Thursday, 7 December 2017

Christian Polemicists on Love, Quran 3:32, John 3:16 and Romans 5:8

It’s commonplace for Christians to exaggerate the Christian view of love. For the most part this is probably just due to an ignorance on their part and a Westernised liberal mindset rather than the product of some sort of wilful effort to misinform. This is why you get Westernised “Christian” evangelical organisations making such comments on social media:

Thank God for christianity. For a God that loves us even while we were yet sinners, For a God that loves us enough to come down to earth, for a God that just doesn't just create but wants relationship with his Children. It sometimes takes learning about a religion such as Islam to appreciate what we have in Christ. Allah HATES DISBELIEVERS #Surah 3:32 # John3:16#Romans 5:8 [DCCI Ministries via FB]

RC Sproul says: I think there are few things more dangerous than preachers out there preaching that God loves everyone unconditionally

Do Christians really believe God loves everyone unconditionally? No.

Here are three points to think about in this regard.

1. The Bible teaches that God HATES sinners/wrongdoers (sinners would include unbelievers, right?)

4 For you are not a God who is pleased with wickedness; with you, evil people are not welcome.
5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence.You hate all who do wrong
Psalm 5:4-6

Pslam 11:5 is in a similar vein. Additionally, Christians believe God is angry with the wicked (I assume this includes unbelievers)

11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
[Psalm 7:11]

2. Common sense. Christians believe those who do not accept Jesus will be in eternal damnation (Hell) for eternity. Can you seriously tell me you believe God and Jesus love these people?

3. Paul of Tarsus curses anybody who does not preach his version of Jesus. Paul seems to hate these people. If you believe Paul in Galatians is inspired by God then how can you believe God curses those who he loves? Here’s Paul of Tarsus in his own words Galatians 1:

8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you,let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Love of God in Christian and Muslim views

God, according to Muslim and Christian beliefs, has a beneficient, providential and benevolent love for everyone regardless of belief/disbelief. The rain falls on the just as well as the unjust. Both the wicked and the righteous have oxygen to breath and both groups receive wealth, health etc..

Likewise, both groups believe God loves the world so much so that He gives a salvific message and thus humans have the potential to be saved.

The love God has for the redeemed (Love of complacency) is not extended to the unbelievers according to Christian tradition. Likewise, love of complacency (or love conditional love) is not extended to disbelievers according to the Islamic tradition either.

God abhors the wicked according to the Bible. In Christianity God sends the sinner to Hell, not the sin. Clearly, for the Christian preacher, it would be contradictory to the Bible to say God loves unbelievers the same way he loves the “saved” – Christians will believe God abhors those who he sends to Hell. Christians believe TCVO Jesus will send Muslims, Sikhs, Atheists and Unitarian Christians to Hell. To say TCVO Jesus loves all these “unbelieving” groups would be difficult to reconcile with the aforementioned.

Christian groups who are more into simplistic slogans like the one we are responding to are being a hindrance to a deeper and more healthy understanding of religious traditions.

Quran 3:32, Romans 1:18 and sound reasoning

The Christian group cite this Verse in their social media post (above) yet they have not applied thought to the context, The Verse is talking about those who reject God’s message and do not obey God. Obviously these people ultimately reject God’s love, Quran 3:31-32:

 Say, [O Muhammad], "If you should love Allah, then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

Say, "Obey Allah and the Messenger." But if they turn away - then indeed, Allah does not like the disbelievers.

Christians believe the same thing with respect to their tradition. Those who reject the message of God, effectively reject God and are ultimately cut off from the love of God. This has been outlined in the Bible verses we have presented previously. To re-emphasise this we can additionally cite Romans 1:18 which is essentially teaching the same thing as Quran 3:32 with respect to the Christian tradition

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness [Romans 1:18]

Again, even if you did not have access to the Bible, the fair-minded Christian would conclude the same thing as Quran 3:32 with respect to Christianity by thinking about the doctrine of hell. Why else do Christians believe disbelievers go to hell if it is not for the rejection of God and ultimately the rejection of God’s love?

Christians who peddle simplistic and shallow polemics dishonour their Church traditions.

RC Sproul in his criticism of Christians who preach unconditional love explains the motivation behind their thinking: “We want to so much win people to Christ that we’ll do everything we can to hide from them the wrath of God”

Mark Driscoll says the Bible says, on multiple occasions, that God hates those who are sinners. He says, all the ways the Bible speaks about the wrath of God are greater than the number of times the Bible speaks of the love of God.

Driscoll’s candid admission explains why folks at small Westernised evangelical outfits preach the way they do. It’s because their churches are afraid of speaking about the wrath of God for the fear of losing congregants, potential new members and donations. They are essentially being told what they want to hear. Driscoll sums this attitude up by mentioning the Old Testament:

The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof? Jeremiah 5:31

Theologian John McArthur says “preaching that God loves you unconditionally is the wrong message. The sinner needs to be terrified about his condition”.

Jesus and the Sword

Tooting’s St Nicholas Church’s Elizabeth Schofield has taken to telling Muslims that Jesus will come for them with a sword if they don’t worship him (a man!). How can you truly believes Jesus loves everyone when you believe he will come back with a sword for those who do not want to worship Jesus ( man!) and then ultimately put them in Hell for eternity?

In addition, CJ Davis and St Nicholas Church in Tooting, on paper, accept the Thirty Nine articles derived from Thomas Cranmer’s Forty Two Articles which not only talk about hell but also teach that God chose the believers (saved ones) before time (predestination). For academic honesty, this does not necessarily mean Calvinism’s Unconditional Election but it does seem to leave the door open for that theology to be a valid theological view within the CoE paradigm. How do St Nicholas Church folks who endorse or are part of DCCI Ministries parse this part of their teaching as well as the belief that Jesus will come back in condemnatory judgement for the unbelievers - do they think these views are consistent with the idea expressed in the social media post that Jesus loves unbelievers?

John 3:16 and Romans 5:8 and Islam’s equivalent

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.[John 3:16]

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. [Romans 5:8]

These verses are not about universal salvation, they simply express the idea that God offered mankind a way for salvation. Christians do not believe everyone will have eternal life, Christians (with a focus o Arminianism) believe God has offered mankind a route to salvation and it is ultimately down to people to decide to accept this offer of salvation (i.e. via the killing of Jesus for their sins).

Islam has the same general teaching in that God (Allah) offers a route to salvation to mankind. He sent messengers to every nation so people can know God personally, worship Him and obey Him in a relation of love with Allah. In Islam as well as Judaism, God is perfectly forgiving so does not need to have somebody or Himself killed in order to forgive us. The final message and route for salvation God (Allah) gives to humankind is Islam – those who accept the message to submit their will to God will be those who are saved. Interestingly, this message of submitting to God’s will seems to be presented in a purported quote of Jesus in Mark 3:35 too

35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

Once we scrape away the emotional harrumphs and fluff certain, unhelpful, Christians add to proceedings we see very much that in Islam, God loves the world enough to offer mankind a way to Him. Likewise, the same is taught with respect to the Christian tradition in John 3:16.

Let’s call for obscurantist Christians to be more fair-minded and stop clouding matters with unhelpful emotional accretions (fluff).

Now you know all this, you (the truth-seeker) can start to look deeply into both religions and decide which one carries more truth.

I think it’s counterproductive for anybody who believes in Heaven and Hell to state God loves everyone (unconditionally) and condemn teachings of other faiths which teach the view that is compatible with common reasoning, that God does not love unbelievers (why else would He put them in hell for eternity?).

Do you really think TCVO Jesus loved those he ordered to be killed in 1 Samuel 15:3?

Come on DCCI and Tooting’s St Nicholas Church folks, you’re looking contradictory. My advice to DCCI Ministries, move beyond shallow and inconsistent polemics – you do not honour Paul of Tarsus, your churches or even sound reason. You simply serve to get people’s backs up and ultimately become an obstacle to sound dialogue between Christians and Muslims

Advice For Muslims On Dealing With Christian Anti-Muslim Sentiment...

A Difficulty On the Christian Idea of Salvation and Forgiveness

How Jay Smith, Nabeel Qureshi, Sam Shamoun and David Wood Contribute to the Apostasy of Christians

Geza Vermes on How Jesus Would Have Reacted to Trinitarian Christians

Is Limited Atonement Doctrine Taught Clearer than the Trinity Doctrine in the New Testament?

For Christians who say Allah is a Deceiver- a Message from James White


Monday, 27 November 2017

Queen James Bible and the Islamophobes

The "Queen James Bible". The evangelical Christian right are a puzzling bunch. I was reading one of their articles and the Christian guy was overplaying the "influence of Islam" in the UK. One of his examples was Debenhams selling Muslim clothes or whatever (guess he's never heard of niche economics). These folks are bleating on about Muslims because in reality it's easy. Everybody knows these evangelical girls and guys aren't taken seriously by the vast majority of the population so they focus on bullying Muslims. They don't seem to have the confidence to even talk to (never mind talk down to/bully/harass) anybody else in the wider population - especially the LGBT and secularist movement. I wonder if any of those hounding Muslims in the UK have ever raised their voice about the Queen James Bible. LGBTQ peeps must be laughing behind the scenes whilst evangelical "Christians" are talking about kicking Muslims out of Europe, yelling at them in parks, harassing them online and preaching outside their mosques. Truly embarrassing. But hey, they have some Muslims to bash to make themselves feel important and powerful.

The Queen James Bible (QJV), also called the “Gay Bible,” is an edit of the biblical text done in the name of preventing “homophobic interpretations.” To accomplish this goal, the publishers printed a Bible in which all negative references to homosexuality have been removed. The Queen James Bible was published in 2012 and is based on the 1769 edition of the King James Bible.

The publishers of the Queen James Bible chose the name “Queen James” as an obvious take-off on the “King James” Version, as the Authorized Version of 1611 is commonly called. The publishers of the Gay Bible also claim that King James was bisexual, so their choice of title capitalizes on the slang meaning of the term queen.

The editors of the Queen James Bible, who chose to be anonymous, claim that there was no reference to homosexuality in any Bible translation prior to the 1946 Revised Standard Version. Then, they assert, “anti-LGBT Bible interpretations” arose, based on a faulty translation in the RSV of eight verses.

The unidentified “scholars”—their scholastic credentials are unknown—who produced the Queen James Bible suggest that all Bible translations of these eight verses are wrong and that they are the only ones who have got it right. Below are the eight verses.

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

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

Grooming Crimes Which Tommy Robinson and Britain First Will Not Publicise As Much

Three men from the West Midlands have been convicted after they held a schoolgirl captive and forced her in to prostitution.

Jake Cairns, Brandon Sharples and Jack McInally plied the 14-year-old with drugs and held her at an address for five days.

Why Do Britain First Forget About The IRA When Talking To Muslims?


We have been taught from the beginning that it is because of the original sin of Adam and Eve that human beings have been sent to the Earth from the Paradise as a punishment. Prior to this epic fall, we were taught to believe that God, as the initial plan, made man and woman to dwell in Paradise forever. But there are some serious, and I mean serious problems with this notion! And these problems arise from many text of the bible itself.

Now, these problems seems to be exclusively problems for the Christian, since it is this community that advocates and has enshrined their doctrine of salvation around this original sin and fall of Adam and Eve. If one removes the doctrine of original sin and the redemption of a God/Man self sacrifice, or nicely put, vicarious atonement for salvation and re-entry back into Paradise, then the fall of Adam does not have the same significance and the dwelling on the earth would not be seen as such a punishment. Rather another more important meaning comes from the lesson of Adam and Eve and their experience in the Paradise, as we will see, and the fact of their temporary stay there becomes evident that it was from the Divine intent from the beginning.

Let us now look at some of these textual proofs that crushes the later concocted doctrine of the Christians in relation to the earliest scriptures. It, should be noted here also, that the initial recipients of the scriptures under discussion, respectively, the Jewish community, does not at all share in the same doctrine or view about this event as the Christians. Thus, for thousands of years, there existed a Jewish community, reading and studying their respective scriptures with a completely foreign understanding than what was then introduced by a new group thousands of years later. This is very odd, especially given the fact that the Christians adopted wholesale the belief previous scriptures, while at the same time, introducing a completely unrelated and foreign doctrine while using the same scriptures to do so? Something to truly consider.

Was Adam and Eve meant to live forever in the paradise? This question is twofold, on the one hand, we have to examine, was it the intent for Adam and Eve to live forever? After that, were they meant to live forever in the Paradise? I believe the bible is clear, I don’t mean Christian doctrine, but the bible, it is clear that the answer to both of these questions are a surprisingly, but an emphatic NO!

Let us see. We read in Genesis 2:7-9 (7 Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.) And also we read just a chapter later, Genesis 3:22-24 (22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[a] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.)

So, from these verses, it is quite clear that man was never endowed with eternal life from the beginning! The temporal reality of Man, was and is part and parcel of who he is, as is the case with this current world. The idea that Man was to live forever in the beginning is just not supported by any biblical proof!

So, where does such an idea come from to justify the Christian doctrine? As, so often is the case, it is taken from misconstrued and misunderstood verses from the bible, then fostered into a theology and doctrine to suit the Christian author of it. We read, Genesis 3:3-5 (3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”)

Here we see that, the idea of death is directly connected to eating of the forbidden tree. But, was this implying a physical death? Clearly not! For even the devil realized this and stated what the real case was. Furthermore, Adam and Eve did eat from the tree and live a long time after before dying. So, it’s obvious that death here was not implying anything physical. This is again supported by the verses about the tree of life. What purpose would a tree of life serve if they were endowed with eternal life from the beginning? The tree of good and evil existed showing that they were ignorant. Thus, eating from it revealed what they formerly had no knowledge of. But what possibly could a tree of life do to people who were already eternal? Hence, we must conclude that the meaning of death here is not physical, but spiritual. This is made wonderfully clear elsewhere in the bible, as we read in Ezekiel 18:20-2

20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. 21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Does this help us understand this matter in full now? Certainly in these verses, the death and life referred to is not physical, just as the death referred to in Genesis when describing the event of the garden was not physical

Now, let’s complete this point by examining the second part of this question, which is was Adam and Eve meant to live in Paradise forever (in the beginning)?

 Given that we have proven the fact that Adam and Eve were never meant to live forever, as asked in the first part of this question, the second part is obvious. It’s no! But, to leave no room any further misunderstanding on this matter, let us, bring some verses from the bible to make this ever so clear. We read in Genesis 1:26 (26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.)

Now, who will argue that this verse is not crystal clear in declaring that Man was given authority of the EARTH? But, wait… how could that be if Man was in Paradise? Supposingly to live forever there. One might retort, well this was after the fall that he was given authority. WRONG!!! This verse is irrefutable in declaring that from the beginning Man was to be the ruler and authority of the Earth. This verse states Man’s authority on Earth, long before his fall. Moreover, what would be the purpose of the Earth and all of these species and delights on it if Man, initially was never intended to be there? For certainly God knew that Man would need these things on Earth for his livelihood and gains. So, this also means that, of course God knew that Man would dwell on the Earth. Which means, that God knew that Man was never intended to be in that Paradise in the beginning, forever!

On this note before we conclude, can we also highlight the point in the midst of all of this, about the fact of God providing physical and sensual accommodations to Man from the very beginning, even in the Paradise? The Christians love to insult and verbally assault the Muslims and their beliefs about sensuality in Paradise. But yet, from the beginning, even in Paradise, we see that God had readily provided Adam with all amenities that one would have on the Earth, from food to drink to woman companionship. If the temporary Paradise is worthy enough to afford such amenities and delights to Man, then would it not be even more so for the everlasting, eternal Paradise? For the bible says Genesis 2:20-21 (20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam[a] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[b] and then closed up the place with flesh.)

 See how Man is provided with everything, and then one thing is missing… a “suitable helper”. What is a suitable helper, and a helper in what? If you ask any man to pick a suitable helper for himself in the field to toil in the earth and maintain it, I don’t think he will choose a woman. Honestly and practically speaking. I think he would choose a strong young man as a suitable helper. Did not God, according to Christian theology choose a Son, for Himself? Why did God not choose a wife or daughter to be part of the trinity instead of a son? But, if this suitable helper has other implications… then of course, a woman would be chosen. For a man can never replace a woman! The point here that shall not be lost is the fact that, all of this is provided in the Heaven, in the company of God! Yet, somehow, for it to be granted again, with unlimited restriction for eternity now becomes a problem for the Christians. Why such hypocrisy?

In closing, so, if Adam and Eve was never meant to live in Paradise in the beginning for eternity, then why did God put them there in the first place? Why not just put them on Earth from the start and let it all began there? What an awesome question! I wish I could get a Christian to answer that before this. And I myself, don’t have the answer to that from a Christian world view, but I certainly do from the Islamic world view. And here is where, Christianity dreadfully fails humanity. Instead of offering any lesson of hope in the story of Adam and Eve’s fall in the garden, it compounds this fall with the stigma of original sin cast upon all of Adam’s descendants and further compounds this idea with a sadistic drama of God, now needing to take on human form to perform a vicarious atonement for the sins of humanity through a self sacrifice in the scene of a crucifixion, in which God becomes a curse, that He Himself needs to slaughter, all for the purpose of being able to forgive man for his sins, due to the original sin of Adam and Eve, thousands of years prior. This, can not be from the ways of a Just and Loving and Forgiving God!

The lesson to be learned in the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden, is a beautiful lesson indeed. A lesson in which man learns of his status with God while in obedience to Him and in disobedience to Him. Man learns about his arch enemy and his cunning ways to ever bring man down. Man, learns of his earthly role and the responsibility he has been given therein and he is given hope, and a longing to once again return to that beautiful place of bliss and enjoy the delights that awaits him and most importantly, the eternal pleasure and company of God Almighty

We learn from the story of Adam and Eve, that when you are in obedience to God, then you enjoy the Divine pleasure and closeness, as we seen was the case before their mistake. But we also learn that when one disobeys God, then they lose such Divine pleasure and grow and become distant from God, as we seen after their mistake. Obedience brings life to the soul, joy, contentment and bliss, while disobedience brings spiritual death, anguish, emptiness and void of the soul and depression. However, the greatest lesson to be gained is to know, that even in such a state, one can reach out and return to God, and His pleasure and His closeness by sincerely repenting and seeking His Providential Forgiveness and Mercy. As we find the amazing passage in the Qur’an, 2:3

Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful

So, God, in His Ever Compassing ability to Forgive and bestow Mercy, exhibited such with Adam. But, what was these words, that Adam learned and used to implore his Gracious Lord for Pardon? We further read in the Qur’an 7:23

They said, "Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves, and if You do not forgive us and have mercy upon us, we will surely be among the losers."

What beauty and encouragement to hope, to know that in a plight of struggle we fall, but know we can always turn back to our Lord who is waiting for us and ready to turn to us for Forgiveness. Unlike, the idea of being the bearer for the entire humanity being cursed with the stigma of sin because of you. And whatever did happen to Adam and Eve, according to the bible? Did God ever forgive them? Is there any clear verse, that God forgave them of their mistake? Or is it as legend has it? In truth, my friends, what way is better? The path and lessons learned from Islam, concluding in the guarantee of knowing that God is always there to turn to you and forgive you. Or the path and gloom offered by Christianity in that, we are all cursed and can only be redeemed by our Almighty God needing to become man, and curse and die for us, just to be able to say I forgive you? I think the way is clear. I offer you a passage from Psalms that all Christians should pay close heed to. 

Psalm 51:16-17

16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. 17 My sacrifice, O God, is[a] a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise.

And I will close with two beautiful verses of the Qur’an 2:186

And when My servants ask you, [O Muhammad], concerning Me - indeed I am near. I respond to the invocation of the supplicant when he calls upon Me. So let them respond to Me [by obedience] and believe in Me that they may be [rightly] guided.

And to sufficiently close, 39:53

Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah . Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful.


Sunday, 19 November 2017

Why Do Britain First Forget About The IRA When Talking To Muslims?

Britain First's Christian Jayda Fransen deputy leader seems to forget about British history and the IRA in a conversation with a Muslim as she tries to minimise the number of non-Muslim terror attacks in the UK.

This video is also uploaded here

A timeline of IRA terror attacks on British soil can be found at Reuters. Here are some examples from that timeless:

February 1974 - Coach carrying soldiers and families in northern England is bombed by the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Twelve people killed, 14 hurt.

October-November 1974 - Wave of IRA bombs in British pubs kills 28 people and wounds more than 200.

July 1982 - Two IRA bomb attacks on soldiers in London’s royal parks kill 11 people and wound 50.

December 1983 - IRA bomb at Harrods department store kills six.

October 1984 - Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet narrowly escapes IRA bomb that kills five people at Brighton hotel during Conservative Party’s annual conference.

May 1990 - One soldier is killed and another wounded by car bomb in Wembley.

June 1990 - Soldier is shot dead at train station in Lichfield.

April 1993 - IRA truck bomb devastates Bishopsgate area of London’s financial district, killing one and wounding 44.

Monday, 13 November 2017

Karen Armstrong: Early Gospel Authors Did Not Believe Jesus Was God

Video also uploaded here

Paul and the Synoptics had never regarded Jesus as God; the very idea would have horrified Paul who, before his conversion, had been an exceptionally punctilious Pharisee. They all used the term ‘Son of God’ in the conventional Jewish sense: Jesus had been an ordinary human being commissioned by God with a special task. Even in his exalted state, there was, for Paul, always a clear distinction between Jesus kyrios Christos and God, his Father. The author of the Fourth Gospel , however, depicted Jesus as a cosmic being, God’s eternal ‘Word’ (logos) who had existed with God before the beginning of time. This high Christology seems to have separated these congregations from other Jewish Christian communities. [Karen Armstrong, Fields of Blood, Religion and the History of Violence, The Bodley Head, 2014 p129]

Tuesday, 31 October 2017

A Review of Sara Khan's The Battle For British Islam

Thoughts on: The Battle for British Islam - Sara Khan - Saqi Books - 2016

I did not really see what this book offered to the public discourse on Muslims, Islam and Britain which has not already been put out there I felt an element of irony as Sara Khan was championing a unity amongst Muslims but at the same time her book only serves to marginalise Muslims whose views on Islam she has an issue with - I don’t see anything problematic with iERA. Their members have condemned terrorism and they seem to be well-grounded members of British society. Why not try to work with these Muslims?

There is a theme in Sara Khan’s writing which highlights a conservatism amongst Muslim advocacy groups and plays a game of personalities by listing various Muslims in the public eye and their views they hold on issues such as LGBT, Islamic governance and women’s rights. What Sara Khan and her co-author fail to do is point out that these beliefs revolving around Islamic governance (how a state run by Sharia would theoretically be run) have no bearing on public life in Britain. None whatsoever! For instance, the belief that apostates should be killed is not applicable to Britain. Likewise for the punishment related to adultery.

For me it seemed all rather picayune, are we really trying to say these beliefs are affecting the way somebody lives and interacts in Britain negatively? I don’t think so. Is this not subtly playing to the notion of a conveyor belt theory where Muslims with certain beliefs which do not fit the Western liberal paradigm are potentially on the road to radicalisation? It should be “further radicalisation” as this theory would dictate anybody on the conveyor belt is already radicalised to a certain degree. Would this theory not pave the way for a more Islamophobic version from the far right (including the evangelical Christian Right) to go all-out and just label the starting point of the conveyor belt as “Islam”? That would leave Sara Khan and all of us Britain in hot water. I’d urge Sara Khan to rethink her lines of argumentation because consistency is important; giving an inch in order to prop one’s own views and oneself at the dinner table may later result in having to give a mile leaving you and your views being looked at askance by those at the same dining table you strove to be at.

What is the barometer for deciding who is radicalised? A departure from mainstream Western views? Does that not leave conservative Christians, orthodox Jews and mainstream Muslims in the firing line? And is this not really a form of mono-culturalism rather than multiculturalism where everybody is expected to follow the social zeitgeist?

Sara Khan does disappoint the rabid Islamophobes, who think Islam is about terrorism, in mentioning her opposition to extremism is inspired by Islam: "My motivation, first and foremost, in writing this book is a sense of obligation and principle as a Muslim." [p22]

She even criticises sections of the media for stoking up Islamophobc attitudes: “Sections of the media have in effect assisted the far-Right’s anti-refugees and anti-Muslim messaging. Media headlines have included references to a ‘Muslim rape crisis’, or ‘Muslim rape epidemic’, one Polish magazine depicted on its cover a Caucasian women [sic] draped in the European Union flag being torn at by brown-skinned hands, with the headline: ‘The Islamic Rape of Europe’. This is the largest-circulation conservative weekly journal in Poland – it claimed that the crisis had been masked because of ‘tolerance and political correctness’.” [p145-146]

She also talks about “Islamism” being divisive within Muslim communities and causing friction between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain. For her, Islamism and the far-right have a symbiotic relationship and they feed off each other. What about foreign policy and its divisive role and role in radicalisation? Sara Khan has little to say about this.

The biggest problem here is this word, “Islamism”. It’s used in the media a lot but I doubt many people would be able to define it and those who do would probably not be in uniformed agreement on what Islamism entails. It’s a made up word, it’s helpful for those who want to operate in clouds of smoke.

Sara Khan does define it, I think this definition is hugely problematic for it impugns the vast majority of Muslims, in my opinion, past and present: “Islamism is essentially politicised Islam – but it is not synonymous with Islam. It is a relatively modern movement that seeks to revive an Islamic global political order, a caliphate in other words. Islamists see no distinction between religion and politics.” [p52]

Sara Khan may not know, but the Islamic caliphate only broke up, in name at least, about 100 years ago. Islam and the state have always been interwoven since the nascent Islamic community set up in Medina in the 7th century. This notion of separation of church and state only came about through Martin Luther, prior to that the West did not have such a notion as taught by Karen Armstrong. In fact, even then, beyond Luther, Christian puritans still saw the sate and faith to be linked. Professor Shedinger talks about a religion of value should want to influence the state. Everybody wants their faith or views to influence the state – they are lying if they say otherwise. What is wrong with a bunch of Muslims desiring self-autonomy and wanting to run their country the way they want? Would it not be a form of cultural imperialism to dictate to them that they have to follow the zeitgeist and paradigm in the West? Given how the definition of “religion” is notoriously difficult to agree upon in the Religious Studies departments across the West and considering secularism is now being considered a “religion” in some quarters, are we not living in a state governed by a “religion” too? It seems to me, the big hoo-ha here is all about people with views which challenge the “religion” governing the state. The world has to be governed by one “religion”, secularism...or else!

Christian Right Wing Is Angry With Qasim Rashid's Article on Islam in the Independent


Friday, 20 October 2017

Christian Right Wing Is Angry With Qasim Rashid's Article on Islam in the Independent

Here are my thoughts on what an evangelical Christian lady wrote in response to a click-bait piece on the Independent's website by Qasim Rashid entitled “How the teachings of Islam could help us prevent more sex scandals.” As a Muslim I was surprised to see such a title - something which I will address later on in this piece once we touch on some of the polemics directed at Qasim Rashid's piece from a "Christian"evangelical lady called Lizzie Schofield. Lizzie Schofield writes:
Now theIndie's [sic] really upped its game with its latest piece by Qasim Rachid [Sic] (a regular contributor) entitled “How the teachings of Islam could help us prevent more sex scandals.” Islam will prevent sex scandals? Sex scandals like the systematic rape and grooming of young girls in Rochdale, Rotherham and Newcastle, right?

This is like a Christian saying Christian teachings will prevent murders and genocides and the critic responding flippantly “what like the genocide of the Native Americans”?

There are two problems with this immature approach:

1. It’s childish and it misuses serious crimes and suffering of human beings for one-upmanship.

2. This one-upmanship is a non-sequitar in any case. The perverts in the grooming gangs (which included non Muslims) were in fact going against the teachings of Islam – unless you think alcohol, drugs, deceit and rape are Islamic (
see Islam forbids rape). You’ve got to have a low view of your fellow man if you think these things are part of the way of life of a  fifth of your cousins on this planet. In fact, Islam teaches men and women against being alone or touching a person of the opposite sex whom you have no relationship with. Lizzie knows this as she has been told about the Jewish teaching of Shomer Negiah and the Muslim equivalent.

She knows how Islam would help against Hollywood director sex scandals. Men have to lower their gaze, so they can’t ogle at the model/actress (in addition Islam’s dress code of modesty would help to lessen the drawing of attention from men of a sensual nature
as witnessed in this social experiment). Is that not what led to the Harvey Weinstein’s alleged crimes – the sin of the eyes inciting further lustful thoughts? Secondly, you can’t be alone with the actress as Islam teaches against two unmarried people of the opposite sex being alone with each other (the third is always the devil). Thirdly, sex cannot be carried out outside a relationship. Surely that’s enough to say the precepts of Islam would help prevent such sex scandals and vicitimization of actresses? 
She then goes into full tilt polemical mode with mindless and inconsistent polemics:

“Tell me how a religion founded by a man who married a nine-year-old girl, plus another 10 women (some forcibly) in addition to his regular sex slaves, will help here. Seriously. I’m all ears.”

On marrying young

1. The Prophet consummated the marriage with Aisha when she was considered mature and had reached puberty. This is the same marriage custom which the Jews at the time of Jesus observed as highlighted by Geza Vermes. Why is this lady not asking why Jesus did not change this custom if she finds it so reprehensible? Does she think Jesus did not care about women?

2. On that theme, the age of marriage in the Bible is puberty as stated by
a Christian apologist who cited Ezekiel 16 as his proof text for this claim. Why is this lady not asking why the Bible contains such a “proof text” for puberty as the age of marriage and why it does not follow pre-modern age of consent laws? Does she think Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father did not care about women?

3. We both live in Western Europe, pre-modern Western Europe had similar marriage practices to that of the Arabs a the time of Prophet Muhammad and the Jews at the time of Prophet Jesus. Emma Mason writes, "In the Middle Ages, getting married was easy for Christians living in western Europe...Marriage was the only acceptable place for sex and as a result Christians were allowed to marry from puberty onwards, generally seen at the time as age 12 for women and 14 for men. Parental consent was not required. When this law finally changed in England in the 18th century, the old rules still applied in Scotland."
This lady’s ancestors would have been involved in such marriages. Even beyond the Middle Ages, I bet some of Lizzie’s forefathers were involved in such marriages. Just look at the London marriage licenses between 1500 to the 1800s. We’ve got 4 (four) year old George in there, 9 year old Dorthy Panton and 11 year old Anne in there. This lady may want to check up her family tree for any of those names. In reality, there would have been countless marriages like those of Anne and Dorthy during this period across the whole of Britain. Were they all a bunch of women hating paedophiles back then? No of course why the big deal about Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha when the Bible, Jesus and the rest of humanity before pre-modern times would have seen no issue with it?
On polygamy

As for polygamy, erm what’s wrong with polygamy? Jesus according to her Trinitarian beliefs allowed polygamy.

If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. [Exodus 21:10]

And Jesus, according to her Trinitarian beliefs not only allowed polygamy but also gave wives [plural] to David:

8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. [2 Samuel 12:8]

This is all elementary stuff that anybody who has thought about and looked into the Bible would know of. Why are we seeing a Trinitarian Christian lady talk about polygamy like it’s a bad thing? She’s indirectly insulting her version of Jesus (the Trinitarian Church version). Did Jesus do something wrong in her eyes? Is she more holy than Jesus?

She also talks about forced marriage. Forced marriage
is not allowed in Islam  Anti-Islam polemicists claim the Prophet’s marriage to Safiya was forced, I’ve covered this here.

On Trinitarian Jesus and Women

In fact it appears, this particular Trinitarian Christian apologist (if consistent), would claim rape/forced marriage took place in Deuteronomy 10 and probably Numbers 31 and this was allowed by Trinitarian  Jesus. Does the Christian lady condemn these actions and condemn Trinitarian Jesus?

This lady may want to consider
2 Samuel 12 where according to her Trinitarian understanding, Jesus threatened to give David’s wives to somebody else who would also sleep with them. Now, will this lady call this a threat to have David’s wives raped? A threat given by Trinitarian Jesus according to her understanding!
She also wrote the following to advocate Christianity at the end of her polemical piece:

Jesus never married. Jesus never had sex slaves. He never sexually exploited women. The Cross of Christ is justice for the victims of sexual exploitation and mercy for the perpetrators if they turn to him.

OK, Jesus never married, and is that something that makes him a better person than Moses, Muhammad or Abraham? Nope. Marriage is something necessary for procreation and it’s what societies are founded upon. I believe the lady in question is married herself, let's not go into medieval monk mode where sex is seen as something unholy. Sex is part of life and none of us would be here today if it was not part of life.

She claims Jesus never exploited women but she believes Jesus allowed the severe beating of female slaves as long as they got up after a day or two (Exodus 21:20-21). She believes Jesus ordered the killing of non virgin females in 1 Samuel 15:3

Is she not aware of any of this or is this in the back of her mind gnawing away at her so she decides to attack Muslims, Islam and the Prophet of Islam to try and make herself feel a bit better? Is this some sort of self-projection akin to where a gay guy is constantly bashing gays but is found out to be involved in a gay lifestyle! behind closed doors.

She also believes Jesus allowed polygamy (Ex 21:10) and she believes Jesus gave wives to David in 2 Samuel 12:8. Clearly Jesus had no issue with polygamy. If she thinks polygamy is exploitation of women then I’m sure she will criticising the Trinitarian church’s view of Jesus - if she's consistent. In addition, she will be attacking the Bible as the spark for her Protestant church movement, Martin Luther, said there’s nothing in the Bible to forbid polygamy.

As for rape, I’d imagine (if consistent as she is constantly looking for the most negative view of Islamic sources she can find) she would exegete 2 Samuel 12 as Jesus threatening to have David’s wives given to somebody else and slept with as exploitation of women:

11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’”

She'd also say the claim Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 10 (an order from Jesus according to her) involved rape

Aside from this,
we already know that she believes Jesus is not a pacifist and that Jesus used much more violence than Prophet Muhammad. I guess in her mind, Muhammad is more peaceful and more kinder to women than Trinitarian Jesus and the Islamic Jesus is more peaceful and more loving to women than the Trinitarian church version of Jesus. 
Rape victims and the "cross"
She wrote about the cross being some sort of comfort or justice for victims of rape. She does not believe this at all. In her mind, any non Christians raped and not willing to worship Jesus (a man!) will face the wrath of Jesus who will return with a sword for his enemies.
She’s on video saying so about Jesus returning with a sword for his "enemies" which she believes to be Muslims (including Muslim women presumably unless she believes Jesus is anti-men and only dislikes non-Christian men). Quite how the idea of Jesus dying for sins on a cross is justice for rape victims is beyond me. Really, what of all those non Christian women raped (many by Christians, think Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, and African slaves) who did not believe a man (Jesus) was God? How exactly do you think the church idea of the cross helps them?
Furthermore, she believes the rapists will be forgiven due to the beliefs around the cross...but what if the rape victim does not forgive the rapist?
The online platform for major newspapers, given the competition online, is a click based market so content providers are incentivised to be as sensational and, a times, inflammatory as possible - "attention whoring" for views. This, in turn, corresponds to online ad revenue. For the Independent's website, it's not much different. For me, the ads that show up on Qasim Rashid's online piece are for BNP PARIBAS and SQUARE SPACE.
As a reader of the Independent, I am a little disappointed in the editorial decision to run that article as it does not take a great deal of wisdom to expect an online anti-Muslim backlash. It seems like the Independent were trolling the right wing but I think we have to recognise this goes beyond the Far Right despite the Left's willingness to stand up for minorities (as a Muslim, I appreciate much of this sentiment although I have read Nathan Lean's book on Islamophobia and he does mention there is Left-wing Islamophobia too). 
Qasim Rashid's article will effectively be used as a recruiting sergeant in pitting the cultural right-wing, anti-Muslim and anti-religion folks against Muslims.  It's only going to fuel this narrative of "creeping sharia" and the propaganda of an exaggerated influence of Muslims in the West that Muslims are on the precipice of power in Britain when in actuality Muslims are the , or at least one of the, least influential minority groups in the West: Christians, LGBTQ groups and Jews have way more influence than Muslims.
There would have been less of a firestorm if Qasim Rashid had spoken of  the way in which EVERY major world religion would help alleviate sex scandals in Hollywood or wherever. He could have then have thrown in a paragraph or two of his own religious tradition alongside relevant teachings from other faiths. The title could have been "How Religion Can Prevent More Sex Scandals in Hollywood".
I do fear, the Independent have managed to stoke up further anti-Muslim sentiment whilst seeking out internet clicks. Sure, the evangelical lady who riled against Qasim Rashid's article is anti-Islam but we must start asking ourselves why Christians, who are very similar in moral values to Muslims, are taking aim at Muslims, increasingly so. We've got to start dialoguing with their more reasonable types and start working with each other as opposed to butting heads in this anti-religion climate we live in in the West. In Britain, I've always thought on the ground (in real life) serious Muslims and serious Christians get along well - the biggest allies of Muslims in the West are religious Christians in my view (not the liberal left).
This anti-Islam rhetoric which is amplified on the net is not doing serious-minded Christians any favours at all. This lady was using babyish terms like "dawahgandist"  and "indimmpendent" - she's an outlier amongst real-on-the-ground Christians in the UK in my view, her behaviour reflects a more American fundamentalist, politically-oriented Christianity.
On top of this, through her polemics, the light is well and truly being shone on the Trinitarian view of Jesus who any critic of Prophet Muhammad would criticise with greater vigour and accuse Trinitarian Jesus of all sorts of crimes against men, women and children - if consistent. I wonder if this Christian lady will be consistent.

I'm facing the very real guilt of being partly responsible for a  young Christian lady losing faith in Christianity and apparently having no faith in God any longer. She was allegedly on fire for Christianity and was rubbing shoulders with some big name Christian apologists in North America. She was a rising star in evangelical circles -  a bit of a celebrity. She was doing the "Muhammad can't be a true Prophet  because of polygamy and wars etc." spiel, basically the talking points many Christian polemicists run through, including the Christian lady we are addressed above. I did the, "hey what about the Bible (it allows polygamy) and what about the Bible on violence" response alongside correcting some of her misapprehensions about Islam. Essentially a watered-down version of what I've wrote above. She did email me to expose one of the "Christian" apologists she was rubbing shoulders with who I happened to be refuting and rebuking at the time. I just thought she had gained in maturity, I had no knowledge she left the faith until I was alerted to a social media status from a Christian apologist who had a bit of a crush on her. My advice to Christians is to think about consistency, don't blame people like me for simply pointing out Prophet Muhammad used less violence than Trinitarian Jesus when you try to dishonestly decontextualize his wars and make out the Prophet of Islam was all about violence and don't blame me when I start pointing out what Trinitarians believe about Jesus concerning the treatment of women when you try to engage in negative propaganda against Prophet Muhammad in trying to make him out to be anti-women. Start teaching Christians to be more honest and consistent when talking about Islam, that way you won't be hating me and looking at me with suspicion as a possible reason for your rising young preachers leaving Christianity.

Is Christian Persecution Complex Harming Muslim-Christian Dialogue?

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

Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?

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


Wednesday, 11 October 2017

European Christians Were Allowed to Marry At Puberty During the Middle Ages

In the Middle Ages, getting married was easy for Christians living in western Europe...Marriage was the only acceptable place for sex and as a result Christians were allowed to marry from puberty onwards, generally seen at the time as age 12 for women and 14 for men. Parental consent was not required. When this law finally changed in England in the 18th century, the old rules still applied in Scotland [Emma Mason]

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?


Monday, 9 October 2017

Explaining Hand Shaking and Hugging to Hatun Tash

Dear Hatun Tash, this issue has been explained previously when Daniel and/or Lizzie were asking about Muslims not shaking the hands of the opposite gender. Please do read up and watch the video on that post and you’ll learn this is also a teaching in Orthodox Judiasm called Shomer Negiah.

I must say I’m disappointed in your colleagues as I’d imagine they would have seen my post on this topic, they should ahave shared it with you so you would not fall into the same error. Perhaps they did not see it. Who knows, you can ask them. And you can share this post with them too.

A few thoughts:

1. You can’t equate somebody not hugging you or touching you for religious reasons as them not loving you. Likewise, you can’t associate the act of you willing to hug them or shake their hands as you loving them more than they love you.

2. If you follow through your thought patter you’d say orthodox Jews don’t love Christians, Muslims and anybody else who is not in their circle of family. Would you be willing to say that in public, I hope not. I would advise you not to as it would be deemed anti-Semitic.

3. The act of hugging or shaking hands in other societies (non Jewish and non Muslim) is probably linked to social propriety and custom. These customs and norms change with time. For instance, I think, without expending time to look it up, a lady in Victorian England would not hug a non family member as it would be considered inappropriate. Likewise for other preceding time periods in the UK which

4. CS Lewis talks about the rule of propriety with regards to women's dress sense. I *think* this would apply equally to a woman’s behaviour (as well as a man’s) with respect to members of the opposite sex. I think he *could* have argued for Christian women to wear hijab in Muslim societies where being hijab-less would be seen as immodest (e.g. Saudi Arabia). This is what he writes: The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed...thus while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians the rule of propriety changes.
A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally ‘modest’, proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste).

5. Having a more liberal outlook on life where one’s life is governed by less restrictions doe snot mean one’s world view is better. If that was the case then secularism of the hyper-individualist kind would be the truth. In fact, Theists who believe in a personal God Who has Spoken through Revelation would argue it is logical for God to lay down restrictions and prohibitions on behaviour.

Jay Smith Are You Proud of Your Pfander Ministries Students?

For Christians Who Call Muslims Rag-Heads...

Is Genesis 22 a Messianic Prophecy?

Advice For Muslims On Dealing With Christian Anti-Muslim Sentiment...

Friday, 6 October 2017

A Reality for Christians on Quran and Bible Preservation

The claim that there are numerous Qurans is a result of a foundational misunderstanding on the Muslim view of the Quran and its preservation. Muslims know what constitutes the Quran as the Readings of the Quran with a Tawatur tradition are all accepted Readings (and thus considered the Quran). Any one of these Readings is sufficient and is considered to be the Quran. The problem here is, many critics don’t understand this point and think Muslims have a load of different Qurans. The take home point here is that the Muslims know for certainty the contents of each Reading of the Quran and these are considered to be the Quran while the Christians have long admitted defeat on this front vis-a-vis the Bible.

Christians actually have variants whilst Muslims have Multiple Readings. Muslims are meant to have multiple Readings of the Quran as per the way the Quran was Revealed. Christians are not meant to have variants. Because they have variants they need Textual Criticism (to speculate which MS reading is the original) and continuous archeology (to continually look for new MSS to help them find new variants or to find evidence which helps them speculate the strength and veracity of various readings already in the NT MS tradition). In addition, the Bible is a text still in flux, in that any verse could be relegated to a the status of a later addition (i.e. forgery) upon a new manuscript find – the historical precedent was set quite spectacularly for this in the 19th Century with Dr Von Tischendorf’s find (or theft :)) of Codex Sinaiticus (relegating the PA and the ending of Mark to the status of later additions). In fact the Christians have given up the keys to the Bible to the academy now.

Qur'an Seminar 2017: Learn about Quranic Preservation

Facts About Birmingham Quranic Manuscript Discovery - Louay Fatoohi
Western Scholars Affirm Quran Textual Integrity
Shk Haitham Al Haddad The Qu'ran A Concise History and the Compilation of the Quran
Why did the Third Caliph Uthman Burn the Copies of Quran?

Advice For Muslims On Dealing With Christian Anti-Muslim Sentiment...

Part of an email advising somebody who was being run down by evangelical Christians attacking Islam:

These people actively look for people who are all jittery when it comes to their emotional polemics against the Faith. They can sense who lacks confidence and self-esteem especially in person (body language) and even on the net with the way somebody is interacting.

There’s a lot of psychology behind evangelical Christian missionaries who try to rob Muslims of faith in the Revelation of Allah. They actively look for people who struggle with English because they think they are easier targets for various reasons (i.e. the Christian can conflate the West with Christianity and thus misappropriate secular Western achievement to Christianity, it’s easier for them to dominate and manipulate a conversation if the other person has a weaker command of the language and we both know that there is an undercurrent in the West which portrays people not educated in Western institutes as lesser thinkers), their ideal is those with inferiority complexes – inferiority complexes when it comes to the West and folks who have elements of self hate within them. A great way to deal with these missionaries is to go head on and use the premises in their arguments against them.

For instance, they will talk about the Prophet being involved in war and put it alongside the Jesus of the Gospel (A Jesus who was never the head of a state nor of a group large enough to wrestle control of the region away from the oppressive Romans so it’s the fallacy of false comparisons although if that’s what they want to do, be their guest and compare Prophet Muhammad with Trinitarian Jesus!).

The premise here is somebody using violence and warfare cannot be from God. Point at the Prophets in the OT – Moses – who used violence and warfare (e.g vs the Midianites in Numbers). But go further, talk about the Trinity idea teaching Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity thus Trinitarians essentially believe Jesus ordered the killing of women and children (1 Samuel 15:3).

Likewise, for the issue of polygamy, tell them Jesus did not forbid it according to Biblical Trinitarians and appears to allow it (Exodus 21:10) and he even says he GAVE David his wives according to Trinitarians (2 Samuel 12:8). In this instance you can also point to one of the sparks for their breakaway church movement, Martin Luther. Luther is on record saying nothing in Christian scripture forbids polygamy. [It will be a really Westernised Christian who brings the issue of polygamy up and he/she may find this very difficult and thus jump at the One Flesh verse (Gen 2:24) – they believe MOSES wrote such yet he had more than one wife so clearly the author’s understanding of the one flesh verse could not have been a proscription of polygyny].

Let’s talk about female slaves, they will bring this up. They may have even been taught to say Muslims are allowed to rape female slaves. Of course this is a prurient lie as part of their propaganda of demonisation (but the Christian you’re speaking to may not know this, so be gentle). To respond,say, “OK clearly you believe in the rights and well treatment of slaves, especially female slaves, I respect that as that is what we as Muslims are taught. But before I show you our teachings I want to share what Trinitarians believe Jesus allowed with respect to slaves, this may sound shocking so do look it up and think about it when you have some time later on, he allowed the severe beating of female slaves as long as they got up after a couple of days (Ex 21:20-21). Female slaves were taken as captives of war and married in the OT. There are some secularists, and perhaps liberal Christians, who say this was rape in the Bible but for me I don’t believe God allows rape as we are taught in the Quran (Quran 4:36) to treat slaves well and the Prophetic teaching (Sahih Muslim) is that one cannot even slap a slave – clearly rape would transgress those teachings thus cannot be allowed.”

Notice, what we’ve done my dear, we’ve started planting seeds and educating the Christian friend.

Don’t say any of this aggressively to them, say it how an educator would. You’re the teacher here. You’ve got to be the guide here. This Christian is in severe spiritual danger and his reckless elders may have effectively nudged him on to the precipice of leaving Biblical Christianity and the Abrahamic tradition.

Remember, if they come to you, your demeanour is key, you MUST be confident. Don’t be all jittery, they will sense it and that’s what they want to see. Speak with clarity and purpose. Be smart and informed, if you’re not, they will pick up on it and they will not be influenced as much by you, in fact they will take it as a cue to start influencing you! Be sophisticated and focussed, don’t bang on about America bombing Iraq like some emotional wreck – that’s not the time or place. The number of Muslims I see rattling on about Iraq, British and American imperialism in these discussions is staggering, to be honest it’s neither helpful nor relevant. It can come across as cringe-worthy and embarrassing. The Christian did not come to you as a representative of America, in many cases the Christian is not even American and is against Trump, Bush etc.. It’s a theological discussion, not political. There’s a time and place for remonstrating against the bombings of innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan etc. and the contentious issue of Palestine...this discussion is not that time or place.

Take on the role of the educator in the dialogue. The evangelical missionaries have been set up to try and rob you of your faith using secular arguments – their leaders saw how the secularists decimated Christendom in Western Europe and now they have borrowed that polemical style from them because it was effective against their own faith! The only reason why it was effective was because the Christians had been conditioned to think of Western civilisation and Western laws as the pinnacle thus the Church ended up allowing divorce (their teachings do not allow divorce except in the case of adultery), staying silent on sex before marriage and even inviting Bill and Bob, and Jill and Jean, to come into their churches to get “married”. They did all this to appease their congregations who became Westerners at heart rather than true Bible believers.

They’ve lost confidence in their Book. Don’t allow them to try and do the same to you with respect to Islam.

ALWAYS REMEMBER: These evangelical Christians have been conned, they’ve been conned by “Christian” folks who have given them a load of polemics against Islam which, if applied consistently, would mean the Christian would reject Christianity and Biblical teachings. These Christian missionaries, once they wake up and start thinking about what they’re saying, are in danger of leaving the Abrahamic tradition because their Christian leaders was set them up to stumble. The evangelical Christian NEEDS you in this instance. You can be a light for them and a light for their nations. But you’ve got to be smart, sophisticated, educated, confident and concerned. YOU can do it.

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?