Search
William Lane Craig answers this question for us, he states:
“I’m quite willing to say these documents could be erroneous in many respects, could be inconsistencies (sic), contradictions…”
It’s always great to see Christian leaders being honest about the reliability, or lack thereof, of the Bible.
HD 1920 x 1080 Meme Download: Click Here.
and Allah knows best.
There are a lot of people who believe that Islam is the only faith facing issues with extremism. The reality is, any large group of people will statistically always have at least one bad apple or more. Unfortunately, a Christian missionary by the name of Richard Huckle committed sexual abuse of over 200 children, both boys and girls. The abuses happened in the Muslim majority country of Malaysia, where the missionary specifically targeted underprivileged children.
The BBC reports:
Huckle, a practising Christian, first visited Malaysia on a teaching gap year when he was 18 or 19. He then went on to groom children while doing voluntary work.
Investigators uncovered numerous indecent pictures and videos Huckle took of himself abusing girls and boys. More than 20,000 indecent images were found on his computer.
Huckle wrote a paedophile manual called “Paedophiles And Poverty: Child Lover Guide”, as well as a series of notes in which he detailed rapes and various sex acts.
The intent of this post is not to demonize Christians or the Christian faith, but to highlight the fact that all faiths have adherents in their congregations that commit acts of extremism. In this case, sexual extremism in the form of child abuse. I’m not going to call on representatives of the Christian community to condemn this missionary, but I do expect them to learn from this situation that not all adherents of a faith, faithfully represent their faith.
and God knows best.
There’s been a surge in commenting within the last two months or so, our previous policy was to approve each comment individually. However, that takes a lot of time to read through and approve. This policy was initially introduced after receiving aggressive, obscene and insulting comments from angry missionaries. However, the community on Calling Christians seems to have moderated themselves and the discussions have become very pleasant and respectful. With that in mind, the previous commenting policy has been rescinded and users no longer need individual comments to be approved. What this means is, if you’ve had a comment approved at least once then when posting, your comments no longer need approval. They’ll be automatically approved.
While comments will be automatically approved, if the moderators see it fit to remove a comment, they will do so. We ask that users be respectful in their dialogue and to adhere to expected standards of decorum.
and God knows best.
While checking out a few book shops today, by happenstance I came across a Bible entitled, Baby’s First Bible. My curiosity got the best of me and while flipping through the pages I came across a pretty interesting page. On the last picture below, the publishers describe the Bible as the greatest story book ever! I cannot disagree, the Bible has stories that rival those of Cinderella, Game of Thrones and even Harry Potter.
It’s good to see that publishers are educating kids by being honest about the veracity and reliability of the Bible.
and God knows best.
I’ve been busy the past few days and had not noticed that Br. Yahya Snow published an article and created a video about me. The article can be read here and concerns debate challenges and the glib behaviour of some missionaries.Br. Yahya states:
Now I must say, it’s curious to see Jonathan angle for a debate with Yusuf Bux after he intimated Yusuf’s arguments are dated and weak. Admittedly, I do have reservations about some of the arguments that do come out of SA. Nevertheless, the point here is why would Jonathan decide to target Yusuf for a debate while Jonathan continually avoids Ijaz Ahmad’s debate challenges. Ijaz is a hardened apologist and debater who chooses to involve himself in technical discussions about Christian theology – it’s what he specialises in.
You see, Jonathan has come off really poorly in his interactions with experienced Muslim apologists. He struggled in his debate with Shabir Ally and struggled in his debate with Yusuf Ismail. Ijaz Ahmad and myself have corrected him and refuted him on many points over the last few months – at times on some very basic stuff highlighting his inability in dialogue with Muslims who are more experienced and aware apologetically.
We’ve corrected Jonathan McLatchie a number of times, here are some examples:
I actually have quite a couple more screenshots of never before released mistakes by Jonathan. However, they will not be posted. There’s a difference between correcting a public figure and caricaturing someone, and I do not want to cross that line. On the other hand, Br. Yahya also produced a video with me responding to some missionary claims regarding the speech of God, the preservation of the Qur’an and of Jesus’s nature:
I’m not particularly fond of seeing my name and face mentioned this much. While I am thankful for the efforts many brothers have made, it’s still a bit unsettling to see my face and name everywhere. In this case though, it is a video debate and so there’s no choice but to show my face. I am appreciative of Br. Yahya’s comments regarding me and for the video he’s made. I pray that many can benefit from the work that our little community of Muslim apologists, bloggers and du’at do.
and Allah knows best.
Tony Costa
The Claims
The missionary Tony Costa recently responded to one of my articles correcting him on being dishonest about the Arabic language. What is the problem? Tony is claiming that the feminine form of أله is لت. He says:
In a commentary piece where I was reviewing a debate I had with my good friend Sadat Anwar I spoke about the daughters of Allah in the Qur’an 53:19-20. I then made this statement, “Al-Lat is actually the feminine form of ‘Al-ilah’ or ‘Allah’”
I would like to mention that I have linked to Tony’s article and I am quoting what he says so as to demonstrate to him that there is no sleight of hand at work, I’m using his words against him. In the above quote, he is making a claim about the Arabic language. He then goes on to say:
I have never pretended to know the Arabic language, nor did I make such a claim. In fact I openly admitted in my debate with Sadat Anwar that I am presently learning and studying Arabic.
How is it, that he says in one sentence he made a claim and statement about the Arabic language, and then in another he claims that he did not make such a claim? The problem is that Tony freely admits he does not know the Arabic language, yet is insistent that his derivation of the word أله in its female form is لت. This is grammatically impossible. I have explained this to Tony, yet he insists he is correct. He goes on to state:
Why would I give the morphology of the term أله when I never addressed the forms of words in Arabic?
Let’s establish some facts:
In other words, someone ignorant about the Arabic language is making a claim about the Arabic language, without being able to qualify his claim using the Arabic language. To prove that he is correct, Tony then copy-pasted a few quotes from a Google Search Result he sent me via e-mail. Yes. Tony insists he is correct because he Googled a question and sent me the results. He did this in an e-mail thread with Dr. Shabir Ally, Dr. James White, Br. Yusuf Ismail, Br. Yahya Snow, Br. Yusuf Bux, Br. Paul Williams, and I corrected him in this e-mail thread. Several others corrected him and he continued to insist that he did not need to know the Arabic language to make claims about the Arabic language. As such, Tony is guilty of a number of fallacies.
The Fallacies
You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false.
After showing Tony that he was wrong in the Arabic language using Arabic lexicons, Arabic Bibles and explaining basic Arabic grammatical rules, Tony now insists he never meant to address the derivations of the word أله in Arabic, he only meant to do so in English. The problem here is that أله is not an English word, it’s an Arabic word.
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
Tony claims that his quotes in English prove his claim. Yet, this is not the case. None of these quotes demonstrate how they derive لت from أله. Just because they claim they have, does not make it true. To qualify this as true, all Tony has to do is show the derivation. Since he is unable to do that, and I have contradicted this claim by actually providing the female form, the rules of logic (proof by contradiction) render Tony wrong.
You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.
Seven people repeating a false claim, does not make it true. It makes it wrong each and every time it is repeated. I can also go on Google and claim that at the Council of Nicaea the canon of the New Testament was decided. I can provide hundreds of quotes claiming this. Yet it isn’t true. This is common sense for some of us, not all of us.
The Correction
To begin with, in the Arabic language you derive the forms of a word using its root. This is known as morphology or Sarf (صرف). It is grammatically impossible to derive لت from أله. As previously mentioned in my original article, it’s akin to trying to derive oranges from the word range. This is grammatically impossible. Oranges comes from orange. Oranges does not come from range. This is abecedarian stuff, but Tony does not seem to grasp this concept. We therefore ask the question, what do the Arabic Bibles claim the feminine form of أله is? Millions of Arabic Christians and Jews, use the SVD Arabic Bible. All Tony has to do is go to an Arabic Bible and see what the feminine form of أله is. The Arabic Bibles do not say لت, they say إلهة. See the following examples (emphasis is mine own):
فَذَهَبَ سُلَيْمَانُ وَرَاءَ عَشْتُورَثَ إِلَهَةِ الصَّيْدُونِيِّينَ وَمَلْكُومَ رِجْسِ الْعَمُّونِيِّينَ.
– 1 Kings 11:5.
لأَنَّهُمْ تَرَكُونِي وَسَجَدُوا لِعَشْتُورَثَ إِلَهَةُ الصَّيْدُونِيِّينَ وَلِكَمُوشَ إِلَهِ الْمُوآبِيِّينَ وَلِمَلْكُومَ إِلَهِ بَنِي عَمُّونَ، وَلَمْ يَسْلُكُوا فِي طُرُقِي لِيَعْمَلُوا الْمُسْتَقِيمَ فِي عَيْنَيَّ وَفَرَائِضِي وَأَحْكَامِي كَدَاوُدَ أَبِيهِ.
– 1 Kings 11:33.
لأَنَّكُمْ أَتَيْتُمْ بِهَذَيْنِ الرَّجُلَيْنِ وَهُمَا لَيْسَا سَارِقَيْ هَيَاكِلَ وَلاَ مُجَدِّفَيْنِ عَلَى إِلَهَتِكُمْ.
– Acts 19:37.
Tony, this is known as proof by contradiction. I did not need to open Google to qualify my claims as you did, I simply went to the Arabic Bible that the Coptic Church uses. Tony therefore claims that he is correct, while the Coptic Church, the Smith and Van Dyke Arabic Bible and the American Bible Society with its translation committees spanning more than 100 years are all wrong. I therefore call upon Tony to contact the Coptic Church and the American Bible Society and let them both know that their Bibles have an error in their scriptures which they have not noticed for over 100 years, but that he, a man who does not know the Arabic language is correct.
To further correct Tony, here are some lexicons. Tony, lexicons explain the roots of words, their derivations and their meanings. They are considered authorities on language. I am quite shocked that you do not know this, but I am here to help you.
Lanes Lexicon –
This is from page 82 of Lane’s lexicon, Tony would do well to read the last line. The plural of أله is إلهة. Next we go to لت:
لت has nothing to do with أله. These are two different root words. Let’s say لت is A and أله is B. Tony is trying to derive A from B, yet A and B are two root words. They are not derivatives of each other, they are root words from which their own derivatives can be formed. They have nothing to do with each other. One does not come from the other, A is not B and B is not A. A does not come from B and B does not come from A. It should be noted that these two words are 2649 pages apart, they literally have no connection with each other. If one was derived from the other, why are neither included in each other’s lexical derivatives? Next, we go to the Hans-Wehr dictionary.
Hans-Wehr –
Again, another authority in the Arabic language, in Arabic, showing the derivatives/ morphology of the words themselves disagrees with Tony. Anyone interested in seeing the many more lexicons and dictionaries that discredit, disagree and disavow Tony Costa can click here.
Ibn Kathir –
Tony makes the mistake of attributing a quote to Ibn Kathir, rather the quote literally says who it is from. Ibn Jarir. I asked Tony during our email discourse if he knew who Ibn Jarir was. Tony did not respond to that question. This is basic comprehension skills, it is not Ibn Kathir who makes the statement it is Ibn Jarir (Source):
و كانوا قد اشتقوا اسمها من اسم الله فقالوا الات
“They derived Al-Lat’s name from Allah’s Name, and made it feminine. Allah is far removed from what they ascribe to Him. It was reported that Al-Lat is pronounced Al-Lat because, according to `Abdullah bin `Abbas, Mujahid, and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, Al-Lat was a man who used to mix Sawiq (a kind of barley mash) with water for the pilgrims during the time of Jahiliyyah. When he died, they remained next to his grave and worshipped him.”
Common sense is not common. How did they derive Al-Lat from Allah? By using a name of similar pronunciation as is stated above in Lane’s lexicon, page 2649:
“Some say that the ت is originally without tashdeed, and to denote the feminine gender: Ks used to pronounce the word in a case of pause اللاة : and Aboo Ishak says, that this is agreeable with analogy…”
They didn’t derive it from using the word for God in Arabic: أله , they derived it by using the word لت in its form of اللاة because they sounded similar to each other. Even the narrator himself rebuffs the claim by saying:
“Allah is far removed from what they ascribe to Him.”
In other words, Tony is using quote he does not understand, and once put into context, it completely refutes his accusations en toto.
Conclusion
It has been proven, using basic Arabic grammar rules, Arabic lexicons, Arabic dictionaries, Arabic Bibles, the Coptic Church’s Bible and from Arab historians, that لت is impossible to get from أله. I therefore challenge Tony to eight (8) things:
Challenge
I also challenge Dr. Tony Costa to a public debate in Toronto on any topic of his choosing. It is most likely that he will not respond to this challenge, as much as he will never concede his ignorance of the Arabic language led him to commit an error so embarrassing that even Arabic speaking children can tell him he’s wrong.
Second Challenge
A former Maronite Christian from Lebanon is willing to talk with Tony and explain to him why he’s wrong and why he is embarrassing himself. Tony can send me an e-mail to be put in contact with this person.
Lessons Learned
Tony accuses me of raising irrelevant arguments in responding to him. This is problematic because Tony conceded he does not know the Arabic language, therefore on what basis does he rationalize my corrections of him as being irrelevant? In any language, if we are discussing a word or term used, it is impossible to discuss its meaning, its application and its context without understanding the word itself. Especially in Arabic, we can only know the meaning of a word by going to its root, which is why Sarf (صرف) is one of the first things taught in basic Arabic. Tony sees me correcting him as an attack on his person. I want to make it clear that I am not attacking Tony in any way, however, he did make claims and I am dutifully responding to those claims. It is impossible to discuss one’s claim without first providing context. Tony is the one who made the claim in an e-mail chain, and therefore he is the one who is responded to. If Jack or Jill or Paul made such a claim, I’d also be responding to them.
One of the more disappointing realizations to have arised out of this, is that Tony admits that he is making a claim he does not understand. All he knows, is to repeat that someone has claimed al-Lat is from Allah. He does not know, nor does he care to know how or if al-Lat is derived from Allah. For an academic, he is setting a very low standard for scholarship. He is simply making a claim he does not understand and when asked to explain the claim rather than repeating it, he immediately claims he is being attacked. I’m sorry Tony but that cop-out does not work on me. I am holding you to the standard of an academic, as someone with a PhD. I demand of you the kind of scholarship that your title should befit, not the kind of scholarship that is beholden to Google Searches and parroting incorrect claims incessantly.
Therefore, I call upon Tony to apologize for his blatant dishonesty, insults and recalcitrance. Perhaps what is most disappointing is that Tony decided to title his article by referencing my illness. He seems to take it as a joke. To me, it is not a joke. Tony’s ignorance did send me to the hospital due to my frail state. It’s no use to throw a prayer into the end of his article, after having disparaged my character and my illness in some attempt to justify his absolutely fraudulent claims about the Arabic language. In the same breath that he chastised Br. Yusuf Ismail regarding a Koine grammatical rule, he needs to also rebuke himself for his dishonesty. In the end, I forgive Tony for mocking my illness, after all, he is human.
Notified Tony of this Post and of its Challenges to Him
All I Have Left to Say is –
and Allah knows best.
and God knows best.
During a discussion on Facebook, a Christian happened to mention that God is one, infinite and indivisible. Then he mentioned God was shared by three persons. For a moment I wasn’t sure what I had read. How was it possible that God was one, infinite and indivisible, but at the same time three and divisible (shared)? I think this meme summarizes the confusion I had.
So, any takers? How do I divide infinity into three?
and God knows best.
Dr. Tony Costa – Christian Apologist
What a headline. Those are words I never thought I’d one day have to write. I’ve been interacting with Dr. Tony Costa for some time, most people would know I recently debated him last year on the topic of, Was Jesus the Son of God or Only the Prophet of God? For sometime now I’ve been ill with a severe chronic illness, this is public knowledge and people generally know that I’m quite frail most of the time. As such, any mildly strenuous physical activity leads to hospital trips where I am given pain medication and observed for some time.
Over the course of last night and this morning, I had the unfortunate experience of seeing Dr. Costa pretend to know the Arabic language. After having pointed out why he was wrong on the morphology of the term آله (Ilah), and that he was confusing it with a completely different word لت (Lat), while using three lexicons: Lane’s, Hans-Wehr and Lisan al Arab, and the Arabic Bible used by the Coptic Church: Smith & Van Dyke Arabic Bible, Dr. Costa decided he was correct despite all of these evidences proving him to be incorrect. To settle the matter, I simply asked Dr. Tony if he could kindly give me the morphology of the term آله. For anyone who has done more than one week of Arabic, you’d know how to derive the female from this root word. He was unable to do so, in fact, he outright refused to do so. Tony insisted that his finding the female of آله had nothing to do with using the root of the word.
Does that sound incredulous? I’m not kidding. Apparently Tony studied sarf (morphology) to the point where he does not use the root of words to derive their sexes and numerical forms. Considering you need to use root words to derive any other form of the word, I’m not sure what planet he believed he was on. In trying to help him and to save him from further embarrassment, I simply indicated that he was trying to get the feminine of word A (آله) using the word B (لت). I gave him a simple explanation, it’s as if he was trying to get the plural of orange, which is oranges, by using the word range. Orange has nothing to do with range. Unfortunately, without showing his morphology, or how it was possible to get the form of one noun, using a completely different noun, Tony decided he was correct. Regrettable as it was for him, several people, including myself who were included in the exchange have knowledge of the Arabic language.
This led to an endless fit of laughter lasting several hours. It’s akin to seeing a child get their ABCs wrong, and insisting they’re correct because their friends in kindergarten also recite their ABCs this way. So basic was his error, everyone knew that he was pretending to know the Arabic language. Yet he couldn’t get the female derivative of a noun. Knowing that he was pretending, we waited to see what his other replies would be. His last reply insisted that he was correct, no morphology, no explanation, nothing. To put it diplomatically, it was cringe-worthy. Due to laughing excessively, it led to me having a coughing fit, which triggered my other symptoms, thus landing me in the hospital. I’ve now been released and am back home and resting, Alhamdulillah.
This is the first time that someone’s ignorance has actually, physically hurt me. Dr. Tony Costa pretending to know Arabic and failing at it, sent me to the hospital. Thank you Tony, thank you.
If anyone would like to confirm that this story is true, one can ask Br. Yusuf Ismail, Br. Yusuf Bux, Br. Paul of Blogging Theology or Br. Yahya of The Facts About Islam.
and Allah knows best,
Br. Ijaz.
Dear Readers/ Visitors,
As the website continues to grow in popularity, there exists a need for public funding. We are kindly asking that our readers contribute a small donation so that our da’wah can continue.
The debates I’ve had, continue to amass many views on YouTube and our Facebook/ E-mail correspondence continues to experience an influx of new messages on a daily basis. If you donate, your funds can help us ensure that the website remains operational for years to come. We’ll be able to purchase books for research purposes, video/ image editing software, domain name registration, subscriptions to Biblical Societies, administrative costs and much much more. Every dollar donated, can ensure that the articles we write, the debates we engage in and the pamphlets/ booklets we intend to produce can help us realise our da’wah goals.
If you do donate and would like to know how your money will be spent, send us an email after donating, either through our email address (callingchristians@gmail.com) or through our ‘Contact Us‘ page.
A donation button has been added to the right side bar of the website, any donation amount will be accepted. Donations will be used to fund many projects, other da’wah websites, rental costs for halls (for debates), equipment (audio – visual) etc.
May Allaah ta ‘aala allow us to donate for the cause of da’wah.
wa Allaahu ‘alam.
Calling Christians 
You must be logged in to post a comment.