Saturday, 25 June 2016

Iranians Fake Conversions to Christianity for Asylum in Germany (Gottfried Martens)

Sadly, a few evangelicals around the world have been conned by these stories of mass conversions of Muslim Asylum seekers from Iran to Christianity in Germany. After a short investigation we can say this appears to be a big con. In Germany, refugees from Iran and Afghanistan get a boost in their asylum application if they convert - they also get help from the German church with their application. It seems as though both groups are taking advantage of each other.

Here's a video exposing the /Iranian conversion scam in German churches

In Germany, conversion can work to a refugee’s advantage. “Members of our community are almost always granted asylum,” Pastor Gottfried Martens of the Berlin Evangelical-Lutheran Church told BZ Berlin.  [Daily Beast]

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam:

How hundreds of Muslim migrants are converting to Christianity to boost their chances of winning asylum in Germany:

Is Germany’s Refugee Crisis a Muslim Mission Field? Christian denomination of 3 million says 'strategic mission' to convert Muslims:

Andre Aggasi is Half Iranian

False Conversions of Iranian Asylum Seekers in the UK

Predator Christian Missionaries Targeting Muslim Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Europe?

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam


False Conversions of Iranian Asylum Seekers in the UK (Pastor Mohammad Eghtedarian)

An Iranian Christian pastor in Liverpool, UK, has admitted many Iranians are pretending to convert to Christianity in order to help their asylum applications.

Pastor Mohammad Eghtedarian

Asked if some people pretended to convert to Christianity in order to help their asylum applications, Eghtedarian said: “Yes, of course. Plenty of people. I do understand there are a lot of mixed motives. There are many people abusing the system – I’m not ashamed of saying that. But is it the person’s fault or the system’s fault? And who are they deceiving? The Home Office, me as a pastor, or God?” [Guardian]

Christians really need to stop crowing about supposed Iranian converts to Christianity. It's obvious we aren't talking about sincere religious conversions.

Iranians Fake Conversions to Christianity for Asylum in Germany (Gottfried Martens)

People converting to Islam

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam


Wednesday, 22 June 2016

Vocab Malone Shocked by "Racist" James White Fan Boys

Vocab Malone was appalled by the bigotry coming from Christians who were following James White's debate with a Hebrew Israelite. Before we get into this sorry episode, this is hat I wrote on FB before going on to view the debate on livestream:

Heard James R White will be debating a Hebrew Israelite. Hide under your sheets! This could literally start a race war. I've been tracking Hebrew Israelites for a while (they are those uber racist and ill mannered folk that you see on YT preaching on American inner-city street corners). Their basic claim is that they are the true Israelites (along with other groups such as native Americans).

They will call the White man the so called white man - they are really anti white man (Edomite). And they take from the KJV and claim King James was black. They also look down on people from Africa and basically anybody who is not considered Hebrew according to their chart.

Will be interesting to see if the Hebrew Israelite will race bait. James White has had his issues with bigotry towards Africans, African Americans, Arabs and other Easterners.

This could get nasty. Hide!!!

Well, it seems the gentleman from the Hebrew Israelite stance was not with GMS or ISUPK and appeared to be from a milder BHI group. I'm not 100% sure which group he belonged to as I missed the start of the debate.

James White and the Hebrew Israelite representative weren't the problem. Some of James White's supporters were the problem. They appalled Vocab Malone with their anti-black bigotry and racism. I managed to copy some of Vocab's responses:

Malone: black people use emotion - specifically black people??? ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN??

Vocab Malone: Chris Park, how dare you? Black people argue in circles??? specifically black people???

Vocab Malone: black people use emotion - specifically black people??? ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN??

Vocab Malone: I am not, I am appalled at all the racist comments. Zane.

Vocab Malone I can not believe this. I did not expect to see this kind of behaviour in these comments at all.

Vocab Malone: Movement is one thing. To make such bigoted comments about black culture is prejudice.

Vocab Malone: Felix Lee, are you a Christian? cause your thug life worthy comment is not [sorry the rest of this comment got cut off when I copied/pasted it]

Christian apologist, Vocab Malone is shocked. I'm not. Bigotry/racism towards non-Whites is not alien to Christian apologetics - I've seen Christian apologists and/or their supporters incriminate themselves in this regard. Nothing novel. Vocab was upset and shocked to see folk on the chat say black people argue in circles and are emotional.

I wasn't. Actually, I'm not surprised. These folk may have taken their cue from James White himself. White has made bigoted/racist comments about African Americans, Africans, Middle Easterners and non Westerners in general:

James White's Bigoted Comments About Middle Easterners, Africans and Asians

Now, look at it from my point of view. I'm a Muslim. I see a bunch of Christians claiming they are inspired/guided by the Holy Spirit. I also seem them being racist/bigoted towards other cultures (amongst other things such as being mean-spirited, pride-filled, rude, malicious, dishonest, Islamophobic, etc.). Thus, I see them as self-refuting!

[Some good news from Vocab Malone, one of the individuals Vocab rebuked (Chris) later thanked Vocab for the rebuke and accepted it]

A quick comment on some of the "debate". IIRC think White tried to argue for a Trinity belief  from the Old Testament, that type of argumentation is crummy as highlighted in this response to James' evangelical colleague Nabeel Qureshi. James also brought up Ignatius of Antioch and quoted from him, as there was a lot of commotion in the chat I don't recall what his precise point was to this effect. If he was doing the same as he did in his debate with Yusuf Bux by bringing those quotes up, he has thoroughly been rebuked via a video on this:

Shameless Bigotry Jay Smith

Nabeel Qureshi Apology for "Bigoted" Mockery

Muslim Helps James White out: Why Bart Erhman Finds James White Offensive

Jonathan McLatchie Islamophobic Bigotry

Scandal: Pfander Centre for Apologetics Linked to White Supremacy, Xenophobia and Racism

Rebuking Rev. Steven Martins of Evangelium & Apologia Ministries - 'Western Values'

Ted and Walid Shoebat Foul Language

Marie Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics Censors to Save David Wood's Blushes?

People converting to Islam

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam


Message of Concern: ExMuslims Come Back To Islam - Don't Give Up on the Mercy of God

This is a message of love and concern to any former Muslims that are out there experiencing hardships and loneliness.

The Islamic faith is the most spiritually uplifting when you understand a faith as opposed to being a nominal and cultural Muslim. Look into Islam with a renewed focus on spirituality and a desire to get closer to God. Start of slowly with the prayer - praying to God attentively rather than nominally will lead you to feel a spiritual empowerment that all humans yearn for.

Here's a short emotional clip from Hamza Yusuf which I think is ideal for exMuslims to see their pathway back to Islam is not irrevocably hindered. There are a number of exMuslims who make the journey back home to Islam. Come on home.

Ex Muslims invited back home

If this video does not play, please see here

People converting to Islam

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam


Monday, 20 June 2016

Ex Muslim Introverted Smiles Corrected by Muslim on Terrorist Attack on Homosexual Club

Ex Muslim vs Muslim on Orlando Massacre

If the video does not play, please see here

This is an ex Muslim who is inconsistently and ignorantly attacking Muslims for the Orlando massacre.

Introverted Smiles begins by rattling off 3 or 4 attacks by Muslim in the West yet for some reason ignores all the other attacks. What are these other attacks and are Muslims the perpetrators of these other attacks? As Russell Brad points out, the majority of terrorist attacks in the West are carried out by non-Muslims. Only 2% are carried out by Muslims.

Is it possible this man's antagonism towards Muslims is fuelled in part by irresponsible and disproportionate media coverage? It seems so, otherwise he would not be so angry with Muslims, he'd be angry with all groups!

It seems a media bias has led him to overlook the irony in rallying "white people" against Muslims. WHITE men are disproportionately responsible for most of the shootings! David Sirota points this fact out in the video.

So what's the problem here? Obviously there's an issue with the media. Is there also an issue of low self-esteem where this man (Introverted Smiles) feels he should/can pick on the Muslims as
Muslims are deemed as an acceptable target for bigotry and ire when a Muslim carries out a
shooting but, he as an obviously ethnic minority male, feels the white American male is a demographic which warrants special and superior treatment?

And what of this man's family, are they Muslims? If so, if he rallying a bunch of white Americans against them too?

He claims some Arab Muslims were happy about the killing of the people at the gay club in Orlando

OK, I haven't seen Muslims celebrating the Orlando massacre but there are ignorant and immature
people in the Muslim community too - as with all groups. However, once again, this ex-Muslim inconsistently zones in on silly Muslims for doing exactly what others are doing, including Jews,
American military personnel and Christian leaders. The video shows Christian pastors, orthodox Jews and American marines were doing the same thing he berates some Muslims on social media for!

Of course, it's easier to zone in on Muslims and African Americans. If one is suffering from self-hatred and/or low self-esteem the demographics which are socially and politically stronger are especially more difficult to criticise.

He tries to link the criminality by Omar Mateen in Orlando with Sharia

This is anti-intellectual. Sadly, this is all too common amongst Islamophobes where they try to link any action a Muslim does with Sharia. The fact is clear, this act would not be considered an act of Sharia by any Muslim scholar.

Introverted Smiles was appealing to Sharia which is irrelevant to America and the massacre itself in an attempt to try and frame Islam for this massacre.

1. Sharia law is not aplicable in non Muslim lands
2. The most popular jurisprudence school does not call for execution
of convicted homosexuals.
3. Under Sharia, 4 witnesses to the ACT are required for somebody to
be convicted of homosexual sex
4. Vigilanties are not allowed to take matters into their own hands

Here are some further points from Dr Jonathan AC Brown:

It is not same-sex attraction or desires that the Shariah prohibits. It is acting on them.

Yes, the main position in the Hanafi school of law for many centuries was that someone convicted of sodomy (which in all the schools required four witnesses to the act of penetration) was not executed but only given a milder punishment or perhaps only disciplined by a judge.

The ex Muslim critic also intimated Muslims do not respect the law of America. This paragraph from Dr Brown may also be of use:

According to the Shariah, Muslims living in the West (or other non-Muslim states) are essentially visitors from the perspective of the sacred law. The standard definition amongst Muslim scholars for the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam) was those lands where the Shariah reigns.[7] Muslims outside that space reside in lands and countries as guests of whatever legal or religious system reigns there. If the law of the land were to prohibit Muslims from carrying out a duty required by the Shariah, such as prayer, or require them to do something clearly forbidden in Islam, such as drinking alcohol, the standard opinion amongst classical Muslim scholars was that Muslims could no longer reside there (a second opinion was that they should remain so that the religion of Islam would not vanish there). Otherwise, Muslims must respect the law of the land. Their decision to reside in those lands represents their agreement to a contract with the governments ruling them. As the Quran commands Muslims, “be true to your agreements” (Quran 5:1), and as the Prophetﷺ taught, “Muslims are bound by the conditions [of their agreements].”[8] The Shariah continues to govern Muslims’ private worship and whatever areas of law the local system leaves open (such as contracts, inheritance and marriage in the US), but Muslims must respect and abide by the restrictions, duties and regulations placed upon them.

Muslim Refutes Pastor Steven Anderson's Anti-Gay and Anti-Muslim Propaganda

Ex Muslims And Self Hatred!

Growing Problem of Islamophobia in Britain What in the world is Ex Muslims of Scoland? EXMUSLIM PAWNS? Muslim Complains About BBC The Big Questions - Nicky Campbell

Difference Between Ex Muslims and Ex Muslim Extremists About 20% of British Muslim Women Feel Unsafe in Britain [QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally

People converting to Islam

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam


Muslim Refutes Pastor Steven Anderson's Anti-Gay and Anti-Muslim Propaganda

Steven Anderson, a pastor in Arizona, has put forward some anti-Muslim and anti-gay propaganda in the wake of the Orlando massacre.

If the video does not play, please see here

His first bout of propaganda was to equate homosexual people with paedophiles. The research does not support his assertions. See these citations from Dr Gregroy Herek's paper (there are more citations in the video refutation of Steven Anderson):

As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

Steven Anderson also attacked Muslims and Islam. He sad Islam was a wicked religion. However, just to show how shallow and nconsistent his claim is we can look at which religion has the better teachings on alcohol; Christianity or Islam. Islam forbids alcohol while Christianity allows it. Alcohol is linked to certain types of cancer even in moderation as well as other societal and health problems. Clearly Islam has the better teachings. Pastor Steven Anderson is confronted with a dilemma here, if Islam is wicked how did it come with better teachings than the religion you believe to be the true and holiest religion?

In the video we have a well known Islamophobe who admits Islam leads to many Muslims living upright and fine lives. How can a "wicked faith" lead to that?

Prophecies of the Messiah - Reza Aslan

British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Conversions to Islam

Learn about Islam


Monday, 6 June 2016

Debating Pantheism and Christianity - Seth Dunn's Discussion Greek Teacher Jordan

This was quite an interesting discussion. I recommend this for Muslims who are beginning to interact with folk of a Pantheistic worldview whilst simultaneously being familiar with Christian apologetics. That may not be too many Muslims. It will help you to understand this philosophy and assist in arguing against it. As a Muslim, in this discussion I found myself agreeing with the Christian on a few points

Jordan is a former Christian who knows the Bible well and is a scholar/teacher of Biblical Greek (Koine Greek). As far as I recall, he left Christianity and is now a Deistic Pantheist. Interestingly enough, Pantheism is a word which comes from Greek, pan and theos, which refers to 'all is God'.

Seth Dunn represented the Christian Biblical worldview. He has a seminary education in Christianity.

I have added some commentary and discussion points below this debate video.

Deistic Pantheist's formulate their own religion?

It is quite apparent Jordan is literally formulating his own religion as he goes along - he takes from religious texts selectively. Basically, whatever appeals to his reasoning/emotions  he accepts it. At times he was taking from the Hindu scriptures in this discussion.

Jordan, whilst discussing the topic of possible objections to Pantheism said most of them will be emotional as he doesn't use a particular text/scripture. This is a fascinating point because if you invert it, it means (for those Pantheists who don't rely on a Scripture i.e. Jordan) most of their arguments for Pantheism will also be emotional.

Coming to a particular worldview for emotional reasons is not the best way to do one's theology.

Problem of Cosmology in Pantheism

This is an interesting problem for the Pantheist worldview. We know, the Universe had a beginning (this is deduced by the observation that the Universe is expanding) while Pantheists believe "All is God". Thus, if they believe God is immutable how can they believe God is the everything we see as God is eternal while the material universe we observe is not eternal?

Biblical inerrancy

Jordan brought up the longer ending of Mark and the pericope adulterae in the Gospels (Mark and John respectively) being a big issue for him whilst he was a Christian. I suppose Luke 23:34 would have posed similar problems for Jordan back then.

I don't think Seth answers this well. He misses the real point behind the objection. Seth draws parallels between Jordan's argument and KJV Onlyists to dismiss the argument. That doesn't work. There are real issues which come to the fore when we think about the documented additions in the Biblical text.

How can Seth be sure other parts aren't additions waiting to be uncovered via new MSS discoveries?

What of the Biblical Christians prior to the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus by Dr Von Tischendorf in the 1800s? Weren't those Christians claiming to have the Holy Spirit yet believing in those two chunks Jordan brought up to be theopneustos (God breathed?)

And what about the other variants - the footnotes in Seth's Bible aren't considered to be Non-Biblical. Rather, conservative Christians consider them to be possible readings when it comes to the autographs. However, what if we have further discoveries which lead to more footnotes being added to accommodate a new reading? Who knows, perhaps John 1:1 will be found to have variants or even to be a complete addition in the future? There are some sceptical scholars who do suspect John 1:1-18 is not authentic to the autograph, they obviously base this on internal evidence rather than manuscript evidence but what if there is a new MS find to reflect this in the future?

These are huge problems for Seth and other Biblical Christians

Problem of evil (theodicy) in Pantheism and Christianity (and Islam)

Historically, this has been a talking point amongst folk of every worldview. I think this is a bigger problem for Pantheists than Christians (or Muslims) when we consider moral evil. There are two types of problems; moral and natural. In this case, moral is the one we is the focus. It is considered moral evil when humans commit reprehensible acts such as murder, rape, theft etc.

For the Pantheist, as Seth touched upon, it is God committing the evil act and being the victim of the evil act simultaneously.

Old Testament violence

Jordan experienced difficulties with Samuel 15:2-3 whilst he was a Christian. This passage from the Hebrew Bible (OT) is said to be an instruction from God via Samuel to Saul. It instructs the killing of women and children amongst others.

The thought of children being put to death will elicit emotions in any human with a heart. Jordan considered this part of the OT to be a likely addition to the text as he had moved away from Biblical inerrancy.

I thought Seth Dunn did well to raise the point to Jordan that he cannot have a moral objection to this story if he operates from a Pantheistic pradigm. Pantheism would have no problem with 1 Samuel 15 as Pantheism comes with the belief that God rapes and kills every time a murder/rape is carried out (the person carrying out the crime is said to have God inside them).

Also the idea of a Pantheist telling somebody what they did is not moral is problematic as they believe all is God.

Concluding remarks

I thought the dialogue was conducted fairly and in the spirit of friendship. I think dialogues like these will help us all to understand different worldviews and will help people with their intellectual and spiritual growth.

For me, I am surprised Jordan left the Abrahamic tradition just because of problems with the inerrancy of the Bible.

Why did he not explore Islam? Dr Jerald Dirks had a similar experience to Jordan during his studies of the NT, he came to Islam - I'd like Jordan to take the time to listen to Dr Dirk's story. Islam teaches there were Scriptures given to Moses and Jesus but these Scriptures are now corrupted thus the Hebrew Bible and the NT are not considered reliable. Islam also teaches Jesus was not God but rather a Prophet of God. This is all very interesting to somebody who follows modern day historical Jesus studies and NT textual criticism as these disciplines point to these Islamic teachings. Textual critics don't consider the text of the NT to be reliable nor authorised. Scholars like Bart Ehrman openly state Jesus would have taught himself to be a Prophet (not divine).

Some further discussion topics for our Pantheistic friends:

 - Idolatry and Pantheism. Would Pantheists not accept the worship of anything in nature as they believe whatever they are worshipping is God?

 - The universe had a beginning. The Pantheist, if consistent with the idea that God is the universe, would be left with the problem of whether God (too) has a beginning. Muslims and Christians don't have this problem as we believe God is eternal.

 - How can a Pantheist not believe in a moral law from God if there's evil? If there's an evil that means there's good. If there's good that means we have a moral law. If we have a moral law that means it can only come from God. Would this not be an argument for divine revelation from God?

 - Truth by its nature is exclusive. For example, if I say we live on Mars and you say we live on Earth, both of us cannot be right. The same applies for religious belief. However, for the Pantheist there's an added difficulty as they believe everybody is God. How can they believe God is the Christian, Muslim and the Deistic Pantheist while all three have radically different views - all three cannot be correct. For the Pantheist, God is part of this lack of truth as God is believed to be the untruthful/incorrect one too. There's a problem!

- Pantheism is not monolithic. There's a very basic belief that is common to all Pantheists but after that there are divisions. It really is the individual or a collective of individuals deciding what to believe:

At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe.

However, given the complex and contested nature of the concepts involved, there is insufficient consensus among philosophers to permit the construction of any more detailed definition not open to serious objection from some quarter or other. Moreover, the label is a controversial one, where strong desires either to appropriate or to reject it often serve only to obscure the actual issues, and it would be a sad irony if pantheism revealed itself to be most like a traditional religion in its sectarian disputes over just what counts as ‘true pantheism.’ Therefore pantheism should not be thought of as a single codifiable position. [Pantheism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Prophecies of the Messiah - Reza Aslan

British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Conversions to Islam

Learn about Islam


Sunday, 5 June 2016

Analysis: Common Evangelical Christian Argument Saying Allah is not the God of the Bible

This is a response I wrote via a comment to an evangelical Christian argument that goes along the lines of:

Islam teaches Allah is not the father of anybody while according to the Bible Jesus calls God the Father therefore Allah is not God.

It's a very simplistic argument that has an obvious fallacy to it (see my first point) and under further scrutiny we see there's an interesting side question of the authenticity of the term "my Father" attributed to Jesus in the Gospel texts (second point).

Here's the response with amendments:

Hi, IIRC you argued the God that sent Jesus cannot be the God Muslims worship as Jesus called God the Father while Islam teaches God (Allah) is not the father of anyone.

Firstly, Jews used the word abba for God in a metaphorical sense denoting closeness and an intimate relationship with God.

[Thus the prohibition of calling Allah "my Father" does not mean Allah is not God. Think about it, there are dietary laws that are taught in the Hebrew Bible but done way with in the New Testament, would the Evangelical now seriously argue the God of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is not the same God that Paul preached about? The argument is not only flawed but it is inconsistently applied]

there’s no hard evidence Jesus called God by the term “father”. If you have a look at Mark 3:35 you will see Jesus is said to have used the word God while Mattthew changes the same statement by replacing the word ‘God’ with the word ‘Father’ in Matt 12:50.

However, there are other references in Mark where "Father" is used for God. Thus, the Christian will believe both Father and God can be used interchangeably. Therefore, banning the use of "Father" would not denote an ontological change in God.

Let me know what you think of this. Also, try and visit your local mosque to study scripture together (with Muslims) and have friendship and dialogue.


Sunday, 22 May 2016

Jonathan McLatchie's Apologetics Academy, Yusuf Bux, Ijaz Ahmad and Debates!

For the last couple of days at least it's become a regular theme on Facebook where Jonathan McLatchie has been challenging Yusuf Bux to debate while refusing to debate Ijaz Ahmad of Calling Christians.

Jonathan had an opportunity to debate Yusuf Bux in South Africa. The organisers messed Yusuf around - Yusuf was up for a debate back then. If Jonathan really wanted to debate him he and his organisers they would have made it happen.

From what I recall from Yusuf, the organisers made it very difficult for Yusuf. He eventually walked away as he felt he was being messed about. I and he suspect they made it difficult for Yusuf because Jonathan's organisers felt Yusuf Bux would connect with the live audience much better than Jonathan and Jonathan's eventual opponents. Were folk like Brian Marrian and Rehan Khan lacking confidence in Jonathan hence why Yusuf Bux (an experienced public speaker) was not selected? It's all speculation now.

I have a great deal of respect for Yusuf Bux, he is passionate in reaching out to Christians in South Africa. He and his family have been working tremendously hard and resourcefully in propagating Islam and helping Muslims.

Yusuf is a public speaker. I don't think he styles himself as a debater. He delivers talks in churches and mosques concerning Islam - primarily on pure Abrahamic monotheism. He tries to communicate to the average Christian - the lay Christian - so he simplifies his argumentation. He chooses not to get involved in overly technical and philosophical discussions. That's his prerogative.

From my understanding, he was able to effectively communicate with the audience in his debates with Rudolph Boshoff and his debate with James White while his respective opponents were not connecting with the audience.

At times we, in this internet apologetics niche community, miss the point that most people out there aren't apologetically aware so some of the arguments and points we discuss in our niche community are totally foreign to the wider audience. Yusuf Bux tries to communicate with the wider audience.

Now I must say, it's curious to see Jonathan angle for a debate with Yusuf Bux after he intimated Yusuf's arguments are dated and weak. Admittedly, I do have reservations about some of the arguments that do come out of SA. Nevertheless, the point here is why would Jonathan decide to target Yusuf for a debate while Jonathan continually avoids Ijaz Ahmad's debate challenges. Ijaz is a hardened apologist and debater who chooses to involve himself in technical discussions about Christian theology - it's what he specialises in.

You see, Jonathan has come off really poorly in his interactions with experienced Muslim apologists. He struggled in his debate with Shabir Ally and struggled in his debate with Yusuf Ismail. Ijaz Ahmad and myself have corrected him and refuted him on many points over the last few months - at times on some very basic stuff highlighting his inability in dialogue with Muslims who are more experienced and aware apologetically. [NOTE: Just so pride does not kick in, Jonathan hasn't struggled because he is not smart or somehow deficient - it's because he is supporting obviously flawed ideas such as the Trinity and Bibilcal inerrancy.]

Debating people who struggle with English and who aren't involved in apologetics deeply is one thing but it's a totally different proposition to debate somebody who is hardened and aware apologetically. Something Jonathan has learned the hard way.

Jonathan, Ijaz Ahmad is waiting for you to agree to debate him. Whilst he is waiting, how about you stop asking Yusuf Bux to debate you. I understand you have been under the mentorship of Sam Shamoun - he has been avoiding YT debates for years now. He knows he will struggle in such a debate arena hence his avoidance.

How Sam Shamoun Clowns Apologists Like Tony Costa and Jonathan McLatchie (ft Iaz Ahmad!)

South African Christian-Muslim Apologetics Review Yusuf Bux and Rudoplh Boshoff (Ad Lucem)

Some past responses to Jonathan McLatchie

Ijaz's responses to Jonathan McLatchie on Calling Christians

Did Ravi Zacharias Spread a False Story About Ahmed Deedat?

An Invitation for Tony Gurule of Ratio Christi To Investigate Doubts About Trinitarian Christian Theology

James White's Bigoted Comments About Middle Easterners, Africans and Asians

A Response to Trinitarian Claims on John 17:5, John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20

James White, Trinitarian Scholar, Squirms

More Poor Scholarship from Dr James White: More Women in Hell Hadith

James White: Show Me Where Prophet Muhammad Said He was the Last Prophet p

Prophecies of the Messiah - Reza Aslan

British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Conversions to Islam

Learn about Islam


An Invitation for Tony Gurule of Ratio Christi To Investigate Doubts About Trinitarian Christian Theology

A few colleagues and I have recently been engaging Tony Gurule of Ratio Christi on matters pertaining to Christian theology.

I want to bring up 3 points that have stood out in some of the conversation I've been involved in and/or seen.

Distinction between Being and Person, in the Bible?

Firstly, I did ask Tony Gurule for a BIBLICAL distinction between being and personhood as Trinitarians believe God is One Being and 3 Persons.

Tony could not furnish such a distinction. In that case, I would say to Tony and other Trinitarians that you are getting this distinction between being and personhood form Church Tradition - thus not being true to the concept of Sola Scriptura (drawing from Scripture alone). Tony would argue it's was philosophy and not church tradition. However, this is where the semantics come in.

The distinction is not taught by the Bible - even experienced Trinitarian apologists like James White cannot come up with a Biblical distinction.

Where did the distinction come from? And what is it?

Tony is right, it's philosophy. I'm right too, it's church tradition. It can be both. It is both :)

Christians from the 4th century onwards began to develop their philosophy about God in argument with those they deemed to be heretics and in interaction with material in the Bible - the NT especially. So the philosophy of 3 persona came about through the Church. It's Church tradition.

Now Trinitarian Christians have a framework (a philosophy aka Church/Creedal tradition) with which they view the Old Testament and New Testament.

The Catholics are upfront in admitting to Church tradition, evangelicals such as Tony Gurule are reticent to do so as they openly profess to be Sola Scriptura.

However, it's obvious Church tradition has influenced Evangelicals. Not only with regards to the philosophy of the Trinity but also with regards to the Books in the NT. The Church decided which books were to be included in the NT canon - that's to say later Church tradition tells evangelicals and other Christians which books are "inspired" - the original authors did not claim inspiration. In some cases there was controversy. For instance, the Book of Revelation was mired in controversy as the Church could not decide whether to include it in canon initially.

My point here, although Church tradition seems like a dirty concept in certain evangelical communities, there's no escaping evangelicals are prone to Church Tradition when it comes to the canon and the Trinity belief.

Trinitarians may be told the Trinity is clearly deduced from the Bible but if it was so clearly taught in the Bible and so easily to come to through exegesis (rather than eisegesis) then why were there centuries of squabbling - sometimes vicious squabbling over these matters?

Can Jesus sin according to Christianity?

Tony Gurule said he believed Jesus could not sin:

I personally do not believe that He was able to sin (from the human nature of course).

Side note: There are differing opinions on this topic though. The two terms are impeccability and peccability. Some people believe that Jesus was not able to sin, and He did not, but other people believe that He was able to sin, but He did not. So, although the two groups differ on the "could," both groups believe that He did not.

Hold on, Tony and other Christians are in opposition to Matthew. Matthew does not appear to have the same belief - he seemingly believes Jesus could be tempted (thus inferring he believed Jesus could sin):

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. Mat 4:1

The same applies to Mark, he too seemingly believed Jesus could be tempted and thus presumably could sin:

and He was there for forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and the angels ministered to Him. Mark 1:13

How can one who cannot sin be tempted? It seems authors of Mark and Matthew had different views to Tony and other evangelicals.

Heresy: separating the two natures

Lastly, I'd like to raise Tony Gurule's awareness to his flirtation with Nestorianism.

Tony seemingly separated the idea of Jesus' dual natures. He stated "the human nature is completely distinct and separate".

Perhaps Tony was unaware, in separating the two natures one falls into the ancient "heresy" of Nestorianism. Admittedly, Nestorius took it to the level of believing Jesus was two persons but Tony's "separating" of the two natures is akin to how Nestorius came to the view Jesus was two persons. Christian theologians believe the two natures are actually unified. Here's RC Sproul warning against separating the two natures:

We can distinguish the two without separating them. But when the human nature perspires, it is still united to a divine nature that does not perspire. [What is the Trinity, RC Sproul, Loc397]

The teaching do not mix nor separate the natures of Jesus is one which Trinitarian theologians use to keep their flock away from Eutyches' monophysite understanding and Nestorius' Nestorianism.

A message to Trinitaian Christians from a Muslim

If you'rea Trinitarian, I suspect you will have a few doubts about Trinitarian theology. Explore those doubts.

Ponder upon the Trinity dilemma in this video. This is a powerful point to get people asking questions about the Trinity belief.

The Trinity Dilemma

Historically, the early Church Fathers did not believe in the Trinity concept.

Speaking of the pre-Nicenes, New Testament scholar Robert M. Grant perspicaciously explains that "Christology of [early Christian essentially subordinationist. The Son is always subordinate to the Father who is the one God of the Old Testament." [Dr Edgar G. Foster]

Just to show how late the Trinitarians formed the final formulation of the Trinity doctrine, as late as 380 AD the Church still had not unanimously agreed to include the Holy Spirit as a divine being. Through Gregory of Nazianzen, as late as 380, we see there was a running debate as to what to believe about the Holy Spirit. How can there have been a Trinity teaching passed down through apostles concerning the Holy Spirt if Christians were undecided on what to believe about the Holy Spirit?

"Gregory of Nazianzum could still say in 380, Some of our theologians consider the Holy Spirit to be a certain mode of the Divine energy, others a creature of God, others God Himself. Others say they do not know which opinion they ought to accept, out of reverence for the Scriptures which have not clearly explained this point."
[Sourced from Patrick Navas]

It's well known Jesus' statements were not of a Trinitarian but what you may be unaware of, Paul and Peter made statements which seemingly refute the idea of the Trinity:

In 1 Cor 8:6 Paul spells out the identity of God and identifies Him as the Father:

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

In Acts 2:36 Peter is purported to have said:

"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah."

Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical

Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?

Why Islam

Monday, 16 May 2016

Did Abu Bakr and Umar Slap Their Daughters?

A comment on a Hadith which may be confusing some people. This Hadith has Abu Bakr "slap" Aisha and Umar "slap" Hafsa. However, I did a brief search of the Arabic word used in the hadith - the word used for slapped - on an Arabic website. The website said the word وجاء is like طعن.  I checked this word which the site gave as a synonym and it doesn't mean slap - it seems more like poke.

There's also a forum discussion saying it doesn't mean slap but poke here. Here's the relevant bit from the comment explaining it:

The translation of the Hadith is wrong because the word which was used in the Hadith, in Arabic is " فوجأت " which means I poked or hit. This is a form of teaching or alerting about an incident you do not approve besides this is an act that does not cause harm at all.

Example: If your brother does something wrong or you knew he is doing something wrong, you may come to him and poke him with your hand on his waist or shoulder as a way to show your frustration and disapproval for what he does. The same applies here..

Notice the word slapped is used in this translation:

Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported:
Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) came and sought permission to see Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came 'Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Prophet (ﷺ) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter ofKhadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger (mav peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) then got up went to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and slapped her on the neck, and 'Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty-nine days. Then this verse was revealed to him:" Prophet: Say to thy wives... for a mighty reward" (xxxiii. 28). He then went first to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and said: I want to propound something to you, 'A'isha, but wish no hasty reply before you consult your parents. She said: Messenger of Allah, what is that? He (the Holy Prophet) recited to her the verse, whereupon she said: Is it about you that I should consult my parents, Messenger of Allah? Nay, I choose Allah, His Messenger, and the Last Abode; but I ask you not to tell any of your wives what I have said He replied: Not one of them will ask me without my informing her. God did not send me to be harsh, or cause harm, but He has sent me to teach and make things easy.

However, in this translation (from the site where I looked into the Arabic word) in their English translation they do not use the word slap but rather poke:

Abu Bakr once came and sought permission to see the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came ‘Umar and he sought permission, and it was granted to him, and he found the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, sitting, sad and silent, with his wives around him. He [‘Umar] said,  “I wanted to say something which would make the Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, laugh, so he said, “Messenger of Allaah, I wish you had seen [the treatment meted out to] the daughter of Khaarijah [i.e., his wife] when she asked me for some money;  I got up and poked her on her neck.” The Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, laughed and said:“They are around me, as you see, asking for provision.” Abu Bakr then got up, went to ‘Aa’ishah, may Allaah be pleased with her, and poked her on the neck, and ‘Umar stood up in front of Hafsah and poked her saying, “You ask the Messenger of Allaah for that which he does not possess?” They said, “By Allaah, we do not ask the Messenger of Allaah for anything that he does not possess.” Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty-nine days after which this verse was revealed to him

I think it would be extremely unwise and unfair to say they slapped their daughters (to hurt them) in the light of this information.

A comment on a Hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud

What is Isnad in Hadith Studies

Islamophobes: Think Before you Quote from Tareekh al Tabari

Explanation: Sun Sets in Murky Water Hadith (Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad)

False Stories About Prophet Muhammad - By Ehteshaam Gulam

Did Prophet Muhammad Say "Love of the homeland is part of faith"

Why Islam

A comment on a Hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud

Note: this is a weak Hadith. It's been classified as weak by Al-Albani see here. If you come across an Islamophobe asking you to explain it, tell them it is weak.

A man from the Ansar called Basrah said:
I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet). The Prophet (ﷺ) said: She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her (according to the version of al-Hasan). The version of Ibn AbusSari has: You people, flog her, or said: inflict hard punishment on him.
Abu Dawud said: This tradition has been transmitted by Qatadah from Sa'd b. Yazid on the authority of Ibn al-Musayyab in a similar way. This tradition has been narrated by Yahya b. Abi Kathir from Yazid b. Nu'aim from Sa'id b. al-Musayyab, and 'Ata al-Khurasani narrated it from Sa'id b. al-Musayyab ; they all narrated this tradition from the Prophet (ﷺ) omitting the link of the Companion (i.e. a mursal tradition). The version of Yahya b. Abi Kathir has: Basrah b. Aktham married a woman. The agreed version has: He made the child his servant.

Although it's weak, there some explanation of the statement "the child will be your slave":

The meaning of " take the born child as your slave" has been explained by al-khattabi who said, " I know no scholar who disgaree with the freedom of the child who came through adultery when the mother is free woman. Thus, the meaning of this statement , if this narration is proven authentic, that the prophet wanted him to look after the child and raise him well so and in return the child will serve hi like a slave due to his goodness and kindness towards him".

See here for more discussion and explanation of this weak hadith here:

What is Isnad in Hadith Studies

Islamophobes: Think Before you Quote from Tareekh al Tabari

Explanation: Sun Sets in Murky Water Hadith (Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad)

False Stories About Prophet Muhammad - By Ehteshaam Gulam

Did Prophet Muhammad Say "Love of the homeland is part of faith"

Why Islam

Saturday, 14 May 2016

Quran’ic Exegesis of al-Ikhlas as a Corrective of Trinitarian Theo-Christology by Ali Ataie

(v. 1) As stated earlier, the word Allah is the proper Name of God that shares an etymology with the Hebrew (in pluralis majestatis) Elohim (אֱלֹהִים), probably from the root a-li-ha (ألِهَ) meaning “to go to and fro in fear and perplexity” or from aleph-waw-lamed (אול), meaning “strength and power” and related to the Arabic Form II awwala (أول), “to interpret” or “find the origin of.” Ash’arite theologians offer the following brief definition of Allah: “A proper name denoting the Essence (which is) the Necessary Existent; the one deserving of all perfection and transcendent above all deficiencies” (علم على ذات الواجب الوجود، المستحق لجميع الكمالات المتنزه عن جميع النقاءص).

The Qur’an is confirming in principle that the God of Muhammad is the same God of the biblical prophets, including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. The word Ahad (أحد) is taken by Suyuti as either a permutative (بدل) or a second predicate (خبر ثان), with Huwa as subject and the Exalted Expression (لفظ الجلالة), i.e. Allah, as first predicate.

Tantawi says that the Exalted Expression as predicate indicates the occasion of the surah’s Revelation (سبب النزول) in which a group of Jews approached the Prophet asking about the identity of his God - “Who is He (Huwa)?” This is described in detail by al-Wahidi. As discussed in chapter two, the pronoun Huwa, spelled ha-waw and meaning “He (is),” is close to the meaning of the enigmatic tetragrammaton (Shem HaMeforash) spelled yod-he-waw-he (יהוה), if we consider this to be the imperfect tense of the verb hawah (הוה), meaning to “to be,” thus “He is” (yihweh), and translated as ὁ ὤν ([“I am] He who is”) in the LXX (from the 1p sing. Ehyeh [Exo. 3:14]). According to the Mishnah, the Shem HaMeforash was only articulated in the Temple by the High Priest (HaCohen HaGadol) and was believed to be the most exalted Name of God, the actual Name of His Essence in distinction to “Allah/Elohim” which indicated His Essence. Thus Huwa, or Hahut (هاهوت) according to Ibn al-’Arabi, is believed to be al-Ism al-’Azam (الإسم الأعظم), the very Name of God’s Essence according to al-Razi.

 To put it in Philonic terms, Allah (الله)/Elohim (אֱלֹהִים) = Ho Theos (ο θεος) while Huwa (هو)/Yihweh (יהוה) = Ho On (ὁ ὤν).

The usage of Ahad as opposed to Wahid (واحد) is intended to confirm the fundamental creedal statement of the Children of Israel (بني إسرائيل), i.e. the Shema of Deut. 6:4: “Hear O Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is One (Echad)” (שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד); and confirmed by Christ in Mark 12:29 (ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι πρώτη ἐστίν ἄκουε Ἰσραήλ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν).
 Also, while wahid denotes one numerically and thus does not negate the existence of other “ones,” ahad, being also anarthrous, denotes utter uniqueness, one of a genus. In addition, Ahad negates the henotheism of the pre-Islamic Arabs who certainly affirmed that Allah was Wahid, but also acknowledged the existence of lesser deities.

With respect to Christianity, the Qur’an repudiates the belief that God has a “Son” (ولد) in the Trinitarian sense by stating that “Allah is only One (واحد) God” (Q 4:171.5). Thus while Allah is numerically one (واحد), the term wahid also denotes His “internal oneness,” i.e. He is only one person (hypostasis; Arab. nafs; Heb. nefesh); there is no multiplicity in the godhead and He shares His Essence with no one and nothing else.

 This is the heart of the Qur’an’s critique of Trinitarianism. There are not multiple hypostatic (personal) pre-eternals; the attributes (sifat) of God are not separate and distinct hypostatic entities. The usage of Ahad in this ayah (112:1), however, denotes God’s “external oneness” thus not allowing any creature to be the incarnation of that indivisible Essence (ousia) since He is transcendent of space, time, and materiality, contra both Incarnational Modalism (Monarchism) and Trinitarianism. In this vein, Hosea (11:9) says: “Indeed I am God and not man” (כִּי אֵל אָֽנֹכִי וְלֹא־אִישׁ).

Taken from Ali Ataie's FB

Thursday, 21 April 2016

Muslim Discusses John 3:16 - Aqil Onque



In refuting the current day Christian Apologist and polemist, I will be looking a bit deeper at the pivotal verse of Christian faith and doctrine found in the book of John, 3:16. This may in fact be the most quoted verse in the Bible, while also the most misunderstood or misplaced one as well. The Christian propagates this verse and hails it at the nonbeliever at any chance possible. But, it is the false notion and misunderstanding in which they assault people that is the problem, as we will come to see here.

The aforementioned verse is not an isolated verse that can be cited without looking at the doctrinal implications behind it, or the contradiction thereof. And, though many things are left for interpretation, the Bible enthusiasts love to decorate this verse with all of the extra curricula doctrine that was not taught by Jesus himself. For instance, they love to imply that this verse is referring to the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus. However, such a doctrine and belief was NEVER taught by Jesus. We are hard pressed to find any teaching of Jesus, from the words of Jesus, that his mission was to come and die and be resurrected for the sins of man to be forgiven. Rather, it is Paul who said that, “If Christ was not raised, then your faith is in vain…” 1 Corr 15:14-17. But given this Pauline reality and teaching, everything is viewed through his theology and doctrine. Just look at the fact that John 3:16 does not have any mention of Jesus dying or being raised up. Rather, it just mentions that out of the love of God, He gave Jesus. Yet, for some reason, no Christian will quote this verse without telling you that it means the death and resurrection of Jesus! Why? Because they have been brainwashed and indoctrinated to do so. Putting this aside, let us look at some of the theological consequences and relationships of John 3:16 with Christian doctrine.

I would like to examine this verse in relation to five core Christian beliefs, and then refute each of these beliefs as non biblical and contradictory, all the while connecting it to the conclusion of John 3:16, while showing that John 3:16, in fact, does not support such false claims, not even the love of God as the bible thumper tries to impress upon us. The five core beliefs are as follows:

      1. The sole need of blood for atonement (fabrication)

2.      The human god sacrifice (fabrication)

3.       The Original sin (fabrication)

4.      The holy God versus the unholy man (fabrication)

5.      The unconditional love and forgiveness (fabrication)

Before we explore these five core Christian beliefs, let us first have a look at the verse in John under discussion.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

There are four clear declarations in this verse, namely:

1          That God loved the world

2        That, because of this love, God gave His son

3         That God only has One and only One son

4        And that whoever believes in this son, will not perish but have everlasting life.

A few words about these points, before we look at our five core Christian beliefs in relation to the verse itself and the idea of the love, unconditional love of God as implied and declared by Christians.

 When we truly examine this and the Christian doctrine, we must conclude that this expression of love is either a farce and a lie, or that the god of John 3:16 has failed miserably in truly expressing his love. Why is that, do you ask? Consider this. The verse clearly connects the fact that the son was given, due to the love of God for the world.  In other words, giving the son was God’s way of expressing His love to the world.  But, the problem arises in a related doctrine of the Christian, which is in Predestination.  The Christian believes that it is solely God that elects His believers and man has absolutely no role in receiving the grace of God.  This is most clear in the statement of Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9.  If it is God alone that elects those who will believe, without any action of man that would warrant election or rejection, then this expression of giving the son, so that to believe in him would allow for eternal life, all because of the love of God for the world, is a hoax and a lie!  How could anyone benefit from the son, when ultimately, God is the one that elects those who will in fact believe? This idea is akin to saying, if I have ten or more children and I promised to buy them all new cars because of my love for them, but I know that I will only allow a few of them to drive, while the others will never be able to, then how is this act of buying them cars a true expression of my love? For my expression brings absolutely no benefit to them, which means that either, my expression of loving in giving them the cars (giving his son) was either a deceptive lie, or I failed in truly loving them all as I stated, for I was only able to benefit a few, in spite of my statement to all.  And the intent for benefit is clearly made clear, for accepting the son is what is said will allow for eternal life.  Evidently, God’s intent was to benefit by the giving of the son.  But in what way did those benefit, who were never elected by God?  So it is clear that this verse and what it attempts to propose is inconsistent and incongruous with what was stated by Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9.

The next two points; one is the idea that God gave His son.  Was this giving of His son freely and unconditional? What was the mission of his son? Did the son know his mission? Was this mission ever declared by God? Was this mission ever declared by the Son? What does son mean here?  Is this some special kind of son?  Which joins the us to the point of this verse in which it says that he is the one and Only son, only begotten son! In actual fact, God has many sons in the Bible!  Adam is called the son of God.  Angels are called the sons of God.  So, what is it about this sonship that is so special? Could it be the idea that Jesus was the only begotten son?  Well, this is false also, as God himself declares that he had begotten David,     Psalms 2:7.  Thus, it is impossible for God to have only one begotten son since there are more than one begotten sons clearly attributed to God in the Bible.
Lastly, let’s look at the idea that believing in the son brings everlasting life. Well, again, according to Christian doctrine, God is the sole decider of those elect.  Man has absolutely no part to play in the election of God.  Thus, believing in the son means nothing, because if God didn’t elect you, your belief means nothing. It would just be a wasted life and this is most evident in the words of Jesus in the book of Matthew, 7:21-23, where he says:
 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
So, it becomes quite clear that the Christian finds himself in a serious quagmire. On the one hand, he wants to believe in Christ for salvation, even though he really has no ability to decide this since only God chooses the elect.  Furthermore, if in fact he did believe, this belief of his does not assure him salvation as was promised, due to the fact that many will be rejected by Christ!  So, basically, damned if you don’t and maybe damned if you do as well.  As we can see, it is not such a win-win situation as the Christians might espouse it to be. Good luck!
Now that we have briefly dealt with John 3:16, let us turn our attention to the five core Christian beliefs that fail to measure up against the verse under discussion and are either contradicted by it, or contradict it. Through this, we will be able to conclude that the Christian doctrine and faith ultimately fails because it is a self defeating doctrine and theology from the position of its scripture and non-scripture based beliefs.


The Christian has been tricked and programmed into accepting a completely fabricated doctrine as it relates to the scriptural position on atonement and the use of blood. The Christian new blood doctrine absolutely stresses the fact that blood is the ONLY means to forgiveness and that without blood, there is no remission of sin.  This idea is found in the book of Hebrews, 9:22.

However, there are a number of problems with this belief.  First and foremost, such an understanding was never believed or understood by the Jewish community at any time in history and this is a very essential point to consider.  Furthermore, there is NOTHING in the Old Testament that supports such an exaggerated and forged belief.  Rather, the Old Testament states the opposite and promotes repentance and forgiveness without any blood sacrifice.  For example, refer to Ez. 33:11-16, Ez. 18:20-24, 2Chr. 7:14, Is. 55:7, Hos. 6:6, Ps. 51:17, 1Sam. 15:22, and others.  We see in these verses that blood is not at all a necessity for atonement and forgiveness.  On the contrary, the Old Testament clearly states that one can easily petition God for forgiveness through prayer and repentance while never needing to use any blood sacrifice.  Moreover, any use of a blood sacrifice would and could never be completed without prayer and petitioning God for atonement. Then, here comes Christianity and turns this practice completely upside down so that they can usher in this exclusively blood atonement doctrine that could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the blood of a human god, an incarnate god!

Further, the main catalyst for this doctrine of blood atonement is found in the book of Hebrews and it has become common knowledge that the scholars of the Bible agree almost unanimously that the author of the book of Hebrews is UNKNOWN! Thus, we are burdened with an unknown doctrine, presented by an unknown author!  Are we really to take this seriously?

Another point to consider is the fact that the sin offering was predominantly for “unintentional” sin.  Though there are some cases in which it extended outside of that, the common practice and stance was that it was for unintentional sins, brought with confession for atonement.  Please see, Lev. 5:14-19, Lev. 7:7-11, Num. 15:27-30 to substantiate this point. Since blood sacrifice was not required for all sins and intentional and severe sins demanded much more than any blood atonement could offer, how did we get to the doctrine that, without the spilling of blood, there is no remission of sins?  Who taught this ideology?  Was it Abraham, Moses, or Jesus?  Who?  The author of the book of Hebrews, that’s who!  And who might that have been?  I hope you understand the bewildering nature of this issue now.

To close this point, I would like to cite a very insightful verse from the Qur’an that truly puts this discussion in its proper context. In Surah Hajj, 22:37, after mentioning about the animals of sacrifice, though in a different context, but very relevant in principle, it states:

“Their meat will not reach ALLAH, nor will their blood, but what reaches Him is piety from you. Thus have We subjected them to you that you may glorify ALLAH for that [to] which He has guided you; and give good tiding to the doers of good.” 

This verse makes it quite clear that God is concerned with our obedience and devotion to Him, not with the blood involved in any act.  The blood does not reach God; but rather, the demonstration and striving of the servant to do their best to satisfy the commands of their Lord.

As we can see, this verse of John 3:16 has almost no relevance when it comes to the issue of blood atonement.  If the Christians insist that we, as humanity, needed an ultimate blood sacrifice, thus God, knowing this, out of His love sent Jesus for this, then we have to beg the question, did we in fact need a blood sacrifice for atonement in the first place?  The burden of proof is upon the Christian to prove this!  And we know that can’t be done from the Old Testament, as we have proven!  So, what do they have to prove their case? We think nothing, but we will wait and see.

The great Christian reformer and theologian of the 16th century, Martin Luther, commenting on the self loathing and despised doctrine of Christianity, said the following; “The most damnable and pernicious heresy that has ever plagued the mind of man is that somehow he can make himself good enough to deserve to live with an all Holy God.”
Echoing such a mentality, the Christians berate the world with quotes and doctrines of self loathing and self despised rhetoric that traps the individual into a downward spiral of moral regress in order to build up the human /god doctrine.  To read some of the earliest writings from the church fathers on how they viewed the self and the world will make you lose your lunch in your lap if you were not prepared.  One can get a glimpse of this sinister doctrine by reading the writings of Paul in the New Testament.  For instance read the more famous support for this in Romans 3:10-18.  And then there is the infamous quote, (always out of context), of Isaiah 64:6, in which it states that our righteousness is like that of filthy rags.  Such non contextual quotes, along with other passages, have a twofold effect and both are ungodly and unproductive.  The first is that such a pathetic disposition prepares you for the blasphemous doctrine of incarnation of God.  For one is so filthy, that God won’t even look his way!  Thus, the only way that God can help man is if God becomes man!  Then die, so that the holy blood of the incarnate god can be spilled for the remission of sins for man once and for all! The second effect is that such a doctrine instills in the subconscious of the self a feeling of contentment with being lowly and a lack of aspiration for rising above and challenging oneself to be better in deeds before God.  Why would one exert oneself in good works when deeds are regarded as filthy rags anyway?  So, remain pathetic and depend upon some divine savior.

This doctrine is again in opposition to the Old Testament teachings and understandings of the people for over thousands of years before the New Testament and the new Christian faith.  One will find explicit and strong verses like Jeremiah 17:10, which states; “I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve.”  Such a verse, along with what we read in Psalms 37:27-29 as well as many other verses, all show that God is expecting good deeds from us.  They are to be done earnestly, as a token of deep gratitude to God and a petition to God for His favor and reward, not in boast.  The new doctrines  taught by the Christians of this idea of self-worthlessness is paralyzing and un godly, to say the least.

Now, let us look a bit at this need for a human/god and its related belief.  Given that we have proven from the Bible that God actually encourages us to do good works and to expect to be rewarded for it, we are in no need for God to come down himself and save us. God does not  deem us unclean and unworthy; but rather, God wants to see the best from us.  He wants to bring out the best in us and have us achieve our maximum human potential, which is to be as righteous and faithful as possible. All for His glory!  Not that we sit on our unholy bottoms waiting for some savior to rescue us from our lowly despised states!  NO!  Rise up and be counted and do your level best before God, for your salvation depends on it!  In the Qur’an, 17:13-14, God says, “And [for] every person, We have imposed his fate upon his neck, and We will produce for him on the day of Resurrection a record which he will encounter spread open. [It will be said], Read your record! Sufficient is yourself against you (or for you) this day as accountant.”

In conclusion of this second point, as this relates to John 3:16, after looking at the historical picture of relationship that man has with God in trying his best to work righteousness and earn His favor, we see that we are not by default despised and filthy and unworthy before God. Rather we have an honor and dignity that God gave us above everything in creation, as  is beautifully articulated in the Qur’an when it states, 17:70, “Indeed, We have honored, (dignified) the children of Adam…” So we sit not inept, but empowered by God to be His representative and to lead the true way of life back to Him.  We are not pathetic and in need of a savior to come die for our sins. What we are in need of is the Divine Watch of our Lord and His guidance through His Scripture and Messengers and His forgiveness as we traverse this path. Thus we conclude that the Bible itself, the Old Testament and even passages in the New Testament refutes the idea of John 3:16, as commonly interpreted to us by the bible thumpers.


In what has remained to be the irrefutable refutation of this Christian doctrine, the most clear and explicit verses of Ezekiel 18:1-24, we cite for you in this point.

The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: “ ‘The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die. “Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor’s wife or have sexual relations with a woman during her period. He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. He does not lend to them at interest or take a profit from them. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between two parties. He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign Lord. “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things (though the father has done none of them): “He eats at the mountain shrines. He defiles his neighbor’s wife. He oppresses the poor and needy. He commits robbery. He does not return what he took in pledge. He looks to the idols. He does detestable things. He lends at interest and takes a profit. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head. “But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things: “He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor’s wife.

He does not oppress anyone or require a pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor and takes no interest or profit from them. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.”

This is the Jewish teaching on sin! This was Jesus teaching on sin! This was Moses and Aaron and all of the Prophets and Messengers teaching on sin! So where did we get this doctrine of original sin from? Yep, you guessed it. Paul again! As he make this doctrine clear in Romans 5:19 and most explicit in 1 Corinthians 15:22. But, how does he promote such a doctrine so fundamentally opposed to the Jewish teaching? The secret to the answer lies in the fact that Paul was adamant about being the appointed apostle of Jesus that would preach to the Gentiles! Why? Because he knew quite well that his new message could no way resonate with a serious Jewish audience. For they knew such ideas as original sin, incarnate, human sacrifice and all of these paganistic influences into their Jewish faith was unacceptable.
A quick consideration to ask you, as we discuss original sin, that you keep in mind that this is the same doctrine responsible for the corrupted belief that will put millions of innocent children into the blaze of hell, all because of the fact that sin is supposedly inherited. And because God is so holy and sin is so lowly, that even a baby who have not accepted the only means of sin remission, which is the blood of Jesus, will be cast into hell, because God can’t bear to look at him. Yes, an innocent baby is not even spared from original sin. Just something to keep in mind
In conclusion of this third point, as it relate to John 3:16, it is obviously clear that original sin doctrine is a concocted heretical belief. This being proven by the extensive quote from Ezekiel 18:1-24. This being the case, if no one can die for the sin of another, then what purpose would a savior who die for your sins be?  Again, proving the fallacy of the verse of John 3:16

Though this is not a doctrine of the Christians as stated, the concept is one deeply entrenched into the thoughts and theology of the Christians. Now, we will all proclaim the Exaltedness of God and how far removed He is from being associated in being and essence with man! But never will we stoop to such a low opinion of God, that he has made the human being so vile and corrupt and wicked and filthy and stained and detestable and unworthy and inept that the only way that this creation of His could ever receive redemption and salvation is if God himself had to come and die!

How would you feel if your father considered you so despicable  that he didn’t even want you to tell people you were his son? He was so ashamed of you that he could not even bear to look at you!  You were so worthless, that no matter what you did, even of good, it amounted to absolutely nothing? How would you feel? Well, try to understand that this is the way the Christians view God over man. They may deny it, because who would in their right mind accept such an idea? But, when you explore the theology and doctrine of the Christians, this is what you will come up with! Such beliefs is the essence of making the idea of  the incarnate god a savior for man. Have you ever talked with a Christian? Have you ever heard him say, we are too unclean? What do you think he means? Ask him. But in the meantime, lets quote again Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant  reformation and movement of the 16th century; he said:  “The most damnable and pernicious heresy that has ever plagued the mind of man is that somehow he can make himself good enough to deserve to live with an All Holy God.” And this is just one quote. There are literally tons of such expressions from the early church fathers on this idea. 

Now, the question that needs to be asked and addressed is this, how did man ever have any kind of fruitful personal relationship with God prior to the advent of Jesus? If the Christians believes that God has such a loathing attitude towards man because he is stained with sin, then how did man last the tolerance of God for so long? Of course, we see a quite different narrative in the Old Testament, as well as the Qur’an. We seen several quotes from the Old Testament, and here is one most intimate verse about God and His relationship with man. In the Qur’an 2:186; “And when my servant ask you [O  Muhammad], concerning Me, indeed I am near. I respond to the invocation of the supplicant when he calls upon Me. So, let them respond to Me  [by obedience] and believe in Me that they may be [rightly] guided.” 

Now we are interested in the Christians answering these questions, for it is their theology and doctrine that promotes it. We would like to hear what they really have to say about it and their proof texts from the Old Testament.

In conclusion of this fourth point, as it relates to the verse John 3:16, if it is proven, and we believe that it is, that the relationship between God and man was not as strained as the Christians would have us to think, then there would be no need for a savior, as man could, as he was turning to god in repentance long before the arrival and departure of Jesus! Further, if this doctrine is true, then another question arises. Why were the first followers of Jesus, even after his departure, still making sin and guilt offerings? If Jesus act on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice, then what were Peter and James and the others still making sacrifices at the temple? It’s makes absolutely no sense! Just a bit more to think about and another question to ask our Christian friends pushing the bible down your throat. Take a minute to clear your throat, and ask a couple of questions yourself.  So, we see again the failure of John 3:16. What need was there for a savior, a divine savior, when man was already turning to God for forgiveness? Forgiveness? That brings us to our next and final point.


It would be such a nice flowery message to have one believe, that no matter what, God loves you; this is especially the case for the Christian since already they understand how loathsome they are to God because of sin. Though the two beliefs are clearly contradictory to each other, it seems that doesn’t cause much care to the Christian. But this is what their faith adheres to. Now, the concept of love is probably thee greatest emphasis of Christians as it relates to God, and it’s clear that John 3:16 has a great deal to do with that. However, does the claim hold up? When we examine the Christian doctrine and theology against the Old Testament passages we are faced with some serious problems and these problems seems to never stop popping up. Here I want to look at two main problems. The first is that, the view that the Christians have of the love of God is not supported by the Old Testament. Which lends to the belief that either God has changed, and changed drastically or that the New Testament projection of God is a forged doctrine foreign to the earlier revealed scriptures. And the second problem is that the concept of forgiveness in the New Testament and amongst the Christians is misleading, even to a lie. For if the idea that God MUST take every sin into account and that it MUST be punished, then where is the reality of forgiveness in this? It’s nonexistent! You cant have absolute retribution and at the same time claim forgiveness!

Now, let us explore these two problems facing the Christian theology and doctrine and expose them for what they are.      

The Christian, when asked about the love of God will tell you that God love all and that Christians love all. But neither is true, and this is proven from the Old Testament and the New Testament. For it states in the Old Testament, Deut. 7:9-11, “Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments. But those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction; he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him. Therefore, take care to follow the commands, decrees and laws I give you today.”  Does this sound unconditional to you? God is faithful… keeping His covenant of love to… those who love him and keep His commandments… Now, is this the same God of the New Testament? Did something change along the way? Please help us understand how all of a sudden now in the New Testament, supposedly, God loves everyone no matter what.
How about Psalms 7:11 “God is a righteous judge, a God who displays his wrath every day.”
These are verses that no Christian can explain how they coincide with their concept of God, all the long in their delusion they believe something contrary. It is for proofs like these that we really have to scrutinize the New Testament message and the Christian doctrine. For it fails the test, over and over again and presents an unsupported theology that can’t be substantiated by or through the former scriptures. Unconditional love from God is not a biblical concept and it never has been, until the Christians arrived and tried to make this the message of Jesus decades to centuries later after Jesus.
 Then there is the case of forgiveness, or should we say the absence of forgiveness. While the doctrine of the Christian is staunch on the consequence of sin is death and that no sin can go unpunished, they are either deluded or sinful liars to turn around and try to preach that the god of this doctrine is also forgiving.  It’s impossible for both to be true! If God is forgiving, then He won’t punish every sin, as He will forgive. That’s the whole purpose of forgiving, so as to not punish for the sin committed. However, if one insist that all sins must be punish, then by default that eliminates any idea of forgiveness, for retribution was exacted. Look at what it states in the Bible; 2 Chronicles 7:14, “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”  How do we get around such explicit verses that crushes the Christian doctrine? If there is any truth to the Old Testament, then we are forced to abandon the New Testament. For they both can’t be correct. This reminds me of the piercing declaration in the Qur’an 2:113 where it states, “The Jews say "The Christians have nothing [true] to stand on," and the Christians say, "The Jews have nothing to stand on," although they [both] recite the Scripture. Thus the polytheists speak the same as their words. But Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ.”  Certainly, some insightful words to conclude with, so reflect, will you!

In conclusion of this fifth point, as it relates to John 3:16, we have seen that the God of the Old Testament has a particular love that is reserved for those who love Him and keep His commandments. That He is angry at the wicked and punishes them. Yet, at the same time, he encourages His faithful to repent and do good deeds to petition His forgiveness. This does not sound like the God of John 3:16, who  promotes an unconditional love, yet has seen the need to send himself to come die for all sins, because he needs to spill blood to forgive. And again, if the Old Testament is true, which the Christians believe is the case, then John 3:16 and a great deal of the New Testament material can’t be true as well.
This concludes our look at 5 core beliefs of the Christian faith and how they all are proofs against the often quoted verse of John 3:16. Moreover, we showed how the Christian doctrine and theology is filled with contradictory precepts and unsubstantiated claims. All of this through textual proofs and sound reasoning, we provided.  We now invite our Christian friends to go back and investigate your doctrine and theology and correct it as needed and see that your path is neither consistent with itself nor other previous scriptures. This we hope is enough to awaken you all to the facts of your misguidance and serve as an impetus to your finding the truth.