Tag Archives: Alpha and Omega Ministries

Refutation: 1 Chronicles genealogy a contridiction?

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I know what you must be thinking, how on earth can you spell ‘contradiction’ wrong? In an ironic twist of hilarity, Chessie Edwards has authored a piece about a contradiction in scripture. Unfortunately, he started off on the wrong foot as shown below:

He starts off a rebuttal by contradicting the spelling of the word contradiction. I guess we must take this as another sign of his ineptitude. After failing to respond to numerous posts of mines, he decides to take on a common contradiction from the Bible which we covered here. So what does Chessie say this time around?

It seems as if some of our Muslim dawahist(And yes I did coin the phrase) have reached deep down into the atheist materialist liberal grab bag for a argument to attack The Bible with. This time around its the variants found in the genealogy recorded in 1 Chronicles 8:29-35 and 1 Chronicles 9:35-44.

So, after deciding to call me names, “dawahist”, a phrase so intellectually profound, he actually had to “coin” it as it’s so unique and amazing. We congratulate him on what is to be his biggest contribution to the English language thus far, we certainly do look forward to see what other contridicting dawahist terms he can bring forth to our future discourses. Yes, that indeed was sarcasm. Moving along, he decides to label pointing out Biblical contradictions as being “atheist materialist liberal“. To help our clearly ignorant counterpart, you don’t have to be atheist to see a contradiction in the Bible, any person with normal cognitive and critical thinking skills can indicate to themselves when they see two contradictory statements. I also don’t seem to see how I’m a “materialist” for pointing out clear errors in his scripture. Let me just demonstrate the logic behind his statement:

(If) you can do basic comprehension (then) you are an atheist.
(If) you can point out contradicting statements (then) you are materialist.
This follows the basic logic implication (if) this (then) => (it implies) that.

Can someone buy Mr. Edwards a dictionary before he starts saying instead of coining new terms, he’s moved on to redefining words. Now, I do hear you, we did see him exposing his lack of foresight, after claiming that this “contradiction” in 1 Chronicles is reaching into “atheist liberal materialist arguments”, he then admits it’s a variant. Varying here, meaning not the same, or did he not realise that he “contradicted” himself within this opening paragraph so many times, it’s practically stupendous to assume he was sober upon authoring it. Moving on:

Some how the people of conspiracy theories(I coined that one also) want us to believe the son’s of Pigs and Monkeys “corrupted” Allah’s Torah by putting two conflicting versions of the same genealogy side by side in the same book. These dastardly Yahud either did this without noticing or on purpose for whatever strange diabolical “evil Jew” reason(Do evil Jews need a reason to be evil? com’on).

I’m not sure what his fascination with coining terms is, but it’s really appauling to see him trying this hard, to desperately make himself seem as a thinker. It’s hard to believe that on one end he “coins new terms” (creativity), while bashes questioning his scripture (arrogance and ignorance). He’s playing with a double edged sword and it really isn’t helping him. His own writings are the very arguments against himself. A bit funny, isn’t it? Don’t see why he thinks the children of pigs and monkeys wrote a book, or why he thinks that God, sanctioned the writing of the Islamic Tawrah. This has led me to believe he doesn’t seem to know much about the Tawrah. To educate our ignorant friend, Muslims do not believe that the current canon and codex of the Judaic or Christian Tanakh is from Allaah. Rather we believe it’s a version originating with Priest Hilkiah as the Judaica Encyclopedia willingly suggests, translated by Jews who faltered in there translation (purposefully) for a Pagan king, which Christians ended up believing in.

As for him asking if Jews need a reason to be evil, let’s see what the Bible says:

43Why[a] do you not understand my way of speaking? Because you are not able to listen to my message. 44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father! That one was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand firm in the truth, because truth is not in him. Whenever he speaks the lie, he speaks from his own nature,[b] because he is a liar and the father of lies.[c]45 But because I am telling the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who among you convicts me concerning sin? If I am telling the truth, why[d] do you not believe me? 47 The one who is from God listens to the words of God. Because of this you do not listen—because you are not of God.”

48 The Jews answered and said to him, “Do we not correctly say that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” – Bible : John (8) : 43 – 48.

Let’s see, they’re ignorant, children of satan, they do the desires/ works of satan, they’re murderers like their fathers, they don’t stand firm in truth, lying is their nature and they’re not of God. Very touching words. If Mr. Edwards has a problem with this quotation, please take issue with well…………… Christianity. So how does he try to explain the extant contradiction in the Bible?

First as I have said regrading such misunderstands of the Bible, the number one principle in exegesis is “AUTHORIAL INTENT”, i.e what was the author intending to communicate. Also another aspect of”AUTHORIAL INTENT” is how would the original audience have understood the text.  As usually dawahist could careless about trivial issues like “AUTHORIAL INTENT”.

So after spouting around some terms he just googled, for some reason he’s deduced (quite expectedly and unsurprisingly) that the reason the Bible contradicts with regards to the geneaology is because the author intended so. He’s trying do what we call, “appeal to authority” and appeal to a common fallacy in exegesis, i.e. “fallacy of reading between the lines”. One can view a few of those fallacies here. So let’s try to explain to him that these contradictions in genealogy do not exist because the author intended so, rather they exist because the manuscripts themselves contradict. What we’re saying here is that there are many manuscripts which indicate a difference in genealogies among the many scribes and authors of that time (i.e scriptural corruption):

as well as:

The corruption of these texts are clear to anyone who actually reads the Bible. Footnotes make it clear that variants, numerous as they are, quite clearly exist. In fact, the author and his intent is already known to us, unlike Mr. Edwards, most of you who would have read this previous post, would have seen this quote:

This passage to the end of the 38th verse is found with a little variety in the names, 1 Chronicles 9:35-44.

The rabbins say that Ezra, having found two books that had these passages with a variety in the names, as they agreed in general, he thought best to insert them both, not being able to discern which was the best.

His general plan was to collate all the copies he had, and to follow the greater number when he found them to agree; those which disagreed from the majority were thrown aside as spurious; and yet, in many cases, probably the rejected copies contained the true text.

If Ezra proceeded as R. Sol. Jarchi says, he had a very imperfect notion of the rules of true criticism; and it is no wonder that he has left so many faults in his text.

The reason that these two contradicting genealogies made it into the Bible’s codex (collection) is due to the fact that the author just didn’t know which one to include! He could not decipher the veracity of God’s holy word (according to the Exegesis quoted above). Hence, I don’t see how Mr. Edwards can say we ignored scholarly exegesis or refused to take it into consideration when it fact it was included in our first post on this topic. We do hope he can confess that he either did not read the initial post or come to terms with his selective amnesia. In fact, he goes so far as to claim it was on purpose that the genealogies contradict:

The chronological differing between the two genealogies of 1 Chronicles is a purposeful anachronism, and it is not the only incident of intentional gapping being used by Biblical writers, in fact it was quite a common device in oral cultures who routinely compressed information.

Yet, he later contradicts himself by quoting a scholar who says the only reason this contradiction existed, is due to manuscript and scribal errors:

” This register has already occurred in 1 Chron 8:29-38, along with those of other families of the tribe of Benjamin, and is repeated here only to connect the following history of the kingship with the preceding genealogical lists. It forms here the introduction to the narrative of Saul’s death in ch. 10, which in turn forms the transition to the kingship of David. The deviations of this register from that in 1 Chron 8:29-38, show that it has been derived from another document in more complete preservation than that in ch. 8, which had been handed down in connection with other genealogies of the Benjamite families..”[DELITZSCH BIBLE COMMENTARY – THE BOOK OF 1 CHRONICLES]

Apparently, unable to read what he’s quoting, Mr. Edwards presents two contradicting narratives:

(1) It was the author’s intent to have two contradicting genealogies, one chapter after the other.
(2) It was manuscript corruption and lack of preservation which caused the contradictions.

Unless the author some how magically intended to differ the genealogies by manuscript corruption, hundreds of years after the text was written, I can safely doubt Mr. Edward’s is rational.We would like to thank him for providing his contradicting arguments, or shall I say, “contridicting” arguments and the wonderful quote which proved that this contradicting genealogy exists due to manuscript corruption and lack of preservation.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Qur’anic Miracle: The Best Opportunity to Destroy Islam

Posted on by One comment

The Prophet (peace be upon him) had an uncle who was known by the nickname ‘Abu Lahab’ which means ‘Father of the flame’ because of his fiery temper. This uncle was one of the staunchest enemies of the Prophet and of Islam.

He would follow the Prophet (peace be upon him) and whenever he saw him speaking to a stranger, he would wait till they had parted and then ask the stranger,”What did Muhammad  (blessings and peace be upon him) tell you ? Did he say black? Its white! Did he say morning? It’s night!”. He would state the exact opposite of what the Prophet (peace be upon him) said.

There is a chapter in the Qur’an called Surah Al-Masad This chapter prophesied that Abu Lahab and his wife will perish in the hell fire – implying that he would never become a Muslim and therefore will enter the hell fire:

“Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he! Neither his wealth benefited him, nor what he earned. He will soon enter a Fire, full of flames. And his wife as well, the wicked carrier of the firewood. Around her neck there is (a collar of iron, like) a well twisted rope.”

تَبَّتۡ يَدَآ أَبِى لَهَبٍ۬ وَتَبَّ (١) مَآ أَغۡنَىٰ عَنۡهُ مَالُهُ ۥ وَمَا ڪَسَبَ (٢) سَيَصۡلَىٰ نَارً۬ا ذَاتَ لَهَبٍ۬ (٣) وَٱمۡرَأَتُهُ ۥ حَمَّالَةَ ٱلۡحَطَبِ (٤) فِى جِيدِهَا حَبۡلٌ۬ مِّن مَّسَدِۭ (٥)

This Surah was revealed 10 years before Abu Lahab died as an unbeliever in the battle of Badr. Many of Abu Lahab’s friends and other disbelievers accepted Islam during those 10 years after this Surah was revealed. Abu Lahab was very intelligent and one of the staunchest enemy of Islam who was always eager to try and prove that the Qur’an was false and was a human invention. All that Abu Lahab had to do, to prove the Qur’an and Surah 111 (al Masad) wrong was to say ‘I am a Muslim’– and the Qur’an would have been proven wrong.

Abu Lahab had 10 years to think over it, but he never recited the Shahadah. He did not have to behave like a Muslim. Even if he had lied and said that he was a Muslim, the Qur’an would have been proved wrong, yet he never did! If the Qur’an was not from God, and as critics claim, authored by a man, how would they have known that Abu Lahab would never accept Islam or pretend to be a Muslim? Only someone who knows the future can know for certain that Abu Lahab would never accept Islam, and this someone is God. Thus proving that the Qur’an is from God.

and God knows best.

Refutation: Can a disciple of Christ be racist ?

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Just in time before the new year, Chessie L. Edwards is back again, trying to defend the racism within his faith. Let’s see what ignorance he spews this time:

Considering that to this vary day at the close of 2011 black Africans can be purchased in Muslim majority nations such as Mali, Mauritania and Sudan, I would have thought that Muslim Dawahist’s would have wanted to avoid the topic of slavery at all costs.

It perplexes me as to why an adult man, would steep so low into academic dishonesty, shall we remind him that citing statements should be done to prevent intellectual fraud. To begin with, Mali has actually outlawed slavery. Funny enough, it’s the very first country he lists. What exactly is the problem if these countries are Muslim in majority? That’s called appealing to the fallacy of a hasty generalization, a commonly used fallacy. Meaning if one X does Y, then all X’s do Y. The problem here is that while Islam permits slavery, it does not permit Christian promoted slavery, also known as chattel slavery. Slavery in Islam is contractual agreement, a covenant of sorts between two parties, whereas in chattel slavery it is forced labour, something we shall discover later on the Bible endorses in great detail.

The notion is creeping up yet again that Christianity was the cause of the trans-atlantic slave trade and that the Bible is a book of White racist ideology, a throw back to more Biblical ignorant times of propagandist………..

This is the denial of basic history by a desperate man. My peoples, the children of slavery, my home, the results of slavery, are imbedded within my people’s culture. The streets I walk on, our capital city (Puerta de Espana – Port of Spain), the many forts we have, the many sugar estates which still exist are all evidences against this Chessie L. Edwards, but to protect his religion, this man has to stoop to low moral grounds. He’s not only denying the history we can experience today as left behind from my nation’s colonial rulers, but he’s denying history as acknowledged by the world:

The Church also supported the slave trade. The Spaniards saw in it an opportunity of converting the heathen, and the Jesuits, Dominicans and Franciscans were heavily involved in sugar cultivation which meant slave-holding. The story is told of an old elder of the Church in Newport who would invariably, the Sunday following the arrival of a slaver from the coast, thank God “that another cargo of benighted beings had been brought to a land where they could have the benefit of a gospel dispensation.” – [R. Terry, Some Old Papers relating to the Newport Slave Trade (Bulletin of the Newport Historical Society, July, 1927), 10.]

History speaks for itself and unlike my uneducated and cowardly counterpart, I am not afraid to cite my references from the numerous works authored on this massive topic. The next quote from his article really left me speechless. Sure, he’s already denied the historicity of Christian empowered slavery among my peoples, but it is low to distort his own scripture:

…………………..the egregious actions of the trans-atlantic slave traders were categorically condemned in the Holy Bible the only Word of God(before even the advent of Islam). A prime example of this can be found in 1 Timothy 1:8-10:

But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,

The problem with this argument, is that it backfires wholeheartedly on him. The Bible here is endorsing slavery as the Newport Slave Trade bulletin suggests, the Christians believed using slavery was as a means of gospel dispensation, they didn’t believe that slavery was an act of oppression, but a means of admittedly, spreading the religion of Christ, which is why the priest from the above quote, praised God for the “benighted beings”. In fact, Christianity and the Negro slave trade had become so synonymous that famous British authors and writers were documenting their close cohesion within their societal framework:

In 1750 Horace Walpole wrote scornfully of “the British Senate, that temple of liberty and the bulwark of Protestant Christianity,….pondering methods to make more effectual that horrid traffic of selling negroes. – [P. Cunningham (ed.), The Letters of Horace Walpole (London, 1891, II, 197. To Sir H. Mann, Feb. 25, 1750.)]

Mr. Chessie L. Edwards, the propagandist and denier of basic history that he is, then condemns himself in an abhorrent display of theological clown’s play:
 Yes slavery was in the Old Covenant law’s, it was governed and regulated but just as we see in the N.T an enslaver/manstealer/kidnaper was a Sinner in the Mosaic law as well.
Nowhere, does the New Testament outlaw slavery, in fact, I have demonstrated above where members of the Church were publicly endorsing Christianity, I’ll make it easier to refute Mr. Edwards by a brilliant quote:
……..another Liverpool slave trader, Foster Cunliffe, contributed largely. He was a pioneer in the slave trade. he and his two sons are listed as members of the Liverpool Committee of Merchants trading to Africa in 1752. Together they had four ships capable of holding 1,120 slaves, the profits from which were sufficient to stock twelve vessels on the homeward journey with sugar and rum. An inscription to Foster Cunliffe in St. Peter’s Church describes him this: “a Christian devout and exemplary in the exercise of every private and publick duty, friend to mercy, patron to distress, an enemy only to vice and sloth, he lived esteemed by all who knew him….and died lamented by the wise and good….” – [For Cunliffe, see Bourne, op. cit., II, 57, Botsford, op. cit., 122; Enfield, op. cit.,43, 49; Donnan, op. cit., II, 492, 497.]
Not only was this man praised by the Church for having the capability from one voyage to transfer 1, 120 slaves, he was praised for his service and deemed a friend to mercy, such to the extent this was inscribed on a Church! Unless Mr. Edwards has somehow developed amnesia, there is no excuse for his blatant disregard and misrepresentation of his faith when it’s this deeply related to slavery. To prove that the Bible does not endorse slavery, he refers to Shemot 21:16, what Christians call Exodus:
And whoever kidnaps a man, and he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.
Which sounds correct, until you read the beginning of the chapter and the meaning of this verse:
1. And these are the ordinances that you shall set before them. 2. Should you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work [for] six years, and in the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge. 3. If he comes [in] alone, he shall go out alone; if he is a married man, his wife shall go out with him. 4. If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5. But if the slave says, “I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go free,” 6. his master shall bring him to the judges, and he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.
Chessie L. Edwards was smart, he tried to deceive his readers by alienating the beginning of the chapter, where it promotes slavery, in fact it promotes slavery of a person forever as is clearly demonstrated above. What’s worse is that the verse he gave (16), does not mean that slavery means kidnapping, it actually means that a man cannot kidnap another man’s slave! For clarity, verse 16 is a law outlawing the kidnapping of another man’s slave, it’s okay to have slaves, just bad to take a slave from its owner, here is the Biblical commentary to support this:
Why is this said? Since it is said: “If a man be found to have stolen a person from among his fellow—men [he shall die]” I would know only [that this applies to] a man who stole another person.
By thus law every man-stealer, and every receiver of the stolen person, should lose his life; no matter whether the latter stole the man himself, or gave money to a slave captain or negro-dealer to steal for him. – Adam Clarke Biblical Commentary.
Isn’t it sad to see Mr. Edwards not only playing games with his scripture, but willingly misrepresenting it? If his character is this lowly, one must challenge this man’s credibility and sanity. In fact, he decides to say that the Bible only allows slavery, for economic purposes:
“ Furthermore, slavery within the Old Testament context was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial or sexual prejudices….”
I shall question this logic by referring to Bamidbar (Numbers) 31 of the Old Testament, what economic problems or debts were the Israelites facing in order to commit this atrocity?
And Moses said to them: “Have you kept all the women alive?
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.
and thirty-two thousand persons in all, of women who had not known a man intimately.
Were 32,000 virgin girls repaying some debt that Mr. Edwards would like to inform us of? I checked the chapter and you can too, right here. What economic problem or debt entails enslaving 32,000 virgins? Perhaps Mr. Edwards solution to his own debt problems is to get a virgin for himself to be intimate with? Mr. Edwards should probably work in wall street! He then goes on what I can assume is a drunken tirade, or probably drug driven rage of irrational, emotional, incoherent and inconsistent rabid ramblings:
Some of these dawahist desperate to give poor unsuspecting westerners “shahadah”(maybe to marry them?)
I checked the dictionary, I don’t know why he’s making up words again, it may be a side effect of a hangover, but what grown man, in an academic settings decides to sit down and make up words? “Dawahist”, sometimes I really wonder what’s in those bottles this man consumes.
may try to use Genesis 9:21-24 as proof that the Bible endorses racism. If anyone with at least half a bit of intellect would read the whole passage there is nothing in the text about Africa or African slavery.
Sure, there is nothing in the text about Africans or African slavery, the Bible is atleast in it’s complete form 700 years before the advent of African slavery, however Christians by and large (as demonstrated above) did in fact, use Bereishit (Genesis) 9:21-24 as a means of promoting slavery and distilling the gospel among the negro peoples:

The bells of the Bristol churches pealed merrily on the news of the rejection by Parliament of Wilberforce’s bill for the abolition of the slave trade. The slave trader, John Newton, gave thanks in the Liverpool churches for the success of his last venture before his conversion and implored God’s blessing on his next. He established public worship twice every day on his slaver, officiating himself, and kept a day of fasting and prayer, not for the slaves but for the crew. “I never knew,” he confessed, “sweeter or more frequent hours of divine communion than in the last two voyages to Guinea.” – [Larimer, op. cit., 100. & S. H. Swinny, The Humanitarianism of the Eighteenth Century.]

You read that correctly, while Mr. Edwards Genesis has anything to do with Biblical Slavery, the Christians in England were busy celebrating the prohibition of outlawing the slave trade. What a striking difference between Mr. Edward’s narrative and historical accounts. His drunken stupor then allowed him to state:

“The prophecy of Noah regrading Canaan was fulfilled in the Old Testament, there is no bases to apply it to anyone else or any other time period. If ignoramuses in the 1700’s tried to read their racist ideology into the text..”

Again, he finds himself at odds with missionaries and clergy men:

Many missionaries found it profitable to drive out Beelzebub by Beelzebub. According to the most recent English writer on the slave trade, they “considered that the best way in which to remedy abuse of negro slaves was to set the plantation owners a good example by keeping slaves and estates themselves, accomplishing in this practical manner the salvation of the planters and the advancement of their foundations.” The Moravian missionaries in the islands held slaves without hesitation; the Baptists, one historian writes with charming delicacy, would not allow their earlier missionaries to deprecate ownership of slaves.74 To the very end the Bishop of Exeter retained his 655 slaves, for whom he received over 12,700 compensation in 1833. Church historians make awkward apologies, that conscience awoke very slowly to the appreciation of the wrongs inflicted by slavery and that the defence of slavery by churchmen “simply arose from want of delicacy of moral perception.” – [ Mackenzie-Grieve, op. cit., 162., G. R. Wynne, The Church in Greater Britain (London, 1911), 120., H. of C. Sess. Pap., 1837-8, Vol. 48. The exact figure was 12,729.4.4 (pp. 19, 22)., Wynne, op. cit., 120; C. J. Abbey and J. H. Overton, The English Church in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1878), II, 107. and its results, in F. S. Marvin (ed.), Western Races and the World (Oxford, 1922), 130-131.]

He then begins to divert attention from his own Bible, by trying to claim the Qur’aan allows the chattel slavery of the Bible:

“…then they are no worst off then the Muslim slavers(many illiterate unable to read the Bible see Quran 62:2) who used the same misunderstandings to justify their own actions in Africa.”

So what does Qur’aan Surah 62, Ayat 2 say?

It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered a messenger from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom,- although they had been, before, in manifest error;-

There’s a reason the clown didn’t quote it in his article, because the citation is bogus, it’s not only irrelevant to the topic of discourse but goes on to demonstrate how desperate he has become. To deflect from his own ignorance of the Qur’aan, history and Biblical teachings he has to cast a diversion to draw aspersions on a scripture he incorrectly referenced. May God help this jackal of a man. His own words continue to defile any form of intellectual responsibility and accountability:

Further more the reality is that Slavery was not nearly eradicated from the earth  by Mullahs, Ulamah, and Caliphs, but the abolitionist movements which were germinated and watered by many Christians who looked keenly into the Bible and saw that the enslavement of people of African decent was abhorrent and needed to be stopped. May I remind the reader that the only reason slavery is not as prevalent in the Muslim world as it was even 60 years ago is because the principles of the abolitionist movement enshrined in Western culture influenced(or just shamed) the Muslim world?

This is probably one of the dumbest statements a man can make. The Muslims (West African tribes) were the slaves, brought forcibly to the West Indies. How could a Muslim in Arabia free a slave in the Caribbean? Mr. Edwards is trying to claim that it wasn’t Muslims who abolished slavery, it was the English Christians. Whereas this isn’t the case. To begin with, the very first person to propose enslaving Africans was a Christian. Christian priest, Bartholomew de la Casas, whom himself had slaves, proposed the use of Africans to ease the suffering of the slavery of the Amerindians. Lest we digress, how could the Arabs who did not have colonies in the West Indies, abolish the slave colonies of the Christian world super powers of England, France and Spain? I demand to know what is the source of this man’s logic.

“…where is the Muslim world’s William Wiberforce? Where is the Islamic John Brownfighting slavery in Dar ul Sudan? When has there ever been any indigenous grassroots abolitionist movement in a Muslim land?”

Well to answer our ignorant friend’s question, roughly 1200 years before any of these figures existed, Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded the freeing of slaves through the revelation of the Qur’aan:

Indeed We have created man (to live) in hard struggle. Does he think that no one has power over him? He says, “I have spent a lot of wealth.” Does he think that no one has seen him? Did We not make for him two eyes, And one tongue and two lips, And showed him the two ways? Yet he did not make his way through the steep course, And what may let you know what the steep course is? It is freeing the neck of a slave.

In fact the Qur’aan clearly details removing slavery:

…..And those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your right hands possess – then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.

It was even the Muslims who compelled the British to remove slavery from being legal, they even did so themselves, leading by example in Morocco:

Moorish envoy to England, in 1813, from Mulai Sulaiman, Emperor of Morocco (1794-1822), in whose reign Christian slavery was abolished in Morocco. His son Meïr Cohen Machim visited England in the same capacity in 1827.

 All slaves should show full respect for their masters so they will not bring shame on the name of God and his teaching. 2 If the masters are believers, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. Those slaves should work all the harder because their efforts are helping other believerswho are well loved.
And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Christianity’s History of African Hate

Posted on by 5 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

As a young adult, growing up in the Caribbean we are educated deeply into the history of slavery. After all, slavery has left a unique footprint in the lives, culture, status, economy of the Caribbean peoples. The majority of inhabitants of the Caribbean isles (and some mainland states) are either of African or Indian descent. We all know that there was the African Triangular Slave Trade where estimates of 6 million to 65 million Africans were captured and brought to the Western hemisphere. What is lesser known is the slave trade of the Indian peoples, although termed “indentureship”, for which the Indian peoples willingly signed into contractual labour on the sugar estates, the purposeful lack of judicial oversight, in the end made indentureship into a fancy title for the term, “slavery”. Although the Indians had contracts with the British, and the legal system to govern these indenturers was to be a judicial system, bribery, bias and overall need for cheap labour caused the abuse of this “legal system” to manipulate the contracts of these labourers.

Less I digress, Christianity has played or is known to have played a major role in the African Triangular slave trade. The question begs itself though, is there or was there Biblical justification for such an act of human degradation and torture? The answer may shock you and it’s a yes! A resounding yes. Just as today it is normal for a Christian to attack a Muslim, revile Muslims, abuse, curse Muslims, the same mindset was imposed on the Christians of the colonial era. They believed Africans to be of an inferior and cursed race, sanctioned by the sins of their forefathers, God had placed a sacred curse on the Africans and therefore it was the right of the Caucasian Christian peoples to impose severe punishment on God’s cursed people. This curse is known as the Curse of Ham and a person who has the Curse of Ham is identified by his dark skin colour:

Son of Noah and progenitor of one of the three great races of men whose ethnographical table is given by Genesis 10. Wherever the three sons of Noah are enumerated in the Bible, Cham is placed between Sem and Japhet. We may gather, however, from Genesis 9:24 that this enumeration is not based on their age, since Cham is there spoken of as the “younger son” of Noah, as compared, apparently, with both his brothers. The only incident of the life of Cham after the deluge, which is recorded in the Bible, is that related in Genesis 9:21-24. Cham sees his father under the influence of wine lying naked in his tent. He tells his brothers, who respectfully cover the patriarch. The sequel makes it plain that Cham was, on this occasion, guilty of great irreverence. For when Noah hears of the conduct of his sons he blesses Shem and Japhet, with their posterity, and he pronounces a curse, not on Cham, but on his son Chanaan and his descendants, predicting that they will be the servants of their bretheren.

You see, the story can indeed be found in the Bible, but the above excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia makes it clear what the punishment was, that these “cursed peoples”, had to be “servants/ slaves of their brethren”. The Geneva Study Bible makes it a bit more clear as to the verse’s meaning:

(r) He pronounces as a prophet the curse of God against all those who do not honour their parents: for Ham and his posterity were cursed.
(s) That is, a most vile slave.

What is striking is that Christians Right Wingers in America, claim that America is a Christian nation and always was a Christian nation. One must not forget that African Americans were not seen as human, or recognized as equals to Caucasian Christian Americans until 1954 under the Supreme Court’s decision in the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling. This extremely disturbing video displays the lengths to which Christian Caucasian Americans tortured innocent African Americans for over 60 years:

The contrast in Islam however, is vast, see this series of lectures by Shaykh Zahir Mahmood [db]:

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

 

Refutation: Nigeria’s Boko Haram: More Misunderstander’s of Islam?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Our favourite propagandist/ anti-intellectual has made an epic return. After a few embarrassing round of posts, Chessie L. Edwards, commonly known for his hate rhethoric has decided to make another erratic post on his already failing blog. Most of us would have heard about the tragic terrorist attacks in Nigeria on Christmas day, which as Muslims was condemned throughout the world. In fact, here’s a handy list of fatwas and statements by more than 100+ Islamic scholars condemning terrorism in the name of Islam.

While the incidents on Christmas Day were indeed tragic, it was even worse to see Christians such as Chessie L. Edwards, milking such a tragedy for views on his website. I apologize to all those who had to read his abusive and incoherent, drunken tirade against Muslims on that day. Chessie L. Edwards began to attack all Muslims for the actions of a few, just as his forefathers did (3 Crusades, hundrends of thousands dead):

Yet another Terrorist group on the arise killing at will and destroying kafir law and order with impunity.

Does Chessie L. Edwards not read about his own Christian brothers raping, maiming, slaughtering and committing genocide in Africa:

The LRA rebels stated that they fought for the establishment of a government based on the biblical Ten Commandments. They were notorious for kidnapping children and forcing them to become rebel fighters or concubines. More than one-half-million people in Uganda’s Gulu and Kitgum districts had been displaced by the fighting and lived in temporary camps, protected by the army.

In fact, he goes on to ask why American Islamic Organizations didn’t send scholars to teach/ correct the beliefs of the Nigerian terrorists, therefore we must ask the same question to him, Chessie, why don’t you and sam shamoun go and teach the LRA not to rape women and kill babies? Are you too busy pointing the fingers at Muslims to not correct your violent brothers in the name of Christ?

In fact, the Christians in Nigeria, instead of turning the other cheek, decided to kill Muslim children in a bomb attack on an Islamic school:

A homemade bomb was thrown into a madrasa in Delta State in southern Nigeria, the police said, wounding seven people and escalating already uneasy tensions between Muslims and Christians after several church bombings across the nation. Six of the wounded were children younger than 9.

Would Mr. Edwards kindly go and teach the true teachings of Christ to the Christian murderers and rapists in Africa, or as always, is he just sitting behind his computer attacking Muslims and messaging young Muslim boys on the internet still?

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refuting: Qur’aanic Contradiction Suratul Ikhlas

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Alot of uneducated and ignorant anti-Muslim rhetoric, usually comes from people who themselves can’t read a single word of Arabic. Therefore they appeal to the fallacy of damnant quod non intelligunt (meaning: they condemn what they do not understand). Such persons like sam shamoun (who still won’t dare debate me, after numerous challenges), have proposed that the Qur’aan uses incorrect Arabic in Suratul Ikhlas. The argument can be summarised as, if, “Allaah is one, and the Arabic for one is wahid, why does Suratul Ikhlas use ahad?”. Mufti Taqi Uthmani [db] refutes him perfectly in this wonderful and concise breakdown of the Qur’aanic Arabic:

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّ‌حْمَـٰنِ الرَّ‌حِيمِ

قُلْ هُوَ اللَّـهُ أَحَدٌ ﴿١﴾ اللَّـهُ الصَّمَدُ ﴿٢﴾ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ ﴿٣﴾ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ ﴿٤﴾

 

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Debate: Yusuf Ismail vs William Lane Craig [Identifying Jesus: Is he man or both man & God?]

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Most people have probably never heard of Br. Yusuf Ismail, and that’s a shame, he is one of the best present day debaters in the world of theology, especially from the Muslim side. This is one of his greatest debates, although it does date back to 2010, it really demonstrates how weak Christians can become (intellectually) in front of a Muslim whose been educated in the same exact fields, read the same books, used the same arguments. William Lane Craig clearly underestimated Br. Yusuf, if you’re looking for a debate to fancy your interests, learn a thing or two, we certainly recommend this one:

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Neither Shaken nor Stirred: The Qur’aan and Science on Alcohol Consumption

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Though it is evident that wine has a few medical benefits, scientific researches have proved that the harms of wine and alcohol in general exceed by far their benefits, both on the individual and social levels, even among moderate drinkers. And surprisingly this is how Quran addresses Wine:

“They question thee about alcohol (wine) and games of chance. Say: In both is great sin, and some utility (benefits) for men; but the sin(harms) of them is greater than their usefulness.” –  Qur’aan : Surat al-Baqarah (2) : 219.

Thus alcohol in Islam is forbidden (haram).
Science confirms this Qur’aannic fact:

WEDNESDAY, May 2 (HealthDay News) — While it might help your heart, drinking even moderately could shrink your brain, U.S. researchers say.

Alcohol is more harmful than heroin or crack when the overall dangers to the individual and society are considered, according to a study in the Lancet. 

Moderate drinking shrinks the brain: researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and other institutions found a link between low to moderate alcohol consumption and a decrease in the brain size of middle-aged adults.

‘Moderate’ drinking is harmful to younger people, says study.

Alcohol Linked to Cancer Risk in Women: Study Shows Even Low-to-Moderate Drinking Raises Risk of Cancer.
Feb. 24, 2009 — Women who drink as little as one alcoholic beverage a day — be it beer, wine, or hard liquor — have an increased cancer risk, a study shows. Based on their findings, the researchers estimated that alcohol could be to blame for 13% of these cancers in women.

The largest ever study published in 2009 reveals that as little as a glass of wine a day may be too risky for women.

Alcohol increases breast cancer risk.

Alcohol effects on Fetal Development: Fetal alcohol exposure is a leading cause of birth defects and developmental disorders. Recent estimates of the number of US children affected by fetal alcohol exposure range from 1 per 2,000 live births to 1 per 100 live births.”

Alcohol is the worst attack on society: Alcoholic drinks are much more dangerous than drugs. According to a home survey on Alcohol and Drugs from the National Plan on Drugs, alcohol is the substance that is consumed most by a population between the ages of 15 and 64, with a consumption prevalence of 78.7 per cent.

Alcohol and drug abuse also poses a public health risk. The abuse of these substances causes a variety of cancers, diseases, and other health problems. Each year, society pays $16 billion in healthcare costs due to drugs and alcohol.

This article authored by Brother Muhyiddine of Dubai.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Prophetic Miracle of Muhammad {saw}: Desert Arabs Competing in Building Skyscrapers

Posted on by 3 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

“The Hour will not be established-till the people of the desert (the camel shepherds) compete with one another in constructing high buildings.”
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) on the minor signs of the last day.

On being asked on the signs of the last day, the Prophet (peace be upon him) mentions: “you shall see the barefoot, naked, penniless shepherds competing in constructing high buildings.” This hadith describes people who become rich all of a sudden and then build not for need but only in competition.

The Gulf Arab States, enjoying the proceeds of record-high oil prices, are rushing to build the tallest tower in world, reports Kuwait Times.

As reported by MEED (Middle East Economic Digest), Saudi Arabia has been the latest among the Gulf States to join the race, with a plan to build a 1600m tower in the Red Sea City of Jeddah. The project, which is expected to surpass the super-tall skyscrapers in the neighboring Dubai and Kuwait, confirms that the competition is on, to build the world’s tallest tower in the Gulf region.

Among all other super-tall structures that are under construction around the globe, none exceeds 700m in height. MEED says that although the companies involved in the Saudi-based project are kept secretive, it is said that Britain’s Hyder Consulting and Arup are working in a joint-venture, and the cost of the project is expected to cost up to $10 billion. The tower, known as
“Mile-High Tower” will have the US Engineering giant Bechtel as construction manager, and Saudi-based Omrania as the project architect.

Read more on the planned tower at this link.

This article provided by Brother Muhyiddine of Dubai.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Recent Entries »