Discussed: Variant Readings within the Bible and the Quran

Some internet Christian apologists have been shifting the goal posts in their conspiratorial attempts to attack Caliph Uthman’s control of the Quranic text as well as the variant readings of the Quran.

As usual, our Christian counterparts operate an unwitting double standard due to their ignorance of Old Testament (as well as New Testament) textual criticism as well as Quranic preservation

Variant readings in the Gospels

Previously, we have seen the New Testament (Gospel) variants arose due to dishonest scribes or incompetent scribes – so much so that our Christian friends, now, do not know which variants represent the original wording of the Gospel writers and which were due to scribal errors/forgeries.Christian apologists are now beginning to admit this difficult situation [1]

Christians misrepresent the Dead Sea Scrolls

At times, our Christian friends do misrepresent the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls as a wholesale confirmation of the Old Testament text – it is not!

Geza Vermes writes:

The Dead Sea finds partly confirm and partly question the reliability of the wording of the Bible handed down by Jewish tradition. On the one hand, as was shown in chapter VI, the Qumran Scripture is substantially identical with that passed on by the synagogue from the time of Jesus to the present age. [2]

Note: Vermes is not confirming the Dead Sea finds corroborate entirely with the present day OT (substantially). More importantly, he is not denying any OT corruptions prior to the first/second century CE either. Jeremiah 8:8 gives us an indication of the depth of corruption in the earlier days of the OT:

"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? [NIV, Jeremiah 8:]

Variant Readings in the Old Testament

Geza Vermes confirms “the Dead Sea Scrolls furnish documentary proof of what has been surmised before, namely that, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, unity was not achieved and different forms of the Hebrew text coexisted, showing verbal and stylistic variations, additions, omissions and changes in the order of the textual arrangement.” [2]

Vermes does suggest the OT variants may not be due to corruptions:

Before the Qumran discoveries, we presumed the Samaritan Bible (restricted to the five books of the Law of Moses), the form of the Hebrew Bible from which the ancient Greek version, known as the Septuagint, was translated, and the type of the text that was to evolve into the traditional (Masoretic) Hebrew Old Testament, existed side by side in different social groups.


Qumran has corroborated this theory and has demonstrated the diversity could obtain in one and the same groups. This phenomenon implies that the variant readings in the biblical text do not necessarily represent corruptions or deliberate alterations, but can just as well, if not better, echo earlier discrete written traditions. [2]

Of course, this theory is more than a little sketchy – partly due to there being no tradition informing us of such being the case as well as to the limitations of Vermes’ conjecture-based argument.

Nevertheless, it is food for thought for our Christian and Jewish friends. Do they want to faith-shatteringly admit the Old Testament variants are proof of corruptions or will they run with the idea of the variants echoing “earlier discrete written traditions”?

I would imagine they would prefer the latter – otherwise they will have to admit the Old Testament’s unreliability is on par with the New Testament.

Variant Readings in the Quran

The variant readings of the Quran are not due to scribal errors or forgeries – unlike the New Testament. The variants of the Quran are meant to exist as supporting tradition teaches us this – unlike the Old Testament.

The hadith reports tell us that the Quran was actually revealed in seven modes (al-ahruf al sab’a). This has been narrated by more than ten of the Prophet’s companions, among them Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ibn Masud, Ibn Abbas and others [3].

Dr M.M. Al Azami counts the companions who have narrated hadiths confirming the Quran was revealed in seven dialects as over twenty [4] So, these variants were known to exist during the lifetime of the Prophet and did not arise due to scribal errors.

In fact, the very nature of the variant Quranic readings being sanctioned by the Prophet [see Bukhari VI, No. 513] has led the renowned authority, Dr M. M. Al-Azami, to favour the word “multiple” reading rather than “variant” reading:

…the Quran’s case differs distinctly because the Prophet Muhammad, Allah’s sole vicegerent for the wahy’s reception and transmission, himself taught certain verses in multiple ways. There is no principle of doubt here, no fog or confusion, and the word ‘variant’ fails to convey this. Multiple is a far more accurate description….” [4]

As you can notice, the Quranic variants (multiple readings) are indeed sanctioned and meant to have existed whilst the variants of the NT and OT are unsanctioned and should not exist. We urge our Christian apologist friends to understand these points of difference and teach them to their respective Christian congregations – let the truth prevail.

Unification

Our Christian apologist friends attempt to make a big conspiratorial deal out Uthman’s control and preparation of a standard copy of the Quranic text but they fail to recognise the inconsistency (as well as the holes in their knowledge) they are operating from as the rabbis controlled the OT text and even unified it.

Unity, produced by Jewish religious authority, was usually sought in times of crisis, and was achieved by the selection of one of the existing text forms and the simultaneous rejection of all other competing versions. Such a deliberate unification is assumed to have been part of the general restructuring of Judaism by the rabbis during the years following the catastrophe of 70 CE, which entailed the loss of the temple and the supreme council of the Sanhedrin as well as the replacement of the aristocratic high priestly leadership of Jewry by rabbis largely of plebeian origin. [2]

Sadly our Christian apologist friends are either unaware of the unification of the OT text and of the strict control the rabbis had over the text or are knowingly operating an inconsistent standard in their attempts to throw conspiratorial mud at the Uthmanic control of the Quranic text – a control which was agreed upon by all the companions of the Prophet.

Conclusion

Simply put, the New Testament variants are the most problematic; not only due to them being borne out of scribal dishonesty and negligence but because the Christian is unable to recognise the forgeries/scribal errors within the text. The text was not controlled and those who were tasked with the preservation of the Gospel accounts never met Jesus.

In addition there could well be future Dr Tischendorf style (Codex Sinaiticus) finds, where whole passages within the Gospels were discovered to be forgeries. Prior to this 19th century find our Christian friends believed those passages to be inspired – now we know they were forgeries [5]. It says something about the Christian belief in the Holy Spirit dwelling within Christians; did the Christians before the 19th century not have the Holy Spirit as they believed what we now know as forgeries to be words inspired by God. Food for thought…

The Old Testament was strictly controlled by the Jewish authorities and does contain variants. The accusations of these variants arising from scribal forgeries/errors are indeed somewhat tempered by Geza Vermes’ theorising so the criticism is less vocal.

Those who “preserved” and “selected” OT texts never met Moses or any of the Prophets. “what constitutes the bible is nowhere strictly defined in the ancient literary sources of Judaism. It was the privilege of the successive religious authorities (Sadducee chief priests, Pharisee leaders and rabbis) to determine the list of books” [6]

The Quran has variants – Muslims have known this whilst the Quran was being revealed as the Prophet taught this. The Quran was strictly controlled by authorities, like the Old Testament. However, unlike the OT and NT, the controlling authorities of the Quran were indeed the companions of the Prophet. The statement of the fourth Caliph, Ali (ra), confirms all were in agreement with Uthman’s actions to control the transmission of the Text. [7]

Sadly, Christian apologists overlook these points and inconsistently attempt to present conspiracy theories as to the Uthmanic control of the Quran. The inconsistency comes into play as the OT was “preserved” in a “controlled” environment too. The irony comes into play as the nature of the variants (proven forgeries and errors) within the NT suggests the uncontrolled mode of its “preservation” was disastrous and a controlled mode (which they desperately criticise via conspiracy theories) is superior!

The written text of the Quran was used as an aid for the memory and teaching purposes, thus the Quran was preserved via two modes in a controlled fashion – oral and written – by numerous people who met the Prophet.

May God send his peace and blessings upon all the Prophets referred to above. Ameen

Further reading:

Sexism: A reason to change the Bible?

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

[1] Debate Review – Does the bible Misquote Jesus (James White – Bart Ehrman)

[2] The Story of the Scrolls, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2010, p214

[3] Ulum Al Quran, Ahmad Von Denffer, The Islamic Foundation, 2003, p112

[4] The History of The Quranic Text from Revelation to Compilation - A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments, M.M.Al-Azami, UK Islamic Academy, 2003, p154

[5] Dr Von Tischendorf discovered the Codex Sinaiticus (from Saint Catherine’s monastery), this codex does NOT contain the last 12 verses in the gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) as well as John 7:53-8:11 amongst other discrepancies. These are believed to be forgeries. Sadder still, Christians, prior to this find believed those words to be faithful to the New Testament.

[6] The Story of the Scrolls, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2010, p99

[7] Ibn Abi Dawud, al Masahif, p22; see also pp 12, 23 (sourced from Sheikh Al Azami, The History of the Quranic Text, UK Islamic Academy, 2003, p94

Serbian Islamophobia

In 1389 the Ottomans defeated the Serbian army at Kossovo Field in central Serbia. Murad was killed, but the Serbian Prince Hrelbeljanovic Lazar was captured and executed. It marked the end of Serbian independence and, to this day, Serbians revere Prince Lazar as a martyr and national hero, and have nurtured a profound hatred of Islam.

Karen Armstrong, Islam – A Short History, Phoenix Press, 2001, p93

If only the Serbian Islamophobes knew the Muslims are the brothers of Jesus (p) and that Islam is the truth, perhaps then they would reject their hatred of Muslims and convert to Islam rather than crusading to convert Bosnian Muslims to Christianity:

Forced baptism has been part of the militant Serb agenda for many years. Back in 1917, Yugoslavia's future prime minister Stojan Protic remarked: "We have the solution for Bosnia. When our army crosses the Drina, we will give the Muslims twenty-four hours, or even forty-eight hours, of time to become Christians. Those who do not wish to do so are to be cut down, as we did in Serbia earlier."

The Serbian Orthodox Crusade Against Islam by Feyyaz Yusuf

May Allah make it easier for the Muslims who live in the midst of such Anti-Muslim feeling. Ameen.

Why Serious Muslims Reject Sam Shamoun

I've never understood Sam Shamoun, I doubt I will ever understand this odd man.This middle-aged bloke hounds people on the internet with "debate challenges" whilst goading and insulting the recipient.

When the inevitable happens - the "debate challenges" are rejected - Sam Shamoun beats his chest and presents it as some sort of victory to his dwindling support base. This seems to be Mr Shamoun's regular formula. How strange and sad!

Mr Shamoun: Unacademic and Unruly

Here is Jibreelk answering one of Mr. Shamoun's "debate challenges" and positing the real reasons as to why Mr Shamoun's "debate challenges" are rejected (i.e. Mr Shamoun's shoddy modes of behaviour and his lack of academic quality)



Dogs, mutts, canines, seriously????

If Mr Shamoun wants to be taken seriously he would do well to desist in his wont of insulting folk via his usual repertoire of canine references. Oh, if he is serious in transforming his shoddy ministry he would do well to apologize for his past lies, distortions and absurd arguments.

Mr Shamoun needs mentoring

I genuinely believe the internet brings out the worst in Mr Shamoun. I would certainly encourage Mr Shamoun to seek some form of help. I'm not saying this to be mean spirited. I genuinely believe Mr Shamoun needs help. I have appealed to Mr Sam Green and Dr James White to act on Mr shamoun's unruly behaviour - sadly the desired effect failed to materialise.

Mr Shamoun, unfortunately, is still acting in an uncontrolled fashion in his interactions with others over the internet. I can bear witness to that statement as he has sent me more malice, in the form of "comments", of late.

Mr Shamoun's church

Mr Shamoun's church would do well to reign Mr Shamoun in - he is maligning the church's reputation through his unrestrained behaviour.

Mr Shamoun, please do expect the next point of call to be YOUR church IF you do not develop a more adult approach in your dealings with Muslims on the internet. In short, Mr Shamoun, it''s time to grow up!

The Sam Shamoun section

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Martin Luther: Jesus Committed Adultery Thrice (Refuted!!!)

Martin Luther also negates the image of a sinless Jesus. This is to be found in Luther’s Table Talk, whose authenticity has never been challenged even though the coarser passages are cause for embarrassment. Arnold Lunn writes:


Weiner quoted a passage from the Table Talk in which Luther states that Christ committed adultery three times, first with the woman at the well, secondly with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery “whom he let off so lightly. Thus even Christ who was so holy had to commit adultery before he dies”. [1]

Refuted: Christians/Non-Christians who accuse Jesus (p) of adultery

Christians (and Non-Christians) who make such wild and absurd suggestions of adultery (as above) have NO evidence for their claims whatsoever. They are simply attempting to malign the good name of Jesus (p).

A quick point on the woman “whom he let off so lightly”; this story of Jesus (p) showing mercy to the adulteress, in John 8, is believed to be a fabrication - a forgery – it is not present in the earlier manuscripts of John.

The fact these enemies of Jesus (p) unwittingly resorted to further fabrications to prop up their unsupported allegations against Jesus is indicative of the empty nature of their slanders.

There is NO evidence that Jesus (p) committed these sins. It would be unjust (and sinful) for Christians (and Non-Christians) to make these allegations.

Muslims honour Jesus (p)

The fact that it is the Muslims who have protected the good name of BOTH Jesus and Mary (pbut) over the centuries speaks volumes as to who are the brothers/sisters of Jesus (Mark 3:35)

May Allah send more peace and blessings upon Jesus. Ameen.

[1] The History of The Quranic Text from Reveltaiotn to Compilation - A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments, M.M.Al-Azami, UK Islamic Academy, 2003, p269

Muslim admonishes those who claim Jesus to be gay

Bible: Muslims are Blessed

Learn about Islam

Christian Missionary Pastor converts to Islam

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Truth about Taqiyyah (Takiya, Taqiyya)

There is a constant stream of Islamophobes (haters) carping on about how Muslims are allowed to lie to non-Muslims whilst appealing to something called “taqiyyah” (also spelled, “takiya” and “taqiyya”)

Rather than relying on shoddy hate sites/Christian missionaries to educate us about taqiyyah we shall rely on SCHOLARLY authority – largely in the form of 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, Islamophobes and Christian missionaries – in order to obtain an unchecked platform and/or demonise Muslims – have misapplied this term in their exaggerated claims of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers”.

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 make a mockery of the Islamophobes’ general 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]

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!

For further clarity, we are not talking about general, everyday fibs here, thus the ethical question of dishonesty is bypassed:

“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]

Sadly, our Islamophobic counterparts attempt to convince the gullible that takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) allows Muslims to lie (or conceal) about aspects of their faith (Islam) as well as lie in general.

Recently, Islamophobes were accusing Senator Keith Ellison of taqiyyah. Try learning what taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) is before accusing folk of it, you may just look less silly if you take this advice on board!!!

Famous case of Taqiyyah (Taqiyya, Takiya)

A common example of takiya (taqiyyah, taqiya) involves a Muslim (Ammar B. Yasir, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad, p) being forced to worship idols and insult the Prophet of Islam. [1] [3]

The level of force the polytheists applied on Ammar bin Yasir can be imagined by Amr bin Maymoon’s statement, “The polytheists tortured Ammar with fire”. [3]

“Abu Ubaydah bin Muhammad bin Ammar bin Yasir said: The polytheists seized Ammar and they did not let him off until he was forced to insult the Messenger of Allah and say good things about their deities” [3]

Ammar bin Yasir told Prophet Muhammad (p) of what he was forced to say.

“The Prophet (p) said: “Say it again if they ask (i.e. force) you to do so”.” [3]

So, in order to avoid such torture the Prophet allowed Ammar bin Yasir to use “taqiyya”

If Jesus (p) had done the same, our Christian friends would have lauded it as an act of piety and mercy. Instead we see Islamophobes exaggerating this form of concealment in order to demonise Muslims. It’s a crazy old world!

Taqiyyah and the Shi’ites (Shia)

"It is, however, associated most closely with the Shi’ites who practiced taqiyyah systematically and widely during periods of Sunni domination to hide their beliefs from Sunni Muslims. "[2]

Obviously, if these Shi’ites felt they would have been persecuted for publicly announcing their shia beliefs, one can understand why they concealed (used taqiyya) their beliefs.

Is taqiyyah allowed in the Quran?

Our Islamophobic friends jump up and down in joy whilst proclaiming taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya) is allowed in the Quran. Let’s analyse (via scholarship) the two Verses they cite.

Quran 16:106 and taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya)?

Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom. [Pikthal translation of the Quran 16:106]

The reason for this verse is unanimously said to have been the case of Ammar b. Yasir, whose conscience was set at rest by this revelation when he was worried about his forced worshipping of idols and objurgation of the Prophet. [1]

The story of Ammar bin Yassir is relayed earlier in the article (see above).

Tabari says on Sura 16:106 (Tafsir, Bulak 1323 sqq.24.122): If any one is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, to escape his enemies, no blame falls him on him, because God takes his servants as their hearts believe” [1]

The Quran’s (16:106) allowance of uttering disbelief whilst under extreme force is hardly justification for the outrageous smears the Islamophobes propagate.

Quran 3:28 and taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya)?

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. [Pikthal translation of the Quran 3:28]

This Verse instructs Muslims to not take the unbelievers as patrons over the believers but does allow for this in the case of fear. Tuqatan is used here (a verbal noun of taqiyyah). Tafsir Jalalayn explains:

“unless you protect yourselves against them, as a safeguard (tuqātan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts” [Tafsir Jalalayn – 3:28]

It is hardly something Islamophobes can latch onto as evidence for their demonization of Muslims as this Verse allows concealment (taqiyyah, taqiyya, takiya) in the case of fear (i.e. to avoid persecution). We are essentially back to where we started as initially stated on taqiyyah:

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]

Taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgement

Ibn Kathir, a prominent authority writes, "Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show." As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's companion, al-Hassan, who said, "taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity]." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

Islamophobes make a big deal out of Muslims believing taqiyya (taqiyyah, takiya) is acceptable to this very day and beyond. So what? There is NO issue here whatsoever.

Think about it, if, in the future, an extreme Christian/Hindu/Islamophobe put a gun to a Muslim’s head and asked him to denounce Islam in order to preserve his life would you really have qualms in the fact the Muslim would be allowed (according to Islam) to do so in order to protect his life?

Abraham (p) and taqiyyah

In the Biblical account of Abraham, Sarah and Pharaoh we notice Abraham (and Sarah) concealed the fact Sarah was his wife as he feared death:

When the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife.' Then they will kill me but will let you live.
Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.” [Genesis 12:12-13 NIV]

Where are the Christian Islamophobes to demonise Abraham, Sarah and the Bible? Nowhere!

Why are people not exaggerating this to mean the Bible allows Jews and Christians to lie to non-believers just as they do against Muslims in the case of taqiyyah? The answer is hypocrisy as Islamophobes work an anti-Muslim agenda assiduously whilst refraining from using the same absurd modes of exaggeration/deception against Christians and Jews!

The “Apostle” Paul and taqiyyah?

Paul, in Corinthians 19, was using a strange tactic to convert people. So strictly speaking, Paul did not practice taqiyya as he was not under threat of harm and his “concealment” was in the avenue of evangelism rather than that of self-protection. Paul was concealing himself as a Jew (to convert Jews), as a gentile (to convert gentiles) and as the weak (to convert the weak).

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. [Corinthians 9:19-22, NIV]

Of course, Christian apologists would extend explanation towards Paul’s strange actions in order to exonerate him of the allegation of deception but you can see why there is a potential cause for concern here – especially in the light of the numerous deceptive episodes involving Christian missionaries ever since Paul’s strange actions.

Why are our Christian Islamophobes not concluding Paul’s actions to mean all Christians can lie whilst evangelising folk?

I have caught Christian missionaries, on numerous occasions, lying to convert folk to Christianity. If you want to exegete this New Testament account to mean Christians are allowed to use deception whilst evangelising you will have a stronger case than that of the Islamophobes’ exaggerations on Muslim allowance of taqiyyah (concealment due to fear).

Lying about the Prophet Muhammad (p)

Islamophobes, in an attempt to obtain an unchecked platform, do suggest Muslims misinform (“use taqiyya”) about the Prophet Muhammad (p). This is an utter absurdity as it is a grave sin for a Muslim to misinform about the Prophet Muhammad as the Prophet stated:

“Whoever lies about me intentionally shall take a place for himself in hell” (al-Adhkar (y102), 510-12) [4]

In fact, presenting misinformation about the Prophet (p) was considered an extreme offense amongst early Muslim communities:

Habib ibn ar-Rabi’ said that it is disbelief to alter his [Prophet Muhammad’s] description and its details. The one who does that openly is an unbeliever. He is asked to repent. [5]

So much for the Islamophobes claims of “Muslims using taqiyyah” regarding Prophet Muhammad (p).

Conclusion

Taqiyyah (taqiya, takiya) is not something to be writing home about. To use this practice to brandish Muslims as untrustworthy (or to demonise them) is unscholarly and unjust.

If you do encounter an anti-Muslim bigot on the internet crying “taqiyya” (there are plenty about), please do send him/her away educated.

There are a number of Islamophobes who do make cash and political inroads out of demonising Muslims with all this exaggeration concerning taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) amongst other absurd claims concerning Muslims. These folk do influence other folk on the internet to propagate these misconceptions – thus it is our job to present the truth to counter the many anti-Muslims deceptions out there.

"During times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" - George Orwell

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

References

[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.

[3] Men and Women around the Messenger, Sa’d Yusuf Abu ‘Aziz, Translated by Suleman Fulani, Darussalam, 2009, p. 286-287

[4] Reliance of the Traveller, Translated by Nuh Hamim Keller – Amana Publications, 2008, r8.0, p 747

[5] Muhammad, Messenger of Allah – Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press, 2004, p. 387

Problems with the Old Testament?

There is a fabulous discussion with regards to the inconsistencies in the Biblical Exodus by Dr Louay Fatoohi and Prof. Shetha Al Dargazelli in their co-authored book. [1]

It is quite a lengthy discussion but well worth the read. Dr M. M Al Azami offers an excellent synopsis of the problem our Christian and Jewish brethren encounter with regards to the Biblical numbering of Israelites at the Exodus.

Number of Israelites at the Exodus estimated at 2,000,000 (two million)

"One year after the Exodus, Moses and Aaron counted the total number of men who were at least twenty years old and of fighting strength. Their tally yielded 603,550 Israelites [see Numbers 1:20-46].


The Levi tribe was not included in this figure, and neither were the females of all ages, old men, and any young men under twenty. Taking these groups into account as well, we can infer that – according to the OT – the total number participating in the Exodus probably exceeded two million Jews.


I will leave it to the imaginative reader to surmise how a tribe of seventy people, freshly arriving in Egypt, were able to multiply in excess of two million within a mere 215 years, especially when their male newborns were being systematically killed for the previous decades. Such is the OT which rests in our hands today." [2]

Summary of the problem

You have the OT asking us to believe 70 new settlers in Egypt yielded a progeny of ~2 million in roughly 200 years. Now, even the most fundamentalist of Christians will start asking questions as it is very unlikely the Biblical account is accurate:

The self-refuted claim here is that the descendents of less than 100 persons counted some 2-3 million after four generations! This contradiction has already been picked up by scholars [e.g. Houtman 1993: 512].
[3]

However, in the interest of fairness the fundamentalist Christian answer can be presented and scrutinised…

Fundamentalist Christian answer analysed?

"One way of harmonizing the above contradictions is by suggesting the Hebrew word dor is not to be understood as “generation” in the modern sense. Thus, in his attempt to show his suggestion that four dor equal 400 years is not a mere harmonization exercise, Kenneth Kitchen, Professor of Egyptology at Liverpool University, points out that in Ugaritic and early Assyrian sources, the word daru, and hence the Hebrew word dor, can mean a span of eighty years or more (Kitchen, 1996:54).


Yet even if this was a valid definition of the term dor it does not explain why there were “four” rather than “five generations”, particularly given that 430 is the exact number of years anyway.


This explanatory attempt implies that it was merely fortuitous that Exodus 6:14-26 shows Moses to be from the fourth generation of the descendents of Jacob. Kitchen also eliminates the contradiction caused by Exodus 6:14-26 by suggesting that these verses do not give a full genealogy of Moses, despite the fact that there is no reason, not to give the full genealogy, apart from the harmonization motive, to suggest otherwise." [3]

An easier answer to the problem – suspect the SCRIBES!

Let’s be realistic. We know scribes were changing the New Testament through inadvertent errors (or at times utter dishonesty). Simple reasoning would lead us to suspect the OT scribes were of a similar nature too – thus producing the problem in Numbers 1:20-46.

It’s a simple answer. Our fundamentalist Christian friends will jump through hoops to circumnavigate such simplicity.

To persuade our fundamentalist friends to consider this reasonable approach (of suspecting the scribes) we can appeal to Jeremiah. Here is Jeremiah to tell us the scribes were unreliable and untrustworthy:

"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? [NIV,Jeremiah 8:8]

Allah knows best.

FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

[1] History Testifies to the Infallibility of the Quran – Early History of the Children of Israel, Dr Louay Fatoohi and Prof. Shetha Al-Dargazeli, Adam Publishers and Distributers, Delhi, 1999, p 8-18

[2] The History of the Quranic Text from Revelation to Compilation – A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testament, M.M. Al-Azami, UK Islamic Academy, Leicester, 2003, p216

[3] History Testifies to the Infallibility of the Quran – Early History of the Children of Israel, Dr Louay Fatoohi and Prof. Shetha Al-Dargazeli, Adam Publishers and Distributers, Delhi, 1999, p 12

Further reading:

Sexism: A reason to the change the Bible?

Numbers and the Bible do collide on more than one occasion

Discover Islam

Hate Comes to Ohio – Tea Party and Usama Dakdok

You just could not make it up. After the debacle in Orange County you’d think the Tea Party would have been a little more cautious for their Ohio meeting [1]. Sadly common sense and the right wing don’t mix.

The Tea Party have enlisted the services of an Arab (Copt) Islamophobe (Usama Dakdok). Yes, an Arab anti-Muslim bigot who will (no doubt) be blabbering on about how all Muslims are killing machines (better and scarier than terminator!!!).

Erm, if that Islamophobic drivel was true, Mr Usama Dakdok would not be living. The same applies to the ~10 million Coptic Christians in the Arab world. I guess that’s why most folk don’t take Arab Islamophobes seriously

Who is Usama Dakdok?

Usama Dakdok is an Anti-Muslim bigot whom we featured in 2010 due to his crazed Islamophobic ranting. He claimed there is “no good Muslim”, Muslims are “demons”.

He gets WACKIER as he believes Barack Obama is Muslim [2].

Oh, just for good measure, he’s also a charlatan. He has “translated” the Quran despite possessing no relevant academic credentials and a failure to meet ANY of Von Denffer’s criteria for a translator of the Quran.

It get’s worse still as old Usama is a bit of a salesman too as he has been selling his translation as the only true translation and has suggested his “translation” is the first translation by a Non-Muslim. MANY Non-Muslim translations have been produced prior to Mr Dakdok’s “effort” – George Sale, J Rodwell, AJ Arberry and EH Palmer. [3]

Tea Party's charlatan

In my brief exchange with Usama Dakdok, after exposing the fact Mr Dakdok does not meet Von Denffer's criteria to translate the Quran, he claimed to have had support from professors, doctors (from Al Azhar university) whilst "translating" the Quran. He even claimed "ex-muslims" from Al Azhar university had helped him too!!!
I asked for names. He supplied no names at all. Nothing but silence. It's amazing how this blog turns the most talkative into mutes...
The man is a charlatan. Sadly, there is a ton of them within the evangelical community.

Christians buying fancy cars for bigots

Arab Islamophobes are never taken seriously, but some (i.e. Shoebat, Saleem, Botros et al) do make cash – quite a substantial amount – through their fertile imaginations and the gullibility of the evangelical Christian community in America.

It looks like old Usama Dakdok is coining it in too:

I've heard reports out of Clay City that at least where Dakdok's car is concerned, he seems to be doing quite well for himself. [2]

Usama Dakdok's Islamophobic rant

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

[1] CAIR: Ohio Groups to Ask School to Drop Anti-Islam Tea Party Speaker

[2] http://enough2008.blogspot.com/2008/09/sen-obama-is-not-muslim-no-matter-how.html

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an_translations

Keith Ellison on Muslim American Hero

Rep. Keith Ellison gives an emotional testimony of a Muslim hero of 9/11. Sadly Rep. Peter King is making life even more difficult for American Muslims – these hearings are un-American. Ironically, Rep Peter King has links to the IRA – a TERRORIST organisation!

Cenk Uygur (Young Turks) denounces Peter King as un-American, accuses him of links to the IRA and highlights Keith Ellison’s moving testimony.

Truth About King's Muslim Hearings - Cenk Uygur on MSNBC



MSNBC host Cenk Uygur shares a clip of passionate testimony Rep. Keith Ellison and explains why he believes Rep. Peter King's hearings on 'Muslim Radicalization' are un-American. He also talks about how we should be investigating all radicals (he points out that since 9/11 there have been almost twice as many terror plots from non-Muslims).

Why was Prophet Muhammad’s Father Called “Abdullah”?

It appears there is some confusion on this issue as Prophet Muhammad’s father’s name (Abdullah) meant the “slave of Allah” – questions have been asked as to why the name Allah was known BEFORE Islam was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (p).

Typically, our Christian missionary friends have been spinning this as to mean Allah was a pagan god as the pagan Arabs knew of the word “Allah” before the coming of the Prophet and Islam.

Highlighting ignorance…

This simply highlights the Christian missionary’s/critic’s ignorance as the word Allah was initially used in a monotheistic sense by Ishmael (son of Abraham) and those of his followers. However, with time, these Arabs later slipped into paganism which ultimately led to the Arabs of Mecca leaving the pure belief of Allah being the ONLY God by making Allah a high god of their pantheon of gods.

The Prophet Muhammad (p) brought the Arabs back onto the worship of Allah alone with the introduction of Islam – the same beliefs Ishmael (p) introduced to Arabia.

A brief history of Meccan-Arab religious practice

We know that the word “Allah” was in use before the time of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). If we read Ar-Raheeq ul-Makhtum we realise that the early Arabs did believe in Allah as the Only God. This is dated all the way back to the time of Prophet Ishmael (p) who resided in Makkah (Mecca) and learned Arabic as well as settling there [1]. He preached the message of pure monotheism; “Most of the Arabs had complied with the call of Ishmael and professed the religion of his father Abraham. They worshipped Allah, professed His Oneness and followed His religion...” [2].

This shows that Allah was known as the Only God, just like the Muslims believe Him to be. Indeed Abraham and Ishmael (pbut) are considered to be Muslims, i.e. those who had submitted to the Will of the Only God, Allah.

How paganism was introduced after Ishmael and Abraham (pbut)

The issue of paganism came into the equation as the Arabs forgot this pure monotheism which was taught by Ishmael and his followers. The idolatry was originated from the actions of a man named Amr bin Luhai, he was known as a devoted and righteous man, well respected by his peers. However, after a trip away from Mecca he saw idol-worship in Syria.

Upon his return to the Meccans he introduced idol worship to the Meccans by bringing an idol named Hubal back from Syria and this resulted in the spread of a great many idols across Mecca.

They now (wrongly) believed Allah to be the high god of many gods

Despite the Meccan pagans’ acceptance of idols they still proclaimed belief in Allah in the sense that they saw Allah as the High God but used the idols as ‘lesser deities’ whom they believed “could intercede before Allah for the fulfilment of their wishes” [4].

Quite simply they had a pantheon of ‘gods’ but believed that Allah was the High God of their pantheon. [6]

The theory of Allah being considered as a High God is backed by Ar-Raheequl-Maktoum, Karen Armstrong [6] and W. M. Watt [7].

Effectively over the years they changed their belief in Allah, from the belief that Allah was the Only God (the Abrahamic teachings) to the belief that Allah was the High God of their many deities (pagan/polytheistic teachings).

There were 360 different idols, belonging to the pagans of Mecca, around the Ka’bah when Prophet Muhammed took charge of Mecca. These idols were subsequently broken, removed and burned under the authority of Prophet Muhammed [3].

Prophet Muhammad’s father - Abdullah

Another source that attests to the fact that the pre-Islamic Arabs used the name Allah and held a ‘belief’ in Him is the genealogy of Prophet Muhammed, his father’s name was actually Abdullah (meaning servant of Allah) [5]. Interestingly enough, some of these pagan Arabs believed that Allah was the same God that the Jews and Christians worshipped [6]

Prophet Muhammad reintroduces Abrahamic monotheism

In 610 CE, the Prophet Muhammad began to call the pagan Arabs back to the pure monotheism which was taught by Abraham and Ishmael centuries earlier. By 632 CE the Meccan Arabs had given up their idols and returned back to pure monotheism – believing in Allah as the only god.

1. Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 26-28
2. Ibid pg 45
3. Ibid pg 45-46
4. Ibid 46
5. Ibid 63
6. Islam a Short History by Karen Armstrong, Phoenix Press, 2001, pg 3
7. What Is Islam by W.Montgomery Watt, Longman Group, Second Edition, 1979, pg 47

Related:

History of paganism in Arabia

Ancient Arab Pagan Claims

Allah is not a moon god

Sharia Law against terrorism

 

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

 

Learn about Islam:

http://www.thedeenshow.com

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Moon God Exposed - Christian Missionary Hypocrisy and Deceit!

When we (Muslims) hear American Christian missionaries twitter on about the "moon-god being Allah"  we simply roll our eyes and feel pity for them as their co-religionists (other Christian missionaries) have armed them with LIES - obvious LIES!

Here we catch two Christian missionaries (Sam Shamoun and David Wood) presenting the moon god nonsense

Sam Shamoun and David Wood Disgrace ABNSat

If the video does not play, please see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwzH6-C9dbw&feature=feedlik

The moon god claim is a lie which was popularized by Dr Robert Morey and Jack Chick. There is no evidence for it, yet our Christian friends in America believe it as their leaders and co-missionaries teach this stuff. I guess, it is easier to lie about the opposition (the Muslims) than to meaningfully engage with them...

The word "Allah"

The word Allah is used by Arab Jews and CHRISTIANS too!

The crescent moon on some mosques?

Let it be said that the ‘moon’ symbol on some mosques and flags has nothing to do with Islam. There is no teaching within Islam that teaches the over-reverence of the moon or instructing Muslims to adopt it as a representative symbol. Early Muslims did not use the crescent (moon) for flags nor Mosques and did not have any symbol to represent them. This symbolism was introduced during the Ottoman Empire much later on and was adopted from a city they conquered; “It wasn’t until the Ottoman Empire that the crescent moon and star became affiliated with the Muslim world. When the Turks conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453, they adopted the city’s existing flag and symbol”

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544398

Missionaries are worrying

Christian missionaries are worrying as they have little regard for the truth, thus they can quite easily mislead folk. We should always double check what they say. Sadly, the biggest victims of Christian missionary deceit are lay Christians.

May Allah protect lay Christians and Muslims from Christian missionary deceptions, may Allah guide us all. Ameen.
Bible: Muslims are Blessed

Learn about Islam

Christian Missionary Pastor converts to Islam

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Spirituality and the “Ex-Muslim” ABN

Puzzling: C.L.Edward’s Testimony on ABN

I have been aware of this gemtleman’s YouTube activity but he seems to be celebrated as an ex-Muslim by Christian missionaries. I fear this man has entered Christianity without thorough investigation. Not only this, I am extremely concerned as to his alleged claim of not feeling spirituality whilst in Islam. Alarm bells always ring when“ex-Muslims” make such a claim. Louder still, as this gentleman, claims to have been a Muslim for a decade. Now, why in the world are you going to stay in a faith which offers you no spirituality for TEN YEARS???

I don’t know if he truly was a Muslim in the past or whether he is doing an Ergun Caner. Nevertheless, if this man reckons he will experience more spirituality whilst worshipping Prophet Jesus (p) he has another thing coming. Jesus did not even worship Jesus!

Jesus worshipped God. I’d advise our friend to ponder upon that.

Spirituality in Islam

Did this gentleman ever pray, sincerely? When I pray I can feel overwhelming spirituality – an out of this world experience. The same applies to reciting the Quran or even listening to it. The Muslim feels tranquillity whilst remembering the Lord through prayer or general remembrance of Allah (God). I can attest to it.

I’ve seen Jesus (p) (Jesus was supplicating to Allah) and other pious figures in my dreams. I’ve heard and seen the Quran in dreams. I’ve had other fabulous spiritual experiences which are not uncommon amongst Muslims. These are spiritual experiences which are the blessings from God and are beneficial to those who reflect deeply.

Now, if somebody wants to sit there and seriously tell me, for ten years as a Muslim, he/she never felt spirituality whilst praying, I’d be shocked. To further compound the shock the gentleman left pure monotheism (the monotheism of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, pbut) for the worship of the Trinity. It does not make any sense!

You are closest to God whilst in the state of prostration. The spirituality you can experience whilst being in such a state is mind-blowing. Jesus experienced such spirituality as he, too, worshipped Allah (God) like the Muslims do.

I invite, this gentleman, to have a rethink and enter Islam.

Spiritual Battle: Muslim vs Demon

Muhammad and Jesus (p)

Christian Missionary Pastor converts to Islam

Bible: Muslims are blessed

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Problems Facing Christian Apologists

Christian apologist, James White, highlights what he perceives to be the biggest problem Christian apologists are facing. White believes it to be a disconnection with the local church. As an outsider who regular looks into Christian apologetics’ ministries I reckon White has a point when he refers to Christian apologists who have become “apologetics disasters” – some of these disasters are catalogued on this very blog.

However, a lack of attachment in the church is not the biggest obstacle Christian apologists are facing. James, as an apologist, should know this!



The two biggest problems Christian apologists are facing are thus:

Christianity itself – the product they are working with is dysfunctional - noticeably dysfunctional. It comes as no surprise to see Christian apologists struggle in the field whilst regurgitating inadequate arguments from apologetics manuals from a bygone era. This is all they have to work with.

To give you a quick example, the Gospels are obviously unreliable and errant. Prior to Von Tischendorf’s find in the 1800’s, Christians believed the last portion of Mark was the inspired word of God. After this find, we now realise it’s a forgery!

Simple, if you need folk to hunt down manuscripts in order to pluck out forgeries your Gospels are unreliable – the possibility of further significant manuscript finds still haunts Christian apologists. Please do keep in mind we have not even mentioned the irreconcilable contradictions between the Gospels when describing the SAME event or the noticeable evolution of Christianity from Mark to John (Mark is a Gospel which does not present Jesus as divine but John does present Jesus as divine).

Dishonesty – Christian apologetics is riddled with dishonest folk, thus lay people distrust Christian apologetics. Ergun Caner is the highest profile dishonest casualty in apologetics. It took a Muslim, Mohammad Khan, to blow the whistle on Caner’s dishonesty. Other notable dishonest folk within Christian apologetics include Kent Hovind, Jack Chick, Sam Shamoun, Father Zakaria Botros, David Wood, Robert Morey and Pastor Joseph Najm.

Book: James White on Islam

Sexism: A reason to change the Bible?

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Bible: Male Rape Victims to be Killed - Bernadette Brooten

The rise of gay churches and clergy men (and women) is startling to those who have an orthodox grounding in the Bible. Sadly, Christian ethics are blighted by the secular manifestations which “have become increasingly in terms of purely individual self-fulfilment and self-expression.” [1]

Basil Mitchell expresses the potential dangers in the reliance on “the personal” and does advance the notion; this criterion (“the personal”) could be used to justify same-sex unions and relations outside marriage. [1]

Let’s be frank, this is exactly what we are seeing in the West – more and more Christian leaders are essentially following the secular band-wagon and presenting Christianity as secularism with an added belief in Jesus.

Gay Christians, prepare for the shock!

We would like to ask the churches who are so accepting of gay and lesbian clergy and congregations to have a closer look at the Old Testament and the writings of Paul of Tarsus (aka Apostle Paul). It will surprise you and Bernadette J Brooten’s interpretation will send shock waves down your very being.

Bible: death penalty for gays

I find it peculiar that it’s a Muslim who has to point this out – the Bible is vehemently opposed to same sex relationships.

“Leviticus 10.13 prohibits sexual relations between men, defines them as an “abomination” and places them under the DEATH PENALTY (see also Lev.18.22)” [2]

Liberal Christians, I will tell you that it gets more shocking as, according to Brooten, this death penalty includes rape victims – including children.

Bible: Male Rape Victims put to DEATH – Bernadette J Brooten

Brooten writes, “Ethical considerations such as consent, coercion or the power imbalance inherent in adult-child relations are not legally relevant in these passages (nor in the surrounding Levitical Laws on adultery, incest and bestiality). Thus, regardless of the sexual relationships of the participants (a man and his consenting male partner, an adult male whom he had raped, or a child victim), all are equally culpable, since all are equally defiled (see Philo, De spec.leg.3.7.37-42).” [2]

According to Brooten, Paul (in the New Testament) “does not employ the ethical categories of consent or age for distinguishing between sanctioned and condemned sexual relations” [2]

I acknowledge this is Brooten’s interpretation – an interpretation which could well be wrong.

Nevertheless, our liberal Christian friends will point out these laws are from the Old Testament and that they follow the New Testament. They may well call the OT laws a “curse” – Jesus’ following of this “curse” coupled with those Christians who maintain Jews must still abide by OT laws militates against this outright dismissal of the OT.

However, Paul (in the NT) AGREES with the OT laws concerning homosexuals.

New Testament: Gays “DESERVE TO DIE”

“Paul Describes male-male relations as “impurity” and asserts such men “deserve to die” (Rom. 1.24-32). [2]

This information may be faith-shattering to gay Christians but it must be said regardless of the ramifications. Paul offers no acceptance for lesbian Christians either…

Paul is against lesbianism too!

“Paul extends the prohibition to include sexual relations between women (Rom. 1.26) as do other postbiblical writings.” [2]

Sharia or Biblical law?

Christian Islamophobes are constantly prattling on against Sharia but are absolutely oblivious to the hypocritical depths they sink to whilst doing so. A law based on the dictates of God is never going to be morally unacceptable as true morals are taught via divine revelation. The real problem crops up when folk who are motivated by their desires decide to change a religion for purposes of “self-fulfilment” – this is what we are seeing within Christian circles as we speak.

Earlier today, I had a conversation with a Catholic and told him of the Muslim view of the Bible having been altered by men – I told him this belief is easily proven too – he agreed!

It is the job of the truth seeker to seek out the true religion. Christianity makes more sense when one utilizes the lens of Islam to view it.

[1] The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, Edited by John Mcmanners, Oxford University Press, 1990 p. 624

[2] The Oxford Companion to the bible, Edited by Bruce Metzger and Michael G Coogan, New Oxford Press, 1993 p. 288-89

Bible: Muslims are Blessed

Learn about Islam

Christian Missionary Pastor converts to Islam

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Christian Islamophobes Afraid of Gays and Lesbians in Dearborn

Right, we know of at least one Islamophobic group (Acts 17) who carts itself off to the Dearborn Arab International Festival each year wielding cameras in the “guise” of evangelism BUT where are these folk when the Gay and Lesbian Comedy Festival comes to Dearborn?

On March 5th, the Gay and Lesbian Comedy Festival was held. I just don’t see a bunch of Christian Islamophobes making a big deal out of it. Why?

Is it because targeting Muslims is acceptable whilst targeting gays is unacceptable? If Christian Islamophobes want us to really believe they are targeting Muslim communities in the US, in order to convert them to the worshipping of Prophet Jesus (ironically, Jesus worshipped God!), then they would have to offer a level of consistency and target other Non-Christian groups (I presume this gay/lesbian comedy festival was full of Non-Christians) AND they would have to conduct sincere evangelism of other groups (such as Jews, Hindus, Agnostics, etc.) and NOT turn up with cameras looking for a scoop to plaster over YouTube.

Which one is it? You decide:

1. Christian Islamophobes seem to lack the testicular fortitude in tackling the gays but go after the easier target of Muslims - typical bully behaviour.

2. Christian Islamophobes don’t care about the “salvation” of gays/lesbians

3. These gays/lesbians are already Christians

4. You raise more cash and popularity for your “ministry” if you target Muslims so the gays are left on the back-burner

5. Christian Islamophobes were at the gay comedy festival but they were doing serious evangelism so did not bother taking their cameras and sensationalising it

I think 1, 2 and 4 combined would offer something resembling accuracy!

Bible: Muslims are Blessed

Learn about Islam

Christian Missionary Pastor converts to Islam

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Hamza Yusuf and Abdal Hakim Murad Meet a Christian in England, Woking Mosque

This seems like an excellent interfaith discussion. We can all learn from this type of approach our scholars are taking.

Interesting points

The Christian, Reverend Richard Cook, is trying to overcome fear and ignorance related to Islam and Muslims by teaching people about Islam. A good way to combat Islamophobia.

Abdal Hakim Murad (aka Dr Timothy Winter): In the 17th century there were 3 cases of Muslims being killed for not converting to Christianity in Britain

Hamza Yusuf never felt he was giving up Jesus when he converted to Islam (from Orthodox Christianity) - he saw it as an enhancement and an adoption of a unitarian understanding of Christianity.

Abdal Hakim Murad: There are no two religons which are more interlocking than Christianity and Islam

Hamza Yusuf highlights the tolerance the Prophet (p) and Umar (ra) extended towards Christians.