Thursday, May 5, 2016

Does Islam Teach "Substitutionary Atonement"? - A Response to a Christian Apologist


Does Islam Teach “Substitutionary Atonement”?  A Response to a Christian Apologist


“Say: ‘O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Turn ye to our Lord (in repentance) and bow to His (Will), before the Penalty comes on you: after that ye shall not be helped.’”

          - The Holy Quran, Surah Az-Zumar, 39:53-54 (Yusuf Ali)

With the proliferation of the Internet, it has become common to see a myriad number of websites and blogs dedicated to the propagation of many different ideologies.  Among these millions of websites, there are many dedicated to the propagation of religious ideas (such as this blog), ranging from the well-known religions such as Christianity and Islam, as well as the lesser known ones, such as Shintoism and Voodoo.  Of course, with the discussion of religion comes religious argumentation and debate.  One of the current hot topics in this discussion in various circles, both friendly and hostile, is Islam.[1]  One of the favorite targets especially of Christian apologists, Islam is clearly one of the most discussed subjects in the world today.  As a result, many false claims about Islam have surfaced in recent years, and Muslims are increasingly active in responding to these claims.  One such false claim has been made by some Christian apologists and involves the concept of “substitutionary atonement”.[2]  An article in the Christian apologetic blog “Apologetics and Agape”,[3] claims that “substitutionary atonement” is a Biblical concept and also that:

“…the Qur’an agrees with the concept of substitutionary atonement…”[4]

But is this claim true?  In this article, we will test this claim and see if it has any merit.  InshaAllah, the reader will see that upon a critical examination of the apologist’s assertions, we find no truth to his claims.[5]

Substitutionary Atonement – A Brief Summary

            Before we respond to the theory that the Quran teaches the concept of “substitutionary atonement”, let us briefly summarize its main precepts.  The main precept, from a Christian point of view, is that:

“Jesus Christ died in our place when He was crucified on the cross. We deserved to be the ones placed on that cross to die because we are the ones who live sinful lives. But Christ took the punishment on Himself in our place—He substituted Himself for us and took what we rightly deserved.”[6]

Thus, since humans are sinful, they must pay the price of that sin, which is an eternity in Hell.  However, since Jesus (peace be upon him) allegedly “took the punishment on [h]imself”, his “sacrifice” saves us all, so long as we accept that “sacrifice” and:

“…place our faith in what Christ did on the cross.”[7]

            Based on this, we can summarize “substitutionary atonement” as the belief that the forgiveness of sins and salvation can be attained not by one’s personal deeds, but by the redemptive atonement of another individual, who must necessarily be sinless (hence the Christian emphasis that Jesus was “sinless”).[8]  Someone has to pay the price, and it will either be us (by spending eternity in Hell), or it was Jesus (peace be upon him), who paid the price by allowing himself to be crucified.  

Islam and “Substitutionary Atonement”

            Now that we have discussed what “substitutionary atonement” is, we can proceed in analyzing the Christian claim that Islam actually “agrees” with this concept.  First, the author of the article, Ken Temple, quotes Surah As-Saaffat (37:107),[9] which is part of the story of the prophet Ibrahim’s (peace be upon him) near-sacrifice of his son (whom Muslims hold to be Ishmael, and not Isaac),[10] and then claims that:

“[t]he substitution of the ram in the place of Abraham’s son proves that it (the ransom) means ‘substitutionary atonement’.”[11]

But an examination of the context of the verse shows that this claim is untenable and completely false.  We need to remember that “substitutionary atonement” is the belief that forgiveness of sins is made by a willing sacrifice (whom Christians believe was Jesus) and the evidence from the Quran itself shows that the story of Ibrahim and Ishmael (peace be upon them) does not reflect this belief. 
           
            First, when read in context, the story shows no indication that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) ordered Ibrahim (peace be upon him) to sacrifice his son (and later, the ram) as some sort of expiation for his sins.  Let us read the complete story as told in Surah As-Saaffat:

“He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!

"O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"

So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.

Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practicing Patience and Constancy!"

So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),

We called out to him "O Abraham!

"Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

For this was obviously a trial-

And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:

And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:

"Peace and salutation to Abraham!"

Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

            For he was one of our believing Servants.”[12]

We can immediately see no indication that the command to sacrifice Ishmael (peace be upon him) was given as a way for Ibrahim (peace be upon him) to atone for his sins.  In fact, verse 103 states that both Ibrahim and Ishmael (peace be upon them) had “submitted their wills” to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), and verse 105 states that simply by his willing submission to Allah’s command, Ibrahim (peace be upon him) had “already fulfilled the vision”.  Commenting on verse 105, the 13th-century exegete Ibn Kathir stated that it means that:

“…the purpose of your dream has been fulfilled by your laying down your son to sacrifice him.'”[13]

In addition, the commentary in “The Study Quran” explains that it also means that (emphasis ours):

“[Ibrahim] carried out what he was commanded and that he achieved its goal by demonstrating complete obedience to God.”[14]

Moreover, verse 106 states clearly that the whole incident was “obviously a trial”.  According to Ibn Kathir, this means that (emphasis ours):

“…it was clearly a test when he was commanded to sacrifice his son, so, he hastened to do it, in submission to the command of Allah and in obedience to Him.”[15]

According to “The Study Quran”, it also means:

“…that it was a blessing…as it is through severe trials that God brings His pious servants the best reward in this life and the next, if they are able to faithfully endure them, as did Abraham…”[16]

Again, we see no indication that there was any relationship between the “trial” and the atonement of sins.  Rather, a trial is meant to test whether a person will obey Allah’s commands, regardless of how difficult they are.[17]

            But what about the phrase “…We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice”?  Doesn’t the word “ransomed” indicate that the ram was meant to serve as a sin offering or that, as Temple claims:

“[t]he substitution of the ram in the place of Abraham’s son proves that it (the ransom) means ‘substitutionary atonement’.”

             As we have seen, the context indicates that this claim is false.  There is no proof that the ram was presented for “substitutionary atonement”.  The claim made by Temple is simply a non-sequitur.  The “ransom” was simply for Ishmael (peace be upon him), since it saved him from being sacrificed.[18]

            Additionally, we can note that (emphasis in the original):

“[t]his substitution of the ram for Abraham’s son serves as the basis for the ritual of slaughtering an animal that is required as the final rite of the hajj.”[19]

This is an important point which Temple has ignored or is unaware of, since if we can understand the point of the Hajj ritual, it will explain the true meaning behind the prophet Ibrahim’s trial.[20]

Islam and Animal Sacrifice

            It is certainly true that animal sacrifices are sometimes required of a Muslim after committing a specific sin.  Moreover, an animal sacrifice is an integral part of the Hajj.  However, it is important to note from the get-go that it is not the meat or blood that serves to expiate for a sin.  Rather, it is the act itself, as stated in the Quran:

“It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His Guidance to you and proclaim the good news to all who do right.”[21]

In his commentary on the verse, Ibn Kathir stated that it is the act of piety that “He will accept and reward for…”[22]  Thus, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) does not forgive sins through blood atonement.  Rather, He forgives sins when they are countered with a pious deed (which in this case is an animal sacrifice), as is stated in a hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):

“…Have Taqwa of Allah wherever you are, and follow an evil deed with a good one to wipe it out, and treat the people with good behavior.”[23]

In this regard, the act of making an animal sacrifice is a good deed since the purpose of it is to first, please Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He),[24] and then to eat the meat and distribute a portion of it to the poor, and among one’s family and friends.[25]   
           
Furthermore, in regards to the Hajj, it is stated in “The Oxford Dictionary of Islam” that (emphasis ours):

“[p]roperly performed, the hajj absolves the pilgrim from all previous sins.  […] A valid pilgrimage requires the sincere intention (niyah) of coming closer to God.  If the intent is spiritually sound, most breaches of ritual formality can be corrected via additional animal sacrifices in Mecca or special acts of charity and fasting after returning home.”[26]

There are some important points to note here:

  1. The Hajj itself absolves a Muslim of all sins.  Also, all of the rituals of the Hajj must be performed in order for it to be accepted.
  2. The Hajj is only acceptable as long as the pilgrim makes a “sincere intention”.  Without it, the Hajj is not accepted even if all of the rituals are performed.
  3. As long as an intention is made, any mistakes or omissions in the Hajj (so long as they are not deliberately made), can be cancelled out by “additional animal sacrifices in Mecca” or “special acts of charity and fasting”.

If Islam placed such importance on “substitutionary atonement”, then surely animal sacrifices would play a much more prominent role in atoning for sins.  Indeed, in some cases, a Muslim has the choice on how to atone for violating the rules of the Hajj.  An example is atoning for hunting land animals during the Hajj.  There is complete consensus among the scholars of Islam that hunting animals in a state of Ihram is prohibited.[27]  But what is a Muslim to do when he/she violates this rule?  While there are minor differences between the various schools of thought, they generally agree that the person can choose between giving meat from his own livestock in charity, giving other food that is worth the same amount of money or, in the case of the Hanafi school, fasting a day for every gram (mudd) of food that must be given away.[28] 

Thus, we can see that animal sacrifices are not a requirement in Islam, and even when they are required, it is the act itself and not the spilling of blood that atones for one’s sins.  Even the Christian apologist Thabiti Anyabwile acknowledges this fact.  He states:

“…the Quran denies that animal sacrifice can atone for the sins of men.  […] In Islam, piety counts before Allah, not sacrifice.”[29]

“Substitutionary Atonement” in the Ahadith?

            Having dealt with Temple’s erroneous claims about “substitutionary atonement” in the Quran, we can now turn our attention to his appeal to some ahadith.  Before quoting some ahadith from Sahih Muslim, Temple credulously asks:

“…why do these Islamic Hadiths clearly say that Allah will forgive the sins of Muslims and save them from hell by punishing Jews and Christians in their place?”[30]    

As we will see, this question is based on a biased and incomplete reading of the ahadith and illustrates Temple’s ignorance. 

            To make his case, Temple quotes the following ahadith from Sahih Muslim:

“Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.”[31]

“Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. ‘Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him).”[32]

“Abu Burda reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him)? I said: Yes.”[33]

After quoting these ahadith, Temple then claims that:

“[t]hese Hadith [sic] are worse, because the sins of Muslims are put on other sinners.  That is injustice indeed.  But it was not unjust for Jesus to die for our sins, because He did it voluntarily, and He is perfect and sinless.”[34]

But are Temple’s assertions accurate?  Do these ahadith teach that Muslims will be able to atone by placing their sins on other unwilling sinners?  As we will now see, the answer is no.

            First and foremost, it needs to be stated that since they are unbelievers, Jews and Christians will be doomed to hell anyway.  This is stated emphatically in the Quran and Ahadith.  For example, the Quran states:

“O ye People of the Book! believe in what We have (now) revealed, confirming what was (already) with you, before We change the face and fame of some (of you) beyond all recognition, and turn them hindwards, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers, for the decision of Allah Must be carried out.”[35]

“They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel!  Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.”[36]

As we can see, the Jews and Christians will already be doomed to hellfire because of their unbelief, something they have been warned of in the Quran.  Thus, it is not an “injustice”, since they will be punished for their own sins, and not the sins of Muslims.[37]  

            Additionally, Temple is ignorant of the hadith which states that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) has created Paradise and Hell as well as the denizens of both (emphasis ours):

“'A'isha, the mother of the believers, reported that a child died and I said: There is happiness for this child who is a bird from amongst the birds of Paradise. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: Don't you know that Allah created the Paradise and He created the Hell and He created the dwellers for this (Paradise) and the denizens for this (Hell)?”[38]

This hadith is further proof for our assertion above that the Jews and Christians who would serve as the “ransom” for some Muslims will simply be receiving the punishment that they had earned and which would doom them to Hell in the first place.  The additional sins of the Muslims will not change that.

            Moreover, the ahadith Temple refers to mention just one of the ways some Muslims will be saved on the Day of Judgement.[39]  While some Muslims will be saved by being “ransomed”,[40] others will simply be forgiven their sins by the mercy of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He),[41] whereas others still will only be forgiven after receiving some sort of punishment for their sins, which will “purify” them.[42]  In addition, some Muslims will be forgiven their sins due to the trials they endured while in this world.[43]  Finally, as stated in an aforementioned hadith from Jami At-Tirmidhi, Muslims can atone for their sins simply by following up with a good deed.[44]

            Therefore, having considered the whole corpus of evidence from the Quran and Sunnah, we find that Temple’s appeal to the aforementioned ahadith and the alleged teaching of “substitutionary atonement” is erroneous.  Taking some ahadith out of context and ignoring others only illustrates the cherry-picking and biased research that the missionary is guilty of.

Conclusion

In this article, we have analyzed the claims of Christian apologist Ken Temple regarding alleged episodes of “substitutionary atonement” in the Islamic sources.  Through more detailed study of these sources, we have found Temple’s claims to be lacking and simply the result of sloppy research.  Thus, the final conclusion is that Islam does not teach the concept of “substitutionary atonement”, as the evidence has shown.  In other words:

Islam [did indeed] get rid of the concept of…substitutionary atonement.[45]

And Allah knows best!


[1] Of course, religious argumentation is not a new phenomenon.  Even before the advent of the Internet, discussions and debates were a common occurrence and have been for thousands of years. 

[2] According to one Christian website, “substitutionary atonement”:

“…refers to Jesus Christ dying as a substitute for sinners” (http://www.gotquestions.org/substitutionary-atonement.html)

In other words, the concept refers to a voluntary sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.

[3] The word “agape” is:

“…one of the Greek NT words for ‘love’” (https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/about/)

The blog “Apologetics and Agape” is maintained by Christian apologist Ken Temple.


In a separate article, the Christian apologist also quoted some ahadith which he asserts teach the concept of “substitutionary atonement”:


In our response, we will discuss the claims made in both articles.

[5] This article is specifically concerned with responding to the claims made about the Quran and Ahadith, and not with the assertion that “substitutionary atonement” is a Biblical concept.  InshaAllah, that will be the topic of a future article. 

[7] Ibid.

[8] InshaAllah, in a future article, we will discuss the Christian claim that the Biblical Jesus was “sinless”.

[9] The verse states:

“And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice.”

[12] Surah As-Saaffat, 37:99-111.

[14] The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary, ed. Seyyed Hossein Nasr (New York: HarperOne, 2015), p. 1094.

[16] The Study Quran, op. cit., p. 1094.

[17] As we will see below, however, worldly trials can serve to atone for one’s sins, as emphasized in the Ahadith literature.  The Quran also states that:

“…those who show patience and constancy, and work righteousness; for them is forgiveness (of sins) and a great reward” (Surah Hud, 11:11).

[18] Additionally, we may note that although the Quran does not state what actually happened with the meat of the ram once it was sacrificed, it is reasonable to assume that it would have been eaten as a provision from Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), just as the sacrificial meat of the Hajj is eaten.  This is in stark contrast to the sacrificial system as described in the Tanakh, where the meat was usually burned:

“Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it” (Genesis 8:20, New International Version).

See also Leviticus 1-2.  In specific cases, however, only the High Priest or his sons could eat the meat (Leviticus 6:24-30).

[19] Ibid.

[20] It should be stated that an animal sacrifice is sometimes required as an act of atonement, but this depends on several factors and only applies in certain situations, as we will discuss later. 

[21] Surah Al-Hajj, 22:37.

This is in stark contrast to the Tanakh, which states:

“Then burn the entire ram on the altar. It is a burnt offering to the Lord, a pleasing aroma, a food offering presented to the Lord (Exodus 29:18).

To be fair, however, it seems Jews interpret this and other verses differently, as shown in the following translation:

“…and you shall make the entire ram go up in smoke upon the altar; it is a burnt offering made to the Lord; it is a spirit of satisfaction, a fire offering for the Lord” (http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9890#showrashi=true)

The Jewish commentator Rashi stated that the phrase “it is a spirit of satisfaction” means that:

“It is satisfaction to Me that I commanded and My will was performed” (Ibid.).

Thus, it would appear that zealous Christian translators have twisted the meaning of the verse.

[23] Jami At-Tirmidhi, 27:93.


“When the believers offer the sacrifice, with their act they too imply that just as they are ready to sacrifice and slaughter an animal at the command of their Lord, if commanded by their Lord Creator, they too are willing, just like the Noble Prophets Ibraheem and Ismail, to sacrifice everything they own and love for the Pleasure of Allah Subhanah.”

It should also be pointed out, as the above source makes clear, that although the sacrifice is obligatory for all Muslims who are performing the Hajj, it is not an obligation for those who celebrate Eid Al-Adha but are not performing the Hajj.  Rather, it is a “preferred Sunnah and thus voluntary”. 

[25] Ibid.

“A person offering a sacrifice may consume, without any restrictions, any amount of meat he may desire. He may likewise give away, or offer in charity any amount he may wish. Some scholars say that one may eat half, and give away the other half in charity, while others say that the meat be divided into three parts. Of these one may keep a part, distribute a part, and give in charity the third part.”

[26] “Hajj”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, ed. John L. Esposito (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 104.

[27] Muhammad Jawad Maghniyyah, The Hajj: According to Five Schools of Islamic Law, Vol. 4 (Tehran: Department of Culture and Publication, 1997), p. 53.

[28] Ibid., p. 55.

[29] Thabiti Anyabwile, The Gospel for Muslims: An Encouragement to Share Christ with Confidence (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2010), p. 69.

[31] Sahih Muslim, 37:6665.

[32] Sahih Muslim, 36:6666.

[33] Sahih Muslim, 37:6668.

[35] Surah An-Nisa, 4:47.

[36] Surah Al-Maeda, 5:72.

[37] The website “IslamQA” states:

“So they will enter Hell because of their own actions, not because of the sins of the Muslims” (https://islamqa.info/en/9488).

[38] Sahih Muslim, 46:46.

However, the hadith does not mean that there is no free will and that each person is not responsible for his/her own actions.  As another hadith in the Sunan Abu Dawud states:

“Those who are among the number of those who go to Paradise will be helped to do the deeds of the people who will go to Paradise, and those who are among the number of those who go to Hell will be helped to do the deeds of those who will go to Hell” (Sunan Abu Dawud, 42:101).

Additionally, a hadith in Sahih Bukhari states (emphasis ours):

“Narrated `Ali: We were with the Prophet (peace be upon him) in a funeral procession, and he started scraping the ground with a small stick and said, "There is none amongst you but has been assigned a place (either) in Paradise and (or) in the Hell-Fire." The people said (to him), "Should we not depend upon it?" He said: carry on doing (good) deeds, for everybody will find easy such deeds as will lead him to his destined place. He then recited: "As for him who gives (in charity) and keeps his duty to Allah…"” (Sahih Bukhari, 78:241).

[39] The hadith from Sahih Muslim 37:6668 states (emphasis ours):

“There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain…”

[40] Again, as mentioned earlier, the “ransom” in the form of unbelieving Jews and Christians does not change the fact that those Jews and Christians will be receiving the punishment they deserved due to their unbelief and not simply to save Muslims.

Moreover, there are other ways for Muslims to “ransom” themselves, as stated in a hadith from Sunan Ibn Majah:

“It was narrated from Ibn Musayyab that ‘Aishah said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: ‘There is no day on which Allah ransoms more slaves from the Fire than the Day of ‘Arafah. He draws closer and closer, then He boasts about them before the angels and says: ‘What do these people want?’’” (Sunan Ibn Majah, 4:25:3014).

[41] For example, a hadith in Sahih Bukhari states (emphasis ours):

“Narrated Safwan bin Muhriz: A man asked Ibn `Umar, "What did you hear Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) saying regarding An-Najwa (secret talk between Allah and His believing worshipper on the Day of Judgment)?" He said, "(The Prophet (peace be upon him) said), ‘One of you will come close to his Lord till He will shelter him in His screen and say: Did you commit such-and-such sin? He will say, 'Yes.' Then Allah will say: Did you commit such and such sin? He will say, 'Yes.' So Allah will make him confess (all his sins) and He will say, 'I screened them (your sins) for you in the world, and today I forgive them for you'’” (Sahih Bukhari, 78:100).

[42] For example, a hadith in Sahih Bukhari states (emphasis ours):

Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, "When the believers pass safely over (the bridge across) Hell, they will be stopped at a bridge in between Hell and Paradise where they will retaliate upon each other for the injustices done among them in the world, and when they get purified of all their sins, they will be admitted into Paradise. By Him in Whose Hands the life of Muhammad is everybody will recognize his dwelling in Paradise better than he recognizes his dwelling in this world"” (Sahih Bukhari, 46:1).

[43] For example, a hadith in Sahih Bukhari states:

“Narrated Anas: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "A Muslim whose three children die before the age of puberty will be granted Paradise by Allah due to his mercy for them"” (Sahih Bukhari, 23:12).

Another hadith in Jami At- Tirmidhi states:

“Abu Hurairah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Trials will not cease afflicting the believing man and the believing woman in their self, children, and wealth, until they meet Allah without having any sin"” (Jami At-Tirmidhi, 36:97).

[44] See note #20.


Sacrifice and “ransom” are clearly taught in the Islamic sources, but not in the way Temple asserts (linking it with “substitutionary atonement”), as we have seen.

38 comments:

  1. I guess you didn't read this article, which was linked to at the bottom of "Islam could not get rid of the concept of substitutionary atonement".

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/01/so-why-did-allah-substitute-innocent.html

    Islam skips the NT meaning and interpretation of the OT of substitutionary sacrifice, and changes the story of Genesis 22, a much older and established revelation.

    Genesis 22 was a prophesy of the Messiah to come.

    yes, we agree that it was a test and trial to Abraham.

    Just by using the basic story from the OT, Islam unknowingly was affirming substitutionary atonement, because that was the original meaning of Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (Passover), Leviticus 1-6, 16-17 (sacrificial system), I Kings (temple sacrifices) and Isaiah 53 (prophesy of Messiah to come) and Daniel 9:24-27 (more prophesy of Messiah, atonement, and then the temple was destroyed). Islam skipped all that and tries to reinterpret it, but just by having that verse of Surah 37:107, they could not get completely get rid of the concept of substitutionary atonement. Granted Islam reinterprets it, but that was not the original intention. the original intention was what the NT teaches and what Christians teach today. Islam skipped that.

    I will write more later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In all due respect that is not what the OT teaches. Christianity made the claim of sacrifice and that looked throughout the OT for evidence.

      A perfect example that "blood sacrifice" is not needed for forgiveness is in the people of Nineveh and Jonah(as).

      The OT describes the people of Nineveh as a wicked nation. God sent Prophet Jonah(as) to warn them:

      "The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai: “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.” [Jonah 1:1-2]
      This was a nation of considerable size, numbering over 120,000 inhabitants:
      And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?” [Jonah 4:11]
      This entire nation was spared God’s punishment in the end because they repented from their wicked ways:
      When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:
      “By the decree of the king and his nobles:
      Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”
      When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened. [Jonah 3:6-10]
      An entire nation of over 120,000 who were condemned to destruction were forgiven by God when they simply repented and fasted, without ever offering any sacrifice. In fact even though they had many animals at their disposal, which God could have easily commanded them to sacrifice, they weren’t sacrificed, but rather were made to fast as well.

      The most commonly cited passage for this belief of blood atonement:
      “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” [Leviticus 17:11]
      But if you read this verse in context, you will find that it refers to abstaining from eating or drinking the blood of a sacrifice, and nothing more. God commanded this prohibition in order to maintain the distinction between the Jewish people and the pagans.
      This mistake that atonement requires a blood sacrifice comes from a misreading of Leviticus where Jews are forbidden from eating blood. This can be clearly seen when one considers the passages immediately before and after:
      “I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.” [Leviticus 17:10]
      “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” [Leviticus 17:11]
      Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.” [Leviticus 17:12]
      So, the context is dietary laws, not atonement. Moreover, the passage says only that blood is used to obtain atonement; not that blood is the only means for obtaining atonement. All of the verses above could be summed up as saying, “Don’t eat blood, because blood is used in atonement rituals; so don’t eat blood.”

      Delete
    2. "Genesis 22 was a prophesy of the Messiah to come. "

      genesis 22 does not teach that "the lamb"

      = christological lamb in john
      are you going to find christolgical animal from john in gen 22?

      Delete
    3. "
      Just by using the basic story from the OT, Islam unknowingly was affirming substitutionary atonement, because that was the original meaning of Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (Passover), Leviticus 1-6, 16-17 (sacrificial system), I Kings (temple sacrifices) and Isaiah 53 (prophesy of Messiah to come) and Daniel 9:24-27 (more prophesy of Messiah, atonement, and then the temple was destroyed). "

      i can show you how your sinful "jesus" from the new testament REINTERPRETED torah text
      i can show you how PHILO reinterpreted torah
      text
      i can show how numerous JEWISH writings reinterpreted torah text


      " but just by having that verse of Surah 37:107, they could not get completely get rid of the concept of substitutionary atonement."


      quote:

      A God announces the name of the mountain (::::): land of “the place of seeing” (::::: “Moriah,”
      22:2)

      B Abraham sees (::::::) the place (:::::) of sacrifice (22:4)

      C Abraham asserts God will see/provide (!:, 22:8)

      C Abraham sees (::::) God’s provision (22:13)

      B’ Abraham names the place (::::) “God sees/provides” (::::::)

      A’ Narrator announces maxim about the mountain (:!): where “God will be seen” (::::: 22:14b)


      this is the chiasmus from the biblical story
      1. abraham SAW the godly provision
      you prove that abraham thought that the god who PROVIDED/sees was going to provide himself as BURNT offering

      Delete
    4. "but just by having that verse of Surah 37:107, they could not get completely get rid of the concept of substitutionary atonement. "

      earlier you said islam "reinterpreted" the text so why not for the assafaat verse?


      1. where in the genesis story does abraham think that isaac = SIN offering?
      if isaac = sin offering does that mean that other than jesus, people born of a woman, were fit to be offered as sin offering to deity?

      2. documentary hypothesis says abraham did kill his son . does that mean e thought isaac was sin offering according to e?

      3. does your god not know the difference between lamb and a god in human flesh ?

      4. why didn't abraham name the place "god will be provided" ?

      Delete
    5. "I guess you didn't read this article, which was linked to at the bottom of "Islam could not get rid of the concept of substitutionary atonement".

      http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/01/so-why-did-allah-substitute-innocent.html

      Islam skips the NT meaning and interpretation of the OT of substitutionary sacrifice, and changes the story of Genesis 22, a much older and established revelation."

      when americans like you eat the meat of pigs, cows and goats does "innocent" ever cross your mind?
      when you munch on pork chops do you think to yourself that it came from innocent animal?

      just curious to know

      Delete
    6. Ken, you said:

      "Islam skips the NT meaning and interpretation of the OT of substitutionary sacrifice, and changes the story of Genesis 22, a much older and established revelation.""

      Well of course it skips that meaning! Islam came to reverse the corruptions of the people of the book. Islam corrects the mistakes and contradictions in these stories. I have discussed some of these stories (including Genesis 22) in my other articles:

      http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/ishmael-and-isaac-in-quran-and-bible.html

      http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none_14.html

      http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-fall-of-adam-and-eve-in-bible-and.html

      http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/lot-in-quran-and-bible.html

      You said:

      "Genesis 22 was a prophesy of the Messiah to come."

      That is just your own anachronistic interpretation. There is no evidence that Genesis 22 is "Messianic". Using your logic, it could just as easily be referring to the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him)!

      You said:

      "Just by using the basic story from the OT, Islam unknowingly was affirming substitutionary atonement, because that was the original meaning of Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (Passover), Leviticus 1-6, 16-17 (sacrificial system), I Kings (temple sacrifices) and Isaiah 53 (prophesy of Messiah to come) and Daniel 9:24-27 (more prophesy of Messiah, atonement, and then the temple was destroyed). Islam skipped all that and tries to reinterpret it, but just by having that verse of Surah 37:107, they could not get completely get rid of the concept of substitutionary atonement. Granted Islam reinterprets it, but that was not the original intention. the original intention was what the NT teaches and what Christians teach today. Islam skipped that."

      This is one large circular argument, nothing more. What Christians teach today is irrelevant, because their teachings are flat-out wrong, as we can see from the numerous inconsistencies between the Tanakh and the New Testament.

      Now, do you have any actual response to the evidence from the Quran and Ahadith that I have presented?

      Delete
    7. "In all due respect that is not what the OT teaches. Christianity made the claim of sacrifice and that looked throughout the OT for evidence."

      That's a good point. Just like how Christians invented a suffering Messiah and then looked in the Tanakh for "prophecies".

      Delete
    8. quote:
      "Genesis 22 was a prophesy of the Messiah to come."

      quote:
      That is just your own anachronistic interpretation. There is no evidence that Genesis 22 is "Messianic". Using your logic, it could just as easily be referring to the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him)!


      comment: he wants to see the animal in john/christological animal in the saying of abraham

      "god himself will provide the lamb , my son"

      i find it strange that paul did not "see" this
      neither did the synoptic writers

      is it because abraham's "the lamb" was clearly an animal and not human sacrificial ritual judged by jewish temple sacrifices?


      they will argue themselves silly and say

      "abraham predicted future lamb ..."
      and completely trast/disregard the phrase

      "as burnt offering"

      it is shameful destruction of text to show that even prophets faith was not good enough so even he thought of physical violent human sacrificial ritual before yhwh saved his son



      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ‘Genesis 22 was a prophesy of the Messiah to come.’

    ‘Isaiah 53 (prophesy of Messiah to come)’

    That’s news to me. These passages doesn’t mention a ‘Messiah’ at all.

    “Islam skipped that.”

    Au contraire. Seems like Christianity invented what is not there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Sorry about that took me a minute to get used to the messaging system on here. Yes in my my personal dealing with Christians (my family being HEAVY attendees of the "soul" church) they have their own beliefs (sometimes personal sometimes creedal) and THEN look for evidence instead of taking ALL the work as a collection and forming their beliefs. Whenever I bring the point of Yunus(as) there never a rebuttal because the concept has a HOST of issues to deal with to make any type of sense.

      Delete
    3. Also I forgot take this for your next post since were destroying concepts in Christianity, Isa(as) aka Jesus for non Muslims didn't teach "original sin" which is further evidence against "blood atonement."

      1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

      2Jesus called a little child to stand among them. 3“Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me.

      6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

      Context
      http://biblehub.com/bsb/matthew/18.htm

      More verses of similar statements
      http://biblehub.com/matthew/18-3.htm

      Delete
    4. Yes, I have also referred to the story of Jonah in the Bible to show that repentance was perfectly acceptable. And yes, the apologists usually ignore the story or fail to offer any substantive rebuttal.

      Delete
    5. Matthew 18 is a good example of the contradictory ideas in the Bible. It definitely shows the absurdity of the "blood atonement" argument. Another good example is Matthew 19:16ff.

      Delete
    6. Nice one. But I see you and raise you go two verses before the one you quoted

      13Then the little children were brought to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them and pray for them; and the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15And after He had placed His hands on them, He went on from there.

      Then combine it with the yours and Isa(as) DEFINITELY didn't teach these lies they attribute to him. But al hamdoliah Allah gave him the entire nation of Muhammad(saw) to testify for him.

      Delete
    7. InshaAllah, in a future article, I will discuss the concept of "original sin" and show how the Bible directly contradicts such a concept. The passage you referred to is definitely one piece of evidence.

      Delete
    8. InshaAllah. Keep up the good work.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. christians ruin bibilical stories with their disgusting blood lust.
    the story of abraham fearing god is completely ruined when "jesus" is injected into it

    focus is shifted from abraham to blood sacrifice while the narrative wants to keep the camera on abraham and his FEAR of god and ready to do what god told him to do

    abraham says "my son" before he is about to cut off his kids head
    and the kid says "my father" when he asked his dad about the missing animal

    the narrative is trying to move the heart of the reader when each person is addressing the other using "my"

    christian "jesus" is completely wrecking this when it's "sacrifice" is read into the text

    in the pagan christian story, abraham is suppose to think about a god giving his life back to his immortal life?

    hold on a second
    it was all about abrahams fear and willingness which went above human emotion

    why ruin things with the nonsense from christianity?

    keep the story unchristian
    it looks better

    ReplyDelete
  6. christianities human sacrificial ritual is only set out to prove that abraham was dirty sinful person who couldn't fear god ENough and only a god could fear himself more than any human being
    this is the point, it is trying to ruin picture in ot.
    this is the reason
    abrahams trust is no good, according to these pagans.
    only a god can trust himself with "all thy love and all thy heart"
    christianity is not only reinterpreting but it destroys what the writer is trying to tell the listeners.

    yet the story is completely focused on abraham, his fear and trust in god

    ReplyDelete
  7. brother,

    you may have heard the original sin stained christians attacking the qurans reliability by saying that it mentions a miracle which was invented by christians decades after jesus.

    they will assume that jesus driving devils into pigs, walking on water, being tempted by satan for 40 days, becoming unrecognisable, flying to the sky like superman etc etc is all "reliable" because christian myth making wasn't fully functional in first century.

    what i have noticed is that ex-christians are attacking christian stories like christians are attacking the stories in the quran.

    i find that these hypocrite christians have no early manuscripts about abraham, moses, adam , david and others and will base their belief on FAITH that the bible is reporting some truth even thought their is large gap between the person written about and first available manuscript

    such hypocrites have no shame.

    but here is an interesting conversation about legendary development and christian double standards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i quote


      :::::::::::::::::::::legendary development:::::::::::::::::::::::


      NK: This “legendary development” thing has made me thinking. How do these people actually know how much legendary development has occurred until Mark finally wrote the thing? Apologists like to compare Mark and Gospel of Thomas (or Peter, or whatever), and say “look, look how much bullsh%% is in this other Gospels, but look how simple Mark is! This means Mark is older, and that’s why it’s more simpler”. But even if Mark is older than the other Gospel, how do they know it’s actually reliable at all? It might be more reliable than the other Gospel becauce it’s older and closer to the events that it’s talking about, but that doesn’t mean Mark is “at the beginning”.

      You are quite right. Mark could contain the same amount of legendary development from 30 to 70 A.D. as the Gospel of Peter adds to Mark. They are confusing “rate of accumulation” with “amount of accumulation.” The rate of accumulation between Mark and even just Matthew is enormous (if you consider the nativity and overblown resurrection narratives as accumulated legend). So the rate was clearly very high. If one thinks Matthew was written within 20 years of Mark, then one should expect Mark to contain twice as much legendary accumulation as occurs between Mark and Matthew (since Mark is at least 40 years after its supposed source events).

      You are also right that even knowing the rate doesn’t get you to what’s true. Completely fake stories get composed immediately. Mark could be completely a fake story completely invented tout court by Mark. Or Mark could be the collection of nothing but isolated fake stories completely invented by others before him. Rate of accumulation is not useful to know if you don’t first know what the initial state of the story was. This is why urban legends pop up instantly and accumulate details rapidly. Not over decades. Not even over years. But within weeks or even days. Without even a single detail being true.

      Delete
    2. NK: So my point is that how is this legendary development thing argued by the apologists. If Mark is written somewhere in the 70s, then how the hell anyone knows how much legendary development has happened before Mark put pen to paper? Of course, at this point the magical oral tradition comes to the scene and tries to save Mark’s reliability, but we know that that doesn’t work either (you showed that in OHJ, if I remember correctly, with mock-analogy [did you come up that yourself?]).

      Indeed. In OHJ I have the critic imagine they are on trial for murder, and the only evidence against them is a Gospel of John written anonymously decades later that says lots of people saw you commit the murder (pp. 251-52). Once prison is on the line, any confidence they had in the reliability of the Gospels quickly gets tossed. (Another mock analogy is the Hero Savior of Viet Nam story I use in Why I Am Not a Christian.)
      And an important point here, is that the gospel had evolved enormously over four decades and across three continents, before Mark composed. I discuss this in Proving History, pp. 126-28. And more in OHJ, index, “rapid legendary development.”



      NK: Apologists say “Mark doesn’t show signs of legendary development as much as later Gospels do”. Okay, but if they want to argue that Mark hasn’t gone through legendary development, then should this argument be made in the respect of earlier sources of Mark? So to say that B has (or has not) gone through legendary development, we should have A to verify this. But in the case of Mark, we don’t. So this legendary development thing can’t really be verified. What do you think? Am I on the right track?

      Yes, you are.
      They can’t say Mark “shows no signs of development” without a prior text to compare it to.
      What they usually instead mean is that Mark “looks” unremarkable to them. That is, that its ridiculous claims (withering fig trees, suns going out for three hours, conversations with demons, instantly converting disciples without even a conversation, walking on water, clearing a ten acre temple square single-handedly, Sanhedrin trials on a holy day, missing bodies, mysterious prophetic boys, etc.) are not “as ridiculous” as later ridiculous claims (like Matthew’s nativity story or Peter’s gigantic Jesus story). That’s ridiculous. But these are Christian apologists. They actually think there is nothing ridiculous in Mark. When in fact Mark is actually almost exactly as ridiculous as Matthew. Matthew has only added an expanded beginning and ending. And some speeches. And some other minor tweaks. But really, even by itself, Mark looks as fully ridiculous as any other mythic prose tale of its time.


      ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
      Even if they had proceeded as you propose, the events were all over and done with by 33CE and the first Gospel was not composed until almost 40 years later and all the Gospels were composed anonymously. So, surmise as you might, there is an insurmountable gap and disconnect between their memories–however accurate they might have been–and the stories we have in the Gospels.



      brother, why does this evil and adulterous christian people have no shame?
      why don't they see that textual criticism, source criticism is eating alive their religion?

      Delete
  8. akhee faiz , i notice ken didn't bother coming back here .

    akhee faiz, shabir alli says ibraheem saw in a vision that he should...

    "it was ibraheems INTERPRETATION..."

    does this mean ali thinks that ibraheems INTERPRETATION was not really divine ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeR2oOhe-dw

    time line 10:06

    your thoughts bro

    maybe i have misrep ali

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. As-salaam alaikum brother James.

      In my opinion, Shabbir Ally is correct to say that God did not literally tell Ibrahim (as) to sacrifice his son. He saw it in a vision, though I can't say if I agree that it was only his "interpretation". If it was and interpretation, then it was an inspired interpretation since prophets cannot make mistakes in such matters. It was not incorrect of Ibrahim to think that God had commanded him to sacrifice his son. Indeed, it was the correct interpretation.

      Delete
    3. brother, please make post using logical argumentation why god does not need to punish himself or CREATED flesh , before human gets close to God i.e god does not need Sacrificial rituals between us and Him.

      even jeremiah realised that human and animal sacrifices are not needed. what is needed is guilt and repentance. think about if we do not see suffering and bodies blown up, crucified, shot , hunger etc, will we not repent ?

      repentance should come even when one does not see suffering.

      Delete
    4. InshaAllah, I will look into writing a future article on this topic. Thanks for the suggestions!

      Delete
  9. god so loved the world that he allowed adam to transfer his sins downwards, killed of everyone , saved a few people and allowed them once again to transfer their sins downwards, until god became a meat god and transferred sins from all directions

    god is only a man and plans like one.

    may God almighty protect us from this filthy thought
    ameen

    ReplyDelete
  10. this is the lies we need to address here

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOTx5Prbi70


    "god came down to experience our suffering"

    the creator of pain receptors, the creator of pain, the creator of flesh "came to experience..."

    even when he is punishing on earth and hell he is experiencing our pains ?

    was he born a disabled handicap ? astaghfirullah

    don't know why they get a buzz about a god creating punishment of himself, if god is creator of all then he created his own punishment lol

    what a joke , what a laugh

    they see it as "great thing" i see it as blasphemy which reduces gods power to

    1. punish people
    2. punish himself

    if he doesn't punish himself he is forced to kill everyone lol

    this means this is not god to be worshipped .

    ReplyDelete
  11. note this point carefully

    if god is CREATOR of all , then he created his own punishment

    astaghfirullah

    ReplyDelete
  12. sabbath was created for man ,but god was created for divine punishment


    astaghfirullah

    meaning the punishment law is more powerful than god and even god can't escape the mandate..

    ReplyDelete
  13. but then god releases /saves himself from "divine punishment" and then is now enjoying life time of bliss .

    while people who will be punished can't turn on/off divine punishment at will

    was god a self abuser?

    PLEASE God, forgive me for this thought, why do i even exist to here these lies about you?

    ReplyDelete