Refutation: The True Shahada Indeed: Revisited [Part:1]
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
As a response to one of my refutation to his original paper, Anthony Rogers, has published a two part (#,#) paper back at me. All of this centralizes around John 17:3 and the type of monotheism it teaches. As proposed he would be writing four part response to me, subsequently then, he dedicates [Part 1] to me and to topics not immediately associated to John 17:3.
Christians like Anthony Rogers somehow cull out deity of Jesus, peace be upon him, in afore stated verse, nevertheless, this is exactly where the Islamic Shahada differs acutely from the Christian creeds, furthermore, John 17:3 back fires against all imputed divinity on Jesus, peace be upon him as we would be analyzing it throughout the course.
Gloating in dreams
Mr. Anthony Rogers starts off his refutation in a typical evangelistic apologist tone who presumes a ready – made before hand embarrassment for me:
“…except that in this case it seems calculated to save him (her?) from embarrassment once his underhanded tactics and criminal mishandling of my article was exposed…”.
More so over, he writes this with rationalization of me not providing my name:
“A Muslim, who prefers to remain nameless – which would otherwise be fine except that in this case it seems calculated to save him (her?) from embarrassment once his underhanded tactics and criminal mishandling of my article was exposed…”
Just a little further, he complaints (and rightly so) for misspelling his name. The correct spelling of his name is Anthony Rogers, however, I mistakenly spelled it as Anthony Roger. I do heartily apologize for the same and would check that I do not offend Mr. Anthony Rogers in this regard. I would like to add that such a mistake was not intentional. However, this same point startled me for Anthony continuously addressed me as Mr. Anonymous while I provided my name in my paper! And I have not counted this ‘typo’ as did my opponent:
“Not content to merely conceal his own identity, my Muslim respondent, who gets my name wrong no less than nine times…”
What seems as a bad case of feigning and distortion; Rogers misplaces my words to win cheap points over me. He tried to portray that I refrained my “fellow Muslims” to all what he originally wrote, as if he came out with insurmountable brain washing and mesmerizing facts.
He also justified my discouraging reading of his article with an assumption that I did not take into account his several so called crucial remarks: “several crucial remarks of mine are not taken into account in his “refutation””. That being the case I would like to read which “crucial remark” was unattended!
This is what he wrote regarding me discouraging a read to his article:
“Not content to merely conceal his own identity, my Muslim respondent, who gets my name wrong no less than nine times, starts off his article with an attempt to prevent his fellow Muslims from reading all of what I originally wrote, saying: “I would discourage readers to read his article…”, and judging from the quality of his reply, he appears to have followed his own advice.”
As can be seen above that I did initially discouraged readers from his article. But I wrote that with a specific reason which I already provided in my original article which any sincere person reading my article in full (and NOT HALF QUOTED lines) would realize. As a matter of fact this is what I originally wrote (Kindly compare it with the crooked misquotation cited above.) in full:
“I would discourage readers to read his article rigged with mordant remarks and filthy invectives on Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him.”
So, I discouraged not with a fear of Anthony “winning souls” into Christianity but for the filth and dirt he wrote in his paper.
However, he demonstrated his calculated sincerity by later quoting me full. Not only this, he gave a disgusting rationalization for him abusing The Creator of all that exists including Jesus, peace be upon him.
Here is how he defended his opprobrium:
“I take it that he is referring here to the fact that at the end of my article I referred to Allah as an idol and to Muhammad as a worthless prophet. But what else did my anonymous acquaintance expect me, a Christian, to conclude?”
Conclusively then as a Christian, Anthony Rogers, has all permit to abuse the deity of Jesus, peace be upon him and Mohammad the last prophet, peace be upon him. According to him there is no other “else” left for him, as a Christian, than to abuse Allah-Almighty and Mohammad, peace be upon him. He continued his disgusting and ignorant polemics with rationalizations such as:
“It is simply unavoidable: if Yahweh is God, then Allah is not (which means he is an idol)”
He, for some reasons, bypassed a possibility that the God of Jesus (!) and Moses etc may refer to one True God with dialectical difference apart. I say this because Allah was the same deity who was worshipped by all prophets from Adam to Mohammad, peace be upon them all:
- “Praise be to Allah who hath granted unto me [QM: Abraham] in old age Ismail and Isaac: for truly my Lord is He the Hearer of Prayer!” (The Holy Qur’an, 14:39)
If the Christian polemic has already contemplated that Abraham, peace be upon him, never knew Allah and he worshipped Yahweh then he oversees a fact that Abraham was an Arab – a Chaldean, so it is only fair to acknowledge that Abraham worshipped his deity as Allah:
“Genesis 11:31 defines Abraham as being from an area in Lower Mesopotamia called Ur of Chaldees, in what is now present day Iraq. Geographically speaking, and applying the terminology of today, ABRAHAM WAS AN ARAB.” (MISGOD’ED A Roadmap of Guidance and Misguidance within the Abrahamic Religions by Dr. Laurence B. Brown, MD).
Furthermore, Christians who walked the land which Jesus, peace be upon him once treaded also recognizing their deity as Allah:
“The Arab Christians trace their heritage to the days of revelation—in fact, their distant ancestors walked the same land as the prophet Jesus—AND THEY IDENTIFY THE CREATOR AS ALLAH.” (MISGOD’ED A Roadmap of Guidance and Misguidance Within the Abrahamic Religions by Dr. Laurence B. Brown, MD)
So here we have a proof that not only did the prophets but even the present dayChristians recognize their God as Allah. Yet ironically westerners would insult the same Allah of their eastern brethren “in Christ”!
Here are a few more proofs exposing the truth.
According to Douglas J.D. modern Arab Christians also recognize their God as Allah:
“the name is used also by modern Arab Christians who say concerning future contingencies: ‘In sha’ ALLAH.” (The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church. 1978. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. p. 27)
“ALLAH IS THE STANDARD ARABIC WORD FOR ‘GOD’ and is used by Arab Christians as well as by
Muslims.” (Encyclopaedia Britannica. CDROM)
As a matter of fact Dr. Laurence B. Brown gets more vocal on this issue as he comments:
“In fact, from the Orthodox Christians of the land that was birthplace to Abraham (now modern day Iraq), to the Coptic Christians of the Egypt of Moses, to the Palestinian Christians of the Holy Land trod by Jesus Christ, to the entire Middle Eastern epicenter from which the shockwaves of revelation radiated out to the entire world, ALLAH IS RECOGNIZED AS THE PROPER NAME FOR WHAT WESTERN RILIGIONS (QM: RELIGION) CALL GOD. The Christian Arabs are known to call Jesus ibn Allah—ibn meaning “son.” Pick up any copy of an Arabic Bible and a person will find the Creator identified as Allah. So Allah is recognized as the name of God in the land of revelation of the Old and New Testaments, as well as of the Qur’an.” (MISGOD’ED A Roadmap of Guidance and Misguidance Within the Abrahamic Religions by Dr. Laurence B. Brown, MD)
- “For ALLAH; He is my Lord and your Lord: so worship ye Him: this is a Straight Way.” (The Holy Qur-an, 43:64)
In the commentary of above adduced verse Abdullah Yusuf Ali clarifies the point that Islam religion was the same as taught by Jesus, peace be upon him:
“In verses 26-28 an appeal is made to the pagan Arabs, that Islam is their own religion, the religion of Abraham their ancestor; in verses 46-54, an appeal is made to the Jews that Islam is the same religion as was taught by Moses, and that they should not allow their leaders to make fools of them; in verses 57-65 an appeal is made to the Christians that Islam is the same religion as was taught by Jesus, and that they should give up their sectarian attitude and follow the universal religion, which shows the Straight Way.”
Inferably then if Islam was the same religion taught by mighty “Son of Man”(Anthony has raised this point; I will get to it later in the article) then Allah has to beThe God practiced and taught to be worshipped by Jesus, peace be upon him.
The count of the number of prophets did not end with Abraham and Jesus (peace be upon them) rather as a matter of fact all true apostles of Allah worshipped none but Allah and Allah only.
What is yet observable in his remark which is: “It is simply unavoidable: if Yahweh is God, then Allah is not (which means he is an idol)”.
He has made an assertion but did not support it with any argument let alone proofs. He presumes something but does not establish that his presumption is a Qur’anic truth. Ironically, yet, he had to break down the bulkiness of his “response” into four parts!
The same argument might be consistent with the second part of his statement where he said:
“…if Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father, then Muhammad is a false prophet (which means his worth as a prophet is precisely zero)” (God forbid and peace be upon them). Here again he makes a reasoning but does not support it!?
Secondly, I would like to draw the attention towards the smart rationalization which my opponent apologist gave for using the adjective “worthless” for Mohammad, peace be upon him. According to him “worthless” simply means “worth precisely zero”. He played way with the negative connotation of the word, however, his smartness was soon exposed.
(Side remark: At this point Anthony might argue that he was making a conditional statement where he also said:
“The same holds when spoken from the standpoint of Muslims: If Allah is God, then Yahweh is not (hence?); if Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, then Jesus is not the only begotten Son of the Father (hence?).”)
In the first place kindly notice the hypocrisy bracketed in his statement. He, as a sincere Christian, would dare not use words like “Idol” and “worthless” when speaking of his DEITIES, namely, Yahweh AND Jesus (peace be upon Jesus) thus he would veneer his intention in bracketed words, as demonstrated here in by, “(hence?…)”( the reader is left to fill in the blank and complete the disgusting sentence)thereby providing his co-religionists a euphemistic impression. So, when he desisted from using the word “worthless” for his biblical figures he only proved that there is something offensive in the word and its connotation; something more than just “worth precisely zero”.
Secondly, to start with, “begotten” is a dirty filthy word safer to be used in animal husbandry than with Allah-Almighty, and therefore some of the so called “versions” of the Bible play safe from the usage of the word. They simply and unceremoniously drop this “word” from the so purported “Word of God”:
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18, NIV)
“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son…” (John 3:16, TEV)
COMPARE THIS AGAINST:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…” (John 3:16, King James (1611) Bible)
At this point one can take out two inferences:
- Firstly, discordantly, the translation is been played potty here because Only Son and Only begotten Son does not seem to reconcile by any stretch of English language. I leave this for my opponent to reconcile for me, please!
- Or secondly and concordantly, the two seemingly irreconcilable could harmonize if we resort to Greek Text which I have demonstrated below.
To worsen his argument, the Greek manuscript DOES NOT contain this inflammable word:
“outwV gar hgaphsen o qeoV ton kosmon wste ton uion autou ton MONOGENHedwken ina paV o pisteuwn eiV auton mh apolhtai all ech zwhn aiwnion” (Greek NT (Scrivener-1984))
“MONOGENH” (or MONOGENES) has two Greek roots in it, namely, “MONO” AND “GENES”. “Mono” means ONE or SINGLE etc and “GENES” mean “TYPE” or “CLASS” etc. So, in conjunction, it would read “ONE” of a “TYPE” or “Unique” or“Only” or “Especial”, thus:
“As of the only begotten from the Father (hōs monogenous para patros).STRICLY,“AS OF AN ONLY BORN FROM A FATHER,” since there is no article withmonogenous or with patros. In Joh_3:16; 1Jo_4:9 we have ton monogenē referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of patēr of God in relation to the Logos.Monogenēs (ONLY BORN RATHER THAN ONLY BEGOTTEN) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in Joh_1:18) rather than to the Incarnation.”(Commentary of RWP on John 1:14)
- If the Greek “Monogenh” or “Monogenes” is something which means “one of a type” then why did the English translators translated it with the filth “Begotten”? Astonishingly since, the Greek of (to) “beget” is “UEVVW” (γεννώ) or “PROKALW”(προκαλώ) which is certainly not “MONOGENH”.
- Conversely, if “Begotten” is the correct translation then why are some of the authoritative so called versions doing away from it and replacing it with renderings such as “only son” etc.)
The pith of my argument so far thus has been to prove that Jesus, if understood, to be “unique” or “one of a kind” or “Special” is absolutely okay with Islamic theology which is also corroborated through correct biblical interpretations. As a Muslim I accept him to be “special”, however, having said that each prophet was unique in one of the other way.
More importantly, if Jesus is SPECIAL (and not “Begotten”), which Muslims accept, then how does it allow Islamophobes like Anthony Rogers to conclude that Mohammad (peace be upon him) is worthless (God-Forbid) since Jesus is special (!):
“…if Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father, THEN Muhammad is a false prophet (which means his worth as a prophet is precisely zero).”
(Note: In his original paper he concluded Mohammad, peace be upon him, to be “WORTHLESS”.)
Another problem with Anthony’s rationalization is that he mixes disagreement with abuse. We might disagree and object yet be sober especially in interfaith dialogues. One does not necessarily has to abuse others deity as Idol especially when the Qur’an and Hadith are strictly against “Idol” worship (!):
“And [Abraham] said: “You have chosen to worship IDOLS instead of God for no other reason than to have a bond of love, in the life of this world, between yourselves [and your forebears]: but then, on Resurrection Day, you shall disown one another and curse one another – for the goal of you all will be the fire, and you will have none to succor you.” (Y.Ali, Qur’an 29:25, Al-Alim CD ROM version)
“Allah did not institute superstitions like those of a slit-ear she-camel or a she-camel let loose for free pasture or idol sacrifices for twin-births in animals or stallion-camels freed from work; this lie is invented by the unbelievers against Allah, and most of them lack understanding.” (F. Malik, Qur’an 5:103, Al-Alim CD ROM version)
He reacted back:
“In fact, Mr. Anonymous unwittingly demonstrates my point by speaking of me throughout his article as a “Christolator”, as if to say that the Jesus I (and two billion others) repose in is an idol-god. Does Mr. Anonymous not think Christians would view this as a “filthy invective”?”
Exactly, words like these may be offensive and might turn out to be “filthy invective” but is not it late that my opponent realized it. Keep in Mind that he was the first to write an “article” in which he claimed, in the first place that, Allah is Idol and Mohammad, peace be upon him, as “worthless” prophet (God forbid). Did this generous and “enemy lover” Christian had any qualm to use such lowly adjectives (!?), now that he is complaining.
I, personally, do not think that “Christolator” is abuse rather it is a title for those who worship Christ.Having said that Islam does not teach to abuse and therefore I apologize if you think that I have abused.
His further fuss:
“Moreover, Anonymous also goes out of his way to speak of the blessed apostle Paul as a “false prophet”, giving the most limpid argument for this, as we will see, but what would a Muslim reply be if it didn’t include a “mordant remark” and attack on the apostle Paul?”
I do not think that this complaint stands any chance because “false prophet” is and should not be an offensive title for the Christians at least since it is a biblical title. The Bible asks its readers to check for people who are false (prophets). I only scanned Paul to come to a biblical conclusion that he was a false prophet. Here are the verses which speak of “false prophet” and ask people (in some of them) to catch hold of them (I did only that):
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1, King James (1161) Bible)
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1, King James (1161) Bible)
Whether my analysis of Paul being incorrect or bona fide is different all together; it is debatable if wished. However, no Christian should make it an issue to claim that I abused Paul as “false prophet” because, as already adduced, it is a biblical title and my analysis concludes me towards the same; so, if “false prophet” is an abuse then the Bible needs to be reconsidered yet again as it gives all authority to entitle this infamous title to the deserving.
His Qur’an Assessment
In an attempt to desist truth seekers from the “Word of God” the evangelist provides a very biased and parochial rationale:
“After all, not only is the Qur’an filled with assertions that contradict and impugn the Bible’s teaching about the true God, even using words that are hardly calculated to make Christians feel warm and fuzzy all over,…” (QM: Therefore Qur’an should not be read)
According to Rogers then because the Qur’an impugns Bible’s teachings therefore it should not be read. In reality this is one of many reasons why the Qur’an should be read. THE QUR’AN SHOULD BE READ BECAUSE IT IMPUGNS BIBLE. The Qur’an came as yardstick to judge between the right and the wrong. For instance when the authors of Bible ignorantly and maliciously incriminates idol worship to prophet Solomon, peace be upon him, The Qur’an extricates him by exalting him to his appropriate status:
“We gave (in the past) knowledge to David and Solomon: and they both said: “Praise be to Allah Who has favored us above many of His servants who believe!”(Y.Ali, Qur’an 27:15, Al-Alim CD ROM version)
“Then I remembered the statement of Prophet Solomon,…” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Hadith 301, Al-Alim CDROM version)
Although it is far-fetched and outright blasphemous to impute Idol worship to a prophet of the caliber of Solomon, peace be upon him, yet the authors of Bible denigrate son of David, peace be upon them, of the most horrible sin a righteous can ever commit, let alone a prophet.
1 Kings 11:
11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, THAT HIS WIVES TURNED AWAY HIS HEART AFTER OTHER gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
11:5 For Solomon WENT AFTER ASHTORETH THE GODDESS OF THE ZIDONIANS, AND AFTER MILCOM THE ABOMINATION OF THE AMMONITES
11:6 And Solomon DID EVIL in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
11:7 Then did Solomon BUILD AN HIGH PLACE FOR CHEMOSH, THE ABOMINATION OF MOAB, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, AND FOR MOLECH, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
11:8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.(King James (1611) Bible).
Truth has to impugn false. I do not see any point to be fussed. Qur’an was not revealed to pander to blasphemous beliefs which most Christians have. Subsequently, it would not use words reading which Christians might bask on sea beaches or “feel warm and fuzzy all over”.
To increase the count of his disgusting arguments he gave a ludicrous reason why the Qur’an should not be read. According to him because the Qur’an is also filled with “filthy invectives” towards Mohammad, peace be upon him, so it should not be read. In other words his article should be read even if it contains abuses. By such reasoning he thought he would lend support against my argument of discouraging readers from his article as his article is filled with “filthy invectives”. Let us then analyze this claim. This is what he exactly wrote:
“it is also filled with “mordant remarks” and “filthy invectives” directed at Muhammad by his non-Muslim contemporaries (calling him: a possessed madman, S. 15:6, 23:70, 34:08, 34:46, 37:36, 44:14, 68:2, 51; a tale-bearer and liar, S. 6:25, 8:31, 16:24, 23:83, 25:05, 27:68, 46:17, 68:15; 83:13; a forger and fabricator, S. 10:38, 11:13, 35, 16:101, 25:04, 32:3, 34:08, 43, 42:24, 46:08, 52:33; a innovator, S. 46:09; a confused dreamer, S. 21:05; and a magician, sorcerer, and oneenchanted, S. 34:43, 38:4; etc.). If Mr. Anonymous’ principle means that my article must be relegated to the dust bin of history never to be read again, then the same goes for the Qur’an, and this is a price I would be none too pleased to pay.”
Such an argumentation elicits the comprehension problem which Rogers had while reading my statement, “I would discourage readers to read his article rigged with mordant remarks and filthy invectives on Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him.” There are a number of ways to prove it.
Firstly, little that Rogers realized the difference between attacking and abusing on one hand and defending and quoting on the other!
When Rogers blasphemed, “… Allah as an idol and to Muhammad as a worthless prophet.” He attacked and abused both Allah-The God and Mohammad-The prophet (peace be upon him), however, the verses that he adduced Allah quotes the scathing remarks made by the unbelievers and in the very immediate context of all verses reveals a verse to exonerate Mohammad, peace be upon him, of such a charge, “Or do they say “He fabricated the (Message)”? NAY THEY HAVE NO FAITH!” May I ask if the case of Qur’an the same as that of Rogers’s “article”, if not, then Rogers is comparing Apples with Oranges.
Another point to be noted here is that Allah-The God Almighty, The Author of Qur’an is not abusing Mohammad, peace be upon him, on the contrary, he is defending him (peace be upon him). Nevertheless, Anthony Rogers the author of his article abused (Allah and) Mohammad and did not defend them. This is yet another reason why I say Rogers erroneously compared Apples with Oranges.
Thirdly, I thank Mr. Anthony Rogers for citing the above verses (in his argument) because this provides me all the more reasons why I must read Qur’an. I should read it to know what “THEY”- The disbelievers (and not the Author of the Qur’an) had to say about Mohammad, peace be upon him, and how Allah vindicated the innocent, peace be upon him. Even more so, when the abuse hurled on Allah and Mohammad (peace be upon him) tantamount to the charges on Mary and Jesus by the Jews, fragments of which are still extant in the “Talmud” (peace be upon Jesus and may Allah be pleased with Mary).
The Talmud still abuses Jesus and his mother, subsequently, even worst. It would be a sin even to think of the accusations which the Talmud imputes on Mary and her alleged relation with a Roman soldier (God forbid), nevertheless, the Qur’an expunges all such lies and exalts Mary and Jesus to their appropriate position:
Kindly realize and compare the vicious taunt of the notorious Jews on innocent Mary (may Allah be pleased with her) against her vindication by Allah-Almighty Himself.
“At length she brought the (babe) to her people carrying him (in her arms). They said: “O Mary!truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! “O sister of Aaron! thy father was not a man of evil nor thy mother a woman UNCHASTE!””
Contrast the above verse against:
AND (REMEMBER) HER WHO GUARDED HER CHASTITY: We breathed into her of Our Spirit and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples.
“Behold! the angels said: “O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee; chosen thee above the women of all nations.”
It is of paramount importance then to read the Qur’an all the more because after informing of the allegations of the disbelievers (like pagans in the case of Mohammad (peace be upon him) and Jews in the case of Mary (may Allah be pleased with her), in the verses adduced) the Qur’an exculpates the sinless beyond all “filthy invectives”.
Thus, Anthony’s argument that Qur’an should not be read as it ALSO contains “filthy invectives” only back fired on him; as we have proved that it creates one of the fundamental grounds why Qur’an SHOULD be read.
No conjectures in Qur’an for it is different from Bible
Catching at whatever he could, Anthony Rogers made a futile attempt to find conjectures in Qur’an 4:171.
“First, this portion of Surah 4:171 calls Jesus “the Messiah”, but the meaning of this title is nowhere explained in the Qur’an. The word and concept comes from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and so without looking to them to explain the meaning of this title, one is left with nothing but conjecture and doubt.”
The boastful claims made in the above passage should not be avoided and therefore let us analyze each claim in it separately.
- “First, this portion of Surah 4:171 calls Jesus “the Messiah”, but the meaning of this title is nowhere explained in the Qur’an.”
The problem with above claim is that Anthony Rogers is trying to dictate Qur’an on his (Christian) terms to the God-Almighty. He forgot that Qur’an is not a Book revealed to pander to Christian instincts, since:
Firstly, if Qur’an does not explain the title Messiah as the Christian thinks then there must be some wisdom behind it. Why Anthony forgets that there is a possibility that the audience already knew the import of the word “Messiah”. Can he provide us any proof which would establish that the audience did not knew the term (Messiah) and it’s meaning. Thus to say the least, it was a hollow argument presented as we further shred it.
Secondly, it is evident from the above remark that my ‘learned’ opponent does not know that Qur’ans commentary is Hadith which he did not research before making this hasty comment. We would expose this and the next remark collectively.
- “The word and concept comes from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and so without looking to them to explain the meaning of this title, one is left with nothing but conjecture and doubt.”
I am afraid that any learned Arab Christian apologist would ever make such a foolhardy comment because the Muslims not only fully understood the especial title “Messiah” but also used its root, i.e. “Masaha” in their daily life!
“Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu’minin
The woman having bleeding after delivery (puerperal haemorrhage) would refrain (from prayer) for forty days or forty nights; and we would ANOINT our faces with an aromatic herb called wars to remove dark spots.” (Sunan of Abu-Dawood, Hadith No. 140, Al-Alim CD ROM version)
“…Malik said, “A woman whose husband has died should ANOINT her eyes with olive oil and sesame oil and the like of that since there is no perfume in it…” (Al-Muwatta Hadith, Volume 29, Hadith 107, Al-Alim CD ROM version)
“Narrated AbuUsayd al-Ansari: Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “Eat olive oil and ANOINT yourselves with it, for it comes from a blessed tree.” (Al-Tirmidhi Hadith, Hadith 1122, Al-Alim CD ROM version)
What is to be noted in all the above Hadith literature is the word “Anoint”. “Anoint” is the translation of the Arabic word “Masaha” which is the root of “Masih” or the “Messiah”. “Masaha” means to rub. So in no sense does the word “Messiah” or “TheANOINTed one” comes from Jewish and Christian scriptures rather it was popular among the Arabs as well. They fully understood the especial title to Jesus, peace be upon him.
[Side remark: Even to this day Muslims practice the word “Masaha” at least five times a day during their ablution!]
He attacked: “Second, though translated Jesus, the Arabic text calls Him ‘Isa, which is not correct. The name Yeshua in Hebrew yields Yasou’ in Arabic. Muhammad, possibly mistaking a Jewish slur for Jesus as ‘Esau,’ falsely conjectured that ‘Isa was/is Jesus’ real name. (For more on this, see: “Is ‘Isa the True Name of Jesus?”)”
In the first place let me request Anthony Rogers to provide me that in which Arabic dialect does “Yeshua in Hebrew yields Yasou’ in Arabic”.
Secondly, the name of Maryam’s son was Isa (peace be upon him) as is proven at“Jesus” – Remembering his true name. Ironically the learned men amongst Christians are confused whether to call their god as Yeshua or Jesus! (peace be upon Jesus the prophet):
“Start with Yeshua. That’s his name, NOT ‘JESUS.’ It’s what his father andmother and his brothers and sisters called him and it’s how his followers knew him. Probably the name was pronounced in the rough regional dialectr of Galilee as ‘Yeshu’… (Akenson, 2000, p. 57).”
Christians are still not stable with the name of the false deity they worship! While slandering others of conjectures! No surprise eminent scholars are to this date debating for his real name. They are still grappling for a clue that who changed his name and why? So that they may find an answer to their question: Was His Name Really Jesus?
What does Christian Apologists know about Qur’an?
“Third, the all important words “no more than” do not even appear in the Arabic text of this verse; they are inserted into the English text to make it say what certain Muslims think it should say; in other words, these words are “no more than” conjecture. Consider how some other translations render the verse:
“The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD” – Khalifah
“Verily Christ Jesus the son of Mary [is] the apostle of God” – Sale
And so, as far as this verse goes, there is a great deal of conjecture, and if we drop the added words, there is nothing that is said here about Jesus, apart from the fact that it gets His name wrong, that Christians would not agree with: “The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of God.” Of course Christians would point out that this is not all that can be said of Jesus, and they might just as well point out in this connection that the Qur’an also says more about Him, even in this very passage, where Jesus is also called the “Word” of God and a “Spirit proceeding from Him”.
Let us analyze this remark part by part so that we do justice to his ‘intellectual’ remarks.We would first analyze the first piece of argument in the above cited remark which is:
“Third, the all important words “no more than” do not even appear in the Arabic text of this verse; they are inserted into the English text to make it say what certain Muslims think it should say; in other words, these words are “no more than” conjecture. Consider how some other translations render the verse:
“The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD” – Khalifah
“Verily Christ Jesus the son of Mary [is] the apostle of God” – Sale…”
I wondered how a denizen of Nevada who is hardly expected to know Arabic, though not necessarily, make statement such as above which needs knowledge of Arabic. So ‘hats off to Anthony Rogers for his profound knowledge of Arabic’, however, wait a little while when we will take his hat off for the same reason and for the same argument, God willing.
Anthony is absolutely right that the phrase “no more than” does not appear in the Arabic text of Qur’an 4:171, however, the ignorant and embarrassing error which he committed when he remarked that the phrase “no more than” is a conjecture in Qur’an. I say he committed an embarrassing error because he himself provided the answer for it thereby making my task of refuting his ignorance even easier.
Kindly peruse very carefully what he himself claimed. He wrote, “…they are inserted into the English text…”. My point is that he readily confers that the phrase “no more than” is not a part of Qur’an 4:171 (he prepares the next part of his remark basing on this particular fact that “no more than” is not a part of Qur’an; which I will undo soon.) which subsequently back fires against his argument because it is not a part of Qur’an; in other words if the phrase “no more than” is not a part of Qur’an(as it is “inserted into the English text”) then it does not build conjecture in Qur’an and thus, Qur’an is not part of conjecture. To escape this critique Anthony Rogers should provide us how can he remark Qur’anic text to be conjectured for something which is not a Qur’anic text (!) but only “inserted… English text”.
A particular translator of Qur’an “inserted (it) into the English text”. So, if at all there is conjecture (which is not; I will soon rebut it) it has to be in the part of the translator not Qur’an.
As if this was not enough; to worsen his case he cited two other renderings:
“The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD” – Khalifah
“Verily Christ Jesus the son of Mary [is] the apostle of God” – Sale…”
He made my point stronger because the phrase “no more than” as seen perspicuously above is not a part of Qur’an. Again, if “no more than” is not a part of Qur’an then no one can claim that the phrase “no more than” constitutes conjecture in Qur’an.
(Side remark: It is very important for Muslims to know that Khalifah, actually Rashad Khalifah, whose rendering was adduced by my opponent, was an imposter – a kaafir. He claimed prophet hood. And as for Sale, actually, George Sale, he is a whole sale Islam antagonist. Muslims are therefore advised to be careful of such people and their Qur’an translations.)
So much for the first part of his comment, now let us turn to the next part of his remark:
“Third, the all important words “no more than” do not even appear in the Arabic text of this verse; they are inserted into the English text to make it say what certain Muslims think it should say; in other words, these words are “no more than” conjecture…And so, as far as this verse goes, there is a great deal of conjecture,and if we drop the added words, there is nothing that is said here about Jesus, apart from the fact that it gets His name wrong, that Christians would not agree with…”
Anthony Rogers is scratching his head again to show Muslims that it is incorrect that Jesus (peace be upon him) was “no more than” a prophet of Allah; according to his knowledge of Qur’an these are added words (and so he asks us to drop it), addedto remove so called conjectures. So we produce a verse exclusively for Anthony Rogers which is NOT ADDED.
“Christ the son of Mary WAS NO MORE THAN AN APOSTLE; many were the Apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth makes His Signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!”(Y.Ali)
“Christ, the son of Maryam, WAS NO MORE THAN A RASOOL; many Rasools had already passed away before him. His mother was a truthful woman; they both ate earthly food like other human beings. See how the Revelations are made clear to them to know reality; yet see how they ignore the truth! (Malik)
“The Messiah, son of Mary, WAS NO MORE THAN A MESSENGER, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how we make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!” (Pickthall)
“The Christ, son of Mary, WAS BUT AN APOSTLE: all [other] apostles had passed away before him; and his mother was one who never deviated from the truth; and they both ate food [like other mortals]. Behold how clear We make these messages unto them: and then behold how perverted are their minds!”(Asad)
After a full exposure of Anthony’s ignorance of Qur’an and Islam could I request him to “add” and “insert” the above verse in his knowledge bank.
If Qur’anic description of Jesus, peace be upon him, as “only Apostle” or “no more than a messenger” goes unpalatable with Christians who somehow try to thrust his (peace be upon him) over exaltation down Muslim throats then the verses produced below should turn out to be downright denigrating to such Christians:
“HE WAS NO MORE THAN A SERVANT: We granted Our favor to him and We made him an example to the Children of Israel.” (Y.Ali)
“HE (JESUS) WAS NO MORE THAN A MORTAL whom We favored and made an example to the children of Israel.” (Malik)
“HE IS NOTHING BUT A SLAVE on whom We bestowed favor, and We made him a pattern for the Children of Israel.” (Pickthall)
“[As for Jesus,] HE WAS NOTHING BUT [A HUMAN BEING -] A SERVANT [OF OURS] whom We had graced [with prophet hood,] and whom We made an example for the children of Israel. (Asad)
No wonder why Christian apologists remark Qur’an to be “denigrating” in the description of Jesus (peace be upon him) because the personality they worship and prostrate and bow down to is, in reality, under subservience to Someone else.
Moving yet further with his claims of conjectures in Qur’an, Rogers claimed that Qur’an calls Jesus (peace be upon him) more than just messenger of Allah. Qur’an also calls him “Word” from God and a “Spirit proceeding from Him” and therefore a conjecture in Qur’an. That being the case let us analyze his claim but first let us read what he exactly has to say:
“The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of God.” Of course Christians would point out that this is not all that can be said of Jesus, and they might just as well point out in this connection that the Qur’an also says more about Him, even in this very passage, where Jesus is also called the “Word” of God and a “Spirit proceeding from Him”.
Before attacking the integrity of Qur’an it should explain as to how Qur’an referring Jesus, peace be upon him, as “Word”from God and a “Spirit proceeding from Him”make him more than just messenger of Allah?
I request him to explain us why can not a mortal who is “only messenger of Allah” be a “word” and “spirit proceeding from Him”. Why do you have to be more than “only messenger of Allah” to be Word and Spirit proceeding from Him.
The interpretational fallacy committed by my opponent is that he tried to blend biblical interpretations (and I say “interpretations” not biblical verses themselves) with Qur’anic truths. The proofs of such absurd blend of two can be found later as well as we further analyze his remarks.
It is the Doctors of Divinity who misunderstand that a “Word” and a “Spirit proceeding from Him” cannot be “only a messenger of Allah” so that they might deify Jesus, peace be upon him. Nevertheless in Islam and Qur’an there is absolutely no conjecture in Jesus (peace be upon him) being “only messenger of Allah” and“word” and “spirit proceeding from Him”.
So much with the so called conjectures in Qur’an 4:171. Not content with it and through years of biblical conjectural influences Rogers thought that there is conjecture in Qur’an3:59 as well! That being the claim let us analyze this boast as well.
Before moving further let us first re-produce Qur’an 3:59.
“This similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam: He created him from dust then said to him: “Be” and he was.”
According this ‘profound exegete’ of Qur’an, Surah 3:59 builds conjecture in Qur’an because:
“… since the Qur’an never tells us why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat, like Adam, Muslims are only able to cast about for one conjecture or another in their efforts to explain it.”
As is pellucid, if not, then I will prove that Rogers miscalculates the thrust of Qur’an 3:59 towards Church teachings and podium banging sermons of the Evangandists. The thrust of the verse if not towards what Rogers assumes to be. Nevertheless, before that let us pander to Anthony Rogers question:
Who says that Qur’an does not explain “why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat”. The above adduced question posed to us only demonstrates the shallow knowledge Qur’an because Qur’an DOES explicitly explains “why Jesus uniquely entered (sent) into the world by God’s fiat”.
According to my understanding of Qur’an, Jesus “entered” (was sent) uniquely into this world because he was to guide a recalcitrant Israeli community, furthermore, he entered “uniquely” so that he could become a sign or a miracle for the Israelis he was to minister:
“And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel (with this message): I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I make for you out of clay as it were the figure of a bird and breathe into it and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave; and I heal those born blind and the lepers and I quicken the dead by Allah’s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe.” (Qur’an 3:49, Y.Ali, Al- Alim CD ROM version)
But natural if Jesus, peace be upon him, has to minister a community he has to “enter” (sent) the world.
“And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground affording rest and security and furnished with springs.” (Qur’an 23.50, Y. Ali, Al-Alim CD ROM version)
“He said: “So (it will be): thy Lord saith `That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a SIGN unto men and a Mercy from Us’: it is a matter (so) decreed.”(Qur’an 19:21, Y.Ali, Al-Alim CD ROM version)
However this only answers “why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat” it does not explain why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat like Adam (peace be upon him). Nevertheless we would (inshallah) deal with this part of the absurd enquiry below.
Now that we have answered his question let us analyze was he correct to demand such a question(!) since the thrust of the verse was not towards informing (us) why Jesus “entered uniquely” into the world!
Here is what he wrote:
“As for this verse, we likewise find more room for conjecture.
To begin with, we may ask: Why was Jesus created after the similitude of Adam? It is evident why Adam was created in a special way, for there was no one else for him to be born to. Hence, Adam couldn’t come into existence through the normal process of procreation, but had to be directly created through God’s word ‘Be’. We also know why Christians believe Jesus came into the world through a specialcreative act of God; specifically, because Jesus, as the Word and Son of the Father, already existed, unlike all other descendants of Adam who are personally and spiritually brought into existence along with their bodies, and so the Holy Spirit, by-passing all human agency, created a body for Jesus in the womb of Mary, enabling the Word to become flesh and dwell among us. Furthermore, Christians believe that Jesus came into the world as a second Adam, in order to redeem Adam’s fallen children. Hence, through the virgin birth, the special creative activity of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was sanctified from conception, setting Him apart from all sin and impurity, thus qualifying Him to be an unblemished sacrifice, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. All of this is the Christian answer, but since the Qur’an never tells us why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat, like Adam, Muslims are only able to cast about for one conjecture or another in their efforts to explain it.”
As can be seen the ‘great Qur’an Exegete’ has based his arguments (to show conjecture in Qur’an 3:59) on:
- Firstly, “because Jesus, as the Word and Son of the Father, already existed, unlike all other descendants of Adam who are personally and spiritually brought into existence along with their bodies, and so the Holy Spirit, by-passing all human agency, created a body for Jesus in the womb of Mary, enabling the Word to become flesh and dwell among us.”.
In other words because Jesus (peace be upon him) “already existed” with the Father so the Holy Spirit had to by-pass all human agency to create a body for Jesus in the womb of Mary thereby providing a similitude between Jesus and Adam.
- Secondly, “that Jesus came into the world as a second Adam, in order to redeem Adam’s fallen children. Hence, through the virgin birth, the special creative activity of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was sanctified from conception,… but since the Qur’an never tells us why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat, like Adam, Muslims are only able to cast about for one conjecture or another in their efforts to explain it.”
Here also he thinks that Jesus came into this world in a special way (and therefore Jesus’s similitude to Adam) as a “second Adam” to “redeem Adam’s fallen children”.
The argumentative fallacy in the above two arguments is the basic assumption of “Pre existence” (“already existed”) and “Original sin” (“Adam’s fallen children”)to tantamount to Islamic theology. Both these (mis)concepts have got nothing to do in Islam. Thus at best they can only be said as: “All of this is the Christian answer…”
Now for the all important enquiry of Qur’an allegedly not inform us why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat LIKE ADAM.
Why should Qur’an pander to your enquiry of “WHY Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat” when Qur’an 3:59 is not the verse to explain “WHY Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat”.
When Allah-Almighty says that the similitude of Jesus is that of Adam, he compares the status of Jesus and Adam. As Adam was a creational feat of Allah-Almighty so was Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them. As Allah-Almighty willed and Adam was created so was the case of Jesus -the mortal, peace be upon them. For me this verse (Qur’an 3:59) constitutes a proof text which repudiates the fallacy of those who worship a “hungry”, “sweating”, “bleeding”, “answering nature’s call”, “procreated by his mother in the same way as others are delivered with mother suffering the pangs of baby delivery” man.
Allah explains that Jesus is as non entity as Adam when seen from His creational feat and on the same reasoning Jesus is as (only) dignified as Adam when seen from the perspective of him (Jesus) being one of the beloved prophets of Allah. For Allah to create a thousand Jesus would be as simple as wishing “Be” and a thousand such Jesus would be created.
Now I do not think that anybody would cling to the wrong notion (unless biased) that Qur’an 3:59 thrusts towards explaining why Jesus entered into this world uniquely,that being the case, Anthony Rogers has no case of conjecture against Qur’an 3:59. As I already illustrated that Qur’an 3:59 was a verse to compare the status of Adam and Jesus in the sight of Allah. Both were Allah’s creational feats. Both were created by the will of Allah through the command “BE”. Allah created Adam (peace be upon him) without a father or a mother SIMILARLY Allah created Jesus (peace be upon him) without a mother:
“Allah then explained the creation of Jesus without a father because the delegation of Najran asked the Prophet to provide proof from the Qur’an for his saying that Jesus was not the son of Allah, so Allah said: (Lo! the likeness of Jesus) the likeness of the creation of Jesus (with Allah) without a father (is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust) without a father or mother, (then He said unto him) to Jesus: (Be! and he is) a son without a father.” (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas)
Truly, the likeness of Jesus, his remarkable case, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness, as the case of Adam, whom God created without father or mother: this is a comparison of one remarkable thing with another more remarkable, so that it convinces the disputer and establishes itself in one’s mind more effectively. He created him, Adam, that is, his form, of dust, then said He to him, ‘Be,’, a human being, and he was; SIMILARLY, He said to Jesus, ‘Be’ — without a father — and he was. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)
And now I say that there would be just no room for conjecture if one just knew what is called “Asbab-al-Nuzul” or the science of revelation of verses. Anthony Rogers would not have ignorantly attacked Qur’an through Qur’an3:59 for not providing an explanation as to, “why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat” had he researched the reason why this particular verse was revealed:
“(Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam…) [3:59]. The commentators of the Qur’an said: “The delegation of Najran said to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace: ‘Why do you insult Jesus?’ He said: ‘What did I say about him?’ They said: ‘You say that he is a servant’. He said: ‘Indeed, he is the servant and messenger of Allah, as well as His word which He cast into the Virgin Mary’. They became angry and said: ‘Have you ever seen a human being who was born without a father? If you are truthful, show us such a person’. And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Harithi informed us> ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Ja’far> Sahl Abu Yahya al-Razi> Sahl ibn ‘Uthman> Yahya> Waki’> Mubarak> al-Hasan who said: “Two monks from Najran came to see the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, and he invited them to surrender to Allah. One of them said: ‘We have surrendered to Allah before you’. He said: ‘You lie! Three things prevent you from surrendering to Allah: your worship of the cross, eating pork and your claim that Allah has a son’. They said: ‘Then who is the father of Jesus?’ The Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, was not in the habit of giving hasty answers but waited for Allah’s answer instead. Then Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse (Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam…)”. (Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi)
The classical Tafsirs make it absolutely clear that the reason and service of Qur’an 3:59 was to elucidate humanity that the likeness or similitude of Jesus is to that of Adam; for Adam was a creational feat of Allah, without any progenitor, and so was Jesus, a creational miracle of Allah, a creation without a male counterpart. (Peace be upon Adam and Jesus)
So then where is the question and enquiry of Qur’an 3:59 not explaining “why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat” and where is the conjecture?
(Side remark: I do not know of any main stream commentator who has deciphered Qur’an 3:59 to mean Jesus’ unique entry to this world!
Another point to be noticed is Rogers’s remark “…creative act of God…” This is one point which Islam has been trying to convey for the past 1400 years now. Jesus is a “creation of God”, very much unlike the Nicene creed of “BEGOTTEN NOT MADE” theory, thus, he cannot be God. Stop associating partners to God-Almighty.)
It is a common disease amongst missionaries and evangandists that they thinkMohammad, peace be upon him, did not receive revelations from Allah-The God of Jesus. In order to prove the missionaries “dance from pillars to post” on certain occasions picking the straw man Satanic Verses (1, 2) and on other claiming that he, peace be upon him, copied it from the Jews:
“It is well known, except perhaps to Mr. Anonymous, that much of what Muhammad heard came neither directly from God nor from the Scriptures, the authentic books handed down from the prophets, but from books that the Jewish people wrote with their own hands, such as the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Midrashim, and the Targums.”
- Firstly, Rogers should explain us why Mohammad, peace be upon him, allegedly copied “Be and it was” phrase from Jewish writings and left out on the abuses of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 106a, Sanhedrin 43a, Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a, Shabbos 104b, Gittin 57a) against Jesus, peace be upon him. What made him leave the filth against Jesus when one, after six hundred years of Jesus’ ascension, could only think of his illegitimacy except by faith! and True revelations. (I would again discourage my readers not to refer to the Talmud references I gave. They are downright dirty and offensive.).
Not only this, why did Mohammad, peace be upon him, in Qur’an goes out of his way as an Arab, to praise a Jew and his mother-a Jewess, when the Jewish literature around him (which is allegedly his source of Qur’an) coupled with the anomalous nature of Jesus’ birth, which could only be believed through faith, was abusing and attacking the integrity of both the innocent mother and her righteous son (Peace be upon Jesus and May Allah be pleased with Mary)?
- Secondly, what is noticeable that Anthony Rogers has not provided any support with regards to his plagiarization boast. He should establish that the phrase was indeed copied from Jewish literatures.
The might son of Man
As if Rogers got a chance to bully me, he made yet another attack on Qur’an for me using the phrase “Son of Man”:
“my unknown Muslim assailant even refers to Jesus as “this mighty ‘Son of Man,’” another title that is lifted from the Bible”
Although, this title of “Son of Man” is frequently used in Bible, however, it is good that he picked up this issue because it has Islamic implications as well!
Neither did I frivolously used the phrase “Son of Man” nor is it correct to say that “… we have to turn to the Scriptures in order to understand the meaning of this phrase; otherwise we are left with nothing but “clouds of conjectures”. There is no room for conjectures in Qur’an no matter how hard one tries to criticize it. As a matter of fact Qur’an welcomes criticism (Qur’an 4:82).
So then when I used the phrase “Son of Man” I tried to emphasize its Islamic import- that is, it’s true meaning that Jesus is just a son of a human being or son of a MAN. He is a man born of a man-a human being, namely, Mary (May Allah be pleased with her). The point that Jesus is a son of man immediately refutes the claims of his deity imputed on him, furthermore, it pulls down the extra elevated status of Jesus, peace be upon him, to its actual status of a mere prophet certainly obviating the claims that Jesus’ is Son of God in a capitalized sense.
No wonder The Holy Qur’an emphasizes this point of Jesus (peace be upon him) being son of a man (and therefore not God) almost every time alluding to him! On (yet) another occasions Qur’an has simply referred to Jesus (peace be upon him) without even specifying his name but only the title that he is a son of man!nevertheless, the Qur’an puts it in its own style, i.e. “son of Mary”:
“They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; Yet they were commanded to worship but one Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to him: (far is He) from having the parents they associate (with him).” (Qur’an 9:31)
“And remember Jesus the son of Mary said: “O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad Tidings of an Apostle to come after me whose name shall be Ahmad.” But when he came to them with Clear Signs they said “This is evident sorcery!” (Qur’an 61:6)
“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah if His Will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary his mother and all everyone that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things.” (Qur’an 5:17)
“And when the son of Mary is quoted as an example, behold! the folk laugh out,”(Qur’an 43:57)
Besides many other verses such as 61:14, 57:27, 5:78, 5:75, 5:72, 5:46, 5:110, 112, 114, 116, 4:171, 4:157 etc.
If thought from the point that why has Allah oft repeated the title “son of Mary” every time referring to Jesus then one would easily come to a conclusion that Allah Almighty wanted to stress on the fact (especially for the Christians) that Jesus is son of a human being, he is son of a mere mortal not the son of immortal therefore it is illogical to consider him divine and worship him (peace be upon Jesus). Therefore, there is just no conjecture in Qur’an if I used the phrase “son of Man” for Jesus, peace be upon him. And by the way I do not have to turn to so called “Holy Scriptures” to dispel my conjectures as the same ‘holy scriptures’ also contain ‘holy’stories of prophet Lot, prophet Solomon etc and etc.
Apostle to come after me
Under the sub heading “Confirming What Came Before In the Law and the Gospel” he has written various things, things which is irrelevant for a reply, however, he made a claim regarding Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) prophecy in the Tawraat and the Injeel:
“If what my anonymous acquaintance said above were true, then he wouldn’t be able to claim that the Bible contains predictions for Muhammad, not in Deuteronomy 18, not in John 16, not anywhere, contrary to the Qur’an, various Hadith, and the uniform example of Muslim scholars and dawagandists.”
I adjure readers to assiduously take note of the phrase “… contrary to the Qur’an, various Hadith”. Whenever Muslims appeal to the Christians that Mohammad (peace be upon him) was prophesized in their Scriptures they (Christians) mistake that Qur’an (61:6), Hadith and Muslims are appealing to the so called Old and New Testament from the custodians of the so thumped King James Version and the New International Version and the Charismatic Version and on and on! Such a presumption is of course false.
When Qur’an appeals that Mohammad, peace be upon him, was prophesized it simply means that he was prophesized by Jesus, peace be upon him through the original revelation given to him not to the so fabricated New Testament which came into existence centuries after his heavenly ascension. Christians like Anthony Rogers should take note that Muslims can no more be fooled in to messing New Testament with Injeel – The revelation to PROPHET Jesus, peace be upon him.
I can appeal to the Old and New Testament discrediting their authority as the revelation of Moses and Jesus, respectively. I may find something in these books which might be compatible with Qur’anic teachings. But even then I cannot confirm for sure that those verses of Old and New Testament are literal reveled verses. For more on this topic kindly refer OT, NT and MUSLIMS.
Furthermore, under the same sub heading he wrote that I made a “foolhardy” attempt to refute Christian apologist David Wood. That being the case, I would request Anthony to kindly inform his cohort in shirk (associating partners to Allah) David Wood of my “foolhardy” attempt against him so that he could dig my grave, a step further, I would request all to read my “foolhardy” attempt at Deuteronomy Dissection and check for themselves who actually made “foolhardy” attempt. In addition, readers should also observe the exchange of polemics between my brothers Bassam Zawadi, Nadir Ahmad etc against David Wood.
Christian way of ascribing partners to Allah
Inflamed with my assertion of Christians ascribing partners to Allah and therefore polytheists Anthony Rogers hits back by stating that I did not try to prove my “scurrilous” charge: “not only does he not try to prove this scurrilous accusation in his response,…”
Do I need to prove that Christians (majority) worship Jesus (peace be upon him) as God-Almighty (God forbid) ironically contradicting themselves because Jesus was indeed “creative act of God”.
Furthermore, because he had to respond back at me and slur Muslims of polytheism so he picked up some bizarre links for us. Now because he has seen only one side of the coin or maybe he is wittingly frowning away from the other side, we give him the other perspective of the coin as well. Let a sincere analyzer then see both sides and decide for himself!
He started with the old propaganda of satanic verses and the “the high flying cranes” . One may also visit my paper which reflects on certain issues of the same topic. He just picked up everything he got including kissing of sacred stone which along with many other such baseless allegations has been disabused by BrotherBassam Zawadi at “Was he a pagan”?
I would encourage readers to peruse the following articles which respond many of the allegations of this genre:-
With these few words I look forward to Part Two (Three and Four). I would love to further refute the arguments which Anthony Rogers would be proposing in further installments. I could only do all of those by Allah’s and Allah’s help alone. May Allah’s Peace and Blessing be on all prophets.
Note: Emphasis wherever found is ours.