Tag Archives: truth

The Witnesses Of The Crucifixion & The Qur’an (Part 1)

We are happy to publish our latest video on the Qur’an and the Bible. We focused on how both books assess the validity of witnesses and the utility of these witnesses as it pertains to objective analysis by concurrent believers/ truth-seekers. How we determine what is true and what isn’t, is essential in our search for the truth, with this sense of reasoning in mind, please enjoy the video.

Watch the video on EFDawah’s YouTube Channel:

Or…

Watch the video on SCDawah’s YouTube Channel:

Don’t forget to like, share and subscribe to both channels.

and Allah knows best.

Exclusive Interview: Shaykh Mohammed Awal on James White and Da’wah Advice

Yesterday I sat down with the erudite scholar, Shaykh Mohammed Awal and we had a quick interview. Most importantly, he speaks on the controversial issue surrounding the cancellation of his debate with James White, the fascist and petulant behaviour of the cross dresser David Wood and anti-immigrant migrant, Sam Shamoun.

Please share this interview inshaAllaah (God Willing).

and Allaah knows best.

Why Sam Shamoun Abuses Muslims and Former Christians

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

sam shamoun

Many persons have questioned why Sam Shamoun has a persistent need to curse, insult, mock and attack Muslims and former Christians. Numerous answers have been given, many of his former friends have come forward, sympathetically to us Muslims and apologized to us, and distanced themselves from his behaviour. Very recently in fact, I became privy to a conversation Sam had and from the first response he gave, it was filled with childish insults, words not befitting of any adult, mature, human male. Yet, today I’d like to present, directly from the horse’s mouth, why Shamoun hates Muslims and apostate Christians. The following comment was posted by Shamoun on Br. Paul Bilal William’s website on December 7th, 2012, at 9:41 PM via his Facebook account (take with permission from Br. Paul’s website):

BTW Paul, the reason I get on you is because of your blasphemous rants and smear campaigns against committed Evangelicals like David Wood and James White. if you were to stop with your filthy blasphemies, i.e. “Don’t crucify me” (comment to Andalusi in your first debate with Green), “Praise the Lord, Jesus has spoken,” then I would actually hail you as a top Muslim apologist who is actually quite well read when it comes to current NT scholarship. I don’t mind your arguments, what I mind is your hatred of Evangelical Christianity and blasphemous slurs against the Jesus of the NT. If you want more people to take you seriously then you need to drop the rhetoric. If you do then I will treat you with respect. Let me know how you want to proceed from here on end.

Let’s dissect Shamoun’s reasoning:

BTW Paul, the reason I get on you is because of your blasphemous rants and smear campaigns against committed Evangelicals like David Wood and James White.

Apparently, because Br. Paul and Muslims like him who do not agree with Sam’s friends, they deserve to be insulted and abused. According to Mr. Shamoun, once you disagree with his ‘Evangelical friends’, you’re open game for whatever comes out of his mouth. Is this proper Christian behaviour? Do James White and Samuel Green agree with this level of decorum? Let us continue:

if you were to stop with your filthy blasphemies, i.e. “Don’t crucify me” (comment to Andalusi in your first debate with Green), “Praise the Lord, Jesus has spoken,” then I would actually hail you as a top Muslim apologist who is actually quite well read when it comes to current NT scholarship.

Now, isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black? Sam Shamoun who is renowned for blaspheming the Islamic faith, finds it atrocious that a Muslim could use sarcasm! I don’t seem to follow Shamoun’s reasoning here, how is it okay for him to blaspheme the Islamic faith and call for others (even though they clearly aren’t) to stop doing so, when he himself spends hours doing so himself? As you can see in this comment, Sam Shamoun concedes to Br. Paul being one of the top Muslim apologists who is quite well read – something Sam himself isn’t.

I don’t mind your arguments, what I mind is your hatred of Evangelical Christianity and blasphemous slurs against the Jesus of the NT.

To be a bit technical, if I as a Muslim were to say that I disbelieve that Christ is God – that is a blasphemy, and I’ve never really seen a Muslim say anything more than this, but publicly deny Christ’s alleged deity. Now, in Sam’s mind this is a blasphemous slur, but he has no problem insulting the Islamic God on a daily basis with far greater intensity, there is not one email exchange that I’ve had with Sam that has not included an insult towards Allaah ta ‘aala or Muhammad (peace be upon him). The hilarity of this comment is that Shamoun is focused on abusing others and then cries wolf when anyone disagrees with his faith. Clearly these are hallmarks of a mentally unstable individual who is in denial of his own actions.

If you want more people to take you seriously then you need to drop the rhetoric. If you do then I will treat you with respect. Let me know how you want to proceed from here on end.

Lastly, Sam should take his own advice. No Muslim da’ee looks at Sam respectfully because of his rhetoric. Sam has had to invent magnificent lies to hide his shame and embarrassment from being sidelined by both the Muslim and Christian communities. He gladly claims that no Muslim would dare share a stage with him for a debate, but many have in the past, but due to his abusive, petulant, childish and mentally unstable behaviour, many persons really don’t want to bother wasting their time on him. Very recently a group of Christians led by Pastor G. Saieg had to secretly set up a dialogue with Muslims in Toronto, Canada. They refused to say that Shamoun was accompanying them. The night before the event, they revealed his participation and the organizers pulled out. It is not because they are afraid of him, but they wish not to have a foul mouthed individual share a stage with them.

Ironically enough, the dialogue did happen, without Shamoun, thereby implicitly accepting that he is not an individual that is needed or one which they cannot do without – he is just as dispensable to the Muslim community as he is to the Christian community.  Another lie that Shamoun has had to invent, is that the Muslim Debate Initiative is using ‘mafia’ behaviour to stop popular Muslim speakers from engaging him. As a contributing member for MDI, and as one who speaks to, sometimes on a daily basis with Muslim speakers – this cannot be furthest from the truth. Not a single speaker is ‘afraid’ of Sam, the very reason he gives for abusing Br. Paul, is the same reason Muslim speakers refuse to engage with him – drop the abusive rhetoric, drop the insults, drop the curses.

What Sam does not know and he should know, is that several of his former colleagues have spoken to Muslim speakers such as myself and they have informed us that they themselves do believe he is mentally ill, many of them have been victims of his insults – such to the extent they’ve cut working relationships with him.

Sam, if you’re reading this, remember, we don’t fear you – we just don’t respect you because of your behaviour.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Simple Reasons to Disbelieve in the Bible

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Christians are fond of saying that although the Bible has unstable and sketchy textual contradictions, they can analyse the manuscripts and develop (yes, develop), a Bible as close to God’s words as possible. The problem however is that if you don’t know what God’s word was, how can you develop something, into it? That’s like saying you don’t know what an aeroplane looks like, but you’re going to design one.

The problem isn’t that errors can be corrected within the manuscripts, by all means this is not the point. To clarify, I will state what the points of such a dialogue on the Bible’s authenticity should be about:

  1. Authorship.
  2. Validation of Authorship.
  3. Validity of Chain of Transmission.
  4. Comparison with other scriptures.

Authorship:
The authorship of any document, especially those of high esteem must accompany the scribe’s identity.

E.g. I write a document, claim it’s from the President and it doesn’t have his signature. No one would accept it.

Likewise, if I were to claim that I have a scripture from God, written by “unknown”, how much trust would you actually place on me? In stating this, it should be noted the names of the Gospels were based on assumptions and traditions. Although it is common for scribes to leave a manuscript autograph signature, we have no such signature from any of the four (4) synoptic Gospels.

Validation of Authorship:
The validity of the author must be sought.

E.g. I write a document, sign my name and say I am the President. There is no evidence I am the President, who would then believe me?

Likewise if I authored a scripture and claimed to be a scribe of God, then some evidence must be shown, after all would you trust someone based on word of mouth or credentials? Similarly, the Bible has no such form of verification. There is no one from the Patristics (early Church Fathers), the Presbyters (early Church elders) or from the Disciples (Peter, Barnabus) to testify to the identity and works of Mark, Luke, John or Matthew.

Validation of Chain of Transmission:
Again, questionable character comes in here, if the chain of narration contains those persons who are known to lie, shall we trust their words? Surely this is not so. Similarly, what about a man who willingly declares himself to be a fool (2 Corinthians 11) and possessed by a demon (2 Corinthians 12)?

Comparison with Similar/ Linked Scriptures:
If we compare the OT with the NT, it is radically different. You have to apply your own exegesis (therefore eisegesis) to create some form of bond/ relationship between these two “revelations”. Yet, Jews, the majority of which, do not accept the New Testament as scripture, because it does not comply with their mainstream beliefs.

Generally, the problem with 150,000 manuscripts, is not that they have errors which can be corrected, but it is that there is not a single original of which to compare any of these manuscripts with. Of the 24,000 pre-Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts, most are not used.

The Bible is generally a book where errors have to be continuously eliminated as errors keep popping up, such as with Mark 16:9-20. How are we to know, that for almost 2000 years men believed those words to be true, many today, yet the earliest manuscripts never had them.

According to Bruce Metzger[1]:

Variant Readings among the Manuscripts

The first problem facing Bible translators is the differences in wording among manuscripts of the Scriptures. These differences have arisen because, even with the strongest determination to copy a text without error, a scribe copying a text of considerable length will almost inevitably introduce changes in the wording. It is understandable that mistakes can arise from inattentiveness brought on by weariness. For example instead of the correct reading, “Is a lamp brought in to be put under a bushel, or under a

bed, and not on a stand?” (Mark 4:21, RSV), several important manuscripts read “under the stand.” This is obviously a scribal error in repeating the preposition “under” in the third phrase.

Sometimes a scribe’s error of judgment works havoc with the text. One of the most atrocious blunders of this kind is in the minuscule Greek manuscript no. 109, dated to the 14th century. This manuscript of the four Gospels was transcribed from a copy that must have had Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (3:23–38 ) in two columns of 28 lines in each. Instead of transcribing the text by following the columns in succession, the scribe of MS 109 copied the genealogy by following the lines across the two columns.

In addition to such transcriptional blunders, which can usually be detected and corrected, occasionally a scribe deliberately introduced into the copy a change that seems to clarify the sense or eliminate a difficulty. For example the older manuscripts of Mark 1:2–3 attribute to the Prophet Isaiah the evangelist’s composite quotation from both Malachi and Isaiah, whereas later manuscripts (followed by the King James translators of 1611) read, “As it is written in the prophets,” an obvious amelioration of the earlier text.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.

1 – Bruce Metzger, Persistent Problems Confronting Bible Translators, Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 273-284.

[Originally published: April 20th, 2010, 21:24 pm]
[Altered and republished: August 12th, 2012, 4:00 pm]

Jesus vs Paul: I said nothing in secret.

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.