Tag Archives: answering muslims

Calling Jonathan McLatchie to a Higher Standard

Jonathan has just released another article about me, and I’m honestly flummoxed with respect to his opening few words. Polemicists like Jonathan, have always claimed that Muslims do not understand the Trinity (well, who does?), and so we should rely on the Christian community for the explanation of this doctrine. Therefore it causes me concern that when Muslims do seek counsel from the Christian community about the statements of their polemicists about the Trinity, we are regarded as promoting division and discord. If we don’t ask them about the Trinity, it’s because we’re allegedly ignoring what they say and when we do ask them, it’s because we allegedly want to sow discord amongst them.

I’m okay with Jonathan making false claims about me, because I understand that he’s upset that during a discussion about Jonathan’s heretical ideas about the Trinity one of his close friends denounced his views as “not orthodox”. One can see that video here:

Here’s the funny thing about Jonathan and his friend, Jonathan’s friend is now attempting to backtrack on his statements after putting Jonathan into hot water. Unfortunately, in a poor attempt to save face, Jonathan falsified comments about his friend, here is one such example:

cc-2016-jm-lieaboutrudolph

Here’s the thing though, I did meet Jonathan yesterday, and I did play the clip for him up until 1 minute after the sound bite in the video ends. Nowhere in that 1 minute after the sound bite above does his friend Rudolph ever say, “But Jonathan did not say that”. In fact, nowhere in the 36 minutes and 31 seconds Jonathan’s friend and I spoke, did he ever utter such a statement. In fact, the entire conversation is currently circulating and has been circulating among both Muslims and Christians since yesterday, Jonathan was even told he could come to Hyde Park and collect a copy if he wished. What this means, is that in order to save face, Jonathan has lied about his friend Rudolph, and even after hearing the clip himself and never hearing Rudolph ever state “But Jonathan did not say that”, Jonathan continues to claim his friend Rudolph was misrepresented. Simply, what’s going on here is that Jonathan has found himself in a bad position and I do not blame him for going to desperate ends. Jonathan’s very friend is also in a tough position and is put between his faith and his friend. It’s a very uncomfortable position for Jonathan, his friends and fellow Christians. The interesting thing though, is that I don’t need a voice recording to show Jonathan that his friend has already publicly criticized him for his heretical views about the Trinity.

cc-2016-jm-heresy3

Take note of the above public conversation. Christians are “not quite comfortable” with the claims of Jonathan regarding the Trinity. In fact, his friend Rudolph replies that he agrees, he says, “I agree”. So what do we have now? We have a voice conversation where his friend states clearly that Jonathan’s view were not orthodox as expressed in the video, we have a conversation on Facebook where his friend agrees that he’s uncomfortable with what Jonathan said, and then as a good friend he goes on to correct Jonathan by trying to explain what Jonathan meant to say, as opposed to what he did say. Jonathan tried and fell into error, his friends are in agreement that they’re uncomfortable with what he stated in that video and now they have to try and say what Jonathan didn’t in that video clip in Hyde Park. It’s clearly caused division among them, and that’s why Jonathan blames me in his article. It’s his way of expressing that his friends themselves, have publicly denounced him as being in error.

With respect to his claims about me “misrepresenting” Sam’s article, Jonathan has also changed his position. Yesterday he proclaimed I misquoted Sam. Today, I’ve apparently no longer misquoted but misrepresented Sam. The problem is this, Sam claims the Qur’an makes an error by stating:

They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. – 5:73.

So here’s the problem, for a number of years Sam has claimed that Christians do not teach that God is a third of three. On Sunday, Jonathan claimed in Hyde Park that God was a third of three. So now there’s a conundrum. If as Jonathan said that God in Christianity is a third of three, then it makes Sam Shamoun a liar in his numerous articles claiming the Qur’an is wrong. If Jonathan is wrong and what Sam claimed in his articles is true, then Jonathan is a heretic. Either way, Jonathan has put Sam into hot water and that’s why you see Sam not commenting on the issue but only Jonathan, because once Sam makes a statement one way or the either, he then publicly embarrasses himself and Jonathan. That’s one of the reasons that Sam’s quote was used and why Jonathan had to change his false claim of me misquoting, to me misrepresenting Sam. Jonathan then goes on to say:

Ijaz also, unfortunately, butchered the comments of Dr. James White regarding the meaning of theotetos, translated by the KJV as “godhead” but which White objects to since Godhead is commonly used to refer to the Trinity and the word theotetos is referring to Deity, i.e. to that which makes God God.

Jonathan completely missed the point. I in fact, didn’t touch the comments of Dr. James White, they are unedited and properly cited, this is just another poor attempt at deflection and deception by Jonathan. With respect to the quote itself, I agree with Dr. White, in fact, in the video I published the very quote was used to show that Christians do believe the Godhead is God, is a Deity. Jonathan is so caught up in trying to respond to the trouble he’s found himself in, he doesn’t even recognize when I agree with him. So, uh, thank you Jonathan for demonstrating that you’re simply not paying attention and are merely trying to respond rather than to understand what is being said, your mistake and your haste speaks volumes about your character.

I also do not see why he had to re-explain Dr. White’s words on the Father not being 1/3rd of God. That’s exactly what the quote I used said:

“The Father is not ⅓ of God, the Son ⅓ of God, the Spirit ⅓ of God. Each is fully God, coequal with the others, and that eternally.”

White, James R.. The Forgotten Trinity (p. 27). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

The quote stands as is, I’m in agreement with what Dr. White said, not in disagreement. That’s exactly why I quoted him in the first place. Now, what Jonathan said next is extremely important to the situation he now finds himself in, he says:

“What I meant is that the Father is a third of the Godhead in the sense…”

Jonathan accepts he made a heretical claim about the Trinity, he distinguishes between what he said in the video, and today by what he currently means. It’s no longer, “what I said…,” but is now, “what I meant…”. Jonathan knows that he screwed up, his friends know that he screwed up, and now the recorded conversations, the recorded Facebook comments, the silence of some of his friends, the criticism from the Christian community and now Jonathan’s lying and falsification of statements all stand against him. Jonathan himself acknowledges that he’s disappointed in himself, that he has to write such articles:

“It disappoints me that I even need to write responses like this.”

I agree Jonathan, we are all disappointed in you, that you need to write such poor articles. We recognize and stand in solidarity with the disappointment you have in yourself. We do call you to a higher standard, so that you can no longer be disappointed in yourself.

and God knows best.

All of God, not one third of God.

David Wood Fires Blanks

A recipe for disaster indeed! Moments after David Wood ran away after being called out on his spamming of a conversation between Pastor Samuel Green and I, he’s blocked me on Facebook. As you can see in the image provided, David began to spam a conversation because of a single comment I made in response to one of Samuel’s claims.

After much bravado, name calling, threats (to put me on his blog, been there; done that!), empty rhetoric and straw men, David decided to call a hasty retreat and shy away from facing me again – so he’s blocked me on Facebook! Isn’t this funny? David Wood enters into a conversation of which he’s not part of, spams it with 10’s of comments, insults me, tries to insult my God, tries to bait me into arguing with him, and he’s the one who ends up blocking me. That’s much like a robber who tries to hold you up with a gun, realises he’s firing blanks (an empty threat), and runs away!

That’s pretty much what happened. He showed up unannounced, attempted to get a reaction out of me by spamming and saying as much crude and crass things he could’ve conceived, and when he realised I wouldn’t give him what he wanted, the poor kid gave up. I almost feel sorry for him. All in all, David Wood has once again demonstrated that Christian polemicists are immature, infantile and irresponsible in their behaviour. In their haste to attack and disparage Islam, they are wholly unable to have a civilized conversation and must resort to brute force tactics, strong armed manoeuvres  and rabid ranting to face contemporary Muslim speakers.

David Wood the Voyeur Wearing Women's Lingerie - Self Admitted Cross Dresser

David Wood the Voyeur Wearing Women’s Lingerie – Self Admitted Cross Dresser

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say this again, David and his team are not intellectuals, they are not familiar with educational discourse. They are thugs, who are using Islamophobia to gain donation monies for their own personal uses, while riding the Right-Wing Christian train for fame. Good riddance!

 

David Wood Cowers from Calling Christians

After facing heat for inventing false evidences, David Wood, seeing his partner in crime about to be embarrassed, rushed to Samuel’s aid. I posted one comment, questioning Samuel’s calling of a du’a, as a Surah (both him and I knowing full well this is an Orientalist claim and not a Muslim claim, we tend to know the difference between a du’a for blessing the recitation of the Qur’aan and a Surah). As you can see in the image below, David entered into a rabid frenzy, copy pasting every hadeeth he could find from Samuel’s ill written article:

cc-2014-davidwood-spamming

As you can see, for every one comment I make, he makes atleast five in return, finally towards the end he confesses he spammed me because of my questions towards Samuel Green. Interestingly, I asked David why he was misquoting ahadeeth and using incorrect translations. He decided to attack a straw man and claim I told him that he misquoted the da’eef (weak) hadeeth about the goat story from Ibn Majah.

I invited David to quote for me where I indicated that the goat story was the hadeeth I was referring to. After several loud mouthed claims, and a few snide remarks, he tucked his tail between his legs and forsook his crusade, realising that I never made that claim. Such is the ‘intellectual David Wood’, I asked one question, he got angry and spammed a conversation that had nothing to do with him. Realising he’d not be able to overwhelm me, or drag me into an insult match, he decided to invent a lie, and when called upon to qualify his claim, he ran off into the sunset – probably to try on more of his wife’s make up and underwear:

David Wood the Voyeur Wearing Women's Lingerie - Self Admitted Cross Dresser

David Wood the Voyeur Wearing Women’s Lingerie – Self Admitted Cross Dresser

Sorry David, I enjoyed watching you panic and flee.

and God knows best.

Criticism of CL Edwards’ Debate Methodology versus Br. Shadid Lewis

Br. Shadid Lewis and CL Edwards recently had a debate entitled, “Can We Trust the Islamic Jesus“, this is not a review of the debate (the review shall be published soon), but this is a criticism of CL Edward’s methodology of which he employed during the debate. I base my informed criticism about CL, on my experience as a debater who has also previously engaged with him in a recorded debate and on my past rebuttals to him.

The Scope and Delimitations of the Debate

It’s all in the title. When two debaters sit down to discuss a topic, they are agreeing to leave off all other discussions and to focus on what the subject of the debate is. So for example, if I sit down with an opponent, and we agree to debate oranges, we are agreeing to discuss nothing but oranges, we will not discuss any other fruit such as an apple, or a banana. This therefore is what we refer to as the scope (depth) and the delimitations (boundaries of the debate). The scope of the debate, is that we have agreed to discuss everything about oranges, as much as we can. The delimitations (or boundaries) of the debate, mean that we limit ourselves to the discussion of oranges. CL would have to explain if he did not agree to debate this topic, to atleast release himself from the criticism against him.

What’s in the Title?

The title of the debate was and up to the start of the debate, declared to be, “Can We Trust the Islamic Jesus“. Let’s break the title up to understand what the scope and delimitations of the debate was:

  • Can we trust
  • the Islamic Jesus

Who is being referred to as, ‘we‘, here? Well, let the evidence show that the we, includes solely Christians and Muslims. Why do I say this? Well for one, the organization which CL Edwards represented was a Christian organization, the Center for Religious Debate. The audience was a Christian audience. The debate was held inside of a Church and the debate began and ended with Christian prayers.

Secondly, they were debating the Islamic Jesus, not the sources of the Islamic Jesus, but whether or not Christians, can trust the Islamic Jesus, not the Islamic faith, the Islamic scriptures, the Islamic Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), but the Islamic Jesus.

What was Shadid’s Methodology?

Since this was a Christian opponent, and a Christian audience and given the scope and delimitations of the debate title, Br. Shadid’s methodology was quite simple. It can be demonstrated in set notation:

Let Set M represent the attributes of Islamic Jesus:

  • Set M = {Man, Prophet, Sent by God, Did Miracles, Virgin Birth, Messiah}.

Let Set C represent the attributes of the Christian Jesus:

  • Set C = {Man, Prophet, Sent by God, Did Miracles, Virgin Birth, Messiah, God}.

Set C represents what Christians trust about Jesus, therefore, Shadid’s methodology is to demonstrate the intersection of Islamic beliefs and Christians beliefs about Jesus, imply that they already believe what Muslims believe, and since they already trust their own beliefs about Christ, they then already trust the Islamic beliefs about Christ.

Let M ^ C be the intersection or what is commonly trusted among the beliefs of Muslims and Christians about Christ:

  • Set M ^ C = {Man, Prophet, Sent by God, Did Miracles, Virgin Birth, Messiah}.

The Muslim beliefs about Christ, are therefore declared to be a subset of the beliefs which Christians have about Jesus Christ. I’m using set logic, or set notation, since this is the easiest way to explain Br. Shadid’s methodology. I’m also using this form of explanation, since CL Edwards claims to have studied logic, or atleast attempted to explain (without reason), the definition of several logical fallacies during the debate. It is therefore the case, that CL clearly is an inane ignoramus, a sophomore (bookful blockhead), who although being a claimant of utilizing logic, he clearly did not understand the clear and consistent logic as used by Br. Shadid. My criticism against CL shows that he either intentionally misled himself into thinking he was a logician, or he fooled his audience by claiming to understand Br. Shadid’s methodology.

What was CL’s Methodology?

CL Edwards focused his argument on the following points:

  • The Qur’aan is not from the first century, thus it is not a reliable witness to the personhood of Christ.
  • The Qur’aan does not contain first person eyewitness reports, thus it cannot be trusted as to what it says about Christ.
  • The Qur’aan’s claim that Jesus had a scripture which has never been seen or proven to exist, proves that the Islamic Jesus cannot be trusted.

His methodology however, fails to live up to the scope and delimitations of the debate title, for which both speakers agreed upon. Let’s look at the first argument. The debate is not about the reliability of the Qur’aan, therefore the first argument of CL is outside the scope and delimitations of the debate, not to mention it contradicts his own beliefs as the New Testament itself is outside of the first century via empirical evidence (P52 dated to 125 CE), theoretically though it is dated to have existed in some form during the 70 – 80 CE, however there is no physical manuscript (for which CL argued for) which proves this.

His second argument, once again falls outside of the scope and delimitations of the title. The debate is not about the reliability of eyewitness reports. Br. Shadid during the debate also successfully demonstrated that the New Testament was written decades after Christ, by persons unknown to Christ, the names of the Gospels are mere attributions as handed down by tradition and not by fact.

Lastly, his final point, the existence of the Injeel also fails to be relevant to the title. The debate is not about whether the Injeel existed or not, or what the evidence for the Injeel is, therefore this argument of CL is highly irrelevant and clearly outside the scope and delimitations of the agreed debate title.

A Change of Scope and Delimitations

At some point during the debate, CL realised that if he were to argue against trusting the Islamic Jesus, he’d have to argue against what Christians already believe about Christ – since the Muslim beliefs about Christ are a subset of what Christians already do believe (this was demonstrated above). CL, realising this, decided to alter the scope of the debate, by asking Br. Shadid to assume he was an atheist, and therefore from this angle, challenged him to prove that the Islamic Jesus existed.

Once again, this only goes to demonstrate that CL is not a professional debater, nor is he educated. To begin with, if we are to discuss the topic that CL proposed, then we’d be discussing the origins of Christ, since atheists do not agree that Christ may have even existed at all. This is outside the scope of the debate, as the title does not indicate that either speaker was to prove Christ existed, but rather to show that Christians who already believed in a Jesus Christ, can also believe or trust in the Islamic Christ.

A Hypocrite of Unforeseen Proportions

During the debate CL Edwards found himself claiming several fallacies of Br. Shadid, to which he himself is victim of:

  1. Confirmation bias.
  2. Straw man argumentation.
  3. Cherry picking.

CL’s confirmation bias, was demonstrated when he declared that the Bible came from eyewitnesses during the first century. This is clearly a false notion and none of the NT texts have been transmitted as first person verbatim.

By pretending to be an atheist and asking Br. Shadid to prove that Christ existed at all and then condemning him when he chose not to – and to instead stick to the debate, this is in itself a straw man argument.

Lastly, Br. Shadid, practised the Christian methodology of typology, in which they read from their own text/ scripture (the New Testament) about the Christ and then they return to the Old Testament to demonstrate that he was mentioned there, or that the Old Testament offers proofs about him. Br. Shadid applied this same methodology to the New Testament, he declared the Christ of the Qur’aan to be trustworthy and then using typology, demonstrated the Qur’aanic Christ from the New Testament. One of the strangest arguments from CL is that he asked, how could Br. Shadid seek for evidences of an Islamic Christ in a book he himself believe to be corrupted, when CL himself and many Christians believe that Jews corrupted the Torah to hide the truth about the Christ’s prophecies within them. He lowly can he go?

Very Low

In a last ditch attempt to salvage a debate in which the methodology of Br. Shadid flew over his head, in a debate to which he could not commit himself to be relevant, and to a crowd who was anxious – waiting for him to make a single valid point, CL went to the lowest low. He began to insult and use derogatory terms. How are these questions relevant to the trustworthiness of the Islamic Christ?

  • Does your God have a penis?
  • Your Prophet had sex with a child.

These have nothing to do with the debate, but rather these were low blows in attacking the faith of Br. Shadid, in order to escape the reality that CL cannot stand up and defend his faith, so he rather cast insults to make himself feel better. In contrast, doesn’t CL believe in a deity who is a man, and therefore does have genitals? We also pray that CL has taken a biology class or two, but again, his level of intelligence is yet to be established, therefore it is no wonder he has labelled a young adult as a child, he does not know that at the age of sexual maturation, a child can no longer be labeled as such.

The Reality of the Debate

If CL had to argue that the Islamic Jesus was not trustworthy, seeing as the Islamic beliefs about Christ, are a subset of Christian beliefs about Christ, he’d be relegated to arguing against his own religion. Therefore, for a majority of the debate, he focused on things outside of the scope and delimitation of the topic – the existence of the Injeel, the Qur’aanic claims about Christ, the eyewitnesses, God’s genitals, explaining the meanings of some logical fallacies, etc. CL did not have the courage to discuss the topic directly and therefore found himself fiddling around with largely irrelevant arguments, pretending to be atheist and mocking his opponent.

I’ve always held that the debate with Bob Siegel was the worst of the series, but to me, CL took the cake for this title. Bob was uninformed, inexperienced, but we cannot offer the same excuses for CL. He’s debated before, this is his field of interest, he’s a seminary student, he claims to be an ex-Muslim, he has no excuse for his lackluster performance, his shameful behaviour and his lack of mental fortitude to cope with the methodology and logic of Br. Shadid.

CL Can’t Change

I experienced the same with CL during my debate with him. Like any other dud, he tried to explain that Christ was God from evidences in the Bible, the debate however was titled, “Is Jesus God, man or both”?, it never asked according to the Qur’aan or Bible! I caught him out, demonstrated that his evidences and opening were useless, I used the secular historical method, never once quoting the New Testament or the Qur’aan. I’d presented an argument, with a methodology that he hadn’t prepared for, so his counter arguments were nuanced, he couldn’t salvage the debate because he didn’t prepare for it in the way I did.

Similarly, he wrongly assumed the arguments Br. Shadid would offer, so when Br. Shadid offered something logical, and clear, something CL didn’t think of – he had to go all out to not lose a second debate in a row. CL lost one debate, perhaps we could excuse him as it was his first, but to lose a second in a row because he was unprepared to deal with his opponent’s arguments – demonstrates that he is not a debater, he cannot hold his own and when he’s put to defend his religion, he can’t.

The Challenge

I know CL cannot debate me, I know that he’d try to mock me or insult my religion or cast aspersions about my character. Regardless of these things, he cannot hold his own in a debate, so here I am, challenging CL to debate me, let’s debate the topic Bob failed to impress on, “Is the NT Reliable“? Can you defend your religion against a person who’s not only significantly younger than you, but who’s unfazed by your theatrics? The challenge has been issued, all we need now is to see if CL can stand up and hold his own…? I’ve issued an email challenge to him, this is the message verbatim:

Good day Mr. Edwards,

Please see the following article assessing your performance, and also see the challenge towards the end:

https://callingchristians.com/2013/09/13/criticism-of-cl-edwards-debate-methodology-versus-br-shadid-lewis/

Can you hold your own?

Let’s see what his next move is.

and Allaah knows best.

Christians Racially Abuse Br. Shadid Lewis

It is no secret that the Answering Muslims Blog is operated by extremist right-wing American Christians, David Wood himself is a very active member of the anti-iimigration, anti-Muslim organization Act4America!, and several of their posts are very critical of the US President simply because of his ethnicity. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the persons who often view their blog, think similarly to them. Unfortunately, they have no shame in what they say, despite claiming to be religious folk and a few of their members let their racism openly be known directly on the Answering Muslims Blog and via one of their friend’s Paltalk rooms of which Anthony Rogers (under the pseudonym, Charles Martel), frequently visits and supports:

shadid whip

Click to Enlarge

This particular Christian found it particularly pleasant to refer to Br. Shadid’s ‘fetish‘ for being whipped. It is quite well known that African slaves in America were punished via the whip, or lashes with whips as is described in violent beatings referred to as ‘lynchings’. Therefore, this person’s insinuation is that Br. Shadid is a black Muslim who like those before him, likes to be whipped by his Caucasian Christian superiors.

cc-2013-shadidracism1

This comment is a bit more direct and was featured prominently on the Answering Muslims blog. Here we can see a Caucasian Christian, insinuating that Br. Shadid was an angry black Muslim, who was very threatening to those in the West. Why would the color of his skin need to be mentioned, and why the adjective angry? It’s fairly common to see racists referring to Afro-Americans as ‘Angry Black Persons‘, in this case, Br. Shadid is rendered as an ‘Angry Black Muslim Man‘, who is ‘very threatening‘, and was ‘yelling‘ at his audience. Whereas Bob Siegel who debated Br. Shadid, was screaming and making strange noises on stage, but never once was he described as ‘loud‘, ‘yelling‘ or ‘angry‘.

Neither David Wood nor Anthony Rogers who commented on the same post on their blog, found it to be inappropriate that Br. Shadid’s color of skin was used as a criticism against him, which only goes to show that they agree with what this person wrote. As Muslims, we do not allow racism to be a part of our religion, even if we dislike a certain culture, we dislike the culture itself and not the persons, as it is easy to dislike a sin, but not to hate the sinner – as no one is devoid of God’s mercy and guidance.

We kindly ask Answering Muslims to issue an apology to the Muslim and African communities in regards to their racism and we hope to see that they shall take punitive measures to curb the racist culture which is bred amongst their fan base. I decided to send an e-mail to Anthony Rogers (smprparatus@aol.com), asking him to address the issue:

Good Day Mr. Rogers,
I am quite appalled to have seen several racist comments issued by your fan base in regards to Br. Shadid Lewis, including mentions of him liking to be whipped and that he was also an angry black man. I do not know if you condone, or if your faith allows you to pursue such views (viz a viz the curse of Ham), but as a Muslim I have found those remarks to be quite distasteful and abusive.

In this article I have screenshotted said comments issued by your fan base:

https://callingchristians.com/2013/09/13/christians-racially-abuse-br-shadid-lewis/

Will you be intending to address the racist culture bred amongst your fan base, or is this behaviour something you and your faith condones? Looking forward to a reply given the serious nature of this situation.

Br. Ijaz Ahmad
http://www.callingchristians.com

and Allaah knows best.

Samuel Green Responds to my Question

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Samuel Green, an Australian preacher who is described by Shamoun as his favourite apologist/ Christianity’s best apologist has responded to a Facebook post of mines. Unfortunately, I don’t think it went well for him, perhaps there are other Christians out there willing to help him? I did want to post this as a Missionary Mishap, but I think this post is a serious question and I don’t wish to denigrate the character of Mr. Green, of whom I enjoy discussing Christianity with.

1  Ijaz Ahmad

 

1  Ijaz Ahmad (1)

 

1  Ijaz Ahmad (2)

 

My question has yet to be answered and I fully believe that Samuel’s exacerbated the issue to a far greater extent that I imagined he would have. Any Christians willing to take the dive and jump into this debacle?

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Umar Lee Apostates from Christianity

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Umar Lee caused quite a stir when he became Christian not too long ago. His video was posted by David Wood and Robert Spencer, even Pamela Geller! Today he’s posted a new video – he’s apostated from Christianity and is now Muslim! Here’s the video, but most of us are still left wondering if David, Spencer or Pamela will post his new video too, or will they even comment on it?

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Refutation: Idolatry and Islamic Worship

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Anthony Rogers, accompanied by a gang of roused propagandists, spent a significant amount of time attacking Islamic monotheism and those who defend it because they assume Muslims misunderstand their doctrine of their incarnate God. Ironically, in order to demonstrate how Muslims ‘misrepresent’ Christian theology, Anthony Rogers decided not to teach Muslims about his theology, but to instead misrepresent Islam. So great is his wisdom, that instead of trying to elucidate his doctrine, he went on a tirade of foul mouthed angry posts to the extent one could sense the foam, form around his mouth due to his rabid ranting. He says:

We’ve all heard Muslims say that worshipping Jesus as the Word made flesh is inherently and inescapably idolatrous, particularly since Jesus in His humanity has a form and could be seen, handled, touched, etc.

To correct Anthony, our issue cannot be summed into such a myopic and incredulous sentence, rather our issues are:

  1. Worshiping the creation.
  2. Believing God can change – even though He the First and the Last – absolute.
  3. Believing that God can gain, change and alter in form and essence.

Hereon, Anthony builds a quasi-childish argument. He quotes an ayah which states Muslims will be able to see God on the Day of Judgment. Then, due to his faulty inference reasoning, he claims that since we can see God on the Day of Judgement, then God will also be in a created form. From this, we can now understand that his argument is not to explain to the ‘misrepresenting’ Muslims, the doctrine of an incarnate God, but to ideally commit the tu quoque fallacy through argumentum reductio ad absurdum. What does this mean? Simply explained his response is, ‘you believe the same too‘, and ‘my response can be qualified by reducing your corpus of texts to a cherry picked and out of context hadith for which I myself do not understand‘.

He quotes a lot of hadith – a lot. Why? To demonstrate that Muslims believe that God will eventually assume a form, do the texts state this? Nope, they don’t. So where does he get this idea from? Probably from the sanitarium his closest friends and teachers escaped from.

To begin with, there are two ayat of the Qur’aan which form the absolute basics of Islamic theology from which we can then extend their context to, in relation to any other text , whether that be from the Qur’aan, or the Hadith corpus. This is the first rule of scriptural exegesis and theology – to interpret scripture…….with scripture! Isolating a few verses and removing them from the context of their theological foundation is nothing short of abject dishonest on the part of Mr. Rogers. We read:

  • there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things). – 42:11.
  • And there is none like unto Him. – 112:4.

Therefore, to say that God has a form or will be incarnate, is to misrepresent and misinterpret the hadith which are within the theological bounds of Islamic theology stemming from its own scripture, as are duly quoted above. What does it therefore mean, or what do the ahadith mean, when they claim we will be able to see God on the Day of Judgement? We read the following from Shaykh Faraz Rabbani who in response to this question, “Then how can we see Allah? Wouldn’t it entail affirming a direction, body, and form for Allah?“, he states the following:

No, it doesn’t–because the beholding of Allah Most High is “without resemblance [to the beholding of created things] and without encompassing,” as Imam Ibrahim Laqani mentions in his primer on Islamic beliefs, Jawharat al-Tawhid.

It is completely possible for Allah to create beholding in His servants, without there being physical directionality between them and Him.

This beholding is one of the greatest of spiritual favors. May Allah make us of those who are granted ultimate felicity, through true following of the Beloved Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).

From the Shaykh’s answer, we understand now that since God is all-powerful, and I assume Anthony believes his God is, then we can agree that God is able to allow us to behold Him, without having to take a shape and or form. We also know from the Qur’aan that God is veiled from us:

“It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah’s permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise.” – 42:51.

This veil according to two ahadith is light, as Shaykh Salih al Munajjid explains:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) on the night of the Mi’raaj (ascent into heaven) did not see his Lord. He was asked ‘Did you see your Lord?’ He said, “I saw Light.” According to another report: “Light – how could I see Him?” i.e., between me and Him there was a great veil of light. According to a hadeeth in al-Saheeh, it is narrated that Allaah is veiled in Light. That appears in the hadeeth in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “His veil is Light and if He were to remove it, the glory of His Countenance would burn everything of His creation, as far as His gaze reaches.” Because His sight reaches everything, and everything would be burned by this immense Light.

As for the argument we expect – if God does not take a form, as Anthony argues through his application of Christian theology upon Islamic scripture, how can we see God, or how are we to understand that we can ‘behold’ God? We read from  Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam’s, “al-Fatawa al-Mawsiliyya“, the following:

“Concerning the vision of Allah Most High in the hereafter, He shall be seen with the light which He created in the eyes in addition to the light of knowledge. For vision unveils what knowledge does not unveil, and if the exalted Lord wanted to create in the heart a light such as the one He created in the eyes so that it could look at Him by means of it, it would not be difficult for Him at all. Nay – if He wanted to create the light of the heart and that of the eyes in the hands and the feet and the nails it would not be difficult for Him at all!”

Given the evidences presented above, we can understand that a complete theology accepts that God is without form, unlike His creation, while being able to allow His creation to behold Him, without his having a need to take a form. We must remember, that a God who needs, such as the Christian God which Anthony believes in, cannot be an all-powerful being, for having a need, makes God dependent and God is dependent on nothing. In closing, we must remember that Anthony is not a scholar, nor is he a gentleman, we cannot expect him to uphold any form of academic objectivity, scholastic honesty or intellectual integrity. His arguments are as of those found on the stage, mere theatrics to amuse the easily bewildered, the simple minded and the intellectual stunted. I do not expect him to represent Islam accurately, nor do I expect him to amend his ways, for he is nothing more than an internet missionary and these traits are alien to him, his lifestyle and his theology.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Addendum:

Concerning the hadith in which it is stated (taken directly from Anthony’s post):

Then (Allah) the Lord of the worlds will come to them in a shape nearest to the picture they had in their minds about Him. It will be said, ‘What are you waiting for?’ Every nation have followed what they used to worship.’ They will reply, ‘We left the people in the world when we were in great need of them and we did not take them as friends. Now we are waiting for our Lord Whom we used to worship.’ Allah will say, ‘I am your Lord.’ They will say twice or thrice, ‘We do not worship any besides Allah.’ ” (Bukhari,6.60.105)

Again, in isolating any text is tantamount to clear cut dishonesty, we read other ahadith which qualify the meaning of the above one:

Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah said, ‘I am to my slave as he thinks of Me, (i.e. I am able to do for him what he thinks I can do for him). – Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 596.

The Prophet said, “Allah says: ‘I am just as My slave thinks I am, (i.e. I am able to do for him what he thinks I can do for him) and I am with him if He remembers Me. If he remembers Me in himself, I too, remember him in Myself; and if he remembers Me in a group of people, I remember him in a group that is better than they; and if he comes one span nearer to Me, I go one cubit nearer to him; and if he comes one cubit nearer to Me, I go a distance of two outstretched arms nearer to him; and if he comes to Me walking, I go to him running.’ ” – Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 502.

According to this, Allaah will be seen (as I explained above, by Allaah allowing us to behold Him – without form) by the creation, in varying degrees, dependent on their position with Him, i.e. their piety, worship, etc. Some will be able to behold His majesty, while others may not be able to behold Him to such a degree as those who were pious and righteous. – wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Anthony Rogers is Out of the Loop!

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Earlier today, I saw the academically fraudulent Anthony Rogers claim that I was ‘largely’ being ignored by his herd. Unfortunately for him, he’s probably missed the few and very recent public discussions I’ve had with Samuel Green, a colleague of his from the Answering Muslims website. This is what Anthony had to say on May 20th:

cc-2013-anthonyrogerscomment

Yet, just a month ago, his colleague – Samuel Green (pictured below) from Answering Islam and Answering Muslims had an indepth discussion with me. What would Anthony do, if I were to enlighten him with the emails that I’ve had between myself and Samuel Green – time will tell!

Read more

Boston Marathon Bomber Suspect’s Uncle Speaks Out

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The Uncle to the suspected bombers delivers such an amazing speech that I think all persons, whether Muslim or non-Muslim can appreciate this man’s wisdom, composure and foresight:

(Note: Wait 18 seconds for the audio to kick in properly, patience is a virtue.)

To the detriment of the hateful fear mongering of David Wood (the cross dressing Evangelical sociopath), the Uncle is a proud Muslim immigrant (that ought to get his panties in a bunch (with his Act 4 America Friends) – quite literally since he’s a cross dresser) to America!

Read the Washington Post’s coverage of the Uncle Ruslan interview here. It’s a must read, here’s a quick excerpt:

This is the sort of inspiring speech that we all hope we could give, under any circumstances — much less the one in which he was asked to step up and speak up. Anything that rears its head after moments of tragedy, he covered. He was irate at the perpetrators of this violence and said they did not deserve to be on this Earth.

He acknowledged our unhappy tendency to spread the blame to entire groups. (“He put a shame on our family. … He put a shame on the entire Chechen ethnicity because now everyone blames Chechens…. When a Muslim or a person of color does something, someone always has to defend the whole community.”)

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

« Older Entries