Wednesday, December 17, 2008

James White Responds to Bassam Zawadi on the Death of Jesus

Bassam Zawadi believes that Jesus didn't die by crucifixion. Instead, according to Bassam, Allah tricked people into believing that Jesus died on the cross. We must be clear, however, that all of the historical evidence supports the Christian view, not the Muslim view.

Muslims, of course, want the Christian view to be false, and they typically object to the Christian position by claiming that it would be unjust for God to place one person's sins on another person (despite the fact that this is exactly what Allah does in Sahih Muslim 6666). The problem with this objection is that Jesus was a voluntary sacrifice for sins. Bassam challenges this and asks where Jesus' words show that He was a willing sacrifice. Clearly, there are numerous passages which teach this, e.g. John 10:17-18: "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

James White gives a deeper response to Bassam:



If you're interested in the verse from Sahih Muslim supporting substitutionary atonement, here it is:

Sahih Muslim 6666—Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire.

And here's another:

Sahih Muslim 6668—Allah’s Messenger [said]: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians.

65 comments:

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Sahih Muslim 6668—Allah’s Messenger [said]: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians.

Elijah replies

Wow, that is even more unfair than Jesus substitionary sacrifice.

But I am also thinking, if Allah placed someone else on that cross that resembled Jesus, we may assume also that such an act is unfair, for two reasons, firstly: someone took the place of Jesus on the cross; here Allah obviously uses a substitute, which then is unfair.

Here I doubt the account of Judas' Gospel in which JEsus and Judas arranged this scene and Judas willingly took his death. This information is gnostical and fits their worldview. Also if Allah intended to save Jesus from the cross and lift him to heaven any substitute would be unnecessary.

Secondly, this whole Qur'anic view is also unfair as it deceived the Jews, the Romans, the apostles (who according to the Qur'an were victorious) and the Christian movement, virtually the entire world.
Hence any Christian who believes in Jesus' death and thus rejects the testimony of the Qur'an and therefore ends up in hell, cannot be blamed for his rejection of the truth, the fact is, that Allah himself deceived the world to believe the lie. Hence the author of the lie found in the Injeel (according to Muslims) is the work of Allah.

Does this sound fair, does it even sound logical?

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Wow - I had never seen those ahadith from Sahih Muslim. That's horrendous.

Are there similar ahadith in Bukhari?

David Wood said...

We don't have the same ahadith in al-Bukhari. But we do have some interesting ones. We've seen that the sins of Muslims will be placed on Christians and Jews in hell. But did you know that the good deeds of Muslims can be imputed to people who have already died?

Sahih al-Bukhari 4:24—Narrated Ibn Abbas: That the mother of Sad bin Ubada the brother of Bani Saida died in Sad's absence, so he came to the Prophet saying, “O Allah's Apostle! My mother died in my absence; will it benefit her if I give in charity on her behalf?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” Sad said, “I take you as my witness that I give my garden Al-Makhraf in charity on her behalf.”

We also have some hints of original sin in al-Bukhari:

Sahih al-Bukhari 4:611—The Prophet said, “Were it not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay; and were it not for Eve, no woman would ever betray her husband.”

Here we find that Eve's sin is responsible for women rebelling against their husbands now. How would this be possible, unless Eve's sin actually had an effect on human nature?

Elijah says that Christians who believe in Jesus' death are not responsible if the deception came from God. My friend, if Islam is true, no one is responsible for their sins! Even Adam, the first man, denied his guilt:

Sahih al-Bukhari 8:611—The Prophet said, “Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. ‘O Adam! You are our father who disappointed us and turned us out of paradise.’ Then Adam said to him, ‘O Moses! Allah favored you with His talk (talked to you directly) and He wrote (the Torah) for you with His Own Hand. Do you blame me for action which Allah had written in my fate forty years before my creation?’ So Adam confuted Moses.”

Interesting passages, no?

Fernando said...

Dr. White saide that Muhhamed didn't know what Christiannity was/is thought/teaches... I founde that amaizing! Was he, in this same way, the percursor of allmost all modern muslim schollars? Know I beggin to understand better some things...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Well however wrote the Qur'an knew very little about the crufixion he utilized gnostic sources which presume that Christ could not be crucified since he was spiritual and divine. Here the author proves to lack knowledge both to Christianity and Gnosticims.

The author of the Qur'an was unaware that Jesus' divinity, crucifixion, resurrection, etc. was mentioned in the Injeel, which explains the Qur'anic testimony to the Injeel.

The author of the Qur'an misunderstood the Christian teaching and belief in Trinity.
Here the author of the Qur'an even applied terms from John's Gospel, the more Christian Gospel, or the fictious gospel as some Muslims refer to it. The Qur'an refers to Jesus as the Word of God and the Spirit that proceeds from Allah, not knowing that these were universally recognised as Trinitarian terms taken from John chapter 1, chapter 15 and 16.

The author of the Qur'an also refers to the paraclete in John's Gospel as a prediction of Muhammad not realising that most Muslims recognise John as pure fiction.

I can't separate head or tale from this.

Bryant said...

David,

What do Muslim scholars do with the text of Sahih al-Bukhari 4:611. It seems like it is clearly teaching some form of original sin. Do they deny it's authenticity or reinterpret it?

Nakdimon said...

David, didn’t you have a debate with Yahya? When will we see that?

Nak

ben malik said...

For those who are interested, you will find those hadiths on Jews and Christians being sent into hell and a host of others which confirm original sin in the following articles:

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ransom.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_original_sin.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/gods_love.htm#predest_original_sin

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/suffer_for_sin.html

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/astray.html

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/consequences_of_sin.htm

Javier said...

David,
That is truly horrendous, afterall the reason Jesus could die for the sins of the elect is because he was a perfect man, sinless in all ways and fulfilled the law perfectly. A sinful man cannot die for another sinful man. But Allah is imputing the sins of Muslims onto Christians. I am unwilling to die for the sins of Bassam, but Jesus was very willing to die for the sins of His people.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that Allah is illogical, and irreconciliable with the God of the Bible.

ben malik said...

I had posted this in a different section where Bassam raised the question to which Dr. White produced this video reply. I decided tit would beneficial for it to be posted here as well.

Bassam had appealed to www.blueletterbible.org to try and refute Wood's appeal to John 10:17-18 which shows that Jesus voluntarily died on behalf of God's people. Here is what I wrote:

It won't help to simply post a link to a lexicon which provides the various shades of meaning a word may have, but doesn't provide any data to help determine which specific meaning is applicable, or is most appropriate, in a given context. Normally, that is the job of commentaries.

If you wanted to know whether Wood's point is true that Jesus freely volunteered to die you should have started at verse 17 since this would have helped you see that "of myself" is synonymous with "of my own accord," "of my own initiative":

"The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again."

What Jesus means is that the Father loves the Son because the Son delights to carry out his will. It isn't something that he is compelled to do but something he chooses to do in perfect accord with the Father.

So the reason given in this verse demonstrates why the following translations were correct to translate the Greek of John 10:18 the way they did:

"No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord." NIV

"No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative." NASB

"No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord." ESV

"No one takes it away from Me. On the contrary, I lay it down voluntarily. [I put it from Myself.]" Amplified Bible

"No one takes my life from me. I give it up willingly!" CEV

"No one takes it away from me; I give my own life freely." NCV

"This is why the Father loves me: because I freely lay down my life. And so I am free to take it up again." The Message

ben malik said...

Here is Zawadi's reply to White:

http://www.box.net/shared/69pi1pvkn2

Since I didn't listen to it maybe some of the bloggers can and comment on it as well.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Nakdimon,

Yes David and I gave our testimonies and entered in the rebuttals in what is definitely considered a polemical exchange of our arguments.

Unfortunately none of the Muslims had filmed that day and David never personally recorded it. Therefore we wait for Arab Christian Perspective to release the fully editted footage of the debates.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Why aren't the Muslims commenting on this one? We all want to hear what they have to say.

Unless our Muslim friends show us better interpretations of these ahadith than the most obvious ones, we will be left thinking that these are despicable teachings of Muhammad and Islam.

Certainly our Muslim friends don't want us to think that, for they themselves heartfully believe otherwise. We are patiently awaiting their responses.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Bassam Zawadi has already responded to Dr. White, that is sufficient since it was Bassam who is being addressed.

Fernando said...

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

""Bassam Zawadi has already responded to Dr. White, that is sufficient since it was Bassam who is being addressed""...

When mister Nakdimon asked PROFESSOR WOOD if he hade a debate with Yahya, who answerd that? Yahya...

According to his logic (i.e.,one answer is enough...) is Yahya trying to silence professor WOOD and other muslims? I don't want to bellieve so...

p.s.: Thanks, Ben Malik, for your posts...

ben malik said...

my pleasure Fernando.

Taylor said...

More Christianity in Islam: Grace, not good works, will get you into Paradise.
Bukhari Volume 7, Book 70, Number 577:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The good deeds of any person will not make him enter Paradise." (i.e., None can enter Paradise through his good deeds.) They (the Prophet's companions) said, 'Not even you, O Allah's Apostle?' He said, "Not even myself, unless Allah bestows His favor and mercy on me." So be moderate in your religious deeds and do the deeds that are within your ability: and none of you should wish for death, for if he is a good doer, he may increase his good deeds, and if he is an evil doer, he may repent to Allah."

Taylor said...

Good works will not get a person into Paradise. It's all about Allah's Grace & Mercy.

Bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Number 474:
Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet said, "Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and receive good news because one's good deeds will not make him enter Paradise." They asked, "Even you, O Allah's Apostle?" He said, "Even I, unless and until Allah bestows His pardon and Mercy on me."

David Wood said...

Taylor,

You brought up an interesting point about Allah's grace being necessary. Let's think about this. A person's deeds don't get him into heaven. Something else is needed. Allah must show grace. Grace is undeserved favor. Thus, Allah can't show grace on the basis of a Muslim's good works, since this wouldn't be grace. But neither can Allah show grace based on, say, the willing sacrifice of Jesus. Thus, it seems that Allah's grace must be entirely random. No wonder Abu Bakr said that even if he had one foot in heaven, he'd still be worried about what Allah would do! And if the top rightly-guided caliph wasn't sure about what Allah would do, what assurance is there for other Muslims?

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Fernando has said: Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

""Bassam Zawadi has already responded to Dr. White, that is sufficient since it was Bassam who is being addressed""...

When mister Nakdimon asked PROFESSOR WOOD if he hade a debate with Yahya, who answerd that? Yahya...


When Nakdimon had enquired about Professor Wood's debate with myself, I had taken the opportunity to answer seeing as that involves an affair between myself and Professor Wood, i.e the matter of when the debate will be produced. Seeing as I was privy to this information, I had taken it upon myself to answer.

According to his logic (i.e.,one answer is enough...) is Yahya trying to silence professor WOOD and other muslims? I don't want to bellieve so...

Not really, in fact I wouldn't use statements given in specific situations as guidance for rules of general situations, this would therefore render your attempt at deducing my logic, a failure.

Not really sure why I even respond to you Fernando, you rarely ever have anything to contribute with the exception of criticism of me, and very rarely and occasionally complimenting others.

As for the comment about Bassam Zawadi, I was merely responding to Nabeel that Bassam has already responded to Dr. White and seeing as they were Bassam's personal criticisms of Penal Substitution, then it is safe to deduce that a response in response to him, are best responded to by him. Seeing as they were, this was sufficient.

I.E

X (Bassam) Criticises Penal Substitution,
Y (James White) responds to X (Bassam)'s criticisms with a rebuttal.

X (Bassam) re-responds to Y (White) and Z (Nabeel Qureshi) asks other Muslims to respond.

I merely responded by saying these were Bassam's Criticisms not those of all Muslims, so a response by Bassam would be sufficient to demonstrate that Muslims are responding.

See as
A) Bassam is a Muslim
B) Bassam has responded.
C) Therefore Muslims have responded.

Hope that is SIMPLE enough for you Fernando, God Bless.

Unknown said...

Peace,

Firstly, no where does the Quran state that Jesus PBUH was substituted on the cross by another man, (these words do appear in some translations in brackets ie some translaters interpretation). The Quran as most of you well know is not a life-story of Jesus PBUH, as a result there is onle ONE verse which deals with his alleged crucifiction. That verse does not say what happened to Jesus (as it does not really affect our beliefs), rather the aim of the verse is to clear the false belief that Christ had been killed/crucified by the Jews.

004.157
YUSUFALI: 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:-
PICKTHAL: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.


Did Jesus faint (swoon-theory?) was Jesus substitued? did X happen? these things are not important for a Muslim and do not affect our ability to do good (inentions and actions) to attain paradise.

Regards
Khayyam

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

What are these things not important to Muslim Khayyam?

These things are fundamental, and if as you say, the Qur'an does not reveal anything about these matters, then the Qur'an lacks foundation. Remember that the majority of the world believed and believes that Jesus died, would Allah not provide at least some clear explanation on the matter?

Furthermore, you cannot say that the Qur'an does not ascribe a substitute for Jesus on the cross. Any person with any knowledge into church history particularly with insight into first-second century orthodoxy and heresy is aware of the wording 'made appear' as a fundamental aspect within a variaty of the gnostic philosophies, which clearly described the divine Christ as taken to heaven while either the Man Jesus or Judas in the like of Jesus where left on the cross; hence we know fully the background and context of this Qur'anic passage. The author of the Qur'an is simply plagiarizing an idea he believed to be fundamental for original Christianity, yet failed to realise that the idea is originally dualistic and Greek rather than Jewish.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Hogan,

If your hypothesis were true, surely we would expect the Qur'an to ellucidate towards such a view, or at least give a hint towards substitution.

David Wood said...

Isn't Ibn Abbas good enough?

Ibn Abbas said, “Just before Allah raised Jesus to the Heavens, Jesus went to his disciples, who were twelve inside the house. When he arrived, his hair was dripping with water (as if he had just had a bath) and he said, ‘There are those among you who will disbelieve in me twelve times after you had believed in me.’ He then asked, ‘Who among you will volunteer for his appearance to be transformed into mine, and be killed in my place? Whoever volunteers for that, he will be with me (in Paradise).’ One of the youngest ones among them volunteered, but Jesus asked him to sit down. Jesus asked again for a volunteer, and the same young man volunteered and Jesus asked him to sit down again. Then the young man volunteered a third time and Jesus said, ‘You will be that man,’ and the resemblance of Jesus was cast over that man while Jesus ascended to Heaven from a hole in the roof of the house. When the Jews came looking for Jesus, they found that young man and crucified him. Some of Jesus’ followers disbelieved in him twelve times after they had believed in him. They then divided into three groups. One group, the Jacobites, said, ‘Allah remained with us as long as He willed and then ascended to Heaven.’ Another group, the Nestorians, said, ‘The son of Allah was with us as long as he willed and Allah took him to Heaven.’ Another group, the Muslims, said, ‘The servant and Messenger of Allah remained with us as long as Allah willed, and Allah then took him to Him.’ The two disbelieving groups cooperated against the Muslim group and they killed them. Ever since that happened, Islam was then veiled until Allah sent Muhammad (Peace be upon him).” (An-Nasai, Al-Kubra, 6:489)

Nabeel Qureshi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nabeel Qureshi said...

Yahya--

I apologize - I should have been more clear regarding my request.

My request had to do with the Sahih Al-Muslim ahadith, #6666-6668.

In other words, how can Allah be just if he will send Christians and Jews to hell as substitutions for Muslims?

Please elucidate for me how you explain these ahadith. Thanks.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

I've just analysed the hadith, according to the criteria of Shahid ath-Thani, Allamah al-Hilli and Majlisi, the hadith is daeef.

David, give the full chain for Ibn Abbas.

Sami Zaatari said...

Some Texts have been cited about Muslims not be saved by Works alone, and that this is Christianity in Islam.

This is a false reading, yes, Islam is not about works only, it is a combiniation of both, so yes, a person will not be saved by works alone, which is why the prophet in that very same hadith said be moderate in your deeds, becuase it is not the only method, rather it is a combination of FAITH and works, both combined together. no Muslim believes that works alone can save you, after all works without faith is useless, Islam calls for faith and works, to be combined together to be saved.

Islam concept of salvation: Faith and Works. and offcourse it is always the mercy of God that you are saved, because he has guided you etc etc

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Yahya--

For the uninitiated regarding the finer details of hadith methodology (e.g. myself) would you please elaborate the criteria of Shahid ath-Thani, Allamah al-Hilli and Majlisi (or at least provide a concise link)?

In my understanding, the consensus among the ulemah is that there are no daeef ahadith in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim. This is why they are termed "sahih" and are in fact the most reliable of even the Sihah Sitah. Is that not the case?

Cheers,
-Nabeel

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Yahya wrote:

Hogan,

If your hypothesis were true, surely we would expect the Qur'an to ellucidate towards such a view, or at least give a hint towards substitution.

Elijah replies:

Is this not a hint? This is exactly what the Gnostics believed and how they would phrase it.

Furthermore, does not the hadith Wood presented here, whether authentic or not (I will let Wood deal with that) prove that the early Muslims in the earliest era of Islam were aware of the Gnostic belief system; I found a range of indications in that hadith that were plainly Gnostic.

The point is if it is illogical that Muhammad or the author of the Qur'an had access to information that was not linked to the gnostics but only identical it is certainly illogical that latter Muslims should possess access to Gnostic sources that were identical to the non-gnostic but gnostic-identical sources found in the Qur'an.

We need to use our head here. And I remember Yahya in the debate that you considered reason as wisdom from Allah to refute the belief in Trinity; lets use some reason here, and if we apply it, it becomes a certain factor that the Qur'an adheres to gnosticism as to a number of other sources.

This would certainly be reason for any reasoning Muslim to question the reliability of Islam!

A now guys, go to bed all of you.

Unknown said...

Its not bedtime here down under (AUST), so allow me to continue :)

Following on from what my friend SAMI wrote above (that we are judged by faith and works), I would just like to add that as Muslims we believe that we are judge by our intentions (not always just actions) for example if we INTEND to do a good deed, and on the way we get hit by a bus and die, we will still be rewarded for that good deed.

Secondly, the issue of Christ's alleged death is not a matter of importance to muslims, hindus, buddhists and pagans. I disagree with Hogan that the majority of the world belives in the ressurection / crucifiction.

The Quran does not explicitly state what happened, simply becuase it is not important to.

The Quran (like the uncorrputed parts of the bible) holds to the rule that every soul shall earn it owns reward. (through inentions/actions/faith)

Quoting weak hadith (in english) is not enough to convince Muslims to belive otherwise.

Regards
Khayyam

Unknown said...

Nabeel wrote:In my understanding, the consensus among the ulemah is that there are no daeef ahadith in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim. This is why they are termed "sahih" and are in fact the most reliable of even the Sihah Sitah. Is that not the case?

I'm not sure that is the case. As Dr.Muhammad Zubayr Siddique writes in his book, "The Hadith for Beginners", "It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that the Shahi has no defects, or that the Muslim scholars have failed to criticize it...............In estimating the reliability of the narrators, his judgment has in certain cases been erroneous. The Muslim traditionists have not failed to point out these defects of the Shahi. Al Daraqutni (306-385 A.H.) has tried to show the weakness of 200 traditions..........Abu Masud of Damascus and Abu Al Al Ghassani have also criticized the Shahi of Al Bukhari, and Al Ayni in his commentary has shown the defects of some of its contents." (p.117&118)

El-Cid said...

David,

"Thus, Allah can't show grace on the basis of a Muslim's good works, since this wouldn't be grace. But neither can Allah show grace based on, say, the willing sacrifice of Jesus. Thus, it seems that Allah's grace must be entirely random."

Not only does it appear to be random, it must also be mercy applied at the EXPENSE of Allah's justice.

Here is the problem: Justice and Mercy work in opposition to one another.

According to Webster's Dictionary:

Justice- reward or penalty as deserved; the administration of law

Mercy- refraining from harming offenders; imprisonment rather than death for a capital crime; a disposition to withhold punishment

Mercy is putting aside the punishment due a transgressor. Mercy is obstaining from full execution of justice.

Justice is the application of punishment in accordance with the law. Mercy is the withholding of punishment even when it has been earned by the transgressor.

Thus, we can see that providing mercy requires Allah to withhold or diminish his Justice in the application of punishing sin. Likewise, if ANY sin goes unpaid for the infinite Justice of Allah has been diminished (which implies a change in Allah, and is a logical contradiction according to Islamic theology).

The questions remain:

How does Allah preserve his infinite justice while applying his infinite mercy?

Any sin going unpunished means there is injustice in the universe. How does Allah maintain a perfectly just nature while allowing injustice to exist after the Day of Judgement?

Unknown said...

El Cid, it is not necessary that there will be injustice unless sins are punished. According to the Quran, Surah 11 Verse 114, good deeds cancel out bad deeds. So a person's sins can be taken care of if he performs good deeds. It is like adding a positive number to its negative.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

مااتصل سنده الى المعصوم (ع) بنقل
الإمامي العدل عن مثله في جميع الطبقات.

"What is connected to the Ma`sum (a) by the transmission of the `adl Imami from his like in all its layers."

That is the definition of a "Sahih" Hadith according to all three Scholars, Nabeel.

As for a "Hassan", Hadith the definition is as follows: "Hassan is the tradition whose chain of transmission is consecutively linked back to the Masum by commendable Imamis whose reliability has not been affirmed. Even if this chain were to consist entirely of veracious imamis, with the exception of one (being commendable), it would still be rendered as Hassan." (My Apologies for my own translation if you don't understand it, I'll try and refine the english).

Final criteria of report which can be accepted (Muwathaq) "Lit. Translated as Dependable/Trustworthy."

Muwathaq refers to a report/tradition which has been narrated by reporters who are deemed reliable by the classical scholars, although they come from or adhere to a corrupt school of thought, such as Sects opposing and oppressing the Imamiyyah. There must be no other defects in the Chain however, and most Scholars would be hesitant to implement a chain that is Muwathaq. (Again My own translation so please forgive any crap use of english).

I translated these from ad-Dirayatul Hadith by The Second Martyr.

ben malik said...

Nabeel,

What Yahya didn't tell you is that he is giving you the Shia criteria not the Sunni one. His reference to masum and Imams are red flags that he is assuming that the imams are protected from error, which is not what either the Quran or Sunnis believe.

David Wood said...

In effect, all Yahya has said is that, as a Shia, he doesn't have to accept Sahih Muslim. This does little to help the Sunnis of the world. (And, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the more Muslims attack even their most reliable sources, the more they're going to lead people to complete skepticism about Muhammad.)

faktb said...

Here Muhammad guarantees virgins Paradise.

Bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Number 481:
Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd:

Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever can guarantee (the chastity of) what is between his two jaw-bones and what is between his two legs (i.e. his tongue and his private parts), I guarantee Paradise for him."

faktb said...

In Islam, you will go to Paradise if you say the shahada at your moment of death, even if you have lived an immoral life.

Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 717:
Narrated Abu Dharr:

I came to the Prophet while he was wearing white clothes and sleeping. Then I went back to him again after he had got up from his sleep. He said, "Nobody says: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah' and then later on he dies while believing in that, except that he will enter Paradise.' I said, "Even It he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft." I said. "Even if he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft? He said. 'Even If he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft," I said, 'Even it he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and thefts.' He said, "Even If he had committed Illegal sexual intercourse and theft, inspite of the Abu Dharrs dislikeness. Abu 'Abdullah said, "This is at the time of death or before it if one repents and regrets and says "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah. He will be forgiven his sins."

faktb said...

Contradiction: The Quran says that a person of evil deeds who repents at his point of death will go to hell.

Repentance with Allah is only for those who do evil in ignorance, then turn (to Allah) soon, so these it is to whom Allah turns (mercifully), and Allah is ever Knowing, Wise. And repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death comes to one of them, he says: Surely now I repent; nor (for) those who die while they are unbelievers. These are they for whom We have prepared a painful chastisement. S. 4:17-18 Shakir

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

In effect, all Yahya has said is that, as a Shia, he doesn't have to accept Sahih Muslim. This does little to help the Sunnis of the world. (And, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the more Muslims attack even their most reliable sources, the more they're going to lead people to complete skepticism about Muhammad.)

David, that is correct it is not binding upon me to accept everything copiled from the works of the Shaykhayn (Bukhari and Muslim) of the Sunni Hadith World. Instead, I apply the use of sanad criticism.

As for your bracketed comment, it is quite a pathetic argument, you make the assumption that ALL Muslims had initially accepted the Sahihayn to be the most authentic works, which for anyone vaguely familiar with the history of Schisms in Islam and the Political Upperhand of certain Schools of thought is really and truly a misconception and a fundamentalist attempt attempting to blacken and whiten history.

I am about to go visit my relatives in Scotland and so will not have frequent internet access, therefore festive greetings to you Professor Wood and I'll resume my frequent haunting of this blog in roughly 2 weeks.

David Wood said...

Yahya said: "As for your bracketed comment, it is quite a pathetic argument, you make the assumption that ALL Muslims had initially accepted the Sahihayn to be the most authentic works."

That's not what I'm saying at all. Here's what I'm saying. I go to Ibn Ishaq, and I read all kinds of things that don't look good for Islam. Then Muslims say, "Don't trust that book! It's full of lies that Muslims made up!"

Then I go to Wakidi, and I read all kinds of things that don't look good for Islam. Muslims say, "Don't trust that book! It's full of lies that Muslims made up!"

Then I study the Satanic Verses, and I find around a dozen early Muslim scholars who support the story. Muslims respond, "Don't trust those guys! Our earliest scholars were a bunch of liars!"

Now I go to Sahih Muslim, compiled by one of the most reliable scholars in Islamic history. And the response is: "This book is filled with all kinds of false stories! Don't trust what you read here."

The point I was making is that the more liars you say there were in the early Muslim community, and the more errors you say your scholars made, the more difficult it becomes to trust what your sources say about Muhammad. How is this a "pathetic argument"?

El-Cid said...

Ibn,

"According to the Quran, Surah 11 Verse 114, good deeds cancel out bad deeds."

So, if I were to let's say....steal your house and put you out on the street....how many good deeds would I need to do to "cancel out" the sin?

Both you and the Qur'an present a logical impossibility. Something good does not make something bad disapear. On what basis can you say giving charity makes stealing "disapear"? This is illogical. I guess Allah just "winks" at sin and lets it slide if you do enough good stuff.

And by the way, you completely IGNORED the issue of Mercy vs. Justice. The Qur'anic presentation of Allah has him compromising his infinite justice to apply his mercy.

Perhaps you will actually address my statement (Mercy vs. Justice), rather than diverting to a seperate topic?

Unknown said...

El Cid:So, if I were to let's say....steal your house and put you out on the street....how many good deeds would I need to do to "cancel out" the sin?

Good deeds equivalent to the extent of your sin.

El Cid:Both you and the Qur'an present a logical impossibility. Something good does not make something bad disapear. On what basis can you say giving charity makes stealing "disapear"? This is illogical.

How is it illogical? If we quantify our actions, and let good deeds be positive and sins negative, then 100 units worth of good deeds can be added to (-50) units of bad deeds to leave your a/c with a remainder of 50 units of good deeds. If, thereafter, you commit 20 units of sins, then your a/c is left with 30 units of good deeds, and so forth.

El Cid:And by the way, you completely IGNORED the issue of Mercy vs. Justice. The Qur'anic presentation of Allah has him compromising his infinite justice to apply his mercy.

I haven't seen you quoting Quranic verses to support your assertion(s). Till then, there is nothing for me to refute.

Unknown said...

faktb:Here Muhammad guarantees virgins Paradise.

Bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Number 481:
Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd:

Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever can guarantee (the chastity of) what is between his two jaw-bones and what is between his two legs (i.e. his tongue and his private parts), I guarantee Paradise for him."



Where do you find a reference to virgins in the hadith above?

El-Cid said...

ibn,

"I haven't seen you quoting Quranic verses to support your assertion(s). Till then, there is nothing for me to refute."

I'm not appealing to the Qur'an as the basis of my argument. I am appealing to definition of the words "Mercy" and "Justice".

If you just want to ignore the issue and not address it, that is fine.

Unknown said...

El Cid wrote:I'm not appealing to the Qur'an as the basis of my argument.

Yet you wrote earlier, "The Qur'anic presentation of Allah has him compromising his infinite justice to apply his mercy"

El-Cid said...

ibn,

"Yet you wrote earlier, "The Qur'anic presentation of Allah has him compromising his infinite justice to apply his mercy""

You miss the point and basis of my argument entirely. The conflict between the functions of "mercy" and "justice" is the FOUNDATION of the argument (this exists without reference to the Qur'an).

The lack of resolution of this argument by the Qur'an is the APPLICATION of the argument.

I have requested (repeatedly) that if I am in error, and the Qur'anic presentation of Allah allows him to apply Mercy without compromising infinite Justice, please bring forth some evidence.

Stated another way, I have read the Qur'an and I find NO RECONCILIATION between the competing functions of Mercy and Justice for Allah (i.e. It is impossible for me to cite the Qur'an on this issue because it is not addressed in the Qur'an. Hence because the Qur'an does not reconcile the conflict while at the same time Islam assumes both the Justice and Mercy of Allah as a deity, a diminishing of one attribute occurs in that a method for Allah to preserve ALL his Justice while distributing ALL his Mercy does not exist).

Again, if you prefer not to actually address the issue that is entirely your choice, but lets not just have you wave a fan at my words and pretend.

El-Cid said...

ibn,

"How is it illogical? If we quantify our actions, and let good deeds be positive and sins negative, then 100 units worth of good deeds can be added to (-50) units of bad deeds to leave your a/c with a remainder of 50 units of good deeds. If, thereafter, you commit 20 units of sins, then your a/c is left with 30 units of good deeds, and so forth."

Here is how that is illogical and actually CONTRADICTS the principle of Mercy (as per Webster's Dictionary):

Mercy- refraining from harming offenders; imprisonment rather than death for a capital crime; a disposition to withhold punishment

You claim Allah will give sinners mercy, yet you also claim your good deeds actually cancel out your sins (per your example of adding negative numbers and positive numbers to reach a net balance of zero).

If your net balance of sins is "Zero", then what punishment is owed to you? Well, none of course! If your sins are "Zero" (cancelled by good deads as you claim) then no punishment is owed to you. If no punishment is owed to you, Allah provides you NO MERCY (because mercy is refraining from giving the earned punishment).

This is why it's illogical. What you have said has not addressed or refuted my argument. What you have done is demonstrate that Allah is actually WITHOUT MERCY.

Unknown said...

El Cid:You claim Allah will give sinners mercy, yet you also claim your good deeds actually cancel out your sins (per your example of adding negative numbers and positive numbers to reach a net balance of zero).

When did I make this claim? My own view is that as long as our good deeds are accepted by Allah, they negate our sins. His acceptance is itself an act of "Rahma" which is much broader than the definition of Mercy you provided, and the effect of His "Rahma" leads to Justice as when the effect of our good deeds take place.

El-Cid said...

ibn,

"..the effect of His "Rahma" leads to Justice as when the effect of our good deeds take place."

And what about the sins that he leaves unpunished after Judgement Day?

This picture of Allah you present has him allowing injustice to exist in the universe (i.e. sin that is not punished). This is a clear compromise of his Justice. It also renders good-deeds useless for causing salvation, you now seem to be stating your position to be that even after the balance of good deeds and sin, Mercy is required.

Also, upon what basis is his Mercy applied? Does he give it equally to all humans? Equally to all Muslims? Or is it a case by case basis?

Thanks

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

El Cid:And what about the sins that he leaves unpunished after Judgement Day?

No sin will be left unpunished on the Day of Judgment.

El Cid:This picture of Allah you present has him allowing injustice to exist in the universe (i.e. sin that is not punished). This is a clear compromise of his Justice.

If some sins which have not been annulled by good deeds go unpunished in this life, God WILL take account of that in the Hereafter. At the end of the day, Justice always prevails. That is why we have a Hereafter in the first place.

El Cid:It also renders good-deeds useless for causing salvation, you now seem to be stating your position to be that even after the balance of good deeds and sin, Mercy is required.


No, I said God accepts our deeds out of Mercy. After all, since God is self sufficient he has no need of what we do. So the only way He will accept our actions (which we do for his sake even though he is free of all wants) is by being Merciful.

Good deeds, as long as they are done out of a sense of duty towards Allah, are needed for salvation. Good deeds are accepted by way of Mercy, and Mercy leads to salvation.

El Cid:Also, upon what basis is his Mercy applied? Does he give it equally to all humans?

The Quran says that He gives Mercy to whomever He wills.

Now tell me something. If Jesus died for all the sins of mankind, he also died for the sin of not believing he died for all the sins of mankind. If he did not, then his death does not cover all sins. Now if you agree that he died even for the sin of not believing he died for all the sins, on what basis will I be sent to Hell if I choose not to believe in the atonement? After all, regardless of my conviction, my sin has been paid for. There is thus no reason why I should be excluded from the company of the righteous in the Hereafter.

El-Cid said...

ibn,

"No sin will be left unpunished on the Day of Judgment."

So, what happens to the sins of Muslims who are admitted to eternal "paradise"?

"Good deeds, as long as they are done out of a sense of duty towards Allah, are needed for salvation. Good deeds are accepted by way of Mercy, and Mercy leads to salvation."

This is a logical contradiction. True mercy is UNEARNED and unmerited. By definition you cannot "earn" mercy. Once it's earned it ceases to be mercy.

"Good deeds are accepted by way of Mercy"

That's actually a transaction of things deemed to have spiritual value where the worth of one off-sets the other, not Mercy.

"The Quran says that He gives Mercy to whomever He wills."

Yes, but upon WHAT BASIS is this done? And if it is "whomever he wills" by definition he can pardon a non-Muslim serial killer, and condemn an 'obedient' Sheikh. If it isn't selective, then this allows Allah to break his own words in the Qur'an about who gets paradise and who doesn't. If you say "No he can't/won't" do that, then you are claiming it is selective mercy. If it is selective mercy please explain how the Mercy is applied.

"If Jesus died for all the sins of mankind, he also died for the sin of not believing he died for all the sins of mankind. If he did not, then his death does not cover all sins."

Jesus' death does not cover "all sins" in the manner you mention. It covers the sins of "all the believing ones".

"on what basis will I be sent to Hell if I choose not to believe in the atonement?"

My above answer addresses this. Only "the believing ones" receive a covering from the atonement.

"After all, regardless of my conviction, my sin has been paid for. There is thus no reason why I should be excluded from the company of the righteous in the Hereafter."

Your sins haven't been paid for. BELIEF in Jesus as Savior proceeds foregiveness and atonement. It is the sins of the believing ones that come under the covering of the redemption at the cross. And by the way, NO ONE who goes to heaven is righteous. Heaven is to be filled with flawed sinners, who are sinners based on the standard of the Infinitely Just, Perfectly Holy God. Heaven is filled with people that deserve Hell, but by TRUE Mercy (i.e. unearned) they receive heaven instead.

Oddly, there are no sinless people in the Islamic paradise either. But there is no logical explanation for how they get to be there without Allah rendering his justice less than perfect. He just leaves the sin unpunished.

You see, this is the fundamental reason EVEN AN ATHEIST can know the God of the Bible is at least consistent with His own claims about His nature, while the god of the Qur'an is not. In the Bible, all sins are either punished, or atoned for. In the Qur'an, some sins are punished, some are CLAIMED to be eternally erased with good deeds (who knows how that happens), and the rest Allah just turns a blind eye on.

Unknown said...

El Cid:So, what happens to the sins of Muslims who are admitted to eternal "paradise"?

Their sins are cleansed before Muslims are admitted to Paradise.

El Cid:This is a logical contradiction. True mercy is UNEARNED and unmerited. By definition you cannot "earn" mercy. Once it's earned it ceases to be mercy.

That's your definition of true Mercy. Besides, you haven't actually addressed my argument as to why God would accept our deeds, which we do for his sake, when he is self-sufficient and free of all needs. Till then, my argument holds: good deeds are a means of getting to Paradise.

El Cid:Yes, but upon WHAT BASIS is this done?

I don't really understand this question. There is no standard which God refers to before bestowing his mercy. If there were one, then God is not really sovereign because he is tied to this standard which governs his actions. I think this poses as much problem to Muslims as it does to Christians since we both believe that God is the true Sovereign.

El Cid:And if it is "whomever he wills" by definition he can pardon a non-Muslim serial killer, and condemn an 'obedient' Sheikh.

An Asharii theologian would agree with you, but I won't since I am not Asharii. I believe God doesn't act against his nature. So God won't pardon a serial killer and condemn a Shiek if these actions don't embody His Holy Nature. Allahu Alam!

El Cid:Jesus' death does not cover "all sins" in the manner you mention. It covers the sins of "all the believing ones".


I don't know how mainstream your view is. As Simon Blackburn notes regarding the atonement in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, "In Christian theology, the sacrificial death of Christ as some kind of payment for THE SINS OF MANKIND" (p.28)


Let's assume what you say is true. So how was this an ultimate sacrifice then? Assuming you subscribe to Anselm's Satisfaction Theory which says the atonement restored God's honor insulted by sin, it would seem that since Jesus did not die for all sins or the sins of a few, God's honor remains to be restored.

El Cid:You see, this is the fundamental reason EVEN AN ATHEIST can know the God of the Bible is at least consistent with His own claims about His nature

Having seen many debates between atheists and Dr.William Lane Craig, I can say that your statement is false. Atheists such as Eddie Tabash, Victor Stenger, Richard Carrier (who will debate Craig in 2009), Theodore Drange, etc. don't have a favorable view about the biblical concept of God.

El-Cid said...

ibn,

"Their sins are cleansed before Muslims are admitted to Paradise."

That is essentially the same as saying "they just disappear". Sin is an eternal transgression of an eternal Law with an eternal consequence. It can't just "disappear".

"That's your definition of true Mercy. Besides, you haven't actually addressed my argument as to why God would accept our deeds, which we do for his sake, when he is self-sufficient and free of all needs."

You clearly missed my assertion ENTIRELY. Whether a deity is self-sufficient has no bearing on the discussion. I really have no clue where that came from. Also, I'm not saying God can't "accept" good deeds, I'm saying it's illogical to say good deeds make sins disappear.

"Till then, my argument holds: good deeds are a means of getting to Paradise."

Actually, I never argued whether or not your good deeds will get you into paradise, I argued that if good deeds can get you into paradise it is clear proof that Allah compromises his Justice to apply his mercy.

"I don't know how mainstream your view is."

It is fully mainstrain. The concepts of "limited atonement", "specific atonement" etc, are quite widely held, and quite Biblically supported.

"Assuming you subscribe to Anselm's Satisfaction Theory which says the atonement restored God's honor insulted by sin, it would seem that since Jesus did not die for all sins or the sins of a few, God's honor remains to be restored."

Not familiar with that theory, but I see the crux of your presentation. If you want to use the word "honor" (which frankly I find to be an error in terminology given it's meaning in English) for the sake of argument I will go with your term for now. This is quite easily answered. All sin that is not atoned on the cross, is punished at Judgement day. Mercy preserved, Justice preserved, "honor" preserved.

"I believe God doesn't act against his nature. So God won't pardon a serial killer and condemn a Shiek if these actions don't embody His Holy Nature."

Ok, but you glossed right past the main thrust of the argument: If it is selective mercy please explain how the Mercy is applied.

Still I am left wondering why in the Qur'an, some sins are punished, some are CLAIMED to be eternally erased with good deeds (who knows how that happens), and the rest Allah just turns a blind eye on ("cleansed" is the term you used in your last post).

Unknown said...

El Cid:Sin is an eternal transgression of an eternal Law with an eternal consequence. It can't just "disappear".

Perhaps that is how Christian theology defines sin. I don't find such a conception in either the Quran or the Prophetic sayings. Besides, I don't see how sin can be an eternal transgression since it is an action and all actions are created (by God). As whatever created is finite, and sin is created, sin is also finite. Therefore, sin cannot be an eternal transgression.

El Cid:I'm not saying God can't "accept" good deeds, I'm saying it's illogical to say good deeds make sins disappear.

I still don't understand why you consider it illogical. Just as you are able to wash off mud from your shirt, so can you wipe out sins from your record. Just as you apply detergent or other chemical or whatever to erase the stain, so can a person perform good deeds to remove his bad deeds.

El Cid:All sin that is not atoned on the cross, is punished at Judgement day. Mercy preserved, Justice preserved, "honor" preserved.

So you admit that the atonement was not sufficient to restore God's honor and that more needs to be done? That wouldn't make Jesus' sacrifice any different from the ones Jewish priests carried out in the Old Testament-they were meant to atone for the wrongs of a handful of people. Thus, Jesus really isn't a Savior in the universal sense.

El Cid:Ok, but you glossed right past the main thrust of the argument: If it is selective mercy please explain how the Mercy is applied.

One of the things I noticed about the Quran is that when describing Allah's creative activities, it doesn't say things just pop out from nowhere. Take for example, rain. The sky doesn't suddenly burst with water. No, the Quran says Allah causes evaporation, coalesces the clouds, and so forth till water pours from above. As the Quran is a book of signs, I suppose there is an indication here of an argument: If there is a process behind creation, I suppose there is also a process behind mercy. I won’t go into the specifics now. Maybe later.

ben malik said...

Ibn,

You just managed to refute your religion. If sin is a finite created act and not and eternal transgression then why does Allah send disbelievers into an eternal hell and tortures them for all eternity?

Are you saying that Allah is now unjust for eternally punishing humans for committing merely finite, temporal transgressions? You would have to if you are going to be inconsistent.

Unknown said...

ben:You just managed to refute your religion. If sin is a finite created act and not and eternal transgression then why does Allah send disbelievers into an eternal hell and tortures them for all eternity?


I have a theory regarding this. Since the rejectors of faith are essentially liars, no matter how many chances at life God gives them, they will persist in their disbelief. If God gives them infinite chances, they will disbelieve all the way through. Hence, it is only appropriate that they are punished for eternity since they don't have the potential to be set aright.

As to whether I actually subscribe to eternal punishment, that is a topic for another day.

ben malik said...

Your theory contradicts the Quran which has disbelievers in hell regretting their disbelief and sins, and asking for another chance. When I have more time I will post them. So you are wrong.

Unknown said...

ben, you will notice that I said disbelievers are essentially liars. Even if they regret, that doesn't mean they will wise up if God gives them a second chance at life. After all, they could be feigning belief to escape torment.

I think both Muslims and Christians can agree that God punishes some disbelievers eternally knowing that they don't have the potential to become righteous.

El-Cid said...

ibn,

"So you admit that the atonement was not sufficient to restore God's honor and that more needs to be done?"

No. Actually what I said was that "honor" (which was a word you introduced into the discussion) was a flawed choice of words because of it's meaning. The atonement never had anything to do with "honor". We were doing a pretty good job of avoiding Straw-Men until you decided to bring up a theory from a theologist I already told you I've not read, and then somehow decided it was my argument and you refuted it.

"Besides, I don't see how sin can be an eternal transgression since it is an action and all actions are created (by God). As whatever created is finite, and sin is created, sin is also finite."

It is an eternal transgression because Islam claims the source of the law (i.e. the Quran) is eternal. Violating an eternal law, by nature means your transgression stands for eternity. Also, there is no justice in punishing a temporary sin with an eternal penalty (Hell). As ben Malik aptly pointed out, you have made a mess out of the idea of sin and punishment, by claiming sins are not eternal.

Also, since you aknowledge that Allah must apply his mercy selectively, perhaps you would like to comment on WHAT BASIS Allah's mercy is applied? Is it just random? Based on his whim?

Unknown said...

El Cid:It is an eternal transgression because Islam claims the source of the law (i.e. the Quran) is eternal. Violating an eternal law, by nature means your transgression stands for eternity.

You essentially repeated what you said earlier. Unless you are able to disprove what I said about actions being created, my argument stands. You also didn't address my point about sins being 'washable'.

El Cid:Also, there is no justice in punishing a temporary sin with an eternal penalty (Hell). As ben Malik aptly pointed out, you have made a mess out of the idea of sin and punishment, by claiming sins are not eternal.

I told Ben that God admits some people to Hell for eternity knowing that they don't have the potential for believing.

El Cid:Also, since you aknowledge that Allah must apply his mercy selectively, perhaps you would like to comment on WHAT BASIS Allah's mercy is applied? Is it just random? Based on his whim?

There are conditions for obtaining Allah's Mercy, such as being repentant, performing good deeds, etc. (surah 2, verse 160). However, it should be borne in mind that Allah does not act of necessity, for if he did, he wouldn't be sovereign.

B said...

I addressed those Sahih Muslim hadeeth a long time ago here:

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article "The (In) Justice of Allah Examined"

ben malik said...

What you should have said is that you erroneously assume that you addressed those hadiths. Here are the responses from Sam:

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allahs_justice.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_gods_justice.htm

That's the problem with you "apologists," you think that just because you write an article that this means you have actually and truly refuted the arguments. Quite laughable is how I would describe it.

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_gods_justice2.htm