Learn
The Qur'an is replete with historical errors, an interesting fact given that Muslims believe it to be the very word of God who should know his history. One such error concerns the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The Temple Mount is the third holiest site in Islam, after Mecca and Medina. The religious claim to the Temple Mount is based on an historical error in the Qur'an.
Sura 17:1 says, "Glorified be He who took His servant for a journey by night from Al-Masjid Al-Haram to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, the neighborhood whereof We have blessed, in order that We might show of him our Ayat. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer."
This verse has its origin in an event which took place around 620 AD, near the end of Muhammad's time in Mecca. As the story is told, one night Muhammad is mounted on a human/mule hybrid creature with wings called Buraq and taken to the Al-Aqsa mosque on Temple Mount in Jerusalem. From there he ascends into heaven, passes through seven levels of heaven. At the seventh level he communicates with Allah who tells him Muslims are obligated to pray five times a day. Muhammad then descends back to the Temple Mount and returns to Mecca on the back of Buraq, all in the span of one night.
But here's the problem: The Al-Aqsa mosque was not built for decades later, long after the death of Muhammad! How could Muhammad have visited a place that did not exist?
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The background behind this verse (known as "The Occasion of Revelation") is well documented in several sources. Though the following seem dry and uninteresting, they are needed to clearly establish, via Islamic sources, that Islam indeed teaches that Muhammad visited the Al Aqsa mosque in 620AD.
BIOGRAPHERS WHO WRITE ABOUT MUHAMMAD'S JOURNEY
Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar (aka Ibn Ishaq - son of Isaac) wrote the earliest biography of Muhammad known to exist, around 760AD. Regarding this particular incident, Ibn Ishaq records the oral tradition passed to him from several diverse sources. He relates that no fewer than seven different and distinct sources from which this story is told:
- Abdullah bin Mas'ud
- Abu Sa'id al-Khudri
- Aisha, Muhammad's youngest wife
- Mu'awiya bin Abu Sufyan
- al-Hasan al-Basri
- Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri
- Umm Hani d. Abu Talib
Clearly, all the narrators of this event say Muhammad went to Jerusalem. Here is a sample from Ibn Ishaq's biography.
"According to what I have heard Abdullah bin Mas'ud used to say: Buraq, the animal whose every stride carried it as far as its eye could reach on which the prophets before him used to ride was borught to the apostle and he was mounted on it. His companion (Gabriel) went with him to see the wonders between heaven and earth, until he came to Jerusalem's temple." (Underline mine)
"In his story Al-Hasan said: 'The apostle and Gabriel went their way until they arrived at the temple at Jerusalem. ...Then the apostle returned to Mecca and in the morning he told the Quraysh what had happened. Most of them said "By God, this is a plain absurdity! A caravan takes a month to go to Syria and a month to return and can Muhammad do the return journey in one night?" Many Muslims gave up their faith; some went to Abu Bakr and said, "What do you think of your friend now, Abu Bakr? He alleges that he went to Jerusalem last night and prayed there and came back to Mecca."
The 14th century historian and Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir quotes Abu Bakr as saying, when questioned about Muhammad's journey, "I give him credence in communication from heaven, early in the day or in the evening, so how should I not believe him regarding Jerusalem?"
Furthermore, in addition to the traditions mentioned above from Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir's biography includes additional traditions not mentioned by Ibn Ishaq.
"Also, Al-Hakim related, from al-Asamm, from Ahmad b. Abd al-Jabbar, from Yunus b. Bukayr, from Asbat b. Nasr, from Isma'il al-Suddi, who said, "The five daily prayers were enjoined upon the Messenger of God (SAAS) at Jerusalem the night of his journey there, 16 months prior to his emmigration."
Some had doubts Muhammad actually made this journey, as can be seen from Al-Hasan's narration above. Ibn Kathir addresses these doubts in a test put to Muhammad by Abu Bakr, one of Muhammad's earliest converts to Islam:
"In his account al-Hasan recounts that Abu Bakr asked him to describe Jerusalem, and that the Messenger of God (SAAS) did so."
Modern biographers also attest to the fact of this event. Martin Lings, a British convert to Islam who wrote a biography of Muhammad published in 1983, says the following:
"The prophet then told how he mounted Buraq, for so the beast was named; and with the Archangel at his side, pointing the way and measuring his pace to that of the heavenly steed, they sped northward beyond Yathrib and beyond Khaybar, until they reached Jerusalem. Then they were met by a company of Prophets -- Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and others -- and when he prayed on the site of the Temple, they gathered together behind him in prayer."
Thus, Muhammad led communal prayers in Jerusalem at 'the Temple' which must be a reference to a mosque, the only place communal prayers take place.
Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, another modern biographer, wrote his book "When the Moon Split: A Biography of Prophet Muhammad" which was published in 2002. He says of this event:
"Perhaps two of the most significant and remarkable events in the Prophet's life were his 'Israa" (Night Journey) and 'Mi'raaj' (Ascension). Israa refers to how one night Allah took Muhammad from the Ka'bah to Bait Al-Maqqdis (the "Sacred Mosque of Worship," i.e., Solomon's Temple) in Jerusalem, and 'Mi'raaj' refers to the Prophet's actual ascension to heaven from Jerusalem." (Parentheses in original)
That Islam and the Quran teaches that Muhammad actually visited Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa mosque is well established in Islamic historical sources. But scholars of the Qur'an and hadith (traditions attributed to Muhammad) also agree as to the historical fact of this journey.
COMMENTARIES OF THE QUR'AN ON MUHAMMAD'S JOURNEY
Ibn Kathir wrote an extensive commentary (tafsir) on the Qur'an. In his exegesis of Sura 17:1 he says:
"to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa means the Sacred House which is in Jerusalem, the origin of the Prophets from the time of Ibrihim Al-Khalil. The Prophets all gathered there, and he (Muhammad) led them in prayer in their own homeland. This indicates that he is the greatest leader of all, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and upon them." (Parenthesis in original)
Abdullah Yusuf Ali, author of the most popular English translation of the Quran, has the following footnote regarding this verse:
"The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, at or near which stands the Dome of the Rock. This and the mosque known as the Farthest Mosque (al Masjid al Aqsa) were completed by by the Amir Abd al Malik in A.H. 68."
In "The Message of the Qur'an" published in 2003 by Muhammad Asad we find the following comment to the first verse of Sura 17:
"The above short reference to the Prophet's mystic experience of the "Night Journey" (al-isra) to Jerusalem and the subsequent "Ascension" (mi'raj) to heaven is fully discussed in Appendix IV at the end of this work. ... "The Remote [lit., 'farthest'] House of Worship", on the other hand, denotes the ancient Temple of Solomon - or rather, its site - which symbolizes here the ling line of Hebrew prophets who preceded the advent of Muhammad and are alluded to by the phrase "the environs of which We had blessed". The juxtaposition of these two sacred temples is meant to show that the Qur'an does not inaugurate a 'new' religion but represents a continuation and the ultimate development of the same divine message which was preached by the prophets of old"
In other words, Asad says there is religious significance in that Muhammad worshipped at the Temple Mount because it ties Islam, which Muslims believe to be a continuation of true monotheistic Judaism, back to the original Jewish temple.
Sayyid Qutb, a leader in the early years of the Muslim Brotherhood wrote "In the Shade of The Quran," a commentary on the Quran from an Egyptian prison in the 1950s. In it he comments on this verse:
"The story of the night journey by the Prophet from the Sacred Mosque in Makkah to the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, and then his ascension from there to the highest heaven and the world of which we know nothing, is mentioned in several reports. It has been the subject of of much controversy, which continues even today."
Qutb goes on to describe the controversies, none of which question that Muhammad actually visited the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. Most of the controversies surround where the journey originated from in Mecca. That Muhammad actually visited Al Aqsa in Jerusalem in unquestioned.
AN EMBARRASING PIECE OF HISTORY
What are we to make of all this? The Quran says in verse 17:1 that Muhammad went to Jerusalem and specifically the Al Aqsa mosque during his lifetime. Muhammad died in 632 AD. Authoritative Islamic scholars, both ancient and modern, all agree Muhammad made a visit in one night to the Al Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount, the site of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, during an even historically set around the year 620AD, 16 months prior to his emigration to Medina in 622AD.
Yet we know historically that the Al Aqsa mosque did not exist during the lifetime of Muhammad. Abd Al Malik built the Dome of the Rock in 691AD and completed the adjacent Al Aqsa mosque in 712AD. How then could Muhammad have visited a place which was not to exist for another 72 years in the future? And how could the author of the Qur'an, the all intelligent Allah, have made such a blatant and bone headed historical error?
RESOLVING THE EMBARASSMENT?
At least one Islamic scholar has recognized this problem and has attempted to rescue Allah's reputation and that of all previous scholarship.
Dr. Shabbir Ahmed wrote his version of the Qur'an, "The Quran as it Explains Itself." In the preface to Sura 17, Ahmed makes the comment:
"ASRA (Night Journey) is often mixed up with MI'RAJ (ascension). Since Allah is Omnipresent, the notion of going to meet with Him over the skies does not stand up to reason. 'ASRA' signifies the night journey and it refers to the beginning of the exalted Messenger's emigration from Makkah to Madinah by night. Verses 20:77 and 26:52 use the same term for migration of Prophet Moses along with his followers across the sea. Also consider 17:2. Masjid Al Aqsa means, the Remote Mosque and refers to the 'Remote Mosque' in Madinah, the place where Muslims used to establish congregational prayers before the Prophet's arrival at the city."
"The famous Masjid Al Aqsa, (the so-called Qiblah Awwal, or the supposed First Holy Sanctuary, also known as Haram Sharif) in Jerusalem was, in fact, built in 72AH (691 C.E.) by the Umayyad Ruler, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, about 60 years after the exalted Messenger passed on."
"Jerusalem, until the Muslim conquest under the second Caliph of Islam in 637 C.E., had been under the control of the Byzantine Christians for centuries, and there was no person worshipping in a Masjid anywhere in the world except Madinah. Hence, the question of a presence of a Masjid in Jerusalem during the life times [sic] of the exalted Prophet should not arise."
Indeed, how could Muslims have conducted prayers, and how could Muhammad have led a communal prayer in Jerusalem when the mosque did not exist, nor were there even any Muslims in Jerusalem at that time?
Unfortunately for Shabbir Ahmed, his is a lone voice kicking against centuries of solid Islamic scholarship. He has been dismissed as irrelevant; Wikipedia recently removed an article about his translation of the Quran with the comment, "Article has been marked as lacking notability for almost 2 years. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss it. Seems to be just one random translation of the Quran, with no particular notability."
Indeed.
And Islamic claims of religious significance to the Temple Mount are invalid and illegitimate. They are based on an event that never could have happened.
In a recent article published by MEMRI, Nihad Awad of the Council of American-Islamic Relations asserted that Muslims were in North America long before Columbus [transcript here, video here - may require free registration]. School textbooks and instructors make the same claim. Not long ago a young woman who attends a local junior college informed me that her history professor said Muslims were in America long before the Europeans.
Where does such misinformation come from? What is the source of this particular aspect of revisionist history?
A group identified as The Middle East Policy Council (MEPC), with the assistance of Arab World and Islamic Resources (AWAIR), published a manual in 1998, revised in 2002, called the Arab World Studies Notebook. The Notebook, 540 pages in length in a loose-leaf three ring binder, was ostensibly published as a resource for educators in providing instruction in Arab culture. But the Notebook goes far beyond simply discussing Arab culture; it covers many aspects of Islam as a religion. For example, there is a section on Islam 101 and the Holy Prophet, the Qur'an, Hadith, Ramadan, the Hajj pilgrimage, and so forth. The Notebook contains suggested lesson plans for each topic, classroom activities, reproducible worksheets for students, and suggested additional resources for each area of study. In short, the Notebook is an educator's dream come true; all the work has been done. How convenient for teachers, and how noble for MPEC to provide such a quality instructional aid!
After publication of the Notebook, MPEC hosted "educational seminars" on Islam and Arab Studies throughout the USA to help school instructors and educators better understand Arab culture and Islam to prepare them to teach these subjects in classrooms. Teachers were provided either free or significantly reduced price copies of the Notebook. MPEC even pitched the Notebook directly to school boards and lobbied to have it adopted into the regular curriculum of school districts throughout the nation. According to some sources, over 20,000 copies of the Workbook found their way into the hands of educators and are being used today for instruction in both history and Arab cultural studies.
Interestingly enough, the Notebook has a section which discusses the issue of Muslims in America, before the arrival of Christopher Columbus!
In a section titled "Early Muslim Exploration Wordwide: Evidence of Muslims in the New World Before Columbus" we find wild and unsubstantiated claims such as this:
Columbus was well aware of the Manding presence and that the West African Muslims had not only spread throughout the Carribean, Central and South America, but that they had reached Canada and were trading and intermarrying with the eastern woodland Iroquios and Algonquin chiefs with names like Abdul-Rahim and Badallah Ibn Malik.
Audrey Shabbas, the author of the Notebook, has been called out by historians and other educators for her careless disregard for history. Peter DiGangi, director of the Algonquin National Secretariat, called the claims of Shabbas "outlandish" and said nothing in the tribe's oral or written tradition supports such a claim. There is no record anywhere of Algonquin tribal chiefs with names such as Abdul-Rahim or Badallah Ibn Malik. It is as if Shabbas created this bit of revisionist history completely out of thin air. It has no basis in historical fact. After learning of this gross distortion of history, DiGangi attempted for six months to contact Shabbas to have her remove this inaccurate material from the Notebook. Shabbas was unresponsive to his inquiries. When finally contacted, Shabbas said she would "give careful and thoughtful attention" to the matter. Yet as of today there has been no retraction of the inaccurate material.
Sandra Stotsky, former director of a professional development institute for teachers at Harvard, and a former associate commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Education, notes that Shabbas has admitted to "deliberately favoring the Arab point of view." She describes the Notebook as "propaganda." Stotsky has written extensively about the campaign to rewrite history by groups pushing a pro-Islamic agenda. In an article written for George Mason University's History Network, Stotsky is highly critical of the Workbook and states, "After September 11, it is clearly urgent to teach K-12 students about Islamic history and culture. It is also critical for their teachers to have suitable instructional materials that do not inadvertently promote some person's or group's religious or political agends."
In the video clip below, Stotsky discusses the influence of revisionist history regarding Islam in our schools. She also discussed the Arab World Studies Notebook.
In another article for the History News Network, intern Rebecca Fachner discusses the origins of the idea that Muslims were here long before Columbus. Fachner notes in a report that the authors of the Notebook "simply created an Indian story to suit the purposes of the advocacy group, and published it in a school text manual as fact." She goes on to say that it appears Shabbas and others were simply trying to gain acceptance for Arabs, further integrating them into American culture by making them 'native.' While attempts to gain acceptance of Arabs into American culture is certainly an honorable endeavor, fabricating history to make such integration seem natural is both intellectually dishonest and outright deceptive.
The next time you hear a Muslim or one of their spokespersons make the outlandish claim of Muslims being here before Columbus, ask a simple question. Where is your evidence?
One of the most common objections Christians encounter when engaging Muslims is the issue of the Trinity. Yet it is probably the one issue Muslims could not care less about, and they only use the objection to derail the average Christian into silence. But it is one of the easier objections to answer, and at least in concept get a Muslim agree to the possibility of a trinity. How?
Let's review the common Muslim response to the Trinity. Muslims believe the Trinity is a contradiction by suggesting something cannot exist as a single entity yet have multiple component pieces of that single entity. They will argue that 1+1+1=3 and suggest by this formula that Christians worship three Gods, not one.
First, I find it quite fascinating that Muslims will admit that God cannot be known. According to Islamic theology, God is so transcendent and so far removed from us that there is no way we can ever possibly hope to know God. But in the very next breath, the same Muslim will state with absolute certainty he KNOWS God is not one in three! If God cannot be known, then how can the Muslim KNOW this about God?
Second, I like to get Muslims to agree, at least in principle, that the concept the Trinity is intelligible and not a contradiction. I will ask a Muslim if they are comprised of only the chemical elements that make up their physical body. Every Muslim will agree that, as humans, we are more than just our physical bodies. When our flesh dies, our spirit or soul lives in eternity. The Qur'an says explicitly in Sura 3:169, "Think not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive, with their Lord, and they have provision." The Bible says in 2 Corinthians 5:8 that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
When our physical bodies die our spiritual nature continues. But since we have two natures as humans, does that mean we are two separate entities? If I have a body and spirit, does that make me two persons? Using the Muslim argument againt the trinity, it does, yet no Muslim will agree that he is two persons because he is composed of two natures: physical and spiritual. If we, as mere mortal human beings, can have two natures in one being, why is it so difficult to conceive an infinite God who has three natures, yet is one being?
Third, only the triune Godhead of the Bible can help us understand and make sense of our ability as humans to love one another. Recall that the Islamic concept of God is that he is absolutely and singularly one. Before he created mankind, he alone existed in absolute singularity. Now, think about the concept of love: Does it not require at least two entities to be intelligible? For love to exist, there must be both a lover and one on whom love is bestowed. The concept of love in absolute isolation from another is unintelligible. Yet Muslims will claim that love is one of Allah's attributes, but where did that love come from? In eternity past when Allah was all alone, whom did he love? The god of Islam cannot possess the attribute of love because he had nobody to love prior to our creation. So when Allah created man, how did he give man the ability to love if he himself did not possess such ability? How can god give us something he himself does not have?
However, the Trinitarian God of Christianity makes the concept of love perfectly intelligible. We humans love because God has always been loving. We have the ability to love because our God has always had the ability to love also. God gave us something He himself had: love. God has always existed in a loving relationship within the trinity: God the Father in a loving relationship with the Son, and the Son with the Spirit, and the Spirith with the Father. Our God is a loving God, has always been a loving God, and always will be a loving God. The god of Islam cannot make the same claim.
Remember, most Muslims have no genuine interest in understanding the trinity or even acknowledging the possibility of the trinity. When they raise the objection, answer it quickly, show him or her you have a response, nip their objection in the bud, and then move on to a more serious issue: our eternal salvation. Don't get side tracked by an innocuous objection and let the Muslim stop the conversation there. Keep moving on to serious matters.
This Christmas help a Muslim understand who Jesus was: God With Us! From the Bible and the Qur'an:
Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
Matthew 1:22-23 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
Luke 1:30-35 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”
Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
Sura 19:16-21
19.16 And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East,
19.17 And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man.
19.18 She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God- fearing.
19.19 He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.
19.20 She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste?
19.21 He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained.
The Bible and Quran both say Mary was a virgin, untouched by man. The Quran calls the birth of Jesus "a mercy from Us" [God]. What could be more merciful than providing a method of redemption from our sins?
The prophet Isaiah said a virgin will conceive - the Quran says Mary was a virgin. Isaiah said this son's name will be Immanuel, which Matthew says means "God with Us!"
Ask your Muslim friend if there was another virgin who conceived and bore a son. No? Then Isaiah must be talking about Jesus, the same Jesus in Sura 19, born of a virgin according to the Quran, who is a mercy from God, and is in fact GOD WITH US!
Let's say you wanted to read a historical biography of George Washington. You have two choices before you:
1. A book written by John Adams, Washington's successor who lived during the time and was an eyewitness to what Washington did.
2. A book I wrote in the 21st century about Washington, even though I have no benefit of first hand knowledge or eyewitness accounts.
Which would you choose?
The question is almost rhetorical. There is only one answer.
Yet many reject the earliest biography of Muhammad's life, written a mere 130 years after his death, in favor of much later biographies which cast Muhammad in a completely different light. Many histories have been written about Muhammad's life, but to the critical historian, the earliest is considered the most authoritative, simply because there has been less time for legend to creep into the historical narrative.
Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Yasār ibn Khiyār (aka Ibn Ishaq), who died in 767AD, wrote the earliest biography of Muhammad. Other renowned biographers include Al Tabari (900s), Ibn Kathir (1300s) and Martin Lings (1900s). Whose is most authentic and authoritative?
I bring this up because many are refusing to acknowledge the historical source of the current conflict. Ibn Ishaq narrates several incidents where those who mocked or defamed Muhammad were slaughtered with Muhammad's full approval - examples provided below. Others however choose to view Muhammad in a more favorable light, albeit historically less authoritative, by making reference to Muhammad as told by much later historians. I tried to make this point earlier on someones FB wall and was rebuffed with "As for historians' views of Muhammad, they don't all agree, and they're not (or mostly not) one-sided to either extreme."
THE ROOTS OF ISLAMIC RAGE CURRENTLY
Muhammad had a way of dealing with those who insulted or mocked him.
A group of Jewish rabbis laughed and scoffed at Islam and the Muslims. Muhammad ordered them ejected from the mosque, whereupon some were dragged from the mosque by the hair on their heads and given a severe beating.
Muhammad ordered the killing of two girls, Fartana and her friend, for singing songs of a satirical nature about him.
Another young girl named Sara was mercilessly trampled to her death by a mounted soldier dispatched by Muhammad after she insulted him.
A woman named Asma bint Marwan was brutally murdered with Muhammad’s full knowledge, again for writing poetry deriding Muhammad. Muhammad solicited from among his men for someone to kill her, and one of his men volunteered. When told of the murder the following morning, Muhammad said “two goats will not butt their heads over her death.” This woman left five sons as orphans. According to other accounts of this same incident, the soldier who killed Asma first removed a suckling infant from her breast before plunging his sword into her.
Muhammad gave thanks to Allah when the head of one Abu Jahl was delivered to him. Abu Jahl’s crime was making a mockery of Ibn Mas’ud, one of Muhammad’s followers.
Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf composed poetry of an insulting nature against Muslim women. For this deed, Muhammad solicited from among his men volunteers to kill Ka’b. They lured Ka’b into the night for a friendly discussion, and at a suitable place killed him. Ibn Warraq adds that Ka’b’s head was delivered to Muhammad who praised their good works in the cause of God.
These are but a sample of the actions of Muhammad, recorded in history, which Muslims are still following today any time they feel their prophet has been slandered or mocked.
We can only understand current events by understanding accurate history, in this case Islamic history.
Not long ago I was standing with some friends outside a mosque, handing out literature to Muslims exiting from their Friday service. Things were going well when suddenly a large man came out from the mosque and encountered one of my friends, an older gentleman. The Muslim man said, "You think your God is the right one! I have a challenge for you!," his voice growing louder with each sentence. "This week I challenge you to pray to your God, and I will pray to my God. We both will ask our God to strike dead the one who worships the false God. You meet me here next week at the same time to see whose God is God, if you're still alive!"
My friend was quite taken aback. He did not quite know how to respond. He thought about it for a few minutes and finally agreed they would meet the following Friday at the same time in front of the mosque.
This is a form of the practice known as Mubahala and finds its authority from the Qur'an in Sura 3:61 which says, "But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, and our people and your people, then let us be earnest in prayer and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars."
First, notice a distinct difference here between Islam and Christianity. While the Qur'an, spoken by Muhammad to his people, calls on Muslims to curse Christians, Jesus called on Christians to bless all people, including Muslims, and even to bless those who curse us (Luke 6:28).
Second, note that this practice is not an invention of Islam. It goes all the way back well over 3,000 years to the duel on Mount Carmel between Elijah and the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18: 17-46). Muslims must be careful who they challenge to a duel. Though we wish no harm on them, you don't mess with the God of the Bible. When challenged, to prove "whose God is God" He eliminated the 450 prophets of Baal along with the 400 prophets of Asherah and sent a strong message. Muslims dare not challenge God this way today or be prepared to face the consequences.
So how did the story end for my friend? He showed up the following Friday but the Muslim man did not. I don't know why. Perhaps God accepted his challenge; perhaps he was just embarrassed that his god was shown to be pitiful and powerless.
But other Muslims have challenged Christians and wish they had not. For such an account, read the story of David Wood being challenged to a Mubahala here.
The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus - VideoBookIt has been called "the greatest story ever told." Now the central message of the Bible is brought to life in this eleven-hour online Bible study. This self-paced course has been adapted from the popular award-winning DVD series, The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus.
Your teacher will take these individual elements and chronologically tie them together into one universal drama. Whether you have significant Bible knowledge or have never read "the Book," this online series is for you.
More Articles...
Page 1 of 7