Thursday 21 April 2016

Muslim Discusses John 3:16 - Aqil Onque

 IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST GRACIOUS THE MOST MERCIFUL





THE CHRISTIAN LIE OF BLOOD AND SACRIFICIAL ATONEMENT AND JOHN 3:16





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

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

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


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


2.      The human god sacrifice (fabrication)

3.       The Original sin (fabrication)

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

5.      The unconditional love and forgiveness (fabrication)

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

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

There are four clear declarations in this verse, namely:

1          That God loved the world

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

3         That God only has One and only One son

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

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

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

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

1.        THE SOLE NEED OF BLOOD FOR ATONEMENT (FABRICATION)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


THE ORIGINAL SIN (FABRICATION)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE UNCONDITIONAL LOVE AND FORGIVENESS (FABRICATION)

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

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

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

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

A Thorough Refutation of the Thighing Lie

Taken with amendments from here: http://azblogtalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-thighing-of-aisha-brief-refutation_12.html

In a very popular accusation against the prophet that he practiced a form of an intercourse called thighing (Mufaakhathah) مفاخذة

A Christian missionary organisation is using the following to mislead people, source A:





The second is an Arabic fatwa that goes as follows Source B:


فتوى رقم (31409) تاريخ 7 \5 \1421ه
الحمد لله وحده والصلاة والسلام على من لا نبي بعده ... وبعد:
فقد اطلعت اللجنة الدائمة للبحوث العلمية والافتاء على ما ورد الى سماحة المفتي العام من المستفتي ابو عبدالله محمد الشمري والمحال الى اللجنة من الامانة العامة لهيئة كبار العلماء برقم 1809 وتاريخ 3\5\1421ه وقد سأل المستفتي سؤالا هذا نصه:
انتشرت في الآونة الاخيرة , وبشكل كبير وخاصة في الأعراس عادة مفاخذة الأولاد الصغار , ماحكم ذلك مع العلم أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان قد فاخذ سيدتنا عائشة رضي الله عنها
وبعد دراسة اللجنة للاستفتاء أجابت بمايلي : ليس من هدي المسلمين على مر القرون أن يلجأن إلى استعمال هذه الوسائل الغير شرعية والتي وفدت إلى بلادنا من الافلام الخلاعية التي يرسلها الكفار وأعداء الإسلام ,أما من جهة مفاخذة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لخطيبته عائشة فقد كانت في سن السادسة من عمرها ولا يستطيع ان يجامعها لصغر سنها لذلك كان صلى الله عليه وسلم يضع إربه بين فخذيها ويدلكه دلكا خفيفا , كما أن رسول الله يملك إربه على عكس المؤمنين
بناء على ذلك فلا يجوز التعامل بالمفاخذة لا في الأعراس ولا في المنازل ولا في المدارس , لخطرها الفاحش ولعن الله الكفار , الذين أتوا بهذه العادات الى بلادنا,
اللجنة الدائمة للبحوث العلمية والافتاء
عضو: بكر بن عبد الله ابو زيد
عضو: صالح بن فوزان الفوزان
الرئيس : عبد العزيز بن عبد الله بن محمد آل الشيخ
Translate into:
“Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet. After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwas (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shamari, the question forwarded to the committee by the grand scholar of the committee with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421(Islamic calendar). The inquirer asked the following: ‘It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufakhathat of the children (mufakhathat literally translated means “placing between the thighs of children” which means placing the male erected penis between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be pleased with her? ‘After the committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply: ‘It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kofar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the Prophet, peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age. That is why the prophet peace and prayers of Allah be upon him placed his penis between her thighs and massaged it lightly, as the apostle of Allah had control of his penis not like other believers’”



Now we have observed the only 2 available sources for such claims let’s start with the first one:

(Question Asalamualaykumwarahmatullahiwabarakatahu can you explain to me the thing called "thighing" also pronounced "mufa


Answer
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. We ask Allaah to exalt his mention as well as that of his family and all his companions.


A-The term Mufaakhathah means to have foreplay with the wife in between her thighs. It is reported in one narration that when the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) wanted to enjoy one of his wives who was in menstruation, he would put a piece of cloth on her vagina (i.e. cover it). [Ibn Maajah].
B-The author of Faydh Al-Qadeer interpreted the expression 'if he wanted to enjoy to mean having all permissible foreplay but avoiding the vagina [or the anus], like in between her thighs (i.e. Mufaakhathah).
Allaah Knows best.)



Response:
Let us focus on the part (A)
The source sites a hadith  allegedly from Ibn Maajah. However if we search for the alleged hadith we won’t be able to find the alleged narration [3] therefore the first claim (A) is to be dismissed and rejected since such hadith doesn't exist


Let us look at part (B)

(The author of Faydh Al-Qadeer interpreted the expression 'if he wanted to enjoy to mean having all permissible foreplay but avoiding the vagina [or the anus], like in between her thighs (i.e. Mufaakhathah). )

The authors of the so called fatwa attempt to bring a translation of the word however their attempts are futile, according to lisan al arab the most well-known dictionary of the Arabic language[4] , we see that the word (Mufaakhathah) doesn't exist in the first place[5] , so how come the most respected well known dictionary of the Arabic language doesn't acknowledge the existence of such a word, the closest word to Mufaakhathah that is found in lisan al arab goes by the name of (Yufakhthou) يُفَخِّذُ translate into (separate tribes members one by one or fukhoth by fukhoth).

Conclusion:

The first sentence A of the first source site a hadith that doesn't exist in Sunan Ibn Majah, so how come people take this seriously?

The second part attempt to translate the word but as shown according to the most authentic dictionary on Arabic language the word doesn't exist at all, therefore the second sentence B is also refuted


Since we are done of the first source let us see the second one:

فتوى رقم (31409) تاريخ 7 \5 \1421
الحمد لله وحده والصلاة والسلام على من لا نبي بعده ... وبعد:
فقد اطلعت اللجنة الدائمة للبحوث العلمية والافتاء على ما ورد الى سماحة المفتي العام من المستفتي ابو عبدالله محمد الشمري والمحال الى اللجنة من الامانة العامة لهيئة كبار العلماء برقم 1809 وتاريخ 3\5\1421ه وقد سأل المستفتي سؤالا هذا نصه:
انتشرت في الآونة الاخيرة , وبشكل كبير وخاصة في الأعراس عادة مفاخذة الأولاد الصغار , ماحكم ذلك مع العلم أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان قد فاخذ سيدتنا عائشة رضي الله عنها
وبعد دراسة اللجنة للاستفتاء أجابت بمايلي : ليس من هدي المسلمين على مر القرون أن يلجأن إلى استعمال هذه الوسائل الغير شرعية والتي وفدت إلى بلادنا من الافلام الخلاعية التي يرسلها الكفار وأعداء الإسلام ,أما من جهة مفاخذة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لخطيبته عائشة فقد كانت في سن السادسة من عمرها ولا يستطيع ان يجامعها لصغر سنها لذلك كان صلى الله عليه وسلم يضع إربه بين فخذيها ويدلكه دلكا خفيفا , كما أن رسول الله يملك إربه على عكس المؤمنين
بناء على ذلك فلا يجوز التعامل بالمفاخذة لا في الأعراس ولا في المنازل ولا في المدارس , لخطرها الفاحش ولعن الله الكفار , الذين أتوا بهذه العادات الى بلادنا,
اللجنة الدائمة للبحوث العلمية والافتاء
عضو: بكر بن عبد الله ابو زيد
عضو: صالح بن فوزان الفوزان
الرئيس : عبد العزيز بن عبد الله بن محمد آل الشيخ)
Translate into:
“Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet. After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwas (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shamari, the question forwarded to the committee by the grand scholar of the committee with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421(Islamic calendar). The inquirer asked the following:‘It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufakhathat of the children (mufakhathat literally translated means “placing between the thighs of children” which means placing the male erected penis between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be pleased with her?’After the committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply: ‘It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kofar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the Prophet, peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age. That is why the prophet peace and prayers of Allah be upon him placed his penis between her thighs and massaged it lightly, as the apostle of Allah had control of his penis not like other believers’”)



This has been floating around the internet and it comes from the following source as sited in the original Arabic text
(اللجنة الدائمة للبحوث العلمية والافتاء) translate into:

The General Presidency of Scholarly Research and ifta

This website[6] is considered the original source for such a claim, now since the so-called fatwa number is 31409 let us attempted to search it on the original source and see if it does exist, we head to the advance search under the search bar >Search by Fatwa number>then type in 31409 and see the result, as expected (No Results Found)[7]

So the authenticity of the second source is also seems quite fabricated, as the fatwa doesn't exist in its original source at all.

But let us go deeper and investigate it with in the fatwa itself the fatwa makes the following statement:
(عائشة فقد كانت في سن السادسة من عمرها ولا يستطيع ان يجامعها لصغر سنها لذلك كان صلى الله عليه وسلم يضع إربه بين فخذيها ويدلكه دلكا خفيفا)
Translate into:
(She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age. That is why the prophet peace and prayers of Allah be upon him placed his penis between her thighs and massaged it lightly,)

Let us see if this is actually correct?

(the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).)[8]

As we can see from the hadith that he engaged her at the age of 6 then married her at  the age of 9 then she remained with him from the age of 9


The statement from the Fatwa seems to suggest that the prophet practiced this sexual intercourse with Aisha at the Age of 6, however as we can see above the authentic hadith cited by Bukhari state that the prophet didn't consummate the marriage up until the age of 9, the fatwa seems to be contradicting the authenticated narration by Bukhari, subsequently making it unhistorical in comparison to the will respected Islamic exegesis of Bukhari

Conclusion:

It’s now safe to say the so called fatwa has been refuted and debunked in it’s both sources that was provided, in conclusion the so-called thighing of Aisha holds no historical accuracy if it is investigated under the lens of  objective and sincere scrutiny.

The sincere people will not promulgate the thighing claim. Those who did in the past should openly retract their previous misinformation - if they are of sincere character and have a value for truth and honesty.


[1] http://www.answering
[2] http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=92051
[3] http://sunnah.com/search/?q=wanted+to+enjoy+one+of+his+wives+who+was+in+menstruation%2C+he+would+put+a+piece+of+cloth+on+her+vagina+
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Manzur#Lis.C4.81n_al-.CA.BFArab
[5] http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp?term=%D9%85%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%B0%D8%A9
[6] http://www.alifta.net/
[7] http://www.alifta.net/Search/noresult.aspx?languagename=en&fatwasrch=true
[8] http://sunnah.com/bukhari/67/69



AQIL ONQUE'S REFUTATION OF ANSWERINGMUSLIMS.COM ON THE FABRICATED “THIGHING” STORY OF AISHA



O People of the Scripture, why do you confuse the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know [it]? 

One of the signs of the last day is that there would be imposters and liars and they would assume the garb of religious men. The people would believe the lies and disbelieve the truth. For certain, we see this widespread now and in particular, we will see it hear from the content of this article and what it’s addressing. It’s sad that such a refutation has to be drawn up, but what can one expect in this time and age and also from religious zealots who lack intellectual and academic integrity? Evidently, not much.




The issue under discussion in this article is dealing with an accusation or blatant lie that was made against the Prophet Muhammad (S) and his wife Aisha. It came from the source, Answeringmuslims.com and posted by David Wood, a young Christian apologist and one notorious for misrepresenting the beliefs of Islam along with his colleagues.

The article stems from a broadcast from their channel (Trinity Channel), and as presented there, they fabricated the story that the Prophet Muhammad (S), prior to consummating the marriage with Aisha used to perform an act termed “mufaakhathah”, which implies placing the male organ between the thighs (only, not penetrating her) of a woman and moving himself until climax is reached. The explicit reason given was because she (Aisha) was too young and too small to receive formal penetration. SO AS TO NOT HURT HER, this action was employed. Moreover, from the article itself as well as the broadcast, this apologist wants to give the impression to their ill-informed audience that this act was a more preferable act over a normal act of intimacy, grossly insinuating that the Prophet (S) seemed to target young virgins who were too young for formal intercourse. This is the back drop of this issue. So now let us proceed to refute it.

POINT #1: I checked all of the hadith in Arabic that was cited in their article about the wives of the Prophet (S) and this act and I didn’t find in any single one of them, this term “mufaakhathah”.  Moreover on this point, Aisha was in fact the only virgin wife of the Prophet Muhammad (S), as she proudly expresses.  So, to somehow imply that this was some common practice of the Messenger of ALLAH (S) is just nonsense.  


POINT #2: The first airing of this matter on their broadcast I believe was in 2010. The article in which they attempted to support their baseless lie was not put on their website until March 2014.  That’s 4 years later! Why would it take 4 years to finally provide proof for a claim that was said to be a (common) Islamic practice?  MOREOVER, the original source of theirs, which they stated, was an Arabic online fatwa.
So the primary source is not from Islamic sources but a claimed fatwa found online that was in Arabic!  ARE YOU SERIOUS??? MOREOVER AGAIN, the fatwa as translated and displayed in the article has absolutely no reference source or anything to trace the Fatwa back to who issued it.  It has no website at the bottom of the page.  It has no name of the Mufti or Islamic council or committee issuing the fatwa.  IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EXCEPT A POSED QUESTION AND AN ANSWER.  
Then, in the response to the question, the alleged Mufti after given a definition of this term Mufakhathah cites just one Hadith. And guess what? You guess it, THE HADITH HAS NO NARRATOR!?!  It says that it was reported in one narration… You have to be kidding me, right??? But it gets worse, the Hadith book that is cited is Ibn Maajah.  Now, one might ask, what is the matter with Ibn Maajah?  Nothing, although there are Hadith in that collection that would need to be verified before one can claim anything about it.  But a Mufti, a scholar will ALWAYS give the strongest proof for his argument if its available. So no Scholar would quote Ibn Maajah over Sahih Muslim or Sahih Bukhari. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DON’T EVEN BRING A NARRATOR, SO YOU HAVE NO CHAIN TO VERIFY IT!!! And know for sure that the Hadith quoted in the article has a basis in Sahih Bukhari in multiple places. SO THE ALLEGED FATWA, FROM BEGINNING TO END, HAS UTTERLY AND MISERABLY FAILED, WITH A NO NAME MUFTI, A NO NAME SOURCE, AND A NO NAME NARRATED HADITH.  How ironic, the person who composed the article gave more proof than their source. Let us move on now to the composer of the article and his claims.

POINT #3: The composer of the article, and I don’t know if it is in fact David Wood or if he just posted it and the author of it is unknown, but the composer of the article makes the point about the picture of the alleged fatwa, sayiing, “But this won’t convince Westernized apologist, who despite their profound ignorance of their own sources, nevertheless believe that they know more about Islam than their scholars and jurist…” So, we are supposed to be convinced by an anonymous online fatwa with absolutely no trace to any Islamic source, about an unfounded and unsupported practice, posted by an antagonistic Christian apologist website? Do I need to respond to that? I would ask, can I respond to that without hurting the feelings of those behind this.  Let the rhetorical question speak for itself because we have a lot more to say about the rest of this poorly composed article used as proof for a lie.

POINT #4: The funny author of this article then says the most absurd thing. He says, “For those of us who are more balanced in our approach and less obsessed with defending Muhammad at all cost, THE MUSLIM SOURCES PROVIDE ABUNDANT MATERIAL ON THE ISSUE OF THIGHING. In order to avoid any accusations of deception, however, I will  (1) limit myself to narrations that are available online for everyone to read, and (2) proceed step by step showing how Muslim scholars arrive at their conclusions”. Wow! Where do I start? “The Muslim sources provide abundant material on the issue of thighing”. Yet, this guy has not produced a single piece!!! NOTHING OF PROOF AND EVIDENCE IN THE WHOLE ARTICLE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIGHING, EXCEPT THE ANONYMOUS FATWA AND WE ALREADY DEALT WITH THAT. Well, he may argue, I listed four Hadith and they all are authentic in Sahih Bukhari. PROOF!?? Oh really.  Let’s examine his cited Hadith.  We will pair them in two as he has done in his article.

Hadith #1: (His 2nd )     Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

This Hadith is found in Sahih Bukhari in the Book of Menses, under the topic, “Fondling a menstruating wife”.  This is the same exact Hadith that the author of the article cited and this is what he used for his proof of “Thighing”.  Yes, this is what he used out of the abundant material out there on “Thighing.” Yet, ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE IN THIS HADITH DOES IT MENTION “THIGHING” NOT IN THE ENGLISH NOR IN THE ARABIC!!! It would be enough to stop here as it is clear that the whole article is rubbish, but let us indulge for a minute. The Arabic word used is “FA YUBAA SHI RUNI” meaning, so he would fondle me (or caress me).  Literally to touch, skin to skin.  Like hugging or caressing. The word comes from the root word BASHARA which has a wide semantic field, from meaning human being to good news. This word is a 3 form verb meaning to put one’s self or skin to another’s self or skin. So in context of the Hadith, it implies to hug and caress and rub.  That’s what fondling is.  Add to that the fact that there is a severe prohibition in Islam against approaching a woman intimately while on her menses.  And this is the reason why the Prophet (S) ordered his wives to cover themselves; so as to make clear that there is no activity in that area.  Lastly and most importantly on this point, is the question, WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH PLACING ONES MALE ORGAN BETWEEN THE THIGHS OF A VIRGIN, SO AS TO NOT TO HARM HER BECAUSE SHE IS TOO YOUNG AND SMALL BUT STILL TAKE ONES PLEASURE?  PLEASE ANYONE TELL ME?  ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  IT’S ANOTHER LIE FROM THOSE WHO LOVE TO DO SO.  THIS CASE IS RESTED.


Hadith #2 (His 1st)   Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron.” He said, "Why? Don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?'


This Hadith is in Sahih Bukhari in the book of marriage, under the title “The marrying of matrons (divorced or widowed ladies).” Now, before I comment on the Hadith in relation to this topic.  Let us see what the author had to say about this and its connection to the subject at hand. This weird and trouble minded individual stated, “Notice that Muhammad found the practice of fondling VIRGINS preferable to sex with adult woman”.  First and foremost, and yet again, what does this Hadith have to do with the action of “Mufaakhathah” as was the sole premise of their reason to produce this article? Nothing! Nothing! Nothing!

But, to move on.  So, here again, there is no mention of the word “Mufaakhathah” in English or in Arabic. More interesting here, the word used in this Hadith is not the same word used in the other Hadith of Aisha. The word used in this Hadith in the Arabic is “LI ‘AAB” and in the second usage highlighted above is “TU LAA ‘IBU.” All of these words used in this Hadith stems from the root verb “LA’IBA” which means to play. Yes to play, and the connotation of play in this word from its origin is to play the way people play games or sports, pastime, amusement.  Let me note here, that I believe the first word highlighted is not a good translation. Although there is nothing wrong with fondling ones wife, I just don’t think it serves well the backdrop of this Hadith. However, I left it for the integrity of the argument and also to respect the translation.  The Companion in question was also a young man himself, so the Messenger of ALLAH (S) inquired why he married an older woman who was married prior. Why not someone around his age for them to enjoy each other better and have fun with each other. It was a very thoughtful question and one free from the perversity of this author and his likes. I really wish I had time to go into his further response, as this was a shortened version of a longer narration. It was such a beautiful answer he gave back to the Messenger of ALLAH (S), hopefully another time. But that was the essence of this Hadith.  And this is what this tired author produced as evidence for “Thighing.” Can you believe the nonsense perpetrated here? It’s sad to even have to waste time refuting this, but there are people who believe these guys and take everything they say as truth. How sad. How sad.


In closing the author mentioned two further Hadith stating the fact that Aisha expressed how she used to wash off the traces or spots of semen that were found on the garment of the Prophet (S). One of these Hadith was in fact a question posed to her about it and the other, was general information. I will forfeit pulling up the Hadith and citing it here, for this case has been closed a long time ago. But, to make sure we don’t leave any room for error. The two Hadith cited about Aisha washing semen from the clothes of the Prophet (S) had absolutely no relation at all to the Hadith about fondling cited above, AND NONE OF THE HADITH CITED HAD ANYHTING TO DO WITH THEIR HOAX STORY OF “THIGHING.”


Final remarks. The life of Prophet Muhammad (S) is very open, even to matters relating to his private life.  So much so that we could even have a discourse on a subject like this.  Given that fact, if all you have to bring forward of ridicule and scorn is the fact of him fondling HIS WIVES, or being intimate with HIS WIVES, which is an act that every man does, then you have in your own opposition proven the sublimity and nobility of this great man and his character. It is only through lies that you can blemish him and what he has brought and done for humanity, but none of your lies will cause even a stumble in the path of those who know who the Prophet Muhammad (S) is. We pray ALLAH open your eyes and heart to the noble status and stature of The Messenger of ALLAH (S), may the choicest prayers and peace be upon him forever and upon all those who follow him in goodness until the end of time. Ameen, and praise to ALLAH, the Lord and Sustainer of all things.




Links related to thighing:

The Thighing of Aisha a brief refutation (update 2016/3/10: Grammar errors fixes, and Format fix)

David Wood: Yahya Snow Censors and Conceals 'Evidence'?

Pornographic Lies on ABN by David Wood