How Islam Influenced Modern Science and Maths [Ted Talk]

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

“To write a word or a phrase or a sentence in Arabic is like crafting an equation, because every part is extremely precise and carries a lot of information.” – Terry Moore.

I have the answer to a question that we’ve all asked. The question is, Why is it that the letter X represents the unknown? Now I know we learned that in math class, but now it’s everywhere in the culture — The X prize, the X-Files, Project X, TEDx. Where’d that come from?

About six years ago I decided that I would learn Arabic, which turns out to be a supremely logical language. To write a word or a phrase or a sentence in Arabic is like crafting an equation, because every part is extremely precise and carries a lot of information. That’s one of the reasons so much of what we’ve come to think of as Western science and mathematics and engineering was really worked out in the first few centuries of the Common Era by the Persians and the Arabs and the Turks.

This includes the little system in Arabic called al-jebra. And al-jebr roughly translates to “the system for reconciling disparate parts.” Al-jebr finally came into English as algebra. One example among many.

The Arabic texts containing this mathematical wisdom finally made their way to Europe –which is to say Spain — in the 11th and 12th centuries. And when they arrived there was tremendous interest in translating this wisdom into a European language.

But there were problems. One problem is there are some sounds in Arabic that just don’t make it through a European voice box without lots of practice. Trust me on that one. Also, those very sounds tend not to be represented by the characters that are available in European languages.

Here’s one of the culprits. This is the letter SHeen, and it makes the sound we think of as SH — “sh.” It’s also the very first letter of the word shalan, which means “something” just like the the English word “something” — some undefined, unknown thing.

Now in Arabic, we can make this definite by adding the definite article “al.” So this is al-shalan — the unknown thing. And this is a word that appears throughout early mathematics,such as this 10th century derivation of proofs.

The problem for the Medieval Spanish scholars who were tasked with translating this material is that the letter SHeen and the word shalan can’t be rendered into Spanishbecause Spanish doesn’t have that SH, that “sh” sound. So by convention, they created a rule in which they borrowed the CK sound, “ck” sound, from the classical Greek in the form of the letter Kai.

Later when this material was translated into a common European language, which is to say Latin, they simply replaced the Greek Kai with the Latin X. And once that happened, once this material was in Latin, it formed the basis for mathematics textbooks for almost 600 years.

But now we have the answer to our question. Why is it that X is the unknown? X is the unknown because you can’t say “sh” in Spanish. (Laughter) And I thought that was worth sharing.

Refutation: Reply to the Muslim blogger about rightly dividing the Bible

Posted on by 2 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

After bringing Chessie Edwards’ attention to my response, he took the initiative to reply in a new post on his blog. I’d like to thank him for continuing to draw Christian viewership to our website and we pray he continues to do so in the future. Unfortunately, as expected from Biblical Evangelists, Chessie began his response with mockery and insults:

Unfortunately the god of the unregenerate is Satan who is far from having any Rahma


I’m not really sure how his opening statement really answers me or in what way it was relevant to the topic at hand, I’ll leave the floor open for Chessie to address that. If this was his idea of building anticipation for what the rest of his blog post will present, I’m not very much looking forward to it. In any case, let’s examine his claims:

Actually that’s not what I said, I said ” Christ being “sinless”is beyond mere moral conduct it has to do with nature.”. This is just one testament to the Muslim bloggers many reading errors, he seems to see what he would like a text to say, instead of what it really says..he uses the same faulty hermeneutic with the Bible.  My Christology which I believe is orthodox, is Christ did not become sinless by living a sinless life(his not sinning is not the cause of him being a sinless man), He didn’t sin because he was by nature sinless(his sinless nature was the cause of his sinless life).  I did not say Christ sinless behavior had nothing to do with why we consider Him sinless, I said our doctrine go’s beyond that. I am sure the blogger will ignore what I just said and decide I said whatever he feels I said. Yet to fair minded Muslims, know such details are not minor, they are major in Christian Theology.

We agree with Chessie when he says Christ’s nature is to be sinless, which is why I am puzzled when he says I took his statements out of context. Recall from my previous response where I said:

I couldn’t agree more, it’s finally good to see him accepting the Islamic position of all children being born upon the “fitrah” or “pure nature”.

The fitrah or “pure nature” means that a child is born with a clean slate, free of influences, no record, completely new to the word, not a single penalty against the child. When he says this, I am in full agreement:

 He didn’t sin because he was by nature sinless(his sinless nature was the cause of his sinless life).

We also believe as Muslims that the Anbiya (Prophets) are sinless in Islam. So again, I see no reason for him to state that we disagree with his premises. Perhaps he was just finishing for an argument, but I shall not take his bait. He continues:

Christians believe as the Bible teaches that Christ had two natures, His Divinity and the second undefiled human nature He took on. As I clearly explained in the quote, Christ was never contaminated with the sin nature that effects the rest of humanity(or maybe the blogger thinks humans don’t sin?). The Islamic doctrine of fitrah has nothing to do with anything I said , but again the blogger sees what he wants to see.

Some questions need to be asked here:

  • Where does the NT teach the hypostatic union, i..e that Christ has two natures?
  • That Christs’ nature was undefiled (as we know Christ was abandoned by God on the cross, does God abandon sinless persons, but aids sinful persons?).
  • The Fitrah is the nature of being born pure, without sin, how does this have nothing to do with Christ being born free of sin?

In an odd way, he then decides to demonstrate original sin is actually from the Qur’an and not the Bible by posting an article link which I refuted many months ago, which you can read here, “Proving Original Sin from the Qur’an“. Yet the question still stands, can Chessie Edwards ever prove the Original Sin from the Bible? He’s demonstrated that either he cannot read or doesn’t want to fully answer the question. Chessie continues:

We see this from the blogger, he doesn’t have the time to deal with what I(or others) are saying, that would get in the way of him making his point(weather his point has anything to do with Christian doctrine or not). Obviously he gets this from his god who makes all sorts of theological errors in addressing Christians in the Quran. See the following article from bother Sam Shamoun.

Well, now I’m a bit confused:

  • I quote Chessie’s article on my website.
  • Chessie goes to my websites and quotes my quote of him.
  • Chessie writes a response based on my quote of him.

Chessie literally quoted himself and responds to it. I’m not sure if he confused himself, but he seriously quoted himself and then attempted to refute the quote by saying it was nonsensical, made up etc. I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry out of pity. He then decided to link to Sam Shamoun’s article, which is refuted here by Br. Bassam Zawadi. Mr. Edwards continues:

The blogger is off in la la land, I am not sure why he didn’t see ” All the promises, types and shadows in the old Testament pointed to the Messiah “, why doesn’t he get ” All the promises, types and shadows in the old Testament pointed to the Messiah” is what I am saying is beyond mere moralism? If the blogger obeyed the moral commands or even ritual commands of the Law(The blogger seems to not know the word Law is used many different ways in the Bible, and there many aspects to the Mosaic commands.. a whole other subject) would that mean he now would fulfill ” All the promises, types and shadows in the old Testament …” ?

As explained in my previous response, and as explained in the video by Rabbi Michael Skobac, there were many Messiahs prophesied by in the Tanach, however according to the Tanach itself, there is no “The Messiah” to come. Of course, this is where we as Muslims would disagree as we do believe ‘Aissa [alayhi as salaam] was the Masih (Christ), but we do agree with the understanding that the Tanach (corrupted as it is), does not point to “a” Messiah.  In fact, if one would notice, he doesn’t reference a single prophecy or promise of the Bible this time. The reason being that I refuted his quote of Isaiah (Yeshayahu) by presenting the Hebrew version as opposed to the modern Christian version. His silence is deafening and a clear indicator that he has no prophecies or promises to present from his Bible. He continues:

That would be a nice quote if by Law what was being discussed was merely moral commands…I feel like I am repeating myself…

The “Law” are “moral commands from God”, unless what he meant by Law, was not the word Law. Since that is the case, he needs to choose his words better. If the word “law” does not mean “law”, then the onus is on your Mr. Edwards to explicitly use the words you wish to convey your message accurately. What does the “law” mean Mr. Edwards, if not “moral commands from God”? He continues:

The rest of this is unworthy of my time, I am quite busy and reading his post induces headaches.

Apparently my posts are now “unworthy of his time”, although by him posting two articles about my arguments he’s stating the opposite! While I am sure my posts give him headaches and while that does please me, I really do wish for him to be guided. He continues:

But, if he is taking ilm from the Jews now, I hope he accepts their reasons for rejecting Muhammad, then again maybe he is now rejecting Jesus or is an Atheist..a Jew..if its expedient will he next be a liberal post modernist? ..who knows.

Fallacy of hasty generalization and a poor ad hominem as well. I’m a Muslim, I follow Qur’an and Sunnah, I’ve never identified myself otherwise. Looking forward to giving Chessie L. Edwards more headaches though.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best].

Refutation: How Muslims bloggers wrongly divide the Word of God. PT 1

Posted on by 2 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

After a seemingly long absence from the apologetics realm, Chessie L. Edwards has once again returned, with a brand new article. You can read my previous responses to all of his articles here. I am pleased to see that not much has changed, he was attempting to respond to this post of mine.  Specifically trying to respond to Argument #1.

His Introduction:

Christ being “sinless”is beyond mere moral conduct it has to do with nature. Christ was not born of a male, he was supernaturally conceived without sperm to the virgin Mary. What this all means is that he was not under the curse of Adam, he did not have the fallen wretched sinful natural that afflicts all other men.

According to Chessie, Christ was not sinless due to moral conduct, but due to being born that way, as he puts it, this was “Christ’s nature”. I couldn’t agree more, it’s finally good to see him accepting the Islamic position of all children being born upon the “fitrah” or “pure nature”. We as Muslims also agree with the notion that Christ was not born of a male, however we would like to ask him what curse of Adam he is referring to? That is because, while I am sure he meant the “original sin”, this belief has no Biblical basis. In fact, the only curse of Adam would be that of Genesis 3:14-15, which does not mention any man having been cursed by God to be born with sin.

What is meant by ‘Christ fulfilled the Law’:

When it is said Christ fulfilled the Law and Old Testament, what is being spoken of is again beyond human moral-ism. All the promises, types and shadows in the old Testament pointed to the Messiah. No mere prophet was going to fulfill the words of Isaiah when he said….

According to Chessie, following the law, does not mean following the law, as he comprehends it to mean being above “human morality”. So by that logic, if we “follow” the law “perfectly”, i.e. we fulfil it, does that mean we in ourselves are above “human morality”?

In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. – Bible, Luke 1:5-6.

Clearly he needs to sit down and study his own Bible, after all these two verses which demonstrate that humans can practise all of the law blamelessly, is in the first chapter of the Gospel according to “Luke”. One of the problems we see with Christians is their poor study of the Old Testament. Rabbi Michael Skobac discusses the irrational belief of the Christians and their prophecies of their concept of a Messiah:

While as Muslims we do accept Jesus as the Messiah, we do not agree, along with the Jews that the Messiah is to be a God, a sacrificial son, a Trinitarian, etc. In the above video, the Rabbi examines the claims of “prophetic-God Messiah-ship”, it’s well worth the time to watch it. Chessie then tries to claim that Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy about Christ being foretold as the Son of God, something which I answered here.

He then proceeded to quote a variety of verses that reference Paul’s and Christ’s attitude pertaining to the law, something which I have already discussed in detail in this article of mines. I won’t bother to answer those claims in this response as the articles I’ve previously written and subsequently linked to (see above) more than aptly go into heavily detailed study and research into these rather simple topics.

Conclusion:

I am left questioning myself as to how Chessie considered this a “refutation”, as opposed to more of an erratic tirade for the purpose of insulting me:

It is no surprise the a unregenerate natural minded man such as our Muslim blogger would be blinded to the Spiritual truths contain in scripture, the Word of God tells us

At this point, I suppose he gave up on trying to respond to my argument and proceeded to just write a post to give the illusion his blog is still active, other than that I can’t fathom a reason he’d write something so silly. My arguments therefore stand and I do look forward to seeing someone else eventually try to respond to them.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Was Jesus’ death a pointless sacrifice?

Posted on by 8 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Other than the Trinity, the concept of salvation is integral to the Christian faith. Christians believe that Jesus had to die for eternal redemption. Jesus allegedly sacrificed himself and died on the cross to absolve the sins of the people and allow them to reconcile with God. This article focuses on refuting this notion through the following points:

  1. Jesus wasn’t the perfect sacrificial lamb nor did he want to die for peoples’ sins.
  2. Jesus doesn’t have the power to forgive all sins.
  3. Blood doesn’t have to be shed for salvation; there are other ways for repentance.
  4. Each is to die for his own sins.

We will also shed light upon the true concept of salvation and repentance as presented to us in Islam.

Part 1: Salvation in Christianity:
1. Jesus wasn’t the perfect sacrificial lamb nor did he want to die for the people’s sins (**):

According to Christians, Jesus is the perfect sacrificial lamb because he was sinless and pure, but is he?

Baptism is for the repentance of sin:

Luke 3: 3– Then John went from place to place on both sides of the Jordan River, preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven.

Jesus was baptized:

Luke 3:21– Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened.

So, why would Jesus be baptized if he was sinless when we know that the purpose of baptism is for repentance and forgiveness?

Jesus wasn’t even pure in the biblical sense:

Job 25:4– How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure?

Jesus was a man born of a woman:

Galatians 4:4– But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.

Furthermore, the Bible teaches us not to put our trust in man for he does not provide us with salvation:

Psalms 108:12– Oh grant us help against the foe, for vain is the salvation of man!

According to Gill’s Exposition of the entire Bible:

“…it is a vain thing to expect help and salvation from men, for indeed there is none in them; only in the Lord God is the salvation of his people, both temporal and spiritual.”

Acts 2:22 tells us that Jesus was a man:

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God…”

However, in accordance to Psalms 108:12, by being a man Jesus is not qualified as a savior let alone as the ultimate savior for all of humanity! For those who try to resolve this by saying that Jesus was not just any man, he was a “God-man” (fully man and fully God at the same time), we say:

If you want to say that Jesus was fully man fully God, it means that he still has a human nature. A human nature that was just as ordinary as anyone else’s; it got tempted (Mt.4:1-10), it grew in knowledge (Luke 2:52), it got circumcised (Luke 2:21)… With that being said, the human/man part of God was impure and incompetent to be a savior in light of Job 25:4 and Psalms 108:12 .  So, can Jesus be capable and not capable of  saving at the same time?!

So far, we’ve seen how Jesus was not the perfect sacrifice nor did he have the criteria to be. Moreover, Jesus did not want to die for peoples’ sins:

Mark 14:36 – “Abba, Father,” he cried out, “everything is possible for you. Please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine.”

To clarify the ingredients of the cup of suffering are: “the present season and time of distress, and horror; all his (Jesus’) future sufferings and death, which were at hand; together with the bearing the sins of his people, the enduring the curse of the law, and the wrath of God…” (Gill’s Exposition of the entire bible).

Thus, Jesus (God) did not want to die for his people . Ironically, Jesus had a different will than God’s. Notice how supposedly the same person has two different wills… One God with two different wills?

2 – Jesus does not have the power to forgive all sins:

 There is one sin that Jesus’ presumed sacrifice cannot forgive; it is the sin against the Holy Spirit:

Luke 12:10– “And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that blasphemes against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.”

Mark 3:29– “but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”

These verses show us two things:

a- The blood of Jesus cannot forgive all sins:

Gill’s Exposition of the entire bible explains Mark 3:39 as: “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, Against his person, and the works performed by him, by ascribing them to diabolical power and influence, as the Scribes did, hath never forgiveness: there is no pardon provided in the covenant of grace, nor obtained by the blood of Christ for such persons, or ever applied to them by the Spirit; but is in danger of eternal damnation” So, the “ultimate sacrifice” is not that ultimate and is weak against a sin against the Holy Ghost.

b- The three components of the trinity are not equal in status: A sin against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven but a sin against Jesus can? The Holy Spirit has a greater position than another part of the God head? So, the Holy Spirit is greater than Jesus and the Father is greater than Jesus (John 14:28)! It seems like a challenge to the trinity emerges.

3- Blood doesn’t have to be shed for salvation; there are other ways for repentance:

Not only is Jesus’ sacrifice not ultimate, it is not required. There are other methods for redemption that require no blood to be shed or no sacrifice at all. In fact, all that is needed is repentance and asking God for forgiveness.These verses will further elucidate our point:

Matthew 4:17– From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.”

2 Chronicles 7:14-“ if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

Isaiah 30:15– “This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says: “In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it.”

Psalms 50:13-14 – “Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?  Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High”

Psalms 40:6– “You take no delight in sacrifices or offerings. Now that you have made me listen, I finally understand–you don’t require burnt offerings or sin offerings.”

Matthew 9:13– Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’

If a sacrifice has to be made, blood does not have to be shed, a food offering will suffice:

Leviticus 5:12– “And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take a handful of it as its memorial portion and burn this on the altar, on the LORD’s food offerings; it is a sin offering”

We would also like to ask the following: What happened to the people who lived before Jesus’ sacrifice? What did they do for repentance? Obviously, there was a system in place that required no blood (This is apparent in the verses provided from the Old Testament).

4- Each is to die for his own sins:

From a logical perspective, where is the justice in an innocent man having to die for other peoples’ sins? Will you accept Mother Theresa dying for Adolf Hitler?! How can you accept  Jesus dying for the murderers, rapists, thieves, pedophiles…?! Justice would be when everyone is held responsible for his or her actions. This means that each is to “die” or be punished for the sins they committed. Surprisingly, this ideology does exist in the bible:

Deuteronomy 24:16– “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.”

Jeremiah 31:30– “But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.”

Ezekiel 18:20– “The person who sins is the one who will die. The child will not be punished for the parent’s sins, and the parent will not be punished for the child’s sins. Righteous people will be rewarded for their own righteous behavior, and wicked people will be punished for their own wickedness.”

Conclusion of Part 1:

To end this initial part of the article, we must conclude that the whole idea of Jesus having to die for our sins and atonement is not only illogical and unjust but is also challenged by the Bible itself. I’d like to finish up with these verses:

Proverbs 16:6– “Unfailing love and faithfulness make atonement for sin. By fearing the Lord, people avoid evil.”

Isaiah 43:25– “I? yes, I alone? will blot out your sins for my own sake and will never think of them again.”

(Gill’s Exposition of the Bible: “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; That is humbled under a sense of sin; has true repentance for it; grieving for sin as committed against a God of love; broken and melted down under a sense of it, in a view of pardoning grace; and mourning for it, while beholding a pierced and wounded Savior: the sacrifices of such a broken heart and contrite spirit are the sacrifices God desires, approves, accepts of, and delights in;”)

(**) This part does not reflect what Muslims think of Jesus (pbuh). This is based on a biblical interpretation.

Part 2: A Brief Overview of Salvation and atonement in Islam:

Muslims do not believe in the original sin or that anyone can die to abolish the sins of another. Each person bears the consequence of his own actions.

“Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss: No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another…” (Surah Al-Isra’, verse 15)

“And no bearer of burdens shall bear another’s burden, and if one heavily laden calls another to (bear) his load, nothing of it will be lifted even though he be near of kin.” (Surah Fatir, verse 18)

“Whosoever does righteous good deed it is for (the benefit of) his ownself, and whosoever does evil, it is against his ownself, and your Lord is not at all unjust to (His) servants.” (Surah Fussilat, verse 46)

No sacrifices are to be made to seek God’s forgiveness and get closer to Him:

“It is not their meat nor blood that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him.”(Surah Al-Hajj, verse 37)

“Say: “O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Turn ye to our Lord (in repentance) and bow to His (will), before the Penalty comes on you: after that ye shall not be helped” (Surah Al-Zumar, verse 53)

“Verily! Allah Accepts the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards, to them Allah will turn in Mercy, for Allah is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom. And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them and he says “now have I repented indeed”, nor of those who die rejecting faith: for them have we prepared a chastisement most grievous.” (Surah Al-Nisa’, verse 17)

Not only is forgiveness granted in repentance but a reward as well:

“Unless he repents, believes, and works righteous deeds, for Allah will change the evil of such persons into good, and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Al Furqân, verse 70)

We conclude with this Hadith which shows us the love Allah has for his servants:

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, said: I live in the thought of My servant and I am with him as he remembers Me. (The Holy Prophet) further said: By Allah, Allah is more pleased wth the repentance of His servant than what one of you would do on finding the lost camel in the waterless desert. When he draws near Me by the span of his hand. I draw near him by the length of a cubit and when he draws near Me by the length of a cubit. I draw near him by the length of a fathom and when he draws near Me walking I draw close to him hurriedly. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6610)

And Allah knows best…

A Brief Overview on the Muslim Perspective of Jesus the Christ

Posted on by 3 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Maryam the daughter of ‘Imraan was a pious and righteous woman… She strove hard in worship until she had no partners associated with God in matters of worship… The angels gave her the glad tidings that Allaah had chosen her for a special purpose:

“And (remember) when the angels said: ‘O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allaah has chosen you, purified you (from polytheism and disbelief), and chosen you above the women of the ‘Aalameen (mankind and jinn) (of her lifetime).’

O Maryam! ‘Submit yourself with obedience to your Lord (Allaah, by worshipping none but Him Alone) and prostrate yourself, and bow down along with Ar-Raaki‘oon (those who bow down)’” – [Aal ‘Imraan 3:42-43]

Then the angels gave Maryam the glad tidings that Allaah would bestow upon her a child, whom He would create with the word “Be! And it is.” This child’s name was the Messiah ‘Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus son of Mary)… He would be held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and he would be a Messenger to the Children of Israel… He would teach the Book and wisdom, and the Tawraat (Torah) and Injeel (Gospel) … And he would have attributes and miracles that no one else would have, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“(Remember) when the angels said: ‘O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allaah gives you the glad tidings of a Word [“Be!” — and he was! i.e. ‘Isa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)] from Him, his name will be the Messiah ‘Isa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allaah.

He will speak to the people, in the cradle and in manhood, and he will be one of the righteous.’

She said: ‘O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me.’ He said: ‘So (it will be) for Allaah creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: “Be!” and it is’” – [Aal ‘Imraan 3:45-47]

Then Allaah tells us the rest of the glad tidings of the angels to Maryam of her son ‘Isa (peace be upon him), and of the honour of ‘Isa, and how He would support him with miracles:

“And He (Allaah) will teach him [‘Isa (Jesus)] the Book and Al-Hikmah (i.e. the Sunnah, the faultless speech of the Prophets, wisdom), (and) the Tawraat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel).

And will make him [‘Isa (Jesus)] a Messenger to the Children of Israel (saying): ‘I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I design for you out of clay, a figure like that of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allaah’s Leave; and I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I bring the dead to life by Allaah’s Leave. And I inform you of what you eat, and what you store in your houses. Surely, therein is a sign for you, if you believe.

And I have come confirming that which was before me of the Tawraat (Torah), and to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a proof from your Lord. So fear Allaah and obey me.

Truly, Allaah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him (Alone). This is the Straight Path’” – [Aal ‘Imraan 3:48-51]

Allaah is absolutely perfect in His powers of Creation. He creates what He wills, how He wills… He created Adam from dust without a father or a mother, and He created Hawwa’ from the rib of Adam from a father but without a mother. He has caused the descendents of Adam to have both a father and a mother, and He created ‘Isa from his mother without a father… Glory be to the All-Knowing Creator.

Allaah has explained clearly in the Qur’aan how ‘Isa was born. He says (interpretation of the meaning:

“And mention in the Book (the Qur’aan, O Muhammad, the story of) Maryam (Mary), when she withdrew in seclusion from her family to a place facing east.

She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our Rooh [angel Jibreel (Gabriel)], and he appeared before her in the form of a man in all respects.

She said: ‘Verily, I seek refuge with the Most Gracious (Allaah) from you, if you do fear Allaah.’

(The angel) said: ‘I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son.’

She said: ‘How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste?’

He said: ‘So (it will be), your Lord said: ‘That is easy for Me (Allaah). And (We wish) to appoint him as a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us (Allaah), and it is a matter (already) decreed (by Allaah)’ ”[Maryam 19:16-21]

When Jibreel told her that, she submitted to the will and decree of Allaah, and Jibreel breathed into the sleeves of her garment:

“So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place (i.e. Bethlehem valley about 4-6 miles from Jerusalem).

And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a date palm. She said: ‘Would that I had died before this, and had been forgotten and out of sight!’”[Maryam 19:22-23]

Then Allaah provided Maryam with water and food, and commanded her not to speak to anyone:

“Then [the babe ‘Isa (Jesus) or Jibreel (Gabriel)] cried unto her from below her, saying: ‘Grieve not: your Lord has provided a water stream under you.

And shake the trunk of date palm towards you, it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon you.

So eat and drink and be glad. And if you see any human being, say: “Verily, I have vowed a fast unto the Most Gracious (Allaah) so I shall not speak to any human being this day”’”[Maryam 19:24-26]

Then Maryam came to her people, carrying her child ‘Isa. When they saw her, they thought that she had done a terrible thing and they denounced it, but she did not respond to them. She indicated that they should ask this infant, and he would tell them. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Then she brought him (the baby) to her people, carrying him. They said: ‘O Mary! Indeed you have brought a thing Fariyy (a mighty thing).

O sister (i.e. the like) of Haaroon (Aaron)! Your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman.’ Then she pointed to him. They said: How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?’”[Maryam 19:27-29]

‘Isa replied to them straight away, even though he was a child in the cradle: “He [‘Isa (Jesus)] said: ‘Verily, I am a slave of Allaah, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet;

And He has made me blessed wheresoever I be, and has enjoined on me Salaah (prayer), and Zakaah, as long as I live.

And dutiful to my mother, and made me not arrogant, unblest.

And Salaam (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!’”[Maryam 19:30-33]

This is the information about ‘Isa ibn Maryam, the slave and Messenger of Allaah. But the People of the Book differed concerning him. Some of them said that he was the son of God, and some said that he was the third of three (“trinity”), and some said that he was God, and some said that he was a slave and Messenger of God. This last view is the correct view. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Such is ‘Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). (It is) a statement of truth, about which they doubt (or dispute).

It befits not (the Majesty of) Allaah that He should beget a son [this refers to the slander of Christians against Allaah, by saying that ‘Isa (Jesus) is the son of Allaah]. Glorified (and Exalted) be He (above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it: “Be!” and it is.

[‘Isa (Jesus) said]: ‘And verily, Allaah is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him (Alone). That is the Straight Path. (Allaah’s religion of Islâmic Monotheism which He did ordain for all of His Prophets).’

Then the sects differed [i.e. the Christians about ‘Isa (Jesus)], so woe unto the disbelievers [those who gave false witness by saying that ‘Isa (Jesus) is the son of Allaah] from the Meeting of a great Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection, when they will be thrown in the blazing Fire)”[Maryam 19:34-38]

When the Children of Israel deviated from the Straight Path and overstepped the limits set by Allaah, they did wrong and spread corruption on earth, and a group among them denied the resurrection, Reckoning and punishment. They indulged in their desires and in physical pleasures without expecting to be brought to account. At that point, Allaah sent to them ‘Isa ibn Maryam as a Messenger, and taught him the Tawraat and Injeel as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And He (Allaah) will teach him [‘Isa (Jesus)] the Book and Al-Hikmah (i.e. the Sunnah, the faultless speech of the Prophets, wisdom), (and) the Tawraat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel).

And will make him [‘Isa (Jesus)] a Messenger to the Children of Israel”[Aal ‘Imraan 3:48]

Allaah revealed to ‘Isa ibn Maryam the Injeel (Gospel) as guidance and light, confirming that which had come before it in the Tawraat:

“and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Tawraat (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqoon (the pious)”[al-Maa’idah 5:46 – interpretation of the meaning]

‘Isa (peace be upon him) foretold the coming of a Messenger from Allaah after him, whose name would be Ahmad. This is Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And (remember) when ‘Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allaah unto you, confirming the Tawraat [(Torah) which came] before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.’ But when he (Ahmad, i.e. Muhammad) came to them with clear proofs, they said: ‘This is plain magic’”[al-Saff 61:6]

‘Isa (peace be upon him) called the Children of Israel to worship Allaah alone, and to obey the rulings of the Tawraat and Injeel… He started to dispute with them and to explain the error of their ways. When he saw how stubborn they were and how the signs of kufr were manifest among them, he stood among his people, saying, Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allaah? The disciples believed in him, and their number was twelve. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Then when ‘Isa (Jesus) came to know of their disbelief, he said: ‘Who will be my helpers in Allaah’s Cause?’ Al-Hawaariyyoon (the disciples) said: ‘We are the helpers of Allaah; we believe in Allaah, and bear witness that we are Muslims (i.e. we submit to Allaah).’

Our Lord! We believe in what You have sent down, and we follow the Messenger [‘Isa (Jesus)]; so write us down among those who bear witness (to the truth, i.e. Laa ilaaha illallaah — none has the right to be worshipped but Allaah)”[Aal ‘Imraan 3:52-53]

Allaah supported ‘Isa with great miracles which remind us of the power of Allaah, lift the spirit and promote faith in Allaah and in the Last Day. He made something like the shape of a bird from clay, and blew into it, and it became a bird, by Allaah’s leave.  He healed the blind and the leper, and brought the death back to life by Allaah’s leave. He told the people what they were eating and what they were storing in their houses. So the Jews to whom Allaah had sent ‘Isa became hostile towards him and tried to the people away from him, so they disbelieved in him and accused his mother of immorality.

When they saw that the weak and poor believed in him, and were gathering around him, they formed a plot to kill him. So they provoked the Romans against him, and they made the Roman governor think that the call of ‘Isa contained a threat against (Roman) power. So he (the Roman governor) issued orders that ‘Isa should be arrested and crucified. But Allaah caused a hypocrite who had betrayed him to the Romans to look like ‘Isa. The soldiers arrested him, thinking that he was ‘Isa, and crucified him. But Allaah saved ‘Isa from the cross and from death, and Allaah tells us about the Jews (interpretation of the meaning):

“And because of their saying (in boast), ‘We killed Messiah ‘Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allaah,’ — but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them the resemblance of ‘Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)], and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. ‘Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]:

But Allaah raised him [‘Isa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allaah is Ever All Powerful, All Wise”[al-Nisaa’ 4:157-158]

So ‘Isa (peace be upon him) did not die, rather Allaah raised him up to Himself, and he will descend before the Day of Resurrection and will follow Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He will prove the Jews to be wrong in their claim to have killed ‘Isa and crucified him. And he will prove the Christians to be wrong who exaggerated about him and said that he was God, or the son of God, or the third of three. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “By the One in Whose hand is my soul, the son of Maryam will descend among you as a just judge. He will break the cross, kill the pigs and abolish the jizyah, and money will become so widespread that there will be no one who will accept it.” (Agreed upon; narrated by Muslim, no. 155).

When ‘Isa comes down before the Day of Resurrection, the People of the Book will believe in him, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allaah and a human being] before his [‘Isa (Jesus) or a Jew’s or a Christian’s] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he [‘Isa (Jesus)] will be a witness against them” – [al-Nisaa’ 4:159]

‘Isa ibn Maryam is the slave of Allaah and His Messenger. Allaah sent him to guide the Children of Israel and to call them to worship Allaah alone, as Allaah says to the Jews and Christians (interpretation of the meaning):

“O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allaah aught but the truth. The Messiah ‘Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allaah and His Word, (‘Be!’ — and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Rooh) created by Him; so believe in Allaah and His Messengers. Say not: ‘Three (trinity)!’ Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allaah is (the only) One Ilaah (God), glory is to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allaah is All Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs”[al-Nisaa’ 4:171]

Saying that ‘Isa is the son of God is a monstrous saying and a great evil.

“And they say: ‘The Most Gracious (Allaah) has begotten a son (or offspring or children) [as the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allaah, and the Christians say that He has begotten a son [‘Isa (Jesus)], and the pagan Arabs say that He has begotten daughters (angels and others)].’

Indeed you have brought forth (said) a terrible evil thing. Whereby the heavens are almost torn, and the earth is split asunder, and the mountains fall in ruins, That they ascribe a son (or offspring or children) to the Most Gracious (Allaah). But it is not suitable for (the Majesty of) the Most Gracious (Allaah) that He should beget a son (or offspring or children). There is none in the heavens and the earth but comes unto the Most Gracious (Allaah) as a slave – [Maryam 19:88-93]

‘Isa ibn Maryam is a human being, a slave of Allaah and His Messenger. Whoever believes that the Messiah son of Maryam is God is a disbeliever (kaafir).

“Surely, they have disbelieved who say: Allaah is the Messiah [‘Isa (Jesus)], son of Maryam (Mary)’”[al-Maa’idah 5:72]

Whoever says that the Messiah is the son of God or the third of three is also a disbeliever:

“Surely, disbelievers are those who said: ‘Allaah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).” But there is no Ilaah (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilaah (God —Allaah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall on the disbelievers among them” – [al-Maa’idah 5:73]

The Messiah son of Maryam was a human being. He was born from a mother; he ate and drank, got up and went to sleep, suffered pain and wept… and God (Allaah) is far above all of that, so how could he be God? Rather he is the slave of Allaah and His Messenger:

“The Messiah [‘Isa (Jesus)], son of Maryam (Mary), was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother [Maryam (Mary)] was a Siddeeqah [i.e. she believed in the Words of Allaah and His Books]. They both used to eat food (as any other human being, while Allaah does not eat). Look how We make the Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to them; yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)” – [al-Maa’idah 5:75]

The Jews, Christians, crusaders and their followers distorted the religion of the Messiah, and deviated and changed it. They said (may Allaah curse them) that Allaah sent forth his son the Messiah to be killed and crucified as a sacrifice for mankind – so it doesn’t matter if anyone does whatever he wants, because Jesus will carry all his sins for him… And they spread that belief among all the Christian groups until it became a part of their beliefs. All of this is falsehood and is lies against Allaah, and speaking about Him without knowledge. Rather “every soul will be (held) in pledge for its deeds”. Man’s life cannot be sound or correct unless they have a path to follow and limits at which to stop.

Look at how they fabricate lies against Allaah, and speak about Allaah with no guidance:

“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, ‘This is from Allaah,’ to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby” – [al-Baqarah 2:79]

Allaah has taken from the Christians the pledge that they will follow ‘Isa and follow that which he brought, but they changed and distorted that; they differed then they turned away. So Allaah will punish them with enmity and hatred in this world, and with torment in the Hereafter, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And from those who call themselves Christians, We took their covenant, but they have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. So We planted amongst them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection (when they discarded Allaah’s Book, disobeyed Allaah’s Messengers and His Orders and transgressed beyond bounds in Allaah’s disobedience); and Allaah will inform them of what they used to do” – [al-Maa’idah 5:14]

On the Day of Resurrection, ‘Isa will stand before the Lord of the Worlds, Who will ask him before the witnesses what he said to the Children of Israel, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And (remember) when Allaah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): ‘O ‘Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Did you say unto men: “Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allaah?”’  He will say: ‘Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours; truly, You, only You, are the All-Knower of all that is hidden (and unseen).

Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allaah) did command me to say: “Worship Allaah, my Lord and your Lord.”’ And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were the Watcher over them; and You are a Witness to all things. (This is a great admonition and warning to the Christians of the whole world). If You punish them, they are Your slaves, and if You forgive them, verily, You, only You, are the All Mighty, the All Wise”’ – [al-Maa’idah 5:116-118]

Allaah has created kindness and mercy among the followers of ‘Isa and the believers. They are closer in friendship to the followers of Muhammad than anyone else, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikoon, and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud” – [al-Maa’idah 5:82]

‘Isa ibn Maryam was the last of the Prophets sent to the Children of Israel. Then after him Allaah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), from among the descendents of Ismaa’eel, to all of mankind. And he is the last of the Prophets and Messengers.

  • Excerpt from  Usul al-Deen al Islami by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem al-Tuwayjri.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best].

72 Virgins? Does Allah Give Sexual Bribes?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The concept of the 72 heavenly females [hoor al ‘ayn] is one of the most discussed topics that the western media and Islamophobes try to embarrass Muslims with.

However, being fair the criticism doesn’t come from the hadith itself but rather when Muslims are saying things like this or perhaps doing something like this [and this too], the latter is more bewildering and somewhat absurd. Such remarks and behaviors are easy targets and they give the media good material (as shown below) to defame Islam.

However, we should discuss the soundness of such accusations in light of the Islamic perspective of such concepts, but before addressing the topic, I would like to explain some facts that are normally neglected by the antagonists especially when viewing such phenomena ( i.e.  the heavenly reward).

Polygny Vs. Polyandry
(Who desires more sexual partners and why?)

Polygny: Polygyny is the practice in which a male associates himself with many females for the purpose of procreation and pleasure seeking thus binding himself into a long term relationship (marriage). This nature in men is natural and even agreed by evolutionary biologists.
image

However males don’t associate themselves primarily for procreation but also for seeking pleasure since on comparative grounds men feel more sexual arousal and love to seek multiple mates, more than that of females.
image

Men prefer physical attractiveness more, than women do in men. Women usually prefer men having a higher social status and good economic strength.
image

However, all of these traits or characteristics demanded by either of the sexes or both of them aren’t at the top, the first priority is always that partner should faithful, loving and caring [ibid, pg.99]. All of the above information gives us a view of man’s burning desire for intercourse, there is nothing embarrassing about it, this is how nature works. No one should use these evidences as an excuse that men are sex vultures or women are just too selfish. These things would vary from person to person and culture to culture.

Polyandry: Polyandry is the association of a female with many males in a longing relationship, this is rare form of association and the most occurring form of polyandry is fraternal polyandry in which a female is shared by many brothers. This practice of a single female owned by brothers is for economic reasons so that the property may not have to be divided among children of different brothers . It is mainly found in Tibet and India, in India its is because of the disturbed sexual ratio on account of female infanticide and as for Tibet, it is simply done to stop the division of property among the off springs of different brothers of the same family.

Short- term mating: Man Vs. Woman
(If women don’t desire many partners, why do many females engage in short term relationship?)

This short term mating strategy does not apply to every male and female. That is a very broad topic and would become infinitely long if I am to discuss every detail and every dynamic involved. For men, short term mating has nothing to do with economics, they are involved in it to seek pleasure and that’s why males engage in relationships with prostitutes. For females, again both genetic and economic benefit is involved but one thing that is well established, is that if a female is engaging in a relationship outside marriage, her new partner would always be stronger than her husband. If her husband is already rich and good looking, she wouldn’t like to involve herself with another man. Since in Paradise, males would be attractive as Prophet Joseph (pbuh) and equally powerful with respect to economic point of view, there is no need for a woman to have more than one partner both for long-term and short term relationships.
image

                            “Can anyone be actuated to participate in a war by promising beautiful girls?”

Some of you must be thinking that this analogy is similar to an Army general promising his men that they would be allow to rape women of their enemies like the Red Army did when they swept into Berlin committing almost 20,000 to 100,000 rapes (Brown Miller, 1975; Ryan 1966; Siefert, 1994).

This isn’t the case, mass war time rape has nothing to do with man’s natural sexual instinct, it is done to embarrass the enemies, to demonstrate that they had failed to protect their woman, more information about the dynamics of this concept can be found here and here. However the situation is quite different for soldiers raping female soldiers in their own army. As Time magazine indicated, the Pentagon’s latest figures show that nearly 3,000 women were sexually assaulted in fiscal year 2008, up 9% from the year before; among women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number rose 25% . Moreover, this behavior of raping your own comrade is a byproduct of misogynistic environment of the military, as one source points out not ‘out of control lust’ but a possibility of man’s own sexual desire cannot be simply ruled out as in German Psychological Warfare (Arno Press, New York, 1972) Ladislas Farago states:

“Since young soldiers are in a state of hyperactive bodily development, their immediate problems are related to appetite and sex….Sexual deprivation may be a motive for a soldier’s suicide attempt.” 

Secondly, Japan to meet the sexual appetite of her soldiers established what they called ‘comfort zones’ in order to prevent rape and spreading of diseases among soldiers, but all these rapes occurred when women were available. Can a soldier be demoralized to the extent they abandon the battle ground if he is shown that his wife or girl friend is raped in his absence? Obviously, if the woman is the factor for encouraging someone to participate in war it would also cause a person to leave it too. In World War II, sexual leaflets were distributed among enemy soldiers for a reason to demoralize them that the women they left behind were in great danger in their absence, some of them were extremely pornographic but for the readers I would show the mild ones. For example,

WWII leaflets

A. Sexual leaflet made by Germans to demoralize allies in Italy in a series called, ‘Home Front warriors’ indicating when Frank [soldier] entered the room he found his girlfriend [Vivian] in bed with another guy bill.

B. Another German made leaflet for the allied troops in Italy demoralizing the soldier that if he continued to fight he would lose his girl.

C. Russian leaflets to German soldiers, it pretends to be a reproduction of a letter to from the State Insurance Office of Family Increase to a German male offering him the chance to have sex with multiple German women, and goes so far as to promise the award of a medal to those who perform well. It also explains that his wife will have no right to divorce and will have to take this minor hardship as a consequence of war. The letter explains that fertile and vigorous men are needed to keep children coming for the German war machine. Some of the more interesting text is:

“German Soldiers! The Hitler Gang is making Germany a House of prostitution. These documents show you how your officers are spending their time.”

The same sort of thing was happening on the Japanese front where sex leaflets were being dropped by the enemy on Allied troops. Some comments from Prisoners of the Japanese, Gavan Daws, William Morrow and Company, NY, 1994, on the subject: 

The Japanese were dropping propaganda leaflets…And for the friendliest of friendly persuasion, pictures of a beautiful blonde stripper, private parts and all: “You too can enjoy this if you surrender.” The propaganda bombers came droning over us every day.  It was like having the paper delivered. Some of the troops started trading the leaflets like baseball cards.”

Reaction of Soldiers towards these leaflets:

Herbert A. Friedman writes in his article ‘Sex and Psychological Operations’, Professor Linebarger noted that obscene pictures showing naked women, designed to make the celibate troops so desirous of women that they surrendered was a Japanese idea that did not work. The troops kept the pornography and despised the Japanese as queer little people for having sent it. One American soldier assigned to the 35th Infantry Division in February of 1945 told of receiving pornographic leaflets in an artillery barrage. He told me [Herbert A. Friedman]:


                                                       “We used the leaflets for toilet paper.”

This is a telling statement and seems to bolster a comment once made by Sir Arthur Harris, Air Marshall of the Royal Air Force during WWII. “My personal opinion is that the only thing achieved (by dropping leaflets) was largely to supply the continent’s requirement of toilet paper for the five long years of the war.”

The Inverse Reaction:

The hadith of Tirmidhi (no.1663 classified Sahih by Albani) about martyrs being given 72 virgins as one of the six great rewards is not sufficient for anyone to risk his life for some beautiful partners he has never seen. In fact, it would be bring a reverse effect i.e. the aggressiveness of soldiers against the enemy would fade away as Edward Donne stein says in, The Journal of Personality and Social Behavior (Vol. 39, 1980, p. 269-277) :

“When males have not been angered or have been exposed to mild erotica, aggressive behavior has been reduced…In summary, the present results suggest that highly arousing nonaggressive-erotic stimuli can be a mediator of aggressive behavior by males toward other males under certain condition.”

Since no one has seen those beautiful virgins, all males have to develop their own sexual fantasies which would in turn provid a serious setback towards their military progress because they would lose the ‘anti-enemy’ sentiments which are necessary to overcome the hardships hurled by the enemies.

Okay! Fine about the virgins but don’t you think the number is too big?: 

Well yes! But it’s looking odd only because we’ve never see them. When we watch news channels, we only find rapists having more partners. Even polygamy isn’t common in Muslim countries, so this causes a negative correlation in our mind that having more sex partners for a male is bad [for long term relationships] as some criminals have many short term sex based relationships. Thus whenever we think of polygamous mating, we think that a guy is crazy about sex without even bothering to see that it is natural and in the genes of man. This is the same way if we find a police man doing something against the law it would look odd, because whenever we think of uniform we think of the law, safety and comfort. Our sense of moral values is greatly influenced by the society and on the basis of that we shape our brains.

So the pleasure of the Martyr is intercourse and he would be the only one receiving this reward: 

No, many would get 72 wives not just a martyr , Narrated by Abu Huraira (RA), the Messenger of Allah -may the peace and blessings of Allah- said: “The ordinary inmate of paradise … for him there will be seventy-two partners from Hoor al’Ayn besides his spouses from (the women of) this world.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 10874. Classified as Hasan by Ahmad Shakir) and even for the martyr the best prize isn’t the intercourse it’s the honour he would receive at the time of martyrdom, Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet -may the peace and blessings of Allah- said,

“Nobody who enters Paradise likes to go back to the world even if he got everything on the earth, except a martyr who wishes to return to the world so that he may be martyred ten times because of the dignity he receives (from Allah)” (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2817).

Islamic Paradise Revolves Around the Desires of Men. What about Women?

Well! Woman are very secretive about their wishes and dreams, they just don’t want to tell anyone unless the person is very close to them , under the light of this fact many scholars believed that woman would get what she desires since men don’t feel shy thus Allah (S.W.T) told them what they would get but a case is different for woman yet however Jannah has a bazaar in it:

“Their Lord will say. ‘Get up! I have prepared for you blessing. Take what you desire’. Then we will come to the market surrounded by angels. There will be in it the like of which eyes have not seen and ears not heard and hearts have not thought of. To us will be delivered what we desire, there being no buying or selling in the market..”[Ibn e Majah 4336] ,. Anas (RA) narrated the Messenger of Allah -may the peace and blessings of Allah- said: “Verily a market will be set for the inmates of Paradise every Friday ..” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 39366. Classified as Sahih by Albani in Sahiha 3471)

We have seen earlier that even woman sexual life is influenced by material factors [not implying that woman are crazy about money but it’s a fact that they love shopping than anything]. Even the modern research confirms this behavior that women love shopping more than men. Cosmetic industry is booming in the west because of woman’s desire of eternal youth look but Jannah has perpetual youth,

“Their youth does not pass away and their garments do not wear off.” [Ahmed 7939] .There wouldn’t be any jealousy in paradise Allah makes it clear, Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And We shall remove from their breasts any (mutual) hatred or sense of injury (which they had, if at all, in the life of this world); rivers flowing under them, and they will say: ‘All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has guided us to this, and never could we have found guidance, were it not that Allah had guided us! Indeed, the Messengers of our Lord did come with the truth.’ And it will be cried out to them: ‘This is the Paradise which you have inherited for what you used to do’” [al-A’raaf 7:43].

Not to mention the superiority of woman in this world, as they would have both beauty and virtue because they prostrated to Allah (Targheeb Vol.4 pg.534), thus men wouldn’t lose their interest in their wives as they would be twice as beautiful than the the Houris.Women always dream of higher standards of living thus they are always found to be more materialistic than men.

Sensual Pleasure Vs. Spiritual Pleasure:

Abu Naeem’ narrated in Sifat ul Jannah from Abu Hurairah (R.A) that messenger of Allah said: “A man will go to one hundred virgins in one day” i.e. in Paradise classified as Sahih by Albani in Silsila Al-Sahiha, 367) . Since the orgasm is the highest dopamine rush experienced by humans, there is no good reason that paradise should be deprived of it. In fact, a neural scan of the moment of orgasm is similar to one taken during a heroin rush. Just like with drugs, the dopamine surge is followed by withdrawal symptoms, which are immediate in the male, but delayed in the woman. Why would a God need to get rid of this joyful activity which he himself created for us? However, this is not what would be the most pleasing aspect of Paradise, the best pleasure for the inhabitants of paradise is seeing Allah :

Sayyidina Suhayb (R.A.) narrates that Prophet (saaw) said: “When the people of Jannah enter into Jannah, Allah Ta‘aala will say: ‘Do you want Me to increase anything for you?’ They will say: ‘Did you not illuminate our countenance; did You not enter us into Jannah and save us from Jahannam.’” He (further) says: “Then the veils will be lifted and they will see the countenance of Allah. From whatever they had been granted, nothing will be more beloved then seeing their Rabb.” (Muslim, Mishkat).

The awkward behavior of some Muslims towards such teachings:

Although sex is a need and sometimes a driving factor in the society among males to compete for the most beautiful females. In his influential book Male, Female, the evolution of human sex differences, David C. Geary discusses brain and cognitive differences from an evolutionary perspective. Identifying basic empirically observed differences between the sexes, both in humans and other species, Geary finds the sexual selection pressures that are responsible for these differences. When it comes to male-male competition, which plays a key role in the choice of sexual partners across many species, Geary points to modern man´s efforts to secure a high-paying job as a clear example of the same sexually-driven competition amongst males. Interestingly enough, a 2008 paper by Pollet and Nettle observed a correlation between men’s wealth and reported female orgasm, indicating that in a sample of Chinese women, those engaged in sexual relationships with wealthier men reported a higher degree of sexual satisfaction, and a higher number of orgasms achieved, in particular. Well ! when it comes to the heavenly women things are different since nobody has seen them, this may be a candy for a person living a subjugated life but for others who are free and have an access to better females it wouldn’t work, besides as we stated earlier even if the person doesn’t go to war for some reason he would get it too. In fact, Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) never stressed or even encouraged his followers during wars to fight so that they would get beautiful girls and not for the benefit of Islam.

Finally , I would like to make point out some sources that actually confirms the existence of sex in heavens.

  • Dr.Ruckman deduce from 1 John 3:2, Philippians 3:21 and 1 Corinthians 15:49 that it is alleged that Jesus would have gay sex with all the Christian men. (read in full here).
  • If Jesus is the God of OT and he can give Solomon some 300 women with no complaints at all, what is the problem with you when a Muslim just has 72?
  • Many Christians such as Peter Kereeft logically proves that there would be sex in heaven.

Note: I am extremely thankful to Mr. Herbert A. Friedman for giving me the permission to add images of the sexual leaflets used in WWII.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

by Azhan Ahmed

Refutation: Ijaz Ahmad vs. the Prophet Zechariah!

Posted on by 3 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Anthony Rogers released a series of articles after our debate in which he had decided to forward some unfortunate, if not rather disparaging comments in the process. I’ll be carefully and honestly examining his claims and comments in my responses to him. It should be noted that he has also made a video and appeared on live television to further promote his comments. I would like to explicitly state that I discourage and remove myself from any relation to this man’s incredulous behaviour.

The Introduction.

He begins with stating:

In my recent debate with Ijaz Ahmad he made much of the fact that the Angel of the Lord in Zechariah 1:12 intercedes with the Lord for Jerusalem, something that presupposes that the two are distinct.

I did propose that YHWH and Mal’ak YHWH were two distinct individuals, something which Anthony during the debate also supposed that he was in agreement with, as stated in his thesis:

Notice that my thesis entails both the deity of the angel as well as his distinct personhood from another and or other persons in the Godhead. This means it will not be sufficient or at all relevant for my opponent to argue that the angel is distinct from Yahweh as if this somehow negates my position. In fact any good argument my opponent puts forward to prove that the angel is distinct from another person called Yahweh will receive a quick and robust ‘Amen’ from me. This also means that my opponent will necessarily either have to show that the angel is also not identified as God as I will argue or provide some way for accounting how the angel may be identified that is consistent with Unitarianism, the belief that God is only one person and the Old Testament.

From the get go, Anthony’s contradiction is clear. During the debate, he asserts that he’d be in complete agreement with me, if it is that I proved that YHWH and Mal’ak YHWH were distinct, he’d give a resounding ‘Amen‘. Now a few days later, he’s found himself arguing against his own thesis. Apparently, it’s now in his best interest to argue against his own argument, I could not have asked for a better example of inconsistency.

The Arguments.

Anthony then, proceeds onwards to argue against the fact that they are distinct:

“According to Ijaz, this shows not only that a distinction obtains between the two, but that the distinction is ontological in nature, i.e. it demonstrates that the former alone is Lord and the latter is not.”

Anthony in this case, concedes that indeed they are demonstrated as being distinct from one another. Something which he refused to do during the debate. Is this perhaps an attempt at back peddling to correct his mistakes? What’s worse is that Anthony’s problem is such, that he asserts that Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH but that they are both distinct at the same time. The problem can be manifested as such-:

Argument 1:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
Ijaz: If Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH, how are they distinct? (see: Zechariah 1).

Argument 2:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is another person from YHWH.
Ijaz: If they are not the same person, how then can Mal’ak YHWH be YHWH? (see: Anthony’s first argument above).

This is a problem that Anthony can’t resolve because he’s created it  himself. So what you’re seeing in his articles, is a clearly confused individual, trying to cite as many sources as he can towards his biased position (fallacy of appeal to authority), but at the same time, contradicting his own criteria for a valid argument (following from his thesis in the debate). Let’s continue to see what other problems he has put himself in:

Although I did point out that the Angel of the Lord is also identified as Lord in His own right in Zechariah 3, and thus that “the Angel of the Lord” is the distinctive title by which this second person who is Yahweh is distinguished from the first, the title being most appropriate since He is evidently the heavenly Mediator and Messenger between God and His people, a fact that follows naturally from Zechariah1, I think much more could be and needs to be said than I communicated during the debate.

Let’s put Anthony’s statements into perspective:

  1. Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
  2. Mal’ak YHWH is a different person than YHWH.

The problem we see here now, is that Anthony has realised there exists an issue, that he’s arguing against himself, so he decides to reconcile this issue by stating the ‘Angel of the Lord’ is now a title, to distinguish YHWH from himself. With this in mind let’s examine Anthony’s new argument:

  1. Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
  2. Mal’ak YHWH is another name for the person who is the same as YHWH, but they’re different because it’s a different title.

Following his line of reasoning, every time that his God is called by a different title in the Bible, that would have to mean that it isn’t just another name for God, it’s an entirely new person into the Godhead. That would mean that Adonai is a different person to Elohim, who is a different person to Hashem Adonai who is different to Mal’ak YHWH who is different to YHWH, who is different to the ‘Messenger of the Covenant‘. If that is the case, then Anthony’s God, is beyond tri-personal, unless it is then, that he presents the case that a title isn’t always a new person in the Godhead, it’s only a new person when it suits his dogmatic agenda, in which case his argument would then be guilty of taking the form of ‘the fallacy of confirmation bias‘.

“Since this was the passage on which Ijaz drew most of his thunder, and since most people I have talked to were unimpressed with his other arguments against the deity of the Angel, particularly his failure to grapple with the lexical and scholarly evidence I provided for the fact that the word angel (mal’ak) is not restricted in meaning or use to created spirits…”

By ‘most people’ he means the two Christian Paltalk rooms which came out to support him.

The Reception of his Arguments.

On that same note to demonstrate how his supporters did not listen to his thesis, during his opening statement, we have Radical Moderate, commenting on the debate.

Topic of Debate: 
“The Old Testament Teaches that the Angel of the Lord is a Distinct, Divine Person in the Godhead.”

Anthony’s Thesis (Taken from the debate):  
“In fact any good argument my opponent puts forward to prove that the angel is distinct from another person called Yahweh will receive a quick and robust ‘Amen’ from me.”

Supporter of Anthony (Radical Moderate):
His theisis is not that the Angel of Yhahwee is distinct person from Yahweh.

So confused are the people he confesses were unimpressed by my argument, that they don’t even understand what he was arguing. No wonder they agreed with Anthony (as he claims), they’re just blindly cheerleading him onwards, while not even grasping what exactly his argument was. According to this supporter, whose comments are under all of Anthony’s posts (congratulating him, praising him, flirting with him), Anthony’s argument was against the very topic and the very thesis that Anthony used. Brilliant ‘support’, would Anthony dare criticise his fan base or choose to correct their own misunderstanding of his presentation? Anthony continues by stating:

” his failure to grapple with the lexical and scholarly evidence I provided for the fact that the word angel (mal’ak) is not restricted in meaning or use to created spirits – something that brought on the bizarre charge from Ijaz that I was the one guilty of playing word games and being unscholarly, a lapse on his part that was aggravated by the fact that he didn’t bring a single scholarly source forward to justify his repeated misuse of the term, or even for anything else that he mentioned”

To begin with, there was no need on my end to redefine the word Mal’ak and appeal to the eisegesis of the reductive fallacy. Essentially, Anthony’s argument boiled down to this:

  • Mal’ak YHWH = YHWH.
  • Mal’ak YHWH = YHWH.
  • YHWH = YHWH.

That’s essentially what Anthony’s entire ‘lexical’ argument was. It was a simple play on semantics to eliminate the purpose and the rationale behind the word mal’ak, this type of lexical manipulation is most commonly referred to by academia as “the reductive fallacy”. Following from this, Anthony ‘claims’, that I used no scholarly source to justify my use of the term “mal’ak”, with that being said, it is either Anthony recognizes that he used no scholarly source himself or he fails to realise from where I quoted my definition of “mal’ak”  during the debate. I took the definition of mal’ak, directly from Anthony’s article, “The Malak Yahweh Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament: Part I”. Which reads:

“The word that is used in the Hebrew text is malak (מַלְאָך). The lexical sources are unanimous that the Hebrew word malak, in its original signification and as it is used in the Bible, means “one sent; a messenger” (e.g. Gesenius; Brown, Driver and Briggs)”.

With explicit evidence of the source for my definition, would Anthony Rogers be honest enough to apologize or recant his erratic statements? Most likely not and I wouldn’t expect any better from him, if anything, he’d try to find a way to claim I used his definition incorrectly, the problem therefore being, that I quoted it verbatim from his article. I’m not quite sure if he expected me not to point that out, or if he was simply looking for material to attack me with. He follows this by saying:

That is to say, the following passages that speak of two persons as Yahweh prove that the Old Testament teaches that God is not a solitary person and in this sense He is not like any other conscious agent in existence – including schizophrenics, a straw-man trumped up by my opponent that applies to Modalists who believe the persons of the Trinity are actually only one person who banters back and forth between different alter egos, rather than to Trinitarianism, which teaches that God subsists in three actual persons – He being uniquely multi-personal, and thus unlike anything or anyone.

For a moment here, we see Anthony attempting to respond to the claim that a singular being with multiple personalities is not considered to be suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder or even Schizophrenia, something which I indicated during the debate, which Anthony did not have a chance to respond to. Multiple Personality Disorder refers to one being, having more than one personality and seeing as Anthony’s God is one being, unified by the Godhead, yet eternally possessing three distinct personalities, this clearly indicates that the Christian concept of God is schizophrenic and possibly an allusion to MPD. Anthony attempted to further solve this by saying his God was ‘uniquely multipersonal’, or in other words, when you go to the psychiatric ward of any hospital, all the in patients that suffer from MPD or Schizophrenia, or some mental disease are all told that they are special and unique so that they can be normalized and their feelings controlled. Taking a play from that appeal to emotion, Anthony himself is applying that same tactic to his followers, a revealing metaphor to say the least.

Biblical Bitrinitarianism.

In an attempt to defend his eisegesis, Anthony invents a new term:

The first of many examples for Zechariah’s overall “binitarianism” presents itself

So what is bitrinitarianism? Unfortunately that’s the term that Anthony presents as the basis for Mal’ak YHWH becoming YHWH. He doesn’t really explain more than that, so I can’t respond to something he’s just made up. I can understand why he’s making up terms now though, he’s made an Angel into God and well, just as the early Church fathers had to do when trying to defend their religion against the Jews, they just had to make up words and terms as you go along. Some common examples are, “The Trinity”, “Godhead”, “Immaculate Conception”, “Original Sin”, “Incarnate Word”, and today,we have Anthony holding true to that erratic tradition, thus giving us, “Bitrinitarianism”. If I were to break down this word to attempt to derive some meaning, it would make little to no sense:

  • Bi – Two
  • Tri – Three
  • Unity – United
  • ism – belief

Which would give us, “the belief of three persons united (as one), but also as two”. Just gibberish really. This is an appeal to Christians, if you can give me a definition for this term that actually makes sense, please do so, thanks.

Anthony versus Zechariah, Judaism and Common Sense.

To demonstrate his, “bitrinitarianism”, Anthony appeal to Zechariah 2:6-12 which reads:

6 “Ho there! Flee from the land of the north,” declares the Lord, “for I have dispersed you as the four winds of the heavens,” declares the Lord. 7 “Ho, Zion! Escape, you who are living with the daughter of Babylon.” 8 For thus says the Lord of hosts, “After  glory He has sent me against the nations which plunder you, for he who touches you, touches the apple of His eye.9 For behold, I will wave My hand over them so that they will be plunder for their slaves. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me. 10  Sing for joy and be glad, O daughter of Zion; for behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” declares the Lord. 11 “ Many nations will join themselves to the Lord in that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you. 12 The Lord will possess Judah as His portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem. 13 Be silent, all flesh, before the Lord; for He is aroused from His holy habitation.”

Obviously we understand and agree that these are the Lord’s words. However, Anthony is attempting to state, that the person who delivers this message to Zechariah is YHWH himself, yet Zechariah does not claim that YHWH is delivering the message, no less than three verses before we have Zechariah explicitly stating that an angel is delivering the words of the Lord:

“While the angel who was speaking to me was leaving, another angel came to meet him” – Zechariah 2:3

Which is the purpose of the Angel of the Lord, in Hebrew this is properly translated (by Anthony) to mean the “Messenger of YHWH”.  So an Angel who is the Messenger of YHWH delivers a message to Zechariah from the Lord. It is obvious that if the Angel who is a Messenger is going to deliver God’s word, that the Angel will declare the words to be from God and not from himself, which the Angel does do in the passage that Anthony references:

  • “…declares the Lord”
  • “…declares the Lord”
  • “For thus says the Lord of hosts…”
  • “… declares the Lord”

It’s as clear as day, that the Angel who is the Messenger of the Lord, as demonstrated by the verse itself, is conveying/ declaring to Zechariah what God has said. Yet Anthony does not seem to understand that. To give an example of Anthony’s absurd rationale, let us demonstrate with an example:

I saw the neighbour, he approached me and said, the wife says, “I like your roses”.

According to Anthony, this would mean that the husband likes the roses and that the husband is the wife. Anthony furthers his inanity by then validating and accepting my argument:

“…let the following be noted here: while Zechariah’s actions here in speaking for the Lord are in a measure consistent with what the Angel of the Lord does in Zechariah one, which is to be expected since the Angel is a distinct person who can speak to and for Yahweh…”

Recall, as I said Mal’ak YHWH is the Angel who is a Messenger of the YHWH, so this messenger is expected to speak on behalf of YHWH and to YHWH. So Anthony concedes that this is the case, but then he contradicts himself by saying that the Messenger of YHWH is YHWH. If they are distinct as he himself says, why then, doe he interpret them to be joined/ united as the same person? A clear contradiction yet again.

Understanding Zechariah 2.

Since we are examining the Jewish book, we should be honest and use the Jewish version, not the Christian perversion of the Septuagint from a mystery text translated into Greek and then Hebrew and then finally to English, whereas the Jewish text is simply Hebrew to English. I’ll be using the JPS Translation and the Hebrew Masoretic Texts as provided here and here.

“And he said to him, “Run, speak to this young man, saying: ‘Jerusalem shall be inhabited like unwalled towns, because of the multitude of men and cattle therein.’ ”   But I will be for it-says the Lord-a wall of fire around, and for glory I will be in its midst. Ho, ho! Flee from the land of the north, says the Lord; for I have spread you as the four corners of the heavens, says the Lord. Ho, Zion! Flee, she who sits among the nation of Babylon. For so said the Lord of Hosts: After glory, He sent me to the nations that plunder you, for whoever touches you touches the apple of his eye.” – Zechariah 2:6-12.

The difference is vast, if we use Anthony’s version we have a distinct and completely different rendition of Zechairah 2, as opposed to the Hebrew of the Jews. Yet, there is one verse which stands out as being in common with them both:

For so said the Lord of Hosts: After glory, He sent me to the nations that plunder you, for whoever touches you touches the apple of his eye.

What we have here is Anthony’s verse 8 and the Jewish version’s verse 12. Yet the Jewish version makes it is not YHWH who is sending himself but that YHWH is sending someone and in verse 13 of the Jewish text, this person being sent is referred to as the “hand of God” or the person though whose hand, God’s work is done:

“For, behold! I raise My hand over them, and they shall be prey for those who serve them. And you shall know that the Lord of Hosts sent me.”

The “hand of the Lord” is a term which refers to the person who is the Angel/ Messenger of the Lord who not only conveys God’s message, he is the angel which executes God’s punishments upon the earth and supports the faithful:

“So I will stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians with all the wonders that I will perform among them. After that, he will let you go.” – Exodus (Shemot) 3:20.

“Then the LORD said to Moses, “Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country.”” – Exodus (Shemot) 6:1.

“he will not listen to you. Then I will lay myhand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites.” – Exodus (Shemot) 7:4.

“And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out myhand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.”” – Exodus (Shemot) 7:5.

Anthony’s problem is that he appeals to the Christian rendition of the text, the problem is, Zechariah according to his own beliefs was not a Christian but a Judaic Prophet, therefore using his own faith’s belief about Zechariah, if we read the Judaic rendition of the texts, we see that Anthony is in opposition to myself and the Hebrew Judaic Version of Zechariah’s writings. It is absurd to think that we should appeal to the Christian rendition when Zechariah was not a Christian but a Jew, therefore any indepth study of the Christian rendition is therefore inconsequential to the discussion at hand, and merely a ploy at appealing to confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

Anthony versus Basic Christian Doctrine!

In one section of his article, Anthony Rogers who is lauded by Sam Shamoun as being the best “Christian Apologist”, makes a fundamental error in his doctrine. In a book recommended by Sam Shamoun, “Understanding the Trinity”, by B.P. Harris, he states (page 121):

None other can show forth the Father, for He alone is in the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). He alone exists in the form of God (Phil. 2:6). He alone is the radiance of his glory (Heb. 1:3). And He alone is the exact representation of His Person (Heb. 1:3).

From this we know for certain that the Father is the invisible, incomprehensible, majestic, unseen God. Yet Anthony in his diatribe of an article, states the following:

First, there is the example of something Moses says in Genesis 19. After Genesis 18 tells us that the Lord appeared on earth with two angels to Abraham just prior to Sodom’s destruction

Not only is Anthony confused as to the form of the Father, he actually ascribes a known form to an invisible God. It would then seem that Anthony is not only arguing with Sam Shamoun, BP Harris, but that he is also arguing with his own scripture. I must commend him on his behaviour, one debate and Anthony is already arguing against the Christian religion.

In his article he tries to state that the invisible God, who then changes His mind and becomes an Angel, sorry, three Angels, then changes back into being invisible, but leaves two Angels back, which are really two Angels of Himself and then goes to heaven from wherein He rains down fire and brimstone in Genesis 19. Makes perfect sense, I suppose!? Somehow that’s supposed to indicate that YHWH is Mal’ak YHWH.

Zechariah 12:9-14 Proves Nothing.

Again, we find ourselves, returning to the Jewish rendition of a particular set of verses. What we find once more, is that what Anthony’s version claims and what the Jews claim, from whom Zechariah was a member of (according to Anthony), contradicts his rendition in numerous ways:

 And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come upon Jerusalem. And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son. On that day there shall be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the Valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart: The family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart. The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart. All the remaining families-every family apart, and their wives apart. – Zechariah 12:9-14.

Which doesn’t fit Anthony’s explanation, from his article:

“In the above passage the Lord says that the people will “look on Me whom they have pierced,” and tells us that the house of David and Jerusalem’s inhabitants will mourn for Him, i.e. Yahweh, the pierced one”

That presents a problem, as the invisible God can now actually be pierced. How can you pierce the invisible, all powerful, eternal God who is YHWH? Unless of course, he’s not referring to YHWH the Father, but the other person who is also God, the son, who is Mal’ak YHWH, the Word, the Incarnate Word. We just went meta, you have a God who has two other personalities and one of those two personalties has other personalities that are also eternal but co-equal with each other, but also fully God. His interpretation of these verses is really “special” to say the least. From the Judaic rendition, Anthony’s eisegesis amounts to nothing but mere attempts again at correcting the beliefs of the Jews from whom according to Anthony, Zechariah was from.

YHWH Kills Himself with His own Sword.

To those of you who have managed to reach this far without asserting that Anthony has lost the plot, it gets worse:

“A third passage in Zechariah of some significance is found in Zechariah 13 and is closely related to the passage in Zechariah 12. For just as Yahweh said in 12:10 that He would be pierced, so in Zechariah 13 we are told not only that false prophets, by the Lord’s decree, will come to such a fate, i.e. they would be pierced through, but even the Shepherd of Yahweh would experience a terrible fate, no doubt the piercing mentioned in 12:10, and back of it would be the Lord’s own sword. Most significantly for present purposes is the fact that “the Shepherd,” –indeed, “My Shepherd,” – is identified by Yahweh not only as one distinct from Himself, but as “My Associate.”

So according to Anthony:

  • YHWH says false prophets would be pierced.
  • YHWH will pierce Himself.
  • YHWH will become a Shepherd.
  • YHWH who is a shepherd will pierce/ stab Himself with His own sword, a punishment meant for false Prophets.

At this point, I’m not sure if Anthony is arguing for Christianity or against it. I’ll leave that judgement up to you.

Conclusion.

I have aptly demonstrated that Anthony’s premises are self contradictory, dynamic, erratic and that he has gone above and beyond to refute his own argumentation. He has demonstrated that he does not grasp the true nature of YHWH, at one point he tries to demonstrate that God will kill himself, with a punishment meant for cursed persons with false teachings by his own sword. At another time he tries to demonstrate that God, even though He is invisible and without a known form, became an angel, thus contradicting his Bible and his doctrine. None of those points demonstrate the case for YHWH being Mal’al YHWH. At no time did he present a viable case for his self contradicting premises:

Argument 1:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
Ijaz: If Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH, how are they distinct? (see: Zechariah 1).

Argument 2:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is another person from YHWH.
Ijaz: If they are not the same person, how then can Mal’ak YHWH be YHWH? (see: Anthony’s first argument above).

I look forward to seeing how Anthony will actually attempt to address these issues and when he shall admit his faulty logic. It is my view, that his reinterpretation of Judaic scripture is not only embarrassing for himself , but for the Christian religion as a whole. I do apologize to my Christian brethren if his erratic statements were insulting in anyway.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Response to Anthony Rogers

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

A few days ago, Anthony Rogers, upset at the revelation of some odd bits of Christian history during my debate with him, has released a video claiming that Allah ta ‘ala had loins. Unfortunately for him, his poor scholarship and intellectual dishonesty became extant. As it turns out, after he realised that the, ‘holy prepuce’ argument was a valid piece of history, he decided to look for some way to demonstrate that Allah ta ‘ala also had ‘genitals’ or ‘loins’. Unfortunately for him, he gathered his quotes from this website. Recall:

  • Anthony cannot speak or read Arabic.
  • His video uses the exact same quotes with the same translation from the website.
  • The author of that website, translated the Arabic himself.
  • Therefore it became easy to find Anthony’s sources, as the translation is unique.
  • The translation on the brother’s article was based on an error concerning manuscripts which he obtained.
  • Anthony, by using the same translation and same error, therefore showed that he copied from the Brother’s website.

The brother upon seeing Anthony’s video, made contact with me and I decided to let him refute Anthony Rogers. The video contains quotes from various Arabic lexicons and Etymological codices, demonstrating that the word Anthony appeals to cannot and has never meant, ‘genitals’.

We’ve quoted all the relevant Arabic texts and included them in the video, thereby completely refuting his claims and calling him to apologize for his plagiarism of the website’s contents. Here is the video:

According to the various Arabic lexicons and dictionaries the phrase ‘haqwa’, when used, means ‘to seek protection of someone or from something’. Since that is the case, Anthony has no real intellectual basis for his argument, but an incorrect translation that the Brother himself (the author of the article Anthony uses), clarified his mistake and therefore has soundly demonstrated the lowly character and lengths to which Anthony Rogers would stoop for attention.

We ask Anthony to come forward, whether in a new video or a response in an article and explain for us, his research skills and Arabic reading/ speaking skills, both of which he knows he cannot qualify.

PS: Anthony, if you’re going to copy something off of the internet, try to validate it before you make your ‘research’ public.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Debate with Anthony Rogers Available on Youtube

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The debate has been uploaded on Youtube, “The Angel of the Lord is a Distinct, Divine, Person in the Godhead”, between myself and Anthony Rogers:

Do enjoy insha Allaah, any questions pertaining to the debate, let me know in the video comments or via our Facebook Page or use the ‘Contact Us‘ page on the website.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

« Older Entries Recent Entries »