18. Ahmadiyya Muslim claims examined in the light of the Bible

 

If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee.... (Surah, 10, Yunus, verse 94)

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

According to tradition Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is quoted as having prophesied that his followers will be divided into 73 sects (Arabic, firac). Every one of them would go to hell, except the one professed by him and his companions. (Mishkat, book 1, ch vi. pt.2). 'The number has, however, far exceeded the Prophets predictions for the sects of Islam, even exceeding in number and variety those of the Christian religion.' (Dictionary of Islam, by T. P. Hughes, Asia Publishing House, London, 1998, p. 567) The Ahmadiyya sects are one of those who try to convince all the others that they are practising Islam most accurately. In doing so they have been declared non-Muslims by the Islamic government of Pakistan. The intention of this booklet is not to take sides in that intensive debate among Muslims but to correct the erroneous Ahmadiyyan beliefs regarding the Bible.

 

 

2. HAS THE BIBLE BEEN CHANGED?

 

Muslims and Christians believe in the infallibility of the original Biblical manuscripts. But many adherents of Islam think that today's Bible has undergone substantial changes with regard to its early manuscripts and their translated versions. However, the Quran does not support this claim unanimously! In fact it makes it clear that the Bible, known as the Torah and the Gospel, was found reliable in Muhammads (p.b.u.h) time, the sixth century. To prove that the twentieth century Bible is still authentic it only has to be compared with a copy from the sixth century. The following verses are all taken from the Quran translated by the late Maulawi Sher Ali, (14th edition, 1989) published under the auspices of Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the fourth successor of the promised Messiah. Because of a lack of space it has not always been possible to print the whole verse. In any case, the reader is encouraged to look up the references and their context in either the Quran or the Bible.

 

All food was lawful to the children of Israel, except what Israel forbade himself before the Torah was sent down. Say, "Bring, then the Torah and read it, if you are truthful." (Surah 3, Al'Imran, verse 94)

 

And how will they make thee their judge when they have with them the Torah, wherein is Allah's judgement? Yet in spite of that they turn their backs...

 

And let the People of the Gospel judge according to what Allah has revealed therein, and whoso judges not by what Allah has revealed, these it is who are the rebellious...

 

And if they (the Jews and the Christians) had observed the Torah and the Gospel and what has been now sent down to them from their Lord, they would surely have eaten of good things from above them and from under their feet...

 

Say, " People of the Book, you stand on nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel an what has now been sent down to you from your Lord..." (Surah 5, Al -Ma'ida, verses 44,48,67,69)

 

The verses above attest to the fact that the Bible was unchanged in the time of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.). If that were not the case then surely the Jews would not have been commanded in the present tense to "bring their book and read from it". Neither would they and the Christians have been told to "observe the Torah and the Gospel" and to "judge according to what Allah has revealed therein."

 

Say, "then bring a Book from Allah which is a better guide than these two Books, (Quran and Torah) that I may follow it, if you are truthful." (Surah 28, Al-Qasas, verse 50)

 

 

3. IS ONLY PART OF THE BIBLE TRUSTWORTHY?

 

In his commentary on Surah 5, Al-Ma'ida, verse 48 the late Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II notes that the words: "...refer to the prophecies contained in the Torah and the Gospel about the Holy Prophet of Islam." However, the context does not allow for such an interpretation. Verse 43 speaks about Jews who asked Muhammad (p.b.u.h) to judge between them (the Jews only, not between him and the Jews). The prophet is asked that if he judges, he should judge between them with justice. If the matter was connected with the prophecies in the Torah and the Gospel that allegedly speak of Muhammad (p.b.u.h), then for certain the Jews would not have asked him to judge whether that is true or not! Naturally, they would have called for an independent third party to give its verdict on the case. The only logical explanation is that they wanted to test the prophet about some things that concerned their law. Jesus was put on trial in the same way and he too told them to study their book, the Torah (Mark 12:18-27).

 

This interpretation is further supported by the fact that the prophet of Islam is asked in verse 49 to judge between them "...by what Allah has revealed..." This is the same phrase that was applied in the preceding verse to the whole Gospel but here it used about the whole Quran! The continuation of verse 49 confirms this view: "...For each of you we prescribed a clear spiritual law and a manifest way in secular matters..."

 

 

4. IS MUHAMMAD FORETOLD IN THE BIBLE?

 

But what about the prophecies in the Torah and the Gospel that supposedly were fulfilled by Muhammad (p.b.u.h)? Again a closer look at the context will show that they can not be interpreted that way. Let us look at the verses under consideration in detail. The quotes are all taken from the N.I.V. translation of the Bible:

 

DEUTERONOMY 18:14-20

The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me (Moses) from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die. The Lord said to me: "What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

 

Because Ishmael was Isaac's half-brother, Muslims interpret the words "from among your own brothers" to mean "from among the descendants of Ishmael. They conclude that since Muhammad (p.b.u.h) was a descendant of the Ishmaelites this prophecy must speak about him. The preceding chapter shows clearly that this is not the case. By defining the very words on which the Muslim argument is built we will see that they refer to a brother Israelite not to a brother Ishmaelite:

 

Be sure to appoint over you the king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. (Deuteronomy 17:15)

 

Even though this verse refers to a different incident, nevertheless the words under question are used again. It is a normal exegetic procedure to define a phrase according to how it is used in the close context, especially so if it is explained there. When it comes to a choice between accepting the interpretation of men or the Bible the latter must naturally be given preference. This interpretation is the only one that can be accepted in the light of Deuteronomy 18:14. There Moses tells his brothers, the Israelites, not to follow the detestable practices of the nations in regard to having contact with the supernatural world. At that time everybody else, including the Ishmaelites, belonged to those nations! Therefore, if verse 15 would refer to a prophet coming from the Ishmaelites, this surely would have been clearly stated! The verses 20-22 (they mention the criteria for "a" not "the" true prophet) which follow after Deuteronomy 18:15 disclose that it is first and foremost a collective reference to all true prophets who will follow. They all, like Moses, were to act as mediators between God and the people. The Israelites had a frightening experience with the Creator on Mount Sinai and since then they did not want Him to speak to them personally. (Exodus 20:18-21) At their request God would send prophets who will speak in His name to them. In this way they will hear the words God put into the mouths of His prophets. In Acts 3:13-26 we read that Jesus was the unique, messianic fulfilment of that prophecy:

 

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed; this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out...and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you-even Jesus. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you." When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you...

 

John 6:14 confirms that fact:

After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world."

 

If the above explained words "...a prophet like me..." are not examined in relation to their neighbouring verses, as explained above, they give raise to all kinds of speculations. Some Muslims say Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) was like Moses because, unlike Jesus, they both had a father and a mother, both where born in a natural way, both married and had children, etc. What they fail to conclude is that many prophets can be paralleled to Moses in some things but not in others. One could just as well say Jesus was the promised prophet because, like Moses but unlike Muhammad (p.b.u.h.), he was saved from death as a baby (Exodus 1:17, 2:2-10, Matthew 2:16), transfigured (Exodus 34:29, Matthew 187:1-7), and preached about sacrifice being the way to get forgiveness of sins (Leviticus 4, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:22). Jesus called himself a Jewish prophet (Luke 4:16-24); he too spoke in God's name (John 17:8) and performed many miraculous signs (See also Luke 8:48-55) In contrast to him, there is no sign recorded of Muhammad (p.b.u.h) in the Holy Quran that would be accepted as such by his enemies. (See Surah 13, Al-Ra'd, verses 28,32 see also 17,91-97; 29,51-53)

The phrase, "...I will put my words in his mouth..." (verse 18), is used when other prophets are mentioned, such as Jeremiah (1:9) or Balaam (Numbers 22:38). It describes in a figurative way the form of divine inspiration that is common to the prophets in general, including Jesus (John 8:25-28) They are to pass on the words given by God only. The prophets were to speak in God's name only. (Verse 19) God has many different names, the most common among whom are:

 

-His general name "Elohim" (Hebrew) occurs 2555 times in the Bible. It is translated "God" in English and "Allah" in Arabic.

-His descriptive name "Adonai" (Hebrew) is used 340 times and is translated "Lord" in English and "Rabb" in Arabic.

-His specific, personal name is "Yahweh" or "Jehovah", depending on which transliteration is used for "YHWH" (Hebrew). It's occurrence is with 6823 times by far the most. The literal English rendering is "I am". When Jesus told the Jews that he was the great "I am" the Jews wanted to stone him for blasphemy (John 8:58-59). In Deuteronomy 18:21-22 "Yahweh" is used to identify the name of God in whom a prophet was to speak! Since this name was never used in the Quran and has no equivalent in Arabic one has to come to the conclusion that Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) did not fulfil this requirement of a true prophet!

 

DEUTERONOMY 33:1-2

This is the blessing that Moses the man of God pronounced on the Israelites before his death. He said: "The Lord came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir, he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes."

 

Bashir Ahmad claims that verse two speaks about three different manifestations of God's glory. The first one took place on Mount Sinai, when the law was given to Moses. The second one, from Seir is identified with Jesus and his work in Palestine. The third one, from Mount Paran, is perceived to be the revelations given to Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) in Arabia. Verse one provides the context for the correct interpretation. Moses is said to bless the tribes of Israel. Surely, Islam, the advent of which is allegedly mentioned in verse two, can not be considered to be a blessing to the Israelites! He begins by speaking about the place where God gave His law to them. In putting it as an introduction to the individual blessings, he indicates that obedience towards the law received on Mount Sinai is the source from which the blessings flow. The passage is further written in a poetic stile in the Hebrew language, known as synonymous parallelism. The second or subsequent line repeats or reinforces the sense of the first line. (For another example of this kind see Isaiah 44:22) Like the sun when it rises, and fills the whole of the broad horizon with its beams, the glory of the Lord, when He appeared, was not confined to one single point, but shone upon the people of Israel from Sinai, and Seir, and the mountains of Paran, as they came from the west to Sinai. Seir is the mountain land of the Edomites. Edom, located South East of Israel, did not belong to Palestine in Jesus' time. It was occupied by the Jews only during the reign of David and Solomon in 1010-930 B.C.

 

SONG OF SONGS 1:5

Dark am I, but lovely, o daughters of Jerusalem...

The Ahmadiyyan attempts to find predictions about the prophet of Islam in the book Song of Solomon would be amusing if the matter was not so serious! Many interpretations have been given in regard to this book. Nevertheless, Bashir Ahmad is absolutely sure that it "clearly applies to the Holy Prophet of Islam." What can be said for certain is that in ancient Israel everything human came to expression in words: reverence, gratitude, anger...In the Song it is love that finds words-inspired words that disclose its exquisite charm and beauty as one of God's choicest gifts. The dark one who is mentioned in this verse is supposed to be Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) But verse seven, "...why should I be like a veiled woman..." leaves no doubt that the dark one is female!

 

SONG OF SONGS 2:7

Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.

Here the Israelites are allegedly told "not to meddle with the Promised Prophet." But verses six, "His left arm is under my head..." and eight, "Look here he comes..." make it again clear that verse seven is spoken by the female beloved! In any case his enemies did not arouse Muhammad's love, as professedly mentioned in the verse, but his hate!

 

SONG OF SONGS 4:9

You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride...

This time the argument is built on the phrase "my sister and bride". The Ahmadiyyas say, "Sister indicates that the promised prophet would be an Ismaelite, one of the brethren of the Israelites; and "spouse" indicates that the message of the promised prophet will not be confined to his own people, as were the messages of all the Israelite prophets."

 

The truth is that we find an inspired conversation between the lover (male, see 4:16) the beloved (female) and friends in the whole book. In chapter four verse nine the lover is addressing his beloved as sister and bride. For lovers to address each other as "brother" and "sister" was common in the love poetry of the ancient Near East. To say that the messages of all the Israelite prophets were confined to their own people is contradictory to the allegation that there are prophecies about Muhammad (p.b.u.h) in the Old Testament. As everyone knows he was a descendent of the Ishmaelites not the Israelites! Furthermore, Jonah, a Jewish prophet was sent to prophecy over Niniveh, the capital of Assyria in about 700-612 B.C. (Jonah 1:1). Isaiah prophecies in the book that is named after him against Assyria and its ruler (13:1- 14:27), against Philistia (14:28-32), Moab (chapters 15-16), Egypt and Cush (chapters 19-20), Babylon (21:1-10) etc. Jesus teaching too was to be passed on to all nations (Matthew 28:18-20).

 

SONG OF SONGS 5:16

His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my lover; this is my friend...

Until now Bashir Ahmad has interpreted the female beloved to be Muhammad (p.b.u.h.). This time he wants to make us believe that the male lover too is a picture of Muhammad because the Hebrew word for "altogether lovely" is "Mahammaddim". The plural ending "im", also known as the royal plural, is allegedly given to pay the respect that is due to him. Dr. Alex Luc, an eminent Hebrew scholar at the well known Columbia Biblical Seminary in U.S.A has this to say about the argument:

 

"The word under consideration is plural. So is the word 'sweetness' in that verse. The word is not to be labelled as royal plural like 'elohim (God); rather, it is common for abstract nouns or adjectives to be in a Hebrew plural form, e.g., 'adulterous' in Hosea 1:2 is plural, so is a 'faithful' man in Proverbs 28:20 and 'understanding' in Isaiah 27:11. Even allowing the way the Muslims are turning a non-prophetic text into a prophetic one, they will face the great challenge to see the Hebrew word Mahammaddiim as Muhammad, a term usually used in a negative context, representing something destroyed and punished because of God's wrath on his people." (See Isaiah 64:11; Hosea 9:16; Lamentations 2:4)

 

It can not be said that the same word used in two different languages also has the same meaning. The word "bank" for example has different significations in English. However none of them can be compared to one of the meanings given in the German language. There the word "bank" can also be used to describe a bench to sit upon. Usually only what comes before or after a word will determine what it is intended to communicate. Song of Songs 5:10-16 describes the man's beauty in poetic terms. The words "altogether lovely" in verse 16 are used to summarize verses 10-15. He who still thinks verse 16 applies to Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) will have to explain verse one of the same chapter. It refers to the one who is called "altogether lovely" in verse 16 and describes him as someone who has drunk wine! This, according to Islam, is considered to be a great sin!

 

ISAIAH 4:1-3, 9:6-7, 19:21-25, 62:2; DANIEL 2:34-35; MATTHEW 23:38-39

In order to make Isaiah's prophecies fit Muhammad (p.b.u.h.), Bashir Ahmad said, "The use in them of such names as Jerusalem, Zion, etc. is only symbolic...Names do not constitute any part of the prophecies. If the general content of the prophecies does not apply to Jesus, the names Jerusalem and Israel will not justify the application." He does not say why he takes the liberty to give spiritual meanings to all these names. Because the verses under discussion speak about power, might, success, splendor and riches, it is assumed that they can not talk about Jesus. This understanding of Him only paints half of the picture. Besides Jesus' first coming when He lived in material poverty, suffered and died for the sins of the world, God's word also speaks about His Second Coming. At that time He will come visible to everyone (Revelations 1:7, Matthew 24:30) with great might, as King who will judge the whole world and rule it (Philippians 2:9-11, Revelations 1:12-18, 2:18-29). The prophecies mentioned above refer to His Second Coming! Moreover, Isaiah 19:19 speaks about an altar on which people, according to verse 21 will worship the Lord with sacrifices and grain offerings. But Muslims do not offer God sacrifices in that way! In Isaiah 62:2 the new name that will be given is not "Muslims". Two verses later (62:4) it is revealed as "Hephzibah", meaning, "My delight is in her!"

 

ISAIAH 5:26-29

He lifts up a banner for the distant nations...Here they come...Their arrows are sharp...they seize their prey.

In chapter five, verse 26 God is described as one who "lifts up a banner for the distant nations" to come and to be used as a means of punishment for the disobedient Israelites (verse 13). This prophecy was fulfilled in Assyria, "whose armies struck Israel and Judah in 722 and 701 B.C., and Babylon , which began its invasions in 605." To say that it was completed by Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is to ignore the Biblical and the historical context.

 

ISAIAH 8:16

Bind up the testimony and seal up the law among my disciples.

The context makes it clear that the word "law" can also mean "teaching" or "instruction". The legal document containing Isaiah's teaching about Assyria's invasion was tied and sealed and then given to the prophet's followers, who were to preserve it until the time of its fulfillment, when God would authenticate it by the events of history (see Jeremiah 32:12-14,44)." Therefore, Bashir Ahmad is wrong in saying that verse 16 means "the Mosaic Law would become superseded and a new Law (the Quran) would become established in its place."

 

HABAKKUK 3:3

God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran. His glory covered the heavens and his praise filled the earth."

 

B. Ahmad notes: "The Holy One to appear from the land of Teman and Mount Paran is the Holy Prophet..." But the verse identifies the Holy One as God! His identity is confirmed in verse 8 of the same chapter! Like in Deuteronomy 33:2, here too, the Hebrew language uses a poetic stile, synonymous parallelism, to express one and the same truth in different words. Teman means "Southland". God is described as coming from the area south of Israel of which Mount Paran is a part.

 

MATTHEW 21:33-45

Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard... Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servant to the tenants to collect his fruit. The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third...Last of all, he sent his son to them. "They will respect my son," he said. But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, "This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance." So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants? "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time." Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvellous in our eyes?' Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed." When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them.

 

In his interpretation of this parable Bashir Ahmad admits that Jesus was killed! Son means Jesus who appeared after a long line of Prophets. The son was dishonoured and slain by the husbandmen." What he fails to realize is that Jesus is called the last after a long line of Prophets. Therefore, when Jesus quoted the Scripture about the stone which the builders rejected that has become the capstone, he can not refer to Muhammad (p.b.u.h.). He rather explains the meaning of the parable and identifies himself to be the "stone", spoken of in the parable as "the son" (see Acts 4:11, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:5-8). As the last verse shows, the Jews knew that the kingdom was to be taken away from them and given to the Gentiles who believed in Jesus (see Acts 13:46, 18:6).

 

LUKE 24:49

"I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

 

Bashir Ahmad comments on this verse "...it appears that after Jesus there was to be another. And who is he except the Holy Prophet?" In reality Jesus is referring to the coming of the Holy Spirit upon them. This was promised by the Father in Joel 2:28-29 and fulfilled in Acts 2:4. A look at the parallel passage in Acts 1:4-5 confirms this view:

...he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about...in a few days you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit."

They left Jerusalem and thereby confirm that they had received what they were told to wait for, the promised gift of the Holy Spirit, (Acts, chapter 8)

 

JOHN 1:25

..." you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"

The second head of the Ahmadiyya community, Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih II (hereafter referred to as Bashir Ahmad) believes this verse to be a sign that Jesus is not the prophet who was to come since it speaks about three different persons. However, John 6:14, in which the Jews identify Jesus to be this prophet, shows that there were different opinions among them with regard to his identity. As seen above under 1), in Acts 3:13-26 the matter is clarified and he is identified to be Jesus. There are several other Biblical passages misinterpreted by Ahmadiyyas to refer to Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) Since Sunni Muslims use the same argumentation these verses are explained in the article 'Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) not foretold in the Bible.' Please order it from the author.

 

 

5. DID THE JEWS CHANGE THE TORAH?

 

History shows that whenever God revealed Himself, most of his people fell into disobedience after a period of time. So it was with the Jews. In spite of this sad fact there were always, up to this very day, faithful Jews who remain true to the book God gave them:

And of the people of Moses there is a party that exhorts people to truth and does justice therewith. (Surah 7, Al-A'raf, verse 160)

 

God's word is truth and good Jews surely would never have changed the meaning or even the words of their Holy Book! Let us now examine what bad Jews did to the Torah:

And, surely, among them is a section who twist their tongues while reciting the Book: that you may think it to be part of the Book, while it is not part of the Book. And they say "It is from Allah"; while it is not from Allah; and they utter a lie against Allah knowingly. (Surah 3, Al'Imran, verse 79)

In the verse quoted above the Jews are reading parts of their Book wrongly while the written words remain unchanged.

 

So, because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them, and have hardened their hearts. They pervert the words from their proper places and have forgotten a good part of that with which they were exhorted. And thou wilt not cease to discover treachery on their part, except in a few of them. So pardon them and turn away from them. Surely, Allah loves those who do good. (Surah 5, Al-Ma'ida, verse 14)

Bashir Ahmad comments, "The words, 'They pervert the words from their proper places, may mean: (1) they tamper with the text of the Book; or (2) they distort the true meaning of the text." The second possibility, that only the meaning was distorted, not the text itself, will have to be given preference in the light of the wider context which clearly shows that:

 

-The unchanged Torah was with the Jews of Muhammad's (p.b.u.h) time. (Surah 5, Al-Ma'ida, verses 44,67)

-It was referred to by the Prophet in matters of dispute. (Surah 3, Al'Imran, verse 94). In Surah 2, Al-Baqara, verse 76, Surah 4, Al-Nisa, verse 47, and Surah 5, Al Ma'ida, verse 42, the Jews are accused of changing what Muhammmad (p.b.u.h) said. After checking all these references it becomes clear that the Torah remained unchanged!

 

 

6. HAS THE BIBLE BEEN ABROGATED?

 

Most of the Islamic scholars agree that either the Quran abrogates certain revelations within the Quran only, or, in addition to that also parts of the Sunna. Other scholars hold the view that the Sunna can abrogate the Quran as well as the Sunna. Only a few, among them the Ahmadiyyas, teach that the Quran actually abolishes the Bible. This minority is wrong for two main reasons:

 

In Surah 5, Al-Ma'ida, verse 49 the Quran is spoken of as "fulfilling that which was revealed before it in the Book, and as a guardian over it." The Arabic meaning of the word "guardian" (Muhaimin) can also be rendered "one who safeguards", "watches over", "preserves" and "upholds". This clearly contradicts the view that the revelations given to the prophet of Islam allegedly abrogated the Bible! If this was the case there would be no possibility to fulfil the Torah and the Gospel or even to be a guardian over them in such a determined way. Christianity has got its roots firmly established in the Jewish teachings of the Old Testament and agrees in principal with the following areas: God reveals his plans for the redemption of the whole world in the Jewish Scriptures also known as Torah and Zabur by Muslims. There we learn that a sovereign Creator chooses people, families, tribes, and eventually the Jewish nation out of which the Messiah was to come, to bless the whole world. In no case the selection took place according to their goodness alone, but most importantly because they respond to God's love by faith, a simple trust that what he said he would do.

 

Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." (quote from Gen 15:6) Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." (quote from Genesis 12:3, 18:18, 22:18) So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. (Galatians 3:6-9)

 

The law was not given to the Jews so that they could become God's chosen people by keeping its commandments. Rather it was to enable them to express their gratitude towards God for the fact that they were already chosen. The law taught them about God's perfect and holy standards and at the same time created an awareness of their own sinfulness. The moral part of it, mainly expressed in the 10 commandments of Exodus, chapter 20, kept them away from descending into the detestable practices of the surrounding nations. The ceremonial part of the law, the regulations regarding sacrifices, offerings, washings and food also separated the Jews from all the other nations of idol worshippers. Most importantly it reminded them that salvation was not based firstly on what human beings do but on God's ultimate provision in terms of the animals to be sacrificed in a unique, divinely ordained way. The writings of the prophets also contained in the Old Testament make it clear that the ceremonial law was only a shadow (Hebrews 9:1-10) of things to come:

 

You have no desire for an offering or I would give it; you have no delight in burned offerings. The offerings of God are a broken spirit; a broken and sorrowing heart, O God, you will not put from you. (Psalms 51:16-17, see also 1 Samuel 15:22, Hosea 6:6, Isa, 1:11-15, Micah 6:8)

 

The prophet Isaiah announced that sacrifices and offerings for sins pointed to the coming Messiah, the redeemer.

'Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed..... For he was cut off from the land of the living....He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence,... After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light [of life] and be satisfied;...' (excerpts from Isaiah 53:4-11)

Once the Messiah had come, the ceremonial law which had granted exclusive access to God for the Jewish nation only would become fulfilled in him. From that time onwards the way to the temple, symbolizing God's presence, would be granted to all nations by faith.

 

'This is what Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem: In the last days the mountain of the LORD'S temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. Many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths." The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.' (Isaiah 2:1-3)

 

The identity of the Messiah (Hebrew 'anointed one', Greek 'Christ') is the only area of disagreement between the two faiths. While the Jews are still waiting for the one who according to the Bible would deliver Israel from its enemies and eventually establish a worldwide kingdom, the Christians have accepted him in Jesus. We can find out which position is more systematically consistent by looking at the following facts. They are verified in detail on our web page, and are found in the articles mentioned in brackets hereafter. Alternatively, these articles can also be ordered free of charge at the end of this booklet.

 

The life, death and resurrection of Jesus is not doubted by any serious historian today. (See, 'Death and Resurrection of Jesus explained to Muslims')


He fulfilled numerous prophecies, such as the one above, through his life, death and resurrection in remarkable details. (See 'What the Bible says about your future.' It also explains why the Jews rejected Jesus)
The claims Jesus made to be equal with God, to forgive other people's sins, etc., are outrageous and shocking, especially in the light of Jewish thought. Either they were given by a complete lunatic or by someone who indeed spoke the truth. There is no middle way. To think that he was just a good moral teacher, another prophet is simply no option. The records we have of him make the first hypothesis unacceptable. (See, 'Jesus-God! Explanation for Muslims')


As for the moral aspect of the law, Jesus explained the full meaning of it. (see Matthew 5-7) These perfect commandments are still valid, but again only as a means to show gratitude that Jesus saves from sins, not to gain forgiveness. Those decrees can only truly be observed through the help and forgiveness of him who ultimately fulfilled every aspect of them.

 

In Surah 2, Al-Baqara, verse 107 the principle of abrogation is explained:

For whatever sign that is abrogated or caused to be forgotten something better or the like thereof is brought. If this verse would refer to the abrogation of the Gospel through the Quran it would mean that the teaching of the former book would be inferior or at least similar to the latter one.

 

As seen above, the essence of Christianity consists of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (see also 1 Corinthians 15:14) Through faith in His work the assurance of forgiveness of sin, of eternal life in God's presence through grace (God's undeserved favour) is available to everyone! He who puts his faith into practice by obeying what the Gospel says will benefit from all these blessings. Surely this wonderful teaching can not be called inferior or similar to the doctrines of the Quran! There we read about how people may get forgiveness from God through their good works and, if He is willing, by His mercy. Paradise will be a place where God is absent and where what was forbidden on earth will be legal (drinking of wine, and having sexual relationships with lots of virgins). It normally can only be entered after having spent some time in hell first. Furthermore, the minority who says the principle of abrogation given in Surah 2, Al-Baqara, verse 107, applies to the Bible will be left without guidelines as regards to their own book. They will have to depend on a later, unsure historical development about the code of abrogation in order to deal with passages such as:

 

In Surah 58, Al-Mujadilah, verse 13, the believers are commanded to give alms before a private consultation with the Messenger. In verse 14 they are told that it is no longer necessary. To say, like Bashir Ahmad does, that the commandment was "not obligatory but optional..." takes away the very meaning of a command of God! It is an order which must be obeyed otherwise it turns into a contradiction. In Surah 33, Al-Ahzab, verses 51-52 Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is allowed to marry and divorce an unlimited number of women. In verse 53 he is prohibited to continue to do so. In Surah 73, Al-Muzzammil, verses 3-5, the prophet of Islam is commanded to spend about half of the night in prayer and reading of the Quran. In verse 21 of the same Surah this is changed into what is easy for him and those who followed his example.

 

 

7. IS HELL NOT ETERNAL?

 

Ahmadiyya Muslims are told to believe that everybody will have to spend some time in hell in order to receive the punishment for his sins. Once the sinner has been disciplined he will be released from his misery. Even he who has never done anything good will eventually be freed from his torment because God as the absolute Master will show mercy to him. Inspite of the fact that the latter point stands in contradiction to Surah 99, Al Zilzal, verse 9, which says,

 

And whose does an atom's weight of evil will also see it.

 

Ahmadiyyas insist that there is no need for the death of Jesus on the cross. The whole argument rests on the conviction that hell is not eternal. It is, however, in sharp contrast to verses in the Quran which speak about hell and use words like, "lasting" (Surah 9, Tauba, verse 68), "final abode" (Surah 57, Al-Hadid, verse 16) "leave the wrong-doers therein" (Surah 19, Maryam, verse 73), "permanent abode" (Surah 40, Al Mu-min, verses 40-42), "they shall have no helpers" (Surah 3, Al'Imran, 92).

 

The Hadith too confirms this terrible tragedy:

"...hellfire is black and dark and never has any light."

"...God says, 'They who must dwell for ever in hellfire, will have the boiling water given them to drink which shall burst their bowels..."

"It is agreed amongst all orthodox Muslims that all unbelievers, without exception, will be consigned to the fire for ever, and that they will never be free from torment."

In contrary, Ahmadiyyas believe that punishment in hell is only temporary for remedial purposes and can even be dispensed with altogether if it will not damage the character and productivity of man. While the latter may be possible in individual relationships it is an impossible way of action when many people are involved or when the one who punishes is in some official position. In such he can not be merciful if he wants to remain just. If, for example, a teacher in school is lax with one child, how will it affect the rest of the class? Or let us think about the confusing implications it would have to look at punishment as a reformatory process only that intended to make the sufferer a better person. If even the greatest sin were immediately succeeded by hearty repentance, there would be no mercy of God necessary in withholding punishment; it could simply not justly be inflicted where reformation had been already produced by other influences. There are also cases in which repentance is less likely to be awakened by inflicting pain through punishment then by conferring new joy and honour. In these cases the lightest penalty would be unjust, and justice would require that the life of the sinner should be made brighter and happier. By looking at these examples which applied the theory that rests the justice of punishment mainly on its reformatory power, it can easily be seen that it leads to all kinds of grotesque consequences. (For more details see, The Atonement, by Dale, London Congregational Union of England and Wales, 1894, pages 380-381)

The Islamic view of punishment is self-contradictory in that it is rendered unjust. If people are not punished first of all because they deserve it they are treated outrageously because suffering is inflicted on them for the sake of deterrence or improvement only. To say that they deserve it is admitting the Christian claim of retribution, a deserved punishment for rebellion against God. The reformatory aspect (the belief that chastisement will make the sinner better) which is ascribed to God's punishment in Islam is further questioned by statistics that show clearly how most ex-prisoners committed offences again once they were released. While it is true to a certain extent that crime figures fall if the punishment is harder and more frequent, the apparent success comes at a high cost. The threat of punishment produces hypocrites, in that people will obey the letter of the law but their hearts are not won for God nor for their fellow human beings. Selfishness will still prevail in subtle ways that prevent true, lasting peace and sincere love. Real change in people usually occurs because they are loved and appreciated not because they are punished. The three 'R's in bringing up children hold still true: Rules without Relationship leads to Rebellion.

In spite of these sobering facts Muslims hope to improve their old nature which is inclined to do bad naturally into a nature that becomes inclined to do good. They try to achieve this lofty goal through teaching, education, the passing on of knowledge and through punishment. To use an example they try to change a bicycle into a space rocket. This, of course, is an impossibility since a bicycle naturally is made to ride on the ground and a space rocket is designed to fly into space.

 

The solution found in the teaching of the Bible is not to improve the old nature but to get a new nature that is inclined to do good through faith in Jesus. Salvation is entirely a gift of God.

 

"But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life." (Romans 5:8-10, see also Ephesians 2:4-5)

 

The love of Allah in the Quran is conditional on man's behaviour and is therefore inferior to the love of parents who love their children without any condition. They do however hate the way their sons and daughters often disobey them. Out of unconditional love for their rebellious children parents have to punish them. A difference is made between loving them as persons but disapproving of what they sometimes do. This is how the love of God is portrayed in the Bible, of course in a much more perfect way then parents could ever be capable of. Those who neglect such a great salvation, refusing to admit guilt, also have to accept no forgiveness. Such people are characterised by their rejection of everything that is not simply themselves. Sadly speaking, God grants them their ultimate wish by sending them to hell. There they will suffer everlasting punishment, destruction and exclusion. These ferocious experiences suggest something unspeakably horrible. Jesus talks more about them than anybody else in the Bible. (Mat 5:21-22, 27-30, 23:15,33, 10:28, 25:41,46, 7:23, 8:11-12, 22:13, 25:30, 13:30, 40-43, 49-50, 18:6-9, 24:51) Destruction means the transformation of the destroyed into something else. If we burn a log we get gases, heat and ashes. Annihilation, life that ceases to exist, is not possible. If that is the case, must there not be a state of having been a human soul? Hell was not made for man. To enter it is to be banished from humanity. Is it not occupied by people but by the conscious 'remains' of them? What will happen to those who have never heard of him? God is just and good. He will deal with them according to his perfect attributes. What about the apparent disproportion of eternal damnation and transitory sin? Rather than a prolongation of time should we think of eternity as line? That would be a good image, because the parts of time are successive and no two of them can co-exist. There is no width in time, only length. Consequently, do we have to think of eternity as a plane or even a solid? Thus the whole reality of dammed human beings would be represented by solid figures. Once done with life would they be living with its results forever in that sense? Why don't they get a second chance after their death? Teachers only know too well that it is really useless to send pupils in for certain examinations again. Finality must come some time also regarding our relationship with Jesus. We have to admit that our knowledge is greater about heaven than hell. Heaven is the home of humanity and therefore contains all that is implied in a glorified human life. In most ways hell is not parallel to heaven. We know only with utmost certainty that hell will be the eternal dwelling place of those who rebelled against God. It will be inhabited by those who rejected Jesus and his work on the cross. In the long run the answer to all those who don't accept the doctrine of hell is itself a question: What do you want God to do? To wipe out humanity's past sins and to give everyone an opportunity of a fresh start? But he has done so at the cross! Sadly, many refuse to be forgiven. Do you want God to leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what he does.

 

 

8. WHY DID JESUS DIE ON THE CROSS AND RISE AGAIN?

 

Why does God not simply forgive man when he committed sin? This is probably the most important question of all. If we can understand why Jesus had to die, it will be easier for us to believe that He did so. There are two main reasons for his death on the cross:

 

A) To restore God's honour

The Old Testament, known as the Torah by Muslims, tells the wonderful story of how God created Adam and Eve and later the Israelites to be his people. We learn how he loved them like a father loves his children. Time and time again, however, we read with great sadness how his chosen ones break his commandments, how they become guilty of lawlessness. Even more disturbing is the fact that their rebellion is only a fruit of a conscious rejection of the Almighty God. His own people spit in his face and bring shame upon him before the very nations they were supposed to be witnessing of his honour and glory. To make matters even worse, they were not ashamed of themselves:

 

'Therefore the showers have been withheld, and no spring rains have fallen. Yet you have the brazen look of a prostitute; you refuse to blush with shame. Have you not just called to me (God): 'My Father, my friend from my youth, will you always be angry? Will your wrath continue for ever?' This is how you talk, but you do all the evil you can.' (Jeremiah 3:3-5)

 

The people of old did as they pleased because they had lost a sense of shame. While their mechanical, outward ritual acts may still have been in place they were not concerned about God's honour at all. Repentance, the turning round from one's evil ways, was later expressed in terms of recognition of shame and disgrace. (Jer. 31:19) Likewise, our disloyalty to God, our resistance against his work among us is known and is exceedingly shameful. We too deserve to be punished ever so severely. Since God is pure, completely removed from all evil, man's sin has cut off, effectively killed, the relationship between the two. The warning given to Adam and Eve became a frightening reality:

 

And the LORD God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.' (Gen 2:16-17)

'For the wages of sin is death,...'(Rom 6:23)

 

Only through death God's honour will be restored. Consequently God introduced an elaborate sacrificial system to the Israelites through Moses. Shame could be removed by getting forgiveness for sins, but only if an animal would die in their place.

 

'...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.' (Heb 9:22)

 

This all important truth is also reflected in 'Qisas' the Islamic law of retaliation. (Surah 2, Al Baqarah, verses 178-179) It consists in doing to the person who has committed a crime the very same thing they have done. The life of someone who is wilfully killed demands the murderer's life in retaliation. However, the next of kin can accept a financial compensation instead. According to Surah 5, Al Maida, verse 45, retaliation for inflicted wounds is also necessary. A nose for a nose and so on. If a member of the body which is to be cut off in revenge is defective, a compensation will be accepted.

 

From God's perfect perspective animal and all other sacrifices are defective. They can not take away sins but were only serving as a cover and a shadow of Jesus, the Messiah, the perfect sacrifice to come (Heb 10:1-18). He, being without sin, by taking our shame upon himself through his death on the cross, restored the honour of God in a most profound and just way:

 

'Moreover, the Father judges no-one, but has entrusted all judgement to the Son, that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father, who sent him. I (Jesus) tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.' (John 5:22-24)

 

'Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' (Phil 2:5-11)

 

God raised Jesus from the dead confirming his authority, loyalty blessedness and blamelessness. Those who deny the cross refuse to accept God's generosity, his blessing. They dishonour the giver.

 

B) To meet the demands of God's justice and love

The Bible (Leviticus 11:45) and the Quran (Surah 59, Al-Hashr, verse 24) tell us that God is holy. That means He is separated from anything that is unclean, bad, and hypocritical, in other words from anything that is sin. Both, the Bible (Isaiah 59:1-2) and the Quran (Surah 2, Al-Baqarah, verses 35-37) tell us that sin separates man from God. Therefore, sin is not just a minor mistake, but absolutely intolerable in the sight of God!

 

According to the son of the founder of the movement it is fitting to define God's attributes in human terms. He says: "Unless we are convinced that the attributes of God manifest themselves in a manner which excludes all possibility of chance or coincidence, how can we believe that those attributes exist at all? This doubt is resolved in Islam alone, for it constantly produces men who are manifestations of the attributes of God..."

 

Sin has to be treated seriously because God is just (Deuteronomy 32:4, Surah 95, Al-Tin, verse 9). He punishes every wrong doer and awards the one who does right. However, God will not judge according to our good or bad works alone (Romans 3:23-24, Surah 35, Al-Fatir, verse 46). He loves us so much (John 3:16) that in His mercy He chooses to forgive our sins. But if He would forgive our sins without punishment, then in His mercy He would become unjust!

 

That is why God revealed Himself in Jesus and died on the cross for our sins. In Jesus God met the requirements of His justice and of His love! After paying the penalty for sin through His death, Jesus rose again. Consequently the death and resurrection of Jesus are of the utmost importance for Christians! The following illustration will help to better understand this profound matter:

 

There was once a king who possessed a huge kingdom over which he also ruled as a just judge. He wrote down laws which had to be kept by everyone so that order and justice would be maintained. One day his very own son, whom he loved so dearly, committed a terrible crime. The law made it very clear that a perpetrator, such as his child had become would have to face a fine of £ 100,000,000,000. The king's son was not able to pay that large amount of money. However, the just judge could not change the law simply because the sinner was his own son, otherwise he would not have been impartial anymore. He decided that his child too was guilty, but when he pronounced the judgement, out of love, he offered to pay the fine on behalf of his son. In that way he could meet the demands of his justice but also of his love for the disobedient child. The son sorrowfully repented of his crime and humbly accepted his father's offer. This incident changed him so completely that he decided to love and serve his father forever. By doing this he could certainly never pay back the £100,000,000,000. No, he changed his way of life to express his great thankfulness towards his just and loving father.

 

The king in the illustration symbolises God, the kingdom is the world. The laws are the Holy Scriptures, the king's son is all mankind and the terrible crime committed by him is sin. The sum of £100,000,000,000 stands for the punishment of sin, which is a invincible separation from the Holy God. The king who took his son's place and paid the fine on behalf of him illustrates what God has done for all mankind in Jesus. He paid the punishment for sin by dying on our behalf at the cross. Finally, the complete change that took place in the life of the son is a picture of the new life of a Christian. By faith, through a prayer of forgiveness he accepts what Jesus Christ had done for him. He believes that Jesus took upon him the punishment for men's sin. Only out of thankfulness he starts to love and serve God, not because he thinks he could ever earn a place in heaven by doing good. Whatever the newly born Christian now does will be motivated by love for the One who saved him from a terrible punishment.

A Muslim enquirer recently asked: 'The Bible states that God sacrificed his Son, but yet we also read that Jesus was resurrected back to life and is sitting on the right hand of God. When you sacrifice something, you do not take it back 3 days latter, is this not a contradiction?'

 

The reason why Jesus the perfect sacrifice was raised to live again on the third day is found in the word 'perfect.' Animal sacrifices were imperfect, they just pointed to the perfect one. That is the reason why they had to be offered again and again. That is also the reason why they were not raised to life again. However, Christ being the perfect, sinless sacrifice only had to die once. Since he paid the punishment for sin, namely death by his own death, the latter no longer became a reality! That is precisely why God raised Jesus to live again. This profound truth is expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:54-57:

 

'When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory.' 'Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?' The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.'

 

Jesus defeats the death that came as a result of sin! He as the firstfruit has been raised to life therefore. Those who believe in his perfect sacrifice will follow his example once they die physically. The following verses, again quoted from 1 Corinthians 15 confirm this good news:

 

'But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.' (Verses 20-22)

 

Here are some more verses that speak about the same truth:

'Jesus was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.' (Romans 4:25)

'For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey - whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? (Romans 6:9-16)

Wow! What a message! That Christ was raised to life again after he died sacrificially for us is not a contradiction. Since death for him was no more, there is nothing that could be a contradiction to his being raised to life!

The destiny for us who are living in the time of the New Testament is dependent on our relationship to Jesus. The New Testament makes it clear that salvation is by faith through Christ alone:

 

'That in the time to come he might make clear the full wealth of his grace in his mercy to us in Christ Jesus: Because by grace you have salvation through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is given by God: Not by works, so that no man may take glory to himself. For by his act we were given existence in Christ Jesus to do those good works which God before made ready for us so that we might do them.' (Ephesians 2:7-10)

 

'Being conscious that a man does not get righteousness by the works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, we had faith in Christ Jesus, so that we might get righteousness (right standing before God) by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law will no flesh get righteousness.' (Galatians 2:16)

Salvation by faith in Jesus is believing with the intellect that the Bible is right about our sinful condition, about who Jesus is and about what he did on the cross for us. Passages that speak about judgement according to works have to be read in the light of what true faith means. This is confirmed when their immediate context is considered. (e.g. Joh 5:28-29, compare with verses 23-24, Mat 16:27 with verses 21-26, 25:31-46 with 23:37-39, Jam 2:14-26). As the German reformer Martin Luther used to say 'the faith that saves is never alone.' True faith in Christ shows itself in four ways:

 

1. Out of thankfulness followers of Jesus do what he tells them: To love God and man. This is the essence and test of true obedience. They desire to follow the moral law set out in the Old Testament and summarized in what is known as 'the 10 commandments.' (Exo 20:1-17)

2. Genuine faith in Jesus produces a desire to become more like him, to do what is right and just.

3. Saving faith creates the awareness that this new obedience can only come through faith in Christ. It does not come from focusing on the law, the desperate attempt to meet its demands. Instead it comes from continually fixing one's eyes on Jesus and his work, by remaining connected to him through being in his presence with one's thoughts.

4. Lastly, Biblical faith generates a constant abiding in and reliance on Jesus by faith. In this way only the Holy Spirit of God supplies the power for a changed life and lasting fruit. (Rom 8:13, Joh 15:5)

 

 

9. CONCLUSION

 

Having examined the Ahmadiyyan claims one by one it has become clear that the Bible has neither been changed nor abrogated. Moreover, Muhammad is not foretold as a Prophet of God in its pages. Jesus is indeed the only way to heaven and we can agree with great confidence with the hymn writer who penned the words: "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus and his righteousness."

Bibliography:

"Christians ask Muslims", by Gerhard Nehls, 1983, Life Challenge, Southafrica. "Islam, Beliefs and Teachings", by Ghulam Sarwar, 1984, Muslim Educational Trust, London. "Islam, a Christian Perspective", by Michael Nazir-Ali, 1983, Paternoster Press, Australia. "Quran and Bible Series 1-6" and "Christianity and Islam Series 1- 8", by J.Gilchrist, 1980-86, "The Muslims Guide to Faith and Purification", by H.E. Sheikh, Muslim Worldleage, Mekkah. "Eternal Message of Muhammad", by 'Abd-al-Rahman'Azzam, 1979, Q. Books LTD. London. "Quran and Bible in the Light of History and Science", by Dr. W.Campbell, 1993, U.S.A. "The Great Commission, You and the Muslims", by G. Nehls, 1982, Life Challenge, SA. "Ahmadiyya Doctrine of God", by Henry J. Otten, Henry Martyn Institute, Hyderabad, India. "Trinity and Unity", by Pope Shenuda III, Good Way, Switzerland "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity", by R.Bowman, 1993, Baker Book, Michigan, USA.