Tag Archives: Christianity

All Non-Christian Prison Chaplains Fired from Canadian Prisons

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Persecution of non-Christians residing in Christian majority nations has reached a high point this week. Once more, we have to fight for our rights that Christians themselves enjoy. Yet, it’s not Muslims being discriminated, we’re also being joined by every other non-Christian faith! As it turns out, in Canadian prisons, all non-Christian Chaplains are being fired from their positions of counselling prisoners. It should be noted that a significant majority of Canada’s prison population is majority Christian, here are the percentages from CBC Canada:

There are nearly 15,000 inmates in federal custody and a large majority of them identify themselves as Christian:

 

  • 37.5% are Catholic.
  • 19.5% are Protestant.
  • 4.5% are Muslim.
  • 4% First Nations spirituality
  • 2% are Buddhist.
  • less than 1% are Jewish.
  • less than 1% are Sikh.

The article goes on to mention just how discriminatory the move is:

Figures obtained by CBC News show that before the contract cancellations — which will take effect by the end of March 2013 — there were about 80 full-time chaplains across the country and all but one are Christian. There are about 100 part-time chaplains, 20 of them non-Christian. The total cost of the chaplain program is about $6.4 million a year and it’s not clear what amount will be saved by the cancellations.

This is most likely a move to convert non-Christians to Christianity, there can be no other motive. When you have men who stare at 4 walls all day long and live day to day not knowing if another inmate can murder them, it’s significantly depressing. These men are emotionally and mentally fragile, perfect fruit for Christian Chaplain-Missionaries to, ‘spread the message’ of their human-worship centric faith.

We hope that God allows the non-Christian prisoners to be guided through their own faiths and that they are not forced into having Christianity shoved down their throats, as many of us have experienced this in the past (myself included). Please see this CBC News link for a video interview and comments by Rabbis and Imams from Canada on this depressing issue.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Debate: James White vs Sami Zataari, “Was Christ Crucified?” – Video

Posted on by 2 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

MDI has finally released their video of Sami’s debate with James. For a quick review, if you’ve ever heard James speak, then expect nothing new from him. Sami responded well, kept up with James, easily nullified James’ arguments and ran rings around the Alpha and Omega Ministry man:

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Some Comments on James White and Adnan Rashid’s Debate

Posted on by 8 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I was taken aback by some of James White’s arguments in yesterday’s debate with Br. Adnan Rashid, however I was pleased with the simplicity of his presentation. The topic being debated was, “Was the Qur’an or the Bible Reliably Transmitted? ” and what a show it was. James’ presentation was rather straight forward, to the point and predictable. Admittedly, he’s a seasoned orator which would impress the lay Christian, but as a person who studies the Christian scriptures and their textual history, I felt nothing but shame for James White. His arguments were borderline facetious, if not absurd and really demonstrated a lack of honesty on his part. I’m not sure if he would be willing to defend his statements, but many of his comments were dishonest to say the least. Let’s examine his main point:

  • An Uncontrolled Text is Superior to a Controlled Text.

James’ reasoning, revolved around the idea that if multiple people, at multiple places, at multiple times wrote a documents which ‘largely agreed’ with one another, the autograph would be more preserved and thus rendering the text, ‘reliably transmitted’. This view is largely held by neo-inerrantist Christian scholars such as Maurice Robinson, William Pierpont, Zane Hodges and Aruthur Farstad. There view can be summed up in this excerpt:

“from a transmissional standpoint, a single Textform would be expected to predominate among the vast majority of manuscripts in the absence of radical and well-documented upheavals in the manuscript tradition.” – Maurice Robinson, “The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform”, Preface to the 2nd Ed.

It must be understood however, that this understanding is not due to the science of textual criticism, but based on faith that God preserved the Bible, see Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 219, Citation #29. Therefore James’ position is not based on sound research and study, which he alluded to, but based upon dogmas. It is with this in mind that I’d like to contest his view of preservation through ‘uncontrolled copying‘, by providing a simple example:

  • Scribe writes epistle.
  • Some time passes.
  • Later scribe copies epistle (emendations/ interpolations occur).
  • Some time passes.
  • Another scribe copies the mistakes of the previous scribe and adds mistakes of his own.
  • At this point the original epistle is lost and the autographs of the two later scribes are preserved.

The question we’d have to ask James, is which manuscript autograph would he give precedence to? Would his criteria be based upon dating or level of variance after comparison with his current New Testament codex? If it’s a combination of both, then what would be common to both manuscripts would be the errors of the first copyist and the recopied errors by the second copyist, thus leaving us with something vastly variant to the original:

In some cases the evidence will be found to be so evenly divided that it is extremely difficult to decide between two variant readings. – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, Preface XV.

Occasionally, none of the variant readings will commend itself as original, and one will be compelled either to choose the reading that is judged to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation. – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 343.

However, let’s say that we oppose James’ view and we examine a controlled text.

  • A Controlled Text is Superior to an Uncontrolled Text.

What if the original scribe oversaw the copying of his manuscript, and left instructions that any copy henceforth would have to be double checked with his manuscript. That’s a level of control that at the minimum preserves the text by one generation. If this method is continued, essentially all generations of copyists would be able to preserve the original scribe’s works. This is essentially what the Ijaza is in Islam. A person is given the authority to transmit knowledge/ data, because they have achieved a level of approval according to the one who has received authority from one with authority to transmit the knowledge/ data. We know that later Christianity adopted controlled textual transmission, because it better preserved the texts:

It is a striking feature of our textual record that the earliest copies we have of the various books that became the New Testament vary from one another far more widely than do the later copies, which were made under more controlled circumstances in the Middle Ages. – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 275.

The vast majority of Christian texts which have survived are from the Middle Ages:

Furthermore, the work of many ancient authors has been preserved only in manuscripts that date from the Middle Ages (sometimes the late Middle Ages), far removed from the time at which they lived and wrote. – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 275.

The end of the twentieth century saw a resurgence of interest in the Byzantine text type among those who believe that the original text is best preserved in the vast majority of witnesses produced in the Middle Ages.’ – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 218.

Therefore the correlation being that texts which are controlled, have been vastly more preserved as opposed to the earlier uncontrolled texts of which are sparse and often vastly variant with one another:

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

It is with the above being said, I must thereby conclude that James White’s position in his debate with Br. Adnan Rashid is unscholarly, deceptive, displays a significant level of ignorance of the history and the science of textual criticism and is nothing short but a disgrace to the field of academia. I pray that God guides James White to admitting his erroneous position and that he corrects himself, sooner rather than later.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Australian Roman Catholic Church Admits to Major Child Sex Abuse

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

A revealing tale of sex abuse in the Australian Roman Catholic Church, has been making waves today. Apparently this abuse stems as far as the 1930’s! The Raw Story reports:

The Catholic Church in one Australian state has revealed that at least 620 children have been abused by its clergy since the 1930s, sparking a fresh call Saturday for an independent inquiry.

The Catholic Church in Victoria revealed the number in a submission to a state parliamentary hearing on Friday but said the instances of abuse reported had fallen dramatically from the “appalling” numbers of the 1960s and 1970s.

“It is shameful and shocking that this abuse, with its dramatic impact on those who were abused and their families, was committed by Catholic priests, religious and church workers,” Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart said.

Rights groups however, according to this BBC report, believe the number of molested and abused children by the Church clergy number closer to over 10,000 victims in one county alone:

In a statement, Archbishop Hart said it was important to be open “about the horrific abuse that has occurred in Victoria and elsewhere”.

“We look to this inquiry to assist the healing of those who have been abused, to examine the broad context of the church’s response, especially over the last 16 years, and to make recommendations to enhance the care for victims and preventative measures that are now in place,” the statement said.

Campaign groups say that many cases of abuse have gone unreported, and they believe the true number of victims is closer to 10,000 in Victoria alone.

Abuse of children by Roman Catholic priests has been a major issue in Australia recent years.

Islamophobes on the other hand, claim Islam to permit paedophilia, yet I haven’t seen a single news report indicating almost 90 years of abuse to over 10,000 kids in one county/ district in any country. These people need to take their blinders off and realise they are projecting their guilt unto Muslims, so that they can avoid facing reality, that they belong to the world’s single handedly largest paedophile endorsed religious institution.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

The Greatest Evidence for the Veracity of Christianity: Its Absurdity, By Tertullian

Posted on by 2 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Note: The following quote is not from my own writing, nor my own translation, the source and link is clearly cited below for all to enjoy reading.

One of early Christendom’s most significant and prominent leaders, (what we term a Patristic) was Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus) who was one of the very first Christian apologists, writing against many people, most notably, “Against Marcion” (Adversus Marcionem) who awkwardly enough was the first man to canonize the Christian Bible and “Against the Jews” (Adversus Judaeos ) who even more strangely enough followed the religion of their God (as they say Jesus was a Jew). What is apparent is that these statements are supposed to be in support of Christianity, being such a major apologetic in his day, it is quite shocking to read some of his statements about the veracity of the Christian faith. As such, please do research more on this issue and enjoy reading:

There are, to be sure, other things also quite as foolish (as the birth of Christ), which have reference to the humiliations and sufferings of God. Or else, let them call a crucified God “wisdom.” But Marcion will apply the knife’ to this doctrine also,, and even with greater reason. For which Is more unworthy of God, which is more likely to raise a blush of shame, that God should be born, or that He should die? that He should bear the flesh, or the cross? be circumcised, or be crucified? be cradled, or be coffined? be laid in a manger, or in a tomb? Talk of “wisdom!” You will show more of fiat if you refuse to believe this also. But, after all, you will not be “wise” unless you become a “fool” to the world, by believing” the foolish things of God.”Have you, then, cut away all sufferings from Christ, on the ground that, as a mere phantom, He was incapable of experiencing them? We have said above that He might possibly have undergone the unreal mockeries of an imaginary birth and infancy.But answer me at once, you that murder truth: Was not God really crucified? And, having been really crucified, did He not really die? And, having indeed really died, did He not really rise again? Falsely did Paul “determine to know nothing amongst us but Jesus and Him crucified;” falsely has he impressed upon us that He was buried; falsely inculcated that He rose again. False, therefore, is our faith also. And all that we hope for from Christ will be a phantom.O thou most infamous of men, who acquittest of all guilt the murderers of God! For nothing did Christ suffer from them, if He really suffered nothing at all. Spare the whole world’s one only hope, thou who art destroying the indispensable dishonour of our faith? Whatsoever is unworthy of God, is of gain to me. I am safe, if I am not ashamed–my Lord.“Whosoever,” says He, “shall be ashamed of me, of him will I also be ashamed.” Other matters for shame find I r none which can prove me to be shameless t in a good sense, and foolish in a happy one, by my own contempt of shame. The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible.But how will all this be true in Him, if He was not Himself true–if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again?I mean this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, a flesh which knew how to be born, and how to die, human without doubt, as born of a human being. It will therefore be mortal in Christ, because Christ is man and the Son of man. Else why is Christ man and the Son of man, if he has nothing of man, and nothing from man? Unless it be either that man is anything else than flesh, or man’s flesh comes from any other source than man, or Mary is anything else than a human being, or Marcion’s man is as Marcion’s god. Otherwise Christ could not be described as being man without flesh, nor the Son of man without any human parent; just as He is not God without the Spirit of God, nor the Son of God without having God for His father. Thus the nature of the two substances displayed Him as man and God,–in one respect born, in the other unborn; l in one respect fleshly in the other spiritual; in one sense weak in the other exceeding strong; in on sense dying, in the other living.

This excerpt has been taking from, “De carne Christi (On the flesh of Christ), Chapter 5, – Christ Truly Lived and Died in human flesh. Incidents of human life on earth, and refutation of Marcion’s docetic parody of the same.”

Link to online resource of said book: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co…tullian15.html

From this we can deduce that Paul was a liar and a man which altered the true doctrine of Christ, as Tertullian clearly indicates. Following from this, we can also conclude that the greatest proof of Christianity’s theological foundations, is that the religion is so morbidly absurd tha it just has to be true. Recall the famous saying, “that idea is so stupid it just might work“, same reasoning applies here. That’s truly some great logic!

Qur’aan Surah 4, Ayah 156-159:

“That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): ‘We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.’ But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (Jesus) Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them.”

wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.

Originally Published: December 2nd, 2011, 14:11 PM.
Edited and Republished: August 19th, 2012, 10:10 AM.

Simple Reasons to Disbelieve in the Bible

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Christians are fond of saying that although the Bible has unstable and sketchy textual contradictions, they can analyse the manuscripts and develop (yes, develop), a Bible as close to God’s words as possible. The problem however is that if you don’t know what God’s word was, how can you develop something, into it? That’s like saying you don’t know what an aeroplane looks like, but you’re going to design one.

The problem isn’t that errors can be corrected within the manuscripts, by all means this is not the point. To clarify, I will state what the points of such a dialogue on the Bible’s authenticity should be about:

  1. Authorship.
  2. Validation of Authorship.
  3. Validity of Chain of Transmission.
  4. Comparison with other scriptures.

Authorship:
The authorship of any document, especially those of high esteem must accompany the scribe’s identity.

E.g. I write a document, claim it’s from the President and it doesn’t have his signature. No one would accept it.

Likewise, if I were to claim that I have a scripture from God, written by “unknown”, how much trust would you actually place on me? In stating this, it should be noted the names of the Gospels were based on assumptions and traditions. Although it is common for scribes to leave a manuscript autograph signature, we have no such signature from any of the four (4) synoptic Gospels.

Validation of Authorship:
The validity of the author must be sought.

E.g. I write a document, sign my name and say I am the President. There is no evidence I am the President, who would then believe me?

Likewise if I authored a scripture and claimed to be a scribe of God, then some evidence must be shown, after all would you trust someone based on word of mouth or credentials? Similarly, the Bible has no such form of verification. There is no one from the Patristics (early Church Fathers), the Presbyters (early Church elders) or from the Disciples (Peter, Barnabus) to testify to the identity and works of Mark, Luke, John or Matthew.

Validation of Chain of Transmission:
Again, questionable character comes in here, if the chain of narration contains those persons who are known to lie, shall we trust their words? Surely this is not so. Similarly, what about a man who willingly declares himself to be a fool (2 Corinthians 11) and possessed by a demon (2 Corinthians 12)?

Comparison with Similar/ Linked Scriptures:
If we compare the OT with the NT, it is radically different. You have to apply your own exegesis (therefore eisegesis) to create some form of bond/ relationship between these two “revelations”. Yet, Jews, the majority of which, do not accept the New Testament as scripture, because it does not comply with their mainstream beliefs.

Generally, the problem with 150,000 manuscripts, is not that they have errors which can be corrected, but it is that there is not a single original of which to compare any of these manuscripts with. Of the 24,000 pre-Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts, most are not used.

The Bible is generally a book where errors have to be continuously eliminated as errors keep popping up, such as with Mark 16:9-20. How are we to know, that for almost 2000 years men believed those words to be true, many today, yet the earliest manuscripts never had them.

According to Bruce Metzger[1]:

Variant Readings among the Manuscripts

The first problem facing Bible translators is the differences in wording among manuscripts of the Scriptures. These differences have arisen because, even with the strongest determination to copy a text without error, a scribe copying a text of considerable length will almost inevitably introduce changes in the wording. It is understandable that mistakes can arise from inattentiveness brought on by weariness. For example instead of the correct reading, “Is a lamp brought in to be put under a bushel, or under a

bed, and not on a stand?” (Mark 4:21, RSV), several important manuscripts read “under the stand.” This is obviously a scribal error in repeating the preposition “under” in the third phrase.

Sometimes a scribe’s error of judgment works havoc with the text. One of the most atrocious blunders of this kind is in the minuscule Greek manuscript no. 109, dated to the 14th century. This manuscript of the four Gospels was transcribed from a copy that must have had Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (3:23–38 ) in two columns of 28 lines in each. Instead of transcribing the text by following the columns in succession, the scribe of MS 109 copied the genealogy by following the lines across the two columns.

In addition to such transcriptional blunders, which can usually be detected and corrected, occasionally a scribe deliberately introduced into the copy a change that seems to clarify the sense or eliminate a difficulty. For example the older manuscripts of Mark 1:2–3 attribute to the Prophet Isaiah the evangelist’s composite quotation from both Malachi and Isaiah, whereas later manuscripts (followed by the King James translators of 1611) read, “As it is written in the prophets,” an obvious amelioration of the earlier text.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.

1 – Bruce Metzger, Persistent Problems Confronting Bible Translators, Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 273-284.

[Originally published: April 20th, 2010, 21:24 pm]
[Altered and republished: August 12th, 2012, 4:00 pm]

More gods in Christianity

Posted on by Leave a comment

Further proofs that Christians bear divine attributes

Question Mark

Introduction

Sam Shamoun is out with a futile defense to our critique of biblical monotheism wherein we provided proofs that mere Christian believers also partake in divine functionality

As far as Shamoun’s paper is concerned, we would respond to it separately in near future (inshAllah) as there is nothing much than a lot of smokescreen, however, in this paper we would provide further biblical proofs that mere Christian mortals are not merely involved in divine functionalities but they even possess divine attributes!

Our basic premise being: Divine attributes and status fit only to God and cannot be shared with any part of His creation. We would consider some attributes and status which Trinitarians have allocated exclusively for divine Jesus (peace be upon him). Then we would expound how Bible has shared the same attributes and status with mere Christians. This would help establish either of the following two consequences:

(i) There are elements of polytheism (Arabic. Shirk) in the already suffering “Trinitarian” brand of monotheism.

Or

(ii) The attributes and status vested on Jesus (peace be upon him) are not divine enough but that they have been mistakenly considered so!

With that said, let us analyze the “monotheism” that Bible has to offer.

 

Instances of violated monotheism from the Bible

A.    Christian believers expected to be as perfect as God

The attribute of being perfect in an absolute sense is something which befits to God and God alone. No other mere creature can claim that s/he is as perfect as God. If anybody claims so then the claimant is either claiming divinity or breaching monotheism. However, biblical Jesus (peace be upon him) had unceremoniously expected his disciples to be perfect as God:

            “You must be perfect – just as your Father in heaven is perfect!” (Matthew 5:48)

“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Mat 5:48, King James Version)

Notice what Jesus (peace be upon him) had not asserted in the above passage. He did not say that the believers should be merely perfect or upright in their worldly life and dealings. Rather he said that believers must be “just as perfect as God – The Father”.

By claiming so Jesus (peace be upon him) did not merely factually want his disciples to be perfect but he desired comparative divine perfection in his disciples. He fixed a degree and a capacity of perfection for his disciples – that they should be just asperfect as God – The Father.  The context of the above passage lends further support. Consider the following “verses”:

“Why should God reward you if you love only the people who love you? Even the tax collectors do that, and if you speak only to your friends. Have you done anything out of the ordinary? Even the pagans do that! You must be perfect – just as your Father in heaven is perfect!”  (Matthew 5: 46-48)

Unlike God, it is the petty human psychology to love and be amicable to only those people who are friendly – “even the pagans do that!”. However, this is not so with God. He, out of his immeasurable bounty and mercy makes no distinction between believer and disbeliever while pouring providences. His rain wets all – alike and equally.

It is possible that human being(s) may love another human being selflessly even though s/he has been offended, yet this would only account to the magnanimity of the person in worldly, non-divine realm. It cannot be said that the person has attained or had tried to attain the magnanimity (“just like”) of God!

Nevertheless, Jesus (peace be upon him) expects his disciples to transcend their human weakness, leave the realm of “ordinary”, in other words, become extra ordinary, and acquire the divine “perfection” of God! Their psychology and dealings should be at par (“just as”) with God!

We expect a Trinitarian reconciliation that Jesus (peace be upon him) was only exhorting his disciples to magnanimity; he did not intend his disciples any divinity. However, the problem with such an explanation is that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not merely required his followers to be magnanimous in human terms. He did not ask his disciples to be “perfect” in general worldly and human parlance rather he fixed a standard for them which was in itself divine.

In fact in monotheism it is impossible that a finite creature could ever attain the “perfection” of an infinite being! And thus to make (or expect) such an assertion would be idolatry in itself!

Accordingly, New Testament commentator B. W. Johnson asserts unequivocally that obeying the subject verse would elevate mankind to the status of divinity at par with God (!):

 

48. Be ye therefore perfect. To carry out fully this great law of love would lift man to the DIVINE standard of perfection. This must be the aim of life. We have before us as a pattern for the perfect God; we have the Divine perfection embodied in Christ. It will require a constant struggle while in the flesh to come near so high an ideal, but it must be our continual aim. This does not teach such sanctification that we cannot sin, nor that we, here on earth, attain absolute perfection, but we have placed before us, as a model, the perfect ideal, and we will constantly ascend higher by striving to attain it. (The People’s New Testament (1891), B. W. Johnson)

Notice the implication of the subject biblical verse; it elevates man to a level of “divine perfection”. Once elevated to the divinely perfect level, what difference did there remain between the Creator and the creation? Yet this “verse” is said to be in a book which teaches “Semitic – monotheism”?!

At this juncture, expect Christian [apologists] to twist and distort the obvious import of the verse which was otherwise candidly accepted by reputed Christian scholar – B.W. Johnson.

B.     Christians to share in divine nature of God

In the preceding section we saw how mere Christian believers were expected to be “just as perfect” as the biblical God! Continuing on the same note, we have another biblical instance wherein Peter was exhorting his audience to share the divine nature of God:

 

“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might bepartakers of the DIVINE nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2 Pe: 1-4, King James Version, e-Sword Version)

Contemplating the idolatry of the above verse, Bible authority Albert Barnes candidly admits that the above phrase is “difficult” to understand. Nevertheless, he is quite optimistic that mere Christians could reach the status from where they canpartake in divine nature of God. Consider Barnes’ following comments:

Partakers of the divine nature – This is a very important and a difficult phrase…

(1) Let anyone reflect on the amazing advances made by himself since the period of infancy. But a few, very few years ago, he knew nothing. He was in his cradle, a poor, helpless infant. He knew not the use of eyes, or ears, or hands, or feet. He knew not the name or use of anything, not even the name of father or mother. He could neither walk, nor talk, nor creep. He did not know even that a candle would burn him if he put his finger there. He knew not how to grasp or hold a rattle, or what was its sound, or whence that sound or any other sound came. Let him think what he is at twenty, or forty, in comparison with this; and then, if his improvement in every similar number of years hereafter “should” be equal to this, who can tell the height to which he will rise?

(2) we are here limited in our own powers of learning about God or his works. We become acquainted with him through his works – by means of “the senses.” But by the appointment of this method of becoming acquainted with the external world, the design seems to have been to accomplish a double work quite contradictory – one to help us, and the other to hinder us. One is to give us the means of communicating with the external world – by the sight, the hearing, the smell, the touch, the taste; the other is to shut us out from the external world, except by these. The body is a casement, an enclosure, a prison in which the soul is incarcerated, from which we can look out on the universe only through these organs. But suppose, as may be the case in a future state, there shall be no such enclosure, and that the whole soul may look directly on the works of God – on spiritual existences, on God himself – who can then calculate the height to which man may attain in becoming a “partaker of the divine nature?”

(3) we shall have an “eternity” before us to grow in knowledge, and in holiness, and in conformity to God. Here, we attempt to climb the hill of knowledge, and having gone a few steps – while the top is still lost in the clouds – we lie down and die. We look at a few things; become acquainted with a few elementary principles; make a little progress in virtue, and then all our studies and efforts are suspended, and “we fly away.” In the future world we shall have an “eternity” before us to make progress in knowledge, and virtue, and holiness, uninterrupted; and who can tell in what exalted sense it may yet be true that we shall be “partakers of the divine nature,” or what attainments we may yet make? (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, 2 Peter 1:4)

Notice that in the particular citations, Barnes has not denied the divine partaking. In fact he is optimistic that Christian believers might reach a stage in the future, through continuous progression, where they can directly “look” on God’s works and comprehend it to a level where they “may attain in becoming a partaker of the divine nature”!

Omniscience, Absolute Virtue and Holiness are all qualities which befits God alone (c.f. Trinitarians use the following verses to deify Jesus: Matthew 11:27, John 16:30, Matthew 21:14-18) , however, Barnes repeated his assertions that in future when Christians would have “eternal” time in their hand, they will make infinite “progress in knowledge, and virtue, and holiness” – so much so that in some “exalted sense” they will become “partakers of the divine nature”.

In fact, many pre-Christian occidental religious philosophies like Hinduism and Buddhism had similar concepts in which mortals could unite with divine God, partake in his divine nature, through continuous development and progression towards Him:

“In this state [ultimate state of being in Buddhism knows as “Nirvana”], according to a branch of Buddhist thought, the ego disappears and the human soul and consciousness are extinguished. This concept also forms the core of philosophy known as “mysticism.” Mysticism is defined as an experience of union with God and the belief that man’s main goal lies in the seeking that union. The origins of mysticism can be found in the writings of ancient Greek philosophers like Plato’s Symposium in which mention is made of various ladders of ascent, composed of steep and hard steps, whereby a union of the soul with God is finally attained. A parallel concept can also be found in Hinduism’s identification of Atma (human soul) with Brahma (the impersonal Absolute), the realization of which is the ultimate goal or release from existence and rebirth.” (Dr. Bilal Philips, The Fundamentals of Tawheed, Pp 180-181)

 

Furthermore, Robertson, another New Testament authority, had no qualms and sincerely admitted that the subject verse (2 Peter 1:4) has pagan elements in it:

 Of the divine nature (theias phuseōs). This phrase, like to theion in Act 17:29, “belongs rather to HELLENISM than to the Bible” (Bigg). It is a Stoic phrase, but not with the Stoic meaning. Peter is referring to the new birth as 1Pe_1:23 (anagegennēmenoi). The same phrase occurs in an inscription possibly under the influence of  MITHRAISM (Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary). (Robertson’s Word Pictures, 2 Peter 1:4)

Note how Robertson alluded that the same phrase which became a “God breathed verse” in Bible (2 Peter 1:4) has been inscribed in pagan artifact under the influence of archaic Roman god Mithra.

Commenting on Mithraism and its parallels with Christianity, Robertson writes the following in his book Pagan Christs:

“…Mithra was believed to be a great mediator between man and God. His birth took place in a cave on December 25th. He was born of a virgin and he travelled far and wide and had twelve disciples (that represent the twelve zodiacal signs). He died in the service of humanity, he was buried but rose again from his tomb and his resurrection was celebrated with great rejoicing. His great festivals were the Winter Solstice and the Equinox (Christmas and Easter?). He was called the savior and sometimes figured as a lamb and people initiated themselves into this cult through baptism andsacramental feats were held in his remembrance. (Robertson, Pagan Christs, p.338. As cited in Before Nicea, p. 46, Bowes and al-Ashanti)

Arthur Findlay concurs with Robertson in his book Rock of Truth:

 “It was not until the year 527 C.E. that it was decided when Jesus was born, and various monks equipped with astrological learning were called in to decide this important point. Ultimately, the Emperor decided that the 25th of December, the date of birth of the pagan Roman god, Mithra, be accepted as the date of birth of Jesus. Up to 680 C. E. no thought had been given to the symbol of Jesus crucified on the cross and prior to that date veneration was accorded to the Mithraic symbol of the lamb. From this time onwards it was ordained that in place of the lamb the figure of a man attached to the cross should be substituted.” (As cited in Before Nicea, p. 45-46, Bowes and al-Ashanti)

Sir James G. Frazier has a similar point to make in his famous work The Golden Bough:

“In respect both of doctrines and of rites, the cult of Mithra appears to have presented many points of resemblance to Christianity. Taken all together, the coincidences of the Christian with the Heathen festivals are too close and too numerous to be accidental. They mark the compromise which the church in its “hour of triumph” was compelled to make with its vanquished and yet still dangerous rivals.” (As cited in Before Nicea, p.46, Bowes and al-Ashanti)

Returning back to the verse where Christians would partake in the divine nature of God, Jonathan Edwards – a Christian author and theologian – writes that Christian believers would partake in the divine “excellency” and “glory” of the Christian god(s):

It is a confirmation that the Holy Ghost is God’s love and delight, because the saints communion with God consists in their partaking of the Holy Ghost. The communion of saints is twofold: ’tis their communion with God and communion with one another, (I John 1:3) “That ye also may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ.” Communion is a common partaking of good, either of excellency or happiness,so that when it is said the saints have communion or fellowship with the Father and with the Son, the meaning of it is that they partake with the Father and the Son of their good, which is either their EXCELLENCY and GLORY (II Peter 1:4), “Ye are made partakers of the Divine nature”; Heb. 12:10, “That we might be partakers of His holiness;” John 17:22, 23, “And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one, I in them and Thou in Me”); or of their joy and happiness: (John 17:13) “That they might have My joy fulfilled in themselves.” (Jonathan Edwards, Unpublished Essay on the Trinity (i))

What distinction remained between gods of Trinitarian Christianity and creatures when they can share “excellency” and “glory” of their gods!

Also notice how Jonathan Edwards, while writing that Christians would partake in God’s glory alluded to John 17:22-23; this takes us to our third proposition.

C.    Christian believers enjoying the same honor which befits God

Once the believers sought to attain the divine “perfection” which behooves God and God alone, it was not too far – fetched that biblical Jesus (peace be upon him) vestdivine honor to them as well. Consider the following passage:

 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:” (King James (1611), John 17:21-22)

Or

“I pray that they may all be one. Father! May they be in us, just as you are in me and I am in you…I gave them the same glory you gave me, so that they may be one, just as you and I are one:” (Holy Bible, John 17:21-22)

Many Trinitarians claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) shared the same honorand glory with God – The Father – as the second person in the godhead. However, according to the above biblical “verse” Jesus (peace be upon him) shared his honor – the same divine [Trinitarian] honor, with multiple mortals as well!

What is more embarrassing is that multiple celebrated Trinitarian commentators have concurred that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) divine glory has been shared with multiple mortals:

Christians who believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is God, as expected, reserve for him certain prized and exclusive titles and status which befits Jesus (peace be upon him) alone. For example, the status and honor of being at the (i) right hand of God, the status of the (ii) divine redeemer and basking in the (iii) bosom of God.

Nevertheless with the authority of John 17:22, celebrated Bible scholar duo of Matthew – Henry has conferred all the prized and divine status to mere mortals (!):

  

Those that are given in common to all believers. The glory of being in covenant with the Father, and accepted of him, of being laid in his bosom, and designed for a place at his right hand, was the glory which the Father gave to THE REDEEMER, and he has confirmed it to the redeemed.(Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, John 17:20-23)

And according to commentator John Wesley, the honor which Jesus (peace be upon him) – the Trinitarian god – conferred upon his disciples was the honor of being the only begotten son (!):

John 17:22  The glory which thou hast given me, I have given them – The glory of the only begotten shines in all the sons of God. How great is the majesty of Christians. (John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes, John 17:22)

Let us explain John Wesley’s commentary briefly. In the biblical verse, Jesus (peace be upon him) is said to be conferring a particular honor to his disciples. John Wesley cogitates that this particular honor was the honor of being the “only begotten” of God – the Father.

Trinitarians claim that the glory of being the “only begotten” is a divine honor as not everyone can be only begotten of God, moreover, Jesus (peace be upon him) is exclusively entitled as the “only begotten son of God”. As such the subject verse invests a divine honor (not mere honor) upon multiple mortals thereby again breaching “monotheism”.

The preceding Christian Scholars are not pulling out commentaries out of thin air because as we go to the context of the subject biblical verse, we would find that this is indeed divine honor. Consider the following contextual verse(s) from a Trinitarian perspective:

“After Jesus finished saying this, he looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your Son, so that the Son may give glory to you. For you gave him authority over all mankind, so that he might give eternal life to all those you gave him…” (John 17: 1-2)

Notice the reason why Jesus (peace be upon him) had glory from Father – it was for having (i) authority over all mankind and (ii) for giving them eternal life. Both these acts are considered to be divine and rationales for the deification of Jesus (peace be upon him) – as such the glory for them must also then be divine!

Continuing on with the context we have,

“Father! Give me glory in your presence now, the same glory I had with you before the world has made.” (John 17: 5)

According to orthodox Trinitarian position, Jesus (peace be upon him) pre-existed with God and shared the same honor with Him. And, in the foregoing “verse” he was referring to the same glory – the so called divine pre-existing glory to be bestowed upon him.

It was only after describing the divine capacity (Trinitarian understanding) of glory did Jesus (peace be upon him) said (or rather conferred),

“I gave them the same glory that you gave me, so that they may be one, just as you and I are one:” (John 17:22)

Jesus (peace be upon him) gave away the same prized and divine glory to mere believers; in fact he specifically identified the glory – he said, “the same glory that you gave me” and we just saw in the context [v. 5] that Father gave him the glory of his pre-existence with Him as co-god!

The foregoing biblical incident once again breached the already dwindling “monotheism” of Christianity.

D.    Christian believers surpassing their god in achieving feats

Finally we have a bizarre case wherein the followers of Jesus (peace be upon him) are not just held at par with God but they even surpass the divine TrinitarianJesus (peace be upon him). Consider the following assertion of Jesus (peace be upon him):

“I am telling you the truth: whoever believes in me will do what I do – yes, he will do even greater things, because I am going to the Father.” (John 14:12)

Acknowledging the difficulty of literal interpretation of the above “verse” wherein the Christian believers would surpass Jesus (peace be upon him) in performing miracles, most Christian commentators, to avoid chagrin, have understood it to mean that Christian believers would surpass Jesus (peace be upon him) in converting people:

John 14:12  Greater works than these shall he do, because I go to my Father.Those who believe shall have power given to do works, in some respects greater; not greater miracles, but to effect greater moral and spiritual revolutions. At the time of his death, as far as we know, he had only aboutfive hundred disciples, but he “went to his Father” and “shed forth the things seen and heard” on Pentecost, and the eleven apostles convertedthree thousand in a single day. (The People’s New Testament, John 14:12)

Bible scholar Robertson also holds similar view:

Shall he do also (kakeinos poiēsei). Emphatic pronoun ekeinos, “that one also.” Greater works than these (meizona toutōn). Comparative adjective neuter plural from megas with ablative case toutōn. Not necessarily greater miracles and not greater spiritual works in quality, but greater in quantity.Cf. Peter at Pentecost and Paul’s mission tours. “Because I go” (hoti egō poreuornai). Reason for this expansion made possible by the Holy Spirit as Paraclete (Joh 16:7). (Robertson’s Word Pictures, John 14:12)

However, the above standard Christian interpretation is not very precise. The being, the Greek word used at numerous places in John’s Gospel to refer to the miracles of Jesus (peace be upon him) is “erga”. For instance it has been used in John 5:36, 7:3, 21, 10:25, 32, 38 etc. And Jesus (peace be upon him) referred by the same Greek word “erga” while referring to his disciples!

Thus, according to standard textual/literal understanding of the Greek word, Jesus (peace be upon him) asserted that his disciples would surpass him in doing miracles, as opposed to converting people! The implications of this conclusion are very serious! In Christianity we have mere believers who would surpass the god of the Trinitarians to accomplish miraculous feats!

The most common defense which we expect is that Christian believers would not perform miraculous feats in and by themselves! The defense appears good however it should address the following two issues:

(i) When the status of Christian believers is not exalted to a divine level because they perform miracles on the authority of someone else (and not by themselves) then on what basis do Christian apologists claim deity for Jesus (peace be upon him) when he performs miracles declaring that  it is not he performing them but God – Almighty! (C.f. John 14:10, Acts 2:22 for instances).

Particular Christian apologist Sam Shamoun has been appealing to the same argument here: Shamoun: Time 06:04 – 06:48 and here: Shamoun: Time 00:49-01:46. (We responded him here.)

(ii) When it was so easy to explain the imminent embarrassment of John 14:12 that Christian believer would perform greater miracles on someone else’s authority then why did majority of New Testament commentators took pain to explain that Christian believers would not surpass Jesus (peace be upon him) in miracles but only in the count of converting men into Christianity? Seems like they accepted that working on someone else’s authority does not diminish the divine status as in the case of Jesus (peace be upon him) – he too works on God’s authority and yet he is divine.

Conclusion

We provided four propositions which help establish either the claims made in favor of deity of Jesus (peace be upon him) is not very strong or the same claims could be used to deify Christian believers particularly when,

A.    Jesus (peace be upon him) required his believers to be “perfect” to the effect of God Himself!

B.     Peter – one of the best Christian – taught to partake in the divine nature of God!

C.    Jesus (peace be upon him) rendered his divine glory upon his followers.

D.    Finally, we saw eccentric scenario wherein mere Christian believers would surpass the miraculous feats achieved by Jesus (peace be upon him) – the Trinitarian God!

We also saw how the Christian concepts deduced from biblical verses have parallels with Buddhism, Hinduism and Pagan Roman Mithraism.

We leave it to the Christians to solve the above rigmarole however we believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was a purely Semitic, monotheistic Islamic prophet who could not have uttered any such statement which would either deify him or his followers. Albeit, these are statements which are interpreted in a certain way and forcefully attributed to Christ (peace be upon him) in his absence.

We seek refuge in Allah (SWT) from every aspect of associating partners with Him; whether knowingly or unknowingly. Amen.

Notes:

  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical text taken from Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version.
  • All emphasize wherever not matching with original is ours.

 

Punishing the Female Rape Victim in Islam

Posted on by Leave a comment

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.]

James White’s Futility and Inconsistency

Posted on by 6 comments
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
This video analyses James White’s evidences, his pivots during his opening statement with Br. Shabir Ally during their debate, “Did Jesus Claim Deity?”. An indepth write up to be published on Monday/ Tuesday 26th/ 27th of March fully explaining, and refuting his arguments. I was planning to write up a full response, but I’m terribly busy, please see our video response to James White instead, thanks.
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: Muslim Dawagandist Shabir Ally’s War With Himself

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Missionary Sam Shamoun is making strides again in deceiving himself and his waning fellowship.  In this insulting article, Sam Shamoun sought to solely attack the character and person of Br. Shabir Ally, all the while having to stoop into cheap academics and wanton fraud by misusing the Brother’s words and the Bible’s words. It’s one thing to twist the Qur’an for your own profit, but to twist your own scripture, this has to be a new low for Sam. Let’s take a look at what Br. Shabir has said. These are the Brother’s insights into Deuteronomy 18:18 and Acts 3:

“Now many Christians think, well that, Jesus was that prophet, but obviously he was not. Isa left the scene, and according to Acts of the Apostles in chapter 3 we read that Peter, one of the disciples of Jesus, is saying that Isa will remain in heaven until that time of restoration comes–and he is describing that time of restoration as meaning the time when God will send that prophet! So that means Peter, the disciple of Jesus, the chief disciple, is still expecting that that prophet will come, and then eventually Isa will come back again. So we see clearly that the prophet Muhammad is mentioned in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. And if they really truly believe in the Scriptures, we Muslims should be asking them to please recognize also the prophet Muhammad, because the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 18, verse 19 says that if you do not recognize that prophet, God will require it of you. In other words, he will bring you to judgment.” (Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible? Shabir Ally answers, posted on Sept. 20, 2010)

Now in the Old Testament, it is mentioned that Moses was told by God that God will send either a series of prophets, or another prophet. It’s often translated that God will send another prophet in Deuteronomy chapter 18, verse 18, a prophet like Moses. But some say that what is meant here is not just one prophet but a series of prophets, but is spoken about as though it is singular. We say, okay, suppose it’s a series of prophets? Well then it goes up until Jesus, and many have said, okay Jesus is that prophet. Then we can say why not Muhammad, because Muhammad is very similar to Moses? In fact, Musa came with a law, Muhammad came with a law. They were both prophets and statesmen at the same time; they were governing, and so they have a lot of similarity. If we come to Jesus and say Jesus is like Moses, and Jesus is the prophet like Moses, well then we just need to go one step further and recognize the prophet Muhammad as well.” (Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible?, posted on Dec. 22, 2011)

To expound upon Brother Ally’s argument, we have to turn to the verses which he cites and the explanations for them:

” I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.” – Bible : Deuteronomy/ Devarim 18:18

This verse is extremely pertinent to the Islamic and Christian narrative of Prophethood. While in itself, requires an entire discussion, I will try my best to lay the foundation of understanding quite succinctly. The verse in question makes the statement, “…from among their brothers likes you…”. Around this one phrase, many various interpretations can be derived. However we’ll work with the Hebrew words used. What exactly does this phrase mean? You see, had the verse read, “from among you”, there would be no question that it refers to one of the Hebrew tribes of Israel, however it uses the term, “…from among their brothers like you…”, which in hebrew would read, “כּמו כּמו  אח (‘ach kemo – kamo)”. The brothers of the Hebrew people are the Arabs, they are both Semitic and as far as history dictates we know of no Prophet after Moses which came from any other Semitic background besides Muhammad {saw}. What is interesting is that if you are an Arab, the word, “akhi”, further solidifies this case, as the word also means, “brother” or “brethren”. From Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon we read:

 “a brother (used in the widest sense of literal relationship and metaphorical affinity or resemblance (like H1)): – another, brother (-ly), kindred, like, other.”

Even the phrase “kemo/ kamo (likeness) adds to this discussion, it stirs the fire or so to speak. The verse is literally saying, “a kin who is like you”. In fact, Martin Buber, a Jewish philosopher, sent a letter to Ghandi speaking on the willingness of his Arab brothers to work with the Jewish people:

“The Jewish farmers have begun to teach their brothers, the Arab farmers, to cultivate the land more intensively.” – Jewish Virtual Library.

If anyone even had a doubt that they were ever brothers, as I am sure Sam would try his best to show, he would not only have to refute historical data as provided above, but also scientific data as well. The case therefore, for a Semitic Prophet who is from the people who are “like” the Hebrew peoples, clearly establishes the basis from Judaic principles for an Arab prophet. We now turn to Acts, Chapter 3, Verses 19- 20 which raises further questions:

“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,  and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus.”

To the untrained mind, the first response would be that this simply predicts Jesus’ coming. However this verse is from Acts of the Apostles, literally, the time of the Apostles after Jesus’ earthly ministry. The problem however, arises when we take a look at other versions of this rendition. The Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopian manuscripts mention Jesus instead of Messiah, whereas the Greek manuscripts differ and simply mention, “Messiah”. Another plausible argument is that Muhammad {saw} isn’t a Messiah, therefore it can’t refer to him, this is incorrect as a Messiah is simply one who is anointed (chosen) and if taken in a divine sense, “anointed by God to do God’s bidding (will)”. With this in mind, we understand that this can mean a Rabbi, a teacher, an Imam, a leader (Romans 13:1-7) and in this case, a Prophet. As a prophet is one who is anointed by God to deliver God’s message to the people. The phrase which stirs our interest is:

“that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus.”

There is a duality here, a Messiah, who could be Jesus, but then, it doesn’t have to be Jesus. Therefore we must ask, who then could God send? When we looked at the various exegeses on this verse, besides pointing out the manuscript troubles, they did indicate the reference to Deuteronomy 18:18. Therefore if Sam Shamoun is claiming that Br. Shabir Ally has in anyway perverted the true understanding of these verses, then he is simply ignorant of what his own religion teaches. This however is common for Sam and thus, I must say I did not expect any better from a missionary, they are after all not highly educated. This is simply a consequence of “Google learning”. Br. Shabir then continues:

“Now it is true that Muslims and Christians claim two very different things about Jesus. Muslims and Christians do believe, and agree, that he was a prophet. Many Christians do not actually realize that this is a necessary part of the Christian proclamation. Regardless of whatever else a Christians may say about Jesus, the New Testament is very clear that Jesus was a prophet. Now Jesus came and he did what he had to do, and said what he had to say, and then he left the scene. Acts of the Apostles in the Bible, in the New Testament that Christians read, tells us something about what the disciples of Jesus said and did after Jesus was gone. This is a very important document, and though scholars believe today that not everything in the Acts of the Apostles is accurate, it nevertheless gives a glimpse into the lives of the Apostles of Jesus after Jesus had left. Now we see in the Acts of the Apostles that the disciples proclaimed Jesus as the prophet like Moses. In Deuteronomy, chapter 18, verse 18 in the Old Testament, a prophet like Moses was spoken about. The disciples here are saying that Jesus was that prophet. That means that Jesus was a prophet! And in that case, Muslims and Christians agree at least that he was a prophet.” (The Jesus Debate: Metaphor, Prophet, Or Son of God?, posted on Feb. 16, 2012)

Br. Shabir is using the oft repeated Christian contention that Deuteronomy 18:18 refers to Jesus’ coming, a Messianic prophecy of sorts, he agrees that we Muslims also have no problem with the Christian understanding of the verse, as we too confirm that Jesus (may Allaah’s peace be upon him) was also a Prophet. However, Sam Shamoun has a problem with Br. Shabir’s confirmation that we do accept the Christian interpretation of the verse if applied to Jesus:

With the foregoing in perspective, doesn’t this show that Ally will conveniently adopt whatever interpretation helps his purpose of duping people into becoming Muslims? After all, these clips seem to indicate that when Ally wants to convince people that Muhammad is mentioned in the Holy Bible he will adopt the interpretation that Acts depicts the disciples as believing that the prophet like Moses was someone different than Christ. Yet when he wants to show that the disciples did not believe that Jesus is God he will then argue that Acts presents the disciples as proclaiming that Jesus is that prophet like Moses!

What Sam has willingly perverted in his understanding, is that Br. Shabir is using the Christian comprehension of the verse, which the quote that Sam himself provided has stated:

“Now it is true that Muslims and Christians claim two very different things about Jesus. Muslims and Christians do believe, and agree, that he was a prophet. Many Christians do not actually realize that this is a necessary part of the Christian proclamation.”

Sam is simply grasping for straws to attack Br. Shabir since he was humiliated a few years ago, by the Brother in a debate:

Sam then goes on what I can only determine to be an emotional tirade, mocking Brother Shabir with insults, while insulting the Qur’an and even to the extent, he was trying to quote the Bible to insult us, but in reality only provided an argument against himself:

““For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with You. The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity. You destroy those who speak falsehood; The LORD abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit.” Psalm 5:4-6″

This is definitely interesting, as Sam is using deceit in this article. Br. Shabir was referencing the Christian position and Sam’s intentional misread to be used to attack the Brother, is initself deceit. He has based his entire article, which contains atleast 10 insults and abuses, based on his own error:

  • “Muslim Dawagandist”
  • “inconsistent and deceptive”
  • “document his lies, deceptions and gross inconsistencies.”
  • “Ally will just about say and do anything in order to win an argument or deceive people into believing his false religion”
  • “exposes Ally as dishonest and deceitful, it is simply silly to think manipulation and deceit will remain undetected”
  • “Your lies will not only be exposed and punished”
  • “they will come back to haunt you in this life and destroy your credibility”

He even became so desperate to attack the brother, that he misused Jesus’ words in the Bible:

“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him.Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44

I could not contain my laughter after having read this verse, knowing the true context, I really must contest Sam’s ability to be literate. Did he simply do a word search for the words, “deceit” and “lie” and then copy paste them into his article, while wiping the foam from around his mouth after his petulant digression? To put the verse into context, this is one of Jesus’ alleged anti-Jewish remarks:

44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” 48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?” – Bible : John (8) : 44 – 48.

Hopefully, Sam the missionary, will learn his lesson and change his tactics since his lies are coming back to expose and discredit him.

There’s nothing like using Sam’s own words against him.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best].

 

« Older Entries Recent Entries »