Tag Archives: calling muslims

Sour Grapes: One Missionary’s Lesson in Futility

It’s been just over more than a year since I debated CL Edwards on the topic, “Jesus the Christ: Man, God or Both?“, however for my opponent it would seem as if the debate is fresh out of the oven – given his constant attempts at trying to right his wrongs during that debate. CL Edwards is at it again. The debate did not go well for him – in fact, if he’s willing to let me post what he said to me in private after the debate to me about his performance, it’d pretty much explain to the public why he has a fixation on constantly referring to our now more than a year old debate. The post I’m responding to was published last month – fortunately (?) it wasn’t brought to my attention until today, simply because no one I know, or no one in our community of inter-religious debate and dialogue frequents his website. So for this, I apologize for my late response. He says and I quote:

Also I think it is relevant since the person who helped Ahmad form his argument in the debate…

See, CL is still trying to find excuses for why my arguments caught him off guard, so his obvious theory is that someone helped me formulate my arguments for my debate with him. That however, is not the case. As the person who CL is attempting to appeal to, cc-2013-cledwardswould gladly agree that he did not help me formulate any of my arguments, he simply did a review after my debate with CL Edwards and assessed both of our performances. In fact, there is essentially no one who can lay credence to the claim that they have formulated any of my arguments for a debate for me. I do my own study, my own research and write my own arguments. I’ve actually made it a personal goal of mine to approach each debate without using another person’s methodology or approach. This is why, when persons view my debates from last year, especially between that of the one with Edwards and the other with Green, my scope of argumentation is vast in their disparity. I can’t speak for my opponent, yet from what I do recall of the debate with Edwards is that nothing he presented was new and he did not approach the topic as I did. In answering the question of whether Christ was man, God or both, he simply referred to New Testament verses to propagate his argument.

I chose a completely different route. My methodology involved using the socio-historical method while referencing contemporary cultural and exegetical approaches to the literature and events of that time period. Clearly one route is overdone, while the other is a great bit more advanced and objective, something my opponent did not know how to react to. So yes, I do understand why Edwards is so eager to imagine that someone decades younger than him, can approach a debate with a more academic foundation, as opposed to merely parroting arguments which are hundreds of years old. What is touching however, is his prayer for me:

we pray for Ijaz to be spiritually reborn and come to the knowledge of the Gospel of Christ like millions of other Muslims have.

It is my wish to express to Edwards a sincere thank you for his prayer. I’d like to inform him though, that because I have come to the knowledge of the Gospel of Christ, it is for that precise reason that I and those millions of other Muslims – knowingly and openly reject his Graeco-Roman Syncretic Jewish faith. He went on to pose a question to me:

Note about this debate: to this day Ijaz has never given an answer to the question I asked him in the Q&A part towards the end. That question was does he know of any earlier source for the life, and teachings of Jesus and his disciples from the first century that predates the NT Bible?

At this point, I’m gladly willing to entertain his question and respond to it. His question presumes that the New Testament Gospels (can’t be Pastorials or Epistles since they don’t recall the life of Christ) are first century documents. This however is wrong, the New Testament Gospels are empirically speaking, wholly second century. The oldest extant MS is that of P52 which is from 125 CE and is not radio-carbon dated, it is paleologically dated and it is because of this very reason that it can date anywhere from 125 CE to the latter period of the second century. Of course, I do not expect a first year seminary pupil to know the ins and outs of textual critic debates on paleological and philological dating disputes. It is therefore without a doubt, that I can safely respond to his question by saying that there are no currently known extant sources about Jesus’ life and teachings within the first century. He goes on to state:

I asked that because the bases of my argument was the New Testament accounts of Jesus are the earliest most attested sources on his life and doctrine from his own followers.

I do believe he meant “basis” and not bases, it should also go without saying that the basis of his argument is a presumption, an assumption. In order for his argument to be foundationally sound, he needs to first prove that these assumptions are valid. We know for a fact that the Gospel accounts are not the earliest sources on his life – the informal oral Jesus tradition is. We also know that they are not from his own followers, but from later authors. Again, his argument reads as if he’s opened up an Evangelical booklet positing century old assumptions and presenting them to be indisputable facts – the evidence completely disagrees. He continues:

Why would be discard it for the Qurans account of Jesus that came 600 plus years after the fact? If you take Ijaz’s argument in this debate and apply it to the Quran and hadith we wouldn’t accept what the Quran says about Jesus.

Given that the only complete extant MSS of the Gospels are during the 4th and 5th centuries, through the 4 great Uncial codices, if time is a factor, then the argument of time also gives us a reason to reject the testimony of the extant vorlage Gospel texts. I can even be a bit menacing and state that the New Testament of today was published only recently, an eclectic account based on conjectural emendation by Biblical societies – see the NA 28 and UBS 4, both from the 21st century and the likes of which are non-existent in any MS tradition from the time of the Qur’aan or before it. Given what I’ve stated , my argument doesn’t affect the accounts about Christ in the Muslim scripture and hadeeth collections.

In closing, it’s been one year later and despite Edwards attending a seminary – he’s still unable to discuss the topic of Jesus’ historicity in the Gospels in an educated and academic manner. Sure, his Evangelical reasoning may impress the feeble minded individuals he surrounds himself with, but here in the real world – his inability to grow out of that intellectually stunting mold is quite distasteful and most certainly worrying.

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.

Debate with CL Edwards Update

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

No debate is without a little controversy. A day before I had released the information about the debate, CL Edwards posted the information on his website. Later that evening I was approached by one of his friends, Antonio Santana, a Christian Missionary Polemic.

 

cl-debate-mbi

[Click Image to Zoom for Bigger Size]

Antonio deceptively came to ask me about a discussion in which the statue in Daniel was being discussed. I gave my opinion on this discussion and was about to exit the conversation when he brought up the debate. What was disturbing to me was the fact that he stated that CL Edwards invited him to moderate. I want to make it explicitly clear that I have all my email correspondences saved with CL and at no point in time did we discuss the possibility of Antonio (MBI3030) to be considered as a moderator. Now either it is that Antonio is lying or he is simply stirring trouble for CL.

When Antonio realised he would not get his way with me, he then insulted a significant portion of my friends by labelling them as blood thirsty Muslims. I must remind him that we Muslims do not ‘drink‘ the blood of any saviour, but he does, therefore when it comes to being blood thirsty, the label applies directly to him. I publicly call for CL Edwards to deal with his friend and proclaim that he does not endorse the violent and deceptive rhetoric of Antonio. I have agreed to debate CL, but I have not agreed to babysit his friends while they attempt to disturb our most exciting event.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Refutation: The Muslim Blogger Angrily Replies to “The Irrational Muslim Blogger Strikes Again”

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,


I’m still waiting for Chessie Edwards to explain how he refuted me. He continues to incessantly claim this, yet all he has done is state that Muslims believe in a Ruh and that according to two Qur’anic ayat he has supposedly refuted a Christological question. Yet, as I have aptly demonstrated, he has not answered my criticisms, and as such, he is merely pussyfooting around for some attention. I’m not going to waste much time on him as I reiterate the notion that he is of no importance to the apologetic community, he says and I quote:

This just proved my point that Muslim apologists do not have a accurate grasp of Christian theology just like whom ever wrote the Quran didn’t.

He makes this absurd statement in response to my claim:

” Christians believe the flesh (a body) has both a soul and a spirit and Christ became God in flesh when the Holy Spirit became incarnate in the body of Jesus and replaced the human spirit. “

Since Chessie believes that the above is wrong, then he believes that the body does not have a soul and a spirit, which would be in contradiction to mainstream Christian beliefs:

From this, we now know that Chessie has apostated from mainstream Christian belief, or he is a Christian who is highly uneducated about basic Christian doctrine. He denies basic beliefs which he is not even knowledgeable about and expects me to respect him or to even consider him as worthy of my attention, since this is the case, I suggest that he goes study his faith before arguing about it with someone with superior study. I will come to the matter of the Holy Spirit being incarnate in Christ, but first I want to highlight his denial of this lower down. Before I do so, let’s examine his other statements:

I have to point out that Muslim’s also believe a body contains a metaphysical consciousnesses as well..he doesn’t see the logical implications of that.

I really have to stop and ask Chessie if he has lost the plot at this point. Let me break this down for him, I asked:

  • Did Christ’s human nature die, or divine nature, if so, what does it mean to die?

Chessie’s response to this question, was to claim:

  • Muslims believe in a ruh and I somehow don’t see the logical implication of that.

We refer to this in logic as a non-sequitur argument, in addendum to being known as a argumentum ad ignorantium, as Chessie himself is arguing from a position of ignorance on basic Christian doctrine concerning the soul and spirit, not to forget his complete foregoing of responding to my Christological question on Christ’s nature. Now, returning to the issue of the Holy Spirit being incarnate, he denies this (to his peril) and says:

The part he is wrong in is that Christ is the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, no Christ is the incarnation of the Word of God i.e the Son. Speaking of John chapter one Athanasius states …”  For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world.(1) ”

Maybe the Muslim blogger doesn’t think its expedient to be accurate about the doctrines he is speaking about or maybe he doesn’t care?

Hang your head in shame ignoramus, for the same St. Athanasius says:

“When the Word came upon the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Spirit entered her together with the Word; in the Spirit the Word formed a body for himself and adapted it to himself, desiring to unite all creation through himself and lead it to the Father” – St. Athanasius’ Epistle, Ad Serapion.

Yet, I will not cease in embarrassing you there, I now turn to Tertullian who says:

“Nay, but he adds, And that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit,3 because God is spirit,4 and He was born of God:5 this certainly has him in view, the more so if it has also those who believe in him.’ Then if this too applies to him, why not also that other? For you cannot divide them, this to him, the other to the rest of men: for you do not deny the two substances of Christ, that of flesh and that of spirit. But if he possessed flesh no less than spirit, when he makes a statement concerning the condition of the two substances which he bore within himself, he cannot be thought to have made a pronouncement concerning spirit as being his but flesh as not his. Thus, since he was himself by the Spirit of God (and the Spirit is God) born of God, he was also of human flesh and as man conceived and born in the flesh.” – Tertullian, De Carne Christi, 18.

Please study your religion before you try to discuss it with others Chessie, you only seek to show how weak and uneducated you are and I will not hesitate to lay the law down on some petulant ignoramus whose ranting does not befit my time. He continues:

He states the following which is basically a restatement of the same question he raised that I refuted already.

” My question was and remains, if Christ died, is it the soul that perished, or the Holy Spirit that perished, or just the flesh (which according to him did not die but resurrected itself), or some combination of all three? ”

He actually claims I never answered the question, yet I did answer the question.. that is what the whole post was about. Either he could not understand what I wrote, which would not be a shock considering the Word of God says non believers suffer from spiritual blindness(and Islam is the religion of confirmation bias), or this is some Jihad of the pen tactic. I am going to assume it was just that he didn’t understand me, so allow me to restate my argument in other terms.

I searched Mr. Edwards’ previous post and the only ‘answer’ I saw to my questions was that Muslims believe in a ruh. Although Chessie believes this is an answer, I do not see how this answer of what Muslims believe in, somehow answers my statements concerning a Christological belief. It’s as if I asked Chessie, what is the nature of your Christ’s death, and he responds by telling me that Muslims believe in an afterlife and soul. I am sorry Chessie, but this is wishful thinking on your part, you did not answer my claims and if you think you did, then you would have simply referenced your previous article, but since you know you did not answer my claim, you finally give an answer in this present article which I am responding to, wherein you state:

No his soul did not perish, no the Holy Spirit did not perish especially since it was not the Holy Spirit who incarnated, and no it was not a combination of the three.

So Christ’s human soul did not perish and according to Chessie, the Spirit of Christ is not the Holy Spirit, which contradicts the Bible:

 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that  they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.” –  1 Peter 1:10 – 12.

In these verses (which clearly Chessie have not read), in relation to the quotes from Tertullian and St. Athanasius, the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit which was of Christ and is that which prophesied about the Messiah to the Prophets of old. This is confirmed by Matthew Henry’s exegesis which says of the Spirit of Christ in 1 Peter 1:11;

“The revelations of God to his church, though gradual, and given by parcels, are all perfectly consistent; the doctrine of the prophets and that of the apostles exactly agree, as coming from the same Spirit of God. (5.) The efficacy of the evangelical ministry depends upon the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. The gospel is the ministration of the Spirit; the success of it depends upon his operation and blessing.” – Matthew Henry’s Exegesis, 1 Peter 1:11.

Clearly, Chessie is out of his league and does not know much about Christology, I wish that he does study this matter more sincerely before making more of a fool out of himself. He continues:

As I stated in the last post which he never addresses the question itself is illogical, non-physical things can not experience physical death. The physical death of a person does not mean there immaterial existence stops existing. Again this is the same thing Islam teaches, and this is what common sense tell us.

While I am happy to see the Chessie concedes that what Islam teaches is common sense, I must take him to task on his other statements. If the Spirits and Soul of Christ did not perish, and the flesh also did not perish, as the flesh returned to life, then what sacrifice was actually done if nothing died?  This leads to my third argument from my original article of which Chessie has also failed to address, it reads:

“If we take John 3:16 as a literal study, then we have numerous paradoxes being applied, for if the Son did ‘die’, but did not truly ‘die’, then the ‘sacrificial death’ was not fulfilled. If you claim the sacrificial death was fulfilled, then this is disproven by Thomas touching a physical body of Christ, whose wounds he felt. Thus if Christ was meant to be an ultimate sacrifice but did not die, but merely suffered wounds and continued to live, then there was no actual sacrifice.”

Chessie continues:

So my question to the Muslim blogger is this, are you arguing that the immaterial soul dies and stops existing at the point of physical death ? “

You mean to say that you have written two articles, told me I am wrong, that I have been deceptive and that I am not educated on the issue of which I am speaking, yet after your second reply, you are now asking what it is I am actually arguing?  If you want to know what I am arguing, read this article: Some Musings About Jesus’ Death.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

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

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some questions need to be asked here:

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

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

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

Well, now I’m a bit confused:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best].

CL. Edwards Claims Divinity/ Prophetic Powers

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In his most damning post yet, Mr. Edwards now claims he has the Divine knowledge of God, that he knows God’s will, that he knows God’s will towards salvation. God’s will essentially is divine knowledge, meaning while we are existing in the, “now”, God already knows our past, present and future, we’re merely finding out what this divine will entails as we go along with out lives. However, since time immemorial, lots of people have claimed to have divine powers of being able to see into the past, look into the future, some even professing they’re able to know who God’s people are, others end up predicting the end of the world twice and failing.

It honestly does take a special breed of idiot to believe in such fanciful things, when especially both the Bible and Qur’aan condemn these people as soothsayers. Lo and behold, enters the newest act that this freak show has to offer. None other than CL Edwards of Calling Muslims. During a debacle on Facebook, he decided to attribute divinity to himself:

He says, and I quote, “Yes I know God’s will concerning my salvation…“, sir, we have the following questions for you based on that statement:

(1) How did you attain this ability of gaining this divine knowledge?
(2) What evidence do you have to suggest you posses such divine knowledge?
(3) On what basis can you claim to know the divine will of God?
(4) Is there a method to obtaining God’s divine knowledge?
(5) What indicators are there to know that a person has successfully Googled God’s knowledge?

Since he knows God’s will, particularly in light of being saved from sin and the penalty of sin (salvation):

(1) What sins does God intend to protect you from?
(2) What sins has He protected you from?
(3) Why did he choose to grant you salvation?
(4) Want penalties of sin did he save you from?
(5) Why did he choose you to share His divine knowledge?

I am certain you saw this with the “divine knowledge” you posses. Therefore I assume you already have the answers to my questions, as God would have wanted to save you from having to defend yourself from, as you put it, “an anti-Grace Religion”. I do look forward to your contribution to this topic of discourse. However, I would now like to point out that divine knowledge concerning the salvation of mankind was not even given to Jesus:

“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” – Bible : Matthew (24) : 36.

Seeing as Jesus himself, claimed not to have divine knowledge concerning the salvation of the world when it ends, how can Mr. Edwards claim such a rank? He himself may just be claiming to be superior to his own God, which I must say is not unusual for his superiority complex and arrogant attitude. We do hope he can humble himself and return to either Christian Orthodoxy (which contends the divine will of God is among His Holy Mysteries) or that he accepts Islam.

Either way, we must congratulate him on his elevation from Orthodox Christianity by claiming to know of the divine will of the grace of God (salvation) and we must congratulate him on his outstanding theatrical performance thus far, as without a doubt, I cannot fathom from the depths of my mind that a person can be so conceded, if however this is the case, I am ashamed and saddened at his behaviour.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

[Updated x3!] CL. Edwards Caught Lying: Can’t Make Up His Mind!

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

After posting this article, Mr. Edwards decided to publicly shame himself, I’m not sure why he decided to do so, but I must say it was a pleasure to see his act. To begin with, his response to said article was:

Mr. Edwards, sir, you did not say, “Only God can for a certainty determine where I will go”. Sir you actually said the following, let me refresh your mind for you:

You actually said the opposite,”By the way I can say for certain I ma going to Jannah because of what the Christ has done for me…“.

Mr. Edwards, at this point, I must ask you, which is it?
(1) You can say for sure you’re going to heaven.
(2) You let God decide where you go.

You’re singing two songs here sir, does your own deceit know no end? What I must admit, is that this guy cannot stop fumbling, if we take a look at the second comment from the first photo, he proposes a question to me:

“…do you Ijaz have assurance of Salvation..”

Why, yes I do, I am assured salvation providing I practise upon and have sincere believe in Islam, as explained in the beginning section of my previous reply to you here.

Please learn to read Mr. Edwards, I don’t have the time to have to constantly fix your inequities.

[Updated:]

After showing Mr. Edwards this post, he still couldn’t find the answer to his question, which I have now put in red and bold for his viewing pleasure. Here you can see that I clearly linked to him the post, with his answer being in the second to last line of this very response [article, see in red above]:

[Updated x2:]

I’m not sure if he’s colorblind or illiterate, but this was his response, he still could not find my answer which was in bold and red letters:

[Updated x3]:

Again, Mr. Edwards is simply grasping for straws, after answering his question above, which was not only in this post and my previous post, he decided to create a strawman and attack it. What was my answer to his question?

Why, yes I do, I am assured salvation providing I practise upon and have sincere believe in Islam, as explained in the beginning section of my previous reply to you here.

Do you all see the word, “YES“, in that quote, because I do, unfortunately Mr. Edwards sees the word no, so I’m not sure if he’s being petulant or simply can’t accept the YES which I gave:

wa Allaahu Alam.
[ and God knows best.]

CL. Edwards Responds: Certainty in Jannah

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Mr. Edwards decided that he wouldn’t respond to the entire post, so he’d just post a comment because as in his own words, my exposition was “too long”. Not a problem, let’s see what estranged concept he brings to the table this time:

Edwards' Comment

His question is rather absurd, but to humour him, the answer is quite simple. Only God can for a certainty determine where I will go. I do not know the future and I don’t speak on behalf of God. However, the Qur’aan tells us what we need to believe in and what we need to practise upon to gain Jannah and as Muslims we strive towards that, knowing that God’s mercy is greater than His anger. It’s absurd to say, “yes”, because I am not God, I do not know the future and I do know what God’s judgement upon me will be, as I, like all other humans, are a sinner.

The Qur’aan does not make it difficult though, so what does a Muslim need to act upon and believe to gain heaven?

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;

Believe in the Qur’aan, use it as a form of guidance, so that we develop taqwa (God consciousness).

Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;

Believe in what Allaah has ordained for us and what He has told us, but which we have yet to know or experience. Perform praise and worship of God and live life within the means He has provided for us in a righteous way.

And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.

Belief in the Qur’aan, Injil, Tawrah Zabur, Suhuf al Ibrahim. As for assurance of the hereafter:

(And in the Hereafter they are certain) that is the resurrection, the standing (on the Day of Resurrection), Paradise, the Fire, the reckoning and the the Scale that weighs the deeds (the Mizan). The Hereafter is so named because it comes after this earthly life. – Tafsir ibn Kathir : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 4.

Lastly:

They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.

Meaning:

(They are) refers to those who believe in the Unseen, establish the prayer, spend from what Allah has granted them, believe in what Allah has revealed to the Messenger and the Messengers before him, believe in the Hereafter with certainty, and prepare the necessary requirements for the Hereafter by performing good deeds and avoiding the prohibitions.

(And they are the successful) meaning, in this world and the Hereafter. They shall have what they seek and be saved from the evil that they tried to avoid. Therefore, they will have rewards, eternal life in Paradise, and safety from the torment that Allah has prepared for His enemies. Tafsir ibn Kathir : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 4.

Therefore the Qur’aan is extremely clear, it essentially spells it out for all Muslims, that sincere belief and God sanctioned actions would secure one a place in heaven. Of course Mr. Edwards doesn’t believe in this doctrine. He believes that no matter what he does, he gets to go to heaven, which brings up the question, does God reward sin? Funny enough, his friend and long time partner in crime (of deceit), Antonio Santana did admit to us that God rewards sinning in Christianity:

Antonio - Skype Convo

It’s absolutely nonsensical for one to say he knows where he is going in the afterlife merely based on some inconsistent and incoherent belief of “salvation in Christianity”, which has been thoroughly refuted here. They’re self claimants to their own misigivings, even the Jesus of the Bible lets it be known that merely believing in him will not benefit you in the least:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. – Bible : Matthew (7) :21.

So who are these people who won’t go to heaven then?

The sense of this verse seems to be this: No person, by merely acknowledging my authority, believing in the Divinity of my nature, professing faith in the perfection of my righteousness, and infinite merit of my atonement, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, shall have any part with God in glory. – Adam Clarke’s Exegesis : Matthew (7) : 21.

In fact, the Bible wages sin and deceit for the one who speaks on God’s behalf, specifically when it comes to God’s will (judgment, doings etc):

Will you speak wickedly on God’s behalf?  Will you speak deceitfully for him?- Bible : Job (13) : 7.

The meaning of this verse is made much clearer by a scholarly Christian’s commentary:

“In order to support your own cause, in contradiction to the evidence which the whole of my life bears to the uprighteousness of my heart, will ye continue to assert that God could not thus afflict me, unless fragrant iniquity were found in my ways; for it is on this ground alone that ye pretend to vindicate the providence of God. Thus ye tell lies for God’s sake, and this ye wickedly contend for your maker.” – Adam Clarke’s Exegesis : Job (13) : 7.

See, Job in this verse or rather, this chapter, is condemning the people to whom he was sent to preach. It is because they began to play God and judge who is righteous and sinful among themselves. Decided who God afflicted and whom God did not afflict with punishment. They claimed because Job was afflicted, that he was a sinful man (yet it was not the case, he was purer than them all), whereas they perverted the truth (much like Mr. Edwards) and cast righteous judgement on themselves:

“Will you speak wickedly for God?
As he suggests they did, they spoke for God, and pleaded for the honour of his justice, by asserting he did not afflict good men, which they thought was contrary to his justice; but: then, at the same time they spoke wickedly of Job, that he being afflicted of God was a bad man, and an hypocrite; and this was speaking wickedly for God, to vindicate his justice at the expense of his character, which there was no need to do, and showed that they were poor advocates for God…”- The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible : Job (13) : 7.

Well, atleast through Biblical means, his own scripture and by extension his own God, has deemed him a wicked and hypocritical man. Casting judgement on himself (for righteousness) whereas condemning others, when he does now know what God knows is in their hearts. I suppose he needs to be rewarded with Grace for his sin. God rewarding sin, what a joke.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: A clear Quranic contradiction in Ta-Ha surah 20 verses 83-97

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Response to: A clear Quranic contradiction in Ta-Ha surah 20 verses 83-97
By: C.L. Edwards from Calling Muslims website.

The ill reputed author, Mr. Edwards is at it again. This time he is claiming a contradiction in the Qur’aan and quite funnily, borrows the argument of Abraham Geiger which most Orientalists have used against Islam, since some 200 odd years ago. His argument isn’t new or is it of any academic value. However in the name of exposing his indecent affinity towards absurdity, we shall engage his argument step by step and refute him. He begins by asserting that these verses supposedly have a contradiction:

“(When Moses was up on the Mount, Allah said:) “What made thee hasten in advance of thy people, O Moses?”He replied: “Behold, they are close on my footsteps: I hastened to thee, O my Lord, to please thee.”  (Allah) said: “We have tested thy people in thy absence: the Samiri has led them astray.” So Moses returned to his people in a state of indignation and sorrow. He said: “O my people! did not your Lord make a handsome promise to you? Did then the promise seem to you long (in coming)? Or did ye desire that Wrath should descend from your Lord on you, and so ye broke your promise to me?” They said: “We broke not the promise to thee, as far as lay in our power: but we were made to carry the weight of the ornaments of the (whole) people, and we threw them (into the fire), and that was what the Samiri suggested. “Then he brought out (of the fire) before the (people) the image of a calf: It seemed to low: so they said: This is your god, and the god of Moses, but (Moses) has forgotten!” Could they not see that it could not return them a word (for answer), and that it had no power either to harm them or to do them good? Aaron had already, before this said to them: “O my people! ye are being tested in this: for verily your Lord is (Allah) Most Gracious; so follow me and obey my command.” They had said: “We will not abandon this cult, but we will devote ourselves to it until Moses returns to us.” (Moses) said: “O Aaron! what kept thee back, when thou sawest them going wrong, “From following me? Didst thou then disobey my order?” (Aaron) replied: “O son of my mother! Seize (me) not by my beard nor by (the hair of) my head! Truly I feared lest thou shouldst say, ‘Thou has caused a division among the children of Israel, and thou didst not respect my word!'” (Moses) said: “What then is thy case, O Samiri?” He replied: “I saw what they saw not: so I took a handful (of dust) from the footprint of the Messenger, and threw it (into the calf): thus did my soul suggest to me.” (Moses) said: “Get thee gone! but thy (punishment) in this life will be that thou wilt say, ‘touch me not’; and moreover (for a future penalty) thou hast a promise that will not fail: Now look at thy god, of whom thou hast become a devoted worshipper: We will certainly (melt) it in a blazing fire and scatter it broadcast in the sea!” – Suratul Ta-Ha (20) : 83 – 97.

So what is his argument? In summation:

“There are many details in the Quran that differ or are missing from the original account in the Bible, one of which is a person named al Samari. Now the name as-Samari literally means “The Samaritan a person who comes from Samaria”……..The problem in all this is this event in the history of the nation Israel happened over 600 years before the area of Samaria came into existence. To add to this colossal blunder early Muslims(the Salaf) are recorded as explaining that this as-Samari came from a Israelite tribe called Samaria…no such tribe has ever existed.

To begin with, he implies that the original account is from the Bible, one must point out that he is referring to the Old Testament, therefore that begs the question, which Canon or Codex of the Old Testament is he appealing to this time? Here’s a short list for him to choose from:

(1) Samaritan Scrolls.
(2) Qumran/ Essene’s Scrolls.
(3) Greek Septuagint (LXX).
(4) Masoretic Text.
(5) Massorah Oral Tradition.
(6) Eastern Orthodoxy’s varying Canon’s (Coptic Canon versus Ethiopian Canon….etc).

After he’s played a game of lottery with “God’s word”, the next step is to determine if the Bible’s historical accounts are valid to establish the veracity of a particular historical event. This of course is easily laid to rest with a resounding no, by consensus of most Biblical scholars, to validate this claim, here’s a few quotes:

The original copies of the NT books have, of course, long since disappeared. This fact should not cause surprise. In the first     place, they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and persihable material. In the second place, and probably of even more importance, the original copies of the NT books were not looked upon as scripture by those of the early Christian communities. – (George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 1, p 599 “Text, NT”.)

To begin with, how can it be logically sound, that if the people at the time of the Bible’s authoring, rejected it as a scripture (inspired by God, contains absolute truth), much less as a historical document (if it isn’t an absolute truth, then it’s fickle truth), how can you expect us, some 2000 years or so later to accept such historical claims?

He says: Complaints about the adulteration of texts are fairly frequent in early Christian literature. Christian texts, scriptural and nonscriptural, were no more immune than others from vicissitudes of unregulated transmission in handwritten copies. In some respects they were more vulnerable than ordinary texts, and not merely because Christian communities could not always command the most competent scribes. Although Christian writings generally aimed to express not individual viewpoints but the shared convictions and values of a group, members of the group who acted as editors and copyists must often have revised texts in accordance with their own perceptions. This temptation was stronger in connection with religious or philosophical texts than with others simply because more was at stake. A great deal of early Christian literature was composed for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint amid the conflicts of ideas and practices that repeatedly arose within and between Christian communities, and even documents that were not polemically conceived might nevertheless be polemically used. Any text was liable to emendation in the interest of making it more pointedly serviceable in a situation of theological controversy. – (H. Y. Gamble, Books And Readers In The Early Church: A History Of Early Christian Texts, 1995, Yale University Press: New Haven & London, pp. 123-124.)

The Bible, clearly as a historical document is said to have been emendated (improved with bias) according to each sect’s understanding of it. What’s worse is that the first person to ever canonize and codify the Bible (canonize – to say what is scripture, codify – collected to be arrange in some order) emendated his own version, enough for him and his followers to be persecuted (see: Marcion’s Canon). With the above quotes and subsequent historical lesson, there is no basis for us to accept the account of the Bible, none whatsoever. It is merely wishful thinking and an appeal to emotion that CL Edwards seeks.

His second error, is that he incorrectly, which was his purpose, defines the term: “As-Samiri” (السَّامِرِ‌يُّ).

We do ask Mr. Edwards, on what authority do you have to give the absolute definition of the term above? Are you an expert in the field of Arabic or Hebraic Etymology? From where is your certification in these fields derived? To answer on his behalf and rightly so, nowhere! Therefore we assume he’s probably appealed to the fallacy of appeal to authority (to Orientalist Christian Scholarship). In his desperation for trying to find an error in Al Qur’aan ul Kareem, he has inadvertently exposed his lack of honesty, integrity and self respect. Thus, we do request that he come to terms with these self deficiencies.

Let’s continue by trying to grasp the history of this Samiri, so we can know who he was or from where he came:

“Samiri’s name as generally believed, was Musa Ibn Zafar. Ibn Jarar has narrated from Sayiddina Ibn ‘Abbas {ra} that Samiri was born in the year when under the orders of Pharaoh all male Israili children were to be killed. His mother, fearing the worst, put him in the hallow of a cave and covered its mouth.” – Tafsir Maa’riful Qur’aan, page 144.

Now that we’ve established some form of historical context to this person, his lineage does go back to the time of Moses (Musa alayhi as salaam), so this person did exist at the time of Moses. In that context, why is he called “As Samiri”, well, there are two probablities here:

(1) It could be a place from which he came.
(2) It could be a title due to his beliefs.

Earlier Islamic sources tend to cite both (1) and (2) as their understanding of the person named As-Samiri, that being, he came from a people who were worshipers of the cows:

Sayiddina Ibn ‘Abbas {ra} says that he belonged to a nation of cow-worshippers who somehow reached Egypt and pretended to join the religion of Bani ‘Israil whereas in actual fact he was a hypocrite. (Qurtubi) – Tafsir Maa’riful Qur’aan, page 143.

Where did they come from, if they were not from around Egypt?

“According to Sayddina Sa’id ibn Jubair {ra} he was a Persian from the Kirman province.” – Tafsir Maa’riful Qur’aan, page 143.

Now this logically makes sense.

(1) The Samiri was born during the time of Moses.
(2) The Samiri was from Persian (Mesopotamia) and was brought to or near Egypt when a group of Persians migrated.
(3) Persia is near the Indus Valley River Civilization (known cow worshipers), in fact, they share similar cultural traits (languages, religions, dress).

Therefore it is logical to assume that the Samiri is a person who was from among a people who worshiped cows, and who had migrated to near Egypt. The entire narration from the Qur’aan makes sense when compared to basic history. Of course one had to be objective and look outside the inconsistent and incoherent Biblical tradition and really accept the historical narrative as it exists through modern historical interpretations.

The historical context is easy to grasp, the Samiri was a cow worshiper with Mesopotamian origins (from which his religion came) through the Indian peoples (Indus Valley Civilization – known cow worshipers):

In the case of Egyptian and Harappan civilizations, there exists considerable evidence that the two societies, which flanked Mesopotamia on the west and east, respectively, had continuous trade contact with the cities of Sumer and, in the case of Egypt, political and military contacts as well. So the channels for the diffusion of technology and ideas certainly were there. It should probably be stressed at this point that a certain amount of diffusion and cross-fertilization is critical to the development of any civilization and no society has developed in total isolation. Whatever the degree of borrowing, however, every civilization adapts and applies ideas, technologies and institutions to its own physical environment and cultural heritage. – (The World’s History (Volumes 1 and 2 – 2nd Edition), Chapter 3 (River Valley Civilizations), Page 11 – by Howard Spodek.)

Therefore in conclusion, the Biblical claim is that a city known as Samaria did not exist until some 700 years after Moses, therefore the Samiri people could not have existed. Whereas historical knowledge (go figure, the Bible contradicts history) indicates that the Mesopotamian, Harappan (Indus Valley Civilization) and the Egyptians all shared a common and integrated history some 1500 years before Moses (Civlizations from 3000 BCE, Moses from 1500 BCE) and the incident of Pharaoh.

We therefore propose that Mr. Edwards rescinds his absurd, infantile, petulant, irrational and ignorant arguments and perhaps, for the good will of his humanity, cease to embarrass himself and his archaic faith.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]