The “Temple” of Ignorance: A Response to Ken Temple on Dhimmis, Jizyah, and Islam – Part I

The “Temple” of Ignorance: A Response to Ken Temple on Dhimmis, Jizyah, and Islam, Part I

Originally posted on the Quran and Bible Blog

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

– The Quran, Surah At-Tawba, 9:29

            This article is a response to the copy/paste ramblings of the Trinitarian apologist Ken Temple in his article “The Concept of Dhimmi in Islam”.[1] As we will see, Temple engaged in poor research and half-truths in a vain effort to demonize Islam. But the truth will come out and Temple will be exposed, inshaAllah! Due to its length, the article will be divided into 3 parts. Part I will respond to Temple’s discussion of the so-called “Pact of Umar”. Part II will respond to Temple’s claims about the jizyah and the Islamic conquests of the Byzantine and Sasanian Empires. Finally, Part III will respond to Temple’s shameless propaganda about the first Gulf War.

Unveiling the “Temple” of Ignorance – The “Pact of Umar”

            Temple, being the lazy apologist, simply begins his rant…by pasting a link to another pseudo-scholar, the infamous David Wood. He also makes a false statement right from the get-go:

“[o]ne should read all of the links to the articles below to understand Dhimmi and Dhimmitude.  It developed from Surah 9:28-29 and from the Pact of Umar I (Umar/Omar Ibn Al Kattab, the Second Caliph, 634-644 AD) and was further developed under another Umar/Omar – Umar Ibn Abdul Azziz [sic], who was Caliph from 717-720 AD.)”

            Temple refers to the so-called “Pact of Umar I”, and then claims that the concept of “dhimmitude” was “further developed under…Umar Ibn Abdul Azziz [sic]…” But Temple did not research the history behind the so-called “pact”.

            Before we discuss the historicity of the “Pact of Umar”, we need to delineate exactly what it required of Christians. Here is a simplified list, as provided by Professor Maher Abu-Munshar in his book Islamic Jerusalem and Its Christians: A History of Tolerance and Tensions:

  1. Restrictions on Christian places of worship.
  2. Hospitality, including the serving of food, to Muslim travelers.
  3. No harm to Muslims and Islam.
  4. Christians should not imitate Muslims in dress.
  5. Prohibition on “doing and saying certain things.”
  6. Restrictions on “commercial relationships” between Christians and Muslims.[2]

            Let us now discuss whether the “Pact of Umar” is authentic or not. According to Abu-Munshar, while many jurists and historians (such as Ibn Hazm, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Asakir, Ibn al-Qayyim, and Ibn Kathir) believed that the pact “could be attributed to Umar”, there were others who did not (such as Al-Salih).[3] Not only that, but Abu-Munshar notes that the earliest documentation of the “Pact of Umar” was by Al-Khallal (d. 311 AH/923 CE),[4] while even earlier scholars did not seem to know anything about it, despite the fact that they did discuss the conquests in their historical accounts. These include Al-Baladhuri, Al-Waqidi, Al-Ya’qubi, Al-Tabari, Al-Azdi, Ibn Al-A’them, and Ibn Al-Athir.[5] This is one reason to doubt that the “pact” originated with Umar (may Allah be pleased with him).

            Another reason to doubt the authenticity of the “Pact of Umar” is in its chain of narrators. Abu-Munshar notes that the famous scholar Al-Albani “has doubted the pact’s chain of narrators”.[6] Also, Ibn Asakir (one of the scholars who accepted the authenticity of the “pact”) reported five different narrations of it, four of which were found “to contain some problems in their chains of narrators”.[7] As for the fifth version, Abu-Munshar points out that while this version is similar to the versions mentioned by other scholars, for some mysterious reason “it is narrated without specifying the name of the city”.[8] Instead, it merely states “such and such a city”. This causes Abu-Munshar to raise a logical question: “how could such an important document omit the name of the city that it addresses?”[9] According to Ibn Kathir, the pact was agreed upon by Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and the Christians of “Ash-Sham” (i.e., Syria):

“[t]he scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, “I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham…”[10]

It is hard to believe that the pact would say “such and such a city” instead of saying something like “the people of Damascus”.

            Still another reason to doubt the authenticity of the document is that the famous scholar Al-Shafi’i cited two versions of how Christians were supposed to be treated by Muslims. In his book Kitab Al-Umm, he cited the guidelines in the “Pact of Umar”, but also a different set of guidelines which were not found in the “pact”:

“[t]he government must not interfere with any practice of the dhimmis, although contrary to Muslim law as long as it is not done in public notice. So, in a town where there are no Muslims living, Christians may build churches and tall houses, and no one may interfere with their pigs and festivals. A dhimmi may lend money at interest to another or contract a marriage not recognized by Muslim law, and no one can interfere…”[11]

            Finally, Abu-Munshar notes that the requirements of the “pact” contradict Umar’s known policies towards non-Muslims. Abu Yusuf (d. 798 CE)[12] related that Umar once came across an old Jewish beggar. When he asked the man what had caused him to beg, the man replied that he needed the money to pay the jizyah. Umar immediately gave him some money and instructed the treasurer to no longer take any jizyah from the man.[13]

            Al-Baladhuri also related a story about how the caliph ordered special treatment for Christians who were stricken with diseases:

“…Umar…passed by certain Christians smitten with elephantiasis and he ordered that they be given something out of the sadakahs and that food stipends be assigned to them.”[14]

Naturally, these Christians would not have had to pay the jizyah.

            It is for these reasons that Abu-Munshar concludes that the “Pact of Umar” was not actually issued by Umar himself, but was developed by “unknown people…to include conditions that have no relevance or link to the period of the early Muslim conquests.” Rather, he states that these “conditions” began in the time of Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz (Umar II) and continued to the time of Al-Mutawakkil (d. 861 CE),[15] the latter of which was known to be extreme in his dealings with Christians and Jews.[16] Another theory is that it was the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim (d. ~1021)[17] who was the “originator of the more discriminatory conditions” in the so-called “pact”.[18] Abu-Munshar also notes that Al-Hakim ordered Christians “to wear clothes that distinguished them from Muslims” and that “small mosques should be built on the roofs of churches”.[19]

            An even more interesting theory, suggested by some modern scholars, is that the inspiration for the “pact” came not from Islamic sources but from Christian ones. The two main Christian sources which have been said to exert such influence are the Codex Theodosianus and the Code of Justinian. As the late Jewish scholar Jacob R. Marcus stated:

“[t]he real significance of Roman law for the Jew and his history is that it exerted a profound influence on subsequent Christian and even Muslim legislation. The second-class status of citizenship of the Jew, as crystallized in the Justinian code, was thus entrenched in the medieval world, and under the influence of the Church the disabilities imposed upon him received religious sanction and relegated him even to lower levels.”[20]

This theory has some interesting strengths. When comparing some of the stipulations of the Christian laws concerning Jews and other non-Christians, we can see some clear parallels with the “Pact of Umar”. For example, the Novella III of the Codex Theodosianus forbade the building of new synagogues.[21] A similar law was enacted by Justinian as well:

“…where a heretic (and among heretics We include Nestorians, Acephali, and Eutychians) builds a house for the celebration of his worship, or a new Jewish synagogue, the most holy church of the diocese shall seize the building.”[22]

Another similarity is that the “Pact of Umar” forbade Christians from “taking slaves who have been allotted to Muslims”.[23] A similar law was enacted by Christians:

“A Jew Shall Not Possess A Christian Slave. If anyone among the Jews has purchased a slave of another sect or nation, that slave shall at once be appropriated for the imperial treasury. If, indeed, he shall have circumcised the slave whom he has purchased, he will not only be fined for the damage done to that slave but he will also receive capital punishment. If, indeed, a Jew does not hesitate to purchase slaves-those who are members of the faith that is worthy of respect [Christianity] then all these slaves who are found in his possession shall at once be removed. No delay shall be occasioned, but he is to be deprived of the possession of those men who are Christians.”[24]


Figure I – Justinian I

            Regardless of the true origin of the “Pact of Umar”, it is becoming increasingly clear that the origin does not lie with Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). This is the view of most modern scholars. However, the Christian scholar Jurji Zaydan was of the view that the “pact” or “Charter of Omar” could be ascribed to the second caliph, but that it only applied to the Christians of Syria. According to Zaydan:

“…the reason of its severity is to be found in Omar’s fear of the Christians of Syria, who among the Easterns came nearest to the Byzantine Church.  The Copts hated the Byzantine Church, and aided the Moslems to conquer Egypt and oust the Byzantines.  The charter, then, was not dictated by fanatical hatred of Christianity or the desire to persecute.  Afterwards, however, its conditions were extended by the Moslems to the whole of the people of the Covenant, whereas Omar had intended it only for the Christians of Syria.”[25]

So even if it could be reasonably attributed to Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), which is unlikely, it was not meant to be applied to all Christians, but only the Christians of Syria, and as previously mentioned, Ibn Kathir indeed stated that the “well-known conditions” of the so-called “pact” were originally addressed to the Christians of Syria. Later on, it was extended to include all Christians, which was not the original intent.

            Before we move on, it is pertinent to ask: if the “Pact of Umar” is not authentic and does not represent the actual Islamic rules regarding dhimmis, then what are the actual rules?

            According to Imam Al-Mawardi (d. 362 AH/972 CE),[26] the payment of the jizyah guaranteed two main “rights” for dhimmis: they would be “left in peace” and “their domestic security” and “defence from external attack” would be guaranteed.[27] It also exempted a dhimmi from military service.[28] Conversely, serving in the military absolved the dhimmi of paying the jizyah for each year of service.

            As an example of this exemplary attitude towards dhimmis, we can point to the example of Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH/1328 CE). When the Tartars (Tatars) were advancing on Damascus, Ibn Taymiyyah asked the Tartar leader Qazaan (who claimed to be a Muslim) to spare his people. The Tartar leader agreed to this only with regard to Muslims. However, since the Jews and Christians were under the protection of the Muslims, Ibn Taymiyyah insisted that they be spared as well. The Tartar leader agreed and released all non-Muslim prisoners of war.[29]

            Another scholar, Ibn Juzay (d. 741 AH/1340 CE), stated that “Muslims should not interfere with the churches of Christian dhimmis or with their lifestyle, such as drinking wine and eating pork, as long as they did not do this in public”. He also stated that non-Muslims should be “governed by their own personal laws”.[30]

            According to Imam Al-Mawardi, being a dhimmi required six obligatory conditions to be followed:

  1. Prohibition against disparaging or misquoting the Quran.
  2. Prohibition of accusing the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) of being a liar or insulting him in any way.
  3. Prohibition against speaking against Islam “with slander or calumny”.
  4. Prohibition of committing fornication with a Muslim woman, or marrying a Muslim woman.
  5. Prohibition against undermining “the faith of a Muslim” or to “cause harm to Muslim assets and property”.
  6. Prohibition against helping the enemy of Muslims.

            Abu Yusuf also narrated a letter sent from the first Caliph Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) to the Christians of Najran, which contradicts the strict rules of the “Pact of Umar” and reflects a moderate attitude towards Christians. The letter, as narrated by Abu Yusuf, states:

“In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful.  This is the written statement of God’s slave Abu Bakr, the successor of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God.  He affirms for you the rights of a protected neighbor, in yourselves, your lands, your religious community, your wealth, retainers, and servants, those of you who are present or abroad, your bishops and monks, and monasteries, and all that you own, be it great or small.  You shall not be deprived of any of it, and shall have full control over it.”[31]

            Interestingly, Abu Yusuf also related an agreement between Khalid Ibn Al-Walid and Christians which allowed the latter to “ring their bells at any time of the day or night, except at the Islamic prayer times.”[32] This is in stark contrast to the stipulation of the “Pact of Umar” which prohibited Christians from even clapping outside of their churches.

            As we can see, these rules are very different from the so-called “Pact of Umar”. There are other scholarly views as well, with minor differences. For example, the Hanbali jurist Ibn Qudama (d. 630 AH/1233 CE) included the rule that dhimmis should wear distinctive clothing and try to avoid drinking alcohol in public, but he said nothing about prohibiting the upkeep of places of worship.[33]

            Finally, there is another important document that is also attributed to Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and was addressed to the Christians of Jerusalem (Aelia). The document is known as Al-Uhda al-Umariyyah, which Abu-Munshar describes as a document of “great importance”.[34] However, it should be stated outright that the authenticity of this document is also a matter of debate, just as with the “Pact of Umar”.[35] Nevertheless, it is interesting that this document is discussed by some of the earliest scholars we mentioned previously, none of whom seemed to know of the “Pact of Umar”. The reader should recall that the earliest Islamic scholar to mention the “Pact of Umar” was Al-Khallal (d. 311 AH/923 CE). But Al-Uhda was mentioned by Al-Waqidi (d. 207 AH/822 CE) and Al-Baladhuri (d. 279 AH/892 CE), though they did not provide the text of the agreement. But some later scholars did discuss the text as well, including Al-Ya’qubi (d. 284 AH/897 CE) and even the Christian patriarch of Alexandria, Eutychius (d. 328 AH/940 CE).[36]

            Al-Tabari (d. 310 AH/922 CE) also mentioned the document as well as the text. His version is the longest one. More importantly, the chain of narration for Al-Tabari’s version is quite strong, in contrast to the unreliable chain for the “Pact of Umar”.[37]

            So what did Al-Uhda al-Umarriyah state with regard to the Christians of Jerusalem? In Al-Tabari’s version, in exchange for paying the jizyah, the Christians were given “an assurance of safety for their lives and possessions”, including their churches. They were given assurances that they would not be “compelled in religion” or “maltreated”. They were also given the choice of either staying in Jerusalem or leaving with the Byzantines. If they chose the latter, they were allowed to take all their possessions. Finally, an interesting caveat of the document is that “[n]o Jews should reside with [the Christians] in Aelia.”[38] According to Kennedy:

“…the fact that a Muslim source records it suggests that the Christian negotiators had played a strong hand.”[39]

Regardless, it is of course well-known that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did indeed allow a small number of Jews to reside in Jerusalem. It is for this reason that he is celebrated among Jewish sources. As the Jewish scholar Rabbi Reuven Firestone states:

“[Umar] ended Christian rule over Jerusalem and allowed Jews to legally re-enter and live in the holy city for the first time since the failed Bar Kokhba rebellion in the 2nd century.”[40]

            So, in contrast to the unreliable “Pact of Umar”, which Temple subjectively and uncritically implied was a reflection of authentic Islamic attitudes towards dhimmis, there is another document with far more historical credibility that he was seemingly completely unaware of (or deliberately ignored).  In any case, now that the facts have been presented, it is hoped that the ignorant Temple will update his article to reflect the historical reality, and not cling to his poorly-researched opinions. The funny thing is that Temple claimed that “early Muslim jurists” attributed the “pact” to Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), but as we have seen, this is a deceptive statement since the “earliest” jurists in fact did not even MENTION the “pact”. They were not aware of it at all! Even the article from “Faith-Freedom” that Temple linked to admitted that the document was “…unlikely to have been written by Umar I”. One then wonders what the point of even bringing a misattributed document into the discussion was in the first place.


This concludes Part I of this series. Part II will discuss the Islamic concepts of dhimmis and jizyah and also refute Temple’s biased assessment, inshaAllah.


[2] Maher Y. Abu-Munshar, Islamic Jerusalem and Its Christians: A History of Tolerance and Tensions (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2007), p. 65.

For a full-text of the “pact”, see pp. 63-64.

[3] Abu-Munshar, op. cit., p. 63.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., p. 75.

Al-Baladhuri died in the year 892 CE ( Meanwhile, Al-Waqidi died in the 823 CE (

[6] Ibid., p. 71.

[7] Ibid. p. 66.

[8] Ibid., p. 68.

[9] Ibid., pp. 68-69.


But as we have already seen, the hadith has different versions and problems with its isnad (chain of narration).

[11] Ibid., p. 75.


[13] Ibid., pp. 78-79.

[14] Ahmad Ibn Yahya Baladhuri, The Origins of the Islamic State: Being a Translation from the Arabic Accompanied With Annotations  Geographic and Historic Notes of the Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan, Volume I, trans. Philip K. Hitti (New York: Columbia University, 1916), p. 198.

[15] Abu-Munshar’s book lists Al-Mutawakkil’s death in the year 232 AH/786 CE, but this is definitely a typo, as the year 232 AH of the Islamic calendar would have corresponded to around 847 CE.

[16] Ibid., pp. 76-77.

However, it should be noted that even Umar II was known to be relatively lenient with dhimmis. In a letter sent by the Caliph to one of his governors, he stated:

“[p]ay attention to the condition of the Protected (non-Muslims), treat them tenderly. If any of them reaches old age and has no resources, it is you who pay for his keeps. If he has relatives, demand these latter to pay for his keeps. Apply retaliation if anybody commits tort against him. This is as if you have a slave who reaches old age; you should pay for his keeps until his death or liberate him”” (Maher Younes Abu-Munshar, “A Historical Study of Muslim Treatment of Christians in Islamic Jerusalem at the Time of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab and Salah Al-Din With Special Reference to Islamic Value of Justice” (PhD diss., University of Abertay Dundee, 2003, 57,

In another letter, he instructed fairness when collecting the jizyah:

“[p]urify the registers from the charge of obligation (i.e., taxes levied unjustly); and study old files (also). If any injustice has been committed regarding a Muslim or a non-Muslim, restore him his right.  If any such person should have died, remit his rights to his heirs’” (Ibid.).

He was also quoted as saying:

“[l]et it be known that the Almighty, Glorified be His Name, allowed jizyah to be taken from those who decline to embrace Islam and prefer the great loss of polytheism. However, you should exempt those who are unable to pay and encourage people to reform and plough their lands, for tilled land adds to their happiness and reinforces their energy to fight against their enemies. I want you to check the status of each and every individual among ahl al-dhimmah and whosoever you find to be too old, too feeble to earn a living or impoverished for any reason….to each of them allocate money as is necessary to ease their financial plight” (Sayed Afzal Peerzade, “Jizyah: A Misunderstood Levy,” JKAU: Islamic Econ.) 23, no. 1 (2010): 158,



[19] Abu-Munshar, op. cit., p. 184, n. 2.


[21] Ibid.


[23] Abu-Munshar, op. cit., p. 64.


[25] Jurji Zaydan, Umayyads and Abbasids: Being the Fourth Part of Jurji Zaydan’s History of Islamic Civilization, trans. D.S. Margoliouth (London: Luzac & Co., 1907), p. 136.


[27] Abu-Munshar, op. cit., p. 33.

[28] Ibid., p. 25.

[29] Ibid., p. 35.

See also:

[30] Abu-Munshar, op. cit., p. 34.


[32] Ibid.

[33] Abu-Munshar, op. cit., p. 36.

[34] Ibid., p. 88.

[35] Unlike Temple’s subjective and propaganda-based article, this article is concerned with the ascertainable facts and an honest assessment of history.

[36] Ibid., p. 89.

[37] Ibid., pp. 93-94.

The strength of the narration is based on the reliability of two particular narrators, Khalid Ibn Mi’dan al-Shami (d. 108 AH/726 CE) and Ubadah Ibn Nusai (d. 118 AH/736 CE), whom Abu-Munshar describes as “trustworthy followers (tabi’is) of the first generation after the companions of the Prophet (p. 94).

[38] Ibid., p. 92.

For the full text, see pp. 92-93. See also Kennedy, op. cit., pp. 91-92.

[39] Kennedy, op. cit., p. 92.

[40] Reuven Firestone, An Introduction to Islam for Jews (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2008), p. 47.


Categories: Christianity, Hadith, History, Islam, Jerusalem, Judaism, Muhammad, Qur'an

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

261 replies

  1. After today it’s ok to call ken temple Kentucky fried just feel right.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. No historian says the Pact of Umar reflects the attitudes of the early Muslim conquerors if by early Muslim conquerors you mean the Companions of the Prophet(saw):

    In contrast to the large scale, resource intensive and protracted campaigns that were so typical of Byzantine Sasanian warfare of the sixth and early seventh centuries, and which in at least some places resulted in widespread violence and social dislocation, the Islamic conquests of the mid seventh century read like
    a series of relatively short engagements which were made by relatively small and hit and run armies that rarely laid sieges of any length or produced casualties in large numbers. In many and perhaps most cases in the Byzantine provinces, local elites cut deals that avoided large scale violence. Modern descriptions of
    systematic conquest era violence targeted at non Muslims, in addition to those of post conquest persecution before theMarwanids, are usually nothing more than poorly disguised polemics….If the historical tradition would have us infer that large scale mortality and dislocation were very occasionally the exception to a general rule, the archaeological evidence clinches this inference. Unlike the barbarian invasions
    of the fourth and fth century western Mediterranean, the effects of the Islamic conquests were in many respects modest. There is a fair amount of regional variation, but there is no sure archaeological evidence for destruction or abrupt change in settlement patterns that we can directly associate with the
    events of the 640s and 650s. (The New Cambridge History of Islam).

    Liked by 3 people

  3. It turns out a lot of the restrictions in the so-called pact of Umar reflects Byzantine (Christian) and Sassanian attitudes towards conquered populations. Is Ken going to condemn the Byzantines for influencing the Pact of Umar? The following is from Milka Levy-Rubin’s article in the Handbook of Christian-Muslim relations:

    Nevertheless, an analysis of the clauses shows that they reflect various Byzantine as well as
    Sasanian laws and conventions in addition to some Arab and Islamic elements. Thus, the differ-
    entiation based on religious identity was well established in both Byzantine and Sasanian society.
    Additionally, the distinction between pagans (mushrikūn) and the People of the Book (ahl al-kitāb)
    who are awarded this protection is totally in concert with the special status of the Jews under
    Byzantine rule (Linder 1987: 230–1). Similarly, the protection of existing prayer houses and the
    prohibition to build new ones (clause 1) is identical to the Byzantine law regarding synagogues
    (Linder 1987: 269, 297, 400–1), while the prohibition against the owning of Muslim slaves (clause
    13) is mirrored in both Byzantine (Linder 1987: 84–5) and Zoroastrian law (Perikhanian 1997:
    28–9). The prohibition on holding public office is also identically imposed on non-Christians in
    the Byzantine Empire (Linder 1987: 75–6). Clause 2, regarding the right of passage of Muslims,
    the duty to supply them with board and lodging for three days, and the commitment not to give
    shelter to spies or to conspire against Muslims, is clearly a remnant of the early agreements, as
    has already been noted (Noth 1987). Other clauses – clause 9, prohibiting the selling of wine or
    the rearing of pigs in the vicinity of Muslims; clause 3, the prohibition on‘teaching the Qurʾān
    to our children’; the clause on displaying crosses; or that concerning polytheism, which does
    not appear in al-Ṭurṭūshī’s version – are likely to be an adoption and extension of the Byzantine
    prohibitions on contempt of the local religion and cult (Linder 1987: 237, 284–5), although they
    may well have developed independently, being natural and intuitive measures aimed at protecting
    the ruling religion and asserting its supremacy (Levy-Rubin 2011: 126).


    • @ KMAK

      “Is Ken going to condemn the Byzantines for influencing the Pact of Umar?”

      No according to him they were making chocolate milk waterfalls and getting ready to go to the moon before the big scary Mooslims came in and “unjustly” attacked them.

      As you made in your points (which were knockout quotes btw) reality is Muslims weren’t massacring populations and many of them were tired of Roman rule which is why you don’t any rebellions until long after the Khalifah Rashidun popping up. It’s funny that even though we have this reputation of “violence” reality is casualties weren’t really that high during the Prophet(saw) or the Khalifah Rahidun time. Of course, they still fought but it wasn’t like millions of people died like say the Russian Revolution.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. If you read carefully, I did write that the “pact of Omar” was developed over time. (Omar can be spelled in English either Umar or Omar – from the Arabic, عمر
    عمر بن الخطاب

    I used the word “developed” because I was acknowledging that it seems that that the final document was developed from principles and rules from the first Omar to the 2nd Omar.

    Developed by who? The Muslim scholars, jurists, and leaders !!

    I know that most of the evidence is that this document was developed from Omar 1 (the 2nd Caliph, Omar Ibn Khattab) Caliph from 634-644 AD to Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz ( the eighth Umayyad Caliph 717-720 AD) and probably more developed in years after Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz.

    Who developed the Dhimmi principles as time went on? The Muslim scholars, jurists and leaders – and they sought to ground their policies from Surah 9:28-29 and the original “Pact / Contract / covenant of Omar” – you cited positively a document called Al-Uhda al-Umarriyah – it is interesting that you did not translate the words – Al-Uhda = العهدا or العهدی which is the root word, عهد which is a “pact” or “covenant” or “contract”.

    We have this word in Farsi, which is from the Arabic. We use this word for “the Old Testament / Covenant” عهد عتیق and the New Testament – عهد جدید

    Umarriyah is derived from Umar / Omar عمر and seems to mean “belonging to Omar/ Umar”.

    So, the document that you cited positively can be translated, “The Pact of Omar” or “The Covenant / Contact of Omar / Umar”. So, it is you who seems deceptive.

    Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (Arabic: عمر بن عبد العزيز‎, – English phonetics = ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz; 2 November 682 – 4 February 720), commonly known as Umar II, was the eighth Umayyad caliph, ruling from 22 September 717 until his death in 720 AD.

    Just because I did go into the details of the debates between Muslims scholars over the development of the document and the unjust policies against the Christians, etc. does not mean that what I wrote was inaccurate.

    Furthermore, the link to David Wood’s article is an article that just pure verses from the Qur’an, the Hadiths (or Ahadith) and quotes from Ibn Kathir’s commentary on Surah 9:28-29.

    To condemn David Wood’s article is to condemn Islam, because it is mostly quotes from the Islamic Sources.

    The fact that I linked to the other articles that goes into details about the development of the documents by Muslim scholars and sources, demonstrates that I am not being deceptive. I don’t have the books that you cite, and so it is also not a matter of being lazy, since many of the links that I gave fully admit that the Dhimmi policies more and more harsh over time, but they all go back to foundational aspects of Surah 9:28-29 and the Hadiths about expelling the Christians and Jews from Arabia, and the lack of freedom for Christians to do evangelism and seek to win converts from the Muslims.


    • Actually, the precedents for the contents in the Pact of Umar are to be found in Byzantine and Sassanian laws not Surah 9. No historian connects Surah 9 to the Pact of Umar. You and Wood are not historians. You and Wood are dishonest internet trolls.

      Liked by 1 person

    • @ Ken

      Nope you were either engaged in poor research or deception (I prefer a combo of both):

      To prove this you don’t realize the “Pact of Umar” and “Al-Uhda al-Umarriyah” are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT documents especially in Arabic that you used to pretend to be an expert and sound impressive:

      Pact of Umar شروط عمر‎ or عهد عمر or عقد عمر

      Al-Uhda al-Umarriyah (Umar’s ASSUURANCE) العهدة العمرية

      Something as basic as this shows your biases/ incompetence at research.

      You have also exposed the fact that you didn’t read the article, as the PACT of Umar is almost by consensus a forgery made by either the mad Caliph Al-Hakim or Al-Mutawakkil (I favor Al-Hakim as Umar 2 was tolerant towards people of protection as well)

      Moving on to the rest of your shoddy research, it was already noted in the article that Ibn Kathir, was of the opinion the document was legit (which is understandable seeing as he doesn’t have modern techniques and lived during the time that freaking knights were walking around) Since he believed the document to be legit that is going to influence his understanding so pretty much the majority of your ibn Kathir quotes are irrelevant.

      Finally David Wood does not quote “mainly from Islamic sources” he misquotes things he doesn’t understand that only impresses other people like yourself who don’t know what they’re talking about. What’s beautiful about this as we knew you would be too arrogant to admit you’re wrong is why part 2 is coming up is dedicated to jizya, where you will be AGAIN shown to simply be a propaganda piece for Satan.

      Become a Muslim Ken or you will receive one of the worst of punishments in the Hereafter.

      Liked by 2 people

      • When I admitted from the beginning that the “Pact of Omar” was a developed document, developed by Muslim leaders, jurists, scholars, and tied it back to both Omars (Ibn Abdul Aziz and Ibn Al Khattab), the argument that they are 2 different documents is already admitted and understood.

        You admit that Ibn Kathir (1300 – 1373 AD) it went back in some ways to Omar ibn Al Khattab, and was developed later over centuries – he is a major Islamic commentator and even if he got that wrong; the policies and justifications for all the injustice against Christians are obvious, and based on Surah 9:28-30, which are evil texts.

        Furthermore, عهده is based on عهد and it means “covenant”, “contract”, “pact”. It does not mean “Assurance”.

        Everyone can read for themselves – David Wood is just quoting verses from the Qur’an, Ahadith, and Ibn Kathir’s commentary: (just read through the text, it is ALL just texts of the Qur’an, Hadiths, and Ibn Kathir’s commentary:

        so, you are wrong.


      • Become a Muslim Ken or you will receive one of the worst of punishments in the Hereafter.

        Why? There is no good reason to turn away from the wonderful truths of the New Testament and the Love of God in Christ, the great truths of the incarnation, the atonement, forgiveness of sins, peace with God, the promises of eternal life and power of the Holy Spirit to conform us to the character of Christ and growth in holiness, etc. I have the promises of the NT about forgiveness of sins, eternal life, heaven, peace with God, etc. Islam offers nothing good compared to New Testament Truth. We already have proper Monotheism and moral law and the prophets, Psalms, Proverbs in the OT, properly understood by the NT.

        The lies of the Qur’an, the blatant historical errors about who Jesus really is; and about the crucifixion of Jesus (Surah 4:157) and the ignorance of the author (s) / compilers of the Qu’ran about the doctrine of Trinity and many other scientific and historical errors and using fables and legends and apocryphal stories and Gnostic texts, all together, with the harshness of Islam as a whole, discredit the entire religion and your false accusations against the NT and Luke here. It is your prophet and his claims and the explanations and commentaries in your religion that is not credible; when one looks at all the evidence and fruit.


      • Temple: Ibn Kathir did; and the principles of Jiziye does, which connects it to the Dhimmi principles, which connects it back to Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz and then back to Omar Ibn Al Khattab.

        Either you don’t know how academic historical research works or you’re plain dishonest. Which is it?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Temple: David Wood was just quoting Qur’an, Ahadiths, Ibn Kathir’s commentary.

      Please address the claim that no historian connects Surah 9 to the Pact of Umar.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ibn Kathir did; and the principles of Jiziye does, which connects it to the Dhimmi principles, which connects it back to Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz and then back to Omar Ibn Al Khattab.


      • Surah 9:29 says fight the people of the book, until they pay the Jiziye, being humbled.

        The bases for the Dhimmi principles is the Jiziye and allowing the people of the book to continue in their own Monotheistic religion (Jews, Christians) if they submit and pay the Jiziye.

        Ibn Kathir connected that to the Pact of Omar 2 and that was developed out of and based on the covenant of Omar 1.


      • In other words, you are ignorant about the academic scholarship on the Pact of Umar and you are dishonest.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Here is some of what I wrote:

    Dhimmi does not mean “responsibility” but it means “protected under contract”, or “contract” or “agreement of the “protected ones”. One could say that the Dhimmis had responsibility to respond rightly, but the choice was pay the Jiziye tax or be punished, tortured, imprisoned or die by the sword. Also, later, the Muslims added the Kharaj tax, and together it slowly wore down the populations to where the Christians converted to Islam. Their responsibility was to obey the covenants in the Pact of Umar/ Omar 1 (Islamic history attributes it to Omar ibn Al Khattab- around 637-638 AD, when he conquered Jerusalem and Syria/Levant, but many agree that it was probably developed and added to by a later Umayyad Khaliph, who also had the name of Umar/Omar – in the Covenant of Omar 2 ( Omar Ibn Abdul Azziz) ( 717-720 AD) There is no doubt there is humiliation there and by the comments of Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hazm, if you read them with honesty, there is no way that what Hamza Yusuf says about “Saghir” (humiliation, small, lower than, less than) can stand up to scrutiny. Hamza Yusuf doesn’t tell the whole story, and distorts things on this issue.

    Despite being attributed to Umar Ibn al Khattab, the second Khaliph, by early Muslim jurists, most modern scholars are of the opinion that the document was either the work of 9th century Mujtahids, or was forged during the reign of the Umayyad Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (717-720 AD), with other clauses added later. Other scholars concluded that the document may have originated in immediate post-conquest milieu and was stylized by later historians.


  6. Ibn Kathir’s commentary on Surah 9:28-29 and 30, with the verses themselves, proves my main point:

    What is really interesting is verse 28 – “if you fear poverty, soon Allah will enrich you”. the reason for that was because Muhammad had conquered the Hijaz (the Arabian peninsula, especially around Mecca and Medina, and no pagans or idol worshippers were allowed. That means the Muslims could not get tax or penalty money from the pagans. Surah 9:5 – “fight the unbelievers where ever you find them”, proves this, and several Hadith that says “no two religions will be allowed on the Arabian peninsula” see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288, and other Hadiths, quoted at the bottom of this article *) They were all killed or driven out or converted to Islam. So now, there is no revenue from the pilgrimmages, so, according to verses 28-29, they will allow the Christians and Jews to be in the Islamic state, provided they surrender and don’t fight/resist, and pay the Jiziye with humiliation, and they cannot evangelize or build new churches or even criticize Islam.

    Qur’an 9:28—O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

    Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    Qur’an 9:30—The Jews call Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

    Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4— “Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.”

    Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—”Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.”


  7. @ Ken

    Ken are you retarded Umar’s Assurance did not develop into the Pact of Umar. Again you don’t even know sources involved but want to comment on them. They are two different documents that have nothing to do with the other.

    Ibn Kathir made a mistake it happens, this is why Imam An Nawwi refuted him as you will see in part 2.

    Because you don’t understand how propaganda works I’m now going to show you how Jesus(as) will order little girls to be raped when he goes to war in his Second Coming using the same methodology of Wood (and the people who fund him) use, ahem:

    Alright follow along:

    1. Jesus=God in the Trinity

    2. God (aka Jesus) orders Moses to kill the Midianites:

    And the LORD said to Moses, “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.” So Moses told the people, “Arm some of your men for war, that they may go against the Midianites and execute the LORD’s vengeance on them… (Numbers 31:1-3)

    3. They then win the battle, kill all the men, plunder their homes and take the women and children as captives:

    Then they waged war against Midian, as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they KILLED EVERY MALE. (Numbers 31:7)

    The Israelites captured the Midianite WOMEN and their CHILDREN, and they PLUNDERED all their herds, flocks, and goods. Then they BURNED all the cities where the Midianites had lived, as well as all their encampments, and carried away all the plunder and spoils, both PEOPLE and animals. They brought the CAPTIVES, spoils, and plunder to Moses, to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of Israel… (Numbers 31:9-12)

    4. The Biblical Moses says that this won’t appease the bloodthirsty “Daddy” and orders the little boys and the women who are not virgins killed while the little girls are given to the Israelites to be “devoured”:

    But Moses was ANGRY with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who were returning from the battle. 15“Have you SPARED ALL THE WOMEN?” he asked them… (Numbers 31:14)

    Now comes the important part:

    So now, kill all the BOYS, and kill every woman who has had relations with a man, 18but SPARE FOR YOURSELVES EVERY GIRL who has never had relations with a man. (Numbers 31:17-18)

    Word translated from Hebrew is טָף (taph). What does Taph mean? From the dictionary and Lexicons for טָף (taph)

    From Strong’s Dictionary:
    children (11), girls* (1), infants (1), little children (2), little ones (27).

    From the NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
    Word Origin
    from (02952) (perhaps referring to the tripping gait of children)

    Taph referred to a child around the ages of 8-11, and literally it means, child clinging to his mother. That makes a lot of sense doesn’t it? That a child that age has a dependence on his or her mother.

    From the Expository Dictionary of Bible Words the right-hand column
    “However, all the virgin girls (lit. female children) were to be spared.

    So there ya have it, folks. According to the Bible Moses gave, 8-11-year-olds away into sexual slavery to Jewish fighters. Let’s now keep reading the chapter and find out what happened next.

    5. The spoils and the 32,000 LITTLE GIRLS are ORDERED by Daddy (aka Jesus) to be divided up and given as sex slaves to the fighters (the rest is divided up into sacrifices for the Cult while the priest and Moses pocket the gold):

    The LORD said to Moses, “You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the congregation are to take a count of what was captured, both of man and beast. Then divide the captives between the troops who went out to battle and the rest of the congregation. (Numbers 31:25-27)

    So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD had COMMANDED Moses, and this plunder remained from the spoils the soldiers had taken:
    675,000 sheep, 3372,000 cattle, 3461,000 donkeys, and 32,000 women who had not slept with a man. (Numbers 31:31-35)

    So Moses and Eleazar the priest received from them all the articles made of gold. (Number 31:51)

    6. The little virgin girls were then raped
    Now how do we know this, because the Bible tells us so! Let’s break down the verse together in the next book:

    “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners… (Deuteronomy 21:11)

    Now they just fought a battle right? They killed all the women, right? There are only the little girls left as prisoners.

    “you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 TAKE HER to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and MOURN HER PARENTS FOR A MONTH; after that, you may marry her.

    Key part why is she mourning her parents? Oh yeah because they are children.

    14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since YOU FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.” (Deuteronomy 21:14)

    In other words, after you got what you wanted from her free here because you raped her. She can’t be made a slave like the rest and be sold… 🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤮

    7. Jesus then agrees with this and encourages you to do it:

    Let’s look at what Jesus has to say about Moses’s law that we just read:

    Do not think that I have come to ABOLISH the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to FULFILL them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. So then, whoever BREAKS ONE of the least of these commandments and TEACHES OTHERS TO DO LIKEWISE will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever PRACTICES AND TEACHES will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:17-19)

    But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a single stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. (Luke 16:17)

    So now you can’t use the “that was the Mosaic law” cop out.

    Now did you catch all that? In 7 easy steps I have demonstrated that Jesus ordered a genocide, little girls to be raped and for the priest to pocket all the gold. I did not take anything from its context and the meaning is clear. THIS right here is an evil text, not pay your taxes and you can worship however you want and rule yourselves. Now use all the Holy Spirit you got and explain to everybody why this evil act is okay to you and baby Jesus?


    You a hypocrite who uses the “fruits” argument when its convenient because you sure went silent when I used it on Christians and the enslavement of Africans which is based in your text and ALL of your early scholarship.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. @ KMAK

    Either you don’t know how academic historical research works or you’re plain dishonest. Which is it?

    Both Ken blindly copies and drips with bias. I have had several run-ins with him like for example when they were twisting an ayat that says “none can change God’s words”. I showed both context and commentary and all he had was his unfounded opinion and he refused o admit he was wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. As for your refusal to become a Muslim know that Hell calls your name every time you reject the invitation to follow God’s religion and wish to continue in your polytheism. (Q. 70:13-17)

    Liked by 2 people

    • Except I already have assurance of forgiveness, eternal life, heaven, from the Infallible previous Scriptures of God in the New Testament, the true Injeel, revealed 600 years before your false religion. (NT books written between around 45 AD to 96 AD)

      I have no need to fear or worry about your 600 year late false religion.

      the previous Scriptures already taught that hell is what awaits you, as you are under the wrath of God without Christ as Savior and Lord.

      John 3:18
      John 3:36

      Romans 5:1-11

      Mark 9:47-48
      Matthew 5:21-30


      • @ Ken

        Man those who God leads astray no one can guide. Okay continue in your paganism and testify that I have submitted only to God and we will see who comes out on top in the end.

        Liked by 5 people

      • But it is not “paganism”; Christianity is true Monotheism. 600 years earlier than your 600 late religion.


      • This stupid argument gets stupider every time. You worship a man. That is paganism.

        And your pagan religion came after Judaism, which doesn’t believe that God came down as a man to die for everyone’s sins so he could save us from himself.

        Liked by 2 people

      • No. If Jesus was only a man, we would not worship Him. But since He is also God by nature, eternally existing into the past as the Word of God / Son of God (John 1:1-5; 1:14-18; 17:5), born of the virgin Mary (which you also believe and have no explanation for why that is true, except Islam was hearing some truths and wrote them down, but mis-interpreted them, etc.) – since Jesus is God by nature/ substance / essence and eternal, worshiping Him is not paganism.

        Most all the NT writers were committed Jews, who believed the OT and quoted it and alluded to it extensively. (all 9 authors of NT except for Luke, the only Gentile)
        The entire weaving of the NT is based on OT through and through in its DNA.


      • Pathetic pagan, you’re just like the Hindus. Your heretical NT does not speak for all Jews, only the anonymous heretics who invented a mangod cult by syncretizing Judaism with Hellenistic paganism.

        You admit you worship a man. Case closed. You are a hell-bound pagan.

        Liked by 1 person

      • No, we worship Him (Jesus Christ, Al Masih المسیح ، the Lord الرب ) as the incarnate God the Son, who became a man, but also is always God from eternity past into the future.

        Trinitarian Monotheism is the only true Monotheism.


      • But he’s still a man. Ergo, you’re a pagan. Hindus believe Krishna became a man too. That’s still paganism.

        Liked by 1 person

      • No, not analogous at all.


      • Yeah, they are. Both involve the worship of men who are believed to be an incarnated god. You are a pagan. Repent before it’s too late.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I already repented and trust the one true God. Christ of the NT is the eternal Son who offers eternal life.
        Luke 13:1-5
        Mark 1:15
        John 20:30-31
        John 1:12-13
        John 3:1-10
        Romans 5:1-11
        You are the one who needs to repent and trust in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son, the eternal word and his atoning death on the cross and powerful resurrection – only he can give you forgiveness and peace and eternal life .


      • You need to repent of your paganism, because whether you’re a Christian or a Hindu, you’re destination is hell. Worshiping a man is an act of the devil and believing in incarnated gods is a satanic belief. Repent of your paganism.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Your silly Bible verses don’t change the fact that you follow a pagan religion.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. @ Ken

    No Ibn kathir did not. He thought the Pact of Umar was authentic when it was not. Where you are confused is you think the Pact of Umar came from Umar’s Assurance. They are not relayed in anyway, shape or form. The Pact of Umar has no chain and was more than likely formed by the Fatimid ruler Al Hakim who EVERYONE says was oppressive based on Emperor Justinian treatment of the Jews.

    The Assurance is a different document that reads:

    “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the assurance of safety [aman] which the servant of God Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, has given to the people of Jerusalem. He has given them an assurance of safety for themselves, for their property, their churches, their crosses, the sick and healthy of the city and for all the rituals which belong to their religion. Their churches will not be inhabited by Muslims and will not be destroyed. Neither they, nor the land on which they stand, nor their cross, nor their property will be damaged. They will not be forcibly converted. No Jew will live with them in Jerusalem.

    The people of Jerusalem must pay the taxes (jizya) like the people of other cities and must expel the Byzantines and the robbers. Those of the people of Jerusalem who want to leave with the Byzantines, take their property and abandon their churches and crosses will be safe until they reach their place of refuge. The villagers [ahl al-ard, who had taken refuge in the city at the time of the conquest] may remain in the city if they wish but must pay taxes like the citizens. Those who wish may go with the Byzantines and those who wish may return to their families. Nothing is to be taken from them before their harvest is reaped.

    If they pay their taxes according to their obligations, then the conditions laid out in this letter are under the covenant of God, are the responsibility of His Prophet, of the caliphs and of the faithful.” (Hugh Kennedy, The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In, Hachette UK (2010), pp. 91-92)

    This is more in line with what we know from Umar’s, Abu Bakr and the Prophet’s(saw) rule. Other incidents or statements from Umar(ra):

    “We gave them a treaty stating that we would leave them alone with regard to their churches, to say whatever they want in them, and that we would not burden them with more than they can bear, and that if their enemies want to harm them we will fight to defend them, and that we will not interfere between them and their (religious) rulings except if they come to us, asking us to judge on the basis of our rulings; and that if they keep their affairs to themselves, we will not bother them .” (Nidham al-Hukm fee ‘Ahd al-Khidafa’ ar-Rdshideen , p. 117.)

    Umar would let people off of paying the jizya if they couldn’t. ‘Umar passed by the door of some people and saw an old blind man who was begging. He tapped him on the shoulder and said: “From which of the people of the Scripture are you?” He said: “(I am) a Jew.” He said: “What forced you to do what I see (i.e., begging)?” He said: “I am begging because of the jizyah and needs of old age.” ‘Umar took him by the hand and took him to his house, where he gave him something from his house. Then he sent for the keeper of the bayt al-mal and said: “Check him and others like him, for by God we have not been fair to him if we benefited from him (from his jizyah ) when he was young and abandon him when he is old.” And he let him and others like him off from paying the jizyah , And he wrote to his agents issuing this command to all of them. ( Al-Amwal by Abu ‘Ubayd, p. 57; Ahkam Ahl adh-Dhimmah by Ibn al- Qayyim, 1/38 and Nasab ar-Rayah by az-Zayla‘i, 7/453. )

    Pretty much ALL the Rashidun caliph were lenient in this regard which is why Imam an Nawwi (rh) refuted ibn Kathir’s position (I don’t really watch Hamza Yusuf but this is more than likely what he was talking about. The until their humble in the verse can refer 2 ways

    1. Loyalty to the State (which is what Ibn Kathir(rh) was arguing)
    2. Feeling humbled by looking at Muslim justice in their rule.

    Imam An Nawwi essentially argues being harsh was not practiced by the Prophet(saw) or the Khalifah Rashidun so the correct position is 2.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Pretty much ALL the Rashidun caliph were lenient . . .

      I don’t believe that they were. We have no way of really knowing, since they just took over in unjust war and conquering, etc. and were in control of the sources and also did not allow any complaining or protest or debate or evangelism, unless they needed Byzantine officials and Persian officials to run local things / administrations of the cities for a while. In the meantime, they were killing each other in Mecca and places in Iraq. (Omar killed by a Persian slave (probably in protest of the high taxes on Persians – Jiziye and other taxes) , Uthman hacked up while praying before a Qur’an, Ali killed by the Khauijites, Hassan poised by his wife, Hossein ambused and hacked up by Yazeed and Wuawiyyeh, etc. (Wuawiyyeh and Yazeed are the first Caliphs of the Ummayad Caliphate in Damascus, but this is very soon in the Islamic period and all the negatives against them is the fruit of Islam itself.

      It is understandable that the beginning period of Rushidoon Caliphates until Ali were a kind of general conquering with a sort of parallel with a lot of conquerings in history. There is an initial over-all general victory and relative quietness, but then later the locals start rebelling and doing guerilla warfare and fighting back, etc. My point is the Islamic initial conquests were similar to that – but the local cities and town and peoples kept quiet and went inward until later when they could mount a counter-offensive.

      At the beginning of Omar’s conquests and later – according to Jonathan Brown that Paul Williams put info up on his old blogs that he either deleted or were taken over by Ijaz, etc. – from what I remember, the Muslims stationed in the outskirts of the cities conquered and allowed the Byzantines, Copts, and Persians to administer the managerial aspects of life for a while.

      But after a while, because of the Jiziye and second class status of the Dhimmi’s – not allowed to do much; the social and economic pressures wore them down slowly over the centuries, and they converted to Islam because of the social and economic pressures and injustices.


  11. I don’t know if your assessment of Ibn Kathir is correct. he may have been right. The quote from Sahih Muslim gives credence to that and also the extended quote from Ibn Hazm below.

    Regardless of who exactly developed the documents, they clearly go back to Omar Ibn Al Khattab (the second Caliph) and Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz ( 717-720) and they were probably developed more and more as Islam expanded and had to deal with the conquered areas and people more and more.

    Just because Ali Sina (who runs the web-site Faith Freedom) is a former Muslim (and, according to you, an atheist), does not mean his research is faulty. This article I linked to was written by a “Jon MC.”

    Since I linked the article that shows evidence of the Pact of Omar 1 and 2 and gives some evidence of it’s origins with Omar 1, and not only Ibn Kathir, but Ibn Hazm also, and I since I admitted that it was developed and added to over the years/ even centuries, linking to other articles that give more details, my main point still stands.

    The Status of Non-Muslims Under Muslim Rule.

    From the Tafseer of Ibn-Kathir (1301–1373) circa. 700 years after Mohammed:

    [Sahih] Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, “Do not initiate the Salaam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.” This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab [the second of the “Rightly guided Caliphs” and one of Mohammed’s contemporaries], may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.

    The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari [died 78AH/697 A.D.] that he said, “I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab , may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham:

    `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion.

    We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration, nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims.

    We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passer-by. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days.

    We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims.

    We will not teach our children the Qur’an, publicise practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk [i.e. proselytise for Christianity] or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.

    We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them.

    We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons.

    We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor.

    We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets.

    We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets.

    We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims.

    We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.’

    When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, ‘We will not beat any Muslim.’

    These are the conditions that we [the Christians] set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah [promise of protection] is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”’

    Other versions conclude with:

    Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are:

    “They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims,” and

    “Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.”

    According to ibn Hazm (994-1064 AD) circa. 350 years after Mohammed:

    “These are the Rules and Regulations that were imposed by ‘Umar ibn-al-Khattab on the Christians of Syria, after conquering their land. The purpose of these rules was to make them submissive and contemptible. Christians were in no way to exhibit any sign of their unbelief, or anything forbidden in Islam; since Allah, the supremely Glorified and Honoured, had said:

    “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.” (K8:39).

    [My comment: The word translated “persecution” is a wrong translation. Fitnah / فتنه does not mean “persecution”; rather it means “chaos”, “mutiny”, “rebellion”, “disorder”، “trouble”, “confusion from chaos and disorder”, “mischief” (in the streets from rebellion and sedition)] (like when people under Muslim rule protest and complain and do protests in the streets) – the Muslim ruler come in and squelch them with power and force and violence.]


    “They are forbidden to build churches, or monasteries, in their cities or nearby areas. They are not allowed to renovate such buildings. They must allow any Muslim to lodge in these buildings for three nights, and provide him with food. They must never shelter a spy, nor show any duplicity to Muslims. They are not to teach their children the Qur’an. They must not display any sign of their unbelief, or forbid their relatives from converting freely to Islam. Furthermore, they must show reverence to Muslims, and give them pride of place at their assemblies. They should avoid appearing like Muslims in their clothing, their head covers, their shoes, and the parting of their hair. They must not speak the language of Muslims, nor use their names. They are not allowed to use a saddle on a beast of burden, nor bear a sword, nor any other weapon. Their rings must not bear any Arabic inscriptions. They must refrain from selling wine. They must have the front of their hair cut, and wear their own kind of clothing all the time, and must use belts. They are not to display a cross or any of their books, as they are passing Muslims on their way. Their dead must not be buried nearby a Muslim cemetery. They should not ring their bells in a loud manner; equally, they must not raise their voices while reading their Scriptures in their churches. They are forbidden to parade their palm branches (on Palm Sunday.)

    Now should Christians ever deviate from obeying these rules, Muslims would cease to honour the covenant that had protected them. In that case, Muslims can deal with them as if they have become people of discord and trouble [fitnah].”


    • ‘Just because Ali Sina (who runs the web-site Faith Freedom) is a former Muslim (and, according to you, an atheist), does not mean his research is faulty. ‘

      You don’t know the difference between Islamophobic polemics and academic research. Why are you this stupid Ken? Milka Levy-Rubin is THE ‘go to person’ on anything related to the Pact of Umar; not Wood, not Sina, and certainly not you Ken.

      Liked by 2 people

  12. @ Ken

    After ALL this evidence presented AND you thinking Ali’s Caliphate had ANYTHING to do with rebellions from non-Muslim populations I really have nothing more to say to you. You will simply believe whatever you want to because your path currently is toward the Fire.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. @ QB

    Hey, Ken is still going on with his unfounded emotional rants and deception despite being thoroughly refuted.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. @ Ken

    Now that I’ve had a little fun at your expense and have calmed down from your ignorance of Islamic history I’ll now respond to your points.

    1. Historical people and events

    I have no idea who “Wuawiyyah” is but MUwawiyyah(ra) was the 1st caliph of the Umayyad dynasty. Next, Ali(ra) fought NO Jews or Christians during his caliphate, in fact, the borders did not expand AT ALL during his rule. Coming into Muawiyah’s(ra) rule again NO rebellions from non-Muslim populations (in fact, Muawiyyah (ra) married a Christian woman). This will now lead to the next point

    2. Umayyads and Rebellions

    You CLEARLY have no idea who the Umayyads were. There is no “guerilla warfare” and “counter-offensives” they come in and kill everything if they suspect mutiny. They were WITHOUT DOUBT THEE prime military force of their day. It’s actually hilarious when non-Muslims “brag” about the Battle of Tours. They don’t realize they united FIVE kingdom’s armies to fight a SCOUTING party of the Umayyads and STILL almost lost. People don’t realize the Umayyads at this time were expanding pretty much every direction and steamrolling everything. Non-Muslims really didn’t rebel against Umayyad rule it was the MUSLIMS who did and they killed several Sahaba during their time such as Hussein(ra) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr(ra) who were trying to overthrow them because they were oppressors.

    3. “Economic” burdens and other unfounded claims

    A. Let me just refer you to this article that just came out about the subject:

    B. They taxed converts TO Islam twice. (Jizyah AND Zakat along with other fees)

    4. “…This is very soon in the Islamic period and all the negatives against them is the fruit of Islam itself.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you know how much these people were hated by Muslims dude? Literally when Al Hajjaj bin Yusuf died a famous scholar named Hassan al Basri(rh) went and prayed to thank God for his death. Now you’re right about one thing though this is the fruit of Islam because the Prophet(saw) predicted about their coming:

    Narrated Safinah:

    The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the Kingdom of His Kingdom to anyone He wills.

    Sa’id told that Safinah said to him: Calculate Abu Bakr’s caliphate as two years, ‘Umar’s as ten, ‘Uthman’s as twelve and ‘Ali so and so. Sa’id said: I said to Safinah: They conceive that ‘Ali was not a caliph. He replied: The buttocks of Marwan told a lie.

    So thank you for acknowledging the prophecies of Muhammad(saw) that show him to be a prophet. Become a Muslim.

    5. Ibn Kathir(rh) and Ibn Hazm (rh)

    Both opinions are based off a forged document so you can quote them (or anyone else who bases his opinion off the Pact of Umar for that matter) all day but the evidence is no good and thus thrown out. Now again I’ll quote this for you to ignore:

    “We gave them a treaty stating that we would leave them alone with regard to their churches, to say whatever they want in them, and that we would not burden them with more than they can bear, and that if their enemies want to harm them we will fight to defend them, and that we will not interfere between them and their (religious) rulings except if they come to us, asking us to judge on the basis of our rulings; and that if they keep their affairs to themselves, we will not bother them .” (Nidham al-Hukm fee ‘Ahd al-Khidafa’ ar-Rashidin , p. 117.)

    ‘Umar passed by the door of some people and saw an old blind man who was begging. He tapped him on the shoulder and said: “From which of the people of the Scripture are you?” He said: “(I am) a Jew.” He said: “What forced you to do what I see (i.e., begging)?” He said: “I am begging because of the jizyah and needs of old age.” ‘Umar took him by the hand and took him to his house, where he gave him something from his house. Then he sent for the keeper of the bayt al-mal and said: “Check him and others like him, for by God we have not been fair to him if we benefited from him (from his jizyah ) when he was young and abandon him when he is old.” And he let him and others like him off from paying the jizyah , And he wrote to his agents issuing this command to all of them. ( Al-Amwal by Abu ‘Ubayd, p. 57; Ahkam Ahl adh-Dhimmah by Ibn al- Qayyim, 1/38 and Nasab ar-Rayah by az-Zayla‘i, 7/453. )

    Using your “grand conspiracy” (with no evidence for btw) Umar(ra) would not forge himself disobeying the Prophet’s(saw) orders. Again everything we know about the Khalifah Rashidun is they were kind to Ahlul Dhimmah. Now IF you still want to go down this path, I’ll acknowledge their opinions as correct if you acknowledge Origen and black people being “Stained with wickedness and disobedience” deal?

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Thank you brother for this great article. However, even if the pact of Umar is authentic, what’s the problem exactly? Again, these subjects need to be discussed from its roots philosophically. It’s very strange that people, whose religious book approves the dictatorship of the pagan Rome and its rules of citizenship, to argue against Islam about the subject of Dhimmah or Jizzyah! This is the very definition of irony. Remember my brothers that the Roman Empire was an occupier for that land, yet the book of christians approves its rules and its acts of violence. “Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment…Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.”
    Notice that Paul approved their rule for the land although it was a result of an act of occupation.
    Also, I think it’s needless to mention what christians became later with the Christian States, and how they occupied America and Africa militarily. Those who open their filthy mouthes against Islam do live in occupied lands whose original people got killed mercilessly by them and their fathers!
    I cannot see why would christians object about these instructions, regardless the authenticity, while their religion itself approves similar instructions.

    The audience of David Wood is stupid, and they always get fooled by this kind of “arguments” in which David presents some quotes from Islamic books ignoring the contexts, then he contrasts them with the secular life they live in the west! This is a very delusional methodology! if you are religious people, then what does bible say about the subjects? If you have a secular view for this life and how we should live, then tell us clearly instead of this hypocrisy because those atheists seculars in the west don’t have any objective moral standards to judge others with. In fact, those atheists can be refuted easily, but the problem is with christians who think their hypocrisy and throwing their bible under the bus would exempt them from what their religion really teaches.

    I know that religions such as Christianity and Shiism are so lacking when it comes to poltic! They need to be hypocrites to jump over their lacking religions, and that’s why we find atheists, although they have their own hypocrisy, take christians as a subject of mockery because of this vivid hypocrisy.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Abdullah1234 wrote:
      It’s very strange that people, whose religious book approves the dictatorship of the pagan Rome and its rules of citizenship, to argue against Islam about the subject of Dhimmah or Jizzyah! This is the very definition of irony. Remember my brothers that the Roman Empire was an occupier for that land, yet the book of christians approves its rules and its acts of violence.

      You misunderstand the NT position on the Roman Empire and government. Romans 13 is not approving of sin or any actions of injustice and oppression. Rather, they (the Roman Empire) already existed for centuries (paganism, wars, unjust policies, slavery, etc.) – it is just telling the Christians “do not rebel” – that does not mean approval for the wrongs. Also, when it says “God put them in authority” – it does not mean that God approves of them; rather it means God in His sovereignty allowed them to be rulers / government.

      But you argue, it seems, (and in these comboxes before you have made this point) that we should be happy with your religions desire to rule and oppress – your religion does not allow freedom of thought, or religion or criticism of your religion, evangelism, building new churches, etc. so the Islamic Caliphate and Sharia system is even worse that the Roman Empire. At least in Christian history, (although it took a while for the Protestant Reformation to restore many of the proper things theologically and eventual freedoms of modern western life, though it is becoming worse in immorality, etc.) there is a balance of freedom of religion and ability to do evangelism and build new churches. Your religion, if in charge with Sharia and Caliphate, would not allow evangelism or for Muslims to choose to leave Islam (Hadith: “If anyone leaves Islam, kill him.”) and you don’t allow us to build churches and preach peacefully. But in the western system, however bad the immorality of the secularists / atheists has been the last 50 years or so, at least there is freedom for debate and discussion and choosing one’s religion – that is better than Sharia and Caliphate and Dhimmi-tude and Jaziye.


      • Lol, Pennywise the moron is patting himself on the back for his church taking 1500 years to allow “freedom of thought”! Wow! So for the first 1500 years, before the enlightenment and secularism pacified your pathetic church, your church was wrong? What was it following all those 1500 years? Some other Bible?

        Liked by 1 person

      • From around 500 – 600-1517, the Roman Catholic Church was wrong. I don’t defend the wrong doctrines and wrong policies they did.

        I am a Protestant, a Baptist.


      • So it took your religion 1500 years to get it’s act right? What was it following before that?

        Liked by 1 person

      • The first 400-500 were good; but never perfect. the marriage of church & state was wrong – Theodosius, (380-392 AD), Justinian, etc. but both good and bad was happening at the same time.

        History is complicated, true.


      • You are so full of crap! First of all, for the first 300 years or so, Christians weren’t in a position of power, so we can known those out. Then, when they did become powerful, the persecutions started. Pagans (the non-Christian variety), Jews, and “heretical” Christians were persecuted. So really, in the 200 years of the supposedly “good” times, even those weren’t perfect. Bravo, Christians, bravo! 👏

        Liked by 2 people

      • The NT was perfect – God’s word. God-breathed. all the books existed by 96 AD in individual scrolls. But humans are not perfect and history is the drama of both good and bad taking place.

        But we have a standard / criterion (the original meaning of Canon / κανων , which came from the Hebrew, Qanah, which is related to the Arabic, قانون (law, principle).

        The 1517 Protestant Reformation was the beginning of a good return to the ultimate standard, Sola Scriptura – the final and only infallible rule for faith and the church.


      • Your NT demonized Jews, moron. It even had Jews taking responsibility for the death of mangod and placing that responsibility on their descendants. This was used as justification to persecute the Jews. When Justinian imposed his discriminatory laws, was there any protest from the church? Did any Christian say “oh that’s wrong?”

        Liked by 2 people

      • historical reporting of what happened by the Jewish leaders is not “demonization”


      • 😂 You just be the biggest idiot in the world to think that the Jews would have made such a statement.

        If that’s your position, then what business do you have criticising the pact of Umar, which clearly says that the Christians put those conditions on themselves?


      • He and they and those that developed the documents over centuries forced them to agree to that.


      • Another opinion with no evidence. Let’s just take Pennywise at his word, alright everyone? Not…


      • Enlightenment was 1700s – 1800s.


      • //that does not mean approval //
        Tell that to your prophet Paul not me “whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed
        The law of pagans= justice, yet the law of God= injustice!?

        //that we should be happy with your religions desire to rule and oppress//
        It’s doesn’t necessarily to be happy, but in the same time you cannot label the law of God as injustice while you consider the law of pagans and atheists to be justice. I know that you’re in a big trouble because your religion is very lacking when it comes to these questions, and that’s why christians have to be hypocrites depending on which era they live in. The definition of justice politically for the church fathers differs to that one that you have today. The Roman wars were justice for them. Killing Iraqi civilians and praising your filthy snipers is justice for you. You’re really just a bunch of hypocrites.

        //(although it took a while for the Protestant Reformation to restore many of the proper things theologically and eventual freedoms of modern western life, though it is becoming worse in immorality, etc//
        This’s just a lie. You may read what the founder of your sect, Marten Luther, thought about jews and their Synagogues, for example. Moreover, the western world is establishing its economy,stability, and ideology based on the military and the force around world to make sure that the river of benefits goes directly to its sinks. This’s how your world works. Again, I think you have no right to judge Islam in this point while you don’t have the objective standards to use. You literally have nothing in your religion. Your religion commands you to be submissive to the authority till the messiah comes again which is for Paul supposed to happen in his life, yet it turns out to be a clear false prophecy, and christians have gone astray since that time. Don’t blame Islam because it teaches that the law of God on earth is more better than those laws made by pagans and atheists which you praise consistently. In fact, the law of God is supreme. Also, I see you always link immorality in the west with the sexual behaviors only, which reflects that your view about immorality is so deficient.

        Finally, which is more justice for you, the western values that you praise today or this verse in Isaiah?
        “They will join forces to swoop down on Philistia to the west. Together they will attack and plunder the nations to the east. They will occupy the lands of Edom and Moab, and Ammon will obey them.”


      • But the law of Islam is NOT the law of God. The “god” of Islam is a false image of the true God, since you deny the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.

        Luther was wrong in his comments at the end of his life against Jews. He was becoming a cranky old man.

        That is why only Scripture is infallible – no theologian or commentator or government official or pastor or bishop is infallible. none.


      • We are talking about the concept! If you think the law of God is justice, then really you have nothing against Islam. If you think the man made law is better than the law of God, then we will discuss with you based on this approach. You see, what you have is just a vapid cultural bias. You have nothing, Ken. It’s the game that David Wood plays with his ignorant audience.


      • //That is why only Scripture is infallible//
        This man believes the same, but I think he’s honest at least.


      • Blah, blah, blah. Do you think anyone gives a flip about your personal opinion, dummy?

        Your pathetic scripture is anti-Semitic and pro-Roman. It seems the early Christians were trying to get on the Romans’ good side.


      • //Enlightenment was 1700s – 1800s.//
        Slavery which is approved in your bible. 🙂

        I told you! You can do nothing except to be hypocrites and throwing your bible under the bus! You have no choice. I have no problem if you think your bible is not good for your life. I have a problem when you claim to be a christian while you’re embracing another style of life which has nothing to do with your bible to judge Islam through it.

        I would not be surprised at all if christians try to demonize Islam because it does not allow for gay marriage. It’s just a matter of time until the christian “reformation” takes its shape fully.
        “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness

        Who is more lawless people than the followers of Paul?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Slavery is not approved of; (the slave trade was explicity condemned in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 and Revelation 17-18 (judgment on the Roman Empire and apostate Israel – the harlot / adulterous woman (symbol of Israel who persecuted Messiah and the believers) who rides the beast – symbol of Rome) but it was allowed because of sinful hearts – all evils are things that God has allowed under His sovereignty, which even Islam agrees with, in principle.


      • Let Michael Fassbender teach you your bible

        Liked by 1 person

      • The church NEVER the authority to take a verse out of context in Theocratic Israel’s law. That was done away with Jesus taking the kingdom of God away from the Jewish leadership. Matthew 21:33-46; 1 Peter 2:9-10; Ephesians 6:10-20; John 18:36


      • Nothing got taken from its context. There’s instructions related to the slaves in both Hebrew and christian bible, which means there’s approving for slavery at least as a concept, and that’s why you have to be hypocrite to satisfy your cultural bias , which is based on the modern western life style (not biblical). I cannot help you.

        Liked by 2 people

      • That is the pacified modern church position, after it got it’s teeth knocked out by secularism.

        Liked by 1 person

      • This moron has an excuse for every bad thing Christians have done, and expects us to just forget about it. “Oh Luther was a cranky old man”. Oh, the Catholic Church wasn’t representative of Christianity. What a pathetic low-life!

        Liked by 2 people

  16. @ Abdullah 1234

    I’m going to respectfully disagree with your premise. This would be equivalent to saying:

    “Well why don’t we discuss the premise of this weak hadith”

    We as Muslims do not make a ruling from these and worse still the Pact of Umar is even a lower grade than weak and is more than likely Mawdoo (forged). We have nothing to be ashamed about in our religion and we keep a higher moral standard to both sides whether they be of the Judeo/ Christian tradition (which condones genocides, rape, etc) or the Athiest (who do the same but try to stick their noses up at the latter)


    Bible is SUPER racist, used to enslave Black people, ALL commentators agreed until modern times (like 50 years ago), Christians like to try and take credit for ending slavery but it was the Quaker (who are heretics) who were anti-slavery.


    • I’m not sure if I got you right, but the main point is what if the version that Ibn Kathir and Ibn A’saker mentioned is authentic, what does that suppose to mean? Do really christians have the objective tools to object against these instructions? My answer is No! Christians don’t have the objective standards to open their mouth against these instructions to begin with.


    • Evangelicals such as William Wilburforce and Granville Sharp led the movement to abolish the evil slave trade.


      • Remember that you said “only Scripture is infallible – no theologian or commentator or government official or pastor or bishop is infallible. none

        Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ
        It’s obvious that those christians who didn’t want release their property had a solid ground to stand upon.

        The only choice for is to throw your bible under the bus and to be hypocrite. I cannot help you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • If only Jesus or Paul had done that! 🤔

        Liked by 2 people

      • They laid foundation for it.

        Slavery is not approved of; (the slave trade was explicity condemned in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 and Revelation 17-18 (judgment on the Roman Empire and apostate Israel – the harlot / adulterous woman (symbol of Israel who persecuted Messiah and the believers) who rides the beast – symbol of Rome) but it was allowed because of sinful hearts – all evils are things that God has allowed under His sovereignty, which even Islam agrees with, in principle.


      • You are such a liar! Are you so embarrassed of the godfathers of your religion? When did Jesus lay the foundation for it? Why did Paul tell slaves to obey their masters? Why did Peter say to put up with the cruelties of a tyrannical master? They laid the foundations for abolition? You, sir, are a demonic liar.

        Liked by 2 people

      • The verses of the NT laid foundation for abolition of slavery.


      • So says the brainwashed moron, despite the fact that there was no clear statement from either Jesus or Paul or any of the disciples to abolish slavery. In fact, there were only statements urging slaves to obey their masters, no matter how cruel they were. Why didn’t Christians follow this advice? Why did they call for abolition when their Bible says that slaves should obey and remain patient?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Again, when you run out of intellectual arguments you resort to name calling and ad hominem and judging, and wicked hateful anger sinful sinful anger


      • Oh shut up you whiny little moron. 😂 I deep-fried your pathetic hide with my article. All of the intellectual arguments are there, and all you have done is repeat the same rubbish like a broken record. You’re a quack.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Your sinful anger is more indicative of “demonic liar”
        Matthew 5:21-26
        John 8:44

        Liked by 1 person

      • Blah, blah, blah…waaah, waaah, waaah…

        Your idiocy and pathetic propaganda show that you are a demonic liar who manipulates the facts to confirm his biased view. We have already seen the evidence. You have been unable to refute me on any point yet. So get over your whining, princess.

        Liked by 2 people

      • He didn’t run! You just lie in front of our faces, and he exposes you. I’m not sure why you keep lying. Don’t you think it’s a sin or what?

        Liked by 2 people

      • I did not say he ran; rather that he ran of arguments.


  17. @ QB

    I find it so hypocritical Ken wants to now impose Christianity on us despite Christians “not supposed to be involved in politics”.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I keep telling you guys that this little twirp is a lying, hypocritical and self-righteous piece of crap. He will never learn or acknowledge that he is wrong. Such people are apparently made for hell to serve as examples for normal people on how not to act.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I never advocated imposing Christianity on you. That is lying. Evangelism, debate, discussion, etc. is not imposing.

      Yours is the fear and force religion.


      • Ken

        Oh your naivety would be cute if its wasn’t annoyying. I’ll help you out because you’re not a religious minority your religion and beliefs are imposed on Muslims ALL the time. Examples of the top of my head:

        1. Not working on the Sabbath or Sunday
        2. Pagan Christmas and pretty much ALL your holidays
        3. Not letting our children off for our holidays without penalties
        4. Polygyny
        5. Removal of our religious attire such as hijab, kufis etc.
        6. Imposing your laws on our community despite others being able to such as the Jews or Amish
        7. Interest based transactions
        8. Dates/ Calendar and map
        9. Your attempts to impose things like the 10 commandments in government buildings.

        I’m sure I could keep going if I thought about it but the point is made. You all have this weird thing where you want to be secular but follow your religion and try to force others to as well.

        Liked by 1 person

      • If you or your parents immigrated to a western country, sorry, but most of those things are just basic western Christian civilization principles and practices that haven around for centuries


      • Wow! The xenophobic and western-supremacist in Pennywise has been exposed!

        Liked by 1 person

      • How is anything I wrote xenophobic?
        God loves all nations & cultures- Revelation 5:9; Colossians 3:10-11; Ephesians 2:11-22


      • You have got to be the most deceitful low-life I have ever seen! Do you have the memory span of a goldfish?

        Liked by 1 person

      • You did not answer the question. Telling.


      • Nothing telling about it dummy. Your short memory span prevents you from seeing how you contradict yourself.


      • That is the cost of immigration to a western civilization that still has remnants of Christianity. You’re a whinny baby.


      • Yeah sure. Wanting the 10 commandments in a government building is advocating imposing Christianity moron. Would you be okay if sections of the Quran or Bhagavad Gita also be erected alongside the 10 commandments?

        Liked by 1 person

  18. @ Ken

    You have yet to respond with any intellectual arguments. He made a 3 articles refuting your nonsense and propaganda and you continue to spew it with no evidence. You began the fallacies so don’t get upset when the ad hominem come your way. “Do unto others” remember?

    Liked by 2 people

  19. @ Ken


    So you assume I or my parents are immigrants?

    Liked by 2 people

    • The delightful irony is that Pennywise’s family would also been immigrants at one point, unless they were Native Americans. So which tribe do you descend from One Who Whines Alot?

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Basically. I see I’m going to have to have another “real” moment with Ken.

        @ Ken

        Ken, you’re Christian brethren and ancestors are the ONLY people in recorded history to have the distinction of committing not 1, not 2 but 3 CONTINENT worth of genocides. And THEN you have the nerve to turn around and try to tell somebody about morality or to “go back to their country”?

        I’m going to help you, Ken, Christians are the invaders (which is why I could care less about the actual crybaby attitude about how American/ European (really meant “Western and white”) culture is allegedly being “diminished” (read “not forced down everybody’s throats)). If you don’t believe me about being invaders, I’m sure if we asked Native Americans if they wanted you to leave and be given their ancestor’s land back it would be an EMPATHETIC f*ck yes, they simply don’t (and probably never will) have the ability to remove Christians forcefully.

        Ironically enough, Europe created the concept of secularism (which you constantly whine about) because they were scared of EVER giving the Church political strength again because your religion is so corrupt and oppressive. You are THEE definition of this Quran passage:

        2:11. When they’re told: “Don’t cause trouble on the earth,” they say: “We’re only making things right!”
        2:12. Unquestionably, it’s they who are the troublemakers, even though they don’t understand…

        As I said earlier you like to use the “fruits” argument (when it’s convenient) but trust me the LITTLE good the Church has done is overshadowed by the blood, rape, genocide, lies, corruption, idolatry and overall theological nonsense in its tiny 2,000-year existence. Thank you for your time and have a wonderful day. (Drops mic)

        Liked by 2 people

      • Pennywise the xenophobic Christian fanatic gets nuked!

        Liked by 1 person

    • Seems like it, cause those things you listed are western civilizations / countries.

      Polygamy is outlawed in USA, so it seems like you are speaking in a western context.


      • @ Ken

        Sigh. I am a Westerner, Ken (born and raised). The fact that I have to explain this to you after you’ve seen Muslims like Paul Williams is bad. The Muslim nation spands across a variety of tribes, countries, cultures, and ethnicities. It’s to serve ANOTHER sign for you that Islam has the potential to bring about unity.

        3:102. Believers, fear God as He should be feared and don’t you dare die except in a state surrendered to Him in Islam.
        3:103. All of you hold on tightly to God’s line together and do not become divided. Remember God’s favor on you, as you were enemies to one another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you transformed and became brothers. You were on the edge of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. God makes His lessons and revelations clear to you this way so that you can be guided correctly.
        3:104. So let there arise from you a unified people, encouraging what’s right and stopping what’s wrong, because it’s they who will be successful.

        ALL these people who are Muslim one way or the other on this blog probably would have never even spoken to one another otherwise if it weren’t for God’s religion uniting us to stop the propaganda and lies against it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ok. Great. Sorry I did not know you are a western born person like Paul Williams- so, I assume you converted to Islam like Paul W. – correct me I’m wrong. Were you raised Christian or atheist or what ?


      • What the hell difference does it make, idiot? You were exposed as a xenophobic bigot.


  20. @ QB

    Lol what makes it even better is his comment is right under the clean up:

    Ken Temple
    June 27, 2019 • 2:41 am
    How is anything I wrote xenophobic?
    God loves all nations & cultures- Revelation 5:9; Colossians 3:10-11; Ephesians 2:11-22


    June 27, 2019 • 2:42 am
    You have got to be the most deceitful low-life I have ever seen! Do you have the memory span of a goldfish?

    Liked by you

    Ken Temple
    June 27, 2019 • 12:22 am
    That is the cost of immigration to a western civilization that still has remnants of Christianity. You’re a whinny baby.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. @ Ken

    Since you asked my background is as follows:

    I and my immediate relatives are the only Muslims in my family. My family’s religious beliefs are mainly Christian and a large number of my uncles, cousins, and aunts are ministers, deacons, pastors and priest respectively. You can split up their religious denominations as follows:

    Mother’s side:

    1.Roman Catholic
    3.Some Baptist

    Father’s side:

    1. Non- denominational
    2. Jehovah Witness

    I asked questions growing up but was Agnostic with a SLIGHT favor towards atheism (I believed SOME things in the Bible were good but disagreed with a lot) My sister became Muslim when she moved to NY. She came back and before long I became Muslim then my mother. My uncle during one of our discussions challenged me and said:

    “If you read the Bible with as open a heart as you do the Qur’an you would see its the truth.”

    Seeing as I recently went from undecided voter (as QB so eloquently put it) I gave it another chance. I actually did the most reading of the Bible as Muslim believe or not and it pretty much confirmed my hypothesis. Some good stuff in there, large amount of crap and people need to believe in something and since they know nothing else they follow it.

    So what about you Mr. Temple? How did you become the Bible-thumping missionary that we before us today?

    Liked by 2 people

    • @ Ken

      Oh forgot one more quick note I almost became an Apostolic Christian when I was 14 but what I liked about them was taken from Islam soooo….

      Liked by 1 person

    • My father was an agnostic until 3 years before he died. My uncle, his brother, led him to faith in Christ 3 years before he died in 1996.
      My mother was a nominal United Methodist, and sent me and my brothers to that liberal church – never heard the gospel there or truth or good Bible teaching.

      I was a drummer in high school; when I was 17, the liberal United Methodist Church hired a true born-again youth minister. He was Wesleyan in theology, but he really believed the Scriptures and the gospel.

      He reached out and shared the gospel with me and my brothers. I realized I was a sinner – he showed us a lot of Scripture about sin and the need to repent and receive Christ personally. I repented and trusted Christ. John 1:12 was a key verse that he shared.

      Later, I grew spiritually at a good Bible believing Baptist church; and met a missionary family (they lived in India for 11 years) who was very attractive as a family and loved other people from other cultures – and when I went over to their house, I met people from India, Egypt, Philippines, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Thailand, etc. – their love for others from other cultures, their zeal for prayer and the Scriptures, and lifestyle of holiness – was very attractive – I wanted to be like that godly and holy family who loved God with all their heart and they loved other people. They were a great example.

      In a missions class, at that Baptist church, I learned about the neglect of Muslims; (the lack of missions to Arabia in the first 600- 900 years AD; Bible not translated into Arabic until the 900s; the Crusades, Colonialism, the Israeli-Palestinian Issue, – I knew before, but realized that these things were negative in a deeper way – and the Iranian Revolution and the bad background of that (that you and QB mentioned – the CIA led coup in 1952 vs. Mosadeq) – those things really bothered me and I wanted to do something to be a good witness and reach out to Muslims, because the Christian world neglected them, ran away from them, and was afraid of them, and did wrong things like the Crusades and a lot of the bad things that you all have mentioned here; and the fact that Christians historically did not reach out to Muslims and that bothered me, because those wrongs in history were contradictory to the New Testament (Matthew 28:18-20; Revelation 5:9); so I started reaching out to Muslims, (Dearborn, Michigan, New York City, Columbia, SC; & other cities in the USA) learning culture and language, and I loved the Muslim’s hospitality culture and that they were not afraid to talk about God and Christ and right and wrong, heaven and hell, morality, etc. Spent 9 years witnessing and visiting mostly Arabic speakers, then eventually met a lot of Iranians that were disillusioned with Islam and already turning away from Islam (because of the Iranian government in last 40 years) they were open to the gospel, and already many turning to become Christians – I learned Farsi and discovered that 40 % of Farsi is Arabic, etc.
      I sincerely love the hospitality culture of most Muslims and their family and morality orientation and that even though you seemed negative against the 10 commandments, they are compatible with basic Islamic morality, except the day of rest / worship. All the other ones, I think, are similar to Islamic morality; and the respect for parents and family was very good and so, there is lots of commonality that I was able to talk to Muslims about. I also played lots of soccer (the true football), chess, and backgammon with my Muslim friends.


      • @ Ken

        Thank you for sharing your story Ken, now a quick caveat:

        1. I do not have an issue with the 10 commandments, my issue is the back and forth. If the US wants to be secular go all the way. If it wants to be Christian I have no issue with that (heck I prefer that as I can start eating more meat again). But don’t sit there and try to pick and choose, placing legislation that limits Muslims while other religious minorities are free to do whatever they like such as the Jews or Amish.

        2. So one thing that stuck out to me while reading your story was this:

        “I realized I was a sinner – he showed us a lot of Scripture about sin and the need to repent”

        At least from what I’ve gathered reading is I like to think you don’t want to go to Hell (hence sin and repentance being the thing that made you turn around spiritually) so my question is why do you think you need an intermediary to repent to the Lord? If you wronged Him why not cut out the middle person and repent to Him directly?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Pennywise’s story seems to resemble many such stories that I have read. An impressionable youth becomes impressed by a bunch of taglines like “God loves you!” I hardly ever see any one saying they became a Christian only after reading the Bible cover to cover. At that stage, there is still a critical eye, not blinded by Christian bias. Learning the Bible usually only comes after conversion when the mind is already made up.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Are you convert, stewjo004? Could you share your story?

      Liked by 2 people

  22. You’re welcome .

    Why the need for mediator / blood atnement ?

    I didn’t have time to go into that above but basically it is because of all the massive amount of scripture in the New Testament and the Old Testament prophecies like Isaiah 53 about Jesus is about His crucifixion, death, atonement, resurrection and that only through blood atonement his blood atonement because he was the perfect man and also God from eternity who became flesh .

    Mark 10:45

    1 Timothy 2:5
    “ there is only one God and one mediator between God and man the man Jesus Christ who gave himself as a ransom for all .

    “ without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins .”
    Hebrews 9:22

    “Christ is our passover lamb “
    1 Corinthians 5:7 (Exodus 12)
    Hebrews chapters 8-10
    Romans 3:21-28
    Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22-24 ( The new covenant in My blood, etc.)

    Faith in Christ includes Faith in his word and his apostles and prophets who spoke and wrote his word . (OT & NT)


  23. John 14:6
    Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through me .


    • @ Ken

      Pause. I know the Christians attempted claim at blood sacrifices appeasing God like He’s a pagan idol I’m not talking about that.

      I’m talking about us using common sense because neither of our books is authoritative to the other. I’m talking about WHY do you need a mediator in the first place? Did Adam pray to/through a mediator? Did Abraham? What about David? How about Jesus? WHY do I need a person to pray to? Why can’t I pray to the One who created me and will judge me directly?

      Liked by 2 people

      • All the OT saints / believers were looking forward to the Messiah, who is the one mediator. He is the one champion who is promised to come from the woman’s seed to crush the serpent’s head. Genesis 3:15, He is the seed that will be the blessing of salvation to all the families / nations of the earth. Genesis 12:3, 22:17-18 (because of the substitutionary nature of the ram in place of Isaac – this is a symbol, prophecy, fore-shadowing of the Messiah to come, the lamb who takes away the sin of the world. John 1:29
        The shedding of blood by God providing animal skins for Adam and Eve was the mediation and beginning of the need for blood atonement .
        Jesus did not need a mediator because He is THE ONE Mediator –

        The New Testament interprets and fulfills the OT properly.
        David, etc. prayed directly to God (Elohim, Yahweh) in the OT, but it is all understood as looking forward to the Messiah to come, just as Jesus said “Abraham rejoiced to see My day” (John 8:56-58) – all the OT believer were looking forward to the Messiah-Mediator- Intercessor.
        The NT teaches that Christ is the only mediator that we have to go through to have a spiritual relationship with God the Father.


      • Because you are skipping all the NT revelation. It is God breathed. 2 Timothy 3:16


      • The NT came too late. The Tanakh was there before. Your pagan religion came too late.


      • LOL
        the massive quotes all through the NT of the OT and whole depth of OT theology in the New – animal sacrifices, prophesies of the Messiah, “thus it is written” is so deep; and the human authors of the NT books are all JEWISH (except for Luke) – there is no comparison to the 600 year late book of Islam that knows NOTHING of the NT, and not much of the OT. (only one or two allusions, half quotes of a phrase) The quote in Surah 5:32 is from the Talmud. (not inspired)

        Quran 5:32 Verse 5:32 For this reason (that for the first time a human killed another human) We (Allah) ordered the children of Israel (through the inspiration of the teachers of the Jewish Talmud) that whoever kills a person it is as if that person killed all of humankind

        You condemned the Qur’an – the people of the book had a written book. (the NT)


      • LOL, except that the Tanakh does not say anything about an end-all Messiah mangod coming to die and finish the temple sacrifices. See Ezekiel. We’ve been through this before, dummy. What’s with these crosstians with goldfish-level memory spans? 😂


      • Yes it does – virgin birth – Isaiah 7:14. Eternal – Micah 5:2
        Isaiah 52:13-15
        Isaiah 53:1-12
        Christ / Messiah is the fulfillment of all the OT – Genesis 12:1-3; 22:17-18
        Isaiah 42, 52-53
        Galatians 3:16

        16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. (Al Masih المسیح The Messiah.)


      • First, the Hebrew word which has been translated by Christians as “virgin” is “almah”.   However, this word is actually best translated as “young woman”.  Even the New International Version admits as such in a footnote to Isaiah 7:14![5]  Furthermore, as C. Dennis McKinsey astutely points out (emphasis in the original):

        “The actual Hebrew word for virgin is betulah.  Gen. 24:43 in the RSV and Ex. 2:8 in the KJV show almah as meaning ‘a young woman’ or ‘maid’, respectively, not ‘virgin’.  Who knows Hebrew better than the Hebrews, and they say in their modern Masoretic text that almah should be translated as ‘maiden,’ not ‘virgin,’ in both Gen. 24:43 and Ex. 2:8.”[6]

        Since the word used in the Hebrew text actually does not mean “virgin”, then the logical conclusion is that Isaiah 7:14 is certainly not a prophecy about the virgin birth of Jesus.  If Isaiah was actually prophesying the virgin birth of Jesus, then he would have used the Hebrew word “betulah”, but since that is not the case, it is sufficient proof that the verse was not meant to be a prophecy about the virgin birth.  

                    Moreover, according to the prophecy, the child was to be named “Immanuel”, yet nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus ever called by that name![7]  Some Christians have claimed that “Immanuel” was a description and not a name and was thus applied to Jesus, whom they regard as God-incarnate.[8]  Yet this argument is very easily refuted.  Isaiah 7:14 shows clearly that “Immanuel” is a name and not a description.  The verse clearly states that the child will be named “Immanuel”.  The original Hebrew word used is “se-mow”, which means “his name”.[9]  The same word is used consistently throughout the Bible (in at least 145 places) in reference to a person’s name.[10]  For example, Genesis 4:25 states:

        “Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him [se-mow] Seth, saying, ‘God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.’”

        Will the Christians who argue that “Immanuel” was simply a description and not a name also argue the same for “Seth”?  It seems unlikely.  

                    Furthermore, in the very next chapter of the Book of Isaiah, “Immanuel” is mentioned again but this time, he is actually directly addressed by God (which proves that he is not “God with us”):

        “The LORD spoke to me again: ‘Because this people has rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah and rejoices over Rezin and the son of Remaliah, therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the Euphrates—the king of Assyria with all his pomp.  It will overflow all its channels, run over all its banks and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it, passing through it and reaching up to the neck.  Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, Immanuel!’”[11]

        This illustrates three important points:

        Since God refers to Immanuel by name, then the latter could not be divine (as the author of the Gospel of Matthew claims).

        If it was just a description, God would not have referred to the child by name as “Immanuel”. 

        Since Isaiah 8 mentions such people as the king of Assyria in the time of Immanuel, then Immanuel could obviously not be Jesus since the Assyrian empire had become extinct long before Jesus was even born.[12]

        Hence, there is undeniable evidence that Isaiah 7:14 was not a prophecy about the Messiah.  It could not be referring to Jesus.

        The second alleged prophecy, according to the Gospel of Matthew, concerns the birth of a promised ruler in Bethlehem, which the author equates with Jesus:

        “When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.  When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.  ‘In Bethlehem in Judea,’ they replied, ‘for this is what the prophet has written: ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’’”[13]

        The alleged prophecy is found in Micah 5:2-4:

        “‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.’ Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor bears a son, and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites.  He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.  And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth.”

        Once again, this appears to be an amazing prophecy fulfilled in the birth of Jesus.  Unfortunately, the truth is far less impressive.  When read in its full context, the passage in Micah 5, though Messianic, cannot possibly be referring to Jesus.  This is because, like Isaiah 7:14, the prophesied leader mentioned would contend against the Assyrian empire:

        “And he will be our peace when the Assyrians invade our land and march through our fortresses.  We will raise against them seven shepherds, even eight commanders, who will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword.  He will deliver us from the Assyrians when they invade our land and march across our borders.”[14]

        As we previously noted, the Assyrian empire was destroyed centuries before Jesus was even born.  How then could he lead the Israelites against the powerful Assyrians?[15]  Clearly, this prophecy could not apply to Jesus.  Furthermore, the passage does not mention that the promised leader would come from the town of Bethlehem but from the clan of Bethlehem Ephrathah.[16]  In other words, the author of the Gospel of Matthew failed to realize that the reference was not to the town of Bethlehem but to a clan of the same name. 

        So there go the first two alleged prophecies. Isaiah 52 refers to the nation of Israel. Genesis 12 says nothing about a mangod Messiah.


      • The context of Almah in Genesis 24:43 (almah) is Genesis 24:16 – virgin = a virgin = Betula =

        It was always assumed that an Almah (young maiden who is of marriagable age, but not married yet) would also be a Betula (virgin) in Hebrew culture, and this article explains it very well. The Lxx – the Jews translated it “parthenon” παρθενον = virgin; so when studies the whole context deeply as this article does, it proves that the prophesy was the virgin birth of the Messiah. Besides, that is where Islam got it’s information, orally by hearing that Jesus Al Masih was born of the virgin Mary, Ibn Maryam.
        Be sure to read the whole article and be not ignorant.


      • Isaiah 52-53 is about the Messiah Jesus.
        Micah 5:2 – his goings forth are from eternity
        Genesis 12:3, 22:17-18; Gen. 49:10
        is about the Messiah to come to bless all nations – Galatians 3:16 – that “seed” is Christ / the Messiah.
        John 8:56-58 – Abraham rejoiced to see my day and was glad and before Abraham was born, I am. (Yahweh)


      • So no response. Ok, got it. Taking verses out of context is the only way you nit-wits can prove your mangod cult using the Tanakh.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Micah 5:2

        Whose goings forth have been from of old – In every age, from the foundation of the world, there has been some manifestation of the Messiah. He was the hope, as he was the salvation, of the world, from the promise to Adam in paradise, to his manifestation in the flesh four thousand years after.

        From everlasting – עולם מימי miyemey olam, “From the days of all time;” from time as it came out of eternity. That is, there was no time in which he has not been going forth-coming in various ways to save men. And he that came forth the moment that time had its birth, was before that time in which he began to come forth to save the souls that he had created. He was before all things. As he is the Creator of all things, so he is the Eternal, and no part of what was created. All being but God has been created. Whatever has not been created is God. But Jesus is the Creator of all things; therefore he is God; for he cannot be a part of his own work.”
        Adam Clarke’s commentary


      • Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting – Literally, “from the days of eternity.” “Going forth” is opposed to “going forth;” a “going forth” out of Bethlehem, to a “going forth from eternity;” a “going forth,” which then was still to come, (the prophet says, “shall go forth,”) to a “going forth” which had been long ago (Rup.), “not from the world but from the beginning, not in the days of time, but “from the days of eternity.” For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Same was in the beginning with God.” John 1:1-2. In the end of the days, He was to go forth from Bethlehem; but, lest he should be thought then to have had His Being, the prophet adds, His ‹goings forth are from everlasting.‘” Here words, denoting eternity and used of the eternity of God, are united together to impress the belief of the Eternity of God the Son. We have neither thought nor words to conceive eternity; we can only conceive of time lengthened out without end.: “True eternity is boundless life, all existing at once,” or, “to duration without beginning and without end and without change.”
        Albert Barnes’ commentary


      • Blah, blah, blah. Already refuted. The context refutes you and your religion. Get over it.


      • You guys don’t believe the Tanakh either – you called it Frankenstein books and you reject all the stuff that is embarrassing – the record of the sins of the prophets.

        and the emphasis on the temple, sacrifices, Isaac as the sacrifice, etc.


      • That’s not a problem for us. The Tanakh contradicts your NT on many issues. Therefore, Christianity is a false religion. It cannot possibly be true when it’s own scripture contradicts itself.


      • there is no contradiction. the NT fulfills the OT.


      • Yes, you’re right. It doesn’t. 😁

        Liked by 1 person

  24. Those practices and things you listed are all cultural things that have been in place in western civilization for centuries, some for Millenia,

    they have nothing to do with xenophobia so I didn’t understand.


  25. On Church and State – from Ligonier Ministries:

    The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution forbids the federal government from establishing a particular church as the official religion of the nation. Over time, this principle of disestablishment has come to be known on the popular level and in the language of U.S. courts as the “separation of church and state.” In many ways, it has served the country well, for it has tended to keep the federal government from getting involved with theological disputes between Christian denominations, church discipline issues, and other matters that God has not given to the state to address and that the state is not competent to assess.

    Since the first half of the twentieth century, however, this principle of separation of church and state has often been stretched in ways that the founding fathers of the United States did not intend. State and federal courts have often interpreted the disestablishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution as requiring the removal of all mention of religion from public life. The effect has been to enforce a kind of militant secularism that says no religious group has the right to have a say in how the nation is governed. In sum, the courts have moved from the separation of church and state to the separation of God and state.

    We have seen that God has created a division of labor between church and state, assigning each entity specific tasks not given to the other. However, this in no way means that the Lord wants His church to be silent with respect to civil issues. Throughout Scripture, we find believers addressing state officials, praising them when they do what is right and condemning them when they do what is wrong. Often, this takes the form of the Jewish prophets’ confronting the Jewish theocracy of the Old Testament, but such is not always the case. In today’s passage, for example, Amos addresses Moab and condemns the nation not for breaking the ceremonial laws in the Mosaic legal code but for violating assumed, universal moral norms (Amos 2:1). Amos spoke as the conscience of the state against the state’s evil practices.

    Following in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, the church is to fulfill the role of the state’s conscience. We do not look for the state to establish one church, but we do look for it to be accountable to God’s moral norms. When the state is not doing its duty to uphold justice, the church is called to exhort the state to do its job.


  26. @ Ken

    Use some common sense, Ken. If they were “looking forward to a mediator” they would still pray to the Mediator. They had a proper relationship with God and prayed to Him directly so why don’t you?

    Liked by 1 person

    • John 14:8-13
      1 John 2:18-27
      Romans 3:21-28
      Romans 4:1-16
      Romans 5:1-21

      John 14:6 – you cannot have a relationship with God the Father without coming through Jesus – full stop. That is why Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah are lost and not saved. The still need the Messiah.


      • Your sins stop you from having a relationship with God. You cannot even know the true Allah. (the Arabic word for God – the true doctrine of God that includes the Deity of Christ, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, etc.

        Muslims are lost without Jesus as savior and Lord. When you pray, it goes into the air and does not reach God, who is so holy and just – you are under the wrath of God, without Christ.

        John 3:18
        John 3:36
        Romans 1:18
        Romans 5:6-11
        Ephesians 2:1-3 – enslaved to sin; by nature children of wrath


      • @ Ken

        You’re not answering my question and missing the point. WHY does there need to be a mediator in the first place? It is an unnecessary middle man.

        You can’t say they go up into the air because:

        1. You have already conceded others prayed to God directly
        2. You already conceded others outside of Israel such as Job prayed to God directly

        So why can’t you or I? To say I can’t pray to God because He is “so Holy and Just” brings some issues:

        1. How did people pray to Him before?
        2. God has answered the prayers of those who pray to Him
        3. Are you saying He didn’t know mankind would sin when He created them?

        How can you claim to have a “personal relationship with God” when you put someone in between the relationship? That makes no sense. What purpose does a third party serve between you and your Creator? God is Independent and created everything by Himself so He needs nothing to love and forgive. A mediator simply serves no purpose. This is no joke, what the pagan Arabs were arguing against Islam. “We worship God’s daughters and they intercede for us to God because He is too holy to speak with directly”

        Simple question Ken, who sends the rain to the land and gives it life?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Already answered that. You are skipping New Testament revelation. You cannot reach God, apart from Al Masih. He is THE way, The Truth, and The Life; no one can come to the Father except through Him. John 14:6


  27. So why can’t you or I? To say I can’t pray to God because He is “so Holy and Just” brings some issues:

    1. How did people pray to Him before?

    That is exactly why they had the sacrificial system, Genesis 22 (offering of Isaac and substitution of the ram – points to Messiah and atonement), Passover (Exodus 12 – the blood saves from the judgment and wrath of God), the Levitical laws and sacrifices (Leviticus 1-7), the temple, the prophesies of Messiah (Isaiah 52-53), etc. The day of atonement (Lev. 16-17) – no one can come into God’s presence without a blood sacrifice. All the OT saints lived in that context and atmosphere.

    Job did also – the sacrifices in Job 1:1-5

    Isaiah 59:2 – your sins have made a separation between you and your God.”
    Ephesians 2:1-3 – you are dead in your sins and by nature children of wrath

    2. God has answered the prayers of those who pray to Him

    He can have mercy in many ways except His way of showing mercy for salvation is through His working and His atonement; but no one is able to be saved or have eternal life or forgiveness or a relationship with God unless they come through Christ.

    3. Are you saying He didn’t know mankind would sin when He created them?

    Goofy question. He knows everything. Everything in NT and OT was His plan from the beginning. NT is fulfillment of the OT.


  28. How can you claim to have a “personal relationship with God” when you put someone in between the relationship? That makes no sense. What purpose does a third party serve between you and your Creator?

    Jesus is also the eternal Son, God by essence / substance. He is not a “third party”. Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” John 10:30

    “It makes no sense” – of course it does not to mere human flesh. of course . . . to a mere human mind with your own puny human understanding – you have nothing miraculous or awe-inspiring.

    Man-made religion tries to make God more understandable:


    • @ Ken

      None of this makes any sense, this to me is the BIGGEST proof that Christianity is false because you can’t explain it and you know it. The purpose of God sending revelation is to clarify who He is and what He wants from us otherwise what is the point? It is sad that you have to try and make a religion that makes sense seem false as opposed to saying the illogical thing is wrong. God gave us intelligence but we’re to turn it off when it comes to Him? Would you invest your money in an illogical business plan? No, you wouldn’t but you would invest your soul on an illogical doctrine okay… so anyways onto the points

      1. So God is not Forgiving and He is no different than pagan idols to you? If not what is the objective measurement to state otherwise? As a note Jews do not believe this about God (there were CENTURIES of no sacrifice do you think all those people didn’t think their sins were forgiven) But I digress.

      2. God answered the prayers of people directly so they did not go to nothing as you initially said. There were clearly people praying to God never once uttering “In Jesus’s name” their entire lives. This is pure innovation. ALL these people including Jesus prayed to God directly so yes he is a third party coming into the situation according to the Church’s doctrine. This is the OPPOSITE of having a personal relationship with someone. ALL the prophets taught to pray to God directly and I challenge you to find me one that used an intercessor.

      3. The question is not goofy. Your claim is God waited for thousands of years to send a “mediator” using a nonuniversal system previous to that (which you conceded to before). Both of these things are unnecessary. If God knows everything then He shouldn’t shun humans for sin as He is the one who made man with free-choice. If He was going to act that way He could have dropped free-choice from humans. God LOVES the act of repentance which is why He created us the way we are. We choose to obey and admit when we are wrong.

      4. “I and the Father are One” is not the meaning but since you guys have no rules to interpretation this is a useless argument to get into. As I said I am trying to use rationale with you because none of these books is anything to me other than former pagans exaggerating someone’s status. So I’ll ask again who sends the rain that gives life to the Earth?

      Liked by 1 person

      • It makes sense, if you understand the purpose of God choosing Abraham and Israel and giving them the priesthood, the tabernacle, sacrificial system and temple, etc.
        All the prayers are only acceptable through the sacrificial system, all through the OT. You cannot just go to God and say, “hey, what’s up my home-boy?” “everything cool, man?”

        No, God set up the sacrificial system and curtains and separation, etc. to teach Israel a lesson on the holiness of God and that He is holy and you cannot come into His presence without a mediator and sacrifice. (OT priesthood, sacrifices)

        1. How did people pray to Him before?

        That is exactly why they had the sacrificial system, Genesis 22 (offering of Isaac and substitution of the ram – points to Messiah and atonement), Passover (Exodus 12 – the blood saves from the judgment and wrath of God), the Levitical laws and sacrifices (Leviticus 1-7), the temple, the prophesies of Messiah (Isaiah 52-53), etc. The day of atonement (Lev. 16-17) – no one can come into God’s presence without a blood sacrifice. All the OT saints lived in that context and atmosphere.

        Job did also – the sacrifices in Job 1:1-5

        Isaiah 59:2 – your sins have made a separation between you and your God.”
        Ephesians 2:1-3 – you are dead in your sins and by nature children of wrath


  29. Ken don’t you ever get tired of losing over and over again, THIS BADLY?

    Liked by 1 person

  30. @ QB

    Note Isaiah 52 has nothing to do with Jesus(as) it is CLEARLY talking about Israel.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Isaiah 52:13-15 is about Messiah Jesus.
    “My servant” – verse 13
    All the way to end of chapter 53 is prophesy about Jesus.
    Mark 10:45
    I came to serve
    Points back to Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12


    • @ Ken

      Wanna bet? This passage has NOTHING to do with Jesus. Early Christians saw “pierced” in the chapter and ran with it.

      Did Jesus have children and live a long life to you?

      “…see his offspring and prolong his days” (Isaiah 52:10)

      So unless you think there are quarter demigods running around this doesn’t apply to him. Summing up the ACTUAL meaning of the passage, this is basically about the gentile leaders talking about how wrong they did the nation of Israel.

      The early church identified the servant in this passage [Isaiah 52:13-53:12] with Jesus, and Jesus’ own sense of identity and mission may have been shaped by this figure. In the original historical context, however, the servant appears to have been exiled Israel.” (The Harper Collins Study Bible)

      “The crowds, pagan nations, among whom the servant (Israel) lived, speak here (through v. 9), saying that the significance of Israel’s humiliation and exaltation is hard to believe… The death probably refers to the destruction and Exile of Israel.” (The New English Bible, Oxford Study Edition)

      If you want a verse by verse breakdown like I plan on doing in my third article of the Crucifiction series I would be more than happy to do so.


  32. @ Ken


    “You guys don’t believe the Tanakh either”

    Dang skippy we believe in the Torah completely different. That was a Scripture Moses(as) received from the Lord on Mt. Sinai, not the book writing about the time he got it.

    ” – you called it Frankenstein books and you reject all the stuff that is embarrassing – the record of the sins of the prophets.

    Hot dang, you did it again.

    1. They are Frankenstein books (Btw I love that my imagery has just been burned into your psyche)
    2. We reject all the lies associated with God’s messengers. Speaking of the blasphemy written about the prophets in your text (and may God increase the liar’s suffering in the Fire). It’s kinda funny missionaries try to attack Muhammad’s(saw) character but even IF true he would still have a better character than the adulterous, genocidal, incestuous, lying, murdering, no faith having, idol worshiping, false prophecy having drunkards and nudist you all claim the Lord chose to preach to the people His Word. Pretty much all these people are the worst of creation and any sane person would think they were lying.

    and the emphasis on the temple, sacrifices, Isaac as the sacrifice, etc.”

    3. We believe in the Temple third best mosque on planet Earth (hence why we control it)
    4. We believe in sacrifices and have no qualm with the Jews being legislated to it as we are. We reject you all claiming God is some pagan blood god who can’t be appeased by anything else.
    5. That’s because Issac(as) wasn’t. Your text is contradictory about the event and easily shown to be changed by the Jews:

    As written by QB here:

    And another brother here

    Just one of the many ways the Quran corrected the lies of men. Being a Muslim is awesome. No morally wrong people to follow, literary changing Scripture, realistic human to emulate and amazing history what more could you want?


  33. @ Ken

    I could care less what a Rabbi says the text is clearly Israel. Simple question did Jesus(as) “…see his offspring and prolong his days” (Isaiah 52:10)


    • Isaiah 53:10

      Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
          he has put him to grief;
      when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
          he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
      the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

      He will see His offspring (“He will see descendants” = NET)

      The preceding passages clearly describe Messiah’s death as a “guilt offering” but for Him to see His offspring implies He had to come to life after death or to be resurrected from the dead. This progeny is not natural progeny for of course He had no earthly children, but they are supernatural spiritual progeny, which is millions upon millions of souls, both Jew and Gentile, who placed their faith and eternal fate in the hands of Messiah. Messiah’s “bringing many sons to glory” (Heb 2:10), was surely the reward, the joy set before Him (Heb 12:2). Let us not miss this miraculous paradox – out of His one temporal death, comes countless eternal lives!

      “All we like sheep have gone astray . . . “ – Isaiah 53:6 – all of humanity is sinful and has strayed away from the LORD. those that return in faith are the spiritual children.

      His offspring are all who are redeemed spiritually, by faith in the Messiah and His substitutionary death, from Jews and Gentiles – from all the nations. See also Isaiah 52:15 – the startling or sprinkling of many nations and how there is a literary inclusio from Isaiah 52:15 to Isaiah 54:1-3 – the spiritual children from the nations who will be redeemed – which Galatians 4:26-27 shows us. Galatians 3:6-8 3:14-16 and 3:28-29 show this was God’s intention all along – for the Messiah to be a blessing to all the nations – redeeming people from all nations – the discontents are spiritual children, we are children of God by faith in Christ.

      The Hebrew verb see is in “the imperfect tense meaning that Jesus Christ would continually be able to see His offspring come into His family because of His sacrifice. He would see millions and millions of people come into the family of God. Who of us does not want to see our offspring? Not only do most grandparents want to see their offspring, but they want you to see them too. They pull out their pictures and take you on a journey so you can see their pedigree. What is actually amazing is that the thing that would enable Him to see His offspring would be His death. This is such an odd thing because most people who die cannot see their offspring. But in this case, His death would lead to Him seeing all of His offspring.” (Thompson)
      Offspring is zera (Lxx = sperma) which is literally a seed. Zera is used in the protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15+ to describe the enmity between Satan’s “seed” and the woman’s “seed,” the coming Messiah. Zera is also used in the Abrahamic Covenant, Paul explaining “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed (sperma) (zera used in Ge 12:7; 13:15; 17:7; 24:7). He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed (sperma),” that is, Christ.” (Gal 3:16). 
      David prophesies of this great reward of a future offspring, His disciples Messiah “purchased for God with (His) blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation”  (Rev 5:9)
      Posterity (zera = seed) will serve Him; It will be told of the Lord to the coming generation.  (Ps 22:30)
      ESV Study note on His offspring – Those who strayed like sheep (Isa. 53:6) return as children.
      Motyer adds on His offspring “we strayed as sheep, we return as sons. The Servant’s work is successful in ‘bringing many sons to glory’ (Heb. 2:10) (TOTC-Isaiah)
      And who are His offspring, His “descendants”? These are those Jews and Gentiles who were saved by believing in His substitutionary sacrifice. (see Galatians chapters 3 and 4.)


  34. Isaiah 53:10 – “He will prolong His days” (“He will…enjoy long life” = NET) – Clearly death was not the end of the Servant’s life. As above the only way the Servant would be able to prolong His days is because He was resurrected from the dead, thus Paul could write “that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (resurrection being implicit here in Isaiah 53:10).” (1 Cor 15:3).

    Will prolong is arak which means to be long and here is in the imperfect tense signifying that the Servant’s days would continually be prolonged. Of course the only way to prolong a dead person’s days is to resurrect them from the dead. Thompson notes that “in the case of the Lord Jesus Christ, He died and came back to life three days later. His days were prolonged after His death. One of the results of Christ paying the price for our sins is that God would not allow His body to be in that grave very long. He did prolong His days and Jesus came out alive.”

    This reward of prolonged days is in accord with the promise in Ps 16:10

    For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.

    And again in Psalm 21:4 David pens a messianic prophecy which speaks of David himself only in a secondary sense, the primary fulfillment being the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, King of kings, never to die again…

    He asked life of Thee, Thou didst give it to him, Length of days forever and ever.

    Comment – Jonathan in his Targum, and Kimchi in his Commentary, themselves explain that the expression orekh yamim, “length of days,” refers to “the life of the world to come,” and so in fact it must be, since it is for ever and ever.


  35. @ Ken
    Yes I meant 53. Anyways lol no. There is absolutely nothing in the text to indicate “spiritual” children. You can’t play games with text and jump from “Oh this is literal and this is metaphorical “. If you play this game anyone can make any text say anything they want. So I’ll simplify this for you as I know your reading comprehension is terrible. Who’s is speaking in the above passage?

    Liked by 1 person

    • @ Ken hint it’s at verse 1.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The context of 53:1-12 is from Isaiah 52:13-15 (sprinkle nations) to 54:1-3 (which shows Israel being expanded to the nations – the Gentiles; and quoted in Galatians 4:26-27 – the true Jerusalem is the Jerusalem above in heaven, she is our mother) The whole context is the Tanakh – that Israel would be a blessing to all the nations – Genesis 12:3; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10

        Psalm 67 – O God bless us . . . so that your salvation may go to the ends of the earth. . . Let the peoples be glad . . .

        Psalm 87 – even Gentiles from the enemies of Israel will become true believers in the future – Rahab (Canaanites), Philistines, Cush, Babylon, etc.

        Psalm 96:3 – tell of His glory among all the nations
        Isaiah 49:6 – “I will also make you a light to the nations”

        Behold, My servant (Jesus says He is that servant, in Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28)
        will prosper,
        He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted.
        14 Just as many were astonished at you, My people,
        So His appearance was marred more than any man
        And His form more than the sons of men.
        15 Thus He will sprinkle many nations,
        Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him;
        For what had not been told them they will see,
        And what they had not heard they will understand.
        (quoted in Romans 15:21 – the reason for missions is to take the message of the Suffering Servant to the unreached nations/ Gentiles – verse 20 – “where Christ is not yet named”)

        Isaiah 53

        Who has believed our message?
        And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?


        “our” is Isaiah and Israel in harmony with the LORD Himself as the Lord is speaking in 52:13-15.

        The fact that the pronoun about this future servant is “he” all the way through, points to one future person, not the nation of Israel. Israel and Isaiah the prophet are saying in verse 1 – this is our message about our future Messiah – and His substitutionary atonement – which they discover in the NT era as Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth, born of a virgin, Mary, in the town of Bethlehem, about 750 years after this prophesy was written.

        The NT is revelation that tells us the outworking of the Suffering Servant is that there will be spiritual children – children of the Messiah – children of Abraham by faith – Galatians 3-4

        It is not metaphorical, but in seed form from the beginning in the fabric of the whole OT Scriptures that God would one day expand true Israel and have spiritual children among all nations.


  36. Isaiah 54:1-3

    “Shout for joy, O barren one, you who have borne no child;
    Break forth into joyful shouting and cry aloud, you who have not travailed;
    For the sons of the desolate one will be more numerous
    Than the sons of the married woman,” says the Lord.
    (quoted in Galatians 4:26-27)

    2 “Enlarge the place of your tent;
    Stretch out the curtains of your dwellings, spare not;
    Lengthen your cords
    And strengthen your pegs.
    3 “For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left.
    And your descendants will possess nations
    And will resettle the desolate cities.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Worship the Son, lest He become angry.

    Psalm 2:1-12


    • 😂 Repent to what? Paganism? Wow Pennywise, you really think worshiping a man will save people? And who cares if the incompetent son, who didn’t even know when a fig plant was out of season it when the hour will come, gets angry? What? Am I supposed to be scared of your mangod who got hung on a cross?

      Liked by 3 people

    • And moron, why are you lying about Psalm 2? It doesn’t say “worship the son”. It says “kiss”.

      Moreover, the word “bar” can mean both son and ground. See Daniel 2:38.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Also, the “son” mentioned in verse 7 is clearly David, who is the “king” installed by God on Zion (verse 6). So even if verse 12 is to be translated as “kiss the son” instead of “kiss the ground”, it would mean to pay homage to the king that God has installed and obey him because he is God’s representative. It does not mean “worship the king” as Pennywise deceitfully claimed.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Also, the “son” mentioned in verse 7 is clearly David, who is the “king” installed by God on Zion (verse 6).

        Yes, the coming Messiah will be a Son of David, the future King – Messiah, the Lord.

        Just as Jesus said and the Pharisees were dumbfounded by the truth:

        41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question:
        42 “What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?” They *said to Him, “The son of David.” (alluding to Psalm 2 and other passages)

        43 He *said to them, “Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying,

        44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
        “Sit at My right hand,
        Until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet”’? (Quoting Psalm 110)

        45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?”
        46 No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.

        Matthew 22:41-46

        This is also why the chief priest knew that to be the Messiah also means he was “the Son of God”

        Mark 14:60-64

        You got nuked.


      • Oh Pennywise, you brainwashed moron! Let your nuking begin anew!

        Despite your delusions, the “son” in Psalm 2 is not the “son of David”, but David himself. You are such an idiot that you quoted the gospels which didn’t even quote Psalm 2, but Psalm 110! We’re talking about Psalm 2 stupid.

        So again, the king who is installed on Zion is David.

        ““I have installed my king
        on Zion, my holy mountain.”

        7 I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:

        He said to me, “You are my son;
        today I have become your father.
        Ask me,
        and I will make the nations your inheritance,
        the ends of the earth your possession.
        You will break them with a rod of iron[b];
        you will dash them to pieces like pottery.””

        And notice that the “son” says that he will “proclaims the Lord’s decree”. You, on the other hand, are calling Jesus the Messiah “lord”! But if the psalm is referring to Jesus, it is saying that he HAS a LORD! What’s the matter with you? Are you willfully trying to be a pagan?

        But it is not referrin to the Messiah. It is referring to David. Your pathetic cross-references to the gospels don’t prove anything other than that crosstians are a bunch of idiots who have to misquote their own Bible to justify their paganism.

        Ken the radioactive clown gets nuked again. BOOM!


      • Psalm 2:12 –
        There is a lot of scholarly discussion over the “kiss / do homage/ submit to/ prostrate [to] the Son” in verse 12.

        OT scholars have noted that the “usage of the Aramaism (Aramaic word Bar / בר for son, and the phrasing) may be intentionally directed to the foreign nations (Peter Craigie, Psalms 1-50, WBC, page 64) – see context of verses 1-3 about the nations and kings and rulers of the earth in rebellion.

        “In favor of the traditional translation (kiss the Son – NIV, ESV, KJV; “do homage to the Son” – NASB) are the context of the Psalm (submission to the Lord and to the anointed) – context of earlier use of “son” in Hebrew. (“Beni” “my son” בני – verse 7)

        “and the proposal by Delitzsch that the sequence of “bar pen” בר פנ avoids the dissonance of “ben pen” בנ פנ (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 1:98) (Willem VanGemeren, Psalms, EBC, Volume 5, p. 72)

        Also, since the main NT Greek word for worship is Proskunew/ προσκυνεω – bow down and kiss, prostrate, worship, etc. – this shows the connection between worship, submission and kissing (the Hebrew word there in Psalm 2:12)

        The Lxx translates it the Hebrew as “accept discipline / correction / child training” – which is not accurate but speaks to another way of describing submission / prostration / repentance. The Lxx uses a verb form of “correction” that has the root word “child”, “son”.

        “Take warning O kings”, etc. – the call of Psalm 2 is a call to the nations who rebel against God to repent of their sinfulness, rebellion, sin, and paganism.


      • So in other words, you have no conclusive proof that Psalm 2 is a call to worship some silly mangod? OK, got it Pennywise. Great job!


    • @ Ken

      Several points:

      1. You cannot just go to God and say, “hey, what’s up my home-boy?” “everything cool, man?”

      You ever hear of the word “irony” Ken? This situation is “ironic” because Christians accuse Muslims of having an impersonal concept of God but the reality is the Christian concept actually is. My response to these is:

      Adam talked to God directly
      So did Noah
      As did Abraham

      No sacrifices needed. God is ALL Hearing, Seeing and Knowing meaning NOTHING goes on without His knowledge. He is always aware of His servants wants and needs even if they don’t know. He created the human and knows the nature of our hearts. Since, He is a Loving and Caring God as well He always keeps the door open for them to come close to Him.

      2. Worship the Son, lest He become angry.

      So? According to your blasphemous text, we can overpower God who is more powerful, so what fear do I have? If Jacob(as) allegedly was whooping on Him so much that He had to cheat (Genesis 32:22-32) to win (and STILL got strong-armed into giving a blessing) what fear do I have of the Son? I will simply quote what my father Abraham(as) said when his people threatened him:

      …”How can you argue with me about God when He has guided me? I’m not afraid of anything you worship alongside Him, unless God wills for something to happen because My Lord surrounds everything in His knowledge. Why don’t you make a little effort to look deep within yourself and try to remember? And why would I fear what you worship with Him? Why do you not fear to worship alongside Him, that which He has not sent down any authority to you? Tell me, if you know the answer, which side has more right to feel safe? It’s those who have faith, and do not mix their faith with things that are wrong, who will have peace and safety. And it’s those people who are really committed to guidance…” (Q 6:80-82)

      3. Isaiah 53

      I OBVIOUSLY am familiar with the passage, so quoting the background is unnecessary. Now you missed an important thing so I’ll help you out and see if you put it together. The speakers are (drum roll please) Drdrdrdrdrdrdrdrrdrdrdrdrdrdrrdrd…. The gentile leaders of various nations! Ta dah! So with this background info this has nothing to do with Jesus(as) they are talking about how they treated the Jewish people which is why the servant is referred to in the plural form. This is the consistent flow of the passage and them not believing God would save Israel. As Atlas said a better translation is what they gave but in this context, it really makes no difference they are talking about how they treated the Jews.

      Liked by 1 person

      • poor Ken. Obliterated.

        Liked by 2 people

      • sacrifices are the fabric and atmosphere of the Tanakh.

        Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 is all about the Messiah, and the NT either quotes or alludes to almost every line, demonstrating Jesus fulfilled these and other OT passages.

        You got obliterated.


      • Yes and Ezekiel says that the TEMPLE sacrifices will be for forever. No need for a mangod to be nailed to a cross. Pennywise gets obliterated.

        But as Stew pointed out, sacrifices were not necessary before. So not only is Christianity a mess with all its contradictions, but so is Judaism.

        Liked by 1 person

  38. @ QB

    I would if it was interesting enough. It basically went:

    Hey stewjo004, this is Islam you’ll like it.

    Yep, this is the truth. I need to say what now?

    The End.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. @ Ken

    Regardless of what the Jews claim one cannot take an obvious reading and change it to an esoteric one. The clear meaning of the passage is the gentile leaders talking about how bad they treated the Jewish people.

    As QB argued with Allen Ruhl the Church will be quick to argue “context” if Muslims interpret a passage of the Bible as referring to Muhammad(saw) so for consistency sake, you have to do the same with the Messiah(as).

    Liked by 1 person

  40. @ QB

    I knew it!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  41. @ Atlas

    Lol if it makes you feel better I argued man my sis argued woman. Know you are an advid defender of women’s rights.


  42. @ Ken

    Except that they aren’t and that its a Christian invention. Thank you, Ken, for motivating me to finish tthe CruciFiction series just to refute this nonsense that Isaiah 53 has anything to do with Jesus(as).

    Liked by 1 person

  43. @ QB

    “…crosstians are a bunch of idiots who have to misquote their own Bible to justify their paganism…”

    “…not only is Christianity a mess with all its contradictions, but so is Judaism.”

    “You mean that book written by anonymous twirps with competing theologies who plagiarized each other and invented a new pagan religion thousands of years after the patriarchs?”

    While I wouldn’t be that blunt, yeah that pretty much sums up everything.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Just like in a real rodeo, Ken comes springing out the gate in excitement only to be wrangled to the ground and released for sport.

    Liked by 2 people

  45. 42 “What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?” They *said to Him, “The son of David.” (alluding to Psalm 2 and other passages)

    Yes, Jesus quotes Psalm 110 ( in Matthew 22:41-46), but the question is assuming Messiah is the Son Of David, and that comes from other texts like Psalm 2.


    • You’re an idiot who can only use circular arguments and non-sequiturs. There is no evidence in Psalm 2 that the Messiah was the “son”. Of course, that would not be unusual anyway. There are many “sons” of God in the Bible. Furthermore, the king in Psalm 2 is “installed” by God and refers to God as “Lord”, so why are you contradicting the psalm by calling Jesus “lord”? Even in Psalm 110, the second “lord” is not the supreme God. The term אָדוֹן simply is used for human beings in most cases (

      Give up your paganism. Why do you commit such blasphemy just to worship a man?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jesus is the eternal Son (John 17:5; 1:1) And Lord (Psalm 110:1) Matthew 22:41-46 – the words of Jesus Al Masih عیسی المسیح – Son of David, Lord, Messiah; and Son of God – Mark 14:60-64

        Previous revelation trumps 600 year late false religion of one man’s subjective claim from too many heat strokes in the Arabian desert.


      • So again, no evidence. Just the broken record repeating mindless fundamentalist tripe that no one except brainwashed fundamentalists would blindly accept.

        As I said, Psalm 2 provides no evidence for your mangod cult. The “son” is the “king” who has been installed by God. This king refers to God as “Lord”, whereas the “lord” in Psalm 110 is simply a human being, possibly the Messiah. None of this proves the far-fetched and idiotic claims of a cult that originated several hundred years after the psalms were supposed to have been written. Thus, Christianity is the “late false religion” of many anonymous men with subjective claims and one too many pagan influences on their theologies.

        Liked by 2 people

      • since the Jewish leaders assumed that the Messiah is also the Son of God, by their questioning at the trial of Jesus, the background for that is Psalm 2, which has both the word “Messiah” and “Son” in it.
        Mark 14:60-64
        Matthew 26:59-65

        These passages prove that the Jewish leadership knew the OT taught that the Messiah would be “the Son of God”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • This sort of stupidity is part and parcel of Christian apologetics. Just because two words are used in the same Psalm does not mean they refer to the Messiah. David was also God’s anointed. That doesn’t mean he was THE Messiah.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Also, Hebrews chapter 1 and 5 also prove this. the previous Scriptures prove Islam is false, since it is a 600 year too late false claim by one man, and Allah did not know history, proving it was not the true God who spoke it or wrote the Qur’an.


      • Again, no evidence, just mindless repetition of fundamentalist tripe and circular arguments. The false apostle Paul didnt know history. He never met the historical Jesus and so invented a fictional one with his misquotes of the Tanakh. This proves that Christianity is a false religion influenced by pagan philosophy rather than the pristine monotheism of the prophets.

        Liked by 2 people

      • The apostle Paul did not write Hebrews. Could have been Luke, Silas, or Barnabas. Luther thought Apollos, but I think Barnabas is the best candidate. “son of Encouragment” with “bear with the brief letter of encouragment” (13:22) and Acts 4:36 – from the tribe of Levi – shows expert knowledge of Levitical details. His disagreement with Paul over John Mark at end of Acts 15 shows why he kept his book anonymous. The Greek is higher that Paul’s others letters – high Greek like Luke and Acts.
        The writer quotes from OT much and demonstrates accurate and thorough knowledge of the Tanakh.


      • Also, Barnabas is considered an apostle in Acts 14:4, 14.

        NT authority of apostolic authorship.


      • Lots of evidence; I provided.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “The apostle Paul did not write Hebrews. Could have been Luke, Silas, or Barnabas. Luther thought Apollos, but I think Barnabas is the best candidate. “son of Encouragment” with “bear with the brief letter of encouragment” (13:22) and Acts 4:36 – from the tribe of Levi – shows expert knowledge of Levitical details. His disagreement with Paul over John Mark at end of Acts 15 shows why he kept his book anonymous. The Greek is higher that Paul’s others letters – high Greek like Luke and Acts.
        The writer quotes from OT much and demonstrates accurate and thorough knowledge of the Tanakh.”

        One theory of authorship is just as uncertain as the other. The bottom-line is that you have no idea who wrote that letter. Thank you for admitting that you have anonymous sources as “scripture”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Also, Barnabas is considered an apostle in Acts 14:4, 14.

        NT authority of apostolic authorship.”

        More assumptions and non-sequiturs. Will you be presenting actual evidence eventually?

        Liked by 2 people

  46. Hey Pennywise, I noticed you didn’t allow the pingback to my articles on your blog. Usually, when your blog is linked to another blog, you get a pingback so others can know that someone used your article or responded to it. So why are you covering up the response to your pathetic article? Why are you censoring legitimate criticisms of your shoddy research? Why won’t you allow “freedom of thought” you hypocritical clown?

    Liked by 5 people

    • Crickets…

      So Pennywise hides criticisms of his idiotic and poorly-researched rants but defends American military imperialism as spreading “freedom of thought”.

      “And when it is said to them, “Do not cause corruption on the earth,” they say, “We are but reformers.” (Quran, 2:11)

      “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:5)

      Liked by 4 people

      • pennywise, when r u going to give your riches and land to indians and go to a mountain and pray for your redemption ?

        material wealth
        washing hands
        and keeping bank account will not make u enter kingdom of heaven , do what the rich man didnt. but u r like jesus, keeping a money bag and oiled with expensive perfume. hypocrites

        Liked by 4 people

    • It is an old article (from 2014) and I only allow 14 days of comments for each new article, because of time, and because some other Muslim from another country kept trolling all the old articles and putting up many comments one after another suddenly on all my old articles, so much that I could not even humanly keep up with the overload of information.

      Plus why would I want to allow you to have ANY comments? – as your character is evil and you pour out hatred at me and call me names, etc. and then you use the bullying tactic of accusing of whining, etc.
      I am under no obligation to interact with you at all. You and Mr.heathcliff are full of anger and hatred and not worth my time. I only comment on your stuff when I have time. You are a waste of time and a mental midget.

      Faiz, It is you who are an evil clown like Pennywise.


      • We’re not talking about comments moron. We’re talking about you not allowing your blog readers (assuming there are any) to know that there have been critiques of your idiotic ramblings via pinfbacks. We’re also talking about your shameless hypocrisy in defending American wars on the basis of spreading “freedom of thought” while you simultaneously engage in censorship.

        Yes, I call you names because you are a pathetic missionary clown. It’s you who is evil you little worm. Keep whining little clown. I’ll keep exposing you and your lying holy spirit.

        Liked by 2 people

      • The comments and pingback are on a similar setting as far as I know.

        Your character of your anger and bullying tactics do not commend Islam to anyone – because you have no power over your human anger and sinful heart, since all you can do is do ad hominem arguments, name calling, and whining and accusing the other side of whining. You don’t seem to have respectful character at all.


      • Wah, wah, wah. All Pennywise can do is whine. I don’t have to show respect to a pathetic worm who follows a pagan religion and then has the nerve to attack other people’s religions. I also don’t have to show respect to a hypocrite piece of garbage who makes excuses for illegal and immoral wars in the name of “freedom of thought”. So keep on whining Pennywise.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “because you have no power over your human anger and sinful heart, since all you can do is do ad hominem arguments, name calling, and whining and accusing the other side of whining. You don’t seem to have respectful character at all.”

        this is coming from liar for jesus who goes around spreading misinformation about another person religion. btw, where did torah say that it did not have the power to help one master over hate, lust and anger? yhwh tells cain he can MASTER over sin. so cain must have got some guidance from yhwh, right?

        Liked by 2 people

      • The clown can only whine and deflect to avoid admitting his own stupidity and hypocrisy.



  1. Ken Temple is Hypocrite – The Quran and Bible Blog

Leave a Reply to stewjo004 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: