Tag Archives: exposed

Pastor Samuel Green Caught Lying About “New” Quote

Posted on by Leave a comment

Pastor Samuel Green has been caught openly lying in a quote on the textual study of the Qur’aan. Behnam Sadeghi in Arabica 57 as quoted by Samuel Green has said the following:

cc-2014-samuegreen-quranlying

So Behnam Sadeghi is saying we have a “GENUINE ARCHETYPE” of the Qur’aanic text, breaking these terms down, we see:

gen·u·ine  (jĕn′yo̅o̅-ĭn)

adj.

1. Actually possessing the alleged or apparent attribute or character: gen
2. Not spurious or counterfeit; authentic. See Synonyms at authentic.
and the other definition:

archetype (ˈɑːkɪˌtaɪp)

n

1. a perfect or typical specimen
2. an original model or pattern; prototype
So according to the scholar Pastor Green quotes, we have an GENUINE/ AUTHENTIC, ORIGINAL TEXT of the Qur’aan. Yet, Green is saying the clear opposite. Can someone who speaks the English language, inform Pastor Green of what the words, genuine, authentic and original mean?

and God knows best.

Samuel Green – Does Islam Allow Muslims to Worship Prophets?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Samuel Green has been caught lying once more, here’s a brilliant video by Br. Yahya Snow:

Samuel claims to be a speaker and reader of Arabic, yet any individual who speaks or reads Arabic, will know that the Duroof Shareef is not a prayer to Muhammad salallaahu alayhi wa salam:

ALLAHUMMA SALLI ALA MUHAMMADIW WA ALA AALI MUHAMMADIN KAMAA SALLAITA ALA IBRAHIMA WA ALA AALI IBRAHIMA INNAKA HAMIDUM MAJID. ALLAHUMMA BAARIK ALA MUHAMMADIW WA ALA AALI MUHAMMADIN KAMAA BAARAKTA ALA IBRAHIMA WA ALA AALI IBRAHIMA INNAKA HAMIDUM MAJID.

“O Allah, let Your Blessings come upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, as you have blessed Ibrahim and his family. Truly, You are Praiseworthy and Glorious. Allah, bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, as you have blessed Ibrahim and his family. Truly, You are Praiseworthy and Glorious”.

Clearly, the prayer begins by addressing God and asking God to do something. It’s very funny that Pastor Samuel who claims to understand the Arabic language to the extent he can spot errors in classical Arabic, that he cannot understand what Allahumma means.

Exposed? Surely so!

and God knows best.

Sam Shamoun’s Minion is as Uneducated as He Is

Posted on by Leave a comment

I’m not sure what I expected, but I’m now beginning to realise why many refer to Sam’s entourage/ group of minions as graduates of clown college. In discussing the age of our Mother ‘Aisha (may Allaah be pleased with her), I demonstrated quite simply that she herself admitted to having been in the state of puberty, i.e. sexual maturation – that is to no longer be a child but to now be a young adult in relation to her marriage with the Prophet (peace be upon him).

I indicated in the hadeeth it literally mentions her reaching puberty:

Narrated ‘Aisha {ra}: (the wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty. Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings. My father Abii Bakr thought of building a mosque in the courtyard of his house and he did so. He used to pray and recite the Qur’an in it. The pagan women and their children used to stand by him and look at him with surprise. Abu Bakr was a soft hearted person and could not help weeping while reciting the Quran. The chiefs of the Quraish pagans became afraid of that (i.e. that their children and women might be affected by the recitation of Quran).” – Sahih Bukhari :: Book 1 :: Volume 8 :: Hadith 465.

The hadeeth itself says:

” زَوْجَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَتْ لَمْ أَعْقِلْ”

That the wife of the Prophet (peace be upon him) gathered or attained the age of reasoning, i.e. puberty. Age of reasoning is a euphemism in almost all known languages to refer to a child entering into a state of adulthood/ sexual maturation, the definition is provided here:

The age at which a child is considered capable of acting responsibly.

Under Common Law, seven was the age of reason. Children under the age of seven were conclusively presumed incapable of committing a crime because they did not possess the reasoning ability to understand that their conduct violated the standards of acceptable community behavior. Those between the ages of seven and fourteen were presumed incapable of committing a crime, but this presumption could be overcome by evidence, such as the child having possession of the gun immediately after the shooting. The rebuttable presumption for this age group was based on the assumption that, as the child grew older, he or she learned to differentiate between right and wrong. A child over the age of fourteen was considered to be fully responsible for his or her actions. Many states have modified the age of criminal responsibility by statute.

Unfortunately, the owner of the blog at which Sam is currently frustrating himself over me on, made this comment:

The moral perfection of Christ proves that he is God. A post by Sam Shamoun. Badmanna's Blog (1)

Note, obviously this isn’t what I said, what I did say is that it is commonly known that children are not responsible for their actions until they are baligh or mature, i.e. attained puberty. Thus when puberty occurs, by this time, they can exercise their mental faculties to differentiate between right and wrong, hence why it is also known as the age of reasoning. Apparently, according to this highly educated individual, who has quite funnily, never seen this term before, assumed I was demeaning women. Guess he needs to read a science, law or political book or two. Just goes to show that clowns really do attract each other. Now I’m stuck here wondering why I’m arguing with individuals who can’t comprehend basic terms taught in High School….

Let’s remember for a second that Sam Shamoun is an Iraqi Assyrian immigrant to the USA, whose been writing about Islam for about more than 15 years, I’ve just only began to write about Islam. It must be very embarrassing for him to be experiencing this whooping.

and Allaah knows best.

Ergun Caner Does It Again

Posted on by 2 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The sheer absurdities coming out of this impostor’s mouth are absolutely mind blowing. I’m not sure whether to laugh at him or cry for him. Either way, Ergun Caner is back and he’s making himself more of a laughing stock to the Muslim community. Enjoy:

Much thanks to Br. Yahya Snow.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Christian Converts to Islam will be Killed: The Threat of Apostasy

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Many people fail to realise that death due to apostasy is not something alien to Christianity, it is in fact, part and parcel of the Christian religion in itself. It is sad to see that many Christian missionaries and apologists fail to highlight the plight of Christian converts to Christianity. Recently, I attempted to have a discussion with Hazem Farraj, an Evangelical ‘ex-Muslim’. Sadly after reminding him that the Bible promotes the law of apostasy, he soon erupted with anger and blocked me. This is the message I sent to him:

Hazem Farraj, what is wrong with what the Shaykh has said, if he says what YHWH says?

“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.” – Deuteronomy 13:6-10.

Jesus never abandoned the law of apostasy, for YHWH himself as declared it eternal:

“All your righteous laws are eternal.” – Psalm 119:60.

I find your hypocrisy to be quite disturbing. If you love God, why are you denying His words in the Bible?

After posting this, I casually mentioned that many Christians still commit honour killings due to apostasy, for which he deleted me before I could publish this bit of information on his wall:

“Christian farmer Ishaq Aziz’s 17-year-old daughter Nirmeen went missing on Valentine’s Day, fueling speculation that she has converted and will reappear with a Muslim husband once she turns 18.Aziz, 47, and his family are preparing for that day. They have sold some farmland to buy firearms, and Aziz explained matter-of-factly that Nirmeen and her husband will be killed first — “it is a question of honor” — and then the guns will turn against the groom’s family.”But we will happily take her back if she comes back with her faith intact,” he said. “Even if she is pregnant, a cousin will marry her,” he said, wiping a tear with the sleeve of his dark blue galabiya robe.” – The Associated Press.

Christians thrive on ‘argumentum ad baculum’, an argument based on the fear of something. They pretend that Islam is some fearful faith, yet they are silent when their own followers do the same. Just another Christian missionary ashamed of the Bible!

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Simple Reasons to Disbelieve in the Bible

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Bruce Metzger[1]:

Variant Readings among the Manuscripts

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

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

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

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

wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.

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

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