Tag Archives: islam

Refutation: A clear Quranic contradiction in Ta-Ha surah 20 verses 83-97

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Response to: A clear Quranic contradiction in Ta-Ha surah 20 verses 83-97
By: C.L. Edwards from Calling Muslims website.

The ill reputed author, Mr. Edwards is at it again. This time he is claiming a contradiction in the Qur’aan and quite funnily, borrows the argument of Abraham Geiger which most Orientalists have used against Islam, since some 200 odd years ago. His argument isn’t new or is it of any academic value. However in the name of exposing his indecent affinity towards absurdity, we shall engage his argument step by step and refute him. He begins by asserting that these verses supposedly have a contradiction:

“(When Moses was up on the Mount, Allah said:) “What made thee hasten in advance of thy people, O Moses?”He replied: “Behold, they are close on my footsteps: I hastened to thee, O my Lord, to please thee.”  (Allah) said: “We have tested thy people in thy absence: the Samiri has led them astray.” So Moses returned to his people in a state of indignation and sorrow. He said: “O my people! did not your Lord make a handsome promise to you? Did then the promise seem to you long (in coming)? Or did ye desire that Wrath should descend from your Lord on you, and so ye broke your promise to me?” They said: “We broke not the promise to thee, as far as lay in our power: but we were made to carry the weight of the ornaments of the (whole) people, and we threw them (into the fire), and that was what the Samiri suggested. “Then he brought out (of the fire) before the (people) the image of a calf: It seemed to low: so they said: This is your god, and the god of Moses, but (Moses) has forgotten!” Could they not see that it could not return them a word (for answer), and that it had no power either to harm them or to do them good? Aaron had already, before this said to them: “O my people! ye are being tested in this: for verily your Lord is (Allah) Most Gracious; so follow me and obey my command.” They had said: “We will not abandon this cult, but we will devote ourselves to it until Moses returns to us.” (Moses) said: “O Aaron! what kept thee back, when thou sawest them going wrong, “From following me? Didst thou then disobey my order?” (Aaron) replied: “O son of my mother! Seize (me) not by my beard nor by (the hair of) my head! Truly I feared lest thou shouldst say, ‘Thou has caused a division among the children of Israel, and thou didst not respect my word!'” (Moses) said: “What then is thy case, O Samiri?” He replied: “I saw what they saw not: so I took a handful (of dust) from the footprint of the Messenger, and threw it (into the calf): thus did my soul suggest to me.” (Moses) said: “Get thee gone! but thy (punishment) in this life will be that thou wilt say, ‘touch me not’; and moreover (for a future penalty) thou hast a promise that will not fail: Now look at thy god, of whom thou hast become a devoted worshipper: We will certainly (melt) it in a blazing fire and scatter it broadcast in the sea!” – Suratul Ta-Ha (20) : 83 – 97.

So what is his argument? In summation:

“There are many details in the Quran that differ or are missing from the original account in the Bible, one of which is a person named al Samari. Now the name as-Samari literally means “The Samaritan a person who comes from Samaria”……..The problem in all this is this event in the history of the nation Israel happened over 600 years before the area of Samaria came into existence. To add to this colossal blunder early Muslims(the Salaf) are recorded as explaining that this as-Samari came from a Israelite tribe called Samaria…no such tribe has ever existed.“

To begin with, he implies that the original account is from the Bible, one must point out that he is referring to the Old Testament, therefore that begs the question, which Canon or Codex of the Old Testament is he appealing to this time? Here’s a short list for him to choose from:

(1) Samaritan Scrolls.
(2) Qumran/ Essene’s Scrolls.
(3) Greek Septuagint (LXX).
(4) Masoretic Text.
(5) Massorah Oral Tradition.
(6) Eastern Orthodoxy’s varying Canon’s (Coptic Canon versus Ethiopian Canon….etc).

After he’s played a game of lottery with “God’s word”, the next step is to determine if the Bible’s historical accounts are valid to establish the veracity of a particular historical event. This of course is easily laid to rest with a resounding no, by consensus of most Biblical scholars, to validate this claim, here’s a few quotes:

The original copies of the NT books have, of course, long since disappeared. This fact should not cause surprise. In the first     place, they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and persihable material. In the second place, and probably of even more importance, the original copies of the NT books were not looked upon as scripture by those of the early Christian communities. – (George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 1, p 599 “Text, NT”.)

To begin with, how can it be logically sound, that if the people at the time of the Bible’s authoring, rejected it as a scripture (inspired by God, contains absolute truth), much less as a historical document (if it isn’t an absolute truth, then it’s fickle truth), how can you expect us, some 2000 years or so later to accept such historical claims?

He says: Complaints about the adulteration of texts are fairly frequent in early Christian literature. Christian texts, scriptural and nonscriptural, were no more immune than others from vicissitudes of unregulated transmission in handwritten copies. In some respects they were more vulnerable than ordinary texts, and not merely because Christian communities could not always command the most competent scribes. Although Christian writings generally aimed to express not individual viewpoints but the shared convictions and values of a group, members of the group who acted as editors and copyists must often have revised texts in accordance with their own perceptions. This temptation was stronger in connection with religious or philosophical texts than with others simply because more was at stake. A great deal of early Christian literature was composed for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint amid the conflicts of ideas and practices that repeatedly arose within and between Christian communities, and even documents that were not polemically conceived might nevertheless be polemically used. Any text was liable to emendation in the interest of making it more pointedly serviceable in a situation of theological controversy. – (H. Y. Gamble, Books And Readers In The Early Church: A History Of Early Christian Texts, 1995, Yale University Press: New Haven & London, pp. 123-124.)

The Bible, clearly as a historical document is said to have been emendated (improved with bias) according to each sect’s understanding of it. What’s worse is that the first person to ever canonize and codify the Bible (canonize – to say what is scripture, codify – collected to be arrange in some order) emendated his own version, enough for him and his followers to be persecuted (see: Marcion’s Canon). With the above quotes and subsequent historical lesson, there is no basis for us to accept the account of the Bible, none whatsoever. It is merely wishful thinking and an appeal to emotion that CL Edwards seeks.

His second error, is that he incorrectly, which was his purpose, defines the term: “As-Samiri” (السَّامِرِ‌يُّ).

We do ask Mr. Edwards, on what authority do you have to give the absolute definition of the term above? Are you an expert in the field of Arabic or Hebraic Etymology? From where is your certification in these fields derived? To answer on his behalf and rightly so, nowhere! Therefore we assume he’s probably appealed to the fallacy of appeal to authority (to Orientalist Christian Scholarship). In his desperation for trying to find an error in Al Qur’aan ul Kareem, he has inadvertently exposed his lack of honesty, integrity and self respect. Thus, we do request that he come to terms with these self deficiencies.

Let’s continue by trying to grasp the history of this Samiri, so we can know who he was or from where he came:

“Samiri’s name as generally believed, was Musa Ibn Zafar. Ibn Jarar has narrated from Sayiddina Ibn ‘Abbas {ra} that Samiri was born in the year when under the orders of Pharaoh all male Israili children were to be killed. His mother, fearing the worst, put him in the hallow of a cave and covered its mouth.” – Tafsir Maa’riful Qur’aan, page 144.

Now that we’ve established some form of historical context to this person, his lineage does go back to the time of Moses (Musa alayhi as salaam), so this person did exist at the time of Moses. In that context, why is he called “As Samiri”, well, there are two probablities here:

(1) It could be a place from which he came.
(2) It could be a title due to his beliefs.

Earlier Islamic sources tend to cite both (1) and (2) as their understanding of the person named As-Samiri, that being, he came from a people who were worshipers of the cows:

Sayiddina Ibn ‘Abbas {ra} says that he belonged to a nation of cow-worshippers who somehow reached Egypt and pretended to join the religion of Bani ‘Israil whereas in actual fact he was a hypocrite. (Qurtubi) – Tafsir Maa’riful Qur’aan, page 143.

Where did they come from, if they were not from around Egypt?

“According to Sayddina Sa’id ibn Jubair {ra} he was a Persian from the Kirman province.” – Tafsir Maa’riful Qur’aan, page 143.

Now this logically makes sense.

(1) The Samiri was born during the time of Moses.
(2) The Samiri was from Persian (Mesopotamia) and was brought to or near Egypt when a group of Persians migrated.
(3) Persia is near the Indus Valley River Civilization (known cow worshipers), in fact, they share similar cultural traits (languages, religions, dress).

Therefore it is logical to assume that the Samiri is a person who was from among a people who worshiped cows, and who had migrated to near Egypt. The entire narration from the Qur’aan makes sense when compared to basic history. Of course one had to be objective and look outside the inconsistent and incoherent Biblical tradition and really accept the historical narrative as it exists through modern historical interpretations.

The historical context is easy to grasp, the Samiri was a cow worshiper with Mesopotamian origins (from which his religion came) through the Indian peoples (Indus Valley Civilization – known cow worshipers):

In the case of Egyptian and Harappan civilizations, there exists considerable evidence that the two societies, which flanked Mesopotamia on the west and east, respectively, had continuous trade contact with the cities of Sumer and, in the case of Egypt, political and military contacts as well. So the channels for the diffusion of technology and ideas certainly were there. It should probably be stressed at this point that a certain amount of diffusion and cross-fertilization is critical to the development of any civilization and no society has developed in total isolation. Whatever the degree of borrowing, however, every civilization adapts and applies ideas, technologies and institutions to its own physical environment and cultural heritage. – (The World’s History (Volumes 1 and 2 – 2nd Edition), Chapter 3 (River Valley Civilizations), Page 11 – by Howard Spodek.)

Therefore in conclusion, the Biblical claim is that a city known as Samaria did not exist until some 700 years after Moses, therefore the Samiri people could not have existed. Whereas historical knowledge (go figure, the Bible contradicts history) indicates that the Mesopotamian, Harappan (Indus Valley Civilization) and the Egyptians all shared a common and integrated history some 1500 years before Moses (Civlizations from 3000 BCE, Moses from 1500 BCE) and the incident of Pharaoh.

We therefore propose that Mr. Edwards rescinds his absurd, infantile, petulant, irrational and ignorant arguments and perhaps, for the good will of his humanity, cease to embarrass himself and his archaic faith.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: Can I trust that Islam will get me into Heaven?

Posted on by 8 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Response to: Can I trust that Islam will get me into Heaven?
By: C.L. Edwards from Calling Muslims website.

It is always interesting to read how Extremist Christians, anti-Muslims think. One such person is the propagandist Mr. Edwards. One of his more recent attacks against Islam, sponsored by his inanity rests on the topic of Salvation. Let’s take a look at what he says:

Most Muslims believe they will enter Jannah(Islamic heaven) based on their confession of the Shahadah(Statement of Faith) and doing good deeds, like Praying, giving Zakat(Charity) etc. Most Muslims fill some assurance they will make it into Jannah despite knowing they sin just like every other human being, because of their status of being Muslims. But consider these facts taken from authentic Islamic sources.

What is quite funny is that Mr. Edwards begins his intellectually fraudulent discourse by appealing to the fallacy of hasty generalization, and then he quite expectedly, rests his assertion upon not a single citation, to show atleast some majority of Muslims believe what he asserts. It is a common problem for persons who are wholly uneducated in Islam to understand the vast topic of Salvation within the faith. To begin with, Muslims do not believe that “despite sinning”, that we gain heaven. We believe that through repenting for our sins and through God’s mercy that He will grant us Jannah (Paradise):

Our Lord, and make us Muslims [in submission] to You and from our descendants a Muslim nation [in submission] to You. And show us our rites and accept our repentance. Indeed, You are the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful. – Suratul Baqarah (2) : 128.

Except for those who repent and correct themselves and make evident [what they concealed]. Those – I will accept their repentance, and I am the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful. – Suratul Baqarah (2) : 160.

What’s even more embarrassing for him, is that the Qur’aan also clearly states that Allaah does not accept those sinners who do not repent from their evils, for they would be punished:

And that repentance is not of those who constantly commit sins, and when death approaches one of them, he says, “I repent now”, nor of those who die as disbelievers; for them, We have kept prepared a painful punishment. – Suratul Baqarah (4) : 18.

So Mr. Edward’s assertion is contradicted by the Qur’aan which clearly states that only those who sincerely repent gain His mercy of Jannah and those who sin and do not repent are to be painfully/ severely punished. He then goes on to say:

Yet he doesn’t tell them forcertain that if they do good works they will be forgiven.

After quoting Suratul Hujurat (49) : 14 about an ayat of hypocrites, Mr. Edwards continued to display his ignorance of Islamic theology. The problem here is that he is saying, Muhammad {saw} doesn’t guarantees these people heaven (as from the context of the ayah), because he (Muhammad {saw}) wasn’t sure of his own salvation. While that is an entire topic by itself, his interpretation is wrong. The proper theological exegesis (interpretation) of this ayat is that Muhammad {saw} is addressing munafiqeen (hypocrites), thus their doing of good works is hypocritical, therefore it will not avail them in the least:

The ignorant said, “We have accepted faith”; say, (O dear Prophet Mohammed – peace and blessings be upon him), “You have surely not accepted faith, but you should say ‘We have submitted’, for faith has not yet entered your hearts; and if you obey* Allah and His Noble Messenger, He will not reduce the reward of any of your deeds; indeed Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (* By accepting faith and then obeying the commands). – Suratul Hujurat (49) : 14.
“According to Imam Bahgawi, this verse was revealed in connection with the Tribe of Banu Asad. A few members of that tribe came up to Prophet Muhammad {saw} in Madinah during a severe drought. These people were not sincere believers. They had expressed their Islam merely to demand help from the Muslim Sadaqat funds. As they were not believers in the real sense of the word, they were unaware of Islamic injunctions and manners. They spread filth and excrement on the streets of Madinah.” – Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan, page 148.   

He then forwards his ill fated premise based on his clearly laughable eisegesis (intellectually fraudulent interpretation), by ignoring the context of the ayah (hypocrites and their actions), he mistakenly (due to ignorance) attributes it to a hadith where it is said:

…..He (Muhammad {saw}) said, “As to him, by Allah, death has overtaken him, and I hope the best for him. By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me,”….. – Sahih al Bukhari : Volume 5 : Book 58 : Hadith 266.

He then on the same note goes on to make some statements of the same understanding:

……So we see that one may consider themselves Muslim, even a believer(Mumin) but you have no objective way of really knowing if you truly are in Allah’s eyes, at least until you die and are resurrected. Not even Muhammad himself could be sure what his fate would be……

To begin with, the hadith in Sahih Al Bukhari is not referring to whether or not Muhammad {saw} will be granted Jannah as he himself says he would cross the Pulsiraat (the bridge between being judged and the gates of Jannah) first:

Allah will call them, and As-Sirat (a bridge) will be laid across Hell and I (Muhammad) shall be the first amongst the Apostles to cross it with my followers. – Sahih al Bukhari : Book 12 : Hadith 770.

As for the statement that He does not know what the Lord of the Worlds (Allaah) will do to him, then I do not see the problem with the statement, it is referring to the ‘Ilm ul Ghayb (Knowledge of the Unseen):

“Say: “None in the heavens and the earth knows the Ghaib (Unseen) except Allaah, nor can they perceive when they shall be resurrected” – Suratul Naml (27) : 65.

“And with Him are the keys of the Ghayb (all that is hidden), none knows them but He. And He knows whatever there is in the land and in the sea; not a leaf falls, but He knows it. There is not a grain in the darkness of the earth nor anything fresh or dry, but is written in a Clear Record” – Suratul An’aam (6) : 59.

Even this is confirmed in the Bible, that God knows, or God’s knowledge is not equal to man’s knowledge:

“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” – Bible: Matthew 24 : 36.

Mr. Edward’s arguments are so completely devoid of any logical reasoning, I consider it child’s play to have to write this rebuttal. I am deeply discontented with his challenge, a simple reading of the Qur’aan dispels all of his arguments and knowledge of some of the most common ahadith are enough to lay his inanity to rest, however let’s see more of what this propagandist has to offer:

“Here is more conclusive proof that no matter how hard you believe or how many good deeds you strive to do for Allah, He may decided to over ride what you have done and damn you to Hell anyway! Please read this authentic hadeeth that says, its your destiny not your faith or works that determine your end in Islam. “

What was his conclusive proof? A hadith that says that a good man can do evil, and in the end go to hell, whereas an evil man can do good and then go to heaven:

“Abdullah (b. Mas’ud) reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) who is the most truthful (of the human beings) and his being truthful (is a fact) said: Verily your creation is on this wise. The constituents of one of you are collected for forty days in his mother’s womb in the form of blood, after which it becomes a clot of blood in another period of forty days. Then it becomes a lump of flesh and forty days later Allah sends His angel to it with instructions concerning four things, so the angel writes down his livelihood, his death, his deeds, his fortune and misfortune. By Him, besides Whom there is no god, that one amongst you acts like the people deserving Paradise until between him and Paradise there remains but the distance of a cubit, when suddenly the writing of destiny overcomes him and he begins to act like the denizens of Hell and thus enters Hell, and another one acts in the way of the denizens of Hell, until there remains between him and Hell a distance of a cubit that the writing of destiny overcomes him and then he begins to act like the people of Paradise and enters Paradise.” – Sahih Muslim : Book 33 : Hadith 6390.

God is all knowing, therefore God knows what a person’s life is destined to be, part of being all knowing, is to know the past (to us), present (to us) and future (t0 us). However God knows the past, present and future. Therefore God will know what will happen to persons. A man may be a believer and then up becoming a disbeliever (acting like the people of the fire). It makes perfect sense, this has nothing to do with God removing ‘aql (free will) from man and damning them to hell. It has to do with God knowing what will happen to these two sets of people, one may start as a believer and end up as a disbeliever and vice versa.

Mr. Edwards then returns with his deceits once more:

“……but Islam teaches that everyone will enter Hell Fire, not just non-Muslims.”

You can pretty much predict the ayat he would use:

” Not one of you there is, but he shall go down to IT; that for thy Lord is a thing decreed, determined.” – Mr. Edward’s interpretation of Suratul Maryam (19) : 71.

What does “go down to it” even mean? They ayah is referring to the Siraat or the Bridge which one would have to cross over to go to Jannah, as referenced above:

Allah will call them, and As-Sirat (a bridge) will be laid across Hell and I (Muhammad) shall be the first amongst the Apostles to cross it with my followers. – Sahih al Bukhari : Book 12 : Hadith 770.

Which is why the ayah really says:

“Not one of you but will pass over it: this is, with thy Lord, a Decree which must be accomplished.” – Suratul Maryam (19) : 71.
وَإِنْ مِنْكُمْ إِلَّا وَارِ‌دُهَا ۚ كَانَ عَلَىٰ رَ‌بِّكَ حَتْمًا مَقْضِيًّا

Look at the difference between his statement, and what the Qur’aan actually says, for him to fight against Islam, as the Christian he is, he had to reinterpret the ayah and reject the real meaning! Perhaps he can show us where in the Arabic which I provided above it says everyone will enter hell. The challenge stands Mr. Edwards. What’s funny is how over enthusiastic he became after he incorrectly quoted the ayah:

“Did you catch that? Everyone will go down into “it”  and the context tells you the “it” that is being discussed is Hell.”

Somehow I have a very strong notion that he will not be able to defend his errors when confronted with them. It is clear as day that he has emendated (changed for the purpose of bettering his argument) the interpretation and English text of the Qur’aan. It is indeed a shameful plunge into the realms of intellectual dishonesty that this Extremist Christian Polemic has ended up within.

He then goes on to state:

“Islam offers no sure way of ever saving yourself, no assurance of salvation, because even if you think you really believe and have done goods, you can not know for sure until you die and are resurrected and find out if you get rescued out of Hell.”

Actually, the very second page (Chapter 2) of the Qur’aan would like to differ, how funny is it that the refutation for his statement comes from the second Surah of the Qur’aan? The very first 5 lines (ayat) are the answer to his question:

“This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah; Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them; And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter. They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper. – Suratul Baqarah (2) : 2 – 5.

He then goes on to further contradict Islamic sources:

“And your Shaykh, your Imam, not even Muhammad himself can save you.”

Whereas the hadith says:

“The Messenger or Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: So they would come to me and I would ask the permission of my Lord and it would be granted to me, and when I would see Him, I would fall down in prostration, and He (Allah) would leave me thus as long as He would wish, and then it would be said: O Muhammad, raise your head, say and you would be heard; ask and it would be granted; intercede and intercession would be accepted.” – Sahih Muslim : Book 1 : Hadith 373.

He has been fully refuted, as usual, he ends his posts with erratic, misconstrued and illogical posts from the Bible, specifically about Jesus being the source of salvation for their sins, this has been previously responded to in this article.

Can Mr. Edwards respond in an academic manner to this post or shall he Call Muslims yet not be able to answer them?
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best].

Calling Christians Now Live!

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I would love to announce the launch of CALLINGCHRISTIANS.COM . For sometime now this former blog on theology has grown from a few hits per day to nearing 10,000 10,000+ unique views. With the success of the numerous articles, debates and dialogues that have occurred through our da’wah, it was decided that we should dutifully expand our operations (that means more articles, debates, contradictions, rebuttals!). We will continue with our modus operandi of debating, dialoguing and discussing theology in light of Islam. We ask that you support us and share our articles, videos and debates insha Allaah (God Willing).

To see a list of recent changes made from blog to full blown website, click here.

What’s to Come:

  • Testimonials page (both Muslim and Non-Muslim interviews!)
    [Update: Testimonials being written by respective authors, soon to be posted!]
  • Rebuttals page.
    [Update: Already rebutted a few ignorant anti-Islamists, will place into a single page soon.]
  • Articles Section.
    [Update: Quite a number of articles written, will place into a single page soon.]

Please feel free to contact us on our progress, articles, debates by clicking here.
and Allaah [God] knows best.

Atheism: Belief in the Inconsistent.

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In light of modern militant atheism, let’s take a logical, analytical and methodological approach towards understanding their position for the purpose of coming to a common understanding to develop our da’wah. To begin with, we must first comprehend what atheism is and is not, that is to define it.

Theism – the belief (ism) in a God (theos).
Atheism – the disbelief in (a) God(s) or the negation (denial) of belief in (a) God(s).

The “a” is a negation of the statement, just as would find in:

Gnostic – a knower.
Agnostic – one who does not know.

It is as this point I’d like to introduce the basis for atheism, the cardinal belief of the atheist:

“God(s) do(es) not exist, because their exists no evidence for this (these) God(s).”

The typical response to such a statement, is usually to create arguments, premises, statements that in someway try to present God or the existence of God as a logical position. This is problematic because the statement of the atheist is by innate nature, inherently flawed. That is to say, their position is flawed, the question is flawed, so the answer will definitely have flaws. Therefore, the response to such a statement should not be an attempt to refute it, as the atheist has already concluded their position:

(If) there is no proof for God => (then, this implies that) God does not exist.

This is called a logical implication, taking the form (if) A (then) => B.

The proper response to such a statement, should be to question their “if”. What does this atheist mean, by “evidence”?

Do they mean philosophical? Super natural? Empirical? All of the above?

Usually, atheists have to create philosophical arguments to defend their empirical reasoning. Meaning, the evidence they seek is empirical. Empirical evidences is defined as that which can be seen, touched, heard, smelled and tasted. More or less, it has to be something which one can directly interact with, in a physical sense.

At this point, as a Muslim, I have to categorically dismiss such a notion of God. This atheist, believes in the disbelief of a God that Islam neither condones nor promotes. Muslims believe in Allaah, who is more or less described as being a non-physical, incomparable being, of which we cannot comprehend, because this Allaah is unlike anything we know and our minds can only generate concepts which are relative to what we see, hear, touch, smell and taste because we as humans function by these mechanical attributes in this world. So the atheist, is disbelieving in a concept of God that we as Muslims also hold to be irrational.

I am not condoning the belief of the atheist, but it is as this occasion, we can begin to understand what form our da’wah has to take towards them. Let them know, that their concept of God, is greatly flawed and thus their arguments towards such a God we wholly reject.

They may then pose the question, if God is all seeing, should God not have 1000 eyes?

Taking my advice from above, why should God need eyes to see? Eyes are built to function in this world, for which we are limited in numerous ways. The eyes of the Christian God only saw the Israelite kingdoms while being tempted by Satan. In this regard, we accept that human vision is greatly limited, which ever being has a human eye, cannot be all seeing, or in this regard, all knowing, as the eye is not meant to function as such.

So then the question presents itself, if you don’t know the nature of this God, how can you know that this God exists. If God is not a physical being, then what is God? How would one be assured that what you don’t see, feel, hear, taste or smell, exists?

I’d like to say that that’s also an inherently flawed question, which we will answer by using the age old method of proof by contradiction through analytical deduction by way of conversing their statements through an analogy:

“How do we know that Alexander the Great (insert any historical figure here) existed?”

None of us, have ever touched, seen, heard, smelled or tasted Alexander. So the erroneous concept of the onus on being on theists to present such a case to suit empiricist concepts is out of the window. If you believe that a historical figure existed without fulfilling the above criteria, then you cannot demand that the only evidence to prove God’s existence should be that which you also cannot use to substantiate your belief.

So what do we rely on to confirm that Alexander the Great existed? Why, the historical record of historians, reliant upon numerous narrations of his conquests, victories and losses. The vast amount of testification to this person’s existence or any other historical person’s existence, really depends upon the mass flow of historical information from the people at his time and after his time, attesting to his existence. Therefore, with that logic, we must also confirm that God exists, just as the reasoning for Alexander’s existence is used to confirm his. The testification of thousands at their specific time in existence to God’s works throughout our history, is testament to His existence. We simply use the same method that we used to substantiate the existence of Kingdom’s, historical figures, or events.

If the atheist presupposes that we cannot use the same method, then we must question their objective integrity. Are they questioning to understand, or questioning to display their character flaw of hypocrisy? What is good for you, is it not also good for me?

wa Allaahu Alam.

Prophetic Cure: The Fly’s Cure

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) said: “If a fly falls down to your vessel, drown it then remove it, for one of its wings has the ailment and the other has the cure,”

The surface of flies is the last place you would expect to find antibiotics, yet that is exactly where a team of Australian researchers is concentrating their efforts.

Working on the theory that flies must have remarkable antimicrobial defences to survive rotting dung, meat and fruit, the team at the Department of Biological Sciences , Macquarie University, set out to identify those antibacterial properties manifesting at different stages of a fly’s development.

“Our research is a small part of a global research effort for new antibiotics, but we are looking where we believe no-one has looked before,” said Ms Joanne Clarke, who presented the group’s findings at the Australian Society for Microbiology Conference  in Melbourne this week. The project is part of her PhD thesis.

The scientists tested four different species of fly: a house fly, a sheep blowfly, a vinegar fruit fly and the control, a Queensland fruit fly which lays its eggs in fresh fruit. These larvae do not need as much antibacterial compound because they do not come into contact with as much bacteria.

Flies go through the life stages of larvae and pupae before becoming adults. In the pupae stage, the fly is encased in a protective casing and does not feed. “We predicted they would not produce many antibiotics,” said Ms Clarke.

They did not. However the larvae all showed antibacterial properties (except that of the Queensland fruit fly control).

As did all the adult fly species, including the Queensland fruit fly (which at this point requires antibacterial protection because it has contact with other flies and is mobile).

Such properties were present on the fly surface in all four species, although antibacterial properties occur in the gut as well. “You find activity in both places,” said Ms Clarke.

“The reason we concentrated on the surface is because it is a simpler extraction.”

The antibiotic material is extracted by drowning the flies in ethanol, then running the mixture through a filter to obtain the crude extract.

When this was placed in a solution with various bacteria including E.coli, Golden Staph, Candida (a yeast) and a common hospital pathogen, antibiotic action was observed every time.

“We are now trying to identify the specific antibacterial compounds,” said Ms Clarke. Ultimately these will be chemically synthesised.

Because the compounds are not from bacteria, any genes conferring resistance to them may not be as easily transferred into pathogens. It is hoped this new form of antibiotics will have a longer effective therapeutic life.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2002/10/01/689400.htm

wa Allaahu Alam.

Sayyidul Istighfar

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

 

Transliteration:
`Allahumma Anta Rabbi, la ilaha illa Anta, khalaqtani wa ana `abduka, wa ana `ala `ahdika wa wa`dika mastata`tu, a`udhu bika min sharri ma sana`tu, abu’u laka bini`matika `alayya, wa abu’u bidhanbi faghfir li, fa innahu la yaghfirudh-dhunuba illa Anta.

 

Translation:

O Allah, You are my Lord, there is none worthy of worship but You. You created me and I am Your slave. I keep Your covenant, and my pledge to You so far as i am able. I seek refuge in You from the evil of what I have done. I admit to Your blessings upon me, and I admit to my misdeeds. Forgive me, For there is none who may forgive sins but You.


wa Allahu Alam

[Updated]: A Basic Video Guide to Salaah [Hanafi Madhab]

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

For a detailed read on all the daleel used for the Hanafi Method of Salaah (in great detail) , see this book by Shaykh Abu Yusuf Riyadhul Haqq (db).

[UPDATE]: Here is a picture, step by step guide with audio instructions that is also very simple to follow: Click Here.

wa Allahu Alam.

Was the Qur’an Mistaken on Mary’s Role in Christianity?

Posted on by 3 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

 

While studying the topic of the “Immaculate” conception of Mary (the Mother of the Jesus), I came across a really contentious quote. Before I show the quote, I’d like us first to read this interpretation of an ayah of the Qur’aan[1]:

 

5:116

And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I had ever said it, then Thou wouldst have known it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?

 

Usually, this ayah is misinterpreted by both Muslims (laymen) and Christians (laymen and scholars). Theoretically speaking the argument against this ayah is that no group of “real” Christians believe in Mary to be a God, or have God-like attributes.

 

I’d now like you to see what I have found:

 

The salutation of the angel Gabriel — chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.[2]

 

 

God like state of soul? This is sufficient evidence to state that the Qur’aan’s claim is not only valid, but absolutely prophetical in it’s statement. I’d like to add another quote to support the Qur’aan’s claims, to further support it’s statement:

 

she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures.[3]

 

and one more for the fun of it:

 

To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate.[4]

 

Insha Allah (God willing) this is sufficient evidence to calm the quarrelsome nature of the Christians who deny this fact, based upon the writings of the Church Fathers. As much as you hate Islam, the truth is before you and the Qur’aan is indeed among the signs (ayat) of Allah (swt).

 

Citations:

1. http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran?Sura=5&FromVerse=116&ToVerse=116&Script=Usmani&Reciter=Mishari-Rashid&Translation=Eng-Pickthal-Audio&TajweedRules=Off&Zoom=5.2

 

2. Holweck, Frederick. “Immaculate Conception.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 17 Feb. 2011 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm>.

 

3. Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140.

 

4. Carmina Nisibena.

 

wa Allahu Alam.

Edgar J. Godspeed on the Success of the Early Church

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

“Yet Christianity was not failing. It was winning an amazing success, but in the Greek, not in the Jewish, world. Christianity was, in fact, rapidly becoming a Greek religion. But this success of Christianity in the Greek world only increased the difficulty of the problem. It was nothing like what the prophets had said would happen when the Messiah came.

Paul had seen this difficulty and grappled with it in Romans, chapters 9-11. He cherished the hope that eventually the Jewish people would turn and accept their own Messiah. But in the years that had since passed matters had gone steadily the other way.”

An Introduction to the New Testament – Edgar J. Godspeed; pages 159 and 160, “Matthew”.

Jesus vs Paul: I said nothing in secret.

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Often times, the Epistles of Paul, make references to scripture (whether canonical or not) and claims God said it. In this case, their God, being Yeshua, otherwise known as Isa al Masih alayhi as salaam to the Muslims.

Jesus allegedly said:

“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.

[1]

Yet, if this is true, then Paul, is making a claim against Jesus:

,In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

[2]

Therefore the question arises, if Jesus commanded this and in understanding he said nothing in secret, considering 2 Timothy 3:16’s statement that, “All Scripture is God-breathed”, where exactly did Jesus ever utter such a statement in the New Testament?

The challenge is quite simple:

  • Jesus says, he said nothing in secret.
  • His statement is supported by gospel which says, all scripture is from God.
  • Paul makes a claim that Jesus said something.

We arrive at a problem. If Paul’s source is a secret, then we arrive at a dilemma.
Either Jesus in John 18:20,
and, or not all scripture is God breathed as per 2 Timothy 3:16,
and, or Paul lied on both scripture and Jesus.

Therefore the challenge is quite simple, to prove the above statements false, any one single Christ has to show, where Jesus said unequivocally these words in the New Testament Gospels:

“those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.”

As, I, Br. Ejaaz A., always reiterates, I place my trust in Allah {swt} solely and He has already answered such a claim:

Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

فَوَيۡلٌ۬ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكۡتُبُونَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبَ بِأَيۡدِيہِمۡ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنۡ عِندِ ٱللَّهِ لِيَشۡتَرُواْ بِهِۦ ثَمَنً۬ا قَلِيلاً۬‌ۖ فَوَيۡلٌ۬ لَّهُم مِّمَّا ڪَتَبَتۡ أَيۡدِيهِمۡ وَوَيۡلٌ۬ لَّهُم مِّمَّا يَكۡسِبُونَ

[3]

Objections to what has been stated.

1. Jesus said the same thing in Luke 10:7,

Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

Well the answer is quite simple, this is quoting Luke, who was a companion of Paul, whom one can read in vast detail as being the companion of Paul [4]. Paul’s Epistles are believed to be initially spread from the year 50 AD (beginning with 1 Thessalonian), yet, Luke’s gospel is cited as being as much as 12 years later by John A.T. Robinson, Anglican dean of chapel and lecturer in theology at Trinity College, Cambridge. Therefore, the argument is baseless that Paul is citing Luke, if the Gospel of Luke was written after the Pauline Epistles.

2. Paul quotes 1 Timothy 5:17-18 in 1 Corinthians 9:14, same answer as above,

1 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). Christians {albeit, uneducated in scriptural history}, claim they were written at the same time with or after Pauline Epistles. This is a false notion:

Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means “righteous” and here means “upright”; pistis, “faith,” has become “the body of Christian faith”; and so on.

Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.

The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul’s situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul’s life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.

The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.

[5]

3. It’s a paraphrase. Verbatim quotes are not what is being indicated here, so it’s pointless to ask for one.

This again, is an unlearned response as even the passage says it’s a direct quote, the Greek even indicates this:

Does Paul have to say it is a verbatim quote for us to acknowledge it as such? Did you read the quote cited?

“In the same way, the Lord commanded”

In the what? The “οὕτω” way, meaning?

“in this way (referring to what precedes or follows): – after that, after (in) this manner, as, even (so)”

In “οὕτω” way, he “διατάσσω”, meaning?

“arrange thoroughly, that is, (specifically) institute, prescribe, etc.: – appoint, command, give, (set in) order, ordain.”

Jesus specifically, gave this order, in the same way, as Paul is narrating it. This is to display the liturgical transmission of narratives about Jesus from the disciples. So even the verse, expresses what I have expressed and answers you quite clearly.

wa Allahu Alam.

[1] – John 18:20, NIV Bible Translation,
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+18%3A20&version=NIV

[2] – 1 Corinthians 9:14, NRSV Bible Translation,
http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=1Corinthians+9

[3] – Qur’aan, Surah 2, Ayah 79,
http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran?Sura=2&FromVerse=79&ToVerse=79&Script=Usmani&Reciter=Mishari-Rashid&Translation=Eng-Pickthal-Audio&TajweedRules=Off&Zoom=5.2

[4] – http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

[5] – Norman Perrin, The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »