Tag Archives: David Wood

Refutation: Does Allah Love Unbelievers?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

This is a response to David Wood’s article, which bears the aforementioned title. He says:

One of Allah’s 99 Names is al-Waddud, “the Loving.” Allah is called al-Waddud twice in the Qur’an. In 11:90, the prophet Shu’aib tells the people of Midian, “Ask pardon, then, from your Lord, then turn to Him; verily, my Lord is merciful, loving!” Likewise, in 85:12-16 we read:

Lo! the punishment of thy Lord is stern. Lo! He it is Who produceth, then reproduceth, and He is the Forgiving, the Loving, Lord of the Throne of Glory, Doer of what He will.
Nevertheless, other passages in the Qur’an qualify Allah’s love significantly. While Allah is said to love those who do good deeds (2:195), those who are pure (2:222), those who are righteous (9:7), and those who fight in his cause (61:4), the Qur’an is equally clear that Allah has no love for transgressors (2:190), ungrateful sinners (2:276), the unjust (3:57), or the proud (4:36).

David has a contention with God not loving those who transgress his law, although when we read the Bible, the God which David also believes in, punished transgression, He did not reward it:

The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him; we have not obeyed the Lord our God or kept the laws he gave us through his servants the prophets. All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you.

“Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you. You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing on us great disaster. Under the whole heaven nothing has ever been done like what has been done to Jerusalem. Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come on us, yet we have not sought the favor of the Lord our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth. The Lord did not hesitate to bring the disaster on us, for the Lord our God is righteous in everything he does; yet we have not obeyed him. – Daniel 9:9-14.

According to this passage, transgressors and ungrateful sinners were promised to be punished by God, David’s God. If this is currently not the case, or David would appeal to the New Testament and ignore His God’s history, then David concedes one of two things, or both, those being:

  • YHWH was unloving, unmerciful, hateful at some point in His existence.
  • David has double standards and ignores YHWH’s pronouncements.

What’s worse for David is that his poor reading of the Bible, brings into question the love of YHWH, for even YHWH promises to destroy, torture and punish disbelievers, while on earth when Jesus returns in Zechariah 14. Where YHWH promises to rule ‘with an iron fist/ sceptre’ in Revelation 2:26-28, all of which I have covered extensively in my post concerning Christ’s Second Return According to the Bible. David also seemed to have a problem with God punishing the unjust and proud, yet his namesake, David of the Bible, prays to their God and asks Him to punish such people:

“Rise up, Judge of the earth; pay back to the proud what they deserve.” – Psalms 94:2.

The irony is staggering to say the very least. David goes on to say:

Even more significantly, the Qur’an states that Allah does not love non-Muslims:

Qur’an 3:31-32—Say [O Muhammad]: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Say: Obey Allah and the Apostle; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers.

Qur’an 30:43-45—Then turn thy face straight to the right religion before there come from Allah the day which cannot be averted; on that day they shall become separated. Whoever disbelieves, he shall be responsible for his disbelief, and whoever does good, they prepare (good) for their own souls, that He may reward those who believe and do good out of His grace; surely He does not love the unbelievers.

David’s inconsistency shines through once more, as even YHWH, as the Bible testifies, hates those who disobey Him and break His laws:

Ephraim’s glory will fly away like a bird— no birth, no pregnancy, no conception. Even if they rear children, I will bereave them of every one. Woe to them when I turn away from them! I have seen Ephraim, like Tyre planted in a pleasant place.
But Ephraim will bring out their children to the slayer.”

Give them, Lord—what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry. “Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious. Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit. Even if they bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring.” – Hosea 9:11-16.

According to David’s own God, He hates, He stops loving, disbelievers and sinners. In fact according to this verse, David’s God promises to never love Israel again. David’s own God, promises to damn an entire nation and stop loving them. Therefore, how can David say Allaah is wrong, when his own God, does the same?

Notice that 3:31-32 makes Allah’s love contingent on whether a person believes in Muhammad. This is similar to what we find in 19:46, which declares: “Lo! those who believe and do good works, the Beneficent will appoint for them love.”

How is this different to God dying for the sins of mankind (John 3:16) and then making this grace conditional on accepting Christ as a God? What’s the difference David? There is none.

Hence, although Allah is called “the Loving,” the Qur’an only means by this that Allah will love people once they believe in him and obey his prophet. The god of Islam has no love for sinners and unbelievers.

David seems to be forgetting that this is also the modus operandi of His God, as we saw in Zechariah 14, Revelations 2, Hosea 9, Psalms 94, and it is what his God promised in Deuteronomy Chapters 28, 29, 30 and 31.

Interestingly, the “Love me first and I’ll love you back” kind of love exhibited by Allah in the Qur’an is condemned by Jesus in Matthew 5:43-48:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Except that according to these verses, Jesus is condemning His ‘Father’s’ laws as demonstrated above. Which brings me to my conclusion. David seems to have ignored what YHWH has said about Himself in the Old Testament, what YHWH has promised to do to unbelievers, ungrateful sinners and the proud when he sends Jesus to return, and what YHWH declared as an eternal covenant to hate an entire nation of people because of their sins and transgressions against Him. Double standards, funny aren’t they David?

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Can Jesus Be the Ultimate Exemplar? [Video]

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Mufti Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf Mangera has an excellent video on the deification of Christ by Christians, wherein he also expounds upon the Islamic view of Jesus. It’s worth the watch, especially since the Mufti is hailed as being one of Islam’s most popular speakers and represents authentic scholarship:

Indepth, education and sensational, this lecture is simply brilliant and very informative for both the Muslim and Christian.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

A Christian’s Love for Muslims

Posted on by 8 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I’m sure we’ve all heard that emotional mumbo jumbo about ‘love’ from our Christian friends. That Muslims don’t have a God that loves them, that Muslims  don’t know what love is, that Islam is a religion void of love, that we Muslims need to embrace Christianity to truly understand and know what love is. We’ve all seen Christians preach that whole, ‘turn the other cheek’ mantra, too bad I felt too much Christian love from this group of Christians discussing Islam:

I’m not exactly sure where the Qur’an says that we have to convert the world or kill everyone in the world, perhaps someone who agrees with Clark can show me. Feel free to post your response in the comments section and I’d address the claim. Let’s return to our pal’s comments now. Strangely enough, our friend Clark makes it clear that he rather buy a gun, than debate/ discuss his concerns with Muslims. I’m thinking that this is the “shoot first, ask questions later”, kind of mentality.  If it isn’t enough to just buy a gun, our friend Clark has a brilliant master plan to bring peace and stability to the world. Kidnap a few Muslims, have them dig their graves, kill them and throw a pig’s carcass in their just for the heck of it. Just to be sure that they got the message, shout at their graves and let them know that they are not allowed to commit any future terrorist acts. At the end, Clark turns into some sort of a philosopher and decides that killing pigs and not humans may be a bad thing. I did some digging and well, Clark is just about Christian as they come:

Our loving Christian friend Clark, isn’t alone. He’s got a pal that also shares similar views:

I’m not sure that I can add much commentary to these images, it’s pretty clear to me that we’re dealing with persons who are actively discussing and intending to act violently towards Muslims. Their mentality is absolutely horrendous and quite shocking to say the least. Normally you’d expect folks who are discussing these things to do so privately, but to make such comments public and to share them among large groups of persons is disturbing to say the least. I can’t begin to imagine the outrage if Muslims had said this about Christians or Jews! I did some further digging and as it turns out, our buddy Louis supports Pamela Geller, the infamous Islamophobe who incited the Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik’s terrorist attacks against Muslims and Muslim friendly groups in Norway.

It should be noted that Christian Missionaries, David Wood and Sam Shamoun both support and promote Geller’s views. A quick look at David Wood’s Answering Muslims website shows numerous videos of Pamela. Two peas in a pod. Similar to the self declared “Crusader”, Anders not only discussed killing Muslims online, but he shared many of the same views as our friends Clark and Louis. If this trend is anything to base our suspicions on, we’re looking at persons intent on mass murdering Muslims and those who sympathize with Muslims, in the name of their Lord, Christ.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

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.

Priest says ‘Children are Seducers’

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Believe it or not, 78 year old Father Benedict Groeschel (pictured above) in an interview with the National Catholic Register made the following statements, when asked about his experience in working with Priests who were involved in abuse of children:

“People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to — a psychopath. But that’s not the case,” Groeschel explained. “Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.”

“Well, it’s not so hard to see — a kid looking for a father and didn’t have his own — and they won’t be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping but not having intercourse or anything like that,” he continued.

Groeschel called the abuse “an understandable thing,” and pointed to Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, who he called a “poor guy.”

I wish I could be making this up, but it gets worse:

Groeschel pointed out that “sexual difficulties” were rarely prosecuted 10 or 15 years ago, and now if “any responsible person in society would become involved in a single sexual act — not necessarily intercourse — they’re done.”

“And I’m inclined to think, on their first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime,” he added.

You can read the full story here. His comments have invited staunch criticism from both Church and non-Catholic groups, the interview in question has already been pulled from the National Catholic Register’s website, but can still be read via Google Cache. Interestingly enough, David Wood of the Answering Muslims blog (see: Thursday 30th, August, 2012, 6:28 PM), asked for Muslims to condemn when persons of their own religious group commit crimes of this nature, but so far David (as expected) has been silent on the issue of Church abuse and more specifically, the horrendous statements of this Church Father.

For such a senior member of the Catholic Church, whose life has revolved around social work to defend such acts, seriously brings into question the acceptance of Church abuse by these elderly, ‘faithful’ Church Fathers. How far does it have to go, until someone says stop?

Further Reading:

wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.

David Wood’s Hypocrisy

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

David Wood has gone off into desperation again. Recently he’s been promoting the view that all Muslims should protest and speak out against violent acts done by fellow Muslims, regardless of whether the act was done because the person was motivated by Islam or not. Which is a bit odd, since David Wood himself, remained silent when Muslims were being attacked:

Therefore I must question David’s lowly integrity. On what basis does he demand all Muslims be blamed for the acts of others, when he himself, is silent when Muslims are violently attacked in his own nation? David must remove his blinders and lay low on the alcohol or the communion wine, because as it is, the double standards he uses are growing quite pathetic, which says alot about his personal integrity. What’s worse, is that I personally believe that David has a literacy problem, in a recent post on his blog, he says:

Can’t CAIR, ISNA, and their Muslim and non-Muslim supporters spare a few minutes of their endless complaint-time to inform Muslims in Pakistan (and Egypt, and Iraq, and Sudan, etc.) that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?

Well David, the problem is that either you can’t read, or willing choose to insult the intelligence of your viewership. A simple search brings up a CAIR news release on the same issue:

Even ISNA, has released a press statement on this issue:

ISNA Calls for Release of Christian Girl in Pakistan

(Washington, DC – August 24, 2012) The Islamic Society of North America condemns the arrest of Ramsha Masih, a young Christian girl who was accused of burning pages from a book that included verses from the Qur’an. It is believed that the girl suffers from Down syndrome.

According to Islamic law, a person who is both a minor and has an intellectual disability cannot be held accountable for his/her actions. “I ask the Pakistani Muslim community to act with compassion and restraint,” said ISNA President Imam Mohamed Magid. “We call on the government of Pakistan to immediately release Ramsha to her family and ensure their safety.”

ISNA remains deeply concerned about the treatment of religious minorities in Muslim-majority communities and has been engaged in work to address this issue for the past several years. In 2011, following the assassination of Minister of Minorities Shahbaz Bhatti and Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer, ISNA called on the Pakistani government  to take every measure necessary to secure the rights of religious minorities in Pakistan, as well as their safety and those of their places of worship. Within the past year, we have continued to work on these issues by consulting with Muslim scholars from around the world to create a mechanism for Islamic standards and protocols on the rights of religious minorities in the Muslim-majority communities.

From: ISNA e-Newsletter <bounce@isna.com>

Date: August 25, 2012 1:31:04 AM GMT+01:00
To: alam.faisal@gmail.com
Subject: ISNA Calls for Release of Christian Girl in Pakistan
Reply-To: bounce@isna.com

Therefore, I renew my calls for David Wood to apply the same standards he applies to Muslims and if he dares, we hope he attempts to atleast research something before publishing ignorant comments.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.

David Wood’s Hypocrisy: Young Hafiz Beaten

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I’d like to confess that I’m an avid reader of David Wood’s blog, “Answering Muslims”, in fact I’ve even commented on his blog a few times. A few months ago I watched an entertaining debate between David and Br. Ali Ataie, and to simply put it: amazing. Most of us have seen videos of Shaykh Ahmad Deedat (may God be pleased with him), decimating his zealot Christian opponents, but this debate, dare I say it, surpassed that. David’s arguments were stopped, slapped out of the way and turned on him, I’ve never seen an Islamophobe crumble that quickly before, David endured more than an hour’s worth of embarrassment. Following this debate, I then viewed  lecture on, “How to Give Da’wah“, by the Brother which impressed me further. Lastly, I read his book, “In Defense of Islam“, that was the end, I knew I had read the works of someone who was intelligent, pious and by all means, brilliant.

It is with that said, that through Br. Ali’s influence, I began to read David Wood’s blog, in fact I would like to publicly admit that I am an avid viewer of his numerous Acts 17 videos, criticising Islam. Some of you might wonder, why would I read this man’s works, or watch his videos and to be quite honest, I do it because I am enjoying observing the efforts of a conceited man, so disillusioned by his own lack of intelligence, it’s akin to watching a drunk man walk up a hill. He gets up each time after tumbling down and still he falls over himself constantly. I like this analogy the most because it reminded me of this video. Today (03/08/2012), while viewing his blog, I came across the post entitled, “Qur’an Student Beaten Unconscious for Making Mistakes While Reciting“. Now, I don’t expect much objectivity from the despot, but when he made this comment, I had no choice but to author this post, “But again, who are we to judge other people’s cultures?“.

You must understand that he’s asked a very important question, who are Christians to judge other people’s culture? Let’s get something straight here, if we were to compare the Bible and the Qur’an, and then ask the question which book orders us to beat our children, what would be the result?

In Proverbs 13:24 we read: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”

Beating your child is proportional to loving your child and not beating your child is akin to hating your child. Smacking your baby to death is love? After all, the Bible does set a great standard, Christians do believe God killed his only son by crucifying him and abandoning him on the cross. These two premises alone are tantamount enough to dispel David’s claim and question his biased reasoning, but to rub some salt into his wounds, let’s give some more examples:

  • July 17th, 2012, Mother Accused of Torturing Child says Bible made her do it:

    There’s no excuse for locking your own child in a chicken coop and making her live for days on just bread and water. But neighbors in Butler, Georgia say mom Diana Franklin and husband Samuel Franklinallegedly has one hell of an excuse. Literally. Franklin supposedly said that the Bible made them abuse their adopted daughter.It sounds like it could lead us down into a religious argument. But considering all the good parents I know who happen to be Christian and aren’t abusing their kids, I’m going to skip that quagmire and go straight for confusion. Are there really people who think it’s OK to live “by the Bible,” even when the laws in America say it’s wrong? Have they actually read the same book?Franklin was allegedly referencing Proverbs 13:24, the portion of the King James Bible that reads, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” As a result, cops say her 15-year-old daughter was forced at times to wear a dog’s shock collar, which Franklin would set off with a remote key fob. Other abuses described include living in a chicken coop for days on end and perform manual labor around their home in the oppressive heat.
  • October 27th, 2011, Parents Torture and Kill Adopted Child because of Biblical Teachings:

    The parents accused of killing their 13-year-old adopted daughter, are being investigated over whether they were inspired by a book that encourages children to be biblically punished.The Washington couple deny homicide and child abuse charges relating to the death of Ethiopian-born Hana Willaims, who apparently lived in a closet and was denied meals for days at a time.But investigators are looking into whether the Christian book, titled ‘To Train Up a Child’ may have been involved in the death of Hana and will be shown in a CNN documentary. Investigators say the abuse she endured included beatings, starvation, being forced to sleep outside and use an outdoor toilet, and that she had lost a significant amount of weight since her adoption.Prosecutors said the 10-year-old brother was similarly mistreated. The parents kept the family isolated from non-relatives, home-schooled the children and followed strict religious principles described in the Christian parenting book titled “To Train Up a Child,” investigators said. According to court documents, their 16-year-old son told investigators that Hana ‘was kept in a locked closet and the only light switch was on the outside of the closet.’ He stated that his mother would take her out every other day to walk and exercise. ‘They played the Bible on tape and Christian music for her while she was locked in the closet,’ he said.

  • Additional Source Link #1.
  • Additional Source Link #2.

It’s interesting to note that David won’t dare touch on these issues and you’d never see such coverage on his blog, but let a Muslim do something that his Bible commands and David’s ‘emotional plea to protect children from Muslims‘, instantly pops up in a post. I look forward to the day that David would be mature enough to publicly condemn such child abuse and torture entrusted in his Bible, then again, I’d also like to live in a world where uneducated people stay quiet, I guess some things are just bound to happen.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God Knows Best.

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.]

Refutation: Where Did Jesus Say, “I Am God, Worship Me”? [Updated]

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

David Wood of the Answering Muslims blog, has attempted to answer the age old question,”Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God, Worship Me‘?”. I say attempted, because as a person who studies the scriptures and the sciences related to understanding them, I must say that I am a bit bewildered by his methodology. However, before I begin dissecting his arguments I must address one noteworthy point. That is, none of the arguments nor any of the information he provides are new, rather they are oft repeated to the extent that they are void of any intellectual worth. The aim of this response therefore, is to merely provide a series of simple yet sufficient rebuttals to the points made.

The Fallacy of Reading Between the Lines:

From the onset, David relies on this particular fallacy, which can be defined as:

“The unwarranted associative fallacy “occurs when a word or phrase triggers off an associated idea, concept, or experience that bears no close relation to the text at hand, yet is used to interpret the text.”

A simple example would be:

John, a Christian, says he is a contractor.
Ahmad, a Muslim, says he is a contractor.
Ahmad is a Christian because he is a contractor.

This might sound utterly absurd to any remotely familiar with reason and logic. The implication being here, that the conclusion is void of basic comprehension skills. With this in mind, we’re going to up the ante of this argument by applying it to the reasoning from David’s article:

God of Christianity, says in Bible, I am X.
God of Islam, says in Qur’an, I am X.
The God of Islam is a Christian (or validates Christianity) because He says the same as the God of Christianity.

Following through with David’s logic, let’s replace X with “the truth”:

God of Christianity, says in Bible, I am the truth.
God of Islam says in Bible, I am the truth.
Therefore the God of Islam is a Christian (or validates Christianity) because he uses the same title as the God of Christianity.

At this point, one might be skeptical, that David does in fact make such an absurd assertion as the foundation for his response to the aforementioned question, “Where does Jesus say I am God?”. That he would try to prove this by associating the doctrine of one God with another from within two different scriptures and two entirely different religions, to validate his beliefs. Yet, if we read his article, this is exactly as he has done.

Judge by the Gospel?

David opens his argument, with the assertion that Christians, according to the Qur’an, must judge by the Bible or for that matter, the Christian Bible (Septuagint + NT) by referencing an ayah of the Qur’an:

Qur’an 5:47—“Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.”

His mistake is clear from the onset, does David Wood truly believe that the God of Islam, Allaah, revealed the Bible, i.e. that it is Kalamullah, or does he subscribe to the belief that the Bible, is an inspired word of God as begotten from the articulated words of men? The latter would be his position, as he associates himself with the doctrine of the Answering Islam team[1].

He then proceeds once more to make another irrational claim, that the Qur’an commands Muslims to believe in the Greco-Roman New Testament and the Judeo-Christian Old Testament, claims which I have aptly refuted here and here. One must take into account, that the Qur’an never commands Muslims to believe in the alleged scripture of the Jews and Christians, which is known as the Bible, which in Arabic would either read, “Majmu ul Kutub”, or “Kitab al Muqaddas”, two terms which never occur in the Qur’an, thus through proof by contradiction, David’s assertion can be easily dismissed. However for a more indepth discussion, please see the two previous links. David then makes this statement:

“However, if Muslims are suggesting that Jesus could only claim to be God by uttering a specific sentence, we may reply by asking, “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am only a prophet, don’t worship me,’ in those exact words?”

We can negate the rationality of this argument, by conversing it.

From:
Where did Jesus say, I am only a prophet, don’t worship me?

To:
Where did Jesus not say, I am not only a prophet, worship me?

That brings us to the original question, where did Jesus claim to be anything more than a Prophet? If so, are we according to David’s logic, supposed to worship a person if they are more than a Prophet. If that is the case, is David Wood a polytheist? Demi-gods, are more than mere mortals who prophesy, would David, by applying his aforementioned reasoning (crossing religious doctrine with his own ideas), then bow to worship the Pagan Greco-Roman Gods? Of course, his answer would be an emphatic no, thus under his own reasoning, his very argument falls apart.

He then sought to summarize his argument, as such:

“Fortunately, we have a simple way to examine what Jesus said about himself. According to both the Bible and the Qur’an, there are certain claims that only God can truly make.”

If we take the above quote and we run it through the Reading Between the Lines Fallacy, as demonstrated above in my opening statement, we see that David arguments crumbles through various inconsistencies. It should be obvious to the reader, that the Qur’an and the Bible expound two clearly different doctrines of God, refer to two completely distinct forms of salvation and are fundamentally two distinct ideologies. However, David is asserting that if he finds two completely different deities making similar statements, then these deities are each other. In other words, if he can prove that Jesus makes a statement that Allaah (God) makes, then Jesus has to be God (Allaah).

With that in mind, let’s settle David’s argument with one final example:

Hercules says he is the son of the God, Zeus.
Jesus says he is the son of the God, YaHWeH.

Since Christians assert that Jesus claimed to be the son of God and Romans believe Hercules is the son of God, then this proves that Jesus is the son of God.

At this point, we can agree that this argument makes no valid sense. Yet, Christians both see Muslims and Roman polytheists as Pagans, yet David, seeks to prove his faith in Christ as a deity by using what he asserts is a pagan deity as evidences for his own God’s existence. We can even further refute his position by asking a simple question:

If Hindus believes that God is one, but represented in many forms and Christians believe God is one, but represented in many forms, does that mean that the Hindu religion is true?

The First and the Last.

Qur’an 57:3.
Isaiah 44:6.
Revelation 1:17.

His first line of evidence is to show that both the Old Testament and the Qur’an claim for God to be The First and The Last. Since both scriptures claim this is a title for God and Jesus “says” he is the First and the Last then,  this proves Jesus is God.

This is problematic for David, when one has read his article, he asserts that Isaiah 44:6, refers to the LORD or YaHWeH, for Christians that would be the Father. It’s a problem because if The Lord is the Father and the Trinitarian Godhead makes it clear that while both the Father and the Son are God, the Father isn’t the Son, nor is the Son the Father. Since this is the case it doesn’t matter what Jesus claims as he cannot be YHWH from Isaiah 44:6. Following from that logic, he also cannot be Allaah from Qur’an 57:3, because of Qur’an 112:3. The final question which begs itself, is this is all a dream from John, as he references the Book of Revelation or the Revelation of John (a dream), therefore I must ask David, if any Christian gets a dream about Jesus claiming something, would he also accept it as the truth? As an example, if I dreamed that Jesus claimed he wasn’t the first or the last, would he also accept it as divinely inspired revelation?

I ask this because David asks if a mere Prophet would claim these divine titles, in response, I am asking, how is Jesus making this claim? It isn’t. It’s a dream someone had, claiming Jesus said these things.

Who Forgives Sins?

Qur’an 3:135.
Psalm 51:4.
Daniel 9:9.
Mark 2:5-7.

From the passage in Mark, Jesus “forgives” a man of his sins. Since God alone can forgive sins, David asserts that Jesus is God. The problem is this, who is doing the forgiving? Is it Jesus, or is it the Lord? We read from Psalms itself:

“Praise the Lord, my soul, and forget not all his benefits—who forgives all your sins.” – Psalms 103:3.

Who forgives all sins? The Lord, or YHWH, or as Christians call him, the Father. Since the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son, then we have to conclude that the Father (The Lord, YHWH) is the one who forgives all sins. This is proven by another verse of the Bible:

“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.” – Acts 2:22.

Indeed, it was a miracle that the man was forgiven, but as the Bible rightly says, God alone forgives all sins and God did these acts through the person of Christ.

The Light.

Qur’an 24:35.
Psalm 27:1.
John 8:12.

The Qur’an calls Allaah the light of the heavens and the earth, David calls YHWH (The Father), the Light and Jesus “claims” to be the light in the Gospel.

There again, is another problem here. If the Father is not the Son and the Son is the Father, according to the Trinitarian Godhead that is, then how can the Son claim to have the same title as the Father?

If he has also read the verse of the Qur’an in comparison with the verse from John, how is it that someone who claims to be the light of the earth, is equal to one who is the light of the heavens and earth? Would he therefore claim that if I can light a room, but my brother can light a room and a car, that we are equal? Of course not.

The Truth.

Qur’an 22:6.
Psalm 31:5.
John 14:6.

There again, is another problem here. If the Father is not the Son and the Son is the Father, according to the Trinitarian Godhead that is, then how can the Son claim to have the same title as the Father? The two are distinct, yet David is asserting they are the same person.

I suggest he read James White’s The Forgotten Trinity which makes it clear there are three persons, distinct and co-equal, yet not each other, or one can read James White’s, “A Brief Definition of the Trinity“, wherein he writes:

“There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another – that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons.”

However, if we do read his example, what’s the context of Jesus’ statement?

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”

Jesus is saying here, that he is the truth, if one wants to come to the Father. In other words, he (Jesus) is the truth of the Father. Something Muslims can identify with, Jesus is indeed a sign of the truth of God, or as we would say, an Ayat ar Rahman (a sign of God).

The Final Judge.

Qur’an 22:56-57.
Psalm 9:7-8.
Matthew 25:31-32.

The problem is the same as above, if from Psalm 9:7-8, it is the Father who is judging and the Father is not the Son, yet the Son is doing the judging in Matthew 25:31-32, we must conclude that the Father is the Son. Which as we know, contradicts the Trinitarian doctrine of the Godhead and once again, David Wood, either displays that he isn’t a Trinitarian Christian or he is wholly ignorant of his very own doctrine. Quite funny, that he seeks to contradict his own faith, to prove Muslims wrong.

This situation of conflicting with the Trinitarian Godhead dogma doctrine, continues to conflict with his other two “evidences” of The Ressurection and God’s Glory.

Further Evidence.

He references Mark 2:28, which states that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, that’s a problem however let’s just quote verse 27 and 28:

“Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

The context of this verse is that man is the master (the Greek word used for Lord is Kurios [κύριος]), which doesn’t refer to a divine being, it refers to a Master or a Sir, someone of authority, the word for a divine authority such as a God would be Theos. So the verse is generally saying that men are masters of the Sabbath because it was made for them. Referencing a Talmudic law, Rabbi Michael Skobac speaks about in this lecture .

Jesus demonstrates that man is the master of Sabbath, by referencing the story of David, wherein David’s men enter the Tabernacle and eat from the Holy Bread. A bread which they are not normally allowed to consume. In fact in the story of David, we read that the men are even called holy:

“The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!”  So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the Lord and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.” – 1 Samuel 21.

Therefore his argument that men are the masters of the Sabbath as been soundly defeated. According to Judaic law, certain laws can be broken in order to fulfil other rights of the Israelites, such as in both cases where they are starving. Something which Jesus himself references in Matthew 12:3-5:

“ He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?  He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?”

David Wood, then references Matthew 22:41-45 where he claims Jesus is the Lord of David, again the word used here is master and indeed if Jesus was the Christ sent to Israel, then he was the Messiah of Israel, thus he would be also the master of David who was from Israel as well. If we ignore that fact, David Wood must be reminded that Matthew 22:41-45, contradicts Matthew 1:2.

David Wood, then proceeds by stating that Jesus claims to be greater than a temple of God, in Matthew 12:6. Which brings into question his reasoning, did he really believe that a building is holier than a Prophet? Poor reading of the scriptures gives bad study, and clearly he needs to read Malachi 3, which refers to the Messenger of God, the Messenger of the Covenant who will come to purify the Temple.

He then tries to demonstrate that Matthew 11:27 makes Jesus a God, because in this verse it reads, “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son“, this brings into question David’s understanding of the Trinity, as in verse 25 we read, “ At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth“. The son therefore, in this scenario isn’t equitable or a co-equal with God, as he is praising (glorifying) the Father and is claiming his knowledge isn’t his own (isn’t God all knowing?), but that his knowledge is from the Lord (Father, YHWH). This verses proves the opposite, Jesus isn’t divine but dependent on God for his knowledge.

David Wood, then appeals to John 14:14, wherein Jesus is said to be able to answer prayers, rather, if we read verse 13, it states, “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.“, a direct references to Acts 2:22, where it states, ““Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know“.

He then refers to Matthew 28:18 to demonstrate that Jesus is given power over earth and heaven by God, this is a problem for David, as the word used is εξουσία which as we can see refers to jurisdiction or authority. So what was Jesus given the authority to do? To command his disciples to preach to non-Jews, i.e gentiles as the following verses state, “ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, which contradicts Acts 15, wherein this was a debate raging between Paul and the disciples some 14 plus years after Jesus allegedly said those words.

John 5:21-23, is in accordance with Islamic theology, one must honor God and the one who brings God’s message (risalat), the one who brings God’s message is a rasul (messenger), so what does John 5:23 state why we should honor the messenger of God? Well it  says we should honor God by honoring the Messenger of God who was sent by God, “He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him“.

Further on he references areas where Jesus is worshipped in the New Testament in Matthew 2:11, 14:33, 28:17, Luke 24:52 and John 9:38. There is a problem however, the word does not exclusively mean to worship, in fact, it doesn’t mean to worship in the least. The word προσκυνέω as demonstrated in Strong’s Lexicon, means to bow to as the Orientals do to each other, to revere, to kiss or to even lick like a dog licking it’s master’s hand, yet never to worship as a deity. As for John 20:28, it is sufficiently refuted here and here.

Assessment.

As we can see, in all of the claims of David Wood, there are conflicts with his own Trinitarian Godhead doctrine, abuse of the translation of words from the Greek texts and improper reading of the New Testament by David. He has been unable to demonstrate a single case where Jesus himself, in an unequivocal, first person verbatim (Greek: Grapho) statement claims to be God. It is quite contrasting to the God of the Old Testament who had no problem in demonstrating that:

“I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” – Exodus 20:2-6.

David Wood is almost giving the impression that the God of the New Testament is a muzzled God, unable to declare His deity. A God who so proudly claimed to be vehemently jealous, suddenly can’t claim his own deity. A God that destroyed entire nations for not worshipping Him, for worshipping the wrong God, suddenly is unable to clearly declare, as he once did, that he was a deity. It is shocking that David would like us to believe in such a timid God, a changed God, a reformed God, who is now meek and not jealous and insistent on declaring his identity.

Postscript: The Islamic Dilemma.

As it has been explicitly demonstrated, if it is that those statements which David chose are to represent the belief that Jesus was a deity, by making him the same person as the Father (YHWH), then he has to accede that the Trinitarian Godhead concept is wrong in that the two persons are not distinct, therefore conceding that he (David) is a Modalist. Something which his ally in Islamophobia, James White should have the guts to address, but then again, I wouldn’t expect either of them to correct each other publicly as it’s bad for business.

The concept that Islam believes that either the Masoretic Text/ LXX or the Greco-Roman New Testament texts are inspired by God and sanctioned by Islam as scripture, have been thoroughly refuted here and here.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

[1] – A Series of Answers to Common Questions, The Bible is Inspired but Paul Claimed Otherwise, by Sam Shamoun.

Update:

Derek Adams via the commenting section of Answering Muslim’s website, sought to defend David’s argumentation by supposing the following:

“Yeah you’re rebuttal doesn’t understand basic Christian doctrine. All three persons are LORD(YHVH). YHVH is not an exclusive name for the Father that cannot be applied to the Son.”

The problem with Derek’s statement, is that he is most likely not well studied in the doctrine of the Trinity, firstly, he should refer to this image which is used by most Evangelical groups to explain the Trinity to Muslims and Christians alike:

Secondly, to correct him:

The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are considered to be God (אלהים) in the Trinitarian Godhead. However The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are not all considered to be YHWH (יהוה) who is considered to be the Father, I shall qualify this with an example from the Old Testament:

“The Lord  (יהוה)  said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west.” – Genesis 13:14.

As opposed to:

“In the beginning God (אלהים) created the heavens and the earth.” – Genesis 1:1.

Wherein according to Christian dogma, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are being referred to as Creators of the heavens and the earth in this verse. Yet, when YHWH is used it solely refers to the Father in the Old Testament, according to the Christian rendition of the Pentateuch (Greek Septuagint).

His confusion mostly stems from the English misuse of the word God in the Bible. It’s often easy to understand the plight of Christians, as even many Christian apologists have great difficulty in comprehending, if not teaching the dogma of the Godhead. This situation is worsened when the English renditions use the same words to refer to both a person of the Godhead and the Godhead’s unity in itself.

This understanding is qualified by one of Derek’s heroes or so to speak, Sam Shamoun in his article, “Jesus is indeed Yahweh God the Son!“, states:

“Moreover, since the Father can be identified as Yahweh in isolation from the others, the Son can therefore be identified as Yahweh’s Servant.”

Derek Adams then sought to reference that Allaah revealed to the Prophet [peace and blessings be upon him] the knowledge in dreams this therefore allows anyone with dreams to take their dreams as scripture. To correct Derek’s assertion, a Prophet in Islam is a Rasul who is the vessel through which the Risalat (Message) is revealed. So the Rasul can receive the Risalat in a variation of ways, as that is their purpose in this world, to deliver the revelation of God.

However, when it comes to John’s personal revelation (The Book of Revelation), he wasn’t a Prophet or Messenger and Christians acknowledge that in their doctrine, no other message was to come after the Gospel of Christ. Therefore Derek has again defamed himself and completely refuted his own arguments through appeal to ad ignorantium, what I like to commonly refer to as damnant quod non intelligunt, that being, they argue against that, which they do not understand.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: Reading Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 in context.

Posted on by 6 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Samuel Green has sought to defend the Christian position of salvation by substitutional sacrifice. That being  that sin can be dispensed of through the death of another human being (Christ as the sacrificial lamb). At first, he references the two verses which negate such a teaching:

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, NIV)

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, NIV)

At this point, before I dissect the eisegesis of Samuel, we need to properly lay a foundation of the views which some of the more notable and erudite Christian exegetes themselves have taken, we read from Adam Clarke’s Exegesis the follow excerpt:

“None shall die for another’s crimes, none shall be saved by another’srighteousness. Here is the general judgment relative to the righteousness andunrighteousness of men, and the influence of one man’s state on that of another; particularly in respect to their moral conduct.”

We also read from Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Entire Bible that the persons who are punished are due to their own sinning brought about by themselves:

“But this people that bore the iniquity of their fathers had not done that which is lawful and right, and therefore justly suffered for their own sin and had no reason to complain of God’s proceedings against them as at all unjust, though they had reason to complain of the bad example their fathers had left them as very unkind. “

Seeing as the Torah (Old Testament) is primarily the book of the Jews, it would be inappropriate to leave off their understanding of the verses referenced, we read from Rabbi Rashi’s commentary, the following excerpts from his exegesis of Devarim (Deuteronomy):

“Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons: [I.e.,] by the testimony of [their] sons. But, if you say [that it means that fathers shall not be put to death] because of the sins of their sons, it has already been stated, “each man shall be put to death for his own transgression.”

With these statements in mind, we now have a proper understanding from traditional Christian sources and Judaic sources as to the proper meaning of these verses. Samuel however, sought to circumvent the orthodox interpretations of these verses by claiming that he himself had a proper understanding based on Judaic principles:

“This, however, is not the case because both of these verses are referring to a person living under the covenant of the Torah (the Law of Moses). Deuteronomy 24:16 is part of the Torah itself and Ezekiel 18:20 is addressing the Israelites who were living under the Torah.”

Take note, that he’s claiming that he is representing the orthodox Judaic understanding/ context of the verses, yet nowhere, does he cite, reference or quote a single Rabbinic Judaic source to qualify his statements. It should be understood, that if he is attempting to represent the views of the people who lived under and held to the practise of the Torah, that he should atleast present one authoritative source from among these people to make extant their views. Instead, what he does is continue to quote verses, without referencing the Judaic interpretations. This therefore is a case of intentional decontextualization of a scripture by referencing a group of persons with specific beliefs, yet alienating their positions by transposing his own mendacious ideas about their belief on said scripture. He references the following verses as being representative of his position:

“(H)e must bring as his offering for the sin he committed a female goat without defect. He is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering. Then the priest is to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven. (Leviticus 4:28-31, NIV)

For the life of a creature is in the blood , and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. (Leviticus 17:11, NIV)”

He then interprets this in the following manner:

“This is why a lot of the Torah teaches about priests, sacrifices and the tabernacle/temple where the sacrifices were offered. The Torah teaches individual responsibility and forgiveness through a substitute sacrifice that bears our sin…..hese verses are not saying there is no sacrifice that can bear our sin. Instead they are saying that we are individually responsible for our sins and need to seek forgiveness through God’s provision of a substitute sacrifice that can bear our sin.”

Let’s examine his statements. To begin with, Samuel has mistakenly supposed that the animals bare the sin of the one who is doing the  sacrifice or of the one for whom the sacrifice is done. Recall, that nowhere is this stated in the verses he referenced. Note that the quotes he references makes it quite explicitly known that these sacrifices are an atonement. This is where his first problem begins, his understanding of what an atonement is, has been severely perverted. For example, if we follow through on his logic, then an act of atonement is one in which something bares the sin on behalf of the sinner:

“Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide.” – Exodus 25:17.

In this scenario, we have a cloth, a cover becoming a source of atonement for the Jewish peoples. Nothing is being sacrificed, nor is anything perishing, suffering, or being tortured to bear the sin of a sinner. Rather a piece of cloth has become a means through which sins can be forgiven. Don’t take my word on it, Adam Clarke, the Christian exegete confirms this, he says:

“This propitiatory covering, as it might well be translated, was a type of Christ, the great propitiation, whose satisfaction fully answers the demands of the law, covers our transgressions, and comes between us and the curse we deserve. “

Note the conditions that are laid forth. The cloth has to accede to the demands of God’s law (that is, it has to be tailored, or exacted by those who are executing the criteria [law] as commanded by God), when that is done, those acts which fulfill the criteria as sent by God, then covers or atones for the sins of those who carry out the commands of God. From this we then see that the act of properly abiding by God’s command as an act of atonement, delivers us from His divine punishment. If we continue onwards, we read from Exodus (Shemot) 30:11-15, the following:

“Then the LORD said to Moses, “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them. Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the LORD. All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the LORD. The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the LORD to atone for your lives.”

In this case, Samuel’s God, is taking money as a form of expiation for sin. Note, no one is suffering, no one is being tortured, no one is being killed for sin. Money is being used as a form of expiation and as it is, in this case, just like the piece of cloth aforementioned, money is like a Christ here as well, being waged for the gift of life.

Where does this therefore leave us? What it does is indicate that Samuel’s understanding of what atonement is defined as, is incorrect. Atonement is not substitutional sacrifices, rather as I have demonstrated, atonement entails enacting certain criteria as set out by God in a way which sanctifies His divine commands. In the first scenario I presented, we see the stringent conditions for the cover, with God specifying what dimensions the cloth and gold have to be. In the second scenario we see that the certain condition to be undertaken is the amount of money to be  collected and from whom, that is, if they wished for their lives to be preserved.

Note, that nothing has to suffer or die, ergo, no blood is spilled, therefore nothing has died for the sins of anyone. Rather atonement as we can see, is not that something has bared the sin of another, but that atonement is a means through which one gains God’s forgiveness and mercy. Just like prayer, or fasting, these are also means of atonement, where we hold true to God’s divine commands, with whichever criteria He denotes as being the measuring stick to qualify our acts of repentance.

In conclusion, Samuel has not provided a strong argument to demonstrate that one object or person, or for the sake of argument, an animal can bear the sin of another. Rather what he has allowed us to demonstrate is that the sacrifices we make, whether with blood or gold, money or otherwise, are means of atonement because God has dictated them and they fulfil His criteria for forgiving us of our acts of inequity (sins).  In order for his point to be valid, he has to demonstrate that the proprietary cloth or the shekels collected by Moses had to suffer and die, blood had to magically spew from them, so that a price of sin was paid, as he clearly alludes to this in his referencing of the commands in Leviticus and with his mentioning of the alleged death of Christ.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

« Older Entries Recent Entries »