Appealing to the Qur’an’s Arabic in order to dismiss the truth of Islam often produces comedic results. Today we look at one such case which I came across on Facebook.
I decided to help this young missionary with an explanation of why they were wrong (i.e. their claim was false), followed by an argument by analogy based on a language they already knew, and finally an argument via proof by contradiction in using his same argument against the New Testament.
There are of course multiple incidents like this from other missionary polemicists. This example is worth a good laugh.
Anthony Rogers, accompanied by a gang of roused propagandists, spent a significant amount of time attacking Islamic monotheism and those who defend it because they assume Muslims misunderstand their doctrine of their incarnate God. Ironically, in order to demonstrate how Muslims ‘misrepresent’ Christian theology, Anthony Rogers decided not to teach Muslims about his theology, but to instead misrepresent Islam. So great is his wisdom, that instead of trying to elucidate his doctrine, he went on a tirade of foul mouthed angry posts to the extent one could sense the foam, form around his mouth due to his rabid ranting. He says:
We’ve all heard Muslims say that worshipping Jesus as the Word made flesh is inherently and inescapably idolatrous, particularly since Jesus in His humanity has a form and could be seen, handled, touched, etc.
To correct Anthony, our issue cannot be summed into such a myopic and incredulous sentence, rather our issues are:
Worshiping the creation.
Believing God can change – even though He the First and the Last – absolute.
Believing that God can gain, change and alter in form and essence.
Hereon, Anthony builds a quasi-childish argument. He quotes an ayah which states Muslims will be able to see God on the Day of Judgment. Then, due to his faulty inference reasoning, he claims that since we can see God on the Day of Judgement, then God will also be in a created form. From this, we can now understand that his argument is not to explain to the ‘misrepresenting’ Muslims, the doctrine of an incarnate God, but to ideally commit the tu quoque fallacy through argumentum reductio ad absurdum. What does this mean? Simply explained his response is, ‘you believe the same too‘, and ‘my response can be qualified by reducing your corpus of texts to a cherry picked and out of context hadith for which I myself do not understand‘.
He quotes a lot of hadith – a lot. Why? To demonstrate that Muslims believe that God will eventually assume a form, do the texts state this? Nope, they don’t. So where does he get this idea from? Probably from the sanitarium his closest friends and teachers escaped from.
To begin with, there are two ayat of the Qur’aan which form the absolute basics of Islamic theology from which we can then extend their context to, in relation to any other text , whether that be from the Qur’aan, or the Hadith corpus. This is the first rule of scriptural exegesis and theology – to interpret scripture…….with scripture! Isolating a few verses and removing them from the context of their theological foundation is nothing short of abject dishonest on the part of Mr. Rogers. We read:
there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things). – 42:11.
Therefore, to say that God has a form or will be incarnate, is to misrepresent and misinterpret the hadith which are within the theological bounds of Islamic theology stemming from its own scripture, as are duly quoted above. What does it therefore mean, or what do the ahadith mean, when they claim we will be able to see God on the Day of Judgement? We read the following from Shaykh Faraz Rabbani who in response to this question, “Then how can we see Allah? Wouldn’t it entail affirming a direction, body, and form for Allah?“, he states the following:
No, it doesn’t–because the beholding of Allah Most High is “without resemblance [to the beholding of created things] and without encompassing,” as Imam Ibrahim Laqani mentions in his primer on Islamic beliefs, Jawharat al-Tawhid.
It is completely possible for Allah to create beholding in His servants, without there being physical directionality between them and Him.
This beholding is one of the greatest of spiritual favors. May Allah make us of those who are granted ultimate felicity, through true following of the Beloved Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).
From the Shaykh’s answer, we understand now that since God is all-powerful, and I assume Anthony believes his God is, then we can agree that God is able to allow us to behold Him, without having to take a shape and or form. We also know from the Qur’aan that God is veiled from us:
“It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah’s permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise.” – 42:51.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) on the night of the Mi’raaj (ascent into heaven) did not see his Lord. He was asked ‘Did you see your Lord?’ He said, “I saw Light.” According to another report: “Light – how could I see Him?” i.e., between me and Him there was a great veil of light. According to a hadeeth in al-Saheeh, it is narrated that Allaah is veiled in Light. That appears in the hadeeth in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “His veil is Light and if He were to remove it, the glory of His Countenance would burn everything of His creation, as far as His gaze reaches.” Because His sight reaches everything, and everything would be burned by this immense Light.
As for the argument we expect – if God does not take a form, as Anthony argues through his application of Christian theology upon Islamic scripture, how can we see God, or how are we to understand that we can ‘behold’ God? We read from Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam’s, “al-Fatawa al-Mawsiliyya“, the following:
“Concerning the vision of Allah Most High in the hereafter, He shall be seen with the light which He created in the eyes in addition to the light of knowledge. For vision unveils what knowledge does not unveil, and if the exalted Lord wanted to create in the heart a light such as the one He created in the eyes so that it could look at Him by means of it, it would not be difficult for Him at all. Nay – if He wanted to create the light of the heart and that of the eyes in the hands and the feet and the nails it would not be difficult for Him at all!”
Given the evidences presented above, we can understand that a complete theology accepts that God is without form, unlike His creation, while being able to allow His creation to behold Him, without his having a need to take a form. We must remember, that a God who needs, such as the Christian God which Anthony believes in, cannot be an all-powerful being, for having a need, makes God dependent and God is dependent on nothing. In closing, we must remember that Anthony is not a scholar, nor is he a gentleman, we cannot expect him to uphold any form of academic objectivity, scholastic honesty or intellectual integrity. His arguments are as of those found on the stage, mere theatrics to amuse the easily bewildered, the simple minded and the intellectual stunted. I do not expect him to represent Islam accurately, nor do I expect him to amend his ways, for he is nothing more than an internet missionary and these traits are alien to him, his lifestyle and his theology.
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
Addendum:
Concerning the hadith in which it is stated (taken directly from Anthony’s post):
Then (Allah) the Lord of the worlds will come to them in a shape nearest to the picture they had in their minds about Him. It will be said, ‘What are you waiting for?’ Every nation have followed what they used to worship.’ They will reply, ‘We left the people in the world when we were in great need of them and we did not take them as friends. Now we are waiting for our Lord Whom we used to worship.’ Allah will say, ‘I am your Lord.’ They will say twice or thrice, ‘We do not worship any besides Allah.’ ” (Bukhari,6.60.105)
Again, in isolating any text is tantamount to clear cut dishonesty, we read other ahadith which qualify the meaning of the above one:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah said, ‘I am to my slave as he thinks of Me, (i.e. I am able to do for him what he thinks I can do for him). – Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 596.
The Prophet said, “Allah says: ‘I am just as My slave thinks I am, (i.e. I am able to do for him what he thinks I can do for him) and I am with him if He remembers Me. If he remembers Me in himself, I too, remember him in Myself; and if he remembers Me in a group of people, I remember him in a group that is better than they; and if he comes one span nearer to Me, I go one cubit nearer to him; and if he comes one cubit nearer to Me, I go a distance of two outstretched arms nearer to him; and if he comes to Me walking, I go to him running.’ ” – Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 502.
According to this, Allaah will be seen (as I explained above, by Allaah allowing us to behold Him – without form) by the creation, in varying degrees, dependent on their position with Him, i.e. their piety, worship, etc. Some will be able to behold His majesty, while others may not be able to behold Him to such a degree as those who were pious and righteous. – wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
When asking a Christian where Christ said he was a God, it is impossible to find a first person statement on this issue. Therefore, it becomes problematic, as no such Biblical quote exists. What they turn to however, is third person accounts, from which there are many in the Bible. This presents a problem, for Jesus allegedly stated:
“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.” (John 18:20)
If Jesus had said that he was God, then there would be no need to seek out second and third party accounts, to that effect of being a self claimant to divinity. Thus it is clear from the verse above (John 18:20), that his claiming to be God would be explicit and quite extant as demonstrated by the persona of the Old Testament God. To understand the difference between the personas of the Old Testament God and the New Testament God, I suggest reading my article on the topic: Non Compos Mentis. Therefore, by seeking a 3rd person account to validate their claim of Christ’s divinity, that person has already failed to meet the mark. Looking beyond this, one must study a very important group of verses pertaining to Christ’s divinity as used by missionaries:
“8But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”[a]
10He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment.
12You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same, and your years will never end.“[b]”
Christians get very excited about these verses, God has called Jesus God, thus proving that in the Bible, Jesus is God. So that’s it, the Christians win, Jesus is God, because God said so……
Alas! Wait! Do you see the two citations of [a] and [b], what do they say?
“Your arrows are sharpened, nations shall fall under you, in the heart of the king’s enemies.Your throne, O judge, [will exist] forever and ever; the scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom.” (Psalms 45:6-7)
The throne, being the throne of the Messiah who is to rule from the throne of David for all time (according to Judaic doctrine). The Messiah is undoubtedly a judge, one who comes to judge people in righteous and guide them, as he himself stated:
“By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.” (John 5:30)
Judge to please who? Himself? No. To please God. The one who sent him. Therefore, Jesus judging according to the laws of God is something we Muslims accept and agree with. Continuing with the other footnote which cited Psalms again:
“I say: to the Lord, “You are my God, do not take me away in the middle of my days, You Whose years endure throughout all generations. In the beginning You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish but You will endure, and all of them will rot away like a garment; like raiment You will turn them over and they will pass away.” (Psalms 102:25-27)
In the New Testament, again, it reads vastly differently, the Jewish texts places it into context, that the judge, who is the Messiah Jesus, is saying this about God. God is not saying this about Jesus. This is one of many examples where Christians have abused and manipulated to the Judaic Scriptural tradition in order to derive easily refutable arguments about Christ’s deity.
wa Allahu ‘Alam.
Note: Originally published on July 5th, 2010 @ 3:34.
Note: The following quote is not from my own writing, nor my own translation, the source and link is clearly cited below for all to enjoy reading.
One of early Christendom’s most significant and prominent leaders, (what we term a Patristic) was Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus) who was one of the very first Christian apologists, writing against many people, most notably, “Against Marcion” (Adversus Marcionem) who awkwardly enough was the first man to canonize the Christian Bible and “Against the Jews” (Adversus Judaeos ) who even more strangely enough followed the religion of their God (as they say Jesus was a Jew). What is apparent is that these statements are supposed to be in support of Christianity, being such a major apologetic in his day, it is quite shocking to read some of his statements about the veracity of the Christian faith. As such, please do research more on this issue and enjoy reading:
There are, to be sure, other things also quite as foolish (as the birth of Christ), which have reference to the humiliations and sufferings of God. Or else, let them call a crucified God “wisdom.” But Marcion will apply the knife’ to this doctrine also,, and even with greater reason. For which Is more unworthy of God, which is more likely to raise a blush of shame, that God should be born, or that He should die? that He should bear the flesh, or the cross? be circumcised, or be crucified? be cradled, or be coffined? be laid in a manger, or in a tomb? Talk of “wisdom!” You will show more of fiat if you refuse to believe this also. But, after all, you will not be “wise” unless you become a “fool” to the world, by believing” the foolish things of God.”Have you, then, cut away all sufferings from Christ, on the ground that, as a mere phantom, He was incapable of experiencing them? We have said above that He might possibly have undergone the unreal mockeries of an imaginary birth and infancy.But answer me at once, you that murder truth: Was not God really crucified? And, having been really crucified, did He not really die? And, having indeed really died, did He not really rise again? Falsely did Paul “determine to know nothing amongst us but Jesus and Him crucified;” falsely has he impressed upon us that He was buried; falsely inculcated that He rose again. False, therefore, is our faith also. And all that we hope for from Christ will be a phantom.O thou most infamous of men, who acquittest of all guilt the murderers of God! For nothing did Christ suffer from them, if He really suffered nothing at all. Spare the whole world’s one only hope, thou who art destroying the indispensable dishonour of our faith? Whatsoever is unworthy of God, is of gain to me. I am safe, if I am not ashamed–my Lord.“Whosoever,” says He, “shall be ashamed of me, of him will I also be ashamed.” Other matters for shame find I r none which can prove me to be shameless t in a good sense, and foolish in a happy one, by my own contempt of shame. The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible.But how will all this be true in Him, if He was not Himself true–if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again?I mean this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, a flesh which knew how to be born, and how to die, human without doubt, as born of a human being. It will therefore be mortal in Christ, because Christ is man and the Son of man. Else why is Christ man and the Son of man, if he has nothing of man, and nothing from man? Unless it be either that man is anything else than flesh, or man’s flesh comes from any other source than man, or Mary is anything else than a human being, or Marcion’s man is as Marcion’s god. Otherwise Christ could not be described as being man without flesh, nor the Son of man without any human parent; just as He is not God without the Spirit of God, nor the Son of God without having God for His father. Thus the nature of the two substances displayed Him as man and God,–in one respect born, in the other unborn; l in one respect fleshly in the other spiritual; in one sense weak in the other exceeding strong; in on sense dying, in the other living.
This excerpt has been taking from, “De carne Christi (On the flesh of Christ), Chapter 5, – Christ Truly Lived and Died in human flesh. Incidents of human life on earth, and refutation of Marcion’s docetic parody of the same.”
From this we can deduce that Paul was a liar and a man which altered the true doctrine of Christ, as Tertullian clearly indicates. Following from this, we can also conclude that the greatest proof of Christianity’s theological foundations, is that the religion is so morbidly absurd tha it just has to be true. Recall the famous saying, “that idea is so stupid it just might work“, same reasoning applies here. That’s truly some great logic!
Qur’aan Surah 4, Ayah 156-159:
“That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): ‘We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.’ But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (Jesus) Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them.”
wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.
Originally Published: December 2nd, 2011, 14:11 PM. Edited and Republished: August 19th, 2012, 10:10 AM.
Christians are fond of saying that although the Bible has unstable and sketchy textual contradictions, they can analyse the manuscripts and develop (yes, develop), a Bible as close to God’s words as possible. The problem however is that if you don’t know what God’s word was, how can you develop something, into it? That’s like saying you don’t know what an aeroplane looks like, but you’re going to design one.
The problem isn’t that errors can be corrected within the manuscripts, by all means this is not the point. To clarify, I will state what the points of such a dialogue on the Bible’s authenticity should be about:
Authorship.
Validation of Authorship.
Validity of Chain of Transmission.
Comparison with other scriptures.
Authorship:
The authorship of any document, especially those of high esteem must accompany the scribe’s identity.
E.g. I write a document, claim it’s from the President and it doesn’t have his signature. No one would accept it.
Likewise, if I were to claim that I have a scripture from God, written by “unknown”, how much trust would you actually place on me? In stating this, it should be noted the names of the Gospels were based on assumptions and traditions. Although it is common for scribes to leave a manuscript autograph signature, we have no such signature from any of the four (4) synoptic Gospels.
Validation of Authorship:
The validity of the author must be sought.
E.g. I write a document, sign my name and say I am the President. There is no evidence I am the President, who would then believe me?
Likewise if I authored a scripture and claimed to be a scribe of God, then some evidence must be shown, after all would you trust someone based on word of mouth or credentials? Similarly, the Bible has no such form of verification. There is no one from the Patristics (early Church Fathers), the Presbyters (early Church elders) or from the Disciples (Peter, Barnabus) to testify to the identity and works of Mark, Luke, John or Matthew.
Validation of Chain of Transmission:
Again, questionable character comes in here, if the chain of narration contains those persons who are known to lie, shall we trust their words? Surely this is not so. Similarly, what about a man who willingly declares himself to be a fool (2 Corinthians 11) and possessed by a demon (2 Corinthians 12)?
Comparison with Similar/ Linked Scriptures:
If we compare the OT with the NT, it is radically different. You have to apply your own exegesis (therefore eisegesis) to create some form of bond/ relationship between these two “revelations”. Yet, Jews, the majority of which, do not accept the New Testament as scripture, because it does not comply with their mainstream beliefs.
Generally, the problem with 150,000 manuscripts, is not that they have errors which can be corrected, but it is that there is not a single original of which to compare any of these manuscripts with. Of the 24,000 pre-Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts, most are not used.
The Bible is generally a book where errors have to be continuously eliminated as errors keep popping up, such as with Mark 16:9-20. How are we to know, that for almost 2000 years men believed those words to be true, many today, yet the earliest manuscripts never had them.
According to Bruce Metzger[1]:
Variant Readings among the Manuscripts
The first problem facing Bible translators is the differences in wording among manuscripts of the Scriptures. These differences have arisen because, even with the strongest determination to copy a text without error, a scribe copying a text of considerable length will almost inevitably introduce changes in the wording. It is understandable that mistakes can arise from inattentiveness brought on by weariness. For example instead of the correct reading, “Is a lamp brought in to be put under a bushel, or under a
bed, and not on a stand?” (Mark 4:21, RSV), several important manuscripts read “under the stand.” This is obviously a scribal error in repeating the preposition “under” in the third phrase.
Sometimes a scribe’s error of judgment works havoc with the text. One of the most atrocious blunders of this kind is in the minuscule Greek manuscript no. 109, dated to the 14th century. This manuscript of the four Gospels was transcribed from a copy that must have had Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (3:23–38 ) in two columns of 28 lines in each. Instead of transcribing the text by following the columns in succession, the scribe of MS 109 copied the genealogy by following the lines across the two columns.
In addition to such transcriptional blunders, which can usually be detected and corrected, occasionally a scribe deliberately introduced into the copy a change that seems to clarify the sense or eliminate a difficulty. For example the older manuscripts of Mark 1:2–3 attribute to the Prophet Isaiah the evangelist’s composite quotation from both Malachi and Isaiah, whereas later manuscripts (followed by the King James translators of 1611) read, “As it is written in the prophets,” an obvious amelioration of the earlier text.
wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.
1 – Bruce Metzger, Persistent Problems Confronting Bible Translators, Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 273-284.
[Originally published: April 20th, 2010, 21:24 pm]
[Altered and republished: August 12th, 2012, 4:00 pm]
It is unfortunate that for people who profess objectivity and sincerity in their study, research and pursuit of knowledge that there continues to be a great perversion of the understanding of Islamic Shari’ah laws and its applications. Proponents of the modern secular system, or of varying theological political systems, seemingly cannot produce a consistent stance on judging the use or misuse of the Islamic Shari’ah, while wholly regarding it to be unfair, unjust and backwards. Demonstrably, it can be noted that their own justice systems produce often, curious if not peculiar judgements. In one case, a mother can be sentenced to jail for a period of 5 years, for stealing clothing from a store for her children at a value of $102 dollars. While at the same time a Wall Street tycoon who has defrauded enough persons to make himself a billionaire, was sentence to a period of only, 11 years. What then, can we say is logical about this? Based on this one example of a judgement that is neither proportional to the crimes when compared and contrasted nor morally justifiable, can I then generalize the American justice system as being inhumane, profiteering and socially inept?
To further this discussion with more evidences relevant to the topic at hand, let’s examine sexual assault cases, in particular rape. This child rapist was sentenced to only 5 to 7 years in prison, the same amount of time as the woman who stole $102 dollars worth of goods. This rapist was sentenced to only 9 years in prison, while defrauding persons of hundreds of millions of dollars and sending families into distress, bankruptcy and insolvency will earn you the same amount of jail time. Continuing with this trend, we can deduce that according to the modern secular system, stealing and rape are upon the same field of justice. Considering these tragic acts, let’s examine the Islamic position on rape in the modern world. To rape in Islamic law is to have committed “ightisaab”, which means to forcefully transgress and take a woman’s honour from her (rape). The crime is punishable by death but doesn’t have to be punished by death, the punishment however has to be severe as to deter anyone else from attempting this crime. Therefore, there can be no equivalence between stealing and rape, a woman’s honour is not the same as stealing an apple, or clothing as it is seen in the secular justice system.
Islamic Shari’ah rule, is intended to govern a state by Islamic law, where the ulema (religious leaders) who are fuqaha (jurists), establish courts where a qadhi (judge) can make binding rulings (fatawa) on behalf of the state against a criminal and establish justice in the society. This understanding is based upon the Qur’anic statements:
“And so judge (you O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) among them by what Allaah has revealed” – [al-Maa’idah 5:49].
“And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the Kaafiroon (i.e. disbelievers — of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allaah’s Laws)” – [al-Maa’idah 5:44].
“And whosoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, such are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers — of a lesser degree)” – [al-Maa’idah 5:45].
“And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed (then) such (people) are the Fâsiqûn [the rebellious i.e. disobedient (of a lesser degree)] to Allaah” – [al-Maa’idah 5:47].
“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission” – [al-Nisa’ 4:65].
“Do they then seek the judgement of (the days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith” – [al-Maa’idah 5:50].
To make this succinct and easy to grasp, the discussion will be broken up into several questions:
What do the Islamic scholars (Ulema) say on the punishment of rape?
Are four witnesses needed to prove rape?
Are women who do not wear hijab responsible for their rape?
Is the woman to be punished for rape?
Forced marriage to rapist?
Further reading.
What do the Islamic scholars (Ulema) say on the punishment of rape?
Yûsuf ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Muhammad Ibn `Abd al-Barr Abû `Umar al-Namarî al-Andalusî al-Qurtubî al-Mâlikî (may Allaah be pleased with him), a prominent Islamic jurist, of whom Imam al Qurtubi cites/ references about 500 times in his tafsir has stated in Al-Istidhkâr li Madhhab `Ulamâ’ al-Amsâr fîmâ Tadammanahu al-Muwatta’ min Ma`ânî al-Ra’î wal-Athâr (“The Memorization of the Doctrine of the Scholars of the World Concerning the Juridical Opinions and the Narrations Found in Mâlik’s Muwatta'”), 7/146:
The scholars are unanimously agreed that the rapist is to be subjected to the hadd punishment if there is clear evidence against him that he deserves the hadd punishment, or if he admits to that. Otherwise, he is to be punished (i.e., if there is no proof that the hadd punishment for zina may be carried out against him because he does not confess, and there are not four witnesses, then the judge may punish him and stipulate a punishment that will deter him and others like him). There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that he forced her and overpowered her, which may be proven by her screaming and shouting for help.
Are four witnesses needed to prove rape?
Mufti Taqi Uthmani [db] in his discussion during an interview on Pakistan’s implementation of the Protection of Women Bill 2006, expounded upon his rulings and the rulings of other Islamic judges:
”I myself had been directly hearing cases registered under Hudood Ordinance, first as a Judge of Federal Shariah Court and then for seventeen years as a member of Shariah Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court. In this long tenure, not once did I come across a case in which a rape victim was awarded punishment simply because she was unable to present four witnesses.
In fact it was not possible to do so. First, according to the Hudood Ordinance, the condition of four witnesses only applied to enforcing the hadd for rape. Clause 10(3), which awarded the ta’zeer punishment, did not have this requirement; the crime could be proven through one witness, medical reports, and chemical analysis report. Consequently most rape criminals were awarded punishment as per this clause.
Further, a woman claiming rape could not be punished under Qazf (false accusation of zina) since Exemption 2 in Qazf Ordinance Clause 3 clearly stated that if someone approaches the legal authorities with a rape complaint, she could not be punished in case she was unable to present four witnesses.”
To compound this statement, Shaykh Faraz Rabbani (may Allaah be pleased with him) has stated:
“This is a common myth about Islamic criminal law. Rather, the four witness requirement applies only to the prescribed hadd punishment (which in the case of a married person could be death and for the non-married, 100 lashes). [Marghinani, Hidaya] This punishment is only applied in very rare cases, as is clear, and is meant to be a social deterrent, above all.
As the classical and contemporary jurists (such as Mufti Taqi Usmani) have made clear, a rapist can be convicted on lesser evidence (including scientific evidence, such as DNA tests and medical reports) for discretionary punishments. These discretionary punishments are left up to the legal system to determine.
However, it is a myth to say that Islam would in any way condone rape, or allow a rapist to go free for this terrible crime against an innocent human being and against society.”
This therefore rests the case, of the issue with 4 witnesses being needed to prove rape, indeed rape can be proven using modern scientific methods and other evidences, as seen above, as being agreed upon by Islamic fuqaha (jurists).
Are women who do not wear hijab responsible for their rape?
Mufti Muhammad Kadwa and Mufti Ebrahim Desai (may Allaah be pleased with them both) have stated:
These are two separate issues; rape and the lack of Hijaab. The rapist will be punished for his heinous crime whilst the woman will be sinful not for rape, but for failure to observe the rules of Hijaab. Failure to wear Hijaab in no way justifies the heinous crime of rape.
Is the woman to be punished for rape?
Imam Maalik (may Allaah have mercy on him) has said in Al-Muwatta’, 2/734:
In our view the man who rapes a woman, whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a “dowry” like that of her peers, …. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case.
Prophet Muhammad (may Allaah’s peace and blessings be upon him) has also decreed punishments for persons who have committed rape, while freeing the woman of any punishment:
“Narrated Wa’il ibn Hujr (may Allaah be pleased with him):
When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me.
And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her. She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him).
When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.
He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death.” – (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith #4366, Kitab al Hudud [38]).
Forced Marriage to Rapist?
While Islam punishes the rapist, we do hear of some really peculiar instances where the woman is married to the man. This has no basis in Islamic law, nor does it comply with Islamic reasoning, according to this fatwa by Mufti Ebrahim Desai [db]:
“Knowing the importance and sacredness of a marriage commitment, the boy and girl having consulted with their seniors and making Istikhaara, should make their own independent choice.
They should not be compelled to marry against their wishes as the consequences (non-compatibility, divorce, disputes, custody of children, etc.) are too ghastly to bear. Parents should not compel their children to marry against their wishes due to economic status reasons.”
“As an adult, you have an independent right to choose your marriage partner. You should not be forced into marrying someone against your choice. Those forcing you are guilty of depriving you of your Shar’ee right and committing a major sin,
You should simply say no if you are not confident of marrying against your choice. The consequences of forced marriages are too ghastly. There are great possibilities of a marital breakdown. That will lead to disunity among many families. The matter will be clouded even more if there is a child born through the marriage. Considering the many negative consequences of a forced marriage, you should never give in to being forced to marry against your wish. It will be you and no one else who will have to bear the burdens in future. You may forward this email to those forcing you to marry against your wishes.”
However, to contrast the Islamic position, let’s look at this excerpt from the Jewish and Christian religious text, Old Testament (Torah), Deuteronomy (Devarim), Chapter 22, Verses 28 – 29:
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekelsof silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
This video analyses James White’s evidences, his pivots during his opening statement with Br. Shabir Ally during their debate, “Did Jesus Claim Deity?”. An indepth write up to be published on Monday/ Tuesday 26th/ 27th of March fully explaining, and refuting his arguments. I was planning to write up a full response, but I’m terribly busy, please see our video response to James White instead, thanks.
Missionary Sam Shamoun is making strides again in deceiving himself and his waning fellowship. In this insulting article, Sam Shamoun sought to solely attack the character and person of Br. Shabir Ally, all the while having to stoop into cheap academics and wanton fraud by misusing the Brother’s words and the Bible’s words. It’s one thing to twist the Qur’an for your own profit, but to twist your own scripture, this has to be a new low for Sam. Let’s take a look at what Br. Shabir has said. These are the Brother’s insights into Deuteronomy 18:18 and Acts 3:
“Now many Christians think, well that, Jesus was that prophet, but obviously he was not. Isa left the scene, and according to Acts of the Apostles in chapter 3 we read that Peter, one of the disciples of Jesus, is saying that Isa will remain in heaven until that time of restoration comes–and he is describing that time of restoration as meaning the time when God will send that prophet! So that means Peter, the disciple of Jesus, the chief disciple, is still expecting that that prophet will come, and then eventually Isa will come back again. So we see clearly that the prophet Muhammad is mentioned in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. And if they really truly believe in the Scriptures, we Muslims should be asking them to please recognize also the prophet Muhammad, because the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 18, verse 19 says that if you do not recognize that prophet, God will require it of you. In other words, he will bring you to judgment.” (Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible? Shabir Ally answers, posted on Sept. 20, 2010)
Now in the Old Testament, it is mentioned that Moses was told by God that God will send either a series of prophets, or another prophet. It’s often translated that God will send another prophet in Deuteronomy chapter 18, verse 18, a prophet like Moses. But some say that what is meant here is not just one prophet but a series of prophets, but is spoken about as though it is singular. We say, okay, suppose it’s a series of prophets? Well then it goes up until Jesus, and many have said, okay Jesus is that prophet. Then we can say why not Muhammad, because Muhammad is very similar to Moses? In fact, Musa came with a law, Muhammad came with a law. They were both prophets and statesmen at the same time; they were governing, and so they have a lot of similarity. If we come to Jesus and say Jesus is like Moses, and Jesus is the prophet like Moses, well then we just need to go one step further and recognize the prophet Muhammad as well.” (Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible?, posted on Dec. 22, 2011)
To expound upon Brother Ally’s argument, we have to turn to the verses which he cites and the explanations for them:
” I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.” – Bible : Deuteronomy/ Devarim 18:18
This verse is extremely pertinent to the Islamic and Christian narrative of Prophethood. While in itself, requires an entire discussion, I will try my best to lay the foundation of understanding quite succinctly. The verse in question makes the statement, “…from among their brothers likes you…”. Around this one phrase, many various interpretations can be derived. However we’ll work with the Hebrew words used. What exactly does this phrase mean? You see, had the verse read, “from among you”, there would be no question that it refers to one of the Hebrew tribes of Israel, however it uses the term, “…from among their brothers like you…”, which in hebrew would read, “כּמו כּמו אח (‘ach kemo – kamo)”. The brothers of the Hebrew people are the Arabs, they are both Semitic and as far as history dictates we know of no Prophet after Moses which came from any other Semitic background besides Muhammad {saw}. What is interesting is that if you are an Arab, the word, “akhi”, further solidifies this case, as the word also means, “brother” or “brethren”. From Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon we read:
“a brother (used in the widest sense of literal relationship and metaphorical affinity or resemblance (like H1)): – another, brother (-ly), kindred, like, other.”
Even the phrase “kemo/ kamo (likeness) adds to this discussion, it stirs the fire or so to speak. The verse is literally saying, “a kin who is like you”. In fact, Martin Buber, a Jewish philosopher, sent a letter to Ghandi speaking on the willingness of his Arab brothers to work with the Jewish people:
“The Jewish farmers have begun to teach their brothers, the Arab farmers, to cultivate the land more intensively.” – Jewish Virtual Library.
If anyone even had a doubt that they were ever brothers, as I am sure Sam would try his best to show, he would not only have to refute historical data as provided above, but also scientific data as well. The case therefore, for a Semitic Prophet who is from the people who are “like” the Hebrew peoples, clearly establishes the basis from Judaic principles for an Arab prophet. We now turn to Acts, Chapter 3, Verses 19- 20 which raises further questions:
“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus.”
To the untrained mind, the first response would be that this simply predicts Jesus’ coming. However this verse is from Acts of the Apostles, literally, the time of the Apostles after Jesus’ earthly ministry. The problem however, arises when we take a look at other versions of this rendition. The Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopian manuscripts mention Jesus instead of Messiah, whereas the Greek manuscripts differ and simply mention, “Messiah”. Another plausible argument is that Muhammad {saw} isn’t a Messiah, therefore it can’t refer to him, this is incorrect as a Messiah is simply one who is anointed (chosen) and if taken in a divine sense, “anointed by God to do God’s bidding (will)”. With this in mind, we understand that this can mean a Rabbi, a teacher, an Imam, a leader (Romans 13:1-7) and in this case, a Prophet. As a prophet is one who is anointed by God to deliver God’s message to the people. The phrase which stirs our interest is:
“that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus.”
There is a duality here, a Messiah, who could be Jesus, but then, it doesn’t have to be Jesus. Therefore we must ask, who then could God send? When we looked at the various exegeses on this verse, besides pointing out the manuscript troubles, they did indicate the reference to Deuteronomy 18:18. Therefore if Sam Shamoun is claiming that Br. Shabir Ally has in anyway perverted the true understanding of these verses, then he is simply ignorant of what his own religion teaches. This however is common for Sam and thus, I must say I did not expect any better from a missionary, they are after all not highly educated. This is simply a consequence of “Google learning”. Br. Shabir then continues:
“Now it is true that Muslims and Christians claim two very different things about Jesus. Muslims and Christians do believe, and agree, that he was a prophet. Many Christians do not actually realize that this is a necessary part of the Christian proclamation. Regardless of whatever else a Christians may say about Jesus, the New Testament is very clear that Jesus was a prophet. Now Jesus came and he did what he had to do, and said what he had to say, and then he left the scene. Acts of the Apostles in the Bible, in the New Testament that Christians read, tells us something about what the disciples of Jesus said and did after Jesus was gone. This is a very important document, and though scholars believe today that not everything in the Acts of the Apostles is accurate, it nevertheless gives a glimpse into the lives of the Apostles of Jesus after Jesus had left. Now we see in the Acts of the Apostles that the disciples proclaimed Jesus as the prophet like Moses. In Deuteronomy, chapter 18, verse 18 in the Old Testament, a prophet like Moses was spoken about. The disciples here are saying that Jesus was that prophet. That means that Jesus was a prophet! And in that case, Muslims and Christians agree at least that he was a prophet.” (The Jesus Debate: Metaphor, Prophet, Or Son of God?, posted on Feb. 16, 2012)
Br. Shabir is using the oft repeated Christian contention that Deuteronomy 18:18 refers to Jesus’ coming, a Messianic prophecy of sorts, he agrees that we Muslims also have no problem with the Christian understanding of the verse, as we too confirm that Jesus (may Allaah’s peace be upon him) was also a Prophet. However, Sam Shamoun has a problem with Br. Shabir’s confirmation that we do accept the Christian interpretation of the verse if applied to Jesus:
With the foregoing in perspective, doesn’t this show that Ally will conveniently adopt whatever interpretation helps his purpose of duping people into becoming Muslims? After all, these clips seem to indicate that when Ally wants to convince people that Muhammad is mentioned in the Holy Bible he will adopt the interpretation that Acts depicts the disciples as believing that the prophet like Moses was someone different than Christ. Yet when he wants to show that the disciples did not believe that Jesus is God he will then argue that Acts presents the disciples as proclaiming that Jesus is that prophet like Moses!
What Sam has willingly perverted in his understanding, is that Br. Shabir is using the Christian comprehension of the verse, which the quote that Sam himself provided has stated:
“Now it is true that Muslims and Christians claim two very different things about Jesus. Muslims and Christians do believe, and agree, that he was a prophet. Many Christians do not actually realize that this is a necessary part of the Christian proclamation.”
Sam is simply grasping for straws to attack Br. Shabir since he was humiliated a few years ago, by the Brother in a debate:
Sam then goes on what I can only determine to be an emotional tirade, mocking Brother Shabir with insults, while insulting the Qur’an and even to the extent, he was trying to quote the Bible to insult us, but in reality only provided an argument against himself:
““For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with You. The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity. You destroy those who speak falsehood; The LORD abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit.” Psalm 5:4-6″
This is definitely interesting, as Sam is using deceit in this article. Br. Shabir was referencing the Christian position and Sam’s intentional misread to be used to attack the Brother, is initself deceit. He has based his entire article, which contains atleast 10 insults and abuses, based on his own error:
“Muslim Dawagandist”
“inconsistent and deceptive”
“document his lies, deceptions and gross inconsistencies.”
“Ally will just about say and do anything in order to win an argument or deceive people into believing his false religion”
“exposes Ally as dishonest and deceitful, it is simply silly to think manipulation and deceit will remain undetected”
“Your lies will not only be exposed and punished”
“they will come back to haunt you in this life and destroy your credibility”
He even became so desperate to attack the brother, that he misused Jesus’ words in the Bible:
“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him.Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44
I could not contain my laughter after having read this verse, knowing the true context, I really must contest Sam’s ability to be literate. Did he simply do a word search for the words, “deceit” and “lie” and then copy paste them into his article, while wiping the foam from around his mouth after his petulant digression? To put the verse into context, this is one of Jesus’ alleged anti-Jewish remarks:
44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” 48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?” – Bible : John (8) : 44 – 48.
Hopefully, Sam the missionary, will learn his lesson and change his tactics since his lies are coming back to expose and discredit him.
There’s nothing like using Sam’s own words against him.
In another report by Nigerian police, a group of Christians were again, caught in another terror plot to blow up Churches. Major Nigerian media outlet, Premium Times Nigeria, had this report to give:
Nine bombers, believed to be christians, were apprehended this morning when they attempted to bomb a COCIN church at Miya Barkate, 20 kilometres along Jos-Bauchi Highway in Bauchi State.
The suspected bombers are Lamba Goma, Filibus Danasa, Joshua Ali, Danjuma Sabo, Joseph Audu, Simon Gabriel, Bulus Haruna, Yohanna Ishaya and Daniel Ayuba (who was the immediate past Secretary of PDP at Tilden Fulani Ward, Toro LGA, Bauchi State).
The suspects are members of the same COCIN church, Unguwar Rimi, a new and small Christian settlement between Tilden Fulani and Shere Hills. The suspects who were thoroughly beaten by the public were rescued by police and then detained at the Toro Divisional Police Division before they were transferred to Bauchi State Police Command, Bauchi.
At about the same time this morning in the Neighbouring Plateau State, a bomb explosion was reported at the headquarters of the same COCIN church during a Sunday service. The number of casualties are not certain. The pastor of the targeted COCIN Church in Bauchi is Ishaya Izam, who recently arrived on posting from the Cocin headquarters in Jos, which was bombed this morning.
Calling Christians 
You must be logged in to post a comment.