A MUSLIM'S CRITICISM ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BARNABAS

1

A MUSLIM’S CRITICISM ON GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT BARNABA[S].

An Islamic aproach Some Muslim apologists advocate the Gospel according to Barnabas [Barnaba] as the authentic Euaggelion [‘Inji:l]. On the contrary Christians try to prove it as a concoction. It is tried to shew that not all Muslims hold this view. Some neglect it and some consider it as a concoction as well. The belief of the present writer is that it is A concoction or a corrupted form of some ancient apocryphal Gospel.

In any case whether a Muslim Apologist supports it or rejects it , it is his own opinion. Islam is not responsible in any meaning of the word responsible of his or her personal opinion.

Raither Islamic traditional principles of criticism discards it from being genuine Euaggelion.

First Criticism:= Gospel according to Barnaba is not the Euaggelion in the meaning it was reviled to Iesous Kristos. It is another Biography or Semi Biography of Iesous Kristos written and authored by a human being who so ever he might be. So it is a work of a human being and not a Divine Book. It was wriiten by some one else who so ever he may be but certainly not reviled to Iesous Kristos.

It cannot be the Euaggelion that was preached by Iesous Kristos Itself since it was an Aspired or a reviled (oral or written) Book.

For sake of an argument let it be supposed that it was written by Barnaba . Then it is a work of a human being not a Divine Revelation.

Second Criticism:= There are several contents in this Gospel which are unacceptable according to Authentic Islamic Sources. So it can not be a reliable according to Islamic Scriptures [Qur’a:n and H:adi:s’] . Hence its credibility is weak according to Islamic Standard.

Third Criticism:= It is not Mutvatir. It lacks ‘Asna:d [ chain of reliable reporters]. So it is unreliable from the point of view of Principles ofAh:adis’.

This implieth it is doubtful.

Forth Criticism on the Gospel of Barnaba:= Its oldest copy belonged to the Middle period. There is a long beriod of time from Saint Barnabas to its first known copy. Between this period its absence is certain. This absence is sufficient enough to to make doubts in its credibility.

Additionally possibility of corruption and manipulation in the text of the Gospel is not only possible but probable and plausible.

So its critics are right in claiming that it is either a forgery or corrupted form of some ancient apocryphal Gospel which now ceased to be.

1

2

Fifth Criticism:= A translation of a book any any other language is an other book. So it is an other book according to Islamic Principles. A Translation of Holy Qur’a;n is not Qur’a:n. Similarly a translation of Holy Bukhari or Holy Muslim is Niether Holy Bukhari nor Holy Muslim.

Iesous Kristos either preached in Aramaic or In Greek or in Hebrew, or in a Mixture of any two of them or all three of them. The copy of Barnaba(s) is in Italian. An other copy of it was in Spanish. But it ceases to exist at present. Any how both copies of the Gospel stated above were translations. A TRANSLATION CAN NEVER REPLACE THE ORIGINAL. So Bernaba(s) is not an original work even if it is assumed that it was written by the person to whom it is ascribed.

Kamal Ata Turk’s Heresy:= The Heretic Ata Turk considered the Turkish translations of Qur’a:n as Qur’a:n and ordered to be recited in prayers. His act was universally declared as Heresy by all Sunni Sects [“ASHA’IRAH , MATURIDIAH AND SALAFIAH] through out the world. This single act was sufficient to declare Kamal Pasha as Heretic and even a Non Muslim.

So applying the same criteria on the Gospel according to Barnaba(s) any translation is not the original work. It is also not known that how faithful is the translation to the original Greek or Aramaic or Hebraic Text if there is/was any.

Sixth Criticism.

The Gospel lacks ‘Asna:d. I. e Chain/ Series of reporters of the Gospel. In absence of such Chain of reporters it cannot be accepted. In absence of chain of reporters the only criteria for the credibility and reliability of the Gospel is whether it is Mutvatir [Consiquently Received ] But it is Certainity Not Mutvatir from its Author whosoever he was. Similarly the translation is not Mutvatir from its translator. So the works is neither reliable nor credible asnf additionally not trustworthy.

InMuslim world there are two such examples. Each one is given below:= 1] Nahj ‘Al Bala:gh:ah. A book which claimed to record the words of Forth Caliph “Ali RD:.

This is an other ‘Is’na: ‘Ashri book , book it lacks chain of re[porters. So it is not relable according to the Mathodology of ‘Is’na: ‘Ashri testing of traditions.

It is how ever written by Rad:I Sharif or Murtad:a: Shari:f or both , who tried to write some of ‘Is’na: ‘Ashri traditions by manipulating them and rewording them.

That is the simple reason its text does not matches with expressions of Caliph “Ali reported in other ‘Is’ana “Ashri books of traditions.

2] ‘Al Jazz Al Mfqu:d. This is a forgery which is exposed in recent time. It is the alleged missing part of Ms:naf Ibn Abi Sh-bah , a Sinnite Book pof traditions Of H;adi:s’ .

But the alleged missing part is nothing but a forgery.

Sunni AScholars of H;adi:s’ have exposed its forgeriness and concoctionity. Some who have advocated it are refuted with powerful responses.

Similarly some manipulated copies of Holy Qur’a:n were once claimed to be discovered and they were all declared as fabrications, forgeries and concoctions.

So if an unknown work is somehow discovered , even its copy belongs to a period in past , it is declared as forgery and concoction of persons in past.

Since it lacks continuities of Tavatur and Reliable and Credible ‘Asna:d.

The same criteria is applied to the stated above Gospel and it is found that it is neither Credible nor reliable.

Seventh Criticism:= A number of objections on the Gospel are weak but if some objections are weak, and if these weak objections are refuted powerfully, this does not imply any proof of the credibility and reliability of the Gospel of Barnaba(s). The reason is very clear , that there is a difference between disproved an unproved. If a claim [say claim of reliability and credibility of the Gospel in Discussion] is not disproved it may still be Unproved. In Islamic System “Adam As’s’-bu:t doeth not imply S’ubu:t ‘Al “Adam.

2

3

Similarly “Adam “Adam ‘As’s’-bu:t doeth not Imply S’ubu:t .

Also The criteria of disproving some thing is not based on weak objections but on strong objections.

Maulana: Taqi “Us’mani [A famous Sunni Maturidi-Ash”ari H:anafi Scholar] has written a number of pages in regard to this Gospel. But after refuting some of weak objections on the Gospel he finally accepted that Some of Powerful Objections are Strong and cannot be refuted. He is right in his opinion. A number of Muslim Scholars think that as they have powerfully refuted some of the weak objections on the Text of the Gospel according to Barnaba(s), the Textus Receptus of trhe Gospel according to Barnaba(s) is reliable and its credibility is proved. But at best it is a good mental exercise to refute weak objections stated above , it is irrelevant to its reliability and credibility.

The True Criteria of Reliability:= If its reliability and Credibility is to be proved the necessary requirement is to produce some copied of it either from the period of Apocryphal Gospels or from the period of Non Apocryphal Gospels. Untill then its credibility,reliability authenticity and trustworthiness cannot be accepted.

Nature of the Gospel:= It may be noted that Christian apologists claim that it is a forgery made by the imagination of its author. But it is also possible that it is a reconstruction , an attempt to rewrite Biography or Semi Biography of Iesous Kristos based on Apocryphal and New Testamental Gospels.

It does sometimes fill the gaps in the New Testamental Gospels. Field is open to study it in light of available Apocryphal Gospels as well. It is not a forgery in thje meaning the entire work is a production of imagination of its author. It is a forgery in the meaning that it is produced from a number of books available to the authors. However some portions may be a result of pure imagination.

It may be AN ATTEMPT to produce a Gospel or a Semi Biography based upon some apocryphal books as well .

So it is a Possible Reconstruction. Even if it is a reconstruction it may still be termed as a forgery in the meaning it is neither a synthetic product made by the portions of available soures.

An Allegation:= It is often alleged that it was written by a Muslim to confuse Christians.

This is based on the claim that some of its contents agree with Isla:mic Teachings and Preachings. But it is equally Possible that it was not written by a Muslim. Since some of contents of its text do contradict Isla:mic Believes, Particularly Qur’a:n and Authentic ‘Ah:di:s’. For example Qur’a:n Informeth that Iesous Kristos Use the Proper Noun ‘Ah:mad of Holy Prophet eace Be Upon Him (PBUH) But this Gospel informs that the t\he Proper Noun of the Holy Prophet taken by Ieous Kristos PBUH was Muhammad PBUH. This Contradicteth Qur’a:n. So the author may not be a Muslim yet it is possible that he was some one who for his own reasons seconded some of the ‘Isla:mic teaching , and Contradicted some of ‘Isla:mic teachings. Due to lack of information reasons of the author whether he be a Muslim or Not , are impossible to be known with Historical Certainty. At best one may suggest reasons but they all cannot scape the domain OF Probability and Plausibility.

It is also Possible that the author might wanted to make a new religion taking elements from Christianity and Isla:m , yet he was not successful . How ever his work became a masterpiece in the history of reconstructed Semi Biogaphies.

We have several examples of this type of people. One may see Bahaism ,a religion which emerged from Iran /Persia , which use passages from Hebrew Bible, New Testament and Qur’a:n.

Similarly there is a religion of Mirza’izm, followers of it have shed much ink in their attempt to prove that Iesous Kristos some how escaped the crucifixion after being impaled , and came to Kashmir [Cashmir] where he was renamed as Yus Asaf.For example see the work Jesus in Heaven On Earth. But all such attempts are in vain and nothing can be proved of this sort.

So it is possible that the author of Gospel Of Barnaba(s) was also a person of this kind who tried to make a third religion. As there are so many possibilities it is incorrect to claim with historical certainty that this was forgery was a product of a Muslim pragmatic mind.

3

4

A Good Approach of Zakir Naik:= Dr Zakit Naik [ A student of comparative religion] in one of his addresses accepted that this Gospel is highly controversial and should not be referred to in religious dialogues. The author of this article /work does second Respected Dr Zakir for his brilliant judgement on the issue of Gospel Accordsing To Saint Barnaba(s).

Some Recent Findings:= Some copies of Gospels are claimed to be found in Turkey [atleast one], and it is claimed that it is a Proto Gospel Of Barnaba(s). It may be the case that the newly found Gospel may second this Gospel but unless and other wise all the portions of thje texts are compared it is very difficult to say whether the Gospel found is the original of the Italian Gospel Of Barnaba(s). Also one must analyze the parts of this found Gospel in Perfect light of Qur’a:n and Authentic ‘Ah:adi:s.

AN APOLOGY This article may annoy some of our Muslim Brothers who have attempted to refute some of the weak objections on the Gospel. To them I make a request that I am a Sunni [‘ASH’’ARI-MATURIDI] Sunni [ Not Barailivi],Muslim ;one who does believe in ALL-H, His Final Prophet ,S:h:abah, in Perpetual Conservation of Textus Receptus Of Qur’a:n , in Authentic Books of ‘Ah:di:s’ like Holy Bukhari: , Holy Muslim etc. and I believe that Holy Prophet Loveth Truth, Peace, Justice ,Reason and Reality.

So it is the duty of Muslims to work according to Isla:mic Principles. Therefore it is my duty to discard this Gospel as some thing authentic unless and other wise some solid evidence is found which can convince a rational mind with the force of arguments and power to convine. To me the Gospel Of Barnaba(s) is as unreliable the newly discovered forgery of ‘Al Jazz ‘Al Mafqu:d, a forgery made in Afghanista:n in KarZai’s period of presidency , to distort Isla:mic teachings. If it is an ancient copy then It is an ancient Forgery of an ancient Forgerer [Forgery Maker] accidently found in during the Presidency of H:amid KarZai. I however advise them not to annoy but to divert there attention to refute objections on Arabic Scriptures [Qur’a:n and ‘Ah:adis’] whose true teachings are being continuously distorted by enemies of ‘Isla:m and Modern Heretics like Ghamidi: , Engineer “Ali Mirza, T-njani and Persian Scholars. How ever I do not condemn those who attempt to refute weak objections on this Gospel. It is still a research work and one must appreciate it as a research work since Isla:m welcometh Research Works. I only make objection on the opinion that refutation of weak objections proves Credibility and Reliability.

Footnotes

:=

1]My interest in the Gospel Of Barnaba(s) began when some Barailvi Scholars used its text to prove one of there opinion not from Qur’a:n and Authentic H:adi:s’ but from This Gospel. Barailvi cult is a heretic sect founded by ‘Ah:mad Rad:a: Son Of Naqi: “Ali [ 1856AC-1930AC]. He was born in Bans Baraili a Town in a province of British India [1858AC-1947AC]called Bans Baraily. It must not be confused with Rai Baraili , an other town In United Provinces of British India. Altho both towns have the noun Bariali common they are differentiated by the prefix Bans and Rai. Bans means Bamboo , and Bamboo was cultivated in Bans Baraili and was distributed all over the British India. There is a proverb “ Taking Back Bamboo to Bans Baraili” Which means an unreasonable act. Since Bans Baraili was the certer of supplying Bamboo in the entire British Indian Subcontinent it is unreasonable to take Bamboo from any other place to Bans Baraili.

There are two possible views about the word Rai. A] A community named Rai once lived there. B] Rai [ Pronounced as Rae] is a deformation of the word Rai. A seed used in spices. Once it was cultivated there.

Maulavi Rad:a [1856AC-1930AC] founded a new heretic cult ,but claimed to be the only Sunni group in entire Muslim world. He declared all great Sunni “Ulma:s either as Heretic or Infedel or both. Some of his believes are given below:= 1] Holy Prophet is Omniscience with an attribute of Bestowed Omniscience.

2] Holy Prophet is Omnipotent with an attribute of Bestowed Omnipotence.

4

5

3] Holy Prophet is Omnipresemt with an attribute of Bestowed Omnipresence.

4]Holy Prophet and Saints all have power defy nature and suspend laws of Nature and to perform any act they like.

5] Holy Prophet Hath power to change and annule the Law Of ‘ALL-H [Shari:”ah], even if doeth not exercise His Powers in regard to Shar”i:ah.

6] Majority of Barailvis believe that Holy Prophet [PBUH] is not a Human Being , but a Light [Nu:r] which assumed humanity. According to them,He is not a Human Being But a Rational Light which assumed the form of a Human Being; with out becoming a Human Being.

So according to them He is not a human being but a Light that appeared in Human Form witrh out becoming a human being.

A minority of Barailivis however believes that Holy Pro[phet was a Light that without ceasing to be Light assumed huminity and became Light.Now according to them He possesseth two Natures i] Human Nature [Huminity],ii] Light Nature [Light-ness].

According to Sunni view Holy Prophet is a Human Being in the real meaning[Primary Meaning] of the word Human Being [‘Insa:n]. Some of them call him Light only in Metaphorical or Figurative Or Virtual [Secondary meanings].Few of them however opine that Holy Prophet was a Human Being and Light both in the Real Meaning yet they believe in Primacy and Priority of His Humanity [‘Ins:niyah] over His Light-ness [Nu:ra:niyah]. This contradicts the heretics who believe in the Primacy and Priority of His Light-ness over His Humanity.

His Light-ness if accepted cannot and doethnot contradict His likeness [Mis’liyah,Similarity] to other individuals human Beings since his likeness is based upon His Humanity.

The Humanity of Holy Prophet is not only the Necessary Axiom of ‘Ahlussunnah Val Jama:’ah [AD:DURIYA:T ‘AL AHL ‘ASSUNNAH VAL JAMA:’AH] but also the Necessary Axiom of ‘Isla:m [D:ARU:RIYA:T ‘AL ISLA:M].

It may be noted that when I studied the alleged credibility of This Gospel and I found it That it is not reliable in the least meaning of the word Reliable, and according to Isa:mic Principles it is the duty of a Muslim to Test it according to the Isla:mic System of Testing the traditions and there books.

So I immediately became interested in studying its credibility on larger scale and found that it is Maud:u”[Concoction,Forgery] according to ‘Isla:mic system of Testing Traditions and Books of Traditions.

2]According to H:adis’ a young faithful Disciple of Iesous Kristos [“I:SA: Masi:h:] [Peace Be Upon Him] voluntarily offered Himself to be captured. He was imidiately transformed and transfigured in the Likeness of Iesous Kristos. The same person was captured , impaled and crucified. But the Gospel says it was Iudas the one who betrayed Iesous Kristos. There is some Divine Wisdom behind this Divine Act, it is not that Deity/ God Tricked those who attempted to Capture Iseous Kristos.

The Gospel says that Iesous Kristos descended for a period of time after His Ascension to Heavens.He was ascended once again. But in Isla:mic Literature this is unacceptable.

After His Ascension there is only one Descension which shall occur near Qiya:mah [Doomsday or DaY Of Final Judgement] . Iesous Kristos shall descend to kill the Anti Christ [ Dajja:l] who shall claim Divinity for himself and shall proclaim himself as God. So Gospel stated above differ from traditional Isla:mic views. These are just two examples. One may fine some more. So this work cannot be true.

Notes:= 1] The Noun of “I:sa: “Alaihissala:m in English is used is Iesous, it is much close to other forms of His Nouns like Yahua, “I:sa:, Iesus etc.

Even Latin Iesus is much close to the Noun Jesus which not only replaces I by J [ a Consonental diphthong ] it also changes the Hissing “S” sound of Latin Letter “S” by Zed/Zee “Z” sound, twice in the single word. Also it changes the short “U” sound as U in the word ‘Put’ to short “U” sound as “U” in the word ‘But’. It is hoped that it will be welcomed by English Speaking people irrespective of their religion, cult and sect. It must be noted that I am not against using the noun Jesus but I do prefer Iesous[Greek] and Iesus[Latin]. How ever there may not be any problem in German since they pronounce Jesu as Iesu or Yesu, dropping the final sigma “ς” Sound.In German it is not a consonantal diphthong.

5

6

[ It is now become a fashion to replace the Hissing S sound by Z sound and Sh sound by Zh sound. This is incorrect and one must be careful in differentiating S sound from Z sound, and Sh sound from Zh sound].

2] The Word Kistos [Christos] is used instead of the word Christ since it appears to me that it is a natural choice after the word Iesous. But one may write the words Christ or Christos after the word Iesous , there it is hoped that there may not be any objection on the words Christos,Christ or Kristos when they are used after the noun Iesous.

6