Tag Archives: religion

Refutation: More proof that Allah worships like his creatures do

Posted on by 4 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

This article is a response to Sam Shamoun’s, “More proof that Allah worships like his creatures do“. I’m not familiar with Sam Shamoun’s personal behaviour outside of what he says about Muslims via his website, blog posts and TV shows, but something stood out in this article of his which really caught my attention. I’ve been insulted and mocked by Sam, fatwa’d by Sam, even threatened by his friends, and that’s okay. I understand that Ministering to Muslims is difficult and he’s human, so I expect him to lose patience once in a while. I’ll excuse him for those mistakes, but Sam reached a new level of superiority complex by referring to Muslims as ‘creatures’. This is not okay, this is a product of his years of anti-Islamic behaviour, that he now considers non-Christians to be ‘creatures’. As a Muslim, I am genuinely worried that Sam’s behaviour is mimicking those terrorists who in the the recent past (think: Anders Behring Breivik), who through years of anti-Muslim behaviour finally ‘snapped’ and committed mass murder. I leave Sam with some Bible passages, in the hope that he corrects his behaviour before he follows the path of his Lord (see: Luke 19:27, John 8:44-48):

 As for a fool, on that very day he makes his anger known, but he who ignores an insult is prudent. – Proverbs 12:16.

“Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, You people in whose heart is My law: Do not fear the reproach of men, Nor be afraid of their insults. – Isaiah 51:7.

Now, on to the article at hand, Sam’s declares his goal to be to:

In this article we are going to provide further proof that Allah not only worships similarly to the way his so-called righteous followers do so, but that he actually worships himself.

If we follow Sam’s rationale, then Sam must do the following:

  • Where Allah does Sujood.
  • Where Allah does Taubah (repentance).
  • Where Allah fasts.
  • Where Allah does Hajj or pay Zakaat.

This is because this is how we, as Muslims, worship Allaah ta ‘ala (God – the Exalted). However, not for one moment does Sam do this in his article, therefore although Sam declares the above as his intent, he fails to follow through on his promise. Instead, he commits some eisegesis of Qur’anic ayat, back peddles a bit, throws some insults, quotes a few of his previous articles and combines it into this article. Can’t say I expected any better, but this article seems more of an afterthought, than anything else. If you’ve read it, you’d realise how disjointed his points are, how disconnected the evidences are and most importantly, how absurd his reasoning is. Sam begins his rabid diatribe by explaining to us Muslims, something we already know, that Allaah’s word…..is Allaah’s word. The Qur’an is Allaah’s word, not the word of Muhammad [saws], or of any poet or inspired author, but the direct word of God. Sam continues by saying:

As such, Islamic orthodoxy teaches that it is the Muslim deity who is speaking the Quran, and therefore means that the one who is communicating all throughout the Islamic scripture is Allah himself.

It is important to understand that the Qur’an, literally means, “The Recitation”, therefore the Qur’an is meant to be recited, or in other words, the Qur’an is Allaah’s word which we are commanded to recite, as is seen in this ayah (the very first revealed ayah):

Recite thou in the name of thy Lord Who has created everything – Qur’an 96:1.

Or of these other ayat:

  • Read, and your Lord is the most gracious – Qur’an 96:3.
  • When thou dost read the Qur’an, seek Allah’s protection from Satan the Rejected one. – Qur’an 16:98.
  • When the Qur’an is read, listen to it with attention, and hold your peace: that ye may receive Mercy. – Qur’an 7:204.
  • Establish prayer at the decline of the sun [from its meridian] until the darkness of the night and [also] the Qur’an of dawn. Indeed, the recitation of dawn is ever witnessed. – Qur’an 17:78.
  • And is it not sufficient for them that We revealed to you the Book which is recited to them? Indeed in that is a mercy and reminder for a people who believe. – Qur’an 29:51.

Allaah also mentions the punishment of those who failed to take heed of recitation of the Qur’an:

My revelations were recited unto you, but ye used to turn back on your heels – Qur’an 23:66.

Therefore, Allaah revealed the Qur’an to us, for us to recite it (or read it) for guidance and direction. In this way, Allaah has given us something to praise and glorify Him with. Similarly, the Jews also have an ‘aliyah’ (recitation) of the Torah to praise and glorify God:

In all Jewish communities, it is considered a great merit and honor to be called to recite the blessings at the Torah. It is referred to as an aliyah,which means “ascent,” referring not just to the climb to the platform upon which the Torah is read, but also to the spiritual elevation which comes along with this opportunity. [1]

The reading of the Torah out loud, is a recitation for the congregation to hear the words of the Lord:

Traditionally, two people are not called up for the same aliyah. Jewish law requires that congregants hear every word of the Torah reading distinctly, which is difficult if two persons chant the portion simultaneously. This ruling was extended to prohibit two people from being called up to the Torah together, even if only to recite the blessings, since worshipers unable to hear the words clearly would not be permitted to respond “amen.” [2]

Therefore, both Muslims and Jews recite their ‘scripture’ or the “Word of their Lord”, as an act of reverence to God. With this having been understood, we now reach Sam’s main argument:

It needs to be stressed that these are not commands issued to others, ordering them to say these words. Rather, these statements are supposed to come directly from the mouth of Allah, so to speak.

What!? I am compelled to use this GIF to express my current emotions:

We clearly saw above in the following Qur’anic references where Muslims are commanded to recite the Qur’an or portions of the Qur’an:

  1. Qur’an 96:1.
  2. Qur’an 96:3.
  3. Qur’an 16:98.
  4. Qur’an 7:204.
  5. Qur’an 17:78.
  6. Qur’an 29:51.
  7. Qur’an 35:29.
  8. Qur’an 46:29.
  9. Qur’an 2:44.
  10. Qur’an 17:107
  11. Qur’an 15:1.
  12. Qur’an 26:69.
  13. Qur’an 84:21.
  14. Qur’an 87:6.
  15. Qur’an 23:105.
  16. Qur’an 68:15.
  17. Qur’an 73:4 which reads: “and recite the Qur’an in slow, measured rhythmic tones.”

Therefore, Sam’s argument has fallen flat on his own face, his rationale depends on the understanding that Allaah did not command us to recite the Qur’an, however through proof by contradiction, Sam’s argument has been nullified. Sam continues his fallacious reasoning by quoting Surah Fatihah and saying:

Not only is Allah praising and worshiping himself here, he even invokes himself to guide himself on the straight path in order to avoid becoming the object of his own wrath and judgment!

Sam seems to be ignoring the fact that the Qur’an is Allaah’s word, which He wants us to recite, therefore by reciting Surah Fatihah, we are praising and glorifying our Lord. Let me give another example of Sam’s inconsistency, if we were to apply his methodology to the Bible, we reach the case that it is wrong for God to praise Himself, yet, in his own scripture we read:

 After this, the word of theLORD came to Abram in a vision: “Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward. ” – Genesis 15:1.

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, theLORD appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty ; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. – Genesis 17:1.

I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves along the ground. – Leviticus 11:44.

I am the LORD, who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy. – Leviticus 11:45.

Then all mankind will know that I, the LORD, am your Savior, your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.” – Isaiah 49:26.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, – Exodus 20:5.

According to Sam’s reasoning, if God praises himself (as is demonstrated above) then this is not a true God, therefore Sam has either implicitly declared his hate for YHWH, or has explicitly declared his disdain with YHWH, either way, Sam’s argument demonizes YHWH and that’s quite remarkable. If it is that God praising Himself is wrong, then why does Sam’s God do it as well? In fact, Sam argues the following:

These statements pretty much show that Allah is a very needful deity, one that desperately needs to be loved, praised and adored, which is precisely why he created mankind and genies in the first place:

And I have not created the jinn and men except to worship me. 51:56

Which is ironic, since YHWH commands that He too, be praised and worshipped:

Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’” – Exodus 4:22-23.

Then say to him, ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to say to you: Let my people go, so that they may worship me in the wilderness. But until now you have not listened. – Exodus 7:16.

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what the Lord says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me. – Exodus 8:1.

Not only is Sam’s argument insulting to his own God, Sam is condemning his Bible and Jesus himself. I say this because if we believed as Sam believed (Jesus is a God), then Jesus who is a God, came to earth to worship Himself:

Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” – Matthew 26:39.

In fact, if we follow with Sam’s reasoning, God came to earth to command people to worship Him, isn’t that vain and desperate, Sam?

Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” – Matthew 4:10.

Therefore let’s analyse all of  Sam’s arguments thus far:

  • The Qur’an does not say that it is to be recited. Debunked!
  • God commands himself to be praised and worshipped only in the Qur’an. Debunked!
  • God cannot praise Himself. Debunked!

Conclusion:

Sam’s arguments contradict Biblical teachings, demonizes YHWH, is self contradictory and he has shown abject dishonesty. This is what I personally refer to as, “Shamounian Logic“, I should probably trademark it, but then again, I don’t think it is possible to trademark human incompetence and inanity.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God knows best.

For further articles debunking, exposing Sam Shamoun, see here.

Similar Topics:

The Bible Command Christians to Obey Islamic Governance

Posted on by 2 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Often times we hear Christians (see: Pamela Geller, David Wood, Sam Shamoun, Christians on FFI, Answering Islam, Answering Muslims), who align themselves with political groups claiming that the, “Shari’a” is immoral, backward, barbaric, archaic and ‘harmful to society’. Yet, if we were to ask them to define what Shari’a is, they wouldn’t seem to know. Some may point you to a Fiqh manual titled, “Reliance of the Traveller“, or quote for you some ahadith (plural of Hadith) or Qur’anic ayah as evidence of, “the creeping Shari’a“. However, they don’t know what the Shari’a actually is. The Shari’a is a body of law, which is both interpersonal and intrapersonal. It is sourced from the Qur’an, the Sunnah (Ahadith, Seerah), Ijma (consensus of scholars based on Qur’an and Sunnah) and Qiyas (analytic deduction). Therefore, as it is, there is no one ‘fiqh’ manual that embodies the Shari’a as a whole for Muslims. Fiqh can be defined as Islamic jurisprudence. What does this mean?

Shari’a is not:

  • Based on one man’s opinion.
  • Based on one scholar’s opinion.
  • Based on one fiqh manual.
  • Based on crowd justice (there are courts to try criminals!).
  • Based on a few Ahadith.
  • Based on a few Qur’anic verses.
  • Based on a few men’s opinions.

Shari’a depends on a vast consensus of scholars who hold positions verified and validated through noted certification by institutions of high academic standards (see: Umm al Qura University, the University of Madina, Al Azhar, Dar al Ulum, etc). A single mufti’s (Molvi, Maulana, Shaykh, Sheikh, Ustadh, Sidi, etc) legal ruling (fatwa) is not binding because it is one man’s legal opinion, unless it is verified through Qur’an, Sunnah and Ijma (previously defined above).

Intrapersonal Shari’ah:

This involves the personal beliefs and actions of an individual, this can involve performing Salaah, eating halaal, dressing appropriately, using appropriate language etc). In other words, it’s your personal moral standing that is dependent upon you and the Shari’a intends that you do good actions and not sin.

Interpersonal Shari’ah:

This involves the dealings and interactions of one person with another person, group of persons, his community and his legal obligations to the state. Usually this involves providing food for one’s family, obeying traffic laws, not stealing from others, not injuring or causing undue harm to anyone, paying taxes etc. In this form of Shari’a, this is what Islamophobes usually refer to as the creeping Shari’a. Nowhere in the Shari’a is one allowed to take justice into their own hands, we often hear of public whippings, beheadings, honour killings etc. However nowhere in the Shari’a are Muslims or non-Muslims for that matter, allowed to take justice into their own hands, in fact we have courts that are governed by Judges (a judge is a Qadhi), where matters are dealt with. One popular misconception is the rulings concerning rape and the punishment of the victim in Islam, I have previously written on this topic here.

The Bible Commands the Following of the Islamic Shari’a:

This might surprise many Christians, but the Bible actually commands its adherents to obey Islamic law. If you’ve read Macbeth or almost any Shakespearean play, you’d have come across the ‘Divine Right of Rulership’, wherein it is believed that rulers are destined by God to rule and therefore to rebel against a monarch would mean rebelling against God. Protestant England and Shakespeare did not invent this belief, it’s actually based on one of Paul’s Epistles:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.  Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. – Bible : Romans (13): 1 – 7.

If I could have put that entire passage in bold, I would have. Clearly it is saying that the one in power, the governing authorities are instituted by God. Your God. What does this mean? Well, quite simply, if you are a Christian living in Muslim lands and their are Islamic laws, you must obey them. That’s right, this means living under Shari’a is condoned by Jehova, YHWH, Yeshua, Jesus, or whatever you call him. It doesn’t get much better for Tea Party followers in the United States, as opposing your President is tantamount to opposing God, similarly campaigning against Muslim politicians or liberties allowed by the law for Muslims, means you’re practically incurring God’s wrath upon yourselves.

Some might dismiss this understanding of the aforementioned passage by claiming that I’m a Muslim, therefore I am twisting ‘scripture’, therefore in response to this claim, let’s examine Christian Exegete, Adam Clarke’s commentary on the verses:

This is a very strong saying, and most solemnly introduced; and we must consider the apostle as speaking, not from his own private judgment, or teaching a doctrine of present expediency, but declaring the mind of God on a subject of the utmost importance to the peace of the world; a doctrine which does not exclusively belong to any class of people, order of the community, or official situations, but toevery soul; and, on the principles which the apostle lays down, to every soul in all possible varieties of situation, and on all occasions. And what is this solemn doctrine? It is this: Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. Let every man be obedient to the civil government under which the providence of God has cast his lot. 

As God is the origin of power, and the supreme Governor of the universe, he delegates authority to whomsoever he will; and though in many cases the governor himself may not be of God, yet civil government is of him; for without this there could be no society, no security, no private property; all would be confusion and anarchy, and the habitable world would soon be depopulated. In ancient times, God, in an especial manner, on many occasions appointed the individual who was to govern; and he accordingly governed by a Divine right, as in the case of Moses, Joshua, the Hebrew judges, and several of the Israelitish kings. In after times, and to the present day, he does that by a general superintending providence which he did before by especial designation. In all nations of the earth there is what may be called a constitution-a plan by which a particular country or state is governed; and this constitution is less or more calculated to promote the interests of the community.

The civil governor, whether he be elective or hereditary, agrees to govern according to that constitution. Thus we may consider that there is a compact and consent between the governor and the governed, and in such a case, the potentate may be considered as coming to the supreme authority in the direct way of God’s providence; and as civil government is of God, who is the fountain of law, order, and regularity, the civil governor, who administers the laws of a state according to its constitution, is the minister of God. But it has been asked: If the ruler be an immoral or profligate man, does he not prove himself thereby to be unworthy of his high office, and should he not be deposed? I answer, No: if he rule according to the constitution, nothing can justify rebellion against his authority. He may be irregular in his own private life; he may be an immoral man, and disgrace himself by an improper conduct: but if he rule according to the law; if he make no attempt to change the constitution, nor break the compact between him and the people; there is, therefore, no legal ground of opposition to his civil authority, and every act against him is not only rebellion in the worst sense of the word, but is unlawful and absolutely sinful. – Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Romans 13:1-2.

Conclusion:

Therefore, in closing, I conclude that those who fear Islamic Shari’a do not have a holistic and educated teaching of what it actually is, that they are playing on emotional fears for their own gain, whether monetary or otherwise (see: Argumentum ad Baculum). Following the Shari’a is no different to following a constitution of any nation where you reside according to Pauline doctrine, whom according to the Christian’s own belief is taught/ inspired by God Himself. Political Christians who are opponents of Shari’a simply do not understand it and are going against Biblical teachings.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Debate: James White vs Sami Zataari, “Was Christ Crucified?” – Video

Posted on by 2 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

MDI has finally released their video of Sami’s debate with James. For a quick review, if you’ve ever heard James speak, then expect nothing new from him. Sami responded well, kept up with James, easily nullified James’ arguments and ran rings around the Alpha and Omega Ministry man:

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Some Comments on James White and Adnan Rashid’s Debate

Posted on by 8 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I was taken aback by some of James White’s arguments in yesterday’s debate with Br. Adnan Rashid, however I was pleased with the simplicity of his presentation. The topic being debated was, “Was the Qur’an or the Bible Reliably Transmitted? ” and what a show it was. James’ presentation was rather straight forward, to the point and predictable. Admittedly, he’s a seasoned orator which would impress the lay Christian, but as a person who studies the Christian scriptures and their textual history, I felt nothing but shame for James White. His arguments were borderline facetious, if not absurd and really demonstrated a lack of honesty on his part. I’m not sure if he would be willing to defend his statements, but many of his comments were dishonest to say the least. Let’s examine his main point:

  • An Uncontrolled Text is Superior to a Controlled Text.

James’ reasoning, revolved around the idea that if multiple people, at multiple places, at multiple times wrote a documents which ‘largely agreed’ with one another, the autograph would be more preserved and thus rendering the text, ‘reliably transmitted’. This view is largely held by neo-inerrantist Christian scholars such as Maurice Robinson, William Pierpont, Zane Hodges and Aruthur Farstad. There view can be summed up in this excerpt:

“from a transmissional standpoint, a single Textform would be expected to predominate among the vast majority of manuscripts in the absence of radical and well-documented upheavals in the manuscript tradition.” – Maurice Robinson, “The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform”, Preface to the 2nd Ed.

It must be understood however, that this understanding is not due to the science of textual criticism, but based on faith that God preserved the Bible, see Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 219, Citation #29. Therefore James’ position is not based on sound research and study, which he alluded to, but based upon dogmas. It is with this in mind that I’d like to contest his view of preservation through ‘uncontrolled copying‘, by providing a simple example:

  • Scribe writes epistle.
  • Some time passes.
  • Later scribe copies epistle (emendations/ interpolations occur).
  • Some time passes.
  • Another scribe copies the mistakes of the previous scribe and adds mistakes of his own.
  • At this point the original epistle is lost and the autographs of the two later scribes are preserved.

The question we’d have to ask James, is which manuscript autograph would he give precedence to? Would his criteria be based upon dating or level of variance after comparison with his current New Testament codex? If it’s a combination of both, then what would be common to both manuscripts would be the errors of the first copyist and the recopied errors by the second copyist, thus leaving us with something vastly variant to the original:

In some cases the evidence will be found to be so evenly divided that it is extremely difficult to decide between two variant readings. – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, Preface XV.

Occasionally, none of the variant readings will commend itself as original, and one will be compelled either to choose the reading that is judged to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation. – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 343.

However, let’s say that we oppose James’ view and we examine a controlled text.

  • A Controlled Text is Superior to an Uncontrolled Text.

What if the original scribe oversaw the copying of his manuscript, and left instructions that any copy henceforth would have to be double checked with his manuscript. That’s a level of control that at the minimum preserves the text by one generation. If this method is continued, essentially all generations of copyists would be able to preserve the original scribe’s works. This is essentially what the Ijaza is in Islam. A person is given the authority to transmit knowledge/ data, because they have achieved a level of approval according to the one who has received authority from one with authority to transmit the knowledge/ data. We know that later Christianity adopted controlled textual transmission, because it better preserved the texts:

It is a striking feature of our textual record that the earliest copies we have of the various books that became the New Testament vary from one another far more widely than do the later copies, which were made under more controlled circumstances in the Middle Ages. – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 275.

The vast majority of Christian texts which have survived are from the Middle Ages:

Furthermore, the work of many ancient authors has been preserved only in manuscripts that date from the Middle Ages (sometimes the late Middle Ages), far removed from the time at which they lived and wrote. – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 275.

The end of the twentieth century saw a resurgence of interest in the Byzantine text type among those who believe that the original text is best preserved in the vast majority of witnesses produced in the Middle Ages.’ – Dr. B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, ‘The Text of the NT: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed, pg 218.

Therefore the correlation being that texts which are controlled, have been vastly more preserved as opposed to the earlier uncontrolled texts of which are sparse and often vastly variant with one another:

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.

It is with the above being said, I must thereby conclude that James White’s position in his debate with Br. Adnan Rashid is unscholarly, deceptive, displays a significant level of ignorance of the history and the science of textual criticism and is nothing short but a disgrace to the field of academia. I pray that God guides James White to admitting his erroneous position and that he corrects himself, sooner rather than later.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Christians Have Blasphemy Laws Too

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Lately, there has been a lot of grandstanding by our Christian counterparts about blasphemy laws in Muslim countries. They seem to forget that they too have blasphemy laws that are still in use to this day. As it turns out, it was used this week against a former Christian, who ran a Facebook group about his apostasy. The Huffington Post reports:

A 27-year-old man has been arrested by Greek police  for what the authorities called “malicious blasphemy,” according to a HuffPost translation of a press release. Police allege that the man managed a Facebook page that lampooned the deceased Eastern Orthodox monk Elder Paisios , a widely popular religious figure, using the name “Gerontas (Elder) Pastitsios.” Pastitsios is a Greek pasta dish, and the page parodied the monk and his work in the vein of Pastafarianism, a lighthearted, satirical movement that promotes irreligion. In a screen shot of the group’s Facebook page, which now appears to have been removed from the social network, Elder Paisios is shown with a plate of pastitsios .

The Business Insider News website, has secured a translation of the police press release on the issue:

24-09-2012: H Cyber Crime Unit arrested 27-year old domestic for malicious blasphemy and kathyvrisi religions via Facebook
Athens, 24 September 2012

PRESS RELEASE

H Cyber Crime Unit arrested 27-year old domestic for malicious blasphemy and religious kathyvrisi through Facebook

The 27 year old managed page on Facebook with profane and abusive content for Elder Paisios and Orthodox Christianity

From Cyber Crime file formed Flagrant process against domestic 27 years old, who is accused of blasphemy and malicious kathyvrisi religions known through social networking sites Facebook.

More specifically, the Cyber Crime spotted recently in the famous social networking site Facebook, with data page ( http://www.facebook.com / gerontas.pastitsios ), which contained blasphemies and insults against Elder Paisios and Orthodox Christianity.

While the profane and blasphemous content of this page, the Cyber Crime has received thousands of e-complaints coming from residents of different countries around the world.

From police digital survey, conducted in conducting preliminary investigation calibrated logs (logfiles) and electronic trail of administrator – user page issue.

Then Friday (21-09-2012) morning team of specialist officers Cyber Crime held a proper inquiry, presence Prosecutors at his home at 27 years old Psachna Evia.

During the investigation found and confiscated a laptop computer (laptop). On the ground in this autopsy found that a computer administrator page in question was the 27 year old, who was arrested and the file that was formed against him led to Attorney Athens.

Recalled that, in such cases, citizens can contact the Cyber Crime, the following contact details.

Here are the blasphemy laws according to the Greek constitution which criminalizes insults against the Christian Church:

Article 198 – Malicious Blasphemy

1. One who publicly and maliciously and by any means swears blasphemes God shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years.

2. Except for cases under paragraph 1, one who by blasphemy publicly manifests a lack of respect for the divinity, shall be punished by jailing for not more that six months or by pecuniary penalty of not more than 3,000 euros.

Article 199 – Blasphemy Concerning Religions

One who publicly and maliciously and by any means blasphemes the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ or any other religion tolerated in Greece shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years.

Waiting for the outcry of ‘creeping Christianity‘ or ‘freedom marches‘ against the ‘barbarism of Christianity‘ because of their ‘blaspheme laws‘ which are ‘archaic‘. Pretty sure you won’t see this piece of news on Jihad Watch or Answering Muslims.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Australian Roman Catholic Church Admits to Major Child Sex Abuse

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

A revealing tale of sex abuse in the Australian Roman Catholic Church, has been making waves today. Apparently this abuse stems as far as the 1930’s! The Raw Story reports:

The Catholic Church in one Australian state has revealed that at least 620 children have been abused by its clergy since the 1930s, sparking a fresh call Saturday for an independent inquiry.

The Catholic Church in Victoria revealed the number in a submission to a state parliamentary hearing on Friday but said the instances of abuse reported had fallen dramatically from the “appalling” numbers of the 1960s and 1970s.

“It is shameful and shocking that this abuse, with its dramatic impact on those who were abused and their families, was committed by Catholic priests, religious and church workers,” Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart said.

Rights groups however, according to this BBC report, believe the number of molested and abused children by the Church clergy number closer to over 10,000 victims in one county alone:

In a statement, Archbishop Hart said it was important to be open “about the horrific abuse that has occurred in Victoria and elsewhere”.

“We look to this inquiry to assist the healing of those who have been abused, to examine the broad context of the church’s response, especially over the last 16 years, and to make recommendations to enhance the care for victims and preventative measures that are now in place,” the statement said.

Campaign groups say that many cases of abuse have gone unreported, and they believe the true number of victims is closer to 10,000 in Victoria alone.

Abuse of children by Roman Catholic priests has been a major issue in Australia recent years.

Islamophobes on the other hand, claim Islam to permit paedophilia, yet I haven’t seen a single news report indicating almost 90 years of abuse to over 10,000 kids in one county/ district in any country. These people need to take their blinders off and realise they are projecting their guilt unto Muslims, so that they can avoid facing reality, that they belong to the world’s single handedly largest paedophile endorsed religious institution.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Zakir Hussain Baptises James White

Posted on by 6 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Well, that didn’t take long! The day after James White’s debate with Br. Zakir Hussain (details here, audio stream here, or right click ‘save as’ to download here), James released an article conceding to his clear ineptitude, inability to respond to well founded research and lack of basic comprehension skills. By basic I mean not being able to find a word and correctly identify its meaning, even after having used a computer to search for it (even though he’s a self claimed expert on the Greek language). I really must question not only his basic comprehension skills, but his lazy and hypocritical attitude as well. Yet, before I do so, let’s examine his statements:

First, having quoted John 1:1 in Greek a few thousand times in my life, I think I ended up trying out for a spot on the TBN team at one point last night, but without an interpreter. My apologies.

Ask a 3 year old Muslim to recite 7 ayat from Surah Fatihah and they would be able to do so with perfect pronunciation (tajweed), which I can demonstrate as being possible here and here, ask James White to repeat something he’s done several thousand times and he can’t. What’s worse is that James White even released a video condemning Shaykh Ahmad Deedat for not pronouncing the Greek of John 1:1 correctly, but James himself could not do so. In the video, he says:

Ahmad Deedat’s comments on John 1:1 were inaccurate and incorrect, you will remember that I documented that he didn’t even have the proper Greek terms…..he was actually unable to handle the Greek language, he claimed to be able to do so…..I’m not sure how you are able to properly understand his (Deedat’s arguments) upon not being able to read the language…..in the process he demonstrates that he (the person in the video, not Deedat) cannot read Greek…..he doesn’t known the difference between a v and a nu , he regularly mispronounces the words and he (the person in the video, not Deedat) just does not know the language.

Unfortunately for James, it seems as if his hypocrisy has shown through his facade of using the Greek language. If he can produce a 9 minute video condemning Shaykh Ahmad Deedat (who never formally studied Greek), as opposed to James claiming to have studied Greek and using one verse’s Greek ‘a few thousand times‘, that either means James has to produce a video condemning himself while retracting the video about Shaykh Ahmad Deedat, or James has to concede that he is largely uneducated in this field. This isn’t a situation of ‘either or’, but a situation of ‘and’. Mr. White’s pretentious use of the Greek language was also exposed by myself earlier in this earlier post. What’s worse is that he can’t read Greek by himself, as James has stated that he needs an interpreter as he wrote himself (as seen above).

 Anyway, Zakir was talking at the speed of sound in the rebuttal period (as my notes show) and it was next to impossible to keep up with the references as they flew by.

James was unable to keep up with the vast amounts of information that Br. Zakir used in his presentation, not only was James unable to match his level of research, or keep up with Br. Zakir’s arguments, James later concedes that he intentionally refused (much like a petulant child) to respond to several of the brother’s arguments. Let’s examine James’ inability to properly search for a word, he writes and I quote:

At one point he raised the issue of the Matthean reference to the prophecy (2:23) about the Nazarene. I did a quick search on my computer looking for the right reference and…got the wrong one in my haste.

As opposed to this baby who can actually use an iPhone to search for a song (you can see the baby scrolling through a list and then selecting what it wants; something which James seems unable to do!):

It’s really embarrassing to note that this man is supposed to be, keyword: ‘supposed’ to be, an intellectual of the Christian religion, a representative of their faith and he’s unable to do something for which he condemns others for. Reminds me very much of Matthew 7:1-5:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Sad to say this James, but this is one time you’re going to have to face the music. James then goes on to say this:

 I did a quick search on my computer looking for the right reference and…got the wrong one in my haste. Oh, I got “branch” alright, but I wrote down the reference below what I wanted in the search list, Isaiah 14:19. My apologies. I didn’t have time to read but a single line, saw “rejected branch,” and scribbled it down.

At this point, you must be questioning James’ rationale. James searches for a word, turns out to be the wrong one, he sees a word/ phrase that looks similar to what he wanted to use and decides to give up on academic standards and just ‘wings it’, his reasoning can be seen as the equivalent to another popular right wing nut, Bill O Reilly! See his rant here:

James then ends that portion of the article with this statement:

 I will set up a donation fund for some prescription mid-range reading glasses.

James, I think you need more than glasses. There are many vocational schools that can help you with your comprehension problem, but as for your integrity and dignity, I can offer you nothing but a broom to sweep the fragments of them off of the floor (I’m sort of cheap, get the scoop yourself).

James then decided to use the age old tactic of anti-intellectual argumentation, by generalizing his opponent’s argument and then belittling his generalization:

Finally, I did not get into the issue of the wavy hair and light skin because, as anyone can see, that kind of description could have been applied to any number of the Muslims attending the debate that night, and even some of the Christians.

This is a problem, as James betrays his own methodology of searching for prophecies of Jesus the Christ in the Jewish Tanach. For example, to witness James’ double standards, in this debate with Br. Shabbir Ali, James refers to the physical description of Christ as a ‘key prophecy’, which allegedly foretold of his ‘coming’. However, apparently when a Muslim uses the same methodology of referring to a ‘physical description’, it’s belittled by James. Why can’t the argument James sources from Deuteronomy also be applied to any of the other Jewish Messiahs? Why his God? Is that not confirmation bias? James has once again betrayed any form of dignity. He continues:

the only real issue is whether the term machamad is actually the name of Muhammad. I obviously argue that such a connection is absurd.

On the same note, David is not Dawud, Echad is not Ahad, Abraham is not Ibrahim, Moses is not Musa, Iyov is not Ayub, Ketuvim is not Kutub, Miriam is not Maryam, of course, such relations are just ‘absurd’, and have nothing to do with two Semitic languages mirroring each other! He continues (to his own peril):

Utilizing verbal roots in this fashion can be used to prove anything, as I have noted already by finding both Shabir Ally and Zakir Hussain in the Old Testament using the same methodology.

Apparently James find such a method quite silly, yet ask him what Shemot (Exodus 3:14) is supposed to mean (note: it’s a series of verbs: ‘ehyeh asher ehyeh’ – I will be who I will be – future perfect tense) and that’s supposed to mean Ego Emi (a present tense statement), referring to Christ’s deity. As opposed to an actual name being used, as is clearly demonstrated above. James then concedes to making more mistakes, it just doesn’t get any better for him:

 But I did want to note two things for the sake of accuracy once again. First, at least two people have mentioned to me that I was in error on an ABN show regarding the root H M D in either Arabic or Hebrew, and I may have been, I haven’t taken the time to go back and try to find the comments.

After being corrected by two persons, and after making grievous mistakes and spreading misinformation on live TV, James still did not review his statements, nor did he try to find what was wrong with his presentation, yet he admits to using the same incorrect information during his debate:

 I do recall doing a program on a particular video on YouTube (well, we quoted material from it anyway)

In ending, James’ article is nothing short of a direct result of being baptised by Br. Zakir. The term ‘baptised’ simply means to be ‘whelmed’ that is, ‘overwhelmed’ (see Strong’s Greek Lexicon: G907, ‘βαπτίζω‘). James White, was baptised into conceding that he was misinformed, deceitful and that he demonstrated clear cut pseudo-intellectualism. Br. Zakir most certainly did excellent to evoke such emotions from James White. Please do check out his debate, you will not be disappointed.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Bart Ehrman: Bias and Presuppositions Concerning Death + Resurrection of Christ

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Bart Ehrman explains during a debate, why his criticism of the historicity of the claim of Jesus’ resurrection is more than valid and qualified. That being, in opposition to the biased Christian view of already believing and trying to then qualify their belief. A short, but interesting and intellectually stimulating clip:

wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.

Shaykh Muhammad al Yaqoubi’s Challenge to Terry Jones

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Sayyidi, Shaykh Muhammad Abul Huda al Yaqoubi al Hassani from Damascus in Syria, has moments ago released a public challenge to Pastor Terry Jones about Sayyidina Muhammad [saw]!

 

You can read the challenge here, via the Shaykh’s official Facebook account, or if you are Terry Jones (or a member of his Islamophobic organization), feel free to let the Shaykh know of your response via his website, ‘Sacred Knowledge‘. This is not a challenge by any da’ee, or any young Imam, this is a fully acknowledged, international heavyweight in the deen of Islam. I am certain that Terry Jones will never respond to his challenge. You can read a full biography of the Shaykh here, or an excerpt below:

He is an authority in the science of Hadith; his asanid (chains of transmission) are of the highest amongst scholars of our time. Students and scholars visit him in Syria or when he travels, to hear the masalsalat and take ijaza in narration of Hadith. In his efforts to revive the tradition of Hadith recitals, he has taught al-Muwatta of Imam Malik, Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Muslim, Sunan Abi Dawud, Jami’ al-Tirmidhi and he intends to finish all the main six books of Hadith in the coming terms insha’Allah.

He has travelled extensively and participated in conferences, delivered lectures and taught intensive programmes. Additionally, he has delivered Friday speeches in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Pakistan, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, France, Spain, Canada, the United States, Indonesia, Singapore, South Africa, Morocco and the UK. Over a thousand people have embraced Islam at his hands and many have repented after listening to him. He is a scion of the prophetic household, a torch bearer in this time and a charismatic public speaker in both Arabic and English.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah 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.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »