Surah As-Saf 61:1-9 - Quran Translation Commentary

(61:5) And (recall) when Musa said to his people, ‘O my people, why do you torture me while you know that I am Allah’s Messenger to you.’⁴ But when they deviated, Allah caused their hearts to deviate;⁵ and Allah does not guide a rebelliously corrupt people.⁶

(61:6) (Also recall) when `Isa the son of Maryam said, ‘O Children of Israel, certainly I am Allah’s Messenger to you, testifying the Tawrah which was before me, and (I myself am, a) harbinger of glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me.⁷ His name will be Ahmad.’⁸ But when he came to them carrying clear evidences, they said, ‘This is clear sorcery.’⁹

(61:7) And who can do greater wrong than he who fastened lies on Allah while he is being invited to Islam? And Allah does not guide a transgressing people.

(61:8) They wish to put off the Light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His Light,¹⁰ even though the unbelievers are averse (to it).

(61:9) He it is who sent His Messenger¹¹ with guidance and the religion of truth so that He may make it prevail over all religions,¹² even though the polytheists may be averse (to it).

Commentary

1. This ayah is not prohibiting invitation to what someone does not practice himself. It is prohibiting that one should claim to having done what one has not done. In fact, inviting people to good acts, quite often leads he who invites to practice those acts himself (Thanwi).

When asked, about this ayah as well as a few others on the topic, the Salaf replied that one ought to prohibit the wrong, whether one practices himself or not, for, if the condition is to practice before you preach, then, how many can preach?

As further elucidation of the cause of revelation, the following may be quoted. The preferred opinion is that some of the Companions said, among them `Abdullah ibn Rawaha, “Had we known the best of deeds in the sight of Allah, we would have attempted it.” But when verses pertaining to Jihad were revealed, some betrayed aversion, so Allah revealed this passage. But `Abdullah ibn Rawaha said, at the time of revelation, that he would remain in Jihad untill death; and, true to his word, he died a martyr (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

The report above is trustworthy (Alusi).

Ibn Kathir points out that there is a report in Ahmad which narrates `Abdullah b. Salam as saying that “a group of us were discussing amongst ourselves as to who would volunteer to go and ask the Prophet what the best of deeds was. But none volunteered. By coincidence, right then the Prophet sent us a man to take us all to him one after another. When we went to him he recited this chapter.”

Ibn Zayd said however that this passage refers to the hypocrites who promised to help the Muslims (in war) but never kept their promise (Ibn Kathir, Shawkani).

Yusuf Ali points to the possibility that the reference could be to the failure of some of the Companions at Uhud.

2. The disapproval includes saying to others what we refuse to attempt ourselves. A hadith reports the Prophet as having said,

“I passed by a people, the night I was taken up, whose lips were being clipped with scissors of fire. I asked Jibril, ‘Who are these people?’ He answered, ‘These are sermonizers of the world. They commanded others to goodness but forgot themselves, although they recited the Book. Should they have not considered?’” (Qurtubi).

The above narrative is in Ahmad, Ibn Hibban’s Sahih and several other works (Au.).

The rule applies to minor affairs also. We have a report in Ahmad and Abu Da’ud which reports `Abdullah b. `Amir as saying that “Once the Prophet visited our house. I was then a child and started off to play outside. My mother called me back and said, ‘Abdullah, come and have this.’ The Prophet asked, ‘What is it that you intended to give him?’ She replied, ‘Dates.” He said:

“Had you not done it, a lie would have been written against you.”

3. That is, as one body, each joined to the rest as if welded together (Au.).

Yusuf Ali comments: “A battle array, in which a large number of men stand, march, or hold together against assault as if they were a solid wall, is a striking example of order, discipline, cohesion, and courage. ‘A solid cemented structure’ is even a better simile than the usual ‘solid wall’ as the ‘structure’ or building implies a more diversified organisation held together in unity and strength, each part contributing strength in its own way, and the whole held together not like a mass but like a living organism.”

The Prophet is reported to have said in a narrative preserved by Ahmad and Ibn Majah:

“There are three at whom Allah laughs (i.e., is pleased with): A man who rises up for late-night Prayers, a people when they form rows for a battle, and when they form rows for the Prayers.”

The hadith could not be located in Ibn Majah, and this particular version is not quite trustworthy. But Ibn Kathir adds the following to strengthen it. It reports Mutarrif b. `Abdullah as saying:

“I was narrated a hadith of Abu Dharr and I wished all along I could meet him (to confirm it). I did happen to meet him and I asked him, ‘O Abu Dharr, a hadith of yours reached me and I wished to meet you.’ He said, ‘May Allah bless your father, now you have found me.’ I said, ‘I have learnt that the Prophet told you, “Allah loves three and detests three..” He said, ‘He did not befriend me that I should forge a lie on my friend.’ I asked, ‘So who are those that Allah loves?’ He said, ‘A man who fought in Allah’ Cause, in patience and hoping to be rewarded – a mujahid. Then he met the enemy and fought until he died. And you find this in Allah’s Book.’ Then he recited this ayah, ‘Surely, Allah approves of those who fight in His cause as if they are a leaded structure.’”

This report is declared trustworthy by Hakim in his Mustadrak and confirmed by Dhahabi (Au.).

The following from Majid should be of interest: “’The recognized military formation,’ in the early history of Islam, ‘whether on parade, on the march, or in battle, was the ta`biyyah. In it the army was divided into five main divisions, namely centre, right and left wings, van (muqaddamah) and rear-guard (sava) .. The ‘five formation’ was in use as early as the Prophet’s own time, e.g., at the battle of Badr and Muta, and to its invention and introduction has been attributed much of his success against his opponents who were still using the old, irregular method of attack.’ (Levy, Sociology of Islam, II, pp. 296, 297). The ordinary method of fighting in vogue till then was ‘that of the raid, in which a sudden charge was followed by prompt retreat and sudden return to the onslaught’ (p. 297). The Prophet, the great military leader that he was, changed this, and at the battle of Badr ‘introduced the new formation of the ta`biyyah for the first time, with great success. He had very few more than three hundred men, of whom only one was mounted. He arranged them in straight, regular ranks, which he put in order himself, walking along the ranks with an arrow in order to push back any man who was out of the line with the rest.’ (p. 298).”

Sayyid adds: “Islam does not desire warfare. It declares Jihad obligatory because of the ground realities .. It offers the humanity a program of life, a system: the final to come from their Lord. Now, this system and this program of life, which in truth corresponds well with nature – except that it requires the humans to put in some efforts of their own, so that they may rise up above others – is opposed by forces that do not agree with it. For, this program threatens to take away advantages that those who command influence, draw from the older systems. These forces declare a war on the Islamic program, to root it out. In their own efforts they rely on weak elements within the Islamic community, as they also depend on ignorance of some, and love of the heritage of the past. The ensuing evil is pretty vicious. Falsehood is a braggart, and Shaytan, meanly.

“It becomes necessary then on the caravan of faith and defenders of the system, to be strong in order to overcome the agents of evil and allies of the Devil. They have to be equally strong in their morals, especially, at the time they face their enemies. Yet, it is conditional upon them that they should fight only when fighting is the final recourse to guarantee their freedom of faith, freedom to execute their program of life, and freedom to preach their faith.

“They fight in Allah’s Cause; not for their own sake, not for tribal, clannish, or nationalistic, regional solidarity’s sake. They fight in Allah’s Cause, pure and simple, in order that Allah’s Word may prevail. The Prophet has said, ‘He who fought in order that Allah’s Word may prevail, is in Allah’s Cause.’"

4. That is, when you know for sure that I am Allah’s Messenger (Razi, Qurtubi).

See note 151 of Surah al-Baqarah for details of Musa’s torture at the hands of the children of Israel.

5. As Allah said elsewhere:

“And We turn their hearts and their sights because they did not believe in the first instance, and leave them in their rebellion, wandering about (blindly).”

That is “On the one hand I have been foretold in Tawrah – as the final Prophet among the children of Israel, and, on the other, I am informing you about the appearance of a Prophet after me” (Ibn Kathir).

6. “The sinner’s own will deviates, i.e., goes off from the right way, and he does wrong. That means that he shuts off Allah’s grace. Allah then, after his repeated rebellion, withdraws the protecting Grace from him, and the sinner’s heart is tainted: there is ‘a disease in his heart’, which is the centre of his being: his spiritual state is ruined. Allah’s guidance is withdrawn from him” (Yusuf Ali).

7. Majid comments and quotes from the Britannica: “That the teachings of Jesus (on whom be peace) as a universal code of conduct, was singularly inadequate and incomplete, and necessitated the advent of another Teacher is admitted by the Christian apologists themselves, and accounted for in ways that are more amusing than convincing. ‘The Savior refrained from all attempts to guide His followers by rule, but gradually taught them .. that their lives were to be quickened by the Holy Spirit whose indwelling was to them to be their strength and inspiration for all time. In view of this prospect, we can understand why His ethical teaching was so suggestive but so paradoxical, so figurative and so incomplete. It was designed, not to save us from the trouble of thinking but to turn our thoughts to the Comforter whom He promised to send.’ (ERE, XII, p.621).”

Ibn Jarir quotes a hadith of this context. We break it into two:

On the authority of `Irbad b. Sariyyah, the Prophet said, “I am `Abdullah, seal of the Prophets while Adam was yet in his dust. And, let me tell you about the beginning of the affair: (I am) My father Ibrahim’s prayer, a glad tiding of `Isa about me, and the dream that my mother saw. And that is how mothers of the Prophets see.”

The above is the first part. The second, separate part occurs separately in many reports. It says, “When she gave him berth, a Light emerged that illuminated the palaces of Syria.”

The above reports are in Ahmad, Tabarani, Ibn Hibban and Hakim who both declared the reports trustworthy, the latter with Dhahabi in his support. Of course, Ibn Kathir does not miss them (Au.).

That the people of the Book had received tidings from their Prophets about the Final Messenger is evidenced by the way some kings and rulers received the Prophet’s letters inviting them to Islam. Ibn Kathir presents the story of Negus, the Abyssinian Christian king. When `Amr b. al-`Aas failed to convince the Negus to hand over Muslim emigrants to him, he thought he will play his last card. He informed him that these people were opposed to his views about Jesus Christ. So Negus asked the Muslims what they thought of Jesus. They said they were taught that `Isa, the son of Maryam, was no more than a Messenger of Allah, created by a Word, through Maryam the Virgin, whom no man had touched. At that Negus picked up a twig from the ground and said, “Jesus Christ was no more or less than the twig against what they have described him.” He added that if he had not been a king, he would have visited the Prophet. The full story is in Ibn Is-haq’s Life of the Prophet.

8. Alusi remarks that the word used in the Gospels is “Farqalit” which has been explained by some Christian scholars as meaning “Hamid”, i.e., one who praises.

Thanwi writes that according to Indian Mawlana Rahmatullah Kayraanawi who produced the famous treatise Izhar al-Haq (which the Christians have not been able to answer to this day: Au.), the word used in Hebrew was Ahmad, meaning he who praises. The translators of those times usually translated proper nouns also. Accordingly, the word Ahmad was translated from Hebrew into Greek as Parakletos or Periklytos, or, as in modern rendering Parcalete. Then, when it was re-translated into Hebrew, the word was changed to Farqalit. Some Hebrew Bibles of the nineteenth century carried the name Ahmad. (Thanwi’s commentary is in Urdu, and the references he gives is that of a work entitled “Apology” by Godfrey Higgins, a London publication of 1829)].

Christian missionaries invested lots of efforts towards the destruction of “Izhar al-Haq” but somehow it survived. It was originally in Arabic and has been translated into Turkish, English and Urdu (Mufti Shafi`).

Qurtubi writes: Literally, Ahmad means someone who - out of all those who praise - is the most praising of Allah, while Muhammad means he who was praised severally or frequently. The Prophet could not have been Muhammad before being Ahmad.

The Sahihyan have a pertinent hadith:

The Prophet said, “I have several names so that I am Muhammad, I am Ahmad, I am Mahi by whom Allah will obliterate unbelief, I am Hashir after whom Allah will muster together the people and I am `Aqib (after whom there will be no Prophet)” - Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir.

Another narration in Muslim and Ahmad is on the authority of Abu Musa al-Ash`ari:

The Prophet used to name himself. Of those that we remember, he said, “I am Muhammad, Ahmad, Muqaffa, (last of the Prophets), Hashir, the Prophet of Repentance and of the Final War” (Ibn Kathir).

The concept of Armageddon seems quite close to the “malahim” of hadith predictions (Au.).

Razi quotes several passages from the Gospels that prophesize the advent of Prophet Muhammad by the tongue of Jesus Christ. One of them is as follows: “But the Comforter, [who is] the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you (John 14: 26).”

Imam Razi comments on the above that the Christians say that the Comforter mentioned in the above verse is Jesus himself, who re-appeared after his crucifixion. But this argument is untenable because, although according to the Gospels Jesus did appear after crucifixion, but that was for a few moments during which he taught nothing of what the above verse is promising.

Hereunder a summary of Mawdudi’s long commentary:

The Gospel of St. John bears evidence that at the advent of the Prophet Jesus Christ, the Israelites were awaiting the appearance of three persons: the Christ, Elias (i.e. the second coming of the Prophet Elias) and of “that prophet”. In the words of the Gospel:

“And this is the record of John (the Prophet John: Yahya) when the Jews sent, priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness! Make straight the way of the Lord as said the prophet Esaias. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?” (John, 1: 19-25)

“These words expressly show that the Israelites were awaiting another Prophet besides the Prophet Christ and the Prophet Elias, and he was not the Prophet John. The belief about the coming of that Prophet was so well known and well established among the Israelite that a mere reference to him as ‘that prophet’ was enough to call attention to him without any need to add: ‘The one who has been foretold in the Torah.’ Furthermore, it also shows that the advent of the prophet to whom they were referring was absolutely confirmed, for when these questions were asked of the Prophet John, he did not say that no other prophet was to come and therefore the questions were irrelevant.

Consider now the predictions that have been cited in the Gospel of St. John from chapter 14 to chapter 16:

“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (14: 16-17)

“These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, ‘he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (14: 25-26)

“Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.” (14: 30)

“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.” (15: 26)

“Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” (16: 7)

“I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.” (16: 12-15)

In order to determine the exact meaning of these passages one should first know that the language spoken by the Prophet Jesus an his contemporary Palestinians was a dialect of the Aramaic language, called Syriac. More than 200 years before the birth of Jesus when the Seleucidcs came to power Hebrew had become extinct in this territory and been replaced by Syriac. Although under the influence of the Seleucide and then the Roman empires, Greek also had reached this area, it remained confined only to that class of the people, who after having access to the higher government circles, or in order to seek access to them, had become deeply Hellenized. The Common Palestinians used a particular dialect of Syriac, the accents and pronunciations and idioms of which were different from the Syriac spoken in and around Damascus. The common people of the country were wholly unaware of Greek. So much so that when in A.D. 70 the Roman General Titus, after taking Jerusalem, addressed the citizens in Greek, he had to be translated into Syriac. This makes it evident that whatever the Prophet Jesus spoke to his disciples must necessarily be only in Syriac.

Secondly, one should know that all the four Gospels were written by the Greek-speaking Christians, who had entered Christianity after the Prophet Jesus. The traditions of the sayings and acts of the Prophet Jesus reached them through the Syriac speaking Christians not in the written form but as oral traditions, and they translated these Syriac traditions into their own language and incorporated them in their books. None of the extant Gospels was written before A.D. 70; the Gospel of St. John was compiled a century after the Prophet Jesus probably in Ephesus, a city in Asia Minor. Moreover, no original copy even of these Gospels in Greek, in which these were originally written, exists. None of the Greek manuscripts that have been discovered and collected from here and there and which all belong to the period before the invention of printing date before the 4th century. Therefore, it is difficult to say what changes might have taken place in these during the first three centuries. What makes it particularly doubtful is that the Christians have been regarding it as quite lawful to temper with their Gospels intentionally as and when they liked. The author of the article “Bible” in Encyclopaedia Britannica (Ed. 1973) writes:

“The main source of the evidence and of the variations are the manuscripts of the N.T., dating from the 2nd to the 10th century or even later. In the process of copying, these manuscripts underwent the revisions that necessitate textual criticism. Some of these revisions were unintentional, as the scribe skipped a word or a line or as he mistook one character for another. Other revisions came from the desire of the scribe to harmonize the text of one Gospel with another or of one Testament with the oher, or from his pious wish to ‘correct’ or clarify the text at another point. But now that variations in the text exist, collection of the manuscripts is a difficult task.” (See “Bible” in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973).

Under such conditions as these, it is very difficult to say wit absolute certainty that the sayings of the Prophet Jesus (peace be on him) found in the Gospels, have been preserved, reproduced and cited faithfully and accurately, and that no change has taken place anywhere

(Another) vital point is that even afer the conquest by the Muslims, for about three centuries, the Palestine Christians retained Syriac, which was not replaced by Arabic until the 9th century A.D. The information that the Muslim scholars of the first three centuries obtained through the Syriac speaking Christians about the Christian traditions, should be more authentic and reliable than the information of those people whom it reached through translation after translation from Syriac into Greek and then from Greek into Latin. For there were greater chances of the original Syriac words spoken by the Prophet Jesus remaining preserved with the Palestinian Christians than with others.

Now, it is interesting to note that in Greek itself there is another word Periclytos, which means “the Praised One”. This word is exactly synonymous with “Muhammad.” In pronunciation it closely resembles Paracletus. It cannot be a remote possibility that the Christians who have been used to making alterations in their religious books as and when they liked, might have effected a little variation in the spelling of this word in the prophecy related by St. John when they saw that it went against their set belief and creed. The original Greek Gospel composed by St. John does not exist either; therefore it is not possible to check which of the two words had actually been used in it.

But the decision is not solely dependent on this as to which word had St. John actually used in Greek, for in any case that too was a translation and the Prophet Jesus’ language, as we have explained above, was Palestinian Syriac. Therefore, the word that he might have used in his good news must necessarily be a Syriac word. Fortunately, we find that original Syriac word in the Life of Muhammad by Ibn Hisham. Along with that we also come to know its synonymous Greek word from the same book. Ibn Hisham, on the authority of Ibn Ishaq, has reproduced the complete translation of 15: 23-27 and of 16: 1 of the Gospel according to Yuhannus (Yuhanna : John), and has used the Syriac word Munhamanna instead of the Greek Paraclete. Then, Ibn Ishaq or Ibn Hisham has explained it thus: The Munhamanna in Syriac means Muhammad and in Greek the Paracletus (Ibn Hisham, vol. 1, p. 248).

Now, historically, the language of the common Palestinian Christians until the 9th century A.D. was Syriac. This land was included in the Islamic territories in the first half of the 7th century. Ibn Ishaq died in 768 A.D. and Ibn Hisha in 828 A.D. This means that in the time of both the Palestinian Christians spoke Syriac, and for neither it was difficult to ave contacts with the Christian subjects of their country. Moreover, in those days there also lived hundreds of thousands of Greek speaking Christians in the Islamic territories. Therefore, it was also not difficult for them to find out which particular word of Greek was synonymous with a certain word of Syriac. Now, if in the translation reproduced by Ibn Ishaq the Syriac word Munhamanna has been used, and Ibn Ishaq or Ibn Hisham has explained that its Arabic equivalent is Muhammad and Greek Paracletus, there remains no room for the doubt that the Prophet Jesus had given the good news of the coming of the Holy Prophet himself by name along with that it also becomes known that in the Greek Gospel of John the word, actually used was Periclytos, which the Christian scholars changed into Paracletus at some later time.”

Mawdudi’s note ends here.

Asad has almost the last word: “This prediction is supported by several references in the Gospel of St. John to the Parakletos (usually rendered as ‘Comforter’) who was to come after Jesus. This designation is almost certainly a corruption of Periklytos (‘the Much-Praised’), an xact Greek translation of the Aramaic term or name Mawhamana. (It is to be borne in mind that Aramaic was the language used in Palestine at the time of, and for some centuries after, Jesus, and was thus undoubtedly the language in which the original – now lost – texts of the Gospels were composed.) In view of the phonetic closeness of Periklytos and Parakletos it is easy to understand how the translator – or, more probably, a later scribe – confused these two expressions. It is significant that both the Aramaic Mawhamana and the Greek Periklytos have the same meaning as the two names of the Last Prophet Muhammad and Ahmad, both of which are derived from the verb hamida (‘he praised’) and the noun hamd (‘praise’). An even more unequivocal prediction of the advent of Prophet Muhammad – mentioned by name, in its Arabic form – is said to be forthcoming from the so-called Gospel of Saint Barnabas, which, though now regarded as apocryphal, was accepted as authentic and was read in churches until the year 496 of the Christian era, when it was banned as ‘heretical’ by a decree of Pope Gelasius. However, since the original text of the Gospel is not available (having come to us only in an Italian translation dating from the sixteenth century), its authenticity cannot be established with certainty.”

Asad’s note ends here.

This author may add the following. But before further discussion, herewith a short (and selected) account of, first Barnabas, and then the Gospel of Barnabas:

The Gospel of Barnabas

The Gospel of Barnabas was written (or perhaps dictated) by one of the 11 chosen disciples of Jesus Christ, called Barnabas. It was written to remove the misconceptions and illusions that had begun to surround the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. It states in the preamble: “Dearly beloved, the great and wonderful God hath during these past days visited us by his Prophet Jesus Christ in great mercy of teaching and miracles, under pretence of piety, by reason thereof many, being deceived of Satan, under pretence of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained of God for ever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul hath been deceived.”

Hereunder a brief summary of an article on the Gospel in the Wikipedia:

The Gospel of Barnabas

“It is a work purporting to be a depiction of the life of Jesus by his disciple Barnabas. Two known manuscripts have been dated to the late sixteenth century, and are written respectively in Italian and in Spanish.

Earlier occurrences of a Gospel of Barnabas

A “Gospel according to Barnabas” is mentioned in two early Christian lists of apocryphal works: the Decretum Gelasianum (no later than the sixth century), as well as a 7th-century List of the Sixty Books.

This work should not be confused with the surviving Epistle of Barnabas, which may have been written in 2nd century Alexandria; neither should it be confused with the surviving Acts of Barnabas, which narrates an account of Barnabas’ travels, martyrdom and burial; and which is generally thought to have been written in Cyprus sometime after 431.

Spanish Manuscript

The known Spanish manuscript was lost in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries; however an eighteenth century copy of it was discovered in the 1970s in the University of Sydney‘s Fisher Library among the books of Sir Charles Nicholson, labelled in English “Transcribed from ms. in possession of the Revd Mr Edm. Callamy who bought it at the decease of Mr George Sale...and now gave me at the decease of Mr John Nickolls, 1745”.

Religious themes

The Gospel of Barnabas was little known outside academic circles until recent times, when a number of Muslims have taken to publishing it in order to argue against the orthodox Christian conception of Jesus. It generally resonates better with existing Muslim views than with Christianity: it foretells the coming of Muhammad by name; rather than describing the crucifixion of Jesus, it describes him being raised up into heaven, similar to the description of Elijah in 2 Kings, Chapter 2; and it calls Jesus a “prophet” whose mission was restricted to the “house of Israel”.

However, it differs from Islamic conceptions in at least two important respects; it reports that Muhammad, not Jesus, was the Messiah, whereas the Qur’an and Hadith both describe Jesus as the Messiah, and no orthodox variety of Islam calls Muhammad the Messiah.

The Gospel also takes a strongly anti-Pauline tone at times, saying in the Italian version’s beginning: “many, being deceived of Satan, under pretence of piety, are preaching most impious doctrines, calling Jesus son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained of God for ever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul has been deceived.”

Prediction of Muhammad

The name of “Muhammad” is frequently mentioned verbatim in the Gospel of Barnabas, as in the following quote:

“Jesus answered: ‘The name of the Messiah is admirable, for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in a celestial splendour. God said: ”Wait Mohammed; for thy sake I will to create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereof I make thee a present, insomuch that whoso bless thee shall be blessed, and whoso shall curse thee shall be accursed. When I shall send thee into the world I shall send thee as my messenger of salvation, and thy word shall be true, insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail, but thy faith shall never fail." Mohammed is his blessed name.’ Then the crowd lifted up their voices, saying: ‘O God, send us thy messenger: O Admirable One, come quickly for the salvation of the world!’" Barnabas 97: 9-10. The Italian manuscript replaces “Admirable One” with “Muhammad”.

Jesus not God or Son of God

According to the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus foresaw and rejected his own deification:

‘And having said this, Jesus smote his face with both his hands, and then smote the ground with his head. And having raised his head, he said: “Cursed be every one who shall insert into my sayings that I am the son of God”’ (53:6).

‘And having said this Jesus went out of the Temple. And the common people magnified him, for they brought all the sick folk whom they could gather together, and Jesus having made prayer gave to all their health: whereupon on that day in Jerusalem the Roman soldiery, by the working of Satan, began to stir up the common people, saying that Jesus was the God of Israel, who was come to visit his people’ (69:6).

‘Jesus answered: “And you; what say you that I am?” Peter answered: “You are Christ, son of God”. Then was Jesus angry, and with anger rebuked him, saying: “Begone and depart from me, because you are the devil and seek to cause me offences”’ (70:1).

Jesus said again: “I confess before heaven, and call to witness everything that dwells upon the earth, that I am a stranger to all that men have said of me, to wit, that I am more than man. For I am a man, born of a woman, subject to the judgment of God; that live here like as other men, subject to the common miseries” (94:1).

‘Then answered the priest, with the governor and the king, saying: “Distress not yourself, O Jesus, holy one of God, because in our time shall not this sedition be any more, seeing that we will write to the sacred Roman senate in such wise that by imperial decree none shall any more call you God or son of God.” Then Jesus said: “With your words I am not consoled, because where you hope for light darkness shall come; but my consolation is in the coming of the Messenger, who shall destroy every false opinion of me, and his faith shall spread and shall take hold of the whole world, for so has God promised to Abraham our father”’ (97:1).

Although the Gospel of Barnabas is, in several respects, inconsistent with Islamic teaching, some Muslim scholars cite this as evidence of the genuineness of the gospel by arguing that no Muslim would fake a document and have it contradict the Qur’an. They believe the contradictions of the Qur’an in the Gospel of Barnabas are signs of textual corruption (which Muslims already ascribe for a majority of the Bible), but that the Gospel of Barnabas would not be as corrupt as other religious works, and would still maintain the truth about Jesus not being crucified and not being God or son of God.” (Source: Encyclopaedia “Wikipedia”).

(Quotation by this author ends here).

Herewith a summary of Mawdudi’s notes on the Gospel of Barnabas:

“Wherever this Gospel is mentioned in Christian literature, it is condemned as a forged Gospel, which perhaps some Muslim has composed and ascribed to Barnabas. But this is a great falsehood which has been uttered only for the reason that it contains at several places clear prophecies about the Holy Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be Allah’s peace and blessings).. But no mention of any kind is found of the Gospel of Barnabas in the books of Muslim writers like Tabari, Ya`qubi, Mas`udi, Al-Bayruni, Ibn Hazm and others, who were fully conversant with Christian literature. The best catalogues of the books found in the libraries of the Islamic world were Al-Fihrist of Ibn an-Nadim and Kashf at-Zunun of Haji-Khalifah, and these too are without any mention of it. The most important argument to refute the claim that the Gospel has been written by a Muslim is that about 75 years before the birth of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), in the time of Pope Gelasius 1, the list prepared of uncanonical books, which were banned for reading by a Papal decree, also included the Gospel of Barnabas (Evangelium Barnabe). The question is: Who was the Muslim at that time, who forged this Gospel? The Christian scholars themselves have admitted that the Gospel of Barnabas remained prevalent in Syria, Spain, Egypt, etc. during the early days of Christianity for a long time and that it was banned as heretical in the 6th century.”

(Mawdudi’s quote ends here).

In conclusion, we may add the following. The Gospel of Barnabas mentions the Prophet - always naming him as Muhammad - at least 10 times. In a few other places it refers to him as the Messenger, or Messiah. It is unthinkable that a Muslim should introduce the Prophet’s name and do it 10 times over. Only a scholar could have ever laid his hand on a manuscript of this sort, and he would have been sensible enough to introduce the name twice or thrice, but not 10 times.

Further, nowhere is the Prophet named “Ahmad.” This is another indication that this Gospel was not adulterated by a Muslim as the Christians claim. If a Muslim had interpolated it, he would have used the word “Ahmad” and not Muhammad, considering the fact that the Qur’an used the word Ahmad.

Again, there are several passages that may meet with the Islamic standard of judgment, such as,

“If thine eye be an offense to thee, pluck it out; for it is better that thou go with one eye only into paradise than with both of them into hell. If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, do likewise; for it is better that thou go into the kingdom of heaven with one foot or one hand, than with two hands and two feet go into hell’ (ch. 87).

“And verily I say unto you, that whoso hath the light of his eyes clear, seeth everything clear, and draweth light even out of darkness itself; but the blind doeth not so. Wherefore I say that, if man had not sinned, neither I nor thou would have known the mercy of God and his righteousness. And if God had made man incapable of sin he would have been equal to God in that matter; wherefore the blessed God created man good and righteous, but free to do that which he pleaseth in regard to his own life and salvation or damnation’ (ch. 154).

Yet, there are passages spread over every page that only a Christian, with thorough scholarship of the Torah, Talmud and Gospels, could have written. The style and the entire content are definitely pre-Islamic.

In addition, there are a few other reasons why this Gospel could not be an interpolated version of an original Gospel, i.e., a work originally written by a Christian of the earliest times, adulterated and interpolated by a Muslim. There are passages that are so obviously un-Islamic that no Muslim would commit himself to. E.g. (a) it mentions that God wrote on the thumb-nail of Adam’s one hand, “There is only one God,” and on the other thumb-nail, “Muhammad is the messenger of God” (ch. 39). But there is nothing in the Islamic literature equivalent of this: neither in weak ahadith nor among the forged ones. In fact, computer search shows that such a story is not there in hundreds of history and biographical works. (b) It refers to Prophet Muhammad as “the Messiah” which every Muslim knows he was not, rather, Jesus Christ himself was. (c) It presents the idea of Prophet David’s unity with God:

“Wherefore, albeit our father David verily saw them, I tell you he saw them not with human eye, for God took his soul unto himself, and thus, united with God, he saw them..” (ch. 169).

This is a concept abhorrent to Islam. Or, in chapter 135, (d) demons are depicted as tormenters of the believers in Hell, while the Islamic concept is that they will themselves suffer punishment therein. It is angels who will deliver punishment to both humans as well as demons. Another un-Islamic concept is that (e) when Jesus Christ tried to make peace between Satan and God, and informed Satan that all he needed to be forgiven was to say, “I have sinned; have mercy on me.” Satan insisted that God should admit the same, that is, He should say to Satan, “I have sinned; have mercy on me.” Jesus cursed Satan saying that God was sinless (ch.51). This is a blasphemy that a Muslim would neither introduce in a book he was interpolating, nor leave it unaltered if he was editing. He would have surely removed it knowing that Muslims would reject a Scripture that contains such non-sense (Au.).

9. The allusion by “when he came with clear signs” could be either to `Isa ibn Maryam, or to Muhammad (Razi, Qurtubi).

With reference to `Isa (asws) we have the following from Majid: “’The accusation of magic is frequently brought against Jesus. Jerome mentions it, quoting the Jews … There were even Christian heretics who looked upon the founder of their religion as a magician, and public opinion at Rome accused all Christians of magic. The apostles were regarded in the same light.’ (JE., VII, p. 171). ‘According to Celsus and to the Talmud, Jesus learned magic in Egypt and performed his miracles by means of it… Different in nature is the witchcraft attributed to Jesus in the Toledot.’ (ib). ‘The Talmud stories allow that he did indeed work signs and wonders, but by means of magic.’ (Klaurmen, op. cit., p. 19). According to a Talmudic authority, ‘Yeshu practiced sorcery and beguiled and led Israel astray’ (p. 25). ‘And the scribes which came down from Jeruslaem said, He hath Beelzebub, and, by the prince of the devils, he casteth out devils’ (MK. 3: 22). ‘The Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.’ (Mt.9: 34). ‘When the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of devils’ (Mt., 12: 24).”

If the allusion is assumed as to our Prophet, then the following can be offered from Yusuf Ali: “Our holy Prophet was foretold in many ways; and when he came, he showed forth many Clear Signs, for his whole life from beginning to end was one vast miracle. He fought and won against odds. Without learning from men he taught the highest wisdom. He melted hearts that were hard, and he strengthened hearts that were tender and required support. In all his sayings and doings men of discernment could see the working of Allah’s hand; yet the ignorant Unbelievers called it all Sorcery! - called that unreal which became the most solid fact of human history!”

10. The allusion is to the light of Islam (Ibn Jarir), or, light of the Qur’an (Ibn Zayd).

11. That is, Prophe Muhammad.

12. The term for “religions” in the Qur’anic text is actually in singular, perhaps because, as Yusuf Ali points out, there is only one true religon.

Ibn Jarir is of the opinion that the complete prevalence of Islam will only take place when Jesus Christ appears a second time. (Mujahid was also of the same opinion: Alusi). Ibn Jarir quotes a hadith (now in Muslim). It reports `A’isha’s words, “I heard the Prophet say, ‘Days and nights will not stop their rotation before Lat and Manat are once again worshiped.’ I asked, ‘Messenger of Allah. When Allah (swt) revealed the verse, ‘He it is who sent His Messenger with Guidance and the religion of truth ..’, I thought that that was the end of it all!?’ He replied, ‘That surely will be fulfilled. None the less, Allah will send a pleasant breeze thereafter which will take the life of every individual who had even the littlest of faith in his heart. Only those will remain who have no good in them. They will return to the religion of their (pre-Islamic) ancestors.’”

Qurtubi presents another hadith on the same lines. It is in Muslim. The Prophet said:

“By Allah, Ibn Maryam will descend down as a just (ruler). He will surely break the cross, destroy swine, abolish Jizyah and young camels will be mounted without contention. Enmity, hatred and envy will be gone, and, people will be invited to wealth, but there will be no takers.”

The meaning of “without contention” is that there will be so many of the camels that there will be no contention to own them.

See Surah Tawbah, ayah 32 and accompanying notes for fuller discussion.