Tag Archives: Allah

Exposing James White’s Deceit and Ignorance of Islamic Scripture

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In a recent twitter exchange with James White, I found him proposing such an absurd view of Islamic ‘aqidah that I simply had to write an article to correct his misinformation. In the field of academia, we try our best to uphold certain standards, however Alpha and Omega Ministries as missionary zealots don’t have to appeal to this high standard of intellectualism. So what exactly is James’ problem this time around? Let’s see:

In essence, James White is appealing to the fallacious argument of appeal to ad ignorantium. Summarily, he’s trying to expound the concept that Muslims believe in a self contradicting tenet. This being, that in Islam, while we believe God’s word cannot become corrupted, we also believe that “God’s word” did come corrupt. For example, we say the Qur’an is the word of Allaah and therefore it cannot be changed or corrupted, yet in the same voice, supposedly we claim that the Injil and Tawrah, which are also the words of Allaah, have been altered. The terms which James is trying to use are, Tahrif ul Lafzi (corruption of written words) and Tahrif ul M’anavi (corruption of meaning).

What James White and his missionary zealot friends try to assert is that Muslims have not only a contradicting belief, but because of this belief it is the Qur’an which is wrong and the Bible is the true word of God.

Introduction:
The Islamic belief is that God protects His revelations from becoming corrupt, altered and interfered with. In this regard, we do not hold the belief that God’s words can succumb to corruption, alteration and human interference. The Qur’an substantiates this claim:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ‌ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian. – Qur’aan : 15 : 9.

Therefore we must correct James’ assertion that we believe God’s words can be corrupted by man, the Qur’an is clear that God would not allow this. It is the belief of all Muslims and if one did not know this belief (you now kn0w) that it is impermissible for a Muslim to believe that God’s words can become corrupted. With that in mind what about the verses in the Qur’an which mention the corruption of the previous scriptures such as the Injil, Tawrah and Zabur?

Corruption of God’s Words:
There are many verses in the Qur’an which indicate to us that God’s wahy (revelation) has been skewered by the hands of man, both literal words changes and contextual alterations (interpretations):

يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ ۙ وَنَسُوا حَظًّا مِمَّا ذُكِّرُ‌وا بِهِ ۚ وَلَا تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَىٰ خَائِنَةٍ مِنْهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مِنْهُمْ ۖ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاصْفَحْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِي
They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. – Qur’an : 5 : 13.

وَإِنَّ مِنْهُمْ لَفَرِ‌يقًا يَلْوُونَ أَلْسِنَتَهُمْ بِالْكِتَابِ لِتَحْسَبُوهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللَّـهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ
And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah. And they speak untruth about Allah while they know. – Qur’an : 3 : 78.

مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ‌ مُسْمَعٍ وَرَ‌اعِنَا لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ ۚ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانْظُرْ‌نَا لَكَانَ خَيْرً‌ا لَهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَـٰكِنْ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّـهُ بِكُفْرِ‌هِمْ فَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا
Among the Jews are those who distort words from their [proper] usages and say, “We hear and disobey” and “Hear but be not heard” and “Ra’ina,” twisting their tongues and defaming the religion. And if they had said [instead], “We hear and obey” and “Wait for us [to understand],” it would have been better for them and more suitable. But Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. – Qur’an : 4 : 46.

We seemingly have arrived at a theological impasse. On one end, we read above that God would protect His revelations and now we’re reading that God’s revelations were altered by men, corrupted, their meanings and letters distorted. Yet, before we jump to conclusions, we have to analyse what we have attained so far:

(1) God’s words cannot become corrupted.
(2) God’s words did become corrupted.

There seems to be a clear disconnect here. Something’s missing from this puzzle and we know what it is. Context. Did God’s word in itself become corrupted? And this is a question we must take seriously into consideration. What we see from the above verses is that there are two cases for God’s word apparently becoming corrupted:

(1) Interpretative alterations.
(2) Textual alterations.

With this in mind, let’s examine both cases.

Corruption of Scripture: Interpretative Alterations:
It is true as we read from the Qur’aan: 5:13, 4:46, 3:78 that God’s revelations were reinterpreted. These interpretations followed the folly desires of men, in some areas to abrogate God’s law to suit material wants and desires, for power, even for illicit pleasures:

Their gist is that the Jews were habitually used to issuing religious edicts as desired by the people, either for the benefit of relatives or to satisfy their greed for money, property, influence, and recognition. This had become a common custom particularly in matters involving punishments that they would, if the crime was committed by an influential person, change the severe punishment of the Torah into an ordinary one. It is this behaviour, part of theirs which has been described in the first verse (41) in the following words: يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَوَاضِعِهِ (They displace the words after their having been placed properly).

Now the people who were used to making the severe punishments of the Torah easy for their clients by changing them saw an opportunity for themselves whereby they could take such shady matters to the Holy Prophet {saw} and make him their judge or arbitrator. The dual advantage they saw in it was that they would reap the benefits of all easy and light rules of Islamic law, while at the same time, they would not have to commit the crime of altering the Torah. But, here too, they had their crookedness at work as they would hold on to their decision of taking their case to him until such time that they succeeded in finding out beforehand through some source or ruse as to the actual verdict which would be delivered in their case when presented. Then, if they found this verdict matching their wishes, they would make him their arbitrator and have him decide their case. If it happened to be contrary to their wishses, they would leave it at that.- Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan : Mufti Rafi Uthmani, pages 164- 165.

However, God did guard the message (risalah) of the revelations (wahy). God sent messengers, prophets to correct the wrong interpretations by these pseudo religious scholars:

إِذْ أَرْ‌سَلْنَا إِلَيْهِمُ اثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ فَقَالُوا إِنَّا إِلَيْكُمْ مُرْ‌سَلُونَ
When We sent to them two but they denied them, so We strengthened them with a third, and they said, “Indeed, we are messengers to you.” – Qur’an : Suratul Yasin (36) : 14.

In fact, the New Testament, confirms that Messengers were sent to the people who tried to alter His message through new interpretations:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. – Bible : Matthew (23) : 37.

So as we can see, the Qur’an is correct, God did protect the meaning of His message, until newer revelation was sent. For example the Qur’an abrogates the Injil as the Injil abrogated the Tawrah, and if the case arose where persons were distorting the meaning of a scripture or Prophet’s message, we read that God sent apostles, messengers, Prophets in some instances to correct the people (see 36:14 above).

Corruption of Scripture: Textual Alterations:
However, now we’ve arrived at the crux of the matter, textual corruption. As Muslims we assert that God’s message is preserved by God (as seen above, contextually), but what about textually? We read earlier that God protects His message in totality, that is, textually and contextually (meanings, interpretations). However as Muslims, we also do say that we do not believe in the Old Testaments of the Jews and Christians nor do we believe in the New Testaments of the Christians as being valid, because we assert they are not the words of God. Since they are not the words of God, they can indeed become corrupted and God did not promise to guard the works of man, but only His words.

For example, in the case of the Old Testament, where missionary zealots such as Sam Shamoun and James White try to propose, that their Torah is the Torah from Allaah, we have to correct that appeal to ignorance. The Qur’an does not say that the Old Testament is the word of God, in fact, we read above (5:13) where the Qur’an calls the Torah/ Old Testament of the Jews and Christians as being interpolations from the tongues and minds of men. It is in this regard that the Islamic belief is not that God’s word was corrupted, but that people wrote words and then claimed them to be God’s:

فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُ‌وا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.  – Qur’an : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.

With that being said, we must come to the understanding that when the Qur’an says that the message became corrupted, that is textually, it refers to those who put aside God’s revelation and in its stead, replaced the void with their own sayings, beliefs and propaganda. One example is of the Christian New Testament. The Qur’an says that a scripture (Injil) was given to Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him):

وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِ‌هِمْ بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْ‌يَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَ‌اةِ ۖ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنْجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ‌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَ‌اةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِلْمُتَّقِي
And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. – Qur’an : 5: 46.

However Christians by themselves prove the Islamic belief of textual corruption as displayed above:

(1) Muslims believe that Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him) was given a revelation by God called the Injil.
(2) Christians believe that inspired scripture about Jesus originated with the apostles of Christ.

Therefore the Christian argument in reality disproves itself. They have now failed on two fronts. Firstly, the premise that Muslims contradict themselves when they say the Bible is corrupted is proven false as we do not believe the Bible is the word of God. We don’t believe it is the word of God for namely two reasons:

(1) Christians assert it’s from the apostles and not from the Prophet Jesus (may God be pleased with him).
(2)
Christians assert the revelation (wahy) isn’t revelation verbatim from God, which is what Muslims believe, but that the Bible is an inspired word from God, through the words of men.

Secondly, since they have made significant distinctions with what the Muslim concept of revelation is and what their scripture is actually comprised of, then they have shown that the Bible (New Testament) is not the Injil and as it follows, the Injil is not the Bible.

Conclusion:
Therefore, we must come to a logical conclusion. When missionary zealots such as Sam Shamoun and James White, along with their propganda team at AI, state that the Qur’an is wrong for saying the Bible is corrupted because Muslims believe the word of God can’t be corrupted, we must educate them. It is in this light, that our response should be, as such:

  • Muslims believe the word of God cannot be corrupted.
  • We believe the Bible is corrupted because it is not the word of God.

We do not believe it is the word of God because:

  • Christians do not believe the Bible is the verbatim word of God, but inspired ideas from God through the words of men.

In conclusion:

  • Therefore the Bible is corrupted because it is not the word of God and as such Muslims do not believe in it.

What was wrong with James White’s missionary belief, is that they think the Bible is the word of God and therefore we should accept this belief and as a consequence adhere to it, however as displayed above they don’t believe in the kind of scripture we do, they make a clear distinction between the Injil which we believe God revealed to Isa (Jesus, may God be pleased with him), while they believe in a scripture inspired by God, worded by the minds of men, which manifested after Jesus had walked the earth.

May God guide those who appeal to the fallacy of ad ignorantium.

See more:
Inspired Incoherencies: The Corruption of the Bible.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

The Dishonesty and Abhorrent Behaviour of James White

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

As of late, James White, known for intellectual dishonesty:

 

and his hate tirade against Islam by promoting the beliefs of his friends who abuse and insult Muslims:

Has been tweeting me, which anyone can view here. Unfortunately, this article does not edify the great talents of such a person revered in Christian circles, what you are about to see are messages from a man who berates, degrades and spams others, while refusing to engage in honest and academic discourse. Our journey begins with James White when after being tagged in a few of my tweets, decided to discuss this tweet, which he sent me:

What is most surprising is that James White displayed to me some of the most ridiculous and disrespectful public decorum from any academic that I have ever been privy to. The tweets below are to be read bottom – up for chronological order, what one can see is that I replied to his tweet about the video and within 3 minutes, I was forced to respond to his change of topic, where he began to speak of an earlier tweet aligning him with his ally in bigotry, Sam Shamoun.

In fact, I am publicly apologizing on behalf of James White because of the intellectual suicide that he had to portray towards his followers. His zealot provoked response besides changing the topic to Sam Shamoun, was to quote for me, the verse in Greek which I was referring to in Galations. I find it abhorrent, that his response to my rebuttal of his video is to simply quote my reference. To put it into a layman’s perspective, let’s assume for a moment I send a video to James about apples. He says he disagrees, he prefers oranges, in response, I send him a picture of an apple. Me, sending him a picture of an apple neither forwards or benefits the discussion, but what it does and quite well, is to divert the topic at hand and thus giving him an option to say, “Yes I responded”. When in fact he hasn’t responded to the claim but merely created an excuse to digress.

I wonder what his response would have been, had I decided to simply reply to his messages with ayats from the Qur’aan? This is what we refer to as missionary self defense, instead of pursuing a discussion, the missionary defaults into “self preach mode”. Essentially, don’t expect a logical, rational or sincere response, their only goal at this point is to throw scripture in the hopes that it inspires you to accept their point of view. Clearly this didn’t work, so he decided to attack a straw man, by completely dropping the discussion and reverting to attacking me for associating him with Sam Shamoun’s aides:

From this tweet onwards, he refuses to respond to my continuing discussion on the video he sent me, I attempted many times to divert him from his emotional tirade, to no avail. Apparently he has a problem being associated with Sam Shamoun’s friends, even more so, to the extent he’s willing to abandon a discussion he started on the justice of God, which I did remind him of numerous times:

As you can see, I made it abundantly clear I wanted to finish our initial discussion on the link which he sent, however, this led him to spamming me again, leading to him arguing about his friendships. I really am disappointed in Christian academia, if James White that is, does indeed represent the best of Christian intellectualism. Not only was his behaviour petulant and disrespectful, he neglected to discuss the topic which he offered to engage me in and what was most shocking was his decision to talk about friends rather than God. I suppose he appeals to his own level of intellectualism, which from the discourse seems to be of the kindergarten level, playground chat, arguing about friends. If I wanted to fight about my friends, I would have gone to a friend, rather I like an adult decided to accept James’ challenge for an academic discourse and well he decided friends mattered more.

The next tweet he sends after me reminding him above (“Silliness? You tweeted a video, did you not? Asked me to discuss and instead you changed the topic to an unsavory tweet”), was that decided he didn’t want to continue talking about Jesus or about his friends. Rather he abandoned discussion all together:

In conclusion, I expected better from a man who holds himself in such high esteem, I disagree with his poor ethics and his later insults (shown below).

As a Muslim, I was personally quite elated to have experienced, the self prophesied, leading “Christian Apologetic” fleeing after two tweets about his erratic and inconsistent emotional tirades about friendships. It indeed did please me to see that while James White wants to talk about “friends” as young children do, I was more happy to see the response which was projected unto this website by what I suppose are his twitter followers. We’ve had a spike in traffic due to the twitter discussion, with many comments being posted on some of this site’s articles. I’d like to thank James White for demonstrating pseudo intellectualism, poor academic skills and horrendous public decorum, his actions only served to better the Islamic community and sad to say disparage his own character.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

The God that was Killed

 Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

One of the basic attributes that defines God,  is that He has no beginning and no end. In fact, every being that has a beginning and end is created—Consequently, God is not created as He is not characterized by these descriptions or any thing whatsoever that exists in the material world (or the non material). Furthermore, just by reading the title of this article–a question might cross a person’s mind: Can anyone literary kill and murder God? Obviously not—imagine everyday a person attempting to assassinate the Almighty—a weird thing to happen, no?

Hence in short, let me put this straightforward: Any entity that fails to cope with this criterion of having no beginning and no end, is definitely not divine.

So we have a test —let’s simply judge Jesus {as} by this.

(1) Was Jesus created?
Yes! He was formed and shaped in his mother’s womb.

(2) Did Jesus have a beginning and evidently an end?
Yes!

(3) Can anyone kill God?
No!

The results for testing Jesus’ divinity is clear, it’s a negative.

God loves us–He killed Himself for us!

Moreover, the Bible tells us that Jesus, on the way to the crucifixion scene, when he was taken to receive his sentence that Roman soldiers insulted him by (a) mocking him (b) spitting on him and (c) beating him:

 “And then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and knelt in front of him and mocked him. “Hail, king of the Jews!” they said. They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again.” – Bible : Matthew (27) : 30-31.

Is this an Almighty God who was allegedly mocked, spit on and beaten on his head numerous times?! I beg to differ.

Now a Christian might say—why not? God out of love and humbleness did that—He became like one of us, he suffered and lived as a human being—this actually just shows the wide care He has toward us and who are we to judge God?

Indeed a lot of Christians use this desperate argument to defend their faith but yet I don’t perceive how love and care are understood when God was allegedly spit on? When he ran and hided to avoid being stoned? Is this love? Do we see affection by allegedly seeing God hiding and seeking refuge from his own creation? How is that displaying “love”?

In fact, Jesus according to the Bible, discarded faith in God while in distress, to the extent he uttered words of amounting to God’s abandonment of his own son:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” – Bible : Matthew (27) : 46.

Jesus is accusing God of forsaking Him, that is to abandon Him. Does God show mercy through abandoning his allegedly own son? In fact, CARM’s website on this very subject matters, says it was God’s obligated duty to abandon Jesus in his time of need:

It is possible that at some moment on the cross, when Jesus became sin on our behalf, that God the Father, in a sense, turned His back upon the Son.  It says in Hab. 1:13 that God is too pure to look upon evil.  Therefore, it is possible that when Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), that the Father, spiritually, turned away.  At that time, the Son may have cried out.

With this in mind, the Christian belief that God the Father abandoned His Son because God considered His Son at this point in time to be evil and therefore turned away from Him, is not only a telling tale of theological absurdity, it’s abhorrent to think that God abandoned Himself and that God saw Himself as inherently the epitome of evil.

If it is that God can choose to be stoned, killed or humiliated then this argument presents the case of God doing other acts, antithesis to His nature—if He would choose that—He can choose to punish the righteous and reward the evils— He can choose to become Satan—or maybe He can choose not to become God anymore—all based on that simple analysis and  awkward, incomprehensible reasoning.

وَرَبُّنَا الرَّحْمَٰنُ الْمُسْتَعَانُ عَلَىٰ مَا تَصِفُونَ
“And our Lord is the Beneficent Allah, Whose help is sought against what you ascribe (to Him) –  Qur’aan : 21 : 112.

Article adapted from site author, Br. Alexus’ works.

and God knows best.
[wa Allaahu Alam].

Refutation: The Quran’s inaccurate description of the Trinity

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Chessie Edwards love appealing to Sam Shamoun, he doesn’t have room to think for himself, his entire website is literally a text form for the long winded and ignorant speeches that Sam gives on ABN Sat. Almost every other argument he presents is verbatim from the mouth of Sam with the addition of, “I’m an Ex-Muslim”, as if that phrase adds any additional validity to his inane claims. Neither Sam nor Chessie are well educated in Christian theological history, at best they are internet scholars, if Google or Wikipedia ever goes offline we won’t be able to hear a single new argument. To be quite honest, none of Sam’s arguments are new either, just read a few of William Muir’s books or Abraham Geiger’s works or some of Raymond Lull’s writings against Islam and you’ve pretty much heard all the missionary rants. Most missionaries enjoy stating that the Qur’aan got the trinity wrong. Let’s refute this claim and in doing so, refute Sam as well.

The Qur’aan says:

And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

Christians assert that they don’t take Mary as a God, therefore the Qur’aans claim is wrong. However a simple but substantial and formidable refutation to this is to prove one of two cases:

(1) To show atleast one Christian aligned sect which engaged in Mary worship or took Mary as a God.
(2) To show where a majority of Christian sects worship Mary or took Mary as a God.

The premise the Qur’aan operates under, or the modus operandi, the operational term, deities, i.e. Gods [إِلَـٰهَيْنِ]. In Islamic theology, to take something or someone as a God, beside Allaah is termed Shirk. There are many ways to commit Shirk, it can be through worship, through seeking intercession, by praying to someone beside God, or even attributing God’s attributes to anything other than God. For example if God is All Knowing, but I say that Mary is all knowing, then in this case I would have committed shirk. With this in mind, can I demonstrate anywhere in Christian theology where Shirk [associating God’s attributes to Mary] occurs?

Proving: (1) To show atleast one Christian aligned sect which engaged in Mary worship or took Mary as a God.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The existence of the obscure sect of the Collyridians, whom St. Epiphanius (d. 403) denounces for their sacrificial offering of cakes to Mary, may fairly be held to prove that even before the Council of Ephesus there was a popular veneration for the Virgin Mother which threatened to run extravagant lengths.” This by itself proves my first premise, that there was a group of Christians, the Collyridians of whom engaged in rampant worship of Mary. As famous Catholic speaker Patrick Madrid as defined them:

The heresy of the Collyridians was very simple: They worshiped Mary.

Whether or not Sam Shamoun or Chessie Edwards considers the Collyridians as Christian does not matter. They are seen as a heretical Christian sect and as such, their worship of Mary complies with the Qur’aanic claim.

Proving: (2) To show where a majority of Christian sects worship Mary or took Mary as a God.

What’s unknown to most missionary zealots is the clear cut Mary worship involved in today’s prominent Christian sects, i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism. It might seem odd, or unclear to most Christians, but the focal point of Christendom revolves around sin. In this light, we have to recall the Immaculate Conception, this refers to the conception of Mary. For Jesus to have been born sinless, he had to be rid of the original sin and to be born free of the original sin, you cannot be born through the womb of a woman. However this problem is solved in Christian theology by God granting Mary a special mercy or blessing, where she is pure and sinless and thus does not carry on the original sin to her child, Jesus.

However, the early Christian church in inventing the idea of the Immaculate Conception, attributed God like features to Mary:

The salutation of the angel Gabriel — chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.

Her state is unique, supernatural and godlike. This, coming from the Catholic Encyclopedia, as evidence from the Bible of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Yet, from the Bible, they are implying her soul is like the “soul of God”, they are in essence comparing her to God or attributing to her, God like features. This constitutes Shirk, thus proving point (2). Yet it does not end there, the polytheistic quotes continue:

she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures. – Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140.

To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate. – Carmina Nisibena.

Conclusion:

Seeing as both points are proven above, then the claim that the Qur’aan asserts, that of Mary being taken as a God in Christendom has been proven valid and to be truthful. Sam’s biggest claim to refute the Qur’aanic statement was that Mary had been attributed to the Trinity, yet this was not the Qur’aanic assertion, the Qur’aanic statement had to do with Mary being taken as a God. Since the claim has been proven true, it rests upon Sam Shamoun to either publicly correct himself for his doctrinal error or as I expect, for him to deny the evidences and ignore this refutation.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Bible: Inspired Incoherencies.

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

One of the primary arguments that Missionaries use is that the Bible is an inspired word of God, meaning God didn’t dictate to the unknown authors what to write, but inspired these authors to write a synoptic (general, but cohesive) story about the worldly ministry of Jesus. The problem with this though is that most Christians don’t exactly read all of the Bible. For example, a story which occurs in Matthew would be read and the reference for that similar story is acknowledged (in the footnotes), whether it be in Mark or Luke, however after one has read the story in Matthew and acting under the impression that it would be redundant to read the same story in another Gospel, Christians may simply become content with having just read the story in Matthew, while foregoing the reading of the other Gospels. This is problematic because Christians are indoctrinated with the impression that synoptic means, “recalling the same story, albeit from an alternate viewpoint”. While linguistically this definition is accurate, it behoves me to remind our Missionary friends as well as Evangelical inerrantists that while Mark, Matthew and Luke (I’m excluding John because it gives an entirely variant viewpoint all together) in some way do narrate similar stories their narratives are often conflicting if not incohesive and inconclusive. What we must come to realise, if we truly are seeking the truth in religion is that the Synoptic Gospels aren’t fully Synoptic, rather they present a myopic view of events surrounding the person and life of Jesus, the Messiah of Israel.

One of the more popular examples is the conflicting end of the Gospel of “Mark”, Christians often assume that such a conflict does not affect their doctrine therefore it is useless to discuss it. However, it does indeed affect their doctrine, if we agree with the presumption that God did inspire these 4 writers to complete a synoptic narrative of Jesus’ ministry where we could expect missing elements of one of the narratives but have the answer in another narrative, how could we account for one narrative that’s conflicting in itself. That therefore, presents a doctrinal problem, which manuscript of a select Gospel, did God actually inspire? We could have over 30 versions of Mark, 15 with the short conclusion and 15 with the longer conclusion, which 15 did God inspire? If we take this problem and replicate it among the 4 Gospels we are introduced to an even greater question, which group out of all of these manuscripts actually consist of the inspired word of God? To understand this problem, let’s take a look at Prof. Bruce Metzger’s analysis of the Ethiopic Manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark:

Until the latter part of the twentieth century, the status of the last 12 verses of Mark in this version was in doubt, arising from conflicting statements made concerning the evidence of the same manuscripts. Now, however, on the basis of the personal examination of photographs of the ending of the second Gospel in 65 Ethiopic manuscripts, belonging to about 30 different collections, Metzger has ascertained that all of them have the text of Mark 16.9-20. In addition, what is known as the “shorter ending” of Mark, found in several Greek and Syriac manuscripts, occurs in many Ethiopic manuscripts between 16.8 and 9. Subsequently, William F. Macomber of the Hill Monastic Manuscript Microfilm Library at Collegeville, Minnesota, examined microfilms of 129 additional Ethiopic manuscripts of Mark. Of the total of 194 (65 + 129) manuscripts, all but two (which are lectionaries) have Mark 16.9-20, while 131 contain both the shorter ending and the longer ending. At the end of the Ethiopic version of Acts chapter 28, there is a directive to readers to consult Paul’s letters and the Acts of Paul, as well as information about Paul’s further activities in Rome. This addition originated as a gloss or colophon that was later integrated into the main text.”  – (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, pp 120-121.)

Prof. Bruce has clearly outlined a major problem for inerrantists and missionary zealots, what started as a colophon (an inscription placed usually at the end of a book, giving facts about its publication), became inspired scripture after a change of hands, through numerous scribes, eventually making its way into the mass population of Christendom. His statements are profound, for when missionary zealots propose that it is absurd that the word of God could have changed while so many people were in possession of it, we really must educate them. Clearly, as stated above, we have extant evidence of this happening, with various codices and manuscripts numbering more than 100, while in mass circulation having two varying endings. While the proposition of such corruption may be laughable to many missionary zealots, the empirical evidence is quite clear, the delusion that this could not happen, is smashed by the manuscripts themselves. Prof. Metzger continues:

Scholars differ on the question of the date of origin of the Ethiopic version; some argue for a date as early as the fourth century, while others attribute it to the sixth or seventh century. Opinion also differs as to whether the translators made use of a Greek or Syriac original. In any case, it is a curious fact that in the Epistles of Paul the version frequently agrees with p46 with little or no other support. The version also shows evidence of later contamination from Coptic and Arabic texts. Thus, the Ethiopic text eventually became a conglomerate with quite disparate elements standing side by side. Analyses of the earlier form of the Ethiopic version disclose a mixed type of text, predominantly Byzantine in complexion but with occasional agreement with certain early Greek witnesses (p46 and B) against all other witnesses. The little that is known of this version as far as the New Testament is concerned (the Old Testament has been studied more thoroughly) suggests that it deserves far more attention than it has received. The earliest known manuscript, a codex of the four Gospels, dates from the thirteenth century; most other manuscripts are of the fifteenth and succeeding centuries. – (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, pp 120-121.)

In summation, what we’ve read from the above excerpt is that further corruption took place due to Coptic Christian and Arabic Christian transmission of the manuscripts of the New Testament Gospels. Wherein he seals the problem of the manuscript corruption with these words:

“Thus, the Ethiopic text eventually became a conglomerate with quite disparate elements standing side by side. Analyses of the earlier form of the Ethiopic version disclose a mixed type of text, predominantly Byzantine in complexion but with occasional agreement with certain early Greek witnesses (p46 and B) against all other witnesses.”

I personally look forward to the refutation of this article by missionary zealots, where they’ll have only one of two conclusions to arrive at:

(1) Deny the above evidence by reinterpreting the corruption as invalid stories by liberal scholars who lack faith.
(2) Concur with the corruption but say it doesn’t affect doctrine therefore it does not matter.

To refute position (1), we can simply question their logic and reason. If a person examines two sheets of paper and notices one is unlike the other, does that make such a person, a liberal atheist who only pretends to be Christian? Simple observation and determining a conclusive understanding based on one’s observation equates someone to being a fraudulent Christian?

To refute position (2), the very fact that Christians presuppose that God inspired these men to write, not by dictation but by their own ideas, implies that God wanted the variations to occur and thus sought to confuse rather than guide the masses. If God wanted to guide humanity, then he would have guarded it, protected it. We read from the Old Testament how much emphasis God placed on preserving the Torah:

“Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.” – Bible : Deuteronomy (31) : 26.

Protected with great extravagance and attention to detail:

When the camp is to move, Aaron and his sons are to go in and take down the shielding curtain and put it over the ark of the covenant law. Then they are to cover the curtain with a durable leather, spread a cloth of solid blue over that and put the poles in place.- Bible : Numbers (4) : 5-6.

Furthermore to state that God wanted variations to occur is also in direct contradiction to the Bible in itself:

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints. – Bible : 1 Corinthians (14) : 33.

As I have demonstrated above, we can conclude that either possible argument against Biblical manuscript corruption is not easily disproved, but also irrational and illogical. Only a person of great arrogance and ignorance would continue to contest such a simply demonstrable fact. If we forego the manuscript corruption, can we actually find incoherencies within the Gospels themselves? Yes, however normally at this stage we’d encounter counting and genealogical problems from the Old Testament and not the Gospels, such as:

And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. – Bible : Numbers (25) : 9.

Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. – Bible : 1 Corinthians (10) : 8.

Or perhaps genealogical errors:

And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. – Bible : Genesis (36) : 11.

These were dukes of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn son of Esau; duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz, Duke Korah, duke Gatam, and duke Amalek: these are the dukes that came of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these were the sons of Adah. – Bible : Genesis (36) : 15 – 16.

The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek. – Bible : 1 Chronicles (1) : 36.

However, these are found in the Old Testament and while some Christians may profess they believe in this Old Testament, they are quick to to deny it’s applicability in relation to the New Testament which is based on the life of their God, Jesus. With that said, can we find similar inconsistencies, based on the doctrine of Christians? Indeed we can, to begin with, the Bible’s epistles are generally discussions by Church leaders on heretics and developing beliefs among the masses, usually they contain directives supposedly based on the life of Jesus, however these directives, although meant for the people, directly contradict the Gospels in themselves, leaving one with an air of confusion. For example, this simple directive in Titus 3:9 :-

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

Seems like a simple directive, not hard to achieve, relatively good advice, except that the Bible here is calling itself unprofitable and useless. To begin with, it directs Christians to avoid genealogies, yet when we read Matthew 1 and Luke 3, we have entire chapters devoted to them:

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiahthe son of David, the son of Abraham:

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4 Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6 and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14 Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud,
15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

A bit ironic isn’t it? Feel free to read Luke 3 here. Although it is well known that Paul’s epistles were authored before the Gospels were written, many missionary zealots tend to argue that the Gospels were written by the disciples themselves. Given that Paul’s epistles were authored between 50 CE and 65 CE, you’d think that atleast one disciple, apostle, presbyter, anyone really (acting under the premise that the 4 Gospels did exist at this time) would have seen this major and blatant inconsistency in New Testament directives. How could the Bible in essence, condemn genealogies (which contradict within themselves) but then have two areas where genealogies are listed, far worse where the New Testament even begins with one? It really does leave a lot of questions unanswered, but what it does do is prove the historical claim that the epistles were written first and then the gospels, by persons who had yet to place them together as a scripture, thus leaving much room for errors.

Are there instances where Jesus argued about the law? Why yes, there are many, but for the sake of brevity, let’s look at one instance, Matthew 22: 41-42, 45 :-

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,  “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”….. If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”

Notice, Jesus in this instance approaches and asks the Pharisees about laws and genealogies, not only contradicting the directive in Titus 3:9, but whosoever wrote Matthew 22, really had not seen Matthew 1, as it argues Jesus is the son of David:

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Whereas Matthew 22 argues that Jesus is not the son of David, but the Lord of David, Matthew 1 argues that Jesus is the son of David and has no mention of him having lordship over anyone. It’s one mistake to have an epistle contradict a gospel, but to have a gospel contradicting itself, let alone the very first verse of the New Testament? Highly appalling to say the least.

Thus far, I’ve demonstrated inconsistencies:

(1) From within the manuscripts.
(2) From within New Testament Laws and Directives.
(3) From within the same Gospel.

What is left to demonstrate now, is the incoherencies from within the the synoptic narrative, this being between one Gospel and another:

When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” So Jesus went with him. – Bible : Mark (5) : 21-24.

In this version, the girl is dying, she has yet to die, so Jesus is asked to come to heal her so that she will continue to live, Jesus accepts the proposition and proceeds to heal her. However in this version, the girl is already dead and the father asks Jesus to make her live:

While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.” Jesus got up and went with him, and so did his disciples.  – Bible : Matthew (9) : 18-19.

So we are presented with two conflicting narratives. Is the girl dying and awaiting Jesus to cure her, or has she already died and waiting for Jesus to raise her from the dead? Which narrative is true? Which one did God inspire? If I am to believe that Jesus did a miracle, which miracle in this case did he do? What’s worse is that even the Bible’s narration of this story was prohibited by Jesus, after he has cured the girl according to Mark’s gospel, Jesus gives a clear directive:

He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat. – Bible : Mark (5) : 43.

If Jesus did in fact speak those words, and he himself according to Christian theology is God, how can we explain, that the God who inspired two (2) Gospel authors to write about this story which more than 1 billion people have read, also commanded for it to remain secret?

In conclusion, I’ve demonstrated inconsistencies:

(1) From within the manuscripts.
(2) From within New Testament Laws and Directives.
(3) From within the same Gospel.
(4) From within the same Gospel’s chapter.
(5) From within the Synoptic Narrative.

If you are a Christian and you’ve read this article, the onus is on you to take the challenge further. Your faith here isn’t being demeaned or manipulated, but what is being done to it, is a critical examination of Biblical Gospel Truth. If you are willing to concede that these are errors and are willing to confirm in your heart and mind that you cannot accept that your faith’s foundations are this inconsistent, I encourage you to take a sincere look at the religion of Islam, which some 1400 and more years ago, from within the true word of God (The Qur’aan), speaking on the Bible, has said:

لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُ‌وا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
(So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. ) – Qur’aan : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: The Quran’s View of the Holy Bible Revisited Pt. 2

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Continuing from part one, let’s see what other faulty arguments against Islam that Sam’s invented this week:

The second problem with Williams’ appeal to Asad’s perversion of Q. 5:48 is that it ignores the immediate context of the passage which explains what is meant by the Quran coming to confirm and safeguard the Scriptures before it. Here is the immediate context, once again, in order to help the readers follow along with our exegesis:

This is a very shocking opening statement, what is bothersome about this is that Sam clearly displays intellectual fraud, anyone who has ever done a class in hermeneutics, literature, communication studies, academic writing would have you know that each and every translation from an original language to another is an interpretation based upon the methodology and understanding of the original text by the translator. However Sam decides that the translation he disagrees with is a perversion, that however as seen in part one, does not help his case as even that translation, which he appeals to confirms what Asad’s translation says.

I have to ask a direct question to Sam Shamoun, under what pretenses are you certified to do an exegesis of the Qur’aan? What have you formally studied under Ulum al Qur’aan? May we have your degree? Your Ijaza? Some form of academic approval to do Qur’aanic exegesis? Perhaps you can demonstrate for us your skill in Arabic, I’m sure you know very well classical Arabic and Arabic etymology. With that in mind, may we also know what form of certification you have to do exegesis of the Bible? It would be our pleasure for you to make public your certification, otherwise Sam Shamoun is not qualified to do such things, and as such his work is not an exegesis, rather it’s what we term eisegesis.

eisegesis – The interpretation of a word or passage by reading into it one’s own ideas.

Eisegesis is what uneducated laymen do to scripture. Eisegesis is the anti-thesis to exegesis. Ironically he has appealed to exegetical fallacies in part one, three of which I highlighted, namely:

(1) The Word Fallacy.
(2) The Reading Between the Lines Fallacy.
(3) The Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

You can find these fallacies through various books, however I prefer to use Exegetical Fallacies: Common Mistakes Every Student of the Bible Must Avoid – Professor William D. Barrick. Sam goes on to reference Qur’aan Surah 5, Ayat 43 – 45, I however am using a translation variant from his, as it’s suited for modern English readers as translated by a scholar of Ulum al Qur’aan, Mufti Taq Uthmani [db]:

How do they ask you to judge while the Torah is with them, having the ruling of Allaah? Still, they turn away, after all that. They are no believers. Surely We have sent down the Torah, in which there was guidance and light by which the prophets, who submitted themselves to Allaah , used to judge for the Jews, and (so did) the men of Allaah and the men of knowledge, because they were ordained to protect the Book of Allaah, and they stood guard over it. So, (O Jews of today), do not fear people. Fear Me, and do not take a paltry price for My verses. Those who do not judge according to what Allaah has sent down are the disbelievers. We prescribed for them therein: A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear and a tooth for a tooth; and for wounds, an equal retaliation. Then, if one forgives it, that will be expiation for him. Those who do not judge according to what Allaah has sent down, they are the unjust.

Notice, I’ve highlighted the areas Sam has also highlighted. He’s desperately trying to draw the conclusion that there was no need for the Qur’aan’s revelation or Muhammad’s {saw} judgement  because the Qur’aan is saying that the Torah was still the modus operandi of the day when it come to judicial implementation. This however is a fanciful generalization. Refer to the Qur’aanic quotation above, it clearly states that the Torah which the Jews had contained a ruling from Allaah and it goes on to explicitly state what that ruling was: An eye for an eye…..etc, hence the Qur’aan is rebuking the Jews for knowing what the ruling of Allaah was, while they neglected to implement it. Hence why the Qur’aan states:

So, (O Jews of today), do not fear people. Fear Me, and do not take a paltry price for My verses. Those who do not judge according to what Allaah has sent down are the disbelievers.

The following excerpt explains the verses before the above ayat:

Their gist is that the Jews were habitually used to issuing religious edicts as desired by the people, either for the benefit of relatives or to satisfy their greed for money, property, influence, and recognition. This had become a common custom particularly in matters involving punishments that they would, if the crime was committed by an influential person, change the severe punishment of the Torah into an ordinary one. It is this behaviour, part of theirs which has been described in the first verse (41) in the following words: يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَوَاضِعِهِ (They displace the words after their having been placed properly).

Now the people who were used to making the severe punishments of the Torah easy for their clients by changing them saw an opportunity for themselves whereby they could take such shady matters to the Holy Prophet {saw} and make him their judge or arbitrator. The dual advantage they saw in it was that they would reap the benefits of all easy and light rules of Islamic law, while at the same time, they would not have to commit the crime of altering the Torah. But, here too, they had their crookedness at work as they would hold on to their decision of taking their case to him until such time that they succeeded in finding out beforehand through some source or ruse as to the actual verdict which would be delivered in their case when presented. Then, if they found this verdict matching their wishes, they would make him their arbitrator and have him decide their case. If it happened to be contrary to their wishses, they would leave it at that.- Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan : Mufti Rafi Uthmani, pages 164- 165.

This presents the precedence for verse 44 and onwards:

By saying:  إِنَّا أَنْزَلْنَا التَّوْرَ‌اةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ‌ (Surely We have sent down the Torah, having guidance and light therein), the hint given is that the abrogation of the Shari’ah of Torah at that point of time is not because of any shortcoming of the Torah itself but it has been done rather because of the need to change injunctions with the change of time. Otherwise the Torah too is a Book revealed by the same Revealer.

After that is was said: that is,  ۚ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُوا  “We had revealed the Torah so that, until its Shari’ah has not been abrogated, all incoming prophets and their deputies, the men of Allaah and the Ulama shall all decide and rule in accordance with this Torah making it the working law of their time“. After that, it was said لِلَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالرَّ‌بَّانِيُّونَ وَالْأَحْبَارُ‌ بِمَا اسْتُحْفِظُوا مِنْ كِتَابِ اللَّـهِ وَكَانُوا عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَاءَ (because they were entrusted with the protection of the Book of Allaah and they stood guard over it). It means that these prophets and their two kinds of deputies, the Ulama and the Masha’ikh (Men of Knowledge and Men of Allaah) were responsible for enforcing the laws of the Torah because Almighty Allaah had entrusted them with the protection of the Torah and they had given up the pledge that they would guard it.

Up to this point, the text was referring to the Torah as Divine Scripture and guidance and light which was enforced and guarded by the Prophets, and their deputies among guides and scholars. Then, the focus turns on to the contemporary Jews who have been censured for not having guarded the Torah as their elders did. They acted crookedly when they started changing its injunctions, for example, the glad tidings of the coming of the Last among Prophets, Muhammad al Mustafa, may the peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him, was mentioned clearly in the Torah and the Jews were asked to believe in him. But, rather than believe in him as required, they became hostile to him. Also given here is the reason what prompted them to do so. It was love for power and love for money. They knew that the Holy Prophet {saw} was a true prophet of Allaah but they balked at the thought of following him because they were taken as leaders among their people, common Jews who followed them. Now if they were to embrace Islam, they will turn into common Muslim individuals. Gone will be their pivotal position for power play. Other than this, they had almost made it a profession that they would bend and alter the provisions of the Torah to provide officially endorsed conveniences for influential people against payment of bribes. The contemporary Jews were warned about this practise in the following words:

فَلَا تَخْشَوُا النَّاسَ وَاخْشَوْنِ وَلَا تَشْتَرُ‌وا بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۚ وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّـهُ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُ‌ونَ
(So, do not fear people, fear Me. And do not take a paltry price for My verses).

It means that they should not fear that their people will stop following them or turn against them and they they should not alter the Divine commands for the sake of insignificant worldly gains for it would ruin them both materially and spiritually because:

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّـهُ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُ‌ونَ
(And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has sent down, then, they are the disbelievers.)

In the second verse after that (45), there is a description of the injunctions of Qisas (Even Retaliation) with a particular reference stressing that, “We had revealed these injunctions on the Torah”. The words of the text are:

وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ وَالْأَنْفَ بِالْأَنْفِ وَالْأُذُنَ بِالْأُذُنِ وَالسِّنَّ بِالسِّنِّ وَالْجُرُ‌وحَ قِصَاصٌ
(And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution.) Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan : Mufti Rafi Uthmani, pages  177 -180

Finally, to sum the entire context of the verses from 41 to 48, we read:

In the fifth (48) and sixth (49) verse, the address is to the Holy Prophet {saw} saying that to him Allaah has revealed the Qur’aan which confirms the Torah and Injil, Books previous to it, and is their custodian as well. This is because, after the people of the Torah altered the Torah and the people of the Injil made changes in the Injil, it was the Qur’aan alone which turned out to be the kind of overseer and protector which exposed the alterations made by them, lit up the truth and reality in their proper perspective. Even today, the true teachings of the Torah and Injil still survive through the Qur’aan while those who inherited them and those who claim to follow them have disfigured them to the extant that it has become impossible to distinguish truth from untruth. Towards the end of the verse, the Holy Prophet {saw} has been given the same instruction as was given to the people of the Torah and the people of the Injil, that is, all orders and judgments given by him should be accordng to injunctions revealed by Allaah, and that he should see through the ploy of these people who intend to have him decide matters according to their wishes and take his guard against their evil plans. – Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan : Mufti Rafi Uthmani, page 181.

As properly demonstrate above by an exegete, we can conclude the following:

(1) The Qur’aan confirms the Torah and Injil which are from Allaah.
(2) Allaah does not recognize the rulings of the Jews which are not based on His law.
(3) The Qur’aan although confirming what was revealed makes it clear that,
(4) It was revealed because the Shari’ah (laws) of the Torah were altered by the Jews and
(5) Altered by the Christians in the Injil, therefore:
(6) It makes it clear that the only rule of law to be accepted by Allaah is:
(7) By the Qur’aan and Muhammad {saw}.

The ruling which Allaah validates that is from Him is the ruling if Qisas given in ayat 44 (Equal Retribution), it is not validating the entire Bible. In fact, Sam’s quotation helps further prove this, but first, let’s examine this statement of his:

Here we not only have Muhammad judging the Jews according to their own copy of the Torah we also find him praising it by testifying that he believes in it and the God who revealed it! This clearly is not the actions of a man who thought that the Holy Bible was corrupted.

Note how he over exaggerates what Muhammad {saw} is doing. What exactly do the Hadith and Qur’aanic ayat speak of which Allaah had revealed? The law of Qisas (equal retribution – an eye for an eye…. etc), Muhammad {saw} was testifying that he believed in the law of Qisas which Allaah had revealed and protected. That is the only logical conclusion one can come to after reading the various exegeses on the matter in light of the Qur’aan and Hadith Sharh (commentary). To reaffirm this, let’s take one more look at the ayats in question,:

So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses (بِآيَاتِي) for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers. And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the wrongdoers. Qur’aan : Suratul Ma’ida (5) : 44 – 45.

Clearly the ayat speaks for itself, it is referring to these verses as it uses the term, بِآيَاتِي (verses) in ayat 44. Therefore for Sam’s argument to be valid, the ayat would have had to use the word كتب (book), however as one can see for themselves, it does not use that term. Shamoun then seeks to abuse even the most basic tenets of Islam:

On the other side, another party of hadith and fiqh scholars said: these changes took place during its interpretation and not during the process of its revelation. This is the view of Abi Abdullah Muhammad bin Ishmael Al-Bukhari who said in his hadith collection:

“No one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah’s words from his Books, but they corrupted it by misinterpreting it.”

Al-Razi also agrees with this opinion. In his commentary he said:

“There is a difference of opinions regarding this matter among some of the respectable scholars. Some of these scholars said: the manuscript copies of the Torah were distributed everywhere and no one knows the exact number of these copies except Allah. It is impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a conspiracy will not be logical or possible. And when Allah told his messenger (Muhammad) to ask the Jews to bring their Torah and read it concerning the stoning command they were not able to change this command from their copies, that is why they covered up the stoning verse while they were reading it to the prophet. It was then when Abdullah Ibn Salam requested that they remove their hand so that the verse became clear. If they have changed or altered the Torah then this verse would have been one of the important verses to be altered by the Jews.

“Also, whenever the prophet would ask them (the Jews) concerning the prophecies about him in the Torah they were not able to remove them either, and they would respond by stating that they are not about him and they are still waiting for the prophet in their Torah.”

The problem with Sam Shamoun is that he believes Muslims think that God’s word (Kalamullah) can become corrupted. However this only displays his ignorance as this is not an Islamic belief. We do not believe that God’s word can become corrupted. Sure someone can make scribal errors or forget a verse, those are human errors, but God preserves His revelations in a myriad of ways, while one scribe may make an error, the scribal overseer would notice that mistake, or another scribe would point it out under proof reading, in the case of recitation, a hafiz (Qur’aanic memorizer) would correct the incorrectly recited ayat. However, God’s “word” can become corrupted in another way:

(1) Interpretation (eisegesis), as what Sam is doing, or
(2) By ignoring/ hiding God’s word, writing your own “revelation” and claiming it to be from God:

فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُ‌وا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
(So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.) – Qur’aan : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.

So the corruption of God’s word that most Muslims refer to when speaking of Biblical corruption, is away from the revelation of Allaah and towards men’s words claiming to be God’s. This is what we Muslims mean, so when Ibn Qayyim {rh} says this:

And the Torah is Allah’s word. (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Ighathat Al Lahfan, Volume 2, p. 351)

and the Qur’aan says this:

“And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.” – Qur’aan Surat al An’am (6) : 115.

These statements are being said in relation to Qur’aan Suratul Baqarah (2), Ayat 79, that people cannot change the word of God, but that they can hide God’s word and claim their self authored writing as revelation from God. We can see one example of that here:

If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. – Bible : 1 Corinthians (14) : 37.

Here, Paul is self prophesying that his writing is God’s word (God’s command), this is a bit of circular thinking on behalf of Paul as he doesn’t have any authority to say his writing is now God’s command, no verse from the Old Testament refers to Paul as the one who would write God’s command. Ironic as it is, he should have taken his own advice:

Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. – Bible : 1 Corinthians (8) : 2.

Or as demonstrated by the author of the Gospel of Luke, where the author’s intent was to document Jesus’ worldly ministry but somehow Christians made it into an inerrant scripture:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.- Bible : Luke (1) : 1 – 4.

One moment this is an account for a person by the name of Theophilus, the next Christians are assuming it’s the word of God, inspired and inerrant. Therefore in this regard, this is what Muslims refer to as corruption of God’s word. People write documents and the masses are led to believe it’s from God. God’s word didn’t change, but people’s belief in a word of God changed. However things turned for a worse in Sam’s article, as he attempted to use, what I assume is logic statements:

A. No one is able to change the words of God.

B. The Torah (and by extension the Gospel and the rest of the Scriptures) is (are) God’s Word(s).

C. Therefore, no individual can ever change or corrupt the text of the Torah (or the other Scriptures for that matter).

That’s what we believe Sam, no one can change God’s word. To make it a bit more extant, God’s word is an attribute of God, just as you would have Al Alim (All Knowing) and Ar Rahman (Most Merciful), in this light Kalamullah (The Word of Allaah) cannot be altered as God does not change, He is, Al Awwal (The First – Alpha) and Al Akhir (The Last – Omega). This must be a new lesson for Sam as he clearly displays his ignorance of Islamic ‘aqidah. Continuing to examine his argument, we read:

Here is what that passage actually says:

And [likewise,] from those who say, “Behold, we are Christians.” We have accepted a solemn pledge: and they, too, have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind – wherefore We have given rise among them to enmity and hatred, [to last] until Resurrection Day: and in time God will cause them to understand what they have contrived.

Now notice the contradiction between William’s interpretation of this text with the following verse that appears a little later in the same surah:

And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus son of Mary, confirming the Torah before him and We gave to him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and confirming the Torah before it, as a guidance and an admonition unto the godfearing. So let the People of the Gospel judge according to what God has sent down therein. Whosoever judges not according to what God has sent down — they are the ungodly. S. 5:46-47 Arberry

Let’s correct Sam’s misleading statements here, in this instance he’s appealing to a post hoc argument. Essentially, he does not take the verses into their contextual order, thereby purposely misleading himself and the audience at large. To begin with, the ayats he quotes above are from verse 14 and then he skips all the way to verses 46 and 47. Between those ayat there are 32/ 33 verses. He’s jumped 33 verses, to link two different statements to develop an entirely new understanding. This surely is academic dishonesty, for an example of what he’s done, let’s look at this Biblical example:

Looking at his disciples, he [Jesus] said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”

and then he says:

“How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!” – Bible, Luke 6, Luke 21.

That sounds wrong doesn’t it? Well that’s because, just as Sam, I deliberately removed those statements from their places of context, joined them together and the argument being presented from such an act is highly fraudulent, and this is what Sam has done to the Qur’aan. Moving on, the verse which Br. Paul Williams has referenced is verse 14:

And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.- Qur’aan : Surat al Ma’ida (5) : 14.

In its context, this admits that Christians, who at the time of Muhammad {saw} profess such statements, were sent a Prophet in the manner of Muhammad {saw}, the very next ayat demonstrates this:

O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book. – Qur’aan : Surat al Ma’ida (5) : 15.

Later on in the Surah however, it refers to the time when Isa (Jesus – may God be pleased with him) was alive. Referring to two completely different times:

And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. – Qur’aan : Surah (5) : 46.

His argument is based on verses referencing two completely different times. This only goes on to display his incompetence and dishonesty. How shallow, can you go?

Fortunately we are in a position to know what the Torah which Jesus came to confirm looked like. As a result of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, along with Jesus’ extensive use of the OT Scriptures as documented in the Canonical Gospels, we know that the Scriptures that he was reading and confirming to be from God are the very same Books that we have today. This simply provides further evidence that Muhammad actually believed that the Torah has not been corrupted since he claimed that Jesus himself was sent to confirm the authority of the same Scriptures that he himself had access to.

The problem with Sam’s argument is that he cannot be consistent. On one end he professes the Dead Sea Scrolls are scripture, however the Christian New Testament is based loosely on a mixture of the Masoretic Text, Qumran Scrolls and Septuagint Manuscripts. Unless he can provide for us a single Christian Bible which uses the entirety of the Qumran / Dead Sea Scrolls, he’s essentially jumped the gun. Sam’s logic is described as such:

(A) Jesus lived at the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
(B) Therefore he used the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Well, it’s rather simple to challenge that. If he used the Dead Sea Scrolls:

(1) Did he live among the Essenes in Qumran? If so, give a source.
(2) Did he consider their codex to be canonical, because I don’t see the Book of War in the (Jewish/ Christian) Old Testament.
(3) Why would the early Church prefer the Septuagint over the Masoretic text which is closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls in language and content?
(4) Following the logic of (A) [implies] => (B) can we say that Jesus also used the Samaritan Scrolls which existed at the same time?
(5) Why did he have to use the Dead Sea Scrolls, why not the Scrolls from (4) or perhaps the Oral Tradition of the Pharisees?

His argument doesn’t follow proper logic, just because it may have existed within the era of Jesus, does not mean that he used it, as not a single Patristic source claims that Jesus used the Scrolls of the Essenes and if Sam has evidence of Jesus using the scrolls of the Essenes (Dead Sea Scrolls), then please, give it to the world, we’re waiting. In fact, to the contrary we have Christian scholars declaring the codex and canon of the Essenes to have contained pseudepigrapha books:

The Essene canon contained some of the Pseudepigrapha which they claimed to be divine. Most of these writings were midrash on canonized books and logically therefore would not be Scripture. For if the Pseudepigrapha contained a copy of a canonical book as well as commentary on it, why would it not negate the original canonical book, because the Pseudepigrapha with its inspired commentary would be much more valuable? In addition, “If they were conscious of being inspired, why did they not have the confidence to use their own names?”Even the quote in Jude 14 of 1 Enoch 1:9 does not require that 1 Enoch is Scripture. To quote what is true in Scripture is different than saying that what is quoted is Scripture. Even Paul quoted a pagan poet in Acts 17:28, yet he certainly did not regard it as Scripture but as simply true.The Content and Extent of the Old Testament, by Wayne Stiles.

Seemingly reeling from a bout of inanity, Sam then desperately tries to attack the Qur’aan ina  last ditch attempt to manifest some form of compensation for failing to argue against Br. Paul’s statements:

Lastly, what makes William’s distortion of the Quranic witness to the authenticity of the Holy Bible rather remarkable is that the Quran testifies to its own textual corruption!

(Of just such wrath) as We sent down on those who divided (Scripture into arbitrary parts), – (So also on such) AS HAVE MADE THE QUR’AN INTO SHREDS (as they please). S. 15:90-91 Y. Ali

Here is how another version translates this text:

As We sent down (Our curse and disagreement) on those who divided (the Scripture out of their own whims into equal parts and thus mutilated the integrity of its Surahs)—those who made Al-Quran into (thirty or sixty equal) parts (on the basis of the thickness of volume, completely disregarding the subject matter and the divisions sanctioned by the Divine Author). Dr. Kamal Omar

This ayat has nothing to do with textual corruption of the Qur’aan, whether during the lifetime of Muhammad {saw} or otherwise. This is why Sam’s eisegesis has led him to many false conclusions and his word study fallacy really is not helping the situation. Neither the ayat (verse) or Dr. Kamal’s translation speak about textual corruption, but Dr. Kamal does explain what the verse means:

completely disregarding the subject matter and the divisions sanctioned by the Divine Author

There were people who were disregarding what Allaah had said in the Qur’aan, and they were dividing it into their own understandings as Dr. Kamal clearly indicates. A word for word reproduction for what Sam is doing. The very Qur’aanic ayat he is trying to use to disparage the sacredness of the Qur’aan, backfires and in great irony, describes what he’s trying to do. Glory be to God. Let’s now try to seek the proper understand of this ayat:

(Who have made the Qur’an into parts.) Some have said that Al-Mutaqasimin refers to the Quraysh, that the Qur’an means this Qur’an (as opposed to the Scriptures of the People of the Book), and that “made it into parts” referred to what `Ata’ said that some of them said that he (the Prophet ) was a sorcerer, some said he was crazy, or a soothsayer. These various allegations were the parts. This opinion was also reported from Ad-Dahhak and others. Muhammad bin Ishaq reported from Ibn `Abbas that Al-Walid bin Al-Mughirah – holding a noble position among the people – rallied a group of Quraysh behind him when Al-Mawsim (the time for pilgrims to meet in Makkah for Hajj) had come. He said to them, “O people of Quraysh! The time of Al-Mawsim has come, and delegations of Arabs will come to you during this time. They will have heard some things about this companion of yours (meaning the Prophet ), so agree on one opinion, let there be no contradicting or denials of each other’s sayings”. They said, “And you, O Abu `Abd Shams, give us an opinion and we will say that.” He said, “No, you make the suggestions and I will listen.” They said, “We say he is a soothsayer.” He said, “He is not a soothsayer.” They said, “We say he is crazy.” He said, “He is not crazy.” They said, “We say he is a poet.” He said, “He is not a poet.” They said, “We say he is a sorcerer.” He said, “He is not a sorcerer.” They said, “So what should we say” He said, “By Allah, what he says is as palatable ﴿to the average person﴾ as something sweet, so you cannot say anything against it without it being obviously false.Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Qur’aan Surah 15 : Ayat 90 -91.

To now conclude with a brief summary, we recall:

(1) The Qur’aan came to confirm that Shari’ah of the Torah (from Allaah) and Injil (from Allaah), see 5:44 to 5:49.
(2) The Qur’aan which was revealed to Muhammad {saw} admonishes the Jews for ignoring the law of Qisas (Equal Retribution). (5:44)
(3) The Qur’aan which was revealed to Muhammad {saw} came to confirm the law of Qisas (which Muhammad {saw} testified was from God and which he testified in the corrupted Torah of the Jews). (5:4445)
(4) Isa (Jesus – may God be pleased with him) confirmed the Injil (Gospel) giving to him by God, not that of Mark, Matthew, Luke or John which came with Pope Siricius’ Canon in 397 AD [after the failed vote of 393 AD]. (5: 46)
(5) The Qur’aan confirmed what God revealed and admonished the Jews and Christians for corruption of scripture (2:79, 5:14).
(6) It is in this context, that it is Allaah who has established the lawmaking to be based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah of Muhammad {saw}. (5:48)

As such, the Qur’aan as given by Allaah and as received to us through the Messenger, Muhammad {saw} clearly has demonstrated the errors of the Christians and Jews with respect to their scriptures and its corruption while enforcing the sanctity of the Qur’aan as being the source of hukm (law making) for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

This now places Shamoun in a dilemma. If Shamoun continues to believe that the Bible has not been corrupted then he has to conclude that his own article proves him to be wrong, and therefore a farce of an attempt to attack Islam. Yet if he agrees with himself that the Bible is the uncorrupt Word of God then Shamoun must again accept the fact that Paul was a false apostle since the latter contradicted the essential core doctrines taught within the self inspired pages of his own falsification of scripture, i.e. the condition Paul lays for himself in 1 Corinthians 8:2.

With that said, we now end our discussion with the following advice to Sam Shamoun: Read. Inwardly digest. Learn. and at some point, be Intellectually Responsible and avoid Inane and Petulant Deceits.

“He grants wisdom to whom He pleases; and he to whom wisdom is granted receives a benefit overflowing; but none will grasp the message but men of understanding” – [Al Qur’an 2:269]

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Chessie L. Edwards: Runs from Muslim Challenge

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In an embarrassing turn of events for  Mr. Edwards, after this posting, I seemed to have gotten the better of him. Unfortunately his frustration has gained new grounds and he has sought to disregard debating with me, take a look at this photo:

Now let’s look at the screen shot today, several hours after the “debate” occurred:

At first glimpse, I was a bit confused, I could have sworn that the debate was there last night, yet this morning it’s absent? A seemingly strange occurrence with a funny outcome. It seems as if I pushed enough buttons to send Mr. Edwards up and over the edge. As it turns out, he blocked me on Facebook:

To ensure I wasn’t imagining this, I checked my inbox to see if I could message and ask if he had removed his posts, but upon checking, I was told I could no longer message him. As you can see the last message in my inbox was almost one month ago, to God knows what kind of video he was sending me. Just for further evidence of him blocking me after that horrendous debate:

With that ends a chapter of Mr. Edwards sending rather inappropriate messages to me for sometime, awkward debates where he embarrassed himself and well, Facebook screenshots of this guy really fumbling around. I’ll miss his comments, as they did provide a good laugh, but alas he knows he can’t resist replying to me, eventually he’ll respond whether on the website, via my email or I hope not, my cell.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Muslim Version || Spoken Word || Response

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

This video is a very good response to the “Why I Hate Religion, but Love Jesus”, Christian video which recently hit the web. Check it out and spread insha Allaah:

Really insightful and thoughtful, it gives reasons for Christians to provoke the foundations of their inconsistent faith.

wa Allaahu alam.
[and God knows best.]

CL Edwards Tries to Debate Me, Runs Away After One Question

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I knew he couldn’t resist me, CL. Edwards tried to engage me in a debate, a little discussion on Jesus, unfortunately for him, he made a claim, I questioned that claim and he ended up running away. What I did was simple, I questioned his statement, he tried to manouver out of answering the question, but I remained intent on having him show everyone that he did not know what he was speaking about. I laid a premise, he took the bait and when he realised he could no longer answer the statement he so proudly made, he imitated the disciples and fled when the truth (according to the Bible) got to real for him:

Then everyone deserted him and fled. – Bible : Mark (14) : 50.

If you want to view his apparent obsession with me and his creepy inbox messages, you can check out this post here. What you’ll discover as odd and rightly so, is his sick comment about masturbation and myself:

…….you may mentally masturbate with someone with more free time….

Creepy messages, posts focused on me, mental masturbation with me, I’m not sure what his angle is here, but I do not feel comfortable with the level of attention this adult is giving myself, a teenager over the internet. Foregoing the weird comments and inbox messages, I suggest you all read the little discussion/ debate I had with him below:

This is a lesson he should learn, don’t make claims that you cannot prove or defend. I’m still confused as to why he thinks I could not question his statement, in a discussion you question your opponents statements, if I didn’t then he’d either accuse me of ignoring his statements and questions (which he did above) or he would justify it by saying I’m incapable of responding to him. Listen Mr. Edwards, if you’re uncomfortable with people questioning your logic, questioning your statements, then I suggest you quit this arena of theological discourse, you’re clearly not cut out for this job. Leave it to the adults like myself.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: The Quran’s View of the Holy Bible Revisited Pt. 1

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Sam Shamoun continues to betray intellectual responsibility, especially in light of the Christian method of scriptural exegesis. This week he falls prey to the Word Study Fallacy:

Word studies are popular, easily obtained from available resources, and an easy way to procure sermon content. However, word studies are also subject to radical extrapolations and erroneous applications. It is not always possible to strike exegetical gold by extracting a word from the text for close examination. Word studies alone will not suffice. Indeed, over-occupation with word studies is a sign of laziness and ignorance involved in much of what passes for biblical exposition in our times. – Exegetical Fallacies: Common Mistakes Every Student of the Bible Must Avoid by William D. Barrick, page 3.

and to the Fallacy of Reading Between the Lines:

The unwarranted associative fallacy “occurs when a word or phrase triggers off an associated idea, concept, or experience that bears no close relation to the text at hand, yet is used to interpret the text.” – Exegetical Fallacies: Common Mistakes Every Student of the Bible Must Avoid by William D. Barrick, page 5.

We must also recall Sam Shamoun’s famous five step program to misrepresenting anything and everything:

(1) Quote a text (matn).
(2) Give a citation for said text (matn).
(3) Emphasize certain words or phrases from said text.
(4) Base entire argument on the emphasized phrase or word.
(5) Derive a conclusion from straw man argument of (4) based on selected phrase or word from (3).

Sam Shamoun begins his attack on rationalism, by first implying the Qur’aan is in agreement with him:

How does the Quranic revelation see itself in relation to previous books like the Bible?

God speaks to his prophet, Muhammad, in the Quran saying:

And unto thee O Prophet have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein.

Judge, then, between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views, forsaking the truth that has come unto thee.

Unto every one of you have We appointed a different law and way of life.

And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but He willed it otherwise in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you.

Vie, then, with one another in doing good works! Unto God you all must return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ.

(Surah 5:48)

What he’s trying to imply from the Qur’aan is that the Qur’aan gives precedence to the authenticity of the current Biblical canon and codex. As we continue you shall see how he slowly deceives himself into thinking this argument is actually valid in relation to the Qur’aanic text.

And We descended to you The Book with the truth, confirming to WHAT (IS) BETWEEN HIS HANDS from The Book (musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi), and guarding/protecting on it, so judge/rule between them with what God descended and do not follow their self attractions for desires about what came to you from the truth, to each from you We made/put God’s decreed way of life/method/law and order, and a clear/easy/plain way, and if God wanted/willed, He would have made you one nation/generation, and but to test you in what He gave you, so race/surpass (to) the goodnesses/generosity (good deeds), to God (is) your return altogether, so He informs you with what you were in it differing/disagreeing (P).

He decides that the translation he initially references from Br. Paul Williams does not help him with his word study fallacy, so he then appeals to the authority (which by itself is another fallacy) of another translation to aid him in his butchering of honesty. Notice, he emphasizes the term, “what is between his hands“. So in light of his 5 step program to misrepresenting and misunderstanding everything:

Did he quote a text? ✔
Did he emphasize a certain word or phrase? ✔
Did he try to derive an argument based on word or phrase? ✔

So far, he hasn’t skipped a single step, already violating exegetical rules his own brethren would consider horrendous, Sam goes on to lay his entire argument on the phrase, “what is between his hands”. In that light, let’s examine the actual contents of that Qur’aanic ayat:

وَأَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمُهَيْمِنًا عَلَيْهِ ۖ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّـهُ ۖ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ عَمَّا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْحَقِّ ۚ لِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مِنْكُمْ شِرْ‌عَةً وَمِنْهَاجًا ۚ وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّـهُ لَجَعَلَكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَلَـٰكِنْ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ فِي مَا آتَاكُمْ ۖ فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَ‌اتِ ۚ إِلَى اللَّـهِ مَرْ‌جِعُكُمْ جَمِيعًا فَيُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ

Translation (Mufti Taqi Uthmani [db])
We have sent down to you the Book with truth, confirming the Book before it, and a protector for it. So, judge between them according to what Allaah has sent down, and do not follow their desires against the truth that has come to you. For each of you We have made a law and a method. Had Allaah willed, He would have made a single community of people, but (He did not), so that He may test you in what He has given to you.

The phrase Sam isolates in his word study fallacy is:

مُصَدِّقًا

Essentially he pushes the premise that this word means: Confirmed what is between his (Muhammad [saw]) hands. i.e. the Bible. As he has said himself:

Muhammad had to testify that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures which were available to him were the uncorrupt revelations of God.

The problem with Sam’s statement is that he focused intensely on one phrase trying to make it into something it is not, thus negating the proper context of the scripture and the message it was trying to convey. To begin with, what does the Ayat firstly state?

We have sent down to you the Book with truth

Allaah is saying, that He has sent down the book, so which book is Allaah referring to here? The Qur’aan. Allaah is saying He has sent the Qur’aan to Muhammad {saw}. What is this Qur’aan doing in relation to the previous revelations?

confirming the Book before it

The Qur’aan is confirming the book before it, i.e. the Injil min Allaah.

So the Qur’aan is confirming that it is from Allaah and it is also confirming that Allaah had revealed the Injil and that the Qur’aan protects the Injil. However Sam’s specially chosen translation paints a slightly different picture, but one which argues against him:

And We descended to you The Book with the truth, confirming to WHAT (IS) BETWEEN HIS HANDS from The Book (musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi)

Initially the ayat says that Allaah sent a book to Muhammad {saw}, a revelation. This revelation is confirming what is between Muhammad’s {saw} hands [The Qur’aan] from the previous revelation [Injil]. Since Sam is a bit dense, I shall break this down step by step for him:

(1) Allaah says He revealed scripture to Muhammad {saw}.
(2) He says this scripture, that He has revealed which Muhammad {saw} has (presently) in his hands (possession – the Qur’aan) confirms the previous scripture.
(3) The previous scripture’s message is confirmed in what is in Muhammad’s {saw} book now, (1) – the Qur’aan.

Notice his provided translation says what is between his hands from the book. The ayat presents the case of two books being revealed, but one is presently in the hands of Muhammad {saw} and that is the one Allaah has revealed. This book presently in Muhammad’s {saw} hands confirm what was from the book, previously revealed. Let’s see what Shaykh Rafi Uthmani [db] had to say on this ayat:

In the fifth (48) and sixth (49) verse, the address is to the Holy Prophet Muhammad {saw} saying that to him Allaah has revealed the Qur’aan which confirms the Torah and Injil, Books previous to it, and is their custodian as well. This is because, after the people of the Torah altered the Torah and the people of the Injil made changes in the Injil, it was the Qur’an alone which turned out to be the overseer and protector which exposed the alterations made by them, lit up truth and reality in their proper persepctive. Even today, the true teachings of the Torah and Injil still survive through the Qur’aan, while those who inherited them and those who claim to follow them have disfigured them to the extent that it has become impossible to distinguish truth from untruth. – Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan, Mufti Rafi Uthman, page 181.

To make sense of Sam’s argument is a bit hilarious, but if we take his understanding into consideration from what he has provided as a suitable translation for his argument we get the following:

(1) Allaah has revealed a book to Muhammad {saw}.
(2) Forget (1) for now.
(3) The book in your hands, which is not (1) confirms…
(4) What was from another book previously revealed.

So then, the question begs itself, if it’s confirming a previous scripture (لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ – that which preceded it), then what currently is in Muhammad’s {saw} hands? What is in his hands now that’s confirming the previous revelation? Sam is saying the answer to this, is the previous revelation. If that makes no sense to you, as much as it does to us, then we’re on the right track. How exactly can the verse be saying that God has presently sent confirmation and that the confirmation He has sent is currently in Muhammad’s {saw} hands but the confirmation is the previous scripture, not the scripture God currently revealed to Muhammad {saw}? That leads us into a circular argument, more academically, to the fallacy of circular thinking:

Sam is saying the previous revelation is the book in Muhammad’s {saw} hands and it refers to itself as a previous revelation being confirmed by God.

How exactly Sam, is the previous revelation referring to itself as “previous”, shouldn’t it be…..current? Shouldn’t it, logically speaking, refer to itself as the current revelation to make complete sense of the ayat? Essentially, his argument is based upon a world play upon the word study fallacy and does not it into the context of the ayat (verse). The explanation which he proposes ignores rational thought, edifies non-sequitur arguments, i.e. it does not logically follow through, to be true.

He then goes on to make another word study fallacy, this time he quotes numerous places where the word, Kitab is translated as Bible in the English versions of the Qur’aan:

Asad himself translated the word Kitab as Bible and Torah as Old Testament:………….
The following Muslim translators did the same thing:………

He’s basing his argument on a translation and we can easily refute this. The word Kitab literally means Book. The word Bible does not mean Book. The word Bible comes from the Greek word:

βίβλος – A collection of papyri.

A bit more research would have you know that it refers to books:

early 14c., from Anglo-Latin biblia, O.Fr. bible (13c.) “the Bible,” also any large book generally, from Medieval and Late Latin biblia (neuter plural interpreted as feminine singular), in phrase biblia sacra “holy books,” a translation of Greek ta biblia to hagia “the holy books,” – Etymology Online.

In that light the word “Holy Bible” would have two representations in classical Arabic:

(1) Majmu ul Kutub (a collection of papyri/ books).
(2) Kitab ul Muqaddas (holy book).

Neither phrase is to be found in the Qur’aan and if he is to appeal to the fallacy of hasty generalization as we see above, then anywhere the Qur’aan says the word, “Kitab” it has to refer to the New Testament/ Old Testament, otherwise his theory fails. So let’s put that to test:

ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لَا رَ‌يْبَ ۛ فِيهِ ۛ هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِي

Translation:

This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah –

Editting for Sam’s theory:

This is the New Testament about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious to Allaah –

Therefore since according to Sam’s theory, the Qur’aan is the New Testament Bible, then he has no choice but to accept the Qur’aan as a word from God and become a Muslim. Otherwise he has to publicly rectify his mistake and apologize for this theological blunders. If not, then he continues to display his ignorant sense of intellectual disability.

Sam then goes on to quote, out of all people, Ibn Ishaq, which Sam goes on to say:

In fact, one of the earliest sources on the life of Muhammad even goes so far as to identify John’s Gospel as the written record of the very Gospel which God gave Jesus to pass on to his followers!……The above Muslim biographer quotes John 15:23-16:1 and says that it is taken from the Gospel of Christ which John wrote down for Jesus’ followers! And do notice that he never once states that this particular Gospel is corrupt or unreliable.

Actually, what Sam has done is proven that John 15:23 is referring to Muhammad {saw} as the comforter which Christ promised (as is what Ibn Ishaq’s statement is referring to), this is a direct quotation from Sam’s article:

‘He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word that is in the law must be fulfilled, “They hated me without a cause” (i.e. without reason). But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you from the Lord’s presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord’s presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that ye should not be in doubt.’

This quote from Ibn Ishaq’s work is based on the premise that Muhammad {saw} is the comforter promised:

“The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the paraclete.

Sam’s authority is Ibn Ishaq. His claim is that Ibn Ishaq says John’s Gospel is from God, however in Sam’s own quotation of Ibn Ishaq, the author himself expresses why he’s quoting John’s Gospel: to prove from the Bible that Muhammad {saw} is promised as a Prophet/ the Comforter! Sam’s own source of authority, is claiming this particular set of verses is true and from God because it confirms Muhammad {saw} as a Prophet. So the question begs itself, if the reason Ibn Ishaq has quoted this section of the Gospel of John to be true because it refers to Muhammad {saw}, does Sam accept that the verses refer to Muhammad {saw}? If not, then Sam has no right, intellectually speaking, or rather academically to state that Ibn Ishaq agrees the Gospel of John is true. As he only quotes those New Testament verses to show Muhammad {saw} is promised in the Bible.

Part 2 can be viewed here.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

« Older Entries Recent Entries »