَبِّلَكَ وَلاَ يُخْزُونَنِي. 2وَأَقُودُكَ وَأَدْخُلُ بِكَ بَيْتَ أُمِّي وَهِيَ تُعَلِّمُنِي فَأَسْقِيكَ مِنَ الْخَمْرِ الْمَمْزُوجَةِ مِنْ سُلاَفِ رُمَّانِي. 3شِمَالُهُ تَحْتَ رَأْسِي وَيَمِينُهُ تُعَانِقُنِي. 4أُحَلِّفُكُنَّ يَا بَنَاتِ أُورُشَلِيمَ أَلاَّ تُيَقِّظْنَ وَلاَ تُنَبِّهْنَ الْحَبِيبَ حَتَّى يَشَاءَ.) نشيد الإنشاد 8: 1-4
(15[فَـاتَّكَلْتِ عَلَى جَمَالِكِ وَزَنَيْتِ عَلَى اسْمِكِ, وَسَكَبْتِ زِنَاكِ عَلَى كُلِّ عَابِرٍ فَكَانَ لَهُ. 16وَأَخَذْتِ مِنْ ثِيَابِكِ وَصَنَعْتِ لِنَفْسِكِ مُرْتَفَعَاتٍ مُوَشَّاةٍ وَزَنَيْتِ عَلَيْهَا. أَمْرٌ لَمْ يَأْتِ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ. .. .. وَصَنَعْتِ لِنَفْسِكِ صُوَرَ ذُكُورٍ وَزَنَيْتِ بِهَا. .. .. 25فِي رَأْسِ كُلِّ طَرِيقٍ بَنَيْتِ مُرْتَفَعَتَكِ وَرَجَّسْتِ جَمَالَكِ, وَفَرَّجْتِ رِجْلَيْكِ لِكُلِّ عَابِرٍ وَأَكْثَرْتِ زِنَاكِ. 26وَزَنَيْتِ مَعَ جِيرَانِكِ بَنِي مِصْرَ الْغِلاَظِ اللَّحْمِ, وَزِدْتِ فِي زِنَاكِ لإِغَاظَتِي. .. .. 33لِكُلِّ الزَّوَانِي يُعْطُونَ هَدِيَّةً, أَمَّا أَنْتِ فَقَدْ أَعْطَيْتِ كُلَّ مُحِبِّيكِ هَدَايَاكِ, وَرَشَيْتِهِمْ لِيَأْتُوكِ مِنْ كُلِّ جَانِبٍ لِلزِّنَا بِكِ. 34وَصَارَ فِيكِ عَكْسُ عَادَةِ النِّسَاءِ فِي زِنَاكِ, إِذْ لَمْ يُزْنَ وَرَاءَكِ, بَلْ أَنْتِ تُعْطِينَ أُجْرَةً وَلاَ أُجْرَةَ تُعْطَى لَكِ, فَصِرْتِ بِـالْعَكْس!) حزقيال 16: 15-34
ولم يكتف إله المحبة بذلك ، بل دفع نساء داود للزنا: (11هَكَذَا قَالَ الرَّبُّ: هَئَنَذَا أُقِيمُ عَلَيْكَ الشَّرَّ مِنْ بَيْتِكَ، وَآخُذُ نِسَاءَكَ أَمَامَ عَيْنَيْكَ وَأُعْطِيهِنَّ لِقَرِيبِكَ، فَيَضْطَجِعُ مَعَ
نِسَائِكَ فِي عَيْنِ هَذِهِ الشَّمْسِ.) صموئيل الثانى 12: 11
بل وعرَّى عورة نساء صهيونيُصلِعُ السيد هامة بنات صهيون ويُعرّى الرب عورَتَهُنَّ) أشعياء 3: 17
55- إله المحبة لم يُكمِل ما أوحاه وتركه للقساوسة:
(43فَقُلْتُ عَنِ الْبَالِيَةِ فِي الزِّنَى: آلآنَ يَزْنُونَ مَعَهَا وَهىَ … (حزقيال 23: 43) أين بقية الجملة؟ غير موجودة فى نسخة الشرق الأوسط. فى نسخة الإنترنت كتبوا بدلا من آخر كلمة (وهى) كلمة أيضاً. وفى نسخة كتاب الحياة كتبوا بعد (وهى) كلمة (معهم). أليس هذا من التحريف بالزيادة فى كلمة الله؟
56- إله المحبة لم يُحافظ على كتبه التى أوحاها وعلمكم الاستهتار بكلامه:
الكتاب المقدس يشير إلى أسفار ومواضع فيه مفقودة ، وبه رسائل شخصية جداً قالوا أوحى الله بها:
1) سفر حروب الرب وقد جاء ذكر اسم هذا السفر في (العدد 21 : 14 ) .
2) سفر ياشر وقد جاء ذكر اسم هذا السفر في ( يشوع 10 : 13 ) .
3) سفر أمور سليمان جاء ذكره في (الملوك الأول11 : 41 )
4) سفر مرثية إرميا على يوشيا ملك أورشليم وجاء ذكر هذه المرثية في (الأيام
الثاني 35: 25)
5) سفر أمور يوشيا (الأيام الثاني 35: 25)
6) سفر مراحم يوشيا (الأيام الثاني 35: 25)
7) سفر أخبار ناثان النبي (الأيام الثاني 9: 29)
8) سفر أخيا النبي الشيلوني (الأيام الثاني 9: 29)
9) وسفر رؤى يعدو الرائي وقد جاء ذكر هذه الاسفار في (الأيام الثاني 9: 29)
10) سفر أخبار جاد الرائي وقد جاء ذكره في (الأيام الأول 29 : 31 )
11) إنجيل عيسى هذا غير الكثير من الأناجيل الأخرى التى لا يعترفون بها.
12) (1أُوصِي إِلَيْكُمْ بِأُخْتِنَا فِيبِي الَّتِي هِيَ خَادِمَةُ الْكَنِيسَةِ الَّتِي فِي كَنْخَرِيَا 2كَيْ تَقْبَلُوهَا فِي الرَّبِّ كَمَا يَحِقُّ لِلْقِدِّيسِينَ وَتَقُومُوا لَهَا فِي أَيِّ شَيْءٍ احْتَاجَتْهُ مِنْكُمْ لأَنَّهَا صَارَتْ مُسَاعِدَةً لِكَثِيرِينَ وَلِي أَنَا أَيْضاً. 3سَلِّمُوا عَلَى بِرِيسْكِلاَّ وَأَكِيلاَ الْعَامِلَيْنِ مَعِي فِي الْمَسِيحِ يَسُوعَ 4اللَّذَيْنِ وَضَعَا عُنُقَيْهِمَا مِنْ أَجْلِ حَيَاتِي اللَّذَيْنِ لَسْتُ أَنَا وَحْدِي أَشْكُرُهُمَا بَلْ أَيْضاً جَمِيعُ كَنَائِسِ الأُمَمِ 5 وَعَلَى الْكَنِيسَةِ الَّتِي فِي بَيْتِهِمَا. سَلِّمُوا عَلَى أَبَيْنِتُوسَ حَبِيبِي الَّذِي هُوَ بَاكُورَةُ أَخَائِيَةَ لِلْمَسِيحِ. 6سَلِّمُوا عَلَى مَرْيَمَ الَّتِي تَعِبَتْ لأَجْلِنَا كَثِيراً. 7سَلِّمُوا عَلَى أَنْدَرُونِكُوسَ وَيُونِيَاسَ نَسِيبَيَّ الْمَأْسُورَيْنِ مَعِي اللَّذَيْنِ هُمَا مَشْهُورَانِ بَيْنَ الرُّسُلِ وَقَدْ كَانَا فِي الْمَسِيحِ قَبْلِي. 8سَلِّمُوا عَلَى أَمْبِلِيَاسَ حَبِيبِي فِي الرَّبِّ. 9سَلِّمُوا عَلَى أُورْبَانُوسَ الْعَامِلِ مَعَنَا فِي الْمَسِيحِ وَعَلَى إِسْتَاخِيسَ حَبِيبِي. 10سَلِّمُوا عَلَى أَبَلِّسَ الْمُزَكَّى فِي الْمَسِيحِ.) رومية 16: 1-10. وأكتفى بهذا لأن الإصحاح كله سلامات.
13) (11لُوقَا وَحْدَهُ مَعِي. خُذْ مَرْقُسَ وَأَحْضِرْهُ مَعَكَ لأَنَّهُ نَافِعٌ لِي لِلْخِدْمَةِ. 12أَمَّا تِيخِيكُسُ فَقَدْ أَرْسَلْتُهُ إِلَى أَفَسُسَ. 13اَلرِّدَاءَ الَّذِي تَرَكْتُهُ فِي تَرُواسَ عِنْدَ كَارْبُسَ أَحْضِرْهُ مَتَى جِئْتَ، وَالْكُتُبَ أَيْضاً وَلاَ سِيَّمَا الرُّقُوقَ. 14إِسْكَنْدَرُ النَّحَّاسُ أَظْهَرَ لِي شُرُوراً كَثِيرَةً. لِيُجَازِهِ الرَّبُّ حَسَبَ أَعْمَالِهِ.) ثيموثاوس الثانية 4: 11-14
57- إله المحبة علمكم التطاول على ذات الله المقدسة:
(13اَلْمَسِيحُ افْتَدَانَا مِنْ لَعْنَةِ النَّامُوسِ، إِذْ صَارَ لَعْنَةً لأَجْلِنَا، لأَنَّهُ مَكْتُوبٌ: «مَلْعُونٌ كُلُّ مَنْ عُلِّقَ عَلَى خَشَبَةٍ».) غلاطية 3: 13
(7فَإِنَّهُ إِنْ كَانَ صِدْقُ اللهِ قَدِ ازْدَادَ بِكَذِبِي لِمَجْدِهِ فَلِمَاذَا أُدَانُ أَنَا بَعْدُ كَخَاطِئٍ؟) رومية 3: 7
(25لأَنَّ جَهَالَةَ اللهِ أَحْكَمُ مِنَ النَّاسِ! وَضَعْفَ اللهِ أَقْوَى مِنَ النَّاسِ!) كورنثوس الأولى 1: 25
(32اَلَّذِي لَمْ يُشْفِقْ عَلَى ابْنِهِ بَلْ بَذَلَهُ لأَجْلِنَا أَجْمَعِينَ كَيْفَ لاَ يَهَبُنَا أَيْضاً مَعَهُ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ؟) رومية 8: 32
58- إله المحبة علمكم الغباء وألغى عقولكم:
فقد أوحى نصوصاً لا طعم لها ولا معنى ، فأوحى (كما تعتقدون) ديانة معقدة ، لم يأت هو بها ، ولم يعلمها حوارييه ، ولا أحداً من الناس ، بل لم يعرفها هو نفسه ، ديناً لا تفهموه أنتم ، ولا يمكنكم إفهامه أحداً ، ديناً معقداً ، تمتد جذوره إلى الديانات الوثنية:
(12«اِسْتَيْقِظِي اسْتَيْقِظِي يَا دَبُورَةُ! اسْتَيْقِظِي اسْتَيْقِظِي وَتَكَلَّمِي بِنَشِيدٍ! قُمْ يَا بَارَاقُ وَاسْبِ سَبْيَكَ, يَا ابْنَ أَبِينُوعَمَ!) قضاة 5: 12
(يا بن آدم تنبَّأ وقل هكذا قال السيد الرب: وَلْوِلُوا يا لليوم!) حزقيال 30: 2. فهل انتهى علم إله المحبة إلى هذا الحد ولم يجد كلمة أخرى يُعبر بها غير (ولولى)؟
(لأن اليوم قريب. ويوم للرب قريب يومُ غَيْمٌ يكون وقتاً للأمم) حزقيال 30: 3
(1لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ زَمَانٌ وَلِكُلِّ أَمْرٍ تَحْتَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَقْتٌ. 2لِلْوِلاَدَةِ وَقْتٌ وَلِلْمَوْتِ وَقْتٌ. لِلْغَرْسِ وَقْتٌ وَلِقَلْعِ الْمَغْرُوسِ وَقْتٌ. 3لِلْقَتْلِ وَقْتٌ وَلِلشِّفَاءِ وَقْتٌ. لِلْهَدْمِ وَقْتٌ وَلِلْبِنَاءِ وَقْتٌ. 4لِلْبُكَاءِ وَقْتٌ وَلِلضِّحْكِ وَقْتٌ. لِلنَّوْحِ وَقْتٌ وَلِلرَّقْصِ وَقْتٌ. 5لِتَفْرِيقِ الْحِجَارَةِ وَقْتٌ وَلِجَمْعِ الْحِجَارَةِ وَقْتٌ. لِلْمُعَانَقَةِ وَقْتٌ وَلِلاِنْفِصَالِ عَنِ الْمُعَانَقَةِ وَقْتٌ. 6لِلْكَسْبِ وَقْتٌ وَلِلْخَسَارَةِ وَقْتٌ. لِلصِّيَانَةِ وَقْتٌ وَلِلطَّرْحِ وَقْتٌ. 7لِلتَّمْزِيقِ وَقْتٌ وَلِلتَّخْيِيطِ وَقْتٌ. لِلسُّكُوتِ وَقْتٌ وَلِلتَّكَلُّمِ وَقْتٌ. 8لِلْحُبِّ وَقْتٌ وَلِلْبُغْضَةِ وَقْتٌ. لِلْحَرْبِ وَقْتٌ وَلِلصُّلْحِ وَقْتٌ. 9فَأَيُّ مَنْفَعَةٍ لِمَنْ يَتْعَبُ مِمَّا يَتْعَبُ بِهِ!) جامعة 3: 1-9
(1اَلصِّيتُ خَيْرٌ مِنَ الدُّهْنِ الطَّيِّبِ وَيَوْمُ الْمَمَاتِ خَيْرٌ مِنْ يَوْمِ الْوِلاَدَةِ. 2اَلذِّهَابُ إِلَى بَيْتِ النَّوْحِ خَيْرٌ مِنَ الذِّهَابِ إِلَى بَيْتِ الْوَلِيمَةِ لأَنَّ ذَاكَ نِهَايَةُ كُلِّ إِنْسَانٍ وَالْحَيُّ يَضَعُهُ فِي قَلْبِهِ. 3اَلْحُزْنُ خَيْرٌ مِنَ الضَّحِكِ لأَنَّهُ بِكَآبَةِ الْوَجْهِ يُصْلَحُ الْقَلْبُ. 4قَلْبُ الْحُكَمَاءِ فِي بَيْتِ النَّوْحِ وَقَلْبُ الْجُهَّالِ فِي بَيْتِ الْفَرَحِ.) جامعة 7: 1-4
(3قَدْ خَلَعْتُ ثَوْبِي فَكَيْفَ أَلْبِسُهُ؟ قَدْ غَسَلْتُ رِجْلَيَّ فَكَيْفَ أُوَسِّخُهُمَا؟) نشيد الإنشاد 5: 3
(11لَمَّا كُنْتُ طِفْلاً كَطِفْلٍ كُنْتُ أَتَكَلَّمُ وَكَطِفْلٍ كُنْتُ أَفْطَنُ وَكَطِفْلٍ كُنْتُ أَفْتَكِرُ. وَلَكِنْ لَمَّا صِرْتُ رَجُلاً أَبْطَلْتُ مَا لِلطِّفْلِ. 12فَإِنَّنَا نَنْظُرُ الآنَ فِي مِرْآةٍ فِي لُغْزٍ لَكِنْ حِينَئِذٍ وَجْهاً لِوَجْهٍ. الآنَ أَعْرِفُ بَعْضَ الْمَعْرِفَةِ لَكِنْ حِينَئِذٍ سَأَعْرِفُ كَمَا عُرِفْتُ. 13أَمَّا الآنَ فَيَثْبُتُ الإِيمَانُ وَالرَّجَاءُ وَالْمَحَبَّةُ هَذِهِ الثَّلاَثَةُ وَلَكِنَّ أَعْظَمَهُنَّ الْمَحَبَّةُ.) كورنثوس الأولى 13: 11-13
(30مَعْمُودِيَّةُ يُوحَنَّا: مِنَ السَّمَاءِ كَانَتْ أَمْ مِنَ النَّاسِ؟ أَجِيبُونِي». 31فَفَكَّرُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ قَائِلِينَ: «إِنْ قُلْنَا مِنَ السَّمَاءِ يَقُولُ: فَلِمَاذَا لَمْ تُؤْمِنُوا بِهِ؟ 32وَإِنْ قُلْنَا مِنَ النَّاسِ». فَخَافُوا الشَّعْبَ.) مرقس 11: 30-32 ، فأين جواب الشرط؟ ماذا سيحدث لو قالوا (وَإِنْ قُلْنَا مِنَ النَّاسِ)؟
(33لأَنَّ عَصْرَ اللَّبَنِ يُخْرِجُ جُبْناً وَعَصْرَ الأَنْفِ يُخْرِجُ دَماً وَعَصْرَ الْغَضَبِ يُخْرِجُ خِصَاماً.) أمثال 30: 33
لذلك أمركم قائلاً: (14اِفْعَلُوا كُلَّ شَيْءٍ بِلاَ دَمْدَمَةٍ وَلاَ مُجَادَلَةٍ، 15لِكَيْ تَكُونُوا بِلاَ لَوْمٍ، وَبُسَطَاءَ، أَوْلاَداً للهِ بِلاَ عَيْبٍ فِي وَسَطِ جِيلٍ مُعَوَّجٍ وَمُلْتَوٍ، تُضِيئُونَ بَيْنَهُمْ كَأَنْوَارٍ فِي الْعَالَمِ.) فيليبى 2: 14-15
59- إله المحبة علمكم الكذب والنفاق:
فها هو مؤسس دينكم يعترف بكذبه: (7فَإِنَّهُ إِنْ كَانَ صِدْقُ اللهِ قَدِ ازْدَادَ بِكَذِبِي لِمَجْدِهِ فَلِمَاذَا أُدَانُ أَنَا بَعْدُ كَخَاطِئٍ؟) رومية 3: 7
(لَكِنْ إِذْ كُنْتُ مُحْتَالاً أَخَذْتُكُمْ بِمَكْرٍ!) كورنثوس الثانى 12: 16
ويعترف بطريق النفاق الذى انتهجه لنشر دينه: (19فَإِنِّي إِذْ كُنْتُ حُرّاً مِنَ الْجَمِيعِ اسْتَعْبَدْتُ نَفْسِي لِلْجَمِيعِ لأَرْبَحَ الأَكْثَرِينَ. 20فَصِرْتُ لِلْيَهُودِ كَيَهُودِيٍّ لأَرْبَحَ الْيَهُودَ وَلِلَّذِينَ تَحْتَ النَّامُوسِ كَأَنِّي تَحْتَ النَّامُوسِ لأَرْبَحَ الَّذِينَ تَحْتَ النَّامُوسِ 21وَلِلَّذِينَ بِلاَ نَامُوسٍ كَأَنِّي بِلاَ نَامُوسٍ - مَعَ أَنِّي لَسْتُ بِلاَ نَامُوسٍ لِلَّهِ بَلْ تَحْتَ نَامُوسٍ لِلْمَسِيحِ - لأَرْبَحَ الَّذِينَ بِلاَ نَامُوسٍ. 22صِرْتُ لِلضُّعَفَاءِ كَضَعِيفٍ لأَرْبَحَ الضُّعَفَاءَ. صِرْتُ لِلْكُلِّ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ لأُخَلِّصَ عَلَى كُلِّ حَالٍ قَوْماً. 23وَهَذَا أَنَا أَفْعَلُهُ لأَجْلِ الإِنْجِيلِ لأَكُونَ شَرِيكاً فِيهِ.) كورنثوس الأولى 9: 19-23
60- إله المحبة علمكم الكره والإبادة الجماعية:
([اعْبُرُوا فِي الْمَدِينَةِ وَرَاءَهُ وَاضْرِبُوا. لاَ تُشْفِقْ أَعْيُنُكُمْ وَلاَ تَعْفُوا. 6اَلشَّيْخَ وَالشَّابَّ وَالْعَذْرَاءَ وَالطِّفْلَ وَالنِّسَاءَ. اقْتُلُوا لِلْهَلاَكِ. وَلاَ تَقْرُبُوا مِنْ إِنْسَانٍ عَلَيْهِ السِّمَةُ, وَابْتَدِئُوا مِنْ مَقْدِسِي». فَـابْتَدَأُوا بِـالرِّجَالِ الشُّيُوخِ الَّذِينَ أَمَامَ الْبَيْتِ. 7وَقَالَ لَهُمْ: [نَجِّسُوا الْبَيْتَ, وَامْلأُوا الدُّورَ قَتْلَى. اخْرُجُوا». فَخَرَجُوا وَقَتَلُوا فِي الْمَدِينَةِ.) حزقيال 9: 5-7
(15فَضَرْباً تَضْرِبُ سُكَّانَ تِلكَ المَدِينَةِ بِحَدِّ السَّيْفِ وَتُحَرِّمُهَا بِكُلِّ مَا فِيهَا مَعَ بَهَائِمِهَا بِحَدِّ السَّيْفِ. 16تَجْمَعُ كُل أَمْتِعَتِهَا إِلى وَسَطِ سَاحَتِهَا وَتُحْرِقُ بِالنَّارِ المَدِينَةَ وَكُل أَمْتِعَتِهَا كَامِلةً لِلرَّبِّ إِلهِكَ فَتَكُونُ تَلاًّ إِلى الأَبَدِ لا تُبْنَى بَعْدُ. (تثنية 13: 15- 17)
(10«حِينَ تَقْرُبُ مِنْ مَدِينَةٍ لِتُحَارِبَهَا اسْتَدْعِهَا لِلصُّلحِ 11فَإِنْ أَجَابَتْكَ إِلى الصُّلحِ وَفَتَحَتْ لكَ فَكُلُّ الشَّعْبِ المَوْجُودِ فِيهَا يَكُونُ لكَ لِلتَّسْخِيرِ وَيُسْتَعْبَدُ لكَ. 12وَإِنْ لمْ تُسَالِمْكَ بَل عَمِلتْ مَعَكَ حَرْباً فَحَاصِرْهَا. 13وَإِذَا دَفَعَهَا الرَّبُّ إِلهُكَ إِلى يَدِكَ فَاضْرِبْ جَمِيعَ ذُكُورِهَا بِحَدِّ السَّيْفِ. 14وَأَمَّا النِّسَاءُ وَالأَطْفَالُ وَالبَهَائِمُ وَكُلُّ مَا فِي المَدِينَةِ كُلُّ غَنِيمَتِهَا فَتَغْتَنِمُهَا لِنَفْسِكَ وَتَأْكُلُ غَنِيمَةَ أَعْدَائِكَ التِي أَعْطَاكَ الرَّبُّ إِلهُكَ....16وَأَمَّا مُدُنُ هَؤُلاءِ الشُّعُوبِ التِي يُعْطِيكَ الرَّبُّ إِلهُكَ نَصِيباً فَلا تَسْتَبْقِ مِنْهَا نَسَمَةً مَا 17بَل تُحَرِّمُهَا تَحْرِيماً) تثنية20: 10-18
(20فَهَتَفَ الشَّعْبُ وَضَرَبُوا بِالأَبْوَاقِ. وَكَانَ حِينَ سَمِعَ الشَّعْبُ صَوْتَ الْبُوقِ أَنَّ الشَّعْبَ هَتَفَ هُتَافاً عَظِيماً, فَسَقَطَ السُّورُ فِي مَكَانِهِ, وَصَعِدَ الشَّعْبُ إِلَى الْمَدِينَةِ كُلُّ رَجُلٍ مَعَ وَجْهِهِ, وَأَخَذُوا الْمَدِينَةَ. 21وَحَرَّمُوا كُلَّ مَا فِي الْمَدِينَةِ مِنْ رَجُلٍ وَامْرَأَةٍ, مِنْ طِفْلٍ وَشَيْخٍ - حَتَّى الْبَقَرَ وَالْغَنَمَ وَالْحَمِيرَ بِحَدِّ السَّيْفِ. ... 24وَأَحْرَقُوا الْمَدِينَةَ بِالنَّارِ مَعَ كُلِّ مَا بِهَا. إِنَّمَا الْفِضَّةُ وَالذَّهَبُ وَآنِيَةُ النُّحَاسِ وَالْحَدِيدِ جَعَلُوهَا فِي خِزَانَةِ بَيْتِ الرَّبِّ.) يشوع 6: 20-24
(19فَقَامَ الْكَمِينُ بِسُرْعَةٍ مِنْ مَكَانِهِ وَرَكَضُوا عِنْدَمَا مَدَّ يَدَهُ، وَدَخَلُوا الْمَدِينَةَ وَأَخَذُوهَا، وَأَسْرَعُوا وَأَحْرَقُوا الْمَدِينَةَ بِالنَّارِ. ... ... ... 24وَكَانَ لَمَّا انْتَهَى إِسْرَائِيلُ مِنْ قَتْلِ جَمِيعِ سُكَّانِ عَايٍ فِي الْحَقْلِ فِي الْبَرِّيَّةِ حَيْثُ لَحِقُوهُمْ, وَسَقَطُوا جَمِيعاً بِحَدِّ السَّيْفِ حَتَّى فَنُوا أَنَّ جَمِيعَ إِسْرَائِيلَ رَجَعَ إِلَى عَايٍ وَضَرَبُوهَا بِحَدِّ السَّيْفِ. 25فَكَانَ جَمِيعُ الَّذِينَ سَقَطُوا فِي ذَلِكَ الْيَوْمِ مِنْ رِجَالٍ وَنِسَاءٍ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ أَلْفاً, جَمِيعُ أَهْلِ عَايٍ. 26وَيَشُوعُ لَمْ يَرُدَّ يَدَهُ الَّتِي مَدَّهَا بِالْحَرْبَةِ حَتَّى حَرَّمَ جَمِيعَ سُكَّانِ عَايٍ. 27لَكِنِ الْبَهَائِمُ وَغَنِيمَةُ تِلْكَ الْمَدِينَةِ نَهَبَهَا إِسْرَائِيلُ لأَنْفُسِهِمْ حَسَبَ قَوْلِ الرَّبِّ الَّذِي أَمَرَ بِهِ يَشُوعَ. 28وَأَحْرَقَ يَشُوعُ عَايَ وَجَعَلَهَا تَلاًّ أَبَدِيّاً خَرَاباً إِلَى هَذَا الْيَوْمِ. 29وَمَلِكُ عَايٍ عَلَّقَهُ عَلَى الْخَشَبَةِ إِلَى وَقْتِ الْمَسَاءِ. وَعِنْدَ غُرُوبِ الشَّمْسِ أَمَرَ يَشُوعُ فَأَنْزَلُوا جُثَّتَهُ عَنِ الْخَشَبَةِ وَطَرَحُوهَا عِنْدَ مَدْخَلِ بَابِ الْمَدِينَةِ, وَأَقَامُوا عَلَيْهَا رُجْمَةَ حِجَارَةٍ عَظِيمَةً إِلَى هَذَا الْيَوْمِ. 30حِينَئِذٍ بَنَى يَشُوعُ مَذْبَحاً لِلرَّبِّ إِلَهِ إِسْرَائِيلَ فِي جَبَلِ عِيبَالَ.) يشوع 8: 18–30
وكذلك فعل يشوع بالشعوب الآتية: مَقِّيدَةَ وأَرِيحَا ولِبْنَةَ ولَخِيشَ ولَخِيشَ وحَبْرُونَ ودَبِيرَ وضربهم بحد السيف وكل نفس بها ولم يبق بها شارداً ، بل حرَّم كل نسمة بها – كما أمر الرب!!!
(40فَضَرَبَ يَشُوعُ كُلَّ أَرْضِ الْجَبَلِ وَالْجَنُوبِ وَالسَّهْلِ وَالسُّفُوحِ وَكُلَّ مُلُوكِهَا. لَمْ يُبْقِ شَارِداً, بَلْ حَرَّمَ كُلَّ نَسَمَةٍ كَمَا أَمَرَ الرَّبُّ إِلَهُ إِسْرَائِيلَ.) يشوع 10: 28-40
(10ثُمَّ رَجَعَ يَشُوعُ فِي ذَلِكَ الْوَقْتِ وَأَخَذَ حَاصُورَ وَضَرَبَ مَلِكَهَا بِالسَّيْفِ.... 11وَضَرَبُوا كُلَّ نَفْسٍ بِهَا بِحَدِّ السَّيْفِ. حَرَّمُوهُمْ. وَلَمْ تَبْقَ نَسَمَةٌ. وَأَحْرَقَ حَاصُورَ بِالنَّارِ. 12فَأَخَذَ يَشُوعُ كُلَّ مُدُنِ أُولَئِكَ الْمُلُوكِ وَجَمِيعَ مُلُوكِهَا وَضَرَبَهُمْ بِحَدِّ السَّيْفِ. حَرَّمَهُمْ كَمَا أَمَرَ مُوسَى عَبْدُ الرَّبِّ.) يشوع 11: 10-12
(3فَالآنَ اذْهَبْ وَاضْرِبْ عَمَالِيقَ وَحَرِّمُوا كُلَّ مَا لَهُ وَلاَ تَعْفُ عَنْهُمْ بَلِ اقْتُلْ رَجُلاً وَامْرَأَةً, طِفْلاً وَرَضِيعاً, بَقَراً وَغَنَماً, جَمَلاً وَحِمَاراً» ... 8وَأَمْسَكَ أَجَاجَ مَلِكَ عَمَالِيقَ حَيّاً, وَحَرَّمَ جَمِيعَ الشَّعْبِ بِحَدِّ السَّيْفِ. 9وَعَفَا شَاوُلُ وَالشَّعْبُ عَنْ أَجَاجَ وَعَنْ خِيَارِ الْغَنَمِ وَالْبَقَرِ وَالْحُمْلاَنِ وَالْخِرَافِ وَعَنْ كُلِّ الْجَيِّدِ, وَلَمْ يَرْضُوا أَنْ يُحَرِّمُوهَا. وَكُلُّ الأَمْلاَكِ الْمُحْتَقَرَةِ وَالْمَهْزُولَةِ حَرَّمُوهَا. 10وَكَانَ كَلاَمُ الرَّبِّ إِلَى صَمُوئِيلَ: 11«نَدِمْتُ عَلَى أَنِّي قَدْ جَعَلْتُ شَاوُلَ مَلِكاً, لأَنَّهُ رَجَعَ مِنْ وَرَائِي وَلَمْ يُقِمْ كَلاَمِي».) صموئيل الأول 15: 3 -11
هكذا إله المحبة ذو العلم الأزلى عندما فوجىء بما حدث من شاول ، أنه عفا عن أجاج وعن الجيد من الغنم والبقر والحملان والخراف!!!
(16وَكَانَ لِلْيَهُودِ نُورٌ وَفَرَحٌ وَبَهْجَةٌ وَكَرَامَةٌ. 17وَفِي كُلِّ بِلاَدٍ وَمَدِينَةٍ كُلِّ مَكَانٍ وَصَلَ إِلَيْهِ كَلاَمُ الْمَلِكِ وَأَمْرُهُ كَانَ فَرَحٌ وَبَهْجَةٌ عِنْدَ الْيَهُودِ وَوَلاَئِمُ وَيَوْمٌ طَيِّبٌ.
وَكَثِيرُونَ مِنْ شُعُوبِ الأَرْضِ تَهَوَّدُوا لأَنَّ رُعْبَ الْيَهُودِ وَقَعَ عَلَيْهِمْ.)أستير8: 16-17
(12وَأَمَرَ دَاوُدُ الْغِلْمَانَ فَقَتَلُوهُمَا، وَقَطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا وَأَرْجُلَهُمَا وَعَلَّقُوهُمَا عَلَى الْبِرْكَةِ فِي حَبْرُونَ.) صموئيل الثانى 4: 12
(7فَتَجَنَّدُوا عَلى مِدْيَانَ كَمَا أَمَرَ الرَّبُّ وَقَتَلُوا كُل ذَكَرٍ. 8وَمُلُوكُ مِدْيَانَ قَتَلُوهُمْ فَوْقَ قَتْلاهُمْ. ... 9وَسَبَى بَنُو إِسْرَائِيل نِسَاءَ مِدْيَانَ وَأَطْفَالهُمْ وَنَهَبُوا جَمِيعَ بَهَائِمِهِمْ وَجَمِيعَ مَوَاشِيهِمْ وَكُل أَمْلاكِهِمْ. 10وَأَحْرَقُوا جَمِيعَ مُدُنِهِمْ بِمَسَاكِنِهِمْ وَجَمِيعَ حُصُونِهِمْ بِالنَّارِ. 11وَأَخَذُوا كُل الغَنِيمَةِ وَكُل النَّهْبِ مِنَ النَّاسِ وَالبَهَائِمِ) عدد 31: 7-11
وكذلك أقوال بولس نفسه الذى أيد كل ما ورد فى العهد القديم من دموية …. فنجده يقول فى الرسالة إلى العبرانيين:
“30بِالإِيمَانِ سَقَطَتْ أَسْوَارُ أَرِيحَا بَعْدَمَا طِيفَ حَوْلَهَا سَبْعَةَ أَيَّامٍ.
31بِالإِيمَانِ رَاحَابُ الزَّانِيَةُ لَمْ تَهْلِكْ مَعَ الْعُصَاةِ، إِذْ قَبِلَتِ الْجَاسُوسَيْنِ بِسَلاَمٍ. 32وَمَاذَا أَقُولُ أَيْضاً؟ لأَنَّهُ يُعْوِزُنِي الْوَقْتُ إِنْ أَخْبَرْتُ عَنْ جِدْعُونَ، وَبَارَاقَ، وَشَمْشُونَ، وَيَفْتَاحَ، وَدَاوُدَ، وَصَمُوئِيلَ، وَالأَنْبِيَاءِ،
33الَّذِينَ بِالإِيمَانِ قَهَرُوا مَمَالِكَ، صَنَعُوا بِرّاً، نَالُوا مَوَاعِيدَ، سَدُّوا أَفْوَاهَ أُسُودٍ، 34أَطْفَأُوا قُوَّةَ النَّارِ، نَجَوْا مِنْ حَدِّ السَّيْفِ، تَقَّوُوا مِنْ ضُعْفٍ، صَارُوا أَشِدَّاءَ فِي الْحَرْبِ، هَزَمُوا جُيُوشَ غُرَبَاءَ،
35أَخَذَتْ نِسَاءٌ أَمْوَاتَهُنَّ بِقِيَامَةٍ. وَآخَرُونَ عُذِّبُوا وَلَمْ يَقْبَلُوا النَّجَاةَ لِكَيْ يَنَالُوا قِيَامَةً أَفْضَلَ.
36وَآخَرُونَ تَجَرَّبُوا فِي هُزُءٍ وَجَلْدٍ، ثُمَّ فِي قُيُودٍ أَيْضاً وَحَبْسٍ. 37رُجِمُوا، نُشِرُوا، جُرِّبُوا، مَاتُوا قَتْلاً بِالسَّيْفِ، طَافُوا فِي جُلُودِ غَنَمٍ وَجُلُودِ مِعْزَى، مُعْتَازِينَ مَكْرُوبِينَ مُذَلِّينَ” (عبرانيين 11: 30 – 36)
(14لاَ تَكُونُوا تَحْتَ نِيرٍ مَعَ غَيْرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، لأَنَّهُ أَيَّةُ خِلْطَةٍ لِلْبِرِّ وَالإِثْمِ؟ وَأَيَّةُ شَرِكَةٍ لِلنُّورِ مَعَ الظُّلْمَةِ؟ 15وَأَيُّ اتِّفَاقٍ لِلْمَسِيحِ مَعَ بَلِيعَالَ؟ وَأَيُّ نَصِيبٍ لِلْمُؤْمِنِ مَعَ غَيْرِ الْمُؤْمِنِ؟ 16وَأَيَّةُ مُوَافَقَةٍ لِهَيْكَلِ اللهِ مَعَ الأَوْثَانِ؟)كورنثوس الثانية 6: 14-16
....................................................
كتبه ::abubakr_3??????????????====================================================((((((((((((((((((?هل إرث المرأة المسيحية عادلاً ؟)))))))))))))
المحامية : زينة وليـــم ســـارة
ان الأديان جاءت لرحمة الإنسان عموما ولنصرته وما كانت ولن تكون منبعا ً للإيذاء والقهر والظلم .
فأنا أتكلم اليوم في قضية واحدة بعينها - رافضة حتى التلميح إلى أي من القضايا التي تدغدغ عقلي بين فينة وأخرى - قضية تشترك في شجونها أكثر من 800 ألف امرأة مسيحية ينتهك في كل لحظة وفي كل ثانية حقها في الميراث وكلنا يعلم أن الإرث الشرعي الإســلامي هو الذي يطبق على المسـيحيات ( للذكر مثل حظ الأنثيين ) .
والحقيقة أن العيب ليس في هذا وإنما العيب وكل العيب أن تحرم المسيحية حتى من هذا الحق المسلم به جدلا .
و فكرة المشكلة ولبها :
في أن التزام أخوتنا المسلمين الذين نعز ونجل بهذا الإرث مرجعه الواعظ الديني والإيمان كل الإيمان بكتاب الله وسنة نبيه، و بالتالي ففي الامتناع - في الإيمان و الأخلاق- معصية و إثم وذنب .
أما بالنسبة للمسيحيين فالقضية لا تتعدى كونها مشكلة قانون لا عقاب جزائي رادع له، وبالتالي فإن الامتناع عن تطبيق نصوصه لا يعني للرجل المسيحي شيئا ً البتة فهذه ليست بمعصية وليست إثم .
فتجد مثلاً أن الريف المسيحي خلق لنفسه عرفا ً ، غالبا ً ما تحرم بموجبه الفتاة من إرث والدها أو شقيقها أو... وإن فكرت باللجوء إلى القانون فإن النبذ و القطيعة جزاؤها لخروجها عما اعتادت عليه الجماعة مما أخمد في صدور الكثيرات الشكوى وكبت حتى مجرد الفكرة في عقولهن .
وتاريخيا :
حاولت الكثير وصول إلى كيفية ووقت تم فيه التقسيم غير المبرر للقوانين التي تحكم شؤون المسيحيين ليصبح للرباط الزوجي للمرأة قانون خاص هو قانون الحق العائلي ولنفقتها قانون الحق العائلي و لـ... أما لإرثها قانون آخر لا علاقة له بمعتقدها الديني .
و لكني فشلت في هذا التنقيب ، إلا أن أحد المطلعين على الأمر أخبرني أن الدولة يوم سنت قانون الأحوال الشخصية . أرسلت إلى رجال الدين المسيحي مستطلعة رأيهم فيما يطلبونه من هذا القانون ، خاصة وأن لبنان أقرب بلد لنا عامل المسلم على أساس دينه والمسيحي على أساس دينه .
فكان الرد بما آل إليه الحال.
هذا الرد الذي خالف بكل بساطة تعاليم الإنجيل (( ليس عبد ولا حر ولا ذكر ولا أنثى , لأنكم جميعا واحد في المسيح يسوع ))( غل 3:28)
و(( فاثبتوا إذاً في الحرية التي حررنا المســـيح بها ولا ترتبكوا أيضاً بنير العبوديــة ))
فما السبب ؟ وأهواء من ، وافق هذا الوضع ؟.
أهي أهواء رجال الدين والمجلس الملي للكنائس ( وكلهم بلا صدفة ذكور ) أم هو انحياز إلى ذاك المبدأ الهزيل القائل أن توحيد التشريع في البلد الواحد يزيد اللحمة بين المواطنين من خلال خضوعهم لقانون واحد ومحكمة واحدة . والذي أؤمن كل الإيمان بعدم صحة هذا المبدأ الذي ينتج في النهاية ظلما لطائفة على حساب أخرى و يفرض عليها إيمانا ً بأشياء قد لا تؤمن بها ،و يخلق مجتمعاً ذو لون واحد تتطابق فيه الأديان والمعتقدات وهذا مخالف لطبيعة الخليقة .
كل الاحترام للقراء
وجل الاحترام للأديان التي أرادت الإنسان حرا
…………………..
المحامية : زينة وليـــم ســـارة
إرسال تعليق