Tag : Reli­gion

The recent bar­rage of mis­sion­ary demen­tia gives us a mar­velous oppor­tu­ni­ty to expose the char­ac­ter of the mis­sion­ary Sam Shamoun, his men­tal dis­or­der and the extremes he is will­ing to under­take in order to unleash his abus­es and prej­u­dice towards Mus­lims. Indeed, he con­vinc­ing­ly demon­strates that he is a con­firmed Islam­o­phobe. The dis­cus­sion is con­cern­ing the use of the term ​“mis­sion­ary”. The mis­sion­ary claims that we should not refer to him as a mis­sion­ary because even though he is a mis­sion­ary, many Mus­lims nev­er­the­less have alleged ​“neg­a­tive” views con­cern­ing the title ​“mis­sion­ary” accord­ing to his opin­ion. Hence he argues that we are mak­ing an ad hominem attack against him every time we right­ful­ly call him a mis­sion­ary. He claims that his argu­ments will be alleged­ly dis­missed before­hand by Mus­lims when they find out that he is a missionary.

When the Evan­ge­list becomes a Shaikh, the angels become poly­the­ists, wor­ship­ping Adam instead of Allah. When the Evan­ge­list becomes a Shaikh, the Nasikh becomes Man­sukh, the Mut­laq becomes Muqayyad and the ​‘Aamm becomes Makhsus, and vice-ver­sa. Not that it is not hilar­i­ous to read for Evan­ge­lists-turned-Shaikhs. It is at the dis­cov­ery of the lev­el of hor­rif­ic con­fu­sion and plain errors con­tained in the ​“fatawa” of the many Evangelists/​Shaikhs who sprung up in recent years that inten­si­fies one’s amaze­ment and baf­fle­ment, espe­cial­ly not­ing the lev­el of pub­lic­i­ty the writ­ings of the new Shaikhs receive in the west­ern media.

Some crit­ics of Islam have reviled the Prophet(P) as a self-indul­gent lib­er­tine. They have accused him of char­ac­ter fail­ings that are hard­ly com­pat­i­ble with…

Chris­tians believe that Paul of Tar­sus is the ​‘Apos­tle’ of Jesus(P), whom he met in a vision on his jour­ney to Dam­as­cus. Paul is also claimed to be the author of the Epis­tles to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthi­ans, Gala­tians, Eph­esians, Philip­pi­ans, Colos­sians, 1 and 2 Thes­sa­lo­ni­ans, 1 and 2 Tim­o­thy, Titus, Phile­mon and Hebrews. It is there­fore strange that this self-con­fessed ​‘Apos­tle’ of Jesus Christ fails to pay more atten­tion to the words of Jesus (P) him­self in his epis­tles. To what extent has the Pauline let­ters shaped the selec­tion of the gospels of the New Tes­ta­ment as canon today ? This arti­cle will exam­ine the evi­dence and present its con­clu­sions on the mat­ter, insha’allah.

While Chris­tians would pre­fer to allude to the notion that Paul, the self-acclaimed ​“apos­tle” of Jesus, was ​“inspired” when he wrote his epis­tles, the evi­dences we have researched states oth­er­wise. We have seen how Paul had cit­ed a verse from the ​“apoc­ryphal books of Eli­jah” but claimed that he was cit­ing from the book of Isa­iah. Appa­rant­ly this cit­ing of quo­ta­tions from apoc­ryphal or Rab­binic writ­ings was not alien to Paul, for in the epis­tles of Paul, there are abun­dant signs that he was extreme­ly famil­iar with Rab­ban­ic mate­r­i­al and con­stant­ly refers to them. This is not sur­pris­ing since Paul him­self had admit­ted to famil­iar­i­ty with Jew­ish tra­di­tions under the tute­lage of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3).

There is an inter­est­ing obser­va­tion made by a pro-Torah Chris­t­ian and he has issued a ​“chal­lenge” to Pauline Chris­tians regard­ing Paul’s (mis)understanding of the…

We read the fol­low­ing teach­ings of the so-called ​“apos­tle” from Tar­sus, Paul, writ­ten in his epis­tles as fol­lows : If pos­si­ble, so far as it depends…

The fol­low­ing is our par­tial response to the tirade authored by the bel­liger­ent Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ary Sam Shamoun, to be found here. This arti­cle will…