Between his hands

The articles on this website may be reproduced freely as long as the following source reference is provided: Joseph A Islam www.quransmessage.com

Salamun Alaikum (Peace be upon you)

'BETWEEN HIS HANDS' OR 'BEFORE IT' (MA BAYNA YADAYHI)

 joseph islam.jpg

 Printer Friendly Version

Copyright © 2009 Joseph A Islam: Article last modified 24th December 2011

The Quranic and Arabic idiomatic expression 'ma bayna yadayhi' is usually translated as 'what went before it' (or by a similar rendering) by many English translators.

A typical popular translation can be seen below:

003.003-4

It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it (Arabic: ma bayna yadayhi); and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the Criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). Then those who reject faith in the signs of God will suffer the severest penalty, and God is exalted in might, Lord of retribution”

Illustration - Joseph Islam

The Arabic term 'yaday' comes from the root word:  Ya-Dal-Ya which means to: touch, aid, do good, a hand, with a willing hand or out of hand.

As an example, we note:

002:079

"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands (Arabic: bi-aydihim - root: Ya-Dal-Ya), and then say: "This is from God," so that they may take from it a small price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby"

Illustration - Joseph Islam

Therefore, the correct literal translation of the idiomatic expression 'ma bayna yadayhi' is 'that which is between its / his hands' and not 'what went before it'. This rendering would therefore confirm a coexisting Torah and Bible at the time of Prophet Muhammad. (pbuh)

A similar expression can also be noted with regards to Prophet Jesus, (pbuh) who similarly came to confirm aspects of the Torah that was 'between his hands' (coexistent with his ministry) and to make clear what may have had become concealed or obscured to the Jewish nation.

005.046

“ And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Torah between his hands (Arabic: ma bayna yadayhi) : We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Torah that (was) between his hands : a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God”

 

061:006

“And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of God unto you, confirming what is between my hands (Arabic: ma bayna yadayya) of the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who comes after me, whose name is the Praised One. Yet when he has come unto them with clear proofs, they say: This is mere magic”

The problem of not translating the term 'ma bayna yadayhi' to its literal (and most correct) rendering as 'that which is between its / his hands' may have its roots based in Islamic theology, certainly from the point of view of Muslim interpretations.

However, this interpretation is not merely noted in Muslim translations, but some Oriental scholars have also often rendered the Arabic term in this way possibly borrowing from the widely accepted Muslim interpretations, as we note below.

George Sale

“They said our people, verily we have heard a book read unto us, which hath been revealed since Moses, confirming the scripture which was delivered before it; and directing unto the truth, and the right way”

JM Rodwell

“They said, "O our people! verily we have been listening to a book sent down since the days of Moses, affirming the previous scriptures; it guideth to the truth, and to the right way”

The literal translation which remains 'that which is between its / his hands' does indeed pose some theological problems for many Muslims. It implies that the Quran was confirming Biblical scriptures coexistent with the Prophet's ministry when it is widely accepted in Muslim thought today that the Bible was corrupted.

From the Quran's point of view however, there is no claim of wholesale corruption of the Bible. Rather, the Quran acknowledges that over time, some changes have indeed occurred, specifically made by scribes. This could be for a variety of reasons such as accidental or even as the Quran suggests, intentional (such as theological or even political).

However, it is quite significant to note that the Quran never makes an attack on the previous scripture's inability to part with the truth. Rather, it holds it in much esteem.

028.049

"Say: "Then bring a Book from God, which is a better guide than either of them (Torah and the Quran), that I may follow it! (do), if ye are truthful!""

What is being rebuked are not the previous scriptures per se, but the theology often practiced by its adherents which it recognises as being quite distinct from the text.

003:093

"All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel had forbidden to himself, before the Torah was revealed. Say: Bring then the Torah and read it, if you are truthful"

ALTERATIONS OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT ARE ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE QURAN BUT THIS IS NOT TANTAMOUNT TO WHOLESALE CORRUPTION OF THE BIBLE

A very telling narrative is captured by the Quran in the following verse.

002:075

“Have you any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them (Arabic: Fariqun min'hum) used to listen to the word of God, then used to change it, after they had understood it, knowingly?”

The first point to consider is that this is not a reference to 'all' the People of the Book, but merely a party or section of them (Arabic: Fariqun min'hum).

A few verses later, one acquires additional information that some of the people of the book were also 'gentiles' (Ummiyuna) who had no knowledge of the scripture, but merely followed their own desires and conjectures.

002.078

"And there are among them 'Gentiles' (Arabic: Ummiyuna), who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture"

002:079

"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands (Arabic: Bi-Aydihim), and then say: "This is from God," so that they may take from it a small price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby"

An appreciation of the context and audience is key. This statement was primarily in reference to the Arab Jews and Christians contemporaneous to the Prophet and what they acknowledged as scripture in the 6th, early 7th century Arabia. There were among them people of the previous scripture that no doubt distorted scripture for one reason or another.

However, this did not imply that the entire Bible was corrupted or had become totally indiscernible due to the changes.

The tendencies of possible 'scribes' have been alluded to (with what their hands write). However, it is uncertain whether they were being instructed to write (for a price) by their masters / employers, or whether the commitment was based on volition borne from their own theological slants, changing words out of context to suit their own particular beliefs.

There is much support for the above latter point of view in Biblical scholarship in the area of 'textual criticism' which is very revealing.

The Quran however, never indicates to the believers that truth or elements of the truth cannot be discerned from the Bible. In fact, the major veracity of the Bible is vouched for by the following verse of the Quran:

005.043

But why do they come to you for decision, when they have (their own) Torah before them?  therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not People of Faith.

The thought that the Bible is 'corrupted' or that 'truth cannot be discerned from it' normally stems from a misunderstanding on the part of many Muslims who may not be familiar with Biblical contents or its history (There are indeed many Christians and Jews who are also not familiar with their own scriptures and its history).

Meaningful discussions in this area are becoming better imparted in Muslim-Christian dialogue. However, much of these dialogues are still normally systemic in that they attempt merely to prove the fallibility 'of the other side' as opposed to look for common grounds and a truer understanding of the differences and appreciation between them.

THE QURAN CONFIRMS THE TRUTH OF THE PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES AND PASSES OVER OTHER AREAS

005:015

"O People of the Book, surely there has come to you our Messenger, making clear to you much of what you used to conceal (Arabic: tukh'funa) of the scripture and overlooking / forgiving much (Arabic: wa-ya'fu an kathiran). Surely has come to you from God a light and a clear book"

The Arabic word 'tukh'funa' comes from the root KHA-FA-YA which carries the meaning of what is unapparent / has become imperceptible / has become dim to the sight / or suppressed, or obscured to the mind. It also carries the meaning of something which has become 'concealed'.

Therefore, the Quran within context of its Arabic usage clearly recognised that certain aspects of the previous scriptures had become gradually concealed and deemed it fit to expound on some of them. It was also not the intention of the Quran to deal with each and every narrative of the Bible hence the term 'wa-yafu an kathiran' (forgive, pardon, pass over, relinquish or remit a whole or part or indeed pardon much).

THE QURAN IS ALSO A GUARD OVER THE PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES

This is a very powerful verse and there is much insight in the Arabic term 'muhaymin' utilised by the Quran.

005.048

“ To thee We revealed the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that is between the hands (coexistent Torah and Bible), and guarding it by determining what is true and false (Arabic: wa-muhayminan): so judge between them by what God has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that has come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute”

Illustration - Joseph Islam

The same word ‘muhaymin’ is also used to address God.

059:023

“He is God, than whom there is no other God, the Sovereign Lord, the Holy One, Peace, the Keeper of Faith, the Guardian/Determining what is true and false (Arabic: l-muhayminu), the Majestic, the Compeller, the Superb. Glorified be God from all that they ascribe as partner (to Him)”

ROOT WORD - Ha-Ya-Miim-Nun = to watch over, oversee, expand the wings (hen over their chickens), control. To be witness to, offer security and peace, protect and determine what is true.

Muhayminan - guardian to watch and determine what is true and what is false witness, afforder of security and peace, controller and superintendent of all the affairs, protector.

Other Derivatives: Haymana vb: 5:48, 59:23

Much is inferred by this verse not only that the Quran protects the message of the previous scriptures, but also acts as a discerner of its truth. Both the understanding of guardianship and as one that discerns the truth can equally be applicable to God, as used in 59:23.

THE QURAN RECOGNISED THE TORAH THAT WAS CO-EXISTENT AT THE TIME OF THE PROPHET

032:023

"And certainly We gave Moses the Scripture, so do not be in doubt encountering it (Arabic: liqaihi) and We made it a guide for the Children of Israel"

Note the Arabic word 'liqai' (the 'hi' simply being a pronoun) comes from the root word 'Lam-Qaf-Ya' which means to encounter, meet, see, come across, or see face to face. Many commentators unduly make use of the word 'receive' to translate 'liqai' when it is clear that the usage of this word within the Quran is specific to 'encounter' or come across 'face to face'.

007.147

"Those who reject Our signs and the meeting (Arabic: liqai) in the Hereafter, vain are their deeds: Will they be recompensed except for what they used to do?"

003:093

"All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel had forbidden to himself, before the Torah was revealed. Say: Bring then the Torah and read it, if you are truthful"

Therefore, the Torah was a coexistent reality that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was faced with. He was instructed not to doubt it as it was a scripture that was given to Prophet Moses (pbuh) from God to guide the Children of Israel.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The Quranic Arabic idiomatic expression 'ma bayna yadayhi' recognised coexistent scriptures that were present at the time of Prophet Muhammad's ministry. (pbuh)  It recognised aspects of the truth that was with the Jews and Christians in the late 6th and early 7th century Arabia.

Whilst confirming aspects of Biblical thought, the Quran clearly differed from certain theology that had resulted and had been 'read' into the text.

The Quran maintains that it is a guard over the previous scriptures with the crucial term 'Muhaymin' being utilised which carries the meaning of both guard and also something which discerns the truth.

The suggestion that the Torah and Injeel refer to lost scriptures or that they had been widely corrupted is not an assertion that is supported by the Quran.

How old was Saul ? 1 Samuel 13:1

Saul was… years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel two years. ( 1 Samuel 13:1)

-------------

“The number is lacking in the Heb. text; also, the precise context of the “two years” is uncertain. The verse is lacking in the Septuagint.” (JPS Commentary)

Imagine that, the number is "lacking" from the Bible, not to be found? Another good evidence behind this is from the Septuagint Bible, notice how verse one is completely omitted.

And Saul chooses for himself three thousand men of the men of Israel: and there were with Saul two thousand who were in Machmas, and in mount Baethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gabaa of Benjamin: and he sent the rest of the people every man to his tent. (I Samuel 13:1 2)

It gets worse the Masoretic text miraculously gives us a number, which differs depending on what version of the Bible your read. Note, at what age Saul became king is nowhere to be found in the earliest Hebrew text.

Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty- two years. (1 Samuel 13:1 NIV)

Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, (1 Samuel 13:1 KJV)

Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-two years over Israel. (1 Samuel 13:1 NAS)

Saul was as a son of one year when he began to reign, and when he had reigned two years over Israel, (1 Samuel 13:1 Jubilee Bible)

Saul was fifty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel for twenty-two (1 Samuel 13:1 NEB)

“You can’t have the cake and eat it”. If the original Hebrew text doesn’t have the age of Saul when he became king, how then did the Masoretic text add an age? Where did the Masoretic get the age of Saul from if it copied from the Hebrew Manuscripts?

Many people believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Scripture was divinely preserved for many centuries, and was ultimately recorded in what we now call the “Masoretic Text”. But what did the Masoretes themselves believe?  Did they believe they were perfectly preserving the ancient text?  Did they even think they had received a perfect text to begin with?

History says “no” . . .

Scribal emendations – Tikkune Soferim

Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. . . . Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings “emendations of the Scribes” (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes.

In other words, the Masorites themselves felt they had received a partly corrupted text.  

The Ironies of Jesus’ Trial

written by Dr. Bart D Erhman

In yesterday’s post I mentioned that fact that John’s Gospel has a very different portrayal of Jesus’ trial before Pilate than any of the other Gospels.   It is longer, more involved, and highly intriguing.

Unlike the other Gospels, it is not a short trial where Jesus says only two words (in Mark, Pilate asks Jesus if he is the king of the Jews and Jesus replies: “You say so” – in Greek SU LEGEIS).  There are numerous back and forths, including, at one point, Pilate’s famous question “What is truth?”

To make sense of the scene it is important to realize that John is going to have Jesus die on a different day from the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  In those earlier Gospels, the day before Jesus’ death his disciples ask him where he wants them to “prepare the Passover meal” (Mark 14:12).  He gives them instructions how and where to prepare the meal and they do so.  That evening (which, in Jewish reckoning, is the beginning of the next day) they eat the meal, after which Jesus is arrested.  He spends the night in jail and the next morning he is put on trial (on the day of Passover after the meal was eaten) and then crucified at 9:00 am

In John, however, Jesus …

In John, however, Jesus dies a day earlier, on the day of “Preparation for the Passover” (the day when the Passover meal was being prepared) rather than on the Passover day itself.  That is evident already at the beginning of the long passage of Jesus’ trial, found in John 18:28-19:16.   Jesus had been arrested the night before after a meal which is *not* referred to as a Passover meal.   After spending the night in Jewish custody, Jesus is taken from the house of the high priest to the residence of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate (a residence called the “praetorium”).

Jesus is sent inside the praetorium but the Jewish leaders and crowds stay outside of it, because they did not want “to be defiled” because they wanted to “eat the Passover.”  That is to say, the Passover meal is going to be that evening.  (It was not the evening *before*, as in the synoptics.)   The idea is that (for some unstated reason, which is much debated) if they entered into this gentile residence they would be made ritually impure, and would not be able to partake of the sacred meal that evening.  So they stay outside.

John’s Gospel sets it up this way because it heightens the tension, and makes for a more dramatic scene, and allows him to stress the full irony of the situation (in his eyes).

The tension and drama are created by the highly unusual way the trial is conducted.  Normally at a trial the defendant, the accusers, and the judge are in one place and the questioning of witnesses proceeds in the presence of all.  Not Jesus’ trial in John.   On the contrary, Jesus is inside, his Jewish accusers are outside, and the judge, Pilate, goes back and forth between them, in and out, a total of six times!   He is more like an errand boy than the ruler of Judea.

When he is inside he questions Jesus; when he is outside he speaks to the Jews trying to get them to punish Jesus themselves.  When they refuse he goes back inside to talk to Jesus and then he goes back outside to try again.  Read the passage for yourself and you’ll see him running back and forth.

Rather than saying just his two words, Jesus gives mini-speeches in this account:  see, for example, 18:33-38, where Pilate and Jesus have a memorable back-and-forth about what it means for Jesus to be a king:  “My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my wservants would fight, that I  might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not of this world…”   and so on.

Pilate three times tells the Jews that Jesus has not done anything wrong:  “I find no crime in him.”  But the Jewish leaders are insistent: he must be crucified.  Pilate is exasperated, “Take him yourselves and crucify him.”   The Jews refuse, saying they’re not allowed to do so (you would think Pilate would know that, since he was their ruler, but, well, in this narrative it appears to come as news to him.)

Pilate finally brings Jesus out to face his accusers and says his famous words “Behold your King.”  The Jews urge him to crucify him.  Pilate asks “Shall I crucify your king?” And the Jews notoriously reply “We have no king but Caesar.”  Pilate caves in and orders Jesus crucified.

This account is filled with pathos and irony.  Here I’ll just point out two particularly strong ironic elements.   They both have to do with the Passover meal that the Jews are going to eat that evening.

At the Passover meal, part of the celebration involved singing a hymn (one of the Psalms) to God as the great savior of Israel who delivered his people.   How ironic is that?  For John’s Gospel, it is Jesus himself who provides that salvation.  But the people who that evening are going to praise God for his salvation have rejected his salvation, and in fact, refuse to go into the Praetorium precisely so they can celebrate his salvation at the meal that evening!

So too, near the end of the trial, in John 19:14, we are told that the event took place on the “Day of Preparation for the Passover.”  That was the day when, starting after noon, the Jewish priests sacrificed the Passover lambs that would be eaten that evening at the Passover meal.   Jesus is condemned on that day, and John tells us that he was crucified not at 9:00 in the morning but after noon – in other words, on the same day and at the same hour as the Passover lambs.

And why at that time?   For an obvious reason.  In John’s Gospel Jesus himself is the Passover lamb.  He is identified that way at the very beginning of the Gospel, by John the Baptist, who, when first he sees him, declares “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (1:29).

Since John’s Gospel understands that Jesus’ death brings salvation, and that he himself is the sacrificial lamb, it indicates that Jesus’ was sacrificed exactly when the Passover lambs were sacrificed.

And who sacrifices the lambs?  The Jewish priests.  Who insisted on Jesus’ death?  The Jewish priests.  What would these priests do that evening?  Celebrate the Passover in commemoration of God’s great act of salvation at the Exodus in the days of Moses.  Why don’t they want to go into the praetorium? Because they’d be defiled and not be able to partake of the Passover and eat the Passover lamb.  But who really is the Passover lamb?  Jesus himself, whom they order killed.

The Jews are desperate to eat the Passover lamb, and they don’t recognize who the Passover lamb actually is.

This is a lesson taught only in John’s Gospel, and he stresses the full irony of the situation.  “The Jews” (as John calls Jesus’ opponents) have rejected precisely the salvation that the God they *think* they worship has provided.  By rejecting Jesus they have rejected their own Passover lamb.

Commanding the Good and Forbidding the Evil is Obligatory – Sharh as-Sunnah | Dawud Burbank [Audio|En]

In .Salafi Audio,Enjoining Right Forbidding Evil, Sharh As-Sunnah Tags: Dawud Burbank (Audio), Imam Barbahaaree, Shaykh Saalih Fawzaan

Sharh as-Sunnah : Lesson 75 : Point 126
Shaykh Fawzan | Dawud Burbank [Audio|English]

Imaam Barbahaaree rahimahullaah said:

Commanding the good and forbidding the evil is obligatory, except with regard to one whose use of  the sword or the rod, you fear.

–

Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) said,

“Whoever amongst you sees an evil, he must change it with his hand; if he is  unable to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is unable to do so, then with his heart; and that is the weakest form of Faith”. [Muslim].

Allah, the Exalted, says:

“Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islam), enjoining Al-Ma`ruf (i.e., Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar(polytheism and disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden). And it is they who are the successful.”(3:104)

“You (true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) and his Sunnah) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma`ruf (i.e., Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden)”. (3:110)

“The believers, men and women, are Auliya’ (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another; they enjoin (on the people) Al-Ma`ruf (i.e., Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do), and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e., polytheism and disbelief of all kinds, and all that Islam has forbidden)”. (9:71)

The hypocrites, men and women, are from one another, they enjoin (on the people) Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief and polytheism of all kinds and all that Islam has forbidden), and forbid (people) from Al-Ma’ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do), and they close their hands [from giving (spending in Allah’s Cause) alms, etc.]. They have forgotten Allah, so He has forgotten them. Verily, the hypocrites are the Fasiqun(rebellious, disobedient to Allah). (9:67)

“O my son! Aqim-is-Salat (perform As-Salat), enjoin (people) for Al-Ma’ruf (Islamic Monotheism and all that is good), and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar(i.e. disbelief in the Oneness of Allah, polytheism of all kinds and all that is evil and bad), and bear with patience whatever befall you. Verily! These are some of the important commandments ordered by Allah with no exemption. (Surah Luqman 31:17)

[Souncloud Audio Link] 

—

Ithaaful-Qaaree bit-Ta`leeqaat `alaa Sharhis-Sunnah
(A Gift To The Reader In Annotation Of Sharh As-Sunnah)
by Shaykh Saalih ibn Fowzaan al-Fowzaan hafizahullaah
Translated by Aboo Talhah Daawood Burbank, rahimahullaah

Posted with kind permission from Dawud Burbank rahimahullaah

Listen to the full Audio Series of Sharhus Sunnah
Sharh-us-Sunnah – Shaykh Saalih Fawzaan – Dawood Burbank [Audio|En]

Visit : Book Study of Sharh as-Sunnah of Imaam Barbahaaree

Prison in Hell named Bulas (Paul)

The name Paul in Arabic is “Bulas” the founder of Christianity. Did you know there is a prison in Hell called Bulas according to Hadith.

'Amr bin Shu'aib narrated from his father, from his grandfather from the Prophet (s.a.w) who said:

"The proud will be gathered on the Day of Judgement resembling tiny particles in the image of men. They will be covered with humiliation everywhere, they will be dragged into a prison in Hell called Bulas, submerged in the Fire of Fires, drinking the drippings of the people of the Fire, filled with derangement." (Jami` at-Tirmidhi  Book 37, Hadith 2680)

----------------------

Notice how the Hadith says the proud people will be dragged into prison called “Bulas بُولَسَ”. Heres the name of Paul from the Arabic Bible :

بَعْدَمَا انْتَهَى الاضْطِرَابُ، دَعَا بُولُسُ التَّلاَمِيذَ وَشَجَّعَهُمْ، ثُمَّ وَدَّعَهُمْ وَسَافَرَ إِلَى مُقَاطَعَةِ مَقِدُونِيَّةَ، (Acts 20:1)

The same name used for the prison in Hell is also used for Paul. So we can conclude from this, the followers of Paul will meet him in Hell.

some Christians may say "the God of Islam is also proud". this only goes to show how weak and idiotic they have become towards there own scripture and the general knowledge of who God is. 

if being proud or having pride was so bad, why then does Yahweh swear by the "PRIDE OF JACOB"?

 “The LORD has sworn by the Pride of Jacob: “I will never forget anything they have done.’” What is this “Pride of Jacob”(Amos 8:7)

 Note: God is out of his creation, unlike men. God has the right to be proud.  like the laws of nature does not apply to God. God is the does of all He intends. God will never be questioned for what he does, rather men will be questioned by him. we do not put God in the same category as Humans. so you claims are weak like you faith

God Almighty is above his creation. He is the Greatest, the creator of the heavens and earth. How could you even think of comparing man with God. It is God who created Paradise and Hell for men and Jinn. So the Idea of God going to Hell is obnoxious. It’s like saying if God can be a man then he can also be stupid?

Who was wrong, Jesus or Paul?

In a famous passage in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught that we ought not to worry about food or clothing. But this doesn’t seem to be borne out by Paul’s experience.Jesus tells us that as God provides for the birds and the lilies, and we are much more important than they, he will therefore also provide for us:

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clother like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you–you of little faith? Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. [Matthew 6: 25-33, NRSV]

In closing, Jesus says clearly that if we strive for the kingdom of God then God will feed and clothe us.

The "apostle Paul" certainly seems to be someone who strived for the kingdom of God. In 2 Corinthians, he reluctantly compares himself with other Christian leaders, listing the sufferings that he has endured in labouring as a minister of Christ:

“Are they ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman–I am a better one: with far greater labours, far more imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often near death. Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I received a stoning. Three times I was shipwrecked; for a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from bandits, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers and sisters…” [2 Corinthians 11:23-26, NRSV]

What Paul endured in God’s service is certainly impressive. If that doesn’t count as striving for God’s kingdom, then it’s unclear what would. Yet Paul goes on to say that God did not feed and clothe him:

“… in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, hungry and thirsty, often without food, cold and naked.” [2 Corinthians 11:27, NRSV]

So although Jesus says that God will feed and clothe those who strive for his kingdom, Paul, who strived for God’s kingdom, says that he often went unfed and naked. Who was wrong, Jesus or Paul?

Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֑ים) Genesis 1:1

Christians like Stephen Atkins tend to believe the text in Genesis 1:1 was spoken by God 5776 years ago, purely because it’s the first book in the Bible which speaks about the very first creation. It's also understood by Christians that when Yahweh said "in the beginning Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֑ים) created the heavens and earth" the plural for God was used.

Here's the problem with their understanding. Firstly the Jews tell us Moses wrote the Torah i.e. the Pentateuch (first 5 books of Moses) after he cross the red sea. this alone destroys the claim that Genesis 1:1 was written 5776 years because since its the very first book speaking about the creation.

Secondly, Moses wrote Genesis after he departed from Egypt with the Children of Israel. Which means Moses knew who God was since they were speaking "face to face". How then would Moses think Genesis 1:1 was speaking of gods rather the God if Moses knew God is one?

Think about it, the Book of Exodus tells us how God alone saved Moses and his followers from Pharaoh. How Moses was given the 10 commandments which says that God is One and he alone should be worshipped. If God had other gods with him wouldn't have Moses known?

Moses being the author of Genesis 1:1 knew Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֑ים) does not mean more than one God. If God was inspiring Moses to write the book of Genesis, then Moses could of easily questioned God on Genesis 1:1 asking for more clarification on Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֑ים).

It's absurd to think throughout the life of Moses's mission God kept on reminding him and his followers to "WORSHIP HIM ALONE" yet hides he has more gods with him until Moses starts to write?

according to Stephen atkins Elohim is the plural for God, yet Classicla Jewish rabbis disgree. take for instance Ibn Ezra who wrote on Gensis 1:1 saying

“E-lohim” – After we have found [the word] e-loah, we know that E-lohim is its plural form, and the root [of this] is in the nature of language. For every language has a formal form. The way of expressing formality in non-Hebrew languages is by the lesser using the plural in the presence of the greater. In Arabic the way of formal expression is for the greater to speak, as royalty, in the plural. In the Holy Tongue, the way is to refer to the greater in the plural. Like “master” (adonim), “owner” b’alim as the said, “a harsh master” (b’alim) Isaiah 19:4, “his master (b’alim) shall take”. Likewise the word “upon him” (alav), “to him” (elav), “until him” (adav). For this reason does Scripture state “He created” and not “they created”. Now from a perspective of wisdom, we know that speech is called “lip” [Hebrew parallel to the English “tongue”] since people see that words emanate from there. Likewise, the supernal human soul is called “heart”, yet the heart is [part of the] body, since the heart is the first “chariot” for it. Now is called thus [“(E-lohim)”)since all the acts of Hashem are [delivered] into the hands of the angels, who do His Will. (I will explain a bit more of the secret of the Name on the verse “for My Name is within him” – Exodus 23:21). And pay no attention to the words of [Rav Sa’adiah] Ga’on who said that man is more prestigious than angels. I’ve already explained in Sefer HaYesod that all his proofs are actually the opposite. Now we know that, amongst men, there are none more prestigious than the prophets, yet Yehoshua fell on his face before an angel of Hashem and prostrated himself, and said, “what is my master speaking to his servant” – Joshua 5:14. and likewise Zechariah and Daniel, but why should I go on? And the meaning of “G-d of hosts” is like “G-d of gods [masters]”. So the meaning of E-lohim is like “king”, and people who are involved in divine law will be called thus – but it is an adjective [lit. descriptive name], not a [true] noun – you won’t find any future or past forms. And don’t think that, since we find it written, “He makes the winds His angels” that angels are [made] from fire and wind, for that is not the straightforward way of interpreting that verse. It’s rather that David spoke initially of the work of creation, beginning with light and saying, “He enwraps [in] light” and afterwards “He spreads out the heavens” – that is, the firmament, with the waters above it, and fire, snow and wind. He [then] said that the wind is Hashem’s messenger to go to any place He may send it, likewise is fire amongst His servants, and he said, “He founded the earth upon its elements” – this is regarding the dry land. Likewise is it written, “the stormy wind does His will” Psalms 148:8

how about Rambam another renowned Jewish scholar

And it stated, Elohim (God), [which means] the master of all the forces, as the root word [here] is el, which is power; and it is a compound word, [made up of] el [and] hem (them), as if 'power' were relational (and would be understood as power of them), and 'them' refers to all the other powers; meaning 'the Power over all the powers.' And a secret will also be elucidated about this [later]. If so, the correct simple meaning of the verses is that its meaning is: At first, "God created the heavens" since he brought forth their material from nothing, "and the earth," bringing forth its material from nothing. "And the earth" includes the four basic elements, as per (Genesis 2:1), "And the earth and the heavens and all their hosts were completed," which includes the whole terrestrial globe. And so [too] (Psalms 148:7), "Praise the Lord from the earth, the sea monsters and all the depths," and besides them, [there] are many other [such references]. And behold, with this creation, which was like a small [and] fine dot, and without substance, were created all of the creations in the heavens and the earth.

Ishmael a teenager who became a baby?

According to the Bible, Ishmael was 17 to 18 years old when he was sent to the desert with his mother Hagar. Miraculously as soon as he went to the desert he became a "BABY"?

How does a 17 to 18 years old teenager become a baby? How do we know Ishmael was a baby, because the Hebrew texts specifically uses the word "Naar נַ֫עַר" the same word used to describe Moses as being a baby.

When she opened it, she saw the child, and behold, the baby (NAAR נַ֫עַר) was crying. She took pity on him and said, “This is one of the Hebrews’ children.”(Exodus 2:6)

The same is used when referring to Ishmael. Notice how the angel of God said, “God has heard the (NAAR נַ֫עַר) boy crying”

God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there.

How can a 17 to 18-year-old teenager be cast under a bush crying?  “And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs (Genesis 21:15).

The question is if Ismael was a baby, which he was according to the Hebrew text, then this means Isaac was not born when they were expelled to the desert? We know from the Bible Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born (Genesis 16:16). We also know Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born (Genesis 21:5). Here we have a gap of 14 years between Ishmael and Isaac, we also know Ishmael and his mother were expelled when Isaac was being weaned (Genesis 21:8) this usually is between 3 to 5 years. This would make Ishmael at least 17 to 18 minimum, without using a 5-year weaning term.  How then could a 18 year old teenager become a baby?

We call this textual corruption. This shows Ishmael was the chosen Son to be sacrificed as a test.

Raising the hands upward when supplicating to Allaah after the Adhan – alifta

February 20, 2018 By AbdurRahman.org In Adhan & Iqaamah, Dua - Occassions, Dua - Supplication Tags: Alifta.Com,Permanent Committee

The fourth question of Fatwa no. 16874

Q4: Is raising the hands upward when supplicating to Allah after the end of Adhan (call to Prayer) an act of Bid`ah (innovation in religion)?

A: After repeating Adhan and invoking Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), it is recommended to say:

O Allah! Lord of this perfect call and of the regular prayer which is going to be established, bestow upon Muhammad Al-Wasilah (the highest position in Paradise) and Al-Fadilah (extra degree of honor) and raise him to Al Maqam Al Mahmud (the best and the highest place in Paradise), which You have promised him.

This statement is authentically reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him) on the authority of Jabir ibn `Abdullah Al-Ansary (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) in Sahih Al-Bukhari (may Allah be merciful to him). However, raising the hands has no mention in the report, so it is an act of Bid`ah.

May Allah grant us success. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and Companions.
The Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta’

Member – Member – Member – Chairman
Bakr Abu Zayd – Abdul-`Aziz Al Al-Shaykh – Salih Al-Fawzan – Abdul-`Aziz ibn `Abdullah ibn Baz

Source: Fatwas of the Permanent Committee (alifta.net) > Acts of worship > Salah (Prayer) > Conditions for the validity of Salah > Knowing that the time of a given Salah has commenced as a condition for the validity of Salah > Adhan (call to Prayer) > Saying Du`a’, Dhikr and performing Nafilah Prayer between Adhan and Iqamah >

---

The following has been taken from Imam Ibn Baz’s Fatwas of Nur `Ala Al-Darb

171- What is the ruling on raising one’s hands in Du`a’ after Iqamah

Q: I have noticed that some Muslims, who are about to perform Salah (Prayer), raise their hands and supplicate immediately after the Mu’adhin (caller to Prayer) finishes the announcement of the Adhan (call to Prayer). This takes place before Takbirat-ul-Ihram (saying: “Allahu Akbar [Allah is the Greatest]” upon starting Prayer. Is this practice reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him)?

A: This action has no basis in Shari`ah (Islamic law). Nothing has been reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to supplicate between Iqamah (call to start the Prayer) and the start of Prayer. He was never reported as having raised his hands at this time. This should not be done because it is contrary to the Sunnah (whatever is reported from the Prophet).

Fatwas of Nur `Ala Al-Darb > Volume 6 > Book of Salah > Chapter on Adhan and Iqamah
http://www.alifta.net/Fatawa/fatawaDetails.aspx?languagename=en&View=Page&PageID=1228&PageNo=1&BookID=8

Related Link: https://abdurrahman.org/salah/adhan-call-to-prayer