In the name of Allah (God),
I have decided to dedicate sincere and honest endeavour in helping to establish the Truth by helping to defend the good name of the last Prophet (pbuh) of Allah as well as refuting many other lies and misconceptions that are being disseminated by the insincere, wicked, deceptive, intellectually and morally bankrupted individuals as well as the ignorant individuals who all share a faulty characteristic; a blatant disregard for the Truth.
I ask Allah to purify my intentions and save me from doing any good action for self-aggrandizement, as all actions are judged by intentions. May Allah Love me, and bless this work. My message to any non-Muslim reading this is thus:
Please give Islam a chance, research it for yourself and allow Muslims and Muslim sources to be your primary resources you refer to when studying Islam rather than basing your views on agenda-motivated Islamophobic sources.
O Allah, You are Al-Wadud (The Loving)...please O Allah love me and bless all those Muslims and non-Muslims who read this.
Ameen
Origen followed Clement in relishing the use of an ‘allegorical’
method of understanding the meaning of literary texts, which by then held a
long history in Greek scholarship. This s how learned Greeks had read Homer and
how learned Alexandrian Jews like Philo read the Tanakh. Allegorical readers of
scripture saw it as having several layers of meaning. The innermost meanings,
hidden behind the literal sense of the words on the page, were not only the
most profound, but also only available to those with eyes to see.[p152, A History of Christianity by Diarmaid McCulloch]
Thoughts on: Muhammad in the Bible? Debate between Zakir Hussain (Hussein) and Samuel Green
I think this is a timely reminder to folk that looking at the Bible allegorically is nothing new. I recently viewed a debate between a Muslim (Zakir Hussain/Hussein) and a Christian (Samuel Green) about whether Prophet Muhammad was in the Bible.
I thought the Muslim gave a cohesive presentation and was rather impressive. He drew the audience's attention to the unaccommodating approach Christians have towards prophecies of Muhammad (p) in the Bible compared to the accommodating approach they have for prophecies of Jesus (p) in the Old Testament.
The Muslim speaker began his presentation by making mention of Matthew, in ch.2:14-15, who uses an allegorical interpretation of Hosea 11:1 to support his belief that this is a Prophecy of Jesus. I think this was a really good start to his presentation as the more balanced Christian viewer would have to be inclined to give the Biblical verses presented as prophecies of Muhammad (p) a fair opportunity.
I wonder whether the Christians (including Samuel Green) would be prepared to give an allegorical reading of the Biblical passages Zakir presented as prophecies of Prophet Muhammed (p) an opportunity during moments of quiet reflection...
Right, just in case other Christian and Muslims are deceived by Christian rabble-rousers on the internet whom are propagating the cross
dressing lie I think it’s time for another post on this issue.
So recently some Christian apologist donned his wife’s pink
dress and put forward a video on You/tube in which he claimed Prophet Muhammed
(p) wore his wife’s (Aisha’s clothing).
This lie has already been refuted here in article form,
however I did decide to pour scorn on this missionary’s cross dressing and
deceptive antics via video. After producing this video I noticed Ayaman1 had
already made a more thorough and comprehensive video (Did Prophet Muhammad wear
his wives' clothes? another missionary lie) in which he highlights this cloth
seems to refer to 'house'. I'd recommend, if you want to be educated on this
issue you view Ayaman1's video
Rebuking a Cross Dresser
Recommended and Thorough Video Refutation by Ayaman1: Did Prophet Muhammad wear his wives' clothes ? another missionary lie
Notes and Summary of Ayaman1's Video
Ayaman1 in his video (~4.30) brings forward a hadith from Musnad
Ahmed which doesn’t use thawb or mirt (or any word related to a cloth) but uses
the words (in the) HOUSE (fi bayt…).
For me it does appear the narration refers to a house. Ayaman1
does mention the word cloth (used in the other narrations already discussued) is
a metaphor for ‘house’ as well. Whatever the case may be, we are all certain
NONE of the narrations refer to women’s dresses/clothing.
As for the word ‘mirT’, Ayaman1 highlights that it’s an
unsewn cloth which can be worn by men and women. It’s not a dress or garment of
a woman. I guess facts are what these Christian mischief-makers dislike.
In all reality, I’d imagine even the most ardent Christian
fundamentalist feels these claims of cross-dressing to be false but out of
sheer mischief-making and attention-seeking we see a handful of internet
Christian missionary characters propagating such absurd claims. May Allah guide
them. Ameen.
The ‘abomination’ that is David Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics
This cross dresser who is
collecting cash for his ‘Christian’ missionary efforts is actually an
abomination according to the Bible he is claiming to preach. I wonder what his
financial supporters make of this as well as Bassim Gorial (ABN), Samuel Green,
James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries):
“A woman shall not wear
a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, ufor whoever does these things is
an abomination to the Lord your God.
[Deuteronomyt 22:5 ESV]
Perhaps this creepy
rabble-rouser will like to explain his open defiance of the Bible he is
supposedly advocating…
Stupidity and Desperation
If you are going to seek donations for your internet
activities (Christian fundamentalist rabble-rousing) then surely you wearing
your wife’s pink dress on camera is only going to further tarnish your credibility
as an apologist (if you had any remaining)? Surely propagating a lie which you
borrowed from your missionary side kick (Sam Shamoun) is hardly going to do you
any favours – especially considering the lie is old, tired and refuted?
I really think Christian fundamentalists think their donors
are stupid? Why else would they constantly regurgitate the same refuted
absurdities over and over and present it to their financial donors as something
convincing…
I think the mind set of the financial supporters of such mischief-apologists
could be summed up by this fictitious dialogue:
Sam and David: Give us some support boys.
Chump 1: Here’s $50 David
Chump 2: Have you got any new material coming out?
David: What, didn’t you see me and my cross dressing video?!
Chump 1: I certainly did, you looked really pretty in the
pink dress and lip stick.
Chump 2: Uh? But I saw that stupid claim years ago and
Muslims refuted it easily. In fact the same goes for your other claims…
David: Do you hate Muslims? If you do, then shut your mouth
and give some financial aid to your brother Sam Shamoun so he doesn’t have to
get a real job.
Chump 2: Erm, guys I’m going to stop being a chump. BTW
Wearing women’s clothing is an abomination according to the Bible. You David
are an abomination and a deceiver. Good bye.
Chump 1: Is it possible he is a Muslim now? Shall I drink
his blood?
Further reading:
Article from let me turn the tables refuting and exposing one of the original propagators of this lie:
