Samuel Green:“Did Muhammad fight before the hijrah?
Initially when I gave Samuel Green’s article a cursory glance I felt Samuel Green produced one of the most pointless articles I have witnessed in my time investigating Christian outreaches to Muslims. However upon reviewing it further in detail I must revise my opinion. Samuel Green is attempting to (subtly) reinforce or even reintroduce shoddy conspiracy theories in a misguided attempt to re-write history!
Samuel Green, though gentle enough, is very much in league with the fundamentalist brigade of Christian apologists/haters on the internet such as Sam Shamoun and David Wood, thus our friend Sam Green warrants a forthright approach as subtlety is rarely an effective manner of reasoning with the Islamophobe-types who reside in Green’s camp.
I personally skipped over this until the YouTube video-maker, propagator and apologist of Islam, 1MoreMuslim, got involved in discussing Green’s article within the comment section. What happened next? 1MoreMuslim sends me an email informing me of his comments being unapproved (blocked?). I have since asked 1MoreMuslim to double check whether he has been blocked or if it is a case of Acts 17 Apologetics delaying in approving comments
IF he has been censored:
So Samuel Green and company allow some of 1MoreMuslim’s comments to go through but as soon as the dialogue threatens to become in depth and begins to show Green to be extremely erroneous Samuel Green’s friends decide to block 1MoreMuslim. This is extremely suspicious as 1MoreMuslim was contributing to the dialogue in a manner which was erudite and decent. In short there was no reason for him to be censored. It gets even more baffling as Samuel Green (now somewhat paradoxically) asked for feedback vis-à-vis his article:
“What do you think?”
Quite how Samuel Green expects to get feedback whilst his dishonest friend (most likely David Wood) blocks reactive comments behind Green’s back is beyond me. Perhaps Green would like to choose a better group of friends. Unfortunately this seems unlikely as he has been in union with the bigot Sam Shamoun for a good number of years so asking him to extradite himself from his current social circle is really asking.
Rebuking Samuel Green
In any case let’s focus on Green’s material and pick at the holes within. To do so I will adopt a two-pronged approach:
1. Briefly run through Samuel Green’s work myself whilst adding critique to it
2. Bring in 1MoreMuslim's dismissal of Green’s claims
In the way of a disclaimer I would like to state none of my analysis is designed to make Samuel look silly and I am pretty certain 1MoreMuslim’s comments were not designed for the purpose of ridicule. At this juncture I would also like to add the unscholarly nature of Green’s work warrants sharp rebuke
Analysis of Sam Green’s Conspiracy Theories and Conjecture
Green entitle his article; “Did Muhammad fight before the hijrah?
Samuel Green seems to have little regard for scholarship as scholarship tells us Muhammad did not fight prior to the Hijrah. The Muslims lacked any real capacity to do so.
Green, however, knows this but is trying to sow seeds for his conspiracy theories and conjecture.
Green goes on:
“In the histories I have read about Muhammad, I have been told that before the hijrah he endured suffering and shame from the Meccans and never fought or was violent. I may have misunderstood the Muslim claim but this is what I understand, that Muhammad did not fight before the hijrah.”
Green need not bother playing innocent here. Sam Green knows full well this is the Muslim claim as well as the Non-Muslim claim. All scholarship agrees on this fact. Thus it would appear Green is wasting his time. Nevertheless Samuel Green persists and even pulls out his ace from the pack:
However, I am reading my way through the qur'an and it seems this understanding of Muhammad's life does not work easily.
So Green is now arguing against expertise. Who exactly is Samuel Green? Green would do well to know his place. To Green’s credit he does bring an argument to cast doubt on the said scholarship. It must be noted his argument is laced in ignorance and is highly spurious:
In Sura 16 (the bee)Islamic scholars say that verse 110 comes for the Medinan period and has been inserted into this Meccan sura.
Then lo! thy Lord - for those who became fugitives after they had been persecuted, and then fought and were steadfast - lo! thy Lord afterward is (for them) indeed Forgiving, Merciful. 16:110
Sam Green fails to mention the scholars he speaks about but goes on to impute thought upon them (again without mentioning the scholars involved):
“The reason for saying this verse is inserted is that it refers to fighting in a Meccan period sura”
Samuel Green gets Interesting
OK, Green has laid out his cards and wants to concentrate on two points from his agenda. Here is Green trying to get us to follow his unorthodox thought pattern - a thought pattern which is merely employed in an attempt to deconstruct Islam and has nothing to do with intellectual integrity or scholarship:
“If the Qur'an is the best source for understanding Muhammad's life (and I think it is), then doesn't it appear that he was fighting before the hijrah? Maybe the hijrah happened not because Muhammad was the victim but because he was the unsuccessful aggressor?”
Is Green serious here? How can the Quran be the best source of understanding the life of Prophet Muhammad (p) when we have Ahadith literature which is more focussed on the personal activities of the Prophet Muhammad?
The Quran is the Book revealed by God (Allah) to the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran is not about Prophet Muhammad and is a Revelation for Mankind as Guidance. The Quran is the Book revealed by God (Allah) to the Prophet Muhammad.
Therefore this Book is not going to be more relevant in studying the life of Muhammad than the Ahadith literature which would factor in Muhammad’s sayings and daily activities amongst other things as Ahadith literature is essentially about Muhammad. A testimony to this fact would be the biographers’ predominant use of material from Ahadith literature in order to compile their respective biographies of Prophet Muhammad (p). Common sense tells you Green is mistaken. Sadly, common sense eludes critics as their desperate desire to have a pop at Islam blinds them
Green is either grossly negligent in this remark or is being intellectually dishonest in order to build a case according to his personal agenda. Please have a rethink, Sam, You do yourself no favours at all in operating at such a level.
Now let us focus on Green’s strange idea (dare I say “crack pot idea”, sorry Sam):
“Maybe the hijrah happened not because Muhammad was the victim but because he was the unsuccessful aggressor?”
From my experience it never takes too much reading before you come across a completely over-board suggestion/assertion from somebody who is linked with Sam Shamoun. Green does not buck the trend.
Sam Green makes this suggestion based on what? Nothing at all. The biographers do not document anything of such a nature and maintain the Hijrah was due to the Quraish’s persecution of the Muslims. As per usual Green makes his claim without bringing any evidence
Al Mubarekpuri, nor any other biographer, cites anything which supports Sam Green’s strange claim. Quite how Sam Green thinks such a small group of persecuted Muslims in Makkah can be the aggressors is beyond me this disbelief in the reasoning of Green is compounded by the fact no authority supports his conspiracy theory.
Effectively Samuel Green is doing away with all the experts in the field as well as all the source literature in favour of his conspiracy theory. You can imagine Green being amongst those Christians who believe the forgeries within the Bible are inspired too.
Here is Sam Green’s last conspiracy theory:
“Is it right for Muslim scholars to use the theory of "inserted verses" to explain why their reconstruction of Muhammad's life does not match up with what the Qur'an says?”
Essentially Green accuses Muslim scholars of dishonesty.
This is rich coming from Samuel Green, the man who is a partner of Sam “Muslims are black stone lickers” Shamoun. Those in glasshouses should not throw stones, Sam.
The “theory” of inserted verses
Samuel Green is an enigma. He is making a disparaging claim without any knowledge whatsoever. Green admits to his ignorance in the comment section:
“What evidence do we have that Muhammad moved verses around?”
Green fails to realise we DO have evidence of verses being arranged by the Prophet himself! I guess ignorance is bliss for Sam.
Firstly Al Azami, upon speaking of the Surahs and Verses, states:
It is commonly acknowledged that the arrangement of ayat (verses) and suras (chapters) in the Quran is unique. The layout does not follow the chronological order of revelation, nor does it follow subject matter.
Here is a narration (Hadith) which shows us verse insertion was carried out by the Prophet himself as Al Azami writes:
“Uthman states that whether the revelation consisted of lengthy, successive verses, or a single revelation in isolation the Prophet would summon one of his scribes and say, “Place this verse [of these verses] in the sura where such and such is mentioned”” [ Tirmidi Sunnan no 3086] [1]
Al Azami goes on to give further evidence of verse insertion being supervised by the Prophet (p) [1]. For our purposes of educating Green so he desists in spreading silly conspiracy theories this is sufficient.
I would also remind Green the Surahs were recited in daily prayers (and special Ramadan prayers) which meant the sequence of verses would have been agreed upon at the time of Prophet Muhammad. I mention this in order to pre-emptively quell any further unorthodox theories our friend Sam may have in mind.
References
[1] The History of The Quranic Text, M.M Al Azami, UK Islamic Academy, 2003 [pg 70-72]
1MoreMuslim Dismisses Samuel Green and his unorthodox ideas
1MoreMuslim makes a great refuting comment based on common sense and appeals to Sam's faculty of reason:
This verse is a madinah verse, not because the mention of fight, but rather for an obvious reason; the verse speaks about refugees. Muslims cannot be refugees before the Hijra to Medina. Are you not able to think?
The verse 126 begins with "IF" , God instruct how to retaliate in the future, IN CASE that the Muslims will have to, But God instructed them to be patient. So no fighting in there!
At this Sam Shamoun pops in to help Samuel Green and actually makes a half-decent point and manages to keep his calm; I guess all the critique of his attitude is paying dividends and the man is attempting to reform himself :
This verse is a madinah verse, not because the mention of fight, but rather for an obvious reason; the verse speaks about refugees. Muslims cannot be refugees before the Hijra to Medina. Are you not able to think?
Your argument doesn't follow since this verse can be referring to the Muslims who migrated to Abyssinia and sought asylum from the Negus. This event took place while Muhammad and the majority of Muslims still remained in Mecca.
So how do you know for certain this refers to the fugitives who settled in Medina?
However, Sam is soon shot down quite spectacularly by 1MoreMuslim:
To Sam;
"So how do you know for certain this refers to the fugitives who settled in Medina?"
Because those people are referred to as "Muhajirun"
And after all , what are you trying to prove? That Muhammad sent his followers to Abyssinia, and stayed in Makkah fighting, while living among the Mushrikeen? Was it a kind of street fight during the day, and when the night falls everybody go home? If you want to revise and rewrite history, try something believable.
Read the first and second comment to this article, you people can't understand an English Sentence, let alone the Hebrew and the Arabic.
Enter Samuel Green, I guess he must have felt a little silly at this point:
My point is, if we just read the sura 16, verse 110 flows with the rest of the sura, yet the sura is Meccan. What evidence do we have that Muhammad moved verses around?
My observation is simply this, that when Muslim scholars say different verses come from different periods within the one sura, it seems that they are trying to make the Qur'an fit into their reconstructed view of Muhammad's life. I cannot see any evidence for the idea that 110 verses in sura 16 are meccan and just one verse is medinan. I think the Qur'an is a better source for Muhammad's life and that the scholars are wrong.
1moremuslim, your argument is based on the scholars view of Muhammad's life. I am suggesting that this does not match up with the Qur'an at every point.
Note: Green’s quest for evidence of Muhammad (p) arranging verses has been satisfied in the article (see above), Green, embarrassingly, is still clinging onto his conspiracy theory which flies in the face of all expertise and scholarship. Samuel Green’s raison d’être, on this, evidence is to intimate unsupported and unorthodox claims and never back them up regardless of how silly he looks. 1MoreMuslim pours further admonition on our friend Green:
To Samuel Green:
Your whole argument is made of thin air, Be it Medinan or Meccan, Q 16:110 doesn't mention fighting AT ALL. The Arabic for fight is " Katalou" , but here we find the word "Jahadou" which means struggle and steadfast. You are committing a circular reasoning with ignorance: You are using a translation influenced by the idea that the verse is Medianan, and used that translation to prove that the verse is a Meccan.
Samuel, if you reject the view of the scholars and commentators, then you should translate the word "Jahadou" as Struggled, not fought.
David Wood, above, recommended M H Shakir translation, take his advice. It's not bad. You should remove this article and apologize for deceiving your readers.
1MoreMuslim also points out Samuel Green’s unwitting refutation of his fellow Christian critics! Welcome to the bizarre double-minded world of this particular band of internet fundamentalist-Christian apologists:
Samuel Green:
"My point is, if we just read the sura 16, verse 110 flows with the rest of the sura"
Thank you for that testimony Samuel, there have been critics which say that the Quran is incoherent
Initially when I gave Samuel Green’s article a cursory glance I felt Samuel Green produced one of the most pointless articles I have witnessed in my time investigating Christian outreaches to Muslims. However upon reviewing it further in detail I must revise my opinion. Samuel Green is attempting to (subtly) reinforce or even reintroduce shoddy conspiracy theories in a misguided attempt to re-write history!
Samuel Green, though gentle enough, is very much in league with the fundamentalist brigade of Christian apologists/haters on the internet such as Sam Shamoun and David Wood, thus our friend Sam Green warrants a forthright approach as subtlety is rarely an effective manner of reasoning with the Islamophobe-types who reside in Green’s camp.
I personally skipped over this until the YouTube video-maker, propagator and apologist of Islam, 1MoreMuslim, got involved in discussing Green’s article within the comment section. What happened next? 1MoreMuslim sends me an email informing me of his comments being unapproved (blocked?). I have since asked 1MoreMuslim to double check whether he has been blocked or if it is a case of Acts 17 Apologetics delaying in approving comments
IF he has been censored:
So Samuel Green and company allow some of 1MoreMuslim’s comments to go through but as soon as the dialogue threatens to become in depth and begins to show Green to be extremely erroneous Samuel Green’s friends decide to block 1MoreMuslim. This is extremely suspicious as 1MoreMuslim was contributing to the dialogue in a manner which was erudite and decent. In short there was no reason for him to be censored. It gets even more baffling as Samuel Green (now somewhat paradoxically) asked for feedback vis-à-vis his article:
“What do you think?”
Quite how Samuel Green expects to get feedback whilst his dishonest friend (most likely David Wood) blocks reactive comments behind Green’s back is beyond me. Perhaps Green would like to choose a better group of friends. Unfortunately this seems unlikely as he has been in union with the bigot Sam Shamoun for a good number of years so asking him to extradite himself from his current social circle is really asking.
Rebuking Samuel Green
In any case let’s focus on Green’s material and pick at the holes within. To do so I will adopt a two-pronged approach:
1. Briefly run through Samuel Green’s work myself whilst adding critique to it
2. Bring in 1MoreMuslim's dismissal of Green’s claims
In the way of a disclaimer I would like to state none of my analysis is designed to make Samuel look silly and I am pretty certain 1MoreMuslim’s comments were not designed for the purpose of ridicule. At this juncture I would also like to add the unscholarly nature of Green’s work warrants sharp rebuke
Analysis of Sam Green’s Conspiracy Theories and Conjecture
Green entitle his article; “Did Muhammad fight before the hijrah?
Samuel Green seems to have little regard for scholarship as scholarship tells us Muhammad did not fight prior to the Hijrah. The Muslims lacked any real capacity to do so.
Green, however, knows this but is trying to sow seeds for his conspiracy theories and conjecture.
Green goes on:
“In the histories I have read about Muhammad, I have been told that before the hijrah he endured suffering and shame from the Meccans and never fought or was violent. I may have misunderstood the Muslim claim but this is what I understand, that Muhammad did not fight before the hijrah.”
Green need not bother playing innocent here. Sam Green knows full well this is the Muslim claim as well as the Non-Muslim claim. All scholarship agrees on this fact. Thus it would appear Green is wasting his time. Nevertheless Samuel Green persists and even pulls out his ace from the pack:
However, I am reading my way through the qur'an and it seems this understanding of Muhammad's life does not work easily.
So Green is now arguing against expertise. Who exactly is Samuel Green? Green would do well to know his place. To Green’s credit he does bring an argument to cast doubt on the said scholarship. It must be noted his argument is laced in ignorance and is highly spurious:
In Sura 16 (the bee)Islamic scholars say that verse 110 comes for the Medinan period and has been inserted into this Meccan sura.
Then lo! thy Lord - for those who became fugitives after they had been persecuted, and then fought and were steadfast - lo! thy Lord afterward is (for them) indeed Forgiving, Merciful. 16:110
Sam Green fails to mention the scholars he speaks about but goes on to impute thought upon them (again without mentioning the scholars involved):
“The reason for saying this verse is inserted is that it refers to fighting in a Meccan period sura”
Samuel Green gets Interesting
OK, Green has laid out his cards and wants to concentrate on two points from his agenda. Here is Green trying to get us to follow his unorthodox thought pattern - a thought pattern which is merely employed in an attempt to deconstruct Islam and has nothing to do with intellectual integrity or scholarship:
“If the Qur'an is the best source for understanding Muhammad's life (and I think it is), then doesn't it appear that he was fighting before the hijrah? Maybe the hijrah happened not because Muhammad was the victim but because he was the unsuccessful aggressor?”
Is Green serious here? How can the Quran be the best source of understanding the life of Prophet Muhammad (p) when we have Ahadith literature which is more focussed on the personal activities of the Prophet Muhammad?
The Quran is the Book revealed by God (Allah) to the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran is not about Prophet Muhammad and is a Revelation for Mankind as Guidance. The Quran is the Book revealed by God (Allah) to the Prophet Muhammad.
Therefore this Book is not going to be more relevant in studying the life of Muhammad than the Ahadith literature which would factor in Muhammad’s sayings and daily activities amongst other things as Ahadith literature is essentially about Muhammad. A testimony to this fact would be the biographers’ predominant use of material from Ahadith literature in order to compile their respective biographies of Prophet Muhammad (p). Common sense tells you Green is mistaken. Sadly, common sense eludes critics as their desperate desire to have a pop at Islam blinds them
Green is either grossly negligent in this remark or is being intellectually dishonest in order to build a case according to his personal agenda. Please have a rethink, Sam, You do yourself no favours at all in operating at such a level.
Now let us focus on Green’s strange idea (dare I say “crack pot idea”, sorry Sam):
“Maybe the hijrah happened not because Muhammad was the victim but because he was the unsuccessful aggressor?”
From my experience it never takes too much reading before you come across a completely over-board suggestion/assertion from somebody who is linked with Sam Shamoun. Green does not buck the trend.
Sam Green makes this suggestion based on what? Nothing at all. The biographers do not document anything of such a nature and maintain the Hijrah was due to the Quraish’s persecution of the Muslims. As per usual Green makes his claim without bringing any evidence
Al Mubarekpuri, nor any other biographer, cites anything which supports Sam Green’s strange claim. Quite how Sam Green thinks such a small group of persecuted Muslims in Makkah can be the aggressors is beyond me this disbelief in the reasoning of Green is compounded by the fact no authority supports his conspiracy theory.
Effectively Samuel Green is doing away with all the experts in the field as well as all the source literature in favour of his conspiracy theory. You can imagine Green being amongst those Christians who believe the forgeries within the Bible are inspired too.
Here is Sam Green’s last conspiracy theory:
“Is it right for Muslim scholars to use the theory of "inserted verses" to explain why their reconstruction of Muhammad's life does not match up with what the Qur'an says?”
Essentially Green accuses Muslim scholars of dishonesty.
This is rich coming from Samuel Green, the man who is a partner of Sam “Muslims are black stone lickers” Shamoun. Those in glasshouses should not throw stones, Sam.
The “theory” of inserted verses
Samuel Green is an enigma. He is making a disparaging claim without any knowledge whatsoever. Green admits to his ignorance in the comment section:
“What evidence do we have that Muhammad moved verses around?”
Green fails to realise we DO have evidence of verses being arranged by the Prophet himself! I guess ignorance is bliss for Sam.
Firstly Al Azami, upon speaking of the Surahs and Verses, states:
It is commonly acknowledged that the arrangement of ayat (verses) and suras (chapters) in the Quran is unique. The layout does not follow the chronological order of revelation, nor does it follow subject matter.
Here is a narration (Hadith) which shows us verse insertion was carried out by the Prophet himself as Al Azami writes:
“Uthman states that whether the revelation consisted of lengthy, successive verses, or a single revelation in isolation the Prophet would summon one of his scribes and say, “Place this verse [of these verses] in the sura where such and such is mentioned”” [ Tirmidi Sunnan no 3086] [1]
Al Azami goes on to give further evidence of verse insertion being supervised by the Prophet (p) [1]. For our purposes of educating Green so he desists in spreading silly conspiracy theories this is sufficient.
I would also remind Green the Surahs were recited in daily prayers (and special Ramadan prayers) which meant the sequence of verses would have been agreed upon at the time of Prophet Muhammad. I mention this in order to pre-emptively quell any further unorthodox theories our friend Sam may have in mind.
References
[1] The History of The Quranic Text, M.M Al Azami, UK Islamic Academy, 2003 [pg 70-72]
1MoreMuslim Dismisses Samuel Green and his unorthodox ideas
1MoreMuslim makes a great refuting comment based on common sense and appeals to Sam's faculty of reason:
This verse is a madinah verse, not because the mention of fight, but rather for an obvious reason; the verse speaks about refugees. Muslims cannot be refugees before the Hijra to Medina. Are you not able to think?
The verse 126 begins with "IF" , God instruct how to retaliate in the future, IN CASE that the Muslims will have to, But God instructed them to be patient. So no fighting in there!
At this Sam Shamoun pops in to help Samuel Green and actually makes a half-decent point and manages to keep his calm; I guess all the critique of his attitude is paying dividends and the man is attempting to reform himself :
This verse is a madinah verse, not because the mention of fight, but rather for an obvious reason; the verse speaks about refugees. Muslims cannot be refugees before the Hijra to Medina. Are you not able to think?
Your argument doesn't follow since this verse can be referring to the Muslims who migrated to Abyssinia and sought asylum from the Negus. This event took place while Muhammad and the majority of Muslims still remained in Mecca.
So how do you know for certain this refers to the fugitives who settled in Medina?
However, Sam is soon shot down quite spectacularly by 1MoreMuslim:
To Sam;
"So how do you know for certain this refers to the fugitives who settled in Medina?"
Because those people are referred to as "Muhajirun"
And after all , what are you trying to prove? That Muhammad sent his followers to Abyssinia, and stayed in Makkah fighting, while living among the Mushrikeen? Was it a kind of street fight during the day, and when the night falls everybody go home? If you want to revise and rewrite history, try something believable.
Read the first and second comment to this article, you people can't understand an English Sentence, let alone the Hebrew and the Arabic.
Enter Samuel Green, I guess he must have felt a little silly at this point:
My point is, if we just read the sura 16, verse 110 flows with the rest of the sura, yet the sura is Meccan. What evidence do we have that Muhammad moved verses around?
My observation is simply this, that when Muslim scholars say different verses come from different periods within the one sura, it seems that they are trying to make the Qur'an fit into their reconstructed view of Muhammad's life. I cannot see any evidence for the idea that 110 verses in sura 16 are meccan and just one verse is medinan. I think the Qur'an is a better source for Muhammad's life and that the scholars are wrong.
1moremuslim, your argument is based on the scholars view of Muhammad's life. I am suggesting that this does not match up with the Qur'an at every point.
Note: Green’s quest for evidence of Muhammad (p) arranging verses has been satisfied in the article (see above), Green, embarrassingly, is still clinging onto his conspiracy theory which flies in the face of all expertise and scholarship. Samuel Green’s raison d’être, on this, evidence is to intimate unsupported and unorthodox claims and never back them up regardless of how silly he looks. 1MoreMuslim pours further admonition on our friend Green:
To Samuel Green:
Your whole argument is made of thin air, Be it Medinan or Meccan, Q 16:110 doesn't mention fighting AT ALL. The Arabic for fight is " Katalou" , but here we find the word "Jahadou" which means struggle and steadfast. You are committing a circular reasoning with ignorance: You are using a translation influenced by the idea that the verse is Medianan, and used that translation to prove that the verse is a Meccan.
Samuel, if you reject the view of the scholars and commentators, then you should translate the word "Jahadou" as Struggled, not fought.
David Wood, above, recommended M H Shakir translation, take his advice. It's not bad. You should remove this article and apologize for deceiving your readers.
1MoreMuslim also points out Samuel Green’s unwitting refutation of his fellow Christian critics! Welcome to the bizarre double-minded world of this particular band of internet fundamentalist-Christian apologists:
Samuel Green:
"My point is, if we just read the sura 16, verse 110 flows with the rest of the sura"
Thank you for that testimony Samuel, there have been critics which say that the Quran is incoherent
You can find 1MoreMuslim here:http://www.youtube.com/user/1MoreMuslim
Summary
There you have it folks. We have a Christian apologist in the form of Samuel Green ignoring all scholarship and authority and attempting to re-write history. I feel for Christians who support individuals with this type of disconnection from intellectual honesty and scholarship. For what it is worth I rebuke Samuel Green for this shoddy display of his and I join 1MoreMuslim in calling for Green to apologise.
All in all, I guess our friend, Green, is rather red (faced) now. Or should we coin a word from the limited vocabulary of his partner (Shamoun) and dismiss him as “pathetic”.
I want to further rebuke people like Samuel Green and ask them to focus on real issues related to salvation rather than wasting time on intellectually-dishonest ideas designed to have a poke at Muslims. Think!
Think: Jesus has a God and has brothers and sisters as well as a God.
I ask Green to focus on the One who Jesus was praying to (appendix 1). This is obviously God and a sincere Christian would be focussing on these issues which pertain to salvation and not idling time away in conjuring shoddy and unsupported theories
I invite Samuel Green and ALL Christians to worship the God whom Jesus worshipped. Obviously if Jesus has a God then he cannot possibly be God. Therefore common sense dictates we should do away with the claim of Jesus being God.
Christians, please think about it. This is extremely important. God does not want you to be worshipping a man. Look into the first commandment (Exodus 20)my friends and focus on your salvation rather than wasting time.
You shall have no other gods before Me (God)
I ask you to become Muslims and join us as the brothers of Jesus (appendix 2). Search for the Truth and the Truth shall free you. Learn more about the Truth here:
http://www.islam-guide.com/
Contact: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Appendix 1
Jesus (pbuh) praying to God in the Bible:
So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. (Mt 26:44) NIV
Jesus praying to his God in the gospel of Luke:
One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. (Luke 6:12)
Appendix 2
Jesus has brothers and sisters (Mk3:35). Of course God does not have brothers or sister. These brothers and sisters of Jesus can ONLY be Muslims so please become a brother/sister of Jesus by becoming a Muslim:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/jesus-teaches-muslims-are-right/
Appendix 3
If you are Assyrian or Arab Christian and want some encouragement to convert to Islam (this is suitable for all Christians): http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/08/assyrians-and-arab-christians-please.html
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletesalam bro,seriously how do you keep reading thier rubbish? ideas like the one he has just spouted can only be by taken seriously by dumbos green preaches to!!! these guys have nothing good to say about christianity thier religion,so they spend thier entire life trying to destroy Islam, which they have failed and will continue to fail. If peoplelike green and co can come up with this sort of conspiracy for Islam, then in all honesty i do believe in thier hearts they are not christians, because what we know call christianity is far more open to conspiracy theories in the way it got established by one of the most powerful civilizations than any other religion.
ReplyDeleteRegarding my article on David Wood's blog, I ask you to read my comments. I in no way said that my suggestions were true. Instead, they were honest questions that I had from reading the quran. I am carefully reading my way through the quran and trying to understand it. The article I wrote was in response to the Muslim claim that 16:110 is a Medinan verse inserted into a Meccan sura. I cannot see why this is the case when 16:110 fits so well with the rest of the sura. The reason it seems that Muslim scholars make this claim is because of the reference to Jihad in 16:110. They seem to feel that this means it must be therefore a Medinan verse. I think the sura is a logical whole and was trying to find another explanation that maintained the integrity of the sura. Am I not allowed to ask questions?
ReplyDeleteSamuel Green ,
ReplyDeleteNo problems with asking questions. Questions are welcomed.
Reading thru your article , you made your case and then ask questions based on your supposedly 'established' case.
You stated '..The reason for saying this verse is inserted is that it refers to fighting in a Meccan period sura..'
Part translitration of Quran16:110 '..futinoo thumma jahadoo wasabaroo..'
As rightly pointed out by bro 1moremuslim , its 'jahadoo' not 'kataloo' or fighting. Your argument / questions rest on word 'fight'.
Hey , its obvious you made a mistake. Be honest , admit your mistake and remove the article as you are misleading others with your assumption that 'jahadoo' = 'fighting'.
@maratsafin
ReplyDeleteI guess somebody has to read it :)
I also agree that Green's shoddy material will only convince the ignorant and/or those without capacity to think rationally.
This is the fundamentalist Christian dilemma. Do they use faulty logic and arguments to keep people in Christianity or do they become honest in argumentation and subsequnetly allow Christians to leave the failed faith of Trinitarian Christianity without check.
That is the conundrum our pals Green, christianprince, Shamoun and co have presented before them
@Samuel Green
Read what Sam1528 has written. Contemplate upon it.
He is calling you to repentance and a higher plane of reasoning.
I would also like to note your distancing yourself from the arguments which you presented in your article ONLY came about after you were picked up on it.
Samuel, do you take us for fools?
I ask this as you claim to be merely asking questions and not espousing arguemnts (which is absolutely incorrect on your part).
Samuel..it is obvious what you were trying to do. Samuel, if you really wanted to ASK questions then you would certainly NOT be writing articles and uploading them onto Wood's hater site. Were you seriously expecting answers from the intellectual giants (sarcasm alert) that are Wood, Shamoun, Fernando, Fatman, RafikdelIsslano?????
Samuel...we are not stupid and we can recognise dodgy logic when we see it.
Sadly...you are unable to recognise faulty logic. I say this not solely based on this surrent episode but in the interim I have viewed your "HOW CAN ONE MAN PAY FOR THE SINS OF ANOTHER?(By Samuel Green)" and this body of work was laced in desperation and had no real connection with logic or thorough thought.
Yep...I was unimpressed with it. :(
Samuel...I know you are mature enough to take critique. Your email to myself was mature. For that I commend you.
Quite what you are doing hanging around with Fernando, Wood, Shamoun is beyond me.
Again, I invite you to Islam. Take advantage of this Samuel. I have had a look at both and Islam is the stronger in argumentation and Truth.
Become the brother of Jesus rather than a worshipper of his whom Jesus dislikes and disowns.
Only God should be worshipped.
Think about it
If there are any Christians reading this then we humbly invite you to come to Islam. Please view the Islamic links on offer and visit your local mosque/Islamic centre and build a relationship with God.
May Allah (God) guide us all.
Peace
@maratsafin
ReplyDeleteI guess somebody has to read it :)
I also agree that Green's shoddy material will only convince the ignorant and/or those without capacity to think rationally.
This is the fundamentalist Christian dilemma. Do they use faulty logic and arguments to keep people in Christianity or do they become honest in argumentation and subsequnetly allow Christians to leave the failed faith of Trinitarian Christianity without check.
That is the conundrum our pals Green, christianprince, Shamoun and co have presented before them
@Samuel Green
Read what Sam1528 has written. Contemplate upon it.
He is calling you to repentance and a higher plane of reasoning.
I would also like to note your distancing yourself from the arguments which you presented in your article ONLY came about after you were picked up on it.
Samuel, do you take us for fools?
I ask this as you claim to be merely asking questions and not espousing arguemnts (which is absolutely incorrect on your part).
Samuel..it is obvious what you were trying to do. Samuel, if you really wanted to ASK questions then you would certainly NOT be writing articles and uploading them onto Wood's hater site. Were you seriously expecting answers from the intellectual giants (sarcasm alert) that are Wood, Shamoun, Fernando, Fatman, RafikdelIsslano?????
Samuel...we are not stupid and we can recognise dodgy logic when we see it.
Sadly...you are unable to recognise faulty logic. I say this not solely based on this surrent episode but in the interim I have viewed your "HOW CAN ONE MAN PAY FOR THE SINS OF ANOTHER?(By Samuel Green)" and this body of work was laced in desperation and had no real connection with logic or thorough thought.
Yep...I was unimpressed with it. :(
Samuel...I know you are mature enough to take critique. Your email to myself was mature. For that I commend you.
Quite what you are doing hanging around with Fernando, Wood, Shamoun is beyond me.
Again, I invite you to Islam. Take advantage of this Samuel. I have had a look at both and Islam is the stronger in argumentation and Truth.
Become the brother of Jesus rather than a worshipper of his whom Jesus dislikes and disowns.
Only God should be worshipped.
Think about it
If there are any Christians reading this then we humbly invite you to come to Islam. Please view the Islamic links on offer and visit your local mosque/Islamic centre and build a relationship with God.
May Allah (God) guide us all.
Peace
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete