TAWHEED
by Bilal 'Ayyub McDaniel.
By far, the most important aspect of Islam, the aspect from which every other aspect ultimately is derived, the aspect from which all things emanate, is that of Tawheed. The word Tawheed comes from the w-h-d root in 'Arabic, which refers to Oneness. One of God's names listed in the Qur'an is al-Wahid, "the One", "the Unique". Tawheed thus means, the Oneness of God. God says in the Qur'an, Soorat-ul-Ikhlas (112), "Say: He, God, is One. God is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him." To further expound, "God is One. There is none besides God, and hence He is the only one on which it is possible to depend. There is none other to depend on, because He is the One and Only, the Originator of all Creation. He does not "beget", or create "outside" of Himself, or create a being which is not dependent on Him. He is not begotten, as He has always been and always will be the Only. Nothing can be like him, for he is All."
Truly, if Islam were to be summed up in one short statement, it would, without doubt, be, "La ilaha ila Allah". The most common translation is "There is no god but the God". It is of utmost importance to understand this sentence, which is so simple, and yet which has such a depth, and such a wealth of connotations for our daily lives. "La" means "No". It is worth noting that the shape of the word La in 'Arabic is identical to the Hebrew 'Ayn. There are signs in this. The concept of the 'Ayn Sof will be explained more in depth later, but the miracle is that while there is no linguistic relation between these two words, both express the same concept. 'Ayn Sof means "Boundlessness", "Nothingness", "Endlessness", also called the "Lo", a direct cognate of La, "the Not". It is interesting that the very concept of zero comes from contributions to mathematics from Indian Soofis, as the Oneness of God is indeed, in ways, like the concept of Zero. Zero is neither positively nor negatively existent, both of which imply limitations. But likewise, as all the infinite positive and negative possibilities emanate from Zero, all those things which "do exist" and "do not exist" ultimately emanate from God. "Ilah(a)" means a god, or perhaps more accurately, an independently existent "Being". "Ilah" is related to the Hebrew Eloh, which is pluralized out of respect as Elohim, and both forms are commonly found in the Hebrew scriptures. "Ila" means "Only", as God is indeed the Only. Allah is a combination of "al", the definitive in 'Arabic, and "ilah" as discussed above. The meaning of the term Allah is "the only possible independently existent One". The meaning of the sentence can be read "Not; independently existent One; Only the only possible independently existent One". God is the "la", the "ilaha", the "ila" AND the "Allah". Glory be to God! There are so many layers to these twelve letters.
The opposite of Tawheed is Shirk (literally, attributing of partners, or in this case, other independent beings, beside God), which is the greatest of sins and an extreme error in logic. God has explained, in an appeal to our logic, our 'aql, a gift which he has granted mankind, "If there had been in them any gods except God, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder; therefore glory be to God, the Lord of the dominion, above what they attribute (to Him)." (21:22) Indeed, if there were two, independently willed, independently existent beings, who were all-powerful, they would limit one anothers' power. They could not possibly, then, be "Gods" at all. The most obvious form of Shirk is idolatry, by which an object is worshipped as a sort of god, or as a representative of the form of god. Shirk can also be a conception of there being multiple independent beings. One of the most subtle forms of Shirk is that of Self-Shirk, by which one serves only one self, or thinks of one's self, one's nafs, as the highest thing to be served, or as an independent being. This is a mentality commonly found among religious people who claim monotheism, among open polytheists and especially among atheists. We should all guard ourselves from this threat, by remembrance of the Unity of God, and remembrance that only God is worthy of our worship, our slavery, our 'ibadat
Imam 'Ali explains the doctrine of Tawheed as follows, in the first khutbah of the Nahj-ul-Balaghah:
"The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute. Thus whoever attaches attributes to God recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him as two; and who regards Him as two recognises only parts of Him; and who recognises only parts of Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him points to Him; and who points to Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him accounts for Him.
Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence."
We find written in the Rig Veda, 1:164:46, "There is one Truth, though the Sages know It by many names." Likewise, the Qur'an says, "Say: Call upon God (Allah) or call upon, the Beneficent (ar-Rahman); whichever you call upon, He has the best names..." In Islam, we see that God has ninety-nine attributes, but these are all just words. These words all point to the same Thing, the Divine. If I say, the Just, and I say, the Merciful, am I speaking of two gods? No. All these ninety-nine attributes point to the same Truth.
While we may perceive these attributes differently, they are actually the same. These words are like fingers, pointing toward the moon. The letters or the sounds are NOT God. The finger is NOT the moon. If several fingers are pointing to the same moon, these are not different moons. Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq said, "He is the Lord. He is the One Who is worshipped and He is Allah. When I say Allah, it does not mean establishing the proof for these letters (of the alphabet) like Alif, Lam, Ha (as in Allah), Ra or Ba (as in Rabb, Lord) but I intend thereby the meaning of a Thing and a Thing that is the Creator of all things and the Designer of all things. These letters only refer to the meaning that is called Allah, ar-Rahman (the Beneficent), al-Raheem (the Merciful), al-'Azeez (the Majestic) etc., of the other such names and He is the One Who is worshipped, the Majestic, the Glorious One." (Usool-ul-Kafi 220:2:6) Likewise, God has millions of names, in millions of languages, but there is only one God. "God" is an English word with Germanic roots similar to "Good", as God is "the Good One". (17.110) In the Atharva Veda, 13:5:20, "He is One and One forever remaineth alone; Believe it. There is no second in God." Despite these clear references to monotheism in the Hindu scriptures, unfortunately, most Hindus have taken the attributes of God, and given them different personalities. "Vishnu" means "the all-Pervading one". Brahma means, "the Risen", or "the High", or "the Eminent One". Shiva means, "the Kind", or "the Friendly", or "the Auspicious". There is no problem with these names. They all apply to God. But they all apply to One God. They are not different personalities, as most Hindus have taken them to be.
Nor does God have human attributes or anthropomorphic shape (or indeed "shape" at all), as he has been portrayed as having in Hindu idols. This is a grave error, and grave sin. It limits God to a physical body, and limits God to a time and place, when time and space are but creations of God. As Imam 'Ali explained in the above passage from Nahj-ul-Balaghah, God is all pervasive, and physical separation from (or physical nearness to) God is not possible. To return also to Soorat-ul-Ikhlas, "...none is like Him."
While most Christians claim that Jesus is a "part" of God, this is also an obvious problem, as he denies these very things in their own scriptures. Matthew 19:16-17, "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.", and in John 14:28, he says, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." In John, 13:16, he says "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." And in Matthew 15:8-9, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." If one does worship Jesus Christ, know that he would most definitely not approve; In John 8:50, Jesus (a) says, "And I seek not mine own glory: there is One that seeketh and judgeth."
The term "Son of God", even Jesus did say it, though there is only one case in the Gospels in which he acknowledges such, has to be understood from a Hebrew background. References to sons of God are mentioned many many times in the Old Testament. In Job 1:6, the angels are called the sons of God, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them." Similar uses are found in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4. Even in the New Testament, at the end of Jesus' geneology, in Luke 3:38, the text says, "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Consider the Qur'an's assertion in 3:59, that "Surely the likeness of Jesus is with God as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was." Remember that 'Arabic is a much more literal language than Hebrew, and the Qur'an's denial of God having a son is not inconsistent with the Biblical metaphors which refer to those closest to God as his children. The Qur'an even denies that relationship with one's adopted father, in 33:4: "...nor has He made those whom you assert to be your sons your real sons. These are (but) the words of your mouths..." In Hebrew, however, father can also refer to the chief of a tribe, one's master, or military superior, as well as an adopted father: To speak of God as our Father is only a metaphor to express that God is our Chief, our Master, our General, and He who cares for and protects us.
We also find a clear contradiction to ideas about the Trinity in the Hebrew Bible. For example, Numbers 23:19 says, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the Son of Man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it?" Isaiah 43:10-11 says, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour." The Torah contains the equivalent of "la ilaha ila Allah", in the following form: "Shema (Hear) Yisra'el (Israel) YHWH (a name of God) Elohenu (your god/ilah) YHWH echad (one)", "Hear, Israel! YHWH your god YHWH is ONE!". Jesus rightly says that this is the most important commandment.
In truth, we find that Tawheed is a universal and obvious truth, and that attempts to deny it do not hold up to the scrutiny of reason and logic. Islam, as a religion of truth, challenges us all to use our reason to seek out truth, not just to follow the ways of our fathers. We find that God does not require of us that we follow the religion we were born into, nor that we pick at random a religion, and follow it out of "blind faith" (which is actually not faith at all). We have been given the ability to find out the Truth with our Reason, as did the Prophet Abraham:
"And when Ibrahim said to his sire, Azar: Do you take idols for gods? Surely I see you and your people in manifest error. And thus did We show Ibrahim the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and that he might be of those who are sure. So when the night over-shadowed him, he saw a star; said he: Is this my Lord? So when it set, he said: I do not love the setting ones. Then when he saw the moon rising, he said: Is this my Lord? So when it set, he said: If my Lord had not guided me I should certainly be of the erring people. Then when he saw the sun rising, he said: Is this my Lord? Is this the greatest? So when it set, he said: O my people! surely I am clear of what you set up (with God). Surely I have turned myself, being upright, wholly to Him Who originated the heavens and the earth, and I am not of the polytheists." (6:74-79)
As Jesus says in Matthew 7:7-8, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

Christ and Christianity
by Bilal 'Ayyub McDaniel.

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.
On the subject of Jesus (a), Christianity, and Tawheed (monotheism), the Qur'an says:
4:171. O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one God. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
2:116. They say: "(Allah) hath begotten a son": Glory be to Him.-- Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him.
5:19. In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all -- everyone that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."
5:75. They do blaspheme who say: "(Allah) is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah, -- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.
112:1-4. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.
This is an essay written to completely disprove the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the claim that Jesus (a) is God, or in any way divine. Of course the Christian response is "I don't believe in the Qur'an; How is this relevant to me?" This is why most of the sources I'll use in this essay are Biblical, especially from the New Testament. First, however, I'd like to clear up the Islamic position on the Injeel (Arabic for Gospel). The Qur'an says, in 5:49, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Injeel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah." Many (Muslims and non-Muslims) assume that the New Testament, a collection, mostly of letters, which Christians today claim as a part of the Bible, is a corrupted version of the Injeel, in the same way that the Ezra Torah held by the Jews today is a corrupted version of the original Torah. This is contrary to evidence and reason. Actually, none of the books of the New Testament, not even the four that are dubbed Gospels (Evangelion in Greek, meaning, the Good News, probably the origin of the term "Injeel"), claim to be a book sent down from God to Jesus (a), and all were written decades after his ascension. Rather, they claim to be the writings of other people relating the deeds and sayings of Jesus (a); This is much more comparable to the Islamic ahadith, the deeds and sayings of the final Prophet, Muhammad (s) and his Ahlul Bayt (a). This is true also of most, if not all, of the other, non-canonical "Gospels"; None claim to be directly revealed by God, and/or written or dictated by Jesus (a) himself, as is the case of the Torah by Moses (a), the Psalms by David (a), and the Qur'an by Rasulullah (s).
The true Injeel is apparantly lost to us today, but the properties that it would have, unfulfilled by any of the "New Testament" books, are most importantly as follows: Firstly, it would have been in Aramaic, a language similar to 'Arabic, and which was spoken by Jesus (a) and all his original followers. This is evidenced by al-Qur'an 14:4, which says, "We sent not an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his people, in order to make (things) clear to them." Secondly, it would have been directly revealed by God to Jesus (a), and thirdly, its original message would have been consistent with the pure monotheism of the religion of Abraham (a). Some Muslims claim that the "Gospel of Barnabas" is the Injeel, but even it does not fulfil the first two criteria, only the third. However, in the Christian "Gospels", portions of the Injeel may still exist, as quotes from Jesus (a), similar to how ahadith qudsi are recorded in our own ahadith. Evidence exists that the Four New Testament books called Gospels by Christians are not "THE Gospel" most definitely exist even within their own texts. Mark 1:14-15 says, "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Gospel." Mark 16:15 says, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." What was the Gospel at this time? Was Jesus (a) telling people to believe in books that had not yet been written, or was he telling them to believe what was already being or had already been revealed to him by that time, in the same way that Moses (a) had enjoined on people to follow the Torah and in the same way that Muhammad (s) would later enjoin on people to follow the Qur'an?
Also, while the common claim is that these were written by Jesus' (a) true followers, let's take a closer look. The strongest evidence that any of the writers of the four Gospels met Jesus (AS) undoubtedly goes to the Gospel of Matthew. However, this begs the question of why he borrows so much of his exact wording from the Gospel of Mark. Another curiosity is that for all the early references to a "Hebrew" (probably Aramaic) Gospel of Matthew, variously called the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Ebionites, and the Gospel of the Nazoreans, translated quotes of which exist in critical works (the quotes themselves quite different from those of the Greek), the only version we have is the Greek. My own theory regarding this is that the original version of the Gospel may have been authentically written by the disciple Matthew Levi in Aramaic, and in translation edited to fit a more Greek worldview. All Christian scholars agree that Mark was written by someone who never met Christ (a), a disciple of Paul of Hebrew background, mentioned in the Book of Acts as John Mark. Christian scholars also agree that Luke, writer of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, was a Graeco-Syrian doctor from Antioch, a Gentile disciple of Paul who is even less likely to have met Jesus (a) than Mark is.
The Gospel most easily theologically misunderstood, usually even admittedly in the writer's words and not the words of Christ (a), is the Gospel of John, the latest written Gospel, and perhaps the least likely to have been written by someone who was acquainted with Jesus (a), despite the author's claims to the contrary (and by the way, he never identifies himself with John in that Gospel, but anonymously only as "the disciple whom Jesus loved"). Even conservative biblical scholars at earliest place this book written at 65 years after Jesus' (a) ascension. So this means that the author, if he'd met Jesus (a), would have been about 85 at the time he wrote it, which back then, taking average lifespans into account, would be something like living to be 110 or older today; Possible, but very unlikely. This also definitely suggests that as time went on, Christians began to view Jesus (a) as closer and closer to divinity, until the Council of Nicea finally declared him one-third of God.
Even in their four canonical "Gospels", Jesus Christ (a) himself never claims to be God, or in any way divine. Infact, he refutes this in Matthew 19:16-17, "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.", and in John 14:28, he says, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." In John, 13:16, he says "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." And in Matthew 15:8-9, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." If one does worship Christ (a), know that he would most definitely not approve; In John 8:50, Jesus (a) says, "And I seek not mine own glory: there is One that seeketh and judgeth."
While Christians would have you believe that for Jesus (a) to be the Son of God would make him God, or that the term "Son of God" refers to some sort of biological relationship, our reason alone can discount this possibility. One cannot be one's own son, for one. Secondly, no Christian believes that Jesus (a) is the literal "Son of God", or else, God forbid, that would mean that God had performed sexual intercourse with Mary (a)! This is what it means to be a literal biological father. But the Christian texts and the Qur'an all make clear that Mary (a) was a virgin, so such a horrible thought would be out of the question, even if one had a twisted enough theology to attribute such things to God Almighty!
The term "Son of God", even Christ (a) did say it, though there is only one case in the Gospels in which he acknowledges such, has to be understood from a Hebrew background. References to sons of God are mentioned many many times in the Old Testament. In Job 1:6, the angels are called the sons of God, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them." A similar use is found in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4. Even in the New Testament, at the end of Jesus' (a) geneology, in Luke 3:38, the text says, "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Consider the Qur'an's assertion in 3:59, that "59. The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was." Remember that 'Arabic is a much more literal language than Hebrew, and the Qur'an's denial of God having a son is not inconsistent with the Biblical metaphors which refer to those closest to God as his children. The Qur'an even denies that relationship with one's adopted father, in 33:4: "...nor has He made your adopted sons your sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths...." In Hebrew, however, father can also refer to the chief of a tribe, one's master, or military superior, as well as an adopted father: To speak of God as our Father is only a metaphor to express that God is our Chief, our Master, our General, and He who cares for and protects us.
This assertion can be supported in the following verses: In John 20:17, the author writes, "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and YOUR Father; and to my God, and your God." When he refers to God as 'Father', that does not imply that he is divine. I'm sure some of you are familiar with the Lord's prayer; How does it begin? "OUR Father, who art in Heaven..." (Matthew 6:9), not "MY Father, who art in Heaven". Matthew 5:9 says, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." This implies that God takes a fatherly role for all those who submit to him, that he was not the "only begotten son of God", he was one child of God among many. If this weren't clear enough, even the author of the first epistle of John admits, in 1:12, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" In the Gospel of John, 3:16, the term "only begotten Son of God", which is ascribed to the author, as commentary, and not to Jesus (a), is a mistranslation of the Greek, which only says "unique Son of God", with "only begotten" found nowhere in the Greek text of the book. The Bible never actually refers to Jesus (a) as begotten by God, and as such is consistent with Allah's clear statement in Surah al-Ikhlaas that God "begets not nor is begotten".
Christians are likely to point out that Jesus (a) says in the New Testament, "I and the father are one" (John 10:30). However, when one has biblical context, one knows that in John 17:22-23, he also says, "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be ONE, even as we are ONE: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in ONE; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." Indeed, if Jesus (a) is divine, one must ascribe equal divinity to all of his followers, but no major Christian denomination on earth believes such an idea. And in John 20:27-28, another misinterpreted verse is "Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God!" It is, quite simply, misunderstood. Thomas is not calling Jesus (a) his "Lord and God"; Rather, Thomas has made an exclamation, out of shock. Exclamations like this were common in Semetic languages, just as they are in English today. If I said, "Oh God" or "Ya Allah" to my friend out of surprise, would I also be declaring his divinity?
What Jesus (a) does call himself, constantly, is the Son of Man (in Hebrew, Ben Adam, literally the son of Adam). The Torah itself says in Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it?" Psalms 146:3 says, "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help." On the subject of a savior, Isaiah 43:10-11 says, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."
I would think that, if Jesus (a) believed himself divine, he would have said more explicitly that he was; After all, God forbid, but, if God were to come to earth as a human being and be painfully executed, I would think he'd do his best to get his message across. One of the earliest written books in the New Testament, the Epistle of James (the brother of Jesus (a)), actually never says anything even remotely related to Jesus (a) being divine, and confirms Islamic doctrine to a shocking degree.
In conclusion, I urge Muslims to use the former information to encourage those who truly love Jesus (a) to follow the religion of Jesus (a), not to follow the religion which worships Jesus (a), a thing he would assuredly despise, as we all know. What is Christianity really? If a Christian is someone who follows Christ (a), a monotheist like himself, a true Submitter, then who is a Christian? Are those who claim to be Christians, as a whole, fulfilling this role? I submit, rather that the people who follow Christ (a) are those who follow the one God and believe in his Prophets, among whom Christ (a) was one. I encourage any Christian who reads this humble attempt at exposing the truth to submit to the one God, and follow the revelation of the final Prophet and Messenger, Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abdul Muttalib (s). Islam is the purely monotheistic religion of Abraham (a) and his two sons, of Moses (a), and Jesus Christ (a). I close with two quotes from the Qur'an:
3:50-52. "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me. It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight." When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah." Said the disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims (Submitters)."
5:119-120. And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things."
Allahumma sali ala Muhammad wa ali Muhammad wa ajjal farajahum.

... In Hebrew is "Mawet le'Midinat Yisrael". The w becomes v in an Ashkenazi dialect. Simply "Death to Israel" (which is a bit less clear in meaning) is "Mawet le'Yisrael", as compared with the 'Arabic "al-Mawt li Isra'eel". Anyway, a neat phrase to know, and the similarities between the two languages never cease to amaze me.

Current Mood: tired