Quran 9:29 - Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day

9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّـهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ‌ وَلَا يُحَرِّ‌مُونَ مَا حَرَّ‌مَ اللَّـهُ وَرَ‌سُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُ‌ونَ ﴿٢٩﴾

Some people have falsely concluded from verse 9:29, that Muslims are commanded to attack all non-Muslims until they pay money. In fact, such an interpretation is completely false and contradicts authentic Islamic teachings. Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Jalal Abualrub writes:

These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State. (Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad)

Likewise, the following fatwa points out that Muslims cannot attack a peaceful non-Muslim country:

Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?

Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court

If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.

The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first.

The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet's lifetime.

May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

The above fatwa refers to the historical context in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) fought against other nations. The Prophet Muhammad did not initiate agression against anyone, rather he and his followers were under attack from all who sought to crush the new Islamic state. The first hostilities between the Muslims and the Roman empire began when the Prophet Muhammad's messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a governate of the Roman empire), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi, was tied up and beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383). The killing of a diplomat was an open act of war, and the Prophet Muhammad sent an armed force to confront the tribe, but the Roman empire brought in reinforcements and the resulting conflict, known as the Battle of Mut'ah, was a defeat for the Muslims. Only after this did subsequent battles between the Muslims and the Roman Empire occur, and the Muslims emerged victorious. Likewise, as mentioned in the above fatwa, hostiltiies between the Muslims and the Persians only began after the Persian emperor Chosroe ordered his governor in Yemen Badham, to kill the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, although his efforts were thwarted when the latter accepted Islam. Other non-muslim groups, such as those in Madinah, also initiated hostilities against the Muslims despite peace treaties as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:

As for fighting the Jews (People of the Scripture), they had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace pact and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah revealed…[and he cites verse 9:29] (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80)

In light of the historical context of this verse, it becomes very clear that the verse was revealed in connection with agression initiated against Muslims. As Dr. Jamal Badawi very accurately concludes with regard to verse 9:29 and similar verses:

All of these verses, without exception, if studied carefully, address aggression and oppression committed against Muslims at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whether by idolatrous Arabs, some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah, or by some Christians. (SOURCE)

Therefore, the command to fight in verse 9:29 relates to those non-muslims who commit agression and not those who are committed to live in peace. The verse is subject to certain conditions that were apparent when it was implemented in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:

What we have stated makes it clear that Islam did not allow the initiating of hostilities, except to: 1. repel aggression; 2. protect Islamic propagation; 3. deter Fitnah and oppression and ensure freedom of religion. In such cases, fighting becomes a necessity of the religion and one of its sacred ordainments. It is then called, ‘Jihad’. (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 81)

The verse then proceeds to mention some issues relating to the Islamic state, and governing non-muslim citizens of the Islamic state. Dr. Maher Hathout comments on the regulations in verse 9:29:

Freedom of religion is an essential aspect in an Islamic state. One of the five pillars of Islam is zakat (almsgiving). The People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are not obliged to pay the Islamic zakat that is spent by the state for social necessities and state affairs as defined in the Quran (see 9:60). But they must pay other taxes to share in the state budget. If they refuse to pay this tax to the state and rebel against the state, then it is the obligation of the state to confront them until they pay it. This is what Caliph Abu Bakr did after the death of the Prophet, when some people refused to pay zakat. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.53)

The verse mentions Jizya, which is unfortunately misunderstood by some people. Like any nation, the Islamic government requires its citizens to pay taxes in return for its services. Since Muslims pay the Zakat, the non-muslim citizens are required to pay Jizya (for more information on Jizya, please refer to Jizya in Islam and Jizyah and non-muslim minorities). Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar writes concerning the Jizya tax:

The sum of jizya was never large to the extent that the men were unable to pay. Rather, it was always available and reasonable. During the reign of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, jizya never exceeded one dinar annually and it never exceeded four dinars under the Umayyad rule. (SOURCE)

Shaykh Abu'l-Hasan Al-Mawardi (d. 1058CE) explicitly points out that the Jizya should be exacted in accordance with the means of the people, and the Imam should judge the conclude the amount to the satisfaction of the leaders of those being taxed:

The fuqaha (Jurists) differ as to the amount of the Jizya. Abu Hanifa considers that those subject to this tax are of three kinds: the rich from whom forty-eight dirhams are taken; those of average means from whom twenty four are taken, and the poor from whom twelve dirhams are taken: he thus stipulated the minimum and maximum amounts and prohibits any further judgement on behalf of those responsible for its collection. Malik, however, does not fix its minimum and maximum amount and considers that those responsible should make their own judgement as to the minimum and maximum. Ash-Shafi'i considers that the minimum is a dinar, and that it is not permitted to go below this while he does not stipulate the maximum, the latter being dependant on the ijtihad (judgement) of those responsible: the Imam, however, should try to harmonise between the different amounts, or to exact an amount in accordance with people's means. If he has used his judgement to conclude the contract od jizyah to the satisfaction of the leaders of the people being taxed, then it becomes binding on all of them and their descendants, generation after generation, and a leader may not afterwards change this amunt, be it to decrease it or increase it. (Al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. 1996, pp. 209-210)

Hence, the laws of Islam forbid Muslims from opressing non-muslims and command them to treat others with justice and compassion. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself forbade Muslims from harming non-muslim citizens of an islamic state or any non-muslim with whom there was an agreement of peace, as he said,

"The one who wrongs a covenanter or impairs his right or overworks him or forcibly takes something from him, I will be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment. (Sunan Abi Dawud 170/3 no. 3052, Sunan an-Nasa'i 25/8 no. 2749, and verified by Al-Albani no. 2626).

In conclusion, verse 9:29 commands Muslims to fight against only those who initiate agression as illustated by its historical context. Muslims may only fight under strict conditions, and are commanded to live peacefully with peaceful non-muslim neighbors.

Further readings:
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/05/reality-of-jizya.html 
http://discover-the-truth.com/2014/06/03/examining-quran-929-does-islam-sanction-the-killing-of-christians-and-jews/

Quran 47:4 When you meet the infidels,smite their necks ?!

Qur'an 47:4 So, when you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle, smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by God to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam .

Once again a poor translation serves the purpose of the Islam-haters very well. Let us examine a more accurate translation before analyzing the verse:

47:4 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in battle, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُ‌وا فَضَرْ‌بَ الرِّ‌قَابِ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً حَتَّىٰ تَضَعَ الْحَرْ‌بُ أَوْزَارَ‌هَا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّـهُ لَانتَصَرَ‌ مِنْهُمْ وَلَـٰكِن لِّيَبْلُوَ بَعْضَكُم بِبَعْضٍ ۗ وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ فَلَن يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ ﴿٤﴾

So we now see some grievous mistakes made in the poor translation quoted. 1. The verse makes NO mention whatsoever of "killing and wounding" 2. "Thus are you commanded by God to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam " is a complete addition to the verse and is not found anywhere in the Qur'an! 3. That verse does not use the word Jihad at all It is very clear that the context of this verse is in battle, and when in battle the defenders of humanity should attack the unjust oppressors until they are subdued. Professor Shahul Hameed comments on verse 47:4 by saying:

The context of this verse was when the Muslims were to fight their enemies for their very existence. After thirteen years of endurance and patience, the prophet and his companions had to leave their home town of Makkah and to emigrate to Madinah. When the people of Madinah had welcomed him there and he was accepted as a leader there, the Makkans became unhappy. They wanted to eliminate Muhammad and his religion; and so they sent their army to root out Islam. And the crucial battle took place in Badr. It was just before this that Muhammad received the revelation from God to fight: {And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.} (Al-Baqarah 2:190)
This meant that the Prophet and his companions were not to start the fighting; but to defend themselves against aggressors. That was how fighting was ordained; but we must know that once we fight, we fight to defeat the aggressors, so that we can live without fear of molestation and invasion; so that we can live in peace; so that justice is done. Remember God does not command any one to start fighting; rather He permits people to fight in self defence or for the defence of those who are attacked unjustly. (SOURCE)

The historical context again illustrates a condition of constant struggle and war. In such a condition, God reassures the believers that He is with them, and to therefore have full faith, strength and bravery in battle and not to cower from the enemy. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes:

When once the fight (Jihad) is entered upon, carry it out with the utmost vigour… (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, Text, Translation and Commentary )

Likewise, Dr. Maher Hathout writes:

Clearly, these verses are applicable in the heat of battle and against an aggressive combating force. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.49)

Muslims are encouraged to restrain the enemy by capturing them, and to therefore minimize loss of life. Moreover, the verse specifically mentions that Muslims should subdue the enemies "until the war lays down its burdens", i.e. until the enemy stops fighting. Similar to this verse:

8:61 But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that hears and knows (all things).

وَإِن جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّـهِ ۚ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ ﴿٦١﴾  

So the verse is very specific, in that it is limited to the context of a battle and the Muslims should only fight until the enemy is subdued or inclines towards peace i.e. they should not transgress limits. In the event of a battle, the verse guides Muslims to abstain from transgressing limits and only to fight the enemy until they are subdued or cease fighting. Shaykh Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid comments about the treatment of prisoners:

If the Muslims capture them and take them to a place that has been prepared for them, they should not harm them or torture them with beatings, depriving them of food and water, leaving them out in the sun or the cold, burning them with fire, or putting covers over their mouths, ears and eyes and putting them in cages like animals. Rather they should treat them with kindness and mercy, feed them well and encourage them to enter Islam... ...The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to enjoin the Muslims to treat prisoners well, whereas the Romans and those who came before them the Assyrians and Pharaohs, all used to put out their prisoners’ eyes with hot irons, and flay them alive, feeding their skins to dogs, such that the prisoners preferred death to life. (SOURCE)

Therefore, Islam has laid out clear rules and regulations for Muslims to follow in the event of war, which is only used as a last resort.

Re:Quran Error: the Sun Sets in a Mud Puddle? Does the Sun Set in a Muddy Spring? (Surah 18:86)

Well, please take this points into considerations:

• Till that moment no one have found a single simple mistake in the Qur'aan - All are alleged depending on ignorance of many people regarding islam and arabic .
  
• Your problem with the ayat is primarily due to lack of the arabic knowledge, and evident external factors.
  
• There is a rule for Muslims that sources of faith are primarily qur'aan And sunnah ( SAHIH hadith ).
  
• Men's opinions and understandings and translations- that must be affected by their acquired knowledge and prevalent ideas, thoughts at their times have no effect on the original sacred text
  
• Missionaries & anti-islamists tactics are no more than a sort of deception:
  http://muslimdebateinitiative.wordpr...against-islam/
  http://etori.tripod.com/tactics.html 

Now let's have a look at the ayat 18:68:

http://quran.com/18/86
http://www.islamicstudies.info/wordt...php?ch=18&v=82

We notice that the word Maghrib was translated as " the setting place" or the "setting"

Now let's refer to arabic language:
The word is:

مغرب

Now let's see what Almu'jam Alwaseet المعجمالوسيط( Arabic dictionary published by Academy_of_the_Arabic_Language ) tell us about that word:

http://www.almaany.com/home.php?lang...=0&cat_group=1

المغرب

1. مكان غروب الشمس
2. وزمان غروبها
3. وجهة غروبها
4. وبلاد المغرب البلاد الواقعة في شمال إفريقية في غربي مصر وهي ليبيا وتونس والجزائر ومراكش
5. ومملكة المغرب اليوم الجزء الواقع في أقصى بلاد المغرب في غربي الجزائر ويحدها البحر

المغرب

So, it's :

1. Place of sunset
2. Time of sunset
3. Point of sunset
4. Countries located in North Africa in the west of Egypt ( Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco)
5. and the Kingdom of Morocco ( Called Maghrib in arabic )

Note that Point of sunset = west is called Maghrib as those countries named.

Now, when he reached sunset ( its place, point i.e. the west or time(1,2 or 3 that's only could be applied to the context ).
Note that the time was apparently of the sunset and he was apparently looking at the sun ,

He "found" it setting in a dark muddy spring

If you are heading west at the time of sunset, and before you a mount, you will find the sun - in your opinion - sets behind the mountain, if I said, describing this scene: The sun disappeared behind the mountain, you will not understand one of you say this is that the sun hides really behind the mountain, but the concept that this happened in his abstract vision.
Similarly, those who are at the western coast see the sun setting in the water everyday.

and he found near it a people


Refer to word translation, Near it = AAinda-ha = عندها

عندها

ها (it ) is added to the word and called Dameer There is a rule in arabic that any Dameer is related to the nearest noun

الضمير عائد على أقرب متعلق

since otherwise proved or refered by the speaker.

Now let's apply this to the ayat:

The last noun was the spring that's dark muddy (adj) Not the sun. So, evidently those people were near the spring not the sun !

--------------------

Then disbelievers continue to give you some fabricated hadeeth to make some noise.

A) They say that there is a hadeeth from tabari history supports their allegations !

For a hadeeth to be austhentic it has to be Sahih or Hassan as already mentioned.


For a brief intro. to hadith science:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...=2610&CATE=120

Now which one was the hadith mentioned above ? None !

http://www.dorar.net/enc/hadith?skey...8%D8%AC%D9%84:

خلاصة حكم المحدث: في إسناده نظر
Which means it's neither sahih nor Hassan !

B) Another unreliable Hadith about Sunset in the Spring of Warm Water 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

Analysis of the reliability of the alleged report about the sun setting in a spring of warm water according to the Holy Prophet- peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

Source

There is a Hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud that has been brought up by some anti-Islamic polemicists.

The narration:

The narration along with the chain of narrators goes as;

Yazid bin Harun- Sufyan bin Husain- Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah- Ibrahim (b. Yazid al-Taymi)- Yazid al-Taymi- Abu Dharr said: 
 I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.
(Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 3991)

Analysis of the chains of narrators:

From Abu Darr, it both ways i.e. with and without the words under consideration, it narrated by Yazid al-Taymi and from him by his son Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi. From Ibrahim it is narrated by six different narrators;

1- Al-A’mash: And from him at least five people narrate it. See Sahih Bukhari etc.

2- Yunus bin ‘Ubaid: And from him at least three narrators report this narration. See Sahih Muslim etc.

3- Musa bin al-Musayyab al-Thaqafi: From him it is narrated by Abdah bin Sulayman, See Al-‘Uzmah of Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani 4/1189

4- Abdul A’la al-Taymi: The narrator down from him is Mis’ar, See Hilyah al-Awliya 5/89

5- Harun bin Sa’d: Abdul Ghaffar bin al-Qasim narrates from him. See Al-‘Uzmah of Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani 4/1191 and Al-Tabarani’s Mu’jam Al-Awst, Hadith 4470

6- Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah: The sole narrator down from him is Sufyan bin Husain, See Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad, Mustadrak al-Hakim, Musnad al-Bazzar etc.

Of all these various routes from Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi, it is only through Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah that these words “It sets in a spring of warm water” are narrated.

In short, there are six narrators reporting the hadith from Ibrahim bin Yazid, and only one of them i.e. Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah quotes the particular words. And to add to the trouble there is again only one narrator down from him and he is Sufyan bin Husain whereas parallel to Sufyan there are at least eleven people narrating the hadith without these words on the authority of five different people narrating from Ibrahim bin Yazid.

Following flow diagram for the above detail gives the pictorial display the strangeness of these words. Down from Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi only the narrators with red outline for their names give the words under consideration against loads of other narrators who do not report these words.




The narration is anomalous (shaadh) and defective (mu’allal):

This fact alone is enough to make the narration dubious. No doubt both Al-Hakam and Sufyan are per se trustworthy narrators but because on their respective levels they go against much reliable and numerous narrators. Such a narration reported this way is termed as “shaadh” i.e. anomalous.

Carefully read the definition of anomalous (shaadh) hadith given by Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 A.H.) in his magnus opus, “Kitab Ma’rifat ‘anwa’ ‘ilm al-Hadith” translated under the title “An Introduction to the Science of Hadith”;

“… the anomalous hadith is the one which a reliable transmitter relates and which is in conflict with what other people relate.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, Translated by Dr. Eerik Dickinson, Garnet Publishing Ltd. Berkshire 2006 p.57)

Also see the definition of defective (mu’allal) hadith given by Ibn Salah;

“A defective hadith is one in which a defect impugning its soundness is detected, although it outwardly appears to be free of the defect. That may apply to an isnad made up of reliable transmitters which outwardly seems to fulfill the conditions of soundness. Someone being alone in transmitting the hadith as well as others contradicting him aid in catching the defect.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, p.67)

And when a report or a part of it becomes “shaadh” it ceases to be a sahih (sound) report. For this the definition of a “Sahih hadith” will help.

Hafiz Ibn Salah writes;

“The sahih (sound) hadith is a “supported” hadith (al-hadith al-musnad), the isnad of which coheres continuously through the transmission of one upright and accurate person from another up to its point of termination. The sound hadith can be neither anomalous (shaadh) nor defective (mu’allal),” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, p.5)

So merely being “sahih al-isnaad” is not enough for the report itself to be sahih.

Therefore, the very fact that Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah’s narrates differently from five other narrators reporting it on the authority of Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi, makes the narration “shaadh” (anomalous) which is a kind of weak (da’if) reports.

But the trouble with the narration does not end here. Down from Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah, Sufyan bin Husain is also unique in narrating these words whereas the number of narrators down from narrators other than Al-Hakam narrating it from Ibrahim al-Taymi is at least eleven. There is not a single supporting narrator for Sufyan either.

Hafiz Al-Bazzar (d. 292 A.H.) after giving this narration writes;

“We do not know anyone other than Sufyan bin Husain reporting it through the chain: Al-Hakam bin ‘Utayba –Ibrahim- his father- Abu Dharr, while Yunus bin ‘Ubayd, Suleman Al-A’mash and Harun bin Sa’d have also narrated it from Ibrahim.” (Musnad Al-Bazzar- Bahr al-Zakhkhar, under Hadith 4010)

And this is important, not only because it adds more to the oddity of the narration, but also because Sufyan bin Husain though generally considered authentic was also criticized by few scholars. This criticism does not harm his general narrations but becomes significant when he goes out of the way and narrates what other narrators from the same original source do not.

Muhammad ibn Sa’d said about him: “He was reliable (but) he made many mistakes in his narrations.” (Tabaqat al-Kubra, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1990, vol.7 p.227 No. 3417)

Conclusion:

These details make it quite clear that according to rules of reporting it is not right to attribute these words to the Messenger of Allah- on him be the peace and blessings of Allah.

So the excitement of the anti-islamists is in vain. Pity!

Indeed Allah knows the best!

100 biblical responses to those who claim that Jesus is God

1. Because Jesus Christ is represented by the sacred writers to be as distinct a being from God the Father as one man is distinct from another. “It is written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one who bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me,” John 8:17, 18.

2. Because he not only never said that himself was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of God of Abraham, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3. This language he used in solemn prayer to “his Father and our Father.”

3. Because he is declared, in unnumbered instances, to be the Son of God. “And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” Matt 3:17. Can a son be coeval (the same age) and the same with his father?

4. Because he is styled the Christ, or the anointed of God. “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power,” Acts 10:38. Is he who anoints the same with him who is anointed?

5. Because he is represented as a Priest. “Consider the ….High-Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus,” Heb. 3:1. The office of a priest is to minister to God. Christ, then, as a priest, cannot be God.

6. Because Christ is Mediator between the “One God,” and “men.” “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Tim. 2:5.

7. Because, as the Saviour of men, he was sent by the Father. “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14.

8. Because he is an Apostle appointed by God. “Consider the Apostle,…Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him that appointed him,” Heb. 3:1, 2.

9. Because Christ is represented as our intercessor with God. “It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us,” Rom. 8:34.

10. Because the head of Christ is God. “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God,” 1 Cor. 11:3.

11. Because, in the same sense in which we are said to belong to Christ, Christ is said to belong to God. “And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s,” 1 Cor. 3:23.

12. Because Christ says, “My father is greater than all,” John 10:29. Is not the father, then greater than the son?

13. Because he affirms, in another connection, and without the least qualification, “My Father is greater than I,” John 14:28

14. Because he virtually denies that he is God, when he exclaims, “Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God,” Matt 19:17.

15. Because our Saviour, after having said, “I and my Father are one,” gives his disciples distinctly to understand that he did not mean one substance, equal in power and glory, but one only in affection and design, as clearly appears from the prayer he offers to his Father in their behalf, –“that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us,” John 17:21

16. Because the Father is called the God of Christ as he is the God of Christians. “Jesus saith unto her, ….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God,” John 20:17.

17. Because an Apostle says of God, in distinction from the “Lord Jesus Christ,” that He is the “only Potentate,” and that He “only hath immortality,” 1 Tim. 6:15, 16.

18. Because it is the express declaration of the same Apostle, that the Father is the one God, and there is none other. “Though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,” 1 Cor. 8:5- 6.

19. Because the power which Christ possessed was, as him affirmed, given to him. “All power is given unto me,” Matt 28:18.

20. Because he positively denies himself to be the author of his miraculous works, but refers them to the Father, or the holy spirit of God. “The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works,” John 14:10. “If I cast out devils by the spirit of God,” Matt. 12:28.

21. Because he distinctly states, that these works bear witness, not to his own power, but that the Father had sent him, John 5:36.

22. Because he expressly affirms that the works were done, not in his own, but in his Father’s name, John 10:25.

23. Because he asserts, that “him hath God the Father sealed,” i.e. to God the Father he was indebted for his credentials, John 6:27.

24. Because he declares that he is not the author of his own doctrine. “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me,” John 7:16, 17.

25. Because he represents himself as having been instructed by the Father. “As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things,” John 8:28.

26. Because he refers invariable to the Father as the origin of the authority by which he spoke and acted. “The Father hath given to the Son authority,” John 5:26, 27.

27. Because he acknowledges his dependence on his Heavenly Father for example and direction in all his doings. “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do,” John 5:19. “The Father loveth the Son, and showth him all things that himself doeth” John 5:20.

28. Because he says “I seek not mine own glory; but I honor my Father,” John 8:49, 50.

29. Because he declares, “If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoreth me,” John 8:54.

30. Because an Apostle declares, that Christ dwelt all fullness, because it so pleased the Father, Col. 1:19.

31. Because Christ is uniformly represented in the Scriptures, not as the primary, but the intermediate, cause of all things relating to our salvation. “One God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him,” 1 Cor. 8:6.

32. Because he declares, “I am not come of myself” into the world, “for I proceeded forth and came from God,” John 8:42; 7:28. Jesus knowing… that he came from God, and went to God,” John 13:3.

33. Because he affirms that he had not the disposal of the highest places in his own kingdom. “To sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father,” Matt. 20:23.

34. Because our Saviour, referring his disciples to a future time, when they would understand more accurately concerning him, expressly declares that then they would know him to be entirely dependent upon the Father. “When ye have lifted up the Son of man (i.e. crucified him), then shall ye know that I am he (i.e. the Messiah), and that I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things,” John 8:28.

35. Because our Saviour always professed to have no will of his own, but to be ever entirely guided and governed by the will of his Heavenly Father. “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” John 6:38.

36. Because he expressly denies that he is possessed of Divine attribute of independent existence. “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father,” John 6:57

37. Because he expressly disclaims the possession of the Divine attribute of underived existence. “As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself,” John 5:26.

38. Because he positively denies that he is possessed of the Divine attribute of omnipotence. “I can of mine own self do nothing,” John 5:30.

39. Because he expressly disclaims the possession of the Divine attribute of omniscience. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but my Father only,” Matt.24:36, Mark 13:32.

40. Because Christ is said in the Scriptures to have been “tempted of the devil,” Matt. 4:1. But “God can not be tempted with evil.” James 1:13.

41. Because it is related of our Saviour, that “he continued all night in prayer to God,” Luke 6:12. Why should Christ thus pray, if he himself were God?

42. Because, in presence of a numerous company before the resurrection, he gave thanks to the Father for having heard him. “Father, I thank thee that thou has heard me, and I knew that thou hearest me always,” John 11:41, 42.

43. Because Jesus besought his Father to glorify him. “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thyself with the glory which I had with thee before the world was,” John 17:5. The one who prayed to God to glorify him, cannot be God.

44. Because he implored that, if it were possible, the bitter cup might pass from him, adding, “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt,” Matt 26:39.

45. Because he said, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Matt. 27:46 Can he who uttered this be the Supreme God?

46. Because he never paid his adoration to himself, the Son, nor to the Holy Ghost, as he should have done, had the Son and the Holy Ghost been God; but always to the Father.

47. Because he never instructed his disciples to worship himself or the Holy Ghost, but the Father, and the Father only. “When ye pray, say Our Father which art in heaven,” Luke 11:2. “In that day, ye shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever ye ask of the Father in my name,” John 16:23. “The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him,” John 4:23.

48. Because it was not the practice of the Apostles to pay religious homage to Christ, but to God the Father through Christ. “I thank God through Jesus Christ,” Rom. 7:25. “To God only wise, be glory through Christ,” Rom 16:27. “I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” Eph. 3:14.

49. Because St. Peter, immediately after being filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, thus addressed the Jews: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs which God did by him, in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain; whom God hath raised up,” Acts 2:22-24.

50. Because St. Paul expressly states, that “all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,” 2 Cor. 5:18.

51. Because the same Apostle gives “thanks to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ,” 1 Cor.15:57.

52. Because it is said that it is “to the glory of God the Father,” that “every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord,” Phil. 2:11.

53. Because the Scriptures affirm that “Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but He (glorified him) who said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” Heb. 5:5.

54. Because it is expressly asserted that God gave to Christ the Revelation which was made to the author of the Apocalypse, Rev. 1:1.

55. Because an Apostle speaks of Christ, only as the image of God. “Who is the image of the image of the invisible God,” Col. 1:15. 2 Cor. 4: 4. It would be absurd to call anyone his own image.

56. Because Christ is stated to be “the first-born of every creature,” Col. 1:15.

57. Because he is said to be “the beginning of the creation of God,” Rev. 3: 14.

58. Because the Scriptures affirm, in so many words, that “Jesus was made a little lower than the angels,” Heb. 2:9. Can God become lower than his creatures?

59. Because Peter declares that “Christ received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, this is my beloved son,” 2 Peter 1:17.

60. Because it is represented as necessary that the Saviour of mankind should “be made like unto his brethren,” Heb. 2:17.

61. Because, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ is compared with Moses in a manner that would be impious if he were the Supreme God. “For this man (Christ) was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch,” Heb. 3:3.

62. Because he is represented as being the servant, the chosen, the beloved of God, and the recipient of God’s spirit. “Behold, my servant, whom I have chosen, in whom my soul is well pleased; I will put my spirit upon him,” Matt. 12:18.

63. Because he himself expressly declares that it was in consequence of his doing what pleased the Father, that the Father was with him and did not leave him alone. “He that sent me is with me; the Father hath not left me alone, for I do always those things that please him,” John 8:29.

64. Because he is said to have “increased in wisdom, and in favor with God and man,” Luke 2:52.

65. Because he speaks of himself as one who had received commands from the Father. “The Father, who sent me, he gave me a commandment,” John 12:49.

66. Because he is represented as obeying the Father, and as having been “obedient unto death,” Phil. 2:8. “Even as the Father said unto me, so I speak,” John 12:50. “I have kept my Father’s commandments,” John 15:10.

67. Because Christ “Learned obedience by the things he suffered,” and through sufferings was made perfect by God, Heb. 5:8.

68. Because he is spoken of in the Scriptures as the first born among many brethren. Rom. 8:29. Has God brethren?

69. Because Christ calls everyone who obeys God his brother. “Whosoever shall do the will of my Father in heaven, the same is my brother,” Matt. 12:50.

70. Because he offers to the faithful the like distinction and honor that himself has with the Father. “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am sit down with my Father in his throne,” Rev. 3: 21.

71. Because God, in the later ages, hath spoken by his Son, and appointed him heir of all things, Heb. 1:2.

72. Because Christ is styled the first-begotten of the dead, Rev. 1:5.

73. Because it is declared that God raised him from the dead. “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses,” Acts 2: 32, Rom. 10:9, 10

74. Because God poured out upon the Apostles the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ, !@#$%^&*. 3:6.

75. Because the reason assigned for the Holy Spirit not having been received earlier, is that Jesus was not then glorified. “The Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified,” John 7:39.

76. Because it is affirmed that Christ was exalted by God to be a Prince and a Saviour, Acts 5:31.

77. Because God made that same Jesus, who was crucified, both Lord and Christ, Acts 2: 36.

78. Because God gave him a name which is above every name, Phil. 2:9.

79. Because Christ was ordained of God to be the judge of the quick and the dead, Acts 10:42.

80. Because God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, Rom. 2:16.

81. Because all judgment is committed to Christ by the Father, John 5:22.

82. Because our Saviour grounds the importance of his judgment solely upon the circumstances, that it is not exclusively his own judgment which he pronounces, but that of the Father who sent him. “If I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me,” John 8:16.

83. Because it is said, that, when he was received up into heaven, he “sat on the right hand of God,” Mark 16:19.

84. Because St. Paul affirms, that Christ, even since his ascension, “liveth unto God,” and “liveth by the power of God,” Rom. 6:10. 2 Cor. 12:4.

85. Because it is affirmed of Christ, that “when all things shall be subdued under him then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all,” 1 Cor. 15:28.

86. Because the Apostle John asserts that “no man hath seen God at any time”; which is not true, if Christ were God, John 1:18.

87. Because, in the prophecies of the Old Testament that relate to Christ, he is spoken of as a being distinct from and inferior to God, Deut. 18:15, John 1:45.

88. Because the Jews never expected that any other than a being distinct from and inferior to God was to be their Messiah, and yet there is no evidence that our Saviour ever so much as hinted to them that this expectation was erroneous.

89. Because it does not appear from the Scriptures, that the Jews except in two instances, ever opposed our Saviour on the ground that he pretended to be God or equal with God; whereas, had it been his custom to assume such identity or equality, in his conversation with a people so strongly attached to the doctrine of the divine unity, he would have found himself involved in a perpetual controversy with them on this point, some traces of which must have appeared in the New Testament.

90. Because in these two instances, when charged, in the one case, with making himself God, and in the other, with making himself equal with God, he positively denies the charges. In reply to the charge of assuming to be equal with God, he says immediately, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do”; and directly after, “I can of mine own self do nothing,” John 5:19, 30. In answer to the charge of making himself God, he appeals to the Jews in substance thus: Your own Scriptures call Moses a god, and your magistrates gods; I am surely not inferior to them, yet I did not call myself God, but only the Son of God, John 10:34-36.

91. Because, had his immediate disciples believe him to be the Almighty, would they have been so familiar with him, have argued with him, betrayed him, denied him, fled from him, and left him to be dragged to the cross?

92. Because the Apostles, after they had been filled with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, did not preach that Christ was God; but preached what was altogether inconsistent with such a doctrine, Acts 2:22; 13:23; 17:3, 31; 22:8.

93. Because there is no evidence to prove that the first converts to Christianity ever incurred the imputation of idolatry from the Jews, as they must have done had they believed and taught that the Son, as well as the Father, is Jehovah; while it is notorious that this imputation has been among the most common of the Jewish reproaches against Christians, since the Trinity became a doctrine of the Church.

94. Because there are in the New Testament seventeen passages, wherein the Father is styled one or only God, while there is not a single passage in which the Son is so styled.

95. Because there are 320 passages in which the Father is absolutely, and by way of eminence, called God; while there is not one in which the Son is thus called.

96. Because there are 105 passages in which the Father is denominated God, with peculiarly high titles and epithets, whereas the Son is not once denominated.

97. Because there are 90 passages wherein it is declared that all prayers and praises ought to be offered to Him, and that everything ought to be ultimately directed to his honor and glory; while of the Son no such declaration is ever made.

98. Because of 1,300 passages in the New Testament wherein the word God is mentioned, not one necessarily implies the existence of more than one person in the Godhead, or that this one is any other than the Father.

99. Because the passages wherein the Son is declared, positively, or by clearest implication, to be subordinate to the Father, deriving his being from Him, receiving from Him his divine power, and acting in all things wholly according to His will, are in number above 300.

100. Because, in a word, the supremacy of the Father, and the inferiority of the Son, is the simple, unembarrassed, and current doctrine of the Bible; whereas, that of their equality or identity is clothed in mystery, encumbered with difficulties, and dependent, at the best, upon few passages for support.

By Samuel Barrett.

Muslim Re: "the God Delusion" Dawkins Refuted - Blasting The Foundations Of Atheism

Blasting The Foundations Of Atheism;

Its Pseudoscience and Pseudo-reason

Answering Richard Dawkins‟ (The God Delusion)

By: AbulFeda‟

About this book

Alhamdulellah…
In his bold and bigoted quest to ridicule the very idea of “God” and “religion”, rendering the whole thing as nothing but a big ancient “delusion”, Richard Dawkins delivers what I view to be – in fact – some of the greatest services an atheist has ever done to the cause of truth and the message of tawheed. Even an amateur philosopher like himself should realize that it takes much more to argue against the reliability of innate rationality and natural language, not to mention the mental consistency of all humans ever since the dawn of time (except for atheists in general and Darwinians in particular). Yet, he does not, thinking perhaps that this is all he needs to do to deliver his message to an audience of commoners and laypeople; and this serves me pretty well indeed.
In his book “The God Delusion”, Dawkins seeks to convince the lay reader that ever since time immemorial, humans have been “fooled” or “deluded” to see “design” where in fact there is not, and to see order and purpose where in fact there is none. He calls his ideological mission an attempt to “raise” people’s consciousness to the level where they are finally prepared to embrace such outrageous claims, both intellectually and spiritually. Thus I only find it convenient and justifiable that a book written to serve – among other pertinent ends - as a response to The God Delusion would come out under the title: Blasting the foundations of Atheism. But how does blowing Dawkins’ book serve as a means to blast all atheism? Well, I think that if one was to take some time and carefully examine every quasi argument that Dawkins puts forth in his boldly titled book, they would at least offer the reader fair insight into the “psyche” and “rationale” of an atheist, a militant one no less, who claims to have come to a near certainty that God is only a delusion! So if written with care, such an insight would suffice, in my view, to effectively destroy the foundations of all atheism. After all, atheism should be viewed as a psychological condition, and the core thesis of atheism is indeed every bit as ridiculous as what the very title of Dawkins’ book demonstrates. Thus I chose to exploit The God Delusion as a perfect instrument for my ends, and for that I am very grateful to Richard Dawkins.
Originally, I set out to refute every false or inconsistent claim that Dawkins bothered to advance in his book, and further expand on my arguments against atheistic thought along every quotation that I choose to pick. Naturally, I ended up with a volume little over a thousand pages large. Thus I was advised to split it in two volumes, the first of which would be printed separately, and would suffice to blow at least the two core chapters of Dawkins’ book out of the water: chapters three and four.
It is my pleasure to present the first of the two volumes of the book Blasting the Foundations of Atheism: its Pseudoscience and Pseudo-reason; a book which is not only addressed to sincere truth seekers worldwide but also to those who are on the verge of atheism. May Allah, the Creator of all, guide us to the one and simple truth, Amen

Read Vol. 1:
Volume I