The Name of Jesus: Rebuttal

A Refutation to Mohd's Article "

Quennel Gale


Mr. Quennel Gale in his latest reincarnation of rehashed idiocrasy attempts to trace the name "EESA" () to pagan sources by basing his whole argument on a Jewish writer, Mr. Nick Perelman, who writes that "YESHUA" () is not "EESA" (), but "EESA" (Arabic) is equivalent to "ESAU" (Hebrew) and compares both "YESHUA" () and "ESAU" as two separate entities. Interestingly, Mr. Gale had to resort to the arguments of a Jew, who neither believes in Jesus as a Prophet nor as a "God-incarnate", to justify his own Triune God!

Actually Mohd in his dumb argument shows just how much he didn't read any of the material in my article dealing with ISA. Ahmeed Deedat admitted that ISA was also Esau, read: Ahmad Deedat wrote:

``The Holy Quran refers to Jesus as "Eesa", and this name is used more times than any other title, because this was his "Christian" name. Actually, his proper name was "Eesa" (Arabic), or "Esau". (Hebrew); classical "Yeheshua", which the Christian nations of the West Latinised as Jesus. Neither the "J" nor the second "s" in the name Jesus is to be found in the original tongue - they are not found in the Semitic language.

The word is very simply - "E S A U" - a very common Jewish name, used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called "Genesis". There was at least one "Jesus" sitting on the "bench" at the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Josephus the Jewish historian mentions some twenty five Jesus' in his "Book of Antiquities". The New Testament speaks of "Bar-Jesus"- a magician and a sorcerer, a false prophet (Act 13:6); and also "Jesus-Justus" - a Christian missionary, a contemporary of Paul (Colossians 4:11). These are distinct from Jesus the son of Mary. Transforming "Esau" to (J)esu(s) - Jesus - makes it unique. This unique (?) name has gone out of currency among the Jews and the Christians from the 2nd century after Christ. Among the Jews, because it came to be the proper name of their God(?) - their God incarnate. The Muslim will not hesitate to name his son - "Eesa" - because it is an honoured name, the name of a righteous servant of the Lord.'' (Ahmad Deedat, Christ in Islam, Chapter 2)

Even Deedat had to admit that Isa was ESAU!! We must wonder why Mohd didn't say anything about Sheik Deedat? Therefore we have established that both Jews and Muslims have considered ISA to originally be ESAU. As for finding a person that doesn't agree with the Trinity. Wouldn't common sense tell Mohd that this verifies your arguments even more since the person isn't prone to Trinitarian bias as he so eloquently claimed many times. Mohd seen Deedat's commentary on this and here is how he tried to play down it's signficance:

And about Ahmad Deedat, who cares what he says or thinks? I have read Mr. Deedat's claims and it is factually WRONG, as my article had shown! Just because a Muslim agrees with Quennel does not make it right for Mr. Gale to debunk my article!

Anyway, we shall deal with the rebuttal soon with an update.



So we get an admission that HIS ARTICLE WAS DEBUNKED. Also we will see that Deedat is right and Mohd is wrong. Lets start off with a little background on Mohd. He doesn't know anything about Arabic, Hebrew nor Aramaic, as we shall see later. He is a Malaysian who obviously needs to stick to his country matters and leave these matters to people who know what they are talking about. Deedat is an Arab speaker, Mohd isn't.

Considering the common ground that Muslims and Christians share, i.e. the Prophethood of Jesus (pbuh), one would expect Mr. Gale to be more courteous towards Muslims who respect and honour the Messiah Jesus (pbuh) rather than Jews who would prefer to curse and spit on Mr. Gale's "God-incarnate". But then, I digress. 

Christians and Muslims don't share any common ground on Jesus. In Christology or Messiahology, Christ is God incarnate while in Islamicology he is just another prophet. Whatever common ground that Mohd tries to conjure up to make his ignorance look good to ignorant Muslims just won't work here. What is also intruiging is that Muslims like to turn to the Jews in dealing with matters on the Trinity but yet when Christians do it, we are considered wrong. Nick, who is a Hebrew speaker knows much more than Middle Eastern culture, compared to Mohd, who comes from Maylasia. I believe he is on the wrong side of the fence, as well as the wrong side of Asia on this matter. In fact we will expose Mohd's great ignorance a little later.

Anyway, we would proceed to only address this particular claim of equating "EESA" () with "ESAU" and the attempts of Mr. Gale and his cronies to pass onto us the fallacy of Jesus' name being "YESHUA" (). The rest of Mr. Gale's "arguments" are either dependent on this fallacy or not related at all (such as the charge that the Qur'an "wrongly" calls Mary "the sister of Aaron") to the issue at hand.


Is "EESA" () really "ESAU" (Hebrew)?

Mr. Gale tries to claim the following:

If you go and look around the Internet on Islamic websites you will see a common name used for Jesus in the Qur'an, called ISA. Muslims assert that this is the same Arabic equivalent to Jesus name. However all linguists will agree that ISA isn't Arabic nor is it even an Arabic form and it surely doesn't mean "Yahweh is Salvation" like Jesus name means...The Arabic equivalent for Jesus in the Qur'an is actually Esau!! Leave it to Muhammad to screw up everything. If Muhammad was literate it would be impossible for him to make this mistake.

We would for now ignore the argument that Muhammad (pbuh) "wrote the Qur'an" and address the issue of the etymology of "ESSA" (). What Mr. Gale seem to be confused about the etymology is that it was never meant to be a Hebrew equivalent. In the Qur'an, the man whom Western Christians know as "Jesus Christ" in their New Testament is EESA AL-MASEEH or AL-MASEEHU EESA (). This come from his name which was EESHO MASHEEKHA in Aramaic. The notion that his name was supposed to be "Yeshua" (), "Yeshu" or any other similar derivative in Hebrew is not factual as Hebrew was not Jesus' native language.

What Mr. Mohd is to dumb enough to admit to his readers is that Aramaic was spoken by only the common people in Israel. Who says Hebrew wasn't Jesus native language? Jesus was multilingual. Look at Mohd's comments about this issue:

Now, I can accuse you of LYING. NOWHERE did I said that Jesus (pbuh) did not speak Hebrew, I only said that Aramaic was the MOTHER TONGUE of Jesus (pbuh), as Aramaic was the common language of the time. Some scholars do believe that Jesus (pbuh) spoke Hebrew and Greek, in addition to Aramaic. But Aramaic is unanimously agreed to be the Primary language of Jesus (pbuh), and since his followers obviously can't speak Greek or Hebrew, it is possible that Jesus (pbuh) spread the Gospel in ARAMAIC.

Mr. Mohd must continuously update his history since he doesn't know anything about the Middle East. He contradicts himself by saying that He didn't claim that Jesus only spoke Aramaic and then says that his followers did't speak Greek or Hebrew. If his followers didn't speak Hebrew, why did they mistake Jesus ELI ElI to be Elijah on the cross? Since in Aramaic ELI can't be Elijah, only Hebrew could be heard in order for his followers to confuse Jesus calling for Elijah. We will look into this even more. We will see that Mohd's scholars is a website, not composed of any scholarly information and whose information is outdated by 22 years.

Obviously, one could see that the name "al-MaseeHu Eesa" () is much more similar to "Eesho Maskheekha" than the name "Yeshua". Interestingly, the name "Jesus Christ" called upon by Western Christians is the result of Greco-etymological evolution of the Aramaic name. "Eesho" was made Greek to be "Jesos" and "Messiah" in Greek is "Christos". They removed the "os" from "Christos" but not "Jesos" and go on to "Jesus Christ".

Mohd makes another dumb mistake on his paper Jesus in Greek isn't Jesos. He must intentionally mix up the name of Jesus in Greek to make it equal to the Quranic ISA. Also as for his Greco-etymological hoax, we will look into the Aramaic and the Greek in great detail. You will see just how uninformed Mohd really is. Here is the name for Jesus in Greek:


Phonetic Spelling


Do you see Jesos here? No. Mohd had to change the "I" to "J" and then eliminate the "U" to make it fit his bogus title of JESOS. In fact Iesous isn't even pronounced like EESA it is E A Suess. It would take a hard time to make this equal ISA of the Quran. Another reason to actually disprove Mr. Mohd's theory about Jesus being ISA is due to the fact that the Greek alphabets disagree with him. You can't eliminate Greek letters to make them apply to Arabic ones. These are two different language cultures and families. Greek is an Indo-European language while Arabic is Semitic. We are going to see just how fallable Mohd's argument really is later on in this paper. None of Mohd's theories about people removing anything holds water due to the fact that his Jesos doesn't exist.

Response to Criticism

Mr. Gale comments on the above:

Menj must do a lot of tongue twisting to make Eesho in Aramaic fit with Eesa in the Quran. For one thing "A" in Arabic, so far to my understading doesn't mean "O" like Eesho in Aramaic. 

I'm sure that the Critic is not blind to see the obvious similarity between EESA and EESHO! After all, he did try to pass off the claim that akbar (Arabic) and `akbawr (Hebrew) sound the same and therefore share the same meaning. Of course, the Critic did not realise that 'akbawr was never etymologically related to the akbar of the Arabic.

Mohd lies again, mouse in Hebrew isn't akbawr, it is akbar, there is no "W" in this word. The only difference between the two was the first letter, which was ayin in Hebrew. Mohd wants us to believe that akbar wasn't related to Akbar in Hebrew because it is spelled differently and now he wants to try to do the same thing with EESA (ISA) and EESHO. Lets look at Faisal's answer to Mohd's bogus claims which he didn't address at all:

Menj, I just finished reading your above link about Jesus, and will come back with some interesting facts for you. Meanwhile, I was surprised that you have not answered my post at your site, concerning the Arabic name for Christ. Here is the link again, and before reading it perhaps again, think of this,

1. If we agree with you that Isa is taken from "EESHO" (Aramaic), why the Quran used it, when Christian Arabs before Quran used "YESUA" (Hebrew)???? Thats something that you have failed to tackle????????? And the problem is that the Arabic name is similar to the Hebrew name but S (In Arabic) instead of SH (Hebrew)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a question that begs to be answered in Mohd's paper. He totally ignored the idea that history explcitedly shows that Yeshua in Arabic Yasuu is used for Jesus in Arabia right before Islam. Read this from my first paper, which Mohd so eloquently overlooked:

The story that Jesus spoke from the cradle appeared first in the Injilut-Tufuliyyah, known today as the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, a late apocryphal work most significantly preserved in Arabic alone. The only difference between the record in this apocryphal work and the Qur'an is that Jesus is recorded in the former as saying annaa huwa Yasuu ibnullaah ("I am Jesus the Son of God") and in the latter simply as saying innii abdullaah ("I am the servant of God" - Surah 19.30).

History clearly shows that Arabians around the time of Muhammad was using the Hebrew name for Jesus which Faisal, who is an Arabic speaking Arab mentioned. Since Mohd doesn't know Arabic he must use big words, which he probably doesn't know the meaning of either, to make his weak argument look strong than what it is. Here are more issues left unaddressed in Mohd's great rebuttal. Lets see Faisal talk about them since he, unlike Mohd knows Arabic:

In Arabic, we call Jesus Christ

( )

and the name () = (Jesus) is exactly re-written backwards in Quran ()??????????????? Have a look for yourself and ask your Arabic speaking friends about this () = CHRISTIAN ARABIC pre-Islamic times, becomes () = in Quran which uses the same language ARABIC???????? Look again:-

() ()

are the same alphabets but exactly 360% the opposite!!! And of-course, the opposite in meaning as well.

We must ask Mohd why you claim that the Quran used the Aramaic name of Jesus, when Arab speaking people who knows more Arabic than you claims that Jesus name wasn't ESSA or ISA but Yasuu? We see that Mohd is straying away from the tough argument he obviously can't answer. Another question that begs to be answered is why Mohd can't show any more borrowed Aramaic words in the Quran to support his theory of EESA being EESHO? Can't find them Mohd can you? In fact we see that it is Hebrew words and not Aramaic ones which were prevelant in Arabia, just look at these Hebrew words copied into the Quran. They are Hebrew words in the Quran that are spelled virtually the same way:

Habr S. 9:31 Hebrew (Haver)

Ittakhathoo ahbarahum waruhbanahum arbaban min dooni Allahi waalmaseeha ibna maryama wama omiroo illa liyaAAbudoo ilahan wahidan la ilaha illa huwa subhanahu AAamma yushrikoona S. 9:31

Sakina S. 2:248 Hebrew

Waqala lahum nabiyyuhum inna ayata mulkihi an ya/tiyakumu alttabootu feehi sakeenatun min rabbikum wabaqiyyatun mimma taraka alu moosa waalu haroona tahmiluhu almala-ikatu inna fee thalika laayatan lakum in kuntum mu/mineena

Lets look at Mohd's argument next and then address this immediate issue:

However, since Aramaic is the father of Arabic and that there exists the word EESHO which is the name of Jesus (pbuh) in this tongue, I wonder why does the Critic reject the relation between EESA and EESHO?

The reason why this is rejected is simply because it is a known historical fact that Yasuu which is the Hebrew equivalent to Jesus in Hebrew was used as the name of Jesus in Arabia. Another reason is due to the simple fact that the Quran copied HEBREW WORDS AND NO ARAMAIC WORDS into it's text. Mohd can't show you one example which proves that the Arabs used ISA as the name of Jesus before Muhammad. Recall Faisal's statements:

And the problem is that the Arabic name is similar to the Hebrew name but S (In Arabic) instead of SH (Hebrew)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you look at Mohd's EESHO, EESA theory you would see that the "SH" in Aramaic isn't equivalent to the EESA in Arabic but that the HEBREW NAME HAS THE SH which equals "S" in Arabic! This totally blows away Mohd's EESA theory. Also Mohd has yet to explain why the Arabs used the Arabic name for Yeshua instead of the Aramaic name for Jesus. More evidence debunking Mohd's theory of "Quran using Aramaic words,etc" stems from the authentic Sahih Hadiths. Read from the Hadith literature:

Sahih BukhariVolume 1, Book 1, Number 3:

Narrated 'Aisha:

(the mother of the faithful believers) The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Apostle was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright day light, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him the journey food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food like-wise again till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read.

The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, 'I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?' Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, 'Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists) has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous." (96.1, 96.2, 96.3) Then Allah's Apostle returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, "Cover me! Cover me!" They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, "I fear that something may happen to me." Khadija replied, "Never! By Allah, Allah will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your Kith and kin, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guests generously and assist the deserving calamity-afflicted ones."

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing WITH HEBREW LETTERS. HE WOULD WRITE FROM THE GOSPEL IN HEBREW as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah's Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Allah's Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while.

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari while talking about the period of pause in revelation reporting the speech of the Prophet "While I was walking, all of a sudden I heard a voice from the sky. I looked up and saw the same angel who had visited me at the cave of Hira' sitting on a chair between the sky and the earth. I got afraid of him and came back home and said, 'Wrap me (in blankets).' And then Allah revealed the following Holy Verses (of Quran):

'O you (i.e. Muhammad)! wrapped up in garments!' Arise and warn (the people against Allah's Punishment),... up to 'and desert the idols.' (74.1-5) After this the revelation started coming strongly, frequently and regularly."

The Hadith clearly explains to us that the Gospel in Muhammad's time WAS IN HEBREW AND NOT ARAMAIC. So much for Mohd's arguments. Also we must ask "how can Muhammad's cousin, Wariq know Hebrew and Jesus MAY HAVE SPOKEN IT"? This begs to be answered since Jesus which was a Jew isn't supposed to know Hebrew nor his companions but the Arabs are! Notice that Muhammad was illiterate and the only way he could hear the gospel was if it was explained to him by somebody who could read the HEBREW GOSPEL AND TORAH. This next Hadith verifies this point:

Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 12:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah IN HEBREW AND THEY USED TO EXPLAIN IT IN ARABIC TO THE MUSLIMS. On that Allah's Apostle said, "Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them, but say:-- "We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us." (2.136)


Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 460:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Apostle said (to the Muslims). "Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' " Found also in Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 632

I don't see Aramaic anywhere do you? Muhammad obviously couldn't read and he was to wimpy to even trust the Jews, so he had to come up with an excuse for the Muslims to not believe nor disbelieve what the Jews told him. Seems like the majority of his followers were nothing more than ignorant peasants who had to rely on second hand information. This explains why the Quran reads much more like the story of a reader with a mind block.

What Was Jesus' Native Language?

Mr. Gale vehemently opposes the above as follows:

One must ask Mohd and any other Muslim this question, how could Jesus be a Jewish Rabbi and not speak Hebrew, which is a requirement? You notice that these types of subjects aren't touched on by are educated and friendly Muslim websites.

The reason that these type of subjects aren't "touched" by Muslim websites is because everyone knows  (with the exception of Mr. Gale) that EESA refers to Jesus (pbuh), period. And as for Mr. Gale's question question, the common language of Palestine during the time of Jesus (pbuh) was Aramaic. Although there was also Hebrew being spoken, it was not as widely used as Aramaic. Since the people during Jesus' (pbuh) time spoke Aramaic, scholars have unanimously agreed that Aramaic was the language of Jesus. 

However what Mohd must answer is why the Hadith says that the Torah and the Gospel at the time of Muhammad was in HEBREW and not Aramaic. Proven to me what Jesus may have spoke in 1st century Palestine doesn't tell me to much of what was being read in 6th century Arabia does it Mohd? Mohd's own Islamic Hadiths destroy his theory that EESA is the Aramaic equivalent to EESHO. Hebrew letters and words as well as the language was being used by the people of the Book around the coming of Muhammad. You can even look through all the Hadiths yourself and you won't find any reference to Aramaic or Aramaic script or writings. That should tell us something about basless theories such as Mohd's Aramaic theory.

First, let us look at what the following article from, under sub-heading Aramaic, tells us:

Pronunciation: [rumAik], language belonging to the Northwest Semitic subdivision of the Semitic subfamily of the Hamito-Semitic family of languages...By the beginning of the 7th cent. B.C., Aramaic had spread throughout the Fertile Crescent as a lingua franca. Still later the Persians made Aramaic one of the official languages of their empire. After the Jews were defeated by the Babylonians in 586 B.C., they began to speak Aramaic instead of Hebrew, although they retained Hebrew as the sacred language of their religion....Aramaic was also the language of Jesus.

Read the immediate part after what Mohd posted:

Although Aramaic was displaced officially in the Middle East by Greek after the coming of Alexander the Great, it held its own under Greek domination and subsequent Roman rule. Aramaic was also the language of Jesus.

We must wonder why Mohd wasn't confident enough to post the fact that AFTER ALEXANDER THE GREAT, ARAMAIC WAS DISPLACED BY GREEK? Is it because he didn't want us to know this? Yes. Notice that his own quote said that GREEK DOMINATED UNDER ROMAN RULE. Since Jesus lived in a Roman Palestine we see that he did speak Greek. Also, I already know that Aramaic is the native language of Jesus, however it was Mohd who orginally said that Jesus never spoke anything other than Aramaic. The fact of the matter is not what language Jesus spoke but what was spoken in Arabia at the time of Muhammad. The Hadith clearly says that Hebrew was used for the Gospel and Torah.

In The History of the Aramaic Language, by Rocco A. Errico and Michael J. Bazzi,  the following is stated regarding the connection between Jesus and Aramaic: 

The language of the people of Palestine shifted from Hebrew to Aramaic sometime between 721-500 B.C. Therefore, we know that Jesus, his disciples and contemporaries spoke and wrote in Aramaic. The message of Christianity spread throughout Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia in this Semitic tongue. (see Appendix for the full article)

Here is the appendix article of Mohd:


Below is an article which I had previously referred to in this writing. Since I was unable to locate the URL, I hereby reproduce the whole article.

The History of the Aramaic Language
by Rocco A. Errico and Michael J. Bazzi

Aramaic was the language of Semitic peoples throughout the ancient Near East. It was the language of the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Hebrews and Syrians. Aram and Israel had a common ancestry and the Hebrew patriarchs who were of Aramaic origin maintained ties of marriage with the tribes of Aram. The Hebrew patriarchs preserved their Aramaic names and spoke in Aramaic.

The term Aramaic is derived from Aram, the fifth son of Shem, the firstborn of Noah. See Gen. 10:22. The descendants of Aram dwelt in the fertile valley, Padan-aram also known as Beth Nahreen.

The Aramaic language in Padan-aram remained pure, and in the course the common language (lingua franca), of all the Semitic clans. By the 8th century B.C. it was the major language from Egypt to Asia Minor to Pakistan. It was employed by the great Semitic empires, Assyria and Babylon. The Persian (Iranian) government also used Aramaic in their Western provinces.

The language of the people of Palestine shifted from Hebrew to Aramaic sometime between 721-500 B.C. Therefore, we know that Jesus, his disciples and contemporaries spoke and wrote in Aramaic. The message of Christianity spread throughout Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia in this Semitic tongue.

Present-day scholars claim that the Aramaic language itself passed through many stages of development:

Old Aramaic 975-700 B.C.
Standard Aramaic 700-200 B.C.
Middle Aramaic 200 B.C.-200 A.D.
Late Aramaic 200-700 A.D.

which includes:
a. Western Aramaic-
The dialect of the Jews (Jerusalem, the Talmud and the Targums) and the Syro-Palestine dialect.
b. Eastern Aramaic-The dialect of Syriac form, Assyrian Chaldean form, Babylon, Talmudic Aramaic and Mundaie. 

The problem of whether Jesus spoke Aramaic is unimportant to us since we already know this. The problem is simply the fact that Mohd, who tries to use Historical information, doesn't answer anything dealing with why the Arabs didn't use JESUS supposedly Aramaic name but his HEBREW name? This is something that is glaringly missing in Mohd's whole paper. And the reason why it is missing is because Islamic history disproves this whole argument. If the Arabs before Muhammad didn't use Aramaic translations of the Torah and Gospel, Muhammad obviously borrowed this name from somewhere else.

The following paragraph is from

First, Jesus' native tongue was Aramaic, and even if he knew Greek, he certainly did not speak it to his apostles, many of whom were uneducated fishermen...

Interestingly, the article goes on to talk about the textual authenticity of the New Testament (or rather, the lack of it!), but since we are not discussing this issue, we would end it here for now.

Actually Mohd's sources are flawed scholarship since this is basically a website an not an authoritive matter on any point dealing with the language of Jesus. Lets educate Mohd about what Jesus spoke and his outdated sources. Notice that Mohd's article dealing with Aramaic was from 1978, however all of this information comes from sources just discovered archeologically within the past few years in the 90's. Read:

"Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, LATIN and GREEK." John 19:19-20

Do you see the languages mentioned? Aramaic, Latin and Greek! Not just Aramaic. More historical and archeological information comes from this source, the September-October 1992 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review-"Did Jesus and the Apostles Speak Greek?":

Today, however, new archaeological discoveries have undermined the speculations of scholars and brought into clear light the fact that Greek was well known among the Jews, especially the priesthood, leadership class, and the merchant class. In particular, Greek was well understood in "Galilee of the Gentiles," the region where Jesus Christ of Nazareth was raised, and grew up as a young lad. There is no doubt, therefore, that Jesus and the original apostles all spoke Greek -- commonly, as a "second language."

Evidence from Caiaphas' Tomb

First, let us explore the recent findings in Jerusalem of the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Christ. Astonishing as it seems, the burial cave of the Caiaphas family was found, in Jerusalem, by "accident" -- the family of one of the priests who presided at the trial of Jesus. Workers building a water park in 1990 accidentally uncovered an ancient burial cave, underneath what is now a stretch of road in Jerusalem's Peace Forest. The surrounding area was used as an ancient necropolis during the late Second Temple period (first century B.C.- first century A.D.).

In the burial cave, archaeologists found twelve ossuaries, including one decorated with two six-petaled rosettes within concentric circles. The bone box displays a fluted column on a stepped base and topped by an Ionic capital. Inscriptions on two of the ossuaries found here indicate that this was the burial chamber of the Caiaphas family, and one of the ossuaries may well have contained the bones of the high priest who handed Jesus Christ over to the Romans and Pontius Pilate, after interrogating Him... (see Matt.26:57-68). Chapter Two -- Did Jesus and the Apostles Speak Greek?

Not only do we see evidence that Greek was the common language of Palestine we also find Pontius Pilate's tomb which blows away the Quranic theory of Jesus never being crucified. We continue:

Most Jewish Funerary Inscriptions in GREEK!

In the next article in the same issue of Biblical Archaeological Review, the author, Pieter W. Van Der Horst, points out that no less than 1,600 Jewish epitaphs -- funerary inscriptions -- are extant from ancient Palestine dating from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. The geographical spread of these inscriptions reveal that Jews were living all over the world at that time, especially the Roman period. In other words, when Jesus' brother James said in Acts 15, "Moses has been preached in every city for generations past and is read in the synagogues on every sabbath" (v.21), he was simply stating the truth. Peter, in his first sermon, enumerates a list of the countries from which Jews came to worship on that first Pentecost of the newly formed Christian Church (Acts 2:9-11).

Van Der Horst goes on:

Mohd needs to update his sources, need we say more. His evidence of Jesus probably only speaking Aramaic is laughable at best. He even gave this weak rebuttal on this matter presented above:

Anyway, what I want to highlight here is Mr. Gale's INCESSANT attitude of claiming Jesus (pbuh) spoke Hebrew. Scholars contend that he MAY have spoken Hebrew and/or Greek. But all agree that Jesus (pbuh) TAUGHT AND SPOKE in Aramaic to his disciples. Wonder why is that so hard for Mr. Gale to understand?

If Mohd is so sure on his sources why are his scholars never mentioned? How come this information which you get came from the late 70's while the above information comes from the early to mid 90's? We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic, we also know that Jesus spoke Hebrew, Greek and even Latin. Notice, the Roman centurian spoke Latin and was from Rome. Jesus spoke to him also! However none of this explains why the Arabs used the Gospel in Hebrew at the time of Muhammad nor does it explain why no Aramaic words are used in the Quran to support Mohd's theory.

Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2000  in its article sub-heading Aramaic Language also states the following:

Aramaic Language, Semitic language closely related to Hebrew...Before the Christian era, Aramaic had become the language of the Jews in Palestine. Jesus preached in Aramaic, and parts of the Old Testament and much of the rabbinical literature were written in that language. Christian Aramaic, usually called Syriac, also developed an extensive literature, especially from the 4th to 7th centuries.

We already know that Jesus spoke Aramaic here is what this same encyclopedia said about the Greek language:

With the conquests of Alexander the Great and the extension of Macedonian rule in the 4th century BC, a shift of population from Greece proper to the Greek settlements in the Middle East occurred. In this period, known as the Hellenistic, the Attic dialect, spoken by the educated classes as well as by the merchants and many emigrants, became the language common TO ALL THE MIDDLE EAST.

Here is what this article said about the gospels:

The vernacular tongue, on the other hand, was less influenced either by classical reminiscences or by the new developments of Hellenistic thought. It borrowed more freely from the vocabularies of Middle Eastern languages and suffered more severely from breakdown of the traditional grammar. It is known mainly from letters and documents on papyrus, and only slowly came to be used in literary works by lower-class writers. Of these the most important are the four Gospels of the New Testament, which, however, show a peculiar form of Koine, with a strong Semitic admixture. Later church fathers wrote in the literary language. (ibid)

Notice that it didn't say anything about the gospels being in Aramaic but it said that the Gospels had a mixture of semitic admixture IN THE GREEK TEXTS.

On how extensive the use of Aramaic was in the writings of the Old Testament and rabbinical works during the era of Jesus (pbuh), the article at states:

Parts of the books of Ezra and Daniel in the Bible were written in an Aramaic dialect, as were some notable Jewish prayers, such as the kaddish. Other important documents in Aramaic include portions of the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds and the Targum Onkelos, a commentary on the Pentateuch. Nabataean (the form of Aramaic current among the Nabataean Arabs), Samaritan, and Palmyrene were other significant ancient dialects of Aramaic.

We already know this so what's your point Mohd?

There are indeed some claims by certain scholars that Jesus (pbuh) may have spoken Greek and Hebrew as well, but this is an assumption that has not been historically proven since even parts of the Old Testament and rabbinical writings were in Aramaic. Nevertheless, even the originator of such claims too agree that Aramaic was the primary language of Jesus (pbuh), i.e. his mother tongue, in addition to their assertion that Jesus (pbuh) may have spoken Greek (the language of the Romans) as well as Hebrew (language of the scribes and Pharisees). But since his disciples were unlearned men, it was unlikely that Jesus (pbuh) spoke Greek or Hebrew to them and would had surely spoken in the language that is the lingua franca of the region at the time - Aramaic. Below is a page of "The Lord's Prayer" in the language that Jesus (pbuh) spoke to his disciples.

Jesus did speak Greek and Hebrew read this:

All of this is very interesting, of course. But what about Jesus Christ, and the disciples? Did Jesus also use Greek, commonly, in speaking to the people of Judea? For centuries, theologians and scholars have assumed that He only spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. HOWEVER, THIS ASSUMPTION NOW SEEMS TO BE FAR OFF THE MARK! (ibid)

Notice that this is the same argument used by Muslims in their attempts to tell us that the bible isn't the true words of Jesus. They even appeal to the Aramaic Bible society on the internet to support them. However history and archeology proves for a fact that Jesus never spoke just Aramaic:

Jesus and the Disciples Spoke Greek!

Another article in the very same issue of BAR discusses this very issue. The author, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, points out that there is no doubt Jesus spoke Aramaic. He shows that although a form of Aramaic was "the dominant language, it was not the only language spoken in Palestine at that time." He continues:

"Greek, of course, was in widespread use in the Roman empire at this time. Even the Romans spoke Greek, as inscriptions in Rome and elsewhere attest. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that THAT GREEK WAS ALSO IN COMMON USE AMONG THE JEWS OF PALESTINE. The Hellenization of Palestine began even before the fourth-century B.C. conquest by Alexander the Great. Hellenistic culture among the Jews of Palestine spread more quickly after Alexander's conquest, especially when the country was ruled by the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes (second century B.C.), and later under certain Jewish Hasmonean and Herodian kings" (p.59). (ibid)

Mohd doesn't read the bible closely nor does he understand Christianty. However this is a bad thing to do because it sets him up for a fall. Islamic misinformation about Jesus is based on mere conjecture instead of facts, much like Mohd's unprovable Aramaic theory:

A reference to Greek-speaking Jews is found clearly in the book of Acts. In Acts 6:1 certain early Christians in Jerusalem are spoken of as being "Hellenists." The King James Version says, "And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians (Hellenistai) against the Hebrews (Hebraioi), because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration" (Acts 6:1). Who were these Hellenists or "Greeks"? The term applies to Greek-speaking Jews, in whose synagogues Greek was spoken, and where undoubtedly the Septuagint Scriptures were commonly used. This is verified in Acts 9:29 where we read: "And he (Saul, whose name was later changed to Paul) spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians . . ." The "Grecians" or "Hellenists" were the Greek-speaking Jews, who had their own synagogues, even in Jerusalem...

What about Jesus Christ, and the apostles? Did they, too, commonly speak Greek as a "second language"?

Similarly, when Jesus conversed with the Roman centurion, a commander of a troop of Roman soldiers, the centurion most likely did not speak Aramaic or Hebrew. It is most likely that Jesus conversed with him in Greek, the common language of the time throughout the Roman empire (see Matt.8:5-13; Luke 7:2-10; John 4:46-53). A royal official of Rome, in the service of Herod Antipas, a Gentile, would most likely spoken with Jesus in Greek.

In addition, we find that Jesus journeyed to the pagan area of Tyre and Sidon, where He spoke with a Syro-Phoenician woman. The Gospel of Mark identifies this woman as Hellenes, meaning a "Greek" (Mark 7:26). The probability is, therefore, that Jesus spoke to her in Greek. (ibid)

So, did Pilate, the centurian learn Aramaic just to speak to Jesus when they were from the Latin and Greek speaking city of Rome? No. Did the Syro-Phoenician woman, have to learn Aramaic to speak to Jesus in her native land? No. These are the types of questions that beg to be answered when we see Muslims claiming that Jesus only spoke Aramaic. I wonder what excuse they will try to come up with next.

Even more remarkable, however, is the account in John 12, where we are told: "And there were CERTAIN GREEKS among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus" (John 12:20-21). These men were Greeks, and most likely spoke Greek, which Philip evidently understood, having grown up in the region of Galilee, not the back-water region many have assumed, but "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Matt.4:15) -- a place of commerce and international trade, where Greek would have been the normal language of business.

Having grown up in Galilee, it is evident that Jesus and His disciples must have spoken Greek, whenever it suited their purpose to do so. (ibid)

Based on Historical, Biblical, and archeological evidence we find out that Jesus did speak Greek along with Aramaic as well as Hebrew and possibly even Latin. One must ask Mohd why archeological evidence discovered years after his old research shows Jesus speaking Greek? Also Jesus did speak Hebrew read this:

Phrases such as the following which are preserved in the Gospels in their original form are all Hebrew phrases:
(a) "Hossana" - Matthew 21:9 (b) "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani" - Matthew 27:46 (c) "Rabbi" - John 3:2 (d) "Talitha cumi" - Mark 5:41

Maybe Mohd can explain why this is the case of Jesus speaking Hebrew when his sources say that he didn't.


The Word "EESA" ( in the Bible

Below is an image of a page taken from the International Bible Society translation in Farsi of the first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. The words which are underlined mean EESA MASIH or EESA respectively.

Is Mr. Gale now going to say that the Christians who read the Bible in Farsi are worshipping "ESAU"? That would be a splendid charge, for these Christians would then be (according to Mr. Gale) worshipping "ESAU" as "God the Son" in their Trinity!

This is utter nonsense since we aren't talking about Farsi, but Arabic. Mohd did Muhammad speak Farsi? No. Lets see the response by Faisal to this stupid matter:

5. About the Persian Bible which was translated in 1928, its simple, even Kurds use Isa, and mind you that Since Islam Persian is Arabic Alphabets, so, I dont see the reason to quote it, simply because translators are using ISLAMIC names, e.g., John in Islam (Yihya) have a look at the Persian Bible here; and here

Another one of Mohd's phony tactics exposed!!! Faisal embarrass him by showing that this bible was translated in 1928 using Islamic names. What does this have to do with Yasuu, which was used before the beginning of Islam? Absolutely nothing. I wonder why Mohd didn't mention that to his reader. Here is Mohd's statements on this after being exposed:

Oh, yes we are! Since you insipidly try to claim that EESA is from Hindu scripture, I bring forth a language which does use EESA! And you cannot even answer why don't they use YASHUA!

Mohd is saying face with this approach since we see that Farsi is an ISLAMIC language which used names that became prevelant after ISLAM. Why bring forth a language using EESA after Islam when you have yet to explain why Hindu names are being used in the Quran before Arabic. No need to say more on this issue. Here is Mohd's basless comments on the Greek and Hebrew language evidence:

I read it and it does not conclusively say that Jesus spoke HEBREW to his DISCIPLES. I will bring forth more data on Aramaic, since Mr. Gale tries to deny truth and wants to use falsehood to prove his claims.


We clearly see that Mohd can't read and if Jesus didn't conclusively speak Hebrew, (note we already proven that he spoken Greek) then Mohd can look at this reference and explain it for us. Read:

The question of whether Jesus spoke Hebrew or Aramaic on the cross is answerable. However, the reason for Matthew and Mark recording it differently is probably due to the way the event was spoken of in Aramaic after it happened, and due to the recipients of the Gospel. However, the whole issue is not a valid criticism of the Bible.

Mark 15:34 is probably the most quoted Aramaism in the New Testament, being "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabakthani." However, it is doubtful that Jesus spoke in the language that Mark records them in. The reason is simple; THE PEOPLE HEARING JESUS' WORDS THOUGH HE WAS CALLING ELIJAH (Matthew 27:47 and Mark 15:35-36). In order for the onlookers to have made this mistake, Jesus would have to have cried "Eli, Eli," not "Eloi, Eloi." Why? Because in Hebrew Eli can be either "My God" or the shortened form of Eliyahu which is Hebrew for Elijah. However, in Aramaic Eloi can be only "My God." (101 Cleared Up Contradictions, Smith, Jay, Chowdhry, Alex, Jepson, Toby, Schaeffer, James; pg 33)

Since the people mistakenly thought Jesus was calling on Elijah, the only way they would make this mistake was if Jesus was speaking Hebrew, since Aramaic doesn't allow for this mistake. Since Mohd is obviously a great language expert we must wonder what he would say on this? Probably nothing worthwhile so lets move on.


Is "EESA" () From Hindu Scriptures?

As in the tradition of Christian misassumptions, twisting and the misuse of sources for their own agenda, Mr. Gale had to assume the following:

Muhammad in his wisdom believed that ISA was the Messiah of both the Christians and Jews. However, ISA doesn't come from neither. ISA is actually derived from the Hindus!!! This is religion that predated ISLAM for thousands of years!!! Upanishads were a group who originally came from Persia or Modern Day Iran. They later were found in India taking with them their religious beliefs with them...

Firstly, Mr. Gale had not shown to us that Muhammad (pbuh) is the author of the Qur'an and have based this assertion upon the common Christian fallacy. Secondly, the rest of the material provided by Mr. Gale that follows this assertion from his obscure source Allah : Divine or Demonic by an unknown who calls himself Steve Van Netton is lengthy but offers no real proof for the influence of Hinduism in Arabia or how and why had the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) taken this name and incorporate it in the Qur'an. And finally, since we have firmly established the fact that the name "Eesa" () has an Aramaic origin and has no relation to Sanskrit, we have to dismiss Mr. Gale's ludicrous assertion as having little merit for acceptance. Assuming similarity in the sound of names mean they have to be the one and same name is fallacious. 

Actually Mohd tries the weakest getaway I've ever seen. He has yet to prove that the Quran isn't from Muhammad nor has he yet to prove that Muhammad saw Gabriel other than what Muhammad said.

For example, why would Allah have to write his book in this way as well as use third person references when he is supposedly only the ONE GOD as Islam claims? Lets look at some examples:

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, The Beneficent, the Merciful. Master of the Day of Judgment, Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help. SHOW US THE STRAIGHT PATH, The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray. S. 1:1-7

It doesn't take a genius to see that this truely can't be from Allah. Would he know say that this isn't from God? Using his own criteria against him, he would have to. Look at more of the highlighted parts. Since Muslims believe that the Quran is totally from Allah using this metholodgy we are forced to conclude that Allah is worshipping another Allah and that Allah needs another god named Allah to show him the straight path. If this isn't the case then the Quran isn't totally written by Allah but by men. More examples of the Quran not being given by Allah is seen here:

"We come not down save by commandment of thy Lord. Unto him belongeth all that is before us and all that is behind us and all that is between these two, and thy Lord is never forgetful." S. 19:6

We must wonder is Allah coming down because he was commanded by Muhammad's lord. If so is there anther Allah that we don't know about? If we use Mohd's metholodgy we are to believe that this isn't inspired by God. If this isn't Allah coming down at the command of another one called Allah then these are the words of men and angels which debunks Islamic idea of all the Quran coming from just God alone.

Mohd assumes what he has yet to prove, namely that the Quran is not Muhammad's words but God's. The claim of inspiration in and of itself does not prove inspiration. Nor does the fact that an inspired author of scripture that never explicitly claimed inspiration deny that he was speaking God's words to man.

Furthermore, it is not true that the Quran contains nothing but the words of God since there are several places where it is clearly not God who is speaking:

"I have been commanded TO SERVE TO LORD OF THIS CITY, Him who has sanctified it and to whom all things belong. S. 27:91 (read verses 83-93 for context)

The question begs to be asked if God is speaking who then is the Lord that he serves? If it is the angels or Muhammad speaking, then the Quran cannot be considered 100% the word of God. This is exactly what we find. As for Eesa having an Aramaic origin, Mohd has yet to prove that other than twisting the meaning of EESHO to be EESA. We must ask him. If Aramaic is a father language to Arabic, how come they didn't just used Alef at the end of Jesus name? This question begs to be answered by our biblical expert Mohd.

As far as Steve Van Netton, Mohd must make up fallacies to delete his work about ISA. I didn't use just Steve van Netton, as well as anybody can see. One Must wonder why Mohd didn't mention the Hindu Manuscripts that I posted in my paper? Are you scared to do this Mohd? We will see why Mr. Van Netton showed ISA to be the same as the Quranic Isa. This will be shown in the next section.


The "Jesus of Christianity" is actually a Hindu?

After writing his lengthy apologetic attack on Islam, Mr. Gale tries to conclude

The ISA of the Quran clearly is found in Hindu texts predating Islam, it isn't the same as Jesus Christ in Hebrew and in fact history shows that it isn't even the Arabic equivalent.

For that purpose, Mr. Gale tries to quote an account which he claims is parallel to the Qur'anic Jesus. Well, if Mr. Gale wants to play the same game, we shall not hesitate to play along (this is actually very funny).

It is commonly accepted within scholarly circles that 

The early Vedic texts are pre-Buddhistic; a plausible date accepted for the composition of the Rigveda is between 1200 and 1000 B.C., though exact chronology of these early texts is difficult to establish.(Encyclopedia Brittanica (1992), Vol. 22,pp 616)

So Mr. Gale was right about Hinduism pre-dating Islam but he failed to mention that Hinduism also predates Christianity by a few hundred years. Now let us see the reproduction of the quote taken from Bhavishya Mahapurana in Mr. Gale's paper regarding the "Jesus" of Hindu scripture.

One day, Shalivahan, the chief of the Sakyas, went into the Himalayas. There, in the Land of the Hun (= Ladakh, a part of the Kushan empire), the powerful king saw a man sitting on a mountain, who seemed to promise auspiciousness. His skin was fair and he wore white garments. "The king asked the holy man who he was. The other replied: 'I am called a son of God, born of a virgin, minister of the non-believers, relentless in search of the truth.' The king then asked him: 'What is your religion?' The other replied, 'O great king, I come from a foreign country, where there is no longer truth and where evil knows no bounds. In the land of the non-believers, I appeared as the Messiah. But the demon Ihamasi of the barbarians (dasyu) manifested herself in a terrible form; I was delivered unto her in the manner of the non-believers and ended in Ihamasi's realm...'

So we see Shalivanan, the powerful king asking the holy man who he was. The holy man answered the following, stating that he is

  • a son of God

  • born of a virgin

  • minister of the non-believers

  • was tempted by a demon (Ihamasi)

Now, we notice that this account is very much parallel to the New Testament account on Jesus (pbuh)! The New Testaments (also) states that Jesus was

  • the Son of God (John 3:16, Luke 1:35)

  • born of a virgin (Matthew 1:26-31)

  • sent to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:22-27)

  • tempted by the Devil (Matthew 4:1-6)

  • a holy man (Luke 4:34)

  • and was even questioned by "powerful kings"; the Pontius Pilate and Herod on who he was (Luke 23:1-4, Luke 23: 7-9)

Except for Jesus (pbuh) being born of the virgin Mary (peace be upon her), none of the statements above are in the Qur'an. What would Mr. Gale say now, seeing that his "God-incarnate" is actually a manifestation from Hindu scriptures? 

This is hilarious because Mohd has just made himself look like a fool. This text Mohd is talking about is the Bhavishya text not the Rigveda. How can he rescue anybody when he doesn't even know the difference between the Hindu text as well as Hindu history? Read this about the Bhavishya:

Finally, for me, the most interesting Isa reference is found in the Kashmiri Hindu text "Bhavishya Maha Purana" (circ. 2nd c., the name of a specific Sanskrit text of the "purana" category) about king Shalivahana (last mentioned circ. AD 80) meeting a foreigner calling himself Ishvara Putaram (Son of God), Isha Masih (Isha = Isa in Arabic = Jesus; Masih = Messiah), and Kanya Garbam (Born of a Virgin). (

This text, the Bhavishya is dated to AD 80 and we must wonder how can Mohd claim that this predated Christianity. You need to read before replying Mohd. Note: this information comes from Indian sources. This is highly embarrasing. Also to drive it home, this text is the first text in which EESA is used for JESUS, which ironically the Quran used. If it was an ARamaic name why no EESHO Mohd? If you look at the article ISA which I wrote, I quoted this same text which Mohd thinks came before Christianity. I wonder why couldn't he see this. This was the main thing I wrote about to let the reader know so they wouldn't confuse the dates. Mohd needs hooked on phonics badly. Also Shavilahava lived after Christ lived so again Mohd must explain to us how a man after Christianity could incorporate something back into Christianity. Look at this from the, a favorite of Mohd:

Sanskrit drama (c.A.D. 400A.D. 1100) had its beginnings in those hymns of Rig-Veda which contain dialogues. Staged drama probably derives from the dance and from religious ceremonial. It is characterized by the complete absence of tragedy; death never occurs on the stage. Other typical features are the alternation of lyrical stanzas with prose dialogue and the use of Sanskrit for some characters and Prakrit for others (see Full article here).

This link shows the Rig Veda being composed and written around 400 a.d., long after Jesus and the beginning of Christianity. So much for Mohd's great comparison of Christianity with Hinduism.

But of course, I will rescue Mr. Gale from his predicament, because we both respect and honour the beloved Jesus (pbuh): since God had sent many prophets to different parts of the world to preach the message of monotheism, it is possible that the coming of Jesus (pbuh) had been foretold in past scriptures but the followers of Hinduism had corrupted their scripture to become the pagan religion it is today. Scholars have agreed that Hinduism was never a pagan religion in origin, it was once a monotheistic faith, very much like the religion of the Arabs before they turn to idolatry. So, it is highly possible that the Hindus knew of the coming of Jesus (pbuh), hence the parallel accounts. This explanation would also be applicable to why the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is found in Hindu scriptures.

Who are these scholars Mohd? There isn't a single reference in the world which showed the Hinduism was orginally a Monotheistic religion. Now are we supposed to accept your assumptions? Also no historical references show the Arabs as being Monotheistic before Islam. If this was so true, surely you can post us with some credible source. However since you can't find any, we all know that this is a bogus claim on your part. Lets rescue Mohd from his ignorance about the history of Hinduism, to see if it was indeed a monotheistic religion:

The earliest archaeological evidence of Hinduism was found in the excavations done at Harappa and Mohenjodaro, where, among many other items, were unearthed a number of seals showing the bull and a seated yogi and some icons representing the mother goddess, the phallus symbol and a seated yogi.

According to some historians it is possible to draw some parallels between these and the subsequent iconographic images of Saivism and Shaktism...

In order for us to believe that Hinduism may have been monotheistic, as Mohd claims we must consider Saivism and Shaktism as monotheistic religions. Fat chance.


Mr. Gale's Rehashed Fallacy

As have been shown in another article, Mr. Gale had committed the fallacy of equivocation, just as he did with his arguments in "ALLAH AKBAR". In this argument, Mr. Gale tries to pretend that `akbawr (mouse) in Hebrew is the same as akbar (great, emphatic form) in Arabic, but this is fallacious since the Arabic akbar is derived from the Arabic word kabeer and the Hebrew kabar, or otherwise, the Prophet Job (pbuh) would suddenly have to MOUSE his words (Job 35:16). Brother Shibli Zaman, a scholar who had studied the Bible for 15 years in its original languages, had said in his response on Mr. Gale's tactics in pseudo-etymological "scholarship":

This word play is for school children and illiberal people but has no place in any scholarly discussion.

Perhaps Mr. Gale should take this advice and return to the school where he had learned his childish games.


This matter was already discussed at this link, which Mohd has yet to post an answer to. In fact he made up every single excuse to say that he wouldn't answer it. Read my answer to this claim at this link:


In short, let us break down the whole argument:

Investigating Mohd's EESHO = EESA Theory

Now is the time to investigate Mohd's great theories to see if they are applicable. To show Mohd's ignorance of the Semitic languages, lets look at the full Hebrew spelling of Jesus, which even Ahmeed Deedat admitted too:

``The Holy Quran refers to Jesus as "Eesa",() and this name is used more times than any other title, because this was his "Christian" name. Actually, his proper name was "Eesa" (Arabic), or "Esau". (Hebrew); classical "Yeheshua", (). which the Christian nations of the West Latinised as Jesus. (Ahmad Deedat, Christ in Islam, Chapter 2)

Jesus name totally would be Yeheshua. Faisal mentioned that the SH would be S in Arabic. Therefore if you eliminate Yeh you are left with ESHUA since SH is S in Arabic it would be ESUA. One thing Mohd fails to explain is why Deedat already mentioned that EESA comes from ESAU without mentioning anything about the Aramaic? Is it because Deedat knows that EESA couldn't be EESHO due to the simple fact that "O" and "H" in Aramaic are just what they are in Arabic and cannot be eliminated? Yes. Since Mohd obviously doesn't know that he must try to dupe his reder into believing this hoax of his. Mohd claimed earlier that:

And about Ahmad Deedat, who cares what he says or thinks? I have read Mr. Deedat's claims and it is factually WRONG, as my article had shown! Just because a Muslim agrees with Quennel does not make it right for Mr. Gale to debunk my article!

Anyway, we shall deal with the rebuttal soon with an update.



Mohd believed that EESA came from EESHO in Aramaic. He also said:

the name "Jesus Christ" called upon by Western Christians is the result of Greco-etymological evolution of the Aramaic name. "Eesho" was made Greek to be "Jesos" and "Messiah" in Greek is "Christos". They removed the "os" from "Christos" but not "Jesos" and go on to "Jesus Christ".

We already discussed how Mohd's etymological theory was bogus now we will illustrate it in detail. The Greek name for Jesus is:

Gk: Iesous (), equivalent to Joshua, Hebrew Yehoshua () , meaning "God is Salvation" or "God saves".

The Greek name is spelled iota, eta, sigma, omicron, upsilon and sigma. The Hebrew name is spelled yod, he, waw, shin, and ayin. Mohd falls victim to the Latinized name for Jesus by saying that it is Jesos. The iota in Greek refers to "yod" in Hebrew and its translation in Hebrew would be equivalent to "Y". What does this have to do with Aramaic, you might say. Hold on that's coming soon. Notice that the name Jerusalem is spelled with a "yod" also its Hebraic name is "Yerushalaim". Iota, in Greek, is used in the name of "Jeconias (Jechoniah) which is spelled iota, epsilon, chi, omicron, nu, iota, alpha and sigma. The name Jeconias, itself means "Yahweh will establish". The first letter is "Yod", there is no "J" in Hebrew.

Iota in Jesus is equal to "Y" which is Yod. For those who might know, EESA in Arabic isn't spelled beginning with "Y" or Yod. Here is what Walid, an Arab Palestinian, whose father was a professor of Islamic studies says about the spelling of EESA:

Esa in Arabic is:

3 e s a [Note Arabic is spelled from right to left]

THE 3 IS A AYEN, a letter that is not in the english. IT IS NOT "Y". The closest in english it would be "i" at the beginning of the word.

EESA isn't spelled with the "Y" or Ya. The Iota in the Greek name of Jesus or Iesous has no relationship at all to ISA, nor EESA since it refers to "Y" dealing with the name of Jesus. Nor is it "E", if Mohd tries to use the Iesous--EESHO theory since "E" in Greek is epsilon and not eta which is a short "E" and as a literal alphabet "I"!! This eliminates the so-called possibility of the Greek name Iesous bein EESA since it is an historical fact that Iesous was written after the Hebrew name of Jesus. Note: The Iota is used to represent Yod in Hebrew unlike gamma, and upsilon whose meanings are "g, gh" and "u" respectively.

The word "EESA" () in the Qur'an comes from "EESHO" in Aramaic and never had any etymological ties with Hebrew or the word "ESAU"

Here we will investigate the Aramaic part of Mohd's claim but first look at this table of alpabet meanings.

Mohd claims that EESA in Arabic is the same as EESHO in Aramaic and then he claims that EESA or Isa has no relationship at all to the Hebraic name Jesus (Yeshua) but the Aramaic which is EESHO. Lets bring back Walid's statements on EESA:

Esa in Arabic is:

3 e s a [Note Arabic is spelled from right to left]

THE 3 IS A AYEN, a letter that is not in the english. IT IS NOT "Y". The closest in english it would be "i" at the beginning of the word.

If you look at the table of Above you would see that ayen in Aramaic is equivalent to "O" and not "I" like ISA in Arabic. Also lets look at the name of EESHO from Aramaic and see just exactly what EESHO means. We will see that unlike EESA which is spelled with Ayen, EESHO in Aramaic is far from this:


(Equivilant to "Y")

[28] EE-SHO MSHEE-KHAA - - - - Jesus Christ.
MSHEE-KHAA means Messiah (the annointed one), Christ is derived from
the Greek word "Cristos" meaning Messiah. He was annointed with
MISH-KHAA (oil) of which the word MSHEE-KHAA is derived. Since this is
His aramaic name, this is as He was called by His friends and desciples.

[29] YAA-LOO-PAA - - - - a student/learner/pupil
(RRU-BEE = teacher / my master / my lord / Rabbi) ,
(MAAL-PAA-NAA (M) / MAAL-PAAN-TAA (F) = teacher / learner).
[30] YAA-QOO-RRAA - - - - heavy / very meaningful

Writing the letter.
  • Starting from right to left, write a short u (straight line if proceeded by another letter to the left) with right side of letter higher than left side.

  • If you look at the name EESHO in Aramaic you find out that the EE is equal to "Y" and not "E" or "I"!! Therefore since Mohd thinks that EESA comes from the Aramaic EESHO then he must explan to us why "EE" is equivalent to "Y" and not ayin? Taking his methodology, EESA is equivalent to YSHO or YESHO, which is actually what EESHO means. The Latinized letters are very very deceiving. More evidence is proven about EESHO being "Y" or "YOD" by looking at examples 29 and 30 which are spelled as "Y"!! There is no difference in the spelling for none of these examples. The only difference comes from the latinized showing of Jesus name in Aramaic. It means Y in Aramaic not "EE" or "I" or Ayin. Mohd has just fallen victim to relying on his lack of knowledge of Arabic and Aramaic and by using the latinized wording he has really embarrassed himself. In Arabic EESA is spelled with Ayen, this is the equivalent to the Aramaic Ayen or Aih. Lets see what Aih means:


    (No equivilant, but like the first letter of Alley)

    [46] EE-DAA - - - - festival / a time of feasting or celebration / a feast / an aniversary day of joy.
    (EE-DAA GOO-RRAA = Easter.) (EE-DAA SOO-RRAA = Christmas.)
    (SHAAH-RRAA) = means the same as EE-DAA, but we dont use combination words (as above) to associate Easter or Christmas.
    [47] AA-ZEEZ - - - - a person or thing very dear to you
    [48] AA-SHIQ - - - - excessive or enthusiastic passion or love

    Writing the letter.

  • Leftward, make a very short horizontal line on base line.
  • From left of horizontal line, make an upward line.
  • From left of horizontal line, make a vertical line (do not go past top of slanted line.)

  • Read Walid's statements again:

    Esa in Arabic is:

    3 e s a [Note Arabic is spelled from right to left]

    THE 3 IS A AYEN, a letter that is not in the english. IT IS NOT "Y". The closest in english it would be "i" at the beginning of the word.

    If EESA was the Aramaic equivalent to EESHO, Jesus name in Aramaic, then the name should've been spelled with the "AIH" and not "YOD" which it is spelled with. Here is what Walid said about what Jesus is spelled with in Arabic:

    Yasoo3 is that Arabic for Jesus. the "3" is a ayen as in the Hebrew and Arabic. I hope that helps Walid

    Notice that Faisal mentioned that EESA is a purposedly backward spelling of Jesus in ARabic. the "Y" is equal to YA in Arabic. Y in Arabic is equal to "YOD" in Aramaic and Hebrew, which is exactly what Jesus name is spelled with from both languages!


    EE-SHO MSHEE-KHAA - - - - Jesus Christ.

    Mohd's theory about EESHO being EESA holds no weight since "EE" in Aramaic is equivalent to "Y" like it's Hebrew and Arabic counterparts. If EESHO was EESA surely Aih or Ayen would've been used, however this isn't what we find and it shows that both Aramaic and Hebrew spelling of Jesus came from Yeshua and is spelled with YOD. This also verfies the Hadith, which authenticates history by showing that the Gospel was in HEBREW during the time of Muhammad and not in Aramaic. Either way Mohd loses because both EE in EESHO means "Y" like in Yeshua compared to EESA which is spelled with a ayin which means "I". Special thanks goes to Assyrian website which is one of the links of my friend Ghassan's people who speak Aramaic this link can be found here: Also special thanks goes to Walid who has been speaking Arabic for 40 years. He also speaks and writes classical Arabic very fluently and he memorized much of the Quran in Arabic, by heart. Since he obviously knows more Arabic than Mohd I am glad to have his help.

    Since Mohd thinks that ISA came from the Aramaic name which is EESHO I wonder can he explain the Bhavishya Mahapurana which shows just what the Quranic name of ISA is. Read:

    Now we must wonder why the Hindu account which Mohd himself admitted, predated Islam as well as Christianity (which he erroneously claimed too) and then we find that this document has the name EESA in it? The exact name of the Quran? And not Jesus name which is supposedly EESHO? So how could the etymological change occur in something that existed long before Islam and Christianity Mohd?

    Before I end this paper, it must be clarified that I wrote this paper not for the sake of refuting Mr. Gale, but for the benefit of those who have been duped into believing his claims. IMHO, we should not take the writings of well-known bigoted people like Mr. Gale seriously but unfortunately, people like to take a non-response as being unable to respond. Mr. Peter Westh, a B.A. holder in History of Religions and currently pursuing his Masters from the University of Copenhagen, had commented regarding Mr. Gale's arguments:

    I would not bother to try to refute it if I were you. As far as I am concerned, it is complete and utter nonsense.

    And as far as to what we have seen, propagating nonsense is what Mr. Gale, the self-confessed abdul saleeb (slave of the Cross) does best!


    Am I supposed to care what a person says Mohd? His scholar only has a BA in history in Religion and history, while everybody I used, including Mohd's own sources against him, had Masters and PHD's why should I care about what somebody claims is nonsense when Mohd can't even get the date right about the Hindu texts, as well as confuse EESA with EESHO by thinking that they are the same thing because of the Latinized spelling when in actualilty EESHO's "EE" is Y just like YOD in Hebrew and Ya in Arabic? Hilarious.


    Here we will examine some of the modifications in Mohd's ISA article. Just look at how he modified his article to cover his embarrasing mistakes and how he intentionally changed words to make it seem like Arabic speakers before him never thought that ISA was ESAU. One modification of his was this:

    Anyway, we would proceed to only address this particular claim of equating "EESA" () with "E'SAU" and the attempts of Mr. Gale and his cronies to pass onto us the fallacy of Jesus' name being "YESHUA" (). We would also study the claims of one Mr. "Faisal", a Christian Arab whom Mr. Gale heavily used his material, that "YASO'A" () should be the correct Arabic name of Jesus, since the Christian Arabs have been using this name long before the advent of Islam.

    Not only did he ignore the information that Ahmeed Deedat, A Arabic speaker, said about Esau being EESA or ISA, but now he attempts to interpolate this idea as being something I made up!! We will also study Faisal's claims that Mohd, who can't speak Arabic, cannot answer.

    The Name of Jesus in the Qur'an

    In the Qur'an, we are told that God gave Mary, the mother of Jesus (pbuh), the following favour

    "When the angels said to Mary, 'O Mary! Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be 'al-MaseeHu `Eesa'*, the son of Mary; Honorable in this world and in the hereafter, and from those who are near (to Allah)." (al-Qur'an, Sura' Aal-`Imraan (3):45)

    al-MaseeHu `Eesa, al-MaseeH = The Messiah + `Eesa = Jesus


    Is "EESA" () really "E'SAU" ()?

    Mr. Gale tries to claim the following:

    If you go and look around the Internet on Islamic websites you will see a common name used for Jesus in the Qur'an, called ISA. Muslims assert that this is the same Arabic equivalent to Jesus name. However all linguists will agree that ISA isn't Arabic nor is it even an Arabic form and it surely doesn't mean "Yahweh is Salvation" like Jesus name means...The Arabic equivalent for Jesus in the Qur'an is actually Esau!! Leave it to Muhammad to screw up everything. If Muhammad was literate it would be impossible for him to make this mistake.

    The claim that "E'SAU" is a Hebraic equivalent of "'EESA" is completely ridiculous as they are completely unrelated etymologically and lexically (leave it to Quennel Gale to screw things up). "E'SAU" is Latinization of the Biblical Hebrew name for Jacob's twin brother, "`ESHAW", who was disavowed. This name is spelled:

    "`ESHAW" - "AYN, SHIN, WAW"; Pronounced "`Ee" (like "see") + "shaw" (like "saw" with additional stress).

    Notice in his argument that he said that MR. Gale Screwed it up!! However Mohd never mentions to his reader that it was Ahmeed Deedat, an Arabic speaker, (something Mohd isn't) who immediately saw this. He interpolates to his reader that I'm the one who invented this idea when it was Deedat who first mentioned it!!

    ``The Holy Quran refers to Jesus as "Eesa", and this name is used more times than any other title, because this was his "Christian" name. Actually, his proper name was "Eesa" (Arabic), or "Esau". (Hebrew); classical "Yeheshua", which the Christian nations of the West Latinised as Jesus. Neither the "J" nor the second "s" in the name Jesus is to be found in the original tongue - they are not found in the Semitic language.

    The word is very simply - "E S A U" - a very common Jewish name, used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called "Genesis".(Ahmad Deedat, Christ in Islam, Chapter 2)

    We must wonder if Mohd is so sure of his arguments why did he have to add these little comments and leave out Ahmeed Deedat? Is it because more Muslims find Deedats arguments sounder than his? Yes so he elminated Deedat to make his argument look better than what it actually is.

    This is an archaic word which literally means "hairy". It connotes being of a hirsute, and dark ruddy body covered with hair.[1] We have this fact illustrated in the following Biblical verse:

    "The first came forth red, all his body like a hairy mantle; so they called his name E'sau." (Genesis 25:25, RSV)

    Due to Esau's dark and ruddy color, and the hair which enveloped his body, he was named "`Eshaw" meaning "covered with hair".

    The corresponding word for this in Arabic is "`ATHAA" ( ) spelled "AYN, THAA, YAA". This word, likewise, means covered with hair. In Ibn ManTHoor's cohesive and authoritative work on the Arabic language entitled "Lisaan al-`Arab" (The Arabic Tongue), he states:

    "`athaa: al-`athaa: Having a murky color with an abundance of hair.."

    (Lisaan al-`Arab (The Arabic Language), Ibn Manthoor, under "`Athaa")

    We already know where the name Esau comes from, I stated this in my paper, I don't know why Mohd is trying to portray to his reader the origin of the name ESAU? This has nothing to do with the immediate argument. However notice how he has now changed the basis of the argument to give us the name of ESAU in Arabic. By shifting the argument he has attempted to make it easier for him to rebuttal since he has obvious difficulties answering the orginal argument. The idea was what did ISA mean? It meant the same thing as ESAU in Hebrew. We didn't ask for the Arabic name of ESAU.

    This simple shift by Mohd has attempted to make his argument seem stronger than what it already is. By given us the Arabic word for Esau he believes that he can explain away the Quranic usage of ISA. However after all is said and done, ISA of the Quran still corresponds to ESAU in Hebrew!!! Therefore he has yet to refute the argument but instead divert it into left field.

    About the name of Jacob's twin brother "E'sau", Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon states:
    (Left) Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament, H.W.F. Gesenius, 6215, page 658; the page was scanned for indisputable authenticity of sources.

    Note that Gesenius himself refers to the Arabic word "`Athaa" as it is the obviously correlating word to "`Eshaw". The Qur'anic name for Jesus is not related by any stretch of etymology to the words "`Eshaw", or "`Athaa'".

    Thus, for the Critic, or for that matter, Christian missionaries, to argue any further that the Qur'anic name "`Eesa" for Jesus has any relation to the Hebrew name for Jacob's disavowed twin brother is to dispute canonized authorities in Semitic etymology and to further discredit themselves.

    Again Mohd by diverting the argument has made a quick assertion to say that EESA or ISA isn't equivalent to ESAU. However this method has a few problems. Notice that the Lexicon doesn't mention at all that ISA isn't related to ESAU and notice that it is just the Arabic equivalent to Hairy thats all. Etymology isn't based just on the fact that a word isn't related to another one because one language has a different word for Esau. Again in order to accept this idea we must assume that we are searching out for the Arabic meaning of ESAU. However we aren't talking about ESAU but ISA who is ESAU in Hebrew! We wonder why Mohd couldn't give any reference to Jesus name in Hebrew and then show us its Arabic equivalent? This a telling silence.

    Etymology, true because word isn't the same spelling?

    The word "etymology" comes wrapped in musty, bookish connotations. It brings up memories of the initial section of lexical entries, often in smaller print, encountered while browsing around in older, more compendious dictionaries. In these somewhat detached sections one can pick up unexpected, and sometimes delightful, but somehow not very practical bits of anecdotal information-for example that the (native) English word "dough" and (the ultimately Latin loan-word) "fiction" are historically related through regular developments, which took place independently in Germanic and Italic, from the same ancestral Indo-European root reconstructed as *dheigh- "knead, fashion" (ETYMOLOGY AND ELECTRONICS: THE AFROASIATIC INDEX; By Gene Gragg, Professor of Near Eastern Languages The Oriental Institute, The University of Chicago (This article originally appeared in The Oriental Institute News and Notes, No. 149, Spring 1996, and is made available electronically with the permission of the editor.)

    Based on true etymology, the English word "DOUGH" is linguistically related fiction, which in term is related to Dheigh!! Mohd's theory of a word not being the same because another word in a different language is used to represent the word "ESAU" is bogus at best!!

    To continue the illustration with "dough," the fact that we can: (1) establish large numbers of equations such as English dough = German Teig , English deed = German Tat, English deep = German tief, heap = Haufe, hip = Hfte (adding of course cognate items in Dutch, Scandinavian, Gothic, and older periods of English and German); and (2) observe regular phoneme correspondences such as English d = German t (in the first three items), and English p = German f (in the last three)(IBID)

    Because Mohd was quickly able to conclude that ESAU isn't ISA based on the Arabic definition is flawed since we have seen that words aren't etymologically based on how they are presented in other languages.

    Why does the Qur'an use "EESA" () instead of  "YASO'A" ()?

    Mr. Faisal writes in a post (and quoted by Mr. Gale in his paper) the following:

    If we agree with you that Isa is taken from "EESHO" (Aramaic), why the Quran used it, when Christian Arabs before Quran used "YESUA" (Hebrew)? Thats something that you have failed to tackle. And the problem is that the Arabic name is similar to the Hebrew name but S (In Arabic) instead of SH (Hebrew)!

    What had Faisal actually failed to tackle is his own admission that "YASO'A" () is merely a rendition of the Hebrew "YESHUA" (), which in short means that it is borrowed from Hebrew and is therefore not Arabic!

    It is amazing that Mohd decided to ignore this:

    The story that Jesus spoke from the cradle appeared first in the Injilut-Tufuliyyah, known today as the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, a late apocryphal work most significantly preserved in Arabic alone. The only difference between the record in this apocryphal work and the Qur'an is that Jesus is recorded in the former as saying annaa huwa Yasuu ibnullaah ("I am Jesus the Son of God") and in the latter simply as saying innii abdullaah ("I am the servant of God" - Surah 19.30).

    Another issue that I stated on my paper what that there are tons of non-Arabic words in the Quran. Notice that Mohd didn't even make a single effort to elaborate on this at all! His fallacy with his argument is that Yasuu wasn't Arabic and therefore the Quran gives the correct Arabic meaning for Jesus name. However what he has failed to inform his reader is that he is assuming that the Quran is pure Arabic and therefore any other word from a different language violates this criteria. So in other words Mohd has already established a presupposition and then build and argument from it. What he has again failed to explain as to why ARABIC SPEAKING CHRISTIANS (ARABS LIKE MUHAMMAD) were using Jesus Arabized name of his Hebrew name. Surely since they know more Arabic than Mohd, they would've easily recognized this word as being foreign. Again no real answer from Mohd.

    Furthermore, he has not quoted any Arabic lexicons to back his claims and has actually  avoided the issue of lexicons because it does not support his claims! In the Arabic lexicon Lisan Al-Arab by Ibn Manthoor, there is no definition of "YASO'A" as an Arabic word. However, in the same lexicon, the root word of "EESA" is the Arabic word "'EES" [AIN, YA'A, SEEN] which stands for something white in colour mixed with darkness/blackness or reddishness. By this, we have proven beyond doubt that "EESA" is indeed totally Arabic, unlike "YASO'A".

    What Mohd fails to convey to his reader is that the lexicon didn't say that EESA was the Arabic name for Jesus either!! Jesus doesn't mean black or colour mixed with darkness!!! Notice that no mention of EESA being the Arabic name for Jesus. Therefore the Arabic lexicon didn't support Mohd's argument either!!!

    Another fallacy we notice about Faisal's claims is that it is accepted by Western scholars that the Arabic Bible came into being (translated) sometime in the 10th century A.D. for the first time, long after the advent of Islam, whereas Christian Arabs claim that it was in use long before that.  In his posting, Mr. Faisal says that "YASO'A" was "inspired" by the Christian Arabs through the Holy Ghost from the time of Acts. If we ignore the linguistic issues here, we wonder if Faisal can provide any material evidence to his claims of "inspiration"! 

    This is a very interesting claim since Mohd himself tried to use the Arabic bible to prove that Allah was the name of God. It is located at this link On here he says:

    Well, show me the Arabic equivalent whereby God is referred to as a common noun. Try looking into the Arabic Bible

    So we see that Mohd uses selective arguments with the Arabic bible. If it supports his argument he will use it, if it doesn't support his argument he will try to downtalk it. This shows us that we won't accept his theory of Allah in the Arabic Bible, since he obviously doesn't accept what it says about Yasouu!!

    Interestingly, the word "YESHUA" (meaning "safety" in the Hebrew language), whom  Christians attempt to proselytize their theories of a "man-god" Jesus by saying this name of his meant "Salvation", does not have a static definition of "Salvation" but also means "Saved".
    Another problem is that the type of "safety" which "yasha`" refers to is in a very worldly sense, and mostly having to do with being saved from the hands of Israel's worldly enemies.
    Every single usage of "yasha`" in the Bible has to do with warfare and violence. There is not a single reference to deliverance from sin, or salvation of the ethereal soul. It only refers to salvation of the physical body and life.
    "Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore." [Exodus 14:30]
    "For the LORD your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you." [Deuteronomy 20:4]
    "And the children of Israel said to Samuel, Cease not to cry unto the LORD our God for us, that he will save us out of the hand of the Philistines." [1Samuel 7:8]
    David laments in reference to something similar to an ethereal salvation:
    "Return, O LORD, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies' sake." [Psalms 6:4]
    Only to later clarify:
    "Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog." [Psalms 22:20]

    Mohd attempts to go into left field again by misintepreting the meaning of the name Jesus or Yeshua. However Jesus doesn't mean Salvation in a general sense. Here is what it means:

    Jesus = "Jehovah is salvation"

    None of Mohd's examples can diminish the name of Jesus since his name doesn't just salvation but YAHWEH is SALVATION. Mohd doesn't even know what the basic Hebrew name means so how can we trust his theories on ISA being the name of Jesus in Arabic? He doesn't even speak Arabic either!!

    However, there is a complete void of information linking Jesus to the name "YESHUA" in his lifetime. The Talmud was written between 300-600 A.D. Other commonly quoted books like the "Toledoth Yeshu`" were satires written to defame Christianity as late as the 10th century A.D. nearly 1000 years after Jesus. Ironically, from the disparaging writings against Jesus came the Arabic "YASO'A" () as they are the only source for this name being attributed to Jesus in the Middle East. The Christian world is left at a loss to find a historical Jesus who fits the description given in their sadly sparse Biblical sources.


    This argument is laugable since Mohd obviously has made this statment due to his presupposition of EESA being the name of JESUS in Arabic. There is no void linking Yeshua to Jesus name:

    For instance, Pliny the Younger (c. A.D. 62-113), Governor of Bithynia in northwestern Turkey, writing a letter to the emperor Trajan about the Christian movement, dated A.D. 111 noted:

    "I have never been present at an examination of Christians. Consequently, I do not know the nature of the extent of the punishments usually meted out to them, nor the grounds of starting an investigation and how far it should be pressed... I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished... They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery... This made me decide that it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women whom they call deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths."

    Lucian of Samosata, Second-century Satirist, speaks scornfully of Christ and the Christians, connecting them with the synagogues of Palestine alluding to Christ as,

    "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world... Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and worshipping the crucified sophist Himself and living under His laws."

    We find the Rabbis implicitly affirming the testimony of the Evangelists, solidifying the fact that the followers of Christ all believed Jesus was indeed God. Author Michael Green quotes a rabbi named Eliezar, writing about AD 160, who writes:

    "God saw that a man, son of a woman, was to come forward in the future, who would attempt to make himself God and lead the whole world astray. And if he says he is God he is a liar. And he will lead men astray, and say that he will depart and will return at the end of days." (Green, Who is this Jesus? [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992], p. 60- cited in We Believe Series-Basics of Christianity, Jesus Knowing Our Savior, author Max Anders [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995], p. 136)


    "Rabbi Eliezer ha-Kappar said: God gave strength to his (Balaam's) voice so that it went from one end of the world to the other, because he looked forth and beheld the nations that bow down to the sun and moon and stars, and to wood and stone, and he looked forth and saw that there was a man, born of a woman, who should rise up and seek to make himself God, and to cause the whole world to go astray. Therefore God gave power to the voice of Balaam that all the peoples of the world might hear, and thus he spake: Give heed that ye go not astray after that man, for is written, 'God is not a man that he should lie.' And if he says that he is God, he is a liar; and he will deceive and say that he departed and cometh again at the end. He saith and he shall not perform. See what is written: And he took up his parable and said, 'Alas, when God doeth this.' Balaam said, Alas, who shall live- of what nation which heareth that man who hath made himself God." (Yalkut Shimeon, [Salonica] sec. 725 on wayissa mishalo [Num. 23. 7], according to Midrash Y'lamm'denue)

    Another rabbi, writing a hundred years after Eliezer, states:

    "Rabbi Abahu said, If a man says 'I am God,' he lies; if he says, 'I am the Son of man' he shall rue it; 'I will go up to heaven,' (to this applies Num. xxiii 19) he saith, but shall not perform it." (Jerusalem Talmud Taanith-65b)

    History authenicates from the first century that Jesus and his Hebrew name was known long before the 10th century. All of these Jewish and non-Jewish references are in account to Jesus calling himself the Son of God. Hence, Mohd believes that information should be close to the event as his argument seems to start, we must wonder what he would say not that Jewish and historical records refute the erronoues Quranic claim of "JESUS never claiming to be God". Since Mohd is Malaysian, he obviously doesn't know anything about Jewish history nor secular history. The rest of his material was already addressed above including the parts he had in his paper before he updated his argument.

    1. Discuss ISA AT THIS LINK Come and discuss this issue at this dialogue board.
    2. Home Back Home
    3. New Articles Back to New Section.