Category Archives: Anthony Rogers

Refutation: The True Shahada Indeed: Revisited [Part 3]

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Analyzing deity of Christ under the light of John 17:3

Question Mark

In Part 1 of the True Shahada Indeed series we dealt with issues which were accidental or not immediately related to the point of disagreement, that is, John 17:3. In Part 2 of the same series we proved that Muslims can and should appeal to John 17:3 to prove seemingly Semitic monotheism of biblical prophets withstanding that “text speaks of the father”.

In Islam there cannot be any ghastly sin than worshipping Jesus (peace be upon him) (#fn1) besides/with Allah (SWT). However, for some Christian sects it is a cardinal point in their faith to worship Jesus, peace be upon him, as their God Almighty; that there cannot be any salvation without this assumption.

Such being the case, this paper, which is the third installment in the series, would be of paramount importance because it would be analyzing the deity of Christ, peace be upon him.

The scope of the paper would be to refute all the “proofs” put forth by Rogers who thinks he worships the same God worshipped by all prophets, who was ironically circumcised on the 8th day (!), peace be upon all of them.

Logically Illogical

To negate Muslim appeal of monotheism through John 17:3, Rogers produced his so thought logical illustration…to try and make the point easier to apprehend”.

Somewhere down the line he thinks that John 17:3 minus his “illustration” is Rocket Science!

Anyhow, he produced his “illustration” of “Plato – Mortal – Socrates” which was thoroughly refuted under “Where is the catch” section of the TRUE SHAHADA INDEED.

Although his article is “A Reply to “The True Shahada Indeed” – Part Three”,however, he never replied to our breakdown of his “Plato – Mortal – Socrates”illustration! Moreover, he brought up an entirely new perspective to his “illustration”; that of the absence of the adjective “alone”. We would consider even this later in this paper but for time being we note that he has not responded directly and distinctively to our refutation of his “Plato – Mortal – Socrates” argument.

All that he had to offer was the following sapless, self – styled and biblically unsupported response:

“Given a Trinitarian metaphysic the only legitimate way the deity of Christ could be ruled out is if the text said, “The Father alone is the only true God.” It was this that I aimed to bring out with the illustration I chose, where not the word “only” used to modify the predicate term of the major premise, but the word “alone” used to restrict what is predicated to the person of the Father, is what is all important.”

Firstly, no matter which Christian metaphysic one abides by, however, s/he needs to restrict himself to the scriptures, that is, Bible. And we would, Allah – willing shortly experience that no Christian metaphysic, “Trinitarian” or otherwise, supports Rogers’ claim that “deity of Christ could be ruled out if the text said, “The Fatheralone is the only true God.”” The biblical verse Rogers brought up, that is, John 10:30, to support his branded “Trinitarian metaphysic” does not support his case as we would soon realize in the subsequent section(s).

Secondly, Rogers’ explanation that “only” does not “modify the predicate term of the major premise” is unsupported by any evidence. Such an explanation is at best his very own personalized explanation uncorroborated through any biblical verse, nevertheless, if Rogers’ is itching for John 10:30 then he should have patience until we examine it in the subsequent section(s).

Or else, Rogers should provide us reason(s) why we should believe his branded explanation that biblical word “only” does not “modify the predicate term of the major premise”, especially when the biblical proof (John 10:30) he bases his explanation on, cripples on a closer examination:

Christ is yet not God – Almighty

For Rogers Muslim argument against the deity of Christ, peace be upon him, is “fallacious” because:

“…the Muslim argument against Christ’s deity at this point rests on argumentation that is fallacious. The argument goes like this:

The Father is the only true God;

Jesus is not the Father;

Therefore, Jesus is not the only true God.

To infer such a conclusion from the above premises is fallacious because it assumes that Jesus is not one with the Father, which begs the question against the Christian understanding of the Trinity, and flatly contradicts what Jesus said in John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” (Bold emphasize ours) In other words, inferring the above conclusion from the stated premises fails to take into account the unique features of Trinitarian ontology or the fact that the Father and the Son are distinct persons but not different gods or beings. In other words, although Jesus is not the person of the Father, they are one in essence, and thus both can be the only true God.”

Specifically, Rogers’ arguments for the deity of Christ (peace be upon him) are:

  1. Father and Jesus (peace be upon him) “are one”.
  2. Father and Son are one in essence.

Let us examine the above arguments to analyze the weight in them.

Father and Jesus (peace be upon him) “are one”

This over used Christian quotation of John 10:30 could be easily responded rhetorically through other biblical quotations; consider this biblical quotation, for instance:

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:” (King James (1611), John 17:21-22, Capital and Bold emphasize ours)

Or

“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…I gave them the same glory you gave me, so that they may be one, just as you and I are one:” (Holy Bible, John 17:21-22, TEV, Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

In this particular citation Jesus (peace be upon him) invests the same “oneness” to the people as he has with father. He expressly inducts his people in their (father and Jesus) oneness. There is just no difference between the “oneness” between him and father and the “oneness” that Jesus (peace be upon him) wants to have between him, father and people. This clearly refutes Rogers’ argument that because Jesus (peace be upon him) and father “are one” so Jesus is God – Almighty otherwise and conversely if Jesus (peace be upon him) is God – Almighty since he is “one” with father then sadly to the chagrin of Christianity many others would have to be accommodated in the space between father and Jesus, peace be upon him.

In other words, if our conclusion and inference of John 17:3 that Jesus is not God – Almighty “flatly contradicts what Jesus said in John 10:30” then John 17:21-22 “begs the question against the Christian understanding of the Trinity” for they should somehow accommodate the then followers of Jesus (peace be upon him) in the trinity transmuting it to “multi-nity”.

Rogers’ problem does not seizes here since even if we take his much celebrated verse, namely, John 10:30 separately and not in relation with any other verse of the Bible yet it would not be proven that Christ was God – Almighty because the context of John 10:30 will militate against all such (im)possibilities:

Context of John 10:30

The preceding few verse of John sets the context for John 10:30. Jesus, peace be upon him, states that he is the shepherd of his flock and therefore he would provide them all the security they need, in other words, because Jesus’ (peace be upon him) sheep follow him (verse 27), “…they shall never perish” (verse 28) and therefore no man would be able to pluck them (his sheep) out of his hand.

It is the obedience of Jesus’ people to his commandments that saves them and circumvents them to be “plucked off”.

A step further, because Jesus’ (peace be upon him) words and commandments are not his own but of his father’s (see, John 14:24) therefore by following Jesus they are indirectly following father and thus “no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” (verse 29). And thus we see a “oneness” of purpose in the verse! This was expressly cited by famous Bible commentator Darby:

“If the Son has accomplished the work, and takes care of the sheep, IT WAS THE FATHER WHO GAVE THEM TO HIM. The Christ may perform a divine work, AND FURNISH A MOTIVE FOR THE FATHER’S LOVE, BUT IT WAS THE FATHER WHO GAVE IT HIM TO DO.  THEIR LOVE TO THE SHEEP IS ONE, as those who bear that love are one.” (Darby’s Commentary, Joh 10: 1-42, Bold, Italics, Capital and Underline emphasize ours)

Notice that according to commentator Darby, the “oneness” being (allegedly) said by Jesus (peace be upon him) is the “oneness” of love. Both Jesus (peace be upon him) and father love the flock and therefore they are one or expressly “their love to the sheep is ONE”. In other words Jesus (peace be upon him) and father are one in purpose.

We might contemplate, for instance, the love of parents; the mother and the father love their child does not mean that mother and father are one! Their love for the child may be one, nevertheless.

The author of “Jesus Christ” writes to prove that Jesus and father were “one” because of their “oneness” of work or purpose:

“This charge of blasphemy arose as a result of Jesus’ having said: “I and the Father are one.” (Joh 10:30) THAT THIS DID NOT MEAN THAT JESUS CLAIMED TO BE THE FATHER OR TO BE GOD IS EVIDENT FROM HIS REPLY, already partly considered. The oneness to which Jesus referred must be understood in harmony with the context of his statement. He was speaking of his works and his care of the “sheep” who would follow him. His works, as well as his words, demonstrated that there was unity, not disunity and disharmony, between him and his Father, a point his reply went on to emphasize. As regards his “sheep,”he and his Father were likewise at unity in their protecting such sheep like ones and leading them to everlasting life. (Joh 10:27-29; compare Eze 34:23, 24.) Jesus’ prayer on behalf of the unity of all his disciples, including future ones, shows that the oneness, or union, between Jesus and his Father was not as to identity of person but as to purpose and action.” (Bold, Italics and Capital emphasize ours.)

Inferably then, Jesus and father “are one” in love, purpose and/or work (and not in essence we would elaborate it shortly).

Lest Rogers and others would impute us of our own interpretation of the context of John 10:30 we quote you more classical Christian scholars and commentators on this particular verse disabusing all the claims of the tri-theist(s).

Furthermore it is Rogers typical thinking and shallow grasp of his own scripture that he writes John 10:30 proves that Jesus (peace be upon him) and father are “one” because, otherwise, there are umpteen scholars who still doubt the precise nature of the “oneness” being talked about in John 10:30. Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer are only to name a few of them:

I and my Father are one – The word translated “one” is not in the masculine, but in the neuter gender. IT EXPRESSES UNION, BUT NOT THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE UNION. IT MAY EXPRESS ANY UNION, AND THE PARTICULAR KIND INTENDED IS TO BE INFERRED FROM THE CONNECTION. IN THE PREVIOUS VERSE HE HAD SAID THAT HE AND HIS FATHER WERE UNITED IN THE SAME OBJECT THAT IS, IN REDEEMING AND PRESERVING HIS PEOPLE. IT WAS THIS THAT GAVE OCCASION FOR THIS REMARK.  Many interpreters have understood this as referring to union of design and of plan. The words may bear this construction.” (Barnes’ Commentary, Joh 10:30, Capital, Bold and Underline emphasize ours except for the first phrase)

Note yet again that the celebrated Christian scholar Barnes along with other scholars doubts the union or sharing of divinity through John 10:30 which Rogers so untenably quotes. All that Barnes suggest is the common or “one” purpose of the two – that of saving the people. That being the suggestion we should not forget that all prophets came to save their/the people from Adam to Mohammad, peace be upon them.

If the common or “one” purpose is to be construed as Rogers interprets it to prove the deity of Christ (peace be upon him) then all the biblical prophets needs to be worshipped categorically.

A step further, Jamison Faucet (JFB), another leading proponent of Bible commentary expressly denies what Rogers cherishes to interpret – The oneness of “essence” of Jesus (peace be upon him) and father:

I and my Father are one — Our language admits not of the precision of the original in this great saying. “Are” is in the masculine gender – “we (two persons) are”; while “one” is neuter – “one thing.” PERHAPS “ONE INTEREST” EXPRESSES,as nearly as may be, the purport of the saying. There seemed to be some contradiction between His saying they had been given by His Father into His ownhands, out of which they could not be plucked, and then saying that none could pluck them out of His Father’s hands, as if they had not been given out of them. “Neither have they,” says He; “though He has given them to Me, they are as much in His own almighty hands as ever – they cannot be, and when given to Me they are not, given away from Himself; for he and I have all in common.” Thus it will be seen, that, THOUGH ONENESS OF ESSENCE IS NOT THE PRECISE THING HERE AFFIRMED, that truth is the basis of what is affirmed, without which it would not be true.” (JFB’s commentary, Joh 10:30, Underline, Bold and Italics emphasize ours except the first phrase)

Moreover, we would like to quote how cogently Sheikh Jalal Abualrub ofwww.islamlife.com had responded to this hackneyed argument of John 10:30 raising a new set of problems to Christian tri – theists:

“I and my father are one” (John 10:30).
Christians claim that this statement proves that Jesus is one or united with God and, consequently, Jesus is God.  However, when Jesus died, he did not give up the Father, he only gave up the ghost, “And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost” (Mark 15:37).

This claimed unity was not available to Jesus when he died; what happened to this unity and why did not the Father die when Jesus died, if Jesus and the Father are one? 

Hopefully, no one will claim that when Jesus said that he and the Father are one, it was Jesus the human not Jesus the divine who said it.  It this is suggested, then one would be saying that God is human.  And where is the Holy Ghost in John 10:30?  He is missing, again.  Key-Word: Twinity!
It seems the unity between God and Jesus can include many more people.  Jesus is claimed to have said, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one” (John 17:21-23).  If, as we are told, John 10:30 proves that Jesus is God, then, John 17:21-23 prove that the disciples and possibly many other people are also God.  Also, if God and Jesus are one, why would Jesus keep calling himself, ‘My God’: “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (John 20:17)?  The Quran states that Prophet `Esa said,
{Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allâh I) did command me to say: “Worship Allâh, my Lord and your Lord.” And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were the Watcher over them; and You are a Witness to all things.} (5:117) (Source, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

Lastly, we would like to re – visit Rogers’ argument of “one essence” of Jesus and father but before that take note once again that according to, Jamison Faucet,“oneness of essence” is not affirmed.

There are many differences between Jesus and father even on the grounds of “essence” and at the end of this section one would only think that which “essence”do the Christian apologists brag which is one and the same between Jesus (peace be upon him) and father:

  1. Firstly, Jesus (peace be upon him), did not had any idea of the hereafter or of future event(s). Specifically, he did not knew the “hour”:

He, peace be upon him, clearly said:

“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Sonbut the Father.” (Mark 13:32, Bold emphasize ours)

Notice how carefully and humbly (biblical) “Son of God” has distinguished himself from “Father”.

If the essence of Jesus (peace be upon him) would have been the same with father then he must have known the hour.

  1. God is not a creation. He is separate from His creation – He is the Creator, however, Jesus was created, he was made:

“But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, MADE of a womanMADE under the law,” (Galatians 4:4, Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

Thus, in essence Jesus was a creation, nevertheless biblical God was the Creator:

“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made ithe hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.” (Isaiah 45:18, Bold emphasize ours)

And,

“For, lo, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought, that maketh the morning darkness, and treadeth upon the high places of the earth,…” (Amos 4:13, Bold emphasize ours)

In the entire Bible we do not find a single verse which unequivocally states that Jesus created any of the creations made by God. Surely, for the essence of creation, Jesus (peace be upon him) lacked way behind God as a true prophet and servant; not a Co – Creator.

  1. If Jesus would have been one in essence with father then he would have never denied the attribute of goodness vested on him:

“And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” (Mark 10:17-18, Bold emphasize ours)

For many scholars the “Goodness” stated in the above cited verse alludes toperfection. However, Jesus (peace be upon him) diverted it to God alone because he knew that he was not perfect to the same extent or “essence” to blaspheme God.

  1. Tri – theist Christians claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) was a mixture of humanity and divinity, at the same time! For them, when he was answering nature’s (#fn2) call his divine part used to hide out somewhere and would re – appear when he used to finish his purpose.

However, on other instances, the divine Jesus (peace be upon him) used to manifest his divinity through words such as “I and the Father are one.” The problem is that such an apology does not take into consideration biblical verses such 1 John 4:12:

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.” (Bold and Underline emphasize ours)

Christians would incessantly apologize that it was Jesus (peace be upon him) – the god who gave life back to Lazarus or it was divine Jesus (peace be upon him) who uttered “I and the Father are one.”

Nevertheless, such an understanding contradicts 1 John 4:12 because people sawand watched Jesus (peace be upon him) saying “I and the Father are one”, they saw Jesus (peace be upon him) – The mistaken god, giving life to Lazarus (we would like to add, “By God’s permission”), however, as per 1 John 4:12 none at no time has seen god (Remark the important phrase “at any time” 1 John 4:12).

It is the faulty understanding of Christian apologists that engenders contradiction between John 10:30 and 1 John 4:12. Since “I and the Father are one” of John 10:30 neither mentions that Jesus (peace be upon him) and father are one nor can it be inferred. On the other hand, according to principle set by 1 John 4:12, God cannot be seen. This visionary “essence” of divine collides head on with the presumptuous assumption that Jesus (peace be upon him) and father are one in essence.

  1. Another “essence” which finds difference between Jesus (peace be upon him) and father is that of “immortality”. Bible clearly states that God is immortal:

Who ONLY hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.” (1Timothy 6:16, Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

The fact that Jesus, peace be upon him, died and thus was a mortal, and the fact that the verse adds that “no man hath seen” (Jesus (peace be upon him) was visible) the ONLY immortal proves that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not of the same essence of the father.

If Rogers think that he would reply back with the same absurd and face hiding reply that Jesus (peace be upon him) the man died (not the god) then he should take into account that it was the same mouth, the same organs, through which, according to tri – theist Christianity boast that Jesus (peace be upon him) claimed divinity through the words “I and the Father are one” ceased to work or else died.

Actually, Rogers cannot play the coward game that when it suits his end of proving Jesus (peace be upon him) god – he becomes god, and when Jesus (peace be upon him) bleeds or sweats he becomes man!

There are numerous other facts which prove that Jesus, peace be upon him, was not God, however, we keep them for a more fitting place when we would analyze the divinity of Christ (peace be upon him) in our future papers, God willing. For now, it is verifiably established that Jesus and father were not of the same essence – a myth unsupported through Bible.

The Polytheism between “Only and Alone”

The next argument which would be analyzing could be called as an apotheosis of straw man argument. We would observe how Rogers tries to canvass his polytheism between the dexterity of the words “Only” and “Alone”. We would soon read how he would fuss that the text has used “Only”; it should have used both “Only” and “Alone” in order that restrict father alone in the godhead – all to prove how childish his arguments are. He wrote:

“Given a Trinitarian metaphysic the only legitimate way the deity of Christ could be ruled out is if the text said, “The Father alone is the only true God.” It was this that I aimed to bring out with the illustration I chose, where not the word “only” used to modify the predicate term of the major premise, but the word “alone” used to restrict what is predicated to the person of the Father, is what is all important.”

Here Rogers has provided us a way how we could disprove the deity of Christ (peace be upon him) from his standards which we would do, God willing. Nevertheless, we would like to first consider other important points here.

Since Rogers is playing with words and twisting text. We will re – produce John 17:3.

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3)

In the first place, notice once again that between the person of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the person of father – the person of father is the “ONLY” true God since the pronoun “thee” specifically refers to the person of father. This is further corroborated by the fact that Jesus (peace be upon him) distinguishes himself, in the same text, from the father by stating, “AND JESUS CHRIST whom THOU hast sent”.

Notice that once Jesus (peace be upon him) has qualified the person of father “ONLY” to be the “true God” he did not continue it for himself. He did not state that I am also “ONLY” true God for Jesus (peace be upon him) knew that it would be an irrevocable contradiction.

To continue on the above argumentation, if the person of father is the “ONLY” true God then, firstly, all other persons are immediately ruled out of divinity and secondly, Rogers’ statement is met, “The Father alone is the only true God.”

Secondly, Rogers’ argument is based purely on “Trinitarian Ontology”, as he himself mentions it. The weakness of argumentation that the text should have mentioned that father alone is the only true God lies in the basis of Trinitarian supposition. Why does Rogers expect us to look into biblical texts through his “Trinitarian Ontology” glasses? Because otherwise his argument would fall apart,

  1. Rogers has assumed us to believe that Christian godhead comprises of three persons which, as we have seen in glimpses above in, “Christ is yet not God – Almighty” section, is biblically unsupported.
  1. “The Father alone is the only true God.” From the construction of the ‘test’ sentence it is clear that when Rogers says that our case would have been valid had the text shown that Father “alone” is “only true God” he stresses the fact that the word “alone” should have excluded all other heads from the Christian godhead.

For him the adjective “only” does not exclude Jesus to include Father “alone” which is, at best, stark, by any stretch of English language. Trinitarians should notice the separation which Jesus (peace be upon him) puts between him and father when he attributes father to be the “ONLY” true God through the usage of the pronoun “thee”.

Notice once again that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not continue to say something like father is the “ONLY” true God and Jesus is the “ONLY” true God and Ghost (‘holy’) is the “ONLY” true God but Rogers did!:

“i.e. that the only true God is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God in three persons.”

This further exposes that how desperately Rogers wants to read texts into his scriptures to support his flimsy case unsupported through so called scriptures.

It is for this reason that if we keep aside the so called “Trinitarian Ontology” and let the texts speaks for them then they would certainly voice against all such “Trinitarian Ontology”.

Thirdly, we would now provide Rogers his die hard word “alone” from his Christian sources which would undoubtedly establish Rogers demand that “The Father aloneis the only true God.”

A perusal of the Greek text reveals that the word used for “only” was “monon”. Surprisingly, according to Strong’s Note numbered G3441, “monon” means “remaining, i.e. sole or single; by implication, mere:–alone, only, by themselves”. Therefore, “monon” does mean “alone”.

 

A step further, “monon” is not restricted to its usage in John 17:3, nevertheless, it can be found rigged all over the Bible, John 16:32, for instance:

“Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me aloneand yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.”(King James (1611) Bible. Italics and Bold emphasize ours)

From the above adduced verse the biblical usage of the word “alone” or “monon”can be easily grasped. Notice that in the first place, (a) Jesus (peace be upon him) complains that every man shall leave him “alone”, in other words, he would be absolutely alone without any man for or with him. Similarly, when Jesus (peace be upon him) says that …thee the only (alone) true God,” he means that father is absolutely alone without any other deity with him.

The second part of the above cited verse is even more interesting; (b) Jesus (peace be upon him) says that because Father is with him therefore he is not alone, “and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. Conversely, if Father was notwith Jesus (peace be upon him), he (Jesus, peace be upon him) would have beenalone i.e., Jesus (peace be upon him) without Father! Therefore, when Jesus (peace be upon him) refers to father as “only/alone” he segregates himself from father.

In conclusion then, “alone” has been used in Bible, specifically, John 16:32, by Jesus, peace be upon him, to restrict persons.

Another very interesting example for the usage of “alone” can be found at 1 John 5:6.

“This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water onlybut by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.” (King James (1611) Bible. Bold and italics emphasize ours)

The Greek word used for “only” is again “monon”. Out of the two things with which Jesus (peace be upon him) came, the text makes it clear, that he did not come with“water only”. In other words the usage of the word “only” in the text clearly would have separated Jesus with water alone leaving behind blood had he come with water only? This fact is further supported through the construction of the sentence to accommodate blood as well – “and blood”. Notice how “and” completes the two things with which Jesus (peace be upon him) came, biblically.

Now let us make an analogy of 1 John 5:6 with John 17:3. In John 17:3 we had, according to Trinitarian interpretation, two persons, father and Jesus (peace be upon him). Nevertheless, in 1 John 5:6 we have two substances, namely, water and blood:

a)      In 1 John 5:6, in a sense, water is separated from blood through the statement“not by water only”; the separation is reached through the usage of the word“only”. Similarly, in John 17:3, father – the only true God, has to be separated from Jesus (peace be upon him) through the usage of the same word “only” or “alone”.

b)      Moreover, in 1 John 5:6, “blood” was joined with “water” through the usage of the conjunction “and”, “…but by water and blood”. Notice that it is the usage of the same “and” which puts separation between “water” and “blood”. On the same lines, “and” puts a separation between – “the only true God” and Jesus, “…know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ”

To infer, we have the usage of the key words “only” and “and” in 1 John 5:6 that puts a separation between the substance of “water” and “blood”. Similarly, and logically, the same key words “only” and “and” will have to put a separation betweenthe person of “Father” and “Jesus” (peace be upon him).

Now, when the separation of person has been established in John 17:3 then, inferably, “thee the only true God” has to distinctively and separately allude to father.

Matthew 17:8

“And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only

When people had lifted up their eyes they found Jesus (peace be upon him) only, in other words we can say that they saw none but Jesus alone. Their affirmation that they saw Jesus (peace be upon him) only, indirectly meant that they saw none beside.

People were not seeing father or ghost but Jesus (peace be upon him) only, and how do we know; we know it through the usage of the word “only” thus, the usage of the word “only” discards all other persons of the Trinitarian theology.

Similarly, the same “only” also discards all other persons from the position of the“only true God” in John 17:3.

Another biblical verse which would bring forth the true meaning and import of the word “only” is found at Mark 6 verse 8. It reads:

“And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staffonlyno scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:” (Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

The commandment to carry a staff only negated the carriage of scrip, bread or money. Generally, appurtenances such as bread and money are essential to undertake any journey; however, the usage of the word “only” discarded them all. Similarly, as per Trinitarian (fallacious) interpretation, although father, Jesus (peace be upon him) and ghost (holy) might form family of god (!) yet the usage of the word“only” restricts the same to father alone.

Conclusively, if “monon” means “alone”, then by substituting it in Roger’ statement we have, “The Father is (the) alone true God” where the application of the word alone, according to Bible, is to segregate persons.

Therefore, whether we have alone or only the crux of the matter is that Father is theonly/alone true God which the Christians should be worshipping.

Brushing on the already refuted argument of Socrates – Man – Mortal, Rogers wrote that:

“It was this that I aimed to bring out with the illustration I chose, where not the word “only” used to modify the predicate term of the major premise, but the word “alone” used to restrict what is predicated to the person of the Father, is what is all important.”

We would like to state once again that the readers must visit “Where is the Catch”section of our first refutation TRUE SHAHADA INDEED.

At this instant only three queries would expose the weakness in Roger’ argument:

Firstly, why should we believe Rogers explanation that “not the word “only” used to modify the predicate term of the major premise, but the word “alone” used to restrict what is predicated to the person of the Father, is what is all important.” After all, it is the turn of which ghost (holy) to inspire Rogers?

Secondly, why should we trump the many biblical usages of the word “only”produced above which speak the opposite of Rogers supposed explanation to save the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him).

Lastly, to make our query redundant, why can not the word “only” modify the predicate term of the major premise? (Given that Rogers weak argument of John 10:30 has already been answered.)

We expect better responses from Rogers in his future installments.

Rogers admitted that Jesus is not God – Almighty

In his original paper Rogers gave a criterion meeting which would prove the denial of the deity of Jesus, peace be upon him:

“Things would be different if the text said “only Father is God”, or “the Father alone is the only true God”, but it does not.”

We have already dealt with this criterion to the embarrassment of Rogers under the section “Roger(s) admitted that Jesus is not God – Almighty” of our original paper. Here we would respond to the criterion once again and we would also reply to Rogers comments on this issue. The response here would be different from what we have already responded earlier so a reading of former is desirable.

As can be clearly seen, through Rogers confession, that the denial of Jesus’ deity (peace be upon him) could be achieved if the text would have read “only Father is God”, now to the chagrin of Trinitarian polytheists the text exactly speaks the same. Here is a terse explanation and proof.

John 17:3 reads:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know THEE the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

One does not need to be a doctor of divinity to construe our point! The archaic pronoun “THEE”, as use in the text, alludes directly and distinctly to the father; no Trinitarian would deny this. That being the case, if we substitute subject “father” for the pronoun “THEE” we get:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know FATHER the only true Godand Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (Peace be upon him)

If we pander back to Rogers’ demand which was that the text should have read“only Father is God” (to make him monotheist) and compare it with our above deduction, that FATHER the only true God” then, they both turn out to be one and the same! Rogers must turn a true monotheist now.

What is even more stark for Rogers is his two ironically similar statements:

            “Things would be different if the text (that is, John 17:3) said “only Father is God”,”

And

“The first claim is immediately undermined by the fact that the one whom Jesus calls (in John 17:3) “the only true God” is the Father”

It seems that the sub – title which Rogers chose “Fuzzy-Wuzzy Wuz A Muzzy” suits more to his arguments yet he had the temerity to call our arguments as “bogus”.  As a matter of fact we will now show readers what can be called as hilariously bogus argument.

Contemplating content that he has saved his polytheism, Rogers continued to write:

“…he quotes me saying that the only true God is the Father, something entirely consistent with classical Trinitarian monotheism, i.e. that the only true God is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God in three persons.”

The immediate trouble with such a weak argument are that (a)the essence of the word “only” and its biblical usage is militated against once somebody claim only true God is the Father, AND the Son, AND the Holy Spirit, one God in three persons.”Three beings, entirely different, can not possess an exclusive and only position of divinity. Add to it that Jesus (peace be upon him), according to Trinitarian understanding, is a complete god, father is also a complete god so is ghost (holy). Three complete, absolute, and different gods cannot be entitled as the “only true God”; it has to be one of them, to say the least.

Rogers thinks that his confused arguments were textually supported, for he wrote:

i.e. that the only true God is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God in three persons. It is also entirely consistent with the Johannine corpus, which calls the Father the only true God, as it does here in John 17:3, and the Son the only true God, as it does in 1 John 5:20.

And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.1 (Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

It is absolutely erroneous to impute divinity to Jesus (peace be upon him) through 1 John 5:20 since the important pronouns “HIM” and “HIS” has to refer to father only lest “HIS Son Jesus Christ” would be absurd in its import.

Furthermore, according to the Today’s English Version (TEV), the same verse reads:

“We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God – in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and this is eternal life.” (Italics emphasize ours)

According to TEV rendering whoever the pronoun “Him” refers to is the True God and from the second part of the verse we learn that “Him” has to refer to father since “His” refers to father’s son. Since all the pronouns refer to father, therefore, the protagonist of the phrase: “This is the true God” has to be father. Plus, observantly, Jesus (peace be upon him) has never been entitled as “GOD”, however, father has been, John 17:3, for instance.

Rogers further tried to prove the deity of Christ (peace be upon him) through the usage of the “Eternal Life” title found in the verse:

“This understanding is confirmed in the context of the epistle by the fact that “this one” is called “the true God and eternal life,” a title used for Jesus in the opening prologue of the epistle: “…the eternal life that was with the Father.”

We have already shown that “this one” refers to father and not to Christ (peace be upon him), however, the two words, i.e. “eternal life” is not used as any title but as a phenomenon or way. This can be concluded from TEV rendering where “eternal life” is preceded by “this is”. “This is eternal life” refers to the acknowledgement of (a)the arrival of biblical “Son of God”, (b)the recognition of “True God” through him and (c)the passage of a life in union with the “True God” AND “His Son”.

Any person would have “eternal life” if he possess the aforementioned three qualities. Thus, “eternal life” as used in the text is an achievement to be courted and not a title to be imputed.

Rogers decisively writes in footnote number 1 that according to Greek grammar rules “this” refers to Jesus (peace be upon him):

“The word translated “This [is]” in some versions is a pronoun that refers to a person and is better translated as “this one”. Furthermore, according to the usual rules of Greek grammar and syntax, the pronoun “this one” refers back to the nearest antecedent, which in this case is Jesus.”

He forgot for a moment that the bulk of New Testament Scholars are still confused for the subject to whom the pronoun refers to:

This is the true God – o There has been much difference of opinion in regard to this important passage; whether it refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the immediate antecedent, or to a more remote antecedent – referring to God, as such.(Barnes’ commentary, Bold, Italics and Underline emphasize ours)”

Barnes inadvertently also refutes Rogers for his boasts of Greek grammar rules:

I admit that his argument is NOT ABSOLUTELY DECISIVE; for cases do occur where a pronoun refers, not to the immediate antecedent, but to one more remote;”

Notice that for Barnes it is not absolutely decisive that the pronoun refers to which person! And the pronoun may refer to remote antecedents as well. Hope Rogers would do a better research next time to take some Greek classes.

Family Of gods!

In the process to call the kid who was circumcised on the eighth day (biblical) as God – Almighty (peace be upon him), Rogers came out with an absolutely grotesque argument if not blasphemous. For him, how can you not have a divine son when his father is divine (peace be upon him).

after all, if God is not the Father, then neither can Jesus be the divine Son of the Father. And so, Anonymous has it backwards; affirming the deity of the Father is an implicit affirmation of the deity of Christ, the Son; you simply can’t have a divine Father without a divine Son or a divine Son without a divine Father.” (Bold, Italics emphasize ours)

It has become Rogers’ habit to come out with tenuous arguments which only further jeopardizes his position and the above citation is just another example of it.

The principal argument that one cannot have a divine father without a divine son begs enquiries to the many biblical, none divine sons, Solomon (peace be upon him) for instance,  interspersed all over the Bible:

  1. “I will be his Father, and he shall be my SON. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:” (2 Samuel 7:14, King James (1611), Bible)
  1. “I will be his Father, and he shall be my SON: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:” (1 Chronicles 17:13, King James (1611), Bible)
  1. “He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my SON, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.” (1 Chronicles 12:10, King James (1611), Bible)
  1. “And he said unto me, Solomon thy SON, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my SON, and I will be his Father.” (1 Chronicles 28:6, King James (1611), Bible) (Capital and Bold emphasizes ours)

Moreover, what makes Rogers argument blasphemous and pagan like is the fact the Mary (May Allah be pleased with her), according to Rogers think process, must also be divine for if a divine father cannot beget a none divine son so should be with the mother; a none divine mother cannot sire a divine son thus, Rogers “has it backwards”.

He along with Trinitarians should either accept Jesus (peace be upon him) to be none divine and a mere human being or worship Mary (May Allah be pleased with her) along with father, Jesus (peace be upon him) and ghost (holy) and convert to quad – theists.

No wonder in Islam Allah (SWT) who is All – Knowledgeable and is Most – Forbearing pre-empted all Pagan-Christian notion of God having sons, daughters, wives etc. In a nut shell, Allah (SWT) obviated all worldly and/or humanistic relationships to His sublime Self:

“And exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: HE HAS TAKEN NEITHER A WIFE NOR A SON” (The Holy Qur’an 72:3, Yusuf Ali’s translation, Al – Alim CD Rom Version, Capital, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

And,

“Yet they make the Jinns equals with Allah though Allah did create the Jinns; andTHEY FALSELY HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE ATTRIBUTE TO HIM SONS and daughters. Praise and glory be to Him! (for He is) above what they attribute to Him!. (The Holy Qur’an, Yusuf Ali’s translation, Al – Alim CD Rom Version, Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

And,

They say: “(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a SON!”

Indeed ye have put forth A THING MOST MONSTROUS!

At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious.

 For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah)Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as A SERVANT.” (The Holy Qur’an 17:88, Yusuf Ali’s translation, Al – Alim CD Rom Version, Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

Notice that the last verse besides repudiating all non – sense arguments of sons to Allah also establishes the true status of every being besides Allah to Allah. The status of every being, Jesus (peace be upon him) included, to Allah is as good asservant.

Further in the same argument he charged us of having nullified the deity of Allah (SWT):

“let him look no further than his own words where he admitted that, according to “Muslim exegesis,” the passage teaches that “The only true God is father”.Now that is an admission. Here is what follows: since the only true God is the Father, and since Muslims anathematize divine paternity in this sense, as Mr. Anonymous also previously admitted, then according to the Bible, Christian exegesis, and Anonymous’ own words, Allah is not the only true God.” (Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

Once again Rogers has exposed his uncouth and childish polemical abilities. Very unsuccessfully he has tried to blend the Qur’anic concept of Allah with Muslims with biblical concept of God with Christians. For Muslim exegetes it is more important that Christians be extricated from the mire of worship of three gods rather than carp, in the first place, whether or not God can be referred as father.

When we wrote that according to Muslim exegesis the only true God is father we meant it in relation to the first person in the god head, as “little children” understand it. The logical fallacy committed in generalizing it with Muslims as well would not take into account that in Islamic theology we do not have absurd and pagan concepts of persons in god head. So, when we said that the only true God is Father according to Muslim exegeses we meant it for Christians only, in Christian context; – who worship three beings.

Re-read our response and pay care to the thought process and flow of the response to learn that we meant Muslim exegesis of the Bible for Christian would be that biblical God who is entitled as father is the only true God. The point that out of the two protagonists of the biblical verse John 17:3, namely, Father and Jesus, whoever Father is – is the only true God. We never said that according to the Muslim exegesis of The Qur’an or authentic Hadith Father is only true God. It is a blatant misinformation and distortion of our argument.

Moreover, Rogers would have to edify which sense is he talking about in his statement Muslims anathematize divine paternity in this SENSE”? If it is the crude sense then Muslims do anathematize it and Rogers is expected to do the same. However, if it is about paternal care, protection etc in a transcendent and unmatchable sense which will suit to His might then we do not abhor it but we would still not entitle Allah as “father” since neither had He called Himself with such a title nor has He inspired Mohammad (peace be upon him) to entitle Him so. We look forward for a response from Rogers.

Lastly, Rogers has certainly not read our Part – 2 of the series for this had been dealt therein.

Proofs Serving No Cause

In an attempt to aggravate the straw – man argument of the deity of Christ (peace be upon him) from John 17:3; Rogers puts forth other biblical verse viz., 1 John 2:23 and John 5:23. We wish to state once again here that 1 John 2:23 and John 5:23, for Rogers, should serve to prove deity of Christ in conjunction with John 17:3. Nevertheless, we would soon observe that most part of Rogers’ response does not even come close to prove deity of Christ (peace be upon him), biblically.

1 John 2:23 reads:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he thatacknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” (Italics emphasize ours)

For Rogers there is enough “close association” between Jesus (peace be upon him) and Father which would engender the sin of “Shirk” in Islam which otherwise is a positive proof for tri-theists to worship Jesus, peace be upon him:

“It is sufficient in this regard to note just two examples: “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:23)”;… This kind of close association between the Father and the Son is tantamount to the sin of shirk in Islamic theology (were it not true), and if it is not, then nothing is.” (Italics emphasize ours)

In the first place take heed that the text speaks of some kind of acknowledgment of Jesus (peace be upon him). When the preceding verse to the verse under citation is read it clarifies that the acknowledgment is the recognition of Jesus (peace be upon him) as Messiah:

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus IS THE CHRIST? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22, Bold, Italics and Capital emphasize ours)

The office of Messiah ship was conferred by none other but biblical Father. Therefore, what logically flows is the denial of “acknowledgment” of Jesus (peace be upon him) as Messiah is indirectly a denial or not acknowledging the Father. We had already expounded this explanation in our original refutation:

“A1. Biblical context of 1 John 2:23.


Kindly read the verse preceding 1 John 2:23, i.e., verse 22, to know that anybody denying the “Messiah ship” of Jesus, peace be upon him is to be considered as an enemy of Messiah (Christ), peace be upon him, “Who, then is the liar? It is anyone who says that Jesus is not the Messiah. Such a person is the enemy of Christ – he rejects both the Father and Son.”(TEV)

Various points needs to be immediately noted here. Firstly, denying Messiah ship of Son is the rejection of Father. Secondly, why is the denial of Messiah ship of Son tantamount to gainsaying Father! Why? It is because it was God’s (Father) eternal plan to crown Jesus, peace be upon him, with the exclusive title of Messiah and to send him in the world. Remember Messiah (Jesus), peace be upon him, was send in this world by Father


“… I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent me” (John 5:30, NKJV)(Emphasis Added)


And again,


“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, “Now God’s salvation has come! Now God has shown his power as King! Now his Messiah has shown his authority!” (REVELATION 12:10)(Emphasis Mine)


Conclusively denying Jesus, peace be upon him, got to be denial of Father who dispatched Jesus, peace be upon him, on this earth. OR, if this is not the explanation for the combined denial of Father and Son, then, you would have to agree with me that Father was also Messiah!”
  (True Shahada Indeed)

We further supplemented the above rationale with a practical example:

“Suppose, George Bush (who does not know him!) has sent Condoleezza Rice (now who does not know her) on a delegation to my country. And if suppose my countrymen and / or chieftains dishonor her; then it would certainly be an insult to George Bush himself. OR, agree insanely that Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice are one and the same. Will you dare to “conjoin” Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice!”

To the above reasoning Rogers replied back with three outlandish rationales:

“First, in the name of following the context Mr. Anonymous fails to follow the flow of thought, for according to John anyone who denies that Jesus is the Messiah is denying the Son, and anyone who denies the Son is denying the Father. It is because a denial that Jesus is the Messiah is a denial of the Son, that a denial that Jesus is the Messiah is tantamount to a denial of the Father. In other words, Sonship is the crucial, all-determinative link between the two. The connection is simple enough:

To deny that Jesus is the Messiah  →  is to deny the Son

To deny the Son  →  is to deny the Father.”

Even if we act magnanimously to accept what Rogers said, we, however, yet do not (and will not) find how Jesus (peace be upon him) is divine from the above argument! Since Messiah denied is son denied is father denied; but how is son of Mary (peace be upon him) God – Almighty proved!? We are yet to see that and we are well into third part of this series!

Barnes, a leading proponent of Bible commentary, while commentating on 1 John 2:23 jeopardizes Rogers’ case to support “Mr. Anonymous…an enemy of Messiah (Christ), peace be upon him” in that a denial of “Son” is tantamount to denial of “Father” because it is through the “Son” that the “Father” was made known:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father – That is, has no just views of the Father, and has no evidence of his friendship. It is only by the Son of God that the Father is made known to people, Mat_11:27; Heb_1:2-3, and it is only through him that we can become reconciled to God, and obtain evidence of His favor.” (Italics and Underline emphasize ours)

Observe that according to Barnes, because the “Son of God” had the “Father” known to people that a denial of Son (Jesus, peace be upon him) would be a denial of the Father. Barnes, unlike Rogers, did not argue that because Jesus (peace be upon him) is “co – equal” or “one with Father” or “divine” that his denial would be equivalent to the father’s denial.

Robertson’s Word Pictures states that because Jesus (peace be upon him) according to the will of father was making the father known that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) denial would, in effect, would be a denial of the Father:

He that confesseth the Son (ho homologōn ton huion). Because the Son reveals the Father” (Italics emphasize ours)

Christianity’s famous commentator Matthew Henry comments that whosoever controverts the witness of son denies the testimony and “seal” of the father upon Jesus (peace be upon him):

He that opposes Christ denies the witness and testimony of the Father, and the seal that HE hath given to his Son; for him hath God the Father sealed, Joh_6:27.And he that denies the witness and testimony of the Father, concerning Jesus Christ denies that God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ,…”(Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

Notice that according to Matthew Henry the “seal” of the father was not that Jesus (peace be upon him), his obedient servant, was co – equal with him rather he through the designation of God’s “seal” was a prophet and a priest, as commentator Clarke construes:

Him hath God the Father sealed – By this expression, our Lord points out the commission which, as the Messiah, he received from the Father, TO BE PROPHETand PRIEST to an ignorant, sinful world.” (Clarke’s Commentary, Joh 6:27,Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

Observe again (in the bold sentences) that Matthew Henry explicitly states that the denial of the witness and the testimony of the father concerning Jesus (peace be upon him) is a denial of the fact that “God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ”,and noticeably, nothing as such that Jesus is divine and consequently Jesus’ denial (peace be upon him) is God’s denial.

Therefore, it is absolutely absurd, if not emotional, to interpret that Jesus (peace be upon him) is God – Almighty, co – equal with the father, only because his (peace be upon him) denial is a denial of the father.

[Side note: The “seal” of the God upon Jesus (peace be upon him) further militates Rogers untenable claim for the deity of Christ (peace be upon him). For according to leading commentators “seal” as designated to Jesus (peace be upon him) meant either as “ambassador”, “intercessor” etc.

He has sealed him, that is, has given him full authority to deal between God and man, AS GOD’S AMBASSADOR to man and MAN’S INTERCESSOR WITH GOD, and has proved his commission by miracles.” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Joh 6: 22-27, Capital, Italics and Bold emphasize ours)

Mark that all substitute titles for “seal” prove nothing else but Islamic fact that Jesus (peace be upon him) was no more than a prophet of Allah (SWT) disproving Rogers claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) was God – Almighty.

 Furthermore, it is contradictory assumption about Jesus (peace be upon him) to beman’s intercessor WITH God and to be God – Almighty at the same instant.

To compound Rogers case we would like to enquire, firstly, to which higher authority would Jesus (peace be upon him) beseech for men and secondly, why would he at all plead at all to his higher authority is not he co – equal with father? ]

If the so labeled first response was weak then his second reasoning to defend deity of Christ (peace be upon him) was even more fragile:

“Second, as I pointed out before, Mr. Anonymous does not believe in “the Son”; indeed, he rejects such a notion as a blasphemous misconception that needs to be “cleaned”. Accordingly, Mr. Anonymous cannot claim to believe in “the messiahship of the Son”, and, therefore, “is to be considered as an enemy of Messiah (Christ), peace be upon him.”” (Italics emphasize ours)

Once again the above adduced argument does not prove deity of Messiah (peace be upon him) by any stretch of exegesis. Nevertheless, the misleading argument has been dealt in under the sub – sections “Comprehension Complications”“Son of God” and elsewhere of The True Shahada Indeed: [Part 2].

No wonder his third argument had to be the worst:

“Third, as I also pointed out before, Mr. Anonymous doesn’t have a clue what the true import of the word “Messiah” is, and so, when he acts as if he affirms “the messiahship of the Son”, his words ring hollow. (Note: the point here is not that Anonymous does not know what the mere word means, i.e. anointed one, but that He doesn’t have any clue what the concept of the Messiah is, or why Jesus is uniquely singled out, even in his own Qur’an, as the Messiah, for his completely detailed Qur’an never tells him.)” (Italics emphasize ours)

We would like to enquire Rogers that to which import of the word “Messiah”, he presumes, would invest divinity to Jesus, peace be upon him?

In the process, he complained that we “blithely overlooked” some important issues. In other words had we considered what we “blithely overlooked” it would have proved us the deity of an all most naked man on the cross. That being the case let us consider all his complaints.

 We would first consider the “overlooked” argument numbered “1)” and “3)”respectively:

            “1) who it was that the Father appointed;…

1) The fact is, according to the book of First John, it was Jesus, variously designated as “the life”, “the eternal life”, and “the Word of Life” (1 John 1:1-2), as well as “His Son” (1 John 1:3, 7; 3:23; 4:10; 5:9, 10, 11, 20), “His only Son” (1 John 4:9), “the Son” (1 John 1:24; 4:14; 5:12), and “the Son of God” (1 John 2:8; 4:15; 5:5, 10, 12, 13, 20), who was appointed to be the Messiah.”

“3) the purpose for which He was sent.

3) Finally, the reason that Jesus was sent as the Messiah, and the task that He, as the Messiah, was given to perform, was: “To be the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14), to be “the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2), “to take away sin” (1 John 3:5), to be “our Advocate with the Father” (1 John 2:1), “to destroy the Devil’s works” (1 John 3:8), and to give us “eternal life” (1 John 2:25; 5:11-12).” (Italics emphasize ours)

Again, since I am such a nice and considerate boy we would comply with Rogers to accept that “Father” appointed Jesus (peace be upon him) as “the life”, “the eternal life”, and “the Word of Life”, “His Son”, “His only Son”, “the Son”, and “the Son of God”, who was appointed to be the Messiah” “To be the Savior of the world”, “to be “the propitiation for our sins”,” “to take away sin”, “to be “our Advocate with the Father”, “to destroy the Devil’s works”  yet it cannot be proven that Jesus was God – Almighty!

For another noticeable point, Rogers wrote that “Father APPOINTED” Jesus (peace be upon him) for the list of jobs. It is incongruous that one of the two “persons” of allegedly same status “appoints” and confer duties to the other; especially when the converse is not to be found throughout the sixty six books. Statements of such notions elicit the subservience of Jesus (peace be upon him) to his higher authority. (Praise be to Allah.)

Let us now examine his point number “2)”:

“2) Furthermore, the sense in which John speaks of Jesus being “manifested” (1 John 1:2), or “sent” (1 John 4:10, 14), or “appearing” (1 John 2:5, 8), or having “come” (1 John 4:2; 5:20), is from heaven where he existed “with the Father” (1 John 1:2) “from the beginning” (1 John 1:1, 13, 14), which reflects the first several verses of the opening prologue of John’s Gospel (John 1:1-3), and also the divine title – “the Beginning and the End” –  indiscriminately applied by the apostle John to the Father (Revelation 21:6) and the Son (Revelation 22:13) in the book of Revelation.”(Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

1 John 1:1 states that Jesus (peace be upon him) was “manifested” as the “Life”. The usage of the word “Life” has to be metaphorical more than literal. Metaphorical usage of the word “Life” most closely alludes to “salvation”, thus, Jesus (peace be upon him) was sent as salvation for the deviants. However, so was the case with numerous other prophets of Allah (SWT). All came to save their nation or, in other words, to provide salvation to the people they were sent for. Therefore, Jesus (peace be upon him) being “manifested” as “Life” does not prove that he was God – Almighty lest other prophets might object (peace be upon them all)!

The Sense In which biblical Jesus (Peace be upon him) was Manifested

 Additionally, Jesus (peace be upon him) was “sent” as “the propitiation for our sins”(1 John 4:10). Nevertheless, a referral to Old Testament traditions bring forth that even Goats were used as atonement for the propitiation of Israelite sins:

The Scapegoat: He (Aaron) shall put both his hands on the goat’s head andconfess over it all the evils, SINS, and rebellions of the people of Israel, AND SO TRANSFER THEM TO THE GOAT’S HEAD. Then the goat is to be driven off into the desert by a man appointed to do it. THE GOAT WILL CARRY ALL THEIR SINS AWAY WITH HIM INTO SOME UNINHABITED LAND.” (Holy Bible, Leviticus 16:21-22, TEV, Bold, Capital, Underline and Italics emphasize ours)

Evangelical author P.D. Bramsen bolsters:

“The underlying principle of the law of the sacrifice can be summed up in a word:substitutionAn innocent animal would die as the condemned sinner’s substitute

And

“The person placing his or her hand on the head of a sacrifice symbolized thetransfer of sin to the flawless creature. The sin-bearer then perished in the place of the sinner.” (One God One Message, P.D. Bramsen, ROCK International, Page No. 203)

Bramsen then cites the scapegoat (rather “scape-lamb”) of New Testament:

“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’”, (John 1:29, One God One Message, P.D. Bramsen, ROCK International, Page No. 232)

P.D. Bramsen finally concurs that The Lamb of God, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him) was (allegedly) nailed on the cross to incur the sins exactly as the scapegoats of the Old Testament days did:

“During those hours on the cross, as the planet was enveloped with darkness, theLORD LAID ON HIS WILLING, SINLESS SON THE CONTAMINATION AND CONDEMNATION OF OUR SINS. What actually transpired between the Father and Son we may never comprehend, but one thing is sure: IT WAS THE GREATEST TRANSACTION OF ALL TIME.” (One God One Message, P.D. Bramsen, ROCK International, Page No. 248Italics and Capital emphasize ours)

Based on the above argument we conclude that the similitude of Jesus (peace be upon him), with respect of him being “sent” as the “propitiation for our sins”“to take away sin”, was that of the sacrificial animals like goats, bulls, oxen etc, biblically. And, subsequently there is nothing divine to be proved from this argument. On the contrary it again back fires severely against Christianity’s stand with respect to divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him) for Jesus’ (peace be upon him) similitude was not that of a true God, however, of an animal -, lamb, goat etc, biblically!

The Beginning And The End

Rogers own Christian brethren have provided a fitting response to Rogers’ claim:

and also the divine title – “the Beginning and the End” –  indiscriminately applied by the apostle John to the Father (Revelation 21:6) and the Son (Revelation 22:13) in the book of Revelation.”

The Unitarians explain:

“It is clear why Christ would be called the “Beginning and the End” in association with these concepts. He is the firstborn from the dead, and he will be the one to call the last people out of their graves, he is both the Author and Finisher of faith, he is the Man by whom God will judge the world and he is the one who will then create and bring to completion the next ages (see the notes on Heb. 1:10). There is no compelling reason to assume Jesus is God simply because of the title, “the Beginning and the End.” (rev 21:6)” (Source, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

Therefore, one possible reason, according to Unitarians, why Jesus (peace be upon him) was biblically entitled as “Beginning and the End” because he is the first born of dead and would be the caller to the last person from his/her grave! It does not prove he is God – Almighty. We would, Allah – willing, take such topics in greater detail in our future articles enquiring divinity of Christ (peace be upon him).

Finally Rogers summed up his weak argument in support of Christ’s divinity (peace be upon him) in most self destructive manner:

“1 John 4:9-10 may be cited as representative of the teaching of 1 John:

“In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Soninto the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 4:9-10).

It is more than evident that according to John’s first epistle, the reason a denial of Jesus the Messiah is a denial of the Father is because Jesus is the Father’s Son and Word, who was set apart and sent from heaven to be the Messiah, the Savior of the world. In fact, this is precisely what we read in the context of John 17:1-5, which should be cited again so Mr. Anonymous has no excuse for not seeing the connection the next time around. According to John 17:1-5: 1) Jesus is the Son (and God is His Father); 2) Jesus was sent from heaven (where he existed before time); and 3) Jesus was sent to be the Christ (the Son of God come in the flesh to accomplish the work of redemption and give eternal life to God’s people)” (Bold, Italics and Underline emphasize ours)

We must admit that Rogers is more Christian than logical here since:

  1. Jesus (peace be upon him) being “Father’s Son and Word” does not prove he is God – Almighty. So is the case with him being “Messiah”, and “the Savior of the world”. In fact we believe Jesus (peace be upon him) was a righteous man and a mighty prophet, we believe he was Messiah and like all other prophets was/would be the savior if we only heed to his teachings.
  1. 2.      “Jesus was sent from heaven (where he existed before time)”: If abode in heaven or having being sent from heaven is a license to worship then Rogers should immediately start to worship Angels since they also reside in heaven from where they are “sent” for various jobs:

 

  1. a.      But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, NOT THE ANGELS WHICH ARE IN HEAVEN, neither the Son, but the Father.” (Mark 13:32, Capital and Underline emphasize ours)

 

  1. b.      Nevertheless, if Rogers tried to argue that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) pre – existence is any proof for his divinity then he should consult brother Sami Zaatari’s following documentation; we are not going to invent any wheel in this article:

What about Conjoining of Allah (SWT) and Mohammad (SAW)?

 

To our appeal of Qur’an 4:80 and 49:14 to prove, through analogy, that since one cannot conjoin servant Mohammad (peace be upon him) to Allah – Almighty, similarly, it is illogical and nonsense to conjoin another servant Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) to God – Almighty; Rogers, firstly, repeated:

  1. 1.      A number of Muslims seem to recognize this pattern of thought when they refuse to confess the second half of their own creed, i.e., the words pertaining to Muhammad. This was alluded to earlier as one of the perennial disputes between the main body of Muslims and a smaller but growing and vocal group of Muslims known as Submitters who follow the teachings of Rashad Khalifa.3 These Muslims recognize that to associate Muhammad too closely with Allah, as most Muslims seem to do in practice when they repeatedly recite and intensely chant their Shahada, is to run perilously close to making a deity out of Muhammad. They may not call Muhammad God by name, but here the old adage applies: actions speak louder than words. Indeed, outright fetishism for Muhammad is not unknown in the Islamic world and the seeds for it are found right here, not to mention many other places in Islamic teaching. (Italics and Bold emphasize ours)

Here we have a typically presumptuous response. Rogers unabashedly assumed that for some unknown reasons, which he desisted to provide, “the main body of Muslims…associate Muhammad (peace be upon him) too closely with Allah”. This is a pure assumption, as discernable; unsupported through any proof!

The only reasons that Rogers could think of was (a) repeated recitation and intense chanting of the Shahada and (b) the usage of the Arabic word WA, the conjunction of partnership – “Allah AND his Apostle””

Both the arguments only backfire against this ignorant apologist because (a) when Muslims “repeatedly” and “intensely” enchant their “Shahada” they never “associate Muhammad too closely with Allah” (peace be upon him). If some deviant sect, namely, Submitters (to imposter Rashad Khalifa) think subversively then it is their problem not of the “main body of Muslims”. On the contrary, Mohammad (peace be upon him) always taught about his subservience (to Allah (SWT)) and hismessenger hood (from Allah (SWT)):

“Narrated Sa’d ibn AbuWaqqas

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: If anyone says on hearing the Mu’adhdhin: I testify that there is no god but Allah alone, Who has not partner, AND THAT MUHAMMAD IS HIS SERVANT AND HIS MESSENGER, (and that) I am satisfied with Allah as my Lord, WITH MUHAMMAD AS MESSENGER, and with Islam as din (code of life), his sins would be forgiven. In the narration transmitted by Ibn Rumh the words are: He who said on hearing the Mu’adhdhin ‘and verify I testify.’” Qutaybah has not mentioned his words: ” And I.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith Number 179, Al – Alim CD-Rom Version, Capital, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

Ignorant Rogers should take heed and notice that in the above adduced Hadith literature, the testimonial (or Shahada) clearly and explicitly states the status of Mohammad (peace be upon him) as SERVANT and MESSENGER only. We check Rogers to establish his claim that Muslims conjoin Mohammad (peace be upon him) too closely with Allah (SWT) thereby deifying him.

We do not know of any so called “main body of Muslims” who has associated Mohammad (peace be upon him) too closely with Allah thereby jeopardizing “Tawheed” even after having a knowledge of above Hadith along with myriad others (at Rogers’ service):

“Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) used to teach us tashahhud as he taught us a Surah of the Qur’an, as following: `In the name of Allah and with the grace of Allah, the adorations with the tongue, acts of worship and good things are due to Allah. Peace be upon Thee, O Apostle, and Mercy of Allah and His blessings; let there be peace upon us and upon the PIOUS SERVANTS of Allah. I testify that there is no god but Allah and I also testify that MUHAMMAD IS HIS SERVANT AND HIS MESSENGER; I beg of Allah Paradise and seek refuge with Allah from the Hell-fire.’

Transmitted by Nasa’i.” (Al – Tirmidhi, Hadith Number 285, Al – Alim CD-Rom Version, Underline, Italics, Bold and Capital emphasize ours )

Notice that prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) taught his status to be that of a SERVANT AND A MESSENGER only along with all other pious servants, that is,earlier prophets including Jesus (peace be upon him).

There, thus, remains no reason, no rationale with absolutely no scriptural proof why anybody would closely associate Mohammad (peace be upon him) with Allah – Almighty unless he be a “Submitter” or any “Anthony Rogers”.

We would quote one last Hadith which would take in account of Rogers’ much celebrated argument of close association between Mohammad (peace be upon him) and Allah (SWT) explicitly:

“Narrated Anas ibn Malik

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If anyone says in the morning: “O Allah! in the morning we call Thee, the bearers of Thy Throne, Thy angels, and all Thy creatures to witness that Thou art Allah than Whom there is no god, THOU BEING ALONE AND WITHOUT A PARTNER, AND THAT MUHAMMAD IS THY SERVANT AND THY APOSTLE,” Allah will forgive him any sins that he commits that day; and if he repeats them in the evening. Allah will forgive him any sins he commits that night.” (Sunan of Abu – Dawood, Hadith Number 2400, Al – Alim CD-Rom Version,Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

Observe very assiduously that the text unequivocally speaks that, firstly, Allah (SWT) is ALONE and WITHOUT ANY ASSOCIATE, PARTNER etc. Secondly, the immediate continuation of the Hadith text with Mohammad’s status (peace be upon him) as a SERVANT AND APOSTLE only further endangers Rogers’ ill – founded and bleak argument that the main body of Muslims associate Mohammad (peace be upon him) too closely with Allah (SWT).

If Mohammad (peace be upon him) would have been too closely associated with Allah (SWT) then the text, firstly, would not have explicitly mentioned thatAllah(SWT) is without a partner of an associate and, secondly, the text would not have, immediately, stated Mohammad (peace be upon him) as servant and an apostle. Therefore, both the clauses of the Hadith, namely, Allah (SWT) without an associate and Mohammad (peace be upon him) only a servant and an apostle, one after the other, prepare solid proof against all hokum and gibberish claims that main body of Muslims associate Mohammad (peace be upon him) too closely with Allah (SWT).

If this was not enough then Rogers stooped even lower with his reasoning and polemics:

a)      They may not call Muhammad God by name, but here the old adage applies: actions speak louder than words. Indeed, outright fetishism for Muhammad is not unknown in the Islamic world and the seeds for it are found right here, not to mention many other places in Islamic teaching.”

And

b)      “The notion of Muhammad encapsulated in the Shahada where his name is joined to God’s as the ultimate expression of faith, and which comes to fuller expression in the Qur’an and Sunnah where Muslims are required to yield Muhammad absolute submission and are to slavishly imitate his every action or inaction, with certain limited exceptions of course, such as those that belonged to the perks of prophethood, an observation that really only strengthens the point being made, is far less consistent with monotheism than anything any pagan ever dreamed up in his wildest imagination.” (Italics emphasize ours)

What Rogers labeled as “Outright Fetishism” is “Outright LOVE” which we have for the exalted person of Mohammad (peace be upon him) and his character. Loving somebody does not mean worshipping him and Rogers seems to forget that we even love Ibn Maryam (peace be upon him).

As for the trashy complaint that Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) name is joined to God’s name as ultimate expression of faith; then, it should be clearly distinguished that Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) name is joined with God’s name as a messenger, apostle, prophet and servant and not as a second person in the Godhead with Allah (SWT):

“Narrated Zayd ibn Arqam

I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) saying (the version of Sulayman has: The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) used to say) after his prayer:- “O Allah, our Lord and Lord of everything, I bear witness that Thou art the Lord alone Who hast no partner; O Allah, Our Lord and Lord of everything, I BEAR WITNESS THAT MUHAMMAD IS THY SERVANT AND THY APOSTLE; O Allah, our Lord and Lord of everything, I bear witness that all the servants are brethren; O Allah, our Lord and Lord of everything make me sincere to Thee, and my family too at every moment, in this world and in the world hereafter, O Possessor of glory and honour, listen to me and answer. Allah is incomparably great. O Allah, Light of the heavens and of the earth”. (Sunan of Abu – Dawood, Hadith Number 594, Al – Alim CD-Rom version, Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

Observe carefully that Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) name has been joined with the Lord’s name as His servant and His apostle. Therefore, it does not allude to the sin of “Shirk” even in the remotest sense. Below are some more references to further corroborate the fact:

Narrated AbuHurayrah

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: When the dead body (of a Muslim) is buried in the grave there appear before him two Angels, both having black faces and blue eyes. One is called Munkar and the other is called Nakir and they say:

Say what you have to say about this person and he will say: He is the servant of Allah and His messenger. I bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger and they both will say: We already knew that you would say this. Then his grave will be expanded to the extent of 4900 square cubic feet and it will be illuminated, then it will be said to him: Go to sleep and he will say: I intend to go to my family in order to inform them and they would say: Go to sleep like the sleep of a newly wedded bride whom no one awakens but one who is dearest to her amongst his family members. Only Allah would resurrect him from his resting place. If he (the dead) were a hypocrite he will say: I heard people making a statement (pertaining to the oneness of Allah and the apostlehood of Muhammad) and I said the same but I do not know.

And they would say: We already knew that you would say this and the earth will be told to press him and it will press him till his ribs are clasped together and he will not be relieved of the torment till Allah resurrects him from his resting-place.

Transmitted by Tirmidhi.  (Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith Number 44, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

 

There cannot any clearer and more direct Hadith explaining the status of Mohammad (peace be upon him) than the above Tirmidhi Hadith. Notice that upon the query of two Angels regarding the prophet (peace be upon him) the reply of a true believer will be that Mohammad (peace be upon him) is the SERVANT OF ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER.

Observe that he would not reply that there is some kind of “close association” between SERVANT Mohammad (peace be upon him) and Allah (SWT) rather he would only proclaim that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammad is His Messenger.

 

To further confound Rogers’ snafus we ironically have names of Allah’s angels, books, and other messengers beside Mohammad (peace be upon him) as expression of faith:

The Apostle believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah His angels His books and His Apostles “We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His Apostles.” And they say: “We hear and we obey; (We seek) Thy forgiveness Our Lord and to Thee is the end of all journeys.” (The Holy Qur’an, 2:285, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

The above quotation from Glorious Qur’an should help Rogers gloat but only in his misunderstanding that Muslims worship or “closely associate” angels, books and other apostles to Allah (SWT).

Rather, as a sincere truth seeker, Rogers should stop carping that main body of Muslims too closely associate Mohammad (peace be upon him) with Allah and pay attention to the capacity in which Mohammad (peace be upon him, angels, books, other prophets etc) construct the expression of faith in Islam.

Expression of belief which also encapsulates belief in Allah (SWT) AND His angels AND His books AND His apostles AND rendezvous AND resurrection is further presented in the Sahih:

“One day while Allah’s Apostle was sitting with the people, a man came to him walking and said, “O Allah’s Apostle. What is Belief?” The Prophet said, “Belief is to believe in AllahHis AngelsHis BooksHis Apostles, and the meeting with Him, and to believe in the Resurrection.” The man asked, “O Allah’s Apostle. What is Islam?” The Prophet replied, “Islam is to worship Allah and not worship anything besides Him, to offer prayers perfectly, to pay the (compulsory) charity, i.e. Zakat, and to fast the month of Ramadan.” The man again asked, “O Allah’s Apostle. What is Ihsan (i.e. perfection or benevolence)?” The Prophet said, “Ihsan is to worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you do not achieve this state of devotion, then (take it for granted that) Allah sees you.” The man further asked, “O Allah’s Apostle. When will the Hour be established?” The Prophet replied, “The one who is asked about it does not know more than the questioner does, but I will describe to you its portents. When the lady slave gives birth to her mistress, that will be of its portents; when the bare-footed naked people become the chiefs of the people, that will be of its portents. The Hour is one of five things which nobody knows except Allah. Verily, the knowledge of the Hour is with Allah (alone). He sends down the rain, and knows that which is in the wombs.” (31.34) Then the man left. The Prophet said, “Call him back to me.” They went to call him back but could not see him. The Prophet said, “That was Gabriel who came to teach the people their religion.”” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Hadith Number 300, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

According to the above Hadith we find that the belief in (1.) Allah (SWT), (2.) His angels,(3.) His books,(4.) His apostles, (5.) meeting with Him, and the (6.) belief in our resurrection does not mean that Islam has five more gods besides Allah (SWT) due to their “close association” or their “encapsulation” in the article of belief. Such an interpretation can be either of Rogers or of his submitter buddies.

Once again we will have to understand the capacity in which angels, books, apostles etc are mention or “encapsulated” in belief with Allah. The effect in which angels, books etc are “encapsulated” in belief can be anything but their divinity.

Absolute Submission

As far as the question of absolute submission to Mohammad (peace be upon him) is concerned Rogers did not provide us any Islamic proof to support his claim. All he could think of is as follows:

“Furthermore, the very passages Mr. Anonymous cited above, tending as they do in the same direction, also lead to shirk, not only according to Christians and what might be considered an aberrant Muslim group like the Submitters, but according to the logic of orthodox Muslims themselves, for not only does the latter passage use the Arabic word WA, the conjunction of partnership – “Allah AND HIS Apostle” – but they both elevate Muhammad to a position of absolute authority, a position where absolute submission is due to Muhammad in addition to God, rather than the position of a mere messenger who communicates God’s commands.” (Bolded Capitalized emphasize ours)

Unfortunately for Rogers the latter verse he talks about and even quotes, provides an answer to his dilemma. The phrase “Allah AND his Apostle” is a response in itself. Notice that the verse commands to follow “Allah and HIS Apostle”. The pronoun “HIS” was more important to be highlighted than the conjunction “AND” since the pronoun “HIS” returns the case back to Allah.

Mohammad (peace be upon him) – as an apostle of Allah, did not decide or promulgate anything out of his own whims rather everything that he said related to Islam was directly or indirectly a revelation revealed to him:

“But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us say: “Bring us a Reading other than this or change this.” Say: “It is not for me of my own accord to change it: I FOLLOW NAUGHT BUT WHAT IS REVEALED UNTO MEif I were to disobey my Lord I should myself fear the Penalty of a Great Day (to come). Say: “If Allah had so willed I should not have rehearsed it to you nor would He have made it known to you. A whole lifetime before this have I tarried amongst you: will ye not then understand?”, (The Holy Qur’an, 10:15-16, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-ROM version. Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

Therefore, Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) injunction was not his but Allah’s decrees.

Commenting on Qur’an 4:80, a similar verse Rogers would have loved (mis)using, Yusuf Ali explains Rogers’ rigmarole very cogently:

“The Messenger was sent to preach, guide, instruct, and show the way, -not to drive people to good. That is not Allah’s Plan, which trains the human Will. The Messenger’s duty is therefore to convey the Message of Allah, in all the ways of persuasion that are open to him. If men perversely disobey that Message, THEY ARE NOT DISOBEYING HIM BUT THEY ARE DISOBEYING ALLAH. They are not obliging the Messenger: they are merely doing their duty.” (Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

In the above adduced passage all the so thumped “close association” argument to deify Mohammad (peace be upon him) is immediately refuted by the fact that Mohammad (peace be upon him) fears the Chastisement of the Judgment Day if he were to disobey Allah (SWT). This clearly proves that Mohammad (peace be upon him) can never be interpreted to have any sort of “close association” of co – equality with Allah (SWT), as Rogers unsuccessfully wants to prove. And therefore, it is fallacious to interpret that absolute submission is due to Muhammad in addition to God”

Rogers’ interpretational perversion from “obedience” to “absolute submission” can be further explained by the fact that The Holy Qur’an enjoined obedience or the so called “absolute submission” to the followers of earlier prophets as well:

We sent not an Apostle but to be obeyed in accordance with the will of Allah. If they had only when they were unjust to themselves come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness and the Apostle had asked forgiveness for them they would have found Allah indeed Oft-Returning most Merciful.” (The Holy Qur’an, 4:64, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold, Underline and Italics emphasize ours)

Commenting on the above verse, Ibn Abbas (RAA) quotes an anecdote of Abdullah Ibn Ubayy who had similar disease as that of Rogers’ in his heart. Abdullah Ibn Ubayy carped that Messenger (peace be upon him) wants the multitude to heed to his commandments rather than obeying Allah’s (SWT) decrees:

“When the verse (We sent no messenger save that he should be obeyed by Allah’s leave) was revealed, ‘Abdullah Ibn Ubayy said: ” Muhammad commands us to obey him instead of obeying Allah ” , so Allah revealed the following: (Whoso obeyeth the messenger) in that which he commands (obeys Allah) because THE MESSENGER NEVER COMMANDS ANYTHING UNLESS ALLAH HAS COMMANDED IT, (and whoso turneth away) from obeying the messenger: (We have not sent thee as a warder) a custodian (over them).” (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas. Bold, Italics and Capital emphasize ours)

Observe, firstly, the reply given to Abdullah Ibn Ubayy’s futile objection, the messenger (peace be upon him) was/is to be obeyed not because he possess any sort of divine authority besides/with Allah (SWT) but because the apostle (peace be upon him) does not command anything unless Allah (SWT) has commanded him to command his people. Therefore, he is just another agent of Allah (SWT) through which Allah (SWT) interacts with his creation, thus, a rejection of the prophet (peace be upon him) has to be, in effect, a rejection of The God Himself and, similarly, an obedience to the messenger(peace be upon him) is, in effect, a fealty to Allah (SWT).

Secondly the verse reads that NO MESSENGER was sent but to be OBEYED.Therefore, either, as per Rogers’ contention every previous messenger has to be in “close association” with Allah (SWT) or Rogers’ has once again proved the hollow grasp of The True Word of God.

As yet another instance to expose Rogers’ incompetence with Qur’anic knowledge is that he totally misunderstood the import of the word “obedience” and the injunction to obey Allah (SWT) and His messenger (peace be upon him). When Allah (SWT)Himself commanded believers to obey prophet (peace be upon him) he did not command them to worship him. Allah (SWT) did not state that believers should obey the messenger (peace be upon him) since he is in any sort “close association” (of co – equality) with Himself; those are Rogers’ sly interpretation. Rather the prophet was to be obeyed since he (peace be upon him) as an agent of Allah (SWT) would guide them to the truth, especially, in cases of disputes amongst people.

In fact many such incidents of disputes, a case of which is quoted below, paved path for the revelation of such verses which would imply that obeying messenger (peace be upon him) is obeying Allah (SWT):

“Allah said,

[فَلاَ وَرَبِّكَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ]

(But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make you judge in all disputes between them,) Allah swears by His Glorious, Most Honorable Self, that no one shall attain faith until he refers to the Messenger for judgment in all matters. Thereafter, whatever the Messenger commands, is the plain truth that must be submitted to inwardly and outwardly. Allah said,

[ثُمَّ لاَ يَجِدُواْ فِى أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجاً مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُواْ تَسْلِيماً]

(and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.) meaning: they adhere to your judgment, and thus do not feel any hesitation over your decision, and they submit to it inwardly and outwardly. They submit to the Prophet’s decision with total submission without any rejection, denial or dispute.

Al-Bukhari recorded that `Urwah said, “Az-Zubayr quarreled with a man about a stream which both of them used for irrigation. Allah’s Messenger said to Az-Zubayr,

«اسْقِ يَا زُبَيْرُ ثُمَّ أَرْسِلِ الْمَاءَ إِلى جَارِك»

(O Zubayr! Irrigate (your garden) first, and then let the water flow to your neighbor.) The Ansari became angry and said, `O Allah’s Messenger! Is it because he is your cousin’ On that, the face of Allah’s Messenger changed color (because of anger) and said,

«اسْقِ يَا زُبَيْرُ ثُمَّ احْبِسِ الْمَاءَ حَتَّى يَرْجِعَ إِلَى الْجَدْرِ،ثُمَّ أَرْسِلِ الْمَاءَ إِلى جَارِك»

(Irrigate (your garden), O Zubayr, and then withhold the water until it reaches the walls (surrounding the palms). Then, release the water to your neighbor.) So, Allah’s Messenger gave Az-Zubayr his full right when the Ansari made him angry. Before that, Allah’s Messenger had given a generous judgment, beneficial for Az-Zubayr and the Ansari. Az-Zubayr said, `I think the following verse was revealed concerning that case,

[فَلاَ وَرَبِّكَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ]

(But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make you (O Muhammad ) judge in all disputes between them.)”’ Another Reason In his Tafsir, Al-Hafiz Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin `Abdur-Rahman bin Ibrahim bin Duhaym recorded that Damrah narrated that two men took their dispute to the Prophet , and he gave a judgment to the benefit of whoever among them had the right. The person who lost the dispute said, “I do not agree.” The other person asked him, “What do you want then” He said, “Let us go to Abu Bakr As-Siddiq.” They went to Abu Bakr and the person who won the dispute said, “We went to the Prophet with our dispute and he issued a decision in my favor.” Abu Bakr said, “Then the decision is that which the Messenger of Allah issued.” The person who lost the dispute still rejected the decision and said, “Let us go to `Umar bin Al-Khattab.” When they went to `Umar, the person who won the dispute said, “We took our dispute to the Prophet and he decided in my favor, but this man refused to submit to the decision.” `Umar bin Al-Khattab asked the second man and he concurred. `Umar went to his house and emerged from it holding aloft his sword. He struck the head of the man who rejected the Prophet’s decision with the sword and killed him.” (One Does not Become a Believer Unless He Refers to the Messenger for Judgment and Submits to his Decisions)

And,

“Allah chastises those who claim to believe in what Allah has sent down to His Messenger and to the earlier Prophets, yet they refer to other than the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger for judgment in various disputes. It was reported that the reason behind revealing this Ayah was that a man from the Ansar and a Jew had a dispute, and the Jew said, “Let us refer to Muhammad to judge between us.” However, the Muslim man said, “Let us refer to Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf (a Jew) to judge between us.” It was also reported that the Ayah was revealed about some hypocrites who pretended to be Muslims, yet they sought to refer to the judgment of Jahiliyyah. Other reasons were also reported behind the revelation of the Ayah. However, the Ayah has a general meaning, as it chastises all those who refrain from referring to the Qur’an and Sunnah for judgment and prefer the judgment of whatever they chose of falsehood, which befits the description of Taghut here.” (Referring to Other than the Qur’an and Sunnah for Judgment is Characteristic of Non-Muslims. Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

We provide yet another perspective of response to Rogers’ argument of obeying Allah (SWT) and His messenger (peace be upon him). According to our interpretation the one possible wisdom behind the revelation of the verse “Obey Allah (SWT) AND His messenger (peace be upon him)” is that Obeying Allah (SWT) is following His final Book, that is, The Holy Qur’an and obeying messenger has at least two fold interpretations:

Firstly, obeying messenger (peace be upon him) is incumbent because it is the messenger (peace be upon him) who made Allah’s (SWT) commandments, that is The Holy Qur’an known to mankind. If people are to obey Allah (SWT), that is The Qur’an then they have to heed to the prophet (peace be upon him) since Allah (SWT) does not inspire holy verses directly to common people but through his worldly agent(s), peace be upon them.

Secondly, it seems unnecessary and superfluous that Allah – Almighty intervenes with a verse every time an Ansar and a Qureishite or a Muslim and Jew etc quibbled over mundane matters so much so that it find its place in the final word of Allah (SWT) – The Holy Qur’an. Mohammad (peace be upon him) as a prophet of Allah was fit enough to handle that with Allah’s (SWT) leave.

Or, in other words, there are two sets of revelations revealed in Islam. One that which found its way in The Holy Qur’an – Allah’s (SWT) final word and second is Hadith which is a second hand revelation (so to say).

Furthermore, The Holy Qur’an gives Rogers an opportunity to pettifog and increase the number of claimants of “close association” with Allah (SWT) since in a verse, which Rogers would relish to misunderstand; Allah (SWT) also includes authoritative people in “close association” with Him!:

“O ye who believe! obey Allah AND OBEY the Apostle AND  those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves refer it to Allah and His Apostle if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: that is best and most suitable for final determination.” (The Holy Qur’an, 4:59, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version.Bold, Capital, Italics and Underline emphasize ours)

Commenting on it Imam Ibn Kathir states:

“Allah states that whoever obeys His servant and Messenger, Muhammad , obeys Allah; and whoever disobeys him, disobeys Allah. Verily, whatever the Messenger utters is not of his own desire, but a revelation inspired to him. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«مَنْ أَطَاعَنِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللهَ، وَمَنْ عَصَانِي فَقَدْ عَصَى اللهَ، وَمَنْ أَطَاعَ الْأَمِيرَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَنِي، وَمَنْ عَصَى الْأَمِيرَ فَقَدْ عَصَانِي»

(Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah; and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah.Whoever obeys the Amir (Leader, Ruler), obeys me; and whoever disobeys the Amir, disobeys me.) This Hadith was recorded in the Two Sahihs. Allah’s statement,

[وَمَن تَوَلَّى فَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَـكَ عَلَيْهِمْ حَفِيظاً]

(But he who turns away, then We have not sent you as a watcher over them.) means, do not worry about him. Your job is only to convey, and whoever obeys you, he will acquire happiness and success and you will gain a similar reward to that he earns. As for the one who turns away from you, he will gain failure and loss and you will not carry a burden because of what he does. A Hadith states,

«مَنْ يُطِعِ اللهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ رَشَدَ، وَمَنْ يَعْصِ اللهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَإِنَّهُ لَا يَضُرُّ إِلَّا نَفْسَه»

(Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger, will acquire guidance; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, will only harm himself.” (Obeying the Messenger is Obeying Allah. Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

The logic of the above obedience to “Amir” (leader) is as follows:-

  1. Obeying Amir (Leader) is obeying prophet (peace be upon him).
  2. Obeying Prophet is Obeying Allah (SWT)

Logically,

  1. Obeying Amir is obeying Allah (SWT)

And, thus we have a scenario where if we abide by Rogers’ weak objection then the “Amirs” must also have some sort of “close association” with Allah (SWT) which of course is be totally absurd, nevertheless, we expect Rogers to use this argument as a ground for his further attacks on deification of Mohammad (peace be upon him). Let him do it which would enable us to further destroy his tenuous objections.

Ironically, it is not that people with authority who have been included in any sort of “close association” with Allah (SWT) through the usage of the Arabic word “WA” used in the text nevertheless it exposes the Arabic incompetence of Rogers – an English speaking Nevadan. It also unmasks the dabbling nature of this apologist especially in an academic circle such as this. As an explanation we only mention here that the capacity in which the “Amirs” are to be followed is to be looked for.

Finally, to expose lies, distortion or outright ignorance we challenge Anthony Rogers to prove us that “absolute submission is due to Muhammad IN ADDITION TO GOD” because it is clear from Islamic scripture teeming with information that Mohammad (peace be upon him) – The prophet of Allah (SWT) – was indeed “a mere messenger who communicates God’s commands”:

MUHAMMAD IS NO MORE THAN AN APOSTLE: MANY WERE THE APOSTLES THAT PASSED AWAY BEFORE HIM. If he died or were slain will ye then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels not the least harm will he do to Allah; but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve him) with gratitude.” (The Holy Qur’an, 3:144, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold, Italics and Capital emphasize ours)

Not only does the verse explicitly mentions that Mohammad (peace be upon him) was only a messenger of Allah (SWT), it also mentions that his (peace be upon him) status was similar to that of “apostles that passed away before him”. Until Rogers ignorantly fabricate some so called “close association” between Allah (SWT) and earlier prophets; the above adduced verse completely destroys all smutty allegations that there was any “close association” between Allah (SWT) and Mohammad (peace be upon him).

To further jeopardize Rogers’ case of “close association” we quote yet another verse from God’s word:

“Say ye: “We believe in Allah and the revelation given to us and to Abraham Isma`il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord WE MAKE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE AND ANOTHER OF THEM AND WE BOW TO ALLAH (IN ISLAM).” (The Holy Qur’an, 2:136, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

Notice The Holy Qur’an yet again responds to Rogers’ allegation by stating that there is no difference between one prophet and the other. Therefore, implicitly, there has to be absolutely no difference in status between Mohammad (peace be upon him) and all other earlier prophets. Thus, it is absolutely nescient to claim any sort of “close association” between Allah (SWT) and prophet (peace be upon him) unless Rogers can produce any proof that all earlier prophets (peace be upon them) had the same “close association” with Allah (SWT).

Another important point worthy of notice is the phrase “AND WE BOW TO ALLAH (IN ISLAM)”. Although, it has been stated that Muslims, as believers, believe in all earlier prophets without any discrimination yet they bow to Allah (SWT) only, therefore, educating the pseudo – intellectual that believing in prophets (peace be upon them) is conceptually totally different from worshipping Allah (SWT).

Another beautiful verse which succinctly responds to Rogers’ allegation and establish that Mohammad (peace be upon him) was “a mere messenger who communicates God’s commands” is:

“And to rehearse the Qur’an: and if any accept guidance they do it for the good of their own souls and if any stray say: “I AM ONLY A WARNER.” (The Holy Qur’an, 27:92,Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

And,

“We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men giving them glad tidings and warning them (against sin) but most men understand not.” (The Holy Qur’an, 34:28, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version. Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

The above quoted verse clearly states that Mohammad (peace be upon him) was sent only communicate God’s “glad tidings” and “warnings”. Kindly observe the usage of the phrase “not sent thee but” which shows that status Mohammad (peace be upon him) in Islam, however, The Holy Qur’an also states that most men like Rogers do not understand Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) status and falsely impute allegations on his lofty self (peace be upon him).

Miscellaneous

Rogers continued with his ignorant and hollow polemics to bellow some ad hoc attacks on Islam. In this section we briefly take them into account since they do not even deserve a second look let alone, a response.

Slavishly Attack

Rogers wrote:

“The notion of Muhammad encapsulated in the Shahada where his name is joined to God’s as the ultimate expression of faith, and which comes to fuller expression in the Qur’an and Sunnah where Muslims are required to yield Muhammad absolute submission and are to slavishly imitate his every action or inaction,…” (Bold emphasize ours)

Since we have already responded to the claim of Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) name joined to God’s and absolute submission to him (peace be upon him), we would, therefore, only consider Rogers allegation that Muslims are required to “slavishly imitate” Mohammad (peace be upon him)

For brevity of this paper and as a rhetoric response we would enquire Rogers how does “slavishly imitating” Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) action or inaction prove that he is a second deity in Islam alongside Allah (SWT)? WE CHALLENGE ROGERS TO BE MAN ENOUGH TO PROVE THE ABOVE CLAIM HE MADE.

Presumptuous apologists like Rogers forget to analyze their own cultic creed before attacking the integrity and monotheism of Islam. He wrote:

“Even if the above observation is a hurdle Muslims can leap without any pangs of conscience, something that tells us more about their ability and willingness to rationalize problematic notions than it tells us about the internal coherence of their view of Tawhid, it is not at all something that Christians could find palatable,for our submission is to God only.” (Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

The tri – theistic apologist, while boasting of his non – existent monotheism, informed us partially that his “submission is to God only”, however, what he did not embarrassingly state was that his “submission” is to which God; Is it god – The “Abba” OR god – The son OR god – The dove or spook? We expect for a more comprehensive answer in his next “article”.

Straw man of John 5:23

In the original “article”, John 5:23 was used to support the non – existent Christian claim of deity of Jesus (peace be upon him) in John 17:3. We have already provided two through refutation to the argument of John 5:23 in our original response, nevertheless, in the counter rebuttal Rogers brought up several red herrings but a response to our refutation(s). Therefore, we would analyze his mottled counter response herein.

According to the argument of “Shirk” as brought up by the tri – theist:

“That the apostolic writings repeatedly join the Father and the Son,… likewise, we are told that all who want to honor the Father will also honor the Son “… even asthey honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” (John 5:23, Bold emphasize ours).”

It is not very complex to understand the Trinitarian response. In effect, the argument is that because a dishonor to the son is a dishonor to the father therefore, there is, for tri – theists, an “essential unity of the Father and the Son.”

In our original response we argued and reasoned that because Jesus (peace be upon him) was sent, commissioned or dispatched by someone else (namely, father) therefore a disgrace to Jesus (peace be upon him) would be a dishonor to the dispatcher. To grasp the concept better we provided an example of George Bush and Condolezza Rice. If Rice was dispatched to our country by Bush and if she has been disgraced here then it would certainly be dishonor to Bush him lest Rogers “conjoin” Bush and Rice:

“A2. ‘G’od was send by God: If read carefully then the author of John 5:23 conceded to end of verse with “…Father who sent Him.” So, Jesus, peace be upon him, was an ambassador, a chosen man. So, by disgracing Jesus – the sent man one would be discrediting the one who has sent Jesus, namely, Father! It does not prove that Father and Son are the same; but it does prove the contrary that Father and Son are not the same. Let me explain with one practicle day to day example. Suppose, George Bush (who does not know him!) has sent Condolezza Rice (now who does not know her) on a delegation to my country. And if suppose my countrymen and / or chieftains dishonor her; then it would certainly be an insult to George Bush himself. OR, agree insanely that Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice are one and the same. Will you dare to “conjoin” Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice!” (True Shahada Indeed)

Haplessly, to the above refutation Rogers could only respond with this feeble response:

“The bare fact that someone is sent doesn’t tell us whether he or she is the former, the latter, or something else altogether. Unfortunately for Anonymous, Jesus doesn’t just tell us that He was sent by God, He tells us that He was sent by His Father (John 5:17-18),…” (Italics emphasize ours)

There are two statements in Rogers’ response. Notice that in the first one, he claims that “someone is sent does not tell” him that who is former, latter etc. The point to be noted here is that we are not here to distinguish former or latter, the previous or the next etc, however, what we are interested in is who the dispatcher and who is the dispatched is and it is not very difficult to perceive from the text, that is, John 5:23 that the dispatcher is God and the dispatched is Jesus (peace be upon him). Therefore, the above “response” was nothing more than a messy trick to elude our main argument.

To make matters worse he made a second attempt from a different perspective to “respond” to our main argument (on John 5:23). Observe, how pathetically and absurdly, if not ludicrously, Rogers argued that Jesus (peace be upon him) does not say that “He was send by God” rather he (Jesus, peace be upon him) informs that“He was sent by His Father”. Rogers would have presumed his straw man argument to be an intellectual one until we enquire:

  • Has Rogers started any new Christian cult which makes a difference between the biblical father and God since the Bible is filled with references which proves that God has been referred to as father in his book.
  • Furthermore, how does the reasoning that he (Jesus, peace be upon him) did not mention that he (peace be upon him) was sent by God but by his (peace be upon him) father “conjoin” Jesus (peace be upon him) with father?

To his chagrin, Rogers went on pulling red herrings in an attempt to respond to our argument of John 5:23. He wrote:

“Unfortunately for Anonymous, Jesus doesn’t just tell us that He was sent by God, He tells us that He was sent by His Father (John 5:17-18), that He can do whatever His Father does (John 5:19-22), and that all judgment has been given into His hands (5:23ff.), all of which shows the essential unity of the Father and the Son.”(Italics and Underline emphasize ours)

To recapitulate, Rogers was going to prove the “essential unity of the Father and the Son” through John 5:23 which stated that a dishonor to Jesus (peace be upon him) would be a dishonor to the father.

However, Rogers have seemed to have lost the track somewhere in his dismay of falling short of substantial arguments thus he had to recourse to new arguments of Jesus (peace be upon him) potentate of doing that entire father can do and all judgment given into his (peace be upon him) hands. We would again check Rogers’ subterfuge to point out that he should ‘try’ to prove that dishonoring Jesus (peace be upon him) is dishonoring father to the effect that Jesus (peace be upon him) and father can be “conjoined”.

By bringing new arguments of all judgments in Jesus’ (peace be upon him) handsetc Rogers further compounds his problems because in order to support his originalargument of conjoining Jesus (peace be upon him) and God of John 17:3 he was obliged to bring in the help of John 5:23, however, when John 5:23 was scrutinized Rogers was forced to ambulance in John 5:19-22 and “5:23ff.”; all this prove the flimsy nature of the so called biblical arguments to prove the deity of servant Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) where no verse stands a scrutiny on its own, even worst, every supportive verse brought in fails more miserably, thereby demolishing every argument until we reach John 17:3.

As we mentioned above that no verse stands up the challenge of establishing the much cherished sin of associating partners to Allah (SWT) in Christianity; moreover, because we are considerate for people dying hard in “Shirk” we would allow Rogers to use his new arguments of John 5:19-22  “and all judgment has been given into His hands (5:23ff.)”

It is incumbent for us to quote the text of John 5:19-22 to expose the distortions and/or lies which was tried to be knit above.

John 5:19-22

“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto youTHE SON CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

For the Father loveth the Son, AND SHEWETH HIM all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:” (Capital, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

Based on the above text Rogers tried to establish that “He can do whatever His Father does (John 5:19-22)”, nevertheless, Rogers forgot that we might question him how can he conclude so?

Because, firstly, the text does not explicitly state that Jesus (peace be upon him) “can do whatever His Father does.”

Secondly, neither does the text implicitly mentions that Jesus (peace be upon him)can do whatever His Father does rather, on the contrary it states that “THE SON CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF”. The impotency, as expressed by the lord and master of Rogers, of doing works by himself negates all attempts to prove that he can do whatever father does; however, yet again it proves the dependency of Jesus (peace be upon him) on father.

The restrictions upon Jesus (peace be upon him) in doing works, is further corroborated by the fact that father has to “show him” (peace be upon him) works so that he (peace be upon him) can do them, “and sheweth him”. Add to it that Jesus (peace be upon him) can do only that much work which he was allowed or showed, not more than that:

“but what he seeth the Father do”.

When the above facts that Jesus (peace be upon him) can do only that bit which hesees under the permission of father and that he cannot do anything more than that are juxtaposed then it would be abysmally ignorant to claim that  Jesus (peace be upon him) can do whatever his father does!

Even Christian scholars of eminence comport with us to state that doing works that has been shown to Jesus (peace be upon him) is actually, obeying father like any other servant. Authoritative biblical commentator Matthew Henry explains:

“That the Son conforms to the Father (Joh_5:19): The Son can do nothing of himself but what he sees the Father do; for these things does the Son. The Lord Jesus, AS MEDIATOR, is First, OBEDIENT TO HIS FATHER’S WILL; SO ENTIRELY OBEDIENT THAT HE CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF, in the same sense as it is said, God cannot lie, cannot deny himself, which expresses the perfection of his truth, not any imperfection in his strength; so here, Christ was so entirely devoted to his Father’s will that it was impossible for him in any thing to act separately.Secondly, He is observant of his Father’s counsel; he can, he will, do nothing but what he sees the Father do. No man can find out the work of God, but the only-begotten Son, who lay in his bosom, sees what he does, is intimately acquainted with his purposes, and has the plan of them ever before him. WHAT HE DID AS MEDIATOR, THROUGHOUT HIS WHOLE UNDERTAKING, WAS THE EXACT TRANSCRIPT OR COUNTERPART OF WHAT OF THE FATHER DID; that is, what he designed, when he formed the plan of our redemption in his eternal counsels, and settled those measures in every thing which never could be broken, nor ever needed to be altered. IT WAS THE COPY OF THAT GREAT ORIGINAL; IT WAS CHRIST’S FAITHFULLNESS, AS IT WAS MOSES’S, THAT HE DID ALL ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN SHOWN HIM IN THE MOUNT.” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary, John 5:19, Capital, Bold and Underline emphasize ours)

Notice that according to Henry, Jesus (peace be upon him) was obedient so much so that he cannot do anything of himself and whatever he did was done as mediator and not as God – Almighty.

At this point Rogers might be excited to counter argue that, however, Jesus (peace be upon him) can do all things that father does, as the text states. The fallacy that would be committed in such an argument would be that Jesus (peace be upon him) still had to be “shown” those works by the father, in other words Jesus (peace be upon him) is not independent enough to bear the tag of God – Almighty. Conversely, we find no proofs in the entire Bible where such a dependency is liable on father with respect to Jesus (peace be upon him).

Another very important observable statement made by the commentator is that the similitude of Jesus (peace be upon him) in doing all the works that father shows him to do is that he obeyed and did all things according to the will of the father. In other words Rogers’ erroneous interpretation that “He can do whatever His Father does (John 5:19-22)” is disabused here by a Christian scholar that Jesus (peace be upon him) merely copies or obeys the actual “pattern shown” to him.

Following father in doing works “likewise” should not be misinterpreted to be capable of doing whatever father does; such an interpretation would jeopardize the concept of God in Christianity because commentator Henry further goes on to explain that doing works “likewise” (after being shown) is similar to Moses (peace be upon him) doing works as he was shown, on the mount Sinai. If Rogers disagree then he should come up and declare that even biblical Moses (peace be upon him)“can do whatever His Father does”! and thus, even he is God-Almighty for Christians.

Noted Bible commentator Henry further corroborates our point that father showing Jesus (peace be upon him) works tantamount to father directing Jesus (peace be upon him) towards works which in conjunction with above comment concerning Moses that even Moses was directed on the mount clearly disproves every Christian claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) can do whatever father can do:

“He shows him all things ha autos poiei – which he does, that is, which the Sondoes, so it might be construed; ALL THAT THE SON DOES IS BY DIRECTIONFROM THE FATHER; he shows him. 2. IN WHAT HE WILL COMMUNICATE; HE WILL SHOW HIM, THAT IS, WILL APPOINT AND DIRECT HIM TO DO GREATER WORKS THAN THESE. (1.) Works of greater power than the curing of the impotent man; for he should raise the dead, and should himself rise from the dead.” (Capital, Bold, Italics and Underline emphasize ours)

From the above citation we have at least two fold refutations to Rogers’ claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) can do whatever father can.

If, (1) Jesus (peace be upon him) does any work, “likewise” his father, after being shown, then it means, that Jesus (peace be upon him) is only obeying the“directions” which were “communicated” to him – similar (2)”communications” which were “shown” to Moses (peace be upon him) on the mount, however, that did not establish Moses (peace be upon him) on the seat of omnipotence!

(Side remark:- Many emotional Christian apologists and Church ministers claim that because Jesus (peace be upon him) gave life to the dead thus he got to be God – Almighty (God forbid), however, little that they consider Henry’s comments who clearly explains that it would be God – Almighty who would “direct”/“communicate”Jesus (peace be upon him) into executing greater works, that of animating dead bodies. By “directing”/ “communicating” God – Almighty will empower Jesus (peace be upon him) into undertaking such feats of miracles. This is supported by Jesus’ (peace be upon him) impotency of doing works; John 5:30 , “I CAN OF MY OWN SELF DO NOTHING:…” and rightly disabused in Qur’an by the addition of the phrase/clause miracles were made possible by “My (God’s) leave”:

“…And behold! thou makest out of clay as it were the figure of a bird by My leaveand thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave and thou healest those born blind and the lepers by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the Clear Signs and the unbelievers among them said: `This is nothing but evident magic’.” (The Holy Qur’an, 5:110, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom version)

So far we have realized that the arguments that Jesus (peace be upon him) being sent by “His Father”, “equality of potency with His Father” and “Judgment” prowess does not work to establish any kind of “close association” with father.

However, Rogers did not exhaust off arguments. He brought up biblical verse which, for him, would suggest that dishonoring the son would be dishonoring the father, hence Jesus (peace be upon him) is god – at par with father:

“He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” (John 5:23).” This kind of close association between the Father and the Son is tantamount to the sin of shirk in Islamic theology (were it not true), and if it is not, then nothing is.” (Source)

To the above gibberish argument we replied that because Jesus (peace be upon him) was an agent or ambassador of father therefore a disgrace to Jesus (peace be upon him) would, in effect, reflect as a dishonor of father himself:

“A2. ‘G’od was send by God: If read carefully then the author of John 5:23 conceded to end of verse with “…Father who sent Him.” So, Jesus, peace be upon him, was an ambassador, a chosen man. So, by disgracing Jesus – the sent man one would be discrediting the one who has sent Jesus, namely, Father! It does not prove that Father and Son are the same; but it does prove the contrary that Father and Son are not the same. Let me explain with one practicle day to day example. Suppose, George Bush (who does not know him!) has sent Condolezza Rice (now who does not know her) on a delegation to my country. And if suppose my countrymen and / or chieftains dishonor her; then it would certainly be an insult to George Bush himself. OR, agree insanely that Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice are one and the same. Will you dare to “conjoin” Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice!” (Source)

Observe that we provided a practical example of George Bush and Rice to explain the argument better. No wonder Rogers did not comprehend it and replied back in haste:

“It is more than an understatement, then, to say that Jesus is worthy of honor merely because He was sent by God, ignoring as it does that it wasn’t just some guy found in a cave that the Father chose and sent, for no mere creature could claim to be God’s Son by nature; no mere creature could do whatever the Father does; and no mere creature could possibly say that He is worthy of equal honor with the Father.”

In the first place, we have already seen how helplessly special Jesus (peace be upon him) was when he came to judging which, in itself, questioned the “nature of God’s Son” and we would take into account Rogers’ scapegoat of “equal honor” later in this response, however, for the time being we would only concentrate on Rogers’ comment that, according to him, It is more than an understatement, then, to say that Jesus is worthy of honor merely because He was sent by God”.

Rogers’ fuss is irrelevant since biblical scholars of authority comport with us that dishonoring the son is dishonoring the father since son was an ambassador of father. Not just this, they also add that because the mission, objective etc of ambassador Jesus (peace be upon him) was the same as that of his dispatcher father, therefore, a dishonor of Jesus (peace be upon him) would be, in effect, a dishonor of the father:

“…He that honours not the Son honours not the Father who has sent him. Some pretend a reverence for the Creator, and speak honourably of him, who make light of the Redeemer, and speak contemptibly of him; but let such know that the honours and interests of the Father and Son are so inseparably twisted and interwoventhat the Father never reckons himself honoured by any that dishonour the Son. Note, (1.) Indignities done to the Lord Jesus reflect upon God himself, and will so be construed and reckoned for in the court of heaven. The Son having so far espoused the Father’s honour as to take to himself the reproaches cast on him(Rom_15:3), the Father does no less espouse the Son’s honour, and counts himself struck at through him. (2.) The reason of this is because the Son is sent and commissioned by the Father; it is the Father who hath sent him. Affronts to an ambassador are justly resented by the prince that sends him. And by this rule those who truly honour the Son honour the Father also;” (Henry’s Commentary, John 5:17-30, Capital, Bold, Underline and Italics emphasize ours)

Observe what notable commentator Henry says in most simple words. A rejection or dishonor of son would be, in effect, an ignominy to father not because ‘son and father are one’ (in god-head), as Rogers mistakenly interprets, but because it was father who “commissioned” son on the mission.

There is a striking resemblance of our argument of George Bush and Rice to scholar Henry’s “Prince” and “Ambassador”. Henry argues that because “Prince” dispatches “ambassador” subsequently an affront on “ambassador” should/would reflect on “Prince”; nevertheless, if we were to follow Rogers’ fallacious logic then we would have to concur that Henry’s ‘Prince and Ambassador are (also) one’, which of course would be awfully ignorant!

Biblical Jesus: A Marionette Judge

So much for Jesus’ (peace be upon him) impotency disparity as God – Almighty. Let us now move on to Rogers’ next argument, namely, “Judgment”. This is another rife argument sometimes over used by Christian apologists to pull out their fast ones, nevertheless, we are again going to experience, as usual, the sheer hollowness in it to hallow Jesus (peace be upon him).

For Rogers, “and that all judgment has been given into His hands (5:23ff.)” and thus Jesus (peace be upon him) is God – Almighty.

To examine Rogers’ case let us quote the texts in question:

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” (John 5:22-23, King James (1611) Bible. Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

Or,

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.”(John 5:22-23, TEV. Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

Rogers would die hard to point out two arguments in support of alleged divinity of Christ (peace be upon him) in the above quoted verses, however, here we are only interested in “Judgment” argument. We would take up the case of honor to son and father in the subsequent section.

Firstly, observe that the texts states that Father has COMMITTED or GIVEN the rights of Judgment to Jesus (peace be upon him) that is even conceded by Rogers when he wrote that “…judgment was given into His hands”. This in turn, proves that the prerogatives of Judgment was/did not, essentially belong to Jesus (peace be upon him) rather they had to be conferred on to him from higher authority.

Furthermore, even when Jesus (peace be upon him) was practicing Rogers’ blended divine Judgment (which would entitle him to god) he was truthful to menace Christian claims; he conceded that his judgments are not his judgment but of “Father”:

“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, King James (1611) Bible. Capital, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

As a matter of fact, Jesus (peace be upon him) categorically disowns any divine judgment on his behalf. He clarifies that he does not has any judgment of his ownbut as he hears it or that he does not has his personal will but the orders, decrees etc of the father who has sent him.

In other words, even if Jesus (peace be upon him) was to judge the entire world he would judge them as he would “hear” it from father. Therefore, in so many different words the biblical texts insinuates that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) judgments are only vicarious, second hand judgments which can be anything but divine.

As we have already read in John 5:30 (above) that Jesus (peace be upon him) judges according to the will of God – Almighty, however, John 5:30 is not the only place in the Gospel which declares so.

After declaring that his (peace be upon him) judgments are not his, Jesus (peace be upon him) categorically proclaims that there is only father who judges:

“And I seek not mine own glory: THERE IS ONE THAT SEEKETH AND JUDGETH.” (John 8:50, King James (1611) Bible. Capital, Bold, Underline and Italics emphasize ours)

Notice that unlike John 5:30 where Jesus declares that his judgments are not his but as he “hears” them; in John 8:50 Jesus (peace be upon him) clearly declares that there is someone else who judges, namely, father.

It is yet observable that unlike Jesus (peace be upon him) father has not to “hear” from any other source to pass judgments. This once again builds strong argument against the deity of Christ (peace be upon him) on the grounds of “judgments”.

Moreover, the Books of Acts distinctly supports Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement of John 5:30 that he (peace be upon him) would only be an agent in God’s judgments:

“Because he hath appointed a day, in the which HE WILL JUDGE THE WORLD in righteousness BY THAT MAN WHOM HE HATH ORDAINED; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31, King James (1611) Bible. Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

There cannot be any clearer statement than the one adduced above adjudging that the God – Almighty who is ONE (John 8:50) will JUDGE THE WORLD through Jesus, (“that man”, peace be upon him).

When the above cited verse which comprises of important clauses that father will judge the world by Jesus (peace be upon him), is read in conjunction with John 5:30 which reads that Jesus (peace be upon him) judges as he “hears” from his father then the only interpretation crops up which is that Jesus (peace be upon him) was/would be just a device, an agent through which God – Almighty will facilitate his judgments.

As if it was not enough, Bible inherently responds to Rogers’ argument if he persists to argue that Jesus (peace be upon him) has divine authority to pass judgments.

To make matters more embarrassing for Rogers, his so called Scriptures declare that even apostles and saints will have authority to judge, not mortals, but aerial creatures, namely, Angels, which would certainly establish these judging saints and apostles to no lower position to Jesus (peace be upon him) at least on the yardstick of “judgment”:

“Do ye not know that the SAINTS SHALL JUDGE THE WORLD? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that WE SHALL JUDGE ANGELS? how much more things that pertain to this life?” (1 Corinthians 6:2-3, King James (1611) Bible. Bold, Capital and Italics emphasize ours)

If Jesus (peace be upon him) is god (God forbid) because he would judge man then in Rogers’ polytheistic Christianity saints are at par with Jesus (peace be upon him) as claimants of God head and apostles should be greater ‘Gods’ than Jesus (peace be upon him) because they would be judging greater beings than men, namely, the Angels! Let Rogers go to his Church and proclaim this new “good news” to his pastor.

Things get worst for Rogers (and Christianity) when leading Bible commentator Barnes comments. Not only does Barnes declare that saints should judge angels but they would also be ASSOCIATED with Jesus (peace be upon him) in his (alleged) judgment:

“it is the only one which gives a fair interpretation to the declaration that the saints should judge angels in 1Co_6:3. If asked “in what way” this is to be done, it may be answered, that it may be meant simply that Christians shall be exalted to the right hand of the Judge, and shall encompass his throne; that they shall assent to, and approve of his judgment, that they shall be elevated to a post of honor and favor, as if they were ASSOCIATED with him in the Judgment.” (Barnes’ Commentary on 1 Corinthians 6:2. Bold, Italics and underline emphasize ours)

In the first place notice that Barnes starts with an assertion that there is absolutely no equivocation to the fact that “saints should judge angels” as per 1 Corinthians 6:3, therefore, there is nothing divine if Jesus (peace be upon him) judges mere humans.

However, more importantly than judging angels; Barnes elicits the capacity in which the saints would judge. He comments that the saints would be “elevated” to such “honor” from where they would be “ASSOCIATED with him in the Judgment”. In other words, Christians would share and associate with Jesus (peace be upon him) – the alleged god of Rogers.

Ironically for Rogers, who until now, was championing the “close association”between Mohammad (peace be upon him) Allah (SWT) (pertaining to “submission”) to negate single and only deity of Allah (SWT) – forgot to give his ‘scriptures’ a thought where “saintS” would be “ASSOCIATED” with Jesus (peace be upon him) in his judgments. Therefore, before Rogers would attack Islam, he should reconsider his faith and join one of the many cults in his Christianity which has already understood the “close association” between saints and Jesus (peace be upon him) and started worship of saints alongside Jesus (peace be upon him)!

Another observable point is that Barnes states that “Christians” would be ‘exalted’ to the “RIGHT HAND of the Judge”. Now here is something very intriguing and polytheistic. We often read many claims from Christian apologists that Jesus (peace be upon him) is god because he would be exalted on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55, Romans 8:34) nevertheless, such claims are only hollow because even “Christians” would be “exalted to the right hand of the Judge” or else even lay “Christians” are gods in the pagan inspired Christian godhead.

No wonder numerous respected Christians of the likes of Johnson, Mc Garvey etc respectively, acceded to acknowledge the “close association” between saints and Jesus (peace be upon him) in their own words:

“The saints shall judge the world, BECAUSE OF THEIR UNION WITH THE MESSIAH, to whom all judgment is committed” (Source. Capital, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

And,

“The saints will only participate AS MYSTICALLY UNITED WITH CHRIST the judge.” (Source, Capital, Bold and Italics emphasize ours)

It is not just the exclusive right of Jesus (peace be upon him) or saints to judge, nevertheless, even the twelve apostles would be “associated close” enough to judge:

“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, YE SHALL SIT UPON TWELVE THRONES, JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL.” (Matthew 19:28, King James (1611) Bible. Capital and Bold emphasize ours)

So much for Jesus acting as Judge, we give list of recommended articles on the same issue:

Jesus the Judge?

Who Judges?

Is Jesus God Because He Will Judge The People?

To recapitulate, Rogers’ argument that Jesus (peace be upon him) is God because he would/will/was judge is unjustified on the following grounds:-

  1. Father – the sole and main judge through whom Jesus, peace be upon him, would derive his judgments.
  1. Jesus (peace be upon him) would only be a device to facilitate fathers judgment. In other words, Jesus (peace be upon him) would practice vicarious judgments.
  1. Bible speaks that even “Saints” and “Christians” would judge, let alone higher beings than humans, namely, “Angels”.
  1. Moreover, “Saints” would collaborate to “associate” with Jesus (peace be upon him) to judge thereby further endangering Jesus’ (peace be upon him) absolute capacity to judge.
  1. Lastly, not to skip that the so called biblical “Saints” and “Christians” would be‘exalted’ to the right hand” of God – a place, which for many Christians, including apologists, is a reserved place for second deity in the godhead!

Equal Honor with Father

After the “judgment” episode let us now move on to Rogers’ next argument, namely, “Equal honor”.

Rogers contended:

“Jesus isn’t simply to be honored in the same way or to the same degree as other creatures sent by God are to be honored, or even to a degree that is slightly or even significantly greater than other creatures but which still falls short of the honor that is due to God; instead, Jesus says that He is to be honored “just as” the Father is honored.” (Bold emphasize ours)

It is perspicuous that Rogers centralizes his sin of “Shirk” around the phrase “just as”. For him, because the son is to be honored “just as” the father therefore son isalso god. If that is the case then it becomes of paramount importance to analyze the “just as” phrase.

Contextual Response

To understand the proper usage of the phrase “just as” we will have to consider the context, that is, John Chapter 5, verses 20 through 23.

In verses 20 through 22, John informs that father will “show” or in other words teach/allow Jesus (peace be upon him) for greater miracles even more so that father would permit Jesus to judge people. All these favors from father for Jesus (peace be upon him) was compensation of Jewish persecutions upon him, (John 5:16).

As a result, father, through his favors upon Jesus (peace be upon him), wanted people to acknowledge him so “That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.”

Subsequently, the emphasize is not upon the degree or capacity of honor for the son, nevertheless, the stress is upon the recognition of the son as father’s sent ambassador so much so that his acknowledgment is equally important as the acknowledgement of father. This is further elicited and supported by latter sentence which states that one who dishonors son dishonors father.

As celebrated Bible commentator Henry explains why a dishonor to son is an injury to father:

The reason of this is because the Son is SENT and COMMISSIONED by the Father; it is the Father who hath sent him. Affronts to an ambassador are justly resented by the prince that sends him. And by this rule those who truly honour the Son honour the Father also;” (Henry’s Commentary, John 5:17-30.Bold, Italics and Capital emphasize ours)

However, if we were to take the textual phrase “even as they” to mean honor of equal capacity to son as applicable to father then we would have its serious implications to further compound Christianity’s problem of count of deities. This is because we find biblical instances elsewhere where Jesus (peace be upon him) literally exhorts his disciples to be “just as” father:

“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48, King James (1611) Bible. Bold and Capital emphasize ours)

The above biblical verse is as limpid as it could be. Jesus (peace be upon him) expects his disciples to be perfect “just as” their father. At this point there can be two interpretational bifurcations:

Firstly, when “perfection”, as used in the text, is not taken in it’s literal capacity or degree but objectively and/or qualitatively.

Secondly, when we interpret “perfection” in its literal capacity as Rogers tried to interpret in John 5:23. That is equal “perfection” to disciples as befitting to father. Such an interpretation would then attribute the divine quality of perfectness to, at least, twelve disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him), thereby, elevating them to the same platform where Christianity’s first god (!) – the father stands. Notwithstanding Christianity’s already aggravated monotheism, Rogers has culled out, at least, twelve more gods for his religion, otherwise!

Therefore, the only way how Rogers can reconcile the above rigmarole is by interpreting the “even as” phrase (in Matthew 5:48) and “just as” phrase (in John 5:23) objectively and/or qualitatively, and not in capacity or degree.

Yet because Rogers would gloat in his adamant tri – theism there by chanting and re – chanting words of “Shirk” such as these,

“…the same honor that is due to the Father is to be given to Jesus. Those who refuse to do so do not honor the Father, for the honor that is to be given to both is one and the same, and the reason both are to be honored is one and the same: The Father and the Son are one in power, glory, and judgment.” (Bold emphasize ours)

Let us quote another biblical verse which would, yet again, impute divinity to innumerable, if not the twelve immediate disciples, if we were to interpret the “just as” phrase as Rogers interprets:

“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 on, 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: I in them and you in me, so that they may be completely one, in order that the world may know that you sent me and that you love them (JUST) ASyou love me.” (Holy Bible, John 17:21-23, Today’s English VersionBold, Capital, Italics and Underline emphasize ours)

Ironically and embarrassingly for Rogers, we find in the above cited verse, “same glory” being shared between Jesus (peace be upon him) and his disciples and this verse specifically responds to Rogers’ “just as” fuss. If we comport with Rogers’ argument in support of deity of Jesus (peace be upon him) from John 5:23 that because people are to tender “same honor” to Jesus (peace be upon him) as they offer to father then according to John 17:22 (above) the “same honor” was furthered to Jesus’ (peace be upon him) disciples, thereby, exalting them to such a jeopardizing level where the disciples would be deified besides already three gods in Christianity.

We enquire Rogers that if Jesus (peace be upon him) can be deified just because he is to be honored “just as” the father, or, in other words, because the capacity of honor offered to Jesus (peace be upon him) and father is the same thus, a proof that Jesus (peace be upon him) is a deity. Then, why not on the same argumentative lines even disciples, if not more Christians, be also deified because even they possess the “(same) glory” just as Jesus (peace be upon him) possess. In other words, the degree of glory, respect etc in Jesus (peace be upon him) and disciples is the “same”.

Therefore, Rogers’ argument, “…the reason both are to be honored is one and the same: The Father and the Son are one in power, glory, and judgment.” backfires abruptly against him and his religion since even Jesus (peace be upon him) and disciples “are one in glory.

As a matter of fact celebrated Gospel commentator Wesley alludes to the over perilously exalted status of disciples in his own words:

“Joh 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.” (Wesley’s Commentary, John 17:22. Capitalized, Bold and Underline emphasize ours)

It is not Wesley alone but even commentator Henry implies to the deification of Christians in even stronger terms:

“Those that are given in common to all believers. The glory of being in covenant with the Father, and accepted of himof being laid in his bosomand 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.” (Henry’s Commentary, John 17:20-23. Bold, Capital, Italics and Underline emphasize ours)

Acknowledge that Jesus (peace be upon him) would have to share (1.) his exclusive cozy corner in his father’s big bosom with his disciples (2.) He would even have to renounce his exclusive right of a place in father’s right hand (3.) Lastly and most importantly, he would have to apportion his so called ‘divine’ glory with laities of Christianity.

No wonder, if we interpret the matter of “same honor” according to Rogers’ perspective then the amplified greatness of the majesty of Christians should certainly deify them since they (disciples, at least) share the “same honor” with Rogers’ MYTHOlogical “god – man”.

Therefore, because of the reasons, explanations and problems expounded in the sections, namely, “Biblical Jesus: A Marionette Judge” and “Equal Honor with Father” and elsewhere, it is weightless to consider any argument whether Jesus (peace be upon him) would judge few or “all” people or whether he would have to be honored by few or many,

The view that Anonymous holds would be slightly more believable if only a certain group of people were required to honor the Son (a limited number of people over whom such judgments held sway), and if only a certain circumscribed right to judge was given to Jesus (one that fell short of the final judgment of God Almighty, where all men will be raised up and when all men throughout history, from Adam to the last person born, will be judged for every thought, word, and deed, a feat that requires nothing short of omniscience). Yet, as it is, the text requires all men to honor the Son, and it says that all judgment has been committed to the Son; and, thus, the right of universal judgment that was given to him was not for the purpose that people would “make no distinction” between Jesus and any or all other persons who are worthy of respect, but so that all men would honor Jesus just as they honor the Father.” (Bold emphasize ours)

Conclusion

As Rogers announced that he is yet incomplete and therefore “several matters” pertaining to Jesus’ (peace be upon him) divinity would have to be dealt in his “fourth and final rebuttal”, he would also take up Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) prophet hood and Paul’s apostleship in his final installment. That being the case we welcome his responses with an expectation that he would come up with something better in his ultimate “rebuttal”; at least, better than what we have read in his last three “rebuttals”.

As for now we have seen that rather than doing any good to Christianity – Rogers’ arguments have failed to establish any so called imputed divinity to Christ (peace be upon him). Moreover, it was not hard to realize how drastically Rogers’ argument in support of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) divinity recoiled and backfired upon him and his religion erecting myriad more deities besides, creating pagan like family of gods, however, these were only expected.

Footnotes:

#fn1: As a matter of fact the enormity of crime in worshipping beings or stocks besides Allah does not only end up with Jesus, peace be upon him. We do not have any personal animosity against Christians or Christ, peace be upon him. We repel worship of Mohammad, peace be upon him, to the same extent as with Jesus or any other prophet, peace be upon them all.

#fn2: In Islam, it is an act of outright blasphemy to disgrace any prophet. We wrote it just to elicit the fact that Jesus, peace be upon him, cannot be God.

All biblical verse, unless otherwise mentioned, quoted from King James (1611) Bible.

Note: Anthony Rogers quoted Christian scholar William Hendriksen to support deity of Jesus (peace be upon him), God-Willing we would include a response to it in our fourth rebuttal.

Refutation: The True Shahada Indeed: Revisited [ Part 2]

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Question Mark

Can Muslims appeal to John 17:3? This is the specific subject that this second installment of True Shahada Indeed series will focus on. Anthony Rogers provides his own reasons as to why Muslims cannot appeal to John 17:3. Is he correct in his reasoning? Or is it more of a desperate attempt of Trinitarian(s) to hide himself/themselves from the ignominy of worshipping three gods! In this paper, which is a refutation to Anthony’s article, we would, inshallah, examine all the arguments provided by my confused interlocutor to provide him yet another chance to save him from the worship three gods.

Reasons why Christians should trump John 17:3 to continue simmering in worship of 3 gods!

As one of the weakest argument a Christian would ever put forth to defend their polytheism against the monotheism of John 17:3, Rogers writes that since the text speaks of the Father as God something altogether foreign to Islam” (thus) Muslims cannot appeal to John 17:3.

There are more than just a couple of problems with this untenable and ludicrous argument:

Firstly, the term “Father” is not the proper name of the biblical God rather it is the tetragramatton YHWH or Jehovah. “Father” is just a title and not the proper name of the God of Bible. And, we are not discussing whether or not we can call him “Father” rather the point of debate is whether or not the deity who is entitled as “Father” is one or three under the light of John 17:3.

Kindly realize the diversion in the topic from oneness of God who is biblically labeled as “Father” to a new subject – whether or not He can be labeled as “Father” biblically? Such an (illogical) argumentation is engendered either through pulling out red herring or simply ignorance.

Furthermore, such an argumentation tantamount to us discussing how we can saveNature from pollution and somebody coining a new topic (and thus digressing) in between “whether or not we can call Nature as “Mother Nature”.

Yet another example would expose the argumentative hollowness in Rogers reasoning (as to Muslims cannot appeal to John 17:3 since the “text speaks of the Father as God something altogether foreign to Islam”) is by supposing a scenario where we are arguing the divinity of Jesus and all of a sudden Rogers moots that Muslims cannot appeal to Jesus (peace be upon him) since the text speaks of Jesus something altogether foreign to Islam, since in Islam Jesus is called as Isa, peace be upon him.

Just like it does not matter whether we call Nature as Mother Nature or otherwise since the point at hand is to save it from pollution or, similarly, as it does not matter whether we debate divinity of Christ with the name of Isa or Jesus since the pith is to prove the non divinity of Christ similarly it absolutely counts to nothing (at least for this paper) whether God can be called as “Father” or not since the point to be proven (or disproven) is whether or not biblical God is One or Three(!).  To summarize then the Muslim appeal to John 17:3 is for the count or number of God and not for His name or title at least for this particular paper.

But because I am such a nice boy I will allow Anthony Rogers to hide behind his flimsy argument and concord with him that text speaks of the Father as God something altogether foreign to Islam”. Now, after this assumption, let us examine Rogers’s claims and check how much of this would save my opponent.

Namesake

When the “text speaks of the Father” in the verse, it does not impute the lowly act of begetting to God (it is the Christians who do so)which is denounced in Islam,nevertheless, the Israelites preferred to entitle God as Father than calling him by His proper name for the reasons of their own.

We may assume that they called God as Father because of the transcendent paternal care which He provides similar to that which a human father provides, same goes with protection, providence, sustenance, love etc.

Rogers, my opponent, would have had a case (actually still not) if Father as used in the text would have implied the filthy act of siring to God, but it certainly does not, rather the use is more metaphorical than literal. And, to elicit this point of ours we quoted verses from Bible which Anthony Rogers responded by saying that those are only “three” verses we provided him (!):

“The first thing to observe here is Mr. Anonymous’ hasty generalization. On the basis of three passages of the Old Testament, Mr. Anonymous asserts that the Jews never used the word Father with its literal import when referring to God.”

The problems with such weak argument are that Rogers overrides the authority of Bible. That is, if Bible is the word of God then even one so called God – breathed verse would be enough to settle the case but much to his chagrin he has scoffed off three. That being the complaint we would, inshallah, provide Rogers with more verses to digest but before that let us look at the second problem in his argument.

As he is dying hard to prove that Jews did use the word Father with its literal import when referring to God otherwise he would have never made this statement:

“…Mr. Anonymous asserts that the Jews never used the word Father with its literal import when referring to God.”

This immediately intrigues us to ask him that Sir, what is the “literal import” of the word Father? Since are you not the same person to charge Muhammad (peace be upon him) of thinking in pagan lines when Qur’an denounced the same imputation ofliteral connotation of Father to God, i.e. begetting act:

“Although Christians do not believe that God is literally a father in the crude way presented in the Qur’an, where divine fatherhood implies a consort, copulation, and possibly even cohabitation with a female deity, one of the signal proofs that the author(s) of the Qur’an couldn’t escape thinking in terms of pagan categories”

Let us make a point here that we will again comeback to the aforementioned charge of Anthony Rogers to further see him en messed in his own argument. For now, let us provide him more verses from the Bible where Israelites have used the term Father for God and see whether they were literal or otherwise:

  1. “Doubtless thou art our FATHER, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our FATHER, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.” (Isaiah 63:16, King James (1611) Bible)

Anybody visiting the context of the above adduced verse from Isaiah would realize that the usage of the term “FATHER” is metaphorical and figurative than anything else. Nevertheless, we provide more verses:

  1. “They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a FATHER to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.” (Jeremiah 31:9, King James (1611) Bible)

Here again we find that the usage of the term Father is precisely not literal but figurative. Till now we have not come across a single verse from the Bible which implies any literal import to the term FATHER which would substantiate Rogers claim to obviate Muslims from the appeal to John 17:3.

Here are few more verses:

  1. “I will be his FATHER, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:” (2 Samuel 7:14, King James (1611), Bible)

Gill’s exposition on the above adduced verse from 2nd Samuel expressly supports our argument that the Israelites preferred to call their God as Father because of the vicarious sense of protection, sustenance, love, care etc they received from God-Almighty which at some lower level is also found in earthly human fathers (of course, but protection etc as provided by Almighty is unmatchable):

“2Sa 7:14  I will be his father, and he shall be my son,…. That is, I will be as kind unto him, and careful of him, as a father of a son; or he shall be, and appear to be my son, by adopting grace, as no doubt Solomon was, notwithstanding all his failings.”

  1. “I will be his FATHER, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:” (1 Chronicles 17:13, King James (1611), Bible)
  1. “He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his FATHER; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.” (1 Chronicles 12:10, King James (1611), Bible)

The “son” referred to in the above cited verse is Solomon (peace be upon him). However, the verse yet again does not imply anything more than figurative sense to the title “FATHER” as used in the text.

  1. “And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his FATHER.” (1 Chronicles 28:6, King James (1611), Bible)

The article “thy” in the above adduced verse is referring to David (peace be upon him), on the other hand, “my” alludes to God Himself. If we were to think like Anthony Rogers then we would have a serious problem here of two fathers of Solomon (peace be upon him) which we know is not the case. The only way to understand the above usage of the term “FATHER” is that it is used figuratively or metaphorically.

So far we have produced six (more) verses from the Old Testament against the complaint that we generalized the usage of Father upon three verses (only). However, we are yet to see literal usage or import of the term “FATHER”. All the NINE verses imply only figurative or metaphorical usage of the term. Now then if biblical usage of the term “FATHER” is metaphorical in most places then Muslims can appeal to John 17:3. Since what is fulminated in Islam is the literal import of the term Father and the subsequent act of Fathering.

And this is not just the end since the so called New Testament also contains similar verses which only points to Fatherhood in a “spiritual” and metaphorical sense. We need to refer to Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6, respectively:

“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” (King James (1611) Bible)

“And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” (King James (1611) Bible)

The interesting point here is the Aramaic, Arabic and Hebrew word “Abba” used in the text. “Ab” or “Abi”, the root from which “Abba” evolved, is the same root used in the nine Hebrew quotations we quoted above, moreover, the same “Abba”  was used by (ironically) volunteering (for sacrifice) Jesus pleading his “Abba” to save him from crucifixion!:

“And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.” (Mark 14:36, King James (1611) Bible)

Therefore, the common usage of “Abba” or Father by Paul and (allegedly) by Jesus (peace be upon him) settles the matter that “Father” as used in Bible (at least in most cases) is “spiritual” and figurative in nature and thus Muslims have all the warrant to call their Christian brethren towards total monotheism through appeal to John 17:3 even if the text speaks of “Father”.

But why are we arguing to prove that “Father” is not carnally used in John 17:3 since my opponent expressly states that Father is “spiritually” used and not “carnally”(!):

“As these (and other) passages indicate, God is literally a Father, though in aneternal and spiritual rather than a temporal and carnal sense.

If the “passages indicate” God to be Father in an “eternal and spiritual” sense and not in “temporal and carnal sense” then what is Anthony Rogers fussing about. As already stated that Qur’an criticizes the carnal sense and usage of the term “Father”, albeit, the text uses “Father” in a “spiritual sense”. So what is the argument about?

If that is the case then why is Anthony Rogers arguing so confusedly. We will analyze it below where we would also take in to account the “proofs” (and attacks) he gave why Muslims cannot to John 17:3 to prove monotheism to the “People of the Book”!

Confused proofs of obfuscated Apologist

In order to respond to our argument that John 17:3 does not use the term “Father” literally, Rogers reposes to Psalm 2. He thinks that Psalm 2 uses the term “Father” in “more than just the narrow metaphorical”. Let us quote what exactly he had to say:

“the fact is that the word Father is used for God in the Old Testament in more than just the narrow metaphorical sense that Mr. Anonymous’ three carefully (craftily?) selected passages indicate. For example, Psalm 2 uses the word “Father” for God in relation to the Messiah (vs. 7),…”

I wonder why and how Rogers chose Psalm 2 to prove his case since entire Psalm 2 just does not contain the term “FATHER” in it! May be in future we expect better verses from Rogers.

However, anybody reading his response would realize that this was not the only occasion when he chose a wrong verse (chapter) as we will expose it further in this refutation.

He claimed that, “…and it is clear from the whole Psalm that the Messiah is more than just an ordinary human being, for He is the Heir of all things and the kings and rulers of the earth are commanded to worship Him (vss. 10-12).”

We would like to ask a question here that how does Messiah being more than ordinary human being and being the heir of all things etc make “Father” and it’s import repellent to Muslims. Once again Qur’an criticizes the literal connotation of begetting act of God.

He provided a second proof to prove his claim “…that the word Father is used for God in the Old Testament in more than just the narrow metaphorical… sense that Mr. Anonymous’ three carefully (craftily?) selected passages indicate.” His proof was:

“As for another example, the concept is clearly present in the Old Testament book of Proverbs where mention is made of God’s “Son,” which term is simply the correlative of “Father”:

Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name? Surely you know! (Proverbs 30:4)”

In response we would only make a query as to how does Proverbs 30:4 prove that the term “Father” is more than metaphorical let alone “narrow metaphorical”?

Begetting the Filth

Certain portions of this section might not go palatable to lay Christians. It might be offensive. However, it must be noted that this section is purely responsive. It is a response to the baseless claim made by Anthony Rogers, which one would read below. It is not our intention to offend any lay, sincere Christian believer through this section, unlike Christian apologists who write vulgar articles against Islam.

It is of paramount importance to take into account to an allegation which Anthony Rogers made on Allah regarding Qur’an 19:88. He said:

Although Christians do not believe that God is literally a father in the crude way presented in the Qur’an, where divine fatherhood implies a consort, copulation, and possibly even cohabitation with a female deity, one of the signal proofs that the author(s) of the Qur’an couldn’t escape thinking in terms of pagan categories,…”

Further to elaborate this point he wrote at footnote number two:

“The point here is that the authors of the Qur’an could not hear any mention of things like divine paternity (i.e. the fatherhood) or filiation (i.e. sonship) without interpreting them in the sense that the pagans intended by such words.”

Thus, let us analyze who is thinking in pagan lines.

Would Christians including Anthony Rogers explain us what is the meaning of the term “Begotten” which is so oft used in the Bible and in reference to Jesus, peace be upon him. For instance it is used at John 3:16, Psalm 2:7 (according to Christian appeal) etc, respectively:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN (QM: monogenh)Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (King James (1611) Bible)

One possible hackneyed response which we might expect is the Christian appeal to the original Greek word used for “Begotten”. It is “monogenh” which, according to Strong’s note, means, “only-born”. Etymologically “monogenh” also means “one of a kind” or “special” this is exactly how it is used in Hebrews 11:17.

Originality amalgamated with embarrassment of the usage of the dirty term “Begotten” has engendered many recent biblical versions to render it as “only Son”(Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version, ISBN 81-221-1082-7)

However, problem still lingers with such an explanation.

  • Firstly, if “monogenh” means/t “only” or “one of a kind” of “special” then why did biblical translators chose the abject English word “Begotten” since “Begotten” by no stretch of English language means “only” or “one of a kind” or “special”.

To further exacerbate the ill translation of the Greek word “monogenh”, the Greek for “Begotten” is not “monogenh” rather it is “UEVVW” (γεννώ) or“PROKALW”(προκαλώ) which is certainly not “MONOGENH”.

The only reason for such hard and fast with translation is the literal comprehension and usage of the dirty term “Begotten” in Christiandom. (We would provide more proofs to support this assertion a little later).

 

  • Conversely, if “Begotten” is the correct translation then why are some of the authoritative so called versions doing away from it and replacing it with renderings such as “only son” etc. It looks more like a damage control.

Not just this, the above explanation goes head on against the Nicene Creed which states:

“…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, BEGOTTEN of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God,

BEGOTTEN, NOT MADEconsubstantial with the father…” (Jonathan L. Keene,CHHI 521 History of Christianity I). How will you replace begotten with only son here as you have replace it in the Bible?

If “Monogenh” which means “unique”, “one of a kind”, “only”, “especial”, “only-born” or “sole” also means “Begotten” then they should be replaceable with each other. Therefore, let us put each of the adjectives into the Nicene Creed, in place of “Begotten” and see what evolves:

“…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, unique of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God,BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, consubstantial with the father…”

“…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, “one of a kind” of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God,

BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, consubstantial with the father…”

“…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, “only” of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God,

BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, consubstantial with the father…”

“…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, “only-born” of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God,

BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, consubstantial with the father…”

“…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, “sole” of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God,

BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, consubstantial with the father…”

As is easily discernable, none of the above rendered substitutions have worked to save Christian dignity. All the renderings are incongruous and fly off to face proclaiming that “one of a kind” or “especial” does not mean “Begotten” or “Sired”.

Thus once again “Monogenh” does not mean “Begotten” or “Siring”. Subsequently, why did the translators translate “Begotten” for Greek “Monogenh”. Obviously the translators used it as per the ecclesiastical tradition and comprehension.

Furthermore, as “Monogenh” means “only” or “unique” or “one of a kind” or “sole” then we should ask how and why is “BEGOTTEN” used in the phrase “…,BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER UNIQUELY”? What is the import of the word “Begotten” in the above cited quotation?

Furthermore, one should again ask the same question what does and how is “Begotten” used in the phrase “BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE”? Christians should state what are they trying to emphasize when they testify that Christ is “BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE”.

One may make a possible and logical response to the above queries by considering the construction of the creed. It says that Christ is “BEGOTTEN” of the Father such that Christ is of the same substance (homoousios) of the Father so that we have “God of God”, “Light of Light” and “true God of true God”.

It tantamount to the same earthily usage of the term begotten when a Father begets a child, S/he is “Flesh of Flesh”, “Blood of Blood” etc. No wonder Athanasius, an important Early Church figure, who, was present in the Nicene council, believed the same:

“Athanasius believed ONE DIVINE PERSON WAS BEGOTTEN FROM ANOTHER DIVINE PERSON,…” (A History of Christian Doctrine in Three Volumes by David K. BernardISBN 1-56722-036-3, Volume 1, The Doctrine of Christ)

 

More proofs of god begetting a kid god (?)

When Gabriel informed Mary, “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” (Luke 1:31, King James (1611) Bible), he (Gabriel) also informed her (Mary) how this conception would be materialized.  Three verses later Gabriel explicitly explained that Mary would conceive in her womb because:

Luke 1:35

“… The Holy Ghost shall COME UPON THEEand the power of the Highest SHALL OVERSHADOW THEEtherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (King James (1611) Bible)

The above adduced verse is composed of different profound euphemisms and it is imperative to analyze each one of them separately to expose how Christianity has been abusing the Most Merciful for centuries together.

Firstly, to “COME UPON (THEE)” was a common phrase amongst the Jews and it explicitly implied the act of COPULATION. Such phrasal use is still extant at Misn. Sanhedrin, c.7,sect. 4. & passim alibi.

John Gill, a reputed Christian scholar and Bible commentator explicitly writes so when commenting on the aforementioned verse. He writes:

“The phrase (QM: That is to COME UPON (THEE)”) most plainly answers to בא על, in frequent use with the Jews (x), as expressive of COITION,” (John Gill’s commentary)

Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D., further explains the explicit meaning of the verse as follows:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy one to be born shall be called the Son of God” (Lk 1:35). By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that GOD WOULD ENTER INTO A MARITAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HER, CAUSING HER TO CONCEIVE HIS SON IN HER WOMB,” (Source)

Thus to “Come upon (thee)” literally and patently means to get into the act ofCOITION. Firstly to get in to a MARITAL RELATION then through the animal act ofCOITION God caused Mary to CONCEIVE His son in HER WOMB. This is the “sacred Christianity” inviting you to its “sacredness”. Should any sane accept it?

We move forward in the same verse to encounter another phrase, namely, to“OVERSHADOW (THEE)”

Biblical scholars have provided a variety of interpretations to this word of“overshadowing”. Let us analyze each one of them and see which one fits best to the might of God-Almighty (!):

  1. In the word, “OVERSHADOW”, many suggest that there is an act of sitting over or, to be more specific and technical, the animal act of “brooding”implied. As a hen broods over her eggs :

“In the word, “overshadow”, some think there is an allusion to the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters, in Gen_1:2 when, מרחפת, he brooded upon them, as the word may be rendered; and which is the sense of it, according to the Jewish writers (y) as a hen, or any other bird broods on its eggs to exclude its young:” (R. Sol. Jarchi, R. Aben Ezra, & R. Levi ben Gerson in Gen. 1. 2.)

As stated above that there are “some” conscientious Christians who do not scruple to impute lowly animal act of brooding (over Mary) to God-Almighty. Ironically, yet there are others who claim that author(s) of the Qur’an couldn’t escape thinking in terms of pagan categories”. Nevertheless, we would certainly expose who really is thinking in pagan categories.

Let us move on to other “scholarly” interpretations of the phrase – “OVERSHADOW (THEE)”

  1. “…and others have thought the allusion may be to הופת חתנים, (z), “the nuptial covering“: which was a veil, or canopy, like a tent, supported on four staves, under which the bridegroom and bride were betrothed;” (Gill’s commentary)

If we allow the interpretation of the phrase “OVERSHADOW (THEE)” to be as “The NUPTIAL Covering” then such an interpretation would engender grotesque imports.

In the first place, such an interpretation would transfigure the ghost god of Christianity to transfigure like a marriage “TENT” or “CANOPY”.  When the spook god of Christianity has so transfigured then he would cover Mary and take her“under” him. Since “the nuptial covering” was one “under” which the bride and bridegroom were betrothed.

The problem does not end here; now when the phantom god has become like a“NUPTIAL covering” or a “TENT” or a “CANOPY” and hovered over Mary to take her “UNDER” him then as the explanation says that under such a “Tent” or “Canopy” the bride would be betrothed. So we ask to whom would be Mary betrothed? The only logical answer one gets is that Mary would be BETROTHED to the “Holy” Spirit or, in other words, Mary would be married to one the gods of Christianity but why would she be married; to beget Jesus, peace be upon him.

As, Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D. writes:

Marriage to the Holy Spirit

We also have to take into consideration that when Mary was told by the archangel Gabriel “Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus” (Lk 1:31), he also added that this was to come about because “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy one to be born shall be called the Son of God” (Lk 1:35). By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that GOD WOULD ENTER INTO A MARITAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HER, CAUSING HER TO CONCEIVE HIS SON IN HER WOMBFOR “TO LAY ONE’S POWER <(RESHUTH)> OVER A WOMAN”<(TARGUM TO DT> 21:4 WAS A EUPHEMISM FOR “TO HAVE A MARITAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HER.” LIKEWISE “TO OVERSHADOW”(LK 1:35) Y SPREADING THE “WING” OR “CLOAK” OVER A WOMAN WAS ANOTHEREUPHEMISM FOR MARITAL RELATIONS.” (Source)

  1. According to Dr. Lightfoot, yet another leading proponent of the Bible, the phrase “OVERSHADOW (THEE)” was a humble euphemism for SPOUSAL HUGGING! And the sacred Christianity teaches its followers (in pagan lines) that in such a SPOUSAL HUGGING the protagonists were GOD Himself and Mary -The MOTHER of god:

“Dr. Lightfoot thinks, it is a modest phrase alluding to the CONJUGAL EMBRACES, signified by a man’s spreading the skirt of his garment over the woman, which Ruth desired of Boaz, Rth_3:9 though the Jewish writers say (a), that phrase is לשון נישואין expressive of the act of MARRAIGEor taking to WIFE.” (John Gill’s commentary)

At this point we urge readers to think why Dr. Lightfoot has expressed“OVERSHADOW” as a “MODEST phrase”. Why the usage of the term“MODEST”? Was he, as a learned man, ashamed of stating bluntly that “OVERSHADOWING” meant “CONJUGAL EMBRACES”? Dr. Lightfoot safeguarded his exegesis with the usage of the term “MODEST” because it would be shameless and immodest to proclaim in Churches that “OVERSHADOWING” meant GOD enjoying marital bliss with Mary and thus “BEGETTING” the infant god Jesus.

Dr. Lightfoot’s explanation is supported by Anthony Opisso. Br. M.D. who also asserts that to “OVERSHADOW” someone by spreading one’s wing or cloak was representative of entering into connubial relationship with that person.

Both the scholars allude to Ruth’s statement to Boaz when she (Ruth) requested Boaz to get into marital relation with her by saying to him “I am Ruth thine handmaid:spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.” (Ruth 3:9)

Cloak is a translation of the Aramaic-Hebrew word “Tallith”. “Tallith” is derived from “Tellal” which means “SHADOW”. Thus to “OVERSHADOW” someone by spreading his “Tallith” or cloak signifies to get into a marital relation with that person. More specifically, and according to Kiddushin, 18b and Mekhilta (on Exodus 21:8) to“OVERSHADOW” someone by spreading one’s cloak “means to COHABIT WITH HER”.

“Likewise “to overshadow” (Lk 1:35) by spreading the “wing” or “cloak” over a woman was another euphemism for marital relations. Thus, the rabbis commented <(Midrash Genesis Rabbah> 39.7; <Midrash Ruth Rabbah> 3.9) that Ruth was chaste in her wording when she asked Boaz to have marital relations with her by saying to him “I am Ruth you handmaid, spread therefore your cloak ( literally, “wing”: <kanaph)> over your handmaid for you are my next-of-kin” (Ruth 3:9). <Tallith>, another Aramaic-Hebrew word for cloak, is derived from <tellal> = shadow.Thus, “to spread one’s cloak <(tallith)> over a woman” means to cohabit with her <(Kiddushin> 18b, see also <Mekhilta on Exodus 21:8)>.” (Source)

If any uninitiated Christian claims that the text of Luke 1:35 does not state that god “OVERSHADOWED” Mary by spreading his cloak over her and therefore it does not prove that god entered into a marital relation with Mary. In such a case, it would be interesting for us to quote what the god of Christianity did say to his bride Israel that “…I am MARRIED unto you” (Jeremiah 3:14, King James (1611) Bible) and “…thy Maker is thine HUSBAND” (Isiah 54:5). And very surprisingly god of Christianity got ultimately intimate with his bride when he “revealed” that:

“I made you grow like a healthy plant. You grew strong and tall and became a young woman. Your BREASTS WERE WELL-FORMED, AND YOUR HAIR (QM: of course, the god of Christianity is talking about pubic hair) HAD GROWN, but you were naked. As I passed by again, I saw that the time had come for you to fall in love. Icovered your naked body with my COAT and promised to love you. Yes, I made aMARRIAGE COVENANT with you, and you became mine.” This is what the Sovereign LORD says.”  (Ezekiel 16:7-8, Holy Bible, TEV)

Observe again that god (of Christianity) entered into a “MARRIAGE COVENENT” and he symbolized this marriage pact by covering her bride’s naked body with his coat (or cloak). Thus, when the god of Christianity talks about overshadowing he does not necessarily have to mention that he overshadowed by his cloak. As we have seen before that god of Christianity has “OVERSHADOWED” somebody else with his cloak and entered into a “MARRIAGE COVENANT” with her. In any case god of Christianity enters into a marriage relation with the overshadowed one.

We think that it is imperative to make certain side remarks to the Ezekiel 16:7-8 verse adduced above. It might be that above verse is metaphoric in nature, however, firstly, god choosing a very congenial time to love his bride when her breasts are well – formed and her (pubic) hair had grown tenders more of a literal import or at least vividly picturesque than metaphoric and thus cannot, at least, convince Muslims to be revealed verse from God-Almighty. Observe yet again that when god witnessed that her bride’s “breasts are well – formed and her (QM: pubic) hair had grown” then “he saw that the time had come for you to fall in love”(!?).

Secondly, even if we accept that Ezekiel 16:7-8 is metaphoric yet we would be intrigued to enquire why does the so sovereign, pure, holy, good god etc uses such down to earth, lowly, nude, menial phrases like “breasts well – formed”, “breasts like towers” (Song of Solomon 8:10), “(QM: pubic) hair”,“…FLESHLY MEMBER (genitals) is as the FLESHLY MEMBER (genitals) of male asses (donkey) and whose GENITAL ORGAN is as the GENITAL ORGAN of male horses (Ezekiel 23:1-49, New World Translation), in his inspired and so called “Holy” book.

Yet more proofs…

In this section we would consider the original Hebrew – Aramaic text of the verses containing the word “Begotten”. Inshallah, this section would prove to be shocking evidence against today’s neo Christians who are ignorant of what the “Holy” spirit inspired to the “apostles”.

Arab Muslims along with their Arab Christian and Jewish counterparts know what their Arabic language means. So with this pre-information, we read Qur’an 112:3,

“He begetteth not nor is He begotten

The Arabic transliteration of the above adduced verse reads as follows:

“Lam YALID wa- Lam YOLAD

If observed carefully the English word Begotten (or Begetteth) is translated for the Arabic word “YOLAD” (or “YALID”).  So, Allah says in Qur’an 112:3 that He does not “YALID” or was “YOLAD”. That is Allah says that He does not “BEGETS” nor was “BEGOTTEN”.  “Begotten” with whatever it means has been severely condemned in the above noble verse.

With this idea let us move to our Bible. We wait to analyze Psalm 2:7. It says:

“I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I BEGOTTEN thee.”

Things get really interesting, grotesque and literal when we get to the Hebrew text of the above cited verse. The Hebrew transliteration of Psalm 2:7 reads:

“Asphre al chq ieue amr al.i bn.i athe ani e.ium ILDTHI.K”

The above Hebrew word “ILDTHI” is translated as “begotten” in English. Intriguingly, according to Strong’s Note“ILDTHI” is derived from the root “YALAD” or “YAW-LAD” (Number H3205)(!) Strong provides various shades of meanings for the word“ILDTH”. They are as follows:

TO BEAR YOUNGCAUSATIVELY, TO BEGET; medically, to act as midwife;

specifically, to show lineage:–bear, beget, birth((-day)), born, (make to) bring

forth (children, young), bring up, calve, child, come, be delivered (of a child),

time of delivery, gender, hatchlabour, (do the office of a) midwife, declare

pedigrees, be the son of, (woman in, woman that) travail(-eth, -ing woman).

Thus “YALAD” of Psalm 2:7 means “BEGOTTEN”. “YALAD” literally means “SIRING”. There is no euphemism what so ever, just hard core earthly animal language and act imputed to the “Most Merciful”. This time Christians cannot even fret that “BEGOTTEN” is not begotten since the original Greek text talks about “Monogenh” i.e. “one- of- a- kind”; they cannot complaint such a thing because the word in hand is Hebrew –“ILDTH” and not Greek –“MONOGENH”.

Another important observation is the close similarity of the root “YALAD” of Psalm 2:7 to “YALID” of Qur’an 112:3, both mean the same, both are pronounced the same with only a subtle dialectical difference of “i” between the Hebrew “Yalad” and Arabic “Yalid”. No wonder Hebrew/Aramaic and Arabic are sister languages.

Although not one of the various meanings provided by authoritative Strong would fit to the Majesty of the “Most Merciful” by any stretch of fast and loose yet we can very easily zero down to the exact option because the same Hebrew word “ILDTH” (or its variant) has been used at myriad other places in the Bible.

1 Samuel 4:20

“And about the time of her death the women that stood by her said unto her, Fear not; for thou hast BORN A SON. But she answered not, neither did she regard it.” (King James (1611) Bible)

Westminster Leningrad Codex transliteration provides the transliteration of the verse as, “u.k.oth muth.e      u.thdbrne       e.ntzbuth      oli.e      al      –thirai      ki      bn      ILDTH      u.la      onthe      u.la     -shthe      lb.e”

Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear -idiomatic- version 2.0, provides the sub-linear of the above cited verse as follows:

“and. as. time-of      to-die-of.her      and.they-are-speaking      the.women-being-stationed  on.her      must-not-be      you-are-fearing      that      son      YOU-GAVE-BIRTH      and.not      she-responded      and.not      she-set      heart-of.her”        

Thus it is perspicuous that “ILDTH”- a derivative from the root “YALAD” or “YAW-LAD”, literally means to “GIVE BIRTH”. Or in baser words to procreate, sire, beget, bring forth etc.

In order that there remains no room for any fuss about “ILDTH” and its meaning as “GIVING BIRTH” or “SIRING” we provide myriad more proofs from our Bible.

Judges 13:3

“You have never been able to have children, but you will soon be PREGNANT AND HAVE A SON” (Holy Bible, TEV)

And according to King James version of the Bible, the rendering reads:

“And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.” (King James (1611) Bible)

So far it can be easily deduced that the verse is talking about a women turning pregnant and conceiving a son; more technically, as we would soon observe, the verse is talking about the forecast of a pregnant GIVING BIRTH to a son, and to describe it the same Hebrew word “ILDTH” is used.

Westminster Leningrad Codex transliterates a phrase as “ILDTH” and for the same “u.ILDTH”, in the same verse, Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear -idiomatic- version 2.0  provides the sub-linear as “AND. YOU-GIVE-BIRTH”

So we have a context in the so called “word of god” where there is a PREGNANT WOMEN who has conceived a “son”, and would be DELIVERING him. And all which the ‘majestic’ god of the Bible found to describe this action was by the same Hebrew word “ILDTH” which he used for himself in Psalm 2:7 when he was about to sire someone.

Ezekiel 16:20

“Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borneunto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,” (King James (1611) Bible)

“Westminster Leningrad Codex” provides the transliteration of the above verse as:

“u.thqchi     ath-bni.k     u.ath-bnuthi.k     ashr     ILDTH     l.i     u.thzbchi.m     l.em     l.akul     e.mot     m.thznth.k     m.thznuthi.k”

Mark that yet again the Hebrew word “ILDTH” is used and we would soon know what it means when we will read Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear.

According to “Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear -idiomatic- version 2.0” the English sub-linear of the above cited verse is:

“and.you-are-taking     sons-of.you     and.     daughters-of.you     whom     YOU-GAVE-BIRTH     for.me     and.you-are-sacrificing.them     to them     to.to-devour-of     ?.little     from.prostitution-of.you     from.prostitutions-of.you”

It needs no further explanation that “ILDTH” means “TO-GIVE-BIRTH” and it is literal as per the context of the verse(s).

Ruth 4:15

“And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons,HATH BORN HIM.” (King James (1611) Bible)

We have a “daughter in law” who “HAS BORN” a kid who would be a restorer of life and on and on. Our point of consideration is that a “daughter in law” has given birth to a kid. Unless Anthony Rogers uses his sixth sense to come out with any idiosyncratic reasoning it is absolutely clear that ‘giving birth’ or ‘being born’ is literally used in the verse. One may go to the context of the verse to realize that “HATH BORN HIM” means literal birth or begetting of a kid.

Let us now delve a little deeper to check which word has god of Bible used to inspire the act of siring a kid.

Firstly, please have the Hebrew transliteration:

“u.eie     l.k     l.mshib     nphsh     u.l.klkl     ath-shibth.k     ki     klth.k     ashr-aebth.k     ILDTH.u     ashr-eia     tube     l.k     m.shboe     bnim” (Westminster Leningrad Codex)

And with no surprise “ILDTH.u” as used in the verse means ‘she gave him birth’:

“and.he-becomes      to.you     to.one-restoring-of     soul     and.to.to.-sustain-of     grey-hairs-of.you     that     daughter-in-law-of.you     who she-loves.you     SHE-GAVE-BIRTH.him     who     she     good     to.you      from.seven     sons” (Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear -idiomatic- version 2.0)

Over and over again we have found that “ILDTH” has meant “TO GIVE BIRTH”literally and biblically.

So much for Anthony Rogers misconception that “author(s) of the Qur’an couldn’t escape thinking in terms of pagan categories” while referring to Qur’an’s denunciation that God begot a son. There are yet many more proofs still littered in the Bible which we would be using to overwhelm Rogers if he fusses any further. But for now and for brevity of this paper let us move on to his other arguments as we savor to dismantle them categorically.

Therefore the paraphrase of Luke 1:35 according to scholar’s interpretation would be:

“…The Holy Ghost shall come for COITION (“Shall come upon thee”) andCONJUGAL EMBRACES therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

Indeed it has been proved that Christians have been abusing the Most-Merciful with the worst swearing so much so that He adjured these abusers once and for all at Qur’an 19:88,

They say: “(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!”

 Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!

At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,

 That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious.

 For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.

Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant.” (Yusuf Ali Translation)

 

Exposing Gauche Qur’an exegete

In order to somehow express his Qur’anic prowess Anthony Rogers made an ignorantly overweening statement. To prove his statement that Qur’an never entitled God as father, neither literally nor metaphorically, he chose outrageously wrong verse from the Qur’an and made a mess of his argument. We would be proving all this but first let us read what he wrote:

“As for another example, the concept is clearly present in the Old Testament book of Proverbs where mention is made of God’s “Son,” which term is simply the correlative of “Father”:

Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name? Surely you know!(Proverbs 30:4)

As these (and other) passages indicate, God is literally a Father, though in an eternal and spiritual rather than a temporal and carnal sense. But all of this is really neither here nor there, for not only does the Qur’an never refer to God as Father, whether literally or metaphorically, but it explicitly rules out any notion of God as Father, even in the metaphorical sense Mr. Anonymous is willing to allow for in order to try to rescue the claim that John 17:3 comports with the teaching of Islam:

“(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: “We are sons of Allah, and his beloved.” Say: “Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men, – of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)” (Surah 5:18)”

As usual there are fundamental mistakes in the above passage we quoted from Anthony Rogers.

Firstly, what does his statement mean that “God is literally a Father, though in an eternal and spiritual rather than a temporal and carnal sense.” If God is Father (literally) in an “eternal and spiritual sense” then this ought to be a metaphorical sense. The above statement is self contradictory because:

If “God is literally a Father” then he should possess and practice the qualities of a Father that is the act of begetting and co-habiting. That is he would be exhibiting his fatherly traits in “temporal and carnal sense”. Now it is grotesque to impute carnality to God-The Most Merciful therefore what does the statement mean that“God is literally a Father, though in an eternal and spiritual… sense.”

Once again for the statement that “God is literally a father, though in an eternal and spiritual…sense” God must exhibit his fatherly qualities. Through his fatherly traits he must beget kids, not children made out of flesh and bones and blood, since that would impute carnality to God, but “spiritually”.  At this point“spiritually” may be interpreted something like “smoky” and “gaseous”-like spirits or “metaphorically”.

We know that whether God begets fleshly kids or gaseous beings, may be something like angels, the lowly act of siring still lingers so “spiritual” begetting of kids has to mean “metaphorical”. So it seems that Rogers cannot make out the difference between literal fatherhood and spiritual fatherhood. If this is not so then Rogers should further explain what does “Spiritual fatherhood in a literal sense mean”?

Let us now turn to a more important issue of the usage of Qur’an 5:18 to prove that Qur’an “explicitly rules out any notion of God as Father, even in the metaphorical sense Mr. Anonymous is willing to allow for…”

We solemnly request Rogers to immediately stop dabbling at The Qur’an since Qur’an 5:18 is not the verse which “explicitly rules out any notion of God as Father”, nevertheless, Qur’an5:18 backfires against Rogers to prove our case that terms “Father” and “Sons” are all metaphorical in nature.

When the Jews and Christians used the term “sons” as mentioned in Qur’an 5:18 for themselves they tried to emphasize on their closeness, favor etc of Allah on themselves. They thought that they are the chosen, beloved “sons” of Allah not because Allah begot them but because they assumed to follow His religion, His commandments etc. They also would have thought that they are the heirs of Allah’s religion on earth –the inheritors of His remnant true religion and that way they would have boasted themselves to be His “sons”.

The term “Sons” of Qur’an 5:18 is used to show nearness, closeness, beloved etc to Allah can be further ratified by the fact that the same Qur’an 5:18 accuses the same Jewish and Christians “SONS” of their iniquities. Qur’an 5:18 explicitly accuses the “sons” in a way that would puncture their boast of being BELOVED “SONS”, that is, if as you say that you are “sons” of Allah, beloved ones of Allah, chosen ones of Allah then why does he punishes you. And if Allah-The Most Merciful punishes you so severely then you are not “sons” or chosen people of Allah but haughty transgressors.

Classical commentaries on Qur’an 5:18 make the above points limpid clear:

“(The Jews) the Jews of Medina (and Christians) the Christians of Najran (say: We are sons of Allah) we are the sons and prophets of Allah (and His loved ones) who follow His religion; it is also said that this means: WE FOLLOW ALLAH’S RELIGION AS IF WE WERE HIS SONS AND LOVED ONES; AND IT IS SAID THAT THIS MEANS: WE ARE TO ALLAH LIKE HIS SONS AND WE ARE FOLLOWERS OF HIS RELIGION.(Say) to the Jews, O Muhammad; (Why then doth He chastise you for your sins) due to worshipping the calf for 40 days, if you are like sons to Him; have you ever seen a father torturing his sons with fire? (Nay, ye are but mortals) created servants (of His creating) like all His other created beings. (He forgiveth whom He will) whoever repents of Judaism and Christianity, (and chastiseth whom He will) whoever dies professing Judaism or Christianity. (Allah’s is the Sovereignty) the stores (of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them) of created beings and marvels, (and unto Him is the journeying) returning to Him is the end result of those who believe and those who do not.” (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas)

Similar points were also expounded by yet another classical commentator:

“The Jews and Christians, both of them, say: ‘We are the sons of God, that is, [WE ARE] LIKE HIS SONS IN TERMS OF CLOSENESS AND RANK, AND HE IS LIKE A FATHER TO US IN TERMS OF COMPASSION AND CARE AND HIS BELOVED ONES’. Say, to them, O Muhammad (s): ‘Why then does He chastise you for your sins?, if what you say is true. For, the father does not punish his son, nor the loving his beloved; but He has punished you, and therefore you are saying lies. Nay; you are mortals from among, all, those, mortals, He created, you shall be rewarded as they are rewarded and you shall be requited as they are requited. He forgives, him for, whom He wills, forgiveness, and He chastises, him for, whom He wills’, chastisement, and there can be no objection thereto. For to God belongs the kingdom of the heavens and of the earth, and all that is between them; to Him is the journey’s end, the [final] return.” (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

Another very important point should not be missed in the argument of Qur’an 5:18. The grandiose claim of the Jews and Christians were that they are the “sons of Allah”. It would be very interesting to re-consider the response which Allah gave to this overinflated claim. Allah-Almighty (rhetorically) responded (through Mohammad, peace be upon him) that if that is the case, i.e. if you are really my “sons” then why do I “punish you”, markedly, so severely.

In other words, if you (Jews and Christians) think that you are really “sons of Allah”, i.e. favored, chosen, beloved, righteous, near ones to Allah then why do I punish you. If I punish you the same way as I punish other communities then you are not a chosen, favored, beloved, righteous etc community to me rather you are a wicked community simmering in iniquities since all earlier communities punished by Me were also gloating in their sins.

Kindly note that in the rhetorical reply Allah-Almighty did not state that you are not my “sons” since it is against my majesty to beget sons. He did not say that – rather He put forth the argument that you are not near, favored, beloved, righteous etc to me since I punish you like I punish hardcore recalcitrant.

Thus yet again we can observe that “sons” as used by Jews and Christians in Qur’an 5:18 meant to express their nearness, righteousness etc to Allah. This serves our twofold goal, firstly, it exposes the shallow grasp which Anthony Rogers has of Qur’an much like his own Bible and secondly, the Jews and Christians didused the word “sons” to express nearness, favored, beloved etc, that is, they did use the word “sons” metaphorically.

Exposing Lies

Dying hard to accompany him in Hell, Anthony Rogers reasoned why I cannot enter paradise according to Islamic sources. I gloatingly proved that I am a person committing the most hideous sin, namely, “Shirk” (!). Such pompous claims are insignificant and can be smoked off as ad hominem, nevertheless, the ill usage and misrepresentation of arguments needs to be given a second thought since this is one of primary tactics of lying missionaries.

In order to land me in Hell Anthony Rogers argued that:

“…calling Allah “Father” is to call him something he is not reported to have called himself and is not called by Muhammad. This is contrary to Tawhid, according to Islamic authorities; this is shirk, pure and simple. What is more, this is not only enough to land him at the bottom of a pile of rocks here; it is enough to prevent him from entering paradise hereafter.”

According to his understanding of Islamic theology I cannot call Allah as “Father” since Allah never called himself with this label and Anthony is so correct.

Anthony Rogers further labored really hard to quote us several hadith literature teaching that:

“If somebody claims to be the son of somebody other than his father knowingly, he will be denied Paradise (i.e. he will not enter Paradise).” (Bukhari, 5:59:616)”

Along with the above cited Hadith he quoted for us Bukhari, 4:56:711,712; Muslim 1:120,121, which state similar teachings. Then he finally rounded off his argument by stating:

“If it is wrong to call someone our earthly father when they are not, then a fortiori it is wrong for a Muslim to call Allah father when he is not. Since Mr. Anonymous knows that the Qur’an does not call Allah the father of anyone – not of Jesus in a transcendent sense, not of gods and goddesses in a pagan sense, and not of anyone in any sense, including Mr. Anonymous, and he still calls him father anyway, then according to the above Hadith, he will be forbidden to enter paradise. If Mr. Anonymous really believes what he has said above, and if he has the courage to stand by his convictions, then let him go down to his local mosque and call upon Allah as father.”

I must admire Anthony’s budding knowledge of Islam; he has started to learn. On the face of it Anthony’s argument are perfectly correct and in compliance of Islamic theology. However, I would be condemned to Hell only IF I called Allah as “father”. Anthony should be sincere and man enough to show us where in my paper did I ever called Allah as “father” or he should produce proofs where I averred that Muslims can also call Allah as “father”.

 Readers should take note, all I said was that if Jews called Allah as their “Father”, not in a literal sense, but in a metaphorical sense then I as a Muslim would have no problem with that.

I challenge Anthony Rogers to provide me my words where I said that Muslims can also refer to Allah as “Father” if he is not able to produce it and of surety he will not be able to produce it (inshallah) then his grandiloquent demands such as: “If Mr. Anonymous really believes what he has said above, and if he has the courage to stand by his convictions, then let him go down to his local mosque and call upon Allah as father” has not weight.

Comprehension Complications

Time and again we have proved Anthony’s mishandling of my argument. We have yet another instance of it. He said:

“Having said that Muslims have no problem using the word “father” for God in a metaphorical sense, which we just saw is patently false, at least according to the Qur’an and the systematic understanding of Tawhid that has been hammered out by Muslim authorities, Anonymous goes on to say:

However what a Muslim seriously repels is the LITERAL understanding and usage of this blasphemous word “Father” when used for ALLAH (John 3:16 abuses ALLAH with the same. Kindly read John 3:16 in conjunction with Quran 19:88). This kind of rendering is anathematized in Islam and we will continue to eschew it.

Unbelievably, in an attempt to prove that John 17, where Jesus, the Son, calls God His Father, is not contrary to the Islamic conception of God, Mr. Anonymous points to a verse in the same Gospel, recorded by the same author, and spoken by the same Jesus, which affirms the special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship that exists between the first and second persons of the Trinity, as an example of what Muslims deny. If this is the kind of fatherhood that Muslims anathematize, then it is proof positive that my first and second contention are true: 1) John 17:3, in context, does not teach any kind of Islamic unitarianism, all specious, undefined, unproven distinctions between Islam and Tawhid notwithstanding, and 2) it teaches that Jesus is the divine Son of God. After all, it is just this special use of the terms “Father” and “Son,” which anonymous eschewed as blasphemous, that is found in John 17 and throughout John’s Gospel.”

Kindly catch the subtle and surreptitious maneuvering of what I originally wrote and how Anthony Rogers has misrepresented it. I wrote that Muslims have no problem with JEWISH usage of the term “Father” for God if used in the right and pertinent way not profaning but withstanding His Majesty. However, our sincere Anthony Rogers wrote that I, “said that MUSLIMS have no problem using the word “father” for God in a metaphorical sense,”. So here we have an instance where Rogers mistakenly claims something about me which I never claimed! So we again solemnly request Anthony Rogers to support his claim, namely, where did I say that“Muslims have no problem using the word “father” for God” and prove to us that he is man enough to be sincere and truthful.

Furthermore, Anthony Rogers “unbelievably” carps:

“Unbelievably, in an attempt to prove that John 17, where Jesus, the Son, calls God His Father, is not contrary to the Islamic conception of God, Mr. Anonymous points to a verse in the same Gospel, recorded by the same author, and spoken by the same Jesus, which affirms the specialuniqueeternal, and transcendent father-son relationship that exists between the first and second persons of the Trinity, as an example of what Muslims deny. If this is the kind…that is found in John 17 and throughout John’s Gospel.”

To paraphrase Anthony’s complaint, he niggles that on one hand we use John 17:3 which, according to him, contains “father-son” relationship and comport it with Islamic monotheism, while on the other hand, we repel John 3:16 which also contains “father-son” relationship.

The important point that Anthony Rogers missed is that the “father-son” relationship of John 17:3 (if it is there) is totally different from the “father-son” relationship of John 3:16.

We explicitly wrote (and much to the chagrin of Anthony Rogers he even quoted it) that John 3:16 and the relative terms “father” and “son” alludes  to the abusive and literal interpretations of the word “father” unlike John 17:3 which might be speaking about the specialuniqueeternal, and transcendent father-son relationship” :

“However what a Muslim seriously repels is the LITERAL understanding and usage of this blasphemous word “Father” when used for ALLAH (John 3:16 abuses ALLAH with the same. Kindly read John 3:16 in conjunction with Quran 19:88). This kind of rendering is anathematized in Islam and we will continue to eschew it.”

It should be noted that we did not object to the “special, unique, eternal and transcendent father-son relationship” rather, as we already wrote, Muslims abhor the LITERAL import of the word “father” which is implied in John 3:16.

We have to call the careful blend and bluff from literal “father-son” relationship of John 3:16 to “specialuniqueeternal, and transcendent father-son relationship” as Anthony tried to put forth. No wonder this Christian is shying away from the filthy word “Begotten” of John 3:16.

A step further and very importantly, Anthony Rogers, claims variety of meanings for John 3:16, namely, “specialuniqueeternal, and transcendent father-son relationship”, however, he did not include all important word “Begotten” which is present in the text. Was Anthony Rogers shy of what the holy-spirit inspired to some John or was he playing fast and loose with our argument because we already wrote that we repel the abusive literal import of John 3:16 on one hand and endorse seemingly sound monotheism of John 17:3. Thus, although John 17:3 and 3:16 are present in the in the same Gospel, recorded by the same author…” yet they are poles apart.

He also argued:

”2) it teaches that Jesus is the divine Son of God. After all, it is just this special use of the terms “Father” and “Son,” which anonymous eschewed as blasphemous, that is found in John 17 and throughout John’s Gospel.”

If we are not mistaken then the “special use of the terms “Father” and “Son,””Anthony Rogers is talking about is “specialuniqueeternal, and transcendent father-son relationship”, however, in Islam we abhor the “LITERAL understanding”(!) which we explicitly mentioned! How then Anthony Rogers claimed that I eschewed “this special use of the terms “Father” and “Son,” where once again, “THIS” refers to “specialuniqueeternal, and transcendent father-son relationship”.

Therefore, let me once again call Anthony Rogers to produce his proof and show us where did I eschewed the “specialuniqueeternal, and transcendent father-son relationship”. This is yet another instance where he has been caught lying flagrantly.

Son of God

Basing the arguments on unfounded, unsupported claims Anthony Rogers moves forward to provide us three points – points which according to him would establish that Muslims cannot appeal to John 17:3. This response in many senses would be redundant in nature because we have already responded to a similar argument above. But because Rogers may not complain that we have left his “crucial remarks” unattended thus we analyze this as well.

He wrote that:

“After all, it is just this special use of the terms “Father” and “Son,” which anonymous eschewed as blasphemous, that is found in John 17 and throughout John’s Gospel. Consider the following points:…

The Prologue: “In the beginning was the Word [i.e. Jesus], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth…. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known..…” (ESV, John 1:1, 14, 18)”

Kindly notice how subtly my opponent has tried to blend the questionable “Father” and “Son” relation implied through “BEGOTTEN” of John 3:16 with ““special,uniqueeternal, and transcendent father-son relationship” “ found in John 17”.

He did not have courage to write the truth that I eschewed the earthly father-son relation implied through the “begotten” word used in John 3:16. To quote my words:

However what a Muslim seriously repels is the LITERAL understanding and usage of this blasphemous word “Father” when used for ALLAH (John 3:16 abuses ALLAH with the same. Kindly read John 3:16 in conjunction with Quran 19:88). This kind of rendering is anathematized in Islam and we will continue to eschew it.”

The proof that he gave under the heading of “The prologue” does not support his case. The verses cited under “The prologue” are more metaphorical and/or symbolic in nature than literal and he helped my case by explicitly citing phrases from those verses, for instance, “the only Son from the Father” and “who is at the Father’s side”

 As already mentioned and ample number of times that Muslim repels the LITERAL understanding, nevertheless, the above verses are not literal in nature: “only Son from the Father” and “who is at the Father’s side” I assume does not imply that God-The Father was fathering, siring, bringing forth, delivering god-the son! If that is the case then Anthony has no ground why he should write, “Unbelievably, in an attempt to prove that John 17, where Jesus, the Son, calls God His Father, is not contrary to the Islamic conception of God, Mr. Anonymous points to a verse in the same Gospel, recorded by the same author, and spoken by the same Jesus, which affirms the special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship that exists between the first and second persons of the Trinity, as an example of what Muslims deny.”, and then try to support through sub-headings like “The Prologue”.

(Side remark: Very interestingly the verse that he quoted, namely John 1:14, to prove that it has the same import as that of John 3:16 (which is evidently mistaken) DOES NOT contain anything even in the remotest to show any so called father-son relationship! The verse reads:

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (King James (1611) Bible)”

Notice that the phrase containing “Father” has been bracketed which is an implication to the fact that it is not the part of the manuscript but an addition by say the translators. If this were not true then Anthony Rogers should explain us that why did the doctors of divinity who mulled hard before publishing “King James (1611) Bible” bracketed the part of verse containing all important word “Father” of Christianity.

The problem with the ‘word of god’ does not end here; observantly, John1:14 of “King James (1611) Bible” (bracketed words included) contain the controversial word “begotten” in it however, the prudes of the version which Rogers referred to evaporated it and came out with “Only Son from the Father”. Thus, Rogers should explain how does “only BEGOTTEN of the Father” fits in the shoes of “Only Son from the Father”! What was the authority behind messing with god’s word?)

To further elasticize his already refuted argument he wrote another subheading, namely, “The Thesis Statement”. Under it he wrote:

“Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:30-31)”

According to the verse Bible thumpers have to believe that Jesus, peace be upon him, was “the Son of God” – but we ask in what capacity?  How we are to interpret the title “Son of God”? If “the Son of God” of John 20:30-31 has a “LITERAL understanding and import” then he might have a case, however, as we would see the particular verse does not necessarily has a literal import and thus no case for Anthony Rogers.

 Firstly, we presume to receive a unanimous NO from Christians when asked whether Jesus (peace be upon him) has been called as “the Son of God” because God-The Father (!) has sired, begotten God-The son (!). If “no” is the answer then my opponent’s proof (i.e. John 20:30-31) does not support his case that weunbelievably pointed “to a verse in the same Gospel, recorded by the same author, and spoken by the same Jesus, which affirms the special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship that exists between the first and second persons of the Trinity, as an example of what Muslims deny.”

Mind you once again that John 20:30-31 might imply “special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship”, however, John 3:16 apparently does not show any “…transcendent father-son relationship”.

Moreover, myriad biblical verses only point to metaphorical, figurative or symbolic nature of the title “Son of God”. For examples:

“He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” (Daniel 3:25, King James (1611) Bible)

Interestingly, in the above adduced Daniel verse the title of “Son of God” has been given to an “ANGEL” of God. To infer that the fourth one was an angel we will have to cross refer to Daniel 3:28 which reads:

“Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.”

Moreover, the respected JFB commentary also comments on Daniel 3:25 that “Son of God”, in the verse, means ONLY to an angel from heaven:

like the Son of God — Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas (Joh_11:49-52), and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths. “Son of God” in his mouth means ONLY an “angel” from heaven, as Dan_3:28 proves.”

The Geneva Bible commentary also confirms that the “Son of God” title of Daniel 3:25 refers to angel(s) of God:

“He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the (k) Son of God.

(k) For the angels were called the sons of God because of their excellency. Therefore the king called this angel whom God sent to comfort his own in these great torments, the son of God.

All above proofs establish that the title “Son of God” was not specific to Jesus, peace be upon him, alone rather it was also used for angel(s) of God. This implies that “Son of God” meant for the servants of God, righteous followers of God. In this sense, Muslims have no objection to the Jewish usage of “father-son” terms; however, we would like to state again that:

“… Muslim seriously repels is the LITERAL understanding and usage of this blasphemous word “Father” when used for ALLAH (John 3:16 abuses ALLAH with the same. Kindly read John 3:16 in conjunction with Quran 19:88). This kind of rendering is anathematized in Islam and we will continue to eschew it.”

If the title “Son of God” is not literal in nature but metaphorical (as has already been established through Daniel verses) then Anthony Rogers ill chosen verse of John 20:30-31, where the father-son relation is metaphorical in nature does not comply with John 3:16 where the father-son relationship is abusive and literal in nature. Thus, John 20:30-31 does not support Anthony’s niggling that we appealed to John 17 and rejected John 3:16. Once again the imports of the father-son relationship were/are entirely different at the two places. Let us again explicitly remind that John 3:16 is abhorred by Muslims for its literal and earthly imports.

Scholars of authority have already stated that the title “Son of God” in the biblical and Jewish settings implied metaphorical, symbolic or figurative meaning:

“The Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John have given the term a meta-physical and dogmatic significance. Many hold that the Alexandrian Logos concept has had a formative and dominant influence on the presentation of the doctrine of Jesus’ sonship in the Christian writings. The Logos in Philo is designated as the“son of God”; the Logos is the first-born; God is the father of the Logos (“De Agricultura Noe,” § 12; “De Profugis,” § 20). In all probability these terms, while implying the distinct personality of the Logos, carry ONLY A FIGURATIVE MEANING.” (Source)

Furthermore:

MANY biblical scholars hold that in the Synoptic Gospels, JESUS NEVER STYLED HIMSELF THE SON OF GOD IN A SENSE OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH ANYRIGHTEOU PERSON MIGHT CALL THEMSELVES “SONS” OR “CHILDREN OF GOD. However Christians believe the Resurrection vindicates Jesus’s claim to a unique relationship to the Father. (Source)

Note that the SCHOLARS are not few but MANY who hold that Jesus NEVER presented himself in a way other than what a righteous person might portray when referring to oneself as “son of God”. On the same corollary if a righteous person was entitled as “son of God” more so with prophets of God as Jesus certainly was; prophet and obviously “righteous” at the same time. This also establishes that “Jesus NEVER styled himself the son of God in a sense other than that in which any ‘prophet’ (“righteous person”) might call themselves “sons” or “children” of God.

We have yet again proved that the “Son of God” title which Anthony Rogers gleaned from John 20:30-31 is metaphoric, figurative in nature, however, we complained about the earthly and literal presentation of the same “son-father” relationship – two totally different connotations; yet Anthony Rogers tried to blend them together in order to deceptively argue that we endorsed the “father-son relationship” of John 17:3 while disregarding the “father-son relationship” of John 3:16. He thought readers would not be able to call his bluff that we execrated the LITERAL import of John 3:16 and not the metaphorical or figurative connotation of John 17:3.

To prove that the title of “Son of God” is metaphorical or figurative in nature we provide readers with a BIBLICAL PROOF that the title “SON OF GOD” is synonymous to “SERVANT OF GOD” exactly as prophets were servant or righteous people of God:

Acts 3:26

“Unto you first God, having raised up his SON Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (King James (1611) Bible)

Compare the above verse with:

“To you first, God having raised up His SERVANT Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” (Acts 3:26, The New King James Version, The Open Bible)

“Son of God” – a title of paramount importance in Churches yet the “doctors of divinity” and “scholars of sacred scriptures” did not hesitate to relegate Jesus (peace be upon him) from Son to Servitude. The transformation from son to slave is the only truth to exist; as the Qur’an says:

Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a SERVANT.”(19:93, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom Version)

John 5:30, 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.” This particular verse clearly exposes the “Son of God’s” impotency, contrary to a True God, to take decisions and to things.

Mark 13:32, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”  Yet again the “Son of God”has generalized himself with common man, angels etc (let alone a claimant of Godhood) for the knowledge of the “hour”, thereby establishing that the title “Son of God” is purely figurative.

Peters confession of Acts 2:22 that is, “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:” clearly generalizes “Son of God” with every other agent of God or more technically, a prophet. Kindly mark that the verse says that Jesus was a man (NOT A GOD), approved by God(!) yet again Jesus cannot be God approving himself and that his miracles were not his by God’s which again establish that he was not God but just another agent of God -a prophet.

John of Damascus on of SAINTLY authority emphasized on the Jesus’ total submission and dependency on the greater God –the Father:

Whatsoever the Son has from the Father, the Spirit also has, including His very being. And if the Father does not exist, then neither does the Son and the Spirit; and if the Father does not have something, then neither has the Son or the Spirit. Furthermore, because of the Father, that is, because the Father is, the Son and the Spirit are; and because of the Father, the Son and the Spirit have everything that they have. (Source)”

Kindly realize with equanimity that St. John of Damascus clearly wrote that the “Son of God” has NOTHING of his own but has been given to him by the Father who consequently is more powerful and more authoritative. There is no mention of the converse that is, whatsoever the Father has from the Son. In fact, if the Father does not EXIST then the “Son of God” will also cease to exist; once again the converse is not mentioned.

A step further St. John of Damascus ends the passage by emphasizing once again that it is only because of the Father that the Son (and the spirit) has everything that they have. Carefully mark that St. John does not says that because of the “Son of God” that the Father has whatever he (Father) has. Such statements prove beyond any tri-theistic explanation that Jesus is not on the same podium with God-Almighty. It also establishes that “Son of God” in these contexts only mean righteous servants, prophets or messengers of God.

Therefore, the biblical verses such John 5:30, Mark 13:32, Peter’s confession of Acts 2:22, St. John of Damascus’s teachings and interpretations clearly establishes that the biblical title “Son of God” was purely figurative and metaphorical in most verses. That being the case then Anthony Rogers should know that we abhorred the literal understanding and import of John 3:16 and not the figurative renderings of John 17:3 or John 20:30-31. Therefore, Anthony’s claim that, Unbelievably, in an attempt to prove that John 17, where Jesus, the Son, calls God His Father, is not contrary to the Islamic conception of God, Mr. Anonymous points to a verse in the same Gospel, recorded by the same author, and spoken by the same Jesus, which affirms the special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship that exists between the first and second persons of the Trinity, as an example of what Muslims deny.” , is totally unwarranted and absurd if not guileful. By the way at this point we would again enquire Anthony Rogers to explain us how do the apparently offensive import of John 3:16 turn out to be “special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship” to him.

To further corroborate our point that the terms “father” and “son” of John 17:3 (if they exist there) are figurative, symbolic or metaphorical something totally different from the repellent “father-son relationship” where the import is more literal, earthly and animal like; we provide readers with behind the scripture translators dexterities:

Translators usually choose to use the word “father” because of the intimacy implied by the word which is not carried in other English word like “ancestor” though this is a much more precise translation. The word translated “son” has a similar problem. Any male descendant to any number of future generations is still just a son. Discovery of this translation choice can be found by looking up the underlying meaning of the root words, or by reading footnotes in certain translations. In this article we take a different approach and look at how the word is actually used in some ways that define the way the word father (or son) really means ancestor (or descendant).” (http://www.bibletime.com/theory/father)

We observe from the above citation that the translators of the so assumed “sacred scriptures” translated the original Greek or Hebrew word(s) with “father” which more technically should have been “ancestor”. They assert that “ancestor” is “much more precise translation” than not so perfect translation “father”.

If the translators would have translated God as “ancestor” (rather than “father”) of Jesus (peace be upon him) then there have to have been more “sons” in between Yahweh and Jesus (peace be upon him). As the scholars they noted (above):

“ANY MALE DESCENDANT TO ANY NUMBER OF FUTURE GENERATIONS IS STILL JUST A SON”

Consequently, it proves that Jesus is not the only son or more precisely “descendant” from God of Bible. There were/are other sons or “descendents” of God preceding Jesus (peace be upon him). This conclusion in turn would generalize Jesus’ “Son of God” title with other “descendents”. Subsequently, it will again revert back to our 1400 year old appeal that Jesus was a righteous man and messenger of God like other (biblical) “Sons of God”.

Returning back to our main argument; we have yet again proved that “Son of God”title was by and large general in nature except for a few places like John 3:16 (according to Christian perception). Subsequently, if metaphorical “Son of God” of Bible is different from literal “Son of God” of John 3:16 then Anthony’s fuss that,

“Unbelievably, in an attempt to prove that John 17, where Jesus, the Son, calls God His Father, is not contrary to the Islamic conception of God, Mr. Anonymous points to a verse in the same Gospel, recorded by the same author, and spoken by the same Jesus, which affirms the special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship that exists between the first and second persons of the Trinity, as an example of what Muslims deny.”

is totally unwarranted.

A number of biblical verses have been quoted under point number “2)”. All the verses support a false notion. These verses try to prove the “father-son relationship” of Jesus (peace be upon him) and God which delights Anthony Rogers to argue that we cannot appeal to John 17:3 while spurning John 3:16. However, as already argued above, the “father-son relationship” sense in the two verses is quite different.

Nevertheless, Anthony has provided two verses explicitly, namely, John 5:18 and John 10:30. We would analyze each one of them lest Anthony might fuss that we did not consider his “crucial remarks”. He wrote:

“It was this practice of Jesus that so irked the Jewish religious leaders; not because Jesus said God had a divine Son, which we saw the Old Testament itself teaches, but because Jesus, standing before them as a man, claimed to be the Son.

“For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” (John 5:18)”
Anthony claims that the Jews were galled at the very reason that Jesus (peace be upon him) referred to God as “Father”. Even if we consider this biblical referral yet it does not support his claim since Jesus, in John 5:18, did not call God as “Father” in a crude, literal sense, nevertheless, the author of John did exactly the same in John 3:16. We did not complain about the metaphorical biblical referral to God as “Father” but the complaint was against the literal “Fatherliness” as elicited through John 3:16.

If at this stage Anthony has made his mind to argue that John 5:18 express God aspersonalized father of Jesus (peace be upon him) through the usage of the phrase His “own” Father; then yet it does not support his claim. The point to be noted is that a personalized father could yet be referred in metaphorical, figurative and/or symbolic way.

On the other hand the appeal to John 5:18 has further aggrandized Anthony’s problem since Anthony’s John 5:18 try to personalize God as Jesus’ (peace be upon him) father (through the usage of the word “own”) not so with the “King James (1611) Version Bible” or “The New King James Version”. They render respectively:

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

AND

“Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.”

Notice that in both the biblical renderings the star studded custodians of God’s word did not include the word “OWN”. That is they did away with Anthony’s renderingGod His own Father” unceremoniously. Could we know which holy-spirit is inspiring these translators to play fast and loose with the so assumed word of god.

Anthony’s John 10:30 reads:

“I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” (John 10:30)”

Here again the problem is the same. We do not think that Jesus (peace be upon him) referred as “Father” with a literal sense in his mind something strongly opposed by Qur’an. Jesus (peace be upon him) being a Nazarene only emulated his ancestors and his Jewish custom and tradition:

“Do you thus deal with the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not yourFather, who bought you?” (THE OPEN BIBLE, DEUTERONOMY 32:6, NKJV).

“Doubtless You are out Father,..” (THE OPEN BIBLE, ISAIAH 63:16, NKJV).

“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?”(THE OPEN BIBLE, MALACHI 2:10, NKJV).

Moving on, we analyze Anthony’s point number “3)”

He wrote:

“Finally, one of the ways John points up the uniqueness of Jesus in his Gospel is by exclusively using the word “Son” (Gr. huios) for Jesus in relation to God the Father, the same word that Jesus uses twice in the immediate context of John 17:3 (i.e. verse 1). Though as the rest of the New Testament writings bear out, there is a sense in which others can be called “sons” of God – having been created and redeemed through Jesus Christ, God’s true Son, and having the Spirit of His Son, the Spirit of adoption, poured out upon them – when the apostle John speaks of others as God’s “children” (e.g. 1:12; 11:52), he uses a different Greek word altogether (Gr. teknon). Even when the rest of the New Testament is considered, believers are only referred to as “sons of God” in the plural, never is anyone exclusively singled out as the Son of God in this way.”

Let us not make this response a reading tyranny for the readers. There is nothing as such in his point number “3)” which needs to be responded afresh. We keep in mind that Anthony has provided point number “3)” (“2)” and “1)”) to support his baseless and ill-argued claim that we cannot appeal to John 17:3 while doing down with John 3:16 because, according to Anthony Rogers, the same “son” has referred to the same “father” at both the places in the same Gospel.

He did not pause to realize that even though (for the sake of argument) the same “son” and “father” had been referred to in the same Gospel yet the imports are poles apart. The point of contention is whether the “father-son” referral is same or not but whether the imports and understanding are same or different; which of course is different.

Thus, as a response to Anthony’s point number “3)” we rhetorically ask him what does his proof number “3)” prove or disprove. What purpose is his “3)” serving?

 

First Lie then Hide

Anthony outrageously and childishly claimed once again:

“Having said that it is okay to call Allah a father of believers, especially for informed Muslims like himself,…”

Firstly, and as the name of this sub-heading reads, Anthony lied blatantly when he attributed to me that I Okayed Allah as “father” of Muslims (“believers”). Therefore, we challenge Anthony Rogers to provide us proof and establish his credence to his flamboyant.

Secondly, and as the name of this sub-heading reads, Anthony ran away from our “Mother Nature” analogy and the danger one would run into if the phrase it taken in the literal sense.

As one could read his response, instead of responding to our “Mother Nature” analogy he made a beeline through off-topics such as “circling the Kaaba, throwing rocks at the Devil, and kissing the black stone,” insinuating that there are pagan incorporations in them. He also made some “psychological assessments”, unfortunately, they do not even deserve a response. There are two points to be made here firstly, we are not discussing whether Islamic rites have pagan ingredients in it or not and secondly, if we embark to discuss it then Anthony has not provided any proof to support his gasconade that ALL of Islam’s religious rites were picked up from pagans like crumbs off a table,”.

We challenge Anthony Rogers to prove us that ALL of Islam’s religious rites were picked up from pagans like crumbs off a table,” and establish his manliness. Come on prove us that we are pagans. We invite him for our next series.

The only place where he came close in responding to our “Mother Nature” analogy is when he wrote:

“So, although I certainly do not take the phrase “Mother Nature” literally, I doUNASHAMEDLY and confidently confess, along with my believing brothers and sisters in the present and throughout all ages, “God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and Jesus Christ HIS ONLY SON”, and would say, with all due respect, if anyone was in need of psychological help, it was Anonymous’ self-proclaimed prophet.”

Very interesting! Although Anthony confessed “confidently” that he along with his tri-theist brothers and sisters are unabashed and “UNASHAMED” into believing that“Jesus Christ HIS ONLY SON”. Nevertheless, the embarrassing point is that ‘god’s scripture’ does not say that Jesus (peace be upon him) was “HIS ONLY SON” rather it says that Jesus was “HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON”:

  • “For God so loved the world, that he gave his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16, King James (1611) Bible)
  • I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I BEGOTTEN (ildthi.k) thee. (Psalm 2:7, King James (1611), Bible) (“Unashamed” Christians interpret the “son” to be SIRED according to Psalm 2:7 is Jesus, peace be upon him.)

Why did the god breathed word “BEGOTTEN” turned Anthony’s cheek red! We do not expect him to blush here. Notice that Anthony Rogers had qualms in using the BIBLICAL word “BEGOTTEN”- we ask why?

What is more, Anthony did not even regard the creed of his ancestral “brothers” and “sisters” which clearly stated that Jesus was “BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE”. As you would carefully mark that their creed did not state that Jesus was “His ONLY Son”rather they believed in cruder form, namely, “BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE”:

…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, BEGOTTEN of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God,BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, consubstantial with the father…” (Jonathan L. Keene, CHHI 521 History of Christianity I)”

For more on this discussion kindly refer “Begetting the Filth” section of this paper.

Conclusion

All prophets from Adam to Mohammad, Jesus included, came for to promulgate Islamic monotheism and nothing else. Their sole mission was to call people from Idolatry, hero – worship, prophet – worship etc towards worship of their Creator, namely, Allah (SWT) and Allah alone.

Since we do not have the original scriptures of the prophets today yet we can discern and glean the Islamic monotheism taught by prophets prior to Mohammad (peace be upon him) from whatever the followers of those prophets have saved for us, say Bible and John 17:3 is one such case.

This verse is enough for proof and guidance for the innate monotheism in humans which Allah (SWT) has bestowed withstanding the dissuading arguments that “text speaks of the father which as we have observed does not stand any sincere analysis.

The call is for the worship of Allah and Allah alone, call Him Jehovah if that is what your texts teaches you, call him father (in a transcendent way) if that pleases you, however in the end, worship him alone. Do not associate his biblical “son” in worship with him since as John 17:3 teaches that “father” alone is “the only true God”.

Nevertheless, personally, the most important thing to be learnt here is the truth of Qur’an. When Qur’an asserted that Christians have abused the “Most Merciful” it has to be so and we have already found it to be exactly in the same manner. No matter how much the prudes of Christianity try to prove themselves Semitic; they have diverted to the lines of the pagans to abuse that Allah begot a son. Allah forbid.

With these said we look to “part 3” (and 4) to dismantle them.

Note: Emphasize wherever found is ours.

Refutation: The True Shahada Indeed: Revisited [Part:1]

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Question Mark

Introduction

 As a response to one of my refutation to his original paper, Anthony Rogers, has published a two part (#,#) paper back at me. All of this centralizes around John 17:3 and the type of monotheism it teaches. As proposed he would be writing four part response to me, subsequently then, he dedicates [Part 1] to me and to topics not immediately associated to John 17:3.

Christians like Anthony Rogers somehow cull out deity of Jesus, peace be upon him, in afore stated verse, nevertheless, this is exactly where the Islamic Shahada differs acutely from the Christian creeds, furthermore, John 17:3 back fires against all imputed divinity on Jesus, peace be upon him as we would be analyzing it throughout the course.

Gloating in dreams

Mr. Anthony Rogers starts off his refutation in a typical evangelistic apologist tone who presumes a ready – made before hand embarrassment for me:

“…except that in this case it seems calculated to save him (her?) from embarrassment once his underhanded tactics and criminal mishandling of my article was exposed…”.

More so over, he writes this with rationalization of me not providing my name:

“A Muslim, who prefers to remain nameless – which would otherwise be fine except that in this case it seems calculated to save him (her?) from embarrassment once his underhanded tactics and criminal mishandling of my article was exposed…”

Just a little further, he complaints (and rightly so) for misspelling his name. The correct spelling of his name is Anthony Rogers, however, I mistakenly spelled it as Anthony Roger.  I do heartily apologize for the same and would check that I do not offend Mr. Anthony Rogers in this regard. I would like to add that such a mistake was not intentional. However, this same point startled me for Anthony continuously addressed me as Mr. Anonymous while I provided my name in my paper! And I have not counted this ‘typo’ as did my opponent:

“Not content to merely conceal his own identity, my Muslim respondent, who gets my name wrong no less than nine times…”

 

Masquerade

What seems as a bad case of feigning and distortion; Rogers misplaces my words to win cheap points over me. He tried to portray that I refrained my “fellow Muslims” to all what he originally wrote, as if he came out with insurmountable brain washing and mesmerizing facts.

He also justified my discouraging reading of his article with an assumption that I did not take into account his several so called crucial remarks:  “several crucial remarks of mine are not taken into account in his “refutation””. That being the case I would like to read which “crucial remark” was unattended!

This is what he wrote regarding me discouraging a read to his article:

“Not content to merely conceal his own identity, my Muslim respondent, who gets my name wrong no less than nine times, starts off his article with an attempt to prevent his fellow Muslims from reading all of what I originally wrote, saying: “I would discourage readers to read his article…”, and judging from the quality of his reply, he appears to have followed his own advice.”

As can be seen above that I did initially discouraged readers from his article. But I wrote that with a specific reason which I already provided in my original article which any sincere person reading my article in full (and NOT HALF QUOTED lines) would realize. As a matter of fact this is what I originally wrote (Kindly compare it with the crooked misquotation cited above.) in full:

“I would discourage readers to read his article rigged with mordant remarks and filthy invectives on Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him.

So, I discouraged not with a fear of Anthony “winning souls” into Christianity but for the filth and dirt he wrote in his paper.

However, he demonstrated his calculated sincerity by later quoting me full. Not only this, he gave a disgusting rationalization for him abusing The Creator of all that exists including Jesus, peace be upon him.

Here is how he defended his opprobrium:

“I take it that he is referring here to the fact that at the end of my article I referred to Allah as an idol and to Muhammad as a worthless prophet. But what else did my anonymous acquaintance expect me, a Christian, to conclude?”

Conclusively then as a Christian, Anthony Rogers, has all permit to abuse the deity of Jesus, peace be upon him and Mohammad the last prophet, peace be upon him. According to him there is no other “else” left for him, as a Christian, than to abuse Allah-Almighty and Mohammad, peace be upon him. He continued his disgusting and ignorant polemics with rationalizations such as:

“It is simply unavoidable: if Yahweh is God, then Allah is not (which means he is an idol)”

He, for some reasons, bypassed a possibility that the God of Jesus (!) and Moses etc may refer to one True God with dialectical difference apart. I say this because Allah was the same deity who was worshipped by all prophets from Adam to Mohammad, peace be upon them all:

  1. “Praise be to Allah who hath granted unto me [QM: Abraham] in old age Ismail and Isaac: for truly my Lord is He the Hearer of Prayer!” (The Holy Qur’an, 14:39)

If the Christian polemic has already contemplated that Abraham, peace be upon him, never knew Allah and he worshipped Yahweh then he oversees a fact that Abraham was an Arab – a Chaldean, so it is only fair to acknowledge that Abraham worshipped his deity as Allah:

“Genesis 11:31 defines Abraham as being from an area in Lower Mesopotamia called Ur of Chaldees, in what is now present day Iraq. Geographically speaking, and applying the terminology of today, ABRAHAM WAS AN ARAB. (MISGOD’ED A Roadmap of Guidance and Misguidance within the Abrahamic Religions by Dr. Laurence B. Brown, MD).

Furthermore, Christians who walked the land which Jesus, peace be upon him once treaded also recognizing their deity as Allah:

“The Arab Christians trace their heritage to the days of revelation—in fact, their distant ancestors walked the same land as the prophet Jesus—AND THEY IDENTIFY THE CREATOR AS ALLAH.” (MISGOD’ED A Roadmap of Guidance and Misguidance Within the Abrahamic Religions by Dr. Laurence B. Brown, MD)

So here we have a proof that not only did the prophets but even the present dayChristians recognize their God as Allah. Yet ironically westerners would insult the same Allah of their eastern brethren “in Christ”!

Here are a few more proofs exposing the truth.

According to Douglas J.D. modern Arab Christians also recognize their God as Allah:

“the name is used also by modern Arab Christians who say concerning future contingencies: ‘In sha’ ALLAH.” (The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church. 1978. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. p. 27)

AND

ALLAH IS THE STANDARD ARABIC WORD FOR ‘GOD’ and is used by Arab Christians as well as by

Muslims.”  (Encyclopaedia Britannica. CDROM)

As a matter of fact Dr. Laurence B. Brown gets more vocal on this issue as he comments:

In fact, from the Orthodox Christians of the land that was birthplace to Abraham (now modern day Iraq), to the Coptic Christians of the Egypt of Moses, to the Palestinian Christians of the Holy Land trod by Jesus Christ, to the entire Middle Eastern epicenter from which the shockwaves of revelation radiated out to the entire world, ALLAH IS RECOGNIZED AS THE PROPER NAME FOR WHAT WESTERN RILIGIONS  (QM: RELIGION) CALL GODThe Christian Arabs are known to call Jesus ibn Allahibn meaning “son.” Pick up any copy of an Arabic Bible and a person will find the Creator identified as AllahSo Allah is recognized as the name of God in the land of revelation of the Old and New Testaments, as well as of the Qur’an.” (MISGOD’ED A Roadmap of Guidance and Misguidance Within the Abrahamic Religions by Dr. Laurence B. Brown, MD)

  1. “For ALLAH; He is my Lord and your Lord: so worship ye Him: this is a Straight Way.” (The Holy Qur-an, 43:64)

In the commentary of above adduced verse Abdullah Yusuf Ali clarifies the point that Islam religion was the same as taught by Jesus, peace be upon him:

“In verses 26-28 an appeal is made to the pagan Arabs, that Islam is their own religion, the religion of Abraham their ancestor; in verses 46-54, an appeal is made to the Jews that Islam is the same religion as was taught by Moses, and that they should not allow their leaders to make fools of them; in verses 57-65 an appeal is made to the Christians that Islam is the same religion as was taught by Jesus, and that they should give up their sectarian attitude and follow the universal religion, which shows the Straight Way.”

Inferably then if Islam was the same religion taught by mighty “Son of Man”(Anthony has raised this point; I will get to it later in the article) then Allah has to beThe God practiced and taught to be worshipped by Jesus, peace be upon him.

The count of the number of prophets did not end with Abraham and Jesus (peace be upon them) rather as a matter of fact all true apostles of Allah worshipped none but Allah and Allah only.

What is yet observable in his remark which is: “It is simply unavoidable: if Yahweh is God, then Allah is not (which means he is an idol)”.

He has made an assertion but did not support it with any argument let alone proofs. He presumes something but does not establish that his presumption is a Qur’anic truth. Ironically, yet, he had to break down the bulkiness of his “response” into four parts!

The same argument might be consistent with the second part of his statement where he said:

“…if Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father, then Muhammad is a false prophet (which means his worth as a prophet is precisely zero)” (God forbid and peace be upon them). Here again he makes a reasoning but does not support it!?

Secondly, I would like to draw the attention towards the smart rationalization which my opponent apologist gave for using the adjective “worthless” for Mohammad, peace be upon him. According to him “worthless” simply means “worth precisely zero”. He played way with the negative connotation of the word, however, his smartness was soon exposed.

(Side remark: At this point Anthony might argue that he was making a conditional statement where he also said:

“The same holds when spoken from the standpoint of Muslims: If Allah is God, then Yahweh is not (hence?); if Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, then Jesus is not the only begotten Son of the Father (hence?).”)

In the first place kindly notice the hypocrisy bracketed in his statement. He, as a sincere Christian, would dare not use words like “Idol” and “worthless” when speaking of his DEITIES, namely, Yahweh AND Jesus (peace be upon Jesus) thus he would veneer his intention in bracketed words, as demonstrated here in by, “(hence?…)”( the reader is left to fill in the blank and complete the disgusting sentence)thereby providing his co-religionists a euphemistic impression. So, when he desisted from using the word “worthless” for his biblical figures he only proved that there is something offensive in the word and its connotation; something more than just “worth precisely zero”.

Secondly, to start with, “begotten” is a dirty filthy word safer to be used in animal husbandry than with Allah-Almighty, and therefore some of the so called “versions” of the Bible play safe from the usage of the word. They simply and unceremoniously drop this “word” from the so purported “Word of God”:

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because  he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son (John 3:18, NIV)

AND

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son…” (John 3:16, TEV)

COMPARE THIS AGAINST:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…” (John 3:16, King James (1611) Bible)

At this point one can take out two inferences:

  • Firstly, discordantly, the translation is been played potty here because Only Son and Only begotten Son does not seem to reconcile by any stretch of English language. I leave this for my opponent to reconcile for me, please!
  • Or secondly and concordantly, the two seemingly irreconcilable could harmonize if we resort to Greek Text which I have demonstrated below.

To worsen his argument, the Greek manuscript DOES NOT contain this inflammable word:

“outwV gar hgaphsen o qeoV ton kosmon wste ton uion autou ton MONOGENHedwken ina paV o pisteuwn eiV auton mh apolhtai all ech zwhn aiwnion”   (Greek NT (Scrivener-1984))

“MONOGENH”  (or MONOGENES) has two Greek roots in it, namely, “MONO” AND “GENES”. “Mono” means ONE or SINGLE etc and “GENES” mean “TYPE” or “CLASS” etc. So, in conjunction, it would read “ONE” of a “TYPE” or “Unique” or“Only” or “Especial”, thus:

As of the only begotten from the Father (hōs monogenous para patros).STRICLY,“AS OF AN ONLY BORN FROM A FATHER,” since there is no article withmonogenous or with patros. In Joh_3:16; 1Jo_4:9 we have ton monogenē referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of patēr of God in relation to the Logos.Monogenēs (ONLY BORN RATHER THAN ONLY BEGOTTEN) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in Joh_1:18) rather than to the Incarnation.”(Commentary of RWP on John 1:14)

(Side remark:

  • If the Greek “Monogenh” or “Monogenes” is something which means “one of a type” then why did the English translators translated it with the filth “Begotten”? Astonishingly since, the Greek of (to) “beget” is “UEVVW” (γεννώ) or “PROKALW”(προκαλώ) which is certainly not “MONOGENH”.
    • Conversely, if “Begotten” is the correct translation then why are some of the authoritative so called versions doing away from it and replacing it with renderings such as “only son” etc.)

The pith of my argument so far thus has been to prove that Jesus, if understood, to be “unique” or “one of a kind” or “Special” is absolutely okay with Islamic theology which is also corroborated through correct biblical interpretations. As a Muslim I accept him to be “special”, however, having said that each prophet was unique in one of the other way.

More importantly, if Jesus is SPECIAL (and not “Begotten”), which Muslims accept, then how does it allow Islamophobes like Anthony Rogers to conclude that Mohammad (peace be upon him) is worthless (God-Forbid) since Jesus is special (!):

“…if Christ is the only begotten Son of the FatherTHEN Muhammad is a false prophet (which means his worth as a prophet is precisely zero).”   

(Note: In his original paper he concluded Mohammad, peace be upon him, to be “WORTHLESS”.)

Another problem with Anthony’s rationalization is that he mixes disagreement with abuse. We might disagree and object yet be sober especially in interfaith dialogues. One does not necessarily has to abuse others deity as Idol especially when the Qur’an and Hadith are strictly against “Idol” worship (!):

“And [Abraham] said: “You have chosen to worship IDOLS instead of God for no other reason than to have a bond of love, in the life of this world, between yourselves [and your forebears]: but then, on Resurrection Day, you shall disown one another and curse one another – for the goal of you all will be the fire, and you will have none to succor you.”  (Y.Ali, Qur’an 29:25, Al-Alim CD ROM version)

“Allah did not institute superstitions like those of a slit-ear she-camel or a she-camel let loose for free pasture or idol sacrifices for twin-births in animals or stallion-camels freed from work; this lie is invented by the unbelievers against Allah, and most of them lack understanding.” (F. Malik, Qur’an 5:103, Al-Alim CD ROM version)

He reacted back:

“In fact, Mr. Anonymous unwittingly demonstrates my point by speaking of me throughout his article as a “Christolator”, as if to say that the Jesus I (and two billion others) repose in is an idol-god. Does Mr. Anonymous not think Christians would view this as a “filthy invective”?”

Exactly, words like these may be offensive and might turn out to be “filthy invective” but is not it late that my opponent realized it. Keep in Mind that he was the first to write an “article” in which he claimed, in the first place that, Allah is Idol and Mohammad, peace be upon him, as “worthless” prophet (God forbid). Did this generous and “enemy lover” Christian had any qualm to use such lowly adjectives (!?), now that he is complaining.

I, personally, do not think that “Christolator” is abuse rather it is a title for those who worship Christ.Having said that Islam does not teach to abuse and therefore I apologize if you think that I have abused.

His further fuss:

“Moreover, Anonymous also goes out of his way to speak of the blessed apostle Paul as a “false prophet”, giving the most limpid argument for this, as we will see, but what would a Muslim reply be if it didn’t include a “mordant remark” and attack on the apostle Paul?”

I do not think that this complaint stands any chance because “false prophet” is and should not be an offensive title for the Christians at least since it is a biblical title. The Bible asks its readers to check for people who are false (prophets). I only scanned Paul to come to a biblical conclusion that he was a false prophet. Here are the verses which speak of “false prophet” and ask people (in some of them) to catch hold of them (I did only that):

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1, King James (1161) Bible)

“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1, King James (1161) Bible)

Whether my analysis of Paul being incorrect or bona fide is different all together; it is debatable if wished. However, no Christian should make it an issue to claim that I abused Paul as “false prophet” because, as already adduced, it is a biblical title and my analysis concludes me towards the same; so, if “false prophet” is an abuse then the Bible needs to be reconsidered yet again as it gives all authority to entitle this infamous title to the deserving.

His Qur’an Assessment

In an attempt to desist truth seekers from the “Word of God” the evangelist provides a very biased and parochial rationale:

“After all, not only is the Qur’an filled with assertions that contradict and impugn the Bible’s teaching about the true God, even using words that are hardly calculated to make Christians feel warm and fuzzy all over,…” (QM: Therefore Qur’an should not be read)

According to Rogers then because the Qur’an impugns Bible’s teachings therefore it should not be read. In reality this is one of many reasons why the Qur’an should be read. THE QUR’AN SHOULD BE READ BECAUSE IT IMPUGNS BIBLE. The Qur’an came as yardstick to judge between the right and the wrong. For instance when the authors of Bible ignorantly and maliciously incriminates idol worship to prophet Solomon, peace be upon him, The Qur’an extricates him by exalting him to his appropriate status:

“We gave (in the past) knowledge to David and Solomon: and they both said: “Praise be to Allah Who has favored us above many of His servants who believe!”(Y.Ali, Qur’an 27:15, Al-Alim CD ROM version)

Then I remembered the statement of Prophet Solomon,…” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Hadith 301, Al-Alim CDROM version)

Although it is far-fetched and outright blasphemous to impute Idol worship to a prophet of the caliber of Solomon, peace be upon him, yet the authors of Bible denigrate son of David, peace be upon them, of the most horrible sin a righteous can ever commit, let alone a prophet.

1 Kings 11:

11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, THAT HIS WIVES TURNED AWAY HIS HEART AFTER OTHER gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.

11:5 For Solomon  WENT AFTER ASHTORETH THE GODDESS OF THE ZIDONIANS, AND AFTER MILCOM THE ABOMINATION OF THE AMMONITES

11:6 And Solomon DID EVIL in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.

11:7 Then did Solomon BUILD AN HIGH PLACE FOR CHEMOSH, THE ABOMINATION OF MOAB, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, AND FOR MOLECH, the abomination of the children of Ammon.

11:8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.(King James (1611) Bible).

Truth has to impugn false. I do not see any point to be fussed. Qur’an was not revealed to pander to blasphemous beliefs which most Christians have. Subsequently, it would not use words reading which Christians might bask on sea beaches or “feel warm and fuzzy all over”.

To increase the count of his disgusting arguments he gave a ludicrous reason why the Qur’an should not be read. According to him because the Qur’an is also filled with “filthy invectives” towards Mohammad, peace be upon him, so it should not be read. In other words his article should be read even if it contains abuses. By such reasoning he thought he would lend support against my argument of discouraging readers from his article as his article is filled with “filthy invectives”. Let us then analyze this claim. This is what he exactly wrote:

“it is also filled with “mordant remarks” and “filthy invectives” directed at Muhammad by his non-Muslim contemporaries (calling him: a possessed madman, S. 15:6, 23:70, 34:08, 34:46, 37:36, 44:14, 68:2, 51; a tale-bearer and liar, S. 6:25, 8:31, 16:24, 23:83, 25:05, 27:68, 46:17, 68:15; 83:13; a forger and fabricator, S. 10:38, 11:13, 35, 16:101, 25:04, 32:3, 34:08, 43, 42:24, 46:08, 52:33; a innovator, S. 46:09; a confused dreamer, S. 21:05; and a magiciansorcerer, and oneenchanted, S. 34:43, 38:4; etc.). If Mr. Anonymous’ principle means that my article must be relegated to the dust bin of history never to be read again, then the same goes for the Qur’an, and this is a price I would be none too pleased to pay.”

Such an argumentation elicits the comprehension problem which Rogers had while reading my statement, “I would discourage readers to read his article rigged with mordant remarks and filthy invectives on Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him.” There are a number of ways to prove it.

Firstly, little that Rogers realized the difference between attacking and abusing on one hand and defending and quoting on the other!

When Rogers blasphemed, “… Allah as an idol and to Muhammad as a worthless prophet.” He attacked and abused both Allah-The God and Mohammad-The prophet (peace be upon him), however, the verses that he adduced Allah quotes the scathing remarks made by the unbelievers and in the very immediate context of all verses reveals a verse to exonerate Mohammad, peace be upon him, of such a charge, Or do they say “He fabricated the (Message)”? NAY THEY HAVE NO FAITH!” May I ask if the case of Qur’an the same as that of Rogers’s “article”, if not, then Rogers is comparing Apples with Oranges.

Another point to be noted here is that Allah-The God Almighty, The Author of Qur’an is not abusing Mohammad, peace be upon him, on the contrary, he is defending him (peace be upon him). Nevertheless, Anthony Rogers the author of his article abused (Allah and) Mohammad and did not defend them. This is yet another reason why I say Rogers erroneously compared Apples with Oranges.

Thirdly, I thank Mr. Anthony Rogers for citing the above verses (in his argument) because this provides me all the more reasons why I must read Qur’an. I should read it to know what “THEY”- The disbelievers (and not the Author of the Qur’an) had to say about Mohammad, peace be upon him, and how Allah vindicated the innocent, peace be upon him. Even more so, when the abuse hurled on Allah and Mohammad (peace be upon him) tantamount to the charges on Mary and Jesus by the Jews, fragments of which are still extant in the “Talmud” (peace be upon Jesus and may Allah be pleased with Mary).

The Talmud still abuses Jesus and his mother, subsequently, even worst. It would be a sin even to think of the accusations which the Talmud imputes on Mary and her alleged relation with a Roman soldier (God forbid), nevertheless, the Qur’an expunges all such lies and exalts Mary and Jesus to their appropriate position:

Kindly realize and compare the vicious taunt of the notorious Jews on innocent Mary (may Allah be pleased with her) against her vindication by Allah-Almighty Himself.

Qur’an 19:27-28:

“At length she brought the (babe) to her people carrying him (in her arms). They said: “O Mary!truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!  “O sister of Aaron! thy father was not a man of evil nor thy mother a woman UNCHASTE!””

Contrast the above verse against:

Qur’an 21.91:

AND (REMEMBER) HER WHO GUARDED HER CHASTITY: We breathed into her of Our Spirit and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples.

AND

Qur’an 3.42:

“Behold! the angels said: “O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee; chosen thee above the women of all nations.”

It is of paramount importance then to read the Qur’an all the more because after informing of the allegations of the disbelievers (like pagans in the case of Mohammad (peace be upon him) and Jews in the case of Mary (may Allah be pleased with her), in the verses adduced) the Qur’an exculpates the sinless beyond all “filthy invectives”.

Thus, Anthony’s argument that Qur’an should not be read as it ALSO contains “filthy invectives” only back fired on him; as we have proved that it creates one of the fundamental grounds why Qur’an SHOULD be read.

No conjectures in Qur’an for it is different from Bible

Catching at whatever he could, Anthony Rogers made a futile attempt to find conjectures in Qur’an  4:171.

“First, this portion of Surah 4:171 calls Jesus “the Messiah”, but the meaning of this title is nowhere explained in the Qur’an. The word and concept comes from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and so without looking to them to explain the meaning of this title, one is left with nothing but conjecture and doubt.”

The boastful claims made in the above passage should not be avoided and therefore let us analyze each claim in it separately.

  • First, this portion of Surah 4:171 calls Jesus “the Messiah”, but the meaning of this title is nowhere explained in the Qur’an.”

The problem with above claim is that Anthony Rogers is trying to dictate Qur’an on his (Christian) terms to the God-Almighty. He forgot that Qur’an is not a Book revealed to pander to Christian instincts, since:

Firstly, if Qur’an does not explain the title Messiah as the Christian thinks then there must be some wisdom behind it. Why Anthony forgets that there is a possibility that the audience already knew the import of the word “Messiah”. Can he provide us any proof which would establish that the audience did not knew the term (Messiah) and it’s meaning. Thus to say the least, it was a hollow argument presented as we further shred it.

Secondly, it is evident from the above remark that my ‘learned’ opponent does not know that Qur’ans commentary is Hadith which he did not research before making this hasty comment. We would expose this and the next remark collectively.

  • The word and concept comes from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and so without looking to them to explain the meaning of this title, one is left with nothing but conjecture and doubt.”

I am afraid that any learned Arab Christian apologist would ever make such a foolhardy comment because the Muslims not only fully understood the especial title “Messiah” but also used its root, i.e. “Masaha” in their daily life!

“Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu’minin

The woman having bleeding after delivery (puerperal haemorrhage) would refrain (from prayer) for forty days or forty nights; and we would ANOINT our faces with an aromatic herb called wars to remove dark spots.” (Sunan of Abu-Dawood, Hadith No. 140, Al-Alim CD ROM version)

“…Malik said, “A woman whose husband has died should ANOINT her eyes with olive oil and sesame oil and the like of that since there is no perfume in it…” (Al-Muwatta Hadith, Volume 29, Hadith 107, Al-Alim CD ROM version)

“Narrated AbuUsayd al-Ansari: Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “Eat olive oil and ANOINT yourselves with it, for it comes from a blessed tree.” (Al-Tirmidhi Hadith, Hadith 1122, Al-Alim CD ROM version)

What is to be noted in all the above Hadith literature is the word “Anoint”. “Anoint” is the translation of the Arabic word “Masaha” which is the root of “Masih” or the “Messiah”. “Masaha” means to rub. So in no sense does the word “Messiah” or “TheANOINTed one” comes from Jewish and Christian scriptures rather it was popular among the Arabs as well. They fully understood the especial title to Jesus, peace be upon him.

[Side remark: Even to this day Muslims practice the word “Masaha” at least five times a day during their ablution!]

Name Game

He attacked: “Second, though translated Jesus, the Arabic text calls Him ‘Isa, which is not correct. The name Yeshua in Hebrew yields Yasou’ in Arabic. Muhammad, possibly mistaking a Jewish slur for Jesus as ‘Esau,’ falsely conjectured that ‘Isa was/is Jesus’ real name. (For more on this, see: “Is ‘Isa the True Name of Jesus?”)”

In the first place let me request Anthony Rogers to provide me that in which Arabic dialect does “Yeshua in Hebrew yields Yasou’ in Arabic”.

Secondly, the name of Maryam’s son was Isa (peace be upon him) as is proven at“Jesus” – Remembering his true name. Ironically the learned men amongst Christians are confused whether to call their god as Yeshua or Jesus! (peace be upon Jesus the prophet):

Start with Yeshua. That’s his name, NOT ‘JESUS.’ It’s what his father andmother and his brothers and sisters called him and it’s how his followers knew him. Probably the name was pronounced in the rough regional dialectr of Galilee as ‘Yeshu’… (Akenson, 2000, p. 57).”

Christians are still not stable with the name of the false deity they worship! While slandering others of conjectures! No surprise eminent scholars are to this date debating for his real name. They are still grappling for a clue that who changed his name and why? So that they may find an answer to their question: Was His Name Really Jesus?

What does Christian Apologists know about Qur’an?

When Evangandists try to transmute into Sheikhs they only expose their ignorance of Islamic theology which can yet be proved through the remark which Rogers made:

Third, the all important words “no more than” do not even appear in the Arabic text of this verse; they are inserted into the English text to make it say what certain Muslims think it should say; in other words, these words are “no more than” conjecture. Consider how some other translations render the verse:

 “The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD” – Khalifah

“Verily Christ Jesus the son of Mary [is] the apostle of God” – Sale

And so, as far as this verse goes, there is a great deal of conjecture, and if we drop the added words, there is nothing that is said here about Jesus, apart from the fact that it gets His name wrong, that Christians would not agree with: “The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of God.”  Of course Christians would point out that this is not all that can be said of Jesus, and they might just as well point out in this connection that the Qur’an also says more about Him, even in this very passage, where Jesus is also called the “Word” of God and a “Spirit proceeding from Him”.

Let us analyze this remark part by part so that we do justice to his ‘intellectual’ remarks.We would first analyze the first piece of argument in the above cited remark which is:

Third, the all important words “no more than” do not even appear in the Arabic text of this verse; they are inserted into the English text to make it say what certain Muslims think it should say; in other words, these words are “no more than” conjecture. Consider how some other translations render the verse:

 “The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD” – Khalifah

“Verily Christ Jesus the son of Mary [is] the apostle of God” – Sale…”

I wondered how a denizen of Nevada who is hardly expected to know Arabic, though not necessarily, make statement such as above which needs knowledge of Arabic. So ‘hats off to Anthony Rogers for his profound knowledge of Arabic’, however, wait a little while when we will take his hat off for the same reason and for the same argument, God willing.

Anthony is absolutely right that the phrase “no more than” does not appear in the Arabic text of Qur’an 4:171, however, the ignorant and embarrassing error which he committed when he remarked that the phrase “no more than” is a conjecture in Qur’an. I say he committed an embarrassing error because he himself provided the answer for it thereby making my task of refuting his ignorance even easier.

Kindly peruse very carefully what he himself claimed. He wrote, “…they are inserted into the English text…”My point is that he readily confers that the phrase “no more than” is not a part of Qur’an 4:171 (he prepares the next part of his remark basing on this particular fact that “no more than” is not a part of Qur’an; which I will undo soon.) which subsequently back fires against his argument because it is not a part of Qur’an; in other words if the phrase “no more than” is not a part of Qur’an(as it is “inserted into the English text”) then it does not build conjecture in Qur’an and thus, Qur’an is not part of conjecture. To escape this critique Anthony Rogers should provide us how can he remark Qur’anic text to be conjectured for something which is not a Qur’anic text (!) but only “inserted… English text”.

A particular translator of Qur’an “inserted (it) into the English text”. So, if at all there is conjecture (which is not; I will soon rebut it) it has to be in the part of the translator not Qur’an.

As if this was not enough; to worsen his case he cited two other renderings:

“The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD” – Khalifah

“Verily Christ Jesus the son of Mary [is] the apostle of God” – Sale…”

He made my point stronger because the phrase “no more than” as seen perspicuously above is not a part of Qur’an. Again, if “no more than” is not a part of Qur’an then no one can claim that the phrase “no more than” constitutes conjecture in Qur’an.

(Side remark: It is very important for Muslims to know that Khalifah, actually Rashad Khalifah, whose rendering was adduced by my opponent, was an imposter – a kaafir. He claimed prophet hood. And as for Sale, actually, George Sale, he is a whole sale Islam antagonist. Muslims are therefore advised to be careful of such people and their Qur’an translations.)

So much for the first part of his comment, now let us turn to the next part of his remark:

Third, the all important words “no more than” do not even appear in the Arabic text of this verse; they are inserted into the English text to make it say what certain Muslims think it should say; in other words, these words are “no more than” conjecture…And so, as far as this verse goes, there is a great deal of conjecture,and if we drop the added words, there is nothing that is said here about Jesus, apart from the fact that it gets His name wrong, that Christians would not agree with…”

Anthony Rogers is scratching his head again to show Muslims that it is incorrect that Jesus (peace be upon him) was “no more than” a prophet of Allah; according to his knowledge of Qur’an these are added words (and so he asks us to drop it), addedto remove so called conjectures. So we produce a verse exclusively for Anthony Rogers which is NOT ADDED.

Qur’an 5.75:

“Christ the son of Mary WAS NO MORE THAN AN APOSTLE; many were the Apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth makes His Signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!”(Y.Ali)

“Christ, the son of Maryam, WAS NO MORE THAN A RASOOL; many Rasools had already passed away before him. His mother was a truthful woman; they both ate earthly food like other human beings. See how the Revelations are made clear to them to know reality; yet see how they ignore the truth! (Malik)

“The Messiah, son of Mary, WAS NO MORE THAN A MESSENGER, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how we make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!” (Pickthall)

“The Christ, son of Mary, WAS BUT AN APOSTLE: all [other] apostles had passed away before him; and his mother was one who never deviated from the truth; and they both ate food [like other mortals]. Behold how clear We make these messages unto them: and then behold how perverted are their minds!”(Asad)

After a full exposure of Anthony’s ignorance of Qur’an and Islam could I request him to “add” and “insert” the above verse in his knowledge bank.

If Qur’anic description of Jesus, peace be upon him, as “only Apostle” or “no more than a messenger” goes unpalatable with Christians who somehow try to thrust his (peace be upon him) over exaltation down Muslim throats then the verses produced below should turn out to be downright denigrating to such Christians:

Qur’an 43:59:

HE WAS NO MORE THAN A SERVANT: We granted Our favor to him and We made him an example to the Children of Israel.” (Y.Ali)

HE (JESUS) WAS NO MORE THAN A MORTAL whom We favored and made an example to the children of Israel.” (Malik)

HE IS NOTHING BUT A SLAVE on whom We bestowed favor, and We made him a pattern for the Children of Israel.” (Pickthall)

“[As for Jesus,] HE WAS NOTHING BUT [A HUMAN BEING -] A SERVANT [OF OURS] whom We had graced [with prophet hood,] and whom We made an example for the children of Israel. (Asad)

No wonder why Christian apologists remark Qur’an to be “denigrating” in the description of Jesus (peace be upon him) because the personality they worship and prostrate and bow down to is, in reality, under subservience to Someone else.

Moving yet further with his claims of conjectures in Qur’an, Rogers claimed that Qur’an calls Jesus (peace be upon him) more than just messenger of Allah. Qur’an also calls him “Word” from God and a “Spirit proceeding from Him” and therefore a conjecture in Qur’an. That being the case let us analyze his claim but first let us read what he exactly has to say:

“The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of God.”  Of course Christians would point out that this is not all that can be said of Jesus, and they might just as well point out in this connection that the Qur’an also says more about Him, even in this very passage, where Jesus is also called the “Word” of God and a “Spirit proceeding from Him”.

Before attacking the integrity of Qur’an it should explain as to how Qur’an referring Jesus, peace be upon him, as “Word”from God and a “Spirit proceeding from Him”make him more than just messenger of Allah?

I request him to explain us why can not a mortal who is “only messenger of Allah” be a “word” and “spirit proceeding from Him”. Why do you have to be more than “only messenger of Allah” to be Word and Spirit proceeding from Him.

The interpretational fallacy committed by my opponent is that he tried to blend biblical interpretations (and I say “interpretations” not biblical verses themselves) with Qur’anic truths. The proofs of such absurd blend of two can be found later as well as we further analyze his remarks.

It is the Doctors of Divinity who misunderstand that a “Word” and a “Spirit proceeding from Him” cannot be “only a messenger of Allah” so that they might deify Jesus, peace be upon him. Nevertheless in Islam and Qur’an there is absolutely no conjecture in Jesus (peace be upon him) being “only messenger of Allah” and“word” and “spirit proceeding from Him”.

So much with the so called conjectures in Qur’an 4:171. Not content with it and through years of biblical conjectural influences Rogers thought that there is conjecture in Qur’an3:59 as well! That being the claim let us analyze this boast as well.

Before moving further let us first re-produce Qur’an 3:59.

“This similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam: He created him from dust then said to him: “Be” and he was.”

According this ‘profound exegete’ of Qur’an, Surah 3:59 builds conjecture in Qur’an because:

“… since the Qur’an never tells us why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiatlike Adam, Muslims are only able to cast about for one conjecture or another in their efforts to explain it.”  

As is pellucid, if not, then I will prove that Rogers miscalculates the thrust of Qur’an 3:59 towards Church teachings and podium banging sermons of the Evangandists. The thrust of the verse if not towards what Rogers assumes to be. Nevertheless, before that let us pander to Anthony Rogers question:

Who says that Qur’an does not explain “why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat”. The above adduced question posed to us only demonstrates the shallow knowledge Qur’an because Qur’an DOES explicitly explains “why Jesus uniquely entered (sent) into the world by God’s fiat”.

According to my understanding of Qur’an, Jesus “entered” (was sent) uniquely into this world because he was to guide a recalcitrant Israeli community, furthermore, he entered “uniquely” so that he could become a sign or a miracle for the Israelis he was to minister:

And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel (with this message): I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I make for you out of clay as it were the figure of a bird and breathe into it and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave; and I heal those born blind and the lepers and I quicken the dead by Allah’s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe.” (Qur’an 3:49, Y.Ali, Al- Alim CD ROM version)

But natural if Jesus, peace be upon him, has to minister a community he has to “enter” (sent) the world.

AND

And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground affording rest and security and furnished with springs.” (Qur’an 23.50, Y. Ali, Al-Alim CD ROM version)

OR

“He said: “So (it will be): thy Lord saith `That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a SIGN unto men and a Mercy from Us’: it is a matter (so) decreed.”(Qur’an 19:21, Y.Ali, Al-Alim CD ROM version)

However this only answers “why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat” it does not explain why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat like Adam (peace be upon him). Nevertheless we would (inshallah) deal with this part of the absurd enquiry below.

Now that we have answered his question let us analyze was he correct to demand such a question(!) since the thrust of the verse was not towards informing (us) why Jesus “entered uniquely” into the world!

Here is what he wrote:

“As for this verse, we likewise find more room for conjecture.

To begin with, we may ask: Why was Jesus created after the similitude of Adam? It is evident why Adam was created in a special way, for there was no one else for him to be born to. Hence, Adam couldn’t come into existence through the normal process of procreation, but had to be directly created through God’s word ‘Be’. We also know why Christians believe Jesus came into the world through a specialcreative act of God; specifically, because Jesus, as the Word and Son of the Father, already existed, unlike all other descendants of Adam who are personally and spiritually brought into existence along with their bodies, and so the Holy Spirit, by-passing all human agency, created a body for Jesus in the womb of Mary, enabling the Word to become flesh and dwell among us. Furthermore, Christians believe that Jesus came into the world as a second Adam, in order to redeem Adam’s fallen children. Hence, through the virgin birth, the special creative activity of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was sanctified from conception, setting Him apart from all sin and impurity, thus qualifying Him to be an unblemished sacrifice, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. All of this is the Christian answer, but since the Qur’an never tells us why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat, like Adam, Muslims are only able to cast about for one conjecture or another in their efforts to explain it.”

As can be seen the ‘great Qur’an Exegete’ has based his arguments (to show conjecture in Qur’an 3:59) on:

  • Firstly,  “because Jesus, as the Word and Son of the Father, already existed, unlike all other descendants of Adam who are personally and spiritually brought into existence along with their bodies, and so the Holy Spirit, by-passing all human agency, created a body for Jesus in the womb of Mary, enabling the Word to become flesh and dwell among us.”.

In other words because Jesus (peace be upon him) “already existed” with the Father so the Holy Spirit had to by-pass all human agency to create a body for Jesus in the womb of Mary thereby providing a similitude between Jesus and Adam.

  • Secondly, “that Jesus came into the world as a second Adam, in order to redeem Adam’s fallen children. Hence, through the virgin birth, the special creative activity of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was sanctified from conception,… but since the Qur’an never tells us why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat, like Adam, Muslims are only able to cast about for one conjecture or another in their efforts to explain it.”

Here also he thinks that Jesus came into this world in a special way (and therefore Jesus’s similitude to Adam) as a “second Adam” to “redeem Adam’s fallen children”.

The argumentative fallacy in the above two arguments is the basic assumption of “Pre existence” (“already existed”) and “Original sin” (“Adam’s fallen children”)to tantamount to Islamic theology. Both these (mis)concepts have got nothing to do in Islam. Thus at best they can only be said as: “All of this is the Christian answer…”

Now for the all important enquiry of Qur’an allegedly not inform us why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat LIKE ADAM.

Why should Qur’an pander to your enquiry of “WHY Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat” when Qur’an 3:59 is not the verse to explain “WHY Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat”.

When Allah-Almighty says that the similitude of Jesus is that of Adam, he compares the status of Jesus and Adam. As Adam was a creational feat of Allah-Almighty so was Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them. As Allah-Almighty willed and Adam was created so was the case of Jesus -the mortal, peace be upon them. For me this verse (Qur’an 3:59) constitutes a proof text which repudiates the fallacy of those who worship a “hungry”, “sweating”, “bleeding”, “answering nature’s call”, “procreated by his mother in the same way as others are delivered with mother suffering the pangs of baby delivery” man.

Allah explains that Jesus is as non entity as Adam when seen from His creational feat and on the same reasoning Jesus is as (only) dignified as Adam when seen from the perspective of him (Jesus) being one of the beloved prophets of Allah. For Allah to create a thousand Jesus would be as simple as wishing “Be” and a thousand such Jesus would be created.

Now I do not think that anybody would cling to the wrong notion (unless biased) that Qur’an 3:59 thrusts towards explaining why Jesus entered into this world uniquely,that being the case, Anthony Rogers has no case of conjecture against Qur’an 3:59. As I already illustrated that Qur’an 3:59 was a verse to compare the status of Adam and Jesus in the sight of Allah. Both were Allah’s creational feats. Both were created by the will of Allah through the command “BE”. Allah created Adam (peace be upon him) without a father or a mother SIMILARLY Allah created Jesus (peace be upon him) without a mother:

“Allah then explained the creation of Jesus without a father because the delegation of Najran asked the Prophet to provide proof from the Qur’an for his saying that Jesus was not the son of Allah, so Allah said: (Lo! the likeness of Jesus) the likeness of the creation of Jesus (with Allah) without a father (is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust) without a father or mother, (then He said unto him) to Jesus: (Be! and he is) a son without a father.” (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas)

AND

Truly, the likeness of Jesus, his remarkable case, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness, as the case of Adam, whom God created without father or mother: this is a comparison of one remarkable thing with another more remarkable, so that it convinces the disputer and establishes itself in one’s mind more effectively. He created him, Adam, that is, his form, of dust, then said He to him, ‘Be,’, a human being, and he was; SIMILARLY, He said to Jesus, ‘Be’ — without a father — and he was. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

And now I say that there would be just no room for conjecture if one just knew what is called “Asbab-al-Nuzul” or the science of revelation of verses. Anthony Rogers would not have ignorantly attacked Qur’an through Qur’an3:59 for not providing an explanation as to, “why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat” had he researched the reason why this particular verse was revealed:

“(Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam…) [3:59]. The commentators of the Qur’an said: “The delegation of Najran said to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace: ‘Why do you insult Jesus?’ He said: ‘What did I say about him?’ They said: ‘You say that he is a servant’. He said: ‘Indeed, he is the servant and messenger of Allah, as well as His word which He cast into the Virgin Mary’. They became angry and said: ‘Have you ever seen a human being who was born without a father? If you are truthful, show us such a person’. And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Harithi informed us> ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Ja’far> Sahl Abu Yahya al-Razi> Sahl ibn ‘Uthman> Yahya> Waki’> Mubarak> al-Hasan who said: “Two monks from Najran came to see the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, and he invited them to surrender to Allah. One of them said: ‘We have surrendered to Allah before you’. He said: ‘You lie! Three things prevent you from surrendering to Allah: your worship of the cross, eating pork and your claim that Allah has a son’. They said: ‘Then who is the father of Jesus?’ The Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, was not in the habit of giving hasty answers but waited for Allah’s answer instead. Then Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse (Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam…)”. (Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi)

The classical Tafsirs make it absolutely clear that the reason and service of Qur’an 3:59 was to elucidate humanity that the likeness or similitude of Jesus is to that of Adam; for Adam was a creational feat of Allah, without any progenitor, and so was Jesus, a creational miracle of Allah, a creation without a male counterpart. (Peace be upon Adam and Jesus)

So then where is the question and enquiry of Qur’an 3:59 not explaining “why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat” and where is the conjecture?

(Side remark: I do not know of any main stream commentator who has deciphered Qur’an 3:59 to mean Jesus’ unique entry to this world!

Another point to be noticed is Rogers’s remark “…creative act of God…” This is one point which Islam has been trying to convey for the past 1400 years now. Jesus is a “creation of God”, very much unlike the Nicene creed of “BEGOTTEN NOT MADE” theory, thus, he cannot be God. Stop associating partners to God-Almighty.)

Plagiarization Plague

It is a common disease amongst missionaries and evangandists that they thinkMohammad, peace be upon him, did not receive revelations from Allah-The God of Jesus. In order to prove the missionaries “dance from pillars to post” on certain occasions picking the straw man Satanic Verses (12) and on other claiming that he, peace be upon him, copied it from the Jews:

“It is well known, except perhaps to Mr. Anonymous, that much of what Muhammad heard came neither directly from God nor from the Scriptures, the authentic books handed down from the prophets, but from books that the Jewish people wrote with their own hands, such as the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Midrashim, and the Targums.”

  • Firstly, Rogers should explain us why Mohammad, peace be upon him, allegedly copied “Be and it was” phrase from Jewish writings and left out on the abuses of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 106a, Sanhedrin 43a, Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a, Shabbos 104b, Gittin 57a) against Jesus, peace be upon him. What made him leave the filth against Jesus when one, after six hundred years of Jesus’ ascension, could only think of his illegitimacy except by faith! and True revelations. (I would again discourage my readers not to refer to the Talmud references I gave. They are downright dirty and offensive.).

Not only this, why did Mohammad, peace be upon him, in Qur’an goes out of his way as an Arab, to praise a Jew and his mother-a Jewess, when the Jewish literature around him (which is allegedly his source of Qur’an) coupled with the anomalous nature of Jesus’ birth, which could only be believed through faith, was abusing and attacking the integrity of both the innocent mother and her righteous son (Peace be upon Jesus and May Allah be pleased with Mary)?

  • Secondly, what is noticeable that Anthony Rogers has not provided any support with regards to his plagiarization boast. He should establish that the phrase was indeed copied from Jewish literatures.

The might son of Man

As if Rogers got a chance to bully me, he made yet another attack on Qur’an for me using the phrase “Son of Man”:

“my unknown Muslim assailant even refers to Jesus as “this mighty ‘Son of Man,’” another title that is lifted from the Bible”

Although, this title of “Son of Man” is frequently used in Bible, however, it is good that he picked up this issue because it has Islamic implications as well!

Neither did I frivolously used the phrase “Son of Man” nor is it correct to say that “… we have to turn to the Scriptures in order to understand the meaning of this phrase; otherwise we are left with nothing but “clouds of conjectures”. There is no room for conjectures in Qur’an no matter how hard one tries to criticize it. As a matter of fact Qur’an welcomes criticism (Qur’an 4:82).

So then when I used the phrase “Son of Man” I tried to emphasize its Islamic import- that is, it’s true meaning that Jesus is just a son of a human being or son of a MAN. He is a man born of a man-a human being, namely, Mary (May Allah be pleased with her). The point that Jesus is a son of man immediately refutes the claims of his deity imputed on him, furthermore, it pulls down the extra elevated status of Jesus, peace be upon him, to its actual status of a mere prophet certainly obviating the claims that Jesus’ is Son of God in a capitalized sense.

No wonder The Holy Qur’an emphasizes this point of Jesus (peace be upon him) being son of a man (and therefore not God) almost every time alluding to him! On (yet) another occasions Qur’an has simply referred to Jesus (peace be upon him) without even specifying his name but only the title that he is a son of man!nevertheless, the Qur’an puts it in its own style, i.e. “son of Mary”:

“They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; Yet they were commanded to worship but one Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to him: (far is He) from having the parents they associate (with him).” (Qur’an 9:31)

 “And remember Jesus the son of Mary said: “O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad Tidings of an Apostle to come after me whose name shall be Ahmad.” But when he came to them with Clear Signs they said “This is evident sorcery!” (Qur’an 61:6)

“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah if His Will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary his mother and all everyone that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things.” (Qur’an 5:17)

AND

“And when the son of Mary is quoted as an example, behold! the folk laugh out,”(Qur’an 43:57)

Besides many other  verses such as 61:14, 57:27, 5:78, 5:75, 5:72, 5:46, 5:110, 112, 114, 116, 4:171, 4:157 etc.

If thought from the point that why has Allah oft repeated the title “son of Mary” every time referring to Jesus then one would easily come to a conclusion that Allah Almighty wanted to stress on the fact (especially for the Christians) that Jesus is son of a human being, he is son of a mere mortal not the son of immortal therefore it is illogical to consider him divine and worship him (peace be upon Jesus). Therefore, there is just no conjecture in Qur’an if I used the phrase “son of Man” for Jesus, peace be upon him. And by the way I do not have to turn to so called “Holy Scriptures” to dispel my conjectures as the same ‘holy scriptures’ also contain ‘holy’stories of prophet Lot, prophet Solomon etc and etc.

Apostle to come after me

Under the sub heading “Confirming What Came Before In the Law and the Gospel” he has written various things, things which is irrelevant for a reply, however, he made a claim regarding Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) prophecy in the Tawraat and the Injeel:

“If what my anonymous acquaintance said above were true, then he wouldn’t be able to claim that the Bible contains predictions for Muhammad, not in Deuteronomy 18, not in John 16, not anywhere, contrary to the Qur’an, various Hadith, and the uniform example of Muslim scholars and dawagandists.”

I adjure readers to assiduously take note of the phrase “… contrary to the Qur’an, various Hadith”. Whenever Muslims appeal to the Christians that Mohammad (peace be upon him) was prophesized in their Scriptures they (Christians) mistake that Qur’an (61:6), Hadith and Muslims are appealing to the so called Old and New Testament from the custodians of the so thumped King James Version and the New International Version and the Charismatic Version and on and on! Such a presumption is of course false.

When Qur’an appeals that Mohammad, peace be upon him, was prophesized it simply means that he was prophesized by Jesus, peace be upon him through the original revelation given to him not to the so fabricated New Testament which came into existence centuries after his heavenly ascension. Christians like Anthony Rogers should take note that Muslims can no more be fooled in to messing New Testament with Injeel – The revelation to PROPHET Jesus, peace be upon him.

I can appeal to the Old and New Testament discrediting their authority as the revelation of Moses and Jesus, respectively.  I may find something in these books which might be compatible with Qur’anic teachings. But even then I cannot confirm for sure that those verses of Old and New Testament are literal reveled verses. For more on this topic kindly refer OT, NT and MUSLIMS.

Furthermore, under the same sub heading he wrote that I made a “foolhardy” attempt to refute Christian apologist David Wood. That being the case, I would request Anthony to kindly inform his cohort in shirk (associating partners to Allah) David Wood of my “foolhardy” attempt against him so that he could dig my grave, a step further, I would request all to read my “foolhardy” attempt at Deuteronomy Dissection and check for themselves who actually made “foolhardy” attempt. In addition, readers should also observe the exchange of polemics between my brothers Bassam ZawadiNadir Ahmad etc against David Wood.

Christian way of ascribing partners to Allah

Inflamed with my assertion of Christians ascribing partners to Allah and therefore polytheists Anthony Rogers hits back by stating that I did not try to prove my “scurrilous” charge: “not only does he not try to prove this scurrilous accusation in his response,…”

Do I need to prove that Christians (majority) worship Jesus (peace be upon him) as God-Almighty (God forbid) ironically contradicting themselves because Jesus was indeed “creative act of God”.

Furthermore, because he had to respond back at me and slur Muslims of polytheism so he picked up some bizarre links for us. Now because he has seen only one side of the coin or maybe he is wittingly frowning away from the other side, we give him the other perspective of the coin as well. Let a sincere analyzer then see both sides and decide for himself!

He started with the old propaganda of satanic verses and the “the high flying cranes” . One may also visit my paper  which reflects on certain issues of the same topic.  He just picked up everything he got including kissing of sacred stone which along with many other such baseless allegations has been disabused by BrotherBassam Zawadi at “Was he a pagan”?

I would encourage readers to peruse the following articles which respond many of the allegations of this genre:-

The Fatrah

Black Magic on prophet, peace be upon him.

http://islamlife.com/readarticle.php?article_id=7

http://islamlife.com/readarticle.php?article_id=8

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun on Qur’an’s many god and lords and the analysis of alleged deification of creatures within Islamic texts.

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun on Allah the only judge or not.

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun on oath making.

Conclusion

With these few words I look forward to Part Two (Three and Four). I would love to further refute the arguments which Anthony Rogers would be proposing in further installments. I could only do all of those by Allah’s and Allah’s help alone. May Allah’s Peace and Blessing be on all prophets.

Note: Emphasis wherever found is ours.

Share this:

Refutation: True Shahada Indeed

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Exposing lies, misconceptions & misunderstandings

regarding John 17:3 

Question Mark

Purpose


This paper will serve (Inshallah) as an utter debunk to the lies, misconceptions, misunderstandings and outright abuses which Anthony Roger tried to knit at: (http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/true_shahada.html). I would discourage readers to read his article rigged with mordant remarks and filthy invectives on Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him.

Prelude


His paper specifically tries to establish deity of Jesus, peace be upon him, through:
(i) A comparative study of John 17:3 with Islamic shahada
(ii) Flimsy attempts to refute Muslim arguments on John 17:3 through:
(a) “The conjoining of Father and Son”
(b) “Father and Son are Coordinate sources of Eternal life”
(c) “Contextually Relevant Considerations”
In the few passages to follow any unbiased reader would, Inshallah, witness truth. So, unbiased, I leave it at your objective perusal.

Our stand


In the house of Islam there are no clouds of conjectures and doubts hovering above the head of this mighty “Son of Man” named Jesus, peace be upon him. For we read in Quran:
“…Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) An apostle of God…” (THE HOLY QURAN 4:171)

AND
“The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”: And he was.” (THE HOLY QURAN 3:59)
But the Christolator says, NO – “Jesus is God” discrediting the Last Testament. So, we show to them from their so called ‘Word of God’. (Reader would soon read my upcoming article proving logically that Bible, as a whole cannot be an inspired word of God)

Left over proof text

At this point of time let me make it absolutely clear that when I witness Biblical verses to Christians I do so because they mistake it to be the Word of God. I do not. I do not consider Biblical verses, I use, to be any type of “Left over Islamic proof text.” As Anthony wrote:
“…many Muslims believe that John 17:3 is a left over Islamic proof-text found in otherwise corrupted book.” (Emphasis mine)
Our proof text is Quran – Quran is our “Alpha and Omega”; the final authority. We only use Biblical verse because it helps us extricate millions of Christians carrying heavy yokes of associating partners to God – Almighty; POLYTHEISM.


What is in the box

“And eternal life means knowing you, the only true God, and knowing Jesus Christ, whom you sent.” (HOLY BIBLE, JOHN 17:3, TEV)
Roger writes in his paper that Muslims use the aforementioned verse to prove two points:
“1) a Unitarian – Islamic version of monotheism.., The first claim is immediately undermined by the fact that the one whom Jesus calls “the only true God” is the Father (John 17:1-2)”

The Refutation


To begin with, Muslims do not try to prove “Unitarian – Islamic version of monotheism”. They but strive to prove “Tawheed”. There is a difference of chalk and cheese between the two. The difference between these two concepts are beyond the scope of this refutation.
Then, this witty fabrication of a misconception to score cheap points over Muslims can be debunked by the fact that Muslims do not abhor the word “Father” per say given the knowledge of Jewish parlance and vernacular, that is, the way the Israelites used the word “Father.” Consider these verses for instance:

“Do you thus deal with the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not yourFather, who bought you?” (THE OPEN BIBLE, DEUTERONOMY 32:6, NKJV). Emphasis mine.
“Doubtless You are out Father,..” (THE OPEN BIBLE, ISAIAH 63:16, NKJV). Emphasis mine.
“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?”(THE OPEN BIBLE, MALACHI 2:10, NKJV). Emphasis mine.

Conclusively then, the Jews never used the word “Father” with its literal import whenever referring to God. It was just a part of their living language that for some out of other reason they preferred calling God as “Father”. In this sense Muslims have no problems at all with the word – “Father”. However what a Muslim seriously repels is the LITERAL understanding and usage of this blasphemous word “Father” when used for ALLAH (John 3:16 abuses ALLAH with the same. Kindly read John 3:16 in conjunction with Quran 19:88). This kind of rendering is anathematized in Islam and we will continue to eschew it.
Furthermore, because many may not be acquainted with Jewish colloquism added with the problem of variations of connotations of words with generations; Muslims play safe not to use the word “Father” to refer to ALLAH. Anyway, it does not make sense for a Muslim to use a vulnerable word when 099 attributive names are readily available in Quran. Let us take an example to close this argument. Now – a – days people generally call Nature as “Mother Nature”. Now if, somebody, Anthony Roger in particular, starts to understand it literally (!) then, I think, he should immediately consult a psychologist.

He wrote that Muslims use John 17:3 to:
“and 2) a denial of the deity of Christ.” He argued in this fashion to defend deity of Christ:
“As for the second claim, that Jesus is not God, it rests on a logical fallacy. The reasoning goes something like this: The Father is the only true God, Jesus is not the Father; therefore, Jesus is not God. When stated more formally, the argument takes the following form : A is B; C is not A; therefore, C is not B.
Even someone untrained in logic should be able to immediately see that this is fallacious. It is no different than arguing the following: Plato (A) is mortal (B); Socrates(C) is not Plato (A); therefore, Socrates(C) is not mortal (B). Both argument – the one against Christ’s deity and the one against Socrates mortality – take the same form; hence, both are fallacious.”. (Emphasis mine.)

The Refutation

What the ‘trained Logician’ did was he used another construction of PLATO (A), MORTAL(B) AND SOCRATES (C) to logically break the construction and interpretation of FATHER (A), ONLY TRUE GOD(B), JESUS(C) as used in John 17:3. A meticulous perusal of the 2 constructions will undoubtedly establish that the 2 constructions does not “take the same form”. The first argument was mischievously tailored to look “no different” than the second.

Where is the catch

Let us arrange the above constructions one after the other:
“As for the second claim, that Jesus is not God, it rests on a logical fallacy. The reasoning goes something like this: The Father is the only true God, Jesus is not the Father; therefore, Jesus is not God. When stated more formally, the argument takes the following form : A is B; C is not A; therefore, C is not B.”
So, we have:
A(1) = The Father
B(1) = Only True God
C(1) = Jesus
AND:
“It is no different than arguing the following: Plato (A) is mortal (B); Socrates(C) is not Plato (A); therefore, Socrates(C) is not mortal (B).”
So, here we have:
A(2) = Plato
B(2) = Mortal
C(2) = Socrates

So, were you alert enough while reading the above 2 breakups and constructions, if not, then re – read breakup numbered B(1) and B(2). When once adjective “ONLY” was used in B(1) (as used in John 17:3); logic and sincerity then demanded Anthony Roger to be consistent with it in B(2). But the insincere Logician was inconsistent for he is a sincere Christolator.
Then, a ‘sincere’ Construction will be:
A(2) = Plato
B(2) = Only Mortal
C(2) = Socrates
In a sentence, subsequently, it would read:
“Plato(A(2)) is ONLY Mortal(B(2)); Socrates (C(2)) is not Plato(A(2)); therefore, Socrates is not Mortal(B(2).
Well now, the argument and logic of Plato and Socrates is holding good; if Plato is ONLY Mortal then Socrates cannot be Mortal. On the same lines if Father is ONLY true God then Jesus, peace be upon him, cannot be God – Almighty. Therefore, stop the blasphemy right here right now.

Roger admitted that Jesus is not God – Almighty

Next, he wrote that Muslim claim on John 17:3 would have held if the text would have read that only the Father is God. Here are his own confessions:
““Things would be different if the text said “only Father is God”, or “the Father alone is the only true God”, but it does not.”
Ironically, Anthony Roger has himself admitted that the only true God is Father (!). To prove it, all I would do is to re – produce for you his own words:
““…. The first claim is immediately undermined by the fact that the one whom Jesus calls “the only true God” is the Father (John 17:1-2)”

What say? Who is the ONLY TRUE GOD?, according to Bible, Muslim exegesis AND Anthony Roger’s own words – The Only True God is Father.

Now, that it has been established that the Only True God is Father and consequently Jesus, peace be upon him, is not God; I need not write a word any more to his childish ‘article’.
Nevertheless, let me further clean his misconceptions so that he may be extricated from the mire or “Shirk” – associating god to God – Almighty.
To prove the deity of Jesus, peace be upon him, he wrote under various sub – headings (I would deal with each of them, Inshallah). First of them were :
1. “The Conjoining of Father and Son”: Inside this sub – heading he adduced 2 Biblical verses to establish the impossible, namely, the divinity of Christ, peace be upon him. First of the 2 was:

A. “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:23)”

The Refutation
Well, there can be at least two fold refutations. They are as follows:-
A1. Biblical context of 1 John 2:23.
Kindly read the verse preceding 1 John 2:23, i.e., verse 22, to know that anybody denying the “Messiah ship” of Jesus, peace be upon him is to be considered as an enemy of Messiah (Christ), peace be upon him, “Who, then is the liar? It is anyone who says that Jesus is not the Messiah. Such a person is the enemy of Christ – he rejects both the Father and Son.”(TEV) Various points needs to be immediately noted here. Firstly, denying Messiah ship of Son is the rejection of Father. Secondly, why is the denial of Messiah ship of Son tantamount to gainsaying Father! Why? It is because it was God’s (Father) eternal plan to crown Jesus, peace be upon him, with the exclusive title of Messiah and to send him in the world. Remember Messiah (Jesus), peace be upon him, was send in this world by Father
“… I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent me” (John 5:30, NKJV)(Emphasis Added)
And again,
“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, “Now God’s salvation has come! Now God has shown his power as King! Now his Messiah has shown his authority!” (REVELATION 12:10)(Emphasis Mine)
Conclusively denying Jesus, peace be upon him, got to be denial of Father who dispatched Jesus, peace be upon him, on this earth. OR, if this is not the explanation for the combined denial of Father and Son, then, you would have to agree with me that Father was also Messiah!
B1. The Conjoining of Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him.
As we have just seen how ignorantly and misconceptually Anthony Roger had tried to conjoin Father and Son using 1 John 2:23 out of context. Similarly, I may ignorantly conjoin Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him, there by deifying Mohammad, peace be upon him. Let me (mis) use, The Holy Quran 4:80, which states:
“He who obey The Apostle, obeys God” (Emphasis Mine)
And,
“The desert Arabs say, “We believe.” Say, “Ye have no faith; but ye(only) say, ‘We have submitted Out wills to God, For not yet has Faith entered your hearts.’ But if ye obey God and His Apostle…” (The Holy Quran 49:14)(Emphasis Mine)
Now read this, have your ever heard a Muslim using the aforementioned Quranic verses to conjoin Mohammad, peace be upon him, and Allah. Obeying Apostle is obeying Allah not because Apostle is Allah but because the Apostle does nothing but what is commissioned to him by God – Almighty, similarly, rejecting Son is in effect rejecting Father because the Son, also, does not seek his will but the will of his Father who send him. Make sense?
He provided yet another Biblical verse to prove the deity of Christ , peace be upon him, under the same sub – heading, “The Conjoining of Father and Son”.
““…even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”(John 5:23)”
There can again be atleast 2 easy refutation for this gibberish argument, which are as follows:-
A2. ‘G’od was send by God: If read carefully then the author of John 5:23 conceded to end of verse with “…Father who sent Him.” So, Jesus, peace be upon him, was an ambassador, a chosen man. So, by disgracing Jesus – the sent man one would be discrediting the one who has sent Jesus, namely, Father! It does not prove that Father and Son are the same; but it does prove the contrary that Father and Son are not the same. Let me explain with one practicle day to day example. Suppose, George Bush (who does not know him!) has sent Condolezza Rice (now who does not know her) on a delegation to my country. And if suppose my countrymen and / or chieftains dishonor her; then it would certainly be an insult to George Bush himself. OR, agree insanely that Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice are one and the same. Will you dare to “conjoin” Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice!
B2. In this version of refutation let us read verse 22 along with verse 23:
“For the Father judges no one but has committed all judgement to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (JOHN 5:22-23, NKJV)
To paraphrase the above 2 verses, it says:
God has authorized (does someone “co-equal” needs an authorization!?!) or has commissioned Jesus, peace be upon him, with all judgments so that people may respect him for his lofty judgments – the judgments which he ultimately receives from God – Almighty. THEN, verse 23 comes and states that dishonoring Jesus, peace be upon him, is in turn dishonoring Father; Does this prove to be equal to God? Certainly, not in the remotest sense of it. But it does elicit the impotency of Jesus, peace be upon him, to take divine judgments.
Next to come in the support of Christ’s, peace be upon him, divinity was sub – heading No. 2, namely, Father and Son are coordinate Sources of Eternal life.
2. Father and Son are Coordinate Sources of Eternal Life

He wrote:
“The fact that eternal life consists in a saving knowledge of both the Father and the Son, not one without the other, also bespeaks the closest possible relation between them.”

My Explanation:
Muslims agree that there can be no salvation without Jesus, peace be upon him. One will have to recognize Jesus as well as other prophets along with him to achieve salvation; as is written in the Word of God:

“To those who believe in God and His Apostles and make no distinction between any of the apostles, We shall soon give their (due) rewards…”(The holy Quran 4:152)(Emphasis Mine)

“And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias All in the ranks of righteous.” (The Holy Quran 6:85)
Furthermore, if we analyze Quran then we would learn that there can be no salvation without Mohammad, peace be upon him. Similarly a denial of Mohammad, peace be upon him, would be headlong acceptance of hell-fire. Consider a couple of verse:

“Those are limits set by God: those who obey God and His Apostle will be admitted to Gardens with rivers flowing beneath, To abide therein (forever)And that will be the Supreme achievement. But those who disobey God and His Apostle And transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment.” (The Holy Quran 4:13-14)

Now, the pith of the argument is, Can I deify Mohammad, peace be upon him, just there is salvation is accepting him, peace be upon him, and doom in rejection? Can I, horrendously write a passage appelling “Allah and Mohammad are Coordinate Sources of Eternal Life!” Understand the status of each of these 2 ‘sources of eternal life ‘ and recognize the capacity in which they can provide you “Eternal Life”.

He named his last argument to prove the deity of Christ, peace be upon him, as:

3. Contextually Relevant Considerations

In the very first he wrote:
“Although the Muslim creed does not have a context to safeguard it from misinterpretation, Christ’s statement in John 17:3 is a part of larger context.”

Ironically, if HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN chapters of Quran does not build a context to natural and innate Shahada (Testification) then nothing does.

Then he argued that in John 17:3, if read in context proves deity of Christ, peace be upon him. So let us study the context of John 17:3.

“Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified You on earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world.”

Anthony Roger’s ‘visionary’ eyes saw three arguments in the “context” of John 17:3(Cited above) to support divinity of Christ, peace be upon him.

[i] Pre-existence:
He wrote, “And the context very clearly teaches that Christ pre-existed his incarnation…but he pre-existed from eternity…”

Easy Refutation

If pre-existence and presence before the beginning of world is one the criterion to prove divinity then prophet Solomon, peace be upon him, Jeremiah, and prophet Job, peace be upon him were all deities! Consider the following verses:
“The LORD created me first of all, the first of his works, long ago. I was made in the very beginnings, at the first, before the world began.” (HOLY BIBLE, PROVERBS 8:22-23, TEV)
“The LORD said to me, “I chose you before I gave you life, and before you were born I selected you to be a prophet to be nations.” (HOLY BIBLE, JEREMIAH 1:4-5, TEV)
“I am sure you can, because you’re so old and wee there when the world was made!”(HOLY BIBLE, JOB 38:21, TEV)
[ii]Authority:
“He was given authority to wield, words to speak, a work to do, and people to save..”
In the first place, wielding, speaking words (as Jesus, peace be upon him, was speaking), working (as Jesus, peace be upon him, was working) and trying to save people (as Jesus, peace be upon him, was trying) are characteristics or prophets not to be attributed to God.. But even if he insists in proving the deity of Jesus, peace be upon him, through these points then he should pay care, firstly, almost all the Biblical prophets wielded, spoke, worked and tried to save people. Secondly, the fact that Jesus, peace be upon him, was “given authority” so there is nothing special, nothing divine in the exercise of second hand granted authority. It is against the majesty of true God to tarry to receive authority over his own creation; His erroneous creation(Genesis 6:6)-Humans. Or, put in other words, if he had to receive authority to exercise on his creation then that authority is not his own but of a ‘greater’ Power and thus, the receiver (of Authority) cannot be true God. As Jesus says in John 5:30, “I can of my own self do nothing.” Smell the impotency here.

[iii] Same Glory:-
He wrote:
“and in same glory that the Father has.”

To begin with, nowhere in the Biblical verse does it states Jesus having same glory as that of Father. If you do not believe me then re-read the verse he produced:
“…Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”
Kindly realize very carefully that all the verse says is, firstly, the ‘request’ made by Jesus, peace be upon him, (By the way is it befitting for a ‘God’ to make requests!?!) to glorify him together with Father. Now the point to understand is that there can be 2 different levels of glorifications for 2 different ‘persons’ even if glorified at the same time. Secondly, what needs to be understood, is the beseech, request, wail of Jesus, peace be upon him, to return back the previous glorify which he possessed when he was with Father. The glory might still be different. But if at this stage the christolator Anthony Roger is contemplating to refute me then he should turn his face to ROMANS 8: 16-17, 26
“The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs – heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.” (THE OPEN BIBLE, NKJV)(Emphasis mine)
“… we will also share his glory” (HOLY BIBLE, TEV)(Emphasis mine)

Cleaning the filth

In the last part of this paper I would draw your attention to one of Jesus’s, peace be upon him, teaching (Biblical) which can also be taken as a litmus paper test to filter out false prophets from a true one, he said:

“Be on your guard against false prophets; they come to you looking life sheep on the outside, but inside they are really like wolves. You will know them by what they do. Thorn bushes do not bear grapes, and briars do not bear figs. A healthy tree bears good fruit, but a poor tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, and any tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown in fire. So then, you will know the false prophets by what they do.” (HOLY BIBLE, MATTHEW 7:15-81, TEV)
So, let us put Paul and Mohammad, peace be upon him, to the above test. Let us check how does the “fruits” of each fair the test. On one hand, we have, Anthony Roger, a sincere follower of Paul’s teachings (mind you we are testing Paul’s candidacy for prophet hood) address ALLAH and Mohammad, peace be upon him with most gutter like words, he wrote:
“In the end, Allah turns out to be an idol and Muhammad a worthless prophet,…”
Nonetheless, we have Mohammad, peace be upon him, a veritable prophet, as gentle as dew drops, teach in Quran 6:108 to the world:

“Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite Revile God In their ignorance.” (THE HOLY QURAN)

Conclusively, the difference between Mohammad, peace be upon him, and Paul is glaring to a meticulous eye. Finally, does not Paul fit into the category of false prophet? And should not he be “cut down and thrown in fire.”?

Refutation: Ijaz Ahmad vs. the Prophet Zechariah!

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Anthony Rogers released a series of articles after our debate in which he had decided to forward some unfortunate, if not rather disparaging comments in the process. I’ll be carefully and honestly examining his claims and comments in my responses to him. It should be noted that he has also made a video and appeared on live television to further promote his comments. I would like to explicitly state that I discourage and remove myself from any relation to this man’s incredulous behaviour.

The Introduction.

He begins with stating:

In my recent debate with Ijaz Ahmad he made much of the fact that the Angel of the Lord in Zechariah 1:12 intercedes with the Lord for Jerusalem, something that presupposes that the two are distinct.

I did propose that YHWH and Mal’ak YHWH were two distinct individuals, something which Anthony during the debate also supposed that he was in agreement with, as stated in his thesis:

Notice that my thesis entails both the deity of the angel as well as his distinct personhood from another and or other persons in the Godhead. This means it will not be sufficient or at all relevant for my opponent to argue that the angel is distinct from Yahweh as if this somehow negates my position. In fact any good argument my opponent puts forward to prove that the angel is distinct from another person called Yahweh will receive a quick and robust ‘Amen’ from me. This also means that my opponent will necessarily either have to show that the angel is also not identified as God as I will argue or provide some way for accounting how the angel may be identified that is consistent with Unitarianism, the belief that God is only one person and the Old Testament.

From the get go, Anthony’s contradiction is clear. During the debate, he asserts that he’d be in complete agreement with me, if it is that I proved that YHWH and Mal’ak YHWH were distinct, he’d give a resounding ‘Amen‘. Now a few days later, he’s found himself arguing against his own thesis. Apparently, it’s now in his best interest to argue against his own argument, I could not have asked for a better example of inconsistency.

The Arguments.

Anthony then, proceeds onwards to argue against the fact that they are distinct:

According to Ijaz, this shows not only that a distinction obtains between the two, but that the distinction is ontological in nature, i.e. it demonstrates that the former alone is Lord and the latter is not.”

Anthony in this case, concedes that indeed they are demonstrated as being distinct from one another. Something which he refused to do during the debate. Is this perhaps an attempt at back peddling to correct his mistakes? What’s worse is that Anthony’s problem is such, that he asserts that Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH but that they are both distinct at the same time. The problem can be manifested as such-:

Argument 1:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
Ijaz: If Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH, how are they distinct? (see: Zechariah 1).

Argument 2:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is another person from YHWH.
Ijaz: If they are not the same person, how then can Mal’ak YHWH be YHWH? (see: Anthony’s first argument above).

This is a problem that Anthony can’t resolve because he’s created it  himself. So what you’re seeing in his articles, is a clearly confused individual, trying to cite as many sources as he can towards his biased position (fallacy of appeal to authority), but at the same time, contradicting his own criteria for a valid argument (following from his thesis in the debate). Let’s continue to see what other problems he has put himself in:

Although I did point out that the Angel of the Lord is also identified as Lord in His own right in Zechariah 3, and thus that “the Angel of the Lord” is the distinctive title by which this second person who is Yahweh is distinguished from the first, the title being most appropriate since He is evidently the heavenly Mediator and Messenger between God and His people, a fact that follows naturally from Zechariah1, I think much more could be and needs to be said than I communicated during the debate.

Let’s put Anthony’s statements into perspective:

  1. Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
  2. Mal’ak YHWH is a different person than YHWH.

The problem we see here now, is that Anthony has realised there exists an issue, that he’s arguing against himself, so he decides to reconcile this issue by stating the ‘Angel of the Lord’ is now a title, to distinguish YHWH from himself. With this in mind let’s examine Anthony’s new argument:

  1. Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
  2. Mal’ak YHWH is another name for the person who is the same as YHWH, but they’re different because it’s a different title.

Following his line of reasoning, every time that his God is called by a different title in the Bible, that would have to mean that it isn’t just another name for God, it’s an entirely new person into the Godhead. That would mean that Adonai is a different person to Elohim, who is a different person to Hashem Adonai who is different to Mal’ak YHWH who is different to YHWH, who is different to the ‘Messenger of the Covenant‘. If that is the case, then Anthony’s God, is beyond tri-personal, unless it is then, that he presents the case that a title isn’t always a new person in the Godhead, it’s only a new person when it suits his dogmatic agenda, in which case his argument would then be guilty of taking the form of ‘the fallacy of confirmation bias‘.

“Since this was the passage on which Ijaz drew most of his thunder, and since most people I have talked to were unimpressed with his other arguments against the deity of the Angel, particularly his failure to grapple with the lexical and scholarly evidence I provided for the fact that the word angel (mal’ak) is not restricted in meaning or use to created spirits…”

By ‘most people’ he means the two Christian Paltalk rooms which came out to support him.

The Reception of his Arguments.

On that same note to demonstrate how his supporters did not listen to his thesis, during his opening statement, we have Radical Moderate, commenting on the debate.

Topic of Debate: 
“The Old Testament Teaches that the Angel of the Lord is a Distinct, Divine Person in the Godhead.”

Anthony’s Thesis (Taken from the debate):  
“In fact any good argument my opponent puts forward to prove that the angel is distinct from another person called Yahweh will receive a quick and robust ‘Amen’ from me.”

Supporter of Anthony (Radical Moderate):
His theisis is not that the Angel of Yhahwee is distinct person from Yahweh.

So confused are the people he confesses were unimpressed by my argument, that they don’t even understand what he was arguing. No wonder they agreed with Anthony (as he claims), they’re just blindly cheerleading him onwards, while not even grasping what exactly his argument was. According to this supporter, whose comments are under all of Anthony’s posts (congratulating him, praising him, flirting with him), Anthony’s argument was against the very topic and the very thesis that Anthony used. Brilliant ‘support’, would Anthony dare criticise his fan base or choose to correct their own misunderstanding of his presentation? Anthony continues by stating:

” his failure to grapple with the lexical and scholarly evidence I provided for the fact that the word angel (mal’ak) is not restricted in meaning or use to created spirits – something that brought on the bizarre charge from Ijaz that I was the one guilty of playing word games and being unscholarly, a lapse on his part that was aggravated by the fact that he didn’t bring a single scholarly source forward to justify his repeated misuse of the term, or even for anything else that he mentioned”

To begin with, there was no need on my end to redefine the word Mal’ak and appeal to the eisegesis of the reductive fallacy. Essentially, Anthony’s argument boiled down to this:

  • Mal’ak YHWH = YHWH.
  • Mal’ak YHWH = YHWH.
  • YHWH = YHWH.

That’s essentially what Anthony’s entire ‘lexical’ argument was. It was a simple play on semantics to eliminate the purpose and the rationale behind the word mal’ak, this type of lexical manipulation is most commonly referred to by academia as “the reductive fallacy”. Following from this, Anthony ‘claims’, that I used no scholarly source to justify my use of the term “mal’ak”, with that being said, it is either Anthony recognizes that he used no scholarly source himself or he fails to realise from where I quoted my definition of “mal’ak”  during the debate. I took the definition of mal’ak, directly from Anthony’s article, “The Malak Yahweh Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament: Part I”. Which reads:

“The word that is used in the Hebrew text is malak (מַלְאָך). The lexical sources are unanimous that the Hebrew word malak, in its original signification and as it is used in the Bible, means “one sent; a messenger” (e.g. Gesenius; Brown, Driver and Briggs)”.

With explicit evidence of the source for my definition, would Anthony Rogers be honest enough to apologize or recant his erratic statements? Most likely not and I wouldn’t expect any better from him, if anything, he’d try to find a way to claim I used his definition incorrectly, the problem therefore being, that I quoted it verbatim from his article. I’m not quite sure if he expected me not to point that out, or if he was simply looking for material to attack me with. He follows this by saying:

That is to say, the following passages that speak of two persons as Yahweh prove that the Old Testament teaches that God is not a solitary person and in this sense He is not like any other conscious agent in existence – including schizophrenics, a straw-man trumped up by my opponent that applies to Modalists who believe the persons of the Trinity are actually only one person who banters back and forth between different alter egos, rather than to Trinitarianism, which teaches that God subsists in three actual persons – He being uniquely multi-personal, and thus unlike anything or anyone.

For a moment here, we see Anthony attempting to respond to the claim that a singular being with multiple personalities is not considered to be suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder or even Schizophrenia, something which I indicated during the debate, which Anthony did not have a chance to respond to. Multiple Personality Disorder refers to one being, having more than one personality and seeing as Anthony’s God is one being, unified by the Godhead, yet eternally possessing three distinct personalities, this clearly indicates that the Christian concept of God is schizophrenic and possibly an allusion to MPD. Anthony attempted to further solve this by saying his God was ‘uniquely multipersonal’, or in other words, when you go to the psychiatric ward of any hospital, all the in patients that suffer from MPD or Schizophrenia, or some mental disease are all told that they are special and unique so that they can be normalized and their feelings controlled. Taking a play from that appeal to emotion, Anthony himself is applying that same tactic to his followers, a revealing metaphor to say the least.

Biblical Bitrinitarianism.

In an attempt to defend his eisegesis, Anthony invents a new term:

The first of many examples for Zechariah’s overall “binitarianism” presents itself

So what is bitrinitarianism? Unfortunately that’s the term that Anthony presents as the basis for Mal’ak YHWH becoming YHWH. He doesn’t really explain more than that, so I can’t respond to something he’s just made up. I can understand why he’s making up terms now though, he’s made an Angel into God and well, just as the early Church fathers had to do when trying to defend their religion against the Jews, they just had to make up words and terms as you go along. Some common examples are, “The Trinity”, “Godhead”, “Immaculate Conception”, “Original Sin”, “Incarnate Word”, and today,we have Anthony holding true to that erratic tradition, thus giving us, “Bitrinitarianism”. If I were to break down this word to attempt to derive some meaning, it would make little to no sense:

  • Bi – Two
  • Tri – Three
  • Unity – United
  • ism – belief

Which would give us, “the belief of three persons united (as one), but also as two”. Just gibberish really. This is an appeal to Christians, if you can give me a definition for this term that actually makes sense, please do so, thanks.

Anthony versus Zechariah, Judaism and Common Sense.

To demonstrate his, “bitrinitarianism”, Anthony appeal to Zechariah 2:6-12 which reads:

“Ho there! Flee from the land of the north,” declares the Lord, “for I have dispersed you as the four winds of the heavens,” declares the Lord. “Ho, Zion! Escape, you who are living with the daughter of Babylon.” For thus says the Lord of hosts, “After  glory He has sent me against the nations which plunder you, for he who touches you, touches the apple of His eye.For behold, I will wave My hand over them so that they will be plunder for their slaves. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me10  Sing for joy and be glad, O daughter of Zion; for behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” declares the Lord. 11 “ Many nations will join themselves to the Lord in that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you. 12 The Lord will possess Judah as His portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem. 13 Be silent, all flesh, before the Lord; for He is aroused from His holy habitation.”

Obviously we understand and agree that these are the Lord’s words. However, Anthony is attempting to state, that the person who delivers this message to Zechariah is YHWH himself, yet Zechariah does not claim that YHWH is delivering the message, no less than three verses before we have Zechariah explicitly stating that an angel is delivering the words of the Lord:

“While the angel who was speaking to me was leaving, another angel came to meet him” – Zechariah 2:3

Which is the purpose of the Angel of the Lord, in Hebrew this is properly translated (by Anthony) to mean the “Messenger of YHWH”.  So an Angel who is the Messenger of YHWH delivers a message to Zechariah from the Lord. It is obvious that if the Angel who is a Messenger is going to deliver God’s word, that the Angel will declare the words to be from God and not from himself, which the Angel does do in the passage that Anthony references:

  • “…declares the Lord”
  • “…declares the Lord”
  • “For thus says the Lord of hosts…”
  • “… declares the Lord”

It’s as clear as day, that the Angel who is the Messenger of the Lord, as demonstrated by the verse itself, is conveying/ declaring to Zechariah what God has said. Yet Anthony does not seem to understand that. To give an example of Anthony’s absurd rationale, let us demonstrate with an example:

I saw the neighbour, he approached me and said, the wife says, “I like your roses”.

According to Anthony, this would mean that the husband likes the roses and that the husband is the wife. Anthony furthers his inanity by then validating and accepting my argument:

“…let the following be noted here: while Zechariah’s actions here in speaking for the Lord are in a measure consistent with what the Angel of the Lord does in Zechariah one, which is to be expected since the Angel is a distinct person who can speak to and for Yahweh…”

Recall, as I said Mal’ak YHWH is the Angel who is a Messenger of the YHWH, so this messenger is expected to speak on behalf of YHWH and to YHWH. So Anthony concedes that this is the case, but then he contradicts himself by saying that the Messenger of YHWH is YHWH. If they are distinct as he himself says, why then, doe he interpret them to be joined/ united as the same person? A clear contradiction yet again.

Understanding Zechariah 2.

Since we are examining the Jewish book, we should be honest and use the Jewish version, not the Christian perversion of the Septuagint from a mystery text translated into Greek and then Hebrew and then finally to English, whereas the Jewish text is simply Hebrew to English. I’ll be using the JPS Translation and the Hebrew Masoretic Texts as provided here and here.

“And he said to him, “Run, speak to this young man, saying: ‘Jerusalem shall be inhabited like unwalled towns, because of the multitude of men and cattle therein.’ ”   But I will be for it-says the Lord-a wall of fire around, and for glory I will be in its midst. Ho, ho! Flee from the land of the north, says the Lord; for I have spread you as the four corners of the heavens, says the Lord. Ho, Zion! Flee, she who sits among the nation of Babylon. For so said the Lord of Hosts: After glory, He sent me to the nations that plunder you, for whoever touches you touches the apple of his eye.” – Zechariah 2:6-12.

The difference is vast, if we use Anthony’s version we have a distinct and completely different rendition of Zechairah 2, as opposed to the Hebrew of the Jews. Yet, there is one verse which stands out as being in common with them both:

For so said the Lord of Hosts: After glory, He sent me to the nations that plunder you, for whoever touches you touches the apple of his eye.

What we have here is Anthony’s verse 8 and the Jewish version’s verse 12. Yet the Jewish version makes it is not YHWH who is sending himself but that YHWH is sending someone and in verse 13 of the Jewish text, this person being sent is referred to as the “hand of God” or the person though whose hand, God’s work is done:

“For, behold! I raise My hand over them, and they shall be prey for those who serve them. And you shall know that the Lord of Hosts sent me.”

The “hand of the Lord” is a term which refers to the person who is the Angel/ Messenger of the Lord who not only conveys God’s message, he is the angel which executes God’s punishments upon the earth and supports the faithful:

“So I will stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians with all the wonders that I will perform among them. After that, he will let you go.” – Exodus (Shemot) 3:20.

“Then the LORD said to Moses, “Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country.”” – Exodus (Shemot) 6:1.

“he will not listen to you. Then I will lay myhand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites.” – Exodus (Shemot) 7:4.

“And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out myhand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.”” – Exodus (Shemot) 7:5.

Anthony’s problem is that he appeals to the Christian rendition of the text, the problem is, Zechariah according to his own beliefs was not a Christian but a Judaic Prophet, therefore using his own faith’s belief about Zechariah, if we read the Judaic rendition of the texts, we see that Anthony is in opposition to myself and the Hebrew Judaic Version of Zechariah’s writings. It is absurd to think that we should appeal to the Christian rendition when Zechariah was not a Christian but a Jew, therefore any indepth study of the Christian rendition is therefore inconsequential to the discussion at hand, and merely a ploy at appealing to confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

Anthony versus Basic Christian Doctrine!

In one section of his article, Anthony Rogers who is lauded by Sam Shamoun as being the best “Christian Apologist”, makes a fundamental error in his doctrine. In a book recommended by Sam Shamoun, “Understanding the Trinity”, by B.P. Harris, he states (page 121):

None other can show forth the Father, for He alone is in the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). He alone exists in the form of God (Phil. 2:6). He alone is the radiance of his glory (Heb. 1:3). And He alone is the exact representation of His Person (Heb. 1:3).

From this we know for certain that the Father is the invisible, incomprehensible, majestic, unseen God. Yet Anthony in his diatribe of an article, states the following:

First, there is the example of something Moses says in Genesis 19. After Genesis 18 tells us that the Lord appeared on earth with two angels to Abraham just prior to Sodom’s destruction

Not only is Anthony confused as to the form of the Father, he actually ascribes a known form to an invisible God. It would then seem that Anthony is not only arguing with Sam Shamoun, BP Harris, but that he is also arguing with his own scripture. I must commend him on his behaviour, one debate and Anthony is already arguing against the Christian religion.

In his article he tries to state that the invisible God, who then changes His mind and becomes an Angel, sorry, three Angels, then changes back into being invisible, but leaves two Angels back, which are really two Angels of Himself and then goes to heaven from wherein He rains down fire and brimstone in Genesis 19. Makes perfect sense, I suppose!? Somehow that’s supposed to indicate that YHWH is Mal’ak YHWH.

Zechariah 12:9-14 Proves Nothing.

Again, we find ourselves, returning to the Jewish rendition of a particular set of verses. What we find once more, is that what Anthony’s version claims and what the Jews claim, from whom Zechariah was a member of (according to Anthony), contradicts his rendition in numerous ways:

 And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come upon Jerusalem. And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son. On that day there shall be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the Valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart: The family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart. The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart. All the remaining families-every family apart, and their wives apart. – Zechariah 12:9-14.

Which doesn’t fit Anthony’s explanation, from his article:

“In the above passage the Lord says that the people will “look on Me whom they have pierced,” and tells us that the house of David and Jerusalem’s inhabitants will mourn for Him, i.e. Yahweh, the pierced one”

That presents a problem, as the invisible God can now actually be pierced. How can you pierce the invisible, all powerful, eternal God who is YHWH? Unless of course, he’s not referring to YHWH the Father, but the other person who is also God, the son, who is Mal’ak YHWH, the Word, the Incarnate Word. We just went meta, you have a God who has two other personalities and one of those two personalties has other personalities that are also eternal but co-equal with each other, but also fully God. His interpretation of these verses is really “special” to say the least. From the Judaic rendition, Anthony’s eisegesis amounts to nothing but mere attempts again at correcting the beliefs of the Jews from whom according to Anthony, Zechariah was from.

YHWH Kills Himself with His own Sword.

To those of you who have managed to reach this far without asserting that Anthony has lost the plot, it gets worse:

“A third passage in Zechariah of some significance is found in Zechariah 13 and is closely related to the passage in Zechariah 12. For just as Yahweh said in 12:10 that He would be pierced, so in Zechariah 13 we are told not only that false prophets, by the Lord’s decree, will come to such a fate, i.e. they would be pierced through, but even the Shepherd of Yahweh would experience a terrible fate, no doubt the piercing mentioned in 12:10, and back of it would be the Lord’s own sword. Most significantly for present purposes is the fact that “the Shepherd,” –indeed, “My Shepherd,” – is identified by Yahweh not only as one distinct from Himself, but as “My Associate.”

So according to Anthony:

  • YHWH says false prophets would be pierced.
  • YHWH will pierce Himself.
  • YHWH will become a Shepherd.
  • YHWH who is a shepherd will pierce/ stab Himself with His own sword, a punishment meant for false Prophets.

At this point, I’m not sure if Anthony is arguing for Christianity or against it. I’ll leave that judgement up to you.

Conclusion.

I have aptly demonstrated that Anthony’s premises are self contradictory, dynamic, erratic and that he has gone above and beyond to refute his own argumentation. He has demonstrated that he does not grasp the true nature of YHWH, at one point he tries to demonstrate that God will kill himself, with a punishment meant for cursed persons with false teachings by his own sword. At another time he tries to demonstrate that God, even though He is invisible and without a known form, became an angel, thus contradicting his Bible and his doctrine. None of those points demonstrate the case for YHWH being Mal’al YHWH. At no time did he present a viable case for his self contradicting premises:

Argument 1:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
Ijaz: If Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH, how are they distinct? (see: Zechariah 1).

Argument 2:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is another person from YHWH.
Ijaz: If they are not the same person, how then can Mal’ak YHWH be YHWH? (see: Anthony’s first argument above).

I look forward to seeing how Anthony will actually attempt to address these issues and when he shall admit his faulty logic. It is my view, that his reinterpretation of Judaic scripture is not only embarrassing for himself , but for the Christian religion as a whole. I do apologize to my Christian brethren if his erratic statements were insulting in anyway.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Response to Anthony Rogers

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

A few days ago, Anthony Rogers, upset at the revelation of some odd bits of Christian history during my debate with him, has released a video claiming that Allah ta ‘ala had loins. Unfortunately for him, his poor scholarship and intellectual dishonesty became extant. As it turns out, after he realised that the, ‘holy prepuce’ argument was a valid piece of history, he decided to look for some way to demonstrate that Allah ta ‘ala also had ‘genitals’ or ‘loins’. Unfortunately for him, he gathered his quotes from this website. Recall:

  • Anthony cannot speak or read Arabic.
  • His video uses the exact same quotes with the same translation from the website.
  • The author of that website, translated the Arabic himself.
  • Therefore it became easy to find Anthony’s sources, as the translation is unique.
  • The translation on the brother’s article was based on an error concerning manuscripts which he obtained.
  • Anthony, by using the same translation and same error, therefore showed that he copied from the Brother’s website.

The brother upon seeing Anthony’s video, made contact with me and I decided to let him refute Anthony Rogers. The video contains quotes from various Arabic lexicons and Etymological codices, demonstrating that the word Anthony appeals to cannot and has never meant, ‘genitals’.

We’ve quoted all the relevant Arabic texts and included them in the video, thereby completely refuting his claims and calling him to apologize for his plagiarism of the website’s contents. Here is the video:

According to the various Arabic lexicons and dictionaries the phrase ‘haqwa’, when used, means ‘to seek protection of someone or from something’. Since that is the case, Anthony has no real intellectual basis for his argument, but an incorrect translation that the Brother himself (the author of the article Anthony uses), clarified his mistake and therefore has soundly demonstrated the lowly character and lengths to which Anthony Rogers would stoop for attention.

We ask Anthony to come forward, whether in a new video or a response in an article and explain for us, his research skills and Arabic reading/ speaking skills, both of which he knows he cannot qualify.

PS: Anthony, if you’re going to copy something off of the internet, try to validate it before you make your ‘research’ public.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Debate with Anthony Rogers Available on Youtube

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The debate has been uploaded on Youtube, “The Angel of the Lord is a Distinct, Divine, Person in the Godhead”, between myself and Anthony Rogers:

Do enjoy insha Allaah, any questions pertaining to the debate, let me know in the video comments or via our Facebook Page or use the ‘Contact Us‘ page on the website.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

« Older Entries Recent Entries »