Category Archives: Muslim and Non-Muslim Dialogue

Christian Missionaries Paying Muslims to Convert in Syrian Refugee Camps

Posted on by 2 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

This Muslim sister, from a Syrian refugee camp, details how the Christian missionaries are flooding the camps with Christian literature and offering to pay rent, buy clothes and food if the Muslims take the Bibles and learn them. They are attempting to pay Muslims to read their Bible to convert them, but it isn’t working thus far, this young sister from Syria explains:

May Allaah protect the Muslims from the Shayataan Bashar al Alawi and from the Missionaries, Ameen.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Saudi Mother Pardons Son’s Murderer

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In one of the most heart wrenching stories of the year. A Muslim Saudi woman, has forgiven her son’s murderer and by that act has saved the murderer from execution or any form of punishment by the state. The woman who has no house of her own and lives with her three orphaned daughters said:

Marzooghah Al-Blewi of Tabuk refused an offer of property and millions of riyals to pardon the man who took her son’s life more than two years ago.

Instead, in a dramatic scene after the sentencing in court, the mother of the victim asked to see her son’s murderer after which she said that she forgave him without conditions. This was documented in the presence of the judge, and the grateful young man asked the woman to accept him as her son to serve her for the rest of her life.

The victim’s mother said that she could not forget the night when her 19-year-old son Suhail was murdered, while she was waiting for him to drive her to visit some relatives.

She accepted the matter as fate and test of her patience from God. She said the killer’s family had constantly contacted her offering property and money and seeking forgiveness to spare their son from execution.

She said she resides in Prince Sultan Charitable Housing with her three orphaned daughters, one of whom is completely paralyzed, and her 80-year-old father who is also partially paralyzed.

They live on her deceased husband’s pension of SR2,000 in addition to SR1,000 from social insurance. She forgave her son’s killer seeking God’s recompense.

The perpetrator’s father, Ayed Al-Blewi, spoke of the many attempts to have the distraught mother drop the charges by offering SR2 million and his property, but she refused many times, until that day in court.

He offered his sincere thanks to her and to the relatives of the deceased.

Such an act due to the laws of Islam and to the piety that Islam instills in us, allows for such acts of great kindness to occur. This news most certainly demonstrates the mercy of Islam and the compassion it grows within us, for the betterment of society. You can read the article at its original source, The Saudi Gazette. It is most certain that you will not see this story on David Wood’s website, Pamela Geller’s website, or Ali Sina’s website, yet this is one law (forgiveness of murderers), that is found in Shari’a law and only in Shari’a law.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

John 5:23 – The Sweetest Trinitarian Honey!

Posted on by 6 comments

Visiting the darling Trinitarian argument from a neutral perspective.

Question Mark

Introduction

One of the best argument which a Trinitarian would brandish in support of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) deity is the appeal to John 5:23. The flagrantly high “Christology” in the youngest of all gospels – the gospel of John – has in it Jesus (peace be upon him) asserting that he is to be honored “just as” the Father.

Under most circumstances, Trinitarians would love to use it to worship a mere man; however, this could be done after comfortably neglecting or rejecting the (i) immediate and (ii) overall context of the Bible and (iii) the contemporary prevailing beliefs of “orthodox” Christians.

Once the verse is seen in its proper perspective either, Jesus (peace be upon him) could not be deified unless otherwise resorted to slanted exegesis; or, multiple mere mortals would also have to be deified, accordingly!

With that said, let us test the viability of one of the best Trinitarian argument!

Honor the Son in the “same way” as Father

 The following is the text used as a proof to deify Jesus (peace be upon him):

Nor does the Father himself judge anyone. He has given his Son the full right to judge, so that all will honor the Son in the same way as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. (John 5: 22-23, Good News Bible)

The following transliteration of the video clipping would prove how desperately Trinitarian apologists have been mishandling the above verse towards their polytheistic agenda:

“Why did the Father appointed his Son to be the Judge of all? All creation, all flesh. Here is the answer. Here is the reason from the lips of Jesus Christ our Lord; from the very chapter that Zakir Naik misquoted – that all my honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Let me just stop here for a moment. Notice what the Lord Jesus Christ did not say. He did not say, “the reason why the Father appointed me judge is so that everyone honors me as a prophet”. That’s not what he said. He didn’t say, “that the reason why I have been appointed judge of all is so that you can honor me as you honor the righteous or your parents or a messenger. No, he says, the reason why I judge everyone is so that everyone honors me in the same way they honor the Father. ” (Shamoun Time 07:24 – 08:14)

Before we dissect the argument for closer examination, we will make certain very important observations from the above adduced verse. These observations would sufficiently allude that the otherwise obvious “Christology” (for Trinitarians) of the verse, is not, in reality that obvious!

Observe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is to be honored the “same way” as God for the following two reasons:

1.      Father (God) has made or appointed Son (Jesus, peace be upon him) to judge on His behalf on this Earth. In other words, Jesus (peace be upon him) would be representing God’s sovereignty in this world, he has been given that privilege. In other words, the attribute of judging does not come intrinsically from him. Consequently, elsewhere in the Bible such a deferred privilege is portrayed as a non-divine act of Jesus (peace be upon him):

“If people hear my message and do not obey it, I will not judge them. I came, not to judge the world, but to save it. Those who reject me and do not accept my message have one who will judge them. The words I have spoken will be their judge on the last day! This is true, because I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has commanded me what I must say and speak. And I know that his command brings eternal life. What I say, then, is what the Father has told me to say.” (John 12: 47-50)

Moreover, New Testament also declares that mere Christian believers would also judge on the judgment day! This further proves that judging others was not a task to deify a candidate.

2.      Also observe that Jesus (peace be upon him) has been “sent” by Father; he was commissioned into this world. This particular act of “sending” somebody has the imports of non divine prophet-hood on the one who is send. Moreover, in biblical context such a commissioned person is yet again portrayed as somebody lesser than God. Consider the following few verses regarding Jesus (peace be upon him) as substantiation for this notion:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem! You kill the prophets and stone the messengers God has sent you! How many times I wanted to put my arms around all your people, just as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not let me! (Matthew 23:37)

Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4: 34)

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (John 5:30)

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. (John 7:16)

And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. (John 8:29)

(King James Version)

This gives us a good picture that neither (i) judging on behalf of God as His representative nor (ii) being the one sent by God can be treated as divine phenomenon and yet we find our subject phrase – to honor Son just as Father – smack dab at the middle of  mutually opposing clauses – the two non-divine functionalities or attributes.

Therefore it still has to be enquired why the controversial subject phrase was placed in between two necessarily non-divine context. The answer to this query was “shadowed” in the Old Testament!

The way the Old Testament portrays its Prophets

Trinitarians would accept that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not merely a New Testament “God” but he was also a messianic prophet; a Davidic prophet; a royal prophet (c.f. Matthew 1:1, 17, 9:27, 13:55-57, 21: 5-9, 10-11, 45-46. Luke 1:30-32, 13:32-33, 24:18-19, John 6:14, Acts 2:22, 30)

So whatever was attributed and applicable to the Old Testament prophets, especially those who were Davidic and royal, could be applied at par for Jesus (peace be upon him) as well!  With that said let us observe very closely how the Old Testament portrayed its prophets and what was attributed to them.

1.      Davidic royal Prophets were required to be worshipped:

“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 worshipped Yahweh AND the king (wayyiqadu wayyishtahawu YHWHW walammelek).” (1 Chronicles 29: 20)

“You have delivered me from the strivings of the people; You have made me the head of the nations; A people I have not known shall serve me (ya’abduni). As soon as they hear me they obey me; The foregners submit to me.” (Psalm 18: 43-44)

“Give the king your justice, O God, and your rightenouness to the royal son!…May desert tribes bow down before him, and his enemies lick the dust! …May all kings fall down before Him (wayishtahawulow); May all nations serve Him (ya’abduhu).” (Psalm 72:1,9, 11)

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

Notice the construction of the Old Testament “verses”: It has instructed its believers to worship and serve Yahweh and the prophet(s) in the same breath.

The “verses” do not make any qualification that God is to be worshipped the way befits Him and the worldly kings are to be honored the way which suits the mortals. In fact it does not even differentiates the word – it uses the same word “worship” while referring to both God “and” mortal kings.

Furthermore, observe the Hebrew words used for worship (and services) and compare them with the following words as used while referring to Yahweh. They are either identical or a derivative of the root word:

“Serve (‘ibdu) the Lord with fear, And rejoice with trembling. Psalm 2:11

“Serve (‘ibdu) the Lord with gladness; Come before His presence with singing. Acknowledge that Yahweh is God. He made us, and we are His—His people, the sheep of His pasture.” Psalm 100:2-3

“All nations whom You have made Shall come and worship (wayishtahawu) before You, O Lord (adonay), And shall glorify (wikabbadu) Your name.” Psalm 86:9

“‘From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh will come and bow down (lahishtahawot) before Me,’ says Yahweh.” Isaiah

Thus, we see that the Old Testament had a peculiarly high “prophetology” for its prophets. They were to be “worshipped” alongside Yahweh (“and”) and to express this notion Hebrew Bible uses the same root word which it uses for Yahweh.

2.      Mere prophets were praised “just as” Yahweh

The Old Testament requires its believers to exalt and praise Yahweh,

“Give to Yahweh, O families of the peoples, Give to Yahweh glory (kabod)and strength. Give to Yahweh the glory (kabod) due His name; Bring an offering, and come into His courts. Oh, worship (hishtahawu) Yahweh in the beauty of holiness! Tremble before Him, all the earth. (Psalm 96:7-9)

“Let the peoples praise You, O God; Let all the peoples praise You. Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy! For You shall judge the people righteously, And govern the nations on earth. Selah Let the peoples praise You, O God; Let all the peoples praise You. Then the earth shall yield her increase; God, our own God, shall bless us. God shall bless us, And all the ends of the earth shall fear Him.” (Psalm 67:3-7)

Yet it also requires that mere prophets be also exalted and praised:

“His glory (kabodo) is great in Your salvation; Honor and majesty You have placed upon him. For You have made him most blessed forever; You have made him exceedingly glad with Your presence.” (Psalm 21:5-6)

“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)

Notice that it is not merely the usage of same Hebrew words (“Kobodo”) for glorifying prophets as was used for Yahweh but that the last verse even requires its followers to praise a mere king “forever and ever” – something which falls in the genre of divinie praise! We do not “kobod” (praise) mere mortal prophets “forever and ever”, yet, biblically these are allowed phrases without breaching its brand of monotheism.

3.      Mere prophets sharing the same title with Yahweh

In the same adduced Psalm verse (45:11, above) notice that Davidic prophet(s) was referred as “Lord” using the Hebrew word “adonayik”. Comparatively, the same word is elsewhere used for Yahweh as well:

“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

Thus we have instance where Yahweh – the “God” of the Bible – has even shared his title with mere mortals. No wonder, Yahweh is also portrayed as sharing his throne as well:

Prophets on the Throne of God Himself:

“Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him. All the officials, the mighty men, and also all the sons of King David pledged allegiance to King Solomon. The Lord highly exalted Solomon in the sight of all Israel, and bestowed on him royal majesty which had not been on any king before him in Israel.” (1 Chronicles 29:23-25)

“Blessed be the Lord your God who delighted in you, setting you on His throne as king for the Lord your God; because your God loved Israel establishing them forever, therefore He made you king over them, to do justice and righteousness.” (2 Chronicles 9:8)

All of the above Old Testament verses by allowing its prophets,

  1. To be “worshipped” alongside Yahweh,
  2. To be glorified  just as Yahweh,
  3. To share same title as Yahweh,

creates good ground for correct and congenial interpretation of John 5:23. In the backdrop of foregoing Old Testament verses if Jesus (peace be upon him) asserted that son is to be honored “just as” Father then he had the Old Testament pretext in which he was asserting! He knew that the Jewish traditions allow that mere prophets be “worshipped”, “glorified” alongside Yahweh “just as” He is worshipped and glorified. Similarly, Jesus (peace be upon him) even knew that Old Testament prophets even shared Yahweh’s titles to their end and yet none of it violated any Old Testament monotheism.

Therefore, if Jesus (peace be upon him) supposedly demands “same honor” with Father then it could not possibly be taken to establish divinity for Jesus (peace be upon him) given the Old Testament framework. Yet if Trinitarians want to do it then either (i) they want to reject the overall Old Testament context in which Jesus (peace be upon him) was speaking or (ii) they have to deify multiple Old Testament prophets (or at least the royal, Davidic prophets for that reason)!

The problem does not end here with the best-argument. Consider the following section.

 

What did Jesus (peace be upon him) do with the “honor” he demanded? 

Even if we reject all of the Old Testament pretext to claim that because Jesus (peace be upon him) demanded “same honor” with Father, therefore, he must be divine; yet it does not help the Trinitarian agenda in any way since it is very interesting to observe what Jesus (peace be upon him) later did with the “honor” – the so assumed “divine” honor – once it was vested on him. In the following passages we explore it.

Later in the same gospel, towards the end of his life, Jesus (peace be upon him) picks up the topic of his honor and glory once again. In fact John dedicates an entire chapter towards the honor and glory of Jesus (peace be upon him). We pick it up from there:

John portrays Jesus (peace be upon him) demanding the glory which he had initially – even before the world was ever made:

After Jesus finished saying this, he looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your Son, so that the Son may give glory to you. I have shown your glory on earth; I have finished the work you gave me to do. Father! Give me glory in your presence now, the same glory I had with you before the world was made. (John 17: 1, 4-5)

Trinitarian exegetes are unanimous upon it that the primordial glory of Jesus (peace be upon him) was particularly divine!

However, later in the same chapter, after praying for his followers, Jesus (peace be upon him) interestingly (or embarrassingly) gave away the same glory to his multiple disciples:

“I pray not only for them, but also for those who believe in me because of their message. I pray that they may all be one. Father! May they be in us, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they be one, so that the world will believe that you sent me. I gave them the same glory you gave me, so that they may be one, just as you and I are one: (John 17: 20-22)

Observe it once again that Jesus (peace be upon him) gave his followers the “same glory” which God vested on him. Don’t forget, verses 4 and 5 informed us that, according to Trinitarian exegesis, Jesus (peace be upon him) was seeking his “divine” primordial glory from Father!

Acknowledging the “high” status of followers, Trinitarian commentators have following to remark:

John 17:22  The glory which thou hast given me, I have given them – The glory of the only begotten shines in all the sons of God. How great is the majesty of Christians. (John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes, John 17:22)

Notice the Wesley’s exclamatory note towards the end of his comment. He exclaims about the extra high esteemed status of Christians – why? Because they enjoy thesame glory which Christ (peace be upon him) was conferred with for being the “only begotten” of the God!

It is very disturbing that within the purported realms of “monotheistic” Christianity, the supposed divine and special glory of the alleged Trinitarian god is shared with multiple mere mortals!

Another set of Trinitarian Scholars – Matthew Henry – go a step ahead of John Wesley to claim more divine qualities and positions for mere mortals which assumedly befits Christ (peace be upon him) alone:

Those that are given in common to all believers. The glory of being in covenant with the Father, and accepted of him, of being laid in his bosom, and designed for a place at his right hand, was the glory which the Father gave to the Redeemer, and he has confirmed it to the redeemed. (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, John 17:20-23)

As a proof for Jesus’ (peace be upon him) divinity, Trinitarians down the ages have been appealing to the biblical verses wherein Jesus (peace be upon him) is portrayed as “laid in God’s bosom” and “at His right hand”.

The “right hand” of the God is an exclusive, divine place suitable only for Christ (peace be upon him) appeals most Trinitarians, nevertheless, we saw above thatTrinitarian scholars had no scruple into vesting these “divine” status on mere mortals implying either (i) the “glory” of Jesus (peace be upon him) was not divine or (ii) there are numerous individuals in Trinitarian Christianity enjoying such “glory”!

Furthermore, honor of being the “redeemer” of the entire world has to be divine at least in the Trinitarian parlance yet Trinitarian scholars confirm it on multiple mere creatures! This once again establishes that honor of Jesus (peace be upon him) although special and prized but was not divine.

The problem with the best argument continues…

 

 Earliest “Orthodox” Beliefs 

We are now to the very last argument against Trinitarian misuse of John 5:23. In this section we would consider the writings of earliest, “orthodox”, church father Ignatius. Remember that Ignatius is as old as contemporary to gospel of John and a student of John himself!

Consider then what Ignatius had to portray about the “orthodox” belief system of theearliest Christians regarding the status of church bishops:

“Be subject to the bishop as to the commandment” (Ign. Trall. 13.2)

“We are clearly obliged to look upon the bishop as the Lord himself” (Ign. Eph. 6.1)

Since the mortal “bishops” were to be seen as “Lord” himself and their commandments were to be treated at par with the Laws of Yahweh, Ignatius of Antioch gave no religious freedom to the laity:

“You should do nothing apart from the bishop” (Ign. Magn. 7.1)

On the preceding, New Testament authority Bart Ehrman rightly asserts the following:

Each Christian community had a bishop, and this bishop’s word was LAW [Mosaic]. The bishop was to be followed as if he were God himself. (Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities, p.141)

Even if we neglect that the writings of the earliest, “orthodox” church father – Ignatius as outright polytheistic yet it can still be used to fathom the then prevailing state of affairs with regards to the status of celebrated people inside church walls. If mere church bishop(s) can be viewed as “God himself” then we do not see much appeal if “Jesus” (peace be upon him) – the supposed “head of the Church” demanded merely “same honor” with Father! It was just part and parcel and legacy of “orthodox” Christianity.

Therefore, to declare Jesus (peace be upon him) as God – Almighty just because somewhere he had allegedly demanded “same honor” with Father comes more as an act desperation in the wake of absence of conclusive proofs.

Christians could not conveniently brush aside Ignatius’ writings since (i) he is the very prototype of all “orthodox” Christians (ii) a student of John (the evangelist) himself and most importantly (iii) he – the “Saint” Ignatius – considered his words to be divinely inspired. Check this out:

For even if some people have wanted to deceive me according to the flesh, the Spirit is not deceived, since it comes from God. For it knows whence it comes and where it is going, and it exposes the things that are hidden. I cried out while among you, speaking in a great voice, the voice of God, “Pay attention to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons!” But some suspected that I said these things because I knew in advance that there was a division among you. But the one in whom I am bound is my witness that I knew it from no human source; but the Spirit was preaching, saying: “Do nothing apart from the bishop; keep your flesh as the Temple of God; love unity; flee divisions; be imitators of Jesus Christ as he is of his Father.” (Ign. Phil., 7)

 

Conclusion 

Our concern was to understand if there is any viability in one of the most celebrated Trinitarian argument in support of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) deity, namely, John 5:23.

In the very first place we saw that the subject verse of honoring son just as Father was placed amidst two mutually opposing phrases which essentially portray Jesus (peace be upon him) in a non divine light.

Later we realized that let alone Jesus (peace be upon him) demanding (merely) “same honor” with Father, Old Testament prophets had centuries ago enjoyed colossal privileges than that. In it, (i)they were to be worshipped alongside Yahweh (ii) they were to be glorified “same as” God so much so that (iii) they were to even share the titles and throne of God – Himself with Bible making no distinction in the construction of the sentence or the choice of words in any of the above! Furthermore (iv) contemporary (to New Testament), “orthodox” church writings declare mere Christian believers in church offices to be looked upon as “God himself” and their fleeting sayings at par with Yahweh’s own words!

If there is a lot of Trinitarian hue and cry over Jesus (peace be upon him) demanding “same honor” with God then, on the preceding biblical proofs, there should be even greater voices raised for worshipping numerous Old Testament prophets and multiple church bishops in various parts of the world and down the ages.

With that said, we request Christians to look upon the alleged Jesus’ (peace be upon him) assertion in its proper biblical perspective and come to conclusions accordingly.

Notes:

  • Unless otherwise mentioned all biblical texts courtesy Sam Shamoun. Jazakallah khair, Shamoun. May Allah (SWT) guide you towards monotheism for this service!

iERA Inspires Young and Old to Do Da’wah

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Say Masha Allaah! Br. Haroon Qureishi of iERA’s Mission Da’wah, posted these cute photos yesterday of a little Muslim girl in hijab enthusiastic about giving da’wah:

The jersey she’s wearing is as big as she is. This is probably one of the most sincere and adorable acts of Iman that I have ever witnessed. I’ve linked to their Mission Da’wah site above and I pray that you check it out and spread the link insha Allaah. If this little angel can do da’wah, what’s holding you back from doing so?

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Samuel Green, Islam and Paedophilia

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Answering Muslims and Acts17 are Christian Apologetics Ministries that are infamous for creating propaganda against Islam. David Wood, Anthony Rogers and Samuel Green are what I would consider to be the main proponents of these organization’s workings. Yet, I was thrown off balance by a shocking admission by Samuel Green via a Facebook article written by Calling Christian’s team member, Br. Azhan Ahmed on the topic of Muhammad [saws] and Paedophilia:

That’s a revelation by itself. Samuel Green openly disagrees with the views of David Wood, Sam Shamoun, and the rest of the Answering Muslism team, Acts17 team and the Answering Islam team. Samuel Green is known for his debates against numerous Muslim Da’ees in Australia and he is also known for associating with missionary groups organized for the sole purpose of Ministering to Muslims. Therefore, when he reneges on a view not only held by his closest Missionary friends, but by 3 other organizations he’s involved with, that speaks volumes. We look forward to Samuel Green’s further discussion on this revealing news, we also look forward to David Wood’s take on one of his writers disagreeing with what is considered to be a standard belief among his peers.

Does this represent dissension among the ranks of Answering Muslims and Answering Islam? Would Samuel Green be publicly refuted by his peers, or would he be forced to recant such statements? I can’t say what will happen, but this is overall good news for Islamic da’wah.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

A Christian’s Love for Muslims

Posted on by 8 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I’m sure we’ve all heard that emotional mumbo jumbo about ‘love’ from our Christian friends. That Muslims don’t have a God that loves them, that Muslims  don’t know what love is, that Islam is a religion void of love, that we Muslims need to embrace Christianity to truly understand and know what love is. We’ve all seen Christians preach that whole, ‘turn the other cheek’ mantra, too bad I felt too much Christian love from this group of Christians discussing Islam:

I’m not exactly sure where the Qur’an says that we have to convert the world or kill everyone in the world, perhaps someone who agrees with Clark can show me. Feel free to post your response in the comments section and I’d address the claim. Let’s return to our pal’s comments now. Strangely enough, our friend Clark makes it clear that he rather buy a gun, than debate/ discuss his concerns with Muslims. I’m thinking that this is the “shoot first, ask questions later”, kind of mentality.  If it isn’t enough to just buy a gun, our friend Clark has a brilliant master plan to bring peace and stability to the world. Kidnap a few Muslims, have them dig their graves, kill them and throw a pig’s carcass in their just for the heck of it. Just to be sure that they got the message, shout at their graves and let them know that they are not allowed to commit any future terrorist acts. At the end, Clark turns into some sort of a philosopher and decides that killing pigs and not humans may be a bad thing. I did some digging and well, Clark is just about Christian as they come:

Our loving Christian friend Clark, isn’t alone. He’s got a pal that also shares similar views:

I’m not sure that I can add much commentary to these images, it’s pretty clear to me that we’re dealing with persons who are actively discussing and intending to act violently towards Muslims. Their mentality is absolutely horrendous and quite shocking to say the least. Normally you’d expect folks who are discussing these things to do so privately, but to make such comments public and to share them among large groups of persons is disturbing to say the least. I can’t begin to imagine the outrage if Muslims had said this about Christians or Jews! I did some further digging and as it turns out, our buddy Louis supports Pamela Geller, the infamous Islamophobe who incited the Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik’s terrorist attacks against Muslims and Muslim friendly groups in Norway.

It should be noted that Christian Missionaries, David Wood and Sam Shamoun both support and promote Geller’s views. A quick look at David Wood’s Answering Muslims website shows numerous videos of Pamela. Two peas in a pod. Similar to the self declared “Crusader”, Anders not only discussed killing Muslims online, but he shared many of the same views as our friends Clark and Louis. If this trend is anything to base our suspicions on, we’re looking at persons intent on mass murdering Muslims and those who sympathize with Muslims, in the name of their Lord, Christ.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Malala Yousafzai and the Taliban

Posted on by 7 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Some of you should recognize the stylishly clad gentleman in the top left of the above photo. If you don’t, then let me remind you that he is none other than esteemed, famed, patriotic Mr. Ronald Reagan, a former President of the United States. In his company are members of the infamous ‘Taliban’ of Afghanistan during a meeting in the White House.  It isn’t a secret that the United States armed and trained the Taliban militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In fact, this Reuters report indicates that the Taliban still had ‘stinger rockets’ that were funded and supplied by Reagan himself. Yet, even today according to this Guardian UK’s article, most Afghanis, including well known politicians and those of higher authority, they believe that the US continues to fund the Taliban:

One political scientist, who works as an advisor to US agencies in the north of the country, recounts how people fear the continuing influence of the warlords, illustrating his point with descriptions of violence and corruption that extends into the realms of banking, government and trade. Afghans hate these warlords, he says, but the US wants them kept in place. “If they were removed, and competent and clean people brought in, we would bring in revenues of our own. We could have our own economy, and demand foreign investment with transparency. We would have a true army, to protect us and serve Afghanistan.”

It’s also well known that American paid construction contracts, actually fund the Taliban. According to this Global Post US’ article, most contractors actually plan deals and negotiate contracts with the members of the rebel group. Sometimes even agreeing to let them blow up bridges, only to attain a new contract to rebuild, siphoning off more US funds to the Taliban. Former Afghani-Taliban envoy to the US, Yale educated – Sayyid  Rahmatullah Hashimi has even spoken on US policies during a lecture at the University of Southern California, where he explained that the Taliban was not opposed to the education of girls:

According to him, the Afghani state had a majority Muslim population and thus segregated education was on their agenda. While they were busy building girl’s schools, UN interests removed much needed funding, inclusive of funds needed to develop and maintain agricultural lands. Thus, when it comes to the issue of Malala Yousafzai, many questions need to be asked. If the Taliban are supposed to be representing Islam or Prophet Muhammad [saws], then shouldn’t they teach women?

Narrated Abu Said: A woman came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Men (only) benefit by your teachings, so please devote to us from (some of) your time, a day on which we may come to you so that you may teach us of what Allah has taught you.” Allah’s Apostle said, “Gather on such-and-such a day at such-and-such a place.” They gathered and Allah’s Apostle came to them and taught them of what Allah had taught him. – Sahih al Bukhari, Book #92, Hadith #413.

It should be noted that we can find in excess of 600 Ahadith from ‘Aisha [ra], the Prophet’s  [saws] wife, where either she is teaching or explaining some element of Islam to men and women. Therefore, if we see that the Prophet [saws] and his wife taught women, then can anyone who believes that Islam commands that women are not to be taught or educated, demonstrate such a belief from the Qur’an or Hadith corpus? Let’s continue with just one or two further examples of women and education in Islam.

  • Khabbab (may Allaah be pleased with her), taught the Qur’an, both to Fatima – may Allaah be pleased with her (‘Umar bin Al Khattab’s sister), and her husband, Sa’id bin Zaid. – Ibn Ishaq’s, “As Siyar wa al Maghazi”, ed. by Zakkar, pp. 181 – 184.
  • The very first revealed verse of the Qur’an commands all Muslims, not just men, to read: “اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ” – “Read in the name of your Lord who created“.

If Malala Yousafzai’s killing is appropriate according to Islam law, Qur’an or Ahadith, would anyone be able to demonstrate this for me? Most certainly not. This leads us to another question, why the hypocrisy? Pakistan became outraged, holding national protests and requests for justice, where even a national Day of Prayer was observed for her benefit:

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.

I mentioned hypocrisy above, because I find it so strange, that Missionaries, TV Pundits, Mainstream Media, are all condemning this act of a girl wanting to learn and being shot for it. Yet when American forces murdered 69 children by bombing a school, where was the outrage?

A week after the attack, a local English newspaper published the names and home villages of 80 victims. Sixty-nine were reported as children aged 17 or under. According to the paper’s sources,

It was claimed that ‘one of the deceased was only seven-year old, three were eight, three nine, one was 10, four were 11, four were 12, eight were 13, six were 14, nine were 15, 19 were 16, 12 were 17, three were 18, three were 19 and only two were 21-years old’. Yusufzai is adamant that the attack was the work of the CIA: “I am absolutely confident, 100 per cent, that this was carried out by US drones, based on witnesses at the time and the subsequent comments of [Pakistani] government officials.” The US Embassy in Islamabad declined to comment on the case when offered the opportunity by the Bureau and The Express Tribune.

Where were the protests? Why didn’t America hold a national day of prayer? Why should Muslims be the only ones guilty when children are attacked for seeking an education, but when the US strikes a school and murders 69 children, we hear nothing? Hypocrisy is rife among those who criticise Islam, who trade one girl’s life for 69 dead children.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

 

 

Top 10 Muslim vs Christian Debate Clips

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Br. Muslim by Choice has released a hilarious 10 clip countdown of the best Muslim vs Christian debates. Some familiar faces include Dr. Shabbir Ali, Br. Sami Zataari and Ustadh Ali Ataie, alongside infamous Islamophobes, James White, Jay Smith and arsonist Anis Shorrosh. Entertaining and educational, it’s quite the video to watch:

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Funding Through 2013 and 2014

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Calling Christians, prides itself in being self funded. Our team continues to donate towards expanding and maintaining the website and I am proud to announce that two members of our hard working team, have provided funding through the year until 2013 and until 2014. This means, that Calling Christians will continue to exist and our da’wah will continue to be available for all. It’s almost been one year since our website has existed and we’ve had many gains. Our large database of academic responses to intellectually void Missionaries is ever expanding, and our quality is ever improving.

It’s been a fun experiment, amassing ten’s of thousands of website views, while our reach extends into the US, UK, Canada, most European countries and a significant amount of Asian nations. Surprisingly, most of our website visits come from non-Muslim majority nations, that would mean that Christian majority nations (that is, our target audience) continue to be our greatest source of viewership. Our one year anniversary will coincide with the week of Christmas and plans are already afoot to have special articles, videos and many more surprises for this period.

We’ve accomplished one amazing debate, contributed to several international events and aided in exposing several notable Christian Missionary Scholars, I am proud of our achievements, but I am much more excited for what’s to come. The continued support from the Muslim community, and the continued and sustained dialogue with the Christian community, lends credence to this website’s ability to cross the threshold of interfaith academia. With all this having been said, I look forward to what the next few months bring and God willing, what the next few years holds for us and our work of da’wah.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
–Br. Ijaz Ahmad.
– Director of CC.

New Covenant, Old Traditions

Posted on by 4 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The crucifixion of Christ is alleged to have herald into commission, the New Covenant [1].  However, if we are to do a basic reading of the New Testament narrative of Christ’s alleged death, we run into some theological conundrums. The unknown authors of the synoptic Gospels were familiar with the Tanach, citing it at every chance they got, yet in doing so they’ve unearthed a vast amount of room for misapplied dogmas and theological errata. Often times, leading to the mess we’re about to uncover. On the cross, Jesus is alleged to have said:

“About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lemasabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).[d]” – Matthew 27:46.

Most people see that little citation, that “d” and don’t seem to investigate it. So where does that “d”, lead to?

Matthew 27:46 – Psalm 22:1

Therefore, it is apparent that while Jesus was on the cross, he was referencing this chapter from Psalms. If we go to the chapter in Psalms, most people upon reading would be shocked at the contents within:

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
2 My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, but I find no rest.

According to the reading, God has abandoned Christ on the Cross. This is a far worse depiction of Christ, than any Pharisee could muster. Christ is depicted as abandoned by God, he is suffering and is not being saved by God, hardly a ‘willing sacrifice’ if you were to ask me. Strikingly, even Jesus concedes to the fact that if he was being crucified, that his own “Father”, did not answer his cries for help, this wasn’t for a moment, but lasted day and night. A most strange circumstance, considering that Christ is alleged to have said, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.[2]” Unfortunately for Jesus, this was not the case, as God never answered him. If it didn’t work for Christ on the Cross, why do Christians expect anything to be granted to them, save for them believing they are greater than Christ, for if Christ’s sonship could not merit mercy from the “Father”, on what grounds should a lay Christian expect to be given more mercy than the son himself?

3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the one Israel praises.
4 In you our ancestors put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried out and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

The diatribe continues by questioning God’s actions, see, God saved the Israelites when they called out to Him, yet when His own alleged Son calls out, there was no answer. Christ is also indicating here, that he was put to shame, yet the Israelites were not, can any Christian answer as to why Jesus was put to suffer and was void of God’s mercy and help?

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
8 “He trusts in the Lord,” they say,
“let the Lord rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”

9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

At this point, Christ, in referencing these verses, he no longer considers himself a ‘man’, he considers himself to be less than a man. We’ve all heard of the hypostatic union, half man, half God, well as it turns out, Christ negates being a man and assumes the role of a worm. I guess this is the Hypostatic Union Version 2.0. It’s also telling that Christ says there is no one to help him, this would either mean that Christ who is God, could not help himself or God, the all powerful, failed to help his son.

12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions that tear their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

This is most intriguing, why does Christ reference Psalms 22, when it is in these passages that insults to Gentiles are still considered to be normal? If Christ was dying for their sins, shouldn’t he be dying with the intention of, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.[3]” Yet this is not Jesus’ attitude, it’s quite the opposite, he lowers himself to mocking and insulting, with curses meant for gentiles. In fact, this verse contains some level of anti-Semitism (not too dissimilar to John 8:44-48), Adam Clarke, a famed Christian exegete comments:

The bull is the emblem of brutal strength, that gores and tramples down all before it. Such was Absalom, Ahithophel, and others, who rose up in rebellion against David; and such were the Jewish rulers who conspired against Christ. Bashan was a district beyond Jordan, very fertile, where they were accustomed to fatten cattle, which became, in consequence of the excellent pasture, the largest, as well as the fattest, in the country. See Calmet. All in whose hands were the chief power and influence became David’s enemies; for Absalom had stolen away the hearts of all Israel. Against Christ, the chiefs both of Jews and Gentiles were united. [4]

Christ therefore, according to Christian theology, in his weakest moment, not only questioned God’s mercy but he fell privy to the sin of insulting and cursing both Gentiles and Jews. This as previously stated, in direct contrast to the earlier statement of, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

16 Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce my hands and my feet.

Lastly, we jump to the last of the insults, using a term that he also used to describe gentiles in Matthew 7, which reads:

“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”

Who are these dogs? According to several commentaries, it refers to ‘disbelievers‘, therefore Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists are all considered to be dogs by the Christian God while bringing into commission, the New Covenant. The People’s New Testament Commentary says:

The dog was regarded an unclean animal by the Jewish law. They probably represent snarling, scoffing opposers. The characteristic of dogs is brutality. To try to instill holy things into such low, unclean, and sordid brutal minds is useless. [5]

Therefore infidels (those who are unfaithful) to Christ, are like dogs, because we oppose the religion of Christianity. How strange are these words indeed, especially when Christ was supposed to be dying for our sins. In his supposed ultimate act of mercy and sacrifice, Christ berates, curses and abuses the very people he is allegedly killing himself for.

Conclusion

While Christ was dying for our sins, he references Psalms 22. Upon reading Psalms 22, we discover that it entails a man who is abandoned by God, void of God’s mercy, leading the one in pain to question God’s authority and means of grace. The person suffering then decides to insult, mock and curse those who do not accept his beliefs. If these verses were referenced by Christ as a means of expressing his emotion while on the cross, then the notion that Christ introduced a New Covenant is hogwash, as Christ insults, mocks and curses both Gentiles and Jews. If this is not what Christ intended to communicate with his referencing of the aforementioned passages, why would he allegedly reference them to begin with?

Sources:

  1. Luke 22:20, “In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”.
  2. Matthew 7:7.
  3. Luke 23:34.
  4. Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Psalms 22:12-13.
  5. People’s New Testament Commentary, Matthew 7:6.
« Older Entries Recent Entries »