Unveiling Christianity

“And they say,”None shall enter paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.” These are their vain desires. Say:”Produce your proof if you are truthful.” (Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 111)


    To Godferoi and his ilk: Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator
  • Photobucket


  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 34 other followers

  • PLEASE VOTE!!! Thanks! ;)

  • free counters
  • Blog Stats

    • 149,627 hits

“Mary, the sister of Aaron”

Posted by Ibn Anwar on April 5, 2012

Does the Qur’an commit an anachronism by saying that Mary is the sister of Aaron?

by Ibn Anwar

The Qur’anic verse in question is from Surah Maryam(19), verse 28:

يٰأُخْتَ هَارُونَ مَا كَانَ أَبُوكِ ٱمْرَأَ سَوْءٍ وَمَا كَانَتْ أُمُّكِ بَغِيّاً

“O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother a loose woman!”

The first thing that should be noted by anyone who is interested in really understanding the verse is that it does not say, “O Mary, mother of Jesus who sister of Aaron and Moses and the daughter of Amram”. If it had said that then the detractors of the Qur’an would have a good case against Islam and its primary text. But as any child can gather the verse simply says, “O sister of Aaron”. Those who charge that the Qur’an is confused between Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the sister of Aaron and Moses are often Christians. Can a single Christian prove from their Bible beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mary the mother of Jesus certainly did not have a brother named Aaron? There is not a single verse anywhere in the Bible which says Mary was the one and only child of her parents. The relentless Christian detractor refusing to lose will then resort to Surah al-Imran, verse 35 which talks about “the wife of Imran”(the father of Moses, Aaron and Mary). In the detractor’s mind when you put 19:28 and 3:35 together you will get the result that the Qur’an is really saying that Mary, the mother of Jesus is really the literal daughter of Moses and the direct daughter of Imran(Amram in the Bible). First of all, the verse does not have to be translated as “wife of Imran” as the word in question which is imra’ah literally means “woman” which is why Muhammad asad renders the verse as “when a woman of [the House of] ’Imrān prayed: “O my Sustainer! Behold, unto Thee do I vow [the child] that is in my womb, to be devoted to Thy service. Accept it, then, from me: verily, Thou alone art all-hearing, all-knowing!”” Secondly, even if I were to agree that the verse is talking about the wife of Imran can a Christian please prove to me that the husband of Mary’s mother was absolutely not called Imran? From a purely rational perspective the Christian detractor’s position is extremely dubious without any real evidence. If the Qur’an was really confused about Mary and Moses would it not have actually said somewhere that she is “the sister of Moses”? Notice that there is no such verse anywhere despite the fact that Moses is a far more significant figure in the Qur’an than both Aaron and Imran. In fact, Moses is mentioned in the Qur’an 136 times! Had the Qur’an truly in a muddle of confusion about Mary’s relationship to Aaron and Imran it would have had Moses ascribed to her as her brother as he is a far more prominent figure in the Qur’an. This is an important point that is noted by the Christian missionary George Sale whose translation of the Qur’an into English was the first of its kind. We will be looking at his comments later in the article. The fact, that Moses isn’t ascribed to Mary as her brother anywhere in the Qur’an is sufficient grounds to dismiss the whole allegation as a farce. Let us now take into consideration some relevant commentaries in order to provide further proof and clarity on the matter. Translations of the Arabic texts are my own.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted in Bible(s) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Does Allah pray? If yes then who does He pray to?

Posted by Ibn Anwar on March 20, 2012

Refuting the nonsense that Allah prays for Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.

by Ibn Anwar

    A couple of days ago I was chatting with some Christians who brought up this issue. One of them was arguing that Allah worships or prays on or for Muhammad s.a.w. according to the Qur’an. This contention was popularised by the Christian polemicist Sam Shamoun and his ilk. It is no doubt a reaction to Muslims who argue against the alleged divinity of Jesus Christ by pointing out that he prayed to God. The argument essentially postulates that if a person prays to God then that disqualifies him from divinity. In many Christians’ mindset by arguing that Allah prays on Muhammad that refutes the Muslims’ postulation on Jesus and his prayerful disposition, that is, Allah prays and yet he’s still God hence if Jesus prays that means he is no less divine than Allah. In this article we will illustrate that the argument propounded by Shamoun and his ilk stems from a profound ignorance and misunderstanding of the Arabic language and linguistics in general.

The argument that Allah prays(by implication to someone) is derived from the following verse:

إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ وَمَلاَئِكَـتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى ٱلنَّبِيِّ يٰأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ صَلُّواْ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُواْ تَسْلِيماً

“Surely, Allah and His angels send blessings to the Prophet. O you who believe, do pray Allah to bless him, and send your Salām (prayer for his being in peace) to him in abundance.” (33:56)

The detractors of Islam e.g. Shamoun argue that the word used in the verse stems from the word ‘Salah’ which means to pray or worship. They would argue that the above which renders the word as ‘blessings’ is a mistranslation of the original Arabic. The word in question is yusalloon which is fi’il mudhari’ jama’ muzakkar saleem or third person plural imperfect verb. It comes from the root Sala or صلا. Ordinarily the word Salah or صلا from which we get the word salah (صلاة) does mean prayer or worship, however in the verse in question when the word is ascribed to God and angels it connotes the meaning of blessing and/or forgiveness. When the word is used by God it does not mean prayer or worship, but rather blessing. This phenomenon is known as polysemy in language, that is, a word may carry multiple dimensions or meanings in different situations. Ahmad Shehu Abdussalam explains it in the following:

“Polysemy is a semantic state of a word in which it indicates two or more meanings. A word is polysemous when it looks the same as others and has more than one meaning…These varied meanings are known as “senses” (al-wujuh in the sciences of the Qur’an), and can be interrelated, shared in certain attributes or slightly different, indicating multiplicity of meaning, while varied forms of the same word, if any, are the “uses” (al-naza’ir in the sciences of the Qur’an). The word al-akhirah, with only one form (i.e. a use) has five senses: resurrection, paradise, hell, grave and the latter (Qur’an 92:13, 2:102, 39:9, 14:27 and 38:7 respectively).” [1]

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Muhammad s.a.w., Qur'an and Hadith | Tagged: , , , , , , | 33 Comments »

James White laughs at Dr. William Lane Craig

Posted by Ibn Anwar on March 17, 2012

Dr. William Lane Craig’s analogy of the Trinity gets laughed at by James White

I almost never post youtube or any other videos, but I think this one is worth a place on Unveiling Christianity. Enjoy.

In summary:

Dr. William Lane Craig: The Trinity is like a three headed  dog from hell

Dr. James White : Bwahahahahahahahahaha

Posted in Bible(s) | 13 Comments »

Is Jesus God because of 1 Timothy 3:16?

Posted by Ibn Anwar on February 17, 2012

Does 1 Timothy 3:16 say Jesus is God?

by Ibn Anwar

“1 Timothy 3:16″ speaks of a personal manifestation of God – God in the second person was manifested” (The Impeccable Christ) [1]

The above and many other such similar remarks and statements are commonly found in Christian literature that favour Jesus’ divinity. In my own exchanges with Christians when discussing the alleged divinity of Jesus they would more likely than not reference 1 Timothy 3:16 as evidence for the incarnation of God into this world and that Jesus(the incarnation) is indeed God. Many of them do not realise however, that the reading that they so quickly grab and utilise is untenable. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”  This is the reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 that would be championed by so called KJV only Christian fundamentalists and those whose agenda is to deify Jesus. The evidence will show that their position and belief is unwarranted and without good foundation.

The reading which has “God manifested in the flesh”(theos ephanerothe en sarki) is found in the King James Version which is based on the Textus Receptus or Received Text which is the work done by Desiderius Erasmus and published in 1516. The standard position in modern Biblical studies is that the Textus Receptus is an inferior text as it is based on very late mss. of the Byzantine tradition(12th and 13th century) as Prof. Raymond Brown states, “Scholarship at the end of the 19th century finally won the battle to replace the inferior Textus Receptus by new editions of the Greek NT based on the great uncial codices and other evidence made available since Erasmus’ time…”[2] Michael A. Barber summarises the situation of the TR nicely in the following:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible(s), Jesus, Theology, Trinity | Tagged: , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Jesus was hungry

Posted by Ibn Anwar on February 12, 2012

Was Jesus really hungry? Was it just a parable? What was it?

by Ibn Anwar

Before we delve into the topic proper we should briefly establish the relevant framework upon which the whole discussion will be built so as to get better clarity. For a long time Biblical scholars have noticed distinct similarities and dissimilarities between the first three Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke. This relationship that is shared by all three Gospels gave rise to what is called Synoptic problem. The term “Synoptic” means that the three Gospels are interrelated and can be seen together. [1] Most New Testament scholars today subscribe to the Markan/Marcan priority hypothesis which was first proposed in 1863. What that means is that Mark was the first Gospel to be written which was then followed  by Matthew and Luke. Directly related to the Marcan priority is the idea that both Matthew and Luke employed Mark as a common source for their respective Gospels. The Marcan material present in Matthew and Luke is described as the “Triple Tradition” and in terms of statistics, eighty percent of Mark’s verses are found in Matthew while sixty five percent are found in Luke. [2] This position is called the “Two-Source hypothesis” which is according to Dr. L. Michael White “the most commonly used theory among New Testament scholars…”. [3] Writing about the Two-Source Hypothesis Mark Goodrace says:

“Right down to the present, this has remained the most popular way to solve the SynopticProblem. It has been finely tuned, has been given many variations, and has been challenged from many quarters, but this basic two-pronged hypothesis has remained fairly effectively intact. In Germany it is still very much what one might call ‘critical orthodoxy’. Famously, in the mid 1960s, one biblical critic spoke about abandoning use of the term ‘hypothesis’ to describe it altogether. ‘We can in fact regard it as an assured findings’, he said.” [4]

Thus, Mark was written first then the authors of Matthew and Luke employed the Gospel of Mark as a common source for their own productions. In this article we will analyse one out of many of the examples of how a story that was first produced in Mark is reproduced by the other two Synoptic Gospels with some modifications resulting in certain theological implications. The example that we will focus on in this discussion is the story of Jesus and the fig tree which is found in Mark 11, Matthew 12 and Luke 13 which is reproduced by the author in a rather different form as we shall see.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Jesus, Theology | Tagged: , , , , , | 60 Comments »

Did Jesus really die on the cross?

Posted by Ibn Anwar on February 4, 2012

The Apparent Death Hypothesis according to Dr. William Lane Craig

by Ibn Anwar

This article is a response to a section of a debate that took place on the subject of the resurrection of Jesus between the Islamic scholar Shabir Ally and the Christian scholar Dr. William Lane Craig which can be viewed here. The following is a transcript of the section that this article aims at addressing:

“The first one, the crucifixion is universally agreed upon by all historians and here Shabir says that he doesn’t deny that Jesus was crucified but what he suggests is that he was taken down alive from the cross and God raised him out of the tomb into heaven. This is a fantastic hypothesis and an incredible concession on the part of an Islamic theologian to Christian claims about Jesus. Basically it is an attempt to resurrect the old Apparent Death theory which was popular among German rationalists during the late 17th hundreds and I’ve got to say no historian or New Testament scholar would defend this Apparent Death theory today. It’s sort of the theological equivalent of the flat earth theory. Why is this hypothesis abandoned? Well, one thing is that there is simply no doubt that the crucifixion was fatal. The Romans were professional executioners and they ensured the deaths of their victims by a spear thrust into the heart of the victim so that even if the victim had simply lapsed into a comatose state on the cross he would certainly be killed by the thrust of the spear into his heart and this is exactly what happened in Jesus’ case.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Jesus | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

Hebrews 1:8

Posted by Ibn Anwar on January 21, 2012

Does Hebrews 1:8 prove Jesus is God?

by Ibn Anwar

     In my many discussions with Trinitarian Christians on the divinity of Jesus Christ one favourite passage that is often used as a proof text is Hebrews 1 with specific reference to verse 8 which reads as follows:

“Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.”

One Christian apologist remarked, “Here we have God calling Jesus God which means he is indeed God.” If God calling someone “God” makes that person truly God himself, then I suppose Moses ought to be worshipped by these Christians too as we see him being called God by God:

“I have made you God over pharoah, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.” (Exodus 7:1)

What is very apparent is that Moses isn’t just called God in the above verse, but is said to have his own prophet! Does that make him God? Following the Christian logic it apparently does. But I suppose Satan is God too as we read in the following verse:

“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:4)

The New Living Translation of the Bible identifies the identity of this god in its translation:

“Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Jesus, Theology, Trinity | Tagged: , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

Daniel 7:14 proves Jesus is God?

Posted by Ibn Anwar on December 25, 2011

Is Daniel 7:14 evidence of Jesus’ divinity?

by Ibn Anwar

The verse reads as follows :

“He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

The Christian Jesus-worshiper will claim that the above verse shows Jesus as deity because it says that everyone will worship him. First of all, notice that the verse says that “all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him”. Does it say that they will worship him? No, it does not. It says that they DID worship him. So it’s not actually talking about everyone from time immemorial to the end of days. The Christian will claim that the verse says that all authority, glory and sovereign power is given to him so that makes him God. Notice that the verse says that authority was given to him. When was Jesus given authority? Authority was given to Jesus approximately 1920 something years ago as Matthew 28:18 says, “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” When we take Matthew 28:18 into consideration and compare it to Daniel 7:14 we can safely confirm that the latter isn’t referring to the former. The person in Daniel 7:14 was given authority in Daniel’s time or before it, but Jesus was only given authority in his time centuries after Daniel. However, coming back to the first point, does Jesus being worshiped makes him God? First of all, the verse does not have to be translated as worshiped. The New Living Translation translates it as follows:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible(s) | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 84 Comments »

Is Jesus God because he was “worshipped”?

Posted by Ibn Anwar on October 2, 2011

To worship or not to worship?

by Ibn Anwar

    In my numerous exchanges with Trinitarian Christians in discussing Jesus’ alleged divinity one thing that undoubtedly will not be missed is the notion that Jesus is given worship, hence making him God. At a glance the issue seems quite simple, at least to the uninitiated. God is the one who deserves worship and if Jesus is indeed given worship he must be that God. In reality, the issue is not as simple as that. In this article we will explore and dissect the main arguments that are usually propelled by Trinitarians in this regard to promote Jesus’ alleged deity. The following are some of the verses(from the KJV) that are often cited to prove that Jesus deserves our worship and as such is God:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Jesus, Theology, Trinity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments »

Matthew 11:11

Posted by Ibn Anwar on July 2, 2011

Rivalry between the early followers of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ

by Ibn Anwar

    According to several reputed scholars  there was rivalry between the early followers of John the Baptist and Jesus. Matthew 11:11 is one passage that contains a clue to the tension that existed between the followers of Jesus and John. The verse reads as follows:

“I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

After citing the above verse Clarik Williamson states, “We know that the Jesus movement was involved in a strong rivalry with John’s community until late in the first century.” [1] Though the literary evidence isn’t explicit, a close and critical analysis of the relevant texts such as Matthew 11:11 do reveal a tension between John’s community and Jesus’ as Cynthia Bourgeault states, “You have to read beneath the surface to see this of course — but just barely beneath the surface. The gospels all reveal a growing rivalry between the John and Jesus camps…”. [2] Also citing the verse in question is James L. Weaver who mentions the possibility of rivalry between the followers of the two personalities saying, “In the Gospels, we have echoes of possible rivalry between the disciples of John and Jesus(see Matthew 9:14 and 11:11).”[3] According to critical scholars the first part of the verse was probably uttered by Jesus and circulated popularly among both John’s followers and Jesus’. It is the second part of the verse which circumvents the first part which is most probably not from Jesus and is in fact an addition that was inserted later by those who did not like the idea of John being in anyway superior to Jesus. How does the verse put John on a greater pedestal than Jesus? Well, the first part has Jesus saying that “among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist”. Jesus must necessarily be included since he too was born of a woman(Mary). That would mean that John in actual fact is greater than Jesus. This bit of information was obviously not palatable to those who saw Jesus as the epitome of perfection and the only sinless man to have ever walked the earth. But what were  they able to do since the saying was already in popular circulation? The clever plan was to add an extra bit to be attached to the existing saying that would usurp the superior position designated to John. Thus we have the part which can be traced back to Jesus, that is, “among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist” and the section that was added later, that is, “yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” Benedict T. Viviano in the New Jerusalem Biblical Commentary states that, “Verse 11b may be an early Christian gloss”[4] However, thinking that they would resolve the issue they actually introduced further problems to it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible(s) | Tagged: , , , , , | 7 Comments »

To avoid hell avoid women

Posted by Ibn Anwar on June 3, 2011

An examination of Revelation 14:4

by Ibn Anwar

The first Muslim apologist to mention this verse as an argument against Christianity was Shabir Ally in a debate that he had with Sam Shamoun. In the debate the former cited the eminent theologian Prof. William Barclay after Sam Shamoun charged him with misrepresenting the text. Sam Shamoun came back and dismissed William Barclay’s interpretation as erroneous and offered his own instead. Shabir Ally rebutted saying that Sam Shamoun hadn’t read William Barclay and how then could he simply dismiss Barclay’s interpretation as erroneous. Some weeks ago I posed the verse to a Christian who goes by the nick name ‘madmanna’ on Paul William’s blog which prompted a rather interesting discussion between the two of us that later unfortunately turned somewhat stale.

In this article I wish to shed some light on the verse further and show that alternative views abound despite conservative ones that are taken for granted by those like madmanna. The verse in question reads, “It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb,”. Echoing conservative interpretation of the text madmanna simply says that the verse is symbolic and metaphorical and should not be taken literally to mean that virgins without any experience in sexual intercourse in or out of wedlock are being spoken of here, but rather those who keep themselves spiritually clean from moral impurity and idolatry. Commentaries that can be cited to support madmanna’s position include Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Liberty Bible Commentary and others. Is there a consensus view among Christian scholars that the verse ought to be taken metaphorically or symbolically rather than literally? The answer is of course no. I have mentioned earlier that Shabir Ally cited William Barclay who propounds an interpretation that does not agree with madmanna’s or Shamoun’s stance. Barclay says:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible(s) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Psalms 22

Posted by Ibn Anwar on May 22, 2011

Is the crucifixion of Jesus predicted in Psalms 22?

by Ibn Anwar

     Most Christians believe that Psalms 22 is a prophesy that was fulfilled by Jesus Christ at Calvary when he was allegedly crucified at the behest of the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. The reason why Christians think that Psalms 22 foretells Jesus’ alleged crucifixion is because their New Testament makes abundant references to it as Daniel Estes says, “Psalm 22 is regarded as a messianic psalm because it is frequently quoted or alluded to in the New Testament narratives of the passion of Christ.”[1] Hence if  a Christian were to be asked why is Psalms 22 taken as a passage that prefigures Jesus Christ the typical answer that will be given is, “because the New Testament says so.” This is an excellent example of the kind of circular reasoning that missionaries and evangelists fall into as they try to prove their version of Jesus. In this article we will analyse some of the those relevant passages often used in missionary circles and see whether the Christian claim holds any water or not.

   Most frequently cited is the first verse which reads in English as, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”(Psalms 22:1). The relevant New Testament “citations” are Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46. Both places in modern versions of the Bible mention that Jesus cried out at the ninth hour the words, “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?”. At a simple glance both reports seem to correspond with one another verbatim, however upon further inspection we find that they do not exactly match in the textual witnesses available. In Mark 15:34 the transliteration in Greek variously reads, “ἑλωῒ ἑλωῒ λεμὰ σαβαχθανεί (Eloi eloi lema sabachtanei[Tischendorf]); Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι(Eloi eloi lamma sabachtani[Textus Receptus]); ελωι ελωι λιμα σαβαχθανι (Eloi eloi lima sabachtani[Byzantine text type]); ἐλωι ἐλωι λαμα σαβαχθανι (Eloi eloi lama sabachtani[Westcott/Hort]). In Matthew 27:46 the transliteration in Greek variously reads, ” ἐλώι ἐλώι λεμὰ σαβαχθανί (Eloi eloi lema saabachtani[Westcott/Hort); ἡλεὶ ἡλεὶ λεμὰ σαβαχθανεί (Elei elei lema sabachtanei [Tischendorf]); Ηλι ηλι λαμὰ σαβαχθανι (Eli eli lama sabachtani[Textus Receptus]); ηλι ηλι λιμα σαβαχθανι (Eli eli lima sabachtani[ Byzantine text type]). In a footnote to Matthew’s Eli, eli lema sabachtani Raymond E. Brown says:

“Variant ms. readings harmonize the form of God’s name in Mark/Matt so that both read Eloi or Eli. Similarly, there are attempts to harmonize the lama and lema difference, and witnesses in the Koine tradition read lima in Mark. The exotic sabachtani is written sabaktanei in Codex Vaticanus of Matt, sabapthanei in Vaticanus of Mark, and sabachtanei in Sinaiticus of Matt, sibakhthanei in Alexandrinus of Mark.”[2]

In the next footnote to the above Brown dismisses the variant Elei in Mark and Matthew as “an unimportant orthographic variant of Eli.” [3] What about Eli and Eloi and the other pervading variances? According to Brown the Eloi of Mark resembles Aramaic whilst the Eli of Matthew resembles Hebrew  and the lama of Mark resembles Hebrew whilst the lema of Matthew resembles Aramaic which has led some scholars to suggest a mixed Hebrew-Aramaic tradition that Brown says is not a necessary conclusion.[4] Brown also mentions that in Codex Washingtonensis of Matthew it reads Eli, eli ma sabachtanei. The following are the Aramaic and Hebrew renditions of Psalms 22:1/2 given by Brown[5]:

Mesoretic text in Hebrew: Eli, Eli, lama azabtani

Aramaic: Elahi, elahi, lema sebaqtani

Codex Bezae: Elei, elei, lama zaphthani

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible(s), Jesus | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

Life after Death: The Islamic Perspective

Posted by Ibn Anwar on April 22, 2011

Life after death: The Islamic perspective

by Ibn Anwar

Death comes to us all. If there is one fact that no human being in human history can deny is that every man since the dawn of creation is absolutely subject to death. The Holy Qur’an emphatically reminds us of this inescapable truth in Surah al-Ankabut(29), verse 57:

كل نفس ذائقة الموت ثم إليناترجعون

“Every soul shall taste death: In the end to Us shall you be brought back.”

*The same reminder is repeated in Surah al-Imran(3), verse 185

No king or pauper can hide from the inevitable clutches of death:

اينماتكونوا يدرككم الموت ولوكنتم فى بروج مشيدة

“Wherever you are, death will come to you, even if you are in towers built up strong and high”(Surah Al-Nisa’(4), verse 78)

The exact time and hour of our demise is Allah’s prerogative as the Qur’an says in Surah al-Imran(3), verse 145:

… وماكان لنفس أن تموت إلا بإذن الله

“Nor can a soul die except by Allah’s permission…”

However, before we die every single one of us experiences life on earth. Life and death come in one package. Because life and death are inseparable opposites like the yin and yang symbol the former has a direct bearing on the latter. In Islamic doctrine the state of death and life after death that every individual will experience is directly affected by his or her way of living (deeds and misdeeds; good and bad choices) whilst on earth. This brings us to the question, “Why do we live?”

In answering this age old question ( i.e. what is the purpose of life?) the Qur’an says in no uncertain terms that we have been made to serve Him.

وما خلقت الجن والْإنس إلَّا ليعبدون

“I have not created the jinn and mankind except to serve Me.” (Al-Dhariyat(51), verse 56)

Serving God entails following His commandments and avoiding His prohibitions, that is, to do good and avoid evil. This life is but a temporary station in which we are to try our level best to generate as much good as possible and shun misdeeds. The Qur’an says:

… الذى خلق الموت والحيوة ليبلوكم أيكم أحسن عملاً

“He who created death and life, that He may try which of you is best in deed…”(Surah Al-Mulk(67), verse 2)

The Prophet s.a.w. is recorded to have said:

كن فى الدنيا كأنك غريب اوعابر سبيل وعد نفسك فى اهل القبور

“Be in this world as though you are a foreigner or passerby on a road and count yourself as a member of the grave.”(Bukhari, Ahmad, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah)

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible(s) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Authorship of the Torah

Posted by Ibn Anwar on April 10, 2011

Was it really Moses?

by Ibn Anwar


For centuries it was taken for granted within both conservative and orthodox Christian and Jewish circles that the first five books of the Old Testament were authored by Moses. Today, that attitude and belief has not changed in evangelist and conservative circles. The late evangelist Gleason Archer for example says:

“When all the data of the Pentateuchal text have been carefully considered, and all the evidence, both internal and external, has been fairly weighed, the impression is all but irresistible that Mosaic authorship is the one theory which best accords with the surviving historical data.” [1]

Disagreeing with the above designation Edward P. Blair states, “The Pentateuch nowhere clearly claims that Moses was the author of whole of it.”[2]

It was not until quite recently in history that the predominantly held view among Christian and Jewish scholars for Mosaic authorship of the Torah and the accuracy of details therein was seriously challenged. The German scholar Julius Wellhausen came to the scene in the 19th century(1876) and stirred the hornet’s nest  with his refined and elaborate ‘documentary hypothesis’ in Prolegomena to the history of Israel . Prior to him John Calvin questioned the literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis:

“John Calvin, the greatest systematic thinker in the Protestant tradition, argued during the sixteenth century that Genesis I did not reflect the facts of physics and astronomy, but described the creation of the earth for the benefit of ancient Hebrew observers who had no understanding of science.” [3]

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible(s) | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Torchbearers of knowledge in Islam

Posted by Ibn Anwar on April 10, 2011

Female Scholars in Islam

by Ibn Anwar and al-Jamalullail

The transmission of hadith collections and even the compilation of new ones with very elevated isnads in the post-canonical era was an area in which women could excel. Because they often lived longer than men, women could become the most sought after transmitters of books. Major hadith scholars like al-Khatib al-Baghdadi traveled to Mecca to read Sahih al-Bukhari in the presence of Karima al-Marwaziyya (d. 463/1071, who had an especially elevated elevated isnad in the book, and Fatima al-Juzdaniyya was the main transmitter of al-Tabarani’s works. Until her death in 2008, Muslims students flocked to a small village in Yemen’s Hadramawt Valley to receive a hadith ijaza from the 105-year-old woman Safiyya al-‘Amdiyya.

Independent collections of hadiths by women were very rare; in the early period of hadith they were non-existent. But we know of at least two selections of hadiths from the post-canonical period compiled by women. A twelfth-century woman named Shuhda al-Katiba (d. 574/1178-9) put together a list of 115 hadiths that she picked from books she had been authorised to transmit, often with shorter isnads than the hadiths in the actual books themselves. The Musnad of Amat Allah Miryam al-Hanbaliyya of Nablus (d. 758/1357) has also survived until today.

(Jonathan A.C. Brown. Assistant Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle) [1]

In the time of the companions the beloved wife of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w., Aishah r.a. soared prominently over both women and men as Cambridge scholar Timothy J. Winter(now Sheikh Dr. Abdul Hakim Murad) and John A. Williams of College of William and Mary cites a Sunni source that says, “‘A’isha was, of all the people, the one who had the most knowledge of law, the one who was most educated, and compared to those who surrounded her, the one whose judgment was the best.'” [2] Both men and women are obligated to search for and acquire knowledge as the hadith of the Prophet s.a.w. says:

في مسند أبي يعلى الموصلي عن أنس عن النبي (ص) :  طلب العلم فريضة على كل مسلم

 وهذا الحديث وإن لم يكن ثابتاً فمعناه صحيح  

“In the Musnad of Abu Ya’la al-Mawsuli, from anas who relates that the prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim.”

The meaning of this hadith, though the hadith itself is not well authenticated, is true.” [3]

Hence it is no surprise that many of the greatest minds in Muslim history were women. Winter and Williams make mention of Bint al-Kamal who lectured in Damascus to several leading scholars including the celebrated Muslim jurist/scholar and traveller Ibn Batuta whose journeys spanned more than 75, 000 miles (unsurpassed by any other until 450 years later in the Steam Age). Other reknown female scholars mentioned by Winter and Williams include Karima al-Marwaziyya (who was one of the most famous scholars during her time), Fatima bint al-Hasan, Shuhda the Scribe, Ajiba bint Abi Bakr (Bint al-Kamal’s teacher) and Umm hani who in Winter and Williams’ words “mastered all the great academic disciplines of her time including theology, law, history and grammar, before taking up senior lectuering positions in many of the great academies of Cairo.”[4]

One of the great scholars in the Shafi’i madhhab or school of thought is Imam Al-Suyuti who is described as “…one of the Friends of God and His Signs to creation, the Mujtahid Imam and Renewer of the ninth Islamic century, foremost hadith master, jurist, Sufi, philologist, Ash’ari theologian, and historian, he authored works in virtually every Islamic science.” [5] Among his numerous teachers and instructors were over thirty female scholars. [6]

The following is a rather long, yet non-exhaustive list of more than 259 Muslim female scholars excluding those from among the Prophet’s companions and their successors taken from the Oxford scholar Mohammad Akram Nadwi’s preface to his magnum opus Al-Muhaddithat: The Women Scholars in Islam [7] *:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible(s) | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Blood or no blood?

Posted by Ibn Anwar on November 24, 2010

Forgiveness comes without blood

by Ibn Anwar


What exactly is the  cause behind the fascination with blood sucking vampires in the western culture that has given rise to a plethora of vampire themed movies like Twilight and the like? Christianity is the predominant religion in the west. It spends so much time talking about drinking blood and its importance for the attainment of “eternal life”. Could it be that this blood based salvation/atonement doctrine is the impetus behind the popular culture phenomenon of vampires? In the vampire myth the creature sustains its existence by consuming blood. In Christian theology to attain eternal life one must accept the blood of Jesus and in Catholicism in particular the partaking of the Eucharist which involves the drinking and eating of the actual blood and flesh of Jesus is foundational. Can you see the parallel? Is it possible that the popular vampire myth has its roots in the Christian obsession with blood? I leave that for the readers to dwell upon. In this article we shall explore the issue of forgiveness in Christianity and if what it teaches is coherent and true or just plain false.

As we have mentioned above in Christian theology the shedding of Jesus’ blood is foundational. In fact, it is the key to forgiveness and salvation. One Christian blogger named John Chingford wrote an article entitled “Reply to a Rabbi Why There Can’t Be Forgiveness Without Blood Sacrifice”  in which he argues for the Christian case that blood is absolutely necessary to render void the sins of man. The Wiersbe Bible Commentary in its commentary on Hebrews 9 says, “God’s principle is that blood must be shed before sin can be forgiven (Lev. 17:11).”[1] The People’s New Testament Commentary on Hebrews 9:22 says, “Without shedding of blood is no remission. Every sin under the law required atonement, and no atonement could be made without blood.” [2] The average Christian says that the only way for sins to be absolved or atoned is through the blood of Jesus.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Jesus, Sin, sin and salvation, Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Mark 1:2 is still an error

Posted by Ibn Anwar on September 29, 2010

Response to Sam Shamoun on Mark 1:2

by Ibn Anwar

I have been away from Unveiling Christianity for a good long while due to engagements elsewhere. However, a couple of days ago a friend of mine brought my attention to an article written by Sam Shamoun in rebuttal to my article on Mark 1:2. Though Sam Shamoun raises some interesting points in his “examination” his main argument boils down to a standard Christian apologetic ploy. In this article we will illustrate the deficiencies of Sam Shamoun’s position and reaffirm the conclusion that was made in my previous article on mark 1:2.  This is a counter-rebuttal to his claim “Mark’s Prologue Examined In light of the assertions of an Incompetent Dawagandist”. To begin let us reproduce the article that I wrote for the benefit of the readers.

Human Error or Divine Incompetence?

by Ibn Anwar

Can you imagine a book that claims to convey factual information and data making a terrible factual error in its first paragraph? Let’s say we have a book called “101 Facts on Animals” and in the first supposed fact it makes an UNFACTUAL claim. Would you be taking that book seriously anymore or will you consider chucking it in the bin and find other books instead? This is the predicament that Christians face when the claim is made that the Gospel according to Mark is divinely inspired or “god-breathed”. At the very beginning of the book and in the first chapter of Mark we have a truly irreconcilable textual error.

In the beginning was an error….. “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way;” (Mark 1:2) I challenge every Christian in the world to show me where I can find in Isaiah the verse “Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way”. Believe me when I say that not even the Pope can help you here. That is because the verse does not exist in Isaiah, although you can actually find it in the Old Testament. To be more specific it is in the Torah. To be even more specific it is in Exodus! The words are different but the meaning is basically the same. “See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared.” (Exodus 23:20) How far apart exactly is Exodus from Isaiah? The answer to that is about 1000 years! How could such a mistake happened if God was guiding the hand of the anonymous author of Mark? Did God forget that it was His prophet Moses and not Isaiah who mentioned the verse? God forbid! It is more reasonable to contend that the reason for the unequivocal error is because Mark was written by anonymous individual who was not guided by God. The text is a clear corruption that should not be attributed to the divine. Some might try to argue that the verse actually reads, “in the Prophets” as opposed to “in Isaiah” as found in the King James Version. No doubt that the KJV based on manuscripts containing such a reading does say that. But that reading is only to be found in the majority of rather late manuscripts e.g. A, E, F, G, H, P, W, S, family 13, the majority of minuscules, Syriac Harclean of the Byzantine version and others. The earliest witness for the reading “in the Prophets” dates only to the fourth century. On the other hand the reading for “in Isaiah” as retained in most Bibles today are based on the most ancient witnesses(manuscripts) such as in Aleph, B, L, D, Q, family 1, 33, 205, 565, 700, 892, 1071, 1241, 1243, 2427, Itala MSS (a, aur, b, c, d, f , ff2, l, q, Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Syriac Palestinian, Coptic and so on. The reading is widespread and is found in almost all the Alexandrian, Caesarean and Western witnesses.* Thus the reading “in Isaiah” is closer to the original. Even if for the sake of argument we were to entertain the veracity of the KJV reading “in the Prophets” the textual predicament still remains. Exodus was not by Prophets but by a Prophet i.e. Moses. The Old Testament according to Jewish tradition is divided into three categories namely, Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim. Nevi’im means Prophets referring to the books attributed to Prophets. If the reading “in the Prophets” were to be true then it would be referring to the category of Nevi’im which does not include the Torah wherein Exodus is found. Whichever position one takes Mark 1:2 remains nothing more than a corruption! Mark 1:2 is yet another falsehood in “the book of God”. *Daniel Wallace on Mark 1 -end of article on Mark 1- (https://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/biblical-errancy-in-mark-1/)

In his response Sam Shamoun makes the claim that I have simply recycled “liberal attacks and criticisms” against the Bible:

Muslim dawagandist Ibn Anwar has become rather fond of rehashing the same old liberal attacks and criticisms against the Holy Bible that have been refuted over and over again. Just recently Ibn Anwar produced a short piece (1; 2) attacking Mark for ignorantly attributing a wrong quote to the Prophet Isaiah in Mark 1:2-3.

He then says that if I was honest I would do good to consult Bible commentaries that will provide me with the data to understand “what Mark was doing here”.

If Ibn Anwar was honest and truly interested in finding an answer to this alleged discrepancy all he had to do was consult some Biblical commentaries which would have provided him with the data to understand what Mark was doing here. In fact he could have found the answer on our site since we have addressed this assertion before, namely in response to another Muslim polemicist named MENJ.

The fact of the matter is that it is Ibn Anwar who is ignorant, not Mark, and he is the one who has made a gross blunder by erroneously assuming that Mark was mistaken since this exposes his ignorance of the Jewish exegetical practices employed during the time of Christ. It was a common practice amongst the Jews to take citations from different biblical writings – especially when such references touched on similar themes or ideas and/or used the same words – and attribute them to a single author. The rabbis even coined a term for this particular method of exegesis, namely gezera shewa.

From the above we can adduce that his main argument that I am wrong is that it was common practice for Jews to make citations  to different sources that have similar themes, ideas or words and attribute them to a single author. He then says that this is a particular method of exegesis used by Rabbis that is called gezera shewa. First of all, let us understand what this word means in the Judaic tradition.

The word itself literally means “equal category”. It is one of the Seven Rules of Hillel who is attributed as the earliest source for the said midrashic or Jewish exegetical principle.[1] Former Dean of the Yale Divinity school Harold W. Attridge explains:

“…the Rabbinic technique gezera shewa, which draws together two passages linked by a common word. At its simplest, this technique interpreted an ambiguous word in one context by its clear meaning in another. The technique could also link passages whose themes or motifs might be mutually illuminating.” [2]

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible(s), Christian Watch, Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments »

The New Testament Greek manuscripts

Posted by Ibn Anwar on September 28, 2010

Greek New Testament manuscripts vs. Arabic Qur’an and hadith manuscripts

by Ibn Anwar

Many Christian apologists argue that the Qur’an and hadith are historically unreliable. It is claimed that this is due to the scarcity of early manuscript evidence for either Qur’an or hadith. The latter is claimed to be far more unreliable because the earliest compilations date back to only Bukhari about 200 years after the fact. The following quotation is taken from a Christian paper on the subject captures the essence of such arguments raised against Islam by Christian missionaries :

“Documentary evidence for the Qur’an has always been difficult, due to the paucity of primary documents at our disposal (as was mentioned in the previous section). The oldest Muslim documents available are the Muslim Traditions, which were initially compiled as late as 765 A.D. (i.e. The Sira of Ibn Ishaq). Yet the earliest documents which we can refer to today are those compiled by Ibn Hisham (the Sira of the prophet), and the large Hadith compilations of al-Bukhari, Muslim and others, all written in the ninth century, and thus 200 to 250 years after the fact. They are much too late to be useful for our study here. Therefore we must go back to the seventh century itself and ascertain what documents are available with which we can corroborate the reliability of the Qur’an.” [1]

There are several erroneous claims made in the above quotation. The oldest surviving Muslim documents are not the ‘Muslim Traditions’, but rather the Qur’an itself. The so called “Qur’an of Uthman” at the Topkapi museum date to the late first century or early second century(hijri). Another so called “Qur’an of Uthman” which is kept at the Turk ve islam Eserleri muzesi is also dated to the late first century or early second century(hijri). Two other “Qur’an of Uthman” are found in Egypt (Masjid Al-Hussain, Cairo and Darul Kutub al-Misriyya) with similar dates. Then there are the first and late first century or early first century San’a manuscripts and codices. All of these and many more predate the the biographical works of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham and also the hadith compilations of Bukhari and Muslim. The quotation also erroneously claim that all the hadith compilations date to the ninth century(200-250 after the fact). This is also false. The earliest documentation of hadith that has been discovered predate the Sihah Sittah(six authentic compilations e.g. Bukhari and Muslim) and it is the Sahifa of Hammam bin Munabbih written in the mid-first century(hijri). This has been noted by the hadith scholar Dr. M. Hamidullah in Sahifa Hammam bin Munabbih: The Earliest Extant Work On The Hadith. The compilations of hadith by the four great imams are also readily accessible today. All of them and others predate the compilations of Bukhari and the rest of the sihah sittah. The Christian missionary in the quotation claims that “They are much too late to be useful for our study here”. However, it has just been illustrated that this is an extremely inaccurate assertion. Nevertheless, the Christian author has made the judgment that anything that exceeds 200 years is too late to be of any use. Let us employ this criterion that he has used against Islam on his Holy Bible and see how it fairs. In order to do this I will produce scanned pages from Kurt and Barbara Aland’s The text of the New Testament [2] which was translated from their original Der text des Neuen Testaments in German. Both husband and wife(especially Kurt Aland) are notable textual critics and have worked with other prominent textual critics like Bruce Metzger. Kurt Aland was the head of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Germany and editor of the Nestle-Aland edition of Novum Testamentum Graece (Greek New Testament). Kurt and Barbara Aland list all the papyri, uncials and minuscules from the earliest to the latest. In the table one can easily ascertain that there are only two documents that can be definitely said to belong to the second century C.E. namely, p52 and p90. The other earliest papyri are p32, p46, p64+67, p66 and p77. They are dated to either the late second century or early/mid third century. Note that no single surviving document dates back to the first century in the table! The overwhelming majority of all the Greek texts date from the 3rd to as late as the 17th century! The following is the table from pages 159 to 162 of The text of the New Testament listing all the Greek texts and manuscripts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible(s), Qur'an and Hadith | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Isaiah prophecises Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.

Posted by Ibn Anwar on June 4, 2010

Isaiah 21:7 and the camel rider

by Ibn Anwar

Some Christians (not all) cite Isaiah 21:7 as an example of a prophecy concerning Jesus. Jesus is said to have rode into Jerusalem on a donkey as mentioned in John 12:14 and elsewhere in the other gospels.  Tying that with Isaiah 21:7 which mentions a rider on an ass(donkey) they propose that Isaiah saw Jesus riding on a donkey into Jerusalem. That’s all fine, but what about the other part of the verse that mentions a rider on a camel? The gospels do not mention at all Jesus riding on a camel into any city. The following verse is from the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible which is based on the Septuagint.

“And he saw a chariot with two horsemen, a rider upon an ass, and a rider upon a camel: and he beheld them diligently with much heed.” (Isaiah 21:7)

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Jesus, Muhammad s.a.w. | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

A Critique on the Crucifixion

Posted by Ibn Anwar on January 28, 2010

Difficulties, Contradictions and Problems in the Crucifixion tale

by Ibn Anwar

“…but they killed him not, nor crucified him…”(Qur’an 4:157)

Jesus’ Crucifixion is the bedrock of mainstream Christianity. It is such an important foundation in Christianity that even sects that have departed from “Orthodoxy” such as Unitarianism and the Jehovah’s Witness have retained the crucifixion. Paul says, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Cor. 15:14). Without crucifixion there is no resurrection. Because the preaching of Christianity is based on the resurrection it goes without saying that the crucifixion is equally significant and important which is also why the official symbol in mainstream Christianity is the cross.

It is often claimed in Evangelical circles and by Christian missionaries that there is a consensus among scholars and historians both conservative and liberal that Jesus certainly died on the cross. This is misleading. There are scholars who argue that because there is such a paucity in early reliable historical records attesting to Jesus’ existence  that must mean that he is a myth, a legend, a fiction. Granted that the circle of scholars of this persuasion is small in number that does not discount the fact that they are up and about. Tom Harpur who was professor of New Testament and New Testament Greek at Wycliffe(The Pagan Christ), Bruno Bauer (Critique of the Gospels and History of Their Origin), Earl Doherty(The Jesus Puzzle), Prof. G.A. Wells(The Historical Evidence for Jesus), Prof. Michael Martin(The Case Against Christianity) are some of the scholars who have questioned Jesus’ existence. Thus to continue claiming that all scholars both liberal and conservative agree on the crucifixion is untrue. Undoubtedly, a vast majority of scholars say the crucifixion happened, but not without  serious qualification. They do not say it as a fact, but rather as a probable occurence. Historians involved in this area of study base their judgment on probabilities rather than conclusive historical data. Using the historical method scholars comb through available  historical materials, assess them and thereafter produce what they think to be the most probable conclusion. Historians using the critical historical method do not recognise supernatural events because they are the least probable occurences which is why God cannot be in the equation hence discounting both resurrection and Jesus’ ascent to heaven as historical(at least according to the historical method). A person living 2000 years ago would be regarded as dead because it is highly improbable(or impossible) for a man to live for centuries.  Because Jesus lived around 2000 years ago historians conclude that he must have died.  This is of course according to the critical historical method. The real question that historians are interested in is how he died.  And for this they look at the historical records surrounding the person Jesus. According to their perspective based on their research the most probable explanation or cause for Jesus’ death is the crucifixion. Thus many modern (non-Muslim) historians have no qualms over Jesus’ death  itself not because they think that Jesus was factually and definitely crucified but because a man living 2000 years ago cannot still be alive.  In this article we will be looking closely at some of those major data and sources used to propose that Jesus died by crucifixion. God willing, we will illustrate  by proposing nine contentions(using historical and theological arguments) that the historical material employed are insufficient in  proving the crucifixion and that Jesus certainly did not die the shameful death of a crucified man.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible(s), Jesus, Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , | 139 Comments »

Biblical Christian Taqiyyah

Posted by Ibn Anwar on January 24, 2010

Christians lie to promote their religion

by Ibn Anwar

The activity of Christians promoting their faith through deceit all over the world is not something new to Muslims. We are well aware of the sly tactics employed by Evangelical and Christian missionaries in delivering the message of Christianity to the unbelievers. We know about the Christian Evangelical ship Logos that sails around the world making stops in third world countries like Indonesia and luring the people by giving them gifts in exchange for belief in Christ. How many times have you heard missionary propagandists like Christian Prince and Sam Shamoun throwing accusations of so called “Islamic taqiyyah” at Muslims saying that Islam teaches its followers to use deceit as one of the ways to deliver Islam. The word Taqiyyah comes from the root waqa which means to “to shield/protect oneself”. However, when Christian missionaries talk about Taqiyyah what they mean is that Muslims lie to spread their religion. In this article we will unequivocally show that Christians are the ones who lie and deceive to spread their faith which is incidentally taught by  their Holy Bible(s).

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in "Saint" Paul of Tarsus, Christian Watch | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 15 Comments »

Biblical errancy in Mark 1

Posted by Ibn Anwar on January 22, 2010

Human Error or Divine Incompetence?

by Ibn Anwar

Can you imagine a book that claims to convey factual information and data making a terrible factual error in its first paragraph? Let’s say we have a book called “101 Facts on Animals” and in the first supposed fact it makes an UNFACTUAL claim. Would you be taking that book seriously anymore or will you consider chucking it in the bin and find other books instead? This is the predicament that Christians face when the claim is made that the Gospel according to Mark is divinely inspired or “god-breathed”. At the very beginning of the book and in the first chapter of Mark we have a truly irreconcilable textual error.

In the beginning was an error…..

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible(s) | Tagged: , , , , , , | 34 Comments »

Unveiling Polycarp

Posted by Ibn Anwar on September 6, 2009

A dialogue between Ibn Anwar and Polycarp

I am not quite sure who Mr. Polycarp is, but it does seem fairly certain that he is a Christian apologist. He first appeared on Unveiling-Chrisianity on the Trinity Challenge post where he simply posted a reference, that is,  Matthew 28:19 in answer to Ibn Sa’ad’s challenge to produce a single verse that teaches the Trinity in the Bible(s).  I in turn replied and directed him to an article I had written on Matthew 28:19. Thereafter, we had some very interesting exchanges that you may follow here.  On August 16, he also comented on another article. The article is on Paul written by my friend Sami Zaatari the Muslim apologist. Naturally, I responded and that led to some further exchanges until finally Polycarp relented and asked for time out so he could gather his sources and provide much more meaningful rebuttals. I had no objection to it and opined that maybe he could even produce a whole thesis on the subject to which he said, “maybe I will!”. The thesis isn’t forthcoming, but of course one understands that thesis’ are time consuming and take a while to complete. So, we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and give him at least 2 years to finish it. Neverheless, he has returned and produced the following response which is his latest.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in "Saint" Paul of Tarsus, Theology | 21 Comments »

Whose canon is divinely inspired?

Posted by Ibn Anwar on August 23, 2009

  The many Christian canons

by Ibn Anwar

    The word canon comes from the Greek kanna which accoding to Prof. Bleddyn J. Roberts means ” ‘reed’ or ‘cane’; which gives the idea of a measuring-rod, and it was first used in this sense when Athanasius applied it to the books of the NT.” [1] In the Biblical sense canon refers to a select number of books that are considered authoritative and divinely inspired, hence, their inclusion in a particular Bible volume. Many Christians, especially from the west are pretty much familiar with the 66 books canon – 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. The Protestants would be less familiar with the Catholic canon which consists 73 books containing 7 extra books. The so-called Deuterocanonical books are regarded as apocryphal(doubtful) by the Protestants, but the Catholics consider them canonical. One may think that the existence of different canons end at the Catholic-Protestant traditions. One would be very wrong to think that. As a matter of fact throughout Christian history there have been numerous different canons that differ from one another. In this article we shall have a glimpse at those many Christian canons. The main purpose of this article is to show that those Christians out there who want to talk about Qur’anic manuscripts burned by Uthman r.a. and try to undermine its credibility from that approach need to reconsider their tactic.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible(s) | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Treatment of women in the Bible

Posted by Ibn Anwar on August 22, 2009

 The amazing Biblical treatment of women

by Ibn Anwar

   Christian missionaries often accuse Islam of mistreating women. They claim that the Qur’an and the Sunnah teach that women are inferior and that this particular sex is oppressed by Allah and his Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. Na’udhubillah. In this article we will be comparing and contrasting the Biblical teachings on women versus those in Islam as found in the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Women presented as inferior at the very beginning

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel. To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:12-13)

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bible(s), Islam, Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »