Friday, February 28, 2014

Are Stars Missiles That Allah Shoots at Demons?


Our Muslim friends tell us that the Qur'an is confirmed by its miraculous scientific insights, which have only been confirmed recently by scientists.

Then we open the Qur'an, and we find some of the silliest scientific claims ever offered by anyone.

Take, for instance, the Qur'anic claim that stars are missiles that Allah uses to shoot at demons who try to sneak into paradise:

Qur’an 37:6-10—We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars—(for beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits, (so) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side, repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty, except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming Fire, of piercing brightness.

Qur’an 67:5—And We have (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, and We have made such (lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.

How can non-Muslims ever take the "Argument from Scientific Accuracy" seriously after reading these verses? At this point, our Muslim friends introduce us to another Qur'anic miracle: the Miracle of Reinterpretation. Amazingly, whenever the Qur'an says something that's obviously absurd (or obviously immoral), the Qur'an turns out to mean something completely different from what it actually says (even though the Qur'an claims to be perfectly clear and fully explained).

Unfortunately for Islam's modern reinterpreters, Muhammad's companions explained what 67:5 means, and they learned the Qur'an (and its interpretation) from Muhammad himself.

Sahih al-Bukhari 3198—Abu Qatada mentioning Allah’s saying: “And indeed We have adorned the nearest heaven with lamps . . .” (v. 67:5) said, “The creation of these stars is for three purposes, and they are: 1) as decoration of the nearest heaven, 2) as missiles to hit the devils, and 3) as signs to guide travelers. So, if anybody tries to find a different interpretation, he is mistaken and just wastes his efforts and troubles himself with what is beyond his limited knowledge.”

Hence, Muslims who want to say that the Qur'an doesn't claim that stars are missiles must first convince us that they are higher authorities than Allah, Muhammad, and Muhammad's companions.

Good luck with that.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Katy Perry Backs Down after Muslims Complain about "Dark Horse" Video

We all know that politicians, the media, Hollywood, and musicians cower before Islam. What's startling is how obvious they're making their double standards. Check out the before and after pic from Katy Perry's "Dark Horse" video. Notice something missing?


LOS ANGELES – An Islamic symbol has been removed from the online version of the Katy Perry music video for 'Dark Horse' after an online petition claimed it was offensive to the Muslim religion.

“At 01.15 into the video a man is shown being burned, whilst wearing a pendant (also burned) forming the word ‘Allah’ which is the Arabic word for God,” wrote Shazad Iqbal in a Change.org petition calling for the video to be removed from YouTube. “Such goes to show, that blasphemy is clearly conveyed in the video, since Katy Perry (who appears to be representing an opposition of God) engulfs the believer and the word God in flames.”

Over 60,000 people signed Iqbal’s petition, and apparently someone involved with the video listened. While the video has not been taken down, as the petition called for, the pendant Iqbal mentioned has now been erased.

Some say the move is off base, and that the controversy over Perry’s video spotlights a double-standard, as artists like Lady Gaga and Madonna repeatedly use Christian symbols in music videos in ways that offend some Christians.

“The image of the pendant goes by so fast it’s almost impossible to even notice. YouTube isn’t perfect, but this is ridiculous,” said Dan Gainor, VP of Business and Culture at the Media Research Center. “Just as Muslims were outraged by portrayals in ‘South Park,’ they are outraged by this. Meanwhile, Christians are criticized, abused, parodied, persecuted and worse on a daily basis in the news and entertainment media.” (Continue Reading.)

Does the Bible Say Jesus Is God?

Yusha Evans claims that the Bible never explicitly says that Jesus is God. Sam and I quote a few passages to show that it does, but there are plenty more. What are your favorite Bible passages on the deity of Christ?

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Using the Qur'an to Explain the Incarnation of Jesus to Muslims

Many Muslims ask their Christian friends questions like, "If Jesus is God, how can he die?" or "If Jesus is God, how can he be born?" Some Muslims even suggest that the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation is absurd or illogical. But if the Christian view is illogical, so is Islam, because Islam teaches something similar about the Qur'an. According to Islamic theology, the Qur'an has two natures: an eternal nature and a physical nature. Allah's eternal Word (which has no beginning and no end) enters creation as a physical book (which has a beginning and an end). The physical nature can be destroyed, while the eternal nature can't. Hence, if Muslims want us to take their objections to the Incarnation seriously, they have to reject Islam!

The Islamic Method of Examining the Textual Preservation of the Quran

Almost any Muslim in the world will tell you that the Qur'an has been perfectly (and miraculously) preserved, from the time it was revealed to Muhammad down to the present. The most glaring difficulty with this claim is that the Muslim sources are filled with stories about the Qur'an being changed (not to mention stories about Muhammad's companions disagreeing about which chapters are supposed to be in the Qur'an, stories about Uthman burning manuscripts of the Qur'an to cover up textual differences, etc.). So why do Muslims conclude that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved when their sources say the opposite?

The answer to this riddle is found in Islamic methodology. In short, the Islamic method of examining the textual preservation of the Qur'an is this:

(1) Conclude, before examining the evidence, that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved.
(2) Reject any and all evidence that proves the Qur'an has been changed.
(3) After rejecting any and all evidence that proves the Qur'an has been changed, conclude that it has been perfectly preserved.

You might think I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. To illustrate, consider a brief conversation I recently had with a Muslim on Facebook.

Muslims were claiming (as usual) that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved while the Bible has been corrupted. So I brought up a hadith in which Aisha refers to two verses of the Qur'an that were eaten by a sheep. Since these verses are not in the Qur'an today, we know that they were lost.


Here we have Aisha herself (the "Mother of the Faithful") saying that two verses of the Qur'an were lost. How will a Muslim respond to the evidence?


There you have it. If something doesn't support the Qur'an, it goes in the toilet. This methodology will surely be confusing to the uninitiated. After all, if we want to learn about the history of the Qur'an, we don't go to the Qur'an itself, but to the Hadith and other sources that discuss the preservation of the Qur'an. But those are the sources that say the Qur'an has been changed, so the evidence goes in the toilet (just as Uthman burned Qur'an manuscripts because of the differences). Anikh will simply reject any evidence that conflicts with the Muslim myth of perfect preservation:


Anikh even confirmed that all Muslims use this method:


Welcome to the wild and wonderful world of Islam. Muslims believe things that are factually and demonstrably false, but they reject any evidence (even evidence from their most trusted sources) that refutes their beliefs. How can a religion that requires its adherents to adopt this methodology possibly be the true religion?

For a brief introduction to the myth of perfect preservation, watch this:

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Islam in Action: Boko Haram Slaughters 59 Students in Nigeria

According to the Qur'an, people who reject Islam are "the worst of creatures" (98:6). Not surprisingly, this view of non-Muslims, when combined with Muhammad's call to jihad, has led to endless atrocities in the name of Allah.


Reuters—Gunmen from Islamist group Boko Haram shot or burned to death 59 pupils in a boarding school in northeast Nigeria overnight, a hospital official and security forces said on Tuesday.

"Some of the students' bodies were burned to ashes," Police Commissioner Sanusi Rufai said of the attack on the Federal Government college of Buni Yadi, a secondary school in Yobe state, near the state's capital city of Damaturu.

Bala Ajiya, an official at the Specialist Hospital Damaturu, told Reuters by phone the death toll had risen to 59.

"Fresh bodies have been brought in. More bodies were discovered in the bush after the students who had escaped with bullet wounds died from their injuries," he said.

Rafai, who had given an earlier estimate of 29 killed, said all those killed were boys. He said the school's 24 buildings, including staff quarters, were completely burned to the ground.

President Goodluck Jonathan called the attack "callous and senseless murder … by deranged terrorists and fanatics who have clearly lost all human morality and descended to bestiality."

The Islamists, whose struggle for an Islamic state in northern Nigeria has killed thousands and made them the biggest threat to security in Africa's top oil producer, are increasingly preying on the civilian population.

Militants from Boko Haram, whose name means "Western education is sinful" in the northern Hausa language, have frequently attacked schools in the past. A similar attack in June in the nearby village of Mamudo left 22 students dead. (Continue Reading.)

For more on jihad, watch this:

Why Did Allah Corrupt the Gospel?

The Qur'an affirms the inspiration (3:3-4), preservation (7:157; 18:27), and authority of the Gospel (5:47, 68). Yet our Muslim friends tell us that the Gospel has been corrupted. Here we may start to wonder who corrupted it. According to the Qur'an, Jesus never died by crucifixion (4:157-158). According to the Bible, Jesus died by crucifixion (e.g., Matthew 17:22-23; 27:50; etc.). Who corrupted the portion of the Gospel that reports Jesus' death on the cross? Interestingly, Islam teaches that Allah corrupted the Gospel by tricking and deceiving people into believing that Jesus died on the cross. But why would Allah corrupt his own revelation?

The Things Muslims Say (about the Holy Spirit)

***WARNING*** OFFENSIVE MATERIAL

I'm somewhat reluctant to post the blasphemous nonsense certain Muslims blurt out when they're cornered in an argument, but people who want to get into conversations over the internet need to be aware of an increasingly common problem. Islam is indefensible, so it isn't difficult to corner a critic with an inescapable difficulty. The problem is that when some of the internet apologists for Islam realize that they can't answer an objection, they immediately turn to blasphemy to end the conversation.

Just a few minutes ago, I was having a discussion about the preservation of the Qur'an and the Bible, when a Muslim named Suleman Ali (from Texas) saw that things weren't going his way.


After reading this comment, I pointed out that Suleman was blaspheming the Holy Spirit, to which he replied:


I pointed out again what he was doing, but he simply reaffirmed his statement:


I waited for the other Muslims in the group to rebuke him, but Suleman continued the blasphemy:


By this point, it was clear that the conversation was over, so I had to end it (which was Suleman's intention):


I'm not sure there's a way around this problem. Again, Islam is indefensible, so refuting it is quite easy. In many places in the Muslim world, Muhammad's followers can silence criticism through force. On the internet, however, they can't silence critics through violence, so they have to put an end to the discussion some other way. The latest method for ending conversations for certain Muslims is to start posting the most incredibly blasphemous and offensive comments they can come up with.

This is a sad commentary on the current state of Christian-Muslim dialogue, but Christians who want to reach out to Muslims need to be aware of it.

I guess I'll go take a shower now.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Muhammad Breaks His Oath to His Wives


Muhammad's wife Hafsa once caught him in her bed with another woman—his slave-girl, Mary the Copt. Seeking to avoid further conflict, Muhammad promised that he would stop having sex with Mary. Later, however, Muhammad received one of his infamous morally convenient revelations from Allah.

Qur'an 66:1-2—O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths and Allah is your Protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise.

Here's Tafsir Jalalayn commenting on this verse:

O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, in terms of your Coptic handmaiden Māriya — when he lay with her in the house of Hafsa, who had been away, but who upon returning [and finding out] became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her own house and on her own bed — by saying, ‘She is unlawful for me!’, seeking, by making her unlawful [for you], to please your wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful, having forgiven you this prohibition.

For further confirmation, we have the following hadith:

Sunan An-Nasa'i 3411—It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: "O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you" [66:1] until the end of the verse.

Since the Qur'an is supposedly Allah's eternal Word, our Muslim friends expect us to believe that, from eternity past, Allah had nothing better to do than compose verses giving Muhammad the right to break his oath to his wives so that he could continue having sex with his slave-girl.

***UPDATE*** A Muslim just claimed in the comments section that this hadith doesn't exist. So here it is as it appears in the Darussalam edition:


Sunday, February 23, 2014

Muhammad's Eleven Wives (and the Qur'anic Limit of Four Wives)


According to the Qur'an, Muslim men are allowed to have up to four wives at one time (Qur'an 4:3). Muhammad, however, was married to eleven wives at once:

Sahih al-Bukhari 268—“Anas bin Malik said, ‘The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.’ I asked Anas, ‘Had the Prophet the strength for it?’ Anas replied, ‘We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men).’ And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).”

So if Allah's eternal Word says that Muslims can marry no more than four wives, why did Muhammad get more? It seems that Allah's eternal Word also contains an exception for Muhammad. Qur'an 33:50 says that Muhammad (and only Muhammad) was free to take for himself as many wives as he liked.

Getting suspicious yet?

Saturday, February 22, 2014

A Muslim Admits That Allah Prays

One of the most common Muslim objections to the deity of Christ is the question "If Jesus is God, why did he pray?" This question makes sense on a surface level, since Christians claim that Jesus is God and we also claim that he prays. But this is one of the many reasons we are Trinitarians, not unitarians. As one of the three persons of the Trinity, the Son was in eternal communion with the Father, because they shared the same essence. When the Son entered creation as Jesus of Nazareth, he continued that communion with the Father through prayer. Hence, while Jesus praying would be a problem for a unitarian who claims that Jesus is God, it makes perfect sense in light of Trinitarian theology.

But Muslims are unitarians, which means that they would have a huge problem if their god prays. And we find this problem in the Qur'an:

Qur'an 33:56—Verily, Allah and His angels pray for the prophet. O ye who believe! pray for him and salute him with a salutation!

Muslim translators are so horrified by the implications of this verse that they often mistranslate the relevant portion as "Allah and his angels send blessings on the prophet." The problem is that there are perfectly good Arabic words for "send blessings," but those words aren't used here. The Arabic word used of whatever Allah and his angels are doing is yusalloona, which is a verbal form of the word salah (prayer and worship). Thus, the most obvious translation involves Allah praying for Muhammad.

While this is clear to anyone who reads the verse and understands what yusalloona means, it's always nice to see an Arabic-speaking Muslim admit that Allah prays. This is precisely what happened today on Facebook.

A Muslim named Faruque Ikramul started a post mocking Christians for believing that Jesus is God when the Bible declares that Jesus prayed.


Instead of answering the objection, I decided to turn the tables:


Faruque apparently missed the quotation, so he asked for the reference:


After sharing the reference again, a Muslim named Avari jumped in with a common mistranslation:


Interestingly, after going back and reading the verse more carefully, Avari realized that the verse plainly says that Allah prays. Avari's only misunderstanding was that he somehow thought I was claiming that Allah prays to Muhammad (and therefore that Muhammad was Allah's god). But I was simply pointing out the obvious:


In the end, Avari simply admitted that Allah prays. And he didn't see any problem with this:


It's refreshing to see a Muslim happily acknowledge that Allah prays. But again, since Muslims are unitarians, why don't they see a problem here? Why don't they ask who Allah is praying to? And why do they continue to pester Christians with questions like "If Jesus is God, who was he praying to?" when the same may be asked of Allah (only in a far more devastating manner, because Muslims deny the Trinity)? Inquiring minds want to know.

Muhammad and Nikah al-Mut'ah (Temporary Marriage as a Form of Prostitution)


The Prophet of Islam allowed his followers to practice a form of prostitution called Nikah al-Mut'ah. In Muhammad's time, a Muslim could pay a woman for "temporary marriage," which would last a few hours, days, weeks, or months (depending on the agreement). Many Muslims today claim that Muhammad eventually changed his mind about this obviously immoral practice, and that Mut'ah is now forbidden in Islam (certain Muslim sources suggest this). But these Muslims fail to mention that some of Islam's most trusted sources plainly declare that Muhammad never prohibited Mut'ah. For instance, the following passage in Sahih Muslim says that Muslims were practicing Mut'ah well beyond the lifetime of Muhammad:

Sahih Muslim 3248—Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that Jabir b. Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet and during the time of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.

Some hadith claim that it was Umar, rather than Muhammad, who outlawed Mut'ah:

Sahih Muslim 3250—Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'a (Tamattu’ of Hajj 1846 and Tamattu’ with women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger. Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.

According to Sahih al-Bukhari (Sunni Islam's most trusted collection of ahadith), Mut'ah is justified by the Qur'an itself! Consider the following verse from the Qur'an:

Qur'an 5:87—O ye who believe! Forbid not the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, and transgress not, Lo! Allah loveth not transgressors.

Notice how this verse was used by Muhammad:

Sahih al-Bukhari 5079—We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Messenger and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated?" He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry a woman temporarily by giving her even a garment and then he recited to us: "O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you." (5.87)

Hence, Muslim men who want to hire prostitutes can simply point out that both the Qur'an (the Word of Allah) and Muhammad (Islam's final prophet) allowed prostitution, and that later Muslims (like Umar) cannot overrule Allah and Muhammad.

For some of the practical consequences of Muhammad's teachings about Mut'ah, see the following articles:

"Syrian Mothers Selling Daughters as Prostitutes to Wealthy Saudis in Accordance with Sharia"
"Muta (Islamic Prostitution) Still Common in Poor Areas of Egypt"
"Hezbollah Using Prostitution (Muta) for Recruitment"
"Temporary Marriage in Iran"

For a more thorough discussion of Mut'ah in the Islamic sources, see the following article by Sam Shamoun:

"Revisiting Muhammad’s Permitting a Form of Prostitution known As Muta"

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Shabir Ally Proves That Jesus Is God!

According to popular Muslim speaker Shabir Ally, the Gospel of John refers to Jesus in chapter 16, verse 7, where Jesus says, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." Notice that Jesus says, "I will send Him." Muslims believe that Muhammad was sent by Allah, but the Comforter is sent by Jesus. This means that, if the Comforter is Muhammad, Jesus must be God! Thank you, Shabir Ally, for proving that Jesus is God!

Is Muhammad Mentioned in John 1:19-21? A Reply to Shabir Ally

The Qur'an claims that Christians and Jews find Muhammad mentioned in our scriptures (Qur'an 7:157). For nearly fourteen centuries, Muslims have been desperately examining the Bible, searching for some prophecy about Muhammad.

Shabir Ally, like so many other Muslim apologists, claims that Muhammad is "the prophet" mentioned in John 1:19-21. Here we can only wonder: Has Shabir read the rest of the chapter?

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Raymond Ibrahim: Christian Family Slaughtered in Egypt

But if you criticize the ideology that gives rise to these senseless massacres, you're somehow a racist.

Raymond Ibrahim—A Christian Syrian family of four living in Alexandria, Egypt, was barbarically stabbed to death Sunday in their home in al-Ibrahamya neighborhood, Arabic media are reporting.

The family consisted of a father, 44, his wife, 35, their 6-year-old son, Michael, and the wife’s brother.

After the murders, the house, where the family had been living for years, was set on fire by the murderers in an attempt to hide the crime but was put out by authorities.

All four bodies were found bearing many stab wounds and other signs of extreme violence.

The wife and child had their throats slit, while the father appeared to have been stabbed to death, with stab wounds all over his body.

The crime was not motivated by theft, as the home was not robbed, and preliminary reports say the family was slaughtered for being supporters of the Bashar Assad government in Syria.

The wife was said to be a vocal supporter, often arguing politics.

Islamists all around the Middle East and especially in Egypt strongly oppose and are supporting a jihad against the moderate Assad government in an attempt to oust it and set up a Sharia state in Syria.

Most religious minorities, including Christians, are supportive of the secular Assad regime, having seen the great violence done against fellow Christians by the Islamic rebels who deem them “infidels.” (Source)

Was Muhammad a Victim of Black Magic?


According to Islam's most trusted sources, Muhammad was a victim of a magic spell, which gave him delusional thoughts and false beliefs. Consider two ahadith:

Sahih Al-Bukhari 3175—Aisha narrated: "Once the Prophet was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact, he had not done."

Sahih Al-Bukhari 5765—Aisha narrated: Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not. Then one day he said, "O Aisha, do you know that Allah has instructed me concerning the matter I asked Him about? Two men came to me and one of them sat near my head and the other sat near my feet. The one near my head asked the other: 'What is wrong with this man?' The latter replied, 'He is under the effect of magic.' The first one asked, 'Who has worked magic on him?' The other replied, 'Labid bin Al-Asam, a man from Bani Zuraiq who was an ally of the Jews and was a hypocrite.' The first one asked, 'What material did he use?' The other replied, 'A comb and the hair stuck to it.'"

Apart from the most obvious problem for Muslims (namely, how anyone can fully trust a man who was controlled by a magic spell), there is a deeper difficulty. According to Qur'an 2:102, magic comes from demons. According to Qur'an 16:98-100, Satan has no power over those "who believe and put trust in their Lord," but only over those "who make a friend of him, and those who ascribe partners unto Him (Allah)." So if Satan only has power over those who befriend him and commit shirk, and black magic is demonic power over human beings, and Muhammad was a victim of black magic, then Muhammad, according to the Qur'an, must have been a friend of Satan who committed shirk!

For more on this issue, see Sam Shamoun's article, "Was Muhammad Protected from the Power of Satan?"

Monday, February 17, 2014

An American Muslimah Tells Me I'm Going to Paradise!

Talking to Westernized Muslims is always fascinating. They cling to Qur'an verses that they like, while completely ignoring verses they don't like. Let's look at an example, from a conversation I had with an American Muslimah on Twitter yesterday.

As usual, the American Muslimah was offended because I criticize Muhammad, so she told me to respect her religion. This always sounds odd to me, since the Qur'an obviously has no respect for me or for my religion. Interestingly, however, she seemed to have no clue that the Qur'an condemns core Christian beliefs.


Telling me that the Qur'an doesn't condemn Christianity is baffling, to say the least, but watch what happens when I bring up a verse that proves her wrong:


I asked her to read Qur'an 9:30, but she apparently thinks 9:30 is irrelevant, because of Qur'an 2:62. Let's have a look at these verses:

Qur'an 2:62—Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

Qur'an 9:30—And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

There you have it. Even though the Qur'an calls on Allah to destroy us for our beliefs (9:30), the Qur'an isn't condemning our beliefs, because 2:62 says that Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans are okay with Allah. Of course, we have to start wondering whether the Qur'an is coherent, since it also says that the only religion acceptable to Allah is Islam:

Qur'an 3:85—And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

But let's leave that aside for now.

Our Muslim friend went on to assure me that, according to the Qur'an, I'm a true believer:


I wanted to make sure I understood her correctly, so I asked for clarification:


As I pointed out, if I am a true believer, then the Qur'an completely contradicts itself. Consider a few verses:

Qur'an 4:65—But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad SAW) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.

Qur'an 5:17—They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things.

Qur'an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Qur'an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur'an 33:36—It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger, to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys God and His Apostle, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.

Qur'an 98:6—Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

According to 4:65 and 33:36, true believers must submit to Muhammad's decisions. I don't submit to Muhammad's decisions, and yet I'm still a true believer, according to the Westernized Islamic interpretation of 2:62.

According to 5:17, anyone who affirms the deity of Christ is an unbeliever. I affirm the deity of Christ, and yet I'm still a true believer, according to the Westernized Islamic interpretation of 2:62.

According to 98:6, Christians who reject Muhammad are "the worst of creatures." Muslims aren't allowed to be friends with us (5:51). Indeed, Muslims are commanded to violently subjugate us until we pay them money (9:29). Nevertheless, I'm still a true believer, according to the Westernized Islamic interpretation of 2:62.

It seems that, no matter what I do, I'm still a true believer, according to Westernized Muslims. This means, of course, that they think I'll be going to an Islamic paradise when I die. But I don't want to spend eternity deflowering young virgins. Indeed, I find the Islamic view of paradise to be absolutely repulsive.

But perhaps that's the point. By sending me to an Islamic paradise, Allah would be punishing me by giving me something so radically inferior to the Christian view of heaven. An Islamic paradise would be hell to a follower of Jesus Christ.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner . . . at Muhammad's House


There are some hilarious verses in the Qur'an. For instance, the Qur'an claims that the sun sets in a muddy pool (18:86), that semen is formed between the backbone and ribs (86:6-7), that the earth is flat (88:20), that there are seven earths (65:12), that the sun orbits the earth (36:38-40), that human embryos are blood-clots (22:5), that the sky will fall on the earth if Allah doesn't hold it up (22:65), and that stars are missiles that Allah uses to shoot demons who try to sneak into heaven (37:6-10; 67:5).

But for some reason, the funniest verse in the Qur'an (in my opinion) is Surah 33, verse 53. The verse reads:

O Ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation. Lo! that would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the messenger of Allah, nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him. Lo! that in Allah's sight would be an enormity.

Notice that Muhammad, who tells his followers it's okay to beat their wives (4:34) and to rape their captives (4:24), is nevertheless so incredibly shy, that he can't bear telling his followers that they're annoying him by hanging out at his house and talking his ears off. But Allah isn't shy, so Muhammad (the shy one) delivers a revelation from Allah (who's not shy) telling Muslims not to annoy Muhammad by showing up at his house early or staying late for conversation.

The Qur'an is supposedly Allah's eternal Word. Yet many verses of the Qur'an have no purpose other than satisfying Muhammad's desires. How much more obvious could it be that the Qur'an is not the Word of God?

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Is Muhammad a Pearl?

The discussion continues!


For more on Muhammad:


An American Muslim Defends Sex with Prepubescent Girls

I just had an interesting encounter with a Muslimah, who promotes the website TheAmericanMuslim.org. I'll post some of her comments tomorrow, to show what she really thinks about Christians. But right now, I wanted to draw attention to her defense of Muhammad's sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl. Here's a screenshot of my question and her answer:


To her credit, our American Muslim friend doesn't deny that Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was only nine years old, as this would contradict numerous ahadith reporting Aisha's age:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3896—Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Al-Madina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5158—Narrated Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Sahih Muslim 3310—Aisha reported: Allah’s Apostle married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Muslim 3311—Aisha reported that Allah’s Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Sunan Abu Dawud 2116—Aishah said: The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old. (The narrator Sulaiman said: Or six years.) He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old.

Nevertheless, it's always disturbing to find a Muslim woman defending such a horrifying practice. According to the Hadith, Aisha hadn't even reached puberty when Muhammad had sex with her:

Sahih al-Bukhari 6130—Narrated Aishah: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Messenger used to enter (my dwelling place), they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for Aishah at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)

While our American Muslim friend attributes Muhammad's sexual relationship with Aisha to the culture of his time, this simply won't do. Muhammad is different from everyone else in Arabia, in that Allah declares him to be the pattern of conduct for Muslims (Qur'an 33:21). In other words, by having sex with a prepubescent girl, and by delivering a revelation declaring himself to be the ideal pattern of conduct for Muslims, Muhammad actively promoted sexual intercourse with prepubescent girls for all future generations of Muslims (unless, of course, you believe that Western values trump Allah's words in the Qur'an!).

Since our American Muslim friend defends Muhammad's actions, she is defending one of the most shocking, sickening practices known to man. Behold the impact of Islam on the mind of the American Muslim.

Wives of Muhammad: Sauda bint Zama'ah


One of Muhammad's many wives (he had at least nine wives at one time, even though Qur'an 4:3 says Muslims are limited to four wives) was a woman named Sauda bint Zama'ah. As Sauda aged, she became unattractive and extremely overweight, and Muhammad decided to divorce her. Terrified of being abandoned in her old age, Sauda hatched a plan. She knew that Aisha was Muhammad's favorite wife, and that Muhammad would like to spend even more time with Aisha. So Sauda told Muhammad that, if he would keep her as his wife and not abandon her, she would give her sex night to Aisha. Thus, Muhammad would be able to spend twice as much time with Aisha. Muhammad was happy with the arrangement, and so was Allah, who revealed Surah 4, verse 128:

If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.

Here is Ibn Kathir's commentary on this verse:

Allah states, and thus legislates accordingly, that sometimes, the man inclines away from his wife, sometimes towards her and sometimes he parts with her. In the first case, when the wife fears that her husband is steering away from her or deserting her, she is allowed to forfeit all or part of her rights, such as provisions, clothing, dwelling, and so forth, and the husband is allowed to accept such concessions from her. Hence, there is no harm if she offers such concessions, and if her husband accepts them. This is why Allah said, (there is no sin on them both if they make terms of peace between themselves). He then said, (and making peace is better) than divorce. Allah's statement, (And human souls are swayed by greed) means, coming to peaceful terms, even when it involves forfeiting some rights, is better than parting. Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "Sawdah feared that the Messenger of Allah might divorce her and she said, `O Messenger of Allah! Do not divorce me; give my day to A'ishah.' And he did, and later on Allah sent down, (And if a woman fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no sin on them both).

Allah's message to Muslim women: When you get old and become less attractive, be prepared to relinquish some of your rights, or your husband can kick you to the curb.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Muhammad Commands His Followers to Kill Critics of Islam


Everyone seems shocked when Muslims riot over a poorly made Youtube video or some silly cartoons. But violent responses to criticism are a tradition in Islam, and Muhammad himself started the tradition. Let's look at an example.

A man named Abu Afak was more than a hundred years old when he decided to write a poem about Muhammad, who was dividing people and causing them to kill one another. Here's the story of Abu Afak's death:

Abu Afak was one of the B. Amr b. Auf of the B. Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said:

Long have I lived but never have I seen An assembly or collection of people More faithful to their undertaking And their allies when called upon Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled, Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted, A rider who came to them split them in two (saying) "Permitted", "Forbidden", of all sorts of things. Had you believed in glory or kingship You would have followed Tubba.

The apostle said, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the "weepers", went forth and killed him. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 675)

Hence, Muhammad's followers understood that people who criticize Islam or Muhammad must be killed. Soon, Muslims were free to kill anyone who made fun of Muhammad:

Sunan Abu Dawud 4348—Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. He sat before the Prophet and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

Sunan Abu Dawud 4349—Narrated Ali ibn Abu Talib: A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.

When Muslims become violent over criticism of their religion, they are doing exactly what their prophet taught them to do. Yet politicians and the media continue to assure us that Islam is a religion of peace, and that violence only occurs when terrorists "hijack" the religion.

Friday, February 14, 2014

Muhammad and the Torture of Kinana ibn al-Rabi


According to our earliest detailed biographical source on Muhammad's life, Islam's prophet once ordered his followers to torture a man for money. Here's the passage:

Kinana b. al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has," so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 515)

Following this brutal spectacle, Muhammad took Kinana's seventeen-year-old wife, Safiyya bint Huyayy, as his own bride (because nothing says lovin' like torturing and murdering a woman's husband for money).

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Shabir Ally Deliberately Deceives Muslims about Muhammad in the Bible

Shabir Ally is a Muslim speaker and debater. Several years ago, I took him to see The Passion of the Christ while he was in town for a debate with Mike Licona.

For years, I've thought that Shabir Ally was two steps above most other Muslim apologists, since he's highly educated and is familiar with many works by New Testament scholars.

Boy was I wrong, as this video shows. There's simply no way Shabir could have read the verses he uses in this video without realizing that he is deceiving his Muslim viewers. Apparently, Shabir is convinced that his fans are so incredibly stupid and lazy, they will not bother to examine the passages. I hope he's as wrong about his viewers as he is about the claims he makes.

Islamic Rape Wave Continues in Peterborough

Here in the West, we've become so amazingly "tolerant" that we won't even criticize an ideology that promotes the victimization of little girls who don't follow the ideology.

Peterborough Telegraph—Four men will stand trial accused of running a sex ring which abused young teenage girls in Peterborough.

Yasir Ali, (28), Mohammed Aslam, (23), Daaim Ashraf, (19), and Akash Yasin, (18), are said to have sexually abused eight 14-year-old girls.

The charges include sex trafficking and rape but the indictment – which is likely to feature more than 20 counts – has not yet been finalised.

Legal teams are currently preparing the final documents for a hearing later this month.

The men did not appear at the Old Bailey in London for the hearing into the case on Friday.

The trial will be the second major court case looking into the sexual abuse of young girls in Peterborough, following conviction of five defendants earlier this year in a separate investigation.

The prosecution applied for the new case to be moved from Peterborough Crown Court.

Prosecutor Nicola Devas said: “It follows on the back of a not dissimilar trial which was heard in this court a short while ago.” (Continue Reading.)

To understand the Islamic rape wave in Great Britain (and in Australia, and in Scandinavia, and in Africa, and in Pakistan, etc.), watch this:

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Ten MORE Reasons Muhammad Is Not a Prophet

When we shared our "Top Ten Reasons Muhammad Is Not a Prophet," you didn't think they were our only reasons for rejecting Muhammad, did you? To keep the discussion going, here are ten more reasons Muhammad is not a prophet. Fasten your seat belts.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Tonight on Trinity Channel: Ten More Reasons Muhammad Is Not a Prophet

If you watched our "Top Ten Reasons Muhammad Is Not a Prophet," you saw that we ended the program by saying that we have many more reasons. Catch our next ten reasons Muhammad is not a prophet at 8:00 PM (EST) tonight on the Trinity Channel. You can watch here via live-streaming.

Monday, February 10, 2014

Muhammad in the Bible: A Thorough Refutation of Paul Bilal Williams' Case for Islamic Relevance - Part 2

Here is the second part of Nakdimon's reply to one Muslims' attempt to find Muhammad in the Bible. Part 1 can be found here.
------------------

Fairness, consistency and Nabi-anic prophecies
The search for an Arab prophet

We continue with our rebuttal to what I thought was Paul Bilal Williams’ (PW) article trying to prove his “nabi” (Arabic for prophet) is mentioned in our Holy Scriptures. It turns out that this article was not written by PW, but by some unknown author of whom PW placed the article on his blog. Many thought it was written by PW, so when part 1 of this rebuttal was released and the entire premise of the paper was refuted, the author wrote the following message to PW in an email which PW posted on his blog:

Update: Monday 27th January

I have just arrived back from Australia and I received the following email:

As-salaamu alaykum Paul,

Hope you are well insha’Allah.

Firstly I really appreciate you posting my recent article on your website.

I just want to let you know that I have made a modification to the article in light of recent responses by Christians. I have removed the section on Ishmael and the covenant pending further research. A lot of the feedback on the use Hebrew has made me realise that I need to do deeper research in this area. Al-hamdulillah I have learnt lessons from this experience and it will only make my article stronger.

Also, the arguments about Ishmael and the covenant seem to have detracted from the main point I wanted to make, namely that Isaiah 42 is related to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). At the moment all the attention is on the covenant which was not my original aim behind writing the article. Many Christians aren’t bothering to read beyond the covenant section of the article and this saddens me because I think it is of benefit overall.

I still think that I have to address the covenant in some capacity as it is a stumbling block for a lot of Christians, but I will only add it back into the article after thorough research insha’Allah.

I’m letting you know this because you are getting a lot of flak for it at the moment, people seem to think you wrote the article, perhaps you could update it to reflect the latest version and point out at the top of your post that you are not the original author, at the moment my website link is right at the bottom of the page after all the references and I don’t think many people are spotting that.

I commend the author of the paper for doing the honest thing and removing the part where he tried to make the case for an Arabian prophet that supposedly was to come. It is a rare thing to behold amongst Muslim apologists to retract their claims in light of clear refutations and acknowledge that more research is needed. There is no shame in that. We all lack knowledge in some area. At the same time it is disappointing to see the Muslim act as if the article still has any merit and pretend that his attempt to demonstrate the relevance of Ishmael had no consequence for the rest of the article, the acclaimed “main point” of his paper. Actually, by his own candid admission as stated in the paper in its initial form, the entire case for Muhammad’s prophetic claims stands or falls with the relevance or irrelevance of his supposed patriarch Ishmael, when he states at the outset of the article that “there is little point in moving forward as Ishmael represents the foundation for the emergence of an Arabian prophet”.[emphasis mine] As this was his stance, one has to wonder why he didn’t remove the entire article since nothing he goes on to say has any foundation whatsoever as the foundation for the entire paper has been removed. But since he didn’t remove the entire article but rather chose to remove the foundation only to leave the house of cards standing, we will have a sharp look at the rest of his paper.

In part one we have seen the author going to great lengths to try to prove that there is too a basis for the claims of his holy book, the Obscure Quran, that his prophet is mentioned in the Scriptures of the People of the Book, the Jews and Christians. He wanted to lay a basis for every argument he was about to make after his opening salvo by pointing out that when God made a Covenant with Abraham, Abraham’s son Ishmael was also included in the clauses of that agreement. I have pointed out and demonstrated that, when taking all of the passages and all of God’s promises into account, there is simply no way one can still make the case that Ishmael was any part of that Covenant God made with Abraham, no matter how positively pro-Islamic one wants to approach the text. And therefore there is no foundation for any argument for an Arabic prophet left to be made. It is only when one takes one verse and completely ignores everything else the Scriptures says about the Covenant God made with Abraham, that one can entertain the thought of Ishmael having any significance in the Abrahamic Covenant. Add to that Muhammad, the Islamic prophet, cannot even be traced to Ishmael while Muslims keep pretending that it’s a given, one would wonder why we are even discussing this matter and go along with the Muslim façade as if there is even a case to be made at all. Well… sometimes it’s necessary to walk a delusional person through his own delusions in order to show him the errors of his ways. So, being the good Samaritan that I am (tongue in cheek), here is how the paper continues:

BEING FAIR AND CONSISTENT

Now that we’ve shown that Ishmael was not excluded from God’s covenant, we have to agree on a methodology that is fair and consistent when it comes to finding prophecies of Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them both). We can’t have one set of standards for Muhammad, and another for Jesus. Some critics will deny that any passage can relate to Muhammad because they don’t mention him explicitly by name. Others might hold that a single ambiguous verse overrides a multitude of clear ones. Thus they adopt a conflict approach with Muhammad, but this turns out to be quite hypocritical because these same critics adopt the complete opposite approach, one of concordance, in identifying prophecies of Jesus, meaning that they will accept any signs that match and overlook those that do not. Here is an example of such an inconsistency:

“When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. [Matthew 2:14-15]

So according to the Gospel of Matthew, there’s a prophecy in the Old Testament that was fulfilled by Jesus. But when one goes back to the book of Hosea in the Old Testament where the statement is referenced from, you will find that Matthew quoted only half the passage:

 “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. [Hosea 11:1]

As you can see, when read in full, rather than being a prophecy about Jesus, this verse was in fact speaking of a past event, the exodus at the time of Moses. So, if Christians have no issue accepting that scripture can have apparent meanings whilst also foreshadowing future events for Jesus, then in the name of fairness and consistency they should adopt at least a similar standard for Muhammad. As you will soon see, though, the passages I will put forward for Muhammad are clear and unambiguous.

As I pointed out in part one of this rebuttal, it’s mindboggling to see Muslims crying for consistency while being as inconsistent as they are. If Muslims think inconsistent arguments are bad, why do they keep using them so much? You would think that if inconsistency is bad and consistency is the way to go, you would find Muslims arguing consistently. Left and right they will apply inconsistent methods in order to make their case. In fact, this entire article is one giant inconsistency: Arguing from books that you deem hopelessly corrupt to prove that your religion is valid. How can you bring an untrustworthy witness to the stand? But this is the hand that Muslims are dealt, courtesy of the Obscure Quran. As we move on, you will see the inconsistencies will keep piling on.

As the author’s claim of Ishmael being at all relevant has been shattered, we now turn to his argument that Christians use one set of standards to deal with the Messiahship of the Lord Yeshua in the Tenach and another set of standards in dealing with Muslim claims about Muhammad from the Tenach. My response will be manifold:

1.     Although there is plenty of material in the Tenach that testify about a Messianic figure emerging from the Jewish people, there is zilch, nada (Spanish), nichts (German), rien (French), niks (Dutch), kloom (Hebrew), niente (Italian), nothing (about all the languages I know) about an Arabian prophet anywhere in Scripture. We have already seen the author’s “foundation” collapse with the establishment of Ishmael’s irrelevance to God’s Covenant with Abraham.
2.     There are no Messianic chapters in the Tenach (outside of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22), but the Messianic prophecies and allusions, types and shadows of the Messiah are sometimes hidden in the Tenach.
3.     There are, therefore, passages that are clearly Messianic and prophecies and allusion that are not immediately apparent Messianic in the Tenach. Since the hidden Messianic passages are put in the Tenach by inspired men, it only stands to reason that these passages are pointed out by inspired men that were inspired by the same Spirit that inspired these hidden Messianic passages in the first place.
4.     Jesus claimed that the Scriptures testify about him. (Luke 24:44-48, John 5:39) He then gave his disciples understanding of the Scriptures that do exactly that (Luke 24:45, John 20:22) Therefore, since these men have received this understanding from Jesus himself, their authority and understanding of the Scriptures, having come directly from the Lord of lords, supersedes that of any and all Muslims, including Muhammad’s.

Elaborating on point 2 above, as already stated, there are many allusions to and types of the Messiah in the Tenach. For example:

The binding of Isaac – A father offering his son: A child born under miraculous circumstances, regarded as an only, unique child about to get offered as a sacrifice and as a result of Abraham’s willingness to do so, and the child’s willingness to be the sacrifice, the blessing to all the nations flows from them ultimately through the Messiah, a child born under miraculous circumstances, the only, unique Son of God offered as a sacrifice. When Isaac asked Abraham where the sacrifice was, Abraham uttered the words “God himself will provide the LAMB (Hebr. seh) for the burnt-offering”. Note that Abraham was given a RAM (Hebr: ayil) in substitute for his son Isaac. The LAMB that God provided was the Son of God, the Lord Yeshua, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, as John the Baptist announced him (John 1:29). As happened to Isaac, it happened to the Lord Yeshua.

Joseph, the son of Israel – Joseph was the beloved son of his father, to the chagrin of his own brothers. They betrayed him out of jealousy, intended to kill him, sold him into slavery and left him for dead. He underwent a lot of hardship, suffered prison time was left to rot in a cell, only for God to exalt him to the right hand of Pharao, the mightiest man in the known world. Joseph saved his brothers in the end by making himself known and became the savior of both his people and the Gentile world, after being rejected and not recognized in his first appearance as they thought he was a Gentile ruler, yet being recognized the second time he revealed himself to his brother as their king. One cannot help but see the clear reference to the Lord Yeshua. As happened to Joseph, it happened (and is set to happen) on a greater plane to the Lord Yeshua.

Moshe Rebenu – Moses was born under the reign of a foreign ruler as his people suffered under hands of another people. In order to rescue Moses from a raid on the infants of Israel, God made him escape to safety in Pharao’s palace where he was kept safe while the other infants were being slaughtered. Eventually God called him to be the savior of his people, leading them out of the bondage of slavery, being the sole barer and sole mediator of the Covenant with God and Israel, interceding between his people and God. Again, one cannot help noticing the parallels with the Lord Yeshua. As it happened to Moses, our Teacher, so it happened to Yeshua, our Lord.

So as things happen to the Jewish people or individuals in the Tenach, so it also happens to the Messiah. Concerning the Messianic passage that the author appealed to, Dr Michael Brown, PhD, explains:

“When Matthew quoted the second half of Hosea 11:1, he took for granted that his Jewish readers would know the whole verse. (Remember that many of Matthew’s intended readers knew large portions of the Hebrews Scriptures by heart, and quoting just part of a verse was common Jewish practice of the day.) What he was saying was clear: Just as it happened to Israel, God’s national “son,” so also it happened to Jesus, God’s Messianic Son, and the ideal representative of the nation. Both were called out of Egypt in their childhood.” (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. 4, pag 22)

Matthew, pointing out that as Israel was a child, called as a nation by God for the first time as a free nation, as God’s firstborn son (Ex 4:22) into safety, so also the Lord Yeshua was called by God, to safety out of Egypt, when the one seeking his life was dead.

Elaborating on point no.3 sometimes Messianic passages are not as clear as we would like them to be. For example, in the second Servant Song the servant is called Israel, yet when one studies the passage carefully it becomes clear that the one called “Israel” is not the nation:

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me; And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God. And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. (Isaiah 49:1-6)

Here we see a passage that seems to be talking about the nation of Israel since in verse 3 the servant is actually called Israel, but as one reads on this turns out not to be the case. This is about one that is part of Israel, identified as and called by the name of Israel, yet gathers the people of Israel to God and restores the tribes of the nation of Israel. This is not something that the nation itself will do, but someone within the nation! In other words, this is a typical job description of the Messiah! The Messiah, as the Ideal Representative is called Israel in this passage and it is the Messiah who is called to bring Israel back to God and restore the tribes of the nation. It is Messiah who will not only be the savior of Israel, but also will be given as a light to the Gentiles and through him God’s salvation will reach the ends of the earth!

Therefore when Hoshea 11:1 mentions Israel as the son that God called out of Egypt this applies to BOTH Israel, God’s “first born”, in its infancy at the Exodus AND in an ultimate sense to the Lord Yeshua, the Unique Son of God, in His infancy. Hence, the inspired apostle Matthew lets us know, the Scripture is made full, the words God spoke came to ultimate fruition at the “exodus” of the Lord Yeshua out of the land of Egypt. In other words, and most importantly, these appeals to the Tenach weren’t mere guesses from uninformed men that were just picking and choosing, like Muslims are left doing. We have the written testimony of inspired men, who were personally taught by the Lord Yeshua and received inspiration from the Lord Yeshua.

On the other hand, what do Muslims have to show for to substantiate their nabi-anic prophecies? By their own admission they have literally nothing: Allah and his messenger, during their collaboration of 23 years, never, not once, bothered to point to any prophecy that they insist is in our Scriptures and thus uninspired Muslim apologists are left with their hands in their hair, literally having to feel their way through the darkness Allah and his messenger left them in. This results in them jumping on any mention of an Arab location, any remote resemblance of anything that looks like anything from an event in their prophet’s life. On top of all this, there is simply no basis for any expectation of an Arabian prophet to appear, as Ishmael (generously assuming for the sake of argument that Ishmael is the forefather of Muhammad) has already been demonstrated to be irrelevant when it comes to the Covenant God made with Abraham.

ISHMAEL, KEDAR AND ARABIA: CONNECTING THE DOTS

Before getting into direct evidence of Muhammad in the Bible, we must first establish that Ishmael and his son Kedar are linked to modern day Arabia.

The Old Testament tells us that Ishmael dwelt in a place called Paran:

“While he (Ishmael) was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt. [Genesis 21:21]

Many Christian interpretors of the Bible hold that Paran is in Arabia. From Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible:

 “He dwelt in the wilderness of Paran – This is generally allowed to have been a part of the desert belonging to Arabia Petraea, in the vicinity of Mount Sinai; and this seems to be its uniform meaning in the sacred writings.

Strong’s Bible Dictionary also tells us:

“H6290

pâ’rân

From H6286; ornamental; Paran, a desert of Arabia: – Paran.

Sebeos, a 7th century Armenian bishop and historian, when describing the Arab conquest of his time, wrote that the Arabs “assembled and came out from Paran” [1]

Professor Haseeb Shehada, an Israeli scholar and professor, in his translation of the Samaritan Torah suggested an identification of the wilderness of Paran with the desert of Western Arabia which is known today as Hijaz. [2]

Some Christians claim that Paran is not in Arabia but rather in the desert of Sinai in Egypt but this can’t be the case as the Old Testament clearly distinguishes between Sinai and Paran as two separate places:

“Then the Israelites set out from the Desert of Sinai and traveled from place to place until the cloud came to rest in the Desert of Paran. [Numbers 10:12]

We can also place the location of the descendants of Ishmael, known as Ishmaelites, to Arabia. According to Harper’s Bible Dictionary the term ‘Ishmaelites’ is used synonymously with the term ‘Midianites’. We can see this from the story of Joseph in Genesis:

 “So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt. [Genesis 37:28]

We know that geographically, Biblical Midian is located in modern day Western Saudi Arabia


Nooo this is wrong! Midianites are not synonymous with Ishmaelites. Genesis 37:28 merely qualifies what kind of Midianites Joseph was sold to, but that doesn’t automatically make Ishmaelites synonymous with Midianites. Midianites were not the descendants of Ishmael, rather they were descendants of Midian, the son of Abraham which he fathered through Ketura:

And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bore him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah (Gen 25:1-2)

We see here that one of the sons of Abraham was named Midian. The Jewish Encyclopedia states:

Midian was the son of Abraham and Keturah. His five sons, Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abidah (R. V. "Abida"), and Eldaah, were the progenitors of the Midianites (Gen. xxv. 1-4; I Chron. i. 32-33).

Therefore, these Ishmaelites in Genesis 37:28 must have been mere descendants of Ishmael living somewhere in the area of Midian. Therefore saying that Midianites is synonymous with Ishmaelites, is like saying European is synonymous with Dutchman: Dutchmen are Europeans, but not every European is a Dutchman. Another example is Judges 8. Israel is being oppressed by Midianites and God raises up Gideon to deliver Israel from the oppression of the Midianites. This is what verse 24 says:

And Gideon said unto them: 'I would make a request of you, that ye would give me every man the ear-rings of his spoil.'--For they had golden ear-rings, because they were Ishmaelites.

Note that, speaking of Midianites, the Bible has to clarify which Midianites it speaks of, specifically Ishmaelites, who, apparently, were known particularly for their golden earrings. This would have been completely unnecessary would Midianites be a synonym for Ishmaelites.

But be that as it may, just because some descendant of Ishmael is named, in this instance Kedar, doesn’t mean that this descendant plays any meaningful role in God’s calling, let alone produce a prophet or deal with the origins of a prophet. Many names in that region are named with no significance of prophet hood. Yet, even if Muslims want to identify with Ishmaelites, Midianites and Kedar, the Bible says some devastating things about Kedar and the Ishmaelites in particular. For example, as we read Psalm 83 think of what people today these words most vividly apply to when you hear them speak of Israel:

O God, do not remain silent; do not turn a deaf ear, do not stand aloof, O God. See how your enemies growl, how your foes rear their heads. With cunning they conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish. “Come,” they say, “let us destroy them as a nation, so that Israel’s name is remembered no more.” With one mind they plot together they form an alliance against you—the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, of Moab and the Hagrites, Byblos, Ammon and Amalek, Philistia, with the people of Tyre. Even Assyria has joined them to reinforce Lot’s descendants. Do to them as you did to Midian, as you did to Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon, who perished at Endor and became like dung on the ground. Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb, all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna, who said, “Let us take possession of the pasturelands of God.” (Psalm 83:2-12, NIV)

Ishmaelites are literally being called God’s enemies! Also, this is what God says about Israel in the end of days:

“Lift up your eyes round about and see; They all gather together, they come to you. Your sons will come from afar, And your daughters will be carried in the arms.  “Then you will see and be radiant, And your heart will thrill and rejoice; Because the abundance of the sea will be turned to you, The wealth of the nations will come to you. A multitude of camels will cover you, The young camels of Midian and Ephah; All those from Sheba will come; They will bring gold and frankincense, And will bear good news of the praises of the Lord.  All the flocks of Kedar will be gathered together to you, The rams of Nebaioth will minister to you; They will go up with acceptance on My altar, And I shall glorify My glorious house. (Isaiah 60:4-7, NASB)

God will so devastate the nations that the remnant of those nations. Kedar and Nebaioth included, will have no choice but to come to Israel and minister to the children of Israel.


Fairness and consistency.

The author of the article then goes into Isaiah 42 at length to try to demonstrate how Muhammad is foretold in our Scriptures. Here is where the rubber really meets the road. The prophecies of Muhammad are vividly painted, according to the author of this article, masterfully placing the hadith side by side with the first of the Four Servant Songs. There is one problem: The author of the article has demanded fairness and consistency. Therefore, to be fair, we will demand consistency from the author, and all Muslim apologists for that matter, and insist that they meet the following criteria:

Considering Muslims believe that the Bible is hopelessly corrupted and a man-made document, they must first and foremost account for the prophet hood of Isaiah in Islam! They also must come up with a consistent pattern of how to recognize the false Isaiah verses from the true Isaiah verses to prevent from being suckered by man-made verses posing as divine Scripture, since they hold to Biblical corruption.  Lastly they then have to show how they know that these verses apply to Muhammad. As I said, Allah and his apostle never pointed to a single verse! As long as these criteria cannot be met, ANY appeal to ANY verse as a prophecy of Muhammad is automatically a stab in the dark, no more than a wild guess.

Allah never bothered to mention Isaiah as being one of his prophets, nor did Muhammad ever mention Isaiah as a prophet. If Muslim apologists can’t meet the above criteria they are engaging in bid’ah at best, they are guilty of committing shirk at worst: The first being punishable by hellfire, the second being unforgivable! For if this is NOT divinely inspired, i.e. not revealed by Allah, they are merely making stuff up, engaging in innovation, and, at their own whim, taking things from uninspired men and attributing them to Allah. To echo one of the many lame arguments (which now proves to actually be effective against their own position) that Muslim apologists find so compelling when using it against Biblical authority: Isaiah who? What was his last name? Who was his father? When did he write? Did Allah ever ordered him to write anything? 

Thus, Muslims, you need to think long and hard before you fly off and attribute things to Allah that he very well may not have anything to do with. If you think that anything goes for the glory of your prophet, by all means, don’t let the prospect of hellfire stop you and follow your Ulamah, who did likewise engage in bid’ah, without divine guidance pointed to random verses in Scripture and, I’m sure, are now part of a big barbeque. I submit to you, that you cannot be either fair or consistent and meet above demands.

Since you demanded fairness: if you are fair, you will take down the article and not ever again point to any supposed prophecy of which you don’t know if it came from a true prophet, as you did with Isaiah. In fact, since you have no clue of ANY prophecy, I suggest you stop the entire “Muhammad in the Bible” spiel as long as you hold to the view that the Bible is corrupted. And since you demanded consistency: If you are consistent, you will have to throw out Surah 7:157, abandon the Quran and thus leave Islam altogether.

I will therefore propose one of many enhancements to the Quran:

“Therefore woe be unto those who point to the Scripture on their own whims and then say, "This is from Allah," that they hope to make small gain therewith in their apologetics. Woe unto them for what they attributed to Allah,” [The Obscure Quran 2:79b]

Muslims, your hearts seek to be in the right place. You seem to want to serve God, serve him diligently and yearn for Him. But you are serving the wrong god! Come to al Rab Yasua alMasih and you will not be ashamed!