Category Archives: CL Edwards/ Calling Muslims

Refutation: 1 Chronicles genealogy a contridiction?

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I know what you must be thinking, how on earth can you spell ‘contradiction’ wrong? In an ironic twist of hilarity, Chessie Edwards has authored a piece about a contradiction in scripture. Unfortunately, he started off on the wrong foot as shown below:

He starts off a rebuttal by contradicting the spelling of the word contradiction. I guess we must take this as another sign of his ineptitude. After failing to respond to numerous posts of mines, he decides to take on a common contradiction from the Bible which we covered here. So what does Chessie say this time around?

It seems as if some of our Muslim dawahist(And yes I did coin the phrase) have reached deep down into the atheist materialist liberal grab bag for a argument to attack The Bible with. This time around its the variants found in the genealogy recorded in 1 Chronicles 8:29-35 and 1 Chronicles 9:35-44.

So, after deciding to call me names, “dawahist”, a phrase so intellectually profound, he actually had to “coin” it as it’s so unique and amazing. We congratulate him on what is to be his biggest contribution to the English language thus far, we certainly do look forward to see what other contridicting dawahist terms he can bring forth to our future discourses. Yes, that indeed was sarcasm. Moving along, he decides to label pointing out Biblical contradictions as being “atheist materialist liberal“. To help our clearly ignorant counterpart, you don’t have to be atheist to see a contradiction in the Bible, any person with normal cognitive and critical thinking skills can indicate to themselves when they see two contradictory statements. I also don’t seem to see how I’m a “materialist” for pointing out clear errors in his scripture. Let me just demonstrate the logic behind his statement:

(If) you can do basic comprehension (then) you are an atheist.
(If) you can point out contradicting statements (then) you are materialist.
This follows the basic logic implication (if) this (then) => (it implies) that.

Can someone buy Mr. Edwards a dictionary before he starts saying instead of coining new terms, he’s moved on to redefining words. Now, I do hear you, we did see him exposing his lack of foresight, after claiming that this “contradiction” in 1 Chronicles is reaching into “atheist liberal materialist arguments”, he then admits it’s a variant. Varying here, meaning not the same, or did he not realise that he “contradicted” himself within this opening paragraph so many times, it’s practically stupendous to assume he was sober upon authoring it. Moving on:

Some how the people of conspiracy theories(I coined that one also) want us to believe the son’s of Pigs and Monkeys “corrupted” Allah’s Torah by putting two conflicting versions of the same genealogy side by side in the same book. These dastardly Yahud either did this without noticing or on purpose for whatever strange diabolical “evil Jew” reason(Do evil Jews need a reason to be evil? com’on).

I’m not sure what his fascination with coining terms is, but it’s really appauling to see him trying this hard, to desperately make himself seem as a thinker. It’s hard to believe that on one end he “coins new terms” (creativity), while bashes questioning his scripture (arrogance and ignorance). He’s playing with a double edged sword and it really isn’t helping him. His own writings are the very arguments against himself. A bit funny, isn’t it? Don’t see why he thinks the children of pigs and monkeys wrote a book, or why he thinks that God, sanctioned the writing of the Islamic Tawrah. This has led me to believe he doesn’t seem to know much about the Tawrah. To educate our ignorant friend, Muslims do not believe that the current canon and codex of the Judaic or Christian Tanakh is from Allaah. Rather we believe it’s a version originating with Priest Hilkiah as the Judaica Encyclopedia willingly suggests, translated by Jews who faltered in there translation (purposefully) for a Pagan king, which Christians ended up believing in.

As for him asking if Jews need a reason to be evil, let’s see what the Bible says:

43Why[a] do you not understand my way of speaking? Because you are not able to listen to my message. 44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father! That one was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand firm in the truth, because truth is not in him. Whenever he speaks the lie, he speaks from his own nature,[b] because he is a liar and the father of lies.[c]45 But because I am telling the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who among you convicts me concerning sin? If I am telling the truth, why[d] do you not believe me? 47 The one who is from God listens to the words of God. Because of this you do not listen—because you are not of God.”

48 The Jews answered and said to him, “Do we not correctly say that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” – Bible : John (8) : 43 – 48.

Let’s see, they’re ignorant, children of satan, they do the desires/ works of satan, they’re murderers like their fathers, they don’t stand firm in truth, lying is their nature and they’re not of God. Very touching words. If Mr. Edwards has a problem with this quotation, please take issue with well…………… Christianity. So how does he try to explain the extant contradiction in the Bible?

First as I have said regrading such misunderstands of the Bible, the number one principle in exegesis is “AUTHORIAL INTENT”, i.e what was the author intending to communicate. Also another aspect of”AUTHORIAL INTENT” is how would the original audience have understood the text.  As usually dawahist could careless about trivial issues like “AUTHORIAL INTENT”.

So after spouting around some terms he just googled, for some reason he’s deduced (quite expectedly and unsurprisingly) that the reason the Bible contradicts with regards to the geneaology is because the author intended so. He’s trying do what we call, “appeal to authority” and appeal to a common fallacy in exegesis, i.e. “fallacy of reading between the lines”. One can view a few of those fallacies here. So let’s try to explain to him that these contradictions in genealogy do not exist because the author intended so, rather they exist because the manuscripts themselves contradict. What we’re saying here is that there are many manuscripts which indicate a difference in genealogies among the many scribes and authors of that time (i.e scriptural corruption):

as well as:

The corruption of these texts are clear to anyone who actually reads the Bible. Footnotes make it clear that variants, numerous as they are, quite clearly exist. In fact, the author and his intent is already known to us, unlike Mr. Edwards, most of you who would have read this previous post, would have seen this quote:

This passage to the end of the 38th verse is found with a little variety in the names, 1 Chronicles 9:35-44.

The rabbins say that Ezra, having found two books that had these passages with a variety in the names, as they agreed in general, he thought best to insert them both, not being able to discern which was the best.

His general plan was to collate all the copies he had, and to follow the greater number when he found them to agree; those which disagreed from the majority were thrown aside as spurious; and yet, in many cases, probably the rejected copies contained the true text.

If Ezra proceeded as R. Sol. Jarchi says, he had a very imperfect notion of the rules of true criticism; and it is no wonder that he has left so many faults in his text.

The reason that these two contradicting genealogies made it into the Bible’s codex (collection) is due to the fact that the author just didn’t know which one to include! He could not decipher the veracity of God’s holy word (according to the Exegesis quoted above). Hence, I don’t see how Mr. Edwards can say we ignored scholarly exegesis or refused to take it into consideration when it fact it was included in our first post on this topic. We do hope he can confess that he either did not read the initial post or come to terms with his selective amnesia. In fact, he goes so far as to claim it was on purpose that the genealogies contradict:

The chronological differing between the two genealogies of 1 Chronicles is a purposeful anachronism, and it is not the only incident of intentional gapping being used by Biblical writers, in fact it was quite a common device in oral cultures who routinely compressed information.

Yet, he later contradicts himself by quoting a scholar who says the only reason this contradiction existed, is due to manuscript and scribal errors:

” This register has already occurred in 1 Chron 8:29-38, along with those of other families of the tribe of Benjamin, and is repeated here only to connect the following history of the kingship with the preceding genealogical lists. It forms here the introduction to the narrative of Saul’s death in ch. 10, which in turn forms the transition to the kingship of David. The deviations of this register from that in 1 Chron 8:29-38, show that it has been derived from another document in more complete preservation than that in ch. 8, which had been handed down in connection with other genealogies of the Benjamite families..”[DELITZSCH BIBLE COMMENTARY – THE BOOK OF 1 CHRONICLES]

Apparently, unable to read what he’s quoting, Mr. Edwards presents two contradicting narratives:

(1) It was the author’s intent to have two contradicting genealogies, one chapter after the other.
(2) It was manuscript corruption and lack of preservation which caused the contradictions.

Unless the author some how magically intended to differ the genealogies by manuscript corruption, hundreds of years after the text was written, I can safely doubt Mr. Edward’s is rational.We would like to thank him for providing his contradicting arguments, or shall I say, “contridicting” arguments and the wonderful quote which proved that this contradicting genealogy exists due to manuscript corruption and lack of preservation.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: Can a disciple of Christ be racist ?

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Just in time before the new year, Chessie L. Edwards is back again, trying to defend the racism within his faith. Let’s see what ignorance he spews this time:

Considering that to this vary day at the close of 2011 black Africans can be purchased in Muslim majority nations such as Mali, Mauritania and Sudan, I would have thought that Muslim Dawahist’s would have wanted to avoid the topic of slavery at all costs.

It perplexes me as to why an adult man, would steep so low into academic dishonesty, shall we remind him that citing statements should be done to prevent intellectual fraud. To begin with, Mali has actually outlawed slavery. Funny enough, it’s the very first country he lists. What exactly is the problem if these countries are Muslim in majority? That’s called appealing to the fallacy of a hasty generalization, a commonly used fallacy. Meaning if one X does Y, then all X’s do Y. The problem here is that while Islam permits slavery, it does not permit Christian promoted slavery, also known as chattel slavery. Slavery in Islam is contractual agreement, a covenant of sorts between two parties, whereas in chattel slavery it is forced labour, something we shall discover later on the Bible endorses in great detail.

The notion is creeping up yet again that Christianity was the cause of the trans-atlantic slave trade and that the Bible is a book of White racist ideology, a throw back to more Biblical ignorant times of propagandist………..

This is the denial of basic history by a desperate man. My peoples, the children of slavery, my home, the results of slavery, are imbedded within my people’s culture. The streets I walk on, our capital city (Puerta de Espana – Port of Spain), the many forts we have, the many sugar estates which still exist are all evidences against this Chessie L. Edwards, but to protect his religion, this man has to stoop to low moral grounds. He’s not only denying the history we can experience today as left behind from my nation’s colonial rulers, but he’s denying history as acknowledged by the world:

The Church also supported the slave trade. The Spaniards saw in it an opportunity of converting the heathen, and the Jesuits, Dominicans and Franciscans were heavily involved in sugar cultivation which meant slave-holding. The story is told of an old elder of the Church in Newport who would invariably, the Sunday following the arrival of a slaver from the coast, thank God “that another cargo of benighted beings had been brought to a land where they could have the benefit of a gospel dispensation.” – [R. Terry, Some Old Papers relating to the Newport Slave Trade (Bulletin of the Newport Historical Society, July, 1927), 10.]

History speaks for itself and unlike my uneducated and cowardly counterpart, I am not afraid to cite my references from the numerous works authored on this massive topic. The next quote from his article really left me speechless. Sure, he’s already denied the historicity of Christian empowered slavery among my peoples, but it is low to distort his own scripture:

…………………..the egregious actions of the trans-atlantic slave traders were categorically condemned in the Holy Bible the only Word of God(before even the advent of Islam). A prime example of this can be found in 1 Timothy 1:8-10:

But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,

The problem with this argument, is that it backfires wholeheartedly on him. The Bible here is endorsing slavery as the Newport Slave Trade bulletin suggests, the Christians believed using slavery was as a means of gospel dispensation, they didn’t believe that slavery was an act of oppression, but a means of admittedly, spreading the religion of Christ, which is why the priest from the above quote, praised God for the “benighted beings”. In fact, Christianity and the Negro slave trade had become so synonymous that famous British authors and writers were documenting their close cohesion within their societal framework:

In 1750 Horace Walpole wrote scornfully of “the British Senate, that temple of liberty and the bulwark of Protestant Christianity,….pondering methods to make more effectual that horrid traffic of selling negroes. – [P. Cunningham (ed.), The Letters of Horace Walpole (London, 1891, II, 197. To Sir H. Mann, Feb. 25, 1750.)]

Mr. Chessie L. Edwards, the propagandist and denier of basic history that he is, then condemns himself in an abhorrent display of theological clown’s play:
 Yes slavery was in the Old Covenant law’s, it was governed and regulated but just as we see in the N.T an enslaver/manstealer/kidnaper was a Sinner in the Mosaic law as well.
Nowhere, does the New Testament outlaw slavery, in fact, I have demonstrated above where members of the Church were publicly endorsing Christianity, I’ll make it easier to refute Mr. Edwards by a brilliant quote:
……..another Liverpool slave trader, Foster Cunliffe, contributed largely. He was a pioneer in the slave trade. he and his two sons are listed as members of the Liverpool Committee of Merchants trading to Africa in 1752. Together they had four ships capable of holding 1,120 slaves, the profits from which were sufficient to stock twelve vessels on the homeward journey with sugar and rum. An inscription to Foster Cunliffe in St. Peter’s Church describes him this: “a Christian devout and exemplary in the exercise of every private and publick duty, friend to mercy, patron to distress, an enemy only to vice and sloth, he lived esteemed by all who knew him….and died lamented by the wise and good….” – [For Cunliffe, see Bourne, op. cit., II, 57, Botsford, op. cit., 122; Enfield, op. cit.,43, 49; Donnan, op. cit., II, 492, 497.]
Not only was this man praised by the Church for having the capability from one voyage to transfer 1, 120 slaves, he was praised for his service and deemed a friend to mercy, such to the extent this was inscribed on a Church! Unless Mr. Edwards has somehow developed amnesia, there is no excuse for his blatant disregard and misrepresentation of his faith when it’s this deeply related to slavery. To prove that the Bible does not endorse slavery, he refers to Shemot 21:16, what Christians call Exodus:
And whoever kidnaps a man, and he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.
Which sounds correct, until you read the beginning of the chapter and the meaning of this verse:
1. And these are the ordinances that you shall set before them. 2. Should you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work [for] six years, and in the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge. 3. If he comes [in] alone, he shall go out alone; if he is a married man, his wife shall go out with him. 4. If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5. But if the slave says, “I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go free,” 6. his master shall bring him to the judges, and he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.
Chessie L. Edwards was smart, he tried to deceive his readers by alienating the beginning of the chapter, where it promotes slavery, in fact it promotes slavery of a person forever as is clearly demonstrated above. What’s worse is that the verse he gave (16), does not mean that slavery means kidnapping, it actually means that a man cannot kidnap another man’s slave! For clarity, verse 16 is a law outlawing the kidnapping of another man’s slave, it’s okay to have slaves, just bad to take a slave from its owner, here is the Biblical commentary to support this:
Why is this said? Since it is said: “If a man be found to have stolen a person from among his fellow—men [he shall die]” I would know only [that this applies to] a man who stole another person.
By thus law every man-stealer, and every receiver of the stolen person, should lose his life; no matter whether the latter stole the man himself, or gave money to a slave captain or negro-dealer to steal for him. – Adam Clarke Biblical Commentary.
Isn’t it sad to see Mr. Edwards not only playing games with his scripture, but willingly misrepresenting it? If his character is this lowly, one must challenge this man’s credibility and sanity. In fact, he decides to say that the Bible only allows slavery, for economic purposes:
“ Furthermore, slavery within the Old Testament context was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial or sexual prejudices….”
I shall question this logic by referring to Bamidbar (Numbers) 31 of the Old Testament, what economic problems or debts were the Israelites facing in order to commit this atrocity?
And Moses said to them: “Have you kept all the women alive?
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.
and thirty-two thousand persons in all, of women who had not known a man intimately.
Were 32,000 virgin girls repaying some debt that Mr. Edwards would like to inform us of? I checked the chapter and you can too, right here. What economic problem or debt entails enslaving 32,000 virgins? Perhaps Mr. Edwards solution to his own debt problems is to get a virgin for himself to be intimate with? Mr. Edwards should probably work in wall street! He then goes on what I can assume is a drunken tirade, or probably drug driven rage of irrational, emotional, incoherent and inconsistent rabid ramblings:
Some of these dawahist desperate to give poor unsuspecting westerners “shahadah”(maybe to marry them?)
I checked the dictionary, I don’t know why he’s making up words again, it may be a side effect of a hangover, but what grown man, in an academic settings decides to sit down and make up words? “Dawahist”, sometimes I really wonder what’s in those bottles this man consumes.
may try to use Genesis 9:21-24 as proof that the Bible endorses racism. If anyone with at least half a bit of intellect would read the whole passage there is nothing in the text about Africa or African slavery.
Sure, there is nothing in the text about Africans or African slavery, the Bible is atleast in it’s complete form 700 years before the advent of African slavery, however Christians by and large (as demonstrated above) did in fact, use Bereishit (Genesis) 9:21-24 as a means of promoting slavery and distilling the gospel among the negro peoples:

The bells of the Bristol churches pealed merrily on the news of the rejection by Parliament of Wilberforce’s bill for the abolition of the slave trade. The slave trader, John Newton, gave thanks in the Liverpool churches for the success of his last venture before his conversion and implored God’s blessing on his next. He established public worship twice every day on his slaver, officiating himself, and kept a day of fasting and prayer, not for the slaves but for the crew. “I never knew,” he confessed, “sweeter or more frequent hours of divine communion than in the last two voyages to Guinea.” – [Larimer, op. cit., 100. & S. H. Swinny, The Humanitarianism of the Eighteenth Century.]

You read that correctly, while Mr. Edwards Genesis has anything to do with Biblical Slavery, the Christians in England were busy celebrating the prohibition of outlawing the slave trade. What a striking difference between Mr. Edward’s narrative and historical accounts. His drunken stupor then allowed him to state:

“The prophecy of Noah regrading Canaan was fulfilled in the Old Testament, there is no bases to apply it to anyone else or any other time period. If ignoramuses in the 1700’s tried to read their racist ideology into the text..”

Again, he finds himself at odds with missionaries and clergy men:

Many missionaries found it profitable to drive out Beelzebub by Beelzebub. According to the most recent English writer on the slave trade, they “considered that the best way in which to remedy abuse of negro slaves was to set the plantation owners a good example by keeping slaves and estates themselves, accomplishing in this practical manner the salvation of the planters and the advancement of their foundations.” The Moravian missionaries in the islands held slaves without hesitation; the Baptists, one historian writes with charming delicacy, would not allow their earlier missionaries to deprecate ownership of slaves.74 To the very end the Bishop of Exeter retained his 655 slaves, for whom he received over 12,700 compensation in 1833. Church historians make awkward apologies, that conscience awoke very slowly to the appreciation of the wrongs inflicted by slavery and that the defence of slavery by churchmen “simply arose from want of delicacy of moral perception.” – [ Mackenzie-Grieve, op. cit., 162., G. R. Wynne, The Church in Greater Britain (London, 1911), 120., H. of C. Sess. Pap., 1837-8, Vol. 48. The exact figure was 12,729.4.4 (pp. 19, 22)., Wynne, op. cit., 120; C. J. Abbey and J. H. Overton, The English Church in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1878), II, 107. and its results, in F. S. Marvin (ed.), Western Races and the World (Oxford, 1922), 130-131.]

He then begins to divert attention from his own Bible, by trying to claim the Qur’aan allows the chattel slavery of the Bible:

“…then they are no worst off then the Muslim slavers(many illiterate unable to read the Bible see Quran 62:2) who used the same misunderstandings to justify their own actions in Africa.”

So what does Qur’aan Surah 62, Ayat 2 say?

It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered a messenger from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom,- although they had been, before, in manifest error;-

There’s a reason the clown didn’t quote it in his article, because the citation is bogus, it’s not only irrelevant to the topic of discourse but goes on to demonstrate how desperate he has become. To deflect from his own ignorance of the Qur’aan, history and Biblical teachings he has to cast a diversion to draw aspersions on a scripture he incorrectly referenced. May God help this jackal of a man. His own words continue to defile any form of intellectual responsibility and accountability:

Further more the reality is that Slavery was not nearly eradicated from the earth  by Mullahs, Ulamah, and Caliphs, but the abolitionist movements which were germinated and watered by many Christians who looked keenly into the Bible and saw that the enslavement of people of African decent was abhorrent and needed to be stopped. May I remind the reader that the only reason slavery is not as prevalent in the Muslim world as it was even 60 years ago is because the principles of the abolitionist movement enshrined in Western culture influenced(or just shamed) the Muslim world?

This is probably one of the dumbest statements a man can make. The Muslims (West African tribes) were the slaves, brought forcibly to the West Indies. How could a Muslim in Arabia free a slave in the Caribbean? Mr. Edwards is trying to claim that it wasn’t Muslims who abolished slavery, it was the English Christians. Whereas this isn’t the case. To begin with, the very first person to propose enslaving Africans was a Christian. Christian priest, Bartholomew de la Casas, whom himself had slaves, proposed the use of Africans to ease the suffering of the slavery of the Amerindians. Lest we digress, how could the Arabs who did not have colonies in the West Indies, abolish the slave colonies of the Christian world super powers of England, France and Spain? I demand to know what is the source of this man’s logic.

“…where is the Muslim world’s William Wiberforce? Where is the Islamic John Brownfighting slavery in Dar ul Sudan? When has there ever been any indigenous grassroots abolitionist movement in a Muslim land?”

Well to answer our ignorant friend’s question, roughly 1200 years before any of these figures existed, Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded the freeing of slaves through the revelation of the Qur’aan:

Indeed We have created man (to live) in hard struggle. Does he think that no one has power over him? He says, “I have spent a lot of wealth.” Does he think that no one has seen him? Did We not make for him two eyes, And one tongue and two lips, And showed him the two ways? Yet he did not make his way through the steep course, And what may let you know what the steep course is? It is freeing the neck of a slave.

In fact the Qur’aan clearly details removing slavery:

…..And those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your right hands possess – then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.

It was even the Muslims who compelled the British to remove slavery from being legal, they even did so themselves, leading by example in Morocco:

Moorish envoy to England, in 1813, from Mulai Sulaiman, Emperor of Morocco (1794-1822), in whose reign Christian slavery was abolished in Morocco. His son Meïr Cohen Machim visited England in the same capacity in 1827.

 All slaves should show full respect for their masters so they will not bring shame on the name of God and his teaching. 2 If the masters are believers, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. Those slaves should work all the harder because their efforts are helping other believerswho are well loved.
And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: Nigeria’s Boko Haram: More Misunderstander’s of Islam?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Our favourite propagandist/ anti-intellectual has made an epic return. After a few embarrassing round of posts, Chessie L. Edwards, commonly known for his hate rhethoric has decided to make another erratic post on his already failing blog. Most of us would have heard about the tragic terrorist attacks in Nigeria on Christmas day, which as Muslims was condemned throughout the world. In fact, here’s a handy list of fatwas and statements by more than 100+ Islamic scholars condemning terrorism in the name of Islam.

While the incidents on Christmas Day were indeed tragic, it was even worse to see Christians such as Chessie L. Edwards, milking such a tragedy for views on his website. I apologize to all those who had to read his abusive and incoherent, drunken tirade against Muslims on that day. Chessie L. Edwards began to attack all Muslims for the actions of a few, just as his forefathers did (3 Crusades, hundrends of thousands dead):

Yet another Terrorist group on the arise killing at will and destroying kafir law and order with impunity.

Does Chessie L. Edwards not read about his own Christian brothers raping, maiming, slaughtering and committing genocide in Africa:

The LRA rebels stated that they fought for the establishment of a government based on the biblical Ten Commandments. They were notorious for kidnapping children and forcing them to become rebel fighters or concubines. More than one-half-million people in Uganda’s Gulu and Kitgum districts had been displaced by the fighting and lived in temporary camps, protected by the army.

In fact, he goes on to ask why American Islamic Organizations didn’t send scholars to teach/ correct the beliefs of the Nigerian terrorists, therefore we must ask the same question to him, Chessie, why don’t you and sam shamoun go and teach the LRA not to rape women and kill babies? Are you too busy pointing the fingers at Muslims to not correct your violent brothers in the name of Christ?

In fact, the Christians in Nigeria, instead of turning the other cheek, decided to kill Muslim children in a bomb attack on an Islamic school:

A homemade bomb was thrown into a madrasa in Delta State in southern Nigeria, the police said, wounding seven people and escalating already uneasy tensions between Muslims and Christians after several church bombings across the nation. Six of the wounded were children younger than 9.

Would Mr. Edwards kindly go and teach the true teachings of Christ to the Christian murderers and rapists in Africa, or as always, is he just sitting behind his computer attacking Muslims and messaging young Muslim boys on the internet still?

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

CL Edwards Responds, Again

Posted on by 2 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Earlier today I received a notification that a comment had been posted on this website. It wasn’t really a surprise to see who had written it, but I couldn’t keep a straight face after reading it. I’m still coping with the amount of humour this guy brings to the table. Naturally, I’m a bit perplexed though. You see, earlier yesterday evening, Mr. Edwards decided to author a post about me, “Pulling the cloak off the self appointed Da’ee“, which was fun and all to refute, which you can find here and here. However, as it seems, our respected opponent has a problem with the refutations. He thinks it’s creepy that I’m refuting his attacks on Islam and against me:

It’s always nice to have him comment on my posts, alteast that way I know he’s read something and can’t respond to it, so he leaves a comment to show it “just isn’t worth his time” (although he does have time to send me inbox messages, comments and links on FB), which really just signals to me, he doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to give a rebuttal to my writings. In fact, Mr. Edwards does have a creepy stalker like obsession with me, while I was a legal minor (that is according to most international law declarations), he would message me constantly on FB, until finally, a few months ago I sent him a reply that really must’ve knocked the wind out of him:

I say it must’ve knocked the wind out of him because he stopped sending me messages asking me about my personal life, that being in terms of religion. It’s sad to say he’s at it again, I’m legal now, so he must be rearing to have a chance at me (in what way, I can’t say), otherwise I’m not quite sure why he has the need to message me on FB, post comments on threads I’ve used, comment on my website or write entire articles about me.

As you can see for yourselves, just how many comments I’ve received from this man total atleast 100 +:

1 + 33 + 40 + 11 + 21 = 106

May God guide him from whatever evil he intends towards me, or any other young Muslims on the internet, Ameen.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: Pulling the cloak off the self appointed Da’ee [Part 2]

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Continuing from part one, which focused on his petulant tirade due to his own actions, let’s see what else Mr. Edwards has decided to throw at us:

“Here are the questions Hijaz refused to answer that I have referenced on the comments page of the last post on the site.”
Note: He’s referring to the comments on his own website, where yes, I did respond to his claims, but alas, the comments were not approved for display. Next, he questions me on this post, referring to Suratul Baqarah (2) : 2 – 5. Also note, he can’t spell my name, yet again, he’s lowered himself to childish antics by mocking my name. This is the kind of “man” we’re dealing with, when he’s challenged and he can’t meet said challenge, his mind recesses into a despotic and incoherent rage where all he can do is regurgitate childish insults from among his anti-Islamic peers.
There are 6 things in this ayah that you say assures one of salvation
Fear of Allah, Believe in the Unseen, steadfast in prayer, spend out of provisions, Believe in the revelation sent before and after, have assurance of the hereafter in the heart.
Yes, that’s what the ayats say. Then he goes on to question me on the meaning of those ayat, which were again, answered with full references here, however I did not expect him to read my initial response, which is why he needs to ask the same questions atleast a couple more times before he can actually grasp it. Remember folks, he’s slow, whether intentional or otherwise and we do intend to cater for his special needs:
Questions:
What is the definition of each one of these points, or how does one know they achieved them?
How does one achieve these things?
In what measure must these things be achieved before you know for certain you have assured salvation?
By you citing this am I to take it that you hold that salvation in Islam is based on the effort of the creature ? “
Answers:
(1) Definition is given in this post, which I will quote for our friend:
The Qur’aan does not make it difficult though, so what does a Muslim need to act upon and believe to gain heaven?

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;

Believe in the Qur’aan, use it as a form of guidance, so that we develop taqwa (God consciousness).

Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;

Believe in what Allaah has ordained for us and what He has told us, but which we have yet to know or experience. Perform praise and worship of God and live life within the means He has provided for us in a righteous way.

And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.

Belief in the Qur’aan, Injil, Tawrah Zabur, Suhuf al Ibrahim. As for assurance of the hereafter:

(And in the Hereafter they are certain) that is the resurrection, the standing (on the Day of Resurrection), Paradise, the Fire, the reckoning and the the Scale that weighs the deeds (the Mizan). The Hereafter is so named because it comes after this earthly life. – Tafsir ibn Kathir : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 4.

Lastly:

They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.

Meaning:

(They are) refers to those who believe in the Unseen, establish the prayer, spend from what Allah has granted them, believe in what Allah has revealed to the Messenger and the Messengers before him, believe in the Hereafter with certainty, and prepare the necessary requirements for the Hereafter by performing good deeds and avoiding the prohibitions.(And they are the successful) meaning, in this world and the Hereafter. They shall have what they seek and be saved from the evil that they tried to avoid. Therefore, they will have rewards, eternal life in Paradise, and safety from the torment that Allah has prepared for His enemies. – Tafsir ibn Kathir : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 4.

Therefore the Qur’aan is extremely clear, it essentially spells it out for all Muslims, that sincere belief and God sanctioned actions would secure one a place in heaven.
(2) One achieves these things by sincerely believing in what those ayat say to believe in and by sincerely practising upon what those ayat say to practise. Note, he repeats question 1 in question 2. Clearly the man has literacy issues.
(4) No. That’s your assertion, Salvation on Islam is dependant upon two things:
  • Your own actions and beliefs.
  • Mercy of God.
If you don’t do as God commanded, then that’s sinning, if you don’t believe in what God has commanded you to believe, that is sinning. Likewise, the converse of this statement is also true. However although one is a sinner, God’s mercy is what is needed. If a man is a sinner and repents, then it’s God’s mercy that assures him salvation. Salvation, is to be free from sin and the punishment of sin. For Mr. Edwards to claim he has salvation is to claim he isn’t a sinner nor will God punish him, which is ironic, since all humans, by their very nature are prone to sin as the Bible says. Circular reasoning at its best.
Lastly, I’d like to point out how hilarious this guy is. I’m going to show you why I can’t take him seriously, I do believe he is a student of a clown college of some sorts, look at this guy’s poor, if not absolutely laughable authorship skills:
He spells my name wrong, twice, each right after the other. If this is any indication of his lack of consistency, integrity and literacy, I must express my condolences for his viewership, given how abysmal and dismal it may be. Before he claims I didn’t answer anymore of his questions, let’s see what else his incoherent post says:
” I would like to make clear Islamic salvation is it purely a work of the creature, is it purely a work of God or is it synergistic a combination of the two? “
Which was already answered above:
(4) No. That’s your assertion, Salvation on Islam is dependant upon two things:
  • Your own actions and beliefs.
  • Mercy of God.
If you don’t do as God commanded, then that’s sinning, if you don’t believe in what God has commanded you to believe, that is sinning. Likewise, the converse of this statement is also true. However although one is a sinner, God’s mercy is what is needed. If a man is a sinner and repents, then it’s God’s mercy that assures him salvation. Salvation, is to be free from sin and the punishment of sin. For Mr. Edwards to claim he has salvation is to claim he isn’t a sinner nor will God punish him, which is ironic, since all humans, by their very nature are prone to sin as the Bible says. Circular reasoning at its best.
He isn’t difficult to respond to. His incredulous behaviour is a sign that he’s slowly losing grip on reality:
  • Reads my name wrong.
  • Spells it wrong, one right after the other.
  • Repeats himself.
  • Can’t follow his own rules.
  • Incoherent and incosistent posts.

If someone knows what these are symptoms of, perhaps dementia or some other psychological disorder, please inform us so that we may take other methods to comforting and aiding our ailing opponent. He is in our prayers.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: Pulling the cloak off the self appointed Da’ee [Part 1]

Posted on by 3 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

He’s at it again, Mr. Edwards is back at it. After several back and forth arguments over Facebook, Website comments and Article posts, his mind has finally cracked. There is no other logical explanation, save that he may be drunk off of communion wine, but I always try to find the best in my opponents, so I shall regard his latest post as a blunder for which he will develop a grand learning experience from. I do sympathize with his meager post, sure it lacks consistency and really is just an attack on me, but that’s expected when you’re old and slow and can’t keep up with a new, significantly younger generation of enthusiastic Muslims. I do not hold him responsible for his dishonesty or for his ironed fisted tactics, after all he is a Christian, but then that would mean doing as he does and the truth is, as a Muslim it is irresponsible for me to generalize groups of people. Therefore I accept that Mr. Edwards does not represent a significant part of the Christian community, nor of the rest of the human population and that honestly makes me feel better. The world suddenly looks just a tad bit brighter. So, what’s our favourite comedian (sorry, I meant “educated theologian”) up to today?

Well he’s decided to be hypocritical, from his post, he calls me out demanding to know why his comments on my website (this one) are now being censored:

Hijaz of callingchristians has made a big fuss over me implementing moderation on comments …oh the hypocrisy!!! You see in the screen shot below he is holding one of my comments up for moderation, yet posts a comment to a earlier comment of mines!!

At this point, I’m not sure if he’s realised what he’s written but he simply has gotten himself in a bit of a fancy. Yes, I did make a post about him moderating my comments on his “blog”, which you can read here. As one can see,  I was honest and kind enough to update the post when he did let a few of my comments through:

However, since he continued to moderate my comments on his website, I made it clear to him that in reciprocation I would do the same to him, in fact I informed him of this on both my website and his “blog”, that comment, still isn’t available for viewing on his blog, but it is on mines:

He was clearly told, if he continued to cry wolf, his comments would be removed. Subsequently, when he refused to allow our comments to be displayed on his website, we decided to moderate his. You see, he’s like a child, he doesn’t like when he’s being given a taste of his own medicine. He’s fine with prohibiting us from commenting on his “blog”, but he isn’t man enough to have his own comments moderated on our website. If he does have a problem with us following his lead, then please take it up with the Bible:

Do to others as you would have them do to you. – Bible : Luke (6) : 31.

It’s simple, if you can’t hold yourself to your own standards (however lowly they may be), don’t expect us to satiate your petulant needs, we aren’t your parents, don’t expect us to forgo your own inequities, for we’ll with a surety wage them against you. Also, we do ask, if anyone can help Mr. Edwards (which you can see I’ve always addressed him as), he seems to have a disability, he is currently unable to write my name correctly. In fact I’m beginning to think this explains quite clearly why he’s such an angry little man, perhaps his literacy issue has driven him to always attack others. We can offer him help, but in the meantime we do request that he does learn to spell my name correctly, there’s no “H” in Ijaz.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

[Updated: x2] CL Edwards Censors CallingChristians Comments on his Website

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

After several bouts of severe public humiliation, CL Edwards has decided to censor and ban all comments of CallingChristians on his website. You can view every single one of his comments on our blog, none have been removed, yet he has the audacity and insincerity to censor responses to him. Christianity does not allow free speech, which is why, with following in his father’s footsteps he needs to attack truth and prohibit the distribution of it:

Do you think he will be honest enough with his viewers and himself to let free speech reign on his website?

The comment up until post time has not been approved.
[UPDATE:] The comment has now bee approved!
[UPDATE x2:] Comments banned from his website, unless he approves they won’t be shown, all of his however are shown on ours.

Before he claims his comments have been removed from our website, here is the administration page, this is a screenshot, which of your comments are missing?

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

CL. Edwards Claims Divinity/ Prophetic Powers

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In his most damning post yet, Mr. Edwards now claims he has the Divine knowledge of God, that he knows God’s will, that he knows God’s will towards salvation. God’s will essentially is divine knowledge, meaning while we are existing in the, “now”, God already knows our past, present and future, we’re merely finding out what this divine will entails as we go along with out lives. However, since time immemorial, lots of people have claimed to have divine powers of being able to see into the past, look into the future, some even professing they’re able to know who God’s people are, others end up predicting the end of the world twice and failing.

It honestly does take a special breed of idiot to believe in such fanciful things, when especially both the Bible and Qur’aan condemn these people as soothsayers. Lo and behold, enters the newest act that this freak show has to offer. None other than CL Edwards of Calling Muslims. During a debacle on Facebook, he decided to attribute divinity to himself:

He says, and I quote, “Yes I know God’s will concerning my salvation…“, sir, we have the following questions for you based on that statement:

(1) How did you attain this ability of gaining this divine knowledge?
(2) What evidence do you have to suggest you posses such divine knowledge?
(3) On what basis can you claim to know the divine will of God?
(4) Is there a method to obtaining God’s divine knowledge?
(5) What indicators are there to know that a person has successfully Googled God’s knowledge?

Since he knows God’s will, particularly in light of being saved from sin and the penalty of sin (salvation):

(1) What sins does God intend to protect you from?
(2) What sins has He protected you from?
(3) Why did he choose to grant you salvation?
(4) Want penalties of sin did he save you from?
(5) Why did he choose you to share His divine knowledge?

I am certain you saw this with the “divine knowledge” you posses. Therefore I assume you already have the answers to my questions, as God would have wanted to save you from having to defend yourself from, as you put it, “an anti-Grace Religion”. I do look forward to your contribution to this topic of discourse. However, I would now like to point out that divine knowledge concerning the salvation of mankind was not even given to Jesus:

“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” – Bible : Matthew (24) : 36.

Seeing as Jesus himself, claimed not to have divine knowledge concerning the salvation of the world when it ends, how can Mr. Edwards claim such a rank? He himself may just be claiming to be superior to his own God, which I must say is not unusual for his superiority complex and arrogant attitude. We do hope he can humble himself and return to either Christian Orthodoxy (which contends the divine will of God is among His Holy Mysteries) or that he accepts Islam.

Either way, we must congratulate him on his elevation from Orthodox Christianity by claiming to know of the divine will of the grace of God (salvation) and we must congratulate him on his outstanding theatrical performance thus far, as without a doubt, I cannot fathom from the depths of my mind that a person can be so conceded, if however this is the case, I am ashamed and saddened at his behaviour.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: Islam a Anti-Grace religion:Reply to Ijaz of callingchristians

Posted on by 4 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I must say that I am quite impressed by Mr. Edwards’ post. It’s truly quite remarkable that any critically thinking hominid could possibly call that disaster of a post, a “response” to my articles here and here. I’m not sure if he’s wanting attention or perhaps he couldn’t afford to not reply, so he’s having to save face here, but it’s absolutely hilarious on his part to assume he has any form of any argument. One of the basic flaws of a failed academic and pseudo intellectual is that they would try to appeal to a few fallacies/ argument inconsistencies:

(1) Fallacy of Reading Between the lines.
(2) Being Overtly Pedantic.
(3) Arguing over Semantics.

He begins his barbaric tirade by implying I did not answer his question(s):

The short of it is He refuses to directly answer the question but we can gather from the above reply he doesn’t, nor does any Muslim for that matter…

However, I suggest you read this article, where not only is my answer a clear and resounding, “Yes”, it’s even in bold and big bright, red lettering for his convenience. If I didn’t reply, then why did he comment on my post? Self contradicting statements are always funny. The deceit of an ignoramus knows no end indeed. He sums up his post by saying his response to me is the above quoted statement:

And that was the point of my post.

So after saying I didn’t provide a response, he then decides to magically see my response, which was:

” Why, yes I do, I am assured salvation providing I practise upon and have sincere believe in Islam, as explained in the beginning section of my previous reply to you here. “

To which his reply was:

“Proving you practise is a condition, something with a condition is not assured, because He vary well my not live up to the condition.  If it was truly assurd it would be with out condition.”

So what exactly is his argument? Let me break it down:

(1) He says he will go to heaven.
(2) I say we can only go to heaven depending on God’s will, we cannot tell God we’re going to heaven.
(3) He says he agrees with me:

(4) After saying he agrees with me, he decides that he doesn’t agree, as his blog post now says:

“As for me I have no shame in declaring to the world that I am saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ, He has given me eternal Life, and I rest in Christ with perfect peace because of this salvation He has achieved for me.”

So sir, can you please make up your mind? On one end you’re saying I’m right (you agree with me), the other you’re saying you don’t, as you can self claim going to heaven.

wa Allahu Alam,
[and God knows best.]

[Updated x3!] CL. Edwards Caught Lying: Can’t Make Up His Mind!

Posted on by 7 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

After posting this article, Mr. Edwards decided to publicly shame himself, I’m not sure why he decided to do so, but I must say it was a pleasure to see his act. To begin with, his response to said article was:

Mr. Edwards, sir, you did not say, “Only God can for a certainty determine where I will go”. Sir you actually said the following, let me refresh your mind for you:

You actually said the opposite,”By the way I can say for certain I ma going to Jannah because of what the Christ has done for me…“.

Mr. Edwards, at this point, I must ask you, which is it?
(1) You can say for sure you’re going to heaven.
(2) You let God decide where you go.

You’re singing two songs here sir, does your own deceit know no end? What I must admit, is that this guy cannot stop fumbling, if we take a look at the second comment from the first photo, he proposes a question to me:

“…do you Ijaz have assurance of Salvation..”

Why, yes I do, I am assured salvation providing I practise upon and have sincere believe in Islam, as explained in the beginning section of my previous reply to you here.

Please learn to read Mr. Edwards, I don’t have the time to have to constantly fix your inequities.

[Updated:]

After showing Mr. Edwards this post, he still couldn’t find the answer to his question, which I have now put in red and bold for his viewing pleasure. Here you can see that I clearly linked to him the post, with his answer being in the second to last line of this very response [article, see in red above]:

[Updated x2:]

I’m not sure if he’s colorblind or illiterate, but this was his response, he still could not find my answer which was in bold and red letters:

[Updated x3]:

Again, Mr. Edwards is simply grasping for straws, after answering his question above, which was not only in this post and my previous post, he decided to create a strawman and attack it. What was my answer to his question?

Why, yes I do, I am assured salvation providing I practise upon and have sincere believe in Islam, as explained in the beginning section of my previous reply to you here.

Do you all see the word, “YES“, in that quote, because I do, unfortunately Mr. Edwards sees the word no, so I’m not sure if he’s being petulant or simply can’t accept the YES which I gave:

wa Allaahu Alam.
[ and God knows best.]

« Older Entries Recent Entries »