Author Archives: Ijaz Ahmad

Why do Muslims use sources they don’t believe in?

Question:

When Muslims quote the Bible, or quote scholars like Bart Ehrman who disagree with what Muslims believe, isn’t that cherry picking, a double standard?

Answer:

This answer can apply to any topic, regardless of the source or reference that a Muslim uses. When Muslims use sources like the Bible, it is not cherry picking nor a double standard to use it in their argumentation. This is because we have a standard of consistent truth. Regardless of what a source says, we agree and affirm when that source is correct. Consider the example of a flat earther (a person who does not believe the earth is a globe). If a flat earther told me that humans lived on the earth or that gravity was real, I would affirm those truths. I would not reject everything the flat earther says, simply because he is wrong in some of what he says.

Consider the example of a Jew who affirms that God is absolutely one. As a Muslim, I would affirm that such a monotheistic belief is a truth. Regardless of his other beliefs about the Prophets or about God, I am not going to reject monotheism merely because the Jew holds some beliefs I disagree with. Our standard of truthful affirmation remains consistent, we affirm the truth wherever it is, and reject the falsehood wherever it is. The ability to both accept and reject from a source is called rational discernment, or the ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood. There is no rule or law which states that one must absolutely agree with everything a source says, this is a false impression to hold to. Being able to distinguish, discern is to remain consistent in one’s approach to works that someone may find things disagreeable with.

The same holds true to the Bible. A Muslim will gladly affirm that Jesus is the Christ as the New Testament mentions. It would be inconsistent to reject that Jesus is the Christ because the New Testament says so. Being able to discern between what we believe and don’t believe is to remain consistent in one’s theology. A long time Christian polemicist also received a similar question when he used and quoted Catholic works, when he himself is not a Catholic:

cc-2017-ss-quoteothersources

The irony here, is that when this same individual sees a Muslim quoting the Bible he becomes angry and belligerent, often using insults. Yet in this comment of his, he affirms that it is perfectly fine to quote sources when and where they agree with one’s theology in common. He has no issue with it. As one of his colleagues would say, inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

and Allah knows best.

Missionary Mishap: McLatchie Strikes Out

The $579.88 (USD) per year Zoom platform that Jonathan McLatchie uses has struck out again. After spending so much money and time advertising it to his over 4,996 friends on Facebook and 3,977 members on his “Academy” group, he struck out once more:

cc-2017-jm-zoomflop

An amazing 0 likes and 0 comments on his own Facebook group dedicated to his “online Academy”, and that’s after an hour. When it comes to the actual Zoom room, he hit a very high number of viewers:

cc-2017-jm-zoomflop2

5 viewers! He’s got quite the value there. That’s almost more than $100 dollars per person that he’s invested in. Well done Jonathan. Also 0 likes and 0 comments (at the time of posting we did like the post to give him some support).

Quite the success!

and God knows best.

Missionary Mishap: Steven Finds the Manuscript that Didn’t Exist

Edit: Steven has apologized for his behaviour.

So…in an earlier post, I gave the name of the manuscript that contained 1 John 2:22. Despite that, Steven Tilley and his colleague insisted in a video shortly thereafter that we had both made up a manuscript and lied about it’s name. However…using the very name I gave them, word for word, they eventually found that not only was the manuscript not made up but that it was known and documented. Surprising, isn’t it!

cc-2017-jm-stevenvladmirinsultsga23-9

You’ll notice that he apologizes for insulting our Br. Yahya, and in some odd way attributes his finding the name of the manuscript to the screenshot of its exact name that I had given. Despite that, he still insists a mistake was made. So to wrap up:

  • Insulted me calling me a liar, idiot, and various other insults.
  • Claimed I made up a manuscript.
  • Claimed I made up the name of a manuscript.
  • I give them the name in a screenshot…
  • They eventually find said manuscript.
  • Manuscript exists.
  • Apologizes to Br. Yahya, but not me.

Brilliant to be honest. Now that they realise it exists, hopefully they will learn to behave like adults and act in a mature way. Insulting people, making fun of them, creating videos mocking them because of their inability to find something is not okay, but this is what they are taught at Jonathan McLatchie’s Apologetics Academy.

and God knows best.

Missionary Mishap: Literacy is a Problem

Edit: Steven has apologized for his behaviour.

Our favourite duo, Steven Tilley and Vladmir Susic made an extremely awkward 8 minute video with a few insults and name calling (something we do not engage in), they should probably read the Gospel where it says to “love your enemy”. At the end of this 8 minute video they had a young missionary “exposing” me (Br. Ijaz), by claiming I had made an error:

cc-2017-jm-stevenvladmirinsultsga23-5

In the video, they premised their claim that we had given them the wrong manuscript name. However, they’ve made quite a simple mistake. They themselves don’t know what the manuscript is called. They first refer to it as “GA zero-two-three” then as, “GA (letter) O 23”. To begin with, the manuscript is not named either. It’s actually entitled, GA Ο23. It’s neither a number (zero) or the letter (o). So, we encourage them to keep trying. Hopefully they’ll figure out the name in the near future. Well, we hope they do before they get the name wrong again.

and God knows best.

Missionary Mishap: Steven and Vladmir

Edit: Steven has apologized for his behaviour.

Recently, following a meeting with a colleague of mines I gave him some manuscript information regarding a passage from 1 John, specifically 1 John 2:22. Following his article, it seems to have caught quite a few internet missionaries off guard, to the point they began to throw insults and mockery, as can be seen here:

cc-2017-jm-stevenvladmirinsultsga23

There’s a couple things to note here.

Firstly, Steven Tilley spent all day searching for the manuscript I mentioned (GA Ο23 – note, Br. Mustafa has corrected a typo in his article), since he was unable to find it, it meant to him that it did not exist. Not very smart reasoning here. His inability to locate something, does not prove its non-existence. His lack of ability is not an argument against the validity of the source being examined. One of the reasons I gave just one alias of the manuscript was to see how well they were educated and skilled. It would therefore seem that without knowing the other aliases for the manuscript that they can’t find any other information about it. Quite embarrassing to say the least.

Secondly, his colleague, then proceeds to call me an idiot and refers to a Wikipedia page that does not mention the other aliases of the manuscript. In his wisdom, he then claims I pulled the source out of…well, he was trying to throw an insult.

Here’s the fun part though. Anyone with access to ECM, will know the proper name of the manuscript and its contents. In fact, using the alternative name of the manuscript, going to the museum’s page, it lists what the manuscript contains:

cc-2017-jm-stevenvladmirinsultsga23-2

So not only were they not smart enough to find the alternate names for the collection, they were unable to locate the museum data about the collection and its contents as it relates to 1 John 2:22. Furthermore, they would have actually gotten a great deal of information if they consulted the NET’s Textual Critical notes on 1 John 2:22-23 which actually comments on the missing words from one of these passages and the textual tradition which omits them.

To make it even more interesting, it seems as if they think the passage only lacks the word “antichrist” as Steven has argued. This is actually incorrect, thus demonstrating their further inability to comprehend basic textual critical issues. 1 John 2:22 is lacunose between the two initial occurrences of, “εστιν”, while completely omitting the rest of the passage (as found elsewhere) following the words, “εστιν  Ις”. Thus completely omitting, “is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist–denying the Father and the Son.”

That’s quite a lot more than just the word, “antichrist”.

There’s two other aliases by which the manuscript goes by, if after searching all day they can’t find it, then it goes to show their limited grasp on New Testament textual criticism and their inability to do simple research. All they really had to do was consult Jones’s work on Amulets.

and God knows best.

Missionary Mishap – Successful Christian Apologist?

Imagine for a moment that you’re a newly rebranded Christian apologist as your last stint as an apologist didn’t go so well. You’ve spent 10’s of thousands of dollars in University fees pursuing a Bacherlor’s, Master’s and then a Doctorate in a field which led you nowhere but to ridicule and mockery by your colleagues and the atheist community you sought to evangelize. 10 years have gone by and the people in your own field sat in a pub chanting “shame” at you. There needed to be a change, an audience you thought might be easier to evangelize. So you spent $144 USD per year to create a website that no one notices. You then spent $579.88 per year in subscription fees for a video conferencing platform.

That platform gets you around the 500 view average (per video) per month on YouTube, sometimes it gets you 292 view average (per video) per month after recording 8 to 10 hours of video footage every month, sometimes it’s more than 11 hours – after a year of promoting it. Maybe you thought you could go to Hyde Park and take over Jay Smith’s role there, only to decide arguing with Muslims is too difficult and in your case “unproductive”, especially since you had to make a 9 hour video response following each visit to the park. Maybe you thought doing that 9 hour video response with a 15 year old might make you seem intelligent, but then no one bothered to watch those response videos.

You branded your platform as an Academy, hoping to teach budding Christians in a field you hadn’t studied or received any qualifications in (Islam). Imagine this is you and then one night, after spending over a decade studying, after spending so much money, so much time and effort, you log in to your Academy’s Facebook group and see an exciting post. Your Christian friends on the Academy platform group you created are talking about Christian Apologists to learn from. After all of the work you’ve done, you look forward to fellow Christians recognizing that you’re a leader, a teacher and an inspiration, you eagerly read the comments after the post has been up for more than 12 hours…and no one has bothered to mention your name.

If that’s you, then you are Jonathan McLatchie! Well done!

cc-2017-jm-bestapologistsnotjonny

He’s quite the success!

and God knows best.

 

 

 

« Older Entries Recent Entries »