Tag Archives: CL Edwards

Francis Turretin Responds

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Francis Turretin, an ally of James White sought to respond to this post, however I took it upon myself to respond to his article the very same day. What occurred after, was his complete unwillingness and abandonment to properly respond to my arguments, by dismissing them as being not cogent, because I , allegedly, did not provide any real arguments for my positions. The problem for Mr. Turretin is this, my initial article quoted all the references and citations I needed to present my cases, which he denied, but then quoted:

Regarding the author’s conclusion, the solution he is offering is a qualification on the protection of “until newer revelation was sent.” That solution is not actually found in the materials he has identified.  In other words, the context has not substantiated his charge.

Yet, I clearly demonstrated that in his very article, where he quoted me, the evidence was provided for my case:

So as we can see, the Qur’an is correct, God did protect the meaning of His message, until newer revelation was sent. For example the Qur’an abrogates the Injil as the Injil abrogated the Tawrah, and if the case arose where persons were distorting the meaning of a scripture or Prophet’s message, we read that God sent apostles, messengers, Prophets in some instances to correct the people (see 36:14 above).

What is worse, is when he made this comment:

He has not behaved himself like a gentleman in his posts. I would tolerate all that if he could simply provide us with some cogent argument for his position. I trust that the post above and the comments already in this thread demonstrate that no such cogent argument has been presented yet. But yes – there is no point to responding simply to his polemics as such.

Although, in several places, he praised my arguments and accepted them as being valid, so much so, he even said we agreed. This now leaves me bewildered. On one end he’s saying my arguments are nonsensical, while on the other hand, he’s quick to say we agreed wholeheartedly:

Thus, this particular author has made a more general statement, akin to our (1) above.

So far, the author seems to have provided a reasonable presentation of the position he is arguing against, although we would say “God’s word” rather than “God’s words.”

He even injects some praise, calling my argument and my positions, “reasonable”. I accept that they were, I knew what I wrote, therefore on what grounds exactly, does he then change his mind, a few hours later in the privacy of the comments on his blog? Well, I posted the link, just the link to my article responding to him in his comments and this is what he had to say [bold emphasis is my own, words are his however]:

Thanks for taking the time to read my refutation of your post, and for replying. I’m not sure it’s worth my time to reply again, as it seems obvious to me that you didn’t understand my post.

But I will provide a few comments. You appeal to a Jewish legend regarding the Torah, which claims that all the copies of the Torah were destroyed by Ahaz, except one that was hid by God, and which was subsequently discovered, after a period of several decades.

You seem to think that this is demonstration of the fact that God allowed His word not to be preserved. Yet, obviously, even in the legend the word is preserved (moreover this word that is being preserved in the legend is the same Pentateuch we have now).

In your concluding remarks you make reference to the fictional Scroll of Antiochus (the scroll really exists, but the work is fictional). How that scroll (you reference “scrolls” but one assumes that is a typo) is supposed to substantiate your claims is a mystery.

Virtually the entire rest of your response is a series of grousings that we haven’t accepted your assertion that “Torah” doesn’t refer to the Old Testament, and “Injil” doesn’t refer to the New Testament. Perhaps if you offered some cogent arguments on that point, we would have something to discuss – but simply asserting it and accusing people who don’t agree with you of dishonesty will earn you only a lack of interest in your call.

May peace be upon all those who serve the Prince of Peace,

TurretinFan

To which my reply was:

I’m pretty sure I understood your post, all your points pivoted on the belief that the Injeel = New Testament and Torah = Old Testament, all you tried to do, was say I’m wrong because there is a clear connection between the two, while not presenting a single shred of evidence for that. What’s worse is that I clearly pointed out the contradiction in your narrative, which you failed to address even in this comment.

Jewish legend? No sir, I quoted a reliable Jewish historical source, that is on par with Patristic writings, a compendium of information which has come to us through some of the greatest Judaic scholars, I’m insulted that you’d demean Judaic literary sources in such a whimsical light.

I did not say this was a demonstration of God not protecting His word, rather I said it was a demonstration from among your own peoples where your scripture (which I do not consider to be from God), disappeared totally. A response to your argument, which you asserted was implausible.

The work, according to most Judaic sources was on par with the Torah in terms of authority, regarded as something to be revered and respected, see Mattis Kantor – The Spark of All Truths.

I presented my case on the disconnect between the Torah and Injil versus the Testaments very explicitly, I can’t see why your only argument against my arguments is to simply deny them. I do hold you to be dishonest, I presented cases underwhich you ignored and further so, where you twisted my words, asserting that I agreed the Testaments = Injil/ Torah. Perhaps integrity will earn you some elucidation, until such a time, properly read my works before trying to respond to them,

As Salaamu ‘ala Man Ittaba al Huda,
Ijaz Ahmad.

and with that, perhaps the discussion is over, maybe one day it would continue, but unlike Mr. Turretin who then proceeded to cast aspersions on my character and essentially encourage his membership to engage in a hive mind of Muslimophobia, with a person by the name of Sammy Shmn, whether this is Sam Shamoun or a person using his name, it was highly disrespectful for Mr. Turretin to pervert academic discourse with mockery, perhaps this is normal to him, but in the world of proper discourse you try your best to keep personal attacks out of the discussion. May God guide such people.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: Does Allah Preserve His Words? [Francis Turretin]

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

What is most interesting is that James White’s, “friend”, tried very ecstatically to only in vain, end up poorly refuting the arguments presented in my earlier response to his inanity, located here. Strikingly, the most profound statement that the Alpha and Omega Ministry’s blog took offense with, was the application of the title of “deceit and ignorance” being attributed to the pseudo-scholar James White:

Since I am on James White’s blogging team, and am friends with him, I was sure to carefully read an article posted with the alarming title, “Exposing James White’s Deceit and Ignorance of Islamic Scripture,” from the “Calling Christians” website.

However, the author goes on to actually prove that the statement was indeed valid, as we read, he instead brushes off his mistakes by labeling them, “differences of opinion while clearly as expected, perverting my own words. There is no difference of opinion when it comes to the asma wa sifaat of Allaah, especially when it concerns His Kalamullah (Words) being able to become corrupted. This was covered extensively in my earlier post on this very topic, therefore I suggest if anyone was to actually attempt to respond to it, that they should have made it a priority to actually read the content:

The title wasn’t supported by the body of the piece. “Deceit and Ignorance” turned out to be, at most, a difference of opinion between the author of the piece and my friend, Dr. White.

It’s easy for undereducated Christians to make a folly of Islamic ‘aqida, as it’s common for them to perpetuate such intellectual fraud among their own circles. What I suggest for Mr. TurretinFan is that he should have atleast read some primer materials on ‘aqidah before undertaking the task of “refuting me”. To begin with, he incorrectly identifies the Old and New Testaments as the scriptures being spoken of in the Qur’an:

There is a lot of baggage mixed in there, but the author of the piece is correct that we think that it is inconsistent to hold to the ideas that (1) Allah preserves his word, (2) the Old and New Testaments are the word of Allah, and (3) the Old and New Testaments are corrupt.

I never made the assertion (and if they would like to prove me wrong, they are free to quote me), whether explicitly or implicitly, that the Old and New Testaments are the revealed Words of Allaah, to the contrary, I made it a significant point to indicate that they are mutually exclusive of being the Words of Allaah:

Corruption of Scripture: Textual Alterations:
However, now we’ve arrived at the crux of the matter, textual corruption. As Muslims we assert that God’s message is preserved by God (as seen above, contextually), but what about textually? We read earlier that God protects His message in totality, that is, textually and contextually (meanings, interpretations). However as Muslims, we also do say that we do not believe in the Old Testaments of the Jews and Christians nor do we believe in the New Testaments of the Christians as being valid, because we assert they are not the words of God. Since they are not the words of God, they can indeed become corrupted and God did not promise to guard the works of man, but only His words.

For example, in the case of the Old Testament, where missionary zealots such as Sam Shamoun and James White try to propose, that their Torah is the Torah from Allaah, we have to correct that appeal to ignorance. The Qur’an does not say that the Old Testament is the word of God, in fact, we read above (5:13) where the Qur’an calls the Torah/ Old Testament of the Jews and Christians as being interpolations from the tongues and minds of men. It is in this regard that the Islamic belief is not that God’s word was corrupted, but that people wrote words and then claimed them to be God’s:

فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُ‌وا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.  – Qur’an : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.

With that being said, we must come to the understanding that when the Qur’an says that the message became corrupted, that is textually, it refers to those who put aside God’s revelation and in its stead, replaced the void with their own sayings, beliefs and propaganda. One example is of the Christian New Testament. The Qur’an says that a scripture (Injil) was given to Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him):

وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِ‌هِمْ بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْ‌يَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَ‌اةِ ۖ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنْجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ‌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَ‌اةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِلْمُتَّقِي
And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. – Qur’an : 5: 46.

However Christians by themselves prove the Islamic belief of textual corruption as displayed above:

(1) Muslims believe that Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him) was given a revelation by God called the Injil.
(2) Christians believe that inspired scripture about Jesus originated with the apostles of Christ.

Therefore the Christian argument in reality disproves itself. They have now failed on two fronts. Firstly, the premise that Muslims contradict themselves when they say the Bible is corrupted is proven false as we do not believe the Bible is the word of God. We don’t believe it is the word of God for namely two reasons:

(1) Christians assert it’s from the apostles and not from the Prophet Jesus (may God be pleased with him).
(2)
Christians assert the revelation (wahy) isn’t revelation verbatim from God, which is what Muslims believe, but that the Bible is an inspired word from God, through the words of men.

It must have been either one of two consequential actions:

(1) Either the AO blog, misread my statements on the Testaments.
(2) Or, they purposefully ignored them.

Nowhere, had they attempted in any way, shape and or form, to actually refute the points given above, they never touched upon the clear contradiction in their narratives. For example, while we hold that ‘Isa (alayhi as salaam) had a wahy (revelation) with him, they believe in words inspired to men, decades later (Paul’s Epistles, Pastorials, Synoptic Gospels). What they’ve instead tried to do, was to generalize statements and act as if I agreed with them on many areas:

Thus, this particular author has made a more general statement, akin to our (1) above.

So far, the author seems to have provided a reasonable presentation of the position he is arguing against, although we would say “God’s word” rather than “God’s words.”

This is not the case, I have to indicate that this is poor scholarship, on what modus operandi, do you possibly function on, that it is deemed acceptable to purposefully mislead and twist the words of your intellectual opponent? As displayed above, we do not agree, nor do I accept your appeals to the fallacy of hasty generalization, to cover your appeal to ignorance towards Islamic ‘aqidah. Take note sir, dishonest scholarship, is no scholarship. Following his trail of perpetual deceit, we read:

We are aware that the way Muslims attempt to hold these two ideas is by limiting (1) to simply saying that Allah preserves some portion (or all) of the Qur’an and/or by denying that the Old and New Testaments correspond to the Torah and Injeel.

No Muslim, nor myself in my writings have ever indicated that Allaah limits the preservation of the Qur’aan in any way. We hold is true to be that the Qur’an is the Kalamullah (Word of Allaah) and that it has always been whether directly (Allaah sending Angel Jibra’eel during Ramadhan) or indirectly (Huffaz) His promise to protect it in its entirety. I would like to see where I have ever indicated otherwise.

Secondly, we in ourselves do not deny that the Old and New Testaments correspond to the Torah and Injeel, rather, it is the Christians who make the claim that the Torah is the Old Testament and the Injeel is the New Testament, therefore the onus is upon you to prove this. However, when they make this claim, as aforementioned, they are appealing to a contradiction in their narrative:

However Christians by themselves prove the Islamic belief of textual corruption as displayed above:

(1) Muslims believe that Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him) was given a revelation by God called the Injil.
(2) Christians believe that inspired scripture about Jesus originated with the apostles of Christ.

Therefore the Christian argument in reality disproves itself. They have now failed on two fronts. Firstly, the premise that Muslims contradict themselves when they say the Bible is corrupted is proven false as we do not believe the Bible is the word of God. We don’t believe it is the word of God for namely two reasons:

(1) Christians assert it’s from the apostles and not from the Prophet Jesus (may God be pleased with him).
(2)
Christians assert the revelation (wahy) isn’t revelation verbatim from God, which is what Muslims believe, but that the Bible is an inspired word from God, through the words of men.

If they author of that blog post, actually took time to have read my refutation of James White’s ignorance, he would have atleast attempted to not expose his own. What is worse is that the deceit from our Christian brethren does not cease there:

Clearly, the author has misunderstood Dr. White’s point. Dr. White was not arguing for corruption of God’s word, but simply noting a contradiction within Islamic views.

There was no contradiction in the Islamic view, which is why I indicating that James White was wrong. It was not my intention to misunderstand anything Mr. White had stated, rather it was my intention to demonstrate that he did not properly understand Islamic ‘aqidah when it comes to the Word of Allaah, which is why I wrote this:

Therefore we must correct James’ assertion that we believe God’s words can be corrupted by man, the Qur’an is clear that God would not allow this. It is the belief of all Muslims and if one did not know this belief (you now kn0w) that it is impermissible for a Muslim to believe that God’s words can become corrupted.

As my previous post would have mentioned, we do not hold that God’s word was corrupted, rather words were written by men and attributed to God:

For example, in the case of the Old Testament, where missionary zealots such as Sam Shamoun and James White try to propose, that their Torah is the Torah from Allaah, we have to correct that appeal to ignorance. The Qur’an does not say that the Old Testament is the word of God, in fact, we read above (5:13) where the Qur’an calls the Torah/ Old Testament of the Jews and Christians as being interpolations from the tongues and minds of men. It is in this regard that the Islamic belief is not that God’s word was corrupted, but that people wrote words and then claimed them to be God’s:

فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُ‌وا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.  – Qur’an : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.

With that being said, we must come to the understanding that when the Qur’an says that the message became corrupted, that is textually, it refers to those who put aside God’s revelation and in its stead, replaced the void with their own sayings, beliefs and propaganda. One example is of the Christian New Testament.

The author then proceeds to what I must say, is to quote me, then say I did not provide evidence for my quote, which infact, he himself did quote, that is just to demonstrate the poor scholarship at the AO Ministry:

Regarding the author’s conclusion, the solution he is offering is a qualification on the protection of “until newer revelation was sent.” That solution is not actually found in the materials he has identified.  In other words, the context has not substantiated his charge.

Yet he quoted it right here, from my own article:

So as we can see, the Qur’an is correct, God did protect the meaning of His message, until newer revelation was sent. For example the Qur’an abrogates the Injil as the Injil abrogated the Tawrah, and if the case arose where persons were distorting the meaning of a scripture or Prophet’s message, we read that God sent apostles, messengers, Prophets in some instances to correct the people (see 36:14 above).

It was then nonsensical for the author to have made this point, if it had only been taken into consideration of the verses which I quoted and cited:

It seems that (for part of the argument) the author is trying to argue that the Qur’an’s references to corruption relate to attempted corruption of the meaning, but that this attempted corruption was essentially ineffective. This approach might make sense, but would imply that the meaning remains intact.

The Qur’an itself satiates those claims, that the meaning was indeed kept intact by the messengers sent to correct the people (read: 36:14). He continues to make the claim that I believe the Torah and Injil are the Old and New Testaments:

That solution implies that the Old and New Testaments are intact in their meaning (within the context of Dr. White’s criticism).

I never implied this, nor stated this explicitly, rather I demonstrated above (if the author had only cared to read), that their narrative is self contradictory. He then proceeds to actually prove himself wrong, first he states:

This is the approach mentioned above of denying that the Old and New Testaments correspond to the Torah and Injeel. But is this feasible? Let’s consider how the author of the article tries to defend this approach:

Then he states:

As for the last argument, this argument is only relevant to the Gospels, not to the Torah or the Zabur (Psalter, book of Psalms).

He begins his refutation by immediately ignoring the examples of Old Testament corruption and implying that my arguments can only be applied to the New Testament, this is incorrect as I specifically quoted and cited verses and commentary on other verses which demonstrate Old Testament corruption from the Qur’an, see 2:79, 4:46, 3:78 . I would like to point out to the author, that ignoring my points and misleading his readers is not a refutation, but a mockery of his own futility. Then he goes on to really prove his ignorance of Islamic teachings:

Moreover, this argument presupposes that it is true that the Injil was given as a revelation to Jesus. However, this assertion itself is not correct. Indeed, it is simply another error of Mohamed’s teaching.

This argument, presupposes that the true Injeel is the one which came after Jesus, this is not a correct assumption, as the Messengers of God (Moses, David) accompanied their scripture, and as this is a response to the ignorance of James White on Islamic teachings, then it is absurd to think that I authored my article under the assumption that the New Testament was God’s word. Indeed, an appeal to wishful thinking. His lack of reading and on Islamic teachings is then made further extant:

This point is also something of a red herring. Even if there were a different book called the Injil that was allegedly given to Jesus, where has this been preserved at all? In other words, the situation is much worse for the Muslim who tries to avail himself of this particular argument. Instead of simply small textual variants in the New Testament, now the Muslim must account for the seeming complete destruction of the whole book and any record of its existence. After all, there is no record before Mohammed of any book given to Jesus. There is a similar problem with respect to the argument about the Torah. So, the Muslim is claiming that the Torah which has been preserved is not the Torah referenced in the Qur’an. But then the lack of preservation is much worse than the Muslim has contended – the original Torah is completely gone if the one we have is not the original Torah but some new fake Torah.

He is operating under the belief that supposedly the words of God cannot become lost or damned to history, when in fact, we read from the Jewish Encyclopedia, that for over 23 years, the words of God had been lost:

High priest in the reign of Josiah (II Kings xxii. 4 et seq.). It is probable that he was the Hilkiah ben Shallum who figures in the genealogy of high priests in I Chron. v. 39 (A. V. vi. 13), and that he was, consequently, father of Azariah and great-grandfather of Ezra the Scribe (ib.; Ezra vii. 1). Ḳimḥi and Abravanel (to Jer. i. 1), however, give his father’s name as “Shaphan.”Josiah commissioned Hilkiah to superintend the repairs of the Temple; and it was when the latter took the silver from the Temple treasury that he found the scroll of the Law (II Kings xxii. 4-8; II Chron. xxxiv. 9-14). Hilkiah gave the scroll to Shaphan the Scribe; the latter read it before the king, who, terrified by the divine warnings, sent Hilkiah with four other high officials to consult the prophetess Huldah (II Chron. xxxiv. 20 et seq.). The finding of the scroll was the cause of the great reformation effected by King Josiah.The question as to the nature of the scroll and the cause of the impression it made on Josiah, which has evoked so much higher criticism, is answered in a very simple manner by the Jewish commentators Rashi, Ḳimḥi, and many others. They say that when Ahaz burned the scrolls of the Law the priests of Yhwh hid one copy in the Temple, and that Hilkiah found it while searching for the silver. The scroll happened to be open at the passage Deut. xxviii. 36; and it was this that terrified Josiah. Kennicott (“Heb. Text,” ii. 299) tries to infer from II Chron. xxxiv. 14 that Hilkiah found the original autograph copy of Moses.- The Jewish Encyclopedia, Priest Hilkiah.

Therefore his argument has been thoroughly refuted, proof by contradiction, as seen above. We clearly have an instance of an entire codex of the word of God being lost by the Jews, what is worse is that I can even present the case of the tablets of which the 10 commandments were originally recorded upon. Where are those tablets? In fact, if it is that Priest Hilkiah on one hand found the original manuscripts of Moses’ writing of the Torah, can he present that for me, rather than the Masoretic Text or the Greek Septuagint? No! Therefore he has refuted himself. He then continues to misrepresent the Qur’an:

Moreover, there is another problem, the Koran seems to suggest that the Torah and Injil are in the possession of the people of Mohammed’s day: وَلَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ كِتَابٌ مِّنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ مُصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَهُمْ وَكَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ يَسْتَفْتِحُونَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُم مَّا عَرَفُوا كَفَرُوا بِهِ ۚ فَلَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognised, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith. Qur’an 2:89 (Yusuf Ali translation)

However, this has been completely refuted and demonstrated as baseless in my responses to Sam Shamoun, see Part 1 and Part 2, this is merely a copy pasted argument from James’ friends. I must request that the author desist from eisegesis on the Qur’an, as he would become upset if I were to reinterpret and misrepresent his own scripture, therefore in the nature of academic honesty, I request that he corrects his mistake and apologize for the abuse towards scripture, it is indeed very insulting to see Christians having to become this dishonest in their workings. May God indeed, guide you from such horrendous decorum. He furthers his rant, by saying:

If the Torah and Injil are something that were with Christians and Jews in the 7th century, then they weren’t destroyed. Moreover, we know what the Old and New Testaments looked like in the 7th century – in fact we have even older copies than that.

The Qur’an never makes the assertion that the Torah and Injeel that existed in 7 C.E. were the revealed words of Allaah, rather, they were interpolated works, ascribed to Allaah (much like the homonymous writings of the New Testament). I really do suggest that the author read on the response to Sam Shamoun, linked above, it covers the arguments for and against, with many references and citations with numerous areas of research to have a comprehensive and holistic response. What was indeed funny, was his accepting that the Injeel as the Qur’an states, was given to ‘Isa (alayhi as salaam) is not the New Testament:

We do not believe that only the ideas but not the words are inspired. Our view of the mechanism of inspiration may differ from that of Muslims (we don’t believe that the words simply are spoken, as it were, in the ears of the prophets), but that difference seems to be irrelevant to this particular argument.

Therefore, he proved my point above, that the Injeel which the Qur’an refers to and the New Testament do not correspond to each other, i.e. they are not the same but mutually exclusive. He has therefore, proved that his argument was false and misleading. He continues:

The Torah and Injil are now not merely somehow obscured through textual variation, but instead are completely destroyed. Under this theory, they are preserved much worse than if the Old and New Testaments are the Torah and Injil.

This is a bit funny, as below he would eventually come to this conclusion:

As for the fallacy of ad ignorantium, it has not been substantiated by the author of the article, and so we may leave our response at that.

Yet, he thinks it is fanciful, that the Torah could have been lost, yet this was satiated by the Jewish Encyclopedia above, there were three instances in history where the Torah and other religious scripture were completely lost for a number of years or damned from history entirely:

(1) The scrolls of Antiochus.
(2) When Ahaz burned the Torah.
(3) When Josiah son of Ammon ruled, for 23 years.

It’s worse for him, because above we read that the Priest had rediscovered the original manuscripts of Moses, yet can the author link us to them? Can he show us where they are? No. All he can show us are manuscripts from the Masoretes and the from the Septuagint, centuries after. Therefore he has again, disproved himself.

In conclusion, the author over at the AO Ministry Blog, has not refuted a single point within my original article, but what he has done is demonstrate to us his inability to read, his appeal to ignorance, his disdain for realising his contradicting arguments and his willingness to pervert and distort my words. I do hope, that if he does have any self respect, shame or even honesty that he removes that horrendous article of complete absurdity and at a later date, possibly recompense himself with a proper attempt at a refutation.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

 

Nigerian Christians Kill and Eat Muslims

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In one of the most horrific acts of Christian endorsed violence, Nigerian Christians attacked group of Muslims, burnt them alive in their cars then proceeded to eat them and share the burnt flesh of the dead for more to consume:

This deadly ignorance was again demonstrated on the 28th of August; Birom (Berom) Christians were recorded in this video, eating Muslims they had killed and roasted. The event occurred when Christians surrounded Muslims observing their Eid annual holy devotion. Due to a miscommunication with the police, there was no usual requested security at the venue, a necessity in polar Jos. Christian youth surrounded the praying Muslims, burned their cars, pelted them and then killed, roasted and ate some.

At a point as the flesh is being roasted, someone says in Hausa language “…ni zuciyan na ke so…” meaning: “I want the heart”, while another person goes further to ask “…ka sa gishiri?” meaning: “…did you put some salt”? The large crowd’s visible complicity and excitement as they eagerly anticipate their cannibalistic feast marks a descent in our collective sense of humanity in Nigeria. What I find most ironic is that these butchers and party are communicating in Hausa language, the language of their slain “enemy” or rather, their “meal” and not their own native berom language. The presence of a police vehicle in the area where the “feasting” and cannibalism on slaughtered Muslims is taking place raises questions. The police should be protecting people, maintaining law and order and stopping any criminal activity from taking place, shouldn’t they? Of course as the video shows, this is not the case.

The news report even has videos and several links to other mainstream websites with the images of the attack. Parental guidance is advised as these images and videos are very gross and indecent. Perhaps the most sick thing to be seen from this is their eating of the dead flesh, and their sharing it, literally having a feast.

Click this to go to the videos, images and compendium of news articles.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: Proving Original Sin from the Quran

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The pseudo ex-Muslim and Islamophobe, Chessie Williams has authored a piece, portraying his absolute ignorance of both Islamic and Christian theologies. I personally apologize on his behalf for the time anyone has wasted on reading his article. With that in mind, let’s begin to analyse what he’s said and what reality would prefer to have us believe:

“..Adam forgot and his offspring forgot, Adam made a mistake and his offspring made mistakes”. Hadeeth in  At-Tirmidhi also in Tafsir Ibn Kathir

This is what he begins with, and I’m very sure that what he’s attempting to portray cannot be made extant from this quotation. All this hadith is saying, is that Adam {as} made mistakes and his offspring (mankind) also made mistakes, this is part of the human nature which Allaah further explains through His Prophet {saw}:

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “I swear by Him in whose hand is my soul, if you were a people who did not commit sin, Allah would take you away and replace you with a people who would sin and then seek Allah’s forgiveness so He could forgive them.” [Sahīh Muslim (2687)]

Therefore it is in this regard, that Adam’s {as} sinning and his offspring’s sinning, is allowed (these acts against God’s commands) because it has a purpose and that purpose is for Allaah to forgive them of their sins. This then puts Chessie’s quote into context, the hadith does not mean because Adam {as} sinned, that we would all sin, but that Adam’s {as} sinning is part of why God created us, and that sinning is what God expects of us humans, so that we may seek forgiveness from Him. Therefore Adam’s {as} sinning is not permanent upon him, as that would mean forgiveness was never an option, yet we can logically derive the view that sinning presupposes forgiveness through the Hadith in Sahih al Muslim. He then goes on to make a series of incoherent and unintelligible statements:

Islam claims that Allah forgave Adam of the sin of eating from the tree(in the middle of the Garden), there is no original Sin, everyone is born sinless on the natural inclination of Islam, and Sin is purely individualist(No concept of Adam being mankind’s Federal head). Allah doesn’t allow anyone to carry the burden of another persons Sin(certainly not Adams).

Perhaps it would be rash of me to point this out, but I am perturbed by the ignorance that Chessie Williams is spewing. To begin with, indeed God is just, He does not place a burden upon a person where it is not due, He is Ar Rahman, Ar Rahim, (Most Loving, Most Caring) and it is in this light that Islamic theology accepts that each human enters this world sinless, they have not yet had the chance to sin before birth and by entering the world, they now have a medium to exercise their freewill, wherein that can choose to obey or disobey. It is absolutely unjust and irrational to think that God would cast a being with sin before they’ve yet had the chance to do so. Perhaps this is the unjust God which Chessie believes in, but this is not the nature of the God which Islam allows us to have faith in.

Secondly it is absurd to think that because Adam {as} sinned that we all have inherited his sin, if that is the case, should we also not inherit his good? Where is the original good deed in Christianity? Rather, it is a faith which looks to devalue the human ability, whereas we as Muslims accept the reality that we are adults, we do live and function in this world and therefore we accept the responsibility for the consequences of our actions. Perhaps it is ideal for Chessie and his zealot Christian brethren to have a fanciful belief that they are not responsible for their actions, but this is petulant and inane. Adam {as} sinning does not negate him from being the first man or the first human on the earth as Chessie would have us believe. In fact the Bible agrees with Islam in that no one person bears the sin of another:

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. – Ezekiel 18:20

as well as…

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. – Deuteronomy 24:16

Therefore we ask that Chessie takes responsibility for his actions and comes to his own, that he is indeed an adult. Even if you assume it’s a nonsensical Islamic belief, he cannot and should not ignore the commands of His Lord from within the Bible. If that is the case, then indeed his faith is as fraudulent as they come. Chessie then provides a short chronological list of the events that led to Adam {as} being removed from Jannah. He ends this list with a presupposed contradiction:

But what happens after that is the source of contradiction.
5 Allah orders Adam to get down from Jannah to earth, and from then on the following consequences take place:
A. He is enemies with Iblis.
B. Suffers death, sickness, and disease
C His children in turn suffer death, sickness, and disease
D. Man is subject to continual sinning, when before Adams Sin there was no Sin in man
E. Man is subject to being led astray from their pure fitrah and now risks going to hell
F. The world it seas, land and inhabitants have to now suffer because of Adams Sin.
“Corruption has appeared in the land and the sea on account of what the hands of men have wrought, that He may make them taste a part of that which they have done, so that they may return.[30.42] Ar-rum .

Forgive his appalling grammar, it took me a while to fully comprehend what his point was, I do understand that he’s under a lot of stress after being unable to defend himself from his own misgivings, but that does not excuse him from taking sometime to be considerate and accept that people would actually read what he writes.

The Qur’an answers all of his claims in one ayah, before Adam {as} sinned, God said in the Qur’an why He was creating Adam {as} and that He knew what Adam {as} would do on the earth:

وَإِذْ قَالَ رَ‌بُّكَ لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الْأَرْ‌ضِ خَلِيفَةً ۖ قَالُوا أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَنْ يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ الدِّمَاءَ وَنَحْنُ نُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِكَ وَنُقَدِّسُ لَكَ ۖ قَالَ إِنِّي أَعْلَمُ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ
Remember, when your Lord said to the angels: “I have to place a trustee on the earth,” they said: “Will You place one there who would create disorder and shed blood, while we intone Your litanies and sanctify Your name?” And God said: “I know what you do not know.” – Qur’an : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 30.

Therefore, Adam {as} was created to be placed on earth and God knew Adam {as} would sin. The sinning of mankind isn’t due to Adam {as} sinning, but the nature of mankind, according to the ayah, is that mankind’s feeble nature would allow them to sin as it is allowed by God. Also, Adam {as} being sent to the earth was the purpose of his creation as we read from the Ayah above. In this regard, the Qur’an clearly refutes Chessie, Adam {as} was created to live on the earth, this was part of God’s plan (Qadr) as we read from the Ayah and that God created Adam {as} knowing that Adam {as} and his progeny would do evil on the earth, as God granted them the freewill to do so.

Whereas in Islam, Adam {as} being sent to the earth and God allowing him and his progeny to live here was God’s plan, in Christianity it was a mistake, and therefore this is why Christians have to create excuses for mankind being sent to earth and doing evil:

The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. – Genesis 6:6

Recall, above we read that Chessie’s concept of God is one who creates man with sin, so God from the on start has condemned men, then God places men on earth due to a mistake which He did not foresee and therefore God regretted that He placed mankind on earth because this was not what God intended. This therefore brings us to two conclusions:

(1) Islam holds the belief that Adam {as} had freewill and was created with it, God created Adam {as} and his progeny to live on earth, knowing they would sin. This was all His plan.

(2) Christianity holds the belief that Adam’s {as} progeny are born with sin, God was not all knowing and did not foresee the evil His creation would do and therefore God made a mistake (He regretted) sending men to live on earth, it was not His plan.

Chessie then proceeds to demolish his own arguments further by making the following statement:

If Adam was truly forgiven then his state should have reverted back to what it was prior to his Sin, but instead as demonstrated(from the Quran) everything changed including the very nature of Mankind, and how he related to His creator.

Chessie, I advise you to actually read the Qur’an, let us recall once more why Adam {as} was created:

وَإِذْ قَالَ رَ‌بُّكَ لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الْأَرْ‌ضِ خَلِيفَةً ۖ قَالُوا أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَنْ يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ الدِّمَاءَ وَنَحْنُ نُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِكَ وَنُقَدِّسُ لَكَ ۖ قَالَ إِنِّي أَعْلَمُ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ
Remember, when your Lord said to the angels: “I have to place a trustee on the earth,” they said: “Will You place one there who would create disorder and shed blood, while we intone Your litanies and sanctify Your name?” And God said: “I know what you do not know.” – Qur’an : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 30.

Adam {as} was created to be sent to have his abode be earth (temporarily), until Yawmul Qiyamah (the Day of Judgement). This was God’s plan, because God is All Knowing and He Himself has said, “I know what you do not know”. Indeed, Chessie has not read the Qur’an therefore he could not have come to this understanding. Ignorance is bliss for Chessie as it allows him to pervert his understanding of Islam, one would think that a self claimant to being highly educated in Islam would know what the 30th verse of the second chapter says, but alas, we find fools everywhere, Chessie is by no means any exception. As the famous Latin saying goes….”damnant quod non intelligunt“, they condemn what they do not understand.

He then tries to portray Adam {as} as being devoid of God’s mercy, that Adam {as} is incapable of having a good relationship with His Lord:

We know from narrations that Sin cause’s one to be banned from having direct relational communion with God…

Yet, the ayat he references deals with the Day of Judgement:

“Nay! Surely, they (evil doers) will be veiled from seeing their Lord that Day” al-Mutafiffoon 83:15

Yet, God in the Qur’an refutes Chessie’s claim again, God praises Adam {as} and lauds him as one who has received God’s grace and mercy:

Thereafter Adam received certain words from his Lord, and He turned towards him; truly He turns, and is All-compassionate.- Qur’an 2:37.

To summarize, Adam {as} being sent to the earth was one of his purposes for being created and his allowance of freewill to do good or cause evil was determined by Allaah, it was not an unexpected surprise which caused God to have a panic attack and have subsequent regret and grievances as Genesis 6:6 would lead us to believe. God willing, Chessie  Williams does read this and in doing so, does learn to read the first 30 verses of the second chapter of the Qur’an.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

 

Response: Why I Love Jesus But Reject Islam

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The popular anti-Semite, James White whose infamous incoherent rants against Islam which are taught by undereducated and abusive friends has collaborated on a video to display his poor workmanship and lack of intellectualism when it comes to Islamic doctrine. While he spends most of his time attacking Arabo-Islamic thought, he also spends a lot of time thinking of new ways to embarrass himself when it comes to displaying his knowledge of Islam or for that matter, recently Calvinism as well. One brother did a really wonderful response to his petulant video, “Why I Love Jesus but Reject Islam”, which you can view below:

 

Hopefully, James White can someday become the academic he falsely promotes himself as, and with that in mind, then he may actually be able to discuss Islam with Muslims.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Nigerian Pastor Running from Debate

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Another ally of Sam Shamoun [pictured below], Isang Udo-Akagha, is well known for challenging Muslims to debates. His activities include writing insulting notes on Facebook, posting pictures of himself on all groups and mocking Muslims. He likes to parade himself as a “friend of Muslims”, yet his rhetoric is childish, he simply goes to AI’s website, copy pastes whatever he can find and gives it to his congregation. For sometime now, a brother had approached Mr. Isang Udo-Akagha with a debate proposal and the supposed leader of the “Love a Muslim Ministry”, has refused to come forward and accept, yet he persists on insulting Islam and Muslims. We can see him here below:

We can see his really spiteful behaviour, although he claims to be “friendly” in this recent Facebook posting by the “Evangelist for Muslims”:

Here he is, insulting the Prophet Muhammad {saw}, by claiming because Aisha {ra} narrated that he was sick, yet the very next hadith and the first hadith of that book fully clarifies the statement of our mother, Aisha {ra}:

Narrated ‘Aisha {ra}: (the wife of the Prophet) Allah’s Apostle {saw} said, “No calamity befalls a Muslim but that Allah expiates some of his sins because of it, even though it were the prick he receives from a thorn.” – Sahih al Bukhari : Book 70 (Patients) : 544.

Narrated ‘Abdullah {ra}: I visited the Prophet {saw} during his ailments and he was suffering from a high fever. I said, “You have a high fever. Is it because you will have a double reward for it?” He said, “Yes, for no Muslim is afflicted with any harm but that Allah will remove his sins as the leaves of a tree fall down.” – Sahih al Bukhari : Book 70 (Patients) : 550.

Therefore if the Pastor was so kind a to actually read the ahadith before condemning our Prophet {saw}, he would have retracted his insult. Clearly he is not a friend of Muslims, but a blind follower of hatred and ignorance. The hadith actually shows how merciful Allaah was to Muhammad {saw}, his illnesses were a means of bringing him closer to Allaah and rewarding the Messenger! If only the Pastor had read before he quoted!

What is worse is that for sometime, Br. Shoaib has been challenged the Pastor, which is a bit funny, as the Pastor keeps running:

again, he repeated the challenge:

The challenge still stands, if Pastor Isang Udo-Akagha can stop running away from challenges, while boasting he is a friend of Muslims by insulting their Prophet {saw}, then we’re set to go! Pastor, I hope you read this and I hope you can one day be an adult, apologize for your insults, your ignorance and your cowardice. Your hate mongering helps no one and only fuels the fire of discord among Adam’s {as} children.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Two Faced Sam Shamoun

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It’s very much wide known that Sam Shamoun of the AI team is a very abusive person. His demeanor is deplorable as his usual means of expressing himself is through hateful and spiteful comments. A video has been released that essentially in a few seconds really demonstrates his lack of public decorum  and his hypocritical behaviour. In this video we see him actually rushing to embrace Br. Shabir Ally, while when he has left the company of the brother and is recording, he makes some very abusive and insulting statements:

[Warning: Video has music during the introduction.]

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: God’s Grace or Self Righteous Suicide ?

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It is beyond fanciful and absurd, self delusional rhetoric to assume that the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity, is sin. Rather there are many facets of theological disagreement, beyond law, but dealing with the very nature of God. Therefore when Chessie L. Edwards makes a statement like this:

The difference between Christianity and Islam boils down to the issue of Sin

It only leaves much to be desired. Either Chessie Edwards has to overly simplify and generalize our faiths differences to negotiate his ignorance on these matters or he simply was being lazy. He then proceeds to summarize what he assumes Islam teaches about getting into paradise:

Islam says if you strive hard, be really religious and become a Muhsin(A good doer) upon Ihsan(The highest level of Islamic spirituality) you can purify your own heart and earn yourself a place in this Garden.

The premise of freewill which God has created us with, allows us humans to choose whether to do good or to commit sin. If it is, that God did not want us to have this choice, then we would either only sin or only do good, then we would not have been created with the ability of freewill. What Chessie is trying to imply is that we cannot by ourselves do good, or that we will never be able to do enough good to gain heaven on our own merit. To an extent this is true, we cannot rely on our own acts to get us into heaven because as humans we often err without reason. However that does not indicate that God did not give us a solution.

One of God’s attributes is to be Ar Rahman (The Most Merciful), with that in mind His mercy is as such that He is oft forgiving and most forgiving. One way we can seek to gain paradise is through God’s mercy and that relates to our sincerity in our repentance for our sins. We read this in both the Bible and the Qur’an:

Qur’aan 25:71
And whosoever repents and does righteous good deeds, then verily, he repents towards Allâh with true repentance.

Qur’aan 28:67
But any that (in this life) had repented, believed, and worked righteousness, will have hopes to be among those who achieve salvation.

Qur’aan 3:89
Except for those that repent (even) after that and make amends: for verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Qur’aan 7:153
But those who do wrong but repent thereafter and (truly) believe― verily Thy Lord is thereafter Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Qur’aan 20:82
Surely I am the Most-Forgiving for him who repents and believes and acts righteously, then follows the right path.

2 Chronicles 32:26
Then Hezekiah repented of the pride of his heart, as did the people of Jerusalem; therefore the LORD’s wrath did not come on them during the days of Hezekiah.

Job 34:33
Should God then reward you on your terms, when you refuse to repent? You must decide, not I; so tell me what you know.

Job 36:10
He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of their evil.

Isaiah 30:15
This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says: “In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it.

Matthew 3:8
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

Matthew 4:17
From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

Mark 6:12
They went out and preached that people should repent.

Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Luke 15:10
In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

and both the Bible and the Qur’aan have many more of these quotes. There is a common theme that we can derive from the above quotations. Believe (have faith), do good works and repent for whatever sins you have. Therefore, it is in this regard, that we can accept that Islam and Christianity agree on a plan for salvation. The problem however, has come with those people who have deviated from the true religion of the Christ. Instead of obeying his words of belief in God, doing good works and repenting, they rather believe in him as a God, and seek repentance through his alleged death, both things he himself never mentions in the New Testament.

What is most ironic however, is the hypocritical view of Chessie, this is what he has to say if someone rejects Islam:

As for the vast majority of everyone else they will have to take God’s wrath upon themselves by being burned in hell until they atone for their Sins. How long a person stays in the fire and how much wrath they take is all up to the will of God..it could be 50 years or it could be 50,000 years.

Yet, this is also true for Christianity. A person who rejects the Christ as a God is deemed a sinner and therefore will suffer eternal perdition( torture/ punishment in hell):

2 Peter 3:7
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

After having said this, is Chessie denying that God will punish disbelievers and therefore that’s why he mentions the punishment as endorsed by Islam, or is he trying to paint Islam as being barbaric because disbelievers are punished? I am asking because as displayed above, even his own faith endorses the position of eternal punishment for disbelievers. Even the acts of believers are rejected according to the Bible:

Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Whereas the Qur’aan says:

Surah 99:1-8
When the earth with be trembled with its quake, and the earth will bring forth its burdens, And man will say, “What has happened to it?” That day it will describe all its happenings, Because its Lord will have so commanded it. That day the people will come back (from the place of reckoning) in different groups, so that they may be shown (the fruits of) their deeds. So, whoever does any good act (even) to the weight of a particle will see it. And whoever does evil (even) to the weight of a particle will see it.

Whether it be a smile or a thought, essentially, in Islam, any moment not spent in sin, is a moment earned in good acts/ deeds. This is the mercy and glory of God’s love for mankind:

Narrated Anas (may God be pleased with him): The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “My Lord says, ‘If My slave comes nearer to me for a span, I go nearer to him for a cubit; and if he comes nearer to Me for a cubit, I go nearer to him for the span of outstretched arms; and if he comes to Me walking, I go to him running.’ “Sahih al Bukari : Book 93 : Hadith 627.

On the other hand however, as Chessie, has correctly stated, the standard that God holds man to is very low. While Islam acknowledges that mankind are sinners, it also accepts that mankind also does good, however, let’s see what Christianity says about mankind according to Chessie:

Christianity on the other hand says man is totally depraved and a natural born habitual Sinner. God’s standard’s of obedience is that you never disobey Him not even once.. which mankind no matter how hard it tries can ever accomplish.

Christianity according to Chessie Edwards, is a faith that holds men to be incapable bumbling idiots, that couldn’t do good if they wanted to, as in his terms, he’s said, “totally depraved”, i.e. completely morally corrupt and perverted. This is a contradiction however, if mankind was completely morally corrupt, then that would mean that we had no freewill. Following my aforementioned assertion on freewill, we can gather that Chessie believes we don’t necessarily have freewill because we can only sin and err, i.e. do evil. With that in mind, then he must accept that God created us without freewill, otherwise, he has to retract his absurd statement and accept that we do have a choice and that we are capable of doing good. Hence it is why we see God forgiving men in the Bible and accepting their repentance:

Isaiah 30:15
This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says: “In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it.

It isn’t unusual to find Mr. Edwards contradicting his own scripture, but the lengths he goes, in consort with his frequency is quite alarming to say the least. I also must ask of him to prove his second statement, that the Bible commands that you not disobey God once, or else you earn eternal damnation. He continues to disparage his being, by insulting his very position as human:

Every human being know matter how religious or spiritual they are will always fall and Sin sooner or later. Sinners rightfully deserve God’s wrath because God has decreed so, but again weak imperfect humans could never stand under His wrath, Hell is not temporarily it’s eternal you never get out.

I agree that we will all sin sooner or later, whether out of mistake or vice, disobedience is inevitable. However Chessie acts as if God is devoid of mercy and as if God’s only attribute is that of wrath and vengeance.  This is not the case, for when God revealed the Tawrah to the Children of Israel, not only did He reveal guidelines, He also revealed punishments and along those punishments, further means of expiation for those sins. Fasting, sacrifice, all means of removing sin. Therefore the very premise that Chessie is asserting, that God will take wrath upon a person for his very being, or because he has committed one sin, is contradicted by the teachings of the scripture. He then goes on to demonstrate what I will call stark ignorance:

As hopeless as that sounds and man’s ability to save himself is hopeless.. out of God’s Love and  Mercy He provided a substitute so that anyone who’s has complete Faith in it can be saved. God provided the promised Messiah; God the only perfect one come to the world to live the life of a perfect Muhsin that you are too weak to accomplish and to take the wrath you are to frail to stand under.

He instead preaches that God places His wrath only on one person and we should accept that God’s mercy was to place our sins and the consequential wrath, upon another person. Yet, this contradicts the understanding of God’s mercy. Why would God, who judges each person individually, punish someone else for our inequities. This is neither fair nor just. Quite unlike God’s justice.  What is further more alarming, is the belief that Chessie still has to repent according to the Bible for his sins.

My question is this, if belief that Jesus died for your sins, earns you salvation (i.e. freedom from sin and the punishment of sin), then which Christian can claim to be sinless and which Christian can claim that he needs not repent? Can Chessie Edwards measure up to those claims?

Definitely no, as he said himself, man is totally depraved, therefore his concept of “salvation” is merely a fanciful though, an appeal to wishful thinking, fallacious and non-sensical. May God guide those who believe in such fairy tales.

 وَلَا تَهِنُوا وَلَا تَحْزَنُوا وَأَنتُمُ الْأَعْلَوْنَ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ
So do not lose heart or be grieved, for you will surely prevail if you are believers. – Qur’aan : Al i Imran (3) : 139.

wa Allaah Alam.
[and God knows best.]

James White’s Ignorance of Calvinist Teachings Regarding the Crucifxion

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It was sad to see a display of monumental incompetence from James White while discussing the Crucifixion of Jesus. His complete and total loss of composure and vile attitude was indeed shocking to say the least. However, when I quoted the Geneva Study Bible, a classic in Calvinist Exegesis on the Bible, his rejection of such a work really led me to question his purpose of trying to seriously engage me in discussion. The importance of John Calvin’s contribution to the Geneva Bible is extant:

“The Geneva Bible is the Bible with marginal notes authored by John Calvin, John Know and Miles Coverdale, and many other leaders of the Reformation. The Geneva Bible was the predominant English translation during the period in which the English and Scottish Reformations gained great impetus. Iain Murray, in his classic work on revival and the interpretation of prophecy, The Puritan Hope, notes, “…the two groups in England and Scotland developed along parallel lines, like two streams originating at one fountain. The foundation was no so much Geneva, as the Bible which the exiles newly translated and issued with many marginal notes… it was read in every Presbyterian and Puritan home in both realms”……. The greatest distinction of the Geneva Bible, however, is the extensive collection of marginal notes that it contains. Prominent Reformation leaders such as John Calvin, John Know and Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Theodore Beza, and Anthony Gilby wrote the majority of these notes in order to explain and interpret the scriptures. The notes comprise nearly 300,000 words, or nearly one-third the length of the Bible itself, and they are justifiably considered the most complete source of Protestant religious thought available.” – 1599 Geneva Bible Notes, Introduction, L. L. Brown Publishing.

In my questioning of the crucifixion of Jesus, I referred to Matthew 27:46 which reads:

About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

My point being, has Jesus according to his alleged own words, disbelieved in the plan (predestination) of God, which in itself is a Calvinist tenet or has he uttered words of blasphemy? I stated this and then for an addendum, included the words of the Geneva Study Bible, which reads:

27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou o forsaken me?

(o) That is, in this misery: And this crying out is a natural part of his humanity, which, even though it was void of sin, still felt the wrath of God, the wrath which is due to our sins.

In my message to James White, I indicated that Jesus was feeling the wrath of God, thus Jesus spoke words of abandonment/ disbelief:

James, after having read this, then sent a really interesting response. I was under the impression that he knew what the GSB (Geneva Study Bible) was, after all, he is a self claimant to being highly learned and a proponent of John Calvin’s theological teachings. However, whether out of pure ignorance or perhaps arrogance, he accused me of not properly understanding Jesus’ words. Yet the claim that Jesus spoke such words of disdain against God because of the pain of God’s wrath, did not originate from me, but from what is the most authentic Protestant Reformation source on Christian Bible Theology that has ever existed. This was his response:

It’s quite amusing to see Christian “scholarship” refuting their own scholar’s teachings. Here it is, James White, the illustrious Islamophobe, condemning his own source of Christian Theology. Sir, I greatly applaud you on your accusation against me, for it does not bother me in the least, but what it has done is significantly displayed your ignorance of your own teachings. It is in that light, you’ve demonstrated that you are not an authority on your religion, and for that matter on Islam as well, no matter how much you quote from an online Greek version of the Bible, that will never make you a scholar. Hopefully, after having written this, I pray that it does come to your attention and that I do hope that you one day, do actually commit to reading John Calvin’s words and the words/ works of other Protestant Reformists.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

 

Exposing James White’s Deceit and Ignorance of Islamic Scripture

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In a recent twitter exchange with James White, I found him proposing such an absurd view of Islamic ‘aqidah that I simply had to write an article to correct his misinformation. In the field of academia, we try our best to uphold certain standards, however Alpha and Omega Ministries as missionary zealots don’t have to appeal to this high standard of intellectualism. So what exactly is James’ problem this time around? Let’s see:

In essence, James White is appealing to the fallacious argument of appeal to ad ignorantium. Summarily, he’s trying to expound the concept that Muslims believe in a self contradicting tenet. This being, that in Islam, while we believe God’s word cannot become corrupted, we also believe that “God’s word” did come corrupt. For example, we say the Qur’an is the word of Allaah and therefore it cannot be changed or corrupted, yet in the same voice, supposedly we claim that the Injil and Tawrah, which are also the words of Allaah, have been altered. The terms which James is trying to use are, Tahrif ul Lafzi (corruption of written words) and Tahrif ul M’anavi (corruption of meaning).

What James White and his missionary zealot friends try to assert is that Muslims have not only a contradicting belief, but because of this belief it is the Qur’an which is wrong and the Bible is the true word of God.

Introduction:
The Islamic belief is that God protects His revelations from becoming corrupt, altered and interfered with. In this regard, we do not hold the belief that God’s words can succumb to corruption, alteration and human interference. The Qur’an substantiates this claim:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ‌ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian. – Qur’aan : 15 : 9.

Therefore we must correct James’ assertion that we believe God’s words can be corrupted by man, the Qur’an is clear that God would not allow this. It is the belief of all Muslims and if one did not know this belief (you now kn0w) that it is impermissible for a Muslim to believe that God’s words can become corrupted. With that in mind what about the verses in the Qur’an which mention the corruption of the previous scriptures such as the Injil, Tawrah and Zabur?

Corruption of God’s Words:
There are many verses in the Qur’an which indicate to us that God’s wahy (revelation) has been skewered by the hands of man, both literal words changes and contextual alterations (interpretations):

يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ ۙ وَنَسُوا حَظًّا مِمَّا ذُكِّرُ‌وا بِهِ ۚ وَلَا تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَىٰ خَائِنَةٍ مِنْهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مِنْهُمْ ۖ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاصْفَحْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِي
They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. – Qur’an : 5 : 13.

وَإِنَّ مِنْهُمْ لَفَرِ‌يقًا يَلْوُونَ أَلْسِنَتَهُمْ بِالْكِتَابِ لِتَحْسَبُوهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللَّـهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ
And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah. And they speak untruth about Allah while they know. – Qur’an : 3 : 78.

مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ‌ مُسْمَعٍ وَرَ‌اعِنَا لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ ۚ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانْظُرْ‌نَا لَكَانَ خَيْرً‌ا لَهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَـٰكِنْ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّـهُ بِكُفْرِ‌هِمْ فَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا
Among the Jews are those who distort words from their [proper] usages and say, “We hear and disobey” and “Hear but be not heard” and “Ra’ina,” twisting their tongues and defaming the religion. And if they had said [instead], “We hear and obey” and “Wait for us [to understand],” it would have been better for them and more suitable. But Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. – Qur’an : 4 : 46.

We seemingly have arrived at a theological impasse. On one end, we read above that God would protect His revelations and now we’re reading that God’s revelations were altered by men, corrupted, their meanings and letters distorted. Yet, before we jump to conclusions, we have to analyse what we have attained so far:

(1) God’s words cannot become corrupted.
(2) God’s words did become corrupted.

There seems to be a clear disconnect here. Something’s missing from this puzzle and we know what it is. Context. Did God’s word in itself become corrupted? And this is a question we must take seriously into consideration. What we see from the above verses is that there are two cases for God’s word apparently becoming corrupted:

(1) Interpretative alterations.
(2) Textual alterations.

With this in mind, let’s examine both cases.

Corruption of Scripture: Interpretative Alterations:
It is true as we read from the Qur’aan: 5:13, 4:46, 3:78 that God’s revelations were reinterpreted. These interpretations followed the folly desires of men, in some areas to abrogate God’s law to suit material wants and desires, for power, even for illicit pleasures:

Their gist is that the Jews were habitually used to issuing religious edicts as desired by the people, either for the benefit of relatives or to satisfy their greed for money, property, influence, and recognition. This had become a common custom particularly in matters involving punishments that they would, if the crime was committed by an influential person, change the severe punishment of the Torah into an ordinary one. It is this behaviour, part of theirs which has been described in the first verse (41) in the following words: يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَوَاضِعِهِ (They displace the words after their having been placed properly).

Now the people who were used to making the severe punishments of the Torah easy for their clients by changing them saw an opportunity for themselves whereby they could take such shady matters to the Holy Prophet {saw} and make him their judge or arbitrator. The dual advantage they saw in it was that they would reap the benefits of all easy and light rules of Islamic law, while at the same time, they would not have to commit the crime of altering the Torah. But, here too, they had their crookedness at work as they would hold on to their decision of taking their case to him until such time that they succeeded in finding out beforehand through some source or ruse as to the actual verdict which would be delivered in their case when presented. Then, if they found this verdict matching their wishes, they would make him their arbitrator and have him decide their case. If it happened to be contrary to their wishses, they would leave it at that.- Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan : Mufti Rafi Uthmani, pages 164- 165.

However, God did guard the message (risalah) of the revelations (wahy). God sent messengers, prophets to correct the wrong interpretations by these pseudo religious scholars:

إِذْ أَرْ‌سَلْنَا إِلَيْهِمُ اثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ فَقَالُوا إِنَّا إِلَيْكُمْ مُرْ‌سَلُونَ
When We sent to them two but they denied them, so We strengthened them with a third, and they said, “Indeed, we are messengers to you.” – Qur’an : Suratul Yasin (36) : 14.

In fact, the New Testament, confirms that Messengers were sent to the people who tried to alter His message through new interpretations:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. – Bible : Matthew (23) : 37.

So as we can see, the Qur’an is correct, God did protect the meaning of His message, until newer revelation was sent. For example the Qur’an abrogates the Injil as the Injil abrogated the Tawrah, and if the case arose where persons were distorting the meaning of a scripture or Prophet’s message, we read that God sent apostles, messengers, Prophets in some instances to correct the people (see 36:14 above).

Corruption of Scripture: Textual Alterations:
However, now we’ve arrived at the crux of the matter, textual corruption. As Muslims we assert that God’s message is preserved by God (as seen above, contextually), but what about textually? We read earlier that God protects His message in totality, that is, textually and contextually (meanings, interpretations). However as Muslims, we also do say that we do not believe in the Old Testaments of the Jews and Christians nor do we believe in the New Testaments of the Christians as being valid, because we assert they are not the words of God. Since they are not the words of God, they can indeed become corrupted and God did not promise to guard the works of man, but only His words.

For example, in the case of the Old Testament, where missionary zealots such as Sam Shamoun and James White try to propose, that their Torah is the Torah from Allaah, we have to correct that appeal to ignorance. The Qur’an does not say that the Old Testament is the word of God, in fact, we read above (5:13) where the Qur’an calls the Torah/ Old Testament of the Jews and Christians as being interpolations from the tongues and minds of men. It is in this regard that the Islamic belief is not that God’s word was corrupted, but that people wrote words and then claimed them to be God’s:

فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُ‌وا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.  – Qur’an : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.

With that being said, we must come to the understanding that when the Qur’an says that the message became corrupted, that is textually, it refers to those who put aside God’s revelation and in its stead, replaced the void with their own sayings, beliefs and propaganda. One example is of the Christian New Testament. The Qur’an says that a scripture (Injil) was given to Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him):

وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِ‌هِمْ بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْ‌يَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَ‌اةِ ۖ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنْجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ‌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَ‌اةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِلْمُتَّقِي
And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. – Qur’an : 5: 46.

However Christians by themselves prove the Islamic belief of textual corruption as displayed above:

(1) Muslims believe that Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him) was given a revelation by God called the Injil.
(2) Christians believe that inspired scripture about Jesus originated with the apostles of Christ.

Therefore the Christian argument in reality disproves itself. They have now failed on two fronts. Firstly, the premise that Muslims contradict themselves when they say the Bible is corrupted is proven false as we do not believe the Bible is the word of God. We don’t believe it is the word of God for namely two reasons:

(1) Christians assert it’s from the apostles and not from the Prophet Jesus (may God be pleased with him).
(2)
Christians assert the revelation (wahy) isn’t revelation verbatim from God, which is what Muslims believe, but that the Bible is an inspired word from God, through the words of men.

Secondly, since they have made significant distinctions with what the Muslim concept of revelation is and what their scripture is actually comprised of, then they have shown that the Bible (New Testament) is not the Injil and as it follows, the Injil is not the Bible.

Conclusion:
Therefore, we must come to a logical conclusion. When missionary zealots such as Sam Shamoun and James White, along with their propganda team at AI, state that the Qur’an is wrong for saying the Bible is corrupted because Muslims believe the word of God can’t be corrupted, we must educate them. It is in this light, that our response should be, as such:

  • Muslims believe the word of God cannot be corrupted.
  • We believe the Bible is corrupted because it is not the word of God.

We do not believe it is the word of God because:

  • Christians do not believe the Bible is the verbatim word of God, but inspired ideas from God through the words of men.

In conclusion:

  • Therefore the Bible is corrupted because it is not the word of God and as such Muslims do not believe in it.

What was wrong with James White’s missionary belief, is that they think the Bible is the word of God and therefore we should accept this belief and as a consequence adhere to it, however as displayed above they don’t believe in the kind of scripture we do, they make a clear distinction between the Injil which we believe God revealed to Isa (Jesus, may God be pleased with him), while they believe in a scripture inspired by God, worded by the minds of men, which manifested after Jesus had walked the earth.

May God guide those who appeal to the fallacy of ad ignorantium.

See more:
Inspired Incoherencies: The Corruption of the Bible.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

« Older Entries Recent Entries »