Tag Archives: callingchristians

Missionary Mishap: Missionary Talks to Jesus – Will Help Us Solve the Bible’s Textual Problems

wpid-2015-01-21-19.08.10.png.png

So, I meet this lady who says she talks to Jesus all the time! I decide to ask for her expertise since she has a direct line to the one guy that can help us solve our textual challenges with the New Testament. She says she’ll ask him about it. What are the chances I should expect a reply?

Note: For those pedantic types, I meant the Latin Vulgate and the later “Greek Textus Receptus”. The Latin is not the same as the Greek.

and Allah knows best!

The Problem of Luke 23:34

Introduction

Luke 23:34 is perhaps one of the most interesting verses in the New Testament narrative of Jesus, the son of Mary’s alleged crucifixion. It reads as follows[1]:

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”[c] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Our interest is primarily focused upon the prayer[2] of Jesus. The questions which are being asked are, why is Jesus praying for these men’s forgiveness? What purpose does it convey? What does it achieve? These questions need to be asked, as Jesus’ prayer in this case, occurs before his eventual death on the cross which is supposed to have ushered in a new covenant with God, a new doctrine of salvation. His death and resurrection which establishes itself as the pillar upholding the veracity and validity of the Christian faith as declared by Paul of Tarsus:

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.[3]

Summarily, we are seeking to establish the reasoning for this prayer of forgiveness, in regard to its timing of the slaying of the lamb[4] for the forgiveness of the sins of the world[5], inclusive of those of the Jews and Romans who were no doubt instrumental in the events leading to the crucifixion event.

New Testament Textual Criticism of Luke 23:34

It would be inane to discuss the consequences of the verse in question at length, before establishing its place in the New Testament canon. Most would be unaware that this verse’s place in the canon is one of disputation and doubt. It would be of note to mention that the verse is recorded in the following versions of the English Print Editions of the New Testament [6]:

  • New International Version
  • New Living Translation
  • English Standard Version
  • New American Standard Bible
  • King James Bible
  • Holman Christian Standard Bible
  • International Standard Version
  • NET Bible
  • Aramaic Bible in Plain English
  • GOD’S WORD® Translation
  • Jubilee Bible 2000
  • King James 2000 Bible
  • American King James Version
  • American Standard Version
  • Douay-Rheims Bible
  • Darby Bible Translation
  • English Revised Version
  • Webster’s Bible Translation
  • Weymouth New Testament
  • World English Bible
  • Young’s Literal Translation

It had become necessary to list the instances of its presence in the English translations, as it is the language in which this article is being written. It was also necessary, so as to demonstrate its undoubted and frequent presence in the most accessible New Testament print editions in the English language. A noted citation in the NIV[7] translation reads as follows:

c. Luke 23:34 Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence.

Its presence in most translations is due to the verse’s presence in the modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament. As of this writing, it remains in the critical editions as is demonstrated by the Nestle-Aland 28th Greek New Testament[8]:

ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν· πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν. διαμεριζόμενοι δὲ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἔβαλον κλήρους.

Codex Aleph  (א- Sinaiticus) does contain this verse[9], although atleast one of its suggested scribes or editors is thought to have edited or corrected the verse in question[10]. However Codices B (Vaticanus) and D (Bezae) do not contain this verse[11], thus explaining the citation in the NIV translation. At the time of this writing, I do not have access to the apparatus of the Nestle Aland 28th Edition Greek New Testament, therefore I was unable to attain the reasons or sources it outlines for the inclusion of the verse. However, in reading the erudite work of Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, we note that it states the following in regard to its intentional omission in other codices[12]:

…an omission that makes particular sense if Jesus is understood to be asking God to forgive the Jews responsible for his crucifixion.

Their understanding of the omission is in the context of Jewish-Christian relations, more specifically, anti-Jewish Christian scribes within the first centuries of Christianity and the consequential promulgation of their views in Christian literature. The omission was meant to remove the view that Jesus the Christ had prayed for the forgiveness of the Jews for their role in his crucifixion[13]. There is also a Textual Critical maxim, which reads as follows: “lectio difficilior potior” – the more difficult/nonsensical reading is more evidential. Given that their is a possibility of intentional omission, then their is great possibility it was included in the earlier copies of the Gospel.

Having explored its place in the canon and the evidences for its inclusion, there is now no doubt that at the time of this writing, New Testament Textual Critics adhere to its inclusion despite its omission from two important early sources.

The Prayer in Light of the New Covenant & its Soteriological Plan

The traditional Christian soteriological belief in this doctrine of salvation by the Christ’s crucifixion can be understood in the following quote[14]:

Christ upon the cross, is gracious like Christ upon the throne. Though he was in the greatest struggle and agony, yet he had pity for a poor penitent. By this act of grace we are to understand that Jesus Christ died to open the kingdom of heaven to all penitent, obedient believers.

With his sacrifice, the gates of heaven were opened to the world[15]. The Gospel accounts inform us that Jesus the Christ a priori knew that he had to be crucified, we read:

And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”[16]

The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!”[17]

‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ”[18]

The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”[19]

Since it is established in the narrative, as ascertained from the verses listed previously that his eventual crucifixion and death would lead to the payment of the sins of the world, then it is a strange occurrence that the Christ would pray for someone’s forgiveness. If he knew his death was imminent and with that, forgiveness would be brought upon the world, why would he beseech the Father for the forgiveness of others? Perhaps an analogy can demonstrate the peculiarity and absurdity of this event. It is as if I had a letter in my possession. Knowing that I’m about to use a photocopying machine to duplicate that letter, just before I use the photocopier, I choose to handwrite the letter on a sheet of blank paper and then photocopy the original letter. It’s redundant, anachronistic, futile. Jesus undoubtedly knows that the entire world, inclusive of those men before him; that he is about to pay for their sins, yet he prays to the Father just before his death that their sins should be forgiven. Regardless of someone’s theological, philosophical or personal views, the oddity of this occurrence is striking.

Such an understanding is noted by the exegete Matthew Henry, for he states[20]:

As soon as Christ was fastened to the cross, he prayed for those who crucified him. The great thing he died to purchase and procure for us, is the forgiveness of sin.

In essence, he prayed for the same thing that his death would achieve. Some might postulate that this is a sign of Jesus’ mercy and love for mankind, as is held by Stier et al; we read from the Pulpit Commentary the following[21]:

Then, as always, thinking of others, he utters this prayer, uttering it, too, as Stier well observes, with the same consciousness which had been formerly expressed, “Father, I know that thou hearest me always.” “His intercession has this for its ground, though in meekness it is not expressed: ‘Father, I will that thou forgive them.”

While such an apologetic exegesis would placate some, I do not find it to be sensible. For, if Jesus the Christ, who is also the Son; a deity capable of forgiving sin as is claimed from Luke 7:48[22], then why did the Son simply not forgive the sins of the world, or the sins of the Roman and Jewish persecutors? He clearly had the ability to do so, the authority to do so, so why would the Son choose not to do this? Instead, the Son as we are led to believe, chooses to beseech the Father! This prayer therefore leads to an even greater problem, (it implies) subordination and hierarchy within the Trinitarian dogma. Beliefs tantamount to heresy when tested against the proto-orthodoxical Nicaean creed[23], which establishes the Son as co-equal to God[24]:

Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.

Jesus the Christ, otherwise known to Christendom as the Son, had the ability to forgive sins, he did not need to request that the Father do this. If he prayed out of love, mercy, grace and compassion for the forgiveness of the sins of the Roman and Jewish persecutors, then why did he not use this love, mercy and grace to absolve them of their sins? He is in essence, praying for something he could already grant them, therefore this excuse is redundant and unremarkable, in clear contradiction of this fanciful idea of proposed love, mercy, grace and compassion.

Did They Need to be Forgiven?

Whether the prayer was uttered in reference to the Jews, the Romans, or some combination of those peoples; did they need to be forgiven? Forgiving them would readily imply that their actions were sinful, criminal, morally wrong. However as we are well aware, and as I have previously stated, the sacrificing of a sacrificial lamb is the purpose[25] of Christ’s earthly mission. This prayer for forgiveness would then have us believe that the sacrifice was morally wrong according to Jesus himself! The significance of such a prayer is now very telling, it is detrimental to the sacrificial imagery steadily enforced throughout the New Testament and as referenced previously[26]. Christians do not believe that Christ’s sacrifice was sinful or wrong, it is the very foundation of their faith as we had read from the Apostle Paul[27]!

We are at an unfortunate dilemma, Christ’s prayer now seems to be undermining the very pillars of proto-orthodox Christian belief. If it was God’s will that the world be saved from their sins by the hands of the Romans and Jews, then it is absurd that we should consider the persons responsible for the crucifixion as sinful individuals. Rather, if the Christian world is to be consistent with their beliefs, these men should be celebrated, just as the cross is celebrated. However, if it is the case that Jesus considered his persecutors that led to his crucifixion as criminals, as murderers, then the possibility of Jesus’ death being labeled as a crime and an injustice done to him is significantly more appropriate and honest. Such a view would be in blatant violation of the Christian world view on salvation. Perhaps what is more troubling is the position of those who perform the Passover sacrifice, we read the following[28]:

“Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.”

If Jesus the Christ is to be considered the sacrificial lamb, then those who perform the sacrifice for Passover have been atoned of their sins as is clearly stipulated in the Pentateuch[29]:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

If we are to believe that Luke 23:34 is in relation to the Jews, then Jesus’ prayer of forgiveness for them is troubling, for it would then imply that the very God of the Jews, did not know that the sacrificing of the Passover lamb was not a crime, but an act of atonement for the Jews.

Conclusion

There are very few cases in which we can understand the purpose of this prayer. One scenario is that Jesus did not expect his death to open the gates of forgiveness and that he did not have the ability to forgive sins by his own will and authority, therefore his prayer to God was one in sincerity. However, if he did know that his eventual death would lead to the world’s forgiveness and that he had the ability to forgive sins without any sacrifice, then his prayer to God seems out of place and problematic to the narrative, rendering his prayer to be completely redundant and meaningless.

Another case in which we can perhaps derive some closure on the issue, is that if Jesus was in fact the sacrificial Passover lamb, then his prayer for forgiveness for the Jews, would mean that he either did not know the laws of the Pentateuch, or that he did not consider himself to be a sacrificial Passover lamb; the latter belief would then render Paul a liar and would cause the Christian faith to be false as per his declaration in 1 Corinthians 15:14.  The former argument would then have us believe that Jesus could not be a deity as he is ignorant of the very law which he would have instructed the Jews himself.

Whichever way the prayer is examined, as I have aptly demonstrated it is of grave detriment to the Christian faith and without a doubt its place in the Biblical canon is of service to those who which to prove that Jesus the Son of Mary, is not and has never been a deity.

and Allaah knows best.

Sources (APA Style):

[1] –  Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Luke 23:34. Retrieved from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023&version=NIV

[2] – Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible by Matthew Henry. (2003). Luke 23:34. Retrieved from http://biblehub.com/commentaries/mhc/luke/23.htm

[3] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). 1 Corinthians 15:14. Retrieved from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+15%3A14&version=NIV

[4] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Revelation 5:12. Retrieved from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+5%3A12&version=NIV

[5] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). John 3:16. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16&version=NIV

[6] – Bible Hub’s Parallel Verses. (2014). Luke 23:34. Retrieved from http://biblehub.com/luke/23-34.htm

[7] – See: [1]

Note: The Pulpit Commentary, Ibid, relates the same conclusion as I have written:

” These words are missing in some of the oldest authorities. They are found, however, in the majority of the most ancient manuscripts and in the most trustworthy of the old versions, and are undoubtedly genuine.”

[8] – Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. (2013). Luke 23:34. Retrieved
from http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/52/230001/239999/

[9] – Codex Sinaiticus. (2009). Luke 23:34. Retrieved
from  http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=35&chapter=23&lid=en&side=r&verse=34&zoomSlider=0

[10] – Ibid. See the transcription notes, Editor cb2.

[11] – Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. (1891). Luke 23:34. Retrieved from http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/luke/23.htm

[12] – Ehrman, B., & Metzger, B. (Eds.). (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[13] – Ibid.

[14] – See: [2]

[15] – See: [5]

[16] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Luke 9:22. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+9%3A22&version=NIV

[17] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Luke 22:22. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A22&version=NIV

[18] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Luke 24:7. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24%3A7&version=NIV

[19] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Matthew 26:24. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26%3A24&version=NIV

[20] – See: [2]

[21] – The Pulpit Commentary. (2010). Luke 23:34. Retrieved from http://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/luke/23.htm

[22] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Luke 7:48. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+7%3A48&version=NIV

[23] – The Nicaean Creed. (n.d.). The Nicaean Creed. Retrieved from http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm

[24] – Barry, W. (1907). Arianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved June 11, 2014 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

[25] – See: [16], [17], [18], [19]

[26] – See: [4]

[27] – See: [3]

[28] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). 1 Corinthians 5:7. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:7&version=NIV

[29] – Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. (2011). Leviticus 17:11. Retrieved
from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2017:11&version=NIV

 

Christian Love for Br. Ijaz

I’m not sure what ticked off this individual, but he does seem quite upset at Muslims and particularly at me. I don’t know who he is or why he’s messaging me, but he sure is angry. Based on his other messages, he does seem to be under the impression that I’m an immigrant to the UK though, which isn’t true, as we Trinidadians often say “I’m Trini to de bone“. I do often get hate mail in this form, nasty insults, threats, etc, this is just a sample of the messages sent:

cc-2014-jimmuir-insults

 

On the other hand, this bloke might just be completely crazy and his faith of choice is completely coincidental. Experience though, and the many other messages strongly suggest that may not be the case. I pray that God guides this person and that they can live their lives being at peace with those who disagree with them. Ameen.

and God knows best.

Second Recording of my Debate with Pastor Samuel Green

A great deal of thanks must be conveyed upon Brother BeholderGuard who not only recorded the debate, but also did a video for it, added quotations and commentary. If I was difficult to hear in the first recording produced, then please note that this recording is 100% clearer! Glory be to Allaah for this recording, as it’s clear and crisp in its audio:

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Debate Review: Bob Siegel vs Ijaz Ahmad, “Which is more reliable – NT or Qur’aan?”

In keeping with my promise to post reviews of debates submitted by Christians, I have received a debate review from a Concerned Reformed Christian in Canada, this is his review posted verbatim, no edits, no changes. Any Christian can submit their review of any of my debates for publishing [callingchristians@gmail.com]. If you’d like to ask the Christian brother questions on his review, please post them on the comments section and he’d gladly respond. Here’s his review:

I have listened to the debate between Ijaz Ahmad and Bob Siegel on the reliability of the Qur’an, and I must say that from the perspective of this detail-oriented Christian listener, the result of the debate could best be described as a stalemate. I do not find Ijaz’s arguments for the authenticity of the Qur’an (such as the claim that its message spread like wildfire throughout the known world and changed the course of history—a claim that almost any other religion could make, including Christian) to be convincing at all.

That being said, however, I cannot agree with my friend Anthony Rogers in his claim that Siegel “was dealing it to him so handily.” I found Siegel’s arguments for the reliability of the Bible to be rather unimpressive. He lacks knowledge on the discipline of textual criticism (e.g. He does not know what an “eclectic text” is, even though he was clearly attempting to articulate the concept).

Also, I had the distinct feeling that Siegel was relying entirely on secondary and tertiary sources for his arguments. This was made painfully clear when he attempted to address the contents of the Qur’an. Even when I might otherwise have been inclined to agree with his assertions, he never once backed up his assertions by citing chapter and verse from the Qur’an, and his failure to do so seriously hurt his ability to speak to the Islamic holy text’s claims.

I was also disappointed by the way Siegel and his moderator bounced from topic to topic. I was expecting a debate on the reliability of the respective holy texts, but there were issues being thrown around that had nothing to do with that topic. The discussion on heaven and hell comes to mind, as well as the one on whose holy text is the most violent. It has been my experience that when someone resorts to jumping from topic to topic, that is a sign that they have given up on attempting to argue for the central thesis of their debate.

As for Ijaz Ahmad’s debate performance, I have to give kudos to him for restraining himself from making any kind of snide comments or below the belt attacks in this latest performance (though I cannot speak to any of his past debates in that regard). The one thing that I respect about him is that he attempts to step up the game from previous Islamic apologists who have done little but parrot the claims of old-style polemicists such as Zakir Naik. He does attempt to critique Christianity at a scholarly level by looking into academic sources (including primary sources) on textual criticism and early Christian history. Whatever else one wishes to say about Ijaz, he is certainly no slouch when it comes to doing research in producing his arguments.

Finally, I must speak on the issue of Christians leveling ad hominem attacks against Ijaz in their reviews of his debates. I totally understand how in the heat of the moment, we can become very adversarial in our treatment of those we are in opposition to. However, some of the statements that are being made against him are simply unwarranted and—from a Gospel-centered perspective—un-Christlike. No, do not excuse your attacks by saying “well, he does it too”. The tu quoque fallacy was and still remains a logical fallacy, so resorting to it will do no good here. I would like to remind my Christian brothers of the words of the apostle Paul: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Colossians 4:6, ESV). Perhaps once we all—Christian  and Muslim—rise above these petty personal squabbles, we can accomplish something genuinely constructive in our intellectual debates and exchanges with each other.

End of review.

As for why the Christian decided to respond to my request of reviews, he says and I quote:

As for why I said yes to your request for a review, my desire is to help my fellow Christians as much as it is to help you. This is my way of telling them: “Come on guys, I know you can do better than that.”

Debate Tomorrow: Ijaz Ahmad vs Bob Siegel -Which is more reliable, the New Testament or the Qur’aan?

Looking forward to this debate, it’ll be a short one, 1 hour or so long, 5 minute opening statement and moderated by Bob’s friend, Fred. There will be no question and answer call in session, but the first half hour of the debate will focus on the moderator posing certain questions to each debater, whereas the other 30 mins would be a discussion between Bob and I, the details are as seen below:

Tomorrow (24th November, 2013) at:

  • 6 PM PST (US).;
  • 10 PM (AST) Trinidad Time.
  • 2 AM (London) Time.

Topic:

  • Which is more reliable? the New Testament or the Qur’aan?

Live stream:

cc-2013-bobdebate

wa Allaahu ‘alam.

Brief Summary of Points of my Incarnation Debate

I recently debated Pastor Samuel Green on the topic of, “An Incarnate God: Fact or Fiction”. I argued that the Incarnation of a God, in this case – Christ, was fiction using the following reasoning:

  1. The Jews have no concept of the hypostatic union or of theophanies in their religious literature.
  2. The earliest Christians debated the nature of Christ and each group ascribed their view to a disciple/ apostle.
  3. The earliest Christians were primarily Greek gentiles who were familiar with incarnation philosophy and theology.
  4. The early Church therefore read the Jewish books with a Greek philosophical and theological understanding.
  5. In both the Greek and Jewish cultures, men of fame and great public interest were declared to be of divine birth/ natures.
  6. The Greek concept of a Theophany is at odds with the Jewish belief of Shali’ah.
  7. The Church unfairly forced a fixed vote promoting one Bishop’s arguments for a pro-hypostatic union Christ.
  8. The members of the Church revolted and in 359 CE Arius’ position (ante-Nicene) was adopted.
  9. Athanasius’ hypostatic union/ dual natured Christ was declared a heresy under larger Ecumenical councils throughout the Christian world.
  10. My conclusion therefore is that an incarnate Christ as a God was a theology developed by Greek minded elements of the early Church, adopted by the Church, refuted and declared heretical by the Church and later re-adopted, thus showing it’s early development into a doctrine as opposed to something which was initially and always believed by the majority of Christians.

Pastor Samuel’s arguments were:

  1. The incarnation theology can be found in the Torah, Prophets and Psalms.
  2. Daniel 7 is an evidence of this.
  3. It’s God’s promise to live amongst us.
  4. To listen to God is to read what He has mentioned in the Prophets.

and Allaah knows best.

Our Ramadan Message – 2013/ 1434

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Ramadan is the month of the Qur’aan. It is the month in which the Qur’aan was revealed to our Master, Muhammad (peace be upon him). It says, and I quote:

“The month of Ramadan in which was sent down the Qur’an – the guidance for mankind, the direction and the clear criteria (to judge between right and wrong); so whoever among you witnesses this month, must fast for the (whole) month; and whoever is sick or on a journey, may fast the same number in other days; Allah desires ease for you and does not desire hardship for you – so that you complete the count (of fasts), and glorify Allah’s greatness for having guided you, and so that you may be grateful.” – Qur’aan 2:185.

Yes, it is also the month of fasting (Siyaam, Sawm), but most persons seem to forget that it is a period in which we are called to read the Qur’aan for 8, 16, 20 rakaat, a month in which we are recommended to read the entire Qur’aan. In light of this, how many persons fast, perform the Sunnah of Taraweeh or read the Qur’aan? As Muslims, we face countless attacks against the Qur’aan by Christian missionaries who read it no less than you do, but spend enough time dedicated to misunderstanding it so that they can misinform you. It is therefore, the responsibility of each and every Muslim to not only read the Qur’aan, but it is also incumbent, if not obligatory (wajib) to understand it.

It is not difficult to dedicate a few minutes of reading the English translation after suhoor (sehri, morning meal before the fast). If you spend as little as five minutes, you’d have definitely read a few pages, and a few pages a day can lead you to reading the entire Qur’aan in just a matter of weeks. Just as fasting is prescribed for us, so is reading/ reciting the Qur’aan (27:92, 96:1). If we are Muslims who are sincere about our faith, we must dedicate time to reading and understanding the Qur’aan, we must spend time with the Words of our Lord. After all, it was sent as a guidance for us:

“This is the exalted Book (the Qur’an), in which there is no place for doubt; a guidance for the pious.” – Qur’aan 2:2.

In reading the Qur’aan, it is recommended to read it along with some commentary so that one can clarify matters he is unfamiliar with. For this I recommend using either Maar’iful Qur’aan or the Tafsir of Imam Ibn Kathir (‘alayhi rahma). If you do encounter some passage in which you would like further explanation, feel free to contact us and we’d pass your message on to qualified Islamic scholarship. As a da’ee (one who calls to/ invites to Islam), one of the major obstacles I have for myself witnessed, is the ignorance of the Muslim who has not read the Qur’aan. We cannot be true Muslims without reading the revelation of Allaah to us, for it is the foundation to understanding our faith and without it, we would surely be misguided.

We must not give opportunity to the Missionaries to misuse the Qur’aan upon unsuspecting Muslims. It is our duty to know the Qur’aan. In closing, our Ramadan message is simple, in the month of the Qur’aan – Read the Qur’aan.

If you live in Trinidad & Tobago, Lebanon, Algeria, the United Kingdom, Jordan or the United States and would like a free copy of the Qur’aan (English translation), contact us and we’ll organize sending you one as soon as possible.

Sam Shamoun’s Recorder Won’t Release Raw Debate Audio

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

sam shamoun hands

I returned to  “Why Jesus is the only way“, to see if Sam’s recorder was there. Millie Fiori was the recorder’s name. She was kind to me, I enquired about the debate recording and she did have some issues with uploading the recording. However she made it quite clear that she would not be able to upload the unedited version of the discussion. I questioned her about this and she replied that it was up to Sam Shamoun to decide if the raw audio was to be given to me or to be uploaded, but as it is she would only be uploading the edited version.

Apparently our debate lasted 30 minutes, I really thought it lasted 5 minutes so I am interested to see what the recording actually looks like after the Christian side has edited it. You can view the recording on her YouTube page located here. I can’t give an estimated time until Sam’s edited version is uploaded to the person’s page, but I will be checking regularly to see if/ when it’s uploaded at all.

jesus_facepalm

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »