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.
Monday, February 15, 2010
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/
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The Qur'an Kills Again (Another Woman Dead Due to Surah 4:34)
As everyone who visits this blog knows, the Qur'an commands faithful Muslim men to beat their rebellious wives into submission:
If anyone has doubts about the meaning of this passage, I invite you to read Osama Abdallah's elegant description of situations where a Muslim man should not only beat his wife, but "beat the daylights out of her." Note that, according to Osama, a man should beat the daylights out of his wife for not taking care of her children properly.
What is the result of the Islamic position on wife-beating? Muslim women usually remain quiet about such beatings, since they're raised to believe that it's acceptable to beat women. But sometimes women die from the beatings.
Notice from the following case that the husband was beating his wife for refusing to breastfeed her child on command. Thus, he was completely within his Muslim rights to (as Osama likes to say) "beat the daylights out of her." Unfortunately, the beating killed her.
For more on wife-beating in Islam, click here.
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. (Qur'an 4:34)
If anyone has doubts about the meaning of this passage, I invite you to read Osama Abdallah's elegant description of situations where a Muslim man should not only beat his wife, but "beat the daylights out of her." Note that, according to Osama, a man should beat the daylights out of his wife for not taking care of her children properly.
What is the result of the Islamic position on wife-beating? Muslim women usually remain quiet about such beatings, since they're raised to believe that it's acceptable to beat women. But sometimes women die from the beatings.
Notice from the following case that the husband was beating his wife for refusing to breastfeed her child on command. Thus, he was completely within his Muslim rights to (as Osama likes to say) "beat the daylights out of her." Unfortunately, the beating killed her.
A woman was beaten by her husband after she refused to resume breastfeeding her baby, Dubai Criminal Court heard yesterday.
The defendant, MN, a 26-year-old Pakistani tailor, again ordered the woman, AF, to feed her baby, but she refused once more, put the baby on the bed and went onto the roof of their house.
There, she removed her headscarf, which annoyed her conservative Muslim husband. He then allegedlly slapped her and brought her back to her room.
When she left the room again and went back up to the roof, he allegedly hit her several times with a plastic pipe, and she fell to the ground. He lifted his wife up and lay her on the bed, but when her condition deteriorated, he took her to hospital. She passed away after a few days due to complications from an injury to her head. Read More.
For more on wife-beating in Islam, click here.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Pakistan: Twelve-Year-Old Christian Girl Raped and Killed by Muslim Employer
Lahore (AsiaNews/Agencies) – A 12-year-old Christian girl died on Friday as a result of physical violence inflicted by her employer, a rich and powerful Muslim lawyer in Lahore. The case has led to protests by the Christian community, which demonstrated before the provincial assembly of Punjab in Lahore. The authorities are trying to appease people and have pledged that justice shall be done. Pakistani President Zardari has also promised to pay compensation to the family.A Protestant NGO, Sharing Life Ministry Life (SLMP), reported the case of Shazia Bashir, 12, who was employed for the past eight months as a domestic worker in the household of Chaudhry Muhammad Naeem, a lawyer and former president of the Lahore Bar Association.
Local Christians say that during that period the girl was the victim of constant harassment, and that she was raped and tortured before she was killed.
SLMP chief coordinator Sohail Johnson said the girl worked under constant stress and experienced emotional and psychological trauma. She was also denied the agreed salary (Rs 1,000 or about US$ 12 per month).
Shazia “would get insults whenever she raised the subject of payment,” the Christian activist said.
Three days before her death, her employer tortured her, he noted. Afterwards, he tried to have her treated at his home without informing the parents of her health situation. In the end, the medical care she did get proved inadequate and she had to go to Lahore’s Meo Hospital.
"Shazia's parents were not allowed to meet her. They did not know what she was going through," said Razia Bibi, the girl’s 44-year-old uncle.
Shazia died last Friday from her injuries.
Sohail Johnson said that her body showed signs of torture with at least 12 marks of injury. "Shazia was admitted to the hospital with a broken jaw," he said.
Initially, Chaudhry Muhammad Naeem’s family tried to pay off Shazia’s parents with Rs 20,000 (US$ 250) to stop them from filing a case against them. Eventually they fled, but were arrested yesterday under pressure from the federal government.
On Saturday, Christians demonstrated in front of the Punjab Provincial Assembly.
The Lahore Bar Association has instead sided with the powerful Muslim lawyer.
Local Christians have expressed scepticism about the impartiality and efficacy of the police investigation; however, Punjab Law Minister Rana Sanaullah said that outside interference would not be tolerated and that justice would be done.
Sohail Johnson (pictured with the girl’s body) said that 99 per cent of Christian girls from poor families are hired by wealthy Muslims, and are often physically, psychologically and sexually abused.
“In some cases, their employers marry them off to Muslim servants, and forcibly convert them to Islam,” he said.
“These vulnerable Christian girls do not have any state protection. We urge the government to ensure protection of these disadvantaged girls,” the SLMP coordinator said.
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has promised Rs 500,000 (US$ 6,000) in compensation to the girl’s family and urged the Punjab government to provide financial help as well. The money is expected to cover the cost of Shazia Bashir’s funeral, which is scheduled for today in Lahore. Source.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Qur'an and the Seven Heavens: An Introduction to an upcoming Article
This is going to be a less detailed post with less references; the purpose being to introduce a very lengthy upcoming work.
I am currently preparing a lengthy article on the seven heavens in the Qur’an and the concept of the Greeks and Talmudic Jews on the seven heavens.
Originally, if you consider the Greeks and also the elaboration of some of the early church fathers and the common concepts of their time, the seven heavens were considered as seven tracts, the the running structure of seven planets and their orbits. These seven planets consisted of the moon as the object nearest the earth, second the sun and further away the orbits of five other planets, which are today recognised as existing in our solar system.
I will post all the early quotes and reference of these when I have brought all the material together into one article.
But notice how the Qur’an is consisted with the early views; we read in Sura 71: 15:
"See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above another, "And made the moon A light in their midst, and made the sun As a (Glorious) Lamp?" [Al-Qur?aan 71:15-16]
This passage does not refer to a miraculous prediction of anything, since the author of the Qur’an states that we see or observe that Allah has created seven heavens one above the other.
Hence this is not a divine miraculous prediction of modern science but an human observation; here the author of the Qur’an even reveals the ability of the early human community to engage in science and to correctly perceive and understand how nature and the universe is structured (even though in this case the scientific information which the early humans saw and which Allah confirms is wrong; but I will get back to that in another article).
Now ask yourself, how did the early human societies observe this structure of seven heavens?
The answer is: they had correctly discovered five of the solar-system planets in their orbits.
The fallacy of their theory was to view the sun and the moon as similar objects, all orbiting in parallel lines around the earth; yet this nevertheless postulated that seven interstellar objects were orbiting in seven tracts, which is consistent with the view of the Qur’anic author.
These orbits were by numerous early writers referred to as seven tracts and seven heavens (I shall give the references from the Qur’an and the pre-Islamic writers in an upcoming post).
This why the Qur’an says that the people of Muhammad’s time had even seen that Allah had created seven heavens, each above the other; these seven heavens marked the orbit of the seven planets (obviously we have yet to discover even the edge of the first heaven and the reference is to something that they could see, namely the seven planets and their orbits):
"See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above another," (Sura 71: 15)
This is already presents a significant problem in terms of Qur'anic accuracy as our solar-system consists of eight planets and five dwarf planets, which already provides evidence that the Qur’an is not based upon divine knowledge but human knowledge; the knowledge that already flourished in Muhammad’s time.
Furthermore, we need to presume that since the Qur’an refers to seven planets it also follows the discoveries and ideas of its time, which viewed the sun and moon as included objects and excluded the earth. This is obvious from the Qur’an, which views the earth to have separated from the heavens and the interstellar matter and objects to derive on a later stage of the cosmological development (Sura 21: 10 and Sura 41: 9-12). In fact this is also consistent with the views flourishing in Muhammad’s time (but I shall get back to his in a future post).
That Sura 71: 15 is also elaborating on the centrality of the sun and moon as being in the midst of the seven orbits, which is also confirming that the Qur’an utilizes the science of antiquity. This was also the view of authors who predated Islam, and consists with the idea that the sun and the moon orbited closest to the earth in a orbit circle around the earth, which most ancient thinkers postulated; hence they were central and in the middle of this orbit and lighted up its entire structure.
The passage might even suggest that the sun and the moon light up all seven tracts and the other planets; this is what the ancient thinkers believed.
Except for the moon being an object attached to the earth, the early philosophers got this quite right. However, the Qur’an might also be in agreement with e.g. Plato that the sun lighted up not only the earth and planets but also the entire universe; take a look at sura 25: 61:
"Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies, And placed therein a Lamp And a Moon giving light."
Now, is this supposed to be modern science or prediction of modern science?
Brianman stated in a previous thread that the Qur’an ‘confirms’; that is an overstatement!
The Qur’an does certainly not confirm anything, it may certainly quote the early philosophers and their postulates, of which some ideas were fairly correct and others plainly wrong; just a pity that the Qur’an fails to differentiate between these.
The whole Qur’anic reference to seven heavens and that these were observed by the people of the time is nevertheless a fallacy far too serious to overlook and we will in future assess this matter in details.
I am currently preparing a lengthy article on the seven heavens in the Qur’an and the concept of the Greeks and Talmudic Jews on the seven heavens.
Originally, if you consider the Greeks and also the elaboration of some of the early church fathers and the common concepts of their time, the seven heavens were considered as seven tracts, the the running structure of seven planets and their orbits. These seven planets consisted of the moon as the object nearest the earth, second the sun and further away the orbits of five other planets, which are today recognised as existing in our solar system.
I will post all the early quotes and reference of these when I have brought all the material together into one article.
But notice how the Qur’an is consisted with the early views; we read in Sura 71: 15:
"See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above another, "And made the moon A light in their midst, and made the sun As a (Glorious) Lamp?" [Al-Qur?aan 71:15-16]
This passage does not refer to a miraculous prediction of anything, since the author of the Qur’an states that we see or observe that Allah has created seven heavens one above the other.
Hence this is not a divine miraculous prediction of modern science but an human observation; here the author of the Qur’an even reveals the ability of the early human community to engage in science and to correctly perceive and understand how nature and the universe is structured (even though in this case the scientific information which the early humans saw and which Allah confirms is wrong; but I will get back to that in another article).
Now ask yourself, how did the early human societies observe this structure of seven heavens?
The answer is: they had correctly discovered five of the solar-system planets in their orbits.
The fallacy of their theory was to view the sun and the moon as similar objects, all orbiting in parallel lines around the earth; yet this nevertheless postulated that seven interstellar objects were orbiting in seven tracts, which is consistent with the view of the Qur’anic author.
These orbits were by numerous early writers referred to as seven tracts and seven heavens (I shall give the references from the Qur’an and the pre-Islamic writers in an upcoming post).
This why the Qur’an says that the people of Muhammad’s time had even seen that Allah had created seven heavens, each above the other; these seven heavens marked the orbit of the seven planets (obviously we have yet to discover even the edge of the first heaven and the reference is to something that they could see, namely the seven planets and their orbits):
"See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above another," (Sura 71: 15)
This is already presents a significant problem in terms of Qur'anic accuracy as our solar-system consists of eight planets and five dwarf planets, which already provides evidence that the Qur’an is not based upon divine knowledge but human knowledge; the knowledge that already flourished in Muhammad’s time.
Furthermore, we need to presume that since the Qur’an refers to seven planets it also follows the discoveries and ideas of its time, which viewed the sun and moon as included objects and excluded the earth. This is obvious from the Qur’an, which views the earth to have separated from the heavens and the interstellar matter and objects to derive on a later stage of the cosmological development (Sura 21: 10 and Sura 41: 9-12). In fact this is also consistent with the views flourishing in Muhammad’s time (but I shall get back to his in a future post).
That Sura 71: 15 is also elaborating on the centrality of the sun and moon as being in the midst of the seven orbits, which is also confirming that the Qur’an utilizes the science of antiquity. This was also the view of authors who predated Islam, and consists with the idea that the sun and the moon orbited closest to the earth in a orbit circle around the earth, which most ancient thinkers postulated; hence they were central and in the middle of this orbit and lighted up its entire structure.
The passage might even suggest that the sun and the moon light up all seven tracts and the other planets; this is what the ancient thinkers believed.
Except for the moon being an object attached to the earth, the early philosophers got this quite right. However, the Qur’an might also be in agreement with e.g. Plato that the sun lighted up not only the earth and planets but also the entire universe; take a look at sura 25: 61:
"Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies, And placed therein a Lamp And a Moon giving light."
Now, is this supposed to be modern science or prediction of modern science?
Brianman stated in a previous thread that the Qur’an ‘confirms’; that is an overstatement!
The Qur’an does certainly not confirm anything, it may certainly quote the early philosophers and their postulates, of which some ideas were fairly correct and others plainly wrong; just a pity that the Qur’an fails to differentiate between these.
The whole Qur’anic reference to seven heavens and that these were observed by the people of the time is nevertheless a fallacy far too serious to overlook and we will in future assess this matter in details.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Victory for Rifqa!
Praise the Lord for delivering our sister Rifqa from those who want to kill her. Today, Rifqa's parents agreed to leave her in the custody of the state of Ohio until she turns 18.
Debunking Qur'anic Science: Does the Qur'an Predict that the Moon Reflects Sun Light? Is this a Miracolous Prediction?
A whole range of Muslim apologists have claimed that the Qur’an is miraculous in its prediction of the moon reflecting sunlight; about this matter Zakir Naik writes:
THE LIGHT OF THE MOON IS REFLECTED LIGHT
It was believed by earlier civilizations that the moon emanates its own light. Science now tells us that the light of the moon is reflected light. However this fact was mentioned in the Qur?aan 1,400 years ago in the following verse:
"Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies, And placed therein a Lamp And a Moon giving light." [Al-Qur?aan 25:61]
Consider the following verses related to the nature of light from the sun and the moon: "It is He who made the sun To be a shining glory And the moon to be a light (Of beauty)." [Al-Qur?aan 10:5]
"See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above another, "And made the moon A light in their midst, and made the sun As a (Glorious) Lamp?" [Al-Qur?aan 71:15-16]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18926563/Quran-and-Modern-Science-EnglishBy-Dr-Zakir-Naik
See also a youtube video debunking Zakir Naik’s speculation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIw_obd7a-k
Osama Abdallah has also made similar claims:
So why would Ibn Kathir come up with this statement, many centuries before man discovered that the earth was spherical and that the moon does indeed reflect the sun's light?
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/light_of_moon.htm
Notice that Osama Abdallah believes that Ibn Kathir came up with statements about this scientific accuracy only because the Qur’an makes such statements.
Firstly, I am not so sure whether Kathir got this idea from the Qur’an, I don’t think the passage from Kathir clarifies that.
See also two articles from Answering-Islam that refute the claim that the Qur’an even utters such claims:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/moonlight_wc.html
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/science10.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zaatari_moonlight.htm
However, let’s assume that the Qur’an does describe the moon reflecting sun-light; are Zakir Naik and Osama Abdallah then correct in their claims that these are miraculous statements, that these ideas were unknown prior to the revelation of the Qur’an?
The answer is no! This is yet again and example of the typical lies spread by modern Islamic apologists.
In fact the concept that the moon reflected sun-light was a very common concept even a thousand years prior to Islam.
Then why do individuals such as Zakir Naik and Osama Abdallah spread such lies to the masses?
There are three possibilities:
1) Either they knowingly spread such misconception and hence willingly deceive their readers and listeners.
2) Or they have simply not done their homework.
3) Or they are simply taken over by their emotionalism for Islam and are blinded from considering the related facts.
For example:
Anaxagoras (4-5 Century BC) indicated that within the ancient scientific of his time it was argued whether the moon shines by reflected light or emits its own light. Even in this era, even without divine revelation human thinkers got a number of ideas scientifically correct, such as Aristarchus (310-230 BC) whose ideas predicted the modern scientific discovery that the earth with the other planets orbits the sun and that the earth was in a constant rotation, and completed a full rotation once in every twenty-four hours (Russel, History of Western Philosophy, p.222-223).
Hence I wonder why Zakir Naik and Osama Abdallah not give up their faith in Islam and build a religion around Aristarchus, or include him as one of the greatest prophets ever; at least his ideas predict modern science and must therefore indicate divine revelation.
However, let’s look at how common this concept was prior to Muhammad and the rise of Islam:
Thales (585 BC):
The moon is lighted from the sun. 29; 360. Thales et al. agree with the mathematicians that the monthly phases of the moon show that it travels along with the sun and is lighted by it, and eclipses show that it comes into the shadow of the earth, the earth coming between the two heavenly bodies and blocking the light of the moon (Doxographi on Thales, Aet. ii. 1 ; Dox. 327) (6).
Anaxagoras (500-428 BC) considered the moon be to a false-shining star (255).
The Doxographist elaborate further on this:
The moon is below the sun and nearer us. The sun is larger than the Peloponnesos. The moon does not have its own light, but light from the sun (The Doxographists on Anaxagoras, Hipp. Phil. 8 ; Dox. 561) (260-1).
Empedocles (490-430):
As sunlight striking the broad circle of the moon. 154. A borrowed light, circular in form, it revolves about the earth, as if following the track of a chariot (Empedocles, translations of the fragments I) (177).
Ptolemy (90-168):
The Moon principally generates moisture; her proximity to the earth renders her highly capable of exciting damp vapours, and of thus operating sensibly upon animal bodies by relaxation and putrefaction. She has, however, also a moderate share in the production of heat, in consequence of the illumination she receives from the Sun (Ptolemy?s Tetrabiblos: Book the First: Chapter IV, The Influence of the Planetary Orbs) (13).
Lucretius (100-50 BC):
How then, if the sun is so small, can it give of such a flood of light (p.189)?
The moon, too, whether it sheds a borrowed light upon the landscape in its progress or emits a native radiance from its own body. What then of the moon? It may be that it shines only when the sun’s rays fall upon it. Then day by day, as it moves away from the sun’s orb, it turns more its illuminated surface towards our view till in its rising it gazes down face to face up the setting of the sun and beams with lustre at the full. Thereafter, it is bound to hide its light bit by bit behind it as it glides around heaven towards the solar fire from the opposite point of the zodiac (192-193) (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe).
The Jewish Talmud gets this right:
Abraham once worshipped the moon and said: The light of the moon must be derived from the light of the sun (A Cohen, Everyman?s Talmud, London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd/NewYork: E.P. Dutton & Co. Inc, 1949: 2).
Hence once again we have refuted Zakir Naik, Osama Abdallah and a number of modern Muslim apologists who claim that the moon reflecting sun-light was a concept unknown prior to the era of Muhammad and the Qur’an, that is of course only if the Qur’an truly makes this prediction in the first place; but that is stuff for another article.
I urge therefore Zakir Naik, Osama Abdallah, Harun Yahay and others to correct this error.
Saudi Arabia: 80-Year-Old Muslim Marries 11-Year-Old Child
Now where on earth would a Muslim get the idea that it's perfectly acceptable for an elderly man to have sex with a child?
News of a Saudi octogenarian marrying an eleven-year-old girl has outraged human rights activists amid calls on the government to regulate the marriage of underage girls, local media reported Saturday.
The Saudi National Human Rights Commission formed a committee to investigate the marriage, which activists consider a flagrant violation of human and children rights, the Saudi newspaper al-Riyadh said.
The marriage registrar, who was widely criticized since he agreed to seal the marriage contract knowing the girl's age, absolved himself of any blame.
"There is no law that prohibits the marriage of a girl under 18," he told the paper. "Plus, I summoned the girl and she declared her consent and signed the contract." . . .
The groom expressed his surprise at how the media leveled harsh criticism against him and his family for marrying the girl.
"It is very simple. We didn’t do anything wrong. It is a valid contract that meets all the conditions for marriage. What's the point of all this fuss?"
The groom has three other wives, all much younger, and they all have kids. Read More.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Yahya Snow and the Debate Proposal
Yahya has put up a response to my debate challenge: here. All in all he was polite, a marked improvement upon some past discussions, and he basically accepted my challenge to debate, but several things beg for a response.
In the first place, I found it quite interesting that Yahya spoke so glowingly of my writing style but wanted to make sure that this was not mistaken as an endorsement of the truth of what I say vis-Ã -vis Christianity and Islam.
As far as my writing goes, I praise the Lord for the extent to which it may be "something to behold", recognizing that I have no gifts or graces that I have not received, and that every good and perfect gift comes down from above, from God in whom there is neither variableness nor shadow cast by turning.
As for the observation that my “beautiful speech”, if I may be permitted to call it such, is not proof that what I say is true, I couldn’t agree more. Solomon said, “A word aptly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver,” but it is also possible, as Yahya is implying, to beautifully communicate falsehood. It is sort of like an ugly woman in nice clothes. Or a Surah that says Allah is God. A beautiful package does not necessarily imply contents that are commensurately beautiful or true. Fortunately, the debate I have proposed will have the benefit of letting people look at both sides and see who is speaking the truth. At this point, even before the debate, we can all rejoice that Yahya has already taken a major step forward. Surely it is not insignificant to find a Muslim, who, for all intents and purposes, agrees with Paul (1 Corinthians 2:1ff.) over Muhammad (Surah 2:23-24).
I also found his rather parochial remark that Christians have recently taken up an interest in debating focal issues such as the Trinity to be somewhat interesting. Not only have I never known a day since my conversion when I was not interested in proclaiming the glory of God’s triune nature to guilt-ridden sinners, whether Muslims or atheists or Satanists and whoever else, but Christians have been pressing this great truth in their conversations with Muslims from the present day all the way back to the Christians of Najran. I think Yahya has been living too sheltered a life in the Ummah if he thinks Christians have been reticent to speak to this issue. He also may be laboring under the assumption that the doctrine of the Trinity is beset with logical problems that make it undesirable for a Christian to get into it. I can assure Yahya, the present writer labors under no such notion. Not only do I believe the doctrine of the Trinity to be logically defensible; I believe without faith in the Triune God as the creator and redeemer of the world, that logic itself collapses as arbitrary, just like things such as love and personality collapse on Yahya’s unitarian assumptions.
This brings me to the fact that Yahya says he would be interested in debating the Trinity with me, but, besides the fact that he is a little snowed in at the moment with other issues that he has to address first – and he is right, many of us are still waiting for his response to the issue of John 1:19ff, which is already a long time coming – he has some concerns about the specific debates I have in mind. Yahya says,
The fact is, in addition to the reasons that are discernible from my tongue-in-cheek remarks tucked away above, there are several good reasons for beginning our discussion on the Trinity with the Old Testament:
In the first place, God gave the Old Testament before the New Testament. I don’t presume, and I would like to think the same goes for Yahya, to have a better pedagogy than the all-wise God.
In the second place, our discussion is on the Trinity and not on the deity of Christ. During the Old Testament period, Jesus, according to the Christian position, was divine and not, as in the New Testament, both divine and human. There are of course many Old Testament anticipations of the incarnation, such as the many theophanies involving the Malakh Yahweh, i.e. the Messenger or Word of Yahweh, but nothing that would involve us in a discussion of the incarnation proper, complete with the state of affairs it brought about and that Muslims like to bring up in an effort to get others to share in their confusion.
Finally, it was mainly with respect to the debate between Sam and Farhan, which in Yahya’s editorial and censorious hands became a monologue, that I was stirred to issue this challenge. That debate was on the Trinity in the Old Testament. Our debate would rectify this little inequity of Yahya’s as it would require Yahya to link to my response. In fact, by refusing to debate this issue Yahya would be conceding my point that he edited that debate because he does not really believe such a position as was maintained by Farhan can successfully withstand refutation.
As for the other debates Yahya proposes, I would be more than happy to do those as well. I am prepared to meet Yahya at whatever level he wishes. First things first, however. Before graduating to a discussion of the Trinity in the New Testament, Yahya first has to go to the school of the prophets, those who prepared the way for the coming of Jesus, God’s Word made flesh. If Yahya does not believe Moses and the prophets, neither will He believe such things if He hears them directly from the Lord Jesus Himself.
I pray that the Lord Jesus will help those, like Yahya, who are slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. May our debate be a means to that end. I am looking forward to it.
In the first place, I found it quite interesting that Yahya spoke so glowingly of my writing style but wanted to make sure that this was not mistaken as an endorsement of the truth of what I say vis-Ã -vis Christianity and Islam.
As far as my writing goes, I praise the Lord for the extent to which it may be "something to behold", recognizing that I have no gifts or graces that I have not received, and that every good and perfect gift comes down from above, from God in whom there is neither variableness nor shadow cast by turning.
As for the observation that my “beautiful speech”, if I may be permitted to call it such, is not proof that what I say is true, I couldn’t agree more. Solomon said, “A word aptly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver,” but it is also possible, as Yahya is implying, to beautifully communicate falsehood. It is sort of like an ugly woman in nice clothes. Or a Surah that says Allah is God. A beautiful package does not necessarily imply contents that are commensurately beautiful or true. Fortunately, the debate I have proposed will have the benefit of letting people look at both sides and see who is speaking the truth. At this point, even before the debate, we can all rejoice that Yahya has already taken a major step forward. Surely it is not insignificant to find a Muslim, who, for all intents and purposes, agrees with Paul (1 Corinthians 2:1ff.) over Muhammad (Surah 2:23-24).
I also found his rather parochial remark that Christians have recently taken up an interest in debating focal issues such as the Trinity to be somewhat interesting. Not only have I never known a day since my conversion when I was not interested in proclaiming the glory of God’s triune nature to guilt-ridden sinners, whether Muslims or atheists or Satanists and whoever else, but Christians have been pressing this great truth in their conversations with Muslims from the present day all the way back to the Christians of Najran. I think Yahya has been living too sheltered a life in the Ummah if he thinks Christians have been reticent to speak to this issue. He also may be laboring under the assumption that the doctrine of the Trinity is beset with logical problems that make it undesirable for a Christian to get into it. I can assure Yahya, the present writer labors under no such notion. Not only do I believe the doctrine of the Trinity to be logically defensible; I believe without faith in the Triune God as the creator and redeemer of the world, that logic itself collapses as arbitrary, just like things such as love and personality collapse on Yahya’s unitarian assumptions.
This brings me to the fact that Yahya says he would be interested in debating the Trinity with me, but, besides the fact that he is a little snowed in at the moment with other issues that he has to address first – and he is right, many of us are still waiting for his response to the issue of John 1:19ff, which is already a long time coming – he has some concerns about the specific debates I have in mind. Yahya says,
“I must add my slight concern regarding the topics Anthony suggested, surely a more encompassing topic should be chosen rather than limiting a discussion on the Trinity to a certain section of the Bible. I would suggest:In the name of having a more “encompassing” topic for debate, Yahya suggests we restrict the topic to whether or not Jesus taught the Trinity, which means narrowing our focus to the four Gospels and the book of Revelation, the latter of which also contains the words of Christ, rather than looking at the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament. Of course I am more than willing to debate that topic, and I would even be willing to have an even more “encompassing” debate, such as whether or not the book of Jude, which is the equivalent of a single chapter in most other books of the Bible, teaches the deity of Christ, but I think I should at least be humored first with a debate on the less encompassing teaching of the Old Testament, even though it only consists of 39 books rather than four or five, and only covers the writings of prophets that span a millennia of time rather than a handful of years.
Did Jesus teach the Trinity?
This topic should not be limited to a certain Book; logic should be allowed to come into play as well as other sources.
Is Anthony up for this particular dialogue?”
The fact is, in addition to the reasons that are discernible from my tongue-in-cheek remarks tucked away above, there are several good reasons for beginning our discussion on the Trinity with the Old Testament:
In the first place, God gave the Old Testament before the New Testament. I don’t presume, and I would like to think the same goes for Yahya, to have a better pedagogy than the all-wise God.
In the second place, our discussion is on the Trinity and not on the deity of Christ. During the Old Testament period, Jesus, according to the Christian position, was divine and not, as in the New Testament, both divine and human. There are of course many Old Testament anticipations of the incarnation, such as the many theophanies involving the Malakh Yahweh, i.e. the Messenger or Word of Yahweh, but nothing that would involve us in a discussion of the incarnation proper, complete with the state of affairs it brought about and that Muslims like to bring up in an effort to get others to share in their confusion.
Finally, it was mainly with respect to the debate between Sam and Farhan, which in Yahya’s editorial and censorious hands became a monologue, that I was stirred to issue this challenge. That debate was on the Trinity in the Old Testament. Our debate would rectify this little inequity of Yahya’s as it would require Yahya to link to my response. In fact, by refusing to debate this issue Yahya would be conceding my point that he edited that debate because he does not really believe such a position as was maintained by Farhan can successfully withstand refutation.
As for the other debates Yahya proposes, I would be more than happy to do those as well. I am prepared to meet Yahya at whatever level he wishes. First things first, however. Before graduating to a discussion of the Trinity in the New Testament, Yahya first has to go to the school of the prophets, those who prepared the way for the coming of Jesus, God’s Word made flesh. If Yahya does not believe Moses and the prophets, neither will He believe such things if He hears them directly from the Lord Jesus Himself.
I pray that the Lord Jesus will help those, like Yahya, who are slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. May our debate be a means to that end. I am looking forward to it.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Debunking Qur'anic Science: Was Everything Created in Pairs and do Plants have Gender? If so is this Another Miraculous Prediction in the Qur'an?
Harun Yahya has made the claim that the Qur’an predicts the modern concept of the universe, that every details within it are made in pairs; I am referring to this website below:
http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_05.php
Here Harun Yahya writes:
‘DUALITY IN CREATION
Glory be to Him Who created all the pairs: from what the earth produces and from themselves and from things unknown to them (Qur’an 36: 36)
While "male and female" is equivalent to the concept of "pair," "things unknown to them," as expressed in the Qur'an, bears a broader meaning. Indeed, we encounter one of the meanings pointed to in the verse in the present day. The British physicist Paul Dirac, who discovered that matter was created in pairs, won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1933. This finding, known as "parity," revealed the duality known as matter and anti-matter. Anti-matter bears the opposite characteristics to matter. For instance, contrary to matter, anti-matter electrons are positive and protons negative. This fact is expressed in a scientific source as follows:
... every particle has its antiparticle of opposite charge… [T]he uncertainty relation tells us that pair creation and pair annihilation happen in the vacuum at all times, in all places.47
Indeed the Scientific claim of modern science might in a number of cases be correct. On the other hand the claim that everything is in pairs is not entirely correct; check out this article of Jochen Katz that refutes such misconceptions
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/qe015.html
Its a fact also as Jochen Katz points out that Harun’s interpretation might be reading fairly too much information into the passage than originally belongs there. Indeed Sura 36: 36 states that everything the earth produces derives in pairs, however the matters unknown to them does not necessarily refer to anything outside our earthly globe such as matter and anti-matter, unless the Qur’an specifically makes such a statement.
But lets assume here that Harun’s claim is correct and that every detail in the universe is based upon pairs and that the Qur’an refers to this cosmological system; are we then to perceive the Qur’an as miraculous in its prediction?
Interestingly sources that predate Islam, include this assumed prediction of modern scientists about the universe and its pairs; not only from what grows and lives on earth but as a system that encompasses the entire cosmological dimension; interestingly these sources are more explicit than the Qur’an.
The Jewish Talmud states:
One the verse ‘Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one,’ the comment is made: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, ‘My children, everything that I created in the Universe is in pairs—e.g. heaven and earth, the sun and moon, Adam and Eve, this world and the World to Come; but I am one and alone in the Universe (Deut. R. II. 31)’ Dr. A. Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd: 1949: 4
Hence if the Qur’an is accurate in this matter, Harun fails to tell his readers that this was a common concept that existed among the Jews and other groups prior to Islam; hence the Qur’anic statement is not miraculous but merely a reference to the knowledge that existed in Muhammad’s time and prior to Islam.
But it does not end here, Harun Yahya continues by claiming that the Qur’an is miraculous in its statement about the pairs or sex of plants; he states:
Another example of duality in creation is plants. Botanists only discovered that there is a gender distinction in plants some 100 years ago.48 Yet, the fact that plants are created in pairs was revealed in the following verses of the Qur'an 1,400 years ago:
It is Allah Who created the heavens with no support-you can see them-and cast firmly embedded mountains on the earth so that it would not move under you, and scattered about in it creatures of every kind. And We send down water from the sky and make every generous plant grow in it, in pairs. (Qur'an, 31:10)
It is He Who made the earth a cradle for you and threaded pathways for you through it and sent down water from the sky by which We have brought forth diverse pairs of plants. (Qur'an, 20:53)
Osama Abdallah elaborates enormously on this claim; he writes:
‘Previously, humans did not know that plants too have male and female gender distinctions. Botany states that every plant has a male and female gender’.
(I refrain from posting a link to this article of Osama as the McFee system on my computer recently warned me from accessing his website)
Again this claim is greatly exaggerated; I suggest that the reader reads another excellent article of Jochen Katz that refutes this claim:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/sexy_fruits.html
But let’s just assess this claim in the light of pre-Islamic concepts; firstly if the Muslim claim would be solely accurate would this render the Qur’anic statement miraculous? Secondly, is Osama correct in his claim that humans prior to the modern scientific discovery did not know about the male and female gender distinctions in plants?
In fact both statements are wrong:
I welcome you to the worlds of Anaxagoras and Empedocles:
over.edu/texts/presoc/emp.htm
And we continue:
‘Trees first of living beings sprang from the earth, before the sun was unfolded in the heavens and before day and night were separated; and by reason of the symmetry of their mixture they contain the principle of male and female; and they grow, being raised by the warmth that is in the earth (v. 26; 440) (p. 230)’.
Hence let it be declared, here and now that we have completely debunked these claims of Harun Yahya and Osama Abdallah.
The Qur’anic reference to pairs in the universe and plants were concepts that existed prior to Islam and hence the Qur’an does not reveal itself miraculous by conveying to its readers either of these concepts.
Coptic Justice
Coptic Justice from John Abiskaron on Vimeo.
The next rally for Coptic justice will be in New York City on January 19th. Visit the Free Copts website for more information. (And let me know if you plan to attend. I'll be there.)
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Not in the Name of Islam? (Majed Moughni and other Muslims Rally against Terrorism)
On January 8th, 2010, Muslims and their non-Muslim friends gathered in Detroit, Michigan, to protest terrorism in the name of Islam. Majed Moughni, the event's organizer, predicted that thousands of Muslims would join together and condemn violence committed by Muslim terrorists. Unfortunately, Muslims aren't quite that disturbed by terrorism.
Perhaps the Muslims who refused to condemn terrorism had some of the following Islamic passages in mind:
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 Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Qur’an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.
Qur’an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
Qur’an 47:35—Be not weary and fainthearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds.
Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”
Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah.
Sahih al-Bukhari 2785—Narrated Abu Hurairah: A man came to Allah’s Messenger and said, “Guide me to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 2787—Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Case into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 2796—Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah’s cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 2797—Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Prophet said, . . . “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 2810—Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, “A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them is in Allah’s Cause?” The Prophet said, “He who fights that Allah’s Word (i.e., Allah’s religion of Islamic Monotheism) be superior, is in Allah’s Cause.”
Sunan An-Nasa’i 3099—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: “Whoever dies without having fought or having thought of fighting, he dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy.”
Sunan Ibn Majah 2763—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever meets Allah with no mark on him (as a result of fighting) in His cause, he will meet Him with a deficiency.”
Sunan Ibn Majah 2794—It was narrated that Amr bin Abasah said: “I came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?’ He said: ‘(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.’”
Perhaps the Muslims who refused to condemn terrorism had some of the following Islamic passages in mind:
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 Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Qur’an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.
Qur’an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
Qur’an 47:35—Be not weary and fainthearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds.
Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”
Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah.
Sahih al-Bukhari 2785—Narrated Abu Hurairah: A man came to Allah’s Messenger and said, “Guide me to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 2787—Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Case into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 2796—Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah’s cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 2797—Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Prophet said, . . . “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 2810—Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, “A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them is in Allah’s Cause?” The Prophet said, “He who fights that Allah’s Word (i.e., Allah’s religion of Islamic Monotheism) be superior, is in Allah’s Cause.”
Sunan An-Nasa’i 3099—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: “Whoever dies without having fought or having thought of fighting, he dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy.”
Sunan Ibn Majah 2763—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever meets Allah with no mark on him (as a result of fighting) in His cause, he will meet Him with a deficiency.”
Sunan Ibn Majah 2794—It was narrated that Amr bin Abasah said: “I came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?’ He said: ‘(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.’”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)