Muhammad Exposed

[jesus_4_us]

RESPONSE:

[ First a side remark on the chosen form and language of the article before we continue our discussion of the content. In the Qur'an we find this injunction:

Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. ... (Sura 16:125)

The author would certainly preach and defend this verse as being the command of God. With this article being so full of aggression, insult and mockery TTa has clearly broken the command of Sura 16:125 on how to deal with those who do not yet believe in Islam. Assuming that TTA would uphold this verse as God's command, would he not be liable to judgment as a hypocrite under his own criteria? How can we take TTA and his writings seriously, if he does not obey what he wants us to accept as the Word of God? For us, it is clear that these observations certainly and severely damage the credibility and integrity of TTA and whoever is on the editorial board of Bismikaallahuma making the decision what to publish on their web site. ]

We are glad that the author was honest enough to make mention of the fact that Mark had abandoned Paul and Barnabas. This demonstrates that it is the author's agenda that is at fault, not Paul. His anti-Pauline stance leads him to seek for anything he can find in order to assault Paul's character. Yet as one reads the wider biblical context one will discover that it is the author who is being deceptive:

"JESUS DID MANY OTHER MIRACULOUS SIGNS IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS DISCIPLES, WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN THIS BOOK. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:30-31

"JESUS DID MANY OTHER THINGS AS WELL. IF EVERY ONE OF THEM WERE WRITTEN DOWN, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." John 21:25

The fact that John himself explicitly testifies that Jesus did and said many other things which he hadn't recorded exposes the sheer stupidity and illogicalness of the chosen approach since it is essentially an argument from silence. Just because the Gospels do not record all the resurrection appearances or words of the Lord Jesus DOES NOT MEAN THAT JESUS DIDN'T DO OR SAY MORE THAN WHAT IS WRITTEN.

Second, Luke wrote both Luke and Acts. This means that the author's claim that Paul made things up is a lie as well. Here is the reason why:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,

just as they were handed down to US by those who from the first WERE EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF THE WORD. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know THE CERTAINTY OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT." Luke 1:1-4

"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: ‘Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.’" Acts 1:1-4

Luke claims to have carefully investigated all things to insure the accuracy of his report, having heard from the eyewitnesses and apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul was transmitting the actual words of Christ since Luke would not have included Paul's statements in his account had they been fraudulent.

[jesus_4_us]

Furthermore, Luke mentions Paul's warm reception by both the apostles and elders at Jerusalem:

"Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.’ This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem TO SEE THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS about this question. The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.’ The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, PETER got up and addressed them: ‘Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.’ The whole assembly became silent AS THEY LISTENED TO BARNABAS AND PAUL telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, JAMES spoke up: ‘Brothers, listen to me ... It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.’ Then THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS, WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with OUR DEAR FRIENDS BARNABAS AND PAUL -MEN WHO HAVE RISKED THEIR LIVES FOR THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. The men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers. After spending some time there, they were sent off by the brothers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord." Acts 15:1-14, 19-35

"After this, WE got ready and went up to Jerusalem. Some of the disciples from Caesarea accompanied us and brought us to the home of Mnason, where WE were to stay. He was a man from Cyprus and one of the early disciples. When WE arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of US went to see JAMES, AND ALL THE ELDERS WERE PRESENT. Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. WHEN THEY HEARD THIS, THEY PRAISED GOD ..." Acts 21:15-20a

[jesus_4_us]

If Paul were making things up, he wouldn't have been received so warmly BY JESUS' VERY OWN FOLLOWERS WHO HAD FIRSTHAND KNOWEDLEGE OF WHAT JESUS SAID AND DID!

Third, it is a deliberate lie by the author TTA when he says that Paul "urged all the Jews among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, he told them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs (Acts 21:21), this goes against what Jesus(P) himself taught". Here is the passage in question:

"... Then they said to Paul: ‘You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT YOU TEACH ALL THE JEWS who live among the Gentiles TO TURN AWAY FROM MOSES, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. THEN EVERYBODY WILL KNOW THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THESE REPORTS ABOUT YOU, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. AS FOR THE GENTILE BELIEVERS, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.’ The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them." Acts 21:20b-26

The context shows that Paul WAS BEING FALSELY ACCUSED of teaching that the Jews need to turn away from the Law of Moses. As the context shows it was the Gentiles who were not required to observe the Law of Moses, something which both Paul AND THE OTHER APOSTLES were in agreement on.

This means that the author either has not read the passage and is therefore speaking out of irresponsible ignorance. Or he has read the passage and is therefore willfully lying.

Finally, we now turn the tables and examine some of the "words" of Jesus in the Quran which are not found in the Gospels:

And (appoint him) as a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): ‘I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I bring the dead into life, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe; (I have come to you), to attest the Torah which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me. It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight. When Jesus found unbelief on their part he said: 'Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?' Said the disciples: 'We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness THAT WE ARE MUSLIMS.' 'Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger. then write us down among those who bear witness.’" S. 3:49-53

"At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: ‘O Mary! truly a strange thing has thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!’ But she pointed to the babe. They said: ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?’ He said: ‘I am indeed a servant of Allah. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (He hath made me) kind to my mother, and not overbearing or unblest; So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)’! Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute." S. 19:27-34 Since the Gospels do not record Jesus or his contemporaries saying any such things does this then not demonstrate -according to TTA's own criteria -that Muhammad was a snake and a liar? It is Muhammad, not Paul, who made up fraudulent speeches of not only Jesus, but of the other prophets and messengers of God as well (for details see, e.g., Rev. Tisdall's work The Original Sources of the Qur'an).

[jesus_4_us]

This in itself sufficiently vindicates Paul's honesty and integrity while exposing the shoddy scholarship and intentional deception of the author.

We move on to some more of the author's deliberate insulting and false statements.

Conclusions

It is very clear from the above exposition that Paul was a hypocrite, and hence, how can the Christian missionaries expect Muslims to accept this snake as a legitimate "follower" of the Messiah Jesus(P), son of Mary? Paul clearly told others to make peace but he himself did not practice what he had preached when he had a sharp disagreement with Barnabas and they parted company (Acts 15). This totally contradicts what he had earlier taught, namely "be at peace with all men" (Romans 12) and "forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you." (Col. 3:13)

He had also taken his revenge upon John (called Mark) because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work in Acts 15, even though he told the Romans, "Never take your own revenge, beloved!" (Romans 12). It seems that it was Barnabas who was more religious than Paul because he did not taken the revenge upon John.

Which leads us to the question:

If Paul himself has failed to follow what he had taught, would he indeed follow what Jesus(P) had taught?

And only God knows best.

RESPONSE:

First, we observe that TTA has his chronology all muddled up. Paul wrote the letters to the Romans and Colossians YEARS AFTER the incident reported in Acts. It is simply wrong to state, "This totally contradicts what he had earlier taught," because at the time of the reported disagreement with Barnabas those letters were not yet written. Thus, Paul has not contradicted his own teaching.

Secondly, let us quote Colossians in context to expose the author's willful twisting of ******ure:

"My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, AS DOES MARK, THE COUSIN OF BARNABAS. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, WELCOME HIM) ... OUR DEAR FRIEND LUKE, the doctor, and Demas send greetings." Colossians 4:10, 14

Paul refers to Mark as being present with him in the very same epistle where Paul commands believers to forgive one another! This clearly demonstrates that, unlike Muhammad, Paul did in fact practice what he preached, SINCE HE DID FORGIVE MARK! Other places where Paul speaks highly of Mark includes:

"And so do MARK, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, MY FELLOW WORKERS." Philemon 24

"Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, BECAUSE HE IS HELPFUL TO ME IN MY MINISTRY." 2 Timothy 4:11

These statements were all written after Paul's dispute with Barnabas about Mark. This shows that despite Mark's disloyalty to Paul on their first trip, Paul and Mark later reconciled for the sake of Christian love and unity!

Before we turn to an examination of Muhammad's words and deeds, we need to come to a proper understanding of the incident in Acts that was abused by TTA to accuse the Apostle Paul.

These missionary journeys were quite dangereous. Preaching to anyone that his religion is wrong and God is calling them to repentance is bound to stir up opposition. On the first journey Barnabas and Paul were persecuted and finally expelled from Antioch (Acts 13:50), nearly stoned in Iconium (Acts 14:5-6) where they were able to flee, and finally Paul was actually stoned and left for dead in Lystra (14:19).

In such dangerous missions it is very important that all members of the team can fully trust each other. Mark had abandoned Paul and Barnabas in the early part of their first missionary journey (Acts 13:13). The time came to plan the second journey for revisiting also those areas where they had encountered the hostile opposition mentioned above. We read:

Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns

where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing." Barnabas wanted to take

John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had

deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp

disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul

chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. (Acts 15:36-40

[jesus_4_us]

In every industry, company, government, administration, army and also in the church, the leaders of a team or project have to decide who would be suitable co-workers that should be recruited for a specific given task. Paul and Barnabas disagreed whether Mark would be a good team member, having the strength of character and the stamina necessary to persevere when the situation would become difficult and even dangerous again.

Paul and Barnabas had become deep friends during the years that they had worked together. The experience of being persecuted, together risking their lives for the common cause and nearly being killed inevitably creates a deep bond between people. But they were both men of strong convictions. In this case, they could not come to an agreement. Because of their deep bond, they did not shrug it off as if their disagreement didn't matter. They were deeply committed to each other. They really argued long and sharp because it was important to both of them to solve their disagreement and travel together. However, none was able to convince the other, so that in the end, they decided to separate and make two teams instead.

Note that there is no report of an argument between Mark and Paul. There is no mention that Paul was angry and revengeful against Mark. Regarding their personal relationship, Paul had probably forgiven Mark long ago. This was not about personal grudges on Paul's side, but about his responsibility of selecting team members who were suitable for the difficult mission they had ahead of them. Mark knew that he had deserted them and was certainly sorry for what he had done. He probably had not even requested to be taken on the next journey because he knew he had no right to it. This was Barnabas' idea and the disagreement was between Paul and Barnabas. Mark probably only heard about it afterwards.

To "live at peace with all men" can hardly mean: employ anyone for any job disregarding his training, ing, and proven (un)reliability. We may personally have forgiven a person who has failed us, but still not think that the person is currently qualified for a certain job. That is no sin.

Later, after Paul became convinced that Mark had grown and was now reliable and trustworthy, he took him on journeys again and gave him responsibilities as we have read above. In fact, apart from Paul's refusal to take him on this particular journey, everything Paul says about Mark in several different letters is only positive.

Certainly Paul was disappointed with Mark after his desertion at the first journey, and he was not willing to take him again on the very next journey, but revenge? Where is there any mention of Paul being vindictive and making an attempt of taking revenge as TTA claims? Where is there any indication that Paul tried to harm or hurt Mark? Did he injure him or try to kill him? Did Paul curse him, insult him, or seek to spread false rumors about him? Did he try to separate him from his wife and get her for himself? Did he try to sue him in court or try to destroy his professional career? No to all of this. There was no attempt of any kind of revenge. What is TTA talking about?

TTA has failed to bring proof on all counts of his charge. The decision not to take Mark on this journey was made by Paul in his position as responsible team leader. There is no indication anywhere that on a personal level Paul and Mark were (a) not at peace with each other, that (b) Paul ever took revenge against Mark or (c) had not forgiven him.

After looking at Paul's responsible and peaceful behavior towards Mark who abandoned him on a dangerous journey, or to Barnabas who disagreed with him on the right action, let us shortly contrast this with Muhammad's way of response.

Abdullah ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh was one of Muhammad's companions and for some time acted as his scribe writing down the revelations of the Qur'an. Because of a certain incident Abdullah came to the conviction that Muhammad was not a prophet after all and left him. What is Muhammad's response? He gave the order to kill Abdullah (see this article for details). In fact, there are at least a dozen people which Muhammad commanded to execute for reasons of personal revenge (see Muhammad's and his Personal Enemies) as well as the genocide against the tribe of the Banu Qurayza. Not satisfied with the murder of his personal enemies in his own life time, Muhammad instituted the death penalty for apostasy in Islamic law: If anyone leaves Islam, kill him (consult these pages for details), thus ending freedom of religion and freedom of conscience once and for all. Sura 111 is dedicated to the curse of Abu Lahab, one of Muhammad's uncles, who opposed him. And even on his death bed, Muhammad had nothing better to do than to curse the Jews and the Christians (see for example this article). And this list could be continued with many more examples.

The members of Bismikaallahuma including TTA, the author of the currently discussed article are proud to be followers of Muhammad. For them, there is no reason to doubt that Muhammad was a true and the final messenger from God. They find nothing questionable in Muhammad's behavior that would throw doubt on his authority. But the grave offense of Paul, to refuse to take Mark on a journey with him, and him having an argument with Barnabas are clear proof that Paul is a hypocrite, snake, liar and false apostle. Are we the only ones who have the impression that there is something grossly out of balance in the author's thinking and ability of discernment? A serious loss of common sense?

Maybe TTA does not think the above examples count, because Muhammad was consistent: He killed those who opposed them in agreement with the command of the Qur'an to kill the disbelievers. He cursed his opponents, just like in the Qur'an he puts curses on those who oppose Islam. Therefore, Muhammad cannot be accused of being a hypocrite. As ridiculous as that excuse would be, we will entertain it for the moment, and in the second part below we will present a detailed examination of a number of serious discrepancies between Muhammad's words and deeds.

[jesus_4_us]

What would TTA have done, if Paul had just accepted the suggestion of Barnabas and taken Mark with them despite his serious failure? Most likely he would have quoted a couple of verses on disciplining disobedient believers (several were quoted above) and would have complained that Paul preaches disciplining the disobedient but here he just forgives -contrary to his own preaching! Therefore, Paul is a hypocrite, snake, liar and false apostle.

Clearly the problem is not with Paul, but with various Muslims who desparately seek to find anything that may subtract from the authority of Paul because the Gospel he so clearly preached exposes Muhammad's message as anti-Christian, vastly inferior and not coming from God.

TTA has presented to us his criteria for a test of an apostle of God, criteria applied by him in his article to the Apostle Paul. As a Muslim and author publishing at Bismikaallahuma TTA is part of the effort to call people to Islam, as the religion of God, to believe in Muhammad as the last messenger of God, and to follow Muhammad as the ideal role model for human behavior. TTA claimed (though falsely and only by twisting what the Bible actually says) that because Paul did not do what he preached, and is, therefore, a hypocrite, a liar, a snake and a false apostle, definitely not sent by God and not to be believed or followed.

It is certainly fair to ask whether Muhammad passes the test of these same criteria established by TTA. Therefore, we now logically proceed to the second part of this paper.

[jesus_4_us]

What about Muhammad?

We now turn the tables on Muhammad to see if he passes the author's own test. Muhammad taught that men should have up to four wives, provided that one can treat all of them fairly:

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice,

two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only

one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from

doing injustice. S. 4:3

Yet Muhammad failed to live up to his own criteria since he had more than 4 wives and did not treat them all fairly:

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and

those whom thy right hand possesses out of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee;

and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts,

who migrated (from Makkah) with thee; and any believing woman who gives herself to the

Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;-this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;-in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction -that of all of them -with that which thou hast to give them: and Allah knows (all) that is in your hearts: and Allah is All-Knowing, Most Forbearing. It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things. S. 33:50-52

The hadiths state:

Narrated Qatada:Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day andnight and they were ELEVEN IN NUMBER." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength forit?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)."And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (noteleven). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268)

Narrated 'Ata:We presented ourselves along with Ibn 'Abbas at the funeral procession of Maimuna at a placecalled Sarif. Ibn 'Abbas said, "This is the wife of the Prophet so when you lift her bier, do not Jerkit or shake it much, but walk smoothly because the Prophet had NINE WIVES and he used toobserve the night turns with eight of them, AND FOR ONE OF THEM THERE WAS NONIGHT TURN (SAM-This refers to Saudah. More on her later)." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7,Book 62, Number 5)

Narrated Anas bin Malik:The Prophet used to pass by (have sexual relation with) all his wives in one night, and at thattime he had NINE wives. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 142)

What makes this so shameful is that according to Ar-Razi, there was a man who had ten wives. When he becam a Muslim, Muhammad told him, "Keep four, AND LEAVE THE REST." (Razi, At-Tafsir al-Kabir, commenting on Q. 4:3)