This document draws from the excellent work of Gary Michuta, Trent Horn, Joe Heschmeyer, William Albrecht and Practical Apologetics, all of whom we recommend heavily on this topic through writing, presentations and debates. Feel free to share and download this document to use yourself!
0 Comments
The video starts by Samantha Bee saying that “the religious right” melted brains to believe that God outlawed abortion from a burning bush. This is complete rubbish; yes, people who are religious and on the right oppose abortion but Christianity has always been explicitly against abortion and claiming they melted brains is just bias against the arguments, which they never address in the video. They instead claim that opposition to abortion is just because they are religious and demand it with no reasons and Bee states her confusion at why the bills passed would limit it at 15 weeks. The reason it was 15 is to gradually build towards a total outlawing but this is irrelevant anyway to whether God is against abortion and whether abortion is right or wrong.
Why Abortion Is Morally Wrong Abortion is wrong regardless of the authority of the Bible. The argument follows as such: Premise One: It is morally wrong to kill innocent human beings. Premise Two: The unborn are innocent human beings. Premise Three: Abortion is the killing of an unborn human being. Conclusion: Abortion is morally wrong. As premise one and three are self explanatory, I’ll defend premise two. As all humans get human rights, if the foetus is human, they get human rights from the point they are human. So, when do humans begin their lives? A research paper called When Does Human Life Begin [1] by bioethicist science professor Dr. Maureen Condic of the United States’ National Science Board gives us a good illustration. The paper explains that life begins at fertilisation and in particular, at the beginning of the process of fertilisation because fertilisation takes about 24 hours. Condic makes the case for life beginning at the start of that 24 hour period by focusing on two things. When scientists want to distinguish one cell from another cell, they look at two criteria; cell composition and cell behaviour, i.e. what is it made up of and what does it do. For example, when we look at the sperm cell, the composition is the genetic material of the father, different from the egg cell which is the genetic composition of the mother. When we look at the behaviour of the sperm, it is to swim around, find the egg and penetrate it and when we look at the egg, it sits and allows for penetration. We can see that the sperm and egg are different by looking at composition and behaviour. Now, let’s consider the one cell embryo or zygote in contrast to the sperm and the egg cell. When we look at cell composition and behaviour, we can see how the zygote at fertilisation is substantively different from the sperm and the egg. The composition is the genetic material of the mother and the father even before the chromosomes have intermingled. At that first point of sperm-egg fusion, that one cell embryo contains the genetic material from both parents, making it different from the sperm and the egg. When we look at behaviour, when another sperm comes along, as the first sperm came to the egg, and that sperm tries to penetrate the one cell embryo in the same manner, the embryo behaves differently to the other two cells, creating a zone or wall around it that prevents penetration. Via composition and behaviour, we know at fertilisation that we are dealing with something new. The genetic material that each of us has distinguishes us from our mother, father and every single other human being unless there are identical twins and this is determined at the moment of fusion. From that point forward, we develop what we look like and what we’re able to do and our essential nature remains the same. We’re human at that moment because our parents are human and beings reproduce after their own kind and we are alive at that moment because the cell is growing and this growth is indicative of life. Furthermore, even the heart begins to beat between around 21-35 days after conception, before almost all surgical and chemical abortions. Now we know life begins at fertilisation, we need to see where parenthood starts. Parenthood begins when a child is growing in the womb of the mother and begins their life. The obligatory responsibilities of parents are to provide the ordinary, natural means of care to their children, who have a right to food, hydration, shelter, ‘clothing’ and medicine. The United Nations have a declaration ‘on the Rights of the Child’ in which they say the child, by rights of their physical and mental immaturities, has rights to special safeguards and care before as well as after birth. The UN has also adopted a document called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [2] and in this document, it says that in countries where the death penalty is legal, it may never be done on a pregnant woman. Setting aside the topic of the death penalty, which is used as an objection that we will cover later, which is the punishment of guilty people, everyone agrees that it is always wrong to punish or administer capital punishment to innocent people. When two different women who committed the same crime are differed between in terms of the death penalty because one is pregnant, that is an admission that in the body of one of those guilty women is an innocent child. If it is wrong to give the death penalty to an unborn child, it is also wrong to abort an unborn child. Let’s look at the different types of abortion. The vast majority of abortions happen within the first three months of pregnancy and the common procedure used at this point is a vacuum aspiration, otherwise known as a D&C abortion (dilation and curettage). This involves a suction tube being inserted into the uterus that causes the baby to be pulled apart. The tiny unborn child, whose heart was beating at three weeks as we established and whose brain waves were detected at six weeks, has their body parts pulled apart by a suction tube piece by piece and the child is decapitated, dismembered and disembowelled. A later D&E abortion (dilation and evacuation) involves the use of forceps, inserted by the abortionist who clamps down on whichever body piece is first reached and pulls out that body part before returning and repeating until all the body parts are removed. When we are talking about body parts, those parts clearly belong to a human. Our human rights don’t come from what we can do; they come from what we are. The best way to define a human being is something that we all share equally and necessarily; human nature. This is the most inclusive definition of human value. Abortion is wrong because it clearly kills an innocent human being. Varying Views On Abortion Back to the video, Bee then says to find out, she will speak to “religious leaders” before introducing the representative in this discussion for Catholicism… Jamie L. Manson, the president of Catholics for Choice. Well, this is a bit selective and she isn’t a leader in Catholicism in any sense, she’s a dissenting Catholic going against the teaching of the Church so she can hardly claim to represent Catholicism. If Samantha Bee was really being honest and fair talking to “leaders” or prominent figures in Catholicism, why wouldn’t she have invited a respected defender of Catholicism or clergy rather than someone claiming to be Catholic while going against the Church who is specifically a defender of being pro-choice? I will focus on the Christian relevant parts of the conversation but something must quickly be said for the other two women, who represent Islam and Judaism. The Old Testament is clearly logically anti-abortion and the commandment not to murder a human being clearly applies when the unborn are human beings, so this covers at least the Scripture involved in Judaism, although the Talmud does hold authority so if what the Jewish panellist is saying is accurate, then this is the case for her sect of the modern version of one of the original forms of Judaism. Islam On Abortion The Muslim representative claims that Islam has no ban on abortion for any reason at any point by any method and while it is true that Islam does not completely oppose abortion and it is permissable, the “for any reason” part is a false, modernist claim; Muslims are obliged to follow a school for jurisprudence. While abortion can be permissable in Islam, it is absolutely not true that it can happen at any point or for any reason. The Maliki school is the only school that considers the unborn child to be a life from conception and all others see the soul as entering later, hence they are a life later on. The Hanafi school permits abortion prior to the four month mark if there is a “valid need”, such as rape or fornication. There are two different views in the Shafi’i school on abortion prior to four months and the most prominent view says that it is permissible. Alahazrat Imām Aĥmad Riđā Khān al-Ĥanafī al-Qādirī al-Baraylawī was asked about a man getting an abortion for a female relative and responded: “If the baby is not yet formed, it is permissible, otherwise it is impermissible as it is murder of an innocent one, and in four months the baby is formed.” [3] The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has an organisation called The Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta. In Al-Fatawa Al-Lajnah Ad-Da'imah (12/14) they wrote: ثانيا: الأحكام بعد سقوط الحمل: وهي مختلفة باختلاف زمن الإسقاط في أي من أطواره الأربعة على ما يلي: الحكم الأول: إذا سقط الحمل في الطورين الأولين: طور النطفة المختلطة من المائين، وهي في الأربعين الأولى من علوق الماء في الرحم، وطور العلقة، وهو: طور تحولها إلى دم جامد في الأربعين الثانية إلى تمام ثمانين يوما، ففي هذه الحالة لا يترتب على سقوطها نطفة أو علقة شيء من الأحكام بلا خلاف، وتستمر المرأة في صيامها وصلاتها كأنه لم يكن إسقاط، وعليها أن تتوضأ لوقت كل صلاة إذا كان معها دم كالمستحاضة. الحكم الثاني: إذا سقط الحمل في الطور الثالث، طور المضغة، - أي: قطعة من لحم- وفيه تقدر أعضاؤه وصورته وشكله وهيئته وهو في الأربعين الثالثة من واحد وثمانين يوما إلى تمام مائة وعشرين يوما، فله حالتان: ا- أن تكون تلك المضغة ليس فيها تصوير ظاهر لخلق آدمي ولا خفي، ولا شهادة القوابل بأنها مبدأ إنسان، فحكم سقوط المضغة هذه حكم سقوطها في الطورين الأولين، لا يترتب عليه شيء من الأحكام. ٢ - أن تكون المضغة مستكملة لصورة آدمي أو فيها تصوير ظاهر من خلق الإنسان؛ يد أو رجل أو نحو ذلك، أو تصوير خفي، أو شهد القوابل بأنها مبدأ إنسان، فحكم سقوط المضغة هنا أنه يترتب عليها النفاس وانقضاء العدة. الحكم الثالث: إذا سقط الحمل في الطور الرابع، أي: بعد نفخ الروح، وهو من أول الشهر الخامس من مرور مائة وواحد وعشرين يوما على الحمل فما بعد، فله حالتان، وهما: ١ - أن لا يستهل صارخا، فله أحكام الحالة الثانية للمضغة المذكورة سابقا، ويزيد أنه يغسل ويكفن ويصلى عليه ويسمى ويعق عنه. ٢ - أن يستهل صارخا، فله أحكام المولود كاملة، ومنها ما في الحالة قبلها آنفا، وزيادة هاهنا هي: أنه يملك المال من وصية وميراث، فيرث ويورث وغير ذلك. “With regard to the rulings following an abortion, they vary according to the time of the abortion, and fall into four categories, as follows: 1 – If the pregnancy is aborted within the first two stages (the nutfah (drop) stage which results from the mixing of the “two waters” which is the first forty days after the embryo attaches itself in the womb, and the ‘alaqah (clot) stage where it turns into solid blood during the second forty days), which add up to a total of eighty days, then in this case if it is aborted as a nutfah or ‘alaqah, there are no rulings to be followed, and there is no scholarly dispute on this point. The woman should continue to fast and pray as if she had not had an abortion, but she has to do wudoo’ for each prayer if she has any bleeding, as in the case of a woman suffering from istihaadah (non-menstrual vaginal bleeding). 2 – If the pregnancy is aborted in the third stage, the mudghah (chewed piece of flesh) stage, when the embryo looks like a piece of meat with the limbs and features beginning to appear, which lasts for forty days from the eighty-first to the one hundred and twentieth day, then there are two scenarios: (i)This embryo does not have any human features and the midwives or other attendants did not testify that this was the beginning of a human being. In this case the ruling on abortion of this mudghah is the same as the ruling on abortion in the first two stages, and there are no rulings to be followed. (ii)The embryo has complete human features or some human features such as a hand or foot, etc, or there are features but they are indistinct, or the midwives or other attendants testified that this was the beginning of a human being. In this case the rulings on nifaas are to be followed, and this signals the end of ‘iddah (waiting period following divorce or death of the husband, if applicable). 3 – If the pregnancy is aborted in the fourth stage, i.e., after the soul has been breathed into the foetus, which is after the beginning of the fifth month or after one hundred and twenty days of pregnancy have passed. Here there are two scenarios: (i)If the foetus did not cry after birth, then the rulings mentioned with regard to the second stage of the mudghah are to be followed, but in addition the foetus should be washed, shrouded and the funeral prayer offered for him; he should be given a name and the ‘aqeeqah offered for him. (ii)If the foetus cried after birth, then the rulings concerning a full-term baby apply, as mentioned above; in addition the child may take possession of wealth bequeathed or inherited; he may inherit or be inherited from, etc.” [4, 5] Al-Fataawa al-Jaami’ah, 3/1056 says that: “The Council of Senior Scholars issued the following statement: 1 – It is not permissible to abort a pregnancy at any stage unless there is a legitimate reason, and within very precise limits. 2 – If the pregnancy is in the first stage, which is a period of forty days, and aborting it serves a legitimate purpose or will ward off harm, then it is permissible to abort it. But aborting it at this stage for fear of the difficulty of raising children or of being unable to bear the costs of maintaining and educating them, or for fear for their future or because the couple feel that they have enough children – this is not permissible. 3 – It is not permissible to abort a pregnancy when it is an ‘alaqah (clot) or mudghah (chewed lump of flesh) (which are the second and third periods of forty days each) until a trustworthy medical committee has decided that continuing the pregnancy poses a threat to the mother’s wellbeing, in that there is the fear that she will die if the pregnancy continues. It is permissible to abort it once all means of warding off that danger have been exhausted. 4 – After the third stage, and after four months have passed, it is not permissible to abort the pregnancy unless a group of trustworthy medical specialists decide that keeping the foetus in his mother’s womb will cause her death, and that should only be done after all means of keeping the foetus alive have been exhausted. A concession is made allowing abortion in this case so as to ward off the greater of two evils and to serve the greater of two interests.” [6] Catholic Teaching On Abortion Jamie Manson, speaking for Catholicism, says that we must bear in mind that Catholic teaching is created by men who are extensively celibate. This is totally irrelevant and disregarding of Catholic authority. If you deny the authority you have to logically believe in as a Catholic, you aren’t a Catholic. Bee says it’s a “great start” that the people who wrote Catholic teaching have no connection to women as if they are incapable of speaking about abortion. This is again totally irrelevant as anyone can clearly come to see that abortion is morally wrong and again it disregards the authority of the Church. If someone makes the argument that men can’t comment on abortion, this could be said of many people on many issues, even other women who haven’t ever been pregnant. This view would also mean you cannot comment on a moral issue if it does not affect you, so for instance you couldn’t say it’s wrong for the owner of a restaurant to refuse to serve a black person because they are racist if you are neither a restaurant owner nor a black person. Women can have an opinion on the draft even when they cannot be drafted. Even if something doesn’t affect us or directly relate to us, we can still see or logically deduce that it’s wrong and why. The arguments against abortion are true or false irrelevant of the person who is presenting them or what their gender is and it would be fallacious to suggest otherwise. This objection would also mean Roe vs Wade would be illegitimate because the decision was made by 9 male justices. For some reason, the Catholic ignores this binding authority that she has to give assent of mind and will to and then appeals to Sola Scriptura by saying it isn’t however in the Bible. This is false but even if this were true, it would be irrelevant as the Bible isn’t the sole infallible authority in Christianity as a Catholic. It is false because the Bible clearly speaks of the unborn as persons. For example, in Luke 1:39-44, we see reference to an unborn baby. In Jeremiah, we see that a person is formed in the womb, as well as Psalm 139:13. In Job, we are moulded like clay in the womb. As we know the Bible condemns the killing of people, we can conclude definitively the Bible condemns abortion. Any professed pro-choice Christian would have to necessarily contradict infallible Scripture to state that abortion can in any circumstance be moral as they would have to either state that it is sometimes morally right to kill an innocent human being or that the unborn child is not an innocent human being, both definitively taught in Scripture. The claim that the Bible doesn’t specifically name abortion would be equivalent to saying that God doesn’t condemn nuking a country; we can see logically that it is morally wrong from other truths in Scripture, namely murder. Not only does the Bible clearly teach abortion is wrong and not only does the Catholic Church teach against abortion in its magisterium through the ordinary and universal magisterium which requires assent of mind and will of all Catholics but the Catholic Church also has taught ex cathedra that abortion is wrong. In Humanae Vitae, Paul VI writes: “14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded [omnino respuendam esse] as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned [pariter damnandum est], as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15) Similarly excluded [item respuendus est] is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)” [7] As per Vatican 1, there are three essential criteria for a decree to meet the standard of papal infallibility. One is that the pope has to be acting as the head of the whole Church, as pastor and teacher of all Christians. That one is fulfilled in this case because the encyclical is addressed to the whole Church and at one point in number 6, he says he is speaking “in virtue of the mandate entrusted to us by Christ” so this is an official formal papal act. The second criteria is the object of papal infallibility so whether this is a matter of faith or morals, which it again meets. The third criteria is the note of definition, where the pope must directly and conclusively pronounce his judgement in a way that manifests the intention of settling all doubts and imposing an obligation on Catholics to accept this. In the document, he states that withdrawal, abortion, sterilisation and contraception must be rejected and condemned absolutely. In the Latin, the phrases are “respuendus est”, must be rejected, “damnandum est”, must be condemned and he uses the word “omnino” which means absolutely, without any doubt, hesitation or possibility of exception and so forth. Those clearly indicate intention to oblige the faithful to give a firm and unqualified assent to the doctrine of the intrinsic immorality of these acts. These three criteria being met means this is an ex cathedra decree. The Opposition To Abortion Again, Bee then states that opposition to abortion is a small minority of religious people creating laws that will affect her body based on the idea that at conception, the foetus has a soul. This is again just a strawman, arguments proving abortion is morally wrong are easily made outside of Christianity. The Catholic representative then states that 56% of Catholics think abortion should always be legal but a majority also don’t believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; these numbers are just totally irrelevant. Bee wonders why the laws are like this when this is the case but this should clue her in to the fact that the laws aren’t just made based on some religious conviction. This however is irrelevant to Church teaching on abortion and whether abortion is morally right or wrong. You don’t need to even believe in the existence of the soul in the argument for abortion being morally wrong. The Catholic panel member then says fragile men project their own fragility onto god and their god is male and does not believe in women's equality before the Jewish representative says that religion has been used for atrocities and to maintain power for centuries, again an ahistorical cliche. The claim regarding men’s fragility is just totally false. God isn’t male, God doesn’t have a gender like humans but the Father and Son do choose to reveal themselves using male pronouns and Jesus was a male. To state that this was a projection of their own fragility is just pure conspiracy and ludicrous. Ironically, this comment is a projection of the Catholic woman’s own fragility when it comes to this topic by making such a claim. Furthermore, God does believe in total equality between the sexes and believes in that equality when it comes to reproductive rights. Neither men nor woman have a right to end the life of their child. It is also massively insulting to claim that the want to protect life is men being fragile and this is an ad hominem argument trying to delegitimise the arguments against abortion by going after the aims, motivations and emotions of the people making the argument. The Muslim representative calls those who oppose abortion sadistic in their treatment of pregnant people and Bee uses an expletive. Bee concludes that the religious right use religion to uphold the patriarchy and that everyone is free to believe what they want but don’t impose your theology on the law. This isn’t the case and abortion being wrong is totally irrelevant from Christianity but the point must always be made that the law always imposes someone’s worldview. She concludes that the law should be atheist to be neutral. Yes. She said that. Atheism isn’t neutral; agnosticism towards religion is neutral. This is because unlike agnosticism, atheism necessarily includes beliefs in the worldview, such as that God does not exist and materialism is true. However, this isn’t relevant anyway. Just like agnosticism, an atheist worldview with regard to abortion is still beholden to the same arguments and truths that prove abortion is morally wrong. References 1. Condic, Maureen L., 2013, When Does Human Life Begin? The Scientific Evidence and Terminology Revisited Terminology Revisited [Online], https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1085&context=ustjlpp, University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy, volume 8, issue 1, fall 2013, article 4. 2. United Nations, 1966, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [Online], https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights, part III, article 6. 3. Khan, Ibne, Preserving Orthodoxy, 2021, Abortion prior to 120 days in Ĥanafī fiqh, https://ibnekhan01.wordpress.com/2021/04/27/abortion-prior-to-120-days-in-hanafi-fiqh/. 4. Shamela, https://shamela.ws/book/8381/16413#p1. 5. Islam Question & Answer, 2009, Rulings to do with abortion [Online], https://islamqa.info/en/answers/12475/rulings-to-do-with-abortion. 6. Islam Question & Answer, 2003, Ruling on aborting a pregnancy in the early stages [Online], https://islamqa.info/en/answers/42321/ruling-on-aborting-a-pregnancy-in-the-early-stages. 7. Vatican, 1968, Humanae Vitae [Online], https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html. This document draws from the excellent work of Trent Horn, Michael Jones and Jimmy Akin, all of whom we recommend heavily on this topic through writing, presentations and debates. Information is also used frequently used from Mike Licona, N. T. Wright, William Lane Craig, David Wood, Brant Pitre, Gary Habermas, Craig Evans, J. Warner Wallace, Richard Bauckham and Craig Blomberg as well as valuable content from many other apologists and distinguished writers in various fields. Feel free to share and download this document to use yourself! Guest article by Phoebe Williams.
When investigating what Islam teaches about child marriage, we need to examine multiple sources. First and foremost is the Qur’an, the highest authority in Islam, along with its tafasir, commentaries by Islam’s greatest scholars. Then we need to look at Sharia law; the four Sunni madhahib (schools), as well as those of Shia Islam. Every true Muslim must necessarily subscribe to one of these schools of law to be able to claim they fully understand Islamic teaching. For the Qur’an, there are three relevant verses we initially need to look at to understand the grounding of this topic in Islam. The first is surah 33:49: “O you who have believed, when you have sex (marry) with the believing women, then you divorce them before you have touched them, you do not have the waiting period against them which you count. So give them enjoyment (a gift), and let them go in a beautiful way.” There is no waiting period, عِدَّةٍ, ‘iddatin’, for these women. If a woman gets a divorce (which is lawful and regulated in Islam) before having intercourse with her husband, she can get married again immediately and does not have to sit out her waiting period, which is called the ‘iddah’. Meanwhile, in surah 2:228, we see that for regular situations when the woman does have intercourse with her husband before divorcing him, she does have to observe iddah: “And the divorced women should keep themselves three menstruations. It is not lawful for them to hide what Allah has created in their wombs if they were believer in Allah and in the last day. And it will be more right for their husbands to bring them back when in this state if they desire reconciliation. And they have rights similar to the one over them in fairness. And to the men, a higher degree than them. And Allah is dear, wise.” Obviously, this can only apply to women who have menstrual cycles, which resulted in the revelation of surah 65:4: “And for those of your women who despair of the menstruation, if you doubt [that they may be pregnant], their prescribed waiting time is three months, as well as for those who have not yet begun menstruation. And as for the pregnant ones, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah, he will make his affair the easiest.” This can only be referring to young girls who haven’t reached puberty yet, as this is the only scenario in which someone isn’t currently experiencing it, but will in the future. Tafsirs for this verse are unanimous on the meaning. Al-Jalalayn writes of “those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months.” Ibn Kathir writes in his tafsir: “Ibn Abi Hatim recorded a simpler narration than this one from Ubay bin Ka‘b who said, “O Allah’s Messenger! When the Ayah in Surat Al-Baqarah was revealed prescribing the ’Iddah of divorce, some people in Al-Madinah said, ‘There are still some women whose ’Iddah has not been mentioned in the Qur’an. There are the young, the old whose menstruation is discontinued, and the pregnant.’ Later on, this Ayah was revealed.” Maududi tells us that “They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age.” When pointing out that surah 65:4 is referring to young girls, al-Qurtubi, al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Jalalayn and others all use forms of the Arabic word صغير, “sagheer.” Lane’s lexicon says that when the term “sagheerah” is applied to a human being, it means “a child; i.e. one who has not attained to puberty.” This shows that the Qur’an is absolutely talking about young girls who have yet to undergo puberty being married. The standard Muslim response to the allegation that Islam promotes child marriage is surah 4:6: “And test the orphans until they reach the age of having sex (marriage), so if you perceive in them a sound judgment, so hand over their money to them. But do not consume it wastefully or by hastily entrusting it to them until they grow up. And whoever was rich, so let him stay away from it; and whoever was poor, so let him consume from it with fairness. So when you give over their money to them, so take witnesses over them. And Allah is a sufficient accounter.” Muslims often use references such as this one about not having intercourse with a young wife until she’s physically ready for it and conclude that this means being physically ready is puberty, but this is reading back into the text. None of the tafsirs hold that the Qur’an is determining marriageable age in this verse, and none of the scholars understood it like this; the words “marriageable age” in 65:4 denote that they are able to fulfill the purpose of marriage, which is procreation, after one reaches puberty, and it is about returning property to orphans after they attain puberty. For example, a girl could reach puberty at age eleven, yet even by age twelve, she’s not physically able to handle intercourse. In this scenario, in Islam, she wouldn’t consummate her marriage yet, aside from the Hanbali school, which dictates that a husband can force it at the age of nine. If a girl reached puberty at age eleven but she was able before the age of nine to handle intercourse, in Islam her marriage would be consummated at age nine. Being physically able to handle intercourse is different for each individual. It could happen before or after puberty, and this is the position of the Muslim scholars; puberty is not relevant when the decision is made. We will now turn our attention to Sharia and examine some examples from the four schools of Sharia law in Sunni Islam; Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali, in all of which this subject is extensively discussed. Starting with the Shafi’i madhhab, in Reliance of the Traveller, one of the most renowned classical manuals of fiqh, we read in n9.2: “A waiting period is obligatory for a woman divorced after intercourse, whether the husband and wife are prepubescent, have reached puberty, or one has and the other has not.” Part n9.9 reads: “The waiting period for a woman who does not menstruate, whether prepubescent or post-menopausal, is 3 months.” We can clearly see here that marriage to prepubescent girls or post-menopausal women is allowed and regulated, with divorce rules for such women in operation. Al-Hidayah is one of the most pre-eminent legal manuals of the Hanifi school, and here we can see again what Sharia holds regarding child marriage: “If they are married away by the father or the grandfather, that is, the minor boy and the minor girl, they have no option, after they attain puberty.” It continues: “If they are married away by someone other than the father and the grandfather, then, each one of them will have the option upon attaining puberty; if they like they can maintain the contract and if they like they can revoke it.” The Risala: A Treatise On Maliki Fiqh of Maliki jurisprudence also tells us about prepubescent girls who had their marriage consummated. Section 33.2: “The ’idda for a free woman who is widowed is four months and ten nights, whether a child or adult, consummated or not, Muslim or kitabi. For a slave girl who is partially free it is two months and five days, except in the case of an older woman whose period is delayed. Then she waits until the doubt is removed. As for the one who does not menstruate because of youth or old age and her marriage was consummated, she cannot marry until three months after the death of the husband.” Here, the Maliki school refers to divorce regarding a girl who doesn’t menstruate because of youth or old age, and hence, a marriage involving such a girl is perfectly harmonious with this madhhab. The Hanbali school dictates in Sharh ‘Umdah al Fiqh: “The father is entitled to give his minor children, male and female and his virgin daughters, in marriage without their consent”. We can gain further insight from Fath al-Bari, volume 11, page 25, which says that “Muslim schools of jurisprudence unanimously allow the marriage of young girls, even if they were still babies in the cradle.” This statement is absolutely indisputable, and no matter which school a Muslim accepts, this practice is absolutely legislated in Islamic law. Moving to Shia Islam, Ayatollah Khomeini wrote about this topic in the classical commentary and Shia jurists guide Tahrir al-Wasilah: “Intercourse with a woman is not allowed unless she attains the age of nine years, regardless whether the marriage is permanent or temporary. There is, however, no objection in other enjoyments like touching lasciviously, hugging and rubbing the thighs, even with a suckling infant. If a person has had intercourse with a girl before she has attained the age of nine years, but it has not resulted in ifḍā: he shall not be subjected to any punishment, except that he shall be considered to have committed a sin.” This not only affirms child marriage anytime after the age of nine, but also legitimizes graphic sexual actions with a girl of any age before it, regardless of any of her characteristics. In review, the Qur’an allows for marriage and intercourse with prepubescent girls, the Islamic commentaries affirm that the Qur’an is referring to prepubescent girls, all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence allow marriage and intercourse with prepubescent girls, and Shia Islam allows for child marriage past the age of nine and until then, sexual acts with infants. The only conclusion for someone who views the evidence objectively is that Islam definitively teaches that child marriage and intercourse with prepubescent children is permissible. Continuing on from part one, we pick up with point number five.
5. ‘Jesus Married’. “For those of you that don’t remember Dan Brown’s 2003 religious thriller, it centers on the idea that Jesus had secretly married Mary Magdalene and had children with her, something that the church were desperate to cover up. Well it turns out that Mr. Brown’s plot was actually more factually grounded than he would ever have believed. In 2016, researchers discovered an obscure text hidden away in the British library; an ancient manuscript that dated back to Jesus’ lifetime. The document fills in the gaps between Jesus’ childhood and his religious career. It claimed that in His 20s, Jesus married Mary Magdalene. What’s more, He went on to have two children with her too. It also bears comment that there’s no evidence from this time period that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, a theory that only began in the middle ages.” We’ve seen the quoting of non-canonical writings as authoritative and we’ve seen non-myths being exaggerated but this is where the video starts to ramp up the sensationalism and get egregious. The manuscript is considered to be fraudulent due to significant typographical errors, which are extensively covered in the article that is likely the source of the information in this video, which makes it abundantly clear the manuscript is probably a forgery. [1] Also, as far as I can see, no scholar of any related field to historical Christianity holds that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, giving us insight into the perceived legitimacy. To call the view fringe would be an overstatement. The origins of the manuscript are also telling and Dan Brown actually could and probably did imagine how historically grounded his book was because it was based on a narrative in a book called ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’, which claims Jesus married Mary Magdalene, had one or more children, those children or their descendants emigrated to what is now France and intermarried with the noble families that would eventually become the Merovingian dynasty, whose special claim to the throne of France is championed today by a secret society called the Priory of Sion. The book was itself based on a book from 1967 called ‘L’Or de Rennes’ by French author Gérard de Sède. This would be the source where Brown’s story would get any historical backing if there was any to be found. The historicity involved with these books is highly speculative, conspiratorial and baseless. Additionally, it also disputes historical certainties such as Jesus’ resurrection, which we will cover later. The authors of ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’ often disregard the most likely possibilities, suggest improbable theories and unconfirmed facts are possible then build on those facts to finish with a hugely unstable conclusion. [2] There is absolutely no historical evidence to suggest any of this narrative is remotely factual. Additionally, it is likely that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute and asserting that the ‘belief’ started in the middle ages presupposes both that it is just a belief and that this wasn’t what the text meant. The idea that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute is also presented in ‘The Da Vinci Code’, which, at present, seems to be the primary source of theology for Alltime 10s alongside non-canonical literature. There is a longstanding tradition that identifies Mary Magdalene as the prostitute who dried Jesus’ tears in Luke 7:36-50. Further biblical evidence to support this idea is that it was Mary Magdalene had seven demons exorcised from her in Luke 9:1-3. [3] It is interesting that Sam said "there’s no evidence from this time period that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, a theory that only began in the middle ages" because when we apply that sentence to what he presented immediately prior, there is no evidence for Jesus getting married from the time period and that theory only began way after the middle ages even. 4. ‘The Nativity’. “[This is] the tale of Jesus’ birth in a manger on the 25th of December [and] His visitation by three kings. It turns out that most of that image in your head is dead wrong. Firstly, the Gospel of Matthew says Jesus was born in a house. The animals watching over Him were added by Christmas carol songwriters and while the Bible does mention a visit by Magi from the east, there’s no mention of kings or that there were three of them but most wrong of all is the date. The reason why we celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December is because the Romans adopted Christianity as a state religion. To make this switch over to the new religion easier, the Romans kept the date the same as the pre-existing pagan festival Saturnalia.” This is the first one where it is a myth… until he absolutely ruins it with a stupid theory about the date of Jesus’ birth. It is correct that the regular images of the three kings and animals isn’t original scripture but this isn’t a Biblical myth, it’s more of a cultural myth pertaining to Christianity so isn’t relevant for me to address. Nothing related to Christmas is remotely pagan and this includes Jesus’ birth date, which is not linked to Saturnalia. Saturnalia was on December 17th according to the Roman provincial Macrobius in ‘Saturnalia’, book 1, chapter 10, as he says it was 14 days before January and based on their dating, that puts Saturnalia on the 17th. There are no sources which suggest it took place on December 25th. There was dispute among Christian sources over what the date was but this was seen as inconsequential dispute and not of particular important. Church fathers such as Theophilus, prior to A.D. 181, Hippolytus, between A.D. 270 and A.D. 235, and Julius Africanus, at the same time as Hippolytus, place His birth on the 25th while later fathers such as Clement of Alexandria around A.D. 200 and writings such as ‘De paschæ computus’ in 243 suggest varying different dates. Jesus birth is often said to be the 25th of December because it was the widest held view by Christians as we can see in writings in the 4th and 5th century stating the celebration of His birth on the 25th was an ancient belief and tradition and this majority view, including among the aforementioned church fathers, resulted in the church determining the 25th as the date. 3. ‘White Jesus’. “Jesus was from the middle east, He’s unlikely to have had pale skin and blue eyes. There are very few descriptions in the Bible of Jesus’ physical appearance. Actually, one of the only times it’s mentioned is to imply that Jesus is kind of ugly: “He had no stately form or majesty to attract us, no beauty that we should desire Him” from Isaiah 53:2, by the way. Think about it logically. His family were Jewish and at that time and especially at that location, the majority of Jews were dark-skinned. …Our modern image of Jesus most likely grew increasingly fair-skinned as Christianity became a more Eurocentric religion.” While the final line about Christianity becoming a Eurocentric religion is palpably false, the rest of the point is true, or at least probably is. However, as Sam showed in the video, Christianity as a belief system is not at fault for this myth. 2. ‘Resurrection’. “The most famous miracle of all is His resurrection three days after His brutal crucifixion. I mean, there is a reason that the cruciform is the universal symbol of Christianity; a guy who gets nailed to a cross and only needs the equivalent of a long weekend to get back in action? That’s a guy worth following. Many Christians see Jesus’ resurrection as the final proof of His divinity; an absolute ironclad evidence that He was the Son of God. Thing is, even if you believe Jesus rose from the dead, according to the Bible it’s not that special. The Bible itself records 12 separate cases of people rising from the dead so even if Jesus did wake Himself back up, resurrection is kind of like the biblical equivalent of being able to roll your tongue; it’s neat sure but it’s far from unique.” I was extremely surprised that Sam didn’t offer an alternative to the resurrection evidence and even granted it could have happened in order to make his point. Even if we take him as complete correct on this point, it still wouldn’t falsify the resurrection as myth and he doesn’t even attempt to address the resurrection evidence. Looking at his point, it isn’t just Christians who use the resurrection as ‘final proof’ of Jesus’ divinity; it was the Bible and Jesus’ own method to proclaim and prove His divinity. The other instances in the Bible are more appropriately called resuscitations, not resurrections in the sense of the word the Christian authors and Jews of the time understood it where you receive a glorified body and eternal life, hence His ascension. The confusion of terms might be explained by Sam’s use of the phrase “wake Himself back up”, which implies He is unaware of the resurrection process in comparison to what would essentially be a resuscitation. According to the Bible, it certainly is special; it is the only instance of such an occurrence and for the specific reason that Jesus has defeated death and is Lord so Sam’s point is facile. 1. ‘The Whole Story?’ “Most historians agree that a couple of thousand years ago there probably was a man called Jesus in the middle east but turn to the specifics of the story and there are a number of striking similarities to a number of other religious figures. Take Mithras, a pagan god born with a miraculous birth known as “the light” who offered followers salvation through worship or the Egyptian god Osiris for example, who came down to earth to live as a man before being brutally murdered. He then resurrected and ascended into the heavens and Egyptians would appeal to him for access to the afterlife. Or, you could look to Krishna from Hinduism who was part of a trinity, was born as man to a carpenter, performed miracles like curing the blind, celebrated a last supper, died and resurrected and then ascended into heaven. Now, this isn’t to say that the story of Jesus is just stolen from other religions. There are three possible reasons for these similarities. Number one: they are just a coincidence. Number two: these religions mingled as they spread with Christianity lifting certain details from local faiths as it gained prominence or number three; some sort of a Jungian collective unconscious that allows humans in completely distinct circumstances to invent pathologies with striking similarities. Maybe the first one.” NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. They saved the absolute worst for last and that is saying something given what we have seen so far. I’ll posit a fourth possible explanation that the claims involved in the alleged similarities are just totally false but before we get to the shockingly silly claims, we must first start by clarifying that “most” historians believing Jesus “probably” existed is an vast understatement. There isn’t a single in any college or university in the western world who teaches classics, ancient history, New Testament, early Christianity or any related field who doubts that Jesus existed. To believe Jesus didn’t exist would entail believing a whole host of different people from different areas who never met or interacted with each other or each other’s writing in any way all managed to think up the same story which damages their worldview that they have and want to falsify. There are at least 11 independent attestations of Jesus’ crucifixion alone and these include Tacitus, who is regarded as the greatest Roman historian and was the proconsul of Asia from A.D. 112-113, wrote around A.D. 100 regarding the great fire of A.D. 64 when Nero was emperor. He documented: “Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius”. Tacitus’ explains the means by which Jesus was put to death was “the most extreme penalty”, which was crucifixion. [4] There are also sources such as the Greek satirist and cynic Lucian, [5] Stoic philosopher Mara bar-Serapion and the Talmud. [6] The consensus of all historical scholars who teach in the field of teaches classics, ancient history, New Testament, early Christianity or other such areas is totally unanimous. Some of the most prominent non-Christian scholars in such fields who say this fact is indisputable include atheists Gerd Lüdemann, [7] John Dominic Crossan, [8] Jewish historian Pinchas Lapide, [9] and Bart Ehrman, who is the most renowned scholar in related fields and the most recognisable and authoritative skeptical New Testament scholar in the world at present. He writes: “One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.” [10] Having so many independent sources for the crucifixion of Jesus is exemplary for ancient history. We can clearly see there is no question among historians of Jesus’ death by crucifixion. When it comes to the claims of comparison, sadly, but predictably, they did not cite any sources for this claim which is a feature of this video as a whole. It’s also strange how they can allege Jesus, or parts of the story, were based on one yet claim it was also based on another. It’s like they are hedging their bets and aren’t able to commit to one, picking and choosing any vague alleged similarities that will match from all the other gods they can find yet even doing this, they fail to find a single similarity. Mithras did not have a miraculous birth in the same sense as Jesus, not even remotely, because all sources claim he was born of a rock, not of a virgin. [11] In other versions, he was born as an adult. [12] Even in Persian versions, he was never born of a virgin. He was never called “the light”. There is absolutely no record of this or any evidence suggesting this. Where this claim originates past ‘Zeitgeist: The Movie’. The claim is a complete fabrication and no scholar holds this to be true. Jesus didn’t offer salvation through worship but this is by the by because neither did Mithras and he certainly didn’t sacrifice himself so that we would be saved the same as Jesus. When you are only comparing two figures, it is pretty embarrassing to inaccurately represent one, invalidating the entire comparison, but to inaccurately represent both? This is sheer ignorance. Finally, all of the sources about the Mithras cult come from after the time of Jesus, so any parallels would more likely be the other way round. One example of stealing from Christianity was cult use of Sunday, which post dates the New Testament. Osiris didn’t change in his becoming a man on earth and simply living on earth isn’t really a compelling comparison or even a similarity when their existence on earth wasn’t similar. Osiris was murdered but not in the same way as Jesus and if Sam is suggesting documenting someone was murdered suggests the later account is made up or is even a parallel, then they are clutching at straws. He was not resurrected. After being dismembered, he didn’t then return to his former mode of existence, he journeyed to the underworld, where he became lord of the dead. In no sense can he be said to have ‘risen’. Egyptian resurrections signal a permanent life in the realm of the dead. [13] Osiris’ ascension is a complete fabrication. As we have seen, once he became lord of the dead, he stayed there. It is true that Egyptians would ‘appeal’ to him for access to the afterlife but there is a reason Sam is vague here; it was because he was lord of the dead but they don’t get to the underworld through him while Christians get eternal life through Jesus and His atonement. Krishna was not part of a trinity and to compare the Hindu Trimutri to the Trinity is already a huge stretch. Nevertheless, Krishna wasn’t a person of the Trimutri; he was one of the ten avatars of Vishnu, which makes it more modalistic. Krishna was born but he was always seen as a god, he wasn’t a man. There is absolutely no evidence that could be remotely perceived as telling us Krishna was born to a carpenter although earlier, Alltime 10s claimed this fact about Jesus was a myth so they managed to refute their own comparison themselves. Congratulations. While he did perform some miracles, this is far too general to be considered a comparison because almost all deities perform miracles and very few of the miracles are even remotely similar. There are so many stories and sources about Krishna that there are bound to be odd similarities but there is no reason to assuming copying. There is absolutely no evidence that Krishna partook in a last supper. He died at 125 years old and wasn’t aware of an imminent death and such a final meal before his death is not documented. When he died, Krishna’s spirit ascended into heaven [14] but it is absolutely false that he resurrected first. He simply died then his spirit went to heaven. There was no physical resurrection, not even resuscitation. Furthermore, if there are any legitimate parallels, it is likely the Hindus taking from Christianity, as scholars suggest that Hindus were borrowing from Christian sources. [15] Scholar Edwin Bryant place these stories of Krishna at the 4th or 5th century, while others such as David V. Mason say they may be as early as the 2nd century, which even then is too late for the Gospels to be a copy. Finally, what do comparisons matter when we can ground the events in history? We cannot assert Jesus’ death by crucifixion is copied from Osiris for example (even though Osiris did not die this way, but for the sake of argument) when we know historically that Jesus did die on the cross for certain as we established earlier. This means is literally impossible it could have been a copy so even valid comparisons, which they aren't anyway, are facile. These comparisons are as silly as saying Abraham Lincoln was a myth, or at least some of his story was a myth, based on Alexander the Great because Alexander the Great signed a proclamation to abolish slavery, was known as ‘honest Abe’, had the same distinct style beard and was born on the same day despite having no evidence of any of that being true and loads of evidence that Lincoln existed and each fact is true. It is absolute lunacy. This is an embarrassment and incredibly damaging to the credibility of the channel and the researchers. As a point of concession to be fair, Sam does say “maybe the first one” as a possible explanation at the end, suggesting the similarities are all just coincidence, which is charitable, but as there are actually no similarities here, the theories of why there are similarities are irrelevant. They asserted them all with absolutely no evidence for good reason, because there isn’t any. This top 10 video was an absolute train wreck and any amount of study can completely blow apart the narrative of 9 out of 10 of these points This wasn't an all time 10, it was more like an all time fail. I have no idea why almost 3,000 people approved of the video as oppose to just over 1,000 disapproving of the 126,000 audience as of June 2021. References. [1] Ariel Sabar, ‘The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife’, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/485573/. [2] ‘Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World: The Real Da Vinci Code? (Holy Blood, Holy Grail)’, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_TYqVXxUn4. [3] Fr. William Saunders, ‘Who was Mary Magdalene? Was she a prostitute who repented?’, https://catholicstraightanswers.com/who-was-mary-magdalene-was-she-a-prostitute-who-repented/. [4] Publius Cornelius Tacitus, ‘Annals’, 15.44. [5] Lucian of Samosata, ‘Passing of Peregrinus’, 11, 13. [6] ‘Babylonian Talmud’, Sanhedrin 43a. [7] Gerd Lüdemann, ‘What Really Happened To Jesus?’, page 17. [8] John Dominic Crossan, ‘Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography’, page 145. [9] Pinchas Lapide, ‘The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective’, page 32. [10] Bart D. Ehrman, ‘Misquoting Jesus’, page 162. [11] David Ulansey, ‘The Origins of Mithraic Mysteries’, page 36; Commodianus, ‘Instructions’, 13. [12] ‘Avesta: Khorda Avesta’, 6-7. [13] Mircea Eliade, ‘Encyclopedia of Religion’, pages 524-525. [14] ‘Srimaad Bhagavatam’, 10.30.25-43. [15] Sushil Mittal, Gene Thursby, ‘The Hindu World’, page 240. In a deviation from our regular focus on this website, today we will look at what I think is a case worthy of exception. The video "10 Myths About Jesus" has over 126,000 views and is by popular the YouTube channel "Alltime 10s", who have 5.64 million subscribers as of the 1st of July 2021. I could not believe my eyes or ears hearing this crude, shockingly ahistorical and conspiratorial video about alleged myths of Jesus hosted by a man called Sam who also runs his own YouTube channel. While what he says is Snarky, I don't believe Sam has any negative intentions and much of the blame may fall on the script writers but I cannot speculate and as Sam is the person presenting it, it is also his burden to make sure what he is presenting is appropriate and he evidently didn't protest to the tone or content of the video.
It is sad that such a large audience has been privy to such obvious garbage and it’s disheartening that such a large channel wouldn’t take more care with their research rather than consulting fringe sources and taking their claims without questioning them or validating them despite their aim to ‘bring you the most informative, fascinating and engaging top 10 videos on YouTube’. Sounds like blind faith. As a disclaimer, when quoting the 10 points, I’ve cut out any snarky commentary or general filler comments as it adds nothing to the weight of the points. The only times I’ve left snarky comments in is if I have something in particular to say about it aside from bemoaning it in general. The video is at the top of the article so I would encourage you watch each point before you read. In part one we will cover the first five points, numbers 10-6 of the countdown. 10. ‘Identity Crisis’. “Historians now mostly agree that the man we call Jesus was most likely known by the name Yeshua. So, why do we worship Jesus and not Yeshua? When early Christian texts were being translated into Greek, [Jesus] was called the nearest possible name, that name; Iesous. While that is the nearest correct translation into Greek, the Greek name Iesous translates into English as Jesus but the Hebrew name Yeshua translates into English as Joshua. Admittedly, these names are considered very similar by historians but still, it’s weird to think of people [worshipping Joshua].” It is true that some scholars, such as Michael Brown, say the name that Yeshua comes from, yehōshu'a, can be translated to Joshua but, as the video states, the name Jesus comes from translation and is a legitimate representation of His name in the English language. They even concede that even historians acknowledge the names are very similar, showing they’ve interacted with this view. When it is a legitimate translation of His name, it is hard to see where the myth is. Furthermore, the idea that people who worship Jesus aren’t worshipping Yeshua is illegitimate; Christians today are worshipping Yeshua. Interestingly, as a side note, the article Alltime 10s likely got all this information from [1] affirms that people who call Him Jesus are worshipping the same man as those who call him Yeshua, so the claim they don’t by Alltime 10s doesn’t look like an innocent mistake, it rather looks like they are picking and choosing what they want to hear. 9. ‘His Childhood’. “While the modern Bible has 27 official books, far more than that were originally written. One of the Bible’s deleted scenes, shall we say, is the Gospel of Infancy Thomas [Infancy Gospel of Thomas] which gives us an unprecedented and kind of mental look at Jesus’ childhood. Things get weird right at the start when a hoard of dragons come out of a cave to attack Mary and a two year old Jesus but upon seeing the Son of God in all His glory, the dragons are instantly tamed. Other incredible scenes from the Gospel of Infancy Thomas include …blowing up a snake and even killing another child for brushing up against Him. For instance, and I quote: “Jesus was provoked and said unto him; Thou shalt not finish thy course. And immediately, he fell down and died.”” There are reasons it wasn’t accepted as canonical and he cannot cite this as evidence pertaining to the Christian worldview. It’s just unreliable, false literature and irrelevant to the real Jesus. For the regular accounts of Jesus to be a myth, Sam would have to affirm that this narrative account is in fact true or reliable, which he doesn’t, so how is the regular story of Jesus a myth because of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas? 8. ‘An Only Child’. “It’s a strangely overlooked fact that Jesus was actually part of a large family and we’re not even taking this from apocrypha either. The books of Mark and Matthew both mention Joseph and Mary having four sons; Jesus, James, Judas and Simon. Jesus had sisters too and though they were never named, they were also frequently mentioned in the Bible. For example, in this passage from Mark: “Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon? Aren’t His sisters here with us as well?”” As a preface, it’s amusing that this time, Sam says “and we’re not even taking this from apocrypha either”, as if he’s trying to communicate that this time, it’s not so silly to bring up. Addressing the claim, brother doesn’t mean biological brother as it is taken in the video. The reason its ‘overlooked’ as meaning this is because it is well established what it actually means; the Greek ‘adelphos’ (ἀδελφός) doesn’t always mean blood brothers born of the same parents. It was used to denote half-brothers, step-brothers, cousins, nephews, uncles and so on. An example of this is in Genesis, where Abraham and Lot, uncle and nephew, are described as such. 14. Now when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his three hundred and eighteen trained servants who were born in his own house, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. 15. He divided his forces against them by night, and he and his servants attacked them and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus. 16. So he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother Lot and his goods, as well as the women and the people. Genesis 14:14-16 (NKJV) The same is true for the meaning of sister if we take the word literally, used in 1 Chronicles, where cousins are described as sisters. 21. The sons of Merari were Mahli and Mushi. The sons of Mahli were Eleazar and Kish. 22. And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but only daughters; and their brethren, the sons of Kish, took them as wives. 23. The sons of Mushi were Mahli, Eder, and Jeremoth—three in all. 1 Chronicles 23:21-23 (NKJV) This occurs because there are no distinct words for cousin, nephew or aunt, half-brother or half-sister, or step-brother or step-sister in Hebrew or Aramaic. Even without these distinctions, the Gospels are clear on the true lineage of Jesus’ brothers. James and Joseph were the sons of Mary of Cleophas. 40. Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. Mark 15:40 (NKJV) As Mary of Cleophas is described as Mary’s sister, she must have been a cousin and hence James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins. Judas was the son of James. 16. Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot who also became a traitor. Luke 6:16 (NKJV) Finally, just to put the nail in the coffin, Mary was obviously a virgin at Jesus’ birth and could not have been the biological mother of all these alleged biological brothers. 7. ‘The Carpenter’. “Most of us think that before He started preaching His sermons, …he worked as a carpenter and yeah, He may have.” So, not a myth? “But there is some ambiguity as to what specifically His job was. You see, we know from the Greek text of the Bible that He and His father both worked as a tektōn [τέκτων]. Thing is, that job title is kind of vague meaning something along the lines of artisan or craftsman. That obviously could cover carpentry but it also means that Jesus was a stonemason, a woodworker, a builder or a teacher engineer. Basically, we don’t know the specifics of Jesus’ job but what we do know is that He was good with His hands. Some even claim that tektōn could mean architect and that Joseph’s work actually meant Jesus grew up in the equivalent of a middle-class household.” Ambiguity doesn’t mean it’s a myth; a myth isn’t presented here as it isn’t inconsistent with the regular narrative. The architect idea is pure speculation and there is no evidence or good reason to assume this is true even without the idea of Jesus being in a middle-class household being contradictory to what else we know. However, even if we found that tektōn absolutely could not mean carpenter, it wouldn’t mean the original texts are inaccurate or mythical, it would just mean we didn’t understand them as well as we could have. The accounts wouldn’t be damaged because it’s the accounts he is appealing to in order to provide the alleged myth. 6. ‘12 Disciples’. “He had His core 12; He had Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, James, Andrew, [Peter], …Bartholomew, Simon…, Judas Iscariot and [the twelfth]. But actually, Jesus had a crew of as many as 70 disciples constantly following Him around listening to His teachings. Luke the evangelist mentions Jesus picking a crowd of 72 people to travel ahead of Him and make sure the locals were ready for His arrival, saying in Luke 10: “After this, the Lord appointed 70 others, and sent them ahead of Him two by two into every town and place where He Himself was about to go.” The main twelve were actually His apostles and ironically, they would have spent very little time with Jesus. Their job, after all, was to go out and spread the teachings of Jesus to other areas of the world.” Firstly, Sam gets the 12 disciples wrong. Mark and Luke aren’t Jesus’ apostles and he fails to name Philip (although this may be at the expense of a joke), he leaves out Judas, son of James, even though he had earlier referred to him in point number 8, and finally James, son of Alphaeus, or James the Younger. He also fails to mention that the 12 changed when Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot, which affects the premise of the video that the regular held Christian belief is that there were only 12 ever. Overall, the point doesn’t contravene the Gospel account because he is taking the 70 from the Gospel account, so it isn’t a myth. The 12 disciples were distinct from the 70; the 12 disciples were His core group and inner circle, constantly with Him, while the 70 were sent out after one period. I’m struggling to understand how he can use the Bible to show a secret to prove the Bible is a myth. There’s nothing new or inconsistent with the narrative, he’s literally using the narrative! Finally, while the apostles weren’t restricted to the 12 disciples, there were more who were apostles, this doesn’t mean they spent very little time with Jesus and worldly travels is a bit of an exaggeration as during Jesus’ time on earth, they were mostly travelling with Jesus and only after the Great Commission did they travel and spread out for extended periods of time as much as it is implied here. We will continue with the top 5 points in part two, where Alltime 10s really ramps up the falsehoods. References. [1] Hannah Preston, ‘Was Jesus’s Real Name Yeshua or Joshua and Is There A ‘Right’ Way to Identify the Son of God?’, https://www.newsweek.com/jesus-yeshua-joshua-there-right-way-identify-son-god-1270917. On October 29th, 2020, Mohammad Hijab posted a video regarding Jesus' crucifixion. Today we will examine the claims of the video regarding biblical prophecy and the teaching of the Qur'an on this subject before putting our own case for the historicity of the crucifixion. The crucifixion of Jesus is one of the most difficult things Muslims have to deal with in defending their worldview because its attestation is far and wide from a whole host of sources and this was unprecedented to Muhammad and the Muslims of the 7th century who dispute the claim.
Biblical Prophecy. The video begins by citing the Gospel of Matthew. 5. Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” 7. Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Matthew 4:5-7 (NIV) Then the claim is made that as Jesus does not rebuke Satan for twisting scripture, he affirms that what Satan said was true, that Jesus is the one referred to here and he cannot be afflicted, in accordance with Psalm 91 which the video shows us. It does not necessarily follow that Jesus affirms that what Satan is saying is true just because he says "it is also written." Whether what Satan says applies to Him or not, it is an objective fact that it is also written in His word that you do not put the Lord your God to the test. 10. no harm will overtake you, no disaster will come near your tent. 11. For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways; 12. they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone. 13. You will tread on the lion and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent. 14. “Because he loves me,” says the Lord, “I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name. 15. He will call on me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him. 16. With long life I will satisfy him and show him my salvation.” Psalm 91:10-16 (NIV) The only time Psalm 91 is applied to Jesus in the Bible is by Satan, unlike other prophecies where they are clearly applied to Jesus by Jesus Himself and the writers but for argument's sake, I will absolutely agree this entire prophecy is pertaining to Jesus. Even if we grant this, the objection is mute because this affliction is palpably not the same as the atonement on the cross. The objective of Jesus at the atonement is not simply to be hurt or afflicted; it is to atone for the sins of mankind by taking on their deserved afflictions. If Jesus was suffering for Himself, then this may be different but He is undertaking the suffering to cover for other people's sin. Psalm 91 easily reconciles with Jesus' crucifixion without any twisting of the prophecy, unlike the video claims. Aside from making a mistake on the spelling of Yeshua in Hebrew, using צ rather than ע, Yeshua also does not mean salvation, it means “Yahweh saves”. The video adds an extra ץ, “h”, for Yeshuah, which means salvation. Qur'anic Teaching. Surah 4:157-158 dictates; "And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise." Here, Jesus is raised up alive and unharmed and according to Hijab's video, this "perfectly mirrors" the prophecy in Psalm 91. "Did not kill him" = "No harm will overtake you". "Raised him to Himself" = "they will lift you up in their hands". There isn't the remarkable correlation here that Hijab is seeking and it is far from perfect. Harm overtaking Jesus does not relate to the atonement and Allah raising Jesus up to avoid His fate at the cross certainly doesn't match to being lifted up by angels; this is not about God saving Him from the cross. That, ladies and gentleman, is all they offer in support of the idea that Jesus wasn't crucified! That's it! Now, let's look at some real evidence... you're probably longing for some. The Historicity Of The Resurrection. The consensus among scholars that Jesus died by crucifixion is absolute due to the huge amount of even hostile attestation that we can survey. The greatest Roman historian, Tacitus, documented: “Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius”. Tacitus’ explains the means by which Jesus was put to death was “the most extreme penalty”, which was crucifixion. [1] Tacitus is a very reliable source. One of the most prominent Tacitus scholars, Ronald Syme, tells us: “the prime quality of Cornelius Tacitus is distrust. It was needed if a man were to write about the Caesars.” [2] Michael Grant writes that Tacitus “was careful to contrast what had been handed down orally with the literary tradition… There is no doubt that (Tacitus) took a great deal of care in selecting his material.” [3] Herbert Benario tells us that Tacitus “chose judiciously among his sources, totally dependent upon none, and very often, at crucial points, ignored the consensus of his predecessors to impose his own viewpoint and his own judgment.” [4] All the major Tacitean scholars support Tacitus’ reliability and integrity. Our second example of secular historical attestation of Jesus’ death by crucifixion is Josephus, who wrote: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.” [5] Josephus was not a Christian, so it is accepted among scholars that this passage has been interpolated. [6] However, this doesn’t mean the entire passage is fraudulent and the vast majority of scholars concur that it is simply doctored. All scholars of note think much of the passage is an original because there are many internal consistencies in this passage, including particular phrases such as “those that loved him” that match the writing of Josephus. It is self explanatory that for interpolation to occur, there needed to be an original and when reading the text, it appears as if the scribe interacted with Josephus, such as the original “there was about this time Jesus, a wise man” and the scribe’s “if it be lawful to call him a man”. This theory was confirmed by further evidence discovered in 1971, as an Arabic version of this passage was discovered as a quote in the 10th century writings of Agapius: “At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” [7] Scholars agree unanimously that this is what the original text was in Josephus' work. In addition to the main examples of Tacitus and Josephus, Mara bar-Serapion, Lucian and Celsus also either directly report or presuppose the crucifixion in their writings. This wealth of evidence is what has lead to the definite consensus among scholars who teach in the field of teaches classics, ancient history, New Testament, early Christianity or other such areas, including all the most prominent non-Christian scholars. Gerd Lüdemann says: “The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.” [8] E. P. Sanders includes Jesus’ crucifixion as one of the “almost indisputable facts” about Jesus’ life. [9] Skeptic John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus seminar holds that there is not the “slightest doubt about the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.” Crossan adds that “That he (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” [10] Another member of the Jesus seminar, Marcus Borg, says that Jesus’ execution is the “most certain fact about the historical Jesus.” [11] Jewish historian Pinchas Lapide says that Jesus’ death by crucifixion is “historically certain.” [12] Jewish convert Paula Fredriksen writes: “The single most solid fact about Jesus’ life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or around Passover in the manner Rome reserved particularly for political insurrectionists, namely, crucifixion.” [13] Bart Ehrman, the most renowned scholar in related fields and the most recognisable and authoritative skeptical New Testament scholar in the world at present, writes: “One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.” [14] In his work, Ehrman presents 11 independent sources for the crucifixion of Jesus, which is exemplary for ancient history. We can also see accounts of what happened following the crucifixion. The account of the death blow in the gospels sheds further light on what happened because the medical literature tells us how blood leaves the body with water, from the sack around the heart called the pericardium, when stabbed through the heart through the side in such a scenario, as described in the New Testament accounts such as John 19:34. 34. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. John 19:34 (NKJV) Cardio-thoracic surgeon Dr. Antony de Bono writes: “Jesus had a haemothorax, which in the stillness of the dead body, had separated out as they do into two layers: the heavier red cells below and the light watery plasma above. The haemothorax was the result of the savage flagellation. The withdrawal of the spear would have been followed first by the red cells (blood), then by the lighter plasma (water). The body of Jesus had been hanging on the cross, dead, for some time. Obviously the fluid must have accumulated during life by a bleeding into the chest cavity, almost certainly due to the savage flagellation. It is well known that blood in these circumstances in a still dead body starts to separate out, to sediment, the heavier red cells sinking to the bottom leaving a much lighter, straw colored fluid, the plasma above. When a hole is made by the spear, the red cells, which John describes as blood, gushes out first, followed by the plasma, which John saw as water.” [15] Jesus could not have survived this process. The account in accurate in describing the science behind the death blow and is also consistent in transcribing the torture involved in Roman crucifixion with other ancient sources such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus, [16] Livy, [17] Philo [18] and Josephus. [19] We also know that given Jesus was on the cross for an extended period of time, around 6 hours, He would have certainly succumbed to asphyxiation. When someone hangs with their arms above their head, even without nails, the weight of the body pulls down on the muscles surrounding the lungs; the intercostal, pectoral and deltoid muscles. This constricts the lungs and the subject begins asphyxiating. As a man loses consciousness when hanging this way in twelve minutes, the only way to relieve this and avoid a very quick death is to push up, possible if the feet are tied or nailed. You still cannot do this for long though without serious effort to counteract gravity pulling you down. The accuracy and consistency of the accounts with the medical literature and other instances of ancient crucifixion as well as the abundant attestation makes it clear that Jesus was crucified. Concluding Remarks. One of the video's later claims is that the Jews reject Jesus because "the Messiah cannot be crucified according to Old Testament prophecies that we have seen. The Messiah is supposed to be someone who will be victorious so any claim He was whipped, tortured and died in humiliation is a contradiction." Following this, we hear that Islam opens the door for Jews to accept Jesus, solving the narrative issues. The video also throws a few sneaky remarks about New Testament reliability before concluding but authorship and dating of the Gospels is essentially irrelevant to whether Jesus was crucified or not, just as the Qur'an, written 600 years later, is too. The idea it is impossible for the Messiah to be crucified is just a claim and no Old Testament prophecies were cited in addition to what was already presented, which clearly does not show us that the Messiah couldn't be crucified. While the Messiah was to be victorious, they equivocate this with an inability to be whipped, tortured or killed. Jesus was victorious; He conquered death. It is absolutely true that this subverted Jewish expectation of the Messiah, who they thought would be a conqueror who would defeat Rome and restore the kingdom of Israel, but it is not contradictory; this interpretation or idea of the Messiah was simply error. Furthermore, Islam still teaches that Jesus is the Messiah and if Muslims are to appeal to this Jewish interpretation of Messiah, as a victorious conqueror, that interpretation invalidates what they teach about Jesus too anyway; in Islam, Jesus didn't crush the enemy and set up the kingdom of God, so I don't understand why they appeal to Jewish expectation here. This is a kind of intellectual murder suicide, just where the murder fails; either they are right in which case Islam is false anyway or they are wrong, in which case their ‘proof’ against Jesus’ crucifixion fails, He was crucified, and Islam is false. The video claims that if Muhammad had been a false prophet, he would have affirmed the crucifixion and went along with New Testament claims to gain more Christian converts but Islam is about the truth, not convenience. To this we can say that it is easily conceivable that Muhammad could have had a sufficient reason to deny the crucifixion while still being a deceiver. Furthermore, this has to be our conclusion as we know for certain that the reason Muhammad affirmed this was not because it was true, as the fact of Jesus' crucifixion is absolutely historically concrete. It is interesting that Muslims use the Bible, which Hijab and others frequently say is corrupted and unreliable, which was implied in this video, to prove Jesus wasn't crucified. Hypothetically, the Bible could be unreliable and Jesus was still crucified; the video completely neglects to interact with the vast historical and internal evidence that do not presuppose the Bible is inspired or reliable. What is also perplexing is why they are appealing to some parts of the Bible (i.e. Matthew 4:5-7) as reliable to show Jesus wasn't crucified but not to all the other parts of the Bible which clearly state Jesus was crucified outright. There are no justifications given for why certain parts are permissible to appeal to while others aren't. On their view, of biblical corruption, how do we know that part about Jesus' encounter with Satan wasn't corrupted? Hijab’s proof against Jesus’ resurrection, viewed over 82,000 times as of the 23rd of June 2021 and with good reception among his audience, is an awful attempt at invalidating the crucifixion of Jesus. The evidence is absolutely clear that He died by crucifixion and that the Islamic account is incorrect and the critiques offered fall completely flat. References. [1] Publius Cornelius Tacitus, ‘Annals’, 15.44. [2] Ronald Syme, ‘Tacitus: Volume One’, page 398. [3] Michael Grant, ‘Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome’, pages 18-20. [4] Herbert W. Benario, ‘An Introduction to Tacitus’, page 87. [5] Titus Flavius Josephus, ‘Antiquities of the Jews’, 18.33. [6] Craig A. Evans, ‘The Historical Jesus: Volume 4’, pages 390-391; John Thackeray, ‘Josephus: The Man and Historian’, pages 136-149. [7] Agapius, ‘Kitab al-‘Unwan’. [8] Gerd Lüdemann, ‘What Really Happened To Jesus?’, page 17. [9] E. P. Sanders, ‘Jesus and Judaism’, page 11. [10] John Dominic Crossan, ‘Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography’, page 145. [11] Marcus J. Borg, ‘Jesus’, page 179. [12] Pinchas Lapide, ‘The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective’, page 32. [13] Paula Fredriksen, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews’, pages 7-8. [14] Bart D. Ehrman, ‘Misquoting Jesus’, page 162. [15] Kathleen N. Hattrup, ‘A doctor on why “blood and water” gushed from Jesus’ heart’, https://aleteia.org/2019/06/22/a-doctor-on-why-blood-and-water-gushed-from-jesus-heart/. [16] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, ‘Roman Antiquities’, 5.51.3. [17] Titus Livius, ‘The History Of Rome’, 22.13.9. [18] Philo of Alexandria, ‘Flaccus’, 65-85. [19] Titus Flavius Josephus, ‘The Jewish War’, 5.449. This document draws from the excellent work of Trent Horn, Michael Jones and Jimmy Akin, all of whom we recommend heavily on this topic through writing, presentations and debates. Information is also used frequently used from Mike Licona, N. T. Wright, William Lane Craig, David Wood, Brant Pitre, Gary Habermas, Craig Evans, J. Warner Wallace, Richard Bauckham and Craig Blomberg as well as valuable content from many other apologists and distinguished writers in various fields. Feel free to share and download this document to use yourself! Allah and Satan have identical attributes and intentions. In the following file, we examine those attributes and intentions, comparing Allah to both the Qur'anic and Biblical Satan.
Muslims proclaim that the Qur’an and Islam teach pure monotheism. On face value, this might be true but when we look deeper into the Qur’an and hadith, we find that it really isn’t that simple. In fact, it’s rather astonishing how many issues arise from Islamic sources on this issue. I am going to make a bold statement and put forward the case that Islam has, at a minimum, one hundred and twenty divine beings.
It seems sensible to start with Muhammad. In the Qur’an, Muhammad is called a ‘plain warner’ and this can be seen in Surahs 6:37, 7:184, 10:20, 11:12, 13:7, 13:27, 15:89, 17:59, 20:133, 21:5, 22:49, 26:115, 27:92, 29:50, 33:45, 34:28, 34:46, 35:23, 35:24, 38:65, 38:70, 46:9, 48:8, 51:10, 79:45 and 88:21. However, in other Islamic sources, this statement of Allah is strongly disputed. In Sahih Bukhari 5639, he performs a water miracle. This hadith is usually disregarded as it contradicts the Qur’an but there are many more examples of Muhammad’s deification. He has healing saliva in Sahih Muslim 2146, children are saved by his tongue in Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 1183, sucking his tongue indefinitely quenches thirst, Muslims catch his spittle in Sahih Bukhari 2731 and 2732 and can be found both licking up his blood and drinking his urine in Kitab Ash-shifa bi ta’rif huquq al-Mustafa of Qadi ‘Iyad Ibn Musa al-Yaqubi. Even though Allah isn’t meant to have partners, Allah and Muhammad share the name ‘the one who is praised’, one of Allah’s ninety nine-names and the meaning of Muhammad, who also has ninety-nine names. When you ask any Muslim who ‘the praised one’ is, they will not be able to legitimately differentiate between Allah and Muhammad. The Shahada was also originally simply La ilaha illallah, as seen in Sunan an-Nasa’i 2443, with the double Shahada, including ‘and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah’, was added later, which puts Muhammad on par with Allah. If Muhammad was only a prophet, there would be no need to include him in the Shahada, let alone it being scandalous to Allah. The third additional divine being is the Rūḥ, which also presents a stern test to Tawhid. Surah 15:28-29 repeats the Genesis account, which creates problems, as what is described as ‘my spirit’ does not originate from creation. Surah 19:16-19 mentions ‘our’ spirit appearing to Mary as a well made man before the spirit, Rūḥ, tells her ‘I will give you a pure boy’. This proves the spirit can appear separately and give life, blowing into Mary to give life in Surah 66:12, powers only God has. You might say the explanation to what the Rūḥ is simply Allah’s own spirit but that would be incorrect, as shown by Surah 5:116 when Allah’s spirit or soul is called the Nafs, rather than Rūḥ, the spirit shown in other places. The common and mainstream explanation of the Rūḥ is the Angel Gabriel but this is an even clearer mistake than Allah’s own spirit. The Rūḥ is separated from angels in three verses; Surah 70:4, ‘the angels and the spirit ascend to him in a day; its duration was fifty thousand years’, Surah 78:38, ‘a day the spirit and the angels stand in ranks, they will not speak, except those whom the merciful permitted and spoke truth’ and Surah 97:4, which says that ‘The angels and the spirit come down in it by the will of their lord from every command’. Interestingly, Surah 89:21-22 separate Allah from the angels in the same language as the spirit, so we cannot accept this and deny the other. Even Muhammad himself could not explain the Rūḥ in Surah 17:85, whereas a clear answer would be expected. The verse reads; ‘And they ask you about the spirit. Say, “The spirit is of the affair of my lord, and you did not receive from knowledge, except a little.”’ Allah’s word is also a separate, divine being. Surah 4:171 describes Allah’s word being cast down to Mary. First and foremost, Allah cannot have ever been without his word, so it is uncreated, and this word was cast out, so it must be a divine agent. This verse also calls Allah’s word Jesus; ‘Surely the Christ ‘Isā, son of Mary, is only a messenger of Allah and his word, which he cast to Mary, and a spirit from him.’ This verse has huge implications and alongside Surah 3:45, in which Allah proclaims ‘When the angels said, “O Mary, surely Allah gives you the good news with a word from him. His name is the Christ, ‘Isā, son of Mary, exalted in this world and in the hereafter, and of the nearer’, Jesus is absolutely confirmed to be Allah’s word, meaning Jesus is divine too, as is consistent with John 1:1, 1:14, 20:20, Isaiah 9:6-10 and more where the Word is with God in the beginning, the Word is God in the beginning, the Word becomes flesh as Jesus, created everything and appears before the disciples. The Qur’an itself is our fourth divine being in Islam. In Sunan Ibn Majah 3781, it says; ‘It was narrated from Ibn Buraidah that his father told that the Messenger of Allah said: The Quran will come on the Day of Resurrection, like a pale man, and will say: 'I am the one that kept you awake at night and made you thirsty during the day.’ Unless Muhammad is a liar or being unclear, both impossible for Islam to be true, the Qur’an will appear as a pale man on the day of resurrection. In Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 1963, Riyad as-Salihin 991 and 992, we see the Qur’an interceding; with individual chapters arguing on behalf of those who applied it. For the Qur’an to be able to testify and have memory, it needs to be conscious now in some form, let alone needing a physical form later for the day of resurrection. As the Qur’an is eternal because it cannot be destroyed, it is a fourth divine being. I could argue that there are twenty-six different Arabic Qur’ans, which could be an additional twenty-five Islamic divine beings, but we will assume only one is correct and leave the perfect preservation debate behind. Not only is the Qur’an a divine being but each individual Surah of the Qur’an is too. In Sahih Muslim 804 a, we read that; ‘Recite the Qur'an, for on the Day of Resurrection it will come as an intercessor for those who recite It. Recite the two bright ones, al-Baqara and Surah Al 'Imran, for on the Day of Resurrection they will come as two clouds or two shades, or two flocks of birds in ranks, pleading for those who recite them.’ Now that we know some chapters are flocks of birds that can communicate with each other and testify on the day of judgement, we can establish each Surah, as they could all testify each as a separate divine being which adds a colossal one hundred and fourteen divine beings to the total count. Bear in mind that this is the minimum given potential lost chapters, although again we will be charitable with perfect preservation. The final separate divine being I will present in this article is the Black Stone, for which the argument will be similar to the Qur’an as a divine being. In Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 961, we see the following; ‘The Messenger of Allah said about the (Black) Stone: “By Allah! Allah will raise it on the Day of Resurrection with two eyes by which it sees and a tongue that it speaks with, testifying to whoever touched it in truth.”’ Like the Qur’an, knowing that the stone will testify on the day of judgement from a memory, it must have consciousness, so is therefore our one hundred and twentieth divine agent. It seems evident that if Muslims reject the trinity based on the false premise that there are three separate divine beings, they should be consistent and reject the one hundred and twenty of Islam. |
Links To My Work
Thanks to Robert Spencer, the founder of Jihad Watch, I have the opportunity to write some articles for his esteemed website. All articles on Jihad Watch will be linked on the blog of this website. Visit Jihad Watch via this link. See my articles on Jihad Watch via this link. |