Punishing the Female Rape Victim in Islam
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
It is unfortunate that for people who profess objectivity and sincerity in their study, research and pursuit of knowledge that there continues to be a great perversion of the understanding of Islamic Shari’ah laws and its applications. Proponents of the modern secular system, or of varying theological political systems, seemingly cannot produce a consistent stance on judging the use or misuse of the Islamic Shari’ah, while wholly regarding it to be unfair, unjust and backwards. Demonstrably, it can be noted that their own justice systems produce often, curious if not peculiar judgements. In one case, a mother can be sentenced to jail for a period of 5 years, for stealing clothing from a store for her children at a value of $102 dollars. While at the same time a Wall Street tycoon who has defrauded enough persons to make himself a billionaire, was sentence to a period of only, 11 years. What then, can we say is logical about this? Based on this one example of a judgement that is neither proportional to the crimes when compared and contrasted nor morally justifiable, can I then generalize the American justice system as being inhumane, profiteering and socially inept?
To further this discussion with more evidences relevant to the topic at hand, let’s examine sexual assault cases, in particular rape. This child rapist was sentenced to only 5 to 7 years in prison, the same amount of time as the woman who stole $102 dollars worth of goods. This rapist was sentenced to only 9 years in prison, while defrauding persons of hundreds of millions of dollars and sending families into distress, bankruptcy and insolvency will earn you the same amount of jail time. Continuing with this trend, we can deduce that according to the modern secular system, stealing and rape are upon the same field of justice. Considering these tragic acts, let’s examine the Islamic position on rape in the modern world. To rape in Islamic law is to have committed “ightisaab”, which means to forcefully transgress and take a woman’s honour from her (rape). The crime is punishable by death but doesn’t have to be punished by death, the punishment however has to be severe as to deter anyone else from attempting this crime. Therefore, there can be no equivalence between stealing and rape, a woman’s honour is not the same as stealing an apple, or clothing as it is seen in the secular justice system.
Islamic Shari’ah rule, is intended to govern a state by Islamic law, where the ulema (religious leaders) who are fuqaha (jurists), establish courts where a qadhi (judge) can make binding rulings (fatawa) on behalf of the state against a criminal and establish justice in the society. This understanding is based upon the Qur’anic statements:
“And so judge (you O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) among them by what Allaah has revealed” - [al-Maa’idah 5:49].
“And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the Kaafiroon (i.e. disbelievers — of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allaah’s Laws)” - [al-Maa’idah 5:44].
“And whosoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, such are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers — of a lesser degree)” - [al-Maa’idah 5:45].
“And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed (then) such (people) are the Fâsiqûn [the rebellious i.e. disobedient (of a lesser degree)] to Allaah” - [al-Maa’idah 5:47].
“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission” - [al-Nisa’ 4:65].
“Do they then seek the judgement of (the days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith” - [al-Maa’idah 5:50].
To make this succinct and easy to grasp, the discussion will be broken up into several questions:
- What do the Islamic scholars (Ulema) say on the punishment of rape?
- Are four witnesses needed to prove rape?
- Are women who do not wear hijab responsible for their rape?
- Is the woman to be punished for rape?
- Forced marriage to rapist?
- Further reading.
What do the Islamic scholars (Ulema) say on the punishment of rape?
Yûsuf ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Muhammad Ibn `Abd al-Barr Abû `Umar al-Namarî al-Andalusî al-Qurtubî al-Mâlikî (may Allaah be pleased with him), a prominent Islamic jurist, of whom Imam al Qurtubi cites/ references about 500 times in his tafsir has stated in Al-Istidhkâr li Madhhab `Ulamâ’ al-Amsâr fîmâ Tadammanahu al-Muwatta’ min Ma`ânî al-Ra’î wal-Athâr (“The Memorization of the Doctrine of the Scholars of the World Concerning the Juridical Opinions and the Narrations Found in Mâlik’s Muwatta’”), 7/146:
The scholars are unanimously agreed that the rapist is to be subjected to the hadd punishment if there is clear evidence against him that he deserves the hadd punishment, or if he admits to that. Otherwise, he is to be punished (i.e., if there is no proof that the hadd punishment for zina may be carried out against him because he does not confess, and there are not four witnesses, then the judge may punish him and stipulate a punishment that will deter him and others like him). There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that he forced her and overpowered her, which may be proven by her screaming and shouting for help.
Are four witnesses needed to prove rape?
Mufti Taqi Uthmani [db] in his discussion during an interview on Pakistan’s implementation of the Protection of Women Bill 2006, expounded upon his rulings and the rulings of other Islamic judges:
”I myself had been directly hearing cases registered under Hudood Ordinance, first as a Judge of Federal Shariah Court and then for seventeen years as a member of Shariah Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court. In this long tenure, not once did I come across a case in which a rape victim was awarded punishment simply because she was unable to present four witnesses.
In fact it was not possible to do so. First, according to the Hudood Ordinance, the condition of four witnesses only applied to enforcing the hadd for rape. Clause 10(3), which awarded the ta’zeer punishment, did not have this requirement; the crime could be proven through one witness, medical reports, and chemical analysis report. Consequently most rape criminals were awarded punishment as per this clause.
Further, a woman claiming rape could not be punished under Qazf (false accusation of zina) since Exemption 2 in Qazf Ordinance Clause 3 clearly stated that if someone approaches the legal authorities with a rape complaint, she could not be punished in case she was unable to present four witnesses.”
To compound this statement, Shaykh Faraz Rabbani (may Allaah be pleased with him) has stated:
“This is a common myth about Islamic criminal law. Rather, the four witness requirement applies only to the prescribed hadd punishment (which in the case of a married person could be death and for the non-married, 100 lashes). [Marghinani, Hidaya] This punishment is only applied in very rare cases, as is clear, and is meant to be a social deterrent, above all.
As the classical and contemporary jurists (such as Mufti Taqi Usmani) have made clear, a rapist can be convicted on lesser evidence (including scientific evidence, such as DNA tests and medical reports) for discretionary punishments. These discretionary punishments are left up to the legal system to determine.
However, it is a myth to say that Islam would in any way condone rape, or allow a rapist to go free for this terrible crime against an innocent human being and against society.”
This therefore rests the case, of the issue with 4 witnesses being needed to prove rape, indeed rape can be proven using modern scientific methods and other evidences, as seen above, as being agreed upon by Islamic fuqaha (jurists).
Are women who do not wear hijab responsible for their rape?
Mufti Muhammad Kadwa and Mufti Ebrahim Desai (may Allaah be pleased with them both) have stated:
These are two separate issues; rape and the lack of Hijaab. The rapist will be punished for his heinous crime whilst the woman will be sinful not for rape, but for failure to observe the rules of Hijaab. Failure to wear Hijaab in no way justifies the heinous crime of rape.
Is the woman to be punished for rape?
Imam Maalik (may Allaah have mercy on him) has said in Al-Muwatta’, 2/734:
In our view the man who rapes a woman, whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a “dowry” like that of her peers, …. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case.
Prophet Muhammad (may Allaah’s peace and blessings be upon him) has also decreed punishments for persons who have committed rape, while freeing the woman of any punishment:
“Narrated Wa’il ibn Hujr (may Allaah be pleased with him):
When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me.And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her. She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him).
When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.
He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death.” - (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith #4366, Kitab al Hudud [38]).
Forced Marriage to Rapist?
While Islam punishes the rapist, we do hear of some really peculiar instances where the woman is married to the man. This has no basis in Islamic law, nor does it comply with Islamic reasoning, according to this fatwa by Mufti Ebrahim Desai [db]:
“Knowing the importance and sacredness of a marriage commitment, the boy and girl having consulted with their seniors and making Istikhaara, should make their own independent choice.
They should not be compelled to marry against their wishes as the consequences (non-compatibility, divorce, disputes, custody of children, etc.) are too ghastly to bear. Parents should not compel their children to marry against their wishes due to economic status reasons.”
As well as this fatwa by the same Mufti (Islamic Jurist):
“As an adult, you have an independent right to choose your marriage partner. You should not be forced into marrying someone against your choice. Those forcing you are guilty of depriving you of your Shar’ee right and committing a major sin,
You should simply say no if you are not confident of marrying against your choice. The consequences of forced marriages are too ghastly. There are great possibilities of a marital breakdown. That will lead to disunity among many families. The matter will be clouded even more if there is a child born through the marriage. Considering the many negative consequences of a forced marriage, you should never give in to being forced to marry against your wish. It will be you and no one else who will have to bear the burdens in future. You may forward this email to those forcing you to marry against your wishes.”
However, to contrast the Islamic position, let’s look at this excerpt from the Jewish and Christian religious text, Old Testament (Torah), Deuteronomy (Devarim), Chapter 22, Verses 28 – 29:
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
Further Reading:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/testimony-of-rape-victim/
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/does-islam-require-four-witnesses-for-rape/
http://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/03/12/is-the-shariah-inhumane-you-decide/
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]
Refutation: Where Did Jesus Say, “I Am God, Worship Me”? [Updated]
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
David Wood of the Answering Muslims blog, has attempted to answer the age old question,”Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God, Worship Me‘?”. I say attempted, because as a person who studies the scriptures and the sciences related to understanding them, I must say that I am a bit bewildered by his methodology. However, before I begin dissecting his arguments I must address one noteworthy point. That is, none of the arguments nor any of the information he provides are new, rather they are oft repeated to the extent that they are void of any intellectual worth. The aim of this response therefore, is to merely provide a series of simple yet sufficient rebuttals to the points made.
The Fallacy of Reading Between the Lines:
From the onset, David relies on this particular fallacy, which can be defined as:
“The unwarranted associative fallacy “occurs when a word or phrase triggers off an associated idea, concept, or experience that bears no close relation to the text at hand, yet is used to interpret the text.”
A simple example would be:
John, a Christian, says he is a contractor.
Ahmad, a Muslim, says he is a contractor.
Ahmad is a Christian because he is a contractor.
This might sound utterly absurd to any remotely familiar with reason and logic. The implication being here, that the conclusion is void of basic comprehension skills. With this in mind, we’re going to up the ante of this argument by applying it to the reasoning from David’s article:
God of Christianity, says in Bible, I am X.
God of Islam, says in Qur’an, I am X.
The God of Islam is a Christian (or validates Christianity) because He says the same as the God of Christianity.
Following through with David’s logic, let’s replace X with “the truth”:
God of Christianity, says in Bible, I am the truth.
God of Islam says in Bible, I am the truth.
Therefore the God of Islam is a Christian (or validates Christianity) because he uses the same title as the God of Christianity.
At this point, one might be skeptical, that David does in fact make such an absurd assertion as the foundation for his response to the aforementioned question, “Where does Jesus say I am God?”. That he would try to prove this by associating the doctrine of one God with another from within two different scriptures and two entirely different religions, to validate his beliefs. Yet, if we read his article, this is exactly as he has done.
Judge by the Gospel?
David opens his argument, with the assertion that Christians, according to the Qur’an, must judge by the Bible or for that matter, the Christian Bible (Septuagint + NT) by referencing an ayah of the Qur’an:
Qur’an 5:47—“Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.”
His mistake is clear from the onset, does David Wood truly believe that the God of Islam, Allaah, revealed the Bible, i.e. that it is Kalamullah, or does he subscribe to the belief that the Bible, is an inspired word of God as begotten from the articulated words of men? The latter would be his position, as he associates himself with the doctrine of the Answering Islam team[1].
He then proceeds once more to make another irrational claim, that the Qur’an commands Muslims to believe in the Greco-Roman New Testament and the Judeo-Christian Old Testament, claims which I have aptly refuted here and here. One must take into account, that the Qur’an never commands Muslims to believe in the alleged scripture of the Jews and Christians, which is known as the Bible, which in Arabic would either read, “Majmu ul Kutub”, or “Kitab al Muqaddas”, two terms which never occur in the Qur’an, thus through proof by contradiction, David’s assertion can be easily dismissed. However for a more indepth discussion, please see the two previous links. David then makes this statement:
“However, if Muslims are suggesting that Jesus could only claim to be God by uttering a specific sentence, we may reply by asking, “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am only a prophet, don’t worship me,’ in those exact words?”
We can negate the rationality of this argument, by conversing it.
From:
Where did Jesus say, I am only a prophet, don’t worship me?
To:
Where did Jesus not say, I am not only a prophet, worship me?
That brings us to the original question, where did Jesus claim to be anything more than a Prophet? If so, are we according to David’s logic, supposed to worship a person if they are more than a Prophet. If that is the case, is David Wood a polytheist? Demi-gods, are more than mere mortals who prophesy, would David, by applying his aforementioned reasoning (crossing religious doctrine with his own ideas), then bow to worship the Pagan Greco-Roman Gods? Of course, his answer would be an emphatic no, thus under his own reasoning, his very argument falls apart.
He then sought to summarize his argument, as such:
“Fortunately, we have a simple way to examine what Jesus said about himself. According to both the Bible and the Qur’an, there are certain claims that only God can truly make.”
If we take the above quote and we run it through the Reading Between the Lines Fallacy, as demonstrated above in my opening statement, we see that David arguments crumbles through various inconsistencies. It should be obvious to the reader, that the Qur’an and the Bible expound two clearly different doctrines of God, refer to two completely distinct forms of salvation and are fundamentally two distinct ideologies. However, David is asserting that if he finds two completely different deities making similar statements, then these deities are each other. In other words, if he can prove that Jesus makes a statement that Allaah (God) makes, then Jesus has to be God (Allaah).
With that in mind, let’s settle David’s argument with one final example:
Hercules says he is the son of the God, Zeus.
Jesus says he is the son of the God, YaHWeH.
Since Christians assert that Jesus claimed to be the son of God and Romans believe Hercules is the son of God, then this proves that Jesus is the son of God.
At this point, we can agree that this argument makes no valid sense. Yet, Christians both see Muslims and Roman polytheists as Pagans, yet David, seeks to prove his faith in Christ as a deity by using what he asserts is a pagan deity as evidences for his own God’s existence. We can even further refute his position by asking a simple question:
If Hindus believes that God is one, but represented in many forms and Christians believe God is one, but represented in many forms, does that mean that the Hindu religion is true?
The First and the Last.
Qur’an 57:3.
Isaiah 44:6.
Revelation 1:17.
His first line of evidence is to show that both the Old Testament and the Qur’an claim for God to be The First and The Last. Since both scriptures claim this is a title for God and Jesus “says” he is the First and the Last then, this proves Jesus is God.
This is problematic for David, when one has read his article, he asserts that Isaiah 44:6, refers to the LORD or YaHWeH, for Christians that would be the Father. It’s a problem because if The Lord is the Father and the Trinitarian Godhead makes it clear that while both the Father and the Son are God, the Father isn’t the Son, nor is the Son the Father. Since this is the case it doesn’t matter what Jesus claims as he cannot be YHWH from Isaiah 44:6. Following from that logic, he also cannot be Allaah from Qur’an 57:3, because of Qur’an 112:3. The final question which begs itself, is this is all a dream from John, as he references the Book of Revelation or the Revelation of John (a dream), therefore I must ask David, if any Christian gets a dream about Jesus claiming something, would he also accept it as the truth? As an example, if I dreamed that Jesus claimed he wasn’t the first or the last, would he also accept it as divinely inspired revelation?
I ask this because David asks if a mere Prophet would claim these divine titles, in response, I am asking, how is Jesus making this claim? It isn’t. It’s a dream someone had, claiming Jesus said these things.
Who Forgives Sins?
Qur’an 3:135.
Psalm 51:4.
Daniel 9:9.
Mark 2:5-7.
From the passage in Mark, Jesus “forgives” a man of his sins. Since God alone can forgive sins, David asserts that Jesus is God. The problem is this, who is doing the forgiving? Is it Jesus, or is it the Lord? We read from Psalms itself:
“Praise the Lord, my soul, and forget not all his benefits—who forgives all your sins.” – Psalms 103:3.
Who forgives all sins? The Lord, or YHWH, or as Christians call him, the Father. Since the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son, then we have to conclude that the Father (The Lord, YHWH) is the one who forgives all sins. This is proven by another verse of the Bible:
“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.” – Acts 2:22.
Indeed, it was a miracle that the man was forgiven, but as the Bible rightly says, God alone forgives all sins and God did these acts through the person of Christ.
The Light.
Qur’an 24:35.
Psalm 27:1.
John 8:12.
The Qur’an calls Allaah the light of the heavens and the earth, David calls YHWH (The Father), the Light and Jesus “claims” to be the light in the Gospel.
There again, is another problem here. If the Father is not the Son and the Son is the Father, according to the Trinitarian Godhead that is, then how can the Son claim to have the same title as the Father?
If he has also read the verse of the Qur’an in comparison with the verse from John, how is it that someone who claims to be the light of the earth, is equal to one who is the light of the heavens and earth? Would he therefore claim that if I can light a room, but my brother can light a room and a car, that we are equal? Of course not.
The Truth.
Qur’an 22:6.
Psalm 31:5.
John 14:6.
There again, is another problem here. If the Father is not the Son and the Son is the Father, according to the Trinitarian Godhead that is, then how can the Son claim to have the same title as the Father? The two are distinct, yet David is asserting they are the same person.
I suggest he read James White’s The Forgotten Trinity which makes it clear there are three persons, distinct and co-equal, yet not each other, or one can read James White’s, “A Brief Definition of the Trinity“, wherein he writes:
“There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another – that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons.”
However, if we do read his example, what’s the context of Jesus’ statement?
“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”
Jesus is saying here, that he is the truth, if one wants to come to the Father. In other words, he (Jesus) is the truth of the Father. Something Muslims can identify with, Jesus is indeed a sign of the truth of God, or as we would say, an Ayat ar Rahman (a sign of God).
The Final Judge.
Qur’an 22:56-57.
Psalm 9:7-8.
Matthew 25:31-32.
The problem is the same as above, if from Psalm 9:7-8, it is the Father who is judging and the Father is not the Son, yet the Son is doing the judging in Matthew 25:31-32, we must conclude that the Father is the Son. Which as we know, contradicts the Trinitarian doctrine of the Godhead and once again, David Wood, either displays that he isn’t a Trinitarian Christian or he is wholly ignorant of his very own doctrine. Quite funny, that he seeks to contradict his own faith, to prove Muslims wrong.
This situation of conflicting with the Trinitarian Godhead dogma doctrine, continues to conflict with his other two “evidences” of The Ressurection and God’s Glory.
Further Evidence.
He references Mark 2:28, which states that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, that’s a problem however let’s just quote verse 27 and 28:
“Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
The context of this verse is that man is the master (the Greek word used for Lord is Kurios [κύριος]), which doesn’t refer to a divine being, it refers to a Master or a Sir, someone of authority, the word for a divine authority such as a God would be Theos. So the verse is generally saying that men are masters of the Sabbath because it was made for them. Referencing a Talmudic law, Rabbi Michael Skobac speaks about in this lecture [video link sent to specific time when he mentions this very incident].
Jesus demonstrates that man is the master of Sabbath, by referencing the story of David, wherein David’s men enter the Tabernacle and eat from the Holy Bread. A bread which they are not normally allowed to consume. In fact in the story of David, we read that the men are even called holy:
“The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!” So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the Lord and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.” – 1 Samuel 21.
Therefore his argument that men are the masters of the Sabbath as been soundly defeated. According to Judaic law, certain laws can be broken in order to fulfil other rights of the Israelites, such as in both cases where they are starving. Something which Jesus himself references in Matthew 12:3-5:
“ He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?”
David Wood, then references Matthew 22:41-45 where he claims Jesus is the Lord of David, again the word used here is master and indeed if Jesus was the Christ sent to Israel, then he was the Messiah of Israel, thus he would be also the master of David who was from Israel as well. If we ignore that fact, David Wood must be reminded that Matthew 22:41-45, contradicts Matthew 1:2.
David Wood, then proceeds by stating that Jesus claims to be greater than a temple of God, in Matthew 12:6. Which brings into question his reasoning, did he really believe that a building is holier than a Prophet? Poor reading of the scriptures gives bad study, and clearly he needs to read Malachi 3, which refers to the Messenger of God, the Messenger of the Covenant who will come to purify the Temple.
He then tries to demonstrate that Matthew 11:27 makes Jesus a God, because in this verse it reads, “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son“, this brings into question David’s understanding of the Trinity, as in verse 25 we read, “ At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth“. The son therefore, in this scenario isn’t equitable or a co-equal with God, as he is praising (glorifying) the Father and is claiming his knowledge isn’t his own (isn’t God all knowing?), but that his knowledge is from the Lord (Father, YHWH). This verses proves the opposite, Jesus isn’t divine but dependent on God for his knowledge.
David Wood, then appeals to John 14:14, wherein Jesus is said to be able to answer prayers, rather, if we read verse 13, it states, “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.“, a direct references to Acts 2:22, where it states, ““Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know“.
He then refers to Matthew 28:18 to demonstrate that Jesus is given power over earth and heaven by God, this is a problem for David, as the word used is εξουσία which as we can see refers to jurisdiction or authority. So what was Jesus given the authority to do? To command his disciples to preach to non-Jews, i.e gentiles as the following verses state, “ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, which contradicts Acts 15, wherein this was a debate raging between Paul and the disciples some 14 plus years after Jesus allegedly said those words.
John 5:21-23, is in accordance with Islamic theology, one must honor God and the one who brings God’s message (risalat), the one who brings God’s message is a rasul (messenger), so what does John 5:23 state why we should honor the messenger of God? Well it says we should honor God by honoring the Messenger of God who was sent by God, “He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him“.
Further on he references areas where Jesus is worshipped in the New Testament in Matthew 2:11, 14:33, 28:17, Luke 24:52 and John 9:38. There is a problem however, the word does not exclusively mean to worship, in fact, it doesn’t mean to worship in the least. The word προσκυνέω as demonstrated in Strong’s Lexicon, means to bow to as the Orientals do to each other, to revere, to kiss or to even lick like a dog licking it’s master’s hand, yet never to worship as a deity. As for John 20:28, it is sufficiently refuted here and here.
Assessment.
As we can see, in all of the claims of David Wood, there are conflicts with his own Trinitarian Godhead doctrine, abuse of the translation of words from the Greek texts and improper reading of the New Testament by David. He has been unable to demonstrate a single case where Jesus himself, in an unequivocal, first person verbatim (Greek: Grapho) statement claims to be God. It is quite contrasting to the God of the Old Testament who had no problem in demonstrating that:
“I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” - Exodus 20:2-6.
David Wood is almost giving the impression that the God of the New Testament is a muzzled God, unable to declare His deity. A God who so proudly claimed to be vehemently jealous, suddenly can’t claim his own deity. A God that destroyed entire nations for not worshipping Him, for worshipping the wrong God, suddenly is unable to clearly declare, as he once did, that he was a deity. It is shocking that David would like us to believe in such a timid God, a changed God, a reformed God, who is now meek and not jealous and insistent on declaring his identity.
Postscript: The Islamic Dilemma.
As it has been explicitly demonstrated, if it is that those statements which David chose are to represent the belief that Jesus was a deity, by making him the same person as the Father (YHWH), then he has to accede that the Trinitarian Godhead concept is wrong in that the two persons are not distinct, therefore conceding that he (David) is a Modalist. Something which his ally in Islamophobia, James White should have the guts to address, but then again, I wouldn’t expect either of them to correct each other publicly as it’s bad for business.
The concept that Islam believes that either the Masoretic Text/ LXX or the Greco-Roman New Testament texts are inspired by God and sanctioned by Islam as scripture, have been thoroughly refuted here and here.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]
[1] – A Series of Answers to Common Questions, The Bible is Inspired but Paul Claimed Otherwise, by Sam Shamoun.
Update:
Derek Adams via the commenting section of Answering Muslim’s website, sought to defend David’s argumentation by supposing the following:
“Yeah you’re rebuttal doesn’t understand basic Christian doctrine. All three persons are LORD(YHVH). YHVH is not an exclusive name for the Father that cannot be applied to the Son.”
The problem with Derek’s statement, is that he is most likely not well studied in the doctrine of the Trinity, firstly, he should refer to this image which is used by most Evangelical groups to explain the Trinity to Muslims and Christians alike:
Secondly, to correct him:
The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are considered to be God (אלהים) in the Trinitarian Godhead. However The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are not all considered to be YHWH (יהוה) who is considered to be the Father, I shall qualify this with an example from the Old Testament:
“The Lord (יהוה) said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west.” – Genesis 13:14.
As opposed to:
“In the beginning God (אלהים) created the heavens and the earth.” – Genesis 1:1.
Wherein according to Christian dogma, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are being referred to as Creators of the heavens and the earth in this verse. Yet, when YHWH is used it solely refers to the Father in the Old Testament, according to the Christian rendition of the Pentateuch (Greek Septuagint).
His confusion mostly stems from the English misuse of the word God in the Bible. It’s often easy to understand the plight of Christians, as even many Christian apologists have great difficulty in comprehending, if not teaching the dogma of the Godhead. This situation is worsened when the English renditions use the same words to refer to both a person of the Godhead and the Godhead’s unity in itself.
This understanding is qualified by one of Derek’s heroes or so to speak, Sam Shamoun in his article, “Jesus is indeed Yahweh God the Son!“, states:
“Moreover, since the Father can be identified as Yahweh in isolation from the others, the Son can therefore be identified as Yahweh’s Servant.”
Derek Adams then sought to reference that Allaah revealed to the Prophet [peace and blessings be upon him] the knowledge in dreams this therefore allows anyone with dreams to take their dreams as scripture. To correct Derek’s assertion, a Prophet in Islam is a Rasul who is the vessel through which the Risalat (Message) is revealed. So the Rasul can receive the Risalat in a variation of ways, as that is their purpose in this world, to deliver the revelation of God.
However, when it comes to John’s personal revelation (The Book of Revelation), he wasn’t a Prophet or Messenger and Christians acknowledge that in their doctrine, no other message was to come after the Gospel of Christ. Therefore Derek has again defamed himself and completely refuted his own arguments through appeal to ad ignorantium, what I like to commonly refer to as damnant quod non intelligunt, that being, they argue against that, which they do not understand.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]
Refutation: Reading Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 in context.
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Samuel Green has sought to defend the Christian position of salvation by substitutional sacrifice. That being that sin can be dispensed of through the death of another human being (Christ as the sacrificial lamb). At first, he references the two verses which negate such a teaching:
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16, NIV)
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. (Ezekiel 18:20, NIV)
At this point, before I dissect the eisegesis of Samuel, we need to properly lay a foundation of the views which some of the more notable and erudite Christian exegetes themselves have taken, we read from Adam Clarke’s Exegesis the follow excerpt:
“None shall die for another’s crimes, none shall be saved by another’srighteousness. Here is the general judgment relative to the righteousness andunrighteousness of men, and the influence of one man’s state on that of another; particularly in respect to their moral conduct.”
We also read from Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Entire Bible that the persons who are punished are due to their own sinning brought about by themselves:
“But this people that bore the iniquity of their fathers had not done that which is lawful and right, and therefore justly suffered for their own sin and had no reason to complain of God’s proceedings against them as at all unjust, though they had reason to complain of the bad example their fathers had left them as very unkind. “
Seeing as the Torah (Old Testament) is primarily the book of the Jews, it would be inappropriate to leave off their understanding of the verses referenced, we read from Rabbi Rashi’s commentary, the following excerpts from his exegesis of Devarim (Deuteronomy):
“Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons: [I.e.,] by the testimony of [their] sons. But, if you say [that it means that fathers shall not be put to death] because of the sins of their sons, it has already been stated, “each man shall be put to death for his own transgression.”
With these statements in mind, we now have a proper understanding from traditional Christian sources and Judaic sources as to the proper meaning of these verses. Samuel however, sought to circumvent the orthodox interpretations of these verses by claiming that he himself had a proper understanding based on Judaic principles:
“This, however, is not the case because both of these verses are referring to a person living under the covenant of the Torah (the Law of Moses). Deuteronomy 24:16 is part of the Torah itself and Ezekiel 18:20 is addressing the Israelites who were living under the Torah.”
Take note, that he’s claiming that he is representing the orthodox Judaic understanding/ context of the verses, yet nowhere, does he cite, reference or quote a single Rabbinic Judaic source to qualify his statements. It should be understood, that if he is attempting to represent the views of the people who lived under and held to the practise of the Torah, that he should atleast present one authoritative source from among these people to make extant their views. Instead, what he does is continue to quote verses, without referencing the Judaic interpretations. This therefore is a case of intentional decontextualization of a scripture by referencing a group of persons with specific beliefs, yet alienating their positions by transposing his own mendacious ideas about their belief on said scripture. He references the following verses as being representative of his position:
“(H)e must bring as his offering for the sin he committed a female goat without defect. He is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering. Then the priest is to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven. (Leviticus 4:28-31, NIV)
For the life of a creature is in the blood , and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. (Leviticus 17:11, NIV)”
He then interprets this in the following manner:
“This is why a lot of the Torah teaches about priests, sacrifices and the tabernacle/temple where the sacrifices were offered. The Torah teaches individual responsibility and forgiveness through a substitute sacrifice that bears our sin…..hese verses are not saying there is no sacrifice that can bear our sin. Instead they are saying that we are individually responsible for our sins and need to seek forgiveness through God’s provision of a substitute sacrifice that can bear our sin.”
Let’s examine his statements. To begin with, Samuel has mistakenly supposed that the animals bare the sin of the one who is doing the sacrifice or of the one for whom the sacrifice is done. Recall, that nowhere is this stated in the verses he referenced. Note that the quotes he references makes it quite explicitly known that these sacrifices are an atonement. This is where his first problem begins, his understanding of what an atonement is, has been severely perverted. For example, if we follow through on his logic, then an act of atonement is one in which something bares the sin on behalf of the sinner:
“Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide.” – Exodus 25:17.
In this scenario, we have a cloth, a cover becoming a source of atonement for the Jewish peoples. Nothing is being sacrificed, nor is anything perishing, suffering, or being tortured to bear the sin of a sinner. Rather a piece of cloth has become a means through which sins can be forgiven. Don’t take my word on it, Adam Clarke, the Christian exegete confirms this, he says:
“This propitiatory covering, as it might well be translated, was a type of Christ, the great propitiation, whose satisfaction fully answers the demands of the law, covers our transgressions, and comes between us and the curse we deserve. ”
Note the conditions that are laid forth. The cloth has to accede to the demands of God’s law (that is, it has to be tailored, or exacted by those who are executing the criteria [law] as commanded by God), when that is done, those acts which fulfill the criteria as sent by God, then covers or atones for the sins of those who carry out the commands of God. From this we then see that the act of properly abiding by God’s command as an act of atonement, delivers us from His divine punishment. If we continue onwards, we read from Exodus (Shemot) 30:11-15, the following:
“Then the LORD said to Moses, “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them. Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the LORD. All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the LORD. The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the LORD to atone for your lives.”
In this case, Samuel’s God, is taking money as a form of expiation for sin. Note, no one is suffering, no one is being tortured, no one is being killed for sin. Money is being used as a form of expiation and as it is, in this case, just like the piece of cloth aforementioned, money is like a Christ here as well, being waged for the gift of life.
Where does this therefore leave us? What it does is indicate that Samuel’s understanding of what atonement is defined as, is incorrect. Atonement is not substitutional sacrifices, rather as I have demonstrated, atonement entails enacting certain criteria as set out by God in a way which sanctifies His divine commands. In the first scenario I presented, we see the stringent conditions for the cover, with God specifying what dimensions the cloth and gold have to be. In the second scenario we see that the certain condition to be undertaken is the amount of money to be collected and from whom, that is, if they wished for their lives to be preserved.
Note, that nothing has to suffer or die, ergo, no blood is spilled, therefore nothing has died for the sins of anyone. Rather atonement as we can see, is not that something has bared the sin of another, but that atonement is a means through which one gains God’s forgiveness and mercy. Just like prayer, or fasting, these are also means of atonement, where we hold true to God’s divine commands, with whichever criteria He denotes as being the measuring stick to qualify our acts of repentance.
In conclusion, Samuel has not provided a strong argument to demonstrate that one object or person, or for the sake of argument, an animal can bear the sin of another. Rather what he has allowed us to demonstrate is that the sacrifices we make, whether with blood or gold, money or otherwise, are means of atonement because God has dictated them and they fulfil His criteria for forgiving us of our acts of inequity (sins). In order for his point to be valid, he has to demonstrate that the proprietary cloth or the shekels collected by Moses had to suffer and die, blood had to magically spew from them, so that a price of sin was paid, as he clearly alludes to this in his referencing of the commands in Leviticus and with his mentioning of the alleged death of Christ.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]
James White’s Futility and Inconsistency
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
[and God knows best.]
The Biblical Portrayal of Jesus the Messiah
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
As a Muslim, I have always loved the Islamic portrayal of ‘Isa (may God’s peace and blessings be upon him). You may call him Jesus, Christ, Messiah, Mashiach, or whatever other titles your faith ties to him, we’re discussing the same great and mighty personality who has played a significant role in both Islamic and Judeo-Christian theology. Clearly his words, his actions and his life have impacted this world in a magnificent and bountiful way. No Muslim can be a Muslim without acknowledging and believing in the message of Christ (Mark 12:29, Acts 2:22, Qur’an Surah Baqarah 2:1-5). Furthermore what is Christianity without Christ? Most certainly our faiths tie us to this spectacular personality. We may disagree alot on his personhood, but we also tend to agree in many areas. Most non-Muslims (Jews, Christians, Atheists), don’t particularly fully understand the Islamic perception of Jesus and it is from this that seeds of discord (and discourse!) have been sown for many centuries, atleast for the most part of the past 1433 years.
This article seeks to highlight one particular area of Christ’s ministry according to the Old Testament and New Testament’s words about him. We begin with a quotation from the Book of Psalms, which reads:
“For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. They will be protected forever, but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off;” – Bible : Psalms (37) : Verse 28.
Our modus operandi from this verse onwards is intended to imply that Jesus would be the most faithful and the most just person of his time with respect to his life and personhood, whether you consider him to be a God, a man or otherwise. Both Muslims and Christians can agree on this following excerpt from the Gospel, which attributes these words to him:
“…I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.” – Bible : John (5) : Verse 30.
The verses from Psalms (Tehillim) and from John (above), promote the understanding that Jesus was just because he judged according to the rule and law of God and thus since the Old Testament says that God loves and will not forsake such a person, we all can accept that Christ was loved and would not be forsaken by God. However as a Muslim reading the New Testament, the image it portrays of Christ on this very promise allegedly from God in Psalms, is severely diminished, usurped and if I must say, perverted. On one hand, I’m being presented with such a beautiful, warm, good intended portrayal of God’s love for the just and justice, His protection is upon such a person. Yet, when we read the following verses, I am not only left discontented and in awe that the New Testament has forgotten this promise of God, I fully believe that only a person wanting to destroy Christ’s honour would believe such a story:
“About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” - Bible : Matthew (27) : Verse 46.
“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – Bible : Mark (15) : 34.
It is clear for anyone who is purely intended that these stories, depictions of a man forsaken by God, cannot be the man portrayed in John 5:30 and Psalms 37:28. Rather, it reminds of the man later spoken of in Psalms 37:28:
“…They will be protected forever, but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off;” - Bible : Psalms (37) : Verse 28.
Am I supposed to believe that Christ was a wicked man, cut off from the mercy of God? As a Muslim, it burdens my heart to have to believe that this is what someone who loves Christ could possibly believe. In fact, even Christian scholars have purported that this alleged saying of Christ is out of his character and simply demeans him:
“Some suppose “that the divinity had now departed from Christ, and that his human nature was left unsupported to bear the punishment due to men for their sins.” But this is by no means to be admitted…” – Adam Clarke’s Commentary of the Bible, Matthew 27.
In fact, this has troubled another commentator of the Bible, Matthew Henry in his Commentary of the Bible, says:
“What the complaint was–My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?A strange complaint to come from the mouth of our Lord Jesus, who, we are sure, was God’s elect, in whom his soul delighted (Isaiah 42:1), and one in whom he was always well pleased. The Father now loved him, nay, he knew that therefore he loved him, because he laid down his life for the sheep; what, and yet forsaken of him, and in the midst of his sufferings too! Surely never sorrow was like unto that sorrow which extorted such a complaint as this from one who, being perfectly free from sin, could never be a terror to himself; but the heart knows its own bitterness.” – Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible, Matthew 27.
A number of times however, Matthew Henry admits that indeed Jesus was forsaken and that this is no mistake:
“That our Lord Jesus was, in his sufferings, for a time, forsaken by his Father. So he saith himself, who we are sure was under no mistake concerning his own case.” - Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible, Matthew 27.
“That Christ’s being forsaken of his Father was the most grievous of his sufferings, and that which he complained most of. “ - Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible, Matthew 27.
What’s worse is that even an epistle in the New Testaments willingly admits that the one who is punished upon the cross is cursed by God:
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” – Bible : Galatians (3) : Verse 13.
These verses, quotes, scholar’s interpretations and more, really cause disdain for the Muslim who is taught otherwise. Jesus, Christ, the Messiah, may God be pleased with him, to us, was not forsaken by God, was not abandoned, cursed, tortured, abused, mocked or destroyed. To us, he delivered his message (risalah), to his people, the Children of Israel (Bani Isra’il), he did miracles and brought guidance to the masses by God’s will. Islam portrays him not be wretched and forsaken, but worthy of the protection of God, as the Psalms has said. The Qur’an says of this great man that God indeed had protected him:
“When Allah said: “O ‘Isa , I am to take you in full and to raise you towards Myself, and to cleanse you of those who disbelieve, and to place those who follow you above those who disbelieve up to the Day of Doom. Then to Me is your return, whereupon I shall judge between you in that over which you have differed.” - Qur’an : Surah (3) : Ayat 55.
In conclusion, while the NT portrays Christ as being forsaken, cut off and punished by God, the Qur’an makes it clear that Christ was saved, which according to the verse in Psalms, this is what God had promised. Islam promotes and expounds upon the person of Christ as being worthy of God’s mercy (Rahma) and protection, this is what we believe of Christ and this is why we will not believe in something which degrades and perverts his beauty as the New Testament does.
May God convey His mercy and blessings upon ‘Isa (Jesus) the son of Mary (may Allaah be pleased with her) and protect him from the slanders, lies and insults that those who pretend to love him continue to preach. Ameen.
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
[and God knows best.]
Christians Rewrite 10 Commandments: 100′s of Churches Accept It
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
In what can be represented as a modern day emendation of Christian scripture, i.e. an intentional alteration of revelation assumed to be divine by a group of people, news reports have indicated that a Pastor has altered the 10 Mosaic commandments to fit a modern lifestyle. Christian Post reporter, Nicola Menzie had this report to give on the matter:
“The “Just10 for Churches” series features a revamped and modern re-wording of the Ten Commandments the Bible says were given to Moses by God. The moral codes, including a list of “thou shall nots,” have been given a modern twist by Canon J.John, a Christian speaker who has authored dozens of books, some on making God’s “top ten” found in Exodus 20 more personable to believers.”
Some of the revamped, rewritten and generally interpolated commandments are:
Before
You shall not steal
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God
Honor your father and your mother
After
Prosper with a clear conscience
Affair-proof your relationships
Take God seriously
Keep the peace with your parents
So how does one alter God’s alleged word while making your own words equitable to His own? Simply by saying you’re doing this to help ‘explain’ God’s real message to the masses:
“created particularly with local churches in mind, to equip leaders to communicate the relevance of God’s laws of love in a way that people can relate to today.”
Read More: Hundreds of Churches Using ‘New” 10 Commandments Rewritten by Popular Pastor – Christian Post.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]
Refutation: Muslim Dawagandist Shabir Ally’s War With Himself
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Missionary Sam Shamoun is making strides again in deceiving himself and his waning fellowship. In this insulting article, Sam Shamoun sought to solely attack the character and person of Br. Shabir Ally, all the while having to stoop into cheap academics and wanton fraud by misusing the Brother’s words and the Bible’s words. It’s one thing to twist the Qur’an for your own profit, but to twist your own scripture, this has to be a new low for Sam. Let’s take a look at what Br. Shabir has said. These are the Brother’s insights into Deuteronomy 18:18 and Acts 3:
“Now many Christians think, well that, Jesus was that prophet, but obviously he was not. Isa left the scene, and according to Acts of the Apostles in chapter 3 we read that Peter, one of the disciples of Jesus, is saying that Isa will remain in heaven until that time of restoration comes–and he is describing that time of restoration as meaning the time when God will send that prophet! So that means Peter, the disciple of Jesus, the chief disciple, is still expecting that that prophet will come, and then eventually Isa will come back again. So we see clearly that the prophet Muhammad is mentioned in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. And if they really truly believe in the Scriptures, we Muslims should be asking them to please recognize also the prophet Muhammad, because the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 18, verse 19 says that if you do not recognize that prophet, God will require it of you. In other words, he will bring you to judgment.” (Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible? Shabir Ally answers, posted on Sept. 20, 2010)
Now in the Old Testament, it is mentioned that Moses was told by God that God will send either a series of prophets, or another prophet. It’s often translated that God will send another prophet in Deuteronomy chapter 18, verse 18, a prophet like Moses. But some say that what is meant here is not just one prophet but a series of prophets, but is spoken about as though it is singular. We say, okay, suppose it’s a series of prophets? Well then it goes up until Jesus, and many have said, okay Jesus is that prophet. Then we can say why not Muhammad, because Muhammad is very similar to Moses? In fact, Musa came with a law, Muhammad came with a law. They were both prophets and statesmen at the same time; they were governing, and so they have a lot of similarity. If we come to Jesus and say Jesus is like Moses, and Jesus is the prophet like Moses, well then we just need to go one step further and recognize the prophet Muhammad as well.” (Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible?, posted on Dec. 22, 2011)
To expound upon Brother Ally’s argument, we have to turn to the verses which he cites and the explanations for them:
“ I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.” – Bible : Deuteronomy/ Devarim 18:18
This verse is extremely pertinent to the Islamic and Christian narrative of Prophethood. While in itself, requires an entire discussion, I will try my best to lay the foundation of understanding quite succinctly. The verse in question makes the statement, “…from among their brothers likes you…”. Around this one phrase, many various interpretations can be derived. However we’ll work with the Hebrew words used. What exactly does this phrase mean? You see, had the verse read, “from among you”, there would be no question that it refers to one of the Hebrew tribes of Israel, however it uses the term, “…from among their brothers like you…”, which in hebrew would read, “כּמו כּמו אח (‘ach kemo – kamo)”. The brothers of the Hebrew people are the Arabs, they are both Semitic and as far as history dictates we know of no Prophet after Moses which came from any other Semitic background besides Muhammad {saw}. What is interesting is that if you are an Arab, the word, “akhi”, further solidifies this case, as the word also means, “brother” or “brethren”. From Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon we read:
”a brother (used in the widest sense of literal relationship and metaphorical affinity or resemblance (like H1)): – another, brother (-ly), kindred, like, other.”
Even the phrase “kemo/ kamo (likeness) adds to this discussion, it stirs the fire or so to speak. The verse is literally saying, “a kin who is like you”. In fact, Martin Buber, a Jewish philosopher, sent a letter to Ghandi speaking on the willingness of his Arab brothers to work with the Jewish people:
“The Jewish farmers have begun to teach their brothers, the Arab farmers, to cultivate the land more intensively.” – Jewish Virtual Library.
If anyone even had a doubt that they were ever brothers, as I am sure Sam would try his best to show, he would not only have to refute historical data as provided above, but also scientific data as well. The case therefore, for a Semitic Prophet who is from the people who are “like” the Hebrew peoples, clearly establishes the basis from Judaic principles for an Arab prophet. We now turn to Acts, Chapter 3, Verses 19- 20 which raises further questions:
“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus.”
To the untrained mind, the first response would be that this simply predicts Jesus’ coming. However this verse is from Acts of the Apostles, literally, the time of the Apostles after Jesus’ earthly ministry. The problem however, arises when we take a look at other versions of this rendition. The Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopian manuscripts mention Jesus instead of Messiah, whereas the Greek manuscripts differ and simply mention, “Messiah”. Another plausible argument is that Muhammad {saw} isn’t a Messiah, therefore it can’t refer to him, this is incorrect as a Messiah is simply one who is anointed (chosen) and if taken in a divine sense, “anointed by God to do God’s bidding (will)”. With this in mind, we understand that this can mean a Rabbi, a teacher, an Imam, a leader (Romans 13:1-7) and in this case, a Prophet. As a prophet is one who is anointed by God to deliver God’s message to the people. The phrase which stirs our interest is:
“that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus.”
There is a duality here, a Messiah, who could be Jesus, but then, it doesn’t have to be Jesus. Therefore we must ask, who then could God send? When we looked at the various exegeses on this verse, besides pointing out the manuscript troubles, they did indicate the reference to Deuteronomy 18:18. Therefore if Sam Shamoun is claiming that Br. Shabir Ally has in anyway perverted the true understanding of these verses, then he is simply ignorant of what his own religion teaches. This however is common for Sam and thus, I must say I did not expect any better from a missionary, they are after all not highly educated. This is simply a consequence of “Google learning”. Br. Shabir then continues:
“Now it is true that Muslims and Christians claim two very different things about Jesus. Muslims and Christians do believe, and agree, that he was a prophet. Many Christians do not actually realize that this is a necessary part of the Christian proclamation. Regardless of whatever else a Christians may say about Jesus, the New Testament is very clear that Jesus was a prophet. Now Jesus came and he did what he had to do, and said what he had to say, and then he left the scene. Acts of the Apostles in the Bible, in the New Testament that Christians read, tells us something about what the disciples of Jesus said and did after Jesus was gone. This is a very important document, and though scholars believe today that not everything in the Acts of the Apostles is accurate, it nevertheless gives a glimpse into the lives of the Apostles of Jesus after Jesus had left. Now we see in the Acts of the Apostles that the disciples proclaimed Jesus as the prophet like Moses. In Deuteronomy, chapter 18, verse 18 in the Old Testament, a prophet like Moses was spoken about. The disciples here are saying that Jesus was that prophet. That means that Jesus was a prophet! And in that case, Muslims and Christians agree at least that he was a prophet.” (The Jesus Debate: Metaphor, Prophet, Or Son of God?, posted on Feb. 16, 2012)
Br. Shabir is using the oft repeated Christian contention that Deuteronomy 18:18 refers to Jesus’ coming, a Messianic prophecy of sorts, he agrees that we Muslims also have no problem with the Christian understanding of the verse, as we too confirm that Jesus (may Allaah’s peace be upon him) was also a Prophet. However, Sam Shamoun has a problem with Br. Shabir’s confirmation that we do accept the Christian interpretation of the verse if applied to Jesus:
With the foregoing in perspective, doesn’t this show that Ally will conveniently adopt whatever interpretation helps his purpose of duping people into becoming Muslims? After all, these clips seem to indicate that when Ally wants to convince people that Muhammad is mentioned in the Holy Bible he will adopt the interpretation that Acts depicts the disciples as believing that the prophet like Moses was someone different than Christ. Yet when he wants to show that the disciples did not believe that Jesus is God he will then argue that Acts presents the disciples as proclaiming that Jesus is that prophet like Moses!
What Sam has willingly perverted in his understanding, is that Br. Shabir is using the Christian comprehension of the verse, which the quote that Sam himself provided has stated:
“Now it is true that Muslims and Christians claim two very different things about Jesus. Muslims and Christians do believe, and agree, that he was a prophet. Many Christians do not actually realize that this is a necessary part of the Christian proclamation.”
Sam is simply grasping for straws to attack Br. Shabir since he was humiliated a few years ago, by the Brother in a debate:
Sam then goes on what I can only determine to be an emotional tirade, mocking Brother Shabir with insults, while insulting the Qur’an and even to the extent, he was trying to quote the Bible to insult us, but in reality only provided an argument against himself:
““For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with You. The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity. You destroy those who speak falsehood; The LORD abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit.” Psalm 5:4-6″
This is definitely interesting, as Sam is using deceit in this article. Br. Shabir was referencing the Christian position and Sam’s intentional misread to be used to attack the Brother, is initself deceit. He has based his entire article, which contains atleast 10 insults and abuses, based on his own error:
- “Muslim Dawagandist”
- “inconsistent and deceptive”
- “document his lies, deceptions and gross inconsistencies.”
- “Ally will just about say and do anything in order to win an argument or deceive people into believing his false religion”
- “exposes Ally as dishonest and deceitful, it is simply silly to think manipulation and deceit will remain undetected”
- “Your lies will not only be exposed and punished”
- “they will come back to haunt you in this life and destroy your credibility”
He even became so desperate to attack the brother, that he misused Jesus’ words in the Bible:
“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him.Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44
I could not contain my laughter after having read this verse, knowing the true context, I really must contest Sam’s ability to be literate. Did he simply do a word search for the words, “deceit” and “lie” and then copy paste them into his article, while wiping the foam from around his mouth after his petulant digression? To put the verse into context, this is one of Jesus’ alleged anti-Jewish remarks:
44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” 48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?” – Bible : John (8) : 44 – 48.
Hopefully, Sam the missionary, will learn his lesson and change his tactics since his lies are coming back to expose and discredit him.
There’s nothing like using Sam’s own words against him.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best].
Ancient Bible Discovered, Turkey and the Vatican Vie for Interests [Updated]
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
A Turkish state media release, has sparked interest throughout the entire world, as it possibly concurs with proper Islamic theology towards Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad {saw}.
The article over at the DailyMail UK says:
Turkish culture and tourism minister Ertugrul Gunay said the book could be an authentic version of the Gospel, which was suppressed by the Christian Church for its strong parallels with the Islamic view of Jesus.
He also said the Vatican had made an official request to see the scripture – a controversial text which Muslims claim is an addition to the original gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
In line with Islamic belief, the Gospel treats Jesus as a human being and not a God.
This new discovery, has really sent a shock wave of buzz throughout the religious and non-religious worlds. Popular news websites, atheist websites, Muslim and Christian forums are filled it excitement over the prospects of this news. However, many Christian polemics and apologists have sought to denounce the discovery as fraudulent. The very existence of this codex (collection of manuscripts), presents a troubling case for Christendom. The very core beliefs of Islam are being verified, whereas the core doctrinal beliefs towards the alleged deity of Jesus is being thoroughly disputed. Perhaps, the most popular claim against the codex, is that given the dating, it still would not be during the time of St. Barnabus, thus automatically it is a fraud. However, this can be easily rejected, as the name merely presents an identity, for the work’s author, it does not deny the historicity of the manuscripts themselves. Therefore to present such a claim, is to appeal to the fallacy of consequences of a belief.
We must make some points extant, that is, we must identify clearly, why the Christian arguments and reasoning for rejecting this codex (collection of manuscripts) are nothing more than failing attempts to protect a proper challenge to their faith:
(1) The author’s name/ title doesn’t matter, the content does, whether or not the author is known, the data which discusses Islamic and Christian doctrines is of utmost importance. Similarly, most of the authors of the New Testament and many of the Old Testament are either homonymous (attributing to yourself a title of a previously known author), pseudonymous (false name) and even anonymous (unknown), yet Christians themselves will never acknowledge the same argument to be used against their Bible.
(2) The content doesn’t matter in relation to whether or not it agrees with Christian Theology, that isn’t the pivot of veracity. Whether Christians agree with the contents or not, does not affect its truthfulness. What matters is that the content directly challenges the Christian narrative and brings to light new and shocking information about early Christendom and its proximity in core beliefs towards Islam.
(3) Other rejected Gospels which already date to the time of the 4 accepted Gospels, exist and do agree to some extent with Islamic theology. For example, according to Professor Robert Eisenmann, the Jewish sect of the Essenes migrated to Arabia, as they believed him to be the foretold Prophet in their scriptures. These scriptures are better known today as the Qumran scrolls or the Dead Sea Scrolls.
We therefore must conclude that there is no real Christian argument against this discovery, as their own Gospels are founded upon the same arguments they are using against the Turkish Bible. Until more information arises, we have to work under the assumption it may be valid, that is, until more data can be derived towards its exact dating.
Some information on the manuscripts:
- The 1,500-year-old tome is said to contain Jesus’ early teachings and his prediction of the Prophet Muhammad ‘s (saw) coming.
- The leather-bound text, written on animal hide, was discovered by Turkish police during an anti-smuggling operation in 2000.
- It was closely guarded until 2010, when it was finally handed over to the Ankara Ethnography Museum.
- The Vatican had made an official request to see the scripture – a controversial text which Muslims claim is an addition to the original gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
- In line with Islamic belief, the Gospel treats Jesus as a human being and not a God.
- The £14million handwritten gold lettered tome, penned in Jesus’ native Aramaic language, is said to contain his early teachings.
- It rejects the ideas of the Holy Trinity and the Crucifixion and reveals that Jesus predicted the coming of the Prophet Muhammad (saw).
- In one version of the gospel, he is said to have told a priest: ‘How shall the Messiah be called? Muhammad is his blessed name’.
We don’t expect Christians to accept this Turkish Bible, rather, the point of this being made public is to atleast state that there were writings of the Prophet Muhammad {saw} 100 years before his coming. In addition to the numerous Arabo-Islamic reports of Priests in the ancient world, acceding to Muslim emissaries and conceding that Muhammad {saw} was indeed the promised Messenger. In this light, we say that there is no new information for us, this discovery is simply an addendum to our ever growing and ever expanding prophetic material towards Islamic theology.
More articles from around the world on the discovery:
http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2012/02/more-on-1500-year-old-gospel-kept-in.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-02/25/c_131430464.htm
http://english.cri.cn/6966/2012/02/25/2724s683103.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2850468/posts
http://www.armtown.com/news/en/yer/20120223/20651/
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]
Boko Haram: More Christians Arrested Attempting to Blow Up Church [Nigeria]
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
In another report by Nigerian police, a group of Christians were again, caught in another terror plot to blow up Churches. Major Nigerian media outlet, Premium Times Nigeria, had this report to give:
Nine bombers, believed to be christians, were apprehended this morning when they attempted to bomb a COCIN church at Miya Barkate, 20 kilometres along Jos-Bauchi Highway in Bauchi State.
The suspected bombers are Lamba Goma, Filibus Danasa, Joshua Ali, Danjuma Sabo, Joseph Audu, Simon Gabriel, Bulus Haruna, Yohanna Ishaya and Daniel Ayuba (who was the immediate past Secretary of PDP at Tilden Fulani Ward, Toro LGA, Bauchi State).
The suspects are members of the same COCIN church, Unguwar Rimi, a new and small Christian settlement between Tilden Fulani and Shere Hills. The suspects who were thoroughly beaten by the public were rescued by police and then detained at the Toro Divisional Police Division before they were transferred to Bauchi State Police Command, Bauchi.
At about the same time this morning in the Neighbouring Plateau State, a bomb explosion was reported at the headquarters of the same COCIN church during a Sunday service. The number of casualties are not certain. The pastor of the targeted COCIN Church in Bauchi is Ishaya Izam, who recently arrived on posting from the Cocin headquarters in Jos, which was bombed this morning.
To read more on this ongoing development, visit the original news report here.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]
The Biblical God’s Indecision
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
After the creation of the universe, planets, earth, humans, animals etc, God according to the Bible states that everything created was very good:
Genesis 1:31
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Proceeding to Genesis 6: 5-7 , after Adam and Eve are both cast out of paradise for eating from the fruit of knowledge and thus sent to earth, humankind becomes plentiful on earth. God (in the Bible) then notices that the human race was full of wickedness, so He regretted creating man (or feels sorry for creating man on earth, depending on the translation) and decided to eradicate all men, save for Prophet Noah and his household.
Genesis 6: 5-7
5 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
After Noah and his house build the ark, they along with animals enter it. God then sent rains, flooding the earth and killing every living thing. After the flood ends God tells the Prophet Noah to come out of the ark and so he does (as well as Noah’s household and the animals). Noah then offers a sacrifice to God and God responds:
Genesis 8:20-21
20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
When we read the following passages, we should wonder if the Biblical God knows what he is doing !
(1) God destroys the earth except for a handful because man is born evil.
(2) After destroying the earth and every living thing (expect for Noah, his household and some animals), God notes that all of mankind are evil and He (God), won’t repeat this action of punishment again.
We ask:
(a) Who created man? Doesn’t God know how evil man’s heart is? Why create them evil by nature and then punish them? Why then, change your mind on not punishing the future generation, despite noting that man has the same evil within him.
(b) If mankind is inclined to evil by nature why has Noah and his household not been killed as well?
(c) If Jesus is the reason, please refer back to question (a).
(d) Why flood the whole planet? Did Noah manage to spread the message throughout the planet ?
Christian Biblical Commentaries on Genesis 8:21:
John Gill’s Commentary:
“for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; his nature is depraved, his heart is corrupt, the thoughts of it evil, yea, the imagination of it, and of them, is sinful, and that originally, even from his birth; from the time he is shook out of his mother’s womb, as Jarchi interprets the phrase: man is conceived in sin, and shapen in iniquity, and is a transgressor from the womb, and so a child of wrath, and deserving of the curse of the law upon himself, and all that belong to him; and yet this is given as a reason why God will not any more curse the ground for his sake: that which was a reason for destroying the earth, is now one against it, see Genesis 6:5 which may be reconciled thus, God for this reason destroyed the earth once, for an example, and to display his justice; but such is his clemency and mercy, that he will do it no more to the end of the world; considering that man has brought himself into such a condition, that he cannot but sin, it is natural to him from his birth; his nature is tainted with it, his heart is full of it, and all his thoughts and imaginations are wicked and sinful, from whence continually flow a train of actual sins and transgressions; so that if God was to curse and drown the world as often as man sins, he must be continually doing it; for the words may be rendered, “though the imagination of man’s heart is evil”, &c. (h); yet I will not do it; and so they are expressive of the super abounding grace of God over abounding sin:”
Gill points out that man is evil and due to his evilness, God drowns them up (related to Genesis 6:5)
Gill goes on to say:
neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done; this hinders not but that there might be, as has been since, partial calamities, or particular judgments on individual persons, towns, and cities, as those of Sodom and Gomorrah, or partial inundations, but not a general deluge, or an universal destruction of the world and creatures in it, at least not by water, as has been, but by fire, as will be; for that the earth will have an end, at least as to its present nature, form, and use, may be concluded from the following words.
So if God won’t drown the entire planet as a punishment, how then will He burn them on Judgment day? Despite noting that He created them evil by birth, sparing Noah, his household and their offspring, also have the same evilness in them.
We see similar commentaries below, Clark and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown try to solve the problem by stating that Jesus is the reason (God sends himself to die for the sin [evil] he created in mankind). This does not resolve the problem or the questions asked above (a, b, c and d).
Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible
The Lord smelled a sweet savor – That is, he was well pleased with this religious act, performed in obedience to his own appointment, and in faith of the promised Savior. That this sacrifice prefigured that which was offered by our blessed Redeemer in behalf of the world, is sufficiently evident from the words of St. Paul, Ephesians 5:2 : Christ hath loved us, and given himself for its an offering and a sacrifice to God for a Sweet-Smelling Savor; where the words οσμην ευωδιας of the apostle are the very words used by the Septuagint in this place.
I will not again curse the ground – לא אסף lo osiph, I will not add to curse the ground – there shall not be another deluge to destroy the whole earth: for the imagination of man’s heart, כי ki, Although the imagination of man’s heart should be evil, i.e. should they become afterwards as evil as they have been before, I will not destroy the earth by a Flood. God has other means of destruction; and the next time he visits by a general judgment, Fire is to be the agent. 2 Peter 3:7.
2 Peter 3:7
By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
21. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour-The sacrifice offered by a righteous man like Noah in faith was acceptable as the most fragrant incense.
Lord said in his heart-same as “I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth” (Isa 54:9).
for-that is, “though the imagination is evil”; instead of inflicting another destructive flood, I shall spare them-to enjoy the blessings of grace, through a Saviour.
From an Islamic perspective:
(1) Unlike Christianity in Islam every human is born with a Fitra (an inclination to submission to God), it is society’s influence and man’s freewill (Choice) that leads him/her to evil.
The Prophet Muhammad {saw} said, “No babe is born but upon Fitra . It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist.” (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426)
The Prophet (peace be upon him) also informs us: “Every child is born upon the natural way. It is then his parents who turn him into a Jew, a Christian, or a Zoroastrian.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (1296)]
Quran 30:29
But those who wrong follow their [own] desires without knowledge. Then who can guide one whom Allah has sent astray? And for them there are no helpers.
Quran 45:15
Whoso doeth right, it is for his soul, and whoso doeth wrong, it is against it. And afterward unto your Lord ye will be brought back.
Quran 17:15
“Who receives guidance, receives it for his own benefit: who goes astray does so to his own loss: no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another …”
(2) In the Qur’an, Prophet Noah was sent to a specific civilization and they refused to believe in God’s message.
Quran 7:59-7:64
We sent Noah to his people. He said: ”O my people! worship God! ye have no other god but Him. I fear for you the punishment of a dreadful day! The leaders of his people said: “Ah! we see thee evidently wandering (in mind).” He said: “O my people! No wandering is there in my (mind): on the contrary I am an apostle from the Lord and Cherisher of the worlds! “I but fulfil towards you the duties of my Lord’s mission: Sincere is my advice to you, and I know from God something that ye know not. “Do ye wonder that there hath come to you a message from your Lord, through a man of your own people, to warn you,- so that ye may fear God and haply receive His Mercy?” But they rejected him, and We delivered him, and those with him, in the Ark: but We overwhelmed in the flood those who rejected Our signs. They were indeed a blind people!
In the end we notice what doubt and confusion the Bible provides, Islam answers with clear cut , extant responses. Islam states we are not born sinners but with the Fitra, and we will be judged according to our good and bad deeds. Islam shows God is in control and knows what he is doing and God’s word is always accurate.
- Authored by Brother Hamza A., a former Maronite Christian from Lebanon.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]
