Tag Archives: History of the Bible

Why Muslims Reject the Bible as Scripture

Islam acknowledges that scripture was given to the Christians and Jews, we call such people, “Ahlul Kitab” or the “People of the Book”. However, where we disagree,  begins with the very understanding of what the Bible is. To the Muslim, the Torah was given to Moses and the Gospel to Christ. This is, as the Qur’an says in Surah 5, Verse 44 and Verse 46. The Qur’an explicitly states that the Injeel was a scripture given to Jesus from God. No Christian today believes that the New Testament was given by Jesus to his disciples. These are therefore, distinct books. The New Testament is not the Injeel. As Muslims, we believe that both Christians and Jews today both do not have in their possession the original Torah or the original Gospel.

We don’t make this claim simply because we can, but we make this claim due to the evidences we possess. To begin with, the Qur’an states in Surah 2, Ayah 79 and in Surah 5, Ayah 13 that both the Jews and the Christians corrupted their “scripture” which they wrote of themselves and then claimed those writings to be from God. This might seem odd to some Christians that the Bible is a corrupted, and manufactured “scripture”. You may be asking if the Muslim is able to defend such a claim. We can and it’s simple. One example I am fond of using is the following argument, it goes a little something like this:-

Can you tell me which Old Testament you believe in?

  • Greek Septuagint.
  • Hebrew Vorlage based on the Septuagint.
  • Masoretic Text.
  • Samaritan Pentateuch.
  • DSS/ Qumran Scrolls.
  • Mystery Source of the Greek Septuagint.

Can you tell me which New Testament you believe in?

  • Marcion’s Canon.
  • Tatian’s Diatesseron.
  • Codex Sinaiticus.
  • Textus Receptus.
  • Codex Vaticanus.
  • Codex Alexandrius.
  • Codex Bezae.
  • Codex Syriac.
  • Codex Washingtonesis.
  • Nestle Aland Greek New Testament Codices through to the 28th Edition..
  • UBS 1 through 5 Greek New Testament Editions.
  • John Mill’s 1707 Greek New Testament Codex.
  • Codex Ephraemi-Rescriptus.
  • Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (1881).

The problem is, there is no “one Biblical text” that all Christians agree on. What you call the Bible today is a translated text based on Greek, Arabic, Syriac and even Ethiopian writings. All collected and pieced together. What you call the Bible in 2014, is not what the first Christians called it some 2000 years ago. Namely because the New Testament didn’t exist until the writings of Paul began some 14 years after Christ ascended. At the earliest, the Bible was decided upon by what was called an Ecumenical Council or a “Unity Council”, today known as the Councils of Carthage in 393 and 397 AD. Yet, every Bible since that time, has varied, with no two remaining the same. Thus, what the Bible exists as today, is not considered to be the Bible which Christians in any previous century have believed in. The Bible is still evolving to this day, with both conservative and liberal Christian scholars attempting to define what the Bible “could” have looked like according to what each textual critic’s understanding of the text could have or should have looked like.

A new critical edition of the New Testament, means that textual critics examine the manuscript variants which occur in words and passages. They examine these variants and then through a select criteria, they attempt to ascertain which variant is the most authentic. In some cases, as in the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, when scholars do not find any of the variants to be accurate, authentic or valid they invent their own reading which has no manuscript basis. This is known as “conjectural emendation”. In the Westcott and Hort New Testament, this was done some 65 times. As such, this would mean that as variant words and passages continue to be argued over, the New Testament text continues to evolve every few years as the critical editions are released, as with the latest Nestle Aland and United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testaments. This is due to the textual critics employing what we know as the “eclectic method”. As a consequence of this method, there is not a single codex on the face of the earth that has existed with in the form of the New Testament we have today. The New Testament we have today is based on variants from hundreds of differing manuscripts and variant codices. The truth is, if the Christian scholars of today and those of the past still cannot decide on what the Bible is or what it was or what it will be, why should Muslims accept it as their scripture?

This case begets another problem, as the God of the Old Testament, proclaims that there is one eternal word of God, in Psalms 119:89, it reads:

“Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.”

Which word is it referring to? There are so many canons and codices to choose from, none being the same from the first complete codices in the third century to those of today. How can you ask the Muslim to accept, what the Christian faith itself cannot decide upon?

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,

First Published: 6/ 8/ 12. Error noted by the missionary Paulus in which I wrote KJV Codex. I’m not sure on which basis I made that error, but it has since been corrected.

Christians Naturally Distrust and Disbelieve in the New Testament

There’s a problem with the New Testament, and every conservative Christian scholar, including the likes of Daniel B. Wallace, James White to the Liberals such as Dr. Crossan have implicitly conceded to their distrust of the New Testament text. Let’s first list a few facts to establish the foundation for our case:

  • The Council of Nicea was held in 325 CE.
  • The oldest editions of the New Testament in their most complete forms date between 350 – 450 CE (Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus).
  • The Councils of Carthage in 393 and 397 CE affirmed the Christian canon of the New Testament.

The Argument

If Christians are satisfied that the ‘true’ and ‘original’ text of the New Testament was in circulation at the time of the Council of Nicea, and accept that the New Testament books were used before, during and after the Council to affirm the Athansian Creed of the Hypostatic Union, versus that of the Arian Creed, and also accept that in 367 CE Athansius affirmed these texts, and also agree that in 393 and 397 CE the Patristics (Early Church Fathers) agreed that the New Testament in circulation was the ‘true’ and ‘original’ scripture, then why do Christians seek manuscripts before the Councils of Nicea and Carthage to ‘validate the text of the New Testament’?

What am I saying? I’m saying –

We have New Testament codices from the 4th century. In the 4th century, three important Ecumenical councils utilized the New Testament canon and since it was used during the Council of Nicea, then Christians should be statisfied with the New Testament codices of the 4th century. Since they are not satisfied and constantly seeking to rediscover the ‘original’ (authograph) manuscripts from the time of the presbyters and apostles, then they are acknowledging their distrust in the New Testament which existed at the time of the 4th century – the same New Testament we essentially have today. That being the same New Testament canon and codex that Christians today call scripture.

The Problem

If the Christians accept the canon of the New Testament during the 4th century and believe as they do today in the New Testament we currently have – largely based on 4th century codices, then they should not seek a New Testament before the 4th century, as that would by and large mean that the Church Fathers affirmed the wrong canon, they affirmed false books, invented books, incorrectly attributed books to the apostles as being scripture, moreso their use of it during their debates against each other would mean that the evidences used to establish proto-Orthodox Christian doctrine are false, therefore meaning the beliefs and scripture of contemporary Christians is false.

Apologetic Use of this Argument

We now no longer need to invest our time in approaching Christians to discuss their New Testament. The very fact that they are zealously attempting to rediscover the original text, when they already have the texts ratified, verified and authenticated by the Church Fathers, the same text the Church Fathers used to defend current orthodox Christian beliefs – demonstrates that Christians have based their beliefs on foundations they themselves do not trust. Therefore, in terms of polemics and apologetics, the Christians who claim to understand Textual Criticism and adamantly preach about any New Testament manuscript before the 4th century has demonstrated to the Muslim that he is unsatisfied with the New Testament and the beliefs based on it.

This would mean, in simple terms – there is no reason to argue or debate about the New Testament text, when we can simply agree with the Christians in their search for an earlier than 4th century text. We should simple shake their hands and say, “thank you for giving us reasons to doubt your scripture and your beliefs about God”.

Conclusion

If the Church fathers used the wrong New Testament text, and based their beliefs (which they quoted heavily) on the New Testament of the 4th century, then undoubtedly the religion of Christianity has collapsed due to their own search for any New Testament document/ manuscript before the 4th century CE.

Punishing the Female Rape Victim in Islam

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It is unfortunate that for people who profess objectivity and sincerity in their study, research and pursuit of knowledge that there continues to be a great perversion of the understanding of Islamic Shari’ah laws and its applications. Proponents of the modern secular system, or of varying theological political systems, seemingly cannot produce a consistent stance on judging the use or misuse of the Islamic Shari’ah, while wholly regarding it to be unfair, unjust and backwards. Demonstrably, it can be noted that their own justice systems produce often, curious if not peculiar judgements. In one case, a mother can be sentenced to jail for a period of 5 years, for stealing clothing from a store for her children at a value of  $102 dollars. While at the same time a Wall Street tycoon who has defrauded enough persons to make himself a billionaire, was sentence to a period of only, 11 years. What then, can we say is logical about this? Based on this one example of a judgement that is neither proportional to the crimes when compared and contrasted nor morally justifiable, can I then generalize the American justice system as being inhumane, profiteering and socially inept?

To further this discussion with more evidences relevant to the topic at hand, let’s examine sexual assault cases, in particular rape. This child rapist was sentenced to only 5 to 7 years in prison, the same amount of time as the woman who stole $102 dollars worth of goods. This rapist was sentenced to only 9 years in prison, while defrauding persons of hundreds of millions of dollars and sending families into distress, bankruptcy and insolvency will earn you the same amount of jail time. Continuing with this trend, we can deduce that according to the modern secular system, stealing and rape are upon the same field of justice. Considering these tragic acts, let’s examine the Islamic position on rape in the modern world. To rape in Islamic law is to have committed “ightisaab”, which means to forcefully transgress and take a woman’s honour from her (rape). The crime is punishable by death but doesn’t have to be punished by death, the punishment however has to be severe as to deter anyone else from attempting this crime. Therefore, there can be no equivalence between stealing and rape, a woman’s honour is not the same as stealing an apple, or clothing as it is seen in the secular justice system.

Islamic Shari’ah rule, is intended to govern a state by Islamic law, where the ulema (religious leaders) who are fuqaha (jurists), establish courts where a qadhi (judge) can make binding rulings (fatawa) on behalf of the state against a criminal and establish justice in the society. This understanding is based upon the Qur’anic statements:

“And so judge (you O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) among them by what Allaah has revealed” – [al-Maa’idah 5:49].

“And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the Kaafiroon (i.e. disbelievers — of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allaah’s Laws)” – [al-Maa’idah 5:44].

“And whosoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, such are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers — of a lesser degree)” – [al-Maa’idah 5:45].

“And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed (then) such (people) are the Fâsiqûn [the rebellious i.e. disobedient (of a lesser degree)] to Allaah” – [al-Maa’idah 5:47].

“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission” – [al-Nisa’ 4:65].

“Do they then seek the judgement of (the days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith” – [al-Maa’idah 5:50].

To make this succinct and easy to grasp, the discussion will be broken up into several questions:

  • What do the Islamic scholars (Ulema) say on the punishment of rape?
  • Are four witnesses needed to prove rape?
  • Are women who do not wear hijab responsible for their rape?
  • Is the woman to be punished for rape?
  • Forced marriage to rapist?
  • Further reading.

What do the Islamic scholars (Ulema) say on the punishment of rape?

Yûsuf ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Muhammad Ibn `Abd al-Barr  Abû `Umar al-Namarî al-Andalusî al-Qurtubî al-Mâlikî (may Allaah be pleased with him), a prominent Islamic jurist, of whom Imam al Qurtubi cites/ references about 500 times in his tafsir has stated in Al-Istidhkâr li Madhhab `Ulamâ’ al-Amsâr fîmâ Tadammanahu al-Muwatta’ min Ma`ânî al-Ra’î wal-Athâr (“The Memorization of the Doctrine of the Scholars of the World Concerning the Juridical Opinions and the Narrations Found in Mâlik’s Muwatta'”),  7/146:

The scholars are unanimously agreed that the rapist is to be subjected to the hadd punishment if there is clear evidence against him that he deserves the hadd punishment, or if he admits to that. Otherwise, he is to be punished (i.e., if there is no proof that the hadd punishment for zina may be carried out against him because he does not confess, and there are not four witnesses, then the judge may punish him and stipulate a punishment that will deter him and others like him). There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that he forced her and overpowered her, which may be proven by her screaming and shouting for help.

Are four witnesses needed to prove rape?

Mufti Taqi Uthmani [db] in his discussion during an interview on Pakistan’s implementation of the Protection of Women Bill 2006, expounded upon his rulings and the rulings of other Islamic judges:

‎”I myself had been directly hearing cases registered under Hudood Ordinance, first as a Judge of Federal Shariah Court and then for seventeen years as a member of Shariah Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court. In this long tenure, not once did I come across a case in which a rape victim was awarded punishment simply because she was unable to present four witnesses.

In fact it was not possible to do so. First, according to the Hudood Ordinance, the condition of four witnesses only applied to enforcing the hadd for rape. Clause 10(3), which awarded the ta’zeer punishment, did not have this requirement; the crime could be proven through one witness, medical reports, and chemical analysis report. Consequently most rape criminals were awarded punishment as per this clause.

Further, a woman claiming rape could not be punished under Qazf (false accusation of zina) since Exemption 2 in Qazf Ordinance Clause 3 clearly stated that if someone approaches the legal authorities with a rape complaint, she could not be punished in case she was unable to present four witnesses.”

To compound this statement, Shaykh Faraz Rabbani (may Allaah be pleased with him) has stated:

“This is a common myth about Islamic criminal law. Rather, the four witness requirement applies only to the prescribed hadd punishment (which in the case of a married person could be death and for the non-married, 100 lashes). [Marghinani, Hidaya] This punishment is only applied in very rare cases, as is clear, and is meant to be a social deterrent, above all.

As the classical and contemporary jurists (such as Mufti Taqi Usmani) have made clear, a rapist can be convicted on lesser evidence (including scientific evidence, such as DNA tests and medical reports) for discretionary punishments. These discretionary punishments are left up to the legal system to determine.

However, it is a myth to say that Islam would in any way condone rape, or allow a rapist to go free for this terrible crime against an innocent human being and against society.”

This therefore rests the case, of the issue with 4 witnesses being needed to prove rape, indeed rape can be proven using modern scientific methods and other evidences, as seen above, as being agreed upon by Islamic fuqaha (jurists).

Are women who do not wear hijab responsible for their rape?

Mufti Muhammad Kadwa and Mufti Ebrahim Desai (may Allaah be pleased with them both) have stated:

These are two separate issues; rape and the lack of Hijaab. The rapist will be punished for his heinous crime whilst the woman will be sinful not for rape, but for failure to observe the rules of Hijaab. Failure to wear Hijaab in no way justifies the heinous crime of rape.

Is the woman to be punished for rape?

Imam Maalik (may Allaah have mercy on him) has said in Al-Muwatta’, 2/734:

In our view the man who rapes a woman, whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a “dowry” like that of her peers, …. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case.

Prophet Muhammad (may Allaah’s peace and blessings be upon him) has also decreed punishments for persons who have committed rape, while freeing the woman of any punishment:

“Narrated Wa’il ibn Hujr (may Allaah be pleased with him):
When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me.

And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her. She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him).

When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.

He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death.”  – (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith #4366, Kitab al Hudud [38]).

Forced Marriage to Rapist?

While Islam punishes the rapist, we do hear of some really peculiar instances where the woman is married to the man. This has no basis in Islamic law, nor does it comply with Islamic reasoning, according to this fatwa by Mufti Ebrahim Desai [db]:

“Knowing the importance and sacredness of a marriage commitment, the boy and girl having consulted with their seniors and making Istikhaara, should make their own independent choice.

They should not be compelled to marry against their wishes as the consequences (non-compatibility, divorce, disputes, custody of children, etc.) are too ghastly to bear. Parents should not compel their children to marry against their wishes due to economic status reasons.”

As well as this fatwa by the same Mufti (Islamic Jurist):

“As an adult, you have an independent right to choose your marriage partner. You should not be forced into marrying someone against your choice. Those forcing you are guilty of depriving you of your Shar’ee right and committing a major sin,

You should simply say no if you are not confident of marrying against your choice. The consequences of forced marriages are too ghastly. There are great possibilities of a marital breakdown. That will lead to disunity among many families. The matter will be clouded even more if there is a child born through the marriage. Considering the many negative consequences of a forced marriage, you should never give in to being forced to marry against your wish. It will be you and no one else who will have to bear the burdens in future. You may forward this email to those forcing you to marry against your wishes.”

However, to contrast the Islamic position, let’s look at this excerpt from the Jewish and Christian religious text, Old Testament (Torah), Deuteronomy (Devarim), Chapter 22, Verses 28 – 29:

“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

Further Reading:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/testimony-of-rape-victim/
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/does-islam-require-four-witnesses-for-rape/
http://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/03/12/is-the-shariah-inhumane-you-decide/ 

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

James White’s Futility and Inconsistency

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

Refutation: Muslim Dawagandist Shabir Ally’s War With Himself

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best].

 

Ancient Bible Discovered, Turkey and the Vatican Vie for Interests [Updated]

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

A Turkish state media release, has sparked interest throughout the entire world, as it possibly concurs with proper Islamic theology towards Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad {saw}.

The article over at the DailyMail UK says:

Turkish culture and tourism minister Ertugrul Gunay said the book could be an authentic version of the Gospel, which was suppressed by the Christian Church for its strong parallels with the Islamic view of Jesus.

He also said the Vatican had made an official request to see the scripture – a controversial text which Muslims claim is an addition to the original gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

In line with Islamic belief, the Gospel treats Jesus as a human being and not a God.

This new discovery, has really sent a shock wave of buzz throughout the religious and non-religious worlds. Popular news websites, atheist websites, Muslim and Christian forums are filled it excitement over the prospects of this news. However, many Christian polemics and apologists have sought to denounce the discovery as fraudulent. The very existence of this codex (collection of manuscripts), presents a troubling case for Christendom. The very core beliefs of Islam are being verified, whereas the core doctrinal beliefs towards the alleged deity of Jesus is being thoroughly disputed. Perhaps, the most popular claim against the codex, is that given the dating, it still would not be during the time of St. Barnabus, thus automatically it is a fraud. However, this can be easily rejected, as the name merely presents an identity, for the work’s author, it does not deny the historicity of the manuscripts themselves. Therefore to present such a claim, is to appeal to the fallacy of consequences of a belief.

We must make some points extant, that is, we must identify clearly, why the Christian arguments and reasoning for rejecting this codex (collection of manuscripts) are nothing more than failing attempts to protect a proper challenge to their faith:

(1) The author’s name/ title doesn’t matter, the content does, whether or not the author is known, the data which discusses Islamic and Christian doctrines is of utmost importance. Similarly, most of the authors of the New Testament and many of the Old Testament are either homonymous (attributing to yourself a title of a previously known author), pseudonymous (false name) and even anonymous (unknown), yet Christians themselves will never acknowledge the same argument to be used against their Bible.

(2) The content doesn’t matter in relation to whether or not it agrees with Christian Theology, that isn’t the pivot of veracity. Whether Christians agree with the contents or not, does not affect its truthfulness. What matters is that the content directly challenges the Christian narrative and brings to light new and shocking information about early Christendom and its proximity in core beliefs towards Islam.

(3) Other rejected Gospels which already date to the time of the 4 accepted Gospels, exist and do agree to some extent with Islamic theology. For example, according to Professor Robert Eisenmann, the Jewish sect of the Essenes migrated to Arabia, as they believed him to be the foretold Prophet in their scriptures. These scriptures are better known today as the Qumran scrolls or the Dead Sea Scrolls.

We therefore must conclude that there is no real Christian argument against this discovery, as their own Gospels are founded upon the same arguments they are using against the Turkish Bible. Until more information arises, we have to work under the assumption it may be valid, that is, until more data can be derived towards its exact dating.

Some information on the manuscripts:

  •  The 1,500-year-old tome is said to contain Jesus’ early teachings and his prediction of the Prophet Muhammad ‘s (saw) coming.
  • The leather-bound text, written on animal hide, was discovered by Turkish police during an anti-smuggling operation in 2000.
  • It was closely guarded until 2010, when it was finally handed over to the Ankara Ethnography Museum.
  •  The Vatican had made an official request to see the scripture – a controversial text which Muslims claim is an addition to the original gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
  • In line with Islamic belief, the Gospel treats Jesus as a human being and not a God.
  • The £14million handwritten gold lettered tome, penned in Jesus’ native Aramaic language, is said to contain his early teachings.
  • It rejects the ideas of the Holy Trinity and the Crucifixion and reveals that Jesus predicted the coming of the Prophet Muhammad (saw).
  • In one version of the gospel, he is said to have told a priest: ‘How shall the Messiah be called? Muhammad is his blessed name’.

We don’t expect Christians to accept this Turkish Bible, rather, the point of this being made public is to atleast state that there were writings of the Prophet Muhammad {saw} 100 years before his coming. In addition to the numerous Arabo-Islamic reports of Priests in the ancient world, acceding to Muslim emissaries and conceding that Muhammad {saw} was indeed the promised Messenger. In this light, we say that there is no new information for us, this discovery is simply an addendum to our ever growing and ever expanding prophetic material towards Islamic theology.

More articles from around the world on the discovery:

http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2012/02/more-on-1500-year-old-gospel-kept-in.html

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-02/25/c_131430464.htm

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-272446-1500-year-old-handwritten-bible-includes-depiction-of-last-supper.html

http://english.cri.cn/6966/2012/02/25/2724s683103.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2850468/posts

http://www.armtown.com/news/en/yer/20120223/20651/

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

« Older Entries