Occasionally, we come across Christians face-to-face and, more frequently, on the Internet, who, when informed that the text of the gospels underwent corruption during their transmission, often react with the following type of questions : “When ? Who did the corruption ? In what country ? Before or after Muhammad ? Why was it done ? How come no one noticed it?” These type of seemingly “innocent” questions merely reveal the incalculably colossal ignorance of the person in question.
Certainly there is no reason why a Muslim who knows his religion would not be outraged at the words cited from a medievel emperor, and it is justifiably so. What we would like to know is, how could Pope Benedict XVI have quoted from a power-crazy emperor whose hostility towards Islam was well-known ? As the person considered as the “Vicar of Christ” leading a majority of the world’s Christian population who ascribe to the Catholic faith, the Pope should be promoting peace and harmony between the two faiths.
This paper is intended to respond to atheistic criticism as proposed by Richard Carrier, in a rather large piece that is in my personal opinion and understanding, replete with errors and misunderstandings with regards to basic cosmological concepts, the Islamic viewpoint, as well as history. I also address a few polemics that were put forward by Freethought Mecca. Their article contains the particular objections that I shall address Insha’Allah, along with a spurious argument for Isaiah and then a few links to some other polemical sites ; needless to say at least for now these few objections are the only ones that are relevant to this particular paper.
Recently Sam Shamoun, a well-known belligerent and provocative Christian missionary at Answering Islam, issued a challenge to Muslims to prove that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not claim to be God, as per the Qur’anic statement. It is obvious, however, that his demands are as preposterous as it is stupid. The Qur’an certainly quotes or paraphrases Jesus as saying that he is not God, but in Arabic. This is because the Qur’an has affirmed itself to be revealed in Arabic text, sent down to an Arab prophet, lest its audience uses the excuse that they will not be able to understand the Qur’an if were brought down in a foreign tongue.
Recently we were introduced to a new, amusing polemic by the missionaries, namely with regard to the word “ahad(un)”. To achieve this end, the missionaries cite an online text from a Christian Arab polemicist who claims that the word does not mean “one”, but “one of”. Is it true what they claim ? We seek to answer this allegation in the following, insha’allah.
Cartoons are doing what so many could not : Unifying Muslims across the globe. On the other hand, a growing number of brave freedom-fighters, led by…
The Orientalists and Christian missionaries have been parroting for some time the farcical notion that the Ottomon Caliphate was responsible for what is now…
The historical distortion perpetrated on historical thinking by Thomas F. Madden is not a new fallacious concept introduced by contemporary Christian revisionists but has been prevalent since the emergence of Islam on world stage. For many centuries, the Christian historians and orientalists directly promulgated lies and fabrications about Islam in order to instil prejudice against the Muslims. And yet in the modern age, Christian fundamentalist historians still continue to carry the flag and propagate indirectly their revisionist theories regarding Islam.
In the usual vein of missionary tradition, the missionaries have made a rather pathetic attempt at “refuting” one of our articles which shows the Bible perversion in encouraging homosexuality. Previously, we have shown in another exposition how the so-called “apostle” from Tarsus had displayed some homosexual tendencies. In the later part of this article, we will provide some examples of how the Christians have practised this particular teaching from the Bible in their day-to-day lives.
Some time ago, MENJ published Hans Kung’s view of the Prophet Muhammad(P) along with a brief editor’s note. It seems that Jochen Katz was quite outraged at this but more so at the “editor’s note” and soon after published a “response”. In short, Katz is saying that Kung only expressing his own personal opinion about the Prophet Muhammad(P). and does not represent all Christians. He objects to the editor’s following statement (underlined by Katz): “… Hans Kung conveys the Christian opinion on Prophet Muhammad(P).” Of course the editor did not argue that Hans Kung is representing all the Christians and has recently corrected his statement so that it now reads : “…Hans Kung conveys a Christian opinion on Prophet Muhammad(P).” Certainly, there is no one view among Christians regarding Prophet Muhammad(P) and so, just as Hans Kung does not speak for all Christians, Answering Islam certainly does not speak for all Christians.
Answering Islam has posted an early reaction in objection to our publishing of Han Kung on the Prophet Muhammad (P). There are several issues in this reaction by Jochen Katz, the de factodictator of Answering Islam, that needs to be corrected. We shall briefly respond to each of the allegations.
Recently I came across email exchanges that took place between Jalal Abualrab and the Christian missionary Sam Shamoun. I have heard that the missionary Shamoun is a very abusive, malicious and nasty individual, constantly mocking and abusing Islam as his hobby. After reading the mail exchanges, it became clear to me that this missionary is indeed a very arrogant and abusive person. I was surprised to see that Katz, who generally maintains a polite tone, did not say a word to condemn Shamoun’s abusive behaviour. In this paper I would like to comment upon the discussion and offer my own perspective, views and observations as a reader.
Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi Recently “Freethought Mecca”, an anti-Islamic website of atheist persuasion, came forth with an article that claimed to have found at least…
In one of their pages, Answering Islam had made the following claim with the clear intention of “poisoning the well” where Muslim sites are concerned. The rest of the page goes on to either debase or discredit Muslim websites for their dependency on “atheist” material and preaching about the lack of “conscience” on the part of Muslims to abandon atheist material (notwithstanding the fact that most of the links on their page are either broken or no longer exist).
The Muslim scholars hold three views with regard to this incident. The sorcery whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) was exposed to is merely a usual disease and a transient illness, this is possible in regard to the Prophets as is to any human being. It does not disprove prophethood or disturb the message or revelation. God the Exalted protected His Prophet from whatever interferes with the mission of conveying the message and from being killed, not from transient physical diseases.
Nabeel Qureshi died at the age of 34 years old in 2017 from a “rare and deadly form of stomach cancer” on 16th of September 2017 with mixed reactions.
But the first of the four gospels, i.e., the Gospel according to Mark, apparently did not receive Paul’s memo. And this is a very important point as we keep in mind that each of the gospels were initially divorced from each other and were written in different localities for different audiences.
So which is the correct Gospel account concerning the choice of Jesus’ first apostles ? The following Bible contradiction was extracted from an unpublished thesis entitled Ibn Hazm On The Doctrine of Tahrif which cites Kitab al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal and insha’allah this will be part of an ongoing series to reproduce extracts of Ibn Hazm’s criticisms of the Bible and Christianity.