Tag Archives: Chessie Edwards

When a ‘Christian’ met Tawhid Al Asma Wa Sifat

A response to the unexpected Christian objections 

Question Mark

Introduction

A certain Christian named C.L.Edwards has objected to our paper wherein we discussed the problems which Christianity, especially the Trinitarian strand of it, faces while dealing with monotheism with regards to God’s attributes and names.

Throughout Edwards directed his response to Ijaz may be either due to careless negligence or sheer obsession as recently they were engaged in a debate. So whenever Edwards refers anything to Ijaz it is actually aimed at me.

Although it was an honor to read Edwards’ response, yet certain very important issues needed to be addressed which we intend to do in this paper.

Problem lies at the base

 

Edwards divides his response into twenty five bullet points. The most important of all lies at the very end! In fact as we would soon observe it shows the philosophy which Edwards as a Trinitarian endorses under the assumption of it being ‘doctrine of monotheism’. As such we would start our analysis from there. Here is Edward’s twenty fifth point:

25. Ijaz says…Monotheism simply means One God, the issue of God incarnating as a man and living the life of a man has nothing to do with whether God is One. The real issue clearly is Ijaz’s psychological hang ups about the incarnation.

Carefully observe the stress upon the definition of monotheism for Edwards. It simply and only means counting God as “One”. We assume this is a standard Trinitarian belief. Nevertheless, on one hand where it is extremely important to count God as one; on the other hand, it is not enough to merely count Him as one! Since even the pagans – by all sense of the word – also count God as one! Consider the following quotations from Hindu scriptures:

“There is only ONE God, not the second; not at all, not at all, not in the least bit.” (Concept of God in Major Religions, Brahma Sutra of Hindu Vedanta, pg. 8)

“He is One only without a second” (Concept of God in Major, Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1, pg. 5)

Therefore, we do not think that by merely counting God as “one”, Edwards is any different from Hindus who are (generally) known polytheists. As such there has to be more to monotheism than just counting God as one. It is this lack of more qualifications to the imports of monotheism which drives Edwards towards beliefs wherein he allows all sorts of Idolatry under the aegis of Trinitarian Christianity:

24. He then says, “Nevertheless, they have no qualms when they ring their church bells about “God” being delivered out of Mary’s womb “in the crude way” or, “God” being poked on cross while he was almost naked or, still more weirdly, a dead “God” hanging on the cross with probably scavenger hovering over “His” head until his “dead body” was to be placed in a cave.” No we do not, just like the previous messengers had no qualms about this, nor Jesus disciples, nor Jesus himself. because this is what God had said would happen and it is what did happen. Your inability to accept or grasp how it could be is irrelevant, unless you only want a “god” that conforms to your mind(aka an idol).

To paraphrase Edwards’ stand: once a Christian has sufficiently “counted” God to be “one” then he is monotheist enough to allow God being delivered out of Mary’s womb in the crude way; God hanging almost nude on the cross; or even more embarrassingly, monotheists carrying God’s “dead body” into ‘His’ “grave”! So on and so forth.

In other words, a Hindu would be a polytheist since he is worshipping “God-man” like Krishna but a Trinitarian Christian would be a ‘monotheist’ destined to heaven since he worships Jesus (peace be upon him) – , albeit, another ‘God-man’; even though both a Hindu and a Christian “counts” God to be absolutely “one”! We do not really have any good explanation for this extremely biased and partisan approach towards different “God-mans” apart from the fact that either “God is God of Israel” – the nationalistic God and thus the biased approach or, the so-called philosophy of “hypostatic union”:

In fact Edwards readily accepted a number of utterly idolatrous acts for God under the name of hypostatic union. Following is the list,

1)      God being procreated out of the womb of Mary “in the crude way”.

2)      God contained inside His “mother’s” womb

3)      God sucking his life of his mother.

4)      God producing biological waste.

5)      God almost made naked on cross.

6)      God made to bleed and wounded.

7)      God being spat on his face.

8)      And, on top of all of that, “God” dying on the cross

9)      And, “God’s” dead body being enshrouded and placed in cave.

 

And following is Edwards’ acceptance of them under the explanation of hypostatic union!

“16. Ijaz then lists many things that happened to Jesus Christ while incarnate as a man, that he says do not befit God. In a sense I agree from the stand point of God in his essence would never be nailed to a cross(how could a incorporeal being be nailed to anything?), but God incarnate in the manner detailed by the doctrine of the hypostatic union could and did do all those things without violating his “God-hood”.

Edwards goes on to explain what hypostatic union means and how it justifies all of the above blasphemous attributes upon God:

13. Ijaz then says “On the same reasoning, Jesus (peace be upon him) cannot be imputed with some of the attributes which ill-fits a “God”” Correction Jesus as the incarnate God-man having two natures could not have attributes ”ill-fit” for a God ascribed to his divine essence(dhat). As for His second additional nature that he took upon himself, it is fully human in every sense of the word. Since Jesus two natures are not mixed or co-mingled causing a dilution nor a cancellation of the other, Christs human nature imputes nothing ”ill-fit” to his divine nature.

This is pure Greek philosophy than anything else since we cannot have a “union” of two mutually exclusive attributes at the same time and in the same entity. Although Edwards asserts that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) humanity would not interrupt his divinity yet this is not possible. To explain this let’s take a situation in Jesus’ (peace be upon him) life where he was in his mother’s womb. When the baby, in other words, the human Jesus (peace be upon him) was in the womb along with it the “God” of Trinitarians was also clinging to the uterine wall of Mary! So, where it is perfectly acceptable for a human Jesus (peace be upon him) to be contained in Mary; however, it is grotesque even to imagine “God” hanging in Mary’s womb! And yet this is exactly acceptable under the explanation of “hypostatic union”!

To further realize the absurd implications of the “hypostatic union”, we would go further earlier in Mary’s pregnancy. Think about the time when Jesus (peace be upon him) was not even a baby in the womb – the zygote state. By the very token of “hypostatic union” we would have to grant that the zygote was both a mere human-pre-natal state and at the same time (hypostatic union) “God” Almighty clinging to the womb of Mary as a mere two celled organism! So if the dual nature of Jesus (peace be upon him) – the divine and the human – by the virtue of “hypostatic union” allows him to be referred as “God-man” during his adult ministry, then by the same token of “hypostatic union” it should have been ‘doctrinally’ permissible to call him “God-zygote” during his incipient stages!?

The above explanations make it amply clear that the human nature of Jesus (peace be upon him) does interfere with his divine nature (if he has one). And this cannot be merely explained away by assuming that “two natures are not mixed or co-mingled causing a dilution nor a cancellation of the other, Christs human nature imputes nothing ”ill-fit” to his divine nature.”!

At last, some attributes are blasphemous

Edwards, however, does not allow everything for Jesus (peace be upon him):

15…For those unfamiliar with Christian doctrine it does not teach “the “Son of God” would procreate his “Son””. Ijaz does such things constantly and despite being corrected he continues on,  I can only speculate because it befits his attempts at dawah.

Note how precisely Edwards deny the notion that Jesus (peace be upon him) would beget any kid(s). He reasons that the “Christian doctrine…does not teach” so. However hardly does he care to enquire why the “Christian doctrine” is so? Why Jesus (peace be upon him) cannot procreate? The reason is simple. Jesus (peace be upon him) – the human – begetting a kid would be acceptable but because of the “hypostatic” phenomenon, the divine nature is also co-residing; thus, Jesus (peace be upon him) betaking kids would defy all monotheistic paradigms. And in this situation church mandated the Christian “doctrine” that Jesus (peace be upon him) cannot beget kids.

However, on one hand where the “Christian doctrine” disallows Jesus (peace be upon him) begetting kids, nevertheless, ironically it does allow Jesus (peace be upon him) himself being begotten off Mary! Furthermore, Christian “doctrine” does allow Jesus (peace be upon him) to bleed, sweat, feel for hunger, and so logically, have all other hormonal developments including reproductive as there is in any other human being – yet the only thing he cannot do is beget kids!

It was to circumvent these nasty implications that Islam qualified that there is more in monotheism than mere count of God as “one”. It made it necessary that besides recognizing and counting God as one, sufficient care has to be taken with regards to His attributes. His attributes should not be invested upon His creation and vice-versa.

In fact the Hebrew Bible also teaches the same! Therefore, we quoted Exodus20:4. Nevertheless, Edwards neglected it with the explanation that the verse merely speaks against the “making” of idols:

4. Exodus 20:4 does not prove the following statement, “Quite obviously Bible is denying that attribute of any creation can be imputed upon the Almighty”. Exodus 20:4 is a prohibition against making idols.

Similarly, for obvious Trinitarian reasons, Edwards also asserted that Deuteronomy 4:16 does not speak against any humanization of God:

18. Ijaz further exposes his lack of knowledge of Christian theology by supposing the incarnation of Christ is some how like the craving of a idol in his quoting of Deuteronomy 4:16. I am not sure how a command from God to Israel to not crave idols disproves God could have the ability(or will) to take on a second additional nature and co-exist as both God and man. Again ijaz ignores the actual topic of the passage(do not make idols) and feels free to make it say what he “feels” it should say.

We would consider Deuteronomy 4:16 only for brevity and check if it only concerns with “making” of idols. This is what the text reads:

Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, (Deuteronomy 4:16)

As usual Edwards neglects the reason why God is not to be represented in an idol. A verse earlier, Bible explicitly gives the reason:

And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it. Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: (Deuteronomy 4:14-15)

God’s reasoning is very clear: On the day when He spoke, Israelites could not observe His similitude to any of His creatures! As such it was forbidden that Israelites represent Him in any shape or form including human males. More specifically, God does not have any similitude to male humans and thus it would be idolatry to conceive Him in that form and worship.

However, when Edwards tries to limit the scope of the verse to mean merely forbiddance of idol making and worship, then he even goes against the standard Christian interpretation of the verse:

Deuteronomy 4:16

The likeness of male or female – Such as Baal-peor and the Roman Priapus, Ashtaroth or Astarte, and the Greek and Roman Venus; after whom most nations of the world literally went a whoring. (Adam Clarke’s commentary on the Bible)

the likeness of male or female; of a man or a woman; so some of the Heathen deities were in the likeness of men, as Jupiter, Mars, Hercules, Apollo, &c. and others in the likeness of women, as Juno, Diana, Venus, &c. Some think Osiris and Isis, Egyptian deities, the one male, the other female, are respected; but it is not certain that these were worshipped by them so early. (John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible)

Out of the many names which the commentator has provided many were real mennot mere idols. However, they are criticized as “Heathen deities” since God has no similitude to “males”! And so personification of God is here termed as paganism.

Nevertheless, Christians would never apply the same standards upon Jesus (peace be upon him) even though he is just another male like Hercules or Apollo! In Jesus (peace be upon him), Christians somehow do see (similitude of) God notwithstanding the premises of the preceding Hebrew biblical verses.

To further expose the weakness of the argument that the verse merely speaks about “making” of idols we would consider the era when, say, Krishna was physically moving around in the villages of India “preaching” about spirituality and performing “miracles” among masses. And consider the group of people worshipping him during his earthly ministry; now what would Edwards say about the religious practices of these people! Are they ‘monotheists’ (remember they (Hindus) staunchly count God as one) – or polytheists! Note that these people would not be into any idol business since they have their deity physically present with them. If Edwards would still deem them as polytheists for the mere reason that they worshipped a “God-man” then how is he himself with all other Christians a ‘monotheist’?

As such Christians should provide strong enough reasons why as a non-Christian we should reject all other “Heathen” god-men in the name of ‘monotheism’ but yet accept the deity of Jesus (peace be upon him), who was yet another god-man. One cannot accept such a notion unless s/he is flagrantly biased; since, if Jesus (peace be upon him) performed miracles and that makes him to be “God” then so did a number of other claimants of divinity in other religions. If Christians have a “scripture” which allegedly speak of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) deity; most other “Heathen” religions also have scripture, in fact many even predating New Testament, that also speak of their candidates as gods! And most importantly, if Jesus (peace be upon him) is a “God-man” so were a number of others!

But if the acceptance-rejection yardstick lies only on the mere fact that the “Heathens” in absence of their man-gods portrayed them in idols then we would have to accept that the few sects of Christianity, which are easily outnumbered by more dominant ones, are only a step behind in “Heathenism” since they do have full-blown image/idol of Jesus (peace be upon him) in their minds during their “services”.

Humanization in Islam

On the fly, Edwards accused Islam of humanizing God as well:

17. Ijaz a man who follows a religion that teaches God has a face, two eyes, a shin, feet, will be seen in the form of a man, and descends down into time and space then claims, “ What is disappointing in all of this is that Bible strictly speaks against any such idolatrous humanization of God”. Besides the fact that Christian theology doesn’t teach the humanization of God in the manner Ijaz accuses, see point 13, 15 and 16.

Islamic Scriptures does speak about face, shin but it also states that:

(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things). (Qur’an 42:11)

Commenting on the above highlighted part of the verse, Shaikh Philips writes the following:

The attributes of hearing and seeing are among the human attributes, but when they are attributed to The Divine Being they are without comparison in their perfection. However, when these attributes are associated with men they necessitate ear and eye apparatuses which cannot be attributed to God. What man knows about the Creator is only what little He has revealed to him through His prophets. Therefore, man is obliged to stay within these narrow limits. When man gives free reign to his intellect in describing God, he is liable to fall into error by assigning to Allah the attributes of His creation. (The Fundamentals of Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism), Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, pp 28-29)

And,

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;  And there is none like unto Him. (Qur’an 112: 1-4)

Noted Qur’an commentator Yusuf Ali also reflects likewise:

This sums up the whole argument and warns us specially against Anthropomorphism, the tendency to conceive of Allah after our own pattern, an insidious tendency that creeps in at all times and among all peoples.

Thus when Allah (SWT) states that He has a Face or Hands etc the similarity lies only in the linguistic words, certainly not in the imports. On the basis of preceding Qur’anic verses, we do not have any warrant to make deductions/conclusions that if Allah (SWT) said about His Face then it would mean a face made up of two eyes, one nose, pair of lips and ears – comprising of epidermis, fat, muscles, nerves, blood etc; since in the end God also said “nothing whatsoever is like unto Him”. We need to be particularly careful with the last clause since God will question about it.

Conclusion

With regards to Edwards’ understanding of monotheism, we observed some peculiar and typical statements like,

18…I am not sure how a command from God to Israel to not crave idols disproves God could have the ability(or will) to take on a second additional nature and co-exist as both God and man.

25…Also Monotheism simply means One God, the issue of God incarnating as a man and living the life of a man has nothing to do with whether God is One. The real issue clearly is Ijaz’s psychological hang ups about the incarnation.

These give strong indication for the type of philosophy Edwards endorses as “monotheism”; and we assume that Edwards is trying his best to demonstrate the standard Christian doctrine of monotheism. As such the type of monotheism which Christianity offers to humanity is extremely narrow. It is just the count of God to one which matters added with the denial of idols.

However, Christianity does allow drawing similitude to God even though the Hebrew Bible expressly rejects it. In order to accommodate the “incarnation” or the humanization of God, Christianity neglects the reason why the God of Israel forbade representing Him through idols. It was because, as He explained, He does not have any similitude or resemblance to any of His creation, including “male” humans. And so it would be attributing “male” resemblance upon God which has to be rejected as paganism. If this essence and theme is neglected from the verse then it does not matter whether one worships Jesus (peace be upon him) or Krishna or any other “God-man” since, as we saw, even the Hindu scriptures counted God as “one” so a Krishna worshipper is still a ‘monotheist’ in that regard. Thus, until we filter out “incarnation” of God (i.e., attributing the qualities of humans upon God), as a non-Christian it is hard to see difference between Paganism and Christianity.

And so in all good spirit we request Edwards to ponder into the following words of God where He is addressing the very delusion of most humans who ‘think’ they believe in God but…

…most of them believe not in Allah without associating (other as partners) with Him! (Qur’an 12:106)

“Travel through the earth and see what was the end of those before (you):Most of them worshipped others besides Allah.” (Qur’an 30:42)

Notes:

  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all Qur’anic texts taken from Yusuf Ali Translation.
  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical texts taken from King James Version.
  • All emphasize wherever not matching with original is ours.

 

P.S.: This paper was mostly responsive where we responded to a number of issues Edwards raised. During the course, we touched on issues which might hurt Christian feelings. Nevertheless, it was never our intention to hurt any sincere Christian sentiment. We apologize, in case, if any Christian sentiment has been hurt. We seek God’s guidance and mercy.

Refutation: Does Jesus’ Holy Spirit Make Him Divine?

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

As it would seem, Chessie Edwards was so incensed by the proverbial spanking he got in relation to his poor study of Christology that he made a video about Christian apostate, Br. Hamza and his article. I’d like to make it known that Islam prohibits mocking of the mentally ill, or mocking of anyone for that matter, but in this case I’m making an excuse for Chessie as he seems to slip in and out of it every once in a while. I watched his video, and sadly I am unable to make up for the time lost. Was his video worth it? Nope.

He spends 37 minutes speaking about his ego, his studies, money donations, mentions the articles a few times, mentions that he was a Muslim etc. The only reason he spent time making a 37 minute video (with special effects and all), is to avoid writing an article where you actually have to use quotations, references, citations. You must understand that this is Chessie’s weak point, he’s not an academic, he doesn’t study, he is at best a Christian for the camera, not a Christian who is able in the field of apologetics. This can be seen by his lacklustre writing skills and his lack of intellectual fortitude via our Rebuttals section. He’s been refuted on this same topic by Christian apostate Br. Hamza in this article, thrashed by me in this article, wholly refuted in this article, demolished in this article, and now he’s finally realised that writing about it any further will cause him severe embarrassment. It’s bothered him so much that after numerous comments left on this website (not a blog), over several weeks, after several written responses, he’s so incensed at being intellectually rounded, that he’s resorted to making a video, and a bad one at that.

Out of those 37 minutes, he does ask a question, and it’s a question which completely refutes himself. He asked, ‘Where do Christians teach this, where does Christianity teach this’? If he had read any of the 5 articles on the subject, he’d have endless resources to utilize. However, because I am a good natured 20 year old, and I understand that Chessie is getting old; I will aid him one final time in his understanding of his religion. Let’s turn to a Patristic whom I quoted earlier, who clearly answers Chessie’s question:

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

Let’s then turn to the Catholic Church’s Cathechism which teaches what we’ve been saying all along:

I. THE JOINT MISSION OF THE SON AND THE SPIRIT

689 The One whom the Father has sent into our hearts, the Spirit of his Son, is truly God.10 Consubstantial with the Father and the Son, the Spirit is inseparable from them, in both the inner life of the Trinity and his gift of love for the world. In adoring the Holy Trinity, life-giving, consubstantial, and indivisible, the Church’s faith also professes the distinction of persons. When the Father sends his Word, he always sends his Breath. In their joint mission, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct but inseparable. To be sure, it is Christ who is seen, the visible image of the invisible God, but it is the Spirit who reveals him.

690 Jesus is Christ, “anointed,” because the Spirit is his anointing, and everything that occurs from the Incarnation on derives from this fullness.11 When Christ is finally glorified,12 he can in turn send the Spirit from his place with the Father to those who believe in him: he communicates to them his glory,13 that is, the Holy Spirit who glorifies him.14 From that time on, this joint mission will be manifested in the children adopted by the Father in the Body of his Son: the mission of the Spirit of adoption is to unite them to Christ and make them live in him:

The notion of anointing suggests . . . that there is no distance between the Son and the Spirit. Indeed, just as between the surface of the body and the anointing with oil neither reason nor sensation recognizes any intermediary, so the contact of the Son with the Spirit is immediate, so that anyone who would make contact with the Son by faith must first encounter the oil by contact. In fact there is no part that is not covered by the Holy Spirit. That is why the confession of the Son’s Lordship is made in the Holy Spirit by those who receive him, the Spirit coming from all sides to those who approach the Son in faith.15

Chessie, now that you have been thoroughly refuted and routed once more, I suggest you get a refund from that Bible school you are attending, clearly you’re wasting your parent’s money and my time.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Refutation: The Muslim blogger shows why attempting to have adult dialogue with him is useless

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It seems as though Chessie has had enough and decided to make one final stab at gaining some level of dignity before disappearing for a few months, he states and I quote:

I do not have the time and energy to even attempt to comprehend the nonsense of the Muslim blogger..maybe in a few more months, if I have free time and am bored.

Chessie seems unable to be willing to understand the nature of Christ or to engage in a proper study of Christology, in fact, after reading his last reply I am happy that he’s seen the light and decided to go back into his cave and hide for several months once more. He concedes to the fact that he is unable to, and unwilling to understand what I have written, since that is the case, it explains why all of his points thus far have been erroneous and without much reason. He says:

“When it is said Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the Word/Son that doesn’t mean the Spirit had no involvement, yet just because the Spirit had his role in the  incarnation doesn’t mean he was the one incarnated.”

I’m growing very tired of repeating myself, so I’ll make this into bullet points:

  • In Christianity, a human has both a soul and a spirit.
  • Jesus had a man’s soul, thus he was human in nature.
  • Jesus had a spirit, the Holy Spirit, thus he was guided and supported by this Spirit.

Thus, the Spirit of Christ, is the Holy Spirit, which is confirmed in the following verse:

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. – Romans 8:9.

Chessie has failed to grasp this and has argued against this, in doing so he is not only arguing against myself, but the Pauline literature as well. I then referenced a quote from St. Athanasius’ epistle to Serapion, which read:

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

He was again, unable to understand the relationship between the Spirit and the Word, our focus being on the portion which reads, ‘in the Spirit the Word formed a body for himself‘, see the Word, while it is in the Spirit, formed the flesh of Christ. I suppose that the words, ‘in the Spirit‘, means little to nothing to Chessie. I then quoted a portion of Tertullian, which reads:

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

Chessie says after reading this:

Nothing in this statement says anything about that it was the Holy Spirit who was incarnated and not the Son, the blogger simply reads his own ideas into something he does not understand.

Except the part which says that Christ was of the Spirit and of the Flesh and that the two are inseparable. Guess he missed that/

God is spirit that is no doubt, this simply means Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not material or of the material world. Christ being born of the Spirit does not mean the person of God the Holy Spirit was incarnated instead of God the Son, it means the power of the Holy Spirit over came the virgin when the Son was incarnated in her as a child(the same exact thing the Athanasius says). Notice how it says ” this certainly has him in view, the more so if it has also those who believe in him. ” those who believe, believe under the power of the Holy Spirit and are spiritual, imbued with eternal life inside them spiritually, but that does not mean they stop being their own individual selves. No you can not divide the believer from the Holy Spirit the same way you cannot divide the believer from the Father or the Son.

I don’t see how what he’s written here is relevant to what I have said or quoted. He most certainly went off into a tangent of some sort to perhaps make his article seem longer. The quote clearly says, “for you do not deny the two substances of Christ, that of flesh and that of spirit“. Intentional ignoring of the evidences and rambling onwards to inanity will not help you Chessie, reading the quotes help. He goes on to say:

“The Muslim blogger continues debating about who or what was incarnated and gives us his eisegesis of 1 Peter chapter 1. Again reading his own prejudices into another text to suit his agenda. For one the subject matter of 1 Peter 1 is not the nature of the incarnation its prophecy. “

It seems as if Chessie has learned a new word, ‘eisegesis’, yet what he doesn’t do, is show my source, in fact he never copies the link for any of the sources which I provided for all of my quotes. There was in fact no eisegesis done on my behalf, I in fact had referenced and used Matthew Henry’s Exegesis:

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

Had he quoted this, then his charade of saying that I committed eiesgesis and that the verse was solely about prophecy would have been debunked, therefore he had to intentionally claim I did not use an exegesis. Look at the desperation and dishonesty of this despot. He continues by saying:

“Now what I have pointed out about 1 Peter 1 is not my private interpretation, many others see the text the same way…”

Except that the one commentary he references is not focusing on which ‘Spirit’ came to the Prophets. The commentary I referenced focused on and explained that the Spirit of Christ which came to the previous Prophets was the Spirit of God. That the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God are one and the same, something which Chessie for some odd reason does not want his readers to grasp. He spends a few paragraphs trying to use his newly found word of eisegesis, which he ends up using quite appallingly:

(The same verse Muslims eisegesis by reading Muhammad into it)…

This sentence is wrong in so many ways, I personally had to take a deep breath and compose myself after reading such an incomprehensible sentence. This is probably the first time he’s using the word eisegesis and in a bout to attempt to sound smart, he tried using it again, unfortunately for him, his excitement to use a word he does not understand falls flat on his face. Quite hilarious to say the least, but I cannot say I expected more from a man twice my age, currently in a faith and mid-life crisis. Then he does something out of pure desperation that I think even he was too low to do, but then again, this is Chessie Edwards:

The blogger then makes the astonishing illogical self refuting statement…
” If the Spirits and Soul of Christ did not perish, and the flesh also did not perish, as the flesh returned to life “

Except that’s not what I said. If you’re going to quote someone and call them illogical, atleast try not to quote them partially:

If the Spirits and Soul of Christ did not perish, and the flesh also did not perish, as the flesh returned to life, then what sacrifice was actually done if nothing died?  This leads to my third argument from my original article of which Chessie has also failed to address, it reads:

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

Lastly, Chessie closes off with saying:

I still as of yet do not know why a immaterial spirit or soul has to cease to exist in order for someone to be truly dead, he has yet to explain this. Also If Christ’s body did not die how did it come back to life ? You have to die to come back to life.

As I told Chessie and as I would tell him again, to die is to cease to live, if Christ died, then which Christ died? Did the Christ of the flesh or the Christ of the Soul and Spirit die? If the soul does not die, how does he interpret Ezekiel 18:20 which reads, “The soul who sins is the one who will die.” If Christ’s flesh perished, then this was not a true sacrifice as God created something and killed the creation, not Christ himself. In closing, Chessie will now return to his shack in the woods and will pop out when he needs more schooling on his despotic faith. I look forward to him returning into hiding once more.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

 

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

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,


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

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

He makes this absurd statement in response to my claim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chessie continues:

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

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

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Refutation: The Irrational Muslim Blogger Strikes Again

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

After a period of mourning for his apologetics career, Chessie Edwards, our resident court jester has decided to make a triumphant return. I say triumphant because he has resumed his role as a court jester instantaneously. Let it be known that I do not consider Chessie Edwards to be of any academic, spiritual, theological or human value. I’m really only writing this response to his article because I’m waiting for my post-op medication to kick in and I needed something to do, to pass the time that is. I came home from the hospital and after a long nap, I checked the website in almost more than a week to see that he had commented on a post of mines. Now, before I continue, it should be known that Chessie does not have a good history with me. Time and time again, I’ve embarrassed him into oblivion and every few months when he needs views on his website he posts an article about me, hoping to gather some much needed attention. I oblige with his requests because, well, because I have no good reason save for me enjoying routing the guy. So Chessie, I’m going to do you a favour, if anyone wants to read an article probably written during a druken stupor about his mid-life crisis as a failed Christian apologist, then please visit Chessie Edward’s website:

http://www.callingmuslims.com/2012/11/the-irrational-muslim-blogger-strikes.html

When you go to his website, on the left you’d see a donate link, if you would like to provide Chessie with some beer and stripper money, I am not going to stop you (although as a Muslim, I have to advise against doing so, but we both know where those funds go buddy!).  After you visit his website, you can then visit my refutation page that puts anything remotely close to ‘popular’ on his website to rest. I put popular in apostrophes because the highest rated article hasn’t changed in two years and I’ve yet to see a single Christian quote, cite, reference or use it. Heck, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone comment on it (as of 30-11-2012 there still are no comments on his most popular post, which I suggest you read my response to or this new article of mines on the Sana’a codex).

Chessie’s claim to fame is that this website (Calling Christians) was created by copying his website:

I SAW THE FOLLOWING ON THE SITE OF A MUSLIM BLOGGER WHO I HAD SO MUCH INFLUENCE OVER HE COPIED THE NAME OF MY BLOG.

Now, I’m not sure why he’s written this in all caps, perhaps his caps lock key is broken, or maybe he is angry, either way this isn’t a good start for him. If I had copied his blog’s name, this website would be called, “Calling Muslims”. I’m not sure, but this website’s name is actually “Calling Christians”, maybe Chessie assumed by using the word “calling”, he had copyrighted it or something, I don’t know what he was thinking when he wrote that. The truth is however, that one day, Chessie began to boast he had a website on a mutual friend’s wall on Facebook. To let him know how silly this claim to fame was, I created a website, responded to his most popular articles, shamed him on every response he attempted to make, reducing his blog to something he updates once every few months or so. You’d think by now that he’d learn not to piss off the one kid that made him a laughing stock among Christian polemics, then again, you can’t expect the old and senile to learn new tricks (wait, that’s now how that saying goes, oh well…). He continues:

OUR BROTHER IN HUMANITY CLAIMS THAT JESUS DEATH WAS NOT A REAL SACRIFICE BECAUSE ONLY HIS FLESH DIED AND NOT HIS SPIRIT.

Chessie, I am not your brother in any way, shape and or form. Please do not associate me with you, spare me the embarrassment. I believe Chessie is confused, you see, Christians believe the flesh (a body) has both a soul and a spirit and Christ became God in flesh when the Holy Spirit became incarnate in the body of Jesus and replaced the human spirit. My question was and remains, if Christ died, is it the soul that perished, or the Holy Spirit that perished, or just the flesh (which according to him did not die but resurrected itself), or some combination of all three? You’d notice that he never answers this question, which forces me to ask: If you didn’t write this to answer my question, why did you write it at all?

THAT BEGS THE QUESTION DOES ISLAM TEACH THAT SPIRIT OR ROOH IN ARABIC DIES? SPIRITS ARE IMMATERIAL AND METAPHYSICAL..SO HOW COULD SOMETHING THAT’S NOT PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE PHYSICAL DEATH? NO ONES SPIRIT DIES, IF WE ACCEPT THIS PERSONS “LOGIC” THAN NO ONE IN HISTORY HAS EVER DIED. ISLAM TEACHES THE METAPHYSICAL ASPECT OF MAN SURVIVES PHYSICAL DEATH AND GO’S ON TO LIVE IN THE BARZAKH A SPIRITUAL REALM.

Chessie decides to divert from the topic completely and rambles on incoherently about the Islamic concept of the soul (we do not believe in soul and spirit, just one unified ‘soul/ spirit’ – ruh). Which puzzles me as he then makes this statement:

THE WHOLE POST JUST SHOWS THAT MUSLIM APOLOGISTS HAVE A WEAK UNDERSTANDING OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Chessie, if you bothered to read your previous paragraph, you didn’t demonstrate Christian theology, you were actually speaking about Islamic theology. Therefore, how can you claim I have a weak understanding of Christian theology, if all you’ve done thus far is speak about Islamic theology? Something doesn’t add up here. I fully believe that no adult man can write such a disjointed post without being influenced by alcohol or some opioid. If he did write this without the aid of an intoxicant, then I hang my head in shame, knowing that the human race has hit a new low in functional retardation. He continues:

CHRISTS HUMAN NATURE WAS NOT JUST FLESH IT WAS A REAL ACTUAL HUMAN NATURE, HE WAS A REAL ACTUAL HUMAN BEING AND HE HAD A REAL ACTUAL DIVINE NATURE, HE WAS REALLY THE DIVINE LOGOS. TO EVEN ASK IF CHRIST’S DEATH WAS THE PHYSICAL DEATH OF NON PHYSICAL SPIRIT SHOWS A LACK OF LOGICAL THINKING. SOME MUSLIMS ARE SO DESPERATE TO OPPOSE CHRIST THEY REACH OUT FOR ANY ARGUMENT THEY CAN FIND WITHOUT EVEN STOPPING TO THINK IT THROUGH.

I fail to see how this is anything more than Chessie shouting, “IT’S REAL”, without answering the paradoxes I presented here. Somehow begging me to think it’s the truth by repeatedly saying the word, “real”, does not convince me. I’m looking for something more of an explanation, an argument, a structured discussion, maybe a few academic references, I don’t know, maybe I’m setting my standards (and hopes) too high for Chessie’s sake. He continues:

A SHAHEED IS A ARABIC TERM USED TO DESCRIBE MUSLIM MARTYRS WHO HAVE DIED IN THE PATH OF ALLAH USUALLY WHILE FIGHTING JIHAD. THE QURAN SAYS ABOUT THEM THE FOLLOWING…

Yay! Free Arabic lessons from Mullah Chessie.

” ALLAH HATH PURCHASED OF THE BELIEVERS THEIR PERSONS AND THEIR GOODS; FOR THEIRS (IN RETURN) IS THE GARDEN (OF PARADISE): THEY FIGHT IN HIS CAUSE, AND SLAY AND ARE SLAIN:…” SURAH 9:111

Can’t wait for the major argument he is building!

THE ABOVE CLEARLY SAYS THEY ARE SLAIN I.E THEY DIE, BUT LOOK AT WHAT THE FOLLOWING SURAH SAYS ABOUT THEM…

“THINK NOT OF THOSE WHO ARE SLAIN IN ALLAH’S WAY AS DEAD. NAY, THEY LIVE, FINDING THEIR SUSTENANCE IN THE PRESENCE OF THEIR LORD; THEY REJOICE IN THE BOUNTY PROVIDED BY ALLAH: AND WITH REGARD TO THOSE LEFT BEHIND, WHO HAVE NOT YET JOINED THEM (IN THEIR BLISS), THE (MARTYRS) GLORY IN THE FACT THAT ON THEM IS NO FEAR, NOR HAVE THEY (CAUSE TO) GRIEVE. ” SURAH 3:169-170

THIS SURAH SEEMS TO BE CONTRADICTING THE FIRST ONE, THE LOCAL IMAM AT THE MOSQUE WILL TELL YOU THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION. ONE SURAH IS SPEAKING OF THE SHAHEEDS PHYSICAL LIFE IN THIS WORLD AND THE OTHER IS SPEAKING OF THEIR IMMATERIAL SOUL AND SPIRIT IN THE SPIRITUAL WORLD. SO JUST LIKE THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION HERE THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION IN CHRIST’S DEATH .

That was simply mind blowing! Excuse my sarcasm, but now on to my real thoughts:

Really?

Really?

I’m not sure how to tell Chessie this, but thank you for pointing out that while people die in this world, they are alive in the afterlife. Hence why it’s called the after life. Get it? After, life. Maybe I need to break it down a little bit more for my friend Chessie.

When you die in this world, you’re dead. When you’re alive in this world, you’re living.

When you die in this world, you’re in the after life, you no longer exist in this world, but are alive in the after life.

Now, I don’t think by superimposing Islamic theology on Christology is the best way to refute me. You’re confusing two different religious doctrines without really refuting my points which were based on Christian theology. If you wanted to respond to me, you would have clearly explained the nature of life and death in Christianity, then gone on to explain Christ’s nature and lastly, based on the last two notions, then proceed to explain how my logic was wrong in light of Christology. I am not your teacher, I don’t need to tell you how to write a refutation, but when you insist on mocking yourself, I will give you the attention your idiocy so much deserves.

Some might say that my words to Chessie are harsh and uncalled for, but I write this with the hope that Chessie puts his big boy pants on and learns not to interfere when adults are speaking.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Refutation: How Muslims bloggers wrongly divide the Word of God. PT 1

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

After a seemingly long absence from the apologetics realm, Chessie L. Edwards has once again returned, with a brand new article. You can read my previous responses to all of his articles here. I am pleased to see that not much has changed, he was attempting to respond to this post of mine.  Specifically trying to respond to Argument #1.

His Introduction:

Christ being “sinless”is beyond mere moral conduct it has to do with nature. Christ was not born of a male, he was supernaturally conceived without sperm to the virgin Mary. What this all means is that he was not under the curse of Adam, he did not have the fallen wretched sinful natural that afflicts all other men.

According to Chessie, Christ was not sinless due to moral conduct, but due to being born that way, as he puts it, this was “Christ’s nature”. I couldn’t agree more, it’s finally good to see him accepting the Islamic position of all children being born upon the “fitrah” or “pure nature”. We as Muslims also agree with the notion that Christ was not born of a male, however we would like to ask him what curse of Adam he is referring to? That is because, while I am sure he meant the “original sin”, this belief has no Biblical basis. In fact, the only curse of Adam would be that of Genesis 3:14-15, which does not mention any man having been cursed by God to be born with sin.

What is meant by ‘Christ fulfilled the Law’:

When it is said Christ fulfilled the Law and Old Testament, what is being spoken of is again beyond human moral-ism. All the promises, types and shadows in the old Testament pointed to the Messiah. No mere prophet was going to fulfill the words of Isaiah when he said….

According to Chessie, following the law, does not mean following the law, as he comprehends it to mean being above “human morality”. So by that logic, if we “follow” the law “perfectly”, i.e. we fulfil it, does that mean we in ourselves are above “human morality”?

In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. – Bible, Luke 1:5-6.

Clearly he needs to sit down and study his own Bible, after all these two verses which demonstrate that humans can practise all of the law blamelessly, is in the first chapter of the Gospel according to “Luke”. One of the problems we see with Christians is their poor study of the Old Testament. Rabbi Michael Skobac discusses the irrational belief of the Christians and their prophecies of their concept of a Messiah:

While as Muslims we do accept Jesus as the Messiah, we do not agree, along with the Jews that the Messiah is to be a God, a sacrificial son, a Trinitarian, etc. In the above video, the Rabbi examines the claims of “prophetic-God Messiah-ship”, it’s well worth the time to watch it. Chessie then tries to claim that Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy about Christ being foretold as the Son of God, something which I answered here.

He then proceeded to quote a variety of verses that reference Paul’s and Christ’s attitude pertaining to the law, something which I have already discussed in detail in this article of mines. I won’t bother to answer those claims in this response as the articles I’ve previously written and subsequently linked to (see above) more than aptly go into heavily detailed study and research into these rather simple topics.

Conclusion:

I am left questioning myself as to how Chessie considered this a “refutation”, as opposed to more of an erratic tirade for the purpose of insulting me:

It is no surprise the a unregenerate natural minded man such as our Muslim blogger would be blinded to the Spiritual truths contain in scripture, the Word of God tells us

At this point, I suppose he gave up on trying to respond to my argument and proceeded to just write a post to give the illusion his blog is still active, other than that I can’t fathom a reason he’d write something so silly. My arguments therefore stand and I do look forward to seeing someone else eventually try to respond to them.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Punishing the Female Rape Victim in Islam

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It is unfortunate that for people who profess objectivity and sincerity in their study, research and pursuit of knowledge that there continues to be a great perversion of the understanding of Islamic Shari’ah laws and its applications. Proponents of the modern secular system, or of varying theological political systems, seemingly cannot produce a consistent stance on judging the use or misuse of the Islamic Shari’ah, while wholly regarding it to be unfair, unjust and backwards. Demonstrably, it can be noted that their own justice systems produce often, curious if not peculiar judgements. In one case, a mother can be sentenced to jail for a period of 5 years, for stealing clothing from a store for her children at a value of  $102 dollars. While at the same time a Wall Street tycoon who has defrauded enough persons to make himself a billionaire, was sentence to a period of only, 11 years. What then, can we say is logical about this? Based on this one example of a judgement that is neither proportional to the crimes when compared and contrasted nor morally justifiable, can I then generalize the American justice system as being inhumane, profiteering and socially inept?

To further this discussion with more evidences relevant to the topic at hand, let’s examine sexual assault cases, in particular rape. This child rapist was sentenced to only 5 to 7 years in prison, the same amount of time as the woman who stole $102 dollars worth of goods. This rapist was sentenced to only 9 years in prison, while defrauding persons of hundreds of millions of dollars and sending families into distress, bankruptcy and insolvency will earn you the same amount of jail time. Continuing with this trend, we can deduce that according to the modern secular system, stealing and rape are upon the same field of justice. Considering these tragic acts, let’s examine the Islamic position on rape in the modern world. To rape in Islamic law is to have committed “ightisaab”, which means to forcefully transgress and take a woman’s honour from her (rape). The crime is punishable by death but doesn’t have to be punished by death, the punishment however has to be severe as to deter anyone else from attempting this crime. Therefore, there can be no equivalence between stealing and rape, a woman’s honour is not the same as stealing an apple, or clothing as it is seen in the secular justice system.

Islamic Shari’ah rule, is intended to govern a state by Islamic law, where the ulema (religious leaders) who are fuqaha (jurists), establish courts where a qadhi (judge) can make binding rulings (fatawa) on behalf of the state against a criminal and establish justice in the society. This understanding is based upon the Qur’anic statements:

“And so judge (you O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) among them by what Allaah has revealed” – [al-Maa’idah 5:49].

“And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the Kaafiroon (i.e. disbelievers — of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allaah’s Laws)” – [al-Maa’idah 5:44].

“And whosoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, such are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers — of a lesser degree)” – [al-Maa’idah 5:45].

“And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed (then) such (people) are the Fâsiqûn [the rebellious i.e. disobedient (of a lesser degree)] to Allaah” – [al-Maa’idah 5:47].

“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission” – [al-Nisa’ 4:65].

“Do they then seek the judgement of (the days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith” – [al-Maa’idah 5:50].

To make this succinct and easy to grasp, the discussion will be broken up into several questions:

  • What do the Islamic scholars (Ulema) say on the punishment of rape?
  • Are four witnesses needed to prove rape?
  • Are women who do not wear hijab responsible for their rape?
  • Is the woman to be punished for rape?
  • Forced marriage to rapist?
  • Further reading.

What do the Islamic scholars (Ulema) say on the punishment of rape?

Yûsuf ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Muhammad Ibn `Abd al-Barr  Abû `Umar al-Namarî al-Andalusî al-Qurtubî al-Mâlikî (may Allaah be pleased with him), a prominent Islamic jurist, of whom Imam al Qurtubi cites/ references about 500 times in his tafsir has stated in Al-Istidhkâr li Madhhab `Ulamâ’ al-Amsâr fîmâ Tadammanahu al-Muwatta’ min Ma`ânî al-Ra’î wal-Athâr (“The Memorization of the Doctrine of the Scholars of the World Concerning the Juridical Opinions and the Narrations Found in Mâlik’s Muwatta'”),  7/146:

The scholars are unanimously agreed that the rapist is to be subjected to the hadd punishment if there is clear evidence against him that he deserves the hadd punishment, or if he admits to that. Otherwise, he is to be punished (i.e., if there is no proof that the hadd punishment for zina may be carried out against him because he does not confess, and there are not four witnesses, then the judge may punish him and stipulate a punishment that will deter him and others like him). There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that he forced her and overpowered her, which may be proven by her screaming and shouting for help.

Are four witnesses needed to prove rape?

Mufti Taqi Uthmani [db] in his discussion during an interview on Pakistan’s implementation of the Protection of Women Bill 2006, expounded upon his rulings and the rulings of other Islamic judges:

‎”I myself had been directly hearing cases registered under Hudood Ordinance, first as a Judge of Federal Shariah Court and then for seventeen years as a member of Shariah Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court. In this long tenure, not once did I come across a case in which a rape victim was awarded punishment simply because she was unable to present four witnesses.

In fact it was not possible to do so. First, according to the Hudood Ordinance, the condition of four witnesses only applied to enforcing the hadd for rape. Clause 10(3), which awarded the ta’zeer punishment, did not have this requirement; the crime could be proven through one witness, medical reports, and chemical analysis report. Consequently most rape criminals were awarded punishment as per this clause.

Further, a woman claiming rape could not be punished under Qazf (false accusation of zina) since Exemption 2 in Qazf Ordinance Clause 3 clearly stated that if someone approaches the legal authorities with a rape complaint, she could not be punished in case she was unable to present four witnesses.”

To compound this statement, Shaykh Faraz Rabbani (may Allaah be pleased with him) has stated:

“This is a common myth about Islamic criminal law. Rather, the four witness requirement applies only to the prescribed hadd punishment (which in the case of a married person could be death and for the non-married, 100 lashes). [Marghinani, Hidaya] This punishment is only applied in very rare cases, as is clear, and is meant to be a social deterrent, above all.

As the classical and contemporary jurists (such as Mufti Taqi Usmani) have made clear, a rapist can be convicted on lesser evidence (including scientific evidence, such as DNA tests and medical reports) for discretionary punishments. These discretionary punishments are left up to the legal system to determine.

However, it is a myth to say that Islam would in any way condone rape, or allow a rapist to go free for this terrible crime against an innocent human being and against society.”

This therefore rests the case, of the issue with 4 witnesses being needed to prove rape, indeed rape can be proven using modern scientific methods and other evidences, as seen above, as being agreed upon by Islamic fuqaha (jurists).

Are women who do not wear hijab responsible for their rape?

Mufti Muhammad Kadwa and Mufti Ebrahim Desai (may Allaah be pleased with them both) have stated:

These are two separate issues; rape and the lack of Hijaab. The rapist will be punished for his heinous crime whilst the woman will be sinful not for rape, but for failure to observe the rules of Hijaab. Failure to wear Hijaab in no way justifies the heinous crime of rape.

Is the woman to be punished for rape?

Imam Maalik (may Allaah have mercy on him) has said in Al-Muwatta’, 2/734:

In our view the man who rapes a woman, whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a “dowry” like that of her peers, …. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case.

Prophet Muhammad (may Allaah’s peace and blessings be upon him) has also decreed punishments for persons who have committed rape, while freeing the woman of any punishment:

“Narrated Wa’il ibn Hujr (may Allaah be pleased with him):
When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me.

And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her. She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him).

When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.

He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death.”  – (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith #4366, Kitab al Hudud [38]).

Forced Marriage to Rapist?

While Islam punishes the rapist, we do hear of some really peculiar instances where the woman is married to the man. This has no basis in Islamic law, nor does it comply with Islamic reasoning, according to this fatwa by Mufti Ebrahim Desai [db]:

“Knowing the importance and sacredness of a marriage commitment, the boy and girl having consulted with their seniors and making Istikhaara, should make their own independent choice.

They should not be compelled to marry against their wishes as the consequences (non-compatibility, divorce, disputes, custody of children, etc.) are too ghastly to bear. Parents should not compel their children to marry against their wishes due to economic status reasons.”

As well as this fatwa by the same Mufti (Islamic Jurist):

“As an adult, you have an independent right to choose your marriage partner. You should not be forced into marrying someone against your choice. Those forcing you are guilty of depriving you of your Shar’ee right and committing a major sin,

You should simply say no if you are not confident of marrying against your choice. The consequences of forced marriages are too ghastly. There are great possibilities of a marital breakdown. That will lead to disunity among many families. The matter will be clouded even more if there is a child born through the marriage. Considering the many negative consequences of a forced marriage, you should never give in to being forced to marry against your wish. It will be you and no one else who will have to bear the burdens in future. You may forward this email to those forcing you to marry against your wishes.”

However, to contrast the Islamic position, let’s look at this excerpt from the Jewish and Christian religious text, Old Testament (Torah), Deuteronomy (Devarim), Chapter 22, Verses 28 – 29:

“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

Further Reading:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/testimony-of-rape-victim/
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/does-islam-require-four-witnesses-for-rape/
http://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/03/12/is-the-shariah-inhumane-you-decide/ 

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

« Older Entries