Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Abdullah al-Andalusi Defends Terrorism, Tries to Cover-Up His Words, Condemns Muhammad, and Threatens Legal Jihad!
Our friend Abdullah al-Andalusi objects to my claim that he supports terrorism (or, at least, that he did so on a particular occasion). My reasoning has been simple:
Of course, if anyone objects to (1) or (2), my conclusion will not follow. Most of us, however, hold that the Fort Hood Massacre was a terrorist attack. Indeed, even the ultra-dhimmi Obama Administration now admits this. The only question, then, is whether Abdullah supports attacks like the Fort Hood Massacre. Here we can read his own words, written shortly after the shooting. (Read his words carefully, for he has riddled the comments section with claims such as "I did not justify the Fort Hood Incident in the first place" and "I have clearly stated my opinions about the matter, that I DO NOT SUPPORT the actions of the Foot Hood massacre.")
Notice what Abdullah believes: (i) Muslims should fight the American aggressors; (ii) military targets are viable during war; (iii) the civilians killed during the Fort Hood Massacre were "just a sad accident of war." His response to American soldiers being killed by a Muslim was, to quote him, "big deal."
This is obviously a defense of the Fort Hood Massacre. And since we regard the Fort Hood Massacre as a terrorist attack, we can only conclude that Abdullah supports what we regard as terrorism.
Nevertheless, Muslims in the West generally don't like being associated with terrorism, so Abdullah has tried to escape the obvious meaning of his words. He sent me the following paragraph to clarify his views for readers:
Here Abdullah tries to pretend that he was only pointing out an inconsistency on our part. But this simply will not do. Abdullah specifically said he believes that military targets are viable during war. Since he agrees with attacks on American military bases, he obviously wasn't merely discussing our inconsistency.
Both passages from Abdullah attempt to show that, since America is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, attacks against U.S. military targets (such as Fort Hood) are viable. But this exposes Abdullah's true views. Major Nidal Malik Hasan is neither an Afghani nor an Iraqi. American soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq because there are wars there. But Hasan is an American soldier. Thus, if Abdullah views Hasan's attack as justified by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he must believe that the United States is at war with Islam (for this is the only connection between Hasan and Afghanistan/Iraq). But if the United States is at war with Islam, then any Muslim is justified in attacking U.S. military bases right here in the United States.
Abdullah tries to get around this by saying that Hasan was wrong for pledging his allegiance to the U.S. and then fighting against the U.S. Thus, according to Abdullah's defense, it is wrong, immoral, and contrary to the teachings of Islam for a person to feign allegiance to a group in order to attack them. But here Abdullah can only defend himself by condemning Muhammad! Let's consider a few passages from the Hadith and Sira literature.
As the story continues, we find Muslims (with the approval of Muhammad) pretending to be friends with Ka'b, until he trusts them. Once he trusts them, they brutally stab him to death. (They also chop off his head and bring it to Muhammad.)
What does this mean? It means that Muhammad allowed his followers to pretend to be friendly towards an enemy in an effort to win the enemy's trust, so that Muslims could successfully kill that enemy.
A similar event occurred during the Battle of the Trench. Nu'aym b. Mas'ud was from the tribes allied against Muhammad, but he converted to Islam. When he came to Muhammad, he was told: "You are only one man among us, so go and awake distrust among the enemy to draw them off us if you can, for war is deceit." Nu'aym then pretended to be loyal to the tribes allied against Muhammad, and he used their trust to turn them against one another.
None of this is surprising, of course. In the Hadith, we read:
In Sahih Muslim 6303, we read that Muslims are permitted to lie for several reasons: "in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."
Here Abdullah may object by pointing out that Hasan took an oath to protect America. But oaths are easily broken in Islam:
What does all of this mean? The only way for Abdullah to pretend that Islam condemns the Fort Hood Massacre was to claim that Islam would not allow a Muslim to lie in order to infiltrate an enemy camp. But in making this claim, Abdullah has condemned Muhammad and the early Muslim community!
Abdullah's comments are simply indefensible. He obviously defended the Fort Hood Massacre and specifically said that he supports attacks against military targets. Now he claims that he said no such thing, and this is clearly an attempt to deceive us. Perhaps this is why he's employing new tactics in his effort to avoid accountability. His latest tactic is to threaten "Legal Jihad," for he states, "David Wood accused me of supporting Terrorism (something my Legal counsel has advised of his culpability on)."
So he's talking to his lawyer about my culpability! He's also threatened to blacklist me from future events with MDI (as if I'd ever give in to threats like this) if I don't back off. Well, Abdullah obviously defended the Fort Hood Massacre, which means that I'm only guilty of telling the truth. And I suppose this blog post gives a good indication of my thoughts on his demand that I back off or risk blacklisting.
I'll conclude with some advice to Abdullah.
(1) The Fort Hood Massacre was a terrorist attack.
(2) Abdullah supports attacks like the Fort Hood Massacre.
(3) Therefore, Abdullah supports terrorist attacks.
Of course, if anyone objects to (1) or (2), my conclusion will not follow. Most of us, however, hold that the Fort Hood Massacre was a terrorist attack. Indeed, even the ultra-dhimmi Obama Administration now admits this. The only question, then, is whether Abdullah supports attacks like the Fort Hood Massacre. Here we can read his own words, written shortly after the shooting. (Read his words carefully, for he has riddled the comments section with claims such as "I did not justify the Fort Hood Incident in the first place" and "I have clearly stated my opinions about the matter, that I DO NOT SUPPORT the actions of the Foot Hood massacre.")
Hi guys,
Firstly, no one says that Muslims should 'rise up to kills all americans' - READ THE FULLY QUOTE "Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place."
Which I believe in too - which means military targets are viable during war, but NO CIVILIAN TARGETS (and before you mention civilians on the Army base - they are just a sad accident of war- much like the 1000's of dead Iraqi and afghan civilians right?).
I'm sorry guys, but it is time for you to admit when you are wrong to condemn - soldiers go to fight in wars, and in that incident, soldiers got killed - big deal!
Yeah so it happened on american soil, so what, american pilots and drone controllers will track down the enemies of the USA to their very homes and shoot a missle through its living room, despite their family being there or not. I guess the motto of the story is, do unto others, as you would have done unto you". Perhaps your christians should look at this incident, as a 'judgement of God' upon the wicked american army.
p.s. One thing I have noticed, for people who profess to love everyone, most of you are full of hate (your emotions are hateful, whether or not your tongue issues peaceful platitudes - repent now to the only God 'the Father').
Notice what Abdullah believes: (i) Muslims should fight the American aggressors; (ii) military targets are viable during war; (iii) the civilians killed during the Fort Hood Massacre were "just a sad accident of war." His response to American soldiers being killed by a Muslim was, to quote him, "big deal."
This is obviously a defense of the Fort Hood Massacre. And since we regard the Fort Hood Massacre as a terrorist attack, we can only conclude that Abdullah supports what we regard as terrorism.
Nevertheless, Muslims in the West generally don't like being associated with terrorism, so Abdullah has tried to escape the obvious meaning of his words. He sent me the following paragraph to clarify his views for readers:
"The reason I am upset that you personally condemn the attack at Fort Hood, is for no other reason except that I am dismayed at the double standards I believe, have been displayed in the comments and mentallity of the individuals who write on this blog. If an individal, who attests to be Muslim, criminally kills civilians; you all condemn it (which we all would agree), but when a U.S. soldier kills civilians you do not highlight it here, or explain it as accidental. Furthermore, when a U.S marine kills an Iraqi or Afghan fighter, EVEN IN THEIR OWN HOMES, you reply that this is all fair in war, or that they deserved it because they are enemies of the U.S. BUT when a Muslim soldier kills U.S. soldiers for the same reasons, irrespective of the location, you cry foul and call such attacks 'Terrorist attacks' (to which you include insurgent attacks on military assets in Iraq and Afganistan too). It would seem that the Muslim cannot fight except that it is called Terrorism, and the American/Christian cannot fight except that it is called a just war. In regards the Fort Hood incident, I do not condone it, since although in principle soldiers were the target, the individual who perpetrated the attacks did so from a position of trust (i.e. he gave his oath to help the U.S. army initially with sincerity), which is not allowed in Islam (I can explain why separately), furthermore, it is deeply regrettible that civilians got caught in the fire, and I condemn all deliberate killing of civilians. Therefore, according to my adopted Islamic opinions, I do not condone the attack from the Islamic perspective, but I do feel that yourselves are acting hypocritically according to your own criteria, for condemning it."
Here Abdullah tries to pretend that he was only pointing out an inconsistency on our part. But this simply will not do. Abdullah specifically said he believes that military targets are viable during war. Since he agrees with attacks on American military bases, he obviously wasn't merely discussing our inconsistency.
Both passages from Abdullah attempt to show that, since America is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, attacks against U.S. military targets (such as Fort Hood) are viable. But this exposes Abdullah's true views. Major Nidal Malik Hasan is neither an Afghani nor an Iraqi. American soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq because there are wars there. But Hasan is an American soldier. Thus, if Abdullah views Hasan's attack as justified by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he must believe that the United States is at war with Islam (for this is the only connection between Hasan and Afghanistan/Iraq). But if the United States is at war with Islam, then any Muslim is justified in attacking U.S. military bases right here in the United States.
Abdullah tries to get around this by saying that Hasan was wrong for pledging his allegiance to the U.S. and then fighting against the U.S. Thus, according to Abdullah's defense, it is wrong, immoral, and contrary to the teachings of Islam for a person to feign allegiance to a group in order to attack them. But here Abdullah can only defend himself by condemning Muhammad! Let's consider a few passages from the Hadith and Sira literature.
Sahih al-Bukhari 4037--Allah's Messenger said, "Who will kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Messenger?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Messenger! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes." Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a thing (i.e. to deceive Ka'b)." The Prophet said, "You may say it."
Ibn Ishaq, p. 367--The apostle said . . . "Who will rid me of Ibnu'l-Ashraf?" Muhammad b. Maslama, brother of the B. Abdu'l-Ashahal, said, "I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him." He said, "Do so if you can." So Muhammad b. Maslama returned and waited for three days without food or drink, apart from what was absolutely necessary. When the apostle was told of this he summoned him and asked him why he had given up eating and drinking. He replied that he had given him an undertaking and he did not know whether he could fulfill it. The apostle said, "All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try." He said, "O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies." He answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter."
As the story continues, we find Muslims (with the approval of Muhammad) pretending to be friends with Ka'b, until he trusts them. Once he trusts them, they brutally stab him to death. (They also chop off his head and bring it to Muhammad.)
What does this mean? It means that Muhammad allowed his followers to pretend to be friendly towards an enemy in an effort to win the enemy's trust, so that Muslims could successfully kill that enemy.
A similar event occurred during the Battle of the Trench. Nu'aym b. Mas'ud was from the tribes allied against Muhammad, but he converted to Islam. When he came to Muhammad, he was told: "You are only one man among us, so go and awake distrust among the enemy to draw them off us if you can, for war is deceit." Nu'aym then pretended to be loyal to the tribes allied against Muhammad, and he used their trust to turn them against one another.
None of this is surprising, of course. In the Hadith, we read:
Sahih al-Bukhari 3029--Allah's Messenger named: "War: Deceit."
Sahih al-Bukhari 3030--The Prophet said: "War is deceit."
In Sahih Muslim 6303, we read that Muslims are permitted to lie for several reasons: "in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."
Here Abdullah may object by pointing out that Hasan took an oath to protect America. But oaths are easily broken in Islam:
Sahih al-Bukhari 5518--Muhammad said: "By Allah, and if Allah will, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath."
What does all of this mean? The only way for Abdullah to pretend that Islam condemns the Fort Hood Massacre was to claim that Islam would not allow a Muslim to lie in order to infiltrate an enemy camp. But in making this claim, Abdullah has condemned Muhammad and the early Muslim community!
Abdullah's comments are simply indefensible. He obviously defended the Fort Hood Massacre and specifically said that he supports attacks against military targets. Now he claims that he said no such thing, and this is clearly an attempt to deceive us. Perhaps this is why he's employing new tactics in his effort to avoid accountability. His latest tactic is to threaten "Legal Jihad," for he states, "David Wood accused me of supporting Terrorism (something my Legal counsel has advised of his culpability on)."
So he's talking to his lawyer about my culpability! He's also threatened to blacklist me from future events with MDI (as if I'd ever give in to threats like this) if I don't back off. Well, Abdullah obviously defended the Fort Hood Massacre, which means that I'm only guilty of telling the truth. And I suppose this blog post gives a good indication of my thoughts on his demand that I back off or risk blacklisting.
I'll conclude with some advice to Abdullah.
(1) Be careful of what you say, for you might regret it later.
(2) If you say something embarrassing, admit it, apologize, and move on.
(3) Don't try to reinterpret your own words in order to deceive people about your obvious meaning.
(4) When someone points out something you've said, don't threaten them.
(5) Don't attack people that you're supposedly trying to reconcile with.
(6) Don't use your own misunderstandings of Christian scripture to attack Christians to whom you should be apologizing.
Friday, February 26, 2010
On the Proper and Improper Use of Extra-Biblical and Extra-Qur'anic Commentaries
I quote Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Jalalayn, and Tafsir Ibn Abbas when I discuss the teachings of the Qur'an. Muslims quote Tertullian, Augustine, and Aquinas when they discuss the teachings of the Bible. Yet there is a massive difference between the way Christians use extra-Qur'anic sources and the way Muslims use extra-Biblical source.
To illustrate the difference, consider the following imaginary (yet altogether typical) dialogues.
DIALOGUE #1
CHRISTIAN: The Qur'an says, "Fight those who do not believe" (9:29). This means that Muslims are supposed to fight unbelievers.
MUSLIM: No, it simply meant that one particular group of Muslims was supposed to fight a particular group of Christians that was attacking them at a particular time.
CHRISTIAN: That's not what it says at all.
MUSLIM: But that's what it means.
CHRISTIAN: Can you give me a Muslim source saying that?
MUSLIM: No, but that's what it means.
CHRISTIAN: Well, since you can't give any Muslim sources that agree with your interpretation, let me give you some commentaries that agree with my interpretation. Ibn Kathir says . . .
MUSLIM: Ibn Kathir! Who cares what Ibn Kathir or any other Muslim commentator says!
CHRISTIAN: It seems you don't want to listen to classical Muslim commentators because they say that "Fight those who do not believe" means "Fight those who do not believe."
MUSLIM: Enough of this paranoid, Islamophobic racism!
DIALOGUE #2
MUSLIM: Christianity is a religion of violence and bloodshed!
CHRISTIAN: Nonsense. Jesus said that we are to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:43-48). He said that His followers do not fight, because the Kingdom of God is not an earthly kingdom (John 18:36). When one of His followers used the sword, Jesus condemned the attack (Matthew 26:52). Paul said that we "do not war according to the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:3-4).
MUSLIM: Yes, but all of those verses mean the opposite of what they actually say. They really mean that Christians are to hate their enemies and that they are to spread Christianity through the sword.
CHRISTIAN: That's not what the verses say.
MUSLIM: But that's what they mean. And to show you that Christians are supposed to hate their enemies and spread Christianity through the sword, let me quote a Christian theologian from a thousand years after the New Testament was written.
Do you see the difference? When Christians appeal to Muslim commentators, it's to show that verses of the Qur'an mean what they say, and that Muslim attempts to reinterpret embarrassing verses are a modern phenomenon, often influenced by Western values. When Muslims appeal to Christian commentators, it's to show that verses of the Bible can't mean what they say, and that Christian attempts to follow what the Bible actually says are misguided.
Consider a few more illustrations.
(1) The Qur'an commands Muslims to beat rebellious wives (4:34). Westernized Muslims today say that this verse simply refers to a light, symbolic tapping with a toothbrush. Here Christians go to Muslim commentaries showing that the verse means exactly what it says, and Muslims reject the commentaries, choosing instead to go against the obvious meaning of the Qur'an.
(2) The Qur'an says that there is "no compulsion in religion" (2:256). Since the Qur'an plainly declares that earlier verses are abrogated by conflicting later verses, it's obvious that 2:256 was abrogated by verses such as 9:5, 9:29, 9:73, and 9:123. But Muslims don't want to admit that the few peaceful teachings of the Qur'an have been abrogated, so they reinterpret abrogation, saying that it only applies to the Qur'an abrogating previous scriptures. Thus the Christian pulls out Tafsir Ibn Abbas, Tafsir Jalalayn, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir to show that abrogation applies to earlier verses of the Qur'an, and commentaries are produced to show that 2:256 has either been abrogated or that it only applies to "People of the Book" who are paying the Jizyah. At this point, Muslims reject all of their greatest commentators, ignore the Qur'anic context, pound their fists on the table, declare that 2:256 is valid towards all people, use 2:256 to reinterpret clear Qur'anic commands to violence, and finally declare that Islam is a religion of peace and that anyone who disagrees is an Islamophobe!
(3) According to the Qur'an, men can have sex with prepubescent girls (65:4). Though the verse clearly discusses girls who haven't yet reached the age of puberty, Westernized Muslim proclaim that it doesn't mean this at all. Here we consult Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and Tafsir Jalalayn, and we find that all of them understood 65:4 to refer to sex with prepubescent girls (i.e. exactly what the verse says). Modern Muslims, however, don't want to accept this, and so they once again throw out their greatest commentators.
(4) The Bible commands husbands to love our wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25), to be ready to lay down our lives for them, and not to be harsh with them (Colossians 3:19). The Bible declares that both men and women are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Galatians 3:28). To show that these verses can't possibly mean what they say and that the Bible condemns women as the inferior sexual slaves of abusive men, Muslims go on to quote later Christian commentators who ignore the clear teachings of the Bible.
To sum up, Christians want to accurately report the meaning of both the Bible and the Qur'an, in order to allow people to make an informed choice between the two religions. Hence, Christians attempt to read both Christian and Muslim sources in context and to provide a clear account of what the religions teach. Muslims want to misrepresent both the Bible and the Qur'an in order to keep people from honestly assessing the evidence. Thus, Muslims distort the teachings of the Bible by appealing to extra-Biblical sources, and they reject extra-Qur'anic sources which declare that the Qur'an means what it says.
It could be useful to come up with some sort of rule about how to use sources outside of the Bible and the Qur'an. It might run as follows:
For some excellent examples of how these conflicting uses of extra-Biblical and extra-Qur'anic sources play out in debate, please watch our debate with Abdullah and Yahya on whether Islam is a religion of peace, as well as my debate with Abdullah on whether Christianity is a religion of peace. Pay attention to how sources are used. I haven't seen Mary Jo's debate with Tabasum yet, but I suspect that the same would apply to that debate. That is, I suspect that Mary Jo uses extra-Qur'anic sources to show that the Qur'an means what it says, and that Tabasum uses extra-Biblical sources in order to distort what Christianity actually teaches. Of course, this is simply a prediction based on my working hypothesis (which, in turn, is based on past observations). Anyone know whether my prediction is confirmed?
To illustrate the difference, consider the following imaginary (yet altogether typical) dialogues.
DIALOGUE #1
CHRISTIAN: The Qur'an says, "Fight those who do not believe" (9:29). This means that Muslims are supposed to fight unbelievers.
MUSLIM: No, it simply meant that one particular group of Muslims was supposed to fight a particular group of Christians that was attacking them at a particular time.
CHRISTIAN: That's not what it says at all.
MUSLIM: But that's what it means.
CHRISTIAN: Can you give me a Muslim source saying that?
MUSLIM: No, but that's what it means.
CHRISTIAN: Well, since you can't give any Muslim sources that agree with your interpretation, let me give you some commentaries that agree with my interpretation. Ibn Kathir says . . .
MUSLIM: Ibn Kathir! Who cares what Ibn Kathir or any other Muslim commentator says!
CHRISTIAN: It seems you don't want to listen to classical Muslim commentators because they say that "Fight those who do not believe" means "Fight those who do not believe."
MUSLIM: Enough of this paranoid, Islamophobic racism!
DIALOGUE #2
MUSLIM: Christianity is a religion of violence and bloodshed!
CHRISTIAN: Nonsense. Jesus said that we are to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:43-48). He said that His followers do not fight, because the Kingdom of God is not an earthly kingdom (John 18:36). When one of His followers used the sword, Jesus condemned the attack (Matthew 26:52). Paul said that we "do not war according to the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:3-4).
MUSLIM: Yes, but all of those verses mean the opposite of what they actually say. They really mean that Christians are to hate their enemies and that they are to spread Christianity through the sword.
CHRISTIAN: That's not what the verses say.
MUSLIM: But that's what they mean. And to show you that Christians are supposed to hate their enemies and spread Christianity through the sword, let me quote a Christian theologian from a thousand years after the New Testament was written.
Do you see the difference? When Christians appeal to Muslim commentators, it's to show that verses of the Qur'an mean what they say, and that Muslim attempts to reinterpret embarrassing verses are a modern phenomenon, often influenced by Western values. When Muslims appeal to Christian commentators, it's to show that verses of the Bible can't mean what they say, and that Christian attempts to follow what the Bible actually says are misguided.
Consider a few more illustrations.
(1) The Qur'an commands Muslims to beat rebellious wives (4:34). Westernized Muslims today say that this verse simply refers to a light, symbolic tapping with a toothbrush. Here Christians go to Muslim commentaries showing that the verse means exactly what it says, and Muslims reject the commentaries, choosing instead to go against the obvious meaning of the Qur'an.
(2) The Qur'an says that there is "no compulsion in religion" (2:256). Since the Qur'an plainly declares that earlier verses are abrogated by conflicting later verses, it's obvious that 2:256 was abrogated by verses such as 9:5, 9:29, 9:73, and 9:123. But Muslims don't want to admit that the few peaceful teachings of the Qur'an have been abrogated, so they reinterpret abrogation, saying that it only applies to the Qur'an abrogating previous scriptures. Thus the Christian pulls out Tafsir Ibn Abbas, Tafsir Jalalayn, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir to show that abrogation applies to earlier verses of the Qur'an, and commentaries are produced to show that 2:256 has either been abrogated or that it only applies to "People of the Book" who are paying the Jizyah. At this point, Muslims reject all of their greatest commentators, ignore the Qur'anic context, pound their fists on the table, declare that 2:256 is valid towards all people, use 2:256 to reinterpret clear Qur'anic commands to violence, and finally declare that Islam is a religion of peace and that anyone who disagrees is an Islamophobe!
(3) According to the Qur'an, men can have sex with prepubescent girls (65:4). Though the verse clearly discusses girls who haven't yet reached the age of puberty, Westernized Muslim proclaim that it doesn't mean this at all. Here we consult Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and Tafsir Jalalayn, and we find that all of them understood 65:4 to refer to sex with prepubescent girls (i.e. exactly what the verse says). Modern Muslims, however, don't want to accept this, and so they once again throw out their greatest commentators.
(4) The Bible commands husbands to love our wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25), to be ready to lay down our lives for them, and not to be harsh with them (Colossians 3:19). The Bible declares that both men and women are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Galatians 3:28). To show that these verses can't possibly mean what they say and that the Bible condemns women as the inferior sexual slaves of abusive men, Muslims go on to quote later Christian commentators who ignore the clear teachings of the Bible.
To sum up, Christians want to accurately report the meaning of both the Bible and the Qur'an, in order to allow people to make an informed choice between the two religions. Hence, Christians attempt to read both Christian and Muslim sources in context and to provide a clear account of what the religions teach. Muslims want to misrepresent both the Bible and the Qur'an in order to keep people from honestly assessing the evidence. Thus, Muslims distort the teachings of the Bible by appealing to extra-Biblical sources, and they reject extra-Qur'anic sources which declare that the Qur'an means what it says.
It could be useful to come up with some sort of rule about how to use sources outside of the Bible and the Qur'an. It might run as follows:
"Scripture is to be interpreted primarily by other scripture. That is, a verse is to be evaluated according to its context in the passage and in light of other verses in the text. If a verse is ambiguous, it should be interpreted based on clear verses addressing the same topic. Commentaries may be consulted here to provide the historical context, which reflects what the verse would have meant to the people to whom it was addressed. When someone attempts to deviate from the clear contextual meaning of a verse, commentaries should be provided to show that orthodox scholars prior to modern influence agreed with the clear contextual meaning, and that modern reinterpretations are therefore probably wrong. When a commentary presents an interpretation that conflicts with the clear contextual meaning, the commentary is to be rejected."
For some excellent examples of how these conflicting uses of extra-Biblical and extra-Qur'anic sources play out in debate, please watch our debate with Abdullah and Yahya on whether Islam is a religion of peace, as well as my debate with Abdullah on whether Christianity is a religion of peace. Pay attention to how sources are used. I haven't seen Mary Jo's debate with Tabasum yet, but I suspect that the same would apply to that debate. That is, I suspect that Mary Jo uses extra-Qur'anic sources to show that the Qur'an means what it says, and that Tabasum uses extra-Biblical sources in order to distort what Christianity actually teaches. Of course, this is simply a prediction based on my working hypothesis (which, in turn, is based on past observations). Anyone know whether my prediction is confirmed?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Send Negeen to an Apologetics Conference!
All right. I only ask when it's important. Many of you remember Negeen. She's a convert from Islam to Christianity, she's super sharp, and she's interested in apologetics. We want to fly her to an apologetics conference in Virginia next month, where Nabeel, Mary Jo, Sam, Mike Licona, Tony Costa, Mark Mittelberg, and several others will be speaking. (I'll be debating an atheist at the end of the conference.) She can stay with a family while she's there, and I can cover her meals. But we need help covering her plane ticket and the registration fee. $400 will cover both. Let's support our sister! (Alternatively, if one of you has a bunch of frequent-flyer miles saved up, you could use them to get her ticket.)
If you missed Negeen's testimony when we posted it, here you go:
If you missed Negeen's testimony when we posted it, here you go:
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Sad, Sad, Sad
(NOTE: PLEASE READ THE UPDATES AT THE END OF THIS POST, AS NOT ALL OF MDI WAS INVOLVED IN THESE EVENTS.)
The Muslim Debate Initiative has posted their version of Mary Jo's debate with Tabasum. If you'd like a good introduction to Muslim ethics, I invite you to watch the intro. Notice that when we post debates, we don't attempt to bias people against speakers, even if we disagree with those speakers. Yet when MDI posts a debate, they find it necessary to spend several minutes attempting to discredit the opposition. MDI posts scenes of Mary Jo in a discussion with me, Robert Spencer, and Pamela Gellar, in an obvious attempt to focus Muslims' dislike for Spencer and me onto Mary Jo. The intent is to get Muslims so angry at Mary Jo that they will not listen to her arguments. But if you don't want people listening to her arguments, why even have the debates? Moreover, if MDI is satisfied with the debate as it stands, why try to bias people from the start? This is simply pathetic. MDI claims that they respect women, when they clearly show no respect for Mary Jo. I think I speak for several of us when I say that I'm done with the Muslim Debate Initiative.
On a different note, I can't imagine why they would attack Mary Jo for being on a program which claims that Islam promotes the death penalty for apostasy. Could she be thinking of passages like these:
Sahih al-Bukhari 6922—Muhammad said: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
Sunan An-Nasa’i 4068—The Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”
Sunan Ibn Majah 2535—It was narrated from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.”
Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik 36.18.15—The Messenger of Allah said, “If someone changes his religion—then strike off his head!”
How dare this lying infidel Mary Jo suggest that Islam promotes the death penalty for apostasy! (For a fuller discussion of apostasy, click here.)
Anyone care to guess Mary Jo's impression of Muslims? The first time she was around a large group of Muslims, she was physically assaulted by three of them. (Note: The virtually universal Muslim response to these assaults was: "She deserved it, since she was with David and Nabeel.") Now Muslims post her debate, and they try to discredit her before the debate even starts. And Muslims wonder why Westerners are getting suspicious!
*****UPDATE***** I hear from Roger (Mary Jo's husband) that MDI UK denies responsibility for the video. If this is correct, then it seems that the Muslims from the Islamic center in Canada (friends of Tabasum?) have produced the video. Hopefully, we'll have this cleared up soon.
*****2ND UPDATE***** The video has been removed. I assume it will be reposted without the pre-debate attacks. Everything I know is second-hand, but it seems that most of the members of MDI were not aware of the attacks against Mary Jo and did not approve of the content. Based on the little information I have, the attacks appear to have come from Tabasum, her husband, and the Canadian Muslims, and have little or nothing to do with UK or US members of MDI.
The Muslim Debate Initiative has posted their version of Mary Jo's debate with Tabasum. If you'd like a good introduction to Muslim ethics, I invite you to watch the intro. Notice that when we post debates, we don't attempt to bias people against speakers, even if we disagree with those speakers. Yet when MDI posts a debate, they find it necessary to spend several minutes attempting to discredit the opposition. MDI posts scenes of Mary Jo in a discussion with me, Robert Spencer, and Pamela Gellar, in an obvious attempt to focus Muslims' dislike for Spencer and me onto Mary Jo. The intent is to get Muslims so angry at Mary Jo that they will not listen to her arguments. But if you don't want people listening to her arguments, why even have the debates? Moreover, if MDI is satisfied with the debate as it stands, why try to bias people from the start? This is simply pathetic. MDI claims that they respect women, when they clearly show no respect for Mary Jo. I think I speak for several of us when I say that I'm done with the Muslim Debate Initiative.
On a different note, I can't imagine why they would attack Mary Jo for being on a program which claims that Islam promotes the death penalty for apostasy. Could she be thinking of passages like these:
Sahih al-Bukhari 6922—Muhammad said: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
Sunan An-Nasa’i 4068—The Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”
Sunan Ibn Majah 2535—It was narrated from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.”
Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik 36.18.15—The Messenger of Allah said, “If someone changes his religion—then strike off his head!”
How dare this lying infidel Mary Jo suggest that Islam promotes the death penalty for apostasy! (For a fuller discussion of apostasy, click here.)
Anyone care to guess Mary Jo's impression of Muslims? The first time she was around a large group of Muslims, she was physically assaulted by three of them. (Note: The virtually universal Muslim response to these assaults was: "She deserved it, since she was with David and Nabeel.") Now Muslims post her debate, and they try to discredit her before the debate even starts. And Muslims wonder why Westerners are getting suspicious!
*****UPDATE***** I hear from Roger (Mary Jo's husband) that MDI UK denies responsibility for the video. If this is correct, then it seems that the Muslims from the Islamic center in Canada (friends of Tabasum?) have produced the video. Hopefully, we'll have this cleared up soon.
*****2ND UPDATE***** The video has been removed. I assume it will be reposted without the pre-debate attacks. Everything I know is second-hand, but it seems that most of the members of MDI were not aware of the attacks against Mary Jo and did not approve of the content. Based on the little information I have, the attacks appear to have come from Tabasum, her husband, and the Canadian Muslims, and have little or nothing to do with UK or US members of MDI.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Mary Jo Sharp Vs. Tabasum Hussain: "Women in the Bible and the Qur'an"
Uploading is taking a while, but I'll post the videos here as they become available. I haven't seen the debate yet, but I hear it went very well, and that both Christianity and Islam were well represented. Since this is the second formal debate for Mary Jo, and the first formal debate for Tabasum, I'm sure both would appreciate feedback.
OPENING STATEMENTS
1ST REBUTTALS
2ND REBUTTALS/Q&A
CONCLUSIONS
OPENING STATEMENTS
1ST REBUTTALS
2ND REBUTTALS/Q&A
CONCLUSIONS
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Zakir Naik on Water Evaporation in the Qur'an
Anyone ever noticed that when Zakir Naik answers a question, (1) he rarely answers the question, (2) he usually displays his awesome memory, without actually answering the question, and (3) Muslims love his answer and cheer him, despite the fact that he hasn't answered the questions? Whenever I hear people cheering for Naik, it's as if they're cheering for ignorance and deception! Anyway, here's one for the collection.
7:57--And He it is Who sends forth the winds bearing good news before His mercy, until, when they bring up a laden cloud, We drive it to a dead land, then We send down water on it, then bring forth with it of fruits of all kinds; thus shall We bring forth the dead that you may be mindful.
13:17--He sends down water from the cloud, then watercourses flow (with water) according to their measure, and the torrent bears along the swelling foam, and from what they melt in the fire for the sake of making ornaments or apparatus arises a scum like it; thus does Allah compare truth and falsehood; then as for the scum, it passes away as a worthless thing; and as for that which profits the people, it tarries in the earth; thus does Allah set forth parables.
15:22--And We send the winds fertilizing, then send down water from the cloud so We give it to you to drink of, nor is it you who store it up.
23:18--And We send down water from the cloud according to a measure, then We cause it to settle in the earth, and most surely We are able to carry it away.
24:43--Do you not see that Allah drives along the clouds, then gathers them together, then piles them up, so that you see the rain coming forth from their midst? And He sends down of the clouds that are (like) mountains wherein is hail, afflicting therewith whom He pleases and turning it away from whom He pleases; the flash of His lightning almost takes away the sight.
25:48-49--And He it is Who sends the winds as good news before His mercy; and We send down pure water from the cloud, That We may give life thereby to a dead land and give it for drink, out of what We have created, to cattle and many people.
30:24--And one of His signs is that He shows you the lightning for fear and for hope, and sends down water from the clouds then gives life therewith to the earth after its death; most surely there are signs in this for a people who understand
30:48--Allah is he Who sends forth the winds so they raise a cloud, then He spreads it forth in the sky as He pleases, and He breaks it up so that you see the rain coming forth from inside it; then when He causes it to fall upon whom He pleases of His servants, lo! they are joyful.
35:9--And Allah is He Who sends the winds so they raise a cloud, then We drive it on to a dead country, and therewith We give life to the earth after its death; even so is the quickening.
36:34--And We make therein gardens of palms and grapevines and We make springs to flow forth in it.
39:21--Do you not see that Allah sends down water from the cloud, then makes it go along in the earth in springs, then brings forth therewith herbage of various colors, then it withers so that you see it becoming yellow, then He makes it a thing crushed and broken into pieces? Most surely there is a reminder in this for the men of understanding.
45:5--And (in) the variation of the night and the day, and (in) what Allah sends down of sustenance from the cloud, then gives life thereby to the earth after its death, and (in) the changing of the winds, there are signs for a people who understand.
50:9--And We send down from the cloud water abounding in good, then We cause to grow thereby gardens and the grain that is reaped.
56:68-70--Have you considered the water which you drink? Is it you that send it down from the clouds, or are We the senders? If We pleased, We would have made it salty; why do you not then give thanks?
67:30--Say: Have you considered if your water should go down, who is it then that will bring you flowing water?
There you have it. Zakir Naik is asked where the Qur'an discusses water evaporation. He quotes a bunch of verses which say, in effect, "Rain comes from clouds" (which every civilization in history has known), he doesn't actually answer the question at all, and Muslims stand in awe at the non-existent miraculous scientific insights of the Qur'an! If I were a Muslim, I would be embarrassed by such deception. But it just doesn't seem to bother Muslims. As long as Dr. Naik is winning converts with his deception, Muslims will cheer him.
Of course, I could do this with the Bible (using passages such as the following, which are actually far more impressive than the passages quoted by Naik), but I'm not that desperate.
Job 36:26-28--Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know Him; the number of His years is unsearchable. For He draws up the drops of water, they distill rain from the mist, which the clouds pour down, they drip upon man abundantly.
Amos 5:8--He who made the Pleiades and Orion and changes deep darkness into morning, Who also darkens day into night, Who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the surface of the earth, the LORD is His name.
7:57--And He it is Who sends forth the winds bearing good news before His mercy, until, when they bring up a laden cloud, We drive it to a dead land, then We send down water on it, then bring forth with it of fruits of all kinds; thus shall We bring forth the dead that you may be mindful.
13:17--He sends down water from the cloud, then watercourses flow (with water) according to their measure, and the torrent bears along the swelling foam, and from what they melt in the fire for the sake of making ornaments or apparatus arises a scum like it; thus does Allah compare truth and falsehood; then as for the scum, it passes away as a worthless thing; and as for that which profits the people, it tarries in the earth; thus does Allah set forth parables.
15:22--And We send the winds fertilizing, then send down water from the cloud so We give it to you to drink of, nor is it you who store it up.
23:18--And We send down water from the cloud according to a measure, then We cause it to settle in the earth, and most surely We are able to carry it away.
24:43--Do you not see that Allah drives along the clouds, then gathers them together, then piles them up, so that you see the rain coming forth from their midst? And He sends down of the clouds that are (like) mountains wherein is hail, afflicting therewith whom He pleases and turning it away from whom He pleases; the flash of His lightning almost takes away the sight.
25:48-49--And He it is Who sends the winds as good news before His mercy; and We send down pure water from the cloud, That We may give life thereby to a dead land and give it for drink, out of what We have created, to cattle and many people.
30:24--And one of His signs is that He shows you the lightning for fear and for hope, and sends down water from the clouds then gives life therewith to the earth after its death; most surely there are signs in this for a people who understand
30:48--Allah is he Who sends forth the winds so they raise a cloud, then He spreads it forth in the sky as He pleases, and He breaks it up so that you see the rain coming forth from inside it; then when He causes it to fall upon whom He pleases of His servants, lo! they are joyful.
35:9--And Allah is He Who sends the winds so they raise a cloud, then We drive it on to a dead country, and therewith We give life to the earth after its death; even so is the quickening.
36:34--And We make therein gardens of palms and grapevines and We make springs to flow forth in it.
39:21--Do you not see that Allah sends down water from the cloud, then makes it go along in the earth in springs, then brings forth therewith herbage of various colors, then it withers so that you see it becoming yellow, then He makes it a thing crushed and broken into pieces? Most surely there is a reminder in this for the men of understanding.
45:5--And (in) the variation of the night and the day, and (in) what Allah sends down of sustenance from the cloud, then gives life thereby to the earth after its death, and (in) the changing of the winds, there are signs for a people who understand.
50:9--And We send down from the cloud water abounding in good, then We cause to grow thereby gardens and the grain that is reaped.
56:68-70--Have you considered the water which you drink? Is it you that send it down from the clouds, or are We the senders? If We pleased, We would have made it salty; why do you not then give thanks?
67:30--Say: Have you considered if your water should go down, who is it then that will bring you flowing water?
There you have it. Zakir Naik is asked where the Qur'an discusses water evaporation. He quotes a bunch of verses which say, in effect, "Rain comes from clouds" (which every civilization in history has known), he doesn't actually answer the question at all, and Muslims stand in awe at the non-existent miraculous scientific insights of the Qur'an! If I were a Muslim, I would be embarrassed by such deception. But it just doesn't seem to bother Muslims. As long as Dr. Naik is winning converts with his deception, Muslims will cheer him.
Of course, I could do this with the Bible (using passages such as the following, which are actually far more impressive than the passages quoted by Naik), but I'm not that desperate.
Job 36:26-28--Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know Him; the number of His years is unsearchable. For He draws up the drops of water, they distill rain from the mist, which the clouds pour down, they drip upon man abundantly.
Amos 5:8--He who made the Pleiades and Orion and changes deep darkness into morning, Who also darkens day into night, Who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the surface of the earth, the LORD is His name.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Debate Saturday: "Women in the Bible and the Qur'an"
This Saturday (5:30 P.M.), Mary Jo Sharp will debate Tabasum Hussain in Scarborough, Ontario, Canada. We'll post the debate here on Answering Muslims as soon as the footage is available. For those who are in Canada, however, don't miss it! For more information (location, directions, contact info), click here.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Jesus or Muhammad on ABN Wednesday
It's that time again. Lord willing, we'll be going weekly with "Jesus or Muhammad" starting next month. I'll be on "Jesus or Muhammad" and "News and Views" with Pastor Joseph tomorrow (Wednesday). Sam has a prior engagement, but he should be with us via phone.
7:00 P.M.-9:30 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)
"Jesus or Muhammad?" (We'll be discussing the Muslim contribution to the Holocaust and Hitler's hatred of Christianity.)
10:00 P.M.-12:00 P.M.
"News and Views"
12:15 A.M.-1:15 A.M.
"Rapid Fire"
7:00 P.M.-9:30 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)
"Jesus or Muhammad?" (We'll be discussing the Muslim contribution to the Holocaust and Hitler's hatred of Christianity.)
10:00 P.M.-12:00 P.M.
"News and Views"
12:15 A.M.-1:15 A.M.
"Rapid Fire"
Monday, February 15, 2010
My Suggestion to Yahya Snow
There is no point dragging this matter with Yahya Snow on, let me just conclude with this thread (unless of course something comes up in the near future).
Since Yahya Snow has not welcomed my rebuttals of his youtube video, in which he criticises my comments made on http://www.answeringmuslims.com/ that Islam is demonic (see link: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/01/pakistan-twelve-year-old-christian-girl.html ), and since Yahya has even removed the comment section on his blog to prevent the links and my responses to his youtube video (read his explanation: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/02/comment-section.html ), all I am going to do now is to ask Yahya to edit his own post and to provide the links to my blogs under the video.
My rebuttals can be read here:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/02/hogan-elijah-hagbard-responds-to-yahya.html
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/02/my-written-response-to-yahya-do-i.html
This should be fair and honest toward me and the issue that has been brought up.
So far Yahya's readers and viewers are only introduced to his side of the matter and his refutation, which I have refuted into pieces (check the links to my rebuttals).
Other Christian apologists such as Semper Paratus have experienced a similar treatment doing dialogue with Yahya Snow:
http://smprparatus.blogspot.com/2010/01/yahya-snow-challenged-to-debate-trinity.html
So far Yahya Snow has been permitted to post freely on my blogs and the blog of Semper Paratus and he is still free to post there. Yet we do not share in this privilege when entering the blog of Yahya, which is slightly complicated when engaging in a dialogue.
I can only conclude so far that Yahya is probably being afraid of being exposed.
Yahya has contacted me urging me to be patient, however, this is not a matter of being patient, the issue concerns the basic and simple honesty of providing the full picture of our dialogue to the readers; that simply cannot demand all this time.
I will be patient and wait as long as it takes for his next rebuttal of my refutations of his video, but at least I expect him to share with his readers the full scale of this dialogue.
So what is the problem? Why is it so difficult for Yahya to provide the links to my rebuttals on Yahay's blog?
Why is Yahya afraid of comments? He claims that unmoderated comments are chaotic, and I can only say: good grief. I run three blogs and contribute to a fourth, I have never had that problem. But now Yahya states that even moderating the comment sections is an impossible task, mainly due to blasphemous statements (I guess my honest rebuttals) and dubious links (my blogs). Due to this he closed down the comment sections.
See his reason for removing the comment section here below:
'It has been removed. A moderated comment section was in vogue, however seen as I am being further pressed for time I cannot commit to moderated comments...which does require time and effort as many comments contain blasphemy and dubious links.
An unmoderated comment section does notwork...it has been tried in the past and has failed pretty miserably :(
So, for those who wish to interact or have suggestions then please contact me via YouTube.'
See the link below:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/02/comment-section.html
Obviously the blasphemy are my rebuttals and the dubious links, the links I linked to my rebuttals on his comment section.
All I am asking Yahya to do is to present his rebuttal against me in full context and to allow his readers to know that Hogan has defended himself: that Hogan does not perceive himself as misbehaving nor does he perceive himself as being unwise. Furthermore, his readers and viewers ought to know that Hogan has defended himself against several remarks in the video in which Yahya states that Hogan must know otherwise and that Hogan has not read the Bible. Also the readers and viewers of Yahya should be introduced to the real matter, that is: what Hogan originally reacted to.
I expect therefore Yahya Snow to show honesty in this matter and edit his video or original post on his blog and on the youtube and provide the links to my rebuttals and the original issue I reacted to when I made the comment.
No offence bro, I respect you and I hope we can keep up the dialogue.
Since Yahya Snow has not welcomed my rebuttals of his youtube video, in which he criticises my comments made on http://www.answeringmuslims.com/ that Islam is demonic (see link: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/01/pakistan-twelve-year-old-christian-girl.html ), and since Yahya has even removed the comment section on his blog to prevent the links and my responses to his youtube video (read his explanation: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/02/comment-section.html ), all I am going to do now is to ask Yahya to edit his own post and to provide the links to my blogs under the video.
My rebuttals can be read here:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/02/hogan-elijah-hagbard-responds-to-yahya.html
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/02/my-written-response-to-yahya-do-i.html
This should be fair and honest toward me and the issue that has been brought up.
So far Yahya's readers and viewers are only introduced to his side of the matter and his refutation, which I have refuted into pieces (check the links to my rebuttals).
Other Christian apologists such as Semper Paratus have experienced a similar treatment doing dialogue with Yahya Snow:
http://smprparatus.blogspot.com/2010/01/yahya-snow-challenged-to-debate-trinity.html
So far Yahya Snow has been permitted to post freely on my blogs and the blog of Semper Paratus and he is still free to post there. Yet we do not share in this privilege when entering the blog of Yahya, which is slightly complicated when engaging in a dialogue.
I can only conclude so far that Yahya is probably being afraid of being exposed.
Yahya has contacted me urging me to be patient, however, this is not a matter of being patient, the issue concerns the basic and simple honesty of providing the full picture of our dialogue to the readers; that simply cannot demand all this time.
I will be patient and wait as long as it takes for his next rebuttal of my refutations of his video, but at least I expect him to share with his readers the full scale of this dialogue.
So what is the problem? Why is it so difficult for Yahya to provide the links to my rebuttals on Yahay's blog?
Why is Yahya afraid of comments? He claims that unmoderated comments are chaotic, and I can only say: good grief. I run three blogs and contribute to a fourth, I have never had that problem. But now Yahya states that even moderating the comment sections is an impossible task, mainly due to blasphemous statements (I guess my honest rebuttals) and dubious links (my blogs). Due to this he closed down the comment sections.
See his reason for removing the comment section here below:
'It has been removed. A moderated comment section was in vogue, however seen as I am being further pressed for time I cannot commit to moderated comments...which does require time and effort as many comments contain blasphemy and dubious links.
An unmoderated comment section does notwork...it has been tried in the past and has failed pretty miserably :(
So, for those who wish to interact or have suggestions then please contact me via YouTube.'
See the link below:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/02/comment-section.html
Obviously the blasphemy are my rebuttals and the dubious links, the links I linked to my rebuttals on his comment section.
All I am asking Yahya to do is to present his rebuttal against me in full context and to allow his readers to know that Hogan has defended himself: that Hogan does not perceive himself as misbehaving nor does he perceive himself as being unwise. Furthermore, his readers and viewers ought to know that Hogan has defended himself against several remarks in the video in which Yahya states that Hogan must know otherwise and that Hogan has not read the Bible. Also the readers and viewers of Yahya should be introduced to the real matter, that is: what Hogan originally reacted to.
I expect therefore Yahya Snow to show honesty in this matter and edit his video or original post on his blog and on the youtube and provide the links to my rebuttals and the original issue I reacted to when I made the comment.
No offence bro, I respect you and I hope we can keep up the dialogue.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Hogan Elijah Hagbard Responds to Yahya Snow: Does Monotheism and Belief in Jesus Serve as Evidences that the Qur'an is Not Demonically Inspired?
This post could also be titled 'Does the Teaching of Jesus and His Disciples confirm Islam to be a Demonic Inspiration'.
In Yahya Snow’s rebuttal he brings up a number of points to prove that Islam was not demonically inspired. I will just assess one of these points on this thread.
Yahya said that Islam teaches belief in Jesus and belief in Abrahamaic monotheism; Yahya then argues that Satan would never convey such teaching to anyone and hence Islam can only come from God himself.
There are a number of fallacies with these two assumptions.
Firstly according to the Epistle of James, simple belief in the God of Abraham is not sufficient and does not constitute true religion unless accompanied by certain actions, which together constitute genuine faith (James 2: 18-19).
Two points within this passage are vital of consideration:
1) simple faith in monotheism is not sufficient
2) faith has to be genuine and accompanied by certain deeds.
These deeds are the once you will find if you read e.g. the Sermon on the Mountain (the Gospel of Matthew 5-7 and e.g. James 1: 26-27) in which a number of elements clearly contradict the ethical teachings of the Qur’an. Hence according to James 2 Muslims who claim to believe in the God of Abraham and follow the Qur’an to the core will not escape hell-fire.
Let me point out one example from your youtube rebuttal and compare it with the standard found within the epistle of James.
In your rebuttal I was made the bad guy because I reacted to the rape, torture and death of Christian girl. I expounded upon my reaction since Islam clearly teaches that Christians are to be attacked, suppressed, humiliated, not be trusted and are the worst of all creatures.
Hence, no Muslim can be in his right mind if he expects me to glorify, respect or embrace the Islamic faith. Try to ask a Palestinian to recognise and respect the Nation of Israel or a Jew to embrace the rule of Nazi Germany.
You worry because I reacted with one sentence about the religion of Islam. Yet you do not seem to worry when Muslims react with violence against non-Muslims for silly things such as some cartoons or a Qur’an being desecrated. We Christians experience worse every day.
Furthermore, in your rebuttal no word was mentioned about the Christian girl, who was mutilated and eliminated; all that mattered was my reaction, which I believe was fully justified.
This is called ‘favouritism’! You favour your Muslim comrades and give a diamond when they cause such atrocities, you even call the reaction of those who speak out an act of misbehaviour and unwise.
In James 2: 8-9 we read:
‘If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbour as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favouritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as law-breakers’
Now consider this Yahya. According to James chapter two, your faith in the God of Abraham only, will not save you from hell. Furthermore, you have even broken the law that is to accompany it, proving that your faith in Abraham’s God is not genuine or that the religion you follow now (the Qur'an), which is contrary to God true Law, is not genuine.
Notice also that in James 5: 1-6 there is a curse upon those who undermine, suppress and exploit others. Well the Qur’an teaches Muslims not to trust Christians or Jews, to attack them, suppress and treat them harshly. Hence based upon the epistle of James Islam is not from God and is correctly categorized as the influence of evil spirits (take a look at James 3:13-18 which describes to kinds of wisdoms and their nature).
But there is more. You say that Islam cannot be demonically inspired because it teaches belief in Abrahamic Monotheism and belief in Jesus.
However, Jesus condemned a number of Jews who believed in Abrahamic monotheism and in him and even categorized them as children of the devil:
‘To the Jews who had believed in him, Jesus said: “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”’ (John 8: 31-32).
Yet in verse 44 he says:
‘You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out your fathers desire’
These were Jews, believing in the God of Abraham, believing in Jesus. Yet these followed will of the devil.
Notice that in the Qur’an, you are clearly permitted multiple wives, your are permitted to divorce these, you are permitted concubines (females captured in war), you are commanded to attack polytheists, Christians and Jews because of their faith and to suppress them, you are told not to trust Christians or Jews and consider them the worst of creatures.
Try to compare this with the teaching of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5.
The fact is: you can believe all you want in Abrahamic monotheism and in Jesus; yet not being a true follower of Jesus you will still adhere to a doctrine or a mindset that conforms to the desire of demonic nature and you will be eternally condemned. Notice, this the teaching of Jesus, not mine.
This is why in Matthew’s Gospel chapter seven, verse 21-23 Jesus will reject many so called believers who on the day of judgement will say: ‘Lord, Lord’.
Hence just believing in Jesus is not sufficient, you need to repent and devout your life to his standard.
I have noticed that Muslims frequently use this passage in Matthew 7 as a means to argue that these are Christians who call him Lord and hence are rejected for their belief in his divinity. Yet this is not at all what the passage is teaching. Notice that verse 21 says ‘not everyone who comes to me’, in other words not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’ is rejected. Notice also that verse 21 further speaks about doing the Father’s will and verse 23 speaks of evildoers. Hence the passage states that anyone whether Muslim or a so called Christian who does not live in accordance of Jesus’ standard will not be spared on the day of judgement (read the First Epistle of John more on this).
Thus being a Muslim who adheres to the Qur’an you are not in the category that follows the teaching of Jesus.
Jesus even rebuked the teachers of the monotheist Law. Look at Matthew 23 and Luke 11: 37-54. These teachers in the Law all followed Abrahamic monotheism strictly. In Luke 11, these teachers of the Law even seem to respect Jesus and ate with him; yet Luke 11 he curses these experts in monotheism; in verse 52 he says:
‘Woe to you experts in the Law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourself have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.’
So try to imagine this: even monotheistic law teachers who believe in Jesus do not have the key to knowledge and are not entering the heavenly bliss.
Another vital passage, which I have brought up in our discussion before is Mark 8: 31-33. Jesus shares with his disciples that he will killed and rise again (verse 31).
Peter opposes this future event (verse 32),
As a response Jesus says to Peter:
‘Get behind me Satan!...you do not have in mind the things of God but the things of men.’
We all know that Islam and the Qur’an denies the crucifixion and death of Jesus, yet according to
Jesus’ teaching confirms that denying his death is evidence of demonic inspiration and relates to the human mind not the mind of God.
Hence based upon Jesus’ words in the earliest Gospel, the Qur’an contains demonic inspiration and is composed by the influence of humans. Again this is based upon the teaching of Jesus not me.
This correlates with a phrase in the Epistle of James chapter 3, verse 15, which describes the standard of Christianity versus standard that falls short of it (of which the Qur’an is a typical example):
‘Such wisdom does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil’
Is it possible based upon this, that the Islam is not from God but is a human religion inspired by demonic forces?
I will let the reader decide.
See more on: http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/
In Yahya Snow’s rebuttal he brings up a number of points to prove that Islam was not demonically inspired. I will just assess one of these points on this thread.
Yahya said that Islam teaches belief in Jesus and belief in Abrahamaic monotheism; Yahya then argues that Satan would never convey such teaching to anyone and hence Islam can only come from God himself.
There are a number of fallacies with these two assumptions.
Firstly according to the Epistle of James, simple belief in the God of Abraham is not sufficient and does not constitute true religion unless accompanied by certain actions, which together constitute genuine faith (James 2: 18-19).
Two points within this passage are vital of consideration:
1) simple faith in monotheism is not sufficient
2) faith has to be genuine and accompanied by certain deeds.
These deeds are the once you will find if you read e.g. the Sermon on the Mountain (the Gospel of Matthew 5-7 and e.g. James 1: 26-27) in which a number of elements clearly contradict the ethical teachings of the Qur’an. Hence according to James 2 Muslims who claim to believe in the God of Abraham and follow the Qur’an to the core will not escape hell-fire.
Let me point out one example from your youtube rebuttal and compare it with the standard found within the epistle of James.
In your rebuttal I was made the bad guy because I reacted to the rape, torture and death of Christian girl. I expounded upon my reaction since Islam clearly teaches that Christians are to be attacked, suppressed, humiliated, not be trusted and are the worst of all creatures.
Hence, no Muslim can be in his right mind if he expects me to glorify, respect or embrace the Islamic faith. Try to ask a Palestinian to recognise and respect the Nation of Israel or a Jew to embrace the rule of Nazi Germany.
You worry because I reacted with one sentence about the religion of Islam. Yet you do not seem to worry when Muslims react with violence against non-Muslims for silly things such as some cartoons or a Qur’an being desecrated. We Christians experience worse every day.
Furthermore, in your rebuttal no word was mentioned about the Christian girl, who was mutilated and eliminated; all that mattered was my reaction, which I believe was fully justified.
This is called ‘favouritism’! You favour your Muslim comrades and give a diamond when they cause such atrocities, you even call the reaction of those who speak out an act of misbehaviour and unwise.
In James 2: 8-9 we read:
‘If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbour as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favouritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as law-breakers’
Now consider this Yahya. According to James chapter two, your faith in the God of Abraham only, will not save you from hell. Furthermore, you have even broken the law that is to accompany it, proving that your faith in Abraham’s God is not genuine or that the religion you follow now (the Qur'an), which is contrary to God true Law, is not genuine.
Notice also that in James 5: 1-6 there is a curse upon those who undermine, suppress and exploit others. Well the Qur’an teaches Muslims not to trust Christians or Jews, to attack them, suppress and treat them harshly. Hence based upon the epistle of James Islam is not from God and is correctly categorized as the influence of evil spirits (take a look at James 3:13-18 which describes to kinds of wisdoms and their nature).
But there is more. You say that Islam cannot be demonically inspired because it teaches belief in Abrahamic Monotheism and belief in Jesus.
However, Jesus condemned a number of Jews who believed in Abrahamic monotheism and in him and even categorized them as children of the devil:
‘To the Jews who had believed in him, Jesus said: “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”’ (John 8: 31-32).
Yet in verse 44 he says:
‘You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out your fathers desire’
These were Jews, believing in the God of Abraham, believing in Jesus. Yet these followed will of the devil.
Notice that in the Qur’an, you are clearly permitted multiple wives, your are permitted to divorce these, you are permitted concubines (females captured in war), you are commanded to attack polytheists, Christians and Jews because of their faith and to suppress them, you are told not to trust Christians or Jews and consider them the worst of creatures.
Try to compare this with the teaching of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5.
The fact is: you can believe all you want in Abrahamic monotheism and in Jesus; yet not being a true follower of Jesus you will still adhere to a doctrine or a mindset that conforms to the desire of demonic nature and you will be eternally condemned. Notice, this the teaching of Jesus, not mine.
This is why in Matthew’s Gospel chapter seven, verse 21-23 Jesus will reject many so called believers who on the day of judgement will say: ‘Lord, Lord’.
Hence just believing in Jesus is not sufficient, you need to repent and devout your life to his standard.
I have noticed that Muslims frequently use this passage in Matthew 7 as a means to argue that these are Christians who call him Lord and hence are rejected for their belief in his divinity. Yet this is not at all what the passage is teaching. Notice that verse 21 says ‘not everyone who comes to me’, in other words not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’ is rejected. Notice also that verse 21 further speaks about doing the Father’s will and verse 23 speaks of evildoers. Hence the passage states that anyone whether Muslim or a so called Christian who does not live in accordance of Jesus’ standard will not be spared on the day of judgement (read the First Epistle of John more on this).
Thus being a Muslim who adheres to the Qur’an you are not in the category that follows the teaching of Jesus.
Jesus even rebuked the teachers of the monotheist Law. Look at Matthew 23 and Luke 11: 37-54. These teachers in the Law all followed Abrahamic monotheism strictly. In Luke 11, these teachers of the Law even seem to respect Jesus and ate with him; yet Luke 11 he curses these experts in monotheism; in verse 52 he says:
‘Woe to you experts in the Law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourself have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.’
So try to imagine this: even monotheistic law teachers who believe in Jesus do not have the key to knowledge and are not entering the heavenly bliss.
Another vital passage, which I have brought up in our discussion before is Mark 8: 31-33. Jesus shares with his disciples that he will killed and rise again (verse 31).
Peter opposes this future event (verse 32),
As a response Jesus says to Peter:
‘Get behind me Satan!...you do not have in mind the things of God but the things of men.’
We all know that Islam and the Qur’an denies the crucifixion and death of Jesus, yet according to
Jesus’ teaching confirms that denying his death is evidence of demonic inspiration and relates to the human mind not the mind of God.
Hence based upon Jesus’ words in the earliest Gospel, the Qur’an contains demonic inspiration and is composed by the influence of humans. Again this is based upon the teaching of Jesus not me.
This correlates with a phrase in the Epistle of James chapter 3, verse 15, which describes the standard of Christianity versus standard that falls short of it (of which the Qur’an is a typical example):
‘Such wisdom does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil’
Is it possible based upon this, that the Islam is not from God but is a human religion inspired by demonic forces?
I will let the reader decide.
See more on: http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
My Written Response to Yahya Snow: Do I Misbehave For Believing Islam to be Demonic?
I will respond in writing to Yahya's words here. The Youtube response on his youtube will come later.
Let me just say that I intend in no way to attack Yahya Snow personally by my wording here, even though they might come out harsh. I hope we can in future continue our dialogue. Yet I know his view represents the view of the majority of Muslims, hence I defend myself not against so much Yahya but against the common view of Islam.
I am responding to his comments, which can be viewed here:
http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-am-open-to-learn.html
First of all me believing that Islam is demonic is not to be deemed as misbehavior. If I went out on the street to riot against Islam, kill and burn their houses or instigate violence against Muslims, yes that would be misbehaviour. Me holding to the view that Christianity is the truth and what contradicts it being a lie and hence from the devil is not misbehaviour; you need to utilize a different vocabulary here.
Furthermore, what would you say about the Hindu religion? The Hindu religion certainly expresses itself by the supernatural!
Would you agree with me that such forces are demonic or from God?
If you agree with me ought you not correctly to describe yourself as misbehaving. Yet if you do not agree with me, then according to your standard you behave, but at the same time you welcome the forces obtained by paganism and idolatry.
Hence exposing falsehood is not tantamount to misbehaviour.
Why do I believe Islam to be demonic?
Well it contradicts the Christian faith. It supposedly is a revelation from Gabrial, which based upon Paul in Galatians one, would be a false angel, a demon.
That is of course unless Muhammad had no experience at all and merely along with others fabricated the Qur'an, which explains the high amount of ancient Greek science.
See:
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/
Furthermore, the Qur'an rejects the death of Jesus, which according to Mark's Gospel renders the Qur'an as from the devil (Mark 8: 31-33).
Do I need to continue?
It has to be my right as a human being, living in the West and being a Christian, to believe that Islam is not from God--without being portrayed as someone who misbehaves.
Furthermore, the comment you referred to, related to an event in Pakistan in which a 12 year old Christian girl was tortured to death. These attrocities are common in Muslim countries. The perpetrators ussually get away, and you know as well as I that such injustice is in accordance to the Sharia Law. Which is why I call the religion demonic.
You should not worry about me, following my right and my faith in not accepting the religion of Islam as divine. All Muslims reject the Christian faith I believe in as a corruption. Should that not worry us as well?
Secondly I reacted to the attrocities against my dear sister who was raped and tortured to death.
Considering, that Islam does not permit a Muslim to be punished to death for the murder of a Christian, but merely to pay some blood money (correct me if I am wrong) (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) and that the Qur'an commands Muslims to attack the Christian and Jews and to fight them and to subjugate until they feel humiliated (Sura 9: 29) and to be harsh with the unbelievers (9: 123) and that Christians and Jews are the worst of all creatures (Sura 98: 6) and that Christians have no juridical right in the court system (Bukhari) then I fully understand why and how my sister was victimised in this way and why such attrocities are ussually acceptable and hardly ever condemned in the Muslim community (even in Britain)--I find that repulsive, worrying and demonic--if it is not, then what is it?
And why do I misbehave for considering such as wrong, repulsive and demonic (at least I can trace the possibility of such attrocites as acceptable to the Islamic wrings---that worries me).
So don't worry about me, a British Christian believing based upon his faith and the actions among Muslims linked to the writings in Islam that Islam in demonic and not from God.
I have my right to believe so, without being deemed evil or unwise.
Lets rather worry about these attrocities.
I have yet to see Muslims speak out against the attrocities that Muslims commit against non-Muslims in Muslim societies--I find that worrying, extremely worrying.
Since you encourage me to consider Nadir Ahmed in your reply, I think I am eligable to post you a link to Answering-Islam on these matters:
http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv4.html
You also say that I owe it to the Muslim communities in Bradford, Birmingham and London and their respective behaviour against me to be respectful and not declare that Islam is not of God or from the devil.
Now I am not sure whether you read my biography. I did live in Bradford for a while where I met the Muslims, I did express my opinions (they did), yet because I did I was publically insulted, intimitated and abused greatly, I had stones thrown after me. I sat in a Muslim home and was told that I could was not even allowed to ask indicative negative questions about Islam, even though they were allowed to attack my faith. At the same time they glorified the Islamic Regime in Sudan for being the most Godly based country in the world for following the Sharia. Think about it: Sudan, the country that has systematically butchered and genocided millions of Christians. A country in which my Christian brothers have been systematically shot, had their limbs cut of and often crucified. A land that has forced an estimate of half a million of my Christian sisters into slavery, either as concubines or sex slaves after their fathers, husbands and sons had been butchered.
You can imagine the insult on me a Christian, much like telling a Jew that Nazi Germany was the most examplary society in the world when it comes to moral, social and human conduct.
And how about Birmingham, my biography explains how Muslims attacked and insulted my faith openly on the street, without respect.
Do you really think I owe these communities anything, except to love them and expose falsehood and share the truth.
My biography on my apologetics can we viewed here:
http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-i-am-christian-apologist_31.html
This was only a short written response, I will upload a youtube dealing with your youtube arguments.
I said I welcome criticism, but this critic has no logical basis; it begs me to accept the attrocities against my Christian family.
Hence I do not view my reaction as unwise or wrong, I stand up for the truth and those suffering who are forgotten and neglected due to Western political correctness.
If that means disrespecting those who propagate the faith behind this evil, I will gladly disrepect the religion, who wouldn't?
Let me just say that I intend in no way to attack Yahya Snow personally by my wording here, even though they might come out harsh. I hope we can in future continue our dialogue. Yet I know his view represents the view of the majority of Muslims, hence I defend myself not against so much Yahya but against the common view of Islam.
I am responding to his comments, which can be viewed here:
http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-am-open-to-learn.html
First of all me believing that Islam is demonic is not to be deemed as misbehavior. If I went out on the street to riot against Islam, kill and burn their houses or instigate violence against Muslims, yes that would be misbehaviour. Me holding to the view that Christianity is the truth and what contradicts it being a lie and hence from the devil is not misbehaviour; you need to utilize a different vocabulary here.
Furthermore, what would you say about the Hindu religion? The Hindu religion certainly expresses itself by the supernatural!
Would you agree with me that such forces are demonic or from God?
If you agree with me ought you not correctly to describe yourself as misbehaving. Yet if you do not agree with me, then according to your standard you behave, but at the same time you welcome the forces obtained by paganism and idolatry.
Hence exposing falsehood is not tantamount to misbehaviour.
Why do I believe Islam to be demonic?
Well it contradicts the Christian faith. It supposedly is a revelation from Gabrial, which based upon Paul in Galatians one, would be a false angel, a demon.
That is of course unless Muhammad had no experience at all and merely along with others fabricated the Qur'an, which explains the high amount of ancient Greek science.
See:
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/
Furthermore, the Qur'an rejects the death of Jesus, which according to Mark's Gospel renders the Qur'an as from the devil (Mark 8: 31-33).
Do I need to continue?
It has to be my right as a human being, living in the West and being a Christian, to believe that Islam is not from God--without being portrayed as someone who misbehaves.
Furthermore, the comment you referred to, related to an event in Pakistan in which a 12 year old Christian girl was tortured to death. These attrocities are common in Muslim countries. The perpetrators ussually get away, and you know as well as I that such injustice is in accordance to the Sharia Law. Which is why I call the religion demonic.
You should not worry about me, following my right and my faith in not accepting the religion of Islam as divine. All Muslims reject the Christian faith I believe in as a corruption. Should that not worry us as well?
Secondly I reacted to the attrocities against my dear sister who was raped and tortured to death.
Considering, that Islam does not permit a Muslim to be punished to death for the murder of a Christian, but merely to pay some blood money (correct me if I am wrong) (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) and that the Qur'an commands Muslims to attack the Christian and Jews and to fight them and to subjugate until they feel humiliated (Sura 9: 29) and to be harsh with the unbelievers (9: 123) and that Christians and Jews are the worst of all creatures (Sura 98: 6) and that Christians have no juridical right in the court system (Bukhari) then I fully understand why and how my sister was victimised in this way and why such attrocities are ussually acceptable and hardly ever condemned in the Muslim community (even in Britain)--I find that repulsive, worrying and demonic--if it is not, then what is it?
And why do I misbehave for considering such as wrong, repulsive and demonic (at least I can trace the possibility of such attrocites as acceptable to the Islamic wrings---that worries me).
So don't worry about me, a British Christian believing based upon his faith and the actions among Muslims linked to the writings in Islam that Islam in demonic and not from God.
I have my right to believe so, without being deemed evil or unwise.
Lets rather worry about these attrocities.
I have yet to see Muslims speak out against the attrocities that Muslims commit against non-Muslims in Muslim societies--I find that worrying, extremely worrying.
Since you encourage me to consider Nadir Ahmed in your reply, I think I am eligable to post you a link to Answering-Islam on these matters:
http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv4.html
You also say that I owe it to the Muslim communities in Bradford, Birmingham and London and their respective behaviour against me to be respectful and not declare that Islam is not of God or from the devil.
Now I am not sure whether you read my biography. I did live in Bradford for a while where I met the Muslims, I did express my opinions (they did), yet because I did I was publically insulted, intimitated and abused greatly, I had stones thrown after me. I sat in a Muslim home and was told that I could was not even allowed to ask indicative negative questions about Islam, even though they were allowed to attack my faith. At the same time they glorified the Islamic Regime in Sudan for being the most Godly based country in the world for following the Sharia. Think about it: Sudan, the country that has systematically butchered and genocided millions of Christians. A country in which my Christian brothers have been systematically shot, had their limbs cut of and often crucified. A land that has forced an estimate of half a million of my Christian sisters into slavery, either as concubines or sex slaves after their fathers, husbands and sons had been butchered.
You can imagine the insult on me a Christian, much like telling a Jew that Nazi Germany was the most examplary society in the world when it comes to moral, social and human conduct.
And how about Birmingham, my biography explains how Muslims attacked and insulted my faith openly on the street, without respect.
Do you really think I owe these communities anything, except to love them and expose falsehood and share the truth.
My biography on my apologetics can we viewed here:
http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-i-am-christian-apologist_31.html
This was only a short written response, I will upload a youtube dealing with your youtube arguments.
I said I welcome criticism, but this critic has no logical basis; it begs me to accept the attrocities against my Christian family.
Hence I do not view my reaction as unwise or wrong, I stand up for the truth and those suffering who are forgotten and neglected due to Western political correctness.
If that means disrespecting those who propagate the faith behind this evil, I will gladly disrepect the religion, who wouldn't?
Monday, February 8, 2010
A Question About Allah
I know the question has been asked before, but I’m here to ask it again. I’d like to know why Allah refers to himself in the plural number. Why does Allah use the plural pronouns “We”, “Us”, and “Our” in the Qur’an?
To forestall any complaints from Muslims that this has already been answered before, let it be stated that I am well aware that such attempts have been made. My question stems from the fact that no conclusive or even satisfactory answer has ever been given or agreed upon by Muslims.
So, to return to the question, “Why, pray tell, does Muhammad put such words in Allah’s mouth?” Since neither the Qur’an nor the Hadith ever directly address the issue or explain the phenomenon any answer would have to be inferred from Qur’anic usage. What, then, is the explanation, and what are the relevant premises or facts that demonstrate it to be correct?
I take the explanation that its meaning is only known to Allah to be a non-answer, a convenient out for an issue on which the Qur’an gives no guidance. For those Muslims who think Allah's use of plural pronouns means something, and who further think the meaning of these words can be known from the “revelation” of the Qur’an, a word that means nothing in this regard if what is said in the Qur’an on this issue is only intelligible to Allah, then please speak up.
Nota Bene: If you are a Muslim, I am not asking what you think my view is. I’m looking for a positive answer to the question and not a “refutation” of what anyone thinks my view may be.
If you are a non-Muslim, feel free to share any answer from Muslim sources of which you are aware.
To forestall any complaints from Muslims that this has already been answered before, let it be stated that I am well aware that such attempts have been made. My question stems from the fact that no conclusive or even satisfactory answer has ever been given or agreed upon by Muslims.
So, to return to the question, “Why, pray tell, does Muhammad put such words in Allah’s mouth?” Since neither the Qur’an nor the Hadith ever directly address the issue or explain the phenomenon any answer would have to be inferred from Qur’anic usage. What, then, is the explanation, and what are the relevant premises or facts that demonstrate it to be correct?
I take the explanation that its meaning is only known to Allah to be a non-answer, a convenient out for an issue on which the Qur’an gives no guidance. For those Muslims who think Allah's use of plural pronouns means something, and who further think the meaning of these words can be known from the “revelation” of the Qur’an, a word that means nothing in this regard if what is said in the Qur’an on this issue is only intelligible to Allah, then please speak up.
Nota Bene: If you are a Muslim, I am not asking what you think my view is. I’m looking for a positive answer to the question and not a “refutation” of what anyone thinks my view may be.
If you are a non-Muslim, feel free to share any answer from Muslim sources of which you are aware.
Yahya Snow's Video on Hogan Elijah Hagbard
For those who are interested Yahya Snow just uploaded a video of criticism against me. I intend to respond to Yahya and some of the points he is raising by writing and probably a Youtube video in near future.
You can watch Yahya's video by clicking the link, which links you to Yahya's blog:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/02/christian-apologist-calls-islam-demonic.html
The dialogue between me and Yahya on this matter began on my blog 'Christian Apologetics' which can be viewed here:
http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-am-open-to-learn.html
You can watch Yahya's video by clicking the link, which links you to Yahya's blog:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/02/christian-apologist-calls-islam-demonic.html
The dialogue between me and Yahya on this matter began on my blog 'Christian Apologetics' which can be viewed here:
http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-am-open-to-learn.html
Debates in Ottawa: Thursday Feb 11th and Friday Feb 12th
Sorry for posting this at the last second - I'm covering for another Christian debater who had scheduling issues. These debates will be held at the University of Ottawa. Here's the info:
Saturday February 13th - 10:00AM
Did Jesus Die on the Cross for Others?
Nabeel Qureshi vs. Osama Abdallah
Saturday February 13th - 12:45PM
Is the Qur'an Divine?
Osama Abdallah vs. Nabeel Qureshi
Saturday February 13th - 3:00PM
Did Paul Distort the Christian Faith?
Farhan Qureshi vs. Tony Costa
Saturday February 13th - 5:45PM
Was Muhammad Assured of His Salvation?
Tony Costa vs. Farhan Qureshi
Saturday February 13th - 8:00PM
The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity
Osama Abdallah vs. Tony Costa
Sunday February 14th - 1:45PM
What is the Purpose of Jesus
Friday February 12th - 6:30PM
Why Should I Embrace Christianity or Islam?
Tony Costa and Nabeel Qureshi vs.
Tony Costa and Nabeel Qureshi vs.
Farhan Qureshi and Osama Abdallah
Saturday February 13th - 10:00AM
Did Jesus Die on the Cross for Others?
Nabeel Qureshi vs. Osama Abdallah
Saturday February 13th - 12:45PM
Is the Qur'an Divine?
Osama Abdallah vs. Nabeel Qureshi
Saturday February 13th - 3:00PM
Did Paul Distort the Christian Faith?
Farhan Qureshi vs. Tony Costa
Saturday February 13th - 5:45PM
Was Muhammad Assured of His Salvation?
Tony Costa vs. Farhan Qureshi
Saturday February 13th - 8:00PM
The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity
Osama Abdallah vs. Tony Costa
Sunday February 14th - 1:45PM
What is the Purpose of Jesus
According to the Bible or the Qur'an?
Farhan Qureshi Vs. Tony Costa
Farhan Qureshi Vs. Tony Costa
The debates will be in Marion auditorium in Marion Hall at the University of Ottawa. The website can be found here. (Caveat: it has not yet been updated to reflect the changes in debate participants and times. This blog posting is the most up-to-date and accurate.)
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Qur’anic Science: Water a Cosmological Necessity and the Key to Life
A number of Muslim authors and apologists, such as Haruna Yahya, Osama Abdallah and the Muslim exponent Maurice Bucaille claim that the Qur’an is a miraculous prodigy in its reference to life originating from water.
In Sura 21: 30 we read:
‘...and we made every living thing of water’
Since this phrase follows the reading in which Allah separates heaven and earth and since Sura 41: 10 refers to ‘dukhan’ which can be translated ‘smoke’ or ‘vapour’ I am inclined to conclude based on the cosmogony of ancient philosophical writings that the authors of the Qur’an were referring to the matter that separated from the earth and expanded and which according to a number of pre-Islamic thinkers and writers contributed to the creation of the seven planets or earths (Sura 65: 15), which according to Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria was a Greek concept of the seven entities orbiting the earth (see Plato, Timaeus, 1966: 76-9; 84-5), in seven tracts (Sura 23: 17), which according to Clement of Alexandria were also described as seven heavens (that is the seven earth or planets orbiting in seven tracts were commonly described as seven heavens).
A number of Greek text refer to his matter that separated from the earth either as ether or as vapour. Some authors such as Lucretius even considered and included both theories.
Interestingly the Arabic ‘dukhan’ if we consider the same authors including Aristotle in his Meteorologica depicts and describes the very same substance which according to pre-Islamic scientists expanded from the earth.
This might indeed explain why water is connected so closely to Qur’anic cosmogony, since the Qur’an views the heavens and its matter (sun, moon, planets and stars) to have emerged from the earth, either as ether or vapour. In fact according to Kathir, vol.1, 2000: 180 Mujahid considered the earth to exist prior to the heavens, and the smoke bursted out of it.
This completely refutes Answering-Christianity which claims:
‘The Universe out side earth did not originate from water. It originated from Hot Smoke or Hot Gas, in which also amazingly was mentioned in the Noble Quran’
See:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/origin_of_life.htm
Dukhan can refer to both smoke or vapour, which fits the exact cosmogony and its related substances in the writings of pre-Islamic philosophers. This passage within its context and the understanding of the community within its time is not a reference to gas or gasseous clouds, unless of course the ancient philosophers predicted that scenario and process prior to Islam and the author of the Qur’an simply follows a lucky example of scientific guesswork .
I guess Osama Abdallah and his team need to do their homework and revise their material.
This rather than ascribing the Qur’an as a miracle exposes its human origin.
Yet another vital matter appears from Sura 21: 30, namely that from water Allah created life.
There are a number of other verses in the Qur’an that elaborate further on this passage:
"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things). (Sura, 25:54)"
"And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all things. (Sura, 24:45)"
I hate to be fuzzy over contradictions, but considering all the silly arguments of contradictions Muslims bring up in the Bible, these two passages certainly contradict a number of other Qur’anic passages which clearly state that Allah created man from mud or clay. It is possible that Allah created man from water and mud, yet the passages do not confirm this, hence let’s not read into the wording what is not therein.
Let me however point out here that the pre-Islamic thinkers and writers did refer to mankind as created from mud and water, hence this claim if present in the Qur’an would not present a Qur’anic miracle either.
Yet due to this Qur’anic claim Muslim apologists and authors have exclaimed that the Qur’an predicts yet another scientific discovery; Bucaille the Islamic exponent writes:
‘The phrase can equally mean that every living thing was made of water (as its essential component) or that every living thing originated in water. The two possible meanings are strictly in accordance with scientific data. Life is in fact of aquatic origin and water is the major component of all living cells. Without water, life is not possible…What has been translated her by ‘water’ is the word ma which means both water in the sky and water in the sea, plus any kind of liquid…We shall see further how this word also applied to seminal fluid.’
See also Osama Abdallah making similar statements on his website:
http://answering-christianity.com/water_is_a_must_have_for_life.htm
Notice that the Qur'an does not elaborate in details how this creation of life from water was processed; hence the possibilites and theories vary.
Yet the idea that life originated from water flourished greatly amongst the Greeks, even centuries before the rise of Islam; and true the idea is similar: life came from water, yet the theory of such process varies. According to Empedocles:
‘The aether was first separated, and secondly fire, and then earth, from which, as it was compressed tightly by the force of its rotation, water gushed forth; and from this the air arose as vapour, and the heavens arose from the aether, the sun from the fire, and bodies on the earth were compressed out of the others.’
Hence according to Empedocles the bodies of the earth were compressed from earth, water and air (Now think isn’t Empedocles pretty amazing in his prediction of modern science, even with the need of divine intervention and revelation).
Thales who earlier had proposed that water was the principle of all things and the end of all things, based his conclusion upon the observation of nature, that the seed of all animals is moist (probably a reference to semen). Secondly, he noticed how the plants were depended upon moisture and were nourished by it.
Aristotle, in his reference to Anaximander writes:
‘Wherefore they (the Syrians) reverence the fish as of the same origin and the same family as man, holding a more reasonable philosophy than that of Anaximandros; for he declares, not that fishes and men were generated at the same time, but that at first men were generated in the form of fishes, and that growing up as sharks do till they were able to help themselves, they then came forth on the dry ground.’
Plato’s Timaeus brings up an entirely different picture in which humanity is sophisticatedly composed by various elements, in which water or liquid played a significant role:
‘The souls, then, being bound within a mighty river…for while the flood which foamed in and streamed out, as it supplied the food was immense…’
Comparing the above with the claim of Bucaille, the Greeks believed that all life on earth, whether humanity, animals or plants originated or either through or in water. The types of liquid involved included sea, vapour, rain and semen. In other words, the Arabic word ‘ma’, introduced by Bucaille was already a common recognition prior to the rise of Islam.
Another Qur'anic scientific claim debunked.
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/
In Sura 21: 30 we read:
‘...and we made every living thing of water’
Since this phrase follows the reading in which Allah separates heaven and earth and since Sura 41: 10 refers to ‘dukhan’ which can be translated ‘smoke’ or ‘vapour’ I am inclined to conclude based on the cosmogony of ancient philosophical writings that the authors of the Qur’an were referring to the matter that separated from the earth and expanded and which according to a number of pre-Islamic thinkers and writers contributed to the creation of the seven planets or earths (Sura 65: 15), which according to Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria was a Greek concept of the seven entities orbiting the earth (see Plato, Timaeus, 1966: 76-9; 84-5), in seven tracts (Sura 23: 17), which according to Clement of Alexandria were also described as seven heavens (that is the seven earth or planets orbiting in seven tracts were commonly described as seven heavens).
A number of Greek text refer to his matter that separated from the earth either as ether or as vapour. Some authors such as Lucretius even considered and included both theories.
Interestingly the Arabic ‘dukhan’ if we consider the same authors including Aristotle in his Meteorologica depicts and describes the very same substance which according to pre-Islamic scientists expanded from the earth.
This might indeed explain why water is connected so closely to Qur’anic cosmogony, since the Qur’an views the heavens and its matter (sun, moon, planets and stars) to have emerged from the earth, either as ether or vapour. In fact according to Kathir, vol.1, 2000: 180 Mujahid considered the earth to exist prior to the heavens, and the smoke bursted out of it.
This completely refutes Answering-Christianity which claims:
‘The Universe out side earth did not originate from water. It originated from Hot Smoke or Hot Gas, in which also amazingly was mentioned in the Noble Quran’
See:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/origin_of_life.htm
Dukhan can refer to both smoke or vapour, which fits the exact cosmogony and its related substances in the writings of pre-Islamic philosophers. This passage within its context and the understanding of the community within its time is not a reference to gas or gasseous clouds, unless of course the ancient philosophers predicted that scenario and process prior to Islam and the author of the Qur’an simply follows a lucky example of scientific guesswork .
I guess Osama Abdallah and his team need to do their homework and revise their material.
This rather than ascribing the Qur’an as a miracle exposes its human origin.
Yet another vital matter appears from Sura 21: 30, namely that from water Allah created life.
There are a number of other verses in the Qur’an that elaborate further on this passage:
"It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things). (Sura, 25:54)"
"And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all things. (Sura, 24:45)"
I hate to be fuzzy over contradictions, but considering all the silly arguments of contradictions Muslims bring up in the Bible, these two passages certainly contradict a number of other Qur’anic passages which clearly state that Allah created man from mud or clay. It is possible that Allah created man from water and mud, yet the passages do not confirm this, hence let’s not read into the wording what is not therein.
Let me however point out here that the pre-Islamic thinkers and writers did refer to mankind as created from mud and water, hence this claim if present in the Qur’an would not present a Qur’anic miracle either.
Yet due to this Qur’anic claim Muslim apologists and authors have exclaimed that the Qur’an predicts yet another scientific discovery; Bucaille the Islamic exponent writes:
‘The phrase can equally mean that every living thing was made of water (as its essential component) or that every living thing originated in water. The two possible meanings are strictly in accordance with scientific data. Life is in fact of aquatic origin and water is the major component of all living cells. Without water, life is not possible…What has been translated her by ‘water’ is the word ma which means both water in the sky and water in the sea, plus any kind of liquid…We shall see further how this word also applied to seminal fluid.’
See also Osama Abdallah making similar statements on his website:
http://answering-christianity.com/water_is_a_must_have_for_life.htm
Notice that the Qur'an does not elaborate in details how this creation of life from water was processed; hence the possibilites and theories vary.
Yet the idea that life originated from water flourished greatly amongst the Greeks, even centuries before the rise of Islam; and true the idea is similar: life came from water, yet the theory of such process varies. According to Empedocles:
‘The aether was first separated, and secondly fire, and then earth, from which, as it was compressed tightly by the force of its rotation, water gushed forth; and from this the air arose as vapour, and the heavens arose from the aether, the sun from the fire, and bodies on the earth were compressed out of the others.’
Hence according to Empedocles the bodies of the earth were compressed from earth, water and air (Now think isn’t Empedocles pretty amazing in his prediction of modern science, even with the need of divine intervention and revelation).
Thales who earlier had proposed that water was the principle of all things and the end of all things, based his conclusion upon the observation of nature, that the seed of all animals is moist (probably a reference to semen). Secondly, he noticed how the plants were depended upon moisture and were nourished by it.
Aristotle, in his reference to Anaximander writes:
‘Wherefore they (the Syrians) reverence the fish as of the same origin and the same family as man, holding a more reasonable philosophy than that of Anaximandros; for he declares, not that fishes and men were generated at the same time, but that at first men were generated in the form of fishes, and that growing up as sharks do till they were able to help themselves, they then came forth on the dry ground.’
Plato’s Timaeus brings up an entirely different picture in which humanity is sophisticatedly composed by various elements, in which water or liquid played a significant role:
‘The souls, then, being bound within a mighty river…for while the flood which foamed in and streamed out, as it supplied the food was immense…’
Comparing the above with the claim of Bucaille, the Greeks believed that all life on earth, whether humanity, animals or plants originated or either through or in water. The types of liquid involved included sea, vapour, rain and semen. In other words, the Arabic word ‘ma’, introduced by Bucaille was already a common recognition prior to the rise of Islam.
Another Qur'anic scientific claim debunked.
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)