Friday, 24 February 2017

Sid Cordle of the Christian People's Alliance is not a Westernized Christian

The slogan within the EU is human rights. There's nothing wrong with some aspects of human rights but the right to sin is not compatible with religion.

If the video does not play, please see here

Westernised/Secularised Christians may find this shocking. Sid Cordle admits Christianity is not compatible with the entirety of the EU's view on Human Rights.

Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?

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

Why Islam



Tony Costa's UN Human Rights Premise Debunked

Tony Costa, a Christian apologist, tries to use secular UN human rights to attack Islam. Muslimbychoice made this video responding to him via clips of Shabir Ally. It highlights the utter inconsistency on the part of Tony Costa. Surely he can see this..

Shabir Ally clips rebuke Tony costa on Human Rights and the Bible
If this video doesn't play please see here

Tony Costa is a Trinitarian Christian. Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus (as the second person of their triune Godhead doctrine) ordered the killing and destruction of whole towns if some people amongst them called to the worship of other gods:

12“When you begin living in the towns the LORD your God is giving you, you may hear 13that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. 14In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, 15you must attack that town and completely destroyb all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. 16Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. 17Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors. [Deut 13]

Trinitarians also believe Jesus ordered the killing of apostates from one's own family if they began preaching the worship of other gods: 

6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
[Deut 13]

Sid Cordle of the Christian People's Alliance states the EU Declaration on Human Rights isn't compatible with Christianity. Why is Tony Costa arguing like he doesn't s secularist? Seems like another case of the Bible getting in the way of a Westernised Christian who wants to attack Islam. Interesting.







Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?

Will secularised Trinitarians admit they believe Jesus uses violence?

Secularised Christians like those at Pfander Films (Jay Smith, Beth Grove, Lizzie Schofield, Hatun Tash and Sarah Foster) are thought to believe in the 4th century doctrine of the Trinity but seemingly teach Jesus does not use violence and force but upon closer examination of their texts and their theology it's quite obvious the secularised Christians at Pfander are not presenting views which are consistent with Trinitarian exegesis of the Bible.

Before we have a look at some texts in the New Testament let's have a look at some texts in the Old testament. Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus (as the second person of their triune Godhead doctrine) ordered the killing and destruction of whole towns if some people amongst them called to the worship of other gods:

12“When you begin living in the towns the LORD your God is giving you, you may hear 13that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. 14In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, 15you must attack that town and completely destroyb all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. 16Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. 17Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors. [Deut 13]

Trinitarians also believe Jesus ordered the killing of apostates from one's own family if they began preaching the worship of other gods: 

6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
[Deut 13]

Trinitarians also believe Jesus ordered women and children to be killed:

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” [1 Samuel 15]

Jesus ordered the killing of Midianite men, women and boys through Moses according to Trinitarian thought:

7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burnedall the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people.
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. [Numbers 31]

Some Trinitarians believe the Angel of the Lord in the OldTestament is a christophany, thus they believe the angel was Jesus. Do these Trinitarians believe Jesus put to death 185,000 Assyrians?

That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning--there were all the dead bodies! [2 Kings 19:35]

I think that's enough to demonstrate the Westernised Trinitarian really isn't preaching actual Trinitarian beliefs. But what of the New Testament, does Jesus use force according to those texts?

13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. [Revelation 19]

Trinitarian Pastor Steven Anderson explains what is meant by treading on the winepress. He goes back to chapter 14:

19So the angel swung his sickle over the earth and loaded the grapes into the great winepress of God’s wrath. 20The grapes were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress in a stream about 180 milesd long and as high as a horse’s bridle.

The pastor teaches Jesus is responsible for a judgement that brings forth a river of blood that stretches for about 200 miles and is as deep as a horse's bridle. The pastor's fellow Trinitarian in Phoenix, James White, openly admits Trinitarians believe freedom of religion will be ended when Jesus returns.

I'd be very interested in knowing if the people at the Pfander Centre for Apologetics are willing to discuss these issues and openly admit they believe Jesus uses violence according to the Trinitarian worldview. I suspect they will just remain silent on this as it affects the donations they get from other secularised Christians and I guess they feel it will impact their efforts to convert people to worship Jesus (a human being!) and believe in the Bible and the Trinity doctrine.

Look, if you're a Trinitarian please think about these points. At the end of the day it's important for you to know that Western secularism is not Christianity. Look into this, Islam and the Trinity doctrine for yourselves. Think about it. Pray about it

As for the Christians at Pfander Centre for Apologetics I'd really ask you to do the same. I'd especially ask Lizzie Schofield, Sarah Foster and Hatun Tash (the ones who may not have financial ties to that evangelical organisation) to just look around. You're all living in Britain, how many Christians do you really see around you. Be honest with yourselves. I'm hard pushed to find a Bible-believing Christian. Christianity is declining here and it's giving way to secularism (the Nones, those affiliated to no religion). Not to Islam. So this isn't an Islam vs Christianity thing. I've already written about how Jay Smith and other Christian polemicists against Islam are contributing to the apostasy of Christians. They are setting them up to stumble out of the Abrahamic tradition via the secular premises they build their arguments on. Please do read it and just ask yourself if you're contributing to this too. Don't you not think you will be responsible before God if you lead somebody to stumble into Atheism?

For any serious-minded Christians who have felt this post to be somewhat eye-opening please don't hesitate to contact me via email. Thanks.

Is Jesus Violent According to the Trinitarian View of the Bible?

BBC Refutes Nigel Farage on Sweden Rape Stats

The claim: Many young male migrants arrived in Sweden over the past few years, when the country accepted unprecedented numbers of refugees, and there has been a huge rise in sexual crime in Sweden especially in the southern port city of Malmo.

Reality Check verdict: Malmo, along with other urban centres in Sweden, has one of the highest levels of reported rapes in proportion to population in the EU, mainly due to the strictness of Swedish laws and how rape is recorded in the country.

The rate of reported rapes in Malmo has not dramatically risen in recent years and has in fact declined from its peak in 2010, before the recent large increases in refugees.

It is not possible to connect crimes to the ethnicity of the perpetrators as such data is not published.

Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage made this claim on LBC radio on Monday 20 February, when he discussed the recent comments by US President Donald Trump about terrorism in Sweden.

Mr Farage said there had been no specific terrorist attacks in Sweden since large numbers of refugees arrived there, but, instead, he claimed Sweden had seen a dramatic rise in sexual crime and its southern port city of Malmo - the third largest city in the country - had become Europe's and possibly the world's "rape capital".

So, has there been a big rise in sexual crime in Sweden and have the numbers of rapes increased in Malmo since Sweden took in an unprecedented numbers of refugees?

The first thing to say is that the part of the claim referring to the number of refugees is certainly true.

Sweden has been one of the biggest recipients of refugees in the EU in recent years.

According to Eurostat, the agency that collects statistical data from all EU countries, in 2015 Sweden had over 162,000 asylum applications or 1,667 asylum seekers for every 100,000 citizens.

A large majority of the 2015 asylum seekers - 114,470 - were male, 45,790 of them between 18 and 34 years of age.


Have there been more sexual offences in Sweden?

"Sexual offences" is a very broad term, which refers to a range of all sex-related crimes in Sweden.

Rape is one of the sexual offences, but other crimes such as paying for sex, sexual harassment, indecent exposure, sexual exploitation, molestation and trafficking are included in the numbers as well.

During 2015, the year in which Sweden took the largest number of asylum seekers, the number of reported sex crimes and rapes actually decreased by 11% and 12% respectively compared with 2014 - 18,100 sex offences were reported to the police, of which 5,920 were classified as rape.

This was preceded by a rise of both sex offences and rapes reported to the police in 2014.

The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Bra) says this rise is due to the changes to the legislation in 2013, which made it tougher.

Similar increases in the number of reported cases were seen in 2006, after new sex offence legislation came into force in April 2005.

Since then, Sweden has recorded every reported case of sexual violence separately.

That means, as Susanne Lekengard from Bra explains, that if a person comes to the police and reports being raped by a partner or husband every day for the past year, the police will record each of these events.

In many other countries these incidents would be recorded just once: one victim, one type of crime and one record.

Also, paying for sex became one of the crimes counted in the statistics.

Sweden does not publish the ethnicity or national background of perpetrators of any crime, including sexual offences.

Read the rest here






Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?

Secularised Christians who say they believe in the 4th century doctrine of the Trinity claim Jesus does not use violence and force but upon closer examination of their texts and their theology it's quite obvious the secularised/Westernised /Trinitarian Christian is not presenting views that are consistent with Trinitarian exegesis of the Bible.

Before we have a look at some texts in the New Testament let's have a look at some texts in the Old testament. Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus (as the second person of their triune Godhead doctrine) ordered the killing and destruction of whole towns if some people amongst them called to the worship of other gods:

12“When you begin living in the towns the LORD your God is giving you, you may hear 13that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. 14In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, 15you must attack that town and completely destroyb all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. 16Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. 17Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors. [Deut 13]

Trinitarians also believe Jesus ordered the killing of apostates from one's own family if they began preaching the worship of other gods: 

6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
[Deut 13]

Trinitarians also believe Jesus ordered women and children to be killed:

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” [1 Samuel 15]

Jesus ordered the killing of Midianite men, women and boys through Moses according to Trinitarian thought:

7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burnedall the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people.
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. [Numbers 31]

Some Trinitarians believe the Angel of the Lord in the OldTestament is a christophany, thus they believe the angel was Jesus. Do these Trinitarians believe Jesus put to death 185,000 Assyrians?

That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning--there were all the dead bodies! [2 Kings 19:35]

I think that's enough to demonstrate the Westernised Trinitarian really isn't preaching actual Trinitarian beliefs. But what of the New Testament, does Jesus use force according to those texts?

13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. [Revelation 19]

Trinitarian Pastor Steven Anderson explains what is meant by treading on the winepress. He goes back to chapter 14:

19So the angel swung his sickle over the earth and loaded the grapes into the great winepress of God’s wrath. 20The grapes were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress in a stream about 180 milesd long and as high as a horse’s bridle.

The pastor teaches Jesus is responsible for a judgement that brings forth a river of blood that stretches for about 200 miles and is as deep as a horse's bridle. The pastor's fellow Trinitarian in Phoenix, James White, openly admits Trinitarians believe freedom of religion will be ended when Jesus returns.

Is Jesus Violent According to the Trinitarian View of the Bible?

Tuesday, 21 February 2017

Christian Claims Muslims Worship Prophet Muhammad in Prayer

Tony Costa took a plunge in the low-level internet polemics pit. Disappointing.



This is a low-level internet polemic which really involves ignorance or a complete shut-down of any desire to accurately represent the Muslim faith on the part of the person making such an argument.

The polemicist isolates one statement in a part of the Muslim prayer called the tashahhud:
“al-salaamu ‘alayka ayyhu’l-nabiyyu (peace be upon you, O Prophet)”.

The polemicist then proceeds to make a song and dance about it claiming it means Muslims pray to Muhammad. Yep, that’s their argument!

A few thoughts on this:

1. The Muslim prays to God alone. In fact, the Salah is commenced with the recitation of Surah Al Fatihaha. Verse 5 is rendered in English: “You [God] we worship, and You [God] we ask for help”. Thus from the very beginning of the prayer it is evident the prayer is to Allah.

Why would Muslims later on in the prayer decide to, all of a sudden, start praying to Prophet Muhammad especially given the fact the Quran teaches against this action? The Quran teaches us not to invoke another with Allah. Only Allah should be invoked.

“So invoke not with Allah another ilah (god) lest you be among those who receive punishment” [Quran 26: 213]

And we are taught only the Creator and not the creation should be invoked in Quran chapter 16:

20. Those whom they (Al-Mushrikun ) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created.
21. (They are) dead, lifeless, and they know not when they will be raised up.
22. Your Ilah (God) is One Ilah (God Allah, none has the right to be worshipped but He). But for those who believe not in the Hereafter, their hearts deny (the faith in the Oneness of Allah), and they are proud.

2. If the polemicist is consistent with this argument then they will also say we worship ourselves and other Muslims at the congregational prayers too as the sentence after in the tashahhuud goes “peace be upon us…”!

Obviously we aren’t worshipping ourselves and those in the congregation with us! We don’t believe those in the congregation can hear our prayers!

3. The polemicist doesn’t even understand the statement “al-salaamu ‘alayka (peace be upon you)” – it’s obviously not a prayer to Prophet Muhammad. Shaykh Uthameen explained this very simply – to be honest you really don’t need a shaykh to tell you that statement is NOT a prayer to Prophet Muhammad p but rather a supplication to Allah to bless the Prophet:

Are the words “al-salaamu ‘alayka (peace be upon you)” a statement or a supplication? I.e., are you stating that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is in a state of peace or are you asking Allaah to grant him peace?

The answer is that it is a du’aa’ (supplication) in which you are praying to Allaah to send peace upon him. This is a statement which is serving as a supplication. [Source]

4. Muslims don’t believe the Prophet is even listening to the prayer so how can Muslims be trying to pray to Prophet Muhammad? When Muslims ask Allah to bless the Prophet it gets conveyed via the angels. Shaykh ibn al-Uthaymeen rahimahullah beautifully states,

We say: if you send salaam upon him from the farthest ends of the earth, your salaam will reach him, because Allah has appointed angels who travel about the earth, and if anyone sends salaams upon the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), they convey that salaam to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). So if we say now, “O Allah, send blessings and peace upon the Messenger of Allah,” our salaam will be transmitted to him. In prayer we say, “Al-salaamu ‘alayka ayyuha’l-nabiyyu wa rahmat-Allahi wa barakatuhu (Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings),” and the salaam is transmitted to him…

For the hadith he refers to concerning the angels transmitting the salaam to the Prophet:

The Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam said: “Allah has angels who go around on earth, conveying to me the salaam of my ummah.” [Sunan Nasaa’i, Saheeh Al-Albani]
[Source]

5. The polemicist again doesn’t show a familiarity with the prayer as after two sentences after the statement in question the Muslim asks Allah to send blessings upon the Prophet in a similar way Prophet Abraham was blessed:

`Allahumma salli `ala Muhammadin, wa `ala aali Muhammadin, kama sallaita `ala Ibrahima wa ala aali ibrahim…[O Allah, send your graces, honour and mercy on Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as you did with Ibrahim and his family...]

Now think about it, if the Salah involves “praying” to Muhammad then why does it after two statements go to a supplication beginning with “O Allah” to bless the Prophet? It’s obvious the prayer is to Allah!

On a side point, the asking of blessings to be sent to Prophet Muhammad p is in accordance with the divine command in the Quran (ref. 33:56). It actually benefits us to ask as we receive blessings for it! It’s very interesting to note the Bible talks about those who bless Abraham in a positive way, according to the Bible, God says this, whilst addressing Abram (Abraham):

I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:3 NIV)

The fact that our Prophet taught us to mention “like Abraham” when asking Allah to send blessings on our Prophet maybe in reference to this special status Abraham had as parsed from Genesis 12:3.

[May Allah send more peace and blessings upon Abraham and Muhammad pbut]

5. Lastly, any academic and fair minded person will acknowledge Islam forbids praying to the creation and that Islam is based on the principle of monotheism. Everybody who knows something about Islam knows this right? I don’t need to pull out a quote from an academic. Let’s go to our Jewish brothers. Rabbi Tovia Singer states Islam is definitely not idolatry – Muslims worship one God.


Hopefully Tony Costa can learn from this. Folks, let’s have a higher view of fairness, a desire to honestly and accurately represent other faiths.

References:

“Believers! Send your Blessings on him” – Resource for Salawat on the Prophet

Do we say say Al Salamu Alaika in /tashahhud?

Monday, 20 February 2017

Christian Missionaries and Pakistan's Valentines Day Ban


A Christian missionary called Lizzie was talking about the Pakistani Valentines Day ban which has been reported in British news outlets recently.

She seems to be encouraging Pakistanis to celebrate Valentines Day. Lizzie begins by writing:

Don’t you love 14th February? The cheesy commercialism, the overpriced meals, the vast teddy bears exchanged by teenagers and re-patriated to the charity shop by the end of the week? I know, I’m such a romantic! In my house, you might get a homemade card and a nice gesture, like taking the rubbish out. Here’s the thing though: if you want to buy a dozen red roses and waste helium on a heart balloon, be my guest. You’re not prohibited from doing so. Unless… you live in Islamabad.

What else are these boys and girls buying aside from teddies and roses? Condoms. Condom sales increase around Valentines Day. Why do you think that is, Lizzie? You don't get a prize for guessing correctly, and nope, they aren't buying them because the balloons have sold out!

For those unaware, the modern phenomenon of Valentines Day is not some harmless, fun day where teenagers exchange cuddly toys.

It’s a day where society effectively encourages lust (well in the UK it is at least!). It encourages people to forget about sexual purity. To forget about the Islamic principle of modesty and lowering one’s gaze. To forget about the Matthew 5’s teaching of it being adultery to look at a woman lustfully.


Lizzie, the Christian missionary, goes on to encourage Pakistanis and others to get involved in Valentines Day (maybe she runs a stall selling Valentine Day cards or something!):

.. to all my readers, but especially in Islamabad – if I have any, I’d love to hear from you – Happy Valentine’s Day! I hope that this ban is widely ignored, and that you stay safe if you choose to defy it. And if you’re not in Islamabad – let’s not take our freedom to celebrate days like these for granted, however fluffy and pointless they might seem to us.

The question here is why is a British Christian woman promoting Valentines Day? She surely knows, through experiencing life in the UK, that Valentines Day comes rife with elements that are antithetical to religious values.

Well, considering the ban has popular support amongst the natives over there in Pakistan it seems even more strange for Lizzie to be encouraging the flaunting of the ban – over 80% of those polled agreed with Islamabad’s High Court ban on Valentines Day.

Why would a Christian missionary want to see societies that are purer sexually than ours become marred with the same problems that come with Valentines Day? Does the Bible not matter to these people anymore, is it more about cultural imperialism than religious values?

Has Lizzie, the Christian missionary forgot this verse is in the New Testament:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

But there’s more. More in elephantine proportions. The elephant in the room.

Why do you think people in other cultures are against Valentines Day? It’s because they are against the enticement to have sex-before-marriage. That's the unpleasant baggage that comes with a society celebrating VD on mass. This Hindu spokesman for a group in India opposing Valentines Day says it as it is – premarital relations are the issue:

"If you are in love, you should get married," said Ashok Sharma, vice president of Hindu Mahasabha, a conservative Hindu religious organization with branches across the country. "Roaming around in public without marriage does not fit in Indian culture. If we find such young couples, we will get them married off." [Source]

Saudi Arabia, India and Indonesia (all countries which have been in the press for opposition to Valentines Day) have the lowest rates of children born out of wedlock (1% or less).

Now compare that to the Britain where it was reported in 2013 that over 50% of all babies will be born out of wedlock in less than 5 years time. That’s the “Christian” country of Britain. Yet you have British Christians telling Pakistanis that they should be celebrating Valentines Day in their country. Weird!

It gets odder still. The countries with the highest rates of children born out of wedlock are historically Christian countries:

The highest rates of non-marital childbearing occur in Latin America (55–74 percent). The only other countries to share these high rates are South Africa (59 percent) and Sweden (55 percent). The range within Europe is huge: from 18 percent (Italy) to 55 percent (Sweden). Those in North America and Oceania are also high and rising, though New Zealand (47 percent) and the United States (41 percent) stand out, with more than four out of ten births outside of marriage in these two countries.
[Source]

Notice which countries have the highest rates of children born out wedlock? “CHRISTIAN” countries!.
I’d seriously encourage Hindus and Muslims in the East to carry on with the pushback against Valentines Day regardless of criticism from Christians and the press in the West. The fact is, they all know your societies are sexually purer and we are living in guilt and sin as our society has downgraded marriage and mocks sexual purity. We’re all suffering the consequences of our society's failings and our weaknesses.

And let’s talk about abortion. Inevitably all this sex outside marriage is going to have an impact on the abortion figures. I’m not going to be simplistic or insensitive here (Christian missionaries take note!), there are a number of reasons why women choose to have abortions however a lady is 17% more likely to have an abortion if she is not married.
We see some evangelical Christians posting memes on Facebook about abortion but if you really want to make inroads on the fight against abortion you should preach against sex-before-marriage.

Every year 200,000 Bible-believing Christian women have abortions. There’s going to be a number of reasons for these women making the decisions they do but if about 20% of these ladies are having abortions because they aren’t married then that is about 40,000 American Christian women annually having abortions simply because of the sexually impure culture we live in in the West.

Given the total number of abortions each year in the US is over a million that means the figure of ladies simply aborting their child due to them getting pregnant out of wedlock is 200,000. 200,000 American babies aborted simply because of sex outside of marriage!

In England and Wales, based on the 2014 figure of 185,824 abortions, that would mean more than 30,000 babies are aborted simply because of sex outside of marriage every year.

Now you do the maths for every “Christian” country in the West and its abortion figures based simply on getting pregnant outside of marriage.

Christian missionaries can try to mix Western cultural imperialism with evangelicalism but smart people will be able to spot it a mile off.
Western Christian missionaries really need to stop wasting their lives preaching what would be deemed immorality to people in sexually  purer societies on the other side of the world. Lizzie, and other evangelicals, should be inviting those Pakistanis, Saudis, Indonesians and Indians over here to help improve "Christian" society!

Christians believe  they have the Holy Spirit working on Christians.The theological problem for Lizzie and her Christian missionary colleagues who try to convert Muslims and others to the ideology of Trinitarian Christianity is that these statistics prove to be a demonstration of the fact the Christians don't have the Holy Spirit guiding their societies. Why is it that Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and pretty much every other religious community can behave better sexually than Christians who claim to have the Holy Spirit?

And considering a growing number of evangelical Christians are taking to the anti-Muslim propaganda game why is it that Muslims having the least sex outside of marriage according to this survey?






Friday, 17 February 2017

Term Dar Al Harb Explained - Dr Musharraf Hussain and Justin Parrott

If this video does not play, it's also uploaded here and here

Justin Parrott on his FB writes: One of the Islamic terms misused by extremists, either for or against Islam, is the classical legal designation of a territory as “the land of war” (dar al-ḥarb). The conventional and mistaken thinking among Orientalists was that the “land of Islam” (dar al-Islām) was perpetually at war with the outside world of unbelievers until they came under the political control of Muslims.

Jihadist extremists like ISIS copied this kind of thinking and they reinterpreted classical Islamic legalese in highly-ideological terms and under the influence of Marxist and fascist revolutionaries, which is how they put a pseudo-Islamic veneer over their open call on the internet to commit acts of terrorism against nearly anyone in the world for any reason. In reality, the term dar al-ḥarb, besides being a derivative not stated in the Quran or Sunnah, was more *descriptive* than it was *prescriptive*.

That is, dar al-ḥarb was the description of a land in which it was unsafe to practice Islam. It was telling Muslims it was dangerous to go there. It was NOT a prescription to attack a peaceful neighboring country just because they had a different religion. The majority of jurists said non-Muslims are only fought if they declare war (ḥirābah) first, as per verse 2:190. Moreover, the jurists frequently employed the term “land of conciliation” (dar al-ṣulḥ) to describe neighboring lands that had peaceful relations with Muslims.

The abuse of archaic terms like dar al-ḥarb are key principles in both the Islamophobic and Jihadist ideologies. Although their goals are ostensibly opposed, they both are working towards a “clash of civilizations” as a means to bolster their own domestic agendas. We’ll keep trying to dismantle this ideology in our writings, piece by piece, God willing.

Why Islam



Ben Shapiro Refuted by Ali Ataie and James White: "The Myth of the Tiny Radical Minority"

James R White, a Christian apologist, responds to Ben Shapiro by appealing to consistency by stating most Christians would be considered radical too if the poll asked if they believed Jesus would return and everybody would worship Jesus.

James White Rebukes Ben Shapiro For Saying That The Majority Of Muslims Are Radical

Note: James White called the type of Sharia practiced in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan "frightening and barbaric". I suppose, out of consistency, James believes the law in the Old Testament is "barbaric and frightening" too (a law which he believes was given by the Father, the Son (now known as Jesus) and the Holy Spirit)


Dr Ali Ataie on FB writes in response to Ben Shapiro's "The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority" by also appealing to consistency and differing interpretations of texts:

Here's something I disagree with Ben on. It's amazing how that intellect can suddenly take a dive. This video is a smokescreen. Shari'ah law is part and parcel of every single Muslim's identity. Ben doesn't bother to define what exactly shariah is because he is fully satisfied with your perception of it as being a Draconian penal code from 1400 years ago. Ben is an orthodox Jew who no doubt also believes in the Torah and Talmud.

The five books of Moses are dripping with violence BUT... Ben has his own way of dealing with those texts... right? So what leads him to believe that the vast majority of Muslims do not deal with their violent texts in a similar fashion? How many stonings and hand amputations are happening right now in the Muslim majority world? Where's the data? Thus to say that a Muslim who believes in shari'ah is a radical is like saying a Jew who believes in halakhah is a radical... ALL of them.

Ben fails to define the nuances, immutables (thawabit), variables (mutaghayyarat), contexts, and interpretations of shari'ah that Muslims understand just by being Muslim. Have you read the Talmud? LORD have mercy! How does Ben deal with the homicidal, pedophilic, anti-Christian, racist rants of its rabbis? It seems that whoever considers the Talmud to be sacred is a radical. According to Pew (2013) most American Jews feel somewhat or very emotionally attached to Israel. Israel. A country that has ethnically cleansed its indigenous population since its inception and is now building on occupied territory. This is illegal according to international law. I guess all of those American Jews are radicals. Nice try Ben

Was there "Taqiyyah" in the Dr Yasir - James White Discussion?

Why Islam



Friday, 10 February 2017

Analysing Richard Lucas' Heretical Understanding of Trinity

Andy is the new director of Solas CPC

UPDATE: Richard Lucas did send me a message stating he is no longer a contributor to Solas CPC. The moderator used an old bio from the internet.


Richard Lucas, a former contributor for  Solas Centre for Public Christianity, was promoting a heretical idea of the Trinity in a debate with Muslim apologist Dr Shabir Ally. Richard believes God used to be one Person and then divided into three centres of consciousness to become  Tri-Personal. This is not “orthodox” Trinitarian thought.

All the relevant clips of Solas' Richard Lucas' comments on the Trinity have been compiled in this video


This video has also been uploaded here

I appreciate that Richard Lucas was honest and sincere enough to openly admit Tawheed ( the Islamic concept of God) is coherent and logical. Richard does practically demonstrate the Trinitarian concept of God is incoherent and illogical at the same time. Two quick thoughts (which I may add to in a future review of the debate):

1. Richard Lucas claims God divided into 3 and became a Trinity. This theory contradicts the belief that God is immutable (unchanging). Richard Lucas’ theory of God dividing constitutes a belief that God changed His nature. Some problems for his position:

- For change to take place then that suggests chronological order. Seen as God is eternal the idea of God changing is problematic.

- God is the Perfect Being thus does not need to change. To suggest God changed His nature could be conceived as suggesting at one time He was not the Perfect Being.

- Believing God changed into a Trinity arguably contradicts Bible verses like Malachi 3:6 if one views those verses to teach God doesn’t change His nature

I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.

2. Solas Centre for Public Christianity has another theological problem which Richard was honest enough to acknowledge. Richard Lucas’ bravery in publicly stating this should be commended. Richard Lucas openly admitted the Bible does not limit the number of Persons in the Godhead head, he then went on to say(according to his Biblical Christian view) God could add more Persons to the Godhead by dividing again.

It goes without saying that this is an effective admission that Trinitarian cannot even have confidence in believing the Trinity to be a truth about God (even from a Christian/Biblical perspective!).

Solas' Andy Bannister Presenting Intellectually Dishonest Arguments on New Testament Reliability

To be fair to Dr Andy Bannister, he may not know how bad this argument of appealing to the number of NT manuscripts is. Sadly, there are so many Christian apologists repeating this suggestion the numer of NT manuscripts correlates with the reliability of the New Testament. I've clipped Dr Bart Ehrman to address this common claim in evangelical Christian apologetics.

If the video does not play, it has also bee uploaded here and here.

A Muslim's Thoughts on Solas CPC's + Other Christian Campagins Against Same Sex Marriage in the UK

Did Ignatius Teach the Trinity?

Thoughts on the Hamza Myatt, Liz Mooney, Chris Claus and Jonathan McLatchie Exchanges


Friday, 3 February 2017

Was there "Taqiyyah" in the Dr Yasir - James White Discussion?

These comments from a young Christian apologist stem from an erroneous idea on Taqiyyah. Luis Dizon thinks Dr Yasir Qadhi may have been practicing "Taqiyyah" in the dialogue with Dr James White at a church.



Come on folks, which other group has to deal with this wild-eyed idea that we (Muslims) go around lying ("practicing Taqiyyah") when we talk about our faith? These misconceptions are the product of anti-Muslim propaganda - clearly it's far-reaching and is affecting young Christians in Canada like Luis Dizon. I know there is a bunch of anti-Islam Christian polemicists who propagate such propaganda about the concept of Taqiyya so, sadly, it's not surprising to come across this misconception amongst young Christians.

Let's have a stab at challenging this to help alleviate this problem. Here are Luis' comments:

Furthermore, there is a concern that Sh. Qadhi may be willfully deceiving the people listening because of the Islamic concept of Taqiyyah (dissimulation)...

...And I would like to bring up the topic of Taqiyyah briefly, because I know that that is always on everyone's minds whenever a Muslim preacher or apologist is speaking. I am not unaware that the doctrine of Taqiyyah exists. Was Sh. Qadhi practicing it, or was he not? I'm not going to rule it out, but at the same time, I'd like to remind everyone that we who believe in the principles of justice and fairness adhere to the idea of the presumption of innocence. In other words, you cannot accuse someone of being a liar or deceiver if you don't have any evidence to prove it. If you think that Sh. Qadhi was deliberately misrepresenting what he really thinks, then present your evidence. Having listened to Sh. Qadhi many times, not just in these dialogues but also in his lectures and khutbahs, I have no reason to believe that he is the kind of person who would go around intentionally deceiving people. Maybe he is, but we cannot prove it.

I'd refer Luis and others who may have come across propaganda material from anti-Muslim sources on the concept of Taqiyya to more scholarly authority. In this snippet of an old blog piece I used R. Strothmann’s relevant section in “Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam” (by H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers)  and Cyril Glasse’s Concise Encyclopedia of Islam

What is “Taqiyyah”, “Takiya”, “Taqiyya”?

This term is spelt variously; “taqiyyah”, “takiya” or “taqiyya”.

“Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury.” [1]

“Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”).” [2]

So, taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) is concerning dissimulation due to force – i.e. when an individual is forced to conceal.

Sadly, the propagandists – in order to obtain an unchecked platform and/or demonize Muslims – have misapplied this term in their propaganda claims of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the non-Muslisms”.

At what level of force is Takiya (Taqiyyah, Taqiya) justified?

“But an individual is not justified in takiya nor bound to hidjra [emigration] if the compulsion remains within the endurable limits, as in the case of temporary imprisonment or flogging which does not result in death” [1]

So, this makes a mockery of the suggestions of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers” as even under threat of imprisonment and flogging Muslims are not justified in takiya. The level of force which justifies oneself in takiya is that of an unbearable level.

Takiya (taqiyya, taqiyyah) and the type of lies…

One may ask, what type of “disguise” is allowed under takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya)?

Let’s be clear about takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya); “The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them.” [2]

“The ethical question whether such forced lies are nevertheless lies, such a forced denial of the faith nevertheless a denial, is not put at all by one “who conceal himself” as he is not in a state of confidence which would be broken by lies or denial.” [1]

So takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) is not used to convert folk to Islam nor is it used in Islamic text books or anything of such a nature. It is simply a form of concealment used to avoid persecution

[1] Article by R. Strothmann, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, Fourth impression, 1995, E.J. Brill Leiden. New York. Koln p. 561 - 562

[2] The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam, Revised Edition, Cyril Glasse, Stacey International, 2001, p450-451.

Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran

Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?