Jay Smith’s Story Does Not Add Up

Posted on by Leave a comment

On Sunday 16th November, two prominent UK Muslim speakers/ debaters, Br. Ayaz and Br. Zakir Hussein both went to Speaker’s Corner, Hyde Park (London) to confront Jay Smith. They had decided to challenge him to a debate, the video of that challenge will be uploaded soon. The reason I’m mentioning this, is that while speaking to Smith, they told him that, “Ijaz says hi!“, to which he responded that I was a liar and that he’s preparing a response to my paper.

The problem is, and I hope he realises this soon so that he can stop embarrassing himself – he doesn’t need to prepare a response to me. Following the debate, Smith released an email in which he explains that he’s been studying the topic of Qur’anic manuscripts for sometime, with the dates of January 2014 and March 2014 being mentioned. Given that the debate happened at the end of September, it would then mean that Smith had been preparing for this debate for some 9 months or so.

With 9 months of preparation, research and study, he entered into the debate with what appeared to be a large stack of papers which contained that very research, of which he shared several of them with the audience:

cc-2014-smithlied1

cc-2014-smithlied2

cc-2014-smithlied3

cc-2014-smithlied4

cc-2014-smithlied5

At one point in the debate, he remarked that he’d share his research with the public, and that it was available for anyone to see should they request it. So what does this all mean? Since the day of his debate with Dr. Shabir, he has possessed 9 months of research, collected into that large stack of papers several inches thick on the table beside him. So, the problem is, what does he need to prepare in response to me, if he already has 9 months of research several inches thick already prepared?

Especially when he declared that the research was ready for anyone to see! So what exactly does he need to prepare? Either he did his research over a period of 9 months and had it ready on the day of the debate, or, given the countless errors and lies I found him making during the debate, he really has no research to present for us and is now scrambling to get something done. So Smith, which is it? It’s time for you to clear the air. Either you lied during the debate or you lied after the debate and on Sunday when you made those remarks. Which is it? Can’t get your story straight it seems.

Since you said the research would be shared with anyone who requests it, then I proudly declare that on this day, I request it! Send it over to callingchristians@gmail.com, I’ll be waiting! For everyone else, you can download and view the 53 page paper on Qur’anic manuscripts here.

and Allah knows best.

Review: Ehrman Blog

Posted on by One comment

Last year, I had the fortune of being gifted by Dr. Ehrman, a free 1 year subscription to his blog. After spending 11 months on the blog, I think it’s time to give my experience and thoughts on it.

cc-2014-ehrmanblog

 

Dr. Ehrman’s blog focuses on Christianity in Antiquity, specifically New Testament Textual Criticism, early Christian doctrines, and he often comments on Christianity in pop culture, whether that be any new manuscript finds or the yearly Jesus had a wife claim. This treasure chest of content is simply spectacular. I particularly enjoyed his re-posting of his debates and his added commentary on them, the extra information provided is not only insightful, it’s added value to an already informative and extensive array of debates. Articles are posted often, very often. Some may be short, but a vast majority of his posts are expository in nature, in which he spares no expense in enlightening the reader. They’re just the right size to keep someone interested, but not long enough to be seen as tedious.

One of the greater benefits of the blog, is the ability to discuss, disagree and even argue with Dr. Ehrman! He replies to most comments and entertains disagreements, which has proven to be quite a valuable experience to have witnessed. Although his schedule is quite busy, for a person interested in New Testament Textual Criticism, he spends a lot of time explaining his yearly schedule, his research methodology, the criticisms leveled against his conclusions, and so, this allows someone new to the field or just interested in it, to develop a holistic understanding of his works. This is as opposed to merely labeling him an anti-Christ liberal as many of our evangelical inerrantist colleagues do, thus discarding his research as propaganda.

The monetary cost to access the website is very minimal, please note all costs listed below are subject to change on the website and are valid as of 16.11.14, the currency in use is USD:

  • $3.95/month for trial membership;
  • $7.95 for three months;
  • $24.95 for a year.

So, is it worth it? For the Muslim lay man, it probably is if you’re super interested in the field but if you’re just dipping your toes into da’wah, then I can’t see it being too useful. For someone who’s read most of his works and interested in his views, his research and his methodology, then I think it’s a minimal expense that would benefit you greatly. As for myself, I was very grateful for the opportunity afforded to me by Dr. Ehrman and I definitely do believe I’ll be taking a full year’s membership.

and God knows best.

Is an Afterlife Rationally Conceivable?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Viktor Frankl an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist says in his book, A Man’s Search for Meaning:

After a while I proceeded to another question, this time addressing myself to the whole group. The question was whether an ape which was being used to develop poliomyelitis serum, and for this reason punctured again and again, would ever be able to grasp the meaning of its suffering. Unanimously, the group replied that of course it would not; with its limited intelligence, it could not enter into the world of man, i.e., the only world in which the meaning of its suffering would be understandable.

Then I pushed forward with the following question: “And what about man? Are you sure that the human world is a terminal point in the evolution of the cosmos? Is it not conceivable that there is still another dimension, a world beyond man’s world; a world in which the question of an ultimate meaning of human suffering would find an answer?”

Is it not cynical for man to think that he is the pinnacle of intelligent life? That the human world is an end point, the boundary of existence? Surely, if an ape can experience the world around them with all their senses and still be veiled from higher reasoning, can we too not conceive that perhaps we are also veiled?

Or, perhaps it is that some wish for this boundary to exist willingly at the cost of their own bravado…..

cc-2014-mancoveringeyes

 

and Allah knows best.

I Give Up

Posted on by One comment

Santa Claus becomes a Father like figure to the historical Jesus, to protect him using magic. Sounds like a stupid movie plot? Well, ding ding ding, we have a winner. Popular Christian right wing commentator, Glenn Beck and his production studio are currently working on a movie with that same plot. No, no, this is not a joke. Christians have now begun to parody Jesus and openly align him with a fictional character: Santa Claus.

From Glenn Beck’s website, he describes the movie as follows:

The Immortal is really a story that starts from my frustration. All the stories that we’re doing come from my head, and this one is really deeply personal, because it started two years ago when my kids were getting ready for Christmas, and all they could talk about was presents, toys, and Santa and elves.

And I kept trying to come up with some way to work Christ into it. You know, can we stop with the, you know, fat magic fairy that gives you everything you want for Christmas? Let’s actually talk about what it is. Now, I don’t want to be the guy who complains about the giant corporations. I don’t want to be the guy who’s complaining about Santa. I don’t want to be that dad, because I remember growing up Santa was important. That was cool. It’s magic. It’s magic.

Can someone explain to me, how this is not offensive? A fictional child’s character, has to use magic to defend and protect a weak and powerless man God. I hope the book fails, so that the movie never gets any traction. This is ridiculous to the highest degree.

and God certainly knows best.

Facebook Milestone Reached!

Posted on by One comment

الحمد لله,

As we dawn upon the 3rd anniversary of this website, I’m proud to announce that today we’ve reached a fantastic Facebook Milestone. We now have 7000+ likes! Through Facebook, our articles have reached many thousands of people on a monthly basis. It’s no easy feat to gather 7000 likes, especially for a website as small and unknown as ours. We’ve spent exactly $0 on advertising on Facebook and have gained these likes organically. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who have supported this website, whether it is liking an article, sharing a post or reading our research, your support has been simply amazing! If you haven’t liked us on Facebook as yet, click here to do so. On a regular basis exclusive content is posted to our Facebook page, so if you haven’t been following us for sometime, take this opportunity to do so and be kept in the loop on the latest inter-faith dialogue scene!
cc-2014-fb7000

 

and Allah knows best.

Samuel Green Changes Views on the Bible

Posted on by 7 comments

Muslims have always been clear on the status of the Qur’an and Qur’anic translations. The Qur’an is scripture only in the Arabic language, translations of the Qur’an into other languages are only representations of the Qur’an, they are representations of scripture but not scripture in and of themselves. As such, a Muslim’s salaah or prayer is only valid if one recites the Qur’an in Arabic, the original language in which it was revealed. A Muslim fully understands that the English translation of the Qur’an can be wrong, as a translation depends on the understanding of the translator. Therefore, a translation is representative of someone’s understanding of the Qur’an from its original language to a different language. Whereas the Qur’an itself in Arabic is as God has revealed it. This is why, when missionaries criticise the Qur’an, they immediately go to the English translation which best suits their understanding as opposed to the primary text of the Qur’an in Arabic. Christians have boasted that the Bible is a scripture regardless of what language it is in. The New Testament originally written in Greek, is equally scripture alongside an English or Chinese translation. Whereas, for a Muslim, the Qur’an in Arabic is scripture and the Qur’an in English is a representation or interpretation of the scripture, they are not equal.

This however, may no longer be the case with Pastor Samuel Green. Posed with a question concerning a Syriac version of the New Testament, instead of defending it as scripture, he discarded the Syriac version as merely a translation which is not the same as the original. Pastor Samuel, has indeed now accepted the Muslim belief that only the original is scripture and the translation is not! I was very surprised to see him using this view, knowing that I have never heard him say this before.

wpid-screenshot_2014-11-10-14-30-32.png

wpid-screenshot_2014-11-10-14-30-42.png

wpid-screenshot_2014-11-10-14-30-49.png

wpid-screenshot_2014-11-10-14-30-56.png

For once, we Muslims can agree with the Pastor. Translations should be treated as translations and scripture treated as scripture!

and Allah knows best!

 

Reponse to Jay Smith’s Allegations About the Qur’an to be Released!

Posted on by 3 comments

Salaam ‘Alaykum,

The response to Jay will be released tomorrow with certainty on or before Wednesday 12th November. I had intended to release it on Sunday 9th, as the paper itself is finished. The refutation of Jay has been completed for some time. The delay is because of several additions to the paper which have been suggested such as a contents, a definition of terms, a foreward, appendices etc. I hadn’t intended to include any of those things, but as the more learned brothers read through the paper, for it to be understood by the lay man they suggested these updates. Given that some of these brothers live in time zones 12 hours ahead of me, it means that when I’m awake they’re asleep and when I’m asleep they’re awake, thus we have a very short window of time to communicate and exchange information on a daily basis. For a very brief window of time, the paper was made available on Blogging Theology two days ago. Since then, I’ve received quite a number of emails regarding the paper’s contents and it’s been fantastic to say the least. Some of those who’ve read the paper did advise me to add some more terms to the definition of terms, some brothers suggested a summary, etc.

Some missionaries have taken the delay to mean that I’m getting difficulty to respond to Smith’s claims. To the contrary, I’ve had not a single issue responding to Jay. As I’ve said, the response was completed a while ago, I’m just formatting the paper with additions as suggested by those who have already read it. At the back of my mind was a lecture that I knew Jay was going to deliver on the Qur’an at Veritas University, I wanted to see if he’d alter anything he’d said about the Qur’an since his debate with Dr. Ally. Unfortunately, he repeated the same allegations and brought no new allegations and so I didn’t have to add any content to the paper in that regard. The paper continues to grow in length and I’m pretty impressed with how far it’s come along. At first I never intended to write anything about Jay’s allegations, but given the attention the debate got and the questions that were being asked, I took the initiative to write something that’d inform the public about Jay’s gross dishonesty and mistakes. I didn’t know it’d grow into a 50+ page work with over 99 citations. In all honesty, it’s turned into a small book!

Please be patient with me as I finish the paper, it will be worth the wait.

and Allah knows best.

Jay Smith is a Professor?

Posted on by Leave a comment

wpid-img-20141109-wa0011.jpg

 

Is this a……joke? Jay Smith is most certainly not a professor at any academic institution. He is the only person I know to have been attempting a PhD for 16 years and to date has no original research to show for it. Now he’s parading himself as a Professor. Increasingly I cannot find myself able to distinguish between him and Ergun Caner.

During the first few minutes of his presentation he holds two books in his hand. The Bible and the Qur’an. He held up the Qur’an and said that Muslims can only read the Qur’an in Arabic therefore it tells him that the God of the Qur’an can only speak Arabic. Then, he held up the Bible and said you can read it in all languages, so this tells him that the God of the Bible can speak all languages. He then called upon the audience to challenge Muslims with this argument to demonstrate that the Christian God is greater than the Islamic God. To my surprise, the audience erupted with cheering! There is no way a sane person would cheer something so insipid and inane, I felt embarrassed that someone can possibly utter such statements in front of an audience.

To clarify why this is a bad argument, both Muslims and Christians agree that the primary text is the most accurate text. All languages have language devices. For example, Arabic has a syntax construct called the dual. There are singular nouns, dual nouns and then plural nouns. The English language only has the singular and plural nouns. Therefore the dual nouns are lost somewhere in translation between the two languages. Muslims therefore only consider the primary revelation to be the word of God, translations are representative of the word of God, but they are not wholly complete given the language device differences. This is why Muslims adhere to the primary text and strive to study it in its original language. Christians also, extract their exegeses and lectionaries from the Greek Critical texts of the New Testament. However, this is done by their scholars who invest in learning the Greek language of the New Testament.

What this means, is that while Muslims place greater importance on learning and interacting with their scripture in its primary form, this is only relegated for the scholars of the Christ religion, thus their is a schism, a demarcation, a disparity between the scripture and the Christian lay man, while the Muslim has no such disconnect from God’s word. Thus, this is not only a poor argument to use, it’s as if you’re saying your scripture is not important enough to be studied in its primary language and as such, you are comfortable with excluding yourself from having the ability to interact with the scripture in the language it was written in. Muslims do not want to exclude themselves from God’s word, but apparently Jay Smith is comfortable with this and so are the Christians at Veritas Apologetics University. Muslims value their word from God, Christians, do not.

and God knows best!

« Older Entries Recent Entries »