Search
Br. Ayaz Ud Din debates a very popular topic with Reverend David Bruno later today in Birmingham (UK). The event is free to attend. It should be recorded and once we do acquire the recording we’ll post it.
and God knows best.
Most people understand that language has depth. That language has devices that are used to convey ideas, thoughts and beliefs beyond a one dimensional literalistic paradigm. Most people are familiar with the sciences of exegesis and hermeneutics, which are often employed in helping us to understand scripture. Now, that is most people and not all people. One of those people who doesn’t understand these things is Nabeel Qureishi. For example, he recently posted this:
Now, see if he had read his Bible, even given it a cursory glance he’d come to realise that the phraseology of the Semitic people who wanted to describe a limit or boundary as given by the sea would often use the language of, “where the sun sets”. So for example, we read in the Qur’an 18:85-86:
He set out (westwards) on an expedition, Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it [as if] setting in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people.
So, as these passages state, he set out on a journey through the land until he reached a limit where he found a people. What was used to describe this limit? The sea and the sun setting. This was a phrase used to describe the limit of one’s journey being bounded by some body of water be it a sea or an ocean, a lake etc. In Nabeel’s very Bible, such phraseology is used:
“From the wilderness and this Lebanon, even as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and as far as the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun will be your territory.” – Joshua 1:4
“See, I have apportioned to you these nations which remain as an inheritance for your tribes, with all the nations which I have cut off, from the Jordan even to the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun.” – Joshua 23:4
Some translations don’t use a literal rendering of the words, they try to contextualize them. So in the NASB, NIV and other similar translations they try to translate a text according to its usage and not according to its literal meaning. The Qur’an in most cases uses a literal rendition of the Arabic. The literal rendition of the above Bible passages, uses the exact same terminology that the Qur’an does. We read from the ISV:
Your territorial border will extend from the wilderness to the Lebanon Mountains, to the river—that great River Euphrates—all the land of the Hittites—as far as the Mediterranean Sea where the sun sets.
In one instance, there had to be a citation note explaining why a portion of this passage was excluded from the main translation:
Now look, I have allocated these nations that remain as an inheritance for your tribes, including all of the nations that I have eliminated, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea to the west.[b]
b. Joshua 23:4 Lit. Sea that faces the setting sun
The reason that most Christians are unfamiliar with this phrase is because most English Bible translations, translate “the setting of the sun into the sea” or “the setting of the sun by the sea”, to “the west” or to “the Mediterranean Sea”. So when they see such a phrase in the Qur’an, they don’t make the connection between a descriptive term and its use in scripture by the language of the people at that time. This is what happened in the case of Nabeel. He is not familiar with the language of the Bible, nor with the language of the Qur’an.
To aid Nabeel, I’ve used a popular language device in the title of this post. “The Sun Sets on Nabeel Qureishi,” is an oft used language device. Given that Nabeel seems to read things literally, I wanted to point out to him that not everything can or should be read literally. Here’s some examples of language devices being used in sentences and they aren’t meant to be understood literally:
So, Nabeel, I’m addressing you, the guy in this picture:
“The Sun Sets on Nabeel Qureishi,” does not mean that I think the sun is literally falling on top of you. It does not mean that I want the sun to harm you. It does not mean that I think the sun goes up or down. It quite simply, does not mean anything literally. In modern English, the sun setting for someone can have varying meanings. It can mean they’re shining less brightly as a person, and just so I don’t confuse you, by shining brightly I mean they are not performing according to expected standards of normalcy. In some cases it also means the person is dim (again not literally, but in terms of wit, see: dimwitted), or in decline (again not literally in decline, like as if they’re sitting or stooping, I mean performance or career wise) in some way.
I hope you’ve learned something very valuable today. You can swap a t-shirt for a suit, but it doesn’t make you any smarter. As for his claim on Qur’an 86:7, I didn’t want to confuse him any further than he already is, but for everyone else here’s an excellent article explaining the basic Arabic usage of the terms in the passage.
and God knows best.
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Introduction
It is almost absurd to believe that of all peoples, that Christendom has decided to become outspoken and condemn honour killings, when they are almost single handedly responsible for promoting this culture of honour killings, beliefs enshrined in their own scripture. Note, this is not a defense of honour killings as this sort of act is haram in Islam, as this is seen as murder, but this is a treatise on the issue as raised by the Answering Islam team. The Qur’an says on murder:
“Whoever kills a believer deliberately, his reward is Jahannam: he shall remain FOREVER therein, and Allah will be furious with him and will curse him, and will prepare for him a wretched torment”. – Qur’an Surah 4: Ayah 93.
The article on Answering Islam, demonstrates that this was an act common some 1075 years before Christ, credited to the Assyrian civilization, yet fails to recall, that this was an act that YHWH prescribed:
“‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.” – Bible, Leviticus 21:9.
Oddly enough, this very act is defined as an honour killing according to the the definition as provided by Oskar’s article:
Honour killings regularly make media headlines. Clan or family members are brutally murdered by one or more relatives because they feel that their victims have brought shame upon them by what is perceived as unacceptable sexual behaviour, marriage partners or dress codes. In order to restore lost honour, blood has to flow.
Actually, to be a bit more explicit, the act in Leviticus, fulfils every criteria that the Answering Islam team has highlighted in their definition to label an act as an honour killing. Hold this example from Leviticus in mind, as Oskar of the Answering Islam team, completely ignores what his own scripture says in this regard and tries to pin some loosely based conjectural concept on honour killings and then tie it to Islam.
Conditions That Still Allow Honour Killings to Happen Today
Oskar then references, several ayat from the Qur’an, namely: 18:66-84, 24:2, 4:34-35, 3:110, some ahadith, such as in Sahih Bukhari, #2.413, #8.805, #814, and #819. The problem is however, that none of these ayat or hadith references permit or allow honour killings. They do however, do state that there are punishments for adultery and fornication:
“The fornicating woman and the fornicating man, flog each one of them with one hundred stripes. No pity for them should prevail upon you in the matter of Allah’s religion, if you really believe in Allah and the Last Day; and a group of believers must witness their punishment.” – Qur’an Surah 24, Ayah 2.
None of these ayat, or ahadith permit civilian justice, meaning then, that anyone can take it upon himself to carry out the injunctions as listed in them. In fact, I’d request that the Answering Islam team, demonstrate for me, one ayah or hadith from that which they have referenced in the aforementioned article where they are supposed to take the law into their own hands. The truth is, such an injunction does not exist and their evidences for trying to atleast imply so, are shoddy at best. Oskar and the Answering Islam team seem to have forgotten that Muslims have Shari’ah courts, where these laws are supposed to be applied. On one end you seem Christians condemning Shari’ah courts but on the other, in an article on the use of Islamic law, they seem to have intentionally forgotten the processes through which Islamic law is practised.
To begin with, the Shari’ah in Islam, when it comes to the Hudud (penal code) are relegated to a Mufti (legal jurist), or a Shura (judging council) or Qadhi (Islamic Judge) wherein a fatwa (legal opinion) is delivered. This is done after consultation, evidence discussion, witness reports etc. Mufti Ebrahim Desai [db], expounds upon the legal tradition/ methodology in Islam in the following excerpt:
1. According to Shariah, Fatwa is defined as:
“Fatwa is to communicate the Law of Allah with regards to matters of Deen substantiated by validations stipulated in the Shariah to those who enquire with regards to matters of revelation in a general way and in manner that is not enforcing or compelling (Al Misbah Fi Rasmil Mufti Wamanahihil Ifta Vol.1 Page 16)”
The words “matters of Deen” has been used in the definition and not “Laws of Shariah” as sometimes a Mufti is questioned with regards to issues that do not pertain to Amal (actions) like Salah, Wudhu etc. for example issues of Tafseer, Aqeedah, Hadith, general advice etc.
Stipulated validations refers to those Masaa’il which are proven from the recognized sources of Shariah.
“In a general way” means that the Fatwa could be applied or practiced upon by more than one individual. If others are faced with the same situation of the questioner, the fatwa issued could be practiced by them as well. This draws a distinction between Iftaa and Qadhaa. A Fatwa is more general and could be practised upon by many individuals. However, a Qadhaa (decree) issued by a Qadhi (Judge) can only be practised upon by the specific person regarding whom judgement has been issued. In short, a Fatwa is more general while a Qadhaa is specific for an individual.
Another fundamental difference between Iftaa and Qadhaa is that a Fatwa is not enforceable. That is a Mufti cannot compel the Mustafti (questioner) to practice upon his Fatwa. However, a Qaadhi (Judge appointed by the Muslim Government) has the power of Infaaz (ability to enforce practice of his Decree). If a citizen does not practice upon the decree of a Qaadhi, he could be charged on violation of a Court Judgement.
2. In former times a Mufti was regarded to be a Mujtahid (one who deduces ruling directly from the sources of Shariah). Nowadays the term Mufti has become common to those who specialize in the field of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh). In reality, a Mufti nowadays only makes reference to the books of our illustrious Fuqahaa (jurists) and issues rulings in their books.
This therefore, soundly refutes the claim that Muslims are to execute the commands of the Hudud by themselves without taking their issues before Islamic judges to receive punishment from an Islamic court. Muslims are never commanded to take the law into their own hands, especially when it comes to punishments were persons have to be killed.
The Biblical Origins Behind Honour Killings
Recall the verse from Leviticus:
“‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.” – Bible, Leviticus 21:9.
The Old Testament, under the command of the Christian God, YHWH, commands more rulings of death, to be issued by every Tom, Dick and Harry (instead of appealing to a court for cases to be tried):
“And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.” – Bible Exodus 21:17.
“For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” – Bible, Leviticus 20:9.
These are some of many verses, which clearly fit the exact definition as provided by the Answering Islam team. It is quite hilarious to note that they completely ignored the inspired teachings of YHWH’s violent laws, which were enforced by Him throughout the centuries. Here are a few more:
“Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death.” – Bible, Exodus 21:15.
This one, encourages YHWH’s servants to commit genocide of an entire town if they shame them by serving other Gods:
“that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors— because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.” – Bible, Deuteronomy 13:13-19.
One of the most popular reasons for honour killings, are due to sexual gratification or due to sexual shame. Well, the Christian Old Testament, certainly isn’t a stranger to this belief:
“But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.” – Bible, Deuteronomy 22:20-21.
The Honourable Way Out of Honour Killings
Oskar spends a considerable amount of time telling us to go to Jesus to prevent honour killings, yet that doesn’t seem to work (see link), not even for the very people who are said to be the direct descendants of Christ and his disciples. In fact, the only logical way of dealing with honour killings is to remove this culture of self justice from among a civilian populace. Authority to punish persons should not be given to all members of society, as they may not be able to exercise just rulings in light of tribal relations, relationship statuses, and even confirmation bias. Therefore it is best to have a form of a tribunal or court where cases of family disputes can be tried before relevant authorities who are trained and well educated in such fields. This prevents any unlawful killings by family members, wherein this regulates the norms and values of the society in relation to punishing a close relative for some shameful action.
In following from further reading from Oskar’s article, I’m quite a bit puzzled as to how these verses from the Bible, as presented by Oskar will help solve the problem of persons killing each other due to crimes of passion or honour:
John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29)
The time has come, Jesus said. The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news! (Mark 1:15)
Does Oskar intend to tell the man who just killed his daughter because she married a Muslim man, that a lamb is going to make him sinless? I fail to see the logic in Oskar’s argument. To me, it seems as if Answering Islam isn’t being honest with us, they are using a societal deviance to gain website views, as opposed to actually dealing with a growing problem. A problem, which, as I have demonstrated, was introduced to the world, by the laws of their vengeful and violent God.
Conclusion
Oskar’s article has been soundly refuted. His evidences were weak and his argumentation was poor. He failed at any point to establish a connection between Islam, Islamic law and the unIslamic act of honour killings. To the contrary, I’ve explicitly defined what Islamic law is, who is supposed to rule by it and how it is supposed to be practise. I have also demonstrated that Oskar’s own book, in itself is a source of literature which encourages such violent acts, which we as Muslims do wholly condemn.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]
1. Spencer is no scholar of Islam
Firstly, Spencer himself claims he is a scholar of Islam, so to make such a powerful statement must be backed up with credentials. Scholar, Ivan Jablonka, stated that Spencer lacks “academic seriousness.”
This is indeed true, because once we look at Spencer’s academic achievements, biography and scholarly claims, we find that indeed, Spencer has no academic qualifications whatsoever to claim he is a scholar about Islam. His friends seem to do so and this is highlighted on his website.
Academically, Spencer has only a Master’s degree in the field of religious studies.
If he is certainly no scholar, then him and his friends are indeed lying about his claims to pass off as an intellectual individual. If he is indeed lying, how then, can he be trusted? His credentials, online presence, website and statements then carry little weight.
2. Spencer cannot understand Arabic
Spencer has written about Islam, the Quran, the hadith and other Islamic sources that have been originally compiled in the complex Arabic language. Little does he know that the Arabic language is full of meaning and interpretation. But this makes it easier for him to misinterpret passages, especially without the reader knowing.
Academically, Spencer has only a Master’s degree in religious studies and not once in his life has he completed or undertaken an Arabic course or degree.
Most Islamic scholars study Arabic, Spencer lacks this crucial understanding.
3. Spencer tries to market and seek profit from books
As we know, Spencer is an author and has written numerous books about Islam. But you can see below that Spencer has uses Twitter not only to promote his web links, but also to conjure up interaction with leading or controversial professionals to try and promote his book.
Whether he is trying to make people interested in his book can be questionable, but raising awareness about it is certainly a promotional marketing strategy.
Even Spencer’s friends have tried promoting his work, such as conspiracy promoting anti-Muslim, Bat Ye’or, who wrote a surprisingly great review of Spencer’s book on Amazon.
Pamela Geller, Spencer’s close friend (co-founder of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and the Freedom Defense Initiative) also wrote a positive review for the audience of her website trying to help promote his works.
4. Spencer uses conspiracy to sell books
Did Jesus exist? Did Moses exist? These have been famous conspiracy theories that have grasped people’s imaginations for centuries and allowed people to gain profit. Spencer recently worked on a new book titled “Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins”. And it seems to have sold.
Forgetting the fact that Muhammad’s life has been narrated by countless people, being recorded and recounted to hundreds if not thousands of people recollected in hadith, Spencer makes things very complex and shifts to small holes in which he regards as proof that Muhammad didn’t exist.
As an example, Spencer asks as to why the early Islamic coins fail to acknowledge Muhammad or the Muslim faith. The simple answer would be that it doesn’t matter and people didn’t have to do it. Nevertheless, these little irrelevant things show that Spencer has cherry picked certain ideas and made them into a big issue. Once all the small ideas are combined, they can be made into a controversial book that sells.
5. Spencer was named by Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik in manifesto
Spencer was named a total of 64 times by name in the manifesto created by Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik shortly before he killed more than 70 people.
Breivik was influenced by Spencer and even recommended Spencer’s blog posts in his manifesto. He even went on to say, ‘About Islam I recommend essentially everything written by Robert Spencer’
6. Spencer is closely linked to Pamela Geller who received an extremist email
Spencer himself co-founded hate-group Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and the Freedom Defense Initiative with fellow friend and blogger Pamela Geller.
In 2007, Pamela Geller received a dangerous email from an anonymous Norwegian, who claimed he/she/or they, were “stockpiling weapons” on her blog AtlasShrugs. The email clearly read “We are stockpiling and caching weapons, ammunition and equipment. This is going to happen fast.” Bloggers quickly reacted, printscreened and Geller issued an article afterwards (because she most likely had to).
If this person was indeed Breivik, then Geller is to be investigated. If the person was not affiliated to Geller, then Geller is still to be investigated because this could be a potential terrorist case.
As we know, Spencer is very closely linked to this woman and ignoring this may result in devastating consequences.
Breivik even recommended Geller’s blog posts in his manifesto.
7. Spencer fear-mongers
Spencer and Geller together, have long been active in spreading the idea that the U.S. is going to ‘Islamized’, a conspiracy ideology that is also remnant in far-right groups such as the Netherlands Party for Freedom and the English Defence League. Together they founded Stop the Islamization of America group, who constantly preach about how the U.S. is being ‘Islamized’.
With his blog JihadWatch, Spencer aids his group and propagates the concept that Islam is slowly ‘creeping’ into the West, whilst also making people hateful of Islam and Muslims too. Here, we see how Spencer funds the association of honour killings and relating them directly to Islam.
This campaign was funded by the Stop the Islamization of America group around the U.S. Islam is clearly attacked and linked to honour killings even though mainstream Islamic scholars have condemned honour killings and have stated they have no place in Islam.
It must be understood that Spencer has less credibility than the majority of Islamic scholars who have studied Islam, the Quran, hadith, traditions and the language of Arabic. Spencer only has a Master’s in religious studies.
8. Spencer picks and chooses to support claims
Conservative scholar, pundit and author, Dinesh D’Souza, stated that “Spencer’s historical argument is dubious. Itemphasizes violent passages in the Koran, while downplaying the passages that urge peace and goodwill.”
As we know, the Quran, as well as speaking of violence also speaks about peace, justice and tolerance. It is blatantly obvious, that Spencer hardly mentions these. He seems to simply reject them, without understanding the verses and passages are there. It’s like he deliberately picks and chooses to suit fit. He has done this technique in his books too, like how he omits the details of the Nakhla raid (further highlighted in LoonWatch’s Understanding Jihad Series).
In his works, he tends to pick out what ‘Islamists’ and extremists say, but fails to recognise the words and actions of mainstream Islamic scholars. He even admits this on his website.
Clearly, Spencer omits out important elements in his works (such as the concept of the inner Jihad and peace treaties during Muhammad’s time), hence giving readers the one side of the coin. By doing this, he can manipulate the reader.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) correctly stated that “by selectively ignoring inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries, Spencer concludes that Islam is innately extremist and violent”.
So if he continues to pick and choose facts and omit details that misleads the reader, then his credibility and bias is to be held into account. Ex-Nixon Aide and author, Robert Crane, correctly highlighted that “Spencer’s readers are carefully steered away from all contact with the Islamic interpretative tradition”.
9. Blatant anti-Islamic views
Charles Johnson, a former ally, friend of Robert Spencer stated that “Robert Spencer is an anti-Muslim blogger…And yes, I do mean ‘anti-Muslim’ — Spencer long ago crossed the line from simply criticizing radical Islamists to relentlessly demonizing all Muslims. And the bigoted, hateful comments he allows at his website are beyond disgusting.”
Spencer has also referred the Quran to the ‘Mein Kampf’, similar to hate-preacher Pamela Geller, who seems to be Spencer’s partner in crime. Comparing a religious book to Nazism is downright inaccurate and also hateful.
That being said, Spencer aims to highlight Jihad on his website, but with stances opposing Islam and referring the Quran as the ‘Mein Kampf’, it is an attack on Muslims themselves (like how Charles Johnson described earlier). So despite trying to highlight Jihad, it seems clear that Spencer is merely trying to demonize Islam and Muslim themselves(also see section 7).
M. Cherif Bassiouni, law professor, scholar and humanitarian, found the same rhetoric when he viewed Spencer’s website, stating, “After looking at your website, I was quite surprised to see how much hate, venom and misunderstanding you are fostering.”
Even in his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Spencer states that ‘Islam’s only overarching moral principle is “if it’s good for Islam, it’s right”…’ But what about the Islamic pillar of giving charity (zakat)? Clearly, Spencer forgets this and misleads the reader to believe nothing good ever comes out of Islam.
As a self-confessed scholar of Islam, we would expect he would know about this. But it seems his bias shines straight through his work too.
10. Blatant anti-Islamic views even in his works
The first chapter of ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)’ is “Muhammad: Prophet of War”. We know that Muhammad was indeed part of many battles, but he was also part of peace treaties, social justice, welfare and community work too. This is hidden from view in this book.
Muhammad is again attacked in Spencer’s book “The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion”. Again, Spencer hides facts about peace treaties, social justice, welfare and community work and focussing more on war and violence through omit and omission (highlighted in section 8).
11. Spencer preaches about Quranic violence and forgets Biblical violence
What’s strange is that Spencer is very enthusiastic to comment and write about violence mentioned in the Quran (perhaps its his job to do so, highlighted in section 12). But Spencer skips his own faith.
As mentioned earlier, Spencer has a Master’s degree in religious studies. So surely, he would know of all the violence mentioned in the Bible? Nevertheless, Philip Jenkins studied violence in the Bible and in the Quran, and found that the Bible is ‘far more violent.’
Spencer is quick to critic Islam, but doesn’t seem to critic his own faith. He’s even created a book named “Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t”.
This further shows he has bias (highlighted in sections 7, 8, 9, 10).
12. Spencer is funded
In 2011, the Center for American Progress released a report (called Fear Inc: ‘The Roots Of the Islamophobia Network In America’) showing that almost $43 million from seven charitable groups since 2001 served as a main driver of anti-Islamic campaigns and works.
The report stated that money had flowed into the hands of five key “experts” and “scholars”. These “experts” and “scholars” were Frank Gaffney, David Yerushalmi, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer and Steven Emerson. It is said that these key players (with others working alongside them) have been helping spread the anti-Muslim rhetoric and propaganda. Page 7 of the report shows us the main network.
The report was even covered by Fox News.
Spencer and his close friend Geller simply reject the detailed report, with no proof provided as to why it might be fake. It is brushed off their shoulders.
Additionally, in October 2010, an investigative report by The Tennessean found that IRS filings from 2008 showed that Robert Spencer earned $132,537 from the David Horowitz Freedom Center (who help Spencer with his website), and Horowitz himself gained over $400,000 for himself in just one year.
Conclusion.
As this article highlights, Spencer cannot be trusted.
Islamic scholar, Carl Ernst, correctly stated that “the publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice. They are to be viewed with great suspicion by anyone who wishes to find reliable and scholarly information on the subject of Islam.”
Upon analysis, we have seen that Spencer indeed, picks and chooses his words in his works (highlighted in section 8). He deliberately misses out key concepts of Islamic history and even relies on what ‘Islamic jihadists’ (section 8) say, and not even what other mainstream scholars have to say. Another example of representing one side of the coin is how Spencer highlights quotes of violence in the Quran and seems to forget the ones that urge peace and justice. This reflects a serious case of bias.
Spencer has a close association with hate-groups such as Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and has even links to key figures (surprisingly also connected to the Islamophobia network). Pamela Geller, a prominent hate-blogger, received an email from a terrorist (highlighted in section 6). Even if the email at hand (section 6) is not indeed the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik, then it is indeed a potential terrorist case that needs to be investigated by the main authorities.
What we do know for certain, is that Anders Breivik was deeply influenced by the likes of Spencer (highlighted in section 5) and people are constantly being influenced by him, which can possibly lead to catastrophic consequences, as we’ve seen. With the use of fear mongering, Spencer and his group Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) are manipulating the minds of the public. Breivik was one of these individuals.
As this article has highlighted using two well-researched reports (section 12), Spencer shows to have been funded by individuals or groups who have been closely linked together. Studies and research would suggest that Spencer is merely paid to do what he does. That is, to spread hate and criticize Islam and Muslims by any means necessary, whether it be to market his own books and even make close friends support his scholarly claims (i.e. reviewing his books to promote them for him).
But as for Spencer’s scholarly claims, they are clearly over-exaggerated by what seems to be the majority of his close friends and allies. This makes him pass off as an intellectual, when in fact, all he has is a Master’s in religious studies. He has not studied Islamic history, the Quran, or the hadith, whilst mainstream Islamic scholars such as Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri have dedicated their whole lives to studying the religion of Islam. They have more credential, expertise and reliability than Spencer.
In conclusion, there is more to Robert Spencer and his ‘scholarly’ claims than what meets the eye.
Written by Mr. F.
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Sometime last year, I came across a young Christian apologetic (perhaps my age, he may be slightly older), challenging Muslims to debates. Here is Sam Shamoun advertising his debates:
Now, one would assume, that after his debate, he would be ready to do another, well, it turns out, Matt’s afraid of facing defeat in debates again. He had one other debate with Muhammad Qaari Aalam and was thoroughly defeated a second time, to the extent we had Christians distancing themselves from his antics. Facing a failing Christian apologetics career, coupled with two humiliating public defeats, Matt decided he would no longer debate Muslims. The following is a Facebook conversation, where he was presented with a challenge to debate me:
There we have my first challenge to him, this was his response:
There we have it. Another missionary put to rest. Matt is running away from challenges, claiming no Muslim can face him. I personally intervened and sent Matt Solomon a message not too long after:
Matt Solomon never replied. I don’t know if it was simply a discourteous gesture or if he didn’t want his cowardice being promoted. He publicly argues with Muslims, claims to have debated scholars and claims again that no Muslim can defeat him or his ally Zia ul Masih, unfortunately, his claims are false and he’s another psuedo-scholar, who due to his own arrogance and public humiliations, will never be able to debate a Muslim again. In this light, I’m extending my hand to Matt Solomon, if he ever feels as if he needs a Muslim to debate, he can easily find me and accept my challenge to debate, after all we can’t let his “scholarly” education at CRC Bible Institute and at the Trinity Biblical University go to waste.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
When Alpha and Omega Ministry’s Francis Turretin engaged me in a discussion on his blog, I really expected him to promote academic discourse, exchange great ideas, promote good theological discussion on matters where we disagree upon. However, sadly this was not what Francis had in mind. Any readers interested in looking at the statements made earlier, can click here. Unfortunately, Mr. Turretin is associated very closely with James White, which for the better part of our understanding explains his lowly tactics and immoral etiquette. After posting that comment, I logged in later, to see if he had replied, unfortunately he saw it fit to delete one of my comments, responding to insults on my character, what was the comment he deleted? Well, apparently Mr. Turretin is not a fan of the Biblical Scripture, I had in fact, simply quoted as a response to insults towards me, Matthew 7:1-5:
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Could James or perhaps Francis, explain why this Biblical quote was so offensive that it had to be removed as opposed to actual insults by Christians towards me. Apparently, the curses of Christians, the insults and abuses have now become holier than their very scripture. Francis then proceeded to edit my comment, for what reason, I don’t know, I guess he found it difficult to click the, “reply” button:
I can’t offer a proper explanation for his autocratic attitude when discussing his faith, perhaps it is a defensive mechanism that propels him to behave in such an insulting way. I am a Muslim, so I do forgive him, atleast for whatever wrong he has done me, and I do hope that he can muster the integrity to cease such defiling actions against himself and those who seek intelligible discourse. He then tried to reply to my comment, wherein I also followed with a response. His comments are the ones surrounded in brackets, for example: [his comments].
Editing comments are we now? Removing them as well. Very poor from your Francis, couldn’t say I should have expected any better.
[You don’t believe what the source says, and yet you play offended? How droll. You quote a document that describes Jehovah preserving his word, yet you don’t believe this. Then you complain when I point that your source is legend. Could you be any more inconsistent?]
I believe that God did protect His word, I didn’t say anything to the contrary, I also have no doubt that Christendom tried to protect their scripture as well, I agree with Bruce Metzger’s views on 2nd century preservation efforts. However I see both the Old Testament and Judaic Historical writings to be not scripture, nonetheless, where the Old Testament doesn’t document history, Jewish historians did and if they themselves admit to textual corruption, abandonment and emendation, the history speaks for itself. Inconsistent? No. Objective, yes.
[(a) whether or not my view of preservation is correct does not have any effect on the validity of Islam’s claims. Islam is wrong, whether or not I am right about the Bible’s preservation. (b) I already addressed your claim, which did not refute my view of preservation.]
I like this, I really like this statement, don’t mind me using it in my other post that I’ll do today. If your view of preservation is skewered then all proceeding logical premises, will be faulted, if it’s based on a lie, you’ll develop that lie, essentially promoting a non sequitur argument, to reach a inconclusive conclusion, which is what I demonstrated. The second part of your statement sounds very much like an appeal to the fallacy of appeal to consequences of a belief, “No matter what you say, Islam is wrong and Christianity is right.” Very dogmatic and arrogant from a person asking for cogent discourse. Very disappointed. I already answered your view on preservation, on one end you say it doesn’t matter that I pointed out your invalid view on preservation on the other you claim I didn’t, make up your mind.
[[Do you even have a clue what you are talking about?]
Why, yes I do, which is why I gave you the name of an author and his work based on Judaic scripture and it’s evolution, why else would I give you all that, if I wasn’t expecting you to go read it?
[[Your bare assertions are easily countered by bare denials.]]
No sir, assertions are disproved by contradictions, refutations, rebuttals, not through perpetual ignorance. You’ll be finding this response, which I do expect you to edit or delete, on my website. Thank you for sending your readers to me, quite a lot of wavering Christian minds.
If this is the best of what James White or Alpha and Omega Ministries have to answer Islam, or hate against Muslims, it’s no wonder then, that they need to use such brute tactics against anyone who questions them. I pray that God guides these spiteful, hateful and misguided men.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Francis Turretin, an ally of James White sought to respond to this post, however I took it upon myself to respond to his article the very same day. What occurred after, was his complete unwillingness and abandonment to properly respond to my arguments, by dismissing them as being not cogent, because I , allegedly, did not provide any real arguments for my positions. The problem for Mr. Turretin is this, my initial article quoted all the references and citations I needed to present my cases, which he denied, but then quoted:
Regarding the author’s conclusion, the solution he is offering is a qualification on the protection of “until newer revelation was sent.” That solution is not actually found in the materials he has identified. In other words, the context has not substantiated his charge.
Yet, I clearly demonstrated that in his very article, where he quoted me, the evidence was provided for my case:
So as we can see, the Qur’an is correct, God did protect the meaning of His message, until newer revelation was sent. For example the Qur’an abrogates the Injil as the Injil abrogated the Tawrah, and if the case arose where persons were distorting the meaning of a scripture or Prophet’s message, we read that God sent apostles, messengers, Prophets in some instances to correct the people (see 36:14 above).
What is worse, is when he made this comment:
He has not behaved himself like a gentleman in his posts. I would tolerate all that if he could simply provide us with some cogent argument for his position. I trust that the post above and the comments already in this thread demonstrate that no such cogent argument has been presented yet. But yes – there is no point to responding simply to his polemics as such.
Although, in several places, he praised my arguments and accepted them as being valid, so much so, he even said we agreed. This now leaves me bewildered. On one end he’s saying my arguments are nonsensical, while on the other hand, he’s quick to say we agreed wholeheartedly:
Thus, this particular author has made a more general statement, akin to our (1) above.
So far, the author seems to have provided a reasonable presentation of the position he is arguing against, although we would say “God’s word” rather than “God’s words.”
He even injects some praise, calling my argument and my positions, “reasonable”. I accept that they were, I knew what I wrote, therefore on what grounds exactly, does he then change his mind, a few hours later in the privacy of the comments on his blog? Well, I posted the link, just the link to my article responding to him in his comments and this is what he had to say [bold emphasis is my own, words are his however]:
Thanks for taking the time to read my refutation of your post, and for replying. I’m not sure it’s worth my time to reply again, as it seems obvious to me that you didn’t understand my post.
But I will provide a few comments. You appeal to a Jewish legend regarding the Torah, which claims that all the copies of the Torah were destroyed by Ahaz, except one that was hid by God, and which was subsequently discovered, after a period of several decades.
You seem to think that this is demonstration of the fact that God allowed His word not to be preserved. Yet, obviously, even in the legend the word is preserved (moreover this word that is being preserved in the legend is the same Pentateuch we have now).
In your concluding remarks you make reference to the fictional Scroll of Antiochus (the scroll really exists, but the work is fictional). How that scroll (you reference “scrolls” but one assumes that is a typo) is supposed to substantiate your claims is a mystery.
Virtually the entire rest of your response is a series of grousings that we haven’t accepted your assertion that “Torah” doesn’t refer to the Old Testament, and “Injil” doesn’t refer to the New Testament. Perhaps if you offered some cogent arguments on that point, we would have something to discuss – but simply asserting it and accusing people who don’t agree with you of dishonesty will earn you only a lack of interest in your call.
May peace be upon all those who serve the Prince of Peace,
TurretinFan
To which my reply was:
I’m pretty sure I understood your post, all your points pivoted on the belief that the Injeel = New Testament and Torah = Old Testament, all you tried to do, was say I’m wrong because there is a clear connection between the two, while not presenting a single shred of evidence for that. What’s worse is that I clearly pointed out the contradiction in your narrative, which you failed to address even in this comment.
Jewish legend? No sir, I quoted a reliable Jewish historical source, that is on par with Patristic writings, a compendium of information which has come to us through some of the greatest Judaic scholars, I’m insulted that you’d demean Judaic literary sources in such a whimsical light.
I did not say this was a demonstration of God not protecting His word, rather I said it was a demonstration from among your own peoples where your scripture (which I do not consider to be from God), disappeared totally. A response to your argument, which you asserted was implausible.
The work, according to most Judaic sources was on par with the Torah in terms of authority, regarded as something to be revered and respected, see Mattis Kantor – The Spark of All Truths.
I presented my case on the disconnect between the Torah and Injil versus the Testaments very explicitly, I can’t see why your only argument against my arguments is to simply deny them. I do hold you to be dishonest, I presented cases underwhich you ignored and further so, where you twisted my words, asserting that I agreed the Testaments = Injil/ Torah. Perhaps integrity will earn you some elucidation, until such a time, properly read my works before trying to respond to them,
As Salaamu ‘ala Man Ittaba al Huda,
Ijaz Ahmad.
and with that, perhaps the discussion is over, maybe one day it would continue, but unlike Mr. Turretin who then proceeded to cast aspersions on my character and essentially encourage his membership to engage in a hive mind of Muslimophobia, with a person by the name of Sammy Shmn, whether this is Sam Shamoun or a person using his name, it was highly disrespectful for Mr. Turretin to pervert academic discourse with mockery, perhaps this is normal to him, but in the world of proper discourse you try your best to keep personal attacks out of the discussion. May God guide such people.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
What is most interesting is that James White’s, “friend”, tried very ecstatically to only in vain, end up poorly refuting the arguments presented in my earlier response to his inanity, located here. Strikingly, the most profound statement that the Alpha and Omega Ministry’s blog took offense with, was the application of the title of “deceit and ignorance” being attributed to the pseudo-scholar James White:
Since I am on James White’s blogging team, and am friends with him, I was sure to carefully read an article posted with the alarming title, “Exposing James White’s Deceit and Ignorance of Islamic Scripture,” from the “Calling Christians” website.
However, the author goes on to actually prove that the statement was indeed valid, as we read, he instead brushes off his mistakes by labeling them, “differences of opinion“ while clearly as expected, perverting my own words. There is no difference of opinion when it comes to the asma wa sifaat of Allaah, especially when it concerns His Kalamullah (Words) being able to become corrupted. This was covered extensively in my earlier post on this very topic, therefore I suggest if anyone was to actually attempt to respond to it, that they should have made it a priority to actually read the content:
The title wasn’t supported by the body of the piece. “Deceit and Ignorance” turned out to be, at most, a difference of opinion between the author of the piece and my friend, Dr. White.
It’s easy for undereducated Christians to make a folly of Islamic ‘aqida, as it’s common for them to perpetuate such intellectual fraud among their own circles. What I suggest for Mr. TurretinFan is that he should have atleast read some primer materials on ‘aqidah before undertaking the task of “refuting me”. To begin with, he incorrectly identifies the Old and New Testaments as the scriptures being spoken of in the Qur’an:
There is a lot of baggage mixed in there, but the author of the piece is correct that we think that it is inconsistent to hold to the ideas that (1) Allah preserves his word, (2) the Old and New Testaments are the word of Allah, and (3) the Old and New Testaments are corrupt.
I never made the assertion (and if they would like to prove me wrong, they are free to quote me), whether explicitly or implicitly, that the Old and New Testaments are the revealed Words of Allaah, to the contrary, I made it a significant point to indicate that they are mutually exclusive of being the Words of Allaah:
Corruption of Scripture: Textual Alterations:
However, now we’ve arrived at the crux of the matter, textual corruption. As Muslims we assert that God’s message is preserved by God (as seen above, contextually), but what about textually? We read earlier that God protects His message in totality, that is, textually and contextually (meanings, interpretations). However as Muslims, we also do say that we do not believe in the Old Testaments of the Jews and Christians nor do we believe in the New Testaments of the Christians as being valid, because we assert they are not the words of God. Since they are not the words of God, they can indeed become corrupted and God did not promise to guard the works of man, but only His words.For example, in the case of the Old Testament, where missionary zealots such as Sam Shamoun and James White try to propose, that their Torah is the Torah from Allaah, we have to correct that appeal to ignorance. The Qur’an does not say that the Old Testament is the word of God, in fact, we read above (5:13) where the Qur’an calls the Torah/ Old Testament of the Jews and Christians as being interpolations from the tongues and minds of men. It is in this regard that the Islamic belief is not that God’s word was corrupted, but that people wrote words and then claimed them to be God’s:
فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُوا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. – Qur’an : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.With that being said, we must come to the understanding that when the Qur’an says that the message became corrupted, that is textually, it refers to those who put aside God’s revelation and in its stead, replaced the void with their own sayings, beliefs and propaganda. One example is of the Christian New Testament. The Qur’an says that a scripture (Injil) was given to Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him):
وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِمْ بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ ۖ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنْجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِلْمُتَّقِي
And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. – Qur’an : 5: 46.However Christians by themselves prove the Islamic belief of textual corruption as displayed above:
(1) Muslims believe that Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him) was given a revelation by God called the Injil.
(2) Christians believe that inspired scripture about Jesus originated with the apostles of Christ.Therefore the Christian argument in reality disproves itself. They have now failed on two fronts. Firstly, the premise that Muslims contradict themselves when they say the Bible is corrupted is proven false as we do not believe the Bible is the word of God. We don’t believe it is the word of God for namely two reasons:
(1) Christians assert it’s from the apostles and not from the Prophet Jesus (may God be pleased with him).
(2) Christians assert the revelation (wahy) isn’t revelation verbatim from God, which is what Muslims believe, but that the Bible is an inspired word from God, through the words of men.
It must have been either one of two consequential actions:
(1) Either the AO blog, misread my statements on the Testaments.
(2) Or, they purposefully ignored them.
Nowhere, had they attempted in any way, shape and or form, to actually refute the points given above, they never touched upon the clear contradiction in their narratives. For example, while we hold that ‘Isa (alayhi as salaam) had a wahy (revelation) with him, they believe in words inspired to men, decades later (Paul’s Epistles, Pastorials, Synoptic Gospels). What they’ve instead tried to do, was to generalize statements and act as if I agreed with them on many areas:
Thus, this particular author has made a more general statement, akin to our (1) above.
So far, the author seems to have provided a reasonable presentation of the position he is arguing against, although we would say “God’s word” rather than “God’s words.”
This is not the case, I have to indicate that this is poor scholarship, on what modus operandi, do you possibly function on, that it is deemed acceptable to purposefully mislead and twist the words of your intellectual opponent? As displayed above, we do not agree, nor do I accept your appeals to the fallacy of hasty generalization, to cover your appeal to ignorance towards Islamic ‘aqidah. Take note sir, dishonest scholarship, is no scholarship. Following his trail of perpetual deceit, we read:
We are aware that the way Muslims attempt to hold these two ideas is by limiting (1) to simply saying that Allah preserves some portion (or all) of the Qur’an and/or by denying that the Old and New Testaments correspond to the Torah and Injeel.
No Muslim, nor myself in my writings have ever indicated that Allaah limits the preservation of the Qur’aan in any way. We hold is true to be that the Qur’an is the Kalamullah (Word of Allaah) and that it has always been whether directly (Allaah sending Angel Jibra’eel during Ramadhan) or indirectly (Huffaz) His promise to protect it in its entirety. I would like to see where I have ever indicated otherwise.
Secondly, we in ourselves do not deny that the Old and New Testaments correspond to the Torah and Injeel, rather, it is the Christians who make the claim that the Torah is the Old Testament and the Injeel is the New Testament, therefore the onus is upon you to prove this. However, when they make this claim, as aforementioned, they are appealing to a contradiction in their narrative:
However Christians by themselves prove the Islamic belief of textual corruption as displayed above:
(1) Muslims believe that Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him) was given a revelation by God called the Injil.
(2) Christians believe that inspired scripture about Jesus originated with the apostles of Christ.Therefore the Christian argument in reality disproves itself. They have now failed on two fronts. Firstly, the premise that Muslims contradict themselves when they say the Bible is corrupted is proven false as we do not believe the Bible is the word of God. We don’t believe it is the word of God for namely two reasons:
(1) Christians assert it’s from the apostles and not from the Prophet Jesus (may God be pleased with him).
(2) Christians assert the revelation (wahy) isn’t revelation verbatim from God, which is what Muslims believe, but that the Bible is an inspired word from God, through the words of men.
If they author of that blog post, actually took time to have read my refutation of James White’s ignorance, he would have atleast attempted to not expose his own. What is worse is that the deceit from our Christian brethren does not cease there:
Clearly, the author has misunderstood Dr. White’s point. Dr. White was not arguing for corruption of God’s word, but simply noting a contradiction within Islamic views.
There was no contradiction in the Islamic view, which is why I indicating that James White was wrong. It was not my intention to misunderstand anything Mr. White had stated, rather it was my intention to demonstrate that he did not properly understand Islamic ‘aqidah when it comes to the Word of Allaah, which is why I wrote this:
Therefore we must correct James’ assertion that we believe God’s words can be corrupted by man, the Qur’an is clear that God would not allow this. It is the belief of all Muslims and if one did not know this belief (you now kn0w) that it is impermissible for a Muslim to believe that God’s words can become corrupted.
As my previous post would have mentioned, we do not hold that God’s word was corrupted, rather words were written by men and attributed to God:
For example, in the case of the Old Testament, where missionary zealots such as Sam Shamoun and James White try to propose, that their Torah is the Torah from Allaah, we have to correct that appeal to ignorance. The Qur’an does not say that the Old Testament is the word of God, in fact, we read above (5:13) where the Qur’an calls the Torah/ Old Testament of the Jews and Christians as being interpolations from the tongues and minds of men. It is in this regard that the Islamic belief is not that God’s word was corrupted, but that people wrote words and then claimed them to be God’s:
فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُوا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. – Qur’an : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.With that being said, we must come to the understanding that when the Qur’an says that the message became corrupted, that is textually, it refers to those who put aside God’s revelation and in its stead, replaced the void with their own sayings, beliefs and propaganda. One example is of the Christian New Testament.
The author then proceeds to what I must say, is to quote me, then say I did not provide evidence for my quote, which infact, he himself did quote, that is just to demonstrate the poor scholarship at the AO Ministry:
Regarding the author’s conclusion, the solution he is offering is a qualification on the protection of “until newer revelation was sent.” That solution is not actually found in the materials he has identified. In other words, the context has not substantiated his charge.
Yet he quoted it right here, from my own article:
So as we can see, the Qur’an is correct, God did protect the meaning of His message, until newer revelation was sent. For example the Qur’an abrogates the Injil as the Injil abrogated the Tawrah, and if the case arose where persons were distorting the meaning of a scripture or Prophet’s message, we read that God sent apostles, messengers, Prophets in some instances to correct the people (see 36:14 above).
It was then nonsensical for the author to have made this point, if it had only been taken into consideration of the verses which I quoted and cited:
It seems that (for part of the argument) the author is trying to argue that the Qur’an’s references to corruption relate to attempted corruption of the meaning, but that this attempted corruption was essentially ineffective. This approach might make sense, but would imply that the meaning remains intact.
The Qur’an itself satiates those claims, that the meaning was indeed kept intact by the messengers sent to correct the people (read: 36:14). He continues to make the claim that I believe the Torah and Injil are the Old and New Testaments:
That solution implies that the Old and New Testaments are intact in their meaning (within the context of Dr. White’s criticism).
I never implied this, nor stated this explicitly, rather I demonstrated above (if the author had only cared to read), that their narrative is self contradictory. He then proceeds to actually prove himself wrong, first he states:
This is the approach mentioned above of denying that the Old and New Testaments correspond to the Torah and Injeel. But is this feasible? Let’s consider how the author of the article tries to defend this approach:
Then he states:
As for the last argument, this argument is only relevant to the Gospels, not to the Torah or the Zabur (Psalter, book of Psalms).
He begins his refutation by immediately ignoring the examples of Old Testament corruption and implying that my arguments can only be applied to the New Testament, this is incorrect as I specifically quoted and cited verses and commentary on other verses which demonstrate Old Testament corruption from the Qur’an, see 2:79, 4:46, 3:78 . I would like to point out to the author, that ignoring my points and misleading his readers is not a refutation, but a mockery of his own futility. Then he goes on to really prove his ignorance of Islamic teachings:
Moreover, this argument presupposes that it is true that the Injil was given as a revelation to Jesus. However, this assertion itself is not correct. Indeed, it is simply another error of Mohamed’s teaching.
This argument, presupposes that the true Injeel is the one which came after Jesus, this is not a correct assumption, as the Messengers of God (Moses, David) accompanied their scripture, and as this is a response to the ignorance of James White on Islamic teachings, then it is absurd to think that I authored my article under the assumption that the New Testament was God’s word. Indeed, an appeal to wishful thinking. His lack of reading and on Islamic teachings is then made further extant:
This point is also something of a red herring. Even if there were a different book called the Injil that was allegedly given to Jesus, where has this been preserved at all? In other words, the situation is much worse for the Muslim who tries to avail himself of this particular argument. Instead of simply small textual variants in the New Testament, now the Muslim must account for the seeming complete destruction of the whole book and any record of its existence. After all, there is no record before Mohammed of any book given to Jesus. There is a similar problem with respect to the argument about the Torah. So, the Muslim is claiming that the Torah which has been preserved is not the Torah referenced in the Qur’an. But then the lack of preservation is much worse than the Muslim has contended – the original Torah is completely gone if the one we have is not the original Torah but some new fake Torah.
He is operating under the belief that supposedly the words of God cannot become lost or damned to history, when in fact, we read from the Jewish Encyclopedia, that for over 23 years, the words of God had been lost:
High priest in the reign of Josiah (II Kings xxii. 4 et seq.). It is probable that he was the Hilkiah ben Shallum who figures in the genealogy of high priests in I Chron. v. 39 (A. V. vi. 13), and that he was, consequently, father of Azariah and great-grandfather of Ezra the Scribe (ib.; Ezra vii. 1). Ḳimḥi and Abravanel (to Jer. i. 1), however, give his father’s name as “Shaphan.”Josiah commissioned Hilkiah to superintend the repairs of the Temple; and it was when the latter took the silver from the Temple treasury that he found the scroll of the Law (II Kings xxii. 4-8; II Chron. xxxiv. 9-14). Hilkiah gave the scroll to Shaphan the Scribe; the latter read it before the king, who, terrified by the divine warnings, sent Hilkiah with four other high officials to consult the prophetess Huldah (II Chron. xxxiv. 20 et seq.). The finding of the scroll was the cause of the great reformation effected by King Josiah.The question as to the nature of the scroll and the cause of the impression it made on Josiah, which has evoked so much higher criticism, is answered in a very simple manner by the Jewish commentators Rashi, Ḳimḥi, and many others. They say that when Ahaz burned the scrolls of the Law the priests of Yhwh hid one copy in the Temple, and that Hilkiah found it while searching for the silver. The scroll happened to be open at the passage Deut. xxviii. 36; and it was this that terrified Josiah. Kennicott (“Heb. Text,” ii. 299) tries to infer from II Chron. xxxiv. 14 that Hilkiah found the original autograph copy of Moses.- The Jewish Encyclopedia, Priest Hilkiah.
Therefore his argument has been thoroughly refuted, proof by contradiction, as seen above. We clearly have an instance of an entire codex of the word of God being lost by the Jews, what is worse is that I can even present the case of the tablets of which the 10 commandments were originally recorded upon. Where are those tablets? In fact, if it is that Priest Hilkiah on one hand found the original manuscripts of Moses’ writing of the Torah, can he present that for me, rather than the Masoretic Text or the Greek Septuagint? No! Therefore he has refuted himself. He then continues to misrepresent the Qur’an:
Moreover, there is another problem, the Koran seems to suggest that the Torah and Injil are in the possession of the people of Mohammed’s day: وَلَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ كِتَابٌ مِّنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ مُصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَهُمْ وَكَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ يَسْتَفْتِحُونَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُم مَّا عَرَفُوا كَفَرُوا بِهِ ۚ فَلَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognised, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith. Qur’an 2:89 (Yusuf Ali translation)
However, this has been completely refuted and demonstrated as baseless in my responses to Sam Shamoun, see Part 1 and Part 2, this is merely a copy pasted argument from James’ friends. I must request that the author desist from eisegesis on the Qur’an, as he would become upset if I were to reinterpret and misrepresent his own scripture, therefore in the nature of academic honesty, I request that he corrects his mistake and apologize for the abuse towards scripture, it is indeed very insulting to see Christians having to become this dishonest in their workings. May God indeed, guide you from such horrendous decorum. He furthers his rant, by saying:
If the Torah and Injil are something that were with Christians and Jews in the 7th century, then they weren’t destroyed. Moreover, we know what the Old and New Testaments looked like in the 7th century – in fact we have even older copies than that.
The Qur’an never makes the assertion that the Torah and Injeel that existed in 7 C.E. were the revealed words of Allaah, rather, they were interpolated works, ascribed to Allaah (much like the homonymous writings of the New Testament). I really do suggest that the author read on the response to Sam Shamoun, linked above, it covers the arguments for and against, with many references and citations with numerous areas of research to have a comprehensive and holistic response. What was indeed funny, was his accepting that the Injeel as the Qur’an states, was given to ‘Isa (alayhi as salaam) is not the New Testament:
We do not believe that only the ideas but not the words are inspired. Our view of the mechanism of inspiration may differ from that of Muslims (we don’t believe that the words simply are spoken, as it were, in the ears of the prophets), but that difference seems to be irrelevant to this particular argument.
Therefore, he proved my point above, that the Injeel which the Qur’an refers to and the New Testament do not correspond to each other, i.e. they are not the same but mutually exclusive. He has therefore, proved that his argument was false and misleading. He continues:
The Torah and Injil are now not merely somehow obscured through textual variation, but instead are completely destroyed. Under this theory, they are preserved much worse than if the Old and New Testaments are the Torah and Injil.
This is a bit funny, as below he would eventually come to this conclusion:
As for the fallacy of ad ignorantium, it has not been substantiated by the author of the article, and so we may leave our response at that.
Yet, he thinks it is fanciful, that the Torah could have been lost, yet this was satiated by the Jewish Encyclopedia above, there were three instances in history where the Torah and other religious scripture were completely lost for a number of years or damned from history entirely:
(1) The scrolls of Antiochus.
(2) When Ahaz burned the Torah.
(3) When Josiah son of Ammon ruled, for 23 years.
It’s worse for him, because above we read that the Priest had rediscovered the original manuscripts of Moses, yet can the author link us to them? Can he show us where they are? No. All he can show us are manuscripts from the Masoretes and the from the Septuagint, centuries after. Therefore he has again, disproved himself.
In conclusion, the author over at the AO Ministry Blog, has not refuted a single point within my original article, but what he has done is demonstrate to us his inability to read, his appeal to ignorance, his disdain for realising his contradicting arguments and his willingness to pervert and distort my words. I do hope, that if he does have any self respect, shame or even honesty that he removes that horrendous article of complete absurdity and at a later date, possibly recompense himself with a proper attempt at a refutation.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]
Calling Christians 
You must be logged in to post a comment.