Shortly after the release of Dan’s book we completed our response, due to factors outside of our control there was a delay in publicly releasing our response document. The document was been made available as of yesterday. For those of you interested in accessing the document via Academia.edu you can click this link to do so. To download it via Google Drive, please click here. To download directly from this website please click the “download” button below.
Hosted by the TARIC Masjid and moderated by Br. Sadat Anwar, Br. Ijaz Ahmad and Mr. Luis Dizon (TBS) engaged in a lively debate on the Islamic views of theRead more »
Br. Ijaz Ahmad is debating Dr. Tony Costa on Friday October the 9th. The debate will be held on the Trinity Channel/ ABN TV, as well as livestreamed…on the TrinityRead more »
Br. Ijaz Ahmad faced off in a lively and entertaining debate with Reverend Steven Martins on the topic of the true faith of Jesus’ disciples. This debate featured discussion onRead more »
Following Jay Smith’s unfortunate and dishonest claims about the Qur’an’s textual history, a 53 page, point by point refutation has been prepared. Examining his allegations through scholastic sources, with fullRead more »
Begotten; it’s a theologically loaded term that carries with it a great deal of baggage. Yet, the word seems to be used in both the Qur’ān and the Bible. In the Qur’ān it is mentioned in Surah al Ikhlās in two forms of the root word و ل د (w-l-d), appearing as both يلد (y-l-d) and يولد (y-w-l-d). In the New Testament it can be found in the Johannine Prologue as μονογενὴς (monogenes) and in perhaps the most popular passage of the Bible, John 3:16, in the form of μονογενῆ (monogene), see Strong’s #3439. Philologists and etymologists at some point realised that the term μονογενὴς (monogenes) did in fact not carry the meaning of “begotten”. Rather, it seems to be the case that the word is derived from two words, μόνος (monos, meaning “only”) and γένος (genos, meaning “class, kind”). This is the reason that modern translations of the Bible have effectively dropped the use of this term in English. The NET Bible at Translation Note 38 says the following:
Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12; 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14; 1:18; 3:16, and 3:18).https://netbible.org/bible/John+1
There are some further peculiarities here which lead to concerning conclusions. In the following video I have laid out a breakdown as to how Jerome after the Council of Nicaea emended the New Testament’s rendering in Latin (the Latin Vulgate) to insert Trinitarian phraseology in order to deny the Arian use of the New Testament. This can effectively be understood as a theologically motivated corruption to the text of the New Testament. In order to qualify my claims, I have relied solely upon Christian scholarship with all references listed in the video itself:
In light of this video I am inviting any credible Christian scholar or apologist to engage me in a live discussion on this example of corruption to the New Testament’s text.
and Allāh knows best.
A few months ago I had a wonderful debate with Mr. Stephen Atkins of Toronto on the historicity of the crucifixion of Christ Jesus. The results of this discussion have been quite meaningful for me and I want to expand on this some more.
Typically, Muslim and Christian debates on the crucifixion have tended to focus on what the Bible or the Qur’ān say about the event itself. This almost always leads into the question of the Qur’ān denying a fact of history. Rather than repeating a debate that has been done ad nauseum, I wanted to do something a little different. It started with an innocent but yet a very foundational question. What does it mean when something is determined to be historic (this is different to an event being historical)? This question spawned other questions. What is the historical method, what counts as a fact of history, what is the role of evidence in determining something to be historic, etc? Muslim-Christian dialogues on the topic had previously presupposed to some degree that we can take the conclusions of some historians and then argue based on their conclusions. It had occurred to me that after twenty-something years of being told that there were mountains of evidence for the crucifixion that I had not actually seen these mountains at all. I surveyed Christian apologetic works against Islām to compile a list of these evidences. I then surveyed Christian apologetic works in response to mythicists (those who claim that Christ Jesus never existed) and compared the evidences they listed. The result was that the lists generally overlapped but they were quite short, in fact, this result bothered me. I assumed at that point that perhaps there was a flaw in the works I had chosen to survey and so I reached out to several Christian colleagues (many of whom were in academia or seminarians) to assist me with my lists. Most produced shorter lists than what I had produced myself.
Knowing then that my lists were more expansive, I then set out to analyse the provenance, datings, and other relevant information about each evidence listed. Most, if not all were from non-contemporaneous sources that provided less information than the Gospels collectively. Knowing already the historical problems with the Gospels (along with the New Testament in general), alongside the various preservation and textual-critical issues, I eventually concluded that our Christian colleagues had exaggerated their claim and in fact, that the emperor wore no clothes; there were no mountains of evidence. There were also no hills, no slopes, not even a slight incline, but rather a singular mole-hill. The stage was set, now I would proceed to examine the other half of the equation, the historical method itself. Reading book after book on historiography, works on historiographic criteria, and works by Christian historians, I began to feel quite underwhelmed and somewhat disappointed. I had assumed that there was some technical detail that held everything together or that there was something more elaborate and demonstrative other than assumptions that had little to no bases. One of the things which became plainly obvious was that from the secular historians I had read from, while they acknowledged the New Testament in and of itself as a complete work of literature was largely ahistorical in its claims, these same historians had viewed the individual event of the crucifixion as historic. The dichotomy was somewhat astounding. Eventually the overarching reason that this dichotomy existed was down to the view that no one else within the 1st century CE had claimed the crucifixion of Christ Jesus did not happen.
In historiography there are two terms that everyone should become familiar with.
- Methodical credulity – where you presuppose that something is true and wait for evidence to the contrary
- Methodical skepticism – where you presuppose that something is not true and wait for evidence to the contrary
In the case of the New Testament, academic historians generally apply methodical skepticism but in the case of the crucifixion they applied methodical credulity. What then, explained this dichotomy? It comes down to another facet of historiography known as continuities. See, continuities are generalisations which allow for assumptions of truth (credulity). For example, if I were to make the claim that President Trump owned a smartphone, no one would generally doubt this because in today’s world almost everyone has a smartphone. A historian 200, 300 years from now who examines his presidency, or even his personal life can generally assume that he did own a smartphone because it was common at our present time. It is commonly understood that the Romans regularly crucified Jews at the time of Jesus and so it can be reasonably assumed that because it was so frequent an event, that he was indeed crucified. He just happened to be one of many. Yet, this is just an assumption. For people who aren’t Christians or Muslims, accepting this as a fact bears no consequence on their worldview or their salvation. However, both Muslims and Christians have consequences to bear regarding the crucifixion or the lack of the crucifixion of Christ Jesus. It now becomes more important to have more than mere assumptions based on generalisations and arguments from silence. The stakes are quite literally raised at this point (please forgive the pun).
This is why the debate and the subsequent EFDawah livestreams on this topic became of note.
Rather than arguing based on an assumption, now we were arguing on foundational claims, principles, and evidences. The debate and the streams became somewhat of a testing ground to see just how well prominent debaters, clergymen, and apologists would do in a serious discussion on these matters. The results proved to be quite successful. I’ve had Muslims who have left Islām, return to Islām out of Christianity. Folks who had become agnostic due to this “error in the Qur’ān” returned to Islām. My friends and colleagues have reported using these very arguments successfully in their day to day interfaith conversations. Yet there is perhaps a caveat to all this which most people have yet to recognise. All of my research and all of the arguments which followed from it, have not been made public. In fact, privately with my friends and colleagues, and in a few Masjid lectures I’ve gone into a considerably greater amount of detail. What I’ve presented in the debate itself and in some of the historicity streams are generally the less technical points, summarised arguments, etc. There is so much more to unpack and I hope to do so in a comprehensive, yet brief introductory book on the crucifixion.
and Allāh knows best.
Appealing to the Qur’an’s Arabic in order to dismiss the truth of Islam often produces comedic results. Today we look at one such case which I came across on Facebook.
I decided to help this young missionary with an explanation of why they were wrong (i.e. their claim was false), followed by an argument by analogy based on a language they already knew, and finally an argument via proof by contradiction in using his same argument against the New Testament.
There are of course multiple incidents like this from other missionary polemicists. This example is worth a good laugh.
and Allāh knows best.
Here’s the link to the YouTube stream:
and Allah knows best.
On this special Easter Sunday, please see the following two videos. The first, from SCDawah where the panel featured Ustadh Adnan Rashid, Br. Hashim, Br. Mansur, Br. Zakir Hussain and yours truly (don’t forget to like and subscribe to SCDawah). We had a splendid time answering questions and giving our various perspectives on the crucifixion and resurrection, as well as our unified understanding on Christ Jesus in Islam.
CallingChristians also did a livestream on Facebook on Easter as well.
Do not hesitate to reach out and ask us questions, we’re excited to share the truth of Islam with one and all.
Yours in Islam,
Amidst a global pandemic some sectors of society have found themselves ecstatically celebrating the “death” of religion as many religious institutions find themselves closed or in the process of closing in order to stop the spread of the virus. Masajid, Churches, Synagogues, and Temples are all taking steps to stop the spread of the virus. CNN reports:
First, many religious leaders modified their rituals, hoping to contain the spread of coronavirus. Now, some are taking more drastic measures, canceling worship services, closing religious schools and shuttering holy sites.
Like sports leagues, museums and other cultural institutions, millions of churches and mosques, synagogues and sanghas, temples and gurdwaras are temporarily closing to guard against spreading the virus.
For many spiritual leaders, the decision to shut their doors is difficult. Religious rituals are meant to be enacted, soul and body, traditionally alongside other believers.
But the present dangers of the deadly virus are too great to ignore, many religious groups have decided, leading to a cascade of cancellations worldwide in the last 48 hours.
What these groups (mainly atheists) seem to be misunderstanding is that while some faith-healing Churches are indeed shutting down, this polemic can generally only be applied to a few religious groups that do preach that they perform miracles regularly. This polemic however is highly ineffective against mainstream Sunni Islam where we do not teach that as Muslims we are magically protected against any and all types of disease. In fact, Allah specifically mentions the opposite in the Qur’ān:
Do people think once they say, “We believe,” that they will be left without being put to the test? – 29:2 (translation by Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Qur’ān).
Indeed, the word ‘test’ (يفتنون) encompasses the additional meanings of harm, trials, and tribulations. One form of these tests are in the form of viral diseases in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) advised us to practise quarantining:
Sa’d reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If you hear of a plague in a land, then do not go into it. If it happens in land where you are, then do not go out of it.”
This narration is found in both Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. One may even say that this is a form of social distancing. Within Islamic legal jurisprudence there are also two main foundational principles:
- المشقة تجلب التيسير – al Mashaqqa Tajlib at-Taysīr (Hardship begets ease).
- لا ضرر و لا ضرار في الاسلام – La Ḍarar wa La Ḍirar fī al-Islām (In Islam we do not cause harm to ourselves or others).
It is due to these two considerations (the latter of which is a hadith of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him as recorded by both Imām adh-Dhahabī and by Imām al Hākim) that many Muslim-majority countries and many Muslim communities throughout the world began suspending prayer in congregations, as well as all activities at their Masajid:
- Saudi Arabia suspended visiting religious sites, especially with regard to Makkah and Madinah.
- Kuwait suspended Friday prayers at Masajid throughout the country.
- The UAE prohibited the sick, the elderly and those at risk of infection from attending Friday congregational prayers.
- In Egypt they have stated it is permissible to ban the Friday congregational prayers due to viruses like the coronavirus.
- In Canada, the Canadian Council of Imams and the Muslim Medical Association of Canada jointly suspended all Masjid activities.
This is therefore an evidence that we are not a people lacking the faculty of reason, or that we have abandoned hope in our faith, or that science has won against religion (this in itself is a false dichotomy), but rather it is an evidence for the truth of Islam that despite such difficult circumstances our faith has a means by which we can accommodate and manage public health issues. In Islam, we do not have this distinction between faith and science, both work in congruence with each other and are not apart from the other. Had that been the case, then we should not find any statement from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) advising us on the plague or on diseases in general.
Indeed, we also find a narration from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that cleanliness (purity) is half of faith:
Abu Malik al-Ashari reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Purity is half of faith, and the praise of Allah fills the scale. Glorification and praise fill up what is between the heavens and the earth. Prayer is a light, charity is proof, and patience is illumination. The Quran is a proof for you or against you. All people go out early in the morning and sell themselves, either setting themselves free or ruining themselves.”
Keeping ourselves, our clothing, and our belongings clean in general is a great way at combatting the spread of the virus. Therefore this polemic is only effective against pockets of Muslims who are ignorant of their Islam and of religious groups who do not adhere to the truth of Islam, but it is not a polemic against Islam in and of itself. Therefore, this current crisis does not affect the truth of Islam, but rather demonstrates the perpetual reality and authenticity of the message from Allah and from His messenger.
and Allah knows best.
For students unaccustomed to classical handwriting, the thought of consulting Arabic manuscripts can be daunting. However, anyone in the field of Islamic studies will testify that at times research requires that a student refer to these sources; it is, therefore, inescapable. This treatise hopes to serve as a companion for students who aspire to learn the fundamentals of this field. It explores scribal terminology, sources of manuscripts, dealing with catalogs, etc. It is adapted from an intensive on Arabic manuscripts by Shaykh Salih al-Azhari, an experienced curator at the Egyptian National Library.
See the original download link here: Qalam Foundation
Both Muslims and Jews greet each other with prayers of peace, yet we must ask, what is the significance of the salām and what does it mean?
“And if you are faithful and mindful ˹of Allah˺, you will receive a great reward.” – Qurʾān 3:279d (translation by Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran).
“Is there any reward for goodness except goodness?” – Qurʾān 55:60 (translation by Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran).
These āyāt teach a profound lesson that many miss. When we give the Salām (i.e. when you greet with “as-salāmu ‘alaykum [may the peace of God be upon you], and reply with “wa ‘alaykumus salām/ wa ‘alaykum as-salām [the greeting of prayer is returned; meaning: and upon you the peace of God]) you’re doing several things at once:
1. Making a du‘a for someone (that Allāh, who is As-Salām from Qurʾān 59:23 grants them peace).
2. Fulfilling the command of Allāh to make du‘a:
“Your Lord has proclaimed, “Call upon Me, I will respond to you.” – Qurʾān 40:60 (translation by Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran).
3. Obeying the command of Allāh to give the Salām:
“However, when you enter houses, greet one another with a greeting ˹of peace˺ from Allah, blessed and good. This is how Allah makes His revelations clear to you, so perhaps you will understand.” – Qurʾān 24:61 (translation by Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran).
4. When you reply to the Salām you get the reward of also praying for the other person.
5. When you reply you fulfilll the command of Allāh:
“And when you are greeted, respond with a better greeting or at least similarly. Surely Allah is a ˹vigilant˺ Reckoner of all things.” – Qurʾān 4:86 (translation by Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran).
6. You’re making dhikr (remembrance of God) of Allāh, reminding others to remember Allāh, and obeying the command to remember Allāh from the Qurʾān:
“˹Always˺ remember the Name of your Lord, and devote yourself to Him wholeheartedly.” – Qurʾān 73:8 (translation by Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran).
Imagine just by giving (or returning) something as simple as the Salām that you are fulfilling 7-8 commands of Allāh that are worthy of reward from Him.
Hence, Allāh declares:
“And We have certainly made the Quran easy to remember. So is there anyone who will be mindful?” – Qurʾān 54:17 (translation by Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran).
“So whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it.” – Qurʾān 99:7 (translation by Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran).
This is the beauty and depth of our Islām as found in something so simple as the Islamic greeting, yet it is so rewarding! Such a teaching can also be found in Judaism and Christianity. Jews traditionally greet each other with “shalom aleichem” (which means ‘peace unto you‘), even God in Judges 6:23 is said to have used a form of it as well. In Christianity it seems to have certainly been a greeting which Jesus the son of Mary is said to have used:
While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” – Luke 24:36 (NIV).
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” – John 20:19 (NIV).
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” John 20:21 (NIV).
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” – John 20:26 (NIV).
There is even a command from Jesus to his disciples, which is very similar to the command the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) gave to his companions:
“When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ – Luke 10:5 (NIV).
While this practise is preserved by Muslims and Jews, most evangelical Christians do not keep this practise, though the Catholic Church keeps some form of this tradition in the rite of peace, but usually this specific phrase is not used and the rite involves shaking of the hands or hugging. The Salām then, is something beautiful, rewarding and meaningful, it is a simple practise but one which invokes the peace of God upon all of His creation.
And Allāh knows best.
About a week ago I attended a debate between Dr. Shabir Ally and Mr. John Tors on the topic of, “Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?” (click the link to see the debate).
To begin with, I need to say that the church which hosted the event did an amazing job. The congregation at the North York Chinese Baptist Church were helpful, accommodating and very pleasant. The event was well-managed and I think all attendees would agree with me on this.
The topic itself is a little unusual (which is a good thing) as to debate if Jesus rose from the dead, one has to first grant the argument that he did die. In other words, we can’t debate this specific topic if we say he never died. This point seems to have been missed by both Muslim and Christian debate enthusiasts, it should also be noted that granting an argument for the sake of the argument, is not the same as accepting that argument. One may well wonder why a Muslim debater would put themselves in such a contentious position in the first place. The answer for this question was provided in the debate itself in which the question was asked, “what does it mean for Jesus to have died?” Christians answer this question differently and so the “type” of “death” was a focus of this debate. An easier way to have framed the debate would have been to make a minor change to the title to emphasise that the topic was about death:
Did Jesus Rise From “The Dead”?
Before the debate I read through most of the relevant articles on Mr. Tors’ website and while at the debate, I found myself a bit confused after his opening statement. Practically his entire opening statement is what I had read the night before and it can be found on his website in the form of two articles:
- THE THREE-HEADED MONSTER AND THE EVANGELICAL BETRAYAL OF THE BIBLE: Exposing the Major Weapons Levied Against the Trustworthiness of the Bible
- THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS: “Incompatible Contradictions” or Coherent History?
In fact, during the debate I was sharing these articles with both Christians and Muslims, most of whom expressed surprise at what seemed to be general confusion as to why Mr. Tors would prepare in such a way for a debate. That is to say that he largely used articles from 2015 and 2018 with no new research being presented or accounted for. The attendees had no need for Mr. Tors’ opening statement, just granting us 10 minutes to do some quick reading would’ve sufficed. Mr. Tors began the debate with two important points:
- We shouldn’t base our views on assumptions,
- We shouldn’t base our views on presuppositions.
Rather, he argued, we should look at the evidence itself first and if needed, then at works of scholarship. The problem he quickly found himself in was then ironic, as he seemingly argued that he had evidence that Jesus died and was resurrected. This evidence turned out to be Mr. Tors just quoting the Bible. It was then I realised that had he believed in what he said at the start of the debate then he wouldn’t have assumed that the Bible was true or presupposed it as being factual. Indeed, it’s a tall order to hold him to his own words, but if someone lays out a specific methodology at the start of a debate then I largely hope that they would at the very least be superficially consistent but even this was not afforded to us (the audience).
This point did not seem to strike Mr. Tors at all and it left me completely bewildered at what he had hoped to achieve. Muslims don’t accept the Bible as a valid source for theology, and Christians don’t accept the Qur’an as a valid source for their theology, so what is achieved in ministering to Muslims in using a text we don’t accept? Dr. Ally at least attempted to reference both the Bible and the Qur’an throughout the debate. Mr. Tors or someone who works for his ministry later argued in the comments section (of the re-upload) of the debate video on YouTube that while the New Testament is a historical work, the Qur’an was not (in regards to Jesus) and so he did not consider any appeals to it as sufficient for the topic. This is despite the fact that he himself holds to a form of the New Testament text which is not wholly extant in any manuscript before the mid-medieval period (roughly from the 10th to 15th century CE). He holds to the Byzantine Priority position, a minority view in the world of Christendom.
Edit: 22.01.2020, Mr. Tors mentioned to me that he does not hold to the Byzantine Priority position but rather a Majority Text position. The difference is negligible but I thought it best to use the phrase he uses to describe his beliefs.
Oddly enough, Mr. Tors later argued that it didn’t matter what date the earliest extant (still surviving) manuscripts of the crucifixion and resurrection accounts came from. At that point in the debate I lost any hope in Mr. Tors advancing any form of a consistent argument. Either it is the dates do matter or they don’t, either it is the gospel narratives do have contradictions because the gospel authors focused on different elements of the story by design or there are no contradictions and they give the exact same narratives, either it is he is arguing for the New Testament to be a theologically preserved version of the best witness testimony or he is willing to apply historical standards to the gospels. It just seemed like he was willing to flip-flop on his positions without care for consistency, reasonableness or intellectual humility.
As a Muslim who is invested in these kinds of debates, I look forward to them with a great deal of anticipation. Some times that anticipation pays off in the form of the robust debates between Dr. Shabir Ally and Dr. James White and some times they clearly don’t, as in this case. Mr. Tors’ primary (and seemingly only) argument for this debate therefore can be summarised as, “the Bible teaches that Jesus died and was resurrected, and this is true because the Bible teaches it”. While that may strike a chord with Christians, it doesn’t with the Muslims and it’s such an obvious point that I wonder if Mr. Tors cared for Muslims to even attend this debate in the first place. If one were to watch his opening statement, you would find him preaching directly to the Christians in the audience, word after word of caution about not allowing scholars and liberals to change their beliefs, to change how Christians should understand the Bible. Yet, I struggled to find an instance where he addresses the crowd as if there were Muslims in it, people who plainly do not accept the Bible as scripture. After all, he gave no reasons as to why Muslims should begin believing in the Bible, rather his focus seemed to be on keeping Christians Christian.
That is where a marked difference can be seen between Dr. Ally and Mr. Tors. Dr. Ally spent a few minutes at the start of his opening statement engaging with the crowd directly, he explained why he was there, what he hoped to achieve, what Muslims, Christians and those from other faiths can gain by being at the debate event. His words acknowledged the presence of other faiths in the audience, it provided a reason for us to pay more attention to what he said. Another point of note was the difference in composure and demeanour. While Dr. Ally was generally congenial and jovial, Mr. Tors at times appeared dismayed, upset or aggravated. This led to the second half of the debate being more contentious (which is not in itself a negative thing), giving rise to many instances of riposte between the speakers.
I’ve sat through classes by Dr. Licona and Dr. Habermas, evangelical scholars who are well renowned for their arguments regarding the positive evidence for the crucifixion and the resurrection. I’m writing a book myself on the topic of the resurrection, so I attended this debate to gain some knowledge that I could have hoped to engage with on multiple levels, but I left the debate event empty handed, there simply was not much presented on the Christian side of the topic that would allow me to analyze or engage with Mr. Tors’ arguments. In the end I had hoped for more substance but it was nonetheless a good event otherwise. I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Tors in person, he was kind, shook my hands and engaged in brief but meaningful conversation, and for that I sincerely thank him.
and Allah knows best.