Category Archives: Anthony Rogers

False Claim: Error in Qur’an Surah 112 – “Ahadun”

The following is a guest post by Br. Sharif Randhawa, co-author of the illuminating book, “Divine Speech” which was written alongside Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan. Br. Sharif also runs a wonderfully informative blog called Quranic Musings which I highly recommend!


I was sent the following video clips in which an individual named Anthony Rogers claims that that Quran 112:1 (qul huwa ’llāhu aḥadun) contains a grammatical error, and that, moreover, Muslims mis-recite the verse in order to avoid the error:

Both of the above claims are patently false, as anyone with knowledge of even the most basic rules of Arabic grammar will recognize. It is deeply presumptuous of someone who shows ignorance of such basic rules of Arabic grammar to claim to have a better grasp of it than the premier work of Arabic literature, the Quran, and the entire Muslim tradition of Arabic grammar, not to mention of Quranic exegesis and recitation. In any case, the errors in both of these claims are as follows:

Contention 1: Rogers claims that the wording in the Quran of qul huwa ’llāhu aḥadun (“Say: He is Allah, one,” or alternatively “Say: He, Allah, is one”) is grammatically incorrect, because aḥadun means not “one” but “one of”; the text, according to him, should actually say qul huwa ’llāhu aḥadu.

Answer: Rogers’ claim is exactly the opposite of what Arabic grammar entails. In a genitive construct, which is the form that expresses the grammatical formula “X of Y,” the X (or muḍāf) that is followed by the genitive Y (or muḍāf ‘ilayhi) precisely cannot carry tanwīn (the indefinite -n ending). This is literally one of the first rules of a genitive construct in Arabic (see the excerpt from p. 44 from Alan Jones’ Arabic Through the Qur’ān, below).

cc-2018-ar-ahadun

Contention 2: Rogers then claims that Muslims mis-recite the verse to avoid this alleged error, as Muslims most frequently recite the verse as qul huwa ’llāhu aḥad, without the inflected -(u)n ending.

Answer: The claim that this is a mispronunciation is, again, false according to the most basic conventions of Arabic. This is because in Arabic speech, when one pauses at the end of a sentence that terminates with a short vowel ending, he or she normally drops the short vowel ending, including the tanwīn if there is one. Any Arabic speaker can confirm that for you.

Sam Shamoun and Matt Slick’s Heretical Beliefs Outed By Anthony Rogers (Updated)

As expected, Anthony Rogers is now in damage control. Last night I posted an article indicating that most Christian polemicists do not care about their theology, using their very own words. In that article, I included a discussion with Anthony where he declared that a specific belief contradicted Christian orthodoxy. I immediately pointed out that two of his colleagues, Sam Shamoun and Matt Slick, openly use (to defend Christianity), believe in and promote this doctrine.

cc-2015-ar-insane

Realising that he had just called his close associates heretics, he quickly turned the discussion to a typo I had made in spelling a Latin phrase. True to form, he later himself made a typo in spelling that same phrase, but as an adult, unlike the mentally inchoate Rogers, I chose not to spend several minutes writing three paragraphs about an obvious spelling error. I insisted that he address the issue that a belief he claimed ‘contradicted orthodoxy’, was believed in and promoted by his fellow Christian colleagues. After having duly embarrassed himself by having a rabid rant over a typo and declaring his friends heretics, he quickly left the conversation. In trying to do some damage control after my article had gone public, he’s posted some of the conversation and strangely enough, continued his fixation with the typo.

So, let’s have some fun. What did Rogers say?

However, Tony Costa does not believe in this doctrine of the “communicatio idiomatum” (nota bene: the Latin word is ‘idiomatum,’ not ‘idiomatium’), and that doctrine is not taught in but rather is contradicted by the orthodox definition of the incarnation authoritatively set down in the Chalcedonian Creed (q.v. “inconfusedly,” and “the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH NATURE BEING PRESERVED…”).

According to Rogers, the doctrine of the ‘communicatio idiomatum’, ‘is contradicted by the orthodox definition of the incarnation’. This doctrine, contradicts orthodoxy. This is otherwise known as….heresy! A belief that goes against, or contradicts orthodoxy is heretical. A person who believes in heresies is a heretic. Simple so far? Yes, but maybe not for Rogers.

If a person believes in a doctrine that contradicts orthodox beliefs, they are heretical. Simple.

Do Sam Shamoun and Matt Slick believe in this doctrine, promote it, or use it to defend Christian beliefs about the incarnation? Yes, they do. In this article, Sam Shamoun uses it to defend the incarnation. Similarly, in this article, Matt Slick promotes this doctrine and considers it orthodoxy. All in all, Rogers called a belief heretical, and his colleagues, believe, share and promote that heretical belief, thus making them heretics.

Well done Rogers.

Updated:

Rogers updated his blog post with continued ad hominem attacks, while continuing to demonstrate his inability to understand the consequences of his own statements, and his disability of knowing how to spell.

1. Rogers as an adult, thinks that making a typo in a YouTube comment means I can’t spell a word.

2. Rogers as an adult, also later made a typo in spelling the same Latin phrase.

3. To absolve himself of abject embarrassment, of #1 and #2, he later argued, that although his spelling of the Latin was wrong, in the English it ‘still meant the same thing’. If you made a typo in the Latin, you got the Latin wrong. I think that’s common sense, not so for Anthony (nota bene: spelling ‘social’ in Spanish as ‘socials’, even if  ‘socials’ is a word in a completely different language like English, does not make the wrong spelling in Spanish correct. It’s still wrong in Spanish.) Thus, it’s apropos that Rogers would conflate the two.

4. Rogers tries to excuse himself of referring to Sam and Slick as heretics, by claiming he was responding to ‘my’ definition of communicatio idiomatum. Yet, this is not what his very comments said, to quote him:

…that doctrine is not taught in but rather is contradicted by the orthodox definition of the incarnation authoritatively set down in the Chalcedonian Creed…

No two ways about it. Rogers has been caught out. Trying to lie isn’t going to help him now.

5. Rogers continues to be deceitful, placing words in my mouth, claiming that I have taught that Jesus’s attributes were ‘mashed together like a sausage’, it would be honest of him to not place words in my mouth to suit his audience and Christian needs, but is Rogers the kind of man we can expect that from? No, he isn’t.

6. It’s cute that he thinks I don’t know what the doctrine teaches. However, as have been noted by his crass comments, uneducated claims and ad hominem attacks, it would clearly seem as if he has not acquainted himself with any modern work of Systematic Theology. One of note, is by Louis Berkhof who writes:

1. UP TO THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. The Reformation did not bring any great changes in the doctrine of the person of Christ. Both the Church of Rome and the Churches’ of the Reformation subscribed to the doctrine of Christ as it was formulated by the Council of Chalcedon. Their important and deep-seated differences lay elsewhere. There is one peculiarity of Lutheran Christology that deserves special mention. Luther’s doctrine of the physical presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper led to the characteristically Lutheran view of the communicatio idiomatum, to the effect “that each of Christ’s natures permeates the other (perichoresis), and that His humanity participates in the attributes of His divinity.” It is held that the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence were communicated to the human nature of Christ at the time of the incarnation.

Thus, it’s not a case of me interpreting Christian beliefs wrongly. Rather, it’s a case of Rogers not being educated about what Christians other than himself, believe.

Will Rogers publicly correct himself after putting words in my mouth? No, he most definitely will not.

Will Rogers publicly correct himself for misspelling a Latin phrase important to Christology? No, only his typos are typos, mines are somehow, intentional.

Will Rogers concede that what he’s labelled as characteristically “my interpretation” of Christian beliefs, is actually a belief of Christians “other than himself”? He won’t, even with the quote given above.

Will Rogers take down his post now that he’s been absolutely refuted? Definitely not.

Do I have further time to waste on Rogers? Nope.

(What’s strange is that Rogers, along with speaking with the Holy Spirit, Sam and Slick, somehow believes I interpreted Slick’s belief in the communicatio idiomatum. I merely referenced the article and asked Rogers if he agreed with Slick’s belief. Somehow, Rogers takes asking a question about his belief, as interpreting Slick’s. Dishonest? Quite so.)

and God knows best.

Do Christian Apologists Care About Theology?

Many in the inter-faith dialogue community would be surprised to know that most Christian apologists and polemicists do not care about theology. In fact, most of them ban, delete and criticize Christians who try to discuss inter-Christian theological matters. For the purposes of this article, I’m referring to Protestant Christians, since they tend to be the ones engaging most with Muslims. Theology necessarily deals with the doctrines about God, the nature of God, what salvation is, who is saved, and how one should use scripture. These are topics that a necessary for every faithful and devout Christian to have studied. Yet, most Christian apologists and polemicists are agnostic when it comes to declaring their beliefs. Most Protestant Christians fall under Arminian or Calvinist beliefs. The differences between being one or the other are vast, how one is saved, predestination, freewill, redemption, atonement and grace are all disputed between these two doctrines. Believing one or the other, often leads to accusations of apostasy and heresy. So where do Christian polemicists like Sam Shamoun and David Wood fall on these important beliefs?

Sam Shamoun

cc-2015-ss-calvinism

Sam doesn’t care whether his explanation of scripture goes against important creeds and doctrines based on the Bible. To him, important doctrines do not matter. So what if an explanation he gives contradicts an important Biblical creed? In his words, so be it!

David Wood

David gets really angry when Christians try to discuss important and necessary topics about Christian beliefs about salvation, he does not identify with either Arminian theology or Calvinist theology, he flutters somewhere in between and is an agnostic when it comes to his theology. During one discussion about the nature of God’s love, he expressed his rage inducing anger on fellow Christians, reacting rabidly towards them:

cc-2015-dw-calvinism

Another devout Christian was shocked at David’s disregard for an honest and heartfelt discussion between fellow Christians on the nature of God’s love in Christianity:

cc-2015-dw-calvinism3

What were the topics David did not want Christians discussing with him? Christian theology, election (how you are saved by God, is it predetermined or not), the perfection of God…..

cc-2015-dw-calvinism2

What was David’s response to all of this?

cc-2015-dw-calvinism4

Distract them with Islam! You can only speak to David about Islam! Don’t you dare try to discuss Christian theology, especially salvation and the nature of God, you can only discuss Islam! According to David, his theology concerning the nature of God, salvation, scripture, is all determined by, “the only side I take on this issue is the opposite of whoever is trying to disrupt a conversation…“. So just like Sam Shamoun, David doesn’t care about Christian theology, he flip flops between essential creeds that determine the nature of God and how you are saved, based on whoever he’s arguing with. He doesn’t care about Christian theology, he just prefers distracting Christians with Islam.

Matt Slick, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun and Tony Costa

Recently Anthony went bobbing for apples and drowned in three inches of water. He decided to criticize some of the arguments I used in my debate with Tony Costa. Unfortunately for him, he ended up declaring the beliefs of Shamoun and Slick to be heretical. Regarding my arguments, he realised my arguments were based upon the Christology (what a Christian believes about the nature of Jesus) of his friends, and not on his own personal Christology. This led to the revelation that the beliefs of his Christian apologist friends were heretical. Anthony proclaimed:

However, Tony Costa does not believe in this doctrine of the “communicatio idiomatum” (nota bene: the Latin word is ‘idiomatum,’ not ‘idiomatium’), and that doctrine is not taught in but rather is contradicted by the orthodox definition of the incarnation authoritatively set down in the Chalcedonian Creed (q.v. “inconfusedly,” and “the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH NATURE BEING PRESERVED…”).

What’s that? The doctrine of ‘communicatio idiomatum’ is a contradiction of orthodoxy? That makes it heretical to believe in. Yet guess who believes in and defends Christianity using a doctrine that Anthony considers to be…..”contradicting orthodoxy”? His very friends, Sam Shamoun and Matt Slick!

Sam Shamoun uses the doctrine to defend the dual nature of Christ against Muslim objections: Click this link.

Matt Slick who operates CARM and is often featured alongside Sam and Wood on ABN/ Trinity TV also promotes and believes in this doctrine: Click this link.

What did Anthony do when he realised my arguments in the debate with Tony Costa was based on the Christology of his friends? He decided to correct a typo in one of my sentences by dedicating three paragraphs and two comments on YouTube about it. Yet, I persisted, he had made an error. He had wrongly criticized me, and at the same time had claimed that the beliefs of Sam and Matt contradicted orthodoxy, thus declaring them heretics. As expected, realising his error, he quickly left the conversation. The entirety of which can be read here.

Update 4/11/15:

Anthony was kind enough to post the conversation for me. Here’s the link to the images. For some reason he edited out the last two comments of the conversation, and chose not to link directly to the source as I did. As can be noted, when caught out, he resulted to arguing about a single typo. Such is the level of polemics he chooses to engage in, and of which I will not lower myself to.

James White

He’s considered to be one of the leading Calvinist apologists today. Debating Catholics, Jehovas Witnesses, Arminians and more. Yet, when it comes to his very own Christian friends like Sam and Wood, he fails to correct them. Fails to teach them. He’d readily criticize a Muslim for speaking incorrectly about Christian theology, yet he abjectly fails when it comes to educating fellow Christian apologists about central creeds and beliefs necessary for their salvation. It would be interesting to see if White would be consistent this time around. Here we have Shamoun and Wood openly disregarding Calvinist theology. These are statements made in the public domain.

Surely then, White, as a staunch defender of Calvinist theology would not stand for this. Given that he can condemn literally almost every other Christian sect that disagrees with Calvinist theology, it should be expected that he would also in like, publicly reprimand Shamoun and Wood for their gross misconduct regarding core theological beliefs. However, this is unlikely. White would not dare criticize the theology of Shamoun or Wood, regardless of how critical they are of Calvinist theology. If a Muslim had criticized Calvinist theology, we could have expected a 2 hour long Dividing Line episode on their lack of consistency. Such is the standard that White holds himself and his faith up to.

Conclusion

So where does this leave us? These polemicists do not care about Christianity. Studying and defending Christian theology is not important to them. Believing in heretical beliefs is of no importance. They go to extreme odds to prevent discussion about inter-Christian theological differences. The next time a Christian interacts with Sam, Wood, Rogers and Slick, ask them, do you care about your theology? Do they care that none of their Christologies are compatible, that they each differ about the very nature of God and the means of salvation in Christianity? Do they care? The answer is an unequivocal, no.

and God knows best.

Financier of Sam Shamoun Threatens a Terrorist Attack

A well known financier of Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers and David Wood, has made quite a startling threat to innocent civilians.

cc-2015-robertwellsterroristMany schizophrenics who are Christians and proclaim to hear voices in their heads, otherwise known to them as “God”, pose a very real and terrifying threat to human life. It is quite disturbing to see the extent to which this Christian has been radicalized. Speaking on Christians who claim to hear God speaking to them, psychologist Tanya Marie says:

“Most people reading the ancient scriptures understand these accounts of hearing God’s voice as miracles that really did happen but no longer take place today, or maybe as folkloric flourishes to ancient stories. Even Christians who believe that miracles can be an everyday affair can hesitate when someone tells them they heard God speak audibly. There’s an old joke: When you talk to God, we call it prayer, but when God talks to you, we call it schizophrenia.”

This is a very real threat, one recent example of a Christian hearing voices in her head, believing the voice to be God, almost murdered a man:

Police later found the driver of the car, Prionda Hill, at the Rally’s several blocks down the road from where she hit [motorcyclist Anthony] Oliveri. She told police “she was driving and out of no where God told her that he would take it from here and she let go of the wheel and let him take it.” She’s now facing several charges.

We call upon Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers and David Wood, to contact the authorities and help prevent a massacre in the name of Christianity, by a psychopath who claims he would absolutely kill everything that breathes if the voices in his head told him to do so.

and God knows best.

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

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Introduction

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

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

This argument can be simplified to realise its absurdity:

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

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

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

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

The Son of God

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

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

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

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

Those two verses read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We referenced 9:7 earlier which read:

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

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

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

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

The Son-Inclusio

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Both passages call Jesus a son of God.

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

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

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

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

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

  3. Both passages reference Elijah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God knows best.

Refutation: A Would-Be Seducer Gets Owned and Humbled

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In reference to what he said earlier:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers & Radical Moderate Perverted Statements.

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Recently I exchanged a few comments with Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun and their friend Radical Moderate on an Apologetic Christian’s website. This is the advice that Radical Moderate, with the approval of Sam Shamoun and Anthony Rogers, gave to me:

I apologize to our younger readers for having to read these statements, but the purpose of this post is to show the mindset of these Christians. Not only is such a statement perverse and morally despicable to tell a young man, I find it really disheartening to see the kind of thoughts that these old men entertain. They are all almost double my age and I must that these comments were extremely inappropriate. In fact Sam Shamoun saw it fit to explain to Radical Moderate how to spell the word ‘whore’ in Arabic, in the same comments thread:

In the end, the result is that these Christian missionaries are promoting sodomy, sexual abuse with a person of the same gender and at the end of the day, they have learned how to spell, “whore/ prostitute” in the Arabic language. If this is the low level of discussion these people can sink to, I am truly sorry for the state of Christianity today. However, as it stands, I refuse to give into their sexual advances and I hope and pray that no other young person, whether male or female has to face such online sexual abuse from these gentlemen.

If you or someone you know has also faced sexual advances or any other form of inappropriate sexual comments, from any of these men please report it as soon as possible:

People of this nature tend to prey online and we should not be afraid to speak out against their actions. Soliciting young teens, and children as they are doing to me, can also happen to your kids who try to seek advice from them. They hold positions in the community that allow them to be alone and interact with young persons and this should not be allowed, they should be monitored. I discuss theology with them, do debates with them and while the abuse and insults are common from them and while I can handle the insults:

It is the soliciting of sex online, with someone half their age and of the same sex which is disturbing and shocking to say the least. While I am sure they will claim they are “joking” or were just trying to be “insulting”, they have definitely gone beyond simple banter and reached the realms of sexual perversion. It should also be known that the poster of the comment, named Radical Moderate also has numerous unauthorized audio recordings and conversations that he has had with me and that I have had with others. Although I have blocked him and at the time of many of the voice recordings, he was banned from the chat room I frequent, yet he was still able to record my voice. He is works as a computer technician and may have used his skills to bypass the ban on the chat room to subsequently record my statements. I am honestly appalled by his actions.

Anthony added to the conversation not too long after, I couldn’t get a screenshot with his name in it due to the length of the comment, but this is what he stated:

I have no idea what my ‘loins’ have to do with him making a video and why it promises to be painful, but if I take his comments in line with his friend, Radical Moderate’s comment (pictured above), then this is beyond sexually perverse. I’m not sure if I should even continue to check the comments they are posting, it’s only getting worse as time progresses. If this is the kind of violent, sadistic, sexually barbaric acts that these men can speak about openly in the public domain about, I am very afraid for what they are capable of doing to young kids in their presence.

You can read more on what their Scripture, the Bible, says on sexually abusing others here, as well as more threats and sexual advances by Sam Shamoun & Anthony Rogers’ friends here:

Br. Ijaz Ahmad.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and Allaah knows best].

« Older Entries