Not Judaism. Not Christianity. Not Islam. Not Buddhism.
By Anwar Goins (e-mail: anwargoi@sas.upenn.edu)

God is #1. If you have been a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim You are at no fault if you have been a true seeker of God. You should have taken your scripts for what you have been able to honestly discern that they are and following what you have LOGICALLY SEEN that God has sent. So, I urge you to read the Qur'an, and I appeal to your sense of justice, logic, intelligence and honesty as it does, to let it come to guide you from the bindings of your sects unto His guidance, to His pleasure.

The Christians/Nazarenes:

A major fault that I have found with Christian Scripture, and which I'm sure the honest Christian has found is that most of it doesn't even say that it is from God. And unfortunately the scriptures that do give too much contradictory evidence for me to agree with them. Morevover, Christians have many gospels that they preach as The Gospel. However, many Christians follow every other gospel except the one they should be following, that of Jesus(God bless him), the Anointed, even as recorded in their very Scriptures! Christians take other than Jesus as their teachers but according to the book called Matthew, Jesus commanded his followers:

[Mat 23:8- 10] But you are not to be called 'rabbi', for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Anointed.

Rabbi: Teacher, Superior/Lord, or Superior teacher. Master: Teacher, Superior/Lord, Superior teacher. So Jesus was saying according to this book called Mathew that his disciples & followers were not to be called, and therefore taken as,'Masters' or rather 'Teachers' but brethren, and that they had only One teacher. And using this same gospel it can be concluded upon who this teacher is.

[Mat 22:16.14] And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodi-ans, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men.

Mat 26:17-18] Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the passover?" He said, "Go into the city to a certain one, and say to him, `The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at your house with my disciples."

It is obvious, since Jesus did not repremand them for calling him teacher, he was alluding to himself when he spoke of the one teacher. Even with this evidence, double check me, I don't expect you to be content with just my word but I do expect for you to believe me once you have seen it confirmed on your own. Moreover, you might wonder what I have to say about Jesus being taken as a lord, a superior a master. Well, whoever you follow under is your lord, superior or master. But when you take your lord, superior or master in disregard to God, this is where the wrong is incurred. Christians, have you taken your doctrines, and thereby your church fathers, pastors and priests or the authors of the gospels you possess as lords in disregard to God? They tell you that Jesus is God, that Jesus is THE lord, is that what you know Jesus, your one teacher and human lord, told you? I say human because logic would say that he hadn't exlcuded God from lorship, and as Jesus is recorded to have said in Matthew 7:21, "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

In addition it is obvious from Main stream Canonical Christian Scripture that the Spirit is not God, because God sends it, nor is he Jesus because he witnesses it, and that Jesus is not God because he prays to God, says that God is greater than Him and questioned those who called him good saying, 'Why do you call me good only the Father is good.' Read, study, and you will see.

[Mat 4:1.8] Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

[Mat 3:16.23] And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him;

[Mark 1:10.18] And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove;

[Mat 12:32.20] And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. ( I don't think I have to explain who the son of man is, however if the Holy Spirit here is meant for God then it is obvious who Jesus, the Anointed, is not.)

[John 3:34.4] For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit

To get to the bulk of this, Chrisitans, you have many factions and books which find a place in some your canons, not in others, and some have been stricken out of any canon by the command of your "divine" religious clergy. Find out if there is any place in the Bible where it is called 'The Bible'? Is there any place in the Bible that says 'The Bible' is inspired by God? If not then why do you take the Bible as one book, all inspired from God, and anything outside of it as not. Take a look into knowledge of the history of how we came to recieve the Bible:

'The process of canonization was relatively long and remarkably flexible and detached; various books in use were recognized as inspired, but the Church Fathers noted, without embarrassment or criticism, how some held certain books to be canonical and others did not. Emerging Christianity assumed that through the Spirit the selection of canonical books was "certain" enough for the needs of the church.' Encyclopedia Brittanica

Look, there was discrepancy on what was held as Canonical(God's word), yet no serious argumentation at this time. Note, this is during the time when there was no such thing as 'The Bible', all the books of the Bible were completely separate from each other and there were more Christian Scriptures out there than what we have now in the Bible, there still is, now they're called the Apocrypha.

'As far as the New Testament is concerned, there could be no Bible without a church that created it; yet conversely, having been nurtured by the content of the writings themselves, the church selected the canon. The concept of inspiration was not decisive in the matter of demarcation because the church understood itself as having access to inspiration through the guidance of the Spirit. Indeed, until c. AD 150, Christians could produce writings either anonymously or pseudonymously--i.e., using the name of some acknowledged important biblical or apostolic figure. The practice was not believed to be either a trick or fraud. Apart from letters in which the person of the writer was clearly attested--as in those of Paul, which have distinctive historical, theological, and stylistic traits peculiar to Paul--the other writings placed their emphases on the message or revelation conveyed, and the author was considered to be only an instrument or witness to the Holy Spirit or the Lord. When the message was committed to writing, the instrument was considered irrelevant, because the true author was believed to be the Spirit.' Encyclopedia Brittannica

You can see that the Church picked and chose what it thought was divine for itself, on its own. They even falsely attributed authors to many of the books, some whose usages have fallen out of use but others whose usages still remain. Mark, Luke, Matthew, John are all anonymous writings. Did you ever see within these gospels by whom they were authored? The professions of authorship aren't there. Moreover, what if I lived during that time and wrote a book connecting it to an apostolic figure, would it be divine? I know it wouldn't be but how could you in this day and age tell, if you were raised on the Church telling you that it is? By reading it and taking it for what it says. By forgetting what someone has told you and studying them, unbiasedly, and on your own. I think it can be seen now that the Bible's books must be taken as separate books, they in essence have nothing to do with each other except for the Church's putting them together and proclaiming them as God's word. If you take the Bible for what it truly is and what it says then the truth will become obvious.

In conclusion, in addition to the Canon of the Roman branches of Christianity and there progeny(Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopalian, etc.) there are different Canons and other sects of Christians. Some follow this, some follow that, some try to follow everything and others pick and choose as they like. Those Christians who claim Jesus or the Spirit to be God deny God because God is clearly not Jesus nor the Spirit but he is the Father. Those Christians who proclaim the Trinity deny God for if at any time they claim Jesus or the Spirit to be God they are saying that the Father is not. This, because only he who is the Father is God. Those of you who do this, Christians, in fact claim 3 gods of equal power electing Jesus and the Spirit as gods besides and in disregard to the one who should be your one and only god, God, the Father. Christians, stay true to the Lord God and to him who was sent by Him:

[Mat 23:8.13] But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.

[Mat 7:21.24] "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father, who is in heaven.

Jesus is not God nor did he come as God incarnate:

[John 5:37.3] And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen;

[John 5:30] "I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.

As it concerns the Holy Spirit, this is different from the Spirit. In the prayerful encantation of the Christian Church Christians , should be cut a break with the phrases 'In the name of the Father' and 'the Holy Spirit' Because number one, it is obvious that 'the Spirit' is different than God and that if God is being referred to when the phrase 'the holy spirit' is used then it is not alluding to 'the spirit'. Moreover, as it concerns its many places in the Bible and its possible use in Greek , Hebrew and Aramaic, (the last being the most preferable) 'the holy spirit' could also stand for 'holy spirit' or 'spirit of holiness'. Yes, some may say 'Whatever!' but it is indeed a possiblity that it means this abstract concept in certain places and a specific 'holy spirit' in others. Since God is called a spirit,

[John 4:24.1] God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

It is natural that 'the holy spirit' in a context such as Matt. 12:32 is clearly being related to God. However, in other places where context does not rule out this reading it would not be wise to cancel it out based on personal beliefs but based on the most reliable available texts when it comes to the New Testament, Jesus the Christ's words (most likely, through the Aramaic Bible(the Peshita(not the Peshitto) ). But as it concerns praying in the name of 'the Son' being the Anointed,-follow the best that you have. But when you come to know better, follow what is better. (note: following all possible English meanings of the English it also can mean "Pray concerning the reputation of the Son.")

Moreover, for God's sake and Jesus' sake please stop believing that he is the literal 'son of God'. And don't let yourself be duped by word play, thinking that 'the son of God' is not the same thing as 'God's son' , which many have been called in the Bible's books (Go to Bible Browser under "Let's Study the Bible" and enter 'God' and 'children/son/sons' and see what you get). Know that this is just an expression. So, stop loving Jesus with all your heart, your soul and mind and do, as best as you have and can distinguish, what Jesus told you:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment." [Mat 22:37-38]

Now you can ascertain and know what the Bible truly is, Christians, follow as best you can the way that Jesus, the Anointed preached, and follow the most reliable sources you can..If you can accept all this then I invite you to come to The Reading, the Quran, and continue your search to follow Prophet Jesus the Anointed, following God through those he has sent. The Qur'an guides, you as Christians, from the doctrine of Christianity's sects, not into more sectariansim and not into Islam, but unto God and his guidance for you as those who have tried to follow God, through logic, intelligence, discernment and what you have inherited of the sayings of Jesus, the Anointed(God bless him), who the Qur'an proclaims was indeed sent by God. Read it and see.

The Jews:

Jews, you have your Torah or Teachings, including the Pentatauch(5 books of Moses), your Talmud(Rabbinic Exiges) and other oral traditions, claiming them to be originally from Moses(God bless him) and following all this as if it were God's law when the only recorded revelation sent directly from God to Moses were The Tablets of the Moses. Your scriptures are much like those of the Islamic hadeeth, in the case of authenticity. In addition to this, you also are full of factions, some discluding the Talmud from adherance, others trying to follow both and others picking and choosing as they like. People of the Jewish faith, if you truly want to follow Moses, then come to the Reading, the Quran, and stay true to what you can distinguish, to the best of your possiblity, as being from God and stick to it. You have seen the faults of your teachings and you know what they truly are. As you read the Qur'an you will see it is about setting the record straight and putting forth the true religion preached by Moses, not religious competition, or occultism. If you are worried about losing your status as God's only chosen people then I'm sorry for your delusion. God did choose and God did favour you. And he has favoured others before you and besides you, just look around. The Qur'an says

"The best of creation, are those who would believe in God and the finality, and do what is right." Also it says in chapt. 49:13 " Ya ayyuha annasu inna khalaqnaakum min dhakarin wa-untha waja&alnaakum shu&ooban waqaba-ila lita&aarafoo inna akramakum &indallaahi atqaakum innallaha &aleemun khabeerun" that is "All humanity, we have created all of you from some male along with a female. Moreover, we have made you as peoples and tribes so that you may get to know and honor each other. Certainly, the noblest of you in God's view is the most prudent. God is truly discerning, aware."

It doesn't say that the best or noblest of creation are the Jews. Is this not more logical? Is this not more just? We are all his creation and it is only fair that we all have an equal shot at being God's chosen. The Qur'an has particular guidance for you, as people of Jewish faith and ancestry. It guides you to God and to what he truly wants from you.

The Muslims:

People of Islamic faith you have the Ahadith (collection of supossed narratives of the prophet Muhammad, God bless him), your books on Islamic law and Jurisprudence and many factions. You profess to follow the Quran but uphold doctrines contrary to it. You profess to teach the Reading/Quran but there are many Muslims who recite the Reading/Quran and don't know a word of what it means. You have a book from God which so far cannot be proven false, however they continue to make jurisdictions, rulings and propoganda based on non-Quranic and un-Quranic sources, words of men who wrote and write books based on falsehood. Unfortunately, it seems like you'd rather sing and awe at the Qur'an then truly read it, study it and understand it. It is not an Islamic work. It has come from the depths of the Jahileeya, in the language of the Jahileeya to bring guidance to humanity. It is not a book of poetry and hymn for your entertainment. You treat it truly as if it were nonesense. Educate yourself so that you can take this scripture still intact and still intelligible and begin to see what it has to say to you, not what you have to say to it. If all of your traditions are based on this book then study it and analyze it and see how many of your traditions can truly be found within the pages of this book. No sheikh, no wali(saint), just you, intelligence, honesty, prudence, discernment and God.

Not in Arabic and not in English: note:(Al-Islaam(u)=Islam) (Muslim(un)=Muslim)

Al-Islaamu's meaning in English is not what the Reading/Quran proprogates. Moreover, Al-Islaamu in Pre-Islamic/Jahileeyah Arabic, to which the Reading/Quran pertains, just means 'the submission/surrender' or 'Submission/Surrender', no more, no less. The meaning of Al-Islaamu as submission/resignation to God's will is solely a doctrine of Imaam ashafee'i(a primary and ancient Islamic leader) and thereby valid only after his proclamation of this meaning and its religious acceptance. This meaning is only an Islamic meaning. Also, this meaning is jus within the circle of Muslims who believe in this doctrine. Those who don't or all those outside of Islam know that Al-Islaamu encompasses other things quite distinct from this simple concept. Therefore, the word Al-Islaamu when we see it in the Quran needs to be put into Pre-Islamic/Jahileeyah context. The Quran never states ' The true religion is to be called Al-Islaamu' or 'God's religion is called Al-Islaamu' or 'Al-Islaamu now means Al-Islaamu(Submission) to and for God', contrary to what many Muslims have been told and believe. Moreover, Al-Islaamu does not mean Submission to God, as a pre-Islamic non-religious jargon Arabic word. Additionally, every Muslim, scholar and non-scholar, is not in agreement over what this word means to them in its religious sense, and Al-Islaamu as a dynasty and a religious empire is not what the Quran has ever promoted. There was no religion called 'Al-Islaamu' nor were there any particular people called 'Muslims'(Arab. equivalent: Muslimoona/Muslimeena) when the Quran was revealed.(Nor were there Christians when the gospel sent to Jesus was revealed nor Jews when the Teachings sent through Moses were revealed) These two words, Al-Islaamu and Muslim(un), were ordinary vocabulary words with their own meanings i.e ' (the) Submission/Surrender' and 'submissive one/one who surrenders).

Saying in Arabic, 'al-qowmu kaanoo MUSLIMeena doona deenil-maaliki-dhaawlimi' , means literally:

The people were submissive/surrenders under the unjust king's rule.

Stylistically improved, it renders:

The people surrendered and were submissive under the unjust king's rule.

This sentence doesn't have an inkling of religion of 'Islam' or 'the Muslims' as we know them and doesn't connote any religion or religious following.

Another perfectly fine Arabic sentence using the word 'Islam' would be:

'min al-waajibi huwa Islaamu junoodil-jaishil-shaqeeyi li-junoodil-jaishil-barri

Literally: It is necessary, the submission/surrender of the soldiers of the rogue army to the righteous army.

Stylistically improved: The surrender and submission of the rogue army and its soldiers to the righteous army is necessary.

Would it look right If it said, 'Islam of the rogue army and its soldiers to the righteous army, is necesitated.' ? Or, in the first example: 'the people were Muslims under the unjust king's rule.' ? It can be seen from the latter, how a phrase can be misconstrued by such a mistranslation. If these were pre-Islamic works translated as such we would think that the people under the unjust king's rule were 'Muslims' and that Muslims existed in pre-Islamic times ! Many Muslims are engulfed in such Islamocentric ideas oblivious of what sound knowledge and reason dictate.

Moreover, why would you translate one word and not the other? If your going to pick and choose what words to translate and, in this, cause confusion, don't translate anything! Such misconstruing is done with the Quranic passage 3:18 which states in Arabic, "Addeenu &aindi~llahil-Islaami" Indeed, saying "The rule/order with God is Al-Islaam" is just as bad as saying, "al-rule &aindi God Submission." Do you see how ridiculous that second rendering is? When we translate we need to pick a language, otherwise the product is confusion. Though in the conventional case it is a lack of insight at work.

This type of phenomena also exists with 'Masjidul-Aqsaa' which is what Muslims call 'The Dome of the Rock'. Many Muslims believe that this place of worship(Masjidul-Aqsaa) related in The Reading/the Quran, refers to the Mosque in Jerusalem and therefore they believe that it existed during the Prophet Muhammad's lifetime. Little knowledge do they have! This Mosque was constructed, finished and named considerably after the Prophet Muhammad's death, 705 A.D to be exact! Muhammad is recorded to have supposedly died around the year 632 A.D. The Quran in its speaking of a 'Masjidul-Aqsaa' could not have been speaking of this place. In truth, the phrase means 'the remotest place of worship'. However, it is just this type of taintedness which barrs the understanding of the Non-Islamic, Pre-Islamic, transcendental message of the Reading/the Quran. In truth, Al-Islaamu, as a religious empirical order, is just another faction that God did not allow, just as Judaism and Christianity are.

And what about Buddhism?

"The teaching attributed to the Buddha was transmitted orally by his disciples, prefaced by the phrase "evam me sutam" ("thus have I heard"); therefore, it is difficult to say whether his discourses were related as they were spoken. They usually allude, however, to the place, time, and community where he preached; and there is concordance between various versions. An attempt was made by Buddhist councils in the first centuries after the Buddha's death to establish his true and original teachings" Encyclopedia Brittanica

Buddha did not claim that he was a god, the child of a god or even the messenger from a god. Buddhism does not openly reject God or accept God, it is a way to live according to principles that are attributed to a man named Buddha. However, Buddhism does deny God through carrying a discouragement in the belief in God. I'm sure much good lies in his teaching seeing that wise sayings can be found in many places. Nonetheless, the belief in a perfect man inviting imperfect others to perfection is in truth idolatry. Buddhism is a religion, yes, but not one that is centered on 'God' but rather on 'man'. Adherence to Buddhism is clearly the exalting of Buddha to the status of a god by those who choose to follow him, through making teachings attributed to him the ultimate, and considering him in a state of perfection. It is not necessary to even say that this is not a way chosen by God, because it puts God in the realm of the 'we'll never know'. According to a Buddhist tradition Buddha said that the existence of God "tends not to edification." In otherwords, 'you'll never know'. But to the contrary, logic tells us that God does exists, because this one god is the best and most logical answer to our creation, fear has nothing to do with it, and 'fluke accidents' just don't cut it. You don't get something out of nothing, not even by chance. However, we'll never know for sure what Buddha truly taught, unless a reliable document comes about whose claim of witnessing Buddha teach cannot logically be shot down. Why? Because Buddhist teachings were written down centuries after his death and carried through as oral traditions like the 5 books attributed to Moses, the Talmud and the Ahadeeth..

In conclusion, none of the prophets and messengers that GOD sent, according to the most reliable source, said anything about Judaism, Christianity or Islam. They all had the same message, and just like the Prophet Muhammad was commanded to say, all of God's prophets were have commanded similarly:

So, if they argue with you, Muhammad, say, 'I have submitted and surrendered my whole self to and for God. My followers have done so as well.' Also, say to those who have recieved Scripture and Law along with those who have not, ' Would you surrender?' If they do, then surely they have been guided but if they turn away, your duty is the delivery, and God is sees all humanity. 3:20 Quran

So may the Muslims, the Christians, the Jews and those who depart from these religions - any who believes in God and the finality come to the Reading, the Quran and from all that can be seen accept what they can distinguish to the best of their possiblity as being the truth.

Did Abraham Tell a Lie?
By Abu Samad, Nayeem Akhtar, M.D. (abusamad@hotmail.com)

- Ibrahim broke the Idols and then lied about it, how true is this concept?
- He placed the axe on the shoulder of the big idol to shift accountability, right?
- Also, he gave false evidence to the priests, right?
- Then he blamed the chief idol, you agree?
- He recognized the power of the idols - they can work, think, act and quarrel, right?
- Ibrahim is such a dishonest prophet! Right?

 

Lets find out the truth!

Ibrahim(pbu) is one of the most prominent prophets of Islam. Allah(swt) addressed him as 'friend'. He is the chief architect to build the original Kaba. The religion Islam inherited so many things directly from him. Many scholars say that he founded the religion Islam in the first place. The very ritual of animal sacrifice at the time of Id-ul-Adha is based on the incidence pertaining to Ibrahim(pbu). Most of the rituals of annual Hajj is based on commemorating prophet Ibrahim(pbu). Other than our very own prophet Muhammad(pbuh), he is the only prophet who we Muslims mention in each prayer. We seek to Allah(swt) to bless us as He blessed the followers of prophet Ibrahim(pbu).

Ironically, many Muslims derive immense pleasure when they knowingly and unknowingly denigrate such a great prophet. These Muslims derive satisfaction when they claim that this great prophet practiced wrong doings. Due to our sheer ignorance, these Muslims see many of our prophets as cheat, liar, supporter of idolatry, instigator of shirk and guilty of many other crimes.

Did Ibrahim(pbu) tell lies?

Most of the Muslims have come to accept that Ibrahim(pbu) used to tell lies. They believe that according to records, he told lies in three major occasions! They gather false or weak Hadith to support their ignorant claims, they gather endorsement by contemporary scholars who also think Ibrahim(pbu) told lies. Most Muslims accept the pronouncement of these scholars on its face value and never question if such a great prophet could ever do such a crime. These Muslims read one or two incorrect translations and think well, the Quran says Ibrahim(pbu) lied. Whereas, in reality the Quran never said that Ibrahim(pbu) lied. It is these scholars of Islam who are acting dishonestly and falsifying the truth. They are suggesting that telling occasional lies are accepted norm of Islam. Prophets did it!!!! The Quran specifically tells in verse 3:161 that no prophet could act dishonesty.

3:161 No prophet could (ever) act dishonestly if any person acts dishonestly he shall, on the Day of judgement, restore what he misappropriated..... (Yusuf Ali's translation)

We know the incidence of Idol breaking by prophet Ibrahim(pbu). Time and again we have heard stories of how he broke the idols with an axe, sleazy details of how he placed the axe on the shoulder of a big idol. Then when he was questioned, how he told the audience that he did not break the idols, rather the big idol broke the smaller ones!

These scholars invented various sections and sub sections of self made injunctions to declare that under certain circumstances it is permissible to tell lies! You will find lengthy writing by such scholars whereby they justify and mystify Ibrahim's lies. They will argue with you saying how could Ibrahim(pbu) tell the truth in front of the audience who would have killed him if he told the truth! So according to them it was OK when he resorted to falsification for the sake of truth!

Will someone answer if he could not tell the truths in front of an audience why was he a prophet in the first place? What kind of a prophet was he who preached falsehood and lies rather than the Truth? Was he preaching Islam mixed with falsehood and lies, because he was afraid of crowds?

Analysis of verse 21:63

Verse 21:63 is the only place in the Quran where the events leading to Ibrahim(pbu) breaking the idols are described. First let us critically analyze the verse and understand the meaning of each of the words in the sentence.

Qala: He said
Bal: But, of course, by all means, indeed, rather
F'alahu: (passive participle) someone did it
Kabiruhum: The big one of them
Haza: This
F'asaalu hum: Ask them, question them
In: If
Kaanu yantiqun: They can speak, they can talk,

It is very important to note that there is a small punctuation mark signifying pause (waqf) in the sentence right after 'Qaala bal f'aalahu'. According to Arabic grammar, the meaning of the punctuation (waqf) is much like comma (,) usage in English. This sign alone or in combination of circle or other word means a very brief pause. The reader may pause here briefly, but is recommended to continue with the sentence. The sign simply demarcates one part of the sentence from the other in bringing out the meaning. If this sign means absolutely nothing, why is it inserted here? Why is the sentence not like another sentence where the sign is not at all there? Obviously, the insertion of the sign bears some significance. Strangely enough, the under-mentioned scholars refuse to pause or acknowledge the presence of this punctuation mark, rather they want to pause at a different place of their choice.

Samples of Incorrect Translations

Here are some examples of famous commentators who became victims of wrong translation. If you do not see names of other familiar commentators of the Qur-an here, most likely they have translated this verse correctly.

Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan:

(Abraham) said: "Nay, this one, the biggest of them (idols) did it. Ask them if they can speak!"

Yusuf Ali:

He said: "Nay, this was done by this The biggest one! Ask them if they can talk."


Rashad Khalifa:

He said, "It is the big one who did it. Go ask them, if they can speak."

J.M. Rodwell:

He said: "Nay, that their chief hath done it; but ask ye them, if they can speak."

T.B. Irving:

He said, "Rather the biggest one of them did it. Ask them if they are able to speak up."

Ahmad Ali:

"No", he said, "It was done by that chief of theirs. Ask him in case they can speak."

Muhammad Sarwar:

I think the biggest one of them has broken the smaller ones. Ask them if they are able to speak.

N.J. Dawood:

'No', re replied, 'It was their chief who smote them. Ask them if they can speak.'

Muhammad Asad:

He answered: "Nay, it was this one, the biggest of them, that did it; but ask them [yourselves] - provided they can speak."

Pickthall:

He said: But this, their chief hath done it. So question them, if they can speak.

Ibrahim did not reply saying "No"

When Ibrahim(pbu) was asked whether he broke the idols, his reply was very tactful. Neither did he say 'Yes', nor did he say 'No'. His answer was passive "someone did it." This "someone" could be him, another person or the big idol or just anybody. There was no dearth of truth that someone truly did it. Instead of asking him, he wanted the audience to ask the victims directly. Let the victims testify if they can. The audience realized that these idols that they think as their gods, couldn't even protect themselves! How on earth these idols can be their gods! They realized futility of idol worshipping.

Yusuf Ali, Hilali & Khan, Ahmad Ali, Asad, Dawood and Rodwell used the word "No" or "Nay" - to mean that Ibrahim(pbu) flatly denied that he broke the idols. In the Arabic verse 21:63 there is no word that would mean "Nay". So how on earth these commentators found this negation? What are they trying to justify? The verse does not say Ibrahim(pbu) blamed the biggest idol. If he said "No" - that is a lie, if he said the biggest idol broke it, that is another lie. So it is a lie upon a lie. Some commentators made him lie once, some twice. But all of them made him guilty of several other offences in addition to telling lies. How did the scholars commit such a major mistake? The answer is simple:

1st , they ignored the punctuation sign,
2nd, they changed the position of words in the Arabic verse,
3rd, they changed the grammar of the Arabic verse,
4th, or they blindly followed the interpretation of Ibn Kathir et. al., without critically analyzing the verse
5th, and most likely these scholars were influenced by the oft-repeated story of Ibrahim telling lies

All the commentators translated the verse as: Bal haza kabiruhum fa'lahu. According to them the meaning of this transposed verse is:

Rather/No, This big one of them did it.

This translation is grammatically not correct to the Arabic words. Fa'lahu, a passive participle, does not mean "did it" - rather "someone did it".

Why a wrong interpretation?

The wrong interpretation evolved due to a "minor" mistake made by earlier scholars. This small mistake slowly gathered more dirt as time passed by. Ibn-Kathir and some other tafseer understood it in the wrong way. Yusuf Ali, Rodwell and Pickthall understood it that way without applying reasoning. The later day commentators simply followed them blindly. The result is that these contemporary commentators changed the words of Allah! Close attention to the verse 21:63 reveals that there is no word that would mean "No" or "Nay". We all regard Ibn-Kathir as a great commentator of the Quran. However, he was no more than a human being - he was subject to err like any other human being. Contrary to the verse 3:161, the conventional interpretation of the idol-breaking incidence suggest prophets can act dishonestly. It would be wrong to ascribe unquestionable authority on Ibn Kathir et.al. It would be wrong to perceive him as infallible. If his commentary goes against teachings of the Quran, we must give importance to the Quran and not his or any other commentary.

The Quran does not say Ibrahim(pbu) used an axe to break the idols. He could have broken those fragile idols by hand, by smashing them on the floor or by striking them with any object. Use of an 'axe' was probably invented to bring in some ferocity in the prophet's temper and action. The Quran does not say the infamous 'axe' was placed on the shoulder of the biggest idol. This is another invention of the story-tellers. Benefit of doubt may be given to the use of an 'axe' , but Ibrahim never ever placed the axe on the shoulder of the biggest idol.

Just a Lie? Or More Serious Offence?

In order to validate the conventional understanding and one weak (false!) Hadith, should we still accuse Ibrahim(pbu) of false statement? Is this just a lie or is there other serious offence in here? Many people incessantly tried to justify that Ibrahim could tell lies, or it is permissible to tell lies under certain circumstances. The moment we put the word "No" in Ibrahim's(pbu) mouth, we are making him culprit of several other grave offence as under:

1. Ibrahim(pbu) is telling an outright lie. A lie is a lie is a lie.
2. When Ibrahim(pbu) blamed the biggest idol, he is avoiding accountability by blaming a third person (object).
3. When asked if he broke the idols, Ibrahim(pbu) is giving a false deposition in front of the gathering.
4. By admitting that the biggest idol broke the smaller ones, Ibrahim(pbu) is standing a false witness.
5. Ibrahim(pbu) being a staunch critique of idol worshipping, at least at that moment admitted that biggest idol has ability to act and do things that idols cannot do. This is nothing but supporting idolatory.

Will any civilized society and nation of past and present accept false witness, false deposition, lies, shifting accountability etc as acceptable practice? Is any of this acceptable practice in Islam? Does Islam teach us these crimes? If you commit any of these crimes, will Allah forgive you? You tell me.