Search
In a stunning critique of Sam Shamoun’s behaviour, Dr. James White revealed a shocking truth about Sam’s rationalizing of his use of insults, curses and abusive words towards those he finds himself at odds with.
YouTube Mirror: Dr. James White – Sam Shamoun Views Himself as a Prophet
and God knows best.
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
Note: The following quote is not from my own writing, nor my own translation, the source and link is clearly cited below for all to enjoy reading.
One of early Christendom’s most significant and prominent leaders, (what we term a Patristic) was Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus) who was one of the very first Christian apologists, writing against many people, most notably, “Against Marcion” (Adversus Marcionem) who awkwardly enough was the first man to canonize the Christian Bible and “Against the Jews” (Adversus Judaeos ) who even more strangely enough followed the religion of their God (as they say Jesus was a Jew). What is apparent is that these statements are supposed to be in support of Christianity, being such a major apologetic in his day, it is quite shocking to read some of his statements about the veracity of the Christian faith. As such, please do research more on this issue and enjoy reading:
There are, to be sure, other things also quite as foolish (as the birth of Christ), which have reference to the humiliations and sufferings of God. Or else, let them call a crucified God “wisdom.” But Marcion will apply the knife’ to this doctrine also,, and even with greater reason. For which Is more unworthy of God, which is more likely to raise a blush of shame, that God should be born, or that He should die? that He should bear the flesh, or the cross? be circumcised, or be crucified? be cradled, or be coffined? be laid in a manger, or in a tomb? Talk of “wisdom!” You will show more of fiat if you refuse to believe this also. But, after all, you will not be “wise” unless you become a “fool” to the world, by believing” the foolish things of God.”Have you, then, cut away all sufferings from Christ, on the ground that, as a mere phantom, He was incapable of experiencing them? We have said above that He might possibly have undergone the unreal mockeries of an imaginary birth and infancy.But answer me at once, you that murder truth: Was not God really crucified? And, having been really crucified, did He not really die? And, having indeed really died, did He not really rise again? Falsely did Paul “determine to know nothing amongst us but Jesus and Him crucified;” falsely has he impressed upon us that He was buried; falsely inculcated that He rose again. False, therefore, is our faith also. And all that we hope for from Christ will be a phantom.O thou most infamous of men, who acquittest of all guilt the murderers of God! For nothing did Christ suffer from them, if He really suffered nothing at all. Spare the whole world’s one only hope, thou who art destroying the indispensable dishonour of our faith? Whatsoever is unworthy of God, is of gain to me. I am safe, if I am not ashamed–my Lord.“Whosoever,” says He, “shall be ashamed of me, of him will I also be ashamed.” Other matters for shame find I r none which can prove me to be shameless t in a good sense, and foolish in a happy one, by my own contempt of shame. The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible.But how will all this be true in Him, if He was not Himself true–if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again?I mean this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, a flesh which knew how to be born, and how to die, human without doubt, as born of a human being. It will therefore be mortal in Christ, because Christ is man and the Son of man. Else why is Christ man and the Son of man, if he has nothing of man, and nothing from man? Unless it be either that man is anything else than flesh, or man’s flesh comes from any other source than man, or Mary is anything else than a human being, or Marcion’s man is as Marcion’s god. Otherwise Christ could not be described as being man without flesh, nor the Son of man without any human parent; just as He is not God without the Spirit of God, nor the Son of God without having God for His father. Thus the nature of the two substances displayed Him as man and God,–in one respect born, in the other unborn; l in one respect fleshly in the other spiritual; in one sense weak in the other exceeding strong; in on sense dying, in the other living.
This excerpt has been taking from, “De carne Christi (On the flesh of Christ), Chapter 5, – Christ Truly Lived and Died in human flesh. Incidents of human life on earth, and refutation of Marcion’s docetic parody of the same.”
Link to online resource of said book: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co…tullian15.html
From this we can deduce that Paul was a liar and a man which altered the true doctrine of Christ, as Tertullian clearly indicates. Following from this, we can also conclude that the greatest proof of Christianity’s theological foundations, is that the religion is so morbidly absurd tha it just has to be true. Recall the famous saying, “that idea is so stupid it just might work“, same reasoning applies here. That’s truly some great logic!
Qur’aan Surah 4, Ayah 156-159:
“That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): ‘We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.’ But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (Jesus) Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them.”
wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.
Originally Published: December 2nd, 2011, 14:11 PM.
Edited and Republished: August 19th, 2012, 10:10 AM.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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]
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.
Calling Christians 