Samuel Green’s Angry

Seems like Samuel Green’s angry at me for the article published yesterday. When he saw it, he posted this comment:

cc-2014-angrygreen

I mean, that excuse would work, but yesterday he was involved in another conversation with me (names blurred out for privacy):

cc-2014-angrygreen2

So his excuse is that he was too busy to respond, but ends up in a lengthy discussion with me and others the very same day that he alleges he was busy on? I chose to confront him on that, how could you be too busy  yesterday to respond if you were also arguing with me yesterday?

cc-2014-angrygreen1

 

After being caught out, he decided to call me a slanderer. Although I’m not sure if he knows what that word means. I said he was unable to respond, he says he was also unable to respond. So I’m not sure where the slander is. This is like the time he got angry at me for asking him to qualify one of his claims, he promised to respond to me, and almost a year later he hasn’t. Will he remember to respond this time, or is he going to repeat his lack of finishing discussions when he’s caught out? You’re better than that Samuel, cheer up mate!

and God knows best.

 

Why Muslims Reject the Bible as Scripture

Islam acknowledges that scripture was given to the Christians and Jews, we call such people, “Ahlul Kitab” or the “People of the Book”. However, where we disagree,  begins with the very understanding of what the Bible is. To the Muslim, the Torah was given to Moses and the Gospel to Christ. This is, as the Qur’an says in Surah 5, Verse 44 and Verse 46. The Qur’an explicitly states that the Injeel was a scripture given to Jesus from God. No Christian today believes that the New Testament was given by Jesus to his disciples. These are therefore, distinct books. The New Testament is not the Injeel. As Muslims, we believe that both Christians and Jews today both do not have in their possession the original Torah or the original Gospel.

We don’t make this claim simply because we can, but we make this claim due to the evidences we possess. To begin with, the Qur’an states in Surah 2, Ayah 79 and in Surah 5, Ayah 13 that both the Jews and the Christians corrupted their “scripture” which they wrote of themselves and then claimed those writings to be from God. This might seem odd to some Christians that the Bible is a corrupted, and manufactured “scripture”. You may be asking if the Muslim is able to defend such a claim. We can and it’s simple. One example I am fond of using is the following argument, it goes a little something like this:-

Can you tell me which Old Testament you believe in?

  • Greek Septuagint.
  • Hebrew Vorlage based on the Septuagint.
  • Masoretic Text.
  • Samaritan Pentateuch.
  • DSS/ Qumran Scrolls.
  • Mystery Source of the Greek Septuagint.

Can you tell me which New Testament you believe in?

  • Marcion’s Canon.
  • Tatian’s Diatesseron.
  • Codex Sinaiticus.
  • Textus Receptus.
  • Codex Vaticanus.
  • Codex Alexandrius.
  • Codex Bezae.
  • Codex Syriac.
  • Codex Washingtonesis.
  • Nestle Aland Greek New Testament Codices through to the 28th Edition..
  • UBS 1 through 5 Greek New Testament Editions.
  • John Mill’s 1707 Greek New Testament Codex.
  • Codex Ephraemi-Rescriptus.
  • Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (1881).

The problem is, there is no “one Biblical text” that all Christians agree on. What you call the Bible today is a translated text based on Greek, Arabic, Syriac and even Ethiopian writings. All collected and pieced together. What you call the Bible in 2014, is not what the first Christians called it some 2000 years ago. Namely because the New Testament didn’t exist until the writings of Paul began some 14 years after Christ ascended. At the earliest, the Bible was decided upon by what was called an Ecumenical Council or a “Unity Council”, today known as the Councils of Carthage in 393 and 397 AD. Yet, every Bible since that time, has varied, with no two remaining the same. Thus, what the Bible exists as today, is not considered to be the Bible which Christians in any previous century have believed in. The Bible is still evolving to this day, with both conservative and liberal Christian scholars attempting to define what the Bible “could” have looked like according to what each textual critic’s understanding of the text could have or should have looked like.

A new critical edition of the New Testament, means that textual critics examine the manuscript variants which occur in words and passages. They examine these variants and then through a select criteria, they attempt to ascertain which variant is the most authentic. In some cases, as in the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, when scholars do not find any of the variants to be accurate, authentic or valid they invent their own reading which has no manuscript basis. This is known as “conjectural emendation”. In the Westcott and Hort New Testament, this was done some 65 times. As such, this would mean that as variant words and passages continue to be argued over, the New Testament text continues to evolve every few years as the critical editions are released, as with the latest Nestle Aland and United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testaments. This is due to the textual critics employing what we know as the “eclectic method”. As a consequence of this method, there is not a single codex on the face of the earth that has existed with in the form of the New Testament we have today. The New Testament we have today is based on variants from hundreds of differing manuscripts and variant codices. The truth is, if the Christian scholars of today and those of the past still cannot decide on what the Bible is or what it was or what it will be, why should Muslims accept it as their scripture?

This case begets another problem, as the God of the Old Testament, proclaims that there is one eternal word of God, in Psalms 119:89, it reads:

“Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.”

Which word is it referring to? There are so many canons and codices to choose from, none being the same from the first complete codices in the third century to those of today. How can you ask the Muslim to accept, what the Christian faith itself cannot decide upon?

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,

First Published: 6/ 8/ 12. Error noted by the missionary Paulus in which I wrote KJV Codex. I’m not sure on which basis I made that error, but it has since been corrected.

The Passing of Br. Michael – Presentation Brother

It is with great sadness that I write on the passing of Br. Michael Samuel, a Roman Catholic stalwart, school principal, teacher and community leader.

cc-2014-bromichael2

The high school (British: secondary school), I attended just a few short years ago would not be the institution it is today without his contribution. A school that’s considered to be the best in the Caribbean, producing two of Trinidad and Tobago’s most recent Prime Ministers, our current President, countless lawyers, doctors, judges, businessmen, scientists, clergymen, music artists, football stars and more, is due to the hard work Brother Michael put into the development of Presentation College, San Fernando.

cc-2014-bromichael1

You can read more on Brother Michael and his contribution to the development of the Caribbean’s premier educational institution, via the Trinidad Express’ article on his passing. The President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago had this to say on his passing:

I am shattered by his sudden death although I was very much aware of his health challenges. He was a guiding light in my life, like so many others, not only as a principal but as a teacher and he was someone I felt proud to call a mentor and a friend.

At Presentation College, San Fernando, he was a firm disciplinarian but someone who cared genuinely for the welfare and upliftment of his charges. There was never a dull moment in his disposition and interaction with others. I can still see that broad engaging smile and recall the magic of his laughter. His joie de vivre was infectious.

Personally, over the years as a state prosecutor, judge and now President, his words of encouragement inspired me. Brother Michael always felt an enormous sense of pride by virtue of his association with Presentation College, San Fernando. His legacy, as an educational luminary that carved and moulded students into men of calibre and substance, is assured. It was an unforgettable and touching honour for me to present him with a national award last year. He never spoke ill of anyone and believed in the best of us. I am simply shattered by his loss.

We are always, Proud to be Pres.

and God knows best.

Batch of Emails Cleared Out

Salaam ‘Alaykum,

I’ve just replied to a significant amount of emails from the callingchristians@gmail.com email address and from the contact us page on the website. If you’ve sent an email/ submitted a message through the contact form within the last three months and did not receive a reply, please do check and see if you have now received one. If you still have not received a response, please check your spam/ junk mail folder, if no response can be found, then you are encouraged to re-send your email.

I’ve now finished my response to Jay and I am in the process of checking my sources and quotes for errors before publication. Du’as for the improvement of my health are requested.

Your brother in Islam,
Br. Ijaz.

and Allaah knows best.

Delay in Releasing Final Document on Jay Smith

Without giving away too much personal details, it’s been quite a hectic week health wise and so this is the sole reason for the delay of the PDF’s publication:

wpid-img_20141015_201352.jpg

 

wpid-img_20141015_205142.jpg

 

wpid-img_20141015_201233.jpg

 

The good news, is if I delay much longer, Br. Sami Zataari who has already read it will most likely leak it to the missionaries, so one way or the other it’s going to be published:

wpid-img_20141018_123411.jpg

 

The PDF is already done, I just have to add in one or two additions to clarify some dates mentioned and that’s basically it. Not long again inshaAllaah.

and Allaah knows best.

Response to Jay Smith Being Published Soon (14 or 15.10.14)

Edit: Delayed to 14th or 15th due to unforeseen circumstances.

My paper critiquing Jay Smith’s allegations and claims in his recent debate with Dr. Shabir Ally, entitled, “The Bible or the Qur’an: Which is the Word of God?“, will be published tomorrow via a PDF on both Scribd and Google Drive. I cannot at this moment give a specific time when the paper would be published, but barring any sudden and unexpected incidents I expect it to be published during the course of tomorrow. At present, the only hindrance to the publishing of the document would be a translation I’m awaiting of a French work that is otherwise not available in English. Considering the inclusion of the French quote’s data as a peripheral to the cause of the paper, when it is made available to me, I shall append it in due course. Following the publishing of my paper, another paper by another Muslim speaker would be subsequently published on a similar theme but more in depth concerning a specific work referenced during the debate. While my response is a point by point rebuttal to Jay’s allegations, this coming work is an overtly critical analysis of an academic work that was mentioned but not really used during the debate. I have not worked in conjunction with this other Muslim speaker, but we have exchanged sources during the course of our writing.

Perhaps what is most interesting is the silly claim that because I have not published any works on this site which include the literature of Deroche or Walid Saleh, it then means that I did not know of them before the debate with Jay hence the lengthy duration of time it took for me to prepare the paper. The assumption or rather the assertion is that I was unfamiliar with their works completely. This is an absurdly baseless allegation. There are many works I read on a daily basis which I do not quote or reference on this site or in my debates, but of which I post to my private Facebook account or which I use in personal correspondence in response to questions. Case in point, I have dug through my personal Facebook timeline, to dig up this post by me on August 4th, 2014:

cc-2014-sillyderocheclaim

This is one of the many examples on which I’ve commented on either of these men’s works. I’ve blurred out the name of the evangelical missionary apologist I was condemning in this post which in retrospect was unfair of me and not of proper decorum. For those who are my Facebook friend, you’d be able to see this post on my timeline which I’ve re-posted today so that we all can access it in an easy manner. I have stated before and I will state this again, the only impediment in regard to my writing of the paper has been my health which has been on a steady decline for some two years now via a chronic illness to which no medical institution has been able to adequately decipher. A state of health which most missionaries and apologists are well aware of. Following the publishing of the paper, a video response will accompany it in the coming weeks which at this time I cannot give a definitive date for.

and Allaah knows best.

Jay Smith’s Running Scared After Unforeseen Disaster

Jay Smith’s claims during his debate with Dr. Shabir about the Qur’an have seemed to cause more trouble than he initially thought they would. See, during the debate, he claimed to have introduced new research by a colleague of his, Dan Brubaker, based on Dan’s thesis on changes in the (manuscripts of the) Qur’an. Jay had stated that Dan’s thesis would not be published until next year and so Muslims would not have been aware of its contents. However, the University that Dan Brubaker submitted his thesis through, Rice University, made his thesis available publicly. Jay, nor Dan seemed to have known this, which is why Jay assumed Muslims would have to wait one full year before they would be able to read Dan’s thesis and respond to the claims in it. Which also meant Muslims would have to wait one full year to respond to Jay’s claims based on Dan’s thesis which he made during the debate.

Unfortunately for both Dan and Jay, we got our hands on the thesis quite some time ago and already picked it apart. So when Jay was on the stage during his debate with Dr. Shabir, and he assumed that Muslims would have no idea of what he was saying or what the thesis contained, he made some pretty silly claims to bolster his bravado. Jay has now run into a major problem. After I posted that we had possession of Dan’s thesis and proved this with the thesis’ cover image, the University removed the thesis and it is no longer available. So we have a few questions that need to be answered:

  1. Why was the thesis removed after my article was published?
  2. Did Jay ask Dan to ask the University to remove it?
  3. Why would Dan suddenly request for the University to remove the thesis?
  4. Dan did not request the University to remove the thesis after the debate, so why the day after my article?
  5. Did Dan give Jay the entire thesis or just a few photos?
  6. If Dan did give Jay the entire thesis, why did Jay only claim to have taken a few photos?
  7. If Jay did read Dan’s thesis, is he aware that he openly contradicts what Dan states?
  8. Is Dan aware that Jay claimed things of Dan’s thesis that do not exist within it?
  9. Why has the University removed the thesis?
  10. Who requested the thesis be removed?

For those who’d like to see where Dan’s thesis was once available and now is miraculously removed from the University’s page, please see our Brother Ahmed’s accessing of it:

cc-2014-riceuniversity

This article has been sent to Jay Smith. Will he respond to the questions, or does he realise he’s in a bit of a conundrum? Has Jay been put in an awkward position? Its sudden removal is quite telling. Jay does have reason to be concerned, why else would it be removed? Why else would Jay have Dan request the University to remove it? Jay knows that he’s screwed up big time and the fun is only just starting!

cc-2014-jayscared

and God knows best.

Update on the Paper, “Response to Jay Smith’s Mistakes”

A number of years ago when I debated Anthony Rogers of Answering Islam, a statement I had made during that debate had angered some Christians. I had mentioned that some Christians worshiped the Holy Prepuce, which historically is accurate but was very upsetting to a number of missionaries. What followed was a video by Anthony Rogers, in which he had taken a brother’s personal translation of a narration that was incorrect and unique to his website that was framed in a polemical manner. Using the brother’s mistranslation, the missionaries produced a video that was supposed to be a response to my allegations in the debate. After I had seen their video, I announced that in a few days’ time I would publish a video response. Several days passed and the deadline passed, so I pushed the date back by a few days, again that new deadline was missed and another deadline was declared. The missionaries, seeing that the deadline was constantly being changed assumed that I couldn’t respond to their video, that the arguments they had presented were strong and so I was trying to pretend I could respond to their video when I could not. I saw their comments about me, I saw them boasting and celebrating that they finally got one over on me, they had a victory against Islam!

This however, was not the case. While editing my video response I was contacted by the brother whose mistranslation was used. He showed me how the missionaries had used his website and read word for word from his article. The brother decided that he was at fault and would like to assist in the response video. So, we both began to work on the video. This was a major breakthrough, not only was a response going to be made but I had evidence that the missionaries stole someone’s research, word for word! As we gathered more information to put in our video, the deadlines passed and the missionaries had assumed I was having difficulty in making a response. Rather, so much work was being put into the video, deadlines passed because of the amount of information and sources we kept finding reasons to include. If I could remember clearly, there were three brothers and two sisters who contributed to the video. We were going to correctly translate the Arabic sources the brother had used and subsequently mistranslated. So we had more than one person translate the material, ensure it was valid, authenticate citations, there was a buzz of activity and sure enough, the video was almost done. In the end, the video was released and to all of us involved in producing it, we can say that it was very successful in what we had set out to achieve.

Not only had the missionaries been exposed as plagiarists, they had falsely claimed someone else’s research for themselves, falsely claimed to have access to sources they didn’t have, falsely claimed to be able to translate fusha arabic, etc. The video was successful, so successful that the missionaries appeared on ABN TV and swore to release a second video in response to ours. It’s been three years now and they have yet to release any video. It would seem like deja-vu all over again in regard to my paper about Jay Smith’s mistakes. When I began the paper, I didn’t have the intention to publish something that would be very detailed. However, as my paper began to spread, there were requests to expand on what I had written and suddenly the paper went from responding to a few of Jay’s erratic statements to fully critiquing his opening statement in a minute by minute breakdown. I learned from my mistake the previous time, in this instance I have not yet set a date for when the paper would be published. The draft was made public for a few reasons. Most importantly, it was made public soon after the debate because I wanted to show the missionaries that we knew Jay had lied and lied badly. Jay had my questions sent to him on a number of occasions in which he refused to answer them. Even in a sit down with some persons who had attended the debate and noted his errors, he refused to explain himself.

The funny thing is, Christians were elated, they thought that Jay Smith had academic arguments and sources, until my draft paper was released. Showing the glaring contradictions between Jay’s claims and the works of the author’s he had mentioned, definitely burst their bubble. The fall out of having published the draft paper was that the missionaries went on the attack against me. We have to remember that Jay claimed to have read these academic publications, that he had access to his friend’s private thesis which was not yet published, therefore how could I, a nobody in the Caribbean have access to his friend’s works? How could I have access to Dr. Deroche’s or Dr. Tayyar’s publications? So, the allegations began to flow in that I was pretending to have possession of those works. That’s until I included quotes from Dr. Deroche’s works, even from his 2009 French work – we had it translated. What was worse is that his gang of friends accused me of lying about Dan Brubaker’s thesis, that’s until I published the cover page of his thesis with his supervisors’ approval signatures! Then came the allegation that Jay did read the works of the authors’ names he had mentioned and that I was lying. So, I turned the tables, I said I’ll gladly admit that I am wrong if anyone could prove that Jay did have access to and did read those works accurately.

A missionary friend of Samuel Green and Shamoun and of Jay himself, while commenting on Br. Paul’s blog claimed that he had received a summary of a paper by a Turkish scholar and the paper itself from Jay. I challenged him to forward that email to me to prove me wrong and since then, he’s never replied to the challenge and has not sent any email. Thereby proving his dishonesty. I would like to say though, that if Paulus the missionary does read this and if he would like to prove me wrong, he can send the email and I’d still gladly concede that I was mistaken. Another missionary criticised me for again, lying on Jay. This missionary is also a friend of Jay’s buddies, they were all there to defend Jay’s character. That’s until a missionary posted a quote from one of the Turkish scholar’s works which directly contradicted Jay’s claim, by almost an entire century! To date, that missionary known as Robert Wells/ Radical Moderate has yet to explain how Jay could utter such deceits if he had actually read the scholar’s work. Let’s take a look at their claims and their sudden silence. Here we have the missionary claiming to have received the email with the scholar’s work from Jay:

cc-2014-jays1

Here’s my challenge, which I issued for a second time and he has since, yet to respond to:

cc-2014-jays2

Here’s Robert Wells/ Radical Moderate’s comment in response to mines. You’d notice that when I mention the glaring error that Jay had made in relation to the fully quoted and cited text from the Turkish scholar’s work, he attempted to evade the evidence and the follow up question. He then sarcastically conceded that I had read Dr. Tayyar’s work more accurately than Jay himself:

cc-2014-jays3

The quote he’s responding to is as follows:

“Altıkulaç dates the Topkapi manuscript to “the second half of the first century A.H. and the first half of the second Century A.H. [due to] “vowelling and dotting.” (i.e. early – mid 8th century) (Altıkulaç, ‘Al-Mushaf al-Sharif’ 2007:81)”

Which clearly states that the Topkapi Manuscripts date to the second half of the first century, which would be from 600 CE to 699 CE, or within the 1st year after hijrah, which is clearly not the 8th century as Jay had claimed. So if Jay did read the Turkish scholar’s work, then he either lied by omission or, if I were to give him the benefit of the doubt, he hadn’t read the work at all and had someone inform him that the scholar dated the manuscript to the second century/ 8th century, which is clearly inaccurate and misrepresents what the scholar stated. Unfortunately, both Robert and Paulus have yet to respond. The end result of all of this drama, is that I do possess the works I have publicly claimed to have, for those who viewed the draft paper before I made it private, I utilized several quotes and citations from those works. What is clear is that the missionaries are confused that I had access to those works and more importantly, that I knew their contents better than Jay Smith and by producing a paper with his intentional lies and deceits, I was denigrating the character of Jay Smith which as a result, casts a damning light on the state of Christian Apologetics. While I can’t give a certain date on when the paper would be fully published or when the accompanying video would be released, I can confirm that the only hindrance to its release has been by worsening health which prevents me from working on the paper on a consistent basis. However, I have a few translators preparing some select quotes from the works of a number of the authorities that Jay appealed to, which would surely embarrass him more and expose him for the charlatan that he is. What I can say, is that the paper should be released early next week or possibly this coming weekend, with the video a week after that – God Willing.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »