In this video, a Christian is claiming Prophet Muhammad is the Anti Christ based on 1 John 2:22. She shortly learns that Muslims believe Jesus is the Christ (Messiah). See Quran 3:45 and 4:171.
This video is also uploaded here and here
1 John 2: 22
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.
WHAT IS THE TRUE LESSON FROM THE FALL OF ADAM AND EVE - AQIL ONQUE
Showing posts with label Misconceptions About Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Misconceptions About Islam. Show all posts
Friday, 22 December 2017
Friday, 20 October 2017
Christian Right Wing Is Angry With Qasim Rashid's Article on Islam in the Independent
Here are my thoughts on what an evangelical Christian lady wrote in response to a click-bait piece on the Independent's website by Qasim Rashid entitled “How the teachings of Islam could help us prevent more sex scandals.” As a Muslim I was surprised to see such a title - something which I will address later on in this piece once we touch on some of the polemics directed at Qasim Rashid's piece from a "Christian"evangelical lady called Lizzie Schofield. Lizzie Schofield writes:
Now theIndie's [sic] really upped its game with its latest piece by Qasim Rachid [Sic] (a regular contributor) entitled “How the teachings of Islam could help us prevent more sex scandals.” Islam will prevent sex scandals? Sex scandals like the systematic rape and grooming of young girls in Rochdale, Rotherham and Newcastle, right?
This is like a Christian saying Christian teachings will prevent murders and genocides and the critic responding flippantly “what like the genocide of the Native Americans”?
There are two problems with this immature approach:
1. It’s childish and it misuses serious crimes and suffering of human beings for one-upmanship.
2. This one-upmanship is a non-sequitar in any case. The perverts in the grooming gangs (which included non Muslims) were in fact going against the teachings of Islam – unless you think alcohol, drugs, deceit and rape are Islamic (see Islam forbids rape). You’ve got to have a low view of your fellow man if you think these things are part of the way of life of a fifth of your cousins on this planet. In fact, Islam teaches men and women against being alone or touching a person of the opposite sex whom you have no relationship with. Lizzie knows this as she has been told about the Jewish teaching of Shomer Negiah and the Muslim equivalent.
She knows how Islam would help against Hollywood director sex scandals. Men have to lower their gaze, so they can’t ogle at the model/actress (in addition Islam’s dress code of modesty would help to lessen the drawing of attention from men of a sensual nature as witnessed in this social experiment). Is that not what led to the Harvey Weinstein’s alleged crimes – the sin of the eyes inciting further lustful thoughts? Secondly, you can’t be alone with the actress as Islam teaches against two unmarried people of the opposite sex being alone with each other (the third is always the devil). Thirdly, sex cannot be carried out outside a relationship. Surely that’s enough to say the precepts of Islam would help prevent such sex scandals and vicitimization of actresses?
She then goes into full tilt polemical mode with mindless and inconsistent polemics:
“Tell me how a religion founded by a man who married a nine-year-old girl, plus another 10 women (some forcibly) in addition to his regular sex slaves, will help here. Seriously. I’m all ears.”
On marrying young
1. The Prophet consummated the marriage with Aisha when she was considered mature and had reached puberty. This is the same marriage custom which the Jews at the time of Jesus observed as highlighted by Geza Vermes. Why is this lady not asking why Jesus did not change this custom if she finds it so reprehensible? Does she think Jesus did not care about women?
2. On that theme, the age of marriage in the Bible is puberty as stated by a Christian apologist who cited Ezekiel 16 as his proof text for this claim. Why is this lady not asking why the Bible contains such a “proof text” for puberty as the age of marriage and why it does not follow pre-modern age of consent laws? Does she think Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father did not care about women?
3. We both live in Western Europe, pre-modern Western Europe had similar marriage practices to that of the Arabs a the time of Prophet Muhammad and the Jews at the time of Prophet Jesus. Emma Mason writes, "In the Middle Ages, getting married was easy for Christians living in western Europe...Marriage was the only acceptable place for sex and as a result Christians were allowed to marry from puberty onwards, generally seen at the time as age 12 for women and 14 for men. Parental consent was not required. When this law finally changed in England in the 18th century, the old rules still applied in Scotland."
This lady’s ancestors would have been involved in such marriages. Even beyond the Middle Ages, I bet some of Lizzie’s forefathers were involved in such marriages. Just look at the London marriage licenses between 1500 to the 1800s. We’ve got 4 (four) year old George in there, 9 year old Dorthy Panton and 11 year old Anne in there. This lady may want to check up her family tree for any of those names. In reality, there would have been countless marriages like those of Anne and Dorthy during this period across the whole of Britain. Were they all a bunch of women hating paedophiles back then? No of course not...so why the big deal about Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha when the Bible, Jesus and the rest of humanity before pre-modern times would have seen no issue with it?
On polygamy
As for polygamy, erm what’s wrong with polygamy? Jesus according to her Trinitarian beliefs allowed polygamy.
If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. [Exodus 21:10]
And Jesus, according to her Trinitarian beliefs not only allowed polygamy but also gave wives [plural] to David:
8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. [2 Samuel 12:8]
This is all elementary stuff that anybody who has thought about and looked into the Bible would know of. Why are we seeing a Trinitarian Christian lady talk about polygamy like it’s a bad thing? She’s indirectly insulting her version of Jesus (the Trinitarian Church version). Did Jesus do something wrong in her eyes? Is she more holy than Jesus?
She also talks about forced marriage. Forced marriage is not allowed in Islam Anti-Islam polemicists claim the Prophet’s marriage to Safiya was forced, I’ve covered this here.
On Trinitarian Jesus and Women
In fact it appears, this particular Trinitarian Christian apologist (if consistent), would claim rape/forced marriage took place in Deuteronomy 10 and probably Numbers 31 and this was allowed by Trinitarian Jesus. Does the Christian lady condemn these actions and condemn Trinitarian Jesus?
This lady may want to consider 2 Samuel 12 where according to her Trinitarian understanding, Jesus threatened to give David’s wives to somebody else who would also sleep with them. Now, will this lady call this a threat to have David’s wives raped? A threat given by Trinitarian Jesus according to her understanding!
She also wrote the following to advocate Christianity at the end of her polemical piece:
Jesus never married. Jesus never had sex slaves. He never sexually exploited women. The Cross of Christ is justice for the victims of sexual exploitation and mercy for the perpetrators if they turn to him.
OK, Jesus never married, and is that something that makes him a better person than Moses, Muhammad or Abraham? Nope. Marriage is something necessary for procreation and it’s what societies are founded upon. I believe the lady in question is married herself, let's not go into medieval monk mode where sex is seen as something unholy. Sex is part of life and none of us would be here today if it was not part of life.
She claims Jesus never exploited women but she believes Jesus allowed the severe beating of female slaves as long as they got up after a day or two (Exodus 21:20-21). She believes Jesus ordered the killing of non virgin females in 1 Samuel 15:3.
Is she not aware of any of this or is this in the back of her mind gnawing away at her so she decides to attack Muslims, Islam and the Prophet of Islam to try and make herself feel a bit better? Is this some sort of self-projection akin to where a gay guy is constantly bashing gays but is found out to be involved in a gay lifestyle! behind closed doors.
She also believes Jesus allowed polygamy (Ex 21:10) and she believes Jesus gave wives to David in 2 Samuel 12:8. Clearly Jesus had no issue with polygamy. If she thinks polygamy is exploitation of women then I’m sure she will criticising the Trinitarian church’s view of Jesus - if she's consistent. In addition, she will be attacking the Bible as the spark for her Protestant church movement, Martin Luther, said there’s nothing in the Bible to forbid polygamy.
As for rape, I’d imagine (if consistent as she is constantly looking for the most negative view of Islamic sources she can find) she would exegete 2 Samuel 12 as Jesus threatening to have David’s wives given to somebody else and slept with as exploitation of women:
11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’”
She'd also say the claim Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 10 (an order from Jesus according to her) involved rape
Aside from this, we already know that she believes Jesus is not a pacifist and that Jesus used much more violence than Prophet Muhammad. I guess in her mind, Muhammad is more peaceful and more kinder to women than Trinitarian Jesus and the Islamic Jesus is more peaceful and more loving to women than the Trinitarian church version of Jesus.
Rape victims and the "cross"
She wrote about the cross being some sort of comfort or justice for victims of rape. She does not believe this at all. In her mind, any non Christians raped and not willing to worship Jesus (a man!) will face the wrath of Jesus who will return with a sword for his enemies. She’s on video saying so about Jesus returning with a sword for his "enemies" which she believes to be Muslims (including Muslim women presumably unless she believes Jesus is anti-men and only dislikes non-Christian men). Quite how the idea of Jesus dying for sins on a cross is justice for rape victims is beyond me. Really, what of all those non Christian women raped (many by Christians, think Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, and African slaves) who did not believe a man (Jesus) was God? How exactly do you think the church idea of the cross helps them?
Furthermore, she believes the rapists will be forgiven due to the beliefs around the cross...but what if the rape victim does not forgive the rapist?
Conclusion
The online platform for major newspapers, given the competition online, is a click based market so content providers are incentivised to be as sensational and, a times, inflammatory as possible - "attention whoring" for views. This, in turn, corresponds to online ad revenue. For the Independent's website, it's not much different. For me, the ads that show up on Qasim Rashid's online piece are for BNP PARIBAS and SQUARE SPACE.
As a reader of the Independent, I am a little disappointed in the editorial decision to run that article as it does not take a great deal of wisdom to expect an online anti-Muslim backlash. It seems like the Independent were trolling the right wing but I think we have to recognise this goes beyond the Far Right despite the Left's willingness to stand up for minorities (as a Muslim, I appreciate much of this sentiment although I have read Nathan Lean's book on Islamophobia and he does mention there is Left-wing Islamophobia too).
Qasim Rashid's article will effectively be used as a recruiting sergeant in pitting the cultural right-wing, anti-Muslim and anti-religion folks against Muslims. It's only going to fuel this narrative of "creeping sharia" and the propaganda of an exaggerated influence of Muslims in the West that Muslims are on the precipice of power in Britain when in actuality Muslims are the , or at least one of the, least influential minority groups in the West: Christians, LGBTQ groups and Jews have way more influence than Muslims.
There would have been less of a firestorm if Qasim Rashid had spoken of the way in which EVERY major world religion would help alleviate sex scandals in Hollywood or wherever. He could have then have thrown in a paragraph or two of his own religious tradition alongside relevant teachings from other faiths. The title could have been "How Religion Can Prevent More Sex Scandals in Hollywood".
I do fear, the Independent have managed to stoke up further anti-Muslim sentiment whilst seeking out internet clicks. Sure, the evangelical lady who riled against Qasim Rashid's article is anti-Islam but we must start asking ourselves why Christians, who are very similar in moral values to Muslims, are taking aim at Muslims, increasingly so. We've got to start dialoguing with their more reasonable types and start working with each other as opposed to butting heads in this anti-religion climate we live in in the West. In Britain, I've always thought on the ground (in real life) serious Muslims and serious Christians get along well - the biggest allies of Muslims in the West are religious Christians in my view (not the liberal left).
This anti-Islam rhetoric which is amplified on the net is not doing serious-minded Christians any favours at all. This lady was using babyish terms like "dawahgandist" and "indimmpendent" - she's an outlier amongst real-on-the-ground Christians in the UK in my view, her behaviour reflects a more American fundamentalist, politically-oriented Christianity.
On top of this, through her polemics, the light is well and truly being shone on the Trinitarian view of Jesus who any critic of Prophet Muhammad would criticise with greater vigour and accuse Trinitarian Jesus of all sorts of crimes against men, women and children - if consistent. I wonder if this Christian lady will be consistent.
I'm facing the very real guilt of being partly responsible for a young Christian lady losing faith in Christianity and apparently having no faith in God any longer. She was allegedly on fire for Christianity and was rubbing shoulders with some big name Christian apologists in North America. She was a rising star in evangelical circles - a bit of a celebrity. She was doing the "Muhammad can't be a true Prophet because of polygamy and wars etc." spiel, basically the talking points many Christian polemicists run through, including the Christian lady we are addressed above. I did the, "hey what about the Bible (it allows polygamy) and what about the Bible on violence" response alongside correcting some of her misapprehensions about Islam. Essentially a watered-down version of what I've wrote above. She did email me to expose one of the "Christian" apologists she was rubbing shoulders with who I happened to be refuting and rebuking at the time. I just thought she had gained in maturity, I had no knowledge she left the faith until I was alerted to a social media status from a Christian apologist who had a bit of a crush on her. My advice to Christians is to think about consistency, don't blame people like me for simply pointing out Prophet Muhammad used less violence than Trinitarian Jesus when you try to dishonestly decontextualize his wars and make out the Prophet of Islam was all about violence and don't blame me when I start pointing out what Trinitarians believe about Jesus concerning the treatment of women when you try to engage in negative propaganda against Prophet Muhammad in trying to make him out to be anti-women. Start teaching Christians to be more honest and consistent when talking about Islam, that way you won't be hating me and looking at me with suspicion as a possible reason for your rising young preachers leaving Christianity.
Is Christian Persecution Complex Harming Muslim-Christian Dialogue?
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Monday, 9 October 2017
Explaining Hand Shaking and Hugging to Hatun Tash
Dear Hatun Tash, this issue has been explained previously when Daniel and/or Lizzie were asking about Muslims not shaking the hands of the opposite gender. Please do read up and watch the video on that post and you’ll learn this is also a teaching in Orthodox Judiasm called Shomer Negiah.
I must say I’m disappointed in your colleagues as I’d imagine they would have seen my post on this topic, they should ahave shared it with you so you would not fall into the same error. Perhaps they did not see it. Who knows, you can ask them. And you can share this post with them too.
A few thoughts:
1. You can’t equate somebody not hugging you or touching you for religious reasons as them not loving you. Likewise, you can’t associate the act of you willing to hug them or shake their hands as you loving them more than they love you.
2. If you follow through your thought patter you’d say orthodox Jews don’t love Christians, Muslims and anybody else who is not in their circle of family. Would you be willing to say that in public, I hope not. I would advise you not to as it would be deemed anti-Semitic.
3. The act of hugging or shaking hands in other societies (non Jewish and non Muslim) is probably linked to social propriety and custom. These customs and norms change with time. For instance, I think, without expending time to look it up, a lady in Victorian England would not hug a non family member as it would be considered inappropriate. Likewise for other preceding time periods in the UK which
4. CS Lewis talks about the rule of propriety with regards to women's dress sense. I *think* this would apply equally to a woman’s behaviour (as well as a man’s) with respect to members of the opposite sex. I think he *could* have argued for Christian women to wear hijab in Muslim societies where being hijab-less would be seen as immodest (e.g. Saudi Arabia). This is what he writes: The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed...thus while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians the rule of propriety changes.
A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally ‘modest’, proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste).
5. Having a more liberal outlook on life where one’s life is governed by less restrictions doe snot mean one’s world view is better. If that was the case then secularism of the hyper-individualist kind would be the truth. In fact, Theists who believe in a personal God Who has Spoken through Revelation would argue it is logical for God to lay down restrictions and prohibitions on behaviour.
Jay Smith Are You Proud of Your Pfander Ministries Students?
For Christians Who Call Muslims Rag-Heads...
Is Genesis 22 a Messianic Prophecy?
Advice For Muslims On Dealing With Christian Anti-Muslim Sentiment...
For the video see here
I must say I’m disappointed in your colleagues as I’d imagine they would have seen my post on this topic, they should ahave shared it with you so you would not fall into the same error. Perhaps they did not see it. Who knows, you can ask them. And you can share this post with them too.
A few thoughts:
1. You can’t equate somebody not hugging you or touching you for religious reasons as them not loving you. Likewise, you can’t associate the act of you willing to hug them or shake their hands as you loving them more than they love you.
2. If you follow through your thought patter you’d say orthodox Jews don’t love Christians, Muslims and anybody else who is not in their circle of family. Would you be willing to say that in public, I hope not. I would advise you not to as it would be deemed anti-Semitic.
3. The act of hugging or shaking hands in other societies (non Jewish and non Muslim) is probably linked to social propriety and custom. These customs and norms change with time. For instance, I think, without expending time to look it up, a lady in Victorian England would not hug a non family member as it would be considered inappropriate. Likewise for other preceding time periods in the UK which
4. CS Lewis talks about the rule of propriety with regards to women's dress sense. I *think* this would apply equally to a woman’s behaviour (as well as a man’s) with respect to members of the opposite sex. I think he *could* have argued for Christian women to wear hijab in Muslim societies where being hijab-less would be seen as immodest (e.g. Saudi Arabia). This is what he writes: The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed...thus while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians the rule of propriety changes.
A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally ‘modest’, proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste).
5. Having a more liberal outlook on life where one’s life is governed by less restrictions doe snot mean one’s world view is better. If that was the case then secularism of the hyper-individualist kind would be the truth. In fact, Theists who believe in a personal God Who has Spoken through Revelation would argue it is logical for God to lay down restrictions and prohibitions on behaviour.
Jay Smith Are You Proud of Your Pfander Ministries Students?
For Christians Who Call Muslims Rag-Heads...
Is Genesis 22 a Messianic Prophecy?
Advice For Muslims On Dealing With Christian Anti-Muslim Sentiment...
Monday, 25 September 2017
Muslim Rule in India: No Evidence of Forced Mass Coversions of Hindus
The Ummayad Islamic Caliphate, whose capital was Damascus, had expanded to establish a kingdom in the lower Indus River valley as early as 711 CE. These were Arabic-speaking Muslims, many of whom also traded along India’s Malabar Coast. However, /islam’s major push into the subcontinent began with the Turkish ruler Mahmud of Ghazni, who had his Afgha armies move into Northwest India. By the time of his assassination in 1206, he had established a Turko-Afghan state bordering on Delhi. His successor, Qutb u’d-din Aibak, conquered Delhi, making it his capital, and became the first in a series of Delhi Sultans, Turko-Afghan rulers whose empire eventually stretched from the Punjab to Bengal.
It may be misleading to characterize the region of this empire as under “Muslim” or “Islamic” rule, because the ruling styles of the Hindu and Muslim kingdoms of these states were fairly similar. Furthermore, it conveys the sense that obligatory mass conversions to Islam had occurred, which current historical analyses reject. From studies in regions where Islamic populations grew, such as Western Punjab and Bengal, conversion was often driven by desires for upward mobility through intermarriage, and by teachings of charismatic religious leaders. Historians also reject a prevailing popular view of systematic wholesale destruction of non-Muslim holy places, such as Buddhist monasteries and Hindu temples. While some such were definitely sacked for their wealth, and many religious centers were destroyed by zealous Muslim rulers, such as Firuz Tughluq (14th century CE), Islam and non-Islamic spiritual and philosophical life generally coexisted and interacted peacefully. [Introducing Hinduism, Hilary P. Rodrigues, Routledge, 2nd Edition p28]
Russell Brand Exposes Muslim Terrorism Percentage
It may be misleading to characterize the region of this empire as under “Muslim” or “Islamic” rule, because the ruling styles of the Hindu and Muslim kingdoms of these states were fairly similar. Furthermore, it conveys the sense that obligatory mass conversions to Islam had occurred, which current historical analyses reject. From studies in regions where Islamic populations grew, such as Western Punjab and Bengal, conversion was often driven by desires for upward mobility through intermarriage, and by teachings of charismatic religious leaders. Historians also reject a prevailing popular view of systematic wholesale destruction of non-Muslim holy places, such as Buddhist monasteries and Hindu temples. While some such were definitely sacked for their wealth, and many religious centers were destroyed by zealous Muslim rulers, such as Firuz Tughluq (14th century CE), Islam and non-Islamic spiritual and philosophical life generally coexisted and interacted peacefully. [Introducing Hinduism, Hilary P. Rodrigues, Routledge, 2nd Edition p28]
Russell Brand Exposes Muslim Terrorism Percentage
Tuesday, 19 September 2017
Was David Wood Using Nabeel Qureshi's Death for Hatred?
We had to rebuke David for a video which he made using Nabeel Qureshi's last recorded words to attack the Prophet Muhammad, I hope serious-minded Christians will rebuke David too.
In David Wood's video he cited a hadith of Prophet Muhammad cursing people who take the graves of Prophets as places of worship. He misrepresented this. This is obviously out of concern for keeping Monotheism intact. This shows the value the Prophet had for pure Monotheism. He used some of his last words to remind people of the importance of pure Abrahamic Monotheism and help them keep away from shirk (a departure from pure Abrahamic Monotheism) - making places of worship over the graves of Prophets could be seen as leading to shirk.
The Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) curse on the Jews and Christians was not his last words (just some of his last words), it was not done out of hatred or rancour for them (and it was not directed at all of them), but instead he was relating to those around him his utter rejection of people worshiping prophet's graves. (i.e. indirectly telling them not to worship his grave.)
The Jews (and Christians!) are taught about pure Monotheism and its importance in the Bible. First Commandment that all Jews accept: Ex 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me".
The Prophet, amongst his last words, also reminded people to be spiritual and never forget the prayer: “The prayer, the prayer! And fear Allaah with regard to those whom your right hands possess.”
As for the Prophet's grave, here is a link to what the scholars say on this - it is clearly not a curse against Muslims who pray in that mosque!:
https://islamqa.info/en/65944
David also mentioned Jesus and his purported last words. Firstly, as Christian scholars admit that the Gospel authors are not reliable and the Gospel of John puts words into Jesus' mouth that he never actually said it's highly dubious for David Wood to talk like he knew what Jesus' last words. See this video of a Christian scholar admitting this about John's Gospel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0zkTTNGJLQ
David also makes out he believes in a Jesus who is all about peace and love. Actually, Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus allowed the severe beating of female slaves as long as they got up in a couple of days and they believe he used and will use violence, David Wood's Hypocrisy on Jesus' Violence According to the Bible: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/david-woods-hypocrisy-on-jesus-violence.html
For the David Wood refutation section see here for over 70 rebukes, refutations and responses to him (scroll down and go to older posts to see the earlier ones):
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/David%20Wood
Despicable David Wood Rebuked For Using Nabeel Qureshi's Death for Hatred
This video has also been uploaded here and here
David Wood may think he was just going toe-to-toe with trolls who were winding him up about Nabeel Qureshi with insensitive comments but he just played right in to their hands. Trolls exist on the internet. Don't play their game of hate and mockery.
James White Questions David Wood's Wisdom
Does Surah Al Fateha Curse Jews and Christians? Christian Missionary Claim Refuted!
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existant Jesus?
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
In David Wood's video he cited a hadith of Prophet Muhammad cursing people who take the graves of Prophets as places of worship. He misrepresented this. This is obviously out of concern for keeping Monotheism intact. This shows the value the Prophet had for pure Monotheism. He used some of his last words to remind people of the importance of pure Abrahamic Monotheism and help them keep away from shirk (a departure from pure Abrahamic Monotheism) - making places of worship over the graves of Prophets could be seen as leading to shirk.
The Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) curse on the Jews and Christians was not his last words (just some of his last words), it was not done out of hatred or rancour for them (and it was not directed at all of them), but instead he was relating to those around him his utter rejection of people worshiping prophet's graves. (i.e. indirectly telling them not to worship his grave.)
The Jews (and Christians!) are taught about pure Monotheism and its importance in the Bible. First Commandment that all Jews accept: Ex 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me".
The Prophet, amongst his last words, also reminded people to be spiritual and never forget the prayer: “The prayer, the prayer! And fear Allaah with regard to those whom your right hands possess.”
As for the Prophet's grave, here is a link to what the scholars say on this - it is clearly not a curse against Muslims who pray in that mosque!:
https://islamqa.info/en/65944
David also mentioned Jesus and his purported last words. Firstly, as Christian scholars admit that the Gospel authors are not reliable and the Gospel of John puts words into Jesus' mouth that he never actually said it's highly dubious for David Wood to talk like he knew what Jesus' last words. See this video of a Christian scholar admitting this about John's Gospel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0zkTTNGJLQ
David also makes out he believes in a Jesus who is all about peace and love. Actually, Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus allowed the severe beating of female slaves as long as they got up in a couple of days and they believe he used and will use violence, David Wood's Hypocrisy on Jesus' Violence According to the Bible: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/david-woods-hypocrisy-on-jesus-violence.html
For the David Wood refutation section see here for over 70 rebukes, refutations and responses to him (scroll down and go to older posts to see the earlier ones):
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/David%20Wood
Despicable David Wood Rebuked For Using Nabeel Qureshi's Death for Hatred
This video has also been uploaded here and here
David Wood may think he was just going toe-to-toe with trolls who were winding him up about Nabeel Qureshi with insensitive comments but he just played right in to their hands. Trolls exist on the internet. Don't play their game of hate and mockery.
James White Questions David Wood's Wisdom
Does Surah Al Fateha Curse Jews and Christians? Christian Missionary Claim Refuted!
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existant Jesus?
Why Islam
Wednesday, 6 September 2017
Is Islam to Blame for Grooming Gangs? Right Wing Refuted!
If you're in the West the far right will throw this type of rhetoric your way. This was a tweet from a group trained by Jay Smith. The group is called DCCI Ministries and its run by Hatun Tash and Lizzie Schofield. The tweet reads:
Religion of Islam (its book and its prophet) has low view of women - we can't be surprise [sic] with application of it.[Link to a site which has ties with Tommy Robinson]
This tweet's argument is basically "Islam has a low view of women hence why a lot of these grooming gang members have Muslim names (they end with a link to a website which ahs ties to Tommy Robinson, the link features the names of people convicted of grooming)"
1. Islam does not allow rape or premarital sex and Islam does not have a low view of women (spiritually both genders are on equal footing)
2. The vast majority of paedophiles in this country are of Christian cultural backgrounds.
3. The stats for ethnic minority grooming are only higher for group grooming, white people come up top of the stats for grooming on an individual basis (which is expected as white people make up the majority of the population)
4. There's actually an explanation for why ethnic minorities may be represented disproportionately in grooming - night time economy. Vulnerable girls (and boys) tend to be out at night and interact more with people in the night time economy (takeaway workers, taxi drivers, etc.). Disproportionately ethnic minorities work in this economy.
5. These people part of grooming gangs are hardly people taking cues from Islamic texts - unless you think alcohol, drugs and premarital sex is Islamic.
6. This type of propaganda can be turned around just to show how absurd the type of thinking behind this polemic actually is. "In Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15:3 boys are ordered to be killed (in the case of 1 Samuel Trinitarians believe Jesus ordered this mass killing of boys) this shows Christianity has a low view of boys thus explaining why there are so many priests and church leaders fiddling and raping young boys - here's s link to s few media reports showing church leaders getting caught in child sex abuse scandals". (I don't support this line of argument - it's simply used to show how absurd the "Christian" propaganda in the tweet is!)
Muslim Scholars on Rape
A Refutation of the ISIS is Islam Rhetoric - Tommy Robinson Needs to Read This!
Muslim Reacts to Jay Smith's Retirement From Pfander Films
Jay Smith Pfander Ministries' Theological Problem With Christian Countries and Domestic Violence
Christian Asks About Child Killing in the Bible - Lizzie Schofield of Pfander Blog and YouTube
Christian Evangelical Propagandizes Distortion of Bill in Turkey
1 Samuel 15:3: Lizzie Speakers Corner (Paul and Lizzie Schofield)
Christian Missionaries and Pakistan's Valentines Day Ban
Hashim Corrects Lizzie Schofield of Pfander Films Website
Christian Asks About Child Killing in the Bible - Lizzie Schofield of Pfander Blog and YouTube
A Reputation for Rudeness Is Difficult to Shake Off, Ask Pfander...
Jay Smith's Pfander Films Asked to Condemn Death Threat to Muslim Apologist
Hamza Myatt and Lizzie Schofield on Violence in Bible - Unbelievable and Pfander Films Take Note
Are Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Centre Radicalising People to Hate Muslims?
Adnan Rashid Racist Abuse Condemned - Jay Smith's Pfander Films' Radicalised Viewers
Jay Smith's Student Lizzie Schofield Believes Jesus Mistreats Women in Deut 21:10-14
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Religion of Islam (its book and its prophet) has low view of women - we can't be surprise [sic] with application of it.[Link to a site which has ties with Tommy Robinson]
This tweet's argument is basically "Islam has a low view of women hence why a lot of these grooming gang members have Muslim names (they end with a link to a website which ahs ties to Tommy Robinson, the link features the names of people convicted of grooming)"
1. Islam does not allow rape or premarital sex and Islam does not have a low view of women (spiritually both genders are on equal footing)
2. The vast majority of paedophiles in this country are of Christian cultural backgrounds.
3. The stats for ethnic minority grooming are only higher for group grooming, white people come up top of the stats for grooming on an individual basis (which is expected as white people make up the majority of the population)
4. There's actually an explanation for why ethnic minorities may be represented disproportionately in grooming - night time economy. Vulnerable girls (and boys) tend to be out at night and interact more with people in the night time economy (takeaway workers, taxi drivers, etc.). Disproportionately ethnic minorities work in this economy.
5. These people part of grooming gangs are hardly people taking cues from Islamic texts - unless you think alcohol, drugs and premarital sex is Islamic.
6. This type of propaganda can be turned around just to show how absurd the type of thinking behind this polemic actually is. "In Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15:3 boys are ordered to be killed (in the case of 1 Samuel Trinitarians believe Jesus ordered this mass killing of boys) this shows Christianity has a low view of boys thus explaining why there are so many priests and church leaders fiddling and raping young boys - here's s link to s few media reports showing church leaders getting caught in child sex abuse scandals". (I don't support this line of argument - it's simply used to show how absurd the "Christian" propaganda in the tweet is!)
Muslim Scholars on Rape
A Refutation of the ISIS is Islam Rhetoric - Tommy Robinson Needs to Read This!
Muslim Reacts to Jay Smith's Retirement From Pfander Films
Jay Smith Pfander Ministries' Theological Problem With Christian Countries and Domestic Violence
Christian Asks About Child Killing in the Bible - Lizzie Schofield of Pfander Blog and YouTube
Christian Evangelical Propagandizes Distortion of Bill in Turkey
1 Samuel 15:3: Lizzie Speakers Corner (Paul and Lizzie Schofield)
Christian Missionaries and Pakistan's Valentines Day Ban
Hashim Corrects Lizzie Schofield of Pfander Films Website
Christian Asks About Child Killing in the Bible - Lizzie Schofield of Pfander Blog and YouTube
A Reputation for Rudeness Is Difficult to Shake Off, Ask Pfander...
Jay Smith's Pfander Films Asked to Condemn Death Threat to Muslim Apologist
Hamza Myatt and Lizzie Schofield on Violence in Bible - Unbelievable and Pfander Films Take Note
Are Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Centre Radicalising People to Hate Muslims?
Adnan Rashid Racist Abuse Condemned - Jay Smith's Pfander Films' Radicalised Viewers
Jay Smith's Student Lizzie Schofield Believes Jesus Mistreats Women in Deut 21:10-14
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Monday, 28 August 2017
A Refutation of the ISIS is Islam Rhetoric - Tommy Robinson Needs to Read This!
A “Christian” missionary organisation put out an anti-Islam propaganda tweet. It’s standard Islamophobic spiel which one comes across amongst anti-Muslim trolls on the internet. The tweet reads:
ISIL: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Identified as Muslims. Funded by the Quran and sunnah. Follower of Islam. Enemy of non Muslims
There are a number of issues with this tweet, aside from their misuse of the word “funded”.
1. “Identified as Muslims”. There are Muslims who don’t pray, gamble, steal, eat pork, drink alcohol, go out clubbing and partying, fornicate, watch porn, etc.. Just because an act is done by a Muslim does not mean it’s Islamic. We have to draw a distinction between the actions of Muslims and Islam – the two aren’t always in harmony due to human weakness. Likewise for Christians who drop bombs on people’s heads, carry out terrorist attacks, have gay marriages, divorce, fornicate, gamble etc., are we going to say these actions stem from Christianity?
2. “Funded by the Quran and the Sunnah. Follower of Islam”. The person misused the word “funded” here, I think they were trying to say ISIS’ actions are inspired by Islam. Let’s just analyse ISIS’ actions in he UK. They killed innocent civilians in Manchester and London. Is that allowed in Islam? No:
Dr Timothy Winter of Cambridge University states "terrorism is the arbitrary targeting of the innocent in order to place pressure on governments, which is something which doesn't have origins in Islamic culture or ethics and comes out of the French revolution and certain 19th century anarchist movements that used terrorism. As a doctrine in the Muslim world it's very recent and it's an expression of Westernisation. Terrorism, 9/11 for instance, according to classical Islamic Law is classified as hiraba which carried the death penalty"
An excellent quote from Muhammad Asad's book rebuking evangelical Christians (Jeremiah Johnston and Craig Evans) who parse terrorist attacks in a similar manner to Islamophobic evangelical Christian propagandists "Simply put, every Muslim scholar - whether Sunni, Shia, Salafi, Deobandi - has condemned and spoken out against Daesh. Their arguments against Daesh and its acts are derived from traditional Islamic religious texts and based firmly in Islamic jurisprudence".
So clearly they aren’t acting in accordance with Islam therefore they are not inspired by the Quran and the Sunnah. Now , for sure many of them may feel they are acting in accordance with Islam but the vast majority of Muslims worldwide and all recognised Muslim scholarly bodies denounce their terrorist actions. The question here is who do we allow to interpret Islam, the majority of Muslims and the scholarly bodies of Islam or an obscurantist fringe and minority radical group that has very little traction and support amongst Muslims? The intellectually honest person would opt for the majority of Muslims and the scholarly bodies rather than a terrorist group.
Just to show how problematic extremist fringe interpretations of religious texts can be let's focu on a Bible verse. 1 Samuel 15:3 has been used to support mass violence:
The story of the Amalekites has been used to justify genocide throughout the ages. According to Pennsylvania State University Professor Philip Jenkins, a contributing editor for the American Conservative, the Puritans used this passage when they wanted to get rid of the Native American tribes. Catholics used it against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics. "In Rwanda in 1994, Hutu preachers invoked King Saul's memory to justify the total slaughter of their Tutsi neighbors," writes Jenkins in his 2011 book, Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can't Ignore the Bible's Violent Verses (HarperCollins). [Guardian]
On a similar theme please listen to pastor Brian McLaren:
How Bible Stories Were Used For Genocide, White Supremacy, Racism + Sectarian Violence
Would the same Christian be consistent and say those who massacred the Native Americans were followers of Christianity and backed by the Bible?
3. “ Enemy of non Muslims”. Erm, how about the “ISIS are also the Enemy of Muslims”? ISIS have killed more Muslims than non Muslims.
According to the Counter Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy at West Point, Al-Qaeda kills over seven times more Muslims than non-Muslims. According to the UN, Muslims are the largest victims of ISIS. According to the State Department, Muslims are the largest victims of terrorism in general [Omar Alnatour – Huff Post]
And how about “Muslims are at the forefront of opposing ISIS”?
Muslims want to defeat terrorism just as much as any other American, if not more. This is why we have Muslim women like Niloofar Rahmani and Kubra Khademi who are at the very frontlines fighting terrorists. This is why millions of Muslim youth are taking a stand against ISIS. This is why tons of Muslim groups and scholars repeatedly issue statements condemning ISIS, many even being beheaded by ISIS for doing so.
This is why more than 120 Muslim scholars from around the world joined together to write an open letter to ISIS, denouncing them as un-Islamic by using Islamic terms. This is why Muslims are being killed by ISIS for publicly opposing this terrorist group’s persecution of Christians. [Omar Alnatour – Huff Post]
Right so how can an intellectually honest, fair and balanced person talk about terrorism committed by extremist fringe Muslim groups? Obviously they are motivated to have effect politically and they are reactionary – reacting to Western imperialism (be it direct of indirect) in most cases. Many of them have clearly adopted interpretations of Islam which depart from mainstream Muslim positions to suit their reactionary and geo-political agendas.
There has to be a two-pronged effort to defeat ISIS:
1. This is something which has been going on for a while. Muslim scholars have been refuting ISIS via the Islamic tradition. Lay Muslims and the MSM should help to disseminate scholarly denouncement and refutation of ISIS in order to stymie their flow of new recruits and to help convince ISIS members that they are in the wrong.
2. There clearly is a correlation with Western foreign policy and ISIS terrorism.
Despite what we might like to think, foreign policy is key to understanding why terrorists attack us. We may hope they only attack us because they’re barbaric or because they ‘hate our freedoms’. But time after time the terrorists clearly state that they attack us because we attack them. And it’s uncomfortable to admit, but these terrorists know they are not lying in saying that our military has been involved in killing and harassing tens of thousands of civilians, whether directly through invasions, bombings and drone strikes, or whether indirectly through propping up oppressive regimes. Our aggressive and utterly selfish foreign policy will always leave us open to attack.[Dr Leon Moosavi, Liverpool University]
There’s a cycle of violence which has to stop. We all (Muslims and Non Muslims) all have to start being more active in lobbying Western governments against unjust military and economic policies. We’ve got seriously try to build a fairer world for everyone.
Jonathan Mclatchie: Gay Marriage is "Madness" but Terrorism is..
What the Jihadists Who Bought ‘Islam For Dummies’ on Amazon Tell Us About Radicalisation
It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent - letter to Baghdadi
9/11 was against Sharia - Dr Timothy Winter
Book Review: Jesus, the Fake Jihadis & Evangelical Christians by Muhammad Asad (A Response to 'Jesus and the Jihadis')
The Truth About ISIS - Dr Yasir Qadhi
Russell Brand: Haters of Islam Encourage Muslims towards Extremism
ISIL: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Identified as Muslims. Funded by the Quran and sunnah. Follower of Islam. Enemy of non Muslims
There are a number of issues with this tweet, aside from their misuse of the word “funded”.
1. “Identified as Muslims”. There are Muslims who don’t pray, gamble, steal, eat pork, drink alcohol, go out clubbing and partying, fornicate, watch porn, etc.. Just because an act is done by a Muslim does not mean it’s Islamic. We have to draw a distinction between the actions of Muslims and Islam – the two aren’t always in harmony due to human weakness. Likewise for Christians who drop bombs on people’s heads, carry out terrorist attacks, have gay marriages, divorce, fornicate, gamble etc., are we going to say these actions stem from Christianity?
2. “Funded by the Quran and the Sunnah. Follower of Islam”. The person misused the word “funded” here, I think they were trying to say ISIS’ actions are inspired by Islam. Let’s just analyse ISIS’ actions in he UK. They killed innocent civilians in Manchester and London. Is that allowed in Islam? No:
Dr Timothy Winter of Cambridge University states "terrorism is the arbitrary targeting of the innocent in order to place pressure on governments, which is something which doesn't have origins in Islamic culture or ethics and comes out of the French revolution and certain 19th century anarchist movements that used terrorism. As a doctrine in the Muslim world it's very recent and it's an expression of Westernisation. Terrorism, 9/11 for instance, according to classical Islamic Law is classified as hiraba which carried the death penalty"
An excellent quote from Muhammad Asad's book rebuking evangelical Christians (Jeremiah Johnston and Craig Evans) who parse terrorist attacks in a similar manner to Islamophobic evangelical Christian propagandists "Simply put, every Muslim scholar - whether Sunni, Shia, Salafi, Deobandi - has condemned and spoken out against Daesh. Their arguments against Daesh and its acts are derived from traditional Islamic religious texts and based firmly in Islamic jurisprudence".
So clearly they aren’t acting in accordance with Islam therefore they are not inspired by the Quran and the Sunnah. Now , for sure many of them may feel they are acting in accordance with Islam but the vast majority of Muslims worldwide and all recognised Muslim scholarly bodies denounce their terrorist actions. The question here is who do we allow to interpret Islam, the majority of Muslims and the scholarly bodies of Islam or an obscurantist fringe and minority radical group that has very little traction and support amongst Muslims? The intellectually honest person would opt for the majority of Muslims and the scholarly bodies rather than a terrorist group.
Just to show how problematic extremist fringe interpretations of religious texts can be let's focu on a Bible verse. 1 Samuel 15:3 has been used to support mass violence:
The story of the Amalekites has been used to justify genocide throughout the ages. According to Pennsylvania State University Professor Philip Jenkins, a contributing editor for the American Conservative, the Puritans used this passage when they wanted to get rid of the Native American tribes. Catholics used it against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics. "In Rwanda in 1994, Hutu preachers invoked King Saul's memory to justify the total slaughter of their Tutsi neighbors," writes Jenkins in his 2011 book, Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can't Ignore the Bible's Violent Verses (HarperCollins). [Guardian]
On a similar theme please listen to pastor Brian McLaren:
How Bible Stories Were Used For Genocide, White Supremacy, Racism + Sectarian Violence
Would the same Christian be consistent and say those who massacred the Native Americans were followers of Christianity and backed by the Bible?
3. “ Enemy of non Muslims”. Erm, how about the “ISIS are also the Enemy of Muslims”? ISIS have killed more Muslims than non Muslims.
According to the Counter Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy at West Point, Al-Qaeda kills over seven times more Muslims than non-Muslims. According to the UN, Muslims are the largest victims of ISIS. According to the State Department, Muslims are the largest victims of terrorism in general [Omar Alnatour – Huff Post]
And how about “Muslims are at the forefront of opposing ISIS”?
Muslims want to defeat terrorism just as much as any other American, if not more. This is why we have Muslim women like Niloofar Rahmani and Kubra Khademi who are at the very frontlines fighting terrorists. This is why millions of Muslim youth are taking a stand against ISIS. This is why tons of Muslim groups and scholars repeatedly issue statements condemning ISIS, many even being beheaded by ISIS for doing so.
This is why more than 120 Muslim scholars from around the world joined together to write an open letter to ISIS, denouncing them as un-Islamic by using Islamic terms. This is why Muslims are being killed by ISIS for publicly opposing this terrorist group’s persecution of Christians. [Omar Alnatour – Huff Post]
How can we defeat ISIS?
Right so how can an intellectually honest, fair and balanced person talk about terrorism committed by extremist fringe Muslim groups? Obviously they are motivated to have effect politically and they are reactionary – reacting to Western imperialism (be it direct of indirect) in most cases. Many of them have clearly adopted interpretations of Islam which depart from mainstream Muslim positions to suit their reactionary and geo-political agendas.
There has to be a two-pronged effort to defeat ISIS:
1. This is something which has been going on for a while. Muslim scholars have been refuting ISIS via the Islamic tradition. Lay Muslims and the MSM should help to disseminate scholarly denouncement and refutation of ISIS in order to stymie their flow of new recruits and to help convince ISIS members that they are in the wrong.
2. There clearly is a correlation with Western foreign policy and ISIS terrorism.
Despite what we might like to think, foreign policy is key to understanding why terrorists attack us. We may hope they only attack us because they’re barbaric or because they ‘hate our freedoms’. But time after time the terrorists clearly state that they attack us because we attack them. And it’s uncomfortable to admit, but these terrorists know they are not lying in saying that our military has been involved in killing and harassing tens of thousands of civilians, whether directly through invasions, bombings and drone strikes, or whether indirectly through propping up oppressive regimes. Our aggressive and utterly selfish foreign policy will always leave us open to attack.[Dr Leon Moosavi, Liverpool University]
There’s a cycle of violence which has to stop. We all (Muslims and Non Muslims) all have to start being more active in lobbying Western governments against unjust military and economic policies. We’ve got seriously try to build a fairer world for everyone.
Jonathan Mclatchie: Gay Marriage is "Madness" but Terrorism is..
What the Jihadists Who Bought ‘Islam For Dummies’ on Amazon Tell Us About Radicalisation
It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent - letter to Baghdadi
9/11 was against Sharia - Dr Timothy Winter
Book Review: Jesus, the Fake Jihadis & Evangelical Christians by Muhammad Asad (A Response to 'Jesus and the Jihadis')
The Truth About ISIS - Dr Yasir Qadhi
Russell Brand: Haters of Islam Encourage Muslims towards Extremism
Wednesday, 2 August 2017
A Video Shining Light Toward Farhan Qureshi and the Hindu Community
A Hindu friend of mine, Farhan, goes into what appears to be Hindu nationalist ethno-centred PSYOPS against Indian Muslims. It comes across as really low brow stuff. This is a video responding to his comments about Muslims. Hopefully this can be a light to Hindu friends to help people see beyond nationalist and ethno-centred arguments that say Islam is an Arab religion and Indian Muslims should not follow Islam because it's not native to India.
This video is also uploaded here and here
Muslim responds to Hindu
Polygamy IS in the Bible - Christians Stop Being SCARED of Liberals
Muslim Indonesian Women Tricked By Christiam Missionary Men?
She Left Islam Because She Misunderstood Salvation in Islam
Christian Ex Muslim Al Fadi Challenged by a Muslim
Discussion: Ex Muslims, Slogan "Free If You Leave Islam", Atheism, Nihilism, Consumerism and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
This video is also uploaded here and here
Muslim responds to Hindu
Polygamy IS in the Bible - Christians Stop Being SCARED of Liberals
Muslim Indonesian Women Tricked By Christiam Missionary Men?
She Left Islam Because She Misunderstood Salvation in Islam
Christian Ex Muslim Al Fadi Challenged by a Muslim
Discussion: Ex Muslims, Slogan "Free If You Leave Islam", Atheism, Nihilism, Consumerism and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Sunday, 30 July 2017
Lizzie Schofield and Hatun Tash Presenting Anti Muslim Spin to Abbas at Speakers Corner
Lizzie Schofield and Hatun Tash of DCCI Ministries claimed Muslims curse Jews and Christians in prayer 17 times a day. This is simply anti-Muslim propaganda. Surah Fatiha does not contain a curse, this seems to be intellectually dishonest evangelical propaganda picked up from Jay Smith. Here's a short response via video to Lizzie and Hatun, hopefully they will learn from this. Jay really has a lot of explaining to do. He should know he does not honour his prophet Paul of Tarsus with such tactics.
This is not true at all - read it for yourself.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
Tony Costa and his Trinitarian missionary colleagues will believe Paul’s words are a curse against Muslims, Jews, Unitarian Christians, Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons as the aforementioned do not accept the Trinitarian view of Jesus.
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Video also uploaded here and here
Right, let’s swiftly put this this polemic to bed and highlight gross inconsistency and what appears to beintellectual dishonesty. Polemicists like Jay Smith and Pastor Tony Costa claim Surah Al Fatiha (the chapter in the Quran) is a prayer cursing Jews and Christians. They claim the last Verse of the Quran is a curse on the Jews and the Christian.
Right, let’s swiftly put this this polemic to bed and highlight gross inconsistency and what appears to beintellectual dishonesty. Polemicists like Jay Smith and Pastor Tony Costa claim Surah Al Fatiha (the chapter in the Quran) is a prayer cursing Jews and Christians. They claim the last Verse of the Quran is a curse on the Jews and the Christian.
This is not true at all - read it for yourself.
Anybody with scintilla of comprehension and fairness can see that it is not a curse. A curse is when one prays for bad to fall upon a person: Muslims are not asking for God to be angry with Jews and Christians here!
Pastor Tony Costa states he finds this “disconcerting” as he shockingly styles the prayer in Surah Al Fateha as “systemic cursing of Jews and Christians” that “vilify Jews and Christians” [Timeframe 5.50] whilst Jay Smith’s team spin it as “the cursing prayer”!
My response to Tony is that you need to actually read the text for yourself and comprehend it rather than going off what some Christian polemicist is saying on the internet. No need to feel disconcerted about Muslim prayers, Tony.
However, Tony Costa in his written work, has said Paul of Tarsus (in Galatians 1) curses anybody who does not teach the same Gospel as him:
There are such things as divine curses in the Bible where God for instance pronounces judgment on those who pervert and preach a different Gospel (see Galatians 1:6-9), or brings a curse on those who do not love the Lord Jesus (see 1 Corinthians16:22). [Pastor Tony Costa]
Pastor Tony Costa states he finds this “disconcerting” as he shockingly styles the prayer in Surah Al Fateha as “systemic cursing of Jews and Christians” that “vilify Jews and Christians” [Timeframe 5.50] whilst Jay Smith’s team spin it as “the cursing prayer”!
My response to Tony is that you need to actually read the text for yourself and comprehend it rather than going off what some Christian polemicist is saying on the internet. No need to feel disconcerted about Muslim prayers, Tony.
However, Tony Costa in his written work, has said Paul of Tarsus (in Galatians 1) curses anybody who does not teach the same Gospel as him:
There are such things as divine curses in the Bible where God for instance pronounces judgment on those who pervert and preach a different Gospel (see Galatians 1:6-9), or brings a curse on those who do not love the Lord Jesus (see 1 Corinthians16:22). [Pastor Tony Costa]
Here's Paul of Tarsus in his own words:
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
Tony Costa and his Trinitarian missionary colleagues will believe Paul’s words are a curse against Muslims, Jews, Unitarian Christians, Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons as the aforementioned do not accept the Trinitarian view of Jesus.
Tony Costa, if consistent, would find Paul’s words in Galatians to be “disconcerting” and a “systemic cursing of Jews” which “vilify” Muslims, Jews, Athests, Hindus, Sikhs, etc.
Perhaps Tony forgets what he writes in his academic work when he is in the company of polemicists against Islam? From this example, it seems, he totally forgets academic standards, intellectual integrity, fairness and comprehension skills when he puts his anti-Islam hat on.
Muslim Reacts to Jay Smith's Retirement From Pfander Films
Answering Daniel and (Lizzie Schofield?) On Shaking Hands FAO Pfander Centre for Apologetics
Lizzie Schofield of Pfander Films Indirectly Rejects the Bible and Attacks the Trinitarian Version of Jesus
Jay Smith Pfander Ministries' Theological Problem With Christian Countries and Domestic Violence
Perhaps Tony forgets what he writes in his academic work when he is in the company of polemicists against Islam? From this example, it seems, he totally forgets academic standards, intellectual integrity, fairness and comprehension skills when he puts his anti-Islam hat on.
Muslim Reacts to Jay Smith's Retirement From Pfander Films
Answering Daniel and (Lizzie Schofield?) On Shaking Hands FAO Pfander Centre for Apologetics
Lizzie Schofield of Pfander Films Indirectly Rejects the Bible and Attacks the Trinitarian Version of Jesus
Jay Smith Pfander Ministries' Theological Problem With Christian Countries and Domestic Violence
Why Islam
Tuesday, 18 July 2017
Robert Spencer Shocks Evangelical Christians: "Islam Promotes Good Morality"
Islamophobic Evangelical Christians are flocking to Robert Spencer to attack Muslims and Islam for purposes of "political Christianity" but little do these people know Robert Spencer believes Islam promotes good morality and it helps Muslims live good and moral lives. I guess Robert Spencer will not be repeating what he said here too loudly in front of the evangelical pay-masters who want him to serve "political Christianity". Too late Robert, it's out in the open.
This video is also posted here and here
Barack Obama is a Christian and Jesus is a Muslim
Age of Consent for Jews and Christians?
Foolish Christian Argument 'that Quran Teaches Earth is Flat' Back-fires
Muslim Imam Response to Paris Terrorist Attacks
Similarities Between Catholic Terrorist Group IRA and Muslim Terrorist Group ISIS
Explanation: Zaynab Bint Jahsh's Marriage to Prophet Muhammad p Dr Yasir Qadhi
Dhul Qarnayn and the Exegetes' Speculation of Alexander The Great
Murder Rates in Muslim Countries Compared to Non Muslim Countries.
The Hitler Propaganda on Muslims
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
This video is also posted here and here
Barack Obama is a Christian and Jesus is a Muslim
Age of Consent for Jews and Christians?
Foolish Christian Argument 'that Quran Teaches Earth is Flat' Back-fires
Muslim Imam Response to Paris Terrorist Attacks
Similarities Between Catholic Terrorist Group IRA and Muslim Terrorist Group ISIS
Explanation: Zaynab Bint Jahsh's Marriage to Prophet Muhammad p Dr Yasir Qadhi
Dhul Qarnayn and the Exegetes' Speculation of Alexander The Great
Murder Rates in Muslim Countries Compared to Non Muslim Countries.
The Hitler Propaganda on Muslims
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Tuesday, 11 July 2017
Ehteshaam Gulam on Quran Chapter 9 and Critics of Islam
Also uploaded here
Ehteshaam writes:
For the Historical Context of the Quran 9 see Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Abbas, Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, etc. Also see The Sealed Nectar pages 453-510 regarding the historical context of the Quran 9. Basically this chapter of the Quran was revealed when the Prophet Muhammad and the early Muslims were under attack by the Pagans of Arabia, the Romans, the hypocrites, etc.
The Quran says you can live peacefully with non Believers or Non Muslims in Quran 60:8 and Quran 109. There is no evidence that these verses were abberrated. The Prophet Muhammad never said these vereses were abberrated neither did Ibn Kathir, etc. In fact Muslim scholars don't know which verses abberate other verses, so its incorrect to say the peaceful verses are cancelled out in favor of Quran 9.
Umar Ibn Khattab quoted Quran 2:256 after the Prophet Muhammad's death in Al-Kanz Volume 5 Page 50. The Prophet Muhammad said follow Umar Ibn Khattab in Tirmidhi Volume 6, Page 348, Hadith #3662. So the Quran 2:256 is not aberrated.
How Folks Like Robert Spencer Poison White Evangelical Minds
Yasir Qadhi Rebukes Robert Spencer and other Right Wing Bigots Attacking the Minister White-Dr Qadhi Dialogue
Contradiction: Robert Spencer Runs Away From Muslim Debater Yusuf Ismail
Monday, 26 June 2017
Answering Daniel and (Lizzie Schofield?) On Shaking Hands FAO Pfander Centre for Apologetics
This is a response to a gentleman called Daniel who is associated with Jay Smith's Pfander Ministries. He was asking a Muslim why it is forbidden for a Muslim to shake the hand of his female Christian friend/colleague (Elizabeth Lizzie Schofield) as Speakers Corner,
In this video, the Muslims (Nouman Ali Khan and Hamza Yusuf), the Jewish lady (Andrea Grinberg) and a Christian preacher (Paul Washer, who laments at our Western society's departure of valuing touch) really help us to value the teaching of not shaking hands or hugging with members of the opposite sex who you have no familial bond with. It's heart warming as well as sad. Sad because this value for touch and guarding against sensual interactions with strangers of the opposite sex has been lost in the West. Watch the video, you'll appreciate and/or understand the Islamic and Jewish teachings on this more.
This video is also uploaded here and here
Jewish prohibition:
The Book Without Doubt - The Quran
Did Peter Believe in the Trinity?
Dawah to Swedish (?) Atheist/Agnostic Wanting to Deport Muslims
Ex Christian: Christian Claims of Miracles Were Fake and Tricks
Refuting Joe Rogan's Comments About Islam
Pfander's Beth Grove Asked to Apolgise to Hashim For Anti-Muslim Abuse: Speakers Corner
Justin Brierley, do you Believe Jay Smith's "Hyperbole" Excuse?
Are Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Centre Radicalising People to Hate Muslims?
Refuting the Claim Petra was the Qibla Before Mecca
Christian Polemicist Jay Smith and The Christian Apologetics Alliance Debunked Again
Blog: Jonathan McLatchie, yes it is Islamophobic to say what you said...
Brief Chat on Andy Bannister's Approach to Evangelism Re Jonathan McLatichie's Facebook
Solas CPC Rebuked by Muslim
In this video, the Muslims (Nouman Ali Khan and Hamza Yusuf), the Jewish lady (Andrea Grinberg) and a Christian preacher (Paul Washer, who laments at our Western society's departure of valuing touch) really help us to value the teaching of not shaking hands or hugging with members of the opposite sex who you have no familial bond with. It's heart warming as well as sad. Sad because this value for touch and guarding against sensual interactions with strangers of the opposite sex has been lost in the West. Watch the video, you'll appreciate and/or understand the Islamic and Jewish teachings on this more.
This video is also uploaded here and here
Jewish prohibition:
The rule is that people of the opposite gender do not even touch each other, let alone shake hands, unless they are husband and wife, siblings, or children with parents and grandparents.
What is the rationale for the Jewish prohibition on men and women touching, let alone shaking hands?
The prohibition of touching (in Hebrew negiah) goes back to the Book of Leviticus (18:6 and 18:19) and was developed further in the Talmud. A person who observes this prohibition is often called a shomer negiаh. It applied not only to close contact such as hugging and kissing, but also to shaking hands or patting on the back. The practice is generally followed by traditionally observant Jews, both men and women, including Hassidic Jews, and those who are referred to as Haredim. It is also observed within the Modern Orthodox community depending on how traditional the person is. [Chabad.org]
Muslim scholar teaches the prohibition:
It is not permissible for a man who believes in Allaah and His Messenger to put his hand in the hand of a women who is not permissible for him or who is not one of his mahrams. Whoever does that has wronged himself (i.e., sinned).
It was narrated that Ma’qil ibn Yassaar said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “For one of you to be stabbed in the head with an iron needle is better for him than that he should touch a woman who is not permissible for him.” [IsalmQA]
Jewish explanation:
To remove any myths, it can be said emphatically that it has nothing to do with impurity, or with the social or religious status of people who encounter other people.
The reason is a rather complex, even Freudian rationale. It is felt that touching a person of the opposite gender is essentially a sexual act, or at least the precursor of a sexual act. While it is true that most handshakes between men and women do not lead to sexual relations and are not even contemplated, sexual relations always begin with touching. It is also true that a handshake does communicate feelings albeit on a superficial level.
It has been recognized however, that there are many instances in which men and women can and perhaps even should, touch each other. This would apply to saving a person who is facing a life-threatening danger. Members of the health professions may obviously touch members of the opposite gender in the practice of their discipline, as may hairdressers or physical therapists as a necessary component in the practice of theirs.
Traditional Judaism, unlike some other faiths, regards touching as a highly sensual act. It takes the view that it is not only an important part of marital relations, but one that is only permitted in those relations. To shake hands as a casual courtesy and nothing more is the first step leading to the desensitization of sensuality between husband and wife.
Rabbi Baruch Emmanuel Erdstein of Safed, who holds a degree in anthropology from the University of Michigan, states that "the casual touching of members of the opposite gender can only dull our sensitivity to the sexual power of touch."
А Further Thought
Quite apart from the sexual analysis of some commentators, some commentators point out that an individual's body is personal, and at times to even touch is an intrusion into one's personal dignity. According to this approach, a man should not touch a woman, nor a woman touch a man, out of respect for the space of each other as individuals—especially individuals of the opposite gender who should reserve a certain level of privacy with respect to each other. [Chabad.org]
Justin Brierley Asked to Question Jay Smith's Integrity
Was Jay Smith making death threat claims up?
What is the rationale for the Jewish prohibition on men and women touching, let alone shaking hands?
The prohibition of touching (in Hebrew negiah) goes back to the Book of Leviticus (18:6 and 18:19) and was developed further in the Talmud. A person who observes this prohibition is often called a shomer negiаh. It applied not only to close contact such as hugging and kissing, but also to shaking hands or patting on the back. The practice is generally followed by traditionally observant Jews, both men and women, including Hassidic Jews, and those who are referred to as Haredim. It is also observed within the Modern Orthodox community depending on how traditional the person is. [Chabad.org]
Muslim scholar teaches the prohibition:
It is not permissible for a man who believes in Allaah and His Messenger to put his hand in the hand of a women who is not permissible for him or who is not one of his mahrams. Whoever does that has wronged himself (i.e., sinned).
It was narrated that Ma’qil ibn Yassaar said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “For one of you to be stabbed in the head with an iron needle is better for him than that he should touch a woman who is not permissible for him.” [IsalmQA]
Jewish explanation:
To remove any myths, it can be said emphatically that it has nothing to do with impurity, or with the social or religious status of people who encounter other people.
The reason is a rather complex, even Freudian rationale. It is felt that touching a person of the opposite gender is essentially a sexual act, or at least the precursor of a sexual act. While it is true that most handshakes between men and women do not lead to sexual relations and are not even contemplated, sexual relations always begin with touching. It is also true that a handshake does communicate feelings albeit on a superficial level.
It has been recognized however, that there are many instances in which men and women can and perhaps even should, touch each other. This would apply to saving a person who is facing a life-threatening danger. Members of the health professions may obviously touch members of the opposite gender in the practice of their discipline, as may hairdressers or physical therapists as a necessary component in the practice of theirs.
Traditional Judaism, unlike some other faiths, regards touching as a highly sensual act. It takes the view that it is not only an important part of marital relations, but one that is only permitted in those relations. To shake hands as a casual courtesy and nothing more is the first step leading to the desensitization of sensuality between husband and wife.
Rabbi Baruch Emmanuel Erdstein of Safed, who holds a degree in anthropology from the University of Michigan, states that "the casual touching of members of the opposite gender can only dull our sensitivity to the sexual power of touch."
А Further Thought
Quite apart from the sexual analysis of some commentators, some commentators point out that an individual's body is personal, and at times to even touch is an intrusion into one's personal dignity. According to this approach, a man should not touch a woman, nor a woman touch a man, out of respect for the space of each other as individuals—especially individuals of the opposite gender who should reserve a certain level of privacy with respect to each other. [Chabad.org]
Justin Brierley Asked to Question Jay Smith's Integrity
Was Jay Smith making death threat claims up?
The Book Without Doubt - The Quran
Dawah to Swedish (?) Atheist/Agnostic Wanting to Deport Muslims
Ex Christian: Christian Claims of Miracles Were Fake and Tricks
Refuting Joe Rogan's Comments About Islam
Pfander's Beth Grove Asked to Apolgise to Hashim For Anti-Muslim Abuse: Speakers Corner
Justin Brierley, do you Believe Jay Smith's "Hyperbole" Excuse?
Are Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Centre Radicalising People to Hate Muslims?
Refuting the Claim Petra was the Qibla Before Mecca
Christian Polemicist Jay Smith and The Christian Apologetics Alliance Debunked Again
Blog: Jonathan McLatchie, yes it is Islamophobic to say what you said...
Brief Chat on Andy Bannister's Approach to Evangelism Re Jonathan McLatichie's Facebook
Solas CPC Rebuked by Muslim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)