Church Rejection of Books in the Bible

THE QUESTION asked of me regarding the acceptance of one book of the Bible and rejection of others, could equally be asked of the various denominations of the Christian Church. For in fact it is the case that there is great difference between denominations even now with regard to which books are accepted as canonical and which are not. It is also the case that there has been great debate historically on the matter of the canonical books of the Bible. The famous case is that of Marcion who sought to reject the whole of the Old Testament, claiming that the loving Father of the New Testament was a different God from that of the Old Testament. Today it could be said that many take a similar stance to Marcion, even if they would never actually articulate it. Walter Moberly writes:

‘For many Christians the Old Testament tends to be more of an embarrassment than a resource, more of a stone to trip over than a well to drink from. The ghost of Marcion, who in the second century was the first Christian seriously to propose that Christians did not need, and would be better off without those Scriptures of Israel which came to be known as the Old Testament, still haunts many a Christian mind. Although the official position of the churches down the centuries has been that Marcion was wrong, the actual practice of many churches suggest a position more along the lines of “he was probably more right than wrong.”’ Can Balaam’s Ass Speak Today? A Case Study in Reading the Old Testament as Scripture, 1998, Grove Books Ltd., Cambridge, p.3

Where the canon of the New Testament is concerned, the debate about which books are accepted and which are not has been going on for centuries. Bruce Metzger (The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, 1997, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 305-315) lists the following canons, amongst others: the Canon of Origen, the Canon of Eusebius Of Caesarea, the Canon of Cyril of Jerusalem, the Cheltenham Canon, the Canon approved by the Synod of Laodicea, the Canon of Athanasius, the Canon approved by the ‘Apostolic Canons’, the Canon of Gregory of Nazianzus, the Canon of Amphilochius of Iconium, the Canon approved by the third Synod of Carthage. A number of books which were once considered part of the Roman Catholic New Testament canon, but which are absent today include several of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The Didache was considered scripture by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. The fifth-century Greek Codex Alexandrius contained the first Epistle of Clement, which was read in services of worship at Corinth around 170CE (ibid. pp. 187-188).

More recently, Zwingli insisted that the book of Revelation was not part of the New Testament at the Berne Disputation of 1528. Martin Luther called the Letter of James an epistle of straw, and denigrated Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. Although he printed them in his German Bible, he explained in their prefaces his doubts about their authority. Andreas Bodenstein of Karlstadt divided the New Testament into sections of different levels, the lowest of which included James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Hebrews and Revelations. Erasmus doubted that Paul was the author of Hebrews and James of the Letter of James, and questioned the authorship of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. The Swedish Gustavus Adolphus Bible of 1618 labelled these books as ‘Apocryphal New Testament’. (ibid. pp. 241-245)

It would be wrong to assume that the Bibles of today are all united upon one canon. The fact is that the major denominations actually differ as to which books are accepted and which are rejected. The Protestant church has the Hebrew canon as its Old Testament, with some books divided, numbering thirty-nine books in total. This denomination rejected a number of books and parts of books which were previously included in the Old Testament in the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate. The Protestant New Testament is made up of twenty-seven books (i.e. the four Gospels, Acts, twenty-one letters and the book of Revelation with which we are familiar). The Roman Catholic church’s Old Testament includes Tobit, Judith, the Greek additions to Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees. In total, therefore, the Roman Catholic Bible is made up of seventy-three books. The Greek Orthodox Church has a Bible which includes all the books accepted by the Roman Catholic church, with the addition of 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees. The Slavonic canon adds 2 Esdras. Other Eastern churches also include 4 Maccabees.

'How can you accept one book of the Bible and reject all the other?'

THIS IS a question I was once asked when I sought to draw attention to the teachings of the Letter of James. This has been my way on various occasions, for historic parallels have been drawn between early Judaic-Christianity and Islam. The question, of course, is a perfectly fair one and it is one which I intend to address here. The truth is that I do not accept this book whilst rejecting all the others. I make reference to it because I find it very interesting, in the same way that other sources interest me, but I do not ‘accept’ it as authentic on its own or in the place of others.

The reason for this lies in the way in which reports are evaluated for authenticity in Muslim tradition. A report concerned with the religion in Islam is always scrutinised for reliability on the basis of two factors: the study of the text itself (matn) and consideration of its chain of narration (isnad). An example of a chain of narration would be me telling something to Katharine, she telling it to Christopher and he telling it to dad; the isnad would then read, ‘It was reported from Christopher from Katharine that Tim said such and such.’ The Muslim methodology regarding the isnad does not end with checking whether there is one or isn’t one, however, as the famous Orientalist, Montgomery Watt, explains:

‘The chains of transmitters were therefore carefully scrutinised to make sure that the persons named could in fact have met one another, that they could be trusted to repeat the story accurately, and that they did not hold any heretical views. This implied extensive biographical studies; and many biographical dictionaries have been preserved giving the basic information about a man’s teachers and pupils, the views of later scholars (on his reliability as a transmitter) and the date of his death.’ What is Islam?, 1968, Longman, Green and Co. Ltd., pp. 124-125

When a Muslim considers the reports presented in the Bible, by contrast, the first thing with which he or she is faced is the absence of a chain of narration. Bernard Lewis (Islam in History, 1993, Open Court Publishing, pp.104-105) writes:

‘From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. “Traditional science”, as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth.’

It would be illogical then for me to accept a book of the Bible as authentic when it does not meet the strict criteria required by Muslims in this regard. The biographical information offered at the beginning of this letter, for example, is severely limited. Reference to this work is, therefore, purely a matter of interest. The Letter of James is not a source of my religion; it is, however, identified as being directed to believers amongst the twelve tribes and therefore presumably its roots lie in early Christianity. In my own study of this religion over the past three or four years, my main interest has been in the beliefs and practices of the earliest Christian communities, as they should, I hypothesise, have been closest to the truth on these matters. As a matter of interest, I feel the Letter of James is very important in this regard.

"What about the terrible way Muslims behave?"

THE NATURE of the news media is that in general it only reports bad news; the exceptions may include sports news, visits by statesmen and royalty, finance news, and the like. We would not expect to see a report on the news dealing with the wonderful weather which hit Albania today, or the absence of war in Utah, or the revelation that a politician was totally uncorrupt. We do not need, apparently, to be told such things. Journalists are not in the business of reporting good news; that's the job of those lovely Disk Jockeys on Radio 2.

As a result, our view of those subjects with which we are unfamiliar can easily become skewed. In the case of Islam, you are unlikely ever to come across the very good work of organisations such as Muslim Aid or Islamic Relief in the daily reports of the news media. Daily they provide emergency relief aid in the desperate situations of Chechnya, Afghanistan and so forth; they contribute to social welfare programmes; they undertake community development projects; they assist in literacy programmes; and they work with orphans, but such information is not the stuff of news reports. This is true also of Christian organisations, but the difference is that Christianity is familiar; you already know something about it.

Where most people are concerned, very little is known about Islam. Ask many people for ten facts about Islam, and most would struggle to provide even one. When such ignorance is the foundation upon which the daily news reports are built, the idea that all that is to do with Islam is negative can become a reasonable notion. The nice Muslim doctor who prays in the chapel becomes nice not because of his Islam but in spite of it. The polite Muslim student becomes polite not because of his Islam, but in spite of it. The kind Muslim teacher, kind and a teacher not because of her Islam, but in spite of it. Even when people encounter good Muslims, they are viewed as the exception due to an overarching view that Muslims behave in a terrible way.

This may be due to the reason that only bad news is news, it may be due to the fact that news about Islam tends to be very negative, or it may be due to other factors. I cannot say for sure, but I do know from experience that people tend to drop their anti-prejudice mores when it comes to dealing with Islam. I am not talking here about difference of opinion; I do not expect a Christian to accept or agree with my beliefs, for that would be nonsensical. I am talking here about an attitude which boils down to, 'You're all right; it's all the others I object to'. There can be no issue with those who dislike Islam as a result of their knowledge of it. But when people do not know any facts and then speak of the terrible way Muslims behave to prove that Islam is bad, we are entering territory which all would agree to be unacceptable in other situations.

The truth is, the news of Muslims is not all bad, though the scholars of Islam agree that we are living in a period of decline and decreasing knowledge (of the religion amongst Muslims). There are the good works carried out by charitable organisations, for example. This, I think, is good news.

This aspect aside, there are all sorts of other issues to consider. The above explanation, my own view, is a nice simple one. Other explanations are more complex. Some people argue that the media is anti-Muslim, just as some Israelis argue that is is anti-Israel, or some Jews argue that it is anti-Semitic, or some Christians argue that it is anti-Christian, or some members of various ethnic groups argue that is prejudiced against them. At times I have some sympathy with this view, but on the whole I steer clear of it. If a group, for example, calling itself Islamic Jihad bombs a bus, journalists cannot be blamed for reporting this as they do. They have a limited number of seconds or number of words in which to deliver their report, and they cannot be expected to expound on the teaching of the religion in this regard. That is not their job. So while I may find it extremely offensive when I hear careless use of phrases such as 'Islamic Terrorists', I generally consider it in terms of journalists just reporting what they see. Another issue to be considered is context. For the majority of situations reported on the news, we are not provided with background information to an event or situation.

These issues and others like them have been the topic of discussion in many books and articles. I do not have the ability to examine them myself. All I would really like to say is that the news media should not constitute the only source of a person's awareness of Islam, for it can be misleading. And remember: if you meet a nice, kind, polite man who happens to be a Muslim, he might not be an exception and it might just be that he is nice, kind and polite because of his beliefs.

Islam does not strike us as a very tolerant religion

TO CONSIDER the issue of tolerance, we must work in the light of the teachings of the religion, not with the situation of the day in mind. For while we may wish to argue that Christianity today is a tolerant religion, this could not be said of all times in history. If Islam were to be held as untrue because of intolerance in some societies today, would Christianity then be held to be untrue because of its intolerance in the fifteenth century? Here is a quotation from Pope Nicholas V, who gave Alfonso V of Portugal in Romanus Pontifex 1454CE the right to:

‘invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wherever they live, along with their kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, lordships and goods, both chattels and real estate, that they hold and possess … to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery and to take for himself and his heirs their kingdoms…’

(Quoted in Muldoon, 1979, Popes, Lawyers and Infidels: The Church and the Non-Christian World 1250-1550, Liverpool University Press, p.134)

At its outset, the Anglican church had no better a record of toleration in regard to non-Anglican communions. Of course, time-bound references cannot be taken as our criterion. Here is another time-bound reference; the Charter which the Muslim ruler, Umar, agreed with the Christians of Jerusalem:

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. This charter is granted by 'Umar, Servant of Allah and Prince of the Believers, to the people of Aelia. He grants them security for their persons and their properties, for their churches and their crosses, the little and the great, and for the adherents of the Christian religion. Neither shall their churches be destroyed, nor their substances or areas, nor their crosses or any of their properties, be reduced in any manner. They shall not be coerced in any matter pertaining to their religion, and they shall not be harmed. Nor will any Jews be permitted to live with them in Aelia.

Upon the people of Aelia falls the obligation to pay the jizyah; just as the people of Mada'in (Persia) do, as well as to evict from their midst the Byzantine army and the thieves. Whoever of these leaves Aelia will be granted security of person and property until he reaches his destination. Whoever decides to stay in Aelia will also be granted the same and share with the people of Aelia, in their rights and the jizyah. The same applies to the people of Aelia as well as to any other person. Anyone can march with the Byzantines, stay in Aelia or return to his home country, and has until the harvesting of crops to decided. Allah attests to the contents of this treaty, and so do His Prophet, his successors and the believers.

Signed: 'Umar ibn al-Khattab

Witnessed by: Khalid ibn al-Walid, 'Amr ibn al-'As, 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf and Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. Executed in the year 15 AH.

(Quoted in Alistair Duncan, 1972, The Noble Sanctuary, London: Longman Group Ltd, p.22)

What a contrast to the situation we are faced with today. This surely illustrates the inadequacy of time-bound references. To consider the tolerance and intolerance of Islam, therefore, we should do so in the light of its teachings.

"Insha Allah?" You mean, "Whatever."

OF THE Christians, I have only ever heard Roman Catholics use the phrase God Willing. We just need to turn the pages of English history to discover that there is good reason for this. It was only a few centuries ago that the Anglican Church engaged in theological debate on the topic of freewill and divine decree. The conclusion they came to is obvious when we consider how alien those two words are to the vocabulary of the Church of England.

The idea is, however, perfectly scriptural, though admittedly Protestants do not give much authority to the text in question:

Now a word with all who say, ‘Today or the next day we will go off to such and such a town and spend a year there trading and making money.’ Yet you have no idea what tomorrow will bring. What is your life after all? You are no more than a mist, seen for a little while and then disappearing. What you ought to say is: ‘If it be the Lord’s will, we shall live to do so and so.’ (James 4:13-17)

Saying Insha'Allah or if God wills when intending to undertake something is a way of placing one's trust in God. We are not self-sufficient; whether we live or die is God's will. Last evening a friend in Scotland said to me, 'We should meet up sometime. Go to a restaurant perhaps.' In my response, 'Insha'Allah,' was the simplest of prayers that whatever was best would come to pass. When you pray the prayer which Jesus taught according to the gospels, it involves a prayer of asking. To say, 'If God wills' is much the same thing. Here is a funny story:

One day a man said to his wife, 'If it is fine tomorrow, I shall do such and such, but if it is raining I will do this and that.'

His wife replied, 'You should say, "God willing."'

'No,' he said, 'If it is fine, I shall do such and such. If it is raining I will do this and that. There are two things and I will do one or the other.'

When nightfall came, the Police visited his house, arrested him, and the next day neither of his jobs got done.

The Muslim believes that it is always good to remember God; to recall how we could not survive without Him. Whilst some might place their life in God's hands only for a moment when faced with disaster, perhaps, Muslims believe that it would be infinitely better for us all if we asked for His help in all our affairs. In the Qur'an, God says:

Call upon Me; I will answer you. (40:60)

The Qur'an misunderstands the Trinity

I HAVE dipped into several books on Islam authored by Christians and the most common charge seems to be that the Qur'an misunderstands the Trinity. Christians do not worship three gods as Muslims often claim, these authors argue, but one God made up of three co-equal parts. This claim, I believe, is itself based on a misunderstanding of Islam's teaching on Tawhid (the unity of God) and shirk (associating partners with God).

Islam teaches that the only thing which is worthy of worship is God, the Creator and Sustainer of all things. Anything which is worshipped beside God is described as 'a god'. It does not make any difference if it is an idol, a tree, a river or a person; if an individual takes it as an object of worship, it is then for that person a god. An individual does not even have to think of that object as God or a god. If they treat it in a way in which only God should be treated, they are making it an object of worship. Hence, when Roman Catholics look to the Virgin Mary for intercession, they are if fact making her a god.

This then is the context in which we should consider the Islamic perspective on the Trinity. The Christian retort, of course, is that Jesus is God. They recognise that God is One and that to worship other than God is unacceptable: 'You shall have no other gods before Me' Deuteronomy 5:7. Therefore Jesus can only be God. This, the Christian argues, is what Muslims fail to understand; Jesus is not a separate god, but God Himself.

This, in my view, remains a misunderstanding of the Islamic perspective. The Qur'an starts from the point that Jesus is not God, but a Prophet sent to the house of Israel. Therefore it does not make any difference if a person brings philosophical arguments to say that he was God; the Qur'an's position stays the same. So in teaching that Jesus is other than God, the fact that Christians worship him means that he is a god. A god worshipped along side God, the Creator.

Let us suppose that Michael Portillo, despairing at the Tory Party's election prospects, suddenly started claiming that William Hague is God. We would all agree that he is not God. Even if Michael Portillo told us that he is one in essence with God, we would still not accept it. The mere presence of an argument does not prove anything, for we all agree that William Hague is not God.

This, in essence, is the Islamic perspective. Yes, Christians argue that Jesus is God, but because they say this it does not mean that it is so. It is worth remembering that the belief in the Trinity as expressed in the Nicene Creed came about after a great deal of debate and disagreement. The famous name is that of Arius who believed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were entirely different, sharing neither nature nor essence. But there were others. Sabellius argued that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were the symbolic names for one God in His different functions.

I do not wish to get into the subtleties of the doctrine, of what is heresy and what is not. I have heard Christians who have been attending church all their lives, engaging in charitable works, explaining the Trinity in Sabellius' terms, unaware that 'the Church' considers this view heretical. It is a way of complicating an issue which is already complicated enough. It is notable, in my mind at least, that the actual text from the fourth century numbers over two hundred words, in great contrast to an earlier creed, the Epistola Apostolorum, which read, '(Faith) In God the Father almighty; In Jesus Christ, our Saviour; And in the Spirit, the Holy, the Paraclete; Holy Church; Forgiveness of sins.' (F.J. Badcock, 1938, The History of the Creeds, London, p.24)

The Islamic belief is La ilaha ill-Allah: there is no god but God. The worship of anything besides God is known as associating partners (shirk) and is a major sin. (None has the right to be worshipped except God, the Creator and Sustainer of all things.)

The descriptive miracles of the Qur'an

THE QUR'AN addresses those who do not believe in God and asks them to consider the world around them, in which the signs of creation are evident. This is how the non-Muslim, A.J. Arberry, translates one such verse:

'Have not the unbelievers then beheld that the heavens and the earth were a mass all sewn up, then We unstitched them and of water fashioned every living thing? Will they not believe?' (21:30)

Clearly the above passage could not have been directed at those Bedouin who wandered the sands of Arabia a thousand years ago, for what would they have known about the heaven and the earth, or the constituents of life? In our own time, however, there are many who claim that the 'Big Bang' makes belief in God redundant; this passage answers that claim. It does not say, 'In the beginning there was a big bang.' Rather, in poetic words (though I don't know if this particular translation is literal), it echoes the modern belief that all matter was once held in a mass of infinite density which, at one stage, split apart to give, eventually, life as we know it today. The question is direct, to the point: 'Have not the unbelievers then beheld… Will they not believe?' Indeed. There are so many signs. Stephen Hawking writes that if the density of the universe one second after the 'Big Bang' had been a thousand billionth greater, the universe would have collapsed on itself and if it had been the same amount less, it would have been empty. And yet here are we today after innumerable other impossible possibilities, sitting, breathing, looking, reading, thinking. In the face of blindness to the wonders of the heavens and the earth, it is only right that the Qur'an should provide mankind with descriptive miracles.

The passage above provides two for us already. It was not known in seventh century Arabia that all matter derived from a single entity; indeed, it is not 'known' today, but it is the conclusion of advanced technological research. Nor was it known that all living things are composed of protoplasm, the main component of which is water.

'Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and the earth, "Become, willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We become willingly.' And He completed them as seven heavens within two days and inspired in each heaven its command. And we adorned the nearest heaven with lamps and as protection. That is the determination of the Exalted in Might, the Knowing.' (Qur'an 41:11-12)

I believe it is only in the last ten years, since the Hubble Space Telescope became operational, that we have been able to see pictures of new stars forming out of a nebula, which is a cloud of gas and dust. Modern cosmologists believe that the whole universe originated in this manner. The verse above describes the heaven (what we usually call the universe) as having been smoke. This is a rather apt description, given that smoke is composed of gas and dust; all the more so when we look at a photograph such as that of the Lagoon nebula.

'And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander. And the earth We have spread out, and excellent is the preparer. And of all things We created two mates; perhaps you will remember. So flee to God.' (Qur'an 51:47-50)

I was watching a documentary some time ago about the expansion of the universe. The scientists, who undoubtedly have better minds than I, had set out to observe a slowing in the expansion of the universe which, they hypothesised, would have to eventually occur. To their surprise, they actually discovered that the expansion was accelerating. I recall shouting at the television as they puzzled about the force behind it. 'It's God,' I yelled at them, as they failed to even consider it, and I thought of this verse. 'God built it with strength,' I told the television, 'and He is its expander.'

Earlier, sitting in my Geography of South Asia class at SOAS, taking notes on plate tectonics and the creation of the subcontinent from two separate land masses, I couldn't help thinking of the verse which followed. Study plate tectonics and you will see how the earth spread out over millions of years. I don't know if that is what was meant with these words, but as I learnt of the shifting rocks that day, I couldn't help thinking this way.

Chapter twenty-four of the Qur'an is known as the sura of Light. It begins, 'A sura which We have sent down and made [that within it] obligatory and revealed therein verses of clear evidence that you might remember.' It goes on to present us with verses of clear evidence that we cannot ignore.

'God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His Light is like a niche within which is a burning wick; the burning wick is within glass, the glass as if it were a pearly star lit from a blessed olive tree, neither of the East nor the West, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire. Light upon light. God guides to His light whom He wills. And God presents examples for the people, and God is Knowing of all things.

Such niches are in houses which God has ordered to be raised, that His name may be mentioned therein; exalting Him within the morning and the evenings, men whom neither commerce nor sale distracts from the remembrance of God and performance of prayer and giving of the ordained charity. They fear a Day in which the hearts and eyes will turn about – that God may reward them according to the best of what they did and increase them from His bounty. And God gives provision to whom He wills without account.

But the disbelievers – their deeds are like a mirage in lowland which a thirsty one thinks is water until, when he comes to it, he finds it is nothing, but finds God before him, and He will pay him in full his due; and God is swift in account. Or like darknesses within an unfathomable sea which is covered by waves, upon which are waves, over which are clouds – darknesses, some of them upon others. When one puts out his hand, he can hardly see it. And for he whom God has not granted light – for him there is no light.

Do you not see that God is exalted by whomever is within the heavens and the earth and by birds with wings spread? Each has known his prayer and exalting, and God is knowing of what they do. And to God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and to God is the destination.

Do you not see that God drives the clouds? That He brings them together; then He makes them into a mass, and you see the rain emerge from within it. And He sends down from the sky, mountains within which is hail, and He strikes with it whom He wills and averts it from whom He wills. The flash of its lightening almost takes away the eyesight.

God alternates the night and the day. Indeed in that is a lesson for those who have vision. God has created ever creature from water. And of them are those that move on their bellies, and of them are those that walk on two legs, and of them are those who walk on four. God creates what He wills. Indeed, God is over all things competent. We have certainly sent down distinct verses. And God guides whom He wills to a straight path.' (24:35-46)

Look how the Qur'an addresses us. The parable it uses to describe the unbelievers could not present a more different example from the environment in which Muhammad preached: 'darknesses within an unfathomable sea which is covered by waves, upon which are waves, over which are clouds – darknesses, some of them upon others.' If we were to descend below the surface of the sea we would in fact encounter different levels of darkness, the seven colours of the light spectrum being absorbed at different depths in the first 200 metres, until only blue remained. Below a depth of 1000 metres there is no light at all. The verse also mentions waves, upon which are waves, over which are clouds. It is now known that very deep waters contain internal waves, due to them being of higher density than the waters above.

Later we are asked, 'Do you not see that God drives the clouds?' We know that cumulonimbus clouds begin to form when the wind pushes cumulus clouds to the convergence zone. As updrafts causes the cloud to stretch into the cooler regions of the atmosphere, water droplets form, which grow until the updrafts are no longer able to support them. At this point they fall from the cloud as rain. This verse then describes hail clouds as mountains. In fact, it is known that cumulonimbus clouds which release hail reach a height of up to thirty thousand feet (like mountains).

Having brought up hail, the Qur'an then says, 'The flash of its lightening almost takes away the eyesight.' It is interesting to note that clouds become electrified when hail falls through their supercooled region. When the hailstone comes into contact with an ice crystal, electrons flow from the latter to the former, so that the hailstone becomes negatively charged. The lighter, positively charged particles are carried to the upper part of the cloud by updrafts, whilst the hail falls to the lower part of the cloud. The negative charges accumulated in the lower part are then discharged as lightning.

In a chapter entitled, 'The Bee', the Qur'an reminds us to reflect on the blessings with which we have been bestowed. In his commentary on the Qur'an, Muhammad al-Ghazali writes:

'Now we come to the second of the themes mentioned earlier and that for which Surat an-Nahl is justly celebrated: its magnificent and beautiful evocation of the natural world as a manifestation of Divine generosity and blessings to us as human beings for which, in justice, we should be endlessly thankful but for which we all too often display arrogant ingratitude.

The subject is introduced by an affirmation of Allah first as the Creator of the universe and then as the Creator of man, mentioning our tendency, despite our most humble origin, to dispute our Lord's sovereignty: "He created the heavens and the earth with truth. He is exalted above any partner they attribute to Him! He created man from a drop of sperm and yet there he is, an open challenger!" (34-4)

Then in an extended passage of intense lyrical beauty Allah gives us a list of some of the many gifts He has bestowed on us without any effort on our part whatsoever. …
Things mentioned are the rain and the crops and fruit it makes possible, the workings of the universe, the huge variety of creatures, the oceans and all the benefits we get from them, and how the very physical geography of the earth is beneficial for us.

We can see why Surat an-Nahl has the alternative name of Surat an-Ni'am (Blessings) and an ayat which follows this list encapsulates it all: "If you tried to number Allah's blessings, you could never count them. Allah is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful." (16:18) And the only thing Allah asks of us in return is to remember Him and thank Him for them, remembering that our thanks is a matter of action as well as words.'

Muhammad al-Ghazali, 1998, Journey Through the Qur'an: The Content and Context of the Suras, Dar Al Taqwa, England, pp. 184-5

In the midst of these words recalling the provision with which God has provided us, the Qur'an is yet again accurate in is description. We read:

'And your Lord inspired to the bee, "Take for yourself among the mountains, houses, and among the trees and that which they construct. Then eat of all the fruits and follow the ways of your Lord laid down." There emerges from their bellies a drink, varying in colour, in which there is healing for people. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who give thought.' (16:68-9)

It is the particularity of the original Arabic which is of interest here. The imperative attakhithi translated as 'take' is a feminine form, which is used when all those that it refers to are female; the masculine form would be used even if a group contained only one male. In the above passage, therefore, God is addressing female bees. We now know that worker bees; those that collect pollen and build the hive; are female. The male drones' only purpose is to impregnate the queen bee.

The above examples are only some of what I call the descriptive miracles of the Qur'an. They are miracles in that we would not ordinarily expect to find such descriptions in a text originating in the seventh century. In an age when people claim that science proves that there is no God, the Qur'an answers back.

The Opening

This surah is recited in every prayer of worship. Thus, just in the five obligatory daily prayers, its words are uttered 17 times a day.

Surah al-Fatihah1

1. In the name of Allah,2 the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.3

2. [All] praise is [due] to Allah, Lord4 of the worlds –

3. The Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful,

4. Sovereign of the Day of Recompense.5

5. It is You we worship and You we ask for help.

6. Guide us to the straight path –

7. The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favour, not of those have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray.

1Al-Fatiha: The Opening (of the Qur'an). Note: Surah titles are not an integral part of the Qur'an. A distinguishing word in a particular surah or a word defining its subject matter often became a common means of identification among the Prophet's companions and later scholars. Although some names, such as al-Fatihah, were used by the Prophet in reference to a particular surah, they were not specifically designated by him as titles.

2Allah is a proper name belonging only to the one Almighty God, Creator and Sustainer of the heaven and the earth and all that is within them, the Eternal and Absolute, to whom alone all worship is due.

3Ar-Rahman and ar-Raheem are two names of Allah derived from the word "rahman" (mercy). In Arabic grammar both are intensive forms of "merciful" (i.e., extremely merciful). A complimentary and comprehensive meaning is intened by using both together.

Rahman is used only to describe Allah, while raheem might be used to describe a person as well. The Prophet was described in the Quran as raheem. Rahman is above the human level (i.e., intensely merciful). Since one usually understands intensity to be something of short duration, Allah describes Himself also as raheem (i.e., continually merciful).

Rahman also carries a wider meaning – merciful to all creation. Justice is part of this mercy. Raheem includes the concept of speciality – especially and specifically merciful to the believers. Forgiveness is a part of this mercy. (See al-Qurtubi's al-Jami'ul Ahkamil-Qur'an, pp. 103-107.)

4When referring to Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala), the Arabic term "rabb" (translated as "Lord") includes all of the following meanings: "owner, master, ruler, controller, sustainer, provider, guardian and caretaker."

5i.e., repayment and compensation for whatever was earned of good or evil during life on this earth.

The Qur'an: Arabic Text with Corresponding English Meanings, 1997, Saheeh International, Abul-Qasim Publishing House, p.1

"In Islam, sinners will face judgement without forgiveness"

Nicky Gumbel, 1994, Searching Issues, Kingsway Publications, England p.31

I WAS reading Searching Issues by Nicky Gumbel (of Alpha / Holy Trinity Brompton fame) recently and I came across the above statement in the second chapter, 'What About Other Religions?' The question I want to address here is whether this is true. The actual context of his remark, I think, arises from a different theological perspective. To quote more fully, Gumbel writes:

'Secondly, Jesus is unique in his achievement. As Peter asserts, "salvation is found in no-one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men, by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). We all need a saviour because we have all sinned and we cannot save ourselves from the results of sin. None of the other great religions even claims to have a saviour. … Likewise, Muhammad is regarded as a prophet – not as a saviour. In Islam, sinners will face judgement without forgiveness.
By contrast, Jesus is the one who brings salvation. He saves us from our guilt, he saves us from the addictive power of sin and he saves us from the judgement we all deserve.' (pp.30-31)

Only in the context of Gumbel's earlier assertion (that we all need a saviour [that is, a name under heaven]) is his statement about Islam true. It is indeed the case that a Muslim believes that no name under heaven has the ability to forgive the sins by which we are judged on the Day of Recompense, but this does not mean that there is no forgiveness. What Gumbel's position suggests is that God alone is unable to accept the repentance of one who turns to Him.

A Muslim would not usually use the Christian terminology, but let me explain the Islamic position, as I understand it, in this way:

God has given us this life to prepare for the Day of Judgement, by believing in Him, worshipping Him and accumulating good deeds. A consequence of failure to worship Him and accumulating sins is disaster on the Day of Judgement. As humans, how ever, we all commit sins. Therefore, in order to be of the successful, we need to be saved from the results of sin. God, the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth is He who brings that salvation. When we repent and seek His forgiveness, He veils our sins and saves us from punishment.

Seeking forgiveness is, in fact, mentioned throughout the Qur'an. Gumbel's view that, 'In Islam, sinners will face judgement without forgiveness' is quite wrong, unless he is speaking of those who do not repent or believe (in which case, the position of Christianity is the same).

Here is what the Qur'an actually says:

'And to God belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. He forgives whom He wills and punishes whom He wills. And God is Forgiving and Merciful. O you who have believed, do not consume usury, doubled and multiplied, but fear God that you may be successful. And fear the Fire, which has been prepared for the disbelievers. And obey God and the Messenger that you may obtain mercy. And hasten to forgiveness from your Lord and a garden as wide as the heavens and the earth, prepared for the righteous who spend [in the cause of God] during ease and hardship and who restrain anger and who pardon the people – and God loves the doers of good; and those who, if they commit an immorality or wrong themselves, remember God and seek forgiveness for their sins – and who can forgive sins except God? – and do not persist in what they have done while they know. Those – their reward is forgiveness from their Lord and gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide eternally. Excellent is the reward of the workers. (Qur'an, Surah Ali 'Imran 3:129-136)

In Islam, the term is 'turning back' (tawbah), i.e. Turning back to God and seeking refuge in His forgiveness, so that God turns back to the person who has sinned. The Prophet taught the following supplication for forgiveness:

'O God, You are my Lord – there is no god but You. You created me, and I am Your servant; and I uphold Your covenant and promise to You as much as I am able. I seek refuge in You from the evil I have done. I acknowledge my sin, so forgive me. Indeed, there is none who can forgive sins except You.'

This is the reality in Islam.