Category Archives: Muslim and Non-Muslim Dialogue

James White’s Arabic Tutor Fails at Arabic [Video]

Posted on by 2 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

James White has done it again. It’s easy to spot the mistakes of a pretender, an actor and James White can’t stop making mistakes. This time, he embarrasses himself, his Arabic tutor and his ministry by demonstrating the ignorance of his Arabic tutor. If you haven’t subscribed to Br. Muslim By Choice’s videos as yet, you’re missing out on all the fun. Check out the video:

James and his mistakes just seem to be getting worse. Thank you for exposing James, Br. MBC!

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Burma’s Genocide of Muslims

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

 

This image shows the vast amount of destruction done against an exclusively Muslim section of a Burmese town. In excess of 800 homes have been destroyed, 60+ killed and many injured. The follow article was sourced from the Guardian UK:

Burma’s president has admitted an unprecedented wave of ethnic violence has targeted his country’s Rohingya Muslim population, destroying whole villages and large parts of towns.

Thein Sein’s acknowledgement follows the release of satellite imagesshowing the severe scale of the destruction in one coastal town, where most – if not all – of the Muslim population appears to have been displaced and their homes destroyed.

The pictures, acquired by Human Rights Watchshow destruction to the coastal town of Kyaukpyu in the country’s west. They reveal an area of destruction 35 acres in size in which some 811 buildings and boats have been destroyed.

The images confirm reports of an orgy of destruction in the town which occurred in a 24-hour period in the middle of last week after violence in the province broke out again on 21 October.

The attacks in Arakan province in the country’s west – also known as Rakhine – appears to have been part of a wave of communal violence pitting Arakan Buddhists against Muslims that has hit five separate towns and displaced thousands of people.

“There have been incidents of whole villages and parts of the towns being burned down in Arakan state,” Thein Sein’s spokesman said.

A government spokesman put the death toll up until Friday at 112. But within hours state media revised it to 67 killed from 21-25 October, with 95 wounded and nearly 3,000 houses destroyed.

The president’s comments followed a warning from the office of the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, that ethnic violence was endangering political progress in Burma.

“The vigilante attacks, targeted threats and extremist rhetoric must be stopped. If this is not done … the reform and opening-up process being currently pursued by the government is likely to be jeopardised,” the statement said.

The Burmese government is struggling to contain ethnic and religious tensions suppressed during nearly half a century of military rule that ended last year.

Inter-ethnic violence broke out earlier this year, triggered by the rape and murder of a Buddhist woman by three Muslim men.

Releasing the satellite images, Human Rights Watch said it had identified 633 buildings and 178 houseboats and floating barges which were destroyed in an area occupied predominantly by Rohingya.

A committee of MPs led by the Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi called on Friday for security reinforcements and swift legal action against those behind the killings and destruction.

According to Reuters, dozens of boats full of Rohingyas with no food or water fled Kyaukpyu, an industrial zone important to China, and other recent hotspots and were seeking access on Friday to overcrowded refugee camps around the state capital, Sittwe.

Some 3,000 Rohingya were reported to have been blocked from reaching Sittwe by government forces and landed on a nearby island.

“These latest incidents between Muslim Rohingyas and Buddhists demonstrate how urgent it is that the authorities intervene to protect everyone, and break the cycle of discrimination and violence,” Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific deputy director, Isabelle Arradon, said.

The latest violence erupted as a Burmese website in Norway – the Democratic Voice of Burma – reported it had acquired a document by a group calling itself the All-Arakanese Monks’ Solidarity Conference. calling for all Rohingya to be expelled from the country.

“Burma’s government urgently needs to provide security for the Rohingya in Arakan state, who are under vicious attack,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Unless the authorities also start addressing the root causes of the violence, it is only likely to get worse.”

Human Rights Watch fears the death toll is far higher, based on allegations from witnesses fleeing scenes of carnage and the government’s well-documented history of underestimating figures that might lead to criticism of the state.

The Rohingya are officially stateless. Buddhist-majority Burma’s government regards the estimated 800,000 of them in the country as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, and not as one of the country’s 135 official ethnic groups, and denies them citizenship.

But many of those expelled from Kyaukpyu are not Rohingya but Muslims from the officially recognised Kaman minority, said Chris Lewa, director of the Rohingya advocacy group, Arakan Project.

“It’s not just anti-Rohingya violence anymore, it’s anti-Muslim,” she said.

It was unclear what set off the latest arson and killing on Sunday.

Muslims have experienced large scale persecution for centuries, the Bosnian massacres, Iraqi war, Afghanistan war, Gazan genocide are just some of the conflicts in which Muslims were the targets, often times women and children being the main victims.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

5 Arguments to Debunk Any Missionary [PDF]

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

A close friend of mine asked for some arguments he can use to defend himself against a persistent Christian missionary, I complied with his request and made a 3 page printable PDF that contains 5 basic arguments to disarm and disable any missionary. The arguments are simple, but effective, they target three key areas of the Christian faith:

  1. The Holy Nature of God in the Christianity- YHWH.
  2. The Sinless/ Divine nature of Christ.
  3. The Apostleship of Paul.

They are easy to remember, even easier to follow and can be learned within 10 – 20 minutes. The arguments are perfect for da’wah training, or anti-missionary work, even children from the ages of 7 could understand them.

Here’s the PDF via 4shared or [Click here to Open PDF].

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Originally Published: October 1st, 6:54, 2012. Republished due to Scribd embed, awareness.

Sam Shamoun Runs Away from Calling Christians

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

On the morning of Thursday 25th (2012), I decided to peruse Sam’s Facebook page. I then decided to respond to one of Sam’s intellectually devoid posts:

Unfortunately, Sam decided that he preferred not to respond and chose to delete and subsequently block me from commenting on his page. I see Christians who on a daily basis, run to Shamoun for help, they praise and glorify him, but here he is, running from Muslims. In fact, another Muslim (convert from Christianity), Br. Abdul Khaliq (read his apostasy from Christianity and acceptance of Islam here), who also began to comment on this comment thread was also blocked from further commenting. Why is Sam Shamoun afraid of discussing his beliefs and claims with Muslims? What has he to hide?

To the Christians who appeal to him, what does his behaviour demonstrate to you? Is he ‘defending’ the Gospel by running from his critics and detractors? David Wood (Sam’s buddy) who preaches ‘freedom of speech’ and who swears to defend ‘human rights’, why won’t he teach Sam to allow criticism of his uneducated statements? In fact, directly after Sam deleted my comments, he then posted a barrage of insults, abuses, curses which I have chosen not to reproduce. If you would like to see evidence of his lowly character click this link. In all honesty, I do not know Sam personally, but if this is the way he ‘preaches’,  it explains why so many Christians who have never heard Muslim arguments, come to our pages and for the first time experience a real discussion. Sam’s gestapo – like tactics can only benefit Muslims, as these same Christians of whom he shelters on his page, try to take his arguments elsewhere and are then soundly debunked, opening their hearts and minds to Islam.

Br. Abdul Khaliq is just one of many Christians who have apostated from that faith, even though they were blocked from Islam by Christian preachers like Sam, but praise be to God who gave them guidance out of the darkness they were enshrouded within. Please do see these links for further responses to Shamoun:

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Informant: NYPD paid me to ‘bait’ Muslims

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Propaganda is an important part of argumentum ad baculum, essentially you are creating an enemy or attempting to justify some form of harsh tactics against an innocent person or group of persons. This is also a form of appeal to emotion, whereby you appeal to the sensitivities of people, whether that be their fears, likes, dislikes or addictions. In this case presented by Br. Shamiur Rahman, this is exactly what the NYPD has done. They’ve created a fear of threat, based on reasoning that is fallacious. Many right-wing Americans, such as David Wood, Sam Shamoun, James White and Pamela Geller, all owe their popularity to an impending threat of Muslim terrorism. A quick glance at their websites or radio shows, demonstrates clear cut fear mongering. Right wing America needs to foster this fear in order to promote whatever ideological views they seek to spread. For some, it could be votes, for others it is to promote a religion, the use of argumentum ad baculum is expansive. According to an article by the Huffington Post, the NYPD baited Muslims, rather created situations, manipulated Muslims and then prosecuted, spied and charged said Muslims based on their own preparations and planning:

NEW YORK — A paid informant for the New York Police Department’s intelligence unit was under orders to “bait” Muslims into saying inflammatory things as he lived a double life, snapping pictures inside mosques and collecting the names of innocent people attending study groups on Islam, he told The Associated Press.

Shamiur Rahman, a 19-year-old American of Bangladeshi descent who has now denounced his work as an informant, said police told him to embrace a strategy called “create and capture.” He said it involved creating a conversation about jihad or terrorism, then capturing the response to send to the NYPD. For his work, he earned as much as $1,000 a month and goodwill from the police after a string of minor marijuana arrests.

“We need you to pretend to be one of them,” Rahman recalled the police telling him. “It’s street theater.”

Rahman said he now believes his work as an informant against Muslims in New York was “detrimental to the Constitution.” After he disclosed to friends details about his work for the police – and after he told the police that he had been contacted by the AP – he stopped receiving text messages from his NYPD handler, “Steve,” and his handler’s NYPD phone number was disconnected.

Rahman’s account shows how the NYPD unleashed informants on Muslim neighborhoods, often without specific targets or criminal leads. Much of what Rahman said represents a tactic the NYPD has denied using.

The AP corroborated Rahman’s account through arrest records and weeks of text messages between Rahman and his police handler. The AP also reviewed the photos Rahman sent to police. Friends confirmed Rahman was at certain events when he said he was there, and former NYPD officials, while not personally familiar with Rahman, said the tactics he described were used by informants.

Informants like Rahman are a central component of the NYPD’s wide-ranging programs to monitor life in Muslim neighborhoods since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Police officers have eavesdropped inside Muslim businesses, trained video cameras on mosques and collected license plates of worshippers. Informants who trawl the mosques – known informally as “mosque crawlers” – tell police what the imam says at sermons and provide police lists of attendees, even when there’s no evidence they committed a crime.

The programs were built with unprecedented help from the CIA.

Police recruited Rahman in late January, after his third arrest on misdemeanor drug charges, which Rahman believed would lead to serious legal consequences. An NYPD plainclothes officer approached him in a Queens jail and asked whether he wanted to turn his life around.

The next month, Rahman said, he was on the NYPD’s payroll.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne did not immediately return a message seeking comment on Tuesday. He has denied widespread NYPD spying, saying police only follow leads.

In an Oct. 15 interview with the AP, however, Rahman said he received little training and spied on “everything and anyone.” He took pictures inside the many mosques he visited and eavesdropped on imams. By his own measure, he said he was very good at his job and his handler never once told him he was collecting too much, no matter whom he was spying on.

Rahman said he thought he was doing important work protecting New York City and considered himself a hero.

One of his earliest assignments was to spy on a lecture at the Muslim Student Association at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan. The speaker was Ali Abdul Karim, the head of security at the Masjid At-Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn. The NYPD had been concerned about Karim for years and already had infiltrated the mosque, according to NYPD documents obtained by the AP.

Rahman also was instructed to monitor the student group itself, though he wasn’t told to target anyone specifically. His NYPD handler, Steve, told him to take pictures of people at the events, determine who belonged to the student association and identify its leadership.

On Feb. 23, Rahman attended the event with Karim and listened, ready to catch what he called a “speaker’s gaffe.” The NYPD was interested in buzz words such as “jihad” and “revolution,” he said. Any radical rhetoric, the NYPD told him, needed to be reported.

John Jay president Jeremy Travis said Tuesday that police had not told the school about the surveillance. He did not say whether he believed the tactic was appropriate.

“As an academic institution, we are committed to the free expression of ideas and to creating a safe learning environment for all of our students,” he said in a written statement. “We are working closely with our Muslim students to affirm their rights and to reassure them that we support their organization and freedom to assemble.”

Talha Shahbaz, then the vice president of the student group, met Rahman at the event. As Karim was finishing his talk on Malcolm X’s legacy, Rahman told Shahbaz that he wanted to know more about the student group. They had briefly attended the same high school in Queens.

Rahman said he wanted to turn his life around and stop using drugs, and said he believed Islam could provide a purpose in life. In the following days, Rahman friended him on Facebook and the two exchanged phone numbers. Shahbaz, a Pakistani who came to the U.S. more three years ago, introduced Rahman to other Muslims.

“He was telling us how he loved Islam and it’s changing him,” said Asad Dandia, who also became friends with Rahman.

Secretly, Rahman was mining his new friends for details about their lives, taking pictures of them when they ate at restaurants and writing down license plates on the orders of the NYPD.

On the NYPD’s instructions, he went to more events at John Jay, including when Siraj Wahhaj spoke in May. Wahhaj, 62, is a prominent but controversial New York imam who has attracted the attention of authorities for years. Prosecutors included his name on a 3 1/2-page list of people they said “may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though he was never charged. In 2004, the NYPD placed Wahhaj on an internal terrorism watch list and noted: “Political ideology moderately radical and anti-American.”

That evening at John Jay, a friend took a photograph of Wahhaj with a grinning Rahman.

Rahman said he kept an eye on the MSA and used Shahbaz and his friends to facilitate traveling to events organized by the Islamic Circle of North America and Muslim American Society. The society’s annual convention in Hartford, Conn, draws a large number of Muslims and plenty of attention from the NYPD. According to NYPD documents obtained by the AP, the NYPD sent three informants there in 2008 and was keeping tabs on the group’s former president.

Rahman was told to spy on the speakers and collect information. The conference was dubbed “Defending Religious Freedom.” Shahbaz paid Rahman’s travel expenses.

Rahman, who was born in Queens, said he never witnessed any criminal activity or saw anybody do anything wrong.

He said he sometimes intentionally misinterpreted what people had said. For example, Rahman said he would ask people what they thought about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, knowing the subject was inflammatory. It was easy to take statements out of context, he said. Rahman said he wanted to please his NYPD handler, whom he trusted and liked.

“I was trying to get money,” Rahman said. “I was playing the game.”

Rahman said police never discussed the activities of the people he was assigned to target for spying. He said police told him once, “We don’t think they’re doing anything wrong. We just need to be sure.”

On some days, Rahman’s spent hours and covered miles in his undercover role. On Sept. 16, for example, he made his way in the morning to the Al Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn, snapping photographs of an imam and the sign-up sheet for those attending a regular class on Islamic instruction. He also provided their cell phone numbers to the NYPD. That evening he spied on people at Masjid Al-Ansar, also in Brooklyn.

Text messages on his phone showed that Rahman also took pictures last month of people attending the 27th annual Muslim Day Parade in Manhattan. The parade’s grand marshal was New York City Councilman Robert Jackson.

Rahman said he eventually tired of spying on his friends, noting that at times they delivered food to needy Muslim families. He said he once identified another NYPD informant spying on him. He took $200 more from the NYPD and told them he was done as an informant. He said the NYPD offered him more money, which he declined. He told friends on Facebook in early October that he had been a police spy but had quit. He also traded Facebook messages with Shahbaz, admitting he had spied on students at John Jay.

“I was an informant for the NYPD, for a little while, to investigate terrorism,” he wrote on Oct. 2. He said he no longer thought it was right. Perhaps he had been hunting terrorists, he said, “but I doubt it.”

Shahbaz said he forgave Rahman.

“I hated that I was using people to make money,” Rahman said. “I made a mistake.”

The so-called ‘threat of Muslim terrorism’, is nothing more than propaganda, fostered by state institutions and private entities to fund their own personal gain. The emotion of fear is a powerful tool, when the State uses it to persecute innocents, it can only harbour racism, anti-Semitism and even sexism. Such tactics are referred to as entrapment, and seriously impede on the rights of citizens.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Luke 13:33 and Sam Shamoun

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

One of Br. Shabir Ally’s most famous arguments is derived from Luke 13:33, you can see him using it in this debate:

Sam Shamoun did a response to it along with a few other responses to Br. Shabir. Today I’d like to examine Sam’s ‘explanation’ and to analyse his statements, judging to see whether he has or has not rectified this theological conundrum. Sam begins by saying:

Shabir thinks that this verse is a contradiction and even proves that Jesus wasn’t killed:

“Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem.”

Shabir assumes that this text clearly contradicts the fact that Jesus was crucified outside of Jerusalem.

Br. Shabir did not assume, he simply read the verse and utilized it’s clear meaning, for as Jesus allegedly says, “it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem“. Meaning then, that a Prophet can only die in Jerusalem. Sam tries to answer this by stating:

In the first place, Jesus clearly says that he will be killed outside of Jerusalem:

Clearly then, Jesus contradicts his own words. His response doesn’t begin by refuting Br. Shabir’s argument, he actually initiates his explanation by debunking his own God. Brilliant work Sam. He then cites this verse and uses it as evidence that Jesus allegedly said that he would die outside of Jerusalem:

But when the tenants saw him, they said to themselves, “This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.” And they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants, and give the vineyard to others.’ When they heard this, they said, ‘God forbid!’” Luke 20:9-16

The tenants refer to the Jewish leaders and the vineyard refers to Jerusalem. In this parable, Jesus says that he, as the beloved Son, will be thrown out of the vineyard and then be killed. To put it another way, Jesus was saying that the Jewish leaders would have him killed outside of Jerusalem.

Now, I’m not sure if Sam really thought this explanation through, or if he is actively working to disprove the veracity of Christianity. There are a number of problems with Sam’s referencing and subsequent use of the aforementioned passage. Namely, that according to the parable the “Jews/ Tenants” would kill the “heir/ Jesus” for the “inheritance” and as a cause of this, the “Jews/ Tenants” would be destroyed. If Jesus came to die and the Jews fulfilled this purpose, according to this parable, God would have to kill the people that He sent to kill His son. Which is a problem, if Jesus came to die and the Jews fulfilled this purpose, why would God be angry at them? Secondly, if the “inheritance” here is the “gift of salvation”, shouldn’t God/ the Owner, be happy that they killed His son?

If I were for a moment to neglect Sam’s incompetence of dismantling his own doctrine, and to accept that Jesus predicts his death, according to Luke 13:33, shouldn’t he be killed in Jerusalem? Therefore this verse contradicts Jesus’ own words and presents severe theological faults with Christianity. Since this is the case, a methodological reinterpretation/ reading of Luke 13:33 must be undertaken to mask this scriptural blunder. Sam continues:

Now we anticipate that Shabir will say that this doesn’t resolve the problem and will wish to say that this only contradicts what Jesus said in Luke 13:33. Does it? Let us read the immediate context and see:

“Just at that time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, “Go away, leave here, for Herod wants to kill You.’ And He said to them, ‘Go and tell that fox, “Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.” Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it! Behold, your house is left to you desolate; and I say to you, you will not see Me until the time comes when you say, “BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!”’” Luke 13:31-35

Luke 13 references Matthew 23 wherein it reads:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.  For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

According to these passages, the Jews of Jerusalem kill the prophets and those sent to them. Yet, Jesus was not killed by Jews or by those of Jerusalem, but by the hands of Romans, another strange predicament (as Sam later admits, Jesus died by the Gentiles and not the Jews). More interestingly, Jesus allegedly predicts that Jerusalem would welcome him as blessed and as one who has come in the Name of the Lord, yet there is no such realization according to any of the Synoptic gospels, therefore Jesus’ death is inconsistent with this prophecy, as it has yet to be fulfilled. Sam continues:

We can glean from the immediate context that Jesus was addressing the Jews who warned him about Herod’s threat. Jesus responds by basically saying that Herod can’t do anything against him since he has a goal to reach Jerusalem, and once there he will die. Now from this context we can see that Jerusalem stands for the Jewish leaders, in contrast to Herod, who will kill Jesus just as they killed the other prophets. Obviously, Jerusalem didn’t literally kill the prophets but its leaders and people did. This serves to affirm that Jesus’ point was that Herod wouldn’t be the one to condemn him to death, but the members of the Sanhedrin who were in Jerusalem.

According to Sam himself, Jesus was to die in Jerusalem and by the hands of the Jews, which he later disagrees with and argues against in his later discussion. Interestingly Sam then tries to validate his eisegesis by appealing to another false prophecy:

This is reiterated in the Matthaean parallel:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom YOU will kill and crucify, and some YOU will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that ON YOU may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom YOU murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” Matthew 23:29-39

According to Sam’s quote, when Jesus accuses the Pharisees of murdering someone in Jerusalem, they literally killed someone in Jerusalem. That is to say Zechariah, who died within the physical delimitations of Jerusalem. So specific was Jesus’ statement, that he mentions the exact place of murder within Jerusalem, between the sanctuary and the altar:

God’s anger came on Judah and Jerusalem.  Although the Lord sent prophets to the people to bring them back to him, and though they testified against them, they would not listen. Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood before the people and said, “This is what God says: ‘Why do you disobey the Lord’s commands? You will not prosper.Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.’” But they plotted against him, and by order of the king they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the Lord’s temple. – 2 Chronicles 24.

Therefore when Jesus refers to dying in Jerusalem, he is referring to actually being killed within Jerusalem, as he himself states. Sam however, doesn’t realise this and foregoes the mentioning of a physical death within the city itself, instead he meanders off and misapplies the statements of Christ:

What Jesus was basically saying is that he could not be condemned to death by anyone other than the Jewish leaders. Jesus was obviously using Jerusalem as a metaphor for its leaders, personifying the city and blaming it for the bloodshed caused by its people, since the city is being identified with its people, specifically the Sanhedrin.

Sam seems to forget that while the Jews did vote to have Jesus ‘killed’, it was actually Pontius Pilate who accepted their vote (he did not have to) and Jesus himself was not killed by the hands of a single Jew, but by Roman soldiers. It should also be known that Sam emphasises that the city is being identified with its people, the Jews. Yet according to the crucifixion events, no blood was spilled by the Jews themselves, but by outsiders, the Romans, which according to Matthew 23 is a misapplied prophecy, as the previous deaths were literally done by the Jews. Sam then appeals to confirmation bias by running to a commonly used Christian exegesis which he quotes:

As noted Bible expositor John Gill stated:

for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem;
because the great sanhedrim only sat at Jerusalem, to whom it belonged to try and judge a prophet; and if found false, to condemn him, and put him to death; the rule is this;

“they do not judge, neither a tribe, nor a false prophet, nor an high priest, but by the sanhedrim of seventy and one.”

Not but that prophets sometimes perished elsewhere, as John the Baptist in Galilee; but not according to a judicial process, in which way Christ the prophet was to be cut off, nor was it common; instances of this kind were rare, and always in a violent way; and even such as were sentenced to death by the lesser sanhedrim, were brought to Jerusalem, and publicly executed there, whose crimes were of another sort; for so runs the canon;

“they do not put any one to death by the sanhedrim, which is in his city, nor by the sanhedrim in Jabneh; but they bring him to the great, sanhedrim in Jerusalem, and keep him till the feast, and put him to death on a feast day, as it is said (Deuteronomy 17:13) “and all the people shall hear and fear.””

And since Jerusalem was the place where the prophets were usually put to death, …

FOOTNOTES:

F5 Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 1. sect. 5. & T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 18. 2.
F6 Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 10. sect. 4.   (Source)

John Gill’s explanation would work if it is that Zechariah’s death occurred outside of Jerusalem, however the citing by Jesus of Zechariah’s death within the city of Jerusalem, draws a parallel between his alleged death and Zechariah’s. Since this is the case, Gill’s explanation ignores this prophecy and negates, or rather, corrects Jesus’ statement. Therefore Sam, has to choose whether Jesus’ parallel with Zechariah’s death in Jerusalem is accurate or it’s inaccurate and Gill’s exposition is superior to his Lords words.

Jesus essentially affirmed this very fact, namely, that the Sanhedrin would condemn him to death, elsewhere in Luke’s Gospel:

“But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone, saying, ‘The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised up on the third day.’” Luke 9:21-22

It is evident that at this point Sam had lost the plot and began to imagine things. This verse does not foretell that the Sanhedrin would condemn Christ to death, rather it says they would reject him. Unless rejection means death, I am quite certain that Sam is making stuff up. Not that I expected any better from him. He continues:

“Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, ‘Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be HANDED OVER TO the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again.’” Luke 18:31-33

The Sanhedrin handed Jesus over to the Gentile rulers who then mocked, mistreated, spat, scourged and killed him by crucifixion. Note the process that takes place. The Sanhedrin condemned Jesus as worthy of death, but since they couldn’t kill him themselves they proceeded to hand him over to those who had the authority to do so.

There are several problems with Sam’s explanation:

  • According to the parable about the vineyard, Jesus was to be killed by the tenants, i.e. the Jews, yet Sam concedes that this is not the case and Jesus was actually killed by the Romans.
  • According to the paralleling of Jesus’ life with Zechariah’s, Jesus was to be killed by Jews through the command of a Gentile leader in Jerusalem, rather Sam is saying Jesus was killed by Gentiles through the command of Jews outside of Jerusalem. In other words, he inverts the prediction completely to make it remotely applicable to Christ.
  • According to Jesus’ own words, Jews were to kill him, i.e. the people of Jerusalem in Matthew 23, however as Sam concedes, this is not the case as the Romans (those not from Jerusalem) killed him instead.

Every evidence that Sam has used to bolster the case for the validity of Luke 13:33 has therefore backfired on him, proving his arguments and by consequence, his scripture, to be unreliable, inconsistent and ridiculous. Sam continues:

It is therefore obvious from the preceding that there is no contradiction in the words of Jesus, but only Shabir’s misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he referred to not perishing outside of Jerusalem. Jesus wasn’t using Jerusalem to refer to the city, but to its people, specifically to its leaders who condemned him to die.

Mr. Shamoun’s best conclusion and explanation, is to then correct Jesus’ words. Apparently, since Jesus did not say it, Sam has to say what his God could not, that Jesus wasn’t referring to Jerusalem when he said Jerusalem, but to the people of Jerusalem. This presents several problems:

  1. Why didn’t Jesus say that?
  2. If that is the case, why did Jesus say ‘Jerusalem’ and specify the Jews of ‘Jerusalem’ in Matthew 23?
  3. Lastly, those who killed Jesus were Romans, not Jews.

Sam, understanding that he has exhausted all laughable excuses, then proceeds to make one last ditch effort. Apparently ‘Jerusalem’, does not mean Jerusalem. According to Sam, ‘Jerusalem’, means, ‘a couple days distance from Jerusalem’, or in other words, Jerusalem is supposed to mean, ‘not Jerusalem’:

But even if we were to assume that Jesus was referring to the city, and not to its leadership, Shabir still has no case. As we noted, Jesus’ statements are made in a particular context, standing in Galilee, being informed by others about Herod’s intention of killing him, and says he must first go to Jerusalem. That is his purpose, and not even Herod will keep him from getting to Jerusalem and being put on trial there. Jesus isn’t talking about his exact execution place. From the perspective of standing in Galilee, in a different province, several days journey away from Jerusalem, just outside the city wall was still Jerusalem. Moreover, every city always has some land around it that belongs to the city.

Jesus draws a parallel between him and Zechariah. Jesus specifies the exact place of Zechariah’s death in Jerusalem, for which he then condemns the Jews for. Strangely, Sam is saying that Jesus did not specify his exact dying place. Yet Jesus not only explicitly mentions ‘Jerusalem’, he does so more than once and in the one event he drew a parallel, the very story he narrates is of a death within Jerusalem. Therefore Sam’s case has been proven to be inconsistent by Jesus himself. He continues:

Finally, that a text such as Luke 13:33 remains intact within the Holy Bible is an argument for the Scriptures’ veracity. It shows that Christian scribes, for the most part, tried to preserve the Scriptures as best as they could, no matter what difficulties a text may have posed to their theology and understanding.

Sam still has not clarified why Jesus, a prophet, could have died outside of Jerusalem, when he (Jesus) clearly indicated otherwise. Sam’s attempt to redefine, reinterpret and correct his God’s words are not only laughable, but this demonstrates that this is a difficulty of which the Christian faith cannot cope. Sam’s explanations can therefore be summarized as:

  • Jerusalem does not mean Jerusalem but outside of Jerusalem.
  • Death by the Jews does not mean ‘death by the Jews’, but by gentiles.
  • God kills the people for killing the Son which He sent to get killed.

None of these answer the theological conundrum of Jesus’ statement being wrong/ the Bible having a scriptural problem, but rather Sam’s explanation exacerbates the problems of the Christian text and the difficulties associated with answering Luke 13:33.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God knows best.

Thousands of Children Tortured by Christian Schools in Switzerland

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

A recent report detailing boarding school abuse by Christian teachers has caused an uproar in Switzerland. According to the report, the children faced ‘torture’ and ‘sadistic like’ punishments for over 4 decades. Yahoo (NZ) reports:

Thousands of children fell victim to violence and abuse in Catholic boarding schools in Switzerland up until the 1970s, according to a recent study decrying “sadistic” practices resembling “torture”. The former student, whose name was not given, was one of around 50 former boarders at 15 different boarding schools in Lucerne between 1930 and 1970 who in chilling detail testified to their experiences in a report ordered by the canton. “Many boarding school children long felt guilty over the experiences they had. Some managed to move on, others failed and some committed suicide,” said Furrer, who along with two colleagues had spent a year and a half delving into the murky past of these establishments.

Although child sexual abuse is common among Christian preachers, the author of report states that they did not expect to find such a large scale of child sexual abuse. One Punishment known as waterboarding (infamously used by the CIA for torture) was used to punish innocent children for wetting their beds or being noisy by nuns:

Some cases of violence and sexual abuse were already known, he told AFP, but “we were not expecting it to be this large-scale.” When a child was too noisy or wet the bed, the nuns running the schools used cruel punishments like “pushing small children’s heads under water,” Furrer said, comparing the practice to “waterboarding”, a controversial interrogation technique broadly considered to equate to torture. The report of around 100 pages, seen by AFP, details the abuses, hardships and humiliations suffered by the Swiss boarding school students, many of whom had been taken from their poor families and placed there by authorities.

The children also faced hunger, to the extent that almost all of them went hungry and thirsty. Attempting to have a sip of water while being extremely thirsty invoked the wrath of the Christian teachers:

Going without food was commonplace, one of the former boarders recalled. “I cannot remember anyone who wasn’t hungry. Basically everyone was hungry,” he said. Children who tried to have a sip of water in between meals were also harshly dealt with, according to the report. “If someone bent over a faucet to drink, his head would be pushed down so his face hit the faucet,” another former student testified. “The degree of punishment and abuse clearly went well beyond what was admitted to at the time,” according to the study, which points out that some teachers showed “sadistic” tendencies and used practices “close to torture,” including punching or kicking children in the face.

Is this another case of no true scotsman, or will Christendom apologize for the vast amount of child abuse that kids worldwide have had to face?

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God knows best.

Exposing how Trinitarian Apologists Misuse Thomas’ “My Lord, My God” Expression

Posted on by 12 comments

Question Mark

Introduction

Christian polemist Sam Shamoun considers Dr. James White a “reformed Christian scholar and apologist”. As such he quotes him towards a common agenda – the viability of Trinity, especially, the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him):

Unfortunately there are those that oppose the doctrine of the glorious and blessed Trinity who seek to diminish Thomas’ declaration to the essential Deity of our risen Lord. Yet noted reformed Christian scholar and apologist Dr. James R. White demonstrates why such feeble attempts by these anti-Trinitarian groups simply do not work:

“Thomas’s answer is simple and clear. It is directed to the Lord Jesus, not to anyone else, for John says, ‘he said to Him.’ The content of his confession is plain and unambiguous. ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus is Thomas’s Lord. Of this there is no question. And there is simply no reason–grammatical, contextual, or otherwise–to deny that in the very same breath Thomas calls Christ his ‘God.’

“Jesus’ response to Thomas’s confession shows not the slightest discomfort at the appellation ‘God.’ Jesus says Thomas has shown faith, for he has ‘believed.’ He then pronounces a blessing upon all who will believe like Thomas without the added element of physical sight. There is no reproach of Thomas’s description of Jesus as his Lord and God. No created being could ever allow such words to be addressed to him personally. No angel, no prophet, no sane human being, could ever allow himself to be addressed as ‘Lord and God.’ Yet Jesus not only accepts the words of Thomas but pronounces the blessing of faith upon them as well.” (White, The Forgotten Trinity – Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief [Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, MN 1998], Chapter 5. Jesus Christ: God in Human Flesh, pp. 69-70) (http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/identity1.html)

By quoting Dr. White from his book “The Forgotten Trinity”, Shamoun wants to support the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him) through Thomas’ proclamation of him being his “Lord and God”!

Thus, we would concentrate specifically on this darling Trinitarian argument to expose how Shamoun and White have been twisting their own “Scriptures” merely to suit a sectarian agenda.

Note that White is confident that the grammar and context around “Thomas’ confession” does not yield anything else but that Jesus (peace be upon him) was his “Lord and God”. Therefore, we would use White’s own yardsticks to check the viability of the argument. We take context first and then grammar.

Context

We are glad that Dr. White has appealed to the context of Thomas’ confession since the context itself dispels most of Trinitarian mist. Thomas’ so-called confession is specific to immediate scenes after Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged post crucifixion resurrection. Consider the following “verses”:

It was late that Sunday evening, and the disciples were gathered together behind locked doors, because they were afraid of the Jewish authorities. Then Jesus came and stood among them. “Peace be with you,” he said. After saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples were filled with joy at seeing the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, so I send you.” Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive people’s sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” One of the twelve disciples, Thomas (called the Twin), was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” Thomas said to them, “Unless I see the scars of the nails in his hands and put my finger on those scars and my hand in his side, I will not believe.” A week later the disciples were together again indoors, and Thomas was with them. The doors were locked, but Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands; then reach out your hand and put it in my side. Stop your doubting, and believe!” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Do you believe because you see me? How happy are those who believe without seeing me!” (John 20: 19-29)

Notice the set up very carefully. The same day – Sunday – when Jesus (peace be upon him) had allegedly risen from death, he meets all his disciples in a closed quarter except Thomas.

When the other ten disciples inform Thomas that they have had actually witnessed the “risen Jesus” (peace be upon him) physically – he belied them: “I will not believe”.

In fact, Thomas provided his own whimsical yardstick that unless he has put his fingers through Jesus’ (peace be upon him) wounds, he would not believe in as foundational a doctrine as Jesus’ (peace be upon him) resurrection!?

In Thomas we have a man torn between two emotions: On one side he – the best and earliest Christ “believer” –  could not believe the super natural event of resurrection, while on other hand, he has the testimony of categorically all of his colleagues. It was under these confused and agitated circumstances that Thomas had to spend one full week praying for peace of heart.

It was under this context that Jesus (peace be upon him), after a week’s period of tested patience, appears to Thomas pandering to his demand, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands; then reach out your hand and put it in my side.”

Initially Thomas was sure of the falsity in the reports of the Apostles and now he did not merely witnessed the allegedly post crucifixion resurrected Jesus (peace be upon him) but he was also given a chance to put fingers in his wounds – exactly as he demanded. In fact, Jesus (peace be upon him) himself pacified him towards belief: “Stop your doubting, and believe!”

On the foregoing, the doubting-Thomas was but naturally taken by surprise and when he was confirmed of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged so-called resurrection, he inadvertently exclaimed at the moment, in his conversation, to his interlocutor – Jesus (peace be upon him), “My Lord and My God!”

No wonder White also makes a big argument that Thomas said specifically to Jesus (peace be upon him) as His Lord and God:

Thomas’s answer is simple and clear. It is directed to the Lord Jesus, not to anyone else, for John says, ‘he said to Him.’

Although we believe we have already responded it above yet we revisit it. Thomas and Jesus (peace be upon him) were in conversation where the latter was trying to put faith in the former. Under such circumstances Thomas’ inadvertent exclamation upon belief would have to be towards Jesus (peace be upon him) with whom he was conversing, although, not necessarily for him. And any third party recording the conversation would apparently have to claim that Thomas said to Jesus (peace be upon him) what he said (for the simple fact that they were in conversation).

Taking parallels from daily life, while conversing with somebody else we often come across surprising moments and we do exclaim, “My God” at the interlocutor yet this is not specifically targeted for him/herself.

Jesus’ (peace be upon him) further response to Thomas’ exclamation further corroborates that the exclamatory remark was not meant for Jesus (peace be upon him). Consider the following explanation:

Once Jesus (peace be upon him) had received positive exclamatory remark from Thomas, awing at the wonders of “His Lord and His God” – the biblical Father – Jesus (peace be upon him) praised Thomas for him finally believing in the resurrection! He connected Thomas’ exclamatory remark to the belief in hisresurrection than on accepting his deity! This can be further evidenced by Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement wherein he said, “Do you believe because you see me? How happy are those who believe without seeing me!”

Notice the rationale in Jesus’ (peace be upon him) query; he questions Thomas that he has believed because he has seen him! Therefore, how much more blessed would be those who not witness his physical resurrected body and yet believe in his resurrection! Now, we have seen in the contextual “verses” that all other disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him) had witnessed/seen physical resurrected body of Jesus (peace be upon him) except Thomas. Thus, Thomas also “believed” in the resurrection of Jesus (peace be upon him) once he saw him (“you see me”) after resurrection.

Therefore, any attempt to connect Thomas’ exclamation to anything else (like Jesus’ deity) than his belief in Jesus’ (peace be upon him) resurrection would only evince the dire desperation of Trinitarians to prove his deity! As such White was only twisting and forcing his interpretations when he “exposited” as follows:

“Jesus’ response to Thomas’s confession shows not the slightest discomfort at the appellation ‘God.’ Jesus says Thomas has shown faith, for he has ‘believed.’…There is no reproach of Thomas’s description of Jesus as his Lord and God. No created being could ever allow such words to be addressed to him personally. No angel, no prophet, no sane human being, could ever allow himself to be addressed as ‘Lord and God.’ Yet Jesus not only accepts the words of Thomas but pronounces the blessing of faith upon them as well.”

However, such “exegesis” is expected in given weak situation of Christianity undermined by the lack of concrete, explicit evidence even in their best chosen scriptures.

The problem with White’s flawed “exegesis” does not stop here since rather than doing any good it backfires to jeopardizes the very base of Trinity-ism:

Let us agree with Dr. White’s “exegesis” that when Thomas exclaimed “My Lord and My God”, he had actually “shown faith” and “believed” in the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him). On the light of this explanation we would have to infer that, a couple of “verses” earlier, Thomas disbelieved in the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him) since he claimed the following “gospel-truth”:

Unless I see the scars of the nails in his hands and put my finger on those scars and my hand in his side, I will not believe.”A week later the disciples were together again indoors, and Thomas was with them. The doors were locked, but Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands; then reach out your hand and put it in my side. Stop your doubting, and believe!” (John 20: 25-27)

If Jesus (peace be upon him) ratified and “Apostle” Thomas’ belief in his deity, then he must have been rebuking, a couple of verses ago, Thomas’ disbelieve (“I willnot believe”) in his deity!! So then we have the earliest of all Christians, an apostle himself, the so-called twin brother of Jesus (peace be upon him), “not believing” in Jesus’ (peace be upon him) deity; so much so that, Jesus (peace be upon him) had to revisit after his alleged death to re-baptize Thomas’ hitherto maverick belief!!??

To further exacerbate the situation, it was not merely doubting-Thomas but,according to White’s explanation, all other ten disciples were not willing to “believe” in the “deity” of Jesus (peace be upon him)!  This is so because just like Thomas, all other disciples, initially disbelieved in the resurrection until they witnessed it firsthand:

He is not here; he has been raised. Remember what he said to you while he was in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, be crucified, and three days later rise to life.’ “Then the women remembered his words, returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven disciples and all the rest. The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James; they and the other women with them told these things to the apostles.But the apostles thought that what the women said was nonsense, and they did not believe them. But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; he bent down and saw the grave cloths but nothing else. Then he went back home amazed at what had happened. (Luke 24:6-12)

They returned and told the others, but these would not believe it. (Luke 16:13)

As Jesus (peace be upon him) was irked at Thomas’ disbelief “in-his-deity”, similarly he also chided the other ten “apostles” for their unbelief (!):

Last of all, Jesus appeared to the eleven disciples as they were eating. He scolded them, because they did not have faith and because they were too stubborn to believe those who had seen him alive. He said to them, “Go throughout the whole world and preach the gospel to all people.  (Mark 16: 14-15)

And,

And we had hoped that he would be the one who was going to set Israel free! Besides all that, this is now the third day since it happened. Some of the women of our group surprised us; they went at dawn to the tomb, but could not find his body. They came back saying they had seen a vision of angels who told them that he is alive. Some of our group went to the tomb and found it exactly as the women had said, but they did not see him.” Then Jesus said to them, “How foolish you are, how slow you are to believe everything the prophets said! Was it not necessary for the Messiah to suffer these things and then to enter his glory?” And Jesus explained to them what was said about himself in all the Scriptures, beginning with the books of Moses and the writings of all the prophets. (Luke 24:21-27)

Accepting White’s “exegesis” would imply that none of the disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him) were willing to believe in his deity unless they saw and spoke to him after his resurrection. As New Testament manuscript scholar D.C. Parker asserts:

“…that the disciples did not believe (neither source has such a reference), and that when Jesus does appear, he rebukes ‘their unbelief and hardness of heart’. It is only when they see and speak with Jesus that they believe.(D.C.Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (1997), p.140)

On foregoing, as a Muslim all we want to say to Mr. White is – Thank you very much!

Grammar

So much with the “context” of the verse! In this section we would deal with White’s second argument that the grammatical construction of Thomas’ exclamation also proves nothing but deity of Jesus (peace be upon him). Note that Dr. White is a learned scholar of the Greek language. To refresh here are White’s words once again:

 And there is simply no reason–grammatical, contextual, or otherwise–to deny that in the very same breath Thomas calls Christ his ‘God.’

According to classical Trinity-ism there are three distinct persons in the godhead! As such it was considered heretical to blur the distinction between the 3 distinct persons in the godhead:

Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God.  It is a denial of the Trinity. Modalism states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms.  Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times.  At the incarnation, the mode was the Son and after Jesus‘ ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit.  These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous.  In other words, this view states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another.  Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.

Present day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches.  They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation.  These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods.  This is not what the Trinity is.  The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons:  The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Source: CARM)

With that understood, let us see how White’s “exegesis” has led him to efface the important Trinitarian distinction between the persons in the godhead!

The literal translation for the English expression, “My Lord and My God” in Greek would be: Mou Kurios Kai Mou Theos. In other words, Greek word “Kurios” is for “Lord” in English and “Theos” is equivalent to English word “God”. And, standard Trinitarian “exegesis” to which White also endorse, both the words have been addressed to Jesus (peace be upon him).

However, this is exactly where the problem lies. According to standard Trinitarian belief, the three persons (gods?) in the godhead (polytheism?) are distinct from each other. The Father is not the son and vice versa. And technically, New Testament, especially in the epistles of “apostle” Paul has always applied the titles “Kurios” (Lord) to the person of son (and therefore not to the father) and “Theos” (God) to father (and therefore not to the son). Consider the following Pauline verse as substantiation of the notion:

yet there is for us only one God (Theos), the Father, who is the Creator of all things and for whom we live; and there is only one Lord (Kurios), Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Luke also made similar distinction:

“All the people of Israel, then, are to know for sure that this Jesus, whom you crucified, is the one that God (Theos) has made Lord (Kurios) and Messiah!” (Act 2:36)

Observe the theological nuances in the above quotations. In the Pauline quote, God – the Father is the creator (not the Son), however, the creation is facilitated through the person of Son. As such Father is termed as God and Son as Lord – to make distinctions clear. As such the appellation of God and Lord to the same person would diminish the distinction between the Creator (Father) and the means of creation (Son); of course such ignorance cannot be attributed to “apostle” Thomas.

In the Lukan quote, God (Father) has not made Jesus (peace be upon him) as Godand Messiah. Rather, he wrote that God has made him “Lord” and Messiah; indicating that although where Jesus (peace be upon him) was referred to as Lord, he was never entitled as God even when Jesus (peace be upon him) was to be appealed for his (Trinitarian) divinity.

On the foregoing, it is rather interesting to observe that where Father has been referred to as “God” at numerous places in the Bible (including New Testament) and Jesus (peace be upon him) has been referred to as lord elsewhere; at not one place do we find Jesus (peace be upon him) referred as God prior to this Trinitarian misunderstanding. This lends more support to the notion that Thomas, based on the biblical literary traditions, could not possibly have entitled Jesus (peace be upon him) as God.

Thus, it can be argued on good grounds that the New Testament authors aptly reserved the title “God” for the “person” of Father and lord for Jesus (peace be upon him). They hardly mixed the two titles together to avoid “heresy” of the Sabellistic kind!

“In the very same breath”

White made an interesting remark that Thomas called Jesus (peace be upon him) God in the very same breath as he called him his Lord!

…in the very same breath Thomas calls Christ his ‘God.’

We showed the Sabbelistic perils in calling Jesus (peace be upon him) Lord andGod “in the very same breath”. However, if White would be at all consistent with his argument of “same breath” then we have several instances in the Bible where God and mere mortals have been conjoined together in divinity, in the same breath. Consider a few of such for instance:

 “Then David said to the whole assembly, ‘Bless Yahweh your God.’ And the whole assembly blessed Yahweh, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads low and worshiped Yahweh AND the king (wayyiqadu wayyishtahawu YHWHW walammelek).” 1 Chronicles 29:20

And,

“They will serve (wa‘abadu) Yahweh their God AND David their king whom I will raise up for them.” Jeremiah 30:9

Notice in the above citations the congregations are bowing, worshipping Yahwehand in the same breath bowing and worshipping the king of the state too! They served Yahweh and in the same breath, served David (peace be upon him) as well.

Thus, if White is consistent then he got to use his argument to bow, worship and serve worldly kings as did his Israeli forefathers! Probably he has forgotten to take note of it and thus we may assume The Forgotten Polytheism is on its way.

Let alone the term “God”, Thomas’ referral to Jesus (peace be upon him) as Lordwould also hardly do any good to the Trinitarian argument. Since in Old Testament the term “Lord” has been assigned to Yahweh,

“Thus says your Lord (adonayik), Yahweh and your God, Who pleads the cause of His people: ‘See, I have taken out of your hand The cup of trembling, The dregs of the cup of My fury; You shall no longer drink it.’” (Isaiah 51:22)

And the same term – Lord (adonayik) – in the same breath, has been assigned to worldly kings too:

“So the King will greatly desire your beauty; Because He is your Lord (adonayik), worship Him (wahishtahawilow)… I will make Your name to be remembered in all generations; Therefore the people shall praise You forever and ever. (Psalm 45:11, 17)

So much for Dr. White’s claim that Thomas claimed in the same breath that Jesus (peace be upon him) is his Lord and God!

Conclusion

We were amazed to see how a “scholar” of New Testament – Dr. James White – claimed that there is nothing in the context and grammatical construction of “Thomas’ confession” to prove other than he claimed Jesus (peace be upon him) as his Lord and God.

As far as context was concerned, Thomas was too much a “disciple” to merely believe in the resurrection of Jesus (peace be upon him); he wanted to tangiblyexperience of  Jesus’ (peace be upon him) resurrected body. As such when, after one week of boiling confusion, Jesus (peace be upon him) appeared to Thomas, he couldn’t help but give words to his hitherto half baked belief in the resurrection with a exclamatory remark of remembering God: “My Lord My God”. Jesus (peace be upon him) after hearing the exclamatory remarks of alluding to Thomas’ acceptance of his resurrection, confirms him that he has believed, not to former’s deity, but the belief in his resurrection!

Therefore, if Trinitarians like White (and Shamoun) would argue that Thomas believed in the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him) through his “confession”, then they would also have to agree that one of the closest disciple, the so-called “twin brother”, disbelieved in the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him) for good long period! Embarrassingly, on the same corollary, not merely Thomas but all other disciple initially disbelieved in the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him).

Grammatical construction also does not avail much as appealing to it would diminish the important Trinitarian difference between the persons of Father and Son since New Testament has reserved the title of God for Father and lord for Jesus (peace be upon him).

On the contrary, appealing to the grammatical construction, would deify multiple kings.

We expect from scholars like Dr. White that although they have full right to profess their faith yet they need to be more sincere while propagating it. In the mean time,there is no God but Allah (SWT) and Mohammad (peace be upon him) is His messenger and slave.

10’s of Thousands of Pakistanis Protest For Malala Yousafzai

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Here’s something that David Wood, Pamela Geller and Ali Sina won’t show you. Tens of thousands of Muslim Pakistanis gathered to show support for Malala Yousafzai in numerous protests throughout Pakistan. The US based Miama Herald Newspaper says:

Pakistanis have held rallies for Malala throughout the country, but most have only numbered a few hundred people. The largest show of support by far occurred Sunday when tens of thousands of people held a demonstration in the southern party city of Karachi organized by the most powerful political party in the city, the Muttahida Quami Movement.

As previously mentioned on my last article on this issue, Pakistan’s schools, Masjids and various state institutions also held a ‘Day of Prayer’, for Malala Yousafzai according to the UK based BBC News Network:

On Friday, school children dedicated prayers to her recovery in morning assemblies and she was also remembered during weekly prayers at mosques across the country. Many prayer leaders condemned the attack, including the chief cleric of Pakistan’s largest mosque, Shahi Masjid, in Lahore. He called the young activist an “ambassador of peace and knowledge’”. Schools in the Swat Valley closed on Wednesday – the day after the shooting – in protest at the attack. Rallies have also been held in Islamabad, Peshawar, Lahore, Multan as well as in Malala’s hometown of Mingora.
If you still believe that Malala’s shooting is endorsed by Islam, I suggest you sincerely read my other article, “Malala Yousafzai and the Taliban“, for a comprehensive understanding of Islam and its view on educating women, as well as the silence of American Christians and Humanitarian organizations of the deaths of a US bomb attack on a school which massacred 69 children.
wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.
« Older Entries Recent Entries »