By: Umm Rashid
Big city, bright lights. Cars flash in fast lanes. Young Muslims are getting ready to hit the “night scene”. Branded shoes and designer clothes in place, clutching the latest mobile gizmos and sporting the trendiest watches, their perfume smells --- more than anything else – of money.
You can see them “hanging out” in groups, lolling in the bright lights of a megamall, lingering aimlessly in hypershops, buying a knick knack to drive away the boredom; even if it’s just for a second.
You can see them sipping cappucino at a Starbucks café …watching people go by, sharing a joke and laughing raucously; vacant eyes straying over to huge tv screens for the latest football score.
You can see them racing cars dangerously late into the night, music blasting from the stereos, startling passersby while they laugh in their faces. A standard sight.
Each time I see this all-too familiar scene, I find myself thinking of someone. Someone who lies buried in the blood-wet earth of ‘Uhud, feet covered by scented grass and his body covered only by a square woollen sheet that was not even sufficient to cover him completely. Someone who was his mother’s pampered son, he wore the best clothes his rich mother’s money could buy, his perfume scented the streets he walked through. The talk of Makkan matrons and maidens in their plush salons, the toast of his peers in the city’s clubs, the most flamboyant young man of the Quraysh, who left a life of pleasuring the Self to gain the pleasure of Allaah: Mus’ab bin Umair bin Hashim bin Abd Munaf who was also known as Mus’ab al Khair.
Mus’ab was only a youth when he heard of the new Prophet who had arisen among the Quraysh and his Message of monotheism; Makkah talked of very little else in those days. His curiosity piqued by all the talk, Mus’ab decided to approach the Prophet sall Allaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam on his own to determine the truth of his Message.
One night, instead of joining his friends in their customary revelry, Mus’ab made his way to the house of Al-Arqaam Ibn Al-Arqaam which came to be known as Daar al Arqaam among the Muslims. It was here that the Prophet met with the growing band of Muslims, away from the eyes of the Quraysh. It was here that the Companions talked over the future of their faith, heard and recited newly revealed portions of the Qur’aan and prayed behind the Prophet sall Allaahu ‘alayhi wassallam to Allaah.
That night, Mus'ab sat down among the gathering of the faithful and heard the Prophet sall Allaahu ‘alayhi wassallam recite verses of the Qur’aan. From that moment on he forgot for ever his life of luxury and indolence, in the ecstasy of discovering the key to eternal life.
Mus’ab’s path to the faith was not easy – his mother, Khunnas bint Maalik, a strong willed woman infamous for her sharp temper and sharper tongue – was his chief opponent. In order to avoid an unpleasant confrontation with his mother, Mus’ab initially avoided telling her about his new faith. However, people found him frequenting Daar Al-Arqaam more than his usual haunts and saw him coming under the influence of the Prophet sall Allaahu ‘alayhi wasallam. It wasn’t long before news of his conversion reached his mother.
Reacting with the imperiousness of her nature, her pride in her lineage and her age-old allegiance to the gods, she commanded Mus’ab to return and repent to the gods he had abandoned in his “foolishness”; and when he refused, she had him shackled and imprisoned in a corner of the house.
Somehow, news of the first emigration of some Muslims to Abyssinia reached Mus’ab in his incarceration and his heart longed to join his brothers in the faith. Using his ingenuity, he managed to delude his mother and his guards and escaped to Abyssinia with other emigrants. Later, he returned to Makkah with them for a short while and emigrated a second time, this time as the Prophet [SAW]’s chosen envoy to the new centre of faith: Yathrib.
When Mus’ab returned from Abyssinia, his mother sought to imprison him yet again. But this time he vowed that if she attempted that, he would kill all those who came to her aid to lock him up. She knew the intensity of his determination better than anyone else and so she bade him a final farewell, crying bitterly: Go away, I am no longer your mother.
At this, Mus’ab went close to her and said: O Mother, I am advising you and my heart is with you, please bear witness that there is no God but Allaah and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger.
Enraged, she swore: By the stars, I will never enter your religion, to degrade my
status and weaken my senses!
But Mus’ab entered Islaam in the spirit of the Qur’aan when it says: udkhuloo fi silme kaafah [enter into Islaam completely]. He forsook every semblance of satisfaction of the Self for the sake of Allaah – his dress was tattered, his food was simple, the bare earth was his bed.
One day he went out to meet some Muslims while they were sitting around the Prophet sall Allaahu alayhi wassallam, and when they saw him they lowered their heads and shed silent tears at the sight of the pampered youth of their memory , moving about in wornout patches held together by thorns, which barely covered him. After Mus’ab moved away from the gathering, the Prophet sall Allaahu alayhi wassallam recalled: I saw Mus’ab, and there was no youth in Makkah more petted by his parents than he. Then he
abandoned all that for the love of Allaah and His Prophet.
Recognizing Mus’ab’s noble manners and patience, the Prophet [SAW] commissioned him to instruct the people of Yathrib who had pledged their allegiance to the Prophet at ‘Aqabah, to call others to Islaam and to prepare the city for the eventual migration of the Prophet [SAW].
At that time, there were among the Companions men of sterling character and nerves of steel, men who were older and more experienced in the ways of the world; yet he [SAW] chose Mus’ab as his representative. And Mus’ab proved worthy of the Prophet’s choice many times over, dealing with detractors with patience and sagacity.
Mus’ab entered Yathrib as a guest of Sa’ad ibn Zurarah of the Khazraj tribe. Together they went approached the citizens of Yathrib, explaining the message of Monotheism and reciting the Qur’aan. Once Musa’ab and Sa’ad were sitting near a well in an orchard of Banee Zafar, when they were approached by Usayd ibn Khudayr brandishing a spear in obvious rage. Sa’ad whispered to Mus’ab: This is a chieftain of his people. May Allaah place the truth in his heart.
Mus’ab replied calmly: If he sits down, I will speak to him.
Usayd was angry at the success of Mus’ab’s mission and shouted angrily: Why have you both come to us to corrupt the weak among us? Keep away from us if you want to stay alive. At this, Musa’ab smiled and said softly: Won't you sit down and listen? If you are pleased and satisfied with our mission, accept it; and if you dislike it we will stop telling you what you dislike and leave. Sticking his spear into the ground, Usayd sat down to hear them out. As Musa’ab began telling him about Islaam and
reciting portions of the Qur’aan to Usayd’s expression changed. The first words he uttered were : How beautiful are these words and how true! What does a person do if he wants to enter this religion?
Mus’ab explained: Have a bath, purify yourself and your clothes. Then utter the testimony of Truth (shahadah), and perform prayers. Usayd testified that there is no god but Allaah and that Muhammad is His Messenger, prayed two rakaats of salaah and was followed by another influential man: Sa’ad ibn Muaadh.
By the time the Prophet [SAW] emigrated, there was not a single household in Yathrib in which Mus’ab had not endeared himself and the Message of Islaam. In the subsequent pilgrimage, he led a company of 70 people went from Yathrib to pledge allegiance to the Prophet.
In a famous incident after the victory at Badr, the Muslims captured some Makkans and sought to ransom them. Mus’ab was passing by the ranks of prisoners and stopped when saw his brother, Abu Azeez ibn Umayr among them. However, instead of interceding on his behalf, he instructed his brother’s captor to bind him securely and to extract a large ransom for the prisoner, because “his mother is a very rich woman” When the brother sought to remind Mus’ab of his relationship, Mus’ab replied: I only recognize brotherhood of the faith, this man is my brother, not you!
At ‘Uhud, the Prophet sall Allaahu alayhi wassallam chose Mus’ab to bear the battle standard. In the melee that followed the archers descent from the hill where they were stationed, in violation of the Prophet [SAW]’s orders, the Makkans fought back fiercely. Taken unawares by the cavalry of the Quraysh attacking from the rear, the Muslim ranks scattered. Intent on harming the Prophet [SAW], the Makkans searched for him while he was being guarded only by a handful of companions. Suddenly, someone shouted that the Prophet [SAW] was no more.
It was at this juncture that Mus’ab’s glorious life reached a fitting culmination: Ibrahim ibn Muhammad related from his father, who said: Mus’ab ibn ‘Umair carried the standard on the Day of Uhud. When the Muslims were scattered, he stood fast until he met Ibn Qaami'ah who was a knight. He struck him on his right hand and cut it off, but Mus'ab said:And Muhammad is but a Messenger. Messengers have passed away before him . He carried the standard with his left hand and leaned on it, when
his left hand was cut off, he leaned on the standard and held it with his upper arms to his chest, all the while saying: And Muhammad is but a Messenger. Messengers have passed away before him. Then a third soldier
struck Mus’ab with his spear, and the spear went through him.
After the battle, the Prophet and his companions came to the plain of ‘Uhud to bury the martyrs, some of whose bodies had been mutilated by the marauding women of the Qur’aysh. Pausing when he saw Mus'ab, the Prophet [SAW] recited: Among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah. Then he [SAW] looked at the remains of his companions in the battlefield and said: The Prophet of Allaah witnesses that you are martyrs to Allaah on the Day of Resurrection.
There wasn’t enough material to serve as a shroud for Mus’ab. Khabbaab ibn Al-Arat narrated: We emigrated with the Prophet for Allaah’s cause, so our reward became due with Allaah. Some of us passed away without enjoying anything in this life of his reward, and of them was Mus'ab ibn 'Umair, who was martyred on the Day of Uhud. He did not leave behind anything except a sheet of shredded woollen cloth. If we covered his feet with it, his head was uncovered, and if
we covered his feet with it, his head was uncovered. The Prophet [SAW] said to us: Cover his head with it and put lemon grass over his feet.
It was this memory of Mus’ab in his martyr’s grave, that caused companions like Abdur Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf to cry in fear of having no share in the Hereafter, because they had been granted a life of plenty and ease right here in this world. Once his servant brought him a meal to break his fast and ibn ‘Awf burst into tears, remembering Mus’ab who had passed away without tasting the good of this world, to the certainty of eternal pleasure in the Hereafter.
As night falls, I think of the shadows lengthening across ‘Uhud where the martyrs lie buried, when visitors drive off leaving the plain quiet, dark and peaceful. I think of the graves of the shuhadaa, resplendent with the dazzling light of the truly fortunate: those who are pleasing to Allaah and are pleased with Him.
In the neon dazzle of malls, where countless young Muslims strive daily in the trivial pursuit of pleasure, we would do well to bear the memory of Mus’ab radiyy Allaahu anhu in mind. It may keep us from getting lost in the light.
Monday, 21 November 2011
Abdullah Ibn Umm Maktum
Scanned from: "Companions of The Prophet", Vol. 1, By: Abdul Wahid Hamid.
Abdullah ibn Umm Maktum was a cousin of Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, Mother of the Believers, may God be pleased with her. His father was Qays ibn Za'id and his mother was Aatikah bint Abdullah. She was called Umm Maktum (Mother of the Concealed One) because she gave birth to a blind child.
Abdullah witnessed the rise of Islam in Makkah. He was amongst the first to accept Islam. He lived through the persecution of the Muslims and suffered what the other companions of the Prophet experienced. His attitude, like theirs, was one of firmness, staunch resistance and sacrifice. Neither his dedication nor his faith weakened against the violence of the Quraysh onslaught. In fact, all this only increased his determination to hold on to the religion of God and his devotion to His messenger.
Abdullah was devoted to the noble Prophet and he was so eager to memorize the Qur'an that he would not miss any opportunity to achieve his heart's desire. Indeed, his sense of urgency and his insistence could sometimes have been irritating as he, unintentionally, sought to monopolize the attention of the Prophet.
In this period, the Prophet, peace be upon him, was concentrating on the Quraysh notables and was eager that they should become Muslims. On one particular day, he met Utbah ibn Rabiah and his brother Shaybah, Amr ibn Hisham better known as Abu Jahl, Umayyah ibn Khalaf and Walid ibn Mughirah, the father of Khalid ibn Walid who was later to be known as Sayf Allah or 'the sword of God'. He had begun talking and negotiating with them and telling them about Islam. He so much wished that they would respond positively to him and accept Islam or at least call off their persecution of his companions.
While he was thus engaged, Abdullah ibn Umm Maktum came up and asked him to read a verse from the Qur'an.
"O messenger of God," he said, "teach me from what God has taught you." The Prophet frowned and turned away from him. He turned his attention instead to the prestigious group of Quraysh, hoping that they would become Muslims and that by their acceptance of Islam they would bring greatness to the religion of God and strengthen his mission. As soon as he had finished speaking to them and had left their company, he suddenly felt partially blinded and his head began to throb violently. At this point the following revelation came to him:
"He frowned and turned away when the blind man approached him! Yet for all you knew, (O Muhammad), he might perhaps have grown in purity or have been reminded of the Truth, and helped by this reminder. Now as for him who believes himself to be self-sufficientرto him you gave your whole attention, although you are not accountable for his failure to attain to purity. But as for him who came unto you full of eagerness and in awe of God, him did you disregard.
Nay, verily, this is but a reminder and so, whoever is willing may remember Him in the light of His revelations blest with dignity, lofty and pure, borne by the hands of messengers, noble and most virtuous."
(Surah Abasa 80: 116).
These are the sixteen verses which were revealed to the noble Prophet about Abdullah ibn Umm Maktumرsixteen verses that have continued to be recited from that time till today and shall continue to be recited.
From that day the Prophet did not cease to be generous to Abdullah ibn Umm Maktum, to ask him about his affairs, to fulfil his needs and take him into his council whenever he approached. This is not strange. Was he not censured by God in a most severe manner on Abdullah's account? In fact, in later years, he often greeted Ibn Umm Maktum with these words of humility:
"Welcome unto him on whose account my Sustainer has rebuked me."
When the Quraysh intensified their persecution of the Prophet and those who believed with him, God gave them permission to emigrate. Abdullah's response was prompt. He ana Mus'ab ibn Umayr were the first of the Companions to reach Madinah.
As soon as they reached Yathrib, he and Mus'ab began discussing with the people, reading the Qur'an to them and teaching them the religion of God. When the Prophet, upon whom be peace; arrived in Madinah, he appointed Abdullah and Bilal ibn Rabah to be muadh-dhins for the Muslims, proclaiming the Oneness of God five times a day, calling man to the best of actions and summoning them to success.
Bilal would call the adhan and Abdullah would pronounce the iqamah for the Prayer. Sometimes they would reverse the process. During Ramadan, they adopted a special routine. One of them would call the adhan to wake people up to eat before the fast began.
The other would call the adhan to announce the beginning of dawn and the fast. It was Bilal who would awaken the people and Abdullah ibn Umm Maktum who would announce the beginning of dawn.
One of the responsibilities that the Prophet placed on Abdullah ibn Umm Maktum was to put him in charge of Madinah in his absence. This was done more than ten times, one of them being when he left for the liberation of Makkah.
Sasn after the battle of Badr, the Prophet received a revelation from God raising the status of the mujahideen and preferring them over the qa'ideen (those who remain inactive at home). This was in order to encourage the mujahid even further and to spur the qa'id to give up his inactivity. This revelation affected ibn Umm Maktum deeply. It pained him to be thus barred from the higher status and he said:
"O messenger of God. If I could go on jihad, I would certainly do." He then earnestly asked God to send down a revelation about his particular case and those like him who were prevented because of their disabilities from going on military campaigns.
His prayer was answered. An additional phrase was revealed to the Prophet exempting those with disabilities from the import of the original verse. The full ayah became:
"Not equal are those who remain seated among the believers except those who possess disabilitiesرand those who strive and fight in the way of God with their wealth and their persons . . ."
(Surah an-Nisaa, 4: 95).
In spite of thus being excused from jihad, the soul of Abdullah ibn Umm Maktum refused to be content with staying among those who remained at home when an expedition was in progress. Great souls are not content with remaining detached from affairs of great moment. He determined that no campaign should by-pass him. He fixed a role for himself on the battle field. He would say: "Place me between two rows and give me the standard. I will carry it for you and protect it, for I am blind and cannot run away."
In the fourteenth year after the hijrah, Umar resolved to mount a major assault against the Persians to bring down their State and open the way for the Muslim forces. So he wrote to his governors:
"Send anyone with a weapon or a horse or who can offer any form of help to me. And make haste."
Crowds of Muslims from every direction responded to Umar's call and converged on Madinah. Among all these was the blind mujahid, Abdullah ibn Umm Maktum.
Umar appointed Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas commander over the army, gave him instructions and bade him farewell. When the army reached Qadisiyyah, Abdullah ibn Umm Maktum was prominent, wearing a coat of armour and fully prepared. He had vowed to carry and protect the standard of the Muslims or be killed in the process.
The forces met and engaged in battle for three days. The fighting was among the most fierce and bitter in the history of the Muslim conquests. On the third day, the Muslims achieved a mighty victory as one of the greatest empires in the world collapsed and one of the most secure thrones fell. The standard of Tawhid was raised in an idolatrous land. The price of this clear victory was hundreds of martyrs. Among them was Abdullah ibn Umm Maktum. He was found dead on the battlefield clutching the flag of the Muslims.
The Return of Jesus (part 3 of 5)
Description: The context of Jesus’ second coming, the trials and tribulations before it, the rise of the Mahdi and the advent of Maseeh ad-Dajjal (the False Messiah), and Jesus’ role killing him.
By Jeremy Boulter (© 2006 IslamReligion.com) - Published on 12 Jun 2006 - Last modified on 01 Apr 2008
The Rise of the Mahdi, and Advent of the False Messiah
The circumstances of the second coming will involve two other people from the end times, the Mahdi[1] and the Maseeh ad-Dajjal, Arabic for the False Messiah, and the trials and tribulations associated with them. The primary task of Jesus on his return will be to save the world from the False Messiah and unite it once more under the Rule of God.
The advent of the False Messiah, however, will be preceded by a man who unites all Muslims under his leadership. Of this man, the Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said that before the world ends, a person from his family with his name (Muhammad bin Abdullah) will rule the Arabs, filling the earth with equity and justice where before there had been oppression and injustice, for 7 years.[2] He further said that he will be supported by the Muslim nation, of whom it was said:
«A group of my people will not cease fighting for the Truth and will prevail till the Day of Resurrection. And Jesus son of Mary will descend and their (the Muslims’) leader will say, ‘Come and lead us in Prayer.’» [Saheeh Muslim].
Thus, before the coming of Jesus, the Muslim nation will defend the religion under a man directly descended from the prophet, who will invite Jesus to lead the prayer interrupted by his coming. How long he will have been leading the Muslim Nation will be less than 7 years, but how much less is not known exactly. What is known is that he will be a reluctant commander whom people will flock to, only after an army attacking Mecca is swallowed up by the earth.
The Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said:
«Disagreement will occur at the death of a caliph and a man of the people of Medina will flee to Mecca. Some of the people of Mecca will come to him, bring him out against his will and swear allegiance to him between the Corner[3] and the Maqam.[4] An expeditionary force will then be sent against him from Syria, but it will be swallowed up in the desert between Mecca and Medina. When the people witness this, the most pious men of Syria and the best people of Iraq will come to him and swear allegiance to him between the Corner and the Maqam» [Narrated by Abu Dawood & classified as weak by Al-Albany].
“There will also be several campaigns, the first against internal elements[5], and then against external elements. An army consisting of the best Muslim soldiers in the world will come from Medina to counteract the western invasion of Ash-Sham[6].”
«When they arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans will say: ‘Do not stand between us and those who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us fight with them.’ The Muslims will say: ‘No, by God, we will never stand aside for you or our brethren so that you can fight them.’» [Saheeh Muslim].
The fight would last three days with great slaughter on all sides until, on the fourth day, the remnants of the Muslim Army will defeat the Western forces and go on to conquer Istanbul. While the soldiers are looting the city a false rumor that the False Messiah had arrived will reach them, so they will make for Syria again. By the time they reach Damascus, where the Mahdi will prepare them for war against the False Messiah’s coming, the False Messiah will truly appear.
His stay on earth will be 40 days. However, these 40 days will have something special about them. The first day and night will last a full year, the second a full month, and the third a full week, and the remaining 37 days would be normal.[7] It is in these final 37 days that Jesus will probably come, since he will kill the False Messiah shortly after his arrival.
The False Messiah will appear out of the east, on the way between Syria and Iraq[8], and his coming will spread great troubles and injustice right and left. He will range far and wide, like a wind driven cloud, coming to first one people and then another. He will invite people to follow him, rewarding the ones who respond and affirm their faith in him by commanding the sky to rain, which will cause the land and domestic animals to flourish and produce. Those who refuse him will suffer drought, famine, and loss of wealth. Wherever he goes, he will call forth the land’s treasures, which will gather before him like swarming bees, and he will even kill a man, cutting him in half and then bring him back to life.
As can be seen, the False Messiah will have been given miracles to convince people to stray from the path, and many will follow him. Some hadeeths mention that many people, especially the Jews[9], will take him for the real Messiah, as he will announce himself to be God’s representative. However, he will soon claim divine power himself, and eventually claim to be the Lord.[10] He will conquer most of the world and go against the Mahdi in Damascus, and this will be the time the true Messiah, Jesus, will descend.
«God will send the Messiah, son of Mary, who will descend at the white minaret on the eastern side of Damascus wearing two garments, lightly dyed with saffron, his hands resting on the wings of two Angels. When he lowers his head, beads of perspiration will fall from it, and when he raises it up, beads like pearls will scatter from it. Every non-believer who smells him will die, and his breath will reach as far as he is able to see» [Saheeh Muslim].
In another hadeeth it says,
«Certainly, the time of prayer shall come, and then Jesus, the son of Mary, will descend and will lead them in prayer. When sees he him, the enemy of God will [begin to] dissolve just as salt does in water» [Saheeh Muslim].
The first hadeeth continues to say that he will meet him at Lydda:
«He (Jesus) will pursue the False Messiah until he captures him at the gates of Lydda and kills him» [Saheeh Muslim].
Jesus will use a spear guided by God in this killing,[11] by which the forces of temptation will be vanquished.
«Then, a people whom God had protected will come to Jesus, son of Mary, and he will wipe their faces and inform them of their ranks in Paradise» [Saheeh Muslim].
This information is not the Judgment of Judgment Day, but knowledge given to Jesus by God. These people are not the elect of the Christian rapture, but the survivors of the turmoil surrounding his coming. And this is but the first episode of the Messiah’s life on his return, which the next article will elaborate on, if God wills.
_____________________________________
Footnotes:
[1] Al-Mahdi literally means ‘the paver of the way’ but the meaning of the proper name is ‘the one who is directed by God to the truth’.
[2] Sunan Abu Dawood.
[3] The corner of the Kabah nearest the door. The black stone is built into that corner.
[4] The station of Abraham is the rock upon which he stood in order to build the walls of the Kaaba.
[5] The ‘Expedition of Kalb’, mentioned by Umm Salamah in Sunan Abu Dawood.
[6] Ash-Sham is the geographical area including Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and parts of Iraq.
[7] Saheeh Muslim.
[8] The exact location has been variously reported in Musnad Ahmad as being ‘Khorastan’or ‘Yahwadiah in Asbahan’, the latter being associated with Shahrstan.
[9] Anas bin Malik said that the Messenger of God said, “The False Messiah will be followed by 70,000 Jews from Asbahan.’ Saheeh Muslim.
[10] Saheeh Bukhari. The evidence for this is indirect. In the hadeeth it is the followers of the False Messiah who ask a man who denies him, ‘Don’t you believe in our Lord?’ Later, after killing the man and restoring him to life, the False Messiah asks, ‘Now do you believe in what I claim?’ In two other hadeeths from the same source, the Prophet, may God praise him, says: ‘Verily, God is not blind in one eye! However, the False Messiah is blind in his right eye, being an eye (like) a floating grape.’ And: ‘There is not a prophet who has not warned his nation of that lying one-eyed man (The False Messiah); for he is truly one-eyed, and, verily, your Lord, Most Powerful and Sublime, is not one-eyed.’ The implication is that we should not confuse the False Messiah with our Lord God, no matter what he claims.
[11] Saheeh Muslim.
By Jeremy Boulter (© 2006 IslamReligion.com) - Published on 12 Jun 2006 - Last modified on 01 Apr 2008
The Rise of the Mahdi, and Advent of the False Messiah
The circumstances of the second coming will involve two other people from the end times, the Mahdi[1] and the Maseeh ad-Dajjal, Arabic for the False Messiah, and the trials and tribulations associated with them. The primary task of Jesus on his return will be to save the world from the False Messiah and unite it once more under the Rule of God.
The advent of the False Messiah, however, will be preceded by a man who unites all Muslims under his leadership. Of this man, the Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said that before the world ends, a person from his family with his name (Muhammad bin Abdullah) will rule the Arabs, filling the earth with equity and justice where before there had been oppression and injustice, for 7 years.[2] He further said that he will be supported by the Muslim nation, of whom it was said:
«A group of my people will not cease fighting for the Truth and will prevail till the Day of Resurrection. And Jesus son of Mary will descend and their (the Muslims’) leader will say, ‘Come and lead us in Prayer.’» [Saheeh Muslim].
Thus, before the coming of Jesus, the Muslim nation will defend the religion under a man directly descended from the prophet, who will invite Jesus to lead the prayer interrupted by his coming. How long he will have been leading the Muslim Nation will be less than 7 years, but how much less is not known exactly. What is known is that he will be a reluctant commander whom people will flock to, only after an army attacking Mecca is swallowed up by the earth.
The Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said:
«Disagreement will occur at the death of a caliph and a man of the people of Medina will flee to Mecca. Some of the people of Mecca will come to him, bring him out against his will and swear allegiance to him between the Corner[3] and the Maqam.[4] An expeditionary force will then be sent against him from Syria, but it will be swallowed up in the desert between Mecca and Medina. When the people witness this, the most pious men of Syria and the best people of Iraq will come to him and swear allegiance to him between the Corner and the Maqam» [Narrated by Abu Dawood & classified as weak by Al-Albany].
“There will also be several campaigns, the first against internal elements[5], and then against external elements. An army consisting of the best Muslim soldiers in the world will come from Medina to counteract the western invasion of Ash-Sham[6].”
«When they arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans will say: ‘Do not stand between us and those who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us fight with them.’ The Muslims will say: ‘No, by God, we will never stand aside for you or our brethren so that you can fight them.’» [Saheeh Muslim].
The fight would last three days with great slaughter on all sides until, on the fourth day, the remnants of the Muslim Army will defeat the Western forces and go on to conquer Istanbul. While the soldiers are looting the city a false rumor that the False Messiah had arrived will reach them, so they will make for Syria again. By the time they reach Damascus, where the Mahdi will prepare them for war against the False Messiah’s coming, the False Messiah will truly appear.
His stay on earth will be 40 days. However, these 40 days will have something special about them. The first day and night will last a full year, the second a full month, and the third a full week, and the remaining 37 days would be normal.[7] It is in these final 37 days that Jesus will probably come, since he will kill the False Messiah shortly after his arrival.
The False Messiah will appear out of the east, on the way between Syria and Iraq[8], and his coming will spread great troubles and injustice right and left. He will range far and wide, like a wind driven cloud, coming to first one people and then another. He will invite people to follow him, rewarding the ones who respond and affirm their faith in him by commanding the sky to rain, which will cause the land and domestic animals to flourish and produce. Those who refuse him will suffer drought, famine, and loss of wealth. Wherever he goes, he will call forth the land’s treasures, which will gather before him like swarming bees, and he will even kill a man, cutting him in half and then bring him back to life.
As can be seen, the False Messiah will have been given miracles to convince people to stray from the path, and many will follow him. Some hadeeths mention that many people, especially the Jews[9], will take him for the real Messiah, as he will announce himself to be God’s representative. However, he will soon claim divine power himself, and eventually claim to be the Lord.[10] He will conquer most of the world and go against the Mahdi in Damascus, and this will be the time the true Messiah, Jesus, will descend.
«God will send the Messiah, son of Mary, who will descend at the white minaret on the eastern side of Damascus wearing two garments, lightly dyed with saffron, his hands resting on the wings of two Angels. When he lowers his head, beads of perspiration will fall from it, and when he raises it up, beads like pearls will scatter from it. Every non-believer who smells him will die, and his breath will reach as far as he is able to see» [Saheeh Muslim].
In another hadeeth it says,
«Certainly, the time of prayer shall come, and then Jesus, the son of Mary, will descend and will lead them in prayer. When sees he him, the enemy of God will [begin to] dissolve just as salt does in water» [Saheeh Muslim].
The first hadeeth continues to say that he will meet him at Lydda:
«He (Jesus) will pursue the False Messiah until he captures him at the gates of Lydda and kills him» [Saheeh Muslim].
Jesus will use a spear guided by God in this killing,[11] by which the forces of temptation will be vanquished.
«Then, a people whom God had protected will come to Jesus, son of Mary, and he will wipe their faces and inform them of their ranks in Paradise» [Saheeh Muslim].
This information is not the Judgment of Judgment Day, but knowledge given to Jesus by God. These people are not the elect of the Christian rapture, but the survivors of the turmoil surrounding his coming. And this is but the first episode of the Messiah’s life on his return, which the next article will elaborate on, if God wills.
_____________________________________
Footnotes:
[1] Al-Mahdi literally means ‘the paver of the way’ but the meaning of the proper name is ‘the one who is directed by God to the truth’.
[2] Sunan Abu Dawood.
[3] The corner of the Kabah nearest the door. The black stone is built into that corner.
[4] The station of Abraham is the rock upon which he stood in order to build the walls of the Kaaba.
[5] The ‘Expedition of Kalb’, mentioned by Umm Salamah in Sunan Abu Dawood.
[6] Ash-Sham is the geographical area including Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and parts of Iraq.
[7] Saheeh Muslim.
[8] The exact location has been variously reported in Musnad Ahmad as being ‘Khorastan’or ‘Yahwadiah in Asbahan’, the latter being associated with Shahrstan.
[9] Anas bin Malik said that the Messenger of God said, “The False Messiah will be followed by 70,000 Jews from Asbahan.’ Saheeh Muslim.
[10] Saheeh Bukhari. The evidence for this is indirect. In the hadeeth it is the followers of the False Messiah who ask a man who denies him, ‘Don’t you believe in our Lord?’ Later, after killing the man and restoring him to life, the False Messiah asks, ‘Now do you believe in what I claim?’ In two other hadeeths from the same source, the Prophet, may God praise him, says: ‘Verily, God is not blind in one eye! However, the False Messiah is blind in his right eye, being an eye (like) a floating grape.’ And: ‘There is not a prophet who has not warned his nation of that lying one-eyed man (The False Messiah); for he is truly one-eyed, and, verily, your Lord, Most Powerful and Sublime, is not one-eyed.’ The implication is that we should not confuse the False Messiah with our Lord God, no matter what he claims.
[11] Saheeh Muslim.
The Return of Jesus (part 4 of 5)
Description: After the False Messiah; the annulment of the false religions of the people of the book, the establishment of God’s nation under Jesus, and the invasion of the Gog and Magog.
By Jeremy Boulter (© 2006 IslamReligion.com) - Published on 19 Jun 2006 - Last modified on 01 Apr 2008
The Establishment of God’s Nation under Jesus
The killing of the False Messiah will traumatize the Christians and Jews who had followed him, for it will finally reveal to them that he was not what he had claimed to be. In fact, the role of Jesus in his defeat will convince most of the surviving Christians, at least, that the False Messiah had indeed been the Anti-Christ prophesied in their own scriptures. The Prophet of Islam, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said:
«The son of Mary will soon descend among you and will judge justly (according to the Law of God[1]): he will break the cross and kill the pig…» [Saheeh Al-Bukhari].
The breaking of the cross may be figurative or literal: the destruction of erected idols in churches and tearing down of crosses from their steeples, as well as forbidding the use of personal crosses as symbols of religion;
or the destruction of the myth that he was executed by the Romans on a cross at the instigation of the Jews.
Likewise, the killing of the pigs may be both literal and figurative: literally conducting a campaign to kill all pigs so the consumption of their meat becomes impossible, allowing them to be killed, or simply re-imposing the ban God made since time immemorial[2] on eating their flesh, effectively forcing pig farmers to get rid of their stock by culling. In effect, two of the mainstays of widespread Christian practice will be removed, indicating that the religion as taught by modern Christians would henceforth be defunct, and marking a return to the religion as originally intended (Islam).
«… and there will be no Jizya» [Saheeh Al-Bukhari].
Furthermore, after the massive losses of life among the Jews, the death of their leader will prove to the Jews that he had been yet another false hope. Possibly, the False Messiah’s claim of divinity may well have already sowed seeds of doubt in their hearts, anyway, so when Jesus announces that the Jizya[3] will no longer be a means by which non-Muslims can avoid submitting to the will of God, they will be ready to give up following the guidance of their Rabbis in favor to returning to the guidance[4] of God. The fact that no Jizya will be accepted underlines the abolishment of all religion except one. The People of the Book will be required to follow the Law of Islam which Jesus will impose. The die-hards that refuse will be hunted and killed rather than allowed to continue in their outmoded faith.
«The hour will not come until the Muslims fight against the Jews and kill them. The Jews will seek shelter behind stones and trees, but the stone or the tree will speak: “O servant of God, there is a [die-hard] Jew behind me, so come and kill him!” But the Gharqad tree will not speak out because it is partial to the Jews» [Saheeh Muslim].
No mention of the fate of those who are neither Muslims nor People of the Book is mentioned at this stage, but we believe some of them will also fall under the sway of the rule of Jesus, or die. Perhaps others will be destroyed by those who are referred to as the Gog and Magog.
The Invasion of the Gog and Magog[5]
Who the Gog and Magog are, exactly, is not known, though it is known from a hadeeth, found in the two principal books of authentic narrations (Saheeh Al-Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim), that they are of the nations of mankind[6]. Of them, the Quran says:
“When he reached a valley between two mountains, he found a people who could barely understand a word. They said; O Dhul Qarnayn! Verily, Gog and Magog are doing great mischief in the land. Will you accept a tribute from us so that you build a barrier between us and them?” [Quran 18:93-94].
{حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ بَيْنَ السَّدَّيْنِ وَجَدَ مِن دُونِهِمَا قَوْماً لَّا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ قَوْلاً (93) قَالُوا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِنَّ يَأْجُوجَ وَمَأْجُوجَ مُفْسِدُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَهَلْ نَجْعَلُ لَكَ خَرْجاً عَلَى أَن تَجْعَلَ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَهُمْ سَدّاً}
Transliteration: Ĥattá 'Idhā Balagha Bayna As-Saddayni Wajada Min Dūnihimā Qawmāan Lā Yakādūna Yafqahūna Qawlāan, Qālū Yā Dhā Al-Qarnayni 'Inna Ya'jūja Wa Ma'jūja Mufsidūna Fī Al-'Arđi Fahal Naj`alu Laka Kharjāan `Alá 'An Taj`ala Baynanā Wa Baynahum Saddāan
After Dhul Qarnayn carried out their request (without exacting tribute), he told them:
“This is a Mercy from my Lord, but when the Promise of my Lord comes, He shall level it to the ground. And the Promise of my Lord is ever true. And on that day, we shall leave some of them to surge like waves on one another...” [Quran 18:98-99].
{قَالَ هَذَا رَحْمَةٌ مِّن رَّبِّي فَإِذَا جَاء وَعْدُ رَبِّي جَعَلَهُ دَكَّاء وَكَانَ وَعْدُ رَبِّي حَقّاً (98) وَتَرَكْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ يَمُوجُ فِي بَعْضٍ}
Transliteration: Qāla Hādhā Raĥmatun Min Rabbī Fa'idhā Jā'a Wa`du Rabbī Ja`alahu Dakkā'a Wa Kāna Wa`du Rabbī Ĥaqqāan, Wa Taraknā Ba`đahum Yawma'idhin Yamūju Fī Ba`đin Wa Nufikha Fī Aş-Şūri Fajama`nāhum Jam`āan
This means that they will be a people who are not under the jurisdiction of Jesus when he accepts the pledge from former Jews and Christians. And it is the Gog and Magog who will be the final threat to the believers before his reign of peace. Again, the Quran says:
“When the Gog and Magog swoop down from every ridge, and the true Promise draws near, you will see the disbelievers, their eyes staring fixedly, in horror; They will say, ‘woe to us; indeed were heedless of this – and we were wrongdoers.’” [Quran 21:96-97].
{حَتَّى إِذَا فُتِحَتْ يَأْجُوجُ وَمَأْجُوجُ وَهُم مِّن كُلِّ حَدَبٍ يَنسِلُونَ (96) وَاقْتَرَبَ الْوَعْدُ الْحَقُّ فَإِذَا هِيَ شَاخِصَةٌ أَبْصَارُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا يَا وَيْلَنَا قَدْ كُنَّا فِي غَفْلَةٍ مِّنْ هَذَا بَلْ كُنَّا ظَالِمِينَ}
Transliteration: Ĥattá 'Idhā Futiĥat Ya'jūju Wa Ma'jūju Wa Hum Min Kulli Ĥadabin Yansilūna, Wāqtaraba Al-Wa`du Al-Ĥaqqu Fa'idhā Hiya Shākhişatun 'Abşāru Al-Ladhīna Kafarū Yā Waylanā Qad Kunnā Fī Ghaflatin Min Hādhā Bal Kunnā Žālimīna
Not even Jesus will be able to withstand the coming of the Gog and Magog, for they will swarm the land destructively, like locusts.
Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported that the prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said that only the Muslims who retreat into their cities and strongholds with their cattle and sheep will survive the onslaught.[7] It is also said:
«God will reveal to Jesus, son of Mary, “I have brought forth people from among My creatures against who none will be able to fight. Take my worshippers safely to Mount Tur» [Saheeh Muslim].
The Gog and Magog will be so many that when the last of the horde passes through a lake bed from whose water the first rank had drunk, they will bewail, ‘There used to be water here, once.’ Anybody not from themselves, except for the Muslims in their strongholds and refuges, will be killed, and the horde will declaim, ‘We have defeated the people of earth. Now only the people of heaven are left [for us to defeat].’ On that, one will fire an arrow into the sky, and it will fall back to earth blood-stained.[8]
Though the Gog and Magog will think they have obtained victory, their very boast would be their downfall, for the blood on their weapons will be nothing but a test from God. The next article will deal with how the Gog and Magog will be defeated, and what happens after that.
___________________________________
By Jeremy Boulter (© 2006 IslamReligion.com) - Published on 19 Jun 2006 - Last modified on 01 Apr 2008
The Establishment of God’s Nation under Jesus
The killing of the False Messiah will traumatize the Christians and Jews who had followed him, for it will finally reveal to them that he was not what he had claimed to be. In fact, the role of Jesus in his defeat will convince most of the surviving Christians, at least, that the False Messiah had indeed been the Anti-Christ prophesied in their own scriptures. The Prophet of Islam, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said:
«The son of Mary will soon descend among you and will judge justly (according to the Law of God[1]): he will break the cross and kill the pig…» [Saheeh Al-Bukhari].
The breaking of the cross may be figurative or literal: the destruction of erected idols in churches and tearing down of crosses from their steeples, as well as forbidding the use of personal crosses as symbols of religion;
or the destruction of the myth that he was executed by the Romans on a cross at the instigation of the Jews.
Likewise, the killing of the pigs may be both literal and figurative: literally conducting a campaign to kill all pigs so the consumption of their meat becomes impossible, allowing them to be killed, or simply re-imposing the ban God made since time immemorial[2] on eating their flesh, effectively forcing pig farmers to get rid of their stock by culling. In effect, two of the mainstays of widespread Christian practice will be removed, indicating that the religion as taught by modern Christians would henceforth be defunct, and marking a return to the religion as originally intended (Islam).
«… and there will be no Jizya» [Saheeh Al-Bukhari].
Furthermore, after the massive losses of life among the Jews, the death of their leader will prove to the Jews that he had been yet another false hope. Possibly, the False Messiah’s claim of divinity may well have already sowed seeds of doubt in their hearts, anyway, so when Jesus announces that the Jizya[3] will no longer be a means by which non-Muslims can avoid submitting to the will of God, they will be ready to give up following the guidance of their Rabbis in favor to returning to the guidance[4] of God. The fact that no Jizya will be accepted underlines the abolishment of all religion except one. The People of the Book will be required to follow the Law of Islam which Jesus will impose. The die-hards that refuse will be hunted and killed rather than allowed to continue in their outmoded faith.
«The hour will not come until the Muslims fight against the Jews and kill them. The Jews will seek shelter behind stones and trees, but the stone or the tree will speak: “O servant of God, there is a [die-hard] Jew behind me, so come and kill him!” But the Gharqad tree will not speak out because it is partial to the Jews» [Saheeh Muslim].
No mention of the fate of those who are neither Muslims nor People of the Book is mentioned at this stage, but we believe some of them will also fall under the sway of the rule of Jesus, or die. Perhaps others will be destroyed by those who are referred to as the Gog and Magog.
The Invasion of the Gog and Magog[5]
Who the Gog and Magog are, exactly, is not known, though it is known from a hadeeth, found in the two principal books of authentic narrations (Saheeh Al-Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim), that they are of the nations of mankind[6]. Of them, the Quran says:
“When he reached a valley between two mountains, he found a people who could barely understand a word. They said; O Dhul Qarnayn! Verily, Gog and Magog are doing great mischief in the land. Will you accept a tribute from us so that you build a barrier between us and them?” [Quran 18:93-94].
{حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ بَيْنَ السَّدَّيْنِ وَجَدَ مِن دُونِهِمَا قَوْماً لَّا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ قَوْلاً (93) قَالُوا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِنَّ يَأْجُوجَ وَمَأْجُوجَ مُفْسِدُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَهَلْ نَجْعَلُ لَكَ خَرْجاً عَلَى أَن تَجْعَلَ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَهُمْ سَدّاً}
Transliteration: Ĥattá 'Idhā Balagha Bayna As-Saddayni Wajada Min Dūnihimā Qawmāan Lā Yakādūna Yafqahūna Qawlāan, Qālū Yā Dhā Al-Qarnayni 'Inna Ya'jūja Wa Ma'jūja Mufsidūna Fī Al-'Arđi Fahal Naj`alu Laka Kharjāan `Alá 'An Taj`ala Baynanā Wa Baynahum Saddāan
After Dhul Qarnayn carried out their request (without exacting tribute), he told them:
“This is a Mercy from my Lord, but when the Promise of my Lord comes, He shall level it to the ground. And the Promise of my Lord is ever true. And on that day, we shall leave some of them to surge like waves on one another...” [Quran 18:98-99].
{قَالَ هَذَا رَحْمَةٌ مِّن رَّبِّي فَإِذَا جَاء وَعْدُ رَبِّي جَعَلَهُ دَكَّاء وَكَانَ وَعْدُ رَبِّي حَقّاً (98) وَتَرَكْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ يَمُوجُ فِي بَعْضٍ}
Transliteration: Qāla Hādhā Raĥmatun Min Rabbī Fa'idhā Jā'a Wa`du Rabbī Ja`alahu Dakkā'a Wa Kāna Wa`du Rabbī Ĥaqqāan, Wa Taraknā Ba`đahum Yawma'idhin Yamūju Fī Ba`đin Wa Nufikha Fī Aş-Şūri Fajama`nāhum Jam`āan
This means that they will be a people who are not under the jurisdiction of Jesus when he accepts the pledge from former Jews and Christians. And it is the Gog and Magog who will be the final threat to the believers before his reign of peace. Again, the Quran says:
“When the Gog and Magog swoop down from every ridge, and the true Promise draws near, you will see the disbelievers, their eyes staring fixedly, in horror; They will say, ‘woe to us; indeed were heedless of this – and we were wrongdoers.’” [Quran 21:96-97].
{حَتَّى إِذَا فُتِحَتْ يَأْجُوجُ وَمَأْجُوجُ وَهُم مِّن كُلِّ حَدَبٍ يَنسِلُونَ (96) وَاقْتَرَبَ الْوَعْدُ الْحَقُّ فَإِذَا هِيَ شَاخِصَةٌ أَبْصَارُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا يَا وَيْلَنَا قَدْ كُنَّا فِي غَفْلَةٍ مِّنْ هَذَا بَلْ كُنَّا ظَالِمِينَ}
Transliteration: Ĥattá 'Idhā Futiĥat Ya'jūju Wa Ma'jūju Wa Hum Min Kulli Ĥadabin Yansilūna, Wāqtaraba Al-Wa`du Al-Ĥaqqu Fa'idhā Hiya Shākhişatun 'Abşāru Al-Ladhīna Kafarū Yā Waylanā Qad Kunnā Fī Ghaflatin Min Hādhā Bal Kunnā Žālimīna
Not even Jesus will be able to withstand the coming of the Gog and Magog, for they will swarm the land destructively, like locusts.
Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported that the prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said that only the Muslims who retreat into their cities and strongholds with their cattle and sheep will survive the onslaught.[7] It is also said:
«God will reveal to Jesus, son of Mary, “I have brought forth people from among My creatures against who none will be able to fight. Take my worshippers safely to Mount Tur» [Saheeh Muslim].
The Gog and Magog will be so many that when the last of the horde passes through a lake bed from whose water the first rank had drunk, they will bewail, ‘There used to be water here, once.’ Anybody not from themselves, except for the Muslims in their strongholds and refuges, will be killed, and the horde will declaim, ‘We have defeated the people of earth. Now only the people of heaven are left [for us to defeat].’ On that, one will fire an arrow into the sky, and it will fall back to earth blood-stained.[8]
Though the Gog and Magog will think they have obtained victory, their very boast would be their downfall, for the blood on their weapons will be nothing but a test from God. The next article will deal with how the Gog and Magog will be defeated, and what happens after that.
___________________________________
The Return of Jesus (part 5 of 5)
Description: The end of Gog and Magog, followed by peace and plenty, a world without war, the universality of God’s True Religion, and the death of Jesus.
By Jeremy Boulter (© 2006 IslamReligion.com) - Published on 19 Jun 2006 - Last modified on 01 Apr 2008
The End of Gog and Magog
When the Gog and Magog will have driven the Muslims to hole up in their strongholds and refuges, and when they see the blood on their weapons, which will have returned from the sky, they will take these as evidence for their imminent victory over the Muslims. However, that evening:
«Jesus and his companions will beseech God, and God will send against them (the Gog and Magog) worms which will attack their necks; and in the morning, they will all perish as one» [Saheeh Muslim].
Not knowing that the horde was already destroyed, the Muslims in their strongholds will call for a volunteer to scout out what the enemy was doing. The volunteer, knowing he would probably die, will descend to find them all dead, lying on top of one another. Returning, he will call out: ‘O Muslims, rejoice! God has sufficed us against our enemies!’[1]
When Jesus and the people who took refuge on Mount Tur descend, they will find the same scene, with not a single spot of the earth around them free of the putrefying stench of rotting bodies. So sickening and dangerous to health will be the situation that Jesus will pray again to God, Who will send huge birds to carry them off[2] and throw them into the sea where the sun rises.
The Aftermath
After that, God will send a drenching, intense rain that penetrates into everything, lasting forty days. Unlike the Deluge,[3] this torrential rainfall will be beneficial, for:
«The earth will be washed till it looks like a mirror. God will then order the earth: ‘Bring forth your fruit and restore your blessing.’» [Saheeh Muslim].
The Muslims will let their cattle and flocks out to graze again, and they will fatten up better than from any vegetation they had fed on before.[4] Orchards will produce fruit of size and quality never known before, and cattle produce fine quality milk in copious amounts, enough so that nobody will experience any shortage of it.[5]
The benefits, then, from the advent of the Gog and Magog, will the decimation of non-believers, leaving the world for a nation of the believers, and food in abundance after the earth had absorbed all the dead decaying bodies caused by their invasion and later extermination. For a period of time, wealth would be so abundant that people would not be able to find those to whom they could pay out the poor due.[6] Abu Hurayrah reported the Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, as saying:
«…And there will be no Jizya. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (in charity)» [Saheeh Al-Bukhari].
Not so beneficial will be the reduction in the numbers of men, causing a major imbalance in the sex ratio. Women will far exceed the men in numbers, possibly due to casualties in war, as was the case in Germany after World War Two.[7].
The Reign and Death of Jesus
The reign of Jesus, may God grant him peace, will be by the Law that Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, brought. This is in accordance with the Covenant that God took from all his prophets. In the Quran, it says:
Behold! God took the Covenant of the prophets, saying: “I have given you the Book and Wisdom; then will come a messenger to you confirming what is with you, so believe in him and render him help.” God said: “Do you agree, and take this Covenant as binding upon you?” They said: “We agree.” He said: “Then bear witness! And I am with you among the witnesses.” [Quran 3:81].
{وَإِذْ أَخَذَ اللّهُ مِيثَاقَ النَّبِيِّيْنَ لَمَا آتَيْتُكُم مِّن كِتَابٍ وَحِكْمَةٍ ثُمَّ جَاءكُمْ رَسُولٌ مُّصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَكُمْ لَتُؤْمِنُنَّ بِهِ وَلَتَنصُرُنَّهُ قَالَ أَأَقْرَرْتُمْ وَأَخَذْتُمْ عَلَى ذَلِكُمْ إِصْرِي قَالُواْ أَقْرَرْنَا قَالَ فَاشْهَدُواْ وَأَنَاْ مَعَكُم مِّنَ الشَّاهِدِينَ}
Transliteration: Wa 'Idh 'Akhadha Allāhu Mīthāqa An-Nabīyīna Lamā 'Ātaytukum Min Kitābin Wa Ĥikmatin Thumma Jā'akum Rasūlun Muşaddiqun Limā Ma`akum Latu'uminunna Bihi Wa Latanşurunnahu Qāla 'A'aqrartum Wa 'Akhadhtum `Alá Dhālikum 'Işrī Qālū 'Aqrarnā Qāla Fāsh/hadū Wa 'Anā Ma`akum Mina Ash-Shāhidīna
The reign of Jesus, therefore, will be according to the Covenant with God, and this is backed up by an explanation of the saying of the Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, by Abu Hurayrah, when he reported a question he had asked to his companions. He said:
The Messenger of God said: «What would you do when the son of Mary descends among you, and lead as one among you?»
One of the companions, Ibn Abu Theeb, asked:
What does, ‘He will lead as one among you’ mean?
Abu Hurayrah replied:
“He will lead you according to the Book of your Lord, exalted and praised is He, and the Way of your Messenger, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him.”[8]
His reign will be marked by mutual respect, peace and prosperity among the people.In another hadeeth, Abu Hurayrah said:
«Spite, mutual hatred and jealousy against one another will disappear, and when he (Jesus) summons people to accept wealth, none will do so» [Saheeh Al-Bukhari].
The lack of rancor between people will be absolute, not relative, for at least seven years, wherein no two people would be stirred to ire towards each other,[9] and the word between them would be ‘peace’. In fact, religiosity and piety will be the order of the day, for to each person:
«A single prostration to God (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it» [Saheeh Al-Bukhari].
Jesus himself will not only rule and judge by the Muslim Shariah, he will complete all the Islamic pillars. The Prophet of Islam said:
«By him in Whose hand my life is, the son of Mary will certainly invoke the name of God for Hajj or Umrah[10] or both in the valley of Rauha (a valley near Medina)» [Saheeh Muslim].
Then, forty years after his second coming, he will die, and the Muslims will perform the funeral prayer for him.[11] And this moment is the moment God is referring to in the Quranic verse:
“And there is none of the People of the Book who must believe in him before his death…” [Quran 4:159].
{وَإِن مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلاَّ لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ}
Transliteration: Wa 'In Min 'Ahli Al-Kitābi 'Illā Layu'uminanna Bihi Qabla Mawtihi
God willing, all the people will be of one Book at that time.
Conclusion
As we can see, the return of Jesus to the Earth will be a truly magnificent event, surrounded by truly magnificent incidents, so magnificent that one may find it even fantasy-like. Jesus will come at a time when the world is in true need of Divine Help. Indeed this Divine Help will come with Jesus, but some of the trials of those days will be so great that not even he will be able to face it, fleeing to the tops of mounts with his followers. Only God will be able to save humanity in that time. Albeit, not only will this Divine Help come to put an end to the greatest trials faced by humankind since the dawn of time – the False Messiah and Gog and Magog - but it will also come to show the truth about God, putting an end to all falsehood, with everyone being united under the one true religion of Allah.
By Jeremy Boulter (© 2006 IslamReligion.com) - Published on 19 Jun 2006 - Last modified on 01 Apr 2008
The End of Gog and Magog
When the Gog and Magog will have driven the Muslims to hole up in their strongholds and refuges, and when they see the blood on their weapons, which will have returned from the sky, they will take these as evidence for their imminent victory over the Muslims. However, that evening:
«Jesus and his companions will beseech God, and God will send against them (the Gog and Magog) worms which will attack their necks; and in the morning, they will all perish as one» [Saheeh Muslim].
Not knowing that the horde was already destroyed, the Muslims in their strongholds will call for a volunteer to scout out what the enemy was doing. The volunteer, knowing he would probably die, will descend to find them all dead, lying on top of one another. Returning, he will call out: ‘O Muslims, rejoice! God has sufficed us against our enemies!’[1]
When Jesus and the people who took refuge on Mount Tur descend, they will find the same scene, with not a single spot of the earth around them free of the putrefying stench of rotting bodies. So sickening and dangerous to health will be the situation that Jesus will pray again to God, Who will send huge birds to carry them off[2] and throw them into the sea where the sun rises.
The Aftermath
After that, God will send a drenching, intense rain that penetrates into everything, lasting forty days. Unlike the Deluge,[3] this torrential rainfall will be beneficial, for:
«The earth will be washed till it looks like a mirror. God will then order the earth: ‘Bring forth your fruit and restore your blessing.’» [Saheeh Muslim].
The Muslims will let their cattle and flocks out to graze again, and they will fatten up better than from any vegetation they had fed on before.[4] Orchards will produce fruit of size and quality never known before, and cattle produce fine quality milk in copious amounts, enough so that nobody will experience any shortage of it.[5]
The benefits, then, from the advent of the Gog and Magog, will the decimation of non-believers, leaving the world for a nation of the believers, and food in abundance after the earth had absorbed all the dead decaying bodies caused by their invasion and later extermination. For a period of time, wealth would be so abundant that people would not be able to find those to whom they could pay out the poor due.[6] Abu Hurayrah reported the Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, as saying:
«…And there will be no Jizya. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (in charity)» [Saheeh Al-Bukhari].
Not so beneficial will be the reduction in the numbers of men, causing a major imbalance in the sex ratio. Women will far exceed the men in numbers, possibly due to casualties in war, as was the case in Germany after World War Two.[7].
The Reign and Death of Jesus
The reign of Jesus, may God grant him peace, will be by the Law that Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, brought. This is in accordance with the Covenant that God took from all his prophets. In the Quran, it says:
Behold! God took the Covenant of the prophets, saying: “I have given you the Book and Wisdom; then will come a messenger to you confirming what is with you, so believe in him and render him help.” God said: “Do you agree, and take this Covenant as binding upon you?” They said: “We agree.” He said: “Then bear witness! And I am with you among the witnesses.” [Quran 3:81].
{وَإِذْ أَخَذَ اللّهُ مِيثَاقَ النَّبِيِّيْنَ لَمَا آتَيْتُكُم مِّن كِتَابٍ وَحِكْمَةٍ ثُمَّ جَاءكُمْ رَسُولٌ مُّصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَكُمْ لَتُؤْمِنُنَّ بِهِ وَلَتَنصُرُنَّهُ قَالَ أَأَقْرَرْتُمْ وَأَخَذْتُمْ عَلَى ذَلِكُمْ إِصْرِي قَالُواْ أَقْرَرْنَا قَالَ فَاشْهَدُواْ وَأَنَاْ مَعَكُم مِّنَ الشَّاهِدِينَ}
Transliteration: Wa 'Idh 'Akhadha Allāhu Mīthāqa An-Nabīyīna Lamā 'Ātaytukum Min Kitābin Wa Ĥikmatin Thumma Jā'akum Rasūlun Muşaddiqun Limā Ma`akum Latu'uminunna Bihi Wa Latanşurunnahu Qāla 'A'aqrartum Wa 'Akhadhtum `Alá Dhālikum 'Işrī Qālū 'Aqrarnā Qāla Fāsh/hadū Wa 'Anā Ma`akum Mina Ash-Shāhidīna
The reign of Jesus, therefore, will be according to the Covenant with God, and this is backed up by an explanation of the saying of the Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, by Abu Hurayrah, when he reported a question he had asked to his companions. He said:
The Messenger of God said: «What would you do when the son of Mary descends among you, and lead as one among you?»
One of the companions, Ibn Abu Theeb, asked:
What does, ‘He will lead as one among you’ mean?
Abu Hurayrah replied:
“He will lead you according to the Book of your Lord, exalted and praised is He, and the Way of your Messenger, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him.”[8]
His reign will be marked by mutual respect, peace and prosperity among the people.In another hadeeth, Abu Hurayrah said:
«Spite, mutual hatred and jealousy against one another will disappear, and when he (Jesus) summons people to accept wealth, none will do so» [Saheeh Al-Bukhari].
The lack of rancor between people will be absolute, not relative, for at least seven years, wherein no two people would be stirred to ire towards each other,[9] and the word between them would be ‘peace’. In fact, religiosity and piety will be the order of the day, for to each person:
«A single prostration to God (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it» [Saheeh Al-Bukhari].
Jesus himself will not only rule and judge by the Muslim Shariah, he will complete all the Islamic pillars. The Prophet of Islam said:
«By him in Whose hand my life is, the son of Mary will certainly invoke the name of God for Hajj or Umrah[10] or both in the valley of Rauha (a valley near Medina)» [Saheeh Muslim].
Then, forty years after his second coming, he will die, and the Muslims will perform the funeral prayer for him.[11] And this moment is the moment God is referring to in the Quranic verse:
“And there is none of the People of the Book who must believe in him before his death…” [Quran 4:159].
{وَإِن مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلاَّ لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ}
Transliteration: Wa 'In Min 'Ahli Al-Kitābi 'Illā Layu'uminanna Bihi Qabla Mawtihi
God willing, all the people will be of one Book at that time.
Conclusion
As we can see, the return of Jesus to the Earth will be a truly magnificent event, surrounded by truly magnificent incidents, so magnificent that one may find it even fantasy-like. Jesus will come at a time when the world is in true need of Divine Help. Indeed this Divine Help will come with Jesus, but some of the trials of those days will be so great that not even he will be able to face it, fleeing to the tops of mounts with his followers. Only God will be able to save humanity in that time. Albeit, not only will this Divine Help come to put an end to the greatest trials faced by humankind since the dawn of time – the False Messiah and Gog and Magog - but it will also come to show the truth about God, putting an end to all falsehood, with everyone being united under the one true religion of Allah.
How Did 1 become 3?
God (or Gods)?
Excerpts and Quotes - From The Catholic Church History
By Brother John Raymond
Introduction
Arianism with its fundamental Trinitarian controversy must not be looked upon as an isolated theory by its founder Arius. Its appeal, which began in Alexandria and spread through the whole Empire, must be seen in the context of the times. The Church emerged in a Jewish and Greek world. The question occupying this non-Christian world was the contrast between the "One and the Many, between the ultimate unity that lay behind the visible universe and the incalculable variety that exists in the world." [Ward 1955, 38]
Relationship of God And World
The relationship between God and the world had to be solved.
The Jews proposed a supreme God who created by His word. It was an idea of a mediating "Word or Wisdom - the Word which is pronounced, the Wisdom which is created - whereby the Father communicated Himself to man and took possession of him." [Guitton 1965, 81].
The Greeks could not see how a finite and changeable world could come from an eternal and changeless God. They proposed the idea of a "mediating Intelligence or even Word, a first emanation of the first principle which reduced the distance between God and the world" [Guitton 1965, 81]
The primitive Church had to "reconcile the notions they had inherited from Judaism with those they had derived from philosophy. Jew and Greek had to meet in Christ. They had to find an answer that would agree with the revelation they had received from Christ as recorded in the scriptures." [Ward 1955, 39].
This struggle for a reconciliation of thought reached its climax with the Arian controversy. The Church responded with the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea that brought together Scriptural and philosophical thought to explain the Trinity. The Council did triumph over Arianism but only after fifty years of bitter battling. Imperial support and confusion in theological terminology were the principal reasons for such a long drawn out battle as we will see.
Arius And His Teaching
Arius, who was born in Egypt in 256 A.D., was a parish priest in Alexandria. He had studied under St. Lucian of Antioch, the founder of the school of Antioch, who had earlier been condemned for holding that Christ was only a man; although he was later reconciled. He is called the "Father of Arianism" because "Arius and almost all the 4th-century Arian theologians were his students. Calling themselves Lucianists and Collucianists, they developed his adoptionist and subordinationist tendencies into a full heresy" [Harkins 1967, 1057, 1058].
With this background Arius struggled with the question of the Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria was the following: "Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of God... the Godhead Himself was responsible for them... Identifying the eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the Logos ('Logos' is simply a Greek word for 'word') as no more than a power or quality of the Father, he said that before time began the Father had created the Son by the power of the Word to be His agent in creation.
The Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead, He was only God in a derivative sense, and since there was once when he did not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed the subordination of the Logos to such an extent as to affirm His creaturehood, to deny His eternity and to assert His capacity for change and suffering." [Ward 1955, 41]
This teaching of Arius "drove the distinctions outside the Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities." [Ward 1955, 43].
The Person of Christ "belonged to no order of being that the Church could recognize... He was neither God nor man" [Ward 1955,42].
Arius Versus The Alexandrian Bishop
Arius' views began to spread among the people and the Alexandrian clergy. Alexander the Bishop called a meeting of his priests and deacons. The Bishop insisted on the unity of the Godhead. Arius continued to argue that since the Son was begotten of the Father then at some point He began to exist. Therefore there was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius refused to submit to the Bishop and continued to spread his teaching.
Alexander called a synod of Bishops of Egypt and Libya. Of the hundred Bishops who attended eighty voted for the condemnation and exile of Arius. After the synod Alexander wrote letters to the other Bishops refuting Arius' views. In doing so the Bishop used the term "homoousios" to describe the Father and Son as being of one substance.
Alexander "used a term which was to become the keyword of the whole controversy." [Ward 1955, 43, 44]
With the decision of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the Bishops there, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, supported him. From here Arius continued his journey to Nicomedia in Asia Minor. The Bishop of that city, Eusebius, had studied under Lucian of Antioch. He became Arius' most influential supporter. From this city Arius enlisted the support of other Bishops, many of whom had studied under Lucian. His supporters held their own synod calling Arius' views orthodox and condemning Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius seemed to have good grounds for this condemnation.
The term homoousios was rejected by Alexander's own predecessor Dionysus when arguing against the Sabellians (who claimed the Father and Son were identical). All this controversy was taking place just as the Church was emerging from Roman oppression.
Constantine And Ossius
With the rise of Constantine to power Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine had politically united the Empire but he was distressed to find a divided Christianity. Constantine, certainly not understanding the significance of the controversy, sent Ossius his main ecclesiastical adviser with letters to both Alexander and Arius. In the letters he tried to reconcile them by saying that their disagreement was merely just a matter of words. Both of them really were in agreement on major doctrines and neither was involved in heresy.
The letters failed to have an effect. In 325 A.D. Ossius presided over a Council of the Orient in Antioch that was attended by fifty-nine bishops, forty-six of whom would soon attend the Council of Nicaea. This Council in Antioch was a forerunner of the latter Council in Nicaea.
Under the influence of Ossius a new Church practice was inaugurated - that of issuing a creedal statement. At this Council Arianism was condemned, a profession of faith resembling the Alexandrian creed was promulgated and three Bishops who refused to agree with the teaching of this Council were provisionally excommunicated until the Council of Nicaea.
Roman Emperor Calls Council of his Church (Universal or Catholic Church of Rome). It was the year 325 AD in what is now Turkey and in the summer of that year, probably under the suggestion of Ossius, Constantine called for a general council of the Church at Nicaea in Bithynia.
That an Emperor should invoke a Council should not be considered unusual since in Hellenistic thought he "was given by God supreme power in things material and spiritual."
[Davis 1987, 56]
The Council of Nicaea. The General Council was well attended by the major sees of the Eastern Empire. Also some Western Bishops were present. Because of old age and sickness Pope Sylvester did not attend but sent two papal legates. The total number of Bishops who attended the Council has been disputed. Eusebius of Ceasarea who attended it claimed 250; Athanasius also in attendance mentioned 300; after the Council a symbolic number of 318 was used; modern scholars put the number at 220.
If there were minutes taken of the Council proceedings they are no longer in existence. We know from the writings of Rufinus that "daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius" [LeClercq 1913, 45].
Concerning the Creed that was drafted at the Council "Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given divergent accounts of how this Creed was drafted" [LeClercq 1967, 792].
But from one reconstruction of the events Eusebius of Nicomedia offered a creed that was favorable to Arian views. This creed was rejected by the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed the baptismal creed used in Caesarea. Although accepted it does not seem to form the basis of the Council's Creed. Attempts were made to construct a creed using only scriptural terms. These creeds proved insufficient to exclude the Arian position.
"Finally, it seems, a Syro-Palestinian creed was used as the basis for a new creedal statement... The finished creed was preserved in the writings of Athanasius, of the historian Socrates and of Basil of Caesarea and in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon of 451" [Davis 1987, 59].
When the creed was finished eighteen Bishops still opposed it. Constantine at this point intervened to threaten with exile anyone who would not sign for it. Two Libyan Bishops and Arius still refused to accept the creed. All three were exiled. The Creed and an Analysis some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as follows:
"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth... Those who say: `There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten;' and that `He was made out of nothing;' or who maintain that `He is of another hypostasis or another substance,' or that `the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change,' the Catholic Church anathematizes" [LeClercq 1913, 45].
The Arians were very clever in twisting phrases in creedal statements to reflect their own doctrine. The Son being "begotten of the Father" was seen by them as saying that the Son was created from nothing. But to counter their doctrine the phrase "begotten not made" was added to the creed that totally ruled out their position of the Son having a beginning. Another Arian teaching was that the Son was God by grace and name only.
The creedal statement "true God of true God" was an affirmation that the Son was really truly God against this Arian position. The most important statement in the creed that affirms "that the Son shares the same being as the Father and is therefore fully divine" was the phrase "of one substance (homoousios) with the Father" [Davis 1987, 61].
This statement totally destroyed the Arian view of the Son as an intermediary being between God and Creation. In case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy anathemas were attached directly condemning Arian positions. The Arian denial of the Son's co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the two phrases "there was when the Son of God was not" and "before He was begotten He was not."
The Arian belief in the Son being created out of nothing is expressed in the phrase "He came into being from things that are not". The Arian doctrine that the Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will is expressed in the phrase "He is mutable or alterable."
Finally the Arian position of the Son as subordinate to the Father and not really God is expressed in the phrase "He is of a different hypostasis or substance". With these specific anathemas against them the Arians and their heresy seemed to be finished. Terminology Problem With the Eastern Church using Greek and the Western Church using Latin misunderstandings were bound to arise over theological terminology. Once instance of confusion is the statement "He is of a different hypostasis or substance."
The two words in the Eastern Church were seen to be synonymous. In the West hypostasis meant person. So for a Westerner the Council would look as if it was condemning the statement that the Son was a different Person from the Father, which would clearly be erroneous. Only later would the East come to distinguish hypostasis from substance (ousia) as in the West.
This instance of confusion "points up the terminological difficulty which continued to bedevil Eastern theology and to confuse the West about the East's position" [Davis 1987, 63].
A second and very important termed used by the Council was homoousios. At that time this word could have three possible meanings.
"First, it could be generic; of one substance could be said of two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals.
Second, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being.
Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay." [Davis 1987, 61].
The Council intended the first meaning to stress the equality of the Son with the Father.
If the second meaning for the word was taken to be the Council's intention it would mean that the Father and Son were identical and indistinguishable - clearly a Sabellian heresy.
The third meaning gave the word a materialistic tendency that would infer that the Father and Son are parts of the same stuff.
Along with these possible misunderstandings of the meaning of the word homoousios the history of the word is closely associated with heresies.
The word was originally used by the Gnostics [1]. The word had even been condemned at the Council of Antioch in 268 regarding its use by the Adoptionist Paul of Samosata.
Another factor making the word unpopular was that it was never used in Sacred Scripture. The Council's defeat by Arianism. It is not surprising that with its use of the word homoousios the Council could be called into question.
Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia gained the confidence of Emperor Constantine. He convinced Constantine that the Council's use of the word homoousios was Sabellian (Father and Son were identical). The Emperor now favored the Arians.
With the death of Constantine the Empire was divided between his sons. Constans who ruled in the West favored Nicaea while his brother Constantius who ruled the East was anti-Nicaea.
Supporters of Nicaea in the East especially Bishop Athanasius were deposed and excommunicated by the Dedication Council of Antioch. This Council directly attacked the Nicaea Council by promulgating its own creed that omitted the phrases "from the substance of the Father" and "homoousios."
Some attempts were made to find a substitute word for homoousios. As many as fourteen Councils were held between 341 and 360 "in which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression... The term `like in substance,' homoiousion... had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula" [Barry 1913, 709].
Not all Arians, or their new name of Semi-Arian, agreed with this new word. One group emphasized that the Father and Son were "dissimilar" or anomoios. Another group used the word "similar" or homoios to describe the Father and Son relationship.
With the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea brother Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor demanded that all the Bishops of his Empire should agree with the homoios formula. In 359 he summoned two Councils, one in the East at Seleucia and the other in the West at Rimini.
Both Councils, under the Emperor's threats and with rationalizing arguments aimed at calming consciences, were induced to sign the homoios formula. "This Homoean victory was confirmed and imposed on the whole Church by the Council of Constantinople in the following year" which condemned the terms homoousios, homoousios and anomoios. [Ward 1955, 57].
It seemed that the Arians had triumphed over the Nicaea creed. The Final Battle. The seeming triumph of homoeism was short lived.
First it gained its popularity solely by imperial imposition. With the death of Constantius in 361 it collapsed.
Second by persecuting both homoousios and homoousios supporters alike "it brought about better understanding and, ultimately, reconciliation between the two groups" [DeClercq 1967, 793].
Athanasius an ardent defender of the homoousios position and following the Alexandrian train of thought had begun his reasoning with the unity of God. From their he had concluded that the Son and Spirit Who shared that unity must have the same essential substance.
The Cappadocian Fathers Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa were associated with Homoiousians.
The point of departure for them as well as the Antiochenes had been the individual aspect of the divine personality. With the help of Athanasius they came to the realization that the three Persons as God must share the same identical substance also. By using the term homoousios the Cappadocian Fathers "had never meant to deny the unity but only to preserve the distinction of persons" [Ward 1955, 58].
Both came to the conclusion that although they used different terms what they meant to say was the same.
The Cappadocian Fathers came to accept the term homoousios. Athanasius, on the other hand, accepted the Cappadocian formula for the Trinity - one substance (ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis).
At about the same time as Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers were reaching an agreement another development was taking place. The East and the West were arriving at a better understanding of each others theological terminology.
At the Synod of Alexandria in 362 the Nicene Creed was re-affirmed, the terms ousia and hypostasis were explained and Macedonianism (sometimes referred to as another form of Semi-Arianism in its subordination of the Holy Spirit) was condemned.
Under the Eastern Emperor Valens (364-378) homoeism still had imperial favor. In the West Ambrose of Milan led the fight for the Nicene Creed. At the Council of Sirmium in 378, with the support of the Western Emperor Gratian, six Arian Bishops were deposed. A series of laws were passed in 379 and 380 the Emperor prohibited Arianism in the West.
In the East with the succession of Valens by a Nicene sympathizing Emperor Theodosius I all exiled Bishops under Valens to return to their sees. In 381 he convoked a regional Council at Constantinople. The first canon from this Council states that "the faith of the 318 fathers who assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be made void, but shall continue to be established" [Davis 1987, 126].
In 380 the Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism. The last victory over Arianism came in 381 with the Council of Constantinople in the East and the Council of Aquileia in the West. Both of them "sealed the final adoption of the faith of Nicaea by the entire Church" [DeClercq 1967, 793].
Conclusion
The Council of Nicaea was victorious in the end. It took over fifty years of bitter battling between the upholders of the Council of Nicaea and those against it. The Arian heresy seemed finished when the Council so specifically anathematized their teachings one by one.
The Arian doctrines condemned were the following:
The Son was created by the Father out of nothing.
Thus the Son was not God in the strict sense but by grace and
in name only.
The Father and Son did not share the same substance.
The Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability
and only remained virtuous by an act of the will.
Terminology difficulties had kept the door open for the Arians to continue after the Council. This was especially true with the term homoousios (of the same substance) used by the Council to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.
The Arians took advantage of one of the term's other meaning, that of identity, to claim that the Council said the Father and Son were identical thereby invalidating the Council. The Arians then started producing their own creeds either eliminating this term or substituting another for it. This lead to the breaking up of the Arians into diverse groups according to which term they supported - anomoios (dissimilar), homoios (similar) or homoiousion (like in substance).
It is obvious that Imperial involvement in the controversy determined at any given moment whether the Council of Nicaea or the Arianism was dominating the controversy. With the imposition of the term homoios on the Church by the Emperor Constantius the work of the Council of Nicaea seemed doomed. But the popularity of this term died with the Emperor.
The persecution of both the Homoiousians and the Homoiousians forced them to begin to dialogue. With the two great representatives of these positions, St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers, finding theological grounds for their eventual agreement the way was paved for the triumph of the Council of Nicaea. This incident later coupled with Eastern and Western Emperors who were pro-Nicaea led to the final Arian downfall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFRENCE:
[1] Gnostics - meaning "to know secret or hidden knowledge"; lit., those who know; a mystic order of Christianity. Often known for giving up all worldly matters, often living apart from society and being reclusive, fasting and remaining celibate. Possible forerunners of the sufi orders found amongst some Muslims today.
Excerpts and Quotes - From The Catholic Church History
By Brother John Raymond
Introduction
Arianism with its fundamental Trinitarian controversy must not be looked upon as an isolated theory by its founder Arius. Its appeal, which began in Alexandria and spread through the whole Empire, must be seen in the context of the times. The Church emerged in a Jewish and Greek world. The question occupying this non-Christian world was the contrast between the "One and the Many, between the ultimate unity that lay behind the visible universe and the incalculable variety that exists in the world." [Ward 1955, 38]
Relationship of God And World
The relationship between God and the world had to be solved.
The Jews proposed a supreme God who created by His word. It was an idea of a mediating "Word or Wisdom - the Word which is pronounced, the Wisdom which is created - whereby the Father communicated Himself to man and took possession of him." [Guitton 1965, 81].
The Greeks could not see how a finite and changeable world could come from an eternal and changeless God. They proposed the idea of a "mediating Intelligence or even Word, a first emanation of the first principle which reduced the distance between God and the world" [Guitton 1965, 81]
The primitive Church had to "reconcile the notions they had inherited from Judaism with those they had derived from philosophy. Jew and Greek had to meet in Christ. They had to find an answer that would agree with the revelation they had received from Christ as recorded in the scriptures." [Ward 1955, 39].
This struggle for a reconciliation of thought reached its climax with the Arian controversy. The Church responded with the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea that brought together Scriptural and philosophical thought to explain the Trinity. The Council did triumph over Arianism but only after fifty years of bitter battling. Imperial support and confusion in theological terminology were the principal reasons for such a long drawn out battle as we will see.
Arius And His Teaching
Arius, who was born in Egypt in 256 A.D., was a parish priest in Alexandria. He had studied under St. Lucian of Antioch, the founder of the school of Antioch, who had earlier been condemned for holding that Christ was only a man; although he was later reconciled. He is called the "Father of Arianism" because "Arius and almost all the 4th-century Arian theologians were his students. Calling themselves Lucianists and Collucianists, they developed his adoptionist and subordinationist tendencies into a full heresy" [Harkins 1967, 1057, 1058].
With this background Arius struggled with the question of the Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria was the following: "Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of God... the Godhead Himself was responsible for them... Identifying the eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the Logos ('Logos' is simply a Greek word for 'word') as no more than a power or quality of the Father, he said that before time began the Father had created the Son by the power of the Word to be His agent in creation.
The Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead, He was only God in a derivative sense, and since there was once when he did not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed the subordination of the Logos to such an extent as to affirm His creaturehood, to deny His eternity and to assert His capacity for change and suffering." [Ward 1955, 41]
This teaching of Arius "drove the distinctions outside the Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities." [Ward 1955, 43].
The Person of Christ "belonged to no order of being that the Church could recognize... He was neither God nor man" [Ward 1955,42].
Arius Versus The Alexandrian Bishop
Arius' views began to spread among the people and the Alexandrian clergy. Alexander the Bishop called a meeting of his priests and deacons. The Bishop insisted on the unity of the Godhead. Arius continued to argue that since the Son was begotten of the Father then at some point He began to exist. Therefore there was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius refused to submit to the Bishop and continued to spread his teaching.
Alexander called a synod of Bishops of Egypt and Libya. Of the hundred Bishops who attended eighty voted for the condemnation and exile of Arius. After the synod Alexander wrote letters to the other Bishops refuting Arius' views. In doing so the Bishop used the term "homoousios" to describe the Father and Son as being of one substance.
Alexander "used a term which was to become the keyword of the whole controversy." [Ward 1955, 43, 44]
With the decision of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the Bishops there, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, supported him. From here Arius continued his journey to Nicomedia in Asia Minor. The Bishop of that city, Eusebius, had studied under Lucian of Antioch. He became Arius' most influential supporter. From this city Arius enlisted the support of other Bishops, many of whom had studied under Lucian. His supporters held their own synod calling Arius' views orthodox and condemning Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius seemed to have good grounds for this condemnation.
The term homoousios was rejected by Alexander's own predecessor Dionysus when arguing against the Sabellians (who claimed the Father and Son were identical). All this controversy was taking place just as the Church was emerging from Roman oppression.
Constantine And Ossius
With the rise of Constantine to power Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine had politically united the Empire but he was distressed to find a divided Christianity. Constantine, certainly not understanding the significance of the controversy, sent Ossius his main ecclesiastical adviser with letters to both Alexander and Arius. In the letters he tried to reconcile them by saying that their disagreement was merely just a matter of words. Both of them really were in agreement on major doctrines and neither was involved in heresy.
The letters failed to have an effect. In 325 A.D. Ossius presided over a Council of the Orient in Antioch that was attended by fifty-nine bishops, forty-six of whom would soon attend the Council of Nicaea. This Council in Antioch was a forerunner of the latter Council in Nicaea.
Under the influence of Ossius a new Church practice was inaugurated - that of issuing a creedal statement. At this Council Arianism was condemned, a profession of faith resembling the Alexandrian creed was promulgated and three Bishops who refused to agree with the teaching of this Council were provisionally excommunicated until the Council of Nicaea.
Roman Emperor Calls Council of his Church (Universal or Catholic Church of Rome). It was the year 325 AD in what is now Turkey and in the summer of that year, probably under the suggestion of Ossius, Constantine called for a general council of the Church at Nicaea in Bithynia.
That an Emperor should invoke a Council should not be considered unusual since in Hellenistic thought he "was given by God supreme power in things material and spiritual."
[Davis 1987, 56]
The Council of Nicaea. The General Council was well attended by the major sees of the Eastern Empire. Also some Western Bishops were present. Because of old age and sickness Pope Sylvester did not attend but sent two papal legates. The total number of Bishops who attended the Council has been disputed. Eusebius of Ceasarea who attended it claimed 250; Athanasius also in attendance mentioned 300; after the Council a symbolic number of 318 was used; modern scholars put the number at 220.
If there were minutes taken of the Council proceedings they are no longer in existence. We know from the writings of Rufinus that "daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius" [LeClercq 1913, 45].
Concerning the Creed that was drafted at the Council "Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given divergent accounts of how this Creed was drafted" [LeClercq 1967, 792].
But from one reconstruction of the events Eusebius of Nicomedia offered a creed that was favorable to Arian views. This creed was rejected by the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed the baptismal creed used in Caesarea. Although accepted it does not seem to form the basis of the Council's Creed. Attempts were made to construct a creed using only scriptural terms. These creeds proved insufficient to exclude the Arian position.
"Finally, it seems, a Syro-Palestinian creed was used as the basis for a new creedal statement... The finished creed was preserved in the writings of Athanasius, of the historian Socrates and of Basil of Caesarea and in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon of 451" [Davis 1987, 59].
When the creed was finished eighteen Bishops still opposed it. Constantine at this point intervened to threaten with exile anyone who would not sign for it. Two Libyan Bishops and Arius still refused to accept the creed. All three were exiled. The Creed and an Analysis some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as follows:
"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth... Those who say: `There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten;' and that `He was made out of nothing;' or who maintain that `He is of another hypostasis or another substance,' or that `the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change,' the Catholic Church anathematizes" [LeClercq 1913, 45].
The Arians were very clever in twisting phrases in creedal statements to reflect their own doctrine. The Son being "begotten of the Father" was seen by them as saying that the Son was created from nothing. But to counter their doctrine the phrase "begotten not made" was added to the creed that totally ruled out their position of the Son having a beginning. Another Arian teaching was that the Son was God by grace and name only.
The creedal statement "true God of true God" was an affirmation that the Son was really truly God against this Arian position. The most important statement in the creed that affirms "that the Son shares the same being as the Father and is therefore fully divine" was the phrase "of one substance (homoousios) with the Father" [Davis 1987, 61].
This statement totally destroyed the Arian view of the Son as an intermediary being between God and Creation. In case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy anathemas were attached directly condemning Arian positions. The Arian denial of the Son's co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the two phrases "there was when the Son of God was not" and "before He was begotten He was not."
The Arian belief in the Son being created out of nothing is expressed in the phrase "He came into being from things that are not". The Arian doctrine that the Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will is expressed in the phrase "He is mutable or alterable."
Finally the Arian position of the Son as subordinate to the Father and not really God is expressed in the phrase "He is of a different hypostasis or substance". With these specific anathemas against them the Arians and their heresy seemed to be finished. Terminology Problem With the Eastern Church using Greek and the Western Church using Latin misunderstandings were bound to arise over theological terminology. Once instance of confusion is the statement "He is of a different hypostasis or substance."
The two words in the Eastern Church were seen to be synonymous. In the West hypostasis meant person. So for a Westerner the Council would look as if it was condemning the statement that the Son was a different Person from the Father, which would clearly be erroneous. Only later would the East come to distinguish hypostasis from substance (ousia) as in the West.
This instance of confusion "points up the terminological difficulty which continued to bedevil Eastern theology and to confuse the West about the East's position" [Davis 1987, 63].
A second and very important termed used by the Council was homoousios. At that time this word could have three possible meanings.
"First, it could be generic; of one substance could be said of two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals.
Second, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being.
Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay." [Davis 1987, 61].
The Council intended the first meaning to stress the equality of the Son with the Father.
If the second meaning for the word was taken to be the Council's intention it would mean that the Father and Son were identical and indistinguishable - clearly a Sabellian heresy.
The third meaning gave the word a materialistic tendency that would infer that the Father and Son are parts of the same stuff.
Along with these possible misunderstandings of the meaning of the word homoousios the history of the word is closely associated with heresies.
The word was originally used by the Gnostics [1]. The word had even been condemned at the Council of Antioch in 268 regarding its use by the Adoptionist Paul of Samosata.
Another factor making the word unpopular was that it was never used in Sacred Scripture. The Council's defeat by Arianism. It is not surprising that with its use of the word homoousios the Council could be called into question.
Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia gained the confidence of Emperor Constantine. He convinced Constantine that the Council's use of the word homoousios was Sabellian (Father and Son were identical). The Emperor now favored the Arians.
With the death of Constantine the Empire was divided between his sons. Constans who ruled in the West favored Nicaea while his brother Constantius who ruled the East was anti-Nicaea.
Supporters of Nicaea in the East especially Bishop Athanasius were deposed and excommunicated by the Dedication Council of Antioch. This Council directly attacked the Nicaea Council by promulgating its own creed that omitted the phrases "from the substance of the Father" and "homoousios."
Some attempts were made to find a substitute word for homoousios. As many as fourteen Councils were held between 341 and 360 "in which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression... The term `like in substance,' homoiousion... had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula" [Barry 1913, 709].
Not all Arians, or their new name of Semi-Arian, agreed with this new word. One group emphasized that the Father and Son were "dissimilar" or anomoios. Another group used the word "similar" or homoios to describe the Father and Son relationship.
With the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea brother Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor demanded that all the Bishops of his Empire should agree with the homoios formula. In 359 he summoned two Councils, one in the East at Seleucia and the other in the West at Rimini.
Both Councils, under the Emperor's threats and with rationalizing arguments aimed at calming consciences, were induced to sign the homoios formula. "This Homoean victory was confirmed and imposed on the whole Church by the Council of Constantinople in the following year" which condemned the terms homoousios, homoousios and anomoios. [Ward 1955, 57].
It seemed that the Arians had triumphed over the Nicaea creed. The Final Battle. The seeming triumph of homoeism was short lived.
First it gained its popularity solely by imperial imposition. With the death of Constantius in 361 it collapsed.
Second by persecuting both homoousios and homoousios supporters alike "it brought about better understanding and, ultimately, reconciliation between the two groups" [DeClercq 1967, 793].
Athanasius an ardent defender of the homoousios position and following the Alexandrian train of thought had begun his reasoning with the unity of God. From their he had concluded that the Son and Spirit Who shared that unity must have the same essential substance.
The Cappadocian Fathers Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa were associated with Homoiousians.
The point of departure for them as well as the Antiochenes had been the individual aspect of the divine personality. With the help of Athanasius they came to the realization that the three Persons as God must share the same identical substance also. By using the term homoousios the Cappadocian Fathers "had never meant to deny the unity but only to preserve the distinction of persons" [Ward 1955, 58].
Both came to the conclusion that although they used different terms what they meant to say was the same.
The Cappadocian Fathers came to accept the term homoousios. Athanasius, on the other hand, accepted the Cappadocian formula for the Trinity - one substance (ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis).
At about the same time as Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers were reaching an agreement another development was taking place. The East and the West were arriving at a better understanding of each others theological terminology.
At the Synod of Alexandria in 362 the Nicene Creed was re-affirmed, the terms ousia and hypostasis were explained and Macedonianism (sometimes referred to as another form of Semi-Arianism in its subordination of the Holy Spirit) was condemned.
Under the Eastern Emperor Valens (364-378) homoeism still had imperial favor. In the West Ambrose of Milan led the fight for the Nicene Creed. At the Council of Sirmium in 378, with the support of the Western Emperor Gratian, six Arian Bishops were deposed. A series of laws were passed in 379 and 380 the Emperor prohibited Arianism in the West.
In the East with the succession of Valens by a Nicene sympathizing Emperor Theodosius I all exiled Bishops under Valens to return to their sees. In 381 he convoked a regional Council at Constantinople. The first canon from this Council states that "the faith of the 318 fathers who assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be made void, but shall continue to be established" [Davis 1987, 126].
In 380 the Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism. The last victory over Arianism came in 381 with the Council of Constantinople in the East and the Council of Aquileia in the West. Both of them "sealed the final adoption of the faith of Nicaea by the entire Church" [DeClercq 1967, 793].
Conclusion
The Council of Nicaea was victorious in the end. It took over fifty years of bitter battling between the upholders of the Council of Nicaea and those against it. The Arian heresy seemed finished when the Council so specifically anathematized their teachings one by one.
The Arian doctrines condemned were the following:
The Son was created by the Father out of nothing.
Thus the Son was not God in the strict sense but by grace and
in name only.
The Father and Son did not share the same substance.
The Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability
and only remained virtuous by an act of the will.
Terminology difficulties had kept the door open for the Arians to continue after the Council. This was especially true with the term homoousios (of the same substance) used by the Council to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.
The Arians took advantage of one of the term's other meaning, that of identity, to claim that the Council said the Father and Son were identical thereby invalidating the Council. The Arians then started producing their own creeds either eliminating this term or substituting another for it. This lead to the breaking up of the Arians into diverse groups according to which term they supported - anomoios (dissimilar), homoios (similar) or homoiousion (like in substance).
It is obvious that Imperial involvement in the controversy determined at any given moment whether the Council of Nicaea or the Arianism was dominating the controversy. With the imposition of the term homoios on the Church by the Emperor Constantius the work of the Council of Nicaea seemed doomed. But the popularity of this term died with the Emperor.
The persecution of both the Homoiousians and the Homoiousians forced them to begin to dialogue. With the two great representatives of these positions, St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers, finding theological grounds for their eventual agreement the way was paved for the triumph of the Council of Nicaea. This incident later coupled with Eastern and Western Emperors who were pro-Nicaea led to the final Arian downfall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFRENCE:
[1] Gnostics - meaning "to know secret or hidden knowledge"; lit., those who know; a mystic order of Christianity. Often known for giving up all worldly matters, often living apart from society and being reclusive, fasting and remaining celibate. Possible forerunners of the sufi orders found amongst some Muslims today.
WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?
Friedman, Richard Elliott
Summit Books (Simon & Schuster, Inc.) 1987
[We begin our quote from page 232-233]
Artistry Upon Artistry
The redactor [1], whom I identify as Ezra, has been the least appreciated of the contributors to the Five Books of Moses. Usually, more credit is given to the authors of the stories and the laws. That may be an error.
The redactor was as much an artist, in his own way, as the authors of J, E, P and, D were in theirs. His contribution was certainly as significant as theirs.
His task was not merely difficult, it was creative. It called for wisdom and literary sensitivity at each step, as well as a skill that is no less an art than storytelling.
In the end, he was the one who created the work that we have read all these years. He assembled the final form of the stories and laws that, in thousands of ways, have influenced millions.
Is that his influence?, Or is it the influence of the authors of the sources?, Or would it be better to speak of a literary partnership of all these contributors, a partnership that most of them never even knew would take place? How many ironies are contained in this partnership that was spread over centuries?, How many new developments and ideas resulted from the combination of all their contributions?
In short, the question for the last chapter of this book is: is the Bible more than the sum of its parts?
[end of quote]
Pentateuch [First five books appearing in the Old Testament]:
Moses is the major figure through most of these books, and early Jewish and Christian tradition held that Moses himself wrote them, though nowhere in the Five Books of Moses themselves does the text say that he was the author.
[Deut. 31:9,24-26 describes Moses as writing a scroll of the torah - but no claim that the scroll included all five books. Only later did torah come to mean the Pentateuch]
But the tradition that one person, Moses, alone wrote these books presented problems. People observed contradictions in the text. It would report events in a particular order, and later it would say that those same events happened in a different order. It would say that there were two of something, and elsewhere it would say that there was fourteen of that same thing. It would say that the Moabites did something, and later it would say that it was the Midianites who did it. It would describe Moses as going to a Tabernacle in a chapter before Moses builds the Tabernacle.
People also noticed that the Five Books of Moses included things that Moses could not have known or was not likely to have said. The text, after all, gave an account of Moses' death. It also said that Moses was the humblest man on earth; and normally one would not expect the humblest man on earth to point out that he is the humblest man on earth. (17f.)
Objections largely met through various forms of explanation (including midrash). But in the medieval period, the objections began to be met with an acknowledgment that Moses may not have been the sole author:
In the eleventh century, Isaac ibn Yashush, a Jewish court physician of a ruler in Muslim Spain, pointed out that a list of Edomite kings that appears in Genesis 36 named kings who lived long after Moses was dead. Ibn Yashush suggested that the list was written by someone who lived after Moses. The response to his conclusion was that he was called "Isaac the blunderer." [19]
But the man who called him this, 12th century Spanish rabbi Ibn Ezra added:
Several passages that appeared not to be from Moses' own hand: passages that referred to Moses in the third person, used terms that Moses would not have known, described places where Moses had never been, and used language that reflected another time and locale from those of Moses. [19-20]
Friedman suggests that Ibn Ezra recognized that these passages confirmed ibn Yashush's claim - but advised silence.
The silence was broken in the 14th ct. by Bonfils in Damascus. Bonfils wrote:
"And this is evidence that this verse was written in the Torah later, and Moses did not write it; rather one of the later prophets wrote it". Bonfils was not denying the revealed character of the text. He still thought that the passages in question were written by "one of the later prophets". He was only concluding that they were not written by Moses. Still, three and a half centuries later, his work was reprinted with the references to the subject deleted. [19]
[contrary to the old tradition that Joshua wrote the account of Moses' death] ...in the sixteenth century, Carlstadt, a contemporary of Luther, commented that the account of Moses' death is written in the same style as texts that precede it. This makes it difficult to claim that Joshua or anyone else merely added a few lines to an otherwise Mosaic manuscript.
In a second stage of the process, investigators suggested that Moses wrote the Five Books but that editors when over them later, adding an occasional word or phrase of their own. In the sixteenth century, Andreas van Maes, who was a Flemish Catholic, and two Jesuit scholars, Benedict Pereira and Jacques Bonfrere, thus pictured an original text from the hand of Moses upon which later writers expanded. Van Maes suggested that a later editor inserted phrases or changed the name of a place to its more current name so that readers would understand it better. Van Maes' book was placed on the Catholic Index of Prohibited Books. [19-20]
In the third stage of the investigation, investigators concluded outright that Moses did not write the majority of the Pentateuch.
Hobbes (17th ct.) - example: the use of the phrase "to this day", which is not a phrase used by someone describing a contemporary situation
Four years later, Isaac de la Peyrère (French Calvinist) - "across the Jordan" (Deut 1:1), which would place Moses in Israel, which otherwise contradicts the claim that Moses never entered Israel. (book was banned and burned; de la Peyrère was arrested, forced to become a Catholic.)
Roughly contemporary, Spinoza published a unified critical analysis demonstrating the problematic passages pervaded the text:
There were the third-person accounts of Moses, the statements that Moses was unlikely to have made (e.g., "humblest man on earth"), the report of Moses' death, the expression "to this day", the references to geographical locales by names that they acquired after Moses' lifetime, the treatment of matters that were subsequent to Moses (e.g., the list of Edomite kings), and various contradictions and problems in the text of the sort that earlier investigators had observed. He also noted that the text says in Deuteronomy 34, "There never arose another prophet in Israel like Moses....", Spinoza remarked that these sound like the words of someone who live a long time after Moses and had the opportunity to see other prophets and thus make the comparison. (They also do not sound like the words of the humblest man on earth). Spinoza wrote, "It is... clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone who lived long after Moses." Spinoza was excommunicated from Judaism. Now his work was condemned by Catholics and Protestants as well. His book was placed on the Catholic Index, within six years thirty-seven edicts were issued against it, and an attempt was made on his life. [20-21]
(Richard Simon, a Catholic priest who converted from Protestantism, wrote what he intended to be a critique of Spinoza, claimed that:
The core of the Pentateuch (the laws) was Mosaic but that there were some additions. The additions, he said, were by scribes who collected, arranged, and elaborated upon the old texts. These scribes, according to Simon, were prophets, guided by the divine spirit, and so he regarded his work as a defense of the sanctity of the biblical text. [21]
But his contemporaries were not ready - he was attacked by Catholic clergy, expelled from his order, and his books were placed on the Index. Protestants wrote 40 refutations of his work. 1294 copies of his book were burned - 6 survived. An English translation landed the translator in the tower. [21]
Eighteenth ct. - in response to doublets:
A doublet is a case of the same story being told twice. Even in translation it is easy to observe that biblical stories often appear with variations of detail in two different places in the bible. There are two different stories of the creation of the world. There are two stories of the covenant between God and the patriarch Abraham, two stories of the naming of Abraham's son Isaac, two stories of Abraham's claiming to a foreign king that his wife Sarah is his sister, two stories of Isaac's son Jacob making a journey to Mesopotamia, two stories of a revelation to Jacob at Beth-el, two stories of God's changing Jacob's name to Israel, two stories of Moses' getting water from a rock at a place called Meribah, and more. [22]
- Three independent investigators (H. B. Witter, a German minister; Jean Astruc, a French medical doctor, and J. G. Eichhorn, a German professor) arrived at the same conclusion: two different sources for these stories, from writers who lived after Moses. [23]
The sources:
J -- Yahweh/Jehovah as the name of God
E -- Elohim as the name of God
P -- The largest: includes most of the legal sections, priestly matters
D -- Only found in the book of Deuteronomy
opposition to the Documentary hypothesis in the 19th ct. - but in the 20th ct., major turning point with the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII, 1943, "the Magna Carta for biblical progress."
The Pope encouraged scholars to pursue knowledge about the biblical writers, for those writers were "the living and reasonable instrument of the Holy Spirit..." He concluded:
Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed. [27]
Eventually accepted by Protestant and Jewish scholars as well. In the current generation of Biblical scholars, the Documentary Hypothesis "continues to be the starting point of research, no serious student of the Bible can fail to study it, and no other explanation of the evidence has come close to challenging it." [28]
It is, in my terms, the equivalent of quantum mechanics in physics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World that Produced the Bible: 1200-722 B.C.E.
Little historical information about the patriarchs, their experiences as slaves in Egypt, the wandering in the Sinai. Evidence for accurate picture of life of biblical only from about 12th ct. B.C.E., as the Israelites become established in this region.
Tribal - thirteen, "with considerable differences in size and population from the smallest to the largest. Twelve of the tribes each had a distinct geographical territory. The thirteenth, the tribe of Levi, was identified as a priestly group. Its members lived in cities in the other tribes' territories. Each tribe had its own chosen leaders."
Judges, priests: judges both heard disputes and provided military leadership. Priests served at religious ceremonies - first of all, sacrifices (receiving a portion of the sacrificed animal, produce).
Prophets - from any occupation: Ezekiel was a priest; Amos was a cowboy. "The word in Hebrew for prophet is nabi, which is understood to mean 'called.'" [36]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is Richard Elliott Friedman?
"Friedman, one of our brightest young biblical scholars, adroitly combines the history of scholarship with an autobiographical account of his own search and findings. A fascinating and brilliant book, full of new insights and fresh discoveries. Reads like a detective story."-- Frank Moore Cross, Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages, Harvard University
"Achieves that rare combination of serious scholarship and an eminently readable, even racy style. The finest book of its kind that I have read in years."-- David Noel Freedman, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Biblical Studies, University of Michigan, and Editor, Anchor Bible Series
"A new paradigm for understanding the composition of the Bible. Novel, stimulating, a breath of fresh air, and a desideratum for Hebrew Bible research."-- Abraham Malamat, Professor of the Bible, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
"Fascinating, full of suspense and surprises, a well written detective story,"-- Richard J. Clifford, S. J., Dean and Professor of Old Testament, Weston School of Theology
"I ran through the manuscript in the space of a day, much as one might pick compulsively at a box of chocolates. It was simply too provocative to put down. Has the potential of being highly influential inside the field and among an informed public."-- Baruch Halpern, Professor of Bible, York University, Toronto
"Not just another book about the Bible. One is amazed how much new data and how many intriguing ideas emerge from this newly published research."-- Yigal Shiloh, Professor of Biblical Archeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
"Conveys a freshness and excitement of discovery that the old discipline has lacked for many decades. I find Friedman's account especially sympathetic, as will any other Bible reader who has ever stopped to wonder just whose text they are reading."-- Alan Cooper, Professor of Bible, Hebrew Union College
___________
Summit Books (Simon & Schuster, Inc.) 1987
[We begin our quote from page 232-233]
Artistry Upon Artistry
The redactor [1], whom I identify as Ezra, has been the least appreciated of the contributors to the Five Books of Moses. Usually, more credit is given to the authors of the stories and the laws. That may be an error.
The redactor was as much an artist, in his own way, as the authors of J, E, P and, D were in theirs. His contribution was certainly as significant as theirs.
His task was not merely difficult, it was creative. It called for wisdom and literary sensitivity at each step, as well as a skill that is no less an art than storytelling.
In the end, he was the one who created the work that we have read all these years. He assembled the final form of the stories and laws that, in thousands of ways, have influenced millions.
Is that his influence?, Or is it the influence of the authors of the sources?, Or would it be better to speak of a literary partnership of all these contributors, a partnership that most of them never even knew would take place? How many ironies are contained in this partnership that was spread over centuries?, How many new developments and ideas resulted from the combination of all their contributions?
In short, the question for the last chapter of this book is: is the Bible more than the sum of its parts?
[end of quote]
Pentateuch [First five books appearing in the Old Testament]:
Moses is the major figure through most of these books, and early Jewish and Christian tradition held that Moses himself wrote them, though nowhere in the Five Books of Moses themselves does the text say that he was the author.
[Deut. 31:9,24-26 describes Moses as writing a scroll of the torah - but no claim that the scroll included all five books. Only later did torah come to mean the Pentateuch]
But the tradition that one person, Moses, alone wrote these books presented problems. People observed contradictions in the text. It would report events in a particular order, and later it would say that those same events happened in a different order. It would say that there were two of something, and elsewhere it would say that there was fourteen of that same thing. It would say that the Moabites did something, and later it would say that it was the Midianites who did it. It would describe Moses as going to a Tabernacle in a chapter before Moses builds the Tabernacle.
People also noticed that the Five Books of Moses included things that Moses could not have known or was not likely to have said. The text, after all, gave an account of Moses' death. It also said that Moses was the humblest man on earth; and normally one would not expect the humblest man on earth to point out that he is the humblest man on earth. (17f.)
Objections largely met through various forms of explanation (including midrash). But in the medieval period, the objections began to be met with an acknowledgment that Moses may not have been the sole author:
In the eleventh century, Isaac ibn Yashush, a Jewish court physician of a ruler in Muslim Spain, pointed out that a list of Edomite kings that appears in Genesis 36 named kings who lived long after Moses was dead. Ibn Yashush suggested that the list was written by someone who lived after Moses. The response to his conclusion was that he was called "Isaac the blunderer." [19]
But the man who called him this, 12th century Spanish rabbi Ibn Ezra added:
Several passages that appeared not to be from Moses' own hand: passages that referred to Moses in the third person, used terms that Moses would not have known, described places where Moses had never been, and used language that reflected another time and locale from those of Moses. [19-20]
Friedman suggests that Ibn Ezra recognized that these passages confirmed ibn Yashush's claim - but advised silence.
The silence was broken in the 14th ct. by Bonfils in Damascus. Bonfils wrote:
"And this is evidence that this verse was written in the Torah later, and Moses did not write it; rather one of the later prophets wrote it". Bonfils was not denying the revealed character of the text. He still thought that the passages in question were written by "one of the later prophets". He was only concluding that they were not written by Moses. Still, three and a half centuries later, his work was reprinted with the references to the subject deleted. [19]
[contrary to the old tradition that Joshua wrote the account of Moses' death] ...in the sixteenth century, Carlstadt, a contemporary of Luther, commented that the account of Moses' death is written in the same style as texts that precede it. This makes it difficult to claim that Joshua or anyone else merely added a few lines to an otherwise Mosaic manuscript.
In a second stage of the process, investigators suggested that Moses wrote the Five Books but that editors when over them later, adding an occasional word or phrase of their own. In the sixteenth century, Andreas van Maes, who was a Flemish Catholic, and two Jesuit scholars, Benedict Pereira and Jacques Bonfrere, thus pictured an original text from the hand of Moses upon which later writers expanded. Van Maes suggested that a later editor inserted phrases or changed the name of a place to its more current name so that readers would understand it better. Van Maes' book was placed on the Catholic Index of Prohibited Books. [19-20]
In the third stage of the investigation, investigators concluded outright that Moses did not write the majority of the Pentateuch.
Hobbes (17th ct.) - example: the use of the phrase "to this day", which is not a phrase used by someone describing a contemporary situation
Four years later, Isaac de la Peyrère (French Calvinist) - "across the Jordan" (Deut 1:1), which would place Moses in Israel, which otherwise contradicts the claim that Moses never entered Israel. (book was banned and burned; de la Peyrère was arrested, forced to become a Catholic.)
Roughly contemporary, Spinoza published a unified critical analysis demonstrating the problematic passages pervaded the text:
There were the third-person accounts of Moses, the statements that Moses was unlikely to have made (e.g., "humblest man on earth"), the report of Moses' death, the expression "to this day", the references to geographical locales by names that they acquired after Moses' lifetime, the treatment of matters that were subsequent to Moses (e.g., the list of Edomite kings), and various contradictions and problems in the text of the sort that earlier investigators had observed. He also noted that the text says in Deuteronomy 34, "There never arose another prophet in Israel like Moses....", Spinoza remarked that these sound like the words of someone who live a long time after Moses and had the opportunity to see other prophets and thus make the comparison. (They also do not sound like the words of the humblest man on earth). Spinoza wrote, "It is... clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone who lived long after Moses." Spinoza was excommunicated from Judaism. Now his work was condemned by Catholics and Protestants as well. His book was placed on the Catholic Index, within six years thirty-seven edicts were issued against it, and an attempt was made on his life. [20-21]
(Richard Simon, a Catholic priest who converted from Protestantism, wrote what he intended to be a critique of Spinoza, claimed that:
The core of the Pentateuch (the laws) was Mosaic but that there were some additions. The additions, he said, were by scribes who collected, arranged, and elaborated upon the old texts. These scribes, according to Simon, were prophets, guided by the divine spirit, and so he regarded his work as a defense of the sanctity of the biblical text. [21]
But his contemporaries were not ready - he was attacked by Catholic clergy, expelled from his order, and his books were placed on the Index. Protestants wrote 40 refutations of his work. 1294 copies of his book were burned - 6 survived. An English translation landed the translator in the tower. [21]
Eighteenth ct. - in response to doublets:
A doublet is a case of the same story being told twice. Even in translation it is easy to observe that biblical stories often appear with variations of detail in two different places in the bible. There are two different stories of the creation of the world. There are two stories of the covenant between God and the patriarch Abraham, two stories of the naming of Abraham's son Isaac, two stories of Abraham's claiming to a foreign king that his wife Sarah is his sister, two stories of Isaac's son Jacob making a journey to Mesopotamia, two stories of a revelation to Jacob at Beth-el, two stories of God's changing Jacob's name to Israel, two stories of Moses' getting water from a rock at a place called Meribah, and more. [22]
- Three independent investigators (H. B. Witter, a German minister; Jean Astruc, a French medical doctor, and J. G. Eichhorn, a German professor) arrived at the same conclusion: two different sources for these stories, from writers who lived after Moses. [23]
The sources:
J -- Yahweh/Jehovah as the name of God
E -- Elohim as the name of God
P -- The largest: includes most of the legal sections, priestly matters
D -- Only found in the book of Deuteronomy
opposition to the Documentary hypothesis in the 19th ct. - but in the 20th ct., major turning point with the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII, 1943, "the Magna Carta for biblical progress."
The Pope encouraged scholars to pursue knowledge about the biblical writers, for those writers were "the living and reasonable instrument of the Holy Spirit..." He concluded:
Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed. [27]
Eventually accepted by Protestant and Jewish scholars as well. In the current generation of Biblical scholars, the Documentary Hypothesis "continues to be the starting point of research, no serious student of the Bible can fail to study it, and no other explanation of the evidence has come close to challenging it." [28]
It is, in my terms, the equivalent of quantum mechanics in physics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World that Produced the Bible: 1200-722 B.C.E.
Little historical information about the patriarchs, their experiences as slaves in Egypt, the wandering in the Sinai. Evidence for accurate picture of life of biblical only from about 12th ct. B.C.E., as the Israelites become established in this region.
Tribal - thirteen, "with considerable differences in size and population from the smallest to the largest. Twelve of the tribes each had a distinct geographical territory. The thirteenth, the tribe of Levi, was identified as a priestly group. Its members lived in cities in the other tribes' territories. Each tribe had its own chosen leaders."
Judges, priests: judges both heard disputes and provided military leadership. Priests served at religious ceremonies - first of all, sacrifices (receiving a portion of the sacrificed animal, produce).
Prophets - from any occupation: Ezekiel was a priest; Amos was a cowboy. "The word in Hebrew for prophet is nabi, which is understood to mean 'called.'" [36]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is Richard Elliott Friedman?
"Friedman, one of our brightest young biblical scholars, adroitly combines the history of scholarship with an autobiographical account of his own search and findings. A fascinating and brilliant book, full of new insights and fresh discoveries. Reads like a detective story."-- Frank Moore Cross, Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages, Harvard University
"Achieves that rare combination of serious scholarship and an eminently readable, even racy style. The finest book of its kind that I have read in years."-- David Noel Freedman, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Biblical Studies, University of Michigan, and Editor, Anchor Bible Series
"A new paradigm for understanding the composition of the Bible. Novel, stimulating, a breath of fresh air, and a desideratum for Hebrew Bible research."-- Abraham Malamat, Professor of the Bible, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
"Fascinating, full of suspense and surprises, a well written detective story,"-- Richard J. Clifford, S. J., Dean and Professor of Old Testament, Weston School of Theology
"I ran through the manuscript in the space of a day, much as one might pick compulsively at a box of chocolates. It was simply too provocative to put down. Has the potential of being highly influential inside the field and among an informed public."-- Baruch Halpern, Professor of Bible, York University, Toronto
"Not just another book about the Bible. One is amazed how much new data and how many intriguing ideas emerge from this newly published research."-- Yigal Shiloh, Professor of Biblical Archeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
"Conveys a freshness and excitement of discovery that the old discipline has lacked for many decades. I find Friedman's account especially sympathetic, as will any other Bible reader who has ever stopped to wonder just whose text they are reading."-- Alan Cooper, Professor of Bible, Hebrew Union College
___________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)