“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)
Assalamu'alaikum and Greetings. Please proceed to the CONTENTS PAGE to search for or navigate to all the articles published on the site. Thank you.
Testimonials
“This is excellent. May Allah reward you.”
(Imam Shabir Ally, debater/speaker/scholar on Islam and Christianity and president of the Islamic Information & Dawah Centre International in Toronto, Canada. In an email exchange dated June.5.2011)
“I have visited your website and I must say it is impressive. I envy your passion and courage in spreading the words of Islam… Mabruk!!!”
(Mr. Mazlan Yusof, Lecturer at the Department of English and the Department of Education, International Islamic University Malaysia)
“Anwaar’s point is convincingly right! Jesus, it is obvious, was not a Trinitarian, and it is shocking to discover that his claimed followers do not in fact follow his view of God.
Christians should be urged to affirm the creed which Jesus affirmed. I have documented your good point in two full length books: The Doctrine of the Trinity, Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound and Jesus was not a Trinitarian (both at Amazon).
Anthony Buzzard”
(Sir Anthony Buzzard, Unitarian scholar of the Bible)
وفي هذا الاطار قام أخ كريم بارسال رابط لمدونة أكثر من رائعة خصصها لفضح أباطيل التنصير ومزاعمه الدينية التي يروج لها
اسم المدونة الجديدة: كشف النقاب عن النصرانية
Unveiling Christianity
(deedat.wordpress.com)
“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:
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.
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.”
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:
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.
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- (http://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]
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.
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.
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)
According to the Old Testament Jesus cannot be a saviour
by Ibn Anwar
According to Christians Jesus is a prince. He is the prince of peace. In the New Testament we read again and again that Jesus is called ‘the Son of Man’. In fact, that expression is mentioned for Jesus over 83 times throughout the New Testament. Consider the following verse,
“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man in whom there is no help.” (Psalms 146:3)
Very recently my article on God is not a man was posted on brother Zami Zaatari’s site muslim-responses.com. It got the attention of the notorious Sam Shamoun who then directed Dr. James White to it. As a result of that Dr. James White of the Alpha and Omega ministries produced a 20 minutes and 45 seconds long video response to the article(or to a fraction of the article). Before you watch Dr. White’s response you should first read the article in question. Click here to read the article. The following is the video response.
Is it just mere coincidence that there are exactly three verses in the entire Old Testament or Hebrew Bible that negates God being a man and on the other end of the spectrum there is the idea that God is three persons as Trinitarians hold? I do not think it is a mere coincidence that we have it as such. I do not think that it is mere coincidence that one of the three verses expressly denies that God is both man and the son of man both of which are respectively associated with Jesus. It goes without saying that these verses strongly indicate that the Trinity and the idea that God incarnated into the man Jesus are doctrines that are antithesis to God’s nature.
Christian missionary: Allah is a moon god! You are worshipping a moon god! PAGANS!
by Ibn Anwar
I have met at least ten Christian missionaries who have brandished an accusing fingure saying that Allah the God that Muslims believe in is really a moon god. This idea or let’s call what it really is, a myth was postulated by a certain Robert Morey who’s arguments have been clinically or rather scholarly dissected at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html . The expose’ was authored by MSM Saifullah, Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi and Abdullah David. I think they have done an excellent job at presenting a sound rebuttal from an archeological standpoint bringing much clarity to the controversy. In this brief article of mine we shall not be going through the arguments proposed by Robert Morey and his cohorts. Rather we shall have a look at what the primary source of Islam says concerning the matter. Let the Qur’an speak for itself and we shall see whether the Muslims are worshipping a moon god or not.
The Lord hardens the heart and misguides and misleads as He wishes
by Ibn Anwar
Many a time Christian missionaries accuse Muslims of believing in a God that misguides and misleads men as He wishes. They will then cite certain verses from the Qur’an that at a glance do seem to convey what they’re claiming such as the following verse,
“And We never sent a messenger save with the language of his folk, that he might make (the message) clear for them. Then Allah sendeth whom He will astray, and guideth whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Wise.”(14:4)
There are quite a number of verses and passages throughout the New Testament that teach and propagate the absolute Oneness of God the Creator and Jesus’ subservience to Him as a servant and worshipper. We will not be scrutinising all those verses here. What we will do is focus on just one passage which to my understanding as I will prove in due course succinctly refutes the Trinity and shows Jesus’ admission to absolute numerical monotheism. Before we proceed it is noteworthy that Muslim apologists in general like to quote Mark 12:29 in particular whenever arguing for Jesus’ monotheistic belief, but, they almost never discuss the immediate verses that follow. The immediate context of the verse would indeed strengthen their case as we shall see. Let us begin by reading the text.
What does it mean to say that Jesus is the “Son of God”?
by Ibn Anwar
As John F. O’Grady in The Four Gospels and the Jesus Tradition observes Christians would think that when the title Son of God is applied to Jesus it connotes divinity. [1] That is to say Jesus is God because he is called the Son of God. The Catholic Encyclopedia claims under Son of God that when the title is used in the New Testament for Jesus it is applied “for expressing His Divinity”. These cannot be farther from the truth. In this article we shall see that Son of God is actually a title given to those who have a special, meritorious or superior connection/relationship to God as opposed to any other Tom, Dick or Harry. Nevertheless, many(not all) Christians might think that Son of God is a special and exclusive title designated to Jesus. They would be horribly wrong. Indeed, if it was used only for Jesus then the claim that it imparts the idea of divinity would hold some strength. Unfortunately, anyone who is familiar with the Bible(s) will know that it is one of the most common titles used. If Son of God truly connotes divinity then dozens of people in the Bible(s) would be Gods since they are called son/s of God.
The recording is of the most recent formal debate I had on Paltalk with a Christian. The topic was on the Trinity, did Jesus teach it? Insha’Allah, I will add a commentary on the debate when I can. The time allocated was very restricted, thus many of the points raised by the opponent could not be addressed during the debate. However, I did manage to deal with most of them during the Q & A session. Unfortunately, it was not recorded. So, insha’Allah I shall endeavour to respond to the unaddressed claims in the upcoming commentary. In the meantime I hope you will enjoy the debate.
What is the basis for the Muslim apologist in asking ”Where did Jesus call for his worship and claim divinity”?
by Ibn Anwar
For those who have watched and followed Ahmed Deedat’s(may Allah have mercy on him) debates and lectures and others who have followed suit such as Sami Zaatari are very well familiar with the often asked question,”Where did Jesus claim,”Wroship me or I am God?” “. For those of you who aren’t familiar with this line of questioning, insha’Allah, you will be exposed to it in this article. Muslim apologists since Ahmed Deedat have always demanded proof from the Christians for their claims, especially in regards to the divinity of Jesus. The most common and straight forward method is to ask directly, where did Jesus clearly and explicitly claim to be God or asked people to worship him if he is indeed God. The reason for this kind of query is really quite simple. Muslims have been taught from childhood in our scriptures i.e. the Qur’an and Sunnah, that God does not shy from declaring His soverignty and divinity. The idea is that if someone or something is God then the first thing that ought to come to mind for a reasonable individual is did the being claim to be God or was this something that people attached to him/it? This is actually a very important question. Let’s take a down-to-earth example for a clearer picture about this. Let’s say we have George and the people of Britain. George is connected through blood to the British royal family. One fine day the entire royal household died and others disappeared leaving only George unscathed. The British monarchy is in tatters and will probably end if George does not take his place aas rightful heir to the throne. The parliament begins an emergency session and calls George to save the day and be crowned King. Can they force him to do it or does he have to claim it? The answer is of course, he has to accept and claim the throne as his own. Let’s consider a similar scenario but with a little tweak. British royal family destroyed, killed, decimated, disappeared etc. leaving no clear successor in sight. George is there but there is no definite or clear sign of blood ties to royalty from him. Some vague proof is salvaged and ambiguously links him to the British royal family. Parliament wants him to be king, since there is no one else but he does not make any claim to royalty and dies without making any such claim. Can someone later legitimately label him as King of England? The answer should be no. So as we can see, it is indeed very important for someone or a being to make a clear cut claim when it comes to matters of sovereignty. Did Jesus make such a claim? That is indeed the question. Whether he did or not is not something which we will explore in detail in this article. The purpose of this article is to establish some grounds for the Muslim approach as regards to the title.
Some common arguments used by Trinitarians in defence of Jesus’ “divinity”
by Ibn Anwar
The following are some arguments proposed by Trinitarians in their attempts at proving Jesus’ divinity and association with God and responses to them.
1. Jesus is God because he did not have a father. He was born of a virgin birth, a very unique characteristic found in Jesus. Who was his father? His father’s God.
Believe it or not the Bible actually says God is NOT All Knowing. Christian readers, please remain calm in your seats. I am sure you are either bewildered or angered(perhaps both) by my insinuation. Fear not, I am not without proof. However, let me briefly explain what the Bible is for the benefit of those who are not familiar with it. In brief, the Bible comes from Biblos which is Greek for a collection on books. Hence, the Bible is a compilation of many books in one volume. The Bible is partitioned into two main parts, namely; The Old Testament and the New Testament. There are canonical differences amongst the major Churches of Christianity in regards to the Bible e.g. The Catholic Bible contains 73 books and the Protestant Church contains 66.
The following quote comes from an early church leader in his work, De Carne Christi. I was reminded of this saying,when I came across a video on the trinity on youtube. The video is below:
Now let us compare this ‘mess’ with the concept of God in Islam:
Surah Ikhlas(112)
112.001 Say: He is Allah , the One and Only;
112.002 Allah , the Eternal, Absolute;
112.003 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
112.004 And there is none like unto Him.
For those who still adhere to the Trinitarian doctrine, I remind you that:
God is not the author of confusion( 1 Corinthians 14:33)
This is an open Challenge to those who accept the Trinity and believe that the Bible confirms this doctrine. I challenge you to bring at least one explicit biblical verse which clearly states something similar to the following:
“God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are all gods, however, they are not three gods but one God,”
or
“God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are the same being,”
or
“God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same” or etc.
, the One and Only;
