In the name of Allah (God),
I have decided to dedicate sincere and honest endeavour in helping to establish the Truth by helping to defend the good name of the last Prophet (pbuh) of Allah as well as refuting many other lies and misconceptions that are being disseminated by the insincere, wicked, deceptive, intellectually and morally bankrupted individuals as well as the ignorant individuals who all share a faulty characteristic; a blatant disregard for the Truth.
I ask Allah to purify my intentions and save me from doing any good action for self-aggrandizement, as all actions are judged by intentions. May Allah Love me, and bless this work. My message to any non-Muslim reading this is thus:
Please give Islam a chance, research it for yourself and allow Muslims and Muslim sources to be your primary resources you refer to when studying Islam rather than basing your views on agenda-motivated Islamophobic sources.
O Allah, You are Al-Wadud (The Loving)...please O Allah love me and bless all those Muslims and non-Muslims who read this.
Ameen
Lizzie Schofield of Pfander Centre for Apologetics and Sid Cordle (of the CPA) talk to a Muslim. The Muslim, Hamza Myatt (EF Dawah), tried to correct them but he finds himself shouted down. Lizzie Schofield begins by stating it's so dull to continuously talk about the Trinity - considering it's an essential and fundamental belief about God in her church tradition that comment was surprising.
I used a clip of pastor JD Hall to highlight how some Trinitarian Christians believe if one doesn't believe in the Trinity doctrine they believe in a "false god". Lizzie thros in the "Quran gets the Trinity wrong" polemic - this is addressed by a clip of Dr Ali Ataie in the video.
Sid Cordle shouts no Christians ever worshipped Mary - this is not true as highlighted by the quote from James White and Taylor Marshall's citation of an ancient prayer found written on papyrus manuscript (p470), this manuscript is dated is dated to 250 CE.
Brewer's dictionary on Mariamites:
Worshippers of Mary, the mother of Jesus. They said the Trinity consisted of God the Father, God the Son, and Mary the mother of God. [Source]
Ali Ataie does not see the Quranic Verse 5:116 specifically denouncing the Trinity doctrine here but rather Mary worship and deification of Jesus Christ.
The aim of this article is to respond to the claims made by missionaries that the Quran got the trinity wrong. Let’s now read the verses they use as proof that the Quran says ‘Mary is part of the Trinity’,
“And [beware the Day] whenAllah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'”He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.” – Quran 5:116
From this passage Christians think it speaks about the Trinity, but they are wrong. If we read the verse from start to end one will not find the word “Trinity” in there. Another passage they use as proof that the Quran got the Trinity wrong is,
“O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not “Trinity” : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.” – Quran 4:171
Again, the above verse does not say anything about Mary being part of the trinity. If one reads the above verse carefully, it is clear that the passage is mainly speaking of Jesus. The name of Mary is used, because Allah is elucidating, making Christians ponder that Jesus son of Mary was only a messenger of God, and through His (God’s) command, he (Jesus) became a created being that was born in the womb of Mary. Then after that, Allah says, “say not trinity” (or Three). It is quite clear that the verse does not say anything about Mary being part of the Trinity.
The Quran does speak about the Trinity somewhere else, but says nothing about Mary being part of the Trinity. Here is the verse:
“They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” – Quran 5:73
As we read the above passage, it does speak about the trinity, but does not mention anything about Mary being part of the trinity.
Another thing critics love citing for chapter 4 verse 171, is use classic commentaries such as Tafsir al-Jalalayn, and Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, by that they conclude the Quran is a false book and not from God, since they believe the trinity consists of “the Father, Son and Mary.” Nowhere in the verse (Quran 4:71) does it say that the trinity consists of, “the Father, Son and Mary.” Even if we agree with what some of the commentators like Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs said, it will not disprove what the Quran already stated. The Scholars made that comment, because they were referring to some Christian sects, who believed that trinity consisted of the “Father, the Son and Mary.” Another thing if you read their exegesis, nowhere will you see them mention that this ‘belief was believed by all Christians.’ There is vast amount of evidence from the Church Fathers that there was certain sect(s) in Arabia that believed the trinity consisted of: “Father, the Son and Virgin Mary.”
1. George Sale
“This notion of thedivinity of the virgin Mary was also believed by some at the council of Nice,who said there two gods besides the Father, viz., Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were thence named Mariamites. Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity, and deified; which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition in calling her the compliment of the Trinity, as if it were imperfect with her. This foolish imagination is justly condemned in the Koran as idolatrous….” [1]
2. Reverend Gilbert Reid D.D.
“As to Christianity as it was represented in Arabia, it was not a clear untarnished theism, but tritheism. The Heavenly Father, Mary the mother of God and Jesus their son, were WORSHIPPED as three Gods, and their images appeared in the churches along with the images of other saints. Christianity as taught by Christ had lost its identity in the formalism and errors of the church of Arabia. Still more the truths pro-claimed by God through all the ages had been lost sight amid the vain imaginings of men’s hearts. The only God of, an omnipresent spirit, without form or body.The reformation of Mohammed was thus a return to the first and second commandment of the Prophet Moses, which Jesus himself had taught.” [2]
Question: “why does the Quran in chapter 5 verse 116 state Mary is a God?”
Well it’s clear that the Quran is in dialectic discussion with the native Arabs of that time, when it was first revealed. The Quran is naturally responding to ideas and teachings of people had at that time. So, the Quran is correcting their error in worshipping Mary and bringing them back to the path of worshipping God as One (Monotheism) and none else besides Him i.e., no worship of Mary or Jesus. The Quran also makes it abundantly clear that Jesus never told people any of this. Allah is asking Jesus on the day of judgement, “did you tell people to worship You and your Mother as Gods?” In the presence of the people, to bring them to judgement. It will be obvious that Jesus won’t accept any responsibility as he is not the one who commanded such a thing. Here are many more academic sources that attest to Mary being worshipped as a God
1. Reverend Henry Adelbert Thomson (Cincinnati, Ohio)
It is plain that the tendency to sail with the popular wind, which existed in church dignitaries of that age as well as in this, easily prevailed on many who held ecclesiastical office, so that they approved or winked at beliefs and practices which more independent clergymen considered erroneous. The people carried the clergy along with them. Even the fearless and powerful Augustine, and with him such strenuous men as John Chrysostom and two Gregories of Nazianzen and Nyssa, were unable to stem the tide in some matters of which were disapproved. The worship of Mary and the Saints met the popular mood and pleased the popular fancy; so the great leaders. Confronted by an enthusiasm they were really powerless to curb, endeavoured to the point out and maintain a distinction between latreia and douleia. But, once having given way, even partially, to the prevailing opinion, these same great men were afterward quoted as conservators and expounders of the tradition which, through them, thus received the more impressive authority….. the pure Christian doctrine had led to veneration of Saints; the adoration of the feminine ideal, together with the peculiar relationship of Mary to Christ, had designated her as “Queen of Saints;”….. the practice of Mariolatry gained a tremendous impulse, along with the Worship of Saints, especially in the post Nicene period….. the Church was still more effectually darkened and its doctrine debased. In such a period those elements of the Faith which almost readily lent themselves to idolatry suffered most in purity and gained most in practice. Saints, relics, images, with Mary, as Queen of Heaven, at their head, almost completely absorbed the worship of the people.[9]
2. Ernst Benz
The virgin birth entered into creeds of all Christendom and became one of the strongest motifs in the liturgy and worship of the early Church. Veneration of the mother of God took a tremdous leap from the moment Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire and the pagan masses began pouring into the Church. For thousands of years the religious mentality of the peoples of the Mediterranean basin and near East had been shaped by the cult of the great Mother Goddess and Divine Virgin. From the ancient popular religions of Babylonian Ishtar to the mystery religions of the late Hellenistic age the great Goddess had been worshipped under a variety of forms. The peoples who had practiced her cult could not easily adjust to the sole dominance of the Father God and to the strictly patriarchal structure of Judaic religiosity, which had been taken over by the early Christians. This ancient tradition sought a new mode of expression within the Christian Church and found it in adoration of the Virginal Mother of God in whom the mysterious union of the divine Logos with human nature had been accomplished…. In Egypt the veneration of Mary began very early. Origen, the Alexandrian father of the Church, employed the term theotokos- God bearer in the third century. The second council of Ephesus gave its sanction to this title. The second council of Constantinople added the epithet ever-lasting Virgin.” The prayers and hymns of the Orthodox Church invoke the name of the Mother of God as often as the names of Christ and the Holy Trinity. A god example of such homage is found in the Eucharistic liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, at the conclusion of the great intercessory prayer: “Truly worthy is it to praise Thee God bearer, eternally blessed and perfectly irreproachable Mother of our God, who art more worthy of honor than the cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the seraphim, who intact, hast borne the Divine Logos-Thee the true Mother of God, we Praise.”[10]
3. Professor of the New Testament Beverly Roberts Gaventa
“Orthodox theologians insist Mary is deserving of this grace, and it is for that reason that she is identified as Panhagia, or All Holy. From birth she is without sin. Her own holiness and her divine maternity warrant the high veneration given to her by the Church. Mary is “the first of all humanity to have attained, through the complete transfiguration of her being, that to which every creature is summoned. She has already transcended the boundary between time and eternity and now finds herself in the Kingdom which the Church awaits with the second coming of Christ.” Because of Mary’s own holiness, she stands in solidarity with the sanctified humanity who constitute with the Church. For those reasons, Orthodox Christian tradition icons and hymns praise Mary at ‘the centre of the Saints as a representation of the worshipping and praying community.’”[11]
4. Professor James R. Adair
“…the highest veneration was given to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Historically Marian veneration can be connected with the controversies over the use of the term theotokos, rejected by Nestorius but accepted by most Christians of the day. The veneration of Mary was especially popular among the common people and the Monks, particularly in the EAST.” [12]
5. Reverend James Gardner
“Mariolatry, the worship of the Virgin Mary. In the fourth century, in consequence of prevalence of the ascetic spirit, the most extravagant opinions began to be entertained of the merit of virginity, and Mary, the mother of our blessed Lord, was venerated as the ideal of the celibate life. About this time an opinion arose that there were in the temple of Jerusalem virgins consecrated to God, among whom Mary grew up in vows of perpetual Virginity. In the end of the fourth, it became customary to apply to Mary the appellation, “Mother of God.” …the worshippers of Mary prevailed, and in the fifth century images of the Virgin were placed in the Churches holding the infant Jesus in her arms. Once introduced, this species of worship spread rapidly, and Mary became a conspicuous object of veneration in the Churches, both of the East and West. .. towards the close of the tenth century the custom became prevalent among the Latins, of celebrating masses, and abstaining from flesh on Saturdays, in honour of Mary. About the same time the daily office of St. Mary, which the Latins call lesser office, was introduced, and it was afterwards confirmed by Pope Urban II. In the council of Clement. The Rosary also came into use, consisting of fifteen repetitions of the Lord’s prayer, and one hundred salutations of St. Mary; and the Crown of St. Mary, as it was called by the Latins consisted of six or seven repetitions of the Lord’s prayer, and sixty or seventy salutations according to the age ascribed by different authors to the Holy Virgin. Mariolatry now became an established doctrine and practice in the Church of Rome, and down to the present day has continued to occupy a very spicuous place in her ritual; while with equal intensity Mary receives the worship of Oriental Church under the name of Panagia, or All-Holy…” [13]
6. German Professor Johann Heinrich Kurtz
…the Collydrians- a female sect in Arabia dating from the fourth century- who offered to her bread-cakes (in imitation of the heathen worship of ceres). Epiphanius, who opposed that sect, maintained:…. On the Antidicomarianites, comp. 92. But during the Nestorian controversy Mariolatry became again more general in the Church. In the fifth century, the 25th march was celebrated as the Feast of the Annunciation… [14]
7. Reverend John Dowling
When we observe, on the one hand, the earnest manner in which these fathers contend for perpetual virginity of Mary, and on the other hand the extravagant honors attached to the virgin state, we need not be surprised that the notion soon became prevalent among some that ‘ the mother of God.’ As she was now frequently denominated, was herself worthy of the honors of divine worship. Accordingly, about this time, we find that a sect sprang up, whose peculiar tenet it was, that the Virgin Mary should be adored in worship, and that religious honors should be paid to her. They were called Collyridians, from collyridae, the cakes which they offered to the virgin…[15]
8. Church of England quarterly review
The first persons upon record, as offering divine honours to the Virgin Mary, were the Collyridians, who derived their names from the…, or certain cakes, which they offered annually to Saint Mary, in sacrifice upon her festival, when they worshipped her as a goddess. This superstition came from Thrace, and the yet more distant regions of Scythia and Arabia… [16]
9. Professor of the New Testament studies Amy-Jill Levine
“There are even stronger hints that Mary was venerated as a goddess. By the fourth century, Epiphanius (315-403 CE) was ordering the faithful not to worship Mary but only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, suggesting that such activity had been transpiring for a while.”[17]
10. Professor of religious studies Gail Paterson Corrington
“It would certainly not have been surprising if the Christian women of Egypt had found another divine mother with whom to identify; the Christian women of Arabia, to Epiphanius’s consternation, did a similar thing in their worship of Mary rather than Jesus… The cakes (kollybas) offered by the Collyridians to Mary in the worship are described in a way similar to the cakes offered Isis as the queen of heaven…” [18]
11. Mary Walsh
“The first council’s decision was approved, and Mary was the theotokos, ‘The Mother of God.’ This date, A.D. 431, marks the time when Mary was in the ascendancy, and her veneration and worship began. …. About the middle of the fourth century, according to Jerome, Augistine, Gregory, Epiphanius, and others, teachings came in regarding Virgins who had taken the vows of sanctity and chastity and who devoted their lives to the service of the temple at Jerusalem. Among these virgins was Mary, who had consecrated her life to God by taking the vow of perpetual virginity. It was declared that her marriage to Joseph was formal, and that she continued a virgin until her death. This was the new teaching, and it caused long debated arguments as to whether Mary was actually was a perpetual virgin. The other phrase of the new teaching was that Mary was the ‘Mother of God’ and was therefore entitled to devotion and honor. These extravagant honors conferred on Mary led to the development of a sect called Collyridian, derived from the word collyridae, the cakes which were offered to the Virgin. This sect regards Mary as worthy of divine worship. Thus the floodgates were opened for the beatification of the Virgin.” [19]
12. Thomas Anthony Trollope
Collyridians, from Greek word signifying a piece of bread or cake in a cylindrical form; a sect of Christians, who arose towards the conclusion of the fourth century, and, together with another sect, called the Antidico-Marianites, filled all Arabia with controversies and disorder. These latter maintained that the Virgin Mary did not preserve immaculate state after the birth of Christ, in jospeh autem mariti sui concubitu adhuc indulgebat. The Collyridians, on contrary, who are said to have chiefly consisted of women, worshipped the Virgin as a goddess, and sought favours by libations, sacrifices, and oblations of cakes.[20]
13. Professor Maxwell E. Johnson
“Epiphanuis of Salamis (315-403 CE), according to his witness, not only was there in existence an anti-marian group called the Antidicomarianites, who denied Mary’s perpetual virginity, but also an EXTREME pro-marian group, known as the Conllydrians (from cakes), a group compromised mostly of women who worshipped Mary as a goddess, offered her and then consumed small cakes, and had a female priesthood…” [21]
14. Protestant theologian and Church historian Phillip Schaff writes,
“Epiphanius, in his seventy-eighth heresy, combats the advocates of the opposite view in Arabia toward the end of fourth century (367), as heretics under the title of Antidiomarianites, opposer’s of the dignity of Mary i.e., of her perpetual virginity. But, on the other hand, he condemns, in the seventy-ninth heresy, the contemporaneous sect of the Collyridians in Arabia, a set of fanatical women, who, as priestesses rendered divine Worship to Mary…”[22]
15. Reverend George William D. Evans
The religious worship now paid to the virgin seems clearly deducible from that which was paid to the female deities of old. How reluctantly the converts from heathenism bade adieu to that sex as objects of worship, is evident from heretical opinions held by the sect of the Collydrians- a sect which arose towards the close of the fourth century, and offered up cakes (collyridae) to the Virgin Mary, as a goddess, and the Queen of heaven…[23]
16. Erich Fromm
“In the Nestorian controversy a decision against Nestorius was reached in 431 that Mary was not only the mother of Christ but also the mother of God, and at the end of the fourth century there arose a cult of Mary, and men addressed prayers to her. About the same time the representation of Mary in the plastic arts also began to play a great and ever-increasing role. The succeeding centuries attached more and more significance to the mother of God, and her worship became more exuberant and more general. Altars were erected to her, and her pictures were shown everywhere.” [24]
17. English historian Edward Gibbon
“The Christians of the Seventh century had insensibly relapsed into a semblance of paganism: their public and private vows were addressed to the relics and images that disgraced the temples of the East: the throne of the Almighty was darkened by a cloud of martyrs, and saints, and angels, the objects of popular veneration; and the Collydrian heretics, who flourished in the fruitful soil of Arabia, invested the Virgin Mary with the name and honors of a goddess. The mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation appear to contradict the principle of the Divine unity. In their obvious sense, they introduce three equal deities, and transform the man Jesus into the substance of the Son of God: and orthodox commentary will satisfy only a believing mind: intemperate curiosity and zeal had torn the veil of the sanctuary; and each of the Oriental sects was eager to confess that all, except themselves, deserved the reproach of Idolatry and Polytheism. The Creed of Mahomet is free from suspicion or ambiguity; and the Koran is a glorious testimony to the unity of God. The Prophet of Mecca rejected the worship of idols and men, of stars and planets, on the rational principle that whatever rises must set, that whatever is born must die, that whatever is corruptible must decay and perish.” [25]
We can conclude that the Quran nowhere says that “Mary is part of the trinity.” I responded to critics claims on Scholars (commentators of the Quran), they also never said, “Mary is believed by all Christians to be part of the trinity.” Their views were based on certain sects of Arabia which believed that Mary is part of the trinty. I also referenced two dozen or more academic quotes from Christian experts, that Virgin Mary indeed was worshipped and she was part of the trinity. I believe everything I have presented is in my favour that the Quran is not wrong in responding to the Christians of that time in Arabia that they worshipped Mary as a Goddess.
Lizzie Schofield of Pfander Centre for Apologetics believes in the Trinity doctrine thus she believes Jesus (as the Second person of the Trinity doctrine) called for the killing of apostates who called to worship other gods.
13 “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst.
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. 11 So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you.
12 “If you hear someone in one of your cities, which the Lord your God gives you to dwell in, saying, 13 ‘Corrupt men have gone out from among you and enticed the inhabitants of their city, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods”’—which you have not known— 14 then you shall inquire, search out, and ask diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination was committed among you, 15 you shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying it, all that is in it and its livestock—with the edge of the sword. 16 And you shall gather all its plunder into the middle of the street, and completely burn with fire the city and all its plunder, for the Lord your God. It shall be a heap forever; it shall not be built again. 17 So none of the accursed things shall remain in your hand, that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of His anger and show you mercy, have compassion on you and multiply you, just as He swore to your fathers, 18 because you have listened to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all His commandments which I command you today, to do what is right in the eyes of the Lord your God.
Beth Grove begins by offending two Muslim gentlemen by a comment about stealing. She then talks about translations of the Scriptures confusing the fact that the actual language of the Scripture is what is considered Scripture as highlighted by Dr Ben Witherington. She then misunderstands a Hadith and claims Prophet Muhammad hit Aisha (despite the fact Aisha herself taught that the Prophet never hit any of his wives!)
Lizzie Schofield Witnesses Rude Beth Grove Arguments at Speakers Corner - Pfander Centre for Apologetics Refuted
If this vide does not play, please see here and here
The hand imposition of the prophet Muhammed (pbuh) it is a gesture driving away evil influence (waswas) and conferring blessings, it’s nothing bad at all. The intent of the Prophet Muhammed (p) was to drive away ‘evil influence’ from Aisha. Proof from the following Hadiths that the prophet Muhammed (p) pushed Aisha (Ra) and never hit her:
Aisha said:“Allaah’s Messenger (pbuh) never hit anything with his hand ever, except when fighting in the path of Allaah. Nor did he ever hit a servant or a woman.”[Recorded In Ibn Majah. Al-Albani graded it Sahih.]
Aisha reports:”Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) did not hit Anything with his hands, besides the time when he made Jihaad in the Path of Allah.He did not hit a servant nor a woman (wife, girl etc.)”. [Shamaail‐e‐Tirmidhi (331) Hadith Number 6.]
‘Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) reported: Messenger of Allah (pbuh) never hit anything with his hand neither a servant nor a womanbut of course, he did fight in the Cause of Allah. He never took revenge upon anyone for the wrong done to him, but of course, he exacted retribution for the sake of Allah in case the Injunctions of Allah about unlawful acts were violated.[Muslim Arabic/English book reference : Book 1, Hadith 644]
As you have read from the above Hadith reported in three different Hadith Books , the prophet never hit any woman nor a servant, these statement(s) that the Prophet never hit any woman are from Aisha own mouth. So, the correct translation is that the Prophet pushed Aisha, to drive away evil influence, as Aisha makes it evidently clear that he NEVER hit any woman or servant. That statement from Aisha alone shows that Prophet Muhammed (p) was never abusive in any shape or form, to any of his wives. This proves that the translation for the Hadith that says Muhammed ‘struck’ Aisha is false.
David Wood was sadly propagating further malicious falsehoods. This time he accuses a Christian ministry, Pulpit and Pen, of having a role in Ergun Caner's son's suicide. Thankfully James White and Richard Pierce were on hand on social media to rebuke David Wood for such "false witness"
A Christian street preacher, who I was in conversation with over the phone, was under the impression Ravi Zacharias is Nabeel Qureshi's father-in-law.
This is not true. Nabeel is married to a lady called Michelle Qureshi. Whilst Ravi has two daughters: Naomi and Sarah.
Even as RZIM has seen phenomenal growth around the world, it remains a family ministry as Nathan’s sister Sarah Zacharias Davis serves as executive director of RZIM, his sister Naomi as a Vice President and Director of Wellspring International (a RZIM outreach), and his wife Sarah Parker Zacharias as a Marketing and Development Associate at Wellspring. [From an interview with Nathan Zacharias on Patheos]
In chapter 15 of No God but One: Allah or Jesus? Dr Nabeel Qureshi writes distastefully about Shk. Ahmed Deedat:
Along with Deedat's fame grew his inflammatory rhetoric. As a response to the pope's positive stance to interfaith dialogue, Deedat challenged John Paul II to a debate. When the pope refused, Deedat published a pamphlet titled "His Holiness Plays Hide and Seek with Muslims." He also famously began to argue that the Bible was pornographic. Further inflammatory speech during a Good Friday lecture earned him the castigation of the Australian government, and he was even banned from entry into Singapore.
In 1996, at the height of his career, Deedat suffered a severe stroke. Among other neurological deficiencies, Deedat was no longer able to speak, and he remained bedridden until his passing in 2005. Some suggested that God had punished him for his words, and other rumours spread that Deedat repudiated Islam just before his passing. Within the Islamic world both these suggestions are resolutely dismissed. Deedat's fame continues to grow, even after his death, into legendary status.
The problem here is Nabeel lists 3 inflammatory incidents in the career of Shk. Deedat and then he veers off to talk about how he died. OK, not such a big problem...yet. The problem is, straight after this he inexplicably throws in a statement informing the reader what "some" people suggested after his death. He leaves it open ended - he doesn't opine on what these "some” people suggested so we don't know whether he thinks there could be truth in what these "some" or "other" people suggested. He doesn't say who these "some” people are so we don't know whether he's talking about internet trolls or serious theologians and scholars.
As a professional author one suspects the editing and proof-reading assistance Dr Nabeel Qureshi gets is considerable and the fact he is an experienced author one is left aghast at how this statement wound up in there - it's almost like a deliberate ploy to sow seeds into the mind of the reader. Seeds suggesting that these "some” people may be right!
Here's the thing, a teacher could walk into a classroom full of kids and start teaching them about the moon. These kids don't know anything about the moon and they are relying on the teacher to teach them. If the teacher slips in the old "some people say" tactic and leaves it at that he/she could get the kids going away thinking the moon may be made out of cheese: "The moon is not a planet, it's a satellite of the Earth and it rotates at 10 miles per hour. Some people say the moon is made of cheese. OK folks let's open up those maths books, that's enough about the moon!"
Do you see what the teacher did there? The teacher tossed a few facts about the moon so the kids were seriously invested in what was being discussed and then boom, the "some people say" tactic is tossed in!
The suggestion Shk. Deedat repudiated Islam while bed-ridden
Let's be clear here, these "other” people who claim Shk Deedat repudiated Islam on his deathbed are internet trolls. There's no evidence for this whatsoever. Why is Nabeel paying heed to baseless claims from internet trolls in a professional publication?
In fact just by reading his biography or news reports concerning Shk Deedat's passing away Nabeel can see this claim is a load of nonsense as he was serving Islam even whilst bed-ridden up to his passing away:
August 8 marks 10 years since Deedat's death of kidney failure at the age of 87. He was bedridden for the final 10 years of his life, after suffering a stroke that left him paralysed and unable to speak.Though doctors initially gave him little chance to live, Deedat continued to engage in religious work until his death - communicating by using a grid of the alphabet, which he used to spell out words letter-by-letter by signalling with his eyes. [Al Jazeera]
The punished by God claim
More upsetting, why is Dr Nabeel Qureshi leaving the door open for Christians (I’d imagine the bulk of his readership will be Christian) to think Shk. Deedat's stroke and subsequent paralysis was divine punishment for his words against Christianity.
The "some suggested that God had punished him for his words" statement is a minefield of problems. Nabeel doesn't tell us his theological views on this. Why leave it open ended at such a critical juncture?
You know his Christian readers are left wondering whether (or even believing!) Jesus punishes people with strokes for things they have said against Trinitarian Christianity.
Why did Nabeel mention these people's suggestion and remain silent on it?
I’ve been aware of this Christian internet smear to try and undermine the impact of Shk. Ahmed Deedat’s work for a number of years. I wrote about this smear years ago.
Dr Nabeel Qureshi is medically trained so he will know that it really isn’t anything unusual for an aged man of 78 (yes, he was 78 when he had the stroke!) to have a stroke as yearly “around 110,000 people have a stroke in England and it is the third largest cause of death”. It's even less unusual for an aged man of a south Asian ethnicity (Shk. Deedat was of Indian origin) as this ethnicity along with those of African and Caribbean heritage are predisposed to developing higher blood pressure thus more likely to have strokes! [Medical information and stats on stroke taken from the NHS]
So why the big deal about him having a stroke at 78?
On top of this, Dr Nabeel Qureshi would know having communication problems after a stroke is common: Many people have communication problems after a stroke. About a third of stroke survivors have some difficulty with speaking or understanding what others say [Source]
But, the fact he had problems speaking is neither here nor there as Shk. Deedat was blessed by God to be able to communicate still to the extent of debating members of the clergy whilst bed-ridden:
Despite his condition, Deedat was able to discuss politics and debate with members of the Christian clergy who visited him. Using a grid of the alphabet, Deedat signalled with a blink for 'yes' or a widening of the eyes for 'no', guiding his son to spell out words letter by letter.[Al Jazeera]
Dr Nabeel Qureshi and these “some” people need to be careful as this opens the door to stigmatise all stroke victims and all those, young and old, who are disabled and have difficulties speaking.
If Dr Nabeel just doesn’t want to directly say he believes Jesus *may* have punished Shk. Deedat due to it impacting the “Jesus loves you” emotionalism Dr Nabeel and his colleagues preach then why be indirect about it by hiding behind internet trolls?
If Nabeel truly believes this *may* be the case, why not say it upfront? Right now, it's all rather unclear but it doesn't paint Nabeel in a positive hue as it stands.
Well, let’s wait for Dr Nabeel Qureshi to answer. He’s producing vlogs – I’ve been keeping tabs on them as well as praying and fasting for him - so it will not be an issue for him to spend a couple of mins just explaining his comments in his book as this is both upsetting and disappointing.
Questions for Nabeel to touch on with grace
Why did you write about what some people suggest (internet trolls) with, what appears to be, strategic placement to sow the seeds of thought that these “suggestions” may be true?
Do you believe Jesus may have punished Shk. Deedat, yes or no? I know as a Trinitarian you do believe Jesus allowed the severe beating of female slaves in Exodus 21:20-21 and ordered the killing of children and mothers in 1 Samuel 15:3.
Will you apologise for any offense caused?
Ending with positivity and respect
A few thoughts on Shk. Ahmed Deedat. He showed tenacity in character and conviction in Allah when he was afflicted at an old age with health problems.
If anything, Shk. Deedat should be heralded as an inspiration to people who are suffering from health problems – he not only continued with his work but he also continued to resolutely affirm Allah’s mercy:
Right up to his death, Deedat was studying. He dictated tracts and continued his communication with people around the world."The latter part of the shaikh's career was extremely focused," Hendricks said. In his room, Deedat had two framed quotations by his bedside.One was a verse from the Quran, Chapter 21, The Prophets: "And (remember) Job, when He cried to his Lord, 'Truly distress has seized me, but Thou art the Most Merciful of those that are merciful'."The second read: "There is no end to what a man can achieve if he does not mind who gets the credit." [Al Jazeera]
Right, let’s swiftly put this this polemic to bed and highlight gross inconsistency and what appears to beintellectual dishonesty. Polemicists like Jay Smith and Pastor Tony Costa claim Surah Al Fatiha (the chapter in the Quran) is a prayer cursing Jews and Christians. They claim the last Verse of the Quran is a curse on the Jews and the Christian.
Anybody with scintilla of comprehension and fairness can see that it is not a curse. A curse is when one prays for bad to fall upon a person: Muslims are not asking for God to be angry with Jews and Christians here!
Pastor Tony Costa states he finds this “disconcerting” as he shockingly styles the prayer in Surah Al Fateha as “systemic cursing of Jews and Christians” that “vilify Jews and Christians”[Timeframe 5.50] whilst Jay Smith’s team spin it as “the cursing prayer”!
My response to Tony is that you need to actually read the text for yourself and comprehend it rather than going off what some Christian polemicist is saying on the internet. No need to feel disconcerted about Muslim prayers, Tony.
However, Tony Costa in his written work, has said Paul of Tarsus (in Galatians 1) curses anybody who does not teach the same Gospel as him:
There are such things as divine curses in the Bible where God for instance pronounces judgment on those who pervert and preach a different Gospel (see Galatians 1:6-9), or brings a curse on those who do not love the Lord Jesus (see 1 Corinthians16:22).[Pastor Tony Costa]
Here's Paul of Tarsus in his own words:
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted,let them be under God’s curse!
Tony Costa and his Trinitarian missionary colleagues will believe Paul’s words are a curse against Muslims, Jews, Unitarian Christians, Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons as the aforementioned do not accept the Trinitarian view of Jesus.
Tony Costa, if consistent, would find Paul’s words in Galatians to be “disconcerting” and a “systemic cursing of Jews” which “vilify” Muslims, Jews, Athests, Hindus, Sikhs, etc.
Perhaps Tony forgets what he writes in his academic work when he is in the company of polemicists against Islam? From this example, it seems, he totally forgets academic standards, intellectual integrity, fairness and comprehension skills when he puts his anti-Islam hat on.
This will come as a shock to most people to learn that New Testament scholarship is broadly in agreement that the gospels of Matthew and Luke do not portray Jesus as preexistent and have no awareness of the notion of the Incarnation of God. In the light of Christian teaching about the origins of Jesus this is surprising as both gospels have extended birth narratives where such ideas would naturally be mentioned. Here is an extract from a recent academic discussion from Yale University in the USA
Jonathan McLatchie makes a noteworthy admission and argument which Muslims who argue for Prophet Muhammad being in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible/Tanakh) will be interested in.
Jon acknowledges the Messianic prophecy claims conservative Christians preach are not direct prophecies but what he would consider allegorical, “foreshadows” or “typologies” (although he does think there are some direct prophecies). An example he cites is Hosea 11:1 which the author of Matthew 2:15 believed to be a prophecy of Jesus:
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. 2 But the more they were called, the more they went away from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images. [Hosea 11:1]
Jonathan recognises upon “inspection of the first two verses of Hosea 11, however, reveals that the context is not Messianic at all!”
Jonathan, however, does accept it as a prophecy. A typological prophecy:
What is going on here, one might ask? Is Matthew attempting to pull the wool over our eyes and dupe us into thinking that this is a prediction of the Messiah, earnestly hoping that his readers will not take the trouble to look up the text for themselves? Of course not. Rather, Matthew takes this text to be fulfilled typologically.
But, here’s the thing: if this is your standard and you accept this as a prophecy then you don’t have any reason to reject Zakir Hussain’s arguments for prophecies about Prophet Muhammad p in the Old Testament (and the New Testament) if your consistent. Really, just have a look at Zakir Hussain's arguments and you’ll notice that they are much more convincing than Matthew’s “prophecy” claim.
Based on a cumulative argument of “typological coincidences” of this nature, Jonathan argues it points to divine orchestration:
The numerous typological 'coincidences', of which but a few examples are briefly described above, militates strongly against hypothesis (2). The occurrence of so many correspondences between Jesus' life as reported by the gospels and the Hebrew Scriptures surely can only either be the product of divine orchestration, or human design in the telling of the stories
But hold on, a Muslim could make the same case for Zakir Hussain’s arguments!
Bart Ehrman sums up the situation around Messianic prophecy claims:
You can go through virtually all the alleged messianic prophecies that point to Jesus and show the same things: either the “prophecies” were not actually predictions of the future messiah (and were never taken that way before Christians came along) or the facts of Jesus’ life that are said to have fulfilled these predictions are not actually facts of Jesus’ life. [Bart Ehrman]
My point, thus far, is to highlight the manner in which Christians argue against proponents of prophecies for Prophet Muhammad in the OT is utterly inconsistent. If they were consistent in their rejection of those arguments for Prophet Muhammad in the OT they would reject the allegorical approach they accept for Messianic prophecies; that would be bye-bye to Matthew’s alleged Messianic prophecy leaning on Hosea 11:1.
Deliberate misdirection?
However, the elephant in the room is that of making up prophecies or being overly keen to find prophecies and ending up with claims that are just baffling. Firstly, we know the author/s of the Gospel of John changed stories for theological reasons (i.e. the day of the crucifixion story). We’ve also got the spear thrust story in John and the story of the guard in Matthew which aren’t considered to be historical – those narratives would have been added for theological/apologetical reasons.
But seen as Jonathan is solely focussing on prophecies let’s focus on Matthew's prophecy claims. Jonathan McLatchie doesn’t want people to believe “the gospel authors deliberately set out to deceive and mislead people into believing their accounts to be recalling real history” but the author/s of Matthew seem/s to be making up prophecies or at the very least being victim/s of some of the source material used to compose the Gospel.
One example would be the use of Zech 9:9 in Matthew 21 where the author depicts Jesus riding on a donkey and a colt:
The Hebrew text for this Old Testament prophecy talks about one animal which is described twice, but its Greek translation uses “and”, meaning two animals instead. Matthew relied on the Greek translation of the Old Testament so he made Jesus ride on two animals. He had to change the earlier part of the story to make Jesus order his two disciples to bring a donkey and a colt. The fact that Jesus could not have ridden on two animals at the same time did not bother Matthew![Dr Loauy Fatoohi]
And the claim of a prophecy of one to be called a “Nazarene” in Matt 2:
Like other prophecies quoted by Mathew, there is a serious problem with this prophecy: it does not occur anywhere in the Old Testament![Dr Louay Fatoohi]
Perhaps another example for the notion the Gospel authors were shaping their narratives on their interpretation of the Scriptures (the OT) would be the narrative of Jesus being born in Bethlehem: But the authors of the Gospels were themselves influenced in their telling of Jesus’ story by the passages of Scripture that they took to be messianic predictions, and they told their stories in the light of those passages.
Take Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. A couple of times on the blog I’ve talked about how problematic it is to think that this is a historical datum. It’s true that both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in that small village. But Mark and John do not assume that this is true, but rather that he came from Galilee, from the village of Nazareth. Moreover, Matthew and Luke *get* Jesus born in Bethlehem in radically different and contradictory ways, so that for both of them he is born there even though he comes from Nazareth. Why don’t they have a consistent account of the matter?
It is almost certainly because they both want to be able to claim that his birth was in Bethlehem, even though both of them know for a fact he did not come from Bethlehem, but from Nazareth. Then why do Matthew and Luke want to argue (in different ways) that he was born in Bethlehem? It is because in their view — based on the Old Testament prophet Micah 5:2 — that’s where the messiah had to come from. And so for them, Jesus *had* to come from there. They aren’t recording a historical datum from Jesus’ life; they are writing accounts that are influenced by the Old Testament precisely to show that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament.[Bart Ehrman]
DH Can you speak to the problem of anachronism and its effect on understanding Paul?
PF I’m a historian, and the most grave “original sin” for a historian is anachronism. What that means is that you lift something out of its historical context and put it in a different historical context, and so misinterpret it. If in addition we think of Paul as an orthodox Christian, we will only misinterpret him that much more. He’s living in a period where he’s not thinking in a Trinitarian manner. The idea of the Trinity hasn’t been conceived yet. His letters will have Jesus Christ in them; they will have God the Father in them; he will talk about the Spirit of God. Those are the textual origins that will be used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but Paul’s not thinking in a Trinitarian way. People reading Paul assume that he’s hostile to Judaism because he’s the “inventor” of Christianity. In fact, he’s still imagining himself as a Jew and he’s presenting Christianity in continuity with Judaism. The fact that Paul is such a huge figure for Christianity makes it almost impossible for us not to interpret him anachronistically when we look at him, because it’s so important that his message speak immediately to modern Christianity. If we allow ourselves to see how much his message actually cohered with first-century Judaism, then we have to relinquish an immediate connection between him and us, between this ancient Jewish messianic movement and the modern church. [Source]
...Matthew claims the Messiah was going to be called a Nazarene:
21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene. (Matt 2:21-23)
Like other prophecies quoted by Mathew, there is a serious problem with this prophecy: it does not occur anywhere in the Old Testament!
I had been suggested that the use of “prophets” instead of “prophet” in the passage above is Matthew’s way of indicating that he is giving “a paraphrase of the sense of more than one passage rather than a quotation of a specific verse” (Miller, 2003; 115; also Davies & Allison, 1988:275). There is no evidence that this is the case, as 2:23 is the only prophecy that Matthew attributes to the unidentified “prophets”. Of the remaining 12 alleged prophecies that Mathew quotes , 6 are attributed to Prophet Isaiah, 2 to Jeremiah, and 4 to an unidentified “prophet”. It is unclear which “prophets” Matthew meant, but there is no evidence that the use of this plural term indicates that Matthew paraphrased more than one Old Testament passage. [ See: The Mystery of the Messiah, Louay Fatoohi, Loc 2080]
Matthew links Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem to a prophecy:
As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.”
4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
5 “Say to Daughter Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’”[a] 6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7 They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. 8 A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road.9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, “Hosanna[b] to the Son of David!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”[c] “Hosanna[d] in the highest heaven!” 10 When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, “Who is this?” 11 The crowds answered, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.” [Matt 21:1-11]
The Prophet that Matthew mentions in Zechariah:
Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. [Zech 9:9]
The Hebrew text for this Old Testament prophecy talks about one animal which is described twice, but its Greek translation uses “and”, meaning two animals instead. Matthew relied on the Greek translation of the Old Testament so he made Jesus ride on two animals. He had to change the earlier part of the story to make Jesus order his two disciples to bring a donkey and a colt. The fact that Jesus could not have ridden on two animals at the same time did not bother Matthew!
Significantly, the versions of this story in the other three Gospels, which are not influenced by the Zechariah prophecy, are different. According to Mark (11:2,7) and Luke (19:30, 35), Jesus wanted and rode a colt. John (12:14), on the other hand, states that Jesus found and rode a donkey. This is yet another example of how Matthew fine-tuned his Gospel to fulfil Old Testament prophecies.
It is also significant to note that, unlike Matthew, none of the other three Evangelists link Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on a colt to the prophecy in Zechariah, or indeed to any other supposedly Messianic passage.
...Matthew’s fascination with linking events in Jesus’ life to alleged Old Testament prophecies aims o show that Jesus was the fulfilment of those prophecies. This link, the Evangelist thought, would strengthen the believers’ faith and convince the Jews that Jesus is the awaited Messiah and would make them follow him. Matthew was so keen on pursuing his endeavour that he often distorted and misused Old Testament passages. He changed them and took them out of context to make them fit his purpose. He even made them up! [See: The Mystery of the Messiah, Louay Fatoohi, Loc 2114]
Ex Muslim, Neil Littlejohn (formerly known as Ismaeel Abu Adam), is now claiming to have had a vision of Jesus. He even wants to take a polygraph test (a lie detector test). Look an Ex Muslim claiming to have seen Jesus is nothing new, the conman Kamal Saleem has peddled a story of Jesus appearing in a vision (well actually he has peddled at least 3 versions of that story) while charismatic folks like Zak Gariba claim to speak to Jesus!
Claiming Jesus is appearing to you is a sure fire way of getting some attention in the charismatic Christian movement and, let's be frank, a bit more cash in donations if that's what you're asking for.
My focus here is, did Neil see the devil. Neil's description of Jesus doesn't tie in with what most people would expect of a Middle Easterner living in 1st century Palestine - Neil has more of a Hollywood type of image of Jesus in mind.
In this video we ask people to consider whether Neil is lying, wishful-thinking or simply conned by the devil.
I think RZIM's Dr Nabeel Qureshi's exegesis of John 14:12-14 would be lapped up by the Prosperity Gospel crowd. It's essentially telling Christians that they get anything they want if they pray to Jesus (a man!) and ask him for whatever they want. Here's the Gospel passage Nabeel Qureshi uses to claim Christians can perform miracles greater than those given to Jesus:
12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
Video of Nabeel Qureshi talking about miracles and John 14
To be fair, I know another strand of Christianity would exegete this passage as referring to preaching the "Gospel" rather than works of healings etc.
Having said that, Nabeel is effectively giving a falsification test for judging who is a "true" believer in Christianity: they should be able to perform greater works (miracles) than Jesus. Well, Nabeel (other Christians) why aren't you guys down at your local hospitals healing the deaf, blind, disabled and terminally ill? Why haven't we not seen you guys in war zones bringing peace to war-torn lands? Why haven't you not ended poverty in deprived areas of South America, Asia and Africa?
There are over 2 billion Christians worldwide, Nabeel Qureshi, surely thinks at least 10% of them are "true" Christians. That would be at least 200m Christians. Why is it that we are more likely to see Christians online (some of whom are Nabeel's friends) spewing hatred against Muslims rather than in hospitals trying to heal people or in warzones bringing an end to innocent people being bombed by imperialist forces like America, Russia, ISIS etc.?
Pulpit and Pen's Pastor JD Hall criticises Nabeel Qureshi's dream and prophecy stories, charismatic leanings and possible links to Prosperity Gospel teachings, views on Catholics and his association with Bethel Church. JD Hall also touches on Nabeel 's former religious affiliation (the Ahmadiyya group). Excerpt is from the Polemics Report.
Muslims need to be aware of this type of Christian missionary preaching. Some Christians are now claiming "true" Christians can perform greater miracles than Jesus. This missionary makes these claims based on John 14:12-14
12
Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
Asaad Faraj claims he and his Christian buddies brought a dead person back to life by praying to Jesus (a man!)
If the vide does not play, please see here
