Response to Misha'al Al-Kadhi: What about 'Unto us a child is born'?

I will not accept anything that is not permitted to exist. My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts. This could be the leading objective of Al-Kadhi in this section. The author has already declared in his preface before he started his investigation that

"Muslims are told that the previous scriptures were tampered with by mankind and the Bible should only be accepted in as far as it is confirmed by the Qur'an. It is to be treated with respect, however any statements which clearly oppose those of the Qur'an are to be rejected as the work of mankind."

How can we expect him to honestly investigate the Biblical text? His first approach is that instead of trying to understand the text at hand he twists it as far as he can to make it conform to the Qur'an. This is what we see him doing mainly in this section. But should we be able to penetrate this determination and show him that his interpretation is wrong, he would just switch to plan B and dismiss it as corrupted. Our response has not been written for him, or for others with a similar mindset. However, it is our sincere hope and prayer that the truth seekers among the readers will benefit from our explanation and recognize the marvelous truth of God's eternal and unchanging word.

Countering Al-Kadhi's favorite approach of ripping verses out of context in the desperate attempt of giving them a meaning they could never have when read together with what comes before and after, let me start by quoting just one more verse of the prophecy that is topic of this section.

Prophet Isaiah, chapter 9:

6

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

7

Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

Which mere human figure could "reign forever" and have a government that has no end? Verse 7 also is important, not only verse 6; they belong together. It is clear from the passage that this is something "unbelievable", which is the reason to add the last line, confirming that as strange as it sounds, the LORD Almighty will surely do be able to do it. Whether this prophecy refers to Jesus is a second question, but without looking ahead 700 years to the life of Christ, we can clearly see that Isaiah speaks of the future birth of a child which will be absolutely extraordinary by the titles and promises given about this child. Not only does it bear the divine name, it will also excercise eternal rule, an attribute only belonging to God Himself. It is a human birth of one who exercises divine rule.

After we have established the meaning of the text, we have to ask: Has there ever been a person who claimed such attributes for himself? One and only one such person has ever walked this earth. This question has an easy answer. And we all know who he is. Al-Khadi fights a losing battle.

Just as with all of his major moves God works consistently in the way He states in Isaiah 42:8-9

"I am the LORD; that is my name!
I will not give my glory to another
or my praise to idols.

See, the former things have taken place,
and new things I declare;
before they spring into being
I announce them to you."

Amazing details on God's Messiah are given in the scriptures. Hundreds of prophecies. The Messiah is clearly at the center of God's prophetic revelations. In contrast, nothing in the scriptures can be found that is a specific prophecy foretelling Muhammad. Utter silence.

Al-Kadhi comments on nearly every phrase of Isaiah 9:6 since he has a lot of work to do in denying the obvious. Al-Kadhi gave a good advice when starting his study: "Firstly, it is important when applying a prophesy to someone to not selectively pick and choose catch phrases from the prophesy and disregard the rest." But then he proceeds to do just that. Not only does he separate verse six from verse seven, he also takes the verse six apart to the fragmentation into single words (smaller than the catch phrase approach he complains about), then claims that these words can also be used in different meanings, and at the end he forgets to put them back together again to determine their meaning in the given context. No wonder he can't understand the text. He is like somebody who tries to understand a picture by looking at it under a mikroscope, examining each paint particle in turn, and never steps back to see their interrelation. This way nobody can appreciate a picture or understand a text. But it is a great way to not see the forrest for all the trees. Al-Kadhi accomplished (to his own satisfaction) what he set out to do.

Let us start with his second point since it is the clearest example.

Al-Kadhi claims that the words "El" and "gibbor" (separately) are at times used for other than Almighty God. And he is right.

But he prefered to overlook that the combined phrase "El-Gibbor" is only used for God. Never for any other person or thing.

The following passage (in the very next chapter of the book) reveals that Isaiah understood El-Gibbor to be none other than the one true God of Israel:

"The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob,
To the Mighty God [El-Gibbor]." Isaiah 10:21

This is exactly the same divine name as the one used in 9:6.

This name [El-Gibbor] comes from the famous passage in Deuteronomy 10:17

"For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords,
the great God [El], mighty [Gibbor] and awesome,
who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe."

This Deuteronomy passage is surely the basis for the passage in Jeremiah 32:18

"You show lovingkindness to thousands, and repay the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them -- the Great, the Mighty [Gibbor] God [El], whose name is the LORD of hosts."

The Hebrew name in both passages is the same. The differences is only in the translation.

It is also the basis for the passage in Nehemiah 9:32

"Now therefore, our God, The great, the mighty [Gibbor], and awesome God [El], Who keeps covenant and mercy: Do not let all the trouble seem small before You That has come upon us, Our kings and our princes, Our priests and our prophets, Our fathers and on all Your people, from the days of the kings of Assyria until this day."

Again the Hebrew name is the same as that in Deut 10:17. It is the translation that differs. Thus, in all other the places in the Hebrew Bible where the word "Gibbor" modifies the word "El," the reference is undeniably to the one true God of Israel. It is therefore the most reasonable conclusion that Isaiah applied one of the authentic names of the one true God of Israel to the promised Messianic Son in 9:6. Any other explanation is clearly an attempt, based on a theologically motivated agenda, to deny what is self evident from the Biblical evidence.

I wonder if what Al-Kadhi would say if this approach would be applied to the 99 names of Allah. Let's take them apart, let's see where else these words are used and find that most of the words are also used for persons, concepts or things that are not God. Ergo, they aren't really names of God at all.

One could stop here, since Al-Kadhi's feeble attempts have already fallen apart, but since he raised some more issues, let us discuss them.

A few comments on the further names: One clearly divine name is enough to make the point. Together with verse 7 this is a solid case. Al-Kadhi does the same "divide and conquer" strategy with the other names, taking them apart in words that can be used in other meanings, but we have already seen that is a meaningless exercise. For those who want to see a detailed argument about the other names may consult Edward J. Young's (3 volume) commentary "Book of Isaiah", Eerdmans Publishing Co., where the author argues the first three of the four names imply deity.

There is one other major point Al-Kadhi tries to make in this section.

In this prophesy we find that the very first stipulation presented for this person is that he shall carry the government upon his shoulders. However, as is popular knowledge, Jesus (pbuh) never in his whole lifetime ever formed a government nor became a head of state. In fact we find him saying in the Bible quite explicitly:
1. John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."
2. Matthew 22:21 "Then saith he (Jesus) unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

So according to the Bible, Jesus never tried to establish a government nor to challenge the authority of the pagan emperor Caesar over himself and his followers. Now, if someone were to go the extra mile and to make the case that Jesus commands a "spiritual" government in the hereafter, then we need to know whether the hereafter shall be a place of governments, kings, laws and regulations?

Seemingly, Al-Kadhi has already realized part of the answer, but it is him who is not willing to go the second mile. No, it is not only the government in the hereafter. Does God govern only in the hereafter? Is his government or reign here and now less real than that of the earthly kings? Is God not in power on this earth because he is not sitting on a visible throne? Does Al-Kadhi deny the reality of "spiritual" government as a presence in this world?

In fact, there is no need to transfer this government in the hereafter. Jesus said to his disciples "You are in this world but not of this world." But he very much expects them to influence and transform this world. Jesus did not deny that he has ruling power in this world, but when he answers to Pilate in John 18:36, he points out that his kingdom is of an entirely different nature. Nevertheless, it should not be overlooked that he confirms that he has a kingdom. He is in power. And he affirms this again after his resurrection when saying to his disciples (Matthew 28:18-20):

Then Jesus came to them and said,
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Jesus claims certainly more than just "spiritual" authority. He says he is in control over everything. And he claims omnipresence at all times wherever his disciples will go in obedience to his commissioning.

Yet, we do not have to stay in these spiritual terms only. Jesus will visibly rule the earth upon His return, as even the Qur'an affirms. He will be the judge of all the world. Muslims also look forward to the second coming of Jesus and to his rule in this world. They are right in this as wrong the rest of their expections might be in this regard. Has Al-Kadhi with his objection forgotten his own theology? If He is the judge, then let us consider carefully His ways, and follow in His footsteps. Jesus laid down the conditions for following Him when said, "If anyone does not take up his cross daily and follow me, he cannot be My disciple." And what is the cross but death to self?

Al-Kadhi is concerned that this kingdom is only "spiritual".

In Psalm 2, we find the Lord's promise to the Messiah:

Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
You will rule them with an iron scepter;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery.

Wherever the Gospel has spread, it has brought peace, stability and human rights into focus. By it kings rule, and without it, nations perish in squalor. Is it not then, a kingdom of this earth? And the Lord has told us more about the kingdom of God on earth, appearing in fulness at his return. For He promised all who would be His true disciples that they will hear: "Well done, good and faithful servant, because you have been faithful over few things, take charge of many cities." (Luke 19:11-27).

It is true, the kingdom of Jesus was not of this world. His rule is God's sovereign rule which is above all the kings of the earth. When he was with us in human flesh he had another mission, but after the completetion of it he has resumed his sovereign power.

Yet, when he comes back there is no choice but

"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2)

Will you be prepared to face him?

In an attempt to support his corruption of the word of God, Al-Kadhi then goes on to claim support from others saying:

Many Christian scholars have known and recognized the true meaning of this verse and translated it into English accordingly, however, their translations were not met with a whole lot of enthusiasm and thus, they did not receive the same degree of publicity as has such translations as the King James Version. For example, Mr. J. M. Powis Smith in "The Complete Bible, an American Translation," quotes this same verse as follows:


"For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; And the government will be upon his shoulder; And his name will be called 'Wonderful counselor is God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace'"

Al-Kadhi had to scrape hard to find two obscure such "scholars" but that is not exactly sufficient to sustain the claim of "many Christian scholars...". But in his great enthusiasm he overlooked that Powis Smith contradicts him and translates name "El-Gibbor" as "God Almighty".

The problem of this translator is that he is unwilling to believe what the Scripture says about the deity of the Messianic Son, so he added the word "is" to the text to change its obvious meaning. Thus he links together (with a nonexistent word) two phrases that are separated by the disjunctive accent in the Hebrew text known as "pashta." Such an accent functions much like a comma does in English. So Smith's unbelieving theology forced him to violate the Hebrew accents (punctuation) and to add a word to the text, changing a name into a sentence - something rather strange.

Al-Kadhi brings his next 'witness' to the stand:

And again, if we were to read the translation of another Christian, for example Dr. James Moffatt, we would find that in his translation "The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments" the verse reads:

"For a child has been born to us, a child has been given to us; the royal dignity he wears, and this the title he bears - 'A wonder of a counselor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince'"

Moffatt attempted to avoid the obvious deity of the Messianic Son by translating El Gibbor contrary to how the expression is translated everywhere else in Scripture. This problem was already discussed above. Further, Moffatt has translated El as an adjective and Gibbor as a noun. However, El is a noun and Gibbor is an adjective. This is contrary to the normal meaning of the words. In Hebrew Grammar, an adjective follows the noun it modifies. However, if El is an adjective (contrary to its normal function as a noun), and if Gibbor is a noun (contrary to its normal function as an adjective), then the word order is contrary to the grammatical conventions of Hebrew. Moffatt likely got his rendering from the Brown-Driver-Briggs HEBREW AND ELGLISH LEXICON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT which renders El Gibbor as "divine hero" for Isaiah 9:6. However, that is the only place in the Bible where BDB indicates that El is an adjective. The many other occurences of the word are nouns. That smacks of unbelieving theological bias.

Scholars who let their unbelieving theology influence their translation will find a way to twist the sense of the text to avoid the obvious meaning of the text. Nearly all translations of the Bible made by Christians from various theological views translate El Gibbor in Isaiah 9:6 as "Mighty God" - so KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASV, NAB, RSV, NRSV, WEB, RWB, and so forth.

Al-Kadhi refers to the Bible editions by Moffat and Powis Smith in various sections throughout his book ([1], [2], ...) and embraces their false translations over and over again.

It might therefore be profitable to point out that this is just one of Al-Kadhi's tools of trade. He quotes Powis Smith and Moffat as some rare brand of "honest Christian scholars".

The obvious questions would be: How honest are they? We have answered to this in the above and in the responses in the other section linked above. Here we want to respond to the question: How "Christian" are they? (What is Al-Kadhi's definition of a Christian?)

Regarding James Moffatt, he was a professor at Union Theological Seminary, one of the most radical liberal institutions. His attitude toward miracles and the supernatural is illustrated by the following quotation from his book INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT:

"A similar consideration bears upon Luke's treatment of the supernatural. On the one hand, the presence of miraculous anecdotes ... is no proof that they are unprimitive. A comparison, e.g., of the historical traditions gathering around figures like St. Patrick or even Thomas a Becket will show that it is the most natural thing in the world for such stories to spring up within a man's lifetime, and the mushroom of legend appeared under certain conditions as rapidly in the East an in the West. This applies in some degree to the miracles in Acts as well as in the gospels." (page 302).

Clearly, Moffatt regards the miracles of the Bible, such as Jesus' virgin birth and His raising of the dead, as mere myth or legend.

Regarding J. M. Powis Smith, he was a professor in another radical liberal institution, the University of Chicago. His attitude toward the virgin birth is evidenced by the way he translated Isaiah 7:14 - "A young woman is with child ..." Thus depriving the passage of any prophetic significance and of any reference to the virgin birth, even though the passage is cited in Matthew 1:23 for that very purpose. In fact, The Complete Bible renders Matthew 1:23 as "A maiden will become pregnant ..." - again denying the virgin birth. Even if one might debate whether the Hebrew word has to mean virgin, there is no question that the Greek word parthenos in the passage in Matthew means virgin. This is scholarly consensus. His formulation of Matthew 1:23 is unquestionably a mistranslation. Like Moffat, Smith regards the miracles of the Bible, such as Jesus' virgin birth, His raising of the dead, and others as mere myth or legend.

Both of these translators allowed their unbelieving theology to bias their translations.

Is Al-Kadhi prepared to accept their presuppositions on which their conclusions (translations) are built? The use of liberal unbelieving theology for Muslim apologetics is intellectual suicide. But most of these apologists have never studied the issues in sufficient depth to understand this. The acceptance of these presuppositions are the end of the Qur'an just as well, since the Qur'an incorporates the same "myths" (virgin birth and several of Jesus miracles). On the other hand one cannot with intellectual integrity accept the results without accepting the presuppositions.

Note: Even though Moffatt is not correct in all his translations, as we have seen above, it is interesting to observe that where Moffat does honest scholarly work, Al-Kadhi immediatly feels the urge to abuse Moffat's translation by presenting it in a context which makes it appear to convey something different than intended.

The Rebuttal to "What Did Jesus Really Say?"
Answering Islam Home Page