“And they say: The Beneficent has adopted a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, they are honored, slaves.”(Qur’an 21:26)
“But the Jews and the Christians say, “We are the children of Allah and His beloved.” Say, “Then why does He punish you for your sins?” Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the [final] destination.” (Qur’an 5:18)
﷽
“They say: “(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!” Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son (like-kind) for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a (like-kind) son.” (Qur’an 19:88-92)
“Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is indepenent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring forth like kind nor was he from like kind. And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
THE BIBLE’S POSITION
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever shall believe in him will not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16 King James Version)
What does begotten mean? (According to the English language)
Answer: Begotten is a past participle of beget.
Beget begot, begotten: To become the father of: sire
Sire 1: Father 2: The male parent of an animal (as a horse or dog) sired, siring, PRO-CREATE
Source:(The Merriam Webster’s Dictionary For Large Print Users)
Beget – give birth to
Source: (Webster’s Dictionary)
It is indeed blasphemous to ascribe offspring to the Almighty Allah. It is also insulting to the human intellect of any rational person. All Christians of every sect believe Jesus is the ‘Son of God’.
Allah declares that ascribing a son or any offspring to him is a thing most blasphemous.
We as human beings have children to pro-create our species, and to ensure that humanity survives. We will all die; therefore it is a necessity that sons and daughters take our place.
However, Allah is Ever-Living and needs no such means for survival.
Christians will object and say this is a misrepresentation of their beliefs. Yet, they will claim we know it means ‘Sired by God’, but that is not what we believe!
What does begotten mean? (According to the Greek language)
Their own dictionaries describe Christ Jesus as God’s ‘offspring’ and ‘stock’.
We will now walk through the development of this all-important Christian concept. We will show conclusively how an innocuous expression ‘Son of God‘ became Jesus ‘The Son of God’ in the very theologically loaded sense that it is today.
This very belief latter transforms into ‘God the Son’ the second member of the ever infamous Tri-theistic Trinity of the Athanasian Creed.
SONS BY THE TONS
As Sheikh Ahmed Deedat used to say:
The terms ‘Son of God’ and ‘children of God’ are often used throughout the Bible.
EXAMPLES:
“You are children of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1)
“He shall build a house for my name, and he shall be my son, and I will be his father.” (I Chronicles 22:10)
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” (Job 1:6)
“I have said, you are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High” (Psalms 82:6-7)
“...For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.” (Jeremiah 31:9)
“Have we not one father?” “Has not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10)
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God” (Matthew 5:9)
“For unto which of the angels, said he at any time, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you? And again, I will be to him A FATHER, and he shall be tome A SON?” (Hebrews 1:5)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
In none of the above quotations are the terms ‘children of God’ or ‘Son of God’ understood to be non-allegorical. So why in the case of Jesus is he understood to be the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.
If you will pay special attention to the last quotation of Hebrews 1:5 you will see that Jesus is ‘A’ Son and God is ‘A’ Father unto him. It does not say Jesus is ‘THE’ Son and God is ‘THE’ father of Jesus.
The reason why Jesus is ‘a’ son and God is ‘a’ father has to do with adoptionist theology.
Jesus a righteous man or ‘son of God’?
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matthew 27:54)
“The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.”(Luke 23:47)
So we can see that Matthew and Luke report the centurion saying two different things? So is this a contradiction or an acceptable allegory? We would say that this is not a contradiction it is an acceptable allegory. That ‘son of God’ simply meant a righteous servant, one near to God.
Son of God or Slave of God?
“And they say: The Beneficent has adopted a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, they are honored, slaves.“(Qur’an 21:26)
“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 King James Version)
“To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 New King James Version)
Notice that the King James Version calls Jesus “his Son”,Whereas the New King James Version calls Jesus “His Servant” and whenever you see that word “servant” in the New Testament, it means slave.
WHAT IS ADOPTIONIST THEOLOGY?
Adoptinonist theology:
Adoptionist refers to a person who believes that Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism, while adoptionism is the theological doctrine that Jesus was born a mere mortal and was later adopted as the Son of God.
What are the text used in the Bible to support this view held by early Christians?
“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to Me a son; so that when he goes astray I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of Adam.” (2 Samuel 7:14)
Prima Qur’an comments:
I am not currently his father but I will be.
He is not currently my son but he will be.
I will be to him ‘a’ father. Not ‘the’ father.
He will be to me ‘a’ son. Not ‘the’ son.
If he goes astray he will be chastened.
Here we have a concept of God appointing someone to be his son, or we may say a righteous servant.
This is also stated in Psalms 2:2 and Psalms 2:7 in a reference to King David.
“The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed.” (Psalms 2:2)
“I will declare the decree: the Lord has said unto me, You are my Son; This day have I begotten you.” (Psalms 2:7)
Note: It has this day I have begotten you. It is being said to King David while he is alive and a grown adult. David was appointed by adoption to be the ‘son of God’.
A THEOLOGY TAKES SHAPE
We will now show how ‘Son of God’ in New Testament theology takes a total and complete departure from how ‘Son of God’ was used in the Old Testament.
Now I will give you the proof text which shows how Jesus went from being the adopted ‘Son of God’ to the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.
ADOPTIONIST THEOLOGY BEHIND THE BAPTISM OF JESUS
“And there came a voice from heaven, saying, YOU ARE my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:11)
Note: The voice from heaven addressed Jesus. The Greek for YOU is su (SU).
“And there came a voice from heaven, saying, “THIS IS my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mathew 3:17)
Note: The voice from heaven talks about Jesus. The Greek for THIS IS outos (HOUTOS).
Question: Why the change in voice?
Why would one writer deliberately alter the wording of the text?
Answer: The theology!
Mark’s theology held that Jesus became the ‘Son of God’ at baptism, much like David’s coronation in 2 Samuel 7:14
Matthew’s theology held that Jesus was already the ‘Son of God’ based on the virgin birth.
So Jesus does not need to know who he is. Thus, the voice is changed from “You are my son” to an announcement to the ignorant crowd: “This is my son.”
The Qur’an and the Gospel of Luke reject Matthew’s claim.
Note: Look at the Gospel of Luke and Qur’an say in response to Matthew’s claim about Jesus being the ‘son of God’ based upon the virgin birth.
“And they had no child because Elizabeth was barren, and they were now well stricken in years.” (Luke 1:7)
“And Zacharias said unto the angel, how shall I know this? I am an old man, and wife is well stricken in years. And the angel answered said to him, “I am Gabriel who stands in the presence of God; I am sent to speak unto you and to show you glad tidings.” (Luke 1:18-19)
(His prayer was answered): “O Zakariya!” We give you good news of a son: His name shall be Yahya: on none by that name have We conferred distinction before.” He said: “O my Lord”! How shall I have a son, when my wife is barren, and I have grown quite decrepit from old age?” He said: “So (it will be) your Lord says, ‘that is easy for Me: I did indeed create you before when you had been nothing!‘” (Qur’an 19:7-9)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Allah asks Zechariah to reflect upon the fact that he was created indeed before he was nothing
“Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: “I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah.” He said: ” I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a holy son. She said: “How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?” He said: “So (it will be): Your Lord says, ‘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 19:16-21)
“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)
Prima Qur’an Comment: All glory to be to Allah! Allah explains things in a very simple manner for Christians. Allah says that Adam was made from dust(nothingness) and he was simply willed into being. Thus, as Allah (swt) made Adam from nothingness, likewise Christ Jesus, as the word of Allah, is the created word of Allah. Just as all of Allah’s words are created. Jesus, as the kalim of Allah, was created from nothingness.
THE CREATION OF 5 TYPES OF HUMAN BEINGS:
1) Adam was made without a man or a woman and not divine!
2) Eve made without a woman and not divine!
3) Jesus made without a man and not divine!
4) Isaac and John made while their parents were old, infertile, and not divine!
5) The rest of humanity is made of man and woman and not divine!
THE LUKE FACTOR…
Luke’s version of the baptism of Jesus:
“And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, YOU ARE my beloved Son; in you, I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22)
Note:
1) Luke has the story of the virgin birth
2) Luke has Jesus addressed ‘you are’.
“A few MSS [“D”, “o”, “b”] and Patristic citations representing the “Western” text, have, instead of (You are my beloved Son, in you, I am well pleased), the words of Psalms 2:7, You are my son this day have I begotten you.
“Numerous expositors (e.g. W. Mason, Zahn, Klostermann, Harnack, Moffat, Streeter) accept this variant reading as the original. The majority then explain the alteration of the text from the fact that copyists regarded these words as a contradiction to the reality of the virgin birth.”
Source: [The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke by Norval Geldenhuys p. 148]
Prima Qur’an Comment: If we take the above evidence, then the baptism of Jesus (according to Luke) would look like this:
“And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, “You are my son, this day have I begotten you”. (Luke 3:22)
This would mean that Jesus became the ‘son of God’ at his baptism as an adult in the same way David became the ‘son of God’ as an adult.
Let’s continue…
“More important still is the fact that the heavenly voice which greeted Jesus at his baptism hailed him in the opening words of the decree of Psalms 2:7 ‘You are my Son’ Mark 1:11”
“Indeed, the “Western” text of Luke 3:22 represents the fuller wording from Psalms 2:7 which is quoted here by the author of Hebrews 1:5”
“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son. “This day have I begotten you?” (Hebrews 1:5)
“The words were evidently in widespread use as a testimonial in the apostolic age, as Acts 13:33 bears witness, and not only these words but the other parts of psalms were given a messianic interpretation, as may be seen from the quotation and explanation of its first two verses in Acts 4:25.
Source: [The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews FF. Bruce]
“God has fulfilled the same unto us, their children, in that he has raised Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalms, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you.” (Acts 13:33)
“Why does the heathen rage, and people imagine a vain thing? “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his ANOINTED.” (Psalms 2:1-2)
“Who, by the mouth of your SERVANT David, has said, Why DID the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? “The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his CHRIST.” (Acts 4:25-26)
Note: Some important points need to be made.
David was called ANOINTED (Christ). Also, Luke says David was a SERVANT (Slave) of God. This also means Jesus is like David: He is Anointed, meaning appointed by God. Jesus is also the Servant (slave) of God!
Let’s continue…
“Likewise, certain early manuscripts of Luke quote all of Psalms 2:7: Luke 3:22 in Codex Bezae, and certain old Latin Manuscripts used by Justin, Clement, Origen, and Augustine read, “You are my Son this day have I begotten you.”
But interestingly, Luke also used Psalms 2:7, in a speech composed for Paul.
In Paul’s theology, Jesus was “DECLARED to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4)
“Luke apparently knew of this Pauline teaching for he has Paul quoting Psalms 2:7 as a speech uttered to Jesus at his resurrection, and not his baptism! Acts 13:32-33
“For Luke and Paul Psalms 2:7 is a RESURRECTION prophecy and not a BAPTISM prophecy.”
LUKE: He sees the water Jesus is baptized in as ‘the grave’. When Jesus comes out of the water, it is his ‘resurrection.’ The water is symbolic: of ‘being washed by the blood’ of Jesus.
MARK: believed Jesus to be the adopted ‘Son of God’. In the same way, David was the adopted ‘Son of God’, Thus Jesus became the ‘Son of God’ at his baptism.
MATTHEW: believed Jesus was the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ based on the virgin birth.
LUKE AND PAUL: believe Jesus was the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ based on his resurrection from the dead.
Note: Paul said Jesus was ‘Declared’ to be the ‘Son of God’ not that HE WAS the ‘Son of God’
Source: Romans 1:3
What do Christians mean: Jesus is the ‘Son of God’?
Examination time!
We have already seen what begotten means. Not only this but every modern translation of the Bible does away with the term ‘begotten‘?
Why?
Answer:
1) Because David was called, ‘the begotten Son of God’: in Psalms (2:7). You cannot have Jesus be the ‘only-begotten’ when David is already begotten.
2)Hebrews 11:17
“By faith, Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promise offered up his only-begotten son.”
a) This is a flat contradiction because Ishmael was begotten before Isaac was.
b) Or this is not to be understood as allegorical.
We know this is not understood literally. Isaac is not the only-begotten son; just as Jesus is not the non-allegorical ‘son of God’.
Question: Is Jesus ‘eternally begotten’ by the father?
Answer: No!
Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son?” This day have I begotten you?”
Prima Qur’an Comment: Jesus cannot be ‘eternally begotten’ by the father when this passage clearly states ‘This day’ have I begotten you. Indeed, one would wonder what day that is.
Tertullian did not believe in the eternality of the son.
For example, to me, it is very clear that Tertullian did not believe in the eternality of the son based upon the following:
“Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.”
When the Church decided upon the doctrine of Tri-theism they had to make Jesus co-equal and co-eternal with the father in so doing the doctrine of adoption created huge problems for them. Not only this but if Jesus was indeed begotten ‘this day’ he would not be co-eternal. This is why the Church called Jesus ‘eternally begotten’.
There is no Greek text to support the idea that Jesus is ‘eternally begotten‘ That is why to meet the strong arguments of Bishop Arius his fellow Christians could only respond with two things:
1. Violence.
2. Use an oxymoron ‘eternally begotten‘.
The Greek text is monogenes
How do other Bibles translate John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son (or the unique son of God), that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have life eternal.” [The Living Bible]John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” [New International Version] John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” [Revised Standard Version] John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” [The New American Bible] John 3:16
Note: All of the above translations say something like ‘Only Son’ or ‘Unique Son’.
a) Either this is a flat contradiction because, as shown from Hebrews 1:5 Jesus is ‘A’ Son not ‘Thee’ Son of God.
b) Or this is to be understood as allegorical!
We know this is not to be taken nonallegorically. Jesus is not the only son because, as already proven, God has many ‘sons’.
As far as the ‘Unique Son’ is concerned, every ‘Son of God’ is unique! So, once again, Christians are at a loss to explain how Jesus is the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.
Remember that Jesus never once claimed to be the ‘only son’ of God!
Christians started to see the problem with John 3:16 translations. In a classic debate between Christian televangelist Jimmy Swaggart and Muslim debater Ahmed Deedat, Swaggart anticipated a possible question of Deedat by saying the following:
@ 8:53 minutes “Now I want to start this off tonight by quoting a passage of scripture that Mr. Deedat and myself disagree somewhat over. But which is one of if not the dearest passage in the word of God to the world of Christendom. Found in St. John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only unique Son (Fooled you there Mr. Deedat), his only unique son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
The Christians should repent to Allah for every ascribing a non-allegorical son to him. Glory be to Allah who has not adopted a son or daughter! It can be seen how Jesus was called the ‘Son of God’ in the same way that previous people were called ‘Sons of God’.
However, this concept slowly evolved from being the adopted son of God into Jesus being the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ and eventually led to him being ‘eternally begotten God’
May Allah bring the people out of the great darkness into the light. May Allah guide us to the truth!
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.”(Qur’an 5:83)
“Also, mention when the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good news of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near to Allah. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous. “She said, “My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?” The angel said, “Such is Allah; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is. (Qur’an 3:45-47)
﷽
“Also, mention, in the book the story of Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east and she took, in seclusion from them, a screen. Then We sent to her Our Angel, and he represented himself to her as a well-proportioned man. She said, “Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, so leave me, if you should be fearing of Allah. He said, “I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you news of a pure boy. “She said, “How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste? “He said, “Thus it will be; your Lord says, ‘it is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter already decreed.” (Qur’an 19:16-21)
As Shaykh Ahmed Deedat (r) has mentioned in his Pamphlet “Is the Bible God’s Word?” page 11:
We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of — grave or minor —defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible. Here I will endeavor to cast just a cursory glance at a “half-a-dozen” or so of those “minor” changes.
1. “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14 – AV) The indispensable “VIRGIN” in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase “a young woman,” which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word almah. Almah is the word that has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and NOT bethulah, which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer “VIRGIN.”
The argument goes (from the Jews) and the atheists, for that matter, that if the Gospel writer ‘Matthew’ had been inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit, then he (Matthew) would not have relied upon the Jewish Septuagint for the source of his quote.
Technically, the word almah more than not was used for a young woman that could be married. Being a young, unmarried woman, it was often understood that she was not married and thus, a virgin.
However, those who argue against this state that the word ‘bethulah’, which actually does mean virgin, should have been used in place of ‘almah’, which has the possibility of being a virgin.
The website: Jews for Jesus has the following to say:
We as Muslims could agree with our Christian apologist and say look, ‘almah’likely means ‘virgin’ and that is good enough.
The reason that it is not good enough is that the author of the ‘Gospel According to Matthew’ had made some huge blunders when being reliant upon the Greek Septuagint.
We will give a clear example: Believe us, there are many!
“When they drew near Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them here to me. And if anyone should say anything to you, reply, ‘The master has need of them.’ Then he will send them at once. “This happened so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled: Say to daughter Zion, ‘Behold, your king comes to you, meek and riding on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’ “The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them. The huge crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and strewed them on the road. The crowds preceding him and those following kept crying out and saying: “Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest.” And when he entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken and asked, “Who is this? “And the crowds replied, “This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth in Galilee.” (Matthew 21:1-11)
This is disastrous. It is disastrous on several accounts. Whoever wrote the Gospel according to Matthew couldn’t have known the original Hebrew text. Instead, the Greek Septuagint was relied upon resulting in the mistaken belief that the so-called “prophecy” was about Jesus riding upon two donkeys!
Again, look at what Christian scholars have had to say about the matter.
4-5] The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts, Isaiah 62:11 (Say to daughter Zion) and Zechariah 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).
7] Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew’s misunderstanding of the prophecy.
So why could this be a Jewish contention against the Qur’an?
The Core of the Critique.
The criticism, as we’ve laid out, follows this logic:
The Christian Doctrine is Based on a Mistranslation: The Christian belief in a virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 relies on the Greek Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew word almah (young woman) as parthenos (virgin), rather than the more precise Hebrew word for virgin, bethulah.
Matthew’s Error Demonstrates Human Authorship: The author of the Gospel of Matthew (who used the Septuagint) further demonstrates his human fallibility by misreading Zechariah 9:9, thinking it describes two animals (an ass and a colt) instead of one animal described with poetic parallelism.
The Qur’an is Therefore Derivative and Human: Since the Qur’an also affirms the virgin birth, the critic argues that its author simply borrowed this “mistaken” Christian doctrine, which itself is based on a Greek mistranslation of a Hebrew text. This, they claim, proves the Qur’an is a human document from the 7th century, not a divine revelation.
The assumption that the Jew could make is that because Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Mary (May Allah honour her) that the “author of the Qur’an” simply copied the Christian doctrine — which in turn is based upon the Greek Septuagint and has no knowledge of the Hebrew text. Presumably, this makes the Qur’an all too human and not of divine authorship.
The Qur’an is Independent and Authoritative, Not Derivative. This is the most critical point. The Qur’an does not seek to prove the virgin birth by referencing the Hebrew Bible. It does not say, “And this happened to fulfill what was said by the prophet Isaiah…” as Matthew does.
Instead, the Qur’an narrates the event as a direct, fact revealed by Allah.
We as Muslims have a straightforward response to this. That is that whoever wrote the ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ was quote-mining the Jewish sacred text to get legitimacy for Jesus as the Messiah. Whereas, for us as Muslims, the Qur’an stands independent of any justification for the miraculous birth of Christ Jesus.
Muslims could agree with Christian apologists that almah can imply virginity. However, the Islamic position is stronger: We have no theological need to enter that debate. Our belief is not contingent on the interpretation of a single word in a text that could have been altered. Our belief is based solely on the clear, unambiguous words of the Qur’an:
“She said, ‘How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?’ He said, ‘Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me…””(Qur’an 19:20-21)
The Qur’an uses the phrase “while no man has touched me” (وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ), which is an explicit, clear statement of virginity that avoids the ambiguity of the Hebrew almah altogether
In other words, Christ Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. This is our belief as Muslims who believe in the words of the Qur’an.
This was a real event that took place. Where we part with the Christians is this:
The Christians in particular whoever wrote the ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ felt a need to justify this event by reference to the Hebrew scriptures albeit reliance upon the Greek Septuagint.
Conclusion:
The mistakes of Matthew highlight the human process of trying to fit Jesus into Old Testament prophecies, sometimes through forced interpretations and errors from using a translation.
The Qur’an, by contrast, displays none of this. It is entirely self-contained and authoritative. It does not make interpretive errors about Zechariah or Isaiah because it does not reference them in the first place. It simply states the truth of the event as revealed by Allah.
Therefore, the argument that the Qur’an “copied” a mistake actually proves the opposite: its independence from the textual corruptions and human errors that affected the previous scriptures. The Qur’an’s account of the virgin birth is not evidence of its human origin but rather of its divine origin, as it provides a pristine, uncorrupted narrative free from the dilemmas of biblical scholarship.
As Muslims, our belief in this stands apart from needing any proof text or citation from previous scriptures. With Allah is the success!
May Allah (swt) guide the sincere among them so that they do not perish in ever lasting hellfire!
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a wife?” (Qur’an 6:101)
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
﷽
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
This a verse that is frequently misunderstood and used for very different, often opposing, theological arguments. We have identified the core issue: the misinterpretation of the word ṣāḥibatun (companion) and the failure to read the verse in its full rhetorical and theological context. The verse not a statement of inability or a lesson in biology. It is a powerful rhetorical device intended to shatter human-centric, anthropomorphic conceptions of God.
There are two categories of people who use this verse with two very different objectives.
Christians use this to show that the Qur’an gets Christian theology wrong.
Those that do not believe in miracles because they believe miracles violate the laws of causality. Thus, they want to negate the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.
The first category.
The Christian understanding is like the following:
Christians have no concept of The Father as having a companion. It would mean from their misunderstanding of the verse that the Qur’an is the product of a human mind. It would mean that the Qur’an has no grasp of the Christian theological position.
The second category.
“Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (d. 1898) This famous social reformer and educationist of nineteenth-century India denied that Jesus was born of a virgin”
Source: (See his Commentary of the Quran Tafsir al-Quran, published by Munshi Fazl Din, Kashmiri Bazaar, Lahore, vol. ii, pp. 24–35. See the section titled ‘Muslim Newspaper Sidq’)
Understanding the rhetorical question.
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
“How can Allah have a child, when He does not have a companion?”
Now the very clear and sensible understanding of this rhetorical question is simple. One Creator being contrasted with the idea of having a companion.
Who is Allah?
“Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
Who or what is the companion in the verse?
Look at all the verb forms as well as the nouns and their use within the Qur’an.
Ṣāḥibah (from the root Ṣ-Ḥ-B) carries meanings of companion, associate, partner, consort, or one who accompanies. In this theological context, it negates any notion of a divine partner, consort, or equal—not merely a spouse.
We find it interesting that, usually, people have decided to translate the Arabic term ‘sahibatun’ as ‘wife’ rather than ‘companion’. The Arabic term ‘zawja‘ (wife) is not used in this context at all. Whereas we would have translated it as ‘companion’ and for good reason. Whereas those in categories 1 and 2 above tend to focus on the term ‘wife’.
The way that these people have misunderstood the text, we either have to choose between some of the following options:
A) A creator that is incapable: (May Allah pardon us)
In other words Allah (swt) needs assistance in creating something.
B) A creator that is like his creation: (May Allah pardon us).
In other words Allah (swt) needs assistance in creating something.
C) A creator that takes on gender roles: (May Allah pardon us)
In other words if the companion is seen as a wife (zawja) than Allah (swt) is the husband.
D) A Creator who is ignorant of Christian theology: (May Allah pardon us) /An argument against virgin birth of Jesus.
In other words Allah needs a wife (zawja) in order to have a son. Which Christians do not believe. It would be a blatant misrepresentation of their beliefs. This argument is also used by those who want to argue against the virgin birth of Jesus (as).
Dealing with proposition A. The Incapable Creator
A creator that is incapable (May Allah pardon us)
It contravenes the following verse:
“His being alone is such that when He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it, “Be” — and it is.” (Qur’an 36:82)
It seems a bit of a stretch to think that Allah (swt) would make an argument that he couldn’t have a son without a companion and yet create a vast universe from the command ‘Kun’.
“It is not for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.” (Qur’an 19:35)
It even contravenes the very verse that they quote to make their case!
Resolution: Allah’s creative power is absolute and uncaused. He does not require mechanisms, partners, or processes.
Dealing with proposition B.The Creator Like Creation:
The creator that is like his creation (May Allah pardon us).
The following verse is sufficient to refute this.
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)
Resolution: An originator (badīʿ) is one who creates something without any prior model or precedent, emphasizing His utter transcendence and unlike-ness to creation.
Dealing with proposition C. The Gendered Creator
That the Creator takes on gender roles.
So, if Allah (swt) is making a rhetorical argument about human relations, is Allah (swt) now taking on the role of the husband or the male progenitor? Be sensible people! Allah (swt) is drawing attention to the fact that he has no peer, no companion.
Resolution: This is a result of the mistranslation “wife.” Islam completely rejects attributing gender or physical human characteristics to Allah. The argument is about divinity, not matrimony.
Dealing with proposition D.Ignorance of Christian Theology / Argument Against Virgin Birth.
A Creator who is ignorant of Christian theology/An argument against the virgin birth of Jesus.
Ironically, proposition D is also the position taken by those who want to deny the virgin birth of Christ Jesus in the Qur’an. So they (those who believe that miracles violate the laws of causality) have ironically sided with the Christian in their misunderstanding of the verse. Albeit to reach very different ends.
Christians have no concept of The Father as having a companion. It would mean from their misunderstanding of the verse that the Qur’an is the product of a human mind. It would mean that the Qur’an has no grasp of the Christian theological position.
The questions that are put forward by those who hold the view that the virgin birth (a miracle) would violate the laws of causality would be:
Why can’t Allah (swt) have a son without a wife?
To which the reply to this is:
On what consistent basis could you make this claim if taking the verse as a whole?
Another question for them would be: Based upon your interpretation of the verse, would you be opposed to the idea of Allah (swt) having a wife or a son based upon your logic?
In other words, do you find it a theological impossibility for Allah (swt) to have a wife and/or a son?
Another question for them would be:
Why would Allah (swt) need to be like his creation in the process of bringing a son into being?
Why not look at the whole verse? Why only quote part of it?
“Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion, and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.” (Qur’an 6:101)
First, Allah (swt) is the originator of the heavens and the earth. Do these people now believe that there was a wife or an associate, or a partner or a companion that helped Allah (swt) in this?
What natural laws did Allah (swt) follow or was beholden to when creating our reality? The verse all says, “He created all things.”
Why do people seek out companionship/friendship/associates and peers, to begin with? Ponder it.
The need for companionship?
“They say, “Allah has taken a child.” Glory be to Him! He is Self-Sufficient. Unto Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is on the earth. You have no authority for this. Do you say about Allah that which you know not?” (Qur’an 10:68)
Anything that human beings can receive from companions/friends/peers and associates stems from needs, and Allah (swt) is free from needs. Whatever people get from having associates and companions Allah (swt) can simply create it. Allah (swt) is the Self-Sufficient!
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)
If Allah (swt) had a companion /associate/ or peer that would entail being of the exact divine nature of Allah (swt). Allah (swt) crushes that notion with the following ‘He created ALL things’.
It is only logical that you can’t have two uncreated beings.
It is only logical that you can’t have two originators. This would also entail having a walad (a child). A walad or a child would be ‘like kind’.
The following verse more than drives home this point.
“Never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any god– in that case would each god have certainly taken away what he created, and some of them would certainly have overpowered others; glory be to Allah above what they describe.” (Qur’an 23:91)
That verse crushes the idea that Allah (swt) could even have a companion.
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
As for those who believe that miracles violate the laws of causality and are trying to reinterpret scripture to appease atheists, they understand Allah as saying, “But if I had a wife, I could have a child.”
Which is simply theologically unsound. Their interpretation of the text ignores the whole of the verse; and worse yet, it doesn’t negate for Allah (swt) the possibility of having a companion! (May Allah pardon us).
This is the same train of thought by those who believe miracles violate the laws of causality and therefore reject the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.
The focus for people who use this text as an argument is on the word ‘walad’, whereas Allah (swt) is saying he doesn’t have a ‘sahibatun’, a companion to begin with.
Resolution:
Against Christian Critique: The Qur’an is not misrepresenting mainstream Christian theology. It is attacking the logical implication of the claim “God has a son.” From a purely logical, non-creedal standpoint, if a being has a son, that son must be of the same nature (a peer). The Qur’an argues that since Allah has no peers or companions (no other divine being), the concept of a “son” is logically incoherent. It challenges the metaphysics of the Trinity, not the biology of the Nativity.
Against the Naturalist/Mu’tazilite Critique (e.g., Sir Syed Ahmad Khan): Those who deny miracles like the virgin birth because they “violate causality” profoundly misunderstand the verse. They interpret it as, “Allah needs a wife to have a son.” This is a catastrophic error. The verse is not providing the necessary condition for divine filiation (“a wife is needed”). It is rejecting the entire paradigm as impossible. Allah does not need a wife to have a son; He transcends the very category of having offspring altogether. The miracle of Jesus’s birth (ʿĪsā ibn Maryam) is a sign of Allah’s absolute power to create as He wills (Kun fa-Yakūn), outside of natural causality, which He Himself established. To use this verse to deny the virgin birth is to completely invert its meaning.
Conclusion:
The verse in question is a masterful rhetorical tool that:
Affirms Surah Ikhlas: Allah is One, Unique, without peer, partner, or companion.
Denies Anthropomorphism: Allah is beyond human categories like gender and biological reproduction.
Establishes Logical Coherence: The concept of “divine offspring” is metaphysically absurd because it requires a plurality within the divine, which is impossible for the One who created all things and has no equal.
Upholds, Not Denies, Miracles: The power that created the heavens and the earth from nothing can certainly create a human being in a womb without a father. Denying this is a failure to understand Allah’s absolute power, which the verse itself emphasizes.
The focus is not on the word walad (son) in isolation, but on the impossible pre-condition for it: a ṣāḥibah (companion). Since the pre-condition is impossible (Allah has no companion), the conclusion (Allah has a son) is also impossible. This is a definitive negation of any form of shirk (associating partners with God) while simultaneously affirming Allah’s limitless power to create as He wills.
“Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
For those interested, you may want to read the following articles:
“O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Isa, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 4:171)
﷽
The name of God and the name of Jesus are distinctly different.
“The victor I will make into a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never leave it again. On him, I will inscribe the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, as well as my new name.” (Revelation 3:12)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
From the above text it can be seen that ‘the name of my God‘ AND ‘my new name‘ are distinctly different.
This becomes obvious from the fact that Jesus is a common name, like John, James, or Peter. The above text of Revelation3:12 was taken from a ‘Red Lettered‘ New Testament, where the words of Jesus are in red.
JESUS IS NOT THE NAME OF GOD…
Many times, our Christians tell us that Jesus is the name of God. It is a name ‘above every name’. After all, how can a person have a personal relationship with God if you don’t know the name of God? I guess that sounds reasonable.
However, what most Christians are not aware of is the fact that the Hebrew language does not have a ‘J‘. So, if the Jews spoke Hebrew, you know they didn’t pronounce Jesus with a ‘J‘.
The other point that is not realized so readily by our Christian sisters and brothers is that Jesus is really quite an ordinary name. It has no power in and of itself. It was a very common name then and it’s still a common name.
In fact, seeing that Spanish is ranked as the number 3 language in the world, Jesus, pronounced ‘Hey Zeus,‘ is a very common name among men in the Latin American community.
So, this is a rather uneventful name. It would be the equivalent of calling someone Chaz, or Lester or Herbert in English.
Feel free to go to Google Translate and listen to how the name ‘Jesus’ is pronounced.
Go to Google Translate and just listen to the name “Jesus” as it is pronounced in Spanish and Greek.
Go to Google Translate and just listen to the name “Jesus” as it is pronounced in Spanish and Greek.
Even more revealing is the fact that Jesus is a ‘bastardized’ (apologies for the terminology) Latin version of the name Yehoshua in Hebrew, or in other words, Joshua.
The name Yeshua appears 29 times in the Tanach.
Yehoshua (Joshua) of Nun is called Yeshua in Nechemyah (Nehemiah) 8:17. Yeshua is the name of the Cohain HaGadol (the high priest) in the time of Zerubavel in Ezra 3:2. It is the name of a Levite under King Hizkiyah (Hezekiah) in 2 Chronicles 31:15. There is even a city called Yeshua in the negev of Yehudah in Nechemyah11:26.
Yeshua is also a shortened version of the word Yehoshua, much like Bill is for William.
Before anyone gets angry with us using the word ‘bastardized’ in relationship to Jesus (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him), one must realize that the word ‘bastardized’ means—to modify, especially by introducing discordant or disparate elements.
After all, you take a very common name, Joshua, which means — ‘God is my salvation’ and turn it into this Latin that sounds a lot like a former Greek god ‘Zeus’.
Remember when the evangelist screams out in the name of ‘Jeeeee zuuus’. Or the Spanish speaker yells out on stage, “In the name of ‘Hey Zeus’.” Jesus /Zeus.
Hey Zeus. Hail Zeus.
HEY ZEUS! HAIL ZEUS!
In the Qur’an the son of Mary is called ‘Isa‘ or ‘Esau‘.
Recall that Hebrew was a dead language for a long time. It was only when Eliezer Ben Yehuda used the Arabic language to help revive Hebrew that it became a vibrant language again.
“One prominent pioneer was Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, the famed Jewish lexicographer widely hailed as the reviver of modern Hebrew, and whose revivalist legacy rested on a genuine recognition of the essential role of Arabic in the rebirth and resurrection of modern Hebrew.“
It is quite possible that some Christians may find it strange to use the name ‘Esau‘ or ‘Isa‘ in place of ‘Jesus‘ as there is a passage in the Bible that says that ‘God hates Esau‘.
“The oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi. “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated.” (Malachi 1:1-3)
God hates Jesus but loves Jacob?
Imagine if in place of the word ‘Esau’ you had the word ‘Joshua’. You would have a very interesting passage in the Bible of God saying, “But Jesus, I hate.”
Let’s continue with Eliezer Ben Yehuda.
Since Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic are all based upon the same Semitic vowel system, Eliezer used the Arabic language.
A language that was still living and had wide currency to decipher the pronunciation and understanding of the Hebrew language.
“Jesus” was a common name back in the day. In Acts 13:6 there was a magician named Bar Jesus.
“When they had travelled through the whole island as far as Paphos, they met a magician named Bar-Jesus who was a Jewish false prophet.”
In Colossians 4:11 there was a contemporary of Paul called Jesus-Justus
“And Jesus, who is called Justus, who are of the circumcision; these alone are my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me.”
Another interesting example of two people called “Jesus” side by side in the following text:
So, when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” (Matthew 27:17).
So, the people had the choice to have Jesus ‘son of the father‘ or Jesus ‘called Messiah‘ killed.
So, the name “Jesus” was a common name, like John, James or Mary.
This doesn’t sound like a ‘Name Above All Names’ to me. It sounds rather common and uneventful.
Do Christians Feel Power in The Name of Joshua?
We are whether we can call upon the name of Joshua and be saved? It is, however, the same as “Jesus”. Why should only the ‘bastardized‘ form of the Latin version of ‘Yehoshua‘ be the only name for salvation?
In other words, is the Christian mission only done in English? No it is not!
So, if there are Jews, wouldn’t they be screaming out ‘Yehoshua‘ in the congregation?
That being the case, why couldn’t they scream out ‘Joshua‘ as it is the Anglicized form?
Joshua Christ?
Imagine using terms like Joshua Christ! Imagine Christian missionaries asking people to accept faith in Joshua? Imagine Benny Hinn jumping up and down and healing people in the name of Joshua! Or imagine John Hagee being slain in the spirit of Joshua Christ!
What about the name Immanuel?
Immanuel is also a common Jewish name which means ‘God is with us‘.
Maher-shalal-hash-baz was called Immanuel in Isaiah 8:8
“It shall pass into Judah and flood it all throughout up to the neck it shall reach; It shall spread its wings the full width of your land, Immanuel!”
So, for Christians to say, “Hey look, there is a prophecy that says he will be called Immanuel, We can tell them that Maher-shalal-hash-baz was also called Immanuel.”
In Matthew 1:23 we read: “Behold, the virgin shall be with a child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us“.”
That this is an example of a failed prophecy plain pure and simple. It’s amazing the lengths that Christian apologists will go through to make this all add up.
In the end, I think that the position of Islam and the Qur’an is very clear. ‘Isa is an Arabized form of the word ‘Esau’. He was born of a virgin named Mariam (Mary).
There is much to be said about the fact that Christians use a name like Jesus (a common name like John, James, or Mary) when describing the ineffable name of the creator.
Maybe there is a way out of this. Maybe, after all, The Creator is not a person, much less person(s).
Since, after all, the words ‘person’ and ‘personality’ come from the Greek word ‘persona’ which means ‘a mask’. Think about it! Tri-Theist Christians believe in a God that is One Being that wears three masks.
In the end, “Jesus” is just a common name, like Chuck, or Daryl or Lester.
We sincerely hope people will read the Qur’an and learn as much as they can about Islam. We hope that Allah Most High opens the breasts and hearts of humanity and that Allah Most Merciful guides us all to what he loves.
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)
“For the truth stands out clearly from falsehood.” (Qur’an 2:256)
﷽
Let us see which of you reading this are quick-witted to spot the problem. Given what we know about human reproduction, what is the obvious error in sending brother after brother to impregnate a woman that fails to get pregnant?
Source: (Matthew 22:23-32)
“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.” (Deuteronomy 25:5)
“Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.” (Genesis 38:8-10)
“That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” (Matthew 22:23-28)
You can replace the seven brothers with ten brothers or even 25 brothers if you like.
At what point does one realize that these men are not firing blanks but that this woman is infertile!
The woman has some type of medical condition that is preventing her from getting pregnant. Now if someone wants to raise an objection, stating that in Genesis 38:8-10 Onan was spilling his semen on the ground (coitus interruptus) and that perhaps all the brothers were doing that, it doesn’t help the case either.
Did not have the foresight to realize that people would do this, evading their responsibility?
If the story of Onan was known, the men would realize that God would strike them dead. Thus, the ever looming wrath of God.
Surely the women are not so gullible as to not know whether a man is ejaculating in them or not.
This law was before modern medicine in which we know that both a man and a woman may have issues of fertility. Given the low esteem that women are generally afforded in the Bible, it is not at all surprising to see the power of pro-creation as something that man is responsible for.
If Jesus was God, he would be aware that both men and women have a part to play in human reproduction.
In the majority Christian view, Jesus shares the essence (being) of the Father and the Holy Spirit, which means that He (Jesus) gave those laws to Moses, proving further that he cannot be God and that the sacred text of the Jews and Christians are not free from egregious errors.
Another point to take note of:
The text has Jesus (as) say:
“Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.” “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:29-30)
It looks like Jesus is in error for not knowing the scriptures!
However, the scriptures say:
“And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” (Genesis 6:1-2)
Jesus claims people will not marry nor be given in marriage being like the angels. Yet the angels themselves took human women as wives.
Now, watch out for the curve ball they (some Christians will throw you) because they will say, “Oh, the text says,” Sons of God” not angels. But angels are the sons of God.
You can see where they are used interchangeably here:
“One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.” (Job 1:6 New International Version)
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.” (Job 1:6 King James Version)
Lastly, if they persist that sons of God refer to men, then this shows you it is an appellation referring to mortal human beings without any divine connotation.
The Bible’s treatment of fertility is anthropologically conditioned and not scientifically precise.
From a modern scientific perspective, if multiple brothers fail to impregnate the same woman, it is statistically improbable that all men are infertile (assuming they are fertile with other women). The most logical conclusion is that the woman has a fertility issue. This highlights an ancient misunderstanding of reproduction, where infertility was often attributed solely to the woman. However, the levirate law implicitly places the burden on the man’s lineage to continue, ignoring potential female factors.
“And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
﷽
This is a recent e-mail sent to Todd Lawson an Emeritus Professor of Islamic thought at the University of Toronto.
I sent this inquiry as I am genuinely curious as to why he or anyone for that matter think that the Qur’an 4:157 seem to be interacting with anything that the Romans have done, or that the text is talking about a historical event known as the “Crucifixion” or that the Qur’an is denying/or affirming anything about a Cross at all.
Greetings Professor Lawson
I hope this email finds you in the best of health.
I had read your book “The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the HIstory of Muslim Thought.”
It was certainly an interesting read.
You have noted how extraneous material has influenced the Sunni Tafsir tradition and popular interpretation of Qur’an 4:157.
So to this point I am curious as to why you think the Qur’an engaged with an historical event popularly known as “The Crucifixion” at all?
The reason I ask this is because when one looks at the immediate text of the Qur’an 4:157 there does not seem to be any mention of Romans or Roman involvement at all.
I am deeply interested why your good self or anyone would feel that the Qur’an 4:157 engages with an historical event popularly known as “The Crucifixion” at all. I believe that a reading of the text without extraneous material tells us that the text is interacting with certain Jews who were making certain claims about Jesus.
When we read Qur’an 4:155 for example:
“They have incurred Allah’s wrath for their breaking the covenant, and their rejection of the signs of Allah and for slaying Prophets without right, and for saying: ‘Our hearts are wrapped up in covers-even though in fact Allah has sealed their hearts because of their unbelief, so that they scarcely believe.”
I believe we both concur that it would seem out of place for that text to address the Romans of the time of Jesus.
Furthermore the Qur’an 4:157 has a double denial in the text. They did not kill him nor did they (salabu). The initial denial is general and it can easily accommodate any understanding of a possible demise of Jesus.
It is immensely curious to follow up a general denial that can accommodate any particular understanding of any possible demise of Jesus with a particular denial immediately after.
Is it not more sensible in keeping with the immediate text and surrounding text to see this as the Qur’an interacting with particular claims made by Jews about Jesus? Rather these claims are based upon any historical event, document or even oral transmissions in certain circles that the Qur’an would be familiar with?
Given that this seems to be the very obvious case, how do you propose somehow Romans, and a “Crucifixion” is posited upon the text of Qur’an 4:157?
It is peculiar because Jews do not crucify people in their law. It is not a part of the Torah nor of the Talmud of which I am sure you are aware.
They do have laws about killing people and then impailing them. They do have assertions about those impaled being cursed by God.
Equally curious is the idea that (salabu) would translate to a Latin Cross, or the Tau Cross.
Given that the Qur’an in (7:124); 20:71; & 26:49) all describe cutting off the hands and the feet and given what we know about supporting the body weight on an ecclesiastical “Cross” it is it not presumptuous of us to assume Latin Cross, Tau etc?
The two noun forms in Qur’an 86:7 & Qur’an 4:23 which relate to the loins and the lumbus region seem to forcefully argue with a type of punishment that would involve impalement rather than anything to do with being tied to a patibulum and affixed to a crux or stake and than having nails driven in ones hands and feet.
When we look at the text of Qur’an 5:33 on page 31 of your book you state:
“the criminal was killed by a separate means before their corpse was publicly displayed on a pike or cross.”
This does not seem to correlate to what Christians have in mind when they invoke the “Crucifixion” of Jesus. They seem to think this is a death on a cross and not a death prior to a cross.
I also felt that pike was more appropriate than cross given what we know about the Islamic legal schools. None of the legal schools, Ibadi, Zaydi, Zahiri, Shafi’i, Imami, Maliki, Hanafi or Hanbali make it a requirement to put someone on a patibulum and affix that patibulum to a crux or stake and than proceed to drive nails in the hands and feet.
Much more can be said. Again I believe my initial inquiry is that if we do a plain reading of Qur’an 4:157 or even invoke the immediate context where are we drawing upon the idea that this is interacting with something the Romans are said to have done to Jesus?
Thank you for your time.
Have a blessed weekend ahead.
If you would like to read more on this subject I invite you to read the following:
“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
﷽
You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” (Exodus 20:4)
So rather than making an image of God, the command goes far beyond that. Christians should not make idols of anything.
“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” (Deuteronomy 5:8)
The irony is that this text has been a source of controversy among Christians as if God did not provide clarity for them. So they say, well God says do not make an idol. So their argument goes like this: “We can make the likeness of living created beings, but we just cannot worship them, and thus they are not idols.”
From left to right: Credit to Mart Production and Varan Nm. All photos taken from pexels.com
When it comes to the Bible, both the TNCH and the New Testament are replete with Anthropomorphic descriptions of God.
This is by no means an exhaustive list.
God rides upon a cherubim (usually depicted in art as a naked baby angel)
“He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind.” (Psalm 18:10)
God’s thigh and his self promotional tattoo?!
“On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: king of kings and lord of lords.” (Revelation 19:16)
How anyone writes created words on the uncreated God merits pensive reflection.
Not only this but usually human females get tattoos in provocative places to draw attention to their assets.
Who has time to focus on a thigh tattoo when there are flashing dazzling lights shooting out from the groin area!
The God of the Bible has loins.
“”And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.” (Ezekiel 1:27)
God’s feet?
“And saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky.” (Exodus 24:10)
The nostrils of God?
“Smoke went up from his nostrils..” (Psalms 18:8)
God has one ear (not more).
“Give EAR, our God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name.” (Daniel 9:18) An Ear, not ears..
Or God has ears (plural)
“In my distress I called to the LORD; I called out to my God. From his temple he heard my voice; my cry came to his ears.” (2 Samuel 22:7)
The God of the Bible has a shadow.
“He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High Will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.” (Psalm 91:1)
How a God that is supposed to be light has a shadow is certainly a mystery!
The God of the Bible whistles?
“At that time the Lord will whistle for the Egyptians.” (Isaiah 7:18)
The God of the Bible gets jealous?
“For I the Lord your God am a jealous God.” (Daniel 5:9)
The God of the Bible smears poo poo (dung) on people’s faces.
“Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will smear on your faces the dung from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it.” (Malachi 2:3)
The God of the Bible emits a sound and walks.
“Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.” (Genesis 3:8)
The God of the Bible breaths.
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7)
God has thoughts and people have thoughts.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8)
So do we deny that God has thoughts because people have thoughts or are his thoughts not like our thoughts?
Do we affirm without asking how or is the how known?
The backside of God?!!
“And I will take away mine hand, and you shall see my backside: but my face shall not be seen.” (Exodus 33:23)
God only needs one digit (a single finger to write)
“And when He (God) had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.” (Exodus 31:18)
God has an unknowable number of fingers.
“When I consider you heavens, the work of your fingers, The moon and the stars, which you have ordained.” (Psalm 8:3)
The God of the Bible has hands (plural).
“The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land.” (Psalm 95:5)
“So I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God’s hands, but no one knows whether love or hate awaits them.” (Ecclesiastes 9:1 )
The God of the Bible has a right hand and Jesus is sitting next to it.
“He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” (Hebrews 1:3)
The God of the Bible has a right hand and Jesus is standing next to it.
“But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55-56)
*NOTE* NO WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY GOD HAS A LEFT HAND!
Now obviously, I do not follow Salafiyya/Athari creed. However, those Christians who think they have landed some points against them have erred tremendously.
All that Daniel Haqiqatjou, Mohamed Hijab, Uthman Ibn Faruq, The Muslim Lantern (Chainless Slave) Muhammed Ali, Jake The Muslim Metaphysician, Farid Al Bahraini, or Bassam Zawadi-all that they have to do is ask the following to the Christians.
Does the Bible assert hands for God? Answer: Yes.
Does the Bible assert a right hand for God? Answer: Yes.
Does the Bible assert a left hand for God? Answer: No.
If the Bible does not assert a left hand for God how can you NOT assert that both his hands are right?
Game over! Those Christians would be cooked.
For the Bible says:
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5)
God of the Bible finds the aroma of charred dead animal flesh soothing and sweet.
The God of the Bible smells (Not what the Rock is cooking but still…)
“Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took of every clean animal, and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma.” (Genesis 8:20-21)
Other translations say: ‘a sweet savour’. “And the Lord smelled a sweet savour”.
God of the Bible repents from his own evil.
“And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” (Exodus 32:14)
Like this God was thinking of doing something so nasty and cruel to humans and than thought , “Naah that’s a bit too much!”
God of the Bible regrets that he creates his own creation.
“The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.” (Genesis 6:6)
God of the Bible can cancel out his own knowledge.
“For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And I will remember their sins no more.” (Hebrews 8:12)
The God of the Bible has wings and feathers.
“He shall cover you with Hisfeathers, and under His wings you will trust” (Psalm 91:4).
The God of the Bible mounts, swoops and spreads out his wings.
“Behold, He will mount up and swoop like an eagle and spread out His wings against Bozrah; and the hearts of the mighty men of Edom in that day will be like the heart of a woman in labor.” (Jeremiah 49:22)
God of the Bible sends delusions on people so they believe what is false.
“For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false.” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)
The God of the Bible shaves people’s head, legs, and removes the beard.
“In that day the Lord will shave with a razor, hired from regions beyond the Euphrates (that is, with the king of Assyria), the head and the hair of the legs; and it will also remove the beard.” (Isaiah 7:20)
Some Christian commentators make matters worse by saying this is a full hair removal; for total purity as mentioned in the following text:
“The one to be cleansed shall then wash his clothes and shave off all his hair and bathe in water and be clean. Now afterward, he may enter the camp, but he shall stay outside his tent for seven days.” (Leviticus 14:8)
Thus, and we seek refuge in Allah, the Bible is claiming that God will shave all the hair off (pubic hair, you name it!)
The Bible says God is a man of war.
“The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” (Exodus 15:3)
The God of the Bible sends an evil spirit upon Saul.
“And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul’s hand. ” (1 Samuel 18:10)
The biggest incident of Saul disobeying God in the Bible is because he did not completely genocide everything and he spared some animals.
Which according to the Bible, God inspires Samuel to inform Saul is just as bad as worshipping idols! So this evil spirit that comes from God comes upon Saul and Saul is agitated knowing that God is going to supplant him with David.
Christians claim that God does not want people to be gay. However; this evil spirit inspires Saul to tell David to collect 100 penis skins for him! Does it get more gay?!
By the way think about this narrative. Do you really think that David went around and methodically cut a perfect circle around every man’s Penis and collected a bunch of foreskins in a bag? No! It means he cut off 200 penises put them in some bags and threw them down in the kings court like ‘Yo! Here’s the Penis skins you wanted!’ -which by the way the evil spirit the Bible God sent to Saul inspired him to tell David to do! Does it get more gay than this?!
Speaking of Gay. Unicorns and Rainbows Oh my!
The God of the Bible has strength comparable to a unicorn.
“God brought them out of Egypt; he has as it were the strength of an unicorn.” (Numbers 23:22)
The God of the Bible relies upon a rainbow in order to remember.
“Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.” (Genesis 9:14-15)
God of the Bible feels sorry that the man he appointed to kill babies saved some animals.
Read the following from (1 Samuel 15:3-26)
One day, Samuel told Saul:
The Lord told me to choose you to be king of his people, Israel. Now listen to this message from the Lord: “When the Israelites were on their way out of Egypt, the nation of Amalek attacked them. I am the Lord All-Powerful, and now I am going to make Amalek pay! “Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don’t have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys.” Saul sent messengers who told every town and village to send men to join the army at Telaim. There were 210,000 troops in all, and 10,000 of these were from Judah. Saul organized them,then led them to a valley near one of the towns in Amalek, where they got ready to make a surprise attack. Some Kenites lived nearby, and Saul told them, “Your people were kind to our nation when we left Egypt, and I don’t want you to get killed when I wipe out the Amalekites. So stay away from them.” The Kenites left,and Saul attacked the Amalekites from Havilah to Shur, which is just east of Egypt. Every Amalekite was killed except King Agag.Saul and his army let Agag live, and they also spared the best sheep and cattle. They didn’t want to destroy anything of value, so they only killed the animals that were worthless or weak. The Lord told Samuel, “Saul has stopped obeying me, and I’m sorry that I made him king.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out in prayer to the Lord all night. Early the next morning he went to talk with Saul. Someone told him, “Saul went to Carmel, where he had a monument built so everyone would remember his victory. Then he left for Gilgal.” Samuel finally caught up with Saul, and Saul told him, “I hope the Lord will bless you! I have done what the Lord told me.” “Then why,” Samuel asked, “do I hear sheep and cattle?”“The army took them from the Amalekites,” Saul explained. “They kept the best sheep and cattle, so they could sacrifice them to the Lord your God. But we destroyed everything else.” “Stop!” Samuel said. “Let me tell you what the Lord told me last night.” “All right,” Saul answered. Samuel continued, “You may not think you’re very important, but the Lord chose you to be king, and you are in charge of the tribes of Israel. When the Lord sent you on this mission, he told you to wipe out those worthless Amalekites. Why didn’t you listen to the Lord? Why did you keep the animals and make him angry?” “But I did listen to the Lord!” Saul answered. “He sent me on a mission, and I went. I captured King Agag and destroyed his nation. All the animals were going to be destroyed anyway. That’s why the army brought the best sheep and cattle to Gilgal as sacrifices to the Lord your God.” “Tell me,” Samuel said. “Does the Lord really want sacrifices and offerings? No! He doesn’t want your sacrifices. He wants you to obey him. Rebelling against God or disobeying him because you are proud is just as bad as worshiping idols or asking them for advice. You refused to do what God told you, so God has decided that you can no longer be king.”“I have sinned,” Saul admitted. “I disobeyed both you and the Lord. I was afraid of the army, and I listened to them instead. Please forgive me and come back with me so I can worship the Lord.” “No!” Samuel replied, “You disobeyed the Lord, and I won’t go back with you. Now the Lord has said that you can’t be king of Israel any longer.”
God of the Bible is the creator of evil.
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)
The God of the Bible hates.
“”I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob ‘s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” (Malachi 1:2-3)
(So the God of the Bible is a God of Love and Hate)
(A God of Love, that Hates or A God of Hate that Loves)
The God of the Bible jeers and pokes fun at his creation.
“He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision.” (Psalm 2:4)
The God of the Bible laughs.
“but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming.” (Psalm 37:13)
The God of the Bible rages. (Maybe not Rage Against The Machine, but …..)
“The LORD is a jealous and vengeful God; the LORD is vengeful and strong in wrath. The LORD is vengeful against his foes; he rages against his enemies.” (Nahum 1:2)
The God of the Bible has a mouth.
“Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)
The God of the Bible is meticulous in how his food should be prepared.
“Command the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be careful to present My offering, My food for My offerings by fire, of a soothing aroma to Me, at their appointed time.” (Numbers 28:2)
The God of the Bible has knowledge which is impeded by distance.
“But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building.” (Genesis 11:5)
The God of the Bible is affected by a certain type of wine which cheers him up.
“And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheers up God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?” (Judges 9:13)
The God of the Bible did not stop Jephthah from burning his small daughter if God gave him victory over his enemies.
“Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon. When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.” “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.” “You may go,” He said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. (Judges 11:29-39)
Prima Qur’an Comments: Now there is major major copium from Christians and Jews regarding this.
Copium # 1. They try and put a spin that the sacrifice is to dedicate his daughter to the Lord as a virgin (meaning temple service) and Jephthah bemoaned that due this he would never have any descendants.
Response: and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering & After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed The emphasis on her being a virgin is so she would be an unblemished sacrificed.
2. Copium #2. God commands against sacrificing Children in the Bible.
Response. No, no he doesn’t!
“You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 18:21)
“I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name.” (Leviticus 20:3)
“You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12:31)
As well as the related practice of passing the children through the fire and not consuming them by the fire:
“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer.” (Deuteronomy 18:10)
“You shall also say to the sons of Israel: ‘Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.” (Leviticus 20:2)
Offering your children up as a burnt offering is not against the Torah teachings of the Jews. Nor was it something unacceptable to God. The offence in question was offering them up to Molech and NOT THE GOD OF ISRAEL!
“For I the Lord your God am a jealous God.” (Daniel 5:9)
There is no issue with offering up children as a holocaust (burnt offering) to God. The issue is doing it to false Gods. Because the God of the Bible is jealous.
Did we forget?
“After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Genesis 22:1-2)
The Bible likens God to a groomer that watches a baby grow up develop breast, “body hair” waiting until she was mature enough for “love” and marry her.
“And I helped you to thrive like a plant in the field. You grew up and became a beautiful jewel. Your breasts became full, and your body hair grew, but you were still naked. And when I passed by again, I saw that you were old enough for love. So I wrapped my cloak around you to cover your nakedness and declared my marriage vows. I made a covenant with you, says the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine.” (Ezekiel 16:7-8)
This passage is basically stating that God married “Israel” and it likens God to a man marrying a very young girl. Notice that no one officiates God’s marriage of course. It is just that God wraps his cloak around her and….”Surprise! You’re my wife!”
However, latter we find out that God gets cheated on. That the ‘wife’ of God became like a prostitute.
“‘But you trusted in your beauty and capitalized on your fame by becoming a prostitute. You offered your sexual favors to every man who passed by so that your beauty became his. You took some of your clothing and made for yourself decorated high places; you engaged in prostitution on them.” (Ezekiel 16:15-16)
Prima Qur’an: I always wondered why many Christian and Jewish men had a very unhealthy relationship and attitude towards women. When The Creator of Heaven and Earth gets cheated on then who is the average man compared to God?
Even some Christian polemist who got cheated on may feel a kindred spirit with God.
Many Christians who were sexually violated as youth have read the above passages with a great deal of discomfort. May Allah (swt) guide them and console them.
Granted we as Muslims are understanding concerning metaphor, allegories and rhetorical devices in literature. The Qur’an itself deploys metaphor, allegory and an array of rhetorical and literary devices.
Yet, some of these passages and text in the Bible are quite concerning.
May Allah (swt) guide the Jews and Christians to the truth.
“And We have also sent down unto you (Muhammed) the Reminder and the Advice (the Qur’an), that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them.” (Qur’an 16:44)
﷽
This article if anything is going to show the importance of understanding the Arabic language. Not only understanding the Arabic language but understanding the breadth, depth and richness of this language.
I have seen Christian polemist try to twist the Arabic meaning of the Qur’an to suit an agenda that they have. I have seen a “Muslim” from Harvard chime in to the same effect, to suggest that Christianity and Islam are basically the same. That same reformist surprise surprise, not grounded in the Arabic language.
I have seen a known follower of the ‘Hafs Only Quranic Transmission’ Religion opine on the matter. Relying upon his Lisan Al Arabi and Hans WEHR Dictionary of Modern Arabic.
All of them suffer from the same issue. They do not have even foundational knowledge of the Arabic language, let alone advanced knowledge.
For those interested you may want to revisit our article in which our noble teacher Shaykh Juma Mazrui (May Allah bless him) instructed us on the usage of Majaz in the Qur’an and Sunnah.
I’ll pull up something from the article there and re-post it here as it is relevant.
“Be patient over what they say, and remember Our servant, David, the possessor of many hands(l-aydi); he was one who repeatedly turned back [to Us].” (Qur’an 38:17)
Plural in Arabic begins with three and not two! So, at the very least David had three hands. However, notice something from the following site:
It is unanimous that they all translate ‘many hands’ as strength! Even the Salafi/Saudi translations do! Even the translation that gives us the most literal word for word meaning possible was too shy to translate David having many hands.
Be patient over what they say and remember Our servant, David, the possessor of strength; indeed, he was one who repeatedly turned back [to Allah ] (Sahih International)
Be patient (O Muhammad SAW) of what they say, and remember Our slave Dawood (David), endued with power. Verily, he was ever oft-returning in all matters and in repentance (toward Allah) (Muhsin Khan & Muhammed Al Hilal)
So we can say to those who believe in literal translations: Why don’t you take these verses on the apparent meaning? If Allah (swt) says that David has many hands then say that David had many hands!
You are shy to ascribe many hands to David but not to Allah (swt)?!
This is also the case any place any where we see ‘hands’ attributed to Allah (swt).
You can see all such instances relating to having power over, authority over, under the provision of etc…
“And that which We have revealed to you, of the Book is the truth, (ma bayna yadayhi) that is between its hands. Indeed, Allah , of His servants, is Acquainted and Seeing.” (Qur’an 35:31)
“They said, “O our people, indeed we have heard a Book revealed after Moses and (ma bayna yadayhi) what is between its hands. which guides to the truth and to a straight path.” (Qur’an 46:30)
“He has sent down upon you, the Book in truth, (ma bayna yadayhi) what is between its hands. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:3)
All of those verses when taken literally clearly states that the Qur’an has something ‘in between its hands’.
In the case of our Harvard graduate (mentioned above) he is among those who rail against the Salafist and their literal interpretations; but he himself is bereft of a consistent hermeneutic.
Even in the case of the one who follows the ‘Hafs Only Quranic Transmission’ Religion there was a clear acknowledgement that the text is an idiomatic expression and yet still decided on a literal translation! He even used Qur’an 3:3 as an example!
“Indeed, it is not the eyes that are blind, but it is the hearts in the chests that grow blind.” (Qur’an 22:46)
The very definition of idiomatic expression is:
an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that comprise it.
THE DECEPTION OF CHRISITAN POLEMICIST
So how do these Christian apologist and polemicist use these idiomatic expressions in the Qur’an to deceive the layman Muslim?
“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus , the son of Mary, (ma bayna yadayhi) having authority over the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and having authority over that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” (Qur’an 5:46)
“And when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you(ma bayna yadayhi) having authority over that which came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, “This is obvious magic.” (Qur’an 61:6)
“He has sent down upon you, the Book in truth, (ma bayna yadayhi) have total authority. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:3)
How do these Christian polemist and apologist twist Qur’an 5:46 and Qur’an 61:6?
They want it to read something like this:
“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus , the son of Mary, confirming the Torah that is between his hands; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and having authority over that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” (Qur’an 5:46)
“And when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming the Torah that is between my hands and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, “This is obvious magic.” (Qur’an 61:6)
Is it now obvious what they are up to?
They are trying by way of deception to make it look as if Jesus (as) had some physical copy of the Torah in his hands that he is reading from. Since the Torah of the time of Christ Jesus can reasonably be argued to be the one that Jews are using today -ipso facto it is preserved, untampered and uncorrupted.
This very idea has been destroyed by the Qur’an itself. It charges something much deeper than textual corruption. We are talking about corruption of in the oral process before it even becomes written text.
“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:” This is from Allah,” to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.” (Qur’an 2:79)
Note the text above is not talking about people editing a book. It is stating that the very things they are writing themselves are a fabrication! Not that they had something in hand and started editing and omitting. It is deeper than that!
The Qur’an has no qualms about the fact that what Christians and Jews call sacred scriptures can have some truth in them. However, it has never endorsed their sacred text wholesale.
It is not possible to do so because Jews and Christians have internal disputes about what their sacred canon consist of. The Qur’an never settles these disputes between them.
“But why do they come to you for judgment when they have the Torah containing Allah’s judgment, then they turn away after all? They are not believers.” (Qur’an 5:43)
“And let the People of the Gospel(ahlu l’injili) judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.” (Qur’an 5:47)
“They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.”(Qur’an 61:8)
﷽
When it comes to Christians and Islam there are a few scenarios that take place.
a) Either they begin a serious study of Islam and end up seeing that Islam is a more cogent faith and world view than Christianity ever could be. They convert to Islam as I have.
b) They remain convinced of their own faith but develop a deep admiration and appreciation for Islam and Muslims (rather they admit it publicly or not)
c) Their hearts become diseased and their spiritual ailments are amplified and this becomes obvious in time. Greed, avarice, lust, anger, hate, racism begins to drip from their writings and public statements. Without fail repeatedly these people end up being humiliated publicly in this life. The hereafter is a painful and everlasting torment for them.
This article will focus on group C. Where better to start than with Zionist Evangelist Phil Arms and Phil Arms ministries? These are just some of the books that are Anti Islam and filled with pro-Israel Platitudes.
Is Fanatic Islam a Global Threat? by Phil Arms
Light in the Shadow of Jihad by Phil Arms
Unholy War-America, Israel and Radical Islam by Phil Arms
However, what we do not know is this, just like Robert Morey who was removed from his Church and asked to leave F.I.R.E (an Evangelical Christian Outreach) Phil Arms too was removed from his church! The full story follows. I am sure that sooner or later sincere Christians are going to get real tired of these Evangelist, and Pastors and Apologist who claim to be fighting ‘the good fight’ against Islam but instead are busy embezzling funds, and robbing the congregation of their hard-earned money, and molesting members of the body of Christ both physically and spiritually!
“Phil Arms grew up in West Texas. His dynamic Christian mother raised her six children in the local church. However, Phil did not commit his life to Christ during his younger years and chose to join himself with the sub-culture of the sixties and seventies in Houston, Texas. After experiencing one dead end after another, running from the love and voice of God, he began to search for reality and gave his life to Christ on a street corner in 1972. Immediately after his conversion, he began a ministry on the streets of Houston, Texas, witnessing to those in need of Jesus. Within a short time, God began to open wide the doors for Phil to minister in churches, schools, and evangelistic rallies.” Source: http://www.lifereachministries.com/aboutus.aspx
The interesting part above is that it says that Pastor Phil “chose to join himself with the sub-culture of the sixties and seventies in Houston, Texas.” Anyone who knows about the 60s and 70s knows that the sub-culture referred to at that time was one of drugs, drugs and you guessed it more drugs…
No amount of lawyering could have placated Jim Miller, who rose from his seat in the crowd and said, “I will not stand for more lies.” Taken aback, Arms threatened to have the dissenter removed. In a passively resistant protest, Miller threw himself on the green-carpeted steps below the pastor and prayed for him to repent. When Arms had finished his speech, he crawled down onto the steps with Miller and spoke to him harshly under his breath, like a parent scolding a child in public. “Now, God’s told me to wash your feet,” Arms said. “I want you to get up here right now.”
But the forced foot-washing did little to bring Miller back into the fold. From the altar, he pointed out that Arm’s repayment of the money didn’t negate the fact that he stole it, and this sparked shouts for truth and repentance throughout the congregation. Finally, Suzanne Arms took the stage to try to help her husband defend himself, but she ended up just giving the crowd more of the blood they wanted. “Yes, he took too many drugs, he’s confessed that,” she said. “Yes, he took the money, and he shouldn’t have — it was drug-driven.”
Apparently, he has been wrestling with the drug hydrocodone. The following picture is taken from one of his publications, “The Man Who Would Be God.”
If you take a hard look at the picture it makes you wonder what goes through the minds of people who conjure up such images. In fact, the image looks like one person who is two different beings, a split personality, or someone who maybe wrestling with something (drugs) or someone (Jinn or evil spirits). Personally looking at it gives me the creeps, and I do not know why Christians are not spiritually guided as not to have books with such images in reach of their children. The book itself, though a polemic against the Anti-Christ, does an excellent job of subliminally projecting satanic imagery. Also, it says “PHIL ARMS” underneath. For those with a discerning spirit if you get chills I think its time you pick up the Qur’an and stop listening to the lies spread by Satan’s minions. If I wrote a book I would put ‘By Phil Arms’. Why would you have such a controversial image and then just put your name at the bottom? Is Allah trying to tell us something?
In Conclusion: We as Muslims should make du’a and pray that Allah guides Phil Arms, his ministries, and those duped by his drug charades and lies so that they can understand the truth and simplicity of Islam. I invite everyone who ever listened to Phil Arms ministries to take the time to rethink some of the statements he may have made about Islam while under the influence of narcotics. Repeatedly we see those who direct their energies against Islam are exposed for their nefarious agendas and inwardly shallow spirits groping in darkness and being used as pawns of Satan. May Allah guide him and his family to Islam and may Allah give him a job that provides him with sustenance and makes things easy upon him. Next up is Assemblies of God’s very own Jimmy Swaggart.
Reverend Jimmy Swaggart (Assemblies of God) World famous televangelist and firebrand preacher will always be remembered by the world for his fiasco with the prostitute(s) in Louisiana. Jimmy Swaggart preached what he thought to be the Gospel of Christ Jesus to over 132 countries around the world! This all changed one fateful evening when his fall from grace came.
The interesting thing surrounding this event from the Muslim perspective is his well-known debate with Shaykh Ahmed Deedat.
In the debate “Is the Bible God’s Word” the two titans of Christianity and Islam, the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart and Shaykh Ahmed Deedat had finally met.
The background of the debate seems to have ignited after Jimmy Swaggart appeared on television claiming the Qur’an to be “incantations of frail men”. The Muslims of course did not take too kindly to the statement and thought that a debate between Reverend Jimmy Swaggart and Shaykh Ahmed Deedat should be arranged.
During the opening of the debate Reverend Jimmy Swaggart made an interesting remark on polygyny to the effect that he said:
“I was just talking to Mr. Deedat this afternoon I should say this evening really, and he’s one of the gentlemen whom you meet and you like him instantly. He was teasing my wife and I and said Islam allows four wives. He just corrected me he said, ‘up to four’ and I said, “Well Christianity only allows one so I had to get the best on the first shot”.
The link to the debate: “Is the Bible God’s Word” is as follows…
My review of the debate: I thought that Reverend Jimmy Swaggart was able to maintain his composure in the debate which was quite important. The most glowing comment as a true follower of Christ Jesus was his statement, “I want to say that every true Christian loves the Muslim people and I mean that with all of my heart.” His reference to a person crying out in the name of Muhammed for a demon to come out of a possessed individual Is a questionable assertion. I thought Shaykh Ahmed Deedat did an excellent job of dealing with the issue of miracles and just how important they are.
What happened subsequently after the debate will soon not be forgotten. Reverend Jimmy Swaggart was caught being defiled with prostitutes.
The link to Reverend Jimmy Swaggart’s confession of being with prostitutes is as follows…
Now, this is very interesting because of his attack on Islam’s position of polygyny. Now it would be very awkward for me as a man to say that a man should marry another woman simply to gratify his sexual desires; however why a man chooses to take a second wife is not my concern. Muslims simply point out that time and again we get attacked for polygyny while many people practice polygamy and polyandry in the form of sexual freedom with no strings attached.
Islam is simply saying to the Christians and Jews nowhere does the Bible stipulate not to have more than one wife. It is simply a modern norm that has been adopted by most Christians. Jesus, John, and Paul were never married so they cannot be examples of monogamy.
Reverend Jimmy Swaggart’s plea to ‘ship the Muslims back home’.
The Reverend Jimmy Swaggart made the recent outburst that every single Muslim in the United States college campuses should be shipped back to where they came from. Source: (https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Beliefs/story?id=130008&page=1)
This outburst is very disheartening on two accounts.
1) If every Muslim is shipped back to where they came from, what would happen to the Muslims who are born right here in America? So I am not sure his statement was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
2) Why would we want to ship Muslims back to countries that deny the Gospel of Christ Jesus? Why not keep them right here in America where they can still be reached through the Campus Crusade for Christ? This also makes me hesitant to believe the statement was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
In Conclusion: I think Muslims and people of all faith persuasions should take a step back and examine this debate and what happened before the debate and subsequently. We pray that the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart, whom otherwise a cordial man, may reconsider his comments that all Muslim students should be made to leave the United States. We also pray that Allah opens his heart to the truths and beauty of Islam.
Next up is Ted Haggard. He was the head of the 30 million-strong National Association of Evangelicals. In the end, he was a man who struggled with his Gay Sex and Methamphetamines.
Somehow, this doesn’t surprise me coming from Ted Haggard who was the former head of the 30 million-strong National Association of Evangelicals. The following article taking from a website that also supports Pat Robertson (the peaceful Christian who says we should kill Hector Chavez, president of Venezuela, is a shareholder of Coors Beer, and has shady ties to blood diamond mines in Africa). This man Ted Haggard was also a spiritual adviser to George Bush Jr. if that says anything! He was in the popular DVD the Jesus Camp video and in this video, he was bashing homosexuals.
However, as one will see after this short article of his attacking Islam, Ted Haggard had to step down from the National Association of Evangelicals for being caught doing Homosexual acts with another man and for his abuse of Methamphetamine.
I appreciate that he did some research on the issue of abrogation but it’s still skewed. In the end
Any way a sample of his anti-Islamic diatribe is as follow
The first picture is very telling. Imagine Muslims engrossed in prayer and some Christian says this to his son, “They’re praying to their moon god son.” He obviously must be saying that so loud as in the cartoon the one Muslim hears him and abruptly stops his prayer. So what Robert Morey is doing here is saying that Christians should come across as people who have no class. I can’t imagine a Muslim witnessing a Christian in prayer and saying to his son, “They are worshiping their FALSE GOD CHRIST.” So loud as to hope the worshipers would hear him. That would be absolutely tactless.
The Rise and Fall of Robert Morey: It’s O.K To Tell Lies!
Probably one of the best places to start with Dr. Robert Morey would be his view on truth.
Five Point Calvinist and “Saint of God” Robert Morey (who was on the run from legal prosecution in California) and was rumored to be trying to mount some kind of come-back in the Pennsylvania area made a living off the good people of America by peddling lies to the unwary masses about Islam.
Robert Morey (One of God’s Elect in Reformed Theology) made a claim to fame with his bizarre and now-debunked claim ‘Allah is the Moon-God’ theory.
Listen to what God’s Elect has to say…
“Well that’s the whole point is that the word, ‘Lie’ needs to be defined. Uh sometimes not telling the truth, all of the truth is your Moral Obligation. And you have a moral obligation to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth at all times to anyone who asks you. You would say, ‘That’s not in the Bible’. The moral thing to do is for me not to tell you. You ain’t getting nothing out of me. Those issues relating to rather you have a moral obligation to tell the whole truth at all times to everyone. That needs to be answered by pointing out you don’t. You do not owe them the truth. See that’s another fallacy. People run around thinking ‘life is just’ and they run around thinking you owe the truth to everyone. You don’t! That’s what the Bible teaches.”-Robert Morey.
Think about that! Oh and did Robert Morey not only stretch the truth he outright lied again, and again and again.
Reformed Christians believe that God is a deceiver and that God in his sovereignty can lie to you. They believe you can be given an evanescent grace (in which you may think you are saved but in actuality, you are not). More on that in future post-Allah-willing.
In this debate with Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al Mansour, Morey makes the outlandish claim that Muslims killed 100 million Armenians! Then he changes the number and says it has been going on ‘since the 1st century’! The Muslims of the Prophet Muhammed (saw) was not even around during the 1st century! Then he made some claim about variant readings and Dr. Abdullah challenged him to produce a single one, his best one. Dr. Morey was so embarrassed by this debate he didn’t want it to be published or circulated at all!
Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al Mansour.
Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour is an internationally esteemed attorney, author, and lecturer whose views have garnered worldwide attention; and serves as a special advisor to HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia.
Dr. Al-Mansour is an International Attorney and Businessman. His college education was obtained at Howard University, where he majored in Philosophy and Logic, and at the University of California School of Law at Berkeley where he received his Doctor of Jurisprudence degree. His web site is at the following address: http://www.world-hi.com/AAPressHome.html
Dr. Robert Morey also declined to debate Muslim apologist Hamza Abdul Malik on the issue: “Is Allah the true God?”. Morey and his camp declined that offer. Dr. Morey claimed to have a doctorate in “Islamic Studies” but neither he nor anyone else could find out where it came from.
Robert Morey also claims a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from Louisiana Baptist University (LBU). This is an unaccredited institution that is not recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). LBU is a “distance learning program” (teaching via the internet), with one alumnus boasting that “the LBU program may be completed 100% via distance learning” while noting that “I did spend one week on campus”. In other words, the Ph.D. is “earned” over the internet, not the classroom.
LBU is listed in Steve Levicoff’s Name It and Frame It?: New Opportunities in Adult Education and How to Avoid Being Ripped Off by “Christian” Degree Mills as a “degree mill”, a term used to refer to groups that issue bogus degrees for a fee. Outside his book, Levicoff put it bluntly: “LBU is a joke.” Perhaps LBU’s website words it best: “LBU has both the experience and reliability to provide an efficient quality degree program tailored to your needs.” Indeed! This is a case of “PhD-for-a-fee or your money back.”
In 1998, the Louisiana Board of Regents (a government agency responsible for overseeing higher education) issued a unanimous ruling to deny LBU an operating license for its business education programs and ordered the school to cease admitting students and cease advertising. LBU was later exempted based on the religious institution exemption and was allowed to operate as a religious institution.
Once again, things go from bad to worse for Morey when the matter is investigated further. Morey claims on his bio that he has obtained a Ph.D. degree in “Islamic Studies”. The only problem? LBU does not offer any such degree. As the OC Weekly noted:
Morey also claims to have received a doctorate from Louisiana Baptist University. Two problems: LBU is unaccredited by the United States government, which means no serious academy would recognize it. Then there’s this: LBU doesn’t offer a Ph.D. in Islamic studies.
He says this “research” was done at the Library of Congress where he read every book they had available on Islam written in English. He fails to tell anyone how many books are available at the Library of Congress on Islam at the time of his “research” (documentation reveals there were close to 2000 books available yet Morey’s small book only lists 130 references in the bibliography, with many of these coming from standard reference works – including nonstandard reference works like the American Tract Society). Robert Morey also made the outrageous claim that he could read 20 to 25 books an hour!
Another Christian evangelist had to call out Dr. Robert Morey for not double-checking his reference and worse still not admitting to error when shown he was wrong. You can watch that here: Robert Morey
Robert Morey was thrown out by his own denomination.
Robert Morey, instead of spending time teaching and sharing the Gospel of Christ Jesus, was getting himself rich off his own congregation. It is regrettable that Christians continue to trust such men who claim to be protecting them from their so-called “enemies”. As the old saying goes: “Who will police the police?”
To give people a typical example of something that Morey’s people would be doing is the following:
“The Research and Education Foundation has done more groundbreaking research, written more materials, produced more tapes, and debated more Muslims than any other organization of its kind… …and now they’re asking for YOUR help in the FIGHT AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM! Dr. Morey needs to raise $1,212,000 to mount a NATIONAL CRUSADE to educate the public about radical Islam and its JIHAD against the American people. The REF needs to supply education books and audio & videotapes to be used on university campuses and in the Federal and State prison system, to launch a massive challenge to the elements of radical Islam in America:….”
Robert Morey is also the same person who advised the U.S government to ‘bomb Mecca and Madinah’. So much for Christian love!
So here good Christian people across America were paying good money to make sure that ‘America was safe from radical Islam’. But then came the questions…
Where are all these videos of him debating Shabir Ally, Jamal Badawi, and Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al Mansour? Where can we find the complete list? Why have the so-called honest Calvinist Christians hid the videos of him ‘exposing the Qur’an and Islam for the lies that they are?’
How come Morey’s own church was being neglected financially?
Where did Morey actually get his self-proclaimed academic credentials in Islam?
The above people link has people asking where did some of this money raised to fight ‘radical Islam’ go to anyway?
Ironically Larry Wessels wasn’t getting his cut of the “bash Islam get paid” type of money. So there was a falling out between Larry Wessels of www.muslimhope.com and Robert Morey. The man in the videos above exposing Robert Morey is either Larry Wessels or closely associated with Larry Wessels. It is ironic because these people are also closely associated with individuals that have dubious knowledge about Islam as well as fake “Ex-Muslim” converts. Will come to that shortly insh’Allah.
That is proof that Reformed Christian theology beliefs include that the elect can backslide into grievous sins, and can for a time continue in that respect, have hardened hearts and scandalize others. Again, that is their version of a real Christian.
Conclusions: We Muslims should pray for the Christians of Robert Morey’s former church. My sincere advice to them is this. If Robert Morey has been dishonest to you and to others about your finances and Anti-Christ like in his mannerisms and treatment towards you then you should also realize that it is highly likely that he was misleading you about Islam as well. Robert Morey has to be the most dishonest Christian to come from camp “TULIP”.
T= Totally depraved U=Utterly helpless in the face of real scholarship L=Limited knowledge of the facts I=Irresistible temptation to lie P=Poorly trained academia
Robert Morey has since died. Now he will stand before a Sovereign and Just God, May Allah have mercy on your soul Robert Morey! Next is Dr. Anis Shorrosh
Dr. Anis Shorrosh was perhaps the one the Christian evangelist had been waiting for. He was Arab (or so he claims) and he was born and raised as a Christian in Palestine (or so he claims).
There are some anomalies about Shorrosh. First, of all, his name is not an Arab name. It appears to be Persian actually. Possibly he is a descendant of Armenians or Persians who settled in Palestine. Secondly, for someone born in Nazareth (as he claims), as an Arab by birth (yet in his debate with Dr. Jamal Badawi) he struggled to recite the Qur’an properly and the manner of his speaking Arabic is not as a native-born person but someone who had learned the language much latter. Especially if he was born in 1933 and served as a Pastor and an Evangelist from 1959-1966 that would put him at age 33 before he left the Middle East. Certainly, he should have a strong command of the Arabic language.
For example, you can see Anis Shorrosh struggle to read a few simple lines of the Qur’an in Arabic here:
The brother made an excellent point. In this debate between Anis Shorrosh and Jamal Badawi, Shorrosh claimed that there were mistakes in the Arabic grammar of the Qur’an. He claimed that certain words should have been other words instead. So this is quite a tall order. Yet Shorrosh claims he is not a scholar of the Arabic language! So the speaker asked Shorrosh to read a few lines of the Qur’an in Arabic of which Jamal Badawi noted were no less than 4 big mistakes let alone his struggle to even read the text!
Shorrosh also uses bait and switch tactics during debates. Observe his trickery here.
That ended up costing him the debate with Shabir Ally, which Dr. Shabir exposed him for it. Shorrosh is part of a deceptive evangelical missionary project that is called “The True Furqan” or also known as “The 21st Century Qur’an”. It has been distributed in places like Kuwait in private English schools. It contains 77 surahs which include Al Fatiha, “Al Jana” and “Al Injeel” Instead of the standard Bismillah it is replaced with a longer version that incorporates the Christian belief of three spirits. (Shabir Ally exposes this and also teaches Dr. Shorrosh that he actually ends up promoting Sabellianism! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19a30uFvghI)
The 21st Century Quran opposes Islamic teachings by stating that having more than one wife is fornication (A teaching not even found in the Bible!), that divorce is not being permissible (poor Christians stuck in abusive marriages). This book is being targeted to children in English schools were often many upper-middle-class Muslim families send their children. Lastly, after all the deceit and bluster from Anis Shorrosh what sticks out most in our minds is his arrest for burning tax records and in the process almost setting his building on fire.
Now Christians were embarrassed by this and tried to say Shorrosh acted erratically after having a stroke and a heart attack and put a medication known as statins. Yet, this apologetic response meant to save face for one of their own doesn’t account for why Shorrosh tampered with security cameras and why of all the things he burned, he burned 20 years of tax returns. Sounds like his cognitive skills were working just fine to me.
Shorrosh has since died. May Allah (swt) have mercy on your soul!
One thing that Shorrosh certainly did was to tickle the minds and the dark hearts of many Evangelical Christians involved in polemics against Islam and Muslims. This can be seen in their repeated attempts to re-create Shorrosh or Shorrosh like characters. There was something appealing in an Arab Christian debating Muslims.
So these Christian think-tanks got together and their dark hearts and imaginations began to whisper. What if we could get an ex Muslim convert to Christianity who could expose Islam? Or even better than that, not just any ex Muslim, how about an Arab ex Muslim!!! Or even better how about an Arab ex Muslim from Saudi Arabia (gasp, the heartland of Islam!). It started to sound better and better. The case of “Ex Muslims” Ergun Caner and Emir Caner”.
Look at the darkness in this man’s eyes. This particular controversy really became heated in the Evangelical Christian world, bringing in such notable Christian apologists such as Norman Geisler. Battle lines were drawn up between Calvinist and Arminians and it was the beginning of the rift between James White and former protege Sam Shamoun. Listen to this Evangelist, this man who has been “saved by the blood of Jesus” tell bald-faced lies about Islam and Muslims.
Listen to him poor out lie after lie after lie…
Look at his claims that he knows the Arabic language here…
Ergun Caner was defended by Norman Geisler here:
Some more lies of Ergun Caner…If you want a complete catalog of videos exposing this mans lies and deceit I would highly suggest this YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/mokhan247/videos
Calling the saum (fasting) pronounced as Psalm as Swan (a species of bird) is also awful.
One of the most awful lies is his claim in the following video: ‘One of our leaders Shabir Ally ….the debater is often famous for saying before he died….’ …https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uZvMX68QPg alhamdulillah!
By the way that the brother was able to recover the YouTube videos. Because initially, these dishonest and hateful Christians tried to censor the truth!
Now watch this ‘expert’ on Islam give the Shahadah the testification of faith… He says it is “Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem Muhamdulillahir rahman ir raheem… WHAT!?!
Now if you of you people doubt that this is not the Shahadah here is a simple straight forward challenge to you. You can verify it in one of two ways. 1) You can go down to your local Masjid (Mosque) and simply ask one are the words a person has to say to become a Muslim.) You can go to youtube and type up people converting to Islam. You will see them say the following words:
“Ash Hadu An La Ilaha il law lah WA Ash Hadu Anna Muhammed ar Rasulullah”. (I bear witness that there is no God except God and I bear witness that Muhammed is the Messenger of God)
By the way, a “devout X Muslim” like Ergun Caner should have known the Shahadah. It is only said 9 times during the five obligatory prayers. Once in the morning prayer. Twice in the afternoon, mid-afternoon, sunset, and night prayers. That’s only for the obligatory prayers let alone the optional devotional prayers.
This mix up on his part is a huge blunder! Mohammed Khan makes a good point that Ergun Caner throws in the hard KH sound so you get KHaadeth, rather than hadeeth.
Also in Islam, the question ‘Who is Jesus’ is not a difficult question at all. Jesus is the word of God, Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus is the Messenger of Allah. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.
Again Ergun Caner’s blatant ignorance of the teachings of Islam is manifest. He mentions that he has the courage to go in front of a Masjid (Mosque) and tell us all day long that Jesus is the Messiah. We would simply reply Ameen (Amin).
When the angels said: “O Mary! Allah gives you the good news of a Word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus (Esau) son of Mary (Mariam) who is illustrious in this world and the hereafter, and who is one of those brought near (to Allah).” (Qur’an 3:45)
What is so hard to answer?
Notice when he mentions about the Church that doesn’t exist anymore? He crosses his arms please also pay close attention to his eyes. Why do they look away after the soft chuckle?
If this is not devilish and arrogant I don’t know what is.
There are also ways to find out if that Church existed remember he said it was not far from a Mosque (Masjid).
What mosque is it that he said he attended? Umm Google map and yellow pages anyone???As you know already as well, the clever and crafty John Ankerberg has also moved to have the videos removed from YouTube?
Why? Why would John Ankerberg a man who has held open debates between various views and religions on his television program do this? Why? Simple $$$$
Which Christian was it that said everybody who bought the books above should come together sign a petition and demand a complete 100% refund for the garbage books they bought thinking that it was done by scholars and people who had great insight into the religion of Islam!
Where was Ergun Caner born? In Stockholm Sweden or in Istanbul Turkey?
Note that he mentions he was a ‘sand monkey’ How much sand is there in Turkey? Again google map anyone? Or simply ask Christian missionaries who have been in Turkey.
Again the pejorative term ‘sand monkey’ makes you wonder what his true feelings are about Black people in America? I mean the term ‘sand monkey’ is a derogatory term used to disparage Arabs.
So even if he is of Turkish ancestry it was a racist remark to make about Arabs.
Then watch the end of the clip where he comes and speaks Arabic to his Turkish father in excitement he says ‘Isa bin Allah’ (Jesus son of God) why would you speak Arabic to your Turkish father? But even more revealing and the part where is where he follows that up with his gibberish. He is making you people out to play the fool.
Christians wake up! You have missionaries that go to Turkey and Arab countries and speak Farsi, Turkish, and Arabic. How about you do the following: You get one of these people who speak Turkish, or Arabic to play this video in front of Ergun and ask him what he was saying.
Then it’s game over! Unless he was going to claim that he was speaking in tongues out of ecstasy which would not surprise me. However, I would have to say that Christian credibility seems to wear thin as the days go by why this man is running the show at Liberty University. I have sent e-mails to Muslims asking that we stop engaging in any inter-faith dialogues of debates with any representative of the SBC until Ergun Caner is brought to justice.
I also have friends in high places and I think that it’s possible you could see the SBC missionary activities cease completely in all areas of operation in every Muslim country across the globe. You can laugh if you want to but once it is shown that Christians will stoop to any level to bring “the truth” this will alarm Muslims who do allow Christians to preach in their countries openly and will show that the Christians are not people who play by the rules.
Would the SBC like the news of waking up one morning and finding there was a joint decision by 57 member states of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) to halt all missionary activity? Not just the SBC because Christian indecision in the United States would reflect poorly upon Christians in general. I am sorry if you think it’s not fair. Welcome to my world where actions are done and taken by a few people in the name of Islam reflect poorly upon Muslims as a whole!
Did Ergun Caner Covert to Christianity in 1982? Did the brothers both convert in 1982 or did one of them convert a year prior?
Also the view that the Shi’a and the Sunni believe that the “Khalif” actually word should be Imam disappeared into ‘the caves’ is not factual. The belief in the Mahdi still alive and waiting to reappear is a belief held among the Shi’a but not among Sunni Muslims. Look at this book and look at the names on there. This book was quite a little cash cow for Ergun “FETHI” Caner and his brother Emir.
Only Allah (swt) knows what that young man was facing while growing up with someone as repulsive and vulgar as Ergun. Very heartbreaking indeed. Before he died Ergun’s son Braxton was posting pictures of him making out with girls and vulgar words.
We as Muslims should pray for Ergun Caner and his family. We pray that Allah (swt) removes the darkness from his heart and brings him into the light of a loving relationship with our Merciful Creator. May Allah (swt) make it easy on him and his family during this time of distress.
Next Is Hassamo Shamoun, Sam Shamoun.
He was a big part of the premier Christian apologetic website interacting with Islam and Muslims. answering-islam.org Shamoun’s stomping grounds was a social media platform called, “Paltalk”.
Paltalk would be used by Hassamo as a place where he could ‘field test’ his arguments. However, when he would come across knowledgeable Muslims, Sam would revert to screaming, yelling, and hurling all kinds of vulgar obscenities. It was clear that this was not a man who found peace but someone who was disturbed mentally.
These are just some of the small samples of Sam Shamoun interacting with other Christians (let alone Muslims) Hassamo loves to attack the character of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Ironically this distasteful attack on the Blessed Messenger (saw) marriage backfired on Hassamo “Sam” Shamoun when his wife divorced him. Not following the principles of God’s guidance Hassamo thought it was morally acceptable for his wife to be alone with a strange man in the house and so forth.
sam_shamoun_divorce_papers_due_to_long_abuse_to_his_wife Usually, most sensible people will do their level best to hide their character flaws. Not Hassamo he was an open book. He would crush, humiliate, destroy, vex, accost, assail, brutalize, assault, hurl abuse, and vitriolic all for the glory of Christ. His whole apologetics career was ended when the U.S court system stated:
Michelle requested that a two-year order of protection prohibited Sam from harassing, stalking, or physically abusing Michelle. Granting Michelle sole possession of the parties’ marital residence, and prohibiting Sam from entering the residence of Michelle’s place of employment.
Now what I find sad is that many Christians even after being aware of Hassamo’s vile behavior will come to his defense. Yet you have to keep in mind that Hassamo’s ex-wife Michelle is also a Christian.
So why take the testimony of a Sam Shamoun (who is clearly under the bondage of demons) over the testimony of his Christian wife? Not only that but it is a small world and there is much more than Michelle could have disclosed in regards to the very sick and disgusting behavior of Hassamo. What’s also interesting is that Sam Shamoun has burned so many bridges in the Christian community in the United States. As a person who believed in Reformed Theology, it certainly did not make him many friends across the aisle. Whereas James White has exposed Sam Shamoun’s courtship of Rome and Sam’s continuing march toward Roman Catholicism. That move makes sense for Sam Shamoun because his $$$ is drying up and Rome has plenty of $$$. Hassamo “Sam” Shamoun is attacking Protestants more and more particularly Calvinist and Reformed Theology. Sam recently admitted that for years he was worshiping a false god and inviting Muslims to believe in a false god, the ‘god of Calvinism’. Sam currently is gearing up for a conflict with Orthodox Christians (who cannot offer the same amount of cash infusion) that Roman Catholic Church can.
James White goes discusses this in the above video. Shamoun’s march towards Rome. The interesting thing is once Sam makes it official you have to wonder about all those evangelicals who cheered Sam on with his filthy language and vulgar methodology, will they support him when he crosses the Tiber river?
Conclusion: Muslims should pray for Hassamo Shamoun and his family. Pray that they can pick up the pieces of their lives and move forward. That Hassamo will find it in his heart to be a loving father to his two daughters and support them financially. That he will consider his vulgar speech that is all over the internet and hope that Allah will guide him not to speak like that anymore.
It is my hope that Sam Shamoun will one day find fulfillment and peace in loving willful submission to Allah (swt). However, and I say this not as an adversary but as someone genuinely concerned. I believe that he is in need of Ruqya. I can’t believe that any discerning Christian has not seen that the man is clearly in spiritual bondage. He constantly talks about others ‘manifesting’ which is the biggest projection ever. He often has weird body movements and jerks, which coupled with his vulgar language (towards Christians) let alone Muslims one can only imagine what ever entity resides him it certainly is not aligned to the light.
Next, we have David Wood.
David Wood is best known for being 1/2 of team ‘Atheist-Christ’. That is he teams up with an Atheist to attack Islam. This dynamic team of ‘Atheist -Christ’ has left many Christians puzzled. If Jesus is good enough for the Muslims why is he not good enough for his Atheist partner? David has his blog, ‘Answering Muslims’, and ‘Acts 17 apologetics’.
In the picture below he is wearing his wife’s gown (showing disrespect to his wife and not guarding her own privacy) while he was mocking Islam & Muslims.
Also, while doing this he blatantly ignored what God said stating the matter:
“A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.” (Deuteronomy 22:5)
I have often noticed when watching David Wood speak you can hear even until today the dry monotone in his speech. There is a lack of voice inflection. There is the twitching of the left eyebrow when he talks about uncomfortable subjects. So what has David Wood been up to lately?
David Wood has recently made a video with two ex Muslims. Can you imagine a Christian who hopes that Muslims hear the gospel of Christ shares a platform with two ex Muslims (Atheist) and does not spend anytime on the program sharing the gospel of Christ Jesus with them?! The only platform that brought those three together was HATRED for Islam. David Wood switched off evangelization mode and went into a complete debauched and depraved meltdown. See for yourself:
So this is what Christian apologetics has come to. David Wood in the video above suggests that he will create a domain name “pissonthequran.com”. Is this what Christianity is all about? You people keep telling the world that Islam is this and that and yet you go and make statements like this. No Muslim would ever even dare to make a website ‘pissonthebible.com”, only a perverse person who is in spiritual bondage would suggest things. That is the huge disadvantage that we Muslims have in debates with Christians. They can hurl all kinds of insults at the Blessed Prophet (saw), and yet we cannot say in kind about Christ Jesus (upon whom be peace) because he is a Prophet of Allah, he is the Messiah, and we believe in him. To lambaste Jesus or insult Jesus would take one out of Islam.
Another person doing the rounds is an individual by the name pseudonym of “Christian Prince”. I have listened to some of his “debates” with “Muslims” and they seem staged to me. Sure enough, my suspicion was confirmed. This “Christian Prince” was recently busted in a huge way when he lied about having a debate with a Muslim teacher, our beloved and kind brother Sabeel Ahmed. Mash’Allah Sabeel Ahmed has a beautiful disposition and a great deal of patience when outing this charlatan.
Mash’Allah Sabeel Ahmed has a beautiful disposition and a great deal of patience when outing this charlatan. This Anonymous “Christian Prince” has been called out to have a public moderated debate. Yet, he does not believe that God can protect him like he did here: “Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spoke, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.” (Daniel 3:26)
Next is “Al Fadi”
This is the “Al Fadi” that you see pictured above going around the speaking circuit (much like Ergun Caner did). Now I am going to post his presentation of his testimony. (and if it gets deleted or removed) no worries because I have downloaded it.
So I have listened to the whole presentation. I have heard him say the word “MOZLUM” no less than 5 times in his presentation. Now there is absolutely no way on Earth that this guy is from Saudi Arabia and pronouncing ‘Muslim’ as ‘Mozlum’. He says @5:45 “Most my life in Saudi I memorized a book called the Qur’an.” “Half by age 12,” He says he went to an “Islamic University in Mecca” (doesn’t tell us the name of it). He went to study shariah to become a shariah scholar and judge later. He claims to have studied at the Local University pursuing an Engineering Degree at the U of A. Then he latter changed his major and went to ASU. He claims in the video that he was training to be a ‘jihadist’ (remember Ergun Caner gave the same story), and he (Al Fadi) was going to go to Afghanistan. Suddenly was abruptly stopped by his mother. What is interesting is that by his own modus oprendi has admitted that Allah (swt) is worth dying for and Jesus is not. Why do I say this? The fact that he uses a ‘pseudonym’. He uses a false name. T
o his credit and unlike (Christian Prince) at least he has given us a face. He hasn’t remained anonymous like “Abdul Saleeb” However, his name “Al Fadi” means the Redeemer. So that is obviously not his Muslim name.
This name is prevalent among Jordanian Christians in particular. Now, this is the new-look for “Al Fadi” So here we have “Al Fadi” going for the traditional Arab look (pictured left) and why not? The last person to try that was Dr. Anis Shorrosh pictured on the right. A live conversation with “Al Fadi” with someone talking to him a bit about his background would certainly yield some eye-opening inconsistencies.
Look at the end of the day both Muslims and Christians are convinced that one of us is upon the truth and the other is upon error. Yet, the number of Christians involved in Muslim and Islamic apologetics has been outed again and again for lies, deceit, deception, and a complete lack of concern for truth and transparency.
As I have said at the beginning of the article and I will say here again any Christian that encounters Islam one of three things happens:
a) Either they begin a serious study of Islam and end up seeing that Islam is a more cogent faith and world view than Christianity ever could be. They convert to Islam as I have.
b) They remain convinced of their own faith but develop a deep admiration and appreciation for Islam and Muslims (rather they admit it publicly or not)
c) Their hearts become diseased and their spiritual ailments are amplified and this becomes obvious in time. Greed, avarice, lust, anger, hate, racism begins to drip from their writings and public statements. Without fail repeatedly these people end up being humiliated publicly in this life. The hereafter is a painful and everlasting torment for them.
The truth is that many Christians are in spiritual bondage. Many of them have real trouble with marital fidelity, trouble erasing racism from their hearts, trouble with loving money, gambling, a predilection for the same sex, wrestling with drug addiction, and more. Many of them also find many Christian teachings problematic. chief of the more practical ones is the issue surrounding divorce. Many of them find are uncertain of their salvation and many of them who take time to seriously study Christian concepts of the Creator realize that it is not cogent at all.
What else explains the reason they feel they have to cheat and lie about Islam and Muslims? Why do they have to lie to their own congregations and people of their own denomination? Why do they need to use these types of tactics if they are certain of their beliefs?
It is my hope that this article will reach those people who have been lied to and duped by Christian missionary deceit. That you will take time to go to a Mosque yourself. That you will read the Qur’an yourself. That you will sit with learned Muslims and ask them about the questions that you have in your heart and mind.
“They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.” (Qur’an 61:8)
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized as the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)
“Those to whom we gave the Book know it as they know their children, but a group of them knowingly hide the truth”- Qur’an 2:146
﷽
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.”(Qur’an 5:83)
Pope John Paul Kissing the Qur’an.
“In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” -POPE PAUL VI
“You are the best nation that ever existed among humanity. You command people to good and prohibit them from evil, and you believe in Allah. Had the People of the Book accepted the faith (Islam), it would certainly have been better for them. Some of them have faith, but most of them are evil doers.” (Qur’an 3:110)
In the future all such articles concerning Christianity will go under the heading Jews and Christians here:
First and foremost any Muslim engaging with Christians should understand that those whom identify as Christians have a wide range of different beliefs. We have seen too often Muslims engage with Christians and assume their beliefs. This is akin to a Christian thinking that an Ayatollah from Iran or a Shaykh from Saudi Arabia speaks on behalf of all Muslims.
For example the Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe that we bear the sin of Adam rather we bear the consequences of that sin. It is a nuanced position.
Another massive and influential Protestant denomination, the Church of Christ (called Campbellites) by their opponents do not hold that infants are sinless and incapable of making free will decisions to sin.
There are key but major doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodox and Church of Christ (Campbellites) on this matter as well. With Eastern Orthodox believing original sin corrupts human nature this leads to a deposition towards sin. Whereas the Church of Christ (called Campbellites) They reject original sin altogether, believing that each individual is responsible for their own sins. Adam’s sin affects himself and not future generations.
Not all Christians believe in a Trinity, and those that do have greatly different takes on it, some viewing others as heretical. They do not all agree on the nature of Christ Jesus, rather or not he has one nature, two natures, they do not even agree on a set number of New Testament books. They have New Testament canons that range from 22 books, 27 books and even 35 books!
“And with those who say, We are Christians (nasara), We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did.” (Qur’an 5:14)
The above verse acknowledges that there are whole factions under the umbrella terminology ‘Nasara’ . That these factions clash with one another. Therefore, it is foolhardy to think that the term ‘Nasara’ is a blanket term to refer to all those who call themselves Christians. It can refer to those who were faithful before the breaking of the covenant as well as those who came after.
Some Christians object to certain verses of the Qur’an saying: This is not what we believe. They seem to have forgotten that one person’s orthodoxy is another person’s heterodoxy. This is what the Qur’an acknowledges. There can only be hatred and enmity between those who have sharp and irreconcilable differences among them.
We hope that the students and researchers of comparative religion find the following articles helpful!
GENESIS CHAPTER 3 SEPARATES ISLAM AND CHRISTIAINITY
Christian Dominionism: The Violent take it by force.
Subordinationism.
Gregory Palamas and his errors on Islam.
May Allah (swt) guide the sincere Christians to Islam. May Allah (swt) guide them so that they may find peace in this life and the life to come. May Allah (swt) guide the sincere Christians to Islam and save them from the punishment of the hellfire.
Prima Quran 