The Pauline Problem

Posted on by 6 comments

Paul has always been a controversial figure in the Christian faith. Some scholars like Dr. Tabor and Prof. Eisenman have identified Paul as the HaKohen Harasa, the “Wicked Priest” as is recorded in the Dead Sea scrolls. Proto-Orthodox Christians believed he was an Apostle of God, and thus a central and authoritative figure of the Christian faith. Islam’s view of Paul is largely negative, most viewing him as a corrupter of the faith of Jesus the Son of Mary, a similar belief to that of the views attributed to the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the people of Qumran.

The Disciples of Jesus

The problem of Paul though, begins with the problems of the disciples. We must understand that the disciples were the ones chosen by God to accompany the Christ in his mission throughout the lands of Palestine. Richard Newton writes in his book, “The Life of Jesus for the Young“, he states the following, “It was necessary for these men to be chosen.” These men were chosen to accompany the Christ, so that they could have learned from him, seen his ways, studied from his teachings and from then on, to continue the work that the Christ had started. It is recorded in Matthew 10:5-6, the following commands of Jesus the Christ:

“These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.”

This command is very important, Jesus the Christ is delimiting the disciples on the scope of their missionary work. He directs them to absolutely convey the message he preaches, to the sheep of Israel. To further confirm this message of being sent to only the twelve tribes of Israel, we read from Matthew 15:21-28:

“21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.”

There are many things to be learnt from here, but the most important are:

  • Jesus reiterates the scope of his preaching, that is, to the sheep of Israel.
  • The curing of the Canaanite woman’s daughter is an exception to the rule and not the rule in itself.
  • The disciples witnessed this incident and learnt from it

This passage is unfortunately misrepresented by many Christians to demonstrate that Christ’s message was for all peoples, as in the example above he cures a Canaanite girl. The problem for those who interpret this passage in such a way, is that Jesus did not state that this was his new philosophy, he reiterates, emphasizes only a few verses before that he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. His curing of this woman’s daughter, is an exception to the rule and not a rule in itself. This is often difficult for Christians to digest. Jesus explicitly states who he was sent for, and him doing an act contrary to his own teachings would label him a liar. Surely, the Christ is not a liar, he still retained the belief that he was only sent for the lost sheep of Israel, after curing this Canaanite girl. There is no passage in which he goes off after this incident and preaches to the gentiles, therefore this incident was an exception to the rule and not the rule in itself. It is important to note that the disciples witnessed this, we need to hold this point in mind for now, as it will correlate with what we read further on.

These disciples were chosen by the Christ, to teach God’s message as instructed by the Christ. They were to carry on after him, or carry the message in whichever city or town he directed them to.

The Dilemma

If the disciples were specifically chosen by the Christ to spread the message given to him by God, then the Christian faith would have us believe that either Christ or God, whoever chose these men, made a gross and negligent error. The image painted of the disciples in the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles is one of great ineptitude, hypocrisy, lying, forgetfulness and ignorance. Here are a few examples of the incapability of these men to understand the Christ. How could they teach his message, yet alone preserve it, if they were unable to even understand it?

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” – Matthew 16:23

But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” – Mark 8:33

This incident is of great concern. Peter is the one upon whom the Church was to be built (Matthew 16:18), the Christ says to Peter a few verses before referring to him as Satan, “the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” How absurd is such an incident! Within the space of 5 verses, Satanic influences will never overcome Peter, but a few verses down and the Christ is directly referring to Peter as Satanic. What message are we to take from this? We continue to read:

“23 Then he got into the boat and his disciples followed him. 24 Suddenly a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. 25 The disciples went and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” 26 He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm.” – Matthew 8:23-26

The disciples are of weak and of little faith. Somehow having a God-man in front of them was not enough to convince them of his power, at this point in time they clearly were concerned about their well being, if they had the belief that Jesus was a deity, then they would not have been concerned in the least. To the contrary, they awoke him when they found their lives and his life to be endangered, Jesus then rebukes them for their little faith. A question needs to be asked here, in what regard was their faith, little? If they believed he was a God, then either awake or asleep, he would be all knowing and would protect them. If they believed in him as a messenger of God, a human, then waking him to invoke the mercy of God would save them from the perilous waters. Therefore since they woke him to make him aware of the dangerous weather, then it clearly implies they did not view him as a deity. He rebukes them in this case because they should have been aware that God would protect him and his disciples, for God is always in control of the earth. If we do take this verse in the Christian sense though, it becomes problematic as it renders the disciples as people of little faith despite the deity among them. Continuing, we read in Luke 9:46-50:

46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48 Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.” 49 “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” 50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

This paints the disciples as people seeking fame, greatness, without regard for serving God and being humble in their servitude. The Christ though, says something towards the end of the passage that reflects awfully on Paul, “for whoever is not against you is for you“. Either way, this passage demonstrates great moral faults with the disciples and their behaviour. We read in another passage from the Gospel attributed to John, in John 21:20-22:

 “20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?””

In this incident, the disciples are not only jealous of each other, they completely misunderstand what Jesus is trying to teach them. It would also seem that a scribe has commented on this by trying to explain why the disciples were mistaken and what they should have understood from Christ’s words, versus what they understood. Another negative picture of the disciples is shown here, in Matthew 26:40-46:

“Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 42 He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.” 43 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44 So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. 45 Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 46 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!””

These passages illustrate for us, even more weakness in faith from the disciples. They willingly disobey the Christ, they refuse to follow his instructions and they chose to sleep rather than pray for the Christ. This is at the end of Christ’s ministry, if they expected Jesus to die soon or to be crucified, then one would expect them to be up all night in prayer, seeking protection for their teacher. However, they clearly are not willing to do so and the Christ being tortured to death is of little concern, as opposed to a comfortable sleep.

The Arrival of Paul

Paul’s epistles were authored somewhere between 47 CE and 65 CE. This is some 14 years after the time of Christ. Between 33 CE and 47 CE, we would expect many of the Jews to be told of their works and their teachings, etc. In fact, the Jews of Jerusalem and in many towns and cities were beginning to accept Jesus as the Messiah, they sat with and learned from the disciples:

“11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? 15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.” – Galatians 2:11-16.

We will return to this passage shortly. There is something important to be pointed out, 14 years since Jesus’ ascension, the disciples continued to preach solely to the lost sheep of Israel and made their base of operations, Jerusalem. Paul disagrees with them on many issues, and insults them, referring to them as hypocrites who are condemned by the law. There are a few facts that need to be stated:

  • Paul’s works preceded the Gospels.
  • Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles far outnumbered the congregation of the Jews following the teachings of the Christ.

This is important, because it then allows us to understand that in order for Paul to have gained authority in the Church, he would have to denigrate the disciples and create the impression that they were not true to Christ. Surely, Paul’s animosity and hate for the disciples, manifested itself into the Gospel accounts which later corroborated/ confirmed the views of Paul in their descriptions of the disciples as inept, ignorant and weak in faith. Paul’s rise to authority in the Church is based upon the inaction and misguidance of the disciples of Christ. This would undoubtedly have to mean that either God or Christ made the wrong decision on choosing 12 disciples to convey God’s message as for 14 years they failed to do so and were hypocrites, and of little faith. In order for Christians to believe that Paul rebuked them for not conveying God’s true message, Christians must believe that the disciples were disobedient and failed to properly teach the Christ’s message, and that they were hiding the true message of preaching to all peoples and not just to the people of Israel.

Earlier, I had quoted Luke 9:50, which said,  “for whoever is not against you is for you“. Since Paul was against the disciples and their teachings, then it would mean that he was not commissioned by God. The litmus test is clear. If God instructed a person to continue teaching the message of the Christ, then their teachings would be in accordance with the disciples. However, if this person was not instructed by God, then it would mean they would find faults and issues with the teachings of the disciples. In fact, in Galatians 1:-9 we read:

“6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”

According to this passage, the disciples and students of the disciples are preaching a fundamentally variant Gospel, in contradiction to Paul’s Gospel. He even claims that the disciples whom he would later confront as hypocrites and claim them to be condemned, were trying to pervert the Gospel of the Christ! Therefore the negative images portrayed of the disciples by the unknown Gospel authors stems from the negative connotations of them as taught by Paul in his bid to win authority over them and over the Gospel of Christ. Paul clearly states that he was a deluded individual, under the command of a Messenger of Satan, we read from 2 Corinthians 12:6 the following:

“6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say, 7 or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.”

Paul believes boasting about himself was not sinful, and would not make him a fool because the authority given to him allegedly by Christ was truthful! Then he admits he was given a Messenger of Satan to torment him, he clearly sounds like a deluded individual, something he later confirms by saying:

“11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie” – 2 Thessalonians 2:11

Putting these two statements of Paul together, we can thereby understand that God did send him a delusion/ Messenger of Satan and Paul believed that he was an apostle and given authority! Despite the fact that he failed the litmus test above, in his opposition to the disciples and his own confessions, Christians still continue to believe him, over the words of Christ and the disciples.

The Destruction of the Message of the Christ

After discrediting the disciples and spreading his version of the Gospel to the gentiles, Paul went on to revel in his leadership of them. In Acts 9:15-16 we read the following:

““Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.””

How odd is this proclamation? God already chose 12 worthy persons to convey his message to the children of Israel, people He believed were competent and reliable to spread the message of Christ, the Gospel. However, as we read here, God made a mistake and entrusted the message of Christ with people who were corrupting it, hiding it and not spreading it to the rest of the world, that being the gentiles. So 14 years later, God decides to choose a man known for opposing the beliefs of the Christians (something he didn’t change as he went on to denigrate the teachings of the disciples), to then share his own interpretation of Christ’s message with the gentiles.

The Unfortunate Conclusion

In his entire lifetime, Jesus the Christ focused on spreading and teaching his message to the sheep of Israel. He commanded his disciples to do the same. Christians would have us believe that God made a mistake in choosing the disciples, that they corrupted Jesus Gospel and preached something contrary to it, and that despite Jesus restricting his teachings to the sheep of Israel, he was actually supposed to preach to everyone.

I choose to believe that Christ did not lie in his teachings and that he fulfilled God’s commands, and that the disciples chosen were competent, honest, faithful and sincere men, I do not believe that Christ made a mistake and forgot who his message was for, and I certainly do not believe that the disciples were idiots, uneducated, misunderstanding, lazy and ignorant men who hid and corrupted the message of Christ.

It is with this having been said, that I declare Paul to be a problem to the Gospel of Christ, as he degrades the Christ and his specifically chosen disciples.

and God knows best.

Sam Shamoun Runs Away Again!

Posted on by Leave a comment

While perusing Paltalk, I came across a room entitled, “The Trinity and the King James Bible“, the moment I entered Sam Shamoun spotted me and I grabbed my phone and recorded him whining and complaining that I got him into hot water with James White. After whining for 21 seconds, as an Administrator of the room, he bounces me (kicks me out of it). Christians who support him need to ask, if he isn’t afraid of discussing what he says, why does he run away and prevent discussions from occurring? Why does he only choose to argue with Muslims who aren’t as educated in the field of theology as we are? Here’s the recording, you can here him whining and then bouncing me (the ping sound):

and God knows best.

David Wood’s New Publicity Stunt Contextualized

Posted on by Leave a comment

Remember kids, David loves you. He loves you so much, that when 200 kids are put in harms way and the buzz word Muslim is mentioned, he’s going to offer help. However, if a couple thousand Sudanese Christians are being killed over a 6 month period, it’s not a problem. When Lord Resistance Soldier’s, a Christian terrorist group goes on murdering and rape rampages, it isn’t poor David’s problem. After all, those Christians only kidnapped around 50, 000 kids, what publicity is he going to get for a stunt like that?

cc-2014-davidwood-bokoharam

 

 

and God knows best.

Do Muslims Worship the Black Stone/ Kabaah?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Question:

Why do Muslims bow down to a rock and circulate it? Do Muslims worship a rock/ Kabaah?

Answer:

Muslims do not worship a rock or the building which houses the rock, the Ka’baah. This is a common misconception and is mostly due to the misunderstanding of the purpose of the Ka’baah, primarily by Christians. To give a similitude, the function of the Temple/ Wailing Wall in Jerusalem for Jews during prayer, is similar to the purpose and function of the Ka’baah in Islam.

The Qiblah (قِبَلَ) is the “direction of prayer“, as is illustrated in Qur’aan 2:142. In the same way that the Jewish, “direction of prayer/ way of the prayer“, is known as, Derek (דֶּ֤רֶךְ), as is illustrated in 1 Kings 8:48. Muslims and Jews both have a “Qiblah/ Derek”, which they face as a “direction in prayer“. Neither Muslims nor Jews worship the Qiblah/ Derek which would be the Ka’baah and the Temple respectively. These structures are merely a point of reference from which Muslims and Jews use as their basis for convening their prayers. It should be noted that there is no Qur’aanic verse or Hadeeth which commands Muslims to worship the Ka’baah, therefore the worshiping of the Ka’baah is not included in Islamic belief.

The notion that Muslims worship the Ka’baah stems from a polemical attack against Islam by early Christians. Therefore for all intents and purposes, the belief that Muslims worship a stone structure is derived from Christians and not from the Islamic faith! In the event that Christians find it odd that both Muslims and Jews have a “direction of prayer“, and insist that it is paganism, they should be introduced to the following verses of the Old Testament:

“And he set up an altar there and called it “God, the God of Israel.” – Genesis 33:20.

“Moses built an altar and called it The Lord is my Banner.” – Exodus 17:15.

In these examples, a physical object is actually being referred to as a God. This is at complete odds with Islamic monotheism, which does not consider the Ka’baah to be a God, or to be referred to as a God. Therefore the belief of Christians that Muslims worship the Ka’baah or refer to the Ka’baah as God, is really an attempt to mask that belief which is found in their own Bible! The very charge they falsely accuse Islam of, is found in their own scriptures.

and Allaah knows best.

Does Acts 7:59 Demonstrate that Jesus is God?

Posted on by 3 comments

Question:

In Acts 7:59, it clearly says that Jesus is being prayed to, since you only pray to God, then this demonstrates that Jesus is God. What is your response to this?

Answer:

Unfortunately, this is a translational difference only found in the NIV, which illustrates the extent to which Christians attempt to transform Christ into a deity.

The verse is rendered as, ““While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”“, NIV version. However the term, “prayed” is very odd in this context as it means “called out to”, or “called”, see its sister usage in Acts 11:13, which reads as is follows, “He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter.” If the term, ” ἐπικαλούμενον“, was used consistently, then Acts 11:13 is supposed to have read:

“Send to Joppa for Simon who is prayed (ἐπικαλούμενον) Peter”.

Since that isn’t the case and most translations place ” ἐπικαλούμενον” as some variation of “call“, to call, is called, etc, it’s a bit odd when Christians use Acts 7:59 to prove that Christ was prayed to based on a distinct translation which isn’t shared by much of the lexical Christian community in other variant translations such as in the KJV, NAS or in the Biblos Interlinear Bible.

One would have to ask, is calling someone akin to worship? In that case Christians should really not have telephones, cellphones, Skype, Viber etc.

and God knows best.

 

Pastor Samuel Green Will Not Defend Hate-Preaching Colleagues

Posted on by Leave a comment

Recently Nabeel Qureshi declined to defend David Wood‘s Islamophobia. The scholarly Ali Ataie has denounced David Wood in no uncertain terms. We have learnt James White through his conversation with Ijaz Ahmad of Calling Christians has rebuked Sam Shamoun for his tone and abusive comments. We know Negeen Mayel left David Wood and denounced him as self-radicalised. We also know that David Wood’s friend, a professional in psychology, has said this about Sam Shamoun in the past:

Sam is straight bi-polar with narcissistic personality traits.

Is there anybody with any credibility willing to defend these two Islamophobic Christian hate-preachers? It doesn’t seem so. Quite telling!

 

Well let’s put it to another test in the form of Samuel Green. Samuel Green is a pastor. You’d think a pastor would not support the abuse and hate-preaching of Shamoun and Wood.

Recently, Sam Shamoun upon reading this post for some inexplicable reason sent a group hate email directed to myself and his fellow Christian (Minoria). Amongst the addressees of this malicious email was pastor Samuel Green. Now, I have spoken to pastor Samuel Green in the past and highlighted the anti-Christian actions of David Wood and Sam Shamoun. Guess what? Pastor Samuel Green has NEVER defended them. That’s quite telling, don’t you think?

Pastor Samuel Green was witness to an email insulting myself and a Christian who goes by the name of Minoria. The email by Shamoun contained insults against Islam. I shall not reproduce the email but those interested can contact pastor Samuel Green to verify such a hate email was sent.

I will allow pastor Samuel Green 5 days to decide whether he condones such emailing by David Wood and Sam Shamoun. From my experience with pastor Samuel Green his silence is quite deafening – whenever he cannot support something he remains silent. I predict silence.

Christian Islamophobes, how do you get these folk to stop embarrassing themselves and their church? You stop giving them money!

Surely you would rather give money to starving children in Africa than to a couple of internet Christian hate-preachers who don’t seem to have real jobs.

Oh another thing, these two characters don’t even seem to be versed in Christianity so why in the world are Islamophobic Christians giving them money over starving children in Africa?

Here are the two Christian hate preachers opposing Biblical teachings:

The irony is, Sam’s abuse comments also contained the claim of myself seeking his/’their’ attention. Which is interesting considering I received this comment offering me advice:

Great Job brother Yahya, Sam is desperate asking for the attention, because his apologist career is dying and he knows that very well. He has no academic credentials, So he is so desperate for the spotlight. Leave him, Let his apologist career die.

It’s ironic the bloke tries to use me to revive his career and grab a few crumbs of attention. 2/3/4 years ago (however long ago it was!) he was crying out for attention, he got it from me. The result? Well the result is a ton of videos disseminated over the internet showing him to be a dishonest, unscholarly and unworthy man – not to mention all those blog posts.

And let’s not forget Shamoun promising to continue to spam my blog. A promise that he seems to be tiring from.

Of course, I don’t for one minute expect Nabeel, Samuel or even James to come out and support the hate preaching and abuse by Dave and Sam. You’re all alone boys. Nobody with an ounce of rationalism, sincerity and knowledge of the Bible will support you per se.

I call you away from Islamophobia. Think about it, when mental health professionals are opining that you may be ‘bi-polar’ you should recognise Isamophobia is doing nothing for your character development. Sure, you may have a few dollars in the bank account from the gullible and equally hateful Islamophobes on the net but are you really going to continue selling your characters and mental health for a few dollars?

Get a job guys. Trust me, you feel better once you get out there with the rest of the normal folk.

Related:

Nabeel Qureshi questioned on hate

Ask James White to say ‘Hey Sam this internet apologetics thing is a disaster’

The bloke wants to ‘obliterate’ Bassam Zawadi

David Wood – self radicalised?

Ijaz Ahmad on Anthony Rogers

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Why Do Muslims Insist on Referring to the Arabic Literary Sources?

Posted on by One comment

Question:

When Christians post information about Islam and we ask that they refer to the Arabic, they say to us that Muslims always evade discussing a quote by wasting time on going to the Arabic language and want to debate the translation, etc. What is your response to this?

Answer:

Indeed, this is a very common claim about the Muslim and God willing, it shall be dealt with in detail using extensive examples in this article. In responsible discourse, the parties who exchange information implicitly accept the position of accountability for the quotes they present, with the understanding that it should be properly referenced/ cited. This is common in academic discourse and a responsible individual will not object to the validating of references or of quotations. The question must be asked to the non-Muslim, whether they be a Christian, Atheist, Hindu or Jew, on why they are evading their academic responsibility of ensuring that their quote is accurate or that their citation is reliable? Surely, if everything is accurate with the information presented, they would have no reason to object to their information being double checked and verified.

The question therefore begs itself. Do Muslims have a reason or a need to verify and validate information about Islam as presented by non-Muslims? The Qur’aan answers this for us by stating:

“O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful.” – Qur’aan 49:6.

From this verse, a Muslim must understand that verifying information about Islam from non-Muslims is not a matter of evading discussing the quote or reference, rather it is a religious duty as commanded by God that this verification process is done. If one wishes, this verse should be presented to the one who claims that Muslims are evading the discussion, atleast with this being presented they will be able to understand that you do intend to discuss the quotes/ references, but that you must at the very least be able to validate that what you are discussing is accurate information.

Examples of Manipulation of Islamic Texts by Orientalists and Christian Apologists

Case 1:

We read from Christian Apologist Nabeel Qureishi the following quote , sourced from an unverified and critically poor translation. Despite Nabeel’s University education, he failed to validate the translation he was using:

Ibn Masud does not think highly of today’s Quran, the one collected by Zaid. In comparing himself to Zaid, he says:

“The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth.” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444) –

This is a wrong translation. The translation should actually be:

“So conceal the manuscripts! I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth.”

Not only is the translation wrong, the actual Arabic text does not include the phrase, “in the reading of the Quran“.

فَغَلَّوُا الْمَصَاحِفَ. فَلأَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَى قِرَاءَةِ مَنْ أُحِبُّ أَحَبَّ إِلَيَّ مِنْ أَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَى قِرَاءَةِ زَيْدِ بْنِ ثابت. فو الذي لا إِلَهَ غَيْرُهُ لَقَدْ أَخَذْتُ مِنْ فِيِّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – بِضْعًا وَسَبْعِينَ سُورَةً. وَزَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ غُلامٌ لَهُ ذُؤَابَتَانِ يَلْعَبُ مَعَ الْغِلْمَانِ

The issue with the translation pertains to the meaning of the word “فَغَلَّوُا ” (the first word in the sentence), transliterated as “ghalla”. The Christian missionary asserts that it means “deceit”, which is contrary to the basic meaning of the word, which is “to hide/ conceal”. In a similar report in Jami’ Tirmidhi, the wording is given as:

قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْعُودٍ: ” يَا أَهْلَ العِرَاقِ اكْتُمُوا المَصَاحِفَ الَّتِي عِنْدَكُمْ وَغُلُّوهَا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَقُولُ: {وَمَنْ يَغْلُلْ يَأْتِ بِمَا غَلَّ يَوْمَ القِيَامَةِ} فَالقُوا اللَّهَ بِالمَصَاحِفِ

Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: ‘O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'” (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 3104)

What is odd here, is that we can see from the Christian’s translation, they maintain the word to mean “conceal”, why didn’t they translate it to be “deceit” as they did before? We should also note that at the end of the narration it says, “Meet Allah with the masahif”. If “ghalla” was to be translated as “deceit” then the entire narration would be incomprehensible! In Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud Khumayr bin Malik says:

سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ مَسْعُودٍ يَقُولُ: ” إِنِّي غَالٌّ مُصْحَفِي، فَمَنِ اسْتَطَاعَ أَنْ يَغُلَّ مُصْحَفًا فَلْيَغْلُلْ، فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَقُولُ: {وَمَنْ يَغْلُلْ يَأْتِ بِمَا غَلَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ}

“I heard Ibn Masud saying: I have concealed my Mushaf. Whoever can conceal his mushaf he should conceal it. For Allah says, “And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement.”” (Kitab al-Masahif, Narration 52)

In this narration, if we were to translate “إِنِّي غَالٌّ مُصْحَفِي“, it would mean, “I have deceived my mushaf”, in English it would be akin to saying, “I lied to the book”, as opposed to saying “I concealed my book”. This therefore, should illustrate the absurdity of Christian missionaries tampering with translations.

Case 2:

In the book, “The Collection of the Qur’an, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)“, by Christian missionary John Burton, on page 242,  254 we read his translation of the following narration:

وكان الرجل يجيء بالورقة والأديم فيه القرآن، حتى جمع من ذلك كثرة، ثم دخل عثمان فدعاهم رجلا رجلا فناشدهم لسمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو أملاه عليك؟ فيقول: نعم

He translates this as:

“One would come with a parchment or a scrap of leather with a Qur’an verse on it until there was gathered great store of such.’Uthman adjured them one by one, ‘You heard the Prophet recite this?’ They would answer that that was so.”

However, the portion of the narration, ” وهو أملاه عليك” (emphasized in bold above), is purposefully excluded from the translation. The complete translation would read:

“One would come with a parchment or a scrap of leather with a Qur’an verse on it until there was gathered great store of such.’Uthman adjured them one by one, ‘You heard the Prophet recite this while he dictated it to you?’ They would answer that that was so.”

The exclusion of this portion of the narration is a serious attempt at negating the Prophet’s (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa salam) personal role in dictating the Qur’aan to scribes in their presence. It is intentional he excluded this portion of the narration as the reference he gives for the narration includes it entirely, this being Arthur Jeffery’s (the editor of the book), “Kitab al-Masahif”, page 24. Thus far, we have seen purposeful mistranslations and in this case, exclusion of a portion of the narration.

Case 3:

A narration from ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar quoted by Hafidh as-Suyuti (d. 911 A.H.) in his, “al-Itiqan fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’an”, has become a source of joy for some missionaries. However, their contextual rendition of many of its quotes is so deceptive, it is astounding that they would publicly risk such dishonesty! In this case, Sam Shamoun presents us with this translation:

‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar reportedly said: “Let none of you say, ‘I have got the whole of the Qur’an.’ How does he know what all of it is? MUCH OF THE QUR’AN IS GONE. Let him say instead, ‘I have got what has survived.’”

This narration is contained under the title of the chapter which reads as follows, “Section forty-seven: About the Abrogating and the Abrogated“. In Abu ‘Ubayd’s (d. 228 A.H.) work, from which as-Suyuti quotes this, it is the first narration in the chapter titled, “[About] what all was abrogated from the Qur’an after revelation and is not put in the Masahif.” Essentially, what was abrogated was forgotten, as the Qur’aan itself states:

“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?” – Qur’aan 2:106.

Shahab ud-Deen al-Alusi’s (d. 1270 A.H.) comment helps explain the issue:

أجمعوا على عدم وقوع النقص فيما تواتر قرآنا كما هو موجود بين الدفتين اليوم، نعم أسقط زمن الصديق ما لم يتواتر وما نسخت تلاوته … وعليه يحمل ما رواه أبو عبيد عن ابن عمر قال: لا يقولن أحدكم قد أخذت القرآن كله وما يدريه ما كله قد ذهب منه قرآن كثير ولكن ليقل قد أخذت منه ما ظهر

“Verily they (i.e. people of Sunnah) have agreed on there being no loss in the Qur’an as is continuously reported like we today find between the two bindings. Yes during the time of (Abu Bakr) as-Sidiq the part which was not reported continuously and was (rather) abrogated was dropped (out of the official mushaf)…and to this relates that which is reported by Abu ‘Ubayd from Ibn ‘Umar, who said: ‘None of you should say that he has taken the whole of the Qur’an; how could he know what all of it was! A lot of the Qur’an has passed him by! Let him say instead: I have taken of the Qur’an that which became apparent.’”

As can be seen, Sam Shamoun intentionally removed the narration from its context to make it appear to state that a companion of the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa salam) had stated most/ much of the Qur’aan has been lost, when in fact he had confirmed what Allaah has said in the Qur’aan, that the abrogated verses would be made to be forgotten. Therefore, verifying sources is not merely about checking the text for mistranslations or excluded content, it can also be about removing the information from its authorial context. In regards to the translation, the word “MUCH”, it must be understood that this word can be used to mean “less than (what it is being compared to)”. The evidence for this is seen the below narration:

قُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، أُوصِي بِمَالِي كُلِّهِ؟ قَالَ: «لاَ» ، قُلْتُ: فَالشَّطْرُ، قَالَ: «لاَ» ، قُلْتُ: الثُّلُثُ، قَالَ: فَالثُّلُثُ، وَالثُّلُثُ كَثِيرٌ

“I said, ‘Should I give two-thirds of my property in charity?’ He said, ‘No.’ I asked, ‘Half?’ He said, ‘No.’ Then he added, ‘One-third, and even one-third is much (wal-thuluthu kathir).’”

Clearly, one third of an amount is not the most of something or “much” of something. This missionary not only removed the narration from its context, he also misrepresented what the narration was saying by being ignorant of its meaning.

Case 4:

This is a much more famous lie, Sam Shamoun in this case, presents a narration and claims that it states that the Prophet Muhammad (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa salam) is a cross dresser:

Narrated by Ismail, narrated by his brother, narrated by Sulaiman, narrated by Hisham Ibn Urwah, narrated by his father, narrated by Aisha who related that the wives of the prophet were divided into two groups. One group consisted of Aisha, Hafsa, Safiya and Sawdah while the other group consisted of Um Salamah and the rest of the women that belonged to the prophet. The Muslims had learned of the great love that the prophet had for Aisha so that if one of them had a gift he desired to give to the prophet, he would delay giving it until the prophet came to Aisha’s house. Then the group who sided with Um Salamah came to Um Salamah and asked her to tell the prophet that he should command the people that if any of them had a gift to give to the prophet, they should give it him in whatever house of his wives the prophet was in at the time. So Um Salamah went and talked with the prophet but he did not respond to her. When the group asked her what the prophet said she told them that he did not respond. So they asked her to go talk to him again until he responds… then the prophet said to her, “Do not hurt me with Aisha, for the inspiration did not come upon when I was (wearing) A WOMAN’S CLOTHES (Thowb) EXCEPT THAT OF AISHA.” (Source- http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=2393&doc=0)

He provides the source in Arabic and then translates it himself. However, Sam Shamoun does not speak the Arabic language, nor is he capable of reading it, so one does need to ask how he was able to translate something from a language he is ignorant of. The portion of the hadeeth we are focusing on is where he translates “thawb”, as “woman’s clothes”:

لَا تُؤْذِينِي فِي عَائِشَةَ فَإِنَّ الْوَحْيَ لَمْ يَأْتِنِي وَأَنَا فِي ثَوْبِ امْرَأَةٍ إِلَّا عَائِشَةَ

The correct rendition of this portion of the narration should read:

“Do not hurt me regarding Aisha, as the Divine Inspirations do not come to me when I am in the [thawb]cloth (i.e. blanket) of any of wives except [in that of] Aisha.” – Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2393.

This translation of  “thawb“, can be clarified by a similar narration which reads:

لَا تُؤْذِينِي فِي عَائِشَةَ فَإِنَّهُ وَاللَّهِ مَا نَزَلَ عَلَيَّ الْوَحْيُ وَأَنَا فِي لِحَافِ امْرَأَةٍ مِنْكُنَّ غَيْرِهَا

“Don’t trouble me regarding ‘Aisha, for by Allah, the Divine Inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman amongst you except her.” – Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 3491.

The word “blanket”, being “lihaaf” is quite clear in its meaning. One needs to ask Sam Shamoun how he arrived at such an incorrect and outlandish translation, and if it was mistaken, why does he insist it is accurate despite the evidences to the contrary?

Case 5:

Commenting on the phrase:

(قال: قد زعم ذلك زيد) in Sahih Bukhari Hadith 3787.

Muhammad Asad writes in “Sahih al-Bukhari- The Early Years of Islam“, (Gibraltar: Dar al-Andalus, 1981), page 109:

In the French version of the Sahih by Houdas and Marcais (vol.III, 5 in two places) we find the ridiculous translation: “C’est Zeid qui pretend cela” (“It is Zayd who pretends this”) – thus twisting Ibn Abi Laylah’s answer into a discrediting criticism of the authenticity of this narration. The French translators were evidently not aware of the fact that the primary meaning of za’ma is equivalent to qala (“he said”); cf. Lisan al-‘Arab XV, 156.

Conclusion

I have demonstrated several forms of misrepresentation of Islamic quotes and references by contemporary and previous missionaries and Orientalists. Some of the forms we have noted are listed as the following:

  1. Mistranslating a term/ word.
  2. Excluding a portion of the original text.
  3. Misrepresenting a quote by removing it from its context.
  4. Providing an Arabic source but self translating and incorrectly claiming that the translation is authentic.

These are very serious attempts at distorting Islamic academic sources by Christian missionaries and Orientalists. Therefore, the command of Allaah ta ‘aala in Surah 49, verse 6 should be taken seriously, very seriously. The apprehension of Muslims towards the quotes and references by polemicists is not unwarranted as the previous examples have illustrated that this manipulation of the quotes and references is a common pattern of behaviour. With this being noted, if the party entering into a discussion with you on Islamic information does not wish to verify the source or the content, then unless they do so – the Muslim should not continue the discussion. We must be careful and use our discretion in giving audience to those who are unable to maintain basic academic standards.

In my own experience with a zealot missionary, Darren Amos of the UK, he quoted a book for me entitled “al-Kitab”. I asked him, who was the author of al-Kitab or if he even knew that the book title meant. He refused to comment on the quote and its fictitious citation and instead claimed I was evading discussing the topic. I did not relent, I pressed for the validation of the reference and eventually he discontinued the discourse. I encourage my Muslim brothers and sisters to be firm in their criticism of sources, if we do not, the missionaries will gladly invent quotes as they wish without any guilt whatsoever, for as Paul states, “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice.” – Philippians 1:18.

I would like to thank Br. Waqar for providing me with the references and examples of distortion by missionaries and Orientalists. I have listed his corpus of writings below, as they relate to the claims made above. I highly recommend reading his extensive and scholastic refutations to missionary polemics. May Allaah ta ‘aala reward him for his efforts, Ameen.

Sources:

and Allaah knows best.

Christian Love for Br. Ijaz

Posted on by 2 comments

I’m not sure what ticked off this individual, but he does seem quite upset at Muslims and particularly at me. I don’t know who he is or why he’s messaging me, but he sure is angry. Based on his other messages, he does seem to be under the impression that I’m an immigrant to the UK though, which isn’t true, as we Trinidadians often say “I’m Trini to de bone“. I do often get hate mail in this form, nasty insults, threats, etc, this is just a sample of the messages sent:

cc-2014-jimmuir-insults

 

On the other hand, this bloke might just be completely crazy and his faith of choice is completely coincidental. Experience though, and the many other messages strongly suggest that may not be the case. I pray that God guides this person and that they can live their lives being at peace with those who disagree with them. Ameen.

and God knows best.

How Murder Benefits the Christian Faith

Posted on by Leave a comment

I sometimes like to hope that my Christian brothers and sisters throughout the world would be willing to put an end to their propaganda machines. As the years go by, it’s beginning to seem that Christianity cannot survive without thriving on news of the dead or by claiming that every Muslim wants to kill them. Today I saw a Christian post circulating a photo of a man weeping over the bodies of his children and wife. The caption attached to it stated the following:

“VERY TOUCHING STORY *GRAPHIC; BUT MUST READ*

The man sitting on the floor, dressed in white, is a Christian pastor who lives in Syria, Middle East. In the morning, he went out to preach the Gospel, and when he returned home that afternoon, he found all his children dead, four children murdered by people against CHRISTIANITY.

He asked, before the bodies if he would stop preaching Christ. He replied: “That’s not me. Nobody will silence my voice. Will speak the word of the Lord. More than ever, I proclaim Christ and His Salvation.”

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven, blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be merry you, because great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. “(Matthew 5:10-12)

SHARE this message and encourage someone today to remain strong in the WORD of the LORD JESUS CHRIST.“

I won’t post the photo, but I will post a link to the photo as I am not fond of showing images of a man’s dead family. A quick reverse image search, indicates that the image originated from Demotix, a photojournalism website. The image contains the following description as provided by the photojournalist who took the photo themselves:

“Syrian children were amongst some of those killed after a Syrian Air Force fighter jet loyal to President Bashar al-Assad fired missiles at Kafr Awaid, near Idlib according to activists at the scene.”

A Google reverse image search on the photo shows that the Demotix website is the main source of the image as of the 15th of September, 2012. In 2013, Christian websites en masse began to circulate the photo to promote the belief that Christians were being targeted in Syria. Obviously, not all Christians are this petty or need to deceive and invent stories about false persecution to promote their faith. However, this pattern of behaviour, of claiming that this man’s family died for Christianity and for Christ seems to be the only tool that can help in propping up this decaying and dying 2000 year old year old faith. We call for Christians to stop feeding off of the dead and suffering in the world so that Christianity may profit. What good is profiting the Christian faith by using a man’s grief, dead wife and children?

Feasting on the basis of a tragedy is abhorrent and disgraceful, clearly some Christians are willing to use the dead to profit Christianity. Sad.

and God knows best.

Newest Critical Bible to be Released: UBS 5th Ed. Greek New Testament

Posted on by 3 comments

The latest critical edition of the Greek New Testament is to be released sometime between the months of May and June of this year (2014). Critical Editions (Editio Critica Maior) of the New Testament text refers to the Greek text which is most likely representative of the original (autograph) version from which all other copies (manuscripts) were made (archetypal text) based on the surviving (extant) manuscripts.

cc-2014-UBS5-cover

Cover of the UBS 5th Ed. Greek New Testament

In 2012, the Nestle-Aland 28th Ed. Novum Testamentum Graeca (Greek New Testament) was published, and can be read online here. The United Bible Societies’ 5th Ed. will have the identical Greek Text as that of the Nestle-Aland 28th Ed. These books are comprised of two major sets of data: (1) The Greek Text (2) The Apparatus of the Text. The Greek Text in the Nestle-Aland 28th Ed. contained changes/ updates to the Greek Text in relation to the Catholic Letters of the New Testament. The UBS 5th Ed., will contain the same Greek Text with those updated changes, with some paragraph and punctuation differences. The apparatus for the texts, refers to the manuscript data, references/ citations, lexical/ philological dictionaries, charts, statistics and calculations, as well as classification criteria/ determination of the variants’ details. A Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament is updated primarily when the Greek Text undergoes some change, due to manuscript evidence. The variants refer to passages, verses, phrases and words that differ in spelling or content between the 5500+ surviving (extant) manuscripts (MSS). When the Greek New Testament scholars settle on one reading from the other readings, the change is made to the Greek Text and thus it becomes the latest Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament.

When Greek New Testament scholars sometimes state that the New Testament is 99% certain, what they mean is that based on the current manuscripts, they have decided that out of all the varying readings that this one specific reading is probably more accurate than the other readings contained in the remaining manuscripts. In other words, they are 99% certain that one variant is more accurate than another variant. This belief however, stems from the Evangelical Greek scholars, their level of certainty differs vastly with the scholars of the Nestle-Aland and UBS committees. There is a persistent need for clarification and correction purposes as Evangelicals seem to misunderstand what the editions represent. The Critical Edition of the New Testament is meant to envision what the original may have looked like, based on the manuscripts which have existed to this day, and out of those manuscripts – the specific readings chosen out of the thousands of other variants, is 99% more correct than the other variants. It does not mean that the current Greek New Testament is 99% certain or representative of what may have existed during the 1st century CE. It’s 99% certainty in the choice of the variants, above the other variants. This disparity in understanding, is sometimes extremely difficult for polemicists and lay Christians to understand, which is problematic for them as it wholly misrepresents what the Critical Editions are meant to convey.

I previously mentioned that there was a classification criteria which the scholars apply to the Critical Editions, the criteria for the UBS3 and UBS4 Editions is as follows (“The Greek New Testament”, fourth revision edition, Stuttgart: Deutsche Biblegesellschaft, 1994, p.3):

  • The letter A indicates that the text is certain.
  • The letter B indicates that the text is almost certain.
  • The letter C indicates that the committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
  • The letter D indicates that the committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision.

The ratings are as follows (E.J. Edwards, “On Using the Textual Apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament”, in The Bible Translator, 28, p.122):

  • A – Ratings: 8.7%
  • B – Ratings: 32.3%
  • C – Ratings: 48.6%
  • D – Ratings: 10.4%

This would mean, that out of the thousands of variant readings, when the Greek New Testament scholars decided upon one specific reading they were 59%  greatly uncertain about their choices. In other words, those who claim that Greek scholars are 99% certain in their choice of variant readings are grossly wrong. Merely 8.7% of those choices were certain and 32.3% almost certain. This understanding sometimes goes over the heads of the Evangelical inerrantists which leads to false beliefs about the preservation and accuracy of the modern Biblical text. When changes are made to these two Critical Editions, new translations of the New Testament are produced based on these changes. It therefore should be noted, that the Greek New Testament is constantly being updated, it is primarily a dynamic text which continues to evolve time and time again. Those who believe that the New Testament is absolute in what it expresses clearly do not understand that the very Bibles in their hands are very different from the earlier editions of the Bible.

They sometimes state during their proselytizing that although there are new and varying translations of the New Testament, the Greek Text is absolute and certain, they postulate that the varying and new translations are solely meant to make it easier for non-Greek speakers to understand. Clearly, they are unaware that changes and updates to those translations are as a consequence of the ever changing, constant evolution and development of the Greek New Testament.

and God knows best.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »