Tag Archives: callingmuslims.com

Refutation: 1 Chronicles genealogy a contridiction?

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as well as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Qur’anic Miracle: The Best Opportunity to Destroy Islam

Posted on by One comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and God knows best.

Refutation: Can a disciple of Christ be racist ?

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact the Qur’aan clearly details removing slavery:

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

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

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

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

Christianity’s History of African Hate

Posted on by 5 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

 

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

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refuting: Qur’aanic Contradiction Suratul Ikhlas

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

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

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّ‌حْمَـٰنِ الرَّ‌حِيمِ

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

 

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

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

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

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

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

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

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alcohol increases breast cancer risk.

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

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

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

This article authored by Brother Muhyiddine of Dubai.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

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

Posted on by 3 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

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

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

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

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

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

Read more on the planned tower at this link.

This article provided by Brother Muhyiddine of Dubai.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Early Christianity: Diverse Doctrines and Beliefs

Posted on by 3 comments

Our Brother Alexus, from Lebanon, has braved the threats of his Christian neighbours and has been able to compile a succinct yet extremely detailed introduction to Christianity. If you’re a Christian or Muslim, it presents the beliefs of Christianity in an objectified format, comparing some of the propositions of the Bible with the proclamations of the Qur’aan. As part of our Christmas Special, this post will be made into a page and this will be made into a freely downloadable and distributable PDF file, God Willing. Please look forward to the updated link in this post for the PDF download link.

Download this in PDF form: [Currently Offline]

                         Christianity: A Brief Introduction                   

 

Opening Statement: Seriously, did you know?
Did you know that ancient Christians—dating from the very earliest centuries, believed there were 2 different Gods, 12, 30, or even 365?

Obviously, many people today would argue that such views could not be Christian. Yet, what is striking is that these people who believed in such things claimed to be “Christians”. They even insisted that their teachings were taught and maintained by Jesus (may God be pleased with him) himself. Ironically, they could appeal to written proof, for they, each group, possessed documents allegedly penned by Jesus’ own apostles.

So how diverse was Christianity, one may ask?

What is Christianity: The Creed?

In order to define Christianity, one would have to examine its creeds. Firstly, what is a creed? A creed is a statement of belief—usually a statement of faith that describes the beliefs shared by a religious community and is often recited as part of a religious service. The word derives from the Latin: credo for “I believe” (because the Latin translation of the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed both begin with this word).

Of course there are many creeds, including:

-Old Roman Creed

-Nicene Creed

-Apostles’ Creed (based on the Old Roman Creed).

-Chalcedonian Creed.

-Athanasian Creed.

-Tridentine Creed.

-Masai Creed.

-Credo of the People of God.

One of the most widely used creeds in Christianity is the Nicene Creed, first formulated in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea. It is the first council which explicitly stated the imperative belief in the divinity of Jesus and the trinity.

It could be summarized as follows:

  • Jesus Christ is described as “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,” proclaiming his divinity. When all light sources were natural, the essence of light was considered to be identical, regardless of its form.
  • Jesus Christ is said to be “begotten, not made”, asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation. Basically, they were saying that Jesus was God, and God’s son, not a creation of God.
  • He is said to be “from the substance of the Father,” in direct opposition to Arianism. Eusebius of Caesarea ascribes the term homoousios, or consubstantial, i.e., “of the same substance” (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority.

The council did not completely solve the problems and establish the criteria of the Christian faith—this is why many councils were executed later on such as the First Council of Constantinople and the council of Ephesus and many others.

So what do Christians exactly believe: The six points.

In light of the aforementioned, the Christian set of belief can be simply divided as follows:

  • The Divinity of Jesus—He is at the same time fully Divine and fully human.
  • The Trinity—the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Three persons yet One God who share equally the Glory and substance of the one and only God, Almighty.
  • The Original Sin
  • The crucifixion—aka the Cross.
  • The resurrection
  • Salvation.

Before we begin: The Structure.

My focus during this lecture will be based on the first 3 points: The Divinity of Jesus, the Trinity and the Original Sin. I shall discuss these three topics in light of:

1)      The Biblical Scripture—the Old and New Testament.

2)      The Quranic Scripture.

3)      The Logical Perspective.

The Divinity of Jesus: A Fact or a Fiction?

It is noteworthy to mention that there is not a single verse in the Biblical Scripture where Jesus says he is the Almighty God or order worship. This very statement should give us a long pause. If Jesus was indeed God, why didn’t he simply say so? Was he shy? Did he feel awkward? Or maybe was he afraid? A Christian might say: Jesus did not immediately proclaim divinity simply because it is a hard concept on humans to grasp—hence, he did it in a gradual manner. Many difficulties arouse from that response:

1)      There is no gradual process as Jesus did not claim divinity. How could there be a gradual process when the end result is not attained?!

2)      Jesus claimed inferiority rather than equality par rapport to the Creator.

Jesus (pbuh) was a Jewish prophet sent to the Jewish community, a follower of the Jewish law and a devout worshipper of the Jewish God. What’s the issue with Divinity then? The idea that God became a man, a God-man is not a thing just reserved to Christians. Buddhists teaches that God revealed himself in Buddha, Druze claim Al Hakem was God incarnate and Alawites assure that Ali is simply, the Almighty. Ironically, even today, you still find some people declaring divinity. Dr. Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda who recently appeared during a Cnn interview is an example. As a matter of fact, this notion stems from the idea that out of humility and love, the Almighty God decided to take human form to feel and experience what humans go through. To that view, the Holy Quran clarifies, in Surah 67, Ayah 14:

أَلَا يَعْلَمُ مَنْ خَلَقَ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ

“Should He not know what He created? And He is The Ever-Kind, The Ever-Cognizant.”

We ask why would God need to be a human in order to understand us? Does God really require becoming what He created to understand every aspect? A weird and incomprehensible concept.

Humility? Are we to perceive humility by seeing God, Almighty going to the toilet? Having a round of beat? Or by being spat on? Is this what defines humility. To this blasphemous and atrocious notion, we say:

سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يَقُولُونَ عُلُوًّا كَبِيرًا

“Glorified is He, and High Exalted above what they say!”  (Holy Quran 17:43).

The List: Christianity, a tale?

Before moving in depth, I would like to share the following list. These are religious icons whose myths share many or most of the attributes of Christianity fairy tale most of them including resurrection:

* Chrishna of Hindostan
* Budha Sakio of India
* Salivahana of Bermuda
* Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt
* Odin of the Scandinavians
* Crite of Chaldea
* Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia
* Baal and Taut “The only Begotten of God,” of Phenecia
* Indra of Tibet
* Bali of Afghanistan
* Jao of Nepal
* Wittoba of the Bilingonese
* Thammuz of Syria
* Atys of Phrygia
* Xamolsix of Thrace
* Zoar of the Bonzes
* Adad of Assyria
* Deva Tat, and Sammonocadam, of siam
* Alcides of Thebes
* Mkado of the Sintoos
* Beddru of Japan
* Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids
* Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls
* Cadmus of Greecde
* Hil and Feta of the Mandaites
* Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico
* Universal Monarch of the Sibyls
* Ischy of the island of Formosa
* Divine Teacher of Plato
* Holy One of Xaca
* Fohi and Tien of China
* Adonis, son of the virgin Io, of Greece
* Ixion and Quirinus, of Rome
* Prometheus of Caucasus

Some specifics on a few in ascending order of age (ALL of which predate christianity):
Dionysus, Greece, 500.B.C.
* Born of a virgin, on Dec. 25th
* Performed miracles with his disciples, such as: turning water into wine
* Common names: “king of kings”, “god’s only begotten son”, “alpha and omega”
* Upon death, resurrected

Krishna, India, 900 B.C.
* Born of a virgin
* Birth heralded by a star in the east
* performed miracles
* Upon death, resurrected

Attis, Greece, 1200 B.C.
* Born of a virgin, on Dec. 25th
* Crucified
* Dead for 3 days
* Resurrected

Mithra, Persia, 1200 B.C.
* Born of a virgin, on Dec. 25th
* Had 12 disciples
* Performed miracles
* Dead for 3 days
* Resurrected
* Nicknames: “the truth”, “the light”
(Sacred day of worship of Mithra was Sunday)

Horus, Egypt, 3000 B.C.
(Sun anthropomorphized)
* Born of virgin, on Dec. 25th
* Birth heralded by star in the east that was followed by 3 kings
* Teacher at 12
* Baptized at 30 and began ministry
* Had 12 disciples
* Performed miracles: healing sick and walking on water
* Nicknames: “the truth”, “lamb of god”, “the light”, “the good shepherd”
* Crucified
* Dead for 3 days
* Resurrected

A God-man: Debunked!

I shall present now 15 main points arguing why Jesus cannot be divine tackling it from 3 ways accordingly as already explained.

The Judgment Day.

1) Mark 13:32 read:

“”No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

This statement not only assures to us that Jesus is ignorant concerning the Judgment day—a thing which is incomprehensible—it raises another problematic issue: How does Jesus know and doesn’t know? It is like saying a part of God knows while the other has no idea! How can this be?

Adam Clarke, a biblical scholar, who wrote the famous “Commentary on the Bible” says:

“To me it is utterly unaccountable, how Jesus, who knew so correctly all the particulars which he here lays down, and which were to a jot and tittle verified by the event – how he who knew that not one stone should be left on another, should be ignorant of the day and hour when this should be done.  I cannot comprehend, but on this ground, that the Deity which dwelt in the man Christ Jesus might, at one time, communicate less of the knowledge of futurity to him than at another. However, I strongly suspect that the clause was not originally in this Gospel. Its not being found in the parallel places in the other evangelists is, in my opinion, a strong presumption against it.”

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible read:

“Neither the Son – This text has always presented serious difficulties. It has been asked, If Jesus had a divine nature, how could he say that he knew not the day and hour of a future event? In reply, it has been said that the passage was missing, according to Ambrose, in some Greek manuscripts; but it is now found in all, and there can be little doubt that the passage is genuine.  Others have said that the verb rendered “knoweth” means sometimes to “make” known or to reveal, and that the passage means, ‘that day and hour none makes known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father.’ But then it is natural to ask where has “the Father” made it known? In what place did he reveal it?’”

Where did the Father makes it known asks Barnes—No where.

Therefore, how come God does not know when the hour of Judgment is? Allegedly speaking and for the sake of the argument—did He lose His powers when He became a man? If yes, then are we still to consider Him as God? If not, what makes him divine then?

The Glorious Quran strictly refutes this absurd statement:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَخْفَىٰ عَلَيْهِ شَيْءٌ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلَا فِي السَّمَاءِ

“Indeed, from Allah nothing is hidden in the earth nor in the heaven.” (Holy Quran 3:5)

وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ نَسِيًّا

“And your Lord is not forgetful.” (Noble Quran 19:64)

إِنَّمَا إِلَٰهُكُمُ اللَّهُ الَّذِي لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ ۚ وَسِعَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ عِلْمًا

“Your Ilah (God) is only Allah, the One (La ilaha illa Huwa) (none has the right to be worshipped but He). He has full knowledge of all things.” (Glorious Quran 20:94).

A helpless unreliable God?

2) John 5:30-2

“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid.”

Indeed, one huge can of worms is opened by this verse. Firstly, how can God do nothing by Himself? This is truly a weird unsolved enigma. Secondly, the Biblical Jesus is declaring that his judgment is right—why? Because he is following not his will but the will of God which is according to Christians his will. So in other words, not his will but his will. In short, why are his words true—simply because he abide not by his will but by his will. Do you perceive the difference?

Did anyone, seriously anyone, grasp what was being said here? I guess not.

Finally, the last part—“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid”. Can anyone imagine God testimony as invalid? Does this refer to “Lying”? Are we really to believe that? Nonetheless the ultimate problem here is the issue that God is testifying about himself yet insisting that if it relates to Him— “If I testify about myself”—it is wrong. Illogical.

A possible desperate Christian answer might be that God/Jesus is referring to his human nature. I would say, it would have been better to remain silent than to give this ridiculous answer, simply because:

–          You are asserting that by becoming a man, God testimony became invalid yet he was still God whose testimony is even above the word “Valid”—how can this be? How can God words or worse—his testimony valid and not valid at the same time?

–          How can we know when Jesus is talking in his human or divine nature?

–          By assuming that God words became unreliable, this would mean that He would have uttered lies. Istaghfor Allah.

–          Whether it was his human or divine nature—that does not refute the mere fact that it was God—hence still God testimony.
Now, what does the Quran says concerning God testimony:

قُلْ أَيُّ شَيْءٍ أَكْبَرُ شَهَادَةً ۖ قُلِ اللَّهُ ۖ

Say (O Muhammad SAW): “What thing is the most great in witness?” Say: Allah. (Holy Quran 6:22)

While in what relates to the statement “I can of mine own self do nothing”, Allah, the greatest says:

قُلْ أَتَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ مَا لَا يَمْلِكُ لَكُمْ ضَرًّا وَلَا نَفْعًا ۚ وَاللَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ

Say, “Do you worship besides Allah that which holds for you no [power of] harm or benefit while it is Allah who is the Hearing, the Knowing?” (Holy Quran 5:76)

 

 

So how many Gods are there?

3) Mark 12:29

“And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord”

John 20:17

“Jesus said to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brothers, and say to them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

Apparently, according to both these verses, Jesus has a God. How is that so? Doesn’t Christians believe in just one God—a Three Godhead? Or is it Two Gods now? Jesus and his “God”? Nonetheless, It is shiny clear according to Mark 12:29 which is basically a quote of Deuteronomy 6:4 that God is One.

Strikingly, Adam Clarke and Barnes are quite silent about this verse. I will quote another commentary, the well known Gill’s exposition of the entire Bible, as it seems to be exclusively interesting:

“God was his Father, not by creation, as he is to angels, and the souls of men, and therefore is called the Father of spirits; nor by adoption, as he is to the saints; nor with respect to the incarnation of Christ, for, as man, he had no father; or with regard to his office as Mediator, for as such he was a servant, and not a Son; but he was his Father by nature, or with regard to his divine person, being begotten of him, and so his own proper Son, and he his own proper Father;”

According to Gill, Jesus is not a “created” son as par rapport to his Father yet the Bible mentions Jesus as God firstborn—in other words, a created being. Obviously, God is not born, nor will He ever will be. Additionally, this latter tells us that God was a Father to Jesus by nature—What does Father by nature really means, one may ask? The Almighty God is at the same time a Father to himself and a Son—to himself? Surely, Christianity is one big mes.

Finally, Jesus is described and believed to be “Begotten”, a word which literary refers to the sexual mean of reproduction. Not only Jesus was shaped and created in his mother’s womb—this word unfortunately denotes an unworthy description related to the Almighty one really do not wish to open that door.

We have noticed how Jesus refers to his God, “My God and your God”, it is fascinating now to see what the Quran says concerning that issue:

لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ ۖ وَقَالَ الْمَسِيحُ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ ۖ إِنَّهُ مَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدْ حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ الْجَنَّةَ وَمَأْوَاهُ النَّارُ ۖ وَمَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ مِنْ أَنصَارٍ

“They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.” (Holy Quran 5:72)

ذَٰلِكَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ ۚ قَوْلَ الْحَقِّ الَّذِي فِيهِ يَمْتَرُونَ مَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ مِن وَلَدٍ ۖ سُبْحَانَهُ ۚ إِذَا قَضَىٰ أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبُّكُمْ فَاعْبُدُوهُ ۚ هَٰذَا صِرَاطٌ مُّسْتَقِيمٌ

“That is Isa (Jesus) son of Maryam, in word of truth, concerning which they are wrangling. In no way is it for Allah to take to Him a child. All Extolment be to Him! When He decrees a Command, then He only says to it, “Be!” and it is.  And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. This is a straight Path.”

He is blaming himself now?!

4)  Mark 15:34   

“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

To me, it is one of the best biblical verses. I will draw first what is happening here. As a matter of fact, after being sentenced to death by crucifixion by Pontius Pilate, Jesus was nailed to the cross, where according to the Gospel of Mark; he was silent—unknowing what was happening to him—in a complete state of Shock!

Back to our issue, two points are actually raised here:

-To whom is Jesus talking to?

-Why is he blaming himself?

Apparently, either the Biblical God talk with himself—ask himself or even now blame himself—or something is really fishy going on here? I would say both.

Yet ironically, the bigger critical point here: Why is God blaming himself that he left himself to feel pain—all by himself? How could any normal, rational being believe this?

What do Christian missionaries present as response to this serious dilemma? A smart response is that Jesus was simply quoting Psalms 22, an Old Testament verse which to some extent is similar to that verse—a quote said by David. It may sound as a smart response from a shallow look but we examined carefully—it would seem so ridiculous. Ironically even though it is incomprehensible how David suddenly became Jesus—the passage if read carefully, one would undoubtedly note that it could not refer to Jesus—nonetheless, even if I would want to take it as a Prophecy—I am too nice—still that does not solve the issue. Just saying it is a prophecy simply means that it was known to happen yet it does not present a logical answer why Jesus was blaming himself?! In other words, a prophecy or not—Jesus still blamed why God left him, oddly himself—on the cross? The problem still stands!

To sum up: Difficulty arouse not only with the idea of a suicidal God—we have a biblical God that is not aware of what is going on, talking with himself and strikingly blaming himself why he killed himself—Fantastic.

The Quran:

وَقَالُوا اتَّخَذَ الرَّحْمَٰنُ وَلَدًا لَّقَدْ جِئْتُمْ شَيْئًا إِدًّا  تَكَادُ السَّمَاوَاتُ يَتَفَطَّرْنَ مِنْهُ وَتَنشَقُّ الْأَرْضُ وَتَخِرُّ الْجِبَالُ هَدًّا  أَن دَعَوْا لِلرَّحْمَٰنِ وَلَدًا  وَمَا يَنبَغِي لِلرَّحْمَٰنِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ وَلَدًا  إِن كُلُّ مَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ إِلَّا آتِي الرَّحْمَٰنِ عَبْدًا لَّقَدْ أَحْصَاهُمْ وَعَدَّهُمْ عَدًّا وَكُلُّهُمْ آتِيهِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فَرْدًا

“They say: “(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!” Indeed you have brought forth (said) a terrible evil thing. At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant. Indeed He has already enumerated them, and He has numbered them with (exact) numbering. And everyone of them will come to Him singly on the Day of Judgment. (Noble Quran 19:88-95).

5)  Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13

“Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.”

Out of the four Gospels—only three mentions this incident and just two of them describe specifically what happened. While Mark is content with a general statement—John completely omits it. Therefore, our focus will be stressed on Matthew and Luke who narrate this fascinating story but with a slight difference which we will examine it shortly.

Apparently, the Spirit which is understood to be the Holy Spirit—One of God’s distinct personality that forms the trinity—has directed Jesus (himself?) for his temptation. One by just reading this would normally ask: God lead himself for his own temptation? Really?

We are told that Jesus was tempted for 40 days and during this period he fasted (Matthew 4:2; Luke 4:2)—obviously, so that his concentration be focused and ultimately avoiding sinning. Seeing Jesus has not succumbed—the Devil then uses his last three most powerful moves:

-He tells him to change stones into bread so that he could eat (Matthew 4:3; Luke 4:3)

-He takes him to the top of the temple and order him to jump  (Matthew 4:5-6; Luke 4:9) saying if you are the son of God—you will not be harmed—as the angels will prevent you from falling.

-Finally, he takes him (again?) to a very high mountain, showing him all the kingdom of the world and assuring him if he worships him—all what he has seen will be his. (Matthew 4:8-9; Luke 4:5-6).

From where do I begin—ah that seems a hard task.

I will divide my argument into five points:

I)  Mark, Matthew and Luke flat out contradict what James tells us in his epistle. As a matter of fact, according to James (1:13) “God cannot be tempted and nor does he tempt with evil”. A simple straightforward contradiction.

II) As already mentioned, Jesus fasted for 40 days. Quite interestingly, after that period, it is said that he became “Hungry”. Can anyone imagine a hungry God?

III) We read that Jesus was one time taken to top of the mountain and another to the high mountain—I honestly ask: Is Jesus a sack of potato that Satan throws from one place to another? Wake up Christians!!! This is the Almighty we are talking about.

IV) How could Satan have any effect on God, Almighty? How can he have power over His creator? And telling God to worship him? Seriously? Christians, do you realize what you are saying?

V) The book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus was tempted “in every way just as we are” (Hebrews 4:15). Now this is one bizarre terrible statement. Every way? Are we to believe that God thought of raping a woman? Throwing an old woman from a cliff? Or maybe dancing naked?

One way to reconcile this is to claim that Jesus did not sin, thus temptations did not have any effect any him. The issue is not whether he sinned or not—rather, the temptation. Whether he fell to Satan or not is irrelevant to the point discussed here.  Finally and as usual, you have the man part answer. It was the human part of God that was tempted. I don’t understand how that really solves the issue. First, do Christians, each time they face a difficulty, immediately shout: HUMAN PART! Second, on what basis? Third, even if we would want to accept that it was the human part that was being tempted—still it means that GOD WAS TEMPTED!According to the basic Christian belief, both the human and divine nature is both God.

The Quran:

وَرَبُّنَا الرَّحْمَٰنُ الْمُسْتَعَانُ عَلَىٰ مَا تَصِفُونَ

“And our Lord is the Beneficent Allah, Whose help is sought against what you ascribe (to Him).” (Noble Quran 21:112)

Good or not?

6) Luke 18:19; Matthew 19:16-17 and Mark 10:17-18

 

Consider the story of the rich young ruler. A story narrated by the first three Gospels. John here too—omits that story. Actually, the man is rich according to all three accounts, but only in Matthew he is said to be young and only in Luke he is said to be a ruler. Does that mean we are facing a contradiction here? Not the least. A contradiction occurs when two (or more) statements in relation to a subject conflict—one of them has to be wrong—which is not the case here.

Now, this young rich ruler approached Jesus by referring to him by the words: “Oh good teacher”. Jesus then asks him: Why are you calling me good? Only God is good! In other words, Jesus refused to be set on the same level of the Almighty—to be even put in a comparison. So how could God be not good but still good? He is not good but yet only he is good? A World of contradictions.

Another striking point to be considered is to compare these accounts. A process called by Christian scholars “Redaction Criticism”—which aims to point out how a Gospel author modified a story and why? It is noteworthy to mention that scholars believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, Luke and Matthew followed it and finally John. It is also believe that Matthew and Luke have considered Mark as one of their source. By comparing, we find that Luke agrees with Mark word for word. Yet let us read how Matthew renders the story:

“Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

One of the interesting things about this passage is that the man who approaches Jesus uses the term “good” in both accounts but in Matthew he uses it to refer to the deed he must do, whereas in Mark and Luke he uses it to refer to Jesus. As a result the ensuing dialogue in Mark makes sense: Jesus by asking refuse to be compared to God while in Matthew the flow of dialogue seems a bit flow: Why would Jesus object to the man asking about what is good, on the ground that God is only good?

One may ask, why did Matthew alter the text? Obviously, Matthew did not like the issue that Jesus was claiming to be inferior to God and realized that this would cause a serious problem so what did he do? He changed the text.

Jesus, a prophet?

7) Luke 24:19:

“What things?” he asked. “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.”

Matthew 21:11:

“The crowds answered, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.”

Matthew 13:57:

And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor.”

In the first two verses, we notice Jesus being referred to as a “Prophet” once by Cleopas, the brother of Joseph, the huband of Mary and another by the crowds. Yet what is striking is that in the last quotation, Jesus even refers to himself as a Prophet!!! As a matter of fact, when Jesus began preaching in the Synagogues, in his hometown—Nazareth, he was immediately rebuked by the Jews—his own people. Hence his words: “Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor.”

Hence, the question now begs itself: Is Jesus a Prophet or God? Or could he both? Firstly, what is a Prophet? A Prophet is a person who conveys another person message. In religion, it refers generally to an individual who delivers a certain revelation to people. If Jesus was God, how would he be a Prophet? A prophet to whom? To himself? That seems pretty much absurd and illogical.

One answer I presume would be: Jesus was a prophet to the Father. He was delivering his Father message.

Counter-argument:

Yet Jesus and his Father are the one and same God. Hence, when a person says Jesus as a Prophet was simply transferring what the Father or his Father said is like saying God is transferring his own words.

Therefore, logically Jesus has to be either God or Prophet—and obviously, from the Biblical and logical perspective, the latter is to be picked.

Let’s go to the Holy Quran:

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ ۚ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَىٰ مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ ۖ فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ ۖ وَلَا تَقُولُوا ثَلَاثَةٌ ۚ انتَهُوا خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ ۚ إِنَّمَا اللَّهُ إِلَٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ ۖ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ ۘ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ ۗ وَكَفَىٰ بِاللَّهِ وَكِيلًا

“O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, (“Be!” – and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Ruh) created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: “Three (trinity)!” Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.” (4:171)


Circumsized, ate and evidently went to W.C?
8) Luke 2:21

“And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.”

Is anyone not familiar with the meaning of the word “circumcised”? Just in case, circumcision simply means:

“Male circumcision is the surgical removal of some or the entire foreskin (prepuce) from the penis.”

Seriously, I am even ashamed of myself by saying this. How could anyone attribute such a thing to the Almighty God? He had the dirty part of his genitals cut? Dirty and this part? Unfortunately, Christians do not realize the extent of blasphemy they are uttering by believing that God was a man, a fully human being. We Muslims cannot but to say:

سبحان الله و تعالى عما يصفون

Praise is He highly on what they describe.

Now concerning the issue of Jesus eating and hitting the toilet, I would like to quote the Quran to show how God, Almighty deals with such subject, we read:

مَّا الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدِّيقَةٌ ۖ كَانَا يَأْكُلَانِ الطَّعَامَ ۗ انظُرْ كَيْفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الْآيَاتِ ثُمَّ انظُرْ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ

“The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded away from the truth.” (Glorious Quran 5:75)

Consider the eloquence of the Quran and how it smoothly and intellectually delivers the message. The verse says that both Mary and Jesus ate food and obviously what does the person do next? It’s the toilet’s time.

Hence, the Quran strictly refute that nonsense but as we have seen in a beautiful eloquent manner. Al Hamdulilah.

The Quran says:

قُلْ أَغَيْرَ اللَّهِ أَتَّخِذُ وَلِيًّا فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَهُوَ يُطْعِمُ وَلَا يُطْعَمُ ۗ قُلْ إِنِّي أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أَكُونَ أَوَّلَ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ ۖ وَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

“Say, ‘Is it other than Allah I should take as a protector, Creator of the heavens and the earth, while it is He who feeds and is not fed?” Say, [O Muhammad], “Indeed, I have been commanded to be the first [among you] who submit [to Allah ] and [was commanded], ‘Do not ever be of the polytheists.’ ” (Holy Quran 6:14)

And finally,

لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ ۖ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ

“There is nothing whatever similar unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).” (Noble Quran 42:11).

God changed his mind?
9) Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42

“Father, if you are willing, please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine.”

According to the Christian teachings, specifically the Original Sin, no matter what a person does, no matter how much he prays, fasts, does good deeds—he is doomed to eternal Hell. What was the solution according to Christianity? God had to take human form—Jesus, to be crucified and ultimately to take all the sins of the world with him by dying. That may seem a bit weird but according to this faith—God did it according to his very own will. That was the only solution after all.

Ironically, Luke 22:42 tells us another thing. Here we notice Jesus praying to God, Almighty (himself?) not to die by taking away this “Cup of suffering”. In Luke, he simply asks once while in Mark, he insists three times!!!Now, doesn’t that K.O all the Christian faith apart? If God, Almighty willingly decided to go on a suicide mission—considering that it was the only solution plausible—Why did he suddenly change his mind? Are we to believe that God changes his mind now too? Although the Bible clearly mentions otherwise (Numbers 23:19).

Finally, Jesus says:”Your will to be done and not mine”.

We again here face a terrible nonsense. We note that:

-Jesus is talking with himself.

-Praying to himself.

-Asking himself to spare him from the mission.

-And for the final touch down, hoping that God’s will which is his will be done but not his will.

There is nothing I could say apart: Fantastic!

The Quranic perspective:
God is not a man: Is it that hard to understand?

10) Numbers 23:19; Samuel 15:39

“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should change his mind.”

A simple straightforward fact: God is neither a man nor the son of a man. Why can’t Christians understand that? Who was Jesus? A pious God-fearing man and the son of Mary. Actually, God, Almighty since the beginning of time has sent Prophets with good news, with the message of Tawheed, the message of La Ilah illa Allah—there is no god but Allah warning mankind not to associate partners with God and not to worship the sun, the moon, the nature and of course—humans.  Nonetheless, thanks to Christianity—we are wrapped back to the ancient times.

A Christian rebuttal to this point might simply be:

“The verse says that God is not a man and not the Son of man—however, it does not say that God can never be a man or the Son of Man.”

Counter rebuttal:

This argument fails to perceive that the Old Testament is filled with verses that say that God is this or that and those verses remain true for eternity as Christians themselves will concede in their theology. What do I mean?

Let us take Deuteronomy 6:4 as an example.

“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!”

To be consistent the proponents of the first rebuttal must now say that it is possible for God to be 1000 instead of echad(one) in the future if He so wishes. I do not think any reasonable Christian will agree to that.

And finally for my K.O point, Psalms 102:27 assures that God is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow:

“But you remain the same, and your years will never end.”

Muslims sometimes when shocked by a certain thing say:

سبحان الدي يغير و لا يتغير

Praise is to Him that [causes] change but is never changed.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

« Older Entries Recent Entries »