Muslim objections on the Bible

 

I will give here some of the reasons why Muslims don’t accept the Bible. One of the main reasons is the way illustrating God and His prophets, in the Bible, God is described with attributes and analogies that we Muslims condemn describing God that way. And the way of illustrating His prophets in many cases as idolators, adulterers, drunk, we can’t accept this for God’s prophets who are supposed to be those who guide people to God, as if God can’t chose His prophets, this is actually a blasphemy against God and His prophets.
For example when the Bible says that God rested and refreshed as in Exodus 17:31, or when the Bible says that God fought Jacob and Jacob prevailed as in Genesis 32:28, or making analogies for God as a one out of sleep, Like a mighty man that shouts by reason of wine. (Psalm 78:65), or as a lioness and a bear (Hosea 13:8), or as a lamb (Revelation 17:14), or that God puts a sign in the sky so that He remembers His covenant with people that He won’t destroy them by flood. We as Muslims don’t accept attributing this to God, because we believe that God is Almighty than being attributed that way.
Also when I read in the Bible that Noah got drunk and  naked(Genesis 9:21), or that Aaron ordered the Jews to worship the calf (Exodus 32:2), or that Lot made it with his daughters (Genesis 19:31-36), or that Jacob lied and stole the blessing from his father (Genesis 27) or that David did what he did with Uriah and his wife (II Samuel 11), or that Solomon worshipped other gods (I Kings 11:1-11), we as Muslims believe that prophets are the best men, and that’s why God chose them to tell His message to people, how could they act that way? Even if you said that they were honest in telling God’s revelation, this is not enough, if I directed you to a road, and told you that this is the right road, and then I walked in another road, would you believe me? If the company’s policy tell that smoking is in the smoking area only, and then you find your manager smoking inside the building, would anyone take it serious? Actually no one would care about the rules or policies of the company if the manager violates it. Besides, if God’s prophets are that way, why didn’t God choose better people to be His prophets? This is actually blaspheming God before it is a blasphemy against the prophets, as if God can’t chose His prophets.
I only wanted to give this as an example for what we reject in the Bible, these are not the only things we don’t agree with the Bible, but I only wanted to give an example.

Is the Trinity true?

The Trinity is the main Christian belief which is the belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit one God. In this section, I will try to discuss it, and see if it is really from God or not.
Jesus (Peace be upon him), as he never told that he is God, and as he told that the Father is the only God, as I mentioned before, Jesus didn’t say anything concerning the Trinity, there are some verses Christians use to prove the Trinity, I will try to discuss it in this section:
The first one is:
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Actually using the plural is not a proof that God is more than one person, for this is commonly used language for glorifying, and this was used concerning others in the Bible:
Ezr 4:17 Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River: Peace, and so forth. Ezr 4:18 The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.
2Ch 10:9 And he said unto them, What counsel give ye, that we may return answer to this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke that thy father did put upon us lighter?
Besides, the verse after it refutes the Trinity:
Gen 1:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
This proves that the former verse was used for glorifying, otherwise this will mean that the other two persons went away, and only one person remained which is not the case for the Trinity.
The second verse used to prove the Trinity is:
Mat 3:16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him;
I actually don’t understand where is the point in that verse that proves the Trinity, it doesn’t say that the 3 persons are one, all what it says is that they were present with each other for a moment, neither it says that the Son or the Holy Spirit are God.
Also this verse is used as a proof:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
Actually there are some comments on this verse:

• The verse doesn’t say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one, all what it said is  to baptize people in the name of the 3 of them, saying name not names doesn’t mean that the 3 are one. When a leader tells his soldiers: “fight your enemies in the name of the country the people and the king” doesn’t mean that the 3 are one, this is the same case for 1 Peter 1:1-2.

Otherwise, if we used the same way, we can have another Trinity from the Bible:

1Ti 5:21 I charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.

It is the first time for me to hear that the elect angels became the third person in the Trinity.

• The apostles didn’t respond to what Jesus ordered them in this verse, since the baptismal formula was never told that way by the apostles, but they were always baptizing people in the name of Jesus, and they were baptizing the Jews only not the gentiles, only Paul and Baranabas (who were not present when Jesus said the above) baptized the gentiles.
• There is a problem in the canonicity of the verse itself as Eusebius quoted it, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”(Church history 3.5.2), Basil said that he knew nothing about it:”Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vii.xxviii.html
A main fourth evidence is 1 John 5:7 which is commonly known as the Johannine comma:

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Actually, this verse was omitted from most translations, and most Christians agree on it being added to the Bible, look for example at what Albert Barnes says in his commentary:

“The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:
I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript written before the 16th century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age – one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen’s New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in all the early Greek manuscripts.
II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions – one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.
III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity – a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine – nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor – it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.”

http://www.studylight.org/com/bnb/view.cgi?book=1jo&chapter=005

Actually his note concerning this is very extensive, and I preferred to quote a part of it, so as not to have a very long article.

What we can conclude is that there was no solid ground for the belief in Trinity, all the verses used are not that serious, and doesn’t give the real description for the Trinitarian belief, but they can have many meanings, which doesn’t match with a belief that is supposed to be the basic belief, and other scripts were inserted to the Bible to try to get an evidence for that belief, which proves that this was a major problem that faced Christians for centuries.

Did Jesus die for our sins?

 

The most common belief among Christians is the belief that Jesus died for our sins, but the question is: Do we have a solid account that proves this?
Actually when we look at the verses Christians use to prove this belief, we find that 95% of these verses are from Paul’s epistles, and the verses used to prove this belief from the Gospels are very few, which puts a question mark on its source and whether Jesus really told that he would die on the cross for our sins.
As I illustrated in my post :”Concept of salvation between Islam and Christianity“we as Muslims don’t need to believe that God needs to be a man or to be crucified for our sins, because God is mightier than that, we actually believe that this is a blasphemy and an insult against God. For sin to be forgiven by God, mans should repent faithfully to God, and acknowledge his sins, and God is the All Forgiver and All Merciful who will forgive him if He really knew he is really intending to repent and stop the sin:
110. And whoso does evil or wrongs his soul, and then asks forgiveness of ALLAH, will find ALLAH Most Forgiving, Merciful. ( Holy Quran 4:110)
No need for all that so that God forgives my sins, and this is what is also said by the Old Testament:
Eze 18:21″But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
Eze 18:22None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live.
Jesus (Peace be upon him) wasn’t clear in clarifying his supposed main message, something like this must have been very clear so that no one doubts, but even according to the Gospels, it seems that Jesus didn’t know about it, look at what he said:
Joh 17:4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do.
This was before crucifixion, Jesus tells that he accomplished the work God gave to him. This work is to tell people about God, as all prophets did. If he really knew that he came to die for our sins and the plan of salvation Christians talk about it, he won’t have said that he accomplished the work God gave him to do.
Not only that, but when Jesus was asked about the way to eternal life:
Mat 19:16 And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.
Jesus’ answer was simply to keep the commandments which are the same commandments of the Old Testament, nothing new.
What about Jesus’ action before being crossed?
Mat 26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: abide ye here, and watch with me.
Mat 26:39 And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.
If this was really the reason why he came, would have he been that sad and sorrowful? Why would he keep on prayer and asks God to take that cup away from him? If Jesus was supposed to be waiting for that moment, why would he ask God to get it away?
Finally look at what he said on the cross:
Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Jesus accuses God that he left him, as if Jesus was surprised by this or that God betrayed him, is that logical? Doesn’t he know why he is there? Some might argue that this refers to Psalm 22, which Christians might argue that it foretells about the event on the cross. If this was the case, why didn’t Jesus refer to other verses that are strongly used by Christians either in this Psalm or in other verses like in Isaiah 53? This verse actually proves that Jesus didn’t know about the plan of salvation except that God has forsaken him.
Now let’s come to examine the verses used to prove that Jesus died for us, the first verse used is John 3:16, actually there is a doubt in referring this verse to Jesus, look at the TNIV version, the translators ended the quotation at John 3:15, and said in the footnotes that some interpreters put the quotation at 3:21, also you can see Robertson’s Word Picture, this means that there is a diversity concerning referring the most famous verse in the Bible to Jesus (Peace be upon him). This script whom Christians build their belief on. If Jesus was really God, and this was really the reason for his coming, he would have kept on declaring that clearly so that no one doubts in it, but he didn’t, only that verse and there is a diversity concerning who said it. And Where are the other Gospels? This critical belief should have agreed on through the Gospels. besides how would God give His son? And how would he save people? And save them from what? The verse didn’t say all that, and Jesus never answered these questions, Paul only did. All these questions are put supposing that Jesus really said so, but he really didn’t say so, and a belief must be built on a solid ground, otherwise it falls.
The second script used to prove this belief:
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Actually Jesus was pointing to wine saying this is his blood, and saying that it will be shed for the redemption of sins, but this refers to wine, and it may explain what the Catholic belief concerning saying that wine becomes Jesus’ blood and shedding the blood may refer back to the wine as it is what he refers to from the beginning.
Also there is another verseused to prove this is that one used, which is that Jesus predicted to suffer from the Pharisees and that he will be killed and raised from death, actually I don’t see a relation between this script and the belief that he’d die for us, it only tells that he’d die, but it didn’t say that this will be for our sins.
Something else used as a proof also is that they were giving sacrifices in the Old Testament for forgiving their sins, so Jesus was the sacrifice so that people don’t need to do that anymore, actually this is really weird, because if this was the case, then Christians must fulfill the laws of the Old Testament and leave only that law, but actually they neither obey that law nor the other laws, but it appears as if the law is taken selectively when it meets their belief, besides, Jesus forgave the adulterer in John 8 (although there is a doubt in referring this story to Jesus), and he didn’t need for example to be stoned so that he abrogates stoning the adulterers, plus, the same question still remains, where did Jesus say “I am the sacrifice of the OT”, or anything like that?
Besides, there are many questions concerning that point. Now it is supposed that God wants to give people salvation and forgive them without restricting them with the atonement, what is need that He becomes a man and humiliates Himself when He can just send a lamb as He did with Abraham’s son when He sent a lamb instead of letting himself die for people? The Old Testament didn’t say that the atonement will be God Himself, but in most cases it was a lamb, and He could have easily redeemed people like what He did with Abraham and his son. I see that this is against God’s mightiness, God doesn’t die and doesn’t pain from people who worth compared to His creation. I see this as a blasphemy that shows that God can do nothing except that He Himself dies.
The second thing, who killed Jesus? Were they sinned people who wanted atonement? No, They were the Jews who fought Jesus and killed him as an opposition to his message. So they were not actually giving atonement, they were sinning. How can a sin be an atonement for a sin? An atonement is supposed to be a good deed from a man who repented for his sin not from a man who is sinning by this atonement. So actually I don’t see that this is a sacrifice for love, it is an action with no meaning, like if a man thinks that when he loves another, he expresses his love by killing himself with no need to sacrifice his beloved person.
Christians use Isaiah 53 as a proof that Jesus’ death was foretold in the Bible. First of all, Jesus never quoted from Isaiah 53, and the quotes of the Gospels doesn’t imply that belief, the first quote was in Matthew 8:17, when he was driving the demons out, the second one was in Luke 22:37, when he ordered his disciples to buy swords (this is actually against the prophecy itself, since the prophecy says that he would be as a silent lamb), and the quote was to say that he would be reckoned with transgressors, so in both cases the quotes never mentioned death.
How could Jesus leave the most important things in the prophecy which tell that he would bear their sins which is the main Christian belief, and concentrate on trivial events if he really came for that belief? Actually Jesus (according to the Bible, but we Muslims have nothing to do with this) never thought Isaiah 53 to mean what the Christians understood. Besides, which is more important, is that this prophecy didn’t mean Jesus, if it is read in context, it really doesn’t, this chapter is an extension to chapters 51, 52 which were talking about Israel, and there are scripts in 53 which prove that it doesn’t tell about redemption, see for example this verse:
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand.
Of course you know that Jesus (Peace be upon him) didn’t have a seed, you may say it’s spiritually speaking, the case is that the Hebrew word is “zerah” which means a real seed other than the word “ben” which can mean spiritual sonship as in Genesis 15:3-4:
Gen 15:3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed(zerah): and, lo, one born(ben) in my house is mine heir. Gen 15:4 And, behold, the word of Jehovah came unto him, saying, This man shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
You can see the Hebrew text to make sure, the same thing for prolonging days, this expression in Hebrew, can’t mean everlasting life which doesn’t match with your belief that Jesus is God, the same for the word in verse 1, (servant), according to your belief is that only God can make the sacrifice which doesn’t match with this verse.
Isaiah 53 was foretelling about Israel, and the deliverance from the Babylonian captivity, the word servant refers to Israel in many scripts, and it was used that way commonly in Isaiah, for example in Isaiah 45:4, 48:1-3,….etc. And this can be proved all over the scripts, but it’s very clear that they didn’t mean that belief in salvation.

Did Jesus really say “I am God”?

Did Jesus really say “I am God”?

Jesus (Peace be upon him) never said the word “I am God” nor “I am the second person in Trinity”, nor “I am human and divine”, but as I mentioned before, Jesus clearly said that the Father is the only God,  and that He is his God, and that he doesn’t know the hour,…..etc.  You will tell me that he clearly declared his deity through lots of scriptures, I say actually he didn’t say it clearly, but all these are conclusions made, and by examining them, we find that they are not real, I will try in this section to cover these scriptures as much as I can, and if I forgot something, you can contact me.
“Before Abraham was born, I am!”
This actually is not a proof that Jesus is God because he is eternal, because this language was present in the Bible, it only means that he was in God’s foreknowledge, the same as what said concerning Jeremiah and Paul:
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
The context also proves this when he said before:
Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. Joh 8:57 The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am.
Jesus (Peace be upon him) meant here is that Abraham (Peace be upon him) rejoiced when he knew that Jesus (Peace be upon him) will be from his descendants, and this is clear through the word “my day”, he didn’t say:”when he saw me”, this clearly means that he meant that Abraham knew that he will be raised one day, so he was rejoiced for that day.
The word “I AM” doesn’t claim divinity, anyone can say I am. The word “ego eimi” if it really meant Jehovah, it wouldn’t have been translated but it have been written Jehovah, especially when we see that the same word “ego eimi” was said by others:
Some said, “It is he.” Others said, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am the man.” (John 9:9)
Is the beggar God? Of course not, but it actually means “I am the Messiah”, and this is very clear with what he said to the Samaritan woman:
Joh 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. Joh 4:26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
Which was said in other translation:
(MKJV) Jesus said to her, I AM, the One speaking to you.
This is a very clear proof that he didn’t mean to Jehovah by this word, and the context can show that as above.
“I and the Father are one”:
Well, this word in itself is not a proof that he claims divinity, for the unity can be unity in aim, for example what Jesus said concerning the disciples:
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;
Of course this verse doesn’t mean that they are one by body, but by aim and faith, it is the same also concerning John 10:30. Dr. Thomas Constable, a Christian commentator acknowledges this on his notes on John 10:30:

“Jesus did not mean that He and the Father were the same person of the Godhead. If He had meant that, He would have used the masculine form of the word translated “one” (Gr. heis). Instead He used the neuter form of the word (Gr. hen). He meant that He and the Father were one in their  action. This explanation also harmonized with the context since Jesus had said that He would keep His sheep safe (v. 28) and His Father would keep them safe (v. 29)……..First, Jesus’ claim to oneness does not in itself prove the Son’s unity in essence with the Father. In 17:22, Jesus prayed that His disciples might be one as He and the Father were one, namely, in their purpose and beliefs…….In short, this verse does not say that Jesus was claiming to be of the same essence as God. Here He claimed to function in union with the Father. However the context and other statements in this Gospel show that His unity with the Father extended beyond a functional unity and did involve essential metaphysical unity.”

http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/htm/NT/John/John.htm

So Dr. Constable is saying here that this verse in itself doesn’t mean real unity but figurative one, but the context proves that he was claiming to be God, but actually I don’t agree with him on that, because the context disproves his deity, let’s look at what the context says:

Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), Joh 10:36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. Joh 10:38 But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. Joh 10:39 They sought again to take him: and he went forth out of their hand.

When we look at the context, we find actually that Jesus is actually disproving the claim that he is God not proving it. The Jews misunderstood what he said, and thought that he was saying that he was God. Actually what the Jews said means that they understood from the scriptures that the Messiah is not God, so anyone who is saying that he is God is blaspheming. if they really misunderstood the scriptures, it should have been that Jesus answers their misconception by quoting a verse from the OT telling that the Messiah will be God as Isaiah (9:6 for example, see my post (Old Testament and Jesus), but the verse he quoted proves the opposite, Jesus referred to Psalms 82:6:

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?

So simply Jesus is quoting people who were called gods when they are not actually God. Just a metaphorical godhead, Jesus says that as these judges in Psalm 82:6 are called gods metaphorically, I am called son of God metaphorically. So I am called son of God as these were called gods and sons of Most High, if the Psalm wasn’t blasphemed when they called the judges as gods, why do you consider me blaspheming when I am called son of God?

Finally coming to the last point which some may say that Jesus said that he is in the Father and the Father is in him. This is not also a proof, as it only means that he has a good relationship with God since he is a prophet, and this language is very common:

Joh 14:20 In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

1Jo 2:24 As for you, let that abide in you which ye heard from the beginning. If that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father.

Forgiving sins:
Jesus (Peace be upon him) said “your sins are forgiven” NOT ” I forgive your sins”, he referred forgiving sins to unknown which is inevitably God, he didn’t refer it to himself. And it’s clear through the context:
Mat 9:8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
Also in another verse, Jesus asks the Father to forgive those who harmed him, if Jesus really forgives sins, he would have forgiven them immediately without praying to God.
Luk 23:34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.
Also in many Christian denominations, people go and confess to the priest who says at the end “your sins are foregiven”, no one said that the priest is God.
John 1:1-3:
First of all, these are the words of Gospel John’s writer. Actually there is a doubt in the identity of the writer of Gospel John being John the apostle or an anonymous writer. What is more important is that this verse is mistranslated. The first “God” in “the word was with God” in this verse is “hotheos” in Greek origin which means God (with capital G) and with ho a definite article, while the second which is in “the word was god” is “theos” with no definite article which is supposed to be translated into god (with small g). Of course there is a big difference between both words , since the word “God” means Jehovah of the Old Testament, while the word god, means a god for pagans which is not meant in this verse, or god which means master as told about Moses (Peace be upon him):
Exodus 7:1″ And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh. And Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.”
Or Psalms 82:6 “:
 ”I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ (Psalms 82:6)”.

As for John 1:3

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.

These things doesn’t necessarily mean creation, but it is his religion, and saving the people by faith in God and in Jesus as a prophet, since many scripts prove that Jesus (Peace be upon him) is not God.

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father

The Bible clearly tells that no one can see God really:
1Jo 4:12No one has ever seen God
Exo 33:20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”
So the verse here tells that what Jesus (Peace be upon him) says and does is what God really wants so seeing Jesus as a real prophet is like seeing God, some might say that the Greek word used in John 12:45 meant real seeing, well in Thayer’s definition to that word(G2334 θεωρέω theōreō), it can mean seeing mentally or discerning, besides this was referred to Jesus when he said to the disciples:
Joh 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world beholdeth me no more; but ye behold me: because I live, ye shall live also.
The Greek word “behold” here is the same one used in John 12:45, and in this verse seeing meant seeing by faith not real seeing, but seeing by faith as Albert Barnes and other commentators said.
Calling Jesus Lord:
First of all, the word “Lord  means Master or Sir, it is a famous title for the Peers, for example “Lord Chancellor, Lord justice Bingham. In Britain, you adress a judge or Peer as my Lord” ( Cambridge International Dictionary of English). This was what meant by Paul calling him lord:
1Co 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.
So Paul separated between the two words God and Lord because he meant that Father is the only God to be worshiped other than false gods, and Jesus (Peace be upon him) the only master to be followed other than false prophets, this was also meant by saying “through whom are all things, and we through him.”, because Jesus is the prophet whom they get their religion through him. Even there are some English translations which sometimes use the word Master instead of Lord. For example in John 5:7, CEV and LITV uses the word lord instead of Sir or Master, in John 13:36 YLT and WNT use the words Master or Sir instead of Lord.

Thomas calling him “My Lord and my God”:
Calling him “my Lord” doesn’t mean that he is God as mentioned before, and calling him “my God” can’t mean that he is God since it clearly contradicts with what Jesus (Peace be upon him) said to the Father:
3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3)
So either the word God mentioned in that script like the one meant for Moses (Peace be upon him):
And the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. ( Exodus 7:1)  ESV
Or that Thomas said this here as an exclamation as when one says “O my God”, or that this script was interpolated so that it can be a proof for the divinity of Jesus (Peace be upon him), but actually it clearly contradicts with other Bible verses as we have shown here and through the other article which tells that Jesus actually tells that the Father is the only true God.
I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me:
This is the case with all prophets, so what? Christians believe in the OT, and believe that Moses, David, Isaiah and others were prophets from God, if someone came and said that he believes in Jesus but believes that Moses or other OT prophets are liars and false prophets, could they come to the Father that way? Surely not, because disbelieving in any of the prophets is disbelieving in OT which was confirmed by Jesus and which you believe it’s the word of God, so saying “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” doesn’t apply on Jesus only but on all prophets.

Jesus is Muslim?

Jesus is Muslim? It may seem to be a weird title. Isn’t Jesus Jewish? Didn’t he exist before Islam? Then how come that he is a Muslim? Going through this site, I think you can eventually get the answer to your question by browsing different aspects and points of comparison between Muslim and Christian faith.
In this site I will talk about Islam, what is it? What Muslims do and what are Islamic sources, then I shall move in the next section concerning Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), who is he, what people told about him, and what the Bible told about him. The next step is concerning Jesus (Peace be upon him), how Muslims believe in him, whether he said that he is God or not and discussing the salvation principle Christians believe in. I will then discuss the Quran, and the proof it is the word of God. Then moving to the Bible itself, what is my belief as a Muslim in the Bible, and is it the reliable word sent from God and absolute truth or not. Finally I will discuss the main outlines of questions usually non-Muslims ask about in Islam.
I am sorry again if the site’s name offends you, and it may be the first time for you to hear this, but I hope that you go with me to the end to understand what I mean, and you have the choice, but please try to read it, and if you have any inquiries you can contact me, and I’ll do my best to answer you, and remember that one day we all will return back to God, and we must be ready for that day, so please don’t let anything else has a higher value than God, everything will come to an end, and all of us will die, the only thing that will remain is our faith in God.
108. Say, `O men, now has the truth come to you from your Lord. So whoever follow the guidance, follows it only for the good of his own soul, and whoever errs, errs only against it. And I am not a keeper over you.’ (Holy Quran 10:108)

A Brief History of the Veil in Islam

From What Do We Do with a Difference? France and the Debate over Headscarves in Schools

“To this day, head coverings play a significant role in many religions, including Orthodox Judaism and Catholicism.”

 

The hijab is one name for a variety of similar headscarves. It is the most popular veil worn in the West. These veils consist of one or two scarves that cover the head and neck. Outside the West, this traditional veil is worn by many Muslim women in the Arab world and beyond.

 

The niqab covers the entire body, head and face; however, an opening is left for the eyes. The two main styles of niqab are the half-niqab that consists of a headscarf and facial veil that leaves the eyes and part of the forehead visible and the full, or Gulf, niqab that leaves only a narrow slit for the eyes. Although these veils are popular across the Muslim world, they are most common in the Gulf States. The niqab is responsible for creating much debate within Europe. Some politicians have argued for its ban, while others feel that it interferes with communication or creates security concerns.

 

 

 The chador is a full-body-length shawl held closed at the neck by hand or pin. It covers the head and the body but leaves the face completely visible. Chadors are most often black and are most common in the Middle East, specifi cally in Iran.

 

 The burqa is a full-body veil. The wearer’s entire face and body are covered, and one sees through a mesh screen over the eyes. It is most commonly worn in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Under the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (1996–2001), its use was mandated by law.

 

Islam began as a small faith community in the Arabian Peninsula. The community was established in Medina by the prophet Mohammed (c. 570–632 CE). From there it spread through the Middle East to Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa, to Central Asia, and to many societies around the Arabian Sea. After Islam was established in the Middle East and North Africa, it made significant inroads into Europe, as well.

Scarves and veils of different colors and shapes were customary in countless cultures long before Islam came into being in the seventh century in the Arabian Peninsula (which includes present-day Saudi Arabia). To this day, head coverings play a significant role in many religions, including Orthodox Judaism and Catholicism.
Since the seventh century, Islam has grown to be one of the major world religions.  As it spread through the Middle East to Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa, to Central Asia, and to many different societies around the Arabian Sea, it incorporated some local veiling customs and influenced others. But it is only recently that some Islamic states, such as Iran, have begun to require all women to wear the veil (in Iran it is called the chador, which covers the entire body).
Critics of the Muslim veiling tradition argue that women do not wear the veil by choice, and they are often forced to cover their heads and bodies. In contrast, many daughters of Muslim immigrants in the West argue that the veil symbolizes devotion and piety and that veiling is their own choice. To them it is a question of religious identity and self-expression.
What are the origins of the obligation to wear the Islamic veil (or hijab in Arabic)? Do all Muslim women wear the veil? Do they have to? Also, are all veils the same, or do they take different forms and shapes? And, finally, what objections does the veil raise in some countries in the West? Sociologist Caitlin Killian explains that, in the past as in the present, the tradition of veiling has been influenced by different religious interpretations as well as by politics.

Muslim religious writings are not entirely clear on the question of women veiling. Various statements in the Quran and the Hadith (statements attributed to the prophet Mohammed) make reference to Mohammed’s wives veiling, but it is debatable whether these statements apply only to the Prophet’s wives or to all Muslim women.

While the need for women to be modest is mentioned, the area women must cover depends on the source and ranges from “the bosom” to the whole body except the face and hands. The veil is a vehicle for distinguishing between women and men and a means of controlling male sexual desire. . . . Muslim men are also urged to be modest and to cover themselves between the waist and the knees. . . . [In some Islamic societies] an immodest woman brings dishonor not only on herself but also on her male family members. . . . The veil itself, however, predated Islam and was practiced by women of several religions. It also was largely linked to class position: Wealthy women could afford to veil their bodies completely, whereas poor women who had to work [in the field] either modified their veils or did not wear them at all.

The numerous styles of Islamic dress throughout the world today reflect local traditions and different interpretations of Islamic requirements. Muslim women in France, therefore, exhibit a wide range of dress and head coverings. Many wear nothing that distinguishes them as Muslims. A number of immigrant women practice modesty, not by donning traditional dress (i.e., the North African djellaba), but rather by wearing long-sleeved shirts and skirts that reach the ankles. For those who do veil, some simply wear brightly colored scarves on their heads, sometimes even allowing hair to show; others pin unicolor veils tightly around the face; and still others adopt long, flowing Islamic dress and occasionally cover the entire face except for the eyes. The girls at the center of the controversy usually wear Western clothing with a veil pinned around the face to cover their hair.

The struggle over Maghrebian women’s dress began long before their immigration to France in the 1970s. French and British colonizers encouraged Muslim women to remove the veil and emulate European women. Consequently, in Algeria and other North African and Middle Eastern countries, the veil became a symbol of national identity and opposition to the West during independence and nationalist movements.[1]

 

Adoption in Isalam

Answer:

Adoption in Isalam

In the name of Allah, We praise Him, seek His help and ask for His forgiveness. Whoever Allah guides none can misguide, and whoever He allows to fall astray, none can guide them aright. We bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah Alone, and we bear witness that Muhammad (saws) is His slave-servant and the seal of His Messengers.

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 7.25 Narrated by Aisha

Abu Hudhaifa bin Utba bin Rabi'a bin Abdi Shams who had witnessed the battle of Badr along with the Prophet (saws) adopted Salim as his son, to whom he married his niece, Hind bint Al-Walid bin 'Utba bin Rabi'a; and Salim was the freed slave of an Ansar woman, just as the Prophet (saws) had adopted Zaid as his son. It was the custom in the Pre-Islamic period that if somebody adopted a boy, the people would call him the son of the adoptive father and he would be the latter's heir. But when Allah revealed the Divine Verses: "Call them by (the names of) their fathers……" (33.5) the adopted persons were called by their fathers' names. The one whose father was not known, would be regarded as a Maula and their brother in religion.

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.305         Narrated by Abdullah bin Umar

We used not to call Zaid bin Haritha (r.a.) the freed slave and adopted son of Allah's Messenger (saws) except Zaid bin Muhammad till the Quranic Verse was revealed: "Call them (adopted sons) by (the names of) their fathers. That is more than just in the Sight of Allah." (33.5)

The Messenger of Allah (saws) himself adopted the slave-boy Zaid bin Haritha (r.a.) given as a gift to him by his wife Hadrat Khadijah (r.a.)…..Hadrat Zaid (r.a.) lived and grew up in the Prophet’s (saws) household along with his other children, and until the Divine Verses of Surah Ahzaab were revealed years later in Madinah, Hadrat Zaid bin Haritha (r.a.) was called and recognized and Zaid bin Mohamed (saws)! 

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 4974        Narrated by Abu Umamah

Allah's Messenger (saws) said, "If anyone strokes an orphan's head, doing so only for Allah's Sake, he will have blessings for every hair over which his hand passes; and if anyone treats well an orphan girl or boy under his care, he and I (Prophet Mohamed (saws)) shall be like these two in Paradise," putting two of his fingers together!

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 4973        Narrated by Abu Hurayrah

Allah's Messenger (saws) said, "The best house among the Muslims is one which contains an orphan who is well treated, and the worst house among the Muslims is one which contains an orphan who is badly treated."

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 8.34 Narrated by Sahl bin Sad

The Prophet (saws) said, "I and the person who looks after an orphan and provides for him, will be in Paradise like this," putting his index and middle fingers together.”

In light of the above guidance of the Quran and Sunnah not only is adoption permitted in Islam, it is highly encouraged and an extremely meritorious act in the Sight of the Lord Most Gracious.

There is absolutely no restriction in Shariah regarding a single woman adopting a child, but because the relationship of blood in Islamic Law has obvious ties towards marriage, inheritance, etc.; there are certain guidelines in Islam a believer who wishes to adopt must follow:

1. The child will always be called by his/her biological father’s name.
2. The child will only inherit from his original blood-relationship.   He will not be eligible to inherit from his foster-parents.  The foster-parents who adopt the child have the option to will or bequeath upto a maximum of one/third of their wealth to their adopted children after their death, if they wish to do so.
3. If the foster-mother has nursed the adopted child in her infancy, then she will be considered a mehram of the child; but if the foster-mother has not nursed the adopted child, then she will not be considered a mehram of the adopted child.