Is one form of paganism “better” than another? According to one “Chickie”, the answer is yes!

As-salaam alaikum.  My YouTube discussion with the Christian apologist “dhc21” has taken an interesting turn.  Apparently unable to respond to my incessant and undeniable evidence of pagan influences on the Bible, “dhc21” offered the following little nugget:

“Thanks Faiz but if paganism is what I worship then it is better than Mohammed’s version of paganism. Thanks for the invite but I most humbly decline the invitation to the dark side, Darth.”

This was in response to my comment on the pagan influences on the prayer of Jacob in Genesis 49.  Here is what I wrote:

Did you know that Genesis 49 contains more clear proof of borrowing from pagan mythology? Here are the relevant verses:

“But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed[l] limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, 25 because of your father’s God, who helps you, because of the Almighty,[m] who blesses you with blessings of the skies above, blessings of the deep springs below, blessings of the breast and womb. 26 Your father’s blessings are greater than the blessings of the ancient mountains, than[n] the bounty of the age-old hills. Let all these rest on the head of Joseph, on the brow of the prince among[o] his brothers.”

The translation is very deceptive. The actual Hebrew text contains references to “El” (instead of “your father’s God”), the “Bull of Jacob” (instead of “the Mighty One of Jacob”), and “Shadday” (instead of “Almighty”; “Shadday” was another Canaanite name for El). But here is the SHOCKER! Scholars believe that “breast and womb” is a reference to the PAGAN GODDESSES ASHERAH and ANAT!!! In the Masoretic text, the Hebrew is “sadayim waraham”. According to Professor Mark Smith: “The phrase sadayim waraham…echoes Ugaritic titles of the goddesses Asherah and Anat.” WOW!! Did I just hear your jaw drop? Run away from this paganism, dude. It’s for your own good. Come to Islam. You will be glad you did.

Obviously, this apologist has never heard any of this stuff.  But it is well-known to scholars.  So what was his response?  Essentially, it was that his “paganism” is better than Muhammad’s alleged “paganism”!  Is this a monotheist or an idol worshiper?  That’s like saying “my god is better and stronger than your god”!  Naturally, I responded to his pitiful logic:

WOW! So, you think that one “version” of paganism is better than another? First of all, paganism is paganism. It leads to hell. Period. Second, there is no paganism in Islam. Islam is purely monotheistic. Unfortunately for you, your Bible is full of pagan influences. Like I said, be honest with yourself. You have been lied to by the likes of David Wood and Jack Chick. Chick is dead now. He will endure an eternity in hell. So will you and Wood if you don’t repent.

The context of Genesis 49 is again irrelevant. Whatever the purpose of the prayer was is not the point. The point is why does Genesis use pagan symbolism? Why did it appeal to the pagan goddesses Asherah and Anat? This is a question that you need to answer, for the good of your soul. Stop lying to yourself. Grow up and face the facts.  

Let us hope that he at least looks into this matter with the utmost seriousness, instead of burying his head in the ground.  Sadly, most people would prefer to live in denial, and Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) guides whom He wills.  Let us pray that “dhc21” will be guided. 

Disclaimer:  The quote from Professor Mark Smith is from his book “The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel”, 1987. 

 

Advertisements

Update – Discussion With Another “Chickie” – “Allah Had No Son”

As-salaam alaikum.  The Christian apologist “dhc21” finally responded to my last comment.  The discussion has been updated with the new comments here:

https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/10/discussion-with-another-chickie-allah-had-no-son/

Moses, Yahweh and the name Joseph

An excellent point about the origin of the name “Yahweh” which deserves further research.

Islamic Archives

Many claim that  Joseph is a theophoric-name rooted in the word Yahweh, meaning  “Yahweh will Add” instead of “He will Add”. Now we know that the name Yahweh was first revealed to Moses:

Exodus 6:3 English Standard Version

I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD(Yahweh) I did not make myself known to them.

If the name Yahweh was first revealed to Moses, and Moses came after the Prophet Joseph, how can Joseph be “Yahweh will Add”.?

View original post

Discussion With Another Chickie – “Allah Had No Son”

Here is another discussion with a brainwashed Chickie, who posted Chick’s tract “Allah Had No Son” on YouTube.  Notice how he jumps to different issues, which is quite typical for these types.  They copy what they read from pseudo-scholarly and biased Christian sources, but hardly ever engage in serious research.

 

One of Chick’s more nonsensical and poorly researched tracts. Anyone who bothers to do some research will see that Chick was a fraud who liked to spread lies about other religions: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2017/11/08/islam-jack-chick-and-the-battle-for-souls-allah-had-no-son/

dhc21atyahoo

That is a bold statement. But, just like the Quran, it is a baseless claim. Mohammed borrowed from the religions and cultures of his time to make up his own religion. He was first a polytheist then become a monotheist. Mohammed claimed it was perfectly fine to pray to the 3 goddesses mentioned in the Chick tract, also known as the satanic verses. Why would Allah trick Mohammed to pray to these 3 goddesses? Was Mohammed fooled by satan? If so then Mohammed is a false prophet.

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Lol, what a typical response from a brainwashed apologist! No, Muhammad did not tell people to worship the three goddesses. Islam is a monotheistic religion. The Satanic verses story is hogwash and no serious scholar, Muslim or Non-Muslim believes it is authentic. Next time, do some actual research rather than parroting the same nonsense over and over again. You’re embarrassing yourself.

dhc21atyahoo

LoL, allow me to quote you ” I welcome constructive criticism and and am always willing to learn more”, ” hope your visit to this quiet place in cyberspace will be a pleasant one!” …brainwashed, parroting, embarrassing… is that the response from a supposed scholar? If you are the superior scholar and have arrived at the truth then you would know better. Hey scholar, I have a question for you( there will be many more), how did Mohammed die and what did he attribute his death to?

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Lol, allow me to illustrate how an ignoramus redirects when cornered in a discussion: change the topic. Constructive criticism, you say? Lol, it sounds more like propaganda from an Islamophobe.

dhc21atyahoo

The 2nd LoL, Mohammed borrowed from the Sabeans (sp?) he started out as a polytheist, the 5 pillars are not his idea and neither is the idol worship of kissing the stone . It’s from a meteorite. When he was ridiculed and had enough from the polytheists he became a monotheist just like the christians and jews of his time. But the christians and jews laughed him off the farm so he went to his own funny farm with his own creation. He made it up, he made all of it up. The fact that you keep attacking my education/research reveals that you are afraid, very afraid of the truth. Don’t be scared, the truth shall set you free. Jesus said ” I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”. Allow me to make a prediction about your tactics: you will resort to intimidation (check) then you will resort to bribery (will wait on that one). Since those two will not work you will eventually resort to violence because your name calling game will not work. By the way you are ahead in the name calling department 4 – 0. Here is another question, since you avoided the last question with a “redirects” excuse: what did Mohammed say that made him victorius?

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Rotfl! So now you’re resorting to revisionism? Name one scholar who believes your nonsense. Get an education first, dude. You are really embarrassing yourself!

dhc21atyahoo

And the sound of crickets chirping goes on and on. Let us say for the purposes of this exchange that I am revising, redirecting, under-educated, misdirecting and just flat out ignorant. That means that my response about the Chick tract is useless. However, as a superior scholar you would relish the challenge of answering the two questions that an ignoramus proposed so you could provide a grade-A+ education. But, the sound of crickets keeps chirping, your name calling is increasing, and there are still no answers from the scholar. Question number 3 and a bonus question 4: was Mohammed a white man that owned black slaves? Was Mohammed a racist? Take your time answering any one or all 4, do some research if you like. I will wait, with the crickets.

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Hahaha, and the train-wreck continues. With every comment, you prove that you are indeed an uneducated moron who simply copies propaganda that he reads from other ignorant apologists instead of engaging in serious and honest research. Check out my blog for answers, if you dare. I responded to other Chick Tracts as well. My intention is to respond to all of them in time, inshaAllah. Go on, if you dare, you silly trinitarian pagan. Oh, I’m sorry. Did I resort to name-calling again? 😉

dhc21atyahoo

LoL even Youtube thinks you are a fraud. You’re last comment was flagged as spam. I am not sure if that was an algorithm or an actual person that flagged your message/comment, but either way, your message is spam and thus, so is Mohammed’s. You won’t/can’t defend or respond to the questions because the Quran self destructs when trying to support itself. Just like you after you read my comments/questions. Well, just remember, when the going gets too tough for you and you cannot find any “truth” any Mo’ then call for Jesus. He will respond and come to your assistance. Until the next time

Faiz S.

Hahaha, so I take it you are afraid to find out what a fraud your master Chick was! What are you afraid of? Doing some real research for a change? Your idiotic questions have been answered on the blog, stupid. You just keep jumping from one issue to another, yet you have not presented one scholarly source to support any of them. What else can we expect from a loser who just copies and pastes from like-minded idiots like David Wood! Oh, I’m sorry. Did I call you names again?

dhc21atyahoo

LoL nice try, I already read your blog, twice, before you sent your link again. My work is done. Youtube thinks your responses are canned spam, lol, and so do I. May the blessings of Jesus and the Holy Spirit be fruitful to you Faiz.

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Lol, oh really? You read the entire blog, huh? Wow, you must be a fast reader…or you just pretend to be one. Just like you pretend to be a monotheist, but are in fact a pagan. Tell me pagan, what does your god look like? If you’re not sure, go read Daniel 7 for a hint. 😉

dhc21atyahoo

Just an average speed, reader. I read your Chick blog before I made my first response to you. I read it again after your third response. Daniel described the appearance of the Ancient of Days as one with a white robe and wool like (white) hair and sitting on a fiery throne. Now since I answered one of your questions, when are you going to type your answer to one of my questions? Daniel, the crickets, and I will wait for your answer, pick one!

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Lol, still running? I gave you links, stupid. Go on and read at your average pace, if you dare. 😉 Not so fast, pagan. Daniel 7’s description of your god is borrowed from Canaanite mythology. In the Canaanite pantheon, El was an elderly deity seated on a throne just like Yahweh. In fact, your Bible borrows alot of imagery from Canaanite paganism and applies it your god. So, your god comes with the clouds, like Baal. Your god fights Leviathan, a sea monster, just like Baal fights Yamm, a sea monster. Shall I provide more examples?

 

UPDATE – 01/12/2018-

The Christian finally responded.  Here are the new comments:

Ahh OK for a minute I thought you were going to say that the revelation was false, whew, you really avoided stepping into that one. Still reading, be patient.

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Hahaha, it is false! Your god has been pieced together from pagan mythology! You worship part El, part Baal and part Yahweh.

dhc21atyahoo

Faiz S. Wait a minute, didnt Allah inspire/write the bible and also send his greatest prophet , Jesus ? Say it aint so Faiz. LoL

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Lol, here is the typical deflection! You truly are a brainwashed little drone aren’t you? No, Allah did not “inspire” your Bible. Your Bible was written by uninspired, anonymous heretics. I just showed you the proof. Your Bible borrowed from Canaanite mythology to create a hybrid god. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself, dude? ROTFL!!!

dhc21atyahoo

Faiz S. Hmmm I remember somewhere in the Koran it says that the people of the book , bible, should judge by that book or else they are sinners. By the way, Daniel was/is an exemplary servant of God. He had faith even in the face of death. On the other hand, Mohammed was both morally bankrupt snd spiritually disturbed.

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Still running? Your knowledge of the Quran is really bad, so you should keep your mouth shut so you don’t keep embarrassing yourself. The book of Daniel was written by anonymous people, you fool. Why do you keep avoiding the clear truth that your god is a hybrid Canannite deity and not the One True God?

dhc21atyahoo

Faiz S. Thank you. I gladly accept your invitation to talk/type more on the Koran. Sura 5 verse 47, paraphrased: Allah instructs Jews and Christians to judge by the gospel . What was that sound? Was that sound your jaw hitting the floor? LoL, or was it you dropping your Koran? Sura 4 verse 157, paraphrased: Allah tricked people into believing that Jesus was crucified. He had a stunt man take his place! Perhaps you, as a research scholar, can tell us the deep and far reaching implication of these two verses from the Koran. All eyes are on you.

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Lol, STILL avoiding the pagan origins of your god?! I know, your jaw hit the ground upon hearing that your god is a hybrid Canaanite deity. It must be tough finding out that you have been worshiping the wrong god. A tad embarrassing, right? The “Gospel” the Quran refers to is not the pathetic anonymous “gospels” written by your fake apostles. Come on, dude. Surely you can do better? Stop copying David Wood and other frauds.

dhc21atyahoo

Faiz S. Lol even your answers contain the same contradictions as the Koran. The depth of your depraved indifference is on par with the deception in the Koran and the schizophrenic , self serving revelations of Mohammed.

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo ROTFL, STILL avoiding your hybrid god???? Man, you must really be devastated and afraid. As I said stupid, your pathetic anonymous “gospels” are not what is meant by the Injeel. The word “Gospel” does not only mean the Synoptic gospels. It simply meant the message of Jesus. What do you think your false apostle Paul was referring to when he criticized those who were preaching a “different gospel”? See what you did? You dug yourself a bigger hole! How much humiliation can you endure?

dhc21atyahoo

Faiz S. What was the message of Jesus?

dhc21atyahoo

Faiz S. What was the “different gospel” message?

Faiz S.

Deflecting again?! That seems to happen every time you get schooled. So do you admit that when the Quran refers to the “Gospel”, it is not referring to your anonymous “gospels”? The message of Jesus (pbuh)? Well, let’s go to the Quran, shall we? “He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; “And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; “(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable; “So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)”!” (Surah Maryam, 19:30-33) “Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight.” (19:35) “When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: “Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me.  “For Allah, He is my Lord and your Lord: so worship ye Him: this is a Straight Way.”” (43:63-64) Is that clear for you? Now, will you kindly explain why you worship a hybrid Canaanite deity? Do tell. I am dying to know!
Update – 01/13/2018

dhc21atyahoo

Faiz S. LoL is that his message…i love mom, allah is god, and by the way I’m smart too. Is that the entire message of Jesus? Ba ha ha ha ha ha… wait, I’m sorry for laughing, wait, no I’m not, ba ha ha ha ha…Faiz your response to the question is weak at best and very superficial! Here, why did Allah save Jesus from the crucifixion but let Mohammed die a humiliating death as a false prophet(severed aorta) or at the very least, he was poisoned by a jewish woman! Jesus must have been his favorite huh?

dhc21atyahoo

Faiz S. Answering your question… I don’t worship what you described, you do. You worship the Mother of all Harlots…

dhc21atyahoo

Hey thanks for posting it to your blog. I do appreciate you telling me 🙂

Faiz S.

LOL, jumping from issue to issue like a good little brainwashed zombie, eh? Hahahaha, I am loving this! Jesus (pbuh) has to come back to earth. That is his fate and mission. Once that happens, then he will die like everyone else. The manner of death makes no difference, silly boy. Didn’t Jesus accuse the Jews of killing many prophets? Does that make them false prophets then? The irony of this is that you believe that he was killed in the most humiliating way the Romans could think of! Imagine! A man in a loin-cloth, beaten to a bloody pulp and then nailed to a cross for everyone to laugh and jeer at! What could be more humiliating than that? Is this really the best you can do? Childish and predictable arguments that have been regurgitated by other buffoons? You are an embarrassment to your religion! You make it too easy!

dhc21atyahoo

Only if they died as a result of what God said that a false prophet would and how they died. Which is what and how Mohammed died. Jews killed their prohets because they were stiff necked/stubborn. Why stubborn, becasue they preferred worshipping idols, just like you, instead of the true God, you know the one that sits in a fiery throne with a white robe and white hair lol.

Faiz S.

LOL, you didn’t answer the question you moron! I asked you to explain why you worship a hybrid Canaanite deity. I gave you the evidence. Your god is part El and part Baal. Some scholars also include Asherah in that hybrid mess too! Read the following books and get educated: The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel – by Mark S. Smith Yahweh’s Coming of Age – by Jason Bembry Face it. You are a pagan. You worship a pagan deity: an old man who sits on a throne and who fights sea monsters. So, it is you who worships the “mother of all harlots”. You are the one going to hell for being an idolater!

Faiz S.

LOL, talk about a circular argument! Muhammad was a “false prophet” because he died like a “false prophet”! Christian logic strikes again! What exactly is the death of a “false prophet” supposed to look like? You silly pagan! Don’t you know that your own Bible says that someone who is hung on a pole is “cursed”: “…because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse” (Deut. 21:23). Hahahaha, poor pagan got refuted by his own Bible! The Jews certainly did rebel against God. They rebelled by incorporating pagan mythology into the true religion sent by God. That is why your god is a Canaanite hybrid. I can see that you are deathly afraid of this conundrum, which is why you are staying away from it. You are clueless, aren’t you? What’s the matter, sweetie? Your pseudo-scholars David Wood et al. didn’t tell you what to say on this matter? Did you just admit to worshiping an old man? Your god has “white hair” like an old man? WOW!! Thank you for admitting that you worship a pagan deity!

dhc21atyahoo

I did answer your question, try to keep up.

dhc21atyahoo

LoL hence your poor understanding of the relationship between the old Testament and the new Testament, or perhaps I should ask you, what is the relationship between these two sets of books? Do you know? Yes or no will not suffice. Mohammed was a false prophet because of the way he died. It looks like your ability to think and read is being crushed by the weight of the guilt in your mind for being so deceitful, no? lol…

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo No you didn’t idiot. Try and keep up. You simply said “no” without dealing with the evidence. Your denial is not an answer. You worship a pagan god. Did you know that Leviathan is part of Canaanite myth? And where does this monster show up? The Bible! And who is the only one who can kill the beast? Ding, ding, ding! Yep, it’s “Yahweh”. The similarity to Canaanite mythology about Baal and Yamm could not be more obvious. Just admit it already. You have no clue how to figure out this conundrum. You have no explanation for why your Bible borrowed from pagan mythology.

dhc21atyahoo

Deutoronomy 21: 22-23 22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: 23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. There is the full context of the old laws of the jews before Jesus. Everything you accuse me of doing in believing in the Bible is just you projecting what you know to be true about the Koran. You are entirely deceived and no man or woman can reach you in the rabbit holes you run through. Your thinking is just like plot in the movie The Matrix, lol. Please, take the red pill!

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Hahaha, still no answers, just more deflections. The Tanakh refutes your New Testament. By saying that your mangod died on a cross, you are admitting that he was cursed by your god. Lol, God cursed himself? That’s the incoherence of Christianity for you!

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo ROTFL, trying to week your way out by appealing to context? You Christians always cast aside the context when using the Tanakh for your nefarious purpose. The text says that he who is hanged is cursed. It doesn’t matter who it is. Any person who is hanged is cursed by God.

dhc21atyahoo

Nope it only shows your ignorance of the facts. He was crucified by the Romans at the urging of the religious ruling class of the jews which Jesus called out as traitors to their own people because they led them astray. Again, some Imam certainly has filled your head full of something. You have the least intuition and understanding of the two testaments. Right now I am going to lean towards the feeling that you do it on purpose. I don;t think it is by accident because your english seems OK.

dhc21atyahoo

The reason folks like yourself cannot find Jesus is the same reason criminals cannot find a policeman….they aren’t looking !

dhc21atyahoo

Here is an example of how you think: “Turkish Professor Claims Koran Flood Story Tells of Muslim Noah Calling Son on Cell-Phone” Read more at https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/100828/turkish-professor-claims-koran-flood-story-tells-muslim-noah-calling-son-cell-phone/#lYMILoHkUrkX2gyp.99 Ba ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…..let me catch my breath…wait…..ba ha ha ha ha ha ha…OK carry on.

dhc21atyahoo

No the Bible says that he who denies Jesus is cursed. Jesus said, quote “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”. That is the message of Jesus. Repent, turn away from your way of life and accept the free gift of grace from Jesus. After all, he paid your fine on the cross so you are free to go if you accept the gift. Here is a little present from me to you: https://youtu.be/IE7RKF7LGoI

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Hahahaha, no it seems you have just been brainwashed by your foolhardy church. Full of the holy spirit? No, just full of something else! Your mangod is condemned by the Tanakh as cursed by God. Your god condemns himself. That’s your religion. Don’t blame me for your religion’s incoherence. 😉

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Lol, you keep digging yourself into a bigger hole! Your god is cursed, not me! He should have chosen some other form of death where he wasn’t going to be hanging. Hanging from a cross got himself cursed by himself as per Deuteronomy. What else can we expect from a hybrid Canaanite god?

Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Lol, how desperate are you? Who cares what one professor says? These childish distractions will not save you from the inconvenient truth that you worship a pagan god. You can run but you can’t hide! Turn away from your paganism. Stop worshipping your hybrid god. It will lead you to eternal hell fire.

dhc21atyahoo

God gave us the (Bible) prophets, to expose the frauds like Mohammed who contradicted THE MANY(Bible) prophets. If TRUTH was based on a single man (prophet), how could we determine TRUTH from LIES? How could we test his words (prophecies) ? A Man (prophet) cannot be his own witness. That is why Mohammed is a fraud. Salvation is through Jesus and only Jesus.

dhc21atyahoo

The entire Bible is about one man. The old Testament prophesies his arrival. The new Testament is witness to his life and his purpose on this world. The first time that Jesus came to this world was as a meek lamb to be the sacrifice to pay for ALL of the sins of this world (both yours and mine) and thus reconcile all people to God. The next time that Jesus comes to this world will be in judgement. Every knee will bow and every mouth will acknowledge that Jesus is God on his return. Are you ready, will you be ready? Your very soul and life depends on that. It would be terrible if you are not ready and fall into the hands of God in judgement.

Faiz S.

LOL, your criterion is the Bible? ROTFL!!! The Bible is one of the most unimpressive books ever written! There are so many contradictions, absurdities, and scientific and historical inaccuracies that no rational person would regard it as the word of God. A man can’t be his own witness? HAHAHAHA! Then I guess Daniel was also a fraud! Who witnessed any of Daniel’s “visions”? I guess Jesus too was a fraud! Who witnessed his stay in the wilderness? Muhammad (pbuh) backed up his claims with evidence. He performed miracles. He made prophecies that came true. And he had many witnessed to all of these. Read here for some of his prophecies: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/prophecies-in-the-holy-scriptures-word-of-god-or-folly-of-man-part-iv/ One particularly impressive prophecy has been fulfilled in our time. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said that a time will come when Arabs would compete with each other in constructing tall buildings. In recent times, there has been a building boom in the Middle East! The prophecy has been fulfilled! Alhamdulillah! In contrast, your Bible has TONS of false prophecies: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/prophecies-in-the-holy-scriptures-word-of-god-or-folly-of-man-part-i/ https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/prophecies-in-the-holy-scriptures-word-of-god-or-folly-of-man-part-ii/ Here is just one false prophecy: “When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”

Faiz S.

The Old Testament “prophesies” the coming of Jesus? Oh come on, stop making me laugh so much! This is exactly why your religion is such a mess! You talk about “context” when it suits your purpose, but when it doesn’t, you cast it aside. The “prophecies” you speak of are taken out of context, you buffoon! Here, do some more reading at your average pace: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/the-gospel-of-matthew-and-tanakhic-prophecies-of-the-messiah/ Here is one example of a “prophecy” taken completely out of context: “And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.” The reference to Egypt and God’s “son” is found in Hosea 11, but when read in context, it is clear that not only did it not have anything to do with the Messiah, but that it was not even a prophecy:  “‘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.’”

dhc21atyahoo

**”A man can’t be his own witness? HAHAHAHA! Then I guess Daniel was also a fraud! Who witnessed any of Daniel’s “visions”? I guess Jesus too was a fraud! Who witnessed his stay in the wilderness? “** Other prophets in the Bible made the same prophecies about the end times as Daniel did. That is what is meant by not being your own witness. In other words, Mohammed predicted something and some body would ask how do you know? Mohammed would say because I said so! Mohammed did not have contemporaries that predicted the same things about end times or otherwise. No other prophets have made the same predictions as him.

Faiz S.

HAHAHA, and the “other prophets” were WRONG too! Their “prophecies” did not come true! So, what’s your point? The fact that Muhammad (pbuh) made prophecies that have come true shows that he is a true prophet. And the fact that these were NEW prophecies only strengthens his prophethood, because there is no chance that he copied from someone else. What is the point if all so-called “prophets” copied each other and made the same prophecies? And what would it matter anyway if those prophecies were falsified? You’re not making any sense, dude. Try to think and don’t be swayed by the illogical arguments of your dark masters like David Wood. Free yourself from their clutches and use your reason.

dhc21atyahoo

**“Once for all, I have sworn by my holiness—and I will not lie to David—that his line will continue forever and his throne endure before me like the sun; it will be established forever like the moon, the faithful witness in the sky.” The apologists must be honest and admit that this simply did not happen. The sun has continued to “endure” and the moon has continued to be a “faithful witness in the sky” since David’s time, but his line and his kingdom have not.Status: Failed** Jesus is a descendant of David. Jesus will return a 2nd time to establish an everlasting Kingdom as foretold by Daniel when he interpreted the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar. From the book of Daniel: 31 Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. 32 This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, 33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. 34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. 35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. 36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. 37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. 38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. 39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. 40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. 41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. 43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. 44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

dhc21atyahoo

**One particularly impressive prophecy has been fulfilled in our time. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said that a time will come when Arabs would compete with each other in constructing tall buildings. In recent times, there has been a building boom in the Middle East! The prophecy has been fulfilled! Alhamdulillah!** Have you heard of the Tower of Babel? From the book of Genesis: 1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lordscatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

dhc21atyahoo

***On a side note, the Gospel of Matthew states elsewhere that the end would not come until the “gospel” had been preached throughout the world: “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”[23] This verse seemingly contradicts the prophecy in Matthew 10:23, for it states that the gospel would have to be preached to “all nations”. However, when we consider that the context is again referring to the apostolic age, it is actually not contradictory at all. It is, however, still a false prophecy since the gospel was hardly preached to “all nations” during the apostolic age.[24] Status: Failed*** Thanks for posting this conversation to your blog. Since Jesus has not returned a 2nd time, yet, then this prophecy is not yet fulfilled.

Faiz S.

It is irrelevant if Jesus is related to David or if he will come back. The prophecy says that David’s will last forever. It didn’t. The prophecy failed.

Faiz S.

And what’s your point? Did the Arabs in Muhammad’s time build tall buildings? No, they couldn’t because they were poor. But now, some of them are so wealthy that they can compete with each other to build the tallest structures ever built. First, there was the Burj Khalifa. Now, there is the Kingdom Tower in Saudi Arabia. Be honest with yourself and admit the truth. The prophecy came true.

Faiz S.

The prophecy is Matthew applied to the Apostolic age. Therefore, it cannot be referring to Jesus’ second coming. Thus, it failed.

dhc21atyahoo

Turkish professor makes “scientific claim” about Noah and the flood” As bizarre as Professor Ornek’s claims may sound to Western ears, they were taken seriously by the Turkish public and became the focus of a fierce religious debate. Professor Efrat Aviv, a specialist in Turkey for the Begin- Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, was sure Ornek was serious about his theories, as were the listeners. “To say something insulting about the Koran, even as a joke, could cost this man his life, so it is unlikely he meant it as anything other than serious commentary on the text.” Dr. Aviv told Breaking Israel News. “I watched the interview. He sounded very convincing and clearly believed in his theories. The professor went into great depth and detail, making fine distinctions in the text.” Ahhh now I know why Faiz is so adamant about his misguided and fake historical research. If he were to say it doesn’t make sense then he would be made an example of. I mean his life depends on it!!

Faiz S.

Still trying to distract with this meaningless story? It’s okay, dear. I know you are having trouble answering my devastating critiques of your religion, so you are forced to resort to childish distractions. But back to the pagan origins of your god. Did you know that Genesis 49 contains more clear proof of borrowing from pagan mythology? Here are the relevant verses: “But his bow remained steady,     his strong arms stayed[l] limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,     because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, 25 because of your father’s God, who helps you,     because of the Almighty,[m] who blesses you with blessings of the skies above,     blessings of the deep springs below,     blessings of the breast and womb. 26 Your father’s blessings are greater     than the blessings of the ancient mountains,     than[n] the bounty of the age-old hills. Let all these rest on the head of Joseph,     on the brow of the prince among[o] his brothers.” The translation is very deceptive. The actual Hebrew text contains references to “El” (instead of “your father’s God”), the “Bull of Jacob” (instead of “the Mighty One of Jacob”), and “Shadday” (instead of “Almighty”; “Shadday” was another Canaanite name for El). But here is the SHOCKER! Scholars believe that “breast and womb” is a reference to the PAGAN GODDESSES ASHERAH and ANAT!!! In the Masoretic text, the Hebrew is “sadayim waraham”. According to Professor Mark Smith: “The phrase sadayim waraham…echoes Ugaritic titles of the goddesses Asherah and Anat.” WOW!! Did I just hear your jaw drop? Run away from this paganism, dude. It’s for your own good. Come to Islam. You will be glad you did.

dhc21atyahoo

I won’t copy and paste the entire chapter here since you once again take stuff out of context, but the relevant verse I will paste it here: 1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days. 2 Gather yourselves together, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father. David descended from Joseph, and Jesus descended from David. Joseph was betrayed by his brothers and sold off as a slave and went into Egypt where, in time, he became the 2nd most important individual, thus paving the way for God’s plan for Israel, including Moses, later on. Finally here is the difference between you and I in a nutshell. The difference is the same as the spiritual difference between Issac and Ishmael. Ishmael was the result of Abraham’s and Sarah’s desire and not the will of God. Ishmael was born of a bond-maid (slave). Ishmael’s thinking is on the flesh and on what can be accomplished without God. Issac was born of a free woman. Issac was born from God’s promise to Abraham and Sarah. Issac is the son born after the spirit. Issac’s thinking is on the spirit and what can be accomplished with God. This is also is the difference between arabs and jews. Mohammed was an illiterate 7th century arab. He founded a religion after the flesh and what can be accomplished without God. Thanks Faiz but if paganism is what I worship then it is better than Mohammed’s version of paganism. Thanks for the invite but I most humbly decline the invitation to the dark side, Darth.

Faiz S.

WOW! So, you think that one “version” of paganism is better than another? First of all, paganism is paganism. It leads to hell. Period. Second, there is no paganism in Islam. Islam is purely monotheistic. Unfortunately for you, your Bible is full of pagan influences. Like I said, be honest with yourself. You have been lied to by the likes of David Wood and Jack Chick. Chick is dead now. He will endure an eternity in hell. So will you and Wood if you don’t repent. The context of Genesis 49 is again irrelevant. Whatever the purpose of the prayer was is not the point. The point is why does Genesis use pagan symbolism? Why did it appeal to the pagan goddesses Asherah and Anat? This is a question that you need to answer, for the good of your soul. Stop lying to yourself. Grow up and face the facts.
Why does your Bible seek blessings from “breast and womb”, you pagan? Why does it appeal to Asherah and Anat? Islam, 2. Christianity, 0. It’s looking like a blow-out! LOL!!
dhc21atyahoo

LoL yay we agree on something, paganism will lead to hell. Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that anything outside of their own religion is paganism. Other definitions of paganism: those that worship polytheism, those that pursue their own version of the divine. Anyways so much for definitions. So how does one become saved according to Mohammed and/or Islam? How does one become saved according to Christianity? Your answer to each question will reveal which one qualifies as paganism. Context is everything; however, context is meaningless to those that practice legalism. Jesus despised the legalists of his day, the jewish religious classes of Saducees and Pharisees. And Islam, just like you, is based on legalisms.
Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Aww, this is just getting sad and pathetic! I love it!! Why can’t you give a reasoned response to the evidence of paganism in your Bible? Why do you keep distracting from the issue? Go on, give it a shot. Ask your holy spirit for the answer! The fundamental creed of Islam is that there is only one God, Allah. Islam rejects paganism. It rejects idol worship. It rejects all other gods as false and non-existent. On the other hand, your Bible directly borrows from pagan mythology, as I have shown and which you have struggled monumentally to respond to. It’s pathetic to see a Christian squirm in his ignorance! ROTFL!!!
dhc21atyahoo

I think the ref blew the whistle for two offsides. Goals are nullified. Breasts and womb with blessings, hmm what could it ever mean? Hmmm let me think on this one. Wait, wait, I almost have it….nope not Ashley and Anna…hmmm, ahh yes it means the blessings of children over many generations and that they (the children) shall not want for food because it will be plentiful. I am rubber and you are glue, every name you call me, bounces off of me and sticks to you LoL. Again, your legalistic thinking is the source of your clueless reasoning.
Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Lol, the moron thinks he has it figured out. Oh but wait…the Hebrew phrase is similar to an Ugaritic phrase, which refers to Asherah and Anat! Scholars know better, I think. 🙂 And why would Jacob have thanked breasts and a uterus? What was he, a member of a fertility cult? See, this is the Bible. The book written by heretics who have attributed lies to the great prophets like Jacob (pbuh). Here, they attributed a pagan prayer to the great prophet Jacob. This is why rational people turn away from the Bible.
Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Oops. Forgot to update the score: Islam, 3. Christianity, 0. You better pick up the pace, dude. You are headed for a humiliating blowout!
dhc21atyahoo

Context is everything but not to your legalistic/letter of the law thinking. However I understand your dilemma. Sura 5: 46- 48… 46. In their footsteps, We sent Jesus son of Mary, fulfilling the Torah that preceded him; and We gave him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and confirming the Torah that preceded him, and guidance and counsel for the righteous. 47. So let the people of the Gospel rule according to what Allah revealed in it. Those who do not rule according to what Allah revealed are the sinners. 48. And We revealed to you the Book, with truth, confirming the Scripture that preceded it, and superseding it. So the old Testament, Torah, was fulfilled by the arrival of Jesus. I agree, prophecies in the old Testament predict the arrival of the Messiah. And the new Testament is the testimony of the life of Jesus via his contemporaries. Mohammed showed up 7 centuries later, he is not a contemporary of Jesus, but the apostles are the Contemporaries of Jesus. I understand your dilemma, if you call the Gospels something else then the Bible is false. However if that is true then Islam is false because Islam affirms the Gospels. See above. If you call the Gospels the Gospels (Jesus death, resurrection, Jesus is Lord) then Islam is false again because Jesus said as much. Sherk is very serious. Damned if you don’t and damned if you do. No wonder you have to take it out of context to suit your needs, who can blame you, Mohammed had very convenient revelations that excused his behavior so he could justify his sins.
Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Hahaha, again deflecting? I understand your dilemma. You cannot refute the devastating evidence against your Bible, so you deflect to the Quran. It’s so predictable. Christian apologists are so pathetic! So I ask again. Why does your Bible borrow from pagan mythology? You should be ashamed of worshiping a hybrid god and praying for blessings from pagan goddesses.
dhc21atyahoo

You are locked into a catch-22. You finish your deflecting, then you have more deflecting, then more deflecting ad infinitum. I can’t blame you, I would have to keep on eye on my back if I were you and admitted that Jesus is God. And lastly, to you, because you suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Romans: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. If you want to know what Allah is like, look at Mohammed. If you want to know what God the Father is like, look at Jesus.
Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Lol, still deflecting? Why can’t you answer for your Bible’s paganism? Why do you keep changing the subject? It’s no wonder your religion produces 100 million apostates every year! Once people get educated about your Bible, they run away from it. The only ones who remain are brainwashed dummies like you. I ask again. Why does your Bible apply pagan myths to your god? Why does your Bible make pagan prayers?
dhc21atyahoo

I already answered your pagan question. All you have to do is wait until the second coming of Jesus to see the truth, hopefully you will see it before then. Until that time, God bless you in Jesus’s name. Amen
Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Hahaha, running away now? You had enough of being humiliated? You didn’t answer any thing. I have shown you multiple pieces of evidence of the insidious pagan influence on your Bible. El, Baal, Leviathan, Asherah and Anat all make their presence known in your Bible. When Jesus (pbuh) returns, brainwashed Christians like you will realize that you have been lied to. Your pride keeps you from admitting the truth, but your pride is not worth the price of your soul.
dhc21atyahoo

I bet you’re a holocaust denier too.
Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo ROTFL, oh this is too much!! Are you a comedian because you are a riot! Why do you keep embarrassing yourself like this? What does the holocaust have to do with this? To answer your question though, no I’m not a holocaust denier. I oppose all acts of genocide, whether they are against Jews, Muslims or anyone else. But back to the pagan origins of your Bible. Answer my questions. Stop deflecting and changing subjects.
dhc21atyahoo

I bet you’re an Armenian genocide denier.
Faiz S.

dhc21atyahoo Lol, and the Christian keeps embarrassing himself! No, I don’t deny the Armenian genocide either. But I bet you deny the Bosnian genocide or the current Rohingya genocide. Back to the pagan origins of your Bible. Why.do you keep running?
dhc21atyahoo

I bet you deny the deity of Jesus, his death and his resurrection.
Faiz S.

Hahahaha, well duh! What rational person would believe that Jesus was a “deity”? And of course I deny your contradictory fairy tale about his “death and resurrection”! And as it turns out, so did the earliest followers of Jesus! The following is from one of my articles: Paul was certainly the author of the earliest “canonical” books of the New Testament, but there is little doubt among scholars that there was an even earlier source, known as the Q Gospel.  Even though there is no surviving manuscript of this source, scholars know that it existed, whether as a written source or as an oral tradition.  As Burton L. Mack states:  “…scholars discovered that both Matthew and Luke had used a collection of the sayings of Jesus as one of the ‘sources’ for their gospels, the other being the Gospel of Mark.  Scholars have known for over 150 years that something like Q must have existed, but they took it for granted until recently.”[36] Brown also agreed with the scholarly consensus, though he questioned whether the Q Gospel “contained the oldest traditions about Jesus”,[37] while according to Mack: “It is the earliest written record we have from the Jesus movement.”[38]             So what can the Q Gospel tell us about the resurrection?  As shocking as it may be to Christians, it tells us nothing because the resurrection story is actually completely absent from this early source!  In fact, even later sources like the Didache,[39] placed no importance on the resurrection and failed to even mention it, indicating a gradual development of the concept among Christians.  As Russell Martin explains: “The Didache, the epistle of James, the Gospel of Thomas and Sayings Gospel Q represent a stage in Christianity when the crucifixion and resurrection had not yet achieved any importance.  […] They show no significant interest in miracles as proof of Jesus’ divine status, and little influence of the Pauline teaching of justification by faith or the importance of the crucifixion or resurrection.”[40] So, Christianity developed the concept of the resurrection over time!  The early Q community did not have such a concept.  Rather, they emphasized the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the importance of attaining the “kingdom of God”.[41]  As Mack explains: “Instead of people meeting to worship a risen Christ, as in the Pauline congregations, or worrying about what it meant to be a follower of a martyr, as in the Markan community, the people of Q were fully preoccupied with questions about the kingdom of God in the present and the behavior required if one took it seriously.”[42] https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/raymond-brown-and-the-resurrection-of-jesus/
Faiz S.

Do you deny the Bosnian genocide? Do you deny that the Rohingya Muslims are enduring a genocide as we speak?
dhc21atyahoo

LoL I bet you are an anit-christ.
Faiz S.

LOL, no my boy. You are the anti-Christ, because you worship him as a “God”, whereas he worshiped the true God. You are nothing more than a pagan. Jesus (pbuh) was a great prophet of God, and on the Day of Judgment, he will be a witness against you. After that, your eternal sojourn hell will begin. You are a pagan who worships an old man seated on a throne, who battled sea monsters like Baal. Your book makes prayers in the name of the pagan goddesses Asherah and Anat. Oh pagan! Repent to God and shun the false religion of Christianity!
dhc21atyahoo

Do you know Mohammed’s nick name? If I remember right it is…wait…oh yah that’s it…Kimosabee, it means, wrong prophet. Do you know what it means when the choke is flipped and the chain is yanked?
Faiz S.

I know what your nickname should be. It’s based on the scientific system of naming living things. First, you give the genus name, then the species. So, your name is Canis idioticus. Guess what the term “Canis” refers to? It’s the genus that includes dogs, and since you are a Gentile Christian, I think it is appropriate. You know the story of the Phoenician woman and Jesus, right? He referred to Gentiles as “dogs”, so it is appropriate that a Gentile Christian such as yourself should have the honor of being included in the Canis genus. Congratulations! You must be so proud! LOL!!
Faiz S.

Now back to the questions you have not answered. Do you deny the Bosnian or the Rohingya genocides? And I ask yet again…why does your Bible borrow from pagan mythology?
dhc21atyahoo

You are doing such an excellent job of recruiting converts to Islam. So good in fact, I bet you would not be able to be elected dog catcher. Woof woof….
Faiz S.

Actually, a good friend of mine recently converted to Islam, alhamdulillah. How’s your conversion project going? Catch any potential new members of the Canis idioticus family?
dhc21atyahoo

My my you have mastered the art of conversion. I bet that your back sliding rate is near 98%. Oh wait, that’s right, you will kill them if they turn away from Islam. So that makes your back slide rate 98%. Did you brow beat your “good friend” into submission with lie after lie after lie? FYI, that’s a rhetorical question.
Faiz S.

LOL, so I assume you have not succeeded in converting anyone to your pagan religion? Here are some stats for you: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/pf_15-04-02_projectionsoverview_religiousswitching_640px/ Over the course of 40 years or so, your religion will produce over 100 million apostates! Christians are leaving your religion in DROVES! It’s no wonder. You idiots have no clue how to explain the TONS of contradictions, bad history, bad science and not to mention the PAGAN influences in your Bible. Hahahaha, your religion is dying a slow death! I would have more sympathy for you, but it’s obvious you are just an uneducated, ignorant buffoon who is not interested in learning about other people and their way of life. You are content with simply lying about them and demonizing them. My friend was actually an Evangelical Christian. I debated with him for over 10 years. Eventually, something clicked and he realized that Christianity was false. Don’t blame others for doing the right thing just because you are too stupid and proud not to do it. Reasonable people grow up and admit the facts about the Bible and Christianity.

 

Discussion With a Chickie (A Follower of Jack Chick) – “Camel’s In the Tent”

As-salaam alaikum.  I am currently engaged in a discussion with a follower of Jack Chick on YouTube.  I have decided to call such people “Chickies” (if someone has a better suggestion, please let me know).  This particular Chickie, a man by the name of “Robby Santiago”, posted a video of Chick’s racist tract “Camel’s In the Tent”, and so I decided to respond to it.  The discussion has just begun, but here is what has been said so far:

Robby Santiago

Faiz S. I stand for my beliefs and you call me a racist you stand for your beliefs and I call you a man with a different view Are you racist because you have a different view than I have??? I will never bring myself down to the level of taking cheap shots to try to silence others Or try to make somebody feel guilty for coming to their own conclusions Anybody who really wants to get real with the God of all creation , will find him and then they will know which doctrine is true. You believe what you will I will believe what I will and we all will stand before the judgment seat of the true God
 
 
Faiz S.

Robby Santiago Standing for your beliefs is one thing. Demonizing other people, as Chick did in this tract and which you are promoting, is another thing. Did you read my blog? I analyzed the tract in detail and showed that it is just a bunch of propaganda designed to instill fear of the “other”, in this case, Arab Muslims. If that is not racist, then I don’t know what is.
 
 
Robby Santiago

Faiz S. Its not a matter of skin its a matter of fact Ill read it mote later Thanks for reply
 
 
Faiz S.

Robby Santiago What “fact” are you referring to? Xenophobes and racists often talk about “facts” but what they are really talking about is their own prejudice.

Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls – “Is Allah Like You?”

Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls – Response to the Chick Tract “Is Allah Like You?”

View as PDF

“They say: “Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation).” Say thou: “Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with Allah.””

– The Holy Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:135

            This article is a continuation of the series “Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls”.  Continuing with our exposé of the bigoted and ignorant “Chick tracts”, we will now discuss another abhorrent and ludicrous tract titled “Is Allah Like You?”[1]

“Is Allah Like You?” – The Plot

            Like many of Chick’s tracts about Muslims, “Is Allah Like You?” involves a fictional plot about a crazy and violent Muslim man, who undergoes a miraculous change after learning the “truth” about Islam and then learning about Christianity.  The story begins with two children innocently playing (one is chasing the other), when one of them accidentally runs into the mother of one of the children.  Unfortunately, the mother is carrying a pot full of water, which falls on the woman’s husband, whose name is “Ahmed,” while he is reading the Quran.  Enraged by the incident, the man berates his wife and son (emphasis in the original):

“[y]ou idiots!  That water defiled my Qur’an!  I’ll beat you both for this!”

Obviously fearful, the poor wife and son plead for the man to not hurt them.  But the man begins to beat his son, whose name is “Hassan”, while calling him a “lazy, worthless child”.  When the wife, whose name is “Safiya”, pleads for him to stop, he grabs her and says (emphasis in the original):

“[h]ow dare you, Safiyah!  No worthless woman tells her husband what to do!”

The fiendish man beats both his wife and son, until the son begs for him to stop.  Ahmed tells his son to “be a man” and orders him to “milk the goat!”  Traumatized by the event, Hassan wonders if Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) is as “mean” as his father. 

            A few hours later, Ahmed visits his uncle “Yousef” to ask him a question.  Uncle Yousef responds by advising his nephew to “see what the Qur’an says”.  After consulting the Quran, Yousef answers Ahmed’s question by confidently asserting (emphasis in the original):

“[o]f course I beat my wife.  The Qur’an and the greatest prophet tell me to…any time she disobeys or embarrasses me!”[2]

Uncle Yousef then berates Ahmed and tells him to go home and study the Qur’an and Ahadith. 

            Meanwhile, poor Hassan and his mother fearfully await Ahmed’s return.  Hassan even asks why his father will not stay away and that he is “scared” of him.  When he returns home, Ahmed finds a letter sent by a Christian.  Ahmed locks himself into his room and goes over the letter, which contains a list of surahs that supposedly prove that Islam is a false religion.  Ahmed is enraged but proceeds to “play his little game”. 

            Almost immediately, Ahmed is shocked by what he reads.  According to the letter, the Quran says that Ahmed will:

“…to be judged by [his] actions even if it pleases Allah to mislead [him]…”

Dumbfounded by this claim, Ahmed credulously asks himself (emphasis in the original):

“How can we trust him?”

            Ahmed then proceeds to consult the Ahadith, supposedly because “there are many confusing parts” in the Qur’an, despite the fact that it “descended from heaven, perfect, holy and true”.  But after consulting some ahadith, Ahmed is shocked yet again when he finds out that:

“the Qur’an was originally written on tablets of stone, palm branches…and men’s memories…”

After having this shocking revelation (which most Muslims learn when they are children), Ahmed declares that:

“…the Qur’an didn’t descend from heaven.  I was lied to!”

            Two nights later, Ahmed is getting more and more confused.  This time, he is confused because the Qur’an has “hundreds of Arabic words that have no meaning”, such as “ssad” (sic) and “qaf” (apparently, he didn’t realize that these are not words but letters, despite being an Arab). 

            Next, Ahmed struggled to understand why the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) could “do things no other Muslim could”, despite saying that he was “only a human…”  Ahmed struggled to understand why Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) “supported all of his decisions”, such as having more wives than what was allowed for other Muslims, and forcing a man to divorce his wife so the prophet could marry her.  Not only that, but Ahmed seemed to come to the realization that this use of fear also forces relatives of apostates to kill them if they leave Islam.

            Moreover, even the angels are commanded to kill unbelievers and “smite” them “above their necks”.[3]  Ahmed also learned that the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had said that whoever kills another person, all of the murdered man’s belongings belong to his killer![4]

            Meanwhile, Ahmed’s fearful wife dutifully reminds him that dinner is ready.  But the mean-hearted Muslim man rebuffs her and tells her to stop “bothering” him.  The poor Safiyah and her son are left to ponder their lives as they witness Ahmed’s behavior getting worse.    

            Continuing with his “study”, Ahmed finds out that, according to the Quran (Surah 32:13), Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He):

“…could have brought everyone to the truth, but instead will fill hell with them.”

After discovering this shocking revelation, Ahmed credulously asks himself (emphasis in the original):

“[w]hat kind of god is this?”

He also wonders how he can “trust” Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), if He keeps changing His mind.[5]  He also finds it difficult to understand why Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) commands Muslims to fight unbelievers and “force them to submit” yet also says that He “does not compel people to believe”.

            Apparently being confused to his limit, Ahmed falls to his knees and asks the “Living God in heaven” who he is and begs this God to show him “the truth”.  This “God” responds by inspiring Ahmed to “go to the market”.  Once there, Ahmed is given a book by one of the merchants which apparently contains “the words of the Prophet Jesus”! 

            After a week of study, Ahmed undergoes a miraculous change after learning about some of the wonderful and loving things the “Prophet Jesus” allegedly said, such as “loving” one’s enemies and wives, to “give honor unto the wife” and to not be “bitter against” her.  Not surprisingly, Ahmed’s wife Safiyah is “amazed” that she is so “honored”![6]   

            Having read such amazing things, Ahmed declares to Safiyah and Hassan that he has “surrendered” to Jesus, within whom is “the living God”.  He asks them both to forgive him for his behavior and promises to never hurt them again.  Amazed by her husband’s transformation, Safiyah asks him to “show us how we can find this Jesus”.  Similarly, the impressionable Hassan proudly declares:

“Daddy, I was wrong…Allah is nothing like you!”

Examination of “Is Allah Like You?”

            As we have seen, “Is Allah Like You?” is a fictional tale about an abusive Muslim husband and father who undergoes a miraculous transformation after realizing the “truth” about Islam (Spoiler Alert: It’s “false!”) and then learning about “the words of the Prophet Jesus” and converting to Christianity.  But as we have seen with previous examinations of Chick tracts, “Is Allah Like You?” is simply more bluster and propaganda with a faulty plot,[7] rather than an honest discussion about comparative religion.

            First and foremost, Chick used what is invariably his only weapon in his battle for souls: a violent Muslim man based on a stereotypical caricature.  Chick had to rely on such caricatures because that is the method that propaganda artists have historically used when they need to malign a certain group.  Hence, when the Nazis published propaganda material maligning Jews, the Jewish characters were always greedy, scheming, and blood-thirsty savages.[8]  Similarly, caricatures of African-Americans by white supremacist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan always portrayed black men as:

“…innately savage, animalistic, destructive and criminal – deserving punishment, maybe death”.[9]

In all of these historical cases of prejudice, the target group was portrayed in the worst way possible, which was also, quite unsurprisingly, a completely false portrayal.  Just like the Nazis and the KKK, Jack Chick resorted to bigoted and dishonest portrayals of Muslims, all in a vain attempt to promote his religion.  One has to wonder why Chick needed to utilize fear rather than reason if he believed that his religion was really the “truth”. 

            Besides the unfair and dishonest characterization of Muslims, Chick once again resorted to misquoting Islamic teachings.  The tract is full of such misquotes.  To begin, Chick presented child abuse as an Islamic practice.  Moreover, he presented Islam as an inherently misogynistic religion, which devalues women as “worthless”, and then claimed that Christianity is the exact opposite.  But none of these polemics are true.  Rather, they are lies designed to mislead Chick’s readers.  So what do Islamic teachings actually say about the treatment of one’s children and wives?  Let us take a look.   

  1. Treatment of children –

First and foremost, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught the merciful and kind treatment of children.  In one hadith, the Prophet stated that:

“[a]nyone who does not show mercy to our children nor acknowledge the right of our old people is not one of us.”[10]

By saying that a person who does not treat children with mercy is “not one of us”, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was issuing a very stern condemnation of those who abuse children.  Thus, Chick’s angry character “Ahmed”, who was abusive towards his son Hassan, was not following the commands of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). 

            Other ahadith also expound upon treating children with kindness and mercy.  In fact, some ahadith show the example of the prophet himself in his treatment of children.  For example, one hadith states that he used to carry his grandson Hasan (alternatively spelled “Hassan”) on his shoulder and supplicate to Allah to “love him”.[11]  This love was also directed towards his own children as well, especially his beloved daughter Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her).  One hadith states of Fatima that:

“[w]hen she came to him, he stood up for her, made her welcome, kissed her and had her sit in his place. When the Prophet came to her, she stood up for him, took his hand, made him welcome, kissed him, and made him sit in her place. She came to him during his final illness and he greeted her and kissed her.”[12]

The Prophet’s love for children even manifested while he was praying:

“Narrated Abu Qatada: The Prophet (ﷺ) came out towards us, while carrying Umamah, the daughter of Abi Al-As (his granddaughter) over his shoulder. He prayed, and when he wanted to bow, he put her down, and when he stood up, he lifted her up.”[13]

Describing Muhammad’s love for children, the eminent scholar Karen Armstrong writes:

“Muhammad loved children: all his life he would hug and kiss them and join in their games.  He was always devoted to his daughters.”[14]

Similarly, W. Montgomery Watt stated:

“[h]e seems to have been specially fond of children and to have got on well with them.  Perhaps it was the yearning of a man who saw all his sons die as infants. […] He was able to enter into the spirit of childish games and had many friends among children.  He had fun with the children who came back from Abyssinia and spoke Abyssinian.”[15]

Based on this overwhelming evidence, on what basis should anyone consider the fictional Ahmed’s behavior towards his son as “Islamic”? 

            As for the issue of disciplining children, it is allowed and actually recommended as a way to raise children properly.  In one hadith stipulating the importance of prayer, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

“[c]ommand your children to pray when they become seven years old, and beat them for it (prayer) when they become ten years old; and arrange their beds (to sleep) separately.”[16]

However, this does not mean a violent beating.  As Imam Nawawi stated in his commentary on this hadith in “Riyad-as-Saliheen”:

“[w]hen warranted by the situation, it is permissible to beat children for their proper upbringing and education. But this should not be in any case violent and aggressive. It should rather be done in a manner that the child does not suffer any physical injury and receives the right type of training.”[17]

Thus, while disciplining children is recommended, it is in no way permissible to violently strike a child, as the fictional “Ahmed” did with his son.

            Before moving on, it should be pointed out that Chick did not actually quote any verse from the Bible about how to treat children.  Perhaps it was because disciplining children is encouraged by the Bible as well!  As it is stated in Proverbs 13:24:

“[w]hoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.”[18]

Moreover, in Proverbs 23:13-14, the command to discipline a child is even clearer:

“[d]o not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish them with the rod, they will not die.  Punish them with the rod and save them from death.”

  1. Treatment of wives –

According to Chick’s character “Ahmed”, a woman is essentially “worthless” and cannot tell her husband what to do.  In addition, according to his “Uncle Yousef”, the Holy Quran commands husbands to beat their wives “any time” they disobey or embarrass their husbands.  The irony of the former claim is that it actually applies quite appropriately to Biblical teachings (specifically, the teachings of Paul), and not the teachings of Islam, as we will see later. 

            Let us examine “Ahmed’s” claim that a woman is “worthless” and is not permitted to “tell her husband what to do”.  This claim is pure sophistry and there is no basis for it.  The reader should have noticed that Chick did not quote any Islamic source to back up his claim.  The reason why is obvious!  Indeed, the Holy Quran shows that a pious woman is far better than a disbelieving man, and provides the example of the wife of the Pharaoh (Asiyah):

“[a]nd Allah sets forth, as an example to those who believe the wife of Pharaoh: Behold she said: ‘O my Lord! Build for me, in nearness to Thee, a mansion in the Garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those that do wrong’.”[19]

Whereas the Pharaoh is condemned as a sinner who will dwell in hell forever,[20] his wife is greatly honored for believing in Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He).  In fact, some reports from the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) state that Asiyah was tortured to death for her faith (because she refused to obey her husband and follow his commands).  According to Islamic author Suzanne Haneef:

“…Salman al-Farsi mentions that although Asiyah died of torture in the dungeon of Pharaoh’s palace because of her faith and her belief in the prophethood of Moses, God supported and strengthened her throughout her awesome ordeal, alleviated her suffering, and showed her her place in Paradise.”[21]

Thus, the story of Asiyah illustrates that a woman is not required to obey her husband if the husband commands her to do evil.  Whereas the Pharaoh opposed Moses (peace be upon him) and commanded his people to do the same, some among his people (including his wife) disobeyed him, despite the fact that they would be persecuted for their faith.[22]  This is exactly why the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) stated that:

“[t]here is no obedience in matters involving disobedience to Allah. Obedience is in matters which are good and universally recognized.”[23]

            Of course, it is true that a Muslim woman should obey her husband, as long as it does not violate the laws of Islam.  This is part of the rights of a husband over his wife, just as a wife has certain rights over her husband.  Also, despite the requirement upon wives to obey their husbands, the Holy Quran commands husbands to be kind to their wives:

“O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.”[24]

In addition, according to a hadith of Muhammad (peace be upon him), husbands are warned not to “hate” their wives:

“[a] believer must not hate (his wife) believing woman; if he dislikes one of her characteristics he will be pleased with another.”[25]

In his commentary on this hadith, Imam Nawawi stated that:

“[t]his Hadith also contains a very wise counsel for a happy married life. It tells us that every person has certain good qualities as well as some shortcomings. Man has been advised here to overlook the shortcomings that he does not like in his wife and appreciate her good qualities. Similarly, a woman is advised to ignore the shortcomings of her husband and admire his good qualities.”[26]

Yet another hadith (isn’t it amazing how many sayings of Muhammad were ignored by Chick?) states that the best people among the Muslims are those who are kind towards their women:

“[t]he most complete of the believers in faith, is the one with the best character among them.  And the best of you are those who are best to your women.”[27]

In his commentary on this hadith, Islamic scholar Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Adam Al-Kawthari states:

“[a] wife enjoys many rights and privileges in Islam, of which being treated kindly is at the forefront.  The husband must be compassionate, forgiving, gentle, and not cruel and abusive towards her.  Allah Most High says, ‘…And live with them [women] in the recognized good manner…’ (Qur’an 4:19).  The Messenger of Allah, in this hadith, expands further by saying that in order to acquire perfection in faith (iman), a man needs to display good behavior towards all humans, especially the womenfolk under his care; for charity begins at home.”[28]

With such clear statements, where did Chick’s angry Muslims “Ahmed” and “Uncle Yusuf” get the idea that their cruel behavior towards their wives was allowed by Islamic teachings?  Such abusive behavior is actually strongly condemned in the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

            However, what about “beating” wives?  Chick predictably appealed to one of the most controversial verses in the Holy Quran, Surah An-Nisa, 4:34.  According to “Uncle Yousef”, the verse allows husbands to beat their wives “any time” they disobey or embarrass them.  But the verse actually says nothing of the sort:

“[a]s to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).”

The verse does not say that a husband can beat his wife “any time” she disobeys or embarrasses him!  In fact, “beating” is only allowed as an absolute last resort, when other measures do not work.  Moreover, according to the Sunnah of Muhammad (peace be upon him), this last resort is only applicable when one’s wife:

“…allows herself to converse with men against her husband’s wishes or…commits some grievous transgression (fahisha mubayyina), a phrase with sexual innuendo…”[29]

In addition, according to Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Adam Al-Kawthari, other reasons for disciplining one’s wife can include when:

“…she is physically or verbally abusive, slanderous or violates Islamic rulings…”[30]

Not only that, but as with disciplining one’s child, “beating” one’s wife for the above transgressions can only be done “with a light blow that leaves no mark”.[31]  It is also well known that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never beat any of his wives and strongly discouraged others from doing so.[32]  As Jonathan Brown states:

“[a]ll available evidence of Muhammad’s own conduct shows a complete aversion to domestic violence.”[33]

            In addition, Islam gives an abused woman the right to seek a divorce on the grounds of domestic abuse.  As Brown explains:

“…any physical harm was grounds for compensation and divorce since the Prophet had limited striking one’s wife to a ‘light blow that leaves no mark.’  Causing any injury thus meant that a husband had exceeded his rights.”[34]

So once again, “Ahmed” and “Uncle Yousef” (and by extension, Jack Chick) were completely wrong!

            Finally, we should point out that, while Islam does not prohibit a woman from teaching a man, Paul of Tarsus, the alleged “apostle” of Jesus (peace be upon him), stated in clear words that he did not (emphasis ours):

“…permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man…”[35]

Thus, it is quite ironic that Chick’s pseudo-Muslim character “Ahmed” said that:

“[n]o worthless woman tells her husband what to do!”

This was an embarrassing blunder by Chick, as it sounds more like the teachings of Paul rather than the teachings of Muhammad (peace be upon him)! 

            Moving on, let us now deal with the other polemics directed against Islam.  During his “study”, Ahmed began reading a letter sent by a Christian which purportedly showed some flaws in Islamic theology, thereby “proving” that Islam is a false religion.  The first thing that confused Ahmed was that a person will be judged for his actions even though Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) had deliberately “mislead” him.  Ahmed found this difficult to understand and wondered how people could “trust” Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He).  The tract appeals to three verses from the Holy Quran: Surah Ibrahim, 14:4, Al-Anaam, 6:39 and An-Nahl, 16:93.  Here are these verses, respectively:

“We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom.”

“Those who reject our signs are deaf and dumb,- in the midst of darkness profound: whom Allah willeth, He leaveth to wander: whom He willeth, He placeth on the way that is straight.”

“If Allah so willed, He could make you all one people: But He leaves straying whom He pleases, and He guides whom He pleases: but ye shall certainly be called to account for all your actions.”

As we can see, the verses indeed say that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) guides whom He wills and leaves others to go astray.  But apparently Chick didn’t realize the key phrase in Surah Al-Anaam, 6:39: “[t]hose who reject our signs…”  In other words, the ones whom Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) leaves to “wander” are those who have already “rejected” His message.  This concept is made clear in another surah which was ignored by Chick (emphasis ours):

“[f]or the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are the deaf and the dumb,- those who understand not.  If Allah had found in them any good. He would indeed have made them listen: (As it is), if He had made them listen, they would but have turned back and declined (Faith).”[36]

This passage makes it clear that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) does not guide the “deaf and dumb” because He knows there is no good in them.  Thus, they are left “straying” (14:4) instead of being guided, and will be held accountable on the Day of Judgment.  The same can be said regarding Surah As-Sajda, 32:13:

“If We had so willed, We could certainly have brought every soul its true guidance: but the Word from Me will come true, “I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.””

Of course Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) can guide everyone to Islam!  He is All-Powerful.  But His will is not to guide those who have rejected His message, so that they will go to hell.  This is the fulfillment of Allah’s (Glorified and Exalted be He) warning to Iblis (Satan), after the latter refused to obey Allah’s command to prostrate to Adam (peace be upon him):

“(Iblis) said: ‘Then, by Thy power, I will put them all in the wrong,- Except Thy Servants amongst them, sincere and purified (by Thy Grace).’  (Allah) said: ‘Then it is just and fitting- and I say what is just and fitting; ‘That I will certainly fill Hell with thee and those that follow thee, everyone.’”[37]

Chick simply cherry-picked some verses and ignored others; typical behavior from a dishonest missionary.   

            Additionally, the criticism hurled at the Holy Quran is ironic given that the Bible states in a few places that God “hardened” the hearts of some people so they would not follow His commands!  Perhaps the best example is the Pharaoh, who refused to listen to Moses (peace be upon him).  Why did he not listen?  According to the Bible, it was because God “hardened” his heart!  The book of Exodus states:

“[t]he Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.”[38]

Shockingly, it seems God also “hardened” the hearts of the Israelites themselves!  Isaiah 63:17 asks God:

“[w]hy, Lord, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you?”

And it gets even worse, for the New Testament is clear that God chooses whom He will have mercy on and whom He will “harden”.  According to Paul:

“…God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.”[39]

This is exactly what the Holy Quran says as well, yet Chick was complaining about the Quran!

            So using Chick’s “logic”, how can we trust the God of the Bible when He “hardened” Pharaoh’s “heart” and the “hearts” of the Israelites, instead of guiding them just as easily?  If God had decided to make Pharaoh listen to Moses (peace be upon him), then all the suffering of the Egyptians and the Israelites would have been averted.  There would have been no plagues and no deaths of the first-born sons!  If God had decided to guide the Israelites, then all their suffering would have been averted as well!  Why didn’t Chick wonder “what kind of god is this?”

            But it doesn’t end there.  It gets even worse for Chick and other deceitful missionaries.  According to the Bible, “Yahweh” even hardened the hearts of the Israelites to the extent that He made them commit barbaric acts of child sacrifice!  According to Ezekiel 20:25-26, God gave the Israelites:

“…other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.”

Perhaps we should let that sink in.  According to Ezekiel, “Yahweh” punished the Israelites for their rebelliousness by requiring “the sacrifice of every firstborn”!  As Professor Mark Smith, currently the Helena Professor of Old Testament Language and Exegesis at Princeton Theological Seminary, has observed:      

“[t]hese passages indicate that in the seventh century [BC] child sacrifice was a Judean practice performed in the name of Yahweh.”[40]

Again, perhaps the missionaries should ask “what kind of God is this?”

            Continuing with his “study”, Ahmed found an alleged contradiction between the belief that the Quran “descended from heaven…” and the fact that it was “originally written on” such things as stones, palm branches and animal bones, as well as memorized by men, women and children.[41]  But as any reasonable person would see, the descent of the Quran from heaven does not mean it literally descended as a complete book from heaven.  Rather, it means that the Quran is Allah’s Word which He has sent to mankind through the Angel Gabriel:

“[s]ay, the Holy Spirit [Gabriel] has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.”[42]

Surely a serious Muslim like our friend “Ahmed” would not be so utterly gullible as to fall for such a silly polemic!

            But the obviously gullible Ahmed apparently did not know Arabic (his native language) well enough that he could not tell the difference between actual Arabic “words” and Arabic “letters”!  In Chick’s tract, the ignorant Ahmed was confused by alleged Arabic “words” like “sad” and “qaf”, which would tend to happen when one thinks a letter is a word!  That would be like saying an English-speaking person is confused by the words “S” and “Q”! 

            The reality is that the Quran does use Arabic letters in the beginning of certain surahs.  As the commentary in “The Study Quran” explains:

“[o]f the 114 surahs of the Quran, 29 begin with individual letters of the Arabic alphabet.”[43]

As for the “meaning” of these letters or what they signify, this has been a matter of debate and most Islamic scholars have accepted them as a mystery.  In other words, there is no need to delve on the “meaning” because the meaning is known only to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He).  One would be hard-pressed to find an Arab-speaking Muslim whose “head spins” because of these letters!  It seems Chick was simply projecting his own ignorance onto the gullible Arab-Muslim Ahmed.

            Next, Ahmed became confounded by the Prophet Muhammad’s statement that he was just a man like everyone else, and yet he was able to “do things no other Muslim could” such as have more wives than others were allowed.  This is a common polemic against the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and demonstrates how desperate missionaries get when trying to demonize him.  But this attempt at demonization invariably ignores the fact that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was also required to forego many of the world’s pleasures which were not forbidden for his followers.  For example, Muslims are allowed to gain wealth and spend out of it for themselves and their families.  They can buy things with their wealth, so long as they are not extravagant, as the Quran states:

“Those who, when they spend, are not extravagant and not niggardly, but hold a just (balance) between those (extremes).”[44]

And yet we find that Muhammad (peace be upon him), despite the power he commanded, lived a very simple life and forbid himself material comforts which he did not forbid for his followers.  Despite being such a powerful man, he slept on a simple mat and refused to order his followers to get him an actual bed:

“Abdullah narrated:  ‘The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) was sleeping upon a mat, then he stood, and the mat had left marks on his side.  We said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! We could get a bed for you.’ He said: ‘What do I have to do with the world! I am not in the world but as a rider seeking shade under a tree, then he catches his breath and leaves it.’”[45]

Even his clothing was meager.  In his commentary on the “Shamaa-Il Tirmidhi”, the Islamic scholar Maulana Muhammad Zakariyya Kanhdhelwi observed that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):

“…possessed only one each, of a lungi [a garment worn around the waist], qamis [a long tunic worn by men], sheet (body wrap), shoes or any other clothing.”[46]

And yet, he did not forbid his followers from having more clothing.  According to a hadith Sunan Ibn Majah, the Prophet stated that:

“[t]here is nothing wrong with any one of you, if he can afford it, buying two garments for Friday, other than his daily work clothes.”[47]

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also allowed his followers to wear nice clothes as well:

“Abdullah narrated: ‘The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Whoever has a speck of pride (arrogance) in his heart, shall not be admitted into Paradise. And whoever has a speck of faith in his heart, shall not be admitted in to the Fire.'” He said: “So a man said to him: ‘I like for my clothes to be nice, and my sandals to be nice?’ So he said: ‘Indeed Allah loves beauty. But pride is refusing the truth and belittling the people.’’”[48]

Similarly, he fasted for long hours but forbid his followers from doing the same:

“Ibn ‘Umar reported that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) observed fasts uninterruptedly in Ramadan and the people (in his wake) did this. But he forbade them to do so. It was said to him (to the Holy Prophet): You yourself observe the fasts uninterruptedly (but you forbid us to do so).  Upon this he said: I am not like you; I am fed and supplied drink (by Allah).”[49]

            As for the issue of having more wives, would it not make sense for a supposed impostor to impose absolutely no limit on the number of wives he could have?  And yet the Holy Quran contains a command to the Prophet not to have any more wives than he already had:

“It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things.”[50]

Why would a limit have been placed at all?  What is more interesting is that, according to some commentators, this command was later abrogated (although this is not unanimous), thereby allowing Muhammad (peace be upon him) to take more wives.  However, he actually took no additional wives despite the permission!   As the commentary in “The Study Quran” states:

“[t]hough the Prophet is said to have been granted the opportunity to take more wives again before he died…he nonetheless took no more wives after the revelation of this verse.”[51]

So again, there is no substance to the missionary argument, and yet again, one cannot help but point to the irony of Bible-thumping Christians criticizing the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for taking many wives,[52] when according to the Bible, God’s beloved David (peace be upon him) took many wives as well![53]  This is despite the fact that the Law of Moses specifically prohibited the king of Israel from taking many wives:

“[h]e must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.”[54]

Why was David allowed to take multiple wives and concubines?  Why is there not a single condemnation from God for this clear violation of the law? 

            Not only that, but David was treated differently in one other instance, namely his adulterous affair with Bathsheba.[55]  Whereas the law required death by stoning for adultery, the king of Israel was spared death and instead his innocent son was struck by God with an illness and died.  This was David’s punishment: the death of his innocent son!  And yet even more egregious is the fact that he was still allowed to marry Bathsheba, the woman with whom he had an affair!  How is that for doing things other people could not do?!

            Next, Ahmed found out from the Christian’s letter that if the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) desired a married woman, her husband was required to divorce her so the Prophet could marry her.  But the fact is that the missionaries are lying, plain and simple.  No doubt, they are referring to the Prophet’s marriage to Zaynab (may Allah be pleased with her), who had been married to the Prophet’s adopted son Zaid (may Allah be pleased with him).  The Islamic sources are unanimous that the marriage between Zaid and Zaynab was not a happy one.  According to the Holy Quran, the Prophet advised Zaid to stay with Zaynab:

“[b]ehold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: “Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah.””[56]

This shows that Zaid had wanted to divorce Zaynab anyway.  The marriage did not work because Zaynab was from the tribe of Bani Hashim (the same tribe as Muhammad), whereas Zaid was a freed slave and not a member of her same tribe.  As Islamic author Moustafa Zayed explains:

“[t]he marriage didn’t last long because Zaynab kept looking down upon her husband, who kept complaining to the Prophet till the Prophet found no other solution but to accept their divorce.”[57]

The other fact that the missionaries always seem to ignore is that it was Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself who persuaded Zaynab to marry Zaid in the first place!  As Moustafa Zayed points out, if the Prophet wanted her for himself, he could have married her “a thousand times over” instead of first persuading her to marry Zaid, and then hoping for a divorce so he could marry her![58]  The fact is that Zaid had not been threatened into divorcing Zaynab.  He wanted to divorce her, and she also wanted to divorce him.  So, Chick’s claim that if Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) desired a married woman, her husband had to divorce her “for fear of his life” is yet another concocted lie.  Perhaps the missionaries can provide other examples of such injustice in the life of Muhammad (peace be upon him), since we can see that the incident with Zaynab and Zaid does not fit into this conspiracy theory!

            Next, Chick’s confused character Ahmed learned that “fear controls” Muslims “who live by the Prophet’s teachings” and that one’s own relatives are commanded to kill anyone who leaves Islam.  To support this contention, Chick cited Surah An-Nisa, 4:89, which states:

“[t]hey but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

But who are the people referred to in this verse?  If we read the preceding verse (4:88), we can get our answer (emphasis ours):

“Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.”

So we can see that 4:89 is referring to the hypocrites, who were people who pretended to be Muslims but were in fact non-Muslims who were trying to destroy the religion of Islam.   But here is the kicker.  As usual, Chick ignored the very next verse (4:90) which completely pulverizes his attempt at demonizing the teachings of Islam.  Verse 90 states (emphasis ours):

“Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).”

Where is the “fear” that controls the lives of Muslims?  The better question is: where was Chick’s dignity when he wrote such an egregious lie, all for the sake of spreading his religion?  Why does his religion need lies in order to win converts?

            Next, Chick appealed to Surah Al-Anfal, 8:12, which we have previously commented on.[59]  In the tract “Camel’s in the Tent”, Chick had used the verse to prove that Muslims were commanded to kill unbelievers.   But we refuted this nonsensical claim by pointing out that:

“…this verse is not addressed to Muslims at all but to the angels who were sent to aid them in battle!”

In the present tract, Chick was aware that the verse was about angels, and not Muslims, but he still mistakenly stated that in this verse, “Allah’s angels declared” that they would instill fear in the unbelievers.  It seems he could never quote this verse properly!  In actual fact, it was addressed to the angels.  It was a command by Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) to the angels to aid the Muslims in the battle of Badr.  In addition, we noted that the same surah contains a clear command to Muslims to seek peace whenever the opportunity arises.  Verse 61 states:

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).”

So much for the “fear” by which Islamic teachings are maintained!

            Next, Chick concocted another silly lie by claiming that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had commanded that whoever kills another person automatically “has the right to all his belongings” (emphasis in the original).  To support this utterly idiotic assertion, Chick referred to some ahadith in Sahih Bukhari (4:53:370) and Sahih Muslim (19:4340).  Here is the relevant quote from Sahih Bukhari:

“…the Prophet (ﷺ) sat and said, “Anyone who has killed an enemy and has a proof of that, will possess his spoils.””

Here is the quote from Sahih Muslim:

“One who has killed an enemy and can bring evidence to prove it will get his belongings.”

The next hadith in Sahih Muslim (#4341) refers specifically to the belongings of Abu Jahl, who was killed during the battle of Badr, so his “belongings” were given to a Muslim soldier named Muadh ibn Amr ibn Al-Jumah.  Thus, we can see that these ahadith are referring to the enemy combatants that have been killed in battle.  Their “belongings” refer to things like their weapons and armor as shown in Sahih Bukhari, 4:53:370, in which Abu Qatada was given the armor of an enemy combatant he had killed in battle:

“…Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) gave the spoils to me. I sold that armor (i.e. the spoils) and with its price I bought a garden at Bani Salima, and this was my first property which I gained after my conversion to Islam.”

Chick also made the ludicrous claim that “all” of the enemy combatant’s “belongings” were the right of the Muslim soldier, but the ahadith refer specifically to the belongings found on the battlefield.  It is rather silly to claim that when Abu Jahl was killed during the battle of Badr, the Muslims went to the Quraysh in Mecca and demanded that all of Abu Jahl’s belongings be handed over to the soldiers who had killed him!  But Chick was obviously implying that the above ahadith gave Muslims the permission to kill any non-Muslim they wanted in order to usurp their properties and belongings, which is just another egregious lie.  The reality is that taking someone’s property (unless it belongs to an enemy combatant and is found on the battlefield) without their permission is a grave sin, as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) stated:

“[w]hoever claims something that does not belong to him; he is not one of us, so let him take his place in Hell.”[60]

So, once again, Chick was caught red-handed concocting another lie about Islam.

            Next, Chick’s dumbfounded “Ahmed” got even more confused by the concept of abrogation, in which Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) allegedly “changed” His mind.  Chick appealed to Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:106, but only part of it.  The entire verse states (the bold part is what Chick deliberately left out):

“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?

So even though this verse states that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) abrogates previous revelations and substitutes them with another revelation, it also states that He has control over all things.  In the words of Ibn Kathir:

“He commands a matter containing a benefit which He knows of, and then He out of His wisdom, prohibits it. Hence, perfect obedience is realized by adhering to His commands, following His Messengers, believing in whatever they convey, implementing their commands and avoiding what they prohibit.”[61]

Chick’s character “Ahmed” even credulously asked if God “changes” because He abrogates previous revelations.  But surely a serious Muslim would not be so childishly naïve.  It is a well-known fact that abrogation only applies to matters of law.  According to “The Study Quran” (emphasis in the original):

“…naskh [abrogation] can occur only in matters of commands and prohibitions, not in descriptive passages relating to metaphysics, ethics, history, the nature of God, or the Hereafter…Thus there can be no abrogation of a passage such as God has power over all things (2:259) or Whosoever believes in God and the Last Day and works righteousness shall have their reward with their Lord.  No fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve (2:62); or accounts of previous prophets found throughout the Quran.”[62]

So the answer to Ahmed’s (or Chick’s) absurdly naïve question is “no, God does not change, but He does change His Laws as and when He wills.”

            Finally, nearing the end of his “study” of Islam, Ahmed asked “what kind of god” orders Muslims to fight those who “do not follow Allah” and also “force them to submit”, yet also claim that He “does not compel people to believe”.  To support the former assertion, Chick cited (though he didn’t actually quote them) Surah At-Tawbah 9:27 (but probably meant 9:29) and Surah Muhammad, 47:4.  Here is what these verses state, respectively:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.”

As for 9:29, this is a favorite of anti-Islamic missionaries.  Chick’s contention was that this verse commands Muslims to “force” non-Muslims to submit.  However, he also appealed to Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:256, to show an alleged contradiction.  The verse states:

“[l]et there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.”        

Where is the contradiction?  Whereas verse 9:29 states that the unbelievers should be fought until they submit and pay the “Jizya” (poll tax), verse 2:256 states that they are not to be compelled to become Muslims.  The two verses are not at all contradictory.  Verse 9:29 actually does not say anything about forcing non-Muslims to convert to Islam.  They may continue to practice their religions, as long as they pay the Jizya. 

            As for verse 47:4, it is obvious that it is referring to those unbelievers that have fought Muslims.  The verse even says that when the unbelievers are “subdued”, they can either be ransomed back to their people or be released without any ransom.  Thus, there is no command to force them to convert to Islam.  Moreover, the verse clearly says that Muslims should fight “until the war lays down its burdens” (i.e. until the war ends).   

            At this point, Ahmed’s “study” of Islam had reached its conclusion.  Needless to say, he was quite confused and had already decided that Islam was not the true religion.  He was then “inspired” to go to the market, where one of the merchants handed him a copy of “words of the Prophet Jesus”.  Obviously, the merchant gave Ahmed a copy of the New Testament.  After studying the book for one week, Ahmed was completely changed.  His violent temperament had dissipated and he was kinder to his wife and son.  As with the previous responses to Chick tracts, we will not respond to aspects of Christian theology for the sake of brevity.  However, let us briefly respond to the selective quotes of the New Testament which Chick used to create the illusion that Christianity urges better treatment of women than Islam. 

            Chick cited two Biblical passages: Colossians 3:19 and 1 Peter 3:7.  First, it should be pointed out that these are not the “words of the Prophet Jesus”.  Colossians is said to have been written by Paul, whereas 1 Peter is said to have been written (or dictated) by Peter.[63]  Either way, the “words” were not said by Jesus (peace be upon him).  Both verses stress the importance of kind treatment of wives, similar to the teachings of Islam.  However, as Chick was selective and deceptive in his quotes of Islamic sources, he was also selective and deceptive in his quotes of the New Testament.  As it turns out, Colossians 3 and 1 Peter 3 both state that wives must “submit” to their husbands, a fact that Chick did not feel compelled to mention!  Colossians 3:18 states:

“[w]ives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.” 

Similarly, 1 Peter 3:1 states:

“[w]ives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands…”

So, as it turns out, when it comes to marital relations, Islam and Christianity are actually pretty similar.  Both emphasize the duty of the wife to obey her husband, and both urge husbands to treat their wives with kindness.  Conversely, Islam does not prohibit a woman from teaching a man, whereas Christianity does.   

Conclusion

            In this article, we have examined the Chick tract “Is Allah Like You?”  This tract is yet another example of the laughable ignorance and faulty logic of the late Jack Chick.  But on a more serious note, it is another example of his extreme bigotry and hatred of Islam.  He concocted yet more lies about Muhammad (peace be upon him), made unfair stereotypes of Muslim men, and deceitfully quoted the Islamic sources.  It is hard to find sympathy for such a lying and bigoted man as Chick.  In this article, we have refuted his ludicrous claims about alleged Islamic misogyny and wife-beating, alleged contradictions in Islamic theology and the nature of the One and Only God, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He).  Perhaps now, we can actually answer the main question of the tract: “is Allah like you?”  The best answer comes from Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) Himself:

“Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.”[64]

And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best! 


[1] http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1058/1058_01.asp

[2] Uncle Yousef evidently got this idea from reading Surah An-Nisa, 4:34.  As we will see, the verse does not say that it is permissible to beat one’s wife “any time she disobeys or embarrasses” her husband, nor is it a license for brutal acts of violence even when a wife disobeys her husband.

[3] Chick appealed to this verse in a previous tract as well, which we responded to: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/18/islam-jack-chick-and-the-battle-for-souls-camels-in-the-tent/

[4] As we will see, Chick is using yet another gullible Muslim character in his fictional tract to spread his propaganda about Islam.  Anyone who actually checks the sources used by Chick will see that it is an absurd and laughable attempt on his part to spread his religion.  In short, Chick lied!

[5] Here, Chick appealed to the “abrogation” verse, which states that some previous revelations may be replaced later on (Surah 2:106).  It seems the irony of criticizing “abrogation” did not dawn on the Trinitarian who believes that the laws of the Tanakh have been…abrogated! 

[6] It seems poor Safiyah was also quite gullible, just like her husband, as we will see!

[7] Some plot holes in the tract can be seen in the character of “Ahmed”.  Despite being an avid reader of the Quran, he seems to be abhorrently ignorant of what it actually says.  Moreover, he doesn’t even seem to be too knowledgeable about his native language, Arabic, despite the fact that he is…an Arab!

[8] http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/sturmer.htm

[9] https://ferris.edu/jimcrow/brute/

[10] Adab Al-Mufrad, 19:363.

[11] Ibid., 5:86. 

In another version of this hadith, it states that the young Hasan’s saliva would drop on the Prophet while he was carrying him (Sunan Ibn Majah, 1:1:658).

[12] Adab Al-Mufrad, 42:971.

[13] Sahih Al-Bukhari, 8:73:25.

The prophet did the same with his other grandchildren as well:

“It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin Shaddad, this his father said: “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) came out to us for one of the nighttime prayers, and he was carrying Hasan or Husain. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) came forward and put him down, then he said the Takbir and started to pray. He prostrated during his prayer, and made the prostration lengthy.” My father said: “I raised my head and saw the child on the back of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) while he was prostrating so I went back to my prostration. When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) finished praying, the people said: “O Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), you prostrated during the prayer for so long that we thought that something had happened or that you were receiving a revelation.’ He said: ‘No such thing happened. But my son was riding on my back and I did not like to disturb him until he had enough.'”” (Sunan An-Nasai, 2:12:1142).

[14] Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992), p. 81.

[15] W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 230.

[16] Sunan Abu Dawud, 2:495.

[17] http://islamicstudies.info/hadith/riyad-us-saliheen/riyad.php?hadith=298&to=302

[18] New International Version.

[19] Surah At-Tahrim, 66:11.

[20] Surah Hud, 11:98.

“He will go before his people on the Day of Judgment, and lead them into the Fire (as cattle are led to water): But woeful indeed will be the place to which they are led!”

[21] Suzanne Haneef, A History of the Prophets of Islam: Derived from the Quran, Ahadith and Commentaries, Vol. 2 (Chicago: Kazi Publications, Inc., 2003), p. 69.

[22] See note #13 in the article “The Exodus from Egypt: Part I – A Comparison of the Biblical and Quranic Versions” for more on this (https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/the-exodus-from-egypt-part-i/#_edn13)

[23] Sunan Abu Dawud, 14:2619.

[24] Surah An-Nisa, 4:19.

[25] http://islamicstudies.info/hadith/riyad-us-saliheen/riyad.php?hadith=273&to=280

[26] Ibid.

[27] Jami At-Tirmidhi, 1:7:1162.

[28] Muhammad Ibn Adam Al-Kawthari, Al-Arbain: Elucidation of the Forty Hadiths on Marriage (London: Turath Publishing, 2013), p. 92. 

For a detailed discussion of the rights of a wife, see pp. 91-99.

[29] Jonathan A. C. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legacy (London, OneWorld Publications, 2014), p. 275.

[30] Al-Kawthari, op. cit., p. 98.

[31] Brown, op. cit., p. 275.

To this, Al-Kawthari adds:

“[t]he idea is not to hurt one’s wife, but merely to discipline and make her realise that her behaviour needs to change.  It’s more like a ‘tap’ on the shoulder than a hard strike, and even this is best avoided” (p. 98).

[32] Sunan Ibn Majah, 3:9:1984.

“It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: ‘The Messenger of Allah never beat any of his servants, or wives, and his hand never hit anything.’”

[33] Brown, op. cit., p. 275.

This attitude towards domestic violence was also inherited by the scholars of Islam centuries after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).  According to Brown:

“[i]t became received opinion among Sunni ulama from Iberia to Iran that, though striking one’s wife was permitted, other means of discipline and dispute were greatly preserved, more effective and better for the piety of both spouses” (Ibid., p. 276).

[34] Brown, op. cit., p. 277.

In contrast, the Biblical view on divorce is completely and utterly impractical.  In the Tanakh, a woman’s right to divorce is non-existent (whereas a man could divorce his wife for many reasons)!  According to the “Christian Broadcasting Network” (which is affiliated with noted Islamophobe Pat Robertson):

“[i]n the Old Testament, Moses permitted a man to obtain a divorce on just about any grounds” (http://www1.cbn.com/questions/bible-says-about-divorce-and-remarriage)

As far as the New Testament is concerned, the above article states that divorce is only permissible on the grounds of adultery or spousal desertion.  The reason for the latter is not explained in the Bible, but according to the CBN:

“…some people recognize such a thing as a “constructive desertion,” which would be when a husband so brutalizes his wife that it is impossible to live with him any longer…”

So, in essence, Christianity makes seeking a divorce on the grounds of domestic abuse impossible, but states that a woman may simply leave her husband to escape his “brutality”!  But here is the kicker.  According to Paul, “constructive desertion” only applied in the case when a “believer” was married to an “unbeliever”, so this rule would not apply to a Christian couple!  Indeed, as the CBN admits:

“[f]rankly, it seems impossible that two born-again Christians who are dedicated to serving Jesus Christ can find any grounds for divorce.”

Apparently, domestic abuse is not grounds for divorce!  As the Christian website “GotQuestions” states:

“[s]ince the Bible does not list abuse as an acceptable reason for divorce, we are careful to limit our advice to separation” (https://www.gotquestions.org/abuse-divorce.html).

[35] 1 Timothy 2:12.

To be fair, it is likely that Paul was not the author of the letters to Timothy.  According to the Biblical scholar Burton Mack:

“[th]e three letters [1 and 2 Timothy and Titus] were written at different times, undoubtedly during the first half of the second century.  They were not included in Marcion’s list of Paul’s letters (ca. 140 C.E.), nor do they appear in the earliest manuscript collection of Paul’s letters (P46, ca. 200 C.E.). […] Their attribution to Paul is clearly fictional, for their language, style, and thought are thoroughly un-Pauline…” (Who Wrote the New Testament?  The Making of the Christian Myth (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1995), p. 206).

To this, the eminent New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman explains:

“…all three letters were written by the same person, and…this person was not Paul” (Bart Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (New York: HarperOne, 2011), p. 97).

However, as Reza Aslan explains, even though 1 Timothy is most likely not a Pauline epistle, it could still have been influenced by his teachings:

“…naming a book after someone significant was a common way of honoring that person and reflecting his views” (Reza Aslan, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Random House, 2013), pp. 204). 

[36] Surah Al-Anfaal, 8:22-23.

[37] Surah Sad, 38:82-85.

[38] Exodus 4:21.  Cf. Exodus 7:3, 9:12, 10:1, 20, 11:10, 14:4.

[39] Romans 9:18.  Paul also cited Exodus 33:19, which states:

“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”

[40] Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1990), p. 132.

[41] The fact that the early Muslims had memorized the Holy Quran and written it down on whatever materials were available is actually a testament to its amazing preservation.  Perhaps if the early Christians had done the same thing, we would actually have the original teachings of the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him)!  But alas, this did not happen.

[42] Surah An-Nahl, 16:102.

[43] The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary, ed. Seyyed Hossein Nasr (New York: HarperOne, 2015), p 13. 

[44] Surah Al-Furqan, 25:67.

[45] Jami At-Tirmidhi, 4:10:2377.

[46] Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhelwi, “Khasaa-il Nabawi Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam,” in Shamaa-Il Tirmidhi, Trans. Muhammad bin ‘Abdurrahman Ebrahim (New Delhi: Islamic Book Service, 2010), p. 60.

[47] Sunan Ibn Majah, 1:5:1096.

[48] Jami At-Tirmidhi, 4:1:1998.

[49] Sahih Muslim, 6:2427.

[50] Surah Al-Ahzab, 33:52.

[51] The Study Quran, op. cit., p. 1035.

[52] Chick claimed that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had 23 wives.  But this is incorrect.  According to Islamic scholar Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri:

“…the wives he married were thirteen.  Nine of them were alive when he passed away.  Two died in his lifetime: Khadija and the Mother of the poor…Zainab bint Khuzaimah, besides two others whom he did not consummate his marriage” (Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar: Biography of the Noble Prophet (Riyadh: Darussalam, 2002), p. 562).

[53] 2 Samuel 5:13-16.

[54] Deuteronomy 17:17.

[55] As we explained in our article on the blessed David (peace be upon him), Muslims do not believe that he committed adultery:

https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/david-in-the-bible-and-the-quran/

[56] Surah Al-Ahzab, 33:37.

[57] Moustafa Zayed, The Lies About Muhammad: How You Were Deceived into Islamophobia (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2010), p. 103.

[58] Ibid., p. 102.

[59] https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/18/islam-jack-chick-and-the-battle-for-souls-camels-in-the-tent/

[60] Sunan Ibn Majah, 3:13:2319.

[61] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=329

[62] The Study Quran, op. cit., p. 49.

[63] In actual fact, most scholars view both Colossians and 1 Peter as forgeries, which were not written by Paul or Peter, respectively.  Regarding Colossians, Ehrman states:

“[o]n the surface it looks like Paul’s work, but not when you dig deeply into it” (Bart Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (New York: HarperOne, 2011), p. 112).

He also states:

“[w]hat we have here…is another instance in which a later follower of Paul was concerned to address a situation in his own day and did so by assuming the mantle and taking the name of Paul, forging a letter in his name” (Ibid., pp. 113-114).

Regarding 1 Peter, Ehrman states that (emphasis in the original):

“[i]t was written by someone claiming to be Peter” (Ibid. p. 68).

Similarly, Mack states regarding Colossians:

“Paul’s letters to the Colossians and Ephesians are not authentic.  There is not a suggestion of the personal Paul in either of them.” (Mack, op. cit., p. 183).

Regarding 1 Peter (as well as 2 Peter and Jude), Mack states:

“[a]ll three letters bear the marks of second-century authorship and erudition: excellent Greek, formal education, facile use of the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint)…” (Ibid., p. 208).

Suffice it to say, no serious scholar of the New Testament regards Colossians or 1 Peter as authentic letters of Paul or Peter, respectively.

[64] Surah Al-Ikhlas, 112:1-4.

 

Can the New Testament be Reconstructed from the Writings of the Church Fathers?- Muslims Answer

A stunning admission from a Christian scholar about how Muslims have embarrassed Christian apologists about the reliability of the “church fathers” in the matter of reconstructing the New Testament!

Islamic Archives

Have you ever heard it said that if all the Bibles and Biblical manuscripts in the world were destroyed tomorrow, we could reconstruct all but 11 verses of the NT from the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers alone?  Recently, in an interview featuring NT textual critic, Daniel Wallace, we learn that this claim is demonstrably false.

Daniel Wallace mentions the following :

I’m embarrassed to say that sometimes there are Muslim apologists who have done really decent research on the nature of the New Testament or on the transmission of the text or things along those lines, and they have cleared up kind of an apocryphal story that Christians believed in.

There was one example: a number of scholars have passed on saying someone had pointed out that in the first three centuries of Christianity, only eleven verses of the entire New Testament had not been able to be…

View original post 485 more words