If you need a laugh then check out the following quotes from Jesus – Prophet of Islam by Muhammad Ata Ur-Rahim. I have never read a book filled with so much utter rubbish. The following multi-part review will document a mere handful of the tripe to be found in this book.
From the preface…
Even before the advent of Islam, the Arians, the Paulicians, and the Goths, to mention only a few, accepted Jesus, but rejected the “mask.” (pg 1)
This is a notion that the author conveys multiple times throughout the book. The author seemingly does not have a clue who the Arians were, otherwise he wouldn’t be trying to depict them as accepting the real Jesus and rejecting the “mask.”
This work is the result of thirty years of study. (pg 2)
Hmm, methinks the author may need to give it another 300 years of study before writing his next book.
From the Introduction…
Declaring a doctrine of love, it [Christianity] enacts the crusades. (pg 3)
Double standards? I wonder what the author would say if you switched the word “Christianity” for “Islam” and then switched “crusades” for any atrocity that has been carried out in the name of Allah and Islam.
From the first chapter (I will let these awesome quotes speak for themselves)…
It was only in 325 A.D. that the doctrine of the Trinity was declared to be the orthodox Christian belief. (pg 10)
When, in 325 AD, the doctrine of Trinity was officially proposed as the orthodox Christian doctrine, Arius, one of the leaders of the Christians in North Africa, stood up against the combined might of Constantine and the Catholic Church and reminded them that Jesus had always affirmed the Divine Unity. Constantine tried to crush the troublesome One-God people with all the force and brutality at his command, but he failed. (pg 11)
Belief in Jesus, however, does not necessarily mean belief in a resurrected Christ. Whereas the immediate followers of Jesus had based their lives on his example, Pauline Christianity was based on a belief in Christ after his supposed crucifixion, and the life and teaching of Jesus while he was alive was no longer important. (pg 12)
In North Africa and West Asia the teachings of Arius were accepted by the majority of the people who readily embraced Islam when it later came to them. Because they had held to the doctrine of One-God and the pure teaching of Jesus, they recognised Islam as the truth. (pg 12)
From chapter two…
The earliest Gospel is that of Mark, written about 60 AD. He was the son of St. Barnabas’s sister. Matthew was a tax collector, a minor official who did not travel around with Jesus. Luke’s Gospel was written much later, and is, in fact, drawn from the same source as Mark’s and Matthew’s. Luke was Paul’s physician, and, like Paul, never met Jesus. John’s Gospel is from a different source, and was written later still, in about 100 A.D. He should not be confused with John, the disciple, who was another man.
The Gospel of Barnabas cover’s Jesus life more extensively than the other Gospels, and the Qur’an and the Hadith further clarify the picture of who Jesus really was.
The author apparently is not familiar with much of what higher criticism says about the Gospels. Also, he somehow seems to think that the Qur’an and Hadith, written many centuries after Christ, are useful to clarifying the picture of who Jesus was. I guess that is fine if you assume that the Qur’an is the word of God. Otherwise I think I will just stick with the Synoptics.
Also, note how the author says that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were drawn from the same source (singular). From what he says elsewhere in the book, I am pretty sure he is talking about Q. He doesn’t seem to realize, though, that Q is a source for Matthew and Luke, not Mark.
As between Matthew and Luke, the former gives twenty-six persons between Adam and Jesus, while Luke has forty-two names in his list. Thus, there is a discrepancy between the two of sixteen people. (pg 20)
Hmm, he does not seem to know that Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus only extends back to Abraham, not Adam.
Thus, Zachariah, the High Priest in the Temple of Solomon, when he had a son in his old age, sent him to the Essenes in the wilderness where the child was brought up. He is known in history as John the Baptist. … and Mary succeeded in escaping the clutches of the Roman soldiers. She went with Jesus to Egypt, where the Essenes had another colony. (pg 25)
His claims that John the Baptist and Jesus were Essenes are not backed up with any sort of argumentation or footnotes (which are very rare in this book).
Jesus’s mission was solely to establish worship of the Creator in the manner in which the Creator had ordained. He and his followers were prepared to fight anyone who tried to prevent them from living as their Lord wished them to. ( pg 34)
I guess he thinks Jesus accepted jihad?
Judas was told to kiss Jesus, so that the foreign Roman soldiers could identify him. The plan miscarried. When the soldiers materialized from the darkness, a tumult ensued. The two Jews were mixed up in the dark, and the soldiers mistakenly arrested Judas instead of Jesus.
… The Roman Jews were happy, for, with the death of Judas, the proof of their guilt would be destroyed. Furthermore, because Jesus would be legally dead, he would not be able to come out into the open to give them trouble. (pg 36)
The logic of the last sentence mystifies me.
These were just a mere handful of the bizarre claims the author makes. Stay tuned for even worse remarks from the author…