Tag Archives: Chessie L

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

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some questions need to be asked here:

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

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

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

Well, now I’m a bit confused:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best].

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.]

Refutation: The Quran’s inaccurate description of the Trinity

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Chessie Edwards love appealing to Sam Shamoun, he doesn’t have room to think for himself, his entire website is literally a text form for the long winded and ignorant speeches that Sam gives on ABN Sat. Almost every other argument he presents is verbatim from the mouth of Sam with the addition of, “I’m an Ex-Muslim”, as if that phrase adds any additional validity to his inane claims. Neither Sam nor Chessie are well educated in Christian theological history, at best they are internet scholars, if Google or Wikipedia ever goes offline we won’t be able to hear a single new argument. To be quite honest, none of Sam’s arguments are new either, just read a few of William Muir’s books or Abraham Geiger’s works or some of Raymond Lull’s writings against Islam and you’ve pretty much heard all the missionary rants. Most missionaries enjoy stating that the Qur’aan got the trinity wrong. Let’s refute this claim and in doing so, refute Sam as well.

The Qur’aan says:

And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

Christians assert that they don’t take Mary as a God, therefore the Qur’aans claim is wrong. However a simple but substantial and formidable refutation to this is to prove one of two cases:

(1) To show atleast one Christian aligned sect which engaged in Mary worship or took Mary as a God.
(2) To show where a majority of Christian sects worship Mary or took Mary as a God.

The premise the Qur’aan operates under, or the modus operandi, the operational term, deities, i.e. Gods [إِلَـٰهَيْنِ]. In Islamic theology, to take something or someone as a God, beside Allaah is termed Shirk. There are many ways to commit Shirk, it can be through worship, through seeking intercession, by praying to someone beside God, or even attributing God’s attributes to anything other than God. For example if God is All Knowing, but I say that Mary is all knowing, then in this case I would have committed shirk. With this in mind, can I demonstrate anywhere in Christian theology where Shirk [associating God’s attributes to Mary] occurs?

Proving: (1) To show atleast one Christian aligned sect which engaged in Mary worship or took Mary as a God.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The existence of the obscure sect of the Collyridians, whom St. Epiphanius (d. 403) denounces for their sacrificial offering of cakes to Mary, may fairly be held to prove that even before the Council of Ephesus there was a popular veneration for the Virgin Mother which threatened to run extravagant lengths.” This by itself proves my first premise, that there was a group of Christians, the Collyridians of whom engaged in rampant worship of Mary. As famous Catholic speaker Patrick Madrid as defined them:

The heresy of the Collyridians was very simple: They worshiped Mary.

Whether or not Sam Shamoun or Chessie Edwards considers the Collyridians as Christian does not matter. They are seen as a heretical Christian sect and as such, their worship of Mary complies with the Qur’aanic claim.

Proving: (2) To show where a majority of Christian sects worship Mary or took Mary as a God.

What’s unknown to most missionary zealots is the clear cut Mary worship involved in today’s prominent Christian sects, i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism. It might seem odd, or unclear to most Christians, but the focal point of Christendom revolves around sin. In this light, we have to recall the Immaculate Conception, this refers to the conception of Mary. For Jesus to have been born sinless, he had to be rid of the original sin and to be born free of the original sin, you cannot be born through the womb of a woman. However this problem is solved in Christian theology by God granting Mary a special mercy or blessing, where she is pure and sinless and thus does not carry on the original sin to her child, Jesus.

However, the early Christian church in inventing the idea of the Immaculate Conception, attributed God like features to Mary:

The salutation of the angel Gabriel — chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.

Her state is unique, supernatural and godlike. This, coming from the Catholic Encyclopedia, as evidence from the Bible of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Yet, from the Bible, they are implying her soul is like the “soul of God”, they are in essence comparing her to God or attributing to her, God like features. This constitutes Shirk, thus proving point (2). Yet it does not end there, the polytheistic quotes continue:

she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures. – Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140.

To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate. – Carmina Nisibena.

Conclusion:

Seeing as both points are proven above, then the claim that the Qur’aan asserts, that of Mary being taken as a God in Christendom has been proven valid and to be truthful. Sam’s biggest claim to refute the Qur’aanic statement was that Mary had been attributed to the Trinity, yet this was not the Qur’aanic assertion, the Qur’aanic statement had to do with Mary being taken as a God. Since the claim has been proven true, it rests upon Sam Shamoun to either publicly correct himself for his doctrinal error or as I expect, for him to deny the evidences and ignore this refutation.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: Pulling the cloak off the self appointed Da’ee [Part 2]

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Continuing from part one, which focused on his petulant tirade due to his own actions, let’s see what else Mr. Edwards has decided to throw at us:

“Here are the questions Hijaz refused to answer that I have referenced on the comments page of the last post on the site.”
Note: He’s referring to the comments on his own website, where yes, I did respond to his claims, but alas, the comments were not approved for display. Next, he questions me on this post, referring to Suratul Baqarah (2) : 2 – 5. Also note, he can’t spell my name, yet again, he’s lowered himself to childish antics by mocking my name. This is the kind of “man” we’re dealing with, when he’s challenged and he can’t meet said challenge, his mind recesses into a despotic and incoherent rage where all he can do is regurgitate childish insults from among his anti-Islamic peers.
There are 6 things in this ayah that you say assures one of salvation
Fear of Allah, Believe in the Unseen, steadfast in prayer, spend out of provisions, Believe in the revelation sent before and after, have assurance of the hereafter in the heart.
Yes, that’s what the ayats say. Then he goes on to question me on the meaning of those ayat, which were again, answered with full references here, however I did not expect him to read my initial response, which is why he needs to ask the same questions atleast a couple more times before he can actually grasp it. Remember folks, he’s slow, whether intentional or otherwise and we do intend to cater for his special needs:
Questions:
What is the definition of each one of these points, or how does one know they achieved them?
How does one achieve these things?
In what measure must these things be achieved before you know for certain you have assured salvation?
By you citing this am I to take it that you hold that salvation in Islam is based on the effort of the creature ? “
Answers:
(1) Definition is given in this post, which I will quote for our friend:
The Qur’aan does not make it difficult though, so what does a Muslim need to act upon and believe to gain heaven?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lastly:

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

Meaning:

(They are) refers to those who believe in the Unseen, establish the prayer, spend from what Allah has granted them, believe in what Allah has revealed to the Messenger and the Messengers before him, believe in the Hereafter with certainty, and prepare the necessary requirements for the Hereafter by performing good deeds and avoiding the prohibitions.(And they are the successful) meaning, in this world and the Hereafter. They shall have what they seek and be saved from the evil that they tried to avoid. Therefore, they will have rewards, eternal life in Paradise, and safety from the torment that Allah has prepared for His enemies. Tafsir ibn Kathir : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 4.

Therefore the Qur’aan is extremely clear, it essentially spells it out for all Muslims, that sincere belief and God sanctioned actions would secure one a place in heaven.
(2) One achieves these things by sincerely believing in what those ayat say to believe in and by sincerely practising upon what those ayat say to practise. Note, he repeats question 1 in question 2. Clearly the man has literacy issues.
(4) No. That’s your assertion, Salvation on Islam is dependant upon two things:
  • Your own actions and beliefs.
  • Mercy of God.
If you don’t do as God commanded, then that’s sinning, if you don’t believe in what God has commanded you to believe, that is sinning. Likewise, the converse of this statement is also true. However although one is a sinner, God’s mercy is what is needed. If a man is a sinner and repents, then it’s God’s mercy that assures him salvation. Salvation, is to be free from sin and the punishment of sin. For Mr. Edwards to claim he has salvation is to claim he isn’t a sinner nor will God punish him, which is ironic, since all humans, by their very nature are prone to sin as the Bible says. Circular reasoning at its best.
Lastly, I’d like to point out how hilarious this guy is. I’m going to show you why I can’t take him seriously, I do believe he is a student of a clown college of some sorts, look at this guy’s poor, if not absolutely laughable authorship skills:
He spells my name wrong, twice, each right after the other. If this is any indication of his lack of consistency, integrity and literacy, I must express my condolences for his viewership, given how abysmal and dismal it may be. Before he claims I didn’t answer anymore of his questions, let’s see what else his incoherent post says:
” I would like to make clear Islamic salvation is it purely a work of the creature, is it purely a work of God or is it synergistic a combination of the two? “
Which was already answered above:
(4) No. That’s your assertion, Salvation on Islam is dependant upon two things:
  • Your own actions and beliefs.
  • Mercy of God.
If you don’t do as God commanded, then that’s sinning, if you don’t believe in what God has commanded you to believe, that is sinning. Likewise, the converse of this statement is also true. However although one is a sinner, God’s mercy is what is needed. If a man is a sinner and repents, then it’s God’s mercy that assures him salvation. Salvation, is to be free from sin and the punishment of sin. For Mr. Edwards to claim he has salvation is to claim he isn’t a sinner nor will God punish him, which is ironic, since all humans, by their very nature are prone to sin as the Bible says. Circular reasoning at its best.
He isn’t difficult to respond to. His incredulous behaviour is a sign that he’s slowly losing grip on reality:
  • Reads my name wrong.
  • Spells it wrong, one right after the other.
  • Repeats himself.
  • Can’t follow his own rules.
  • Incoherent and incosistent posts.

If someone knows what these are symptoms of, perhaps dementia or some other psychological disorder, please inform us so that we may take other methods to comforting and aiding our ailing opponent. He is in our prayers.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: Pulling the cloak off the self appointed Da’ee [Part 1]

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

He’s at it again, Mr. Edwards is back at it. After several back and forth arguments over Facebook, Website comments and Article posts, his mind has finally cracked. There is no other logical explanation, save that he may be drunk off of communion wine, but I always try to find the best in my opponents, so I shall regard his latest post as a blunder for which he will develop a grand learning experience from. I do sympathize with his meager post, sure it lacks consistency and really is just an attack on me, but that’s expected when you’re old and slow and can’t keep up with a new, significantly younger generation of enthusiastic Muslims. I do not hold him responsible for his dishonesty or for his ironed fisted tactics, after all he is a Christian, but then that would mean doing as he does and the truth is, as a Muslim it is irresponsible for me to generalize groups of people. Therefore I accept that Mr. Edwards does not represent a significant part of the Christian community, nor of the rest of the human population and that honestly makes me feel better. The world suddenly looks just a tad bit brighter. So, what’s our favourite comedian (sorry, I meant “educated theologian”) up to today?

Well he’s decided to be hypocritical, from his post, he calls me out demanding to know why his comments on my website (this one) are now being censored:

Hijaz of callingchristians has made a big fuss over me implementing moderation on comments …oh the hypocrisy!!! You see in the screen shot below he is holding one of my comments up for moderation, yet posts a comment to a earlier comment of mines!!

At this point, I’m not sure if he’s realised what he’s written but he simply has gotten himself in a bit of a fancy. Yes, I did make a post about him moderating my comments on his “blog”, which you can read here. As one can see,  I was honest and kind enough to update the post when he did let a few of my comments through:

However, since he continued to moderate my comments on his website, I made it clear to him that in reciprocation I would do the same to him, in fact I informed him of this on both my website and his “blog”, that comment, still isn’t available for viewing on his blog, but it is on mines:

He was clearly told, if he continued to cry wolf, his comments would be removed. Subsequently, when he refused to allow our comments to be displayed on his website, we decided to moderate his. You see, he’s like a child, he doesn’t like when he’s being given a taste of his own medicine. He’s fine with prohibiting us from commenting on his “blog”, but he isn’t man enough to have his own comments moderated on our website. If he does have a problem with us following his lead, then please take it up with the Bible:

Do to others as you would have them do to you. – Bible : Luke (6) : 31.

It’s simple, if you can’t hold yourself to your own standards (however lowly they may be), don’t expect us to satiate your petulant needs, we aren’t your parents, don’t expect us to forgo your own inequities, for we’ll with a surety wage them against you. Also, we do ask, if anyone can help Mr. Edwards (which you can see I’ve always addressed him as), he seems to have a disability, he is currently unable to write my name correctly. In fact I’m beginning to think this explains quite clearly why he’s such an angry little man, perhaps his literacy issue has driven him to always attack others. We can offer him help, but in the meantime we do request that he does learn to spell my name correctly, there’s no “H” in Ijaz.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]