Author Archives: Ijaz Ahmad

Under the Radar: Caucasian Male Tries to Blow Up Bridge in Ohio

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Well this is a little awkward. No mainstream media reported this…..no cries of terrorism. Nicely hidden away on the FBI’s website:

Cleveland Man Found Guilty of Trying to Use Explosives to Destroy a Bridge in Northeast Ohio
U.S. Attorney’s Office
June 14, 2013

Northern District of Ohio
(216) 622-3600
CLEVELAND—A Cleveland man was found guilty of trying to use explosives to destroy a bridge in Northeast Ohio, announced Steven M. Dettelbach, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, and Stephen D. Anthony, Special Agent in Charge of the Cleveland Division of the FBI.

Joshua Stafford, 24, was found guilty of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, and malicious use of an explosive device to destroy property used in interstate commerce following a three-day trial before U.S. District Judge David Dowd. Stafford is scheduled to be sentenced on September 11 at noon.

Stafford is the last of five men to be found guilty for their roles in a conspiracy to destroy the Route 82 Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge. Cars travel over the bridge, which crosses from Brecksville, Ohio to Sagamore Hills, Ohio over the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.

  • Douglas L. Wright, of Indianapolis, was sentenced to 11 ½ years in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release.
  • Brandon L. Baxter, of Lakewood, Ohio, was sentenced to nine years and nine months in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release.
  • Connor C. Stevens, of Berea, Ohio, was sentenced to eight years and one month in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release.
  • Anthony M. Hayne, 35, of Cleveland, was sentenced to six years in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release.

Those four men pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, and malicious use of an explosive device to destroy property used in interstate commerce.

The initial plot involved the use of smoke grenades to distract law enforcement in order for the co-conspirators to topple financial institution signs atop high rise buildings in downtown Cleveland, according to the complaint.

The plot later developed to the utilization of explosive materials. The defendants conspired to obtain C-4 explosives contained in two improvised explosive devices to be placed and remotely detonated, according to the complaint.

The defendants discussed various bridges and physical targets in and around the Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan area over the course of several months. The final plan resulted in the Route 82 Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge being the designated target.

Make of this what you will……
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Image of an Invisible God?

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I’ve been told by missionaries that Christ is the image of the unseen, invisible God. Rationally speaking, the image of an invisible God…..should be invisible, no? Is it perhaps wrong of me to assume that the image of something unseen is…..unseen? I think the problem stems from a misappropriated verse in Genesis 1:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” – Genesis 1:26.

We maintain that the first rule of exegesis is to interpret scripture with scripture. When we read this verse, we must ask a very important question, what is its context? The context of this chapter is to enlighten us as to God’s dominion over all creation – His power over the earth, the heavens and its inhabitants. In verse 26 He mentions creating mankind in His image. Any sane minded person upon reading this will eventually ask, what does ‘creating mankind in His image‘ mean? Well, the meaning is given in the very same verse, YHWH answers this by saying, ‘so that they may rule…‘. Therefore, according to the immediate context of the verse and the overarching plot of the chapter, in His likeness is referring to mimicking God’s authority to rule, to have dominion, albeit on two very different scales.

Most interestingly, the place of a God who has a viewable image is something actively argued against in the New Testament. We’ll now read from one of Paul’s epistles, written decades before the Johannine Gospel:

“20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.” – Romans 1:20-23.

Paul duly informs us that foolish men with blackened hearts, exchanged the glory of an immortal God for images that looked like mortal human beings. Does that sound familiar? Modern Christians believe Christ is the image, the incarnation of an unseen, immortal God. The irony is simply astounding. Let’s continue to read from the New Testament:

“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill.” – Acts 17:29.

Statues of Christ? Carvings of Christ made from wood? Paintings? These are all images of an alleged divine being, the unseen divine being, made by human design and skill. En toto, we see that the New Testament argues against the incarnation of God, we see that it is absurd and foolish (according to Paul), that we should accept men who claim an immortal unseen God looks like a mortal human being.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

On the Murder of the 14 Year Old Boy for Blasphemy in Syria by Rebel Fighters

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Shaykh Muhammad al Yaqoubi (damaat barakatahum), a leading Syrian scholar, diplomat and vocal opponent to Bashar, had this to say:

By H. Eminence Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi

A group of Muslim fighters in Aleppo executed yesterday a fourteen-year-old boy in after accusing him of blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad PBUH.

We denounce this inhuman unIslamic crime; and we demand that the murderers be captured and brought to justice. They are but a gang of criminals who use religion to cover their thirst for power.

What these criminals just committed is one of the most cruel crimes ever perpetrated by the name of Islam. They murdered an innocent life and executed a child who happened to be a good Muslim from a righteous family who observes Islam; and we confirm that what the child said is not balsphemy against the Prophet of Islam in any form.

In response to the crime, we have issued a detailed fatwa on the impossibility of the implementation of Islamic penalties in today’s Syria. We explained with valid proofs all the errors and fallacies in this crime which was wrongly done in the name of Islamic Shari’a.

On this painful occasion, we call upon all foreign fighters to leave Syria and go back to their homelands. We know our country better and we confirm that we do not need fighters and we thank everyone who sincerely want to help our people. Yet, we announce that what our people need most is food and medicine and what the Free Syrian Army needs most is ammunition.

Last but not least, we offer our sincere condolences to the family of the boy, praying that Allah grant them patience and forbearance and that their child precede them to the Heavens. We pray that Allah bestow His Infinite Mercy to the martyrs of our country and that He grant our people victory and relieve them from their agony.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Refutation: Idolatry and Islamic Worship

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Anthony Rogers, accompanied by a gang of roused propagandists, spent a significant amount of time attacking Islamic monotheism and those who defend it because they assume Muslims misunderstand their doctrine of their incarnate God. Ironically, in order to demonstrate how Muslims ‘misrepresent’ Christian theology, Anthony Rogers decided not to teach Muslims about his theology, but to instead misrepresent Islam. So great is his wisdom, that instead of trying to elucidate his doctrine, he went on a tirade of foul mouthed angry posts to the extent one could sense the foam, form around his mouth due to his rabid ranting. He says:

We’ve all heard Muslims say that worshipping Jesus as the Word made flesh is inherently and inescapably idolatrous, particularly since Jesus in His humanity has a form and could be seen, handled, touched, etc.

To correct Anthony, our issue cannot be summed into such a myopic and incredulous sentence, rather our issues are:

  1. Worshiping the creation.
  2. Believing God can change – even though He the First and the Last – absolute.
  3. Believing that God can gain, change and alter in form and essence.

Hereon, Anthony builds a quasi-childish argument. He quotes an ayah which states Muslims will be able to see God on the Day of Judgment. Then, due to his faulty inference reasoning, he claims that since we can see God on the Day of Judgement, then God will also be in a created form. From this, we can now understand that his argument is not to explain to the ‘misrepresenting’ Muslims, the doctrine of an incarnate God, but to ideally commit the tu quoque fallacy through argumentum reductio ad absurdum. What does this mean? Simply explained his response is, ‘you believe the same too‘, and ‘my response can be qualified by reducing your corpus of texts to a cherry picked and out of context hadith for which I myself do not understand‘.

He quotes a lot of hadith – a lot. Why? To demonstrate that Muslims believe that God will eventually assume a form, do the texts state this? Nope, they don’t. So where does he get this idea from? Probably from the sanitarium his closest friends and teachers escaped from.

To begin with, there are two ayat of the Qur’aan which form the absolute basics of Islamic theology from which we can then extend their context to, in relation to any other text , whether that be from the Qur’aan, or the Hadith corpus. This is the first rule of scriptural exegesis and theology – to interpret scripture…….with scripture! Isolating a few verses and removing them from the context of their theological foundation is nothing short of abject dishonest on the part of Mr. Rogers. We read:

  • there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things). – 42:11.
  • And there is none like unto Him. – 112:4.

Therefore, to say that God has a form or will be incarnate, is to misrepresent and misinterpret the hadith which are within the theological bounds of Islamic theology stemming from its own scripture, as are duly quoted above. What does it therefore mean, or what do the ahadith mean, when they claim we will be able to see God on the Day of Judgement? We read the following from Shaykh Faraz Rabbani who in response to this question, “Then how can we see Allah? Wouldn’t it entail affirming a direction, body, and form for Allah?“, he states the following:

No, it doesn’t–because the beholding of Allah Most High is “without resemblance [to the beholding of created things] and without encompassing,” as Imam Ibrahim Laqani mentions in his primer on Islamic beliefs, Jawharat al-Tawhid.

It is completely possible for Allah to create beholding in His servants, without there being physical directionality between them and Him.

This beholding is one of the greatest of spiritual favors. May Allah make us of those who are granted ultimate felicity, through true following of the Beloved Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).

From the Shaykh’s answer, we understand now that since God is all-powerful, and I assume Anthony believes his God is, then we can agree that God is able to allow us to behold Him, without having to take a shape and or form. We also know from the Qur’aan that God is veiled from us:

“It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah’s permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise.” – 42:51.

This veil according to two ahadith is light, as Shaykh Salih al Munajjid explains:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) on the night of the Mi’raaj (ascent into heaven) did not see his Lord. He was asked ‘Did you see your Lord?’ He said, “I saw Light.” According to another report: “Light – how could I see Him?” i.e., between me and Him there was a great veil of light. According to a hadeeth in al-Saheeh, it is narrated that Allaah is veiled in Light. That appears in the hadeeth in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “His veil is Light and if He were to remove it, the glory of His Countenance would burn everything of His creation, as far as His gaze reaches.” Because His sight reaches everything, and everything would be burned by this immense Light.

As for the argument we expect – if God does not take a form, as Anthony argues through his application of Christian theology upon Islamic scripture, how can we see God, or how are we to understand that we can ‘behold’ God? We read from  Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam’s, “al-Fatawa al-Mawsiliyya“, the following:

“Concerning the vision of Allah Most High in the hereafter, He shall be seen with the light which He created in the eyes in addition to the light of knowledge. For vision unveils what knowledge does not unveil, and if the exalted Lord wanted to create in the heart a light such as the one He created in the eyes so that it could look at Him by means of it, it would not be difficult for Him at all. Nay – if He wanted to create the light of the heart and that of the eyes in the hands and the feet and the nails it would not be difficult for Him at all!”

Given the evidences presented above, we can understand that a complete theology accepts that God is without form, unlike His creation, while being able to allow His creation to behold Him, without his having a need to take a form. We must remember, that a God who needs, such as the Christian God which Anthony believes in, cannot be an all-powerful being, for having a need, makes God dependent and God is dependent on nothing. In closing, we must remember that Anthony is not a scholar, nor is he a gentleman, we cannot expect him to uphold any form of academic objectivity, scholastic honesty or intellectual integrity. His arguments are as of those found on the stage, mere theatrics to amuse the easily bewildered, the simple minded and the intellectual stunted. I do not expect him to represent Islam accurately, nor do I expect him to amend his ways, for he is nothing more than an internet missionary and these traits are alien to him, his lifestyle and his theology.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Addendum:

Concerning the hadith in which it is stated (taken directly from Anthony’s post):

Then (Allah) the Lord of the worlds will come to them in a shape nearest to the picture they had in their minds about Him. It will be said, ‘What are you waiting for?’ Every nation have followed what they used to worship.’ They will reply, ‘We left the people in the world when we were in great need of them and we did not take them as friends. Now we are waiting for our Lord Whom we used to worship.’ Allah will say, ‘I am your Lord.’ They will say twice or thrice, ‘We do not worship any besides Allah.’ ” (Bukhari,6.60.105)

Again, in isolating any text is tantamount to clear cut dishonesty, we read other ahadith which qualify the meaning of the above one:

Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah said, ‘I am to my slave as he thinks of Me, (i.e. I am able to do for him what he thinks I can do for him). – Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 596.

The Prophet said, “Allah says: ‘I am just as My slave thinks I am, (i.e. I am able to do for him what he thinks I can do for him) and I am with him if He remembers Me. If he remembers Me in himself, I too, remember him in Myself; and if he remembers Me in a group of people, I remember him in a group that is better than they; and if he comes one span nearer to Me, I go one cubit nearer to him; and if he comes one cubit nearer to Me, I go a distance of two outstretched arms nearer to him; and if he comes to Me walking, I go to him running.’ ” – Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 502.

According to this, Allaah will be seen (as I explained above, by Allaah allowing us to behold Him – without form) by the creation, in varying degrees, dependent on their position with Him, i.e. their piety, worship, etc. Some will be able to behold His majesty, while others may not be able to behold Him to such a degree as those who were pious and righteous. – wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Explaining Ezekiel 18:21

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I’ve often seen Christian missionaries who in trying to defend Paul’s doctrine of salvation in Christianity, use the following verse:

“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die.” – Ezekiel 18:21.

What they mean to say by quoting this verse is the following:

  1. No one person can fulfill all the laws of God – it’s impossible. This however is a logical dilemma, why would God command us to do the impossible? It’s also quite possible, as Paul himself did claim to obey all the laws, and so were Zechariah and Elizabeth.
  2. We all die because we sin.

What does it mean by they will not ‘die’? Clearly, this is the main point of their argument. In Christ you will not die, for you will attain eternal righteousness by his grace. To the contrary, the verse isn’t stating that one would actually die due to their sins, rather the verse’s meaning of ‘dying’, is explained not more than 10 verses after:

Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? – Ezekiel 18:31.

It’s a spiritual death that Ezekiel is referring to here. It does not mean that God has a new plan of salvation in mind, nor does it mean that humans cannot follow God’s law or that God will not forgive us for sinning. Clearly, isolating the verse has its benefits for many missionaries, but while they ignore its immediate context, we will always seek to highlight it as much as is possible.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Oral Transmissions are Worthless and Wholly Inaccurate

Posted on by 2 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I recently came across a Christian missionary who hides behind the moniker of ‘Radical Moderate‘. One of his arguments concerning the transmission of scripture before transcription was commonplace, is that Oral transmissions are worthless and wholly inaccurate. I beg to disagree based on my studies. For people who make such a statement, we must ask them, before textual transmission existed, did civilizations exist? For large groups of humans, or even small groups of humans to live together and understand one another – they had to communicate.

cc-2013-oraltransmission

Civilizations contain thousands if not hundreds of thousands of persons over several thousand, hundred or decades of years. Their structure, religions, politics, arts, government relied on communication. Seeing as a majority of all peoples were illiterate, their primary form of communication was aurally and orally. Let’s take into consideration the argument that oral transmissions are inaccurate.   For civilizations to maintain their order, they had to have consistent and constant communication between all arms and segments of society. A breakdown in communication would cause a disruption of harmony and bring the civilization into chaos. Since we know civilizations last decades, centuries etc, then in lieu of proof by contradiction, the method of communication solely through oral transmission is proven to be accurate and worthy.

It is highly improbable that human communities could have existed since time immemorial, without conveying knowledge from one generation to another without a reliable form of transmitting information. For example, what foods to eat or not, since peoples were mostly nomadic, this is important. More examples would be the recipes for medicinal cures, stories of the ancients and even methods of food preparation. They very fact that knowledge, was transmitted without need for books or text, for centuries, if not thousands of years before writing became commonplace, then it is clear that oral transmission is a very accurate form of transmitting data. To disprove this, then one would simply have to claim that no information was ever accurately conveyed throughout generations of human civilization – which is impossible, ergo proof by contradiction substantiates my argument.

Sadly, for those who are unlearned and choose to persist in their ignorance, they commit to anachronistic reasoning and claim that oral transmissions are wholly unreliable. Perhaps, in our times this is the case, we are a world that has been exposed to textual transmission as a cultural norm for centuries, whereas for the majority of human existence this was not the case. Clearly, the minority of human civilization, does not negate the majority. We read from Catherine Hezser the following:

“In the three synoptic Gospels all communication between Jesus and his disciples, sympathizers, and local Jewish communities is conducted orally. In order to spread his message and reach a larger number of people, Jesus and his disciples are therefore said to have constantly traveled, especially within Galilee, but also between Galilee and Judaea, at least at the beginning and end of his career.”

“In antiquity, when no telephones, postal services, and internet connections existed, the  transfer of information and knowledge depended on direct or indirect contacts and personal mediation. If one wanted to ask someone’s advice or tell him or her something, one would either  have to go and visit that person oneself or send an oral or written message through an intermediary.”

“Nevertheless, it becomes clear that written communication was considered more official and forceful than oral messages but at the same time prone to falsification and misuse. Oral messages, on the other hand, were used in more urgent and confidential circumstances. They may also have been considered more honest and reliable, if one could trust the bearer or force him to reveal the sender’s true intentions.”

“It therefore seems that only Luke, who lived and wrote in a Hellenistic (and probably upper-class) context, would automatically assume that Jesus and other important early Christian figures could read and that he was literate. In Mark and Matthew, on the other hand, the emphasis is very much on Jesus’ oral teaching, whereas reading and writing are never mentioned.”

– Oral and Written Communication and Transmission of Knowledge in Ancient Judaism and Christianity, by Catherine Hezser.

From this, we must understand that if an Evangelical inerrantist holds that the eyewitnesses were the authors of the NT gospels, and we know that they wrote them or transcribed them after the Pauline epistles were written, post 65 CE, then they had to recall every single statement Jesus transmitted for more than 32 years in great detail before transcription. Therefore our missionary friend, implicitly accepts that oral transmission is an accurate form of preservation of information. As for whether or not, oral communication is the worse form of the preservation of data, we read the following from Irving Fang’s, “A History of Mass Communication”:

“The gathering of knowledge in a way that might be characterized as an information revolution had its faint beginnings in the Hellenic world during the eighth century B.C., when the Phoenician alphabet took root in Aegean soil. It was the period after the Greek emergence out of the Dark Ages.

Because of the alphabetic script and the availability of papyrus, the Iliad and the Odyssey, the epic poems of Homer, recalled and repeated orally for the previous four centuries by storytellers, were at last written down.”

Finally, we read that due to oral transmission, for over 4 centuries, great Graeco works were preserved! In light of all this evidence, it is nothing short of absurdity to claim that oral transmission is unreliable.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Angel of the Lord as God?

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

We’ve read from a few missionaries that Christ Jesus is also the Angel of the Lord. There’s a major problem with such a concept though and we begin our response to such a notion by quoting Matthew 1:

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream…..
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. – Matthew 1:20, 24.

The question begs itself, if Jesus is the angel of the Lord, then who appeared to Joseph? Adam Clarke comments:

The angel of the Lord mentioned here was probably the angel Gabriel, who, six months before, bad been sent to Zacharias and Elisabeth, to announce the birth of Christ‘s forerunner, John the Baptist. See Luke 1:36.

Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible states:

An angel of the Lord This is perhaps the same angel whose name is given in Luke 1:19,26; if so, he is Gabriel. The existence of angels affords no difficulty for Christians. The Scriptures abound with the deeds of angels. Angels announced the birth of Christ, ministered to Jesus in the wilderness of temptations, strengthened him in the garden of Gethsemane, and escorted him to glory.

So who is the angel of the Lord? Gabriel! According to who? The New Testament’s Gospel according to Luke! So unless Gabriel is Jesus, then the angel of the Lord, quite clearly cannot be Jesus:

The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. – Luke 1:19.

The Angel of the Lord is therefore the Angel Gabriel. For one to claim otherwise, then missionaries such as Anthony Rogers and David Wood would have to prove that Jesus is Gabriel, which isn’t difficult since he’s already half man, half God, Melchezidek, YHWH and a few other people.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Jesus and YHWH Argue Against the Crucifixion

Posted on by 6 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Introduction

As is customary on this website, we do not appeal to the Qur’aan when investigating the Christian scripture. Rather, we look at the Bible and examine what it says, then we study a Christian scholarly exegesis, whereon we form our opinions and arguments. Does Jesus and YHWH argue against the crucifixion? Surprisingly to most Christians, they do! The very notion of God killing himself/ His own son because His laws which He commanded His creation follow were not able to lead man to salvation is very unmerciful, quite wrathful and vengeful. There are those amongst us who would say that such an interpretation is crude and rough around the edges, but if we are to be object, is a God who requires death for salvation more merciful than a God who does not? The answer is clear to those with understanding and sincerity.

The Old Testament

The sacrificial cultus of the Old and New Testaments, often find difficulty in harmonizing YHWH’s disdain, dislike and eventual hate for sacrifices:

“The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?” says the Lord. “I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

12 When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts?

13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations— I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.

14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals I hate with all my being. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.

15 When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood! – Isaiah 1:11-15.

He continues by saying:

“Yet you have not called on me, Jacob, you have not wearied yourselves for[a] me, Israel.

23 You have not brought me sheep for burnt offerings, nor honored me with your sacrifices. I have not burdened you with grain offerings nor wearied you with demands for incense.

24 You have not bought any fragrant calamus for me, or lavished on me the fat of your sacrifices. But you have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your offenses. – Isaiah 43:22-24.

YHWH, He’s tired of sacrifices, He sees them as are burdens, in the end its just bloodied hands. God is no longer honored with sacrifices, these offerings of sacrifice are meaningless, He has no pleasure in the blood of the sacrificial beings. A sacrifice will not benefit the followers of YHWH any longer, so why then do Christians emphasize the ‘sacrifice of Christ’, if YHWH Himself now detests such acts?

The New Testament

Jesus ratifies this message of anti-sacrifices by preaching a profound message found in the Old Testament:

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. – Hosea 6:6.

He says twice:

But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” – Matthew 9:13.

If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. – Matthew 12:7.

Conclusion

From this, we understand that both Jesus the Christ and YHWH both agree with Islamic soteriology, that a specific sacrifice does not absolve the sins of all mankind, for God desires mercy (Rahma) and not sacrifice! Those who claim to love the Christ, must understand his words, in the sense that salvation is not earned by the death and unmerciful torture of one man, but by God’s mercy, not sacrifice!

On Hosea 6:6, we read from Adam Clarke’s Exegesis:

” I taught them righteousness by my prophets; for I desired mercy. I was more willing to save than to destroy; and would rather see them full of penitent and holy resolutions, than behold them offering the best and most numerous victims upon my altar.”

YHWH does not want more bloodshed and victims upon His altar, He is more willing to save than to destroy an innocent man’s life (Christ). This is the truth, as is mentioned by YHWH Himself, Christ and the Islamic faith.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Muslims Pray for Sam Shamoun’s Ill Daughter

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Muslims constantly face attack, insult and threats from Sam Shamoun (pictured below).

sam shamoun

Yet, despite his vicious and disparaging behaviour towards Muslims, we show no ill will towards him in his time of need. Very recently Sam indicated that his daughter was sick, immediately upon seeing this, a request for prayers for his daughter was made and Muslims (who Sam abuses and hates) responded beautifully:

cc-2013-prayerforsamsdaughter

 

cc-2013-prayerforsamsdaughter1

 

Over 1000+ persons were privy to seeing our prayer request for Sam’s daughter. I even emailed Sam and wished well for his daughter, he has up to this point not responded. As the Qur’aan commands us:

“And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth easily, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace” – Qur’aan 25:63.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »