THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM Part 1

Updated here on 30 March 2011


Introduction v
PART 1
1. Historical Development of Spiritual Dynamics
in the Abrahamic Religions 1
2. Obedience as a Golden Thread in the Abrahamic Religions 13
3. Roots in Rejection 33

Introduction
I was born in Cape Town at the St Monica’s Maternity Home in Bo-
Kaap when it was still a predominantly Christian suburb and raised
in the former slum area called District Six. I cherish good childhood
memories of the harmonious neighbourly living conditions of the
adherents of the three Abrahamic religions: Christianity, Judaism
and Islam. In the District Six of my childhood around Combrinck
Street there resided a few Muslims in our neighbourhood. Many
shopkeepers in Hanover Street were Jews, whom we still hold in fond
remembrance. At the Zinzendorf Primary School, to a lesser extent
at Vasco High School that was located in the so-called Acres, but very
much so at Hewat Teacher Training College in Crawford, I had quite
a few Muslim learner and student colleagues in these educational
institutions of the old South Africa.
For the last two years of my primary education I attended school
at the Elim Moravian Mission Station. Deep involvement in church
youth work led to the opportunity to widen my ‘horizon’ during a
stint of two years in Germany where I could start with theological
studies, notably in the biblical languages Greek and Hebrew. By
correspondence I also studied Latin through UNISA. During the
time in Southern Germany I met Rosemarie, who subsequently
became my wife. In between she had been blacklisted for entry into
South Africa because of the government opposition to our serious
friendship across the racial barrier.
vi
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
After my return to Cape Town in 1970 I attended the theological
seminary of the Moravian Church as it was about to resume operating
in District Six.1 At that time the so-called Black Th eology came into
its own, impacting me signifi cantly. It had become fashionable for us
to be critical of Western Th eology. At the same time, I also became
very much aware of how prejudiced we have been in traditional
Protestant churches in respect of everything diff erent to our own
cultural background.
Our theologi cal seminary was perhaps the only institution in the
country where the students could influence what was actually taught.
Black Th eology made us quite sensitive to the context in which we
operate and study. We had Muslims all around us there in District Six
because so many Christians had left the area in the wake of Group
Areas removals. The Seminary lecturers had no qualms when I asked
whether my friend Jakes could be invited over for a few lectures on
Islam after the end of the year exams in 1972. My knowledgeable close
friend Jakes was only too happy to oblige, coming to lecture on Islam.
Due to the racial policies of the day, including the circumvention of
racial ‘reclassifi cation’ to Rosemarie and the known legal prohibition
of our envisaged marriage, I was thereafter forced into an exile of just
under twenty years. Trained as a pastor of the Moravian Church, I
still cherish the tradition in which Jan Amos Comenius, the Czech
educator and theologian, as well as Count Nikolaus von Zinzendorf,
the German aristocrat, played prominent roles. Both of them had
in common a passion to bring the Gospel to all people around the
world. But both were also not afraid to rock the boat of Church
tradition in their respective time and age.
1. The seminary started there as an evening institution decades ago before
it was formalised as a theological institution in Fairview, Port Elizabeth.
From there it had to move because of Group Areas legislation. At the
time of my return to SA (1970), District Six had already been declared
a White residential area as well. Subsequently, a new building arose in
the township Heideveld.
vii
INTRODUCTION
Almost two years after I had left the Cape shores in 1973, my further
theological training resulted in ordination in September 1975 in
Bad Boll, Germany. I hereafter continued with formal and informal
studies in Europe.
During a stint of half a year in South Africa with compassionate
permission from the government after the death of my sister in
December 1980, a few incidents impacted me intensely. We were very
much encouraged by a multi-racial group from diff erent churches
in Stellenbosch that had been started by Professor Nico Smith and a
few pastors. I discerned that this was an eff ective scriptural counter
to the offi cial apartheid ideology. On the other hand, I was saddened
to notice how the great number of denominations blunted the eff ect
of the Gospel while I was involved in a spell of teaching at Mount
View High School in the township Hanover Park. Just after Easter that
year, the school principal requested me to address the school assembly
in the weekly devotional exercise. In my mini sermon I stressed
that Mary Magdalene had previously been an outcast and labelled
demon-possessed before she became a follower of Jesus. Coming from
their despised township, the pupils could obviously fully identify with
the message that I shared. I was deeply moved to see how open some
Muslim learners were to the radical claims of Jesus.
Ever since my return to the Cape in January 1992, I continued to
enjoy examining and researching Church traditions and practices. I
loved to compare and test all traditions against the Bible. Church and
secular History belonged to my favourite research topics. Access to
the many libraries in Cape Town – religious and secular – facilitated
this process.
I am indebted to Dr Mark Gabriel, a Muslim raised religious refugee,
who had fl ed Egypt, for the initial inspiration and challenge for this
work. It was during his three-month stay with us from July 1996 that
I started to explore the origins of Islamic doctrine, discovering to my
horror and dismay that there was hardly any doctrinal tenet in Islam
viii
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
which had not been derived from the bickering of Christians in the
centuries prior to the establishment and rise of Islam. (Dr Gabriel
was doing his practical outreach of Youth with a Mission, residing
with us with us when PAGAD (People against Gangsterism and Drugs)
threatened to destabilise and Islamise the Cape by using violence.)
The result of my subsequent research was the unpublished manuscript
Roots of Islam, accessible at www.isaacandishmael.blogspot.com.
The over-riding eff ect of the study on me was a sense of immense
guilt towards the Cape Muslims, a people group, which has evolved
in Southern Africa over three and a half centuries. Another treatise
came into being which I called The Unpaid Debt of the Church.1 The
present volume is more or less an excerpt from that work, together
with material from the more academic but rather dry manuscript Roots
of Islam. I discovered that virtually all Islamic tenets and doctrines
have been derived from either heretical Christianity or Judaism – both
sectarian and orthodox. To a great extent these versions of the religions
could be regarded as the spiritual parents of Islam. The influence of
Cerinthus, the Elkhasaites and Manicheism account for the early
heretical influence on the Christian side. Samaritans, Ebionites, Essenes
and Pseudo-Clementines are a few of the clear-cut spiritual Jewish
‘ancestors’ of Islam. The material offered here has been prepared first
and foremost to help Christians – especially Bible (School) students –
to interact lovingly with Muslims (and Jews).
A signifi cant Jewish influence is too conspicuous to be overlooked.
Th ere can be no doubt that Islam was profoundly influenced
by Judaism in its formative stage.2 In Part 1 we will be looking
at Abraham and Moses especially, who are also two towering
personalities of Judaism. A comparison of the similarities between
Islam and Judaism would prove their affinity as fully developed
2. Moses is mentioned in the Qur’an over one hundred times whereas
Jesus is mentioned far less. In addition, the name of Moses pervades the
whole of the Qur’an and is not confi ned to certain chapters.
ix
INTRODUCTION
religious systems. The two religions share many common features and
characteristics. For instance, the Qur’an and Hadith are fundamental
sources to Islam just as the Torah and Talmud are to Judaism.3
Knowledgeable and observant Jews influenced Muhammad in no small
way. Muslim historiographers refer to the two main Jewish tribes in
Medina as the Kohanim, or the Priests. The Ebionites were a Christian
Jewish sect with possibly the greatest influence of all. It is interesting
that Ameer Ali, a Muslim author, discerned a link between Ebionism
and Islam. Without qualifying properly what is meant, he notes that
there was diff usion of Christianity after the death of Jesus – according
to Ebionite and Muslim belief.
Dr Mark Gabriel invited my wife Rosemarie and me to participate
in a 10-week teaching course that started in Orlando, Florida (USA)
on 11 September 2007. Unfortunately Rosemarie could not join
me during the two weeks that I was able to be the guest of a nondenominational
congregation, Northland – A Church Distributed. The
idea of co-authoring and revamping The Roots of Islam was given by
Ms Debby Poulalion, the editor of fi ve other books of Dr Gabriel,
during my fi rst and only visit to the USA. The present booklet is a
partial result of that attempt.
At this juncture I want to express my heartfelt thanks and
appreciation to Mike Mee, our son-in-law, for preparing this work
for publication. Similarly, I want to honour and thank cordially Ms
Abigail Isaacs, a member of the local His People congregation, who
edited the manuscript in a very committed way. She came into the
3. Th ere was a considerable development of the Jewish religion following
the conclusion of the biblical period, when an enormous spate of
literature was created. Similarly, Islam changed after the death of
Muhammad and became an intricate system of ideas, institutions,
and customs. Comparison of classical Judaism and Islam reveals that
many of their features are virtually identical. In this study I concentrate
however on the development of Islamic doctrine via the Christian line.
x
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
frame quite recently with valuable advice. What a gift it was that our
Friends from Abroad colleague Tricia Pichotta was on hand to assist
with proof reading.
It would give me great satisfaction if the Church universal could start
attempting to settle the debt which has been incurred and which is
still being accumulated through lack of understanding and a general
dearth of love for Muslims. (During Love your Muslim Neighbour
training courses and at other occasions we endeavoured to teach I
Sincerely Love All Muslims as an acronym for ISLAM.)
I sincerely believe that the repaying of our debt must go via the cross of
Calvary! A spontaneous reaction out of guilt – without any remorse – is
not good enough. Genuine restitution can only take place when we
recognize how the Church has been taken on tow by unbiblical reforms
and well-meant but arrogant notions like ‘civilizing heathen nations’.
(Quite often the latter concept was tantamount to cultural imperialism,
exporting a lot of cultural baggage which obstructed the free fl ow of
the Gospel, not mentioning by-products like extra-marital fathering of
children and land grabbing).
Th at the material off ered here has a leaning towards highlighting
our Christian guilt towards Islam, has its reason in the fact that this
is where I started my serious study of the three Abrahamic religions
over eighteen years ago, after I had been challenged by the indepth
knowledge of Cape Muslims. Although I endeavoured to minimise
repetition, this is inevitable for the sake of clarity at a few places.
My wife and I have a love for the Jews which goes back many years,
I only seriously started looking into Judaism as such when I began
researching the biblical personalities common to the Hebrew Scriptures,
the Talmud and the Qur’an. I discovered that there is even more guilt of
the Church involved with regard to the Jews. First and foremost, there is
the unbiblical claim that the Church is the ‘new Israel’. Commentaries
and sermons are still very much characterised by spiritualizing all
promises to Israel and high-jacking them for the Church. Not to the
xi
INTRODUCTION
same extent, but perhaps still insinuated, the curses are apportioned to
Israel simultaneously. Th is is completely unacceptable – a part of our
collective guilt and ‘unpaid debt’.
Traditionally we have been speaking as Christians much too glibly
about the ‘Old Testament’! All too often we did this haughtily and
derogatorily, in spite of the admonition of Paul that we are merely
grafted into the real olive tree, Israel. We seem to forget that the Bible
is a unit, where both parts are equal in value. The entire ‘OT’ looks
forward to the ‘NT’ and fi nd in it its fulfi lment. The people of God
under the old Covenant were much more a part of what God has
been doing through history than we are. Th ey and we – followers of
Jesus – are basically one elect people of God. I endeavour to avoid
the term ‘Old Testament’ because of the unfortunate connotations,
i.e. as if the ‘New Testament’ more or less replaced it. In this work I
attempt to refer consistently to the Hebrew Scriptures instead. For lack
of a better term (Certain Jewish scholars sometimes refer to the ‘NT’
as Christian Scriptures, but that terminology does not sound to me
accurate enough), I endeavour to use ‘New Testament’ consistently, i.e.
with inverted commas. We may be thankful that the Church at large
has in recent years come to recognise the error of Supercessionism, but
the ambivalence of dual covenantism and its corollary – a haughty view
of Jews and Judaism – has not been clearly discerned. All Scriptural and
Qur’anic verses are printed in italics.
I am very aware of the fact that it is rather simplistic to identify
myself with the Church down the centuries. I take that on board,
knowing that Nehemiah and Daniel confessed on behalf of the
nation of Israel. (Th at Moses was prepared to be blotted out when
he saw the golden calf idolatry, would be on another page). I fi rmly
believe that there is a defi nite need for a confession of these wrongs
on behalf of Christians.
xii
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
Along with other evangelical Christians, I often highlight the
diff erence between the Body of Christ and the institutional Church.
In the context of this book however, that is in my view tantamount to
unfruitful semantics.
It appears that confession for the reasons behind the expansion of
Islam globally and nationally has hitherto hardly been addressed. A
promising start was made with the reconciliation walk in the Middle
East in commemoration of the start of the fi rst crusade 900 years ago
in 1996, but it was not followed up. Two 20th century precedents
had been the Barmen Declaration in 1934, along with the Stuttgart
Confession of guilt in 1945 in respect of the silence of the Church at
the treatment of Jews during the Nazi regime and the Holocaust. It
would be wonderful if the present material could facilitate a process
which could lead to a broad confession by the Church universal so
that the air can be cleared, so that present-day issues like those of the
Middle East can be addressed without any smoke screens.
The venue of Lausanne III, the Cape Town International Convention
Centre, being equidistant to the suburbs Sea Point and Bo-Kaap,
that are respectively major strongholds of Judaism and Islam in the
country, was a nudge to attempt printing Part 1 of the The Spiritual
Parents of Islam. The complete manuscript is accessible at www.
isaacandishmael.blogspot.com. For more bibliographical details of my
own research and quotes, I refer the reader to the internet blog.
I am nevertheless quite aware that the highlighting of inconvenient
truths is apt to cause much discomfort, perhaps even shock, trauma
and pain to some readers. While I fi nalised the present booklet, I
was reminded how I saw a ministry of reconciliation as my special
duty to the country of my birth in 1978/9. Attempting to publish an
Afrikaans manuscript with the title Honger na Geregtigheid (Hunger
after Righteousness), I wanted to win the government of the day over,
rather than expose their practices abroad. Yet, a friend in Holland had
to point out to me that the manuscript was too critical, not loving
enough and like an overdose of medicine to a sick society. He missed
xiii
INTRODUCTION
compassion in it. Also with this in mind, we print initially only a
small number of copies as a trial-run and an invitation to readers for
comment and possible correction.
I have full understanding if some adherents from the three Abrahamic
religions could fi nd it diffi cult to digest the assertion that satan4 has
been hard at work to rob millions around the world of the liberation
which Jesus had won through his Cross and Resurrection. May I
encourage those of you who feel this way, to wrestle on towards an
eschatological (end-time) hope that will be broadly discovered, as
well as looking forward to the return of the King of Kings and Lord
of Lords! Th erefore, there cannot be any room for an arrogant and
triumphalist attitude. My intention is defi nitely not to lash out at
(some) denomination(s), at the Muslims or at the Jews, but rather
to help create an atmosphere of humble compassion towards other
religious groups. At the same time, I do hope to stimulate a climate in
which true reconciliation can fl ourish. I close this introduction with
the ancient dictum of the Unitas Fratrum, the Unity of the Brethren,
where I have my own spiritual roots: The Lamb has conquered, let us
follow Him.
Ashley D.I. Cloete
Cape Town, November 2010
4. I have no hesitation to write satan throughout without a capital ‘s’.
I consciously choose to do this on ideological grounds, not wanting
to give any honour to the arch enemy. Furthermore, I have taken
note that ‘satan’ is always preceded by a definite article in the Hebrew
Scriptures. From this we can thus deduce that ‘satan’ was more a
designation of his character than an actual personal name.

Part 1

3
1
Historical Development of Spiritual
Dynamics in the Abrahamic religions
The biblical depiction of the creation story in the book of Genesis is
basic to all three Abrahamic religions – in chronological order
Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Almighty is seen as a
communicating entity, who created by speaking words that brought
forth order and life. God spoke to Adam
and Eve, as well as to Noah and Abraham.
The ineff able Holy One addressed Moses
from the burning bush. On Mount Horeb/
Mount Sinai, Moses received divine
instructions to be passed on to the Israelites,
the apple of God’s eye (Zechariah 2:8). This tiny nation was to
exemplify His dealings with mankind as a God of love, who wants
people everywhere to live in obedience to His commandments.
A golden thread going throughout the Bible is that God loves the
world and that He chose a small people group, the Jewish nation,
to bring salvation to the whole world. From this nation, one person
– the Messiah – has been chosen to bring millions from all tribes,
peoples and nations in voluntary faith back to the Creator, the Father
and supreme ruler of the universe. God was active in pursuit of this
goal, revealing Himself and working through prophets and kings, also
outside of the Jewish line.
The logical supplement of the speaking God at Creation is the
breathing God. The breath proceeds from the same mouth. In the
ancient cultures breath and spirit become almost synonymous terms.
In some Semitic languages like Arabic and Hebrew, the same word
”The supplement of
the speaking God is
the breathing God”
4
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
ruch/ruach, is used for breath and for spirit. Islam emphasises that
aspect in the creation of man, where God merely said ‘Be’ to bring
Adam into being (Surah al-Imran 3:59).
The Scriptures of all three Abrahamic religions take God, the
ultimate good, as its point of departure. Th ey also take for granted
the opposition of evil forces. Simplistically, Judaism and Christianity
portray satan as a fallen angel who took many rebellious beings with
him, called demons. He is also called Iblis in Islam, which is derived
from the Greek word ‘diabolos’, just like the English word ‘devil’. A
subtle diff erence is highlighted by Paul, the great missionary apostle,
when he noted that satan can disguise himself slyly as a pious angel of
light (2 Corinthians 11:14).
Abraham as a Friend of God
All three faiths see Abraham as a friend of God. What qualifi ed him
for such an honour? Abraham received this description because it
speaks of a living and personal relationship. He communicated with
the invisible God, which was very radical
for his time. Because of his faith and trust
in the unseen Almighty, Abraham was led
out of his home area Ur in Chaldea. ‘By
faith Abraham, when called to go to a place
he would later receive as his inheritance,
obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going’
(Hebrews 11:8). Th rough the ages he has become the example for
men and women to set out into the unknown, trusting God to
lead and guide them. God promised Abraham in a special covenant
innumerable descendants like the stars in the sky.
”Abraham
communicated with
the invisible God”
5
Moses Meets the Great I Am
The divine commission to Moses opens with the glorious vision of the
Angel of the Lord at the burning bush. Ultimately, this is a picture of
the incarnation – God present in visible form. When Moses asked His
name he replied Yahweh – ‘I AM that I AM (Ex. 3:13). Say unto the
people of Israel, I AM has sent me unto you’ (Exodus 3:14).
Centuries later Jesus echoed these words by saying: ‘I AM the Bread of
Life’ (John 6:35, 48); ‘I AM the Light of the World’ (John 8:12); ‘I AM
the Door’ (John 10:9); ‘I AM the Good Shepherd’ (John 10:14); ‘I AM
the Resurrection and the Life’ (John 11:25); ‘I AM the Way the Truth and
the Life’ (John 14:6).
Surprisingly, Moses did not jump at the chance of showing his mettle
after the invitation to lead God’s people out of Egyptian bondage and
agony. Such behaviour would have been typical of the old Moses. He
was by this time moulded into a humble servant, although he was
going overboard, looking for all sorts of excuses as he was not so keen
at all to go and lead the Israelites out of Egypt – out of bondage.
Moses actually angered God by his unbelief and reluctance to carry
out the appointed task. Of course, he wanted his people freed,
but could not God choose someone else? He appears to have also
displayed stubborn disobedience by not circumcising his son. Th is
seems to have been the last straw. Shed blood was necessary to
save him from God’s wrath. In Exodus 4:24f we read how his wife
Zipporah was used as catalyst for God’s mercy, springing into action
and interceding for Moses’ disobedience when she touched his feet
with a fl int knife that had been used for circumcision. She called him
a “bridegroom of blood” (Exodus 4:24f). Th is evidently appeased the
Divine anger as Moses was further humbled.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPIRITUAL DYNAMICS IN THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS
6
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
Moses as an obedient Friend of God
We sometimes tend to overlook the fact that Moses defi nitely
qualifi ed to be described as an obedient friend of God. We read in
Exodus 33:11, ‘The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man
speaks with his friend.’ Th is is a position he grew into after his initial
denial of the role as leader and commander of the nation of Israel.
The special relationship is also seen in Moses’ words to the Almighty.
Th us we read about Moses saying ‘If you are pleased with me, teach
me your ways so I may know you and continue to fi nd favour with you.’
God responded with: ‘My presence will go with you...’ Over fi fty times
it is recorded of Moses: ‘As the Lord commanded Moses, so did he do.’
The result was that it could be written about Moses of his continued
obedience as a leader in humility: ‘Now Moses was a humble man,
more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth’ (Numbers 12:3).
Leading God’s People out of Bondage
Quite a few verses of the Qur’an refer to the confrontations between
Moses and Pharaoh that preceded Israel’s fl ight from Egypt. All the
more surprising is that the Qur’anic report refers to the tenth plague
only vaguely and omits the Passover completely. The Islamic sacred
book does refer in Surah Al-Isrā (The Night Journey) 17:101 to nine
‘signs’, the plagues: ‘And We had certainly given Moses nine evident
signs...’ Some of the nine plagues are enumerated in Surah Al-A`rāf
(The Heights) 7:133 ‘So We sent upon them the fl ood and locusts and
lice and frogs and blood as distinct signs, but they were arrogant and
were a criminal people.’ With some imagination we may derive that
the great sign of Surah An-Nazi at 79:20f is alluded to as the tenth
plague: ‘Th en [Musa (Moses)] showed him the great sign. But Pharaoh
denied and disobeyed.’ The Bible describes this plague as the death of
the fi rst-born in all those houses where the blood of an unblemished
lamb was not applied to the door posts. To prevent the tenth plague,
death of the fi rst born, there had to be the blood of the slaughtered
lambs on the door posts. Th is was the signal for the Angel of Death
to pass over that household. Down through the ages Christians saw
this as a pointer to the sacrifi cal blood of Jesus atoning for our sins.
7
The meal that had to be enjoyed in all haste, prior to the Israelites’
departure from Egypt, became the watershed event, the decisive
moment of Jewish history. At the annual celebration of the Passover,
what is called the Seder meal, became the prime liturgical moment in
practically every Jewish home. The Passover event was to take place in
the fi rst month of the year (Exodus 12:2). Th is signifi ed a new life, a
new start, prefi guring the Christian becoming born again through the
redeeming blood of Christ, ‘a lamb without blemish or spot’ (1 Peter
1:19).
In this confrontation with Moses, Pharaoh is the allegorical image of
the enemy of souls. Satan is always ready to oppose the Almighty and
all who believe in Him. Egypt represents bondage in sin and Moses
is God’s appointed deliverer, chosen to lead His people from bondage
and slavery.
The Unity of God
Judaism and Islam hold to a rigid monotheistic view of God which
denies that He can be divided. The Shema, the Jewish creed-like
prayer of Deuteronomy 6:4, ‘Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one
Lord’, is the foundation of Judaism and is interpreted to signify an
indivisible unity of God. Th is rules out the possibility of Jesus being
God incarnate, God becoming fl esh. Tahwid, the Islamic confession
of the unity of God, is clearly derived from this Jewish root.
The Hebrew word for one in the Shema is echad. Elsewhere in the
Bible, this refers to a plural unity: Th us Genesis 2:24 refers to a man
and a woman becoming one fl esh, basar echad in marriage. Th ey
remain two people but become one through the marriage relationship.
Th ere is another Hebrew word yachid which describes an indivisible
unity, one who is unique.
One of the five pillars of Islam is the Shahada, the confession that
there is no other God than God, and Muhammad is his prophet.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPIRITUAL DYNAMICS IN THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS
8
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
Christians (and Jews) should have no problem with the fi rst part of
the Islamic creed. Th is is only another way of saying ‘Where is a God
other than the Lord and where is a rock other than God’ (Psalm 18:32 =
II Samuel 22:32 or 1 Corinthians 8:4b ‘there is no God other than one.’
Christians should bear in mind that it is basically the zeal of Muslims
for God that provokes them to denounce as blasphemy any honour
paid to Christ which makes him to be more than man. Muhammad
even started out his ministry defying all forms of pagan idolatry.
Fueling this was the fact that the West Syrian monophysites, of which
many later fl ed out of Mecca, so stressed the divinity of Christ, that
nothing was left of his humanity. At the same time, the Nestorians
separated the two natures – the divine and the human – so drastically
that Christ became a sort of a temple in which God lived temporarily.
Qur’an sentences like ‘In blasphemy indeed are those that say that God
is Christ...’ (Sura al-Maida 5:19 and repeated in 5:175) and ‘Christ
Jesus...was (no more than) an apostle of God’ (from Sura Nisaa (Women)
4:171) should be understood against this background.
Idolatry in the Middle East
A less known saga unfolds when one examines how Divine wrath was
unleashed in response to the continued idolatry of the descendants
of Abraham. The generational line via Isaac and Jacob had been
intended to be a blessing to the whole earth. However, the idolatrous
practices of the foreign lands infl uenced the Israelites again and again,
incurring the wrath of God.
In the tribal ancient cultures of the Middle East, each tribe
worshipped its own protective deities, which were taken to possess
powers far beyond those of human beings. Th ese gods were plural and
gendered, often ‘fi ghting’ as rivals with human character fl aws. The
gods of the Middle East were believed to prefer heights. In due course
they were given lodgings ‘and their dwellings or places of sojourn
required ornamentation commensurate with their dignity and their
9
worshipers’ ability to contribute... And in some cases, the gods
demanded the most heartfelt of sacrifi ces: human blood (Gitlitz and
Davidson, 2006:10). Th roughout the Hebrew Scriptures the message
of the atoning blood sacrifi ce comes through. In Hebrews 9:22 we
read: ‘there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.’
When everybody in the Middle East was still worshipping idols,
Abraham was called to serve an unknown, intangible deity. He
received promises of descendants, but he still basically practised
what was known to him. When he visited the Canaanite sanctuary
at Shechem, he erected there an altar (a stele), to his God (Genesis
12:6f ). Jacob, returning from Mesopotamia, also erected an altar
there (Genesis 33:18-20). However, Jacob set a new standard of faith
by symbolically turning his back on polytheism and burying their
idols under the terebinths of Shechem (Genesis 35:4).
Centuries later, Muhammad removed 360 idols from the Ka’ba.
Unfortunately, he left the Black Stone intact. Simultaneously he
however incorporated the bulk of the contemporary pagan practices
around the pilgrimage into the Islamic belief system.
Origins of the Samaritans
In its primal form all three Abrahamic religions recognize that God
hates idolatry more than anything else.
Divine over-ruling had to save the nation of Israel again and again.
However, the Israelites repeatedly lapsed into all sorts of idolatry.
As punishment, the Almighty finally allowed Israel’s enemy – in
the form of the Assyrian king – to rout the apple of his eye (cf.
Zechariah 2:8). Ten of the tribes were dispersed, many of them taken
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPIRITUAL DYNAMICS IN THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS
10
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
to Babylon, the capital of the Assyrian Empire5. Other groups of
people were brought to the region of Samaria. Some of them were
also brought from Babylon and Cutha ‘... and placed in the cities of
Samaria’ (2 Kings 17:24). The new non-Jewish inhabitants to the
region who had been brought from elsewhere also came to be known
as Samaritans. Th ey were taught to worship the Almighty. The Jews,
however, who were supposed to be an example to the Samaritans to
not persist in idolatry, actually rejected the intruders, hypocritically
accusing them of idol worship as they themselves continued
worshipping their own idols.
Back in Israel, the remaining two southern tribes persisted in their
disobedience to God, despite the warnings of various prophets, until
the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem and routed
these two tribes.
The Samaritans as the Forerunners of the Muslims
The Samaritans can be regarded as the forerunners of the Muslims in
the Bible. Not only did they hold Joseph’s grave in very high esteem,
but Moses was also specially venerated. Next to Ebrahim (Abraham),
Musa (Moses) is very highly revered in Islam.
Justin Martyr, a second century Christian apologist, had Samaritan
ancestry. Few would regard him as heretical, but his haughty and
arrogant attitude towards Judaism could have provided the seeds of anti-
Semitism which eventually escalated into the gradual side-lining
5. The Samaritans have insisted however, that they are direct descendants
of the Northern Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manesseh, who
survived the destruction of the Northern kingdom of Israel by the
Assyrians in 722 BCE.
11
of Jews by Gentile Christians as they increased numerically.6 As
a Platonist who had successively accepted Stoicism, Aristotle and
Pythagoras, Justin Martyr had high regard for the Hebrew prophets,
referring to them as ‘men more ancient than all those who are
esteemed philosophers’ (Cited in Walker, 1976:46). However, Justin
Martyr taught that the Greek philosophers and the ‘barbarians’ such
as Abraham, all who at any time ‘obeyed the same guidance, were
really Christians’ (Walker, 1976:47). A few centuries later, Muslims
would use a similar argument, viz. because Adam and Abraham were
“submitters”, they were called Muslims.7
Justin Martyr described Christianity not only as a philosophy which
alone was safe and profitable, but also as ‘the oldest, truest and most
divine of philosophies.’ (In Islamic belief there is similar progression,
starting with the Tawrah (Law) of Moses and rising through to the
fi nal Holy Writ, the Qur’an, which was revealed to the fi nal and
most exalted Prophet Muhammad. Intermediaries of lesser authority
were the Zabur (Psalms) of David and the Injil (Gospel) of Nabi Isa
(Prophet Jesus).
Th is was the sort of germ which seemed to have infected highly
respected Church Fathers like Irenæus of Lyon (born ca. 115 –
6. Some ostracism of Messianic Jewish believers occurred already in
biblical times when they were barred from the synagogue and after the
unsuccessful revolt under Simon bar Kochba. Because they hailed Jesus
as the Messiah and did not support Bar Kokhba, they were barred from
Jerusalem. Because Bar Kochba means “son of a star” in Aramaic, Simon
Bar Kochba was revered as Messiah following the prophecy verse from
Numbers 24:17: ‘Th ere shall come a star out of Jacob.’ After the failure of
the revolt, the rabbinical writers referred to him as Simon bar Kozeba.
7. A Muslim is generally defi ned as someone who submits to Allâh.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPIRITUAL DYNAMICS IN THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS
12
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
202CE) and Tertullian (born ca. 150 CE- ca. 220 -225 CE),8 to see
the (not yet Roman) Catholic Church as the sole dispenser of salvation
through baptismal regeneration. Justin Martyr, the Samaritan, misled
the Church into an elite arrogance, in which they would look down
condescendingly upon Jews. He thus became a forerunner of Waraqah,
an Arabic Christian leader who was to mislead Muhammad.
The teaching of Paul to the church in Rome, namely that it behoves
the Gentile Christians to be humble because they, the wild olive
branches, have only been grafted into the olive tree Israel, may not
have been known to Waraqah. Justin Martyr’s Samaritan background
most probably included a very common resentment towards Jews.
Th is could also have played some role in this deception.
The Ebionite Connection
Ebionites were originally a group of first century Jews who held
views which are almost identical with Islam. Some of these Ebionites
were followers of Jesus. Muhammad was infl uenced extensively by
Waraqah ibn Naufal, the cousin of his first wife Khadiyah. He was
reported to have been a bishop of the Ebionite Christian community
in the Hijaz. (Th is is the part of the Arabian Peninsula in which
Mecca and Medina are situated.) Th is would fi t to the history that
Jewish Ebionites settled not only East of the Jordan, but also in other
parts, for example in Syria. (Muhammad travelled all over the region
with his uncle Abu Talib as a boy.) Waraqah ibn Naufal himself
possibly only knew the Ebionite doctrines of his church and was
possibly ignorant of a personal relationship with God through faith
in Jesus Christ. In fact, one group of Ebionites stated clearly that faith
in Christ alone was not good enough to achieve salvation, that man
8. It has become customary in historical writings to write CE, standing
for Christian Era, in stead of AD, and BCE (Before the Christian Era)
in stead of BC.
13
also had to adhere to the prescripts of the Torah. Abu-al-Moosa, a
Lebanese theologian of the Maronite Church, wrote a treatise Between
Prophet and Priest (Diar al-akl, 1985). In that book the author
describes how Waraqah taught Muhammad. In recent years Rüdiger
Braun, a German scholar, highlighted the Ebionite connection in
his thesis Mohammed und die Christen im Zeitbild zeitgenoessischer
christlicher und muslimischen Apologeten.9
Denial of Jesus’ death on the Cross
Common Islamic interpretation of Surah 4:157 does not accept Jesus’
death on the cross. Orthodox Islam teaches that Jesus did not really
die on the cross but that it only appeared like that to those who were
present.
The doctrinal tenet of ‘mere appearance’ called Docetism, was especially
taught by the Gnostic Basilides around 150 CE. He maintained that
Simon of Cyrene consented to be crucifi ed in Jesus’ stead. According
to Basilides, God cast upon him the likeness of Christ. The belief that
Judas or Simon of Cyrene died in Jesus’ place thus actually started
within the confi nes of the Church.
In another strand, Muhammad was reported to have received the
above-mentioned Docetic teaching from Bahira, a Nestorian monk
of Syria. In the spurious, fraudulent post-Qur’anic Gospel of Barnabas
(written by Fra Marino, an Italian monk in the 16th century) Judas
was transformed into the likeness of Jesus and then crucifi ed.
9. Translation: Mohammed and the Christians in the view of
contemporary Christian and Islamic Apologetes.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPIRITUAL DYNAMICS IN THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS
14
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
Prophetic Continuity
The notion of prophetic continuity is also an important idea adopted
from Judaism by Muhammad. He believed that a prophetic line had
begun with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses, which continued in a
steady succession of prophets sent to various peoples including the
Arabic tribes. All of these holy men spoke of the same faith and
belonged to a long-established code of behaviour. Muhammad’s
claims to belong to this line, enabled him to proclaim himself a
prophet. After initially gravely doubting the supernatural message of
the fi gure purported to be the angel Gabriel, and fearing that he was
demon-possessed, Muhammad started believing the nudges of his
fi rst wife Khadiyah that he was a special
prophet and warner to the Arabs. The idea
of Moses as the ‘Prophet with a Book’
impressed Muhammad to such an extent
that he felt a necessity to produce a holy
book of his own. Th is can clearly be seen
in Surah Ahqaf (Winding Sand-tracts)
46:12, where it is stated that ‘Before this book there was Moses’ book as
a guide... and this book confi rms it in the Arabic language.’ In the same
chapter (v.30) the Qur’an says ‘We have heard of a book which came
down from heaven after Moses to confi rm its predecessor.’
Islam sees Muhammad – one of various charismatic personalities that
thought they were a prophet like Moses – in this tradition. Simon
Magus, the biblical opposite of Peter in Acts, saw himself as the prophet,
like Moses, that was foretold of in Deuteronomy 18:18. (According to
oral tradition Simon Magus stems from Samaritan descent.)
”Various charismatic
personalities thought
they were a prophet
like Moses”
15
2
Obedience as a Golden Thread in the
Abrahamic Religions
Obedience to God became the golden thread running through
the Hebrew Scriptures. The Almighty thrives on having a living
relationship with his creation, especially with human beings who are
made in his image. Th ey are seen in the Scriptures as the pinnacle of
His creation, crowned with glory and majesty, to rule over the works
of the divine hands (Psalm 8:5, 6).
It is good to keep in mind that the word is the basis of
communication. God created Eve as a helper, as one with whom
Adam could communicate, one who could talk back in a pleasant
way. Th ere is however already the conception of deceit: Satan enters
the scene by distorting the words of the Divine instruction, sowing
doubt: ‘did God really say...’ (Genesis 3:1). Ever since the ‘Fall’ in
the Garden of Eden man has had diffi culty between His Word and
that of the arch enemy. Obedience would be the hallmark of a true
believer; the vehicle towards a close relationship.
The book of Genesis shows us the utter failure of man. Adam failed
and now God gave the human race a new start through his servant
Noah. The divine assessment of Noah’s character is summed up in
Scripture with one sentence: ‘Noah found favour in the eyes of the
Lord’ (Genesis 6:8) because of his righteous living among wicked
compatriots. Almost as a refrain we read about Noah’s complete
obedience: ‘Noah did everything just as God commanded him’ (Genesis
6:22; 7:5; 7:9; 7:16).
16
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
God’s ultimate reply to this was what Paul, the apostle, called
redemption. What the arch enemy has stolen – sweet intimate
communion with the Almighty – had to be redeemed. To do this,
God became fl esh, coming to earth in the form of the new man, Jesus
Christ, who reconciled the world with himself (2 Corinthians 5:20).
To achieve this, Jesus shed his precious blood to deliver mankind
from the bondage of sin.
Radical Obedience
Noah and Abraham pointed to Jesus through their radical obedience.
Oral tradition – confi rmed by the biblical report – notes that a
characteristic of Noah was his total obedience. Noah’s obedience
was combined with his trust in God, although we do not read
about a special relationship between him and the Almighty. Noah,
nevertheless, became the example to all of us to put our complete
trust in God. He simultaneously challenges us towards complete
obedience to the divinely revealed will. Noah’s obedience culminated
in his entering the Ark with his family only upon God’s Word.
The radical obedience of Abraham, expressed in his willingness to
sacrifi ce his son, sounds so awe-inspiring. Th is encounter confi rms
Judaism’s rejection of the Middle Eastern traditions of human
sacrifi ce to appease a deity. Yet, if ever there was an individual who
had to learn obedience through suff ering, it was Abraham. Th rough
his mistakes Abraham had to learn that it pays to be completely
obedient. Abraham was conceivably struggling along to Mount
Moriah, wrestling with the command from God to sacrifi ce his son in
a pagan custom.
Abraham’s supreme gift of faithful obedience elicited the repetition of
Judaism’s fundamental covenant: ‘Because you have done this... I will
indeed bless you, and I will make your off spring as numerous as the stars
of heaven.’ (Genesis 22:16-18, Gitlitz and Davidson, 2006:12f ).
17
Abraham was a type of the Father who gave his Son Jesus as an
Atonement for our sins. He thus became a pointer to Jesus, and
an encouragement to every believer. The author of the letter to the
Hebrews highlights that during the days of Jesus’ life on earth: ‘He
off ered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who
could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent
submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he
suff ered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation
for all who obey him’ (Hebrews 5:8f ).
Moses was no Robot
If we understand obedience as a golden thread in Scripture, it becomes
very signifi cant how the life of Moses is summarized in the epistle
to the Hebrews. Moses preferred to be a Hebrew and suff er with his
people, in stead of remaining known as the son of an Egyptian princess.
It is described in Hebrews 12:7 as follows: ‘He regarded disgrace for the
sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was
looking ahead for his reward.’ Moses was destined to lead the Israelites
through the desert – a nation that excelled in rebelliousness. He
discerned that the rebellious obstinacy of the Israelites was the cause of
God’s anger. He himself had almost become the victim of God’s wrath
when he was rebellious, coming up with all sorts of excuses why he
shouldn’t be the one to lead the Israelites out of Egypt.
The replies of Moses in his interactions with the Almighty show that
he was no robot. A friend of God can also voice negative feelings and
opinions. Cataclysmic anger arose in Moses to such an extent that
he was even prepared to be blotted out of God’s book of life after he
had seen the golden calf idolatry (Exodus 32:32). The encounter on
Mount Sinai became the beginning of visible evidence of someone
who had been in the holy presence of the Almighty. Moses’ face was
shining so much that his rebellious compatriots could not even face
OBEDIENCE AS A GOLDEN THREAD IN THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS
18
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
him. Hereafter, he covered his face with a veil every time he came
from the Tabernacle (Exodus 34:34).
God shows loving understanding when Moses raved in bitter
disappointment and frustration: ‘What have I done to displease you that
you put the burden of these people on me? ... I cannot carry all these people
by myself; the burden is too heavy for me’ (Numbers 11:11,14-15). In a
sovereign display of divine understanding, God encouraged Moses, by
instructing him to appoint seventy leaders and offi cials to assist him.
Obedient Submission
The obedient submission to God is a tenet that is well known in
rabbinical Judaism. The Talmud reports how Abraham referred to
Isaac as the substitution for the lamb. On the way to the Akedah – the
sacrifi ce – satan is said to have attempted unsuccessfully to dissuade
Isaac from obeying his father. When he failed to do this, the deceiver
tried his best to impede their journey. According to oral Jewish
tradition, Isaac cooperated fully in the proposed sacrifi ce, even begging
his father to bind him tightly so that he would not struggle and render
the sacrifi ce invalid. According to Talmudic tradition the obedient son
replied: ‘To the will of the living God in thankfulness I bow.’
The Qur’an honours Abraham as one of the greatest Messengers of
Allâh. Christians are said to be ‘those who share the faith of Abraham
for he is the father of us all’ (Romans 4:16). In a similar vein the
Qur’an refers to ‘the faith of our father Abraham’ Surah Hajj 22:78).
He is a true musliman, submitter (Surah Nahl 16:120). The issue of
faith does not break through in Surah Al-Saff at (The Ranks) 37, i.e. to
where the Korban, the obedient sacrifi ce of his son, is alluded. Isaac
is mentioned in this context. However, in Islamic oral tradition the
person sacrifi ced was said to have been Ishmael. Interestingly, apart
from inclusion in the Qur’an of Ishmael in lists of prophets (Surah
al-Anam 6;86, Surah Al-Anbya 21:85), the only reference to him is
19
found in Surah Baqara (Cow) 2: 125, 127. Th ere he was reported
to have obediently assisted his father in the building of an edifi ce,
taken to be the Ka’ba. (In oral tradition Isaac was said to have assisted
Abraham to put together the stones for the altar on which he was to
be sacrifi ced.) Jewish legend has an interesting contribution when
David and his son Solomon are said to have been destined to build a
temple on earth that would be the mirror image of the one in heaven.
It was furthermore to be built above an ancient stone, which God
had set into the earth at the time of creation. The obvious parallel is
the Ka’ba, which was said to have been (re)built by Abraham and his
son Ishmael around the Black Stone. As the German theologian Julius
Wellhausen has pointed out, the Ka’ba thus became an idol itself, an
enlarged sacred stone (Wellhausen, 1961:74). On the other hand, the
line of prophethood and revelation would follow through Isaac’s line
(Surah Ankabut (Spider) 29:27): ‘And We bestowed on him [Ibrahim
(Abraham)], Ishaque (Isaac) and Ya’qub (Jacob), and ordained among
his off spring Prophethood and the Book [i.e. the Taurat (Torah) (to Musa
- Moses), the Injeel (Gospel) (to ‘Iesa - Jesus), the Quran (to Muhammad
SAW), all from the off spring of Ibrahim (Abraham)]...’
Just like Isaac, the Lord Jesus would willingly lay down his life. One
almost hears the echo centuries later in the Garden of Gethsemane
after Jesus had been agonising over the task that lay ahead, when he
was required to empty the cup. It must have ‘contained’ something
against which his whole being rebelled. It has been suggested that it
could have been the sins of the world against which the sinless Son
of God came in fi erce opposition. The victory is achieved after the
Son had learned obedience through his suff ering (Hebrews 5:8): ‘Not
my will, but thy will be done’ (Mark 14:36). The events leading to the
crucifi xion and the Cross of Calvary itself echo Abraham and Isaac’s
obedient submission in every respect, culminating in Jesus saying:
‘Father, in Th y hands I commit my spirit’ (Luke 23:46).
OBEDIENCE AS A GOLDEN THREAD IN THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS
20
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
God, who provided the ram on Mount Moriah, also gave the Lamb on
Calvary, his only Son. The ram prefi gured the slain lamb of the
Passover that saved the Israelites in the hour of judgement. The Lord
Jesus became the perfect Lamb, slain for the sin of mankind. As a
result, now whosoever believes in Him as Saviour, receives everlasting
life. Paul recorded the signifi cance of this fact in the following words:
‘For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ,
and him crucifi ed’ (1 Corinthians 2:2).
Other types of Christ with regard to obedience occurred in the
wanderings of the Israelites through the desert. Th ey were linked to
Divine provision, e.g. the cloud pillar by day
and the fi re hovering over the Tabernacle by
night. The latter prefi gured in a special way
that which Jesus said: ‘I am the light of the
world. Whoever follows me will never walk in
darkness, but will have the light of life’ (John
8:12). Closely connected to the cloud pillar
was the sound of the silver trumpets. Th ey were used as a signal for
the journeying of the congregation. The believer needs to listen to the
voice of the Lord. ‘My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they
follow me’ (John 10:27).
The Challenge of Obedience
Repeatedly the Israelites were challenged either to obey or not, to
go either for the blessing or for the curse. In Deuteronomy 28:13f
we read, for instance, what will happen if Israel is obedient. ‘And the
Lord will make you the head and not the tail... if you heed the commands
of the Lord your God.’ Th ey could choose between death and life.
A very signifi cant instance of this choice for life was when Moses
was required to put a brass serpent on a pole after poisonous snakes
had bitten many of the Israelites (Numbers 21:4ff ). Th is was God’s
punishment after they had rebelled, displaying grave ingratitude
”The ram on Mount
Moriah prefi gured
the slain lamb of
the Passover”
21
at His provision for them. Th is is quite signifi cant that Moses was
required to make a bronze serpent. God actually prohibited the
making of any graven image or likeness of any living creature (Exodus
20:4; Deuteronomy 5:8). Whosoever was bitten by a snake received
healing if he/she looked obediently to the bronze snake on the pole.
Strikingly, Jesus pointed to this example in the context of explaining
to Rabbi Nicodemus when the latter came to our Lord at night.
The Master stressed on that occasion that one has to be born again
to enter into heaven. Nicodemus, the serious seeker after truth, was
puzzled. He had been trying to comprehend spiritual truths with his
natural understanding. Jesus more or less pointed him to Calvary.
In the desert the Israelites received more than healing, they received
new life. Jesus prophesied that he would be “lifted up” just like Moses
did with the serpent during the desert wanderings after they had
left Egypt (John 3:14). In the book of Genesis, it is described how
satan originally came in the image of a serpent to deceive Adam
and Eve. The message is clear in the context of John 3:16. The brass
serpent served for the temporary healing of the Israelites who had
been bitten. Jesus was to be lifted up so that all who believed in him
might have eternal life. Whosoever believes in faith in Jesus as God’s
healing instrument, the ‘New Testament’ “serpent” on the Cross, will
be healed from being bitten by satan – the “snake” – the ultimate
deceiver who is the liar from the beginning (John 8:44).
Apart from Paul, at least one other respected rabbinical scholar –
Nicodemus, likewise a Pharisee – might have contemplated further
about the incarnation of the Son of Man, how Jesus became fl esh.
When the Master spoke about the Son of Man coming from heaven
(John 3:13), Nicodemus appears still to have been quite puzzled
initially. Perhaps he discerned later how Moses pre-fi gured Christ in
this regard. Paul, a Hellenistic Jew, wrote in Philippians 2:7 that Jesus
– in obedience – took upon himself the form of a slave, not regarding
that as robbery to have left the heavenly glory.
OBEDIENCE AS A GOLDEN THREAD IN THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS
22
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
‘OT’ Examples of Disobedience
In the creation story, the disobedience to the divine instruction
was the cause of the havoc. God granted authority and dominion
to man to rule over the earth. God linked obedience to this Divine
command. He permitted Adam and Eve to obey or not. Disobedience
would lead to slavery of Adam and Eve to satan. Genesis 3:1 tells us
that ‘the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the fi eld,’ while
Genesis 3:12 records Adam’s words to God, ‘I heard your voice in the
garden and I was afraid because I was naked and I hid myself.’ Th ere is
an interesting play on words in the Hebrew text.10 In vs.1 the word
translated “cunning” is the Hebrew word arum while in vs.12 the
word translated as “naked” is the Hebrew word erom. Both are from
the identical root (the letters ayin, resh, mem). The devil was arum,
Adam was erom. Our ancestors sought to become like God, but their
disobedience caused them to become like the devil!
Disruption of the unity between man and God, discord between
Adam and Eve and strife between man and nature (Genesis 3:15)
were the results of man’s fi rst act of disobedience. The basic enmity
though is between the seed of the snake and
the seed of man. Interesting is the divine
intervention, the provision of skins, which
was of course preceded by the slaughtering
of an animal and the shedding of blood. Th is
pattern can be found throughout the Hebrew
Scriptures. Th is is how the Almighty overruled
the disobedience and wrong compromises of
sinful human beings. The ultimate sacrifi ce was the one of his Son,
the Lamb of God, which made all other sacrifi ces redundant.
10. I gleaned the following from Edith Sher from one of her Messiah’s
People newsletters.
”The basic enmity
is between the
seed of the snake
and the seed
of man”
23
Th ere are quite a few biblical examples of disobedient persons who
toyed with sin, who were unrepentant or not submissive. The tragic
case of King Saul comes to mind perhaps almost immediately. He
tried to camoufl age his disobedience and impatience with an off ering.
Instead of remorse, he displayed an attitude of entitlement. He
continued off ering excuses for why he violated the Lord’s instructions
after he basically was only interested in setting up a monument in his
own honour (1 Samuel 15:12, 24). Th at presumption and arrogance
can be the cause for God not to listen to our prayers, is illustrated in
Deuteronomy 1:41-45 ‘the Lord...paid no attention to your weeping and
turned a deaf ear to you’.
Costly Examples of Compromise
Obedience is honoured by God, but compromise is seen as
disobedience, as sin which incurs the wrath and punishment of the
Almighty. The Hebrew Scriptures contain examples of personalities
who caused problems for themselves merely because they could not
wait. The most classic one is probably Abraham and Sarah. Th ey settled
for a compromise that resulted in the birth of Ishmael. Th is spawned
the age-old rivalry between the off -spring of the two famous sons of
Abraham – Isaac and Ishmael. In the case of King Saul, his impatient
disobedience even cost him the loss of his kingship (1 Samuel 13:13).
The prophet Jonah received another chance to carry out God’s
commands after his initial disobedience had led him to the three days
in the belly of a big fi sh.
One cannot try to please God through a sacrifi ce as a compromise.
Even sacrifi ce is rejected by God when it is mixed with sinful
behaviour and not accompanied by remorse and repentance. Animal
sacrifi ce and all ancestor worship are regarded as watering down the
Word of God, whereas the appropriate reaction should be to respect
God’s Word (Isaiah 66:2,3). Jesus actually had to tell the Pharisees
to their faces that they nullify the power of the Word through
OBEDIENCE AS A GOLDEN THREAD IN THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS
24
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
their traditions (Mark 7:13). Th ey get people to obey them in the
overdrawn and meticulous observance of rules and regulations like
the ritual washing of hands, and then make these disciples just as
legalistic. A similar trend can be discerned in Catholicism, Judaism
and Islam. Later generations came up with ridiculous requirements
and interpretations. Th us it is almost impossible for a devout Muslim
to enter paradise (apart from the jihad guarantee), even if he or she
wanted to ‘earn’ paradise through good deeds and meticulous heeding
all religious, legal and ritual requirements. Islamic prayer is not only
null and void if it is not preceded by abdas, the ritual ablution. But
it was also decreed by later addition to be a worthless exercise if the
qiblah, the prescribed prayer direction towards Mecca, deviates even
by a single degree.
It has been suggested that Abraham delayed God’s dealings with him
when he took his father Terah with him from Ur – the fi rst of many
compromises he made in relation to the Almighty. For as many as
fi fteen years there were no further commands, no additional promises
and no communication between Abraham and God. He defi nitely
still had to learn to wait on the Lord before acting in panic, like
going to Egypt when famine broke out. God deemed it necessary to
intervene after Abraham had told the half truth that Sarai was his
sister – she was his half-sister – once he got there. In stead of trusting
God, he feared that his life would be taken for Sarai for her beauty.
She was so desired among men. Th is had brought Abraham out of
God’s will and actually delayed the fufi llment of God’s promise.
The habit of being untruthful proved very pervasive in his life. When
Abraham perceived a threat from King Abimelech, he resorted to
the same half truth, saying that Sarai was his sister. By this time he
had received the divine promise of off spring more than once. God’s
mercy and grace came through. In this regard a tenet of the character
25
of Yahweh of the Tenach11 and Allâh of Islam is almost identical –
Allâh is also forgiving and merciful in the extreme, albeit that the
punishing Allâh remained a predominant feature in Islam. The Qur’an
furthermore stresses that Allâh does not have a son nor does he beget.
(Both in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the ‘NT’ the Almighty is not
only a Father fi gure with a Son, but also one who displays maternal
qualities.)
The ‘NT’ Response
Adam put his trust in a source other than God and died as a result.
Th is gave satan the ability to usurp rule over man and the earth. A
divine ‘predicament’ arose. If satan’s dominion was to be revoked,
a way had to be found to redeem fallen man and recover his lost
authority. Someone – a member of Adam’s race, a second Adam12
– had to be found who would qualify to recover the lost heritage.
A unique solution ensued: ‘When the fullness of the time came, God
sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them
that were under the law’ (Galatians 4:4). Where Adam failed through
his disobedience, Jesus excelled in giving his all in obedience. As
the divine Son of God he had to be made sin for us. He was willing
to take the cup, knowing full well what that entailed: Th erefore he
agonised, praying more than once: ‘Father, if you will, take this cup
11. The Hebrew Scriptures are also known by its acronym, Tenach or Tanakh,
consisting especially of the fi rst consonants in Hebrew for the Law
(Torah, the Prophets (Nebiim) and other Sacred Scriptures (Chetubim).
12. An interesting snippet is a parallel in Sethian Gnosticism. Seth, the
third son born to Adam and Eve, is called the Christ, e.g. in the Gospel
of Judas. Seth is suggested to represent a new beginning for humanity.
Quite strikingly, Jesus is depicted in the gnostic ‘Gospel’ as an
extremely obedient follower of the Christ (Seth), doing everything the
Master requires of him.
OBEDIENCE AS A GOLDEN THREAD IN THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS
26
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.’ He ultimately forfeited
the fellowship of the Father when He was made sin (2 Corinthians
5:21). Billheimer (1975:78) links this to the sacrifi cial system of
ancient Israel, to the sin off ering of the tabernacle and the temple:
‘He became the very essence of sin by dying as a sin off ering.’ Islam
retained the practice of the Korban, the sheep slaughtering, as a
commemoration of Abraham’s near sacrifi ce of his son.
Atonement via Repentance and Good Deeds
In Islam, repentance and good deeds – coupled with Allâh’s sovereign
mercy and forgiveness, bring about a certain degree of recompense.
Unfortunately, one can never be sure of Allâh’s full forgiveness. Islam
does, however, possess the element of a ransom through the blood
of a slaughtered animal with an atoning function. Th is is illustrated
in the ritual of Korban when a washing movement across the face is
performed. At the main Muslim celebration, Eid ul-Adha, animals
– preferably sheep – are sacrifi ced to remind the participants of the
sacrifi ce of Abraham. Th is comes very close to Hebrews 9:22, which
states very pointedly: ‘there is no remission of sins without the shedding
of blood.’ The proximity to the ‘NT’ is expressed by the practice of
searching for a perfect animal for Korban. In 1 Peter 1:19 the apostle
highlighted that the believer has been redeemed ‘with precious blood,
as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ’.
Bible believing Christians see Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes
away the sins of the world (John 1:29, 36). The Bible (2 Corinthians
5:21, 1 Peter 2:22) and the Qur’an (Surah Mariam 19:19) recognize
that Jesus was the only person who never sinned. Judaism has a major
problem accepting that a human sacrifi ce was needed as atonement to
appease the wrath of God.
27
The Divine Moulding Process
Trials are prime divine tools to strengthen the faith of the believer.
Abraham grew in faith – more than being merely a submitter as
Islamic parlance normally sees him. His faith had been tested again
and again. Th rough trials and tribulations he learned obedience,
enabling him to enter into a much deeper relationship with the
Almighty in the process.
The examples of Moses, Joseph and David highlight how God used
long periods of waiting to prepare them to be used optimally. David
emphasises this in Psalm 66:10-12 ‘You tried us as silver is tried... you
brought affl iction upon our loins...’ Th ese verses of Psalm 66 highlight
an interesting anomaly: God cannot be enveloped in a mould, but
he uses affl iction and suff ering to mould us and teach us how to trust
him. Whereas God brought the Israelites through the waters of the
Red Sea and saved individuals like Lot from fi re, ‘destructive waters’
and ‘purifying fi re’ – trials and tribulations – were used to strengthen
and mould David, much like Abraham and
the other arch fathers before him. Every
follower of the Lord is treated like silver in
the crucible. In Malachi 3:2 the Almighty
is compared to a goldsmith who purifi es
the precious metal from all impurities in
the red-hot fi re. God often uses affl iction,
disappointment and trials to mould us. The
spiritual growth of Joseph in this regard underlines this principle. As
an arrogant young man he became haughty because of the gift – the
interpretation of dreams – that he had received. After he had landed
in prison and using this gift once again in respect of the dreams of the
butler and baker, he seemed to have learned the lesson well. When
he was summoned to interpret the dreams of Pharaoh, he replied
humbly: ‘I cannot do it by myself, but God will tell you what it means’
(Genesis 41:16).
”God cannot be put
into a mould, but
He uses affl iction
and suff ering to
mould us”
OBEDIENCE AS A GOLDEN THREAD IN THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS
28
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
God had to reprimand Joseph and Moses, using imprisonment and
exile respectively after they had acted in the fl esh. Yet, His hand was
on them, guiding and chastening them through their suff ering. It is
especially diffi cult to witness the suff ering of our loved ones. However,
then, it is so wonderful when that which Bishop Retief (Tragedy to
Triumph, 1994:59) calls ‘the Joseph principle’, comes into play: ‘You
intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what
is now being done, the saving of many lives’ (Genesis 50:19-20). We
detect the Divine hand – especially in view of the constant enmity
between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael – when we note that
both Joseph and Moses were rescued by Ishmaelites. The Midianite
traders (Genesis 37:25, 28) who pulled Joseph out of the cistern, were
called the descendants of Ishmael. Moses spent the years after his
fl ight from Egypt in Midian. Th is was a time when these Ishmaelites
seemed not to have been regarded as Israel’s enemies. Moses’ father-inlaw
Jethro was a Midianite priest with whom he co-operated, without
major reservations or hassles. Jethro actually ‘was delighted to hear about
all the good things the Lord had done for Israel in rescuing them from
the hand of the Egyptians’ (Exodus 19:9). Furthermore, Moses gladly
accepted the advice of Jethro to delegate work, which had become too
burdensome for him to accomplish alone (Exodus 19:24). The fact that
the Midianites became enemies of Israel was apparently not because of
their religious beliefs, but because of their idolatry. To their detriment,
however, Israel was no better.
The Father Sometimes Gives us a Second Chance
How gracious of the Almighty that He gives us a second chance, yes
sometimes even a third and a fourth one, to bring us back to His
purposes for us. The biblical condition is remorse and repentance. In
1 John 1:9 we read: ‘If we confess ours sins, God is faithful and just and
will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.’
29
Jonah assumed that Nineveh would not listen to God’s call for
repentance. Christians too easily assume that certain people groups
are resistant to the Gospel. Jonah had to learn that it was not only
the city of Nineveh that had to repent. He himself and especially
his attitude towards the Ninevites had to change. We, as Christians,
might still be very surprised by the reaction of Muslims and Jews
to the Gospel if our own attitude changes to one of love and
compassion.
Th ank God for the ‘great fi sh’ – the pits of despair and tribulation
that bring us back to our senses, back to God. We should praise the
Lord for the storms, the troubles that focus our faith and give us
opportunity to share the Good News with those who might not be
our fi rst choice, but who are God’s challenge for us.
Obedience rather than Glamour
A common character trait of prominent individuals in the Bible is
that they accept suff ering rather than pursue glamour and fame when
faced with challenges. At the outset of his ministry Jesus chose not to
be fl attered by the adulation of his Nazareth community. In stead of
basking in the praises and esteem of men at that occasion, he swam
against the stream, risking his life in the process (Luke 4:14-30).
It was touch and go or he would have been killed by the enraged
synagogue congregation. When a multitude of Jewish worshippers
wanted to forcefully make Jesus their worldly King (John 6:15), he
refused this elevation. who must have adulated him as a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15,18), through whom mediation the Israelites were divinely fed in the desert. In the same chapter it is recorded how the Lord responded with a 'hard' word, after which the crowd left him en masse (John 6:66).
When Peter merely suggested that Jesus should escape his innocent
death, the Master had to rebuke him strongly, seeing no less than
satan behind this idea (Mark 8:33; Matthew 16:23). By the time of
the Gethsemane struggle, the Lord had already learned the lesson
of obedience. For our sakes, he was required to empty the cup
completely. Our Lord’s voluntary taking of the cup in the Garden of
Gethsemane would send Jesus, the sinless sacrifi ce, to the Cross.13 In
the agonizing prayer of the Garden Gethsemane, during which his
sweat became like blood drops (Luke 22:44), our Lord responded
thrice with ‘not my will but your will be done…’ (Mark 14:36). Jesus
chose the road of suff ering to be ultimately crowned with glory. His
Kingdom is not of this world. The content of the cup took him from
the presence of His Father, so much so that he ultimately used the
word forsaken.
The line between acclamation and rejection can be very thin at times.
Choosing absolute truth often makes the diff erence. Compromise
may save one from persecution or rejection.
The issue of obedience is highlighted in the Book of Deuteronomy.
Repeatedly, the Israelites were told that the demand of obedience
to the Law is for their good (e.g. Deuteronomy 6:24). Moreover,
it is clear that their obedience can never be an eff ort to buy God’s
favour, but rather it is required so that believers can enjoy His favour.
The Israelites were not called to purchase their redemption by obedience, but to obey because they are a redeemed people. The enemy of souls is a specialist in confusing matters. It
is sad that Moses’ heritage, the gift of the Torah, in due course lost
its original purpose, namely as instructions and guidelines for living
under the Almighty’s sovereign rule. Legalism and a petty playing
with words came in its place. A whole range of legalist interpretations
and traditions in Judaism reaped the combined eff ect of nullifying
God’s laws. Samuel summarised beautifully what was at stake: ‘To
obey is better than sacrifi ce’ (1 Samuel 15:22).
13. According to Gnostic (-related) tradition, the passion of Jesus became
the cause of the Christ leaving Jesus. (Wide-spread oral tradition taught
that the Christ had entered his body at His baptism.)
31
Importance of Obedience
It seems that the centrality and importance of obedience in Scripture
is not always appreciated in modern times. Somehow it appears that
it is no longer recognized how the rebellion and disobedience of the
Israelites – typifi ed by continued or repeated idolatry – angered God
seemingly more than anything else. It was rebellion and disobedience
which disqualifi ed Saul for kingship. The ‘Saul Syndrome’, as Floyd
McClung typifi es this in his book The Father Heart of God, has
tragically been repeated in history again and again. Gifted people, who
started off with the anointing of God, fell by the wayside. In the case of
Saul, his inferiority complex appears to have clouded his gifts, leading
to jealousy. Similar traits can be discerned with Muhammad. After
initially admiring the Jews, the pendulum swung over to resentment
and hatred.
The Ultimate Obedience
Our Lord’s voluntary obedience in taking the cup in the Garden of
Gethsemane, would send him to the Cross. On Calvary God did not
intervene, because it was essential to satisfy all sorts of accusations by
satan. God allowed his Son Jesus to become a spectacle so that the fear
of death and judgement could be given a fatal blow on the third day.
On account of Jesus’ death and resurrection, the follower of our Lord
can say with Paul (Romans 8:1): ‘Th ere is now no condemnation for those
who are in Christ Jesus...the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin
and death.’ Paul, the apostle, echoed this sentiment in 1 Corinthians
15 when he cried out: ‘Death, where is your sting?’ It is like a buzzing
bee that has already deposited its sting. Every bit of the fear of death
has disappeared! Since satan’s great purpose was to produce rebellion
against the Father, he was vanquished when Jesus died without yielding
to that pressure. He conquered although he died in doing so, as the
OBEDIENCE AS A GOLDEN THREAD IN THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS
32
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
Hebrew letter writer (2:14) summarised so aptly: ‘that through (his own)
death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil’.
Paul gave a summary of Jesus’ life as one of utter obedience: He,
‘being in very nature God...humbled himself and became obedient
to death – even death on a cross’ (Phillipians 2:5ff ). In the ‘New
Testament’ radical obedience is highlighted when one reads of actions
by followers of Jesus that would not make common sense. Th us Peter
threw the net ‘on the word’ of the Lord, after not having caught any
fi sh all night. Philip left the successful ministry in Samaria, (Acts 8),
going in obedience on a ‘wild goose chase’ to the lonely desert road of
Gaza. The believer knows however that God’s ways are higher (Isaiah
55:8, 9). Obedience is the ultimate proof of loving God.
Disobedience of the Church
On at least three levels one can discern the serious disobedience
of the Church. In respect of the ‘Great Commission’, the Church
throughout the ages has failed miserably. Collectively we have been
disobedient. If we keep in mind that Matthew 28:19 were the last
words of Jesus on earth before his ascension, we should also conclude
that it is incumbent upon the Church to repent and confess for
failing the Lord. In stead of ‘go’ (and make disciples) the Church says
‘come’ (to the church meetings); in stead of ‘make disciples’, churches
concentrated on increasing membership; in stead of reaching the
nations, Christians erected buildings of diff erent sizes; in stead of
‘baptising’ converts, babies were christened or people groups and
nations were christianised.
Furthermore, the Church universal should learn to put the priorities
where Jesus put them in His prayer life. Jesus deemed it fi t to pray
in His high priestly prayer for His disciples and for those who would
believe in Him because of their message: ‘that they may be one’ and
33
that they might ‘be brought to complete unity’ (John 17:21,23). Paul
included a moving plea in a letter to the Corinthian church that
stressed this point: ‘I appeal to you brothers, in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ... that there may be no divisions among you and that you
may be perfectly united in mind and thought’ (1 Corinthians 1:10-
13 and 3:1-5). It is surely no exaggeration to state that all sorts of
disunity in the body of Christ – like carnal competition and rivalry –
essentially incapacitates itself.
In May 2010, at one of the centenary celebratory events of Edinburgh’s
momentous world Church and Missions event in 1910, a big Global
Mission Consultation, the Tokio 2010 Declaration was issued. Public
repentance and reconciliation by mission leaders was spurred by
representatives of evangelical global mission structures. The Tokyo 2010
Declaration confessed on behalf of the participants and the mission
agencies for not valuing each other’s work and competing against one
another. The mission leaders repented for their history of division and
pledged to co-operate with one another in the future.
A major Omission of the Church
A third less obvious point of disobedience is the tendency to target
easily ‘convertible’ people groups.
In recent years there have been increasing
eff orts to reach out to Muslims.Jews,
however, remain relatively untargeted in
evangelistic eff orts. Moishe Rosen, the
founder of Jews for Jesus, highlighted this
aspect in his paper, delivered as part of the
Jewish Evangelism track at Lausanne II in
Manila, 1989. He suggested in that paper
that ‘God’s formula’ for worldwide evangelization is to bring the
gospel to the Jew first. Highlighting the example of Paul: ‘I am not
”God’s formula
for worldwide
evangelization is to
bring the Gospel to
the Jew fi rst”
OBEDIENCE AS A GOLDEN THREAD IN THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS
ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation to all who
believe, to the Jew fi rst and also to the Greek’ (Romans 1:16), Rosen
suggested in the same paper that ‘by not following God’s programme
for worldwide evangelisation – that is, beginning with Jerusalem
(Israel, and the Jews) – we not only develop a bad theology because of
weak foundations, but we also develop poor missiological practices’2

35
3
Roots in Rejection
Rejection and isolation is a common characteristic shared by
prominent fi gures in all three Abrahamic religions. Th is common
thread could be a cause for greater understanding amongst adherents
of the religions if some adjustments were made in their expression
of regret. Abraham, Moses and Jesus are generally highly revered by
all and sundry. The respect for Muhammad is not general, possibly
because of what he did in the Medinan period of his life, notably in
the killing of Jews and because of his many wives. If Christians and
Jews are mindful that their religion’s ancestors rejected Muhammad
and further back in history also Ishmael, it may change the picture.
(Muslims regard Ishmael as their spiritual ancestor). If these two
groups were granted grace to show genuine remorse, it could usher
in a change in the attitude of Muslims and ultimately bring about
unprecedented reconciliation.
Islam sees its main roots in the hanifs, who were living at the time of
the youth and adulthood of Muhammad. In The Foreign Vocabulary of
the Koran Dr. Arthur Jeff ery of Cairo states that the hanif 14 passages
in the Qu’ran belong to the period when Mohammed was claiming
that he went back to a revelation earlier than either Judaism or
Christianity. Th is was called the millat Ibrahim, the pure religion of
Abraham. He was republishing this for the Arabs.
14. The term has been used synonymously with the term Muslim in
reference to a historical Islam, extending upon the belief of Islam being
a restoration of the pure monotheistic religion of Abraham.
36
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
Sympathy for Biblical Personalities
Abraham’s disobedience – listening more to Sarai than to God – after
years without fulfi llment of the promise and the fathering of Ishmael
by Hagar, the Egyptian slave woman, should likewise receive our
sympathies. It is quite understandable why Sarai doubted God’s
promise of a son that she would conceive. She was well beyond the
age of giving birth! Abraham was also no spring chicken. Although
God had given him a very detailed promise of the son to be born to
Sarai (Genesis 17:1-16), we read that he laughed (v. 17), reasoning in
his heart in disbelief: ‘Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old?
Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?’
The disparagement of Hagar after becoming pregnant with Ishmael
is not diffi cult to comprehend. She was rejected by a jealous Sarai
after Sarai had created the situation. How deeply Ishmael must have
experienced the rejection when Sarah gave birth to Isaac and he was
callously pushed aside. After being around for
about fourteen years, this teenager had to come
to terms that he was no more the heir! It is not
too diffi cult at all to comprehend that some
Muslims may still feel the pain of rejection of their
spiritual ancestors. Add to this the indoctrination
of Muslim children against Israel and the Jews.
(Th is has been testifi ed to by various Muslim
background believers.) Th ere is more than enough reason to compound
the envy and jealousy of Muslims in respect of Jews.
Divine over-ruling after Rejection
Th ree great personalities from the Hebrew Scriptures and the
Abrahamic religions – Joseph, Moses and David – experienced
rejection by their close relatives. The pattern of pride on the one hand
and rejection on the other, continued in the life of Muhammad,
” The teenager
Ishmael had to
come to terms
that he was no
more the heir!”
37
the founder of Islam. He does not seem to have come to a proper
understanding of the basic biblical message of God’s love for all people
– much more than the Almighty wanting to punish the erring. It is
nevertheless signifi cant that every Qur’anic Surah (except Surah Tauba
(Repentance) starts with Allâh as the merciful. However, Muhammad
had doubts for a long time about the nature of the initial spiritual
revelation. He was misled by two Christians, his wife Khadiyah and her
cousin Waraqah, a Christian (Ebionite?) priest. Due to this influence,
Muhammad later believed that he was a special prophet for the Arabs.
Still later, he believed he was the prophet for the whole world. Yet, in
the early Meccan period of his life, Muhammad reportedly revered
the Jews and the teaching about ‘the religion of Abraham’ that came
through from Ebionite sources. The rejection that Muhammad
experienced from Jews (and to a lesser extent from Christians) brought
vengeful sentiments to the fore, notably in the Medinan period. During
this time the compassionate Allâh all but disappears. Revenge (Surah
Al-Shura (Consultation 42:39)15 and War (Surah al-Bakarah (The Cow)
2:216; Nisaa (Women) 4:74; Tauba (Repentance) 9:5; Saff (Battle
Array) 61:4) were declared holy. It is no co-incidence that Surah Tauba
with its anomalous name Repentance – with a clear call to struggle,
(Jihad) Рdoes not start with All̢h as the compassionate. It begins
rebelliously with the words ‘freedom from (all) obligations...’
In the ancient world, it was known that the Jews would not take
part in – either directly or indirectly – any pagan cult. Signifi cantly,
Muhammad and thus Islam, followed Judaism not only in the absolute
abhorrence of all idolatry, but also in the circumcision of male infants
and in the refraining from the eating of pork.
15. In the new translation of M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, 2008 (2005) this aya is toned down to read ‘and defend themselves when oppressed’, making it more politically correct. Surah 42 has the inter-faith title of Alh Shura in translation, viz Consultation.
ROOTS IN REJECTION
38
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
Moses’ Fall and Restoration
In his moment of truth, Moses was clearly once more a proto-type of
Jesus. In contrast to the rebellious Moses however, the Master added
the significant words: ‘Yet not as I will, but as you will’ (Matthew
26:39ff ). Jesus became the real ‘bridegroom of blood’, appeasing the
wrath of God. John summarised it so succinctly: ‘...and the blood of
Jesus, God’s Son, cleanses us from all sin’ (1 John 1:7). By now Moses
had apparently become humble enough! He had been moulded to
become God’s chosen instrument.
Aaron and Moses were nevertheless disqualifi ed to enter the Promised
Land because of their disobedience. Moses smote the elevated rock
after God had ordered him to speak to it at Meribah. Irreverence and
disobedience almost led to Moses’ complete downfall. Th ankfully,
God did not completely reject his precious choice instrument. Th is
is demonstrated when Moses joins the Master and Elijah at Jesus’
transfi guration on the mountain. At that occasion, a voice from
heaven was heard calling Jesus God’s beloved Son (Matthew 17:3).
Peter testifi es to the latter occasion in his epistle when he was on the
mountain with Jesus, John and James.
Muhammad misled into Compromise
Disobedience hardly features in Islam in this sense. The Qur’an for
example does not discern the importance of obedience when Moses
hit the rock in stead of speaking to it. Lavish submission to Allâh is
required, rather than considered or repentant obedience. Taking an
Ebionite connection of Waraqah almost as a given, Abu-al-Moosa, a
Lebanese theologian of the Maronite Church, suggested that Waraqah
39
” Muhammad
removed 360 other
idols from the
Ka’ba but left the
Black Stone intact”
endeavoured to mentor Muhammad to become his successor.16 If we
take this at face value – historical proof is unfortunately quite limited –
Waraqah unfortunately appears to have failed to instruct Muhammad
properly (or he himself was confused). When the devout Muhammad
believed himself to be demon-possessed – after his encounter with
a supernatural being in a cave on Mt. Hira – it was Waraqah who
initially misled Muhammad, suggesting that
he was a prophet in the mould of Moses.
Furthermore, on a few other issues Waraqah’s
teaching and guidance were clearly defi cient.
Th is is perhaps the most poignant with
regard to the information given to his disciple
Muhammad around the person of Jesus.
Other infl uences such as Arianism clearly
became dominant. In fact, as early as the 8th century Islam was regarded
as a Christian sect influenced strongly by Arianism.17
Muhammad was, however, not completely innocent. Waraqah did
warn him that the worship of the Black Stone of the Ka’ba was
idolatrous. He removed 360 other idols from the Ka’ba but left
the Black Stone intact. He went on to follow the poor example of
4th century Emperor Constantine to fuse his religious ideas with
paganism. He built the bulk of the contemporary pagan practices
around the pilgrimage into the Islamic belief system.
16. In a more recent work Ruediger Braun, in his 2004 dissertation
Mohammed und die Christen im Zeitbild zeitgenoessischer christlicher und
muslimischen Apologeten, took a similar line.
17. Arianism is also often used to refer to other non-trinitarian theological
systems of the 4th century, which regarded Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
as either a created being or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense
other beings have been created. The Arian concept of Jesus Christ is
that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by God and is
therefore distinct from and inferior to God the Father.
ROOTS IN REJECTION
40
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
Rejection as a Positive
Whosoever feels rejected need not despair. The nature of the Almighty
as the One who undergirds and uplifts the rejected and dejected,
runs like a golden thread through the Scriptures. In the book of
Genesis, God sent an angel no less than twice to the rejected Hagar.
Conveniently, Jewish theologians seemed to have overlooked or
(wilfully perhaps) ignored the fact that David was diff erent, ruddy or
reddish. He was therefore not originally considered for the anointing
by Samuel. Th is points to his outsider role in the family. Could it be
that he was the son of a foreigner, a non-Jewish mother, apart from
his known Moabite ancestor Ruth? King David, who encountered
rejection so often, wrote variously about his personal experience of
the arm of God, the Eagle’s Wings upon which Yahweh brought his
distressed and persecuted people out of Egypt (Exodus 19:4). He
wrote e.g. in Psalm 40:1,2. ‘... He inclined to me, and heard my cry.
He also brought me out of a horrible pit, out of the miry clay and set my
feet upon a rock, making my footsteps secure.’ God is the shepherd of his
people, bringing the sheep that had been harassed by enemies, to green
pastures... beside still waters (Psalm 23:2).
The ‘New Testament’ Jesus described himself as the Good Shepherd
(John 15). He was initially rejected by his own people (John 1:12),
fulfi lling the Scriptures.
The day may not be far off when Jews as a nation will recognise the
One who was pierced for our transgressions (Isaiah 53:5); when the
stone whom the builders initially rejected, will be honoured as the
capstone (Psalm 118:22, 1 Peter 2:4); when the Jews will ‘mourn for
him as one mourns for an only child’ (Zechariah 12:10).
The Gospel of John starts with the rejection of Jesus by his
compatriots. The Word (the Logos) came to his own (John 1:12),
but his own (the Jews) did not accept Him. Ironically, Islam
somehow recognised this title of Jesus as the Word of God without
41
any hesitation (Surah Nisaa (Women) 4:171). The rest of the verse,
unfortunately, is disregarded: viz. that to those who accepted the
Logos, God gave power to become His children.
Alone Without being Lonely
Like no other person Abraham was a forerunner of the Lord Jesus,
displaying that one can be alone without being lonely. The key to
Abraham’s life is typifi ed by the word separation. He was separated
from his fatherland and kinsfolk and later from Lot. But he would
experience a close fellowship with the unseen ‘I AM’ as possibly only
Enoch had done before him. Abraham depicted how centuries later
Jesus was to experience extreme loneliness, but that he nevertheless
testifi es, ‘The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for
I always do what pleases Him’ (John 8:29). Jesus clearly intimated his
divinity when he said ‘Before Abraham was, I AM’ (John 8:58). No
wonder that the crowd hereafter ‘picked up stones to stone him...’
Abraham prefi gured our Lord, learning obedience through suff ering
experienced due to lies and mistakes. When Ishmael started turning
into a young man, God told Abraham to reject him and then He
asked the patriarch to slaughter the son of the promise. How would
Abraham get descendants like the stars of the sky if he was to sacrifi ce
his son as a burnt off ering? The letter to the Hebrews (11:20)
provides the answer: he believed that God could also bring him
back to life. On that fateful third day (Genesis 22:4) the Almighty
impregnated Abraham with resurrection faith and hope.
Islamic oral history has a parallel to the extreme loneliness of the Lord
Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane and the road to Calvary. During
their pilgrimage at Eid-ul Adha, when Muslims commemorate
Abraham’s diffi cult path with the lad carrying the wood, they are
reminded at three places how satan tempted the arch father to abort
the sacrifi ce. At the beginning of Jesus’ ministry he was tempted
ROOTS IN REJECTION
42
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
three times and in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus was also tempted
thrice to abort the road to Calvary because three times he found the
disciples sleeping. Repeatedly he faced the temptation of evading his
mission. His fi nal reply was the words of submission: ‘O my Father, if
it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as
you will’ (Matthew 26:39).
According to Islamic tradition the original text of the Qur’an was
reviewed seven times by ‘the angel Gabriel’. It is not clear how the
various reviews infl uenced the proximity to Christian and Jewish
Scriptures. It is striking, though, that the fi nal review includes a
consistent denial of everything pertaining to Jesus’ death on the cross.
Th is is despite three references which mention or allude to the death
of Jesus. Hebrew Scriptures which point to the atoning death of Jesus
as the Lamb of God, like the blood on the door-posts at the exodus
out of Egypt (Exodus 12) or the serpent on the pole (Numbers
21:4ff ), do not appear in the Qur’an. The only verse which alludes to
the cross is a fi rm rebuttal of the claim that the Jews could have killed
Jesus (Surah Nisaa 4:157): ‘... they said (in boast), We killed Christ Jesus
... the Messiah ... but they killed him not ... so it was made to appear to
them ... for of a surety they killed him not.’ A possible explanation for
the disparity could be that Muhammad accepted the death of Jesus
in the Meccan period of his life, e.g. the bulk of Surah Al-Imran 3,
especially verse 55: [Mention] ‘when Allâh said, “O Jesus, indeed I will
take you and raise you to Myself ...”’ and Surah Mariam 19:33, ‘And
peace is on me the day I was born and the day I die and the day I shall be
raised (to life) again.’ The often quoted verse Surah Nisaa 4:157, ‘Th ey
killed him not...’ followed the rejection by the Jews in Medina. It is
indeed strange that the fi nal revelation of the Qur’an does not include
the equivalent word for Yahweh, the Hebrew name of the Almighty,
even one time. In stark contrast, it is used in the Bible 6823 times.
43
After Muhammad’s diff erences with the Jews and the Christians, the
charge came that they had changed the Scriptures18. It is a tragedy that
in stead of loving correction and teaching, Muhammad experienced
predominantly rejection and ridicule from the Christians and Jews.
Th ey could not accept him as a prophet in the biblical mould, let alone
as the promised Messiah. Th is does not basically alter the issue in the
light of Jesus’ example and teaching of love and forgiveness.
The sad Heritage of theological Distortion
The Early Church apparently enjoyed the fellowship of the Holy Spirit
in exuberant joy and freedom. The manifest work of the Spirit was to
them evidence of the dawn of the new Messianic Age. Paul referred
to the new creation, i.e. born-again believers, as the ‘Israel of God’
(Galatians 6:15f), which, unfortunately all too soon led to a haughty
attitude. Paul had to warn the Gentile believers in his chronologically
later letter to the Romans (chapter 11) that they have been merely
grafted into the true vine Israel, that it was the temporary rejection of
Israel that gave the Gentiles this special opportunity and chance. Grace
and law became however became fallaciously regarded as alternatives,
with the inference that grace belongs to the ‘NT’ and the law to the
‘OT’. We will show in Part 2 that chen (grace) is very much present in
the Hebrew Scriptures as well.
The fi rst century heretic Cerinthus appears to have been one of the
fi rst to question the divinity of Christ, asserting that His entrance
into the world was according to the ordinary laws of nature. In
Cerinthus’ Christology Jesus performed miracles, but he did not
redeem the world. Cerinthus also denied the divinity of Christ. He
18. In Surah 10:94 Muslims are encouraged to go to Christians and Jews
for advice if they are in doubt: ‘If you are in doubt as to what We have
revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from
before you...’
ROOTS IN REJECTION
44
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
admitted Jesus’ suff ering and crucifi xion, but he distinctly denied
His resurrection (Islam also disputes the resurrection of our Lord). In
opposition to such teachings which appear to have become relatively
widespread, Paul wrote the fi rst letter to the Corinthians. Cerinthus
started a ball rolling because the divinity of Jesus was hereafter
disputed. The likes of Cerinthus were described as anti (against) Christ.
In the third century of the common era, Arius developed the heresy
further, conceding that Jesus was of the same substance of God, but
not equal to Him. Arius had been following Cerinthus, perhaps
unwittingly, in this teaching. Th is caused much confusion, ripping
the heart out of the Gospel. Between Cerinthus and Arius there was
general consensus in the Church not to compromise the divinity of
Jesus. When Emperors like Nero ‘merely’ required Christians to pay
homage to the Caesar annually, off ering them the liberty to have their
Jesus as a god parallel to him, they refused! Th ey preferred to die for
their faith that the Lord is the divine Son of God. Polycarp of
Smyrna, a disciple of John, the apostle, was martyred in 160 CE,
testifying to his faith in the presence of his executioners. This was the
sort of primal seed of the Church, which also moved Justin, the
Samaritan who was born in Palestine and later given the name
Martyr. Justin died for his faith in similar fashion in 165 CE.
The Germ of Religious Arrogance Disseminated
Unfortunately, the germ of religious arrogance was clearly
disseminated by Justin Martyr in the second century. He had no
hesitation in stating that the Church replaced Israel. According to
him, the nation of Israel had been ‘rejected’ by God because of their
disobedience. He might have picked this up from oral tradition or Acts 13 where Paul and/or Barnabas in an emotional moment of rage after Jews had 'slandered and argued against whatever Paul ' reacted revengefully. In Acts 13:46 Paul and Barnabas reportedly said where it is unlikely that they said this in unison: 'It was necessary that we first preach the word of God to you Jews. But since you have rejected it and judged yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we will offer it to Gentiles.' ! In Romans 11, written at the end of his life, Paulrectified the rather rash statement, clearly stating that God did not reject the Jews completely. Their limited and temporary time of ‘rejection’ was
meant to also bring the Gentiles to the Father. Upon seeing Gentiles
enjoying a relationship with God would arouse a sanctified envy.
45
” Constantine
caused a semipermanent
rift
between Gentile
Christianity and
Judaism”
among the Jews. In addition, although the fi rst
day of the week was ‘the Lord’s Day’, specially
honoured as a day of special celebration of
his Resurrection, there was still real dialogue
between Christians and Jews in the second
century. Justin’s record of his interaction with
Trypho, a Jew, testifi es to this. Jews were
gradually side-lined until fi nally Emperor
Constantine caused a semi-permanent rift
between Gentile Christianity and Judaism in the fourth century.
People were baptised by force. He also fused pagan sun worship with
Christianity. Emperor Constantine made the rift fairly fi nal when
Sunday was made a free day in 321 CE. To Jews this was completely
unacceptable because this was clearly a compromise with the
idolatrous pagan worship of the sun.
More misguided Theology
At the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE the theologians possibly wanted
to give simultaneous recognition to their belief that Jesus was Divine.
Th ey venerated Mary as the bearer or mother of God. In their wellmeaning
but misguided intentions to confi rm Jesus’ divinity, they
created a new goddess. 5th century bishop Nestorius, spoke out
strongly against this, saying that it was an abomination to call Mary,
as was the custom in the church, the Mother of God. He was however
exiled to the Libyan oases, spending his last years in Cyrenaica.
More confusion caused by Theologians
The eff ort of the theologians at Chalcedon (451 CE) to fi nd a
formulation to explain the inexplicable – the faith doctrine of the
Holy Trinity – caused more confusion than clarity. Instead, the
ROOTS IN REJECTION
46
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
heretical view around Mary proved very pervasive. The illiterate rank
and fi le Christian understood that Jesus, was the son of the Father
God and Mary. The blasphemy also fi ltered through to Muhammad.
The Qur’an protests consistently and rightly against the concept of a
literal son born out of a physical relationship between Mary and God.
No less than twelve diff erent verses emphasise: ‘God does not have a
son, God does not beget...’ (e.g. Surah Al-Furqan 25:2). We need only
compare the content of the revelation of the biblical Gabriel in Luke
1 with the Qur’anic version Surah Imran 3. The starkest diff erence
is found in the good news given to Mary, with exactly the opposite
as it is found in the Qur’an with regard to Jesus as the Son of God.
In Luke 1:32 and 35 we read ‘He shall be great, and shall be called the
Son of the Most High’ and ‘the holy one to be born will be called the Son
of God’. In the equivalent passage from the Qur’an is Surah Imran
345-47 (Shakir translation), there is no mention of Jesus as the Son
of God: ‘When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allâh gives you good
news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the Messiah, Isa
son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and
of those who are made near (to Allâh). And he shall speak to the people
when in the cradle and when of old age, and (he shall be) one of the
good ones. She said: My Lord! when shall there be a son (born) to I me,
and man has not touched me? He said: Even so, Allâh creates what He
pleases; when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it, “Be,” and it
is.’ The other Qur’anic reference to the birth of Jesus is even more
explicit with the problem Muslims have with him as the Son of God:
‘Such was Jesus, the son of Mary. Th at is the whole truth, which they still
doubt. God forbid that He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees
a thing He need only say: Be, and it is.’ (Surah Mariam 19:35)
Islam was sadly also bequeathed with the heritage of theological
distortion and arrogance. Religious arrogance went full circle when
Muhammad was described as the ‘fi nal’ prophet. His followers
incorporated Adam as the first Muslim, describing their religion as
superior to all other religions, superceding the two other Abrahamic
ones. Jews of Medina could never accept Muhammad as a prophet.
47
Th is had serious repercussions. Ishmael, the ancestor of the Muslims,
had been rejected and side-lined. Now Muhammad was snubbed
by the Jews and Christians of his day. He retaliated in no unclear
way, annihilating whole Jewish tribes and changing the qiblah, the
prayer direction for Muslims from Jerusalem to Mecca. Th is is part
and parcel of the Islamic doctrine of abrogation whereby a later
‘revelation’ is taken to have replaced an earlier but contradicting one.
When a 60-man delegation of Christian leaders from Najran in
Yemen visited Muhammad in Medina in 631 CE, he treated them
with arrogance. With his reputation as a statesman, he apparently saw
no need to listen to them carefully. He took for granted that they –
like all Christians – believed in three gods and that they also believed
that God had intercourse with Mary to produce Jesus as the Son. At
any rate, in the Islamic record of the visit there is very little reported
of their apologetics in defence of their belief.
A Possibility of Reconciliation!
Sadly, the reconciliation which must have preceded the burial of
Abraham (Genesis 25:9), hardly seems to have penetrated the Jewish
and Muslim communities.
The teaching of Paul to the church in Rome, namely that it behoves
the Gentile Christians to be humble because they, the wild olive
branches, have been only grafted into the true olive tree, Israel
(Romans 11:17), did not seem to influence the Church deeply.
On the contrary, a broad haughty arrogance set in, especially after
the destruction of the second temple by Titus in 70 CE and the
sacking of Jerusalem. Some Christians interpreted this as corporate
punishment because the Jews did not heed their own prophets.
Furthermore, because the Jews were given the blame for the
crucifixion of Jesus, the Christ.
ROOTS IN REJECTION
48
THE SPIRITUAL PARENTS OF ISLAM - PART 1
Scripture teaches us to love our neighbour, but Christians by and large
exercise resentment against Muslims. Corporately we failed to follow
Christ’s teaching on love. Hence we are in debt not only to all Islam
because we have failed to practice Christ’s teaching’s on love, but also to
our Lord. Can the Church aff ord to remain in such debt? Forgiveness,
love, mercy and compassion are tenets that our faith requires.
A fi tting attitude of the Church of Jesus Christ towards Islam
and Judaism would therefore be one of remorse, compassion, and
extreme humility. The fi rst reason for such an attitude is because
Jesus gave His life for the whole world, including Muslims and Jews.
It does furthermore not behove us as Christians to have a haughty
or negative attitude towards Islam (and Judaism). In Part 2 of this
treatise, it will be shown how almost every single doctrine in which
Muslims diff er with those from Christianity, can be derived from the
bickering of learned theologians of the Great Church before the time
of Muhammad.
May repentance and change result from the Cape Town conferences
of 2010. Let us look for innovative but loving ways how we can
follow the Lamb of God together – without expecting Muslims and
Jews to join our churches immediately. If the attitude of Christians
in general changes to humble love, we might fi nd many of them
interested in following the One who loved them so much that he gave
his life for them.

Introduction

I was born in Cape Town at the St Monica’s Maternity Home in Bo-Kaap when it was still a predominantly Christian suburb and raised in the former slum area called District Six. I cherish good childhood memories of the harmonious neighbourly living conditions of the adherents of the three Abrahamic religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In the District Six of my childhood around Combrinck Street there resided a few Muslims in our neighbourhood. Many shopkeepers in Hanover Street were Jews, whom we still hold in fond remembrance. At the Zinzendorf Primary School, to a lesser extent at Vasco High School that was located in the so-called Acres, but very much so at Hewat Teacher Training College in Crawford, I had quite a few Muslim learner and student colleagues in these educational institutions of the old South Africa.
For the last two years of my primary education I attended school at the Elim Moravian Mission Station. Deep involvement in church youth work led to the opportunity to widen my ‘horizon’ during a stint of two years in Germany where I could start with theological studies, notably in the biblical languages Greek and Hebrew. By correspondence I also studied Latin through UNISA. During the time in Southern Germany I met Rosemarie, who subsequently became my wife. In between she had been blacklisted for entry into South Africa because of the government opposition to our serious friendship across the racial barrier.
After my return to Cape Town in 1970 I attended the theological seminary of the Moravian Church as it was about to resume operating in District Six.3 At that time the so-called Black Theology came into its own, impacting me significantly. It had become fashionable for us to be critical of Western Theology. At the same time, I also became very much aware of how prejudiced we have been in traditional Protestant churches in respect of everything different to our own cultural background.
Our theologi­cal seminary was perhaps the only institution in the country where the students could influence what was actually taught. Black Theology made us quite sensitive to the context in which we operate and study. We had Muslims all around us there in District Six because so many Christians had left the area in the wake of Group Areas removals. The Seminary lecturers had no qualms when I asked whether my friend Jakes could be invited over for a few lectures on Islam after the end of the year exams in 1972. My knowledgeable close friend Jakes was only too happy to oblige, coming to lecture on Islam. Due to the racial policies of the day, including the circumvention of racial ‘reclassification’ to Rosemarie and the known legal prohibition of our envisaged marriage, I was thereafter forced into an exile of just under twenty years. Trained as a pastor of the Moravian Church, I still cherish the tradition in which Jan Amos Comenius, the Czech educator and theologian, as well as Count Nikolaus von Zinzendorf, the German aristocrat, played prominent roles. Both of them had in common a passion to bring the Gospel to all people around the world. But both were also not afraid to rock the boat of Church tradition in their respective time and age.
Almost two years after I had left the Cape shores in 1973, my further theological training resulted in ordination in September 1975 in Bad Boll, Germany. I hereafter continued with formal and informal studies in Europe.
During a stint of half a year in South Africa with compassionate permission from the government after the death of my sister in December 1980, a few incidents impacted me intensely. We were very much encouraged by a multi-racial group from different churches in Stellenbosch that had been started by Professor Nico Smith and a few pastors. I discerned that this was an effective scriptural counter to the official apartheid ideology. On the other hand, I was saddened to notice how the great number of denominations blunted the effect of the Gospel while I was involved in a spell of teaching at Mount View High School in the township Hanover Park. Just after Easter that year, the school principal requested me to address the school assembly in the weekly devotional exercise. In my mini sermon I stressed that Mary Magdalene had previously been an outcast and labelled demon‑possessed before she became a follower of Jesus. Coming from their despised township, the pupils could obviously fully identify with the message that I shared. I was deeply moved to see how open some Muslim learners were to the radical claims of Jesus.
Ever since my return to the Cape in 1992, I continued to enjoy examining and researching Church traditions and practices. I loved to compare and test all traditions against the Bible. Church and secular History belonged to my favourite research topics. Access to the many libraries in Cape Town - religious and secular - facilitated this process.
I am indebted to Dr Mark Gabriel, a Muslim raised religious refugee, who had fled Egypt, for the initial inspiration and challenge for this work. It was during his three-month stay with us from July 1996 that I started to explore the origins of Islamic doctrine, discovering to my horror and dismay that there was hardly any doctrinal tenet in Islam which had not been derived from the bickering of Christians in the centuries prior to the establishment and rise of Islam. (Dr Gabriel was doing his practical outreach of Youth with a Mission with us when PAGAD (People against Gangsterism and Drugs) threatened to destabilise and Islamise the Cape by using violence.) The result of my subsequent research was the unpublished manuscript Roots of Islam, accessible at www.isaacandishmael.blogspot.com.
The over-riding effect of the study on me was a sense of immense guilt towards the Cape Muslims, a people group, which has evolved in Southern Africa over three and a half centuries. Another treatise came into being which I called The Unpaid Debt of the Church. The present volume is more or less an excerpt from that work, together with material from the more academic but rather dry manuscript Roots of Islam. I discovered that virtually all Islamic tenets and doctrines have been derived from either heretical Christianity or Judaism - both sectarian and orthodox. To a great extent these versions of the religions could be regarded as the spiritual parents of Islam. The influence of Cerinthus, the Elkhasaites and Manicheism account for the early heretical influence on the Christian side. Samaritans, Essenes and Pseudo-Clementines are a few of the clear-cut spiritual ‘ancestors’ of Islam. The material offered here has been prepared first and foremost to help Christians - especially Bible (School) students - to interact lovingly with Muslims (and Jews).
A significant Jewish influence on Islam is too conspicuous to be overlooked. There can be no doubt that Islam was profoundly influenced by Judaism in its formative stage.4 In Part 1 we will be looking at Abraham and Moses especially, who are also two towering personalities of Judaism. A comparison of the similarities between Islam and Judaism would prove their affinity as fully developed religious systems. The two religions share many common features and characteristics. For instance, the Qur'an and Hadith are fundamental sources to Islam just as the Torah and Talmud are to Judaism.5 Knowledgeable and observant Jews influenced Muhammad in no small way. Muslim historiographers refer to the two main Jewish tribes in Medina as the Kohanim, or the Priests. The Ebionites were a Christian Jewish sect with possibly the greatest influence of all. It is interesting that Ameer Ali, a Muslim author, discerned a link between Ebionism and Islam. Without qualifying properly what is meant, he notes that there was diffusion of Christianity after the death of Jesus - according to Ebionite and Muslim belief.
Dr Mark Gabriel invited my wife Rosemarie and me to participate in a 10-week teaching course that started in Orlando, Florida (USA) on 11 September 2007. Unfortunately Rosemarie could not join me during the two weeks that I was able to be the guest of a non-denominational congregation, Northland - A Church Distributed. The idea of co-authoring and revamping The Roots of Islam was given by Ms Debby Poulalion, the editor of five other books of Dr Gabriel, during my first and only visit to the USA. The present booklet is a partial result of that attempt.
At this juncture I want to express my heartfelt thanks and appreciation to Mike Mee, our son-in-law for preparing this work for publication. Similarly, I want to honour and thank cordially Ms Abigail Isaacs, a member of the local His People congregation, who edited the manuscript in a very committed way. She came into the frame quite recently with valuable advice. What a gift it was that our Friends from Abroad colleague Tricia Pichotta was on hand to assist with proof reading.
It would give me great satisfaction if the Church universal could start attempting to settle the debt which has been incurred and which is still being accumulated through lack of understanding and a general dearth of love for Muslims. (During Love your Muslim Neighbour training courses and at other occasions we endeavoured to teach I Sincerely Love All Muslims as an acronym for ISLAM.)
I sincerely believe that the repaying of our debt must go via the cross of Calvary! A spontaneous reaction out of guilt - without any remorse - is not good enough. Genuine restitution can only take place when we recognize how the Church has been taken on tow by unbiblical reforms and well-meant but arrogant notions like ‘civilizing heathen nations’. (Quite often the latter concept was tantamount to cultural imperialism, exporting a lot of cultural baggage which obstructed the free flow of the Gospel, not mentioning negative by-products like extra-marital fathering of children and land grabbing).
That the material offered here has a leaning towards highlighting our Christian guilt towards Islam, has its reason in the fact that this is where I started my serious study of the three Abrahamic religions over eighteen years ago, after I had been challenged by the indepth knowledge of Cape Muslims. Although I endeavoured to minimise repetition, this is inevitable for the sake of clarity at a few places.
My wife and I have a love for the Jews which goes back many years, I only seriously started looking into Judaism as such when I began researching the biblical personalities common to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Talmud and the Qur’an. I discovered that there is even more guilt of the Church involved with regard to the Jews. First and foremost, there is the unbiblical claim that the Church is the 'new Israel'. Commentaries and sermons are still very much characterised by spiritualizing all promises to Israel and high-jacking them for the Church. Not to the same extent, but perhaps still insinuated, the curses are apportioned to Israel simultaneously. This is completely unacceptable – a part of our collective guilt and 'unpaid debt'.
Traditionally we have been speaking as Christians much too glibly about the ‘Old Testament’! All too often we did this haughtily and derogatorily, in spite of the admonition of Paul that we are merely grafted into the real olive tree, Israel. We seem to forget that the Bible is a unit, where both parts are equal in value. The entire ‘OT’ looks forward to the ‘NT’ and find in it its fulfilment. The people of God under the old Covenant were much more a part of what God has been doing through history than we are. They and we - followers of Jesus - are basically one elect people of God. I endeavour to avoid the term ‘Old Testament’ because of the unfortunate connotations, i.e. as if the ‘New Testament’ more or less replaced it. In this work I attempt to refer consistently to the Hebrew Scriptures instead. For lack of a better term (Certain Jewish scholars sometimes refer to the ‘NT’ as Christian Scriptures, but that terminology does not sound to me accurate enough), I endeavour to use ‘New Testament’ consistently, i.e. with inverted commas. We may be thankful that the Church at large has in recent years come to recognise the error of Supercessionism, but the ambivalence of dual covenantism and its corollary - a haughty view of Jews and Judaism - has not been clearly discerned. All Scriptural and Qur'anic verses are printed in italics.
I am very aware of the fact that it is rather simplistic to identify myself with the Church down the centuries. I take that on board, knowing that Nehemiah and Daniel confessed on behalf of the nation of Israel. (That Moses was prepared to be blotted out when he saw the golden calf idolatry, would be on another page). I firmly believe that there is a definite need for a confession of these wrongs on behalf of Christians.
Along with other evangelical Christians, I often highlight the difference between the Body of Christ and the institutional Church. In the context of this book however, that is in my view tantamount to unfruitful semantics.
It appears that confession for the reasons behind the expansion of Islam globally and nationally has hitherto hardly been addressed. A promising start was made with the reconciliation walk in the Middle East in commemoration of the start of the first crusade 900 years ago in 1996, but it was not followed up. Two 20th century precedents had been the Barmen Declaration in 1934, along with the Stuttgart Confession of guilt in 1945 in respect of the silence of the Church at the treatment of Jews during the Nazi regime and the Holocaust. It would be wonderful if the present material could facilitate a process which could lead to a broad confession by the Church universal so that the air can be cleared, so that present-day issues like those of the Middle East can be addressed without any smoke screens.
The venue of Lausanne III, the Cape Town International Convention Centre, being equidistant to the suburbs Sea Point and Bo-Kaap, that are respectively major strongholds of Judaism and Islam in the country, was a nudge to attempt printing Part 1 of The Spiritual Parents of Islam. The complete manuscript is accessible at www. isaacandishmael.blogspot.com. For more bibliographical details of my own research and quotes, I refer the reader to the internet blog.
I am nevertheless quite aware that the highlighting of inconvenient truths is apt to cause much discomfort, perhaps even shock, trauma and pain to some readers. While I finalised the present booklet I was reminded how I saw a ministry of reconciliation as my special duty to the country of my birth in 1978/9. Attempting to publish an Afrikaans book with the title ‘Honger na Geregtigheid’ (Hunger after Righteousness), I wanted to win the government of the day over, rather than expose their practices abroad. Yet, a friend in Holland had to point out to me that the manuscript was too critical, not loving enough and an overdose of medicine to a sick society. He missed compassion in it. Also with this in mind, we print only a small number of copies as a trial-run and an invitation to readers for comment and possible correction.
I have full understanding if some adherents from the three Abrahamic religions could find it difficult to digest the assertion that satan6 has been hard at work to rob millions around the world of the liberation which Jesus had won through his Cross and Resurrection. May I encourage those of you who feel this way, to wrestle on towards an eschatological (end-time) hope that will be broadly discovered, as well as looking forward to the return of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords! Therefore, there cannot be any room for an arrogant and triumphalist attitude. My intention is definitely not to lash out at (some) denomination(s), at the Muslims or at the Jews, but rather to help create an atmosphere of humble compassion towards other religious groups. At the same time, I do hope to stimulate a climate in which true reconciliation can flourish. I close this introduction with the ancient dictum of the Unitas Fratrum, the Unity of the Brethren, where I have my own spiritual roots: The Lamb has conquered, let us follow Him.

Ashley D.I. Cloete

Cape Town, October 2010






PART 1.

1. Historical Development of Spiritual Dynamics in the Abrahamic religions

The biblical depiction of the creation story in the book of Genesis is basic to all three Abrahamic religions - in chronological order Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Almighty is seen as a communicating entity, who created by speaking words that brought forth order and life. God spoke to Adam and Eve, as well as to Noah and Abraham. The ineffable Holy One revealed himself to Moses from the burning bush. On Mount Horeb/Mount Sinai, Moses received Divine instructions to be passed on to the Israelites, the apple of God's eye (Zechariah 2:8). This tiny nation was to exemplify His dealings with mankind as a God of love, who wants people everywhere to live in obedience to His commandments.
A golden thread going throughout the Bible is that God loves the world and that He chose a small people group, the Jewish nation, to bring salvation to the whole world. From this nation, one person - the Messiah – would bring millions from all tribes, peoples and nations in voluntary faith back to the Creator, the Father and supreme ruler of the universe. God was active in pursuit of this goal, revealing Himself and working through prophets and kings, also outside of the Jewish line.
The logical supplement of the speaking God at Creation is the breathing God. The breath proceeds from the same mouth. In the ancient cultures breath and spirit become almost synonymous terms. In some Semitic languages like Arabic and Hebrew, the same word ruch/ruach, is used for breath and for spirit. Islam emphasises that aspect in the creation of man, where God merely said ‘Be’ to bring Adam into being (Surah al-Imran 3:59).
The Scriptures of all three Abrahamic religions take God, the ultimate good, as its point of departure. They also take for granted the opposition of evil forces. Simplistically, Judaism and Christianity portray satan as a fallen angel who took many rebellious beings with him, called demons. He is also called Iblis in Islam, which is derived from the Greek word ‘diabolos’, just like the English word ‘devil’. A subtle difference is highlighted by Paul, the great missionary apostle, when he noted that satan can disguise himself slyly as a pious angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14).

Abraham as a Friend of God
All three faiths see Abraham as a friend of God. What qualified him for such an honour? Abraham received this description because it speaks of a living and personal relationship. He communicated with the invisible God, which was very radical for his time. Because of his faith and trust in the unseen Almighty, Abraham was led out of his home area Ur in Chaldea. By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going (Hebrews 11:8). Through the ages he has become the example for men and women to set out into the unknown, trusting God to lead and guide them. God promised Abraham in a special covenant innumerable descendants like the stars in the sky.

Moses Meets the Great I Am
The Divine commission to Moses opens with the glorious vision of the Angel of the Lord at the burning bush. Ultimately, this is a picture of the incarnation – God present in visible form. When Moses asked His name he replied Yahweh – 'I AM that I AM (Ex. 3:13). Say unto the people of Israel, I AM has sent me unto you’ (Exodus 3:14).
Centuries later, Jesus echoed these words by saying: 'I AM the Bread of Life' (John 6:35,48); 'I AM the Light of the World' (John 8:12); 'I AM the Door' (John 10:9); 'I AM the Good Shepherd' (John 10:14); 'I AM the Resurrection and the Life' (John 11:25); 'I AM the Way the Truth and the Life' (John 14:6).
Surprisingly, Moses did not jump at the chance of showing his mettle after the invitation to lead God’s people out of Egyptian bondage and agony. Such behaviour would have been typical of the old Moses. He was by this time moulded into a humble servant, although he was going overboard, looking for all sorts of excuses as he was not so keen at all to go and lead the Israelites out of Egypt - out of bondage.
Moses actually angered God by his unbelief and reluctance to carry out the appointed task. Of course, he wanted his people freed, but could not God choose someone else? He appears to have also displayed stubborn disobedience by not circumcising his son. This seems to have been the last straw. Shed blood was necessary to save him from God’s wrath. In Exodus 4:24f we read how his wife Zipporah was used as a catalyst for God’s mercy, springing into action and interceding for Moses' disobedience when she touched his feet with a flint knife that had been used for circumcision. She called him a “bridegroom of blood” (Exodus 4:24f). This evidently appeased the Divine anger as Moses was further humbled.

Moses as an obedient Friend of God
We sometimes tend to overlook the fact that Moses definitely qualified to be described as an obedient friend of God. We read in Exodus 33:11, “The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.” This is a position he grew into after his initial denial of the role as leader and commander of the nation of Israel. The special relationship is also seen in Moses’ words to the Almighty. Thus we read about Moses saying “If you are pleased with me, teach me your ways so I may know you and continue to find favour with you.’ God responded with: “My presence will go with you...” Over fifty times it is recorded of Moses: ‘As the Lord commanded Moses, so did he do.” The result was that it could be written about Moses of his continued obedience as a leader in humility: “Now Moses was a humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3).

Leading God’s People out of Bondage
Quite a few verses of the Qur’an refer to the confrontations between Moses and Pharaoh that preceded Israel’s flight from Egypt. All the more surprising is that the Qur’anic report refers to the tenth plague only vaguely and omits the Passover completely. The Islamic sacred book does refer in Surah Al-Isrā (The Night Journey) 17:101 to nine 'signs', the plagues: 'And We had certainly given Moses nine evident signs,...' Some of the nine plagues are enumerated in Surah Al-A`rāf (The Heights) 7:133 'So We sent upon them the flood and locusts and lice and frogs and blood as distinct signs, but they were arrogant and were a criminal people' (Pickthal translation). Yusuf Ali translates one of the plagues as 'Wholesale death' and then explains in the footnote to Surah Al-A`rāf (The Heights) 7:133 that it could refer to the last plague. With some imagination we derive that the great sign of Surah An-Nazi at 79:20f as the tenth plague: “Then [Musa (Moses)] showed him the great sign. But Pharaoh denied and disobeyed.” The Bible describes this plague as the death of the first-born in all those houses where the blood of an unblemished lamb was not applied to the door posts. To prevent the tenth plague, there had to be the blood of the slaughtered lambs on the door posts. This was the signal for the Angel of Death to pass over that household. Down through the ages Christians saw this as a pointer to the sacrifical blood of Jesus atoning for our sins.
The meal that had to be enjoyed in all haste, prior to the Israelites' departure from Egypt, became the watershed event, the decisive moment of Jewish history. At the annual celebration of the Passover, what is called the Seder meal, this became the prime liturgical moment in practically every Jewish home. The Passover event was to take place in the first month of the year (Exodus 12:2). This signified a new life, a new start, prefiguring the Christian becoming born again through the redeeming blood of Christ, ‘a lamb without blemish or spot’ (1 Peter 1:19).
In this confrontation with Moses, Pharaoh is the allegorical image of the enemy of souls. Satan is always ready to oppose the Almighty and all who believe in Him. Egypt represents bondage in sin and Moses is God’s appointed deliverer, chosen to lead His people from bondage and slavery.

The Unity of God
Judaism and Islam hold to a rigid monotheistic view of God which denies that He can be divided. The ‘Shema’, the Jewish creed-like prayer of Deuteronomy 6:4, ‘Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord’ is the foundation of Judaism and is interpreted to signify an indivisible unity of God. This rules out the possibility of Jesus being God incarnate, God becoming flesh. Tahwid, the Islamic confession of the unity of God, is clearly derived from this Jewish root.
The Hebrew word for one in the ‘Shema’ is ‘echad’. Elsewhere in the Bible, this refers to a plural unity: Thus Genesis 2:24 refers to a man and a woman becoming one flesh, ‘basar echad’ in marriage. They remain two people but become one through the marriage relationship. There is another Hebrew word ‘yachid’ which describes an indivisible unity, one who is unique.
One of the five pillars of Islam is the Shahada, the confession that there is no other God than God, and Muhammad is his prophet. Christians (and Jews) should have no problem with the first part of the Islamic creed. This is only another way of saying ‘Where is a God other than the Lord and where is a rock other than God’ (Psalm 18:32 = II Samuel 22:32 or 1 Corinthians 8:4b ‘there is no God other than one.’ Christians should bear in mind that it is basically the zeal of Muslims for God that provokes them to denounce as blasphemy any honour paid to Christ which makes him to be more than man. Muhammad even started out his ministry defying all forms of pagan idolatry. Fueling this was the fact that the West Syrian monophysites, of which many later fled out of Mecca, so stressed the divinity of Christ, that nothing was left of his humanity. At the same time, the Nestorians separated the two natures - the Divine and the human - so drastically that Christ became a sort of a temple in which God lived temporarily. Qur’an sentences like ‘In blasphemy indeed are those that say that God is Christ...’ (Sura al-Maida 5:19 and repeated in 5:175) and ‘Christ Jesus...was (no more than) an apostle of God’ (from Sura Nisaa (Women) 4:171) should be understood against this background.

Idolatry in the Middle East
A less known saga unfolds when one examines how Divine wrath was unleashed in response to the continued idolatry of the descendants of Abraham. The generational line via Isaac and Jacob had been intended to be a blessing to the whole earth. However, the idolatrous practices of the foreign lands influenced the Israelites again and again, incurring the wrath of God.
In the tribal ancient cultures of the Middle East, each tribe worshipped its own protective deities, which were taken to possess powers far beyond those of human beings. These gods were plural and gendered, often ‘fighting’ as rivals with human character flaws. The gods of the Middle East were believed to prefer heights. In due course they were given lodgings ‘and their dwellings or places of sojourn required ornamentation commensurate with their dignity and their worshipers’ ability to contribute... And in some cases, the gods demanded the most heartfelt of sacrifices: human blood’(Gitlitz and Davidson, 2006:10). Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures the message of the atoning blood sacrifice comes through. In Hebrews 9:22 we read: 'there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.'
When everybody in the Middle East was still worshipping idols, Abraham was called to serve an unknown, intangible deity. He received promises of descendants, but he still basically practised what was known to him. When he visited the Canaanite sanctuary at Shechem, he erected there an altar (a stele), to his God (Genesis 12:6f). Jacob, returning from Mesopotamia, also erected an altar there (Genesis 33:18-20). However, Jacob set a new standard of faith by symbolically turning his back on polytheismn and burying their idols under the terebinths of Shechem (Genesis 35:4).
Centuries later, Muhammad removed 360 idols from the Ka'ba. Unfortunately, he left the Black Stone intact. Simultaneously he however incorporated the bulk of the contemporary pagan practices around the pilgrimage into the Islamic belief system.

Origins of the Samaritans
In its primal form all three Abrahamic religions recognize that God hates idolatry more than anything else.
Divine over-ruling had to save the nation of Israel again and again. However, the Israelites repeatedly lapsed into all sorts of idolatry. As punishment, the Almighty finally allowed Israel’s enemy - in the form of the Assyrian king - to rout the apple of his eye (Cf. Zechariah 2:8).7 Ten of the tribes were dispersed, many of them taken to Babylon, the capital of the Assyrian Empire. Other groups of people were brought to the region of Samaria. Some of them were also brought from Babylon and Cutha ... and placed in the cities of Samaria (2 Kings 17:24). The new non-Jewish inhabitants to the region who had been brought from elsewhere came to be known as Samaritans. They were taught to worship the Almighty. The Jews, however, who were supposed to be an example to the Samaritans to not persist in idolatry, actually rejected the intruders, hypocritically accusing them of idol worship as they themselves continued worshipping their own idols.
Back in Israel, the remaining two southern tribes persisted in their disobedience to God, despite the warnings of various prophets, until the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem and routed these two tribes.

The Samaritans as the Forerunners of the Muslims
The Samaritans can be regarded as the forerunners of the Muslims in the Bible. Not only did they hold Joseph’s grave in very high esteem, but Moses was also specially venerated. Next to Ebrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses) is very highly revered in Islam.
Justin Martyr, a second century Christian apologist, had Samaritan ancestry. Few would regard him as heretical, but his arrogance haughty and attitude towards Judaism provided the seeds of anti-Semitism which eventually escalated into the gradual side-lining of Jews by Gentile Christians as they increased numerically.8 As a Platonist who had successively accepted Stoicism, Aristotle and Pythagoras, Justin Martyr had high regard for the Hebrew prophets, referring to them as ‘men more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers’ (Cited in Walker, 1976:46). However, Justin Martyr taught that the Greek philosophers and the ‘barbarians’ such as Abraham, all who at any time ‘obeyed the same guidance, were really Christians’ (Walker, 1976:47). A few centuries later, Muslims would use a similar argument, viz. because Adam and Abraham were 'submitters', they were called Muslims.9
Justin Martyr described Christianity not only as a philosophy which alone was safe and profitable, but also as ‘the oldest, truest and most divine of philosophies.’ (In Islamic belief there is similar progression, starting with the Tawrah (Law) of Moses and rising through to the final Holy Writ, the Qur'an, which was revealed to the final and most exalted Prophet Muhammad. Intermediaries of lesser authority were the Zabur (Psalms) of David and the Injil (Gospel) of Nabi Isa (Prophet Jesus).
This was the sort of germ (words deleted) which seemed to have infected highly respected Church Fathers like Irenæus of Lyon (born ca. 115 – 202CE) and Tertullian (born ca. 150 CE- ca. 220 -225 CE),10 to see the (not yet Roman) Catholic Church as the sole dispenser of salvation through baptismal regeneration. Justin Martyr, the Samaritan, misled the Church into an elite arrogance, in which they would look down condescendingly upon Jews. He thus became a forerunner of Waraqah, an Arabic Christian leader who was later to mislead Muhammad.
The teaching of Paul to the church in Rome, namely that it behoves the Gentile Christians to be humble because they, the wild olive branches, have only been grafted into the olive tree Israel, may not have been known to Waraqah. Justin Martyr's Samaritan background most probably included a very common resentment towards Jews. This could also have played some role in this deception.

The Ebionite Connection
Ebionites were originally a group of first century Jews who held views which are almost identical with Islam. Some of these Ebionites were followers of Jesus. Muhammad was influenced extensively by Waraqah ibn Naufal, the cousin of his first wife Khadiyah, who was reported to have been a bishop of the Ebionite Christian community in the Hijaz. (This is the part of the Arabian Peninsula in which Mecca and Medina are situated. This would fit to the history that Jewish Ebionites settled not only East of the Jordan, but also in other parts, for example in Syria. (Muhammad travelled all over the region with his uncle Abu
Talib as a boy.) Waraqah ibn Naufal himself possibly only knew the Ebionite doctrines of his church and was possibly ignorant of a personal relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. In fact, one group of Ebionites stated clearly that faith in Christ alone was not good enough to achieve salvation, that man also had to adhere to the prescripts of the Torah. Abu-al-Moosa, a Lebanese theologian of the Maronite Church, wrote a treatise Between Prophet and Priest (Diar al-akl, 1985). In that book the author describes how Waraqah taught Muhammad. In recent years Rüdiger Braun, a German scholar, highlighted the Ebionite connection in his thesis Mohammed und die Christen im Zeitbild zeitgenoessischer christlicher und muslimischen .11

Denial of Jesus’ death on the Cross
Common Islamic interpretation of Surah 4:157 does not accept Jesus’ death on the cross. Orthodox Islam teaches that Jesus did not really die on the cross but that it only appeared like that to those who were present.
The doctrinal tenet of ‘mere appearance’ called Docetism, was especially taught by the Gnostic Basilides around 150 CE. He maintained that Simon of Cyrene consented to be crucified in Jesus’ stead. According to Basilides, God cast upon him the likeness of Christ. The belief that Judas or Simon of Cyrene died in Jesus' place thus actually started within the confines of the Church.
In another strand, Muhammad was reported to have received the above-mentioned Docetic teaching from Bahira, a Nestorian monk of Syria. In the spurious, fraudulent post-Qur’anic ‘Gospel of Barnabas’, written by Fra Marino, an Italian monk in the 16th century, Judas was transformed into the likeness of Jesus and then crucified.

Prophetic Continuity
The notion of prophetic continuity is also an important idea adopted from Judaism by Muhammad. He believed that a prophetic line had begun with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses, which continued in a steady succession of prophets sent to various peoples including the Arabic tribes. All of these holy men spoke of the same faith and belonged to a long-established code of behaviour. Muhammad’s claims to belong to this line, enabled him to proclaim himself a prophet. After initially gravely doubting the supernatural message of the figure purported to be the angel Gabriel, and fearing that he was demon-possessed, Muhammad started believing the nudges of his first wife Khadiyah that he was a special prophet and warner to the Arabs. The idea of Moses as the ‘Prophet with a Book’ impressed Muhammad to such an extent that he felt a necessity to produce a holy book of his own. This can clearly be seen in Surah Ahqaf (Winding Sand-tracts) 46:12, where it is stated that 'Before this book there was Moses’ book as a guide... and this book confirms it in the Arabic language.' In the same chapter (v.30) the Qur’an says 'We have heard of a book which came down from heaven after Moses to confirm its predecessor.'
Islam sees in Muhammad - one of various charismatic personalities that thought they were a prophet like Moses - in this tradition. Simon Magus, the biblical opposite of Peter in Acts, saw himself as the prophet, like Moses, that was foretold of in Deuteronomy 18:18. (According to oral tradition Simon Magus stems from Samaritan descent.)

2. Obedience as a Golden Thread in the Abrahamic Religions

Obedience to God the golden thread running through the Hebrew Scriptures. The Almighty thrives on having a living relationship with his creation, especially with human beings who are made in his image. They are seen in the Scriptures as the pinnacle of His creation, crowned with glory and majesty, to rule over the works of the Divine hands (Psalm 8:5, 6).
It is good to keep in mind that the word is the basis of communication. God created Eve as a helper, as one with whom Adam could communicate, one who could talk back in a pleasant way. There is however already the conception of deceit: satan enters the scene by distorting the words of the Divine instruction, sowing doubt: “did God really say...” (Genesis 3:1). Ever since the 'Fall' in the Garden of Eden man has had difficulty between His Word and that of the arch enemy. Obedience would be the hallmark of a true believer; the vehicle towards a close relationship.
The book of Genesis shows us the utter failure of man. Adam failed and now God gave the human race a new start through his servant Noah. The Divine assessment of Noah’s character is summed up in Scripture with one sentence: “Noah found favour in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8) because of his righteous living among wicked compatriots. Almost as a refrain we read about Noah's complete obedience: ‘Noah did everything just as God commanded him’ (Genesis 6:22; 7:5; 7:9; 7:16).
God's ultimate reply to this was what Paul, the apostle, called redemption. What the arch enemy has stolen – sweet intimate communion with the Almighty - had to be redeemed. To do this, God became flesh, coming to earth in the form of the new man, Jesus Christ, who reconciled the world with himself (2 Corinthians 5:20). To achieve this, Jesus shed his precious blood to deliver mankind from the bondage of sin.

Radical Obedience
Noah and Abraham pointed to Jesus through their radical obedience. Oral tradition - confirmed by the biblical report - notes that a characteristic of Noah was his total obedience. Noah’s obedience was combined with his trust in God, although we do not read about a special relationship between him and the Almighty. Noah, nevertheless, became an example to all of us to put our complete trust in God. He simultaneously challenges us towards complete obedience to the divinely revealed will. Noah’s obedience culminated in his entering the Ark with his family only upon God’s Word.
The radical obedience of Abraham, expressed in his willingness to sacrifice his son, sounds so awe-inspiring. This encounter confirms Judaism’s rejection of the Middle Eastern traditions of human sacrifice to appease a deity. Yet, if ever there was an individual who had to learn obedience through suffering, it was Abraham. Through his mistakes Abraham had to learn that it pays to be completely obedient. Abraham was conceivably struggling along to Mount Moriah, wrestling with the command from God to sacrifice his son in a pagan custom.
Abraham’s supreme gift of faithful obedience elicited the repetition of Judaism’s fundamental covenant: ‘Because you have done this... I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven.' (Genesis 22:16-18, Gitlitz and Davidson, 2006:12f).
Abraham was a type of the Father who gave his Son Jesus as an Atonement for our sins. He thus became a pointer to Jesus, and an encouragement to every believer. The author of the letter to the Hebrews highlights that during the days of Jesus’ life on earth: 'He offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him’ (Hebrews 5:8f).

Moses was no Robot
If we understand obedience as a golden thread in Scripture, it becomes very significant how the life of Moses is summarized in the epistle to the Hebrews. Moses preferred to be a Hebrew and suffer with his people, in stead of remaining known as the son of an Egyptian princess. It is described in Hebrews 12:7 as follows: “He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead for his reward.” Moses was destined to lead the Israelites through the desert - a nation that excelled in rebelliousness. He discerned that the rebellious obstinacy of the Israelites was the cause of God’s anger. He himself had almost become the victim of God’s wrath when he was rebellious, coming up with all sorts of excuses why he shouldn’t be the one to lead the Israelites out of Egypt.
The replies of Moses in his interactions with the Almighty show that he was no robot. A friend of God can also voice negative feelings and opinions. Cataclysmic anger arose in Moses to such an extent that he was even prepared to be blotted out of God's book of life after he had seen the golden calf idolatry (Exodus 32:32). The encounter on Mount Sinai became the beginning of visible evidence of someone who had been in the holy presence of the Almighty. Moses' face was shining so much that his rebellious compatriots could not even face him. Hereafter, he covered his face with a veil every time he came from the Tabernacle (Exodus 34:34).
God shows loving understanding when Moses raved in bitter disappointment and frustration: “What have I done to displease you that you put the burden of these people on me? ... I cannot carry all these people by myself; the burden is too heavy for me” (Numbers 11:11,14-15). In a sovereign display of Divine understanding, God encouraged Moses, by instructing him to appoint seventy leaders and officials to assist him.

Obedient Submission
The obedient submission to God is a tenet that is well known in rabbinical Judaism. The Talmud reports how Abraham referred to Isaac as the substitution for the lamb. On the way to the Akedah – the sacrifice – satan is said to have attempted unsuccessfully to dissuade Isaac from obeying his father. When he failed to do this, the deceiver tried his best to impede their journey. According to oral Jewish tradition, Isaac cooperated fully in the proposed sacrifice, even begging his father to bind him tightly so that he would not struggle and render the sacrifice invalid. According to Talmudic tradition the obedient son replied: “To the will of the living God in thankfulness I bow.”
The Qur'an honours Abraham as one of the greatest Messengers of Allâh. Christians are said to be “those who share the faith of Abraham for he is the father of us all” (Romans 4:16). In a similar vein the Qur'an refers to 'the faith of our father Abraham' Surah Hajj 22:78). He is a true musliman, submitter (Surah Nahl 16:120). The issue of faith does not break through in Surah Al-Saffat (The Ranks) 37, i.e. to where the Korban, the obedient sacrifice of his son, is alluded. Isaac is mentioned in this context. However, in Islamic oral tradition the person sacrificed was said to have been Ishmael. Interestingly, apart from inclusion in the Qur'an of Ishmael in lists of prophets (Surah al-Anam 6;86, Surah Al-Anbya 21:85), the only reference to him by name is found in Surah Baqara (Cow) 2: 125, 127. There he was reported to have obediently assisted his father in the building of an edifice, taken to be the Ka'ba. (In oral tradition Isaac was said to have assisted Abraham to put together the stones for the altar on which he was to be sacrificed.) Jewish legend has an interesting contribution when David and his son Solomon are said to have been destined to build a temple on earth that would be the mirror image of the one in heaven. It was furthermore to be built above an ancient stone, which God had set into the earth at the time of creation. The obvious parallel is the Ka’ba, which was said to have been (re)built by Abraham and his son Ishmael around the Black Stone. As the German theologian Julius Wellhausen has pointed out, the Ka’ba thus became an idol itself, an enlarged sacred stone (Wellhausen, 1961:74). On the other hand, the line of prophethood and revelation (scripture) would follow through Isaac's line (Surah Ankabut (Spider) 29:27): “And We bestowed on him [Ibrahim (Abraham)], Ishaque (Isaac) and Ya'qub (Jacob), and ordained among his offspring Prophethood and the Book [i.e. the Taurat (Torah) (to Musa - Moses), the Injeel (Gospel) (to 'Iesa - Jesus), the Quran (to Muhammad SAW), all from the offspring of Ibrahim (Abraham)]...”
Just like Isaac, the Lord Jesus would willingly lay down his life. One almost hears the echo centuries later in the Garden of Gethsemane after Jesus had been agonising over the task that lay ahead, when he was required to empty the cup. It must have ‘contained’ something against which his whole being rebelled. It has been suggested that it could have been the sins of the world against which the sinless Son of God came in fierce opposition. The victory is achieved after the Son had learned obedience through his suffering (Hebrews 5:8): ‘Not my will, but thy will be done’ (Mark 14:36). The events leading to the crucifixion and the Cross of Calvary itself echo Abraham and Isaac’s obedient submission in every respect, culminating in Jesus saying: ‘Father, in Thy hands I commit my spirit’ (Luke 23:46).
God, who provided the ram on Mount Moriah, also gave the Lamb on Calvary, his only Son. The ram prefigured the slain lamb of the Passover that saved the Israelites in the hour of judgement. The Lord Jesus became the perfect Lamb, slain for the sin of mankind. As a result, now whosoever believes in Him as Saviour, receives everlasting life. Paul recorded the significance of this fact in the following words: ‘For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified’ (1 Corinthians 2:2).
Other types of Christ with regard to obedience occurred in the wanderings of the Israelites through the desert. They were linked to Divine provision, e.g. the cloud pillar by day and the fire hovering over the Tabernacle by night. The latter prefigured in a special way that which Jesus said: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). Closely connected to the cloud pillar was the sound of the silver trumpets. They were used as a signal for the journeying of the congregation. The believer needs to listen to the voice of the Lord. “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27).

The Challenge of Obedience
Repeatedly the Israelites were challenged either to obey or not, to go either for the blessing or for the curse. In Deuteronomy 28:13f we read, for instance, what will happen if Israel is obedient. ‘And the Lord will make you the head and not the tail... if you heed the commands of the Lord your God.’ They could choose between death and life. A very significant instance of this choice for life was when Moses was required to put a brass serpent on a pole after poisonous snakes had bitten many of the Israelites (Numbers 21:4ff). This was God’s punishment after they had rebelled, displaying grave ingratitude at His provision for them. This is quite significant that Moses was required to make a bronze serpent. God actually prohibited the making of any graven image or likeness of any living creature (Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 5:8). Whosoever was bitten by a snake received healing if he/she looked obediently to the bronze snake on the pole. Strikingly, Jesus pointed to this example in the context of explaining to Rabbi Nicodemus when he came to our Lord at night. The Master stressed on that occasion that one has to be born again to enter into heaven. Nicodemus, the serious seeker after truth, was puzzled. He had been trying to comprehend spiritual truths with his natural understanding. Jesus more or less pointed him to Calvary.
In the desert the Israelites received more than healing, they received new life. Jesus prophesied that he would be “lifted up” just like Moses did with the serpent during the desert wanderings after they had left Egypt (John 3:14). In the book of Genesis, it is described how satan originally came in the image of a serpent to deceive Adam and Eve. The message is clear in the context of John 3:16. The brass serpent served for the temporary healing of the Israelites who had been bitten. Jesus was to be lifted up so that all who believed in him might have eternal life. Whosoever believes in faith in Jesus as God’s healing instrument, the ‘New Testament’ “serpent” on the Cross, will be healed from being bitten by satan - the “snake” - the ultimate deceiver who is the liar from the beginning (John 8:44).
Apart from Paul, at least one other respected rabbinical scholar – Nicodemus, likewise a Pharisee - might have contemplated further about the incarnation of the Son of Man, how Jesus became flesh. When the Master spoke about the Son of Man coming from heaven (John 3:13), Nicodemus appears still to have been quite puzzled initially. Perhaps he discerned later how Moses pre-figured Christ in this regard. Paul, a Hellenistic Jew, wrote in Philippians 2:7 that Jesus - in obedience - took upon himself the form of a slave, not regarding that as robbery to have left the heavenly glory.

‘OT’ Examples of Disobedience
In the creation story, the disobedience to the Divine instruction was the cause of the havoc. God granted authority and dominion to man to rule over the earth. God linked obedience to this Divine command. He permitted Adam and Eve to obey or not. Disobedience would lead to slavery of Adam and Eve to satan. Genesis 3:1 tells us that “the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field,” while Genesis 3:12 records Adam’s words to God, “I heard your voice in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked and I hid myself.” There is an interesting play on words in the Hebrew text.12 In vs.1 the word translated “cunning” is the Hebrew word arum while in vs.12 the word translated as “naked” is the Hebrew word erom. Both are from the identical root (the letters ayin, resh, mem). The devil was arum, Adam was erom. Our ancestors sought to become like God, but their disobedience caused them to become like the devil!
Disruption of the unity between man and God, discord between Adam and Eve and strife between man and nature (Genesis 3:15) were the results of man’s first act of disobedience. The basic enmity though is between the seed of the snake and the seed of man. Interesting is the Divine intervention, the provision of skins, which was of course preceded by the slaughtering of an animal and the shedding of blood. This pattern can be found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. This is how the Almighty overruled the disobedience and wrong compromises of sinful human beings. The ultimate sacrifice was the one of his Son, the Lamb of God, which made all other sacrifices redundant.
There are quite a few biblical examples of disobedient persons who toyed with sin, who were unrepentant or not submissive. The tragic case of King Saul comes to mind perhaps almost immediately. He tried to camouflage his disobedience and impatience with an offering. Instead of remorse, he displayed an attitude of entitlement. He continued offering excuses for why he violated the Lord’s instructions after he basically was only interested in setting up a monument in his own honour (1 Samuel 15:12, 24). That presumption and arrogance can be the cause for God not to listen to our prayers, is illustrated in Deuteronomy 1:41-45 “the Lord...paid no attention to your weeping and turned a deaf ear to you”.

Costly Examples of Compromise
Obedience is honoured by God, but compromise is seen as disobedience, as sin which incurs the wrath and punishment of the Almighty. The Hebrew Scriptures contain examples of personalities who caused problems for themselves merely because they could not wait. The most classic one is probably Abraham and Sarah. They settled for a compromise that resulted in the birth of Ishmael. This spawned the age-old rivalry between the off-spring of the two famous sons of Abraham - Ishmael and Isaac. In the case of King Saul, his impatient disobedience even cost him the loss of his kingship (1 Samuel 13:13). The prophet Jonah received another chance to carry out God's commands after his initial disobedience had led him to the three days in the belly of a big fish.
One cannot try to please God through a sacrifice as a compromise. Even sacrifice is rejected by God when it is mixed with sinful behaviour and not accompanied by remorse and repentance. Animal sacrifice and all ancestor worship are regarded as watering down the Word of God, whereas the appropriate reaction should be to respect God’s Word (Isaiah 66:2,3). Jesus actually had to tell the Pharisees to their faces that they nullify the power of the Word through their traditions (Mark 7:13). They get people to obey them in the overdrawn and meticulous observance of rules and regulations like the ritual washing of hands, and then make these disciples just as legalist. A similar trend can be discerned in Catholicism, Judaism and Islam. Later generations came up with ridiculous requirements and interpretations. Thus it is almost impossible for a devout Muslim to enter paradise (apart from the jihad guarantee), even if he or she wanted to 'earn' paradise through good deeds and meticulous heeding all religious, legal and ritual requirements. Islamic prayer is not only null and void if it is not preceded by abdas, the ritual ablution. But it was also decreed by later addition to be a worthless exercise if the qiblah, the prescribed prayer direction towards Mecca, deviates even by a single degree.
It has been suggested that Abraham delayed God’s dealings with him when he took his father Terah with him from Ur – the first of many compromises he made in relation ot the Almighty. For as many as fifteen years there were no further commands, no additional promises and no communication between Abraham and God. He definitely still had to learn to wait on the Lord before acting in panic, like going to Egypt when famine broke out. God deemed it necessary to intervene after Abraham had told the half truth that Sarai was his sister - she was his half-sister -once he got there. In stead of trusting God, he fear that his life would be taken for Sarai for her beauty was so desired among men. This had brought Abraham out of God’s will and actually delayed the fufillment of God's promise.
The habit of being untruthful proved very pervasive in his life. When Abraham perceived a threat from King Abimelech, he resorted to the same half truth, saying that Sarai was his sister. By this time he had received the Divine promise of offspring more than once. God’s mercy and grace came through. In this regard a tenet of the character of Yahweh of the Tenach13 and Allâh of Islam is almost identical - Allâh is also forgiving and merciful in the extreme, albeit that the punishing Allâh remained a predominant feature in Islam. The Qur'an furthermore stresses that Allâh does not have a son nor does he beget. (Both in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the ‘NT’ the Almighty is not only a Father figure with a Son, but also one who displays maternal qualities.)

The ‘NT’ Response
Adam put his trust in a source other than God and died as a result. This gave satan the ability to usurp rule over man and the earth. A Divine ‘predicament’ arose. If satan’s dominion was to be revoked, a way had to be found to redeem fallen man and recover his lost authority. Someone - a member of Adam’s race, a second Adam14 - had to be found who would qualify to recover the lost heritage. A unique solution ensued: ‘When the fullness of the time came, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law’ (Galatians 4:4). Where Adam failed through his disobedience, Jesus excelled in giving his all in obedience. As the Divine Son of God he had to be made sin for us. He was willing to take the cup, knowing full well what that entailed: Therefore he agonised, praying more than once: Father, if you will, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done. He ultimately forfeited the fellowship of the Father when He was made sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). Billheimer (1975:78) links this to the sacrificial system of ancient Israel, to the sin offering of the tabernacle and the temple: ‘He became the very essence of sin by dying as a sin offering.’ Islam retained the practice of the Korban, the sheep slaughtering, as a commemoration of Abraham's near sacrifice of his son.

Atonement via Repentance and Good Deeds
In Islam, repentance and good deeds - coupled with Allâh’s sovereign mercy and forgiveness, bring about a certain degree of recompense. Unfortunately, one can never be sure of Allâh’s full forgiveness. Islam does, however, possess the element of a ransom through the blood of a slaughtered animal with an atoning function. This is illustrated in the ritual of Korban when a washing movement across the face is performed. At the main Muslim celebration, Eid ul-Adha, animals – preferably sheep - are sacrificed to remind the participants of the sacrifice of Abraham. This comes very close to Hebrews 9:22, which states very pointedly: 'there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.' The proximity to the ‘NT’ is expressed by the practice of searching for a perfect animal for Korban. In 1 Peter 1:19 the apostle highlighted that the believer has been redeemed ‘with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ’. Ritual slaughter is indeed normal to the Muslim: And for every nation have We appointed a ritual, that they may mention the name of Allah over the beast of cattle that He hath given them for food; and your god is One God, therefor surrender unto Him. And give good tidings (O Muhammad) to the humble, (Surah Al-Hajj (THE PILGRIMAGE) 22:34, Pickthal translation).
Bible believing Christians see Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29, 36). The Bible (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:22) and the Qur’an (Surah Mariam 19:19) recognize that Jesus was the only person who never sinned. Judaism has a major problem accepting that a human sacrifice was needed as atonement to appease the wrath of God.

The Divine Moulding Process
Trials are prime Divine tools to strengthen the faith of the believer. Abraham grew in faith – more than being merely a submitter as Islamic parlance normally sees him. His faith had been tested again and again. Through trials and tribulations he learned obedience, enabling him to enter into a much deeper relationship with the Almighty in the process.
The examples of Moses, Joseph and David highlight how God used long periods of waiting to prepare them to be used optimally. David emphasises this in Psalm 66:10-12 “You tried us as silver is tried... you brought affliction upon our loins...” These verses of Psalm 66 highlight an interesting anomaly: God cannot be enveloped in a mould, but He uses affliction and suffering to mould us and teach us how to trust him. Whereas God brought the Israelites through the waters of the Red Sea and saved individuals like Lot from fire, 'destructive waters' and 'purifying fire' – trials and tribulations - were used to strengthen and mould David, much like Abraham and the other arch fathers before him. Every follower of the Lord is treated like silver in the crucible. In Malachi 3:2 the Almighty is compared to a goldsmith who purifies the precious metal from all impurities in the red-hot fire. God often uses affliction, disappointment and trials to mould us. The spiritual growth of Joseph in this regard underlines this principle. As an arrogant young man he became haughty because of the gift - the interpretation of dreams - that he had received. After he had landed in prison and using this gift once again in respect of the dreams of the butler and baker, he seemed to have learned the lesson well. When he was summoned to interpret the dreams of Pharaoh, he replied humbly: “I cannot do it by myself, but God will tell you what it means” (Genesis 41:16).
God had to reprimand Joseph and Moses, using imprisonment and exile respectively after they had acted in the flesh. Yet, His hand was on them, guiding and chastening them through their suffering. It is especially difficult to witness the suffering ofour loved ones. However, then, it is so wonderful when that which Bishop Retief (Tragedy to Triumph, 1994:59) calls ‘the Joseph principle’, comes into play: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:19-20). We detect the Divine hand - especially in view of the constant enmity between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael - when we note that both Joseph and Moses were rescued by Ishmaelites. The Midianite traders (Genesis 37:25, 28) who pulled Joseph out of the cistern, were called the descendants of Ishmael. Moses spent the years after his flight from Egypt in Midian. This was a time when these Ishmaelites seemed not to have been regarded as Israel’s enemies. Moses’ father-in-law Jethro was a Midianite priest with whom he co-operated, without major reservations or hassles. Jethro actually “was delighted to hear about all the good things the Lord had done for Israel in rescuing them from the hand of the Egyptians” (Exodus 19:9). Furthermore, Moses gladly accepted the advice of Jethro to delegate work, which had become too burdensome for him to accomplish alone (Exodus 19:24). The fact that the Midianites became enemies of Israel was apparently not because of their religious beliefs, but because of their idolatry. To their detriment, however, Israel was no better.

The Father Sometimes Gives us a Second Chance
How gracious of the Almighty that He gives us a second chance, yes sometimes even a third and a fourth one, to bring us back to His purposes for us. The biblical condition is remorse and repentance. In 1 John 1:9 we read: “If we confess ours sins, God is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
Jonah assumed that Nineveh would not listen to God's call for repentance. Christians too easily assume that certain people groups are resistant to the Gospel. Jonah had to learn that it was not only the city of Nineveh that had to repent. He himself and especially his attitude towards the Ninevites had to change. We, as Christians, might still be very surprised by the reaction of Muslims and Jews to the Gospel if our own attitude changes to one of love and compassion.
Thank God for the ‘great fish’ - the pits of despair and tribulation that bring us back to our senses, back to God. We should praise the Lord for the storms, the troubles that focus our faith and give us opportunity to share the Good News with those who might not be our first choice, but who are God’s challenge for us.

Obedience rather than Glamour
A common character trait of prominent individuals in the Bible is that they accept suffering rather than pursue glamour and fame when faced with challenges. At the start of his ministry Jesus chose not to be flattered by the adulation of his Nazareth community. In stead of basking in the praises and esteem of men at that occasion, he swam against the stream, risking his life in the process (Luke 4:14-30). It was touch and go or he would have been killed by the enraged synagogue congregation. When a multitude of Jewish worshippers wanted to forcefully make Jesus their worldly King (John 6:15), he refused this elevation. Instead, he left the multitude. In the same chapter it is recorded how he responded with a challenging word to the people. Thereafter, the crowd left him en masse (John 6:66).
When Peter merely suggested that Jesus should escape his innocent death, the Master had to rebuke him strongly, seeing no less than satan behind this idea (Mark 8:33; Matthew 16:23). By the time of the Gethsemane struggle, the Lord had already learned the lesson of obedience. For our sakes, he was required to empty the cup completely. Our Lord's voluntary taking of the cup in the Garden of Gethsemane would send Jesus, the sinless sacrifice, to the Cross.15 In the agonizing prayer of the Garden Gethsemane, during which his sweat were like blood drops (Luke 22:44), our Lord responded thrice with “not my will but your will be done…” (Mark 14:36). Jesus chose the road of suffering to be ultimately crowned with glory. His Kingdom is not of this world. The content of the cup took him from the presence of His Father, so much so that he ultimately used the word forsaken.
The line between acclamation and rejection can be very thin at times. Choosing absolute truth usually makes the difference. Compromise may save one from persecution or rejection.
The issue of obedience is highlighted in the Book of Deuteronomy. Repeatedly, the Israelites were told that the demand of obedience to the Law is for their good (e.g. Deuteronomy 6:24). Moreover, it is clear that their obedience can never be an effort to buy God’s favour, but rather it is required so that believers can enjoy His favour. They are not called to purchase their redemption by obedience, but expected to obey because they are a redeemed people (Hodgkin, 1979:37). The enemy of souls is a specialist in confusing matters. It is sad that Moses' heritage, the gift of the Torah, in due course lost its original purpose, namely as instructions and guidelines for living under the Almighty’s sovereign rule. Legalism and a petty playing with words came in its place. A whole range of legalist interpretations and traditions in Judaism reaped the combined effect of nullifying God’s laws. Samuel summarised beautifully what was at stake: “To obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Samuel 15:22).

Importance of Obedience
It seems that the centrality and importance of obedience in Scripture is not always appreciated in modern times. Somehow it appears that it is no longer recognized how the rebellion and disobedience of the Israelites - typified by continued or repeated idolatry - angered God seemingly more than anything else. It was rebellion and disobedience which disqualified Saul for kingship. The ‘Saul Syndrome’ as Floyd McClung typifies this in his book The Father Heart of God, has tragically been repeated in history again and again. Gifted people, who started off with the anointing of God, fell by the wayside. In the case of Saul, his inferiority complex appears to have clouded his gifts, leading to jealousy. Similar traits can be discerned with Muhammad. After initially admiring the Jews, the pendulum swung over to resentment and hatred.

The Ultimate Obedience
Our Lord's voluntary obedience in taking the cup in the Garden of Gethsemane, would send him to the Cross. On Calvary, God did not intervene, because it was essential to satisfy all sorts of accusations by satan. God allowed his Son Jesus to become a spectacle so that the fear of death and judgement could be given a fatal blow on the third day. On account of Jesus’ death and resurrection, the follower of our Lord can say with Paul (Romans 8:1): 'There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus...the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.' Paul, the apostle, echoed this sentiment in 1 Corinthians 15 when he cried out: 'Death, where is your sting?' It is like a buzzing bee that has already deposited its sting. Every bit of the fear of death has disappeared! Since satan’s great purpose was to produce rebellion against the Father, he was vanquished when Jesus died without yielding to that pressure. He conquered although he died in doing so, as the Hebrew letter writer (2:14) summarised so aptly: ‘that through (his own) death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil’.
Paul gave a summary of Jesus’ life as one of utter obedience: He, ‘being in very nature God...humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross’ (Phillipians 2:5ff). In the ‘New Testament’ radical obedience is highlighted when one reads of actions by followers of Jesus that would not make common sense. Thus Peter threw the net ‘on the word’ of the Lord, after not having caught any fish all night. Philip left the successful ministry in Samaria, (Acts 8), going in obedience on a ‘wild goose chase’ to the lonely desert road of Gaza. The believer knows however that God’s ways are higher (Isaiah 55:8, 9). Obedience is the ultimate proof of loving God.

Disobedience of the Church
On at least three levels one can discern the serious disobedience of the Church. In respect of the 'Great Commission', the Church throughout the ages has failed miserably. Collectively we have been disobedient. If one keeps in mind that Matthew 28:19 were the last words of Jesus on earth before his ascension, one must also conclude that it is incumbent upon the Church to repent and confess for failing the Lord. In stead of 'go'' (and make disciples), the Church says 'come'' (to the church meetings); in stead of 'make disciples', churches concentrated on increasing membership; in stead of reaching the nations Christians erected buildings of different sizes; in stead of 'baptising' converts, babies were christened or people groups and nations were christianised.
Furthermore, the Church universal should learn to put the priorities where Jesus put them in His prayer life. Jesus deemed it fit to pray in His high priestly prayer for His disciples and for those who would believe in Him because of their message: ‘that they may be one’ and that they might 'be brought to complete unity' (John 17:21,23). Paul included a moving plea in a letter to the Corinthian church that stressed this point: ‘I appeal to you brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ... that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought (1 Corinthians 1:10-13 and 3:1-5). It is surely no exaggeration to state that all sorts of disunity in the body of Christ - like carnal competition and rivalry - essentially incapacitates itself.
In May 2010, at one of the centenary celebratory events of Edinburgh's momentous world Church and Missions event in 1910, a big Global Mission Consuqltation, the Tokio 2010 Declaration was issued. Public repentance and reconciliation by mission leaders was spurred by representatives of evangelical global mission structures. The Tokyo 2010 Declaration confessed on behalf of the participants and the mission agencies for not valuing each other’s work and competing against one another. The mission leaders repented for their history of division and pledged to co-operate with one another in the future.

A major Omission of the Church
A third less obvious point of disobedience is the tendency to target easily 'convertible' people groups.
In recent years there have been increasing efforts to reach out to Muslims. Jews, however, remain relatively untargeted in evangelistic efforts. Moishe Rosen, the founder of Jews for Jesus, highlighted this aspect in his paper delivered as part of the Jewish Evangelism track at Lausanne II in Manila, 1989. He suggested in that paper that 'God’s formula' for worldwide evangelization is to bring the gospel to the Jew first. Highlighting the example of Paul: “I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16), Rosen suggested in the same paper that 'by not following God’s programme for worldwide evangelisation – that is, beginning with Jerusalem (Israel, and the Jews) – we not only develop a bad theology because of weak foundations, but we also develop poor missiological practices.'


3. Roots in Rejection

Rejection and isolation is a common characteristic shared by prominent figures in all three Abrahamic religions. This common thread could be a cause for greater understanding amongst adherents of these religions if only some adjustments were made in their expression of regret. Abraham, Moses and Jesus are generally highly revered by all and sundry. The respect for Muhammad is not universal, possibly because of what he did in the Medinan period of his life, notably in the killing of Jews and because of his many wives. If Christians and Jews are mindful that their religion's ancestors rejected Muhammad and further back in history also Ishmael, it may change the picture. (Muslims regard Ishmael as their spiritual ancestor) If these two groups were granted grace to show genuine remorse, it could usher in a change of attitude of Muslims and ultimately bring about unprecedented reconciliation.
Islam sees its main roots in the hanifs, who were living at the time of the youth and adulthood of Muhammad. In The Foreign Vocabulary of the Koran Dr. Arthur Jeffery of Cairo states that the hanif16 passages in the Qu’ran belong to the period when Mohammed was claiming that he went back to a revelation earlier than either Judaism or Christianity. This was called the millat Ibrahim, the pure religion of Abraham. He was republishing this for the Arabs.
Sympathy for Biblical Personalities Abraham’s disobedience - listening more to Sarai than to God - after years without fulfillment of the promise and the fathering of Ishmael by Hagar, the Egyptian slave woman, should likewise receive our sympathies. It is quite understandable why Sarai doubted God's promise of a son that she would conceived. She was well beyond the age of giving birth! Abraham was also no spring chicken. Although God had given Abraham a very detailed promise of the son to be born to Sarai (Genesis 17:1-16), we read that he laughed (v. 17), reasoning in his heart in disbelief: “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?”.
The disparagement of Hagar after becoming pregnant with Ishmael is not difficult to comprehend. She was rejected by a jealous Sarai after Sarai had created the situation. How deeply Ishmael must have experienced the rejection when Sarah gave birth to Isaac and he was callously pushed aside. After being around for about fourteen years, this teenager had to come to terms that he was no more the heir! It is not too difficult at all to comprehend that some Muslims may still feel the pain of rejection of their spiritual ancestors.. Add to this the indoctrination of Muslim children against Israel and the Jews. (This has been testified to by various Muslim background believers.) There is more than enough reason to compound the envy and jealousy of Muslims in respect of Jews.

Divine over-ruling after Rejection
Three great personalities from the Hebrew Scriptures and the Abrahamic religions - Joseph, Moses and David - experienced rejection by their close relatives. The pattern of pride on the one hand and rejection on the other, continued in the life of Muhammad, the founder of Islam. He does not seem to have come to a proper understanding of the basic biblical message of God's love for all people – much more than the Almighty wanting to punish the erring. It is nevertheless significant that every Qur’anic Surah (except Surah Tauba (Repentance) starts with Allâh as the merciful. However, Muhammad had doubts for a long time about the nature of the initial spiritual revelation. He was misled by two Christians, his wife Khadiyah and her cousin Waraqah, a Christian (Ebionite?) priest. Due to this influence, Muhammad later believed that he was a special prophet for the Arabs. Still later, he believed he was the prophet for the whole world. Yet, in the early Meccan period of his life, Muhammad reportedly revered the Jews and the teaching about ‘the religion of Abraham’ that came through from Ebionite sources. The rejection that Muhammad experienced from Jews (and to a lesser extent from Christians) brought vengeful sentiments to the fore, notably in the Medinan period. During this time the compassionate Allâh all but disappears. Revenge (Surah Al-Shura (Consultation 42:39)17 and War (Surah al-Bakarah (The Cow) 2:216; Nisaa (Women) 4:74; Tauba (Repentance) 9:5; Saff (Battle Array) 61:4) were declared holy. It is no co-incidence that Surah Tauba with its anomalous name Repentance - with a clear call to struggle, (Jihad) - does not start with Allâh as the compassionate. It begins rebelliously with the words ‘freedom from (all) obligations...’
In the ancient world, it was known that the Jews would not take part in - either directly or indirectly - any pagan cult. Significantly, Muhammad and thus Islam, followed Judaism not only in the absolute abhorrence of all idolatry, but also in the circumcision of male infants and in the refraining from the eating of pork.
Moses’ Fall and Restoration In his moment of truth, Moses was clearly once more a proto-type of Jesus. In contrast to the rebellious Moses however, the Master added the significant words: ‘Yet not as I will, but as you will’ (Matthew 26:39ff). Jesus became the real ‘bridegroom of blood’, appeasing the wrath of God. John summarised it so succinctly: ‘...and the blood of Jesus, God’s Son, cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7). By now, Moses had apparently become humble enough! He had been moulded to become God’s chosen instrument.
Aaron and Moses were nevertheless disqualified to enter the Promised Land because of their disobedience. Moses smote the elevated rock after God had ordered him to speak to it at Meribah. Irreverence and disobedience almost led to Moses’ complete downfall. Thankfully, God did not completely reject his precious choice instrument. This is demonstrated when Moses joins the Master and Elijah at Jesus’ transfiguration on the mountain. At that occasion, a voice from heaven was heard calling him God’s beloved Son (Matthew 17:3). Peter testifies to the latter occasion in his epistle when he was on the mountain with Jesus, John and James.

Muhammad misled into Compromise
Disobedience hardly features in Islam in this sense. The Qur’an for example does not discern the importance of obedience when Moses hit the rock in stead of speaking to it. Lavish submission to Allâh is required, rather than considered or repentant obedience. Taking an Ebionite connection of Waraqah almost as a given, Abu-al-Moosa, a Lebanese theologian of the Maronite Church, suggested that Waraqah endeavoured to mentor Muhammad to become his successor.18 If we take this at face value - historical proof is unfortunately quite limited - Waraqah unfortunately appears to have failed to instruct Muhammad properly (or he himself was confused). When the devout Muhammad believed himself to be demon-possessed - after his encounter with a supernatural being in a cave on Mt. Hira - it was Waraqah who initially misled Muhammad, suggesting that he was a prophet in the mould of Moses. Furthermore, on a few other issues Waraqah’s teaching and guidance were clearly deficient. This is perhaps the most poignant with regard to the information given to his disciple Muhammad around the person of Jesus. Other influences such as Arianism clearly became dominant. In fact, as early as the 8th century Islam was regarded as a Christian sect influenced strongly by Arianism.19
Muhammad was, however, not completely innocent. Waraqah did warn him that the worship of the Black Stone of the Ka'ba was idolatrous. He removed 360 other idols from the Ka'ba but left the Black Stone intact. He went on to follow the poor example of 4th century Emperor Constantine to fuse his religious ideas with paganism. He built the bulk of the contemporary pagan practices around the pilgrimage into the Islamic belief system.

Rejection as a Positive
Whosoever feels rejected need not despair. The nature of the Almighty as the One who undergirds and uplifts the rejected and dejected, runs like a golden thread through the Scriptures. In the book of Genesis, God sent an angel no less than twice to the rejected Hagar. Conveniently, Jewish theologians seemed to have overlooked or (wilfully perhaps) ignored the fact that David was different, ruddy or reddish. He was therefore not originally considered for the anointing by Samuel. This points to his outsider role in the family. Could it be that he was the son of a foreigner, a non-Jewish mother, apart from his known Moabite ancestor Ruth? King David, who encountered rejection so often, wrote variously about his personal experience of the arm of God, the Eagle’s Wings, upon which Yahweh brought his distressed and persecuted people out of Egypt (Exodus 19:4). He wrote e.g. in Psalm 40:1,2. ‘... He inclined to me, and heard my cry. He also brought me out of a horrible pit, out of the miry clay and set my feet upon a rock, making my footsteps secure.’ God is the shepherd of his people, bringing the sheep that had been harassed by enemies, to green pastures... beside still waters (Psalm 23:2).
The 'New Testament' Jesus described himself as the Good Shepherd (John 15). He was initially rejected by his own people (John 1:12), fulfilling the Scriptures.
The day may not be far off when Jews as a nation will recognise the One who was pierced for our transgressions (Isaiah 53:5); when the stone whom the builders initially rejected, will be honoured as the capstone (Psalm 118:22, 1 Peter 2:4); when the Jews will 'mourn for him as one mourns for an only child' (Zechariah 12:10).
The Gospel of John starts with the rejection of Jesus by his compatriots. The Word (the Logos) came to his own (John 1:12), but his own (the Jews) did not accept Him. Ironically, Islam somehow recognised this title of Jesus as the Word of God without any hesitation (Surah Nisaa (Women) 4:171). The rest of the verse, unfortunately, is disregarded: viz. that to those who accepted the Logos, God gave power to become His children.
Alone Without being Lonely
Like no other person Abraham was a forerunner of the Lord Jesus, displaying that one can be alone without being lonely. The key to Abraham’s life is typified by the word separation. He was separated from his fatherland and kinsfolk and later from Lot. But he would experience a close fellowship with the unseen ‘I AM’ as possibly only Enoch had done before him. Abraham depicted how centuries later Jesus was to experience extreme loneliness, but that he nevertheless testifies, ‘The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases Him’ (John 8:29). Jesus clearly intimated his divinity when he said ‘Before Abraham was, I AM’ (John 8:58). No wonder that the crowd hereafter ‘picked up stones to stone him...’
Abraham prefigured our Lord, learning obedience through suffering that he experienced due to lies and mistakes. When Ishmael started turning into a young man, God told Abraham to reject him and then He asked the patriarch to slaughter the son of the promise. How would Abraham get descendants like the stars of the sky if he was to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering? The letter to the Hebrews (11:20) provides the answer: he believed that God could also bring him back to life. On that fateful third day (Genesis 22:4) the Almighty impregnated Abraham with resurrection faith and hope.
Islamic oral history has a parallel to the extreme loneliness of the Lord Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane and the road to Calvary. During their pilgrimage at Eid-ul Adha, when Muslims commemorate Abraham’s difficult path with the lad carrying the wood, they are reminded at three places how satan tempted the arch father to abort the sacrifice. At the beginning of Jesus’ ministry he was tempted three times and in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus was also tempted thrice to abort the road to Calvary because three times he found the disciples sleeping. Repeatedly he faced the temptation of evading his mission. His final reply was the words of submission: ‘O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will’ (Matthew 26:39).
According to Islamic tradition the original text of the Qur’an was reviewed seven times by ‘the angel Gabriel’. It is not clear how the various reviews influenced the proximity to Christian and Jewish Scriptures. It is striking, though, that the final review includes a consistent denial of everything pertaining to Jesus’ death on the cross. This is despite three references which mention or allude to the death of Jesus. Hebrew Scriptures which point to the atoning death of Jesus as the Lamb of God, like the blood on the door-posts at the exodus out of Egypt or the serpent on the pole (Numbers 21:4ff), do not appear in the Qur’an. The only verse which alludes to the cross is a firm rebuttal of the claim that the Jews could have killed Jesus (Surah Nisaa 4:157): ...they said (in boast), We killed Christ Jesus...the Messiah...but they killed him not ... so it was made to appear to them...for of a surety they killed him not’. A possible explanation for the disparity could be that Muhammad accepted the death of Jesu in the Meccan period of his life, e.g. (the bulk of Surah Al-Imran 3, especially verse 55: [Mention] when Allah said, "O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself … and Surah Mariam 19:33, “And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I die and the day I shall be raised (to life) again." The often quoted verse Surah Nisaa 4:157 followed the rejection by the Jews in Medina. It is indeed strange that the final revelation of the Qur’an does not include the equivalent word for Yahweh, the Hebrew name of the Almighty, even one time. In stark contrast, it is used in the Bible 6823 times.
After Muhammad’s differences with the Jews and the Christians, the charge came that they had changed the Scriptures.20 It is a tragedy that in stead of loving correction and teaching, Muhammad experienced predominantly rejection and ridicule from the Christians and Jews. They could not accept him as a prophet in the biblical mould, let alone as the promised Messiah. This does not basically alter the issue in the light of Jesus’ example and teaching of love and forgiveness.
The sad Heritage of theological Distortion
The Early Church apparently enjoyed the fellowship of the Holy Spirit in exuberant joy and freedom. The manifest work of the Spirit was to them evidence of the dawn of the new Messianic Age. Paul referred to the new creation, i.e. born-again believers, as the ‘Israel of God’(Galatians 6:15f), which, unfortunately all too soon, led to a haughty attitude. Paul had to warn the Gentile believers in the letter to the Romans (chapter 11) that they have been merely grafted into the true vine Israel, that it was the temporary rejection of Israel that gave the Gentiles this special opportunity and chance. Grace and law became however fallaciously regarded as alternatives, with the inference that grace belongs to the 'NT' and the law to the 'OT'. We will show in Part 2 that chen (grace) is very much present in the Hebrew Scriptures as well.
The first century heretic Cerinthus appears to have been one of the first to question the divinity of Christ, asserting that His entrance into the world was according to the ordinary laws of nature. In Cerinthus’ Christology, Jesus performed miracles, but he did not redeem the world. Cerinthus also denied the divinity of Christ. He admitted Jesus' suffering and crucifixion, but he distinctly denied His resurrection. In opposition to such teachings which appear to have become relatively widespread, Paul wrote the first letter to the Corinthians. Cerinthus started a ball rolling because the divinity of Jesus was hereafter disputed. The likes of Cerinthus were described as anti (against) Christ.
In the third century of the common era, Arius developed the heresy further, conceding that Jesus was of the same substance of God, but not equal to Him. Arius had been following Cerinthus, perhaps unwittingly, in this teaching. This caused much confusion, ripping the heart out of the Gospel. Between Cerinthus and Arius there was general consensus in the Church not to compromise the divinity of Jesus. When Emperors like Nero 'merely' required Christians to pay homage to the Caesar annually, offering them the liberty to have their Jesus as a god parallel to him, they refused! They preferred to die for their faith that the Lord is the Divine Son of God. Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of John, the apostle, was martyred in 160 CE, testifying to his faith in the presence of his executioners. This was the sort of primal seed of the Church, which also moved Justin, the Samaritan who was born in Palestine and later given the name Martyr. Justin died for his faith in similar fashion in 165 CE.
The Germ of Religious Arrogance Disseminated Unfortunately, the germ of religious arrogance was clearly disseminated by Justin Martyr in the second century. He had no hesitation in stating that the Church replaced Israel. According to him, the nation of Israel had been ‘rejected’ by God because of their disobedience. This is ludicrous! In Romans 11, Paul clearly stated that God did not reject the Jews. Their limited time of 'rejection' was meant to also bring the Gentiles to the Father. Upon seeing Gentiles enjoying a relationship with God would arouse a sanctified envy among the Jews. In addition, although the first day of the week was ‘the Lord’s Day’, specially honoured as a day of special celebration of his Resurrection, there was still real dialogue between Christians and Jews in the second century. Justin’s record of his interaction with Trypho, a Jew, testifies to this. Jews were gradually side-lined until finally Emperor Constantine caused a semi-permanent rift between Gentile Christianity and Judaism in the fourth century. People were baptised by force. He also fused pagan sun worship with Christianity. Emperor Constantine made the rift fairly final when Sunday was made a free day in 321 CE. To Jews this was completely unacceptable because this was clearly a compromise with the idolatrous pagan worship of the sun.
More misguided Theology At the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE the theologians possibly wanted to give simultaneous recognition to their belief that Jesus was Divine. They venerated Mary as the bearer or mother of God. In their well-meaning but misguided intentions to confirm Jesus' divinity, they created a new goddess. 5th century bishop Nestorius, spoke out strongly against this, saying that it was an abomination to call Mary, as was the custom in the church, the Mother of God. He was however exiled to the Libyan oases, spending his last years in Cyrenaica.
More confusion caused by Theologians The effort of the theologians at Chalcedon (451 CE) to find a formulation to explain the inexplicable - the faith doctrine of the Holy Trinity - caused more confusion than clarity. Instead, the heretical view around Mary proved very pervasive. The illiterate rank and file Christian understood that Jesus, was the son of the Father God and Mary. The blasphemy also filtered through to Muhammad. The Qur’an protests consistently and rightly against the concept of a literal son born out of a physical relationship between Mary and God. No less than twelve different verses emphasise: God does not have a son, God does not beget... (e.g. Surah Al-Furqan 25:2) We need only compare the content of the revelation of the biblical Gabriel in Luke 1with the Qur’anic version of Surah al-Imran 3 to see the discrepancy. The starkest difference is found in the good news given to Mary. In Luke 1:32 and 35 we read ‘He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High' and 'the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God’. In the equivalent passage from the Qur'an is Surah al-Imran 3:45-47 (Shakir translation), there is no mention of Jesus as the Son of God: 'When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah). And he shall speak to the people when in the cradle and when of old age, and (he shall be) one of the good ones. She said: My Lord! when shall there be a son (born) to I me, and man has not touched me? He said: Even so, Allah creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it, Be, and it is.' The other Qur'anic reference to the birth of Jesus is even more explicit with the problem Muslims have with him as the Son of God: Such was Jesus, the son of Mary. That is the whole truth, which they still doubt. God forbid that He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees a thing He need only say: ‘Be,’ and it is. (Surah Mariam 19:35)
Islam was sadly also bequeathed with the heritage of theological distortion and arrogance. Religious arrogance went full circle when Muhammad was described as the 'final' prophet. His followers incorporated Adam as the first Muslim, describing their religion as superior to all other religions, superceding the two other Abrahamic ones. Jews of Medina could never accept Muhammad as a prophet. This had serious repercussions. Ishmael, the ancestor of the Muslims, had been rejected and side-lined. Now Muhammad was snubbed by the Jews and Christians of his day. He retaliated in no unclear way, annihilating whole Jewish tribes and changing the qiblah, the prayer direction for Muslims from Jerusalem to Mecca. This is part and parcel of the Islamic doctrine of abrogation whereby a later 'revelation' is taken to have replaced an earlier but contradictory one.
When a 60-man delegation of Christian leaders from Najran in Yemen visited Muhammad in Medina in 631 CE, he treated them with arrogance. With his reputation as a statesman, he apparently saw no need to listen to them carefully. He took for granted that they – like all Christians - believed in three gods and that they also believed that God had intercourse with Mary to produce Jesus as the Son. At any rate, in the Islamic record of the visit there is very little reported of their apologetics in defence of their belief.
A Possibility of Reconciliation!
Sadly, the reconciliation which must have preceded the burial of Abraham (Genesis 25:9), hardly seems to have penetrated the Jewish and Muslim communities.
The teaching of Paul to the church in Rome, namely that it behoves the Gentile Christians to be humble because they, the wild olive branches, have been only grafted into the true olive tree, Israel (Romans 11:17), did not seem to influence the Church deeply. On the contrary, a broad haughty arrogance set in, especially after the destruction of the second temple by Titus in 70 CE and the sacking of Jerusalem. Some Christians interpreted this as corporate punishment because the Jews did not heed their own prophets. Furthermore, because the Jews were given the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus, the Christ.
Scripture teaches us to love our neighbour, but Christians by and large exercise resentment against Muslims. Corporately we failed to follow Christ’s teaching on love. Hence we are in debt not only to all adherents of Islam because we have failed to practice Christ’s teaching’s on love, but also to our Lord. Can the Church afford to remain in such debt? Forgiveness, love, mercy and compassion are tenets that our faith requires.
A fitting attitude of the Church of Jesus Christ towards Islam and Judaism would therefore be one of remorse, compassion, and extreme humility. The first reason for such an attitude is because Jesus gave His life for the whole world, including Muslims and Jews. It does furthermore not behove us as Christians to have a haughty or negative attitude towards Islam (and Judaism). In Part 2 of this treatise,21 it will be shown how almost every single doctrine in which Muslims differ with those from Christianity, can be derived from the bickering of learned theologians of the Great Church before the time of Muhammad.
May repentance and change result from the Cape Town conferences of 2010. Let us look for innovative but loving ways how we can follow the Lamb of God together – without expecting Muslims and Jews to join our churches immediately. If the attitude of Christians in general changes to humble love, we might find many of them interested in following the One who loved them so much that he gave his life for them.