Search
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Following James White’s poor display of academia, Br. Muslim By Choice has uploaded this video:
Please like and share his video, insha Allaah (God willing).
wa Allaahu Alam,
God knows best.
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Once again, I’ve rattled the hornet’s nest of Evangelical extremism. This isn’t something I’m unfamiliar with, but this week’s Dividing Line program had me in stitches, allow me to explain why. James White found my article located here, to be ‘condescending‘, ‘insulting‘ and alluded to my writing as being ‘extremist‘. The problem therein is that James White has no problem with the language, the insults, the wild accusations that his friends over at Answering Islam or ABN Tv use (see here and here). In fact, it’s quite well known that James is a friend and ally, even a student and sometimes a teacher of one, a Mr. Sam Shamoun. Those who are familiar with Sam know that he is far removed from any level of dignity. Therefore, it is in that light that I am calling James White out on his hypocrisy. If he does not condemn Sam for the language he and his co-missionaries use, on what grounds of intellectual responsibility does he stand? Nay, on what grounds as a Christian (as he claims himself to be), can he be silent on the acts of his own brothers in faith, but attack Muslims when they use the same form of argumentation? It should also be noted, that I found James to be fond of using the term, ‘double standard’, yet in his rant, he was often more than inconsistent, falling prey to his own double standards.
I’d like to make it clear, that my article was simple:
This is all my article did. Based on that, James did not answer my question, in fact he demonstrated his inability to properly respond to basic theological analysis. The premise was simple, if YHWH is God, does He do something only God can declare? This is exactly what YHWH did, He declared himself to be God in no uncertain terms. The same cannot be said of Jesus, although James did try by referencing Titus 2:13 which reads:
“while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,”
Which isn’t what I asked for. I asked, where did Jesus declared Himself to be God, as YHWH did in the Old Testament. No one says YHWH is God because Abraham, David or Moses call Him God. We know YHWH is the God of the Old Testament because He says so Himself, because He identifies Himself as God almighty. The same cannot be said of Jesus, because at no point does He ever mimic the behaviour of YHWH as a proud God. For hundreds of years, nay, thousands of years, YHWH continuously declared Himself to be Hashem Adonai, Elohiym, etc. Yet the point remains, that despite thousands of years of doing so, he was unable in the person of Jesus to do so once. If they were the same God, why does Jesus not have the same proud, boastful, magnificent, powerful declarations of YHWH? You can find a more expansive study of that argument, with relevant verses here.
Now James did try to counter my questions by referring to quite pathetic straw men. Today, I’m going to analyse some of his straw men and ask him why it is that he could not present a counter question, relevant to mines. You can find his rabid diatribe here, his rant against my article begins at the 48th minute mark.
Argument 1:
I don’t see what Chapters (Surahs) have to do with fundamental alterations to God’s persona. I did not question James on what Matthew says, as compared to that of Luke, I asked James why YHWH had one persona for thousands of years, and suddenly in the space of 33, could not continue this persona. This has nothing to do with chapters, verses, books, scripture, it’s a question about His deity. Therefore not only is this question irrelevant, it’s a poor attempt at diverting from the issue at hand. Perhaps it was an emotional argument, but nonetheless, it can only give nothing but credence to his weak scholarship.
Argument 2:
I’m not sure if James White was at any point intoxicated during this radio program, or if he intentionally was being deceptive. The very first verse to be revealed (see Ahmed Von Deffer’s, “Ulum al Qur’an” for the Chronology of the verses revealed), refers to Allaah as being Lord (singular, i.e. Tawheed):
Read! In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists), – Qur’an 96:1.
Not only is Allaah defined as Lord (Rabb), He is also defined as the Creator, and that’s in the very first verse. It gets worse, the second set of verses to be revealed enforce this message once more:
Glorify your Lord – Qur’an 74:3
And persevere in the way of your Lord. – Qur’an 74:7.
Tawheed refers to the oneness of our Lord (Rabb) and I am pretty sure that any functionally literate human sees the singular word, ‘Lord’ and not ‘Lords’. If referring to God as a ‘Lord’, that is: singular, does not emphasize the oneness of God, then James is sacrificing his intellectual integrity for an argument a child would be able to refute. To rub some salt into his intellectual wounds, the next two Surahs which were revealed speak specifically about Tawheed (some say Surah 73 came second and then Surah 74, quoted above):
Lord of the East and Lord of the West – there is no God except Him, therefore make Him your sole Trustee of affairs. – Qur’an 73:9.
Tawheed is pretty clear, protruding, extant, explicit, in the verse above, even if that does not satisfy him, the very next (forth) revealed Surah mentions it in even more detail:
In the name of Allah, most benevolent, ever-merciful. ALL PRAISE BE to Allah, Lord of all the worlds, Most beneficent, ever-merciful, King of the Day of Judgement. You alone we worship, and to You alone turn for help. Guide us (O Lord) to the path that is straight, The path of those You have blessed, Not of those who have earned Your anger, nor those who have gone astray. – Qur’an 1:1-7.
Here’s a bit of advice James, if you have to lie, atleast make a smart lie, something with some level of ambiguity, something that I may not have knowledge about, but out of all things, do not lie about the Qur’an or early Islam. We have endless access to vast amounts of information that make it almost impossible for you to qualify your deceitful statements.
Argument 3:
This is another poorly constructed straw man. My argument was not nor has it ever been differing contents from one chapter to a next, my argument has and will always be, why the change in persona from a boastful, prideful God, to a mute that would not dare declare his deity, as opposed to thousands of years of magnificent declarations?
Argument 4:
The problem arises once more, these are not the proud, bold, extant, explicit statements of YHWH, Jesus does not make these statements, nor does he interpret such statements to be about him. The epistles which do so, and the gospels which are written about him, are not the same as his interpretations, or his points of view. Taking post hoc eisegesis by unknown scribes as evidence of a man’s deity is not only lazy scholarship but grasping for straws at the least. It is also quite abhorrent to identify the original followers of Jesus as being those from whom Tanach prophecies were applied, as we have no proper definition of who a ‘real’ Christians was until 325 AD when a vote decided that. It’s merely wishful thinking to assume that a decision of who a real Christian was, some 290 years after the man’s ministry, somehow transforms him into a God.
Argument 5:
After roughly 10 minutes of ranting, James finally asks an intelligent question. He wants to know what my argument is. See, this makes sense, all the previous questions he has asked are unintelligible and not related to what I asked in my article. I applaud James for conceding that he has faulty argumentation and for not knowing what my argument actually was. My argument is not that Jesus should have just popped into existence, my argument is why does he never say he is God, like YHWH does in the 12 verses I gave (not to mention the vast amounts of others I am willing to provide)?
Argument 6:
Again James, your inability to answer my question and to divert by promoting a straw man, leads me to further understand why Paul Williams refuses to share a stage with you. Such a low level of academia should not be entertained. I will quote myself:
I asked for where Jesus declared Himself to be God, as YHWH did in the Old Testament. No one says YHWH is God because Abraham, David or Moses call Him God. We know YHWH is the God of the Old Testament because He says so Himself, because He identifies Himself as God almighty. The same cannot be said of Jesus, because at no point does He ever mimic the behaviour of YHWH as a proud God. For hundreds of years, nay, thousands of years, YHWH continuously declared Himself to be Hashem Adonai, Elohiym, etc. Yet the point remains, that despite thousands of years of doing so, he was unable in the person of Jesus to do so once. If they were the same God, why does Jesus not have the same proud, boastful, magnificent, powerful declarations of YHWH?
What is worse is that James mentions that God may have wanted to ‘veil‘ His glory. Veil here means to ‘cover‘, so God who is Eternally Majestic, would like to ‘hide’ His majesty? Logically speaking, to be Eternal is a constant, i.e. never ending and to ‘hide’ is to alter this constancy and thus be rendered as non-eternal. Therefore James provides another reason why YHWH is not Jesus, YHWH declares Himself to be eternal:
Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the LORD, the Eternal God. – Genesis 21:33.
While Jesus is not eternal in His attributes, but veiled and hidden, atleast according to James White.
Argument 7:
So James at one point, hit a note of desperation and decided to throw an emotional argument into the mix. Yet the Bible refutes James once more, it says:
Who among the gods is like you, LORD? Who is like you— majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders? – Exodus 15:11.
YHWH is defined as an eternal God, eternally Majestic, Eternal in Glory, yet James’ version of YHWH is timid and veiled, not overpowering, which is different from the powerful and magnificent YHWH:
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. – Deuteronomy 10:17.
Argument 8:
I’m not sure what YHWH being God and Jesus not declaring himself as such, has to do with miracles of the Prophets. Doing miracles does not make one a Prophet, even the Bible attests to this:
They are demonic spirits that perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty. – Revelation 16:14.
Similarly, your argument that the ahadith came later on, is not only ignorant of the early transmission of the Sunnah, but ignorant of the fact that the argument backfires against you. Another one of your ‘double standards‘, recall that the stories of Jesus’ life were produced decades after his ‘worldly ministry’, since you lay claim to the notion that time affects validity, then your claim to miracles being a criteria can be equally as dismissed through dated record by scribes about your New Testament.
Argument 9:
Marcion was a Christian, the formal declaration of a Christian which you now hold to was only decided at the Council of Nicea. The same Catholic Church which you refer to as apostate and following the devil, is the same Church’s definition you use to define who a true Christian was, before 325 AD. The same Catholic patristics you demonise are the ones who opposed Marcion. Yet Marcion had vast amounts of followers and was the first man to codify as scripture, the New Testament you use today. Clearly if you want to talk about double standards, you must question yourself first.
In closing the question that sparked this article and a radio show, remains unanswered. Why is it that the YHWH of the Tanach is able for thousands of years to declare Himself as an Eternal, Majestic, Mighty, Powerful, Jealous, Vengeful God, with explicit, extant and clear statements, but Jesus, in 33 years, is unable to do so, not even once? James did indicate he may continue his ‘response’ to me on Thursday, if that is the case, is he planning to actually answer the crux of the argument then, or would I have to seep through his straw men to find it?
wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
It’s been a fantastic full 8 months of operation. This month of August is special to the Calling Christians team. For the month of August we celebrate two new records!
We remain committed to defending Islam, answering the lies of the missionaries, guiding misguided Muslims back to Islam and bringing Christians and Jews to Islam. Our mission and our success has only been made possible through the will of Allaah ta ‘ala and He alone deserves our praise and worship. May Allaah ta ‘ala continue to bless our da’wah, make it a source of guidance for many and allow us to preach the haqq of Islam, ameen.
wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
David Wood has gone off into desperation again. Recently he’s been promoting the view that all Muslims should protest and speak out against violent acts done by fellow Muslims, regardless of whether the act was done because the person was motivated by Islam or not. Which is a bit odd, since David Wood himself, remained silent when Muslims were being attacked:
Therefore I must question David’s lowly integrity. On what basis does he demand all Muslims be blamed for the acts of others, when he himself, is silent when Muslims are violently attacked in his own nation? David must remove his blinders and lay low on the alcohol or the communion wine, because as it is, the double standards he uses are growing quite pathetic, which says alot about his personal integrity. What’s worse, is that I personally believe that David has a literacy problem, in a recent post on his blog, he says:
Can’t CAIR, ISNA, and their Muslim and non-Muslim supporters spare a few minutes of their endless complaint-time to inform Muslims in Pakistan (and Egypt, and Iraq, and Sudan, etc.) that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?
Well David, the problem is that either you can’t read, or willing choose to insult the intelligence of your viewership. A simple search brings up a CAIR news release on the same issue:
Even ISNA, has released a press statement on this issue:
ISNA Calls for Release of Christian Girl in Pakistan
(Washington, DC – August 24, 2012) The Islamic Society of North America condemns the arrest of Ramsha Masih, a young Christian girl who was accused of burning pages from a book that included verses from the Qur’an. It is believed that the girl suffers from Down syndrome.
According to Islamic law, a person who is both a minor and has an intellectual disability cannot be held accountable for his/her actions. “I ask the Pakistani Muslim community to act with compassion and restraint,” said ISNA President Imam Mohamed Magid. “We call on the government of Pakistan to immediately release Ramsha to her family and ensure their safety.”
ISNA remains deeply concerned about the treatment of religious minorities in Muslim-majority communities and has been engaged in work to address this issue for the past several years. In 2011, following the assassination of Minister of Minorities Shahbaz Bhatti and Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer, ISNA called on the Pakistani government to take every measure necessary to secure the rights of religious minorities in Pakistan, as well as their safety and those of their places of worship. Within the past year, we have continued to work on these issues by consulting with Muslim scholars from around the world to create a mechanism for Islamic standards and protocols on the rights of religious minorities in the Muslim-majority communities.
From: ISNA e-Newsletter <bounce@isna.com>Date: August 25, 2012 1:31:04 AM GMT+01:00
To: alam.faisal@gmail.com
Subject: ISNA Calls for Release of Christian Girl in Pakistan
Reply-To: bounce@isna.com
Therefore, I renew my calls for David Wood to apply the same standards he applies to Muslims and if he dares, we hope he attempts to atleast research something before publishing ignorant comments.
wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Non compos mentis, a most suitable phrase to describe the behaviour of the Judeo Christian God. What truly behoves me has to be the complete change of character from the Old Testament God to that of the New Testament God. Therefore, in my judgement, I have no choice but to deem this God, “out of his mind“. Before I begin to explain my argument, we must first examine the evidences my rationale is based upon, therefore let’s examine some verses from the Bible:
The common and most frequently repeated statement in the aforementioned verses, clearly indicates that in the Old Testament, YHWH is God. There are no two ways about it, no one can interpret these verses to be understood that YHWH is not God. You open up the Old Testament and from Genesis to Zechariah, you will find, littered throughout the scripture, declarations by YHWH, that He is God, the Eternal, Everlasting Lord. These statements are frequent, explicit, extant, overtly repeated, bold, valiantly declared, boasted, rash and crystal clear. There is no way one can miss these declarations. No one has to find the need to imply that He is God, no one has to interpret an ambiguous verse, no one has to do anything to prove that YHWH is the God of the Old Testament, because as it is, He says so Himself.
Which brings me to my point. What happened to YHWH? According to the Christian version of events, He came to earth and got tired of declaring Himself to be God. There is not a single unequivocal statement in the New Testament where Jesus ever declared Himself God, as YHWH did (in the many verses above). Isn’t that strange? If Jesus the Christ, is the YHWH of the Tanach, shouldn’t He emulate the bold and rash declarative statements of the Judaic God? Yet, in spite of this jealous and glorious God, whose persona is magnificent, unashamed to announce His power, His position, we are left with nothing more than ambiguous, interpolated excuses, more or less, ‘chicken scratch‘, when it comes to the persona of Jesus as a God. Timid, perhaps shy, not even his own mother could have understood that Jesus was trying to indicate his Godly stature:
“Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” But they did not understand what he was saying to them. – Luke 2:49-50.
Such an amazing change, the Christian God went from boasting about His stature, to being relegated as incomprehensible by his own “mother“. Can you imagine giving birth to a God and for the entire childhood of the child, not recognizing the child as a God? So timid is Jesus, the alleged God, that even when his own mother whom he created does not realise he is God, he does nothing. Yet when a few men looked upon the Ark of the Lord, i.e. they disrespected him by looking at a sacred object, He killed 50,000 persons in retribution:
And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter. – 1 Samuel 6:19.
Yet, his own mother, his own creation, is denying his deity, she does not comprehend him to be a God, the worse kind of sin, disbelief in God is being committed and so shackled, so weak, so pathetic, so fragile is this “God”, that he does nothing. Where is the mighty God? The proud Lord of the Heavens and the Earth? Nowhere to be found. I have no choice but to declare this God to be MIA (missing in action), hence my statement that the Christian God has to be seen as ‘non compos mentis‘, that is to be, ‘out of his mind‘. The YHWH we’re accustomed to is missing. When we read the New Testament, we don’t have a clear, extant, explicit statement by Jesus declaring his deity, as opposed to that of the Old Testament. Perhaps the Christian God suffers from selective mutism, social anxiety, or some other personality disorder. Whatever the case maybe, us Muslims are not alone in noticing this. So striking and clear is the view that these two Gods as represented in the Old and New Testaments are distinct, that even early Christians themselves declared YHWH and Jesus to be two different Gods. This group was called the Marcionites, named after Marcion, whose beliefs are as such:
Marcion’s teachings departed from traditional Christianity in a number of ways. Most dramatically, perhaps, Marcion rejected the idea that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God were the same being. Up until then, the traditional Church had considered the Old Testament to be sacred and assumed that Christianity was a fulfillment or continuation of Judaism. Marcion’s rejection of that idea affected many different doctrines and beliefs. – A Survey of Marcion’s Life and Legacy, by Chris Price.
In ending, I ask one pivotal question, would the real YHWH please stand up, is it the proud God of the Tanach or the selective mute of the New Testament?
wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.
Update: See my response to James White’s attack on this article.
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Note: The following quote is not from my own writing, nor my own translation, the source and link is clearly cited below for all to enjoy reading.
One of early Christendom’s most significant and prominent leaders, (what we term a Patristic) was Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus) who was one of the very first Christian apologists, writing against many people, most notably, “Against Marcion” (Adversus Marcionem) who awkwardly enough was the first man to canonize the Christian Bible and “Against the Jews” (Adversus Judaeos ) who even more strangely enough followed the religion of their God (as they say Jesus was a Jew). What is apparent is that these statements are supposed to be in support of Christianity, being such a major apologetic in his day, it is quite shocking to read some of his statements about the veracity of the Christian faith. As such, please do research more on this issue and enjoy reading:
There are, to be sure, other things also quite as foolish (as the birth of Christ), which have reference to the humiliations and sufferings of God. Or else, let them call a crucified God “wisdom.” But Marcion will apply the knife’ to this doctrine also,, and even with greater reason. For which Is more unworthy of God, which is more likely to raise a blush of shame, that God should be born, or that He should die? that He should bear the flesh, or the cross? be circumcised, or be crucified? be cradled, or be coffined? be laid in a manger, or in a tomb? Talk of “wisdom!” You will show more of fiat if you refuse to believe this also. But, after all, you will not be “wise” unless you become a “fool” to the world, by believing” the foolish things of God.”Have you, then, cut away all sufferings from Christ, on the ground that, as a mere phantom, He was incapable of experiencing them? We have said above that He might possibly have undergone the unreal mockeries of an imaginary birth and infancy.But answer me at once, you that murder truth: Was not God really crucified? And, having been really crucified, did He not really die? And, having indeed really died, did He not really rise again? Falsely did Paul “determine to know nothing amongst us but Jesus and Him crucified;” falsely has he impressed upon us that He was buried; falsely inculcated that He rose again. False, therefore, is our faith also. And all that we hope for from Christ will be a phantom.O thou most infamous of men, who acquittest of all guilt the murderers of God! For nothing did Christ suffer from them, if He really suffered nothing at all. Spare the whole world’s one only hope, thou who art destroying the indispensable dishonour of our faith? Whatsoever is unworthy of God, is of gain to me. I am safe, if I am not ashamed–my Lord.“Whosoever,” says He, “shall be ashamed of me, of him will I also be ashamed.” Other matters for shame find I r none which can prove me to be shameless t in a good sense, and foolish in a happy one, by my own contempt of shame. The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible.But how will all this be true in Him, if He was not Himself true–if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again?I mean this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, a flesh which knew how to be born, and how to die, human without doubt, as born of a human being. It will therefore be mortal in Christ, because Christ is man and the Son of man. Else why is Christ man and the Son of man, if he has nothing of man, and nothing from man? Unless it be either that man is anything else than flesh, or man’s flesh comes from any other source than man, or Mary is anything else than a human being, or Marcion’s man is as Marcion’s god. Otherwise Christ could not be described as being man without flesh, nor the Son of man without any human parent; just as He is not God without the Spirit of God, nor the Son of God without having God for His father. Thus the nature of the two substances displayed Him as man and God,–in one respect born, in the other unborn; l in one respect fleshly in the other spiritual; in one sense weak in the other exceeding strong; in on sense dying, in the other living.
This excerpt has been taking from, “De carne Christi (On the flesh of Christ), Chapter 5, – Christ Truly Lived and Died in human flesh. Incidents of human life on earth, and refutation of Marcion’s docetic parody of the same.”
Link to online resource of said book: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co…tullian15.html
From this we can deduce that Paul was a liar and a man which altered the true doctrine of Christ, as Tertullian clearly indicates. Following from this, we can also conclude that the greatest proof of Christianity’s theological foundations, is that the religion is so morbidly absurd tha it just has to be true. Recall the famous saying, “that idea is so stupid it just might work“, same reasoning applies here. That’s truly some great logic!
Qur’aan Surah 4, Ayah 156-159:
“That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): ‘We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.’ But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (Jesus) Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them.”
wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.
Originally Published: December 2nd, 2011, 14:11 PM.
Edited and Republished: August 19th, 2012, 10:10 AM.
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Question:
According to Hebrews 1:8-9 Jesus as God has a God over him. Some Christians claim that Hebrews 1:8-9 is referring to Jesus’ humanity, that as a man he has a God over him. The only problem with this position is that it would imply that Jesus as a man is being called God, which means that his humanity is being deified. How do Christians get around all these problems?*
Answer:
Sam Shamoun begins to answer this verse by firstly quoting the portion of verses that the person references:
“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’? Or again, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son’? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’ Of the angels he says, ‘He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.’ But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.’ And, ‘You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. Bt you are the same, and your years will have no end.’ And to which of the angels has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’? Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? Hebrews 1:1-14*
This Epistle’s rendition by an unknown author/ traditionally referred to as the Apostle Paul, was taken from the ESV [English Standard Version] version of the Bible. All of Sam’s emphasis (bold, italics) have been left in place. To begin with, there are two renditions of the verses 8 and 9 and both are problematic for the Christian faith. One must understand that Sam has chosen this specific translation to present a certain theological view point, that is, Paul’s trinitarian doctrine, but as the questioner rightly asks, if we do abide by Paul’s theological absurdity, we still arrive at a doctrinal issue. How can God (who Sam refers to as Christ), have a God? The specific verses in question states (from Sam’s version):
But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.’ – Hebrews 1:8-9*.
We will return to Hebrews 1:8-9 momentarily, for now let’s seek to understand how Sam’s reasoning from these points he stated, make much if any sense, Sam states* due to Hebrews 1 we can conclude:
- Before his Incarnation as the Agent of Creation.
- During his Incarnation when he became the Redeemer.
- After his resurrection and exaltation into glory where he then began ruling on the Divine throne forever.
Agent of Creation.
Paul (alleged author*) opens this epistle with alluding to Christ as a God who has been foretold by the Prophets of old. Unfortunately, there is no reference given by Paul to any mention of a Christ who is also the Creator in the Old Testament. He does reference the Father as the creator later down in other verses, but the only actual evidences to indicate that Jesus (by name or mention) actually partook in the creation of the universe is not based on any explicit Old Testament statements. Hence why neither Sam or his Paul sought to defend but only parrot this particular sentiment.
Christ becomes the Redeemer.
God in the Old Testament in Psalms 103:3*, is described as one who forgives all sins, in Psalms 19:14 that same God is also referred to as a Redeemer, in Isaiah 41:14* the same title of the Redeemer is afforded to God and not to Christ Jesus. Therefore when Sam says Jesus became the redeemer, this presents a fundamental theological issue. If God is eternal, and Sam’s God becomes the Redeemer, as opposed to the God of the Old Testament who was always the Redeemer, then we must conclude that Sam’s God (Jesus) is not the same God of the Old Testament. For if they were the same God, then Jesus would have always had to be the Redeemer, a title eternally his, however as Sam has aptly demonstrated this is not the case and Christ unlike the God of the Old Testament, eventually accepted this title.
Christ becomes a Divine Ruler.
In Exodus 17:16*, the God of the Old Testament is described as having a throne and has deemed destruction for a people who rose against it. This is referring to the kingdom of Israel, which is also called God’s kingdom, where God’s throne (God’s promised throne to David) resides. It does not actually refer to YHWH’s throne. This can be understood with the following: God’s daughters. God does not actually have daughters but this title is to refers to a note of distinction among the believing peoples. Similarly, God’s house does not mean that God shacks up under a roof. This form of scriptural hyper-literalism can only be considered indecent and grossly inappropriate for any educated person to do. An uneducated person however is much more susceptible to eisgesis such as the aforementioned. We know that God has a heavenly throne already, as David and others mention this, one example is of that in Psalm 11:4*, similarly in Psalm 103:19. Fast forward to the 21st century and Sam Shamoun is saying that Christ after his resurrection only then took upon the throne. This again, gives credence to the belief that the God of the Old Testament (who is already established upon His throne) is different to the God who is Jesus who only accepted the glory of the throne after his (so-called) resurrection.
Thus, as it can be seen, Sam’s ‘explanation‘ or ‘response‘ to this question, still has not definitively answered it, in fact what he has done is divert from the question, all the while providing evidences for why Christ is not and cannot be considered a God. He tries to alleviate his intellectually inadequacies and theological doctrinal self suicide by then trying (keyword: trying) to do a study on Psalms 45:6-7 from where Hebrews 1:8-9 was copied. Sam states:
The author of Hebrews applied this text in reference to Jesus’ Messianic office, an office which he received by virtue of becoming a human descendant of king David after the Incarnation:
“And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.’” Luke 1:30-33
“concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,” Romans 1:3-4
Putting it in another way, the writer applied Psalm 45:6-7 to Jesus in reference to his Messianic role, that as the Son of David he perfectly fulfills all the promises God made to David and his sons that theirs would be an eternal royal dynasty:
“And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.” 2 Samuel 7:10-15
The primary reason he never explicitly states that Paul is the author of Hebrews, is due to modern studies concluding that Paul’s once unquestionable authorship is now in severe doubt. Some asserting that a scribe of Paul or someone listening to one of Paul’s sermons may have authored this Epistle. Whatever the case may be, this Epistle is now a fundamental part of the Christian New Testament and plays a significant role in Christ evolving from a Messiah into a Messianic-Deity.
It should be noted, that Sam’s references to the Davidic kingdom, refers specifically to an earthly kingdom. We know it’s an earthly kingdom because as the Bible demonstrates itself, many were heirs to it:
And now, as surely as the LORD lives—he who has established me securely on the throne of my father David and has founded a dynasty for me as he promised—Adonijah shall be put to death today!” – 1 Kings 2:24*.
Solomon answered, “You have shown great kindness to your servant, my father David, because he was faithful to you and righteous and upright in heart. You have continued this great kindness to him and have given him a son to sit on his throne this very day. – 1 Kings 3:6*.
I intend, therefore, to build a temple for the Name of the LORD my God, as the LORD told my father David, when he said, ‘Your son whom I will put on the throne in your place will build the temple for my Name.’ – 1 Kings 5:5*.
David’s kingdom was to be passed on to his sons. This raises two important issues. If David’s kingdom was earthly and promised to his sons (i.e. male descendants) and this kingdom was promised to eventually become eternal:
What’s most damning to Sam’s argument however is the following verse from which he quotes from 2 Samuel 7*:
Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
This demonstrates that David’s sons (heirs) would not inherit YHWH’s throne. As YHWH already has a throne according Psalm 103:19, also alluded to in Psalm 89:14*. The very fact that YHWH has to create a house and then, from this house a kingdom with a throne, demonstrates that this clearly never was and never will be the same throne as God’s. This leaves Sam’s evidences nothing more than the result of a poor study of the Bible, along with intentional misapplication of Biblical prophecies. Sam continues:
But since the only way Jesus could have ever fulfilled these promises is by becoming a man from the line of David this implies that Hebrews 1:8-9 has Jesus’ Incarnation and exaltation in view. After all, if Jesus hadn’t taken on a human nature he would not have become a descendant of David and could not therefore rule on the throne as his representative. Moreover, since Jesus became a true human being and will forever remain a man who sits on the throne as David’s representative, the Father became and will forever remain his God. So there is no problem with Jesus having a God over him.
I’ve already dealt with Sam’s so-called ‘prophecies’, however what’s most perplexing is that according to Sam Shamoun, if Jesus did not become a man, he could not inherit the throne. Since he believes that Jesus is YHWH and David’s throne is alluded to being God’s representative throne on earth (as those who Judge by YHWH’s laws are considered to be ruling by God, ergo God’s throne, see Psalm 82:6-7*), then how could it be that Jesus has to inherit a throne that if he was God, he would already be ruling by? Again, Sam’s inconsistent beliefs are glaringly obvious. According to Sam, Jesus came to earth to inherit God’s earthly throne (again, recall that ruling by God’s laws in God’s earthly kingdom means the ruler is like God in the sense of his judicial reach, see Psalm 82:6-7), this would then mean:
Sam continues by stating:
At the Incarnation Jesus did not cease to be God, but simply added an additional nature to his Divine Person.
If Sam’s God is eternally divine, how can God who is perfect, create and then add to himself? If God is perfect then adding something to God would mean:
Thus far, Sam has not established a proper basis for why Jesus according to the Hebrews 1:8-9 is said to have a God. Despite his meandering, the question remains unsolved. If God who is in heaven, and according to the Trinitarian doctrine, is co-equal to the other two Persons in the Godhead, why does the Father, refer to another person as his God? If Jesus’ divine nature is being ignored, then YHWH has demeaned himself, demoted himself as he is referring to a human as his God. Sam has failed to properly answer this question, I still do not see why Jesus as a man, God or both is considered to be a God of God.
Addendum:
In objection to another verse which presents Jesus as having a God, we read:
“The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.” – Revelation 3:12.
Sam says:
What this objection erroneously assumes is that Jesus, in Revelation, is no longer man now that he is in heaven. As we noted earlier, the Holy Scriptures explicitly affirm that Jesus hasn’t ceased being human after his resurrection. In fact, the resurrection presupposes that Christ remains a true human being, albeit a glorified human at that!
Again, Sam does not solve the theological blunder. Jesus here, who is both a man and God at all times as stated by Sam, “It isn’t an either/or scenario, but a both/and situation“, means that Jesus can call upon God (himself) or be referred to as God (by himself). This is purely rhetoric and circular thinking. This demonstrates modality, when God is a man, he has a God, when God is a God he calls himself God. This ends up with the hilarious perpetual reasoning that God has a God and God will always have a God. If God has a God, then who exactly is the Most High? If God has a God, who has a God who is a God, who has a God who is a God, then at what point do we stop and ask, which one of these is the true one?
Conclusion:
In closing, Sam has once again failed to answer the question, aptly demonstrated his weak intellect and has gone above and beyond to demonstrate that his God, has a God. Quite absurd to say the least, can’t say I expected any better from him. Atleast we can agree with Sam’s statement: ” In fact, the resurrection presupposes that Christ remains a true human being, albeit a glorified human at that!”
wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.
*:
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire BibleI have said, ye are gods,…. In the law, Exodus 21:6 or they were so by his appointment and commission; he constituted them judges and magistrates, invested them with such an office, by which they came to have this title; see Romans 13:1 , and so our Lord interprets these words, that they were gods “to whom” the word of God came, which gave them a commission and authority to exercise their office, John 10:35 , or rather “against whom” it came, pronouncing the sentence of death on them, as in Psalm 82:7 , to which the reference is; declaring, that though they were gods by office, yet were mortal men, and should die. The Targum is, “I said, as angels are ye accounted”; and so judges and civil magistrates had need to be as angels, and to have the wisdom of them; see 2 Samuel 14:20. Jarchi interprets it of angels, but magistrates are undoubtedly meant:
and all of you are children of the most High; the Targum here again renders it,
“the angels of the most High:”
and so Aben Ezra explains it of them who are called the sons of God, Job 38:7 but men in power are meant, who, because of their eminency and dignity, their high office, post, and place, are so called; see Genesis 6:2.
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Article by Br. Imtiyaz Nawaz [India].
The Qur’an and Bible says Worship the creator not the Creation of God [Jesus]. The Qur’an gives us strong evidence that Jesus is not God and he was created as a man. Just as many men before him by their very nature did miracles with God’s help, he too as a prophet (like the many before him) was aided by God in doing miracles (Acts 2:21-22). Christians are deluded from the truth and they fail to understand who God really is. Does the Bible support claims which the Qur’an has laid down about Jesus? Let’s take a close look at the Bible, as it says itself not to worship God’s Creation including Jesus.
Allah says in Quran Chapter 5 Verse 75,
✔ CHRIST the son of Mary was NO MORE THAN A MESSENGER.
✔ There were many MESSENGERS THAT PASSED AWAY BEFORE HIM.
✔ His mother was a SAINTLY WOMAN.
✔ They both ATE EARTHLY FOOD. ☜
✔ SEE! HOW CLEAR WE MAKE FOR THEM OUR MESSAGES.
✔ YET SEE! HOW THEY ARE DELUDED AWAY FROM THE TRUTH.
What’s in the BIBLE:
The following passages from the Bible will give you a clear picture of the true nature of God who is the Supreme, the Ruler, the Infallible and the Transcendent and Jesus a finite being, who suffers from wants and is subject to God’s Will:
NOT MORE THAN A MESSENGER ☟
☞ And you, my child, will be called ➭ a prophet of ➭the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way ➭for him [Luke 1:76]
☞My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me [John 7:16]
☞The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me [John 14:24]
☞ Now you seek to kill me, A MAN who has told you the truth that I heard from God
[John 8:40]
☞ The Father Himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak [John 12:49]
☞ “I live because of the Father” (John 6:57).
A big gathering of people came to listen to Jesus and brought many sick persons who were healed of their infirmities.
☞ “So that the crowd wondered, when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled healthy, the lame walking, and the blind seeing. And they glorified the God of Israel” [Matthew15:31]
How is it that the God of the Christians is three and the God of the Jews is ONE?
MESSENGERS THAT PASSED BEFORE HIM ☟
☞ Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them [Matthew 5:17]
☞ And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor. [Matthew 13:57]
ATE EARTHLY FOOD ☟
☞”The Son of man came EATING AND DRINKING, and they say, behold a man gluttonous, and a wine bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.” [Matthew, 11:9; Luke, 7:34]
☞ They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence. [Luke 24:42-43]
SEE! HOW CLEAR WE MAKE FOR THEM OUR MESSAGES ☟
☞ “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” [Mark 10:18]
☞ “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” [John 17:3]
☞ “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.’ [John 5:30]
☞ “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” [Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32]
☞ I (Jesus) ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to MY GOD and your God. [John 20:17]
All the above verses pinpoint Jesus’ inferiority, weakness and dependence on God’s favor.
YET SEE! HOW THEY ARE DELUDED AWAY FROM THE TRUTH ☟
Proof that Christians are indeed deluded away from truth, even with reading their own Bible. All things are created by God, we are all his creation, there is a clear distinction between the Creator and the creation.
Worship none but one:
“Here, O Israel: The LORD our God is one Lord.” [Deut. 6:4]
“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god besides me.” [Deut. 32:39]
“I am the LORD, that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to graven images.” [Isaiah 42:8]
“I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.” [Isaiah 44:6]
“You are my witnesses,” says the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there by any after me. I, I am the Lord and besides me there is no saviour.” [Isaiah 43:10-11]
“You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.” This can be found in the Gospels of (Matthew 4:10) and (Luke 4:8) both in the Bible.
Jesus clearly says that only God is to be worshipped.
Jesus was a creation of God. Anything created by GOD, becomes His creation including Jesus according to Colossians 1:15 and 1 Corinthians 15:28, therefore created things do not deserve worship and this clearly leads to idol worshipping according to the Bible.
Jesus was created lower than Angels:
Bible says Angels are not worthy of worship and claims Jesus was created lower than angels which confirms Jesus does not deserve to be worshipped:
⇨ But he (the Angel) said, “No, don’t worship me. I am a servant of God, just like you and your brother’s the prophets, as well as all who obey what is written in this book. Worship only God!” [Revelation 22:9]
What about someone who is lower than the Angels ?!!
⇨”But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor…” [Hebrews 2:9]
We have clearly shown from the Bible itself that Jesus was the creation of GOD and how he was created. Worship the creator not the created Jesus. Who is speaking here? Who is condemning the people for turning God into the creation, for likening God unto the creation, who is the one condemning the people for worshipping the creation over the creator?
Is this an Islamic scholar?
No.
This is none other than the apostle Paul!
Yes, this is Jesus’ favourite apostle Paul and the founder of Christianity, speaking directly from the Christian Bible:
➲ Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused.
➲ Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools.
➲ And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.
➲ So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies.
➲ They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.
[Romans 1:21-25]
● Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
Do not call anyone on earth ⇛ ‘father,'(GOD) for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. [Matthew 23: 1,9]
[Allah knows the best]
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Question:
If Jesus is God, then who was he praying to on the cross when he said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”? (Mark 15:34; Matthew 27:46) Was he praying to himself? If so, was he complaining to himself about why he had forsaken himself?
Answer:
Sam Shamoun does not actually answer this question directly. Instead he meanders back and forth about the Trinity, mentions the Crucifiction and then in the end diverts from this absurdity in his doctrine and invents a strawman, whereby he attempts to question Muslims about Allaah’s “Prayer”. In spite of all his trickery, after much searching for a decisive answer in his article, I found that he does hint at an answer, or strongly tries to imply one by stating:
The Holy Bible teaches that there are three distinct, yet inseparable Persons who exist as the one true God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The three Persons of God, because they are personally distinct, have loving communion and dialog amongst themselves. Therefore, the Lord Jesus wasn’t praying to himself on the Cross, but was actually praying to the Person of the Father.
This ‘answer’ of sorts, actually furthers the case the question presents, it actually proves that Jesus was praying to Himself, allow me to explain. The logic flows as such:
The only way this would not be circular theological reasoning, is if Jesus was not God, since this is not the case and Jesus is praying to God, and God is also Jesus, then he indeed and most certainly was praying to himself. Sam then adds insult to injury by claiming that his God, was and will forever be an equal to him, a human, a man:
Furthermore, the Holy Bible also teaches that Jesus became, and forever will remain, a true human being. It is, therefore, not surprising that Christ did what every God-fearing person is supposed to do, namely pray and worship God.
Given the above, Sam continues to persist in building the case against him, once again his argument can be represented as:
Therefore Sam’s answer qualifies the belief that Christ was praying to himself, for if Christ is fully God, as Sam believes, then Christ was forsaking himself. Unless Sam believes that the Father who is God, can diminish the power of the Jesus-God person in the Godhead, which would then mean that they are not co-equal nor co-existent in the ‘Godhead’. Either way, Sam’s case is against Christianity. As indicated in this article, an earlier pronouncement in the book of Psalms ensures that God could not have killed Jesus, his ‘son’, specifically ‘forsaking‘ or ‘cutting off his loved ones‘:
“For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. They will be protected forever, but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off;” – Bible : Psalms (37) : Verse 28.
Our modus operandi from this verse onwards is intended to imply that Jesus would be the most faithful and the most just person of his time with respect to his life and personhood, whether you consider him to be a God, a man or otherwise. Both Muslims and Christians can agree on this following excerpt from the Gospel, which attributes these words to him:
“…I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.” – Bible : John (5) : Verse 30.
The verses from Psalms (Tehillim) and from John (above), promote the understanding that Jesus was just because he judged according to the rule and law of God and thus since the Old Testament says that God loves and will not forsake such a person, we all can accept that Christ was loved and would not be forsaken by God. However as a Muslim reading the New Testament, the image it portrays of Christ is in opposition to the promise of Psalms as we have previously read, the Bible says:
“About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – Bible : Matthew (27) : Verse 46.
“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – Bible : Mark (15) : 34.
It is clear for anyone who is purely intended that these stories, depictions of a man forsaken by God, cannot be the man portrayed in John 5:30 and Psalms 37:28. Rather, it reminds of the man later spoken of in Psalms 37:28:
“…They will be protected forever, but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off;” – Bible : Psalms (37) : Verse 28.
Am I supposed to believe that Christ was a wicked man, cut off from the mercy of God? As a Muslim, it burdens my heart to have to believe that this is what someone who loves Christ could possibly believe. In fact, even Christian scholars have purported that this alleged saying of Christ is out of his character and simply demeans him, Matthew Henry in his Commentary of the Bible, says:
“That our Lord Jesus was, in his sufferings, for a time, forsaken by his Father. So he saith himself, who we are sure was under no mistake concerning his own case. That Christ’s being forsaken of his Father was the most grievous of his sufferings, and that which he complained most of. “ – Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible, Matthew 27.
Therefore, not only was Christ-God forsaking himself, he made himself to suffer and he even complained to himself about himself. Mind blowing absurdity to say the least. Lastly, Sam tries to meander away from this theological conundrum by attempting to claim that Allaah prays to Himself:
The Quran says that Allah prays:
Upon them shall be prayers (salawatun) from their Lord and mercy, and they are the rightly directed. S. 2:157
He it is who sends PRAYERS on you (Arabic- yusallii alaykum), as do His angels … S. 33:43
Allah and His angels PRAY for the Prophet (Arabic- yasalluuna alan-Nabiyy): O ye that believe PRAY for him (salluu `alayhi), and salute him with all respect. S. 33:56
However this is responded to in detail by Br. Ibn Anwar in his post here on the Unveiling Christianity website. In short, Br. Ibn Anwar explains:
The following is from Lisan al-Arab authored by Ibn Mazur al-Afriqi which is one of the major reference materials for anyone persuing academic studies in Arabic:
والصلاة الدعاء والاستغفار…وصلاة الله على رسوله رحمته له وحسن ثنائه عليه وفى حديث ابن أبى آوفى آنه قال أعطانى أبى صدقة ماله فاتيت بها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال اللهم صل على آل أبى أوفى قال الازهرى هذه الصلاة عندى الرحمة ومنه قوله عز وجل ان الله وملا ئكته يصلون على النبى يٰأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ صَلُّواْ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُواْ تَسْلِيماً فالصلاة من الملائكة دعاء واستغفار ومن الله رحمة وبه سميت الصلاة لما فيها من الدعاء ولاستغفار وفى الحديث التحيات لله والصلوات قال أبوىبكر الصلوات معن ها الترحم وقوله تعالى ان الله وملا ئكته يصلون على النبى اى يترحمون
“Al-Salah is supplication and seeking forgiveness…and the Salah of Allah upon his messenger is His blessing/mercy for him and magnification/praises upon him. In the narration of Ibn Abi Awfa verily he said: “My father gave charity from his own wealth. Thereafter I went to the messenger of Allah with it whereby the Prophet s.a.w. said, “Oh Allah send Salah on the family of Abi Awfa.” Azhari said that this Salah in his sight means al-Rahmah(the blessing/mercy). And Allah s.w.t. says,”Verily, Allah and His angels send Salah(blessings) upon the Prophet. O you who believe, do pray Allah to bless him, and send your Salam to him in abundance.” Thus theSalah of the angels are supplication(du’a) and seeking forgiveness(for the messenger) and from Allah it is His blessing(rahmah). And it is called Salah within which is supplication and seeking for forgiveness. And in the narration on the greetings and salawat(plural of salah), Abu Bakr said, “Al-salawat means conferring blessing” and Allah said, “Verily, Allah and His angels send Salah(blessings) upon the Prophet” which means they bless him.”
Isma’il bin Hammad al-Jawhari in his Sihah Taj al-Lughah wa Sihah al-’Arabiyyah defines it as follows:
والصلاة من الله تعالى : الرحمة
“Al-Salah when it is from Allah means mercy/blessing.”
Abi Mansur Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Azhari in his massive Tahzib al-Lughah defines it as follows:
نوما فإن لجنب المرء مضطجعا وأما حديث ابن أبى أوفى أنه قال : أعطانى أبى صدقة ماله فأتيت بها رسول الله صل الله عليه وسلم فقال : (( اللهم صل على آل أبى أوفى )) فإن هذه الصلاة عندى الرحمة , ومنه قوله جل وعز : ( إن الله وملائكته يصلون على النبى ) فالصلاة من الملائكة دعاء واستغفار , ومن الله سبحانه رحمة .
He mentions the same narration as Ibn Manzur al-Afriqi that Ibn Abi Awfa went to the Prophet s.a.w. with charity given by his father from his wealth “upon which the Prophet s.a.w. remarked, “Oh Allah, send Salah on the family of Abi Awfa.” Therefore this al-Salah with me means al-Rahmah(the blessing/mercy). And from His(Allah’s) word: “Verily, Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet”. Al Salah from the angels is supplication and seeking for forgiveness(for him), and from Allah s.w.t. it means blessing/mercy.””
Therefore when it is said Allaah’s ‘prayer’ it does not mean that like the God of the Bible, where he is praying to himself to save himself from himself, rather it refers to Allaah’s rahmat and barakat upon a person or group of persons by bestowing His favours (mercy) upon them as mentioned in Surah Ar Rahman:
فَبِأَيِّ آلَاءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ
Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both (jinns and men) deny?
Let’s embarrass Sam further and examine the verses he uses:
أُولَـٰئِكَ عَلَيْهِمْ صَلَوَاتٌ مِّن رَّبِّهِمْ وَرَحْمَةٌ ۖ وَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُهْتَدُونَ
(2:157) – They are those on whom are the Salawat (i.e. blessings, etc.) (i.e. who are blessed and will be forgiven) from their Lord, and (they are those who) receive His Mercy, and it is they who are the guided-ones.
In the first case, the ayah he uses explicitly tells us both in the Arabic that God’s ‘prayer upon’ a people, means that His Rahma (mercy) is conveyed upon them. This as Sam admits by use of the verse (and explicitly as we will see later), does not mean God is praying to anyone. Thus this cannot be equated to the God of the Bible, whom Sam concedes was praying to himself. Let’s take a look at the next ayah he references:
هُوَ الَّذِي يُصَلِّي عَلَيْكُمْ وَمَلَائِكَتُهُ لِيُخْرِجَكُم مِّنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ ۚ وَكَانَ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَحِيمًا
(33:43) – He it is Who sends Salat (His blessings) on you, and His angels too (ask Allah to bless and forgive you), that He may bring you out from darkness (of disbelief and polytheism) into light (of Belief and Islamic Monotheism). And He is Ever Most Merciful to the believers.
Once again, in the verse that Sam uses, it demonstrates to us that God’s “Salat” is His conveyance of mercy to the believers. Notice the term (يُصَلِّي عَلَيْكُمْ) which means “Prays Upon”, just as how we would pray upon a person, this would not mean praying to a person. Unless Sam believes that when he prays upon his wife or mother when she is ill, he actually means to be praying to them? If that’s the case, then he needs to study basic Grammar. Let’s now examine the last verse he references:
إِنَّ اللَّـهَ وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ
(33:56) – Allah sends His Salat (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy, etc.) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW) and also His angels too (ask Allah to bless and forgive him).
Notice once again the use of the word ( عَلَى), as aforementioned, there is a distinction between praying ‘upon’ and praying ‘to’, the word ( عَلَى), means ‘upon’. Just as in As Salaamu ‘Alaykum – the same term ( عَلَى) is used, but in the plural meaning “upon you all“. This only goes to demonstrate that Sam is both heavily deficient in both the Arabic and English languages. Lastly, Sam Shamoun concedes that when the term ‘salat’ is used in relation to Allaah, it refers to Allaah’s conveying of His mercy:
The following is a translation of an alleged prayer of Allah taken from Ibn Hisham’s Al-Sirah Al-Halabiyya:
قلت يا جبريل أيصلى ربك قال نعم قلت وما يقول قال يقول سبوح قدوس رب الملائكة والروح سبقت رحمتى غضبى
I [Muhammad] said, “O Gabriel, does your Lord pray?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “What does he say?” “This is what he says. He says: ‘Glory, holy, Lord of the angels and the Spirit. My mercy overcomes my wrath.’” (Source; translation, bold, underline and comments within brackets ours)
Another Muslim scholar made the following comments about surah 33:56 and Allah praying:
Allah makes the merit of His Prophet clear by first praying blessing on Himself, and then by the prayer of the angels, and then by commanding His slaves to pray blessing and peace on him as well. Abu Bakr ibn Furak related that one of the ‘ulama interpreted the words of the Prophet, “The coolness of my eye is in the prayer,” as meaning Allah’s prayer, that of the angels and that of his community in response to Allah’s command until the Day of Rising. The prayer of angels and men is supplication for him and that of Allah is mercy.
Therefore in Sam’s own argument he concludes for himself, that Allaah’s pray means Allaah’s conveyance of His mercy upon someone. This however, cannot be and is not equitable to the Christian God who prays to Himself, as aptly demonstrated above. This strawman argument from Sam, was only intended to distract the reader from the main question, which still remains unanswered:
If Jesus is God and Jesus prays to God, then why is Jesus praying to Himself? Sam has failed to answer this question and has only been able to demonstrate his weak Grammar and comprehension of both the Arabic and English languages. I pray and hope that Sam can one day, eventually seek to directly answer this theological conundrum.
wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.
Sources:
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Question:
If Jesus is God, how can God die? Who was running the universe those three days that Jesus was dead?
Answer:
Sam’s initial response is to redefine the meaning of the word death, he gives two meanings from the Bible:
Finally, he concludes:
Christ, therefore, did not cease to live when he died on the cross since, as the Holy Bible teaches, the Lord’s soul was still consciously alive during the three days his body lay in the tomb. The only way that Christ could be able to raise himself from the dead is if Christ were still consciously alive. This establishes that Christ did not cease to exist for those three days that his body remained in the grave. Both Christ’s divine nature and his human soul were still conscious during that period of time. So in answer to the question, the one true God always exists as three distinct Persons even during the entombment of Christ’s physical body. And, even as his body lay buried, Christ was alive and sovereignly sustaining the universe along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
According to Sam Shamoun, Jesus did not die, whether physically or spiritually. If Jesus did not die, then the notion of Christ dying for our sins is a false one. See, the argument works as :
Since according to Sam Shamoun, Christ never actually died, then no atonement actually took place. Sam never really answers the question as to how God died, instead he tells us that Jesus did not actually die, at all. He gives an either or option, that is a physical or spiritual death, then he negates both options. Thus leaving us with the understanding that Christ/ “God” never died. His argument can be represented as such:
Which is a problem as the Bible mentions that the sacrificial lamb was to be killed and by kill, we mean be put to death i..e not alive:
Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the members of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. – Exodus 12:6.
As an addendum, Sam must answer the question, that if the sacrificial animal does not die, i.e. there is no cessation of life, is the sacrifice valid, or must the animal die? This death as referred to in Exodus 12:6, or slaughtering of the animal/ sacrifical animal refers to a physical cessation of life. This definition can be attested to by CARM’s Theological Dictionary:
Death is understood two main ways in the Bible. First, it is used to describe the cessation of life, this can be physical or spiritual. – Death.
Either way, Sam Shamoun has put himself between a rock and a hard place:
wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God knows best.
Calling Christians 
You must be logged in to post a comment.