Jay Smith Are You Proud of Your Pfander Ministries Students?

In this video we see Hatun Tash, formerly of Pfander Ministries, and now of DCCI Ministries, along with her friend Daniel Zelalem, mock the Quran and call a KKK handbook the Quran. They (Daniel in this case) also liken an ex-Christian, who converted to Islam, to a “dog” and liken his faith to “vomit” whilst calling him a fool. Hatun Tash invades a Muslim man’s personal boundaries and hugs him despite him not giving her permission and not wanting contact with a female who is not a family member - all in an effort to cause drama.

 

Orthodox Jewish and many Muslim men and women do not touch a person of the opposite gender if they are not family members. The Jews call this Shomer Negiah. To listen to a great explanation of this practice by a Jewish lady and a couple of Muslim scholars please see here.

Hatun Tash’s unwanted touching would be seen as offensive and disturbing. You just don’t touch people without their permission. You can’t go around making people so uncomfortable, regardless of whether you think it’s harmless fun. Respect people’s boundaries.  I would encourage Hatun to apologise.

Insulting somebody’s holy book and deliberately identifying it with a KKK manual is offensive and childish. Clearly that stunt was designed for mockery; I would call for both Daniel and Hatun to sincere apology.

Play in full screen. This video is also uploaded  here

The man calling the young Muslim gentleman a "fool" and likening him to a dog and his faith to vomit is something Daniel (and Hatun, seen as she was laughing) should apologise. The wider problem here is that this type of abuse of Muslims is not isolated, it appears to be a common theme amongst many Christians (online mainly). As we learnt, Hatun’s teacher calls Muslims “sewage”.

Perhaps Hatun and Lizzie Schofield believe insulting non-Christians is biblical as Jesus was harsh in the NT at times. If I understand correctly, Mr Shamoun, takes the view his insults are not in contravention with Christian behaviour.

Sam Shamoun calls people “sewage”  He uses such de-humanising terms for people he feels threatened by regularly – he’s been doing it for years. Is this something you believe is endorsed by Christianity? IIRC Sam Shamoun justifies his hard-line stance by claiming Jesus was harsh with certain people in the NT. I suspect he believes Jesus agrees with his abuse and it is biblical behaviour. You can verify whether this is the case or not.

In our last email exchange which a Christian radio/TV show presenter as CC’d in he called me all of the following:

A “vile dog”, “slime” “Muhammadan dog” “swine”, “vile rabid dog”. Sam wants to “muzzle” my “rabid mouth”

I’ve forwarded these abusive emails to my friend, reverend Samuel Green.

In this case, although I do encourage a public apology, I won’t ask for it myself as it may be that Lizzie, Daniel and Hatun believe their comments were acceptable or somewhat acceptable according to their Church tradition.

Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 21 - Sam Shamoun

Sam Shamoun and David Wood Cursed by Paul of Tarsus!

Geza Vermes on How Jesus Would Have Reacted to Trinitarian Christians

For Christians Who Call Muslims Rag-Heads...

Are Evengalicals Ignoring Sola Scriptura When Talking About Prophecies in the Bible?

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

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

 

Sharia Law against terrorism

 

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

 

Are Evengalicals Ignoring Sola Scriptura When Talking About Prophecies in the Bible?

This was a one one-line response by Reverend Samuel Green to one of Tovia Singer’s arguments against the idea Genesis 22 is a foreshadowing or prophecy of the Messiah being crucified.

Rev. Green partially quotes point 3 (he only cites the first sentence) and responds:

This is a straw man argument. They do not have to exegete the Old Testament.

Samuel stripped away the rest of the point which I will reproduce here:

If early Christians believed Genesis 22 was a foreshadowing of Jesus’ crucifixion why did Paul not mention this? This notion did not occur to any writer in the Bible. This notion is a fabrication which comes from the author of a forgery called the Epistle of Barnabas (non canonical book). This book almost made it into the canon. It was also advanced by a Catholic church father, Justin, in the 2nd century. The key point is why is this idea not in the NT? Why didn’t one of the authors not put this into the Bible? Aren’t these protestants who believe in sola scriptura? There seems to be an evolution of thought as time progressed.

The point the rabbi is making here, how can Sola Scriptura Christians conclude Genesis 22 is a foreshadowing or prophecy of the church crucifixion and atonement narrative? It’s a great point! Does Revered Green have any scriptural reference indicating he should believe this? If so, where is it? He does not have such. He’s clearly getting this idea from church tradition, Tovia Singer points out this idea came from a non canonical “forgery” (Epistle of Barnabas) and it was also advanced by the Church Father Justin ( I assume Justin Martyr, a non Trinitarian!). Are these authorities Reverend Green and other Trinitarian Christians should be relying on to get interpretations of the Bible from?

And the point of New Testament authors not mentioning Genesis 22 and using it in their writings is huge. Something Reverend Green should contemplate on. Philips Jenkins captures the zeal the evangelists had for drawing parallels between the Old Testament and the life of Jesus:

All evangelists, for instance, borrow from the Old Testament passages to shape their accounts of the crucifixion. Few stories in the Gospel accounts of Jesus lack an Old Testament parallel or precedent, and the resemblances are all the more apparent when we read the older text in the Greek translation that the evangelists would have known.

The rabbi’s argument is that one would expect at least one of the evangelists to raise Genesis 22 if they truly believed it was a foreshadowing of a crucified Messiah

Think about it in the light of some of the prophecies in Matthew’s Gospel:

...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]

Pastor Samuel Green Receives a Hate Email From Answering Islam Colleague

Recently Nabeel Qureshi declined to defend David Wood's Islamophobia. The scholarly Ali Ataie has denounced David Wood in no uncertain terms. We have learnt James White through his conversation with Ijaz Ahmad of Calling Christians has rebuked Sam Shamoun for his tone and abusive comments. We know Negeen Mayel left David Wood and denounced him as self-radicalised. We also know that David Wood's friend, a professional in psychology, has said this about Sam Shamoun in the past:

Sam is straight bi-polar with narcissistic personality traits.

Is there anybody with any credibility willing to defend these two Islamophobic Christian hate-preachers? It doesn't seem so. Quite telling!

 

Well let's put it to another test in the form of Samuel Green. Samuel Green is a pastor. You'd think a pastor would not support the abuse and hate-preaching of Shamoun and Wood.

Recently, Sam Shamoun upon reading this post for some inexplicable reason sent a group hate email directed to myself and his fellow Christian (Minoria). Amongst the addressees of this malicious email was pastor Samuel Green. Now, I have spoken to pastor Samuel Green in the past and highlighted the anti-Christian actions of David Wood and Sam Shamoun. Guess what? Pastor Samuel Green has NEVER defended them. That's quite telling, don't you think?

Pastor Samuel Green was witness to an email insulting myself and a Christian who goes by the name of Minoria. The email by Shamoun contained insults against Islam. I shall not reproduce the email but those interested can contact pastor Samuel Green to verify such a hate email was sent.

I will allow pastor Samuel Green 5 days to decide whether he condones such emailing by David Wood and Sam Shamoun. From my experience with pastor Samuel Green his silence is quite deafening - whenever he cannot support something he remains silent. I predict silence.

'I Got Money on My Mind'

Christian Islamophobes, how do you get these folk to stop embarrassing themselves and their church? You stop giving them money!

Surely you would rather give money to starving children in Africa than to a couple of internet Christian hate-preachers who don't seem to have real jobs.

Oh another thing, these two characters don't even seem to be versed in Christianity so why in the world are Islamophobic Christians giving them money over starving children in Africa?

Here are the two Christian hate preachers opposing Biblical teachings:




The irony is, Sam's abuse comments also contained the claim of myself seeking his/'their' attention. Which is interesting considering I received this comment offering me advice:

Great Job brother Yahya, Sam is desperate asking for the attention, because his apologist career is dying and he knows that very well. He has no academic credentials, So he is so desperate for the spotlight. Leave him, Let his apologist career die.

It's ironic the bloke tries to use me to revive his career and grab a few crumbs of attention. 2/3/4 years ago (however long ago it was!) he was crying out for attention, he got it from me. The result? Well the result is a ton of videos disseminated over the internet showing him to be a dishonest, unscholarly and unworthy man - not to mention all those blog posts.

And let's not forget Shamoun promising to continue to spam my blog

Of course, I don't for one minute expect Nabeel, Samuel or even James to come out and support the hate preaching and abuse by Dave and Sam. You're all alone boys. Nobody with an ounce of rationalism, sincerity and knowledge of the Bible will support you per se.

I call you away from Islamophobia. Think about it, when mental health professionals are opining that you may be 'bi-polar' you should recognise Isamophobia is doing nothing for your character development. Sure, you may have a few dollars in the bank account from the gullible and equally hateful Islamophobes on the net but are you really going to continue selling your characters and mental health for a few dollars?

Get a job guys. Trust me, you feel better once you get out there with the rest of the normal folk.

Related:

Nabeel Qureshi questioned on hate

Ask James White to say 'Hey Sam this internet apologetics thing is a disaster'

The bloke wants to 'obliterate' Bassam Zawadi

David Wood - self radicalised?

Ijaz Ahmad on Anthony Rogers

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Samuel Green: Do Christians Make a Distinction Between Prophets?

In the debate review of 'Muhammad in the Bible' (Zakir Hussain and Samuel Green) Samuel was rebuked for claiming Christians do not make a distinction between Prophets:
Samuel Green in his opening statement made a claim about Christianity which is untrue. He claimed Christians make no distinction between the Prophets. This is incorrect on 2 accounts

Firstly they reject the last Prophet of God

Secondly, they do make a distinction between the Prophets they believe in. They believe Jesus (p) is a prophet and God. Thus they do draw a distinction between the Prophets they believe in as they worship one whilst not worshipping the others.

Samuel would do well to ponder upon this sincerely.

It appears that Samuel Green persists in making such a claim. I hope this video will help Samuel see the problems with the statement he continues to espouse. I hope Samuel will ponder upon the points made and revise his thinking accordingly.


 
Samuel Green is also questioned about his contradictory belief. He believes Jesus is a Prophet and God. Yet we realise that being a Prophet by definition means that being cannot be God.

As far as I am aware, Samuel Green has not responded to the following point raised in an email exchange:

Samuel, have you ever stopped to think about all those Christians prior to the 19th century discovery of Codex Sinaticus who used to believe the last 12 verses of Mark were inspired by God and part of the Bible (they had similar beliefs about John 7:53-8:11 and that version of Luke 23:34). NOW you and other modern day Christians will claim those Christians of the past believed in forgeries/errors.

You have no guaranty that this will not happen to you in your life time (i.e. a new MSS discovery is made and a passage is denounced as an unauthorised addition).

Think about this Samuel. PLEASE.

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. 

Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Samuel Green Learns Muslims Cannot Worship Muhammad (p)

Within certain Christian evangelical groups there seems to be a clamber to misrepresent Islam as a polytheistic religion. Here we see a Christian apologist (Samuel Green) learn that Islam does not allow Muslims to worship Prophet Muhammad (p) or any creation of Allah (including Prophet Jesus p).


Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? Learn about Islam: http://www.thedeenshow.com Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Debate Review: Muhammad in the Bible (Zakir Hussain and Samuel Green)

This is a debate recommended to anybody who wants to see a clear line drawn between whom has the stronger argument when it comes to whether Prophet Muhammad (p) is in the Bible – a real landslide victory for the Muslim argumentation!

Muhammad in the Bible? - Debate Zakir Hussain and Samuel Green





Zakir Hussain highlighted Samuel Green’s inconsistency

To enable the Christian audience to understand and empathise with his style of argumentation Zakir cited the Christian use of Hosea 11:1-2 to build a case for consistency during the debate

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images. [NIV]

Christians as per Matthew 2:14 claim Hosea 11:1 is about Jesus – it’s discernably about the nation of Israel yet Christians use an approach for Hosea 11 that they would not permit for a Muslim to use when showing examples of what he/she feels to be prophecies of Prophet Muhammad in the Bible.

This appeal to consistency was a real feature of the debate and one which the truth-seeker welcomes.

Samuel Green struggled, in fact repeatedly failed, to live up to this appeal to consistency and thus was shown to be operating a double standard – a standard of acceptance for what he believed to be prophecies of Prophet Jesus (p) while adopting a standard of rejection for those which Muslims argue for in  relation to Prophet Muhammad (p).

This actually worked wonders in highlighting Samuel Green’s inconsistency and his rejection of the Muslim argumentation simply because of his faith conviction (i.e. pre-existing bias).

Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument. However, the inconsistency of Samuel was not the major characteristic of the debate which proved to be the undoing of his argumentation but rather the much more convincing Muslim argument that Zakir Hussain presented coupled with Samuel’s outrageously weak and even desperate ‘rebuttals’.

As said in the debate if Christians applied the same methodology to the verses which Muslims argue refer to Prophet Muhammad (p) as they do for those which they believe foretell Prophet Jesus (p) they would accept that Prophet Muhammad (p) is in the Bible.

A New Prophet Like Moses

Deuteronomy 18:15-18

¹⁵ “The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, ¹⁶ according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’

¹⁷ “And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. ¹⁸ I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. [KJV]

Samuel offers desperate nonsense to argue against Muhammad being like Moses (pbut) whilst Zakir shows non-Muslims agree that Muhammad and Moses (pbut) are alike!

This is where it gets really interesting for the truth-seeker. Here we see Zakir point to a reverend who believes Prophet Muhmmad (p) is like Prophet Moses (p), a Time magazine article and an Encyclopaedia (of Religion) citation likening Prophet Moses (p) to Prophet Muhammad (p)

Samuel argues, to be like Moses one must agree with all the teachings in the Torah.

Erm, since when did Samuel and the Christians agree to not eating pork?

In their Gospels (Mark 17:18-19), they have a statement which they take as Jesus (p) allowing the consumption (eating) of pork yet in the Torah the consumption of pork is strictly forbidden (Deut 14:3-8)!

So, Samuel in setting up this false criteria actually ends up offering an argument against Jesus (p) being the Prophet in Deut 18:18.

I will dismiss this argument for what it is; nonsense made up by Samuel simply because he had no sound argument to offer against Muhammad (p) being like Moses (p)

Summary: Samuel scores an own goal, not only has he inadvertently argued against Jesus (p) being the prophet in Deut 18:18 but he has further highlighted the strength of the Muslim argument here. Think about it, if the Muslim argument was easy to refute he would not be presenting nonsensical arguments such as these

Verily, We have sent to you (O men) a Messenger (Muhammad SAW) to be a witness over you, as We did send a Messenger [Musa (Moses)] to Fir'aun (Pharaoh). [73:15 Muhsin Khan translation of the meanings of the Quran]


‘Brethren' – Zakir Convinces Me

Ach - Zakir with his dictionary reference confirms the possible meaning of 'relative' and 'kinship' so is not simply restricted to blood brother (fellow Israelite)

Zakir gives us a reference in the Bible which uses the word ‘brothers’ to refer to kinsmen.

He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." [Genesis 16:12 NIV]

He also gives us the reference of Deut 2:4 to support his argument that brethren does not always refer to blood brothers (and thus can refer to Ishmaelites in the case of Deut 18:18

Contextual approach – Samuel bases a claim that the Prophet has to be an Israelite as leading up to this verse the occurrences of the word always refer to Israelites and does not carry the broader meaning of kinsmen/relative.

However, Zakir already refuted this in his opening statement by making mention of rabbis in the Chumas commentary who believed Deut 18:18 could have referred to a non-Israelite. Thus we see experts who did not follow the approach or thinking of Samuel Green in this regard. So we can see Samuel’s argument to limit the word's meaning fails as rabbis did not agree on such limitation.

Israelite Prophet or Non-Israelite?

Zakir offered something of great interest for the truth-seeker in regards to whether the Prophet (p) was meant to be an Israelite or not.

Zakir cites the Samaritan version of the Torah; ‘and there shall never arise in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord has spoken to’

He combines this with the rabbis of the Chumas commentary who believed there was a possibility a Non-Jewish Prophet would arise (thus indicating that these experts did not believe the Prophet in Deut 18:18 has to be an Israelite (i.e. he can be an Ishmaelite like Prophet Muhammad p)

Not only this, when we cross-check Samuel’s argument for consistency with regards to Zakir’s mention of Hosea 11:1 we see he fails on the front of consistency as he uses a completely different standard to judge between prophecies Muslims argue for about Muhammad (p) (one of rejection) than that used for what he believes are prophecies of Jesus (p) (one of acceptance)

This exchange between Samuel and Zakir actually further convinced me with regards to the argumentation related to ‘brethren’. I, in my debate review ofAbdallah v Rogers on the same topic considered the argument from context (which Rogers offered) as a strong argument. I now see it as clearly the weaker argument and that the word ach here is not necessarily limited to blood-brother (fellow Israelites). Thanks Zakir for offering convincing information to counter such an objection

'words in his mouth' - Samuel's debate tricks backfire 

Samuel appears to be really disingenuous here. He highlights verse 20 from Deut 18 and combines this with one of the  versions of the satanic verses in his attempt to argue against Prophet Muhammad (p) being the prophet in Deut 18:18

But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death [NIV]

Samuel’s thought pattern here is that Deut 18:20 teaches that the Prophet in Deut 18:18 will not speak false words and attribute them to God and then he uses a selective satanic verse narration to attempt to convince folk that Prophet Muhammad (p) spoke 'presumptuously'

Samuel seems to be unaware that the satanic verses narrations are unreliable (more on this later).The question here to be asked is why did Samuel Green decide to use something such as this as part of his argumentation? Desperation? Did he have no other argument?

Furthermore and very worryingly, Samuel Green appears to be disingenuous here as the AUTHENTIC narration does not contain anything about satanic verses AND there are other versions of the same story which have Satan speaking those words (NOT Prophet Muhammad p) AND there are other versions which have a polytheist/s speaking those words (NOT Prophet Muhammad, p).

Thus we see, not only did Samuel appeal to an unreliable narration but seems to have been extremely selective in deciding which unreliable version to use. He seems to have gone with a version which he feels could aid his argument. Is this sincere? Is this fair on the audience? No!

Either Samuel was being disingenuous or he was simply unaware of the other versions. This is something Samuel Green needs to clarify as it does not show him in a positive light at all.

Not only this, Zakir offered some fine research which uprooted Samuel’s premise as Zakir appeals to scholarly authority which states the verse in Deut 18:20 refers to one who speaks intentional falsehoods – even the satanic verses version Samuel picked out did not have Prophet Muhammad (p) speaking intentional falsehood thus we see Samuel’s big hoo-ha over a story which is unreliable turned to nothing in this debate.

Samuel Green must have been wondering what’s just hit him once Zakir showed that Samuel Green’s use of Deut 18:20 actually argues against the Christian version of Jesus as Matthew 24:29-34 is a failed prophecy -  thus Deut 18:20 would argue stronger against the Christian idea of Jesus

Summary

Samuel Green offered a failed argument here. The narration he appealed to is not something which is reliable. Samuel also picked the version which had Prophet Muhammad (p) saying those words whilst ignoring the authentic narration which has no mention of satanic verses whilst also ignoring other weak versions which did not have Prophet Muhammad (p) speaking those words – this is something that appears to be disingenuous on the part of Samuel. It's unacceptable and shameful.

In effect, Samuel’s desperation to argue against Prophet Muhammad (p) being the Prophet in Deut 18:18 only wound up in bringing his (Samuel’s) sincerity into question as well as his argument applying with greater force against the Christian view of Jesus!

Good response from Zakir on the fact that Samuel's argument backfires but it would have been nice to see Samuel questioned concerning what appears to be his shameful and intellectually dishonest actions in this segment of the debate. This is one reason why debates can be seen as unedifying, people simply presenting intellectual dishonesty and not being called out on it due to the time limit or an oversight. Is this not a huge annoyance to the truth-seeker?

Samuel, an apology and retraction of such an argument would be welcomed!

For more on the satanic verses narrations see here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/explanation-of-satanic-verses-story.html

The Messiah cannot be the Prophet in Deut 18:18
 
This debate would have (for sincere Christians) led to questioning with regards to the church’s stance on Jesus (p) being the Prophet in Deut 18:18

John 1:19-25 is a strong  indication for a Christian that the Messiah and ‘the Prophet’ are two distinct individuals, thus Prophet Jesus (p) cannot be both the Messiah and ‘the Prophet’

This belief that the Messiah and ‘the Prophet’ are two distinct individuals is further highlighted through John 7:40-41

40On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”

41Others said, “He is the Messiah.” [NIV]

I would strongly encourage Zakir to debate any Christian (of repute) who holds to the view that Jesus (p) is the Prophet in Deut 18:18. This view is clearly the weaker view and needs to be broadcast to Christians who have just blindly accepted such. It actually reinforces the Muslim position as it shows there is none other than Muhammad (p) who the prophecy of Deut 18:18 refers to!

Nothing but inconsistency offered to counter Zakir's arguments concerning the Song of Solomon

Zakir injects something of extreme relevance to the debate which is often missed out when Muslims and Christians discuss topics of this nature.

Abdullah bin Salam was a Rabbi of great repute in Medina who was waiting for a Prophet to come (from the narration we see Abdullah bin Salam was not the only one at that time who was waiting for the coming of a Prophet) – Abdullah bin Salam recognised Prophet Muhammad (p) to be that Prophet and converted to Islam

Zakir links the recognition of ‘the Prophet’ as being Prophet Muhammad (p) by Abdullah bin Salam to Song of Solomon 5:10-16. A passage which he goes on to show connections to the appearance of Prophet Muhammad (p), the reference to the 10,000 being linked to the conquest of Mecca (Prophet Muhammad (p) with 10,000 soldiers opened up Mecca) as well as the name ‘Muhammad’ being mentioned in the Hebrew.

Zakir also links the balsam trees mentioned in Song of Solomon 6:2 as a reference to Mecca. He goes on to show some evidence of Mecca being known for balsam trees. It’s a fascinating end to his points pertaining to Song of Solomon

Samuel Geen is grossly inconsistent again. He claims this is a wedding song and not a prophecy for the future. Yet he forgets that he believes that Hosea 11:1 refers to Jesus despite that clearly being about a past event regarding Israel

The point of note here is, Samuel will take an approach of foreshadowing (layered meanings) for Hosea 11:1 and reject it for Song of Solomon. This is inconsistent.

Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument

'Machmadim'

Samuel claims Zakir is committing the phonic fallacy by appealing to the word Muhammad mentioned in the Song of Solomon. This dismissal is unfair as the supportive Zakir is not just taking the word in isolation – he is showing the surrounding text in Song of Solomon is referring to Prophet Muhammad (p). Thus his argument here is that it’s a layered prophecy of Prophet Muhammad which culminates in the mention of that Prophet by name.

Summary: Samuel did not offer anything in response to the story of Abdullah bin Salam (a then reputed Jewish rabbi) nor did he offer a real objection which would dissuade a truth-seeker from allowing such a reading. In fact he simply highlighted his own inconsistent approach.

Shameful – A penny for Samuel’s thoughts

Samuel brings some little-known book by a Muslim in which he claims the Muslim author re-wrote the ‘Gospel’. I had a quick look at that book and I don’t believe the author genuinely intended that book to be something to be believed to be from God. It seemed it as written for argument sake.

Rightly or wrongly Samuel makes a big hoo-ha over this. However, it appears this was feigned offence as Samuel if he really wanted to point fingers at shameful re-writings of the Gospels he wouldn’t be beginning with a book that most if not all the audience members had never heard of before Samuel began his denunciation of such. He would have actually been talking about the known forgeries which are still in the New Testament today. We don’t get a peep out of Samuel. What about the NT books which have been forged under false names? Again, not a word from Samuel.

In fact, Samuel must have been thinking what in the world has just hit him when Zakir pointed out two Gospel verses which purport something to be in the OT which we cannot find!

Here is one of such examples that Zakir offered whilst asking Samuel to admit the Gospel writer was ‘shameful’:

³⁸ Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”^[a] [John 7:38]

What do we get from Samuel? Silence. Silence which is deafening.

 Samuel Green speaks of things he has no knowledge of

Samuel for some reason changed tack and started talking about the compilation of the Quran in the debate. Yes he went off topic. Perhaps the pressure Zakir was putting on him was too much.

Samuel claimed the 1^st surah of the Quran is disputed. No it’s not. This is Christian missionary nonsense – the first surah just like every other surah is mutawatir. Samuel should stop getting such material from missionary tracts and actually start reading what Muslim SCHOLARS have said about such. If I recall correctly he (in the QA) made similar nonsensical claims for the last two surahs of the Quran.

If Samuel wants to show himself to be sincere he needs to drop Christian missionary propaganda pieces regarding Ibn Masud – these pieces are simply designed to detract Muslim attention from the forgeries and the lack of preservation and authority (Jesus, p, never saw the NT) concerning the NT. Here is a link to an article which refutes the errors of the Christian missionary argumentation around Ibn Masud:

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/10/ibn-masud-mushaf-last-surahs-fatiha.html

Another issue which Samuel seems to be sketchy on/duped on is the burning of the masahif by Uthman. Here is an expert, Dr Yasir Qadhi to explain:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/why-did-third-caliph-uthman-burn-copies.html

Did Prophet Muhammad (p) do miracles? Yes

In the QA there was some confusion over such. Here is a link to show prophet Muhammad (p) did do miracles:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/did-prophet-muhammad-p-perform-miracles.html

Samuel OS Confusion

Samuel Green in his opening statement made a claim about Christianity which is untrue. He claimed Christians make no distinction between the Prophets. This is incorrect on 2 accounts

Firstly they reject the last Prophet of God

Secondly, they do make a distinction between the Prophets they believe in. They believe Jesus (p) is a prophet and God. Thus they do draw a distinction between the Prophets they believe in as they worship one whilst not worshipping the others.

Samuel would do well to ponder upon this sincerely.

Zakir Hussain's performance

Zakir was well prepared and well researched – his mention of the Christian use of Hosea 11:1 was a great crux for consistency which constantly prodded Samuel throughout the debate. He offered fine rebuttals that overwhelmed Samuel. Zakir's opening statement was the most educational part of the debate but his rebuttals were the highlight for anybody who likes to see a concise and effective breakdown of the opposition’s arguments.

Criticisms – Zakir spoke whilst walking away from the audience. This is not endearing to the objective observer and I’d imagine this was due to inexperience.

 Zakir missed out on a few opportunities to turn the heat up even more on Samuel. Namely Samuel’s explanation of Hosea 11:1 (did not make sense), his explanation of the failed prophecy attributed to Jesus in Matthew 24 (appeared to be incoherent rambling) and his insincere use of a selected version of the inauthentic satanic verses

In the QA the question of Prophet Muhammad (p) doing miracles could have been handled better.

Having said that, Zakir won the debate hands down. His arguments were much stronger, his rebuttals were potent and he remained coherent throughout the debate. I liked his earnest passion and sincerity. I hope to see more of the same from this chap in the future.

Samuel Green's performance

Samuel was disappointing. It’s always sad to see somebody’s sincerity and integrity come into question but for me questions must be asked of Samuel. His rebuttals were marred with weakness, inconsistency and insincerity. He upon post-debate reflection must be able to see this. Samuel Green rightly got abjured and scolded by Zakir Hussain in this debate.

Aside from taking on a debate in which he was arguing the weaker position my criticisms of him would be his repeated inconsistency, insincere argumentations, lack of knowledge on matters he spoke about and his incoherency when put under pressure of tough objections by Zakir.

It’s clear that the subtext Samuel was operating from was that of his presupposition as a Trinitarian Christian – thus a Prophet (Muhammad P) who supported total and pure monotheism would not be considered by Samuel to be the Prophet in Deut 18:18. This is unfortunate as Samuel is not looking for the truth but simply looking to defend his pre-existing beliefs.

I feel compelled to mention this as Samuel's colleague claims Samuel hates Prophet Muhammad (p). I am not sure if this is true however we do ask Samuel to put aside any bias he has.

My appeal to Samuel Green would be to rethink this one. Put aside your bias and think about this. Really. Look at Deut 18:18 and decide for yourself if that is a prophecy of a man-god or a human Prophet who is going to be like Moses (p).

This is not a game. Your stubbornness (and/or hatred) should not hinder others from the truth.

Think about it.

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Further reading: Prophet Jesus mentioned Prophet Muhammad (pbut):
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/prophet-jesus-mentioned-prophet.html


Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com

Ergun Caner, James White’s Friend, Samuel Green, Paul Williams and John Ankerberg

How’s that for name dropping?!

Ergun Caner is having a tough month. He is being lambasted for misleading folk about Sharia:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/latest-ergun-caner-is-back-lying.html

Despite having re-emerged on John Ankerberg’s show Ergun and Emir Caner are still feeling the pinch. Ergun’s tweeting of his ‘innocence’ of the charges levelled at him have been subjected to discussion to say the least.

Ergun Caner has fallen deeper than first thought

James White of AOMIN was looking for a hero to step up and tackle Ergun Caner:

His words, and actions, speak for themselves, in light of the overwhelming documentation. This is not mere self-deception. A wolf is amongst the sheep. Shepherds, where are you? "Discernment" ministries---where are you? Arlington Baptist College---where are you?

Well,he got somebody to tackle John Ankerberg. Here is what this chap wrote to John Ankerberg concerning the Caner brothers:

I am sorry to say but as hard as I try to take what these guys say seriously I can't in light of the documented lies of Ergun Caner, and his refusal to accept responsibility. It seems that you, John Ankerberg, are more interested in people with degrees in order to cater to the already convinced, i.e. you are preaching to the choir, since Muslims won't take these shows seriously in light of the scandal surrounding Ergun. And besides, he didn't even answer your question here.

It gets mindboggling when you realise who actually made such a comment – James White’s nutty friend/teacher Sam Shamoun!

Sam Shamoun has ahistory of vile behaviour,  amateurism, stupid argumentation and outright dishonesty. No Muslim takes Shamoun seriously. O Ergun, how low have you fallen to be condemned by folk such as Shamoun!

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if James White’s buddy was simply trying to pave the way for himself to take over Ergun’s role on the show. His comment about ‘people with degrees’ seems quite telling. Perhaps it’s him projecting his frustrations of having taught James White Christian apologetics against Islam, yet the only one who is publishing a book about Islam here is White. I wouldn’t be surprised if Shamoun puts this down to his own lack of educational background. It’s quite an interesting dynamic, the student pitches up and leaves the teacher in the shadows.

Paul Williams shows Samuel Green the way

Shamoun was playing the troll, became insulting and was sharply rebuked for his abuse by Paul Williams:

Sam Shamoun posted a comment here to Yahya Snow which I have trashed. It contained too many personal insults and was one long rant against Snow. Sam was banned from my blog before due to his foul mouthed tirades and is on the verge of being banned again if his manners do not drastically improve.

It was easy for Paul Williams. It didn't take years of badgering to see Paul condemn Shamoun's troll-like manner so what's up with Samuel Green and James White?

 

Samuel Green’s absolute refusal to publicly address Sam Shamoun both in this YouTube commentsection (Sam is under the handle – shamounian) and elsewhere have been mystifying until now. Somebody commented that Samuel’s reluctance was due to Samuel using Shamoun’s argumentation for debates.

However I speculate something completely different. I wouldn’t be surprised if White and Green  are reluctant as they don’t want Shamoun’s faith to be challenged. Let me explain, a few comments by Shamoun indicate that he believes a difference of opinion (disagreement) with your co-religionist/s means one is on the path to leaving their faith. Paul Williams of Blogging Theology was in fact subjected to the manifestation of this mindset (of Shamoun's) here and I’d imagine elsewhere too.

This leaves one wondering about Sam Shamoun, how strong is the bloke’s faith? Perhaps White and Green think it could go rather grey if he is addressed publicly hence their absolute refusal to challenge him

Shepherds, where are you? "Discernment" ministries---where are you?

I think the ‘shepherds’ and ‘discernment ministries’ may be worried about losing one of their sheep if they make a move…

Note to John Ankerberg

If you are looking to ditch Ergun Caner (which you should be) then please do not throw in the Ergun Caner look-alike - this amateur called Sam Shamoun. His level of argumentation is just as deplorable as Ergun’s, check his most recent argument out here – he is  wrongly trying to convince folk that Islam is polytheistic – not even Ergun Caner is that barmy.

Here’s an amazing idea, how about you get a Muslim scholar on your show to learn about Islam. I think even Christians are tired of seeing evangelical kooks being dressed up as ‘experts on Islam’. Let me name drop, Hamza Yusuf, Yasir Qadhi, Dr Abdullah Hakim Quick, Zaid Shakir, Dr Shabir Ally, Ali Ataie etc…

 

The Sam Shamoun section

 

Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad - Muslim-Christian views of one another

Open Letter to Samuel Green

Samuel Green Urged to Act

Hi Samuel Green,

I’m writing to you with some great concern as I notice you are still listed as a contributor on answeringmuslims.com.

Recently I visited the Answering Muslims blog and on the front page I noticed two obscene postings which a regular Christian missionary would find to be incompatible with Biblical teachings and evangelism. I assume you are indeed somebody who is solely interested in discussion with Muslims with an intent on Christian evangelism.

Now you may be wondering as to which posts on ‘your’ blog I found distasteful and anti-Christian. Well the first was a post which contained a video of a ‘gang rape’. I did not view the video at all and nor would I recommend you or anybody else view such material. However, I did read about the contents of this sexual assault video and denounced such postings – see here.

This is of course something that one would not expect to be viewing on a site which is supposedly upholding and preaching the Gospel. I trust you are with me on this assessment.

The other video was of a bikini model (who happens to be a Muslim). Again, what is the purpose of such a posting? I understand your colleagues, David Wood and Sam Shamoun, do go to extreme lengths to bash/goad Muslims but surely this is not compatible with the Bible and is only undermining your evangelical efforts.

In the blogosphere, folk such as David are heavily dependent on viewers and attention as it’s directly linked to their earnings. There must be a line drawn between indecency and attention-grabbing.

The two posts I have outlined to you are indeed indecent by any definition and are not unprecedented as some while ago I did post about a similar incident concerning ‘your’ site:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/david-wood-displaying-nudity-and.html

Rather perversely it reflects on the regard the administrators of ‘your’ site hold their followers (largely Christians who are anti-Muslim/Islam?). I mean, why in the world post such vulgar material if you didn’t feel that’s something your viewership/readership would lap up? It speaks volumes in how ‘your’ administrators view their supporter’s general level of morality…don’t you think?

I know Mr Wood is not the most Biblically-observant Christian – as evidenced by his flagrant disregard of Deut 22:5 here -  however that’s no excuse for him to overstep boundaries of decency and nor is it an excuse for other Christians (especially other contributors such as yourself, Anthony Rogers and Hogan Elijah Hagbard) to at least have a word. It only takes folk to sit on their hands for evil to go unchecked.

I would also like to point out –I haven’t seen such material on sites governed by serious Muslim representatives/apologists. I mean, if I was to frequent sites ran by Bassam Zawadi, Ali Ataie, or Dr Shabir Ally. I would not see such videos.

I understand Dr Nabeel Qureshi has left that site – he from what I recall would have at least had some sympathy for such concerns. I trust you will have similar sympathies and hope you do offer some sort of action to ensure posts such as these are no more.

I would also recommend you view two of the most outrageous distortions to simply insult the brother of Prophet Jesus (Prophet Muhammed pbut) that I have come across in recent times – propagated by your colleagues. Nobody with any sort of commitment to truth and fairness would support support or propagate suchlike.

You see Samuel, as Muslims we understand that you may want to discuss and even proselytize to us but there is no way base-lies and distortions which are simply geared towards hurting Muslim sensibilities are going to go un-rebuked or un-condemned.

 

PS I would try to communicate with Mr Wood but he seems to be one for keeping his viewers away from anything which is criticizing or refuting of him. I guess censorship is his shield for now. Whatever happened to having rebuttals, strong argumentation and logic as a response. He has censored at least two different individuals who have presented him with links showing his cross-dressing argumentation to be nothing but a mischievous stretch.

Again, I invite you to take a stance.

I would also like to take this opportunity to invite you to Islam. Please think about this before going to bed tonight. I strongly recommend you put any bias to one side and pray to God on this tonight.

May Allah bless us all further. Ameen

Thanks

Yahya Snow

Samuel Green: Unscholarly, Unorthodox, Ignorant, Misguided and Refuted

Samuel Green:“Did Muhammad fight before the hijrah?

Initially when I gave Samuel Green’s article a cursory glance I felt Samuel Green produced one of the most pointless articles I have witnessed in my time investigating Christian outreaches to Muslims. However upon reviewing it further in detail I must revise my opinion. Samuel Green is attempting to (subtly) reinforce or even reintroduce shoddy conspiracy theories in a misguided attempt to re-write history!

Samuel Green, though gentle enough, is very much in league with the fundamentalist brigade of Christian apologists/haters on the internet such as Sam Shamoun and David Wood, thus our friend Sam Green warrants a forthright approach as subtlety is rarely an effective manner of reasoning with the Islamophobe-types who reside in Green’s camp.

I personally skipped over this until the YouTube video-maker, propagator and apologist of Islam, 1MoreMuslim, got involved in discussing Green’s article within the comment section. What happened next? 1MoreMuslim sends me an email informing me of his comments being unapproved (blocked?). I have since asked 1MoreMuslim to double check whether he has been blocked or if it is a case of Acts 17 Apologetics delaying in approving comments

IF he has been censored:

So Samuel Green and company allow some of 1MoreMuslim’s comments to go through but as soon as the dialogue threatens to become in depth and begins to show Green to be extremely erroneous Samuel Green’s friends decide to block 1MoreMuslim. This is extremely suspicious as 1MoreMuslim was contributing to the dialogue in a manner which was erudite and decent. In short there was no reason for him to be censored. It gets even more baffling as Samuel Green (now somewhat paradoxically) asked for feedback vis-à-vis his article:

“What do you think?”

Quite how Samuel Green expects to get feedback whilst his dishonest friend (most likely David Wood) blocks reactive comments behind Green’s back is beyond me. Perhaps Green would like to choose a better group of friends. Unfortunately this seems unlikely as he has been in union with the bigot Sam Shamoun for a good number of years so asking him to extradite himself from his current social circle is really asking.

Rebuking Samuel Green

In any case let’s focus on Green’s material and pick at the holes within. To do so I will adopt a two-pronged approach:

1. Briefly run through Samuel Green’s work myself whilst adding critique to it
2. Bring in 1MoreMuslim's dismissal of Green’s claims

In the way of a disclaimer I would like to state none of my analysis is designed to make Samuel look silly and I am pretty certain 1MoreMuslim’s comments were not designed for the purpose of ridicule. At this juncture I would also like to add the unscholarly nature of Green’s work warrants sharp rebuke

Analysis of Sam Green’s Conspiracy Theories and Conjecture

Green entitle his article; “Did Muhammad fight before the hijrah?

Samuel Green seems to have little regard for scholarship as scholarship tells us Muhammad did not fight prior to the Hijrah. The Muslims lacked any real capacity to do so.

Green, however, knows this but is trying to sow seeds for his conspiracy theories and conjecture.
Green goes on:

“In the histories I have read about Muhammad, I have been told that before the hijrah he endured suffering and shame from the Meccans and never fought or was violent. I may have misunderstood the Muslim claim but this is what I understand, that Muhammad did not fight before the hijrah.”

Green need not bother playing innocent here. Sam Green knows full well this is the Muslim claim as well as the Non-Muslim claim. All scholarship agrees on this fact. Thus it would appear Green is wasting his time. Nevertheless Samuel Green persists and even pulls out his ace from the pack:

However, I am reading my way through the qur'an and it seems this understanding of Muhammad's life does not work easily.

So Green is now arguing against expertise. Who exactly is Samuel Green? Green would do well to know his place. To Green’s credit he does bring an argument to cast doubt on the said scholarship. It must be noted his argument is laced in ignorance and is highly spurious:

In Sura 16 (the bee)Islamic scholars say that verse 110 comes for the Medinan period and has been inserted into this Meccan sura.

Then lo! thy Lord - for those who became fugitives after they had been persecuted, and then fought and were steadfast - lo! thy Lord afterward is (for them) indeed Forgiving, Merciful. 16:110


Sam Green fails to mention the scholars he speaks about but goes on to impute thought upon them (again without mentioning the scholars involved):

“The reason for saying this verse is inserted is that it refers to fighting in a Meccan period sura”

Samuel Green gets Interesting

OK, Green has laid out his cards and wants to concentrate on two points from his agenda. Here is Green trying to get us to follow his unorthodox thought pattern - a thought pattern which is merely employed in an attempt to deconstruct Islam and has nothing to do with intellectual integrity or scholarship:

“If the Qur'an is the best source for understanding Muhammad's life (and I think it is), then doesn't it appear that he was fighting before the hijrah? Maybe the hijrah happened not because Muhammad was the victim but because he was the unsuccessful aggressor?”

Is Green serious here? How can the Quran be the best source of understanding the life of Prophet Muhammad (p) when we have Ahadith literature which is more focussed on the personal activities of the Prophet Muhammad?

The Quran is the Book revealed by God (Allah) to the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran is not about Prophet Muhammad and is a Revelation for Mankind as Guidance. The Quran is the Book revealed by God (Allah) to the Prophet Muhammad.

Therefore this Book is not going to be more relevant in studying the life of Muhammad than the Ahadith literature which would factor in Muhammad’s sayings and daily activities amongst other things as Ahadith literature is essentially about Muhammad. A testimony to this fact would be the biographers’ predominant use of material from Ahadith literature in order to compile their respective biographies of Prophet Muhammad (p). Common sense tells you Green is mistaken. Sadly, common sense eludes critics as their desperate desire to have a pop at Islam blinds them

Green is either grossly negligent in this remark or is being intellectually dishonest in order to build a case according to his personal agenda. Please have a rethink, Sam, You do yourself no favours at all in operating at such a level.

Now let us focus on Green’s strange idea (dare I say “crack pot idea”, sorry Sam):

“Maybe the hijrah happened not because Muhammad was the victim but because he was the unsuccessful aggressor?”

From my experience it never takes too much reading before you come across a completely over-board suggestion/assertion from somebody who is linked with Sam Shamoun. Green does not buck the trend.

Sam Green makes this suggestion based on what? Nothing at all. The biographers do not document anything of such a nature and maintain the Hijrah was due to the Quraish’s persecution of the Muslims. As per usual Green makes his claim without bringing any evidence

Al Mubarekpuri, nor any other biographer, cites anything which supports Sam Green’s strange claim. Quite how Sam Green thinks such a small group of persecuted Muslims in Makkah can be the aggressors is beyond me this disbelief in the reasoning of Green is compounded by the fact no authority supports his conspiracy theory.

Effectively Samuel Green is doing away with all the experts in the field as well as all the source literature in favour of his conspiracy theory. You can imagine Green being amongst those Christians who believe the forgeries within the Bible are inspired too.

Here is Sam Green’s last conspiracy theory:

“Is it right for Muslim scholars to use the theory of "inserted verses" to explain why their reconstruction of Muhammad's life does not match up with what the Qur'an says?”

Essentially Green accuses Muslim scholars of dishonesty.

This is rich coming from Samuel Green, the man who is a partner of Sam “Muslims are black stone lickers” Shamoun. Those in glasshouses should not throw stones, Sam.

The “theory” of inserted verses

Samuel Green is an enigma. He is making a disparaging claim without any knowledge whatsoever. Green admits to his ignorance in the comment section:

“What evidence do we have that Muhammad moved verses around?”

Green fails to realise we DO have evidence of verses being arranged by the Prophet himself! I guess ignorance is bliss for Sam.

Firstly Al Azami, upon speaking of the Surahs and Verses, states:

It is commonly acknowledged that the arrangement of ayat (verses) and suras (chapters) in the Quran is unique. The layout does not follow the chronological order of revelation, nor does it follow subject matter.

Here is a narration (Hadith) which shows us verse insertion was carried out by the Prophet himself as Al Azami writes:

“Uthman states that whether the revelation consisted of lengthy, successive verses, or a single revelation in isolation the Prophet would summon one of his scribes and say, “Place this verse [of these verses] in the sura where such and such is mentioned”” [ Tirmidi Sunnan no 3086] [1]

Al Azami goes on to give further evidence of verse insertion being supervised by the Prophet (p) [1]. For our purposes of educating Green so he desists in spreading silly conspiracy theories this is sufficient.

I would also remind Green the Surahs were recited in daily prayers (and special Ramadan prayers) which meant the sequence of verses would have been agreed upon at the time of Prophet Muhammad. I mention this in order to pre-emptively quell any further unorthodox theories our friend Sam may have in mind.

References

[1] The History of The Quranic Text, M.M Al Azami, UK Islamic Academy, 2003 [pg 70-72]

1MoreMuslim Dismisses Samuel Green and his unorthodox ideas

1MoreMuslim makes a great refuting comment based on common sense and appeals to Sam's faculty of reason:

This verse is a madinah verse, not because the mention of fight, but rather for an obvious reason; the verse speaks about refugees. Muslims cannot be refugees before the Hijra to Medina. Are you not able to think?

The verse 126 begins with "IF" , God instruct how to retaliate in the future, IN CASE that the Muslims will have to, But God instructed them to be patient. So no fighting in there!

At this Sam Shamoun pops in to help Samuel Green and actually makes a half-decent point and manages to keep his calm; I guess all the critique of his attitude is paying dividends and the man is attempting to reform himself :

This verse is a madinah verse, not because the mention of fight, but rather for an obvious reason; the verse speaks about refugees. Muslims cannot be refugees before the Hijra to Medina. Are you not able to think?

Your argument doesn't follow since this verse can be referring to the Muslims who migrated to Abyssinia and sought asylum from the Negus. This event took place while Muhammad and the majority of Muslims still remained in Mecca.

So how do you know for certain this refers to the fugitives who settled in Medina?

However, Sam is soon shot down quite spectacularly by 1MoreMuslim:


To Sam;
"So how do you know for certain this refers to the fugitives who settled in Medina?"
Because those people are referred to as "Muhajirun"
And after all , what are you trying to prove? That Muhammad sent his followers to Abyssinia, and stayed in Makkah fighting, while living among the Mushrikeen? Was it a kind of street fight during the day, and when the night falls everybody go home? If you want to revise and rewrite history, try something believable.
Read the first and second comment to this article, you people can't understand an English Sentence, let alone the Hebrew and the Arabic.

Enter Samuel Green, I guess he must have felt a little silly at this point:

My point is, if we just read the sura 16, verse 110 flows with the rest of the sura, yet the sura is Meccan. What evidence do we have that Muhammad moved verses around?

My observation is simply this, that when Muslim scholars say different verses come from different periods within the one sura, it seems that they are trying to make the Qur'an fit into their reconstructed view of Muhammad's life. I cannot see any evidence for the idea that 110 verses in sura 16 are meccan and just one verse is medinan. I think the Qur'an is a better source for Muhammad's life and that the scholars are wrong.

1moremuslim, your argument is based on the scholars view of Muhammad's life. I am suggesting that this does not match up with the Qur'an at every point.

Note: Green’s quest for evidence of Muhammad (p) arranging verses has been satisfied in the article (see above), Green, embarrassingly, is still clinging onto his conspiracy theory which flies in the face of all expertise and scholarship. Samuel Green’s raison d’être, on this, evidence is to intimate unsupported and unorthodox claims and never back them up regardless of how silly he looks. 1MoreMuslim pours further admonition on our friend Green:

To Samuel Green:

Your whole argument is made of thin air, Be it Medinan or Meccan, Q 16:110 doesn't mention fighting AT ALL. The Arabic for fight is " Katalou" , but here we find the word "Jahadou" which means struggle and steadfast. You are committing a circular reasoning with ignorance: You are using a translation influenced by the idea that the verse is Medianan, and used that translation to prove that the verse is a Meccan.
Samuel, if you reject the view of the scholars and commentators, then you should translate the word "Jahadou" as Struggled, not fought.
David Wood, above, recommended M H Shakir translation, take his advice. It's not bad. You should remove this article and apologize for deceiving your readers.

1MoreMuslim also points out Samuel Green’s unwitting refutation of his fellow Christian critics! Welcome to the bizarre double-minded world of this particular band of internet fundamentalist-Christian apologists:

Samuel Green:
"My point is, if we just read the sura 16, verse 110 flows with the rest of the sura"

Thank you for that testimony Samuel, there have been critics which say that the Quran is incoherent

You can find 1MoreMuslim here:http://www.youtube.com/user/1MoreMuslim

Summary

There you have it folks. We have a Christian apologist in the form of Samuel Green ignoring all scholarship and authority and attempting to re-write history. I feel for Christians who support individuals with this type of disconnection from intellectual honesty and scholarship. For what it is worth I rebuke Samuel Green for this shoddy display of his and I join 1MoreMuslim in calling for Green to apologise.

All in all, I guess our friend, Green, is rather red (faced) now. Or should we coin a word from the limited vocabulary of his partner (Shamoun) and dismiss him as “pathetic”.

I want to further rebuke people like Samuel Green and ask them to focus on real issues related to salvation rather than wasting time on intellectually-dishonest ideas designed to have a poke at Muslims. Think!

Think: Jesus has a God and has brothers and sisters as well as a God.

I ask Green to focus on the One who Jesus was praying to (appendix 1). This is obviously God and a sincere Christian would be focussing on these issues which pertain to salvation and not idling time away in conjuring shoddy and unsupported theories

I invite Samuel Green and ALL Christians to worship the God whom Jesus worshipped. Obviously if Jesus has a God then he cannot possibly be God. Therefore common sense dictates we should do away with the claim of Jesus being God.

Christians, please think about it. This is extremely important. God does not want you to be worshipping a man. Look into the first commandment (Exodus 20)my friends and focus on your salvation rather than wasting time.

You shall have no other gods before Me (God)

I ask you to become Muslims and join us as the brothers of Jesus (appendix 2). Search for the Truth and the Truth shall free you. Learn more about the Truth here:
http://www.islam-guide.com/

Contact: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Appendix 1

Jesus (pbuh) praying to God in the Bible:

So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. (Mt 26:44) NIV

Jesus praying to his God in the gospel of Luke:

One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. (Luke 6:12)

Appendix 2

Jesus has brothers and sisters (Mk3:35). Of course God does not have brothers or sister. These brothers and sisters of Jesus can ONLY be Muslims so please become a brother/sister of Jesus by becoming a Muslim:

http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/jesus-teaches-muslims-are-right/

Appendix 3

If you are Assyrian or Arab Christian and want some encouragement to convert to Islam (this is suitable for all Christians): http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/08/assyrians-and-arab-christians-please.html