Thursday, 30 September 2010
SBC Tomorrow’s Peter Lumpkins has been taking James White’s critical approach towards Ergun Caner to task. His latest post pushes the boundaries and is a pretty startling exhibition of mockery of James White; one which highlights the divide between the supporters of Ergun Caner and the critics of Ergun Caner. White has (somehow) propelled himself into pole position as far as the critics of Ergun Caner go – he seems to have gone further than Mohammad Khan.
Mohammad Khan (mokhan247) diligently highlighted the discrepancies in Caner’s claims but James White has not only latched onto Khan’s investigations but has managed to repackage his work as an effort to “clean up the ministries” and call Caner to “repentance”.
James White continues to focus on Ergun Caner despite Caner’s “punishment” of demotion at Liberty University. Quite simply, Ergun Caner has been investigated by Liberty University but White feels dissatisfied with the “justice” handed out by Liberty University. Here’s Peter Lumpkins priming us for his cartoon-mockery of James White:
I honestly thought Reformed apologist, James White, had finally realized the entire evangelical world does not agree with his weird obsession with all things Ergun Caner. But he's up to it again on his site.
Of course, Christian disunity is nothing new and James White has criticised quite a few other Christians in the past. Lumpkins lists the names of some Christians who have been at the end of White’s tongue-lashing on the past:
Well, let's see: over the past few months apologists Ergun Caner, Emir Caner, Norm Geisler, Bill Craig, and Josh McDowell have been taken to the high court before the indefatigable, Judge White, and their ministries have been found--shall we keep it clean--wanting.
Notice the name Geisler? Norman Geisler is a big fish in Christian circles – criticising him takes a lot of courage!
Who is Right?
Before going to Peter Lumpkin’s cartoon-mockery of James White, Tom Ascol and Turretinfan we should ask ourselves who is right
It is quite clear Ergun Caner’s pronouncements contain problems; it is thought these were borne out of Caner’s desire to embellish or “sex-up” his past life as an alleged former Muslim.
James White, on the surface of it, is actually operating from a higher moral surface. White reckons Caner should have been made an example of and public repentance should have been sought; he feels a “cover up” has taken place. Some of this is surreal…you’d think we were talking about the CIA and shifty politicians; we are not, we are talking about ministries and church leaders!
The problems James White faces
James White is not alone as Muslims also feel Ergun Caner was not “dealt with” appropriately. However, White’s continual pursuit of Caner appears to be an “obsession” and even a hounding of Ergun Caner.
Furthermore, White risks being labelled as “unchristian” as White’s approach lacks any charity to Ergun Caner. Regular folk will view this superficially and see Caner either having been punished or cleared of serious wrong-doing thus James White would be unintelligible and unjust in the mind of the average Joe – some of these average Joes are within the Caner camp.
The second problem James White faces is that of intention, is James White going to such lengths in order to “further” the church or is it merely a case of settling old scores and attention-seeking. A.M Mallet mentioned the insignificant nature of James White’s Alpha and Omega ministry:
It is fairly clear that the evangelical world doesn't hold the Sunday School teacher from the small church in Arizona to the same level of esteem as he holds himself. Liberty University pretty much ignored him. Dr. Caner certainly pays him no mind. Dr. Geisler doesn't even know he exists anymore.
Regular folk could well wind up viewing White as a bloke trying to grab some publicity for his ministry – much like the misguided pastor who recently courted publicity by declaring his scheme of burning copies of the Quran.
James White’s biggest obstacle in the Ergun Caner affair
Third problem, James White lacks consistency - this is the biggest problem (in the view of Muslims). White has got himself stuck between a rock and a hard place. Here’s the thing, if you are going to rebuke Ergun under the guise of honesty and integrity you have to have a consistent track record. White lacks this track record.
James White’s friend Sam Shamoun has been guilty of worse actions than Ergun Caner yet White has never bothered to rebuke him or ask him for public repentance. This is one of the reasons why White is struggling to garner support on the issue of Ergun Caner. Browse the Sam Shamoun section on this blog and you will notice for yourself the debauched activity of this chap – he even makes up his own Quranic Verse translations in order to convince people Islam allows bestiality!
Finding “White Muslims” :)
Fourth problem, James White has not got Muslims on side. White has a strange record of shoddy, inconsistent and unorthodox scholarship when it comes to discussing Islam. He has been found (publicly) to be using/espousing made up (erroneous) translations of the Quran in order to attack Islam, why would he refuse to use authorised translations of the Quran (some of which are by Christians) in favour of spurious unauthorised (made up by his friend) translations? See here and here for more information.
James White’s co-host on ABNSat, Pastor Joseph, has been caught claiming Islam allows homosexuality…one of the pastor’s friends on the same show claimed Islam “encouraged” homosexuality. Come on…anybody who has researched Islam for a week knows James White’s colleagues are ignorant and/or liars
The featuring of Nabeel Qureshi’s faulty translation does not bode well for White’s public relations either.
In addition, Muslims are unlikely to actively support James White because his friend regularly abuses Muslims and has recently called Muslims a “cancer”. Come on, it’s like a bloke who is pals with Hitler asking Jews to support him!
Here is the cartoon mocking James White...decide for yourselves if it is unbecoming or not. I personally felt it was unwise
GoAnimate.com: J.Oakley White's Obsession with Ergun Caner by peterlumpkins
Like it? Create your own at GoAnimate.com. It's free and fun!
Being just to White, Turretinfan and Tom Ascol
The cartoon video mocking James White et al, in my view, was unjust. I feel the cartoon went too far. Why portray Turretinfan as a dog? Did Tom Ascol have to be in the cartoon, what exactly did he do wrong?
Furthermore, White (on the surface of it) appears to have the moral high ground – he is calling Ergun Caner to account. Obviously White has a bee in his bonnet about what he deems to be a “cover up”. Why mock him when you can email him or get somebody from Liberty University to explain the reasoning behind their decision and finally put the issue to bed, once and for all…
James White to have the last laugh?
If James White can somehow solve the problems outlined (see above) Ergun Caner would be in for a real roasting. At the moment the Canerites such as Peter Lumpkins are operating the oven and James is being burnt into submission.
Is James White a Doctor? Who cares!
Sorry, I know I have a tendency to yap on (no cartoon-related-pun intended) but his doctorate being allegedly unaccredited is not such a big deal. The insignificance of the question related to his doctorate is greater considering the White-Caner saga is one of integrity and honesty…NOT one of academia. Think about it, folks.
Who are James White’s “Islamic bedfellows”?
A.M Mallet wrote:
Even his old Islamic bedfellows have turned on him. He takes pretty pictures on his bike rides though.
As far as I know White has never had Muslim supporters. Perhaps this person confused the folks on ABNSat (an Arab Christian satellite station) as Muslims. I don’t know but would like to know who he/she was referring to. The plot thickens.
Neither Ergun Caner or James White should be teaching Islam - they are not qualified in the subject. White is reliant on dodgy missionary websites for his information and has the infamous Sam Shamoun as a teacher whilst Ergun Caner is also unlearned in the subject despite claiming to be a former Muslim. Here's a suggestion, how about you folk get a few Muslim Sheikhs into your classrooms to teach Islam (I'm sure they will be less costly than White, Caner or anybody else you had in mind)....failing that at least get a reliable Christian with some serious study and/or qualifications behind him/her.
Am I the only one who subscribes to this logic?
Now I get to sign off in true Peter Lumpkins fashion…
With that, I am
I sit here aghast after having skimmed through Sam Shamoun’s latest article. I hope you are sitting down; Shamoun is now claiming Muslims have associated Muhammad with Allah, he then goes on to accuse Muslims of paganism!
Crikey, anybody who has a modicum of research and fair reasoning behind them will tell you Islam is very much about pure monotheism and certainly does not set co-equals with God (Allah). Firstly, let’s do away with Shamoun’s outrageous claim of associating Muhammad with Allah
One Quranic Verse is sufficient to teach us Shamoun is quite clearly wrong:
Such is Allah, your Lord. There is no God save Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He taketh care of all things. (6:102, Pikthal translation of Quran)
Here we realise there is NO god besides Allah and Allah created everything (including Muhammad, Jesus and Moses), therefore it goes without saying that Muhammad can never be considered equal to Allah. This clearly shows Sam Shamoun is either ignorant or being disingenuous.
In the Quran (4:48) we also learn setting partners with Allah is a terrible sin; therefore we realise Muslims do not and must never associate Muhammad (or Jesus or anybody else) with Allah:
Lo! Allah forgiveth not that a partner should be ascribed unto Him. He forgiveth (all) save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners to Allah, he hath indeed invented a tremendous sin. (4:48, Pikthal translation)
Quite why some fundamentalist Christians maintain this ridiculous medieval misconception of Muslims worshipping Muhammad is beyond me – it is not difficult to drop.
Having laid the basic groundwork and dispelled Sam Shamoun’s erroneous assertion we can look at Shamoun’s misguided reasoning. Shamoun’s reasoning for his claim of “paganism” is that Muslims must obey the Messenger Muhammad.
Why Do Muslims Obey Prophet Muhammad?
Let’s get something clear, Muslims obey the Prophet’s teachings because God instructs Muslims to do so in the Quran.
O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end. (4:59, translation of Pikthal)
Sam Shamoun fails to understand it is God who is instructing people to obey His messenger (Prophet Muhammad). Furthermore, God also instructs people to obey those in authority. Shamoun does not attempt to make the “pagan” claim concerning “those of you who are in authority” – I guess even the farfetched Sam Shamoun thought the gullibility of his flock did not extend far enough for such a claim
Shamoun illogically thinks obeying a messenger of God is tantamount to associating partners with God (despite God instructing people to obey the messenger!!!). Not only should Shamoun enrol on a logic course, he should open up the Bible and realise Jacob OBEYED his parents
and that Jacob had obeyed his father and mother and had gone to Paddan Aram.
Is Shamoun going to call Jacob a pagan because of this? Shamoun has other problems with his claim; if he is going to be consistent he will have to claim the Ten Commandments contain paganism.
Has Shamoun ever read the Ten Commandments?
Through the Commandments we realise God wants us to OBEY our parents:
"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you. (Exodus 20:12)
Does Sam Shamoun see how ignorant, humiliated and inconsistent he is looking? I suggest he deletes his article and apologises. Just in case Shamoun is reluctant let me give him a bit more encouragement in the form of the Bible.
Does Sam Shamoun Think the Bible Teaches Paganism?
Let’s open up the Bible again and note slaves are instructed to OBEY their masters, according to the absurd “reasoning” of Sam Shamoun this means the Bible associates slave owners as equals to God. Welcome to the inconsistent world of Sam Shamoun:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
I guess Christian fundamentalists such as Sam Shamoun are oblivious to the harm they are doing to the reputation of Christian missionaries the world over. Sam, have some self-respect.
One for the Road - OBEYING Joshua and Moses
Obviously people of the past obeyed their respective Prophets. Let us look at the example of Joshua and Moses in the Bible; According to the Bible the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh obeyed Joshua and Moses:
and said to them, "You have done all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded, and you have obeyed me in everything I commanded.
According to Shamoun’s warped logic this means the people in question were guilty of paganism because they obeyed Joshua and Moses – how absurd is Sam Shamoun’s reasoning!
I think this is enough for us to see Sam Shamoun’s argumentation can be dismissed for the errant nonsense it is as well as sufficing as a warning to all of us regarding Shamoun’s lack of scholarship and desperation to attack Islam with every erroneous and inconsistent claim under the sun.
Prophets are people who are meant to be OBEYED. It is not paganism to obey a Prophet – it is piety and righteousness to do so.
A case of Synchronicity
Just yesterday, via email, I was voicing concern to a Muslim blogger and apologist with regards to Shamoun’s unfortunate state. May Allah guide this man.
Sam, I guarantee if you come to Islam and follow it sincerely you will be emancipated from the current blighted predicament you find yourself in and you will certainly develop a sense of pure monotheism; not a compromised (polytheistic) form which we find in Trinitarianism. Sam, you were recently reported as an individual who believes an angel in the OT was God; please realise these beliefs of yours are pagan. God has never been an angel nor a man
Convert to Islam
I invite all the non-Muslim readers to Islam. If you want a relationship with God; Islam is for you. If you love Jesus; Islam is for you. Please give Islam a chance; go to your local Islamic centre, read a translation of the Quran, ask Muslims sincere questions whilst praying to God for guidance
Search for the Truth and the Truth shall set you free
May Allah guide us all. Ameen
“Allah” is the word for God normally used by Arabic speaking Christians as well as Muslims
All biblical Quotes from the New International Version of the Bible
Quranic translations from that of Pikthal
You must read this if you believe in the incarnation
Would you like to be the brother or sister of Jesus?
Recommended book for Christians
What Every Christian Should Know About Islam, Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood
View this site
Would you like to learn more about Islam?
Converting from Christianity to Islam
Have you ever seen an ex-deacon convert to Islam? You have now! Dr Jerald Dirks is well learned in the study of christian theology...find out why he converted to Islam:
Dr. Dirks is a former minister (deacon) of the United Methodist Church. He holds a Master's degree in Divinity from Harvard University and a Doctorate in Psychology from the University of Denver
Sunday, 26 September 2010
Sam Shamoun has unleashed another bout of his nastiness and rebelliion, which permeates deep within his being, at a Muslim named Jibreelk. Jibreelk is a kind hearted and well-reputed individual who certainly does not warrant Shamoun’s venom. All I can say is, I’m glad I reside in the UK as I would not feel secure knowing Sam Shamoun was in the same country. Shamoun lives in America, I have no idea if he has transferred his cyber-venom to real life. I personally hope he never visits the UK as there is a growing Muslim population here; a population which is already suffering from discrimination. Sahmoun's comments will be in red.
Here is Shamoun’s latest demonic out-pouring:
ATTENTION JIBREELK THE LIAR. KEITHTRUTH'S LATEST REFUTATIONS OF YOUR IGNORANCE, LIES, AND DECEPTIONS HAS BEEN POSTED: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¬=i_EDYTTR3gQ
AND DON'T THINK I FORGOT YOU. MY CHALLENGE TO YOU CALLING YOU OUT TO BE MAN ENOUGH TO DO A LIVE DEBATE WITH ME WILL BE COMING OUT. I HAVEN'T RUSHED TO IT BECAUSE YOU ARE REALLY NOTHING. THE ONLY REASON WHY I AM EVEN BOTHERING WITH YOU IS BECAUSE OF YOUR FAT MOUTH WHICH HAS NOW BEEN SHUT TIGHT, THANKS TO KEITH. SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU
For the unaware, Shamoun regularly calls people “liars”; it is his modus operandi. I have been following the exchange between the two and have not noticed any lie on the part of Jibreelk – Shamoun is being more than disingenuous here. Shamoun’s misdirection is his “live debate challenge” – he has been absolutely outflanked in the YouTube debate, thus far. Why he is angling for a live debate is beyond me. In any case, I have recently received another disgusting comment from Shamoun which further excludes him from the validation of a live debate, God willing I will discuss his comment at a later date.
What’s up with the capitals? Shamoun is shouting.
Shamoun accusing people of being mouthy; pot, kettle and black spring to mind. Sam is a guranteed laugh, it really does appear as though Shamoun watches different motion pictures than the rest of us and he winds up with a conclusion which is er,…let’s be kind and just say it is incongruous with reality.
Here he is again working himself up in a frenzy…Sam, calm down…you will do yourself a hernia.
THE DOGS ARE OUT BARKING AGAIN. After having been humiliated and exposed for his intellectual ineptness by both myself and Keith Truth, JibreelK has mustered some courage again after finishing a month of observing a pagan fast in worship of a false god and in celebration of a false prophet who would kiss and smother a lifeless black stone and is wondering when I will respond to his garbage. It seems that illiteracy has become a part of the Sunna that dawagandists like JibreelK have embraced in order to honor their false prophet since JibreelK has been exposed to public shame by Keith Truth in the following videos
Crikey, Sam Shamoun does have a habit of concluding in a fashion which is detached from reality. Again, the dialogue so far has not resulted in any humiliation for Jibreel…all he did was refute Shamoun’s far feteched claims. See here.
The fast is not pagan, it is prescribe by God. Quite how that makes something pagan is beyond me – welcome to the mind of Sam Shamoun. Regarding the black stone, see here.
What in the world is a dawagandist? Sam Shamoun, care to explain?
Again, Shamoun has a habit of trying to convince himself Muhammad (p) is a false prophet. Shamoun has never been able to prove it despite trying for decades! Sam, proof is currency which you lack.
Sam, referring to people as dogs is not going to score you debate points
Sam Shamoun’s “Challenges” are free flowing:
In the meantime, I am going to reissue my challenge to this coward to debate me live on the satelite show I do on www.abnsat.com. I am calling this coward out to defend his "replies" to our arguments and defend the honor of his false prophet, that is if he truly believes that he has really refuted anything we have said and has actually provided a meaningful rebuttal. It is time for this repulsive lying dawagandist to back up his barking with some bite. Please inform him of this post and my challenge.
I guess the fact he is already locked in a YouTube debate with Jibreelk has escaped his mind! Like I say, Sam is a guaranteed laugh. Just in case you are wondering about his “satellite show”, here is the main presenter and his pal claiming Islam “condones” and “encourages” homosexuality. Hardly the most erudite and sophisticated of shows!
Message to Christians and others on the internet
Please, people stop supporting charlatans such as Sam Shamoun, financially and in any other capacity. Shamoun uses his "Christian" faith as a vehicle for hate, he uses it as a false guise to bash Muslims. Previously he was racist against white people; now he is targeting Muslims with his hatred. This man is clearly anti-Jesus (p), whilst the Muslim gentleman is pro-Jesus (p).
Here we have a classic case of good Vs bad. I think we can see which side each individual belongs on.
I invite all to research Islam, go to your local Islamic centre, read a translation of the Quran, befriend pious Muslims and ask questions whilst praying to God to guide you to the Truth.
Previous Jibreelk-Sam Shamoun interactions
Imam Shabir Ally denounces racism
*A response to Sam Shamoun’s colleague (the incarnation belief investigated)*
***Sam Shamoun unwilling to defend one of his latest lies***
Saturday, 25 September 2010
After reviewing all the elements in the equation; I had expected Acts 17 Apologetics to be found not guilty in Dearborn with respects to the charge of breach of peace but the charge against Negeen Mayel (failure to obey police orders) was a nailed on certainty. That is what has happened.
Nabeel Qureshi of Virginia, Negeen Mayel of California, and Paul Rezkalla and David Wood, both of New York, were acquitted of breach of peace, 19th District Court officials in Dearborn said after the verdict. Mayel was found guilty of failure to obey a police officer's order. 
The charge of breach of peace was never going to be proven as the Christian (Roger Williams) complaining against them had insufficient supporting evidence for his claim to be upheld; thus Acts 17 Apologetics were always unlikely to be found guilty
It was a "Christian Vs Christian" Battle in Court
I would like to congratulate Acts 17 Apologetics and condemn their Christian accuser (Roger Williams). At this point we should not conflate this with the very real claim of deception on the part of Acts 17 Apologetics - for some reason Acts 17 Aplogetics made it out to be a Muslim Vs Christian thing and even suggested Dearborn was being run by Sharia (Islamic Law). Certainly, this was errant nonsense on the part of Acts 17 Apologetics; they were simply hate mongering against Muslims. Interestingly enough, the Mayor of Dearborn (Jack O Reilly), after the trial, called them out for their hatred and attention whoring:
"It's really about a hatred of Muslims," O'Reilly said. "That is what the whole heart of this is..... Their idea is that there is no place for Muslims in America. They fail to understand the Constitution." 
A word on Negeen Mayel of Califiornia
It appears her conviction will be appealed. I pray for her, she is young and somewhat naive. I really hope this sparks the end of her association with this group of Christian fundamentalists
A word on Acts 17 Apologetics
They may have been found not guilty in Dearborn but their guilt of hate-mongering and deception is written on their faces. Why use deception to have a dig at Muslims and Islam?
Only Acts 17 Apologetics can answer that.
Let's pray for all involved (including their Christian accuser, Roger Williams).
Addendum: It is appropriate for those who accused Acts 17 Apologetics of a Breach of Peace prior to the Dearborn trial to recant and apologise. It appears I fall into this category so I apologise too.
My beef has always been with Acts 17 Apologetics' dishonesty; they tried to make this out to be a Christian Vs Muslim issue and subsequently hate-monger against Muslims based on this false premise. It was never anything to do with Sharia - it was a Christian Vs Christian thing. I just hope Acts 17 Apologetics have the good sense to acknowledge this and apologise for their gross and dangerous deception - Muslims could have been physically harmed due to the potential fundamentalist-Christian backlash arising from Acts 17 Apologetics' deliberate misinformation.
Learn more about Islam and Jesus here:
To Learn more about Nabeel Qureshi:
To Learn more about David Wood:
***Some Converts to Islam***
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
The Islamophobia talk by Yasir Qadhi at the GPU 2008 conference. Global Peace and Unity Conference.
Yasir Qadhi was born in Houston, Texas and completed his primary and secondary education in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He graduated with a B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Houston, after which he was accepted as a student at the Islamic University of Madinah. After completing a diploma in Arabic, he graduated with a B.A. from the College of Hadith and Islamic Sciences. Thereafter, he completed a M.A. in Islamic Theology from the College of Dawah.
His published works include Riya'a: The Hidden Shirk, Du'aa: The Weapon of the Believer, and An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an.
Yasir Qadhi is currently pursuing his doctorate, in Religious Studies, at Yale University in New Haven, CT
Anthony Rogers brings up objections to Islam based on his own incorrect presuppositions, which render his arguments inapplicable. His article is aimed at 1MoreMuslim but I will offer some insight and critique. I’m pretty sure 1MoreMuslim will respond to Anthony Rogers potently pretty soon (if he is not censored)
Rogers wants us to believe in the incarnation so sets out to deconstruct argumentation against the incarnation
Anthony Rogers would do well to note there are other arguments against the incarnation apart from the argument coming from transcendence. Rogers knows better than most that the doctrine of atonement is composed of a number of beliefs/assumptions and the incarnation is in actuality part of the make up of the Christian view of atonement. Thus, any argument against the doctrine of atonement effectively becomes an argument against the incarnation - the “need” for the incarnation is built on the idea of atonement.
The Incarnation Leaves an Uncomfortable Feeling of Paganism
The incarnation is a gateway to paganism. Neo-Christians such as Anthony Rogers, not only believe God became man but also believe God became a dove (yes a dove) and an angel. What is there to stop a Christian from claiming his/her cat is God? Quite simply, a Christian is effectively left with no criteria to identify God whereas a Muslim does have a criterion. Muslims believe God does not become His creation and God is absolute and unique – an angel, a dove and a man do not fit the bill of absoluteness nor uniqueness.
“Incarnation denotes the embodiment of a deity in human form. The idea occurs frequently in mythology. In ancient times, certain people, especially kings and priests, were often believed to be divinities. In Hinduism, Vishnu was believed to have taken nine incarnations, or Avatars.” (Incarnation, Groliers Encyclopedia)
Do you not see the problem the neo-Christian is being faced with? I do. What is the solution to this problem? Islam.
Muslim Warns Christians (Theologically)
If Anthony Rogers wants to maintain God became the angel of the Lord (without even informing anybody), a man (a man who never ever said he was a person of God) and in a form of a dove (a bird., see Lk 3:22 and John 1:32) then he opens up the floodgates to paganism as any off shoot of Christianity could lay claim to their cat, dog or gerbil being God. How would Anthony Rogers refute these claims? Anthony would be stuck in a hole. Islam would save Anthony from this sticky situation
People of Understanding
I certainly do not want this to become a full frontal attack against Christianity; I want Anthony Rogers and ALL Christians to ponder upon the significance of all this. Ask yourself why the Prophets of the Old Testament never taught the Trinity. Sift through the “proof” texts the Trinitarian offers to support the idea of the Trinity and embark on textual criticism. I’m basically inviting you to rethink Christianity in the light of Islam.
Apart from the parallelisms with paganism what other objections can you put forward against the incarnation?
As previously mentioned any objection to the atonement becomes an objection to the incarnation as the atonement is the philosophy which the “need” for the incarnation is underpinned
The doctrine of atonement, as pointed out by Mufti Taqi Uthmani, has “ a long sequence of historical and theoretical assumptions” . One of these assumptions is that of the original sin. St Augustine espoused belief in original sin:
“In truth, all men who are sullied by the original sin were born of Adam and Eve” 
Here is an emotional argument to arise from belief in original sin, according to Christianity babies are born with sin.
Is this not somewhat problematic for the Christian? Yes, of course. What is the solution? Islam.
The Old Testament Testifies Against the Atonement
Furthermore, atonement becomes refuted by the Old Testament itself if we take Ezekiel 18 as reliable. “Once we accept Ezekiel 18 as a true revelation the whole message of atonement theology becomes unnecessary” 
…The soul who sins is the one who will die. (see Ezekiel 18:4).
…He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live (see Ezekiel 18:17)
When you have no need for the idea of atonement you have no need for the idea of incarnation. I think it is pretty straightforward. Please think about the gravity of what is being said rather than adopting a gung-ho approach of denial and counter attack without thought – these are matters pertaining to salvation.
Is the doctrine of incarnation in the Gospel of Mark?
No, it does not appear in the Gospel of Mark, it does not appear in the Gospel of Matthew or Luke! It appears in the Gospel of John – the most theologically evolved of the four Gospels.
Now, Christians have a real problem here as Mark (the earliest Gospel which is viewed as source material for the two other synoptic Gospels) does NOT teach the incarnation. As Bart Ehrman confirms, initially the Gospels were designed to be read separately. If Mark, Luke and Matthew believed in the incarnation they would have mentioned it or cited some text in support of it. How do Christians solve this problem? Islam – just reject the belief of incarnation.
Pondering on the conundrum that is the incarnation
Devoted Trinitarians believe Jesus of the Gospels is both God (the second person of) and man simultaneously.
“The question arises here. How is it possible that one person be both man and God; creator and created, high and low?” 
I think this concludes my brief attempt to get Christians to review their beliefs and look into Islam. Christians, please ask yourselves which faith has the more striking and convincing points? Indeed, the Islamic beliefs related to past Prophets (including Jesus) did resonate with myself and were key in my firm acceptance of Islam (God willing) emotionally, logically and theologically. I invite you to do your own research.
Before tying up a couple of loose ends with Anthony Rogers I will leave you with some reading material to further your research
Do you want to learn more about Islam and the Islamic view on Jesus? See here:
Who are the brothers and sisters of Jesus?http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/jesus-teaches-muslims-are-right/
More about Islam:http://www.islamdunktv.com/
A few loose ends with Anthony Rogers
Rogers makes the same mistake as his colleague , David Wood, in suggesting God is in the fire which Moses was drawn to. A while back I answered this claim when it was made by Anthony Roger’s colleague. Rogers would do well to avail himself of this answer and desist from propagating the same redundant arguments in the future, see here.
In Fact, Anthony Rogers’ Article is Inapplicable; that is to say it is ultimately Irrelevant.
Rogers presupposes God needs to be part of creation in order to communicate with His creation. This of course is the conjecture of Anthony Rogers and has no theological basis whatsoever; thus rendering his article inapplicable and irrelevant.
I leave you with the question; who is making the more potent points, the Muslims (1MoreMuslim, TGV and myself )or the Christian (Anthony Rogers)?
I also(politely) ask Anthony Rogers to make sure any response comments by 1MoreMuslim are approved
May Allah accept this effort and purify intentions and guide us all. Ameen
 Mufti Taqi Uthmani, What is Christianity, Darul Ishaat, 1995. pg 35
 ]Augustine, vol 2, p 633
 What every Christian Should Know About Islam, Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood, The Islamic Foundation, p139
 Mufti Taqi Uthmani, What is Christianity, Darul Ishaat, 1995. pg 27
Forgiveness in Islam and Christianity discussed:
American Guantanamo Guard Converts to Islam
As the US government moves to shutdown its detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, stories are emerging of the way it affected those inside.
Former inmates have talked about the deprivation and pressures they faced.
But Terry Holdbrooks was on the other side. He was a US soldier and he says he saw something in the behaviour of the inmates that changed him. He tells his story to Al Jazeera in his own words.
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
A Muslim apologist, Nadir Ahmed, has put forward a useful argument which can be employed to pacify fundamentalist Christian hate rhetoric and help the Christian focus whilst preaching Islam to them.
Some fundamentalist Christians cling to the idea of Islam and the Quran being from Satan. A quick way to counter this would be to simply point to all the fine teachings in Islam and conjoin this to the Biblical verse (Mark 3:23) which teaches the devil cannot drive out the devil (thus the devil will not produce good teachings).
The Christian, if sincere, will relent and the conversation can progress.
It is a decent argument in the sense that it will get the sincere Christian to challenge his/her world view and research Islam – God willing.
Ahmed claims this Islamic prohibition of alcohol has saved “billions” of lives by saving babies from FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). I do want to state the misery of alcohol does not only manifest itself via FAS but a whole host of ailments and societal problems.
Of course the claim of “billions” can be challenged and dismissed as hyperbole but the skeleton claim of Islam (potentially) saving many people from the harms of alcohol is valid; noticeably, Christianity cannot make the same claim as Christianity does not forbid alcohol consumption. Actually, the Bible contains some interesting verses in relation to alcohol:
Ecclesiastes 9:7 instructs, “Drink your wine with a merry heart.” Psalm 104:14-15 states that God gives wine “that makes glad the heart of men.” Amos 9:14 discusses drinking wine from your own vineyard as a sign of God’s blessing. Isaiah 55:1 encourages, “Yes, come buy wine and milk…” 
For the fundamentalist Christian this argument is quite disconcerting and one particular Christian fundamentalist, Sam Shamoun, was evidently rattled by this. Shamoun even wrote an article intimating Islam does not forbid alcohol consumption – anybody with a basic grasp of Islamic Jurisprudence will know Islam does not allow alcohol consumption. 
Sam Shamoun Rattled into Desperation and Counter Polemics
Firstly Shamoun makes a big hoo-hah over the figures Ahmed abstractly mentions; “billions”. Well, let’s simply put this down to hyperbole on the part of Nadir Ahmed. Shamoun dedicates a whole section on this. Get over it Sam and deal with the fact that Islam has saved people from the misery and ill-health which is associated with alcohol – I’m British so I should know about the harms of alcohol. These harms have been PREVENTED pre-emptively by God through Islam.
Shamoun’s denial of Islam possessing better teachings with regards to alcohol than Christianity leads him into a full frontal attack; a myopic, intellectually dishonest and poorly judged attack.
Shamoun has obviously never heard of progressive revelation or is concealing this knowledge from his readers in a misguided attempt to direct them to the wrong conclusion.
OK, in the Quran (4:43) we notice God is instructing the believers not to make As-Salat (prayer) when in a drunken state.
O you who believe! Approach not As¬Salât (the prayer) when you are in a drunken state until you know (the meaning) of what you utter… (Quran translation, 4:43)
Obviously there is no outright prohibition here; ALL scholars and learned Muslims know the Quran was revealed in stages over a period of over twenty years. Initially, alcohol was not outlawed by God but eventually it was prohibited outright (5:90)
O you who believe! Intoxicants (all kinds of alcoholic drinks), gambling, and Al-Ansâb, and Al¬Azlâm (arrows for seeking luck or decision) are an abomination of Shaitân's (Satan) handiwork. So avoid (strictly all) that (abomination) in order that you may be successful (Quran translation, 5:90)
Shamoun feebly attempts to present this as a “contradiction” – it is clearly not due to the progressive nature of the revelation. I’d imagine Shamoun knew this basic knowledge but carried on regardless
Shamoun’s rattled state also leads him to draw attention to God stating a scientific accurate point related to alcohol in the Quran (S. 2:219); that of benefit being in alcohol. It is a scientific fact that alcohol does have benefits; it also has harms too. So Shamoun, unwittingly, highlights another positive for Islam.
They ask you (O Muhammad SAW) concerning alcoholic drink and gambling. Say: "In them is a great sin, and (some) benefit, for men, but the sin of them is greater than their benefit”… (Quran translation 2:219)
He also makes mention of wine being available in Paradise. Shamoun makes a big song and dance about this but if he bothered to do a spot of investigation he would realise the wine in Paradise is not the same as the earthly wine which is prohibited  Furthermore, Shamoun should ask himself why Christians believe the man he takes for his god (Jesus) drank wine? ((John 2:1-11; Matthew 26:29) 
Sam Shamoun should relent with his objections and ask himself why the man he believes to be the incarnation of God was drinking wine and turning water into wine? Shamoun should be consistent; inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. Food for thought, Sam, think about it, please.
NOTE: Muslims believe in Jesus (pbuh) as a mighty Prophet of God rather than an incarnation of God. This is one of the Islamic beliefs which helped to cement my faith in Islam – this Islamic belief makes sense!
Shamoun’s desperation reaches its zenith
Sam Shamoun even tries to intimate Islam allows alcohol consumption – despite all the experts disagreeing with him. We should note there are mitigating circumstances for Shamoun’s intellectual dishonesty; his world view of Islam and Christianity has been turned on its head, after all Shamoun fundamentally believed Islam is from the devil and Christianity is superior but Nadir Ahmed’s argument challenged him quite profoundly.
Sam Shamoun Appeals to Modernists to Suggest Alcohol is Allowed in Islam!
Shamoun appeals to the progressive modernist movement, a movement which simply acts according to its own desires rather than source texts or intellectual honesty. He uses this minority group to try to instil doubt, Shamoun is targeting his fellow fundamentalist Christians – their world view is being challenged and Shamoun does not want these individuals to contemplate upon the significance of Ahmed’s pronouncements. In doing so one would inevitably begin a sincere research of Islam; does Shamoun really want this? I don’t think so.
Addendum: These “progressive” groups seem to have an eschatological interest. A sign of the End Times is in fact much wine being drunk  .
Shamoun Resorts to Real Desperate Measures to Suggest Alcohol is allowed in Islam!
Allow Mohsen Haredy to educate us all:
Sam should reflect upon the Gospels
Were the Gospels written at the time of Jesus? No. Jesus never saw nor sanctioned the four Gospel accounts never mind the other compositions of the New Testament. Shamoun would reject the Gospel accounts if he was consistent and true to his rhetoric
Furthermore, Shamoun’s New Testament is based upon the fourth century document found by Von Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus, at Mount Sinai. That manuscript was written FOUR centuries after Jesus, pbuh! 
Sam, care to be consistent and put down your Bible?
Of course, Shamoun has mitigating factors which cushion the blows to his consistency and intellectual integrity as he has been rattled; his world view of Islam has just been turned on its head. Instead of doing earnest and sincere research for the Truth, Shamoun opted for denial. Please think, Sam.
Shamoun even talks about abortion
He spectacularly claims Islam’s view of the baby in a human capacity from 120 days onwards is “dehumanization”. He thinks this has led to or can lead to detrimental effects on children through abortion
Sam, abortion is a problem in the West because we in the West are promiscuous. Muslim countries do not have the same issues with abortion because sex is generally carried out within the confines of marriage. This appears to be another argument in favour of those who will claim Jesus will support the Muslims when he returns.
Shamoun for some reason (I still have not figured out why in terms of the Bible) claims the Christian view is that the baby is considered human at the point of conception (sperm plus egg).
Shamoun forgets basic facts of life; the fertilised ovum’s two components (sperm and egg) are destroyed through natural processes (i.e. through wet dreams for men and for women in the form of unused eggs). Thus this basic fact of life militates against Shamoun’s view as the two components of what Shamoun deems to be the baby have and are regularly destroyed biologically – this is not a fool proof argument against Shamoun’s view but does offer scope for further investigation.
The Islamic view seems to make sense philosophically and biologically. Shamoun’s personal view can be dismissed in favour of the Islamic view:
“Embryonic development was central to the Muslim arguments on abortion. According to Muslim scholars, it is lawful to have an abortion during the first 120 days, but after the stage of ensoulment (after the soul enters into the fetus), abortion is prohibited completely except where it is imperative to save the mother's life. After ensoulment, however, abortion is prohibited absolutely and is akin to murder” 
Shamoun asks about the previous Prophets
The fact remains, Islam has prohibited alcohol consumption and saved people from the harms of this intoxicant. All praise is due to God
Shamoun changes tack - prepubescent girls
Thanks for bringing this up Sam. Geza Vermes, the famous Jesus scholar, indicates the Jews at the time of Jesus would marry the prepubescent girl and wait for the right biological moment (three months after puberty) and then consummate the marriage . It appears the Arabs at the time of Muhammad did the same thing as the Jews at the time of Jesus. Neither Jesus nor Muhammad prohibited this practice.
Sam Shamoun would not be Sam Shamoun if he did not make a crazy claim up in this section; he suggests the Quran allows sex with prepubescent girls – welcome to the debauched mind of a rattled fundamentalist!
This malicious claim has been addressed previously, see here:
Nadir Ahmed’s argument has use and for the people of understanding will be a catalyst for independent research and truth seeking (God willing)
When fundamentalists who believe Islam is of the devil are challenged intellectually with proof texts some resort to denial – Sam Shamoun falls into this category. Shamoun’s denial led him to further error
If you are a Christian I would like you to take some time out and give Islam a chance, read a translation of the Quran, pop into your local Islamic centre and speak to Muslims in your locality whilst praying to God to guide you to the Truth.
Translations from Quranic passages taken from Dr Muhsin Khan’s translation
 Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994 (O16.1)
 Tafsir Jalalayn 37:34
 What did Jesus Really Say? Misha’al ibn Abdullah, IANA, 2001, Second Edition, pg 224
 Jesus the Jew, by Geza Vermes, 1973, William Collins sons and Co Ltd, pages 219-222
 Bukhari Kitab al Ilm, 1/30,31
Do you want to learn more about Islam and the Islamic view on Jesus? See here:
More about Islam:
Monday, 20 September 2010
I intially put his long standing Islamophobia down to his upbringing as some Assyrians and Coptic Christians are indoctrinated to dislike (hate) Islam from youth. Unfortunately, Sam has been unable to curb his rebellion and resentment towards Muslims despite being in his 40s.
It seems as though Sam Shamoun's problems are in fact deep routed. In his younger days Shamoun dabbled with the ideas of the racist black supremacist group known as Nation of Islam (NOI).
The teachings of this group would appeal to rebellious and disaffected youth. This group is extremely racist towards White people.
The official beliefs as stated by the Nation of Islam have been outlined in books, documents, and articles published by the organization as well as speeches by Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, and other ministers. These include inflammatory statements as well as the pejorative use of the term “white devils” to refer to white people 
Louis Farrakhan has stated that "White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet." (Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/18/00). 
Sam Shamoun, if I am not mistaken, left Christianity for the NOI and stayed with the NOI for FOUR (?) years. Four years (?) is along time for black supremacy especially considering Shamoun is Assyrian (not of African origins)! *
Sam Shamoun Admits to Leaving Christianity for the Racist NOI:
It appears Sam Shamoun has been unable to free himself of the shackles of discrimination and resentment. In his conversion back to Trinitarian Christianity he merely redirected his hatred, resentment and vilification away from a race of people but towards a religious group, Muslims (people of all races), and Islam. Sad :(
*NOTE: IT IS NOT CLEAR IF SHAMOUN STAYED WITH THE RACIST GROUP FOR 4 YEARS.
Video is found at the MuslimByChoice channel on YouTube, the video description:
The following excerpt was taken from the debate took place at the Center for Religious Debate, Michigan, USA between Farhan Qureshi and Sam Shamoun
The Topic was Is there Trinity in the Old Testament?
Click here to watch the full debate
Imam Shabir Ally on racism:
More on Sam Shamoun:
Friday, 17 September 2010
The Back Drop
The Christian apologist, Nabeel Qureshi, was caught presenting a faulty translation of a narration despite having been previously warned by Bassam Zawadi regarding the faulty translation.
However, upon being informed of the blog post rebuking Nabeel Qureshi for his misleading actions, Qureshi came out and offered a desperate conspiracy theory to defend his use of the incorrectly translated narration. His curt response:
I have seen the narration from Ibn Sad with my own eyes. If someone wants to argue that a Muslim translator made it up and put it into the English version, that makes no sense to me.
On the other hand, if a Muslim publisher wants to take it out of an Arabic publication, that makes all the sense in the world, and is much more likely what happened.
If you can find an ancient MS of Ibn Sa'd (at least a very early one) and show me that the line is missing, then you have an argument.
Clearly you have never studied textual criticism. I suggest you study before speaking up so much. Cheers,
Nazam got wind of this and quizzed Bassam Zawadi (who originally informed Qureshi of the inapplicable and fallacious nature of the translation in question). Zawadi offered a real in depth email response which blows further uncertainty upon Qureshi’s scholarship, integrity and desire for the truth.
This blog post will see Bassam Zawadi’s email response published in its entirety and then a summary and commentary as well as a verification of Zawadi’s pronouncements using two well-versed Arabic speakers who are pretty well known in the Muslim cyber-community.
Bassam Zawadi’s Email Response to Qureshi’s Comments
Assalamu Alaykum Nazam,
Thanks for your email.
It’s surprising to see that Nabeel is continuing to push forth this argument after I have warned him in our debate last year in July, 2009 that the phrase “The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an” does not exist in the original Arabic text. I am assuming that Nabeel is relying on a faulty translation by Muhammad ibn Sa’d and Syed Moinul Haq published in 1967.
I told Nabeel that relying solely on translations is not sufficient and that we must go back to the original Arabic text. His refusal to do this could open the door for Muslims to follow his logic and blindly insist that the Jehovah Witness translation of John 1:1 is accurate regardless of what the Greek text says, while Nabeel wouldn’t have any right to object if he wants to remain consistent!
It’s amazing to see Nabeel saying to the Muslim brother “Clearly you have never studied textual criticism”, yet Nabeel is not doing any textual criticism himself, for he is completely ignoring what the original Arabic text says and stubbornly insists on relying on a translation, which he has been warned to be faulty.
The least Nabeel could have done was ask a Christian friend who knows Arabic to verify whether the Arabic text has been accurately translated. He has not done so.
Last year after the debate Nabeel informed me that he only had three days to prepare for the debate. I thought to myself “Why debate a topic you are not well prepared for? That is not an excuse!” Also, right after the debate he told me that he would consult (or interact) with me on this topic, however until now I haven’t received a single email from Nabeel talking to me about any issues regarding the topic. One would think that he would at least be curious enough to ask me to provide the actual Arabic text of the narration and provide him with the correct translation! So more than a year later we still see that Nabeel hasn’t properly studied his arguments and seems to have found his “three days of preparation” last year to have been sufficient!
It appears that Nabeel has reintroduced this argument with no apparent desire of seeking the truth. This is upsetting to know, especially since Nabeel in his videos portrays himself as someone sincere for knowing the truth.
Now let us get to the matter at hand. Allow me to provide you with the actual Arabic text of the narration. First of all, the reference that I have is Volume 2, page 344 and not page 444. Perhaps this is the reference in the edition that Nabeel has. No big deal. Here is the Arabic text:
فغلوا المصاحف فلأن أقرأ على قراءة من أحب أحب إلي من أن أقرأ على قراءة زيد بن ثابت فوالذي لا إله غيره لقد أخذت من في رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم بضعا وسبعين سورة وزيد بن ثابت غلام له ذؤابتان يلعب مع الغلمان
The funny thing is that this Arabic text is even available in the Arabic translation of one of John Gilchrist’s articles on the Answering Islam website: www.answering-islam.org/Arabic/Gilchrist/Jam/jam3-2.html. They should have warned John Gilchrist about the faulty translation!
The translation provided by Nabeel perfectly matches the Arabic text except for the words highlighted in red:
فغلوا المصاحف فلأن أقرأ على قراءة من أحب أحب إلي من أن أقرأ على قراءة زيد بن ثابت فوالذي لا إله غيره لقد أخذت من في رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم بضعا وسبعين سورة وزيد بن ثابت غلام له ذؤابتان يلعب مع الغلمان
The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth".
The Arabic words فغلوا المصاحف (faghullu al masaahif) have been falsely translated into “The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an".
The Arabic word al masaahif, simply means manuscripts. Not a big deal.
The focus is on the word faghullu. The translator found this to imply deceit in the text of the Qur’an itself, which is completely false. The word faghullu (فغلوا) comes from the Arabic word al ghulool (الغلول). In this context it means “the taking of something without any right” and this is a form of betrayal. Imam Al Tabari in his commentary on Surah 3:161 talks about how the word ghalla (one of the derivatives of the word ghulool) means خان (khaana) in Arabic, which means betrayal. Indeed, Ibn Mas’ud did initially feel betrayed by Uthman’s decision to standardize the texts.
This word was commonly referred to those who use to take from the war booty before it was justly distributed. We even see the use of one of its derivates in Surah 3:161.
We understand this word in this narration the same way we understand as it’s derivative in Surah 3:161. Why? Because Ibn Masud in another narration in regards to the whole matter goes on to quote this portion from Surah 3:161:
waman yaghlul ya/ti bima ghalla yawma alqiyamati
and he who acts unfaithfully shall bring that in respect of which he has acted unfaithfully on the day of resurrection
So going back to the narration, what is it actually saying? Well Ibn Masud is saying that the manuscripts are being taken away from them unjustly (i.e. Uthman demanding all the manuscripts to be burnt) and he feels betrayed by this. He did not say that there is deceit in the manuscripts of Uthman. The words from the English translation “in the reading of the Qur'an” do not even exist in the text. This is an interpretation of the words of Ibn Masud and has no basis.
This is extremely important to note. The whole argument of Nabeel lies on the words “in the reading of the Qur’an”, for that is the object of deceit in the English translation. However, those words do NOT exist in the original Arabic text.
Just as I have explained in my debate with Nabeel, Ibn Mas’ud was initially against the standardization of Uthman (it was during this phase where he uttered the above), but he never once accused the Uthmanic manuscripts of containing errors in them. Then Ibn Masud agreed with Uthman’s standardization. The reading we have of Ibn Masud is like what we have today just as Ibn Hazm and Imam Al Baqillani have said.
I advise you and others to watch the debate again and refresh your memories. Unfortunately there are people who continue to repeat their allegations while completely ignoring or failing to understand our responses to them. They think that the presence of variants compromises the perfect preservation of the Qur’an and use their textual history of the New Testament as an analogy. Unfortunately, this only demonstrates that they have not grasped the subject matter that well enough.
In conclusion, the translation that Nabeel is using is horrendously wrong. Last year, no one could have really blamed Nabeel for relying on a faulty translation. However, after it was brought to his attention he still persists on using the narration without even verifying with someone who knows Arabic whether the narration is actually translated properly! Now that is extremely problematic and speaks loads about Nabeel’s academic honesty. I know he doesn’t trust us Muslims because he thinks we are a big bunch of liars who just practice taqqiyah for a living, but he could at least ask an Arab Christian to provide him with a word by word translation of the text!
I will say again what I said in my debate with him last year:
If Nabeel is planning to present this narration as an argument, he better show me the original Arabic text and if he doesn’t I’m just going to reply back and say that this phrase does not exist and would challenge him to show me the original Arabic source.
Furthermore, let’s say that the translation is correct. So what? We have shown that Ibn Mas’ud eventually agreed with Uthman’s reading and that the readings we have from Ibn Mas’ud transmitted down to us agree with the Uthmanic manuscripts. So again, this argument of his is not really that significant in terms of implications to the argument for the preservation of the Qur’an. It’s not essential to point out that Ibn Mas’ud at some point in his life disagreed with Uthman’s readings, but whether he died believing that. The latter is what matters and is impossible to show. Furthermore, one would have to provide evidence for Ibn Masud being right, while everyone else was wrong!
--------------------- End of Bassam's Email to Nazam-----------------------
Summary and a Spot of Commentary
Firstly, I want to state the textual criticism jibe brought into play by Nabeel Qureshi is nothing but a superficial misdirection in order to distract Qureshi’s supporters and even critics from the real issue; the real issue being one of Qureshi’s lack of research and lack of regard for accuracy.
As confirmed by Bassam Zawadi, Qureshi had over a year to research the faulty translation and the actual Arabic source material. Qureshi did not bother to do so and utilised a translation which he effectively knew to be inaccurate.
Qureshi has not done one iota of research and is wrongly keeping this bout of misinformation alive. Qureshi’s conspiracy theory of Muslims doctoring the Arabic text in order to remove the problematic statement is myopic and smacks of desperation to save face. Sadly for Qureshi, even his conspiracy theory falls flat on its face as the translation which he utilised is the 1967 translation; is Qureshi really expecting us to believe Muslims began doctoring the text after 1967?
To pour further scorn and refutation on Qureshi’s conspiracy theory the actual Arabic text is even displayed on Qureshi’s fellow missionary website – as confirmed by Bassam Zawadi. I have checked Zawadi’s link and I can confirm the Arabic text is present. Check for yourself.
So Qureshi’s conspiracy theory is irrelevant and can be dismissed for the desperate face-saving and misdirecting attempt it was designed to be. However, the more astute would ask whether Zawadi’s translation is correct or not – Qureshi should have done this rather than remain dormant for a year and surface with the same claim and append an incongruous conspiracy theory in order to justify the use of the “narration” AFTER being caught out!
Is Bassam Zawadi Correct?
Bassam Zawadi’s response has an ennobling feel to it and does encourage further research. Zawadi wrote:
This is extremely important to note. The whole argument of Nabeel lies on the words “in the reading of the Qur’an”, for that is the object of deceit in the English translation. However, those words do NOT exist in the original Arabic text.
OK, even I can see this is correct thus rendering Qureshi’s translation noticeably faulty. You can check the Arabic text for yourself or get somebody who knows Arabic to verify this statement for you.
Strong Arabic Speakers Agree with Bassam Zawadi
On top of this I made inquiries with two individuals who know Arabic well. 1MoreMuslim from YouTube is the gentleman who recently rebuked Dr James White for using a faulty amateur translation of a Quranic Verse. 1MoreMuslim stated on the translation used by Qureshi:
“The translation given by Nabeel cannot be more stretched”
I have appended all of 1MoreMuslim’s email in appendix 1
Both 1MoreMuslim and IslamResponses are in agreement on the fact that the translation Qureshi used is incorrect and they both offer the view the first two words should be translated as “hide the Masahif (manuscripts)”
IslamResponses offers a correct translation for the relevant part of the narration:
“Hide the manuscripts, I like it better to read according to the recitation of the one whom I love more (( he means the Prophet) than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit.”
Actually, in IslamResponses’ breakdown of the usage of the word in question (ghullu) you can see how the translator (S. Moinul Haq) wrongly came to the word “deceit” and Zawadi explains the rest of the English translation “ is an interpretation of the words of Ibn Masud and has no basis”. Therefore if we piece together the information put forward by Zawadi and IslamResponses we can see how the mistake came about. IslamResponses’ analysis is in appendix 1.
So, is Bassam Zawadi correct?
Yes, two other strong speakers of Arabic agree that the translation used by Qureshi is indeed faulty and thus should not be utilised to support an argument.
The positive to come out of this saga is the further publicising of the incorrect nature of the English translation used by Qureshi and others who seek to attack the preservation of the Quran. Effectively, we realise the argument espoused by the critics is invalid and obsolete – it should NOT be used by anybody with a shred of intellectual integrity.
Full Circle with Nabeel Qureshi
We have come full circle and return to Nabeel Qureshi’s missive, “I suggest you study before speaking up so much”.
Well Nabeel, it appears as though people who have a regard for the truth (Nazam, Bassam, 1MoreMuslim and IslamResponses) conducted more research and study in half an hour than you did in a whole year. Had Qureshi stuck to his word of getting back to Bassam Zawadi after the debate in an attempt to iron out the flaws in his own understanding he would have saved us all time and even saved himself from developing a reputation of unreliability and lack of concern for accuracy.
NOTE: I have another video, yet to be uploaded related to another aspect of intellectual dishonesty on the part of Qureshi stemming from his now infmaous double-team attack video against Quranic preservation. God willing, it will be uploaded after some further checks and/or refinements
An Appeal to Nabeel Qureshi, James White and Antonio Santana (mbi3030)
Antonio is a friend of mine and unfortunately he featured Qureshi’s offending video on his site and continued to feature it despite my objections being put forward to him. Antonio, is far from versed in Quranic preservation and is certainly incapable of defending the offending material. Why feature material which you are unable to defend and is shown to be faulty. Surely the wise move would be to remove to material from circulation.
James White has featured Qureshi’s video on his blog; I hope to send White an email on this subject. White should do the right thing too, that is to remove the misinformation from his blog.
Nabeel Qureshi, please have a rethink of your use of this material in the future. Moreover, you should set the example and remove your video from circulation immediately. Please do the checks recommended to you by Bassam as well. Sir, pride always comes before a fall. Your response to me was not only inadequate but was full of pride. Please think about it.
Good people do not sit on their hands when misinformation presents itself
May Allah reward Bassam Zawadi, Nazam, IslamResponses and 1MoreMuslim for their work in putting to bed misinformation and this particular inapplicable argument.
Muslims are called to holiness and honesty. Mufti Taqi Uthmani recognises mistakes made by Christians AND Muslims which render the subsequent arguments inapplicable. Uthmani even labels the results of the misunderstanding of Christianity on the part of Muslim refutations and Christians as “evils”. It is excellent to see the eminent scholar, Mufti Taqi Uthmani, is encouraging a thorough understanding of the subject in hand. 
I particularly make mention to this for the purpose of Antonio, when Antonio stated he would not remove Qureshi’s misinformation from his site a Christian commenter agreed with Anotnio’s decision and seemingly justified his agreement based on the mistakes made by Muslims in the past with relation to Christianity, This “our misinformation vs. your misinformation” attitude NEEDS to stop immediately.
Islam does not allow presenting misinformation about somebody else’s faith and Uthmani encourages a full understanding of Christianity on the part of Muslims – presenting misinformation about somebody’s faith is not clever
Does Christianity allow Christians to present misinformation and inapplicable arguments against Islam?
Food for thought, Antonio and Nabeel.
I have found Bassam Zawadi’s debate material very inspirational and realised there is a need for individual Muslims to understand the material being put forth by Zawadi and others. I have personally found the study of Quranic preservation extremely enjoyable (though initially daunting).
Personally, I have Al Azami’s book on the subject and Von Denffer’s book as well as having access to material from Yasir Qahdi and Dr Mohamed Mamdou. An internet friend of mine has put forward a humble video presentation on the subject and refutation of some of the polemics being used by some Christian missionaries. There is also a useful online book which I have recently downloaded, written by Hamza Bajwa.
There is a lot of study material out there which BOTH Christians and Muslims can benefit from
However, the fastest way to deal with a polemic is by revisiting Bassam Zawadi’s informing pronouncements in his debate with Qureshi. See Nazam’s YouTube page.
An Invitation to Islam
Finally, if you are not Muslim please give Islam a chance. Visit your local Islamic centre, befriend a few pious Muslims in order to learn about the faith and read a translation of the Quran. You have nothing to lose, I invite you to research Islam and become Muslims. Pray to God and ask him to guide you to the Truth whilst you research Islam.
Thanks - May Allah guide us all
General Feedback: email@example.com
 What is Christianity, Mufti Mohammad Taqi Uthmani, Darul Ishat, 1995 pg 35
Appendix 1 – Presenting IslamResponses and 1MoreMuslim in full
The translation given by Nabeel cannot be more stretched.
Most of the Arabic words beginning with the letter "GH", imply a meaning of hiding from sight. Like for example the word " Ghurub" (sunset) or the disappearance of the sun, and the word "ghaba" : to be absent and away from sight.
The word "ghalla" in its most basic form means to hide something, to keep out of sight. But the context defines what is the precise meaning: It means to hide a booty when the context is war, it means deceit when it's about hiding a bad plan, it means also Hidden hatred or antagonism.
In the context of Ibn Masuud, he said simply to hide the Masahif.
I presume this is what Bassam concluded in his email to you.
Here is IslamResponses:
Re: Arabic translation??
Wa alikum al salam wa rahmato Allah wa barakato
Al goolul ( الغلول )has many meanings:
1- it means the congested food.( الطعام والشراب الذى يدخل الجوف أى المخفى وليس الطعام والشراب الموجود على مائدة وخلافه)
2-God says:(وَمَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يَغُلَّ وَمَن يَغْلُلْ يَأْتِ بِمَا غَلَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ثُمَّ تُوَفَّى كُلُّ نَفْسٍ مَّا كَسَبَتْ وَهُمْ لاَ يُظْلَمُونَ : آل عمران - 161
أى ما كان لنبى أن يخون أو يخفى غنيمة حصل عليها فى الغزوات والحروب أو يتخلى عن رسالته
(مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يَغُلَّ وَمَن يَغْلُلْ )
it is not permissible for any prophet (to deceive) to cheat his community regarding booty; it is also possible that the meaning is: it is not permissible for a community to deceive its prophet. (Whoso deceiveth) as regards any of the booty (will bring his deceit with him) carried on his neck (on the Day of Resurrection
3- :God says:
وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ يَدُ اللَّهِ مَغْلُولَةٌ غُلَّتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَلُعِنُواْ بِمَا قَالُواْ بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَانِ يُنفِقُ كَيْفَ يَشَاء : المائدة - 64
أى اتهموا الله تعالى بأن عطاؤه محدود . غلت أيديهم أى أمسكت عن فعل أى خير
(وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ يَدُ اللَّهِ مَغْلُولَةٌ ) it means:
the Jew (say: Allah's hand is fettered) and cannot give. (Their hands are fettered) they neither do good nor spend in good causes (and they are accursed) they are punished by the imposition of the capitation tax on them (for saying so. Nay, but both His hands are spread out wide in bounty) His hands are wide open for both the righteous and the sinner. (He bestoweth as He will) if He wishes, He gives, and if He wishes, He withholds. (That which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord).
4-أما معنى : غلوا مصاحفكم أى لا تظهروها وأخفوها
the meaning of (فغلوا المصاحف ) is to:
hide the manuscripts and do not show them to anybody .
so the translation of this hadith is:
(Hide the manuscripts,I like it better to read according to the recitation of the one whom I love more (( he means the Prophet) than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I had learned more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth"
ذؤابتان: means two plaits (queues) or 2 locks.
wa al salamu alikum.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
The Muslim view does in fact make more sense once an individual considers the Attributes of God and the history of sin.
The History of Sin
Does sin have a point of inception? It does. The concept of sin only came into existence due to God. Think about it; an individual down the road who happens to have sexual intercourse is commiting sin because he is doing this act in an unmarried state whilst the individual next door is doing the SAME act but not committing a sin as his actions are under the umbrella of marriage. Who set the criteria of what constitutes sin and what does not? God.
So Who brought the concept of sin into existence? God.
Did God kill Himself in order to bring the idea of sin into existence? No.
Think about it, if God can introduce the idea of sin without a need to kill Himself then surely you can believe God can forgive people without sacrificing Himself.
NOTE: For intellectual honesty purposes it must be stated there is a distinction between the idea of sin and the act of sin.
Attributes of God
The relevant attributes of God for the purposes of this article are:
*God being the Ever Living
*God being the Forgiver
We realise God does not die and is the Forgiver of sin; therefore the Christian belief of God dying for the sin of people is problematic but the Islamic belief of God forgiving without dying is in line with a consistent and correct view of God
So, do we need God to sacrifice Himself in order to forgive sinners? No. The Islamic view of God simply forgiving out of His Mercy is sufficient.
All this philosophising does throw further refutation upon the neo-Christian idea of atonement
More about Jesus and Christianity plus Islam:
Encouragement to learn about Islam:http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/08/assyrians-and-arab-christians-please.html
The Brothers of Jesus: Who are they?http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/jesus-teaches-muslims-are-right/
Which incarnation? I personally feel both beliefs are gateways to paganism:http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/08/two-incarnations-god-became-dove.html