Friday, 29 April 2011

William Lane Craig; Old Testament and the Trinity, Fundamentalist Christian Apologist; Allah and Hubal

I’ve never really understood why the most zealous of Christian fundamentalists shun scholarship in favour of conjecture.

Here we have one of those young Islamophobic Christian apologists simply being unscholarly and presenting fanciful claims dressed up as “air tight” arguments. I introduce to you Keith Thompson (aka Keith Truth)

Note: If the video does not play please view here:

Allah is not an idol called Hubal

He is claiming Allah is Hubal (a pre-Islamic pagan idol) despite the fact true scholarship tells us the two were not the same. I guess Keith Thompson has been reliant on Islamophobes on the net for information – he has admitted he has been in consultation with an Islamophobe (Mr Shamoun) who claims Muslims can have sex with animals amongst other bouts of lunacy. Yikes!

Hey Keith, you may want to start shunning the lunacy on the net in favour of academics. Just a thought!

[See the video to see Keith Thompson’s Hubal theory debunked in a matter of seconds]

Is the Trinity in the Old Testament? No.

Keith Thompson is claiming he has “air tight” arguments for the “fact” of the Trinity in the OT.

Erm, somebody should have told him the world renowned CHRISTIAN apologist and scholar, William Lane Craig, does not agree with these “air tight” arguments of the Trinity being in the Old Testament. Though the scholar (William Lane Craig) believes the OT does not necessarily oppose the belief in the Trinity he admits if one reads the Old Testament he/she does not come away with the Trinity. Essentially the Trinity is not there – never mind being an “air tight” “fact”.

It appears Keith Thompson is over playing the neo-Trinitarian renditions of the Trinity being within the OT. Accuracy would dictate us to mention, neo-Trinitarians would point to verses which they believe to be allusions to the Trinity within the OT. Quite how Mr Thompson has elevated this to the level of “air tight” and “fact” is beyond us.

[See the video for the clip of William Lane Craig]

A word on the Angel of the Lord

Keith would do well to recognise our previous refutations of neo-Trinitarian claims of the OT angel of the Lord being God. I would suggest he further consults scholarship in the form of Samuel Meier on the said topic as well as common sense. Common sense is a fine thing.

Invitation to Keith

Keith, if you read Mark Siljander’s book you will recognise his admission that Jesus was likely to have used the word Allah (“Alah”) to refer to God. Consult scholarship on the historical practices of the early Christian communities – prior to Islam – you will note D. MacCulloch tells us Christians were praying in the manner of the Muslims and the use of prayer mats spanned from Syrian to Northumbria. Northumbria is a county in the UK. All this was before God revealed the Quran.

The real question is why were Christians praying like the Muslims prior to Islam? The answer is that they were simply following Jesus as Jesus worshipped Allah in the Muslim-style of prayer. I invite you to do the same – if it’s good enough for Jesus…

The choice is yours; do you want a relationship with the God of Jesus? If yes, come to Islam.

Keith avoid the crazed Islamophobes

You seem to have taken to much of the Islamophobic rhetoric which is banded about within extreme Christian circles. Don't be an Islamophobic - it's not healthy.

If you want to become a truth seeker you would do well to disassociate from the Islamophobic crowd and begin to research things for yourself. Oh, just in case some of the Islamophobes through concern that you are being swayed to the Truth decide to feed you with dribble of Muslims being allowed to lie to advance Islam through something called “taqiyya” try reading the scholarly truth about taqiyyah:

Here is more info about Arab pagans prior to Islam:

Mike Licona on Gospel contradictions:

Full: William Lane Craig Discussion with Rabbi Tovia Singer on Lee Strobel’s show

Christian missionary Pastor converts to Islam:

May Allah send His peace and blessings on all the Prophets. Ameen


Thursday, 28 April 2011

Mike Licona – Are There Contradictions In The Gospels?

We have all heard of the Gospel contradictions Professor Bart Ehrman regularly presents in his speeches/debates. I was planning to excerpt from Geza Vermes’ detailing of the “flat contradictions between the sources [Gospels]” concerning the resurrection accounts from his book (The Resurrection) and thought it would be beneficial and fair to bring forward a Christian scholar, Mike Licona, to discuss the wider topic of contradictions within the Gospels so we can hear the evangelical Christian refutation/response.

It was astonishing to note Mike Licona, despite being one of the most respected Christian apologists around, was offering very little to counter the flat out contradictions within the Gospels.

Not even Licona can defend the indefensible though he does state for a lot of the contradictions there are easy answers and for others the answers are more complex.

Video description reads: Bart Ehrman contends that the Gospels are unreliable because they contain contradictions. Mike Licona answers.

This segment is an edited version of a 4-part video series. An HD version with discussion questions for groups may be downloaded FREE at

Amongst the contradictions Mike Licona mentions:

-Was Jesus “crucified” on the day of the Passover meal or the day after?

- Was Jesus “crucified” at 9 am or noon?

- Did Jesus carry the cross all the way or part of the way?

- Did both thieves curse Jesus or just one?

- How many women went to the tomb? One or more than one?

- How many angels were seen – one or two?

- Did Jesus appear to the disciples in Jerusalem or Galilee

Amazingly, Licona – though being a Biblical Inerrantist – puts forward the idea if there were irreconcilable contradictions between the Gospel accounts, the Gospels could still be trustworthy despite the contradictions. I don’t agree – if they contain irreconcilable contradictions (which they do) then doubt must be shed on the reliability of the Gospels on matters such as the crucifixion and the resurrection. You can’t simply accept the contradictions and maintain the validity of the accounts of alleged events which are dear to you due to your theological presuppositions.

Licona catches Ehrman out…

Licona points out an inconsistency on the part of Professor Bart Ehrman. Ehrman believes the crucifixion is one of the most certain facts in history whilst simultaneously believing the Gospels are unreliable. Ehrman is inconsistent here. Sadly, Christians generally ignore this in their clamber to quote mine from Professor Bart Ehrman in order to lend their belief in a crucifixion support from hostile scholarship.

Mike Licona misses the point

Licona highlights a contradiction between eye-witnesses of the sinking of the Titanic in his attempt to illustrate peripheral contradictions have no bearings on the bigger picture. Uh, the contradictions within the Gospels do not remain mere peripheral contradictions when we look at the bigger picture – the theological picture.

His comparison is fallacious. How in the world can Mike Licona simply accept/ignore the contradictions whilst believing the Gospels are inspired by God. Is he saying God inspired men to contradict each other and author confusion?

Licona can draw fallacious comparisons between eye witness testimony of the Titanic and the authors of the Gospels until the cows come home – the comparison will always be fallacious for two main reasons:

1.The gospels are alleged to have been “inspired” by God yet contain clear contradictions. The eye witness accounts of the Titanic are not alleged to have been “inspired” by God.

2. The Titanic survivors would have been in a state of shock and fright – thus peripheral contradictions are excused. What excuse do the Gospel writers have for contradicting each other?

The Bible verse which refutes the “resurrection”


Tuesday, 26 April 2011

Why Muslims Hate America - Noam Chomsky

Islamophobes are constantly making wild claims as to the reasons behind Muslim dislike of America. The intellectual, Noam Chomsky, reveals some home truths our Islamophobic friends do not want you to hear...

A excerpt from Noam Chomsky Interview on CBC.
Evan Solomon talks with Noam Chomsky about his book "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance". The show is Hot Type on CBC.

Monday, 25 April 2011

More Immaturity and Irrelevancy from Anthony Rogers (

Impressing the boss with his response to this post?

Anthony Rogers begins with a flurry of abuse and chest beating in what appears to be his attempt to emulate and/or impress his mentor/senior colleague Mr Shamoun.

My advice: Anthony Rogers, calm down, you are going to do yourself a hernia. I know you are a little ticked off with this ministry as it has caught your colleagues with their pants down on more than a couple of occasions but do try and keep a sense of balance otherwise your career will funnel down the plug hole. Just ask Mr Shamoun…

Anthony selectively rambling and missing the point

Mr Rogers then rambles on about one portion of the blog post whilst generally ignoring the main thrust of it. He never bothers to tell us why Josephus never recorded Herod’s massacre in Matthew 2:16. He never defends the account in the Jewish War.

Anthony Rogers carping on

He simply bangs on about what we already covered; why scholars believe the Testimonium Flavianum not to be an interpolation. What was the point in that?

We already covered this area by stating:

Other scholars, on the other hand, accept the genuineness of those accounts arguing that they contain points that cannot be reconciled with Christian tradition and they do not reflect a writer with a Christian faith but rather depict him as a doubting onlooker (Williamson, 1974: 396-397). [1]

Perhaps Mr Rogers wanted to fill out his blog post and simply appear to have something of merit and substance. Perhaps that passes for impressing the natives over at AM. I am not sure as to the reason behind his starnge decision-making; I just wish he would refrain from such a "tactic" as it benefits nobody who has the capacity to think critically.

Much to do about nothing, Anthony

Mr Rogers gives the impression the quotes used were from me (Yahya Snow). They were not. If he had bothered to look closely he will have noticed the citation. Dr Loauy Fatoohi’s book was the reference. I guess Rogers, in his zeal to impugn the tormenter of his mentors/senior colleagues, failed to notice such.

In any case, Rogers, unsurprisingly, had no genuine point against Dr Louay Fatoohi either.

Anthony Rogers gets downright absurd

This is a sad indictment on the state of Christian internet apologists. Bizarrely, our Anthony, claims it refutes the Quran?!?!?!. No kidding you, this guy went there!!!

I suppose the thought of context left his mind as he appealed to Quran 4:157. Did he ever stop to think the Jews could have appended those titles to Jesus out of sarcasm as a form of mockery or the titles are due to paraphrasing from the Author (God)? The sarcasm point is similar to the passage where Jesus was allegedly mocked in Mark 15:16-20 with the title of “king of the Jews”.

Beneficial article and his citations of Maududi’s Tafsir:

Even if Jews sincerely called Jesus by such titles it would have NO bearing upon the blog post as it simply repeats one of the reasons as to why the critics doubt the passage in Josephus was interpolated whilst travelling in a culture of dishonesty amongst the scribes. I guess this was lost on Mr Rogers.

Kicking the dead carcass further

Mr. Rogers’ bizarre line of “reasoning” in his “refuting of the Quran” based on what Jews would have said can be transferred over to the Gospel accounts as Jesus was called “King of the Jews” by folk who you would not associate such statement making.

I guess Rogers, if he was to be consistently devoid of an ability to discern context will have to celebrate his unwitting refutation of the New Testament.

Summary and advice for Anthony Rogers

-Anthony, Dr Fatoohi cited three principles as to which critics doubt the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum. It was not me – stay focussed!

-Dr Fatoohi’s principles still stand – these are what critics use to argue against the validity of the passage. Despite your blogging and chest-beating these still stand.

-Josephus is a historian, thus his calling Jesus by the title of Messiah would reflect his personal belief rather than sarcasm or any other form of description which did not resonate with Josephus. In short, Josephus’ calling of Jesus as Messiah would be considered different to those appending titles to Jesus in Mark 15:16-20 and Quran 4:157. Get with the program, Anthony.

-Anthony, you failed to adequately cover the main point to the post; why did Josephus fail to mention Herod’s massacre of young boys despite chronicling Herod’s brutal history.

-You did not bother to defend the passage in the JW. Do you believe your preceding co-religionists forged this document in a similar manner as to their forging of the Gospels?

-Anthony, rather than quote mining from my posts please be a little more considered and scholarly in your approach.

-Oh, please drop the overly aggressive and immature attitude. It suits Sam as it is his wont. It does not suit you as you simply appear to be a pale imitation of your mentor/senior colleague. Think about it.

-PS May I suggest in your writings, you add the title of “peace be upon Jesus” after his name or at the end of the post to show a little extra respect. Thanks.

May God send His Peace and blessings upon Jesus and all the other Messengers of God.

Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens iron.

[1] Original article



Jesus has Muslim brothers/sisters

The incarnation?

Original sin?

Learn about Islam

Sun Sets in a Pool of Slime – Hadith?

It appears as though Christian missionaries are confusing folk concerning the sun setting in a pool of slimy water via a dubious narration. IslamOnline clears the confusion as the narration is not thought to have come from the Prophet Muhammad (p):

The author claims that Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) also explained it in a literal sense. He quoted a hadith in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported as saying, “Do you know, Abu Dharr, where this sun sets?”

He answered, “God and His Messenger know better.”

Muhammad said, “It sets in a spring of slimy water.”

According to most authorities, this statement is not from Prophet Muhammad but it is attributed to Ka`b Al-Ahbar, a Jewish rabbi who converted to Islam and who reported this from the Torah, not from Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).”

Islamophobic missionary (David Wood – Acts 17 Apologetics) is invited to look into real errors and contradictions:

IslamOnline’s clarification of the reference to Zul Qarnain in Quran 18:86 can be viewed here:


Further reading:

Sexism: A reason to the change the Bible?

Numbers and the Bible do collide on more than one occasion

Discover Islam

Sunday, 24 April 2011

Biblical Account of Herod’s Massacre of Children + Christian Tampering of Josephus

Sadly, our Christian friends are discovering, due to the dishonesty of the Gospel writers/Bible scribes, they have been misled – that’s to say they are realising they have been conned. However, Christian forgery (deception) has been so rampant that it appears that zealous Trinitarian Christians even tampered with the work of the Jewish historian Josephus in order to work their Trinitarian Christian agendas.

Before discussing the possible deceptive Christian alterations of Josephus’ work let’s discuss another problematic account within the Gospels – Matthew 2:16:

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. [NIV, Matthew 2:16]

Matthew 2:16 depicts Herod as murdering all the young male children in Bethlehem. You would expect this act to have been chronicled by Josephus.

Yet, significantly, the massacre of Bethlehem’s young boys which is mentioned in Matthew finds no place even in the bloody history of Herod that Josephus recorded! Certainly such an event had it really happened, would have been mentioned in a historical record that narrates, amongst other details of the history of Herod, his brutal actions. Again, the conclusion must be that the massacre that Matthew details has no place in history. It should be stressed here, however, that this is not a form of negative evidence, for Josephus did record a detailed history of Herod in which the alleged massacre does not figure at all. [1]

Josephus chose not to record it?

Our Christian apologist friends may claim Josephus deliberately chose not to record “the massacre” as Josephus disagreed with the theological conclusion of Herod. However, this style of argumentation is inconsistent as Josephus alleged accounts of Jesus are indeed supportive of Christian theology.

The account in the Jewish War calls Isa [Jesus] a “miracle-worker”, attributing to him various miraculous acts, and goes as far as suggesting that “man” might not be the right word to describe him (Josephus, JW:398-400)!

Josephus also wrote Isa [Jesus] was raised from the dead the third day after his crucifixion. All these claims are mentioned more briefly in another of Josephus’ books, Jewish Antiquities, in which the Jewish writer goes that step further and claims that Isa was al-Masih [Messiah] (Josephus, JA, XVII: 63-64)! [1]

What didn’t the Christians forge?

It appears early Trinitarian Christians were not only busying themselves in adding forgeries to the Bible but were also tampering with the work of Josephus:

Critics have thrown doubts on the authenticity of Josephus’ supposed accounts of Isa [Jesus] which sounded too Christian to have been written by the Jewish historian. Other scholars, on the other hand, accept the genuineness of those accounts arguing that they contain points that cannot be reconciled with Christian tradition and they do not reflect a writer with a Christian faith but rather depict him as a doubting onlooker (Williamson, 1974: 396-397).

However, critics have raised a number of strong points against the authenticity of the controversial passages. Concerning the account in the Jewish War, the main argument of critics is that the piece about Isa [Jesus] is found in the Slavonic version of Josephus’ book but not in the Greek version. The principle arguments against the genuineness of the account in the Jewish Antiqiuities are as follows:

(i) The Jewish Josephus could not have described Isa [Jesus] as al-Masih [Messiah]

(ii) While the bishop and historian Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 340 CE) mentions the controversial passage, the Greek theologian Origen (ca. 185-254 CE) had expressly stated that Josephus did not believe Isa [Jesus] to be al-Masih; and finally

(iii) The suspicious passage breaks continuity of Josephus’ description of a series of riots (Feldman, 1965:49)

Most scholars do not accept the authenticity of the two accounts in Josephus about Isa [Jesus]. In all probability, these references to Isa [Jesus] are inauthentic and must have been forged by Christians, but this is not relevant to our present discussion. [1]

Tough question for our Christian friends…

Whether the passages about Isa in Josephus’ works are genuine or not they still raise the following significant question: Why would the writer of those two accounts fail to make any reference to the alleged killing of the young boys that was intended to kill boy Isa? The answer cannot be anything other than that writer had no knowledge of the alleged massacre.

[1] History Testifies to the Infallibility of the Quran – early History of the Children of Israel – Dr Louay Fatoohi and Prof. Shetha Al-Dargazeli, Adam Publishers and Distributers, 1999, p 203-205

Further reading:

Sexism: A reason to the change the Bible?

Numbers and the Bible do collide on more than one occasion

Discover Islam

Sunday, 10 April 2011

Discussed: Variant Readings within the Bible and the Quran

Some internet Christian apologists have been shifting the goal posts in their conspiratorial attempts to attack Caliph Uthman’s control of the Quranic text as well as the variant readings of the Quran.

As usual, our Christian counterparts operate an unwitting double standard due to their ignorance of Old Testament (as well as New Testament) textual criticism as well as Quranic preservation

Variant readings in the Gospels

Previously, we have seen the New Testament (Gospel) variants arose due to dishonest scribes or incompetent scribes – so much so that our Christian friends, now, do not know which variants represent the original wording of the Gospel writers and which were due to scribal errors/forgeries.Christian apologists are now beginning to admit this difficult situation [1]

Christians misrepresent the Dead Sea Scrolls

At times, our Christian friends do misrepresent the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls as a wholesale confirmation of the Old Testament text – it is not!

Geza Vermes writes:

The Dead Sea finds partly confirm and partly question the reliability of the wording of the Bible handed down by Jewish tradition. On the one hand, as was shown in chapter VI, the Qumran Scripture is substantially identical with that passed on by the synagogue from the time of Jesus to the present age. [2]

Note: Vermes is not confirming the Dead Sea finds corroborate entirely with the present day OT (substantially). More importantly, he is not denying any OT corruptions prior to the first/second century CE either. Jeremiah 8:8 gives us an indication of the depth of corruption in the earlier days of the OT:

"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? [NIV, Jeremiah 8:]

Variant Readings in the Old Testament

Geza Vermes confirms “the Dead Sea Scrolls furnish documentary proof of what has been surmised before, namely that, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, unity was not achieved and different forms of the Hebrew text coexisted, showing verbal and stylistic variations, additions, omissions and changes in the order of the textual arrangement.” [2]

Vermes does suggest the OT variants may not be due to corruptions:

Before the Qumran discoveries, we presumed the Samaritan Bible (restricted to the five books of the Law of Moses), the form of the Hebrew Bible from which the ancient Greek version, known as the Septuagint, was translated, and the type of the text that was to evolve into the traditional (Masoretic) Hebrew Old Testament, existed side by side in different social groups.

Qumran has corroborated this theory and has demonstrated the diversity could obtain in one and the same groups. This phenomenon implies that the variant readings in the biblical text do not necessarily represent corruptions or deliberate alterations, but can just as well, if not better, echo earlier discrete written traditions. [2]

Of course, this theory is more than a little sketchy – partly due to there being no tradition informing us of such being the case as well as to the limitations of Vermes’ conjecture-based argument.

Nevertheless, it is food for thought for our Christian and Jewish friends. Do they want to faith-shatteringly admit the Old Testament variants are proof of corruptions or will they run with the idea of the variants echoing “earlier discrete written traditions”?

I would imagine they would prefer the latter – otherwise they will have to admit the Old Testament’s unreliability is on par with the New Testament.

Variant Readings in the Quran

The variant readings of the Quran are not due to scribal errors or forgeries – unlike the New Testament. The variants of the Quran are meant to exist as supporting tradition teaches us this – unlike the Old Testament.

The hadith reports tell us that the Quran was actually revealed in seven modes (al-ahruf al sab’a). This has been narrated by more than ten of the Prophet’s companions, among them Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ibn Masud, Ibn Abbas and others [3].

Dr M.M. Al Azami counts the companions who have narrated hadiths confirming the Quran was revealed in seven dialects as over twenty [4] So, these variants were known to exist during the lifetime of the Prophet and did not arise due to scribal errors.

In fact, the very nature of the variant Quranic readings being sanctioned by the Prophet [see Bukhari VI, No. 513] has led the renowned authority, Dr M. M. Al-Azami, to favour the word “multiple” reading rather than “variant” reading:

…the Quran’s case differs distinctly because the Prophet Muhammad, Allah’s sole vicegerent for the wahy’s reception and transmission, himself taught certain verses in multiple ways. There is no principle of doubt here, no fog or confusion, and the word ‘variant’ fails to convey this. Multiple is a far more accurate description….” [4]

As you can notice, the Quranic variants (multiple readings) are indeed sanctioned and meant to have existed whilst the variants of the NT and OT are unsanctioned and should not exist. We urge our Christian apologist friends to understand these points of difference and teach them to their respective Christian congregations – let the truth prevail.


Our Christian apologist friends attempt to make a big conspiratorial deal out Uthman’s control and preparation of a standard copy of the Quranic text but they fail to recognise the inconsistency (as well as the holes in their knowledge) they are operating from as the rabbis controlled the OT text and even unified it.

Unity, produced by Jewish religious authority, was usually sought in times of crisis, and was achieved by the selection of one of the existing text forms and the simultaneous rejection of all other competing versions. Such a deliberate unification is assumed to have been part of the general restructuring of Judaism by the rabbis during the years following the catastrophe of 70 CE, which entailed the loss of the temple and the supreme council of the Sanhedrin as well as the replacement of the aristocratic high priestly leadership of Jewry by rabbis largely of plebeian origin. [2]

Sadly our Christian apologist friends are either unaware of the unification of the OT text and of the strict control the rabbis had over the text or are knowingly operating an inconsistent standard in their attempts to throw conspiratorial mud at the Uthmanic control of the Quranic text – a control which was agreed upon by all the companions of the Prophet.


Simply put, the New Testament variants are the most problematic; not only due to them being borne out of scribal dishonesty and negligence but because the Christian is unable to recognise the forgeries/scribal errors within the text. The text was not controlled and those who were tasked with the preservation of the Gospel accounts never met Jesus.

In addition there could well be future Dr Tischendorf style (Codex Sinaiticus) finds, where whole passages within the Gospels were discovered to be forgeries. Prior to this 19th century find our Christian friends believed those passages to be inspired – now we know they were forgeries [5]. It says something about the Christian belief in the Holy Spirit dwelling within Christians; did the Christians before the 19th century not have the Holy Spirit as they believed what we now know as forgeries to be words inspired by God. Food for thought…

The Old Testament was strictly controlled by the Jewish authorities and does contain variants. The accusations of these variants arising from scribal forgeries/errors are indeed somewhat tempered by Geza Vermes’ theorising so the criticism is less vocal.

Those who “preserved” and “selected” OT texts never met Moses or any of the Prophets. “what constitutes the bible is nowhere strictly defined in the ancient literary sources of Judaism. It was the privilege of the successive religious authorities (Sadducee chief priests, Pharisee leaders and rabbis) to determine the list of books [6]

The Quran has variants – Muslims have known this whilst the Quran was being revealed as the Prophet taught this. The Quran was strictly controlled by authorities, like the Old Testament. However, unlike the OT and NT, the controlling authorities of the Quran were indeed the companions of the Prophet. The statement of the fourth Caliph, Ali (ra), confirms all were in agreement with Uthman’s actions to control the transmission of the Text. [7]

Sadly, Christian apologists overlook these points and inconsistently attempt to present conspiracy theories as to the Uthmanic control of the Quran. The inconsistency comes into play as the OT was “preserved” in a “controlled” environment too. The irony comes into play as the nature of the variants (proven forgeries and errors) within the NT suggests the uncontrolled mode of its “preservation” was disastrous and a controlled mode (which they desperately criticise via conspiracy theories) is superior!

The written text of the Quran was used as an aid for the memory and teaching purposes, thus the Quran was preserved via two modes in a controlled fashion – oral and written – by numerous people who met the Prophet.

May God send his peace and blessings upon all the Prophets referred to above. Ameen

Further reading:

Sexism: A reason to change the Bible?


[1] Debate Review – Does the bible Misquote Jesus (James White – Bart Ehrman)

[2] The Story of the Scrolls, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2010, p214

[3] Ulum Al Quran, Ahmad Von Denffer, The Islamic Foundation, 2003, p112

[4] The History of The Quranic Text from Revelation to Compilation - A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments, M.M.Al-Azami, UK Islamic Academy, 2003, p154

[5] Dr Von Tischendorf discovered the Codex Sinaiticus (from Saint Catherine’s monastery), this codex does NOT contain the last 12 verses in the gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) as well as John 7:53-8:11 amongst other discrepancies. These are believed to be forgeries. Sadder still, Christians, prior to this find believed those words to be faithful to the New Testament.

[6] The Story of the Scrolls, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2010, p99

[7] Ibn Abi Dawud, al Masahif, p22; see also pp 12, 23 (sourced from Sheikh Al Azami, The History of the Quranic Text, UK Islamic Academy, 2003, p94

Saturday, 9 April 2011

Serbian Islamophobia

In 1389 the Ottomans defeated the Serbian army at Kossovo Field in central Serbia. Murad was killed, but the Serbian Prince Hrelbeljanovic Lazar was captured and executed. It marked the end of Serbian independence and, to this day, Serbians revere Prince Lazar as a martyr and national hero, and have nurtured a profound hatred of Islam.

Karen Armstrong, Islam – A Short History, Phoenix Press, 2001, p93

If only the Serbian Islamophobes knew the Muslims are the brothers of Jesus (p) and that Islam is the truth, perhaps then they would reject their hatred of Muslims and convert to Islam rather than crusading to convert Bosnian Muslims to Christianity:

Forced baptism has been part of the militant Serb agenda for many years. Back in 1917, Yugoslavia's future prime minister Stojan Protic remarked: "We have the solution for Bosnia. When our army crosses the Drina, we will give the Muslims twenty-four hours, or even forty-eight hours, of time to become Christians. Those who do not wish to do so are to be cut down, as we did in Serbia earlier."

The Serbian Orthodox Crusade Against Islam by Feyyaz Yusuf

May Allah make it easier for the Muslims who live in the midst of such Anti-Muslim feeling. Ameen.

Thursday, 7 April 2011

Why Serious Muslims Reject Sam Shamoun

I've never understood Sam Shamoun, I doubt I will ever understand this odd man.This middle-aged bloke hounds people on the internet with "debate challenges" whilst goading and insulting the recipient.

When the inevitable happens - the "debate challenges" are rejected - Sam Shamoun beats his chest and presents it as some sort of victory to his dwindling support base. This seems to be Mr Shamoun's regular formula. How strange and sad!

Mr Shamoun: Unacademic and Unruly

Here is Jibreelk answering one of Mr. Shamoun's "debate challenges" and positing the real reasons as to why Mr Shamoun's "debate challenges" are rejected (i.e. Mr Shamoun's shoddy modes of behaviour and his lack of academic quality)

Dogs, mutts, canines, seriously????

If Mr Shamoun wants to be taken seriously he would do well to desist in his wont of insulting folk via his usual repertoire of canine references. Oh, if he is serious in transforming his shoddy ministry he would do well to apologize for his past lies, distortions and absurd arguments.

Mr Shamoun needs mentoring

I genuinely believe the internet brings out the worst in Mr Shamoun. I would certainly encourage Mr Shamoun to seek some form of help. I'm not saying this to be mean spirited. I genuinely believe Mr Shamoun needs help. I have appealed to Mr Sam Green and Dr James White to act on Mr shamoun's unruly behaviour - sadly the desired effect failed to materialise.

Mr Shamoun, unfortunately, is still acting in an uncontrolled fashion in his interactions with others over the internet. I can bear witness to that statement as he has sent me more malice, in the form of "comments", of late.

Mr Shamoun's church

Mr Shamoun's church would do well to reign Mr Shamoun in - he is maligning the church's reputation through his unrestrained behaviour.

Mr Shamoun, please do expect the next point of call to be YOUR church IF you do not develop a more adult approach in your dealings with Muslims on the internet. In short, Mr Shamoun, it''s time to grow up!

The Sam Shamoun section


Wednesday, 6 April 2011

Martin Luther: Jesus Committed Adultery Thrice (Refuted!!!)

Martin Luther also negates the image of a sinless Jesus. This is to be found in Luther’s Table Talk, whose authenticity has never been challenged even though the coarser passages are cause for embarrassment. Arnold Lunn writes:

Weiner quoted a passage from the Table Talk in which Luther states that Christ committed adultery three times, first with the woman at the well, secondly with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery “whom he let off so lightly. Thus even Christ who was so holy had to commit adultery before he dies”. [1]

Refuted: Christians/Non-Christians who accuse Jesus (p) of adultery

Christians (and Non-Christians) who make such wild and absurd suggestions of adultery (as above) have NO evidence for their claims whatsoever. They are simply attempting to malign the good name of Jesus (p).

A quick point on the woman “whom he let off so lightly”; this story of Jesus (p) showing mercy to the adulteress, in John 8, is believed to be a fabrication - a forgery – it is not present in the earlier manuscripts of John.

The fact these enemies of Jesus (p) unwittingly resorted to further fabrications to prop up their unsupported allegations against Jesus is indicative of the empty nature of their slanders.

There is NO evidence that Jesus (p) committed these sins. It would be unjust (and sinful) for Christians (and Non-Christians) to make these allegations.

Muslims honour Jesus (p)

The fact that it is the Muslims who have protected the good name of BOTH Jesus and Mary (pbut) over the centuries speaks volumes as to who are the brothers/sisters of Jesus (Mark 3:35)

May Allah send more peace and blessings upon Jesus. Ameen.

[1] The History of The Quranic Text from Reveltaiotn to Compilation - A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments, M.M.Al-Azami, UK Islamic Academy, 2003, p269

Muslim admonishes those who claim Jesus to be gay

Bible: Muslims are Blessed

Learn about Islam

Christian Missionary Pastor converts to Islam


Sunday, 3 April 2011

Truth about Taqiyyah (Takiya, Taqiyya)

There is a constant stream of Islamophobes (haters) carping on about how Muslims are allowed to lie to non-Muslims whilst appealing to something called “taqiyyah” (also spelled, “takiya” and “taqiyya”)

Rather than relying on shoddy hate sites/Christian missionaries to educate us about taqiyyah we shall rely on SCHOLARLY authority – largely in the form of R. Strothmann’s relevant section in “Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam” (by H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers)  and Cyril Glasse’s Concise Encyclopedia of Islam

What is “Taqiyyah”, “Takiya”, “Taqiyya”?

This term is spelt variously; “taqiyyah”, “takiya” or “taqiyya”.

“Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury.” [1]

“Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”).” [2]

So, taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) is concerning dissimulation due to force – i.e. when an individual is forced to conceal.

Sadly, Islamophobes and Christian missionaries – in order to obtain an unchecked platform and/or demonise Muslims – have misapplied this term in their exaggerated claims of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers”.

At what level of force is Takiya (Taqiyyah, Taqiya) justified?

“But an individual is not justified in takiya nor bound to hidjra [emigration] if the compulsion remains within the endurable limits, as in the case of temporary imprisonment or flogging which does not result in death” [1]

So, this make a mockery of the Islamophobes’ general suggestions of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers” as even under threat of imprisonment and flogging Muslims are not justified in takiya. The level of force which justifies oneself in takiya is that of an unbearable level.

Takiya (taqiyya, taqiyyah) and the type of lies…

One may ask, what type of “disguise” is allowed under takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya)?

Let’s be clear about takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya); “The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them.” [2]

So takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) is not used to convert folk to Islam nor is it used in Islamic text books or anything of such a nature. It is simply a form of concealment used to avoid persecution!

For further clarity, we are not talking about general, everyday fibs here, thus the ethical question of dishonesty is bypassed:

“The ethical question whether such forced lies are nevertheless lies, such a forced denial of the faith nevertheless a denial, is not put at all by one “who conceal himself” as he is not in a state of confidence which would be broken by lies or denial.” [1]

Sadly, our Islamophobic counterparts attempt to convince the gullible that takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) allows Muslims to lie (or conceal) about aspects of their faith (Islam) as well as lie in general.

Recently, Islamophobes were accusing Senator Keith Ellison of taqiyyah. Try learning what taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) is before accusing folk of it, you may just look less silly if you take this advice on board!!!

Famous case of Taqiyyah (Taqiyya, Takiya)

A common example of takiya (taqiyyah, taqiya) involves a Muslim (Ammar B. Yasir, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad, p) being forced to worship idols and insult the Prophet of Islam. [1] [3]

The level of force the polytheists applied on Ammar bin Yasir can be imagined by Amr bin Maymoon’s statement, “The polytheists tortured Ammar with fire. [3]

“Abu Ubaydah bin Muhammad bin Ammar bin Yasir said: The polytheists seized Ammar and they did not let him off until he was forced to insult the Messenger of Allah and say good things about their deities [3]

Ammar bin Yasir told Prophet Muhammad (p) of what he was forced to say.

“The Prophet (p) said: “Say it again if they ask (i.e. force) you to do so”.” [3]

So, in order to avoid such torture the Prophet allowed Ammar bin Yasir to use “taqiyya”

If Jesus (p) had done the same, our Christian friends would have lauded it as an act of piety and mercy. Instead we see Islamophobes exaggerating this form of concealment in order to demonise Muslims. It’s a crazy old world!

Taqiyyah and the Shi’ites (Shia)

"It is, however, associated most closely with the Shi’ites who practiced taqiyyah systematically and widely during periods of Sunni domination to hide their beliefs from Sunni Muslims. "[2]

Obviously, if these Shi’ites felt they would have been persecuted for publicly announcing their shia beliefs, one can understand why they concealed (used taqiyya) their beliefs.

Is taqiyyah allowed in the Quran?

Our Islamophobic friends jump up and down in joy whilst proclaiming taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya) is allowed in the Quran. Let’s analyse (via scholarship) the two Verses they cite.

Quran 16:106 and taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya)?

Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom. [Pikthal translation of the Quran 16:106]

The reason for this verse is unanimously said to have been the case of Ammar b. Yasir, whose conscience was set at rest by this revelation when he was worried about his forced worshipping of idols and objurgation of the Prophet. [1]

The story of Ammar bin Yassir is relayed earlier in the article (see above).

Tabari says on Sura 16:106 (Tafsir, Bulak 1323 sqq.24.122): If any one is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, to escape his enemies, no blame falls him on him, because God takes his servants as their hearts believe [1]

The Quran’s (16:106) allowance of uttering disbelief whilst under extreme force is hardly justification for the outrageous smears the Islamophobes propagate.

Quran 3:28 and taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya)?

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. [Pikthal translation of the Quran 3:28]

This Verse instructs Muslims to not take the unbelievers as patrons over the believers but does allow for this in the case of fear. Tuqatan is used here (a verbal noun of taqiyyah). Tafsir Jalalayn explains:

“unless you protect yourselves against them, as a safeguard (tuqātan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts” [Tafsir Jalalayn – 3:28]

It is hardly something Islamophobes can latch onto as evidence for their demonization of Muslims as this Verse allows concealment (taqiyyah, taqiyya, takiya) in the case of fear (i.e. to avoid persecution). We are essentially back to where we started as initially stated on taqiyyah:

Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury. [1]

Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”). [2]

Taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgement

Ibn Kathir, a prominent authority writes, "Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show." As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's companion, al-Hassan, who said, "taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity]."

Islamophobes make a big deal out of Muslims believing taqiyya (taqiyyah, takiya) is acceptable to this very day and beyond. So what? There is NO issue here whatsoever.

Think about it, if, in the future, an extreme Christian/Hindu/Islamophobe put a gun to a Muslim’s head and asked him to denounce Islam in order to preserve his life would you really have qualms in the fact the Muslim would be allowed (according to Islam) to do so in order to protect his life?

Abraham (p) and taqiyyah

In the Biblical account of Abraham, Sarah and Pharaoh we notice Abraham (and Sarah) concealed the fact Sarah was his wife as he feared death:

When the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife.' Then they will kill me but will let you live.
Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.” [Genesis 12:12-13 NIV]

Where are the Christian Islamophobes to demonise Abraham, Sarah and the Bible? Nowhere!

Why are people not exaggerating this to mean the Bible allows Jews and Christians to lie to non-believers just as they do against Muslims in the case of taqiyyah? The answer is hypocrisy as Islamophobes work an anti-Muslim agenda assiduously whilst refraining from using the same absurd modes of exaggeration/deception against Christians and Jews!

The “Apostle” Paul and taqiyyah?

Paul, in Corinthians 19, was using a strange tactic to convert people. So strictly speaking, Paul did not practice taqiyya as he was not under threat of harm and his “concealment” was in the avenue of evangelism rather than that of self-protection. Paul was concealing himself as a Jew (to convert Jews), as a gentile (to convert gentiles) and as the weak (to convert the weak).

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. [Corinthians 9:19-22, NIV]

Of course, Christian apologists would extend explanation towards Paul’s strange actions in order to exonerate him of the allegation of deception but you can see why there is a potential cause for concern here – especially in the light of the numerous deceptive episodes involving Christian missionaries ever since Paul’s strange actions.

Why are our Christian Islamophobes not concluding Paul’s actions to mean all Christians can lie whilst evangelising folk?

I have caught Christian missionaries, on numerous occasions, lying to convert folk to Christianity. If you want to exegete this New Testament account to mean Christians are allowed to use deception whilst evangelising you will have a stronger case than that of the Islamophobes’ exaggerations on Muslim allowance of taqiyyah (concealment due to fear).

Lying about the Prophet Muhammad (p)

Islamophobes, in an attempt to obtain an unchecked platform, do suggest Muslims misinform (“use taqiyya”) about the Prophet Muhammad (p). This is an utter absurdity as it is a grave sin for a Muslim to misinform about the Prophet Muhammad as the Prophet stated:

Whoever lies about me intentionally shall take a place for himself in hell (al-Adhkar (y102), 510-12) [4]

In fact, presenting misinformation about the Prophet (p) was considered an extreme offense amongst early Muslim communities:

Habib ibn ar-Rabi’ said that it is disbelief to alter his [Prophet Muhammad’s] description and its details. The one who does that openly is an unbeliever. He is asked to repent. [5]

So much for the Islamophobes claims of “Muslims using taqiyyah” regarding Prophet Muhammad (p).


Taqiyyah (taqiya, takiya) is not something to be writing home about. To use this practice to brandish Muslims as untrustworthy (or to demonise them) is unscholarly and unjust.

If you do encounter an anti-Muslim bigot on the internet crying “taqiyya” (there are plenty about), please do send him/her away educated.

There are a number of Islamophobes who do make cash and political inroads out of demonising Muslims with all this exaggeration concerning taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) amongst other absurd claims concerning Muslims. These folk do influence other folk on the internet to propagate these misconceptions – thus it is our job to present the truth to counter the many anti-Muslims deceptions out there.

"During times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" - George Orwell



[1] Article by R. Strothmann, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, Fourth impression, 1995, E.J. Brill Leiden. New York. Koln p. 561 - 562

[2] The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam, Revised Edition, Cyril Glasse, Stacey International, 2001, p450-451.

[3] Men and Women around the Messenger, Sa’d Yusuf Abu ‘Aziz, Translated by Suleman Fulani, Darussalam, 2009, p. 286-287

[4] Reliance of the Traveller, Translated by Nuh Hamim Keller – Amana Publications, 2008, r8.0, p 747

[5] Muhammad, Messenger of Allah – Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press, 2004, p. 387