Tag Archives: Ijaz Ahmad

Post Debate Remarks

Posted on by 5 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I began my preparation for this debate by watching Br. Paul Bilal William’s debates on the same topic, as well as Dr. Shabir Ally’s debate. I didn’t finish watching either debate because I became tired of the Christian arguments that were being used. They were identical. They simply went to the New Testament and the rest of the debate devolved into whose interpretation of the New Testament verses was more accurate. I realised that this was the argument that Muslims and Christians have been having for 1434 years. Whose interpretation of the same verses was more valid. After seeing this I decided that if I am to debate this topic, I would refuse to carry on this archaic tradition. It was time for something new. There are only two sources for which my opponent could have appealed to; the New Testament and the Old Testament. From this, my aim therefore was to negate the use of the New Testament, relegate my opponent to using the Old Testament and when he tried to use it, refute his claims and leave him without a foundation upon which to stand. In other words, my aim was to render my opponent as a headless chicken.

My method was as such:

  1. To be objective in our discussion we need to go to the primary source which mentions a Messiah.
  2. Hence any text after the Messiah could not be utilized if we are to be honest; thus negating both the Qur’aan and the New Testament.
  3. Ask my opponent where the Messiah is said to be YHWH or where YHWH is said to be the Messiah in the Old Testament; since neither can be found in the Old Testament, my opponent could no longer use it.

It was my intention therefore to create such a simple methodology, that by negating any foundation for my opponent to argue upon, he would be dumbfounded, confused and make horrendous mistakes. As Allaah ta ‘aala willed, it was as exactly as I planned. My opponent began his arguments with appealing to the New Testament, then by affirming the Ecumenical Creeds and lastly by placing the New Testament Christological interpretations into Old Testament verses. From the get go he fell into my hands and I enjoyed it. At one point I got bored and began shopping on Amazon and talking with Br. Nazam from London. I even commented on a few Facebook statuses. It was absolutely hilarious to hear my opponent’s first rebuttal.

Real talk, straight up, CL was dumbfounded. He cautiously took the mic and failed to use all of his time. All he did was claim that in my opening statement I did not give my rebuttal to any of his arguments. That was his entire rebuttal to my opening statement. In his rebuttal he failed to:

  • Provide any justification for using the New Testament to prove Christ’s deity.
  • Provide any justification for interpreting the Old Testament texts through a Christological proto-orthodox lens.
  • Address my critique of his methodology.

So what was the result? CL was forced into preaching about his life as an ex-Muslim. At that point we had Muslims and Christians congratulating me on a momentous victory. What was funny to me was that CL was a Muslim for exactly half of my entire lifetime and he was unable to refute me, despite doing apologetics courses. I caught him off guard, brought new arguments and completely disarmed him. He didn’t know what to do. Seriously. He spent almost two minutes praising me in his conclusion as well, he had nothing to say, he couldn’t respond to the simple logic I used. I am not being boastful or prideful, but I am happy that haqq prevailed over baatil. CL got spanked horribly. We had no question and answer session as I was still medicated due to my post-op medication. Yet I was the one who stayed for about 15 minutes after the debate to take questions. CL fled immediately. Both Christians and Muslims were shocked that he ran away immediately after the debate.

The debate will be uploaded shortly. All I have to say is, I am happy it occurred, I got a chance to demonstrate how devastating simple arguments are and I am proud to have introduced new arguments into the fray of centuries old religious discourse. It’s also the first time in world history – to my knowledge, that a debate on Christ’s deity occurred and the opposing side did not quote the New Testament once. I hope to take up another debate soon and I pray that CL sees the reality of Islam soon, Ameen.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Refutation: Where Does Moses Prophesy of Jesus’ Coming?

Posted on by 4 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

AO Ministry’s Francis Turretin, wasn’t too fond my recent exchange with a Christian missionary. In my exchange, my question essentially was, what was YHWH’s purpose for revealing the Law, according to the Torah itself. Subsequent to this, the missionary claimed that the purpose of the Law was to foretell the coming of Jesus the Christ, I asked for some evidence of this and sadly that particular missionary could not provide any. To his rescue!? If I may call it that is Francis who says:

“There are doubtless many ways in which Moses pointed to Jesus’ coming. The most obvious and explicit one is this:

Deuteronomy 18:15-19
The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; according to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”

Except that:

  1. The brothers (‘ach in Hebrew) of the Israelites are any of the descendants of Abraham, inclusive of the Arabs.
  2. This verse is not a Messianic Prophecy.
  3. His application of it as a Messianic Prophecy is based on the fallacy of post-hoc eisegesis.
  4. Did Christ send himself, or was he sent by God? As it says ‘God will raise…’, not, ‘the Son’, ‘the Word’, ‘the Mashiach’ or,  ‘Immanuel’, would raise himself.
  5. Did Christ ever speak as a God? If so, then did he speak on behalf of his own identity as a son-God or as the verse says solely on behalf of the Father-God? As it is says, ‘I will put my words in his mouth…’.
  6. Did Christ give divine commands as a son-God or did he solely obey the will of the Father-God? As it says, ‘and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him‘.
  7. Finally, the last line explicitly states that the words the person in the verse being referred to will speak God’s words, as it says, ‘in my name‘ and that God will, ‘require it of him’. Was Christ required as a deity to do the will of another deity?

Sorry Francis, unfortunately your archaic Christian response based on post-hoc eisegesis of the Messiah’s mission will not aid your cause here. You’ve raised more problems than solutions and atleast for the better part of things, given us Muslims believable reasons to reject the dual nature of Christ according to these passages.

Still the question remains unanswered: ‘What does YHWH Say the Purpose of the Law Is?‘ and as a consequential question for our missionary friends, ‘Where does Moses say the Law is to Prophesy About Jesus?‘.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Debate with CL Edwards Update

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

No debate is without a little controversy. A day before I had released the information about the debate, CL Edwards posted the information on his website. Later that evening I was approached by one of his friends, Antonio Santana, a Christian Missionary Polemic.

 

cl-debate-mbi

[Click Image to Zoom for Bigger Size]

Antonio deceptively came to ask me about a discussion in which the statue in Daniel was being discussed. I gave my opinion on this discussion and was about to exit the conversation when he brought up the debate. What was disturbing to me was the fact that he stated that CL Edwards invited him to moderate. I want to make it explicitly clear that I have all my email correspondences saved with CL and at no point in time did we discuss the possibility of Antonio (MBI3030) to be considered as a moderator. Now either it is that Antonio is lying or he is simply stirring trouble for CL.

When Antonio realised he would not get his way with me, he then insulted a significant portion of my friends by labelling them as blood thirsty Muslims. I must remind him that we Muslims do not ‘drink‘ the blood of any saviour, but he does, therefore when it comes to being blood thirsty, the label applies directly to him. I publicly call for CL Edwards to deal with his friend and proclaim that he does not endorse the violent and deceptive rhetoric of Antonio. I have agreed to debate CL, but I have not agreed to babysit his friends while they attempt to disturb our most exciting event.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Refutation: How Muslims bloggers wrongly divide the Word of God. PT 1

Posted on by 2 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

After a seemingly long absence from the apologetics realm, Chessie L. Edwards has once again returned, with a brand new article. You can read my previous responses to all of his articles here. I am pleased to see that not much has changed, he was attempting to respond to this post of mine.  Specifically trying to respond to Argument #1.

His Introduction:

Christ being “sinless”is beyond mere moral conduct it has to do with nature. Christ was not born of a male, he was supernaturally conceived without sperm to the virgin Mary. What this all means is that he was not under the curse of Adam, he did not have the fallen wretched sinful natural that afflicts all other men.

According to Chessie, Christ was not sinless due to moral conduct, but due to being born that way, as he puts it, this was “Christ’s nature”. I couldn’t agree more, it’s finally good to see him accepting the Islamic position of all children being born upon the “fitrah” or “pure nature”. We as Muslims also agree with the notion that Christ was not born of a male, however we would like to ask him what curse of Adam he is referring to? That is because, while I am sure he meant the “original sin”, this belief has no Biblical basis. In fact, the only curse of Adam would be that of Genesis 3:14-15, which does not mention any man having been cursed by God to be born with sin.

What is meant by ‘Christ fulfilled the Law’:

When it is said Christ fulfilled the Law and Old Testament, what is being spoken of is again beyond human moral-ism. All the promises, types and shadows in the old Testament pointed to the Messiah. No mere prophet was going to fulfill the words of Isaiah when he said….

According to Chessie, following the law, does not mean following the law, as he comprehends it to mean being above “human morality”. So by that logic, if we “follow” the law “perfectly”, i.e. we fulfil it, does that mean we in ourselves are above “human morality”?

In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. – Bible, Luke 1:5-6.

Clearly he needs to sit down and study his own Bible, after all these two verses which demonstrate that humans can practise all of the law blamelessly, is in the first chapter of the Gospel according to “Luke”. One of the problems we see with Christians is their poor study of the Old Testament. Rabbi Michael Skobac discusses the irrational belief of the Christians and their prophecies of their concept of a Messiah:

While as Muslims we do accept Jesus as the Messiah, we do not agree, along with the Jews that the Messiah is to be a God, a sacrificial son, a Trinitarian, etc. In the above video, the Rabbi examines the claims of “prophetic-God Messiah-ship”, it’s well worth the time to watch it. Chessie then tries to claim that Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy about Christ being foretold as the Son of God, something which I answered here.

He then proceeded to quote a variety of verses that reference Paul’s and Christ’s attitude pertaining to the law, something which I have already discussed in detail in this article of mines. I won’t bother to answer those claims in this response as the articles I’ve previously written and subsequently linked to (see above) more than aptly go into heavily detailed study and research into these rather simple topics.

Conclusion:

I am left questioning myself as to how Chessie considered this a “refutation”, as opposed to more of an erratic tirade for the purpose of insulting me:

It is no surprise the a unregenerate natural minded man such as our Muslim blogger would be blinded to the Spiritual truths contain in scripture, the Word of God tells us

At this point, I suppose he gave up on trying to respond to my argument and proceeded to just write a post to give the illusion his blog is still active, other than that I can’t fathom a reason he’d write something so silly. My arguments therefore stand and I do look forward to seeing someone else eventually try to respond to them.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: Ijaz Ahmad vs. the Prophet Zechariah!

Posted on by 3 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Anthony Rogers released a series of articles after our debate in which he had decided to forward some unfortunate, if not rather disparaging comments in the process. I’ll be carefully and honestly examining his claims and comments in my responses to him. It should be noted that he has also made a video and appeared on live television to further promote his comments. I would like to explicitly state that I discourage and remove myself from any relation to this man’s incredulous behaviour.

The Introduction.

He begins with stating:

In my recent debate with Ijaz Ahmad he made much of the fact that the Angel of the Lord in Zechariah 1:12 intercedes with the Lord for Jerusalem, something that presupposes that the two are distinct.

I did propose that YHWH and Mal’ak YHWH were two distinct individuals, something which Anthony during the debate also supposed that he was in agreement with, as stated in his thesis:

Notice that my thesis entails both the deity of the angel as well as his distinct personhood from another and or other persons in the Godhead. This means it will not be sufficient or at all relevant for my opponent to argue that the angel is distinct from Yahweh as if this somehow negates my position. In fact any good argument my opponent puts forward to prove that the angel is distinct from another person called Yahweh will receive a quick and robust ‘Amen’ from me. This also means that my opponent will necessarily either have to show that the angel is also not identified as God as I will argue or provide some way for accounting how the angel may be identified that is consistent with Unitarianism, the belief that God is only one person and the Old Testament.

From the get go, Anthony’s contradiction is clear. During the debate, he asserts that he’d be in complete agreement with me, if it is that I proved that YHWH and Mal’ak YHWH were distinct, he’d give a resounding ‘Amen‘. Now a few days later, he’s found himself arguing against his own thesis. Apparently, it’s now in his best interest to argue against his own argument, I could not have asked for a better example of inconsistency.

The Arguments.

Anthony then, proceeds onwards to argue against the fact that they are distinct:

“According to Ijaz, this shows not only that a distinction obtains between the two, but that the distinction is ontological in nature, i.e. it demonstrates that the former alone is Lord and the latter is not.”

Anthony in this case, concedes that indeed they are demonstrated as being distinct from one another. Something which he refused to do during the debate. Is this perhaps an attempt at back peddling to correct his mistakes? What’s worse is that Anthony’s problem is such, that he asserts that Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH but that they are both distinct at the same time. The problem can be manifested as such-:

Argument 1:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
Ijaz: If Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH, how are they distinct? (see: Zechariah 1).

Argument 2:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is another person from YHWH.
Ijaz: If they are not the same person, how then can Mal’ak YHWH be YHWH? (see: Anthony’s first argument above).

This is a problem that Anthony can’t resolve because he’s created it  himself. So what you’re seeing in his articles, is a clearly confused individual, trying to cite as many sources as he can towards his biased position (fallacy of appeal to authority), but at the same time, contradicting his own criteria for a valid argument (following from his thesis in the debate). Let’s continue to see what other problems he has put himself in:

Although I did point out that the Angel of the Lord is also identified as Lord in His own right in Zechariah 3, and thus that “the Angel of the Lord” is the distinctive title by which this second person who is Yahweh is distinguished from the first, the title being most appropriate since He is evidently the heavenly Mediator and Messenger between God and His people, a fact that follows naturally from Zechariah1, I think much more could be and needs to be said than I communicated during the debate.

Let’s put Anthony’s statements into perspective:

  1. Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
  2. Mal’ak YHWH is a different person than YHWH.

The problem we see here now, is that Anthony has realised there exists an issue, that he’s arguing against himself, so he decides to reconcile this issue by stating the ‘Angel of the Lord’ is now a title, to distinguish YHWH from himself. With this in mind let’s examine Anthony’s new argument:

  1. Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
  2. Mal’ak YHWH is another name for the person who is the same as YHWH, but they’re different because it’s a different title.

Following his line of reasoning, every time that his God is called by a different title in the Bible, that would have to mean that it isn’t just another name for God, it’s an entirely new person into the Godhead. That would mean that Adonai is a different person to Elohim, who is a different person to Hashem Adonai who is different to Mal’ak YHWH who is different to YHWH, who is different to the ‘Messenger of the Covenant‘. If that is the case, then Anthony’s God, is beyond tri-personal, unless it is then, that he presents the case that a title isn’t always a new person in the Godhead, it’s only a new person when it suits his dogmatic agenda, in which case his argument would then be guilty of taking the form of ‘the fallacy of confirmation bias‘.

“Since this was the passage on which Ijaz drew most of his thunder, and since most people I have talked to were unimpressed with his other arguments against the deity of the Angel, particularly his failure to grapple with the lexical and scholarly evidence I provided for the fact that the word angel (mal’ak) is not restricted in meaning or use to created spirits…”

By ‘most people’ he means the two Christian Paltalk rooms which came out to support him.

The Reception of his Arguments.

On that same note to demonstrate how his supporters did not listen to his thesis, during his opening statement, we have Radical Moderate, commenting on the debate.

Topic of Debate: 
“The Old Testament Teaches that the Angel of the Lord is a Distinct, Divine Person in the Godhead.”

Anthony’s Thesis (Taken from the debate):  
“In fact any good argument my opponent puts forward to prove that the angel is distinct from another person called Yahweh will receive a quick and robust ‘Amen’ from me.”

Supporter of Anthony (Radical Moderate):
His theisis is not that the Angel of Yhahwee is distinct person from Yahweh.

So confused are the people he confesses were unimpressed by my argument, that they don’t even understand what he was arguing. No wonder they agreed with Anthony (as he claims), they’re just blindly cheerleading him onwards, while not even grasping what exactly his argument was. According to this supporter, whose comments are under all of Anthony’s posts (congratulating him, praising him, flirting with him), Anthony’s argument was against the very topic and the very thesis that Anthony used. Brilliant ‘support’, would Anthony dare criticise his fan base or choose to correct their own misunderstanding of his presentation? Anthony continues by stating:

” his failure to grapple with the lexical and scholarly evidence I provided for the fact that the word angel (mal’ak) is not restricted in meaning or use to created spirits – something that brought on the bizarre charge from Ijaz that I was the one guilty of playing word games and being unscholarly, a lapse on his part that was aggravated by the fact that he didn’t bring a single scholarly source forward to justify his repeated misuse of the term, or even for anything else that he mentioned”

To begin with, there was no need on my end to redefine the word Mal’ak and appeal to the eisegesis of the reductive fallacy. Essentially, Anthony’s argument boiled down to this:

  • Mal’ak YHWH = YHWH.
  • Mal’ak YHWH = YHWH.
  • YHWH = YHWH.

That’s essentially what Anthony’s entire ‘lexical’ argument was. It was a simple play on semantics to eliminate the purpose and the rationale behind the word mal’ak, this type of lexical manipulation is most commonly referred to by academia as “the reductive fallacy”. Following from this, Anthony ‘claims’, that I used no scholarly source to justify my use of the term “mal’ak”, with that being said, it is either Anthony recognizes that he used no scholarly source himself or he fails to realise from where I quoted my definition of “mal’ak”  during the debate. I took the definition of mal’ak, directly from Anthony’s article, “The Malak Yahweh Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament: Part I”. Which reads:

“The word that is used in the Hebrew text is malak (מַלְאָך). The lexical sources are unanimous that the Hebrew word malak, in its original signification and as it is used in the Bible, means “one sent; a messenger” (e.g. Gesenius; Brown, Driver and Briggs)”.

With explicit evidence of the source for my definition, would Anthony Rogers be honest enough to apologize or recant his erratic statements? Most likely not and I wouldn’t expect any better from him, if anything, he’d try to find a way to claim I used his definition incorrectly, the problem therefore being, that I quoted it verbatim from his article. I’m not quite sure if he expected me not to point that out, or if he was simply looking for material to attack me with. He follows this by saying:

That is to say, the following passages that speak of two persons as Yahweh prove that the Old Testament teaches that God is not a solitary person and in this sense He is not like any other conscious agent in existence – including schizophrenics, a straw-man trumped up by my opponent that applies to Modalists who believe the persons of the Trinity are actually only one person who banters back and forth between different alter egos, rather than to Trinitarianism, which teaches that God subsists in three actual persons – He being uniquely multi-personal, and thus unlike anything or anyone.

For a moment here, we see Anthony attempting to respond to the claim that a singular being with multiple personalities is not considered to be suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder or even Schizophrenia, something which I indicated during the debate, which Anthony did not have a chance to respond to. Multiple Personality Disorder refers to one being, having more than one personality and seeing as Anthony’s God is one being, unified by the Godhead, yet eternally possessing three distinct personalities, this clearly indicates that the Christian concept of God is schizophrenic and possibly an allusion to MPD. Anthony attempted to further solve this by saying his God was ‘uniquely multipersonal’, or in other words, when you go to the psychiatric ward of any hospital, all the in patients that suffer from MPD or Schizophrenia, or some mental disease are all told that they are special and unique so that they can be normalized and their feelings controlled. Taking a play from that appeal to emotion, Anthony himself is applying that same tactic to his followers, a revealing metaphor to say the least.

Biblical Bitrinitarianism.

In an attempt to defend his eisegesis, Anthony invents a new term:

The first of many examples for Zechariah’s overall “binitarianism” presents itself

So what is bitrinitarianism? Unfortunately that’s the term that Anthony presents as the basis for Mal’ak YHWH becoming YHWH. He doesn’t really explain more than that, so I can’t respond to something he’s just made up. I can understand why he’s making up terms now though, he’s made an Angel into God and well, just as the early Church fathers had to do when trying to defend their religion against the Jews, they just had to make up words and terms as you go along. Some common examples are, “The Trinity”, “Godhead”, “Immaculate Conception”, “Original Sin”, “Incarnate Word”, and today,we have Anthony holding true to that erratic tradition, thus giving us, “Bitrinitarianism”. If I were to break down this word to attempt to derive some meaning, it would make little to no sense:

  • Bi – Two
  • Tri – Three
  • Unity – United
  • ism – belief

Which would give us, “the belief of three persons united (as one), but also as two”. Just gibberish really. This is an appeal to Christians, if you can give me a definition for this term that actually makes sense, please do so, thanks.

Anthony versus Zechariah, Judaism and Common Sense.

To demonstrate his, “bitrinitarianism”, Anthony appeal to Zechariah 2:6-12 which reads:

6 “Ho there! Flee from the land of the north,” declares the Lord, “for I have dispersed you as the four winds of the heavens,” declares the Lord. 7 “Ho, Zion! Escape, you who are living with the daughter of Babylon.” 8 For thus says the Lord of hosts, “After  glory He has sent me against the nations which plunder you, for he who touches you, touches the apple of His eye.9 For behold, I will wave My hand over them so that they will be plunder for their slaves. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me. 10  Sing for joy and be glad, O daughter of Zion; for behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” declares the Lord. 11 “ Many nations will join themselves to the Lord in that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you. 12 The Lord will possess Judah as His portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem. 13 Be silent, all flesh, before the Lord; for He is aroused from His holy habitation.”

Obviously we understand and agree that these are the Lord’s words. However, Anthony is attempting to state, that the person who delivers this message to Zechariah is YHWH himself, yet Zechariah does not claim that YHWH is delivering the message, no less than three verses before we have Zechariah explicitly stating that an angel is delivering the words of the Lord:

“While the angel who was speaking to me was leaving, another angel came to meet him” – Zechariah 2:3

Which is the purpose of the Angel of the Lord, in Hebrew this is properly translated (by Anthony) to mean the “Messenger of YHWH”.  So an Angel who is the Messenger of YHWH delivers a message to Zechariah from the Lord. It is obvious that if the Angel who is a Messenger is going to deliver God’s word, that the Angel will declare the words to be from God and not from himself, which the Angel does do in the passage that Anthony references:

  • “…declares the Lord”
  • “…declares the Lord”
  • “For thus says the Lord of hosts…”
  • “… declares the Lord”

It’s as clear as day, that the Angel who is the Messenger of the Lord, as demonstrated by the verse itself, is conveying/ declaring to Zechariah what God has said. Yet Anthony does not seem to understand that. To give an example of Anthony’s absurd rationale, let us demonstrate with an example:

I saw the neighbour, he approached me and said, the wife says, “I like your roses”.

According to Anthony, this would mean that the husband likes the roses and that the husband is the wife. Anthony furthers his inanity by then validating and accepting my argument:

“…let the following be noted here: while Zechariah’s actions here in speaking for the Lord are in a measure consistent with what the Angel of the Lord does in Zechariah one, which is to be expected since the Angel is a distinct person who can speak to and for Yahweh…”

Recall, as I said Mal’ak YHWH is the Angel who is a Messenger of the YHWH, so this messenger is expected to speak on behalf of YHWH and to YHWH. So Anthony concedes that this is the case, but then he contradicts himself by saying that the Messenger of YHWH is YHWH. If they are distinct as he himself says, why then, doe he interpret them to be joined/ united as the same person? A clear contradiction yet again.

Understanding Zechariah 2.

Since we are examining the Jewish book, we should be honest and use the Jewish version, not the Christian perversion of the Septuagint from a mystery text translated into Greek and then Hebrew and then finally to English, whereas the Jewish text is simply Hebrew to English. I’ll be using the JPS Translation and the Hebrew Masoretic Texts as provided here and here.

“And he said to him, “Run, speak to this young man, saying: ‘Jerusalem shall be inhabited like unwalled towns, because of the multitude of men and cattle therein.’ ”   But I will be for it-says the Lord-a wall of fire around, and for glory I will be in its midst. Ho, ho! Flee from the land of the north, says the Lord; for I have spread you as the four corners of the heavens, says the Lord. Ho, Zion! Flee, she who sits among the nation of Babylon. For so said the Lord of Hosts: After glory, He sent me to the nations that plunder you, for whoever touches you touches the apple of his eye.” – Zechariah 2:6-12.

The difference is vast, if we use Anthony’s version we have a distinct and completely different rendition of Zechairah 2, as opposed to the Hebrew of the Jews. Yet, there is one verse which stands out as being in common with them both:

For so said the Lord of Hosts: After glory, He sent me to the nations that plunder you, for whoever touches you touches the apple of his eye.

What we have here is Anthony’s verse 8 and the Jewish version’s verse 12. Yet the Jewish version makes it is not YHWH who is sending himself but that YHWH is sending someone and in verse 13 of the Jewish text, this person being sent is referred to as the “hand of God” or the person though whose hand, God’s work is done:

“For, behold! I raise My hand over them, and they shall be prey for those who serve them. And you shall know that the Lord of Hosts sent me.”

The “hand of the Lord” is a term which refers to the person who is the Angel/ Messenger of the Lord who not only conveys God’s message, he is the angel which executes God’s punishments upon the earth and supports the faithful:

“So I will stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians with all the wonders that I will perform among them. After that, he will let you go.” – Exodus (Shemot) 3:20.

“Then the LORD said to Moses, “Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country.”” – Exodus (Shemot) 6:1.

“he will not listen to you. Then I will lay myhand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites.” – Exodus (Shemot) 7:4.

“And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out myhand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.”” – Exodus (Shemot) 7:5.

Anthony’s problem is that he appeals to the Christian rendition of the text, the problem is, Zechariah according to his own beliefs was not a Christian but a Judaic Prophet, therefore using his own faith’s belief about Zechariah, if we read the Judaic rendition of the texts, we see that Anthony is in opposition to myself and the Hebrew Judaic Version of Zechariah’s writings. It is absurd to think that we should appeal to the Christian rendition when Zechariah was not a Christian but a Jew, therefore any indepth study of the Christian rendition is therefore inconsequential to the discussion at hand, and merely a ploy at appealing to confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

Anthony versus Basic Christian Doctrine!

In one section of his article, Anthony Rogers who is lauded by Sam Shamoun as being the best “Christian Apologist”, makes a fundamental error in his doctrine. In a book recommended by Sam Shamoun, “Understanding the Trinity”, by B.P. Harris, he states (page 121):

None other can show forth the Father, for He alone is in the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). He alone exists in the form of God (Phil. 2:6). He alone is the radiance of his glory (Heb. 1:3). And He alone is the exact representation of His Person (Heb. 1:3).

From this we know for certain that the Father is the invisible, incomprehensible, majestic, unseen God. Yet Anthony in his diatribe of an article, states the following:

First, there is the example of something Moses says in Genesis 19. After Genesis 18 tells us that the Lord appeared on earth with two angels to Abraham just prior to Sodom’s destruction

Not only is Anthony confused as to the form of the Father, he actually ascribes a known form to an invisible God. It would then seem that Anthony is not only arguing with Sam Shamoun, BP Harris, but that he is also arguing with his own scripture. I must commend him on his behaviour, one debate and Anthony is already arguing against the Christian religion.

In his article he tries to state that the invisible God, who then changes His mind and becomes an Angel, sorry, three Angels, then changes back into being invisible, but leaves two Angels back, which are really two Angels of Himself and then goes to heaven from wherein He rains down fire and brimstone in Genesis 19. Makes perfect sense, I suppose!? Somehow that’s supposed to indicate that YHWH is Mal’ak YHWH.

Zechariah 12:9-14 Proves Nothing.

Again, we find ourselves, returning to the Jewish rendition of a particular set of verses. What we find once more, is that what Anthony’s version claims and what the Jews claim, from whom Zechariah was a member of (according to Anthony), contradicts his rendition in numerous ways:

 And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come upon Jerusalem. And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son. On that day there shall be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the Valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart: The family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart. The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart. All the remaining families-every family apart, and their wives apart. – Zechariah 12:9-14.

Which doesn’t fit Anthony’s explanation, from his article:

“In the above passage the Lord says that the people will “look on Me whom they have pierced,” and tells us that the house of David and Jerusalem’s inhabitants will mourn for Him, i.e. Yahweh, the pierced one”

That presents a problem, as the invisible God can now actually be pierced. How can you pierce the invisible, all powerful, eternal God who is YHWH? Unless of course, he’s not referring to YHWH the Father, but the other person who is also God, the son, who is Mal’ak YHWH, the Word, the Incarnate Word. We just went meta, you have a God who has two other personalities and one of those two personalties has other personalities that are also eternal but co-equal with each other, but also fully God. His interpretation of these verses is really “special” to say the least. From the Judaic rendition, Anthony’s eisegesis amounts to nothing but mere attempts again at correcting the beliefs of the Jews from whom according to Anthony, Zechariah was from.

YHWH Kills Himself with His own Sword.

To those of you who have managed to reach this far without asserting that Anthony has lost the plot, it gets worse:

“A third passage in Zechariah of some significance is found in Zechariah 13 and is closely related to the passage in Zechariah 12. For just as Yahweh said in 12:10 that He would be pierced, so in Zechariah 13 we are told not only that false prophets, by the Lord’s decree, will come to such a fate, i.e. they would be pierced through, but even the Shepherd of Yahweh would experience a terrible fate, no doubt the piercing mentioned in 12:10, and back of it would be the Lord’s own sword. Most significantly for present purposes is the fact that “the Shepherd,” –indeed, “My Shepherd,” – is identified by Yahweh not only as one distinct from Himself, but as “My Associate.”

So according to Anthony:

  • YHWH says false prophets would be pierced.
  • YHWH will pierce Himself.
  • YHWH will become a Shepherd.
  • YHWH who is a shepherd will pierce/ stab Himself with His own sword, a punishment meant for false Prophets.

At this point, I’m not sure if Anthony is arguing for Christianity or against it. I’ll leave that judgement up to you.

Conclusion.

I have aptly demonstrated that Anthony’s premises are self contradictory, dynamic, erratic and that he has gone above and beyond to refute his own argumentation. He has demonstrated that he does not grasp the true nature of YHWH, at one point he tries to demonstrate that God will kill himself, with a punishment meant for cursed persons with false teachings by his own sword. At another time he tries to demonstrate that God, even though He is invisible and without a known form, became an angel, thus contradicting his Bible and his doctrine. None of those points demonstrate the case for YHWH being Mal’al YHWH. At no time did he present a viable case for his self contradicting premises:

Argument 1:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH.
Ijaz: If Mal’ak YHWH is YHWH, how are they distinct? (see: Zechariah 1).

Argument 2:
Anthony: Mal’ak YHWH is another person from YHWH.
Ijaz: If they are not the same person, how then can Mal’ak YHWH be YHWH? (see: Anthony’s first argument above).

I look forward to seeing how Anthony will actually attempt to address these issues and when he shall admit his faulty logic. It is my view, that his reinterpretation of Judaic scripture is not only embarrassing for himself , but for the Christian religion as a whole. I do apologize to my Christian brethren if his erratic statements were insulting in anyway.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Debate with Anthony Rogers Available on Youtube

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The debate has been uploaded on Youtube, “The Angel of the Lord is a Distinct, Divine, Person in the Godhead”, between myself and Anthony Rogers:

Do enjoy insha Allaah, any questions pertaining to the debate, let me know in the video comments or via our Facebook Page or use the ‘Contact Us‘ page on the website.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Anthony Rogers vs Ijaz Ahmad: Debate

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The debate can be either streamed (audio) or downloaded from this link. The YouTube video is still being uploaded, it’s 10.5 gb, so that’s going to take a while. I’ll upload the Youtube video sooner or later, it’s really just a more accessible form of  the debate, as opposed to using 4shared, which you can’t share via most social networking platforms. There was no video feed, i.e. of the debaters as this debate was done via Paltalk, an audio chat program. Anthony’s version (?) of the upload should be done soon.

 

 

How Did this Debate Originate?

Before any accusations are thrown, or assertions made, as is usual in these highly emotive events, I did have a post, located here, highlighting the origination of this event, emails included. This debate was initially proposed by Mr. Rogers and I accepted.

Why was this Topic Relevant to Islam?

While more of a Judaic based theological conundrum with Christianity, Islam does lay claim to being the only proper monotheistic Abrahamic faith. Islam’s relevance therefore was paramount in being able to demonstrate the polytheism and continued creation worship as proposed and propagated by Christianity.

What are Your Thoughts on the Debate?

I (Br. Ijaz), personally enjoyed the discussion, it was exciting, especially as the audience numbers began to grow. It gave me a chance to demonstrate creation worship in Christianity and it allowed me to demonstrate the lowly and fallacious argumentation of Mr. Rogers, which I will expound upon lower down. Anthony did accede to the understanding that we needed more than one event to discuss this topic and I’ll hold him to his word, I’ll email him soon and confirm the follow up for part two.

Opening Statement (Anthony):

Anthony’s opening statement was rooted on pedantic word play. I received complaints not only from Muslims but from Christians who were a bit disappointed that he spent well over 10 minutes of his 20 minute opening speech playing with semantics. When it came to actually quoting scripture to demonstrate his point, there was a clear disconnect between what he initially presented and what he later laid claim to. His opening argument can be summarized as such:

10 minutes – 15 minutes:

  • Define Mal’ak.
  • Define what an Angel is.
  • Quote some scholars on the meaning of the word Mal’ak.
  • Mal’ak YHWH actually means YHWH.

5 minutes:

  • Mal’ak YHWH is God because in Genesis 16 he’s called God.

Nothing really special, as I indicated previously, his argument didn’t flow (i.e., it was non-sequitur), it’s almost as if he copy pasted and then read, his part one of his article series,”The Malak Yahweh Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament” and then from that, he realised he needed to fill in 5 minutes of his elapsed 15, so somewhere in their he threw in 7 verses from Genesis 16, hoping that it would aid his argument. Rather, he just played with semantics for 15 minutes and then tried to argue the deity of an angel in 5 minutes. Duly unimpressive and somewhat embarrassing, especially for a man almost twice my age and with official schooling in this field.

Take note however that he bases his entire argument on the following thesis (verbatim quotes from his opening statement):

  • I want to state clearly that from the onset the thesis I will be defending in this debate and which my opponent will necessarily have to direct his remarks to, if he wants to avoid attacking a strawman or position I do not hold, the thesis I will be defending is simply this:
  • The Angel of Yahweh is a distinct, divine in the Godhead according to the Old Testament.
  • Notice that my thesis entails both the deity of the angel as well as his distinct personhood from another and or other persons in the Godhead.
  • This means it will not be sufficient or at all relevant for my opponent to argue that the angel is distinct from Yahweh as if this somehow negates my position. In fact any good argument my opponent puts forward to prove that the angel is distinct from another person called Yahweh will receive a quick and robust ‘Amen’ from me.
  • This also means that my opponent will necessarily either have to show that the angel is also not identified as God as I will argue or provide some way for accounting how the angel may be identified that is consistent with Unitarianism, the belief that God is only one person and the Old Testament.

Opening Statement (Ijaz):

From the get go, I point out Anthony’s lazy scholarship, i.e. repeating his copy pasted argument from his published work. I started with indicating that it was common for Christianity to progressively worship creation, based on Jeremiah 16:20, I demonstrated that:

  • They worship both man (Jesus) and woman (Mary – Catholics and Collyridians), as their history indicates (http://carm.org/roman-catholicism-mary-idolatry), something which he denied.
  • That they then began to worship animals through symbolism, i.e. Jesus is both a lamb and a mother hen, the Holy Spirit is a dove.
  • That they continued until they began to consider themselves like Gods, some literally applying the titles, ‘son of God’, ‘daughter of God’ and ‘child of God’ to themselves, while believing that God, who is the Holy Spirit is inside them, see 1 Corinthians 3:16.
  • Yet, they didn’t stop there, they forwarded that until they even worshipped the foreskin of Christ, dubbed, ‘the Holy Prepuce‘, something which Anthony got verbally upset for, and accused me of insulting his beliefs. Anthony, I do have to ask, you do realise that Jesus was a man, no? In your worship, you take a man as your God and you’re upset with me because I point out that the man you worship, had genitals? I’m a bit perplexed here, in what part of worshipping a ‘man’, did you not expect that he had genitals?
  • The conclusion from this therefore, is that there was no surprise that Anthony wanted to worship an angel. It’s simply a progression of turning God’s creation into God.

I then laid out of what form, that I expected Anthony’s argumentation to take:

  1. The Angel of the Lord claimed to be God.
  2. The Angel of the Lord did acts that God would do.
  3. The Angel of the Lord was worshipped.
  4. The conclusion therefore being, that the Angel of the Lord is God.

Looking back on Anthony’s opening statement, I had him spot on, you’d notice he appealed to premise one and during his rebuttal period, he introduced points two and three. All three however, I addressed in my opening statement.

More to come soon…….

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Debate Reminder

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Today’s the debate between Anthony and I, we’ll be debating, “The Old Testament Teaches that the Angel of the Lord is a Distinct, Divine Person in the Godhead.”

Date:
27th May, 2012.

Time:
6 PM (PST).
8 PM (CST).
9 PM (-04:00 UTC / EST).

Location:
Answering Christianity Paltalk room.

Anthony has been trying to appeal to emotion for quite sometime, continuously implying that he believes that since the debate is being held in a Muslim room on Paltalk, that he could be muted from speaking during the debate. The problem is, for anyone who has ever attended any of my debates, my opponent has never been dotted, sometimes even when their allotted time for speaking was up. Therefore, if Anthony has such concerns and if he believes they are real, he is free to create another room, if he wills and we can do our debate their instead. However, this is simple an appeal to Argumentum Baculum, and nothing more than a ploy to evoke emotive support for his weak premises and eventual poor argumentation.

For those of you who have read Anthony’s work, and then heard him speak on his one time appearance on ABN TV, it should remind you of these statements of Paul:

By the humility and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am “timid” when face to face with you, but “bold” toward you when away…..For some say, “His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.” – 2 Corinthians 10:1,10.

It’s quite hilarious to see however, that when I awoke this afternoon, I found that he’d made a post, offering some advice for me. Appealing to Dr. Laurence Brown’s argument based on the Christian belief that God wrestled Jacob. Anthony, among many other flaws, failed to see the sarcasm and satire  due to perhaps his lack of foresight, that Dr. Laurence was alluding to. Really, he was asking, “Can God get His but whooped by His own creation? Is that sensible?”. Unfortunately, Anthony’s disposition was to immediately come to the defense of man-worship and state:

No doubt it is intolerable for Muslims to hear that God would do something that sounds so Christ-like, but there it is. And in the Torah to boot. What was Moses thinking?

The problem is, the term used for “Lord” in the Christian Old Testament, alludes to the fantasy that God lost a wrestling match with a man. Something in contradiction with other places of the Old Testament:

  • It is impossible to see God (Exodus 33:20)
  • God is not a man (Numbers 23:19)
  • God is not physical (Deut.4:12,15).
  • Idolatry is always defined as the worship of any god that was not made known to the Judaic ancestors when God revealed Himself (Deut.4:35) to them at Mt.Sinai,  (ie.Deut.13:3,7,14,etc.) The Jewish people never heard from their ancestors that they were to understand that God has a body or that they were to conceive of Him as physical in any way.

Unfortunately, Anthony’s argument falls flat when it comes to the Judaic-Hebraic Old Testament, which states that Jacob wrestled with an Angel of the Lord and not God himself.

The debate promises to be fun, can’t wait, only a few hours to go.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: The Honourable Way Out of “Honour Killings”

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Introduction

It is almost absurd to believe that of all peoples, that Christendom has decided to become outspoken and condemn honour killings, when they are almost single handedly responsible for promoting this culture of honour killings, beliefs enshrined in their own scripture. Note, this is not a defense of honour killings as this sort of act is haram in Islam, as this is seen as murder, but this is a treatise on the issue as raised by the Answering Islam team. The Qur’an says on murder:

“Whoever kills a believer deliberately, his reward is Jahannam: he shall remain FOREVER therein, and Allah will be furious with him and will curse him, and will prepare for him a wretched torment”. – Qur’an Surah 4: Ayah 93.

The article on Answering Islam, demonstrates that this was an act common some 1075 years before Christ, credited to the Assyrian civilization, yet fails to recall, that this was an act that YHWH prescribed:

“‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.” – Bible, Leviticus 21:9.

Oddly enough, this very act is defined as an honour killing according to the the definition as provided by Oskar’s article:

Honour killings regularly make media headlines. Clan or family members are brutally murdered by one or more relatives because they feel that their victims have brought shame upon them by what is perceived as unacceptable sexual behaviour, marriage partners or dress codes. In order to restore lost honour, blood has to flow.

Actually, to be a bit more explicit, the act in Leviticus, fulfils every criteria that the Answering Islam team has highlighted in their definition to label an act as an honour killing. Hold this example from Leviticus in mind, as Oskar of the Answering Islam team, completely ignores what his own scripture says in this regard and tries to pin some loosely based conjectural concept on honour killings and then tie it to Islam.

Conditions That Still Allow Honour Killings to Happen Today

Oskar then references, several ayat from the Qur’an, namely: 18:66-84, 24:2, 4:34-35, 3:110, some ahadith, such as in Sahih Bukhari, #2.413, #8.805, #814, and #819. The problem is however, that none of these ayat or hadith references permit or allow honour killings. They do however, do state that there are punishments for adultery and fornication:

“The fornicating woman and the fornicating man, flog each one of them with one hundred stripes. No pity for them should prevail upon you in the matter of Allah’s religion, if you really believe in Allah and the Last Day; and a group of believers must witness their punishment.” – Qur’an Surah 24, Ayah 2.

None of these ayat, or ahadith permit civilian justice, meaning then, that anyone can take it upon himself to carry out the injunctions as listed in them. In fact, I’d request that the Answering Islam team, demonstrate for me, one ayah or hadith from that which they have referenced in the aforementioned article where they are supposed to take the law into their own hands. The truth is, such an injunction does not exist and their evidences for trying to atleast imply so, are shoddy at best. Oskar and the Answering Islam team seem to have forgotten that Muslims have Shari’ah courts, where these laws are supposed to be applied. On one end you seem Christians condemning Shari’ah courts but on the other, in an article on the use of Islamic law, they seem to have intentionally forgotten the processes through which Islamic law is practised.

To begin with, the Shari’ah in Islam, when it comes to the Hudud (penal code) are relegated to a Mufti (legal jurist), or a Shura (judging council) or Qadhi (Islamic Judge) wherein a fatwa (legal opinion) is delivered. This is done after consultation, evidence discussion, witness reports etc. Mufti Ebrahim Desai [db], expounds upon the legal tradition/ methodology in Islam in the following excerpt:

1.       According to Shariah, Fatwa is defined as:

“Fatwa is to communicate the Law of Allah with regards to matters of Deen substantiated by validations stipulated in the Shariah to those who enquire with regards to matters of revelation in a general way and in manner that is not enforcing or compelling (Al Misbah Fi Rasmil Mufti Wamanahihil Ifta Vol.1 Page 16)”

The words “matters of Deen” has been used in the definition and not “Laws of Shariah” as sometimes a Mufti is questioned with regards to issues that do not pertain to Amal (actions) like Salah, Wudhu etc. for example issues of Tafseer, Aqeedah, Hadith, general advice etc.

Stipulated validations refers to those Masaa’il which are proven from the recognized sources of Shariah.

“In a general way” means that the Fatwa could be applied or practiced upon by more than one individual. If others are faced with the same situation of the questioner, the fatwa issued could be practiced by them as well. This draws a distinction between Iftaa and Qadhaa. A Fatwa is more general and could be practised upon by many individuals. However, a Qadhaa (decree) issued by a Qadhi (Judge) can only be practised upon by the specific person regarding whom judgement has been issued. In short, a Fatwa is more general while a Qadhaa is specific for an individual.

Another fundamental difference between Iftaa and Qadhaa is that a Fatwa is not enforceable. That is a Mufti cannot compel the Mustafti (questioner) to practice upon his Fatwa. However, a Qaadhi (Judge appointed by the Muslim Government) has the power of Infaaz (ability to enforce practice of his Decree). If a citizen does not practice upon the decree of a Qaadhi, he could be charged on violation of a Court Judgement.

2.       In former times a Mufti was regarded to be a Mujtahid (one who deduces ruling directly from the sources of Shariah). Nowadays the term Mufti has become common to those who specialize in the field of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh). In reality, a Mufti nowadays only makes reference to the books of our illustrious Fuqahaa (jurists) and issues rulings in their books.

This therefore, soundly refutes the claim that Muslims are to execute the commands of the Hudud by themselves without taking their issues before Islamic judges to receive punishment from an Islamic court. Muslims are never commanded to take the law into their own hands, especially when it comes to punishments were persons have to be killed.

The Biblical Origins Behind Honour Killings

Recall the verse from Leviticus:

“‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.” – Bible, Leviticus 21:9.

The Old Testament, under the command of the Christian God, YHWH, commands more rulings of death, to be issued by every Tom, Dick and Harry (instead of appealing to a court for cases to be tried):

“And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.” – Bible Exodus 21:17.

“For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” – Bible, Leviticus 20:9.

These are some of many verses, which clearly fit the exact definition as provided by the Answering Islam team. It is quite hilarious to note that they completely ignored the inspired teachings of YHWH’s violent laws, which were enforced by Him throughout the centuries. Here are a few more:

“Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death.” – Bible, Exodus 21:15.

This one, encourages YHWH’s servants to commit genocide of an entire town if they shame them by serving other Gods:

“that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known),  then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors— because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.” – Bible, Deuteronomy 13:13-19.

One of the most popular reasons for honour killings, are due to sexual gratification or due to sexual shame. Well, the Christian Old Testament, certainly isn’t a stranger to this belief:

“But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.” – Bible, Deuteronomy  22:20-21.

The Honourable Way Out of Honour Killings

Oskar spends a considerable amount of time telling us to go to Jesus to prevent honour killings, yet that doesn’t seem to work (see link), not even for the very people who are said to be the direct descendants of Christ and his disciples. In fact, the only logical way of dealing with honour killings is to remove this culture of self justice from among a civilian populace. Authority to punish persons should not be given to all members of society, as they may not be able to exercise just rulings in light of tribal relations, relationship statuses, and even confirmation bias. Therefore it is best to have a form of a tribunal or court where cases of family disputes can be tried before relevant authorities who are trained and well educated in such fields. This prevents any unlawful killings by family members, wherein this regulates the norms and values of the society in relation to punishing a close relative for some shameful action.

In following from further reading from Oskar’s article, I’m quite a bit puzzled as to how these verses from the Bible, as presented by Oskar will help solve the problem of persons killing each other due to crimes of passion or honour:

John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29)

The time has come, Jesus said. The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news! (Mark 1:15)

Does Oskar intend to tell the man who just killed his daughter because she married a Muslim man, that a lamb is going to make him sinless? I fail to see the logic in Oskar’s argument. To me, it seems as if Answering Islam isn’t being honest with us, they are using a societal deviance to gain website views, as opposed to actually dealing with a growing problem. A problem, which, as I have demonstrated, was introduced to the world, by the laws of their vengeful and violent God.

Conclusion

Oskar’s article has been soundly refuted. His evidences were weak and his argumentation was poor. He failed at any point to establish a connection between Islam, Islamic law and the unIslamic act of honour killings. To the contrary, I’ve explicitly defined what Islamic law is, who is supposed to rule by it and how it is supposed to be practise. I have also demonstrated that Oskar’s own book, in itself is a source of literature which encourages such violent acts, which we as Muslims do wholly condemn.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Response to ‘James White says what again?’

Posted on by 17 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

James White has released another video, completely missing the mark on our previous video, while misleading his viewership. Note, we released this 40 minute video as a response to, “MuslimByChoice refuted en toto”:

Unfortunately, James decided he didn’t want to respond to the 40 minute video, apparently it was easier to reference a subclip from a 1 minute video based on the 40 minute response we did to him. In this regard, here is our latest response to James White:

I hope that James can hold himself to the same standards that he holds us, it was quite disappointing to see him defrauding his viewership by misleading them with a 1 minute video, whereas purposely neglecting or rather ignoring it’s predecessor under which it was based upon.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best].

« Older Entries Recent Entries »