Allah, Satan and the Hadiths

The hadiths give us more insights into Muhammad’s weird ideas about Satan. Below are quotes from the Sahih Bukhari hadith (unless otherwise indicated) and one from Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulallah (the earliest biography of Muhammad). My comments are below each quote.

I. There is none born among the offspring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her child (4:641, narrated Saib Al-Musayab).

The world now knows better why babies cry at birth. This proves Muhammad was as inspired as lichen.

II. Allah’s Apostle said, ‘When the Adhan is pronounced, Satan takes to his heels and passes wind with noise during his flight in order not to hear the Adhan (1:582, Abu Huraira).

The adhan is the Islamic call to prayer in which the muadhan shouts: “Allahu akbar” (a total of 6 times), “I bear witness there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” (each 2x), “hurry to prayer” (2x) and “hurry to success” (2x).

This is what supposedly scares the daylight out of Satan. No, this was just a tool of control to pack the mosques.

III. Muhammad said:

If while you are praying someone intends to pass in front of you, prevent him, and should he insist, prevent him again; and if he insists again, fight with him … because such a person is (like) a devil” (4:495, Abu Said Al-Khudri).

I thought Satan rushes off at full speed at the call for “prayer?”

IV. Ibn Umar reported Allah’s Messenger as saying:

When anyone of you intend to eat (meal), he should eat with his right hand, and when he (intends) to drink he should drink with his right hand, for the Satan eats with his left hand and drink with his left hand” (Sahih Muslim 3:5008).

In primitive societies, the left hand was believed to be linked with the devil or an evil deity. Muhammad is relaying the pre-modern thinking of his time by implying that anyone using a left hand is of the devil.

Even today, many educated Muslims are so mentally imprisoned by this superstition that if you offer them money with a left hand, they won’t accept it. But today we know that using left hand has to do with the brain wiring, not Satan.

V. A person was mentioned before the Prophet and he was told that he had kept on sleeping till morning and had not got up for the prayers. The Prophet said, ‘Satan urinated in his ears (2:245, Narrated ‘Abdullah).

Of course Muhammad was morbidly obsessed with urine and faeces, he only needed to bring Satan into the picture.

VI. Satan puts three knots at the back of the head of any of you if he is asleep. On every knot he reads and exhales the following words, ‘The night is long, so stay asleep.’ When one wakes up and remembers Allah, one knot is undone; and when one performs ablution, the Second knot is undone, and when one prays, the third knot is undone … otherwise one gets up lazy with a mischievous heart (2:243, Abu Huraira).

The tying of knots was a practice attributed to witches and demons in 7th century Arabian culture, but Muhammad used this prevalent belief to reinforce his own rules so that a Muslim who no longer praises him or follows his rituals is deemed to be under the influence of Satan. Atrocious logic at its best.

VII. Yawning is from Satan and if anyone of you yawns, he should check his yawning as much as possible, for if anyone of you (during the act of yawning) should say ‘Ha,’ Satan will laugh at him (4:509, Abu Huraira).

In another place, Muslims are commanded to restrain their yawnings “with the help of [their] hand since it is the Satan that enters therein” (Muslim 41:7131).

What about the nose, can’t Satan access it too? Maybe Allah should have lived up to his “all-knowing” title by informing his prophet that yawning is a natural body mechanism through which it receives more oxygen!

VIII. When night falls (or its evening), keep your children close to you for the devils spread out at that time. But when an hour of the night elapses, you can let them free. Close the door and mention the name of Allah for Satan does not open a close door (4:523, Jabir bib Abdullah).

Satan was like a convenient boogeyman Muhammad used to hold Muslims in line. This sort of tactic seems to work well on people whose brains have not developed to maturity.

Children (and adults with the brain capacity of children) easily respond to fear, but real adults don’t. Islamic teachings make Muslims regress into a child-like state of mind.

IX. If anyone of you when intending to have a sexual intercourse with his wife says [English translation: ‘In the name of Allah. O Allah protect us from Satan and also protect what you bestow upon us’] and if the couple are destined to have a child (out of that very sexual relation) then Satan will never be able to harm that child (8:75:397).

In essence, Satan watches live porno shows in every Muslim bedroom so as to harm the product of their conjugal act.

X. If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night (4:516).

Oh I didn’t know Satan was that minute. So let’s get this straight, the same Satan Muhammad battled with and tied to a mosque is being washed out of the noses of a billion Muslims every morning. How impressive.

XI. Muhammad said: “Whoever wants to see Satan let him take a look at Nabtal b. al-Harith!’ He was a sturdy black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulallah, The Life of Muhammad, p 431).

In other words, the Satan that was much talked about in the Quran and hadiths doesn’t look like an Arab or Asian at all, he looks exactly like a black man! Isn’t that wonderful?

This is why many Arabs today consider African Muslims to be inferior and “devilish.” And you have African Muslims killing other African Muslims because of the teachings of this Arabian racist – a man who would have spat on their faces were he alive today.

Notice the consistent pattern in the hadiths so far:
a) Satan hangs around Muslims
b) He ties knots on their heads
c) He urinates in their ears
d) He enters their mouths when they yawn
e) He watches their married couples in bed and seeks to tamper with their conception
f) He pays them a home visit every night.
g) He stays in their noses all night long.

Technically, Satan is closer to Muslims than Allah himself. He is in their bathtubs, toilets, bedroom, doorsteps, food, water and bodies.

He even has a permanent residence permit in their “holy land!” Imagine a bunch of people from different countries risking their lives and paying huge amount of money into the Saudi treasury just to stone Satan – a spirit – with pebbles!

He is just too strong, he has refused to die all these centuries.

By Islamic law, no “infidel” (Jew, Christians or pagan) is permitted to enter Mecca, but Satan lives there all year round, and receives his blood meal almost annually in different ways – most especially from excited pilgrims shouting “Stone him or die trying!” Ah, the glory of Islam.

Allah finds Satan more tolerable in his “holy land” than Christians and Jews. Many Muslims don’t stop to think about this, but it tells a lot about who they really serve.

The Bible is clear, however, that Satan cannot be defeated by a physical weapon (like stones), Jesus Christ already defeated him 2,000 years ago at Calvary.

Christians today have spiritual authority given to them by Christ to enforce Satan’s defeat through spiritual weapons of divine power (Lk. 10:19). God – not Satan – abides with us and lives in us.

“Proof Texts” Against Christ’s Deity?

Some false religions opposed to the Deity of Christ try to sustain their defective Christology by reading their preconceived notions into selected Bible verses. When these “proof texts” don’t seem to fit into their playbook, they resort to semantic juggling. Below, some of the Bible verses utilized by Jehovah’s Witnesses (the most common of the bad lot) are examined.

Proverbs 8:22 “The LORD possessed me (RSV: created) me in the beginning of his way…”

This is often laced with 1 Cor. 1:24 “Christ [is] the power of God and the wisdom of God” to conclude that Jesus, being God’s wisdom, is a created being. Now, if Jesus was created and not eternal, that means God’s power and wisdom are not eternal – that means He didn’t attain power and wisdom until a certain point in time. This is nothing short of a blasphemy.

Verse 23 reads: “I was appointed from eternity.” The Hebrew word for “eternity” here is “olam” which is also used to describe Jehovah’s eternity in Psa. 93:2; 106:48 and Isa. 40:28. So, if Jesus is the wisdom speaking in Prov. 8:22, certainly, He is eternal with God the Father.

Some object by saying the word olam has a wide variety of meanings. This is a desperate grasp at straw. Various Bible translations render the word as “ancient times” (NIV, TEV, REB, CEV), “days of age-past time” (Rotherham), “ages untold” (Knox) “days of eternity” (MLB, NASB, Darby), “from everlasting” (KJV, RV, NKJV, ASV) “everlasting ages past” (LB) and “from ancient days – eternity” (Amplified).

The Funk and Wagnalis Standard Dictionary of the English Language defines “eternal” as having neither beginning nor end of existence; infinite duration or existence, everlasting; endless or limitless time. Whether in Hebrew or English, the word conveys the same meaning. Taking a closer look at Prov. 8:22, however, it’s clear that the “wisdom” being referred to is a personification rather than being Jesus, due to the pronouns used.

For example, in verses 1-3, this wisdom is addressed as “it” and as “she” in 9:1-4. Even the Watchtower Society admits that: “…it is not unusual in the Scriptures for something that is not actually a person to be personalized or personified. Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1:20-33, 8:1-36); and the feminine pronominal forms are used if it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations…” (Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, 2:1019).

Isaiah 9:6 “…And he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

It is argued that though Jesus is called Mighty God, He is still not God but “a god.” But this same title is used for Jehovah:

Isa. 10:21 “A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God.”

Jer. 32:18 “…The Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name.”

Using Watchtower logic, this would mean God is just “a god.” How ridiculous. Just as Jesus is called “everlasting Father,” God is also called “the everlasting God” (Isa. 40:28) and “everlasting king” (Jer. 10:10). The only valid conclusion is that Jesus is God.

John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The New World bible’s distortion of this text has been discussed here. Contrary to the wishful thinking of modern Arians/JWs, the import of this passage refutes their belief in a “big God and a god.” The first line, “In the beginning was the Word” reads in Greek: “En arche en ho Logos.” The “en arche” conveys eternal existence of the Word (Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1:81). Verse 3 also shows us the Word is the Creator, while vs. 18 calls Him “God the one and only” who revealed the Father.

God made a covenant with Israel saying: “Do not worship any other gods, or bow down to them, serve them or sacrifice to them” (2Kings 17:35). Yet in the NT, Christians are said to be “serving the Lord Jesus” (Rom. 12:11, Col. 3:24). Why? Because Jesus is not “a god” or a “godlike” one, but God incarnate (Rom. 9:5; 1Tim. 3:16). Jesus was also “worshipped” by men in John 9:30-38, Matthew 15:25 etc.

There was no way 1st century monotheist Jews would have offered worship to Christ if they believed He was a “little god.” An objection often raised is that Jesus was only “respected” like angels and men were e.g Genesis 19:1.

The Hebrew word there is “shachah” (Strong #7812) which means to “bow, crouch, fall down, humbly beseech, obeisance, reverence, make to stop, worship.” A reference work says it means “to prostrate oneself before any one out of honour … Those who used this mode of salutation fell on their knees and touched the ground with the forehead … and this honour was not only shown to superiors, such as kings and princes, 2 Sam. 9:8 but also to equals” (Geserius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, 813).

The Greek word for worship, proskuneo, occurs 22 times in the NT in connection with God the Father and 14 times in reference to worship of Jesus. The New World bible gets around this by rendering proskuneo as “obeisance” when it is applied to Jesus but as “worship” when applied to Jehovah. This trick falls flat because Jesus indicates that the same worship given to Him is also given to the Father (Jn. 5:23, 20:28).

In Revelation 7:11, the worship directed to God is also directed to Jesus who is “in the midst of the throne” (v. 17). We also see that blessing (5:13, 7:12) glory (4:8-11, 5:13), and power (4:11, 7:12) were directed both to God the Father and Jesus Christ. This destroys the “Jesus-is-a-god” heresy into ashes.

John 14:28 “…The Father is greater than I”

A Muslim who trots out this verse is shooting himself in the leg theologically, because the concept of the Fatherhood of God is strongly rejected in Islam. The others use this to show that since the Father is “greater” than Jesus, that means He is essentially inferior to the Father.

The Greek word for “greater” used here, meizon does not mean greater in the sense of a higher type of being, but rather greater in the sense of position, rank or authority. Bauer, Danker and Arndt define meizon as “greater…of rank and dignity.” Louw and Nida: “pertaining to having a higher status in comparison to something else.” The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament define it as “Greater … in the sense of position not essence.”

Greek scholar, A. T. Robertson noted that the “greater” is “not a distinction in nature or essence (cf. [John] 10:30), but in rank in the Trinity.” The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament list dozens of extra-Biblical Koine texts, all of which define meizon as “greater in rank or position” in the sense of one in authority, rank and honour of a Roman senator. Not once does it imply ontological greatness. The same word is used in Jn. 15:20

“No servant is greater than his master.”

A master is greater than his servant, not in the sense of being a higher being, but in the sense of occupying a greater status, dignity and authority. Thus, Jesus was saying the Father is “greater” because His position in Heaven is one of greater authority and dignity than the Son occupies on earth.

He was telling His disciples to rejoice because He is returning to the right hand of the Father, to “the glory [He] had with [Him]” before He came to earth (Jn. 17:5). He laid aside this glory and humbly took the “nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:7) and was to regain this full glory at His ascension.

1 Corinthians 11:3 “…the head of Christ is God”

The previous explanation also applies here. Trinitarians agree that the Father is a separate Person from Christ and that He is “superior” to Him, but this superiority is in rank or position, not in terms of essence or nature. This verse says God the Father is greater than Christ while Christ is greater than man – it’s a positional superiority – which is consistent with their equality. It places the husband as the “head” of the wife just as God is the “head” of Christ. The rank/order implied is spiritual authority.

That God the Father is the Head of Christ or that the Son is subject to Him does not lessen the equality between them. Jesus was also “subject” to Mary and Joseph (Lk. 2:51), yet we do not say He was lesser in essence or being than His earthly parents. As the Eternal Word, Jesus is one with the Father, but as the Incarnate Christ, He is subordinate to the Father. This is because:

“Christ merely surrendered the independent exercise of some of his relative or transitive attributes. He did not surrender the absolute or immanent attributes in any sense…” (Henry Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979, 216-7).

Colossians 1:15 “[Jesus is] the firstborn of all creation”

This is used to support the idea that Jesus was first created by God and as God’s junior partner or master workman created all other things. The Greek word for “firstborn” here is prototokos (Strong #4416) which means “pre-eminence” and “eternal pre-existence” according to Greek lexicons. It doesn’t mean “first created” which has a different Greek word, protokistos.

“Firstborn’ points to eternal existence … We must carefully avoid any suggestion that Christ was the first of created things which is contradicted by the following words: ‘In Him were all things created” (Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 3:468).

David was called “firstborn” yet he was Jesse’s youngest son (Ps. 89:27). This title was in terms of his ascendary of the kingship of Israel. In the same vein, Jesus is called the firstborn of all creation because He “is the visible representation and manifestation of God to created beings; the likeness expressed in this manifestation is involved in the essential relations in the Godhead.” (W. E. Vine, Dictionary of N.T. Words, “Image”)

Verses 16 and 17 of Colossians 1 put all of creation in the realm of Christ’s power. He holds all things together and by him “all things consist.” In other words, Jesus is the Creator who created all things and holds the universe together by His own power. A. T. Robertson concurs: “Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eikon (image) and to the universe as prototokos (Firstborn)” (Word Pictures, 4:478).

The Watchtower theory that Jesus is a created-creator-archangel is as far from the Bible as the North pole is from the South pole.

Revelations 3:14 “[Jesus is] the beginning of the creation of God.”

This is also used to support the heresy that Jesus was the first being created by Jehovah. The Greek word rendered as “beginning” arche, is defined by the Manual of Greek Lexicon as “uncreated principle, the active cause of creation” (p. 62). It’s pointing to Jesus’ pre-existence.

Someone may object that arche in Rev. 3:14 means “first created,” but this holds no water. Jehovah Himself said “I am…the beginning [arche] and the end” (Rev. 1:8, 21:6). If Jesus was created because of the word arche attributed to Him, does that mean Jehovah too was created because the word applies to Him as well? No.

Thayer’s lexicon defines arche as “origin, active cause.” Strong (# 756) defines it as power, first, chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank). It’s from the word we got the term architect. However, the eternity of Christ negates the idea that he was created. Creation is unique to God alone. He has said:

“I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens. Who spread out the earth by myself” (Is. 44:24)

“He alone stretches out the heavens…” (Job 9:8)

“Have we not all one father? Did not one God create us…?” (Mal. 2:10)

Unlike the Watchtower Society which teaches that Jehovah created Jesus and Jesus through the active force (“holy spirit”) created all things, the Bible is clear that God has no “junior partners” or a “master craftsman” in creation. If God alone is the Creator, certainly there is no other being who can create that is not Deity. No matter how much non-Trinitarians try to slice the cake, their doctrines are not founded on the Bible and their “proof texts” are therefore invalid.

Only Begotten or Only Unique Son?

download

The misinformation regarding Jesus as the “only begotten” or “only unique” Son of God stresses a need for the issue to be clarified.

Many Muslims allege that the word “begotten” used in the Gospel of John “has been thrown out from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible as an interpolation and a fabrication.”

While Muslims hate to see the word “begotten” in the Bible, some Christians who identify as “KJV onlyites” luridly accuse modern Bibles of “eliminating every single reference to Jesus as God’s only begotten Son.” Their conclusion: it’s a New Age agenda!

It’s intriguing to see how much ignorance both sides have managed to gather. There is a third category of people who make use of the “begotten” argument to peddle their Christological errors: the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In this article, I intend to answer these groups by the proverbial killing of three birds with one stone.

“Trinitarians say that since God is eternal, so the Son of God is eternal. But how can a person be a son and at the same time be as old as his father?” (Should You Believe in the Trinity? p. 15).

Where to begin? The title “Son of God” as used for Jesus means the “likeness of the invisible God” and “the express image of His person” (Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:3).

Jesus has the same essence and attributes of the Father. Since God has been a Father from eternity, and not at a point in time as Jehovah’s Witnesses suggest, both He and Son are eternal and have no beginning.

Micah 5:2 says of Jesus “whose goings forth have been from of old from everlasting.” The word “everlasting” here is “olam” which is used to describe God the Father’s eternal existence (Ps. 41:13, 90:2, 93:2, 106:48, Is. 40:28). Therefore, if “olam” means eternal and uncreated when applied to God, it must also mean the same when applied to Jesus.

“Trinitarians claim that in the case of Jesus, ‘only-begotten’ is not the same as the dictionary definition of ‘begetting,’ which is ‘to procreate as the father.'”

Trinitarians don’t need to say this, it’s a matter of simple logic. Since the New Testament was written in Greek and not English language, referring us to an English dictionary to understand what “begotten” means is moot.

It’s just like someone appealing to a French dictionary to define “death” and then forcing that definition into Scripture. It’s a violation of elementary logic.

The Greek word for “begotten” is monogenes which according to W. E. Vine “does not imply a beginning of His Sonship … in the sense of unoriginated relationship… [Jesus] eternally is the Son. He, a Person possessed every attribute of pure Godhood” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 1940, “Only Begotten”).

Historically, the term “only begotten” came from the Latin Vulgate Bible translated by Jerome. He used the term to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made – though his understanding of it doesn’t imply procreation. The word made its way into the Bibles used during the Reformation.

Monogenes was derived from the words “monos” (one) and “ginmai” – which is not related to the verb “gennao” (begotten), but to “genomai” (to be).

Hence, the “genos” from monogenes means “kind or type.” It has no direct link with the English meaning of “begotten” (Murray Harris, The New Testament Use of Theos, Baker Book, 1992, 84-87).

Thus, newer Bible translations render monogenes as “one of a kind,” “one and only” “of sole descent” or “unique.” Standard Greek Lexicons agree:

Bauer, Danker and Arndt define monogenes as “only, unique.”

Louda and Nida: “what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class.”

Moulton and Milligan: “one of a kind, only, unique.”

Grimm/Thayer: “single of its kind, only.”

A Greek scholar says: “Thus it is seen that monogenes does not mean generation, that Christ was God’s first born or first creation. Rather it speaks of uniqueness, that Jesus shares a unique relationship with God as Father from all eternity. This is true of Christ alone since no other person has ever shared an eternal, filial relationship with God” (James White, The Forgotten Trinity, Bethany House, 1998, p. 201).

“Furthermore, why does the Bible use the very same Greek word for ‘only-begotten’…to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham? Hebrew 11:17 speaks of Isaac as Abraham’s ‘only begotten son'” (p. 16).

The Watchtower writer was doing well until now. That “only-begotten” was used of Isaac actually shows that it is a mis-translation, because Isaac was not the only son Abraham had; he also “begetted” Ishmael. Thus, “one of a kind” or “unique” son would be a better rendering of the verse.

Furthermore, the use of monogenes in Hebrews differs from apostle John’s use. Even in the Septuagint, it was used to mean “solitary” (Ps. 25:16).

The reference works often appealed to by JWs do not really support their views. For example: Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance on monogenes (#3409): “one-and-only, one of a kind – literally, ‘one (mono) of a class, genos’ (the only of its kind).”

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (G. Kittel, 1967, 4:737-741) says:

“Monogenes is stronger than [Greek], for it denotes that they never had more than this child. But the word can also be used more generally without ref. to derivation in the sense of ‘unique,’ ‘unparalleled,’ incomparable … John emphasizes more strongly the distinction between Jesus and believers and the uniqueness of Jesus in His divine sonship.'”

“So Jesus, the only-begotten Son, had a beginning to his life. And Almighty God can rightly be called his Begetter, or Father, in the same sense that an earthly father, like Abraham, begets a son (Ibid).”

Jesus is eternal like His Father, so the Arian heresy of Him having a beginning is false (Jn 1:1). His immutability stated in Hebrews 13:8 also shows this.

Greek scholar, A. T. Roberston notes that: “Forever (eis tous aionas) is eternity as well as the Greek can say it. Jesus Christ is eternally ‘the same’ (1:12) and the revelation of God in him (1:1f) is final and is never to be superseded or supplemented” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, 5:447).

The term “begetter” is not used in the Bible. To compare a spiritual, eternal relationship of God with Jesus to that of Abraham and his son reflects either a poor understanding of Biblical terms or deliberate mischief.

“When one considers that Jesus was not the only spirit son of God created in heaven, it becomes evident why the term ‘only-begotten Son’ was used in this case (Ibid).”

The word “son” (Gr. huios) can be used symbolically as in “son of God” (Lk. 3:38), “sons of thunder” (Mk. 3:17) or “sons of God” (Gal. 3:26), so to imply that a person is “created” by another because he is called his “son” is fallacious.

Jesus’ position as the “unique Son of God” differs from that of the created beings called the “sons of God.”

In His address, Jesus’ use of the word “I” in contrast to the prophets who only spoke in the second person (“the Lord says…) in Matthew 5:18, 20, 22, 26, 28 etc. proves that He is God, as He only can speak as thus.

In his address to the 7 churches of Asia Minor, He spoke as God in contrast with the angels (Rev. 1:17-3:22).

In Matthew 23:37, He said: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gather her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.”

Only God can say (or do) this:

“Gather to me my consecrated ones” (Ps. 50:5)

“He gathered from the lands, from east and west, from north and south” (Ps. 107:3)

“He gathers the lambs in his arms” (Isa. 40:11)

“I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered” (Isa. 56:8)

“I myself with gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them” (Jer. 23:3).

Therefore, Jesus Christ as the God-Man is the only Unique Son of the Living God.