THE TRUE SHAHADA INDEED: REVISITED [PART 2]

Question Mark

Can Muslims appeal to John 17:3? This is the specific subject that this second installment of True Shahada Indeed series will focus on. Anthony Rogers provides his own reasons as to why Muslims cannot appeal to John 17:3. Is he correct in his reasoning? Or is it more of a desperate attempt of Trinitarian(s) to hide himself/themselves from the ignominy of worshipping three gods! In this paper, which is a refutation to Anthony’s article, we would, inshallah, examine all the arguments provided by my confused interlocutor to provide him yet another chance to save him from the worship three gods.

This paper would also concentrate on the Christian stand that they do not believe in God begetting a son in a crude sense as represented in the Qur’an. Here we would prove that the Chritians have been abusing the Most – Merciful of the same hideous insinuation for at least fourteen hundred years now.

This article can be accessed in full at http://muslim-responses.com/The_Son_of_God_and_Islam/The_Son_of_God_and_Islam_

I bear witness that I worship Allah and Allah alone and I also bear witness that Mohammad, peace be upon him, is the last and final messenger of Allah.

THE TRUE SHAHADA INDEED: REVISITED [PART 1]

Question Mark

Introduction
As a response to one of my refutation to his original paper, Anthony Rogers, has published a two part (#,#) paper back at me. All of this centralizes around John 17:3 and the type of monotheism it teaches. As proposed he would be writing four part response to me, subsequently then, he dedicates [Part 1] to me and to topics not immediately associated to John 17:3.

Christians like Anthony Rogers somehow cull out deity of Jesus, peace be upon him, in afore stated verse, nevertheless, this is exactly where the Islamic Shahada differs acutely from the Christian creeds, furthermore, John 17:3 back fires against all imputed divinity on Jesus, peace be upon him as we would be analyzing it throughout the course.

Gloating in dreams

Mr. Anthony Rogers starts off his refutation in a typical evangelistic apologist tone who presumes a ready – made before hand embarrassment for me:

“…except that in this case it seems calculated to save him (her?) from embarrassment once his underhanded tactics and criminal mishandling of my article was exposed…”.

More so over, he writes this with rationalization of me not providing my name:

“A Muslim, who prefers to remain nameless – which would otherwise be fine except that in this case it seems calculated to save him (her?) from embarrassment once his underhanded tactics and criminal mishandling of my article was exposed…”

Just a little further, he complaints (and rightly so) for misspelling his name. The correct spelling of his name is Anthony Rogers, however, I mistakenly spelled it as Anthony Roger. I do heartily apologize for the same and would check that I do not offend Mr. Anthony Rogers in this regard. I would like to add that such a mistake was not intentional. However, this same point startled me for Anthony continuously addressed me as Mr. Anonymous while I provided my name in my paper! And I have not counted this ‘typo’ as did my opponent:

“Not content to merely conceal his own identity, my Muslim respondent, who gets my name wrong no less than nine times…”

Masquerade

What seems as a bad case of feigning and distortion; Rogers misplaces my words to win cheap points over me. He tried to portray that I refrained my “fellow Muslims” to all what he originally wrote, as if he came out with insurmountable brain washing and mesmerizing facts.
He also justified my discouraging reading of his article with an assumption that I did not take into account his several so called crucial remarks: “several crucial remarks of mine are not taken into account in his “refutation””. That being the case I would like to read which “crucial remark” was unattended!

This is what he wrote regarding me discouraging a read to his article:

“Not content to merely conceal his own identity, my Muslim respondent, who gets my name wrong no less than nine times, starts off his article with an attempt to prevent his fellow Muslims from reading all of what I originally wrote, saying: “I would discourage readers to read his article…”, and judging from the quality of his reply, he appears to have followed his own advice.”

As can be seen above that I did initially discouraged readers from his article. But I wrote that with a specific reason which I already provided in my original article which any sincere person reading my article in full (and NOT HALF QUOTED lines) would realize. As a matter of fact this is what I originally wrote (Kindly compare it with the crooked misquotation cited above.) in full:

“I would discourage readers to read his article

rigged with mordant remarks and filthy invectives on Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him.”

So, I discouraged not with a fear of Anthony “winning souls” into Christianity but for the filth and dirt he wrote in his paper.

However, he demonstrated his calculated sincerity by later quoting me full. Not only this, he gave a disgusting rationalization for him abusing The Creator of all that exists including Jesus, peace be upon him.
Here is how he defended his opprobrium:

“I take it that he is referring here to the fact that at the end of my article I referred to Allah as an idol and to Muhammad as a worthless prophet. But

what else

did my anonymous acquaintance expect me, a Christian, to conclude?”

Conclusively then as a Christian, Anthony Rogers, has all permit to abuse the deity of Jesus, peace be upon him and Mohammad the last prophet, peace be upon him. According to him there is no other “else” left for him, as a Christian, than to abuse Allah-Almighty and Mohammad, peace be upon him. He continued his disgusting and ignorant polemics with rationalizations such as:

“It is simply unavoidable: if Yahweh is God, then Allah is not (which means he is an idol)”

He, for some reasons, bypassed a possibility that the God of Jesus (!) and Moses etc may refer to one True God with dialectical difference apart for the sake of argument. I say this because Allah was the same deity who was worshipped by all prophets from Adam to Mohammad, peace be upon them all:

1. “Praise be to Allah who hath granted unto me [QM: Abraham] in old age Ismail and Isaac: for truly my Lord is He the Hearer of Prayer!” (The Holy Qur’an, 14:39)

If the Christian polemic has already contemplated that Abraham, peace be upon him, never knew Allah and he worshipped Yahweh then he oversees a fact that Abraham was an Arab – a Chaldean, so it is only fair to acknowledge that Abraham worshipped his deity as Allah:

“Genesis 11:31 defines Abraham as being from an area in Lower Mesopotamia called Ur of Chaldees, in what is now present day Iraq. Geographically speaking, and applying the terminology of today, ABRAHAM WAS AN ARAB.” (MISGOD’ED A Roadmap of Guidance and Misguidance within the Abrahamic Religions by Dr. Laurence B. Brown, MD).

Furthermore, Christians who walked the land which Jesus, peace be upon him once treaded also recognizing their deity as Allah:

“The Arab Christians trace their heritage to the days of revelation—in fact, their distant ancestors walked the same land as the prophet Jesus—AND THEY IDENTIFY THE CREATOR AS ALLAH.” (MISGOD’ED A Roadmap of Guidance and Misguidance Within the Abrahamic Religions by Dr. Laurence B. Brown, MD)

So here we have a proof that not only did the prophets but even the present day Christians recognize their God as Allah. Yet ironically westerners would insult the same Allah of their eastern brethren “in Christ”!

Here are a few more proofs exposing the truth.

According to Douglas J.D. modern Arab Christians also recognize their God as Allah:

“the name is used also by modern Arab Christians who say concerning future contingencies: ‘In sha’ ALLAH.” (The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church. 1978. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. p. 27)

AND

“ALLAH IS THE STANDARD ARABIC WORD FOR ‘GOD’ and is used by Arab Christians as well as by
Muslims.” (Encyclopaedia Britannica. CDROM)

As a matter of fact Dr. Laurence B. Brown gets more vocal on this issue as he comments:

“In fact, from the Orthodox Christians of the land that was birthplace to Abraham (now modern day Iraq), to the Coptic Christians of the Egypt of Moses, to the Palestinian Christians of the Holy Land trod by Jesus Christ, to the entire Middle Eastern epicenter from which the shockwaves of revelation radiated out to the entire world, ALLAH IS RECOGNIZED AS THE PROPER NAME FOR WHAT WESTERN RILIGIONS (QM: RELIGION) CALL GOD. The Christian Arabs are known to call Jesus ibn Allah—ibn meaning “son.”

Pick up any copy of an Arabic Bible and a person will find the Creator identified as Allah

. So Allah is recognized as the name of God in the land of revelation of the Old and New Testaments, as well as of the Qur’an.” (MISGOD’ED A Roadmap of Guidance and Misguidance Within the Abrahamic Religions by Dr. Laurence B. Brown, MD)

2. “For ALLAH; He is my Lord and your Lord: so worship ye Him: this is a Straight Way.” (The Holy Qur-an, 43:64)

In the commentary of above adduced verse Abdullah Yusuf Ali clarifies the point that Islam religion was the same as taught by Jesus, peace be upon him:

“In verses 26-28 an appeal is made to the pagan Arabs, that Islam is their own religion, the religion of Abraham their ancestor; in verses 46-54, an appeal is made to the Jews that Islam is the same religion as was taught by Moses, and that they should not allow their leaders to make fools of them; in verses 57-65 an appeal is made to the Christians that Islam is the same religion as was taught by Jesus, and that they should give up their sectarian attitude and follow the universal religion, which shows the Straight Way.”
Inferably then if Islam was the same religion taught by mighty “Son of Man” (Anthony has raised this point; I will get to it later in the article) then Allah has to be The God practiced and taught to be worshipped by Jesus, peace be upon him.
The count of the number of prophets did not end with Abraham and Jesus (peace be upon them) rather as a matter of fact all true apostles of Allah worshipped none but Allah and Allah only.

What is yet observable in his remark which is: “It is simply unavoidable: if Yahweh is God, then Allah is not (which means he is an idol)”.

He has made an assertion but did not support it with any argument let alone proofs. He presumes something but does not establish that his presumption is a Qur’anic truth. Ironically, yet, he had to break down the bulkiness of his “response” into four parts!

The same argument might be consistent with the second part of his statement where he said:

“…if Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father, then Muhammad is a false prophet (which means his worth as a prophet is precisely zero)” (God forbid and peace be upon them). Here again he makes a reasoning but does not support it!?

Secondly, I would like to draw the attention towards the smart rationalization which my opponent apologist gave for using the adjective “worthless” for Mohammad, peace be upon him. According to him “worthless” simply means “worth precisely zero”. He played way with the negative connotation of the word, however, his smartness was soon exposed.

(Side remark: At this point Anthony might argue that he was making a conditional statement where he also said:
“The same holds when spoken from the standpoint of Muslims: If Allah is God, then Yahweh is not (hence?); if Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, then Jesus is not the only begotten Son of the Father (hence?).”)

In the first place kindly notice the hypocrisy bracketed in his statement. He, as a sincere Christian, would dare not use words like “Idol” and “worthless” when speaking of his DEITIES, namely, Yahweh AND Jesus (peace be upon Jesus) thus he would veneer his intention in bracketed words, as demonstrated here in by, “(hence?…)”( the reader is left to fill in the blank and complete the disgusting sentence)thereby providing his co-religionists a euphemistic impression. So, when he desisted from using the word “worthless” for his biblical figures he only proved that there is something offensive in the word and its connotation; something more than just “worth precisely zero”.

Secondly, to start with, “begotten” is a dirty filthy word safer to be used in animal husbandry than with Allah-Almighty, and therefore some of the so called “versions” of the Bible play safe from the usage of the word. They simply and unceremoniously drop this “word” from the so purported “Word of God”:

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18, NIV)

AND

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son…” (John 3:16, TEV)

COMPARE THIS AGAINST:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…” (John 3:16, King James (1611) Bible)

At this point one can take out two inferences:

• Firstly, discordantly, the translation is been played potty here because Only Son and Only begotten Son does not seem to reconcile by any stretch of English language. I leave this for my opponent to reconcile for me, please!

• Or secondly and concordantly, the two seemingly irreconcilable could harmonize if we resort to Greek Text which I have demonstrated below.

To worsen his argument, the Greek manuscript DOES NOT contain this inflammable word:

“outwV gar hgaphsen o qeoV ton kosmon wste ton uion autou ton MONOGENH edwken ina paV o pisteuwn eiV auton mh apolhtai all ech zwhn aiwnion” (Greek NT (Scrivener-1984))

“MONOGENH” (or MONOGENES) has two Greek roots in it, namely, “MONO” AND “GENES”. “Mono” means ONE or SINGLE etc and “GENES” mean “TYPE” or “CLASS” etc. So, in conjunction, it would read “ONE” of a “TYPE” or “Unique” or “Only” or “Especial”, thus:

“As of the only begotten from the Father (hōs monogenous para patros). STRICLY,“AS OF AN ONLY BORN FROM A FATHER,” since there is no article with monogenous or with patros. In Joh_3:16; 1Jo_4:9 we have ton monogenē referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of patēr of God in relation to the Logos. Monogenēs (ONLY BORN RATHER THAN ONLY BEGOTTEN) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in Joh_1:18) rather than to the Incarnation.” (Commentary of RWP on John 1:14)

(Side remark:
• If the Greek “Monogenh” or “Monogenes” is something which means “one of a type” then why did the English translators translated it with the filth “Begotten”? Astonishingly since, the Greek of (to) “beget” is “UEVVW” (γεννώ) or “PROKALW”(προκαλώ) which is certainly not “MONOGENH”.

• Conversely, if “Begotten” is the correct translation then why are some of the authoritative so called versions doing away from it and replacing it with renderings such as “only son” etc.)

The pith of my argument so far thus has been to prove that Jesus, if understood, to be “unique” or “one of a kind” or “Special” is absolutely okay with Islamic theology which is also corroborated through correct biblical interpretations. As a Muslim I accept him to be “special”, however, having said that each prophet was unique in one of the other way.
More importantly, if Jesus is SPECIAL (and not “Begotten”), which Muslims accept, then how does it allow Islamophobes like Anthony Rogers to conclude that Mohammad (peace be upon him) is worthless (God-Forbid) since Jesus is special (!):

“…if Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father, THEN Muhammad is a false prophet (which means his worth as a prophet is precisely zero).”

(Note: In his original paper he concluded Mohammad, peace be upon him, to be “WORTHLESS”.)

Another problem with Anthony’s rationalization is that he mixes disagreement with abuse. We might disagree and object yet be sober especially in interfaith dialogues. One does not necessarily has to abuse others deity as Idol especially when the Qur’an and Hadith are strictly against “Idol” worship (!):

“And [Abraham] said: “You have chosen to worship IDOLS instead of God for no other reason than to have a bond of love, in the life of this world, between yourselves [and your forebears]: but then, on Resurrection Day, you shall disown one another and curse one another – for the goal of you all will be the fire, and you will have none to succor you.” (Y.Ali, Qur’an 29:25, Al-Alim CD ROM version)

“Allah did not institute superstitions like those of a slit-ear she-camel or a she-camel let loose for free pasture or idol sacrifices for twin-births in animals or stallion-camels freed from work; this lie is invented by the unbelievers against Allah, and most of them lack understanding.” (F. Malik, Qur’an 5:103, Al-Alim CD ROM version)
He reacted back:

“In fact, Mr. Anonymous unwittingly demonstrates my point by speaking of me throughout his article as a “Christolator”, as if to say that the Jesus I (and two billion others) repose in is an idol-god. Does Mr. Anonymous not think Christians would view this as a “filthy invective”?”

Exactly, words like these may be offensive and might turn out to be “filthy invective” but is not it late that my opponent realized it. Keep in Mind that he was the first to write an “article” in which he claimed, in the first place that, Allah is Idol and Mohammad, peace be upon him, as “worthless” prophet (God forbid). Did this generous and “enemy lover” Christian had any qualm to use such lowly adjectives (!?), now that he is complaining.

I, personally, do not think that “Christolator” is abuse rather it is a title for those who worship Christ. Having said that Islam does not teach to abuse and therefore I apologize if you think that I have abused.

His further fuss:
“Moreover, Anonymous also goes out of his way to speak of the blessed apostle Paul as a “false prophet”, giving the most limpid argument for this, as we will see, but what would a Muslim reply be if it didn’t include a “mordant remark” and attack on the apostle Paul?”

I do not think that this complaint stands any chance because “false prophet” is and should not be an offensive title for the Christians at least since it is a biblical title. The Bible asks its readers to check for people who are false (prophets). I only scanned Paul to come to a biblical conclusion that he was a false prophet. Here are the verses which speak of “false prophet” and ask people (in some of them) to catch hold of them (I did only that):

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1, King James (1161) Bible)

“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1, King James (1161) Bible)

Whether my analysis of Paul being incorrect or bona fide is different all together; it is debatable if wished. However, no Christian should make it an issue to claim that I abused Paul as “false prophet” because, as already adduced, it is a biblical title and my analysis concludes me towards the same; so, if “false prophet” is an abuse then the Bible needs to be reconsidered yet again as it gives all authority to entitle this infamous title to the deserving.

His Qur’an Assessment

In an attempt to desist truth seekers from the “Word of God” the evangelist provides a very biased and parochial rationale:
“After all, not only is the Qur’an filled with assertions that contradict and impugn the Bible’s teaching about the true God, even using words that are hardly calculated to make Christians feel warm and fuzzy all over,…” (QM: Therefore Qur’an should not be read)

According to Rogers then because the Qur’an impugns Bible’s teachings therefore it should not be read. In reality this is one of many reasons why the Qur’an should be read. THE QUR’AN SHOULD BE READ BECAUSE IT IMPUGNS BIBLE. The Qur’an came as yardstick to judge between the right and the wrong. For instance when the authors of Bible ignorantly and maliciously incriminates idol worship to prophet Solomon, peace be upon him, The Qur’an extricates him by exalting him to his appropriate status:

“We gave (in the past) knowledge to David and Solomon: and they both said: “Praise be to Allah Who has favored us above many of His servants who believe!” (Y.Ali, Qur’an 27:15, Al-Alim CD ROM version)

“Then I remembered the statement of Prophet Solomon,…” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Hadith 301, Al-Alim CDROM version)

Although it is far-fetched and outright blasphemous to impute Idol worship to a prophet of the caliber of Solomon, peace be upon him, yet the authors of Bible denigrate son of David, peace be upon them, of the most horrible sin a righteous can ever commit, let alone a prophet.

1 Kings 11:

11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, THAT HIS WIVES TURNED AWAY HIS HEART AFTER OTHER gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.

11:5 For Solomon WENT AFTER ASHTORETH THE GODDESS OF THE ZIDONIANS, AND AFTER MILCOM THE ABOMINATION OF THE AMMONITES

11:6 And Solomon DID EVIL in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.

11:7 Then did Solomon BUILD AN HIGH PLACE FOR CHEMOSH, THE ABOMINATION OF MOAB, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, AND FOR MOLECH, the abomination of the children of Ammon.

11:8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.(King James (1611) Bible).

Truth has to impugn false. I do not see any point to be fussed. Qur’an was not revealed to pander to blasphemous beliefs which most Christians have. Subsequently, it would not use words reading which Christians might bask on sea beaches or “feel warm and fuzzy all over”.
To increase the count of his disgusting arguments he gave a ludicrous reason why the Qur’an should not be read. According to him because the Qur’an is also filled with “filthy invectives” towards Mohammad, peace be upon him, so it should not be read. In other words his article should be read even if it contains abuses. By such reasoning he thought he would lend support against my argument of discouraging readers from his article as his article is filled with “filthy invectives”. Let us then analyze this claim. This is what he exactly wrote:

“it is also filled with “mordant remarks” and “filthy invectives” directed at Muhammad by his non-Muslim contemporaries (calling him: a possessed madman, S. 15:6, 23:70, 34:08, 34:46, 37:36, 44:14, 68:2, 51; a tale-bearer and liar, S. 6:25, 8:31, 16:24, 23:83, 25:05, 27:68, 46:17, 68:15; 83:13; a forger and fabricator, S. 10:38, 11:13, 35, 16:101, 25:04, 32:3, 34:08, 43, 42:24, 46:08, 52:33; a innovator, S. 46:09; a confused dreamer, S. 21:05; and a magician, sorcerer, and one enchanted, S. 34:43, 38:4; etc.). If Mr. Anonymous’ principle means that my article must be relegated to the dust bin of history never to be read again, then the same goes for the Qur’an, and this is a price I would be none too pleased to pay.”

Such an argumentation elicits the comprehension problem which Rogers had while reading my statement, “I would discourage readers to read his article rigged with mordant remarks and filthy invectives on Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him.” There are a number of ways to prove it.

Firstly, little that Rogers realized the difference between attacking and abusing on one hand and defending and quoting on the other!
When Rogers blasphemed, “… Allah as an idol and to Muhammad as a worthless prophet.” He attacked and abused both Allah-The God and Mohammad-The prophet (peace be upon him), however, the verses that he adduced Allah quotes the scathing remarks made by the unbelievers and in the very immediate context of all verses reveals a verse to exonerate Mohammad, peace be upon him, of such a charge, “Or do they say “He fabricated the (Message)”? NAY THEY HAVE NO FAITH!” May I ask if the case of Qur’an the same as that of Rogers’s “article”, if not, then Rogers is comparing Apples with Oranges.

Another point to be noted here is that Allah-The God Almighty, The Author of Qur’an is not abusing Mohammad, peace be upon him, on the contrary, he is defending him (peace be upon him). Nevertheless, Anthony Rogers the author of his article abused (Allah and) Mohammad and did not defend them. This is yet another reason why I say Rogers erroneously compared Apples with Oranges.

Thirdly, I thank Mr. Anthony Rogers for citing the above verses (in his argument) because this provides me all the more reasons why I must read Qur’an. I should read it to know what “THEY”- The disbelievers (and not the Author of the Qur’an) had to say about Mohammad, peace be upon him, and how Allah vindicated the innocent, peace be upon him. Even more so, when the abuse hurled on Allah and Mohammad (peace be upon him) tantamount to the charges on Mary and Jesus by the Jews, fragments of which are still extant in the “Talmud” (peace be upon Jesus and may Allah be pleased with Mary).

The Talmud still abuses Jesus and his mother, subsequently, even worst. It would be a sin even to think of the accusations which the Talmud imputes on Mary and her alleged relation with a Roman soldier (God forbid), nevertheless, the Qur’an expunges all such lies and exalts Mary and Jesus to their appropriate position:

Kindly realize and compare the vicious taunt of the notorious Jews on innocent Mary (may Allah be pleased with her) against her vindication by Allah-Almighty Himself.

Qur’an 19:27-28:

“At length she brought the (babe) to her people carrying him (in her arms). They said: “O Mary!truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! “O sister of Aaron! thy father was not a man of evil nor thy mother a woman UNCHASTE!””
Contrast the above verse against:

Qur’an 21.91:

AND (REMEMBER) HER WHO GUARDED HER CHASTITY: We breathed into her of Our Spirit and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples.

AND

Qur’an 3.42:
“Behold! the angels said: “O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee; chosen thee above the women of all nations.”

It is of paramount importance then to read the Qur’an all the more because after informing of the allegations of the disbelievers (like pagans in the case of Mohammad (peace be upon him) and Jews in the case of Mary (may Allah be pleased with her), in the verses adduced) the Qur’an exculpates the sinless beyond all “filthy invectives”.
Thus, Anthony’s argument that Qur’an should not be read as it ALSO contains “filthy invectives” only back fired on him; as we have proved that it creates one of the fundamental grounds why Qur’an SHOULD be read.

No conjectures in Qur’an for it is different from Bible

Catching at whatever he could, Anthony Rogers made a futile attempt to find conjectures in Qur’an 4:171.

“First, this portion of Surah 4:171 calls Jesus “the Messiah”, but the meaning of this title is nowhere explained in the Qur’an. The word and concept comes from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and so without looking to them to explain the meaning of this title, one is left with nothing but conjecture and doubt.”

The boastful claims made in the above passage should not be avoided and therefore let us analyze each claim in it separately.

• “First, this portion of Surah 4:171 calls Jesus “the Messiah”, but the meaning of this title is nowhere explained in the Qur’an.”

The problem with above claim is that Anthony Rogers is trying to dictate Qur’an on his (Christian) terms to the God-Almighty. He forgot that Qur’an is not a Book revealed to pander to Christian instincts, since:

Firstly, if Qur’an does not explain the title Messiah as the Christian thinks then there must be some wisdom behind it. Why Anthony forgets that there is a possibility that the audience already knew the import of the word “Messiah”. Can he provide us any proof which would establish that the audience did not knew the term (Messiah) and it’s meaning. Thus to say the least, it was a hollow argument presented as we further shred it.

Secondly, it is evident from the above remark that my ‘learned’ opponent does not know that Qur’ans commentary is Hadith which he did not research before making this hasty comment. We would expose this and the next remark collectively.

• “The word and concept comes from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and so without looking to them to explain the meaning of this title, one is left with nothing but conjecture and doubt.”

I am afraid that any learned Arab Christian apologist would ever make such a foolhardy comment because the Muslims not only fully understood the especial title “Messiah” but also used its root, i.e. “Masaha” in their daily life!

“Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu’minin

“Narrated AbuUsayd al-Ansari: Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “Eat olive oil and ANOINT yourselves with it, for it comes from a blessed tree.” (Al-Tirmidhi Hadith, Hadith 1122, Al-Alim CD ROM version)

What is to be noted in all the above Hadith literature is the word “Anoint”. “Anoint” is the translation of the Arabic word “Masaha” which is the root of “Masih” or the “Messiah”. “Masaha” means to rub. So in no sense does the word “Messiah” or “The ANOINTed one” comes from Jewish and Christian scriptures rather it was popular among the Arabs as well. They fully understood the especial title to Jesus, peace be upon him.

[Side remark: Even to this day Muslims practice the word “Masaha” at least five times a day during their ablution!]

Name Game

He attacked: “Second, though translated Jesus, the Arabic text calls Him ‘Isa, which is not correct. The name Yeshua in Hebrew yields Yasou’ in Arabic. Muhammad, possibly mistaking a Jewish slur for Jesus as ‘Esau,’ falsely conjectured that ‘Isa was/is Jesus’ real name. (For more on this, see: “Is ‘Isa the True Name of Jesus?”)”

In the first place let me request Anthony Rogers to provide me that in which Arabic dialect does “Yeshua in Hebrew yields Yasou’ in Arabic”.

Secondly, the name of Maryam’s son was Isa (peace be upon him) as is proven at “Jesus” – Remembering his true name.
Ironically the learned men amongst Christians are confused whether to call their god as Yeshua or Jesus! (peace be upon Jesus the prophet):

“Start with Yeshua. That’s his name, NOT ‘JESUS.’ It’s what his father and mother and his brothers and sisters called him and it’s how his followers knew him. Probably the name was pronounced in the rough regional dialectr of Galilee as ‘Yeshu’… (Akenson, 2000, p. 57).”
Christians are still not stable with the name of the false deity they worship! While slandering others of conjectures! No surprise eminent scholars are to this date debating for his real name. They are still grappling for a clue that who changed his name and why? So that they may find an answer to their question: Was His Name Really Jesus?

What does Christian Apologists know about Qur’an?

When evangandists try to transmute into Sheikhs they only expose their ignorance of Islamic theology which can yet be proved through the remark which Rogers made:

“Third, the all important words “no more than” do not even appear in the Arabic text of this verse; they are inserted into the English text to make it say what certain Muslims think it should say; in other words, these words are “no more than” conjecture. Consider how some other translations render the verse:

“The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD” – Khalifah
“Verily Christ Jesus the son of Mary [is] the apostle of God” – Sale
And so, as far as this verse goes, there is a great deal of conjecture, and if we drop the added words, there is nothing that is said here about Jesus, apart from the fact that it gets His name wrong, that Christians would not agree with: “The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of God.” Of course Christians would point out that this is not all that can be said of Jesus, and they might just as well point out in this connection that the Qur’an also says more about Him, even in this very passage, where Jesus is also called the “Word” of God and a “Spirit proceeding from Him”.

Let us analyze this remark part by part so that we do justice to his ‘intellectual’ remarks.We would first analyze the first piece of argument in the above cited remark which is:

“Third, the all important words “no more than” do not even appear in the Arabic text of this verse; they are inserted into the English text to make it say what certain Muslims think it should say; in other words, these words are “no more than” conjecture. Consider how some other translations render the verse:
“The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD” – Khalifah
“Verily Christ Jesus the son of Mary [is] the apostle of God” – Sale…”

I wondered how a denizen of Nevada who is hardly expected to know Arabic, though not necessarily, make statement such as above which needs knowledge of Arabic. So ‘hats off to Anthony Rogers for his profound knowledge of Arabic’, however, wait a little while when we will take his hat off for the same reason and for the same argument, God willing.

Anthony is absolutely right that the phrase “no more than” does not appear in the Arabic text of Qur’an 4:171, however, the ignorant and embarrassing error which he committed when he remarked that the phrase “no more than” is a conjecture in Qur’an. I say he committed an embarrassing error because he himself provided the answer for it thereby making my task of refuting his ignorance even easier.

Kindly peruse very carefully what he himself claimed. He wrote, “…they are inserted into the English text…”. My point is that he readily confers that the phrase “no more than” is not a part of Qur’an 4:171 (he prepares the next part of his remark basing on this particular fact that “no more than” is not a part of Qur’an; which I will undo soon.) which subsequently back fires against his argument because it is not a part of Qur’an; in other words if the phrase “no more than” is not a part of Qur’an(as it is “inserted into the English text”) then it does not build conjecture in Qur’an and thus, Qur’an is not part of conjecture. To escape this critique Anthony Rogers should provide us how can he remark Qur’anic text to be conjectured for something which is not a Qur’anic text (!) but only “inserted… English text”.

A particular translator of Qur’an “inserted (it) into the English text”. So, if at all there is conjecture (which is not; I will soon rebut it) it has to be in the part of the translator not Qur’an.

As if this was not enough; to worsen his case he cited two other renderings:

“The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD” – Khalifah

“Verily Christ Jesus the son of Mary [is] the apostle of God” – Sale…”

He made my point stronger because the phrase “no more than” as seen perspicuously above is not a part of Qur’an. Again, if “no more than” is not a part of Qur’an then no one can claim that the phrase “no more than” constitutes conjecture in Qur’an.

(Side remark: It is very important for Muslims to know that Khalifah, actually Rashad Khalifah, whose rendering was adduced by my opponent, was an imposter – a kaafir. He claimed prophet hood. And as for Sale, actually, George Sale, he is a whole sale Islam antagonist. Muslims are therefore advised to be careful of such people and their Qur’an translations.)

So much for the first part of his comment, now let us turn to the next part of his remark:

“Third, the all important words “no more than” do not even appear in the Arabic text of this verse; they are inserted into the English text to make it say what certain Muslims think it should say; in other words, these words are “no more than” conjecture…And so, as far as this verse goes, there is a great deal of conjecture, and if we drop the added words, there is nothing that is said here about Jesus, apart from the fact that it gets His name wrong, that Christians would not agree with…”

Anthony Rogers is scratching his head again to show Muslims that it is incorrect that Jesus (peace be upon him) was “no more than” a prophet of Allah; according to his knowledge of Qur’an these are added words (and so he asks us to drop it), added to remove so called conjectures. So we produce a verse exclusively for Anthony Rogers which is NOT ADDED.

Qur’an 5.75:

“Christ the son of Mary WAS NO MORE THAN AN APOSTLE; many were the Apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth makes His Signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!”(Y.Ali)

“Christ, the son of Maryam, WAS NO MORE THAN A RASOOL; many Rasools had already passed away before him. His mother was a truthful woman; they both ate earthly food like other human beings. See how the Revelations are made clear to them to know reality; yet see how they ignore the truth! (Malik)

“The Messiah, son of Mary, WAS NO MORE THAN A MESSENGER, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how we make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!” (Pickthall)

“The Christ, son of Mary, WAS BUT AN APOSTLE: all [other] apostles had passed away before him; and his mother was one who never deviated from the truth; and they both ate food [like other mortals]. Behold how clear We make these messages unto them: and then behold how perverted are their minds!”(Asad)

After a full exposure of Anthony’s ignorance of Qur’an and Islam could I request him to “add” and “insert” the above verse in his knowledge bank.

If Qur’anic description of Jesus, peace be upon him, as “only Apostle” or “no more than a messenger” goes unpalatable with Christians who somehow try to thrust his (peace be upon him) over exaltation down Muslim throats then the verses produced below should turn out to be downright denigrating to such Christians:

Qur’an 43:59:

“HE WAS NO MORE THAN A SERVANT: We granted Our favor to him and We made him an example to the Children of Israel.” (Y.Ali)

“HE (JESUS) WAS NO MORE THAN A MORTAL whom We favored and made an example to the children of Israel.” (Malik)

“HE IS NOTHING BUT A SLAVE on whom We bestowed favor, and We made him a pattern for the Children of Israel.” (Pickthall)

“[As for Jesus,] HE WAS NOTHING BUT [A HUMAN BEING -] A SERVANT [OF OURS] whom We had graced [with prophet hood,] and whom We made an example for the children of Israel. (Asad)
No wonder why Christian apologists remark Qur’an to be “denigrating” in the description of Jesus (peace be upon him) because the personality they worship and prostrate and bow down to is, in reality, under subservience to Someone else.

Moving yet further with his claims of conjectures in Qur’an, Rogers claimed that Qur’an calls Jesus (peace be upon him) more than just messenger of Allah. Qur’an also calls him “Word” from God and a “Spirit proceeding from Him” and therefore a conjecture in Qur’an. That being the case let us analyze his claim but first let us read what he exactly has to say:

“The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of God.” Of course Christians would point out that this is not all that can be said of Jesus, and they might just as well point out in this connection that the Qur’an also says more about Him, even in this very passage, where Jesus is also called the “Word” of God and a “Spirit proceeding from Him”.

Before attacking the integrity of Qur’an he should explain as to how Qur’an referring Jesus, peace be upon him, as “Word” from God and a “Spirit proceeding from Him” make him more than just messenger of Allah?

I request him to explain us why can not a mortal who is “only messenger of Allah” be a “word” and “spirit proceeding from Him”. Why do you have to be more than “only messenger of Allah” to be Word and Spirit proceeding from Him.

The interpretational fallacy committed by my opponent is that he tried to blend biblical interpretations (and I say “interpretations” not biblical verses themselves) with Qur’anic truths. The proofs of such absurd blend of two can be found later as well as we further analyze his remarks.

It is the Doctors of Divinity who misunderstand that a “Word” and a “Spirit proceeding from Him” cannot be “only a messenger of Allah” so that they might deify Jesus, peace be upon him. Nevertheless in Islam and Qur’an there is absolutely no conjecture in Jesus (peace be upon him) being “only messenger of Allah” and “word” and “spirit proceeding from Him”.

So much with the so called conjectures in Qur’an 4:171. Not content with it and through years of biblical conjectural influences Rogers thought that there is conjecture in Qur’an3:59 as well! That being the claim let us analyze this boast as well.

Before moving further let us first re-produce Qur’an 3:59.

“This similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam: He created him from dust then said to him: “Be” and he was.”

According this ‘profound exegete’ of Qur’an, Surah 3:59 builds conjecture in Qur’an because:

“… since the Qur’an never tells us why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat, like Adam, Muslims are only able to cast about for one conjecture or another in their efforts to explain it.”

As is pellucid, if not, then I will prove that Rogers miscalculates the thrust of Qur’an 3:59 towards Church teachings and podium banging sermons of the Evangandists. The thrust of the verse if not towards what Rogers assumes to be. Nevertheless, before that let us pander to Anthony Rogers question:

Who says that Qur’an does not explain “why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat”. The above adduced question posed to us only demonstrates the shallow knowledge Qur’an because Qur’an DOES explicitly explains “why Jesus uniquely entered (sent) into the world by God’s fiat”.
According to my understanding of Qur’an, Jesus “entered” (was sent) uniquely into this world because he was to guide a recalcitrant Israeli community, furthermore, he entered “uniquely” so that he could become a sign or a miracle for the Israelis he was to minister:

“And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel (with this message): I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I make for you out of clay as it were the figure of a bird and breathe into it and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave; and I heal those born blind and the lepers and I quicken the dead by Allah’s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe.” (Qur’an 3:49, Y.Ali, Al- Alim CD ROM version)

But natural if Jesus, peace be upon him, has to minister a community he has to “enter” (sent) the world.

AND

“And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground affording rest and security and furnished with springs.” (Qur’an 23.50, Y. Ali, Al-Alim CD ROM version)

OR

“He said: “So (it will be): thy Lord saith `That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a SIGN unto men and a Mercy from Us’: it is a matter (so) decreed.” (Qur’an 19:21, Y.Ali, Al-Alim CD ROM version)

However this only answers “why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat” it does not explain why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat like Adam (peace be upon him). Nevertheless we would (inshallah) deal with this part of the absurd enquiry below.
Now that we have answered his question let us analyze was he correct to demand such a question(!) since the thrust of the verse was not towards informing (us) why Jesus “entered uniquely” into the world!

Here is what he wrote:

“As for this verse, we likewise find more room for conjecture.
To begin with, we may ask: Why was Jesus created after the similitude of Adam? It is evident why Adam was created in a special way, for there was no one else for him to be born to. Hence, Adam couldn’t come into existence through the normal process of procreation, but had to be directly created through God’s word ‘Be’. We also know why Christians believe Jesus came into the world through a special creative act of God; specifically, because Jesus, as the Word and Son of the Father, already existed, unlike all other descendants of Adam who are personally and spiritually brought into existence along with their bodies, and so the Holy Spirit, by-passing all human agency, created a body for Jesus in the womb of Mary, enabling the Word to become flesh and dwell among us. Furthermore, Christians believe that Jesus came into the world as a second Adam, in order to redeem Adam’s fallen children. Hence, through the virgin birth, the special creative activity of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was sanctified from conception, setting Him apart from all sin and impurity, thus qualifying Him to be an unblemished sacrifice, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. All of this is the Christian answer, but since the Qur’an never tells us why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat,

like Adam

, Muslims are only able to cast about for one conjecture or another in their efforts to explain it.”

As can be seen the ‘great Qur’an Exegete’ has based his arguments (to show conjecture in Qur’an 3:59) on:

• Firstly, “because Jesus, as the Word and Son of the Father, already existed, unlike all other descendants of Adam who are personally and spiritually brought into existence along with their bodies, and so the Holy Spirit, by-passing all human agency, created a body for Jesus in the womb of Mary, enabling the Word to become flesh and dwell among us.”.

In other words because Jesus (peace be upon him) “already existed” with the Father so the Holy Spirit had to by-pass all human agency to create a body for Jesus in the womb of Mary thereby providing a similitude between Jesus and Adam.

• Secondly, “that Jesus came into the world as a second Adam, in order to redeem Adam’s fallen children. Hence, through the virgin birth, the special creative activity of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was sanctified from conception,… but since the Qur’an never tells us why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat, like Adam, Muslims are only able to cast about for one conjecture or another in their efforts to explain it.”
Here also he thinks that Jesus came into this world in a special way (and therefore Jesus’s similitude to Adam) as a “second Adam” to “redeem Adam’s fallen children”.

The argumentative fallacy in the above two arguments is the basic assumption of “Pre existence” (“already existed”) and “Original sin” (“Adam’s fallen children”) to tantamount to Islamic theology. Both these (mis)concepts have got nothing to do in Islam. Thus at best they can only be said as: “All of this is the Christian answer…”
Now for the all important enquiry of Qur’an allegedly not inform us why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat LIKE ADAM.

Why should Qur’an pander to your enquiry of “WHY Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat” when Qur’an 3:59 is not the verse to explain “WHY Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat”. When Allah-Almighty says that the similitude of Jesus is that of Adam, he compares the status of Jesus and Adam. As Adam was a creational feat of Allah-Almighty so was Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them. As Allah-Almighty willed and Adam was created so was the case of Jesus -the mortal, peace be upon them. For me this verse (Qur’an 3:59) constitutes a proof text which repudiates the fallacy of those who worship a “hungry”, “sweating”, “bleeding”, “answering nature’s call”, “procreated by his mother in the same way as others are delivered with mother suffering the pangs of baby delivery” man.

Allah explains that Jesus is as non entity as Adam when seen from His creational feat and on the same reasoning Jesus is as (only) dignified as Adam when seen from the perspective of him (Jesus) being one of the beloved prophets of Allah. For Allah to create a thousand Jesus would be as simple as wishing “Be” and a thousand such Jesus would be created.

Now I do not think that anybody would cling to the wrong notion (unless biased) that Qur’an 3:59 thrusts towards explaining why Jesus entered into this world uniquely, that being the case, Anthony Rogers has no case of conjecture against Qur’an 3:59. As I already illustrated that Qur’an 3:59 was a verse to compare the status of Adam and Jesus in the sight of Allah. Both were Allah’s creational feats. Both were created by the will of Allah through the command “BE”. Allah created Adam (peace be upon him) without a father or a mother SIMILARLY Allah created Jesus (peace be upon him) without a mother:

“Allah then explained the creation of Jesus without a father because the delegation of Najran asked the Prophet to provide proof from the Qur’an for his saying that Jesus was not the son of Allah, so Allah said: (Lo! the likeness of Jesus) the likeness of the creation of Jesus (with Allah) without a father (is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust) without a father or mother, (then He said unto him) to Jesus: (Be! and he is) a son without a father.” (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas)

AND

Truly, the likeness of Jesus, his remarkable case, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness, as the case of Adam, whom God created without father or mother: this is a comparison of one remarkable thing with another more remarkable, so that it convinces the disputer and establishes itself in one’s mind more effectively. He created him, Adam, that is, his form, of dust, then said He to him, ‘Be,’, a human being, and he was; SIMILARLY, He said to Jesus, ‘Be’ — without a father — and he was. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

And now I say that there would be just no room for conjecture if one just knew what is called “Asbab-al-Nuzul” or the science of revelation of verses. Anthony Rogers would not have ignorantly attacked Qur’an through Qur’an3:59 for not providing an explanation as to, “why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat” had he researched the reason why this particular verse was revealed:

“(Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam…) [3:59]. The commentators of the Qur’an said: “The delegation of Najran said to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace: ‘Why do you insult Jesus?’ He said: ‘What did I say about him?’ They said: ‘You say that he is a servant’. He said: ‘Indeed, he is the servant and messenger of Allah, as well as His word which He cast into the Virgin Mary’. They became angry and said: ‘Have you ever seen a human being who was born without a father? If you are truthful, show us such a person’. And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Harithi informed us> ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Ja’far> Sahl Abu Yahya al-Razi> Sahl ibn ‘Uthman> Yahya> Waki’> Mubarak> al-Hasan who said: “Two monks from Najran came to see the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, and he invited them to surrender to Allah. One of them said: ‘We have surrendered to Allah before you’. He said: ‘You lie! Three things prevent you from surrendering to Allah: your worship of the cross, eating pork and your claim that Allah has a son’. They said: ‘Then who is the father of Jesus?’ The Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, was not in the habit of giving hasty answers but waited for Allah’s answer instead. Then Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse (Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam…)”. (Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi)

The classical Tafsirs make it absolutely clear that the reason and service of Qur’an 3:59 was to elucidate humanity that the likeness or similitude of Jesus is to that of Adam; for Adam was a creational feat of Allah, without any progenitor, and so was Jesus, a creational miracle of Allah, a creation without a male counterpart. (Peace be upon Adam and Jesus)

So then where is the question and enquiry of Qur’an 3:59 not explaining “why Jesus uniquely entered into the world by God’s fiat” and where is the conjecture?

(Side remark: I do not know of any main stream commentator who has deciphered Qur’an 3:59 to mean Jesus’ unique entry to this world!
Another point to be noticed is Rogers’s remark “…creative act of God…” This is one point which Islam has been trying to convey for the past 1400 years now. Jesus is a “creation of God”, very much unlike the Nicene creed of “BEGOTTEN NOT MADE” theory, thus, he cannot be God. Stop associating partners to God-Almighty.)

Plagiarisation Plague

It is a common disease amongst missionaries and evangandists that they think Mohammad, peace be upon him, did not receive revelations from Allah-The God of Jesus. In order to prove the missionaries “dance from pillars to post” on certain occasions picking the straw man Satanic Verses (1, 2) and on other claiming that he, peace be upon him, copied it from the Jews:

“It is well known, except perhaps to Mr. Anonymous, that much of what Muhammad heard came neither directly from God nor from the Scriptures, the authentic books handed down from the prophets, but from books that the Jewish people wrote with their own hands, such as the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Midrashim, and the Targums.”

• Firstly, Rogers should explain us why Mohammad, peace be upon him, allegedly copied “Be and it was” phrase from Jewish writings and left out on the abuses of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 106a, Sanhedrin 43a, Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a, Shabbos 104b, Gittin 57a) against Jesus, peace be upon him. What made him leave the filth against Jesus when one, after six hundred years of Jesus’ ascension, could only think of his illegitimacy except by faith! and True revelations. (I would again discourage my readers not to refer to the Talmud references I gave. They are downright dirty and offensive.).

Not only this, why did Mohammad, peace be upon him, in Qur’an goes out of his way as an Arab, to praise a Jew and his mother-a Jewess, when the Jewish literature around him (which is allegedly his source of Qur’an) coupled with the anomalous nature of Jesus’ birth, which could only be believed through faith, was abusing and attacking the integrity of both the innocent mother and her righteous son (Peace be upon Jesus and May Allah be pleased with Mary)?

• Secondly, what is noticeable that Anthony Rogers has not provided any support with regards to his plagiarization boast. He should establish that the phrase was indeed copied from Jewish literatures.

The might son of Man

As if Rogers got a chance to bully me, he made yet another attack on Qur’an for me using the phrase “Son of Man”:

“my unknown Muslim assailant even refers to Jesus as “this mighty ‘Son of Man,’” another title that is lifted from the Bible”

Although, this title of “Son of Man” is frequently used in Bible, however, it is good that he picked up this issue because it has Islamic implications as well!

Neither did I frivolously used the phrase “Son of Man” nor is it correct to say that “… we have to turn to the Scriptures in order to understand the meaning of this phrase; otherwise we are left with nothing but “clouds of conjectures”. There is no room for conjectures in Qur’an no matter how hard one tries to criticize it. As a matter of fact Qur’an welcomes criticism (Qur’an 4:82).

So then when I used the phrase “Son of Man” I tried to emphasize its Islamic import- that is, it’s true meaning that Jesus is just a son of a human being or son of a MAN. He is a man born of a man-a human being, namely, Mary (May Allah be pleased with her). The point that Jesus is a son of man immediately refutes the claims of his deity imputed on him, furthermore, it pulls down the extra elevated status of Jesus, peace be upon him, to its actual status of a mere prophet certainly obviating the claims that Jesus’ is Son of God in a capitalized sense.

No wonder The Holy Qur’an emphasizes this point of Jesus (peace be upon him) being son of a man (and therefore not God) almost every time alluding to him! On (yet) another occasions Qur’an has simply referred to Jesus (peace be upon him) without even specifying his name but only the title that he is a son of man! nevertheless, the Qur’an puts it in its own style, i.e. “son of Mary”:

“They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; Yet they were commanded to worship but one Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to him: (far is He) from having the parents they associate (with him).” (Qur’an 9:31)

“And remember Jesus the son of Mary said: “O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad Tidings of an Apostle to come after me whose name shall be Ahmad.” But when he came to them with Clear Signs they said “This is evident sorcery!” (Qur’an 61:6)

“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah if His Will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary his mother and all everyone that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things.” (Qur’an 5:17)

AND

“And when the son of Mary is quoted as an example, behold! the folk laugh out,” (Qur’an 43:57)

Besides many other verses such as 61:14, 57:27, 5:78, 5:75, 5:72, 5:46, 5:110, 112, 114, 116, 4:171, 4:157 etc.

If thought from the point that why has Allah oft repeated the title “son of Mary” every time referring to Jesus then one would easily come to a conclusion that Allah Almighty wanted to stress on the fact (especially for the Christians) that Jesus is son of a human being, he is son of a mere mortal not the son of immortal therefore it is illogical to consider him divine and worship him (peace be upon Jesus). Therefore, there is just no conjecture in Qur’an if I used the phrase “son of Man” for Jesus, peace be upon him. And by the way I do not have to turn to so called “Holy Scriptures” to dispel my conjectures as the same ‘holy scriptures’ also contain ‘holy’ stories of prophet Lot, prophet Solomon etc and etc.

Apostle to come after me

Under the sub heading “Confirming What Came Before In the Law and the Gospel” he has written various things, things which is irrelevant for a reply, however, he made a claim regarding Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) prophecy in the Tawraat and the Injeel:

“If what my anonymous acquaintance said above were true, then he wouldn’t be able to claim that the Bible contains predictions for Muhammad, not in Deuteronomy 18, not in John 16, not anywhere, contrary to the Qur’an, various Hadith, and the uniform example of Muslim scholars and dawagandists.”

I adjure readers to assiduously take note of the phrase “… contrary to the Qur’an, various Hadith”. Whenever Muslims appeal to the Christians that Mohammad (peace be upon him) was prophesized in their Scriptures they (Christians) mistake that Qur’an (61:6), Hadith and Muslims are appealing to the so called Old and New Testament from the custodians of the so thumped King James Version and the New International Version and the Charismatic Version and on and on! Such a presumption is of course false.

When Qur’an appeals that Mohammad, peace be upon him, was prophesized it simply means that he was prophesized by Jesus, peace be upon him through the original revelation given to him not to the so fabricated New Testament which came into existence centuries after his heavenly ascension. Christians like Anthony Rogers should take note that Muslims can no more be fooled in to messing New Testament with Injeel – The revelation to PROPHET Jesus, peace be upon him.

I can appeal to the Old and New Testament discrediting their authority as the revelation of Moses and Jesus, respectively. I may find something in these books which might be compatible with Qur’anic teachings. But even then I cannot confirm for sure that those verses of Old and New Testament are literal reveled verses. For more on this topic kindly refer OT, NT and MUSLIMS.

Furthermore, under the same sub heading he wrote that I made a “foolhardy” attempt to refute Christian apologist David Wood. That being the case, I would request Anthony to kindly inform his cohort in shirk (associating partners to Allah) David Wood of my “foolhardy” attempt against him so that he could dig my grave, a step further, I would request all to read my “foolhardy” attempt at Deuteronomy Dissection and check for themselves who actually made “foolhardy” attempt. In addition, readers should also observe the exchange of polemics between my brothers Bassam Zawadi, Nadir Ahmad etc against David Wood.

Christian way of ascribing partners to Allah

Inflamed with my assertion of Christians ascribing partners to Allah and therefore polytheists Anthony Rogers hits back by stating that I did not try to prove my “scurrilous” charge: “not only does he not try to prove this scurrilous accusation in his response,…”

Do I need to prove that Christians (majority) worship Jesus (peace be upon him) as God-Almighty (God forbid) ironically contradicting themselves because Jesus was indeed “creative act of God”.

Furthermore, because he had to respond back at me and slur Muslims of polytheism so he picked up some bizarre links for us. Now because he has seen only one side of the coin or maybe he is wittingly frowning away from the other side, we give him the other perspective of the coin as well. Let a sincere analyzer then see both sides and decide for himself!
He started with the old propaganda of satanic verses and the “the high flying cranes” . One may also visit my paper which reflects on certain issues of the same topic. He just picked up everything he got including kissing of sacred stone which along with many other such baseless allegations has been disabused by Brother Bassam Zawadi at “Was he a pagan”?

I would encourage readers to peruse the following articles which respond many of the allegations of this genre:-

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__the_quran_s_many_gods_and_lords__an_analysis_of_the_worship_given_to_and_deification_of_creatures_within_the_islamic_text_
http://islamlife.com/readarticle.php?article_id=7
http://islamlife.com/readarticle.php?article_id=8
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__is_allah_the_only_judge_or_not
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__muhammad_and_oath_making__another_example_of_muhammad_failing_to_practice_what_he_preached_http://muslim-responses.com/The_Fatrah/The_Fatrah_
http://muslim-responses.com/Black_Magic_on_the_Prophet/Black_Magic_on_the_Prophet_

Conclusion

With these few words I look forward to Part Two (Three and Four). I would love to further refute the arguments which Anthony Rogers would be proposing in further installments. I could only do all of those by Allah’s and Allah’s help alone. May Allah’s Peace and Blessing be on all prophets.

Note: Emphasis wherever found is ours.

PAUL AND HIS COAT

In this paper we continue to examine Paul’s apostleship along with the authority of Bible to be the “Word of God”. As usual our approach would be simple. We would only use a few biblical criterions to establish that the verses under consideration cannot be divinely reveled verses. As in my earlier papers, I would avoid using extra biblical resource. Nevertheless, we would only take the biblical criterion to check biblical authority.

PAUL’S COAT:

While reading many of Paul’s epistles, we stop at 2 Timothy 4:13 to give it a thought. This is what Paul (allegedly[1]) advices to his student Timothy,

“When you come, BRING MY COAT that I left in Troas with Carpus; bring the books too, and especially the ones made of parchment” (HOLY BIBLE, TEV)

“BRING THE CLOAK that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come – and the books, especially the parchments.” (THE OPEN BIBLE, NKJV)

“When thou comest, BRING WITH THEE THE CLOAK which I left in Carpus’ hands at Troas; the books, too, and above all the rolls of parchment.” (THE NEW TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST)

Wesley, a noted Christian commentator, comments in the following way:

“The cloak – Either the toga, which belonged to him as a Roman citizen, or an upper garment, which might be needful as winter came on. Which I left at Troas with Carpus – Who was probably his host there. Especially the parchments – The books written on parchment.”

On the face of it, the verse along with its commentary means pretty straight forward and simple. All it says is, Paul needed his coat back, may be, he was shivering in cold. But is it so simple? Does the verse only mean that, well may be NO. As we examine it under biblical microscope.

BIBLICAL CRITERION:

We read the following in 2 Timothy 3:16-17,
“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living, so that the person who serves God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed” (TEV)

Undisputedly, then, we have here mentioned four uses of all scriptures, namely:

1. Teaching (the truth)
2. Rebuking (error!)
3. Correcting (faults)
4. Instructions (for right living)

We can conclude from the dissertations of above cited verse that, if any verse should to qualify to be “God-breathed” or “reveled” then it must serve the aforementioned four purposes, at least. That is in other words the “God-breathed” or “Inspired” verse should either teach, rebuke, correct, instruct or all.

As the noted Bible commentator Matthew Henry puts it in his exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16,
“For, if we do not believe their truth and goodness, they will do us no good. [2.] It is profitable to us for all the purposes of the Christian life, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (e-sword version)

Conversely, we may say that if a verse is “true” and “good” i.e. divinely inspired then it should do us “good” – good at least in the four ways mentioned above.
Furthermore, it is common sense that “scriptures”, on their face value, are ponderous let alone if they are God inspired. As it stands, then, there should not be any levity in them.

PROBLEMS WITH THE ‘DIVINE’ VERSE

2 Timothy 4:13 analyzed under biblical criterion of 2 Timothy 3:16 engenders a few intriguing questions. They are as follows:

1. Apparently the verse under consideration seems too personal to be part of God’s reveled word (?). It is too down to earth – earthly to be part of “God’s Word”. Any unbiased mind would testify this.
2. However, if a Christian contends that it is indeed reveled verse, which of course would be a far -fetched and bit of stretch, then we might ask them, “Do you want to say that God took pain to inspire Paul to write a personal verse!” I do not think that God is going to Inspire Paul to write a personal verse! At best the verse under consideration is a personal verse. If you do not testify it now then wait a little when I will prove to you biblically that it is indeed a “Personal Word”
3. Now, for all those emotional Christians who might carp that the verse under consider consideration is not a “Personal Word” should divert their attention to Bible, for the “Doctors of Divinity” had to append, a phrase to the start of the paragraph which contains our verse under consideration , they added(entitled the passage), “Personal Words” (HOLY BIBLE, pp.267, TEV). Nevertheless, this addition by the Scholars of the Bible further jeopardizes Christian stand, because:
a. The Scholars of the Christian Bible seem to concede that the verse (at least) under scrutiny (along with the entire passage) is not and CANNOT be, at best, reveled or inspired verse, lest, they would have never appended “Personal Words” to the start of the passage. Or I may ask, why do the Scholars of the Bible do so, why did they add “Personal Words”?
b. If we comport with Scholars that those are “Personal Words” then we encounter yet another problem. If the verse(s) is “PERSONAL WORDS”, which indirectly implies that they are not reveled or inspired, then how in the world are these “PERSONAL WORDS” in the Bible – The so thumped “Word of God”! Who is playing potty here?
4. As per the precepts set by Bible’s own standards; the verse (Inspired) should have at least four uses, namely, teaching, rebuking, correcting and finally instructing (read Biblical Criterion section of this paper, above). Now can any sincere student of Bible see 2 Timothy 4:13 serving even one of the four biblical criterions fulfilled. Here is the verse again, you might want to try to reconcile it with even one of the four uses of the verse, “When you come, BRING MY COAT that I left in Troas with Carpus; bring the books too, and especially the ones made of parchment” (HOLY BIBLE, TEV). Now be sincere, is it Teaching, Rebuking, Correcting or/and Instructing?. I say it is doing nothing. All that the ‘DIVINE AND INSPIRED’ verse did was it served Paul’s personal ends. He gained his Coat back from Troas. What good did it do to the multitudes reading it day in day out in Churches (yet they cannot see the “personal” words in “God’s Word). This further raises questions to the compilation of the New Testament from the so brandished 4000 early manuscripts.
5. Subsequently, from argument number 4 we have yet another deduction to be deduced. Upon close observation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 it will be discerned that “ALL” scripture inspired by God is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting or/and instructing. The usage of the article “ALL” creates a precinct or condition that “All scripture (is) inspired by God” will be “useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living”. In other words, if any, is not serving the above mentioned four causes then it cannot fall into the category of All – inspired – scripture. Because “All scripture inspired by God” will be “useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living”. However, we have seen above, in argument number 3 that 2 Timothy 4:13 serves nothing, let alone, “so that the person who serves God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed” (HOLY BIBLE: 2 Timothy 3:16-17, TEV)

AND THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING:

2 Timothy 4:13 is not just one typical verse of the kind. The Bible is littered with such verses. We would put forth three more verses to further question the inspirational quality of the verses in the “Word of God”.
We read in 1 Corinthians 7:25,

i. “Now, concerning what you wrote about unmarried people: I do not have a command from the Lord, but I give my opinion …” (Holy Bible, Today’s English Version)
OR
“Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment …” (The Open Bible, NKJV)

FURTHERMORE

ii. “I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others.”(The Open Bible: 2 Corinthians 8:8, NKJV)
iii. In an attempt to vindicate Paul championing celibacy and single life, a noted Historian David K. Bernard writes as follows:

“Theologians appealed to Paul’s advocacy of the single life in I Corinthians 7. While Paul noted that a single person such as he could serve God with fewer distractions, he made CLEAR THAT THIS WAS HIS PERSONAL OPINION and NOT A COMMANDMENT FROM THE LORD.” (A History of Christian Doctrine, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bernard, David K., 1956)

In all above instances it could be observed that verses (adduced above) were not revealed or inspired. They were all Paul’s personal words which he himself concurred. Albeit, they might fit the four bills of 2 Timothy 4:13 yet they were/are, at best, Paul’s personal words. So the question still lingers, how are they in the Bible then? (For a more detailed analysis on this topic investigating prophet hood of Paul please refer to “PAUL: CAN HE BE A TRUE PROPHET OF GOD” in the same blog.)

ESCAPE ROUTE AND CONCLUSION:

To reconcile and to answer the 5 queries we made Christians have a way out. We would not leave out our Christian brethren in the lurch. They can reconcile the above rigmarole by conceding that Bible is the Word of God except 2 Timothy 4:13, 1 Corinthians 7:25, 2 Corinthians 8:8.

With all said, under the light of the above biblical verses and arguments one can only conclude everything [2](at least) in the Bible is not the literal “Word of God”. Many in it are mere words of mortals which for some unknown reasons are accepted to be inspired “Word of God”. While committing this mistake, people neglect what God – Almighty already informed:

“

Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: “This is from Allah

” to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby.” (The Holy Quran 2:79)

[Side remark: In this case Paul gained his Coat. ]
Note: All emphasis, wherever found, is ours. Quranic citations taken from Yusuf Ali’s translation of the Glorious Quran.
[1] It is my acumen to work on the authorship of different biblical books. This would, inshallah, further elicit the status of biblical authority of being “Word of God”. It would also test Bible’s preservation.
[2] I do not believe Bible to be the literal word of God.

By:- Question Mark

OT, NT AND MUSLIMS

“Comment: I think you are mistaken in rejecting the Old and New Testament completely.”

This is commonly misunderstood notion. Christians led by their apologists think that OT and NT are the revelations which Qur’an and Islam talks about. But this is not the case. If I get to Judeo Christian Bible specifically then Quran talks about “Tawraat”- revelation to Moses, peace be upon him, “Zaboor”- revelation given to David, peace be upon him and of course, “Injeel” the revelation given to PROHET Jesus, peace be upon him. Now does Tawraat, Zaboor and Injeel sound like Old and New Testament, let alone the ‘apocryphals’in the “Word of God”. I leave the Christians to decide it’s status in the so called Bible. As I already wrote that the status of OT and NT is gravely misunderstood notion amongst Christians. So let us try to understand the status of “earlier scriptures” in the hands of the “People of the Book”.

In Islam, Muslims are given a very clear cut stand with regard to Earlier Revelations. Muslims are required to take a neutral stand. They should not approve nor disprove any of the materials touted to be “Earlier Revelations” by the Jews and the Christians, as the prophet, peace be upon said:

Narrated Abu Huraira

The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah in Hebrew and they used to explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. On that Allah’s Apostle said, “Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them, but say: “We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us.” (2.136) (Hadith number 6.12, Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith, The Alim CD version)

One might be interested into thinking why did the prophet, peace be upon him, mandated Muslims to take a neutral position. According to my reasoning, prophet, peace be upon him, did not wanted Muslims to down play any of the earlier verses(in ignorance)which might have remained extant, if not verbatim, then, at least in spirit; as Muslims, however, we ought to respect such injunctions of the ‘Torah’.

For instance, let us ponder into the injunction of “Adultery”. The punishment for adulterers prescribed in the Torah was “stoning to death” which remained extant in the Torah of the contemporary Jews of the time of Mohammad, peace be upon him. Again if not verbatim then at least in spirit. Here is what I am talking about:

Narrated Ikrimah
The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said to Ibn Suriya’: I remind you by Allah Who saved you from the people of Pharaoh, made you cover the sea, gave you the shade of clouds, sent down to you manna and quails, sent down you Torah to Moses, do you find stoning (for adultery) in your Book? He said: You have reminded me by the Great. It is Not possible for me to belie you. He then transmitted the rest of the tradition. (Sunan of Abu-Dawood, Hadith number 1617)

No wonder we find verses in Qur’an appealing to “Torah” (of the contemporary Jews of Mohammad, peace be upon him) for injunction of “adultery”, specifically.

It should be made clear here that whatever Qur’an informs Muslims about the issues and decrees present in earlier revelations if they seem compatible in the “Earlier Revelations” in hands of their owners, at least in spirit, then we ought to respect them. Like as I already tried to explain that the injunction of “stoning to death” of adulterers. But here also let me put my words or warning that even though these verses seem to be compatible with earlier scriptures yet we cannot take them to be literal “Word of God” for the simple reason that we have no authority or command to do so.

Remember what prophet, peace be upon him, taught his community; he taught us to be neutral, in so many other words he did not allow his community to accept them to be the literal word of God even if they happen to be compatible with Qur’an.

It is not my intention to make this a very stodgy lengthy article there I would like to quote you just a couple more citations from Islamic resources to explain my point of view.

The truth is that Jesus, peace be upon him, is a mighty prophet of Allah. A man chosen and approved by Allah to discharge his ministry:

“O people of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him…” (Yusuf Ali’s translation of Qur’an 4:171, Al-Alim CD-Version)

Quite obviously we find a very similar verse in Bible. Acts 2:22, it reads:

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs which God did through Him in our midst, as you yourselves also know-…” (The Open Bible, NKJV)

Here we realize that the status of Jesus, peace be upon him, put forth by Qur’an and Bible and almost identical. So, I can safely assume that this verse of Bible (Acts 2:22) is genuine in its message and in spirit. Nevertheless I cannot take it to be a revealed verse from God. Because Allah does not inform me so neither do Mohammad, peace be upon him.

Another interesting point needs to be addressed right here. As I have already stated that we believe in the revelations reveled to prophets – prophets which Qur’an and Hadith (authentic) acknowledges as prophets. Now, majority of the Books of New Testament (Injeel: of course a MISNOMER)are written by persons other than Jesus, as a matter of fact, we find only a few “red letters” littered here and there in the New Testament. Thus a Muslim will confidently reject the words of non – Jesus’s (let alone the fact that we even doubt the so called “Red Letters” of the New Testament)as not part of revelations of the original Injeel WHICH WAS REVELED TO JESUS NOT TO ANYBODY ELSE, Matthew, John, Paul, for instance.

WHAT ABOUT THE MUSLIM SCHOLARS THEN?

“Even though Muslim scholars argue that the Bible has been corrupted, they seem pretty consistent in saying that at least some verses from the previous Scriptures remain. For example, Deuteronomy 18 is widely believed to be a prophecy of Muhammad. So are other verses here and there.”

I cannot charge you of distortion of Ali’s words for I have not heard much from you. But, may be out of sincere ignorance, you have misunderstood the stance of Muslim Scholars when they appeal to any of Biblical verse. What Muslim scholars mean by saying that “fragments of it survive (QM: etc)” is that even after the long distortions of original revelations traces of truth can be found in these Books. This does not necessarily prove that these verses (to which Muslim Scholars appeal) to be preserved in the exact manner as it was revealed to prophets even in “fragments” or that they are revealed verses altogether. When appealing to verses such as Deuteronomy 18:18 Muslims only exploit these traces of truth to prove their case. This does not necessarily prove that these bits and fragments of verses here and there in the Bible are preserved in the exact manner as was revealed to prophets. Even after this if any scholar states that these are EXACT verses which were revealed to prophets (which no sane scholar says, by the way) then he is, for me, transgressing bounds. As Mohammad, peace be upon him instructed Muslims otherwise that is to be “neutral”. These scholars have no authority to back themselves up (of course IF they mention then).

“Here is something Yusuf Ali said regarding Deuteronomy 18:

“In the Old Testament AS IT NOW EXISTS, Muhammad is foretold in Deut. xviii; and the rise of the Arab nation in Isaiah 42:11, for Kedar was a son of Ismail and the name is used for the Arab nation….”

Of course Ali did not believe the original Scriptures were preserved in their completeness, but his view that certain passages remained from earlier revelations is a standard view among Muslim scholars and teachers.”

I am sorry but here is Ali’s complete statement regarding Taurat:

“The Taurat is frequently referred to in the Qur’an. It is well to have clear ideas as to what it EXACTLY MEANS…To translate it by the words “The Old Testament” is obviously WRONG”. (The Holy Qur’an. Pp 329)

Here Yusuf Ali categorically REJECTS Old Testament to be The “Tauraat” originally revealed to Moses. (Side remark: Muslims believe Taurat to be revealed to Moses ONLY. Jews and Christians (mis)translate “Taurat” to Old Testament which also contains alleged revelations to Jonah, David etc!). So, when Ali wrote “AS IT NOW EXISTS”, he did not mean that the present day Deuteronomy 18:18 is a replica of the verse pertaining to Mohammad revealed to Moses, peace be upon both. What he meant when writing “AS IT NOW EXISTS” was that even in today’s (corrupted and distorted) Book touted to be “Word of God” we have verses pertaining to prophecy of Mohammad, peace be upon him, which even the original revelation had.

“To give just one more example from Ali, here is what he said about the Gospel:

“It is the single Gospel which, Islam teavhes, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. FRAGMENTS OF IT SURVIVE in the receied canonical Gospels and in some others, of which traces survive….””

I may be mistaken, but I feel that I have answered this point in the above passage. Anyway I would only cite you an example to explain what I have to say. The famous “Campus CRUSADER” Josh Mc Dowell quoted the abusive book commonly honored by Jews and called as THE TALMUD! He wanted to prove the historical existence of Jesus, peace be upon him. Now,I cannot even suspect Josh Mc Dowell to believe in Talmud for having appealed to it.

I would like to end with an honored reference to Christians found in Qur’an:

“Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say: “We are Christians:” because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world and they are not arrogant.” (Qur’an, 5:82, Yusuf Ali Translation, Al-Alim CD-Version)

All emphasis wherever found are mine.
I am only a human being liable to err. Criticisms welcomed.
By:- Question Mark

Prelude to this paper:

I recently received comments on my paper entitled “Who is Kalki- Avtaar?” The comments came from the members of www.narayanaconsciousness.net. In one of their comment they offered me seven propositions (actually six because the last one was an invitation to visit their website) seeking “Valid Explanations” to them. Therefore, By the Grace and Will of Allah I tender the answers to all their enquiries. Another noteworthy point is that they have not touched to any of my arguments made in “Who is Kalki – Avtaar?” yet they leaped to propose me seven propositions.

Note: I have personally not researched this group and their website. So, I cannot write much about them at this instant. In due course of time I may have to study them.

So here are the 7 arguments they commented:

(1)The Holy Koran says umpteen number of times that Allah is able to do all things. Why then do you doubt that he cannot and does not come in human form?

(1) In the first place, I doubt whether Allah will/can do all things. Nowhere, does the Quran says that Allah will do everything. The complete and correct understanding to all such related verses is that ALLAH CAN DO ALL THINGS WHICH HE OPTS FOR or ALLAH CAN DO ALL THINGS WHICH HE LIKES TO etc. He would not opt to do anything which is against his majesty or which will seize His divinity. I can give you list of things which Allah CANNOT do, for instance, He cannot be unjust, liar etc. According to your argument I may say (like a lawyer) “Hey! Allah is able to do all things then why can’t He lie, why can’t He be unjust to a party. After all He is an OMNIPOTENT GOD, isn’t He?” Think on this.

(2) Prophet Mohamad (pbuh) went on a journey to heaven on ‘burakah’ and saw Allah seated on a throne through the veils that surrounded him. He found a prayer which is now recited as ‘Khanjil-Arsh’ written on the throne of Allah. Do you deny this?

What is the point of the argument here? If your argument is that Mohammad, peace be upon him, saw Allah sitting on the Throne in a Human form. And secondly, your inquiring me whether I “deny it” or not. Then, yes, I do deny it. Because Mohammad, peace be upon him, has NEVER seen Allah ever in his life keep aside seeing Allah in human form (God forbid). As a matter of fact no(Human being) one has ever seen Almighty God, “NO VISION CAN GRASP HIM but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension yet is acquainted with all things.” (Holy Quran 6:103) Furthermore, mother Ayesha was very stringent on this particular issue, for, according to her honor a person claiming that Mohammad, peace be upon him, has seen Allah is a LIAR:

Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.378:
Narrated Masruq:
I said to `Aisha, “O Mother! Did Prophet Muhammad SEE his Lord?” Aisha said, “What you have said makes my hair stand onend ! Know that if somebody tells you one of the following three things, he is a liar: WHOEVER TELLS YOU THAT MUHAMMAD SAW HIS LORD, is a LIAR.” Then Aisha recited the Verse: ‘No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. He is the Most Courteous Well−Acquainted with all things.’ (6.103)

(3) Your quotes from Hindu Scriptures seem erudite, but they are not a thorough study. There are many other prophecies which ‘Kalki Avatar’ must fulfill. He must be a person who had gone to Simhala Dweepa (Ceylon) and come back from there to India with children. He must have had his abode on the outskirts of River Tamaraparanee. There are many other prophecies which he must fulfill. Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) did not fulfill the prophecies which are mentioned above. These prophecies are mentioned in Kalki-Puranam and Srimad Bhagawatham.

Yes there is a prophecy in scriptures that Kalki would be born in Sambhala. And that is where Muhammad was born, peace be upon him. Sambhala means a place of serenity, peace and security. Now, Mohammad, peace be upon him was born in Makkah, which is also called Dar – ul – Aman which, astonishingly, also means a place of serenity and peace.

(4) The Hindu Scriptures nowhere say that God cannot come in human form. Please don’t quote the words of any religious leader if their thoughts are not in consonance with the revealed scriptures of all religions. They may be sincerely mistaken. The Geetha which is acclaimed to be the essence of the Vedas and which is also called as the fifth veda says that God does come in human form. Refer Geetha Ch 9:11 and 4:7-8.I would like to draw attention to a couple of points you made in your argument number (4).

• I should quote from scriptures and not from any “religious leader” because, as you fairly reasoned that their thoughts may not be in “consonance with the revealed scriptures.” So let me assure you that I would ONLY quote from ‘revealed scriptures’. I could then expect you to concord with those ‘revealed scriptures’.

• Secondly, you implied the authority of Vedas, for, you wrote, “The Geetha which is acclaimed to be the essence of the VEDAS and which is also called as the FIFTH VEDA”. So, I would try to quote Vedas for you where ever possible.

At a number of Places in authoritative Hindu Scriptures it has been implied that GOD ALMIGHTY CANNOT CONDESCEND TO HUMAN FORM. This fact can be easily deduced from Hindu scriptures if read in conjunction with myriads of verses dispersed in various Hindu scriptures. I will touch a few of them to prove my case.
It is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishad, Adhyaya(Chapter) 4, Shloka(Verse) 19,
“Na tasya pratima asti” “There is no likeness of him”.
“nainam urdhvam na tiryancam na madhye na parijagrabhat na tasya pratima asti yasya nama mahad yasah”
“There is no likeness of him whose name is great glory”.
(The principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 736 & 737 and in sacred books of the east Volume 15, the Upanishad, part II, page 253)

I may safely deduce that God cannot incarnate because if He does then He would walk earth with millions of “LIKENESS” around Him. Millions with same pair of eyes, ears etc.

As the Quran also rightly describes this attribute of Allah:

“There is nothing whatever like unto Him” (Holy Quran 42:11)

Furthermore, contrary to the notion of God (descending) in Human form the Upanishads proclaim that those who “know” him formless (i.e. through Heart and Mind) are successful. Exactly, as the Muslims believe in Him. As we read:

In Svetasvatara Upanishad, Adhyaya(Chapter) 4, Shloka(Verse) 20:
“na samdrse tishati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam”
“HIS FORM CANNOT BE SEEN, NO ONE SEES HIM WITH THE EYE”

“nasamdrse tishati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam. Hrda hrdistham manasa ya enam, evam vidur amrtas te bhavanti”

“His form is not to be seen; no one sees him with the eye. Those who through heart and mind know him as abiding in the heart become immortal”.(The principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 737 & in sacred books of the east Volume 15, the Upanishad part II, page 253)

Note carefully that God Almighty CANNOT be seen with Eye. A point to ponder here is if God came to earth in Human form then He ought to be perceived through Human Eyes. Nevertheless, the scriptures make it clear that one cannot see Him through Human eyes. That means He did not and cannot (con) descend to earth corporeal.

A step further I sincerely fail to fathom how Hindus who appeal so much to Bhagwat Gita 4:7-8 discount Yajurveda 40:8 with equal fervor.

[Side remark:- For one more fact, Hindu scholars rate the Vedas under “Shruti” classification of Hindu Canon, however, Bhagwat Gita is classified under “Smriti”. Now, the “Shrutis” are considered to be revealed scriptures from God and the “Smritis” are writings of scholars NOT A REVELATION FROM GOD. “Smritis” are not considered to be of divine origin as with “Shrutis”. Subsequently, the “Shrutis” hold a degree higher in authority over the “Smritis”. And the Vedas is a part of “Shruti” canon. On the flip, we all know that Bhagwath Gita was penned by Maharishi Vyaas].

Now here is what “revealed” word of God has to say:

“He hath attained unto the bright, BODILESS, woundless, sinewless, the pure which evil hath not pierced. Far-sighted wise, encompassing, he self existent hath prescribed aims as propriety demands unto the everlasting years”
(Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph I.H. Griffith page 538)

(5) The words of Surah Iklaas has confounded many muslims. This Surah describes the Absolute Aspect of Allah. But Allah also has a relative level which he assumes to communicate with human beings. The ‘Miharaj’ flight of Nabi and what he saw is known to all muslims. Was Nabi telling a lie when he says that he saw Allah seated on a throne?

I can read at least two serious allegations on Islam and Muslims (may be in sincere ignorance).
Firstly, I would like to learn from you how “the words of Surah Iklaas has confounded many muslims”.
Secondly, Nabi Mohammad, peace be upon him, was not lying about “Meraj”. But it is the people who claim that Mohammad ,peace be upon him, saw Allah are LIARS:

Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.378:
Narrated Masruq:
I said to `Aisha, “O Mother! Did Prophet Muhammad SEE his Lord?” Aisha said, “What you have said makes my hair stand on end! Know that if somebody tells you one of the following three things, he is a liar: WHOEVER TELLS YOU THAT MUHAMMAD SAW HIS LORD, is a LIAR.” Then Aisha recited the Verse: ‘No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. He is the Most Courteous Well−Acquainted with all things.’ (6.103)

(6) The Koran categorically says that none is worthy of worship except Allah. This is perfectly true. We accept this. But does not the same Koran say that Allah asked the Angels to worship Adam? Because Iblis demurred through pride was he not banished from Allah’s presence? What is the explanation? If no one should be worshipped except Allah, why was Adam worshipped by the Angels. This seems to go against the theory of One God. Can you offer a valid explanation.

Let me begin with a benevolent thanks to your acceptance, for you wrote, “The Koran categorically says that none is worthy of worship except Allah. This is perfectly true. We accept this.” After avowing this True monotheistic concept you again retarded to Polytheism when you tried to reason that Angels were mandated to WORSHIP Adam, peace be upon him; proving that there are more than One who are worthy of worship, for instance, Allah and Adam in this case! So, it would be only fair for you to reconsider “Categorical Koranic Monotheism” when I would prove you, inshallah, that Allah never asked Angels to worship Adam, peace be upon him. Let me remind you once again that you accept the truthfulness of Koranic monotheism i.e. none is worthy of worship except Allah, nevertheless, you have reservations for Adam was WORSHIPPED by Angels under the command of Allah. That was what you wrote. So kindly reconsider your faith if my explanation helps you in it.

VALID EXPLANATION:

The problem with majority of non-muslims is that when they try to understand Islam they seek materials, books etc written by orientalists or critics or Islamophoboes or Hate mongers. I cannot understand why sincere seekers like you cannot find books written by Muslim scholars, or Qur’an translated by Muslim Scholars. ONE SHOULD TRY TO LEARN ISLAM FROM MUSLIMS (Scholars) NOT FROM ORIENTALISTS. Because there is not a translation on Earth by any Muslim Scholar who has translated Qur’anic verse to mean that Allah ordained Angels to worship Adam, peace be upon him. ADAM WAS NEVER WORSHIPPED BY ANY ANGEL! Here are a few MUSLIM translations. Pay care whether Allah ordains Angels to worship Adam or otherwise:

Qur’an 2:34
YUSUF ALI:And behold We said to the angels: “Bow down to Adam”; and they bowed down not so Iblis he refused and was haughty he was of those who reject Faith.

ASAD: And when We told angels, “Prostrate yourselves before Adam!” – they all prostrated themselves, save Iblis, who refused and gloried in his arrogance: and thus he became one of those who deny the truth.

As is evident from the above quotations that Allah never decreed worship of Adam on Angels. He ordered His angels to BOW or PROSTRATE to Adam. There was/is a difference between BOWing and WORSHIPPING. This BOWING of angels to Adam was bowing to show respect – respect to Allah’s best creation – The Humans – whose Father happens to be Adam, peace be upon him – The first Human. Once again the bowing commanded to angels was a bowing to show respect not worship. As Malik rightly writes in his commentary:

When We ordered the angels: “Prostrate before Adam IN RESPECT, “they all prostrated except Iblees(Shaitan) who refused in his arrogance and became a disbeliever.
If you are contemplating to respond that is not bowing and prostration postures of worship in Islam, then, I would say yes. BUT, they became postures of worship only in the ministry of Mohammad, peace be upon him. During the ministry of earlier prophets prostration was considered to be a part of showing respect. For instance, Jacob (Yaqob), peace be upon him, prostrated to his son Joseph (Yusuf), peace be upon him along with his (other) sons:
“And he raised his parents high on the throne (of dignity) AND THEY FELL DOWN IN PROSTRATION (all) before him…” (Holy Qur’an 12:100)

Yusuf Ali writes in his commentary that this prostration offered by Jacob, peace be upon him, to Joseph, peace be upon him was a token of respect NOT worship:
“Certainly metaphorically: probably also literally…To show his high respect for his parents, Joseph made them sit on a throne of dignity. On the other hand, his parents and his brothers, all performed the ceremony of prostration before Joseph in recognition of his supreme rank in Egypt under the Pharaoh…The ceremony of prostration of paying respect might have been allowed at the time of previous prophets, but with the advent of the complete and final revelation prostration before anyone other than Allah is a grave sin strictly prohibited.”

(7) Please kindly visit the web-site: http://www.narayanaconsciousness.net and go to the section that deals with Scriptural Proofs regarding Kalki Avatar. You will be greatly edified.
Thanks for your comment and wish sincerely that you find out the whole truth before it is too late. The Kyamat is coming soon.

Well yes Qayamat is near and therefore I have, for you, the best admonition I could find. Hope you pay heed to it.

DIRE WARNING:

Say: “Who is it that sustains you (in life) from the sky and from the earth? Or who is it that has power over hearing and sight? And who is it that brings out the living from the dead and the dead from the living? And who is it that rules and regulates all affairs?” They will soon say “Allah.” Say “Will ye not then show piety (to Him)?”

Such is Allah your real Cherisher and Sustainer: apart from Truth what (remains) but error? How then are ye turned
away?

Thus is the Word of thy Lord proved true against those who rebel: verily they will not believe.

Say: “Of your `partners’ can any originate creation and repeat it?” Say: “It is Allah Who originates Creation and
repeats it: then how are ye deluded away (from the truth)?”

Say: “Of your `partners’ is there any that can give any guidance towards Truth?” Say: “It is Allah Who gives
guidance towards Truth. Is then He Who gives guidance to Truth more worthy to be followed or he who finds not
guidance (himself) unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you? How judge ye?”

But most of them follow nothing but fancy: truly fancy can be of no avail against Truth. Verily Allah is well aware of all that they do. (Holy Qur’an 10:31-36)

AND

Behold! verily to Allah belong all creatures in the heavens and on earth. What do they follow who worship as His
“partners” other than Allah? They follow nothing but fancy and they do nothing but lie. (Holy Qur’an 10:66)

Emphasis wherever found is mine.
Through this paper I seek Allah to increase my knowledge and make me brave.

By: Question Mark

TRUE SHAHADA INDEED

PURPOSE:
This paper will serve (Inshallah) as an utter debunk to the lies, misconceptions, misunderstandings and outright abuses which Anthony Roger tried to knit at: (http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/true_shahada.html). I would discourage readers to read his article rigged with mordant remarks and filthy invectives on Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him.

PRELUDE:
His paper specifically tries to establish deity of Jesus, peace be upon him, through:
(i) A comparative study of John 17:3 with Islamic shahada
(ii) Flimsy attempts to refute Muslim arguments on John 17:3 through:
(a) “The conjoining of Father and Son”
(b) “Father and Son are Coordinate sources of Eternal life”
(c) “Contextually Relevant Considerations”In the few passages to follow any unbiased reader would, Inshallah, witness truth. So, unbiased, I leave it at your objective perusal.

OUR STAND:
In the house of Islam there are no clouds of conjectures and doubts hovering above the head of this mighty “Son of Man” named Jesus, peace be upon him. For we read in Quran:
“…Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) An apostle of God…” (THE HOLY QURAN 4:171)

AND
“The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”: And he was.” (THE HOLY QURAN 3:59)
But the Christolator says, NO – “Jesus is God” discrediting the Last Testament. So, we show to them from their so called ‘Word of God’. (Reader would soon read my upcoming article proving logically that Bible, as a whole cannot be an inspired word of God)

LEFT OVER PROOF TEXT:

At this point of time let me make it absolutely clear that when I witness Biblical verses to Christians I do so because they mistake it to be the Word of God. I do not. I do not consider Biblical verses, I use, to be any type of “Left over Islamic proof text.” As Anthony wrote:
“…many Muslims believe that John 17:3 is a left over Islamic proof-text found in otherwise corrupted book.” (Emphasis mine)
Our proof text is Quran – Quran is our “Alpha and Omega”; the final authority. We only use Biblical verse because it helps us extricate millions of Christians carrying heavy yokes of associating partners to God – Almighty; POLYTHEISM.

WHAT IS IN THE BOX:
“And eternal life means knowing you, the only true God, and knowing Jesus Christ, whom you sent.” (HOLY BIBLE, JOHN 17:3, TEV)
Roger writes in his paper that Muslims use the aforementioned verse to prove two points:
“1) a Unitarian – Islamic version of monotheism.., The first claim is immediately undermined by the fact that the one whom Jesus calls “the only true God” is the Father (John 17:1-2)”
The Refutation:
To begin with, Muslims do not try to prove “Unitarian – Islamic version of monotheism”. They but strive to prove “Tawheed”. There is a difference of chalk and cheese between the two. The difference between these two concepts are beyond the scope of this refutation.
Then, this witty fabrication of a misconception to score cheap points over Muslims can be debunked by the fact that Muslims do not abhor the word “Father” per say given the knowledge of Jewish parlance and vernacular, that is, the way the Israelites used the word “Father.” Consider these verses for instance:

“Do you thus deal with the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not your Father, who bought you?” (THE OPEN BIBLE, DEUTERONOMY 32:6, NKJV). Emphasis mine.
“Doubtless You are out Father,..” (THE OPEN BIBLE, ISAIAH 63:16, NKJV). Emphasis mine.
“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?”(THE OPEN BIBLE, MALACHI 2:10, NKJV). Emphasis mine.

Conclusively then, the Jews never used the word “Father” with its literal import whenever referring to God. It was just a part of their living language that for some out of other reason they preferred calling God as “Father”. In this sense Muslims have no problems at all with the word – “Father”. However what a Muslim seriously repels is the LITERAL understanding and usage of this blasphemous word “Father” when used for ALLAH (John 3:16 abuses ALLAH with the same. Kindly read John 3:16 in conjunction with Quran 19:88). This kind of rendering is anathematized in Islam and we will continue to eschew it.
Furthermore, because many may not be acquainted with Jewish colloquism added with the problem of variations of connotations of words with generations; Muslims play safe not to use the word “Father” to refer to ALLAH. Anyway, it does not make sense for a Muslim to use a vulnerable word when 099 attributive names are readily available in Quran. Let us take an example to close this argument. Now – a – days people generally call Nature as “Mother Nature”. Now if, somebody, Anthony Roger in particular, starts to understand it literally (!) then, I think, he should immediately consult a psychologist.

He wrote that Muslims use John 17:3 to:
“and 2) a denial of the deity of Christ.” He argued in this fashion to defend deity of Christ:
“As for the second claim, that Jesus is not God, it rests on a logical fallacy. The reasoning goes something like this: The Father is the only true God, Jesus is not the Father; therefore, Jesus is not God. When stated more formally, the argument takes the following form : A is B; C is not A; therefore, C is not B.
Even someone untrained in logic should be able to immediately see that this is fallacious. It is no different than arguing the following: Plato (A) is mortal (B); Socrates(C) is not Plato (A); therefore, Socrates(C) is not mortal (B). Both argument – the one against Christ’s deity and the one against Socrates mortality – take the same form; hence, both are fallacious.”. (Emphasis mine.)
The Refutation:

What the ‘trained Logician’ did was he used another construction of PLATO (A), MORTAL(B) AND SOCRATES (C) to logically break the construction and interpretation of FATHER (A), ONLY TRUE GOD(B), JESUS(C) as used in John 17:3. A meticulous perusal of the 2 constructions will undoubtedly establish that the 2 constructions does not “take the same form”. The first argument was mischievously tailored to look “no different” than the second.

Where is the catch:

Let us arrange the above constructions one after the other:
“As for the second claim, that Jesus is not God, it rests on a logical fallacy. The reasoning goes something like this: The Father is the only true God, Jesus is not the Father; therefore, Jesus is not God. When stated more formally, the argument takes the following form : A is B; C is not A; therefore, C is not B.”
So, we have:
A(1) = The Father
B(1) = Only True God
C(1) = Jesus
AND:
“It is no different than arguing the following: Plato (A) is mortal (B); Socrates(C) is not Plato (A); therefore, Socrates(C) is not mortal (B).”
So, here we have:
A(2) = Plato
B(2) = Mortal
C(2) = Socrates

So, were you alert enough while reading the above 2 breakups and constructions, if not, then re – read breakup numbered B(1) and B(2). When once adjective “ONLY” was used in B(1) (as used in John 17:3); logic and sincerity then demanded Anthony Roger to be consistent with it in B(2). But the insincere Logician was inconsistent for he is a sincere Christolator.
Then, a ‘sincere’ Construction will be:
A(2) = Plato
B(2) = Only Mortal
C(2) = Socrates
In a sentence, subsequently, it would read:
“Plato(A(2)) is ONLY Mortal(B(2)); Socrates (C(2)) is not Plato(A(2)); therefore, Socrates is not Mortal(B(2).
Well now, the argument and logic of Plato and Socrates is holding good; if Plato is ONLY Mortal then Socrates cannot be Mortal. On the same lines if Father is ONLY true God then Jesus, peace be upon him, cannot be God – Almighty. Therefore, stop the blasphemy right here right now.

Roger admitted that Jesus is not God – Almighty:

Next, he wrote that Muslim claim on John 17:3 would have held if the text would have read that only the Father is God. Here are his own confessions:
““Things would be different if the text said “only Father is God”, or “the Father alone is the only true God”, but it does not.”
Ironically, Anthony Roger has himself admitted that the only true God is Father (!). To prove it, all I would do is to re – produce for you his own words:
““…. The first claim is immediately undermined by the fact that the one whom Jesus calls “the only true God” is the Father (John 17:1-2)”

What say? Who is the ONLY TRUE GOD?, according to Bible, Muslim exegesis AND Anthony Roger’s own words – The Only True God is Father.

Now, that it has been established that the Only True God is Father and consequently Jesus, peace be upon him, is not God; I need not write a word any more to his childish ‘article’.
Nevertheless, let me further clean his misconceptions so that he may be extricated from the mire or “Shirk” – associating god to God – Almighty.
To prove the deity of Jesus, peace be upon him, he wrote under various sub – headings (I would deal with each of them, Inshallah). First of them were :
1. “The Conjoining of Father and Son”: Inside this sub – heading he adduced 2 Biblical verses to establish the impossible, namely, the divinity of Christ, peace be upon him. First of the 2 was:

A. “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:23)”

The Refutation:
Well, there can be at least two fold refutations. They are as follows:-
A1. Biblical context of 1 John 2:23.
Kindly read the verse preceding 1 John 2:23, i.e., verse 22, to know that anybody denying the “Messiah ship” of Jesus, peace be upon him is to be considered as an enemy of Messiah (Christ), peace be upon him, “Who, then is the liar? It is anyone who says that Jesus is not the Messiah. Such a person is the enemy of Christ – he rejects both the Father and Son.”(TEV) Various points needs to be immediately noted here. Firstly, denying Messiah ship of Son is the rejection of Father. Secondly, why is the denial of Messiah ship of Son tantamount to gainsaying Father! Why? It is because it was God’s (Father) eternal plan to crown Jesus, peace be upon him, with the exclusive title of Messiah and to send him in the world. Remember Messiah (Jesus), peace be upon him, was send in this world by Father
“… I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent me” (John 5:30, NKJV)(Emphasis Added)
And again,
“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, “Now God’s salvation has come! Now God has shown his power as King! Now his Messiah has shown his authority!” (REVELATION 12:10)(Emphasis Mine)
Conclusively denying Jesus, peace be upon him, got to be denial of Father who dispatched Jesus, peace be upon him, on this earth. OR, if this is not the explanation for the combined denial of Father and Son, then, you would have to agree with me that Father was also Messiah!
B1. The Conjoining of Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him.
As we have just seen how ignorantly and misconceptually Anthony Roger had tried to conjoin Father and Son using 1 John 2:23 out of context. Similarly, I may ignorantly conjoin Allah and Mohammad, peace be upon him, there by deifying Mohammad, peace be upon him. Let me (mis) use, The Holy Quran 4:80, which states:
“He who obey The Apostle, obeys God” (Emphasis Mine)
And,
“The desert Arabs say, “We believe.” Say, “Ye have no faith; but ye(only) say, ‘We have submitted Out wills to God, For not yet has Faith entered your hearts.’ But if ye obey God and His Apostle…” (The Holy Quran 49:14)(Emphasis Mine)
Now read this, have your ever heard a Muslim using the aforementioned Quranic verses to conjoin Mohammad, peace be upon him, and Allah. Obeying Apostle is obeying Allah not because Apostle is Allah but because the Apostle does nothing but what is commissioned to him by God – Almighty, similarly, rejecting Son is in effect rejecting Father because the Son, also, does not seek his will but the will of his Father who send him. Make sense?
He provided yet another Biblical verse to prove the deity of Christ , peace be upon him, under the same sub – heading, “The Conjoining of Father and Son”.
““…even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”(John 5:23)”
There can again be atleast 2 easy refutation for this gibberish argument, which are as follows:-
A2. ‘G’od was send by God: If read carefully then the author of John 5:23 conceded to end of verse with “…Father who sent Him.” So, Jesus, peace be upon him, was an ambassador, a chosen man. So, by disgracing Jesus – the sent man one would be discrediting the one who has sent Jesus, namely, Father! It does not prove that Father and Son are the same; but it does prove the contrary that Father and Son are not the same. Let me explain with one practicle day to day example. Suppose, George Bush (who does not know him!) has sent Condolezza Rice (now who does not know her) on a delegation to my country. And if suppose my countrymen and / or chieftains dishonor her; then it would certainly be an insult to George Bush himself. OR, agree insanely that Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice are one and the same. Will you dare to “conjoin” Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice!
B2. In this version of refutation let us read verse 22 along with verse 23:
“For the Father judges no one but has committed all judgement to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (JOHN 5:22-23, NKJV)
To paraphrase the above 2 verses, it says:
God has authorized (does someone “co-equal” needs an authorization!?!) or has commissioned Jesus, peace be upon him, with all judgments so that people may respect him for his lofty judgments – the judgments which he ultimately receives from God – Almighty. THEN, verse 23 comes and states that dishonoring Jesus, peace be upon him, is in turn dishonoring Father; Does this prove to be equal to God? Certainly, not in the remotest sense of it. But it does elicit the impotency of Jesus, peace be upon him, to take divine judgments.
Next to come in the support of Christ’s, peace be upon him, divinity was sub – heading No. 2, namely, Father and Son are coordinate Sources of Eternal life.
2. Father and Son are Coordinate Sources of Eternal Life

He wrote:
“The fact that eternal life consists in a saving knowledge of both the Father and the Son, not one without the other, also bespeaks the closest possible relation between them.”

My Explanation:
Muslims agree that there can be no salvation without Jesus, peace be upon him. One will have to recognize Jesus as well as other prophets along with him to achieve salvation; as is written in the Word of God:

“To those who believe in God and His Apostles and make no distinction between any of the apostles, We shall soon give their (due) rewards…”(The holy Quran 4:152)(Emphasis Mine)

“And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias All in the ranks of righteous.” (The Holy Quran 6:85)
Furthermore, if we analyze Quran then we would learn that there can be no salvation without Mohammad, peace be upon him. Similarly a denial of Mohammad, peace be upon him, would be headlong acceptance of hell-fire. Consider a couple of verse:

“Those are limits set by God: those who obey God and His Apostle will be admitted to Gardens with rivers flowing beneath, To abide therein (forever)And that will be the Supreme achievement. But those who disobey God and His Apostle And transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment.” (The Holy Quran 4:13-14)

Now, the pith of the argument is, Can I deify Mohammad, peace be upon him, just there is salvation is accepting him, peace be upon him, and doom in rejection? Can I, horrendously write a passage appelling “Allah and Mohammad are Coordinate Sources of Eternal Life!” Understand the status of each of these 2 ‘sources of eternal life ‘ and recognize the capacity in which they can provide you “Eternal Life”.

He named his last argument to prove the deity of Christ, peace be upon him, as:

3. Contextually Relevant Considerations

In the very first he wrote:
“Although the Muslim creed does not have a context to safeguard it from misinterpretation, Christ’s statement in John 17:3 is a part of larger context.”

Ironically, if HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN chapters of Quran does not build a context to natural and innate Shahada (Testification) then nothing does.

Then he argued that in John 17:3, if read in context proves deity of Christ, peace be upon him. So let us study the context of John 17:3.

“Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified You on earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world.”

Anthony Roger’s ‘visionary’ eyes saw three arguments in the “context” of John 17:3(Cited above) to support divinity of Christ, peace be upon him.

[i] Pre-existence:
He wrote, “And the context very clearly teaches that Christ pre-existed his incarnation…but he pre-existed from eternity…”

Easy Refutation:
If pre-existence and presence before the beginning of world is one the criterion to prove divinity then prophet Solomon, peace be upon him, Jeremiah, and prophet Job, peace be upon him were all deities! Consider the following verses:
“The LORD created me first of all, the first of his works, long ago. I was made in the very beginnings, at the first, before the world began.” (HOLY BIBLE, PROVERBS 8:22-23, TEV)
“The LORD said to me, “I chose you before I gave you life, and before you were born I selected you to be a prophet to be nations.” (HOLY BIBLE, JEREMIAH 1:4-5, TEV)
“I am sure you can, because you’re so old and wee there when the world was made!”(HOLY BIBLE, JOB 38:21, TEV)
[ii]Authority:
“He was given authority to wield, words to speak, a work to do, and people to save..”
In the first place, wielding, speaking words (as Jesus, peace be upon him, was speaking), working (as Jesus, peace be upon him, was working) and trying to save people (as Jesus, peace be upon him, was trying) are characteristics or prophets not to be attributed to God.. But even if he insists in proving the deity of Jesus, peace be upon him, through these points then he should pay care, firstly, almost all the Biblical prophets wielded, spoke, worked and tried to save people. Secondly, the fact that Jesus, peace be upon him, was “given authority” so there is nothing special, nothing divine in the exercise of second hand granted authority. It is against the majesty of true God to tarry to receive authority over his own creation; His erroneous creation(Genesis 6:6)-Humans. Or, put in other words, if he had to receive authority to exercise on his creation then that authority is not his own but of a ‘greater’ Power and thus, the receiver (of Authority) cannot be true God. As Jesus says in John 5:30, “I can of my own self do nothing.” Smell the impotency here.

[iii] Same Glory:-
He wrote:
“and in same glory that the Father has.”

To begin with, nowhere in the Biblical verse does it states Jesus having same glory as that of Father. If you do not believe me then re-read the verse he produced:
“…Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”
Kindly realize very carefully that all the verse says is, firstly, the ‘request’ made by Jesus, peace be upon him, (By the way is it befitting for a ‘God’ to make requests!?!) to glorify him together with Father. Now the point to understand is that there can be 2 different levels of glorifications for 2 different ‘persons’ even if glorified at the same time. Secondly, what needs to be understood, is the beseech, request, wail of Jesus, peace be upon him, to return back the previous glorify which he possessed when he was with Father. The glory might still be different. But if at this stage the christolator Anthony Roger is contemplating to refute me then he should turn his face to ROMANS 8: 16-17, 26
“The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs – heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.” (THE OPEN BIBLE, NKJV)(Emphasis mine)
“… we will also share his glory” (HOLY BIBLE, TEV)(Emphasis mine)

Cleaning the filth:

In the last part of this paper I would draw your attention to one of Jesus’s, peace be upon him, teaching (Biblical) which can also be taken as a litmus paper test to filter out false prophets from a true one, he said:

“Be on your guard against false prophets; they come to you looking life sheep on the outside, but inside they are really like wolves. You will know them by what they do. Thorn bushes do not bear grapes, and briars do not bear figs. A healthy tree bears good fruit, but a poor tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, and any tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown in fire. So then, you will know the false prophets by what they do.” (HOLY BIBLE, MATTHEW 7:15-81, TEV)
So, let us put Paul and Mohammad, peace be upon him, to the above test. Let us check how does the “fruits” of each fair the test. On one hand, we have, Anthony Roger, a sincere follower of Paul’s teachings (mind you we are testing Paul’s candidacy for prophet hood) address ALLAH and Mohammad, peace be upon him with most gutter like words, he wrote:
“In the end, Allah turns out to be an idol and Muhammad a worthless prophet,…”
Nonetheless, we have Mohammad, peace be upon him, a veritable prophet, as gentle as dew drops, teach in Quran 6:108 to the world:
“Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite Revile God In their ignorance.” (THE HOLY QURAN)
Conclusively, the difference between Mohammad, peace be upon him, and Paul is glaring to a meticulous eye. Finally, does not Paul fit into the category of false prophet? And should not he be “cut down and thrown in fire.”?

By:- Question Mark

PAUL: CAN HE BE A PROPHET OF GOD?

In this paper we will analyze Paul’s candidacy of prophet hood. The analysis will be simple and based on two Biblical criterions. We would not use any extra Biblical material so that those who (mis) take Bible to be the “Word of God” may not fuss. We would quote from both the Testaments. Then, we will put Paul to the test of both the verses and check whether he qualified for prophet hood or was he, at best, a “self – appointed” apostle.

1.NEW ONE FIRST:
1. JOHN 7:16-18, this is where we find our first argument. We read:
“Jesus answered, “What I teach is not my own teaching, but it comes from God, who sent me. Whoever is willing to do what God wants will know whether what I teach comes from God or whether I speak on my own authority. A person who speaks on his own authority is trying to gain glory for himself. But he who wants glory for the one who sent him is honest, and there is nothing false in him.” (HOLY BIBLE, TEV)(Emphasis mine)

We read in the commentary of Matthew Henry, one of Christianity’s widely read commentaries.

[3.] That hereby it appeared that Christ, as a teacher, did not speak of himself, because he did not seek himself, v. 18. First, See here the character of a deceiver: he seeketh his own glory, which is a sign that he speaks of himself, as the false Christs and false prophets did. Here is the description of the cheat: they speak of themselves,

and have no commission nor instructions from God;

no warrant but their own will, no inspiration but their own imagination, their own policy and artifice.

Ambassadors speak not of themselves;

those ministers disclaim that character who glory in this that they speak of themselves. But see the discovery of the cheat; by this their pretensions are disproved, they consult purely their own glory; self-seekers are self-speakers. Those who speak from God will speak for God, and for his glory; those who aim at their own preferment and interest make it to appear that they had no commission form God. (Emphasis mine)
(Source: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=joh&chapter=007)

Furthermore, we read a similar exegesis in the commentary named as “The Fourfold Gospel”:
7:18 He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory1: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory. Those who bear their own message seek their own glory. Those who bear God’s message seek God’s glory, and such seeking destroys egotism. (Source: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/TheFourfoldGospel/tfg.cgi?book=joh&chapter=007)

Points which need to be highlighted from the above cited verse and commentaries are:-

i. A humble and trustworthy person, let alone a claimant of prophet hood, should not speak on his own authority without any genuine commission or instruction from God-Almighty. But if he does then he is seeking worldly glory and he ought to be false person, let alone prophet. So, to sum up this point, a true prophet should not speak on his own authority

ii. Anybody purporting his own, personal message seeks his own glory. Therefore, a genuine person should not tout his personal message.

iii. On the same corollary, a true prophet of God will wait to receive revelations (if he does not has it on any particular spiritual/ religious matter) rather than passing his own whimsical judgments. Then, if he does so; he could not be a true prophet of God.
For now just hold up these deductions in your mind as we move on to our next biblical verse. After that I would finally apply both the biblical yardsticks to Paul.
2.OLD IS GOLD:

Deuteronomy 18:18-20, builds our second test for Paul’s candidacy for prophet hood. We read:
“I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in his mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. ‘But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak

or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’(THE OPEN BIBLE, NKJV)
Although the deduction from the above cited verse is very plain that the a genuine prophet should not speak any thing(spiritual) from the vicissitudes of his mind but should rather wait for a revelation to be revealed, nevertheless, if he does so then he is an imposter. But my deduction may not carry as much weight as would of any Christian Scholar’s. So let us check what they say about it.

WHAT DO THE CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS DEDUCE:

Christian apologist David Wood comments on the above cited verse. Here are his words for a fair analysis for truth seeking minds:
“”But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.” (Deuteronomy 18:20)

Here we have two criteria for spotting a false prophet: (1) delivering a revelation which God has not “commanded him to speak,”

(Emphasis Mine)
He again repeated the implications of Deuteronomy 18:20, for a second time, but with a different English constructions.

“That is, it seems clear that if a person speaks in the names of false gods or delivers revelations that don’t come from God, the person cannot be a true prophet. (Emphasis Mine)
He (David Wood) again repeated the same inference of Deuteronomy 18:20, however, this time to attack the veracity of Prophet Mohammad’s, peace be upon him, prophet hood. He wrote:
“B1. If a person delivers a revelation that doesn’t come from God, that person is a false prophet. (Emphasis Mine)

B2. Muhammad delivered a revelation that didn’t come from God.
——————————————————
B3. Therefore, Muhammad was a false prophet.”
(Source: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deuteronomy_deductions.htm)
[Side remark: Let me point out here that this paper is not meant to defend David’s attack on Mohammad’s prophet hood, peace be upon him. David Wood has been refuted ad nauseum for his attacks in “Deuteronomy Dissection: Two short, Sound, Simple proofs that Muhammad was God’s prophet” (Refer it in my blog)].The point which needs to be emphasized from the above citation is the basic premise to check any candidates claim of prophet hood. And the premise is again the same; the candidate should not deliver a revelation which does not come from God.

PAUL: FAIR JUDGMENT BE UPON HIM

I hope that by now you have not forgotten the above 2 criterions for recognizing a true prophet from a scum. If you have, then kindly refresh your memory by re-reading above but if you have not forgotten then lets us put Paul into the test of the above criterions.

It is reported of Paul as saying: “I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others.”(The Open Bible: 2 Corinthians 8:8, NKJV)

Here, Paul did not had any specific “command” from Almighty, nevertheless, embarrassingly, he was currying people’s love and respect to him to transmute his personal opinions as spiritual decrees.

FURTHERMORE

“Now, concerning what you wrote about unmarried people: I do not have a command from the Lord, but I give my opinion …” (Holy Bible: 1 Corinthians 7:25, TEV)

“Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment …”(The Open Bible: 1 Corinthians 7:25, NKJV)

It does not require any stodgy exegesis here that Paul was using his own whims; he admittedly, did not had any command from Higher authority, contrary to that, he was presumptuously basing his judgments upon his own personal feelings. Therefore, violating the aforementioned premises that if he (purported candidate) delivers a revelation which does not come from God, such a candidate would be spurious prophet.

POSSIBLE RESPONSES:

The most obvious fuss which a Christian might commit to defend the untenable position of Paul is by saying something like: “Paul was not promulgating any ‘personal’ revelations OR that Paul was not attributing any of his words to God.”OR a Christian may respond with something like, “Paul was sincere to declare that the words are not God’s words but his own.” Under all these circumstances the Christian is basing his flimsy arguments (to defend Paul) obviating the fact that the full Bible is purported to be the “Word of God”. No Christian ever says that the Bible is “Word of God” but 2 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 7:25 which are Pauline, that these verses were not inspired to Paul (as Paul himself accepts it). While basing the response on the aforementioned arguments a Christian accepts the contradiction that 2 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 7:25 is not the “Word of God” but “Word of Paul”. The above contradiction can only be reconciled when the Christian accedes that Bible is at the most partially “Word of God”. To put simply, 2 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 7:25 were not revealed to Paul neither was it inspired to Paul then how did 2 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 7:25 enter into the so thumped “Word of God”.

CONCLUSION

When we read John 7:16-18 , Deuteronomy 18:18-20 corroborated with biblical commentaries in conjunction with 2 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 7:25 then it turns out that Paul in 2 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 7:25 was violating the ethics set by Jesus and Moses, peace be on them at John 7:16-18 and Deuteronomy 18:18-20 respectively. And therefore, he was only trying to seek his personal glory while bluffing many. And sadly many are still deluded even when proof is right under their nose. It is verifiably established, from biblical sources, that Paul was not a true apostle, however, he used his own mind to cull decrees of spiritual import. Not only that, he shamelessly, used the love and favor of the multitudes to impress on them decrees of spiritual relevance. These facts only elicit the selfish nature of the man to rule over multitudes.

IN THE END

To close, I should provide you with the final verdict from the man who vicariously possess that authority (kindly, do not misinterpret) Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, where he said:
I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus).” Narrated Abu Huraira, in Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Hadith Number 651. (Emphasis mine)

By:- Question Mark

CHEAP EVANGELISTIC DECEPTIONS AND THEIR MUSLIM REPLIES
Christian missionaries have savored using a few Qur’anic verses to “win souls” i.e. to pervert innocent ‘sleeping’ Muslims into Christolatory. Through some overused verses of Quran they try to establish the pristine preservation of Bible. This paper will, inshallah, debunk all such subterfuges. This paper is, in reality, a product of personal dialogue which I had with an American Evangel. I would keep him anonymous for I do not want his publicity. As I am writing this article, he has already claimed a few innocent souls into polytheism. He has an ‘experience’ of working for at least 3 decades amongst Muslims, on Muslim soils, to “witness” them. He has bluffed many with these less understood verses of Quran. His arguments are trivial yet baffling for lay Muslims and thus needs full exposure than a scholarly work. So, seeking Allah’s help in the process let us give a fair chance to him and his arguments.

WHAT WAS THE CRUX OF THE DIALOGUE?

Our dialogue got a kick off with the purported ‘word of God’- Bible. I read him out Allah’s revelation for the actual status of Bible:

“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: “This is from Allah” to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby.” (The Holy Quran 2:79)

Corroborated it with myriad of scholarly proofs to only manage a bleak nod of denial from this mighty Evangelist. When he lost all the weapons in his arsenal he used his ultimate nuke. He quoted me Qur’anic verses to prove the infallibility of the Bible. Miserably ironic, isn’t it Muslims! Mind you he has not hesitated to use these Quranic verse to decapitate lay Muslims for at least 30 years in Muslim countries.

WHICH VERSES DID HE QUOTE ME?

1)His first attack came in the form of Quran 5:48, he quoted, “To you [Muhammad] We [Allah] sent the Scripture [Qur’an] in truth, confirming the Scripture [Bible] that came before it and guarding it in safety.”
(Side remark:- Firstly, he did not provide me whose translation he was quoting, but I will not carp for that. Secondly, it is absolutely FOOLISH and ignorance to consider Scripture to mean ‘Bible’. Scripture, as used in Quran, simply means the revelations given to earlier prophets, peace be upon them all.)
On the surface he was very confident to have nailed my coffin. To refute this misquotation one do not have to be a Shaikh Jalal Abualrub or Shaikh Deedat or Brother Zawadi or Zaatari etc. All we need to do is to read Asad’s comment to the above verse. He writes, “The participle muhaymin is derived from the quadrilateral verb haymana, “he watched [over a thing]” or “controlled [it]”, and is used here to describe the Qur’an as the determinant factor in deciding what is genuine and what is false in the earlier scriptures (see Manar VI, 410ff.). Why should not I ask here: “Will not that be a guard?”
Furthermore, Yusuf Ali commentary provides a very good aid to the correct interpretation of the above verse, “After the corruption of the older revelations, the Qur’an comes with a twofold purpose: (1) to confirm the true and original Message, and (2) to guard it, or act as a check to its interpretation. The Arabic word Muhaimin is very comprehensive in meaning. It means one who safeguards, watches over, stands witness, preserves, and upholds. The Qur’an safeguards “the Book”, for it has preserved within it the teachings of all the former Books. It watches over these Books in the sense that it will not let their true teachings to be lost. It supports and upholds these Books in the sense that it corroborates the Word of Allah which has remained intact in them. It stands a witness because it bears testimony to the Word of Allah contained in these Books and helps to sort it out from the interpretations and commentaries of the people which were mixed with it: what is confirmed by the Qur’an is the Word of Allah and what is against it is that of the people.
Although, I personally feel that this is a satisfactory explanation to the Christian misuse of Quran 5:48 but we can further bolster our response by pondering into what the scholars of Classical “Tafseers” have to say.
Ibn Abbas (RAA) explains that one of the main implications of Quran 5:48 acting as a safeguard to (some rulings of) earlier Scriptures were to the divine injunction of stoning to sexual perpetrators. In particular, the Jews digressed from the godly ruling of stoning to charcoaling (the face) and whipping the (sexual) perpetrators. Although the ruling of stoning was present in the Torah (then in the hands of Jews) but to the wickedness of their learned elite; they use to hide it from the commons (Jews) and from prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, when called for a cross check. All these subterfuges of the Jews are exposed from authentic hadith records and, of course, through the implied meanings of Quran 5:48. Thus, the Qur’anic confirmation of stoning the perpetrators does, indeed, act as guard to the earlier scriptures. I produce you, chronologically, the commentary of Ibn Abbas followed with Hadithes which exposes the “tahreef” which the Jews committed to the holy injunction of stoning thus requiring a safeguard to Torah laws through Quran 5:48.

Tafseer Ibn Abbas: (And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture) We have sent you Gabriel with the Qur’an (with the Truth) to make plain the Truth and falsehood, (confirming) the statement of Allah’s divine Oneness and some laws (whatever Scripture was before it) whatever Scriptures were before it, (and a watcher over it) a witness upon all the Scriptures before it; it is also said: a witness upon the ruling of stoning; and it is also said: a watcher over all previous Scriptures. (So judge between them) between the Banu Qurayzah and the Banu’l-Nadir and the people of Khaybar (by that which Allah hath revealed) by that which Allah has exposited to you in the Qur’an, (and follow not their desires) regarding the application of whipping and discarding stoning (away from the Truth which hath come unto thee) after the exposition that has come to you. (For each We have appointed a divine law) for each prophet among you We have exposited a divine law (and a traced out way) obligations and practices. (Had Allah willed He could have made you one community) He has made you follow one divine law. (But that He may try you) test you (by that which He hath given you) of Scripture, obligations and practices, such that He says: I have prescribed all this for you, so let not delusion creep into your minds. (So vie one with another in good works) so vie, O Community of Muhammad (pbuh) with other nations, in obligations, practices and righteous works; it is also said that this means: hasten, O Community of Muhammad (pbuh) to perform acts of obedience. (Unto Allah ye will all) all nations (return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ) where you contravene in relation to religion and divine laws. (www.altafseer.com)
[ Thus it becomes absolutely clear that one reason for the revelation of Quran 5:48 may would have been to expose the Jewish “tehreef” (changes) to the holy decree of stoning, thus by reviving it (through exposure) in Quran 5:48; Qur’an actually did worked as a guard to this particular injunction (of stoning) in earlier scriptures, thereby guarding the earlier scripture for the divine injunction of “stoning”. Kindly mark the difference that Quran 5:48 is specific for ruling of stoning and not for every “tommy, dicky, harry” stuff of Bible.]

Hadith exposing the ‘tahreef’ committed by Jews to the decree of Stoning:

The people passed by the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) with a Jew who was blackened with charcoal and who was being flogged. He called them and said: Is this the prescribed punishment for a fornicator? They said: Yes. He then called on a learned man among them and asked him: I adjure you by Allah Who revealed the Torah to Moses, do you find this prescribed punishment for a fornicator in your divine Book? He said: By Allah, no. If you had not adjured me about this, I should not have informed you. We find stoning to be prescribed punishment for a fornicator in our Divine Book. But it (fornication) became frequent in our people of rank; so when we seized a person of rank, we left him alone, and when we seized a weak person, we inflicted the prescribed punishment on him. So we said: Come, let us agree on something which may be enforced equally on people of higher and lower rank. So we agreed to blacken the face of a criminal with charcoal, and flog him, and we abandoned stoning. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) then said: O Allah, I am the first to give life to Thy command which they have killed. So he commanded regarding him (the Jew) and he was stoned to death. Allah Most High then sent down: “O Apostle, let not those who race one another into unbelief, make thee grieve…” up to “They say: If you are given this, take it, but if not, beware!….” up to “And if any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) unbelievers,” about Jews, up to “And if any do fail to judge by (the right of) what Allah hath revealed, they are no better than) wrong-doers” about Jews: and revealed the verses up to “And if any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.” About this he said: This whole verse was revealed about the infidels.(Abu Dawood, 2091, Narrated Al-Bara’ ibn Azib)

Hadith exposing how the Jews tried to hide the injunction of stoning from prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him:

The Jews brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from among them who had committed illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet said to them, “How do you usually punish the one amongst you who has committed illegal sexual intercourse?” They replied, “We blacken their faces with coal and beat them.” He said, “Don’t you find the order of Ar-Rajm (i.e. stoning to death) in the Torah?” They replied, “We do not find anything in it.” ‘Abdullah bin Salam (after hearing this conversation) said to them, “You have told a lie! Bring here the Torah and recite it if you are truthful.” (So the Jews brought the Torah). And the religious teacher who was teaching it to them, put his hand over the Verse of Ar-Rajm and started reading what was written above and below the place hidden with his hand, but he did not read the Verse of Ar-Rajm. ‘Abdullah bin Salam removed his (i.e. the teacher’s) hand from the Verse of Ar-Rajm and said, “What is this?” So when the Jews saw that Verse, they said, “This is the Verse of Ar-Rajm.” So the Prophet ordered the two adulterers to be stoned to death, and they were stoned to death near the place where biers used to be placed near the Mosque. I saw her companion (i.e. the adulterer) bowing over her so as to protect her from the stones. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.79, narrated Abdullah bin Umar)
At this instance, a question might pop up into the minds of the readers:
“Why would Qur’an guard the injunction of Stoning?”
According to my understanding of the scriptures, because the ruling of stoning the adulterers happened to be universal (as it was also incorporated into the laws given to Mohammad, the final prophet until Judgment day, peace be upon him) therefore, there was one good reason to testify, protect and appeal its presence in earlier scriptures also. The ruling of stoning the adulterers was not to be confined to only one community and for a particular time period but it was to be made to exist until Judgment Day.
To sum up the entire argument in simple words, then would be, Qur’an 5:48, speaks specifically about a particular injunction – injunction of stoning, besides other similar imports which had a need to be guarded till Hour. The Jews were in no mood to preserve the divine writ of Stoning so there was a definite requisite that Qur’an being the final revelation on the face of earth to revive it in itself thereby safeguarding an injunction of the “earlier revelation” – Torah. This by no means, thus, prove that, Qur’an 5:48 is safeguarding the Bible which also covers stories of whoring sisters and incestuous fathers.
2) Next we would consider his second argument. He used Qur’an 21:7. So let us check what is contained in Qur’an 21:7:
“Before thee also the apostles we sent were but men to whom We granted inspiration: if ye realize this not ask of those who possess the Message.”
Well his point of argument needs not exegesis. All he wanted to prove me through Quran 21:7 was that because the “possessors of the message” are questioned so they must be truthful. He was trying to paint the picture in which we would see that because the Christians (and the Jews) are enquired so they have to be veritable and their witness – The Bible got to be believed in. Or, in other words their Bible is preserved. However, unfortunately, the Evangelist messed up completely (or was it deliberate!) the context of the verse. If one only reads Qur’an 21:7 in conjunction with Qur’an 16:43 then he would come to realize that the pagans often taunted Prophet, peace be upon him, by carping on a futile question as to why is not an Angel sent to them (as a prophet). Then Allah revealed Quran 21:7 specifically to answer the pagans. The pagans were instructed in Quran 21:7 to ask the Jews (and the Christians) whether the earlier prophets were angels or mere men! Here is a quotation from Abdallah Yusuf Ali’s commentary:
“If the Pagan Arabs, who were ignorant of religious and other history, wondered how a man from among themselves could receive inspiration and bring a Message from Allah, let them ask the Jews, who had also received Allah’s Message earlier through Moses, whether Moses was a man, or an angel, or a god. They would learn that Moses was a man like themselves, but inspired by Allah. “Those who possess the Message “may also mean any men of Wisdom, who were qualified to have an opinion in such matters.”
(Mark carefully that any other “men of Wisdom”, not necessarily a Jew or a Christian, were also qualified to opine and sooth the pagans off their confusion of angles, mere mortals and revelations.)

After refuting his futile argument on Qur’an 21:7 let us turn towards his third Qur’anic verse. He quoted me Qur’an 40:70-72. In the first place, I thought this man to be deceptive and cunning but when he quoted me Qur’an 40:70-72 it was then when I realized that not only is this man con but he also is abysmally ignorant of Qur’anic teachings. So, let us check what does Qur’an 40:70-72 has in it:
“Those who reject the Book and the (revelations) with which We Sent Our apostles: But soon shall they know When the yokes (shall be) round their necks and the chains; they shall be dragged along.”
He made the point very clear to me by quoting this Qur’anic verse is that he thinks we reject earlier revelations – revelations which were given to Moses, Jesus, David etc., peace be upon them all. However, this is not the case to be. No Muslim is a Muslim if he does not acknowledges the revelations given to earlier prophets. Nevertheless, what a Muslim do claim is that no earlier revelation has preserved itself owing to the treatment meted out by the people to/for whom those were revealed. Consider this Qur’anic verse as an eye opener:
“It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces toward East or West; but it is righteousness to believe in Allah and the Last Day and the Angels and the Book and the Messengers; to spend of your substance out of love for Him for your kin for orphans for the needy for the wayfarer for those who ask and for the ransom slaves; to be steadfast in prayer and practice regular charity; to fulfill the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient in pain (or suffering) and adversity and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth the Allah-fearing.”
Thus, we believe in all the past Messenger’s’(and of course to the revelations inspired to them), however, we are not ready to believe that Prophet Solomon, peace be upon him, started defiling his faith with idolatry in the later parts of his life. Consider this humanly inspired Biblical insult of one of the mightiest messenger of Allah, namely, prophet Solomon, peace be upon him:

“For it was so, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was not loyal to the LORD his God, as was the heart of his father David.
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD and did not fully follow the LORD, as did his father David.
Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, on the hill that is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the people of Ammon.
And he did likewise for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.” (The Open Bible, 1 Kings 11: 4-8)

Let us now move on to his fourth argument. He quoted me Qur’an 5:46-47. This verse and its exposition is the spirit of this paper for this particular verse was most convincing to this Evangelist. So, let us ponder into what is contained in Qur’an 5:47 and how these cheap Evangelists misuse them. It reads:

“Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed they are (no better than) those who rebel.”
His proposition was: because there is an appeal to Gospel in the above cited verse therefore Gospel cannot be corrupt. In the first place kindly take not that in the Arabic Qur’an the word Gospel is not used but “Injeel”. We should not and we cannot substitute “Injeel” with something Greek; Gospel. Secondly, I would urge readers to pay special care and time while reading this section of the article because this is the most commonly used verse and it took me the longest in our debate to refute him this point or in other words he argued me the most on this particular verse. Seems Christolator Evangelists love this verse (only to misuse it). But I challenge readers here that any reader with an open, unbiased mind will realize that I have, inshallah, refuted him on Qur’an 5:47.
Before visiting 5:47 let us first try to understand what Allah said in 45 and 46 because these are all related verses. Verses read:

We ordained therein for them: “Life for life eye for eye nose for nose ear for ear tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal.” But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed they are (no better than) wrong-doers.
And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
Now… comes verse 47

“Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed they are (no better than) those who rebel.”

There are at least twofold deductions from the above adduced verses which are as follows:

1. It is being informed to the readers about the divine writ pertaining to “retaliation” given to Moses, peace be upon him.

2. According to classical scholars of “Tafseers”: here is also an allusion to the spiritual injunction of “stoning” prescribed in earlier revealations.

To sum up then, the above verses are specifically speaking about the concept of “retaliation” and “stoning” as was given to earlier generations, specifically, to the community of Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them. As I just said that the above verse(s) are specific for two divine concepts and should not be generalized to prove that incorruptibility of Bible. I would, of course, inshallah, prove that the above verse is strictly applicable only for two cases of “retaliation” and “stoning” and not for entire Bible and its absurdities.
Let me first prove from Islamic sources how the above cited verse [“Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.”] is strict for the divine writ of stoning of the earlier revelations and is not, therefore, accountable for anything everything written in the Bible.
In the commentary of Ibn Abbas (for verse 46 and 47) recorded in Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, it is written:

v.46: “(And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah) as regards the declaration of Allah’s divine Oneness and some laws, (And We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance) from error (and a light) an exposition on stoning, (confirming that which was (revealed) from error (and a light) an exposition on stoning, (confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah) regarding Allah’s divine Oneness and the legal ruling of stoning (a guidance) from error (and an admonition unto) and a caution for (those who ward off (evil)) those who ward off disbelief, idolatry and indecencies.

v.47: (Let the People of the Gospel judge) such that the people of the Gospel elucidate (by that which Allah hath revealed therein) that which Allah has elucidated in the Gospel regarding the traits and description of Muhammad (pbuh) and the legal ruling of stoning. (Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed) He says: whoever does not show that which Allah has elucidated in the Gospel; (such are evil-doers) transgressing disbelievers.
Subsequently then, when Qur’an speaks, “Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.” it specifically appeals to the “Injeel” ruling on stoning. [Be careful to realize that Qur’an 5:47 is not appealing the people of the Gospel, to Judge, for instance, matter of crucifixion of Jesus, peace be upon him, as an Evangelist would like to show from this verse.] And it should not come as a surprise that even in today’s Gospel, which is of course is not the “Injeel” revealed to Isa, peace be upon him, traces of stoning injunction is present. Mind you that Christians claim that Today’s Bible is the same as was inspired to the prophet and apostles, Muslims do not; I am only appealing to biblical verses because the Christians (mis)take it. Jesus supported the injunction of stoning. Consider these biblical verses:

“they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. “Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned…”” (The Open Bible, John 8:4-5, NKJV)(See also cross references to Deuteronomy 22:22)

And Jesus had this to say for all earlier laws including the injunction of stoning.

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.””(The Open Bible, Matthew 5:17, NKJV)
Now let us consider if the appeal of verse 47 is to “retaliation”. What this would establish is that if the appeal of verse 47 is to the concept of “retaliation” then verse 47 is not, and cannot, be held responsible anything written in the Bible; in other words one should not prove Bible’s incorruptibility from this verse.

Let me quickly summarize each verse, namely, verse number 45, 46 and 47.
Verse 45 states the rulings for a just “retaliation”: Life for Life, Eye for Eye etc
Verse 46 informs Jesus’s, peace be upon him, stand for the law given in verse 45 (Life for Life, Eye for Eye etc): Jesus came on the “footsteps” of earlier prophets to “confirm” what had already came before him. Now before him came many books revealed to different prophets, but here it seems to appeal to Torah revealed to Moses, peace be upon all prophets of Allah. Furthermore, Torah contained exactly similar decrees of “retaliation” as stated in verse 45 (above) and Jesus was “confirming” them.
Verse47 instructs the ‘Gospellers’ to abide by what has been decreed in the revelation to Jesus, peace be upon him: “Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed therein”. What is says is: The people of the Gospel should Judge IN THE MATTER OF RETALIATION according to what was revealed to Jesus for the topic of “retaliation”.
Although as Muslims we fully believe that the divine writ for “retaliation” given to the “Children of Israel” through Moses and Jesus, peace be upon both, was exactly the same as Allah described in verse 45, however, if a Christian fusses then he should consider Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy in conjunction with Gospel of Matthew. In spirit of Qur’anic verse number 45 these biblical verses can be considered as the similar, if not, exactly same. Remind you once again that, we as Muslims, do not consider the aforementioned books of Bible to be the revelation given to Moses and Jesus, peace be upon both. I appeal to it because Christians (mis)take them to be the same. Here are the verses consider them.

1. “But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” (The Open Bible, Exodus 21:23-25, NKJV)

2. “Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done for him.” (The Open Bible, Leviticus 24:20, NKJV)

3. “Your eye shall not pity; but life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” (The Open Bible, Deuteronomy 19:21, NKJV)
These Old Testament verses should be read and understood in conjunction with a New Testament verse, which reads:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”(The Open Bible, Matthew 5:17, NKJV)

Kindly keep in mind that even if traces of “retaliation” and “stoning” were not to be found in the present day Bible even then the Muslim argument would have held. We can and should safely believe that when Mohammad, peace be upon him, would have appealed to the “People of the Book” for “retaliation” and “stoning” then these must have been present there (even so in traces). I, personally, would suggest that every Muslim should believe that if certain issues of earlier scripture is appealed to in Qur’an or Authentic Hadith then it should be believed with both eyes closed that that issue was, then, present in earlier scripture regardless of whether it is found in the Bible or not. You should not forget that the Jews and Christians have played fast and loose with divine scriptures all throughout the ages.

So next time if a missionary knocks your door with a Bible under his arms ‘witnessing’ you Qur’an 5:47, thereby, trying to dupe you into believing Bible to be God’s word, then, reason him/her that Qur’an 5:47 is specific about “retaliation” and/or “stoning” traces of which are still to be found in your purported ‘Word of God’ near your arm pit.

By now you would have understood the flimsy arguments which this sincere Evangelist was putting forth; I destroyed him completely and will expose him further. He next came up with Qur’an 10:64:
“For them are Glad Tidings in the life of the Present and in the Hereafter: no change can there be in the Words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme Felicity.”
By quoting this verse he tried to give me a wrong impression that because Injeel and Torah and other books were Words of Allah therefore they cannot be changed or corrupted. But the fallaciousness of his argument can be easily exposed by only reading the context of Qur’an 10:64:

“Those who believe and (constantly) guard against evil For them are Glad Tidings in the life of the Present and in the Hereafter: no change can there be in the Words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme Felicity.”

It is glaringly deductable from the above verses that “no change can there be in the Words of Allah” applies to Allah’s promise of felicity in the life of present and hereafter for those who believe and constantly guard against evil is unchangeable; it will come to pass. I do not know how he tried to impress this verse upon me proving his point of Bible. Even an amateur would refrain using this verse to prove Bible incorruptibility.

When he was utterly destroyed in the above argument he quoted me then a ‘better’ verse to serve his cause. So, let us look at it. Qur’an 10:94:

“If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in nowise of those in doubt.”

Again, the same old story of quoting God’s Word out of context. Why and How can I say that? Well the answer is pretty simple; just ponder in to the verse a little close to observe that Allah metaphorically asks readers (of this verse) to ask the people of the Book regarding what Allah has revealed to/ for Muslims. So, what were the Muslims going to ask the “readers of earlier Book”. Pertaining what will the Muslims enquire those who have been reading the Book? The answer could easily be found if we only read the context of this verse. In verse number 92-93 we read:

“This day shall We save thee in thy body that thou mayest be a Sign to those who come after thee! But verily many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!”
“We settled the Children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling-place and provided for them sustenance of the best: it was after knowledge had been granted to them that they fell into schisms. Verily Allah will judge between them as to the schisms amongst them on the Day of Judgment.”

[It is not far-fetched to realize that in context Moses, Pharaoh, their struggle against each other (kindly include verse 90 onwards. I have not included them for the sake of size of this paper), Pharaoh being drowned into the sea etc is alluded to.]
NOW COMES VERSE NUMBER 94:

“If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in nowise of those in doubt.”

Sincere Jews like Abdullah Ibn Salam and truthful Christians like Waraqa did testified to each and every thing contained in Quran. Moreover, even today if any lay Muslim picks up Bible and reads it he would certainly find striking similarities when it comes to the story of Moses Vs Pharaoh with of course some differences. The differences owe to age long corruption which has crept and defiled the so purported ‘Word of God’. Be careful once again to mark that Qur’an 10:94 is not appealing, for instance, to the deity of Jesus, for instance, “Ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee whether Jesus was God or not”. It does not say that. But this is what an Evangelist would try to show a Muslims through verses such as these. It appeals to ask something else; something related to Moses and Pharaoh. And coincidentally traces of these stories are still extant in the most misunderstood ‘biblical’ “Tawraat”. Biblical “Tawraat” is of course not the “Tawraat” revealed to Moses.

His final argument was:
“Say: “Bring ye the Law and study it if ye be men of truth.” (3:93)
Yet another instance of out- of- context- quotation. From the very sense of the construction of the above quoted verse it can be smelt that there is some serious matter being discussed in the back drop; may be the prophet was debating the Jews and thus as a proof he (Actually Allah) was made to demand Torah from them. Therefore, lets us read the verse in context.
“All food was lawful to the children of Israel except what Israel made unlawful for itself before the law (of Moses) was revealed. Say: “Bring ye the Law and study it if ye be men of truth.”
At once it becomes clear that Prophet, peace be upon him, was debating/discussing food and issues related to it against the Jews. When one reads the Tafseers of this particular verse then he realizes that the Jews alleged the Prophet for not following the faith of Ibraheem (Abraham), peace be upon him! They contended that Mohammad, peace be upon him, on one hand claims to be following the Ibraheem’s creed, nevertheless, camel’s meat is lawful for consumption in his (Mohammad’s, peace be upon him) laws. Of course the Jews held that camel’s meat was forbidden for them since Ibraheem’s ministry, peace be upon him. Therefore, to answer this charge of the Jews the prophet demanded (or more fittingly was made to demand by Allah) the Jews to bring their Book of authority and analyze it (for forbiddance of Camel’s meat) if they (the Jews) were truthful. That is to say: analyze the Torah (then in the hands of the Jews) and check whether in Ibraheem’s ministry camel’s meat was made unlawful or not? The truth was rather different, as it has to be; Israel or Yacob (Jacob), peace be upon him, made an oath to Allah that if his disease of “sciatica (‘irq al-nasā)” was cured then he would never again consume camel’s meat. Chronologically, Yacob, peace be upon him, came after Ibraheem, peace be upon him, consequently, consumption of Camel’s meat was not made unlawful during or in the ministry of Ibraheem, peace be upon him, as the Jews claimed. Consider the Tafseer below:
When the Jews said to the Prophet, ‘You claim that you follow the creed of Abraham, but Abraham did not eat camel’s meat nor drink its milk’, the following was revealed: All food was lawful to the Children of Israel save what Israel, Jacob, forbade for himself, namely, camels: when he was afflicted with sciatica (‘irq al-nasā), he made a vow that if he were cured he would not eat of it again, and so it was forbidden him; before the Torah was revealed, which was after the time of Abraham, as it was not unlawful in his time, as they claimed. Say, to them: ‘Bring the Torah now, and recite it, so that the truth of what you say may become clear, if you are truthful’, in what you say; they were stupified and did not bring it [the Torah]. God, exalted be He, then said:

(All food was lawful unto the Children of Israel) all food that is lawful for Muhammad and his community today was lawful for the Children of Israel, the sons of Jacob, (save that which Israel) Jacob (forbade himself) by the way of vows, ((in days) before the Torah was revealed) before the revelation of the Torah to Moses, Jacob forbade himself the meat and milk of camels. When this verse was revealed, the Prophet (pbuh) asked the Jews: “What did Jacob forbid himself of food?” They said: “he did not forbid himself any type of food, and whatever is forbidden for us today, such as the meat of camels and other things, was already forbidden on all prophets, from Adam to Moses (pbut). It is only you who make such things lawful”. And they claimed those things were also forbidden in the Torah. Hence Allah said to Muhammad (pbuh): (Say) to them: (Produce the Torah and read it (unto us)) where they are made forbidden (if ye are truthful) in your claim. But they failed to produce the Torah and knew they were liars since there was nothing in the Torah to substantiate their claim. (Tafsir Al-Jalalyn)

Again the legerdemain (of words) which an Evangelist is playing with this verse is that , “see your Quran is appealing to read Law (generally accepted as alluding to Tawraat) therefore believe what the Torah (of the Bible) says; believe about the deity of Jesus, his crucifixion etc. Now, my dear Muslim brothers and sisters you know the reason and purpose this verse was serving so just paste the answer on these Evangandistic faces.Tell them that according to Qur’an 3:93 “Law” is not to be studied for , say, crucifixion of Christ.
Moreover, even if today any one picks up Bible (which is not the “Tawraat” revealed to Moses, peace be upon him) in his hand and searches for forbiddance of Camel’s meat in the ministry of Ibraheem – he would not find that; at least I have not seen it yet. But he would in fact find such a prohibition in the so called “Jewish law of Moses (Musa)” (not Ibraheem mind you), we find such a prohibition in Leviticus 11:4,“You may eat any land animal that has divided hoofs and that also chews the cud, but you must not eat camels, rock – badgers or rabbits.” (Holy Bible, TEV)

Let me enquire whether “Leviticus” was revealed to Abraham (Ibraheem), peace be upon him?
Would an emotional Evangelist still cling to Qur’an 3:93to appeal to Bible’s incorruptibility?

The common disease:

At the end of the day when somebody analyzes Christian arguments (Qur’anic Verses) used to untenably establish the Bible incorruptibility will realize that there seems to be a trend following in all Christian arguments: The Christian polemists use the Qur’anic verses, firstly, out of context and secondly (or a corollary), they ignorantly or viciously generalize one particular Qur’anic verse which was revealed for a particular and specific reason to a apply to everything which the Bible contains. They commit one more deceit or mistake by appealing to Bible when what the Qur’anic verse speak about “Injeel” and “Tawraat”; which does not even remotely sound like “Bible”. Therefore, exploit these three points and you would refute each of their arguments, inshallah.

Cure for the disease:

“Thus have We appointed unto every Prophet an adversary—devils of humankind and jinn who inspire in one another plausible discourse through guile. If thy Lord willed, they would not do so; so leave them alone with their devising;”
(Qur’an 6:112, Pickthall)

Note: Emphasis where ever found is mine.
All Qur’anic Tafseers taken from www.altafseer.com

I am only a mortal liable to err, indeed, all truth lies with Allah alone.

:- By
Question Mark

The Jinn, The Quran and the Confusion of Anthony Wales.

This paper is a Muslim Response to “The Jinn and the Challenge of the Quran”, authored by Anthony Wales. You can find his article http://www.answeringislam.net/Wales/jinn_challenge.htm . You might read the anti – Islamic article first. It would help you grasp my refutation, however, in any case, I have tried to make my response independent.

Paper begins from here:

Anthony Wales, another Christian Polemic, stumbled on Surah 17, Ayah 88:

“If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.”
He fumbled to object:

THE OBJECTIONS

:

1. “The Qur’anic argument about the jinn and human beings working together may actually be an unverifiable challenge. I say this because it is highly unlikely that jinn and humans will ever work together on such a project. Therefore, there is no reason to believe Islam.”

2. “Another issue with this Islamic argument is the existence of jinn. Do the beings that Islam calls ‘jinn’ actually exist? Muslims cannot argue that Islam mentions jinn so they must exist. The current debate is whether or not we should believe what Islam tells us. Therefore, Muslims must produce some reasons for the existence of jinn that do not depend on the truth of Islam.”

In so many words, the Christian apologist has asked Muslims to establish the existence of Jinns from sources other than Islam(may be Science). Inshallah, I will deal with both these objections below. Furthermore, the Christian apologist presented a very witty argument of a “cross in the centre of the Sun”. By providing this argument he tried to establish that because “cross in the Sun” is a very weak and unverifiable argument so is Jinns and Humans working together, thus the Quranic argument can not be believed in and consequently the Quran is not the word of God. But I promise him and my readers that firstly I would defend the Quranic argument of Jinns and Humans working together (inshallah) to produce the likeness of Quran and then I would show him that there is a bigger preposterous and unverifiable argument in the Bible than a “cross in the Sun”. I promise you that, Inshallah.

THE EXPLANATION

:

I found it to be in-congenial and impertinent to call my response as a “Refutation”, given the childish nature of the allegations, from our younger cousin(s). Thus, I call it an ‘explanation’ than a refutation.

Sources of Objections:

The above objections are engendered when one does not pay respect:-

(a) To the context and the totality of the Scripture and/or

(b) when one lives by “Seeing is Believing”

(c) And/or when one reads Scripture prejudicially, that is, overlooking his own “Book of Books”. (This will be dealt in “Turning Tables Over” section of this paper). In my response, kindly find the aforementioned “Sources of Objections” unfolded.

It is always advisable to put forth as many “explanations” as possible. I found many for our Mr. Anthony Wales. Let him (also) then choose his flavor. (Do not miss out to read “Deuteronomy Dissection” at http://donotsaytrinity.blog.co.in/2008/10/18/deuteronomy-dissection/ where I gave David Wood (another younger cousin) similar choices.)

a. CONCORDANT APPROACH:

In this approach I will concord with Anthony Wales to pre-assume that Jinns and Humans WILL NEVER work together to produce the likeness of Quran. This response will also take into account the first point under “Sources of Objections”, namely, WHEN ONE DOES NOT PAYS RESPECT TO THE CONTEXT AND TOTALITY OF SCRIPTURE:

If one reads the context of Quran 17:88, that is, verses 85 through 89 then he will realize that the pagan cynics were hell bent to demand miracles from Mohammad, peace be upon him. For them the miraculous Quran was not enough to satiate their whimsical mischievous minds. In verse 85, they demanded (explanation) concerning the Spirit. However, this information was absolutely irrelevant for their spiritual euphoria. But still, the needful portion of information was conveyed to them with absolute information still with Allah alone. BUT NO, the infidel would insist in their whimsical demands as a proof for the veracity of Quran. So, Allah reproaches them in verse 86, that if He takes away revelations from them, then, they would have none to reveal to them a likeness to that of Quran. THEN, Allah further fortifies His claim that “If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support(verse 88).” Thereby, it is easily deducible from the context that the crunch verses 88 was an absolute rhetoric pre-emption to Allah’s claim that none will be able to produce Quran but Him alone(verse 86). To put simply, the narration goes something like:

“If I (Allah) take away revelations from you then you will have none to help you to retrieve/ make Quran, even if you collude with Jinns.(your mistaken gods)” So, it was dire and ultimate statement from Allah that they will not be able to produce Quran if it is bereaved off them.

BEING MORE GENEROUS WITH CHRISTIANS:

But if Anthony Wales clings to the notion of “humans and Jinns working together” disregarding context of Quran 17:88. Then he must at least care to those verses which he himself considers as “related” to Quran 17:88. He helped me to find those “related” verse at Quran 2:23 and 11:13. Let us analyze them in the Light of Quran 17:88 and try to connect them with each other for better grasp of the scripture.

Quran 2:23, reads:

“And if ye are in doubt As to what we have reveled from time to time to our servant then produce a Sura (roughly Quranic Chapters) like there on to; And call your witness or helpers(if there are any) besides Allah, if ye are truthful.”

We should pause here to think whom did pagans ‘took’(blasphemously) as their “witnesses” and “helpers”? They were Jinns, because the polytheists worshipped Jinns as their deity beside Allah(God Forbid):

“Yet they make the Jinns equals with Allah though Allah did create the Jinns;…” Quran 6:100.

So, we have two main pagan deviations (from the straight path). Firstly, Pagan’s disbelief in Quran and secondly, deification of Jinns (Q6:100).

Thus consequently and finally Allah chastises both these pagan deviations in one verse, namely, Q 17:88. That is, pagans will not be able to produce a likeness of Quran EVEN IF they colluded with their ‘so called’ gods – The Jinns.

We can only marvel Allah’s argument and how He tackled with TWO heathen deviations in ONE verse. Allah had to deal with their cynicism for Quran and their deification of Jinns. He reproached both these by stating that even if your (impotent) gods(Jinns) help you (this explain that Jinns cannot be Allah), still you would not be able to produce a likeness of Quran (this explaining Quran must be believed in because it is inimitable).

Let the ‘Quran Scholar’ fuss for the third time so that I may get an opportunity to explain the matter yet again. If Anthony would have at all thought for a while on the “related” verses to Quran 17:88 then he would not have written his ‘paper’, because, now I will expound semantics and grammatical construction of “related” verses and the crunch verse 17:88. Kindly pay assiduous attention to the subtle yet stupendous nuances herein.

In the “related” verses Allah has literally and unequivocally challenged doubters to produce Suras:

“And if ye are in doubt As to what we have reveled from time to time to our servant then produce a Sura (roughly Quranic Chapters) like there on to; And call your witness or helpers(if there are any) besides Allah, if ye are truthful.” (Have you noted the downright demand of Surahs from Pagans?). (The Holy Quran, 2:23) (emphasis added)

Furthermore, there can not be more clear cut demand of surahs than:

“Or they may say, “He forged it.” Say,

“Bring ye then ten Suras forged,

like unto it, and call (To your aid) whomsoever Ye can, other than Allah!- If ye speak he truth!” (The Holy Quran, 11:13) (emphasis added)

HOWEVER, starkly, the entire grammatical construction of Quran 17:88 is totally different. Unlike Quran 2:23 and 11:13 where there was a

definite dem

and (and therefore a challenge), however, we find a definite assertion in Quran 17:88:

“…They would not produce the like there of …” Thus, Quran 17:88 is no challenge. In fact, it falls in the genre of those assertive verses which undoubtedly prove the grandeur of Allah – Almighty, such as:

“Say: If the ocean were Ink (wherewith to write out) the words of my Lord, sooner would the ocean be exhausted than would the words of my lord, even if we added another ocean like it, for its aid.” (The Holy Quran 18:109) (emphasis added)

Could I humbly ask Mr. ‘Quran Scholar’ whether he would consider above adduced verse (18:109) as a Quranic Challenge!! I do not expect to hear a “YES” from him.

There is absolutely no need for me to write this section lest I might sound like a lawyer. But if there are die hard supercilious cynics strutting God’s good earth then let me be so.

The pith of Anthony’s objection to Quran 17:88, in his own words, is:

“The Qur’anic argument about the jinn and human beings working together may actually be an unverifiable challenge. I say this because it is highly unlikely that jinn and humans will ever work together on such a project.” If observed meticulously, the usage of words by our prudent polemist is, surely, UNCENTAIN. Even Anthony Wales cannot establish , , of surety, that Jinns and Humans will or can not work together and thus he rightly and very judiciously used the words like, “…MAY ACTUALLY…” and again “… HIGHLY UNLIKELY…”. Else, provide me an established fact that humans and Jinns can not and will not work together. You should not expect Muslims to turn apostate Christolators after reading your uncertain and ‘HIGHLY’ equivocal sentences. This is not good evangelism Wales.

TURNING TABLES OVER:

After FIVE satisfactory ‘explanations’ it is now time to “Turn the Tables Over”. This part will certainly, ignominiously, elicit the Christian Apologist’s shallow hold of his own scripture – Bible(?)

We read:

“But even if we, or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel to you that we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” (The Open Bible, Gal 1:8, NKJV)(emphasis added)

“But even if we, or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel to you that we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Holy Bible, Gal 1:8, TEV)(emphasis added)

It needs no elucidation that Paul based the divine authenticity of ‘his branded’ Gospel on so preposterous an argument that only Christians can believe – namely, Angels of heaven, firstly preaching to humans and secondly teaching a “condemnable” Gospel.

The way Anthony Wales reasoned his arguments on Quran 17:88; I would use the same reasoning on Gal 1:8 to ask TWO Questions:-

1) First Question:

Will Angels ever preach Gospel to Humans? , if yes, then support your argument that Angels will preach to humans. On the other hand, if Angels will not preach to humans then why did Paul ground his argument on non-existence, non-materialising and unverifiable argument.

I heartily commend Anthony Wales for a few truthful statements he made in his paper which I will recoil on him by substituting Muslims to Christians; Quran to Bible and the main argument of Jinns to Angels, he said:

“Arguments for the truth of a religion should be supported with good reasons or evidence… The muslim(CHRISTIAN) argument in question is clearly one of the principal arguments, if not the principal argument, for the divine origin of the Quran(BIBLE). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect muslims(CHRISTIANS) to present good reasons to support it(so support your argument that angels will preach to humans). A lack of supporting evidence would be a serious weakness, and give people good ground for not being persuaded by this argument.”

LET ME RECOIL ‘HIS’ ON ‘HIM’ ONCE AGAIN

:

He haughtily wrote:

“The Qur’anic argument about the jinn and human beings working together may actually be an unverifiable challenge. I say this because it is highly unlikely that jinn and humans will ever work together on such a project. Therefore, there is no reason to believe Islam”

Recoiling…

“The Biblical argument about Angels preaching to humans and/ or preaching false may actually be an unverifiable challenge. I say this because it is highly unlikely that Angels will ever preach to Humans and/or preach counterfeit Gospel. Therefore, there is no reason to believe Christianity.”

The argument for the authenticity of Paul’s branded Gospel can not be verified (i.e. Angels descending down to preach to humans and / or preaching something “condemnable”). Presenting and unverifiable argument also raises questions about the intelligence and confidence of a religion and it’s founder, i.e. PAUL. Would not an intelligent person who was confident about the truth of their message put forward a good argument that people can actually test?

2) Second Question: Is it possible that Angels will preach a “condemnable” Gospel? If the answer is NO then why did Paul base the authenticity of ‘his branded Gospel’ on a false argument? And if the answer is in the positive, then, can Christians prove that indeed, even Angels can preach “condemnable” Gospel. Because it would be blind belief in Pauline argument to doubt the integrity of Angels (i.e, Angels will preach a false Gospel) because:

(i) Angels are ‘protectors’ (you will soon read me destroying divinity of Christ, inshallah) of ‘God’:

a) “God will give orders to his angels about you…” (Holy Bible, Matt 4:6, TEV)

b) “…God will put his angels in charge of you” (Holy Bible, Ps 91:11 TEV)

(ii) Angels will be companins of Jesus:

“When the Son of Man comes as King and all the angels, with him, he will sit on his royal throne” (Holy Bible, Matt 25:31, TEV). WILL CHRISTIANS DOUBT THE ‘COURTIERS’ OF THEIR ‘GOD’?

(iii) Angels were helpers of ‘God’:

“Don’t you know that I could call on my Father for help, and at once he would send me more than twelve armies of Angel?” (Holy Bible, Matt 26:53, TEV)

(iv) Angels are portrayed, in Bible, as ultimate symbol of righteousness:

“Well, no wonder! Even Satan can disguise himself to look like an angel of light” (Holy Bible, 2 Cor 11:14. TEV)

(v) MOST IMPORTANTLY, Angels are obedient servants, as we read:

“Praise the LORD, you strong and mighty ANGELS, who obey his commands, who listen to what he says.” (Holy Bible, Ps 103:20)

Thus, based on above Biblical citations it is highly unjustified that we circumspect integrity of ‘poor’ angels to preach “condemnable” Gospel. That being the case, Why did Paul, then, base his argument on something (at least) far-fetched, if not, downright false?

Did not Paul evince his dominance even ( you would soon read me proving Paul BOSSING over our beloved prophet Jesus, peace be upon him.) over Angels? That is to say: “Angels can err and sin in preaching a false Gospel BUT I, Paul, cannot.” What an overbearing and bossy statement from the mouth of Paul!! Can we then believe in such an over-weaning apostle? Should not apostles and prophets be more humble?

It seems that the ‘evangandists’ are trained to ask questions while making caustic statements, Anthony Wales, did not flinch to apply his training.

He commented:

“I am yet to see any evidence to support the Islamic argument that jinn and human beings working together cannot produce anything like the Qur’an. I have not seen Muslims present any combined attempts by jinn and humans, and explain why these attempts are not like the Qur’an”

My response:

“I am yet to see any evidence to support the Christian argument that Angels will preach to human beings and/or preach a false Gospel. I have not seen Christians present any attempts by Angels to preach humans and/or preach false Gospel.”

He Questioned:

“Another issue with this Islamic argument is the existence of jinn. Do the beings that Islam calls ‘jinn’ actually exist? Muslims cannot argue that Islam mentions jinn so they must exist. The current debate is whether or not we should believe what Islam tells us. Therefore, Muslims must produce some reasons for the existence of jinn that do not depend on the truth of Islam. If no reasons are produced, there are further grounds for not being persuaded by the Qur’anic challenge”

My response:

“Another issue with this Christian argument is the existence of jinn. Do the beings that Christians calls ‘Angels’ actually exist? Christians cannot argue that Christianity mentions Angels so they must exist. The current debate is whether or not we should believe what Christianity tells us. Therefore, Christians must produce some reasons for the existence of Angels that do not depend on the truth of Christianity. If no reasons are produced, there are further grounds for not being persuaded by the Pauline Challenge.”

He gnashed:

“In other words, there is no evidence supporting the principal Muslim argument for the divine origin of the Qur’an. This means there is no reason to believe that the Qur’an is the word of God, and no reason to become a Muslim.”

Fitting retort:

“In other words, there is no evidence supporting the Christian argument for the divine origin of the Bible. This means there is no reason to believe that the Bible is the word of God, and no reason to become a Christian.”

IN THE END:

To sum up, I would like to draw Anthony Wales and others cynics towards The Holy Quran 2:121:

“Those to whom We have given The Book study it as it should be studied: They are the ones that believe therein: Those who reject faith therein, – The loss is their own.”

Note:- Through this paper I diligently entreat Allah emancipate the condition of millions of my brothers and sisters all across the world and especially in war torn areas like, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine etc. Am_ _ n

By:- Question Mark, a servant of Allah and Allah alone.

DEUTERONOMY DISSECTION:
Two Short, Sound, Simple Proofs that Muhammad Was God’s Prophet

This essay is intended to serve as a rebuttal to David Woods’ “Deuteronomy Deductions.” The edifice of sand can be found at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deuteronomy_deductions.htm

David Wood in his “Deuteronomy Deductions” poses seven questions to Muslims; I hope that reader would learn all the answers herein explicitly. Those questions which needed detailed analysis have been dealt with care, so looking forward for an unbiased assay from you.

WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT:

Jesus, peace be upon him, was a true apostles of Allah, however, because Christendom as a whole relies heavily on a grotesque concept that Jesus(peace be upon him) is their ultimate savior and redeemer constraints them into a shell from where anyone speaking against this man-made notion would be rendered as a ‘fabricator’ or simply a false prophet. No wonder, no sooner did Moses, peace be upon him, a revered figure of the Bible, prophesied Mohammad’s prophet hood in Deuteronomy 18:18 than David, a Christian polemic, sought to refute Moses, peace be upon Moses.

DEFENCE NOT REQUIRED:

In Deuteronomy 18:20 two conditions for the bona-fide of any candidate claiming messenger hood is provided:-

1. Firstly, he should not speak anything out of his whims and if he does then he is not Allah’s true prophet: “But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak…that prophet shall die.”

2. Secondly, the candidate should not speak in the name of false gods: “…or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.”

Christian polemic, out of his apprehensions goes on to write stodgy passages to “defend” the aforementioned two conditions. So, let me mollify him that I have no qualms in the ‘touch-stoneness’ of the above mentioned premises to confirm pure gold. Nevertheless, I would like to use the same argument, conversely, that is, if Mohammad, peace be upon him, passes above two tests or in other words, if he did not forge any lie or something unauthorized or/ and if he did not speak in the name of false gods, then he out to fit Deuteronomy 18:18 and be ‘that’ prophet heralded by Moses and Jesus, peace be on both mighty messengers of Allah. This logical argument is termed as Modus Ponens, as the Christian apologist educates us in his “Deuteronomy Deductions”. Furthermore, I would again use the same ‘logic and argument’ (remember A1, A2 and B1, B2 of his article) as propounded by my beloved Christian polemic to prove to his chagrin and astonishment that there is somebody else filtered out as false prophet by Deuteronomy 18:20 test. Someone from New Testament! Thus, looking forward for an unjaundiced assay.

MORTAL’S WORD GIVEN A DEGREE ABOVE CREATOR’S WORD:

In his quest to disprove Mohammad’s(peace be upon him) veracity; David corroborates condition (1.) by quoting History of Al-Tabari, which reads: “I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken.”

The rebuttal:

In Islamic theology, if some mortal’s, be he Muslim or otherwise, scholar or otherwise, personal opinion or writing clashes with God’s word then the former’s opinion or writing is evaluated naught. For humans have frailties; God does not. So, with this prerequisite in mind we read in The Holy Quran 69:44-47: “And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart Nor could any of you withhold him(from Our wrath).” Here, Allah provides Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) bona-fide by grounding His divine argument on the severity of consequential punishment if Mohammad, His chosen man, were to be a juggler or a quack or a forgerer.

IMMEDIATE DEDUCTIONS:

Immediately two deductions can be deduced. They are as follows:-

1. “Seizure by his right hand”
2. “Cutting of the Artery(vital sign)”

1. Seizure by right hand: In Arabic tradition and colloquial, right hand symbolized power and therefore, metaphorically, to seize someone by his right hand meant to subjugate or to stop ones progress or to fetter etc. Thus, if Mohammad, peace be upon him, would have imputed anything false or lie on Allah then he would have been subjugated, however contrastingly, we find in History that not only did he couped Mecca, a haven of his arch-enemies, but he also conquered the whole world. So, to sum up, he did not impute anything unauthorized to Allah.

2. Cutting off of the Aorta: This consequential punishment for ill attribution is so stringent and clear cut that I wonder how beloved David Wood eluded it. We know, even David knows, that Mohammad, peace be upon him, lived for more than 60 years of his life and had a natural death or put in other words his artery was not slit open, consequently, it is obvious that Mohammad did not forge any lie on Almighty.

WHAT ABOUT CONDITION (2.) OF DEUTERONOMY 18:20? :

Let me once again reproduce condition 2. of Deuteronomy 18:20, it says, that if a prophet speaks in the name of false gods then he should die. “…or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.” David Wood tries to fit Mohammad above by quoting from History of Al-Tabari, again (I exhort readers to kindly read the status of History of Al-Tabari in Islamic Theology): “Then God revealed:
By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire . . .
and when he came to the words:
Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?
Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words:
These are the high-flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval. (Al-Tabari, p. 108)”

THE REFUTATION:

The argument is so easy to refute that it can be refuted not by one but by two approaches, namely, concordant and analytical. Let David Wood choose his flavor.

A. Concordant Approach: The rendering provided by David goes head on against myriad of Quranic Verses repudiating intercession through false gods, to mention just a few are:- 6:51,70; 10:18 etc; thus, alluding something ‘fishy’ to be present in mortal’s rendering, namely, History of Al-Tabari. So, let me produce an excerpt on the same issue but with slightly different rendering from more reliable source, nevertheless, creating a difference of chalk and cheese. But before that let us look at some scholarly work on the case at hand.

A1. Maulana Hakkani in his Tafseer Hakkani, writes:
“ Strong proofs establishes that the way this incident has been touted is absolutely false.”(Hakkani 5/209-210)(Emphasis added)

A2. Famous exegete, Ibn Hajar(Kindly mark that David Wood has taken Ibn Hajar’s work as a yardstick in his article so David should pay attention to this) expounds in the exegesis of Sahih Bukhari that “there are traces of truth in this incident but there had been short comings in its narration; for this reason the meaning of something has changed into something else!(Hadeeth –ut- tafseer, 295, included in Quran Majid translated by Sanaullah Amritsari.)(Emphasis added)
Thus, one would realize from the comments of aforementioned scholars that there is for sure something ‘fishy’ in History of Al-Tabari rendering as produced by Christian polemic.

WHAT IS THE MIST DISPELLING RENDERING THEN?:

We read in Hadith – ut – Tafseer, Jami- ul- Bayan, 295: “Once Prophet was reciting Surah Najm. When he recited “wa- manaa- tassli- sa- tal- ukhra” but people heard “tilka- gharanikul ula…(which means three idols will intercess). Thus, kindly realize the subtle difference of Prophet reciting something and diseased ears of mischievous people hearing something totally different. Allah mentions about such mischievous people in Quran 22:53 “That He may make the suggestions thrown in by Satan, but a trial for those in whose hears is a disease and who are hardened of heart: verily the wrong-doers are in schism far(from the truth).”

B. ANALYTICAL APPROACH:

To further support the baseless argument of Mohammad’s, peace be upon him, temporal lapse to polytheism, Evangandist uses Quran 22:52, however, I would also use the same verse to disprove his claim. Even if we agree for the sake of argument that Mohammad, peace be upon him, received Satanic incident as per Quran 22:52 (although the verse does not mean that in it’s remotest sense, I would like Christian apologist to prove me so if he differs.) even then it does not create any substantial case because immediately then Allah says in the same verse that he will not only expunge any thing Satanic, but also establish His signs, His revelation, Divine revelations: “but Allah will cancel anything (vain)That Satan throws in, And Allah will confirm (And establish) His Signs: For Allah is full of knowledge And wisdom:..”.
Therefore, even if Mohammad, peace be upon him, received Satanic revelations (for the sake of argument) he did not preach it or promulgate it because Allah was constantly guarding his conscience and filtering out anything ‘Davidic’.

CHRISTIANS ASK MUSLIMS REPLY

David Wood has enquired seven questions of Muslims. All his questions are answered in this paper. Nevertheless, a few questions out of the seven needed special attention which are dealt in detail hereunder:-
He asks,
“First, they must provide some reasonable explanation as to the story’s origin (e.g. they must make a plausible case that the story was invented by pagans, Jews, or Christians).”

The reply to follow is, in effect, response to FIFTH QUESTION, also.
In the first place, what difference does it make whether the story was invented by a Pagans or Jews or Christians or a Hypocrites (why avoid them) or all four colluded to invent one. The pith of the matter is that Mohammad, peace be upon him, was blamed of something but was rightly, vindicated by God’s own testimonial. (Kindly Refer: The Holy Quran 69:44-47). But because our younger ‘cousins’ have enquired, we must reply.
(Reply to Fifth Question begins from here)
Once the holy prophet suddenly recited “Surah – Najm” (Chapter 41 – The Star) among multitudes of Pagans including some Pagan notables at the sacred sanctuary. No wonder, when the awe-inspiring Words of Allah descended unawares upon them they immediately got stunned by them. It was the first time for them to be shocked by the truthful Revelation. It had formerly been favorite trick of those people who wished to dishonor Revelation, not only not to listen to it themselves but also to talk loudly and insolently when it was being read, so that even the true listeners may not be able to hear. They used to think that they were drowning the Voice of Allah: “Listen not to this Quran and make noise in the midst of its (recitation) that you may overcome.” (41:26).
When the unspeakably fascinating Words of Allah came into direct contact with their hearts, they were entranced and got oblivious of the materialistic world around them and were caught in a state of full attentiveness to the Divine Words to such an extent that when the Prophet, peace be upon him, reached the stormy heart – beating ending: “So fall you down in prostration to Allah and worship Him (Alone).” (53:62)
But natural, the idolaters, unconsciously and with full compliance, prostrated themselves in absolute God – fearing and stainless devotion. It was in fact the wonderful moment of the Truth that cleaved through the obdurate souls of the haughty and the attitude of the scoffers. Their co – polytheists who had not been present on the scene reproached and blamed them severely; consequently they began to fabricate lies and calumniate the Prophet, peace be upon him alleging that he had attached to their idols great veneration and ascribed to them the power of desirable intercession. All of these were desperate attempts made to establish an excusable justification for their prostrating themselves with the Prophet, peace be upon him, on that day.

He asks again,
“Second, they must explain why Muslims, who had every reason to reject such a story, passed it on as if it were true (instead of exposing it as a fabrication.”(Emphasis added)

I am sorry but the above question clearly elicits poor and vicious exegesis. Because Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari(Author of History of Al-Tabari) never transmitted anything of his book ‘as if it were truth’ infact it is the other way round. The author himself doubts the authenticity of his work so much so that he writes( no wonder David did not read it lest this question would not have cropped up) on the introduction page of his book, History of Al-Tabari:
“ Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us.”.Thus, Al-Tabari only ingeniously related these accounts as he received them and inscribed them in their totality. Then, can we hold Al-Tabari liable of transmitting it as a fact or truth? No, rather he transmitted it doubtfully and objectionably leaving the burden of examination for his readers.

Christian asks for the third time,

“Third, they must show that Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Mardauyah, Musa ibn ‘Uqba, and Abu Ma’shar were sloppy historians (so amazingly sloppy that they included false stories about Muhammad that called his prophethood into question).”

Although there is nothing much left for me to write but to direct the questionnaire to above response(response to second question), however, I would like to add a rhetoric question to better understanding of the Christian polemist, “Was St. Barnabas(“One who encourages”) also a ‘sloppy’ Historian?, Did not he come up with a monumental work, “Gospel of Barnabas”, with a lot of sloppiness in it?“ Why did the ‘One who encourages’ discouraged Christians to the point of jeopardizing idiosyncratic Christian tenets.” Of surety, St. Barnabas should top the charts in terms of ‘sloppiness’. By the way he is the same St. Barnabas whose compassion for Christianity is unquestionable, as he, “sold a field he owned, brought the money, and handed it over to the apostles.”(Acts 4:37, TEV).
Furthermore, Acts 11:24(TEV), embarrasses everyone anyone who points finger to the integrity of St. Barnabas, “Barnabas was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and many people were brought to the lord.”

Barnabas was no less than an apostle: “We agreed that Barnabas and I would work among the Gentiles and they among the Jews.”(Gal 2:9 TEV). Can you consider St. Barnabas – an apostle; as a ‘sloppy’ apostle?

His fifth question (His fourth question has been answered in so many words in the refutations above),

“Fifth, they must explain why al-Bukhari, Islam’s most trusted authority, confirms certain details of the story that only make sense if Muhammad really did deliver the Satanic Verses. According to Bukhari,
The Prophet performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat an-Najm [Surah 53], and all the Muslims and Al-Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah and in His Messenger Muhammad) and jinn and human beings prostrated along with him. (4862)”
I would request the questionnaire to kindly guide himself to the response of the first question. He ought to find this answer there. This question is explicitly answered there.

His most absurd question, the sixth one, namely,

“Sixth, Muslims must account for Surah 22:52, which, again, declares that all God’s prophets received revelations from Satan—a verse so preposterous that it could only have been offered to the Muslim community as an absurd explanation for something like the Satanic Verses.” (Emphasis added)
Before I reply let me quote The Holy Quran 22:52: “Never did We send A messenger or a prophet Before thee, but, when he Framed a desire, Satan Threw some (vanity) Into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain)That Satan throws in, And Allah will confirm (And establish) His Signs: For Allah is full of knowledge And wisdom:..”
After adducing the verses, I am compelled to ask that did Christian ‘Polemist’ understand those verses OR does he at all understands simple English? Because the verse says that whenever a prophet conceived any DESIRE, Satan threw some thing vain INTO HIS DESIRE. As clear as that. Thus, I am startled to ask, “Sir, how does this made you write, “God’s prophets received revelations from Satan”? Is desiring something similar to receiving revelations from Satan?! Amazing scenario!, “…seeing they see not, hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.” (Do not ask me who uttered these befitting words).

His seventh question:

“Seventh, they must show non-Muslims why we should reject all the available evidence and believe that Muhammad was spiritually reliable, when, as all informed Muslims will admit, Muhammad was the victim of black magic (a spell cast by a Jewish magician) and, at one point, was convinced that he was demon-possessed. Put differently, if the Prophet of Islam could mistakenly believe that he was demon-possessed, and was susceptible to spiritual attacks (such as black magic), why shouldn’t we believe that he could fall prey to revelations from Satan?”

My entire refutation revolves round this query as to the “evidence” purported by you is no evidence. The sources from where the citations have been adduced themselves disown their excerpts as “proofs”. Next, to say because once Mohammad, peace be upon him, was attacked (black magic) and then to infer that he will promulgate Satanic revelations after receiving them is far-fetched and based on wild pre-suppositions. It is as wild a presumption as to say, “If Lot, a veritable Prophet of Judaism and Christianity (and Islam excluding Biblical portrayal) could get drunk then why could not he have delivered irrational statements as Divine revelations in his inebriation.” (Kindly refer: To The HOLY Bible, Genesis 19: 33-35, for incest and bacchanalian orgies comprising of ‘Father and Daughters’).

If this argument does not satiate then at least Mohammad, peace be upon him, did not manufacture Idols like Biblical Aaron, an apostle of God, for his multitudes to defile themselves with. And make mockery (I would soon be producing you Biblical verses which are down right humorous from the very literal import of the word, which Christians mistook to be ‘inspired’.) of monotheism and prophet hood.

TURNING TABLES OVER:

If the yardstick to check the veracity of any candidate touting to be prophet is, quoting David Wood of his deductions of Deuteronomy 18:20,:

Here we have two criteria for spotting a false prophet: (1) delivering a revelation which God has not “commanded him to speak,” and (2) speaking “in the name of other gods.” (Emphasis added)

AND YET AGAIN, he provides the same criterion:

“Argument B—false revelations and false prophets
B1. If a person delivers a revelation that doesn’t come from God, that person is a false prophet.(Emphasis added)

B2. Muhammad delivered a revelation that didn’t come from God.
——————————————————
B3. Therefore, Muhammad was a false prophet.”

Therefore, to paraphrase, a veritable Prophet should not speak anything which has not been authorized/endorsed or “commanded” by God to him. That is to say, if the candidate speaks out of his own whims then that Prophet is a false prophet and “he should die”.
Now, with this concept in the background let us analyze ‘Apostle Paul’.

It is reported of Paul as saying: “I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others.”(The Open Bible: 2 Corinthians 8:8,NKJV)

Here, Paul did not had any specific “command” from Almighty, nevertheless, embarrassingly he was currying people’s love and respect to him to transmute his personal opinions as spiritual decrees.

OR

“Now, concerning what you wrote about unmarried people: I do not have a command from the Lord, but I give my opinion …” (Holy Bible: 1 Corinthians 7:25, Today’s English Version)

“Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment …”(The Open Bible: 1 Corinthians 7:25, NKJV)

It does not require any stodgy exegesis here that Paul was using his own whims; he admittedly, did not had any command from Higher authority, contrary to that, he was presumptuously basing his judgments upon his own personal feelings. Therefore, violating the aforementioned premise that if he (purported candidate) delivers a revelation which does not come from God, such a candidate would be spurious prophet.
One might object that Paul was only passing judgment he was not promulgating personal revelations. Such a person should take note of that the issue on which Paul was passing “judgment” was no mundane issue; it was a spiritual – a religious issue. And Christians would agree with me that religion is not man made, its tenets, its rules and regulations on any matter – every matter is to be set by God through revelations through His apostles. As in the case of Mohammad, peace be upon him, a truthful messenger of God, he would rather wait for revelations to descend without passing judgments than relying on his own personal opinions. His judgments, thus, were not his judgments but God Almighty’s. The authentic modus operandi of an authentic apostle of Almighty.

It is verifiably established, from Biblical sources, that Paul was not a true apostle, however, he used his own mind to cull decrees of spiritual import. Not only that, he shamelessly, used the love and favor of the multitudes to impress on them decrees of spiritual relevance. These facts only elicit the selfish nature of the man to rule over multitudes.

IN THE END:

“Soon will We show them Our Signs in the (furthest) Regions (of the earth), and In their own souls, until It becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that Thy Lord doth witness All things?”(The Holy Quran, 41:53)

Note: I entreat Allah through this paper of mine to bestow mercy and blessings on my father who rests in his grave now. Ameen.

By: Question Mark

                                                WHO IS “KALKI AVTAAR”?

INTRODUCTION:

            For centuries multitudes of Hindus have been trying to search for that candidate who has been portended as “KALKI AVTAAR” in their sacred scriptures. This brief article is intended to quell that search under the light of sacred Hindu Scriptures.

What is “KALKI AVTAAR”, anyway?

            A leading proponent in the field of Sanskrit, Dr. M.A. Srivastava, writes in his book*, on page 19, “Avtaar” word is made by the amalgamation of  “Tri” with root “Ghain”. It means “to come on earth”. He further writes, “In (the phrase) ‘Avtaar “of” God, “of” is relational sign, hence, it is perspicuous that with relation to God; human is to come(take birth on earth). He strongly exhorts to not to confuse the import of “Avtaar” with ‘God Incarnate’, as he writes on page 5, “The meaning of “Avtaar” is never correct to be taken as God descending on earth bodily.” (Kindly Refer: Kalki Avtaar aur Mohammad Sahab). Dr. M.A. Srivastava further corroborates his notion through the concordant views held by religious giants and scholars. To name some of them are:-

Swami Vivekanand, Gurunanak Saheb, Pt. Sunder Lal, Dr. Ved Prakash Upadhyay etc and many more.

So, with this concept of “Avtaar” let us search for him in sacred Hindu Scriptures.

Stage Set:

            It is expedient to understand the circumstances and other ambient conditions such as social, moral, ethical etc in which “Kalki” would appear.

          “He would take birth when violence and chaos would be rife. When female infants would be buried alive.”, writes Dr.M.A.Srivastava (Please see: Hazrat Mohammad aur Bhartiya Dhram Granth, Dr. M.A. Srivastava, Publisher Madhur Sandesh Sangam). Furthermore, he would appear when swords would be used in battles (Bhagwat Puran ,12 Skandh, 2 Adhyay, 19^th Shloke). It can be immediately deduced from the above cited “shloka” that “Kalki Avtaar” has already appeared because swords are no more to be used in strife and battles. But they were used 1400 years ago!

          Mohammad, peace be upon him(pbuh)- The last messenger of Allah came with his divine mission under exactly same situation, as Quran testifies, “When the female(infant), buried alive is questioned- For what crime she was killed.” (The Holy Quran 81:8-9).

          It is also verifiable fact that during Mohammad’s era swords were one of the chief weapons to be used.

Where will “Kalki” take birth?

            “Kalki Avtaar”, according to “Kalki” and “Bhagwat Puran”, would take birth at “Shambhal”. According to legendary Sanskrit and Vedic Scholar, Dr. Ved Prakash Upadhyay**, “Shambhal” has an import of Adjective than a Proper Noun. Thus, the literal meaning of “Shambhal”, according to scholars, is a place of serenity and peace.

          Now, Mohammad(pbuh), was born in Mecca which is also called as “Dar-ul-Aman”. It is verbatim translation of “Shambhal” – A place of serenity and peace.

MM/DD/YYYY:

            The date of birth of “Kalki Avtaar” is provided in, 2^nd Adhyay, Shlok 15 of Kalki Puran: He would take birth in “Shukal Pakchha of Madhumas” and on 12^th of Rabi Fasal’s Moon.

          Amazingly, Mohammad(pbuh) was born on 12^th Rabi – ul – Awwal. Rabi – ul – Awwal means month of happiness and joy – “Madhumas”.

Kalki’s Parentage:

            Kalki’s father would be “Vishnuvyas”. His mother’s name on the other hand, would be “Sumati”. (Vishnuvyas: Bhagwat Puran, Dwadash Skandh, 2 Adhyay, 18^th Shloke). Vishnuvyas, means, “worshipper of God”, because it is framed on two other basic words, namely, “Vishnu” which means God and “Vyas” which means worshipper. Similarly, “Abdullah” – Father of Mohammad(pbuh), also means “Worshipper of God.”

          Similarly, “Sumati” means one of peaceful and agreeable nature. Astonishingly, “Amna” – Mother of Mohammad (pbuh) – also means Peace loving and serene natured. “Amna” is derived from Arabic root “Aman” which itself means Peace.

Four Brothers:

          Kalki Avtaar would eradicate evil with the help of four brothers. (Kalki Puran Adhyay 2, shlok 5). No wonder, Mohammad(pbuh), was supported arduously by four of his very close relatives, namely, Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali and Usman. May Allah be pleased with them. They are perfectly squaring with Hindu Scriptures.

The last one:

            Kalki Avtar is prophesised as to be the Last messenger(Avtaar) of the last era (Yug). (Bhagwat Puran, Pratham Skandh, Tritiya Adhyay, 25^th shloke).

          No anomaly, Mohammad was also the last and final prophet who came with the Last revelation. He was the seal of all prophets. “Mohammad is no the father of any of your men, but (he is) the messenger of Allah, and the seal of the prophets.” The Holy Quran 33:40.

Further Support from Upanishads.

            So much from Puranas (Kalki Purana). Now, let us adduce you something from Upanishad – “Allo – Upanishad.”

Prelude to Allo – Upanishad

          Lay Hindu might now be fully apprised that Allo – Upanishad is an authoritative book in Hindu Scriptural canon. Allo – Upanishad holds 15^th position out of total 220 Upanishads in the Upanishad canon. (Kindly refer : “Upanishad Ank”. Published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur). Furthermore, Dr. Ved Prakash Upadhyay ** has considered Allo-Upanishad as authoritative. ( Kindly read: “Vedic Sahitaya: Ek Vivechan, Pradeep Prakashan, Page 101, 1989 Edition).

What is in Allo – Upanishad?

          Verses 4 through 8 reads, “Allah send all rishies and created the moon, sun and stars. He(Allah) send all Rishies and created the Sky. Allah created the universe. Allah is the Greatest, none is worthy of worship besides him. O worshipper, tell (them), there is none worthy of worship besides Allah. Allah is since time immemorial(Anadi). He is the sustainer of the whole world. He is the dispeller of evils and trials. Mohammad is Allah’s messenger( who in turn) is the sustainer of this world. Thus, proclaim that Allah is one and there is none worthy of worship besides Him.

Wisdom of the Wise:

            Dr. Ved Prakash Upadhyay, a pioneer proponent in the field, comments that the unprecedented similarities which he found between “Kalki” and “Mohammad” startles him; that the “Kalki” which Indians were waiting for has come and Mohammad Sahab is the same (Kalki Avtaar). (Kalki Avatar and Mohammad Sahab, page 59).

Rounding off:

            Evading my verbosity, let me conclude with Allah’s divine words, “You have indeed in the messenger of Allah(Mohammad) an excellent exempler.” (The Holy Quran 33:21.)

By:- Question Mark

MAY PEACE AND BLESSINGS OF ALLAH BE ON YOU.

Bibliography and References:-

(*) Hazrat Mohammad aur Bhartiya Dhram Granth, Dr. M.A. Srivastava, Publisher Madhur Sandesh Sangam.

(**) Dr. Ved Prakash Upadhyay,

        M.A(Allahabad), M.A.(G.N.U. Amristar)

        L.L.B, D.Phil, D.Lit, (Allahabad Acharya)

        Ved, Darshan, Dharmashastra, Dip in German,

        Gold Medalist, Roder Punjab University, Chandigarh.

Mohammad had more than 4 wives!!

Quran 4.3 reads “Marry women of your choice, two or three, or four;…”; suggesting a muslim to have maximum of four wives simultaneously, however, authentic Islamic sources inform that Mohammad(pbuh) had more than four wives. Thus, on the surface, there seems to be a contradiction. So, this essay would help dispell this specious contradiction eliciting Allah’s divine plan behind Mohammad’s marraiges, peace be upon him, and how and why he was coaxed to marry more than four wives on Legislative, Educational, Political, Social, Humane(e) grounds. And further, in the essay, we would learn that in reality, lay muslims are given prerogative of more than four marraiges, however, on the other hand prophet was banished from this privilage.

In the first place, it is important to carefully understand that on a whole the laws of Islam set by Allah was the same for prophet(pbuh) and lay muslims, nevertheless, because Mohammad(pbuh) was the messenger, the leader, the prophet, so there was aberrations on certain issues, owing to the responsibilities of messengership,and this is not partiality or breach of any law, this is justification of his(pbuh) leadership, which, I would try to elicit convincingly, inshallah. So, the question is why did Mohammad(pbuh) marry more than four wives; here are the grounds which engendered his marraiges under special circumtances.

(1) Legislative: One important underlying reason behind some of the marraiges of the Holy Prophet was to abolish certain pre-Islamic systems and customs such as ‘adoption’. An adopted child was treated like real child in every respect, including inheritance, marraige, divorce, rights and obligations…etc. In pre-Islamic times, Mohammad(pbuh), had adopted Zaid bin Haritha. A Quranic verse was reveled regarding the status of adoption to the effect that adopted persons should be called by the names of their biological fathers and no the names of their adopters, in order not to confuse or mix up lineage and family relations, thereby making lawful things unlawful, or unlawful things lawful. Therefore, the Prophet Muhammad said to Zaid: “You are Zaid, son of Haritha, son of Sharahil.” He married his (Mohammad’s) cousin Zainab bint Jahsh off to him. She lived with him for some time but due to lack of harmony between them he was obliged to divorce, Muhammad(pbuh) was ordered by Allah to get married to her to abolish the traditional system of adoption. Mohammad first was afraid that hypocrites would say that Mohammad had got married to his son’s wife and so he hesitated. Therefore, he was admonished by Allah in verse 37 of Sura 33: “You did fear the people whereas Allah had a better right that you should fear Him, So when Zaid had dissolved his marraige with her We gave her to you in marraige, so that(henceforth) there may be no difficulty to the believers in respect of marraige with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved (their marraige) with them. And Allah’s command must be fulfilled. This brought the system of adoption to and end. The was reasserted in another verse: “Mohammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah, and the Last of the prophets. And Allah has full knowledge of all things.”(Quran 33.40).

(2) Educational Aspect: The basic purpose of the prophet’s marriages was to educate and graduate a number of women teachers to teach Muslim ladies their religion, especially those personal or private details which are peculiar to women, for it would be easier and more convenient for them to learn them from a women like them, such as the verdicts and instructions relating to menses, puerperium, purification, marital affairs, and other women-related matters. Women found difficulty in asking about such matters as many of them were too shy to do that. Even the Holy prophet himself was too shy to explain such matters explicitly and it would be difficult for ladies to get his indirect speech or metonyms. Therefore, it would be wise to prepare a number of women enough to provide knowledge their muslim sisters. In addition, his wives were the best to convey to us even the minutest details of his private and family life as this is part of his Sunnah, blessings and peace be upon him.

(3) Political Aspect: The Prophet (pbuh) got married to some women in order to attract and unite the hearts of people and tribes around him. The affinity with tribes or clans calls them to help him with his propagation of Islam and to protect him. For example, the prophet’s marriage to Juwairiya, daughter of Al-Harith, head of Bani Al-Mustaliwho q tribe convinced the prophet’s companions to set free all captives from this tribe, which, in turn, impressed all Bani-Mustaliq and made them embrace Islam. In this context we may understand prophet’s marriage with Safiya, daughter of Huyay bin Akhtab, leader of the Jewish tribe Quraizah,when he offered to free her from captivity andmary her or set her and send her back to her people, but whe chose to be his wife. Also his marriage to Ramla, daughter of Abu Sufyan, who bore the flag of polytheism and war against Islam. This marriage attracted the hearts of her father and his men and honored her for her sincerity and faith.

(4) Social Aspect: This is well demonstrated by the prophet’s marriage to Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakar, the prophet’s first minister and helper, and to Hafsa, daughter of Umar, his second minister and helper. This is matched by the Prophet’s giving his daughters to Uthman and Ali as wives. These four men were the greatest of his companions and Caliphs to the rule and leadership of the Muslim nation. This apect is also demonstrated by his relations established with Quraish, the people of Makkah, through such marriages.

(5) Human(e) Aspect: Some of his marriages were contracted as a way of benevolence and kindness to widows who were left by their deceased ex-husbands and with no helper or supporter, and the prophet proved to be the best loyal and loving husband. Among such wives were Sawda bint Zama, who was fifty-five years old and Zainab bin Khuzaima, who was sixty years old.

So, as we studied, it was the encumberance of messengership, leadership which sort of forced prophet(pbuh) to marry more than four wives. But the saga of his sacrifices do not stop here, because as stated earlier we would learn in the next part that it was prophet who was banished to a fixed number of marriages.

We read, in Quran 33.52 , “It is not lawful for thee(To marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives,”. It should be immediately noted that after the revelation of this verse, the prophet(pbuh) did not had any formal marriage for his entire life time except for right hand possession. No formal marriage what so ever. The immediate inferences which can be drawn from the aforestated verse is atleast two-folds.

(i) Death
(ii) Divorce

(i) Death: If a lay muslim is bereaved of one or more wives then he has options to marry(up to four marriages, simultaneously) but prophet according to Quran33.52 was pre-empted of this privilege. Now try to think on a hypothetical situation where all of prophet’s wives died at the same instant.!!. Kindly, realive the equity in Allah’s plan even in those matters which were meant ‘only’ for prophets.

(ii) Divorce: On the same argument as in (i) a lay muslim has freedom to marry as many as he has divorced , however, Mohammad(pbuh) did not had any such options after the revelation of Quran 33.52. This argument is obviously based on the assumption that if Mohammad(pbuh) wanted to divorce.

In conclusion, when we understand the circumstances and needs which engendered prophets marriages coupled with the restrictions laid by Quran 33.52, on prophet Mohammad(pbuh) only, pre-empting him of marriages even in the case of death – of – all – wives then a picture which is just and equitable and by noway breach of any law or partiality crops up.

Authored by:- Question Mark

The Allegation: To summarize, the following set of ahadith stating hell fire to be forbidden for any testifying only deity of Allah,, however, in a different set of ahadith the prophet stated that the muslims would be burnt in hell fire before they would be extricated from it. Therefore, a seemingly contradiction on the face of it.

Set one: Hell fire forbidden on the testifier is present at Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 431 and Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0045.

Set two: Muslims would be burnt in hell for a while can be found at Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 601 and Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 542.

The refutation: Yes, I agree, that on the surface there seems to be contradiction. Allah has even exhorted cynics to find contradictions but not before pondering assiduously in it; as Allah says: “ Do they not ponder on the Quran?( we make no differene between God’s word and His messenger’s word although the verse is specific for Quran) Had it been from other than Allah they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.” Q 4:82.

Thus, to ‘ponder’ we will have to understand the key words as they were used (1) in context(in Quran) and in totality of Islamic scriptures. (2) As understood by great scholars of the like of Imam Bukhari – compiler of Sahih Bukhari- and Imam Nawawi- compiler of famous Riyadh-us-Saleheen and a commentator of Sahih Muslim Shariff. The refutation can be easily grounded on the above two bases.

The Reconciliation:
</strong>(1) In context and in Arabic parlance; First perspective to refutation:

Whenever Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, taught his companions matters of faith- he would fervently conjunct it with righteous deeds for absolute immunization from hell fire. “ But those who believe and do deeds of righteousness We shall soon admit them to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath to dwell therein for ever.” Q 4:122. He, peace be upon him, again repeated the same message two verses later: “If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female – and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them.”

Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, made it redundant and inculcated the same message of conjuncting righteous deeds with faith for complete redemption from hell fire again. He cited them myriad of places in Quran including, Quran 49: 14-15: “The desert Arabs say, “We believe.” Say, “Ye have no faith; but ye (only)say, ‘We have submitted our wills to Allah,’ For not yet has Faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons in the Cause of Allah: Such are the sincere ones. He oft repeated this message at Quran 103:1-3; 23:1-4; 5:12; 24:37-38; 29:7; 39:35 again and again until what faith meant(i.e. belief conjuncted with righteous deeds) became clear and implicit for any future use.

Thus, when irrefutable prophet- prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, said “If anybody comes on the Day of Resurrection who has said: La ilaha illallah, sincerely, with the intention to win Allah’s Pleasure, Allah will make the Hell-Fire forbidden for him.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 431” and “…He who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, Allah would prohibit the fire of Hell for him. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0045” he but naturally, on the corollary of aforestated Quranic arguments, implied faith to be amalgamated with righteous deeds for absolute shield from hell-fire.

Nevertheless, if an Evangandist find it prejudicially far-fetched. Then let him taste couple more flavors and then choose.

(2) Authoritative comments:

The ‘Evangandist’ used the compilation of Imam Bukhari
but to his chagrin or machination eluded what the scholar himself had to say on the prelude to his Kitabul – Iman or Book of Faith*. We will have to understand what the word ‘testification’ means and how was it used in the hadith as adduced by ignorant evangandist. To meet this purpose Imam Bukhari writes: “Baabo Kaulan Nabiye- sallahoalaihewasallam- buniyal Islamo ala khamayeen wa kaulan; wa felan, wa yaziddo wa yankaro…” This Arabic quotation – to the embarrassment of the Evangandist means: “ Islam is based on five pillars, first to “testify” that there is no deity(worthy of worship) but Allah. This ‘Testification’ means to accept by heart and lips(kaulan) and to materialize it through righteous deeds(felan)”

Again, even according to this hadith faith has to be coupled with righteous deeds, just like other Quranic ayahs already posted above, however, if the latter is amiss then those Muslims will have to burn before they re extricated from hell-fire, as illustrated below: “…I then return for a fourth time and praise Him similarly and prostrate before Him. He asks me the same as he did, ‘O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to; and ask, for you will be granted (your request): and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.’ I will say, ‘O Lord, allow me to intercede for whoever said, “None has the right to be worshiped except Allah.” Then Allah will say, ‘By my Power, and my Majesty, and by My Supremacy, and by My Greatness, I will take out of Hell (Fire) whoever said: ‘None has the right to be worshipped except Allah.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 601”.

(3) Yet another Refutation:

Imam Nawawi explain** in the commentary of Sahih Muslim Shariff, Book 1 , No 45- to the mischief of the Evangandist this is the same hadith which he has used to apparently elicit contradiction – that when Messenger of Allah said that hell will be forbidden on him( the testifier)- he meant that candidate would be forbidden from eternal banishment to hell or he would be forbidden from that category of hell which is meant for non-muslims( their eternal abode therein). So, here I cite Imam Nawawi’s comment with the hadith in question, “It is narrated on the authority of Sunabihi that he went to Ubada b. Samit when he was about to die. I burst into tears. Upon this he said to me: Allow me some time (so that I may talk with you). Why do you weep? By Allah, if I am asked to bear witness, I would certainly testify for you (that you are a believer). Should I be asked to intercede, I would certainly intercede for you, and if I have the power, I would certainly do good to you, and then observed: By Allah, never did I hear anything from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) which could have been a source of benefit to you and then not conveyed it to you except this single hadith that I intend to narrate to you today, since I am going to breathe my last. I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: He who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, Allah would prohibit the fire of Hell for him.(Imam Nawawi: That is to be forbidden to be banished in hell for ever or to be forbidden to be consigned to that category of Hell in which will be put disbelievers forever.”)***

To Sum Up:

Therefore, to round up, according to the first set of hadith( set one) when somebody testifies then he implicitly testifies for both faith and deeds(righteous), however, if the latter is lacking then he would be burnt in the hell fire for sometime and later extricated and this is accordance with second set of hadith (set two).

To End:

I would like to end with a quotation from Glorious Quran which answers succinctly all the above gymnastics of rebuttals and refutations in mere two lines!!
“ And they say: “None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. “Those are their (vain) desires. Say: “Produce your proof if ye are truthful.”
Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to Allah and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” Quran 2:111-112.

May this article work as a means of solace to my father in grave. Ameen.

Authored by :- Question Mark.

(*) Sahih Bukhari Shariff(1-3), Page 26, Urdu Sha’raa by Mohammad Dawood Raz. Publisher: Adara Noorul Iman, Ajmeri Gate Delhi, India.

(**) Sahih Muslim Shariff(1-2), Page 117, Ma Sha’raa Nawawi. Urdu Tarjuman Waheed- uz-zama. Publisher: Khalid Ehsan, Lahore, Pakistan.

*** This was translated by me from Urdu Script and I am liable to err for I am a human otherwise I have tried my level best to match the original in spirit.

Qurani Quotations Taken from Quran translated by Abdullah Yousuf Ali.