Tuesday, 31 May 2011

Mistake by the Evangelist Luke in the Book of Acts?

Author of Acts (Luke): Mistake of Ignorance (Geza Vermes)

The Acts of the Apostles goes even further than Jospehus and the Gospels when it turns the Sadducees into complete materialists who denied not only the resurrection of the dead, but also the existence of angels and spirits (Acts 23:8). However, this exaggeration should probably be blamed more on the Gentile Luke’s unfamiliarity with Palestinian Jewish thought than on the Sadducees, for angels are commonly mentioned in the Bible and the Sadducees were sticklers for the letter of the scripture. [1]


Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts* – both of which, Christians believe to be inspired by God – yet, Luke seems to have blundered through ignorance or exaggeration. One must ask, if the author could blunder to this extent then what other mistakes did he make. And if he was making inaccurate statements then how can one sincerely believe he was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

This is another problematic issue for our Christian friends to ponder upon. Previously, we have seen that the Christian belief that the Holy Spirit guides them in scripture is problematic for them and now we are seeing their belief of the evangelists and authors of the Bible being inspired by the Holy Spirit (whom Trinitarian Christians believe to be God) as problematic too.

You decide if this is an error on the part of Luke!

*Some scholars attribute to Luke the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, which is clearly meant to be read as a sequel to the Gospel account. Other scholars question Luke's authorship of these books [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist]

[1] The Resurrection, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2008, pg. 48

What Every Christian Should Know About the New Testament

Feedback: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Fiqh of Cell Phones - Kamal el-Mekki

How to use your cell phone (mobile phone) in line with Islam

The Fiqh of Cell Phones by Sheikh Kamal el-Mekki delivered at Abu Huraira Center (Toronto) on November 21, 2009.

We carry cell phones with us not realizing that there are lots of matters of fiqh regarding it. This lecture will shed light on some of these matters and proper etiquette concerning the use of cell phones

Monday, 30 May 2011

Views on Anal Sex in Islam and Christianity

Islamophobic bigots and their tricks
I really did not want to write concerning this topic as Muslims are quite aware that anal sex is not allowed in Islam and Bible-versed Christians know Pauline Christianity has no prohibition of such a practice.

As is their wont, Christian bigots have been rabble rousing in their immature (and perverted) attempts at sowing seeds of doubt in the Muslim mind. All this despite the fact that Christianity does not prohibit anal sex. Perhaps that is the reason why these bigots are so active as they know Islamic teachings of sexual relationships are free from such unnatural perversions.

Before discussing Islam’s view on the subject and analysing the copy and paste spiel the Christian bigot was utilizing we should rehearse the Christian view on anal sex.

Christian view on anal sex

Anal sex (between husband and wife) is not forbidden in Trinitarian Christianity though homosexuality is prohibited despite the protestations of many modern day Christians who wish to conform to secular views on sexuality. In fact, the perverted (anonymous) Christian bigot (s) could well interpret the Bible as not only allowing anal sex but other sexual practices the husand desires as the Bible states:

Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. [Ephesians 5:24, NIV]

Of course, the Bible is the Christian’s business and we shall leave Christians to decide whether anal sex is prohibited or not. I know of no such prohibition in the Bible and would welcome a Christian to add further insight to the discussion.

I genuinely believe the Christian bigot’s efforts are motivated by a tacit admission that Christianity has not laid down clear rules in this regard – thus he tries to bring Islam down to such a level.

Islamic view on anal sex

“All the religious scholars are of the opinion that anal sexual intercourse with a woman is unlawful” [1]

Forget about Islamic scholars for a second, what about the Prophet Muhammad (p)? There are ahadith (narrations) from the Prophet telling us the practice of anal sex is FORBIDDEN:

1 – It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: The one who has intercourse with his wife in her back passage has disavowed himself of that which was revealed to Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).” Narrated by Abu Dawood (3904); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

2 – It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: Allaah will not look at a man who has intercourse with a woman in her back passage.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1165); classed as saheeh by Ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eid in al-Ilmaam (2/660) and by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

3 – It was narrated that Khuzaymah ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah is not too shy to tell the truth” three times. “Do not have intercourse with women in their back passages.” Narrated by Ibn Maajah (1924); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah.

And there are many similar ahaadeeth. Al-Tahhaawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Sharh Ma’aani al-Athaar (3/43): The reports concerning that reach the level of tawaatur. [2]

As regards your question, anal intercourse with one's wife is a major sin, whether it occurs at the time of menstruation or not. The Prophet SAWS (Peace & Blessings of Allah be upon Him) cursed the one who does this: "Cursed is the one who approaches his wife in her rectum" (Reported by Imaam Ahmad, 2/479; see also Saheeh al-Jaami', 5865). [5]

The Prophet SAWS (Peace & Blessings of Allah be upon Him) also said: "The one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman, or with a woman in her rectum, or who goes to a fortune-teller, has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muhammad." (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, no. 1/243; see also Saheeh al-Jaami', 5918). [5]

So there you have reports from the Prophet which teach us anal sex is forbidden in Islam.

Christian bigots and Surah 2:223

Before discussing what the Christian bigot brought to the table we should offer a scholarly view upon Surah 2:223 as the bigot was trying to influence Muslims towards his debauched and unscholarly view.

Some people imagine that it is permissible to have intercourse with one’s wife in her back passage. They understand from the verse (interpretation of the meaning): “Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will” [al-Baqarah 2:223] that Allaah has permitted everything in this verse, even intercourse in the back passage.

This misinterpretation is reinforced for them when they read the hadeeth narrated by al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh – and perhaps this is the hadeeth referred to by the questioner – in which it says: It was narrated that Jaabir (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Jews used to say that if (the man) had intercourse from behind, the child would be born with a squint. Then the verse “Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will” [al-Baqarah 2:223] was revealed.

But this is a misunderstanding of the verse. Allaah says “so go to your tilth when or how you will” which means that all variations of intercourse are permitted, so long as it is in the place of tilth, i.e., the vagina, not the back passage. So it is permissible for a man to have intercourse with his wife from behind or from in front or lying on their sides so long as it is in the place of tilth and not the back passage.

The evidence for that is Muslim’s report (1435) of the hadeeth of Jaabir quoted above about the reason for the revelation of this verse, in which it says: If he wishes, when she is lying on her front and if he wishes when she is not lying on her front, so long as that is in only one opening.

In Abu Dawood’s report of the same hadeeth (2163) it says: It was narrated that Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir said: I heard Jaabir say: The Jews say that if a man has intercourse with his wife in her vagina from behind, the child will have a squint. Then Allaah revealed the words (interpretation of the meaning): “Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will” [al-Baqarah 2:223].

In Sunan al-Tirmidhi (2980) in a report which he classed as hasan, it was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: ‘Umar came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: O Messenger of Allaah, I am doomed! He said: “Why are you doomed?” He said: I changed my direction last night. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not say anything. Then this verse was revealed to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) (interpretation of the meaning): “Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will” [al-Baqarah 2:223]. So approach from the front or the back, but avoid the back passage and the time of menses. Classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

These ahaadeeth and reports explain what is meant by the verse. So it is not permissible for the Muslim to go beyond that and understand it in ways that are not indicated by the reports or by linguistic usage. [3]

Christian bigots on Ibn Umar (ra)

The Christian bigot brought forward a copy and paste concerning Ibn Umar (ra), like the typical perverted bigot he capitalised the word “anuses”:

"It came down regarding approaching women in their ANUSES." [al-Tabari, Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Jarir. Jami al-Bayan an Ta'wil Aay al-Qur'an [AKA. Tafsir al Tabari]. Ed. Abd Allah Ibn Abd al-Mushin al Turki. 26 vols. Cairo: Hajr Center, AH 1422/AD 2001. Print. v. 3 p.751]

So we have already seen the Prophet Muhammad forbade (prohibited) the practice of anal sex yet this Christian bigot is trying to convince us that anal sex is allowed – he is clearly confusing Christianity with Islam either that or he is utterly ignorant of the narrations of the Prophet FORBIDDING anal sex.

However, let’s put the bigot out of his misery and offer the scholarly explanation concerning Ibn Umar (ra) – who was either misunderstood or in error initially and later changed his view to forbid anal sex upon receiving further information:

Perhaps the question is also referring to what al-Bukhaari narrated from Naafi’ from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him): “so go to your tilth when or how you will”; he said: “He may approach her from …”
Ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Baari (8/189):

This is how it appears in all the texts. It does not mention what comes after the word “from”. End quote.
And he quoted what is mentioned in some reports elsewhere than in Saheeh al-Bukhaari, that Ibn ‘Umar said: He may approach her in her back passage.

But the scholars answered that in two ways:

1 – That it was a mistake on the part of some of those who narrated it from Ibn ‘Umar, and they understood from it that it was permissible to have intercourse in the back passage, when in fact he was narrating that it is permissible to have intercourse with one's wife in her vagina from behind, based on what is mentioned in saheeh reports from him that he regarded it as haraam to have intercourse with one’s wife in her back passage. And al-Nasaa’i narrated in al-Sunan al-Kubra (5/315) with a saheeh isnaad that Ibn ‘Umar was asked about that and he said: Would a Muslim do that?!

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Tahdheeb al-Sunan (2/146):

It is narrated in a saheeh report that he interpreted the verse as referring to intercourse in the vagina coming from the back, which is what was narrated from Naafi’. Those who thought that Naafi’ improved of intercourse in the back passage are gravely mistaken; rather what he meant was having intercourse from the back in the vagina. Thus they were confused when they thought that when he said “from the back” he meant the back passage; but what he meant by that was coming from the back but putting it in the place of intercourse, namely the vagina. Those people were confused when they understood the words of Naafi’ “from the back” as meaning “in the back (passage)”.

The second answer is:

That this was ijtihaad on the part of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) about the meaning of the verse. The Sunnah and the views of all the Sahaabah indicate that it was an incorrect ijtihaad. Abu Dawood (2164) narrated, in a report that was classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, that Ibn ‘Abbaas said:

Ibn ‘Umar – may Allaah forgive him – imagined, and this was a tribe of the Ansaar who had been idol-worshippers, along with this tribe of the Jews, who were people of the Book, and thought that they (the Jews) were superior to them in knowledge; they used to follow their examples in many of their deeds.. The people of the Book did not have intercourse with their wives except on their sides, and that was most concealing for the woman. This tribe of the Ansaar had adopted that from them. And this tribe of Quraysh used to make the woman lie in whatever position they wanted and enjoy them in various ways. When the Muhaajiroon came to Madeenah, one of their men married a woman of the Ansaar, and he went to do that with her but she objected and said: We have intercourse lying on our sides, so do that or keep away from me. Their problem got worse until news of that reached the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and Allaah revealed the words (interpretation of the meaning): “Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will” [al-Baqarah 2:223]., i.e., from the front or the back or lying, meaning the place of birth.

This could support the reports that Ibn ‘Umar used to say that it was permissible to have intercourse in the back passage, but then perhaps he came back to the correct view, after Ibn ‘Abbaas or someone else explained to him the reason why this verse was revealed and what its correct meaning was. Hence it is proven – as stated above – that he said that it was haraam, and he said: Would a Muslim do that?!

To conclude: Islam forbids this action, and there is nothing to indicate that it is permissible. The one who thinks that there is anything in the Qur’aan and Sunnah to indicate that is mistaken. [4]

Christian bigot and Ibn al-Arabi

The bigot also brought some copy and paste job concerning Ibn al Arabi. His copy and paste does not tell us what was being made permissible, thus it pointless! In any case, we have already seen sayings from the Prophet Muhammad (p) [see above] letting us know anal sex is forbidden – this is our proof text!

Not only that, we have also seen the views of all the sahaba (companions of the Prophet) which considered anal sex to be forbidden. All four schools of fiqh (jurisprudence) forbid this act.

For thoroughness here is the  ambiguous and irrelevant copy and paste from the bigot concerning Ibn Al Arabi:

Ibn al-'Arabi "found support to its permissibility among a noble group of the Companions and the followers of Malik in several stories." [Ibn al-Arabi, Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn 'Abd Allah. Ahkam al-Qur'an. Ed. T. Muhammad 'Abd al-Qadir 'Ata. 4 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiya, AH 1424/AD 2003. Print. v. 1 p. 238. Trans. by Former Muslim]


FACT: Islam forbids anal sex whilst Christianity does not.

The Christian bigot who was striving to promote the perverted agenda of other Christian bigots simply highlights his ignorance of Islam and Christianity. A Muslim named Sam summed the bigot's mistaken effort up:

The conclusions we can make of Christians insisting anal sex in Quran2:223 are
(1) the said Christians are sex perverts
(2) the said Christians don't understand what they read
(3) the said Christians are sex perverts and don't understand what they read.

Further reading

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid on this subject:

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

[1] Footnote from page 327 of Bulugh al Maram With Brief Notes from the Book Subul us Salam, Darussalam, 2002

[2] There is nothing in Islam to say that anal intercourse is permissible, Fatwa No. 91968

[3] There is nothing in Islam to say that anal intercourse is permissible, Fatwa No. 91968

[4] Ibid.

[5] Islam Q&A, Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid on the prohibition of anal sex

Sunday, 29 May 2011

Church Father Hippolytus: A Liar, Mistaken or Correct?

We have already evidenced some of the dishonest shenanigans of Christian Bible scribes (and translators), and a tacit admission from a Christian apologist that the author of the Gospel of John was a liar but what about the church fathers?

Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235) was the most important 3rd-century theologian in the Christian Church in Rome,[2] where he was probably born.[3] Photios I of Constantinople describes him in his Bibliotheca (cod. 121) as a disciple of Irenaeus, who was said to be a disciple of Polycarp, and from the context of this passage it is supposed that he suggested that Hippolytus himself so styled himself [1]

Geza Vermes sheds some light on Hippolytus’ (inaccurate?) portrayal of the Essenes

The stand taken by the Essenes on resurrection is more difficult to establish. Josephus, who claims to have experienced the life of this sect and studies their philosophy (Life 10), reports that the kind of afterlife they envisaged was different from resurrection. His final word on the subject in Jewish Antiquities (end of the first century AD) was that the Essenes believed in spiritual survival, the immortality of the soul (Ant 18:18). In the earlier account of the Jewish War, Josephus, like Philo and Hellenistic Judaism, paints a detailed canvas that after death incorruptible souls receive eternal reward or punishment.

For it is a fixed belief of theirs that the body is corruptible and its constituent matter impermanent, but that the soul is immortal and imperishable. Emanating from the finest ether, these souls become entangled, as it were, in the prison-house of the body, to which they are dragged down by a sort of natural spell; but when once they are released from the bonds of the flesh, then, as though liberated from a long servitude, they rejoice and are borne aloft. Sharing the beliefs of the sons of Greece, they maintain that for the various soils there is reserved an abode beyond the ocean, a place which is not oppressed by rain or snow or heat, but is refreshed by the ever gentle breath of the west wind coming in from the ocean; while they relegate base souls to a murky and tempestuous dungeon, big with never-ending punishment…Their aim was first to establish the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and secondly to promote virtue and to deter from vice; for the good are made better in their lifetime by the hope of a reward after death, and the passions of the wicked are restrained by the fear that, even though they escape detection while alive, they will undergo never-ending punishment after their decease (War 2:154-157).

If this was a true picture of the Essene representation of afterlife, a message centred on a risen Messiah (like a Jesus preached by Christians) would not have had much hope of success among them. However, for whatever it’s worth, the Church father Hippolytus has left us a second version, purported to be Josephus’ account, in which a very different picture is sketched:

The doctrine of the resurrection also is firmly held among them. For they confess that the flesh also will rise and be immortal as the soul is already immortal, which they now say, when separated from the body, enters a place of flagrant air and light, to rest until judgment…(Refutation of All Heresies 9:27)

Is the difference due to the pen of Hippolytus, wishing to portray the Essenes as proto-Christians, or was Josephus guilty of twisting the evidence in order to make the Essene teaching palatable to his Greek readers? While the first view is more commonly held, there are defenders of the second, too. [2]


The Essene’ lack of belief in a dying and rising Messiah further militates against Trinitarian Christianity. One can certainly imagine why Hippolytus would resort to fudging matters – if that was the case.

In the interest of fairness, we cannot be sure who – if any one – is guilty of dishonesty though the finger of suspicion is more widely held against the Church father, Hippolytus, rather than Josephus. Who is right and who is wrong?

[1] Hippolytus of Rome on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippolytus_of_Rome

[2] The Resurrection, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2008, pg. 48-50

Sexism: A reason to change the Bible

Facts about the New Testament

FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Islam on Dhimmis: What They Don't Want You To Know!

Brother Ali from the Answering Christians blog has posted a very interesting piece on Dhimmis:
How often will Christians admit that Muhammed pbuh guaranteed them safety and rights (btw the Jews and Christians at the Prophet's time DID take him as a Prophet of God)

“Someone who unjustly kills a dhimmi (person under protection) cannot get a whiff of Heaven. However, its fragrance is felt from a distance of forty years. (Sahih Bukhari, Jizya, 5)

2. Our Prophet (saas) said: “Whoever oppresses a dhimmi or burdens a weight over him more than he can carry, I will be his enemy.”

3. Whoever oppresses a dhimmi or loads a work that is over his strength or takes something away from him by force, I am his foe on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud, Kharaj, 31-33)

4. “I am claimant of anyone who depresses a dhimmi. The one who I am claimant of (in this world), I am also claimant of on the Day of Judgment.” (Ajlouni, Kashf al-Khafa’ II, 218)

5. Holy Prophet (saas) commands: Beware! I will be complainant of those who act cruelly and heartlessly to these people (who are bound by agreement) and restrict their rights or who load a work over what they can sustain or take away something out of their will, on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud, Jihad; (İslamda Devlet Nizami [Islamic State Order]), Abu’l-A’la Mawdudi, Hilal Yayınları, 1967, p. 71)

[Interjection: as you can see, the Prophet Muhammad (p) stood up for the rights of the Dhimmis and warned MUSLIMS against unjust treatment of the dhimmis (the protected people). Where are the Islamophobes to tell you this? Nowhere. The Islamophobes want to scare folk into hating Muslims and Islam whilst cashing in on the misguided fear]

6. In any one of the countries conquered at the time of Hazrat Omar, not even one place of worship was failed to respect. Abu Yusuf writes:

“All places of worship were left as they were before. Neither were they demolished, nor the defeated people were deprived of their properties or belongings.” (Abu Yusuf, Kitabu'l-Haraj; Islam’da Devlet Nizamı, Abu’l-A’la Mawdudi, Hilal Yayınları, 1967, s. 74)

7. Hazrat Ali said, “Whoever is our dhimmi, his blood is as blessed as ours, his property is as protected from damage as ours.” In another verse it is related that Hazrat Ali said the following: The property and life of the ones who accept status of Dhimmi is blessed as ours (the Muslims).” (Islam’da Devlet Nizamı "Islamic State Order”, Abu’l-A’la Mawdudi, Hilal Yayınları, 1967, p. 76)

8. In the agreement which our Holy Prophet (saas) decreed the articles to Ibn Harris ibn Ka’b, who is a Christian, and other Christians:

“The religion, churches, lives, chastity and property of the entire Christians living in the East and the West are under the protection of Allah, His Prophet (saas) and all the believers. None of the people embracing the religion of Christianity will be forced to accept Islam. If one of the Christians suffers murder or injustice, Muslims are obliged to help him, he narrated the verse: “Only argue with the People of the Book in the kindest way…” (Surat al-Anqabut, 29/46). (Ibn Hisham, Abu Muhammad Abdu’l-Malik, (v.218/834), as-Seerat an-Nabaweeyat, Daru't-Turasi'l-Arabiyye, Beirut, 1396/1971, IV/241-242; Hamidullah, Al-Wasaiq, s.154-155, No.96-97; Doğu Batı kaynaklarında birlikte yaşama, “Living together in Eastern and Western sources”, p. 95)


Friday, 27 May 2011

Stop Using Foul Language – Kamal El Mekki

Making the Angels Write Down Curse Words - Kamal El-Mekki

Insha’Allah this video will help us be more mindful of the language we use.

Wednesday, 25 May 2011

Christian Bigots Copying Robert Spencer's Distortions

I’m sorry to announce the Christian bigot, David Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics, is at it again – he is spreading LIES once again. Some folk just don’t know when to quit. Moreover, this bloke seems to be prattling on about sex an awful lot. I guess his ridiculous sex hoax has not shamed him. There’s no shaming the shameless!

Islamophobes out of control

David Wood is simply out of control with his unscholarly and deceptive musings. In this episode we catch old Dave plagiarising a whopper of a distortion from Robert Spencer and we note he deceptively quotes a Tafsir. For good measure we put up an interesting bible verse for Dave to wrap his interesting mindset around.

Lies and Video Tape: David Wood getting caught on video plagiarising LIES about sex from another misinformed bigot

If the video does not play please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlxaGcOYW7M

Robert Spencer's Fabrication

Seen as David is simply parroting from Robert Spencer’s book (p. 173) we might as well present Sheikh Zayed Moustafa’s short sharp shrift directed at Robert Spencer concerning the nutty lie our Christian friend is plagiarising:

On page 173, the author [Robert Spencer] again interprets a famous verse in the Holy Quran in a way that is totally different from all the interpretations of the verse in any Islamic reference. In the Holy Quran (our translation):

“Your women are a tilth for you, so perform your tilth in whichever way you want to...” 2:223

The verse addresses an incident when some of the companions of the Prophet asked him about a Jewish myth that if the intercourse happened in a certain position, the baby would be born cross-eyed. The verse later was revealed to indicate that as long as you’re having natural intercourse with your wife, then you can have that intercourse in any position you want together. The verse never meant by any stretch of the imagination in 1400 years of Islam that a man can do to his wife whatever he wants. Mr. Spencer’s interpretation is just that offensively absurd.

[The Lies about Muhammad – How you were Deceived into Islamophobia by Moustafa Zayed p337]

Why would the Christian bigot, Dave, selectively quote? Deception!

And here is the entire commentary from Tafsir Jalalayn which Deceptive Dave partially quotes in order to miss the context so he can build his latest nutty 'sex position' claim:

Your women are a tillage for you, that is, the place where you sow [the seeds of] your children; so come to your tillage, that is, the specified place, the front part, as, in whichever way, you wish, whether standing up, sitting down, lying down, from the front or the back: this was revealed in response to the Jews saying that if a person had vaginal intercourse with his wife from behind, the child would be born cross-eyed; and offer for your souls, righteous deeds, such as saying, ‘In the Name of God’ (bismillāh) when you commence intercourse; and fear God, in what He commands and prohibits; and know that you shall meet Him, at the Resurrection, where He will requite you according to your deeds; and give good tidings, of Paradise, to the believers, who feared Him.

The bigot missed the highlighted portion out. The most important portion as it offers explanation to scupper his lie. Wow, he is a deceptive piece of work!

Christian bigot’s view on the Bible…

Men are in charge of women and women must obey them according to the BIBLE. If David used the same mindset then he will have to claim men get to have sex with their wives in any position they fancy ACCORDING to the BIBLE.

In fact this argument can be used more vociferously against the Bible, so David the next time you want to talk sex positions please open up your Bible (if you are consistent) rather than throwing it under the bus.

I would ask him to read Ephesians 5:22-24 as wives must submit to their husbands in everything. Yes the word "everything" is used.

So who is allowed to have sex in any sexual position they want? The Christian husband [according to Dave Wood’s mindset]!

David Collecting Cash for Hatred + Deception – ABNSAT

Would you want the down right dishonest and unscholarly collecting cash for your organisation (ABN)? Eh, Bassim Gorial?

Invitation to Islam

Please look beyond the crazy lies that Islamophobes work assiduously and give Islam a chance. May Allah bless you further. Ameen.

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

A Christian Hate Crime Against Muslims – Alleged Hater, John White, Invited to Islam

John Invited to Islam
Muslim Response to John White of South Shields

A Christian, John White, who regularly goes to church, has been accused of hate crimes against Muslims.

The Muslim response is to invite him to Islam and to let him know that Jesus (p) was against pork too. In fact Jesus is a Muslim. John, would you like to be the brother of Jesus? If yes, come to Islam as those who do the Will of God are the brothers/sisters of Jesus – this is confirmed in Mark 3:35.

Drop the racism and the childish taunts in favour of seeking the Truth. Islam is for people of all nationalities. I would like to remind you that Jesus (p) was not white and looked like a practicing Muslim – in fact, he was a practicing Muslim. If you love Jesus (p) then you should love Muslims. Think about it, John.

Christian Accused of Religiously Aggravated Harassment - News Report

A CHURCH stalwart accused of leaving rashers of bacon outside a mosque and Muslim homes has denied running a religious hate campaign. John White was arrested as police investigated a spate of incidents in South Shields earlier this year.

He pleaded not guilty at Newcastle Crown Court to five offences of religiously aggravated harassment, alarm, or distress.The charges all involve the deliberate targeting of Muslims on different days between January 2 and 29.

White, who has been attending the same church for 30 years, also faces a string of racially-aggravated offences.But those were not put to him during his brief plea and case management hearing.

Tom Moran, prosecuting, said: “We are likely to nail our colours to the mast because really this case is about religious aggravation rather than racial.

“It may be a decision is taken not to try him on those other counts but I can’t confirm that today.”

White, 63, of Homestall Close, South Shields, will now go before a jury in the week beginning July 25.He was further remanded on bail with a number of conditions.One of those – an exclusion area – is to be challenged by White’s lawyers.Stuart Graham, defending, said: “One condition is not to enter Baring Street.

“That causes difficulty for the church he has gone to for 30 years.”

White’s arrest followed a series of disturbing attacks in South Shields.Bacon and pork was thrown at the homes of Muslim families around the town centre.A slab of bacon was also left outside one of the community’s most popular mosques – the Jam-E-Masjid Bangladeshi Muslim Culture and Welfare Association in Baring Street.

Read More http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news/2011/05/20/south-shields-churchman-denies-hate-campaign-72703-28731876/#ixzz1Mx20Xstb

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Monday, 23 May 2011

Sam Shamoun Loses Another Debate

I'm sorry to say this strange Shamoun character is back on the scene. Previously he used to call Muslims "black stone lickers". He was corrected on such a claim back then and subsequently stopped making such absurd claims - I guess even he felt he was looking absurdly foolish.

However he is back with another dim-witted claim. He is now writing a Muslim is a "black stone worshipper".I'm not kidding you, this fella really does come out with the most basic of lies.

Sam Shamoun: Let me go on lying!

NOTE: If the video does not play, please see:

A "full time" liar

In this video Sam Shamoun's material is corrected so easily and swiftly, thus presenting even the most ardent supporter of this bigot with serious reservations about donating further cash to his "full time" ministry. Yep, he does claim to do this "full time". A full time liar?!?

Benefits and junk exposes charlatans

This episode can benefit folk as Shaykh Kamal El Mekki goes through one of these common childish claims which are levelled at Islam by folk who are simply ignorant of Islam. Insha'Alla, an increased activity amongst Muslims to do away with the lies/misconceptions out there a reduction in folk purveying these lies/misconceptions.

The Christian bigot in the video could certainly do well to read a few books before he speaks up next time. This is further evidence to highlight Mr Shamoun's shoddy scholarship and his customary deception.

Surely anybody with the slightest research in Islam would know Muslims do not worship a black stone. Then again, we are not talking about anybody when we mention Mr shamoun - this bloke suffers brain-blackouts at the mere mention of a Muslim - hence why he appears to be off his rocker when interacting with Muslims/Islam. Sad.

May Allah protect Muslims and Non-Muslims from the lies/misconceptions about Islam which are being worked assiduously by nefarious folk such as the bigot featured in the video. Ameen.

May Allah reward Shaykh Kamal El Mekki for his excellent work - masha'Allah this sheikh has a fair amount of lectures on YouTube that we could all benefit from. InshaAllah.

Invitation to Islam

Please give Islam a chance. Cut through the stereotypes and the misconceptions and give Islam serious thought - you have nothing to lose.

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Sunday, 22 May 2011

The Finest Christian Apologist Questioned...

So Anthony “the finest Christian apologist” Rogers popped over and was presented with a few questions. As usual, as the going got tough Rogers and co went all silent. I thought the finest Christian apologist would be able to offer an answer or two. Perhaps Rogers was busy at church or sleeping. Arise from your slumber Mr. Rogers and begin giving reason for the hope within – the questions will keep coming.

1MoreMuslim poses tough questions and has more to follow...

Why Paul makes clear distinction between the True God and the false Mortal Gods? And Why Elijah was mocking a God who sleeps and travels? And when the Divine becomes flesh does he assume limitation of knowledge? Why the word , being divine, suddenly doesn't know the hour? The human limitations overshadows the unlimited divine nature?

I think his reference to Elijah is taken from 1 Kings 18:27:

At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened." [NIV]

Elijah’s mockery does also affect the Christian god too as the Christian god (Jesus, p) travels and sleeps (and even worships God!). I guess this is one of the numerous reasons why Christians so readily skip over the Old Testament.

Gospel contradictions

Anthony, you know what, I have NEVER seen a Christian answer (adequately) on the Gospel contradictions. Mike Licona failed to impress me perhaps you as the “finest Christian apologist” would like to pass on your explanation. Here is an excerpt from Geza Vermes’ list of flat contradictions – don’t get too comfortable – it is only the first serving concerning the resurrection accounts ONLY:

The accounts differ regarding the number and identity of the women who visited the tomb: one, Mary Magdalene, in John and Mark B; two, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary in Matthew; three, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome, in Mark A; and several, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women from Galilee, in Luke. Such variations would have rendered the testimony unacceptable in a Jewish court.

Once you have finished with these please work on the rest which can be found here:

Once you have supplied explanations for that particular list please move onto the irreconcilable contradictions concerning the “crucifixion” accounts. Yep, plenty to be cracking on with…

After all that you could actually challenge your silent mode as the posts concerning the incarnation and holy spirit seem to have pushed your mute button on previous occasions...

Oh heck, we may as well push the boat out seen as we have you here. Here's what every Christian wants answered. I am yet to see a decent answer. The stage is yours, "the finest Christian apologist":

Bart Ehrman rattles off a few from the "thousands" of contradictions within the New Testament and discusses the doubts over the gospel of John and the contradictions around the crucifixion stories

Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them), Ehrman goes even further, revealing not only that the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies and outright forgeries, but that many fundamental stories and doctrines don't actually exist within its pages--they were later inventions by people trying to make sense of a disconnected collection of texts. The Scriptures did not come down to us through the ages in one, harmonious,unbroken version. The story of Jesus was, in fact, interrupted.

I bet "the finest Christian apologist" rushes off into silent mode and wishes he never popped over...

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.co.uk

Contradictions in the Gospels – Geza Vermes

The Jesus scholar, Geza Vermes begins by writing: "Finally, there are flat contradictions between the sources" and goes on to list many inter-Gospel discrepancies.

How many women visited the tomb? The Gospels contradict each other!

Vermes sees these contradictions as being a death blow to the reliability of the witnesses within the Gospels - one can only imagine the damage to the credibility of the unknown Gospel authors.

1. The accounts differ regarding the number and identity of the women who visited the tomb: one, Mary Magdalene, in John and Mark B; two, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary in Matthew; three, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome, in Mark A; and several, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women from Galilee, in Luke. Such variations would have rendered the testimony unacceptable in a Jewish court.

How many people were seen at the tomb? The Gospels contradict each other!

2. The number of persons seen by the women at or in the tomb and the message they have received from them vary too. In John two angels appear to Mary Magdalene, but they do not ask her to do anything. In Luke the two men remind the women of Christ’s prophecy about his resurrection. In Matthew and in Mark A, the one angel entrusts Mary Magdalene and her friends with the duty to convey to the apostles the news of the resurrection of Jesus and an invitation to meet him in Galilee. However, in Mark the women do not obey this command; nor do we find there, not even in the longer ending, a reference to a trip to Galilee.

Number and location of the apparitions of Jesus - more contradictions

3. The number and the location of the apparitions of Jesus also greatly differ in the various Gospels. In Mark A there is none. In John, prior to his apparition to the apostles, Jesus shows himself to Mary Magdalene, in Matthew, to the women on their way to the apostles; in Luke to the two disciples in Emmaus and to Peter alone in Jerusalem, while Mark’s longer ending speaks of apparitions of Jesus to Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem and to the travelling disciples away from the capital. A vision by all the apostles occurring in Jerusalem is reported by Luke and Mark B (the longer version of Mark). The same is referred to in John, except that on the first occasion Thomas is absent and eight days later he is present. By contrast, according to Matthew, a Galilean mountain is the setting of the only apparition of Jesus to the apostles, while in John’s supplementary evidence the Sea of Tiberias is the site of a final vision of Jesus by seven apostles. Luke, by contrast, expressly excludes any departure from Jerusalem, so for him no visionary encounter with Jesus can be situated in Galilee.

Confusion or Contradicition?

4. The apostolic mission is conferred on the disciples by the risen Jesus in Jerusalem according to John, Luke and the longer ending of Mark. According to Matthew this happens in Galilee. No actual meeting is stated in Mark A, although a confusing mention of a promised encounter in Galilee figures in the instructions five by Mark’s young man to the three women at the tomb.

Place of the ascension?The Gospels contradict each other!

5. Jesus’ ascension to heaven takes place in Jerusalem in Mark B and by implication in John; in Bethany according to Luke; and on the Mount of Olives (in the area of Bethany) in the Acts of the Apostles. The sources are however, at variance as regards the date of the event. Mark B puts it as Easter Sunday, but in the Acts it happens forty days later. Luke is equivocal. ‘He led them out as far as Bethany’ could be understood as immediately following Jesus’ address to the apostles on the day of the resurrection, but the previous mention of staying in Jerusalem until they are ‘clothed with power from on high’ (an allusion to Pentecost) might suggest that Luke both in his Gospel and in the Acts allows nearly six weeks to elapse between Easter and the Ascension. In John, Jesus’ journey to the Father is implied as happening on Easter Sunday, too.

[Quotes taken from The Resurrection, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2008, pages 109-111]

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Saturday, 21 May 2011

Muslims on Harold Camping: Camping Fails, Jesus Passes!

 Harold Camping Fails...
Does Harold Camping know more than a Christian 'god'?

Christian supporters of Harold Camping would do well to note that the man whom they take for a god (Jesus, p) did not even know when the Hour was to come, so how in the world is some fundamentalist Christian in America going to know when your god does not even know??? Think about it!

Oh just in case the lay Christians think I’m making all this up about their god… I’m not; according to the Gospel accounts Jesus states (yes, I know they are unreliable but most Christians believe them to be God inspired):

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. [1]

What’s more worrying?

Which is more worrying to the Christian supporters of Camping and folk at Family Radio; Harold Camping getting his May 21st prediction wrong, Jesus not knowing the Hour or them worshipping a “god” who does not know when the Hour is to come?

Jesus (p) does not meet criteria of being God but passes a test of Prophethood

It is the duty of the Muslim to uphold the good name of all the Prophets (including Jesus, p) thus it would be beneficial to mention that Jesus PASSES an important test of Prophethood as he acknowledged that God* alone only knows the Hour in Mark 13:32. Prophet Muhammad (p) confirmed only God knows the Hour by stating:

There are five things which nobody knows except Allah [God]”; then he recited “Verily the knowledge of the Hour is with God (alone). It is He who sends down rain and He who knows what is in the wombs. Nor does anyone know what it is that he will earn on the morrow: nor does anyone know in what land he is to die. Verily with God is full knowledge and he is acquainted (with all things)” [2]

Muslims warning against folk such as Harold Camping

We should be wary of the insincere who are claiming to know dates of such events. Both Jesus and Muhammad (pbut) did not even carry such knowledge yet we see Christian folk following people such as Harold Camping. Some people will believe anything!

* The word “Father” (Abba) simply denoted God during the time of Jesus.

Further recommended Muslim discussion on all these wacky Christian ‘End of the World’ predictions:


Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

[1] Gospel of Mark 13:32, New International Version.
[2] Bukhari, Kitab al-Tafsir, commentary on Luqman 31:34. A longer Hadith is narrated by Muslim in Kitab al-Iman.

Thursday, 19 May 2011

A Big "Huh?" and Answering Islam Abandon Keith Truth?

A big "Huh?"

I guess you require a fair amount of delusion to come out with Shamounian style comments. Here is his latest:

@YahyaSnow you are correct, another poor performance by a muhammadan and black stone worshiper. And instead of running your mouth here why don't you be a man for once and show us how it is done by debating me on ABN?I have literally begged you to debate me and all you can do is make excuses for running away. I promise you that what I will do to you if we ever debate will make what I did to this guy look tame in comparison. Time to put up. We are sick of your barking. [Sam "Islam allows sex with animals" Shamoun]

Could somebody usher him to the Sam Shamoun section (I notice there are already 30 gems in there, read 'em and weep Shamounian) in order to humble him, either that or take the bloke to the funny farm. What an odd man this bloke is!

AnsweringIslam Abandon Keith Truth

So Keith was beginning his fledgling career as an apologist and began to make unsupported claims which we disproved quite spectacularly and emphatically - thus Keith was reduced to a humbled and humiliated silence - this blog has a habit of muting the downright shoddy (just ask Dave Wood, Sam Shamoun and Nabeel Qureshi for starters...and in a couple of week's time (God willing) take a trip to prison and speak to Kent Hovind!)

Surprisingly, Keith's colleagues have remained silent despite the fact they would share SIMILAR views as those which were proven to be spectacularly false. Why did they not come to the aid of Keith? Has Keith been thrown under the bus?

Anthony Rogers and Sam Shamoun did not come to the aid of young Keith. the message here seems to be quite clear, Keith you're on your own when you get caught out!

Note to a radical follower of AI

Radical Moderate, please email me the link to the ABN episode featuring Mr. Rogers. Let's bring a couple of rebukes to Anthony Rogers...

Blind Bartimaeus...

Bart, PLEASE start offering some scholarly input rather than talking pictures. Perhaps the cat got your tongue when we posted on the unknown authorship of Hebrews (James White) and the NUMEROUS resurrections Christians believe in (Geza Vermes) as well as other problematic issues related to Christianity (for instance, check the section on the Holy Spirit)

Talking pictures...
Here is the pic you chose to talk about in the stead of the serious holes in Trinitarian Christianity. I guess your role is to do anything to distract. It ain't going to work here.

Thanks to the Muslim who messaged me about the pic issue. May Allah bless him further and always keep him on the worship of the god whom Jesus (p) worshipped.
I invite all concerned to worship the God whom Jesus (p) worshipped. Don't act surprised, even the bible will tell you Jesus worshipped God - cue Bart's distraction!

Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another - Proverbs

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.co.uk

Tuesday, 17 May 2011

What was Hubal

The mere fact Christian apologetics is littered with dubious folk prone to dishonesty and blunder leads us to  believe the task of educating folk about Christianity and Islam should not be left solely in the hands of Christians.

Here is a case in point, recently we observed a young Christian apologist simply making stuff up - he was claiming Allah is Hubal. I kid you not, this bloke was really spouting such balderdash!

Here is a spot of scholarship to educate us on what Hubal actually was.

Hubal – an idol, the god of the moon. Centuries before Islam, Amr ibn Luhayy, a chief of the tribe of Jurhum who dwelt in Mecca before the coming of the Quraysh tribe, brought the idol to the city from Syria. It was set up in the Ka’bah and became the principal idol of the pagan Meccans. The ritual casting of lots and divining arrows was performed in front of it.

Hubal was pulled down and used as a doorstep when the Prophet conquered Mecca and purified the Ka’bah.

[Quotes taken from The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam, Revised Edition, Cyril Glasse, Stacey International, 2001, page 185]

The Forgotten Resurrection

Discover Islam

 Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Monday, 16 May 2011

You Do Know Prophet Muhammad (p) Did Not Conquer Jerusalem?

I have come across a bigoted Christian scholar who, amongst other things, gave me the impression that he thought Prophet Muhammad (p) conquered Jerusalem. Quite why all these “holy spirit inspired” Christian apologists struggle for accuracy is one for another day.

The reality is Jerusalem was taken over by the Muslims after the passing away of the Prophet (p). Second Caliph Umar (a companion of the Prophet, p) took control of Jerusalem in 638 CE – roughly 6 years after the passing away of the Prophet p:

The Surrender of Jerusalem

 Jerusalem was besieged and its Greek Patriarch, the ‘honey tongue’ Sophronius’, who had been appointed by Emperor Heraclius [r. 610-641], soon capitulated, so that Umar ibn al Khattab, who was on a visit to the military camp of Jabiya (some twenty miles north of the Sea of Galilee) after the battle of Yarmuk, came in person to accept the submission. The terms of surrender were drawn up and given protection and allowed to follow their religion in return for payment of a poll tax which was less heavy than that which the Byzantines had imposed upon them. Umar visited the site once occupied by the Temple of Solomon, and ordered that a mosque be built there which later came to bear his name.

Umar’s Humble Entrance

To emphasise the utterly simple life-style of Umar [modelled on the Prophet’s (saas) life] and the teaching of the concept of human equality in Islam, Muslim historians relate with pride how the barefoot Caliph entered Jerusalem clad in his usual rags and sharing a camel ride with his slave. This sight of Umar, one of the most powerful rulers of the world and new conqueror of the city, caused a great deal of astonishment among the local Greek Christian population, who were used to seeing the pompous ceremonies of Byzantine Emperors.

[Quotes taken from pages 67-68, A Chronology of Islamic History 570-1000 CE, 4th Edition, TaHa Publishers Ltd London]

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Sunday, 15 May 2011

More Hormone Fuelled Debates, Eh ABN?

Shamoun: Hormone Fuelled and Inadequate
Just when you thought Christian apologetics was picking itself up and looking to change tack one of its past disasters rears its uncouth head – the academically challenged Sam Shamoun.

It appears Shamoun found somebody, after much desperate seeking, to debate him on the topic; is Muhammad a true Prophet or an Anti-Christ?

Let me guess, Sam Shamoun spent the whole debate huffing and puffing a load of already-refuted drivel like a hormone fuelled old has-been. When will these folk learn, apologetics has moved into the realm of academia to the exclusion of Halloween characters such as Shamoun.

Is it Halloween at ABN?

Only Halloween type figures such as Shamoun would attempt to argue the Prophet Muhammad (p) is an Anti-Christ. The mere fact that Prophet Muhammad (p) introduced a religion which banned the misery of alcohol is enough to keep the discerning Christian apologist away from calling the Prophet an anti-Christ as it would lead to the claim, so an “antichrist” achieved more than Jesus (Trinitarians believe Jesus to be God) and Paul by saving so many humans from the misery of alcohol dependency?

Shamoun has seen this argument previously via a blast from the past - Nadir Ahmed – Shamoun responded via an audacious attempt to convince his Christian audience that alcohol is allowed in Islam. Not even the dimmest Christian apologist would go there but the hormone fuelled Shamoun went there and beyond – he even claimed Islam allows sex with animals. Talk about characters from Halloween and Mr. Shamoun’s name crops up rather swiftly.

It’s all logged in the Sam Shamoun section. Take your time and familiarise yourself with a few of this man's Halloween outfits:

Financial difficulties at ABN?

There is no wonder ABN is experiencing financial difficulties. They are constantly rattling the donation boxes. They promised us they would have an English speaking channel up and running for early 2011 now they are aiming for the emotive day of 9/11. Some Christian folk will readily trample on people’s misery to fund their hatred of Muslims.

Perhaps it’s a case of Islamophobia fizzing out and even the gullible Christian market ABN pander to are tired of all the Muslim bashing. Or perhaps it’s a case of when you serve dross such as Shamoun…

Here is a YouTube user Ridiculing ABN's constant appeal for money

You know, there is no way there are so many dimwits amongst the extremist community who will fund this new English channel year by year at the sum of $300,000.

NOTE: The current ABN channel is NOT the English channel - it is the Arabic channel. They do occasionally feature English shows such as Jesus or Muhammad, Debate Night, News and Views, on the Arabic channel to help with the cash flow and exposure but there is NO way they will ever sustain an Englsih channel to that tune of cash as even the Christian fundies are tired of the repetitive material and realise they can get their dose of Islamophobia for free from a ton of YouTube bigots, Robert Spencer, Pam Geller and other crazy sites.

Here is the ABN section

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Saturday, 14 May 2011

Another Robert Spencer Argument

I’ve just caught a Christian Islamophobe plagiarising Robert Spencer’s fallacious interpretation on Surah 2:223 of the Holy Quran. Muslims should be alert to the sources of these ignorant claims as the most popular Christian Islamophobes are ignorantly regurgitating these lies about Islam. Imam Moustafa Zayed corrects and admonishes Robert Spencer’s blunder concerning Surah 2:223:

On page 173, the author [Robert Spencer] again interprets a famous verse in the Holy Quran in a way that is totally different from all the interpretations of the verse in any Islamic reference. In the Holy Quran (our translation):

“Your women are a tilth for you, so perform your tilth in whichever way you want to...” 2:223

The verse addresses an incident when some of the companions of the Prophet asked him about a Jewish myth that if the intercourse happened in a certain position, the baby would be born cross-eyed. The verse later was revealed to indicate that as long as you’re having natural intercourse with your wife, then you can have that intercourse in any position you want together. The verse never meant by any stretch of the imagination in 1400 years of Islam that a man can do to his wife whatever he wants. Mr. Spencer’s interpretation is just that offensively absurd.

[The Lies About Muahmmad – How you were Deceived into Islamophobia by Moustafa Zayed p337]

Dealing with Christian Lies Concerning this Verse:

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Reaction to Farhan Qureshi

Note: There is an in-depth video discussion on Farhan Qureshi by Jibreelk here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnuhfIbwSRE

Brief Comments on 'I Declare My Apostasy by Farhan Qureshi '

First and foremost, guidance is from Allah alone. None Guides but He.

I have followed (and liked) Farhan for some time and have had some brief exchanges with him in the past – exchanges which will remain private.

Farhan Qureshi has decided to make public his renunciation of Islam. Moreover, he has decided to work closely with the anti-muslim brigade. I don’t know why. What does he hope it is going to achieve?

Farhan Qureshi is a student of psychology thus should have the necessary elements to sniff out a person’s agenda. Surely, he recognises Faith Freedom’s Ali Sina is simply using him as a tool to further his dubious agenda. Quite what Farhan is doing jumping into that particular bed is open to speculation.

Perhaps the disease rife in apologetics – delusions of one’s import – has reared its ugly head. I just don’t understand why Farhan would go down such a route.

Analysing Farhan’s declaration of apostasy

This was a thought out decision that took months of prayer, consideration, evaluation and knowledge-seeking on my part.

Who was Farhan offering “prayer” to? Really! Was he praying to Allah? How seriously was he seeking advice and answers from scholars?

Not buying it…

My apostasy has not been based on disliking Islam or its requirements rather it was based on a realization that Islam is in direct contradiction with contemporary knowledge involving and including science, philosophy, ethics, anthropology, and the field which I am most interested in, educated in and practice as my line of work, namely, psychology: the science and study of human behavior.

I don’t buy that. Farhan was an ardent defender of Islam for a number of years; surely he has heard all the standard atheist and secularist arguments before? Why have they led to Farhan’s “realization” at this moment in his life? Is it not possible his change in circumstances/influences impacted on the way he saw objections to Islam?

These are potent questions that Farhan should deliberate over and decide for himself whether he has genuinely reasoned the arguments dispassionately or whether he has allowed himself to be swayed subconsciously by such influences/circumstances…

Farhan would do well to scrutinize his own mindset and arrive to answers behind why he began to see familiar objections differently.


Moreover, what in the world are these points of “science”, "contemporary knowledge", "philosophy" (how in the world can a religion be in direct contradiction with philosophy?), "ethics", "anthropology" and "psychology" (again, how in the world can a religion be in direct contradiction with psychology?)

Farhan seems to be making vague statements which may sound rather grandiose (to some) but in reality contribute nothing but confusion. Perhaps the FF crowd will lap all of that up but the more discerning will keep their powder dry.


I would not be surprised if Farhan’s major influences were anti-super naturalists – introduced to so many Muslims through the work of Bart Ehrman whilst researching the holes in Christianity.

Psychology of others...

I have spent time and energy studying and experiencing the different denominations and sub-cultures within the Ummah. Having experienced their spirituality and religiosity first hand, having studied with their scholars and preachers, and having read books, articles and arguments from them, I believe that I have a grasp of where they stand psychologically and I plan to explore this more in-depth in the near future as I publish articles.

Perhaps Farhan Qureshi would like to explore the psychology of his new crew (FF). I mean, what in the world is their motivation?

How about his own psychology – what’s motivating him? I just don’t understand the decision to jump into the lap of the anti-Muslim brigade. It’s hardly a match made in Heaven – Sina and Farhan!

Isn’t Ali Sina the bloke who was crassly courting publicity by offering a cash reward to anybody who could “refute” him? The mindset of those craving attention is one for Farhan to look into. Another one for Farhan to look into; is Farhan looking for a spot of attention by jumping in bed with this motley crew?


I realized that 1400 years worth of consistent Islamiyya theology is not what I believed was the ultimate truth, rather I realized that it was a primitive attempt at understanding and implementing social, spiritual, religious and ethical standards. These seventh century standards might give slight insight into how humanity, and in this case, Arab civilization was evolving and progressing from its previous ‘jahiliyya’ or ignorance, and yet effectively became stagnant with its own set of conservative traditionalism that would not allow Arab civilization to move forward.

Farhan is essentially calling Islam “backward”. Secularists often call religion backward. Here, Farhan does it in a less direct fashion. Why has Farhan taken so many years to come to such a view? Was Farhan “primitive” whilst part of the faith? These are matters for Farhan’s psychological skills!

Farhan’s regression

I want to thank Ali Sina for giving me the platform to explore Islam and to expose its primitive nature as incompatible with contemporary reality unless and until Muslims choose to reform it.

Dismissing Farhan’s cruder “backward” jibe as an attempt to gain further approbation from his new bed fellows, the problem Farhan has is that he is using contemporary standards and “development” to judge folk of the past. I mean, if we were all to judge by Farhan’s new yardstick we would come to the view that all human beings of the past are backward. This is an unfair yardstick to employ. Is Farhan really going to claim all his forefathers were backward?

Farhan knows too well Muslims are not going to reform Islam to bend towards contemporary society. He must be confusing Christians for Muslims.

Good guys leave Islam? Say hello to the loons...

The infamous myth-maker, David Wood, wrote the general consensus of those of us who knew Farhan was this: "It's only a matter of time before Farhan leaves Islam. He's too good a guy to keep defending these teachings."

Uh? So all Muslims are bad and the good ones will leave Islam? Talk about loco!

Farhan, say hello to your new bed fellows. Rest assured, crazed views such as these are ubiquitous amongst your new crew.

Further reading for Farhan and others

A Muslim philosopher challenging secularism – Shabbir Akhtar

Farhan, I have not read this book but have seen it promoted on Paul Williams’ blog. Perhaps it will benefit you. Please do read it as it seems as though it may have some of the answers you crave – inshaAllah. Here’s what Williams wrote:

I’m currently reading this excellent and intellectually intoxicating book. Akhtar, a Muslim philosopher, is concerned with the rationality and plausibility of the Muslim faith and the Qur’an, and in particular how they can be interrogated and understood through Western analytical philosophy. He also explores how Islam can successfully engage with the challenges posed by secular thinking.
Invitation to Islam

Farhan, take some time out and think about WHY you really left Islam and WHAT really influenced you. Yep, retrospectively delve into your mindset.

When I pray I feel an out-of-this-world feeling of spirituality. Muslims have experienced the spirituality of Islam. Farhan, did you not feel anything when you prayed? I guarantee you are the one who is losing out.

Farhan, rethink your decision and come back to Islam.

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Thursday, 12 May 2011

Richard Carrier on a Big Bible Forgery - Mark 16:9-20

A good long while ago I completed a contract job to produce a thoroughly researched and argued case against the authenticity of the verses in Mark 16:9-20, which the mainstream consensus has long since rejected as an interpolation but fundamentalists keep trying to rescue. The final product has now finally been published at Errancy Wiki (which years ago also published a concise summary of my case for the historical contradiction regarding the date of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke: Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth).

The new article is: Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication. Like the earlier article, which decisively proves the bible historically errant, this article decisively proves the bible textually errant. It's the most egregious and appalling case of doctoring the text of the New Testament on record. You may have often heard references to scholars having proved that the ending of Mark is an interpolation from manuscript and stylistic evidence. Well, if you are wondering exactly what that evidence is and how well it holds up, especially against any competent attempts to argue the contrary, this new article is for you. It is now the definitive treatment of the ending of Mark, being the most comprehensive summary of the evidence that I know. In fact when combined with the scholarship in its bibliography, it is the most complete treatment you'll ever find.

I discussed this issue of New Testament textual errancy in general (and the ending of Mark in particular) in a recent debate with J.P. Holding, a video of which the producers assure me will eventually become available online. I also plan to blog the case for two other interpolations (in the letters of Paul), which came up in that debate, adding even more material I chose not to present during the debate in order to open up time for other arguments.

Dr. Richard Carrier’s article:

The other resurrection story

Monday, 9 May 2011

Is the Trinity in the Old Testament?

This is old ground. We have already learned – via Christian scholarship – the Trinity is not in the Old Testament. Sadly, some neo-Trinitarian Christians insist the trinity is in the Old Testament – one such being a Christian zealot calling himself Keith Truth (Keith Thompson).

We showed Keith Thompson a clip where the Christian scholar William Lane Craig confirmed the Trinity is not in the Old Testament yet this zealot proclaimed Dr Craig was “wrong”.

You Decide – a Christian fundamentalist Vs Scholarship

Who do you want to believe; a young Christian zealot on the internet or scholarly authority?

Well, alongside William Lane Craig, Dr Laurence Brown and Harper Collins’ Encyclopaedia we have Bart Ehrman and James White to also tell us the trinity is not present in the Old Testament – the former mocks the argumentations of the neo-Trinitarian Christians who wrongly claim the Trinity is present in the Old Testament.

Dr James White on the Trinity

James White, as an evangelical Christian apologist from Alpha and Omega Ministries, believes the Trinity is revealed after the Old Testament but before the New Testament is written:

One of the most important truths to grasp about the Bible’s revelation of the Trinity is that the truth of the Trinity is revealed primarily in acts of God — specifically, in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and in the coming of the Holy Spirit to indwell the church. The greatest proof that God is Triune is found in the ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God and in the coming of the Spirit. These events took place between the writing of the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament contains predictions and glimpses of what comes into clear view only in the ministry of Christ recorded in the New Testament. In the same way the Trinity is revealed before the writing of the New Testament so that is written by Trinitarians for Trinitarians. [Loving the Trinity by James R. White, Christian Research Center]

Dr Laurence Brown on the Trinity

Dr Laurence Brown does not believe the Trinity is in either the Old or New Testament

Rabbi Tovia Singer on the Trinity

To represent those who follow the Hebrew Bible (i.e. Jews) we can refer to Rabbi Tovia Singer who does not see any Trinity in the Old Testament.

Dr William Lane Craig on the Trinity

Dr Craig is a renowned Christian apologist and scholar, who upon reading the Old Testament, does not see any Trinity therein.

Professor Bart Ehrman on the Trinity

Professor Bart Ehrman mocks the manner at which some Christians promote the idea there is a trinity in the Old Testament. Ehrman does teach us the absence of the Trinity in the Bible has troubled Christian theologians for centuries. In fact, Ehrman teaches us there is no trinity in the ENTIRE Bible and the only reference to the trinity was the 1 John 5:7-8 forgery. Daniel B. Wallace writes:

The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold [The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 by Daniel Wallace]


We could present more evidence against the claims of the Christian zealot (Keith Truth) but it would simply be a case of striking the carcass and I am beginning to worry that Keith will continue going against logic and scholarship regardless of the evidence against him.

The fact remains, the Trinity is not in the Old Testament according to honest scholarship and logical reading of the Old Testament.

Perhaps the real reason why we are seeing a glut of Christian fundamentalists absurdly claiming to possess “air tight” arguments for the Trinity being present in the Old Testament is due to the recognition of the confusion surrounding the Trinity:

For many Christians, the Trinity is an abstract principle, a confusing and difficult doctrine that they believe, although they are not really sure why in their most honest moments [Loving the Trinity, James R White, Christian Research Center]


Let’s showcase the immature and unscholarly response from Keith Truth (Keith Thompson) to this blog post. Once our young friend, Keith Thompson, was done with throwing insults and immature ridicule our way he offered nothing of scholarly substance to back up his claims of “air tight arguments”, “fact”, "Dr Craig is wrong" etc...

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Sunday, 8 May 2011

The Author of the Book of Hebrews is UNKNOWN - James White

Hmmm, you just start to pull your hair out at the level of ignorance amongst lay-Christians concerning the Bible. Most Christians will claim the author of the Book of Hebrews is Paul of Tarsus. But...

Prepare for the faith-shattering truth

We do not know who wrote the Book of Hebrews. Yes, you read that correctly; we do not know who wrote the Book of Hebrews. Worse still, traditionally, the "holy-spirit inspired" Christians of yester-year thought Hebrews was authored by Paul - to this day, many "holy spirit inspired" Christians still believe this.

There are two issues here:

Why all the confusion and inaccuracy? I mean, Christians believe the "Holy Spirit dwells within" them but we see the more scholarly Christians are at loggerheads with the lay Christians.

Why in the world would you accept Hebrews as authoritative when you just don't know who penned it? Think about it, if you read an article/book of unknown authorship on English Law, would you accept it as authoritative or would you consider it unreliable? Christians, be honest, you would consider the claims within unreliable and untrustworthy

James White confirms the Book of Hebrews is unknown in authorship


How do we know the author of Hebrews was not an enemy of Jesus? How do we know he is reliable or not? When you just do not know anything about the author because he is anonymous you are always prone to confusion and conjecture.

Christians tell us God is not the author of confusion yet the books which they claim to be "inspired" by God are indeed the cause of great confusion. There is even a verse within the New Testament in which Christians cannot even decide whether it is referencing "God" or "Satan" - I'm not kidding you - this verse really exists!

Fundamentalist Christians

Rest assured there will still be Christians out there who will continue to insist Paul authored Hebrews despite their leaders admitting they do not know. I guess it just shows these Christians - in their heart of hearts - know believing in a book (Hebrews) which is of doubtful origins is quite faith shattering hence their rejection of scholarship.

Jesus has Muslim brothers/sisters
The incarnation?
Original sin?
Learn about Islam
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Saturday, 7 May 2011

Bart Ehrman on Islam

So Christians are likening Bart Ehrman to a Muslim - perhaps due to the fact Bart Ehrman's scholarship favours the Muslim understanding of Jesus not being God as well as that of the Bible being unreliable.

The trinitarian Christian view of Jesus' divinity is easily realised to be fallacious - you don't need to be a Muslim or a Bible scholar to realise this.

A Christian asks Bart Ehrman about the Quran and likens him to a Muslim. Bart Ehrman responds...

Jesus has Muslim brothers/sisters

The incarnation?

Original sin?

Russell Brand Exposes Muslim Terrorism Percentage