Posts
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.” (Qur’an, 4:157-158, Yusuf Ali)
There are several obvious errors in this passage. (Muhammad had an amazing knack for making numerous mistakes in one or two sentences.) For instance, non-Christian Jews would never call Jesus “Christ” (i.e. “Messiah”), for they reject Jesus as the Messiah. Similarly, very few non-Christian Jews would call Jesus “the Messenger of Allah.” Moreover, no Jew who believes that Jesus is the Messiah would boast about crucifying him. Of course, the most egregious factual error in this Surah is that it denies Jesus’ death by crucifixion. The Qur’an errs further in its claim that those who believe in Jesus’ death follow nothing but conjecture, when we have tons of historical evidence to follow. There’s also a massive theological problem, namely, that the standard Muslim interpretations of 4:157 present Allah as a deceiver who tricks people into believing false things for no reason at all. None of this is what I want to talk about, however. I simply want to point out the amazing irony I see here.
People who believe that Jesus died by crucifixion are said to be “full of doubts,” to have “no (certain) knowledge,” and to follow “conjecture.” The irony is that Muslims who read these words seem to have absolutely no clue what happened to Jesus. Some confidently proclaim that God disguised Judas and made him look like Jesus, then allowed Judas to be crucified. Other Muslims claim that Jesus was replaced by someone other than Judas. Still other Muslims (Shabir Ally and Shadid Lewis among them) argue that Jesus was crucified (contrary to what the passage claims), but that God kept Jesus alive throughout the tortures of the Romans. There are even some Muslims who say they don’t know what to make of this passage. Hence, Surah 4 criticizes non-Muslims for being “full of doubts” about what happened to Jesus, and yet it leaves Muslims full of doubts about what happened to Jesus!
Muslims will respond by saying that they at least know that Jesus didn’t die, and that they are sure of this. But how can they be sure? Muhammad couldn’t even read, let alone perform a careful historical investigation. All of the first century evidence is unanimous in reporting Jesus’ death by crucifixion. Virtually all Historical Jesus scholars and New Testament scholars agree that Jesus died on the cross. Indeed, many non-Christian scholars consider Jesus’ crucifixion and death to be an indisputable fact!
So Muslims will say they’re “sure” because they read it in the Qur’an. But how does the Muslim, who believes that the Qur’an is the word of God when he reads about Jesus’ survival, have fewer doubts than the Christian, who believes that the Bible is the word of God when he reads about Jesus’ death? If the Muslim is at all concerned about evidence, he should certainly be full of doubts. For the Bible tells us that Jesus died, while the Qur’an tells us that he didn’t, and this is an area where we can test our holy books to see which is confirmed by the evidence. The Qur’an fails this test miserably, while the Bible passes with flying colors. So instead of saying, “I have no doubts that Jesus survived, because the Qur’an says he survived,” Muslims should instead say, “I have doubts about the Qur’an, because it denies Jesus’ death.”
Thus, even though this passage is supposed to give Muslims assurance of their beliefs, it (1) leaves them in doubt about what happened to Jesus, and (2) should cause them to doubt the entire Qur’an, because its claim in Surah 4 is thoroughly refuted by the facts of history. Additionally, Christians and Jews, who are said to be in doubt concerning Jesus’ death, find that our beliefs are fully confirmed by the evidence. History proves that we’re right!
How amazing, then, that so much irony and so many errors can be contained in such a short passage. Can this be the word of God?
37 comments:
"For instance, non-Christian Jews would never call Jesus “Christ” (i.e. “Messiah”), for they reject Jesus as the Messiah. Similarly, very few non-Christian Jews would call Jesus “the Messenger of Allah."
Everyone knows that the Qur'an is saying that those who said those statements were only being sarcastic. It is similar to how the Romans put a crown "King of the Jews" on Jesus' head according to the Gospels. Obviously they were being sarcastic.
"There’s also a massive theological problem, namely, that the standard Muslim interpretations of 4:157 present Allah as a deceiver who tricks people into believing false things for no reason at all."
Who said that it was for no reason at all? It was to save Jesus and there is probably much more to it than we know. It is a bold statement to say "no reason at all". It assumes that you went into God's head and saw what He was thinking at the time and came to the conclusion that He had no good reason for doing what He did.
It is also funny how Christians claim that Muslims in reality believe Allah started Christianity. They seem to forget that Christianity does not only teach that Jesus was crucified. It also teaches that Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world and that he was God. Loool, how on earth did Allah start that only by deceiving people into thinking that Jesus died on the cross?
"Hence, Surah 4 criticizes non-Muslims for being “full of doubts” about what happened to Jesus, and yet it leaves Muslims full of doubts about what happened to Jesus!"
The verse doesn't say that you are doubting your belief. The verse says that you follow doubts, and this is not a surprise since there are contradictions in the Gospels surrounding exactly happened during the crucifixion (time of it, who carried the cross, etc.) There were also theological disputes in the past that talked about whether it was really God who died on the cross or it was only Jesus the man or was it both, etc.
The verse is saying that in reality you are following doubts, but it doesn't mean that you are doubting your belief.
"Virtually all Historical Jesus scholars and New Testament scholars agree that Jesus died on the cross. Indeed, many non-Christian scholars consider Jesus’ crucifixion and death to be an indisputable fact!"
All these scholars are either Christians (so obviously they believe that Jesus was crucified) or they are atheists/agnostics who have anti supernaturalistic biases and wouldn’t allow for the Islamic belief that God made it appear that Jesus was crucified. These very same atheist/agnostic scholars don’t believe in the resurrection. David would say that it is because that they rule out miracles from the very beginning. Well exactly my point, since they will rule out miracles they would ignore what the Qur’an says and offer a natural explanation and that is that Jesus died on the cross.
Also, the Qur’an seems to acknowledge that people in the past believed in the crucifixion of Jesus since it was Allah that made it appear to them that this is what happened. So I really don't see how the Qur'an contradicts what people in the past claimed about Jesus.
"should cause them to doubt the entire Qur’an, because its claim in Surah 4 is thoroughly refuted by the facts of history."
To say that this is a fact of history because the New Testament, Josephus, Tacitus simply say so is a joke that no rational Muslim takes seriously. This will be further discussed in our upcoming debate.
Peace
Bassam,
Good to hear from you.
(1) Jews take the issue of the "Messiah" quite seriously. It would be quite odd to hear them speak of Jesus as the Messiah sarcastically and then brag about killing Him.
(2) God didn't need to deceive thousands (billions eventually) of people in order to save Jesus. Verse 158 declares that Jesus was safe in heaven.
(3) You're right to note that the crucifixion isn't enough to start Christianity, but it is foundational. (In philosophical terminology, we say that it's necessary but not sufficient.) That is, without the crucifixion, there would be no Christianity. Hence, without God's deceptive act, Islam's chief competitor in the world would not exist.
(4) The point of bringing up the non-Christian scholars is to point out that even people who aren't biased in favor of Christianity agree with Christians on this issue. You say that they reject the Muslim view because they have an anti-supernatural bias. Wrong. They reject the Muslim view because there's absolutely no reason to believe the Muslim view. If there were good evidence for the Muslim view, I'm sure these scholars would then reject it because of their anti-supernatural bias. As things stand, however, their bias doesn't enter into the matter.
(5) To say it's not a fact simply because one writer, six centuries after the event, in a different country, said it never happened is a joke that no non-Muslim on the planet takes seriously.
I look forward to discussing these matters in more detail in our debate.
"(1) Jews take the issue of the "Messiah" quite seriously. It would be quite odd to hear them speak of Jesus as the Messiah sarcastically and then brag about killing Him."
It was a way of mocking Jesus because they hated him. They killed Jesus and in their eyes that was proof that he wasn't the Messiah. They took the "Messiah" seriously, but not Jesus. They weren't making fun of the concept of Messiah, but were making fun of Jesus.
"(2) God didn't need to deceive thousands (billions eventually) of people in order to save Jesus. Verse 158 declares that Jesus was safe in heaven."
We can't question God's acts David, you know this. Why is your God constantly "deceiving" unitarians and Muslims into believing that He never claimed to be God because of difficult passages in the Bible?
Why does Jesus speak in parables so that disbelievers like me can't believe and understand what he is saying?
These kinds of questions will never end.
"(3) You're right to note that the crucifixion isn't enough to start Christianity, but it is foundational. (In philosophical terminology, we say that it's necessary but not sufficient.) That is, without the crucifixion, there would be no Christianity. Hence, without God's deceptive act, Islam's chief competitor in the world would not exist."
That is pretty far fetched David. Why not go blame God for allowing Muhammad to be so successful in "deceiving" us. Why does God allow false prophets to perform miracles which are fundamental in leading us away from the "Christian truth"?
Also, how can we blame Allah for Christianity? The most Allah could have done is make us believe that Jesus as a true prophet was killed by his enemies, FULL STOP.
How Allah is responsible for people making up sayings and attributing them to Jesus is beyond me.
"If there were good evidence for the Muslim view, I'm sure these scholars would then reject it because of their anti-supernatural bias. As things stand, however, their bias doesn't enter into the matter."
So at the end of the day there is no need to provide evidence if it would be rejected? So your appealing to these nonChristians isn't really an argument at the end of the day since evidence means nothing to them. At the end, what you are really saying is that we don't have evidence for our beliefs. If that is the case, then just say that. Appealing to non-Christians means nothing.
Secondly, you assume that the only kind of evidence is "historical evidence". History is not the only criterion to use to discover truth.
"(5) To say it's not a fact simply because one writer, six centuries after the event, in a different country, said it never happened is a joke that no non-Muslim on the planet takes seriously."
Of course it would be a joke if one appealed to the Qur'an as simply a historical record. But that is not what we do. We appeal to it as God's word. If there is good evidence that it is God's word then that is all there is to it.
We have no good reasons to believe that the Bible is the word of God. I think many Christians themselves know this, that is why they became creative and said "no, lets appeal to it as a historical record" Unfortunately for you guys, that even isn't good enough.
"I look forward to discussing these matters in more detail in our debate."
me too.
cya
Everyone knows that the Qur'an is saying that those who said those statements were only being sarcastic.
No I don't think everyone knows that the Qur'an is being sarcastic. This is just another illustration of Muhammad's confused understanding of Christianity and Judaism -- conflating the beliefs of both communities on a point that they would never agree on.
Btw, you still have not addressed the epithet "messenger of Allah". When did the Jews ever consider Christ to be a "messenger of Allah"? And if you say they are being sarcastic, then show me when Christians ever believed that Jesus was a "messenger of Allah"
It is a bold statement to say no reason at all
Because an almighty God ostensibly doesn't need to resort to deception to accomplish an end. It doesn't take any boldness on our part to state this as God has stated that deception is immoral. Can God be immoral?
there are contradictions in the Gospels surrounding exactly happened during the crucifixion
If you want to believe that there are contradictions then please go ahead and believe whatever you like. Christians don't believe that there are contradictions and we'd be happy to educate you on this point -- after all the Qur'an does ask you to come to us if you have any doubts.
I would also point out to you that it is in fact the Qur'an that contradicts itself on the point of Jesus Christ's death - in one place it says He was not crucified and in another it quotes Him saying "peace is on me the day that I die". And yes, I know that the word used is "amootu" (i.e. future) but the Qur'an has already said that Jesus was taken into heaven -- so then how is he going to die? I want the Qur'an to clear this up for me.
a joke that no rational Muslim takes seriously.
... and somehow it is rational to take the view of an illiterate man who came along 500 years later? How silly of me - maybe we should also throw out Plutarch's account of Alexander the Great's life and instead believe the fanciful tales about him finding the sun setting in a muddy pit.
So here's the point - you yourself admit that you're not surprised that people believe that Jesus was crucified because Allah made it appear to them so. But then 500 years later, in a distant land Allah tells Muhammad "hehehe, I was just kidding. Gotcha!" And now after deceiving everyone the first time, somehow everyone is supposed to take Allah's word on it this time.
"And if you say they are being sarcastic, then show me when Christians ever believed that Jesus was a "messenger of Allah""
I don't get your point here.
"Because an almighty God ostensibly doesn't need to resort to deception to accomplish an end. It doesn't take any boldness on our part to state this as God has stated that deception is immoral. Can God be immoral?"
This is where you get exposed for your hypocrisy and double standards and trust me I won't let go of this one.
Now, you just made a general statement stating that if God does use deception then that would be immoral of him.
I challenge you to directly confront this article then...
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_biblical_god_as_a_deceiver
And no I dont believe that deception is ALWAYS IN EVERY SITUATION immoral.
"after all the Qur'an does ask you to come to us if you have any doubts."
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_the_qur_an_orders_the_prophet_and_doubting_believers_to_refer_to_the_christians_and_jews_for_consultation_
"I would also point out to you that it is in fact the Qur'an that contradicts itself on the point of Jesus Christ's death - in one place it says He was not crucified and in another it quotes Him saying "peace is on me the day that I die". And yes, I know that the word used is "amootu" (i.e. future) but the Qur'an has already said that Jesus was taken into heaven -- so then how is he going to die? I want the Qur'an to clear this up for me."
lol, it is funny how you refuted yourself. You gave the correct meaning of amootu and refuted your self. Thanks
As for how he is going to die, this is mentioned in the hadith and not in the Qur'an.
"the sun setting in a muddy pit."
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/sun_setting_in_murky_water___by_hesham_azmy_
As usual Jay, you have nothing useful to say.
WOW THAT RHYMES.
The links are incomplete - but I think that you're referring to (among other things) 2 Thess 2 which says that for those who have rejected the truth and rather want to believe the lies of the devil, God "sends a delusion". Again, I'd recommend that you read the Bible for clarification. In the book of Job for example God "sends" the devil to test Job. Now that doesn't mean that God is actively participating in the testing of Job - rather it means that God is sovereign over everything and that even the devil can only act if God allows the space for that. That is what this verse is talkign about - people who have already rejected God go into further error by the signs and other tricks that are used by the devil which God does not any longer try to correct. This is not anythign like the Qur'an where EVERYONE is deceived into beliving that Jesus was crucified.
As for how he is going to die, this is mentioned in the hadith and not in the Qur'an.
Why the hadith? I thought the Qur'an was the complete revelation of God. Why do you need the hadith to complete the complete revelation of God. Notice that this isn't commentary or clarification - you need the Hadith to complete the account. This is exactly my point - the Qur'an either contradicts itself or leaves a huge discrepancy without reconciling it.
Oh and by the way you've already challenged me to a dance-off. Don't
challenge me to a rap-off too cuz brotha u goin' down!
Also please send the complete links.
for some reason i am not able to post complete links here, i dont know why.
you can send over your private mail to me on b_zawadi@hotmail.com and then i can email them to you.
Sorry, but your Biblical verses actually state that God has participated in deception and as for the Quran and Hadith... If God chose to reveal it in this way then who are you to object?
For crying out loud you guys need 66 books to complement each other and the Bible is still vague on some (actually many) issues.
ohhhhhhh mannnnn, i'm breakdancin all around yaaa. i hope you aint dizzy yet..... cuz i wanna do the tangoo.....
Jay,
Here is referring to such verses as Jeremiah 4:10. His nightmare Shamoun has already breakdanced on his head and destroyed his argument and then proceeded to destroy his book by proving that Allah is a bigger liar than Satan:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/does_god_deceive.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_paul_deceiver.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_deceiver.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_best_deceiver.htm
And as far as his defense of what Islam teaches concerning the Bible, Jay, please compare his pathetic, incoherent replies to Shamoun's rebuttals. Or are they my rebuttals since I am supposed to be Shamoun?
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/index.html
And Shamoun and Katz did a wonderful job of destroying that stupid reply that the Jews were simply being sarcastic in surah 4:157:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/q_not_divine.htm
And if you can't click on the links then just copy and paste.
What makes this guy so sad really is the he thinks that just because he responds or writes a reply he has somehow refuted the argument. But that is good for us since as long as he thinks that he has the intelligent reader will read through his replies and see that Islam is really a sad religion.
Like I said, I feel sorry for him since Wood is going to tap dance on his brain in the debate and manhandle him.
looooooool, this is the "wonderful response"...
The objector has erroneously assumed that just because Jeremiah recorded his own statements where he accused God of being a deceiver that this somehow means that he was reflecting God’s view of the situation. On the contrary, even though the entire book of Jeremiah is the inspired Word of God not everything stated within its pages necessarily reflects God’s mind. After all, the Bible accurately records historical events and speeches without this implying that it approves of them. To put it simply, the Bible doesn’t always support or condone the statements and actions it records since they do not always reflect God’s view. This essentially means that all the speeches and deeds of specific individuals that are found in the Bible must be viewed in light of the revealed will and words of God to see whether God approves of them or not.
loool, give me a break. Man Ben Malik, you really should take Yahya's advice and be a full time comedian.
Yes, obviously the Bible and the Qur'an record speeches that are blasphemous, BUT THEY ARE SAID BY OTHERS. It can't be that the ACTUAL INSPIRED AUTHOR himself is saying something gravely wrong. Lool, for all we know then God might not approve of what the New Testament authors said when they talked about Jesus crucified and rising from the dead, since according to you "they do not always reflect God’s view".
Lool, i love how Christians like Ben Malik think they can use psychology to trick people, but actually end up looking foolish themselves. Keep it up Ben Malik.
See what I mean Jay about this guy thinking he is an apologist that actually responds to arguments? Jay, maybe you can help educate him regarding the Biblical view of inspiration and prophethood. Maybe you can enlighten him concerning the fact that prophets are not infallible in everything they do or even say. They are only so when speaking the words of God.
But since he thinks they are maybe you can ask him to help us understand how even his Quran agrees that Jonah was blameworthy since he ran away from doing Allah's will. My question to him is, didn't Jonah know that Allah sees all things and that no matter where he goers Allah would still find him? Using Bassam's apologetic methodology this proves that Allah doesn't see all things since a prophet cannot make such mistakes concerning the nature of Allah and Jonah must have been inspired to know that Allah's knowledge is limited. Otherwise why waste time in running from Allah?
But Bassam will chime in and say we know that Jonah was wrong because of other statements of the Quran which say that Allah does see and knows all things. And we would counter by saying in a similar manner we know that Jeremiah was mistaken and his response was made in anger, frustration and disappointment, and he therefore had sinned, since the Bible says that God does not personally deceive anyone.
Perhaps you can further help him see that the Bible records the words, views and actions of others without necessarily condoning them.
I understand it is hard for him to grasp all of this because he believes the Quran was dictated to Muhammad, which makes it even worse for his case with all of its blunders and blasphemies such as Allah being the biggest liar out there, which makes him worse than Satan. And that is Allah's own self-assessment!
Yep, Wood is going to trounce on you and the sad thing is you still won't know that he did.
Bassam, you sure that you shouldn't be the one tagging along with Yahya and Nadir and staring up the Islamic version of the Marx Brothers?
You guys would be great and you can even use the Quran as your joke book!
foolish blasphemer Ben Malik doesn't get the difference between an author of a book QUOTING SOMEONE MAKING WRONG STATEMENTS and between THE ACTUAL INSPIRED AUTHOR HIMSELF making the wrong statements and doesn't bother clarifying the mistake.
Even Adam Clarke in his commentary pointed out how Jews had a problem with this passage and had to paraphrase it to read that it was the false prophets who did the deception. Hmmm... I wonder why they did that if Biblical exegesis was as simple as Shamoun/Ben Malik make it out to be?
Wutever, since I am lenient and a truth seeker, I will grant Jeremiah 4:10 to you, even though I have my reservations.
But don't forget your false God supporting and giving his blessing for someone to go and deceive in 1 Kings 22:20-22. Your desperate response in your article only states that it actually wasn't God Himself that did the deception, but it was the spirit. How lame, didn't your false God give his blessing though? Why give his blessing on something "immoral".
Plus, when he in Isaiah 37:6-7 put a false spirit to spread the rumour to the King of Assyria, are you still going to desperately argue back that it wasn't God himself and think you can escape the issue?
God works through means ok. I might as well as a Muslim say that it wasn't Allah Himself that deceived people that Jesus was crucified, but the person who looked like Jesus did! So don't say that Allah is a deceiver!
Also, just because the Bible says that God cannot lie that doesn't mean that he cannot deceive. God not lying implies him not uttering a false statement, but it doesn't mean that he can't use ways to trick evil doers in order to fulfill a greater good.
oh well, that is Ben Malik for you. you should consider taking Jay Leno's place next year. You can make alot of money that way you know?
I haven't had a chance to look at the passages yet but just for reference, the Biblical worldview is that it is people and NOT God who deceives. But where people have decided to take a certain route (e.g. Jacob deceiving his father Isaac) God stands back and lets events take their course. You can apply that to any Biblical passage - I have read the said passages in Jeremiah and Kings but don't remember enough right now to comment. I will do so later this evening.
The problem of evil is somewhat similar and the Bible speaks of it in similar terms - that God is ultimately sovereign and that nothing takes place without God's "permission". This is a view that I believe even the Qur'an shares.
My point is - in the Bible God does not intervene and ACTIVELY deceive people as it is in the Qur'an. You say "maybe the person who looked like Jesus" - what do you base this on? How do you get this from "it was made to appear to them so"
"You say "maybe the person who looked like Jesus" - what do you base this on? How do you get this from "it was made to appear to them so""
i was being sarcastic and using Ben Malik's logic against him.
those Biblical verses do show God atleast atleast approving of the deception.
However, it seems clear to me as in Isaiah 37 that he actively participated.
Anyways, i really don't care, i dont need the Bible to defend my self. I see nothing immoral in God deceiving his enemies for the greater good.
peace
Ok I'll take a look at Isaiah 37 as well tonight. The point is that it is very important as we do not believe that God deceives people - people deceive each other and sometimes God intervenes and other times not. This is an important distinction.
I assume from your answer that Allah's deception of people "for the greater good" is not an issue in Islam which is a major point of difference for us.
"I assume from your answer that Allah's deception of people "for the greater good" is not an issue in Islam which is a major point of difference for us."
good, a nice friendly tone for a change.
Jay, we believe that context can change things.
Killing in a context of self defense is a good thing.
Killing in a context of murder is a bad thing.
Lying to cheat people is a bad thing.
Lying to the soldiers wanting to kill innocent people in order to distract them is a good thing.
Even the Bible states that there could be times when you mock people (which is generally bad) and it is not regarded as bad.
Thus, we see it as no different in regards to the deception issue.
Deception is generally bad, but if it is done to your enemies (war is deception you know) in order to protect the innocent, then I don't see why this is bad.
Plus, there are some things which are considered immoral for human beings to do, but not for God. For example, it is immoral for me to kill a child, however it is not immoral for God to take that little baby's soul away.
I guess what I am trying to say here is that your argument seems to be subjective and isn't convincing to me to view my Creator Allah as someone immoral.
Regards,
Bassam
You see Jay why I say this guy still gets trounced but he still can't see it? He erroneously assumes that since Jeremiah was inspired to record his feelings that this somehow means that God approved of his statements. I will let Jeremiah expose this kid:
"'You understand, O LORD; remember me and care for me. Avenge me on my persecutors. You are long-suffering—do not take me away; think of how I suffer reproach for your sake. When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart's delight, for I bear your name, O LORD God Almighty. I never sat in the company of revelers; never made merry with them; I sat alone because your hand was on me and you had filled me with indignation. Why is my pain unending and my wound grievous and incurable? Will you be to me like a DECEPTIVE brook, like a spring that fails? Therefore this is what the LORD says: 'IF YOU REPENT, I WILL RESTORE YOU that you may serve me; if you utter worthy, NOT WORTHLESS, WORDS, you will be my spokesman. Let this people turn to you, but you must not turn to them. I will make you a wall to this people, a fortified wall of bronze; they will fight against you but will not overcome you,for I am with you to rescue and save you,' declares the LORD. 'I will save you from the hands of the wicked and redeem you from the grasp of the cruel.'" Jeremiah 15:15-21
Even though Jeremiah was inspired to record how he felt God rebukes him and tells him he needs to repent for speaking such foolish words.
Now, a far as 1 Kings 22 is concerned, what is laughable is how Bassam thinks he even understood the argument from Shamoun. God can take responsibility for acts committed by others since these agents can only act by his will and permission.
And despite the fact that the text says that God permitted a lying spirit to deceive the prophets, which proves that it wasn't God who directly did so, Bassam still uses this pathetic and desperate argument against the holy character of God.
But let's turn the tables on him, shall we? According to his joke book Allah is the one who sends demons upon the people:
So We have appointed to every Prophet an enemy -- Satans of men and jinn, revealing tawdry speech to each other, all as a delusion; yet, had thy Lord willed, they would never have done it. So leave them to their forging, S. 6:112
Hast thou not seen how We sent the Satans against the unbelievers, to prick them? S. 19:83
Allah must be a worse devil per Bassam's logic since he is the one sending these devils upon the people and his prophets.
And let us refute his false analogy. According to Q. 4:157 someone made it appear as if the Jews crucified Jesus. According to Ibn Kathir one of the oldest traditions coming from Ibn Abbas says that one of Jesus' disciples was made to look like Jesus. Now who made him look like Jesus? Jesus? Jesus? The Devil? Or Allah personally? And who's idea was it to deceive the Jews into thinking that they killed Jesus? Jesus? the Devil? Or Allah?
Take a guess, and the first two don't count.
Yeah, you are ready to revive the Marx Brothers ala Islamic style. It is no coincidence that Yahya already has his Groucho Marx mustache set in place.
Just another comment. The problem for Bassam is worse than he imagines since the Quran doesn't simply suggest that Allah deceives unbelievers. As Wood has pointed out, Allah deceived Jesus' followers into believing that their Lord was crucified, died and then was raised from the dead since this is the message that all of them proclaimed.
There is no first century document which contests, nor do we find texts from the second century which says that Jesus swooned or that someone else died in his place, except from Gnostic texts which were not written by the eyewitnesses. And the reason why these sources deny the crucifixion is either because they denied the real humanity of Jesus, and therefore Jesus didn't truly become human and did not have a body that could be crucified. Some of them believed that there was a divine Christ that left the human Jesus the moment he was crucified.
Yet if these sources are correct then not only do they refute the first-century NT documents but they also refute the Quran.
So can Bassam explain why Allah deceived Jesus' followers into preaching the crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus? And if he claims they didn't then can he quote a first century source which he can prove comes from the eyewitnesses or their followers which context this fact?
Allah deceived Jesus' followers into believing that their Lord was crucified
Even if we go only so far as the crucifixion - why were Jesus' own followers deceived into believing this?
the reason why these sources deny the crucifixion is either because they denied the real humanity of Jesus
A similar observation to Ben's on this point - Muhammad appears to adopt a Gnostic view of the crucifixion while rejecting Gnostic Christology which is the VERY REASON they have this interpretation of the crucifixion - another example of Muhammad's inability to understand the very sources he was drawing on to create the Qur'an.
Ben Malik stop mentioning me behind my back you jerk, and focus on your stand up comedy act- "The Sam the Sham Shamoun Show".
As for mustache? I don't have one, I'm trying to grow the dirty assyrian beard look that you are currently rocking.
I wasn't speaking behind your back since I knew you would be lurking around. That's what those who can't defend their false religious beliefs do.
Care to show me how brave you are by continuing our discussion on Muhammad whoring women around and calling it muta? I don't think you have the courage but please surprise me.
Let me know if you are read y to expose Muhammad's immorality. I won't be holding my breath.
Personally, I just can't be bothered entertaining any real discussion with you Shamoun, I think David has proven himself worthy of academic and productive discourse in the field of Islamic Studies, heck even Jay has been fairly well mannered.
Even our friend Jay Smith has recommended leaving people like you on Paltalk debates calling you "a real street fighter who doesn't work well in Academic discourse".
As for Mut'ah, I'm willing to discuss it in person but not with you, anyways there are far more crucial issues at stake.
Hi David,
Great Piece Above =)
I have actually written on the exact same issue over at AI.org
Bassam,
Rather than address the crux of the issue, you take on the side notes.
The key point here is that what Allah accuses the Jews of doing (following conjecture and doubts) is exactly what happened to the Muslim Ummah regarding the exact same event (i.e. Jesus and the Crucifixion) thus the irony.
Not only is this ironic but it further proves the Qur'an failed with its alleged purpose which is to correct the previous corruptions and to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, thus the Muslims fall prey to the same problems as the Jews and Christians.
More here:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Adams/crucifixion_confusion.htm
Furthermore Bassam not only do you miss the main point, your "responses" to the side notes here are shallow:
"Everyone knows that the Qur'an is saying that those who said those statements were only being sarcastic. It is similar to how the Romans put a crown "King of the Jews" on Jesus' head according to the Gospels. Obviously they were being sarcastic."
A) Clearly not "everyone knows" what you have just stated as David pointed out this is an error not an act of sarcasm.
B) There is no indication from 4:157 that calling Jesus the Messiah and Messenger of God by the unbelieving Jews is sarcastic (contrary to the Bible where "King of the Jews" scenario is a described event and clear mockery)
C) You failed to provide any Hadith or early Quranic Exegetes agreeing with your opinion on the supposed "sarcasm" in this verse.
"The verse doesn't say that you are doubting your belief. The verse says that you follow doubts, and this is not a surprise since there are contradictions in the Gospels surrounding exactly happened during the crucifixion (time of it, who carried the cross, etc.) There were also theological disputes in the past that talked about whether it was really God who died on the cross or it was only Jesus the man or was it both, etc."
A)The Quran doesn't give the reason that "following doubts" is because of contradictions in the Christian Gospels, nor because of debates amongst Christian Theologians amongst the nature of Christs death, (his death and crucifixion not being disputed but the nature of it), nor do Mohammad, the Caliph and the Sahaba ever elaborate on what this ayat actually means by "following doubt and conjecture" thus you are fabricating or following views much later than the first two Islamic Centuries.
B) Infact as pointed out in my article the Quran gives no justification for this claim whatsoever, making it even worse for the inconsistant double standards of Allah.
Like I said, I wasn't going to hold breath. How ironic that you claim you are willing to discuss with Jay and Wood and yet everytime they corner you to respond to something you run and make the excuse that you don't want to distract from the post, DESPITE BEING TOLD THAT YOU WOULDN'T!
I am glad you mentioned Jay's comments concerning Shamoun since I will forward them to see if Jay did badmouth Shamoun. Again, the irony of you using Jay to defend you when you are on record accusing him of being a liar. You remember the part from the famous comedy scene produced by tasqiya productions I believe where you can see your mug and saying to the camera, "Why the lie Jay, why the lie?"
Like I said I knew your nothing but a loudmouth who, when it came down to defending your fake religion, makes nothing but excuses to run away.
Shamoun,
Email Jay and ask him, in fact email Justin Brierly from Premier Christian Radio's show Unbelievable and ask him if he has it recorded since Jay said it to myself and two other brothers at Hyde Park the week that Premier was recording soundbytes for their show.
As for Jay Smith, being a liar, well lol I actually tell him to his face I don't believe he is sincere, doesn't mean he's foul mouthed or disrespectful like certain failed Assyrian Christian Apologists.
I wasn't running from you Shamoun, I just thought it would be best for me not to enter into a dialogue on serious issues with you, I think you shall forever be characterized by your debate with Nadir Ahmed and your foul mouthed exchanges with apologists on Paltalk.
Finally, you might want to do some courses in english grammar ;)
The Ironic thing I find here is the degree of sincerity, I as a 21 year old Muslim Revert attend this forum to see whether or not anyone has posited a real challenge to Islamic Thought and Theology.
Shamoun on the other hand, attends regularly to attempt to win debates and save his reputation, he is at least 6 years older than me and thinks he's my age. Its all about winning the Debate for Shamoun, he has no real regard for truth nor any desire to bring any people to the Truth.
Anyway, I fear that I might get too personal and turn this forum into a debating platform for street fighters so I'm going to end the cheap insults cross fire here.
Lol! Is that it? Try to pit Christians against each other as opposed to dealing with the issues? Don't make me go back and document how you started making fun of Shamoun , but I understand that Muslims have not only perfected lying but also hypocrisy, and you are shining example of that, as are your cohorts in comedy:
What's more if Jay is a liar then why do you take his word about anything at all? Or does he speak the truth only when it serves your agenda?
Face it, you are a a whining child making excuses not to engage with me or Shamoun or anyone else since several times Wood has invited you to engage him but you ran away much like you did with Jay and me concerning Muhammad whoring women around and calling it Muta. And this is despite the fact that you spoke glaringly of them so why did you still take off from the discussion like a frightened child? We all know the answer to that now don't we?
I really can't fault you for not wanting to discuss something so morally reprehensible.
And I do apologize that I don't think you or Bassam are worth the effort of going back and checking for typos. Yet you must surely have a problem with your Quran since your god sure didn't know how to spell either. Care to debate that fact? I didn't think so.
Now back to your Groucho Marx skit since that's the only field someone may take you seriously.
Oops... forgot the link:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_puberty3.htm
I just finished reading Isaiah 37:10 and Jeremiah 4:10. I seriously cannot believe that this is your evidence for the biblical God "being deceitful". In Isaiah a messenger from the enemy Assyrian king is trying to discourage Hezekiah by saying that God is trying to deceive him. You think that this implies that God is deceiving people? What an atheist told you that there is no God - does that mean that there is no God?
In the next Jeremiah is complaining to God - "Oh God you deceived us" - the way I might prayer "God you are being unfair" in moments of doubt. Does that mean that God is unfair? Read the book of Lamentations to get a sense of Jeremiah's style.
Frankly I thought we'd be getting into a deeper discussion here. But if this is all of your evidence then it really leaves me with nothing more to say.
Again - you fail to show how the Biblical God is deceitful while failing to give an answer for the Qur'anic claim that Allah deceived people at the crucifixion. This is just one part of David's larger point which his that this verse is really mixed up. Christians are in no doubt as to what happened to Jesus Christ - but Muslims appear to be because I can never get a straight answer from a Muslim for what happened to Jesus or when he is going to die according to the Qur'an. Secondly, show me one place in the historical account where the Jewish people have referred to Jesus as the "messenger of Allah" - even sarcastically.
Ben - thanks for the references you posted. I had to guess in order to complete the urls, but when I got there, they were helpful.
In Yahya's defense, he has agreed to do two debates in November, one of them on the prophethood of Muhammad. So he is open to these issues, just not always here on the blog.
How interesting, David, since Yahya claims elsewhere he enjoys written discussions and yet when he is challenged to engage in some on this blog he manages to find reasons to decline. Now, however, he has opted to debate publically. The inconsistency is truly amazing.
It is clear that the literary style in this passage is not to be taken literally. The word of God does not always read like Microsoft's operating manual.
The passage makes reference to the Jews boasting (mocking) the person of Jesus and his message, essentially arguing that his physical death nullified everything he said and did, and the Quran cleverly retorts that Jesus' true essence cannot be destroyed, that his message and purpose live on and will survive. In essence, the arrogant and ignorant Jews thought that they had defeated Jesus on the cross by the mere fact that he died, but the Quran makes it clear that you cannot kill Jesus; indeed, Jesus’ true self is spirit, which is indestructible.
Jesus' teachings and call to the straight path will live on. ‘Allah raised him up unto Himself’ after his body died is the interpretation that I hold to. I strongly believe that the Quran is reinforcing the truth that Jesus’ true essence is spiritual. They didn’t kill Jesus’ essence! Again, literalizing every single verse, without even considering the many different literary styles that are often used in divine Scripture, is doing the exact same thing that the Pharisees did to Jesus, and what Jews continue to do today. I definitely see the rationale behind Wood’s points, but it is not convincing for me personally because so much of Scripture has hidden meanings; symbolic, metaphoric, and figurative language is not uncommon. Furthermore, does not God confound us with passages that don't, on the surface, make sense? In other words, to the spiritually blind(I'm as guilty as anyone, not pointing fingers)Scripture is impossible to understand. That's why it takes wisdom to develop true understanding - spiritual eyes - and even then, we will never totally grasp God's revelation.
Certitude - I don't know that your approach has much support in the tafsirs and sunnah but I'm open to correction on that point. I can, however, appreciate what you are trying to say. Among others, I'm still left with the question as to what exactly Muslims believe about the fate of Jesus and how exactly Christians are "full of doubts" on this matter.
My approach doesn't have support in the tafsirs, but I am not sure how relevant that is. First, there is a general understanding that it is not profitable to discuss the various conjectures among the early Christians and early Muslim theologians on this passage. There are many different opinions on this verse. I'm open to correction but I don't see how one should be compelled to believe dogmatically on this issue. For instance, as a Christian, are you compelled to believe a certain Church father interpretation on any particular issue? I'm sure you respect church fathers, but you have the freedom to reject their views. The fate of Jesus is simple:
Nay, God raised him up Unto Himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise - 4: 158
Any speculation on the crucifixion is conjecture..
Certitude,
Firstly are you actually a Muslim or are you Bahai? (just checking because you have a very different "unique" intepretation)
Secondly you said "Any speculation on the crucifixion is conjecture.."
Do you not see the implications of this statement?
If that is true and we all know the Ummah for hundreds of years had no clear account of what happened, but had conflicting accounts among one another. This means the Quran has only made the conjecture worse by leaving 40 lonely arabic words without explanation and leaving it up to Muslims to fabricate stories and meaning. Therefore what the Quran condemns it ends up perpetuating.
Post a Comment