Namely Christian critics of the Quran often use a verse of the Quran to make the claim that the Jesus (pbuh) in the Quran is a different Jesus to the Bible, for it claims the Jesus of the Quran has a mother called Mary (Meryem) who is the Sister of Haroon (Aron) and that the Bible does not claim such a thing as that, and that there is a contradiction in the Quran.
This misunderstanding has been clearly refuted here;
Let’s now continue showing the inconsistency as mentioned in the Video.
Jesus is called the Son of Abraham in Mathew 1:1.
So will Christians say Jesus has two Fathers?
One being Godly father in heaven. And the other being earthly father Abraham and even Adam.
But wasn’t Jesus before Abraham?
Jesus was born miraculously without an earthly father, so how can Abraham be his Father?
Notice when it comes to the language of old scriptural tradition, mentioning sister of Aaron, or Jesus son of Abraham, are not to be taken literal but rather they are father, or brother or son or sister, in “FAITH” and not based on biological linage.
You Christians CHOP yourselves when trying to criticise Islam when we can play with your Bible by the same standard.
Even Paul used similar usage, when He claimed He became our father. Let’s read,
I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father. Psalms 2:7
So what will these same Christians say when criticising the language of the Quran for supposedly showing a contradiction, when there own scripture claims similar things, yet Christians have no issue interpreting those verses as being figurative speech.
So why the double standards when it comes to Mary being the sister of Haroon only in a figurative way?
We hope that Christian critics will wake up and stop using bad arguments which can be equally used against Christianity.
Allah calls Himself Al-Ahad — The Only One, the Unique — on one occasion in the Quran. Al-Ahad is the One who was, is, and will ever remain alone. He is indivisible and the essence of unity, and nothing or no one can ever be equal to Him in essence in all His beautiful attributes!  The One who has ever been and ever remains alone. The incomparable, unequalled, indivisible One. The One who is the essence of Unity. The Sole One. The One and Only One. The One who has no second [that shares] in the lordship, nor in the essence, nor in the attributes. The One who was not begotten and has never begotten. The One who depends upon no other, and to Whom there is no likeness. The One in whom all names, attributes and relationships are united. From the root a-h-d which has the following classical Arabic connotations: to be one to be the only one, one alone, sole to unite, unify This name is used in the Qur’ān. For example, see The Quran 112:1 :
Arabic قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ Transliteration Qul huwa Allahu ahad Sahih International Translation Say, “He is Allah , [who is] One, 112:1
So what about where Allah used the word (WE)? If Allah say’s His one?
A Critic wrote and said, If Allah is singular, (i.e) being One God. Why does He refer to himself as “We” or when ever Allah does something He refers to himself in Plural, “We did this”.
So than if Allah is ONE why does He in other passages of the Quran refer to himself as We?
Muslim – Response
Allah uses the term “Royal We” which can refer to a singularity, and not plurality. Even human Kings of Monarchs would say, We did this, or We ordained this. However other people besides the king did not ordain it, rather He ordained the ruling himself. Kings of the passed used plural terms only to add power to ones speech, and it did not mean their are plurality of kings, within the same kingdom.
Kings and Monarchs would use the Royal or Majestic We, as a singular person.
Read:that she had become a grandmother in her “We have become a grandmother” statement. disdain by some in the press for using the royal we when announcing to reporters that she had become a grandmother in her “We have become a grandmother” statement.
The royal we, majestic plural (pluralis majestatis), or royal plural, is the use of a plural pronoun (or corresponding plural-inflected verb forms) used by a single person who is a monarch or holds a high office to refer to themselves. A more general term for the use of a we, us, or our to refer to oneself is nosism.
The Islamic critic wrote back saying; “There is no (Royal We) in the Quran. The (Royal We) did not exist before the Middle ages in Europe”.
Muslim – Response:
There is no word “Terrorism” in the Quran. In fact it’s a modern Word which also did not exist as a word before the middle ages, and yet you have no problem describing the text of the Quran as being Terrorism.
Critic wrote back saying:
(8:60:10) tur’hibūna (to) terrify
Muslim – Respons:
You assumed that the Word Terrify is the same as “Terrorism”? So if you are Terrified it means someone has commited the act of Terrorism? Please now show me, in which English Dictionary does the word Terrify only mean Terrorism? Or can it mean other things? I asked you where does the Word Terrorism exist, not Terrify your enemy. If America invaded another country, this would mean the opposing army will be Terrified. It doesn’t mean America is commiting the act of Terrorism. So I ask you where does the Quran use the specific word Terrorism as understood by the West, to specifically kill innocent women and children? The word Terrify yes is in the Quran. But not Terrorism. So you just exposed yourself. But of course you have no problem coining the English term and understanding of Terrorism and try to conflate it to the Quran. And yet the term Terrorism as understand by the West, is a Modern Term, which is not found in the Quran. See critics don’t say the word Terror is found in the Quran, they also say Terrorism is found in the Quran. Thus your arguement falls flat on its face. But I can still play with you with even more examples: Critics of Islam say, their is “Stealth” Jihad, in Islam. And Yet the word Stealth Jihad is not there in the Arabic text. In fact; The Modern English term, Like Pedophilia is not found in the Quran or in the Hadith, and Yet Critics of Islam claim their is no problem in using the word Pedophilia in contrast with the Ancient text. But Muslims using Modern Terms like the (Royal We) to contrast the Quran, oh how Illogical right?
So in conclusion, the Quran is clear about Gods oneness, and there is no such thing as God being triune or plural as desperate Christians try to proclaim.
We are ccertainly not pagan, where we humanize God and claim God can multiply himself, because that would contradict his very essence of being singular. That would be like saying, a circle became a square but still remained a circle. Doesn’t make sense now does it?
I hope you are well. No, don’t ever feel that, your starting trouble. I’m happy to engage, it helps me exercise new skills.
There point about Prophet Muhammed being crazy has nothing to do with their claim on Epilepsy. I think that’s a side issue. They don’t just say, at the time of revelation he was having a crazy attack, they say He was foaming at the mouth which indicated epilepsy. For example, David wood would continue to narrate the hadiths that show He had a fit while receiving revelation.
And even if they want to then shift goalposts from being Epileptic to crazy while receiving revelation: But that doesn’t hold much value. Because if they are going to hold claims such as he was crazy, at the (time of revelation) what type of craziness are we talking about? The term Crazy can be very broad, are we talking as in crazy angry bipolar? Or crazy delusional? Is it about crazy anger? There are verses in the Quran that says if your enemy resorts to peace then you also resort to peace. If one reads the life of the Prophet one will see, many hadiths show many kind traits of the Prophet, for example when he stopped a whole army platoon just to return a baby bird’s chicks to its mother. Which another companion unjustly took. This was his kindness towards certain animals. This doesn’t really show crazy angry person or crazed persons behaviour.
If it’s about being delusional, one has to ask themselves how does an illiterate crazy delusional man, conquer the world, by taking Arabs out of paganism, converting them to Islam, changing the entire culture of the region, spreading Islam where Islam became the dominant religion and empire? How does this delusional crazy man, set up Islamic jurisprudence and courts governments where society has functioned for hundreds and thousands of years, it’s just not feasible
How does a crazy delusional man, produce all these linguistic miracles in the Quran:
I mean put the Prophet Muhammed pbuh aside, Atheists today believe ALL believers are crazy in one way or another or lack mental efficiency, because they argue we believe in fairy tales.
So really, there claims about being crazy doesn’t have to just resort to the Prophet, we are all defined as being delusional no matter if your a Muslim, christian, Jew, Hindu or whatever else for that matter. Even if the Prophet Muhammed conducted a medical test to prove his sanity, his enemies or critics would still accuse him of being crazy and delusional.
But these claims are nothing new, his enemies would say that 1400 years ago:
And so the Quran rebukes them for it:
Sahih International: You are not, [O Muhammad], by the favor of your Lord, a madman (Quran 68:2)
As for the other points, thank you for being honest to acknowledge my other points.
Another Critique wrote:
Muslim – Response:
You said are you saying Allah sent revelation to give the Prophet mental afflictions:
If you are a Christian, you would need to answer this verse from your Bible:
2 Corinthians 12:7 New International Version or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.
Here we get to read, that when Paul received revelation, Paul would feel pain in his body because Satan was tormenting him.
So as a Christian you would have to answer, why God was allowing Paul to get tormented upon receiving revelations? Surely God should be protecting him right?
So you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Yes, the Prophet did experience hardship, but that was God’s plan, God can express his power and might as He pleases. He created the Sun, but if you were to look at the sun, it could blind you. So will you now say why did God create the sun, where it can hurt your eyes? Thus God can create revelation to momentarily give pain, to express his power, just as the brightness of the sun, gives pain and expresses God’s mighty power. Again these episodes were short-lived, and it wasn’t as though the Prophet was being tortured with unbearably.
It seems you haven’t paid much attention to my response.
If you wish to argue well the Prophet was trying to somehow hide his Epilepsy by blaming it on revelation being so heavy and hard.
Then as Asaf pointed out to you, you would also need to explain how we’re all the other people around the Prophet were also being affected not just the Camels. I’ll post for you the hadith of a companion of the Prophet who would write down the revelation and even He said that when the revelation came, His leg almost broke
ALDN, was the Prophet Muhammad’s companion leg also having an epileptic fit? 🥴👍
Take a read:
Zayd bin Thabit narrates:
“I wrote down the revelation in the presence of the Prophet. When the revelation came, the Messenger of Allah would shiver and shake, and sweat would come down from his temples. When the revelation ended, he would come round. Then, he would say and I would write. The divine revelation that came pressed so hard on me that I would think that my leg broke and that I would not be able to walk again…” (Bukhari, Tafsir, 91, Jihad, 31; Muslim, Imara, 141-142; Abu Dawud, Jihad, 19; Tirmidhi, Tafsir 5; Nasai, Jihad, 4
I’ll also attach hadiths where his camel was being affected;
Ibn Sa´d narrate the following from Abu Arwa of Daws:
“I witnessed revelation coming to the Prophet while he was riding his camel. It screamed and contracted its forelegs. Sometimes it sat and sometimes it stood up straightening its forelegs. Sweat was coming down the temple of the Prophet like a string of pearl
Ahmad and Bayhaqi´s narration from Hz. Aisha regarding the issue is as follows:
“When the revelation came to the Messenger of Allah on his camel, the camel would kneel due to the heaviness of the revelation. Sweat would come down the temple of the Prophet even when the weather was cold.”
Ahmed, Tabarani, Bayhaqi and Abu Nuaym narrate the following from Asma bint Yazid: She affected when the chapter of al-Maida was sent down, the Messenger of Allah was on his camel and I was holding the halter of the camel. The fore-legs of the camels almost broke down due to the heaviness of the chapter
Surely now if this was a case of Epilepsy his direct scribe and Animals wouldn’t be affected to now would they?
Please now, watch the video properly from start to finish, before trying to articulate a (got ya) argument.
Are we now going to perhaps accept that his companions and animals were play-acting, in order to cover up their Prophets Epilepsy?
Another critic wrote:
Muslim – Response:
Answering your point regarding , why couldn’t God deliver the Quran without inflicting pain?
We can give examples even about death.
He can make the Prophet not feel pain during his death, but the Prophet did feel pain during his death.
If nothing is impossible for God, then why can’t he make his Prophet feel the pains of revelation and the pains of death?
If that is Gods will, in conditioning the prophet to show his test through pain and suffering, that’s testing his Prophets will and patience. If you want to reach success you need to go through a test. Weightlifters put their bodies through pain and suffering to reach the next level. So do sports stars like Christiano Ronaldo. Training can exhausting , grilling and weeks of pain. So if God wishes to express the magnitude and the seriousness of his revelation He can express the power of its revelation through showing and delivering its glory with power, the power of God can be painful. This instills humility and shows that there is much greater forces then our selves.
So I don’t see how God expressing his power which causes momentary pain, is seen as being controversial or objectional by the Islamic critics.
It is not as though, God gave the Prophet ongoing pain and trauma, or life threatening trauma. Nor did God give him, everlasting pain and trauma, this probably only lasted a few seconds, it seems the Islamic critics are pretty desperate in trying to use this against Islam.
The critic wrote:
Muslim – Response:
First of all the term torment, is an exaggerated term. That sounds very strong, as though someone is burning in hell. But I can understand how critics of Islam try to force strong exegeration in order to shock people. It’s basically trying to dramatise the situation in order to appeal to one’s emotion. And no none of the Hadith claim it was “exactly like a epilepsy”.
I personally have witnessed people with epilepsy, and they go into a seizure and start having uncontrolled fits on the ground. No where in any hadith does it describe those events such as that. For example the sahabi trying to control and hold the Prophet on the ground while his violently shaking and foaming at the mouth, you will not find this in any authenticated narration, where they are trying to restrain the Prophet.
Did you bother to read the other comments on this page. That the Prophets Animals were also feeling the effects of the revelation which dismisses the notion it’s epilepsy. Otherwise the critics of Islam would also have to assume that his animal was also simultaneously having a epileptic episode which would be ludicrous to assume.
I honestly do not care what the critics think about He thought He was getting revelation when He could have been hallucinating. And no Khatice never claimed or assumed He was hallucinating, this is a big fat lie.
And even for arguement sake, critics of Islam claim that the Prophet showed slightly similiar symptoms to Epilepsy, did use not hear or are using choosing to not hear what the Quran itself said regarding the power of the revelation. It says
Shakir: Had We sent down this Quran on a mountain, you would certainly have seen it falling down, splitting asunder because of the fear of Allah, and We set forth these parables to men that they may reflect (Quran 59:21)
Are you seeing the clear verse what it’s saying? If the Quran landed on a mountain instead of the heart of the Prophet, it would have blown the mountain apart. So as you can clearly see, if the power of the Quran can do this to a mountain what effects would it have on a human heart or the human anatomy? Obviously it’s kinda going to show symptoms to that of trauma or as you call it like Epilepsy correct? But it’s clearly not, because what is causing this is the weight and power of the revelation, the direct verse of the Quran says that’s what caused it. So how do you then go on to say, it was Epilepsy? And like we said in our arguement that these instances only occurred when revelation was coming down, and not when revelation wasn’t coming down. However Epilepsy happens at any time revelation or no revelation. So the Question remains why if the Prophet had Epilepsy as they claim, that he never had a traumatic experience during when revelation wasn’t coming to him. Surely if he suffered from Epilepsy then it would happen at any time of his life, but that never happened, traumatic pains only coincided with revelation. So that’s more clear proof this had nothing to do with Epilepsy.
No one hallucinates and comes up with grammatical miracles in the Quran. This is clearly the work of divine inspiration. Not mere Hallucination.
By the way these critics claim that other people in history won Nobel prizes and created incredible linguistic literature, but what these fools do not consider is that the Prophet himself was “illiterate” meaning unable to read or wrote. Despite this He came with a Quran with linguistic miracles. So these fools are comparing those who have literacy and their works compared to a illiterate Prophet, despite that his book containes marvellous grammatical linguistic miracles. Do what the video which proves his none other then a inspired Prophet and certainly not someone who’s hallucinating.
Also this video refutes the claim the Prophet could read and write:
We Created men and women equal in Allah’s sight, though Islam understands they have biological differences. And Men and Women can understand they are different, but they can also work their differences harmoniously without trying to live up to man’s and women’s expectations. They each go at their own pace. Islam does believe however in certain gender roles.
Also consider: The Term (Feminism) originates from the Western Activists. This Term is Un-Known in the Muslim World due to Female oppression being Low in Muslim World. Most Feminist Movements are located in Western World.
U.S soldier, sexist comment?
American Soldier tells Iraqi soldiers that they are acting like a bunch of women. Due to them being scared and Coward.
Also note, the West also believes in gender roles. That’s why they will never choose a woman to jump in the boxing ring to fight Mike Tyson. They will always pick a Man to do that!
So gender roles isn’t something strange, and the West still practise it to this very day!
Now a Western may say, well Females can still box in Womens competition.
But that still doesn’t prove a thing, because women can’t box against Men and take advantage of the same level of prize money, viewing, and status. Again they segregate between Men and Women that proves their not co-equal.
In the article bellow we highlight Scientific and Medical reasons for why women can not be appointed as a Judge, read the full article in the attached link below:
In the next video we give more points on the reasons why women in Islam can not be selected as Rulers or Judges, we also show many inconsistency in the West where Womens and Mens rights are taken away from them:
Further proving Gender Roles in Islam from the Quran and Hadith
Now will be showing, How the West imposes it’s values on Afganistan.
Gender roles, even feminists believe in it!
When they ask women what type of men they prefer to marry or have long-term relationships with, they say they prefer macho men who fit the profile of “benevolent sexists” who exude “toxic masculinity.” Even the self-labelled feminists have this preference. Given the option, no woman prefers to marry a weak man who is a pushover, who actively avoids leadership, who wants to be a meek, quiet follower of women. This type of man is literally disgusting to women.
In other words, the gender component is embedded in human nature.
Some Modernist/or Western Feminist will say things like No such thing as gender roles in the West like your Islamic interpretation. Everyone gets an equal opportunity.
When they look for the next fighter to take on Mike Tyson heavy weight champion of the World . They look for another MAN not another Women.
If they knew men and women were equal. Then they would raise a female boxer to take on Tyson wouldn’t they?
Should I continue with gender roles, like how UFC uses beautiful women called a (ring girl) is a woman who enters the ring between rounds of a combat sport, carrying a sign that displays the number of the upcoming round.
This sort of gender roles are all over Western Liberal society, but you wish to think there is no gender roles and everything is just equal across the board 🙃
It’s clear that gender roles do exist in the West, and their is no real equality, when biology proves there are differences.
Muslim Feminism leads to Apostasy.
When you show a certain Hadith to a feminist. And they say, that hadith has to be rejected because it’s Patriarchy, and also not found in the Quran. Just an example where the Hadith says, women should worship men in a symbolic sense. The Feminist then gets outraged and says, that’s symbolic Patriarchy and must be a weak Hadith or even fabricated. The same goes when you show hadith where it, which explicitly talks about women need to take permission from their husbands who they let into their house. Also how women pray behind men, and not men pray behind women, the list goes on. So the Muslim Feminists is outraged by all of this, saying it’s men who wrote that hadith to serve men’s desires.
But then I roll my eyes because there are many examples of Patriarchy within the Quran. Though I don’t like to use the term Patriarchy, because this term Patriarchy has had a negative meaning since it’s been used for ways to abuse women so let’s rather call it, gender roles, just to name a few examples:
Quran says Men can have more women. But nowhere in the History of Islam or the Quran women can have more than one man. Is that too Patriarchy?
The Quran says, that women ought to obey men. But never says Men need to obey Women. Sure 4:34
The Quran speaks of men getting Hoorlayin (virgin wives), but it doesn’t mention women getting Hoorlayin.
The Quran speaks about women being disciplined using the (Miswak) but never a Man being disciplined using the (Miswak) I.e in none violent way of course. See Tafsir ibn Kathir under Ibn Abbas’s conduct. Sureh 4:34
The Quran speaks about, men having right-hand possession (concubines). It does not say Women can have male concubines.
The Quran speaks about, men being the Protectors, providers and maintainers of women, but it does not say women are the Protectors, providers and maintainers of Men.
The Quran speaks about Prophets to be Men, but never does it say that there were Women Prophet’s in the history of Scripture.
The Quran speaks how during transactions, only 1 man witness is needed. And Two female witnesses. It’s never 1 female Witness. Surah al-Baqarah, Ch:2: V.283
The Quran speaks how men get twice the inheritance women to get. Quran: 4:11-12
The Quran speaks about women having to wear a Hijab over most parts of their body, while men only have a specific area such as the Awrah.
So as you can see, gender roles in the Quran are apparent, so if you’re going to reject the Hadith, then to be consistent you would ought to also reject the Quran for Patriarchy or more correctly “gender roles”. This is our religion and we are unapologetic about it. There are many things also in the Quran and Hadith that favour women and men can not do it also. For example how women don’t have to protect and maintain men, how it’s not hard (compulsory) upon her to attend Cumah while men ought to, how men have to perform Jihad fighting in Battle where you risk your life, and women are not required to risk their lives as such, how men have to pay the Mahir (Bridal gift) even when it can be in the hundreds and thousands, but women don’t have too, and the list goes on. Where women don’t need to fast during breastfeeding or menstruation while men still have to fast, no matter what their work dealings are, and so on.
So this is what we have been saying all along, feminism leads to apostasy because to believe in Western Feminism, it’s designed for you to reject not just the hadith but also the Quran.
There are several ways Apostasy occurs among these feminists. Some of these are more subtle while others are much more apparent.
1 – Where they completely denounce the faith 2 – They may reject Sahi hadith even though it’s classified as being authentic by the council of scholars. 3 – Give a completely different meaning to the verse ( which is pretty much the same as rejecting the verse) 4 – The verse is no longer applicable, or it just is metaphorical. Which is another way of rejecting the ayah. 5 – Openly reject the verse of the Quran. Despite this still claim they are Muslim and accuse you not to judge them and only God can judge them. 6 – Claim that the Hadith contradicts the Quran based on it not being found in the Quran. (By the way, this isn’t how Islamic jurisprudence works, because everything is helal until the Quran or hadiths proves its haram. And everything is Haram until the Quran and Hadith prove it to be Helal. If either the Quran or Hadith is silent then it becomes lawful, and vice versa.
Feminism started all innocent, you know like sticking up for women oppression and domestic abuse or equal right and opportunity in the workplace like equal pay and so on. But these days it pushed itself into an ideology where it tries to remove every type of gender role and tries to change any legal code or religious belief because they continued to get blinded by their hatred towards men and so they think that anything that is withheld from women classifies as a Misogynistic idea. But of course, you would hardly see them complain when scripture also favours them. Then it’s all fine and justified. And when they are pushed into “consistency in their logic” is when the next stages to apostasy take place.
There are Christians who heavily promote the love for the Jews. They will proclaim things like, may God save Israel or things like;
The verses where Jesus condemns the Jews:
According to Biblical Scholars, such as John Gills expedition of Luke 19:27 this passage describes, a parable in which Jesus will come back a second time to the earth and slay those Jews who rejected Jesus. By the way that’s a lot of Jews if you ask me, as 99.9% majority of the nation of Israel reject Jesus.
See John gills commentary on Luke 19:27
Jesus even goes as far as judging the 12 Tribes of Israel
In this passage we read Jesus judgment upon the Jews. Yes ALL 12 tribes of Israel will be judged. Again no where does Jesus say He will judge the Muslims. Rather only the Jews.
Jesus even compares the Pharisees the Jews to Vipers!
So as you can see, these Christian’s heavily promote Israel as though they are God’s chosen people, despite Jesus who proclaims to go to war against Israel.
Let’s read further;
When Christians talk about Jesus is love and peaceful but the “Islamic Prophet is WAR Lord?
Some amazing insight from the Christian website reads:
About the End Times. They say “Yes” Jesus did a lot of wars in the Old Testament Bible, however Jesus came in the New Testament to teach, Peace and Love and no more killing and Wars and taught us to turn the other cheek.
But wait! this Christian Website says Jesus comes as a WAR Lord in his second coming:
Interesting points from the Christian website;
1 – The Devil Anti-Christ will sign a contract with Israel and not Saudi Arabia. So much for Christians sucking up to Jews! And defending Israel.
2 -The devil will then ” Rule the Jews” for seven years! Note the Dajjal (Anti-Christ) will be accepted by the Jews as their Leader. Notice nothing about Islam or Arabs being ruled by the Anti-Christ. So much for Islam being of the devil!
The Anti Christ will be Worshiped in the Jureselem Temple. Not in the Islamic Mosque!
3 – Jesus will then WAR against the Anti -Christ AND his ARMY. Ask yourself who is the army of Israel. Hamas or IDF?
4 – Jesus will then cast ALL unbeliever’s into a Lake of Fire.
Halulya God of Peace?
It seems Jesus will be fighting none other then the Zionist Israeli run by the Anti Christ.
If Islam was the devil why nothing about fighting Saudi Arabia or the Palestinians?
Even a evangelical Christian preacher and Apologist named Sam Shamoun a critic of Islam admits; “Israel is an Abomination”
See also this video how Jews insult Jesus. And the hypocrisy.
So there you have it folks, Christians declare they have the New Testament a book of turn the other cheek and peace, despite how they use the New Testament to preach that Jesus will come back to wrath and vengeance and go to War with Israel.
Well the Christian website admits: that ancient manuscripts have differences, some say 70 others say 72. However they argue it’s more “likely it’s 70. And that the 0 was changed to a 2 was simply a “copiest error”.
However this begs the question. One could argue, it’s not 70 but rather 72. And that the 72 was accidentally rounded off to the nearest number of 70 by “accident”. However it should have been originally left at 72 as it was “inspired”. So it’s really a circular arguement, there could be two possible explainations, both invalidating each other’s theory.
It is thus clear, Christian’s do not have “The holy spirit ” to tell them conclusively which is truelly the Word of God. That being 70 or 72? And so they just guess which it is, like it’s Russian roulette let’s hit the fire on the gun and see where it lands.
Honestly is this, what Christian’s call the divinely inspired word of God? What about all the other theological teachings in the bible can one say, well their just copiest Errors? Those who had the “Holy Spirit” while copying didn’t the voice the holy spirit tell them you made a mistake? Christian’s tells us often how the holy Spirit guides them to all truths. And it even talks to them in toungs. We hear how even miracles are being performed, and yet no miracle to correct the bible? Oh wait, if you ever bring this up, a Christian will say, do not test God!
It’s basically a trick way of saying, look I understand we kinda got exposed but don’t try and test God, because thats “blasphemy” it’s basically a convenient way, of trying to silence criticism. And Yet the bible says, “prove all things: (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
Furthermore Christian’s tell us, they can indeed refer to the oldest manuscripts to repair any scribal Errors, so I ask then why they couldn’t fix the issue of 70 or 72? Perhaps they can not because these discrepancy are too found in the earliest ancient manuscripts.
Does Jesus Judge people or does he not?
No: John 12:47
Jesus said “If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
Yes: John 5:22
Jesus said ” Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son
Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction. Quran – 4:82
Christian Apologists admits in a Debate ” lots of really bad things in the Old Testament” meaning that his Jesus the God of the Old Testament commanded his followers to go and kill; Men, women, children and infants. The verses in the O.T (1 Samuel 15:3) & (Numbers 31) in the name of Jesus.
Ali Atai pointed out, that Moses in the Bible in Numbers 31.
Killed Women and Children, and the non virgins girls were given to men. So they can be raped. Otherwise why would virgin girls lives spared? And not the non virgin ones? This is all ordained by Jesus, because Christians say Jesus is God. And saying that was the Old Testament doesn’t make the “crime go away”. Read also 1 Samuel 15:3, again the Bible endorsed the killing of women and babies.
1 Samuel 15:3 New International Version (NIV)3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Yes, Jesus the God of the O.T endorses for his followers to go stick swords into infants. Numbers 31:17-18 King James Version (KJV)
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Exactly keep all the virgin girls to “yourselves” If Jesus was alive today he would be arrested for war crimes he commited in the Old Testament for endorsing such violence that, He would be held accountable under the Human rights watch, and charged for war crimes under the United nations commission.
Christian Apologist David Wood is reminded again, of the bad things in the Bible see:
And so God sent them a army and killed them by the sword, and even infant babies and children were killed. However the non virgin girls were killed but not the virgin ones. So if they all were sinners due to unbelief why were the virgin lives spared? And then how can babies and children be sinners? What sin did a infant commit? There’s Davids claim they deserved death because they were sinners doesn’t make sense.
Now just imagine, we said that Allah gathered a Muslim army to go and kill babies and infants women and children because they were “sinners”?
David wood, would have had a field day with this, and said look how barbaric Allah is, He even tells Muslims to stick swords into infant babies, women and children.
So David Woods explaination fails miserably. Claiming they were sinners doesn’t work, as not all sinners were killed, and we know babies can not sin, since they are sinless. And if you want to claim all babies are born into sin, then are we to believe that all babies should be killed including all humanity because we are all born into sin? So again that makes no sense. So what we are left with, the Biblical God of the Old Testament is presented as a bad God, with bad Morals. Now someone might say, what about Allah who kills babies and infants by natural disasters, like cyclones and hurricanes.
I would argue, there is still a difference, why? Because here we see God working alone, He gives life and takes life. And so if He wishes to take a life, by natural means so that life returns to him, so be it. But then on the other hand you have a God, that specifically instructs human beings to stick swords into infants because he claims they are unbelievers and in sin, but then the same God says, don’t stick swords into older virgin girls who are sinners too. So why does God prefer virgin older girls over babies? Its really bizzar. And what makes it even more so bizzar, is when Christians all day argue how evil and barbaric Terrorism is, and they point to groups like Al-Qa’ida or ISIS who commit acts of Terrorism like blowing themselves up in market places, killing both men, women and children. And they do this because they are brain washed to believe this is what God is instructing them to do. And God is instructing them to do this, because they are sinners and unbelievers. And so the Christian will say, look at this barbarism, look at this Terrorism. And if that Terrorist said, I’m doing this because God told me to do it. The moral justification would never be accepted by a Christian, which begs the question then, why do they accept the Terrorism ordained by the Biblical God, who tells his soldiers to do the very same act of ISIS.
1) Kill the sinners
2) Target women and children
Or perhaps there is a double standard here. One standard for Arab terrorists. And another standard for Biblical Terrorists?
Muslim apologist Nadir Ahmed argues, “Christians also believe that God inspired the Bible. Therefore, if God = Jesus, then it was Jesus(God) who inspired this commands [sic] to go commit genocide against this nation of people as we read in 1 Sam 15:3. These are Jesus Christ’s words. What is even more demented, is that Jesus Christ ordered the killing of babies!”(6). However, there are several problems with Ahmed’s “analysis.”
As noted, this type of “destroy all that they have … man and woman, child and infant” language was commonplace in the Near East and is not to be taken literally. It was simply a way back then of saying there was going to be war victory. How do we know Saul did not literally annihilate all the Amalekites including women and children? Because later in 1 Samuel 27:8 we see that there are Amalekites still living. They are also seen again in 1 Samuel 30 in massive number (four hundred) (vv. 1, 17). Thus, to argue Saul literally wiped out of all Amalekites including women and children is erroneous since the totality of the book demonstrates a great number of them were not meant to be killed. Again when those in the Ancient Near East would say they were going to (or did) wipe out all of the people of a land; it was a hyperbole to communicate desired decisive war victory.
Now it must be asked: who were the Amalekites and why was war with them justified? Immediately after Israel crossed the Red Sea and camped in the wilderness in Rephidim in Exodus 17, these barbaric nomad Amalekites viciously attacked them there (Exodus 17:1, 8). As Copan notes, “The Amalekites were relentless in their aim to destroy Israel, and they continued to be a thorn in Israel’s side for generations (e. g., Judg. 3:13; 6:3-5, 33; 7:12; 10:12; etc).”(7)
Muslim Response: This Rebbutal is going to be very short and very simple. Keith argues that when God orderd Biblical followers to go and kill all the Amelikites including Women and Children and Infants this does not mean “Literally” what is the Bases of his arguement? Simply because in other passages of the Bible their were “Still Amelekites found living.
This arguement is so bad and embarrassing” all it takes is some common sense. Just because” Their was a WAR ordering the total extermination of the people, yet finding people who survived the onslaught does not mean the onslaught did not take place. That would be equivalent to say, if we found Holocaust survivers living in a place “still alive” it does not mean a ” Holocaust did not take place. In fact during WARS or say” WARS intended for genocide doesn’t mean the perpetrators are going to get ” Everybody. As you know during WARS people flee their home lands and even go into hiding. So to claim Because there were still Amelekites found living does not help at all ” Keiths arguement that vast majority of the Amelites did not get slaughtered in fact he only mentions their was 400 of them found still living which proves still that thousands and thousands of them got slaughtered and only 400 fleed the town or went into hiding makes just as a valid arguement.
Infact that’s a contradiction made Keith, because Saul was told why he didn’t destroyed the entire Amalekites….
“But I did obey the LORD,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. (1 Samuel 15:20)
Keiths is clearly being deceptive. That’s not the language for that time it’s a literal statement when they said destroy all living things
When we even go to the (Christian Tefsir)
Mathew Henry commentary: Tells us that the Evil amoung them were Sacrafised to the Lord. What does Sacrafise mean?
Pulpit Commentary Tefsir: Tells us that ALL living things to be killed including Men and Cattle to be killed, and even the Gold and Silver taken off them and be put into a treasury and all their belongings Burnt down. Again how is this Non-Literal?
John Gills commentary Tefsir: Again John Gill talks about how all will be slaughtered Men Women Children Infants and Animals. Nothing about non-literal terms as Keith Suggest in all of the commentary here.
If Keiths arguement was ” True” then we would see the same consistency else where in the Biblical Wars. Take for example (Numbers 31) Where Moses and his Army killed many Women and Children and were orderd to kill the Non- virgin girls and leaving the Virgin ones alive to be distributed as spoils of War. Now how will Keith Thompson explain away keeping virgins girls to give away as spoils of War after Murdering their Parents? Literally? So his arguement fails on the premise of ” Inconsistency”. If 1 Samuel 15:3 is Non-Literal them so ought to be Numbers 31 which is clearly not.
Keith Thompson then went onto say that the War was Justified, yet how can Sticking Swords into babies be Justified blows ones mind. And claiming it’s not literal has no biblical bases at all.
“17Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31:17-18).
Offering an Islamic distortion and misuse of this text is Zaatari who claims that in this text the Israelites “left all the virgins to themselves whom they obviously slept with.”(19) However, this inaccuracy or lie is refuted when 1) one realizes premarital sex (fornication) is condemned in Deuteronomy 22:13-21; and 2) one consults 25:1-4, 6 of Numbers for the context of 31:17-18.
Once task two is done one understands the Moabite and Midianite women had sexually enticed the Israelite men to worship false gods such as Baal. Hence, the reason God spared the young virgins among the Midianites in 31:17-18, instead of the older women who slept with the Israelite men, was because the young virgins were not guilty of this heinous crime. Only the older women were. It was therefore a kind and merciful gift that these young innocent virgins were spared by Moses and the Israelites in 31:17-18. As Old Testament scholar Ronald B. Allen relayed,
“Only young girls … would be saved alive; only they had not contaminated themselves with the debauchery of Midian and Moab in Baal worship (v. 18). The suggestion is that the participation of women from Midian in the debased orgiastic worship of Baal described in chapter 25 was extensive, not selective.”(20)
It is the Muslims who read into the text the false idea that the Israelites took the young virgin girls in order to sleep with them. The text does not actually say such a thing, however. Thus, it is not “obvious” that this occurred as Zaatari claims. This is the Muslim mindset and lifestyle (Muhammad slept with a child named Aisha. being read backwards into the text when the text itself does not actually say these things. Titus 1:15 gives the reason why Muslims such as Zaatari pervert this merciful act toward these innocent virgin girls turning it into something corrupt and perverse: “To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled” (Titus 1:15).
Here we go Keith Thompson yet again makes seriously bad arguements, he goes on to say” the Bible no where makes the claim that the virgin girls kept in this passage were ” Used” for sex. And the reason why they were kept alive and only the Non-virgin ones were killed because they defiled them selves meaning had illegal sex with the idols unlike the virgin ones who were spared. Not because they wanted virgin girls for sex he argues rather because they unlike the Non-Virgin ones did not commit fornication with Idols.
Now if this arguement was valid? One needs to ask “Keith” if the purpose of keeping the Virgins alive was not for sex, why was not the “little ones from amoung the males spared as well? Is Keith Suggesting that little male children like babies and infants and kids were also defiled themselves fornicating with Idols? Now how absurd would that be? And how come these virgin girls were given to a Priest as a tribute by Moses( Bible Numbers 31:40). What is a male priest going to do with 32 Virgin Girls? How come women are not given virgin girls and only Men get them? Sounds fishy does it not? Why doesn’t the same Priest not get virgin Male Children if it’s not about Sex?
So as you can see ” Keiths Non-sensical arguements do not add up. At all and only prove that virgin Girls were only taken for Men to enjoy them as concubines. Even King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines in the Bible for him to enjoy http://biblehub.com/1_kings/11-3.htm
Maybe thats Helal for Moses to follow that Example for why he gave the priest 32 virgins for cohabitation.
Finaly here is a response to Christians why try and throw the Old Testament under the bus to say; That was the Old Testament. Therefore the old testament no longer applies.
Saying that was the Old Testament, doesn’t make the bad moral judgments of the Biblical God go away. It just proves, the Biblical God, was unaware of making the right decisions, which begs the question about a deficiency in Gods wisdom and intelligence on morals, as presented by the Bible on the concept of God.
Critics of Islam including Feninists among Muslims bring this hadith up to try and attack Islam or attack the hadith in order to show Islam or Hadith belittles women.
I don’t understand, why critics or Muslim Feminists are saying this post is causing harm. And they want an explanation. With all due respect? I’m astonished that people are unaware of human development.
This has nothing to do with women being degraded or women made to look evil. Rather, what is one of the most treasured things to a man is women. Therefore women can be a great fitnah (Trial or Test) for men, because of Mens strong desire for women, which can cause Men to fall into great temptations and sin. It is commonly known that men watch more pornography than women
So it makes sense why women can be a great trial fitnah for Men. Remember even from a young age it’s predominantly boys chasing girls around as opposed to girls chasing boys around. So Islam forbids things like watching pornography and committing things like Adultery and Fornication or even touching non-mahrem women for the matter, therefore since this is a strong temptation especially for men based on even science and human development, it is why women are a servere test for men.
So interestingly they are too quick to dismiss the Hadith as being inaccurate or misogynistic remove your femiNazi spectacles it will help you see a lot clearer.
You said you will not advocate for violence of which ever kind?
Every law in every country advocates violence to restore public order. That’s how governments function.
The same people, who happened to give you humanism and human rights themselves under international law, advocate violence depending on the circumstance. That’s how they restore peace and order, and at times use the same measures to spread their values to the rest of the globe.
Perhaps you are an apostate from basic humanist values. The same humanist values, that murder by license human fetus. So you are in no way of lecturing Us on violence, by coming here and talking to us about the Quran. The fact that you invite people to hellfire through your Godless delusion, endangers the lives of many people, by sending them to eternal damnation. Your human rights values give more value to a dog than a human being. For example when humanist atheists agnostics were asked the Question? Would you save your drowning dog or your neighbour? But you had to pick one. These Godless humanists picked a Dog over a fellow human being.
God, I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be a humanist. He is more of a Dogist than a humanist, and this is the problem of Atheist humanists when humans are reduced to no different than any other Animal because again as Richard Dawkins a famous Atheist humanist puts it, there is no difference then a pig and a human fetus. Well, no wonder they support Murdering of a fetus by Abortion, that’s the price you pay when adopting the theory of Atheist, they con people into thinking that they are peaceful. When the reality shows depending on the circumstance they can be the most barbaric of all. A question was asked, to these same humanists if you were the only two people on the earth and had to choose between raping a women or allow the planet to go into human extinction. Most humanists justify raping that lady who refused to have a baby with him and continue human existence. To know wonder why a Humanist Atheist preacher known as Sam Harris who justified rape saying it helped pass genes from one species to another species.
Another question was asked, if there was a law that said we need to kill half the population of the earth which includes the youth, to save the planet from collapsing (hypothetically speaking) then these very same humanists would justify those killings to save the rest of humanity. What im merely showing is that these Humanists and Atheists are the biggest con-artists when they claim they are not violent. When shit hits the fan they are the first one to comprise cruelty and death, to justify the means. In Islam for example, if such circumstances occurred, we would allow the world to end, and murder is murder, even if that means it will cause the earth to end because we, unlike Humanist atheists, have principles. But for them, there are no principles, and pleasure comes before human life, self-interest comes before humanity. Humanist atheism is ruthless so don’t ever believe them when they claim they believe in peace to the World, and how under humanism everything is colourful rainbows 🌈
So to sum up;
Three Questions to ask these pretend humanists Atheists.
Atheists identify themselves generally as being Humanists and claim to be ethically upright people.
If you’re neighbour and you’re pet dog was drowning and you could only save 1 who would you choose?
If you had to save the planet from self destruction, but in order for this to happen you had to immediately exterminate 80% of the human population in order to save the planet. Would you order the killings of these human beings?
Wait and see their responses just let them keep talking and see how they self expose themselves on how much they really value human life!
Ask an Atheist if He could only save one at sea, would He prefer to save a 5-year-old drowning child. Or the last ever-existing female Panda Bear?
Which Would it Be?
Then ask them how exactly do they define themselves as “Humanists”. They are anti-human!
This is how these Atheists can not be moral people, they are against the human race, for they have made animals equal to humans. Beware of Atheists they are indeed cruel human beings, when shit hits the fan, you are certainly not on their saving list agenda.
These atheists probably donate more money to Animal Welfare organizations than they do towards donating to starving children around the world but then have the audacity to blame God for the condition of the human race.
In fact I kid you not, I remember one time listening to a interview of a British couple who by the way we’re extremely wealthy people. I’m talking say, millions and millions of dollars. The interviewing asked, you are old age and have no children, what will you decide to do with all this money once you are gone.
Of course one would have expected them to say, will be donating all this money for all the starving children of the world right?
No, she said she really loves Tigers. And she strongly believes in the conservation of animals, so she will be donating all her wealth towards Animal welfare programs.
There is a belief among Atheists, that believing in Religion is a form of indoctrination, and that when you are a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu, you are unable of thinking for yourself, and you are not free to think critically about your faith, and therefore those who believe in Religion are somehow brainwashed and therefore cannot think for themselves, and that’s the reason they say, why people who believe in organised religion or the concept of a God, it is because of this very reason.
I’ll be sharing why this fallacious arguement doesn’t make any logical sense, and in fact, I will share with you, points that can brush those who follow the free-thinking claim are not free-thinkers themselves and they too follow Atheistic indoctrination. Now here is the thing, these Atheists seem to suggest when you are in religion you can’t freely think for yourself. Well here is the one million dollar question? If it’s true that when you are a Muslim you can not think for yourself and make rational decisions then why do Ex-Muslims like Harris Sultan who was able to “Free think” for himself and leave Islam? Surely if this person under Islam was not able to think for himself because of all that religious indoctrination, then He shouldn’t have left Islam correct? The very fact that He did leave Islam proves in itself that when you are a Muslim you can critically think about your own beliefs. If Muslims could not critically think for themselves then why does people like Harris Sultan open platforms targeting the Muslim youth? Well, He does so because He knows that just like He was a free thinker, and left Islam then all these other Muslims to can think for themselves and therefore why He spends all his time and energy preaching to them. You see folks, this free-thinking concept is no more than a derogatory slur, and a colonialist inferiority complex of seeing Muslims less themselves, because they believe that when you believe in non-religious things that is when you become progressive and intelligent and “enlightened”, but this begs the Question was the Muslim not intelligent to think for himself when He left Islam? And what about Atheists who believed in all of those things like “reason” and critical thinking, and logic, despite this they left Atheism and have either become Muslim or Christian, are we now to believe that when you become an Atheist, you are now able to think critically and reason, now have to explain why those who lived that progressive thought process have come to Islam or who have converted to Islam or Christianity?
This now debunks the notion that only when you are an atheist is when you can think critically, because if that were the case then no Atheist would accept religion now would they? Nor would any Muslim or Christian leave Islam, the fact that they do does not mean you have to be first an Atheist to critically be able to think for yourself. Now that we have cleared that blunder, what about the claim that indoctrination hinders a person’s free-thinking abilities?
Well let’s show some points on how one can brush Atheists as those who have been indoctrinated and they can’t think for themselves as they want you to believe because they too receive indoctrination on a daily bases from Atheistic agents.
“Stop being a sheep and be an individual. Think for yourself. That’s the only way you can truly be ethical, intelligent, and free!”
The mantras of individualism are well-known today, for they are a staple of most people’s thinking. To be independent from the crowd is considered a sign of superiority compared to those who merely follow.
But individualism is a myth.
The idea that man is an island capable of separating themselves completely from the grasps of societal norms, values, and ideas is utterly delusional. Human beings think and act synthetically. What we call the “individual” is merely a reconfiguration of accepted norms and principles, much akin to phenotype. Differences are considered more genuine only by virtue of the fact that others have yet to determine particular combinations of dress, words, gestures, and yes, even concepts.
In other words, there is no such thing as non-conformity on some grand scale — a type of detachment born ex nihilo. Even so, the idea that one should detach themselves in such a way is absolutely absurd, because in order to survive in the world and be successful one needs to conform with their peers to a degree. A man in total isolation ultimately dehumanizes himself and runs the risk of insanity; for humans are social creatures. And in order to be ‘social’ one needs to conform to a society.
And this is why I find it ludicrous when certain people claim to now “think for themselves” as opposed to “following”. Whether you convert or deconvert from or to a religion/ideology the idea that you have become an individual as a result is an oxymoron — because all you’ve actually done is change what you conform to. Whether you adopt Islamic values or Western ones (or attempt a hybrid), you are conforming to something for which you had given no input prior. And even if your perspective is drastically different to others’, you’re still borrowing considerably from previous ideas in order to construct it.
We should not be so concerned with whether we’re “thinking for ourselves” as much as we should be concerned with what we’re thinking. Conformity or non-conformity means little if your ideas are invalid. Just because you grew up in a particular society doesn’t necessitate that said ideas become suspect; nor does it mean that said ideas are necessarily correct. And just because you move away from one society doesn’t mean you’ve left conformity all-together.
The reality is, when people say “think for yourself”, what they really mean is “agree with me”. And that’s a vacuous irony that needs to eventually be realized.
Topic: Atheist only panel?
Atheist: The only people on the Panel should be those non-indoctrinated, critical thinkers that can think for themselves. Forget religion, skin colour or politics. If they are educated, and can critically think, then they’re hired.
Me: of course Atheists are non-indoctrinated Critical thinker that can think for themselves.
A ExMuslim writes in response to a Muslim praising God He was born into a Muslim Family:
Responding to a ExMuslim Murat Mamkegh
Topic: You are a Muslim, because you were born into a Muslim family?
One can say the same about being born into a FAMILY whos parents happen to be Atheist. There children more then likely will be Atheist too. We are all, impacted by the environment we live in.
If Richard Dawkins had a son, I’m certain he will grow up to be like his dad, someone that he looks up to. And one can say, the son of Dawkins is gifted. He learns first hand from his father about the Atheist world view.
In fact before I started practising my faith. I grew up with a Turkish community that is from Corum. It is well known that if you are from Corum, you are either a Alaweeh, or more Atheist. Especially the Corum community here in Melbourne, Australia. Extremely rarely you will find Sunni Followers among them. In fact I grew up with most of them even during my teenage life. The boys among them were Atheist’s, and surprisingly they were Atheists, because there fathers were Atheist’s too. Usually though the eldest Grandma would be practising. I met tons of them like this in my Turkish community here where I stay.
So the point is, when you want to talk about convenience, and how we are Muslim because of where we were brought up, one can argue the same for a lot of the Atheists too.
By the way, it is a gift of God to be born into a Muslim family because its like a first hand advantage, however in our theology we believe, it could also be a disadvantage, let me explain.
The punishment could be much greater, for one who has been gifted an advantage and yet does not take upon that opportunity and disregards it. When He could have been born into a Hindu family and left in the distance.
In saying that, we still believe God is the most just, he can guide anyone know matter how disadvantage one may perceive. For a example, there are people who are born into families who are brought up to be great enemies of Islam, and yet they find guidance, like the Jews in Israel for example, I know a brother like this. And there is also stories of that Dutch politician who worked for Geert Wilder’s, and yet he left his organisation to convert to Islam. Also we believe Gods mercy is so great, that according to Islamic theology, if you dont hear the pure message of Islam come to you, then there is no sin upon you. And you will not be punished. Some Scholars say, this also includes a person now day who lives in United States, and only hears a distorded version of Islam from FoxNews. Then he will not be judged, because he didn’t hear the truth rather a distorded version. And if He dies, he will not be judged as a disbeliever. Also consider, that if a person is born to a family very distant to Islam. And yet he still converts to Islam. His conversion to Islam will be seen as a greater reward then the one who happens to be raised in a Muslim household. Therefore in (Jennah) he shall see a greater portion of reward for being put in a much more difficult position, thus the reward is greater. So we shouldn’t always look at it as a disadvantage but it could also have advantages.
Murat, you follow the tune, of Dawkins who says those very words. Your a Muslim because your parents are and so on….
But if you really think deeply one can argue, most Americans are democrats because they come from a country of demoracts, or most Russians or Chinese are communist because they come from a communist country, so this logic can apply to everything and anyone. It is true, that we can all be impacted by our environmental circumstances, but this doesn’t mean we can not think for ourselves.
Because that’s the primary argument. Well if that were the case, then you as a Atheist’s had the opportunity to think for yourself and leave Islam. And there are many stories of Atheist’s who were brought up as Atheist’s and thought about it, and converted to Islam. So you can still be a free thinker, and have faith. Or you can chose to disbelieve also.
In fact, i was brought up in a Muslim family, but they weren’t practising. There was very little connection between us and God. I lived the secular Atheist life style and didn’t care about God, or if I had to serve him, if He existed. Later in my life, I did my own research and began to realise the truth. I was about 23 years old at the time. I also did research into other faiths. So because I was born into a Muslim family, it didn’t mean we were practising, as a lot of Muslim families are cultural Muslims, you know Muslim by name, and devout only when it came to the month of Ramadan. Yeh those types.
Everyday that I’m a Muslim, I don’t sit there and close my eyes. I don’t shut myself away from the free thinking community, I engage them, so I can hear what they have to say, and in doing so I continue to test my beliefs against there’s and by doing so, I’m open to dialogue, and I enjoy it because it strengthens my faith even more that I know I’m on the haqq ( truth) again I’m old enough and wise enough to make my own decisions in life. So you need to stop, treating us as if you are the only “free thinker”.
Also about convenience; being born a Muslim is God bless, to remain a Muslim requires effort. It’s the opposite of convenience. When a Muslim starts practising, convenience goes out the window. We are not like Christians, who don’t have to worship, they just believe Jesus died for sins and they don’t even have to go to church. Whereas Muslims, you are told to give up on most Western lifestyles, and every day your battle with your (nefs) desires to obtain away from Haram and wake up early to pray your selah. One can argue, it’s more convenient to become an Atheist and not have to tire oneself, with these things.