Missionary, dilettante or visionary? A review of Ch. Luxenberg, Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Qur’an.[1]

article Richard Kroes©   source:http://www.livius.org/opinion/Luxenberg.htm


It was not without Schadenfreude that the press published the story: there was no reason for the plane-crashers of 11 September 2001 to count on 72 virgins in paradise. They would only find grapes there. The reason for this disappointing news? A simple reading mistake in the text of the Qur’an.


The source of this surprising statement is the book under review.[2] If the writer is right, he places a bomb under Islam that is comparable to the effects of Biblical textual criticism to Christianity. Understandably the author’s name ‚Christoph Luxenberg‘ is a nom de plume of a professor in Semitic languages at a German university, according to articles in the press.


The statement ’not virgins but grapes‘ is only a small side step in a book that argues a theory that reaches much further, this theory has hardly enjoyed any attention in the press. According to Luxenberg, the Qur’an was not written in classical Arabic but in a mixed Arabic-Syriac language, the traders‘ language of Mecca and it was based on Christian liturgical texts. When the final text of the Qur’an was codified, those working on it did not understand the original sense and meaning of this hybrid trading language any more, and they forcefully and randomly turned it into classical Arabic. This gave rise to a lot of misinterpretations. Something like this can only have happened if there was a gap in the oral transmission of the Qur’anic text. That idea is in serious disagreement with the views of both traditional Muslims and western scholars of Islam.

The traditional view

According to early Islamic sources, texts of the Qur’an were already written down during the life of the prophet Muhammad (570-632 AD). At the battle of Yamama, under the first caliph Abu Bakr (632-634 AD), so many victims fell among the ones that knew the Qur’an by heart that Abu Bakr ordered Muhammad’s secretary, Zaid ibn Thabit, to codify a complete Qur’an. Through inheritance this text ended up with Hafsa, the daughter of Abu Bakr’s successor Umar and one of Muhammad’s widows. But the Qur’an was mainly transmitted orally, as recited text, and this was seen as the most important method of ‚keeping‘ the Qur’an. It is mainly the oral transmission that, according to the traditional view, guaranteed the continuity and integrity of the Qur’anic text. The nascent islamic empire rapidly expanded during the reign of the third caliph, Uthman (644-656 AD). In the various regions of this empire various ways of reciting the texts developed as well as variant texts. Uthman started a codification project in which one standard text was decided on. Hafsa’s collection now surfaced again and played a decisive role in estabishing this unifying text. Other early followers of Muhammad had also collected their own Qur’anic texts. These were often different from Uthman’s standard. At first some of them gravely protested against Uthman’s standardisation, but eventually it won the day. Copies of Uthman’s version were sent to all corners of the Islamic realm and by his order all other Qur’anic codices had to be destroyed. In the library of Tashkent in Uzbekistan there is a very old Qur’an codex which is supposedly one of Uthman’s. It is part of the Unesco world heritage. The Topkapi museum in Istanbul also possesses an old, supposedly Uthmanic codex.


Muslims see the Qur’an as insurpassable and inimitable.[3] This is based on Q 2:23:


If you have doubts about the revelation We have sent down to Our servant, then produce a single sura like it -enlist whatever supporters you have other than God- if you truly (think you can),


and on Q 17:88:


Say, ‚Even if all mankind and jinn came together to produce something like this Qur’an, they could not produce anything like it, however much they helped each other‘.


The language of the Qur’an is regarded as the purest Arabic. That too is emphasised in the Qur’an:


We know very well that they say, ‚It is a man who teaches him,‘ but the language of the person they allude to is foreign, while this revelation is in clear Arabic (Q 16:103);


So We have revealed an Arabic Qur’an to you, in order that you may warn the capital city and all who live nearby (Q 42:7).


The language of the Qur’an is poetic, terse and sometimes extremely difficult to interpret. During the first centuries of Islam many scholars studied its text, vocabulary, grammar, style and historical and biographical background in order to estabish how the Qur’an had to be understood. These activities resulted in numerous dictionaries, grammars and extended commentaries, tafsir.

Some critical remarks

Arabic is a ‚defective‘ script: only consonants can be written with it, vowels are omitted. Furthermore, when the Qur’an was codified a script was used in which several consonants shared the same signs. Only 17 signs were used to write 28 consonants. Just 7 signs in this alphabet, called rasm, are unequivocal. About a century after the first compilation of the Qur’an the various consonants were distinguished by adding ‚diacritical dots‘. From that moment on the five consonants for example that were written with a ‚hook‘ ﺒ b, ﺘ t, ﺜ th, ﻨ n en ﻴ y could be distinguished. Eventually, three centuries later, after some experimenting with systems for the notation of vowels, the vowels were also added.


In 1923 the al-Azhar university in Egypt issued a standard text that is now used worldwide. This standardisation too had its reasons because despite Uthman’s standardisation, several versions of the text of the Qur’an developed.


Discussions between traditional Muslims and western scholars of Islam on this topic can run high. On the side of the faithful it is claimed that these only represent the various Arabic dialects or modes of recitation, the qira’at. All 7 (or 10, or 14) are considered canonical. On the side of scholarship however, differences at the level of meaning are recognised.


A good example are the last three words of Q 2:10. In the Egyptian standard edition these are: بِمَا كَانُو ا يَكْذِبُونَ bima kanu yakdhibuna, ‚for their persistent lying‘. The standard text is based on the text of imam Asim († 744 AD) as transmitted by imam Hafs († 796 AD). It is used in the whole Islamic world, except in North Africa. Here the text of imam Nafi († 785 AD) as transmitted by imam Warsh († 812 AD) is used. In the latter, the same passage runs like this: بِمَا كَانُو ا يُكَذِّبُونَ bima kanu yukadhdhibuna, ‚for what they denied‘. ‚Lying‘ or ‚denying‘, there is a subtle difference…[4]


Not all Muslims deny the existence of these differences. A very charming example of the way these are dealt with is Q 5:6: You who believe, when you are about to pray, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbow, wipe your heads, wash your feet up to the ankles. The word أرْجُلَكُمْ arjulakum ‚your feet‘ just like the words for ‚face‘ and ‚hands‘ is written in the accusative case, so it is seen as the object of the verb ‚to wash‘, that only occurs once in this verse. According to the transmissions of the text by Ibn Kathir, Abu Amr, Abu Bakra and Hamza however it is أرْجُلِكُمْ arjulikum. This means the same, but is in the genitive case, just like the word for ‚head‘. In this version the genitive case is used because of the preposition ‚over‘ (your heads) and because ‚feet‘ has the same case a silent ‚over‘ needs to be understood with ‚(and wipe over) your feet‘. Now the question is: do the feet need to be washed before prayer or is wiping them sufficient? According to some Islamic interpreters both texts are correct, since under normal circumstances people will wash their feet before prayer, but where there is no water, wiping them suffices. The combination of the two different transmissions thus delivers the full revelation as intended by Allah.


Besides these variants early Islamic literature also mentions a lot of alternative readings that do not belong to the canonical texts. According to our sources these are all from Qur’anic texts that were destroyed in the wake of Uthman’s standardisation.


Early Islamic linguists, and since the 19th century also western scholars of Islam, have discovered loanwords in the Qur’an derived from various languages, mainly from Syriac. In the 7th century this was the lingua franca of the Middle East, besides Greek, that was mainly spoken in the Byzantine empire. Mecca, Muhammad’s home city was a trade settlement and Muhammad himself worked in the caravan trade for years. It is unthinkable that he had no knowledge of Syriac. So it is not surprising that Syriac loanwords are present in the Qur’an.

Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart

While in the Islamic world the findings of western scholars of Islam are not universally received with undivided enthousiasm, Luxenberg takes quite a few steps more by systematically looking into the possibilities for Syriac offering a clarification of passages in the Qur’an that are difficult to interpret. While doing that he doesn’t limit himself to just vocabulary, but also looks for grammatical constructions that might have been copied from Syriac. For this he uses a relatively simple and strict method.


As ‚difficult‘ he defines those passages that have been recognised as such by western translators or that have been called so by Tabari (839-923 AD) in his extensive tafsir.


A number of possibilities that could lead to a solution are then checked:


A plausible explanation indicated by Tabari himself, but overlooked by western translators;

A plausible explanation unknown to Tabari in the Lisan, the most extensive Arabic dictionary (there were no dictionaries yet in Tabari’s time);

An unchanged reading of the Arabic, looking into the possibilities for it actually being a Syriac word;

A different placement of the diacritical dots (meaning the use of different consonants) that might result in another Arabic word;

A different placement of the diacritical dots that might lead to another Syriac word;

A literal translation of the Arabic into Syriac in order to see whether a Syriac expression or phrase has been literaly translated into Arabic. This is called a morphological calque (the German Fernseher is a morfological calque of television);

A correct Arabic expression, the meaning of which has now been lost, which may still have been preserved in old Syriac literature and lexica;

A correct Arabic expression written in Arabic script, but in Syriac orthography, which might thus be easily misunderstood.


It is important to note that options 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 leave the Arabic character of the Qur’an unchallenged. Option 3 simply rephrases the presence of Syriac loanwords. Only the options 4, 5 and 6 can serve as support for Luxenberg’s thesis.


That thesis can hardly be summarised in short, but the type of reasoning that Luxenberg uses, can be illustrated with a few examples that the interested layman can follow.

Lion or lame donkey?

In Q 74:49-51 fun is being made of the unbelievers: What is the matter with them? Why do they turn away from the warning, like frightened asses, fleeing from a lion? The word for ‚lion‘ قسْوَرَۃٍ qaswara is a difficult word, according to Tabari. He suspects it’s an Ethiopian loanword, but there is no such word in that language, nor in any other language in the region. Luxenberg suggests a Syriac reading ܩܘܣܪܐ qusra: ‚an old, lame donkey‘. It is associated with the root ܩܨܪ qtsr that also exists in Arabic: قصر qsr ‚to be powerless, to be incapable‘. There are two forms of the word: ܩܘܣܪܐ qusra but also ܩܘܨܪܐ qutsra. The latter is correctly derived from the root qtsr. The former is dialect. If this dialectal form was used, it should have been used as a nomina agentis (‚causative‘) according to Luxenberg, with an inserted ‚u‘. The reading qasura then perfectly fits the Arabic rendering of the word قسْوَرَۃ where the و waw was later thought to represent a ‚w‘ instead of a ‚u‘. The addition of vowels later on resulted in the incomprehensible qaswara. Luxenberg’s translation of Q 74:49-51 runs like this: What is the matter with them? Why do they turn away from the warning, like frightened asses, fleeing from a lame donkey?.

Hook or alif?

The translation of Q 41:47 says: On the Day He asks them: „Where are My partners?“ they will answer: „We admit to You, that none of us can see (them).“ The phrase ‚we admit to You‘ is a liberal translation of a verb that means ‚to state‘. That sounds a bit complicated for someone who is already quite obviously ’stating‘ something. In Arabic it says: اذنٰكَ adhannaka and Tabari has to pull every trick in the book to explain this word: أعلمناك a’lamnaka ‚we declare to you‘, أطعناك ata’naka ‚we obey you‘, but that doesn’t help much. Luxenberg has a simple solution.[6] the hook of the nun is an old way of writing ا alif, a long ‚a‘. That changes the word into إذاك iddaka, which in good Arabic means ‚then‘. His translation then becomes: On the Day He asks them: „Where are My partners?“ then they will answer: „None of us can see (them).“[7]


In Q 68:13: coarse, and on top of all that, ill-bred, the word عُتُلًّ ‚utull features. This is translated in various ways: ‚ignoble‘, ‚violent‘, ‚greedy‘, in Shakir’s, Yusufali’s and Pickthal’s translations respectively, are just some examples. Instead of عتل ‚utull Luxenberg proposes عال ‚al. The same Arabic word, or derivations of it, occur elsewhere in the Qur’an (10:83, 23:46, 38:75 and 44:31). They are translated as ‚domineering‘, ‚arrogance‘, ‚high and mighty‘ and ‚tyrant‘.[8] It fits perfectly in this passage and it is correct Arabic, which ‚utull isn’t, according to Luxenberg. Here the ﺘ t (without the dots, just like the nun in the previous example) was allegedly used to indicate an ا a. This was not understood in later times and the dots were added, so it became a ‚t‘.[9]

Seven Sleepers

In sura 18:9-26 the Christian legend of the Seven Sleepers is told. Persecuted Christians sought refuge in a cave and fell asleep. God let them sleep for years until the persecutions were over. The story starts with 18:9: do you find the Companions in the cave and al-Raqim so wondrous, among all Our other signs? The word that is rendered here as ‚al Raqim‘ الرَّقِيمِ ar-raqim, is translated in various ways. ‚Inscription‘ is used, but mostly ‚ar-Raqim‘ is taken to be the name of the village, wadi or mountain where the story took place.[10] Other researchers have suggested a misreading of the Hebrew spelling of the name Decius, the emperor under whose rule this episode took place. Decius, דקיס dqis in Hebrew, could easily have been misread as רקים rqim, which could in turn have led to Arabic رقيم r(a)qim. Whichever is true, neither Decius, nor an ‚inscription‘ play any part in the rest of the story.


Luxenberg suggests two mistakes: the م m at the end of the word is a misreading of د d. In the oldest script that was used for the Qur’an, hidjazi, this is a very likely mistake. Secondly, instead of the ﻴ i an ا a needs to be read. This latter exchange we have seen twice before. Thus the word becomes: الرقاد ar-ruqad ’sleep‘: do you find the Companions in the cave and the sleep so wondrous, among all Our other signs?[11]

Mecca or Bakka?

In Q 3:96 بِبَكَّةَ bibakkah is read as an alternative place name for Mecca: Bakka. The preposition bi- ‚in, at‘ results in the following translation: The first House (of worship) to be established for mankind was the one at Bakkah (Mecca). It is a blessed place; a source of guidance for all people. This doesn’t seem very likely. Mecca agrees with Macoraba as already indicated by Ptolemy. It is assumed the name is related to Sabeic mukarrib, which means ’sanctuary‘. ‚Bakka‘ doesn’t seem a logical derivation. Tabari thinks it is derived from بك bakka ‚to cram‘, ‚to huddle‘ because pilgrims crowded around the Ka’aba at Mecca (the pilgrimage to Mecca already existed before Muhammad‘ time) but this seems more like a creatively invented explanation from hindsight.


Luxenberg proposes a Syriac reading: ܬܝܟܗ taykeh. This means ‚which he has demarcated‘. When this is written in Arabic letters in rasm, so without the diacritical dots: تيكه, taykeh, it is identical with ببكه bibakkah. This would indeed give a translation that seems more logical: The first House (of worship) to be established for mankind was the one which He has demarcated. It is a blessed place; a source of guidance for all people.[12]


The changes that Luxenberg suggests, aren’t limited to single words. Sometimes he rereads entire phrases and comes up with a reading that is more closely related to what non-Muslims often consider ‚the sources of the Qur’an‘.

Abraham’s sacrifice

Q 37:102-111 tells the story of Abraham who wants to sacrifice his son Ishmael, the father of all Arabs, to God. This story is also known among Jews and Christians, althought the victim in their version is Isaac, the father of all Israelites. In one passage the translator encounters a few stumbling blocks.


فَلَمَّا أسْلَمَا و تَلَّهُ لِلْجَبِينِ fa-lamma aslama wa tallahu li-l-jabini, ‚When they had both submitted to God, and he had laid his son down on his face,‘ (Q 37:103)


The word aslama is explained by Tabari in three different ways: ‚to agree‘ (Abraham and Ishmael), ’submit‘ (to God’s will) and ‚give‘ (Abraham his son, the son himself to God). This already indicates a problem. A wide spectrum of possibilities can be found in various translations: ‚to surrender‘, ‚to submit‘, ‚prononcer le Salam‘, ‚resign‘. Now, the previous verse already states that Ishmael submits himself and it sounds a bit odd to repeat that in this one. To complete the problem other, non-canonical, variants have been recorded in early Islamic literature: fa-lamma sallama.[13] This reading is used by Luxenberg, because it agrees with Syriac ܫܠܡܘ shlemu ‚(when they) were ready‘.


But the reinterpretation isn’t done yet, because li-l-jabini ‚on the forehead‘ also has its difficulties. Tabari reads jabinan ‚two temples‘ and concludes the forehead must be meant, since that is in between the two. It is easier to refer to jabin, a word that in Hebrew (גבינא), Syriac (ܓܒܝܢܐ) and Arabic (جبين) means’eyebrow‘. This however seems a funny way to indicate a forehead. Luxenberg suggests to read the word without the diacritical dot under the first letter حبين habbin. This agrees with Syriac ܚܒܢ habbin ‚the firewood‘ (literally: ‚the burning ones‘).


Then he interprets tallahu as Syriac ܬܠܐ tla, which means ‚to tie (down)‘, and has nothing to do with صرعه sara’ahu ‚throw down‘, the word that Arabic commentators use to explain the passage.


Luxenberg’s rereading is completed when he translates the preposition li- as ‚upon‘, ‚on top of‘: When they were finished, and he had tied him down on the firewood.[14]


This reading doesn’t differ vastly from the classical one, but it does have one important advantage: It fits the biblical story, as it was known in the 7th century Syriac version, much better.


A lot of Luxenberg’s arguments are built up like dominoes. If the first one falls, the rest has to come down with it. That is a weakness on the one hand, but on the other hand this type of domino-reasoning consistently delivers a reading that agrees much better with what are sometimes regarded as the Christian sources of the Qur’an.

Virgins or grapes?

The by now world-famous story about ‚virgins or grapes‘ also works like this. Luxenberg starts with Q 44:54 وَ زَوَّجْنَاهُم بِحُورٍ عِينٍ wa zawwajnahum bi hur ‚in, ‚We shall wed them to maidens with large, dark eyes‘. For زوجناهم zawwajnahum, ‚we shall wed them‘ he has a different, and purely Arabic, alternative: روحناهم rawwahnahum ‚we shall let them rest‘. It’s a difference of only two diacritical dots and in rasm it’s identical.[15] The interpretation now used by Muslims was a result of the preposition bi being read as Arabic ‚to‘. ‚We shall let them rest to‘ doesn’t sound as logical as ‚We shall wed them to‘. Hence the Arabic reading of bi. But in Syriac bi also means ‚under‘ or ‚among‘ and that makes the translation ‚we shall let them rest among…‘ a very good possibility.


If this reading is accepted, hur ‚in cannot refer to virgins any more. Furthermore, the way in which hur ‚in is traditionally translated requires some idiomatic acrobatics. Literally hur is a plural of the female adjective ‚white‘ (حوراء hawra‘). So it could refer to white women, but the object might just as well be a female word in the grammatical sense only. The word ‚in is traditionally seen as the plural of the word for ‚eye‘ and is translated by ‚wide-eyed‘. It is however not a usual plural and it only occurs in the phrase hur ‚in. So in a sense it is a hapax. The literal translation ‚wide-eyed whites‘ would then be a description of the virgins in paradise. In English translations this rather too literal choice of words is rendered as ‚fair ones with wide, lovely eyes‘ (Pickthal), ‚fair women with beautiful, big and lustrous eyes‘ (Yusufali) and even just ‚Houris pure, beautiful ones‘ (Shakir).


Luxenberg doesn’t deny that hur can mean ‚white‘ and ‚in ‚eye‘, but he proposes, through Syriac, a different reading of bi hur ‚in as a consequence of the changed context: ‚among/under fine/crystal clear whites‘. That cryptic phrase works more or less in the same way that ‚big cheese‘ can describe an important person in English. Luxenberg finds parallels for the metonymic use of the word ‚white‘ in the sense of ‚grape‘, both in Arabic and in Syriac. The ‚eye‘ in his view is a metaphor to describe ‚the appearance‘ of something. For this too he manages to find expressions in both languages, like ‚the „eye“ of a man‘ meaning ‚his appearance‘ and ‚the „eye“ of something‘ in the sense of ‚its preciousness‘.[16]


This reading too requires some acrobatics in vocabulary, but Luxenberg succeeds in reinterpreting all 8 other passages in which the virgins feature, as well as the 3 passages that deal with the (male) youths in paradise (Q 52:24, 56:17-19 and 76:19). All these other 11 reinterpretations are consistent with his first rereading of Q 44:54.[17] The added advantage, thinks Luxenberg, is that the texts about the ‚grapes of paradise‘ not just fit the descriptions of paradise in 7th century Syriac Christian texts much better; they also liberate the Qur’an from, in his eyes, shamefully erotic imagery of the hereafter.


Luxenberg reinterprets about 57 passages in his book. The conclusion he draws from this has several ‚layers‘:


The application of his method delivers a more fitting interpretation for difficult passages than the traditional way of reading the Qur’an;

This proves that the Qur’an was written in a mixed Arabic-Syriac language, probably the traders‘ language of Mecca;

In view of the type of mistakes that were made, there must have been a hiatus in the oral transmission of the Qur’an;

Given the content of the ‚improved readings‘ the conclusion that the Qur’an was based on Christian liturgical texts is justified, if it wasn’t a Christian text to begin with.


It is understandable that not just traditional, but also more liberal Muslims and western scholars of Islam have given Luxenberg’s book some critical attention, to say the least.


Those who are familiar with western Biblical criticism, won’t raise more than an eyebrow at Luxenberg’s reinterpretations: no believer needs to lose a night’s sleep over it. That conclusion however is not shared by traditional Muslims. Newsweek printed a popular article on the book in its issue of July 2002. It only featured the ‚virgins or grapes‘ question. Promptly the sale of the issue was forbidden in Pakistan and Bangla Desh.


The first reactions on Islamic sites on the internet were exclusively based on the article in Newsweek. So only the virgins or grapes figured in them. Mostly these reactions were rather polemic and generally lacked any solid reasoning. The widespread notion among Muslims that ‚the west‘ or ‚the orientalists‘ were just out to slander Islam and ideas about ‚anti-Islamic propaganda‘ played a more important role than the simple facts. Only Shibli Zaman, a writer on an Islamic apologetic website, has some knowledge of Arabic, Hebrew and Syriac. He emphatically proves that the literal meaning of the word hur is ‚white‘ and ‚in means ‚eye‘ and that they don’t mean ‚grapes‘. He doesn’t realise however that Luxenberg doesn’t deny these literal meanings at all. Zaman clearly didn’t read the book.


Only much later western scholars of Islam entrusted their ideas on the subject to paper and these are not all positive. François de Blois points to a couple of grammatical mistakes in Luxenberg’s book and calls him a ‚dilettante‘.[18] His grasp of Syriac is limited to knowlegde of dictionaries and in his Arabic he makes mistakes that are typical for the Arabs of the Middle East. The latter is corroborated by the professor of Islam at Leyden University Hans Jansen: Luxenberg is not a professor at a German university, he is a Lebanese Christian. This would explain Luxenberg’s ‚Christian agenda‘: Christians from the Middle East have been involved in harsh religious debates with Muslims for centuries.


Angelika Neuwirth, a scholar of Islam from Berlin, dedicates a few words to Luxenberg in an article and mainly emphasises the lack of interdisciplinary research. He does indeed raise many questions that could be answered by other disciplines, but its not entirely fair to blame this on Luxenberg. Her remark that his conclusions are not fully justified by the results of his research is much more important. A word in Arabic looking similar to a Syriac word is to be expected, since the two are closely related languages. The use of loanwords also doesn’t automatically mean that the unchanged and full meaning is borrowed as well. If qur’an was indeed derived from Syriac Qeryana ‚lectionary‘, that still does not mean that the Qur’an actually was a Christian lectionary, at most it had a comparable function: text to be recited.[19]


Luxenberg’s book is almost unreadable, certainly for the layman. One needs knowledge of eight languages (German, English, French, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic and Syriac) and of five different alphabets (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Estrangelo) to comprehend the book fully. A good working knowledge of German, Arabic and Syriac is indispensable to be able to assess the book.


It looks like a solid scholarly volume: often footnotes take a larger part of the page than the text and some pages are even completely filled with notes. No one can put it to Luxenberg that he doesn’t document his claims. A nice advantage is his custom to provide almost every Arabic, Hebrew and Syriac word with a transcription. This way the layman can still get an idea of his line of thought.


Whether Luxenberg’s readings are better than the traditional ones can to some extent even be decided by someone who does not speak Arabic by looking at the new translations he offers. At times these interpretations seem more logical, but some others seem to make very little difference. Rereading the otherwise unknown place-name Bakka to: ‚that which he has demarcated‘ seems a good candidate for a succesful reinterpretation. But whether unbelievers shy away from the Qur’an ‚like asses from a lion‘ or ‚from a lame donkey‘ seems to make very little difference. On the one hand the text becomes more ironic, on the other hand: how disrespectful is it to compare the Qur’an to a crippled ass? It’s only advantage is that you don’t need to assume an Ethiopian loanword that cannot be found. Furthermore the word for ‚lion‘ قسورة qaswara has a س sin, while the Syriac word that it should be based on has a ܨ tsade in its root, which normally is a ص sad in Arabic. So this is a leap of faith, and Luxenberg needs a dialectal form to make it.


Even a succesful rereading like تيكه taykeh ‚that he has demarcated‘ instead of ببكه bibakkah ‚in Bakka‘ falls victim to the same method. Compare ببكه bibakkah with بمكه bimakkah ‚in Mecca‘. It is quite conceivable that a carelessly executed ﻤ is confused with a ﺒ, especially if the latter already existed in the shape with a diacritical dot. The whole problem with ‚Bakka‘ has evaporated, and the translation of the passage remains unchanged.


Where Luxenberg tries to conform the passage about Abraham’s sacrifice more correctly to biblical sources, he needs three pages to argue that the preposition li can be translated in the way he wishes: When they were finished, and he had tied him down on (li-) the firewood. This preposition generally does not mean ‚on top of‘, ‚upon‘.


He brings on a plethora of arguments: first he produces a Hebraism which results in a second alternative translation: When they were finished and he had tied him down as (li-) a burnt offering; a Syriac passage where li is used in the sense of ‚on‘ and finally an Arabic quote from the Qur’an: Q 7:143 When his Lord revealed himself to the mountain.[20] For those who know the biblical story of God’s revelation to Moses on mount Sinai, this text seems to need another preposition: When his Lord revealed himself on the mountain. But this explanation presupposes exactly what it tries to prove: namely that the Qur’an had Christian precursors.


One would expect that the correct reconstruction of a mistaken text has a certain self-evidence to it, that it speaks for itself. The philological tugging and squeezing that Luxenberg applies, doesn’t plead in favour of that, on the contrary, the three explanations are partly mutually exclusive. It’s still unclear whether li- is now Hebrew, Syriac or Arabic.


Luxenberg’s main problem however is that his line of reasoning doesn’t follow the simple and strict method that he set out at the beginning of his book.


The book would be much easier to follow if some examples had been clarified along the lines of this method. Which alternatives did Tabari give? What possibilities are there in the Lisan? Which Syriac words could offer an alternative? What other readings were possible with a different vowelisation? Which solutions were offered by rearranging the diacritical dots? This way the reader is also acquainted with alternatives that didn’t make it and the reasons why.


Now we are confronted with only positive results. And those positive results are ordered in a discourse that has its own structure and goal. Already at the beginning of his book Luxenberg creates the impression that the Qur’an was actually a reworked Christian text by putting forward that Qur’an actually means ‚Lectionary‘, a collection of texts to be read in the Christian liturgy. Then follow examples of Syriac loanwords in the Qur’an. The last of which clearly indicate the influence of Christian Syriac texts. The end of the book features the reinterpretation of two entire suras, one of which (sura 108) is traced back to 1 Peter 5:8-9. This consistently Christian rereading of Qur’anic passages and the method of reasoning feeds the suspicion that Luxenberg is arguing towards a preset conclusion: the Qur’an is (actually) a Christian text. Given his arguments that seems a far reaching conclusion, too far even.


Tracing the Qur’an to a Christian source raises other objections. The number of parallels between the Qur’an and Jewish sources like the Targum for example are quite large. The Targum are Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible. For purposes of clarification and teaching, these were often expanded with non-biblical material.


The story of king Solomon and the queen of Sheba in the Qur’an for example (sura 27), agrees very well with the account that the Targum Sheni gives of the book of Esther (I.13), much better than with the Biblical version.[21]


There are also philological indications for ‚Jewish sources‘. The Qur’anic word for ‚hell‘ is jahannam. This is a Hebrew loanword (gehinnom). Had it been borrowed from Syriac the last ‚m‘ would be missing. The occurrence of this kind of derivations indicates a much more complicated development of the Qur’an than Luxenberg supposes.

The Bahira-legend

If one reads the Qur’an, being familiar with both canonical and apocryphal Christian texts, the similarities between the two traditions are easily noted. It is no surprise that the idea that the Qur’an must have been based, if only partly, on Christian stories has been formulated many times in history. During the life of Muhammad a comparable story must have gone aroud. The Qur’an itself refers to it: We know very well that they say, ‚It is a man who teaches him,‘ but the language of the person they allude to is foreign, while this revelation is in clear Arabic (Q 16:103).


Muslims know the story of the Christian monk Bahira, who recognised Muhammad in his early youth as ‚the seal of the prophets‘, the last prophet. Christians have reworked that story and the (very old) wonder at the Christian character of the Qur’an to a Christian counterpart of the Bahira-story, in which Bahira wrote the Qur’an as a Christian text, with a few adaptations especially intended for Arabs. He then sent the book to Muhammad on the horns of a cow. The Qur’an is therefore also called ‚the book of the cow‘. That seems a bizarre detail. The second sura of the Qur’an is called al Baqara ‚the Cow‘ and it is known that in some early Qur’anic collections, that of Ibn Masud for example, the first sura was missing. These Qur’ans indeed opened with ‚the Cow‘.


With his conclusions Luxenberg, without mentioning it himself, comes very close to a modern variant of this legend, which probably developed in the 8th century. So the suspicion that his approach causes is not entirely unfounded. It looks like a new step in an age old apologetic tradition, that is felt by Muslims to be ‚anti-Islamic‘.


It is striking that a comparable legend developed among Jewish circles. ‚Ten Jewish Sages‘ would have written the Qur’an according to this story, and this one too originated from the need to explain the great similarities between the Qur’an and Jewish sources.


At the beginning of the seventies excess rainfall caused an old mosque in Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, to subside. During the reconstruction, a hollow space in the construction of the roof was found, that contained 14,000 fragments of Qur’an manuscripts. About 12,000 fragments belonged to 926 copies of the Qur’an, the other 2,000 were loose fragments. The oldest known copy of the Qur’an so far belongs to this collection: it dates to the end of the 7th century, that is forty to seventy years after the death of Muhammad. The finds are still studied and are important because there are so many old copies of the Qur’an in it, that feature many textual variants not known from the canonical 7 (or 10 or 14) texts.


One of the peculiarities discovered so far, is the use of the ‚hook‘ of the letters ﺒ b, ﺘ t, ﺜ th, ﻨ n en ﻴ y to indicate the letter for which later the ا alif was used. For example: in some early Sanaa codices in Q 40:3: لاَ إلَهَ إلاَّ la ‚ilaha ‚illa ‚There is no god but Him‘ the Arabic word اله ‚ilaha is written as اليه that’s with an ‚i‘, if you read it in the classical way. This peculiarity could explain why Christian and Jewish words and names like ‚Abraham‘, ‚Satan‘ and ‚Torah‘ in Arabic suddenly get an extra ‚i‘: ‚Ibrahim‘, ‚Shaitaan‘ and ‚Tawrija‘.[22] This discovery was published in 1999 but is unknown to Luxenberg, just as he seems to be unaware of much of the other literature on the subject. But even he, as we saw above, regularly argues that the ‚hook‘ in early Qur’anic manuscripts must have been used for a long ‚a‘.


Certainly not everything Luxenberg writes is nonsense or too far-fetched, but quite a few of his theories are doubtful and motivated too much by a Christian apologetic agenda. Even his greatest critics admit he touches on a field of research that was touched on by others before and that deserves more attention. However, this needs to be done with a strictly scientific approach. In fact, his investigations should be done again, taking into account all the scholarly work that Luxenberg doesn’t seem to know.


It is to be hoped that such research will be done without any apologetic agenda or anti-Islamic sentiments in the background; and wouldn’t it be nice if the results would keep people from hijacking a plane and in good spirits throw themselves into an inferno.



[1]. The author wishes to thank Barbara Roggema of the John Cabbot University in Rome for her generous assistance in writing this article.

This article is a translation of a slightly improved version of a Dutch article: Kroes, R. 2004: ‚Zendeling, Dilettant of Visionair? Een recensie van Ch. Luxenberg: Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Qur’an‘ Dialoog nr. 4, juni 2004, 18-35.

[2]. Ch. Luxenberg, 2000: Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Qur’an: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Qur’ansprache, Berlin. (ISBN 3-86093-274-8)

[3]. The English translation of quotes from the Qur’an are from: Abdel Haleem, M.A.S. 2004 The Qur’an, Oxford; Arabic quotes as given in Luxenberg and other literature were checked on maroc.nl, on al-Islam.org, in the Arabic text of the Dutch translation of the Qur’an by Fred Leemhuis and, where applicable, in a printed copy of the text of the Qur’an according to the transmission of imam Nafi through imam Warsh. Transliterations of the Egyptian standard edition were checked on the website of the ‚Muslim Students Association at the University of South California (MSA-USC).

[4]. Leemhuis, F. 1993: ‚Het vertalen van de Qur’an: ‚onbegonnen‘ werk? Achtergronden en overwegingen bij mijn Qur’anvertaling‘, in: Buitelaar, M. & Motzki, H: De Qur’an, ontstaan, interpretatie en praktijk, Muiderberg.

[5]. p. 45.

[6]. Internet-Qur’ans give آذَنَّاك, with an ا alif as the penultimate letter. Printed Qur’ans (both the transmission of Nafi and Warsh) have no alif as the penultimate letter, but a small alif above the nun: اذنٰكَ This is a vowel sign called ‚dagger-alif‘ which does not belong to the rasm-text. Luxenberg takes the rasm-text, whereas the alif in Qur’ans on the internet reflect a limitation of the layout.

[7]. p. 60-61.

[8]. All in the translation of Abdel Haleem 2004.

[9]. p. 62-63.

[10]. A note in Abdel Haleem’s translation even mentions that Rakim is seen by some commentators as the name of the dog of the Seven Sleepers.

[11]. p. 65-67.

[12]. p. 300-302, note 318.

[13]. Luxenberg quotes (p. 149) the French translator Blachère, who in his turn relies on some early followers of Muhammad: Mujahid, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Masud. The latter owned a copy of the Qur’an that he had collected and codified himself, and he preferred it over the standard one that caliph Uthman prescribed.There were many differences between the two texts.

[14]. p. 147-157.

[15]. Luxenberg’s writes the Arabic without an alif: زوجنهم zawwajnahum and روحنهم rawwahnahum respectively, but this makes no difference for his suggestions.

[16]. p. 221-241.

[17]. p. 241-269.

[18]. Blois, F. de 2003: ‚Review of „Christoph Luxenberg“, Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Qur’an: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Qur’ansprache‘ in: Journal of Qur’anic Studies, Vol. V, Issue 1, pp. 92-97.

[19]. Neuwirth, A. 2003: ‚Qur’an and History – A Disputed Relationship. Some Reflections on Qur’anic History and History in the Qur’an‘ in: Journal of Qur’anic Studies, Vol. V, Issue 1, pp. 1-18.

[20]. This translation differs from some other English translations, where li- is indeed translated as ‚on‘ even though it’s probably incorrect Arabic (e.g. Yusufali).

[21]. The scholarly consensus seems to be that the Qur’anic tale was derived from the same Jewish stories on which the Targum Sheni is also based. It needs to be noted that the oldest manuscript of the Targum dates long after the Qur’an. For a good idea of the style of discussion from which Luxenberg’s book came forth, one can take this issue as a good example on both Islamic and Christian apologetic websites.

[22]. Graf von Bothmer H.C., Ohlig K.H., Puin G.R. 1999: ‚Neue Wege der Qur’anforschung‘ in: Magazin Forschung 1, 33-46.


Prophet Isaak hatte keinen Sohn Namens ESAU

Meine These, welche fuer manche Menschen sicher ziemlich provokativ wirkt:

Prophet Isaak hatte nur einen Sohn, der Jakob genannt wurde. Es gab keinen Zwillingssohn mit dem Namen ESAU.

Ich naehere mich diesem Thema auf eine voellig neue Weise, die mir von den heutigen Religionen (Islam , Christentum, Judentum) sicher den Vorwurf der Ketzerei einbringen wird. Diesen Vorwurf bin ich jedoch schon lange gewohnt und er kann mich nicht mehr schrecken.

Ich erachte den Koran als die letzte Offenbarung von Gott, welche uns hilft, die Verfaelschungen und Luegen, welche uns aufgetischt wurden und werden, zu entlarven. Interessanterweise widerspricht der Koran nirgends der Logik oder der Humanitaet oder der Menschlichkeit, wenn er aus diesem Standpunkt angeschaut wird- wenn man ihn allein sprechen laesst und seine Verse linguistisch analysiert und sich nicht durch die bekannte Religionsgeschichte ablenken oder infiltrieren laesst. Der Koran wird so zu einem faszinierenden Dokument.

Der Koran erzaehlt uns immer ueber einen einzigen Sohn von Prophet Isaak. Folgende Verse dazu sind interessant.

2.136  قُولُوا آمَنَّا بِاللَّهِ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالْأَسْبَاطِ وَمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَى وَعِيسَى وَمَا أُوتِيَ النَّبِيُّونَ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ﴾ اور مسلمانو! تم ان سے کہو کہ ہم اللہ پر اور جو اس نے ہماری طرف بھیجا ہے اور جو ابراہیم علیہ السّلام ً اسماعیل علیہ السّلام ً اسحاق علیہ السّلام ً یعقوب علیہ السّلام ً اولاد یعقوب علیہ السلام کی طرف نازل کیا ہے اور جو موسیٰ علیہ السّلام ً عیسیٰ علیہ السلام اور انبیاء علیہ السلام کو پروردگار کی طرف سے دیا گیا ہے ان سب پر ایمان لے آئے ہیں. ہم پیغمبروں علیہ السلام میں تفریق نہیں کرتے اور ہم خدا کے سچّے مسلمان ہیں- Sprecht: «Wir glauben an Allah und was zu uns herabgesandt worden, und was herabgesandt ward Abraham und Ismael und Isaak und Jakob und (seinen) Kindern, und was gegeben ward Moses und Jesus, und was gegeben ward (allen andern) Propheten von ihrem Herrn. Wir machen keinen Unterschied zwischen ihnen; und Ihm ergeben wir uns.»

2.140 أَمْ تَقُولُونَ إِنَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالْأَسْبَاطَ كَانُوا هُودًا أَوْ نَصَارَى ۗ قُلْ أَأَنْتُمْ أَعْلَمُ أَمِ اللَّهُ ۗ وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنْ كَتَمَ شَهَادَةً عِنْدَهُ مِنَ اللَّهِ ۗ وَمَا اللَّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ کیا تمہارا کہنا یہ ہے کہ ابراہیم علیہ السّلام ً اسماعیل علیہ السّلام ً اسحاق ً علیہ السلام یعقوب علیہ السلام اور اولادیعقوب علیہ السلام یہودی یا نصرانی تھے تو اے رسول کہہ دیجئے کہ کیا تم خدا سے بہتر جانتے ہو ۔ اور اس سے بڑا ظالم کون ہوگا جس کے پاس خدائی شہادت موجود ہو اور وہ پھر پردہ پوشی کرے اور اللہ تمہارے اعمال سے غافل نہیں ہے- Oder wollt ihr sagen, Abraham und Ismael und Isaak und Jakob und (seine) Kinder waren Juden oder Christen?» Sprich: «Wißt ihr es besser oder Allah?» Und wer ist ungerechter, als wer das Zeugnis verhehlt, das er von Allah hat? Und Allah ist nicht achtlos eures Tuns.

3.84 قُلْ آمَنَّا بِاللَّهِ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْنَا وَمَا أُنْزِلَ عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالْأَسْبَاطِ وَمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَى وَعِيسَى وَالنَّبِيُّونَ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ پیغمبر ان سے کہہ دیجئے کہ ہمارا ایمان اللہ پر ہے اور جو ہم پر نازل ہوا ہے اور جو ابراہیم علیہ السلام ,اسماعیل علیہ السلام , اسحاق علیہ السّلام ًیعقوب علیہ السلام اور اولادیعقوب علیہ السلام پر نازل ہوا ہے اور جو موسٰی علیہ السلام , عیسٰی علیہ السلام اور انبیاء کو خدا کی طرف سے دیا گیا ہے ان سب پر ہے. ہم ان کے درمیان تفریق نہیں کرتے ہیں اور ہم خدا کے اطاعت گزار بندے ہیں )

Sprich: «Wir glauben an Allah und an das, was zu uns herabgesandt worden und was herabgesandt ward zu Abraham und Ismael und Isaak und Jakob und den Nachfahren/Staemmen, und was gegeben ward Moses und Jesus und [anderen] Propheten von ihrem Herrn. Wir machen keinen Unterschied zwischen ihnen, und Ihm unterwerfen wir uns.»

4.163 إِنَّا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ كَمَا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى نُوحٍ وَالنَّبِيِّينَ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ ۚ وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالْأَسْبَاطِ وَعِيسَى وَأَيُّوبَ وَيُونُسَ وَهَارُونَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ  وَآتَيْنَا دَاوُودَ زَبُورًا ہم نے آپ کی طرف اسی طرح وحی نازل کی ہے جس طرح نوح علیہ السلام اور ان کے بعد کے انبیاء کی طرف وحی کی تھی اور ابراہیم علیہ السلام ,اسماعیل علیہ السلام ,اسحاق علیہ السلام ,یعقوب علیہ السلام , اولادیعقوب علیہ السلام,عیسٰی علیہ السلام ,ایوب علیہ السلام , یونس علیہ السلام ,ہارون علیہ السلام اور سلیمان علیہ السلام کی طرف وحی کی ہے اور داؤد علیہ السلام کو زبور عطا کی ہے ۔  Wahrlich, Wir sandten dir Offenbarung, wie Wir Noah Offenbarung sandten und den Propheten nach ihm; und Wir sandten Offenbarung Abraham und Ismael und Isaak und Jakob und den Staemmen und Jesus und Hiob und Jonas und Aaron und Salomo, und Wir gaben David den Zabur.

6.84 وَوَهَبْنَا لَهُ إِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ ۚ كُلًّا هَدَيْنَا ۚ وَنُوحًا هَدَيْنَا مِنْ قَبْلُ ۖ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِهِ دَاوُودَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ وَأَيُّوبَ وَيُوسُفَ وَمُوسَى وَهَارُونَ ۚ وَكَذَلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ  اور ہم نے اُنکو اسحاق علیہ السلام اور یعقوب علیہ السلام بخشے (اور) سب کو ہدایت دی۔ اور پہلے نوح علیہ السلام کو بھی ہدایت دی تھی اور ان کی اولاد میں سے داؤد اور سلیمان علیہ السلام اور ایوب علیہ السلام اور یوسف علیہ السلام اور موسیٰ علیہ السلام اور ہارون علیہ السلام کو بھی۔ یہ ہم نیک لوگوں کو ایسا ہی بدلہ دیا کرتے ہیں- Wir schenkten ihm Isaak und Jakob; jeden leiteten Wir recht, wie Wir vordem Noah recht geleitet hatten und von seinen Nachfahren David und Salomo und Hiob und Joseph und Moses und Aaron. Also belohnen Wir die Wirker des Guten.

11.71 وَامْرَأَتُهُ قَائِمَةٌ فَضَحِكَتْ فَبَشَّرْنَاهَا بِإِسْحَاقَ وَمِنْ وَرَاءِ إِسْحَاقَ يَعْقُوبَ  اور ابراہیم کی بیوی (جو پاس) کھڑی تھی ہنس پڑی تو ہم نے اس کو اسحاق اور اسحاق کے بعد یعقوب کی خوش خبری دی Und sein Weib stand (daneben); auch sie war von Furcht erfüllt, woraufhin Wir ihr die frohe Botschaft von Isaak, und nach Isaak von Jakob verkündeten.(Jacob).

12.6 وَكَذَلِكَ يَجْتَبِيكَ رَبُّكَ وَيُعَلِّمُكَ مِنْ تَأْوِيلِ الْأَحَادِيثِ وَيُتِمُّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكَ وَعَلَى آلِ يَعْقُوبَ كَمَا أَتَمَّهَا عَلَى أَبَوَيْكَ مِنْ قَبْلُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْحَاقَ ۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ اور اسی طرح خدا تمہیں برگزیدہ (ممتاز) کرے گا اور (خواب کی) باتوں کی تعبیر کا علم سکھائے گا۔ اور جس طرح اس نے اپنی نعمت پہلے تمہارے دادا پردادا ابراہیم اور اسحاق پر پوری کی تھی اسی طرح تم پر اور اولاد یعقوب پر پوری کرے گا۔ بیشک تمہارا پروردگار (سب کچھ) جاننے والا (اور) حکمت والا ہے- Also wird dein Herr dich erwählen und dich die Deutung der Träume lehren und Seine Huld an dir vollenden und an dem Geschlecht Jakobs, so wie Er sie zuvor an zweien deiner Vorväter vollendete, an Abraham und Isaak. Wahrlich, dein Herr ist allwissend, allweise.»

19.49 فَلَمَّا اعْتَزَلَهُمْ وَمَا يَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَهَبْنَا لَهُ إِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ ۖ وَكُلًّا جَعَلْنَا نَبِيًّا  اور جب ابراہیم ان لوگوں سے اور جن کی وہ خدا کے سوا پرستش کرتے تھے ان سے الگ ہوگئے تو ہم نے ان کو اسحاق اور (اسحاق) کو یعقوب بخشے اور سب کو پیغمبر بنایا-  Als er sich nun von ihnen und von dem, was sie statt Allah verehrten, getrennt hatte, da bescherten Wir ihm Isaak und Jakob und machten beide zu Propheten.

21.72 وَوَهَبْنَا لَهُ إِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ نَافِلَةً ۖ وَكُلًّا جَعَلْنَا صَالِحِينَ اور (ہجرت کے بعد) ہم نے ان کو اسحاقؑ (بیٹا) اور یعقوبؑ (پوتا) عطا کیا اور ہم نے ان سب کو (اعلیٰ درجہ کا) نیک کیا۔ . Und Wir schenkten ihm Isaak und als Sohnessohn Jakob, und Wir machten sie alle rechtschaffen.

29.27 وَوَهَبْنَا لَهُ إِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَجَعَلْنَا فِي ذُرِّيَّتِهِ النُّبُوَّةَ وَالْكِتَابَ وَآتَيْنَاهُ أَجْرَهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا ۖ وَإِنَّهُ فِي الْآخِرَةِ لَمِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ ‏ اور ہم نے ان کو اسحاق اور یعقوب بخشے اور انکی اولاد میں پیغمبری اور کتاب (مقرر) کر دی اور انکو دنیا میں بھی اس کا صلہ عنایت کیا اور وہ آخرت میں بھی نیک لوگوں میں ہوں گے. Und Wir schenkten ihm Isaak und Jakob und gaben seinen Nachkommen das Prophetentum und die Schrift, und Wir gaben ihm seinen Lohn in diesem Leben, und im Jenseits wird er gewiß unter den Rechtschaffenen sein

38.45 وَاذْكُرْ عِبَادَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ أُولِي الْأَيْدِي وَالْأَبْصَارِ اور ہمارے بندوں ابراہیم اور اسحق اور یعقوب کو یاد کرو جو قوت والے اور آنکھوں والے تھے ‏.  Und gedenke Unserer Knechte Abraham und Isaak und Jakob, Männer von Kraft und Einsicht.

Der wichtigste Vers in diesem Zusammenhang:

21.72 وَوَهَبْنَا لَهُ إِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ نَافِلَةً ۖ وَكُلًّا جَعَلْنَا صَالِحِينَ اور (ہجرت کے بعد) ہم نے ان کو اسحاقؑ (بیٹا) اور یعقوبؑ پوتا عطا کیا اور ہم نے ان سب کو (اعلیٰ درجہ کا) نیک کیا۔﴿

Und Wir schenkten ihm Isaak und als Sohnessohn Jakob, und Wir machten sie alle rechtschaffen.


Im oberen Vers sehen wir das Wort “  نَافِلَةً ۖ „, welches fuer EIN  Enkelsohn steht. Im Arabischen gibt es drei Pluralformen: Singular (Einzahl), Dual (Zweizahl) Plural (Mehrzahl)

Das obenstehende Wort “  نَافِلَةً ۖ  “ ist im Singular und nicht im Dual, steht also fuer eine Person nicht fuer zwei.

Wir sehen, dass der Koran nur einen Sohn von Prophet Isaak erwaehnt – naemlich Prophet Jakob. Wenn die 12 Staemme von Jakob erwaehnt werden im Koran, weshalb denn nicht auch der Zwillingsbruder von Jakob???

Von wo kommt nun das Konzept eines zweiten Sohns von Isaak?

Esau als Zwillingssohn von Jakob finden wir nur im alten Testament. Kann es sein, dass der Koran so eine wichtige Sache wie diese einfach nicht erwaehnt? Oder dass Gott es vergessen hat zu erwaehnen?? Ich glaube nicht. Ich sehe in dieser Tatsache ein Hinweis auf die Veraenderung des alten Testamentes naemlich mit dem Zweck, Unfrieden zu stiften zwischen den Glaeubigen, und sie zu trennen. Bis heute wird jene Geschichte naemlich von Christen und Juden angefuehrt, um zu beweisen, dass Muslime und Christen/Juden sich niemals einigen koennten und dass die angenommenen Anhaenger von Esau immer verlieren wuerden – als Prophezeiung des Alten Testamentes…

Betrachten wir diese Aussage nun mal ganz nuechtern und logisch. Dies wuerde dem gesamten Konzept des Glaubens widersprechen, nicht nur dem der Muslime, sondern auch der Christen. Wir alle glauben an ein und denselben Gott und wissen, dass es nicht an unserer Abstammung liegen kann, ob uns Gott akzeptiert oder nicht. Es liegt nur an unseren Taten.

Die Muslime haben diese Geschichte von Esau uebernommen und sie in beruehmten Werken der Geschichte von Tabari und Ibn Katheer verarbeitet. Ibn Katheer schrieb die Geschichte der Propheten und verarbeitet dort viele Ueberlieferungen, die sogar von traditioneller muslimischer Seite als schwach und inakzeptabel angeschaut werden. Der Koran sollte immer ueber den anderen Quellen stehen- aber tatsaechlich tut er das durch die Geschichte immer weniger…

1. Prophet Jakob luegt nicht

In folgendem Ausschnitt der Geschichte sehen wir, dass Prophet Jakob seinen Vater belogen haben soll, er habe zusammen mit seiner Mutter ein Komplott gegen seinen Zwillingsbruder geschmiedet, um jenen von der Segnung seines Vaters abzuhalten. Dies widerspricht nun total einem Verstaendnis vom Charakter eines Propheten. Propheten sind Menschen besten Charakters und Vorbilder fuer ganze Nationen- so wuerden sie den Menschen Lug und Betrug lehren?? Und dies wird auch noch verteidigt als ‚menschliche‘ Schwaeche??

When Isaac (pbuh) grew old and his eye sight had weakened, he had a desire for food, so he asked his son Esau to go hunting and bring him some cooked game. Esau asked him to bless the food and pray for him. Esau, a hunter, went out to get his father the meat. Rebekah, overhearing this, ordered her son Jacob to slaughter two goats of his best flock and cook them as his father liked and bring it to him before his brother returned. She dressed Jacob in his brother’s clothes and put goat skin on his arms and neck, for Esau was hairy while Jacob was not. When he approached his father with the food, his father asked: ‚Who are you?‘ Jacob answered: ‚I am Esau.‘ When his father finished eating, he prayed for his son to be the more blessed brother and to prevail over them and all people, and for Allah to sustain him and his children. When he left his father, his brother Esau, who had carried out his father’s command, entered. Isaac asked him: „What is this my son?“ He answered: „This is the food you like.“ Isaac asked: „Did you bring it an hour ago and ask me to pray for you?“ Esau said: „No, I swear I did not,“ and he knew his brother had preceded him in this matter and he was sick at heart. (Quelle : Page 56, Stories of Prophets by Ibn Kathir . Also in Tareekh e Tibri )

Dieselbe Geschichte findet sich im alten Testament….

Genesis  27 1-36

1Und es begab sich, als Isaak alt geworden war und seine Augen zu schwach zum Sehen wurden, rief er Esau, seinen älteren Sohn, und sprach zu ihm: Mein Sohn! Er aber antwortete ihm: Hier bin ich.

2Und er sprach: Siehe, ich bin alt geworden und weiß nicht, wann ich sterben werde.

3So nimm nun dein Gerät, Köcher und Bogen, und geh aufs Feld und jage mir ein Wildbret

4und mach mir ein Essen, wie ich’s gern habe, und bring mir’s herein, dass ich esse, auf dass dich meine Seele segne, ehe ich sterbe.

5Rebekka aber hörte diese Worte, die Isaak zu seinem Sohn Esau sagte. Und Esau ging hin aufs Feld, dass er ein Wildbret jagte und heimbrächte.

6Da sprach Rebekka zu Jakob, ihrem Sohn: Siehe, ich habe deinen Vater mit Esau, deinem Bruder, reden hören:

7Bringe mir ein Wildbret und mach mir ein Essen, dass ich esse und dich segne vor dem HERRN, ehe ich sterbe.

8So höre nun, mein Sohn, auf mich und tu, was ich dich heiße.

9Geh hin zu der Herde und hole mir zwei gute Böcklein, dass ich deinem Vater ein Essen davon mache, wie er’s gerne hat.

10Das sollst du deinem Vater hineintragen, dass er esse, auf dass er dich segne vor seinem Tod.

11Jakob aber sprach zu seiner Mutter Rebekka: Siehe, mein Bruder Esau ist rau, doch ich bin glatt;

12so könnte vielleicht mein Vater mich betasten, und ich würde vor ihm dastehen, als ob ich ihn betrügen wollte, und brächte über mich einen Fluch und nicht einen Segen.

13Da sprach seine Mutter zu ihm: Der Fluch sei auf mir, mein Sohn; gehorche nur meinen Worten, geh und hole mir.

14Da ging er hin und holte und brachte es seiner Mutter. Da machte seine Mutter ein Essen, wie es sein Vater gerne hatte,

15und nahm Esaus, ihres älteren Sohnes, Feierkleider, die sie bei sich im Hause hatte, und zog sie Jakob an, ihrem jüngeren Sohn.

16Aber die Felle von den Böcklein tat sie ihm um seine Hände und wo er glatt war am Halse.

17Und so gab sie das Essen mit dem Brot, wie sie es gemacht hatte, in die Hand ihres Sohnes Jakob.

18Und er ging hinein zu seinem Vater und sprach: Mein Vater! Er antwortete: Hier bin ich. Wer bist du, mein Sohn?

19Jakob sprach zu seinem Vater: Ich bin Esau, dein erstgeborener Sohn; ich habe getan, wie du mir gesagt hast. Komm nun, setze dich und iss von meinem Wildbret, auf dass mich deine Seele segne.

20Isaak aber sprach zu seinem Sohn: Wie hast du so bald gefunden, mein Sohn? Er antwortete: Der HERR, dein Gott, bescherte mir’s.

21Da sprach Isaak zu Jakob: Tritt herzu, mein Sohn, dass ich dich betaste, ob du mein Sohn Esau bist oder nicht.

22So trat Jakob zu seinem Vater Isaak. Und als er ihn betastet hatte, sprach er: Die Stimme ist Jakobs Stimme, aber die Hände sind Esaus Hände.

23Und er erkannte ihn nicht; denn seine Hände waren rau wie Esaus, seines Bruders, Hände.

Und er segnete ihn

24und sprach: Bist du mein Sohn Esau? Er antwortete: Ja, ich bin’s.

25Da sprach er: So bringe mir her, mein Sohn, zu essen von deinem Wildbret, dass dich meine Seele segne. Da brachte er’s ihm und er aß; und er trug ihm auch Wein hinein und er trank.

26Und Isaak, sein Vater, sprach zu ihm: Komm her und küsse mich, mein Sohn!

27Er trat hinzu und küsste ihn. Da roch er den Geruch seiner Kleider und segnete ihn und sprach: Siehe, der Geruch meines Sohnes ist wie der Geruch des Feldes, das der HERR gesegnet hat.

28Gott gebe dir vom Tau des Himmels und von der Fettigkeit der Erde und Korn und Wein die Fülle.

29Völker sollen dir dienen, und Stämme sollen dir zu Füßen fallen. Sei ein Herr über deine Brüder, und deiner Mutter Söhne sollen dir zu Füßen fallen. Verflucht sei, wer dir flucht; gesegnet sei, wer dich segnet!

30Als nun Isaak den Segen über Jakob vollendet hatte und Jakob kaum hinausgegangen war von seinem Vater Isaak, da kam Esau, sein Bruder, von seiner Jagd

31und machte auch ein Essen und trug’s hinein zu seinem Vater und sprach zu ihm: Richte dich auf, mein Vater, und iss von dem Wildbret deines Sohnes, dass mich deine Seele segne.

32Da antwortete ihm Isaak, sein Vater: Wer bist du? Er sprach: Ich bin Esau, dein erstgeborener Sohn.

33Da entsetzte sich Isaak über die Maßen sehr und sprach: Wer? Wo ist denn der Jäger, der mir gebracht hat, und ich habe von allem gegessen, ehe du kamst, und hab ihn gesegnet? Er wird auch gesegnet bleiben.

34Als Esau diese Worte seines Vaters hörte, schrie er laut und wurde über die Maßen sehr betrübt und sprach zu seinem Vater: Segne mich auch, mein Vater!

35Er aber sprach: Dein Bruder ist gekommen mit List und hat deinen Segen weggenommen.

36Da sprach er: Er heißt mit Recht Jakob, denn er hat mich nun zweimal überlistet. Meine Erstgeburt hat er genommen und siehe, nun nimmt er auch meinen Segen. Und er sprach: Hast du mir denn keinen Segen vorbehalten?


2. Jacob und Esau kaempfen im Mutterleib

Auf der Seite 221 von Tareek e Tibri erzaehlt er, dass Jakob und Esau sich bekaempfen im Mutterleib. Esau versuchte, seine Mutter zu toeten indem er in die Gebaermutter trat und Jakob hinderte ihn daran, indem er seine Ferse hielt.   In der Bibel stossen wir auf dieselbe Geschichte hier:

Genesis/1. Mose, Kapitel 25

19 Dies ist das Geschlecht Isaaks, des Sohnes Abrahams: Abraham zeugte Isaak. 20 Isaak aber war vierzig Jahre alt, als er Rebekka zur Frau nahm, die Tochter Betuëls, des Aramäers aus Mesopotamien 19 Dies ist das Geschlecht Isaaks, des Sohnes Abrahams: Abraham zeugte Isaak. 20 Isaak aber war vierzig Jahre alt, als er Rebekka zur Frau nahm, die Tochter Betuëls, des Aramäers aus Mesopotamien, die Schwester des Aramäers Laban.

21 Isaak aber bat den HERRN für seine Frau, denn sie war unfruchtbar. Und der HERR ließ sich erbitten, und Rebekka, seine Frau, ward schwanger. 22 Und die Kinder stießen sich miteinander in ihrem Leib. Da sprach sie: Wenn mir’s so gehen soll, warum bin ich schwanger geworden? Und sie ging hin, den HERRN zu befragen. 23 Und der HERR sprach zu ihr: Zwei Völker sind in deinem Leibe, und zweierlei Volk wird sich scheiden aus deinem Leibe; und ein Volk wird dem andern überlegen sein, und der Ältere wird dem Jüngeren dienen.

24 Als nun die Zeit kam, dass sie gebären sollte, siehe, da waren Zwillinge in ihrem Leibe. 25 Der erste, der herauskam, war rötlich, ganz rau wie ein Fell, und sie nannten ihn Esau. 26 Danach kam heraus sein Bruder, der hielt mit seiner Hand die Ferse des Esau, und sie nannten ihn Jakob. Sechzig Jahre alt war Isaak, als sie geboren wurden.

27 Und als nun die Knaben groß wurden, wurde Esau ein Jäger und streifte auf dem Felde umher, Jakob aber ein gesitteter Mann und blieb bei den Zelten. 28 Und Isaak hatte Esau lieb und aß gern von seinem Wildbret; Rebekka aber hatte Jakob lieb.

29 Und Jakob kochte ein Gericht. Da kam Esau vom Feld und war müde 30 und sprach zu Jakob: Lass mich essen das rote Gericht; denn ich bin müde. Daher heißt er Edom. 31 Aber Jakob sprach: Verkaufe mir heute deine Erstgeburt. 32 Esau antwortete: Siehe, ich muss doch sterben; was soll mir da die Erstgeburt? 33 Jakob sprach: So schwöre mir zuvor. Und er schwor ihm und verkaufte so Jakob seine Erstgeburt. 34 Da gab ihm Jakob Brot und das Linsengericht, und er aß und trank und stand auf und ging davon. So verachtete Esau seine Erstgeburt.

Die Meinung von Ibn Abbas

Ibn Abbas war ein Gefaehrte von Prophet Muhammad und ein wichtiger Qurankommentator. Unter den Sunniten wird seine Meinung sehr hoch geschaetzt. Wir finden in den Zweitquellen eine Aussage , die ihm zugeschrieben wird (leider nur auf englisch erhaeltlich) :

Narrated ‚Ikrima:Ibn ‚Abbaas said, „How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah’s Book (the Qur’an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?“ (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614)

Narrated ‚Ubaidullah bin ‚Abdullah: ‚Abdullah bin ‚Abbaas said, „O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‚This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur’an ) which has been revealed to you. (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614)

Ich frage mich, weshalb die meisten Muslime sich diese Worte nicht zu Herzen nehmen und Ueberlieferungen glauben, auch wenn sie im Widerspruch zum Koran stehen???


Die Geschichte ueber den Zwillingsbruder Esau, den wir nur im AT und in den Zweitquellen beschrieben finden, ist erfunden, um Zwiespalt unter den Glaeubigen zu machen.  Leider fallen die Menschen allgemein immer wieder solchen Luegen zum Opfer, auch wenn sie klar gewarnt werden:

3.103. Und haltet euch allesamt fest am Seile Allahs; und seid nicht zwieträchtig; und gedenket der Huld Allahs gegen euch, als ihr Feinde waret. Alsdann fügte Er eure Herzen so in Liebe zusammen, daß ihr durch Seine Gnade Brüder wurdet; ihr waret am Rande einer Feuergrube, und Er bewahrte euch davor. Also macht Allah euch Seine Zeichen klar, auf daß ihr rechtgeleitet seiet.

2.79 Doch wehe denjenigen, die die Schrift mit ihren (eigenen) Händen schreiben und hierauf sagen: „Das ist von Allah“, um sie für einen geringen Preis zu verkaufen! Wehe ihnen wegen dessen, was ihre Hände geschrieben haben, und wehe ihnen wegen dessen, was sie verdienen.

Quellen: http://islam.de



http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/False_Stories_About_Prophet_Muhammad.html ) Some Examples of the Lies against Prophets

The Koran on the Bible, the Law, and the Covenant

Folgender Artikel fand ich auf der Website: http://www.ccg.org/english/z/p083z.html

Es scheint, als merken noch andere, dass der ECHTE ISLAM  nichts mit dem heutigen Islam zu tun hat. Dieser naemlich ist aufgebaut auf muendlichen Traditionen (den sogenannten Hadithen), die das offenbarte Gesetz Gottes zum Teil ersetzen. Die heutigen Muslime folgen einem Irrtum- Der Koran wurde den Christen offenbart, nachdem sie die Trinitaet eingefuehrt hatten und so vom richtigen Weg abgeirrt waren. Er erinnert die Glaeubigen nur an das ALTE GESETZ OHNE DIE TALMUDISCHEN ZUSAETZE UND VERFAELSCHUNGEN.

So und nun lets go:

The Koran on the Bible, the Law, and the Covenant

The Torah and the Law of God were given to the Patriarchs and to Moses and to Christ, as we see from the Surah, „Those who set the Ranks“. In the Surah, The Ranks 61:5-6, Moses and Christ are specifically shown as being the two great prophets of God. Moses was entrusted with the Law of God and the people did not listen. Christ was sent to confirm all that was revealed before him in the Torah and referring to the Ahmed, which means: „The Praised One“. This was the comforter of the NT, the Holy Spirit, but the Hadith claims it was the name of the prophet in Arabia. However, Surah 5:110 identifies the Holy Spirit as the power of God in question, which was the means by which he was instructed also.

As with modern Christianity, the Imams keep the law of God, the faith, and the message of Christ obscure or unexplained. Surah 5 shows that they do no good until they follow the law of God and the gospels, yet it is precisely these works that the obdurate Hadithic scholars deny and refuse to obey.

The Koran declares Christ as Judge and it is by the Law of God that he is to Judge [Surah 5:43]. All prophets and judges of the people of God were guardians of the revealed word of God, and they spoke according to the law and the testimony of God (cf. Isa. 8:20; [5:44]).

So also the Gospel of the Kingdom of God revealed by Christ was added to the Law of God, which it explained. This was the intellectual basis of the Koran itself.

[5:46] And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium,

verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).

[cf. Surah 5:66]

No one can be of the faith, that is the Church of God, which is the true Islam of God, until they follow the Law and the testimony [5:68]. No one can be of the faith of Islam without the Holy Spirit [5:110]. The Holy Spirit can only be obtained through baptism, which the Koran declares to be directly of God.

Koran and Allah’s Baptism

[2:138] (Receive) the baptism of Allah, and who is better than Allah in baptising? and Him do we serve.

It is through this „baptism“, which is in effect the transformation of the Holy Spirit that the new birth takes place. Some do not understand the character change from conversion. The effect of baptism is from the subsequent receipt of God’s Spirit.

Everyone should see that baptism is part of the true faith once delivered and which is still to be maintained by the faithful.

[2:136] Say: We believe in Allah and (in) that which had been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Musa and Isa, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.

The Koran commands that the faithful repent and be baptised. Whoever teaches against it is an unbeliever. The modern Hadith teaches that baptism is unnecessary, and uses the text to imply that Allah baptises rather than any physical baptism being required, which is the exact opposite of the intent of the Koran and the Bible. Baptism is the key requirement of the elect to attain the first resurrection. Those who teach against it, do not attain to the Kingdom of God and the Garden of the First Resurrection themselves, and prevent all who listen to them from doing so [2:138-140].

Hadithic Islam has concealed this testimony regarding Allah’s baptism, which the formerly sinful, new converted covenant keepers must receive. As the religion that is termed „Islam“ does not study the Law and Testimony as instructed, the understanding regarding the essential features of baptism and its requirement has been lost.

The Bible read by the prophet in 632 is available to this day, and not one jot or tittle has passed from the Law. Eloah’s baptism is a sacrament that is at the core of the faith and the surrender, and which Islam ignores. The Koran shows that the Law and the Testimony are required and must be followed.

Law and gospel

The law extends also to the food laws. What the Bible dictates as being lawful is lawful for all of Islam. The written law of the Torah is the only law on this matter [2:168; 3:93].

In Surah 5 we see the food laws emphasised a number of times. The food laws are equated in the Koran as duty to God.


Lawful to you is the game of the sea and its food, a provision for you and for the travellers, and the game of the land is forbidden to you so long as you are on pilgrimage, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, to Whom you shall be gathered.

Surah 5:96 places a strange injunction in that it is permissible to fish and eat clean fish whilst on a pilgrimage, no doubt because of the rationing at sea. However, it is not permissible to hunt game on land whilst on pilgrimage, which seems to be based on the law in Deuteronomy 14:22-27, which requires the increase of the field to be tithed and to be taken on pilgrimage. Thus, the hunting of game on pilgrimage meant that the law had not been observed.

The tithe also applies to the spoils of war as Abraham showed when he tithed to Melchisedek. Levi, being still in his loins also tithed to Melchisedek, thus signifying Melchisedek as the greater priesthood, being the inheritance also of Levi. So too, Ishmael and Esau, and the sons of Keturah, tithed to Melchisedek, also being in the loins of Abraham, thus signifying they and their sons were all subject to Christ, and the greater priesthood of the Church of God.

The Koran must agree with and fulfil what is written in the preceding Gospel and the Torah, or the understanding of it is incorrect. No prophet does, or can disagree with the law and what was revealed before him in the testimony. The message of any prophet is merely explanation of what has gone before, and God’s revelation of what is to come to pass [5:48].

The text in Surah 3:50 explains that the testimony of Christ verifies that which was before it in the Torah. The forbidden element was the extension of the priesthood of Melchisedek to the Church, where previously, in Israel, only Levi could serve. It does not refer to the food laws.

In Surah 5:43 we see that the Law of God is the basis of all judgment and a believer is one who follows the laws of God and the testimony. The Koran holds that the prophets judged by the Law of God [5:44]. Thus, an unbeliever is one who does not conduct himself and judge by what is revealed in the Law and the Testimony [5:46].

Christ was sent in the footsteps of the prophets and confirmed all that was before him in the Torah. The Koran ties the Gospels and the NT into the OT and the Law of God and is clearly directed at the Trinitarian Christians who denied the laws of God [5:66].

The direction in Surah 5:66 is to the failure of the faith to keep up with the Torah and the Gospels. There is a moderate party of the faith that keeps to the original faith once delivered and followed by Christ and the Apostles. That is the true Church of God.

The Koran then goes on to declare to those claiming to follow the faith:

[5:68] Say: O followers of the Book!

you follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people.

Here the Koran insists that anyone claiming the faith must keep the Law and the Testimony. This was directed originally towards false Christianity (Trinitarianism), but now applies to Hadithic Islam as well, in that they do not follow the Law and the Testimony as directed by the Koran at all. Moreover, the law and the Testimony are not simply the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel or Gospels, which are seen as generic terms. The Book and the Wisdom are coupled with the Torah and Gospels in the text of Surah 5:110.

The Koran binds the faith on the followers of Eloah the One True God. Eloah, The Power or The Lah, has bought all believers for the sole purpose of attaining eternal life in the Resurrection, which is referred to as the Garden of Paradise. We know that there are two Gardens of Paradise, and these are the two resurrections of the dead (see the paper Christ and the Koran (No. 163)).

[9:111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah’s way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the

Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.

The Surah is clearly directed at the Church, and the term „Muhammed“ is directed at a body rather than a man. The use of the term Muhammed often appears to be a generic term and refers to a body, which can only be the Church of God [48:29].

At Surah 61:6 we see that Christ is declared the apostle of God. The good news of the Ahmed was of „the Comforter“ that was to be sent to the Church. The Holy Spirit appeared conveying the power of God as the messenger or comforter of the Church at Pentecost 30 CE, but the power of it was rejected or mocked by many. The text refers to the section in Acts Chapter 2. The Hadith has deliberately obscured the understanding.

Christ himself is held to be witness against all those who claim to be of the faith, yet do not obey the word of God [4:159]. The called of the Church of God thus are exposed to the faith when called, and brought to correct understanding before their death.

Koran and the Covenant

The Covenant of God is tied into the Koran and the faith. Thus,
no one can be of the faith and deny the Covenant, or seek to act contrary to it [2:27].

The Covenant of God is identified as being made by the Children of Israel with God.

[2:40] O children of Israel! call to mind My favour which I bestowed on you and be faithful to (your) covenant with Me, I will fulfil (My) covenant with you; and of Me, Me alone, should you be afraid.

The Covenant of God was made through the prophets. The prophets that speak according to the Law and the Testimony must be aided [3:81]. The Covenant of God unifies the body that embraces it. This is the Church of God, which is Al Islam or The Surrender to God [3:103].

The Church rejected the Covenant of God for monetary gain and became the false Church in the councils of the Fourth Century, taking to themselves idolatrous systems for temporal power.

[3:187] And when Allah made a covenant with those who were given the Book: You shall certainly make it known to men and you shall not hide it; but they cast it behind their backs and took a small price for it; so evil is that which they buy.

Thus, the message of Islam was to Trinitarian Christianity to return to the faith once delivered.

[5:15] O followers of the Book! indeed Our Apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah;

The Koran is specifically stated to be a commentary and verification of the Law and the Testimony that was Scripture before it. The Koran cannot differ or contradict Scripture, and it declares that it does not in the body of the text. Thus, most modern interpretations of Islam by Hadithic scholars are incorrect, and they themselves fall outside of the parameters of the faith, because they do not keep, or speak according to the Law and the Testimony (Isa. 8:20).

Die Entstehung des Christus-Mythus

 Der christliche Kult gewann Boden, nicht weil sein Dogma und seine Verheißung irgendwelche neuen Momente enthielt, sondern im Gegenteil gerade deshalb, weil beides bei vielen heidnischen Kulten die genauesten Parallelen aufzuweisen hatte. Seine Entwicklung wurde tatsächlich dadurch gefördert, dass er sich aus diesen immer neue Details aneignete. Man kann es Schritt für Schritt verfolgen, wie er die Mysterien, die Wunder und die Mythen der populären heidnischen Religionen adoptierte. Die Auferstehung Jesu geschieht wie die des Mithras aus einem Felsengrab. Und bei der heiligen Mahlzeit der Zwölf, wie sie im letzten Abendmahl dargestellt ist, wird im vierten Evangelium eine Episode erzählt, die den im Heidentum häufigen Brauch heiliger Mahlzeiten von sieben Teilnehmern verkörpert. Durch ein Wunder lässt man Christus Wasser in Wein verwandeln, wie es seit undenklichen Zeiten bereits von Dionysos geglaubt worden war. Jesus geht auf dem Wasser wie Poseidon; wie Osiris und Phöbus Apollo schwingt er die Geißel. Wie der Sonnen-Dionysos reitet er auf zwei Eseln und speist er die Massen in der Wüste. Wie Äskulap erweckt er Menschen vom Tode, gibt den Blinden das Augenlicht wieder und heilt die Kranken. Und wie Attis und Adonis wird er von Frauen betrauert und bei seiner Auferstehung von ihnen mit Freuden begrüßt. Wo die Parallele nicht vollständig ist, finden wir trotzdem noch heidnische Mythen, die Anlass zu christlichen wurden; denn das Märchen von der Versuchung Jesu ist nur eine neue Auflage eines oft kopierten altbabylonischen astronomischen Symbols, bei dem der Ziegengott (das Zeichen des Steinbocks) neben dem Sonnengott steht, — eine Szene, die von den Griechen in die Mythen von Pan, der den Jupiter auf den Gipfel eines Berges führt, von Pan und Marsyas, die mit Apollo konkurrieren, und von Silen, der den Dionysos unterweist, verwandelt worden sind. Zu alledem kommt, dass Christus in derselben Weise wie das von Ewigkeit geliebte göttliche Kind der alten Welt geboren wird. Er muss eine Jungfrau zur Mutter haben, und er muss in Windeln in der Krippe gezeichnet werden, ein Zug, der aus dem grauesten Altertum im Mythus des Jon und im Kultus des Dionysos aufbewahrt ist, bei dem das Bild des göttlichen Kindes in Prozession einhergetragen wurde. Wie Horos müsste er in einem Stall geboren werden, dem Tempel der heiligen Kuh, die das Symbol der jungfräulichen Göttin Isis, der Himmelsgöttin, war. Die apokryphischen Evangelien vervollständigten die heidnische Parallele dadurch, dass sie aus dem Stall eine Höhle machten, die die Geburtsstätte des Zeus, des Mithras, des Dionysos, des Adonis, des Hermes und des Horos ist. Aus Klugheit ließ man dieses letztere Detail aus den kanonischen Evangelien fort; aber es wurde ein Stück des populären Glaubens. Und der Geburtstag Christi war von dem gemeinen Volk schon längst ganz naiv auf den 25. Dezember, den Tag der Wintersonnenwende, den Geburtstag des Sonnengottes gelegt worden, ehe es die Kirche wagte, diesen Brauch sich anzueignen. Indessen blieben auch jüdische Manipulationen nicht aus. Ist Jesus von einer Jungfrau geboren, so doch nach der Art jüdischer Theosophie; denn der »Geist Gottes«beschattete genau so die Maria, wie er in der Genesis über der Tiefe schwebte, die alles gebar. War Jesus ferner ein jüdischer Messias, ehe er ein heidnischer und samaritanischer Christus wurde, so musste er möglichst vielen messianischen Erfordernissen genügen. Er musste vom Stamme Davids sein und in Bethlehem geboren werden; insofern aber die jüdische Tradition sowohl einen Messias, der ein Sohn Davids, als auch einen Messias, der ein Sohn Josephs sein sollte, erwartete, — das letztere war wahrscheinlich ein samaritanisches Erfordernis —, so wurde Jesus durch seine königliche Herkunft zum Sohne Davids und durch seinen vermeintlichen Vater zum Sohne Josephs gemacht. Da es nun aber andrerseits Messiasgläubige gab, die meinten, es sei nicht nötig, dass der »erwählte Eine« von David abstamme, so wurde in die Evangelien eine Geschichte eingefügt, nach der Jesus diese Herkunft abweist. Auf diese Weise fanden beide Theorien, die einander ausschlossen, im Evangelienkodex Aufnahme, ohne dass man sich daran störte und ohne dass man glaubte, eine Erklärung dafür nötig zu haben. Auf dieselbe Art ließen die Asketen der christlichen Bewegung den Menschensohn arm und heimatlos erscheinen, während ihre Gegner aus ihm einen Weintrinker machten, der allezeit bereit ist, mit den Zöllnern und Sündern zu Tische zu sitzen. Den Juden gegenüber war es nötig, dass er, ganz wie Elias und Elisa im Alten Testament, den Sohn der Witwe von den Toten erweckte. Das war eine hebräische Variante des heidnischen Mythus von der Erweckung des Attis und Adonis und des Kindes Horos und Dionysos, die dann noch einmal bei der Auferstehung Christi zum Vorschein kommt. Wie bei dem Mythus des Moses und den arabischen Mythen von der Geburt des Abraham und Daniel, so musste auch bei seiner Geburt eine Hinrichtung unschuldiger Kinder stattfinden. Und wiedertun, wie der geopferte, »eingeborene« Sohn des semitischen Gottes El und der geopferte Gottmensch des babylonischen Festes der Sacaea, so musste auch er bei seiner Kreuzigung die Insignien der Königswürde tragen. Es ist auch möglich, dass Barnabas, der »Sohn des Vaters«, als ein Rest derselben Vorstellungswelt und desselben rituellen Brauches zurückgeblieben ist; sein Name wurde in ganz ähnlicher Weise einer Erzählung einverleibt, die auch nicht ein einziges historisches Stück enthält. Und wie es sich mit den Tatsachen verhielt, so auch mit der Theorie. Im Osten hatte lange das mystische Dogma gegolten, dass der oberste Gott, der über alles Wissen und Verstehen hinausreicht, in einer Gottheit sich inkarniert hätte oder eine Gottheit, nämlich den Logos, oder das Wort im Sinn von Sendung oder geoffenbarter Vernunft, geschaffen hätte, die seine letzten Absichten bezüglich der Menschen kundtäte. Im mazdaistischen System, dem wahrscheinlich die Idee entstammt, war es Mithras, der Mittler; in der Theosophie der Ägypter war es Thoth; im Pantheon der Griechen Hermes, der Sohn der Maya und der Bote der Götter; und auch die Juden hatten sich seit langem den Gedanken angeeignet, teils dadurch, dass sie die Gottheit als den Logos in menschlicher oder Engelsgestalt erscheinen ließen (z. B. Gen. XV), teils in der Gestalt einer Personifizierung der Sophia, der Weisheit, wie in den Büchern des Predigers und der Sprüche Salomonis und in den alttestamentlichen Apokryphen, teils in der späteren Form einer theoretischen Lehre vom Logos, wie sie uns auf platonischer Basis in den Schriften des alexandrinischen Juden Philo zu Beginn der christlichen Ära entgegentritt. Im vierten Evangelium ist diese Lehre in einer entwickelteren Form summarisch dem christlichen Kult eingefügt worden, obgleich die drei synoptischen Evangelien keine Spur da¬von haben. Der neue Mythus wurde, wie alle andern, willkommen geheißen. Sie trugen sämtlich in gleicher Weise dazu bei, dass eine Gottheit entstand, die den Vergleich und die Konkurrenz mit den Gottheiten der übrigen damaligen Kulte aushielt. Die Doktrin folgte dem gleichen Gesetz der Assimilation. Die Lehre Christi musste notwendigerweise alle Phasen des religiösen Denkens jener Zeit, wie widerspruchsvoll sie auch waren, widerspiegeln. Zuerst hatte Jesus die jüdische Hoffnung von einem Himmelreich zu verkündigen und dabei die Forderungen der Armen zu betonen; er musste das baldige Kommen des jüdischen Gerichtstags und sein eigenes Amt bei der großen Katastrophe hervorheben; andrerseits aber wiederum musste er das Himmelreich als eine geistige Wandlung des Menschen darstellen, und schließlich musste er die Weisheit des Denkers verkündigen, der alle Täuschungen des Volkes durchschaut und erkannt hat: »Das Himmelreich ist mitten unter euch« — oder es ist nirgends. In dem einen Evangelium schließt er die Samaritaner von seiner Sendung aus; in einem anderen stellt er einen Samaritaner als Vorbild der Nächstenliebe hin; in einem dritten geht er persönlich unter die Samaritaner. Er wird in seiner Lehre so vielseitig wie Apollo und Dionysos in ihren Funktionen. Sogar wenn man ihn gegenüber jüdischem Aberglauben den gesunden Grundsatz aufstellen lässt, dass Menschen, welche öffentlichen Unglücksfällen zum Opfer fallen, darum noch nicht schlimmere Sünder sind als andere Menschen, so fügt eine spätere Hand ein Anhängsel hinzu, das seinerseits wiederum trotzdem den bekämpften reinen Aberglauben von neuem bestätigt. Jede innerhalb der Grenzen der damaligen jüdischen und heidnischen Ideale mögliche Spielart ethischer Anschauung wird ihm abwechselnd beigelegt. Ein um das andere Mal ist er Partikularist und Universalist, ein bigotter Jude und ein Kosmopolit, ein Freund des Volkes und ein Verächter seiner Unwissenheit, ein Verkündiger der Feindesliebe und ein strenger Ankläger seiner Gegner. In einem Atemzuge verlangt er unbegrenztes Verzeihen und härteste Strafe gegen störrische Brüder, äußerste Erfüllung der Vorschriften des mosaischen Gesetzes und dessen Aufhebung. Abwechselnd verspricht und verneint er irdische Segnungen, bekennt er und verschweigt er den Glauben an sein Messiastum, bald befiehlt er seinen Hörern die Stille, bald die Öffentlichkeit, bald seinen Schülern blinden Glauben, bald schlichte Werke der Liebe, — er ist ein heterogenes Produkt, das hundert verschiedene betrügerische Hände geschaffen haben, ein Gemisch von Stimmen, wie es in einer Persönlichkeit niemals vorhanden war und vorhanden sein konnte. Durch seine übernatürlichen Werke sprechen zu uns die kämpfenden Sekten und Ideale von drei Jahrhunderten: Weisheit und Sinnenwahn, Milde und Härte reden abwechselnd in seinem Namen. Genau wie viele Geschlechter jüdischer Lehrer alle ihre wechselnden Ratschläge mit einem: »So spricht der Herr« eingeleitet hatten, genau so suchten ihre christlichen Nachfolger ihre Lieblingsdogmen, ihre strengen Vorurteile und ihre besseren Eingebungen mit dem Bilde und der Aufschrift des neuen Logos, des immer größer wachsenden Gottes einer sich wandelnden Welt zu decken. Das spätere Produkt ist daher ebenso unwirklich als das frühere. Es sind lediglich Vorurteile, die Folge eines Mythenglaubens, wenn ein solches Wachstum unwahrscheinlich oder unmöglich erscheint, oder wenn man glaubt, dass nur etwas über die Moralität Hinausgehendes die reiche Entfaltung des christlichen Systems erklären könnte. Dem, der den Strom der Geschichte nur in der weiten und bevölkerten Ebene schaut, wird es schwer zu verstehen, dass seine Quellen in winzigen Rinnsalen und zufälligen Wässerchen fern liegender Bergländer liegen. Aber trotzdem ist es Tatsache, dass es sich mit dem Ursprung der großen Ströme so verhält.

Quelle:  Geschichte des Christentums. Von John M. Robertson. Frankfurt a.M. 1910. Neuer Frankfurter Verlag G. m. b. H.

gesehen : http://www.philos-website.de/index_g.htm?autoren/robertson_john_g.htm~main2


Pagan Sun Worship and Catholicism

The Sunburst Image, the Queen of Heaven and Baal.

Here you see a ceiling decoration in the Sala delle Arti Liberali. It is the coat of arms for the Borgia Pope (Alexander VI, 1492-1503).

From the book Art Treasures of the Vatican © 1974 by Smeets Offset B.V. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

It consists of the 3-tiered Papal Tiara, and the keys to the kingdom, common symbols of Papal authority. The pagan sunburst predominates around the coat of arms as shown on the overview at right. Notice the animal on the left side of the shield? That is a golden bull, the heraldic animal of the Borgia family. It is more than just a little reminiscent of the golden calf the Israelites made at Sinai. Sunbursts and images of golden bulls. How much more pagan can you get?

The Apis bull, as depicted in this Egyptian statuette, is likely to be the pattern used for the golden calf the Israelites made at Mount Sinai (Exo. 32), since they were undoubtedly quite familiar with it as a result of their long captivity in Egypt. Note the sun disk on the head, and the serpent in front of the sun disk. In Scripture the serpent is symbolic of Satan. (Gen 3, Rev. 12:9) The British Museum
At left is the central scene of the „Coronation of the Virgin“, painted around 1444 by Filippo Lippi. Mary is being crowned as the Queen of Heaven, which is a title conferred on Mary by Catholicism. One document where this can be found is INEFFABILIS DEUS, the Apostolic Constitution Defining the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, of Pope Pius IX, December 8th, 1854. It closes with the following paragraph- (emphasis is mine)

Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear thee words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion, and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to the most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since She has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotton Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.

In 1954, Pope Pius XII officially declared Mary the Queen of Heaven. Here is the full text of his encyclical AD CAELI REGINAM.

There has been a complete substitution of Mary for Jesus, in the work of our salvation, and in whom we pray to in times of need. The impression is that Mary will listen, but God is cold and unapproachable. Mary will grant your wishes, when God might otherwise reject them, and God is bound by the will of Mary. Salvation is obtained from Mary and God will rubberstamp her decisions. There is a word for this, it is AntiChrist. (The word anti means in place of, or substitution, as well as against.)

Another place this can be found is in The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (LUMEN GENTIUM) by Pope Paul VI, November 21, 1964, paragraph 59- (emphasis is mine)

… Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin, on the completion of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen of the universe, that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and the conqueror of sin and death.

The last part of that sentence (that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son) can be rephrased as follows … that she might be more like her Son… As I said, this is plainly AntiChrist. This paragraph from LUMEN GENTIUM was most recently quoted and reaffirmed in the Vatican’s new Catechism, paragraph 966.

Here is the full text of LUMEN GENTIUM online at EWTN.

(NOTE: Official Roman Catholic Documents are usually published first in Latin, and then later translated to other languages. Some translations can vary slightly in their wording. Such is the case with paragraph 59 of LUMEN GENTIUM. The printed document I have and the version available online at EWTN are slightly different. One refers to Mary as Queen of the universe, the other says she is the Queen over all things.)

There is even a rite in the Catholic Church that involves crowning statues (idols) of Mary as the Queen of heaven. Once placed on a statue, the crown remains permanently.Here is the crowned statue of Mary in the Notre Dame du Cap, Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Quebec, Canada. Crowned in 1904 at the orders of Pope Pius X, it is the only statue of Mary to be crowned in all of Canada. The title of Queen of Heaven can also be found in scripture, but not in reference to Mary-
From the book „Miraculous Images of Our Lady“, by Joan Carroll Cruz -Copyright © 1993, TAN Books and Publishers, INC., Rockford, Illinois 61105.

Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Jer 44:17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. Jer 44:18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. Jer 44:19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?

The Queen of Heaven, if you check in most any commentary, is none other than Ishtar, Ashtoreth, or Astarte the very pagan goddess that Israel worshipped when they fell into apostasy and paganism-

Judg 2:13 And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.

In the apocryphal book of Baruch, which is considered to be inspired scripture by the Catholic Church, we find a very interesting description of the pagan practices of the Babylonians, who at the time held the Jews in captivity. The following quotation is from the Catholic Douay Rheims Bible:

Baruch 6:3 But now, you shall see in Babylon gods of gold, and of silver, and of stone, and of wood borne upon the shoulders, causing fear to the Gentiles. Baruch 6:4 Beware therefore that you imitate not the doings of others, and be afraid, and the fear of them should seize upon you. Baruch 6:5 But when you see the multitude behind, and before, adoring them, say you in your hearts: Thou oughtest to be adored, O Lord. Baruch 6:6 For my angel is with you: And I myself will demand an account of your souls. Baruch 6:7 For their tongue that is polished by the craftsman, and themselves laid over with gold and silver, are false things, and they cannot speak. Baruch 6:8 And as if it were for a maiden that loveth to go gay: so do they take gold and make them up. Baruch 6:9 Their gods have golden crowns upon their heads; whereof the priests secretly convey away from them gold, and silver, and bestow it on themselves.

So clearly it was the practice of the pagan Babylonians to crown the statues of their gods. This Pagan practice has also been adopted by the Roman Catholic Church.

Below you see John Paul II himself, bowing down and paying homage to crowned statues of Mary, the „Queen of Heaven“, in direct violation of the Commandments of God:

Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, …
From the „Be Not Afraid“ series of videos, Copyright ©1992, Apostolate for Family Consecration

Here is a better photo of John Paul II bowing down before a crowned statue of Mary in front of St. Peter’s Cathedral in an ACT OF CONSECRATION TO THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY.

Dan 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.This statue of Mary and the Christ child is in the Church of the Virgin of the Pillar, Zaragoza, Spain. The wooden 15 inch high statue stands on a six foot high jasper pillarcovered with gold, silver and bronze. Around the statue is a field of 148 stars, 80 of which are studded with jewels.
Images from the book „Miraculous Images of Our Lady“, by Joan Carroll Cruz -Copyright © 1993, TAN Books and Publishers, INC., Rockford, Illinois 61105.
On occasion this statue is also draped with a gold embroidered cape which is heavily studded with jewels, and a golden aureole is added around the jewel encrusted sunburst halo. La Virgen del Pilar NUESTRA SEÑORA DEL PILAR

Below on the left is a typical depiction of „The Blessed Virgin Mary“, the „Queen of Heaven“, with a quite sizeable sunburst behind her head and the children of Fatima kneeling at her feet. The sunburst has become quite pervasive in the various forms of Catholic religious imagery. The sunburst is also referred to as an aureole, nimbus, or halo, and is a very common device to designate divinity or holiness in various forms of religious art. A sun worshipping pagan entering a Catholic cathedral for the first time would immediately recognize his god, the sun, in virtually every painting or icon, and feel right at home.

Our Lady of Fatima The goddess Isis of Egypt, the sun disk above her head, with the infant Horus. The British Museum.
Above – coin of the pagan emperor Constantine I, inscribed on the reverse with SOLI INVICTO COMITI – Sol, Invincible Comrade (of Constantine ) with the sun god wearing a rayed solar crown, and one hand raised in blessing, the other hand holding a globe.

Catholics acknowledge the pagan origin of the aureole / nimbus / halo:

   Why is a halo put on the head of a statue of a Saint, and what is its symbolic meaning?    The halo, or circle, which is supposed to represent a ring of light, is symbolic of the light of grace bestowed by God. It may be regarded in art as the development of the aureole, the nimbus and the gloria.    The aureole is a cloud or glow of light in oval form surrounding the whole figure. The nimbus is a cloud or glow of light around the head. The gloria is light emanating from the body.    The halo or nimbus around the head of Christ is symbolic of His divinity.    The pagans used such devices before the Christian Era to signify power and majesty or prominence. Even in the Christian Era the symbols were used for famous personages, but Pope Urban III (1623- 1644) forbade the use of the nimbus for persons who are not at least beatified.

Source:  The Catholic Universe Bulletin, Official Newspaper of the Cleveland Diocese, August 14th, 1942, The Question Box.

In the plastic arts (painting and sculpture) the symbolism of the nimbus was early in use among the pagans who determined its form. In the monuments of Hellenic and Roman art, the heads of the gods, heroes, and other distinguished persons are often found with a disc-shaped halo, a circle of light, or a rayed-fillet. They are, therefore, associated especially with gods and creatures of light such as the Phoenix. The disc of light is likewise used in the Pompeian wall paintings to typify gods and demigods only, but later, in profane art it was extended to cherubs or even simple personifications, and is simply a reminder that the figures so depicted are not human. In the miniatures of the oldest Virgil manuscript all the great personages wear a nimbus. The custom of the Egyptian and Syrian kings of having themselves represented with a rayed crown to indicate the status of demigods, spread throughout the East and the West. In Rome the halo was first used only for deceased emperors as a sign of celestial bliss, but afterwards living rulers also were given the rayed crown, and after the third century, although not first by Constantine, the simple rayed nimbus. Under Constantine the rayed crown appears only in exceptional cases on the coin, and was first adopted emblematically by Julian the Apostate. Henceforth the nimbus appears without rays, as the emperors now wished themselves considered worthy of great honour, but no longer as divine beings. In early Christian art, the rayed nimbus as well as the rayless disc were adopted in accordance with tradition. The sun and the Phoenix received, as in pagan art, a wreath or a rayed crown, also the simple halo. The latter was reserved not only for emperors but for men of genius and personifications of all kinds, although both in ecclesiastical and profane art, this emblem was usually omitted in ideal figures. In other cases the influence of ancient art tradition must not be denied.

Source: The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition, online – Nimbus.

Here is a web page with a number of pictures of statues and paintings of Mary. Note that many contain a sunburst and portray Mary as the crowned „Queen of Heaven“:

The MaryTalk Picture Gallery

Note the following pictures that each contain pagan sun images.

Church of St. Catherine of Alexandria in Bethlehem. St. Catherine’s in Bethlehem (at night). The Cloister window in Bethlehem. Traditional birthplace of Jesus – Basilica of the Nativity, Bethlehem. Bethlehem homepage for the above links.

Golgatha, Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem. Homepage for the above link.

New sunburst dome for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Judg 2:13 And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.

Baal worship is sun worship, and Ashtoreth / Ishtar / Astarte is the queen of heaven. This is why there are so many sunburst images in Catholicism and why Mary is called the Queen of heaven. It is the apostasy of idol worship of Baal and Ashtaroth in the church – yet again.

It is as true today as it was then, just with different names.

Quelle: www.aloha.net

Who is Lucifer??

The following article i found in a religious forum. The autors name : gnosis. I like his approach to the topic, so i like to share hes view with you.

I’m not agree with him in two points: he says that in the Quran, Adam and Eva are in a heavenly abode, not on earth. From a quranic point of view however we can see, that the garden was on earth. Please read


Other point: I’m not agree with the autor’s conclusion, that Lucifer= Allah, because Allah in the Quran is mentioned as Light. The light as source and lucifer is the light-bearer. Lucifer means light-bearer, he is the one who brings the light to the people. The sender from the Light is Allah. Lucifer is a title – every messenger from Allah is a Lucifer. Satan (shaitan in Arabic) is not Lucifer. This is an important point. We found the name Lucifer only in the Bible. In the Quran it is not Lucifer who speaks with Adam and Eva – it is Satan. I changed this two points – so what you read is my point of view.

Definitions :

Lucifer – noun – Latin = „light bearer“                an-Nur – „The Light“ = One of the 99 names of Allah 

God = Allah = the one God

„Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His Light is a niche wherein is a lamp— the lamp is in a glass, the glass as it were a glittering star— lit from a blessed olive tree, neither eastern nor western, whose oil almost lights up, though fire should not touch it. Light upon light. Allah guides to His Light whomever He wishes. Allah draws parables for mankind, and Allah has knowledge of all things.“ – al-Qur’an 24:35

In symbology, light is always represented by divine presence, knowledge, and truth. Therefore, to bear or give light means to give knowledge and presence of the divine. Lucifer then is just that, the „knowledge bearer“. So is Lucifer a messenger, who brings the light from Allah.

Refuting The Christian View of Lucifer – Satan is not Lucifer

The Christian view of Lucifer as being an evil or fallen angel and even Satan himself is a gross corruption that has been propagated over the years due to people’s lack of understanding and the Christian leaders teaching misinformation. Lucifer is not evil nor Satan, or the Shaytan rather. Iblis is the Shaytan, as according to the Qur’an. Iblis is never called Lucifer (I know that Lucifer is Latin and the Qur’an is Arabic but there’s still not an equivalent given for Lucifer in Arabic) nor is Iblis an angel, let alone a fallen angel.

Meaning of Satan:

Satan (Shaytan) means „the opposer“. This concept goes back to Ancient Kemet (Egypt) to the divinity Set. Set was the divinity of opposition. While Set would be an opposer to Heru (Horus), in the Ancient Egyptian’s understanding he was not an evil deity. Set simply symbolized all opposing forces, which were necessary forces in the universe.
Satan is therefore
not a proper name but a title. It is a name given to one opposing you. When your enemies come to oppress you, they are opposing you; therefore they are Shaytans to you. You are opposing them by defending yourself, in their eyes you are a Shaytan. Every human can become a ‚Shaytan‘.

Our fraud governments are „Set“anic (Shaytanic) for the way they treat the masses and the planet. Iblis however is a specific Shaytan.

The story of Adam and Eve

The stories of Adam and Eve as told in the Qur’an and Bible are significantly different in their deeper meanings.

The biblical story

starts with Adam and Eve being placed on Earth and being told by the biblical god YHWH not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. YHWH claims that eating from the tree of KNOWLEDGE will cause Adam and Eve to die. The serpent however, tells Adam and Eve that they surely won’t die, but rather become like YHWH. When they do eat from the tree, they do not die but rather their eyes are opened. When YHWH finds out they ate from the tree, YHWH acts out in jealousy and becomes angry and curses his creation and even admits that Adam and Eve have become like him (Genesis 3:22-24). Adam and Eve then spend the rest of their lives outside the garden away from this tree. Notice how they did not die though when they ate the fruit like YHWH said they would. All of this also takes place in the physical realm, the garden here on earth.

What we learn from the Biblical version of the tale is:

  • YHWH lied to Adam and Eve and concealed the truth of the true nature of the tree of KNOWLEDGE, where the serpent told them the truth.
  • the serpent didn’t force Adam and Eve to eat from the tree, nor did he tempt them. He simply told them the true nature of the fruit and let them decide what to do.
  • The serpent gave Adam and Eve a CHOICE.
  • YHWH however used FEAR and DECEPTION to prevent Adam and Eve from eating from the tree and to submit to him blindly.
  • YHWH didn’t give them a choice, he wanted blind submission. When they didn’t blindly submit to him, he cursed them and prevented them from life.
    Now applying this story to real life, YHWH prevented Adam and Eve from KNOWLEDGE and kept them blind and ignorant.

So, can we say, that YHWH has characteristics from God (Allah)? God he grant knowledge to Adam, who stands for all human. God never want that the believers followed him blind and ignorant, no the opposite is fact: The real believer should learn and not accept anything wthout to prove it.

Who does opresse the people today? 

Sure not God – but : Does not „big brother“ keep the masses blind and ignorant while holding knowledge from them? And when certain ones gain knowledge and don’t submit to big brother, does he not then try to keep you away from life? Does not big brother use fear and lies to control the masses?

What was the role from the serpent?

The serpent however rebelled and gave the KNOWLEDGE to Adam and Eve. This is like someone today who rebels against this world system and informs the masses of the true nature and intent of their corrupt government. Of course to “big brother”, someone doing such a thing is an enemy. That is why the serpent is called Set-an. So the serpent is not called „Satan“ because it is evil or did anything wrong, but rather because it is an enemy to YHWH, in the sense that a truth speaker is an enemy or a „terrorist“ to today’s corrupt governments or „big brother“.
The Christians over time started to call the serpent „Lucifer“

Again however, Lucifer is not a proper name but a title, Lucifer meaning „light bearer“, He brought the light to Adam as a messenger. He is enlightet, has the ‚gnosis‘ or ‚knowledge‘ ,’wisdom‘ from Allah. The serpent is the one responsible for giving the „gnosis“ or knowledge to Adam and Eve.(remember, this only in the biblical tale) Therefore, he was their „light bearer“ or Lucifer. This is the reason Satan and Lucifer are always equated as being the same being, but again these are just titles. This is why in many cultures the serpent is not a symbol of anything evil at all, but rather a symbol of knowledge and wisdom. The Gnostics call the serpent Sophia, which means wisdom and is also feminine because the entire subject deals with the suppression of the divine feminine principle as well (I can go into detail about that later if you wish me to). Sophia was a revealer of gnosis who came from the true „god“, the great Mother-Father who is ultimately above simply being a god, which is ultimately Allah.

God does not keep man ignorant nor prevents man from knowledge, but rather sends knowledge to man as guidance:

“Certainly, We have brought to them a Book (the Quran) which We have explained in detail with knowledge, – a guidance and a mercy to a people who believe.” – al-Qur’an 7:52
“And in their footsteps, We sent ‚Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), confirming the Taurat (Torah) that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was GUIDANCE and LIGHT and confirmation of the Taurat (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqun (the pious)” – al-Qur’an 5:46
Now the Quranic version of the tale for clarity:

First Allah announces He is creating Adam. When He does create Adam, He creates Adam and give him ‚the Names from all things‘ (in the bible states ‚create him in His image‘) and tells all to prostrate to Adam. All do except for Iblis, who is jealous of Adam.

Remember who acted with jealousy in the biblical tale?

Adam is then placed in paradise where Allah tells Adam to avoid the tree of Life. Satan then appears to Adam and causes Adam to eat from the tree. In the Quranic version there is no serpent. Also there is no mention of the whisperers name, the Quran speaks with the title only: Satan (the opposer).

Satan whispers for the two- in the Quran we found that the two are guilty, not Eva – the two together listen to Satan and eat from the tree. Allah sees their mistake and sends them out of the garden.

Allah however is fully aware of what Adam has done but does not act in a vengeful way, but rather forgives Adam and clothes him.

The major differences:

  • the name of the tree. It is not the tree of KNOWLEDGE; it is the tree of LIFE (to be unmortal). Since we are dealing with the spiritual sense, Allah was not trying to keep Adam away from knowledge
  • The bible mention a serpent – in the Quranic story there is no serpent
  • The serpent brings no evil in the bible, it brings knowledge. In the Quran we found only Satan who lied and lies always, he is evil – because he said to Adam and Eva they will become immortal, when they eat from the tree.
  • Also, the way Allah reacted to what Adam had done is totally different. He does not get angry and vengeful, but forgives Adam. Allah had full knowledge and preordained that Adam would eat from the tree so Adam being sent out from this state of Peace and Freedom was not a punishment, not so in the Bible.
  • In the Quran we see that it was Allah’s plan from the beginning: He announced that he was creating Adam to be viceroy on Earth.
  • Allah then makes Adam aware that he would send him guidance.

    “(Allah) said: ‘Get you down, both of you, together, some of you are an enemy to some others. Then if there comes to you guidance from Me, then whoever follows My Guidance shall neither go astray, nor fall into distress and misery.’” – al-Qur’an 20:123

The serpent- Lucifer- we found only in the bible

Now back to the biblical story, the serpent who is called Sophia by the Gnostics would be a clear example of Allah’s light and guidance being sent down to mankind on Earth in order to help against the oppression of this man made system that keeps the masses ignorant and expects blind submission through fear and deception and in which man or more specifically “the State” is as „god“ (the Jewish concept of YHWH, whom the Gnostics called the demiurge or “false god”, known in the modern day as “big brother”).

To briefly explain the difference between the concept of YHWH and the concept of Allah, the concept of YHWH is one who plays a flawed „big brother“ figure while the concept of Allah is one who is in full control of everything good and/or evil, is loving and forgiving, and wants to give you the guidance and knowledge (or gnosis) to illuminate the light inside you. The Quranic version of the tale is the correct version of the story and the correct concept of the Most High, while the Biblical version is of a big brother being who its writers called YHWH who is ultimately a concepted entity like big brother who aides in the authors hidden agenda.

We must ask ourself: why and when became Lucifer a Synonym for Satan? And who want the people to believe that Lucifer = Satan = good ???

We found a lot of confusion. This to become frustrated and to turn off from God.

Jesus as all messengers is a Light-bearer:

“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, ‘I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.’” – John 8:12
Isa was not sent by YHWH but rather sent by the same One (Elohim) that had sent the serpent to Adam and Eve in the garden (in the biblical story).

Isa (pbuh) said himself that the one he called “Father” was not the same as the Jew’s god:
“I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father. ‘Abraham is our father,’ they answered. ‘If you were Abraham’s children,’ said Jesus, ‘then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.’ ‘We are not illegitimate children,’ they protested. ‘The only Father we have is God himself.’

Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
– John 8:38-47 (NIV)

Those verses makes it clear that Isa (pbuh) was not sent by the one whom the Jews worshipped called YHWH, who he called the devil, but was sent by the True God whom the Jews had not known.

Yeshua is not = Isa

Many believe that the name “Yeshua” is the Hebrew name and proper name is Isa (pbuh) that means “YHWH saves”, which would in turn mean Isa (pbuh) was sent by YHWH, but this is false.
Taken from http://www.answering-christianity.com/name_of_jesus.htm :

Interestingly, the word „Yeshua“ (meaning „safety“ in the Hebrew language), whom Christians attempt to proselytize their theories of a „man-god“ Jesus by saying this name of his meant „Salvation“, does not have a static definition of „Salvation“ but also means „Saved“.
Another problem is that the type of „safety“ which „yasha`“ refers to is in a very worldly sense, and mostly having to do with being saved from the hands of Israel’s worldly enemies. Every single usage of „yasha`“ in the Bible has to do with warfare and violence. There is not a single reference to deliverance from sin, or salvation of the ethereal soul. It only refers to salvation of the physical body and life.” Jesus spoke Aramaic. Thus, the New Testament would have to be dependent upon it. Much of the Old Testament was in Aramaic as well, and the earliest Christian societies throughout Arabia from Palestine, to Syria, to Nabataea spoke Aramaic. So what is Jesus‘ name in Aramaic?
„EESHO M’SHEEKHA“ meaning Jesus the Messiah.

– „Eesho M’sheekha“ in Syriac. Syriac is a late variant of Aramaic widespread in Christendom, thus coined „Christian Aramaic“.
– „Eesho M’sheekha“ in Aramaic, taken directly from the „Peshitta“. The „Peshitta“ is the Aramaic New Testament and closely resembles the language of Jesus.
Thus, Jesus would have even called himself „Eesho“ or more specifically „`Eesaa“ since the Northern Palestinian Jews pronounced the letter „shin“ as „seen“.
•The word „`EESA“ ( ) in the Qur’an comes from „`EESHO“ ( ) in Aramaic, a language which predates Hebrew by several hundred years and never had any etymological ties with the Hebrew derivative „YESHUA“ ( ) or even the word „E’SAU“ ( )
•Since the language Jesus (pbuh) spoke and taught was Aramaic, the Qur’an have accurately taken his name in Aramaic and not the Hebrew derivative, „YESHUA“ ( )
•The name „YASO’A“ ( ) for Jesus (pbuh) in the Arabic Bible is merely a transliteration of the Hebrew name „YESHUA“ ( ) and is therefore fallacious to claim that this is the correct Arabic name of Jesus (pbuh) since as originally said, Hebrew is not Jesus‘ native tongue. Therefore, the Noble Verses which clearly states that the Qur’an is in pure Arabic remains unchallenged.

I would recommend reading the entire article about Isa’s (pbuh) proper name here: http://www.answering-christianity.com/name_of_jesus.htm

Apocrypes speaks about the truth Isa

The Gnostics spoke the truth of the Prophet Isa (pbuh) and were his true followers and it was for this reason why the Catholic Church labeled them heretics and violently persecuted them and destroyed many of their scriptures and gospels, and replaced them with gospels that deceived the masses into believing that YHWH was the god of Isa (pbuh). The truth however can still be found in the four gospels today by reading them with a correct understanding rather than the indoctrinated teachings of the Christian/Catholic Church, along with reading the Gnostic gospels and scriptures that did survive (which can be found in the Gnostic Bible – http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Bible-Revised-Expanded/dp/1590306317/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1325953906&sr=8-2 )

I’m sure many of you are well aware of the corruption and falsehood of the Catholic Church, and that it was only established as a means of controlling the masses (hence the State being god, the Catholic Church being agents of YHWH and the disbelieving Jews), so it should be fairly easy to see the hidden agenda behind the Catholic Church labeling the Gnostics as heretics and establishing the worship of Prophet Isa (pbuh) as god, leading to shirk.

While the Christians/Catholics believe that Isa (pbuh) was crucified on the cross, both the Gnostics and Muslims and the Qur’an are in agreement that this did not happen.
“And because of their saying (in boast), ‘We killed Messiah ‚Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,’ – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‚Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. ‚Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ] But Allah raised him [‚Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise.” – al-Qur’an 4:157-158

In the Muslim view, Isa (pbuh) was a mortal man who was the living Word of Allah sent to mankind for guidance. This is equivalent to the Gnostics view of Isa (pbuh) being a mortal man who brought “gnosis” (knowledge / the Word of Allah) to mankind for guidance. Neither view alludes to Isa (pbuh) being sent to Earth as a human sacrifice to YHWH for the forgiveness of sins. To think that Allah would demand a human sacrifice for forgiveness is ludicrous to both the Muslim and the Gnostic.

In conclusion

Allah is the light and Lucifer is a title, not a proper name and means the bringer of light. So all the messengers are Lucifers, bringer of light and wisdom. Over time, those who serve YHWH (“big brother”, the State) changed the original names, meanings and understandings to deceive the masses in order to control them and have the masses submit to them, the State. They took what was truly good and demonized the good so that the masses would turn away from the good and believe what the State presents to them is truly good, when it is the State that produces that which is actually evil. They change the meanings of names and  changes the scriptures to confuse the people. They create Lucifer = Satan. Interestingly enough, the Gospel of Phillip (another Gnostic gospel) even reveals this truth:

“The rulers wanted to fool us, since they saw we were connected with the good. They took the names of the good and gave them to the not good so with names they could trick and rope us to the not good. As though doing us a favor, they took names from the not good and placed them on the good. They knew what they were doing. They wanted to grab those of us who were free and make us eternal slaves.”

All praise is due to Allah for keeping His promise to send mankind guidance to make clear the truth from the falsehood.

Unbeliebte Juden im Koran ??

Der folgende englische Artikel setzt sich mit dem Begriff Jude /Jew/ Semit etwas naeher auseinander und dessen Gebrauch im Koran. Vielfach wird naemlich von Muslimen behauptet, dass Gott alle Juden verdammt fuer ihre Fehler. Dies ist sicher nicht der Fall. Gott verurteilt nicht stellvertretend alle Menschen eines Volkes – diese Behauptung ist erstens voellig unsinnig und zweitens gegen die Gerechtigkeit Gottes, d.h. Eigentlich eine Verleumdung Gottes. Der erste Teil ist uebersetzt in Deutsch. Der zweite Teil habe ich in englisch belassen, da er viele Zitate aus dem Talmud enthaelt, die ich nicht entfremden wollte.


1. Wortverdrehungen sind gewollt um Verwirrung zu stiften

Jahudi / Jew / Semit

Gelehrte und „Bibelexperten“ sagen, dass der Name Jude nur fuer den Stamm Judah (Yahudah in Hebraeisch) verwendet wurde. So konnte Moses kein Jude gewesen sein, da er vom Stamme Levi stammte und so ein Levit war. (NUM 26:59).

Jene, welche vom Stamm der  Judah waren, waren bekannt als Yahuditen in Hebraeisch und Judahiten in Englisch, nicht Juden- und Yahuditen machten nur 1/12 der Nation Israels aus.
Das Wort Jude ist kein Hebraeisches Wort. Es gibt kein J in der Hebraeischen Sprache.In biblischer Zeit gab es gar keinen Buchstaben J.In Englisch meint das Wort Jew jene, welche eine Religion ‚Judaism‘ genannt, praktizieren. Genauso in Deutsch..

Weil die alten Hebraeer jedoch keine Religion praktizierten, welche sich Judentum nannte, kann sich der Name Jude nicht auf die biblischen oder koranischen Kinder Israels beziehen, oder ihre Nachkommen.

Das Wort „ISRAELI“ ist nirgends erwaehnt in den Schriften. Israeli bezieht sich nur auf die Buerger oder Einwohner des modernen „Staates“ Israel. Israeli meint nicht ein Nachkomme von Jakob, dessen Name (in einer unglaubwuerdigen Geschichte in AT) zu Israel geaendert wurde. (Genesis 32:28). Ein Israeli und ein Israelit sind zwei verschiedene Dinge.

Auch finden wir nirgends das Wort „SEMITE“ in der Bibel. Biblische Israeliten waren Hebraer, Nachkommen von Shem (Sohn Noahs) durch Abraham und durch seinen Sohn Isaak und dessen Sohn Jakob.

Israel (Jakob???) hatte 12 Soehne, die alle Hebraer waren.(Deuteronomy 29:13).

Weder Noah, Abraham, Isaak oder Jakob zeugten einen Nachkommen mit dem Namen Sem.  Das heisst, dass die Semiten keine Nachkommen von Abraham sein koennen, noch von Isaak oder Jakob.(Israel>>)Folglich koennen sie nach den Schriften auch keine Israeliten sein.
Gleichfalls gab es keinen Stamm der Kinder Israel mit dem Namen Sem oder Semit. Es gab nur 12 Staemme, welche hiessen:
Alle 12 Staemme waren hebraeische Israeliten- Hebraeer, da sie Nachkommen von Abraham und Isaak waren. Und Israeliten, weil sie Nachkommen des Jakob waren, dessen Name zu Israel wurde.  (Genesis 32:28). 

Ich frage mich jedoch, ob Jakobs Name tatsaechlich zu Israel geaendert wurde. Der Koran bestaetigt dies naemlich auf keine Weise….
Die Hebraer koennten Kinder des Shem genannt werden, da sie Nachkommen von Noahs Sohn Shem waren, aber nicht Semit, dies ist kein korrekter Ausdruck im Zusammenhang mit den Israeliten.
„Semit“ ist relativ neueren Ursprungs. Der Ausdruck stammt aus dem 18 Jahrhundert (zusammen mit dem Wort Jude). Eineseits um jene zu bezeichnen, welche eine bestimmte Sprache sprachen, so wie Syrisch, Hebraeisch, Arabisch. Dem Namen wurde spaeter eine spezielle und eigene Bedeutung gegeben, diejenigen Leute einzuschliessen, von welchen behauptet wurde, sie seien Nachkommen von Shem . (nicht SEM)

Mit den Jahren nun wurde die Bedeutung des Wortes Semite  zu Jude und nur Jude. So in der modernen Zeit wird das Wort Semite als Synonym von Jude verwendet!!!!!!

Wenn die Juden behaupten, Semiten zu sein, dann sind sie nicht Nachkommen von Abraham, Isaak und Israel (Jakob), das heisst, dann sind sie keine Israeliten.

Der Ausdruck Semit ist ein von Menschen (verleumderischen Menschen) eingefuehrter, erschaffener Ausdruck mit geringem Verstaendnis der Bibel und sollte niemals gebraucht werden, um die hebraeischen biblischen Israeliten zu bezeichnen.Es bringt nur mehr Verwirrung in die schon komplizierte Sache – Bemerkenswert in diesem Zusammenhang, dass YHWH niemals sich auf Israel (Jakob) bezieht als Jude, Israeli oder Semite.!!!!, so sollten wir dies auch nicht tun…
Quelle: http://www.hebrewisraelites.org/nationality.htm

Yahudah “Judah” war der Hebraeische Sohn von Isaak und Leah. Der Name Yahudah stammt aus dem Hebraeischen Yahdah und steht in strengem Zusammenhang mit Yadah, was preisen mit der herausragenden Hand bedeutet.

Es ist eine Kombination von zwei Worten Yah (der Name des himmlischen Vaters) und U (das Volk ) und dah (meint  zu zelebrieren, ausfuehren.) oder schlicht den Befehl  “ Du sollst preisen YAH”. (Vergleiche : HalleluYah)

Die Uebersetzer entfernten die Vorsilbe des Namens Yah und ersetzten ihn mit dem King James English ‚J‘, so machten sie Judah daraus.

Yahudah meint gepriesen seist Du Yah, jedoch , was meint Judah? Gepriesen sei J- wer ist J?

Anmerkung: Da Yahudah ein Eigenname ist , haette er in seiner puren Form beibehalten werden sollen, um die echte Bedeutung ablesen zu koennen. Die Aenderung des Namens passierte primaer aus religioesen Gruenden….
Den biblischen Gebrauch Jew verstehen Die Kinder Israels wurden nicht Jews genannt – nur das suedliche Konigreich Israels. Der einzige Stamm, der Jude genannt werden koennte ist der Stamm Yahuda. Weiter ist zu erwaehnen, dass die Nation in Nordisrael (Yahrushalayim) und das suedliche Yahudah „Judaea“ geteilt wurde:
1Ki 11:31-32 

And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith Yahwah, the Elohiym of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: (But he shall have one tribe for my servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:)

Wenn wir nun also den Ausdruck Jude/Jew fuer  die gesamte Nation von Israel benutzen, ist dies nicht korrekt und fehlerhaft, da dieser Begriff nur einen Stamm bezeichnet und alle anderen Staemme nicht einschliesst.

Die anderen Zehn Staemme gingen in Assyrische Gefangenschaft und kehrten nie zurueck, da sie gegen das Gesetz Yahwahs rebellierten. Siehe: Quelle: http://www.malakiyah.org/index_files/UnderstandingTheJews.htm

Ganz wichtig: Wenn der Koran von den Yahood als Feinde spricht, meint er jene von ihnen die unglaeubig waren und arrogant.

Mehr noch bezieht sich der Koran auf manche Elemente der priesterlichen Tradition der Pharisaer.
2.80 (Quran)

Und sie sprechen: «Das Feuer wird uns nicht berühren, es sei denn für eine geringe Zahl von Tagen.» Sprich: «Habt ihr ein Versprechen von Allah empfangen? Dann freilich wird Allah nimmer Sein Versprechen brechen. Oder sagt ihr von Allah, was ihr nicht wißt?»

And they say: „The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days:“ Say: „Have ye taken a promise from God, for He never breaks His promise? or is it that ye say of God what ye do not know?“ 

Diese Aussage ‚Das Feuer wird uns nicht beruehren ausser ein paar weniger Tage‘ findet sich nicht in der Torah, aber im Talmud.

Der Talmud ist die Sammlung der ‚muendlichen‘ Traditionen der Rabbiner, aufbauend auf den Traditionen der sogenannten Pharisaer, welche wir auch im Neuen Testament wiederfinden- die Gegner und Ableugner von Jesus des Messias.   Die Rabbinische Tradition erbluehte aus der Pharisaeischen Traditon nach der Zerstoerung des zweiten Tempels in 70 n.Chr.

Zusammenfassend gesagt, entfernte sie sich von den traditionellen juedischen Werten einer fruehen Zukunft Israels zu dem Konzept einer Belohnung des kommenden Lebens. Gehinom (Gehenna, Hoelle), gemaess rabbinister Literatur, soll ein Platz sein oder ein Status, wo die Schwachen temporaer bestraft werden sollen nach dem Tod. ‚Gehenna‘ wird manchmal mit Hoelle uebersetzt, aber die Christliche Sicht der Hoelle differiert von jener juedischer Sicht.

Die meisten Suender sollen in Gehenna nicht laenger als 12 Monate leiden. Jene, welche zu schwach seien, das Paradies zu erreichen sollen in manchen Schriften ewig bestraft werden. Andere Schriften streiten dies ab und sagen ,dass ein barmherziger Gott dies nicht tun werde und Gott diese Suender einfach ausloeschen werde.(siehe Annihilationismus)

Quelle: Gehenna – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Der Talmud

Wenn sich jemand fuer den Talmud interessiert und ihn lesen moechte, dann stellen sich ihm viele Huerden, die er nehmen muss. Es gibt praktisch keinerlei Literatur und der babylonische Talmud existiert v.a. in Hebraeisch.

Es gibt eine Uebersetzung in Englisch, die online gelesen oder heruntergeladen werden kann. Es fragt sich jedoch, ob dort nicht gewisse Stellen rausgekuerzt worden sind. Ein Leser, der den Talmud von einem Rabbi geschenkt bekam mit den Worten: „vielleicht verstehst Du nach der Lektuere, weshalb es keinen Frieden unter den Religionen geben kann,“ schrieb folgendes in einem Forum

 (Zitat)Etwas hat mich gewundert als ich den Talmund zu ende gelesen habe, was mich persöhnlich sehr gewundert hat

  1. Wie steht es im Talmud: „Nur die Juden sind Menschen, die Nichtjuden sind keine Menschen, sondern Tiere“ (Goyim = Menschenrinder, Einzahl „Goy“ Anmerk. d.Verf.) (Kerethoth 6b Seite 78, Jabmuth 61a)
    Ihr Israeliter werdet Menschen genannt, wogegen die Völker der Welt nicht den Namen „Menschen“ verdienen, sondern den von Tieren“ (Talmud von Babylon, Schrift Baba Mecia, Blatt 114, Spalte 2)
    „Die Kinder und Nachkommen von einem Fremden sind wie die Zucht von Tieren“ (Talmud von Babylon, Schrift Jabmuth, Blatt 94, Spalte 2)
    „Die Nichtjuden wurden geschaffen, damit sie den Juden als Sklaven dienen“ (Midrasch Talpioth 225)
    „Die Nichtjuden sind noch mehr zu meiden als kranke Schweine“ (Orach Chaiim 57, 6a)
    was nicht heißen soll das ich Israel oder das Judentum verachte, aber dies sind nun mal Texte aus einer angeblichen „Heiligen Schrift“ (Zitat Ende


2. Ein kurzer Blick in den Talmud und in den Koran :

(englisch, weil der Talmud nur in englisch eingesehen werden kann)


Sanhedrin 57a

A Jew neednot pay a gentile (‚cuthean;) the wages owed him for work. 


Quran condemned this:


Among the People of the Book are some who, if entrusted with a hoard of gold, will (readily) pay it back; others, who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it unless thou constantly stoodest demanding, because, they say, „there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans).“ but they tell a lie against God, and (well) they know it. 


Sanhedrin 106a

Says Jesus‘ mother was a whore: „She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters.“ Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the „uncensored“ text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, „Miriam the hairdresser,“ had sex with many men. 



That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge; 

The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or more specifically, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ’s lifetime, before being committed to writing. Mark chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen, represents Our Lord’s pointed condemnation of the Mishnah. 

Save only Jewish lives: 

The Talmud (i.e., the Babylonian Talmud) text of Sanhedrin 37a restricts the duty to save life to saving only Jewish lives. 

The book ‚Schindler’s list“ on Hebrew censorship, written by Jews themselves (Hesronot Ha-shas), notes that some Talmud texts use the universalist phrase:

„Whoever destroys the life of a single human being…it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human being …it is as if he had preserved an entire world.“ 

However, Hesronot Ha-shas points out that these are not the authentic words of the original Talmud. 

In other words, the preceding universalist rendering is not the authentic text of the Talmud and thus, for example, this universalist version which Steven Spielberg in his famous movie, Schindler’s List attributed to the Talmud (and which became the motto of the movie on posters and in advertisements), is a hoax and constitutes propaganda intended to give a humanistic gloss to a Talmud which is, in its essence, racist and chauvinist hate literature.

In the authentic, original Talmud text it states that

„whoever preserves a single soul of Israel, it is as if he had preserved an entire world“ (emphasis supplied).

The authentic Talmud text sanctions only the saving of Jewish lives. 

The Quran tells us about this and condemns this: 


On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land 


„According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.
„The more popular accounts–which were nevertheless taken quite seriously–such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name ‚Jesus‘ was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable and this popular tradition still persists… 

The Quran tells us:

That they said (in boast), „We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- 

None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian

The Talmud :
Rosh Hashanah 17a

Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.
Sanhedrin 90a

Those who read the New Testament („uncanonical books“) will have no portion in the world to come.
Shabbath 116a

Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament. 

The Quran :

And they say: „None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.“ Those are their (vain) desires. Say: „Produce your proof if ye are truthful.“Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to God and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. The Jews say: „The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: „The Jews have naught (To stand) upon.“ Yet they study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but God will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment.



“Non-Jewish property belongs to the Jew who uses it first” – (Babba Bathra 54b)   “If two Jews have deceived a Non-Jew, they have to split the profit” – (Choschen Ham 183,7)   “Every Jew is allowed to use lies and perjury to bring a Non-Jew to ruin” – (Babha Kama 113a)   “The Jew is allowed to practice usury on the Non-Jew” – (Talmud IV/2/70b)  

The Quran then says:  


For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from God’s Way;- 


That they took usury, though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men’s substance wrongfully;- we have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment. 

Note: The Torah forbids the Jews from the devouring of Usury („neshek“).See the Old Testament Ex. 22: 25;  Le. 25: 36-37; De. 23:19-20; Ne. 5: 7/10; Ps. 15: 5; Pr. 28:8  



Wir sehen, wie die verschiedenen Ausdruecke, mit denen wir tagtaeglich konfrontiert sind, absichtlich veraendert wurden, um unsere Gedanken in eine bestimmte Richtung zu lenken.

Viele Konzepte erscheinen klar, wenn wir den Koran zum Vergleich heranziehen. Ein sorgfaeltiges Studium ermoeglicht uns so, den Spreu vom Weizen zu trennen

Der Koran gebraucht extra verschiedene Ausdruecke wie Bani Israel oder Yahudi, um zwischen den Beiden zu unterscheiden.

Wir muessen uns auch immer wieder vor Augen halten, dass der Deen „Islam‘ , welcher im Koran erwaehnt ist, nicht demjenigen Islam entspricht, der heute gelebt wird, genausowenig, wie das Christentum oder das Judentum – Die heutigen Religionen sind allesamt Verfaelschungen und werden durchwegs benutzt , um Krieg zu entfachen.

Der Glaube des Korans jedoch ist individualistisch:


Die unter ihnen aber, die fest gegründet im Wissen sind, und die Gläubigen, die da an das glauben, was zu dir hinabgesandt ward und was vor dir hinabgesandt worden, und (vor allem) die, die das Gebet verrichten und die Zakat zahlen und an Allah glauben und an den Jüngsten Tag – ihnen allen werden Wir gewiß einen großen Lohn gewähren

But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what was revealed before thee: And (especially) those who establish regular prayer and practise regular charity and believe in God and in the Last Day: To them shall We soon give a great reward

Der Koran benutzt nicht einfach so den Ausdruck: ‚Unter Ihnen“:

Weil es unter ihnen Glaeubige gibt und Unglaeubige.