Modern Christian Apologetics and Paul’s Methodology

Posted on by 4 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

As of late I must admit to be reading most of the anti-Islamic Christian missionary websites. It is very important that I frequent their latest publications, so that I may acquaint myself with their newest arguments. Interestingly, I haven’t actually ever come across a new argument that an Orientalist Christian historian has not presented before. Thus to me, these websites don’t actually present something new or difficult for me to deconstruct and debunk, often times upon mere reading I can dismiss them as logically equivalent to child’s play.  However, during this time, I’ve run into some problems and I wish to highlight them. Christian apologetics in the 21st century has gone from defending Christianity[1] to attacking Islam. Therefore the very nature of Christian apologetics has drastically undergone a transformation that needs to be understood, commented on, and it is sad to see that not much attention has been given to this untimely change. It is in lieu of this trend, that I have decided to author this short piece, contrasting the methodologies employed by Paul to that of the current Evangelical movement.

The change in missionary tactics has much less to do with defending Christianity from Islamic arguments, but more to do with  presenting the dying Christian faith[2] with a life line. This method of propagating Christianity through demonizing another predominant faith is not new to the religion. Pauline literature presents a prime example as to how early Christians propagated their new faith. Christianity in its earliest stages was not monolithic, various groups competed against each other[3] to become the most dominant and eventually to be dubbed the ‘orthodox Church’. Paul was not a stranger to this competition for dominance and as such, in order to present his brand of Christianity as being the sole authentic heir to Christ’s ministry, his evangelism took a rather radical turn. When a creature is near death or threatened, an adrenaline rush kicks in, thus giving way to the fight or flight response. Christianity has largely taken the flight response (mass apostasy)[4], with most Christians in Europe identifying themselves as culturally Christian, spiritually Atheist. For those who have taken the fight response, their methodology should be dubbed the ‘Pauline Agenda‘, as this is what best describes their modus operandi in today’s world.

E.P Sander’s states concerning Paul’s writings, “In general terms, Paul’s way out of this dilemma was to connect the law with sin and to assign it a negative place in God’s plan of salvation[5]”, he continues by later saying, “But sin grasps the law away from God. It uses it to promote transgression (7:8, 11, 13), and the result is that the law kills (7:10f.). In 7:7-13 the law is still connected to sin, but sin is not attributed to God’s will.[6]” From this, we must understand that Paul’s answer to the early Jews who rejected his message and to that of the Jewish – Christians was to demonize their doctrinal stance on soteriology. In essence, their plan for salvation led to death, it led to sin and to follow this plan led to being rejected from the Kingdom of God. This is most clear when we read the following verses from Romans[7]:

“Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.”

The conclusion to be derived from this, is that when Christianity is threatened from prospering, missionaries evolve their apologetics from defense to that of offense. Just as what Paul did in his writings, so too are evangelical polemecists doing today, they are creating the straw man of a common enemy to which they can propagate their unified message of Christianity against. Therefore in their minds, they are establishing Christianity as some ideology which is intellectual superior, logical and rationally sound. Instead of having to defend their religious doctrine, they create a common enemy which they perceive to be their biggest threat, demonize their enemy as being misguided and dedicate all efforts to attacking this enemy instead of defending their religion. When the enemy responds, they then respond to their enemy’s response, thereby establishing a whole field of data to which they can constantly respond to. What they have therefore done, is placed everyone’s focus on their dialogue with Muslims, while removing focus on their doctrinal deficiencies. In today’s language we label this: sleight of hand. Therefore, when we see Christians today promoting, ‘Dialogue with Muslims’, as opposed to, classes or lectures on their doctrinal conundrums (often dubbed holy mysteries), it is in an effort to establish their faith as superior to the Islamic faith without having to explain Christianity’s doctrinal conflicts, contradictions and illogicality.

Yet, in doing so, the message they have consequently conveyed can nonetheless be described as being wholly self contradicting. Before I proceed with an example, let’s examine Paul’s employing of this method. The use of this tool for Evangelism during his time has also led to confusion of his own personal doctrinal positions. E.P Sanders says[8], “All Paul’s statements cannot be harmonized into a logical whole, but each one can be understood as coming from the application of different of his central convictions to diverse problems.” In other words, while he has dedicated his time to repudiating the positions of the Jews and Jewish-Christians, he has dug himself into a precarious position. His arguments became contradictory and confusing, illogical. Similarly, we find Christian polemecists saying that the Qur’an was copied from the Bible, but at the same time the Qur’an was also copied from Greek philosophers, Jewish historical books and Gnostic writings. Either the Qur’an is a bad copy of the Bible, or it is sourced from the other aforementioned sources. They claim that the Qur’an is not copied but rather written in Syriac as opposed to Arabic, but then they claim the Qur’an was written by Uthman [ra] in Arabic after Muhammad’s [sallahu alayhi wa slaam] death. Their positions cannot be described as being sequitur, for if we were to collect them and present them as holistically sound, we would not be able to do so.

Similarly, they say that the Qur’an was authored by a mad man, yet ignore that Paul himself was plagued with a messenger of Satan while authoring the New Testament Epistles[9]. Another popular argument is that Muhammad [sallalahu alayhi wa sallam] was a murderer and war monger, while they also argue he did not exist at the same time[10]. Clearly they are in confusion, just as Paul was and their arguments cannot be consolidated into a logical whole. Their attacking of Islam is not in response to Muslim da’wah work, but it is a methodology employed to stall the ever increasing apostasy from their religion. Paul was successful in conveying his message to the Greeks who largely accepted him as an authority[11], yet in today’s world, this methodology has largely failed as the modern missionary is finding much problems with the modern Muslim. We are not ignorant of the Bible, and when 20 year old Muslims like myself can run websites and organizations dedicated to exposing their faults, clearly something is amiss. To put this into perspective, Paul’s success was at a time when most Greeks were ignorant of the new Christian faith, most regarded it correctly, as a form of Judaism. While the Jews themselves regarded it as heretical (which is of those whom Paul found little favour with). Edgar J. Godspeed emphasises on Paul’s futility to convert the Jews but the relative ease as to which the Greeks took his message[12]:

“In presenting the Christian gospel to the Greek world, Christian leaders in the first century were more and more embarrassed by the fact that the Jewish people, among whom the new faith had arisen, did not in any large numbers accept it. Christianity seems to have failed in its first campaign. Its first field was obviously the Jewish people among whom it had arisen; Jesus was their Messiah, foretold by their prophets. But his own people had refused him. What did it mean? The prophets had been full of pictures of the redeemed nation. The coming of the Messiah was to release a new program of spiritual glory for Israel. In the cherished messianic drama his appearance was to be the cue for the nation to take the stage. But the nation had not responded. The Christians joyfully accepted the Jewish scriptures as their Bible, but the prophetic program seemed to be breaking down.

Yet Christianity was not failing. It was winning an amazing success, but in the Greek, not in the Jewish, world. Christianity was, in fact, rapidly becoming a Greek religion. But this success of Christianity in the Greek world only increased the difficulty of the problem. It was nothing like what the prophets had said would happen when the Messiah came.”

Similarly, Evangelicals using Paul’s method have not found favour with Muslims, but with wavering Christians. Just as at the time of Paul, while Paul demonized the Jews as being in perpetual sin, he found favour with those outside of the Jewish faith. In modern terms, while Evangelicals demonize Muslims, they find favour with those outside of the Muslim faith. Thus, the Pauline Agenda as I have dubbed it, is clearly being utilized by our missionary friends, the parallels are too explicit to ignore. The Pauline Agenda can be broken down as such:

  1. Make a claim against an opposing religion.
  2. Allow the believers of that religion to respond.
  3. Consume their time and their congregation’s time in responding to the opposing religion’s responses.
  4. Focus on 2 and 3 while presenting a prima facie study of their doctrine to their own congregations.
  5. If doctrinal issues arise, give standard, basic, simplified responses.
  6. If doctrinal issues are taken to deeper levels, label your opponent as being misguided and satanic:
    “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.“

Evidently, the writing is on the wall, as is explicitly demonstrated with some of the Christian websites today, who are explicitly using this method:

  • Answering Islam.
  • Answering Muslims.
  • Calling Muslims.
  • Ministry to Muslims.

These Christian organizations are not dedicated to defending Christianity, but dedicated to attacking Islam as a last ditch effort of keeping the religion alive. Sadly, the only persons who seem interested in their message are zealot evangelicals who decry and belittle their own scholarship as liberal ignorants while staunchly swearing by the inerrancy of a muddled, interpolated and largely emendated medieval scripture. Due to their arrogant ways, when they do write about Christology, they muster illogical and overtly verbose articles that are easily dismissed and simple to denounce. Case in point, Answering Islam’s articles on the deity of Christ which I have put through simple criticism yet yielded a plethora of successes[13]. It is therefore, in the modern Christian’s best interest to remain in the fight response[14], as engaging in proper intellectual discourse of their doctrine can only lead to apostasy of their Christian brethren, thus they must occupy their congregation with attacking Islam and focus on presenting simple doctrinal teachings to them. Is the Pauline Agenda going to be successful, as it was at the time of Paul? Truthfully speaking, it was not successful at the time of Paul as he failed to convert Jews, similarly the Evangelicals are not making any significant headway into Muslim populations but in response, we Muslims are breeding more websites, da’wah groups and study sessions to refute them. The only reason Christianity spread to the extent it did was due to Constantine’s political influence, military and judicial overview. Some Christians may discredit me for making such a statement, but the Catholic Encyclopaedia states[15]:

“Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State.

It has consequently been asserted that Constantine favoured Christianity merely from political motives, and he has been regarded as an enlightened despot who made use of religion only to advance his policy. He certainly cannot be acquitted of grasping ambition.”

There exists no modern equivalent to Constantine today, the Pauline Agenda will not yield the results that the Evangelicals seek. How they will evolve his methodology is yet to be seen, but as their articles demonstrate, they are dependent on the writings of old and when they do embrace new theories; they cannot defend them save for being labelled inconsistent and self contradictory. In conclusion, while the methods they have employed are not new, the goals are the same, but the means are insufficient. I am unable to see any new content being produced from amongst their apologists and as can be clearly seen by any well read person, they have begun to recycle their old articles, sometimes reposting them while restating a few paragraphs and presenting them as new argumentation. Surely, they are in a sad state of affairs. The writing is on the wall for Christianity.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

[1] – The original reading of ‘apologist’ is not to be taken in the modern sense of ‘being sorry’. The etymology renders it as being one who defends his faith/ argument.
[2] – The latest census of religiosity in the UK shows that Christianity has fallen considerably, while Islam has risen significantly.
[3] – Galatians 2:4-5.
[4] – US Evangelicals do not understand the spiritual state of Europe. Many are spiritually atheists, Christianity means nothing to them
[5] – ‘Paul, the Law and the Jewish People’, by E.P Sanders, Kindle Edition: Location 1079-1079.
[6] – Ibid, Location 1215-1215.
[7] – Romans 8:5-8.
[8] – ‘Paul, the Law and the Jewish People’, by E.P Sanders, Kindle Edition: Location 1402-1403.
[9] – 2 Corinthians 12.
[10] – Robert Spencer’s ‘Did Muhammad Exist?‘
[11] – Acts 13:46-48.
[12] – ‘An Introduction to the New Testament’, by Edgar J. Godspeed, ‘Matthew’, page 158 – 159.
[13] – Our codex of responses to Answering Islam’s Sam Shamoun on Christological arguments.
[14] – The Fight or Flight theory explained, as per my usage.
[15] – ‘Constantine the Great’, in the Catholic Encyclopaedia.

Refutation: Is Asking “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God’” a Good Argument? – Part 2

Posted on by 5 comments

Why Did Not Jesus (p) Say, “I am God”? Part-2

The question that Christians do not face

 

Question Mark

 

In the last part of this response we addressed to Keith Thompson’s explanation wherein he argued that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not explicitly claimed himself to be God because it would have confused masses into diminishing the distinct difference between the person of Father and son. We saw there were a number of issues with regards to this flimsy argument.

However, Thompson also “explained” that there was no real need for Jesus (peace be upon him) to claim his deity the way Muslims demand since New Testament applies “divine Old Testament titles” on him. Therefore, in this final part we would consider all the New Testament “verses” Thompson has to offer presumably acknowledging his desperate situation of absence of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) explicit declaration.

 

“Divine” Titles of Jesus (p)

 

John 20: 28-29

 

Thompson argued as follows:

“John 20:28-29 Ignored Since it Refutes DNST

Notice what DNST didn’t address in his paper. He didn’t address how I argued that in John 20:28-29 Jesus blessed Thomas after he identified Him as his Lord and God.

“Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”” (John 20:28-29)

This was after everyone knew Jesus was not the same person as the Father and so Jesus could now affirm that he was God. At this point in the disciples’ experience they would have properly understood what it meant for Christ to also be calledtheos. By blessing Thomas’ confession of faith in Him as His Lord and God, this is the equivalent of Jesus identifying Himself as the Lord God, the very thing DNST demands of Jesus. But of course DNST failed to address Jesus affirming that He is Lord and God in this text and simply brushed it aside.”

We did neglect John 20:28-29 since our main contention was Jesus (peace be upon him) himself declaring his deity and not somebody else doing the favors for this “god-almighty” – Thompson needs to get this construct clear! We argued very clearly in our original paper (and ironically Thompson quoted us as well) that declaring Himself explicitly as God “has always been an insignia of traditional Judeo-Christian God” so Jesus (peace be upon him) must be consistent with his Old Testament counterpart!

On the foregoing, if some set of people declare Jesus (peace be upon him) to be god then there are others, in the same pages of New Testament, who claim him to be a liar and elsewhere even insinuate at the legality of his birth! His own kith and kin declared him to be “mad” and even “demon possessed” (c.f. John 10:20)! We hope Thompson now seriously reconsider if somebody else declaring things about Jesus (peace be upon him) really matters!?

Furthermore, we are not very amazed how Trinitarians could twist their own religious texts to suit their deviated agenda since James White – a Trinitarian – also uses the same verse towards deifying Jesus (peace be upon him). We had a dedicated response to White dealing with John 20: 28-29 and its mishandling by Trinitarian apologists.

In that paper we discussed at length (i) how the context has been abused (ii) semantics twisted yet (iii) all it proved, if it proved, that Thomas just did not believe or accepted Jesus’ (peace be upon him) deity all throughout his ministry and even after his alleged crucifixion until he had to physically make post-resurrection appearance to him! All of this is documented in the following article:

The Forgotten Monotheism

Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness of this response, we would summarize the arguments from the above paper.

When Jesus (peace be upon him) made his post – resurrection appearance to the disciples except Thomas (who was then absent in the scene) they all believed. When this information was given to Thomas he outright declined to believe in it with an eccentric condition that until and unless he puts his fingers in the wounds of Jesus (peace be upon him) he would not believe in his resurrection.

Subsequently, Jesus (peace be upon him) made a special errand to Thomas to assuage him his disbelief in post – resurrection phenomenon. Consequently, when Thomas was confirmed about Jesus’ (peace be upon him) resurrection, he exclaimed “My Lord, My God” upon which Jesus (peace be upon him) confirmed his true belief in the resurrection which was hitherto absent. So, the stress of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) ratification was on Thomas’ belief in resurrection phenomenon rather than on Jesus’ (peace be upon him) deity.

On the foregoing, if we assume that Jesus (peace be upon him) confirmed Thomas for his belief in his deity then we would have to agree that hitherto Thomas did not believe in the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him) since Thomas unequivocally declared thathe would not believe unless he himself experiences the wounds of Jesus (peace be upon him)! Consequently, we would have a situation where the earliest apostles (plural) did not believe in the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him) until his post-resurrection appearance even though they were moving with him day and night!

John 5:19, 30

 

In our original response we proposed insufficiency of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) declaration of his deity in conjunction John 5: 19 and 30 which show his definite limitations to be God-Almighty.

Thompson has the following to respond about John 5:30 (we would take John 5: 19 subsequently):

I will briefly say that although DNST’s Good News Edition translation of John 5:30 says “I can do nothing on my own authority” there is no “on my own authority” in the original Greek text. The Greek reads Ou (not) dynamai (am able) egō (I) poiein (to do) ap’ (from) emautou (myself) ouden (nothing). Literal translation: “I am not able to do anything from myself.” Hence, Christ is simply saying that he can’t do anything separately (“of myself”) from the Father. This is what Christianity has always taught. Like I said in the other article, Muslims want to see limitation of Christ in these texts, but what is actually being communicated is the perfect unity and communion between the Father and Son, as well as their mutual interdependence. Jesus doesn’t act independently from the Father because He and the Father are in perfect union. Therefore, it is impossible for Him to act apart from the Father or contrary to His will. This was Christ’s point. His point wasn’t inability, but a refutation of the implicit assumption of His claiming to be an independent deity in competition with the Father, since the Jews thought that he was claiming to have equal authority with the Father as some independent being who chose to exercise it apart from the will of the Father (cf. John 5:16-18). I would therefore exhort my friend DNST to remove his Islamic coloured glasses when reading these texts. In the other article I showed all of the proof for Jesus’ deity in John 5 which should make everyone wonder why Muslim apologists isolate 5:19, 30-31 when the totality of the chapter refutes their position and demonstrates that Christ is God (see John 5:15-18, 22-23, 25-26, 28-29).

Although Thompson is desperately trying to somehow “explain” that the quoted verses do not show Jesus’ (peace be upon him) impotency as God, however, thevery next phrases clarify the issue that Jesus (peace be upon him) was definitely portraying his limitation with respect to the boundlessness of God. Consider Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement:

“I can do nothing on my own authority; I judge only as God tells me, so my judgment is right, because I am not trying to do what I want, but only what he who sent me wants. (Good News Edition)

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just;because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (King James Version)

I am not able of myself to do anything; according as I hear I judge, and my judgment is righteous, because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me. (1898 Young’s Literal Translation)

Observe the construct of the verse and contrast it with Thompson’s explanation. The semantics of the verse clearly qualifies Jesus’ (peace be upon him) impotency because he was dependent on his basic source – God. He was unable to judge since judgments were to be supernaturally communicated to him, so that he could “hear” them and execute accordingly.

Furthermore, he was still impotent since Jesus (peace be upon him) just did not had any will of his own; rather, the decree of Father dominated in his proceedings. Therefore, in all of these we do not find any sense of Jesus (peace be upon him) and Father working in any sort of “perfect union”, on the contrary, we definitely find Jesus (peace be upon him) subservient to the decrees adjudged by Father. No wonder Jesus (peace be upon him) explicitly claimed “…because I am not trying to do what I want”.

We can further decide Jesus’ (peace be upon him) impotency as against his “perfect union” with God by looking at other New Testament verses of the order. For instance, consider the incidence where the wife of Zebedee demanded Jesus (peace be upon him) to honor his sons by allowing them the privileged status beside him on the occasion of his second return:

“Then the wife of Zebedee came to Jesus with her two sons, bowed before him, and asked him a favour. “What do you want?” Jesus asked her. She answered, “Promise me that these two sons of mine will sit at you right and your left when you are King.” You don’t know what you are asking for,” Jesus answered the sons.  “Can you drink the cup of suffering that I am about to drink?” “We can,” they answered. “You will indeed drink from my cup,” Jesus told them, “but I do not have the right to choose who will sit at my right and my left. These places belong to those for whom my Father has prepared them.” (Gospel of Matthew 20:20-23)

Notice the reply Jesus (peace be upon him) gave. He clearly evinced his impotency into choosing persons for the privileged place by his side. He referred uniquely to the person of Father and attributed that only He has the divine authority to choose men for that position. Observe how Jesus (peace be upon him) went out of the “Trinitarian” way to humbly claim that he does not has the right to choose! Think about it, which “God” would tell His worshipper I do not have the right to accept your petition!?

Therefore, if Jesus (peace be upon him) was co-equal with Father, in any sort of  “perfect union”, then he would have never confessed that he does not has the right to choose but only Father has it.

Similarly, consider another instance where Jesus (peace be upon him) denies his co-equality and subsequently “perfect union” theory:

“No one knows, however, when that day and hour will come – neither the angels in heaven nor the Son; the Father alone knows.” (Gospel of Matthew 24:36)

Notice how Jesus (peace be upon him) is qualifying his declaration that “No one knows” about the end of time except the person of Father. Jesus (peace be upon him) even denied his self from the prized piece of information reserving the sameonly to the person of Father. Thus, if Jesus (peace be upon him) and Father really worked in “perfect union” then Jesus (peace be upon him) as co-god must have known the information!

It is also very important to note the construct of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement. He recognizes his self as “Son” with respect to “Father”. According to standard Trinitarian position Jesus (peace be upon him) was/is the divine son of divine Father, therefore, by referring himself as “Son” in conjunction with Father, Jesus (peace be upon him) certainly declares that his divine self is also devoid of the knowledge of the hour. Therefore, it is certainly unwarranted to assume that Jesus (peace be upon him) was in any sort of “perfect union” and “communion” with God at par with Him; rather he was definitely subservient to God-Almighty and lesser in efficiency than Him.

Finally we have an instance where Jesus (peace be upon him) certainly displays emotions which are more than just subservient to God-Almighty. Consider the following passage:

“He went a little farther on, threw himself face downwards on the ground,and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, take this cup of suffering from me!Yet not what I want, but what you want.” (Gospel of Matthew 26:39)

According to Pauline theology crucifixion is the base of Christianity as such if there was any so-called “perfect union” between Jesus (peace be upon him) and God then it should have reached its pinnacle with respect to its implementation when planning about the alleged crucifixion phenomenon. Yet exactly at the event, Jesus (peace be upon him) expresses emotions which not only shows his limitations unbefitting to “God” but also establishes his ignorance of the original plan he made with Father purportedly in “perfect union” with Him!

Subsequently, all the above three instances indicate that (i) Jesus (peace be upon him) was depended on Father but the reverse is never observed (ii) he was limited in his information certainly notwithstanding the “perfect union” theory!

It would be very interesting to quote Dr. Lightfoot – a well respected biblical scholar – for his views on John 5:30.

Dr. Lightfoot compares Jesus’ (peace be upon him) incapability of making judgments on his own with the prevailing tradition of referring to the Sanhedrin:

[As I hear, I judge.] He seems to allude to a custom amongst them. The judge of an inferior court, if he doubts in any matter, goes up to Jerusalem and takes the determination of the Sanhedrim; and according to that he judgeth. (John 5:30, John Lightfoot Commentary)

Observe how Jesus (peace be upon him) is compared to any limited mortal judge who when in “doubts” refers the matter to a more knowledgeable and more efficient source – the Sanhedrim. Similarly, when in need for consistent and just decision, Jesus (peace be upon him) inclines towards his greater source – the God and “hears” the same from Him.

On one hand where it is perfectly legal for a prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) to refer to God for judgments, nevertheless, it horribly goes wrong when the divineJesus, who supposedly works in “perfect union” with God, refers Him for judgments!

Let alone proving Jesus (peace be upon him) working in divine sync with Father, the above comment establishes that Jesus (peace be upon him) was even vulnerable to erroneous judgments thus he needed help of his Sanhedrin – Father.

John 5:19

 

Thompson also made a lot of hue and cry regarding our appeal to John 5:19. Here is what he had to say:

Although Muslim apologists like to also quote Jesus in John 5:19 saying “the Son can do nothing of Himself”, which is again a statement of unity and perfect harmony with the Father as opposed to limitation, why is it that the Muslims never explain the rest of the verse which says “whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise”? Why cite a half of a verse to try to disprove Jesus’ deity when the rest of the verse demonstrates that Jesus does and can do everything God does?

We have just seen the weakness in the theory of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) “unity and perfect harmony” with Father. Therefore, now we would concentrate on Thompson’s claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) can do whatever Father does.

Actually, this standard argument was already addressed when we responded to Sam Shamoun, therefore, we would briefly respond Thompson here and link to our response.

Recall we already saw a few New Testament verses where:

(i)      Jesus (peace be upon him) even as the divine Son of God did not know the exact specification of end time.

(ii)    Nobody, including Jesus (peace be upon him), but Father had authority to decide who would sit beside Jesus (peace be upon him) on his return.

(iii)   Dreaded by the tribulations of crucifixion, Jesus (peace be upon him) – “the” god – kissed dust to plead Father to obviate it notwithstanding the fable that he self planned with Father in “perfect union”.

Therefore, it is just a flamboyant albeit hollow claim to assert that Jesus (peace be upon him) could do “everything” Father could. As a matter of truth, to claim such a notion is to misrepresent what Jesus (peace be upon him) actually wanted to intend:

In the context of John 5:19, Jews imputed Jesus (peace be upon him) for breaking the Sabbath regulations when in reality Jesus (peace be upon him) was breaking the man-made (or Rabbi made) exacting rules weaved in the name of Sabbath. He explained through multiple examples that it is perfectly permissible to help the needy even though Sabbath seemingly prohibits it; because, Father does not stop with His providences even on the Sabbath day. It was under this context Jesus (peace be upon him) asserted,

“So Jesus answered them, “I am telling you the truth: the Son can do nothing of his own; he does only what he sees his Father doing. What the Father does, the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing.” (Gospel of John 5:19-20)

Son “sees” Father helping the sufferers even on the Sabbath day and therefore, he also, likewise, tries to help the needy on the Sabbath and likewise teaches his disciples also to do so. By seemingly breaking the plastic rules around Sabbath, Jesus (peace be upon him) wanted to teach that Sabbath was initially institutionalized for upright living of Israelites. It was never intended to push patients to their graves in the name of observing Sabbath rulings (1.).

Thus, to claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) equated himself with Father in doing all things is to neglect the fact that Jesus (peace be upon him) wanted to set an example for everyone to follow – the positive modus operandi of Father on the issues of Sabbath and its rulings about suffering people. Bible expositor Robertson’s ratifies the same:

But what he seeth the Father doing (an mē ti blepēi ton patera poiounta). Rather, “unless he sees the Father doing something.” Negative condition (an mē = ean mē, if not, unless) of third class with present (habit) subjunctive (blepēi) and present active participle (poiounta). It is a supreme example of a son copying the spirit and work of a father. In his work on earth the Son sees continually what the Father is doing. In healing this poor man he was doing what the Father wishes him to do. (Robertson’s Word Pictures, John 5:19)

Another noted Bible commentator John Wesley further explains that Jesus (peace be upon him) merely followed the positive example of Father:

“The Son can do nothing of himself – This is not his imperfection, but his glory, resulting from his eternal, intimate, indissoluble unity with the Father. Hence it is absolutely impossible, that the Son should judge, will, testify, or teach any thing without the Father, Joh 5:30, &c; Joh 6:38; Joh 7:16; or that he should be known or believed on, separately from the Father. And he here defends his doing good every day, without intermission, by the example of his Father,from which he cannot depart: these doth the Son likewise – All these, and only these; seeing he and the Father are one.” (John 5:19, John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes)

In fact by claiming that whatever Father does, Son also does likewise – Jesus certainly proves his non-divinity since he implies working under the directions of Father. As Father allows helping on Sabbath likewise Jesus (peace be upon him) makes it incumbent upon himself to also help on the Sabbath day. This is supported by renowned Trinitarian commentators like Matthew-Henry:

Secondly, The instances of it. He shows it, 1. In what he does communicate to him: He shows him all things that himself doth. The Father’s measures in making and ruling the world are shown to the Son, that he may take the same measures in framing and governing the church, which work was to be a duplicate of the work of creation and providence, and it is therefore called the world to come. He shows him all things ha autos poiei – which he does, that is, which the Son does, so it might be construed; all that the Son does is by DIRECTION from the Father; he shows him. 2. In what he will communicate; he will show him, that is, will appoint and direct him to do greater works than these. (1.) Works of greater power than the curing of the impotent man; for he should raise the dead, and should himself rise from the dead. By the power of nature, with the use of means, a disease may possibly in time be cured; but nature can never, by the use of any means, in any time raise the dead. (2.) Works of greater authority than warranting the man to carry his bed on the sabbath day. They thought this a daring attempt; but what was this to his abrogating the whole ceremonial law, and instituting new ordinances, which he would shortly do, “that you may marvel!” Now they looked upon his works with contempt and indignation, but he will shortly do that which they will look upon with amazement, Luk 7:16. Many are brought to marvel at Christ’s works, whereby he has the honour of them, who are not brought to believe, by which they would have the benefit of them. (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, John 5: 17-30)

Thus, to argue from Jesus’ (peace be upon him) assertion that he claimed for himself equal potential with Father is a gauche distortion of the context and original intent of the verse.

Right after this argument, Thompson had the following to remark:

I submit that double standards must be employed because DNST cannot admit the truth about Christ as revealed in the New Testament. His Quran, which comes 600 years after the New Testament, will not permit him to accept what the Holy Bible clearly teaches and he is thereby forced to distort it. This is the major problem when it comes to Muslim apologists handling the Holy Bible.

However, after going through the above analysis we would like to reframe the above passage:

I submit that double standards must be employed because Thompson cannot admit the truth about Christ as revealed in the New Testament. His Pauline epistles – none of whose originals are available and some of which are agreeably pseudonymous, which comes in the absence of Jesus (peace be upon him) – will not permit him to accept what the Holy Bible clearly teaches and he is thereby forced to distort it. This is the major problem when it comes to Trinitarian apologists handling the Holy Bible.

Matthew 19: 16-17

 

We appealed to a passage from Matthew 19 wherein Jesus (peace be upon him) forbade a rich man who mistakenly referred Jesus (peace be upon him) as divinely “good”:

“And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Mat 19:16-17, King James Version)

Thompson has very interesting response to it (!):

Nowhere in the text does Jesus deny that He is good, e.g. he doesn’t come right and say the words “I am not good so stop calling me that”. He asks why the rich young ruler calls Him good. There is a difference. And nowhere does Jesus deny that He is God. He says no one is good but God, which could easily be a 3rd person reference to Himself as I will argue.

Although Thompson alleges us of, “seeing things in this text which are not there” yet he commits the same error. Notice how Thompson is trying to distort the original import of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement of denial of divinity with, “He askswhy the rich young ruler calls Him good.”

The import of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) sentence construct is very plain; through the counter rhetoric question (“why do you call me good?”) Jesus (peace be upon him) wanted to inform the young man that only God is good in absolute sense and thus the young man ought to refer only God as good! Interestingly, Thompson quotes a certain scholar on this issue which ends up further bolstering our point:

As Stephan S. Short notes in the New International Bible Commentary:

“His approach to Jesus, however, was unbecomingly obsequious, for, in contravention of normal Jewish custom, he addressed Him as ‘Good Teacher’. Jesus rebuked him for this, reminding him that ‘good’ was a designation which was normally reserved for God, only God being good without qualification. Jesus was not hereby disclaiming being either ‘God’ or ‘good’, but was merely criticizing His being addressed thus by someone who clearly was completely unaware of His divine nature.”(4)

If it was customary for Jews to refer to only God as good and if Jesus (peace be upon him) was forbidding and deflecting the attribute of goodness to God then certainly Jesus (peace be upon him) was denying his deity. Therefore, when Thompson alleges that “And nowhere does Jesus deny that He is God” it certainly gets desperate in front of explicit verses.

If the foregoing is understood then let us reconsider Thompson’s following argument to check humor in it:

Nowhere in the text does Jesus deny that He is good, e.g. he doesn’t come right and say the words “I am not good so stop calling me that”. He asks why the rich young ruler calls Him good. There is a difference.

If we were to call Thompson as the president of America and he responds back by rightly saying, “Why callest thou me president? there is none president but one, that is, Obama” then according to Thompson’s Trinitarian logic he is not denying that he is president since he “doesn’t come right and say the words “I am not president so stop calling me that”!; according to Thompson’s logic he is merely asking why the questionnaire calls him president.

Or, may be Thompson is referring to himself in the “3rd person” after all who knows if the presidential post in White House also comprises of “three persons” just like Thompson’s Trinitarian criteria!

Further observe Thompsons’ forced interpretation that Jesus (peace be upon him) through his statement that only God is good was referring in the third person to himself. However, the question to be asked is why would Jesus (peace be upon him) refer to himself in third person? Why not first person? Even more so because hitherto Jesus (peace be upom him) was talking in the first person, “Why callest thou me good? 

If Thompson is in any mind of repeating that rich man would have been “confused” between the person of son and Father then he needs to address at least the following two queries:

1)      The young man was not referring Jesus (peace be upon him) as good “God”. He merely referred Jesus (peace be upon him) as good “Teacher”. Entire region knew that Jesus (peace be upon him) was a teacher and a prophet. As such there was no real danger of confusing the person of Jesus (peace be upon him) with person of Father.

2)      Thompson had already declared that “many” Jews already knew about a certain divine person different from God. So, it can be assumed on fair grounds that the Jewish rich man must have also known about this (weird) phenomenon; yet Thompson claims that Jesus (peace be upon him) felt a need to refer to himself as God in third person. It must be addressed that if Jews knew about different divine persons in the godhead then there was no real need for Jesus (peace be upon him) to refer to himself indirectly in the “third person”.

It is also very important to note that even if Jesus (peace be upon him) was really a god from a Trinitarian perspective or a good teacher; in either case, the rich man was correct in his referral and as such Jesus (peace be upon him) had nothing to object! He could have tacitly accepted the label.

In fact, as Thompson was arguing earlier, that Jesus (peace be upon him) “blessed” Thomas for his famous declaration; in the same way, Jesus (peace be upon him) should have upheld rich man too for his declarations!? Ratified the rich young man and explained him the philosophies of Trinity. Would Thompson clarify the different reactions which Jesus (peace be upon him) to rich young man and Thomas?

In the light of all of the above, the only reason why Jesus (peace be upon him) forbade the rich man was because he was using a title applicable only to God-Almighty.

John 17:3

 

Thompson also responded to our appeal to John 17:3 the way a Trinitarian is expected to argue. However, we would certainly try to analyze its viability from a monotheistic and logical perspective. Consider Thompson’s response:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3 KJV).

DNST concludes from this text that “Jesus (peace be upon him) is portrayed as anybody but God.” However, although Christ identifies the Father as the only true God, it is important to highlight what Jesus did not say. He did not say that only the Father is the only true God.

And then to do some damage control Thompson quoted 1 John 5:20:

The same John who authored this Gospel authored the book of 1 John as well. And in 1 John 5:20 we see Jesus identified as “the true God”:

“We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true — even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20).

 

In all of the above the basic fact that Thompson neglected is that Jesus (peace be upon him) was speaking in a strictly monotheistic setting. He well understood that there was only one God worthy of divinity and worship. Therefore, obviously there was no need that Jesus (peace be upon him) would pander to any wild Trinitarian presupposition to redundantly qualify “that only the Father is the only true God”.

The basic logic flows like this:

  1. God is ONLY One
  2. Father is the “ONLY true God”.
  3. Therefore there is no real need to re-state that only Father is the only true God – this would have been redundant.

To clarify Thompson, the absurdity of his logic is like the following:

  1. President of a United States is ONLY one.
  2. Obama is the ONLY President.
  3. Therefore it is Trinitarian desperation to claim, “only Obama is the only true President”.

As far as Thompson’s appeal to 1 John 5:20 is concerned then we would like to re-remind him that Muslim query was where Jesus (peace be upon him) claimed from his lips that he is God; what Thompson is showing are words of some John.

Yet John’s narrative does not quite help Thompson’s agenda since the subject of the phrases was not Jesus (peace be upon him) but Father who commissioned Jesus (peace be upon him) into this world, “…even in his Son Jesus Christ”.

In fact the attributes used in the phrases also refers explicitly to Father, “so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true — even in his Son Jesus Christ.”

Quite obviously the attribute “true” in the previous phrases was applicable to the person of Father when seen in conjunction with the phrase, “his Son…” and as such the forthcoming pronoun “He” must also refer to Father. As the following Bible scholar concurs:

This

God the Father. Many, however, refer it to the Son. (1 John 5:20, Vincent’s Word Studies)

Albert Barnes gives further intriguing twist to the application of subject pronoun:

This is the true God – o There has been much difference of opinion in regard to this important passage; whether it refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the immediate antecedent, or to a more remote antecedent – referring to God, as such. The question is of importance in its bearing on the doctrine of the divinity of the Saviour; for if it refers to him, it furnishes an unequivocal declaration that he is divine. The question is, whether John “meant” that it should be referred to him? Without going into an extended examination of the passage, the following considerations seem to me to make it morally certain that by the phrase “this is the true God,” etc., he did refer to the Lord Jesus Christ. (1 John 5:20, Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

In his capacity Barnes accepts the phrase to be referring to Jesus (peace be upon him), however, the important point he made that there is “much difference of opinion” with regards to the application of the phrase. There is sizeable number of scholars who argue that the phrase applies to God instead of Jesus (peace be upon him)!

This makes us re-remind Thompson that we requested for an explicit unambiguous, undisputed assertion of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) deity from his lips. Unfortunately, all Thompson could muster was a vague claim made by some John, which even Trinitarian scholars dispute to be applicable on Jesus (peace be upon him)!

In the process Thompson even accused us of using the biblical “verses” out of context since merely two verses later Jesus (peace be upon him) is portrayed sharing divine honor of Father (!):

Those who consult the totality of Holy Scripture, instead of isolating verses out of context, accept the fact that the Father and the Son are both identified as the true God. The reason why in John 17:3 Jesus says that eternal life entails knowing the only true God and Christ is because, as the Protestant Reformer John Calvin notes: “…there is no other way in which God is known but in the face of Jesus Christ, who is the bright and lively image of Him.”(7) Moreover, two verses later in v. 5 Christ clearly affirms His pre-existent unique relationship with the Father wherein He shared in the Father’s glory:

“And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed” (John 17:5).

Nevertheless, we are glad that Trinitarians like Thompson care for “totality of Holy Scripture” since a few verses further down in the same chapter we have Jesus (peace be upon him) sharing the same “divine” honor with multiple mortals (!):

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,  that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.  And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:” (King James (1611), John 17:21-22)

Or

“I pray that they may all be one. Father! May they be in us, just as you are in me and I am in you…I gave them the SAME GLORY you gave ME, so that they may be one, just as you and I are one:” (Holy Bible, John 17:21-22)

No wonder Trinitarian scholars had variety of rather idolatrous interpretation to the above verse. According to John Wesley it was the honor of being the “only begotten” which Jesus (peace be upon him) shared with his biblical disciples, remember that “only begotten” is a divine privilege upon Jesus (peace be upon him) in Trinitarian Christianity:

John 17:22  The glory which thou hast given me, I have given them – The glory of the only begotten shines in all the sons of God. How great is the majesty of Christians. (John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes, John 17:22)

And according to the famous classical exegetes Matthew-Henry, the honor was the honor of being at the right hand of God, in His heart, “as the (divine) redeemer of the world” (!):

Those that are given in common to all believers. The glory of being in covenant with the Father, and accepted of him, of being laid in his bosom, and designed for a place at his right hand, was the glory which the Father gave to the Redeemer, and he has confirmed it to the redeemed. (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, John 17:20-23)

Therefore, if Thompson is really the one “who consult the totality of the Holy Scripture, instead of isolating verses out of context, accept the fact that the Father and the Son and other Mortals are all identified as the true God!” since, (i) Jesus (peace be upon him) shares the same “divine” glory with his disciples which he allegedly had at pre-natal state of the world, (ii) he shares his exclusive position of being the only “begotten” of God and (iii) he even shares the prerogative of being at the right hand of God and his capacity of being the “redeemer” of this world!

We would definitely wait to observe how sincere Thompson is to his textual materials. For more on the issue of John 17:3, please refer to this article where we responded to Sam Shamoun his similar arguments.

Matthew 6:9-13

 

We appealed to Matthew 6:9-13 wherein Jesus (peace be upon him) is purportedly reported to teach his disciples how to pray. We highlighted that in the prayer, Jesus (peace be upon him) exclusively pointed to the person of Father thereby conclusively implying that He alone was God recognized!

However, Thompson had the following to object:

Again we witness the repeated pattern of DNST seeing things in texts which are not really there. Nowhere in Matthew 6 does Jesus say to only pray to the Father or to only pray this one prayer. Since Jesus doesn’t indicate that this is the only prayer one must offer or that only the Father is to be prayed to, Jesus’ words must be taken as meaning that this is a “model” prayer or essential (not exclusive) “pattern for our devotions.”(8)

The problem with Thompson’s argument is that for some reason he presumes that Matthew 6 was the only text we quoted in the entire paper. In fact we quoted Matthew 6 in conjunction with multiple other biblical texts and based on the “totality” of all the verses we concluded that only Father is God.

For instance (i) in the light of John 17:3 – which was just one of the many quoted “verses” – we observed how Jesus (peace be upon him) declared that the person called Father is the “only” true God (ii) we also saw how Jesus (peace be upon him) honestly accepted his ignorance and thus limitation when (a) Wife of Zebedee wanted Jesus (peace be upon him) to choose her sons as special disciples (b) Jesus (peace be upon him) accepted his lack of knowledge of the final hour etc.

On the foregoing, when Jesus (peace be upon him) identified the person of Father in the prayer of Matthew 6 without naming anybody else – we could deduce that he identified only Father as the divine God who should be requested for needs.

Thompson also tried to argue that Jesus (peace be upon him) at other instance asked his disciples to pray to him:

This is confirmed by the fact that Jesus commanded His followers to pray to Him directly “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it” (John 14:14). And this is why, after Christ’s resurrection, His earliest devoted followers didn’t hesitate to pray to Christ

Thompson quoted John 14:14 and only that verse; segregating it from the entire New Testament since in the context Jesus (peace be upon him) explained his disciples why they need to request him. Consider the following contextual verses:

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. If ye love me, keep my commandments.And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (John 14:10-16, King James Version)

Notice in the very first place Jesus (peace be upon him) declares that whatever supernatural he does are actually wrought by Father: “he [Father] doeth the works”. Therefore, when Jesus (peace be upon him) asked his disciples to ask him, he indirectly implied that through him the requests would be re-directed to Father since he was ascending to Father: “I go unto my Father…And I will pray the Father”. Renowned Christian expositor Albert Barnes ratifies:

In my name – This is equivalent to saying on my account, or for my sake. If a man who has money in a bank authorizes us to draw it, we are said to do it in his name. If a son authorizes us to apply to his father for aid because we are his friends, we do it in the name of the son, and the favor will be bestowed on us from the regard which the parent has to his son, and through him to all his friends. So we are permitted to apply to God in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, because God is in him well pleased Mat 3:17, and because we are the friends of his Son HE answers our requests. Though we are undeserving, yet he loves us on account of his Son, and because he sees in us his image. No privilege is greater than that of approaching God in the name of his Son; no blessings of salvation can be conferred on any who do not come in his name.(Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, John 14:13)

Quite obviously Barnes, through the verse, is seeing Jesus (peace be upon him) as the best means to “approach God”. This is far less than assuming Jesus (peace be upon him) himself was god to be prayed.

Barnes has painted Jesus (peace be upon him) as more of an intercessor than “God”-Almighty! No wonder majority of other Trinitarian scholars of Bible interpret the verse to mean Jesus’ (peace be upon him) intercessory capacity! Consider the following:

Because I go unto my Father – He would there intercede for them, and especially by his going to the Father the Holy Spirit would he sent down to attend them in their ministry, Joh_14:26, Joh_14:28; Joh_16:7-14. See Mat_28:18. By his going to the Father is particularly denoted his exaltation to heaven, and his being placed as head over all things to his church, Eph_1:20-23; Phi_2:9-11. By his being exalted there the Holy Spirit was given Joh_16:7, and by his power thus put forth the Gentiles were brought to hear and obey the gospel. (Albert Barnes)

Classical commentator duos Matthew-Henry also confess the same!

Whatever we ask in Christ’s name, that shall be for our good, and suitable to our state, he shall give it to us. To ask in Christ’s name, is to plead his merit and intercession, and to depend upon that plea. The gift of the Spirit is a fruit of Christ’s mediation, bought by his merit, and received by his intercession. The word used here, signifies an advocate, counsellor, monitor, and comforter. He would abide with the disciples to the end of time; his gifts and graces would encourage their hearts. The expressions used here and elsewhere, plainly denote a person, and the office itself includes all the Divine perfections. The gift of the Holy Ghost is bestowed upon the disciples of Christ, and not on the world. This is the favour God bears to his chosen. As the source of holiness and happiness, the Holy Spirit will abide with every believer for ever. (Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, John 14: 12-17)

Note very carefully that Matthew Henry are Trinitarian commentators as such they do believe in the deity of Holy Ghost, Jesus (peace be upon him) alongside Father (???) yet they at least do not (mis)use  John 14:14 and related verses to prove any divinity for Jesus (peace be upon him), much unlike Thompson! For them, asking in Christ’s (peace be upon him) name “is to plead (God) his merit and intercession, and to depend upon that plea.”  

The Truth of the matter is that except Thompson no Trinitarian scholar accepts that the subject verse proves Jesus’ (peace be upon him) deity. It is because all of them highlight the mere fact that asking Jesus (peace be upon him) implies using his name for acceptance of their requests with Father. Consider the remarks of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown along with Adam Clarke respectively:

whatsoever ye … ask in my name — as Mediator.

that will I do — as Head and Lord of the kingdom of God. This comprehensive promise is emphatically repeated in Joh_14:14. (John 14:13-14 Jamieson, Fausset and Brown)

…Christ only preached in Judea, and in the language only of that country; but the apostles preached through the most of the then known world, and in all the languages of all countries. But let it be remarked that all this was done by the power of Christ; and I think it still more natural to attribute the greater works to the greater number of conversions made under the apostles’ ministry. The reason which our Lord gives for this is worthy of deep attention: –

Because I go unto my Father – Where I shall be an Intercessor for you, that: – (John 14:12, Clarke)

Therefore, Thompson needs to be reminded that we did not enquire whether Jesus (peace be upon him) has any intercessory role in Christianity or not. Muslim query is very clear: whether Jesus (peace be upon him) explicitly declared himself to be God!? So, by appealing to John 14:14, Thompson has merely given a classical smokescreen which is understandable especially in absence of proofs.

Finally Thompson made typical argument by writing that Bible recognizes its God as Father but Islam does not recognize Allah (SWT) as “Father” therefore Allah (SWT) is a false God:

However, Muhammad taught that his god was nobody’s father, and he rejected the assertion of the Jews and Christians that they were the spiritual children of God and that God was their spiritual Father (cf. Surahs 5:18; 9:30; 19:88-93; 21:26).

Once again we do not think that we have any concern in the paper whether Allah (SWT) could be called as “Father” or not. We request Thompson to kindly concentrate on the issue whether Jesus (peace be upon him) explicitly declared himself to be God-Almighty?

In any case, Islam being the final form of monotheism for humanity obviated usage of any title for Allah (SWT) which had any worldly and comparable parallels in the fleeting realm! Furthermore, since the term “Father” is associated to humans (animals) it has imports, which if misplaced, can have blasphemous implications not suitable to the identity of God. Thus, in the Shariah (divine regulations) of Prophet (peace be upon him) – the last Shariah in the line – Allah (SWT) circumvented any element of polytheism which could sneak into pure monotheism and corrupt it.

However, we do not necessarily see an objection if pre-Mohammad (peace be upon him) Shariahs had the permission of referring to Allah (SWT) as “Father” given adequate care was taken not to breach monotheism in the imports and the usage of the word.

So when Qur’an denies Jews or Christians to be “spiritual” children of Allah (SWT) in Qur’an 5:18 it merely implies that their moral and spiritual degradation level reached to such limits where they could not possibly be referred to as God’s children. In fact, New Testament chimes the same:

Here is the clear difference between God’s children and the Devil’s children: those who do not do what is right or do not love others are not God’s children. (1 John 3:10)

How can one claim to be “God’s” children and yet worship the golden calf for instance or plot against God’s chosen men like John and Jesus (peace be upon him). Similarly, how can one possibly be called as God’s children when s/he worships Jesus (peace be upon him) or his mother (may God be pleased with her)!

Therefore, when Qur’an denied people of the Book their right to be called as God’s children the stress was less on their calling God as Father than their calling themselves as upright children of God. New Testament further recorded Jesus (peace be upon him) rebuking Jews for unjustly calling themselves as children of God – implying their uprightness – since, because of their iniquities they were abased to Satan’s children:

Jesus said to them, “If God really were your Father, you would love me, because I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own authority, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to listen to my message. You are the children of your father, the Devil, and you want to follow your father’s desires. From the very beginning he was a murderer and has never been on the side of truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he is only doing what is natural to him, because he is a liar and the father of all lies. (John 8:42-44)

On the foregoing, we believe that Thompson was just dabbling at the few Qur’anic verses he could find somehow related to the issue. And as far as his dabble with Qur’an 9:30, 19:88-93 and 21:26 are concerned then in the text Qur’an is condemning the Jewish-Christian blasphemy of abusing God the filthiest for procreating like animals; And, thus, we do not really see an argument here because Thompson would accept that God is above siring infants and so he cannot be called as “Father” in that baser sense.

At this instant Thompson would appeal that the Jews and Christians never abused God by referring Him with the crude sense of the word “Father”. As he wrote:

We emphasize spiritual since this the only kind of filial relationship that Torah-observant Jews and true Christians during Muhammad’s time would have imagined they had with God. They did not think for a minute that God is a physical being who sired them through sexual procreation with a consort. And yet Muhammad still rejected this type of spiritual relationship and intimacy since he felt that his god was some tyrannical despot who only desired slaves, not sons.

We would disappoint Thompson here that we are not responding him on this particular shot. He would have to wait a little when we would collectively respond him and Anthony Rogers on their common argument.

However, until our response comes out we have a query: It is understandable that as a monotheist Thompson does not allow God as a “physical being who sired through sexual procreation” since it does not behooves the divine attribute and nature of God; too animalistic for that reason. However, on what ground does he allows for Jesus (peace be upon him) – his assumed “God” – being sired out of Mary’s womb or, answering natures call in a lavatory or, hanging “dead” on cross etc. How do these attributes settle square with “God”?

Conclusion

 

We began with the basic query that Jesus (peace be upon him) not explicitly declaring his deity is a very valid Muslim query. We argued that if Jesus (peace be upon him) was the same God of the Old Testament then he was very vocal therein for declaring his deity explicitly. As such he should have continued with his trait in the New Testament as well. However, contrary to this expected behavior, we find Jesus (peace be upon him) shying away from declaring his divinity.

The standard response we got was that people would have led to a state of confusion if Jesus (peace be upon him) would have declared his deity. Masses would then have confused themselves into blurring the difference between the so-called person of Father and person of son. Nevertheless, this weak theory does not address the following queries:

1.      On what basis does Trinitarians disparage the efforts of multiple prophets down the centuries who, from a Trinitarian perspective, came to enlighten people just about the identity of Jesus (peace be upon him)?

2.      As per Thompson’s position, when masses had already recognized a “deity” separate and distinct from Father then why and how there remained any room for confusion between person of Father and divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him) if the latter declared his deity explicitly?

3.      We hope that at least the close disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him) would have not “misunderstood” him had he declared his deity to them. He did not even do that!?

4.      At least after his biblical death and subsequent resurrection, he could have declared his deity to masses or at least to his immediate disciples when he came to meet them in private and secured room.

5.      Or, finally, even if we brush aside all of the above query, we still wonder how difficult was it for Jesus (peace be upon him) to explicitly declare his deity with a simple added clause that “I am god, but distinct from Father, do not mix me with Him: I am god- the son”.

Such a construct would have not just taken care of the “confusion” factor but it would have also kept Jesus (peace be upon him) in line with his Old Testament insignia where he was definitely roaming around freely declaring his deity explicitly.

And on top of all of this, such an explanation would have certainly given Muslims no room to enquire the age old query that “Why did not Jesus (peace be upon him) declare himself to be god explicitly?”

Who is afraid of “Consistency Test”?

 

Thompson had accused Muslims of being inconsistent when enquiring Jesus’ (peace be upon him) explicit declaration of divinity. In the process he had a counter query. He wants us to show him where in the Qur’an Jesus (peace be upon him) declared his Messiah-ship explicitly!

DNST offers two responses, one of which I already addressed (“I am God” being an Old Testament insignia of God). The other response to my argument is that DNST claims that Islam has “…Allah (SWT) – a higher authority than Christ (peace be upon him), testifying the Jesus (peace be upon him) is Messiah.” He then cites S. 3:45 and 4:171 where Allah is reported to have identified Jesus as Christ or Messiah. However, this answer from DNST demonstrates my point. He can’t show Jesus Himself saying He is the Messiah in the Quran. The question was not does Allah, your higher authority, say this. The question is: can you be consistent and give me the words of Jesus? No, you can’t. We believe YHWH inspired every word in the Old and New Testaments and so when you have an inspired human author like Luke, John or Paul identifying Christ as God, it is actually God identifying Christ as God (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21). So according to the orthodox view of the nature and inspiration of the Holy Bible, God has indeed confessed and identified his beloved Son to be God in essence. But that is not the issue. The issue is consistency. Muslim apologists demand that Jesus say “I am God” and reject everything else, yet they can’t even quote Jesus saying “I am the Messiah” once in the Quran! If the testimony of anyone other than Jesus is sufficient for Jesus’ Messiahship in the Quran, then to be consistent they have to accept the testimony of others as a sufficient basis for believing in the deity of Jesus. Moreover, there New Testament texts where the Father identifies Jesus as His Son: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17 – cf. Matthew 17:5). So according to DNST’s criteria, since a higher authority (the Father) affirmed Christ’s son-ship, he is bound to accept it. But DNST will still not accept Jesus’ son-ship. So why should anyone believe that he would accept Jesus’ deity if He said “I am God” or if the Father said “my Son is God”? Hence, DNST’s counter argument is merely a smokescreen since he can’t meet my challenge. My point still stands and until and unless Muslims can be consistent and show that Jesus said “I am the Messiah” in the Quran, then logically they must cease using the “Where did Jesus say ‘I am God’” argument.

In the first place notice how conveniently Thompson had presumed that he has responded our query that it was God’s insignia in the Old Testament to explicitly declare his deity merely by throwing the “confusion” theory. However, we raised certain queries to this theory and expect Thompson to address them.

 

Secondly we are sorry to write but an insightful person like Thompson has badly misunderstood the logic behind asking for consistency. Consistency certainly means that something which has been declared earlier would remain the same throughout its usage. On the foregoing, when Jesus (peace be upon him) purportedly in Old Testament was declaring His deity explicitly, to be consistent, he should declare his deity explicitly in the New Testament as well!  In the same way before asking Muslims for Jesus’ (peace be upon him) explicit declaration for his Messiah-ship, Thompson should show us where in Qur’an came prophets prior to Jesus (peace be upon him) declaring themselves to be Messiahs explicitly and Jesus (peace be upon him) did not follow the suite. Or, Thompson should show where in the Islamic scriptures did Jesus (peace be upon him) came earlier declaring his messiah-ship explicitly but stopped doing so in the Qur’an. Surprisingly, we explicitly wrote this in our initial response which Thompson conveniently ignored. Here is a recap for Thompson:

Our second response is a rhetorical enquiry to Keith. Show us, in Islam, which individual(s) came before Jesus (peace be upon him) proclaiming “I am Messiah!”? This is because, when Muslims enquire Christians for Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement, “I am God”- they ask it consistently under the light of Old Testament Scripture wherein God was frequently proclaiming “I am God” for Himself.

On the foregoing it is illogical and “scripturally weak” for Christians to claim that Muslims need to produce the statement “I am Messiah” for Jesus (peace be upon him) in the Qur’an.

Furthermore, when we argued that Allah (SWT) had declared about the Messiah-ship of Jesus (peace be upon him) we were still consistent since earlier Allah (SWT) had positively declared about the prophetic office of a number of prophets! Ironically, we even wrote this in our initial response!

However, on the other hand, because we have had individuals before Jesus (peace be upon him) who came from Allah (SWT) claiming that they are prophets/messengers/apostles etc (c.f. Qur’an 7:104), therefore, we do have written record of Jesus (peace be upon him) claiming such title(s) for himself:

“He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;” (Qur’an 19:30, Yusuf Ali Translation, Al-Alim CD-ROM Version)

Therefore we request Keith and Christians to enquire consistent demands and, inshallah, Muslims will produce it.

Therefore, just like Allah (SWT) declared about the prophetic office of other prophets in the same way, consistently, He declared the Messiah-ship of Jesus (peace be upon him)! So when Thompson argues,

Hence, DNST’s counter argument is merely a smokescreen since he can’t meet my challenge. My point still stands and until and unless Muslims can be consistent and show that Jesus said “I am the Messiah” in the Quran, then logically they must cease using the “Where did Jesus say ‘I am God’” argument.

He misses the point that unlike the God of Old Testament who was regularly declaring Himself to be God explicitly we never had anybody (including Jesus (p)) earlier declaring himself to be Messiah thus there is no room for the Christian query that Jesus, “show that Jesus said “I am the Messiah” in the Quran”

Footnote:

(1.) For more on this issue please refer the following:

The Divinity Factory of Christian Apologists – Part-1

Notes:

  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical text taken from Good News Edition.
  • All emphasize wherever not matching with original is ours.

Refutation: Is Asking “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God’” a Good Argument?

Posted on by One comment

Why Did Not Jesus (p) Say, “I am God”? Part-1

The question that Christians do not face

 

Question Mark

Introduction

It has always been argued that Jesus (peace be upon him) should have explicitly declared his deity if he was any. To this Muslim query, Trinitarians basically argue that if Jesus (peace be upon him) would have declared his deity then masses would have “confused” themselves in recognizing the person of Father and son distinctly.

Rather than giving any concrete explanation as to how and why people would confuse between the persons of Father and son, Trinitarians compare some titles which Jesus (peace be upon him) was given in the New Testament to argue for his deity! On one particular instance a Christian named Keith Thompson wrote a typical response, “Is Asking “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God’” a Good Argument?

We responded Thompson covering arguments directly related to the topic nevertheless, he complained in his recent publication that his “main arguments” were ignored.

Therefore, in this response we would analyze how viable it is to argue that people would have been led into “confusion” of differentiating between the persons of Father and son if Jesus (peace be upon him) would have explicitly declared his deity. Besides, we would also consider standard New Testament verses which are overused to impute divinity upon Christ (peace be upon him).

Cliché Old “Confusion” Theory

As we introduced that it is standard Trinitarian argument to claim that multitudes would have confused between the different persons of Father and son had Jesus (peace be upon him) declared his deity! Here is the same argument in Thompson’s words:

The problem is that if Jesus were to come out and say “I am God” without clearly and forcefully establishing his personal distinction from the Father, and His deity in relation to that fact, people would think He was claiming to be the same person as the Father. This is because God was used primarily in reference to the Father and virtually served as His proper name. In other words, to come out and say “I am God” instead of first establishing His distinction from the Father, would lead His followers into thinking He was making himself out to be the Father in heaven.(1) This is why Jesus didn’t just walk around saying “I am God” as the Muslims demand.

If Trinitarian brand of Christianity was “the” divine religion meant for humanity then every prophet of the Old Testament came, besides other things, to explain the status of Jesus (peace be upon him) as god himself! They would have definitely expounded that Jesus (peace be upon him) is the second god-person in the trinity besides Father and Holy Ghost. Under this consideration, it is hard to assume that, “if Jesus were to come out and say “I am God” without clearly and forcefully establishing his personal distinction from the Father, and His deity in relation to that fact, people would think He was claiming to be the same person as the Father.”

Notice another point which Thompson wrote, “This is because God was usedprimarily in reference to the Father and virtually served as His proper name.” The simple query is, if after thousands of years of ministry by multiple Old Testament prophets, if Israelites yet believed and deemed only the “person” of Father with the title of “God” notwithstanding the Trinitarian philosophy of three divine persons then there is more reason to believe that neither prophets taught nor traditionally Israelites believed in any “triune” class of gods lest they would never reserve the term “God” for Father alone so much so that its usage by anybody other than Father, say, Jesus (peace be upon him) would confuse them between the separate identities of Father and Jesus (peace be upon him)!

In fact, traditionally Jews personalized the usage of term “God” only for Father because they had certain attributes recognized on God alone. For instance the criteria that God can never be seen:

I will not let you see my face, because no one can see me and stay alive, (Exodus 33:20)

Therefore, logically, if multiple Old Testament prophets really taught about any so called “triune” god(s) which included Jesus (peace be upon him) in it, then they definitely differentiated between the person of Father who could not be seen at any time as against son, who was visible at all times. Subsequently, any attempt to explain away that followers of Jesus (peace be upon him) could have been “confused” in differentiating the persons in the godhead is mere Trinitarian desperation because based on the attributes it was really very simple job to recognize and differentiate the “persons” in godhead (of course, provided if there was any concept of “persons” and “godheads”).

The dire desperation of Thompson further gets magnified when he made “explanation” like,

In other words, to come out and say “I am God” instead of first establishing His distinction from the Father, would lead His followers into thinking He was making himself out to be the Father in heaven.

Notice Thompson rightly used the very important word “first” but never implemented it when considering deity of Jesus (peace be upon him)! That is, how difficult was it for Jesus (peace be upon him) to “first” expound the difference between his “person” and the person of Father and then claim that he is god – the second amongst the three. However he never did so – not even after his alleged resurrection when he came to meet his disciples. We believe that if at all the concept of “triune” god was viable and warranted then post-resurrection appearance was the most ripe time for Jesus (peace be upon him) to “walk around saying “I am God” as the Muslims demand.” Unfortunately for Trinitarians, Jesus (peace be upon him) again disappointed.

Furthermore, by relying on confusion-theory, Thompson is inadvertently giving no credit to the disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him); it is because, let us assume that most Israelites would have misconstrued Jesus’ (peace be upon him) identity, but this cannot be extended to the immediate disciples who were under his direct tutelage, spending most of their time with him in ministry. Thus Jesus (peace be upon him) must have at least worded his identity to his disciples without any vulnerability of their being “confused”.

From the preceding, does it not imply that Thompson is taking undue liberty of disparaging the intellectual standards of multitudes of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) time. It is because on what basis can Thompson assume that masses could have been led to confusion if Jesus (peace be upon him) would have explicitly declared his deity? Did Jesus (peace be upon him) ever inform so? Or did Holy Ghost reveal so anywhere? What if masses were matured enough intellectually to comprehend Jesus’ (peace be upon him) declaration about himself. Therefore, it is recklessly unwarranted to impress on masses that they all (included disciples)had cluttered mind. Even more so when Thompson accepts, as we would see shortly, that “many” Jews already recognized a separate divine god distinct from the person of Father!

To further analyze the viability of Thompson’s argument, let us take the examination to the next level. We have been dealing with humans who, as per Thompson, were vulnerable to the confusion between the persons of Father and son. So, we would now consider a very intriguing (if not embarrassing) incident from the New Testament where Jesus (peace be upon him) interacts with a non-human being – Satan. Consider the following New Testament account:

Then the Devil took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in all their greatness. “All this I will give you,” the Devil said, “if you kneel down and worship me.” Then Jesus answered, “Go away, Satan! The scripture says, ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve only him!‘ “(Matthew 4:8-10)

Notwithstanding the bizarre audacity which mere Satan had against the very god of Trinitarian(s), we need to notice that it required Jesus (peace be upon him) to “worship” Satan!! Now, if Jesus (peace be upon him) was really a God then this was one of those opportune moments where he could have asserted his deity on Satan by explicitly claiming something like: “Go away Satan! You should worship me and serve only me since I created you; I am the Lord your God!” If Jesus (peace be upon him) would have claimed anything of this sort then, firstly, it would have certainly shut Muslims once and for all and, secondly, it would have also taught Satan that besides Father, Jesus (peace be upon him) was also his god and as such he should not have the temerity to ask god-almighty to “worship”him!

Observe we said that it was an opportune moment for Jesus (peace be upon him) to declare his deity explicitly on Satan. It is because, if we concentrate on the sentence construction of Satan, he asked Jesus (peace be upon him) to worship him in thefirst person, notice: “All this I will give you,” the Devil said, “if you kneel down and worship me.”. Therefore, Jesus (peace be upon him) should have taken the situation to remind Satan in the first person that it was he who created him and thus, Satan should kneel down and worship him [Jesus (p)].

However, Jesus (peace be upon him) never did so. He deflected the matter to some third person. There can be either of the two reasons: Either (i) Jesus (peace be upon him) was not divine or (ii) He did not want to “confuse” the poor little Satan into blurring the difference between the so-called “person” of Father and son as Thompson explains!

We think Trinitarians like Thompson would choose the second option for theirdefense of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) deity!

Finally, if Thompson really wants us to consider his confusion theory seriously then he should address the following issues:

1)      Why should we doubt the preaching of multiple prophets down through the ages if they were really teaching about any “triune” god concept? It is naturally expected that they must have clarified the different persons in the godhead while, presumably, teaching “triune” gods and thus, the confusion theory is not really viable.

2)      Even if we assume that Old Testament prophets did not clarify the difference between the persons of Jesus (peace be upon him) and Father yet, while in his ministry, Jesus (peace be upon him) could have differentiated it very precisely and then declared his deity. This never happened – we expect Thompson to address this.

3)      At least in the post-crucifixion appearance Jesus (peace be upon him) could have taken the liberty to introduce himself as the second god-person amongst the three. Surprisingly, even this did not happen!

4)      Thompson should address why he has no confidence on at least the immediate disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him) wherein Jesus (peace be upon him) could have at least declared his deity explicitly to them. As close disciples they should have at least not “misunderstood” the “person” of Jesus (peace be upon him) with Father.

5)      Finally, why did Jesus (peace be upon him) shy away from asserting his deity on Satan explicitly; wasting the situation where Satan challenged Jesus (peace be upon him) – the very second god-person of Trinitarians – to worship itself in the first person. Was Jesus (peace be upon him) concerned about Satan’s confusion into recognizing the persons of Father and son distinctly!?

Thus, there were more than just one opportunity where Jesus’ (peace be upon him) identity as god could have been declared without any scintilla of “confusions” between him and Father.

Consequently in the absence of clear and explicit declaration of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) deity, Thompson has no other alternative other than manufacture weak aegis of confusion theory under which he can sell the complex and very costlyphilosophy of Trinity.

Rather than inventing escape clauses, Thompson and other Christians should come to terms with the fact that Jesus (peace be upon him) never declared himself to be god since he had no warrant of doing so:

And behold! Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah’?” He will say: “Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say).Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.(Qur’an 5:116, Yusuf Ali’s Quran Translation)

Thompson tried to support the “confusion” theory with the so-called divine “I am” title which is applied to Jesus (peace be upon him). However rather than doing any good, as we would see, it further proves our point that there was just no room that masses of people could have been led into confusion (!):

For instance, Jesus applied an Old Testament title “I Am” to himself, which is significant since he was basically making himself out to be the OT figure known as the Angel of the Lord, the “I Am” of Exodus 3:14! There were many different Jewish strands at that time that already maintained that this figure was God and yet distinct from God.(2) Thus, by using the title “I Am” Jesus was affirming both His deity as well as His distinction from the Father since in the Old Testament “I Am” was applied to both God (cf. Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:13) and the Angel of the Lord (cf. Exodus 3:14). One needs to understand intertestimental Jewish thinking in order to understand these issues properly. Without this pre-Christian Jewish backdrop in mind Muslims will be unable to understand why Jesus did what He did and said the things He said.

In summary, although Christ didn’t say “I am God” without qualification, which would have led people to think he was the Father, he did apply numerous Old Testament titles of God to Himself while going out of his way to affirm that He is not the Father.

Observe carefully that Thompson, on one hand, readily accepts that “many” Jews “already” recognized a deity other than and distinct from God, i.e., Father. According to Thompson this separate god was recognized as the “angel of Lord”. So far so good!

Nevertheless the problem then begins since Thompson, on the other hand, contradictorily goes on to argue that if Jesus (peace be upon him) would have explicitly declared his deity it would have “confused” the Jews into diminishing the separate identities of Father and son!?

The obvious point is, if Jews really did recognized a distinct god besides God – The Father then there is no basis for the theory that Jews would be “confused” upon Jesus’ (peace be upon him) explicit declaration about his deity!? In fact, on the contrary, Jewish faith should have been further bolstered in Jesus’ (peace be upon him) deity simply because the Jews already recognized a distinct person in the godhead besides Father! Or their faith should have at least grown on the issue that this man Jesus (peace be upon him) is claiming to be the same “divine Angel of Lord” which we now for ages. Therefore, unlike as Thompson wants to portray, “many” Jews recognizing multiple (?)divine persons should have helped them recognize deity of Jesus (peace be upon him)!

Without realizing the flimsy state of his argument to our fundamental query, Thompson proceeded to produce other popular New Testament verses which impute Jesus (peace be upon him) with “titles”; In the process he also claimed that we neglected his “main” argument. In the following passages let us look at Thompson’s “main” argument:

DNST’s Failure to Address my Main Argument

Amazingly, in his article DNST didn’t address the issue of these divine Old Testament titles being applied to Christ in the New Testament at all. He didn’t dispute the fact that these were titles God used for Himself to establish His own unique deity which were also applied to Christ. No adequate explanation of this phenomenon was given by DNST. Instead he asserts that these are “cliché Christian arguments” and moves on, which shows that he could not deal with the central argument and chose to resort to ridicule, dismissal and mere assertion. This is not how you engage in reasonable and honest apologetics.

DNST took the route of ignoring my argument and once again tried to defend the position that if Jesus was God He would have said the three words “I am God.” He also tried to argue that there are texts which show Jesus isn’t God in the New Testament. However, his arguments literally are cliché Muslim arguments which I will refute. After I refute his specious reasoning and arguments, he will then need to deal with these numerous Old Testament titles of God that are applied to Christ in the New Testament.

[Side Note: There is something amazing with these people at answering-islam. They keep coining new names for people whom they “love”, for instance, Thompson now calls me “DNST”. That’s the new “Christ-like” vogue this Christmas, I assume.]

Very soon we will come to Thompson’s “main” argument but before that we would further check if Thompson’s own rationale (in the above quoted passage) would stand any further scrutiny.

Note that Thompson clearly wants to argue that same Old Testament “divine” titles of Father were given to Jesus (peace be upon him), but:

1)      How does Thompson confirm that applying titles of Old Testament deity which was “primarily” used for the person of Father (confirmed by Thompson as well) would not further confuse Jews into blurring the difference of person of Father and son!? After all we are using the same titles for Jesus (peace be upon him) as was used for Father in the Old Testament!

How logical is it that if Jesus (peace be upon him) refers to himself as “alpha and omega” (say) then it would not confuse the Jewish mass – they would be crystal clear about this construct; whereas, if he merely refers himself as “god” then Jews would, all of a sudden confuse between the persons of Father and himself. This inconsistency is further magnified in the light of the following two premises:

a)      The title “god” with all its imports was a much simpler term for Jews to understand than “alpha and omega”, even more so, when allegedly the same title – alpha and omega – was also used for God-The Father. If the term god “confuses” then “alpha and omega” or any other (indirect) title must “confuse” even more intensely!

b)      We already know as Thompson informed that “There were many different Jewish strands at that time that already maintained that this figure was God and yet distinct from God” Therefore, if “many” Jews already knew that there is a separate “divine” person besides Father then there was definitely no room for them to confuse on Jesus’ (peace be upon him) declaration about his divinity with the person of Father.

2)      On the foregoing, from a Trinitarian perspective, the “triune” gods of Old Testament were using titles and explicit declaration about themselves. Trinitarians would argue that traditionally Jews accepted triune gods which must have included Messiah (peace be upon him) in it. Therefore, they must have recognized him as a deity. Subsequently, it is straw-man argument to claim that Jews would confuse with explicit declaration but will not confuse if Jesus (peace be upon him) used titles from Old Testament!

Now coming to Thompson’s “main” argument that Jesus (peace be upon him) applied divine titles of Old Testament upon himself. We believe that rather than doing any good, it further jeopardizes the “monotheism”, if any, of Trinitarian brand of Christianity. It is because Bible rampantly recommends multiple Old Testament figures to take divine titles of Yahweh.

For instance, Old Testament uses the Hebrew term “adonay”, meaning Lord, for Yahweh:

“All nations whom You have made Shall come and worship (wayishtahawu) before You, O Lord (adonay), And shall glorify (wikabbadu) Your name.” Psalm 86:9

Yet it also refers to prophets with the same title “adonay”:

“So the King will greatly desire your beauty; Because He is your Lord (adonayik), worship Him (wahishtahawilow)… I will make Your name to be remembered in all generations; Therefore the people shall praise You forever and ever. Psalm 45:11, 17

This is merely one instance, please refer to the following paper for a fuller investigation of the biblical “monotheism” as it not merely uses same title of God for mere prophets but it also requires to “worship” them alongside Yahweh, pay them the same reverence as Yahweh, share Yahweh’s throne and finally to take mere church figures as “lord” him-selves and their words at par with Old Testament commandments:

John 5:23 – The Sweetest Trinitarian Honey! Visiting the darling Trinitarian argument from a neutral perspective

If it is understood that there was no room for Jews to be “confused” if Jesus (peace be upon him) explicitly declared his deity, then, the initial Muslim query still stands: Why did not Jesus (peace be upon him) declare himself to be god explicitly?

Bunch of verses revolving around the banal argument that Jesus (peace be upon him) shared “divine Old Testament titles” are yet to be dealt with which we propose to do in the final installment of this brief series.

Notes:

  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical text taken from Good News Edition.
  • All emphasize wherever not matching with original is ours.

Calling Christians Celebrates 1 Year

Posted on by 3 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Today, December 20th, exactly one year ago, Calling Christians had its inception. I had almost forgot this fact until I curiously checked our WHOIS to ensure that the credit card we used had its personal information removed. In this one year, a lot has happened. The look of the website has changed numerous times, the articles continue to flow covering so many new topics, everyday we have new commenters, our Facebook page is growing, our e-mail following continues to grow, on Twitter we have more followers, etc. With each passing day we see more visitors, an increase in e-mails and more interest in what we write and the message of Islam.

Our audience spans each and every continent, we have a vast non-English speaking following from places like Sweden, Denmark, India and even South Korea. The largest source of viewership is North America followed very closely by European states, Muslim majority countries are the lowest source of viewership which would mean that we are hitting our targets: Christians. It’s almost daily that we get e-mails asking about new Muslim classes, or if we can help a new Muslim seek salvation from their Christian parents, or if we can help a new Muslim in a hostile nation seek protection. Some complain that we often don’t reply to comments on our articles, but that’s because behind the scenes we’re dealing with so many apostate Christians that it becomes a handful! All praise is due to Allaah that we can continue to serve the New Muslim Community.

In the past year, so many Christian authors have found themselves refuted by our articles that they resorted to making videos and dedicating copious amounts of time to ‘respond to us‘, namely James White, Anthony Rogers and even CL Edwards. We’ve even managed to anger Sam Shamoun to the point that he is avoiding mentioning us, for fear he gives us more attention. I’ve had one smashing debate with Anthony, that he got so incensed that he made a video, by stealing from a Muslim website. Due to this, the very Muslim he stole from refuted him and now Anthony is stuck making excuses and promises for a follow up. Brother Qmark, one of our authors has had Anthony hiding his tail between his legs for so long, the quality of scholarship here at CC only serves to demonstrate just how much effect we have on our Evangelical brethren.

Our team is growing constantly, yet we remain completely self sufficient. We’ve acquired funding until 2014, and as time goes on, we’ll continue to make ends meet as we provide more services for the Muslim and Christian communities. I’ll reveal one little unknown fact about Calling Christians. On Christmas of 2011, after 5 days of starting this website we received our highest viewership in a single day until this was later trumped by successive increases. It was really ironic that the website which was dedicated to debunking Christianity, had its highest day of visitor viewership on Christmas, I can never forget that.

Thank you for all the support, we hope and pray that Allaah ta ‘ala allows us to continue inviting Christians to Islam, Ameen.

wa Allaahu Alam,
Br. Ijaz Ahmad – Director of Calling Christians.

How Matthew 27:52-53 Cost Michael Licona His Job

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Michael Licona is one of the 21st century’s most prolific Evangelical Christian debaters. His debate with Dr. Shabir Ally is counted as one of the most influential in apologetics and as one of the most intellectual public displays of Christian-Muslim dialogue. Michael recently debated Br. Yusuf Ismail of IPCI and that was a smash hit for the South African brother and Shaykh Ahmad Deedat’s [db] legendary organization. Matthew 27:51-53 has caused significant missionary problems for the inerrantists. A literal interpretation establishes the text as falling outside of the realm of historicity and figurative interpretation can lead you to be demonized and shunned by the conservative community as a liberal. Sadly, this was the case with Michael Licona. His change of view on this particular passage lit a fire which sparked public outcries, denunciations, character assassinations and so on. Please view Br. Muslim by Choice’s video on the incident:

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

When Christianity met Tawhid al Asma wa Sifat

Posted on by 5 comments

When Christianity met Tawhid Al Asma Wa Sifat

Gauging the monotheism of Christianity

Question Mark

Introduction to Tawhid Al Asma Wa Sifat

There is a very interesting (and stringent) concept in Islam with regards to monotheism; it is called as Tawhid Al Asma Wa Sifat, often translated as monotheism or uniqueness of God’s attributes and names. According to this criterion of monotheism, the attributes and names of God are unique to Him alone and as such cannot be shared by any creature. On the same corollary, the attributes of creatures cannot be invested on Creator.

We assume that as far as monotheism is considered, there should not be any objection with any person who claims to be a monotheist, even more so, when s/he follows Bible, as Bible explicitly teaches this concept. Consider one such biblical instance:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: (Exodus 20:4, King James Version)

Quite obviously Bible is denying that attribute of any creation can be imputed upon the Almighty. This is logical since such restriction differentiates One God from rest creation lest obvious elements of polytheism, if not pantheism, would creep into monotheism. So far so good!  However, just at this point we want to analyze the stand of Christianity, especially of the Trinitarian strand, and its take on this criterion of monotheism.

Tawhid Al Asma Wa Sifat in Trinitarian Christianity

As claimants of monotheism it is highly expected that every Trinitarian would support the concept of monotheism with God’s names and attributes. No wonder to prove the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him), Trinitarians (mis)use the Old Testament titles which were used for the God of the Old Testament. Consider a typical Trinitarian polemics:

For instance, Jesus applied an Old Testament title “I Am” to himself, which is significant since he was basically making himself out to be the OT figure known as the Angel of the Lord, the “I Am” of Exodus 3:14! There were many different Jewish strands at that time that already maintained thatthis figure was God and yet distinct from God.(2) Thus, by using the title “I Am” Jesus was affirming both His deity as well as His distinction from the Father since in the Old Testament “I Am” was applied to both God (cf. Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:13) and the Angel of the Lord (cf. Exodus 3:14). (Keith Thompson)

The argument is very simple: Jesus (peace be upon him) was applied the “divine” titles of the Old Testament and since only God can take up those divine titles therefore Jesus (peace be upon him) ought to be “God”.

The argument looks good on the surface but a further bit analysis exposes the inconsistency which is inherently practiced in it:

By now we know that in Trinitarian Christianity divine titles could only be given to Jesus (peace be upon him) and to nobody else since God’s divine titles cannot be shared by creatures, and, Jesus (peace be upon him) is not a creature – he is “God”!

On the same reasoning, Jesus (peace be upon him) cannot be imputed with some of the attributes which ill-fits a “God”, say like, Jesus (peace be upon him) of Trinitarians would not marry. Here are the words of another Trinitarian Christian on the same issue:

“Although Christians do not believe that God is literally a father in the crude way presented in the Qur’an, where divine fatherhood implies a consort, copulation, and possibly even cohabitation with a female deity, one of the signal proofs that the author(s) of the Qur’an couldn’t escapethinking in terms of pagan categories”

“The point here is that the authors of the Qur’an could not hear any mention of things like divine paternity (i.e. the fatherhood) or filiation (i.e. sonship) without interpreting them in the sense that the pagans intended by such words.” (Anthony Rogers)

It is understandable why Trinitarians object to such notions; whatever proceeds after marital pledges befits humans (or let us say animals) but it certainly does not behoove that God be imputed with such connections of marriage and whatever entails with it. Quite obviously the monotheistic side of Trinitarians well understands the absurdity if the “Son of God” would procreate his “Son”!

However, if attributes of procreation, connubial connections etc cannot be attributed to God then, consistently, we cannot apply other attributes also upon God. For example,

1)      God being procreated out of the womb of Mary “in the crude way”.

2)      God contained inside His “mother’s” womb

3)      God sucking his life of his mother.

4)      God producing biological waste.

5)      God almost made naked on cross.

6)      God made to bleed and wounded.

7)      God being spat on his face.

8)      And, on top of all of that, “God” dying on the cross

9)      And, “God’s” dead body being enshrouded and placed in cave.

 

So on and so forth. Is not all of the above just a mockery, if not blasphemy, in “monotheism”?

What is disappointing in all of this is that Bible strictly speaks against any such idolatrous humanization of God. Consider the following Old Testament verse:

Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, (Deuteronomy 4:16, King James Version)

Quite obviously with the premises of monotheism in God’ attributes, the above Old Testament verses makes it very clear that true God cannot assume (or have) any similitude to any of His creation which includes humans – “males or female”. The Qur’an reverberate the same:

(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things). (The Qur’an 42:11, Yusuf Ali)

Once the Bible states that the God cannot have “similitude of any figure, the likeness of male…” included; or, when the Qur’an asserted that there is “nothing whatever like unto Him” – they quite explicitly reject any concept that God would have/take a male/human form and then roam around in the streets of Palestine as Mary’s biologically sired – “in the crude way”!

Trinitarian scholar have a standard approach, albeit, inconsistent when dealing with Old Testament verses of the order as cited above. Consider the following two scholarly comments:

Deuteronomy 4:16

The likeness of male or female – Such as Baal-peor and the Roman Priapus, Ashtaroth or Astarte, and the Greek and Roman Venus; after whom most nations of the world literally went a whoring. (Adam Clarke’s commentary on the Bible)

the likeness of male or female; of a man or a woman; so some of the Heathen deities were in the likeness of men, as Jupiter, Mars, Hercules, Apollo, &c. and others in the likeness of women, as Juno, Diana, Venus, &c. Some think Osiris and Isis, Egyptian deities, the one male, the other female, are respected; but it is not certain that these were worshipped by them so early. (John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible)

As we have been stating that Trinitarians as claimants of monotheism denounce worship of false gods who were in the likeness of men; however, why to be flagrantly biased and inconsistent to denounce only some particular human-gods like Apollo and Hercules etc whereas Jesus (peace be upon him), another human, is easily accepted as the “God”.

In all these fast and loose, Trinitarians miss out on the spirit of Deuteronomy 4:16 (and other verses of the order) that it denounces any humanization of God be it in the form of Apollo and Hercules of the European cultures or, Jesus (peace be upon him) of the Middle Eastern setting!

Conclusion

 

We would be dumbfounded if at least a monotheist claims that concept of Tawhid Al Asma Wa Sifat or monotheism with regards to God’s attributes and names is illogical or too complex to understand. It is simply that God’s attributes cannot be vested on any of His creation nor the attributes of His creation be imputed on the divine God. We saw how both Qur’an and Bible expressly speak against it.

Very truly Trinitarians apply it, however, only on selected areas and personalities. As an instance, they do reject the notion that God could or would sire offspring since this is “thinking in terms of pagan categories”. Nevertheless, they have no qualms when they ring their church bells about “God” being delivered out of Mary’s womb “in the crude way” or, “God” being poked on cross while he was almost naked or, still more weirdly, a dead “God” hanging on the cross with probably scavenger hovering over “His” head until his “dead body” was to be placed in a cave. Out of definite Trinitarian agenda, Trinitarians somehow see all these “in terms ofmonotheistic categories”.

Trinitarians would easily accept it as “monotheistic” that their god had birth right to produce biological waste and relieve “Himself” off it. Yet when Qur’an criticizes Christians that God cannot sire offspring, Trinitarians like Anthony Rogers would become monotheistically prude to comment that, “The point here is that the authors of the Qur’an could not hear any mention of things like divine paternity (i.e. the fatherhood) or filiation (i.e. sonship) without interpreting them in the sense that the pagans intended by such words.” In the name of “divine paternity”, Rogers and the likes do not hesitate to sell the idolatry and blasphemy with regards to “Son’s” humanity.

Finally, we would quote from the Qur’an where, we believe, Allah (SWT) is insinuating towards the same biological nature of Jesus (peace be upon him) which ill-fits God:

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth.They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (Qur’an 6:75, Yusuf Ali)

We don’t think that it needs to be expressly stated what Allah (SWT) wanted to allude by stating that Christ (peace be upon him) ate food.

That was for consistency and “monotheism” of Trinitarian Christianity.

Refutation: Does Jesus’ Holy Spirit Make Him Divine?

Posted on by 14 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

As it would seem, Chessie Edwards was so incensed by the proverbial spanking he got in relation to his poor study of Christology that he made a video about Christian apostate, Br. Hamza and his article. I’d like to make it known that Islam prohibits mocking of the mentally ill, or mocking of anyone for that matter, but in this case I’m making an excuse for Chessie as he seems to slip in and out of it every once in a while. I watched his video, and sadly I am unable to make up for the time lost. Was his video worth it? Nope.

He spends 37 minutes speaking about his ego, his studies, money donations, mentions the articles a few times, mentions that he was a Muslim etc. The only reason he spent time making a 37 minute video (with special effects and all), is to avoid writing an article where you actually have to use quotations, references, citations. You must understand that this is Chessie’s weak point, he’s not an academic, he doesn’t study, he is at best a Christian for the camera, not a Christian who is able in the field of apologetics. This can be seen by his lacklustre writing skills and his lack of intellectual fortitude via our Rebuttals section. He’s been refuted on this same topic by Christian apostate Br. Hamza in this article, thrashed by me in this article, wholly refuted in this article, demolished in this article, and now he’s finally realised that writing about it any further will cause him severe embarrassment. It’s bothered him so much that after numerous comments left on this website (not a blog), over several weeks, after several written responses, he’s so incensed at being intellectually rounded, that he’s resorted to making a video, and a bad one at that.

Out of those 37 minutes, he does ask a question, and it’s a question which completely refutes himself. He asked, ‘Where do Christians teach this, where does Christianity teach this’? If he had read any of the 5 articles on the subject, he’d have endless resources to utilize. However, because I am a good natured 20 year old, and I understand that Chessie is getting old; I will aid him one final time in his understanding of his religion. Let’s turn to a Patristic whom I quoted earlier, who clearly answers Chessie’s question:

“Nay, but he adds, And that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit,3 because God is spirit,4 and He was born of God:5 this certainly has him in view, the more so if it has also those who believe in him.’ Then if this too applies to him, why not also that other? For you cannot divide them, this to him, the other to the rest of men: for you do not deny the two substances of Christ, that of flesh and that of spirit. But if he possessed flesh no less than spirit, when he makes a statement concerning the condition of the two substances which he bore within himself, he cannot be thought to have made a pronouncement concerning spirit as being his but flesh as not his. Thus, since he was himself by the Spirit of God (and the Spirit is God) born of God, he was also of human flesh and as man conceived and born in the flesh.” – Tertullian, De Carne Christi, 18.

Let’s then turn to the Catholic Church’s Cathechism which teaches what we’ve been saying all along:

I. THE JOINT MISSION OF THE SON AND THE SPIRIT

689 The One whom the Father has sent into our hearts, the Spirit of his Son, is truly God.10 Consubstantial with the Father and the Son, the Spirit is inseparable from them, in both the inner life of the Trinity and his gift of love for the world. In adoring the Holy Trinity, life-giving, consubstantial, and indivisible, the Church’s faith also professes the distinction of persons. When the Father sends his Word, he always sends his Breath. In their joint mission, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct but inseparable. To be sure, it is Christ who is seen, the visible image of the invisible God, but it is the Spirit who reveals him.

690 Jesus is Christ, “anointed,” because the Spirit is his anointing, and everything that occurs from the Incarnation on derives from this fullness.11 When Christ is finally glorified,12 he can in turn send the Spirit from his place with the Father to those who believe in him: he communicates to them his glory,13 that is, the Holy Spirit who glorifies him.14 From that time on, this joint mission will be manifested in the children adopted by the Father in the Body of his Son: the mission of the Spirit of adoption is to unite them to Christ and make them live in him:

The notion of anointing suggests . . . that there is no distance between the Son and the Spirit. Indeed, just as between the surface of the body and the anointing with oil neither reason nor sensation recognizes any intermediary, so the contact of the Son with the Spirit is immediate, so that anyone who would make contact with the Son by faith must first encounter the oil by contact. In fact there is no part that is not covered by the Holy Spirit. That is why the confession of the Son’s Lordship is made in the Holy Spirit by those who receive him, the Spirit coming from all sides to those who approach the Son in faith.15

Chessie, now that you have been thoroughly refuted and routed once more, I suggest you get a refund from that Bible school you are attending, clearly you’re wasting your parent’s money and my time.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Women’s Intelligence Hadith

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

TEXT AND SOURCING

The hadith states that the Prophet upon him blessings and peace, addressed a group of women in the mosque, saying:

“I have not seen any one more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious, sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked: “O Allah’s Apostle, what is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said: “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said: “This is the deficiency of your intelligence”… “Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said: “This is the deficiency in your religion.”

It is related in al-Bukhari and Muslim.

ITS MEANING IS NOT LITERAL

The hadith here uses two figures of speech: the first is hyperbole (mubalagha) meaning exaggeration in the words “even a prudent, sensible man might be led astray by some of you” i.e. a fortiori an ordinary man.

The second figure is synechdoche (majaz mursal) consisting in using the whole for the part: intelligence to mean the specific legal testimony of a woman, and religion to mean the prayer and fast at the time of menses.

Numerous verses and other narrations stress that the reward of women equals that of men even if their acts differ. So this particular narration is not meant literally but as an acknowledgment of the inordinate power women wield over men while ostensibly less active in the public and spiritual spheres.

THREE ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND MEANINGS

Three additional meanings provide an indispensable completion of the picture of this hadith. These meanings revolve around fundraising for jihad, the blame of women’s cursing of their husbands, and the playfulness of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, with his female public.

1. FUNDRAISING

The real import of the hadith – spoken at the Farewell Pilgrimage – and its actual context was that the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, challenged the women that were present to realize that unless they helped raise money with their gold and jewelry, they would miss the reward of men waging jihad as well as show ingratitude.

2. BLAME OF CURSING

In the full version of the hadith the Prophet upon him blessings and peace, also orders the women to ask forgiveness and desist from frequently cursing their husbands. All this was spoken at a time of (1) the impending departure of the latter on jihad; (2) the impending departure of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, from this world; and (3) the fact that “Cursing the believer is like killing him.”

3. PLAYFULNESS

The Prophet upon him blessings and peace, was also being playful in his use of strong terms to impress this teaching on the listeners. Ruqayyah Waris Maqsud writes:

“After the Farewell Pilgrimage at the Eid prayer, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) walked past the men leaning on Bilal’s arm, and came to the rows of women behind them. Bilal spread out a cloth and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) urged the women to be generous with their gifts of charity, for when he had been allowed a glimpse into the flames of Hell, he had noted that most of the people being tormented there were women. The women were outraged, and one of them instantly stood up boldly and demanded to know why that was so. ‘Because,’ he replied, ‘you women grumble so much, and show ingratitude to your husbands! Even if the poor fellows spent all their lives doing good things for you, you have only to be upset at the least thing and you will say, ‘I have never received any good from you!’ (Bukhari 1.28, recorded by Ibn Abbas – who was present on that occasion as a child). At that the women began vigorously to pull off their rings and ear-rings, and throw them into Bilal’s cloth.”

In conclusion, we need to remove the meaning of the words of the Prophet upon him blessings and peace, from our contemporary context of sour feminism and the clash of the sexes, and replace it into its proper context: namely, a parting, wartime exhortation using certain figures of speech which are not meant literally, nor are women the issue although they are addressed pointedly and, as it were, by the scruff of their gender; but rather, to trigger among wealthy and sensible citizens acts of generosity for the greater good while reminding them that life is fleeting and thankfulness a surer way to Paradise than despair.

And Allah knows best.

gibril
[2006-05-30]

Note: This article by Shaykh GF Haddad as read on www.livingislam.org

Movie Review: The Innocent Prophet

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Pastor Terry Jones and an alleged Muslim apostate have collaborated to produce a new film on the Muslim Prophet, Muhammad  [peace be upon him]. The film was uploaded to popular video sharing website, Youtube, earlier on the 15th of December. Pastor Terry Jones and FFI’s Ali Sina have been promoting this film as a ‘must see’, where it is allegedly supposed to have ‘exposed Islam and its Prophet’. I sat and watched the “movie” earlier today and this is my review.

Terry Jones in the Movie's Introduction

Terry Jones in the Movie’s Introduction

It must be noted that I watched the English version as uploaded on Terry Jones’ Youtube account. This is not a movie, it’s a bad cartoon. If you were expecting something of better quality than the failed Coptic movie which caused vast and violent riots worldwide earlier this year, then by all means, lower your hopes. The ‘film’ is marginally better and can best be described as a badly narrated picture slideshow of Arab men with the name Muhammad [peace be upon him] cut and pasted unto the images. The video quality seems very low and poorly done, and I am very certain that the editing was done by an amateur. The slides and images seem to have been taken from Google Images and are repeated throughout the slideshow to the extent that you’ll probably end up spending 1 hour and 12 minutes seeing the same images about 20 times each.

If the imagery doesn’t throw you off, then the narration definitely would. When news first broke of this new ‘film’, I expected a higher quality, robust, well produced movie, yet, what I got in the English version is the exact opposite. This ‘film’ is so bad, the English narrator struggles to speak…English! His accent, intonation and tone, definitely indicates that his first language is not English. I really have to ask Terry Jones, if you are doing a movie in English, why not use someone whose first language is English? Instead, the person narrating the ‘slideshow‘, struggles throughout, which creates an off putting sensation as you can literally feel the person forcing himself to cope with his manoeuvring of the English language. In addition to this, there is some music in the background, and it’s bad. It’s as if they stole everything they used in this ‘slideshow‘, from the internet. The music is a gimped version of Hollywood styled Arabian jingles and it is repeated so often, it conjures a great resemblance to the annoying task of having to wait on the phone to speak to an insurance agent or customer care service representative, while that horrible background music is played. I couldn’t get past the first 10 minutes without struggling to watch it, and I spent the first 5 minutes trying not to have a headache from the deplorable narration and music.

The information presented is not historical and borders on fiction. It was during the first 10 minutes, that I recalled the producer of the film, i.e. the alleged apostate, posted on FFI indicating he was a long time fan of Ali Sina. From this, based on my reading of FFI’s Ali Sina’s book, “Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet“, it hit me that the ‘producer‘ basically summarized Ali Sina’s book and was narrating it. That literary work in itself is highly flawed and not based on proper study. Ali Sina’s work simply takes from Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah and focuses on the violent passages within (which due to proper literary criticism are found to be highly doubtful), and from this, he concludes that the Muslim Prophet had numerous illnesses and diseases etc, essentially it’s a book meant to insult the Prophet of Islam, not an academic work. What’s worse is that Ali Sina actually invents stories and tries to develop it into a narrative. The book is so bad and the author was so desperate to insult the Islamic Prophet, that Ali Sina who is not a psychologist, labelled it a ‘psychobiography‘, I prefer to refer to it as fiction. The video’s very source for its information is therefore very flawed, inconsistent and has no regard for academic integrity. Thus far, the video quality consists of:

  1. Google Images of Arab Cartoon Men.
  2. Google Images of an Arabian Map.
  3. Pictures of Muhammad [peace be upon him] are the name Muhammad cut and paste on the Arab cartoon men.
  4. Arab themed jingle music most likely stolen from the internet.
  5. An English narrator whose first language is not English.
  6. An ahistorical and non-academic source for the slideshow’s content.

Do I think this movie will cause riots? To be quite honest, I think it’d cause suicides based on how bad it is. Thank God I had pain killers to numb the effects of the narrators voice, bad music, poor cut and paste images and especially from the ridiculous use of a non-academic source. Should Muslims watch it? It clearly is supposed to be about the Muslim Prophet, but the images, nor the history would have you think that much. The only thing that would indicate it was about the Islamic faith is Pastor Terry Jones’ introduction before the movie, along with a few passages of the Qur’an at the beginning of the ‘slideshow’. I certainly don’t think that this ‘movie‘ – I insist on calling it a slideshow, is going to change the world, make any Muslim apostate, or convince anyone of anything, but it will serve to reinforce the notion that Islamophobes have a long way to go before anyone would be willing to accept their works as anything more than amateur-like and polemical.

Pros & Cons:

+ I reviewed it to save you wasting 1 hour and 12 minutes of your life.
– It’s on Youtube (this was a pro, until I remembered how awful the new layout is).
– Features Terry Jones.
– Horrible imagery.
– Bad editing and videography.
– Lacks academic sources and study.
– Horrible audio.
– Horrible narrator.

Please consider purchasing pain killers before watching this video, it will make you sick from how bad it is. In closing, I would like to mention how ironic it is, that the very man they try to insult and use disparaging images of, they have no clue of how he looked or what he sounded like, therefore their representations of him are not of the actual Islamic Prophet, but of a created man who has the name Muhammad, a production based on their imaginations, not of the real man himself. That reminds me of a pertinent hadith. The Quraysh out of their great hatred for the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to refer to him as “Mudhammam”, which means “the condemned/defamed one” instead of his name “Muhammad”, which means “the praised one”.

In response the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

ألا تعجبون كيف يصرف الله عني شتم قريش ولعنهم يشتمون مذمما ويلعنون مذمما وأنا محمد

“Doesn’t it astonish you how Allah protects me from the Quraish’s abusing and cursing? They abuse Mudhammam and curse Mudhammam while I am Muhammad (and not Mudhammam)” [Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 733].

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »