Can Christians Correct errors in Bible. Textural Criticism?

Last updated: 18th June 2020

 

By: Mustafa Sahin

 

Christian Apologist suggest that, the Bible can get corrected through Textural criticism. And in doing so affirming the original Bible. However is this true? We will show a number of points why this is not true. And the Bible can no longer get fixed to prove that it’s error free, affirming the correct version.

 

Let’s begin;

 

Christian Wrote in Response to (John 8:1-11)

You miss the point the fact that we know what has been added. That is how we know that that story was added. Note, that we do not know whether the event actually happened. We simply know that it wasn’t originally in the biblical text. Biblical criticism is a nature discipline. The old biblical manuscripts that still exist (and we have thousands) have been analysed to death. We know where things have been changed or added over time. Most modern bibles contain footnotes that clearly point out bits in the text where the text has been altered or we are not sure what the original said. As a consequence we can reconstruct with confidence about 98% of the original text. And in the 2% where we are uncertain there is no doctrinal information that is not also established elsewhere in the new testament

 

Muslim – Response:

Interesting I Wonder now that you agree, John 8:1-11, has been added, suppose the women was guilty, would Jesus have applied the Jewdaic law, and stonned her for commiting Adultery! Since there is no other record of Jesus specifically condeming the Judaic law.

As for reconstruct with confidence 98% of the Original?

Watch Ehrman Vs Wallace.

 

Also see the Lie, how Textural veriences don’t include, the Essential Doctrine or Message or the Tenants of Christianity being effected by Textural veriences. This is not true, watch how Wallace gets exposed:

 

Also consider this, did you know what is so “bizzare” about the Deleted verses in the bible? Why did it take the Christians biblical scholars more than 1800 years to realise that more than 200 odd deleted verses are not really part of the Bible? Where was the “Holy Spirit” for more than 1800 years? In fact Christians had to rely on the Discovery of early Ancient manuscipts in our recent times to try and determin what verses are Authentic. In otherwords if Christians never found early ancient Manuscipts they would be still telling preaching that the 200 plus deleted verses are part of God inspired verses.

This proves Christians do not have a “Holy spirit” guiding them to All truth. If they did the Holy Spirit would have let the Christians know long ago on what is meant to be part of todays Bible. What happends if more earlier ancient manuscripts are discovered in the future and the verses we think is authentic today get dismissed into the future aswell?
Therefore biblical transmission “can not be trusted”.

This clearly demonstrates, Christians can’t rely on this mythical Holy Spirit that dwells inside them guiding them to the truth. It wasn’t the Holy Spirit that spoke to them, telling them there are false verses in the Bible. It was rather the accidental discovery of Ancient Manuscipts, along with “Carbon Dating Technology” that allowed Textural critics to date, manuscripts to compare and see what was added later.

Even more embarrassing, even after so much correction todays biblical “canon” is still yet to be agreed upon. If a book can not be trusted 100% because of Corruption. I fail to realise how we can trust the “essential Doctrine”. There are Christians who claim it has no impact at all. Is like saying we can prove the essential doctrine being historically sound.

I would argue, of course you can, however can you put your full trust in it? Because the very same verses of essential tenants are found in a polluted book. It is then possible that the essentials came from the same false scribes. We also showed New Testament Scholar, Bart Ehrman shows essentials them selves are polluted. For example ressurection story not found in Marks Gospel nor the Trinity (1 john 5:7) which is a Interpolation 3rd centuary text, this is also agreed by Christian New Testament Scholar Wallace, See here:

Therefore saying we can trust the “essential doctrine” Is no longer a arguement a Christian can make. Because even the Essential Doctrine was a late forgery. If i recieve a letter from a person. But in the letter you find many lies or even little lies. It then brings doubt to the rest of the essential informations.

It was a essential belief that the word “beggoten” gave Jesus extra authority of being unique son. Now that essential word has been removed from the RSV version. One Word can manipulate the Theology of Christianity concerning Jesus. So has their been Manipulation in the Essentials sure. Including (1 John 5-7) which comes as a 3rd Centuary text not found as it is worded in the KJV in the Earliest Manuscipts we have today.

In fact if Christians want to appeal to the Earliest Sources to have more Authenticity then our Christian friends have to start “Stoning Women Again”, because the Earliest Manuscripts do not have the Story” Those without Sin cast the first Stone. Will Christians now be consistent like Removing the last 9-12 verses of Marks Gospel also Remove the Story of Forgiving Adultery?? Additionally Since the Gospel of John is the last written Gospel of the 4 Synoptic Gospels therefore does that now make it least Authentic, since Christians appeal to the Earliest as Most Authentic?

Christians appealing to the Earliest Manuscripts have even more problems:

Scholar of N.T Bart Ehrman

Forward to (18 minutes 25 seconds)
Watch how James white gets owned by Ehrman. “The earlier we go in Biblical Manuscript the more Veriences we have”.

Therefore appealing to the Earliest brings more-Problems then to fixing them. Even amoung diffrent dinominations and Sects you have diffrent amount of books each group claimimg their Canon is divine while others are Apocryphal. And its been 2000 years. They are still trying to work out “whos canon” is correct and how many verses are really part of the original bible? There are differences even in the Canon, so Christians till this day are in dispute. How can God, take over 2000 years, to rectify the Bible? These are though the same Christians, who argue how can the Quran come 600 years after the Bible. Interesting Hey?

Also refering to the Earliest is not alwayse a good idea. Because it can still be early and Un-Authentic read ( Galatians 1:4-8) Where Paul admitted there were false books and scribes as early as (50 A.D) and Paul insisted his Desciples to turn away from those scribes. A Christian can try and be clever here by saying Paul didn’t consider those other books to be other bibles, therefore there wasn’t really any other bibles back then. However this is incorrect, when Paul dismissed it, it didn’t mean those other early scribes did not exist or that there documents did not exist as their own version of the Bible, if they didn’t exist then why would Paul say turn away from them? They clearly did exist, and Paul did not want them considered to be a bible because Paul disagreed with them, thus this does not mean other bibles did not exist, they were just false ones according to Paul, thus proving early documents even in Paul’s time can be wrong, so what makes you think if something is written early means it’s correct? It clearly isn’t according to the biblical premise!

 

In addition  see the video bellow, where even when Textural critics refer to the earliest source material to weed out, errors in the Bible, they have veriences even more so between the earliest Manuscipts dateing to the same period, therefore refering to the earliest source material to correct the Bible fails since the earliest copies dating to the same period don’t agree with one another, in otherwords if there are TWO Manuscipts that differ, they can’t be fixed, because their is nothing earlier then that dated, to work out which one is true, so in otherwords TWO differing Manuscripts since they both are dated to the same period we can not work out which one was the earliest, since they date the same, and there is nothing earlier that can, show us the correct reading, see those examples here:

Part 1/2:

 

Part 2/2

 

In both these videos you will clearly see, that there are errors in the text that can not be “fixed” because the veriences between the verses are dated around the same year. In otherwords one text is not older then the other, thus Biblical Scholars can not work out which text came first.

Another major problem is, the different “Canons” of the bible.

Christians can not prove the correct “preserved Canon” of the Bible today. They don’t have a unanimous agreement on it between the Protestant, Catholics and Greek Orthodox and so on. If they had an Original agreed Canon, they would have all agreed.

Here is a link showing diffrent amount of Books accepted in one denomination compared to another Christian denomination:

Whose canon is divinely inspired?

So when the Christians say they can correct the Bible. They need to be able to show which Bible Canon is the agreed Canon. And even if a particular denomination claims to have a Preserved Canon Bible  its still subjective as other Christians Denominations differ to what you believe is Preserved Canon agreed Books. A example from unveiling Christianity web site:

73 Catholic Canon Books

63 Protestant Canon Book

Both Can not be Right.

Interestingly enough, Catholics argue that the Protestant Canon is not correct because it removes books from its collection, while the Protestants argue, that the Catholics add to the Word of God.

So clearly “Textural Criticism” can not fix the issue on the “agreed Canon” uniting all Christians to the correct Totality of God’s inspired Books.

 

Rebuttal section:

When a Christian writes, defending against Textural Criticism.

They write:

You miss the point the fact that is that we know what has been added. That is how we know that that story was added.Note, that we do not know whether the event actually happened. We simply know that it wasn’t originally in the biblical text Biblical criticism is a nature discipline. The old biblical manuscripts that still exist (and we have thousands) have been analysed to death. We know where things have been changed or added over time. Most modern bibles contain footnotes that clearly point out bits in the text where the text has been altered or we are not sure what the original said. As a consequence we can reconstruct with confidence about 98% of the original text. And in the 2% where we are uncertain there is no doctrinal information that is not also established elsewhere in the new testament
Muslim-Response:

You know what is so bizzare about the Deleted verses in the bible?

Why oh Why did it take the Christians biblical scholars more then 1800 years to relize that more then 200 odd deleted verses are not really part of the bible?

Where was your Holy Spirit for more then 1800 years?

In fact Christians had to rely on the Discovery of early Ancient manuscipts in our recent times to try and determin what verses are Authentic. In otherwords if Christians never found early ancient Manuscipts they would be still telling us that the 200 plus deleted verses are part of God inspired verses.

This proves Christians do not have a Holy spirit guiding them to all truth. If they did the Holy Spirit would have let the Christians know long ago on what is meant to be part of todays bible.

What happends if more earlier ancient manuscripts are discovered in the future and the verses we think is authentic today get dismissed into the future?
Therefore biblical transmission can not be trusted.

And even after so much correction todays biblical canon is still yet to be agreed upon.

If a book can not be trusted 100% because of Corruption

I fail to relize how we can trust the essential message.

Claiming it has Zero impact. Is like saying we can prove the essential message being historically sound. No you cant. Because the very same verses of essentials are found in a polluted book. It is then possible that the essentials came from the same false scribes.

We also showed Bart erman shows essentials them selves are polluted.
For example ressurection story not found in Marks Gospel nor the Trinity 1 john 5:7 which is a Interpolation 3rd centuary text.

Is basically saying we can trust the essential message if the essential messeage is intact. But how do you trust wether the essential message is true when the book the essential messeage is in. Is in fact proven to have curruption within its text. Which then casts doubt to the rest of the book. Its very simple logic.

If i recieve a letter from a person. But in the letter you find many lies or even little lies. It then brings doubt to the rest of the essential informations.

It was a essential belief that the word beggoten gave Jesus extra authority of being unique son. Now that essential word has been removed from the RSV version. One Word can manipulate the Theology of Christianity concerning Jesus. So has their been Manipulation in the Essentials sure. Including 1 John 5-7 which comes as a 3rd Centuary text not found as it is worded in the KJV in the Earliest Manuscipts we have today.

In fact if Christians want to appeal to the Earliest Sources to have more Authenticity then our Christian friends have to start “Stoning Women Again”, because the Earliest Manuscripts do not have the Story” Those without Sin cast the first Stone. Will Christians now be consistent like Removing the last 9-12 verses of Marks Gospel also Remove the Story of Forgiving Adultery??

Additionally Since the Gospel of John is the last written Gospel of the 4 Synoptic Gospels therefore does that now make it least Authentic, since Christians appeal to the Earliest as Most Authentic?

Christians appealing to the Earliest Manuscripts have even more problems:

Scholar of N.T Bart Ehrman

Forward to (18 minutes 25 seconds)
Watch how James white gets owned by Erhman. “The earlier we go in Biblical Manuscript the more Veriences we have”.

Therefore appealing to the Earliest brings more-Problems then to fixing them.

Even amoung diffrent dinominations and Sects you have diffrent amount of books each group claimimg their Canon is divine while others are Apocryphal.

And its been 2000 years. They are still trying to work out whos canon is correct and how many verses are really part of the original bible? There are differences even in the Canon, so Christians till this day are in dispute, footnotes can not fix it.

Reconstruct with confidence 98% of the Original?

Watch Ehrman Vs Wallace: from (Minute: 1.30.21)

There is your answer, about the apparent 98% confidence.

Bart Erhman shows, the earlier we go into the Manuscripts, the worst the transmisson becomes: https://youtu.be/WRHjZCKRIu

Go then again to (minute 1.56.07) onwards, and Bart Ehrman, shows can we trust something 97%? Accurate?

 

 

Further readings to: Does refering to the earliest text fix the errors in the New Testament?

Consistent Calvinism and Textual Criticism

Graphic: NT Reliability Comparison to Ancient Documents

A Brief Insight into the New Testament’s Prototyping

 

 

 

Sky is a guarded Canopy – Response to WikiIslam

Miracle in the Quran: The protective Roof. Responding to WikiIslam.

Who writes:

 

Muslim-Response:

First See this brilliant video showing the amazing miracle in the Quran https://youtu.be/hANCMwggtfQ

And We made the sky a protected ceiling, but they, from its signs, are turning away. Quran 21:32

WikiIslam claims because the Earth back in history has been penetrated by a Astoride or Meteorite 65 million years ago. It tries to down play the Qur’anic verse, as if there was a Contradiction.

However this can be easily refuted using basic, rationality. Which the Authors of WikiIslam lacks. Let me explain, suppose a engineering company creats a safety barrier that can protect, super fast sports cars from spectators, and over many years of racing, and numerous crashes, the safety barrier withstanded this, except for one or two occasions, where the saftey barrier wall was breached, because there was a unusual circumstance where the cars, were accelerating more then the usual required speed, and the cars impact the crowed Injuring spectators, one would imagine it was just a isolated case, rather then poor design. Thus, when Allah created the Earth having a protective barrier, to protect us from a lot of things coming towards our earth, this doesn’t mean that a isolated event can not occur.Secondly if Allah created the Protective mechanism on the Earth, it doesn’t mean, Allah Can not breech his own creation. If Allah wants he could send a big enough meteorite that can breech the Protective barrier, and destroy what ever He wishes on the earth. So just because Allah put up a protective barrier, mentioned in the Quran, this protective barrier, on a general bases is there to protect the Earth, which it has been doing for millions of years, however there may be a isolated event, where He could send a big enough meteorite to penetrate the Protective barrier. The fact that the Quran mentions this Protective barrier more then 1400 years ago, is a miracle in its self, but of course the critics of the Quran would ignore that and try to down play, the Protective meaning with a incoherent fallacy.

Just because something is called “protective” it doesn’t have to mean it’s designed to protect you from every catastrophe. We still call, bike Helmets “Protective Gear” this doesn’t mean that the Protective Helmet is supposed to protect you on every single event. Similiarly the Earths prorective Sheild, is not designed to protect you on every single circumstance. Therefore there is no contradiction in calling it; a Protective or guarded canopy. There would have only been a contradiction if the Quran, suggested it’s a unbreakable or unbreachable Protective Barrier or Canopy, only then there would have been a contradiction, yet the Quran never suggests that at all.

So WikiIslam, you need to come up with a better arguement with this, indeed this one was very poor, indeed try again. But this time, put your thinking cap on, if you have one.

Camel Urine in Islam?

                               Last updated: 5th, May. 2022.  

By: Mustafa Sahin

You may have constantly heard Islamic critics bring up the Hadeeth where the Prophet ordered some Bedouins to consume camel urine for medical use due to having a medical condition. Many critics laugh and mock this. However, in recent years, Science is beginning to confirm there are Medical benefits in Animal Urine.

Read:

Nonetheless, the product has been studied by a handful of researchers. A 2012 study published in the journal Ancient Science of Life suggested rats with diabetes that were fed Gomutra Ark had significantly lower blood glucose levels than rats in a control group did. “This study supports the traditional use of Gomutra Ark in diabetes,” the researchers wrote, noting that it has a “high therapeutic index and is safe for chronic use.”

And a 2013 study in the International Brazilian Journal of Urology claimed that distilled cow urine might help to prevent the development of kidney stones in rats.

However, these and other studies may not convince sceptics to start drinking urine anytime soon, even if it is part of a tasty soft drink.

“Just trust me on this — this drink really will require flavouring,” Keith-Thomas Ayoob, nutritionist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, told ABC News. “If they use sugar or a caloric sweetener, then the world probably doesn’t need another drink that’s just a source of sugar calories, although this drink will probably have its 15 minutes [of fame] because of its novelty

Source:
https://www.livescience.com/42529-cow-urine-health-benefits-gomutra-ark.html

Urine is also used in “Modern Medicine”

In addition even in Today’s Western World: ” Premarin” is also a medicine extracted from Horse or Mule Urine, used today to treat women’s ailments.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premarin

Also:  Urea serves an important role in the metabolism of nitrogen-containing compounds by animals and is the main nitrogen-containing substance in the urine of mammals.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea

Now for some responses to the critics who write:

Islamic critics often read:

The World Health Organisation has said that camels are the source of the Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus and has urged people who have “diabetes, renal failure, chronic lung disease, and immunocompromised persons are considered to be at high risk of severe disease from MERS-CoV infection” to avoid contact with camels, drinking raw camel milk or camel urine, or eating meat that has not been properly cooked.

The Critics of Islam want you to believe, that Muslims sit around the table just conversing and enjoying a glass of Urine like it’s our culture. However you will not find this, among Muslim majority cultures, rather the hadith in Question, Camel Urine was recommended only for a specific medical condition, and thus the camel urine, is not just a Beveridge of passed time entertainment, as the Islamic critics want you to believe, and if ever a small “Ignorant group” of Muslims arise and drink the Urine as pure entertainment or pleasure, then they have no idea of its usage protocols. Some Muslim theologians have suggested that, during the prophet’s time, the Camel urine may have been boiled and sterilized before it can be administered for medical use, whatever the case is, the Camel urine, is only served for a particular medical condition and not to be used as a passed time Beveridge, as the Anti Islamist want to suggest, which is false. Disease outbreaks occur when some Muslims don’t adhere to the correct protocols.

See for example;

They quote: As of 2020 there is no specific vaccine or treatment for the disease,^[3] but a number are being developed.^[2] The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that those who come in contact with camels wash their hands and not touch sick camels.^[2] They also recommend that camel-based food products be appropriately cooked.^[2] Treatments that help with the symptoms and support body functioning may be used.^[2] 

The World Health organisation suggests, that “Sick Camels” could be the possible reason, for the transmission of Disease.

And we see this even in other diseases, like the Seafood market of Wuhan in China when correct protocols are not put in place in the handling of Seafood, can create disease from animals to humans, but we don’t tell humans they can’t eat seafood when there is a claim that there is a link between Seafood and Corona Virus.

So the bottom line is this, when correct protocols are implemented, like obtaining urine from “Healthy Camels”, followed by Sterilization, through boiling, and only under strict measures of administering the Urine, due to a specific body ailment, is the correct protocols, anything other then this could cause health issues. And that’s how even Modern-day drugs or medicine work, there are so many protocols on how to take medicine, just turn the medicine packet and read the label, such as do not mix medicine and alcohol, or only take 1 tablet a day.  Thus there are also guidelines with Camel Urine, and anytime a guideline is breached is when the spread of diseases or problems occurs.

Now to conclude, forget about the Islamic justification for Camel urine being used for Medical purposes, and Westerners find this revolting. 

Did you know that Westerners are actually starting to drink, coffee that’s extracted from Animal feces.

Kopi luwak is a coffee that consists of partially digested coffee cherries, which have been eaten and defecated by the Asian palm civet
https://coffeeaffection.com/kopi-luwak/

Check it out how Americans are drinking this Beverage:

What is so peculiar unlike Camel urine in Islam which is for medical purposes only, these Westerners drink coffee beans from animal feces, for just random taste and enjoyment!

And then they have the audacity to mock Muslims, think again.

🧐

Related article:

Camel Urine in Islam: Do Hindus and Western Non-Muslims Have Any Grounds for Objection?

Does Allah & Angels Praye to the Prophet?

            Last updated:     20/08/2020          

 

By: Mustafa Sahin

Christian missionaries have twisted the Quran to claim that Allah and his Angels send their (Saluhna) Prayers on Prophet Muhammed (Pbuh) they qoute (Sureh 33:56)

So they argue, How can God (Allah) Worship Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)?

 

Muslim-Response:

When analyzing the verse it certainly does not mean Allah did  Salah (Sujood) Prostration or Worship, to Prophet Muhammed (Pbuh) And this is the unfortunate misunderstanding of those who don’t understand Arabic linguistics.

When Allah and His Angels send their Selah (Prayers) all this means is Allah sends his (condolences or best Wishes, or blessings) to the Prophet. Hence there is a distinction between (Prayer Selah) and (Sujood). Sujood(Prostration) can be part of Prayer. But Prayer is not always part of Sujood.

We use this term even in the English language. For example; If you know that someone has lost a family member. We may use the “Phrase”; “We send our Prayers” (Condolences) to the family and Relatives. This does not mean; You worship the family members or relatives of the deceased person, now does it?

Similarly when Allah send’s his Prayers, it does not mean his worshiping that person, rather his sending his “good fortune”, “blessings” or “condolences”, to that person.

“Now some critics will say, “Selah” does not mean “blessing”, or “good fortune”, in Arabic word translation”.

One needs to understand word translation doesn’t always reflect the meaning. For example, the Quran will refer to Allah as (He). However the term (He) would mean Allah has a gender, however we know that (He) is just a term we use, out of respect, and does not mean Allah has a gender, and we only use the term (He) because it’s better then calling Allah, (IT). So all though the term (He) does not mean “Respect”, it doesn’t mean we can not define it as such. So just because Allah uses terms as (He), or (We) these are not literal terms as though Allah has a gender or that Allah is Plural more then one. Allah uses terms as (He) so that it can be distinct from being called (IT) and Allah uses terms “We” as in the “Royal We” to add power to his speech, and not that (We) is Plural of some sort.

Therefore not every word, is to be taken in its literal sense, So when Allah says, He sends his ( Prayer, Salah) to the Prophet, its never mean’t to be understand in the literal sense of Allah performing worship.

Islamic Scholar Shiek Al-Islam explaines in the Arabic Glossary. The Word Selah is distinct between Allah and human beings. Muslim Selah is not the same as Allahs selah. Muslim Selah is Prostration. While When (Selah) comes from Allah it’s blessings. (Or Condolences and Admiration) or Blessings, Respect in honoring that Person, for being a Good obedient Servent of Allah.

In the following bellow link there is Proof Allah uses Prayer only to mean admiration or (Rahma) Mercy to what He has Created.

You can read hadeeth here including Tefsir Ibn Kathir:
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2010/08/does-allah-pray-meaning-of-salah.html?m=1

We challenge the Critics of Islam to show us a single verse where we, read Allah say’s in the Quran; “Allah and Angels send their (Sujood) Prostration, to His Prophet. Which actually clearly means to Praye in Worship. You will never find this in the Quran. On the Contarary, Allah asks Others to Prostrate to Him ( Sujood). Quran: 7:206, 13:15,16:49,17:107,19:58.

Similarly, You will never read Allah ever say; Worship Us (plural). On the contarary, you will only read Allah say; Worship Me (Singular)
Quran 51:56

Hence worship the way human beings do (Sujood) Prostration , is Solely for Human beings towards Allah alone. And never the other way around. Therefore Allah sends his; Prayers meaning (Mercy, good fortune, admiration, condolences, respect, honoring, blessings) and “NOT” prayers as in “Sujood” (Prostrate), worship type prayer as the Critics want you to believe.

Listen now from a expert who teachers (Arabic), who tells us more about the verse in Question;

 

So these desperate critics of Islam, have only got themselves to blame, for being ignorant and arrogant to comprehend basic, wisdom.

 

Counter Rebuttal section:

 

Christian wrote:

Muslim – Response:

 

Why would Allah send his condolences knowing that that person is going to meet his Creator.

Reply: What is wrong with Allah sending his grief, or blessings towards the Prophet, I.e keeping the Prophet in his prayers?

That doesn’t mean his praying to the Prophet. As you know the Prophet went through so many “trials and tribulations in his life, therefore Allah can send him “condolences”.

We all can still send our condolences to loved ones or people who have suffered, and yet we are going to meet those people in a diffrent abode. So the same logic then applies to Allah, that he can equally send his prayers in the form of condolences, even though He will meet the Prophet also in the Afterlife.

You then send, that its not quite true we send our prayers?

Of course the West does. You haven’t heard of the saying, I send my prayers to you?

See how Westerners write “get well cards”

By saying I send my prayers to You.

Source:

So regardless if you, say we praye to God and he helps that person. Your still using the the language of prayer directed to the person. So the same applies with Allah. He again all though says, i send my prayer to the Prophet. It doesn’t mean to the Prophet directly, rather Allah keeps the prophet in mind, and wishes the best for him in the form of blessing and healing, and so forth to the Prophet where God continues to send him his Prayers… so its more as a “figurtive speech” I send you my prayers, meaning I send you my help, mercy blessing etc.

It’s figurtive speech its that simple .

In fact even the Bible is full of figurtive speeches.

For example:

Jesus said that Jew’s are gods (Theos) in (John 10-34)

So is this to be taken, literal or figuratively? Since all Jews are not Gods.

Christian will say: of course it’s “figuratively”!

But then Jesus is called (Theos) a God. In
(Hebrews 1:8)

So is this to be taken, Figurtively or Literal?

Triniterian Christian’s of course will say that’s “literal”. And not Figurtive.

So just like Christians can interepret, the Bible “figurtive speech” and “literal speech”.

Then Muslim’s can equally intereprete the Quran in a similar fashion. When Muslims “praye” to Allah that’s literal, but when Allah and Angels praye to Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), that’s not literal and only part of figurtive speech.

That is how easy it is to catch out the Christian missionaries.

 

Christian  wrote:

 

 

 

 

Muslim – Response:

 

Ridiculous? Let us expose your ignorance of Islamic Text.

Firstly it is a matter of linguistics. In the Classical Arabic language of the Quran, the word We is used to emphasize God’s grandeur, it is a way of saying I in the most grandest way possible as is fitting for Allah. An example of a similar use of the word ‘We’ to emphasize grandeur is how some queens & kings of medieval Europe would say “We are not amused” when referring to themselves in order to signify their glory, It wasn’t that there was more than one king or queen. In the Quran Allah interchangeably uses the singular and plural in reference to Himself, however this is a matter of linguistics. So the singular is used to affirm the fact that He is One and has no partner or associate, and the plural is used to emphasize His glory.

God uses the singular and plural when describing many things in the Qur’an but a closer study will show that when God says

Q41:12 “ So he completed them, the heavens, as seven firmaments in two days”

or

Q7:172 “When thy lord drew forth from the children of Adam from their lions-their descendants and made them testify concerning themselves (Saying) “Am I not your lord (who cherish and sustains you? They said “yea! We do testify”

and

Q55:4 “He has taught (man) speech (and intelligence)”

Q2:30 “Behold thy lord said to the Angels “I will create a vicegerent on earth” they said “will you place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood? While we do celebrate your praises and glorify thy holy name?”

In similar verses it explain what God alone can do and no one else. In such cases God uses the singular but in other cases where God uses other agencies he used the plural like

Q25: 48-9 “And we send down pure water from the sky that with it we may give life to a dead land”

Q6:75 “So also did we show Abraham the power and the laws of heaven and earth, that he might (with understanding) have certitude”

Q51:47 “And it is we who built the universe with power; and verily, it is we who are steadily expanding it”

In similar verses you will find that what God is describing is using an agency to achieve what he wants, for example rain happens through various forces of nature he controls, Abraham was able to understand the laws of nature through various natural processes, the expansion of universe is achieved by a variety of factors etc. The “Kun fa ya kun” be and it is, is not a magic wand, God doesnt play magic but willed things and make them happens through process whose control are under his supervision. In a nutshell that is the difference between I and We.

Please educate yourself properly about Islam before you like to enter into a  discussion with a Muslim.

Thank you

 

Christian  wrote:

 

 

Muslim – Response:

You said only Humans wish or send things. If your Christian God is “ONE” then why God does send things ?

Let’s read from your own books;

24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. John 5:24-25

So if He can send Jesus. Why He can’t send condolences?

You then wrote, God will “instantly” give?

Let’s read;

But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (John 16:7)

Really? You mean God has no time and place to do things? Surely not every thing that God intends to do or wishes to do, gets done right away right? If God gives instantly then why does Jesus say I must go. If I don’t go then God won’t send the comforter. So in otherwords God does not exactly do things instantly, rather there is a time and place He does things.

You then wrote, God does not wish?

Let’s read;

The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

So clearly your God does not wish, for people to perish. So his technically wishing for things not to happen to them.

And yet you have a issue with God wishing Good fortune for the Prophet, since God is happy to see the Prophet full fill his duty.

And besides, God having a wish doesnt mean his limited, rather this is part of figurtive speech, since the same wishing of God is found in your own Bible.

If only Christians read their own scriptures properly, they wouldn’t be making the arguments they are making. Well that one was a reality check im sure.

 

 

Also just like to share a message feedback. It’s nice to see our apologetic work, is beneficial and being appreciated.

Praise Be to Allah. And thank you, may Allah bless you and preserve You and your Family and ALL the Ummah also.

Ameen.

 

 

 

Slavery in Islam VS Slavery in Christianity & West

Last Updated: 10th august 2020

1. Islam and Slavery how do we respond?

Introduction:

Muslim-response.

Some Key points I learned from how to address Slavery in Islam, thanks to Our Scholars. See: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/94840/islam-and-slavery and also from Yaqeen Institute of Jonathan Brown here: https://yaqeeninstitute.org/jonathan-brown/slavery-and-islam-what-is-slavery/

Some critical points to consider:

Let’s first look at Modern Day Slavery in the West:

Furthermore – As some scholars have observed, the most prominent advocates for ending modern day slavery have not applied the label to the forced labor of criminals in the American penal system. Here we learn that criminals in jail, must adhere to forced labour on them. So it’s not just a matter of going to jail, and your punishment is being secluded from Society. No not at all, but rather you must do forced labour imposed by the Modern American Judicial System.

Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/23/prisoner-speak-out-american-slave-labor-strike

This now seems similar to the Shariah principal when, Enemy combatant are captured fighting against a Muslim Government, then instead of taking that criminal to a Jail facility where He undergoes some very harsh treatment like solitary confinement, and forced labour. He can rather get sold to a Citizen of the state, and where He will be given fair treatment, treated like a Brother under Shariah Slavery requirements like living under the roof of another Muslim as brother Kemal El-Malik points out here:

And when He serves the home owner in Labour, free shelter, free food and clothing will
be provided.

Islam Q&A also says, there are no Qur’anic or Hadith commands that explicitly continues encourage Muslims to go buy Slaves, and it’s clear that had such a claim been true then there would be open markets of human trafficking under Shariah Markets. And yet we don’t see that. But what we can see is, the verses of Slavery are in conjunction on two matters, that is having a “Debt” and because you can not pay that debt, then you can become a slave to pay for your debt, and Islam Q&A even suggests that once the debt is paid off then the Slave can even buy himself out of Slavery. See in the West you can actually go into jail and work under force labour (Slavery) even to pay off a legal fee, or you owe money for child support and even cases like Tax avation. See, (Scroll down to region) Read under United States of America) at following link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors%27_prison

The other point where Islam legitimizes slavery is when a war takes place and prisoners of War can be taken as Slaves. See;

So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens} [Surah Muhammad 47:4].

On these points alone we show that, some critics of Islam think, that a Muslim can simply “kidnap” a random person in the street and make him, his slave. Even when there is “No war”. This is not true, and no more then a fallacious lie, on someone who is either ignorant of Islam and has not studied or read informed Islamic information passed down onto us by our Scholars. As We pointed out there are no clear instructions from the Quran or hadith to get involved in buying slaves, there are rather countless verses, where there is a great reward in “freeing the slaves “ransom” so that when peace treaties are established then the Prophet outlined the great rewards in freeing those slaves.

Of course this is optional for the master in charge, but here is the thing if He is pious, and the Slave wishes for his freedom then a good Muslim would free him, now you maybe surprised when I say, if a Slave wishes his freedom, because which slave wouldn’t want his freedom right? Well the truth is, Slaves under Shariah rule of law have nothing to do with the treatment of how the Colonialists treated slaves like Cattle. Again refer to Kemal El-malik video here and see the treatment of slaves in Islam compared to Colonial passed:

Once you hear this, your perception will change, and you will realize that these slaves are in fact like your brothers in Islam. And this is why, some slaves actually chose to want to remain slaves, because of how much they have been humanely treated, see for example;

Thawban’s kunya was Abu Abdullah. He was one of the companions who were always close to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and who served him until he died. Thawban was from Yemen (Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, I, p. 497; Ibn al Asîr, Usd al Ghabe, I, p. 296; Ibn Hajar, al Tahzib, II, p. 28).
Prophet Muhammad bought and emancipated Thawban, telling him: “You can go back to your own tribe, or you can stay here, if you like. If you stay, you are one of us, a member of our household.” Thawban preferred to stay with Prophet Muhammad and became a member of his household (Ibn al Asir, Usd al Ghabe, I, p. 296).
Since he was close to the Prophet for a long time, Thawban witnessed much of what the Prophet would do, and accordingly narrated many hadiths. Ahmad ibn Hanbal reported more than 90 hadiths from Thawban in his al Musnad (V, pp. 275 – 284). {mospagebreak title=Sirin (Shirin)}

There has been a Question about what if the Slave becomes a Muslim? Is he still compelled to remain a slave? The Scholars have said in regards to this point his initial conviction stands, and if being a Muslim was a reason for being “freed” then all the non Muslim prisoners of War who have become slaves, would then “lie” that they became Muslim in order to be free right away. Also if a Slave over the years has really proven himself to be a Muslim, and prays regularly and follows Islamic requirements, and let’s say He wishes to get married.

Whoever frees a Muslim slave, then Allah will free every limb of his body from the Hellfire, even his private parts. Source: Sahih Bukhari 6337, Grade: Sahih

I ask now which Muslim would not want this reward? See how Islam encourages the Freedom of Slaves especially those who yearn for it.

Also even if His a Non Muslim, and the state goes again into a peace treaty with the enemies, then it’s encouraged for them to be freed, and I don’t think there would be any reason why He wouldn’t, after all the Slave is like the Masters brother, so I ask would anyone oppress the right of his brother? I don’t think any pious Muslim would.
The Qur’anic instruction is to be kind to others let’s read;

Woe to those who pray, who are heedless of their prayer, who pray to be seen and withhold small acts of kindness.
Surah Al-Ma’un 107:4-7

In a Hadith Report we read; The believer is gracious, for there is no goodness in one who is neither kind nor friendly.
Source: Musnad Ahmad 8945, Grade: Sahih

So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens} [Surah Muhammad 47:4].

These instructions are enough alone to instruct a Master to free a Slave who urges his master who is his like his “Brother in Islam. Regardless if His a Muslim or Non Muslim.
Let’s read:

The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Fear Allah in regards of those whom your right hands possess (Slaves). They are your BROTHERS whom Allah placed under your hands (authority). Feed them with what you eat, clothe them with what you wear and do not impose duties upon them which will overcome them. If you so impose duties, then assist them.” [ Sahi Muslim]

In the realm of education, since Muslims believe in the principle articulated in a hadith of the Prophet (pbuh) that reads: “All men are children of Adam, and Adam comes from the soil” (Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musned, II, 361 and 523; Abu Davud, Adab, 111), in learning and teaching sciences no discrimination was made against slaves. An example of this attitude is the fact that in the narration of hadiths from the Prophet, the scholars of hadith not only make no distinction between a narration by a freeman and that of a slave, but they also allow the hadith criticism (jarh and ta’dil) that is made by a slave as well (see al-Bagdadi, al Kifaya, pp. 97 – 98).

Also: Be.Daniel gives further response to Slavery and the issues of Morals: Forward to minute: 1:12:38. Be. Daniel Answers.

What about “concubines in Islam? Right hand possession?

Go video bellow”: forward to 1:18:28 Br.Daniel Answers:

Relative readings – addressing Muta, Sex Slaves, Right hand possession, or Raping female captives please see a refutation here:

A Ex-Muslim by the name of Apostate Prophet argues that their was nothing wrong with slavery in the past see:

See also does the Quran allow female captives raped in the presence of their husbabds

Refuting the lies about Sureh 4.24 about raping captives in front of their husbands

https://discover-the-truth.com/tag/quran-424/

These jackass want to talk about sexual slavery in Islam despite in the West.

Under Secular liberalism. A women Auctioned her virginity for $780,000

https://www.gawker.com/girl-who-sold-virginity-for-780k-tries-to-sell-virgini-1468431536

But wait, that’s your secular liberal religion?
🤮🤮🤮🤮

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

What about Christianity? 

Also, we need to settle a case between Christians and Jews. Or perhaps those who are Christian and are critical about Islam and slavery when there own Bible both the O.T and the New Testament advocates human slavery:

New Testament:

”Slaves must always obey their masters and do their best to please them. They must not talk back” Titus 2:9

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
(Colossians 3:22-24)

Old Testament:

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the infant girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)

12 If any of your people—Hebrew men or women—sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. 13 And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. 14 Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the Lord your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. 16 But if your servant says to you, “I do not want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your female servant. 18 Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because their service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the Lord your God will bless you in everything you do.
(Deuteronomy 15:12-18)

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly
(Leviticus 25:44-46)

In the bellow video: A Christian called “Christian Prince” comments on “Numbers 31” and He says: These Slave girls were “wedded” after one month.

So in otherwords, the Bible endorsed the Killing of the Family members of these slave girls, then these slave girls were wedded by Jesus followers.

See video Bible endorsed sex with slave children:

Now let’s look at the following Text of the Bible that was endorsed by Jesus the same God as the Old Testament:

²⁰ “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, ²¹ but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

So what this text shows is that, it displays that one can severely beat their slaves, and there is no punishment on you, so long as you keep your slave Alive! This was endorsed again by the God of the Old Testament who happens to be “Jesus” according to Triniterians!

During the colonial slave trade, White People took their morals from this book!

In Islamic tradition, if a Muslim “beat up” his maid slave, a Muslim lost custody to the (Maid slave) no matter how little or how servere, the slave was beaten.

See:

It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard Abu’l-Qaasim (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever accuses his slave when he is innocent of what he says will be flogged on the Day of Resurrection, unless he is as he said.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6858).

Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) manumitted a slave of his, then he picked up a stick or something from the ground and said: There is no more reward in it than the equivalent of this, but I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever slaps his slave or beats him, his expiation is to manumit him.” Narrated by Muslim (1657).

Abu Mas’ud [Al-Ansari] said: “I was beating a slave of mine and I heard someone behind me saying: ‘Beware O Abu Mas’ud! Beware O Abu Mas’ud!’ So I turned around and saw that it was the Messenger of Allah. He said: ‘Allah has more power over you than you do over him.” Abu Mas’ud said: “I have not beaten any slave of mine since then.”

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 4:25:1948

Please read; many more Islamic sources sited, where there are many Hadith where Slaves are to be treated humanly. See:

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/94840/islam-and-slavery

And these Critics of Islam want to compare Western Slavery to Islam? What foolish people.

Freedom of Speech and Values? Islamic Intolerance. What about Christianity/West?

Last Updated: 22nd, May. 2022

Does Islam allow Free Speech, what about the West?

By: Mustafa Sahin

 

Exposing the Double standards of insulting the Prophet?

The West: “Insulting the Prophet should be accepted and Tolerated. The Prophet himself was abused multiple times during his lifetime. Therefore the non-Muslims should be free to insult the Prophet however they wish, and free speech should be upheld”.

The West:  “Muslims need to stop calling the non-Muslims kuffaar, rather call them ‘others’ so as not to fan the flames of trouble between us and them.” 

Do you see the double standards?
😆

 

Read the response:
https://thedebateinitiative.com/2014/11/16/did-the-prophet-muhammad-pbuh-kill-his-critics/

Western Double standards on Free Speech
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=u4mIM2j7WzU

Yasir Qadhi :

Interesting that YouTube does censorship of my video response to Ayaan Hersi Ali:

Where is the freedom of right to tolerate a Muslim Response? Notice folks, my video was shut down and flagged. What happened to toleration and agreeing to disagree? Is YouTube a Muslim organization created by a Muslim? No! This is a Western platform that is supposed to believe in Western Liberal values, yet hypocritically removes content that is not in agreement with Western political correctness. So where are all those Western Free thinking liberals who attack Islamic countries for censorship while they are the ones, who close down videos that expose and criticise the West?

 

Watch how a Christian likes how Muslims defend the Prophet 

 

Let’s move our focus towards Christianity for a moment on freedom of Speech since there are vocal Christians on social media who like to bring this case on freedom of speech to attack Islam?

Women in the Bible do not have “Freedom of Speech” to be able to preach in a Church. They must remain “Silent” according to the New Testament.
https://youtu.be/Iwk4JkHr1lY

Not only did Jesus of the New Testament forbid freedom of Speech to women but we also read in the Old Testament, a story in which Jesus used bears to “kill children” for Insulting a Prophet. Christians say, Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, so let’s read:

Rahway (Jesus) killed 42 children using wild bears for insulting a Prophet by calling him “Bald Head”;

²³ He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” ²⁴ And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. ²⁵ From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

Bible (2 kings 2:23-25)

Why did Jesus the same God as the O.T, kill 42 children simply for teasing a Prophet? Seems like freedom of expression is not tolerated by both the O.T and the N.T.

In the above passage, we clearly see a Prophet being insulted, and then the Prophet curses these children, then Jesus who is in heaven, gets annoyed by this “insult” so Jesus then “sends” bears to tare apart these youths. So what was the crime? It was Freedom of expression.

And I find it incredibly hypocritical, that Christian missionaries want to mock Jihadists for beheading those who insult Islam, and yet their very own scripture shows, that Jesus uses bears to mutilate young youths, for insulting one of God’s Prophets.

If Jesus was here today, He would be arrested under secular liberal values, for condoning and conspiring to the death of not one but forty-two youth children. And if a Christian says, that was the “Old Testament”?

I would argue, I’m sorry saying it’s “The old testament” doesn’t make the “crime go away”. Those children were still killed according to Jesus’ commandments. Will you say that was the wrong thing to do by your God?

Oh, and the irony when a Christian wants to talk about “Islamic Intolerance”!

It gets even more interesting, you get Christians like David Wood, who uploads a video, showing how a Tunisian Girl was arrested for insulting the Quran in Tunisia, pay attention to the comment from (Teto Omda).

Who writes; that the religion that doesn’t accept to be freely criticized is a false religion!

Over (840 people) Predominately  Christians “liked” the comment.

So the question remains, is Christianity also a “false Religion” for killing children for criticizing a Prophet, who is a member of Jesus’s religion (2 kings 2:23-25)

Also, I am not an advocate of suppressing Freedom to criticism or question a religion, in good faith, of course, I don’t like the bullying mentality, or teasing mentality, or the type where you slander or insult which is not good for any peaceful and meaningful dialogue, though in saying that, I believe that Western Media should be banned in Muslim countries, and here are my reasons.

Western Media should be “Banned” from operating in ALL Muslim Countries.

I know what the Islamic critique is thinking. Here we go another perfect example of a Muslim Fundermantlist impinging on “freedom of the press”

Believe Me, the West is not there to report truths. Western Media has a biased record of reporting half-truths. And in doing so, causes more evil than good. We know this because of the countless Anti-Islamic material it publishes compared to the positive ones that are very extremely rare. This has been documented in statistics that Western Media publishes 500 times more negative news about Muslims than positive ones [1]. So in doing so, it continues to demonize the broader predominantly Muslim nations including those who are living as minorities among Western nations. There is no such thing as, Western Media being Neutral” and Unbiased in their reporting. How can they claim such a thing and lie to you, when the facts are they are openly biased against Islamic culture and Islamic Principals. Most Wars are caused by biased Journalism. What they do is, they will either twist the words of Muslim Political leaders to make them look like Monsters, Tyrant Dictators, and then they put their focus and energy on human rights abuses and make the issue looks larger problem than it is, and most of the time, report on isolated cases, and make the government-held responsible, because the media interviews a victim, then becomes the arbitrator and Judge, without taking the matter to court, thus trying ever so, to tarnish a system of Government. just look at how agencies such as human rights networks like Amnesty International operate. That’s how they do it. We have seen how they treated President Erdogan of Turkey, taking things He said about Gallipoli out of context to demonize him to the West, we have written about it here [2].

And let’s be frank, we know that even Westerners themselves, demand Western Media be shut down if those Media platforms speak positive or give a voice to Muslim intellectuals to help combat and speak against Islamaphobia. The Australian Government broadcasting show known as the (ABC) was threatened by the Australian government that it will be cut from funding if it continues to invite on their show Muslim activists for highlighting that foreign intervention in the middle east is what creates “Terrorism”. This happened in Australia when a young Muslim activist was invited to the Q&A Program named Zac Mallah.

 

Also, a Far-right activist threatened the ABC, for being sympathetic to those who advocate Islam in Australia. And thus the ABC broadcaster was forced to not promote anything positive about Islam, or to promote any Muslim speaking critical of Government foreign policies in the Middle East. We have seen this with other personalities like Yasmin Abdul Majeed, who would regularly appear on the ABC Q&A Program defending Islam and responding to Islamaphobia, this was however cut short, after many boycotts were levelled at the ABC, for broadcasting positive news in defence of Islam and Muslims.

With that in mind, do not ever be fooled by both the Western claim of “Free Press” or “Freedom of Rights” or Freedom to report without bias. There will always be unfair treatment and there will always be media bias enforced by government-run media organizations. And by the way, even the “Independent” News Corps are not free from biases, so just because you are independent does not mean you don’t have an agenda they all do. And since that is the case, then it is fair to say if Western countries put pressure not to tolerate or allow Muslims to freely promote their point of view on Western Media platforms, then I say Islamic countries should also do the same, and stop Western news agencies from trying to influence public opinion in biased reportings of those Muslims lands trying to tarnish the reputation of Muslim leaders and their faith. Like every Western country, Muslim countries also have their own Media network which can report, and we don’t need Western News agencies to report for Us.

Here is also an example of how Western governments shut down Media of Muslim countries;

1. https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20210623-us-blocks-websites-linked-to-iranian-government

Of course, a Westerner would say if we don’t allow Western Media platforms in, then how will we get the truth, how will we bring justice to tyrannical leaders? I would argue, let every country deal with their problems, I honestly would not have an issue with Western analysts coming in to investigate issues, however, they have shown a great awful track record of dishonest reporting. Therefore they are the least credible source to report on matters and help bring people to justice when their core belief is to destroy Islamic civilization especially if that country is run on Islamic conservatism, they will do anything in their power to ridicule a system they don’t agree with and wish to impose Secular liberal values to that nation, so how can there be any good from these people, when they have evil intentions to eradicate Islam or Islamic authoritative principals?

Until the West can accept for Islam to remain and live side by side with Foreign Secular Ideology, and until you remove your thoughts about eradicating Islam, and forcing them to adopt Western Liberalism. Then there is no way, any Muslim nation should allow western Media to operate freely in the Muslim lands, Spying for western national interests. Because let’s face it, that’s exactly what they are, Modern day Spy, acting as a free press. They are not a free press rather they are a propaganda machine created to demonize Islam and Muslims, so the whole globe turns against them. We have seen how the Western Press operates in Israel and how inhumane it treats the Palestinian People, and how it makes the Zionists look like the victims of the conflict, which then had resulted in the ongoing slaughter of defenceless Muslims. Much more can be said, on that point.

It is also interesting to note, that if you quote a source of reference from Islamic run media outlets, a Westerner especially someone critical of Islam or Muslims, will reject the report based on one of it being Islamically affiliated, and demand only a Western report. So again I ask, if that is a Western method of attaining truths to shue Muslim reporting, then why is it wrong for a Muslim to reject or ban Western reporting?

“Western Media incredibly is extremely cunning, it has a real treacherous face”

For instance, to manipulate minds they try and play how they are fair and just and unbiased, so basically throughout the year, they will report hundreds of articles to display 99.9% negative news about some random Muslim, then show a handful of good things or say positive things about Muslims. That way it undermines its audience making the reader assume it’s “Neutral and Unbiased” when in reality it’s bombarding 24/7 Negative things about Muslims, then slipping in something positive once in a while, “tricking the audience that it’s being fair and being a platform of justice when this is far from the truth.

Also note, on that, it gets interesting when those on the right jump the Donald Trump’s bandwagon that Western news is fake news but when Muslims point that out, how dare they!

Let’s see more “Intolerance” this is ARVI Yemeni:

He can be an active Islamaphobe who constantly gets arrested by Police for his Freedom of Speech.

Source: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3146807845401522&id=424135517668782

An additional point:

A common argument is made by Westerners, that Islam impinges on the human rights of Ex-Muslims. It shuts down their freedom to criticise Islam. It closes down their social network platforms. This oppression can not go on, as they so often argue.

But let me explain to you now the double standard of this narrative. Why does the West close and revoke the licenses of Anti-Vax medical doctors, see:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/doctors-healthcare-workers-to-be-punished-for-anti-vax-covid-claims-20210310-p579dk.html

Now a Westerner would argue, that this is a good thing the government is doing. It is shutting down doctors who spread misinformation about Covid-19. And if the Government allowed these Doctors to spread misinformation this can hinder people from getting vaccinated which can endanger all of our lives against this deadly virus.

Now according to the same logic, I can then argue, that it is a good thing that Shariah Governments close down the social media accounts of Ex-Muslims for spreading misinformation or distorted information about Islam, where hinders people away from Islam as a result people end up going to Hell because of the distorted misinformation spread to keep people away from Islam which in reality is their (cure) to salvation. And because Islam cares about people’s salvation it stops these Ex-Muslims in their attempt to mislead people away from the truth who then end up in Hell.

 

Muslims can not take Unbelievers as Friends? Let’s respond;

See this article where Christians are forbidden to allow the preaching of the Quran:

https://mustafasahin33.wordpress.com/2020/07/08/christian-missionary-mishap-why-the-gospel-can-not-be-taught-in-muslim-state/

Finaly read here where you can see “Free Speech to insult someone’s religion is even a Crime in the West!

See: https://www.facebook.com/groups/909294505794899/permalink/3562189300505393/

Also see:

Alot of enlightened so called Muslims want an end to blasphemy laws.
However, all countries has blasphemy laws. Including countries that follow secular/atheist theocracy. (Yes, they are just another religion.)

Here is an example of a person punished for blasphemy in a secular theocracy

Go ahead now Westerners tell us how you keep mocking Islam and Muslims for not tolerating freedoms and yet your folks are still imprisoning people for burning gay pride flags.

See further the intolerance of Western Media kicking a audience out for being pro Russian:

See the comments that followed:

Secular Liberalism  = Claims to give Human rights and freedom of speech. But if this is true, we need an explanation from them. Such as;

– Where is the right to leaking information. [3]
– Where is the right to have dual citizenship.[4]
– Where is the right to wear what you want.[5]
– Where is the right to burn a flag.[6]
– Where is the right to Hate speech.[7]
– Where is the right to Polygamy. [8]
– Where is the right, for religion in Politics.[9]

Should I continue with Liberal intolerance? Or perhaps you still think liberal values make more sense?

Take a look at another example of how a Secular Western liberal Social Media plat form like Facebook bans so called Free speech:

Apparently Ibn Yildiz gets a 3 day ban, for calling LGBTIQ+ filthy animals.

Furthermore let’s see a reaction by Westerners, Will Smith slaps Chris Rock for making a Joke about his wife, some Westerners even justified violence saying his a real man that defended his wife:

And another:

And yet another:

So notice, when someone makes fun of your wife, and you slap that person it becomes provoking the bear, wrong buttons being pushed, being under attack, men are no longer men if they can’t defend their wives,

But may I ask, why the double standards when it comes to Muslims defending the honour of their Prophet?

Let’s read about more double standards here:

https://m.facebook.com/groups/909294505794899/permalink/909294562461560/

A man drawring ideas” under freedom of Expression” is being prosecuted!

Proof: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/quenelle-comedian-dieudonn-mbala-mbala-may-face-prosecution-over-sketch-about-isis-executions-9715518.html

Australian News Paper forced to Remove Cartoons about Gaza showing Anti-Semetism. Note: (Nothing to do with the Holocaust)
http://honestreporting.com/sydney-morning-herald-apologizes-for-vicious-gaza-cartoon/

Muslim French woman banned from wearing head covering.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/french-muslim-women-burqa-ban-ruling

President Holanda under freedom of expression banned the performance of a Commedian Diebonnda for Anti-Sematics
http://thedebateinitiative.com/2015/01/08/paris-shooting-attacks/

French rapper is prosecuted in court for calling “France a Slut” and insulting Napolion.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/29/france.arts

French Cartoonist on trial for Anti-Semetism
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

Rupert Murdock  Apologizes to Netenyahu for publishing Anti-Semetic Cartoons about him.( Nothing to do with Race or Holocaust.)
http://m.heraldsun.com.au/news/rupert-murdoch-apologises-for-offensive-netanyahu-cartoon/story-e6frf7jo-1226563984785

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-to-demand-apology-for-anti-semitic-netanyahu-cartoon/

Mike Carlton forced to Resign after making anti-Semetic comments
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-06/smh-columnist-mike-carlton-resigns-following-gaza-column-furore/5651470

No outrage for Palestinian Cartoonist who is arrested and Jailed in Isreal.
http:/countercurrentnews.com/2015/01/no-outrage-for-palestinian-cartoonist-who-was-arrested-and-jailed-in-israel/

French court bans Religion  Advertisement http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4337031.stm

Muslim Man Arrested for hate Speech
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/26013865/police-charge-junaid-thorne-after-raids/

More double standards you can make Fun of the Prophet of Islam but not about the Holocaust
The Medias Double Standards Towards Islam & Musli…: http://youtu.be/1Jb1YTbA8yU

Check this out the British Government tries to put laws restricting Boycotting Israel: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=

French Police interrogated Muslim for denying the Armenian Genocide Claim

https://fb.watch/6cyVBzgrqi/

sky news banned for having a different opinion on Covid-19

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/01/sky-news-australia-banned-from-youtube-for-seven-days-over-covid-misinformation

Fox Sports sack Tom Morris for his comments regarding women, black people and Homosexuals.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10626405/Fox-Sport-reporter-Tom-Morris-SACKED-following-leaked-WhatsApp-audio-chats.html

French Hypocrisy pressures Russian Cartoons to be removed as Proparganda. While allowing Cartoons of the Prophet to be championed as “Free Speech”.

https://youtube.com/shorts/mU5fx_2JAwY?feature=share

Soccer player who plays for PSG requested to be sanctioned by the LGBTIQ community for not participating in wearing rainbow colores.

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220517-psg-player-idrissa-gueye-criticised-for-not-playing-in-anti-homophobia-day-game

Reference:

[1]

Media biased reporting on Terror attacks.

Terrorist attacks committed by Muslim extremists receive 357% more US press coverage than those committed by non-Muslims, according to new research from the University of Alabama. The researchers controlled for factors like target type, number of fatalities, and whether or not the perpetrators were arrested before reaching their final statistic.

Terrorist attacks committed by non-Muslims (or where the religion was unknown) received an average of 15 headlines, while those committed by Muslim extremists received 105 headlines.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/20/muslim-terror-attacks-press-coverage-study

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-media-is-the-most-right-wing-in-europe-yougov-finds-a6859266.html

[2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/278295082524989/permalink/813734948980997/

[3]

The US indictment accused Assange of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion by helping US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning gain access to privileged information
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange

[4]

Under section 44.1 Australian Law. If any member of Parliament holds dual citizenship will be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. https://time.com/4898990/australia-dual-citizenship-politicians-joyce/

[5]

The French ban on face covering (French: LOI n° 2010-1192: Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public,[1] “Law of 2010-1192: Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space”)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

[6]

Greece, Germany, France & Spain do not allow, the flag or Anthem to be desecrated.
https://www.euronews.com/2017/11/09/which-country-has-the-harshest-punishments-for-disrespecting-flags-and-national

[7]

Facebook has long banned hate speech — defined as violent or dehumanizing speech — based on race, gender, sexuality and other protected characteristics.
https://m.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech/

[8]

In Australia, it is a criminal offence to marry a person when already married to another and is called bigamy.
https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/family-law/divorce/polygamy-australia/

[9]

There is a separation between church and state. Generally, Western constitutions are not to be governed under religious law. Secular liberal laws, are above any religious influence and must be upheld as the highest form of authority. (Which means no Freedom for the religious doctrine to influence or mandate modern-day politics).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Violence against Women in Islam, and what about Bible and the West?

Last updated: 4th, Jan. 2022

 

Wife beating Verse in Sureh 4:34?
Muslim-response:

 

 

Responding to Truth will set you free;

Beating Humans is also endorsed by the West. They just changed the authority from husband and gave that authority to the state. Now the state can use legal proportionate force, to use against even women. And beat them like a dog, using either an open hand, batons and Tasers, if anyone goes against public order.

But alhamdulillah for Islam if your wife gets out of order, then a mild tapping can occur, where the Quranic Scholars such as the Prophets companion known as Ibn Abbas said, this beating should be conducted in a non-violent fashion. Meaning no marks to be left, no bruising, no punching on the face..etc etc. In other words, the (ayah) in the Quran is only meant to be a “symbolic beating” only to express the seriousness of the matter, for extremely foul women. Because even the mildest taps, can insult women. Now compare that “patriarchy” to the ” “patriarchy” you created in your systems, where you have given the power to a state to conduct some of the most brutal beatings, where people have died as a result. And here you are wanting to Question Islam about women beating and human rights.

As Muhammed Hijab would say,” You got destroyed, bro”.

Sureh 4:34 correct interpretation is how the earliest Muslim Scholar ibn Abbas interpreted and understood it. He says ” a beating that is (Non-Violent)”.

Source:
http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-An-Nisa/Dealing-with-the-Wifes-Ill-Co—

Ask yourself now the question what type of beating is non-violent?

Answer: a tap. Like taping extremely (lightly) like taping a drum.

Here I’ll shall show how an Islamic Sheik shows how the (tap)
Is done using the (Miswak lightly where it’s non-violent)
https://youtu.be/40KAJ6Jgu_0

We see from the Quran, in conjunction with the Tafsir: That woman should not be treated “Harshly” except of course if she has cheated on her husband like committing Adultery.

Source: http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-An-Nisa/Women-Should-not-Be-Treated-wi—

Christian wrote:

My Response:

 

Ibn abbas are the companion of the prophet. The narrator of many hadiths.

So who would know the Quran better than Prophets companions? The Prophet himself, in multiple Sahi Narrations also spoke about a beating done in a non-violent way. For example, he said,

How does one beat his wife then go to bed with her?

The Prophet (PBUH) also expressed astonishment at the cruelty of certain men when he said: “Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening ?” (Bukhari and Muslim).

Narrated Mu’awiyah ibn Haydah: “I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her.  (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)

He also said, when one beats. He should avoid the face. And He also said, when one beats it should not leave a mark.

Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated that the Prophet  said, “If one of you were to hit, he should avoid the face…” [Musnad Ahmad]

You can view the narrations here:
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/41199/hitting-ones-wife

So as you can see, Ibn Abbas interpretation is actually “in line” with the many “Sahi Hadith”. That also demonstrates a non-violent beating.

New video where a Scholar explain the verse:

 

A Critic wrote in response:

Muslim – Response:

 

Your name is Follower of logic. But it seems logic and reasoning isn’t what you claim to be.

Where in the Quran, it uses the term (Sex, or Rape) Slaves. But you critics have to add the word (Sex or Rape) in order to portray that taking slaves was about Sex and Rape?

Where in the Quran does it use the word (suicide bomber) but you critics use the verses of war to show that the Prophet endorsed Terrorism to target women and children?

Where in the verses of the Quran, does it use the word, Pedophilia but use critics add your own words into the Quran, saying the Quran allows sex with minors?

Where in the Quran, does it say that Allah is a pagan moon god. But use add the term moon to Allah?

Should I continue with your stupid logic or does it now make sense how silly you sound?

We use the Hadith to explain certain verses of the Quran, because the Quran specifically says, “We sent you o Muhammad to explain to men what’s in the Quran. So we unlike the critics don’t just make things up, we use the Prophet’s life and how he applied the verses as to how we fully grasp and understand the Quran. The Term ” idrooboona” can mean “strike” and strike can mean hitting or tapping a drum. Can you tap a drum very lightly and very hard? If you can tap a drum hard, why can’t you tap it very light?

The Prophet understanding is, whenever one strikes, never allow the skin to break. Never cause a bruise or a mark, and never strike on the face.

Ibn Abbas who is the companion of the prophet who narrated the second most hadith, says regarding the verse on the beating, to be conducted in a (non-violent manner) this report is recorded by (Tafsir ibn Kathir) one of the highest known commentaries on the Quran.

Examples:

So Muslims are not just simply adding verses into the Quran. Rather they are taking authoritative external explanation which is how we conclude our understanding of verses. Islam unlike your secular liberal stand on human abuse is so much more humane, go see what secular liberal law enforcement agencies do when they try to discipline people during public order, where they use, baton, open hand punching, capsicum spray, and tasers, which can be pretty brutal at times.

And here you are having a go at the Quran for endorsing violence.

 

Now answering the Hadith where the Prophet “Struck Ashia his Wife on the Chest: (Listen from minute 9.24)

Also, see this video response:

CHRISTIANITY ENDORSES VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN:

Jesus Endorsed women to get beaten up”.

See:

Imagine this verse for a moment? If you beat your slave with a baseball bat black and blue, blood all over the place, as long as the Slave doesn’t die, then their is no sin upon you?

And yet these Triniterians want to attack the Quran for the supposed condoning violence?

Seriously what leg do these Christians have to stand upon? The real joke is on them.

Jesus as the God of the Old Testament apparently inspired the verses in the Old Testament. Now even if a Christian asserts they have the New Testament. And the Old law no longer needs to be followed.

Can I say, is that because your God didn’t know about “human rights”? And it took him time to work out what abuse looks like? How are we expect to believe that the Biblical God, is so perfect and ethical that He passed such a law like this in the first place?

I can see why Atheists have a field day of fun with the Christian concept of God.

Finaly let’s now turn our attention to the Secular Western Moral values regarding using violence? No I mean real violence.

But now let’s point the finger at you, What’s the verse in the West? That say’s Police officers can use, Capsicum Spray, Electric stun guns, and Baton to smack protesters who are acting disorderly? Security guards can use proportionate force to evict people acting disorderly.

Isn’t that insensitive towards human beings?

Women beating in Islam vs the West.

Beating Humans is also endorsed by the West. They just changed the authority from husband and gave that authority to the state. Now the state can use legal proportionate force, to use against even women. And beat them like a dog, using either an open hand, batons and Tasers, if anyone goes against public order.

But alhamdulillah for Islam if your wife gets out of order, then a mild tapping can occur, where the Quranic Scholars such as the Prophets companion known as Ibn Abbas said, this beating, should be conducted in a non-violent fashion. Meaning no marks to be left, no bruising, no punching on the face..etc etc. In other words, the (ayah) in the Quran is only meant to be a “symbolic beating” only to express the seriousness of the matter, for extremely foul women. Because even the most mildest taps, can insult a women. Now compare that “patriarchy” to the ” “patriarchy” you created in your own systems, where you have given the power to a state to conduct some of the most brutal beatings, where people have died as a result. And here you are wanting to Question Islam about women beating and human rights.

A Critic Wrote back saying:

The West doesn’t specifically encourage violence towards women. Rather state laws have measures against both sexes.

Secondly, you can legally be sued for violently removing somebody from the premises. What are you talking about?

Yes, some kind of authority is bound to exist because we are not anarchists. But one that gives more freedom and minimal suffering is appreciated in the liberal paradigm.

My counter Response:

For example you said you can be legally sued for forcing and evicting a person.

Um, not exactly. Security guards in Australia for example can place people in legally abiding painful submission holds and force them out of a night club for example. This means they can bend your hand into certain very painful positions known as:
Such as this
https://youtu.be/9mxLQLULJB

This is all legal and part of the law.

Also, Police officers carry tasers and batons. Thats the law. You can’t sue a police officer for using proportionate force.

You then said I believe the Liberal west, does not specifically encourage the beating of women.

Um, that doesn’t matter. It still encourages to hurt both men and women. So the argument still stands.

Also if you watch my video, you can scroll through, where we show that the beating of women in Islam is not meant to be conducted violently. Therefore the Quranic verse is still much better than the Western standard, when it comes to dealing with matters of taking disciplinary measures.

Satanic Verses & Allah is a Deciever? What about the Bible?

 

Refuting the claim the Qur’anic satanic verses?

https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/prophet_muhammad__peace_be_upon_him__and_the_satanic_verses

 

After, reading the above link, you can get a real grasp to the events, basically Satan tries to come to the Prophet, to try and confuse him, and Satan tries to reveal false verses to the Prophet, and then Allah jumps in to tell the Prophet those verses are incorrect, and Allah then removes those verses, and then rectifies to the Prophet that Allah never gave the Prophet those verses. Again this remained Privart between Allah and his Prophet, and the Prophet never recited those verses to any of his companions. So in other words, this whole narrative proves the Prophet is a true, Prophet. If He were false, then the narration or the Qur’anic passage would never say, Allah corrected the truth, which proves the Prophet and the Quran was “protected”. Even Samuel Green a Christian Apologist who is a “Author” at the AnsweringIslam website, agrees the Quran, was “Corrected”. In otherwords there was “No satanic verses”, that were left, or made part of the Quran:

So as you can see, the Prophet never walked around preaching the satanic verses, or never said to any companion this is part of the Quran.

It was a very short lived moment, Satan comes tries to deliver the Prophet verses, then Allah quickly intervenes telling the Prophet, I didn’t give you those verses, so then Allah removes those verses, before those verses reach other companions. Christians assume, that the satanic verses were revealed, and then the Prophet narrated them to a companion, then those companions and scribes wrote those verses down, and made it part of the Quran. However none of this is true, and it never got to that point. Allah (swt) quickly removed what was casted in the mind or toung of the Prophet and it was all quickly removed, which proves again that his a True Prophet, and not a false one.

Other Christians bring arguements such as: Satan can play tricks by putting some truth in the Quran?

Muslim-Response:

Its funny how he says Satan put some Truth in the Quran to make you believe its true then added lies to decieve you its true. Well same could be said about your bible. And your Bible says Satan can not say truth or else he will be destroyed. So your got owned by the standard of your bible.

Read:
(Mark 3:26) Satan will not work against himself.

Now Quran says (26:210); No evil one has brought down this Revellation.

Hence according to your Bible. If there are satans words in Quran it can’t be, because He will be destroyed according to your Bible. Satan will not work against himself be revealing Truth.  Sure 26:210; declares no evil one brought down the Quran. If these words were Satan’s words, that would mean his working against himself, which the bible declares can’t happen, and Satan would be destroyed!

And here is another “inconsistency”  Christians says it’s very very clear ALLAH = SATAN

Inconsistency much?

Christianities main two figures effected by (Iblis) Satan according to their own Bibles:

St.Paul possessed by demon in inspiration

Jesus possessed by Demon in the Bible

Proof for the devils words in the Bible

Was Prophet Mohammed (Pbuh) squeezed by Demon?

Part 1/2:

Part 2/2

 

 

Muslim Response to Allah is the “Best Deciever”?

https://islamphobia.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/allah-not-deceiver/

 

Now evidence the Biblical God can “Be a Deciever”

https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_biblical_god_as_a_deceiver

Christian say’s; Allah is best deciever, and gets Humiliated. After back and forth discussion admits;

Christian say’s in text comment bellow his own God (Yahway) sent Allah to Muslims as (Strong delusion) meaning Deceived the Muslims, when he tries answering: 2 Thessalonians 2:11

So Yahway is Responsible for sending deception and causing people to be “decieved ”
😁

 

Now let’s see what, strong delusion means according to the English dictionary?

Yep, it means Deception.

So according to Christians there own God (Yahway) sent “Muslims a deception. He decieved Muslims basically, by sending them a False God called Allah?

Yet these Christians accuse Allah for being a Deciever? Yet they agree their own Biblical God sent a false Allah to Muslims?

Priceless!

Christian Prince Errors & Lies Exposed by Br.Farid

Over 100 lies & Errors of Christian Prince. Exposed by Br. Farid

Introduction video:

Br. Farid and Muhammed Hijab, discuss, CP.

CP fans admit, He is dishonest and a Liar.

CP. Lies #1-4

CP Lies. #5-6 ( Mohammed and Khatice)

CP on Slavery the double standard

CP, Doesn’t know what Christ Means (Zakir Hussain)

CP, 3 times. Lies #7-9

CP about Fornicating with Children. Lies #10-14

CP, to doubting Muslim. Lies #15-16

CP reads the Quran

CP God is a rooster. Lies #17

CP about Idol, named Ahad. Lies #18

CP verse about farting. Lies #19-22

CP, denies asking for money. Lies #23

CP, prophet stole bekeni Lies. #24-27

CP Tries to prove Trinity in Islam

CP lies 11 times in 1 minute. Lies #28-38

CP the moon eclipse was the Moon split. Lies #39-41

CP the Prophets name is sperm hyena. Lies #42-49

CP Nudity around the Kabbah. Lies #50-53

CP hangs up call. Busted. Lies #54-56

CP tricks a man out of Islam. Lies#57-59

CP, on Forign Policy in the Seerah. Lies #60-62

CP, busted on Satanic verses. Lies #63-66

CP hangs up phone, says Muslim hangs up. Lies #67

CP hates Everyone

CP Allah prayes. Lies #68-70

CP the Geologist. Lies #71

CP, Arabs put penis in Black Stone. Lies #72 -73

CP All Muslim say Allah is Physical. Lies #74

CP response to Farid “big mistake”

CP alwayse Wins.

CP and Panties. Lies #75-82

CP on Zaid and Zaynab. Lies #83

CP lies about Jesus. Lies #84

CP lies Bukhari is a companion. Lies #85

CP on Omar and the Black Stone. Lies #86-89

CP, Umar changed prayer direction. Lies #90-94

CP, busted by Azhar Sheik. Lies #95-98

CP fails to read (In the name of God). Lies #99

CP, season finale. Lies #100

CP Epilogue. Lies#101

CP attempts to Challenge Farid to Debate.

CP attempts to Respond to. Lie #1

CP, this video will turn CP into Joke

CP, Epilogue 2. Lies #102-107

CP, Farid vs Christian Prince (2017 old debate)

Christian Prince book review

This Video will end Christian Prince Credibility Forever

CP, challenged Me to refute this.

“Public Apology” to CP

Farid asks CP fans, if CP is a Liar

CP, Prophet had no children. Lies #110

CP, does’nt makes no sense.

CP, Imam Murrah Exists!

CP, teaches Me about Ghusul

CP, sex with children in Bible

Diffrence Between Farid and CP

Reaction to a CP video response

CP, attempts to defend himself 11 lies.

How CP got Afzal to leave Islam for Christianity

Does CP bring fake Muslims to his show?

CP does Fake Debate with DR Sabeel

Sam Shamoun claims Christian Prince is his “teacher” Yet Sam Shamoun admits CP books are written poorly in a way where it’s not intelligible, meaning it’s not understandable.

Conclusion: Between Christian Prince and Farid.

Also see, Investigating CP Islamic Scholarship Credentials

Christian dilemma the two natures of Jesus Christ

■ last updated: 10th June 2020

By: Mustafa Sahin

In this article, we shall respond to the Christian Trinitarian assertion, that Jesus has two natures. One being fully human, while being fully God. Christians have invented this theology to address the many controversial issues in the Bible, when talking with Muslims, and debating the idea that Jesus is God. When Muslims bring up many verses showing flaws in Jesus Christ that prove Jesus is not devine, the Christians in response use a get away car, to suggest that Jesus has two natures. So when Jesus feels hungry or needs to sleep, or He feels pain, or at times, He is helpless, and at times, not all knowing. Christians argue, that these qualities of Jesus are just his humanely attributes, which is distinct from his Godly nature. And so since Christians have “opened” the can of Worms” I shall demonstrate that when Christians invent new ideas into the Bible, to fix a problem they have in fact Created more problems for themselves, and we shall now explore those problems.

1 – Where are the explicit Words of Jesus having TWO natures?

The first Question I like to ask Christians is, where did Jesus, Paul or any of Jesus Desciples claim that ” Jesus had two nature”. And I know what Christians are thinking, they are reading this and saying, well that’s easy I’ll just pull a verse from there, that shows Jesus is God. Then I’ll bring a verse from over there too, show Jesus has human attributes, and there you go, here I’ve proved Jesus has TWO natures.

Here is the problem, anyone can get a verse, then force his own interpretation. One would imagine that in the entire Bible, if the central message of the Bible is about the Divinity of Jesus, then we would have seen at least one single verse, that combines both natures of Jesus into one single verse. Just a example, Jesus could have said, I have two natures. Period.  Yet we don’t find that in the entire problem.

Even Christian Apologist named Sam Shamoun from Answering-islam admits, that if pressed He can not show the two natures of Jesus in one person in the Bible, because it’s not there. That precise language, see

2 – Where is the Human nature of Jesus in the afterlife?

We often hear, from Christians how Jesus will be in his new Glorified body, and in the afterlife, He shall be seated at the right hand of the Father. Only the Godly nature of Jesus will be seated on the Throne. So the Question is, where will the Human nature of Jesus go? Why don’t we get any information, where the Human nature of Jesus be? Or are Christians suggesting the Human nature is also seated on the Throne? How can that be possible though when “only” God sits on the Throne? Perhaps Jesus human nature will split from the Godly nature, so are we to believe that there will be Jesus with a twin in the afterlife? We are told that the Human nature of Jesus, endured so much suffering, surely then, He will be compensated with a heavenly abode. So why is there no information on this, since the Human nature was if not the closest human being to perfection. After all Christians tell us, Jesus never commited any sins even by his human nature.

If Christians assert that, Jesus will be spiritualized as the God, sitting at the right hand, then Christians need to explain in book revelations, who is that one that is the lamb and looks slain? (Revelation 5:6) So how can something spiritualized look slain if it’s Jesus? So we are left with so many problems, we have Jesus as the son sitting on the throne as the God, then  Jesus as the Son who looks slain? Why is a Resurrected Jesus looking slain?

3 – Did Jesus commit a Sin with his Human nature? “The Inconsistency”

Christians tell us, Jesus never commited any Sins. And that’s proof, He is God. Well I ask the Christians, if Jesus is God, Because He never commited a Sin, and in doing so your suggesting his a “Perfect being”. What about his human nature? Is that also sinless? If the answer is, Yes! The human nature is also sinless, but wait a minute, I thought the Human nature, is not perfect, only the devine nature is perfect. I mean after all, you tell Muslims, Jesus human nature has flaws which is supposed to be distinct from his Godly nature, so why are we being told, both Jesus human nature and Godly nature are both sinless? This would now only suggest, that Jesus human nature is also Godly, after all it has the ability to resist Sin, even the smallest of the smallest sins?

My short video on this:

3 – Jesus Praying to heaven

When Muslims say how can Jesus be God yet Jesus prayed, did God praye to himself? A Christian will say, no Jesus had (two nature’s) so the human nature of Jesus prayed to his Godly nature. However when reading the Bible we come across the following verse;

“After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you -John 17:1

After reading the above verse one now has to ask the question why on earth would Jesus look towards a direction other then his Godly self if He was God on earth having TWO natures? Why didn’t the human side of Jesus look towards himself, maybe walked up to a pong and tried to look at his own reflection, then ask his own Godly self for Glory.  Yet instead Jesus turns away from himself and glares into the heavens and requests Glory from above. Did not Jesus believe He had two natures?

I would like to ask Christians if God did come to the earth. Show us a example where Jesus himself prayed directly to this earthly God like he prayed to the Heavenly God. This clearly proves the falsehood of the notion that Jesus has two natures, human and God.

4 – Jesus Godly nature ignores Him.

We read a remarkable, event that takes place in the Bible, where Jesus is lead away into the wilderness, He suffers under Satan’s temptations, and as a result; “An Angel from Heaven appeared to Jesus and Strengthened Jesus” (Luke 22:43)

Now this begs the Question, If Jesus really believed, He had two distinct natures, why is Jesus depending on angels to give him strength? Surely if Jesus believed he was God, He wouldn’t need the assistance of angels, you would think Jesus would simply request his Godly nature who is already present in Jesus to give him strength, so what happened did the Godly nature of Jesus walk off? Did it go to sleep? So where was He?

To answer this, dilemma Christian Apologists suggest that, Jesus wanted to humble himself before the Angels, for why He turned towards Angels to be strengthened. They use this verse:

“But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than Angels for little while.
Hebrews 2:9″

However this makes no sense, isn’t it more important to humble your self before God, then before angels? Also, why would Jesus need to prove that his human nature is lower then Angels? Were the Angels confused about Jesus divinity?

Christians then suggest, why can’t God just use angels to do things for him, however this makes no sense. It’s not as if, God is somewhere in a distant location, or that his just busy doing other things, his right there, inside Jesus, yet He refuses to help Jesus directly himself. This could have been in fact the perfect opportunity for Jesus to prove He has two natures, yet Jesus refuses to request assistance from himself.

5 – The Two natures, Jesus does not know the hour?

The Bible tells us, that Jesus as the Son (the second God head of the trinity), has “NO” knowledge when the “Hour” is, let’s read:

New International Version
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mathew 24:36)

As you can see the NIV says: nor the son.

However when we read the King James Version & New King James Version:

king James Bible
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Mathew 24:36)

New King James Version
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.

Nor the Son, has been “Removed” from the passage, why?

Todays Biblical Scholars tell us, the (New International Version) bible, is more accurate because it uses much earlier ancient manuscripts, compared to the Manuscipts used for the King James Version.

Now here is the issue, if today’s Christian Apologist say, Jesus has TWO natures, one being God, and one being Human. Therefore when (Mathew 24:36) says, the “Son does not no” when the hour is, this is talking about the (Human nature of the son), and not his Godly nature, therefore this verse does not prove his not God, they argue.

So my question is, then why did the ancient scribes remove: “nor the son“, from the King James version? Surely if they believed ” nor the son” is just talking about the “Human nature” and not the devine nature, they would have left the verse as it is, yet instead they removed it from the passage, dishonestly. They tried to forge it out of the Bible. That tells me, biblical scribes deep down understood “nor the son” displays a problematic display about Jesus being divine and  so they removed it from the text was the best option for them, because they know, not many people are going to buy the arguement like, “oh but wait! that was the “human nature!”. Because the text is clear it says (the son is included) in “not knowing” when the hour Is. Because the text itself even shows that lets read again carefully:

New International Version
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mathew 24:36)

Lets look at two parts of the text:

no one knows.

So this part of the verse already deals with Jesus human nature.

Then the verse says,

nor the Son

So why would the passage repeat itself and say, nor the son, also means Human nature? If God has already clarified the Human nature not knowing in the first part of the verse, “no one knows”, So the first part of the verse already covers Jesus human nature, so why then would God then need to cover the Human nature by mentioning the Son?

The best explanation I can think of is, it’s as though God predicted,  Christians will claim the Son was God, so God had to also remind them that not knowing the hour, also included the Son!

And because God made it clear to them that Jesus as the Son, was not God by showing us his ignorant of the hour, they tried removing the verse from the text. Now talk about, how dishonest one can be! Of course only now they have added it back to the Bible in the NIV, because they got caught red handed when, ancient manuscripts were studied, and it was found out that the earliest manuscripts did include the “nor the son part” Well thank you for being honest after getting caught red handed!

Christians when refering to “The Human” nature, have no escape! Because God refutes them, even when they try to remove it! Even when they try and twist the verses, they still get exposed! And thats why they were so bothered by the text that includes “The Son” they tried so hard to hide it for so long, that God foiled their plans!

Now here is another point, I will show you, Christians play the inconsistency and the convience card. Just imagine for a moment the verse read:

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, but only the Son, and the Father knows the hour”.

Of course the verse doesn’t say this, but let’s just imagine it did read this way:

Christians will no longer say this is refering to “human nature”, but this now refers to his “Godly nature”. Why? Because the verse makes Jesus equal with the father. So as you can see, Christians play the convienience card, they quickly claim it’s the Godly nature, when it suits them, and human nature when it goes against them. They will never say, the Son knows, because God shares all secrets with the Son who is just a human and God loves him. No of course they will never accept such explaination, They will instead say, no. The Son knows everything because His God. Period.

6 – Does only the Human nature suffer? Or also God’s nature?

If Christians claim, God the father did not die on the Cross, and also suffer as the Son. I suggest Christians, to refer to a Christian Apologists by the name of  Dr James White, who believes that The Father, is not a selfish God. He didn’t just send his Son, to suffer for our sins on the Cross. The Father also came down himself to get himself sacrafised along with his Son.  There Dr james white argues, God himself is not selfish, God himself also endured those sufferings.

Dr. James white says” The elective God joined them, Gods death became there Death, in reference to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit”.

Dr James white confessed to admit this to counter our Question why was the Father selfish that he didnt die himself yet gets his own Son to die. So James white admits there is no selfishness and that the Sons death became there death i.e (The Father and Holy Spirit) and Jesus Christ ressurection became there ressurection (Father and holy Spirit)

Source: https://youtu.be/SzslKkjEb_g
Listen from (minute 63:20)

A Christian shouldn’t feel uncomfortable to talk about his God feeling Hungry, he cries, or goes to bathroom to have a poop, just as God can go through death, he can also do those other human attributes.

7 – Did God die on the Cross or was it only the Human nature?

Christian Apologist disagree with one another:

David Wood vs Jay Smith & Dr James White.

David wood says: “ONLY human Nature Died”. David says it makes no sense that God can die.

However he tries to assume if Jesus became a Man then it was the human nature that died. So God did not Die but only human nature.

Source:

Jaysmith disagree’s with David Wood. And that God can die. See
Jay argues God died. Qoute” He certainly did!

Source: (5.22 minutes)

Dr.James White also disagees with David wood. And that God did die on the Cross!

Qoute:

James says” The elective God joined them, Gods death became there Death, in reference to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit”.

Dr James white confessed to admit this to counter our Question why was the Father selfish that he didnt die himself yet gets his own Son to die. So James white admits there is no selfishness and that the Sons death became there death i.e (The Father and Holy Spirit) and Jesus Christ ressurection became there ressurection (Father and holy spirit)

Source: https://youtu.be/SzslKkjEb_g
Listen from (minute 63:20)

Who is telling the Truth? Who has the Holy Ghost? The Bible teachers that the Holy Spirit will speak to You and guide You to ALL truth. (John 16:13)

Surely they all can not be Correct?

If We follow David Woods line of thinking, both Jay and Woods concept of God being Eternal Fails according to David if God was killed as both Jay and James white believes. And If We followed in James white and Jay Smiths line of thinking, than that would mean David Woods concept of God fails since his God would be a “Selfish God” as the Father sends the human nature as the Son to die while the father himself pays no penalty of his own, making the father selfish didnt come down himself to die instead sent his Son. Makes his Son sacrifice himself while the father does not sacrifice himself by getting killed as a God

We have put this in video here;

8 –  More Christian mishaps. “Jesus death”.

Muslim tell Christians how can Jesus be God? If Jesus died on the Cross? There are Christians who say, oh no that was only  “The Human Nature that died”.

I pointed out to Bosingr, is the “Soul” of Ravi Zacharias also God? It does not die, like the Godly nature of Jesus, Interesting Hey?

9 – A Christian admits, His God has Male Genitals.

So as you can see, Christians are confused and it’s really difficult to get consistency from them, you have some Christians who try to hide the shame that God has a Penis, they will say that was the “Human” side. But then you will have Christians like Dr James White who say, God died (God’s death became their death) so God was in actual fact like a human being, for he became a Human and really did die.

It’s also, Interesting, that Jesus also rose to Heaven, both spiritually and Physically into Heaven. According to book (Revelation 5:6) “He looks Slain” Therefore this would mean God has a physical appearance as Jesus, thus God has Male Genitals even in Heaven as He did as on Earth. And yet the Bible tells us: “God is not a Man” Bible: (Numbers 23:19)

In conclusion: Christian Trinitarians who think that they can simply get away with answering flaws in their God by blaming those flaws on Jesus human nature, only create more problems then solving the questions raised about their Man God.

Please also visit:

https://mustafasahin33.wordpress.com/2021/05/27/jesus-having-two-natures-brings-into-question-jesus-being-sinless/