Dr. Dan Wallace - "The Son's Ignorance in Matthew 24:36"
This is some what relevant to an up coming post.
Adnan Rashid Proven IslamoPhobiaPhobe!
Guest Post: Radical Moderate
A few days ago a horrible murder was committed in England. A Saudi woman had her life tragically ended by as of yet an unknown and unnamed offender [1]. I hope whoever committed this heinous crime, is swiftly brought to justice and repentance.
One notorious Muslim speaker Adnan Rashid made the following outrageous comment on his FB page.
"One of our Saudi sisters has been brutally murdered in what appears to be an Islamophobic attack. I hold the British political establishment and media responsible for this atrocity. Our sister's blood is on their hands. All Islamophobes in the government and the fascist media must take full responsibility for this brutal murder caused by their active hate mongering against the peaceful Muslim community. I ask the Saudi government to take heed and cut ties with the British political establishment until Islamophobia is eradicated from the media as well as all political circles. Our lives are not any less important than the rest of the British population." [2]
What makes Adnad think it's an Islamophobic attack? The article he posted gave the following information:
“DS Tracy Hawkings said officers were keeping an open mind on the motive for the attack. "We are conscious that the dress of the victim will have identified her as likely being a Muslim and this is one of the main lines of the investigation but again there is no firm evidence at this time that she was targeted because of her religion," she said."
The police have not established a motive keeping an “open mind” and there is “no firm evidence” that she was murdered because of her religion other than the way she was wearing an abya Islamic dress. So a Muslimah is stabbed to death wearing an abya and this means she was murdered by an Islamophobe? Talk about Islamophobe-a-phobic bigotry!
Now does this sound all too familiar? Remember Shaima Alwadi? The California woman who was found bludgeoned to death by her daughter. Remember her daughter wearing a hijab, and to much make up, and shedding crocodile tears behind over sized sunglasses to news cameras.
“We found a note that said “go home you terrorists” she cried to the delight of CAIR. Who immediately issued a press conference condemning this Islamophobic attack. Muslim author Reza Aslan personally blamed Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller for the murder. Even though the El Cajon police said they were investigating other leads and theories. The story brought national and international outrage, a Facebook page titled “Hoodies and Hijabis” was started getting hundreds of thousands if not millions of likes.
Only one small problem with this tale, the woman's husband was just convicted of her murder a few weeks ago.[3] His defense team even trying to blame the daughter for the murder. Muslims it seems even turn on their own families. Could this be another "Honor Killing" as was the case with Shaima Alawadi? Plenty of Muslimahs have been murdered around the world, including England that have nothing to do with Islamophobia.
As a matter of fact I can not think of a single Muslimah who has been murdered in England due to "Islamophobia". On the other hand I can name a few Muslimahs who have been murdered in England at the hands of their own family members. So if this woman was murdered because of Islamophobia she would be the first. It is well documented that so-called "Islamophobia" criminal cases have been either made up or greatly exaggerated. Can you say TELL MAMMA?
Adnan Rashid made another assertion:
“Lee Rigby's murder received 5 star coverage from the media. The Saudi woman doesn't deserve it because she wasn't "British" enough. Justice?”
What is interesting is that police are investigating whether this murder is related to another murder that happened a few months ago in the same area. Jim Attfield a mentally challenged white man was stabbed over a 100 times. This horrific murder received barely any media coverage, but no one is saying that it is because of retard-a-phobia, or "WhiteManoPhobia".
And oddly enough police are also investigating retaliation threats from Muslims! Even Muslims on Adnan Rashid’s own Facebook page have called for Jihad against the British government and worse:
And:
So in a real sense the as of yet unproven speculation that this woman was murdered because of Islamophobia, something utterly unheard of and something that has never happened before is leading Muslims to make violent threats against innocent British citizens! Without any evidence, Adnan Rashid and his goons blame this poor woman's murder on Islamphobes, the media and politicians. We have heard this before. Now I'm not saying this is a case of Honor Killings that has plagued Islamic families, something Muslims foolishly deny even existing. But I would not be surprised or even shocked if that does turn out to be the case. However this may be a case of a sexual assault or robbery gone bad, or even a case of a serial killer targeting random people in English parks. But either way just because a Muslim woman is murdered while wearing a hijab does not mean that she was killed by Islamophobes.
I hope Muslims will denounce and condemn Mr Rashid’s reckless attack on innocent Islamophobes, condemning his bigoted remarks for the hate speech he is promoting.I hope that if this horrific murder turns out to be anything other than a hate crime that Mr Rashid will apologize to the innocent Islamophobes he has unwarrantably slandered.
UPDATE
The BBC is reporting that a 19 year old man has been arrested after he grabbed another woman in the same area. No word on if the other woman was a Muslim or what the motives were for his attack. [4]
Notes:
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/18/woman-killed-footpath-attack-muslim-dress-colchester
Paul Williams, 1 Samuel 15:2-3 and God's Justice
[Nota Bene: the webmaster of the Answering Abraham blog has been kind enough to include this guest post, by Denis Giron.]
In November of 2012, Paul Bilal Williams posted a video to YouTube, titled "David Wood and Jay Smith refuse to answer any questions on the Bible" (no link is available, as the video has since been taken down). In that video, Mr. Williams repeatedly tried to interrupt Mr. Wood's speech, at Speaker's Corner, in London, by yelling variations of the same single question, over and over again: "why does [your] God kill babies?" Mr. Williams would go on to explain that he had in mind specifically 1 Samuel 15:2-3.
Mr. Williams also posted the video on his (now defunct) blog, as well as on FaceBook (exempli gratia: this thread). Since then, he has written about the subject on his second blog (cf. his entry titled The character of God in the Bible), and has challenged others to grapple with the subject on Twitter. For example, consider the following tweets:
From all that, one would think that Mr. Williams wants to engage others on the subject. Sadly, however, it has been my experience that when people try to discuss the subject deeply with him, he quickly develops a desire to avoid the topic. Interested readers can see some of the correspondences I have tried to have with Mr. Williams at the links to the relevant FaceBook post and blog entry, above. Here I will attempt to deal with some of the salient points, with the hope that this blog entry might suffice as a reply to Mr. Williams, should he raise the subject again (exempli gratia, if, in the future, he challenges someone to discuss the relevant Biblical passage, the person so challenged can simply direct Mr. Williams here). I confess, however, that much of what will be found here, will overlap with the discussion found in the aforementioned correspondences.
God's Justice vs. One Man's Cognitive Dissonance
When Mr. Williams first posted the relevant video, back in November of 2012, and I made my first attempt to correspond with him on the subject, I attempted to press two questions on him, which might be stated as follows:
In our correspondences, in late 2012, Mr. Williams assured me that there is a world of difference between God causing a natural disaster to kill children, on the one hand, and God directing a human to kill children, on the other. However, despite such insistence, Mr. Williams has not yet, to date, articulated what that difference might be. It seems to me that if we take the proposition...
However, if I may make a bit of a relevant segue, in a correspondence with Ijaz Ahmed (in a thread on a FaceBook page of Kaleef Karim which has since been deactivated, and thus cannot be linked to, at this time), Mr. Ahmed asked me if I understood the difference between one of my loved ones dying in a natural disaster, on the one hand, and the same person being murdered by another human, on the other. It seems to me prudent to address this idea, here.
My objection is that such a question grinds close to removing God from the equation. For example, if a mere human being developed technology which could cause tsunamis, and deliberately employed said technology to kill a group of women and children, we would consider him guilty of mass murder. However, if God caused a tsunami to kill women and children, most theists would not attempt to impugn God's justice. So too, if a human acted on his own in killing a child, we can consider that murder, but if we consider murder to be specifically an illicit form of homicide, then a human carrying out God's order to kill a child would arguably be licit rather than illicit, and thus would not constitute murder. For an analogy, Jews, Christians and Muslims do not consider Abraham's intention to kill his son to be an attempted murder, though if an ordinary man, today, attempted to kill his child, we could all consider him guilty of such. In short, the question seems to side step the central subject of God's justice in employing creation to bring about the death of women and children.
Interestingly, in December of 2012, Mr. Williams had a bit of praise for Sadat bin Anwar's piece, Killing babies for who? Allah or Yah___/Jesus? Mr. Williams has more recently shared the piece via a tweet. In that piece, Mr. Bin Anwar makes the following rather interesting statement:
Mr. Williams' apparent inability to appreciate the very sources he recommends to others did not stop there. On 31 December, 2012, he posted to his [first] blog a video titled, Islamic Theology vs. the Problem of Evil, in which Abdal Hakim Murad (A.K.A. Timothy Winter) discussed God's will and human suffering. At slightly over a minute into the video, the man, who is among Mr. Williams' favorite scholars, states that "it's an impugning and compromising of our tawHeed to suggest that what's happening in today's world is not the direct will of Allah". Such a point is highly relevant to this discussion, but it would not be easy to get Mr. Williams to grapple with its implications.
Another example, in which Mr. Williams seems to wave off or shut out anything which is inconvenient, came up on Twitter. He feigned being scandalized by the fact that there exist Christians who admit that, if they believed God wanted them to kill a child, they might attempt to do so. While I can certainly understand an atheist having a problem with such, it seems improper for a Muslim to take such a stance. Consider the following exchange:
The reason why it is awkward for a professed Muslim to express shock that someone might be willing to do the unthinkable if they believed God commanded them to do so is precisely because the Qur'an depicts Abraham, one of the most celebrated figures in the Islamic faith, as precisely that sort of a person. Mr. Williams, however, tried to deny that such was the case, and invitations for him to explain a relevant passage in the Qur'an were met with silence. Further attempts to get him to grapple with the subject he himself raised were met with personal insults.
Such unfortunate behavior reflects a sadly typical trend with Mr. Williams. He prefers to end discussions and/or employ personal attacks to ever conceding a point to "the other side". One is tempted to speculate that such tendencies are rooted in hatred (an authentic "Christophobia"), as they are not motivated by a sincere desire to come to the truth.
A Brief Comment on the Text
Anyone who has grappled with the subject of theodicy will almost certainly find Mr. Willaims' polemic less than persuasive. This is because the solution to the problem of suffering will often provide an indirect answer to the relevant charge. For example, one could easily argue that, just because we cannot understand why God would employ creation (whether it be a tsunami or a person) to kill a child, that does not mean God therefore did not have morally sufficient reason for doing so.
Relevant to this, Mr. Williams has felt that 1 Samuel 15:2 lists the precise reason why God ordered the relevant slaughter. Admitting that he does not know Hebrew, Mr. Williams sided with the NRSV, which opens with "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did...".
However, the NRSV offers a slightly less than literal translation. The PaQaD root (פקד) can give rise to verbs which mean to punish, but it can also mean to note, examine, recall, remember, et cetera, and in the relevant Biblical verse, the verb is paqadtee (פקדתי), which is perfect/completed tense (roughly "past tense"). Ergo, if we were to see it as "punish," the punishment would have already been complete ("I punished"). Therefore, it should be noted that the ESV is closer to the intention of the text being translated, in reading "I have noted..."
Even though the verse makes note of that past event, that does not mean that event suffices as all the reason God had for giving all of the precise commands that were given. For an analogy, in a war, a general might tell his troops that a coming battle is related to a specific past event, but that does not mean every detail in the battle plan is therefore just a mechanical reaction to the event which was mentioned. On the contrary, there can be all sorts of other motivations or lines of reasoning behind the various details of the attack, which are not shared with the troops carrying out the orders. Hence, 1 Samuel 15:2 does not prevent us from thinking God may have had morally sufficient reasons which we are presently unaware of.
In November of 2012, Paul Bilal Williams posted a video to YouTube, titled "David Wood and Jay Smith refuse to answer any questions on the Bible" (no link is available, as the video has since been taken down). In that video, Mr. Williams repeatedly tried to interrupt Mr. Wood's speech, at Speaker's Corner, in London, by yelling variations of the same single question, over and over again: "why does [your] God kill babies?" Mr. Williams would go on to explain that he had in mind specifically 1 Samuel 15:2-3.
Mr. Williams also posted the video on his (now defunct) blog, as well as on FaceBook (exempli gratia: this thread). Since then, he has written about the subject on his second blog (cf. his entry titled The character of God in the Bible), and has challenged others to grapple with the subject on Twitter. For example, consider the following tweets:
@SamShamoun do you condemn your god who commands the slaughter of the innocent? http://t.co/WVu02xws3J
— Paul Williams (@bilalwilliams) June 5, 2014
@SidCordle your Bible has God ordering the genocide of innocent women and childen - read 1 Samuel 15. Time to ban the Bible Sid?
— Paul Williams (@bilalwilliams) June 9, 2014
@SamShamoun Sam why did your God command the mass slaughter of innocent women, children and infants? Its all in 1 Samuel 15?
— Paul Williams (@bilalwilliams) June 14, 2014
@SamShamoun do you condemn the slaught of babies in your holy book? If not how do you justify this genocide?
— Paul Williams (@bilalwilliams) June 14, 2014
From all that, one would think that Mr. Williams wants to engage others on the subject. Sadly, however, it has been my experience that when people try to discuss the subject deeply with him, he quickly develops a desire to avoid the topic. Interested readers can see some of the correspondences I have tried to have with Mr. Williams at the links to the relevant FaceBook post and blog entry, above. Here I will attempt to deal with some of the salient points, with the hope that this blog entry might suffice as a reply to Mr. Williams, should he raise the subject again (exempli gratia, if, in the future, he challenges someone to discuss the relevant Biblical passage, the person so challenged can simply direct Mr. Williams here). I confess, however, that much of what will be found here, will overlap with the discussion found in the aforementioned correspondences.
God's Justice vs. One Man's Cognitive Dissonance
When Mr. Williams first posted the relevant video, back in November of 2012, and I made my first attempt to correspond with him on the subject, I attempted to press two questions on him, which might be stated as follows:
- Do you agree that God causes natural disasters which kill women and children?
- If you do, is it your position that whether or not it is just for God to bring about their death depends on what sort of creation was employed to do so?
In our correspondences, in late 2012, Mr. Williams assured me that there is a world of difference between God causing a natural disaster to kill children, on the one hand, and God directing a human to kill children, on the other. However, despite such insistence, Mr. Williams has not yet, to date, articulated what that difference might be. It seems to me that if we take the proposition...
- "God caused X to kill children."
However, if I may make a bit of a relevant segue, in a correspondence with Ijaz Ahmed (in a thread on a FaceBook page of Kaleef Karim which has since been deactivated, and thus cannot be linked to, at this time), Mr. Ahmed asked me if I understood the difference between one of my loved ones dying in a natural disaster, on the one hand, and the same person being murdered by another human, on the other. It seems to me prudent to address this idea, here.
My objection is that such a question grinds close to removing God from the equation. For example, if a mere human being developed technology which could cause tsunamis, and deliberately employed said technology to kill a group of women and children, we would consider him guilty of mass murder. However, if God caused a tsunami to kill women and children, most theists would not attempt to impugn God's justice. So too, if a human acted on his own in killing a child, we can consider that murder, but if we consider murder to be specifically an illicit form of homicide, then a human carrying out God's order to kill a child would arguably be licit rather than illicit, and thus would not constitute murder. For an analogy, Jews, Christians and Muslims do not consider Abraham's intention to kill his son to be an attempted murder, though if an ordinary man, today, attempted to kill his child, we could all consider him guilty of such. In short, the question seems to side step the central subject of God's justice in employing creation to bring about the death of women and children.
Interestingly, in December of 2012, Mr. Williams had a bit of praise for Sadat bin Anwar's piece, Killing babies for who? Allah or Yah___/Jesus? Mr. Williams has more recently shared the piece via a tweet. In that piece, Mr. Bin Anwar makes the following rather interesting statement:
- God is the Sovereign Creator, the Giver of Life. He can take that life away, either directly or through the use of His agents (the wind, water, angels, etc). That is a point that I am ready to concede. On a theological and philosophical level, were God to actually command the Jews to kill all the Amalekite children and animals, their fulfilling this command would be seen as a meritorious and virtuous act, much as we consider Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his innocent (but willing) son to be a virtuous act.
Mr. Williams' apparent inability to appreciate the very sources he recommends to others did not stop there. On 31 December, 2012, he posted to his [first] blog a video titled, Islamic Theology vs. the Problem of Evil, in which Abdal Hakim Murad (A.K.A. Timothy Winter) discussed God's will and human suffering. At slightly over a minute into the video, the man, who is among Mr. Williams' favorite scholars, states that "it's an impugning and compromising of our tawHeed to suggest that what's happening in today's world is not the direct will of Allah". Such a point is highly relevant to this discussion, but it would not be easy to get Mr. Williams to grapple with its implications.
Another example, in which Mr. Williams seems to wave off or shut out anything which is inconvenient, came up on Twitter. He feigned being scandalized by the fact that there exist Christians who admit that, if they believed God wanted them to kill a child, they might attempt to do so. While I can certainly understand an atheist having a problem with such, it seems improper for a Muslim to take such a stance. Consider the following exchange:
@denis_giron i asked David Wood this question: if he felt Jesus told him to kill his neighbours child would he do it? He said "Yes"
— Paul Williams (@bilalwilliams) June 6, 2014
@bilalwilliams Interesting. Do you agree the historical Abraham /believed/ God wanted him to kill his own child and was willing to do so?
— Denis Giron (@denis_giron) June 6, 2014
@denis_giron not according to the Quran. But would you kill a baby if God told you to? Wood said Yes and he is a very devout Chriustian
— Paul Williams (@bilalwilliams) June 6, 2014
@bilalwilliams Not according to the Qur'aan? Soorat as-Saafaat 37:102 makes clear he thought he was supposed to do such and was willing.
— Denis Giron (@denis_giron) June 6, 2014
The reason why it is awkward for a professed Muslim to express shock that someone might be willing to do the unthinkable if they believed God commanded them to do so is precisely because the Qur'an depicts Abraham, one of the most celebrated figures in the Islamic faith, as precisely that sort of a person. Mr. Williams, however, tried to deny that such was the case, and invitations for him to explain a relevant passage in the Qur'an were met with silence. Further attempts to get him to grapple with the subject he himself raised were met with personal insults.
Such unfortunate behavior reflects a sadly typical trend with Mr. Williams. He prefers to end discussions and/or employ personal attacks to ever conceding a point to "the other side". One is tempted to speculate that such tendencies are rooted in hatred (an authentic "Christophobia"), as they are not motivated by a sincere desire to come to the truth.
A Brief Comment on the Text
Anyone who has grappled with the subject of theodicy will almost certainly find Mr. Willaims' polemic less than persuasive. This is because the solution to the problem of suffering will often provide an indirect answer to the relevant charge. For example, one could easily argue that, just because we cannot understand why God would employ creation (whether it be a tsunami or a person) to kill a child, that does not mean God therefore did not have morally sufficient reason for doing so.
Relevant to this, Mr. Williams has felt that 1 Samuel 15:2 lists the precise reason why God ordered the relevant slaughter. Admitting that he does not know Hebrew, Mr. Williams sided with the NRSV, which opens with "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did...".
However, the NRSV offers a slightly less than literal translation. The PaQaD root (פקד) can give rise to verbs which mean to punish, but it can also mean to note, examine, recall, remember, et cetera, and in the relevant Biblical verse, the verb is paqadtee (פקדתי), which is perfect/completed tense (roughly "past tense"). Ergo, if we were to see it as "punish," the punishment would have already been complete ("I punished"). Therefore, it should be noted that the ESV is closer to the intention of the text being translated, in reading "I have noted..."
Even though the verse makes note of that past event, that does not mean that event suffices as all the reason God had for giving all of the precise commands that were given. For an analogy, in a war, a general might tell his troops that a coming battle is related to a specific past event, but that does not mean every detail in the battle plan is therefore just a mechanical reaction to the event which was mentioned. On the contrary, there can be all sorts of other motivations or lines of reasoning behind the various details of the attack, which are not shared with the troops carrying out the orders. Hence, 1 Samuel 15:2 does not prevent us from thinking God may have had morally sufficient reasons which we are presently unaware of.
The Legendary Al-Aqsa Was Merely A Legend Afterall - Jerusalem Nightmare
We had previously shown evidence that Mecca did not exist before the 4th century C.E. Yet we have even more bad news for Muslims. Catholic Apologist and Student of Advanced Hadith Sebedee Nineyfour has provided excellent insight into how some of the fictitious embellishments were eventually integrated into so-called authentic Islamic Tradition. Turns out, neither Mohammed nor the Quran knew anything about a mosque in Jerusalem, and this fabrication likely stems from the second Islamic Caliphate Umar. But lets us let special guest writer CBD explain this for us in more detail:
Consider
the following “Sahih” hadith -“You shall shall only set out for three mosques:
The sacred Mosque in Mecca, my Mosque in Medinah, and the al-Aqsa Mosque in
Jerusalem”[1].
Although this is a well known hadith, there is significant evidence of
tampering. It is found in Ahmad ibn
Hanbal’s Musnad. The hadith is obviously important for political and religious
reasons. It gives a special status to Jerusalem which Israeli Jews often claim
is not Holy to Islam. Furthermore it posits a religious problem to the Islamic
religion because it suggests that there was an evolution to their religion and
tampering in Islamic tradition. If we examine the evidence we can clearly see
that the earliest of muslims did not assign any special status to Jerusalem,
did not believe in any mosque existing in Jerusalem, and added these beliefs at
a later time.
Example of a corrupted “Sahih” Hadith
The early scholars who supported the
authenticity of the aforementioned Hadith gave other examples of the Hadith
being transmitted by other scholars. One such example is the following Hadith:
“The saddles of the riding beats shall not be fastened (for their journey) to a
mosque in which God is invoked except to the three mosques”[2]. It is completely uncontroversial to assume that two of the “three mosques”
the Hadith is referring to are those found in Mecca and Medinah, the Masjid Al
Haram and Masjid Al-Nabawi respectively. The controversy arises over the third
mosque. But the third mosque has to be the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, because
no other Mosque is revered in Islamic Jurisprudence or theology other than the
Al Aqsa mosque outside Mecca and Medinah.
M.J. Kister notes that a consensus
emerged among Islamic scholars by the second century after Muhammad's death
(100-200 A.H.). However prior to this consensus the status of the hadith and
the status of the Al Aqsa mosque was far from agreed upon.
The evidence suggests the Hadith
giving special status to Jerusalem were either altered or fabricated after the
Caliph Umar conquered Jerusalem, possibly with the help of a Jewish convert to
Islam named Kaab, a theory which M.J. Kister himself supports. The hadith was
most likely altered or fabricated for political/propaganda purposes by the
first Umayyad Caliph “Muawiyah”.
This is based on some early Hadith’s which
are almost identical to the aforementioned hadith yet exclude Jerusalem.
Examine the following almost identical hadith: “You shall set out only for two
Mosques: The mosque of Mecca and the mosque of Medinah.”[3] This was narrated on the authority of Tawus in an early hadith compilation by
Abd al-Razzaq. Another Hadith is recorded on the authority of Mohammad’s
favorite wife Aisha (according to Sunni tradition): “I am the seal of the
prophets and my mosque is the seal of the mosques of the prophets. The mosques
which deserve mostly to be visited and towards which the riding beasts should
be driven are the mosque of Mecca and my Mosque (in Medinah).”[4] Both of these hadith’s contain Isnad’s which are considered Sahih by Islamic
scholars, yet they both exclude Jerusalem and Al Aqsa. Not surprisingly, these
hadith appear in collections compiled before the “Three Mosques” hadith.
A similar hadith is also recorded by
Al-Mudhiri : “The best mosque towards which riding beats should be driven is
the mosque of Ibrahim (Masjid al-Haram) and my Mosque (Medinah)”[5].
Again, no mention of Jerusalem, yet almost identical to the “Three Mosques”
hadith.
M.J. Kister believes the consensus
about Jerusalem’s special status came two centuries after Muhammad's death. He
cites a story recorded about a prominent scholar of the second century A.H.
(after Hijrah) named Ibn ‘Ata. A man named Ibn Jurayj records “‘Ata used to
exclude (the mention of) the Aqsa, but he reverted later to counting it with
them (the other two Mosques)”[6].
This indicates that there was definitely not scholarly consensus prior to the
second century AH. The reason Ibn ‘Ata changed his mind and began sanctifying
Jerusalem is unclear. It may have been due to newly uncovered Hadiths or due to
politically or social pressure.
Furthermore a companion of Mohammad
Abdallah b, Mas’ud said : “If the whole distance between me and Jerusalem were
two parasangs I would not go there”[7].
The changing of hadiths to serve a
political purpose was not rare, the Shiites did the exact same thing. Many
early Shiite hadiths and scholars identified Al-Kufa mosque in Iraq as the the
“Third Mosque”. Some of their most prominent scholars, such as Hudhayfa bin
Al-Yaman, said that Al-Kufa mosque was the location of Muhammad’s “night
journey” [8](which
the Sunnis claimed took place in Jerusalem, at Al Aqsa). Shiites also added a
“fourth mosque” to include Al-Kufa in certain hadiths such as the following
hadith narrated by Ali - “Four are the palaces of paradise in this world: The
Mosque of Mecca, the Mosque of Medina, the Mosque of Jerusalem, and the Mosque
of Kufa.”[9]
There also exists a plethora of
accounts of governors, mayors, and religious leaders of the early Islamic
caliphate forbidding people from traveling to Jerusalem on the basis of the two
aforementioned hadith which gives credence to their credibility over the “three
mosques” hadith.. Combining scepticism of accepted scholarly consensus and of
accepted Hadith with analysis of earlier recorded traditions, saying of
companions, accounts of Governors, Scholars, and poets can give us very good
reason to believe that the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem was not a recommended
place of pilgrimage or a mosque worth of sanctification after the turning of
the Qiblah (direction of prayer) to the Kaaba in Mecca. It can also give as
good reason not to take “Sahih” hadiths at face value.
Citations:
1 Musnad
of Ahmad ibn Hanbal Volume XII, 177, no.7191. Ahmad Muh. Shakir, Cairo 1953
Edition.
2Al-Samnudi
Al-Mansuri: Sadat al-darayn p.121 sup.
3Abd
Al-Razzaq, f.39b
4Al-Mundhiri
III, 50, no.1732 (Muhyi Al-Din Abd Al-Hamid edition, Cairo 1961)
5
Al-Mundhiri III, 63, no.1775, Same edition as cited.
6Abd
Al-Razzaq, f.39b
7Abd
Al-Qazzaq, f.39b
8 Ibn Zahira p.334
9Abu
Ja’far Muh. b. Al-Hasan Al-Tusi: Al-Amali,
Najaf 1964, I, 379
End Note:
Much of what is in this article can be found in the following scholarly article:
You Shall Only Set out for Three Mosques'. A Study of an Early Tradition by M. J. Kister. Le Muséon 82 (1969): 173-96.
You read M.J. Kisters article here:
http://www.kister.huji.ac.il/content/you-shall-only-set-out-three-mosques-study-early-tradition
End Note:
Much of what is in this article can be found in the following scholarly article:
You Shall Only Set out for Three Mosques'. A Study of an Early Tradition by M. J. Kister. Le Muséon 82 (1969): 173-96.
You read M.J. Kisters article here:
http://www.kister.huji.ac.il/content/you-shall-only-set-out-three-mosques-study-early-tradition
A Biblical Commentary: My Brief Synopsis of the Divinity of Christ in the book of Revelation
There is so much evidence for the divinity of Jesus according to his own words in the Bible, I am only covering just a fraction of it, so don't be disappointed.
A Muslim told me Jesus cannot be claiming to be God in Revelation 1:8 because the book of Revelation introduces Jesus as having being given revelation from God:
The first problem is there is nothing intrinsically in the above verse that implies Jesus didn't already possess knowledge of end events or the Revelation he then gave to John. When studying the verse more carefully you can observe:
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him TO SHOW his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John Rev 1:1In other words Jesus was appointed or assigned and allocated a task to show his servant what must soon take place. While God is presented as certainly above Jesus in authority and rank (in this particular verse) there is no indication from these verses that Jesus is ignorant of his own Revelation: "The revelation of (belonging to) Jesus Christ" makes that clear and therefore "given" should be understood in terms of God's appointing of Jesus, as we shall shortly see there is more evidence Jesus is omniscient in the book of Revelation.
Mohammed Bakir said: "gave this to Jesus, and Jesus sent an angel to reveal it to St.John". Thank you for admitting that it was Jesus who sent his angel to John. But we know, no other being other than God can claim ownership, sovereignty and possession over and above angels! Further Revelation 22:6 says: "The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel". And notice John intended on saying this specifically as Jesus in the very same chapter says:“I, Jesus, sent mine angel” (22:16) the very same thought he began with! John has especially connected the dots for us: Jesus, the Lord God Almighty who sent his Angel.
Further more in Revelation 1:7-8 Jesus claims to be almighty God. The context is verse 7, where the one coming on the cloud is the Son of Man (an epithet for God in the Tanakh and Gospel), thus in verse 8 the one coming is Jesus as John has deliberately gone out of his way to point out one verse earlier in his introductory message. The one coming in the book of Revelation is always Jesus (Rev 3:4) and never the Father (who dwells, resides and remains in heaven) which is also confirmed by the end of the book in Revelation 22:20-21. Notice the author employed the "book end" literary technique common to Jewish genre of this day. He begins by asserting the one coming is the Son of Man, the Lord God. And he ends by claiming the Alpha and Omega the Lord God, Jesus is coming (Rev 22:12-13;20).
In Revelation 21:6-7 Jesus claims to be God. How do we know? Several reasons. Firstly we can tell from one chapter after in Revelation 22:12-16;20, Jesus claims to be the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last (just like the speaker in 21:7). But in addition 21:5 tells us the voice speaking in 21:6-7 came from the throne. We can tell from Revelation 3:21; that Jesus is conjoint to the same throne as his Father. In fact in the book of Revelation the Lamb is always conjoint with God’s throne even in worship (e.g. Rev 5:13;6:16;7:10), all of these verses teach a co-equality, what God can do, the Lamb can do, God and the Lamb are always conjoint together on the throne, even peered in union with every omnipotent and omniscient ability. The book of Revelation solidifies this when it teaches the Lamb is: “In the middle of the throne” (Rev 7:17) and shows us he has the full authority to make these claims as a prerogative given to him from the Father (Rev 2:27).
Jesus asserts such divine titles (first and the last) in the last chapter, but this is not unusual to the overall book since Jesus already made this claim earlier on in Revelation 1:17-18;2:8 and then again in Revelation 22:12-16. Further more in Revelation 21:6 (before the speaker claims divinity in verse 7) the speaker says:
In Revelation 21:6-7 Jesus claims to be God. How do we know? Several reasons. Firstly we can tell from one chapter after in Revelation 22:12-16;20, Jesus claims to be the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last (just like the speaker in 21:7). But in addition 21:5 tells us the voice speaking in 21:6-7 came from the throne. We can tell from Revelation 3:21; that Jesus is conjoint to the same throne as his Father. In fact in the book of Revelation the Lamb is always conjoint with God’s throne even in worship (e.g. Rev 5:13;6:16;7:10), all of these verses teach a co-equality, what God can do, the Lamb can do, God and the Lamb are always conjoint together on the throne, even peered in union with every omnipotent and omniscient ability. The book of Revelation solidifies this when it teaches the Lamb is: “In the middle of the throne” (Rev 7:17) and shows us he has the full authority to make these claims as a prerogative given to him from the Father (Rev 2:27).
Jesus asserts such divine titles (first and the last) in the last chapter, but this is not unusual to the overall book since Jesus already made this claim earlier on in Revelation 1:17-18;2:8 and then again in Revelation 22:12-16. Further more in Revelation 21:6 (before the speaker claims divinity in verse 7) the speaker says:
"To the one who is thirsty I will give water free of charge from the spring of the water of life."
In conclusion I must ask Mohammed Bakir if he knows of a single Islamic prophet who has complete dominion over all creatures like humans and angels (his servants), who is worshiped along side of God from his throne by all creation, who is equated with God in every possible way in authority and ability, who is the source and ruler of creation ,who claims to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and benevolent, who repeatedly applies titles that belong to God alone to himself, who claims to provide spiritual fullfillment and sustenance and who even has the audacity to call himself Lord and God?
Interesting seeing that this is exactly the claim Jesus made in the Gospel of John:
"Jesus replied, "Everyone who drinks some of this water will be thirsty again. But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life." (John 4:13-14 NET)".
However, this theology is also applied to Jesus in the book of Revelation: “They will never go hungry or be thirsty again, and the sun will not beat down on them, nor any burning heat, because the Lamb in the middle of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to springs of living water, and GOD will wipe away every tear from their eyes." (Rev 7:15-17 NET). Once again we see the Lamb with God performing the exact same function. This is repeated in the final chapter again: "Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life– water as clear as crystal– pouring out from the throne of God and of the Lamb, flowing down the middle of the city's main street. On each side of the river is the tree of life producing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month of the year. Its leaves are for the healing of the nations. (Rev 22:1-2)
John bows down in worship to the Angel who gave him this revelation, and the angels answer is to rebuke him and correct him (22:8-9). Yet Jesus is prostrated to and worshipped by all creation in heaven and earth along with God (Rev 5:12-14) yet no correction is made because: "Worthy is the lamb who was killed to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and praise!" And: "Every creature– in heaven, on earth, under the earth, in the sea, and all that is in them– singing: "To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb be praise, honor, glory, and ruling power forever and ever! And: "the elders threw themselves to the ground and worshiped". And he is conjointly worshiped with God the Father in the last chapter: "And there will no longer be any curse, and the throne of God and the Lamb will be in the city. His servants will worship him, and they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. (Rev 22:3-4) Why is Jesus the object of worship? What makes him worthy of worship? That is because Jesus according to the book of Revelation is the “Author/Source/Beginning/Originator of Life” or the “Ruler of Creation” (Rev 3:14) who is the judge of God’s entire creation both in punishment (“I have given her time to repent, but she is not willing to repent of her sexual immorality” Rev 2:20-21, “I am throwing her onto a bed of violent illness” Rev 2:22, “I will repay each one of you what your deeds deserve”-Rev 2:23) and reward ("I will give him authority over the nations"-Rev 2:26;3:21).
Jesus here is making the exact same omnipotent claims to pronounce and carry out judgement as Yahweh made in the Old Testament: "I, the LORD, probe into people's minds. I examine people's hearts. I deal with each person according to how he has behaved. I give them what they deserve based on what they have done. (Jer 17:10 and Isa 61:8;Joel 3:7 etc). But how does he know the hearts and minds of every single living creature? How does he know how to judge righteously and with justice? Jesus claims to be completely and utterly omniscient (“all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts” Rev 2:23, 'I know your deeds: your love, faith, service... your more recent deeds are greater than your earlier ones.”-Rev 2:19). Like Yahweh does in the Old Testament: " O LORD who rules over all, you test and prove the righteous. "You see into people's hearts and minds. Pay them back for what they have done because I trust you to vindicate my cause. (Jer 20:12;11:20)" Just like in the Old Testament, Yahweh's vengeance and omnipotent ability to judge people is always associated with his perfect knowledge of all human hearts and minds.
Jesus asserts humans are his servants (Rev 1:1;2:20;22:3;6), where as messengers/angels don't' have servants in the book of Revelation. And while Jesus in the book of Revelation still has his Resurrected and glorified human body: "I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God" (Rev 3:12) he is still omnipotent: "The one who conquers I WILL MAKE A PILLAR in the temple of my God, and HE WILL NEVER DEPART FROM IT." (Rev 3:12). Jesus has the omnipotent ability to save and preserve his people as alluded to earlier in the Gospel of John (John 10:28-30). And while Jesus is certainly human he is both "the root and the descendant of David" (Rev 22:16 NET). Jesus is both the source and offspring of King David (Jesus makes the same type of illusion in an earlier gospel: Luke 20:41-44), which is what we Christians refer to as Jesus duel nature namely the hypostatic union. Perhaps this is why he is called: "King of kings and Lord of lords." (Rev ;19:15-16) which in the Bible is a title reserved for God alone. Indeed Jesus is the ruler of kings on earth and we must agree with John's words about Jesus as fellow servants and heirs: "to him be the glory and the power for ever and ever! Amen" (Rev 1:6) And we must agree with John's words: "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, since you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created!" (Rev 4:10-11)
In conclusion I must ask Mohammed Bakir if he knows of a single Islamic prophet who has complete dominion over all creatures like humans and angels (his servants), who is worshiped along side of God from his throne by all creation, who is equated with God in every possible way in authority and ability, who is the source and ruler of creation ,who claims to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and benevolent, who repeatedly applies titles that belong to God alone to himself, who claims to provide spiritual fullfillment and sustenance and who even has the audacity to call himself Lord and God?
I leave you with a striking passage of Jesus complete divinity:
"To the angel of the church in Thyatira write the following: "This is the solemn pronouncement of the Son of God, the one who has eyes like a fiery flame and whose feet are like polished bronze: 'I know your deeds: your love, faith, service, and steadfast endurance. In fact, your more recent deeds are greater than your earlier ones. But I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and by her teaching deceives my servants to commit sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent, but she is not willing to repent of her sexual immorality. Look! I am throwing her onto a bed of violent illness, and those who commit adultery with her into terrible suffering, unless they repent of her deeds. Furthermore, I will strike her followers with a deadly disease, and then all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts. I will repay each one of you what your deeds deserve. But to the rest of you in Thyatira, all who do not hold to this teaching (who have not learned the so-called "deep secrets of Satan"), to you I say: I do not put any additional burden on you. However, hold on to what you have until I come. And to the one who conquers and who continues in my deeds until the end, I will give him authority over the nations– he will rule them with an iron rod and like clay jars he will break them to pieces, just as I have received the right to rule from my Father– and I will give him the morning star. The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says to the churches.' (Rev 2:18-29 NET)What astonishing claims to make for a so called mere-prophet!
Finally Jesus even points out that Jezebel misleads the servants of Jesus into eating food sacrificed to idols, which in context means Jesus himself cannot be an idol and all food ought be offered to the true Lord Jesus:
Then he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance OF ME." (Luke 22:18-19)
The Trinity Explained
Here is the original video:
Since it had criticisms here is the response to those criticisms (PART II)
For more on the Trinity see his playlist here
Since it had criticisms here is the response to those criticisms (PART II)
For more on the Trinity see his playlist here
Sye Ten Exposes Dan Barker
Well we already know Dan Barker just doesn't have a good time with critical and logical thinkers. Sye Ten just adds icing on the cake!
Best Pressupostionalist: Paul Manata vs John Loftus and Dan Barker
Christian blogger Paul Manata faces off with atheist blogger and author John W. Loftus** (author of "Why I Became an Atheist") in Gene Cook, Jr.'s show The Atheist Hour (a subset of The Narrow Mind) and tears him apart!
This exchange with Paul Manata is quite frankly one of the best pressupositionalist efforts I have ever seen.
And in this next debate Paul Manata exposes Dan Barker:
Unfortunately for Barker has a habit of rambling incoherently for very long periods of time in an attempt to present to his viewers that he is rational. Unfortunately for Barker rationality doesn't depend on talking as-long as you can to distract people from fundamental questions. I don't know how Manata keeps his cool, but he utterly annihilates him thoroughly even despite Barkers incessant rambling.
This exchange with Paul Manata is quite frankly one of the best pressupositionalist efforts I have ever seen.
And in this next debate Paul Manata exposes Dan Barker:
Unfortunately for Barker has a habit of rambling incoherently for very long periods of time in an attempt to present to his viewers that he is rational. Unfortunately for Barker rationality doesn't depend on talking as-long as you can to distract people from fundamental questions. I don't know how Manata keeps his cool, but he utterly annihilates him thoroughly even despite Barkers incessant rambling.
Debate: How Do We Know What The Biblical Canon Is? Catholic vs Non-Catholic
Moderator: Chris Claus
Catholic: Love Lifer
Non-Catholic: Mark Bennett, Dk
"I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" ~ Jesus Christ (Gospel of Matthew)
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
~ Matthew 10:34
It was asserted to me by a Muslim that we cannot know what Jesus meant in Matthew 10:34 by "sword" (because we don't have the word in Aramaic) or that it implies violence or mandates warfare, all of these ideas are far from the truth and even self contradictory (it's meaningless but implies violence?). Firstly Muslims obviously don't really believe that we can only understand Jesus through his own original language (Aramaic) as there are quotations of Jesus in an Arabic Quran. Now clearly Allah is quoting many prophets in Arabic and not their original perspective languages. Language is not a real barrier for them. What matters is not what language we have Jesus voice in, but that we have his voice at all. Further more it is highly likely Jesus knew at-least some Greek or was fluent, as the good doctor you quoted mentioned. So this is not a serious objection. Now that we have all the Islamic herrings out of the way lets begin by examining the context.
Jesus gives his disciples the command to preach the Gospel to Israel (Matt 10:5-7) while preaching he gives them specific instructions to stay with morally righteous person(s) in various Israelite towns (10:11), it describes personal peace not as universal but rather as dependent on belief and cooperative moral behavior (peace for peace), this implies the golden rule (10:13). Jesus instructs believers on how to behave when someone rejects the gospel: "leave and shake the dust of your feet" (10:14). This rejection results not with mandatory human warfare or punishment upon disbelievers but God's judgement on the Lord's day (10:15). Jesus predicts disciples will be severely persecuted (10:17-23) then tells them although they may be killed for this belief (as opposed to killing others) they should fear God's punishment over the that of disbelievers who can only kill body but not soul. The soul and value of belief is placed far above and over anything else (10:28). Jesus proceeds to instruct them on the public profession of belief being essential and dependent upon entrance into God's kingdom, rather than offensive warfare or violence as one might expect a more radical violence Jesus to advocate (10:32-33). After having explained what kind of peace he is referring to in context (10:13-14), namely universal personal peace he says of the same: "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (10:36). Rather than bringing or advocating universal personal peace regardless of creed, Jesus has explained that true spiritual personal peace is dependent on receiving him in belief and following him in spirit. Jesus had already said: "If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you." (10:13), but he goes into greater detail explaining how this invitation to Christ divides between family members and those who live together (35-36), and expects his disciples to follow him above all else (37-38). This is the very commandment that God gave in the Torah to the Israelites which has never been usurped by a Biblical prophet other than Jesus, this is because Jesus is the only prophet who is claimed divinity. The only being worthy of complete servitude in submission in all of scriptural theology in an ultimate sense above family and friends an loved ones is the Lord God himself. Jesus proceeds to impart spiritual wisdom that provides serenity, peace and life (10:39) and explain that peace and righteousness are received by receiving him and his message transmitted through his disciples who are likened unto to prophets (10:40-41).
Finally we believe Scripture interprets Scripture and Luke has recorded a parallel account of this exact sermon in Matthew 10, here is what Luke claims: "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division". From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. (Luke 12:51-52) this is the same type of language that is employed in Matthew: "For I have come "to turn" a man against his father" and "a man's enemies will be the members of his own household" (10:35-36) showing us that the enemies live together in the same house rather than destroy each other physically or take possession of the house.
Other passages of Scripture do advocate the idea of self defense, but no Scripture understood in proper setting as noted by innumerable scholars mandates offensive religious warfare, Christ Willing, more on this in future posts
A smaller footnote one critical thinker might object to: "Well which is it? Did Jesus say: Sword or Division?" which is seemingly a useless and irrelevant charge being that the original objection is that Jesus is implying violence or warfare or that can't determine what he is saying since we don't have his original words in his own tongue, and that objection is thoroughly untenable and refuted. I have however answered the sword vs division argument elsewhere but it is a long read, you have to want to be honest.
Allah Enters His Creation Without Ceasing To Be Divine
Does Allah enter his creation? Muslims commonly answer: "no he does not". Well what about a slightly different question: "Can Allah enter his creation?" Some Muslims say it's impossible, then again some Muslims say: "He can but he has no reason to" or: "It's beyond his majesty although he could". The problem is all four of these answers are false. Allah not only has the power to enter his creation in Islam [1] but he actually does enter it.
In this video I talk with a Muslim "Reuben" and ask him several questions:
Reuben concedes, that God enters the creation, but he doesn't know whether God enters the creation fully or whether God splits into his attributes.
Reuben concedes, that God enters the creation, but he doesn't know whether God enters the creation fully or whether God splits into his attributes.
I will elaborate more on this argument and the evidence from Islam. The first objection many Muslims ask me is: Why do I have to accept this source?
Qualified Islamic Scholars like Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid who appeal to the Qur'an and Sunnah and Islamic Scholarship have already authenticated these reports (ahadith). [2]
It is also sometimes asked, Why can't we just take this as metaphor or allegory, meaning Allah doesn't literally have feet or a footstool or a throne?
According to these same scholars and various fatwa committees who quote the Quran and Sunnah these feet and stool are not metaphorical, abstract or allegorical [3] [4]
After having substantiated the authenticity and literal application of these reports, some simple observations are in order. Firstly the size of Allah's throne is unknown but it does have a size. Now since it has a size Allah must be able to fit upon his throne, but this means Allah must also has a size in order for the throne to accommodate his size. But if Muslims argue that Allah does not literally sit upon his throne then are they saying his two feet are on the footstool but he is not enthroned? This would be incoherent and contradict reports that show Allah who possess a size and height mounted upon his throne [5]. Further if Allah can place his two feet upon a footstool why can't he also sit upon the throne? Logically one entails or enables the other.
Finally since Allah places his two feet upon the footstool, we need to know is the footstool created or eternal? Now if it's eternal, then that means there is something other than Allah that exists for all eternity which contradicts Islamic orthodoxy. But if it's created that means Allah's feet entered the creation in order to be placed on the footstool, and therefore Allah can and does enter the creation. Now some Muslims may argue "but only his feet enter the creation, not the rest of his attributes", but that would only mean that Allah is separated and split up into his attributes and some attributes can manifest but divorce themselves from his other attributes which means Allah is not indivisible but divisible and can easily be split into parts. Either way it's incoherent. And in addition if one attribute of Allah can manifest itself in creation (without the attributes), then surely one person of God (in the Holy Trinity) can enter the creation without the other persons of God, and therefore Muslims cannot object to the incarnation or the Trinity or Jesus praying to his God and Father! Finally if Allah can enter the creation without losing his divinity, the Creator becomes a member of the created order without ceasing to be divine! And therefore another objection against the incarnation is refuted.
Notes:
[2] Source: http://islamqa.info/en/166843
This indicates that it is confirmed that Allah, may He be exalted, has a foot. Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “The Kursiy (foot stool) is the place of the two feet, and the size of Throne cannot be known.” This was narrated by Ibn Khuzaymah in at-Tawheed, 1/248, no. 154; Ibn Abi Shaybah in al-‘Arsh, 61; ad-Daarimi in ar-Radd ‘ala al-Muraysi; ‘Abdullah ibn al-Imam Ahmad in as-Sunnah; and al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak, 2/282 – he classed it as saheeh according to the conditions of the two shaykhs (al-Bukhaari and Muslim), and adh-Dhahabi agreed with him. It was also classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Mukhtasar al-‘Uluw, p. 102; and by Ahmad Shaakir in ‘Umdat at-Tafseer, 2/163. Abu Moosa al-Ash‘ari (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Kursiy is the place for the two feet, and it creaks as a saddle creaks. Narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn al-Imam Ahmad in as-Sunnah; Ibn Abu Shaybah in al-‘Arsh, 60; and by Ibn Jareer, al-Bayhaqi and others. Its isnaad was classed as saheeh in al-Fath, 8/47 and by al-Albaani in Mukhtasar al-‘Uluw, p. 123-124 These two reports confirm that Allah, may He be exalted, has two feet, and this is the belief of Ahl as-Sunnah."
So we take these (attributes) as true in a real sense, not metaphorical. As for going to extremes in affirming attributes that are not mentioned in the Qur’an or sunnah, we have to refrain from doing so. Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwas Bakr Abu Zayd, ‘Abd al-‘Azeez Aal ash-Shaykh, Saalih al-Fawzaan, ‘Abdullah ibn Ghadyaan, ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Baaz. End quote. Shaykh ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan al-Barraak (may Allah preserve him) said: This hadeeth confirms that Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, has a foot. Ahl as-Sunnah affirm that Allah has what is mentioned in this hadeeth in a true sense, as they affirm all other divine attributes, as they affirm that He has two hands and two eyes, and they say that He, may He be exalted, has two feet, as is mentioned in the well-known report from Ibn ‘Abbaas that describes the Kursiy (footstool) and says that it is the place for the feet – i.e., the feet of the Lord, may He be glorified and exalted. The view about the feet and hands is the same, and there is no room for differentiation.
[5] There is an abundance of evidence that Allah sits mounted upon his throne:
Dogma Debate Host: David Smalley with Guests: Sarah Morehead, David Silverman, Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind
After the May 31, 2014 debate between Matt Dillahunty and Sye Ten Bruggencate in Memphis, David Smalley did a "Dogma Debate" livecast from the venue. Guests included Sarah Morehead, David Silverman, Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind.
DOGMA DEBATE is online at http://dogmadebate.com
DOGMA DEBATE is online at http://dogmadebate.com
Islam Declining
Indonesia is the nation with the largest Muslim population on the planet. Legally it has only 6 religions that are allowed to be lawfully practiced.. However philosophies and ideas like secular humanism, materialism, atheism/agnosticism etc are viewed as illegal and punishable by prison sentencing.
Approximately 2 million people in Indonesia leave Islam for Christianity every year. Christianity is on the growth and Islam is on the decline. Why is this the case? Why are people not satisfied with Islam?
This short clip was produced by a group of Muslims who want to stop the spread of Christianity in Indonesia. They want funds to run a T.V. station that will prevent the message of the Gospel being effective.
One objection is Christians are using "Islamic terminology". As if Arabic belongs to Muslims and only dates to the time of Mohammed!
Approximately 2 million people in Indonesia leave Islam for Christianity every year. Christianity is on the growth and Islam is on the decline. Why is this the case? Why are people not satisfied with Islam?
This short clip was produced by a group of Muslims who want to stop the spread of Christianity in Indonesia. They want funds to run a T.V. station that will prevent the message of the Gospel being effective.
One objection is Christians are using "Islamic terminology". As if Arabic belongs to Muslims and only dates to the time of Mohammed!
The good news of Jesus Christ is spread among the nations, as proven by these Muslims! Praise the Lord these are just some of many compelling statistics showing the decline of Islam.
Open Challenge To Debate Nick Duncan - (Matt Dillahunty's Atheist Fanboy)
Nick Duncan (to the left in this pic) is an Atheist who attempted to salvage the horrendous debate performance produced by Matt Dillahunty by engaging in a post-debate "mini-debate". Duncan in a short sighted moment decided he would try to reproduce all the epistemic failures of Matt's world view and reapply them upon the Christian world view and then equally assert his own untenable "presuppositions" otherwise known as fideism. The attempt at damage control was rather confirmatory of Sye Ten's transparent victory. Even the attempt at such a stunt was an effort to make Sye appear just as epistemically clueless and irrational as Matt, (coincidentally) something Matt could ultimately not achieve in his debate. After I had viewed this "mini-debate" I decided to issue a challenge to Mr. Nick Duncan:
A few hours after I issued this challenge to Nick Duncan the "mini-debate" in the provided link was removed offline, the video is no longer available.
Why was the video removed? I thought Nick and Matt did such a "great job":
Surely these guys don't need to remove such easy wins?
Nick Duncan's counter-arguments reminded me so much of my own non-answers to Pressupositionalist Apologetics as an Atheist, that in some ways I am impressed with Nick for being a clever thinker. Being clever or intelligent however has nothing to do with having an account for intelligence grounded in absolute transcendent universal logic which no atheist world view to date has provided a coherent framework for. Duncan's thinking then is not rooted in any objective reality or ground in logic. I am therefore open and willing to debate the validity of his unconvincing replies:
Nick as soon as you are ready I will be waiting
UPDATE
Nick has spoken to me and pointed out the original video has now been transferred to another channel:
How Not To Argue With Believers
I gave an example how not to argue with Atheists. Now I must do the reverse. Here is a good example how not to argue with Theists. A famous Atheist professor of philosophy Michael Ruse has this to say about Richard Dawkins book: "The God Delusion":
"The God Delusion,” a book written by Richard Dawkins, was first published almost a decade ago. In that time, some religious individuals have given up their faith after reading the book and many atheists have lauded it as a masterpiece. But not all atheists/skeptics regard it that way; those with philosophical, and other professional training, have criticized it. For example, Dr. Michael Ruse, a philosopher at Florida State University, who has written extensively on science and religion, has stated the following:
"The God Delusion,” a book written by Richard Dawkins, was first published almost a decade ago. In that time, some religious individuals have given up their faith after reading the book and many atheists have lauded it as a masterpiece. But not all atheists/skeptics regard it that way; those with philosophical, and other professional training, have criticized it. For example, Dr. Michael Ruse, a philosopher at Florida State University, who has written extensively on science and religion, has stated the following:
“Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant.… Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group…. I have written elsewhere that The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist. Let me say that again. Let me say also that I am proud to be the focus of the invective of the new atheists. They are a bloody disaster and I want to be on the front line of those who say so.” (source)
How Not To Argue Against Atheists
I was an atheist until recently, and I myself would have at one time argued like this when I was 16 years old as a YEC:
However now I say:
bye bad "Evidentialist Apologetics"
However now I say:
bye bad "Evidentialist Apologetics"
Calling Christians To Be Verbally Abused - A Diagnosis of Itaz Ahmad
Itaz Ahmad recently attempted to produce a reply to my post, where he rationalizes and tries vindicating his own taqiya with a series of distractions and ad-hominems about me. What is rather odd is that rather than respond to my actual argumentation, and directly address his proven failure to address my rebuttal, Itaz engages in mud slinging and poisoning the well
I will address the red herrings and attacks and hopefully this will cause Mr. Ahmad to come back to the original criticism I (and others) made of his post. I will even issue a challenge to Mr. Ahmad at the end of this post.
Firstly while his post is a fascinating reading project because it gives us insight into the abnormal psychology of his mind, he ironically don't even appear to be successful at his own attempt to slander, lie and abuse.
Secondly he refers to me as a "Christian Extremist". Itaz seems painfully unaware of what a Christian extremist is or does [1]. Even if all of Ijaz Ahmad's allegations were true (I were culpable for fabricating stories, hurling insults and abuse, approving of bizarre sexual fantasies), none of this would characterize anyone (including me) as a Christian Extremist.
However there is one possible explanation for Ijaz sloppy and degrading use of terms, maybe he is learning from President Obama the commander and chief of the U.S. army and military who classify Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity and Islamophobia as extremism along with Al-Queda [2]. And in this bizarre world (in which Itaz Ahmad appears to subscribe), the Fort Hord Massacre was nothing but "work place violence" [3]. In other words actual Muslim extremism (known in reality as a massacre) is merely a work place "scuffle" but remember we must omit the word "Muslim" since that information is apparently irrelevant [4] But remember everyone: Anders Breivik who was definately a "Christian Islamophobe" engaged in full scale "Christian extremism and terrorism".
Next Itaz calls me a "Servant of Sam Shamoun". This is not quite accurate. It is true I coined the phrase "Shamounian" and said "I am a Shamounian" this was intended to be part humorous but partially describes the way I feel about Sam, meaning: "I am a student of Sam Shamoun, Sam Shamoun is my beloved teacher". Sam Shamoun has been a wonderful and inspiring influence in my life.
Predictably at this point Itaz may attempt to "undermine" Sam as unethical or deranged and therefore undermine an influence upon me or question how I can respect Sam? However I have already defended Sam and exposed the preposterous slander and lies propagated by Itaz [5]. Don't forget Itaz has abused, insulted and made similar lies about Christian Apologist Samuel Green, Dr. James White, General Han Solo, the Church Fathers and all Christians [6] He even allows Muslim extremists to propagate implied death threats on his Facebook and only deletes these kind of comments to cover his tracks when I expose him [7].
Itaz forgets that it is not only myself but many others who have participated in interaction with Itaz who have come to the same conclusion after mentally diagnosing Mr. Ahmad as best we can, we see that he reveals symptoms of being psychologically tormented and sexually deranged [8]. More sensible apologists like Dr. James White and Anthony Rogers have therefore ceased interaction due to drawing similar conclusions.
However, I believe our glorious Triune God loves Itaz more than I can imagine, and I personally like Itaz despite all his mental struggles, therefore I hope Itaz comes to know God before he passes on, and I will not give up on trying to extend my help to Itaz.
After this, Itaz goes back to his charge of me being a tabloid journalist (that I fabricate things that don't exist) which has already been amply refuted [9] then he attempts to impugn many Christians (including myself) as explicitly endorsing a wild inter-species sexual fetish (specifically prohibited sexual acts) because Ijaz was accused of sounding like a "uni-sexual llama". It is unfathomable to me how Robert who is describing what Mr. Ahmad's voice sounds like is therefore engaging in a "sexual fetish", but this is just one of many reasons Itaz has been diagnosed with a kind of severe perverse sexual derangement, he has also accused other Christians of hitting on him, giving him unwarranted sexual advances and wanting to rape him.
Itaz then states:
"Mark is known to curse a lot, especially if persons disagree with him, in the following photo we can see that he recently abuses, berates, insults a fellow Christian for disagreeing with him"Firstly to put it on record: I am not a saint, I have no problem insulting anyone regardless of religion, anyone who knows me, knows this including Itaz. However just like everyone else in a formal debate I mostly keep my cool, or in a profitable productive conversation I will be professional.
What is hilarious in the provided picture however, is that Itaz has purposely lowered the screen scrolling button in this chat to avoid showing us just who is using the microphone speaking, and the reason why is painstakingly clear to those of us who were present. The individual who I was addressing was a Jew [10] by the name of Joel Ostein who insisted that God's Word was created by God despite me pointing out that according to his own Torah in Genesis 1, God's Word is the Creator ("Let there be..."), not the created. God's word is the very mechanism God uses to create all creation and is therefore the creator not the created. I pointed out God's word then the must proceed the beginning over six times (in voice and text) to Joel and Itaz posts the part where I finally become exceedingly frustrated with Joel for ignoring the self evident (quite like Itaz himself). Itaz was lying about Joel being a Christian, but then again how is any of this is relevant to him running from me? while he inconsistently scolds Sam Shamoun for "running" from him! No body knows this backward psychology except Itaz.
Itaz next to attempts to justify his running from my response to his slander of Christian scholars translating the Old Testament on the grounds that he is blocked from my private Facebook page and therefore I also have no right to debate him on his more public Facebook page. Now not only is that nothing but a non-sequitor and also an act of cowardice, Itaz omits the complete narrative.
Firstly whether he is blocked or not on a private page is irrelevant to public debate forums that exist for the express purpose of dialogue, debate and interaction! Secondly it is Itaz who removed me as a friend from his Facebook because at one point I asked him to address my rebuttal to his so called article "refuting" Anthony Rogers (I posted my rebuttal to Ijaz within Rogers original post) [11]. Weeks later he said to me in conversation on PT: "I can't have people who don't support me on my Facebook". It is therefore unambiguously clear even before I had blocked Itaz Ahmad on his private Facebook he was running from me when I was set on his page to friend status. The only reason I ended up subsequently blocking his private Facebook (after he had already removed me) was because he hypocritically accused me of stealing photo's from PW's Facebook while simultaneously posted images of my Facebook on his own blog! He rationalized this to say but "Mark's photos were on public not private", yet when I uploaded PW's photos to my blog not only were they set to public (as can be confirmed by Radical Moderate and Denis Giron), I kindly e-mailed PW showing him I would take them down if he requested me [12].
Finally when I said my FB was on private, Itaz misinterpreted me to be thinking I was saying all of my photos on my FB are not on public. I was referring to my account being private. If Itaz wants to arguably say I violated PW's privacy for posting his pictures that were manifest in public, then he must also hypocritically condemn himself for doing the same to me and call himself a thief and a robber.
Now this is the third time Itaz has been transparently caught running from me.
I will list all three times
- Two years ago he postponed the debate organised between me and himself with Wahuda as moderator on Biblical corruption. His argument was the OT was corrupted because it began as monotheistic and became polytheistic, where as my argument was the OT is corrupted because the OT began as polytheistic and became monotheistic. If I was correct in my proposition, Islam would be false because Islam proposes prophets and scriptures were all originally monotheistic. Itaz gave his word that we would have this debate it never happened [13]
- This second time I mentioned above he removed me as his friend from Facebook and ran from me instead of addressing the egregious blunders I documented he made in his response to Rogers.
- The third time he has now run from me by deleting my comments on his Facebook and failing to cogently defend his claim that Christians have mistranslated Isaiah 9:6
Now I have had alot of patience with Itaz, and we will see once and for all whether he is consistent, he who accuses Sam Shamoun of running from him, will he run from me again in public?
Ijaz Ahmad I challenge you to at-least one public debate on PT this year (or even two debates to make it even or fair handed), one Christian Topic, one Islamic topic. Do you accept my challenge?
Now if Itaz Ahmad does not accept my challenge, we know that will be his forth time running, Anyone who has the truth would not be as scared as Itaz has been for the past two years. Itaz I don't view you as the most worthy or equip opponent (unless you study before hand), but I want to debate you because I like you. Despite whatever personal problems you continue to have in your private life, I know you want to know the truth, and the truth will set you free and Jesus is his name. I am a foul, filthy, wicked sinner, but the perfect savior Jesus is not like me Itaz, I promise you no matter what flaws I have, Jesus has none of them. God loves you. God Bless and I will pray for you despite my fallibility as a human.
End Notes:
[1] Christian extremist ideology explained:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Motivation.2C_ideology.2C_and_theology
Christian extremist acts reported:
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men
[2] http://nation.foxnews.com/religion/2013/04/05/us-army-labeled-evangelicals-catholics-examples-religious-extremism
[3] http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obamas-war-on-the-extremist-christian-threat/
[4] His religious affiliation isn't pertinent information according to the army, military or Obama administration unless he is within the list of extremists in the above picture. Nidal Hasan, was shouting “God is great” in Arabic (Allahu Akhbar) as he proceeded with the slaughter of his unarmed fellow soldiers, but for critical thinkers this is unmotivated by religion and only a work place squabble
[5] http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/03/todays-dividing-line-with-james-white.html
[6] http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/03/a-blank-god-and-its-blank-servant-it.html
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/04/ijaz-ahmad-insults-and-abuses-christians.html
[7] http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/04/ijaz-ahmad-smear-campaign-backfires-yet.html
[8] http://ijazexposed.blogspot.com
[9] http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/03/a-real-mans-story-mystery-revealed-why.html
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/03/to-be-or-not-to-be-controversial.html
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/03/paul-williams-lost-his-marballs-perhaps.html
[10] It is debatable whether Joel is a Jew or Muslim (but I granted his word in this discussion that he was Jewish)
[11] Some of my posts are under my old pseudonym "Derek Adams" but as you can see they address Itaz's original post and then later in the comment section his latest response to Rogers. http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2014/03/a-greenhorn-gives-himself-black-eye.html
[12] This can be confirmed by the Christian he is in discussion with "Denis Giron" whom I showed the e-mail I sent to PW offering to take down the pictures if he considered them to be inappropriate.
[13] http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/06/debate-cancelledpostponed.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)