Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14


An Islamic aproach
Some Muslim apologists advocate the Gospel according to Barnabas [Barnaba] as
the authentic Euaggelion [Inji:l]. On the contrary Christians try to prove it as a
concoction. It is tried to shew that not all Muslims hold this view. Some neglect it
and some consider it as a concoction as well. The belief of the present writer is that
it is A concoction or a corrupted form of some ancient apocryphal Gospel.
In any case whether a Muslim Apologist supports it or rejects it , it is his own
opinion. Islam is not responsible in any meaning of the word responsible of his or
her personal opinion.
Raither Islamic traditional principles of criticism discards it from being genuine
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.
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
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.
The True Criteria of Reliability:=
If its reliability and Credibility is to be proved the necessary requirement is to
produce some copied of it either from the period of Apocryphal Gospels or from the
period of Non Apocryphal Gospels. Untill then its credibility,reliability authenticity
and trustworthiness cannot be accepted.
Nature of the Gospel:=
It may be noted that Christian apologists claim that it is a forgery made by the
imagination of its author. But it is also possible that it is a reconstruction , an
attempt to rewrite Biography or Semi Biography of Iesous Kristos based on
Apocryphal and New Testamental Gospels.
It does sometimes fill the gaps in the New Testamental Gospels. Field is open to
study it in light of available Apocryphal Gospels as well. It is not a forgery in thje
meaning the entire work is a production of imagination of its author. It is a forgery in
the meaning that it is produced from a number of books available to the authors.
However some portions may be a result of pure imagination.
It may be AN ATTEMPT to produce a Gospel or a Semi Biography based upon some
apocryphal books as well .
So it is a Possible Reconstruction. Even if it is a reconstruction it may still be termed
as a forgery in the meaning it is neither a synthetic product made by the portions of
available soures.
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
[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.

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

[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.
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)]
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
The auther 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

A Good Approach of Zakir Naik:=

Dr Zakit Naik [ A student of comparative religion] in one of his addresses accepted
that this Gospel is highly controversial and should not be referred to in religious
dialogues. The author of this article /work does second Respected Dr Zakir for his
brilliant judgement on the issue of Gospel Accordsing To Saint Barnaba(s).
Some Recent Findings:=
Some copies of Gospels are claimed to be found in Turkey [atleast one], and it is
claimed that it is a Proto Gospel Of Barnaba(s). It may be the case that the newly
found Gospel may second this Gospel but unless and other wise all the portions of
thje texts are compared it is very difficult to say whether the Gospel found is the
original of the 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 Bernabas
onsome 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.
The Gospel says that Iesous Kristos ordered Barnabas to write the Euaggelion which
he preached, and was revieled 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 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/
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].

This article may annoy some of our Muslim Brothers who have attempted to refute
some of the weak objections on the Gospel. To them I 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 Bukhari and 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 science of Rija:l and
Traditions. But I do not believe in works like J-zz Al M-fq:d, Nahj of Rad:i: , and Gospel
according to Barnaba(s). If I am still a subject of their annoyance then this can be
nothing but an amusement for Heretics 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
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, 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 ,about them except that it is also equally plausible that
either they never read the very book inself or they read only few parts of the book
and left other parts of it with out reading.



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.
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 Pro[phet was a Light that without
ceasing to be Light assumed huminity and became Light.Now according to them He
possesseth two Natures i] Human Nature [Huminity],ii] Light Nature [Light-ness].
According to Sunni view Holy Prophet is a Human Being in the real meaning[Primary
Meaning] of the word Human Being [Insa:n]. Some of them call him Light only in
Metaphorical or Figurative Or Virtual [Secondary meanings].Few of them however
opine that Holy Prophet was a Human Being and Light both in the Real Meaning yet
they believe in Primacy and Priority of His Humanity [Ins:niyah] over His Light-ness
[Nu:ra:niyah]. This contradicts the heretics who believe in the Primacy and Priority
of His Light-ness over His Humanity.
His Light-ness if accepted cannot and doethnot contradict His likeness
[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
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 auther whosoever he
might be.
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
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.
4] The Gospel claims that Iesous was conceived with out pain i.e a painless
The Gospel says in its third chapter:=
The virgin was surrounded by a light exceeding bright, andbrought forth her son
without pain,whom she took in her arms,.
But Qura:n informeth that:=
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 a Isna: Ashri, since they all ara 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.


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
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
vergin, 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.
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].
9] Qur,a:n Informeth that Iesous is Masi:h: /Messiah but This Gospel denies this

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


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