IZHARUL HAQ READING CONTINUED
In chapter 7 verse 18 of the same Epistle we find: For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitable-ness thereof.
This verse is unambiguous in saying that the main cause of abrogation of the
law of Moses was that it was weak and unprofitable. The commentary of Henry
and Scott contains the following statement:
The law and the priesthood that were unable to be perfected were
abrogated, and the new priesthood and mercy rose to give perfection to the
Eighteenth Example: The Torah was Defective
Paul says in his letter to the Hebrews:
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have
been sought for the second.
Further in verse 13 he says:
A new covenant he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and
waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
The above statement implies that the injunctions contained in the Pentateuch
(Torah) are old and defective and therefore should be abrogated. D’Oyly and
Richard Mant quoted the following comments of Pyle on the verse quoted
It is evidently clear that the will of God is that he should abrogate the old
and defective with the new or better message. It therefore abrogates the
Jewish faith and ordains the Christian faith in its place.
Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews 10:9 has:
He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Again the following statement of Pyle was quoted by D’Oyly and Richard
Mant in their commentary with regard to verses 8 and 9:
The apostles made deductions from these two verses and declared that
sacrifices of the Jews were not enough. For this reason Christ chose death for
himself to make up for this lack and by the one action he abrogated the
validity of the other.
Any sensible reader of the above examples and statements will inevitable
arrived at the following conclusions:
1. The abrogation of some precepts in a preceding law is not limited to
Islamic law alone. The occurrence of abrogation of preceding laws is
2. All the injunctions of the law of Moses, be they eternal or otherwise,
were abrogated by the law of Jesus
3. Paul’s writing also speaks of abrogation with regard to the whole Torah together with its injunctions.
4. Paul proved that a change of priesthood also necessitates a change of law.
5. Paul claimed that everything that becomes old has to vanish away. This
allows us to contend that the law of Jesus being older than the law of Muhammad (peace be on both of them) must be abrogated. It should be noted that Paul and other exegetes, in spite of their admission that the injunctions of the Torah were ordained by God, used discourteous and improper words for them.
6. According to our definition of abrogation there is nothing wrong and
objectionable about the injunctions of the Torah being abrogated.
However the statements indicating eternality and insisting that they
should be enforced through the generations put some injunctions beyond
the scope of abrogation and make their abrogation objectionable. We are
free from this objection because, firstly we do not believe in the present
Pentateuch to be the original word of God of written by Moses as we
have produced scores of proofs to show, secondly, as we have shown, the
present Pentateuch has been subjected to great distortions and alterations,
and thirdly, according to Christian belief, God may regret and be
ashamed of some of his acts and feel regretful about some of his previous
orders, causing him to change them afterwards. Similarly he is imputed
with making everlasting promises and the not fulfilling them as is
asserted by some of the books of the Old Testament. The Muslims are
absolutely free fro such impure and polluted thought.
As far as their interpretations with regards to the words of eternality
205 are concerned, they cannot be justified and accepted for the obvious
reason that the words must be taken to mean what they say.
The Second Kind of Abrogation in the Bible
God asked Abraham to slay his son and offer him as a sacrifice to the Lord,
but this injunction was abrogated before being practised. The whole story of this
event is related in chapter 22 of Genesis.
Second Example: Promise of Priesthood Abrogated
I Samuel 2:30 contains the following statement of a prophet to Eli 207, the
Wherefore the Lord God of Israel saith, ‘I said indeed that thy house and
the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the Lord
saith, ‘Be it far from me; for that honour me I will honour, and they that
despise me shall be lightly esteemed.
Further in verse 35 it says:
And I will raise me up a faithful Priest.
God first made promise that the priesthood would remain in the family of Eli the Priest, and in the family of his father, but in the latter statement he
transferred the promised priesthood to a new priest. The commentary of D’Oyly
and Richard Mant contains the following statement of Patrick:
God abrogated the injunction promising the priesthood to Eli and his
family. The priesthood was the given to Eleazar the elder son of Aaron. Then
it was given to Tamar, the younger soon of Aaron. For the sins of Eli’s sons
the priesthood was transferred to the family of the priest, Eleazar.
This implies that the above promise of priesthood was abrogated twice in the
law of Moses and it was abrogated the third time with the coming of the law of
Jesus. The priesthood did not remain in the family of Eleazar nor in the family
of Tamar either. The promise made to Eleazar is described in chapter 25 of the
Book of Numbers in the following words:
Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: and he shall have it and hi
seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood 208.
It should not come as a surprise to learn that according to Judaeo-Christian
thought, God may go against his everlasting promise. The books of the Old
Testament contain statements claiming that God repents and regrets after having
done a certain things. For instance Psalm 88 contains David’s address to God in
Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: Thou hast profaned his
crown by casting it to the ground.
And Genesis 6:6-7 contains the following statement:
And it repented the Lord that he mad a man on the earth, and it grieved
him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created
from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and
the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Verse 6 and the last phrase of verse 7, “It repenteth me …” are clear in
implying that God is regretful about what He has done. Psalm 106:44 contained
Nevertheless he regarded their affliction when he heard their cry: and
remembered for them his covenant and repent according to the multitude of
his mercies 209.
I Samuel 15:11 contain God’s statement in these words:
It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back
from following me, and hath not performed my commandments.
Further in verse 35 of the same chapter we find:
Samuel mourned for Saul: and the Lord repented that he had made Saul
king over Israel.
In view of the above statements containing “God’s repentance” and “his
regrets” about creating man and making Saul the king of Israel, the possibility
of “God’s repentance” on making Jesus a Prophet cannot be ruled out as Jesus’
“claim of being God incarnate” is greater sin than the disobedience of Saul.
God, according to the above statements, similarly it makes it possible that God
might have not known that Jesus would “claim to be God” after becoming a
Prophet. We neither believe in the possibility of God’s repentance nor do we
accept that Jesus made any claim to godhood. We believe that God is absolutely
free from such imperfections and Jesus is very far from making such false
Third Example: Baking Bread With Dung
Ezekiel 4:10 contains the following injunction:
And thy meat which thou shall eat, shall be by weight, twenty shekels a
And in verse 12 it says:
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that
cometh out of man.
Further in verse 14 and 15 it contains:
Then said I, Ah Lord God, behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for
from my youth up even till now, have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself,
or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
Then He said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung,
and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.
According to this statement God first commanded Ezekiel to prepare his
bread with the filth of man then after Ezekiel’s supplications he abrogated His
first commandment and changed it by allowing cow’s dung in place of man’s.
Fourth Example: The Place of Sacrifice
We read in Leviticus 17:3,4: What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp and bringeth it not unto the door of tabernacle of the congregation. To offer an offering unto the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people.
In contrast to this we find this statement in Deuteronomy 12:15:
Thou mayst kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth
after, according to the blessing of the Lord, thy God which he hath given
Further in verse 20 to 22 it says:
When the Lord thy God shall enlarge thy border, as he hath promised
thee, and thus halt say, I will eat flesh, because thy soul longeth to eat flesh;
thou mayest neat flesh, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after. If the place which
the Lord thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee,
than thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the Lord hath given
thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whtsoever
thy soul lusteth after. Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten, so thou shalt
eat them: the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike.
The above statement abrogates the commandment of God contained in
Leviricus quoted earlier. Horne, after quoting these verses, said on page 619 of
the first volume of his book:
Apparently these two place are contradictory to each other, but keeping in
view the fact that according to the circumstances of the Israelites changes in
the law of Moses were usual, and the law did not preclude changes.
Further he said:
In the fortieth year of his migration and prior to his coming to Palestine,
Moses abrogated this injunction through the injunction of Deuteronomy and
permitted them after coming to Palestine to eat goats and cows wherever
This commentator admits the presence of abrogation in these verses and also
is convinced that changes were made in the law of Moses according to the
changing circumstance. In the light of this how can they justify themselves raising objections against other religions for minor changes and why do they
insist that abrogation necessarily attributes ignorance to God?
1,041 total views, 0 views today