Author Archives: Ijaz Ahmad

Refutation: Missing the Mark: Unveiling Mark’s High Christology of Divine “Inclusion”

Posted on by 3 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Introduction

On this day has probably dawned the end of Anthony Roger’s apologetics career. I’ve read a vast majority of his “articles”, been privy to a debate with him, but I was completely flabbergasted to read his latest article on the Answering Islam website. Whether it is or not this was something hastily written in fifteen minutes or an early April fools joke, I’m still not quite sure, but whoever is managing quality control at that “website”, seriously needs to be reprimanded for allowing this to slip through the cracks. Essentially Anthony’s article boils down to:

  1. Mark’s Gospel uses the term ‘son of God’.
  2. As a Christian we believe in a literal ‘son of God’.
  3. If Mark uses this term, it must refer to the ‘son’ I believe in.

This argument can be simplified to realise its absurdity:

  1. The Old Testament in English uses the term, ‘God’.
  2. As a theist, I believe in God.
  3. Since the Old Testament uses the term God, it must refer to the ‘God’, I believe in.

If you don’t believe this was Anthony’s argument, he even explicitly states this at the beginning of his article, I quote:

“The following article seeks to show a stunning way by which Mark identifies Jesus as the divine Son of God and heir of all things.”

That ‘stunning’ way, is simply Mark using the term, ‘Son of God‘. In Anthony’s case, he tries to redefine ‘Son of God’ to be ‘Divine son of God’, unfortunately for him, the verbatim term, ‘Divine son of God‘, is nowhere to be found in the Markan gospel, or for that matter, anywhere in the Greco-Roman New Testament. He essentially begins his article by being deceitful, not that I expected any better of him.

The Son of God

He begins by conceding to the fact that many do not consider the Markan Gospel to contain a high Christology:

It is commonplace to hear that Mark’s Gospel does not embody a high Christology, and this in spite of the fact that the thesis statement at the incipit of the book, one that is explicated in the course of the narrative, boldly declares that Jesus is the Son of God.

He goes on to reference the following verses: Mark 1:1, 3:11, 5:7, 15:39, 13:32, 14:61, 1:11, 9:7. You might wonder why Anthony did not quote the verses he referenced, well that’s mostly because what he implies by referencing and then what they actually state are two fundamentally different things. For example, Anthony says:

The meaning of this title is unpacked in the ensuing narrative which makes it quite clear that Jesus is God’s Son in a unique and exclusive sense (1:11, 9:7).

Those two verses read:

  • A voice from heaven said, “You are my Son, whom I love. I am pleased with you.”
  • Then a cloud overshadowed them. A voice came out of the cloud and said, “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!”

Which turns out, isn’t that unique, David who is also called God’s son (Psalms 2:7) is said to be the heart of God:

  • And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the [son] of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. – Acts 13:22
  • But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart. – 1 Samuel 13:14

Also speaking in reference to David, the God of the Bible also says:

  • But I will never stop showing him my love as I did to Saul, whom I took out of your way. – 2 Samuel 7:15.

At this point, I’m not quite sure as to what Anthony’s definition of unique is, but that poorly written argument seems to have backfired from the moment he wrote it. Anthony then continues to show the ‘divinity of Christ’ by using one of the most absurd evidences known to reason, and I quote:

one that sets Him quite apart from angels and men (13:32)

What does Mark 13:32 actually state? It says, “No one knows when that day or hour will come. Even the angels in heaven and the Son don’t know. Only the Father knows.” Now this is a problem, if God is all knowing and Jesus is supposed to be a divine son of God, then Jesus is expected to have the same attribute of being all knowing as God. Since Jesus is not all knowing, this verse actually proves that Jesus is not a divine being.

  • If God is all knowing and God increases in knowledge, then it would mean that before God gained this knowledge He was not all knowing. Such a being cannot be God, as God is not ignorant.
  • If God is all knowing and decreases in knowledge (as is the case of Christ in Mark 13:32), then since God is ignorant, He cannot be considered to be ‘All Knowing’.

Anthony’s case for the divinity of Christ takes a further step back in his following argument, I quote:

“As the unique Son of God Jesus is to be obeyed (9:7)”

We referenced 9:7 earlier which read:

  • Then a cloud overshadowed them. A voice came out of the cloud and said, “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!”

Apparently if God tells you to obey someone, then that person becomes a divine being, which is a problem, as God in the Old Testament did command his followers to obey many others:

  • A scepter will never depart from Judah nor a ruler’s staff from between his feet until Shiloh comes and the people obey him. – Genesis 49:10.
  • Give him some of your authority so that the whole community of Israel will obey him. – Numbers 27:20.
  • Does this then mean that Shiloh and Joshua are both divine beings, since God has commanded the people to obey them? If not, what’s the reason Mr. Rogers?

The rest of the verses follow the same pattern, he cites a verse, makes an overtly generalized statement and then when actually read the verses themselves do not seem in the least to portray what he’s trying to imply. I honestly believe that this was a last minute article, given the number of errors, contradictions and mistakes he’s made thus far it is almost impossible to believe that any actual study and research went into its writing.

The Son-Inclusio

After referencing the following two sets of passages of Mark 1:9-11 and Mark 15:33-41, Anthony makes the argument:

That these two passages strategically located at the beginning and end of Christ’s ministry form an inclusio is discernable from several notable factors.

Essentially, an inclusio takes the form (this is an analogy of the form of an inclusio, using Anthony as our main character):

  • Start of Story: Anthony likes kittens.
  • Body of Story: Anthony likes to act, his role model is Alexis Arquette.
  • End of Story: Anthony likes kittens.

Taking a page from Anthony’s book, it must be a very amazing miracle that Anthony liking kittens is at the beginning and end of his biography. As we now return to reality, I still do not understand, or grasp how Mark’s statement that Jesus is a Son of God at the beginning and end of a book about Jesus, is a miracle. Anthony definitely seems to think it’s a miracle and he gives 8 reasons why. Therefore I’m going to summarize his 8 reasons:

  1. Both passages call Jesus a son of God.

    Well that’s a bit obvious, isn’t it? This is a title reserved for many persons by God throughout the Old and New Testaments, Adam was a Son of God (Luke 3:8), God has sons and daughters (Genesis 6:2), Israel is God’s son (Exodus 4:22), David is God’s son (Psalms 2:7), Christians are the sons of God (Romans 8:14), etc. There is nothing special or unique about being referred to as the son of God and the mere fact that this title is used to describe Jesus throughout the Gospel of Mark, (including the center, not just the beginning and the end), is an awful attempt and wishful thinking by Anthony Rogers.

  2. Similar language of being baptised and having life poured out of Him.

    I’m still trying to see whether Anthony was attempting to make a poorly worded joke here or not. His reasoning works a little something like this:

    * Baptising has to do with water.
    * Water is something you pour.
    * Jesus’ life was poured out of him.
    * MIRACLE!

    Again, I am not sure this article or his reasoning was an attempt to be funny, but if indeed this is what Anthony considers a miracle and proves the divinity of Christ, then I am most certain this is as desperate as you can get.

  3. Both passages reference Elijah.

    I most certainly retract my previous declaration, this is the most ridiculous reasoning a man can make. Why would being referenced to another Prophet make Jesus a divine being? He’s being compared to a Prophet, the only way Anthony can possibly use this as an excuse to link Jesus being a divine being, with Elijah being mentioned, is if Elijah is also considered to be a deity.

  4. One passage refers to the spirit, the other uses the term ‘Jesus breathed out’.

    You would like to think at this point I was joking, however I’m not, again Anthony’s immature reasoning is really beginning to shine:

    * Spirit is a Greek word for breath.
    * Jesus breathed.
    * Jesus is God because he breathed!

    I wish I was making this reasoning up, but I’m going to quote him on this one:

    “Both passages speak or allude to the Spirit: in the former passage the reference to the Spirit is explicit; in the latter it is implicit in the word “breathed” or “expired,” ἐξέπνευσεν,exepneusen, which is a cognate word in Greek for “spirit,” πνεῦμα, pneuma.” *

  5. God speaks in the beginning of the book of Mark and at the end of Mark, Jesus speaks. Since God is speaking at the beginning of the Book and Jesus is speaking at the end, then Jesus is God. Let me quote him so no one thinks I’m making this stuff up:
    1. “Both passages speak of a voice, φωνὴν, phonen: In the former it is the voice of the Father from heaven; in the latter it is that of the Son from the cross.”

    So far this guy’s reasoning has been: Baptising has to do with water and Jesus’ life is poured out, therefore MIRACLE. Spirit is mentioned in the beginning, its Greek word means breath, Jesus breathes, therefore MIRACLE. God speaks in the beginning, Jesus has a voice, therefore MIRACLE. [I can’t stop laughing at the absurdity here!]

  6. He states and I quote, “In both passages something is said to descend: in the former it is the Spirit; in the latter it is the veil of the temple, “from top to bottom.”. Again, Anthony’s reasoning can be summed up as:

    *Spirit descends, that means he goes downwards.
    * Something was torn and wait a minute….
    * The veil was torn from top to bottom….this means…
    * The veil also descended!
    * MIRACLE!

  7. He states and I quote, “In both passages something is torn, σχιζω, skidzo: in the former passage it was the heavens; in the latter it was the veil of the temple.” Again, his reasoning can be summed up as:

    * The sky opens.
    * The veil was torn.
    * I wonder if the sky ripping open is the same word for the veil tearing, because the veil was you know, ripped in half.
    * MIRACLE! They use the same word “tear = rip”.
    * Irrefutable evidence Jesus is God!

  8. Lastly, Anthony ends his amazing comedic performance with saying: “In both passages mention is made of Jesus being or having been ministered to: the former passage refers to angels; the latter refers to Christ’s women followers.” Apparently, in Anthony’s reasoning, in a book about God where people preach to and about God, it’s a miracle that people are preaching at the beginning and end of said book. It’s like going to an action movie and being surprised that there is action at the start of the movie and at the end of the movie or it’s like reading a Harry Potter book and being surprised it involves magic at the start of the book and at the end of the book.

Conclusion

This article by Anthony has served no other purpose than to demonstrate the low level thinking involved in preaching Christianity. Not only am I ashamed for Anthony, I am ashamed that Sam Shamoun calls a man with such childish reasoning, “the greatest apologist of our time“. This article went out of the way to draw links which were far out, remotely related and was severely coated with a dressing of desperation. I’ve seen people being criticised for lack of intellectualism, perhaps even grasping for straws, but this certainly was the single most shallow use of the Bible by a Christian I have ever seen. Anthony, if you do end up reading this, please know that if this is the reasoning you employ to remain in Christianity, then I am sorry but you’re insulting yourself and God for not using the brain He gave you. I expected much better from him (who am I kidding?), but this was possibly the most degenerate, backward, irrational, pre-school, toddler reasoning I have ever witnessed from a Christian apologist. You most certainly have my pity.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God knows best.

Refutation: A Would-Be Seducer Gets Owned and Humbled

Posted on by 7 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Anthony Rogers has attempted to justify the law of marriage to your rapist in the Bible, by contending that the law in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does not mean that the girl was raped. Let’s examine this verse:

“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:28, 29.*

At first glance, it’s pretty clear that no amount of pussyfooting around will be able to denounce that this verse does refer to rape, but this is Anthony Rogers we’re dealing with, the lengths at which he goes to deny what his own scripture says is very detailed and usually ridiculous. Anthony begins his diatribe by shooting himself in his foot, he says and I quote:

The Bible does not say that “the rapist must now marry the virgin victim,” for obviously at this point the victim is no longer a virgin. If she were still a virgin, then she would not be a victim of rape; if she were a victim of rape, then she would not be a virgin.*

Reading may not be his strong point, but he begins by saying the Bible does not say that the rapist must marry the victim, that’s a problem as the verse above specifically mentions rape, and a victim. Maybe it is I’ve read it wrong, or perhaps the translators have rendered “forced sex” wrong (a term which I cover further down in this post), but according to the Bible I have, the verse explicitly, distinctively and most clearly has been rendered with the word, “rape“. Just to be sure, I’ve given the link to the verse via Bible.CC, a popular Bible translation website, one can even use Biblegateway.com to verify, if such a need be. Having said this, somethings now need to be noted:

  1. Why does Anthony refer to the girl as a victim, if she was not raped?
  2. Following from (1), does Anthony consider a woman as a victim, after consensual sex? Would this mean he considers his wife to be a victim (after all, consensual sex with one’s wife to the rational is not rape, however to Anthony this definition may differ)?
  3. Anthony accepts that the girl is no longer a virgin.
  4. Anthony states that the girl can no longer be a virgin if she was raped, I quote, “if she were a victim of rape, then she would not be a virgin“. Since in (3) he said, “the victim is no longer a virgin“, he explicitly accepts that she was raped.

His opening statement, clearly demonstrates that he accepts that this verse refers to rape, yet you’ll find in his article that he weasels around this declaration and tries to minimize the reality of the law as given in the Bible. I did find it most entertaining to say the least. For example, he jumps from Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to Exodus 22:16-17, which states:

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.”

Anthony confuses himself because a few Bible cross references, do reference the earlier law in Exodus 22:16-17 when the later law Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is mentioned. The problem however is that these two verses, while declaring the same or similar punishment, actually refer to two completely different things. To understand this, we must look at the Hebrew used in the verses, lest we become arrogant and assume our own interpretations are superior, which Anthony has done.

The verse in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is distinguished from Exodus 22:16-17 by the use of a specific term, פּתה – pathah*, a term which is not found in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. The term pathah as used in the verse from Exodus refers solely to sexual seduction, that is according to Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon. Therefore the verse is rendered as:

If a man SEDUCES (פּתה) a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins. (Exodus 22:16-17)

This however is not the case for the later law in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the term  פּתה – pathah, is not used, rather two specific terms are used, those of תּפשׂ – taphas*, and  שׁכב – Shakab*. According to Strong’s Lexicon, which I have linked to, the word Taphas translates to, “seized, arrested, taken, captured, grasped”, i.e. all these verbs are describing the action of being held beyond one’s will. If I were to capture you, or seize you, or arrest you, this involves some aspect of being restrained.  Whereas Shakab translates to, “lay with sexually“. Therefore the verse is rendered as:

 כִּֽי־יִמְצָ֣א אִ֗ישׁ בְתוּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־אֹרָ֔שָׂה וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ וְשָׁכַ֣ב (*) עִמָּ֑הּ וְנִמְצָֽאוּ

* – taphas shakab, “grasped and had sex with”, “captured and had sex with”, “taken and had sex with”, seized and had sex with”, “arrested and had sex with”. This verse does not mention or use the word “seduce – (פּתה – pathah), but it uses the term, “forced sex (taphas shakab)“. Therefore the use of the term, “rape” is not only justified here but it is tantamount to dishonesty and deviant sexual perversion to claim that arresting a girl and then having sex with her is not rape, wherein you even announce the girl to be a victim as Mr. Rogers has done previously.

What puzzles me next is Anthony’s reference to fornication as, “humbling a girl“. The verse in Exodus 22:16 refers to fornication, Anthony in his commentary on this verse says the following:

“According to the following verses, we are told that a father may refuse to give his daughter to the man who humbles her even though the man still has to pay the bride-price as a punishment”.

Since when is committing fornication with a girl, “humbling” her? I do not endorse nor share the same set of values as Mr. Rogers does, but to relate fornication with being humbled is gross and most definitely indecent. Anthony’s case only increases in embarrassment for his Christian brethren, in this case he clearly accepts that the girl was raped and that if she was, the father of the girl had the divine ordinance from YHWH (Anthony’s God) to forcibly marry off his daughter to the rapist:

So when Sami tells us that the rape victim must marry her seducer or rapist, he is simply wrong: the rapist must marry the woman as a punishment only if the father insists, and only if the young woman finds him pleasing in her eyes.*

According to Anthony, forced marriage to your rapist is okay, once your father insists. I’m not quite sure we’re on the same page here, but that sounds like exactly what Br. Sami has been saying all along. What’s worse is Anthony’s then insistence on perverting his own scripture. Now, forgive me for a moment, but I could not believe what I had read. I understand Anthony is between a rock and a hard place with defending this Biblical claim which really defames all of womankind, but the level of despicable dishonesty absolutely blew my mind. As you would have noticed, Anthony’s argument included the addendum of:

“and only if the young woman finds him pleasing in her eyes”

In reference to what he said earlier:

“we know a woman’s wishes would be taken into account and that they would not be forced to marry anyone they did not find pleasing in their own eyes (q.v. Numbers 36:6)”*

This sounds like an amazing claim, that is, until we go to the verse:

This is what the Lord commands for Zelophehad’s daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within their father’s tribal clan.

After reading this verse, Anthony’s deceit needs to be exposed:

  • Since when is a command solely for one man’s daughters from the Lord, applicable to every Christian woman on the face of the earth? The same chapter in Numbers 36, in verses 10 – 11, specifies that this command was for 5 women only: “So Zelophehad’s daughters did as the Lord commanded Moses. Zelophehad’s daughters—Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milkah and Noah —married their cousins on their father’s side.”*

Have you no shame, no intellectual integrity? I’m fine with Anthony perverting Islamic scripture, I understand this is how he puts food on the table for his family, but to pervert your own scripture, so deceptively? That’s beyond shameful to say the absolute least. You sir, have my pity. Yet, Anthony’s comedical polemics knows no bounds, he further verifies Br. Sami’s argument by stating the following:

The Lord did this by imposing certain punishment(s) on anyone who would rape an unbetrothed virgin. As may be seen from the fact that,

a) Any person who imposes himself on a young woman may have marriage imposed on him, with the right of later getting a divorce taken away from him.

Yet again, for the umpteenth time, Anthony agrees with Br. Sami’s argument and admits that the punishment for raping an unbetrothed virgin is to be married to the rapists victim. Again, this is the point of Sami’s article, located here, that the Bible says it is permissible to forcibly marry the victim of a rapist to the rapist. Anthony not only verifies and validates Sami’s article, he essentially successfully and most definitely, soundly refutes himself. However, we’re not then yet, Anthony continues by stating the following:

Rather, it is like what has been called “date rape.” The young woman knows the man who forced himself on her. If the crime can be proved, she has the choice of forcing him to be hers (eye for eye justice), if she so wishes. She may also refuse, in which case the man would have to pay a heavy fine without obtaining a wife (cf. Ex. 22:16-17).

According to Anthony, a girl who has been date raped has the glorious option of forcing her rapist to marry her. Can you imagine, that a girl has the option to force her rapist to marry her? Which girl, does Anthony know, would like to marry their rapist. I’d love for him to answer this question, please Mr. Rogers, find me a girl who has been date raped that would like to marry the man who sexually abused her. In fact, Mr. Rogers continues:

“Second, if the girl does decide to marry the man, “he cannot divorce her all his days.” This is an important aspect of the punishment for the man.”

Not only does the girl have the “glorious” option to marry the man who raped her, once she marries him, he cannot divorce her. At this point, I’m not sure if Anthony is working consciously to advocate Br. Sami’s arguments or if he really does not realise that he is vindicating, promoting and accepting what Br. Sami has said. In fact, Br. Sami presents a solid argument from the Bible wherein he explains the devastating truth, the law of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, long before being revealed was already in contention but had failed miserably, ending in vast amounts of violence and bloodshed:

But here comes the most interesting part, this response is weak on so many levels, that even the VERY BIBLE REJECTS IT, namely the family of the Prophet and Patriarch Jacob. At the end of the day, if Biblical figures refute the argument, then you really have no way out. So let’s read the relevant incident that involved Jacob, an incident that directly refutes Deuteronomy’s law, and the explanation given by apologists to try and explain it off:

Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her and lay with her, and violated her. His soul was strongly attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the young woman and spoke kindly to the young woman. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, “Get me this young woman as a wife. And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter. Now his sons were with his livestock in the field; so Jacob held his peace until they came. Then Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. And the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved and very angry, because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, a thing which ought not to be done. But Hamor spoke with them, saying, “The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter. Please give her to him as a wife. And make marriages with us; give your daughters to us, and take our daughters to yourselves. So you shall dwell with us, and the land shall be before you. Dwell and trade in it, and acquire possessions for yourselves in it.” Then Shechem said to her father and her brothers, “Let me find favor in your eyes, and whatever you say to me I will give. Ask me ever so much dowry and gift, and I will give according to what you say to me; but give me the young woman as a wife.” But the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father, and spoke deceitfully, because he had defiled Dinah their sister. And they said to them, “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a reproach to us. But on this condition we will consent to you: If you will become as we are, if every male of you is circumcised, then we will give our daughters to you (Genesis 34:1-15)

So Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is taken by a man named Shechem, who proceeds to violate her by having sexual intercourse with her. Jacob and his family are obviously angered by this, but the father of Shechem tries to reconcile with them, telling them how Shechem loves her, and wants to marry her etc. Now it seems that Jacob and his family will accept the proposition, to allow the rapist, the violater [sic], Shechem, to marry the victim, Dinah, just as Deuteronomy teaches. The only condition Jacob and his family ask for, is that Shechem becomes like one of them, i.e. getting circumcised etc and then they will allow the marriage to be done. So from all of this, it seems that the apologists are right, that this seems to be the norm of the time, for the rapist to marry the victim, not quite, as we continue to read:

Now it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword and came boldly upon the city and killed all the males. And they killed Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah from Shechem’s house, and went out. The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and plundered the city, because their sister had been defiled. They took their sheep, their oxen, and their donkeys, what was in the city and what was in the field, and all their wealth. All their little ones and their wives they took captive; and they plundered even all that was in the houses. Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have troubled me by making me obnoxious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites; and since I am few in number, they will gather themselves together against me and kill me. I shall be destroyed, my household and I.” But they said, “Should he treat our sister like a harlot?” (Genesis 34:25-31)

So notice what happens, the whole thing was a trick by Jacob’s family, they simply wanted to kill Shechem and his people, and they wanted them to get circumcised so they would be in a weakened state. Jacob’s family never intended to marry their daughter off to her rapist; they KILLED the rapist, and his people! Not only did they kill the rapist and his family, notice what Jacob’s family say, they openly say that if they had married their daughter to Shechem, it would have been treating her like a harlot!

So in other words, according to Jacob’s family, the rape victim having to marry her aggressor is turning her into a prostitute! Yet that is what Deuteronomy commands, it commands the rapist to marry the rape victim! So therefore, according to the family of Jacob, the command in Deuteronomy is a violation of rape victims, and is turning them into prostitutes.

What was Anthony’s response to the above? Well..

But there can be no question that Jacob did not agree with them, for not only does the passage not implicate Jacob in what (two of) his sons thought and did, but Jacob himself would later decry their council and actions, even to the point of cursing them

Unfortunately for Mr. Rogers, Jacob does not curse his children for killing the rapist, he curses his children for killing the innocent people, atleast this is the reasoning founded in Adam Clarke’s commentary, which reads:

“Our margin has it, Their swords are weapons of violence, i. e., Their swords, which they should have used in defence of their persons or the honourable protection of their families, they have employed in the base and dastardly murder of an innocent people.”*

Recall that they killed the entire town of people and their livestock in vengeance, this is why they were cursed, the verses offered by Anthony as a response to Sami, never indicated that they were punished specifically for killing the rapists, but instead, for killing the entire village and their animals. An act in itself which YHWH later permits as holy and just in Deuteronomy 20:16. At this point, Anthony has been soundly refuted, but I will comment on his last point:

Unfortunately for Sami, Christians are not unbetrothed virgins, but members of the body of Christ, His betrothed. And since the punishment for seducing and raping a betrothed woman in the Old Covenant is death (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), then the punishment for seeking to spiritually seduce the bride of Christ, as Sami is ultimately trying to do in the hopes that the Christian church will embrace the Islamic Isa, is eternal death.

What amazes me is that Anthony actually believes that accepting Islam is far worse than being raped. Anthony, as a personal advice to you, do not try to become a rape counsellor, do not try to comfort a rape victim, whatever you do, avoid rape victims at all costs. Perhaps engage in some sensitivity training, but whatever you do and I do mean whatever you do, I plead with you, out of all things, do not go around telling rape victims, “well you know, it’s not as bad as being Muslim, just think, Jesus gives  you the option to marry the guy! Hallelujah“.

In conclusion, not only has Anthony been soundly refuted, his inconsistency demonstrated, his morbid sense of morality exposed, his sensitivity issues made public and his sense of empathy made void, we’ve learned that in Anthony’s faith, rape earns you the right to marry your rapist, or rather if you’re raped, you get money or your father has the choice to marry you off to the rapist! I would like to thank Allaah [swt] for allowing Anthony to expose his true nature and for blessing Br. Sami with the ability to produce such arguments that make men like Anthony aide in Christians accepting Islam. Ameen.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God knows best.
*:

  1. NIV: 1984, UK and the 2011 Updated Versions, God’s Word Translation: 1995, all render the translated text as “rape”.
  2. “A Would-Be Seducer Gets Owned and Humbled”, by Anthony Rogers of Answering Islam.
  3. Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon, 06601.
  4. Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon, 08610.
  5. Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon, 07901.
  6. Deuteronomy 22:28, The Westminster Leningrad Codex.
  7. “A Would-Be Seducer Gets Owned and Humbled”, by Anthony Rogers of Answering Islam.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Numbers 36, NIV.
  10. Adam Clarke’s Commentary of the Bible, Genesis 49.

David Wood’s Hypocrisy: Young Hafiz Beaten

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I’d like to confess that I’m an avid reader of David Wood’s blog, “Answering Muslims”, in fact I’ve even commented on his blog a few times. A few months ago I watched an entertaining debate between David and Br. Ali Ataie, and to simply put it: amazing. Most of us have seen videos of Shaykh Ahmad Deedat (may God be pleased with him), decimating his zealot Christian opponents, but this debate, dare I say it, surpassed that. David’s arguments were stopped, slapped out of the way and turned on him, I’ve never seen an Islamophobe crumble that quickly before, David endured more than an hour’s worth of embarrassment. Following this debate, I then viewed  lecture on, “How to Give Da’wah“, by the Brother which impressed me further. Lastly, I read his book, “In Defense of Islam“, that was the end, I knew I had read the works of someone who was intelligent, pious and by all means, brilliant.

It is with that said, that through Br. Ali’s influence, I began to read David Wood’s blog, in fact I would like to publicly admit that I am an avid viewer of his numerous Acts 17 videos, criticising Islam. Some of you might wonder, why would I read this man’s works, or watch his videos and to be quite honest, I do it because I am enjoying observing the efforts of a conceited man, so disillusioned by his own lack of intelligence, it’s akin to watching a drunk man walk up a hill. He gets up each time after tumbling down and still he falls over himself constantly. I like this analogy the most because it reminded me of this video. Today (03/08/2012), while viewing his blog, I came across the post entitled, “Qur’an Student Beaten Unconscious for Making Mistakes While Reciting“. Now, I don’t expect much objectivity from the despot, but when he made this comment, I had no choice but to author this post, “But again, who are we to judge other people’s cultures?“.

You must understand that he’s asked a very important question, who are Christians to judge other people’s culture? Let’s get something straight here, if we were to compare the Bible and the Qur’an, and then ask the question which book orders us to beat our children, what would be the result?

In Proverbs 13:24 we read: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”

Beating your child is proportional to loving your child and not beating your child is akin to hating your child. Smacking your baby to death is love? After all, the Bible does set a great standard, Christians do believe God killed his only son by crucifying him and abandoning him on the cross. These two premises alone are tantamount enough to dispel David’s claim and question his biased reasoning, but to rub some salt into his wounds, let’s give some more examples:

  • July 17th, 2012, Mother Accused of Torturing Child says Bible made her do it:

    There’s no excuse for locking your own child in a chicken coop and making her live for days on just bread and water. But neighbors in Butler, Georgia say mom Diana Franklin and husband Samuel Franklinallegedly has one hell of an excuse. Literally. Franklin supposedly said that the Bible made them abuse their adopted daughter.It sounds like it could lead us down into a religious argument. But considering all the good parents I know who happen to be Christian and aren’t abusing their kids, I’m going to skip that quagmire and go straight for confusion. Are there really people who think it’s OK to live “by the Bible,” even when the laws in America say it’s wrong? Have they actually read the same book?Franklin was allegedly referencing Proverbs 13:24, the portion of the King James Bible that reads, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” As a result, cops say her 15-year-old daughter was forced at times to wear a dog’s shock collar, which Franklin would set off with a remote key fob. Other abuses described include living in a chicken coop for days on end and perform manual labor around their home in the oppressive heat.
  • October 27th, 2011, Parents Torture and Kill Adopted Child because of Biblical Teachings:

    The parents accused of killing their 13-year-old adopted daughter, are being investigated over whether they were inspired by a book that encourages children to be biblically punished.The Washington couple deny homicide and child abuse charges relating to the death of Ethiopian-born Hana Willaims, who apparently lived in a closet and was denied meals for days at a time.But investigators are looking into whether the Christian book, titled ‘To Train Up a Child’ may have been involved in the death of Hana and will be shown in a CNN documentary. Investigators say the abuse she endured included beatings, starvation, being forced to sleep outside and use an outdoor toilet, and that she had lost a significant amount of weight since her adoption.Prosecutors said the 10-year-old brother was similarly mistreated. The parents kept the family isolated from non-relatives, home-schooled the children and followed strict religious principles described in the Christian parenting book titled “To Train Up a Child,” investigators said. According to court documents, their 16-year-old son told investigators that Hana ‘was kept in a locked closet and the only light switch was on the outside of the closet.’ He stated that his mother would take her out every other day to walk and exercise. ‘They played the Bible on tape and Christian music for her while she was locked in the closet,’ he said.

  • Additional Source Link #1.
  • Additional Source Link #2.

It’s interesting to note that David won’t dare touch on these issues and you’d never see such coverage on his blog, but let a Muslim do something that his Bible commands and David’s ‘emotional plea to protect children from Muslims‘, instantly pops up in a post. I look forward to the day that David would be mature enough to publicly condemn such child abuse and torture entrusted in his Bible, then again, I’d also like to live in a world where uneducated people stay quiet, I guess some things are just bound to happen.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God Knows Best.

How the Bible Debunks Jesus as a God: Trinity vs Tawheed

Posted on by 2 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Today we’ll be examining the Christian concept of God and the Islamic concept of God. In Islam, our belief about Allah can be derived from Surah 112 of the Qur’an, that is Suratul Ikhlas, which reads:

“Say, “The truth is that Allah is One. 1 (1) Allah is Besought of all, needing none. 2 (2) He neither begot anyone, nor was he begotten. (3) And equal to Him has never been any one.” (4)”

These 4 verses, summarize the Islamic concept of God, we believe that Allah is one, there is no other God, no other person, nothing similar in any way to Him, similarly, the Bible agrees with this statement, in Deuteronomy 6:4 we read:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

When Jesus the Christ was asked about the most important commandment of all, he replied:

 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” – Mark 12:29

In Islam, the belief about the oneness of God is also our most important belief and it’s called “tawheed”. The Christian belief of God however is fundamentally different, because while Christianity regards God as echad or “one”, the Trinitarian doctrine regards God to be one in three persons. Hence the meaning of the Trinity can be broken down to mean, “Tri or Three (persons), United as One (God)”.  As Muslims we disagree with this concept of God and that’s because the logic behind it is irrational. Now, give me moment to explain, we have a saying in Latin, deomnibus dubitandum, or “question everything”. So let’s question the reasoning behind the Trinitarian doctrine.

  • We can start by defining God as an all knowing being, therefore He knows the past, present and future.
  • If God is all knowing  and He learns something, it means that before He was not all knowing and He has now become all knowing, as His knowledge is now complete.
  • If God is all knowing and He forgets something or does not know something, then now He is not all knowing.

Both Muslims and Christians should agree with this reasoning, therefore if we were to see that God either increases or decreases in knowledge this would prove that such a being cannot be a God. Thus we read from the Bible in Genesis 6:6, “The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled”. This presents a problem. The only reason you can commit regret, is if you made a mistake and you can only make a mistake if you did not know the consequences of your actions. Therefore, as it is, the Christian concept of God, cannot be considered to be all knowing.

For something a bit clearer and to the point, let’s read Mark 13:32, which says, ““But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”. This presents another problem, if Jesus was God and all knowing, He should know the hour. Some might say that this  verse refers to the hypostatic union, that Jesus was both man and God, and this verses refers to his manly existence. The problem with this concept is that the verses specifices the Father alone is complete in knowledge and the Son is not, it is comparing the supreme nature of the Father in comparison to the other person in the Godhead, his Son. Why would this verse be comparing God’s divine nature with a man’s limited knowledge? If that were the case then it would not have needed to specify, ‘only the Father’, hence as it is presented the verse is referring to both the Holy/ Divine nature of the Father and the Son. It does this while completely failing to mention the knowledge of the Holy Spirit on this issue. Therefore if the three persons in the Godhead are fully God, then we should expect them to be co-equal (re: Nicean Creed), but since the Bible presents the case that only one of these three persons is complete in knowledge, then by logic, the other two persons cannot be God, since they are not all knowing.

Therefore it is not that we as Muslims are ignorant of the Christian beliefs which is why we disbelieve in your faith, but it is because we believe that these concepts of God which you hold, cannot be qualified and as aptly demonstrated, regresses into an erratic and inconsistent belief system.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God Knows Best.

Christ’s Second Coming According to the Bible

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Both Muslims and Christians believe in the second coming of Christ. However the second coming of Christ according to Christianity is portrayed as something horrendous to come, so what exactly does the Old and New Testament claim of Christ’s return?

In the last book of the Old Testament, Zechariah 14 we read:

“A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. Clearly, mass rape is not a very good welcoming event for anyone, let alone the Christian God. However, it gets worse, torture and forced worship will then become the mainstay of the day:

12This is the plague with which the Lord will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths. 13 On that day people will be stricken by the Lord with great panic. They will seize each other by the hand and attack one another. 14 Judah too will fight at Jerusalem. The wealth of all the surrounding nations will be collected —great quantities of gold and silver and clothing. 15 A similar plague will strike the horses and mules, the camels and donkeys, and all the animals in those camps.

16 Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. 17 If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, they will have no rain. 18 If the Egyptian people do not go up and take part, they will have no rain. The Lord[b] will bring on them the plague he inflicts on the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. 19 This will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.”

Forced worship, torture, mass rape, I’m not quite sure that the Bible wants us to be excited about Christ’s second coming. In fact, the New Testament makes it sound far worse. According to Revelation 2:26-28, the world will be ruled by an iron fist, an iron scepter, an allegory for brutal rule:

“To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations —27 that one ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’[b] —just as I have received authority from my Father.”

What will happen during this time of Christ’s earthly rule? Well, never ending torture and war:

“During those days people will seek death but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

7 The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. 8 Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. 9 They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. 10 They had tails with stingers, like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months.”

I don’t know about you, but the Bible’s version of Christ’s return is not that appealing to say the least. In fact, the Qur’an nor the Ahadith state that Christ’s coming would involve forced worship, torture, mass rape and genocide. It is a sad state of affairs to see Christians ‘preaching love’, yet they expect to torture and rape our women when Christ returns. They are free to believe what they wish, but I choose the Qur’an over their ideology, any day:

“There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.” – Qur’an 2:256.

While Islam claims there is no compulsion in faith, i.e. forced worship, the Bible promises in Revelation 2:26-28 that we will be ruled by force, such to the extent that another Bible verse promises we will be forced to worship Christ:

It is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'” – Romans 14:11.

It’s easy to say ‘Christ loves you’, it’s far more difficult to say what he’ll do after loving you. I wonder why Christians insist on focusing on the ‘love of Christ’, but are not willing to discuss what comes after his love. We must remember, that the God of the Old Testament is a violent God:

“However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.” – Deuteronomy 20:16.

The sudden change of character in the New Testament from a Jealous, Powerful, Mighty, Vengeful God, to a Loving, Merciful, All Forgiving God seemed quite odd to many Christians, such to the extent that a sect, called the Marcionites disbelieved that the God of the Old Testament and that of the New Testament were two different Gods. At that time that sect did not have the Book of Revelation, if they did, they’d have seen that the hateful, vengeful God of the Old Testament returns to his old ways after having ‘loved’ us.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and God Knows Best.

Defining Islam

Posted on by 3 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

How do we know what Islam actually is? In our very own societies we live among many Masajid (re: plural of Masjid), we have many Muslim friends and even some of our family members are Muslims, but do we really understand what it is that they believe? Some Muslims themselves can’t properly define Islam, they live the experience but are unable to convert this experience into a proper definition. Islam can be defined as, ‘a culture, that is a way of life through which those who practice Islam gain peace and success, in both this life and the next’.

This is a definition which the Bible also holds to:

“Submit to God and be at peace with him; in this way prosperity will come to you.” – Job 22:21

In Islam, we submit to God by obeying His laws and if we sin, which humans tends to do, we repent and seek His forgiveness, a sentiment by which the Bible also shares, as Psalms 103:3 describes God as one, “who forgives all your sins“, the Qur’an in Surah 39, Verse 53 also says the same.

Islam being a culture or a way of life, means that Islam is not something which is practiced only during Eid or Ramadan. As any other way of life, it involves dressing a certain way, eating specific foods, socializing and interacting with others at a set standard. The culture we follow, or the Islamic culture is the ‘Sunnah’, which means ‘The Practise’. The practice we follow is the life of Prophet Muhammad [upon whom be God’s peace]. We follow the ‘Sunnah’ of the Prophet and the previous Prophets, including Jesus, Moses, Abraham and many others, may God’s peace be upon them all.We follow them because they are morally superior to those who do not follow God’s commands, specifically chosen by God to deliver and teach His message(s). These Prophets put into practice the laws which God gave them, God instructed them to teach and guide mankind towards salvation. Therefore we wish to be as pure as the Prophets in our faith, so that we too can earn God’s rewards.

In Islam we believe that God chose the Prophets who were given one ‘way of life’. Therefore, the core beliefs of our Deen or ‘way of life’, since the time of Adam, the first Prophet until the last, Muhammad, peace be upon him, has remained the same. Firmly believe in God’s oneness, the Revelations He sent, the Prophets He sent to guide us, belief in the afterlife, and put His commands into practice and you shall be successful. So where are these laws of guidance found? In the Qur’an and Ahadith.

Islam’s scripture is the Qur’an, an Arabic text, consisting of 114 Chapters or Surahs, it is a very unique  book. It’s not arranged chronologically, alphabetically, numerically or topically, the very first chapter itself summarizes Islam and as you progress through the Qur’an it guides you with many examples, historical information and similitudes, constantly reminding you of your life’s eternal purpose. We also have the words of the Prophet [peace be upon him], termed ‘ahadith’ which have been rigorously scrutinized and validated through the liturgical science of oral criticism, what we call ‘Ulum al Hadith’. These are the two major sources of Islamic law.  As I’ve hoped to demonstrate, Islam is practically simple to understand, it’s not something alien to our societies and it’s pretty interesting.

This article has been based on episode 1 of ‘Understanding Islam’ which was broadcasted in Trinidad and Tobago from the 21st of July to the 31st of July, by Br. Ijaz Ahmad.

Here we define some terms and promote a very basic understanding of Islam and its core beliefs.

What is Islam?

Islam is an ideology which seeks to enlighten and guide humans, both individually and in groups towards promoting good societal norms and values, so that humans may earn the pleasure of God. Believing in Islam entails the following:

  • Belief in the Oneness of Allah.
  • Belief in the Angels.
  • Belief in the Day of Judgement.
  • Belief in the Prophets {peace be upon them all} and the finality of Prophethood with Muhammad {peace be upon him}.
  • Belief in the Revelations of Allah (Scrolls of Abraham, Psalms of David, Torah of Moses, Injil of Jesus, Qur’an of Muhammad).
  • Belief in God’s Knowledge, i.e. Predestination, (God knows what has, is and will happen).

Islam therefore, seeks that believers ideally,  fully commit to the laws of Allah and obey His commandments (law – hukm). Islam is derived from the world ‘Salam’, which means peace. Some Muslims therefore, define Islam as ‘peace through obeying God’s commands‘.

What is a Muslim?

A Muslim is one who practises the faith of Islam. For a more technical definition, a Muslim is considered to be one from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamm’ah (They are those who hold on to the Sunnah of the Messenger, the ones who unite themselves upon that and they are the Companions of the Messenger, the Scholars of Guidance, who follow the Companions and whoever travels upon their path in terms of belief, speech and action until the Day of Judgement.)

What is the Qur’an?

The Qur’an is the Muslim scripture. It consists of 114 Chapters called Surahs. It is said to be the word of God (kalamullah), delivered through inspiration to the Messenger Muhammad {saw}, sometimes by an angel, named Jibra’eel (Gabriel). Delivered over a period of 23 years, written down by more than 30 scribes, transmitted to the companions of the Messenger, through liturgical (oral and aural – recitation), as well as textual means (Mushaf/ Suhuf). Recited five times in daily prayers, and memorized by Muslims, some called Hafiz (plural: Huffaz), a person who learns to recite the Qur’an is termed a Qari. You can read the Qur’an here.

Who is Allah?

Allah (الله) is the name of God in Islam. Allah is unique, as this particular name cannot be made plural or conjugated into a male, female or dual form, which is the norm for most Arabic nouns. Allah is the Lord and God of the heavens and the earth. Muslims believe that Allah has 99 known attributes, termed Asma wa Sifat (names and attributes), unique to God alone. These attributes are absolute, and therefore unchanging. Therefore, God cannot be all knowing one day and partly knowing the next. In Islam, God is unique and since He is unique, there is nothing comparable to Him. The following Surahs from the Qur’an, describe Allah to the Muslims.

“Originator of the heavens and the earth, He has made your consorts from among you, and made pairs of cattle. He multiplies you in this way. There is no other like Him. He is all-hearing and all-seeing.” – Qur’an 42:11.

“Say, “He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent.” – Qur’an 112

“Allah – there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Most Great.” – Qur’an 2:255.

As for the claim Allah is a moon God, the Qur’an answers this, by saying:

“And of His signs are the night and day and the sun and moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostate to Allah, who created them, if it should be Him that you worship.” – Qur’an 41:37.

Who is Muhammad [saw]?

In Islam, Muhammad {peace be upon him} is considered to be a Rasul (Messenger/ Prophet). A Rasul in Islam, is one, chosen by Allah to deliver a Risalat (Message) and this message is divine revelation (wahy). So a Rasul delivers the Risalat. Muhammad {peace be upon him} is God’s final messenger to mankind. In Islam, Messengers were usually sent to one group of persons, tribes, or communities. With the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him), the Messenger this time, was sent not to any one tribe or group, but to the entire world. A message from Allah to all of mankind.

Note: See this article on the Prophet’s marriage to Aisha (may God be pleased with her).

What is the Sunnah?

The Sunnah is literally the practise, the actions, the lifestyle of Muhammad {peace be upon him}. In Islam, Messengers are considered to be the highest form of moral exemplary. The Messengers/ Prophets were guided by God to lead the people, therefore the Prophets had the best of akhlaq/ adaab (manners/ decorum). Their lifestyles are the models for the believers, therefore this is termed the Sunnah.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and God Knows Best.

Allah the Moon God – Myth or Reality?

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

An oft repeated stigma against Islam, is the understanding that Muslims worship the moon. This argument is further justified by linking the use of the crescent and star on Masjids as a sign of our pagan moon worship. Lastly, the argument is further qualified by the claim that ‘Allah’ was the name used by pagan Makkans to describe the ‘moon God’. It is unfortunate that many persons sought to answer this through complex and vast arguments, when the answer in itself is quite simple.

‘Allah’, the Name of a Pagan God?

Initiated by Dr. Robert Morey, an Islamophobic missionary, the claim that ‘Allah’ refers to a pagan God is based upon nothing more than wishful thinking. I’ll demonstrate this with the English language:

  1. In English, Allah is known as God.
  2. In English, Jesus is known as God.

God is the default English term for referring to a religious deity, it could be Shiva, Ashera, Zeus, Mithra, in English these are all considered to be ‘Gods’. Therefore the term ‘God’ is the label for a generic term to refer to a religious deity. This does not mean however, that if a Muslim calls Allah as ‘God’, that he’s referring to the ‘God’ of the Christian faith. Although the same label is used, the concepts, beliefs and ideologies about each respective deity is vast and incomparable.

Likewise, in the Arabic language, the generic term for a religious deity is ‘Al Ilah’ (literally: The God). So to the Arab Muslim, Al Ilah is ‘Allah’ and to the Arab Christian Al Ilah is, ‘Allah’. Yet the Muslim will describe his ‘Allah’ as ‘Ahad’ (one) and the Christian would describe his ‘Allah’ as ‘thalatha’ (three). Even though both Arab Christians and Arab Muslims use the same term for God, ‘Allah’, it does not mean that we worship the same concept or belief of ‘Allah’. Likewise, whether or not ‘Allah’ was used by the Pagans to refer to a moon God is irrelevant, as the Muslims and Christians both refer to God as ‘Allah’, yet neither group worships the moon.

To claim that because Muslims call God ‘Allah’, it means we worship an ancient Pagan God, is equitable to saying that because Muslims in English refer to their religious deity as ‘God’, and because Christians also in English refer to their religious deity as ‘God’, that we are both referring to the same God. It is obvious that no missionary will concede to worshipping the same God which Muslims worship, and this succinctly refutes such absurd logic.

The Use of the Crescent is akin to Worshipping It.

This argument has no basis, although a Masjid may have a crescent and star, just as how a Church has a cross, it does not mean that Muslims prostate to or worship the moon and star. Likewise, just because a Christian may have a cross on their Church or even in their Church it does not mean that the Christian worships a cross. This argument in itself is suitable for debunking this myth as it is.

We can examine one final example, Jews use the Star of David as a symbol of their religious identity, does this mean that Jews worship the stars? Of course not, it’s simply a symbol through which their faith is identified.

The Final Argument.

As opposed to examining the historical aspect of this claim, it is much easier to examine the logical aspect of it. You must understand that the claim itself is fraudulent and if we can demonstrate that the claim is fraudulent, then by default the person promoting such an argument will be stopped in their tracks. The claim is:

  • ‘Allah is a Pagan Moon God’

Therefore the question to be asked is, “where does the Qur’an command us to bow to the moon or stars?“. What we mean is, if the Missionary is claiming that our religion commands us to worship a Pagan Moon God, then we’d like to see where the Qur’an or Ahadith indicate this. Offer a Qur’an to the Missionary and have them locate a verse which qualifies their argument. It is quite obvious that they will not be able to find such a verse. Thus logically, we’ll now employ the use of, “proof by contradiction“.

Proof by contradiction, works by negating your opponents claim. For example if someone says your right hand has 3 fingers and you demonstrate to them that you have 5, this means you have contradicted their claim therefore proving them wrong. Likewise, if we can show that their is a verse in the Qur’an which contradicts the claim that it is a religious duty to worship the moon, then by all means we’ve thoroughly refuted the Missionary’s claim:

And of His signs are the night and day and the sun and moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostate to Allah, who created them, if it should be Him that you worship. – Qur’an 41:37.

Therefore in order to refute the missionary claim, all you have to do is whip out this verse and then ask, “If Allah is the moon God, why does He command us not to worship the Moon?“.

Conclusion.

Historically speaking, this claim has no basis. Logically speaking it is simple to refute. At the end of the day, all you need to remember is the reference for this verse and you’d be able to refute any missionary who tries to use this clam against you. It takes less than 1 minute to locate the verse and then read it for the missionary. Therefore I suggest that this is the most simple, yet most effective response to this specific missionary claim.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.

Debate: Hamza Tzortzis vs Jay Smith

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In this splendid video, Br. Hamza, a Greek revert tackles the Islamophobic missionary, Jay Smith. Hyde Park is a famous spot for religious and political debate, Br. Hamza and Jay went head to head, in what I must say was an embarrassing display on Jay’s behalf. Jay’s presence at Hyde park is frequent, but his archaic arguments, hate speech, vile mannerisms and ignorance of Islam continue to work against his missionary work. Check the video out for yourselves!

wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.

Rights of a Wife in Islam

Posted on by Leave a comment

Women’s rights are a hot topic when it comes to the religion of Islam. In an ideal video on this topic, Mufti Hussain Kamani discusses the rights of the Muslim wife. He covers a majority of points and details many insights that we often don’t hear about. Instead of learning about Muslim women’s rights from anyone but Muslims, let’s make an effort to see what Muslim law actually states about them:

 

and God knows best.

Would a Loving and Merciful God, Kill Himself/ His Own Son?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Let’s take a look at the concept of Christ from the Tanach, which is the Old Testament and the Christ of the New Testament. What does the Bible actually say about this blessed man? It should be noted that no Muslim can be a Muslim while rejecting Christ as a Prophet of God. With that having been said, let’s begin with a quotation from the Book of Psalms, which reads:

“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.” – Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible, Matthew 27.

“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.

What’s worse is that even an epistle in the New Testaments willingly admits that the one who is punished upon the cross is cursed by God:

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” – Bible : Galatians (3) : Verse 13.

These verses, quotes, scholar’s interpretations and more, really cause disdain for the Muslim who is taught otherwise. Jesus, Christ, the Messiah, may God be pleased with him, to us, was not forsaken by God, was not abandoned, cursed, tortured, abused, mocked or destroyed. To us, he delivered his message (risalah), to his people, the Children of Israel (Bani Isra’il), he did miracles and brought guidance to the masses by God’s will. Islam portrays him not be wretched and forsaken, but worthy of the protection of God, as the Psalms has said.

and God knows best.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »