Islam is going to destroy Christian West | Popular Orthodox Apologist admits

Jay Dyer

Islam is going to (InshaAllah) destroys Christian west theologically, philosophicaly and demographically due to their preposterous, ridiculous and stupid thought of secularism and liberalism. This is an honest admission by a learned orthodox christian apologist Mr. Jay Dyer



Categories: Liberalism, Secularism

Tags: , , ,

288 replies

  1. Not just Christianity, but all other religions… inshaAllah, Islam will prevail over all religions.

    Liked by 2 people

    • just passing by mate… sad to this stuff. Reminds me of ISIS rhetoric.

      Like

      • Lighten up drama queen. And stop throwing around pathetic accusations. No one is using “Isis rhetoric”. As a faithful Muslim, I await the glorious time when all people will willingly accept Islam and all false religions will die.

        By the way, the “Christian west” is destroying itself. It will soon be the “atheist west”. And let’s not forget how it became the “Christian” west in the first place…mostly through violent genocide and colonialism.

        Like

      • Your extremely poor manners do you a disservice mate. And your religious extremism is tiresome and sadly all too common.

        I don’t think your presence on this blog is a good and beneficial one any longer.

        Your views tend to be extremist, hateful and vicious. They present Islam in a bad light to non-muslims.

        You have your own blog. Perhaps you should keep to it.

        Like

      • Paul: Your extremely poor manners do you a disservice mate. And your religious extremism is tiresome and sadly all too common. I don’t think your presence on this blog is a good and beneficial one any longer. Your views tend to be extremist, hateful and vicious. They present Islam in a bad light to non-muslims. You have your own blog. Perhaps you should keep to it.

        Yeah, would be nice if QB could keep his issues of extremist, hateful and vicious stuff to his own blog. It doesn’t take a genius to see that he’s hurting whatever case he is trying to make.

        Like

      • Paul, your lectures on “manners” are duly noted but ultimately irrelevant. A guy who can’t make up his mind about his own life and who flip-flops almost every year has no right to lecture others on their life, especially when he throws out childish accusations.

        Like

      • Man, where are these guys coming from?

        Spence, I will wait for you to call out the next Christian or atheist who hurls abuse at Muslims. Something tells me I’ll be waiting till pigs fly.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I made “childish accusations”

        Such what dear boy?

        Like

      • Um, such as comparing my wish that Islam will destroy all religions, as any faithful Muslim would, to…”Isis rhetoric”, dear boy? Where did I say that this would be done through violence? You need sometime to think. I truly hope you find whatever you are looking for. But find it without throwing your temper tantrums and childish accusations. Sounds fair, right?

        Like

  2. Reblogged this on The Quran and Bible Blog and commented:

    Christian apologist admits that secularism will cause Christianity’s defeat at the hands of Islam. May Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) make it so! Ameen!

    Like

  3. This guy has serious problems 😂

    Like

  4. Why dont you refute him Giulio? Make a video and refute him. Come on lil boy show some effort

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Is he the guy who schooled Paul Williams? Lol. 😆

    Liked by 1 person

    • I doubt you even watched the exhchange between Paul W and Jay D. Paul has argued that Judaism, Christianity & Islam should teach the same monotheism and because books of Bible were developed over time away from monotheism towards Divinity of Jesus. Jay argued it is still the case whole, because God “can” put His essence/attributes in creation etc so everyone has its own position. It is Paul who conceded that Jay is more prepared in Church history, philosophical argument etc, I guess Paul is being humble as he is the type of man he usually is, something you are clearly lack of.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. The second comment from “Giulio the clown” isnt by me. It is by Giulio who is just trying to pretend it’s me. Giulio get bent

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Giulio is the type of dude who if someone told him the refrigerator is running, he would go outside to see if he can chase it

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Parity approaching but not for 30 years
    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
    and even then Christianity still has greater numbers.

    The West will be an interesting battle ground. Liberalism/secularism/humanism doing battle with monotheism. Many shared fights for Jews, Christians and Muslims against atheism. In terms of the faiths against one another; Christianity has withstood challenges for centuries and stands strong. Islam may struggle to do the same when its profile increases in the West as it isn’t true and scriptures don’t stand up. Interesting to see also how Muslim’s face the challenge of Western Liberalism. Christians have done battle for longer and are showing the scars. Fully expect many Western Muslims to backslide in the face of opposition. They will challenge the errancy of their teachers and leave the faith for others or none.

    And after 2050… who knows

    Like

  9. I hope Islam isn’t going to “destroy” the Christian West!

    That is not the way of Islam to destroy the faith of the people of the book.

    Very scary!

    Like

    • Yes, I agree, history has shown it has never the way of Islam. It is secularism and liberalism which will eventually destroy the Christian west and thus Islam (which is still faithful to God) will prevails.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I hope Islam isn’t going to “destroy” the Christian West!

      That is not the way of Islam to destroy the faith of the people of the book.

      Very scary!

      So, is the faith of the people of the book wrong or true?

      Our faith includes:
      The Death and Atonement of Christ, the Messiah
      He fulfilled the prophecies of the OT
      The resurrection of the Messiah Jesus from the death
      The inspiration and infallibility of the OT and NT
      The Deity of Christ, the Messiah
      The eternal Sonship of Jesus the Messiah (John 17:5; John 1:1-5; 1:14)
      The Incarnation of Christ – John 1:14, Philippians 2:5-8
      The doctrine of the Trinity
      The root of the internal sinfulness of mankind from conception and birth, inherited from Adam (Psalm 51, Genesis 6:5; Romans 5:21; Mark 7:20-23
      The need of mankind for atonement for sin.
      The wrath of God that abides on all who do not repent and trust Christ. John 3:18; 3:36; Romans 1:18; Revelation 20:10-15

      Like

  10. QB (Faiz) wrote:
    Lighten up drama queen. And stop throwing around pathetic accusations.

    Did Faiz (QB) just call his fellow Muslim Paul Williams a “drama queen” and accuse him of “throwing around pathetic accusations” ?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Did Kennywise just crawl back out from his lair after running away before?

      Like

    • Oh and Paul is no longer a Muslim. He’s going through his annual flip-flopping stage. Hopefully, this time he will stick to his guns, either stay a non-Muslim who worships “English values” (whatever those are) or come back to Islam once and for all. Most likely, it will be the former, but God knows best.

      As part of the flip-flopping stage, Paul throws around melodramatic accusations. I have to admit that I have lost all respect for the man, and not because he left Islam (for like the 5th time), but because he is a flip-flopper who cannot make up his mind and throws temper tantrums like a spoiled child. It’s a shame because I really did like and respect him before.

      Like

      • How do you know Paul Williams is no longer a Muslim?

        You are right in that he does flip flop many times over the years, but how do you know he left Islam again?

        Like

      • He told me in an email. I guess he’s basically a “freelance monotheist” again, whatever that means. So he still rejects trinitarianism (as any reasonable person would), but he is also no longer a Muslim. In retrospect, I probably should have waited for him to say it, but I guess it would have come out eventually.

        It’s the flip-flopping that is really annoying. It’s hard to respect someone who can’t make up his mind. Even if he remained a non-Muslim without going back and forth, I could at least respect the man even though his choice would be extremely misguided. But flip-flopping and getting all weird and throwing around idiotic accusations just makes it very hard to take him seriously anymore. It’s sad.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ahahhhaaahhaaaa 😂😂😂

        Copyright for flip-flopping is with me you losers 😂😂😂

        Like

      • I told quranandbibleblog in confidence, but he couldn’t help making it public. Says a lot.

        Like

      • Yeah, that was my mistake. I own up to that. But let’s be honest. Everyone already suspected as much, based on your past history. That doesn’t excuse my mistake and I admit that.

        Like

      • Even so, you behaved badly and wrongly.

        And you have not apologised for betraying my trust.

        Like

      • Now, will you apologize for your unfair accusations against Muslims in general and against brother Eric and myself?

        Like

      • What “unfair accusations against Muslims in general”?

        You throw around criticisms but never make clear what on earth you are talking about.

        Like

      • Oh dear, saying the most “vile” people you have met are Muslims (how many have you met?), accusing others of “Isis rhetoric” and “Islamic-fascism”…are we really going to play this game? I guess you just don’t like the idea of having to apologize for your melodramatic rants. That says alot.

        Like

  11. Paul Williams wrote:

    he beat me big time

    he = Jay Dyer (Eastern Orthodox)

    Allan Ruhl provides a good analysis of one aspect of the debate:

    It is clear that Muhammad and the Qur’an misunderstood the doctrine of the Trinity, when one looks at Surah 5:116 and 5:72-75.

    https://allanruhl.com/debate-review-paul-williams-vs-jay-dyer/

    And God will say, “O Jesus son of Mary, did you say to the people, `Take me and my mother as gods rather than God?’“ He will say, “Glory be to You! It is not for me to say what I have no right to. Had I said it, You would have known it. You know what is in my soul, and I do not know what is in Your soul. You are the Knower of the hidden.

    – Surah 5:116

    If this was all we had, Williams could get away with his interpretation. However, we have verses 73 and 75 which say:

    They disbelieve those who say, “God is the third of three.” But there is no deity except the One God. If they do not refrain from what they say, a painful torment will befall those among them who disbelieve.

    – Surah 5:73

    The Messiah son of Mary was only a messenger, before whom other Messengers had passed away, and his mother was a woman of truth. They both used to eat food. Note how We make clear the revelations to them; then note how deluded they are.

    – Surah 5:75

    Now, verse 75 seems to be arguing for the same thing as verse 116. Now, the context for verse 75 is verse 73. If we read this verse carefully it shows that some disbelievers say “God is the third of three”. The Quran then corrects them by saying that there is only one God.

    When Christians say that God is three to the Muslims(or some similar thing involving God and three), we are referring to the Trinity. When we say that God is three to a Muslim, we aren’t referring to the Father, Jesus and Mary. The Christians that Muhammad was arguing against in Surah 5 were preaching the Trinity but not going into detail. Since Muhammad couldn’t read, it made sense that he made a blunder on the Trinity. Williams is incorrect. Surah 5:116 is a Quranic polemic against what it thinks is the Trinity.

    Me:
    And since the Qur’an claims to be the Almighty creator’s words, and He does not even know what the Christians were saying by the Trinity in “three in One” and “one in three” (for centuries), then the Qur’an cannot be God’s word, nor inspired by the true creator God.

    Like

  12. Me: How do you know Paul Williams is no longer a Muslim?

    QB (Faiz):

    He told me in an email. I guess he’s basically a “freelance monotheist” again, whatever that means. So he still rejects trinitarianism (as any reasonable person would), but he is also no longer a Muslim. In retrospect, I probably should have waited for him to say it, but I guess it would have come out eventually.

    It’s the flip-flopping that is really annoying. It’s hard to respect someone who can’t make up his mind. Even if he remained a non-Muslim without going back and forth, I could at least respect the man even though his choice would be extremely misguided. But flip-flopping and getting all weird and throwing around idiotic accusations just makes it very hard to take him seriously anymore. It’s sad.

    What caused him to lose faith in Islam itself?

    Is he still going to run this blog?

    or will he make the mistake he did last time and let you take it over (like the way Ijaz did) and then get angry and complain and want it back?

    I did think it was weird that he totally deleted his Twitter account. Why not just let it stay up, if he just needed a break from interaction?

    I suspected what you are saying (that he left Islam), but wanted to wait for clear evidence before judging.

    By the way, nothing you nor Vaqas nor Stewjo have written have refuted me; it is just not having enough time to constantly interact with so many.

    But Insha’Allah انشاء الله ،as God allows according to His sovereignty over time, I will respond and keep plotting and persevering.

    Like

    • I don’t run the blog. Someone else does. I will let them identify themselves if they want.

      Everything else is Paul’s business. You can ask him if you have some way to contact him.

      You have been refuted many times. We know your tactic. You run away for a few weeks, then come back, make the same argument and pretend no one refuted you. But don’t worry. We will refute you again and again, inshaAllah. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • So, Paul gave the blog up to someone else?

        Like

      • “So, your article comes to a big fat zero, as your puny efforts to refute Dr. Brown on Deut. 18”.
        Faiz just wanted to deflect attention from the real issue.

        The fact is that the debate was over in 3 min. Dr. Brown completely destroyed the argument, But let’s just say for argument that Dr. Brown was wrong about everything else. Just to keep Faiz happy.

        Faiz knew that the Muslim argument is completely bogus and silly and can only work if you take it completely out of context and ignore the words used. It’s an embarrassment for the Muslims but all their top apologist go with this silly claim. So had had to deflect attention away from the real issue and over on Dr. Brown, so he could save the Muslims from being exposed for twisting the scripture.
        That’s why he wouldn’t touch the real issue with a ten feet pole.

        People are not stupid you know, and nobody is buying his transparent attempt to deflect from the issue.

        Like

      • LOL, another Christian who won’t deal with the topic and has to deflect! Why are there so many Christians not willing to discuss, and instead make silly comments just to make themselves feel better?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Here goes these people thinking we have some sort of “hive mind” again…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Self-projection at play…these mindless drones just buzzing around and then going back to the hive for some more brainwashing.

        Like

    • @ Temple

      “By the way, nothing you nor Vaqas nor Stewjo have written have refuted me; it is just not having enough time to constantly interact with so many.”

      Whatever you gotta tell yourself to keep the mental gymnastics going. Oh my new mixtape dropped on refuting the so-called “prophecies” f the crucifixion it got a great reception with not even an attempted rebuttal:

      https://bloggingtheology.com/2020/04/05/the-crucifiction-series-part-3-what-the-prophets-of-old-foretold/

      “I will respond and keep plotting and persevering.”

      That’s right, keep that plotting up.

      … But they’re not plotting any kind of destruction except for themselves and they don’t even realize it.”(6:123)

      Liked by 1 person

      • The Christians have been deflecting a lot lately. The crucifixion article, my videos on Jesus failing to meet the conditions of the prophet in Deuteronomy 18, etc.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Yeah, I noticed its a LOT more than the usual. I mean I guess theirs really nothing to say the facts speak for themselves

        Liked by 1 person

      • I meant “plod” and “plodding”- to walk at a slow pace but keep going – like a turtle, to not give up.
        like persevering

        the biggest problem with your crucifixion part 3 article is that it destroys Islam, since the Qur’an says that the followers of Jesus became the dominant ones, uppermost, superior ones, most manifest ones. ( فوق و ظاهرین ) –

        Surah 3:55 – فوق uppermost, dominant, superior
        Surah 61:14 – ظهرین یا ظاهرین – manifest, obvious

        These are the disciples of Jesus – and they are the ones who interpreted Judaism properly in the 1st century (second Temple Judaism) – that Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 110 and Daniel 7:13-14 and Daniel 9:24-27 and Deut. 18 (proved by Peter in Acts 3:22-25) [which also defeats your other article and video where you tried to refute Dr. Michael Brown] is about the Messiah Jesus.

        Even Yusuf Ali in his footnotes of his Qur’an (page 1742 on Surah 61:14) agrees that this was about the followers of Jesus that eventually won the Roman Empire and became the dominant people. (those that believed in His Messiahship, that Isaiah 53, etc. is about His atonement / effective Death; His resurrection from the dead; His Deity, eternal Sonship, the Trinity, etc.

        Even the Babylonian Talmud admits that Psalm 2:7 is about the future Messiah:

        Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a
        Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!), ‘Ask of me anything, and I will give it to thee’, as it is said, I will tell of the decree etc. this day have I begotten thee, ask of me and I will give the nations for thy inheritance [Psalms 2:7-8].

        Soncino Talmud edition.

        This is also why the chief priest and the other Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah questioned Jesus as His trial and combined “the Messiah” with “the Son of God” in both Mark 14:60-64 and the parallel in Matthew 26.

        This is why they also tore their robes and convicted Him of blasphemy.

        Just as you said in one of your recent videos, that Mohammad Assad’s notes are not authoritative, so also the Harper-Collins Study Bible is not authoritative for understanding Isaiah 53.

        So, your article comes to a big fat zero, as your puny efforts to refute Dr. Brown on Deut. 18.

        Like

      • Um moron, the article was by Stew. The video on Deut 18 was by me. You don’t even know who you’re responding to. LOL!!

        “Even the Babylonian Talmud admits that Psalm 2:7 is about the future Messiah:

        Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a
        Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!), ‘Ask of me anything, and I will give it to thee’, as it is said, I will tell of the decree etc. this day have I begotten thee, ask of me and I will give the nations for thy inheritance [Psalms 2:7-8].”

        LOL, crosstians appeal to the Talmud when it suits their purpose, but when it doesn’t, then like everything else, they throw them under the bus.

        Now, as for Psalm 2, so what? How does this prove that the Messiah will be divine, and will die and be resurrected?

        “This is also why the chief priest and the other Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah questioned Jesus as His trial and combined “the Messiah” with “the Son of God” in both Mark 14:60-64 and the parallel in Matthew 26.”

        And there are contradictory accounts as to Jesus’ answer:

        Mark 14:62: ““I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.””

        Matthew 26:64: “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.””

        Luke 22:70: “They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You say that I am.””

        This clear contradiction has led scholars to conclude that the saying in Mark is not authentic. As the late Geza Vermes stated:

        “[t]he plain affirmative reply in Mark…is the odd man out. It conflicts with the general line of reply ascribed to Jesus, which was ‘You have said so’ or ‘You say that I am’. The phrase implies a negative answer according to rabbinic literature. It should also be observed that in conformity with mainstream tradition some manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel read ‘You say that I am’.” (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus (London: Penguin Books, 2003), p. 26.)

        Notice that Vermes cited “rabbinic literature” to show that the answer “you have said so” means a “negative answer” (i.e., Jesus was saying “NO!”).

        “Just as you said in one of your recent videos, that Mohammad Assad’s notes are not authoritative, so also the Harper-Collins Study Bible is not authoritative for understanding Isaiah 53. ”

        Again stupid, the article is Stew’s. And on what grounds do you state that Harper-Collins Study Bible is not “authoritative”? Because it doesn’t push the deceptive, evangelical agenda? A careful reading of Isaiah 53 supports the conclusions in the book.

        “So, your article comes to a big fat zero, as your puny efforts to refute Dr. Brown on Deut. 18.”

        Bwhahahaha! Judging by the inability of Christians to answer my 4 points, it seems I struck a nerve, just like Stew did. No wonder they are all lashing out with their usual troll-like behavior. Where’s your condemnation of these animals for their behavior?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        Several points:

        1. What happened is coming, God willing.

        2.No they didn’t later people did.

        3. Yusuf Ali is not a scholar and his opinion is irrelevant.

        4. You must have skimmed as I stated Psalm 2 could possibly be Messianic and it actually harms you not helps. It refutes the Trinity and potentially proves he(as) wouldn’t be harmed.

        5. Calling yourself the “Son of God” in Judaism is not blasphemy. This was just author ignorance. The fact that you quoted Psalm 2 where David says it is enough to prove that.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      Hi Ken since you brought up the talmud theres a question I want to ask you. In my discussions with Christians I’ve seen some appeal to rabbinical literature of some kind which apparently posits the same interpretations of isaiah 53 that Christians today make. However a source is never given. Do you happen to know what they might be talking about?

      Liked by 2 people

      • According to Dr. Michael Brown, the Babylonian Talmud applies 53:4 to the Messiah in Sanhedrin 98b, but he also shows that it applies other parts of Isaiah 53 to other people in history. It is a mixed bag, but remember the Talmud went through centuries of editions, additions, etc. over history. But Volume 3 of Dr. Brown’s “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus” is packed full of documentation of the references. All 5 volumes are very good material.

        It is difficult to know what he is referring to sometimes, because we don’t have the actual books – and it is not online (as far as I know) – unlike most of the Hadith Sunni collections we can find at Sunnah.com, etc.

        Maybe they will get the whole Talmud, etc. on- line some day in the future.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Before Kennywise appealed to Talmudic interpretation of Psalm 2, and now he reminds us that “oh by the way, the Talmud went through centuries of editions and additions” because now it doesn’t quite help his case.

        Liked by 3 people

      • And yet it still applied Isaiah 53:4 to the Messiah.

        And it still also applied Psalm 2 to the Messiah.

        This proves why the high priest applied both Messiah and Son of God together in his question to Jesus.

        It shows how 2nd temple Judaism understood Psalm 2.

        Like

      • Astounding leaps of logic and picking and choosing of sources! Where does the Talmud identify the Messiah as a divine being who would die and be resurrected?

        Like

      • @ Ken

        The entire Talmud (as well as the Midrash etc) are available online:

        https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud

        Also, you’re definitely being biased in regards to the Talmud. Either it does or it doesn’t matter pick one and stick to it.

        Liked by 2 people

    • @Ken Temple

      Thanks for answering my question Ken.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. For everyone’s information, Yes I have left Islam (again). And Eric owns the blog so I guess he is in charge of it going forward.

    I have to say that the most vile human beings I have ever met are Muslims. I won’t miss bumping into them.

    I predict the blog will decline with the likes of ‘quranandbibleblog’ posting and commenting and dragging BT into the gutter. He makes Ken seem like a decent reasonable guy. Such is life.

    Liked by 1 person

    • So quick question Paul. Everyone can absolutely appreciate the freedom to post on the blog. But if this is how you feel about QB and the likes, why did you let them drag BT down the gutter, when you were running BT? Couldn’t you just have asked them to tone down the foul language or else find another blog to drag into the gutter? Their behavior was always detrimental to discussion.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Again, hypocrites complain about Muslims, but say nothing about Christian trolls. I don’t get it. Why the hypocrisy? And where did I use “foul language”?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Cman, you’ve used more than foul language, name calling etc. Calling people filthy, rats, not deserving of sympathy or compassion. Even when nobody uttered any unkind word to you.

        You and your likes were never able to hold interest in discussion if you could not call people ugly things.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lol, I guess we have a different definition of what “foul language” means. It seems you think that we should all hold hands and sing kumbaya. Meanwhile, the Christian trolls mouth off against Muslims and we get nothing from the moral police (i.e., people like you). Hmmm, I wonder why?

        Liked by 1 person

    • “I have to say that the most vile human beings I have ever met are Muslims.”

      You must have not have met that many Christian then. LOL!!

      Like

      • I used to be one – for longer than I was Muslim. Nothing compares.

        Like

      • We’ll have to take your word for it.

        Like

      • Anyway, when you come to your senses and are ready to apologize for accusing me of “Isis rhetoric”, I’ll be here. I got nothing against you personally. But throwing around accusations just because you’re pissed off about something is very immature.

        Like

      • Priceles. I love it.

        Like

      • Ha, ha, ha, are you serious? Paul, did you get that? QB will be here when you will want to apologize. Paul said QB reminds him of ISIS rhetoric and he goes “me, where did I ever use inappropriate language”. This is beyond priceless.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lol, another guy trying to stick his nose where it doesn’t belong! And somehow “Isis rhetoric” is synonymous with “inappropriate language”? So all “inappropriate” language is “Isis rhetoric”? And by the way dummy, it was about “foul language” (i.e., cursing).

        Paul accused me of “Isis rhetoric”. That is a foul accusation which he knows is untrue. But he’s pissed about something so he acts this way.

        Like

      • Actually I didn’t accuse you of ‘ISIS rhetoric’.

        I was referring to Eric’s article. And i stand by my criticism.

        Don’t be so sensitive quranandbible blog. Not everything is about you.

        And I was not” pissed” (to use your vulgar Americanism). I was just shocked to see a good man like Eric post such an article.

        Like

      • Lol, oh please. So when you responded to my comment with “Islamo-fascism?”, that wasn’t directed at me? Come on Paul. Don’t be dishonest.

        And your “criticism” of Eric is absurd from the get-go because he was simply quoting the guy in the video. How is that “Isis rhetoric”?

        Like

      • yawn…

        You are such a sensitive buttercup – when you are not being vicious that is.

        Like

      • Lol, I’m the “sensitive buttercup”? 🙄 Yawn…

        So I guess you’re not going to apologize for your childish accusations? Like I said, you need some time to think. Being a sensitive buttercup and drama queen clearly affects your reason.

        “Vicious”, you say? Ok, sensitive buttercup.

        Like

      • you really shouldn’t be involved in dawah. You don’t have the maturity or adab to do it properly.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t think you have any right to talk at this point about Dawah. Plus, there’s a difference between “Dawah” and “apologetics”.

        Anyway, deflecting as you are now from your appalling accusations and failure to apologize only shows that you need some time to gather your thoughts.

        Like

      • I have much right to talk about dawah as anyone else dude.

        I have nothing to apologize for and i stand by every word.

        Deal with it.

        Like

      • Lol, how can talk you about Dawah when you’re no longer a Muslim?

        You want to be stubborn and arrogant, that’s your business. But don’t give advice when you can’t follow it yourself.

        Like

      • lol don’t be silly. You comment on the New Testament and you are not a Christian.

        Be consistent.

        Like

      • Lol, now you’re just being dumb. Come on, you’re better than this. I comment on Christianity in general. I don’t tell Christians how to evangelize. Get it? Please, take some time off Paul. You need to think things out.

        Like

      • lol on this blog I established a tradition of free speech on matters religious. I am well within my rights to comment on dawah or anything else for that matter.

        You have enjoyed these same privileges even when you were abusive and extremely rude (which is nearly all the time)

        Grow up.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lol, you keep making childish comments. I never said anything about free speech. Stop being such a melodramatic diva. My point was that since you are no longer a Muslim, taking about Dawah to Muslims and giving advice is absurd.

        Like

      • Did your IQ just drop off a cliff?

        “taking about Dawah to Muslims and giving advice is absurd.”

        I can do exactly this if I wish. Perfectly acceptable.

        You do the same, analogously, all the time with Christians.

        Like

      • 😂😂 Ok obviously, you’re going to continue with your newfound dumbness. Again, as I said, I don’t talk about evangelizing Christianity to Christians! That was my point!

        You, as a third or fourth (I’ve lost count) round apostate, don’t have any logical reason to talk about Dawah to Muslims. You have zero credibility at this point.

        I wasn’t talking about “free speech” or that you “can’t” do this. Of course you can. My point is that you wouldn’t be taken seriously.

        Look, I understand you’re in an emotional state which makes you a melodramatic diva. I sympathize with you. I hope you will come to your senses, even if you don’t return to Islam.

        Like

    • Paul Williams: For everyone’s information, Yes I have left Islam (again).

      You need a break from the internet…and society at large. Go camping somewhere secluded. Get your thoughts in order.

      Liked by 1 person

      • no thanks mate. Keep your advice for yourself.

        Like

      • And keep yours to yourself then. Fair, yes?

        Like

      • Paul Williams: no thanks mate. Keep your advice for yourself.

        Unlike you, I have confidence in my beliefs and values. I don’t keep changing my religion every year. Grow up.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Actually’ I don’t change my religion every year. I was a Christian some years ago then converted to Islam. I have a troubled relationship with the latter faith. I don’t keep converting to any other faith.

        My theology does not change. It’s an existential problem. Probably terminal.

        Like

      • Salaam brother Paul,
        Hope you’re doing well. If I may ask and I hope this isn’t too personal, what in Islam do you see that doesn’t currently align with your views? Do you still profess Monotheism?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Rafah, my theology hasn’t changed and i have not converted to Christianity.

        My beef is with other matters entirely – and no – I’m not going to go into details. I have no wish to give ammunition to the missionaries.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Salaam Brother Paul,
        It’s reassuring to know that you haven’t adopted the Trinitarian viewpoint. I hope inshaAllah that whatever doubts you may have be eased and resolved. The people we associate ourselves with havea big and lasting impact on our lives. I hope you find a group who can give you a feeling of solace and resolve and those who truly embody the true Islamic viewpoints. I recommend researching scholars like Shaykh Muhammad bin Yahya al-Ninowy and Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thanks for your kind words, but my issues are not going to resolved by reading yet more scholars.

        Like

    • Hey Paul,
      Thanks for sharing what happened.

      I sincerely hope you find peace.

      Remember Matthew 11:28-30

      Liked by 1 person

    • @ QB

      I told you we need to do a compilation of when they insult because that is absolutely no true. They troll, then get mad because we’re better at it. This has been proven time and time again.

      @ Tales of SC

      So when I show examples of missionaries and the Athiest clearly starting stuff what’s going to happen in this discussion?

      Liked by 1 person

      • LOL, just a bunch of hypocritical crybabies.

        Crybabies: “Ooooh, there is no atmosphere for discussion here! All the Moooslims are too mean!”

        Christian troll mouths off to Muslims.

        Crybabies: (silence)…(crickets)

        Muslims mock Christian.

        Crybabies: Ooooh, see the Moooslims are too mean!

        Muslims: (roll eyes)…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Are you saying you never threw insults at people who did not call you any ugly things to begin with h?

        If they threw an insult first they had it coming. But you can’t stay focused or interested in a discussion if you don’t hurl insults at people.

        Like

      • Lol, this guy has completely lost the plot! So let me get this straight. You think that the Christians and atheists who are mouthing off against Muslims are actually the victims? 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

        Ok, believe what you will. You clowns obviously have no problem with Christians abusing Muslims but start foaming at the mouth when Muslims respond in kind. What more is there to say to such people?

        Like

  14. You’re just trying to deflect and when called out, being hypocritical about it. The fact is that Brwon destroyed the scripture twisting in 3 minutes. And you’re just so extremely embarrassed by it, so instead of discussing why your own apologists twist scripture, you try and focus and deflect attention over on Brown.

    Why don’t you analyze why your own apologists are twisting scripture if you are so concerned? Even your own Muslim group had concerns about it.

    It’s just pathetic and not very sophisticated. Everybody can see you are just trying to deflect instead of dealing with the meat of it.

    Like

    • Uh huh, keep telling yourself that to make yourself feel better.

      But your butthurt over your failure to answer my questions still remains. So far, out of all the Christians that have commented on the video, only 1 person actually tried to answer my questions in a civil and respectful manner and didn’t try to deflect. Every other Christian was just mouthing off. It seems to be in your nature.

      Like

      • So answer me this, why are own apologists twisting scripture and have been doing it for years? When the Muslim apologist was refuted and exposed in three minutes you say nothing, and go uh oh I’m neutral, I just want to talk about something else.

        You’re just embarrassed by your own apologists, and now are trying to save face by deflecting attention away from that. So go on answer.

        Like

      • Lol, still deflecting! I am not their spokesperson dummy. A better question would be why have Christians been twisting the Bible for their so-called “prophecies” about Jesus?

        And if you weren’t such an idiot, you would know my position has always been neutral on this subject! See that’s the thing with you morons. Talk first and think later.

        Now I’m still waiting. Are you capable of dealing with the points I raised it are you still butthurt?

        Like

      • So the answer to why your apologists for years have been twisting scripture and you want to deflect attention away from that and over on Brown is?

        Like

      • So the answer to why you keep avoiding the topic of the video is?

        Deflections and strawman arguments. Anything else we can get from you?

        Like

      • When even Muslims get worried they’re scripture twisting, you can bet your bottom dollar there is something rotten going on. QB’s just trying to cover up the fact, because he knows it’s embarrassing and won’t answer.

        But now QB is unwilling to answer It be great if somebody would do an exposé on why Muslims are so desperate that they need twisting scripture.

        Like

      • Lol, sure, sure, that must be it. Keep telling yourself whatever you need to heal your butthurt.

        But think about this. If I was “embarrassed” about this, then why would I make a video about and draw attention to it? 🤔

        So many Christians have avoided answering my four points about Brown’s incompetence. I noticed his errors and made them known to others. Some Christians have tried to prove that Jesus did speak in Yahweh’s name and were refuted. The rest have avoided discussing this like the plague.

        Brown’s twisting of the text was proven very clearly and the apologists’ desperate trolling has only added to the overwhelming evidence of Brown’s incompetence.

        Like

  15. Well get there don’t worry. Just answer the question.

    Like

  16. Dear Mr Williams

    Please excuse my intruding upon your time. I merely wished to take this opportunity to say that, while we have had had our differences, admittedly more theological in nature, I have nothing but respect for you and wish you all the very best in all you do.
    Your blog was always, in my opinion, the most civilised Islamic website I have ever come across, even if certain individuals who commented upon it were not always shining examples if inter religious dialogue. As you have said, there are certain individuals, who shall remain unnamed, whose abilities at civil theological debate are somewhat wanting, and would frankly be more appropriate on the plains of northern Iraq, under banners midnight black and terrible.
    I salute you sir, and wish all the blessings of God and his saints upon you.In the words of Julian of Norwich “All shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”

    Yours Sincerely

    Tobias Bellhouse

    Liked by 2 people

  17. As the late Geza Vermes stated:

    “[t]he plain affirmative reply in Mark…is the odd man out. It conflicts with the general line of reply ascribed to Jesus, which was ‘You have said so’ or ‘You say that I am’. The phrase implies a negative answer according to rabbinic literature. . . .

    This is just not true, as both Matthew 26:65-66 and Luke 22:71 and ff., show the same response from the Jewish high priest – he and the Jews charge Jesus with blasphemy in all three gospels – so it obviously means “yes, I am the Messiah, the Son of God”.

    You just need to keep reading and get the flow the whole passages. Historical events recorded in 4 gospels, the true Injeel.

    Amazing how you don’t read the very next verses and context!

    Like

    • Lol, so once again, Kennywise decides that he knows better than scholars, who contradict his own empty conservative views. Amazing!

      Like

      • scholars can have different and opposite opinions.

        Dr. Michael Brown is a scholar in Jewish sources and commentaries, etc. and yet sees things opposite from Geza Vermes.

        But also, the original disciples of Jesus in the first century AD – the ones the Qur’an calls believers in God and faithful and full of integrity
        and
        that become the uppermost, dominant, superior, manifest, obvious ones.

        Surah 3:55 فوق
        Surah 61:14 – ظاهرین or ظهرین

        Like

      • Deflection yet again. Brown is small potatoes compared to the likes Vermes.

        Your beliefs about the disciples are based on historically suspect sources.

        Like

      • Again, Brown doesn’t come close to someone like Vermes.

        Like

    • @ Ken

      You do not have the “Injeel” which is a revelation from God. You have 4 later bios that were later called the “gospels according to…” which are basically glorified weak ahadith. Again Jesus(as) was not going around read Mark, Matt, Luke and John to the people.

      Secondly, I believe the only thing amazing here is your complete lack of not realizing calling yourself the “Son of God” in Judaism is not blasphemy.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes we do have the true Injeel.

        The true Injeel is the New Testament, all 27 books/ letters are first century documents; the words of Jesus and inspiration through the Holy Spirit through the apostles and their helpers; the disciples of Jesus that the Qur’an affirms and says they will be the dominant, uppermost, and manifest ones (3:55; 6:14) the fulfillment of the OT. Islam came 600 years too late and since it tries to tie itself to the previous 2 revelations and yet at the same time contradicts them both, and also at the same time affirms / confirms the previous Scriptures – the result is proof that Islam is just a man-made subjective religion and a false religion and false system.

        The Jewish leadership of the first Century AD obviously thought Jesus’ claim was blasphemous.
        Mark 14
        Matthew 26
        Luke 22-23
        John 19

        etc.

        Like

      • Kennywise, your church mantra is part of a broken record that no one takes seriously. Jesus preached the Gospel, as Luke said, but what did he preach? What was the “Gospel” he was preaching? Was it the Gospel of Mark? Or Matthew? Lol, you’re living in a fantasy world. That’s why no one takes you seriously.

        Like

      • Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 and the predictions of His death and resurrection and the Lord’s Supper passages, prove that Jesus taught the gospel message of the NT. Sinless, Deity, Incarnation, Atonement, Death, resurrection, Ascension, 2nd Coming, justification by faith, not works, true repentance, understanding of sin as an internal nature, (Mark 7:20-23), not just external acts in society and dead rituals while hiding unseen sins in the heart. Jesus got to the motives of the heart. Matthew 5:21-30

        Like

      • Circular argument…is this the best you can do?

        There are many reasons why what the anonymous gospels say is irrelevant. First and foremost is that they contradict the Tanakh’s views on the Messiah which, as the Talmud confirms, says nothing about a mangod dying and rising like one of the pagan gods. This by itself destroys the Christian religion and it’s twisting of the Tanakh.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jesus said, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in ALL that the prophets have spoken . . . and beginning with Moses and all the prophets, Jesus explained / opened and interpreted the Scriptures.
        Luke 24:25-27
        then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” Luke 24:45

        “Thus it is written that the Messiah (the OT is all about Me – Luke 24:25-27; 44)
        the Messiah
        1. to suffer
        2. to rise from the dead
        3. That repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed to all the nations

        Jesus taught the proper understanding of the TaNakh.

        Boom to all your arguments, articles and videos.

        Jesus fulfilled Deut. 18 (Acts 3:22-25)

        Like

      • Another circular argument, so your pathetic response is doomed from the start! Boom!

        The Talmud, which you appealed to, refuted this nonsense. There is no divine Messiah, moron. Your gospels’ interpretations are bogus. Boom!

        Liked by 1 person

      • no; your response is the pathetic and empty one.

        The Talmud confirms.

        Even the Qur’an confirms, since it confirms the Gospel and previous Scriptures, although ignorant of the content and specifics, which also proves the true Creator God did not inspire it.

        Like

      • 🤣🤣🤣 Yes, the Talmud confirms that the gospels are wrong and Christianity is a false religion. All you can do is pick and choose and use logical fallacies to “prove” your religion’s ludicrous claims. It’s proof that Christianity is false and you are a deceiver.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        “The true Injeel is the New Testament, all 27 books/ letters ”

        Once again kaffir because you’re retarded,

        And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the GOSPEL of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. (Matthew 4:23)

        Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the GOSPEL of God, (Mark 1:14)

        But he said, “I must proclaim the good news (gospel) of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.” (Luke 4:43)

        Simple question, did Jesus(as) preach ONE of the 27 NT books to the people during his lifetime? Just need a yes or no?

        As for your second claim regarding “Son of God” I refuted that already please see that post

        Liked by 3 people

      • Salaam brother Stew,
        Based on the passages you cited from the NT, it seems that the Injeel that was revealed to Isa (as) wasn’t a written text but a Oral Revelation. What do you think?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Rafah

        Walakum salam wa rahma tu lahi wa barakatu. Good question. I was thinking about doing an article about this but idk if people would be interested or if there’s enough content.

        Yes, I agree it was some sort of oral revelation like the Quran during Muhammad’s(saw) time. Ignoring Temple’s missionary propaganda let’s first look from Christian commentary on the passages I cited:

        – Matthew 4:23

        Bengel
        “The chief teaching of Christ was the Gospel…”

        Elliot
        Preaching the gospel of the kingdom.—As far as regards St. Matthew this is the first occurrence of the phrase. It tells of a vast amount of UNRECORDED teaching, varying in form, yet essentially the same—a call to repentance—the good news of a kingdom of heaven not far off…

        https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/4-23.htm

        (Note a lot of them are going to mention that Jesus(as) is the “head of the kingdom but this is incorrect when one sees other manuscripts don’t say “kingdom of God” but “Gospel of God” (See Mark Cambridge) Another fun fact here is some redaction took place, see Meyers in the link above)

        * Mark 1:14
        Cambridge
        “the gospel of the kingdom of God] or according to some MSS. the Gospel of God.”

        Now regarding what the Injeel is, Allah hu alim but I have a theory. In the Quran Allah quotes the Injeel once:

        “… their parable given in the Gospel is like a seed that sprouts from the ground, (which) He then strengthens it so it becomes tougher and it then stands firmly on its stalk delighting the one who planted it. It’s this progress the disbelievers hate, because it’s among them God has promised those who believe and do good forgiveness along with a great reward… (48:29)

        This is the parable of the Seed. I believe the Injeel was his(as) parables:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parables_of_Jesus

        Several reasons for this:

        1. Allah teaches using parables in the Quran (Q. 2:26)
        2. Many of them have Islamic equivalents. Example the lost coin and the lost camel
        3. Don’t contain shirk
        4. Short and easy to remember
        5. Everyone agrees Isa(as) taught using them
        6. All Christian sects used the parables (I have to look but I believe I read somewhere early Christians thought they were revelations from the Father)
        7. Originally their writings (the one’s Mark, Matt, Luke and John plagiarized from) looked kinda like hadith books where you have no context whatsoever to the statement (please see the Gospel of Thomas) http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
        Notice that many of the parables are separate. What this means is this is the sects took these parables (that are ambiguous on purpose because you’re supposed to use your brain and put it together) and framed stories around them twisting their meanings.

        As I said this is just my hypothesis and I haven’t had any of them “pressure test” me on it so I can be confident to say “Yep, that’s it”.

        Liked by 2 people

      • This something fascinates me for years, it is scholarly consensus that Jesus (p) and his disciples native language was Aramaic, The greek “gospel”, and roman christian tradition is the breakaway of this semitic tradition. This Injeel the Quran is referring to must be revealed to nabi Jesus (as) orally in Aramaic utterances, the remnants of this still present in greek NT, phrases and words like talitha cumi, eli eli lama sabachtani are some examples..

        Look forward if you can write an article about this…

        Liked by 2 people

  18. the article was by Stew. The video on Deut 18 was by me. You don’t even know who you’re responding to. LOL!!

    Thanks for the reminder that you are both wrong!

    Boom!

    Like

  19. Here is one comment I just responded to on my channel about Jesus mentioning the name “Yahweh”. The commenter is “el_gibbor”:

    el_gibbor

    Does Jesus ever say Yahweh? Yes.

    “THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED”
    Luke 4:18

    Jesus was in the synagogue reciting the Tanakh. He’s reading from Isaiah 61:1 and would be doing so in it’s original Hebrew. The word translated as “Lord” there is “Yahweh”.

    quranandbibleblog

    Hello. Thanks for your comment. Before I respond, I just want to ask why your username is “El Gibbor”, which is a title for God. It just confused me a little. It would be like if I had the username Al-Jabbar.

    Anyway, in response to your comment, I would point out that your assumption that Jesus was reading from the “original Hebrew” is simply not true. The reason is that the reading of “Isaiah 61” in Luke 4 is actually from the Greek Septuagint. The late scholar Geza Vermes noted this in his book “The Authentic Gospel of Jesus”:

    “Luke’s quotation comes from the Greek Septuagint and not from the Hebrew Isaiah which would have been read in a Galilean synagogue.” (p. 30)

    Vermes also noted elsewhere in the book that Luke’s version “is a midrashic combination of verses from Isaiah” and is an “amalgam of Isaiah 61:1-2 and 58:6” (p. 210).

    So, since the Greek version was being used (unsurprisingly, Luke is the only one to mention this episode in the synagogue), Jesus would not have said “Yahweh”.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Thanks for reminding me of the Talmud online. I actually have seen that before, but just forgot.

    If you search under the reference I gave, you can see that it confirms that even Jews from after the destruction of the temple to development of the Talmud over the centuries ( even after 70 AD and after 135 AD, the bar Kokhba rebellion, etc.) – even after all that, they still understood that Psalm 2 is about the Messiah, the Son of God.

    Boom to all your articles and feeble attempts. Boom to both QB (Faiz) and Stewjo004’s articles and videos.

    Like

  21. The online Talmud confirms the reference i gave.
    The chief priest and Jewish leadership at the trial of Jesus understood the claim of Messiah and Son of God as a claim to fulfill Psalm 2 (and also Psalm 110 and Daniel 7:13-14)

    “Even the Babylonian Talmud admits that Psalm 2:7 is about the future Messiah:

    Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a
    Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!), ‘Ask of me anything, and I will give it to thee’, as it is said, I will tell of the decree etc. this day have I begotten thee, ask of me and I will give the nations for thy inheritance [Psalms 2:7-8].”

    See under Sukkah 52a

    https://www.sefaria.org/Sukkah.52a?lang=bi

    Like

    • 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Oy vei, this is what Christianity does to the ability to use reason. It destroys it completely. Again, the Talmud says that the Messiah is a human and servant of God, not God himself! It also says nothing about a dying and rising Messiah!

      Liked by 1 person

      • The reference there proves that they thought that Psalm 2 fulfills Messiah, as Messiah-King and Son of God.

        The Jews understood it as blasphemy.
        Mark 14
        Matthew 26
        Luke 22-23
        John 19

        Like

      • 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ This just shows that the gospels are wrong! 😂😂 Jewish sources understood “son of God” to mean a righteous person, someone who is close to God and loved by Him. Genesis 6 refers to “sons of God” who were actually angels. Were they divine too?

        Liked by 1 person

      • No, the gospels were right.

        It just proves the Qur’an and Islam are wrong.

        Genesis 6 – different context.

        Learn to read contextually and with reason/ intellect.

        Like

      • Moron, there is no “different context”. You’re just embarrassed that your picking and choosing exposes your shoddy methodology.

        The gospels are wrong as the Talmud and all Jewish sources show.

        Liked by 1 person

      • In Genesis 6:1-4 the context goes with verses 5-6 about God’s view of the sinfulness of mankind.
        The “sons of God” = males who are following God
        “the daughters of man” = females who were beautiful and tempted them to sin, adulteries, etc.

        Jesus said angels cannot procreate.
        Matthew 22:23-33 and parallel in Mark 12:18-27

        Angels / spirits cannot procreate.

        the only question is between interpretations of whether it means what I have written above and demon possession, as Jude 6 seems to imply.

        Like

      • LOL, so being called “sons of God” doesn’t make them divine! Thank you!

        As for your pathetic claim that they are not angels, I have already thoroughly debunked this largely modern Christian interpretation.

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/16/genesis-6-and-the-sons-of-god/

        The church fathers agreed that they were angels.

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/11/15/1-enoch-and-the-sons-of-god/

        The irony of your appeal to Matthew 22 is that the book 1 Enoch, which mentions the angels having intercourse with humans, already claimed that there is no intercourse in heaven:

        ““And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.””

        Well how about that! The same book that talks about angel/human sex also says that the angels did not have wives in heaven. Furthermore, Matthew 22 doesn’t deny that angels could come to earth and have sexual intercourse with humans. Angels on earth ate food too. Obviously, as spiritual beings, they don’t need food.

        In the above article, I also show numerous other parallels between the NT and 1 Enoch, which shows that the authors were familiar with the text and used it. The best example is certainly Jude.

        Liked by 2 people

    • @ Ken

      I have to ask seriously how does it feel to be shown to be incompetent every time you open your mouth? If you had actually read the article you would know I said Psalm 2 could be Messianic and never argued against it let me just leave this here:

      “…because Jesus(peace be upon him) is THEE Messiah (Anointed) and a descendant of David according to the Bible we should theoretically be able to apply all the passages to him:

      He brings great salvation to His king. He shows loving devotion to His anointed, to David and his descendants forever. [62]

      The Pulpit Commentary says about this verse:

      “Now obviously David is intended, both by the “king” of the first clause, and by the “anointed” of the second; but the combination of the two, and the immediate mention of the “seed” which is to reign “for ever,” carry the passage beyond the psalmist individually, and give to the conclusion of the psalm, at any rate, a semi-Messianic character. As Hengstenberg says, “Psalms of this kind are distinguished from those which may more strictly be called Messianic, only by this – that in the latter the Messiah exclusively is brought into view, while here he is presented to our notice only as a member of the seed of David” [63]

      So as Christian commentary has let us know it’s not far fetched to apply this passage to Jesus.”

      So that’s your first embarrassing mistake (ignoring that it actually helps strengthen Islam and refutes the Trinity) Why don’t you read the article first then comment at the page?

      Liked by 3 people

      • You are right in that I did not notice a clear heading of Psalm 2, especially since there is no reference to Psalm 2:7 or 8; only Psalm 2:1-5 in a footnote and Psalm 2:2 later in the text, after your quotes that you have hear.

        Interesting that you actually never gave the reference of Psalm 2:6-8; and at the beginning, wrote, “throughout the Psalms” and then in a footnote gave Psalm 1:1-5 and in the text later gave psalm 2:2, but you carefully avoided verses 6-8.

        Why, etc. not comment at that page?
        Because it is too boring and ponderous and filled with fluff and I don’t have time to get into commenting there. I prefer here because of time. Responding to all of you constantly is too much; I have a life and too much other positive work to do.

        Like

      • after your quotes that you have here.

        As far as I can tell; by looking quickly.
        Yours and QB’s material is so much that I don’t have time to go through point by point.

        Like

      • “I have a life and too much other positive work to do.”

        LOL, there he goes! Breaking out the excuse “I’m busy!”…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sorry I made typo of Psalm 1 rather than Psalm 2 in haste.

        footnote gave Psalm 2:1-5 and in the text later gave psalm 2:2, but you carefully avoided verses 6-8.

        Like

      • @ Ken
        I say “throughout the Psalms” because I quoted more than one. You complain about Muslims not using your material “in context” then complain about length. I just find the whole thing odd.

        Also, my article is not full of fluff it’s actually pretty straight forward, you just can’t refute my points which is why you’re now making excuses.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        So once again we have a hit because even Kennywiise can’t say anything. All in all, I’d say the Cruicifiction series has been a smashing success!

        Liked by 2 people

      • I agree! It is a blockbuster!

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Glad to know. Hey, have noticed Ken has been awfully quiet about the subject of the video regarding “secularism” that he promotes as another Christian heresy?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Yes, I noticed that also, the silence is deafening..

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well Kennywise has to stay loyal to his god.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I can respect that if that is the case but we all know that he is a paid “missionary-to-muslims”, I suspect he stay loyal for ungodly cause

        Liked by 2 people

  22. lol on this blog I established a tradition of free speech on matters religious. I am well within my rights to comment on dawah or anything else for that matter.

    You have enjoyed these same privileges even when you were abusive and extremely rude (which is nearly all the time)

    Grow up.

    Paul Williams is right. (about QB / Faiz)

    Liked by 1 person

  23. I already refuted Stewjo004’s crucifixion part 3 and QB / Faiz’s material vs. Michael Brown on Deut. 18

    Acts 3:22-25 completely destroys any argument any of you make on Deut. 18. The Hebrew is clear in the context flow of Deut. 17 and 18 that it means a fellow ethnic Jew / Hebrew / Israelite.

    Again

    the biggest problem with your (Stewjo004) crucifixion part 3 article is that it destroys Islam, since the Qur’an says that the followers of Jesus became the dominant ones, uppermost, superior ones, most manifest ones. ( فوق و ظاهرین ) –

    Surah 3:55 – فوق uppermost, dominant, superior
    Surah 61:14 – ظهرین یا ظاهرین – manifest, obvious

    These are the disciples of Jesus – and they are the ones who interpreted Judaism properly in the 1st century (second Temple Judaism) – that Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 110 and Daniel 7:13-14 and Daniel 9:24-27 and Deut. 18 (proved by Peter in Acts 3:22-25) [which also defeats your other article and video where you tried to refute Dr. Michael Brown] is about the Messiah Jesus.

    Even Yusuf Ali in his footnotes of his Qur’an (page 1742 on Surah 61:14) agrees that this was about the followers of Jesus that eventually won the Roman Empire and became the dominant people. (those that believed in His Messiahship, that Isaiah 53, etc. is about His atonement / effective Death; His resurrection from the dead; His Deity, eternal Sonship, the Trinity, etc.

    Even the Babylonian Talmud admits that Psalm 2:7 is about the future Messiah:

    Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a
    Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!), ‘Ask of me anything, and I will give it to thee’, as it is said, I will tell of the decree etc. this day have I begotten thee, ask of me and I will give the nations for thy inheritance [Psalms 2:7-8].

    Soncino Talmud edition.

    This is confirmed by the online Talmud that you guys linked to.

    This is also why the chief priest and the other Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah questioned Jesus as His trial and combined “the Messiah” with “the Son of God” in both Mark 14:60-64 and the parallel in Matthew 26.

    This is why they also tore their robes and convicted Him of blasphemy.

    Just as you (QB) said in one of your recent videos, that Mohammad Assad’s notes are not authoritative, so also the Harper-Collins Study Bible (in Stewjo004’s crucifixion 3 article) is not authoritative for understanding Isaiah 53.

    So, your (Stewjo) article comes to a big fat zero, as QB’s puny efforts to refute Dr. Brown on Deut. 18.

    Like

    • “I already refuted Stewjo004’s crucifixion part 3 and QB / Faiz’s material vs. Michael Brown on Deut. 18”

      Bwahahahaha! Oh the mindless droning and self-congratulations of this pathetic apologist…it kills me!

      First, you didn’t refute anything about Brown’s incompetence, just like every other Christian. In fact, you didn’t even make an argument!

      Second, your broken record repetition of what you previously said doesn’t refute anything. Your biased use of the Talmud was refuted. The Talmud says nothing about a mangod dying and rising like some pagan deity. Why don’t you worship Adonis while you’re at it? Or Tammuz?

      As I said, the Harper-Collins Dictionary is a respected source. You just don;t like it because it disagrees with your idiotic evangelical agenda. Comparing this to Muhammad Asad is laughable. Asad was not a scholar. His commentary was based on many suppositions which were his own opinion. In contrast, the Harper-Collins Dictionary provides a scholarly analysis of the text of Isaiah 53 and concludes that it is referring to Israel, as virtually all Jewish sources state.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Your articles and videos are not worth spending more time on, since the points I have made have already refuted them.

        Acts 3:22-25 defeats Faiz’ video vs. Dr. Michael Brown.

        Psalm 2, etc. and the Talmud quote I gave and the gospels at Jesus’ trial defeats your arguments (in your crucifixion 3 article) against OT understanding of Messiah and Son of God and Jesus’ first century claims. (Mark 14:60-64)

        The NT understanding of Psalm 2, 110, Daniel 7:13-14; 9:24-27; Psalm 16; Isaiah 52-52; Zechariah 9:9, 11:12-13; 12:10; 13:7; Jeremiah 31:31, Ezekiel 36:26-27, and many more fulfilled prophecies nukes your articles and videos.

        and

        Surah 3:55 and 6:14 completely gut ALL your arguments even more, since Islam there says the disciples of Jesus became the uppermost and dominant and obvious, clear ones – after the crucifixion (3:54 – deception by Allah, etc. ) and since Surah 5:47; 5:68 and 10:94 and 3:3 affirm the earlier texts, you all lost the arguments along time ago.

        Like

      • 🤣🤣 Another circular argument and pathetic strawman! Dummy, in the video, I said that Brown’s idiotic standards said that the prophet must have spoken to God “face to face” and must have literally spoken in the name of “Yahweh”. None of these were done by Jesus (pbuh) in your pathetic NT. So according to Brown’s own standards, his argument is refuted.

        Appealing to Acts doesn’t prove anything except that some early Christians believed Jesus was the prophet. But the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Jews believed the prophet was different from the Messiah. So, in every way, Brown shot himself in the foot.

        Like

    • @ Ken

      Lol you refuted nothing and are making yourself look like a bigger jack@$$everytime you talk. I only used Harper to show when I put Isaiah 53 in context this wasn’t me saying this. Again, I don’t rely on one thing and use multiple strands to strengthen my position.

      Furthermore again said Psalm 2 (and other psalms) in the article are potentially Messianic. So why you keep droning on about this like a broken record is beyond me 🤦You are CLEARLY unprepared for this discussion. Go read it then comment on that page where its relevant and people can see it.

      Liked by 2 people

  24. Talk about “Islam is going to destroy Christian West” 😂😂😂 Instead of wishing well for ramadan they are at each others throats haha

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Hey, have noticed Ken has been awfully quiet about the subject of the video regarding “secularism” that he promotes as another Christian heresy?

    It is a massive issue, incorporating all of western history . . .

    I believe the policies of western civilization complete “marriage” / unity of church and state government was wrong and unBiblical, but it is history as history. Some of the policies of Theodosius 1 (379 AD -395 AD- about 389-392 made Christianity the state religion), Justinian (500s), and Heraclius (600s) created bitterness in Middle Eastern areas – Nestorians, Monophysites, Jews, etc. (punishments for heretics and false religions is wrong, IMO.) (as Dr. White has said many times, Luther and Calvin and the other beginning Reformers would have exiled or jailed me and him as Baptists, so, thought they were right against Roman Catholicism, they were wrong on being that harsh against the anabaptists and later, others vs. Baptists. (for example, the imprisonment of John Bunyan in the 1660s in England, etc.)

    This understanding continued until sometime after the Protestant Reformation. 1500s to 1600s – the 30 years war and 100 years war in Europe were terrible. The Enlightenment of the 1700s and the results of the USA Constitution (1776 – designed to keep Roman Catholics and Protestants from killing one another and let Jewish people free from persecution – the lessons from State churches in Europe – freedom of speech and religion made it possible for people to choose to leave a religion or join another religion that were not born into.

    I guess Jay Dyer, as an Eastern Orthodox convert, is longing for the days of Theodosius, Justinian, and Heraclius. 381 to 640 AD.

    I think the USA Constitution is right on freedom of speech and religion, since 1776. This functioned well, along with in general, Christian morality (although racial injustice was obviously wrong and evil) until the last 50 years with the 1960s sexual revolution and the 1990s- 2000s recent “LGBT” agenda, etc. The whole Marxist / Leftist LGBT social justice warriors, abortion, gender confusion into politics, complicity from mainstream media, etc. is wrong.

    Like

    • 😂😂 So essentially, Kennywise thinks that Christians were wrong for about 1500 years until the “Enlightenment” set them straight.

      I tell ya, you can’t make this stuff up!

      Liked by 1 person

      • No, they were right from about 30 AD to 390 AD;

        “My Kingdom is not of this world” – Jesus Al Masih – John 18:36

        Middle Ages were mixture of good and bad.

        Then Reformation was great – 1517- today.

        But punishing heretics, racism = sin and wrong.

        And at least we admit our mistakes of the past.

        Unlike Islam – a unjust system of constant war. Surah 9:5; 9:28-30; 8:39, many Hadith

        Like

      • 😂😂 They were “right” from the period when they didn’t even rule? 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Kennywise, you’re being extremely stupid.

        The “Reformation” was “great” you say? So demonizing Jews as Luther did was “great”?

        Where exactly in the Middle Ages was there a government which was “good” and ideal for Christians to emulate?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Luther was right on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, but wrong at the end of his life on his little booklet, “On the Jews and Their Lies”. A terrible rant by a man who was getting bitter and crotechy at the end of his life.

        Like

      • Oy vei! This guy can’t make up his mind. “They were right. They were wrong. He was right when he did that. But not when he did this.” 🤣

        You still didn’t answer me question. Exactly when during the Middle Ages was there an ideal government?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Qb

        Isn’t it strange that Kennywise is talking so much stuff but his religion is literally the poster child of corruption and oppression? Wasn’t it so oppressive that people literally did something unprecedented in human history and stripped religion from politics? Correct me if I’m wrong though.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Im glad you admit that christians history were full of bloodsheds and religious persecutions, (the very reason why the west ditch “god” from public discourses) and I hope you are honest enough also to admit that those christians who did their evil deeds (bloodshed, violences) justify their actions from their bible. You always accuse Islam as being violent religion, something that your religion is worst in much grander scale..

      Liked by 4 people

      • Islam has been much much worse. Take over, subjugation, and no way to get out of the false religion; no freedom.

        “whoever leaves his Islamic religion, Kill him”. Hadith, and context of Ali burning people.

        Jiziye, Surah 9:29, Caliphate system, Dhimmi system, oppression of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians (Genocide, some escaped to India, Mumbai, etc.), oppression of women, wars against Hindus and Buddhists, etc. Modern Islamic terrorism, etc.

        Like

      • Your christian propaganda doesn’t change the fact that you cannot provide a single example from your blood-soaked history where an ideal Christian form of government existed.

        Speaking of subjugation of women, in your religion, women can’t even teach men or speak in church. Most modern, secularised Christians don’t even follow these rules because they are embarrassed by them.

        Subjugation? Yep, that was Christianity again. From the first Christian emperors, down to the Crusades, to the European conquests leading to genocides in Africa, Asia, North America and South America.

        No freedom of religion? Yep, Christianity again. It was death or conversion with the Christian conquests.

        Liked by 1 person

      •  

        But it is contrary to facts;

        When it comes to violences christianity is the worst among world religions. Major wars of the last five centuries are ALL related to the (Christian) West. Colonialism, Imperialism, Wars and bombings of Asian/Middle Eastern countries were carried out by “Christian” west.

        Also The biggest terrorism is Christian nuclear terrorism on Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

        Your country alone (a Christian country – with 65% of polled American adults identifying themselves as Christian in 2019)  bombed and invaded countries which represent roughly one-third of the people on earth where thousands of innocences and children were killed as collateral damage.

        Afghanistan 1998, 2001-

        Bosnia 1994, 1995

        Cambodia 1969-70

        China 1945-46

        Congo 1964

        Cuba 1959-1961

        El Salvador 1980s

        Korea 1950-53

        Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69

        Indonesia 1958

        Laos 1964-73

        Grenada 1983

        Iraq 1991-2000s, 2015-

        Iran 1987

        Korea 1950-53

        Kuwait 1991

        Lebanon 1983, 1984

        Libya 1986, 2011-

        Nicaragua 1980s

        Pakistan 2003, 2006-

        Palestine 2010

        Panama 1989

        Peru 1965

        Somalia 1993, 2007-08, 2010-

        Sudan 1998

        Syria 2014-

        Vietnam 1961-73

        Yemen 2002, 2009-

        Yugoslavia 1999

        Source: https://www.maurer.ca/USBombing.html

        Surely those christians who did such violence justify their act according to the bible

        “by their fruit ye shall know the tree..”

         

        Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t know who this guy Maurer is, but it is a simplistic way of just throwing out charges without correctly understanding each situation.

        Each one of those requires a specific understanding of the background in recent years, and some are much more complicated than others; since USA is not Christian in the government, (never has been, as you guys even admit – the seeds of secularism were started with the Enlightenment in the 1600s and 1700s until today (1776 – Ist Amendment, freedom of religion); (and the secularism is worse today) unlike Islamic Caliphate centuries (622 AD until 1924, Islamic terrorism is attempts to get back to the glories of Jihad and Dar Al Harb vs. Dar Al Islam – Sayeed Qutb and Hassan Al Banna (founder of the Islamic Brotherhood) even admitted this is their writings – the whole movement is attempt to get back to restoring the Caliphate and Islamic Jihad against the west (Christians and Jews) (and mixture of modern secular immorality in public – music, dancing, movies, sexual situations / expressions in public, etc.) and Atheists / Communists, etc. and pagans / Hindus, etc. where the religion itself drove the unjust wars and attacks and oppression – from time of Muhammad in Surah 9:5 against pagans and Hindus and Buddhists later and Surah 9:28-29 against the Christians and Jews. (basically, “If you fear poverty, don’t worry, Allah will get you the revenues from the Jiziye taxes from the Christians and Jews” – basically – As Ibn Kathir admitted, “therefore, Allah commanded that the Christians and Jews be attacked and subjugated.” (I will get the exact quote later.)

        About half of those you listed are Communist issues – responding to injustices of communist takeovers, civil wars, where the more Democratic area of that particular country wanted help against the violence started by communists, etc. and the other half are Islamic-type dictators or Islamic terrorism at roots, except for the Latin American ones – those are Liberation Theology / Communism issues. Much too complicated to write a lot about in the com-boxes here. The issues are complicated and relate more to issues of human injustice in this world rather than any Christian NT ideal. (“My kingdom is not of this world” John 18:36
        “our struggle is not against flesh and blood” Ephesians 6:12 – our warfare is not physical / carnal / fleshly – 2 Cor. 10:3-5 –

        There are other injustices by the modern dictators in the Islamic world by cultural Muslims (but not completely orthodox Islam) – ones that mix a cultural Islam with other ideologies like Stalinist type Baath party principles, like Saddam Hussein, & the Assad regimes (both Bashir and father Hafez Al Assad – Baathist mixed with Alawiye Shiism) in Syria – and Qaddafi in Libya who mixed Islam with his own brand of dictatorship, etc. – these are all dictators that did other kinds of injustices, against their own people and causing havoc within and in neighboring countries, etc. (Saddam invading Kuwait, for example)

        Overall, that is not a very good list, because each one is complicated and they are not generated by Christian principles; rather they were responses to human injustices done first by Communists or Islamic – type dictators or Islamic terrorism or unjust civil wars/ oppressions / take-overs, etc.

        Bosnia was actually to help the Bosnian Muslims against the unjust war of the Serbians, who claim to be generally speaking, Eastern Orthodox, etc. Sudan was definitely evil Islamic leader oppressing the southern Christians and others who were not Islamic enough or too much mixture with pagan folk religions still. (the issue of Darfur)
        did not he recently get tried and convicted in court for war crimes?)

        Yes:
        Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir (Arabic: عمر حسن أحمد البشير‎, pronounced [ba’ʃiːr];[1] born 1 January 1944) is a Sudanese politician who served as the seventh President of Sudan from 1989 to 2019, when he was deposed in a coup d’état.[2] He was subsequently incarcerated, tried and convicted on multiple corruption charges.[3][4] He came to power in 1989 when, as a brigadier general in the Sudanese Army, he led a group of officers in a military coup that ousted the democratically elected government of prime minister Sadiq al-Mahdi after it began negotiations with rebels in the south.[5] He was elected three times as President in elections that have been under scrutiny for electoral fraud.[6] In 1992, al-Bashir founded the National Congress Party, which remained the dominant political party in the country until 2019.[7] In March 2009, al-Bashir became the first sitting president to be indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), for allegedly directing a campaign of mass killing, rape, and pillage against civilians in Darfur.[8]On 11 February 2020, the Sudanese government announced that it had agreed to hand over al-Bashir to the ICC for trial. [9]

        Like

      • How convinient… In your world, only one religion can be bad, and so Christianity is good and Islam is bad. Christianity is peaceful and Islam violent. Christianity is tolerant and Islam intolerant.

        The facts remain, christianity breeds more violences in history than any other reilgions. In the name of Christ, christians wreaked on the Jews of Europe for hundred of years, time after time, they also initiate attack on the middle east slaughtering anyone on their path. a mere 70 some years ago it was christians who did genocide in Europe killing millions.
        In the name of Christ , christians create fear and oppression to people whose faith was in any way a deviation from their canon, torturing and burning heretics at the stake.

        After so called protestantism, it led to hundreds of years of on-and-off religious warfare between Christians, spilling each other’s blood in the fervent belief that their vision of Christ was the truest. All in the name of Christ.

        How convinient that you wave away these violent history in the name of Christ and point your finger saying Islam is violent and about fear!! I do not deny there was bloodshed in Islamic history but nothing compares to christianity in term of fatalities.
        But you dont see coz it seems you can only see world in binary. It is zero-sum: Either guns kill people or Islam kills people.

        That is hate!

        Liked by 2 people

      • /I don’t know who this guy Maurer is, but it is a simplistic way of just throwing out charges without correctly understanding each situation.//

        This you refer as “guy” is a distinguished University Professor, at McMaster University btw. Not some random street missionary type of guy.

        Here is his bio: Daphne Maurer, PhD, FRSC

        Liked by 2 people

      • Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”

        — Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17, see also Sahih Muslim, 16:4152, Sahih Muslim, 16:4154

        Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'”

        — Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57
        Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271 Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:58Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:64

        A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu’adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu’adh asked, “What is wrong with this (man)?” Abu Musa replied, “He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism.” Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.”

        — Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Now don’t be shy and preach the Bible to us:

        “13 “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk[a] after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall [b]put away the evil from your midst.

        6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife [c]of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not [d]consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you.

        12 “If you hear someone in one of your cities, which the Lord your God gives you to dwell in, saying, 13 [e]‘Corrupt men have gone out from among you and enticed the inhabitants of their city, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods” ’—which you have not known— 14 then you shall inquire, search out, and ask diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an [f]abomination was committed among you, 15 you shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying it, all that is in it and its livestock—with the edge of the sword. 16 And you shall gather all its plunder into the middle of the street, and [g]completely burn with fire the city and all its plunder, for the Lord your God. It shall be a [h]heap forever; it shall not be built again. 17 So none of the accursed things shall remain in your hand, that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of His anger and show you mercy, have compassion on you and [i]multiply you, just as He swore to your fathers, 18 because you have listened to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all His commandments which I command you today, to do what is right in the eyes of the Lord your God.”

        https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+13&version=NKJV

        I’m sorry you were saying what now?

        Liked by 3 people

      • @ Eric

        Beautiful response. Even when you quoted the Bible verse “knowing them by their fruits”. Seriously their history is just awful and gave rise to atheism. It literally is blood-soaked fanaticism or basic philosophy with no practical application being passed as “deep”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Overall, that is not a very good list, because each one is complicated and they are not generated by Christian principles; rather they were responses to human injustices done first by Communists or Islamic – type dictators or Islamic terrorism or unjust civil wars/ oppressions / take-overs, etc.”

        You still haven’t given even ONE example of an ideal Christian government in your entire blood-soaked history.

        Furthermore, the list provided above only deals with modern conflicts. The fact is that where ever Christians have gone in the world, mass killings and genocides usually follow. I already gave examples.

        And this has precedence in the writings of the church fathers, as early as Augustine.Professor Michael Brenner explains:

        “Well-documented Church history tells us that Augustine personally incited zealous monks who cut a swath across North Africa and the East. They destroyed pagan temples, terrorized Donatists, crushed the remnants of Gnostic communities and burned synagogues.

        Flying squads of black clad mad monks swept through targeted districts – intoxicated by their own incessant loud chanting.

        The calculated aim was to win converts by displays of power and militancy that intimidated the populace. Agitation and coercion were the methods.

        Augustine, in his institutional capacity, promoted these nasty forays to extend the “Charity of Christ,” i.e. boost the number of converts. That was, in fact, the principal, political basis for his “just war” theory – not defensive response to an inter-state threat.” (https://www.theglobalist.com/the-christian-terror-of-saint-augustine/)

        Interestingly, John Locke, a Christian and considered the father of liberalism, believed that Muslims and atheists should not be tolerated by a Christian “magistrate” (i.e., government):

        On Islam: “That Church [i.e. religion] can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate [government] which is constituted upon such a bottom [i.e. foundation] that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince [i.e. a foreign ruler]…It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan [i.e. Muslim] only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate [government], whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor [i.e. Caliph] and frames the feigned oracles [i.e. commandments] of that religion according to his pleasure.”

        On atheists: “Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration.”

        https://abdullahalandalusi.com/2013/05/29/liberal-intolerance-john-lockes-dark-secret/

        Like

  26. Wishing everyone well for Ramadan ❤

    Liked by 4 people

  27. Stewjo004
    Regarding your cut and paste from Deuteronomy 13

    That was only for Theocratic Israel in Moses day.

    Obviously, Jesus took the kingdom of God away from Israel – see Matthew 21:33-46 and chapter 23 and 24:1-3, 15, – fulfilled in 70 AD.

    It is not for the NT church.

    John 18:36
    Ephesians 6:12
    2 Cor. 10:3-5
    Matthew 26:52

    That’s why after the Protestant Reformation and then later, after Enlightenment, no more western Crusades like 1095-1299 AD – although it started as a response to the attacks of Islamic Jihads by the Seljuk Turks, (battle of Manzikert, 1071 AD) who were warlike and just doing what the Arab Muslims had converted them to the 900s AD. Spread out and conquer – Surah 9:5 and 9:28-29 repeated.

    Like

    • @Ken Temple

      “That was only for Theocratic Israel in Moses day.”

      But was it immoral in Moses Alayhis Salam day?

      Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      So you recognize that apostasy is not some inherent moral disqualifier like say shirk, but still treat it as such when discussing apostasy in Islam. Why is that?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Apostasy from the true religion at the time of Moses was the true religion/revelation.

        Islam is not – it is a false made up system, made up out of misunderstandings of hearing a few things from Midrash Jewish stories, some hearsay statements and phrases from nominal and heretical and apocryphal stories / Christians in the desert.

        Like

      • LOL, it’s basically a circular argument as always with Kennywise.

        Killing apostates was okay. Killing women and children was okay. Killing babies was okay. Burning down trees and destroying fertile land was okay. That was the “true religion/revelation” according to the hypocrite Kennywise.

        Liked by 2 people

    • @ Ken

      I know you were going to say that and it’s quite frankly irrelevant. This is just another case of Christians paying lip service to the Law then trashing it. The simple question is did God allow this law at one point in time, yes or no?

      PS

      As a quick note allow me to refute your one point on the “Crusades being a response to Islamic jihad blah, blah, blah whatever I just copied from a White Supremacist forum”.

      To begin the whole thing started during the Prophet’s(saw) time because Rome’s allies (both Christians btw) killed a messenger which violated pretty much all customs of the time. (and now). This caused Tabuk (which is what the Surah you quoted is referring to). The Romans didn’t show up and then supplied the apostates with weapons during the Ridda Wars (632-634 CE) because they feared growing political power in the region. After that was dealt with, we the slapped the taste out of your pagan mouths (and incidentally fulfilled Daniel 2) Then fast forward a few centuries and Pope Urbain took advantage of your savage barbarian like ancestors for political reasons with exaggerations and lies while claiming to be trying to “win back the Holy Land” (@ 4:53)

      You then took Jerusalem (killing the Shia and actually doing us a favor) and then followed your savage rules of warfare by killing women and children with some even going far enough to commit cannibalism. Yeah as I said your history is simply atrocious…

      Also, that is not true what you stated about “ceasing Crusades”. Most of WW1 was a Crusade, lol highlights for the historically ignorant:

      “More importantly, the British Department of Information itself began to use the word “Crusade” to convey a very distinctive religious and historical connection to earlier periods. The department celebrated in a telegram from Palestine that “two of the commanders who have played a great part in the South Palestine campaign are descended from knights who fought in the wars of the Crusades”.

      A few months after the conquest of Jerusalem, the Department of Information produced a 40-minute documentary entitled “The New Crusades: With the British Forces on the Palestine Front”, thus articulating the new colonial adventure in distinctive religious terms.

      Furthermore, a large number of books from the period had “Crusade” incorporated into their titles: “Khaki Crusaders” (1919), “Temporary Crusaders” (1919), “The Modern Crusaders” (1920), “The Last Crusade” (1920), “With Allenby’s Crusaders” (1923), and “The Romance of the Last Crusade” (1923).

      …There was a clear urge to frame the colonisation project in Palestine in religious terms and view it as a continuation of the earlier Muslim-Christian conflict, despite claims of fighting the Ottomans on the basis of European secularism and anti-religious modernity.On December 11, 1917, a mere two days after the above letter was written, British General Edmund Allenby entered Jerusalem triumphantly through the Jaffa gate, and the city became an occupied territory. On this historic occasion, Allenby reportedly declared that “the wars of the crusades are now complete”.
      https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/12/revisiting-british-conquest-je-2014121381243881138.html

      “Some British newspapers and magazines, including The Irish News, claimed it as the end of the crusades.[148] A US newspaper also made reference to the Crusades, specifically the New York Herald (see picture), referring to the last time Jerusalem was under non-Muslim rule in 1244 AD when a Khwarezmian army under Al-Salih Ayyub, defeated the Franks….[149] With different approaches, the Italian Catholic clergy and laity appeared generally reluctant to explicitly use of the ideology of crusade due to theological and doctrinal reasons: the conquest of Jerusalem was part of the just war conducted by the Entente, but it could not be considered like a step or the conclusion of a crusade.[150]”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jerusalem

      Liked by 2 people

    • @Ken Temple

      “Apostasy from the true religion at the time of Moses was the true religion/revelation.

      Islam is not – it is a false made up system, made up out of misunderstandings of hearing a few things from Midrash Jewish stories, some hearsay statements and phrases from nominal and heretical and apocryphal stories / Christians in the desert.”

      You’re missing the point Ken. YOU brought up apostasy as a reason/evidence for Islam being a cruel or barbaric religion. Clearly hinting that it is immoral. Look ken, for the sake of discussion it’s fine if you believe Islam is false and apostasy laws shouldn’t be in effect anymore. But for you to use apostasy as a reason for Islam being false while justifying it for your own scriptures and faith tradition in the past, is hypocritical plain and simple.

      Liked by 2 people

      • No, some of you brought up why was I silent about the secularism issue that Jay Dyer brought up; and my answer is basically that in history, in the past, both OT Theocratic Israel and Roman Catholicism and Middle age “Christian” Emperors (387-640s AD- before the split in 1054), but that wisdom shows the folly of punishing and executing apostates, especially AFTER Jesus took the kingdom power away from Israel (Matthew 21:33-46) – the mistakes of the Crusades and Inquistions, etc. eventually lead to the results of the USA Constitution and first Amendment – freedom of speech and religion – 1776, etc. today, except now, in the last 50-60 years, the slide into debauchery (sex, adulteries being approved of in public, pornography, abortions, worse, in the last 20 years – homosexuality, same sex marriage, LGBT agenda, gender confusion/dysphoria, pronouns, bathrooms, etc.

        Since we believe that clear principles show this shift from OT Theocracy to NT churches in all the nations and without executing apostates, but rather excommunication and expulsion from church (see 1 Corinthians 5:1-11), a clear pattern is seen.

        Like

      • Vaqas, the reason is that many Christian apologists like Kennywise are by their nature hypocrites.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      Again Ken i feel you’re missing the point. I already conceded for the sake of discussion you’re beliefs on the true religion and apostasy post Jesus Alayhis Salam. What i want to know is why you would condemn Islam for apostasy while justifying it for past in the time of Moses Alayhis Salam? And if you’re only answer truly amounts to

      “Well I think Christianity is true and Islam is false, so there!”

      Then it still doesn’t excuse what i see as silly and hypocritical logic.

      Liked by 1 person

  28. Surah 9:29 does not say, “fight the people of the book because they oppress each other” (Byzantines/Chalcedonian Creed vs. Monophysite or Miaphysite Copts, Jacobite Syrians and Armenians; and Nestorians vs. Zoroastrian Persia). It says “fight them because of their beliefs and practices” and verse 28 and 29 indicates that Allah will make them rich by the jizya tax that they will get from the Christians and Jews. So the attacks of Umar Ibn Al Khattab and the Jihads of the Muslims after that were all unjust. Later, the Copts and Syrians and other minorities could not complain because of fear of persecution and violence, and it was too late. As one Coptic Christian Evangelical said to me, “The Muslims deceived my people at the beginning; for later it became worse.” The minority Christians slowly converted to Islam over the centuries because of the economic and social pressures of being “Dhimmi” – really, it amounted to being a second class citizen.

    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 pilgrimages, 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.”

    Like

    • https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/the-temple-of-ignorance-a-response-to-ken-temple-on-dhimmis-jizyah-and-islam-part-ii/

      Temple should think before he writes, given the glaring contradiction in the above statement. If the motivation was to “spread Islam” (which was certainly one of the most important goals of Muhammad and his followers), then why would Surah 9:29 say to collect the jizyah from these people? Why not just say to offer unbelievers only two choices: convert or die? Paying the jizyah meant that one was free to practice his religion, so it would not have been a good way to “spread Islam”, unless Muhammad (peace be upon him) had correctly foreseen that it would lead to mass conversions (in which case it proves that he was a true prophet). Rather, the jizyah was a practical and completely reasonable expectation from non-Muslims living under Islamic rule. Just as paying one’s income tax is required to enjoy the right of being a citizen in any modern country, paying jizyah (and for Muslims, the zakat) would guarantee the dhimmis the right to live peacefully under Islamic rule. As the Professor Abu-Munshar put it, paraphrasing the late scholar Al-Buti:

      “…dhimmis paid jizyah, a lesser amount [compared to Muslims paying zakat], in fulfilment of their social duty to the Muslim state in which they were living, and it was spent in their protection.”[3]

      As for the context of Surah Tawba, 9:29, the Quranic commentators were virtually unanimously agreed that the verse was revealed in response to Byzantine aggression. The specific context was the expedition to Tabuk, and this is the view of Ibn Kathir,[4] and Al-Tabari.[5] So what was the context of the expedition to Tabuk? According to Ibn Al-Qayyim, it was in response to Byzantine aggression, beginning with the murder of a Muslim messenger and the subsequent battle of Mu’ta.

      Since God is All-Knowing, He would have known that a war with the Byzantines was coming, and thus, He was reassuring the Muslims that even though they had lost one form of revenue, they would soon get a different form in the form of the jizyah and the spoils of war that they were sure to capture upon defeating their enemies. This actually proves that the Quran is from God, because it effectively made a prophecy that came true within 30 years of Prophet Muhammad’s death! Allahu Akbar!

      However, as far the jizyah is concerned, it would hardly have enriched the Muslims. Rather, it was taxation in general (such as land taxes) and the enormous amount of wealth that would be seized from the Byzantines and Persians that would provide the revenue for the expanding Muslim state. In this regard, the Muslim empire was no different from any other nation throughout history. They all collected taxes from their subjects! This will be discussed in more detail later.

      Temple then gave a sob story about how the poor Christians had to deal with the “fear of persecution” and that conversions to Islam occurred “over the centuries” (in effect, he admits there were virtually no so-called “forced conversions”) due to the “economic and social pressures of being ‘Dhimmi’”. This claim is common among Christian apologists, but it is nothing more than an over-exaggerated revisionism of actual history.

      While there were certainly periods of time when Christians and other groups were unfairly treated by some Muslim rulers (especially under the rule of the Umayyad dynasty, who ironically, also heavily taxed converts as well), this was largely the exception and not the rule. Let’s look at the example of the Egyptian Copts.

      During the initial period after the conquest of Egypt and up to the time of the Umayyads, Coptic Christians actually had another option other than paying the jizyah or converting. Since the tax could not be taken from monasteries and monks, joining a monastery would allow a person to avoid paying the jizyah. But by the time of the Umayyads, monks also began to be taxed. The Christian scholar Jurji Zaydan described it this way:

      “[w]hen the Copts found that conversion to Islam would not exempt them from poll-tax nor from its extortion by violence, some of them bethought of taking the monk’s robe, since monks were exempted from the poll-tax. The Umayyad viceroys, perceiving their object, proceeded to impose poll-tax on the monks, and became so vindictive that some wanted to enforce it on the dead as well as the living, by making the survivors pay poll-tax for their dead relatives. Many such incidents are reported for the Umayyad period…”[12]

      Later on, Umar II, one of the few just rulers of the Umayyad dynasty, reversed these policies. According to Zaydan:

      “[t]his process was carried on by the Umayyads, who overlooked the charted of Omar, until the Caliphate came to his grandson and admirer Omar II, who, amongst other instances of imitation of Omar I, wrote to his viceroys bidding them restore the provisions of the charter.”[13]

      The Umayyads were so corrupt that they even placed heavy taxes on converts to Islam! They even took the jizyah from converts and persecuted Islamic scholars such as Abu Haneefa (the founder of the Hanafi school in Sunni Islam) when they spoke out against such blatant violations of Islamic law. As Muslim author Dr. Nazeer Ahmed states:

      “[t]he Omayyads forgot the fraternal message of Islam and treated the new converts with disdain. Often, the converts were forced to pay the Jizya even after they had accepted Islam. It was against such discrimination that Imam Abu Haneefa (who lived through the Abbasid revolution) fought. In one of his dictums Abu Haneefa said: “The belief of a newly converted Turk is the same as that of an Arab from Hejaz”. But the Omayyads resented such reforms and Imam Abu Haneefa was jailed for his activism.”[14]

      And it was Umar II yet again who tried to reverse these unjust policies.[15]

      Liked by 2 people

      • @ QB

        The problem with your response is it requires research and isn’t easy for Kennywise’s fellow inbred rednecks to repeat as a mantra.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Paying the jizyah meant that one was free to practice his religion . . .

        No, since no evangelism or debate or criticism of Islam was or is allowed, and no new churches were allowed to be built.

        The economic and social pressures wore the early populations down by social oppression and they were “forced” to convert or live in squalor and poverty, as millions of Copts still do to this day in “garbage city” on the outskirts of Cairo. ( I have seen the smoke rising from it, an evangelical Egyptian Christian showed me when I visited Egypt in 1986)

        The Jiziye system was unjust and wore them down slowly after initial conquering through Jihad and aggressive war.

        Fear kept many people from protesting.

        Like

      • “No, since no evangelism or debate or criticism of Islam was or is allowed, and no new churches were allowed to be built.”

        Who cares if there was no “evangelism”? Why would a Muslim state want to allow pagan religions and false ideologies spreading within its borders?

        “The economic and social pressures wore the early populations down by social oppression and they were “forced” to convert or live in squalor and poverty, as millions of Copts still do to this day in “garbage city” on the outskirts of Cairo. ( I have seen the smoke rising from it, an evangelical Egyptian Christian showed me when I visited Egypt in 1986) ”

        Yeah, no one cares about your personal opinions. I provided scholarly sources, not brain-dead opinions, to show that there was no economic incentive to convert to Islam.

        “The Jiziye system was unjust and wore them down slowly after initial conquering through Jihad and aggressive war.”

        Yeah again, no one cares about your opinions. If I want a clown to tell me about economics or war, I will let you know.

        “Fear kept many people from protesting.”

        Sure it did.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        “No, since no evangelism or debate or criticism of Islam was or is allowed, and no new churches were allowed to be built.”

        I guess John of Damascus (open critic of Islam and a state administer) didn’t get that memo… or Paul of Antioch…or the organized debates in Baghdad and India… or the Copts in Egypt 🙄🙄🙄 Let’s read other things besides your fellow ignoramus’s propaganda (hey just like the Crusades!):

        “Many Copts converted, although others maintained their Christian faith and received fair treatment. Copts put up little resistance to the Arab invasion. The Coptic bishop of Alexandria was reinstated, exiled Coptic bishops were recalled home, and Copts were permitted to return to government posts held before the conquest…”

        Oh and the important thing here he notes why they converted:

        “Most adopted the Muslim faith,often through intrmarriage and trade”

        https://books.google.com/books?id=umyHqvAErOAC&pg=PA428&lpg=PA428&dq=amr+ibn++al+as+he+was+just+copts&source=bl&ots=xJnBOR9sh-&sig=ACfU3U1BRrSIThb8eOf-pbSQAJWn_Zu2rw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjboNOCzoHpAhVJZ80KHR7zCc8Q6AEwCHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=amr%20ibn%20%20al%20as%20he%20was%20just%20copts&f=false

        Well, that’s weird not one mention of what you’re talking about. 🤔🤔🤔

        “After the conquest of Egypt by the Muslim Arabs a new period started in the history of the Copts. Arab rulers did not prohibit the Egyptians to profess Christian faith, which, for the Egyptian Christians, meant the end of persecution of their church. The Coptic “elite” ranked fairly high positions in the administrative apparatus of the Muslim Egypt and had a significant economic impact in the country. But the Copts did not have all the civil rights enjoyed by Muslims and also were required to pay the jizya and kharaj.

        On the one hand, the Coptic Church was granted broad internal autonomy. But on the other hand, the integration of the representatives of the Coptic community in the social and political structure of Egypt occurred on the condition of administrative posts being kept by representatives of the Muslim community.

        In the course of the MIDDLE AGES, the Copts experienced a variety of drastic changes in the attitude of Muslim rulers towards them, from confidence to disgrace.”

        https://brill.com/view/journals/scri/aop/article-10.1163-18177565-00160A04/article-10.1163-18177565-00160A04.xml?language=en

        “The economic and social pressures wore the early populations down by social oppression and they were “forced” to convert or live in squalor and poverty”

        Except the Umayyads were double taxing converts TO Islam ( a known controversy of theirs) Also, love how you keep making these baseless claims even after being provided by multiple historians telling you this isn’t the case. As I said, I guess it’s too much research for rednecks… 🙄🙄🙄

        “As the Muslims took over cities, they left the people’s political representatives and the Roman tax collectors and administrators. The people’s political representatives calculated and negotiated taxes. The central government and the local governments got paid respectively for the services they provided. Many Christian cities used some of the taxes to maintain their churches and run their own organizations. Later, the Umayyads were criticized by some Muslims for not reducing the taxes of the people who converted to Islam.”

        https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/the-umayyad-and-abbasid-empires/

        “…millions of Copts still do to this day in “garbage city” on the outskirts of Cairo. ( I have seen the smoke rising from it, an evangelical Egyptian Christian showed me when I visited Egypt in 1986)”

        Yeah as do Muslims and Jews 🙄🙄🙄 Sinai is mostly Jewish and VERY nice. It’s like any other city where people live in different parts. Copts have market stands, business etc. It’s not like they’re all just jammed in one spot.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Stew, you lose. All your fancy academic sources are no match for mighty Kennywise’s own opinions.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Sigh, I know…

        Liked by 1 person

  29. Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr ibn Ayyūb al-Zurʿī l-Dimashqī l-Ḥanbalī (1292–1350 CE / 691 AH–751 AH),commonly known as Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (“The son of the principal of [the school of] Jawziyyah”) or

    Ibn al-Qayyim (“Son of the principal”; ابن قيم الجوزية) for short, or reverentially as Imam Ibn al-Qayyim
    (1292–1350

    You say according to him it was Byzantine aggression.

    This guy is centuries later.

    Revisionist history.

    Ibn Kathir’s interpretation seems closer to the text of the Qur’an as to why they conquered.

    Plus, even if it is true that one Ghassanid individual did that to one Muslim, (seems overkill to keep conquering all areas after that in history until stopped) – the Ghassanids in what is today Jordan/ Levant area is no excuse for the Muslims to continue on into Egypt, all of N. Africa, Spain, up into Syria, Iraq, Iran, Central Asia – Turkic areas

    Basically, Islam just kept going in doing aggressive war, until stopped. They never stop. Hassan Al Banna’s writings and founding the Muslim Brotherhood, and him inspired Sayyid Qubt and him inspiring Usama Ben Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri confirms this attitude to restore to Caliphate centuries and glories of Jihad and the principle of Dar Al Harb vs. Dar Al Islam, etc.

    There are some Copts today who are doing more research and uncovering more and more details from the Christian viewpoint. I have posted on this before.

    Basically, what the west has “drank the kool aid” view (the view you say), for the last 200-300 years, because of being embarrassed about the Crusades.

    Like

    • “Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr ibn Ayyūb al-Zurʿī l-Dimashqī l-Ḥanbalī (1292–1350 CE / 691 AH–751 AH),commonly known as Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (“The son of the principal of [the school of] Jawziyyah”) or

      Ibn al-Qayyim (“Son of the principal”; ابن قيم الجوزية) for short, or reverentially as Imam Ibn al-Qayyim
      (1292–1350

      You say according to him it was Byzantine aggression.

      This guy is centuries later.

      Revisionist history.

      Ibn Kathir’s interpretation seems closer to the text of the Qur’an as to why they conquered.”

      LOL!! You see guys? This is why Kennywise is such a laughing stock! Look at his comment. He rejects Ibn Al-Qayyim because he’s “centuries later” but then sticks with Ibn Kathir…who came AFTER Ibn Al-Qayyim!

      Not only this, but even Ibn Kathir agreed that 9:29 was revealed specifically regarding Tabuk. So, the historical context of the verse shows that it was a response to Byzantine-Christian aggression. The only “revisionist history” here is from ignoramuses like Kennywise.

      “Plus, even if it is true that one Ghassanid individual did that to one Muslim, (seems overkill to keep conquering all areas after that in history until stopped) – the Ghassanids in what is today Jordan/ Levant area is no excuse for the Muslims to continue on into Egypt, all of N. Africa, Spain, up into Syria, Iraq, Iran, Central Asia – Turkic areas ”

      Killing a messenger was an act of war. The Ghassanids were BYZANTINE clients and instead of punishing the Ghassanid ruler, the Byzantines sent an army against the Muslims. So, why wouldn’t the Muslims then attack the heart of the Byzantine empire?

      The other corrupt power at the time was the Persian empire. This empire also maintained client Arab states and ruled over a large and unwilling Arab population. As I showed in my article, both Byzantium and Persia had been sending their armies into Arab lands for centuries. Their time was up, alhamdulillah!

      “There are some Copts today who are doing more research and uncovering more and more details from the Christian viewpoint. I have posted on this before.”

      LOL, you are posting garbage and personal opinions from Copts who are upset at the fact that the Muslims saved them from their own fellow Christians.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ibn Kathir in his commentary is actually accurately looking at the context of Surah 9:28 (If you fear poverty . . . ) next verse – 29
        fight the people of the book

        seems what it means and seems what really happened in history.

        Boom!

        Like

      • 😂😂 Dummy, but Ibn Kathir came after Ibn al-Qayyim! Boom!

        Also, Ibn Kathir agreed with other scholars that the verse was revealed about the Byzantines! Boom!

        The historical context thus shows that the verse was regarding Christian aggression and commanded a just way to punish these pagans. Boom!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Even though Ibn Kathir came later, he read the text of Surah 9:38-39 more closely and exegeted it more accurately.

        Like

      • Except that Ibn Kathir still agreed with other scholars that the verse was revealed in a specific context.

        And you’re original argument against Ibn Qayyim lies in ruins because of your embarrassingly high level of stupidity. Yes?

        Liked by 1 person

      • 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.”

        Seems you don’t know how to read your own Qur’an in context.

        Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—”Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. [not because of oppression of the Miaphytes and Nestorians and Jews, etc.] 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.”

        Like

      • Tafsir Ibn Kathir on 9:29 – “The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.”

        So the verse was revealed specifically in the context of Tabuk! You see Kennywise, how much of a deceiver you are? You cut and paste from a separate book, ignored Ibn Kathir’s full commentary on verse 29, and the jumped to verse 30. Like a typical Christian deceiver, you attempt to ignore the context, just like you do with your Bible.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Very interesting that Ibn Kathir quotes from “The Pact of Umar” and Dhimmi-ism.
        (even though debated whether this came from Omar 1 or Omar 2 or later Muslim Jurists, etc.

        http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-At-Taubah/Paying-Jizyah-is-a-Sign-of-Kuf—

        (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,

        ﴿ عَن يَدٍ۬ ﴾
        (with willing submission), in defeat and subservience,

        ﴿ وَهُمۡ صَـٰغِرُونَ ﴾
        (and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,

        « لَا تَبْدَءُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى بِالسَّلَامِ، وَإِذَا لَقِيتُمْ أَحَدَهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ فَاضْطَرُّوهُ إِلَى أَضْيَقِه »
        (Do not initiate the Salam 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, 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 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 passerby. 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, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk 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 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.”’

        Regardless of what secular scholars (and some religious scholars and modern Muslims claims, because they are rightly embarrassed about this document)
        say, this document is universally accepted as genuine by mainstream Muslims. This view is echoed by some of Islam’s greatest scholars and historians, including al-Khallal (d. 923 AD), Ibn Hazm (d. 1063 AD), al-Tartushi (d. 1126 AD), Ibn Qudama (d. 1123 AD), Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1138 AD), Ibn ‘Asakir (d. 1176 AD), Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 1350 AD), Ibn Kathir, al-Hindi and ‘Ali ‘Ajin. The eighth-century Hanafi jurist, Abu Yusuf, further noted that the terms in the Pact dealing with dhimmis are clearly in agreement with the Qur’an and hadith literature. Therefore, the Pact “stands till the day of resurrection.”

        Like

      • “until they reach Tabuk” – ok, so what? it is just naming that as the town they found no Byzantines there. the rest of the context shows WHY Allah ordered Muhammad to attack. It does not say it was because of a guy that got killed who was sent into the Ghassanid’s territory. It says to fight the Christians because they don’t believe in Muhammad as the prophet.

        Thanks for encouraging me to look deeper into the commentary by Ibn Kathir!

        The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah

        Allah said,

        ﴿ قَـٰتِلُواْ ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يُؤۡمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَلَا بِٱلۡيَوۡمِ ٱلۡأَخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ ۥ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ ٱلۡحَقِّ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ ٱلۡڪِتَـٰبَ حَتَّىٰ يُعۡطُواْ ٱلۡجِزۡيَةَ عَن يَدٍ۬ وَهُمۡ صَـٰغِرُونَ ﴾
        (Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah’s Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad’s advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah’s statement,

        ﴿ قَـٰتِلُواْ ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يُؤۡمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَلَا بِٱلۡيَوۡمِ ٱلۡأَخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ ۥ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ ٱلۡحَقِّ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ ٱلۡڪِتَـٰبَ ﴾
        (Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah’s religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims’ control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.

        Like

      • Ibn Kathir on Surah 9:28:

        (and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you, out of His bounty), from other resources,

        ﴿ إِن شَآءَ‌ۚ ﴾
        (if He wills), until,

        ﴿ وَهُمۡ صَـٰغِرُونَ ﴾
        (…and feel themselves subdued.) This Ayah means, `this will be your compensation for the closed markets that you feared would result.’ ,Therefore, Allah compensated them for the losses they incurred because they severed ties with idolators, by the Jizyah they earned from the People of the Book.” Similar statements were reported from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak and others.
        http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-At-Taubah/Idolators-are-no-longer-allowe—

        Like

      • @ QB

        Dang I wish I saw his retarded comment about Ibn Kathir and Ibn Qayyim (seriously how did he not look that up?)

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well, that would be too much work Stew and Kennywise is already very busy trying to spread lies for his church.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        The fact that they can’t quote historical research and just circle jerk each other is enough to show they’re OBVIOUSLY the evil ones.

        As a note for this little “gem”:

        “Plus, even if it is true that one Ghassanid individual did that to one Muslim, (seems overkill to keep conquering all areas after that in history until stopped) – the Ghassanids in what is today Jordan/ Levant area is no excuse for the Muslims to continue on into Egypt, all of N. Africa, Spain, up into Syria…”

        That was ALL the Roman empire stupid:

        https://external-preview.redd.it/-5JfCulCtkRDBheFoBjfnEh_uAo6hQv1NfGRWMPeKE0.png?auto=webp&s=8e4b5b0536e122d972257302278c36a1d5cc9e88

        He doesn’t even know the areas he’s attempting to defend 🤦

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kennywise is arguing for the sake of arguing. That’s why he’s a laughing stock. He just needs something to demonize Islam with, even if it’s based on falsehoods. “By their fruits, you shall know them…”

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Kennywise:

        “is document is universally accepted as genuine by mainstream Muslims.”

        That is just a straight-up lie and even during the time, this was debated. You forgot to mention scholars who took this position are from a time when knights are walking around. Again if you want to go toe to toe on this we can. As an FYI we are not “embarrassed” by anything:

        1. If that was the rule I assure you that’s what would be going down. Notice we don’t shy away from clearly stated things.
        2. There are multiple versions of it (showing its probably forged)
        3. It contradicts what we know about Umar(ra)
        4. More importantly, where is the chain as this document just popped into existence in the 9th century CE
        5. Even IF from Umar(ra) it still is not religiously binding upon us.
        6. It has most of Justinian’s laws to the Jews and showed up during Fatimid rule (showing its probably forged)

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Kennywiise

        God you’re stupid:

        “until they reach Tabuk” – ok, so what? it is just naming that as the town they found no Byzantines there. the rest of the context shows WHY Allah ordered Muhammad to attack. It does not say it was because of a guy that got killed who was sent into the Ghassanid’s territory. It says to fight the Christians because they don’t believe in Muhammad as the prophet.”

        Why did they go to Tabuk, you moron? Again let’s read Umar(ra) mentioning something in passing when talking about the Prophet(saw) :

        “…I had a companion from the Ansar and, we used to remain in the company of the Messenger (ﷺ) turn by turn. He remained there for a day while I remained there on the other day, and he brought me the news about the revelation and other (matter), and I brought him (the news) like this. And we discussed that the Ghassanids were shoeing the horses in order to attack us. My companion once attended (the Apostle). and then came to me at night and knocked at my door and called me, and I came out to him, and he said: A matter of great importance has happened. I said: What is that? Have the Ghassanids come?
        https://sunnah.com/search/?q=ghassanid

        Why are they expecting the Ghassinids to run up on them genius? To deliver cookies?

        Liked by 1 person

      • 😂 Kennywise has no clue about what he’s even arguing!

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB and Eric

        Notice Kennywise ignores historical sources from people who were there and keeps on with his propaganda. I mean I really find it fascinating that he won’t deviate from the script no matter how foolish he’s made to look.

        Liked by 2 people

      • The guy is a joke. I’m pretty sure that he repeats his idiotic rants just to keep persuading himself of his silly beliefs.

        Like

      • Yes, to me he is a fine specimen of what a kafir truly truly is..

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        You know it’s funny you said that I always wondered if that’s what he was doing. (Honestly, I think that’s why Paulus stopped commenting on your blog as I think it was starting to sink in) It’s like what Allah says about the kuffar of Quraish:

        36:76. So don’t let their comments sadden or upset you, I know what they hide and what they say out loud.

        28:69. Your Lord knows what they hide and reveal in their chest.

        They can put on this “tough guy” facade until the Kingdom comes and say whatever, but it’s impossible to have not been somewhat affected when you look at clear forgeries like Mark and John, when you see the early Christians not worshipping Jesus(as), when you see the Biblical authors clearly misquoting prophecies, when you see the barbaric savagery of advocating the slaughtering of infants, when you listen to the Quran being recited in Arabic.

        Like how faith has to be renewed so does kufr. So Temple has to go back to his devils and re-up as I just find it hard to believe (assuming he is a normal functioning adult) to not have even somewhat been affected.

        @ Eric

        Oh, absolutely no doubt he’s a kaffir (you see I just use it as his name at this point). I have actually used Ken as an example to other Muslims (this week, in fact, lol) when they ask about Allah sealing people’s hearts, eyes and ears. They will legit be shocked at what he says as he ignores evidence (for example look how he just plain didn’t comment that the Copts were praising and praying for Muslims in their own works) I do think however he is one of those kuffar that do know its true but doesn’t want to submit because one day he had insulted the Prophet(saw) and I got so pissed I challenged him to Mubahalah (God’s curse be on the one who’s lying) and he would not take the challenge. So Allah hu alim about him.

        Liked by 1 person

  30. Islam at root is a root of fear of keeping people in line in society. As I have posted this many times before: Same root attitude.

    Like

  31. @ QB

    O.M.G. What is this?

    “The historical source give Amr a good reputation…He also has a good image in Coptic sources…”

    Wait, we have info FROM the Copts of the time of the conquest the Kennnywise is claiming? What did they say about their conqueror and governor Amr bin Al-As(ra)?:

    “And in those days Heraclius saw a dream in which it was said to him: “Verily there shall come against you a circumcised nation, and they shall vanquish you and take possession of the land.” So Heraclius thought that they would be the Jews, and accordingly gave orders that all the Jews and Samaritans should be baptized in all the provinces which were under his dominion. But after a few days there appeared a man of the Arabs, from the southern districts, that is to say, from Mecca or its neighbourhood, whose name was Muhammad; and he brought back the worshippers of idols to the knowledge of the One God, and bade them declare that Muhammad was his apostle; and his nation were circumcised in the Hesh, not by the law, and prayed towards the South, turning towards a place which they called the Kaabah. And he took possession of Damascus and Syria, and crossed the Jordan, and dammed it up. And the Lord abandoned the army of the Romans before him, as a punishment for their corrupt faith, and because of the anathemas uttered against them, on account of the council of Chalcedon, by the ancient fathers….

    when ten years were over of the rule of Heraclius together with the Colchian, who sought for the patriarch Benjamin, while he was fleeing from him from place to place, hiding himself in the fortified churches, the prince of the Muslims sent an army to Egypt, under one of his trusty companions, named Amr ibn Al-Asi, in the year 357 of Diocletian, the slayer of the martyrs. And this army of Islam came down into Egypt in great force, on the twelfth day of Baunah, which is the sixth of June, according to the months of the Romans.

    Now the commander Amr had destroyed the fort, and burnt the boats with fire, and defeated the Romans, and taken possession of part of the country. For he had first arrived by the desert; and the horsemen took the road through the mountains, until they arrived at a fortress built of stone, between Upper Egypt and the Delta, called Babylon. So they pitched their tents there, until they were prepared to fight the Romans, and make war against them; and afterwards they named that place, I mean the fortress, in their language, Bablun Al-Fustat; and that is its name to the present day.

    After fighting three battles with the Romans, the Muslims conquered them. So when the chief men of the city saw these things, they went to Amr, and received a certificate of security for the city, that it might not be plundered. This kind of treaty which Muhammad, the chief of the Arabs, taught them, they called the Law…

    When Amr took full possession of the city of Alexandria, and settled its affairs, that infidel, the governor of Alexandria, feared, he being both prefect and patriarch of the city under the Romans, that Amr would kill him; therefore he sucked a poisoned ring, and died on the spot. But Sanutius, the believing dux, made known to Amr the circumstances of that militant father, the patriarch Benjamin, and how he was a fugitive from the Romans, through fear of them. Then Amr, son of Al-Asi, wrote to the provinces of Egypt a letter, in which he said: “There is protection and security for the place where Benjamin, the patriarch of the Coptic Christians is, and peace from God; therefore let him come forth secure and tranquil, and administer the affairs of his Church, and the government of his nation.” Therefore when the holy Benjamin heard this, he returned to Alexandria with great joy, clothed with the crown of patience and sore conflict which had befallen the orthodox people through their persecution by the heretics, after having been absent during thirteen years, ten of which were years of Heraclius, the misbelieving Roman, with the three years before the Muslims conquered Alexandria. When Benjamin appeared, the people and the whole city rejoiced, and made his arrival known to Sanutius, the dux who believed in Christ, who had settled with the commander Amr that the patriarch should return, and had received a safe-conduct from Amr for him. Thereupon Sanutius went to the commander and announced that the patriarch had arrived, and Amr gave orders that Benjamin should be brought before him with honour and veneration and love. And Amr, when he saw the patriarch, received him with respect, and said to his companions and private friends: “Verily in all the lands of which we have taken possession hitherto I have never seen a man of God like this man.” For the Father Benjamin was beautiful of countenance, excellent in speech, discoursing with calmness and dignity.

    Then Amr turned to him, and said to him: “Resume the government of all your churches and of your people, and administer their affairs. And if you will pray for me, that I may go to the West and to Pentapolis, and take possession of them, as I have of Egypt, and return to you in safety and speedily, I will do for you all that you shall ask of me.” Then the holy Benjamin prayed for Amr, and pronounced an eloquent discourse, which made Amr and those present with him marvel, and which contained words of exhortation and much profit for those that heard him; and he revealed certain matters to Amr, and departed from his presence honoured and revered. And all that the blessed father said to the commander Amr, son of Al-Asi, he found true, and not a letter of it was unfulfilled.

    https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/642Egypt-conq2.asp

    Fascinating…

    Like

  32. This guy has a very early view of the Pact dealing with the Dhimmis –

    Abu Yusuf (Arabic: أبو يوسف‎) (d.798) was a student of jurist Abu Hanifah[3] (died in 767 AD) – pretty early!

    [footnote 3 to Jonathan Brown – an Islamic scholar that Paul Williams has quoted a lot here over the years]

    (d.767)
    The eighth-century Hanafi jurist, Abu Yusuf, further noted that the terms in the Pact dealing with dhimmis are clearly in agreement with the Qur’an and hadith literature. Therefore, the Pact “stands till the day of resurrection.”

    Like

    • @ Kennywise

      Cool how did he find this information? Unlike you morons, someone declaring something means nothing in Islam.

      Like

    • @ Kennywise

      Oh I see your just copy and pasting fromWikiIslam who gave no references so into the trashbin we go 🚮 Kennywise why don’t you give us actual historical references and not a bunch of fellow rednecks rambling?

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: