A MUSLIMS CRITICISM ON GOSPEL

ACCORDING TO SAINT
BARNABA[S].
An Islamic approach
Some Muslim apologists advocate the Gospel according to Barnabas [Barnaba] as
the authentic Euaggelion [Inji:l]. On the contrary Christians try to prove it as a
concoction. It is tried to shew that not all Muslims hold this view. Some neglect it
and some consider it as a concoction as well. The belief of the present writer is that
it is A concoction or a corrupted form of some ancient apocryphal Gospel.
In any case whether a Muslim Apologist supports it or rejects it , it is his own
opinion. Islam is not responsible in any meaning of the word responsible of his or
her personal opinion.
Raither Islamic traditional principles of criticism discards it from being genuine
Euaggelion.
First Criticism:=
Gospel according to Barnaba is not the Euaggelion in the meaning it was reviled to
Iesous Kristos. It is another Biography or Semi Biography of Iesous Kristos written
and authored by a human being who so ever he might be. So it is a work of a
human being and not a Divine Book. It was wriiten by some one else who so ever he
may be but certainly not reviled to Iesous Kristos.
It cannot be the Euaggelion that was preached by Iesous Kristos Itself since it was
an Aspired or a reviled (oral or written) Book.
For sake of an argument let it be supposed that it was written by Barnaba . Then it
is a work of a human being not a Divine Revelation.
Second Criticism:=

There are several contents in this Gospel which are unacceptable according to
Authentic Islamic Sources. So it can not be a reliable according to Islamic Scriptures
[Qura:n and H:adi:s] . Hence its credibility is weak according to Islamic Standard.
Third Criticism:=
It is not Mutvatir. It lacks Asna:d [ chain of reliable reporters]. So it is unreliable
from the point of view of Principles ofAh:adis.
This implieth it is doubtful.
Forth Criticism on the Gospel of Barnaba:=
Its oldest copy belonged to the Middle/Medieval period. There is a long beriod of
time from Saint Barnabas to its first known copy. Between this period its absence is
certain. This absence is sufficient enough to to make doubts in its credibility.
Additionally possibility of corruption and manipulation in the text of the Gospel is
not only possible but probable and plausible.
So its critics are right in claiming that it is either a forgery or corrupted form of some
ancient apocryphal Gospel which now ceased to be.
Fifth Criticism:= A translation of a book any any other language is an other book.
So it is an other book according to Islamic Principles. A Translation of Holy Qura;n is
not Qura:n. Similarly a translation of Holy Bukhari or Holy Muslim is Niether Holy
Bukhari nor Holy Muslim.
Iesous Kristos either preached in Aramaic or In Greek or in Hebrew, or in a Mixture
of any two of them or all three of them. The copy of Barnaba(s) is in Italian. An other
copy of it was in Spanish. But it ceases to exist at present. Any how both copies of
the Gospel stated above were translations. A TRANSLATION CAN NEVER REPLACE
THE ORIGINAL. So Bernaba(s) is not an original work even if it is assumed that it was
written by the person to whom it is ascribed.
Kamal Ata Turks Heresy:=
The Heretic Ata Turk considered the Turkish translations of Qura:n as Qura:n and
ordered to be recited in prayers. His act was universally declared as Heresy by all
Sunni Sects [ASHAIRAH , MATURIDIAH AND SALAFIAH] through out the world. This
single act was sufficient to declare Kamal Pasha as Heretic and even a Non Muslim.

So applying the same criteria on the Gospel according to Barnaba(s) any translation
is not the original work. It is also not known that how faithful is the translation to the
original Greek or Aramaic or Hebraic Text if there is/was any.
2

Sixth Criticism.
The Gospel lacks Asna:d. I. e Chain/ Series of reporters of the Gospel. In absence of
such Chain of reporters it cannot be accepted. In absence of chain of reporters the
only criteria for the credibility and reliability of the Gospel is whether it is Mutvatir
[Consiquently Received ] But it is Certainity Not Mutvatir from its Author whosoever
he was. Similarly the translation is not Mutvatir from its translator. So the works is
neither reliable nor credible asnf additionally not trustworthy.
InMuslim world there are two such examples. Each one is given below:=
1] Nahj Al Bala:gh:ah. A book which claimed to record the words of Forth Caliph
Ali RD:.
This is an other Isna: Ashri book , book it lacks chain of re[porters. So it is not
relable according to the Mathodology of Isna: Ashri testing of traditions.
It is how ever written by Rad:I Sharif or Murtad:a: Shari:f or both , who tried to write
some of Isna: Ashri traditions by manipulating them and rewording them.
That is the simple reason its text does not matches with expressions of Caliph Ali
reported in other Isana Ashri books of traditions.
2] Al Jazz Al Mfqu:d. This is a forgery which is exposed in recent time. It is the
alleged missing part of Ms:naf Ibn Abi Sh-bah , a Sinnite Book pof traditions Of
H;adi:s .
But the alleged missing part is nothing but a forgery.
Sunni Scholars of H;adi:s have exposed its forgeriness and concoctionity. Some who
have advocated it are refuted with powerful responses.
Similarly some manipulated copies of Holy Qura:n were once claimed to be
discovered and they were all declared as fabrications, forgeries and concoctions.
So if an unknown work is somehow discovered , even its copy belongs to a period in
past , it is declared as forgery and concoction of persons in past.
Since it lacks continuities of Tavatur and Reliable and Credible Asna:d.
The same criteria is applied to the stated above Gospel and it is found that it is
neither Credible nor reliable.
Seventh Criticism:=
A number of objections on the Gospel are weak but if some objections are weak,
and if these weak objections are refuted powerfully, this does not imply any proof of
3

the credibility and reliability of the Gospel of Barnaba(s). The reason is very clear ,
that there is a difference between disproved an unproved. If a claim [say claim of
reliability and credibility of the Gospel in Discussion] is not disproved it may still be
Unproved. In Islamic System Adam Ass-bu:t doeth not imply Subu:t Al Adam.
Similarly Adam Adam Ass-bu:t doeth not Imply Subu:t .
Also The criteria of disproving some thing is not based on weak objections
but on strong objections.
Maulana: Taqi Usmani [A famous Sunni Maturidi-Ashari H:anafi Scholar] has
written a number of pages in regard to this Gospel. But after refuting some of weak
objections on the Gospel he finally accepted that Some of Powerful Objections are
Strong and cannot be refuted. He is right in his opinion. A number of Muslim
Scholars think that as they have powerfully refuted some of the weak objections on
the Text of the Gospel according to Barnaba(s), the Textus Receptus of trhe Gospel
according to Barnaba(s) is reliable and its credibility is proved. But at best it is a
good mental exercise to refute weak objections stated above , it is irrelevant to its
reliability and credibility.
Eighth Criticism:= Ahlussunnah do not accept the reports of Al Jah:iz:, Masudi ,
Yaqubi, and Murtad:a about Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal that he copulated and begain
to believe in the dogma of Createdness Of Qura:n, when he was flogged thirtieth
time in the court of Mutas:im , on the grounds that these are not reliable reporters
and are non canonical reporters, then how can they believe in a Gosepel which is
far more disputed then the works AL Ja:h:iz:, Mau:di,Yaqu:bi,and Murtad:a:. Even
the credibility of the copyist of the Gospel of Barnaba(s) is highly doubtful. To accept
this Gospel is to follow Vann Ess who accepts the unauthentic and non canonical
reports of the Anti Imam Ah:mad authors that he Nau:zu Billah copulated, the false
allegation of these hostile and heretic authors. This single event is sufficient to
disprove the credibility of these heretic writers and alleged historians. [see :
Thologie und Gesellschaft by Vann Ess].
Ninth Criticism:If Barnabas is to be trusted then it is implied that each and every Apocryphal Gospel
must also be trusted . Since there copies belong to very early period relative to the
Gospel According to Barnabas. But they are rejected. So what is the Creteria to
accept a copy and reject relatively old copies. It must be noted that Apocryphal
Gospels do contain anti Isla:mic teachings, as Gospel According to Barnaba(s) does
contain. [See Nag Hammadi Gospels ]
Tenth Criticism:=

Muslims different between the Euaggelion preached and Taught by the Iesous
Kristos Himself and the four Ecclesial Gospels. They like the Ecclesia do consider as
accounts of the Euaggelion preached and Taught by Iesous Kristos [Christo(s)].
Muslims differ from Ecclesia on the issue whether these works are four different
attempts accounts or four different exact accounts of that Euaggelion that was
preached and Taught by Iesous Kristos Himself. [Euaggelion=The Revealed Divine
Messages Preached and Taught by Iesous Kristos and were conveyed to one another
orally in form of Oral Traditions before attempt were made to make accounts of
them, and even continued after the composition of these accounts]. Orthodox
[Sunni] Criteria is so strict that it does not accept words of the authors of Ecclesial
Gospels as part of Euaggelion. So it is impossible that the Gospel According to
Barnaba(s) is acceptable upon that Criterial.
Eleventh Criticism:=
Ahlussunnah do not consider Imam Jafar Bin Muh:ammad as the founder of Shiite
Sect. They consider him as a Sunni scholar. Any thing attributed to him which shews
that he was Shiite is declared as false on the Sunni Criteria. So it is impossible to
accept Barnabas on the same grounds. The entire Non Sunni Fiqh ascribed to Jafar
Bin Muh:ammad is not reliable and traditions ascribed to be him are also not
reliable. So if such works are rejected then there is no ground upon which The
Gospel Of Barnaba(s) can be accepted.
Twelfths Criticism.
Works of Isna-la:ghah(a) Ashrites like Us:ul Al Kafi, Istabs:ar, Mal La Yah:d:ir Al
Faqih, Nah Jul Balaghah , Faru Al Kafi are not accepted since they are not canonical
nor their reporters are canonical. One the same grounds This Gospel cannot be
accepted. It may be noted that some of the contents of these books are against the
truth of Ahlussunnah and some of them are common . For example unity of God
may be seen in Nahj Jul Bala:ghah. The writer of the Nahj Al Bala:ghah even denies
the Divine Attributes and Beatific Vision and falsly/wrongly ascribed to Saiyiduna
Ali: [RD].
It may also be noted that Ahlussunnahs scholars have written several Maud:a:t ,
which contain concovted, fabricated and forgered report to warn people. But not all
of them contradict Qura:n and Authentic H:adi:s. Yet these reports are forgeries,
even if they belonged to The Books of Ahlussunnah. So if a multitudes of reprts are
declared as forgeries , there cannot be any term for the Gospel Of Barnaba(s) IN
THE NOMENCLATURE OF Ahlussunnah Val Jama:ah but Maud:u. [Maud:u= Fake,
Flase,Concoction,Fabrication, Forgery].
Result

Gospel according to/ of Barnaba(s) is has no reliability, no credibility, no

authenticity, and no trustworthiness according to all standard of Isla:mic Standard
in general and Ahlussunnah Val Jama:ah in Particular.
The Minimal Criteria of Reliability:= [The Necessary (but not sufficient) Condition]
If its reliability and Credibility is to be proved in some degree of approximation, the
necessary requirement is to produce some copied of it either from the period of
Apocryphal Gospels or from the period of Non Apocryphal Gospels. Until then its
credibility, reliability authenticity and trustworthiness cannot be accepted.
Nature of the Gospel:=
It may be noted that Christian apologists claim that it is a forgery made by the
imagination of its author. But it is also possible that it is a reconstruction , an
attempt to rewrite Biography or Semi Biography of Iesous Kristos based on
Apocryphal and New Testamental Gospels.
It does sometimes fill the gaps in the New Testamental Gospels. Field is open to
study it in light of available Apocryphal Gospels as well. It is not a forgery in thje
meaning the entire work is a production of imagination of its author. It is a forgery in
the meaning that it is produced from a number of books available to the authors.
However some portions may be a result of pure imagination.
It may be AN ATTEMPT to produce a Gospel or a Semi Biography based upon some
apocryphal books as well .
So it is a Possible Reconstruction. Even if it is a reconstruction it may still be termed
as a forgery in the meaning it is neither a synthetic product made by the portions of
available soures.
Problem Of Authorship of the Gospel According to Barnabas:=
It is often alleged that it was written by a Muslim to confuse Christians.
This is based on the claim that some of its contents agree with Isla:mic Teachings
and Preachings. But it is equally Possible that it was not written by a Muslim. Since
some of contents of its text do contradict Isla:mic Believes, Particularly Qura:n and
Authentic Ah:di:s. For example Qura:n Informeth that Iesous Kristos Use the
Proper Noun Ah:mad of Holy Prophet eace Be Upon Him (PBUH) But this Gospel
informs that the the Proper Noun of the Holy Prophet taken by Ieous Kristos PBUH
was Muhammad PBUH. This Contradicteth Qura:n. So the author be not a Muslim.
There are some possibilities which are neglected by critics of the Gospel According
to Barnabas.

1]It might be written by a person who wanted to make a new religion by taking
elements from Judaism [Yehudaism] , Christianism and Isla:m.
Yet it is possible that he was some one who for his own reasons seconded some of
the Isla:mic teaching , and Contradicted some of Isla:mic teachings. Due to lack of
information reasons of the author whether he be a Muslim or Not , are impossible to
be known with Historical Certainty. At best one may suggest reasons but they all
cannot scape the domain OF Probability and Plausibility.
It is Possible that the author might wanted to make a new religion taking elements
from Christianity and Isla:m , yet he was not successful . How ever his work became
a masterpiece in the history of reconstructed Semi Biogaphies.
We have several examples of this type of people. One may see Bahaism ,a religion
which emerged from Iran /Persia , which use passages from Hebrew Bible, New
Testament and Qura:n.
Similarly there is a religion of Mirzaizm, followers of it have shed much ink in their
attempt to prove that Iesous Kristos some how escaped the crucifixion after being
impaled , and came to Kashmir [Cashmir] , a state in former British India, where he
was renamed as Yus Asaf. For example see the work Jesus in Heaven On Earth. But
all such attempts are in vain and nothing can be proved of this sort.[If it is supposed
that Yus Asaf was a Hebrew ,even then it cannot be proved that He was Iesous. This
is an impossible task]. In Mughal India King Akbar also invented a new relion which
was called Di:n E Ila:hi [ Religion Of Deity],by taking different elements from
Hinduism, Jainism, Christianity and Isla:m.
2]The author may be a heretic who if claimed to be a Muslim did not believe in
Qura:n , like the author of Fas:l Al Khit:a:b. That is why he contradicted Qura:n
freely, when works of the heretical sect of the author contradicted Qura:n, and
seconded Qura:n when these works did not contradict Qura:n. It is needed to study
this Gospel according to the believes of Akhbari sect , even if this sect is claimed to
be appeared latter [probably latter then the Medieval Period, the period in which the
author belonged to ], yet its doctrines and dogma did pre-exist the sect. The sect
claims that it existed from the period of its last Ima:m. It is the case that its
believes did pre exist the Medieval Period , yet as a sect with a noun it appeared
latter. Prior to this the believers of this sect did not used THE Akhbariafor them
selves.
[In other words, Akhbariah claim that they even existed before the apparent
foundation of the sect. They interpret it as coining a new noun for an old sect. In this
case the author may be a Proto Akhbari. Reading the Gospel Microscopically some
approximations and analogies are found].
Such heretic sects are not in the folds of Isla:m.
7

1)Akhbaris believe that there Imams are conceived in a strange unnatural way from
their respective mothers violating the normal process of conception. The author of
the Gospel also did the same in a sense when he claimed for a painless conception.
[In the case of Iesous Kristos ,Muslims believe that the process/act of Conception
was the same but the process of Pregnncy was a Miracle, in a Super Normal way,
suspending the laws of Natural Human Pregnancy.].
2]Akhbaris believe that Each one of their Imam is greater that all the Prophets with
the Possible exception of Holy Prophet Himself who is at most equal to the Caliph
Ali.

[RD:] Whom the consider as their first Ima:m.This is in agreement to the Gospels
claim that Iesous said that he is not worth to untie the shoe laces, NaudhuBillah
[May ALL-H Forbid]. Such an insulting statement is against Qur,a:n and authentic
Ah:di:s IN CANONICAL Books of Ah:a:di:s .
How ever some of the Barailvis say such things, which are certainly Heresy ,
Heterodoxism, and Unorthodoxism. It is quite clear that a Akhba:ri can say such a
thing since he believe that its Aimah [Imams] are very high in rank that Prophets
with the Possible exception of Holy Prophet [P.B.U.H]. So of a Akhba:ri holds such a
view for Saiyidna Ali he may held this view for the Holy Prophet if he believes in the
Exception stated above.

3]Akhbaris are Qadris and the author of this Gospel mention the same belief in the
Gospel. All the three subsects of Ahlussunnah believe that voluntary acts and
doings of any rational suppositum say a human being or a Jinn Being is a Creation of
ALL-H. Even the acts of Angel Beings are Creation. But as Akhba:ris are Qadrih,
they do not.
4]Miracles stated in Qura:n are not stated in the Gospel since Akhbari do not
consider Qura:n as authentic as their works.
5]Akhbaris believe that Satan /Shaita:n is the originator [Creator] of Evil, while
Isla:m believe G-D the Creator of Every Non Eternal thing whether an accident or a
substance, whether an act or an attribute .
6] The author of the Gospel says that the World/Universe was created for
Muh:ammad PBUP. Akhbari also believe in this but they add their Imams as well.
Some Barailvis also hold this believe. But this is based on weak traditions, and a
belief / Aqi:dah cannot be based on a weak tradition.
8

7]The author of Barnabas believes that Justice is Necessary Upon G-D. This is the
dogma of Mutazilah and Akhbariah alike. They believe that G-D either Cannot
Forgive Sins and Transgressions or do not forgive them unless the transgressor or
sinner himself repends. Barnabas Gospel says in chapter 220 that Iesous said:=
Believe me, Barnabas, that every sin, however small it be, God punishes with
great punishment, seeing that God is offended at sin. How ever the author seems
to be more extremist on the issue of Divine Justice then Akhbariah.
8]The author of Barnabas contradicts Qura:n which no Muslim can do. Akhbariah
either do not consider Qura:n as reliable or do not believe in the Certainty of
Perpetual Conservation of Qura:n. Some Akhbariah do accept a probable
conservation of Qura:n. Most of them believe that the Text of Qura:n is conserved
after it corruption by the first copyists [i.e S:ah:abah (RD)].
9]It may be the case that the word Muh:ammad is not used for the Holy Prophet
P.B.U.H but for the supposed twelveth Imam of Akhba:rites who is supposed to
named /Nouned as Muh:ammad. This is supported by their belief that after his
[alleged] centuries long period of isolation at some unknown place on the planet
earth, when he shall came out of his self impose exile ,it is believed by them that he
shall follow the Law Of Davu:d [David]. That this is almost equivalent to declair him
as a Messiah [Masi:h:]. Ahlussunnah Val Jama:ah do not make such a difference
between any two Holy Prophets of ALL-H as the Gospel According to Barnaba(s)
alleges between Iesous and Muh:ammad [Peace Be Upon Them]. So Messiah may
be the 12th Akhbarite Imam and not the Holy Prophet Muh:ammad. As a Ima:m is
beleaved to be far more superior then a Prophet whether he be a Messenger or an
Apostle or neither, with the Possible Exception of Muh:ammad [Not Necessary
Exception], so it is a powerful argument that the text of the Gospel may be rendered
and interpreted other wise. This is any how an evidence that the author is either
almost necessary or most probably an Akhba:rite ,If not Certainly. It may be noted
that Barailvi cult who is the claimant of the claim that they are the ONLY
Ahlussunnah on the earth, do believe in such differences between the Holy Prophet
PBUH and other Prophets PBUT. But their claim of being Ahlussunnah is extremely
doubtful.
10] A number of Akhba:riah believes in Taqaiyah , which means that it is allowed to
deceive people who are not in the sect. It is in accordance to their belief and
practice to make such a forgery. They ascribe to one of the persons whome they
allege to be their Imam that he said that Taqaiyah is 9/10 th part of their religion.
Last not the least the important dogma of beatific Vision is missing from the
Gospel. Akhbaris disbelieve in this belief.

Although it is an argument of silence yet with above believes it is a verification that

the author is an Akhba:ri: .
So it is likely that the author was a Akhbari or a proto Akhbari what so ever. How
ever it is also possible that the author of Gospel Of Barnaba(s) was also a person of
this kind who tried to make a third religion. As there are so many possibilities it is
incorrect to claim with historical certainty that this was forgery was a product of a
Muslim pragmatic mind. For sake of an argument let it be supposed that the Author
was a Muslim in apparent then he was either a Rafid:i: Akbari or a Rafid:i Proto
Akhbari.
The author cannot be a Jew since the entire Gospel has anti Jewish sensibilities
embedded in it. The author cannot be a Christian, since he contradicts Gospels in
New Testament. The author cannot be a Muslim since he contradicts Qura:n and
Ah:adis. So this is an Akhba:ri:.

A Good Approach of Zakir Naik:=

Dr Zakit Naik [ A student of comparative religion] in one of his addresses accepted
that this Gospel is highly controversial and should not be referred to in religious
dialogues. The author of this article /work does second Respected Dr Zakir for his
brilliant judgement on the issue of Gospel Accordsing To Saint Barnaba(s).
Some Recent Findings:=
Some copies of Gospels are claimed to be found in Turkey [atleast one], and it is
claimed that it is a Proto Gospel Of Barnaba(s). It may be the case that the newly
found apocryphal Gospel may second this Gospel but unless and other wise all the
portions of the texts are compared it is very difficult to say whether the Gospel
found is the original of the Gospel Of Barnaba(s). Also one must analyze the parts
of this found Gospel in Perfect light of Qura:n and Authentic Ah:adi:s. It may be
noted that if a Gospel is found and if it seconds the controversial Gospel According
to Bernaba(s) on some issues , even then this does not imply that they are one and
the same book. At beast two distinct books may second each other in some of their
contents , yet they remain perpetually distinct. It is also said that the old Gospel is a
New Testamental Gospel. Since its contents are not known to the author of this
article, one may safely presume that at best it is an Apocryphal Gospel if it supports
the Gospel of Barnaba(s)in some of its contents[ but not the very Gospel Itself] and
at worst a forgery. It may be something of any value if it is proved that it is a
contemporary to New Testamental Books or old Apocryphal Books. At present
Gospel according to Barnaba(s) is neither New Testamental npot Apocryphal.
TRANGRSSION OF BARNABAS IF BARNABAS IS REALLY WRITTEN BY HIM:=
10

The Gospel says that Iesous Kristos ordered Barnabas to write the Euaggelion which
he preached, and was reviled and aspired[V-h:y] to Him, but Barnabas did not wrote
the Euaggelion which Iesous Preached but instead wrote his Biography or Semi
Biography. If Iesous had ordered Barnabas to write His Gospel / Euaggelion it would
be just a collection of his preachings and sayings like the Gospel of Thomas. But it is
not like it. So Iesous was disobeyed , and dis- obedience is a transgression. For sake
of an argument let it be supposed that Barnabas did write this [Semi] Biography. If it
is supposed to be the case then the Gospel According to Barnabas is not constituted
of Divine Words ,Divine Expressions , Divine Sentences and Divine Verses Only.
Rather it contains many Non Divine words, expressions, sentences and verses. This
proves that it is not a pure work. If not a Pure collection of Revelation and Aspiration
then it is a corruption according to Isla:mic Principles. If a Corruption then in this
supposed case the corrupter of the Gospel is the one to whom the Gospel is
ascribed to.
Book. This IMPLIETH that it is a manipulated and a corrupted book. Therefore it
cannot be the Inji:l /Euaggelion that Was revieled on Iesous Kristos. This meaneth
that Barnaba(s) Corrupted the Inji:l by adding , substrating and mutating the reviled
expressions and worlds. In this case this work which is a corruption from the very
beginning cannot be trusted not in the least meaning [and sense]. It is just like that
a person who is selected to copy the Text Of Qura:n, mixes Ah:adi:s and events
from the Biographies of Holy Prophet [ Si:rah/pl:Sair] in the copy How so ever
authentic. This is the worst sin form of apostasy ,heresy and infidelity, a corruption
in the Text of Qura:n. So applying the same criteria on Barnabas, if he did wrote the
Gospel , he mixed the reviled Euaggelion with the other things. In this case Gospel
According to Barnaba(s) if it is really written by him loses its credibility ,reliability
and authenticity once for all Eternities.
AN APOLOGY FOR APOLOGISTS:=
I is a question when this untrustworthy work is unacceptable on Isla:mic Priciples
then why a number of Muslim Apologists and Scholars attempted to defend this
corrupted forgery which is the worst forgery only next to the forgery of Jazz Al
Mafqu:d etc.
First of all Isla:m is not responsible for the errors of these apologists. If they defend
this problematic work , it is their error, and ISLAM Cannot be held responsible for
their error. Second of all one may research the causes and reasons why these
apologists and even research scholars attempted to defend this undefendable work.
As the defence of this work is not possible , they have tried their best to do the
impossible. One may appreciate their hard work yet what they tried to do was an
impossible act. How ever it is not the reason that in order to refute New Testament

11

the did this , their reasons and causes are different, though these differences may
be subtle to some critics of this act.
Reason 1.
In some Christiam Muslim dialogues and debates some missionaries used some
works which were nothing but forgeries [Like Us:ul Alkafi, Nal La Yah:d:ir Al Faqi:h,
Nahjul Bala:ghah etc.] and concoctions as a weapon to combat Muslims.
In response some Muslims did use this Gospel as an Anti Weapon against their
weapons. One may see Mela Khuda Shanasi and Mubah:sah Shah Jahan Pur as a
proof of this reason. In these dialogues Maulana Qasim Nanautavi RH was the
skipper from Muslim Side, Dianand Sarsoti was the Captain from Hindu Side and
different Christian[Protestant] debaters from Christian side.
Reason 2.
Some Muslim apologists were able to refute some weak objections on the Gospel of
Barnaba(s). The incorrectly presumed that these weak objections were the only
objections on the Gospel , and apart from them there is no other objection on it. So
they opined that if these are refuted then the credibility of the Gospel is proved.
Once its credibility is proved Christians would be compelled to accept it as a reliable
work once for all times. The missed the point that if some weak objections on a
forgery are some how refuted the forgery does not cease to be what it was i.e it
does remain to be a forgery and cannot become a genuine work.
Reason 3
They were unaware of the strong objections on the Gospel according to Barnabas.
Reason 4
A number of Apologists did not compare the Contents of the Gospel with Qura:n
and H:adi:s. So they were unaware of the contradiction of the Gospel with Qura:n
and authentic and Canonical Ah:adi:s. Some of them when noticed them tried to
make harmonies which are strongly Improbable, and are only allowed in the
appearent contradiction of Qura:n and text of authentic tradition Canonical Books
of H:adis [ S:ah:ah:]. But in their zeal they missed the point. The did not consult
Muh:addisi:n for their this act. They even neglected the Principles of Commentary
of Qura:n [ Al Is:ul Attafsi:r].
Reason 5
A number of Apologists did not study this forgery in detail. So they were missed the
contents which contradict the contents of text of Qura:n and contents of texts of
canonical Ah:a:di:s.
12

Reason 6
Some considered that this book is not trustworthy on Islamic Principles but is
trustworthy on Christian principles. One may see this strange view of Allama Taqi
Uthma:ni, a great scholar, who did declare that it [i.e Gospel Accordint to
Barnaba(s) is not reliable according to Muslim Critical system but declare that it is
relaible on Christian system of Criticism. It cannot be assumed that such a scholar is
not aware of Christian Critical System and Higher Criticism. Yet he does claim so in
his work. Even he is aware inharmonies of Gospel witnh Quran and Canonical
Hadi:s . So the only results are which cannot be refuted that :=1] He does not have
the courage to refute all the supporters of this Gospel. Has he refuted this work as a
forgery it would have been a marvellous act. How ever implicitly he discarded this
book as unreliable on Muslim system and Principles of Criticism. If Barnabas is
improvable in the Muslim system it is impossible to be be accepted as reliable by a
Muslim. So it is implied that Maulana Taqi Usma:ni Himself does not believe in the
credibility of this forgery.
2] He used this book as an anti weapon in the possible cases in contingent future
which may be replica of events as stated in the Reason 1.
3] Another possibility is that He presumed that the Gospel is certainly not reliable
yet still there is some genuine-ness in it. It is neither entirely a Forgery nor entirely
Genuine. It is between the two extremes. Such a position is also held by an other
scholar.
[See Reason 1].
4]A most probable reason which is almost certain to the present author of this
article [though certainly not certain] in light of some external indicators is as
follow:=
It may be the case that Allamah Taqi Usma:ni opines that the Present Gospel
According to Barnaba(s) is a corrupted form of an old apocryphal Gospel i.e a
Proto Gospel According to Barnaba(s), which may be renamed as Proto
Barnaba(s) in short; probably authored by Barnaba(s), himself.
[URDU VERSION OF BIBLE SAY QURA:N TAK, THIRD VOL.. LONG FOOT NOTE 371-385]

This is the most probable reason that after declaring the Gospel in present form as
unreliable, he still ascribes some sort of genuine-ness and credibility to it.
But if it is corrupted then no portion of the Text of the Gospel stated above remains
certain. If no portion of the Gospel is certain then this Gospel becomes Unreliable
and Loses its Credibility .Since at least it requires a continuity but there is a long
period of discontinuity between the Supposed Proto Barnabas and the Present
Barnabas.Strong probability does not contradict the credibility or reliability or both
13

in General, but in this case their is either strong improbability at best or certainty of
forgery at wrost.So it cannot be used for any thing. If it is nothing then it is next to
nothing. THOSE Barailvis who use the forgery to prove some of their specific
believes neither have any right nor have any legitimate way [Sabi:l] to use it in
their disputes with True and Real Subsects of Ahlussunnah Val Jamaaah. Similarly
Isna: Ashriah has no right to use this work for their Anti Sunni Believes.
It also appears that Allamah Taqi Usma:ni have made a criteria to identify and
detect the uncorrupted parts and portions of the supposed Proto Barnaba(s) from
the present Barnaba(s), but the critical question is:- Was there a Proto Barnaba(s)?
Unless this question is answered with historical certainty, no thing can be said and
any suggested criteria is useless. If it is some how answered in affirmative then
there is a series of Questions. Was it written by Barnaba(s) himself or it is not? If the
answer is in affirmation then the next question is , Is the Present Barnaba(s) is a
corrupted form of the Proto Barnaba(s) or a forgery in under the same title.
Some more questions are left. Any how it does appear that such a criteria if valid
can only be used if all the answers of the questions stated above are in affirmation.
Either an affirmation with certainty or affirmation with strong probability. But not if
neither.
An opinion about Allamah Taqi: Usma:ni: is that he does not apply Principles Of
Science Of Traditions Of H:adi:s on this Gospel. If so even then he cannot argue in
favour of this Gospel. Since this means that according to the Principles of H:adi:s
this book is nothing but a forgery. Rather the worst forgery in the history of
humanity. Allamah Usma:ni: is misunderstood, it is said that he does consider it
reliable. It is not the case. How ever it may be said that he opines that Christian
ought to consider it reliable. But he have neither provided any argument not
provided any proof for his claim. An apology for him, can be made that even his
long food note is short enough to provide these arguments and proofs. But if he has
made such an important claim, he should have written an other book in which he
would have discussed the principles of Canonization of books of New Testament,
and them must have proved the Credibility of this Gospel according to them. But for
sake of an argument let it be assumed that
This Gospel is Canonizable according to the Principles stated above, even then he
must accept that as it is not Cannoizable according to Canonization of S:ah:a:h: and
their Traditions, it is actually and really a forgery, a concoction and a fiction based
upon some other works which may be reliable in some of their contents. If so it is
almost certain that Allamah Usma:ni: is of this view then his view about the
reliability of this Gospel reduces to a counter question [ Al Java:b Al ilza:mi:] and
no thing else.

14

It is just like to argue a Christian that he should accept Talmu:d and Mishna: or
Gospel of Thosmas based on some reasonings and argumentations .
It may be noted that the basic difference between Ecclesial Gospels and the Gospel
of Barna:ba:(s) is the discontinuity. This difference may be pointed out by Christian
Apologists while attempting to answer him. The neutral answer is that this
discontinuity does make a difference. How ever no thing canbe further said unless
and otherwise
Allamah Usma:ni: writes his research and excogitation in full detail.
At present one may include him as one who do not consider the Gospel According to
Barnaba(s) as reliable and Credible, but one who considers that the Gospel can still
be used in discussions with Christians.
My personal view is that one may second Allamah Usma:ni: with the Necessary
and Sufficient Condition which is written below:=
If in any discussion some one say a Missionary if uses Unreliable books like Nahj Al
B-la:ghah or Us:ul Al Kafi or Masudi: or Yaqu:bior any work of Al Ja:h:iz: etc
against Muslims then a As a Counter Question/Answer one may use this Gospel. If
this condition is neither fulfilled nor satisfied then it must be noted that to use this
work against Christians is incorrect and wrong. It is just like a Christian arguing to a
Muslim or a Muslim arguing a Christian to believe in Vedas or Upnishads. One may
render and take this sense from the words of Allamah Usma:ni: in this context.

Reason 7
Some of the apologist used internal evidences and were mislead that the
comprehensiveness of the Gospel in comparison to the New Testamental Gospel
proves it genuine-ness.
The missed the point that the internal harmony and evidences can not prove that it
is not a forgery. The alleged internal evidences may be just a factious product of a
pregnant mind which conceived this harmony as a perfect Imagination. There are
some examples in the Muslim work for such forgeries.
Reason 8
Some Muslims did not applied the Principles of Alh:adi:s on the book of Barnabas
and its traditions and narrations. They may be divided in several groups.
Some of them are given below:=
15

1] Those apologists who were not experts in the Science Of Principles Of H:adi:s.
They did not applied this Science On this book.
2] Those who believed that the scope of Principles of H:adi:s is limited to the
Canonical Books of H:adi:s and is not applicable even to books of Histories.
An example of such people is Maula:na: Maududi: . He denies to use this Science on
the books of History and there fore made strange remarks upon S:ah:bah RD.
Most of his misleading remarks are due to accepting weak, uncanonical
,concoctive , and forgerious reports and traditions of History. He was Criticised by
Both Sub Sects of Ahlussunnah H:anafiah and Ahlul Hadi:s alike for his invented
view.
But as he held this strange view probably from the beginning , he did not apply this
Science on Barnaba(s). Had he applied this Science on the Book Of Barnaba(s) , he
would have never accepted this book as authentic , reliable , and credible. May ALLH forgive is Sins and Transgressions. He had some sort of Tash-iyu in him as well,
but this Was also due to his incorrect view about the scope of the Science of
Principles of H:adi:s. It may be also noted that he did not trusted this Science and
there for advocated to violate the Laws of this Science ones one likeness or mental
inclination etc. That is the reason he was bitterly Criticised by Both Sunni Sub Sects
stated above.
3] Denouncers of H:adi:s who did not believe in H:adi:s had their own criteria of
accepting a book or rejecting a book. They did not criticised it.
4] Member of Brailvi sect [ Both Barailvis and Bans Barailvis of India(Strict Baraiis of
Bans Baraili:)] believe that some traditions of Books of H:adi:s must still be
accepted even if they had to suspend the Laws of the Science of H:adi:s. They
believe that when a tradition in a Book Of H:di;s becomes famous [Mash-hu:r] then
they the Laws and Principle of H:adi:s cannot be applied to it.
They altogather suspend and cannot be applied on it. Mere being famous is the
proof of its authenticity. There this view is rejected by all Groups of Ahlussunnah. Yet
they insist on this view. {It becomes authentic even if there is no Sanad [Nau:zu
Billah]}.
According to their view this Gospel had achieved the famous-ness [Mash-hu:riah]
which they believed to be its authenticity. It must be noted that they also accepted
an other forgery , a book of noun Al J-zz Al Mafqu:d.
This book is certainly a forgery like the Gospel according to Barnaba(s).
THE WORD MASHHU:R IS NOT USED IN THE TECHNICAL MEANING/DEFINATION BUT IT IS USED IN LITERAL MEANING

16

5] Isna ashrites also accepted this work. Since there are two types of Isna:
Ashrites. i] Those who believe believe in the Law of Vuthu:q Bis: S:udu:r.
ii] Those who under Sunni Influence have made the Art of Traditions . The first type
is called Muqaddami:n Isna: Ashriahand the latter is called Mutakh khari:n Isna:
Ashriah.
The first one accepted it since according to the Law of Vusuu:q Bis: S:udu:r.The
other one emphasis in the chain of narrators of Isna: Ashriah.
Although the second one usually apply their principles of Art of Traditions but they
do accept the Law Of Vusu:q on Nahjul Bala:ghah , since the art of traditions if
applied on it , it becomes unauthentic. Very few of them has the courage to declare
that Nahjul Bala:ghah is not reliable. A number of them remain silent about the
application of the art stated above on it. So they accepted Gospel According to
Barnabas on the very same grounds , the accepted Nah Al Bala:ghah.
[Latter Isna Ashrites divide their traditions types. 1) Sah:ih:. 2)M-V-SS-Q.3)H:asan4)Qavi:5)D:ai:f6)Maud:u]

6] Some Sunnis forgot the Principle of Science of Tradition of H;adis that If a true
statement or sentence is ascribed to a Person falsely the statement or sentence
[Piece of Speech or the very Speech] becomes false and not reliable. The intrinsic
truth is immaterial in this regard. For an example if an Asar[Mauqu:f] is ascribed to
Holy Prophet P.BN.U.H, the ascriptiption becomes false and the Asar ceaseth to be
true, even if as an Asar it is true and powerful. Similarly if a Khabar is claimed to
ne an Asar , it ceases to be a Khabar [Marf:u]. Since the series of narrators
becomes discontinuous and discrete.
Reason 9
Some of the Apologist presumed that any thing which supports Qura:n is true. But
this is a wrong presumption. Any thing which seconds Qura:n or supports It is not
Necessarily True. Since one may fabricate or concoct a book supporting Qura:n
from His Own Imagination. This is a very hidden fallacy. Suppose that a person
concocts a tradition which seconds an Authentic H:adi:s , even then the first stated
tradition remains a concoction. Similarly if some one concocts a tradition in
accordance to the Text of Holy Qura:n it does remain to be a concoction.
Unfortunately some scholars inclined to the view that if a tradition is weak yet it
confirms the text of a reliable tradition of canonical books of H:adi:s , it gains some
strength and becomes powerful , if not equal in power to Authentic Traditions then
some what more powerful then other weak traditions. But this is just an invalid
opinion. A weak tradition does continue to remain weak even if the meaning of the
tradition is in accordance to the Text of an Authentic Tradition or the Text of Qura:n.
Unfortunately some apologists who were inclined to this view thought that
Barnaba(s) is a reliable book. An other view was that , as this Gospel and the
17

Gospels of New Testament have many things in common. They opined that this
commonness is a proof of the genuine-ness of the Gospel According To Barnaba(s).
According to their apology of the Gospel under discussion they opined that the
portions where this Gospel Contradicts New Testamental Gospels, Qura:n and
H:adi:s are less in number then the commonness stated above , and the greatness
of numbers of portions of commonness then the less-ness of the number of
contradiction is a proof of its genuine-ness. So they began to make harmonies
where the New Testamental Gospels and the Gospel According to Barnaba(s)
contradicted. They did the same for Qura:n and Ah:adi:s INREGARD TO THIS
Gospel.

So it requires to be discussed in some detail.

Reason 10
10.1)A number of Apologists who had not studied the arguments for the credibility
of New Testament and Tanach by Christians and Jewish scholars respectively
presumed that This Gospel is according to their standard.
10.2)Some relied on the internal indicators and intrinsic evidences of the Gospel
According to Barnaba(s) only. One of the sub cases of this reliance was that they
presumed it to be the Famous Q Gospel. Once the presumed it to be the famous Q
Gospel every thing became topsy-turvy. They began to judge the New Testamental
Gospel with the Gospel of Barnaba(s). They found it more convenient to declare it
the famous Q Gospel. Had some copies of this Gospel contemporary to the oldest
copies of the New Testamental Gospel found , their presumption would have been
confirmed and proved. But this is just next to impossible. Internal Indicators and
Evidences are not powerful proofs of its pre-existance of a book, or the genuineness of the book what so ever. Even powerful internal evidences and indicators are
just weak proofs in themselves.
Reason 11
The were umable to detect the difference between the Noun/Title of a book and a
forgery in the title /noun of a missing book. When ever they find the name some
what like Gospel of Barnaba(s) , they presumed that the books found id the same
book . If they had investigated properly they would have concluded that this is just
a forgery.
There presumption was incorrect and wrong.
This is a reason which is more problematic for some non apologetic Scholars.
Reason 12
18

Some of the Apologists did trust those who accepted the Gospel as Genuine. They
never tested their presumption . This is one of the popular reason.
There may be some more reasons, and it is never claimed that these are the only
reasons.
How ever some scholar did exhaust their energies in comparing the Gospel
Of/According to Barnaba(s) with the four New Testamental Gospels. In there work
they did compare the contents of the text of the Gospel with the contents of texts of
New Testamental Gospels. One may appreciate their immense Labour but
unfortunately this cannot prove that The Gospel According to Barnaba(s) is not a
forgery of some one who so ever he may be. How ever if the Genuine-ness or the
forgery of the Gospel of Barnaba(s) is not the issue, and it is just a comparison
regardless of originality or forgery of the book, their studies in this regard are
marvellous. The only thing is that it cannot prove the Genuine-ness of the Gospel.
Some also tried to compare its text with Apocryphal Gospels as well. But if it is
claimed that New Testamental and Non New Testamental Gospels either used this
Gospel directly or used it indirectly, it can be claimed that the author of the Gospel
did have both types of Gospels with him and he composed his forgery taking
materials from both types of the Gospels. If either side is equally possible then the
argument in support of the Gospel According to Barnaba(s) become very weak.
How ever a number of scholars did remain silent on the issue. But this is not the
case of Barnaba(s). There are some examples of books which contradict Principle
Islamic Believes yet scholars are silent. For example the author of Reconstruction Of
Thoughts In Islam in the finiteness and temporality of Divine Knowledge. Yet al large
number of Scholars are silent as if they are ignorant of this portion of the book. [See
3rd Lecture of the Book]. But this does not mean that they have accepted the view of
the author of the book on the issue of Divine .
Rejection of the Gospel According to Barnaba(s) is not based on Weak Objections:=
Some Scholars have opined that Barnaba(s) is reected just on weak objections. So they
attempt to answer them .Some of the weak objections are given below and there answers
are given , yet if these answers are correct and not wrong even then these answers cannot
prove the credibility of the Gospel.
1] In the Barnaba(s) it is said that Iubilee comes after hundred years. This shews that it is a
forgery of a latter period. Since Pope Boniface ordered to celebrate Iubilee year once in a
century. His order was issued in the year 1300 AC. But the order as annulled in the year
1343 AC. This does shew that the Gospel was written somewhere between 1300AC and
1343AC.
[THIS ARGUMENT IS CONSIDERED AS AVERY STRONG OBJECTION BUT IT IS NOT SO STRONG.]

19

An answer is given, that it is Possible that Iesous Kristos [Christos][PBUH] ordered his first
followers and disciples to celebrate the festival after every century. But as none of the New
Testamental Gospels recorded it , the follows of them were unaware of this command or
order of Iesous Kristos. Since none of the four New Testamental Gospel recorded each and
every act ,each and every saying Of Iesous Kristos. There were many acts and sayings which
were not written by any one of the author of New Testamental Gospels. So there is a
possibility. This possibility refutes the objection. But [Powerful Refutation of] this weak
objection is not responsible for the unreliability of the Gospel. But its refutation does not
imply that the Gospel is not a Forgery. Forsake of an argument let it be supposed that a
Greek or an Aramaic copy of the Gospel is found which belongs to the 1200 century AC. In
this case the Christian response shall be that it is an unofficial and apocryphal Gospel. But
this weak objection shall be refuted is a copy of this Gospel is found belonging to a period
prior to the period of the stated above Pope. But its refutation shall not prove its reliability.
Similarly if such a copy is found , it cannot be a reliable copy since this Gospel also
Contradicts Qura:n ahd Authentic Ah:adi:s . But if no such copy is found even then this
objection is a weak one. It may gain some strength with some additional evidences and
indicators, yet it is certainly not a strong argument in itself. This is the refutation on the
religious grounds. On secular ground one have to check the year of its composition. It is still
possible that it was written by some one else yet it is incorrectly ascribed to Barnaba(s). So
this objection is weak even if the Gospel According to Barnaba(s) is a forgery. Similarly if a
copy of this Gospel is supposed to be found which belongs to the first or the second century
the book remains to be not reliable on the same grounds. Suppose that if a copy is found
which belongs to the second century AC, the stated above objection becomes invalid , but
the Gospel remains unreliable. It is still possible and contingent that it is written by some
one else and is falsely ascribed to Barnaba(s). A similar case is the Gospel of Thomas. A
number of scholars do doubt that its author was actually Saint Thomas.
2] It is argued that the Gospel mentions the Proper Noun of the Holy Prophet Muh:ammad
[PBUH]. But in the time of Iesous Kristos [PBUH] no one DID know [including Iesous Kristos]
that Muh:ammad PBUH would born in 570 AC OR 571 AC.
So this Gospel could not be written by Barnaba(s).
The answer to this objection is powerful. On religious grounds it can be said that Prophecies
and predictions are Possible and Contingent, and if they are Possible and Contingent then it
is also possible that Iesous Took the Proper Noun stated above.
On secular grounds Coincidents are always possible and contingent. So this is a weak
objection once again. If a person makes a prediction of an event in future but in real he does
not know the future , it is still possible and contingent that the prediction is fulfilled as a
coincidence. There is no justification on secular ground if any prophecy of Hebrew Bible or
New Testament or any scripture of any religion is fulfilled except that it is a coincident. Even
if more then one prophecies fulfilled howsoever large in number, there can be only one
secular and non religious explanation that they are fulfilled except that their fulfilment is
(just) a coincident. Since plurality of Coincidences is possible and contingent. So the power
of Possibility and Contingency cannot be denied on either grounds stated above. Similarly
the Possibility and a Contingency do have sufficient power to refute this objection or to make
it a weak objection by draining the power of objection once for all times. Even this is just a

20

possibility or a contingency [ the word or is inclusive and not exclusive], it does make the
power or strength of the objection or argument to cease if it does not refute it perfectly.
But it is just a Possibility or a Contingency , it is make the power of the objection to cease,
but refutation of this weak objection doeth not prove the authenticity of the Gospel under
discussion.
This does prove that powerful refutations of weak objections on a forgery do not
prove that the forgery is not a forgery.
This Gospel is a forgery even if some objections in the Gospel are refuted.

SOME CRITERIA OF TESTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF A BOOK/WORK.

There are several criteria to test whether a book or a document is genuine or a forgery or an
altered form of some original.
Different terms are used for that purpose.
1] Conserved .[Mah:fu:z:] If a book or a document[Makhtutah] or a [written] works is
conserved and its copies are exactly as the original then the book etc is called conserved
book.
Non conservation[Ghair Mah:fu:z:] may be of any kind. [Tah:rif]. Even if the spelling is
changed it is a type of non conservation of the text.
2]Manipulation:= If small numbers of portions of contents of text of a book etc. are altered
and a large number of them is then it is manipulation. These changes include the change in
orders of lines, sentences, words, paragraph, and even letters
3] :- If large number of them is altered [Tabdi:l]and small number is not then it is called
Distortion [Takhri:b].
4]If no portion is altered[Tabdi:l] but some new portions are inserted then it is called
Addition[]Id:afah].
5] If no portion is altered but some portions are expunged then this is called
Substraction[Takhfi:f].
6]If some portions are altered, some new portions are inserted , some are expunged then it
is called corruption[]Takhri:b].
7] If a copyist commits an error while copying then it it is called a Copyist Error[S-hv Al
Ka:tib].
8] If entire book or document is invented and is ascribed to an author falsely then it is a
Forgery[Jal,Maud:u:].
If these definitions are followed strictly then Gospel According to Barnaba(s) is a Forgery.

21

Note : Any change made by the original author is excluded from all these definitions. These
are in the case with the EXCEPTION of original author who hath an intrinsic right for
modifications [Tarmi:ma:t]. So either a modification is by the original writer or speaker or by
some one that is not the original writer or speaker or both.
All these sub-cases are in the case the alternation is made by some one that is not the
original writer or speaker or both.
Some rules are also written below about testing the authenticity of a copy of a lost book or
document are written below:=
It must be noted that mere ancientness is not a criteria of authenticity. Since Ancient
Forgery or Manipulation or Addition etc. Are also possible and some time [in addition]
probable.
1] If the proper knowledge of series/chain of copyists are found then it is probable that they
found book or document is neither a forgery not a corruption.
Explanation. Suppose a book is lost or it ceases to exist. After a large interval of time [ say a
century] a copy of the book is found. If proper knowledge of the copyists are some how
found then the copy is probably Conserved.
2] If two or more copies of the same work is found each one of them independent of each
other, then it is some what probable that the text is conserved.
3] If different writers of different books have written different quotations of the lost
book/document /(written) work and they all belonged to the found copy then it is probable
that the book etc. Is Conserved. It may be noted that these authors must be of the period of
prior to the period of disappearance of the book and their works must have a continuous
copy.
4] If the original writer has quoted portions of his missing work in some of his own works [at
least one] and they do agree with the work found after a large interval of time then it is
probable that the found written work is genuine and not a forgery. If more and more
quotations are found the probability is increased. But as this is a proof based on induction it
an not be certain unless each and every sentence is proved in this manner. How ever
certainty is not found in this case since it is possible that some contents are mutated some
how.
4] If some authors belonging to the period when the book was not lost, have written its
summaries, and the book is according to them , then it is probable that the book is not a
forgery.
Yet possibility and contingency of addition , substraction and manipulation cannot be ruled
out with certainty. But it is probable that the copy of the book etc. is conserved.
5] Absence of list of Listenings [Samaa:t] or Absence of record of series of
Readings/Recitation also make the work a probable forgery.

22

6] A Manuscript [Makhtu:tah/Makhtu:t] which doeth not have a Sanad [ Series of Sources

human or otherwise], which is not stated by contemporary authors of the claimed Author, or
no one hath copied it immediately from the author, or all, it is implied the ascription of the
Written Book/Work is incorrect. This is a proof of Wrong-ness and incorrectness of the
Ascribing the work/book to the claimed Author.
7] If the Nasikh [Copyist] is Absolutely unknown, the work is a Forgery.
8] If the Noun Of the Na:sikh [Copyist] is known, and it is also known that the Copyist is
Trustworthy and Faithful [S-Q-H] and some other other copies of him do exist which are
reliable then the (Hand)Writing newly founded Makhtu:t [Copy] may be compared and can
be judged. If the hand writing does differ then this is a work of a copyist who have made a
forgery and has used the Noun of the reliable Nasi:kh [Copyist] in an attempt to make his
forgery immune from being detected.
9]If the original manuscript of the author from reliable sources do exist, the copy must be
compared with it before making any judgement or decision .
It is well known that some Forgeries are even ascribed to Imam Shahrista:ni and Imam
Razi: , and these works do shew that Forgeries are always detected , and Muslims are Super
Sensitive on the issue of Forgeries. It is astonishing that why some Muslims have left their
criteria and why they have considered this forgery as genuine.
10] Proper information about Copyist [Nasikh], Khat An Naskh [Writing],Copy/Manuscript
[Makhtu:t],Foot Notes [H:ava:shi:], Place of Copy, and Place of being Copied etc. Are also
important decisive factors.
Barnabas does not satisfy any criteria. It is nothing more then a Forgery.
Forgery is not only a crime but a sin and a transgression. Isla:m does not allow such a
things. If it is supposed that this forgery is made by a Muslim , then the person has
transgressed against the Law [Shariah] of Isla:m. It is just like Isla:m prohibits from pork
and wine. If a Muslim eats pork or drinks wine then , Isla:m is certainly not responsible for it.
The person is a sinner. Sin of a Muslim cannot be ascribed to Isla:m just like an unjust act of
a Jew cannot be ascribed to Judaism , an unjust act of a Christian cannot be ascribed to
Christianity etc.
If some Muslims defend the Forgery nouned [named] as Gospel According to Barnabas, then
Isla:m is also not responsible for their this unwise act of injustice .
A Crime is a Crime even if it is perfect , A Sin is a sin even if it is beautiful.
How ever if some one claims to have answered each and every objection on the Gospel , or
if he claims that he has proved the authenticity , let him present his arguments and proofs
so that they may be critically and logically be analyzed and tested.
Up till now they have done no thing in this regard.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:=

23

Isla:m hath survived with out the Gospel. Muslim Scholars, Apologists, Theologians ,
Logicians, Debaters etc do have defended Isla:m from the attacks of Anti Isla:mic circles
and they never needed this Forgery of Barna:ba(s). Isla:m never need this Gospel to be
defend . It is not a Muslim Gospel/ Isla:mic as alleged by some objection makers. It is an Anti
Muslim and Anti Isla:mic work. It is strange that many objection maker do know that some
Muslims began to use it in the interval of time from 1800 to 1980. But from the death of Holy
Prophet to 1800 AC, Isla:m did not need it.

AN APOLOGY TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

This article may annoy some of our Muslim Brothers who have attempted to refute
some of the weak objections on the Gospel. But it must amuse those Muslim
Scholars and Apologists who use Principles of H:adi:s to test the Credibility of such
works and findings. To those who are annoyed, I do make a request that I am a
Sunni [ASHARI-MATURIDI] Sunni [ Not Barailivi],Muslim ;one who doeth believe in
ALL-H, His Final Prophet ,S:h:abah, in Perpetual Conservation of Textus Receptus Of
Qura:n , in Authentic Books of Ah:di:s like Holy Bukhari: , Holy Muslim etc. and I
believe that Holy Prophet Loveth Truth, Peace, Justice ,Reason and Reality. I do
believe in Qura:n , and Canonical Traditional Scriptures of Holy Bukhari and Holy
Muslim in particular, and I do believe in Any Authentic Hadis in other Canonical
Scriptures Of Traditions of AH:ADI:IS like Nasai etc, acccording to the Sciences of
Rija:l and Traditions respectively. But I do not believe in works like J-zz Al M-fq:d,
Nahj of Rad:i: , and Gospel according to Barnaba(s) etc.. If I am still a subject of
their annoyance then this can be nothing but an amusement for Heretics and
Heterodoxies that they have virtually or implicitly or both included this Forgery or a
Corrupted Work side by side the Muslim Arabic Canonical Scribtures [MACS] stated
above. But if they accept that there is nothing to be annoyed , then I do most
humbly request that they must not use this Gospel in any meaning of the word use
and should not attempt to defend this heretic work.
So it is the duty of Muslims to work according to Isla:mic Principles. Therefore it is
my duty to discard this Gospel as some thing authentic unless and other wise some
solid evidence is found which can convince a rational mind with the force of
arguments and power to convince. To me the Gospel Of Barnaba(s) is as unreliable
the newly discovered forgery of Al Jazz Al Mafqu:d, a forgery made in Afghanista:n
in KarZais period of presidency , to distort Isla:mic teachings. If it is an ancient
copy then it is an ancient forgery. [Logically it can be said If it is an Ancient Forgery
then it is an ancient Forgery. In other words If A is B then A is B, a tautology].
It is an ancient Forgery of an ancient Forgerer [Forgery Maker] accidently found in
during the Presidency of H:amid KarZai. I however advise them not to annoy but to
divert there attention to refute objections on Arabic Scriptures [Qura:n and
Ah:adis] whose true teachings are being continuously distorted by enemies of
24

Isla:m and Modern Heretics like Ghamidi: , Engineer Ali Mirza, T-njani and Persian
Scholars. How ever I do not condemn those who attempt to refute weak objections
on this Gospel. It is still a research work and one must appreciate it as a research
work since Isla:m welcometh Research Works. I only make objection on the opinion
that refutation of weak objections proves Credibility and Reliability. Gospel of
Barnabas is as unreliable as the book Crucifixion by an Eye Witness.
Conclusion: This Gospel is heretical, and at present a forgery even if some of its
contents may be in accordance to Qura:n or New Testament or Tanach, some of its
contents do conflict them. A number of Muslim apologists who have supported it
actually did not read it critically, and never compared it text with Qura:n and
Canonical Books Of Ah:adi:s.
Nothing more can be said in general ,about them except that it is also equally
plausible that either they never read the very book itself or they read only few parts
of the book and left other parts of it with out reading. How ever a number of other
things may also be said but not in general. [See above: An Apology for the
Apologists].
Exception is from the General Case, it is not from any one of the particular cases.

A Conspiracy
It is tried to shew by some people that all the Muslims support this book. They
present the case as if it is controversial between Christians who reject this book and
Muslims who accept this book. This is not the case. It is not a Muslim book. It is
impossible to claim that it even contain genuine preachings and teachings of Iesous
Kristos, if the Gospel is tested on the Science of Principles Of H:adi:s . The time
have come to explode this conspiracy once for all. If Protestants are not responsible
of believes of Roman Catholics, Roman Catholics are not responsible for the acts of
Arian Catholics, Arians are not responsible for Nestorians, Nastorians are not
responsible for Iehovah Witness and so on then All the Muslims cannot be
responsible for the irresponsible act and work of some Muslims like Maududi etc.
How ever the time have come for all rational Muslims to Criticize this Forgery and to
reject this book. I request all Muslim and Ahlussunnah Critics of Barnabas in
particular and Muslim Critics of Forgeries and Concoctions to unite against the
Conspiracy of this Un-Isla:mic book which is nothing but MAU-D:U according to
Islamic Principle of H:di:s. and to convince all those who try to support this book, to
reject the book in the noun [name] of Quranic and H:Adi:sic truth and reality.

25

SUBH:A:N ALL-H V BI H:AMDIHI:

SUBH:A:N ALL-H - AZ:I:M

Footnotes

:=

1]My interest in the Gospel Of Barnaba(s) began when some Barailvi Scholars used
its text to prove one of there opinion not from Qura:n and Authentic H:adi:s but
from This Gospel. Barailvi cult is a heretic sect founded by Ah:mad Rad:a: Son Of
Naqi: Ali [ 1856AC-1930AC]. He was born in Bans Baraili a Town in a province of
British India [1858AC-1947AC]called Bans Baraily. It must not be confused with Rai
Baraili , an other town In United Provinces of British India. Altho both towns have the
noun Bariali common they are differentiated by the prefix Bans and Rai. Bans
means Bamboo , and Bamboo was cultivated in Bans Baraili and was distributed all
over the British India. There is a proverb Taking Back Bamboo to Bans Baraili
Which means an unreasonable act. Since Bans Baraili was the certer of supplying
Bamboo in the entire British Indian Subcontinent it is unreasonable to take Bamboo
from any other place to Bans Baraili.
There are two possible views about the word Rai. A] A community named Rai once
lived there. B] Rai [ Pronounced as Rae] is a deformation of the word Rai. A seed
used in spices. Once it was cultivated there.
Maulavi Rad:a [1856AC-1930AC] founded a new heretic cult ,but claimed to be the
only Sunni group in entire Muslim world. He declared all great Sunni Ulma:s either
as Heretic or Infedel or both. Some of his believes are given below:=
1] Holy Prophet is Omniscience with an attribute of Bestowed Omniscience.
2] Holy Prophet is Omnipotent with an attribute of Bestowed Omnipotence.
3] Holy Prophet is Omnipresemt with an attribute of Bestowed Omnipresence.
4]Holy Prophet and Saints all have power defy nature and suspend laws of Nature
and to perform any act they like.

26

5] Holy Prophet Hath power to change and annule the Law Of ALL-H [Shari:ah],
even if doeth not exercise His Powers in regard to Shari:ah.
6] Majority of Barailvis believe that Holy Prophet [PBUH] is not a Human Being , but
a Light [Nu:r] which assumed humanity. According to them,He is not a Human Being
But a Rational Light which assumed the form of a Human Being; with out becoming
a Human Being.
So according to them He is not a human being but a Light that appeared in Human
Form witrh out becoming a human being.
A minority of Barailivis however believes that Holy Prophet was a Light that without
ceasing to be Light assumed huminity and became Light.Now according to them He
possesseth two Natures i] Human Nature [Huminity],ii] Light Nature [Light-ness].
According to Sunni view Holy Prophet is a Human Being in the real meaning[Primary
Meaning/The First Meaning(s)] of the word Human Being [Insa:n]. Some of them
call him Light only in Metaphorical or Figurative Or Virtual [Secondary
meanings].Few of them however opine that Holy Prophet was a Human Being and
Light both in the Real Meaning yet they believe in Primacy and Priority of His
Humanity [Ins:niyah] over His Light-ness [Nu:ra:niyah]. This contradicts the heretics
who believe in the Primacy and Priority of His Light-ness over His Humanity.
His Light-ness if accepted cannot and doethnot contradict His likeness
[Misliyah,Similarity] to other individuals human Beings since his likeness is based
upon His Humanity.
The Humanity of Holy Prophet is not only the Necessary Axiom of Ahlussunnah Val
Jama:ah [AD:DURIYA:T AL AHL ASSUNNAH VAL JAMA:AH] but also the Necessary
Axiom of Isla:m [D:ARU:RIYA:T AL ISLA:M].
It may be noted that when I studied the alleged credibility of This Gospel and I
found it That it is not reliable in the least meaning of the word Reliable, and
according to Isa:mic Principles it is the duty of a Muslim to Test it according to the
Isla:mic System of Testing the traditions and there books.
So I immediately became interested in studying its credibility on larger scale and
found that it is Maud:u[Concoction,Forgery] according to Isla:mic system of Testing
Traditions and Books of Traditions.
2] a)According to H:adis a young faithful Disciple of Iesous Kristos [I:SA: Masi:h:]
[Peace Be Upon Him] voluntarily offered Himself to be captured. He was
immediately transformed and transfigured in the Likeness of Iesous Kristos. The
same person was captured , impaled and crucified. But the Gospel says it was
Iudas the one who betrayed Iesous Kristos. There is some Divine Wisdom behind
27

this Divine Act, it is not that Deity/ God Tricked those who attempted to Capture
Iseous Kristos. Divine Acts and Divine Doings Have Divine Wisdom in Them ,They
cannot be called as Tricks.
b)The Gospel says that Iesous Kristos descended for a period of time after His
Ascension to Heavens.He was ascended once again. But in Isla:mic Literature this is
unacceptable. This dogma is a Heresy , and cannot be accepted.
The Gospel says in chapter 219:=
Wherefore Jesus prayed God that he would give him power to see his mother and
his disciples.
Then the merciful God commanded his four favourite angels, who are Michael,
Gabriel, Rafael;, and Uriel, to bear Jesus into his mother's house, and there keep
watch over him for three days continually, suffering him only to be seen by them
After His Ascension there is only one Descension which shall occur near Qiya:mah
[Doomsday or DaY Of Final Judgement] . Iesous Kristos shall descend to kill the Anti
Christ [ Dajja:l] who shall claim Divinity for himself and shall proclaim himself as
God. This is certainly a great heresy and a conspiracy of the author of this Gospel
whosoever he might be. Some Sufis have tried to defend this Gospel by claiming
that it was a three dimensional Image of Iepous, a Miraculous Hologram [As:
S:ruratul Misa:liah]. But such interpretations in the basic and principle Articles Of
Faith are not allowed and are heresy. It is just lioke to claim that the Great Prophet
Mu:sa:s (P.B.U.H) Image shall come prior to Qiya:mah . Naudu Billah. This claim is
a Heresy. It is just like the claim that if some one claim that he is an Image of Holy
Prophet. Such claims are certainly a Kufr/Cufr.
c)In chapter 83 it reports tha Iesous Kristos said:=
"I am indeed sent to the House of Israel as a prophet of salvation; but after me
shall come the Messiah, sent of God to all the world; for whom God has made the
world.
It is a Heresy and unorthodoxism to call Holy Prophet as Masi:h: i.e Messiah. Even
Barailvis who use the expressions of this verse to confirm on of their believes never
call Holy Prophet as Kal-mah or Ru:h of ALL-H. They also do not call Him as
Masi:h: /Messiah. I firmly believe that to Call Holy Prophet P.B.U.H as Masi:h: or
Messiah or Christos [Kristos] or Christ is a great heresy of all times. Any apology as
made by Maulana Maududi etc.is invalid and unacceptable. Terms of Isla:m canot be
played as attempted by some to justify the Heretical claim of This Gospel under
discussion.

28

4] The Gospel claims that Iesous was conceived with out pain i.e a painless
conception.
The Gospel says in its third chapter:=
The virgin was surrounded by a light exceeding bright, and brought forth her son
without pain,whom she took in her arms,.
But Qura:n informeth that:=
Then the birth pang drove her to the trunk of a [Date] Palm Tree. She [i.e
Mariam/Miriam / Maryam] said:= Would that I had died before this [Event] and had
become forgotten , lost in oblivion.[19:23].
Some blind supporters of the Gospel According to Barnabas have tried to make a
harmony between this Gospel and Qura:n by claiming that the pain was prior to the
conception and at the time of the conception there was no pain. But it must be
noted that such a Harmony can only be made if the text of an authentic tradition of
H:adi:s of a Canonical Book of Ah:di:s like Holy Muslim or Holy Bukhari hath said it.
In the case of a weak tradition it is not the case. The Gospel According to Barnabas
is not even a weak tradition . So such a Harmony is invalid though logically Possible
and Logically Contingent. Yet still not valid. Similarly Lights are not stated in
Qura:n. An extremist supporter of Barnaba(s) may say that it is an argument of
silence, but it is some thing more than silence. One can only use this argument
when such an event is told in authentic H:adi:s of a canonical book of H:adi:s. Even
weak traditions cannot enjoy this sort of benefi i.e benefit of silence.
According to the Gospel the story of birth of Iesous Kristos is different from the
History Of Iesous mentioned in Qura:n.
Gospel says:=
Joseph having arrived at Bethlehem, for that the city was small, and great the
multitude of them that were strangers there, he found no place, wherefore he took
lodging outside the city in a lodging made for a shepherds' shelter. While Joseph
abode there the days were fulfilled for Mary to bring forth.
The virgin was surrounded by a light exceeding bright, and brought forth her son
without pain, whom she took in her arms, and wrapping him in swaddling-clothes,
laid him in the manger, because there was no room in the inn. There came with
gladness a great multitude of angels to the inn, blessing God and announcing peace
to them that fear God. Mary and Joseph praised the Lord for the birth of Jesus, and
with greatest joy nurtured him. [GB #3]
1] The Gospel says that Yusif/Ioseph arrived in the city of Bethlehem. Gospel is silent about Marium . But every
thing implies that he was accompanied by her. So the both arrived in Bathelehem.

29

2] The Gospel says that Yusuf [Ioseph] took lodging in a lodging out side the city, which was made for Shepherds.
Gospel is silent about Marium. Yet every thing implies that Marium accompanied him. So they both took logding in a
lodging stated above. It is not the case that Yusuf took lodging at one place and Marium took lodging at some other
place.
3] The Gospel say that Yusuf abode there and the days were fulfilled for Marium to Conceive. Once again every
thing implies that they both abode their and Yusuf was not alone their . It cannot be accepted that he abode some
where else and Marium abode some where else.
4] Marium was surrounded by a light of great brightness.
5] Conception was painless.
6] Every thing implies that She conceived in the lodging stated above. Then she laid her son in the manger since
there was no room in the inn.
If it is claimed that these are minor disputes then it must be known that any contradiction with any verse of Qura:n
can never be minor, it is always major and fundamental. Thus it is stated that:=

Any contradiction with the Qura:n cannot be minor. It is always a major one.
Now let it be seen how QURA:N Narrateth the history.
Then She [Mayam/Marium] conceived Him, and she retired with him to a place for off. The birth prangs took her to
the trunk of the palm tree. She said , Would that I had died before this and did have been forgotten, lost in
oblivion.Then One called from underneath her. Thy Lord hath placed underneath thee a rivulet. [19:22-23]
These words do do shew that Marium was alone when she retired to a place which is commonly called Bathlehem,
which is seven miles away.
According to these sentences , it is clear that :=
1]Marium all by herself went to a distant place.
2] She did not need a lodging there since Deity/God Himself made a place for her.
3]She conceived Iesous Kristos beneath a date-palm tree.
4] Every thing suggest that the advent of multitude of angels is just an imaginary event made out of the
imagination of the author and the forgery maker.
The Gospel clearly contradicteth Qura:n or their harmony is strongly improbable.
Points to be noted:= If there had been multitude of angels Marium would not have said such words in their
presence. They would have been sufficiently enough to encourage her.
Holy Marium travelled alone from her domastic place to the place where she conceived Holy Iesous Cristos.
She did feel pain and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that she did feel pain prior to the act of conception
and she did not feel any pain during the act of conception. Such a harmony can only be made if there is such a
tradition from Holy Book of Bukhari Shari:f or Holy Book of Muslim Shari:f or a tradition that is S:ah:i:h: and
according to the standard of these two Holy Books. Even a weak tradition belonging to any Canonical book is not
worthy to make such Harmonies. Not to mention not canonical Books like Jazz Al Mafqu:d etc. [S:ah:i:h: is the First
Category of traditions, H:asan is the Second Category of traditions,D:ai:f is the third Category of traditions, and
Maud:u: is the forth Category of traditions].
NOTE:= In Isla:mic System even a tradition of a Canonical Book may be not authentic[with the Necessary
Exception of Bukhari and Muslim , the two most Canonical books of all the cannon]. So it is always required to test
and check the chain of narrators [ Human Sources] of the Tradition before claiming it as Authentic. The traditions of

30

Non Canonical Books are certainly not reliable. This is different from the Christian System in which traditions of
Canonical works are believed to be authentic. The principle of Isna: Ashrite elders i.e Vusu:q Bis:s S:udu:r is
analogous to Christian System at least in approximation if not in certainty ,proximation etc.

5] According to this Gospel Human Voluntary acts are absolutely free. This is a pure
Qadri or Mutazili view. This exposes that its writer was either a Mutazili or an
Extremist Qadri or Akhba:ri or an Isna: Ashri, since they all are Qadri Sects.
According to Sunni sects [Ashari,Maturidi, Salafi] acts of Rational Supposta whether
it be a human being or an angelic being or a Jin being are creation of Deity.Similarly
acts or works of Non Living things are also Created.
6] The Gospel claims that God is a Ru:h: /Spirit. This dogma is also a heresy. Since
God is not like any one of His Creation , hence God is an Essence that is neither a
Jauhar [ Substence] or an Accident. He is also not a Jism. So this Gospel Preaches
Heresy. Spirits are creations, and no creation is Deity. So to say Deity is a Spirit is
just like to say that Deity is a Substance or Deity is a Body or Deity is a Creation or
Deity is a Matter or Deity is a Matterial Being or Deity is a Spiritual Being. Holy Deity
is absolutely beyond all these claims.
7] The Gospel claims that Mariam/ Maryam [As] Mother of Iesous was married to
Iosef the carpenter [Yusuf Najja:r]. But this dogma is a heresy. She was a perpetual
virgin, neither touched by any male human being nor married to any one [with out
being touched by him]. She was unmarried virgin. So this dogma contradicts the
popular view of Mariam among Muslims. Some Muslims have however accepted the
dogma yet they are unable to provide any evidence from Islamic Scriptures , and
rely on Non Apocryphal New Testament and Apocryphal New Testament. There is
no Authentic H:adi:s that she was married to Ioseph the Carpenter [Yusuf An
Najja:r]. So one who claims so his a heretic.
In Qura:n it is informed about Marium that .And pain of childbirth drove her to
the trunk of date palm.19:23
So Barnabas contradicts Qura:n.
8] The Gospel according to Barnabas ascribes th Iesous Kristos PBUH that He said
about Prophet Muh:ammad PBUH that He [i.e Iesous Kristos] is not worthy enough
to untie His shoe laces.
Such a difference of status between any two Holy Prophets is certainly alien to
Islamic theological system in general and Sunni theological system and subsystems
[Ashairah,Maturidiah, Slafiah].This does contradict H:adi:s of S:ah:i:h: Bukha:ri
Tradition Number 3395 . No One should say that I [Muh:ammad (PBUH) am better
than Yunus Bin Mata: .
9] Qur,a:n Informeth that Iesous is Masi:h: /Messiah but This Gospel denies this
information.
31

So Gospel stated above differ from traditional Isla:mic views. These are just some
examples. One may fine some more. So this work cannot be true.
Fore sake of an argument if it is assumed that it was not a forgery then the only
answer is that it was either an Apocryphal Gospel, which some how was secured by
an intelligent person who corrupted it by changing , adding subtracting, reacting
and editing its contents using different sources and his imagination. How ever it is
more interesting and complete then any one of apocryphal gospel and more
complete then the New Testamental Gospels. If it was as old as Gospel of Thomas or
Gospel of Hevrews, it would have made much confusions not only in Christiandom
but also in Islamdom , since it teaches many things contrary to Christianity and
Islam.
Notes:=
1] The Noun of I:sa: Alaihissala:m in English is used is Iesous, it is much close to
other forms of His Nouns like Yahua, I:sa:, Iesus etc.
Even Latin Iesus is much close to the Noun Jesus which not only replaces I by J [ a
Consonental diphthong ] it also changes the Hissing S sound of Latin Letter S by
Zed/Zee Z sound, twice in the single word.
Last not the least the short U sound as U in the word Put is changed to short
U sound as U in the word But.So the sound and pronounciation is completely
changed. If change of pronunciation had implied the change in spelling it would
have been deducted easily. Also the English sound Jesus is different from Latin
sound Iesus.
So it is best to use Greek word in English letters IESOUS
It is hoped that it will be welcomed by English Speaking people irrespective of their
religion, cult and sect. It must be noted that I am not against using the noun Jesus
but I do prefer
Iesous[Greek] and Iesus[Latin]. How ever there may not be any problem in German
since they pronounce Jesu as Iesu or Yesu, dropping the final sigma Sound.In
German it is not a consonantal diphthong.
[ It is now become a fashion to replace the Hissing S sound by Z sound and
Sh sound by Zh sound. This is incorrect and one must be careful in
differentiating S sound from Z sound, and Sh sound from Zh sound].

2] The Word Kistos [Christos] is used instead of the word Christ since it appears to
me that it is a natural choice after the word Iesous. But one may write the words
32

Christ or Christos after the word Iesous , there it is hoped that there may not be any
objection on the words Christos,Christ or Kristos when they are used after the noun
Iesous.
3]

Once reading the text of the Gospel under discussion I personally felt that the author of the Gospel advocates the view that G-D Hath no power to

make/speak a false statement. This shews that the author of the Gospel held Mutazili view. But unfortunately I lost the lines by closing the book with out
looking at the page number. But after some weaks I tried and retried to find those lines but was unable to find it. I searched and researched but
unfortunately I am unable to find those lines. If I am ever successful to find them they shall be added in this work. I may be noted that the

same belief is also held by Akhbarites as well. They believe that Justice is Necessary [Va:jib] upon ALL-H . As ALL-H is himself
Va:jib[Necessary] this implies that there is an other thing that is Necessary upon Necessary. This implies plurality of Necessaries. But
Like Mutazilah they do not believe in plurality of Necessaries.
So if the Justice is an existent then it is some thing distinct from Deity and upon Deity. One necessary Existent upon and other
Necessary Existent. Plurality of Necessary Existents and Necessary Existences are necessarily implied. If Justice is a non Existent
then to claim that it is necessary Upon God means that a a non existence is necessary upon God. But it is impossible for a Non
Existence is necessary upon Deity, since a A Non existence is impossible and absurd to be necessary. Since one that existeth and is
necessary then it is necessarily implied that is a Necessary Existent. If they make an apology by saying that they mean Justice is
Identical to the Divine Essence, then they do contradict the claim that Justice is necessary Upon Deity since any thing that is
Identical to some thing is nothing but the self of that thing and Self of any thing cannot be upon the thing since it means nothing but
that Deity is upon Himself. And no thing can be upon itself or himself or both.
Also if they have believed it so then they would have also said that Omnipotence is uponj Deity, Mercy is upon deity, etc.
The same answer is for the view that the truth of speech is also upon Deity. Also as the Divine Speech is not Eternal as according to
them, its truth cannot be eternal according to this view since all Attributes of a Non Eternal are Non Eternal. Also if Justice is a
Contingent or Possible existent then it is H:adis [Non Eternal] and no Non Eternal Existent is Upon the Eternal Existent. This is
Impossible , Incontingent and Absurd.
Relative Attributes of Deity neither sustain upon the Deity nor subsist in/with the Essence of Deity.

==a
='=
==b
=t
='=t
=j
=:h
=hk
=r
'=d

33

=r
=z
=s
=hs

=:s
:d
=:t
=:z
"=
=hg
=f
=q
=k,c
=l
=m
h=.
=h,t
=v,u,w

=y,i

34

Long Vowels: [Approximate candidates]

a:, as in Park, Mark,Car as a in Father, a in All,Call,Pal
I: as in police, as ee as in week., as ea as in weak.
U: as u in rude; as oo as in pool,cool;
Short Vowels

35

a , as a in Sugar (Sugar), as u in but (bat),cut,hut,mud,as a in German,Germany, oo

as flood ,blood eg :
(Sugar)

(bat) (cat) Germany

i , as i in pin ,tin, kid , hit as o in women,

u , as in put , oo as in book,hook,
Diphthongs.
Regular diphthons:= Ai ()
Au ()

36