Judging by the Injil
Posted: November 27, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christianity, Islam 5 Comments »© Paul Williams June 2011
The U.S.A today has seen a sharp rise in incidents of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim feeling. Expressions of such feeling have been noticeable in Mosque bombings, arson, violence towards Muslims, discrimination at work, and even murder. The sources of such negative feelings come from a number of traditionally intolerant sources; the right-wing neo-conservatives, radicals, white supremacists, and fundamentalist Christians.
In their expressions of hate towards Muslims, these groups invoke alarmist, paranoid conspiracy-theory narratives of ‘Islamisation of the USA’ or ‘stealth Jihad’ by what amounts to only 2% of the population.
Militant fundamentalist Christians, have added a further layer to this narrative, and combined an aggressive concept of Christian proselytisation , to wage ‘Spiritual warfare’ on non-believers (which is a cross between the Crusades and Psy-Ops worthy of a Cold war regime). This usually involves a number of methods, ranging from publishing aggressive and skewed articles online, to video propaganda, and disturbing non-Christian community events with loud speakers, large insulting signs and scattering leaflets amongst crowds of ‘heathens’.
Although we have come to hear of the more infamous groups of militant Christians, such as Westboro Baptist Church, others, of a more obscure variety exist, such as Acts 17 Ministries – infamous for yearly disrupting the Arab cultural festival in Dearborn Michigan. This year, they intent to mass distributed a number of anti-Islamic propaganda, focusing on a number of Islamic theological beliefs; in an attempt to ‘counter the spread of Sharia law’.
One such article they intend to distribute, concerns attacking the Islamic belief that Jesus (a.s) is not divine. In order to achieve this, they resort to straw manning the interpretation of Quranic quotes which tell Christians to study their own Bible to see the truth of Islam. The militant Christians claim that it is the Bible itself which ‘clearly’ and ‘uncontrovertibly ‘proves’ the divinity of Jesus, and therefore Islam is wrong in it’s claims, and Muhammed (saw) is a false prophet.
David Wood of Acts 17 Ministries wrote and produced this little pamphlet. You can read it here. Let’s scratch the surface, and put this argument to the test…
God in his Word, the Holy Quran ( 5:46-47), tells us that:
‘And We caused Jesus, the son of Mary, to follow in the footsteps of those earlier prophets, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah; and We vouchsafed unto him the Gospel, wherein there was guidance and light, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah, and as a guidance and admonition unto the God-conscious.’
‘Let, then, the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what God has revealed therein: for they who do not judge in the light of what God has bestowed from on high – it is they, they who are truly iniquitous!’
Furthermore we read in Quran 3:3-4:
Step by step has He bestowed upon thee from on high this divine writ, setting forth the truth which confirms whatever there still remains of earlier revelations: for it is He who has bestowed from on high the Torah and the Gospel aforetime, as a guidance unto mankind, and it is He who has bestowed upon man the standard by which to discern the true from the false.
Behold, as for those who are bent on denying God’s messages – grievous suffering awaits them: for God is almighty, an avenger of evil.
It is important to bear in mind that the Gospel frequently mentioned in the Qur’an is not identical with what is known today as the Four Gospels, but refers to an original, since lost, revelation bestowed upon Jesus and known to his contemporaries under its Greek name of Evangelion (“Glad Tidings”), on which the Arabicized form Injil is based. It was probably the source from which the Synoptic Gospels derived much of their material and some of the teachings attributed to Jesus. The fact of its having been lost and forgotten is alluded to in the Qur’an in 5:14
Quran 5:14:
And likewise, from those who say, “Behold, we are Christians.” We have accepted a solemn pledge: and they, too, have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind – wherefore We have given rise among them to enmity and hatred, to last until Resurrection Day and in time God will cause them to understand what they have contrived.
Thus the Qur’an elliptically rejects the Christian’s claim of being true followers of Jesus: for, by wrongfully elevating him to the status of divinity they have denied the very essence of his message.
Furthermore, by their going astray from the genuine teachings of Jesus – and thus from true faith in God – is the innermost cause of the enmity and hatred which has so often set the so-called Christian nations against one another and led to unceasing wars and mutual persecution.
So in light of this Quranic teaching Muslims are entirely justified in asking Christians ‘What did Jesus say about himself?’ ‘Where did Jesus claim to be God?’
Our Early Sources of Information about Jesus
Most Christians who are not familiar with biblical scholarship probably think that knowing about the historical Jesus is a relatively straightforward matter. We have four gospels in the New Testament, so to know what Jesus said and did we should read the gospels. So what is the problem?
The problem in part is that the gospels are full of discrepancies and were written decades after Jesus’ ministry by authors who had not themselves witnessed any of the events of Jesus’ life.
But it gets worse. For honest readers notice not just the occasional contradiction or error in the New Testament; there are the existence of forgeries claiming apostolic authorship and containing fake eye-witness testimony (such as the notorious Second Letter of ‘Peter’); the troubling absence of the doctrine of the Trinity; the worrying interpolations/corruptions that have been discovered at crucial points in the NT: the so-called ‘Johannine Comma’ of 1 John 5:7 is clearly Trinitarian in teaching but is known to be a much later insertion by a Christian scribe; the absence of any resurrection appearances in the earliest gospel of Mark (check it out!); the fabrication of stories about Jesus (the famous story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 was not part of the gospel but added much later by an unknown scribe). All these facts are understandably deeply worrying for Christians, for how do we really know what is authentic and what is the inauthentic material in the NT? And to make matters worse – what about the unknown interpolations and corruptions that probably exist but still lie undetected?
But surely the most troubling phenomenon in the New Testament must be the difference between the Synoptic gospels and John. Most Christians are serenely unaware of the problem because they are not taught to notice what is evident to all serious students of the Bible.
Jesus in the Fourth Gospel
In John, Jesus speaks with an unclouded consciousness of a divine existence with God from before his time on earth (5.19ff and 8.12ff make this clear). But the question cannot be ducked whether the Jesus of the fourth gospel was intended as a historical portrayal, whether Jesus of Nazareth actually spoke in the terms used by John. Were the Christological claims of John’s gospel already in place from the beginning of Christianity? It is hardly likely.
Consider the following
James D. G. Dunn, one of the leading moderate New Testament scholars around and no “anti-supernatural liberal,” writes:
Few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus’ life and ministry in any degree comparable to the Synoptics. It is worth noting briefly the factors which have been considered of enduring significance on this point. One is the very different picture of Jesus’ ministry, both in the order and the significance of events and the location of Jesus’ ministry. Another is the striking difference in Jesus’ style of speaking (much more discursive and theological, in contrast to the aphoristic and parabolic style of the Synoptics). As Strauss had already pointed out, this style is consistent, whether Jesus speaks to Nicodemus, or to the woman at the well, or to his disciples, and very similar to the style of the Baptist, as indeed of 1 John. The inference is inescapable that the style is that of the Evangelist rather than that of Jesus. Probably most important of all, in the Synoptics Jesus’ principal theme is the Kingdom of God and he rarely speaks of himself, whereas in John the Kingdom hardly features and the discourses are largely vehicles for expressing Jesus’ self-consciousness and self-proclamation. Had the striking ‘I am’ self-assertions of John been remembered as spoken by Jesus, how could any Evangelist have ignored them so completely as the Synoptics do? On the whole, then, the position is unchanged: John’s Gospel cannot be regarded as a source for the life and teaching of Jesus of the same order as the Synoptics.
(James D. G. Dunn, Christianity In The Making Vol. 1, Jesus Remembered, 2003, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 165-166.)
Other conservative Christian scholars who have similar types of verdicts to offer regarding the historicity of the gospel of John include: Bruce Stein, Craig A Evans and Martin Hengel, to name a few.
So when we consider the synoptic gospels on the one hand and John’s gospel on the other, it is impossible to think that Jesus spent his short ministry teaching in two such completely different ways, conveying such different contents, and there were simply two traditions, each going back to Jesus, one transmitting 50 per cent of what he said and another one the other 50 per cent, with almost no overlaps. Consequently, for the last 150 or so years scholars have had to choose. They have almost unanimously, and I think entirely correctly, concluded that the teaching of the historical Jesus is to be sought in the synoptic gospels and that John represents an advanced theological development, in which meditations on the person and work of Christ are presented in the first person, as if Jesus said them.
So what did Jesus reportedly say of himself and the important question of eternal life in our earliest gospel?
Jesus in the Earliest Gospel
Mark chapter 10 reads:
As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother.” ’ He said to him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.’ Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money* to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
I invite you to consider the following
1) Jesus, as a humble Jew, denies that goodness comes from himself: only God is good. Ergo, Jesus is making clear that he is not God.
2) According to Jesus we are saved by obeying the commandments of God (note the striking contrast to Paul’s gospel about Jesus)
3) But in this particular encounter the man lacked one thing (only) that blocked him from eternal life: his riches. Jesus advises him to ’go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven’ so the man will receive his heavenly reward as a result of selling his possessions. After that, he is invited to follow Jesus. Note carefully the sequence.
4) This passage caused embarrassment to later gospel writers (who used Mark’s gospel when compiling their own gospels) who changed Jesus words to remove Jesus’ denial that he is good/God:
Here is Matthew’s altered version in 19:17 (compare this with Marks original)
And he said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’
Now let us turn to Paul’s answer to the same question in Romans 10:9:
If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved
The differences are startling. Jesus’ answer to the question about salvation focuses on obedience to the Torah. As a Prophet to the Jewish people, Jesus sees his faithfulness to God expressed in adherence to the Creator’s commands and precepts in the Torah.
Mark 2:5-7 and the forgiveness of sins
The point can be easily missed. At first the issue seems to be Christological – ‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?; ‘…that you might know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…‘ (2.7,10). But that is a dubious interpretation. What Jesus actually says is, ‘Your sins are forgiven‘ – something the priest could say in the Temple to everyone who had brought a sin offering. Note too that the phrase ‘the Son of Man‘ evokes no comment, it was clearly not seen as a claim to exulted or divine status by the crowd (indeed in Aramaic idiom the phrase means ‘man’). In the parallel story in Matt 9.8 the crowd ‘glorified God who had given such authority to men’.
Furthermore, John the Baptist presumably pronounced sins forgiven (see Mark 1.4/Luke 3.3) without apparently provoking any accusation of breaching the divine prerogative. Also in the Prayer of Nabonidus from Qumran, Nabonidus says ‘an exorcist pardoned my sins’, where human mediation of divine forgiveness is clearly implied (4QprNab4).
The gospels also narrate that the disciples were given authority to forgive the sins of others – see Matthew 16.19; 18.18 and John 20.23 (‘if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’)
The Light
My comments re the historical problems surrounding the gospel of John apply to all David Wood’s quotes from that gospel. I will not repeat them here. But let us not forget that according to Matthew 5 Jesus taught his disciples,
“You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.
So the true followers of Jesus are light to the world - just as Jesus was.
The Final Judge
David Wood is correct to say that only God will be the Judge on the Day of Judgment but is wrong to draw the conclusion that Jesus was therefore God. That is not how the apostles understood Jesus’ role and status. If we survey the apostles teaching in Acts (assuming for the sake of argument its’ authenticity) we read in Peter’s very first sermon the following:
“You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, was a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know” Acts 2:22
‘Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah’ Acts 2:36
And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease to teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah. Acts 4:22
He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead. Acts 10:42
Now admittedly this is not Islamic teaching but it suggests that Jesus was a man who:
i) did miracles by the power of God
ii) was made lord and messiah by God
iii) was believed to be the messiah by his first followers
iv) as a man was appointed to be judge of the living and the dead by God.
Nothing of Peter’s teaching in Acts suggests that Jesus was believed to be Yahweh or God Incarnate or the Second Person of the Trinity. Jesus was a man, a servant like David and the Messiah.
So, in conclusion, we read the Word that God speaks to the Christians of the world, with a clear warning:
People of the book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a ‘Trinity’ – stop this, that is better for you – God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust. (Qur’an, 4:171)
Jesus: Incarnate God, or Human Prophet? Sami Zaatari vs Michael Dantzie
Posted: November 25, 2011 Filed under: Christianity, Islam, MDI, Videos 5 Comments »Watch this highly controversial, chaotic, funny yet successful debate, at the University of Sussex, 10th November 2011.
Is Mohammad (pbuh) Deified? [Part - 1]
Posted: November 24, 2011 Filed under: Question Mark 2 Comments »Is Mohammad (pbuh) Deified?
More refutations to the cliché hoax of Mohammad’s (pbuh) deification
Part – 1
Acknowledgment: We acknowledge inputs from Asadullah Mallick rendered towards the formation of this paper. May Allah (SWT) bless him.
Introduction
Islamic Scriptures makes it abundantly clear that in the house of Islam, it is only Allah (SWT) who is worthy of any kind of worship:
“(It teacheth) that ye should worship none but Allah. (Say:) “Verily I am (sent) unto you from Him to warn and to bring glad tidings: (Qur’an 11:2)
“Say: “O ye men! if ye are in doubt as to my religion (behold!) I worship not what ye worship other than Allah But I worship Allah Who will take your souls (at death): I am commanded to be (in the ranks) of the Believers. (Qur’an 10:104)
“If not Him ye worship nothing but names which ye have named ye and your fathers for which Allah hath sent you no authority: the Command is for none but Allah: He hath commanded that ye worship none but Him: that is the right religion but Most men understand not…(Qur’an 12:40)
“Those to whom We have given the Book rejoice at what hath been revealed unto thee: but there are among the clans those who reject a part thereof. Say: “I am commanded to worship Allah and not to join partners with Him. Unto Him do I call and unto Him is my return.” (Qur’an 13:36)
“Verily those whom ye call upon besides Allah are servants like unto you: Call upon them, and let them listen to your prayer, if ye are (indeed) truthful!” (Qur’an 7:194)
The Prophetic Hadith also provides the same message of worshipping Allah (SWT) alone:
“Narrated Anas:
The Prophet said, “Whoever said “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah and has in his heart good (faith) equal to the weight of a barley grain will be taken out of Hell. And whoever said: “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah and has in his heart good (faith) equal to the weight of a wheat grain will be taken out of Hell. And whoever said, “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah and has in his heart good (faith) equal to the weight of an atom will be taken out of Hell.” (Bukhari, Book 1, Volume 2, Hadith 42)
The Quran, Timothy J. Winter (Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad), 17/2/11
Posted: November 21, 2011 Filed under: Islam, Videos Leave a comment »Cambridge University Islamic Society’s Experience Islam Week 2011: Fear and hope; peace and war; transcendence and immanence: an insight into the nature of the Muslim Holy Book.
The Arab Spring and the Islamophobic Double Standards….Democracy Doesn’t Apply for Muslims!
Posted: November 20, 2011 Filed under: articles by Sami Zaatari, Islamophobia, The News 1 Comment »Some time ago I wrote an article exposing the Islamophobic hypocrisy and double standards concerning the Arab Spring, that article can be found on the following link:
http://thedebateinitiative.com/2011/10/07/the-arab-spring-islam-and-the-islamophobe-hypocrisy/
So a website called antisharia.com decided to respond to my article with the following article:
To even call antisharia’s article a response to me would be a compliment to them as they didn’t respond to anything I actually said and simply attacked a straw man, not only did they attack a straw man, they have forsaken their own political philosophy!
For example they write:
At first reading his arguments are convincing but there is a detail he has not considered. The Majority is Not Always Right…So if the majority of Muslims in a Muslim country are in favor of an anti-human rights, discriminatory legal system called Sharia that does mean it is correct and it is proper to oppose the will of the majority because their desire is wrong,bad
RESPONSE
This argument is a straw man, but before I show why I would like to highlight how this author continues the hypocrisy, for example the author explicitly says THAT IT IS PROPER TO OPPOSE THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY, I didn’t say this, antisharia said this. Isn’t this very interesting? Muslims are always being preached to about democracy, and democracy is the will of the majority, in a democracy you have a vote, and the way the vote is won is by whoever gets the majority! But now those who always tell Muslims about democracy are willing to go AGAINST democracy when it works against them! And this is meant to be a rebuttal? In my original article I stated that we are dealing with CULTURAL IMPERIALISTS, and this just proves it, these people are WILLING to go against THEIR OWN POLITICIAL PHILOSOPHY when the results are not as they wish, basically you either conform to what they want or you get the boot.
Now as for the straw man, I never argued the majority are right, that was never my argument, my argument was very simple and it was to simply expose the double standards and hence I will summarize it in points to make it easy to understand:
1- Western Islamophobes say Muslims need to respect the laws, culture, and traditions of the host country they live in
2- Western Islamophobes say it is wrong for Muslims to oppose and disrespect the laws, culture, and traditions of the host country they live in
3- Western Islamophobes say that Muslims should not try to change or impose their ways on the host country they live in
4- Western Islamophobes say that Muslims should leave the host country they live in if they can’t accept these things
So now ladies and gents I have simply TAKEN THE ABOVE METHODOLOGY AND STANDARD AND APPLIED IT TO THE ISLAMOPHOBES! That’s all I did in my last article, I simply showed that Islamophobes are not willing to practice what they preach, because they do the exact same thing to Muslim countries for which they complain when it comes to their own countries!
So to repeat, my article has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAJORITY BEING RIGHT, BUT HAS ALL TO DO WITH EXPOSING ISLAMOPHOBIC DOUBLE STANDARDS.
So not only has antisharia.com failed to deal with my main point, they have also forsaken and abandoned their own political philosophy of democracy, and when you have to forsake your own creed to simply try to refute someone then you know your in big trouble. The very fact that they have to forsake their own ideology simply reaffirms my main point, that Islamophobes are filled with inconsistencies and double standards, they say one thing and do another, so the irony is that in trying to respond to me, antisharia.com simply did a wonderful illustration of what my original article was talking about! I said it before and I will say it again, we are dealing with cultural imperialists, once you understand this, then the whole Islamophobic picture becomes much more clear.
The ‘Problematic Age’ of Aisha
Posted: November 19, 2011 Filed under: Dawah 1 Comment »The age of Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr, when she married the Prophet Muhammad is something that has only recently become controversial. The traditional account is that the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old, which naturally appears strange, if not uncomfortable, to many in a modern, western context. Many have gone so far as to stir up despicable sexual misconduct charges against the Prophet, with even some recent Muslims (of varying levels of intellectuality, motivations and scholarly qualifications) revisiting the sources and reinterpreting the traditionally adduced narrations, to suggest that Aisha may actually have been older, even though there are four Ahadith in al-Bukhari and three in Muslim clearly stating that Aisha reached puberty at nine years old when her marriage was subsequently consummated with the Prophet.
The first most important point to note is that the controversy is a relatively recent one. The Prophet’s own contemporaries took no issue with the Prophet’s marriage to Aisha; it was not problematic in their eyes as puberty indicated maturity and maturity meant readiness for marriage. This includes both his disbeliever antagonists and his believing followers. Certainly, his antagonists were ever eager to discredit him, and the Qur’an itself records details of this. They accused him of being a sorcerer, a madman or a soothsayer. They objected to his marriage to Zaynab, remonstrating that (according to pre-Islamic Arab culture) a man may not marry the divorcee of his adopted son just as he may not marry the divorcee of his biological son. Yet they did not attempt to discredit him on the basis of his marrying a girl much younger than him. Neither in the Qur’an nor in any historical source is there any mention of such an objection having been raised, despite the fact that these sources do mention numerous other strategies used by the Prophet’s opponents.
The reaction of Muhammad’s hostile contemporaries implies that it was acceptable, in 7th century Arab culture, for older men to marry younger girls (even as young as 9), and moreover that it was a practiced norm of the society at that time. Instead of sexual promiscuity such as ‘dating’, honorable families instead chose the more respectable avenue of marrying their children off at a young age.
The general character of the Prophet, and his marital history, speaks clearly against claims of sexual misconduct. His first marriage, at age 25, was to a widowed woman (Khadijah) who was 15 years his senior, and he remained in a happy and solid monogamous marriage to her for a quarter-century; the marriage ending only with Khadijah’s death, aged 65. It was only subsequent to her passing away, and often under specific circumstances that he married other women; with all of them being either widows or divorcees. Aisha was the third wife of the Prophet and the only virgin that he ever married.
Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha must be read in context to early Arab culture, and to avoid viewing the veritable tapestry of human culture, across space and time, through the colored lenses of contemporary, western culture. A slight familiarity with anthropology is sufficient to convince one that there has been, and still is, remarkable variety in human cultural practices and norms. For instance the Catholic Encyclopedia observes about the Virgin Mary that, “it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age.” In Shakespeare’s classic play Romeo and Juliet, Juliet was only thirteen, yet her mother tells her that “ladies of esteem” younger than her are already mothers. According to the Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society, both Christian Canon law and European civil law considered seven years as the age of consent, but judges in medieval England would approve marriages based on mutual consent at ages even lower than 7. As recently as the nineteenth century, ages of consent of 13 to 14 were common in Western countries.
To conclude, Aisha’s biography attests to the fact that she had a wholesome upbringing and then blossomed to become a woman of high intellectual calibre, a poetess and a medical advisor. She had a sharp inquisitive mind and at times, as the Prophetic narrations show, would often daringly question the Noble Messenger.
She is one of the fore-ranking specialists in narrating from the Prophet. She was also a commentator on the Qur’an and knowledgeable in Islamic law. Much of this was due to her early marriage to Muhammad, which made her an eye witness to the personal details of his life. She became a beacon of knowledge for the succeeding generations and a role model for women for all times.
The Concept of God in Islam
Posted: November 14, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams Leave a comment »I will be reading from Gai Eaton’s beautifully written work The Concept of God in Islam at London Central Mosque’s Islamic Circle at 3pm next Saturday, 19th November 2011.
Location
The Islamic Cultural Centre and The London Central Mosque
146 Park Road,
London, United Kingdom, NW8 7RG
Room:
Regents Park Mosque Library, 1st floor
Sam Shamoun the Selective Missionary
Posted: November 13, 2011 Filed under: articles by Sami Zaatari 3 Comments »Missionary apologist Sam Shamoun has recently come out with a 3 part rebuttal towards me concerning whether Allah is a moon God or not, his ‘rebuttals’ can be found on the following link:
http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/preislamic_allah1.html
As I have been saying quite often, Sam Shamoun doesn’t really have any real new arguments, all he does is repeat himself in new articles to give the false impression that he’s actually saying something different and worthwhile, when in fact he’s doing nothing of the sort. There’s no need to refute his weak arguments concerning the pre-Islamic identity of Allah as Islamic-Awareness have already done a fine job on this topic (as I said, Shamoun just repeats rubbish arguments that have already been addressed), you can read IA’s articles on this topic on the following links:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html
What really did interest me in Shamoun’s latest rebuttals was his accusations towards me in which he says:
Take the issue of Allah being the moon god, for example. These apologists will post articles or videos attacking those who claim that Muslims are worshiping a moon deity. Yet these same individuals rarely touch on the real issue raised by those who are somewhat knowledgeable about Christianity and Islam. After all, the point isn’t whether Muslims are worshiping a moon god. The real objection centers on the identity of the pre-Islamic Allah worshiped by the pagan Arabs at Mecca. One such Muslim taqiyyist who has chosen to address the worst that the other side has to offer, as opposed to addressing the real issue, is Sami Zaatari.
RESPONSE
So Shamoun accuses me of dealing with the very worst of Christian argumentation, i.e. Muslims worship a moon God, Shamoun is not happy that I wrote an article showing how absurd this claim is due to the fact that the Quran explicitly states that Muslims should not worship the moon as the moon itself is a creation of God, the article can be found on the following link:
http://ilovemuhammed.com/answering-the-critics/claims-against-islam/45-do-muslims-worship-a-moon-god
Now indeed such an accusation from Shamoun is quite strange, what’s more comical is he calls me a taqiyyist, yet as we are about to see, it is Shamoun that is employing the deception and lies (something quite common with him). So Shamoun accuses me of only dealing with the very bad arguments of Christian apologists instead of dealing with the real issues, something Shamoun may have no realised is I actually do both, I deal with both the worst and the best that him and his colleagues have to offer. In fact just to prove this, visit my rebuttal-responses section on my website where you will find I have dozens of rebuttals to Sam Shamoun himself on a wide range of topics he has discussed, you can see for yourself:
http://www.muslim-responses.com/rebuttals_to_answering_islam
In fact if that’s not good enough for you, then visit www.answering-christianity.com where I first started writing polemical articles years ago, you can literally find HUNDREDS of articles written by me in response to arguments against Islam (and for Christianity), here is the link:
http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/index.html
So to put it bluntly, when Shamoun claims that I only selectively choose weak Christian arguments to deal with, he is practically lying to his audience (something he’s become accustomed to). In fact just to show what a bigger liar Shamoun is, I debated him as well! The debate can be viewed on the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CjOuC1pZ0U&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL02768CD7D9168C49
Not only have I debated Shamoun, I have debated his colleagues such as Dr. James White, David Wood, and Nabeel Qureshi. So for someone who is only trying to deal with the worst that Christianity has to offer, I seem to be doing a very bad job at it! Or is Shamoun indirectly conceding that he alongside all the other names I just mentioned are the worst that Christianity has to offer? Shamoun has no way out of this hole, he either confesses he is a liar, that I am not only selectively dealing with the worst that Christianity has to offer, or he stays consistent with his accusation towards me and concedes that he himself and his colleagues are the worst that Christianity has to offer.
Now on to a lass point, I will state that Shamoun is indeed the worst of what Christian apologetics has to offer, the only reason I have dealt with him and his rubbish arguments is not because they were good or challenging, but because they were so bad that I just couldn’t stay silent in the face of such absurdity, it’s like if you saw someone who actually insisted the world is flat and he truly argued for this, the fact that you would eventually respond to him is not because his arguments have any validity or strength to them, but that they are so bad that you just had to say something. So yes Shamoun, in one sense, I am guilty of dealing with the worst of what Christianity has to offer, and that’s to have dealt with you.
Is “Allah” a false god, not in the Bible? A Jew explains
Posted: November 13, 2011 Filed under: Christian extremism, Christianity, Islam | Tags: allah, bible, judaism Leave a comment »Review of the debate: a personal view
Posted: November 11, 2011 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams 8 Comments »Yesterdays debate (Sami verses Michael Dantzie, see article below) was part debate – part shambles. The moderator, ahem, did not moderate effectively, if at all; the Christian refused to answer questions put to him during the Q & A, and the whole thing descended into chaos. Definitely the funniest and worse debate I’ve ever attended.
But on the plus side:
Abdullah saved the day. He not only successfully persuaded the Christian to come along (when he got cold feet and wanted pulled out), he stepped in to moderate the proceedings when all order had collapsed, and ensured some decency to the event.
To say that Sami out-classed his opponent would be a massive understatement. All Michael could do was preach to the audience for 25 minutes and later he got increasingly annoyed with the audience when we had the temerity to question him on the coherence of his views.
Sami just sat there calmly watching the chaos unfold before him, occasionally refuting questions from the audience.
so:
Christian side 0/10
Muslim side 10/10
Decency and good order 0/10
Upcoming Debate: “Incarnate God or human Prophet? A debate on the nature of Jesus”
Posted: November 11, 2011 Filed under: Debates, MDI 4 Comments »
Organised by the University of Sussex Student Union and Islamic Society.
Speakers:
Michael Dantzie – Preaching Place: Final Messengers Ministries
Sami Zaatari – Muslim Debate Initiative
Atheist-Muslim Debate: Do Morals require God? Abdullah al Andalusi vs Dr Stovold
Posted: November 8, 2011 Filed under: Atheism, Islam, MDI, Videos 1 Comment »Atheist-Muslim Debate: Do Morals require God? Abdullah al Andalusi vs Dr Stovold
The topic for discussion was “Do Morals Require God?” The speakers were:
Abdullah Al-Andalusi on behalf of MDI
Dr Robert Stovold on behalf of the NSS
The event took place on 12/05/10 University of Southampton, UK
No Islam= No Conflict?
Posted: November 6, 2011 Filed under: articles by Sami Zaatari, Islamophobia, The News 10 Comments »Christian apologist and critic of Islam, David Wood, has recently posted a video on his AnsweringMuslims blog, the blog post can be viewed on the following link:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/11/islams-impact-on-world-affairs.html
The video in question is titled as ‘World is Peaceful without Islam’, and Wood has titled the blog article as ‘Islam’s Impact on World Affairs’. Now obviously as Wood has posted the video with the following blog title, it means he supports the contents of the video. Now in the video itself there is a man talking, he seems to be in an interview, and he lists a whole series of conflicts around the world, particularly in countries neighbored by the Muslim world, and so obviously the point that’s trying to be made is that wherever Islam seems to be, there’s a conflict happening and without it there would be peace.
Now before we actually analyze these conflicts we too can play the same game. For example, we too could make the argument that a world without Christianity would be a very peaceful place, after all one only has to study Christian history and see the vile brutality and violence that was committed under it’s reign, now off course que the drum roll and excuses from apologists such as Wood, which only sums up their inconsistency and how weak their methodology actually is. As the saying goes, you can’t have your cake and eat it.
Now to the actual video itself, I can’t obviously give a detailed analysis of each conflict mentioned, but I shall only highlight a few, after all if we simply reveal the weak analysis behind these conflicts, and how wrong they are, what’s the point in listening to each argument the person is making when it’s quite clear they have no clue as to what their talking about.
The Conflict in East Timor
It is almost laughable that the East Timor conflict is brought up, now off course to the politically ignorant (which most Islamophobes happen to be) anything that involves a country that happens to be Muslim must therefore equal a conflict related to Islam, it never occurred in the minds of some that one can be a Muslim and go to war for the sake of something other than Islam, i.e. not every Muslim who goes to war is doing it for Islam, off course such a basic concept is alien to the minds of Islamophobes.
If one had bothered to do a little homework, then one would learn that the leaders of Indonesia who had decided to invade East Timor were fueled by nationalistic reasons rather than religious, the conflict was not about Muslims VS None Muslims, in fact this argument becomes even more laughable when one comes to learn that Indonesia is ruled by secularism! Oh yes, how very religious isn’t it?
Secondly, what’s more laughable was that East Timor WAS ALREADY IN CONFLICT BEFORE ANY INDONESIAN INVASION, they were in engaged in their own civil war, so to argue that if Islam didn’t exist then there would be no violence in that area is almost mind numbing and shows the major depth of ignorance were dealing with here.
Thirdly (and this is the icing on the cake), the Indonesians HAD THE FULL SUPPORT OF AMERICA TO ENGAGE IN IT’S INVASION OF EAST TIMOR, America had a fear that East Timor would turn into a communist state and so they had no problems at all with Indonesia’s invasion of the land, oh yes ladies and gents, this is such a grand religious conflict isn’t it? And just incase some are wondering, the Americans didn’t merely give the Indonesians moral and political support, they actually provided the Indonesians with weapons! Virtually most of the weaponry used by the Indonesians against East Timor was American supplied weaponry!
Here is an article that goes in depth about how America supported the Indonesian invasion of East Timor:
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/nunestimor.html
All of this just serves to show how little David Wood and his friends know about the world of political affairs, will David Wood follow his own methodology now and say that a world without America would be a peaceful place too as America was directly complicit in the war on East Timor? Something tells me no, something tells me I’m going to hear more excuses, but Wood can make all the excuses he wants, facts are facts, America was a major player in the conflict AGAINST East Timor and on the side of Indonesia, all the excuses in the world will not erase that.
The Conflict in Yugoslavia
To even try and simplify the Yugoslav wars as simply being down to Islam and Muslims VS None Muslims is the peak of ignorance when it comes to examining world affairs and conflicts.
For instance if the Yugoslav wars were simply down to Islam and Muslims, then why did this major war involve conflicts between Croats and the Serbs? The Croats are not Muslims; the Croats are mainly Catholics with a minority of Muslims and Protestants. So what happened? Why did the Croat Christians face the Serbian Christians if this was a conflict down to Muslims and Islam? Let us once again throw Wood’s methodology back on him, without Christianity there would be no conflict in Yugoslavia such as between the Croats and Serbs. Now off course that sounds absurd, but when it comes to Muslims, if a person involved in a conflict happens to be a Muslim, then this means that Muslims are the problem and if their removed out of the equation then peace will happen. Sadly for Wood (again) this analysis falls flat on it’s face as Christian Serbs faced Christian Croats and both committed war crimes against the other.
Anyone who bothered to do an honest study of the Yugoslav wars will learn the conflict was mainly down to ethnic conflicts, which is why you had Serbs VS Croats, Serbs VS Bosnians etc.
The Caucus War:
Another conflict listed is the conflict between the Chechens and the Russians; this is where history conveniently evades the minds of both David Wood and the man in the video. The Caucus lands which are now part of Russia (North Caucus lands) such as Chechnya and Dagestan WERE NEVER ORIGINALLY PART OF RUSSIA, these people are not ethnic Russians. The only reason why these Caucus people are now part of Russia in the first place is because Russia invaded these territories in the 19th century, the conflict known as the Caucus wars, Russians invaded these lands and people and then annexed them into Russia. I don’t believe Wood ignored this on purpose; I truly believe HE SIMPLY DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THIS and never bothered to check this out.
Conclusion
There’s no need to address all the other conflicts mentioned as these three examples are enough to show that the person in the video has no idea on what he’s talking about, and that Wood also needs to do a better and more honest analysis and examination of world affairs.
Women & Islam: The rise and rise of the convert
Posted: November 6, 2011 Filed under: The News, Women in Islam 1 Comment »Three-quarters of Britons who become Muslims are female. Now a major new study has shed light on the difficulties they face in adjusting to their new life.
Record numbers of young, white British women are converting to Islam, yet many are reporting a lack of help as they get used to their new
religion, according to several surveys.
As Muslims celebrate the start of the religious holiday of Eid today and hundreds of thousands from around the world converge on Mecca for the haj, it emerged that of the 5,200 Britons who converted to Islam last year, more than half are white and 75 per cent of them women.
In the past 10 years some 100,000 British people have converted to Islam, of whom some three-quarters are women, according to the latest statistics. This is a significant increase on the 60,000 Britons in the previous decade, according to researchers based at Swansea University.
While the number of UK converts accelerates, many of the British women who adopt Islam say they have a daily struggle to assimilate their new beliefs within a wider culture that both implicitly and explicitly positions them as outsiders, regardless of their Western upbringing.
More than three-quarters told researchers they had experienced high levels of confusion after conversion, due to the conflicting ways Islam was presented to them. While other major religions have established programmes for guiding new believers through the rigours of their faith, Islam still lacks any such network, especially outside the Muslim hubs of major cities.
Many mosques still bar women from worship or provide scant resources for their needs, forcing them to rely on competing cultural and ideological interpretations within books or the internet for religious support.
A recent study of converts in Leicester, for example, found that 93 per cent of mosques in the region recognised they lacked services for new Muslims, yet only 7 per cent said they were making efforts to address the shortfall.
Many of the young women – the average age of conversion is 27 – are also coming to terms with experiences of discrimination for the first time, despite the only visible difference being a headscarf. Yet few find easy sanctuary within the established Muslim population, with the majority forming their closest bonds with fellow converts rather than born Muslims.
Kevin Brice, author of the Swansea study A Minority Within a Minority, said to be the most comprehensive study of British Muslim converts, added: “White Muslim converts are caught between two increasingly distant camps. Their best relationships remain with other converts, because of their shared experiences, while there is very little difference between the quality of their relationship with other Muslims or non-Muslims.
“My research also found converts came in two types: some are converts of convenience, who adopt the religion because of a life situation such as meeting a Muslim man, although the religion has little discernible impact on their day-to-day lives. For others it is a conversion of conviction where they feel a calling and embrace the religion robustly.
“That’s not to say the two are mutually exclusive – sometimes converts start out on their religious path through convenience and become converts of conviction later on.”
Another finding revealed by the Leicester study was that despite Western portraits of Islam casting it as oppressive to women, a quarter of female converts were attracted to the religion precisely because of thestatus it affords them.
Some analysts have argued that dizzying social and cultural upheavals in Britain over the past decades have meant that far from adopting an alien way of life, some female Muslim converts are re-embracing certain aspects of mid-20th-century Britain, such as rigid gender demarcation, rather than feeling expected to juggle career and family.
The first established Muslim communities started in Britain in the 1860s, when Yemani sailors and Somali labourers settled around the ports of London, Cardiff, Liverpool and Hull. Many married local women who converted to Islam, often suffering widespread discrimination as a result.
They also acted as a bridge between the two cultures, encouraging understanding among indigenous dwellers and helping to integrate the Muslim community they had joined. Today, there is growing recognition among community leaders that the latest generation of female converts has an equally vital role to play in fostering dialogue between an increasingly secular British majority and a minority religion, as misunderstood as it is vilified.
Kristiane Backer, 45
Television presenter and author, London
I converted to Islam in 1995 after Imran Khan introduced me to the faith. At the time I was a presenter for MTV. I used to have all the trappings of success, yet I felt an inner emptiness and somewhat dissatisfied in my life.
The entertainment industry is very much about “if you’ve got it, flaunt it”, which is the exact opposite to the more inward-oriented spiritual attitude of my new faith. My value system changed and God became the centre point of my life and what I was striving towards.
I recognise some new converts feel isolated but, despite there being even fewer resources when I converted than there are now, it isn’t so much an issue I’ve faced. I’ve always felt welcomed and embraced by the Muslims I met and developed a circle of friends and teachers. It helps living in London, because there is so much to engage in as part of the Muslim community. Yet, even in the capital you can be stared at on the Tube for wearing a headscarf. I usually don’t wear one in the West except when praying. I wear the scarf in front of my heart though!
I always try to explain to people that I’ve converted to Islam, not to any culture. Suppression of women, honour killings or forced marriages are all cultural aberrations, not Islamic ones. Islam is also about dignity and respect for yourself and your femininity. Even in the dating game, Muslim men are very respectful. Women are cherished as mothers, too – as a Muslim woman you are not expected to do it all.”
Amy Sall, 28
Retail assistant, Middlesbrough
I’d say I’m still a bit of a party animal – but I’m also a Muslim. I do go out on the town with the girls and I don’t normally wear my headscarf – I know I should do, but I like to do my hair and look nice! I know there are certain clothes I shouldn’t wear either, even things that just show off your arms, but I still do. My husband would like me to be a better Muslim – he thinks drinking is evil – so it does cause rows.
I haven’t worshipped in a mosque since I got married, I find it intimidating. I worry about doing something wrong; people whispering because they see my blonde hair and blue eyes. Middlesbrough is a difficult place to be a Muslim who isn’t Asian – you tend to be treated like an outsider. Once, I was out wearing my headscarf and a local man shouted abuse. It was weird because I’m white and he was white, but all he saw was the scarf, I suppose. It did make me angry. My family were surprisingly fine with me converting, probably because they thought it would rein me in from being a bit wild.
Nicola Penty-Alvarez, 26
Full-time mother, Uxbridge
I was always interested in philosophy and the meaning of life and when I came across Islam it all just clicked. In the space of four or five months I went from going to raves to wearing a headscarf, praying five times a day and generally being quite pious – I did occasionally smoke though.
I felt very welcomed into the Muslim community, but it was a mainly white convert community. My impression of the Asian community in west London was that women felt sidelined and were encouraged to stay at home and look after the men rather than attend mosque. I think this was more a cultural than religious thing, though.
Non-Muslims certainly treat you differently when you’re wearing a headscarf – they’re less friendly and as a smiley person I found that hard. After a year-and-a-half of being a Muslim I stopped. I remember the moment perfectly. I was in a beautiful mosque in Morocco praying beside an old lady and something just came over me. I thought: ‘What the hell am I doing? How have I got into this?’ It just suddenly didn’t feel right. Needless to say my husband, who was a fellow convert, wasn’t impressed. He remained devout and it put a lot of strain on our relationship. We split up, but are on amicable terms now. I’m not really in contact with the Muslim friends I made – we drifted apart.
I don’t regret the experience. There is so much that I learnt spiritually that I’ve kept and I haven’t gone back to my hard partying ways.
Donna Tunkara
Warehouse operative, Middlesbrough
I was a bit of a tearaway growing up – drinking, smoking, running away from home and being disrespectful to my parents. I converted 10 years ago because I met a Muslim man but I’ve probably become more devout than him.
Sometimes, I miss going shopping for clothes to hit the town and then going home and getting ready with my mates, having a laugh. The thing is no one is forcing me not to – it’s my choice.
It did come as a shock to my family, who are Christian. They’ve not rejected me, but they find it difficult to understand. I feel bad because I don’t now attend weddings, funerals or christenings because they’re often at pubs and clubs and I won’t step inside.
There needs to be more resources for women who convert. I know some mosques that won’t allow women in. But in the Koran there is an emphasis on women being educated. I’ve learnt about the religion through my husband’s family and books – if you want support you have to look for it. It’s taken time to regain an identity I’m comfortable with. Because I’m mixed race and a Muslim, people don’t see me as British – but what’s important is that I know who I am.
Christian Truth – Allahu Akbar!
Posted: November 4, 2011 Filed under: Fr Frank's Rants Leave a comment »God is great!
‘How strange”, my beloved disciple observed, ‘Libyans are shouting “God is great!” and yet the TV News keeps repeating that it is all about democracy.’
Allahu Akbar! Indeed. Libyans have been crying that out ever since the rebellion began. Allahu Akbar! You don’t need a BA in classical Arabic to know what it means. Three words in English, two in Arabic but the same meaning: God is great. Akbar is actually the comparative of kabir, ‘great’, it could just as well be translated as ‘greater’ or ‘the greatest’. A concise, effective statement of faith. Islam in a nutshell. There is nothing greater than God. Wow! The priest will sign up to that any time.
Allahu Akbar! God is great. The unnamed disciple is right. A peculiar deafness affects Western media. Not God, but Democracy is great, their reports imply. Why? Well, because they mouth the ‘D’ word endlessly, while suppressing the ‘G’ word. Surely a sign of verbal-cleansing paranoia.
A visitor from Mars might wonder: what is this thing ‘Democracy’? A craze? A disease? An actress? A pop star? Who is he/she? Invoked obsessively, all the time, surely she must be the name of some divinity, or of an awesome hero, perhaps, a saviour, a prophet or some metaphysical entity or a primal principle of cosmic importance, like gravity, or dark matter or…what?
God is great, the Libyans are shouting. Not, note, ‘democracy is great’. Not two mutually contradictory entities, perhaps, but they are not the same. Across the whole vast world of Islam, over a billion souls, echoes this cry: Allahu Akbar! The West does not want to hear it. As if it had an allergy, a disgust, a revulsion, a phobia at the words. (Europe is God-phobic, of course, that is the whole point.) The idea of God powering men’s lives, driving them to struggle, to fight, to risk their lives, to be wounded and even die…they can’t stand it. God is something Western man mentions only in swearing or in jokes. God, in public and polite society, is strictly off limits. Fanatics, lunatics, dangerous people talk of God. Sane, respectable folks do not…
God is great. But democracy, it seems, is Europe’s god. Better, Europe’s goddess. Not just a historical political system, with merits and demerits, like any other system. Like Moloch, like Melkart, the tribal deities of the Canaanites, democracy is now an absolute, unconditional, totalitarian idol. The new tauhid. Saudi Wahabis get a lot of flak for their presumed religious intolerance but so is the West fanatical, in its unreasoning devotion to this strange goddess – Democracy. The deity isn’t working, unfortunately. Europe’s economy and finance are crumbling, yet…more democracy is the cry! Like a drowning man calling out: ‘More water!’ – amazing!
‘Oh, I am so happy! Now we can say anything we like! We are free!’ a Libyan girl called out. That is something the priest understands. Freedom of speech: being free to speak your mind. Under Qaddafi that girl could not go the Tripoli souq and say: ‘Brother Leader stinks!’ Now she can. (Conversely, there are things Brits, supposedly free, are no longer allowed to say, even in universities. Do we need a revolution?) Freedom is the real McCoy. Freedom under God. Freedom to serve Him and to obey Him. That is the highest freedom: deluded atheists, pay heed!
The new Libyan leaders have learnt their lesson. They know the West craves oil, yes, but also expects democracy jabber so they, in their new suits and ties – thought reassuring after Qaddafi’s camp get-ups – comply. They are playing along. But the tough young chaps who have suffered and shed their blood in fighting the tyrant are shouting Allahu Akbar. They demand something different.
Qaddafi’s bloody end has shocked Westerners. He was not quite treated according the Geneva Conventions, no. Turning up their noses, they whisper: ‘What primitive, savage, violent people, these Muslims!’ (Raining bombs safely from on high is not quite nice either…) They forget the treatment Romanians, a Christian race, dealt to their own communist dictator, Ceausescu. Or what the devoutly Catholic Italians did to the body of Mussolini – something to put the darkest barbarians to shame. Or, a bit closer to home, what sections of the hyper-civilised (post-Christian, alas) British populace got up to this summer: rioting, looting and burning down town centres, presumably inspired by their marvellous goddess, Democracy.
God is great. Does that mean theocracy? It depends. In Europe that word has actually meant clergy rule. But not even the priest would wish this country to be ruled by the likes of Carey, Sentamu and Williams, hollow men who have driven a formerly great English Church to the brink of the grave. ‘God resigns from the C of E!’ a Private Eye joke ran. In truth, he might. Great God and puny, Laodicean Church are not compatible. Only, it is the Anglican Church which has let down Christ, not the other way around.
Allahu Akbar! Theocracy is a bogey conjured up by our God-phobes, like ‘Deluded’ Dawkins and his ilk. The world of Sunni Islam knows no such a word. The modern Church-State dichotomy is alien to Muslims but so it was to traditional Christendom. Although it is thanks to Cameron and Sarkozy that the Libyans threw off Qaddafi’s yoke, you can bet your boots that in religious fervour the new Libya will resemble neither France nor England. God swims in the Arab bloodstream, you cannot expel him out of it.
God is great but human beings are not. The West badly needs an awakening, a rebellion, a revolution. Even the lazy hippies camped around near St Paul’s Cathedral have sensed that. Not that they are fit to deliver it. They are theatre, not reality. Nor will Anglican clergy (laughter) imitate their counterparts in Iran. Nor liberation theology in South America. Priests like the Dominican Camilo Torres, who died wielding a submachine gun, fighting for justice, for the downtrodden – where are they?
‘You are not a revolutionary’ a real revolutionary, an expert in the human heart, told me long ago. Perhaps. But, along with the Libyan rebels, I can still shout out this – God is great!
Revd Frank Julian Gelli
