Monday, 23 August 2010
“(God is) the one Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion” (Sura 21: 33).
I find it rather obvious from what this passage depicts that the day and night depends upon the orbit of the sun and moon. In other words, contrary to what Muslim apologists exclaim about the sun's galactic orbit, the passage appears rather to describe the sun and the moon in parallel orbits.
It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law)(Sura 36: 40).
That the Qur'an refers to parallel orbits is further clarified in this passage, which states that the sun and the moon do not catch up each other.
Think of it: what sense does this make if the Qur'an described a galatic orbit since the moon is already attached to such an orbit, and since the orbit relates not to the galaxy but the day and night? Furthermore, notice that this passage states the impossible task of the sun to catch up the moon.
Why can't the sun catch up the moon, is due to its inability to do so? No really! The passage makes it clearly that the sun is not permitted to do so. In other words, the sun has the ability to catch the moon, hence the switch from day to night, since both travel in parallel orbits; yet their abilities to catch up is simply not permitted.
I might here agree with some that the passages are metaphorical, much like Sura 91: 1-2:
By the Sun and his (glorious) splendour; By the Moon as she follows him…(Sura 91: 1-2)
I must say I have no real problem with the metaphorical language of this passage, and I am inclined to believe that this simply describes what is observable from the earth.
Yet there are two further problems here:
The first, which I will refrain from looking at at this point, is the very language utilized by the Qur'an in describing the orbits, which appear to be in a close similtude with the pre-Islamic thinkers.
The second problem derives from the interpretation of Muhammad himself:
Sahih Al-Bukbari clearly confirms some of these as scientific facts (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421: Narrated Abu Dharr):
The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west.
And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: ‘And the sun Runs its fixed course for a term (decreed). That is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.’" (36.38)
Thursday, 19 August 2010
What do we mean by that! Well in what sense do liberalism, atheism (frequently) and Islam cohere together? Where is the logic? Personally as I see it: these, despite their diversity all originate from the same root!
Here is a comment I found on a forum related to the possibility that Obama is a Muslim in disguise. More and more Americans seem to take this view onboard.
What really concerns me when I read such information is not merely Obama religious view, but the collective force, the trend in USA of liberalists, atheists, media, the political system along with Islam that manages to suppress Christianity to such an extent that the next step practically speaking can only result in serious future injustice against the Christian community.
We can only imagine the effect when such individuals are placed in every significant post of the American society, whether religious affairs, foreign ministry and national security.
Such individuals will simply sell or hand over your nation and rights to foreign forces and cultures, typically due to political correctness or due to decades of mind-twisting liberal and postmodernist philosophies.
Anyway here is the comment!
(I would like to know if all these points are based upon reality and whether the situation really is what the comment portrays.)
You decide for yourself America:
A Christian University is asked to
cover all Crosses in order to have the Pres to speak there, so that it wouldn't
offend "the muslims."
Christians are asked to pray in the street and not
on the lawn of the white house, just a couple of weeks ago;
holds "ram-a-@#$% dinner", a muslim holiday, this last week at the white house;
NASA is asked to not explore space, but to "reach out to the muslim
nations, and let them know how much they've contributed to "space innovation";
Our pres has repeatedly said we are "not a Christian Nation."
he Christian or Muslim?
Saturday, 14 August 2010
Since then I have greatly expanded my insight into the matter and am currently preparing a more detailed work, which I may post in small parts or in a lengthy essay in near future.
Notice that my intention here is not to debunk the improbability of the Qur'anic view (that will derive in a later post) but to point out that the Qur'anic picture of the cosmological origin was a view that flourished centuries prior to the rise of Islam, and which the authors and composers of the Qur'an appear to have borrowed from circulating teaching or sources, sometimes (possibly) even word for word.
To assess the cosmology of the Qur’an our study has to begin with its concept of cosmogony, the origins. Here Muslims usually refer to Sura 21: 30:
‘Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe? (Sura 21: 30)’
Friday, 6 August 2010
What... are atheists now claiming that the DNA system reveals lack of imagination???
Sounds like Dawkins' assertions: that the molecule world is so simple that the evolutionary process easily explains its existance and functions. I agree with Stuart Burgess, that Dawkins' proposition here is naive to the core. The cell and DNA system constitutes a world of complexity far too incomprihensive for modern scientists to fathom.
Hence such an atheist claim amounts to accomplish nothing but to reveal desparation and silliness.
And how about the other argument, that God could have willed the animal world to copy themselves in similar ways to the cells. If that is supposed to be creative imagination the reality is quite the opposite; in fact such an idea reveals only the atheist expectation and view of the world in general, that of chaos, funny how continuous chaos is viewed as comparative with a creative mind of order.
Good grief, what a world, I can imagine making a copy of myself on a everyday basis, imagine 10.000 Hogan Elijah Hagbard's; I can imagine a quick human exodus to Mars. How could we cope, yet imagine a world that was a million times more populated than presently? Would life not have seized several millenniums ago?
Are we not rather to conclude that the world, production and function of the cells and that of the animal and human world are better separated and hence merely reveals the effective mindset of divine intellegence?
Thursday, 5 August 2010
Muslims usually wonder why Christians reject Muhammad as a prophet, and the answer is obvious: 1) the Jewish and Christian Scripture refer nowhere to Muhammad, and secondly 2) Muhammad does not fulfil the standard of a prophet as set out in the Bible.
The Koran says:
“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own Scriptures in the Taurat and he Gospel” (Sura 7: 157)
And remember Jesus, the Son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (Sent) to you, confirming the Taurat (which came) before me, and giving a glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad” but when he came to them with clear signs, they said “This is evident sorcery” (Sura 61: 6)
Thus the Koran states that Muhammad is predicted and found within the Torah and the Gospel as it was read and understood by the Christians and the Jews in the era of Muhammad.
I. Muhammad predicted in the Torah
Muslims will usually claim that God’s blessing upon Ishmael was the prediction concerning Muhammad; however, taking a closer look, we find that there is virtually no prophetic blessing ascribed to Ishmael (Gen. 16:7-15; 17:17-21; 21: 13, 18; 25:12-18). Even the Qur’an itself confirms that the line of prophet-hood ran through the nation of Israel and its prophets (2:47; 29:47; 45:16-17).
The Muslim scholar Jamal Badawi seeks however, to argue his case on the issue by stating that a position of the kind always went to the firstborn first, which in this case is Ishmael, however:
1) this decision was taken before the law was inaugurated,
2) secondly God is above the law and
3) thirdly the context makes the whole setting understandable.
The Bible recognises the same to occur in terms of both David and Solomon (1 Samuel 16:6-13
1 Chronicles 29:23-25), and this is indeed accepted by the Koran:
We gave knowledge to David and Solomoon and they both said: ‘Praise be to Allah, Who has favored us above may of His servants who believe! And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: O ye people we have taught the speech of birds and we have been given of every thing: this is indeed grace manifest (from Allah)’ (Sura 27: 15-16)
The classic point referred to by Muslims is Deuteronomy 18:18 which says:
“I will raise up for them a prophet like you among their own brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I commanded you.”
The attempt of the Muslim is to state that compared to Moses, no prophet presented himself in the same close similitude as Muhammad. To prove their point Muslim scholars have listed a range of parallel elements which mark the life and accomplishments of both individuals.
E.g. Ahmed Deedat in his booklet What the Bible says about Muhammed comes up with these points:
1) Moses and Muhammad were prophets, while Jesus according to the Gospels was the Son of God!
- however, notice that this attempt is futile as the Gospels do refer to Jesus as a prophet too (Mark 6:4)
2) Moses and Muhammad were both married, Jesus was not
- if that is important we also need to consider the number of wives Muhammad had in comparison to Moses, which proves to be highly unequal
3) Moses and Muhammad had both a father and mother, but Jesus had no father
- to use this argument a Muslim is simply referring to Jesus on a much higher level than Muhammad, and secondly if this is important why should we stop here, why not also consider the comparison between the parents of Moses and Muhammad?
4) Both Moses and Muhammad, were accepted by their people while Jesus was rejected
- firstly Jesus was indeed accepted by his followers, and secondly his mission is not over yet. The time is coming when he will receive global acceptance. Secondly, was Muhammad really accepted by all, or did he simply force his rule?
5) Moses and Muhammad were both rulers, Jesus never ruled a people or anyone
- Jesus stated that he is ruling already now over heaven and earth (Matthew 28), however again, his mission is not completed yet, he will return to rule globally
6) Moses and Muhammad gave laws to the people Jesus did not
- wrong again, read the sermon on the mountain or Jesus’ words prior to his ascension (Matt.28:20)
7) Moses and Muhammad died a natural death, while Jesus’ according to the Gospel died as a sacrifice
- 1) Moses was killed by God himself, 2) Jesus died as a sacrifice and 3) Muhammad was possibly poisoned by a Jewish women; which of these three died a natural death?
8) Moses and Muhammad are both buried but Jesus according to the Gospel was taken to heaven
- Jesus was buried for a few days, as for Moses there is no grave, we are left ignorant. The main issue is, is this really and truly relevant anyway?
This kind of approach is obviously formulated by an individual who is grossly desperate and whose lack of Biblical knowledge simply leads him to pull verses out of context, combine them with other verses and add a slight of speculation. For example what has marriage got to do with the similitude of prophet-hood?
If this kind of approach lays the criteria, then the Muslim also needs to consider the elements which speak against Muhammad’s prophet-hood and present a disparate comparison between him and Moses:
Similar argumentation proving Muhammad to be unlike Moses:
1) Both Moses and Jesus were Israelites descending from the prophet line of Isaac of Jacob;
Muhammad was an Arab
2) Both Moses and Jesus were in Egypt; Muhammad was not
3) Both Moses and Jesus were saved as babies; Muhammad was not
4) Moses (Ex.33: 13-14) and Jesus (Matt.11) knew God personally, Muhammad did not!
5) Moses and Jesus could read, Muhammad could not, according to most Muslims
6) Both Moses and Jesus did miracles, but according to the Qur’an Muhammad performed none (Sura 24: 13) (29: 50).
7) Jesus and Moses never advocated foreign gods, however Muhammad at one point encouraged the worship of the three daughters of Allah.
8) The passage in Deut.18: 18 cannot refer to Muhammad since the whole context deals with Israel and individual positions within that society, such as prophets, who were to originate from the nation of Israel, that is: from among their own brothers, just like the kings (17:14-15) and priests (18:2).
Hence this prophecy whether a prediction of a line of prophets (from Joshua and unward) or a specific reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, is a prediction of prophets or a prophet who is an Israelite. This completely devastates the claim of Muslims that this particular prophecy refers to Muhammad.
The Actual context of Deut.18: 15-20
The argument falls to ground merely by considering the actual context of Deut.18, and this is where modern Islamic scholarship finds itself debunked.
“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your own brethren—him you shall heed (15). Just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die’ (16). And the Lord said to me, ‘They have rightly said all that they have spoken’ (17). I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth…(18)”.
In other words the promise of a prophet like Moses was an answer to Israel’s prayer. One who will succeed Moses and stand between Israel as a nation and God; in this context it had no global or international implication; the matter concerns the nation of Israel only.
“And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him (19). But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death (20)”.
It becomes obvious from verses 19-20 that the prophet has a plural significance, in other words, the ‘prophet’ is a prediction of several prophets rather than a particular one.
Secondly, since the passage refers to the context of Israel and the function of prophets there within. In other words, the prophet like Moses begins with Joshua. Thus the most accurate interpretation reveals that the ‘prophet’ refers to the line of prophets, from Moses up to Jesus Christ.
It is vital here, that Muhammad did at one time through prophetical utterance permit the worship of idols. This according to Deuteronomy 18: 20 renders Muhammad as a false prophet. Later the particular verses (known as the satanic verses) were abrogated from the Quran by the angel Gabriel (Sura 17:73 – 75, Sura 22:52-53, Sura 52: 19-26 Bukhari 6: 385; Tabari vol 6: 107).
This one of the main reasons, why Christians refuse to accept Muhammad as a prophet from God and certainly not as the last prophet, he simply did not meet the standard!
There is more, verses 21-22, speak of the actual sign which confirms prophethood, that is the fulfilment of his predictions, say a prophet really speaks for God and Muhammad did fail in this area as well; e.g. Sunan Abu Dawud, book 37: Number 4283 (Did the Dajjal appear in the seventh year of the battle over Constantinople?).
II. Is Muhammad predicted elsewhere in the Old Testament?
Since the word mahamaddim is used in Song of songs 5:16 Muslims quickly assert that Muhammad is being predicted.
However mahamaddim is a Hebrew word, which simply refers to a ‘loved one’ (literary it means delights) in a romantic setting; the same noun is applied in several Old Testament passages such as Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25.
Secondly the passage does not describe Muhammad but possibly king Solomon or even a shepherd boy.
Often Deut.33: 2 and Habakkuk 3: 3 are used to claim that Paran refers to Mecca, however Paran is located in the Sinai Peninsula near Egypt. Secondly, the context of Deut.33 speaks of an event in the history of Israel, not Saudi Arabia in the era of Muhammad.
Some Muslims refer to the servant in Isaiah 42:1 to prove Muhammad, however the context clearly refers to a Jewish related individual, who is a peacemaker and fits the full context of the anointed Messiah.
The Muslim scholar Badawi postulates that Isaiah 21:13-17 is a reference to the battle of Badr, however the context speaks about the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions of Arabia.
Psalm 84:6 is often used to prove the pilgrimage to Mecca, however the name used, Baca, is located in northern Israel, as near as five miles from Jerusalem.
Isaiah 29: 11-12 is supposed to refer to the giving of the Quran to someone who is unable to read (Muhammad), however according to the context, it is the rebellious people of Israel (not God) who provide the book. Thus, say Muhammad is the focus, then not Allah but the rebellious people of Israel provide Muhammad with the Koran (talk about corruption), and then again, how about the other individual who is literate? Who is he? Also we need to consider that the text is plural, and no particular individual seems to be in mind, and finally the book is sealed and can therefore not be read; is the Muslim thus willing to admit that he can’t read his own holy book?
Isaiah 42-45 speak about a chosen anointed one, yet again we need to look at the context as; in Isaiah 42 the chosen anointed servant clearly is a Messianic prediction, in Isaiah 42-44, 48-49 it is Israel, and in Isaiah 41 and 45 it is the Persian king Cyrus.
A response and challenge to those who oppose the Christian faith.