https://www.believersdiscussion.com/ Thu, 16 Apr 2026 06:35:25 +0000 MyBB https://www.believersdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=14 Tue, 15 Oct 2024 18:33:27 +0000 sHuRuLuNi]]> https://www.believersdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=14 Allah. That is the personal name of God, and not just a meaning. When will the speakers ("dawah" lads) finally realise that? Allah was always the name of God.

According to the Qur'an, Allah did not say to Moses "I am YHWH", but actually told him explicitly "I am Allah, the Lord of the Worlds". This is when Moses, according to the Bible, supposedly asked Him about his name, i.e. when he said "What should I say to the people, who is the one who sent me".

Allah does NOT mean "The One God" or "The God". There is no meaning in "Allah" because it is a PROPER NAME of God.

The Jews changed the book and then "forgot" the name of God because the high priests FORBADE anyone to use the name of God, and it is forbidden to this day - and this went on for centuries, then the jews were taken as slaves to Babylon, the Torah was completely lost, no one knew what the original Torah said, and then some scribes "recreated" it roughly a 1000 years after Moses from folk tales, and invented the story with the "hidden name", and later used the tetragramaton (YHWH) to say that it was the name of God, but that is not a name at all.

"Ehye Asher Ehye", what supposedly God said to Moses, simply means "I am who I am" or "I am He" - it makes no sense at all. That is not a name. That sounds more like dismissal from God. Like, Moses asked him "What should I say who sent me?" and God tells him like "I am who I am, don't worry about it".

The fact, 100%, is that Allah told Moses His name of course, and it is found in several verses in the Qur'an. Here for example:
"O Moses! Indeed I am Allah — the Lord of all worlds." - Quran, 28:30

Now someone might object and say that God simply told Moses "Indeed I am God" - i.e. using the general noun "god" (deity). But if that was the case, the Qur'an would say "Indeed I am ILAH", because "ilah" is the noun "god" or "deity" in Arabic. But it does not say that - it explicitly says "I am ALLAH".
It can also not be that God told Moses "Indeed I am THE GOD" - i.e. using the supposed contraction that "Allah" simply comes from "Al-ilah" ("The God") - because then the Qur'an would say "Indeed I am AL-ILAH", but it doesn't.
Moses didn't "ask" Allah about his name, because Allah told him the moment Moses arrived to the burning bush.

Gramatically, even more evidence that Allah is a proper name and not just the arabic word for "god", is the fact that you cannot transform it the way you can with other nouns, like "god" (ilah). For example you can have "gods" or "godess", but you cannot have in arabic "Allahs" or "Allahess" or something like that. It simply does not work due to arabic grammatical rules. Allah is always the form with these letters: ALIF LAM LAM HA.

I have the feeling many speakers use this "Allah simply means God" to appeal to christians and others like "but Allah simply means God in arabic". No, it doesn't. God, or more precisely "deity" in arabic is "ilah". And "Lord" is "Rabb". And none of those are the same as "Allah".

You can see remnants of "Allah", the proper name, even today in the Shema, the jewish declaration of faith, which is rendered as "Hear oh Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one".

Even this got corrupted, but if you pay attention, you can actually find that it is the same statement as in the Qur'an, in the Surah Ikhlas, i.e. "He, Allah is one". In arabic this is "Huwa Allah Ahad".

The shema, in hebrew is "YHWH ALH YHWH AHD" (in the Bibles you will find it as "Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Ahad", because they replace YHWH with "Adonai" since they are not allowed to pronounce the "sacred name").

As I said "YHWH" is a corruption, it simply means something like "He who is" thus most probably, without vowels it simply was HW ("He"). This then is actually "HW ALH HW AHD".
So then, if we bear in mind the typical repetitions in the Bible, where a pronoun is repeated for emphasis, we can remove the second "HuWa" (He), and we get:  "Huwa Allah Ahad" - "He, Allah is One" exactly the same as in the Qur'an.]]> Allah. That is the personal name of God, and not just a meaning. When will the speakers ("dawah" lads) finally realise that? Allah was always the name of God.

According to the Qur'an, Allah did not say to Moses "I am YHWH", but actually told him explicitly "I am Allah, the Lord of the Worlds". This is when Moses, according to the Bible, supposedly asked Him about his name, i.e. when he said "What should I say to the people, who is the one who sent me".

Allah does NOT mean "The One God" or "The God". There is no meaning in "Allah" because it is a PROPER NAME of God.

The Jews changed the book and then "forgot" the name of God because the high priests FORBADE anyone to use the name of God, and it is forbidden to this day - and this went on for centuries, then the jews were taken as slaves to Babylon, the Torah was completely lost, no one knew what the original Torah said, and then some scribes "recreated" it roughly a 1000 years after Moses from folk tales, and invented the story with the "hidden name", and later used the tetragramaton (YHWH) to say that it was the name of God, but that is not a name at all.

"Ehye Asher Ehye", what supposedly God said to Moses, simply means "I am who I am" or "I am He" - it makes no sense at all. That is not a name. That sounds more like dismissal from God. Like, Moses asked him "What should I say who sent me?" and God tells him like "I am who I am, don't worry about it".

The fact, 100%, is that Allah told Moses His name of course, and it is found in several verses in the Qur'an. Here for example:
"O Moses! Indeed I am Allah — the Lord of all worlds." - Quran, 28:30

Now someone might object and say that God simply told Moses "Indeed I am God" - i.e. using the general noun "god" (deity). But if that was the case, the Qur'an would say "Indeed I am ILAH", because "ilah" is the noun "god" or "deity" in Arabic. But it does not say that - it explicitly says "I am ALLAH".
It can also not be that God told Moses "Indeed I am THE GOD" - i.e. using the supposed contraction that "Allah" simply comes from "Al-ilah" ("The God") - because then the Qur'an would say "Indeed I am AL-ILAH", but it doesn't.
Moses didn't "ask" Allah about his name, because Allah told him the moment Moses arrived to the burning bush.

Gramatically, even more evidence that Allah is a proper name and not just the arabic word for "god", is the fact that you cannot transform it the way you can with other nouns, like "god" (ilah). For example you can have "gods" or "godess", but you cannot have in arabic "Allahs" or "Allahess" or something like that. It simply does not work due to arabic grammatical rules. Allah is always the form with these letters: ALIF LAM LAM HA.

I have the feeling many speakers use this "Allah simply means God" to appeal to christians and others like "but Allah simply means God in arabic". No, it doesn't. God, or more precisely "deity" in arabic is "ilah". And "Lord" is "Rabb". And none of those are the same as "Allah".

You can see remnants of "Allah", the proper name, even today in the Shema, the jewish declaration of faith, which is rendered as "Hear oh Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one".

Even this got corrupted, but if you pay attention, you can actually find that it is the same statement as in the Qur'an, in the Surah Ikhlas, i.e. "He, Allah is one". In arabic this is "Huwa Allah Ahad".

The shema, in hebrew is "YHWH ALH YHWH AHD" (in the Bibles you will find it as "Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Ahad", because they replace YHWH with "Adonai" since they are not allowed to pronounce the "sacred name").

As I said "YHWH" is a corruption, it simply means something like "He who is" thus most probably, without vowels it simply was HW ("He"). This then is actually "HW ALH HW AHD".
So then, if we bear in mind the typical repetitions in the Bible, where a pronoun is repeated for emphasis, we can remove the second "HuWa" (He), and we get:  "Huwa Allah Ahad" - "He, Allah is One" exactly the same as in the Qur'an.]]> https://www.believersdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=12 Fri, 11 Oct 2024 06:52:40 +0000 sHuRuLuNi]]> https://www.believersdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=12 guidance if they wish to discuss with us.
As it may be known, we, and personally I in this case, do not take my guidance from any man-made books like hadith - for the simple reason that the guidance comes from the Qur'an.

Ever since I was a child, many "traditions" we blindly followed (no doubt passed down by some imam or scholar) seemed very illogical to me.

Other things deriving from the tradition, that very much bothered me - I am being sincere here - since I was a very small child, is for example the extensive praise of Muhammad, pbuh - especially such details like in all mosques in my area seeing the name of Muhammad always being put at the front wall in the mosque - on the same level with the name of God. So, everywhere I went, I would pray in the direction of 2 big signs that said "Allah - Muhammad". As if, we have 2 gods and we are directing our prayer to those two.

Here is an example of how that looks like in the mosque:


  Miščina+džamija,+Sarajevo_20_WEB.jpg (Size 636.39 KB / Downloads 2)

Since the overwhelming majority of common people here had no idea what even "hadith" are, they did not much think about these things. But I did, because I started studying and researching these things.

And as many point out: if only the majority of Muslims would actually know what utter nonsense can be found in the hadith, which is not only illogical, but many times degrading regarding the prophets, perverse and literally evil -- they too would start questioning the validity of hadith.

The more the time passed the more I noticed that many things are quite problematic when taking hadith as religious guidance - things that directly contradict the Qur'an, things that are a matter of life and death, where one's very existence can be threatened if one were to literally take the religious rulings from those books.

Naturally if you bring this up to "imams" you will be met with fearce resistance, where critical thinking is not allowed, or where sofisticated mental gymnastics are applied in order to "reconcile" some saying in some hadith book with the Qur'an or the actual reality.

I think the core of the issue with the common people who continue adhering to hadith is actually FEAR.

They are afraid that if they reject hadith as religious guidance then they will be shunned by their community, ostracized and somehow be condemned by God - while ignoring that the Qur'an perfectly lays out the guidance on what you have to do to please God.

Anyway, feel free to discuss this - also if you are someone who keeps sticking to the hadith - please do bring your arguments.]]> guidance if they wish to discuss with us.
As it may be known, we, and personally I in this case, do not take my guidance from any man-made books like hadith - for the simple reason that the guidance comes from the Qur'an.

Ever since I was a child, many "traditions" we blindly followed (no doubt passed down by some imam or scholar) seemed very illogical to me.

Other things deriving from the tradition, that very much bothered me - I am being sincere here - since I was a very small child, is for example the extensive praise of Muhammad, pbuh - especially such details like in all mosques in my area seeing the name of Muhammad always being put at the front wall in the mosque - on the same level with the name of God. So, everywhere I went, I would pray in the direction of 2 big signs that said "Allah - Muhammad". As if, we have 2 gods and we are directing our prayer to those two.

Here is an example of how that looks like in the mosque:


  Miščina+džamija,+Sarajevo_20_WEB.jpg (Size 636.39 KB / Downloads 2)

Since the overwhelming majority of common people here had no idea what even "hadith" are, they did not much think about these things. But I did, because I started studying and researching these things.

And as many point out: if only the majority of Muslims would actually know what utter nonsense can be found in the hadith, which is not only illogical, but many times degrading regarding the prophets, perverse and literally evil -- they too would start questioning the validity of hadith.

The more the time passed the more I noticed that many things are quite problematic when taking hadith as religious guidance - things that directly contradict the Qur'an, things that are a matter of life and death, where one's very existence can be threatened if one were to literally take the religious rulings from those books.

Naturally if you bring this up to "imams" you will be met with fearce resistance, where critical thinking is not allowed, or where sofisticated mental gymnastics are applied in order to "reconcile" some saying in some hadith book with the Qur'an or the actual reality.

I think the core of the issue with the common people who continue adhering to hadith is actually FEAR.

They are afraid that if they reject hadith as religious guidance then they will be shunned by their community, ostracized and somehow be condemned by God - while ignoring that the Qur'an perfectly lays out the guidance on what you have to do to please God.

Anyway, feel free to discuss this - also if you are someone who keeps sticking to the hadith - please do bring your arguments.]]> https://www.believersdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=10 Tue, 08 Oct 2024 08:44:45 +0000 sHuRuLuNi]]> https://www.believersdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=10
In every debate where Mr. David Wood participates you can almost be 100% sure of one thing: He will most assuredly bring the "argument" (against the Qur'an) of the sun setting in a sea of murky water (Qur'an, Chapter 18, Verse 86).

Murky water everywhere! Drowning in it. To be honest, it is getting tiresome. Needless to say that expressions like "sun setting in the sea" are self-explanatory. Even a small child knows that the sun does not actually dive in the sea, it just looks so, from its point of view on the beach.

Still, Mr. Wood keeps bringing this up, time and time again. To tell you the truth I would be ashamed to bring up an "argument" like that. But, Mr. Wood, apparently thinks that his audience is not "smart enough" and might buy into it.

I would understand his first time, maybe he read some Qur'an translation and thought it literally said that Dhul-Qarnain saw the sun "diving" into a murky water, but his repeating of this, even after he has been refuted so many times, is just inexcusable. For all of you unfamiliar with the verse in question, I will bring it here, so you can judge yourself if Wood's argument is valid:

Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea/spring of murky water, and found by it a people. We said: ‘O Dhulqarnain! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit.

The Qur’an is obviously describing what Dhul-Qarnain saw: the image of the sun setting in a dark body of water. From Dhul-Qarnain’s point of view it would have seemed as if the sun is "going down" into the sea/lake/body of water. The location of this body of water is thought by some scholars to be either the Black Sea or the Oher Lake, which both seem very dark (e.g. from the high presence of microalgae).

Why would anyone, in his right mind, make such a fuss about this verse, is a mistery to me, but it would seem that David really likes the subject. Or beating the audience with it, over and over again, until they believe it, if they don't fall dead out of sheer agony first.


David Wood and his travesty

There are many other jewels Mr. David "Murky Water" Wood uses to (in his opinion) discredit the Qur'an as being scientifically unreliable, but we can merge them all in this one example of the Infamous Murky Water Case. He basically uses the same semantics in trying to brush off qur'anic claims about the astronomy, embryology  etc. as "not at all in accordance with modern science, but a mere muslim reinterpretation". In this, one can see his atheistic roots actually, although he would like to think of himself as an evangelical Christian now.

Since he usually fires up 150 billion words per second, he is mostly "done" after the opening statement, then he turns, irrelevant of what the subject is about, to his other most beloved subject on Islam - the Person of Muhammad, peace be upon him. I won't even start on his claims about this matter. Suffice it to say that David seems to suffer from an acute case of hatred towards Muhammad, although, on his website, and his speeches, he claims that is not the case. Logically, derived from this are all his attacks on Islam and the Qur'an. I sincerely hope his obsessional hatred doesn't cause him to forget to swim and he drowns in that infamous murky water.]]>
In every debate where Mr. David Wood participates you can almost be 100% sure of one thing: He will most assuredly bring the "argument" (against the Qur'an) of the sun setting in a sea of murky water (Qur'an, Chapter 18, Verse 86).

Murky water everywhere! Drowning in it. To be honest, it is getting tiresome. Needless to say that expressions like "sun setting in the sea" are self-explanatory. Even a small child knows that the sun does not actually dive in the sea, it just looks so, from its point of view on the beach.

Still, Mr. Wood keeps bringing this up, time and time again. To tell you the truth I would be ashamed to bring up an "argument" like that. But, Mr. Wood, apparently thinks that his audience is not "smart enough" and might buy into it.

I would understand his first time, maybe he read some Qur'an translation and thought it literally said that Dhul-Qarnain saw the sun "diving" into a murky water, but his repeating of this, even after he has been refuted so many times, is just inexcusable. For all of you unfamiliar with the verse in question, I will bring it here, so you can judge yourself if Wood's argument is valid:

Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea/spring of murky water, and found by it a people. We said: ‘O Dhulqarnain! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit.

The Qur’an is obviously describing what Dhul-Qarnain saw: the image of the sun setting in a dark body of water. From Dhul-Qarnain’s point of view it would have seemed as if the sun is "going down" into the sea/lake/body of water. The location of this body of water is thought by some scholars to be either the Black Sea or the Oher Lake, which both seem very dark (e.g. from the high presence of microalgae).

Why would anyone, in his right mind, make such a fuss about this verse, is a mistery to me, but it would seem that David really likes the subject. Or beating the audience with it, over and over again, until they believe it, if they don't fall dead out of sheer agony first.


David Wood and his travesty

There are many other jewels Mr. David "Murky Water" Wood uses to (in his opinion) discredit the Qur'an as being scientifically unreliable, but we can merge them all in this one example of the Infamous Murky Water Case. He basically uses the same semantics in trying to brush off qur'anic claims about the astronomy, embryology  etc. as "not at all in accordance with modern science, but a mere muslim reinterpretation". In this, one can see his atheistic roots actually, although he would like to think of himself as an evangelical Christian now.

Since he usually fires up 150 billion words per second, he is mostly "done" after the opening statement, then he turns, irrelevant of what the subject is about, to his other most beloved subject on Islam - the Person of Muhammad, peace be upon him. I won't even start on his claims about this matter. Suffice it to say that David seems to suffer from an acute case of hatred towards Muhammad, although, on his website, and his speeches, he claims that is not the case. Logically, derived from this are all his attacks on Islam and the Qur'an. I sincerely hope his obsessional hatred doesn't cause him to forget to swim and he drowns in that infamous murky water.]]> https://www.believersdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=9 Tue, 08 Oct 2024 08:11:31 +0000 sHuRuLuNi]]> https://www.believersdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=9
Short Answer: Because there are no Atheists in the world. There never were any, and there never will be any.



This is quite a strange claim, one might say. After all, there are thousands of self-proclaimed atheists in the world right now. They evidently claim to lack the belief in a god - which is also the definition of Atheism, that is the lack of belief in a deity, so what's up with the short answer?

Let me explain with the long answer then. But before we go there - isn't the title "The Atheist God" in itself a contradiction though? Am I implying there is a God who is an atheist? No, of course not. The title is an analogy to the words like "the muslim God" or "the christian God". The form I am using here is as the title implies the "God of the atheists". Now, many atheists might burst into laughter at this point because of the sheer irony of the title itself and declare this to be an oxymoron. How can there be an "atheist God" when the word atheist itself implies their lack of belief in a God?

Yet, I would argue this is precisely the case! The atheists DO have a God,  and to argue this I will use just one verse in the Qur'an - no need to use countless verses, chapters and interpretations - one verse is enough to prove that the atheists do have a God and that there are in fact no atheists in the world, as in no persons who do not have a God.

This is the verse:

Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire?
- Qur'an, 25:43

Allah is so majestically eloquent that He does not need whole chapters and tomes to explain something - only a few words in a single verse. This one verse completely destroys the atheists' argument that the Qur'an has nothing to say about them.

Every atheist, when he looks at his reflection in the mirror, and admires himself and his or her "intellect" as sufficient (no need for a god), while rejecting God - is automatically taking his own desire/intellect/ego as his god. And this is but one example of many different gods people worship.

What is a god anyway?

God, or deity, and specifically "ilah" in the Qur'an, means "someone or something that is worshiped". If you do not worship Allah, the One and Only true God - you inevitably will worship someone or something else, thus idolizing it/him/her - be it your ego, the society, science, the liberal, humanist or feminist dogma, the political system, the state, the president, the King or even your favorite artist, athlete or singer (is it a coincidence many athletes, singers and artists are called "idols"?).

The second you have an idol whom you worship, you have "created" your own god.

Now, you can believe in God and still have "idols" - this is no different than the polytheists in Mecca at the time of Muhammad, pbuh. They actually did believe in Allah, as the one supreme God - but they also believed in many other idols, as "lesser" gods.

In the case of atheists - they simply have one god less than the polytheists - i.e. they reject the supreme God, but worship many other idols, as mentioned above.

The militant atheists in particular though, the likes of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, have a tremendous ego whom they worship - and these are the ones described by Allah in the verse above. This because they constantly declare that they do not need a deity when they have their intellect. They can "think for themselves" (as if believing in God means not being able to think for themselves - SMH). In declaring this, and at the same time mocking believers for believing in one supreme God, they inadvertently mock themselves, without even realizing it. Which is sad to be honest.

As a Muslim, one who surrenders his will to the will of God, it would be immensely arrogant of me to think that my “intellect” can be a substitute for the real G.

The sheer arrogance oozing from the mouths of so-called atheists, on the other hand, is a testament to their frailty - they cannot accept the possibility that there might be something bigger out there, something stronger, something smarter than them - because after all, they are their own god, their atheist god.]]>
Short Answer: Because there are no Atheists in the world. There never were any, and there never will be any.



This is quite a strange claim, one might say. After all, there are thousands of self-proclaimed atheists in the world right now. They evidently claim to lack the belief in a god - which is also the definition of Atheism, that is the lack of belief in a deity, so what's up with the short answer?

Let me explain with the long answer then. But before we go there - isn't the title "The Atheist God" in itself a contradiction though? Am I implying there is a God who is an atheist? No, of course not. The title is an analogy to the words like "the muslim God" or "the christian God". The form I am using here is as the title implies the "God of the atheists". Now, many atheists might burst into laughter at this point because of the sheer irony of the title itself and declare this to be an oxymoron. How can there be an "atheist God" when the word atheist itself implies their lack of belief in a God?

Yet, I would argue this is precisely the case! The atheists DO have a God,  and to argue this I will use just one verse in the Qur'an - no need to use countless verses, chapters and interpretations - one verse is enough to prove that the atheists do have a God and that there are in fact no atheists in the world, as in no persons who do not have a God.

This is the verse:

Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire?
- Qur'an, 25:43

Allah is so majestically eloquent that He does not need whole chapters and tomes to explain something - only a few words in a single verse. This one verse completely destroys the atheists' argument that the Qur'an has nothing to say about them.

Every atheist, when he looks at his reflection in the mirror, and admires himself and his or her "intellect" as sufficient (no need for a god), while rejecting God - is automatically taking his own desire/intellect/ego as his god. And this is but one example of many different gods people worship.

What is a god anyway?

God, or deity, and specifically "ilah" in the Qur'an, means "someone or something that is worshiped". If you do not worship Allah, the One and Only true God - you inevitably will worship someone or something else, thus idolizing it/him/her - be it your ego, the society, science, the liberal, humanist or feminist dogma, the political system, the state, the president, the King or even your favorite artist, athlete or singer (is it a coincidence many athletes, singers and artists are called "idols"?).

The second you have an idol whom you worship, you have "created" your own god.

Now, you can believe in God and still have "idols" - this is no different than the polytheists in Mecca at the time of Muhammad, pbuh. They actually did believe in Allah, as the one supreme God - but they also believed in many other idols, as "lesser" gods.

In the case of atheists - they simply have one god less than the polytheists - i.e. they reject the supreme God, but worship many other idols, as mentioned above.

The militant atheists in particular though, the likes of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, have a tremendous ego whom they worship - and these are the ones described by Allah in the verse above. This because they constantly declare that they do not need a deity when they have their intellect. They can "think for themselves" (as if believing in God means not being able to think for themselves - SMH). In declaring this, and at the same time mocking believers for believing in one supreme God, they inadvertently mock themselves, without even realizing it. Which is sad to be honest.

As a Muslim, one who surrenders his will to the will of God, it would be immensely arrogant of me to think that my “intellect” can be a substitute for the real G.

The sheer arrogance oozing from the mouths of so-called atheists, on the other hand, is a testament to their frailty - they cannot accept the possibility that there might be something bigger out there, something stronger, something smarter than them - because after all, they are their own god, their atheist god.]]> https://www.believersdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=8 Tue, 08 Oct 2024 08:01:14 +0000 sHuRuLuNi]]> https://www.believersdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=8
If you happen to have a debate with a Christian, the majority of quotes he will bring to defend the case of Jesus' death and resurrection as well as the doctrine of atonement, will inevitably come from some letter of a man called Saul of Tarsus, better known as Paul. You will hear quotes from Galatians, Colossians, Timothy, Thessalonians, etc. - letters Paul wrote to different churches and persons in his time.



What many Christians do not know, and some know but choose to ignore, is the fact that almost all these letters directly or indirectly contradict the teachings of Jesus himself. While, on the one side, we have Jesus claiming that he did not come to abolish the Law, and that the Law shall abide forever, on the other side we have Paul saying that one does not have to keep the Law anymore. Again, on one side, we have Jesus saying that he is only sent to the house of Israel, yet on the other side we have Paul preaching "the gospel" to gentiles on all four sides of the world.

Paul never met Jesus. He was not one of the original disciples. In his writings he indicates that he had a "vision" of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Allegedly Jesus then chose him to proclaim his Gospel. The "correct one", as Paul states in his writings, speaking against those "who preach another gospel", which would indicate that there were those who indeed preached something different from Paul. Apparently some of these were the original disciples themselves, who were strongly opposed to Paul. Why was this the case? Well, for one, they saw Paul as a "false disciple" who preached things opposite to what Jesus preached. Unfortunately, we do not have any writings from the disciples anymore, only those of Paul, and some influenced by Paul. It is clear that Paul was trying to portrait his relation to the disciples as "good", but even in some writings we have today in the New Testament we see the friction that reigned between both parties.

What was it then that Paul preached and was different from what Jesus or the disciples preached? As a main point, Paul was the first person to preach the doctrine of resurrection, that is, that we are now saved "in Jesus", because Jesus gave his life to atone for the sins of the humanity.


The disciples of Jesus regarded Paul as a "false prophet"

How about a comparison with the Gospels?

We cannot really contrast the information because all four Gospels in the NT were written after Paul, and after this doctrine was well established and had prevaled over other doctrines, mainly those preached by the real disciples. So, the writings in the Gospels are strongly influenced by the teachings of Paul.

It is this doctrine of Paul that will later create many difficulties for the Gospel writers and other followers of Jesus - because the writers now had the task to attempt to rework many stories about Jesus to be in accordance with pauline teachings. We see this throughout the gospels - and in some cases we see apparent contradictions between the different books as well as in the same book, because the authors used sayings of Jesus which had survived in the oral (and maybe written) tradition in their books, together with the teachings of Paul - thus creating confusing theology where we have a Jesus saying that he was only sent to the house of Israel, and later the same Jesus commanding his "disciples" to go out and preach his Gospel to the whole world.


Paul's "conversion" on the road to Damascus

The latter part naturally came as an influence from Paul, who saw his role as being the one to preach the Gospel to the gentiles - the authors thus had to construct a story in their Gospels, presenting Jesus as commanding this. One might ask why then did they not take out the first quote where Jesus says 'he is only sent to the house of Israel'? It is reasonably possible that these sayings of Jesus were publicly known, passed on by generations, and one could not simply get rid of them like that.

While this particular issue might not be that grave, from a theological standpoint - it is the other major parts of the pauline doctrine that had a tremendous negative impact on the later followers of Jesus. Paul was the first to claim that Jesus died as a curse from God - he was basing this in the Old Testament where it says that "whosoever dies hanging" is cursed from God (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). But now, having claimed this, Paul was left with a difficulty, since how could Jesus, an agent of God be cursed? This is the part where Paul got creative and introduced the doctrine of resurrection - his solution to the cross conundrum. Since God resurrected Jesus, then this means he was not cursed. Jesus beat death, in a manner of speaking, thus anyone who accepts Jesus as his Lord, can beat death too. But that has created the apologetic burden for the Gospel writers to actually prove that Jesus was resurrected.

The whole later parts of the Gospels, dealing with the resurrection are directly based on this pauline doctrine - and the Gospel writers constructed their stories to reflect this belief. This is absolutely visible if we take the chronological order of the Gospels. Mark, being the first written Gospel, has almost nothing on resurrection. After him, Matthew and Luke, who based their writings on those of Mark, developed the story further. And as the years would pass by, and the pauline doctrine was getting stronger and stronger - so was the reflection of the doctrine more prononunced - culminating in the Gospel of John, which was written almost 60 years after Jesus - and where the personality of Jesus is developed fully as preached by Paul - of him being our "Lord" and the agent through whom God made everything.

This development is very visible in the Gospels. As the doctrine of Paul was becoming more and more prevalent, so are the writings of the gospel authors. If we have Jesus in Mark healing a few people in a village, in Matthew and Luke he heals the whole village. And whereas in Mark he feeds a group of people, in the later Gospels he feeds thousands of them. And bear in mind, these are the same stories, but developed more and more, the later the Gospel.
Finally, in John, Jesus is no more weak, never gets angry, doesn't pray to God to save him, and boldly uses claims about himself which were spoken by God in the Old Testament.

Why would Saul of Tarsus do all of this?

The question is hanging in the room. Why? What would compel Saul of Tarsus to do all this? To understand that, we shall reflect on his name first. Why is he called Paul and Saul? What's that all about?

Well, it just so happens that Paul was actually known as Saul of Tarsus for many years. A hellenistic (greek speaking) Jew, who was known for his ruthlessness as a torturer of the followers of Christ. He was in fact a mercenary, a head hunter - hunting followers of Jesus wherever he could find them.
We now have two possibilities to explain his "sudden change of heart". The third one - him being a real disciple of Jesus, commanded by Jesus to do what he did - falls short because of all the evidence provided above.

The first of the two possibilities is that he suffered from some kind of an inferiority complex - thus wishing to make himself "special" and a leader. He would do anything to achieve this, and as he himself pointed out, he would not hesitate to lie and deceive in order to preach "his" Gospel to the gentiles (2 Corinthians 12:16, I Corinthians 9:19-22).

The second possibility, is that maybe he saw an opportunity to finish what he could not accomplish as hunter of the followers of Jesus. Perhaps he saw that the movement of the believers in Jesus was getting stronger, and that also "stronger measures" were needed to counteract this. What better way than to do it from within?

Be that as it may, the fact is his preaching of this "new" Gospel became the mainstream belief of the Christians.

What happened to the teachings of the original disciples?

Christian apologetists of today often argue that if the disciples of Jesus preached some other form of Christianity then why do we not have any of their teachings in any manuscripts? They so often need to be reminded that in fact we do have manuscripts which point to many other forms of Christianity, and I am not even thinking of the gnostic Gospels right now, although they should be taken into consideration as well.

Even in the Gospels of today which were canonized some three centuries after Jesus, biblical scholars have found remnants of what must have been some of the original teachings of Jesus and his disciples. The most evident example are the three synoptic Gospels, that according to Mark, Matthew and the Gospel according to Luke. It has been known for some time now that Matthew and Luke used Mark as their source - thus the overlapping stories, but scholars have also noticed that both Matthew and Luke have also incidents in their Gospels which one does not find in Mark, leading to the conclusion that they must have had another source, named "Q" (from the german word for source - "Quelle").


Paul was the first to preach the "resurrection" of Jesus

What is most interesting though, is that in the "Q" sayings, called as such because they are only comprised of sayings of Jesus, there is no mention of any biographical material about Jesus which we normally find in the Gospels. The Q sayings seem to be part of the original "Gospel" of Jesus (a.s), that is, the book that was revealed to Jesus from God. There is nothing in the Q about the "crucifixion" of Jesus or his "death" or "resurrection". There is no mention of empty tombs and atonement for mankind. In reading Q, one will find a remarkable similarity of this "Gospel" to another revelation from God - the Qur'an, revealed to the last Prophet, Muhammad (a.s.).

It is then reasonable to assume that the disciples of Jesus preached exactly this, as "the Gospel" - leading us to some understanding of why there was friction between them and Paul - who preached something completely different and utterly alien to what Jesus actually preached.

There is also knowledge about different sects that existed up to the third century which did not believe in Jesus as God or part of the trinity, and regarded him rightly so, as a prophet of God. Among these sects were also the Nazarenes and Ebionites. Later in the third and fourth century, the followers of the christian presbyter Arius still maintained the Divinity of God the Father over Jesus the Son. For this they were persecuted by the mainstream church after the First Council of Nicea which basically created the doctrine of Trinity. Emperor Theodosius I effectively wiped out Arianism once and for all among the elites of the Eastern Empire through a combination of imperial decree, persecution, and the calling of the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, which condemned Arius anew while reaffirming and expanding the Nicene Creed. This generally ended the influence of Arianism among the non-Germanic peoples of the Roman Empire and Pauline Christianity became the mainstream religion of the Empire.

The hijack

It is more than evident that Paul took the teachings of Jesus and his disciples and substituted them with his own. He twisted and changed the monotheistic doctrine of Jesus and turned it into a mix of judaic teachings with helenistic pagan ingredients. Through this, he "created" another Jesus - one that is not merely a prophet anymore, but a divine figure, a Lord and a Saviour.

He adapted his doctrine even more to the pagan beliefs in order to make it more acceptable to the gentile pagans he was preaching to. So, if some pagans in the roman empire liked to eat pork very much, he told them "oh, that is no problem, you can continue to eat pork as long as you accept Jesus as your Saviour!", and if some other politheistic helens cherished their old held beliefs of ancient gods who had sons and daughters - then Paul adapted the doctrine and told them that Jesus is also a Lord (theos, basically a god) and the Son of God. This way it was far easier for the gentiles to accept Paul's doctrine.

Paul succeeded in creating a whole new religion which was not Christianity anymore, but rather Paulianism and which was not the religion of Christ anymore but rather the religion about Christ. From that point on the trinitarian Christians followed Paul instead of Jesus.

Therefore those 2+ billion people calling themselves Christians today, are in fact Paulians.]]>
If you happen to have a debate with a Christian, the majority of quotes he will bring to defend the case of Jesus' death and resurrection as well as the doctrine of atonement, will inevitably come from some letter of a man called Saul of Tarsus, better known as Paul. You will hear quotes from Galatians, Colossians, Timothy, Thessalonians, etc. - letters Paul wrote to different churches and persons in his time.



What many Christians do not know, and some know but choose to ignore, is the fact that almost all these letters directly or indirectly contradict the teachings of Jesus himself. While, on the one side, we have Jesus claiming that he did not come to abolish the Law, and that the Law shall abide forever, on the other side we have Paul saying that one does not have to keep the Law anymore. Again, on one side, we have Jesus saying that he is only sent to the house of Israel, yet on the other side we have Paul preaching "the gospel" to gentiles on all four sides of the world.

Paul never met Jesus. He was not one of the original disciples. In his writings he indicates that he had a "vision" of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Allegedly Jesus then chose him to proclaim his Gospel. The "correct one", as Paul states in his writings, speaking against those "who preach another gospel", which would indicate that there were those who indeed preached something different from Paul. Apparently some of these were the original disciples themselves, who were strongly opposed to Paul. Why was this the case? Well, for one, they saw Paul as a "false disciple" who preached things opposite to what Jesus preached. Unfortunately, we do not have any writings from the disciples anymore, only those of Paul, and some influenced by Paul. It is clear that Paul was trying to portrait his relation to the disciples as "good", but even in some writings we have today in the New Testament we see the friction that reigned between both parties.

What was it then that Paul preached and was different from what Jesus or the disciples preached? As a main point, Paul was the first person to preach the doctrine of resurrection, that is, that we are now saved "in Jesus", because Jesus gave his life to atone for the sins of the humanity.


The disciples of Jesus regarded Paul as a "false prophet"

How about a comparison with the Gospels?

We cannot really contrast the information because all four Gospels in the NT were written after Paul, and after this doctrine was well established and had prevaled over other doctrines, mainly those preached by the real disciples. So, the writings in the Gospels are strongly influenced by the teachings of Paul.

It is this doctrine of Paul that will later create many difficulties for the Gospel writers and other followers of Jesus - because the writers now had the task to attempt to rework many stories about Jesus to be in accordance with pauline teachings. We see this throughout the gospels - and in some cases we see apparent contradictions between the different books as well as in the same book, because the authors used sayings of Jesus which had survived in the oral (and maybe written) tradition in their books, together with the teachings of Paul - thus creating confusing theology where we have a Jesus saying that he was only sent to the house of Israel, and later the same Jesus commanding his "disciples" to go out and preach his Gospel to the whole world.


Paul's "conversion" on the road to Damascus

The latter part naturally came as an influence from Paul, who saw his role as being the one to preach the Gospel to the gentiles - the authors thus had to construct a story in their Gospels, presenting Jesus as commanding this. One might ask why then did they not take out the first quote where Jesus says 'he is only sent to the house of Israel'? It is reasonably possible that these sayings of Jesus were publicly known, passed on by generations, and one could not simply get rid of them like that.

While this particular issue might not be that grave, from a theological standpoint - it is the other major parts of the pauline doctrine that had a tremendous negative impact on the later followers of Jesus. Paul was the first to claim that Jesus died as a curse from God - he was basing this in the Old Testament where it says that "whosoever dies hanging" is cursed from God (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). But now, having claimed this, Paul was left with a difficulty, since how could Jesus, an agent of God be cursed? This is the part where Paul got creative and introduced the doctrine of resurrection - his solution to the cross conundrum. Since God resurrected Jesus, then this means he was not cursed. Jesus beat death, in a manner of speaking, thus anyone who accepts Jesus as his Lord, can beat death too. But that has created the apologetic burden for the Gospel writers to actually prove that Jesus was resurrected.

The whole later parts of the Gospels, dealing with the resurrection are directly based on this pauline doctrine - and the Gospel writers constructed their stories to reflect this belief. This is absolutely visible if we take the chronological order of the Gospels. Mark, being the first written Gospel, has almost nothing on resurrection. After him, Matthew and Luke, who based their writings on those of Mark, developed the story further. And as the years would pass by, and the pauline doctrine was getting stronger and stronger - so was the reflection of the doctrine more prononunced - culminating in the Gospel of John, which was written almost 60 years after Jesus - and where the personality of Jesus is developed fully as preached by Paul - of him being our "Lord" and the agent through whom God made everything.

This development is very visible in the Gospels. As the doctrine of Paul was becoming more and more prevalent, so are the writings of the gospel authors. If we have Jesus in Mark healing a few people in a village, in Matthew and Luke he heals the whole village. And whereas in Mark he feeds a group of people, in the later Gospels he feeds thousands of them. And bear in mind, these are the same stories, but developed more and more, the later the Gospel.
Finally, in John, Jesus is no more weak, never gets angry, doesn't pray to God to save him, and boldly uses claims about himself which were spoken by God in the Old Testament.

Why would Saul of Tarsus do all of this?

The question is hanging in the room. Why? What would compel Saul of Tarsus to do all this? To understand that, we shall reflect on his name first. Why is he called Paul and Saul? What's that all about?

Well, it just so happens that Paul was actually known as Saul of Tarsus for many years. A hellenistic (greek speaking) Jew, who was known for his ruthlessness as a torturer of the followers of Christ. He was in fact a mercenary, a head hunter - hunting followers of Jesus wherever he could find them.
We now have two possibilities to explain his "sudden change of heart". The third one - him being a real disciple of Jesus, commanded by Jesus to do what he did - falls short because of all the evidence provided above.

The first of the two possibilities is that he suffered from some kind of an inferiority complex - thus wishing to make himself "special" and a leader. He would do anything to achieve this, and as he himself pointed out, he would not hesitate to lie and deceive in order to preach "his" Gospel to the gentiles (2 Corinthians 12:16, I Corinthians 9:19-22).

The second possibility, is that maybe he saw an opportunity to finish what he could not accomplish as hunter of the followers of Jesus. Perhaps he saw that the movement of the believers in Jesus was getting stronger, and that also "stronger measures" were needed to counteract this. What better way than to do it from within?

Be that as it may, the fact is his preaching of this "new" Gospel became the mainstream belief of the Christians.

What happened to the teachings of the original disciples?

Christian apologetists of today often argue that if the disciples of Jesus preached some other form of Christianity then why do we not have any of their teachings in any manuscripts? They so often need to be reminded that in fact we do have manuscripts which point to many other forms of Christianity, and I am not even thinking of the gnostic Gospels right now, although they should be taken into consideration as well.

Even in the Gospels of today which were canonized some three centuries after Jesus, biblical scholars have found remnants of what must have been some of the original teachings of Jesus and his disciples. The most evident example are the three synoptic Gospels, that according to Mark, Matthew and the Gospel according to Luke. It has been known for some time now that Matthew and Luke used Mark as their source - thus the overlapping stories, but scholars have also noticed that both Matthew and Luke have also incidents in their Gospels which one does not find in Mark, leading to the conclusion that they must have had another source, named "Q" (from the german word for source - "Quelle").


Paul was the first to preach the "resurrection" of Jesus

What is most interesting though, is that in the "Q" sayings, called as such because they are only comprised of sayings of Jesus, there is no mention of any biographical material about Jesus which we normally find in the Gospels. The Q sayings seem to be part of the original "Gospel" of Jesus (a.s), that is, the book that was revealed to Jesus from God. There is nothing in the Q about the "crucifixion" of Jesus or his "death" or "resurrection". There is no mention of empty tombs and atonement for mankind. In reading Q, one will find a remarkable similarity of this "Gospel" to another revelation from God - the Qur'an, revealed to the last Prophet, Muhammad (a.s.).

It is then reasonable to assume that the disciples of Jesus preached exactly this, as "the Gospel" - leading us to some understanding of why there was friction between them and Paul - who preached something completely different and utterly alien to what Jesus actually preached.

There is also knowledge about different sects that existed up to the third century which did not believe in Jesus as God or part of the trinity, and regarded him rightly so, as a prophet of God. Among these sects were also the Nazarenes and Ebionites. Later in the third and fourth century, the followers of the christian presbyter Arius still maintained the Divinity of God the Father over Jesus the Son. For this they were persecuted by the mainstream church after the First Council of Nicea which basically created the doctrine of Trinity. Emperor Theodosius I effectively wiped out Arianism once and for all among the elites of the Eastern Empire through a combination of imperial decree, persecution, and the calling of the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, which condemned Arius anew while reaffirming and expanding the Nicene Creed. This generally ended the influence of Arianism among the non-Germanic peoples of the Roman Empire and Pauline Christianity became the mainstream religion of the Empire.

The hijack

It is more than evident that Paul took the teachings of Jesus and his disciples and substituted them with his own. He twisted and changed the monotheistic doctrine of Jesus and turned it into a mix of judaic teachings with helenistic pagan ingredients. Through this, he "created" another Jesus - one that is not merely a prophet anymore, but a divine figure, a Lord and a Saviour.

He adapted his doctrine even more to the pagan beliefs in order to make it more acceptable to the gentile pagans he was preaching to. So, if some pagans in the roman empire liked to eat pork very much, he told them "oh, that is no problem, you can continue to eat pork as long as you accept Jesus as your Saviour!", and if some other politheistic helens cherished their old held beliefs of ancient gods who had sons and daughters - then Paul adapted the doctrine and told them that Jesus is also a Lord (theos, basically a god) and the Son of God. This way it was far easier for the gentiles to accept Paul's doctrine.

Paul succeeded in creating a whole new religion which was not Christianity anymore, but rather Paulianism and which was not the religion of Christ anymore but rather the religion about Christ. From that point on the trinitarian Christians followed Paul instead of Jesus.

Therefore those 2+ billion people calling themselves Christians today, are in fact Paulians.]]> https://www.believersdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=7 Mon, 07 Oct 2024 23:51:15 +0000 sHuRuLuNi]]> https://www.believersdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=7
The Dawkins Delusion

Quite a huge goal, the one Mr. Dawkins has put on himself with his book "The God Delusion". By the end of reading it, according to him, the reader would become atheist. Hm. Didn't quite work on me.

But then again, people like me might be "biased", or not enough "open minded", as Mr. Richard Dawkins alludes in his book. The truth is: I am very open minded. I wasn't just "raised to be a Muslim". I used my own mind to question, research, compare, ask and evaluate everything I was raised to believe. The fact that I am now even more Muslim than I was, tells something.

The adversity of most modern atheists towards religion is a reflection of the adversity towards Christianity and it's flaws

Anyway, back to Dawkins: Mr. Richard "the proud Atheist" Dawkins, in his 2006 book "The God Delusion" calls all believers to abandon religion and God and embrace atheism, as a "splendid" way of life [1]. To succeed at this, he applies methods of pretty much "picking and choosing" of quotes from famous scientists and theologians, always suitable to his cause. It is obvious that Mr. Dawkins was raised in a predominantly Christian culture and this is the one big flaw in his reasoning - one, by the way, which almost all the modern "atheists" have in common - his adversity towards religion is a reflection of the adversity towards Christianity.

Many people who became atheists, did so, as a response to several "flaws" in the Bible and Christianity as a religion. Some could just not accept the classical idea that God is an old man with a beard sitting somewhere in Heavens (this is of course not the reason for Dawkins' atheism, as he points out), or that God is actually one of three persons, each of them divine, yet there are not three Gods, but one God [The Doctrine of Trinity, 2], others abandoned faith because of convenience (it is much easier to not believe than believe) and then there are those, like Mr. Dawkins, who, being scientists, reach a level where they think they have grasped it all: there simply is no need for God, because everything can be explained in the light of science.

Let's see how exactly Mr. Dawkins is trying to prove that God does not exist, and that belief in a deity is a delusion.

One of the examples Dawkins uses to prove the non-existence of God and to ridicule the believers is The Great Prayer Experiment. It was an experiment funded by the Templeton Foundation, to test experimentally the proposition that praying for sick patients improves their health.[3] The result, after three groups of people in three different churches prayed for sick patients, was that their condition did not change. Dawkins, cynically, brings examples of several reasons why the prayers "might have not worked", by quoting some Christian theologians that try to defend their views, and explains these as "grotesque piece of reasoning, so damningly typical of the theological mind". [4]
What Dawkins doesn't consider here is this: What if they were all praying to the wrong God? I would assume that most of them, if not all, were Christians, who might have been praying to "God", but since they believe Jesus is God, then they were praying to Jesus, a man. Further more, for any prayer to be accepted, the one praying must be a righteous person. What do we know about the persons who were praying? Not much.

[img]https://web.archive.org/web/20160417012344im_/http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/7/7b/Opened_Qur'an.jpg/250px-Opened_Qur'an.jpg[/img]

Dawkins criticises Islam without even having read the Qur'an

In other words, to discredit religion, Dawkins is using all the wrong examples, like people having Visions of Virgin Mary, Christ, Angels, etc. Why do I say this? Because Virgin Mary was a human being, so was Jesus - they won't just "show up" to people, because they can not do it. Angels will only show up to prophets, real prophets. Thus, when we as Muslims, hear of these "visions" we don't think of it as "another proof there is no God, since people only hallucinate", we only think as "another proof their belief is wrong, because you can't actually see virgin Mary, who has been dead now for 2000 years".

In case of God, this is even stronger, since contrary to Christianity, Islam doesn't believe God enters his Creation - God is "outside" his Creation - if he would enter his creation he would be subject to the physical laws of the same, thus he would cease to be God. Bear in mind though, that when I use the analogy of God being "outside", this does not imply a physical presence of God "somewhere", i.e. we cannot say "God is there but not there" or assign a spacial constrain to God, it is thus a pointer to emphasise that He does not physically enter the creation. The analogy of this, used by many Muslim scholars when debating Christians is: If Jesus was God incarnate, which means God entered his creation, was subject to physical laws, and was killed - then he ceased to be God the moment he entered the creation. If they killed God, who was running the universe?

Might I say that this is one of those typical arguments Dawkins would also use, but to "prove" that there generally is no God, since Jesus could not have possibly been God. But just because Christians have it totally wrong, it doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It would be like trying to prove that God doesn't exist, just because some tribe in the Amazonas jungle worships a big round stone as God. In other words, the wrong concept of God doesn't eliminate His existence.

And so, by pointing out errors in the Bible, absurdities or simply cut, forgeries [5], Dawkins thinks he will "push" people to atheism, but he is only having the opposite effect. I for one, already know that the Bible has been changed, edited, corrupted, etc, as do ALL Muslims. That is only one more argument for me that the Qur'an is indeed the Word of God, since these claims were in the Qur'an 1400 years before Dawkins and biblical textual criticism.

Another point Dawkins would like to raise is that, simply put, the more religious you are, the dumber you are, thus only "the not so smart" people really believe in God. [6] I would argue the opposite: The smarter you are, the more will you be able to understand God. There are of course those who are very smart, or think they are very smart, but don't believe in God (Dawkins included) for several reasons, arrogance not excluded. Since God is beyond time and space, he knew what would people like Dawkins do:

For he thought and he plotted; And woe to him! How he plotted! Yea, Woe to him; How he plotted! Then he looked round; Then he frowned and he scowled; Then he turned back and was haughty; Then said he: "This is nothing but magic, derived from of old. This is nothing but the word of a mortal!" [7]

By the way, following these verses is the one verse where number 19 is mentioned. Would like to see how Dawkins would explain the 19 based mathematical system in the Qur'an. Coincidence? Yeah, right.

Another front, where Dawkins likes to fight, since he is a biologist, is the origin of life. He brings an example of how the first "sparkle" of life started, saying that, the first thing to start life must have been a DNA or more probably an RNA molecule. He answers his own question of "Where did the first molecule come from" with a convenient mathematical probability example:

It has been estimated that there are between 1 billion and 30 billion planets in our galaxy, and about 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Knocking a few noughts off for reasons of ordinary prudence, a billion billion is a conservative estimate of the number of available planets in the universe. Now, suppose the origin of life, the spontaneous arising of something equivalent to DNA, really was a quite staggeringly improbable event. Suppose it was so improbable as to occur on only one in a billion planets . . . even with such absurdly long odds, life will still have arisen on a billion planets - of which Earth, of course, is one. [8]

Note something interesting in his claim? "The SPONTANEOUS arising of DNA".
If life can really arise "spontaneously", how come we don't see it happen every day? For example, a biologist is looking through microscope into a drop of clean water, and "POOF!" all of a sudden a DNA molecule pops up!

Do not worry: A random horse will never "pop into being" in your living room

It reminds me of a remark Dr. William Lane Craig made in a debate with Peter Slezak that, if things can simply pop into existence without a cause and out of nothing, "then why is no one worried that, while he is watching the debate, a random horse will just pop into being in his living room, defiling his carpet?" [9]

Although this idea of the anthropic principle sounds really really absurd, that would seem to be Dawkins' main argument to explain not only the origin of life, but the universe also. Dawkins simply states that the universe exists because we exist, or, to put it another way, the universe conveniently decided to pop into being out of itself, and the fact that we are here, discussing this, is the proof that it happened just like that. It simply could not have happened differently. Got it? No?

Well, let us see what does he say about the role of God in the creation: First, Dawkins states that any being capable of creating a highly complex universe would have to be even more complex - therefore highly improbable, so, since the existence of God is highly improbable, he does not exist!
Wow ...

OK, let me see: Dawkins, ERRONEOUSLY gives God the attributes of his own creation: in other words, the existence of a being in our universe which would be even more complex than the universe itself is highly improbable. He asks "How do they cope with the argument that any God capable of designing a universe, carefully and foresightfully tuned to lead to our evolution, must be a supremely complex and improbable entity who needs an even bigger explanation than the one he is supposed to provide?" [10]

I ask, why would you even try to explain God, who is outside space time, with his laws which are inside it? The space time laws are only valid for everything which is part and within universe, not for a being which is not subject to those laws.

By using complex thought formulas like the ones above, Dawkins is trying to "impress" us - a kind of proof that they (the atheists) actually study and research, and don't take things for granted - contrary to this, he claims, Christianity and Islam, both require unquestioned faith from their followers. Now this is, at least in case of Islam, outright false! The very first verses revealed to Muhammad from God where the commands to "Read/Learn". Throughout the Qur'an there are a multitude of verses where God encourages us to question and research as opposed to blind faith. Let me just bring you some of those verses:

Have they never learned to think for them selves? God has not created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them without [an inner] truth and a term set [by Him]: and yet, behold, there are many people who stubbornly deny the truth that they are destined to meet their Sustainer! [11]

Had We bestowed this Qur’an from on high upon a mountain, thou wouldst indeed see it humbling itself, breaking asunder for awe of God. And [all] such parables We propound unto men, so that they might [learn to] think. [12]

And so, the parable of those who are bent on denying the truth is that of the beast which hears the shepherd's cry, and hears in it nothing but the sound of a voice and a call. Deaf are they, and dumb, and blind: for they do not use their reason. [13]

Verily, the vilest of all creatures in the sight of God are those deaf, those dumb ones who do not use their reason. [14]

Finally, what evidence does Dawkins offer in his book against God's existence apart from "theories", conjecture, "probability principles"? None. Here is a verse for him in this regard:

Behold, as for those who call God’s messages in question without having any evidence, therefore in their hearts is nothing but overweening self-con ceit, which they will never be able to satisfy: seek thou, then, refuge with God - for, verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-seeing! [15]

As a book, "The God Delusion" might seem interesting to someone who never read God's Revelation, but to anyone else it just leaves the taste of a cheap writ. The only one really deluded seems to be the author.

Nay, who is there that can help you, (even as) an army, besides (Allah) Most Merciful? In nothing but delusion are the Unbelievers. [16]



Footnotes:

1. Dawkins, Richard; The God Delusion, Page 1. [back]

2. "Trinity". Britannica encyclopaedia of world religions. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2006. [back]

3. H. Benson et al., 'Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients', American Heart Journal 151: 4, 2006, 934-42. [back]

4. Dawkins, Richard; The God Delusion, Page 64. [back]

5. Ibid, Page 93-97. [back]

6. Ibid, Page 102-103. [back]

7. Qur'an, 74:18-25. [back]

8. Dawkins, Richard; The God Delusion, Page 137-138. [back]

9. "Atheism vs Christianity", Sydney Town Hall, 27 August, 2002. [back]

10. Dawkins, Richard; The God Delusion, Page 167. [back]

11. Qur'an, 30:8.] [back]

12. Qur'an, 59:21.]  [back]

13. Qur'an, 2:171. [back]

14. Qur'an, 8:22. [back]

15. Qur'an, 40:56.]  [back]

16. Qur'an, 67:20.] [back]]]>
The Dawkins Delusion

Quite a huge goal, the one Mr. Dawkins has put on himself with his book "The God Delusion". By the end of reading it, according to him, the reader would become atheist. Hm. Didn't quite work on me.

But then again, people like me might be "biased", or not enough "open minded", as Mr. Richard Dawkins alludes in his book. The truth is: I am very open minded. I wasn't just "raised to be a Muslim". I used my own mind to question, research, compare, ask and evaluate everything I was raised to believe. The fact that I am now even more Muslim than I was, tells something.

The adversity of most modern atheists towards religion is a reflection of the adversity towards Christianity and it's flaws

Anyway, back to Dawkins: Mr. Richard "the proud Atheist" Dawkins, in his 2006 book "The God Delusion" calls all believers to abandon religion and God and embrace atheism, as a "splendid" way of life [1]. To succeed at this, he applies methods of pretty much "picking and choosing" of quotes from famous scientists and theologians, always suitable to his cause. It is obvious that Mr. Dawkins was raised in a predominantly Christian culture and this is the one big flaw in his reasoning - one, by the way, which almost all the modern "atheists" have in common - his adversity towards religion is a reflection of the adversity towards Christianity.

Many people who became atheists, did so, as a response to several "flaws" in the Bible and Christianity as a religion. Some could just not accept the classical idea that God is an old man with a beard sitting somewhere in Heavens (this is of course not the reason for Dawkins' atheism, as he points out), or that God is actually one of three persons, each of them divine, yet there are not three Gods, but one God [The Doctrine of Trinity, 2], others abandoned faith because of convenience (it is much easier to not believe than believe) and then there are those, like Mr. Dawkins, who, being scientists, reach a level where they think they have grasped it all: there simply is no need for God, because everything can be explained in the light of science.

Let's see how exactly Mr. Dawkins is trying to prove that God does not exist, and that belief in a deity is a delusion.

One of the examples Dawkins uses to prove the non-existence of God and to ridicule the believers is The Great Prayer Experiment. It was an experiment funded by the Templeton Foundation, to test experimentally the proposition that praying for sick patients improves their health.[3] The result, after three groups of people in three different churches prayed for sick patients, was that their condition did not change. Dawkins, cynically, brings examples of several reasons why the prayers "might have not worked", by quoting some Christian theologians that try to defend their views, and explains these as "grotesque piece of reasoning, so damningly typical of the theological mind". [4]
What Dawkins doesn't consider here is this: What if they were all praying to the wrong God? I would assume that most of them, if not all, were Christians, who might have been praying to "God", but since they believe Jesus is God, then they were praying to Jesus, a man. Further more, for any prayer to be accepted, the one praying must be a righteous person. What do we know about the persons who were praying? Not much.

[img]https://web.archive.org/web/20160417012344im_/http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/7/7b/Opened_Qur'an.jpg/250px-Opened_Qur'an.jpg[/img]

Dawkins criticises Islam without even having read the Qur'an

In other words, to discredit religion, Dawkins is using all the wrong examples, like people having Visions of Virgin Mary, Christ, Angels, etc. Why do I say this? Because Virgin Mary was a human being, so was Jesus - they won't just "show up" to people, because they can not do it. Angels will only show up to prophets, real prophets. Thus, when we as Muslims, hear of these "visions" we don't think of it as "another proof there is no God, since people only hallucinate", we only think as "another proof their belief is wrong, because you can't actually see virgin Mary, who has been dead now for 2000 years".

In case of God, this is even stronger, since contrary to Christianity, Islam doesn't believe God enters his Creation - God is "outside" his Creation - if he would enter his creation he would be subject to the physical laws of the same, thus he would cease to be God. Bear in mind though, that when I use the analogy of God being "outside", this does not imply a physical presence of God "somewhere", i.e. we cannot say "God is there but not there" or assign a spacial constrain to God, it is thus a pointer to emphasise that He does not physically enter the creation. The analogy of this, used by many Muslim scholars when debating Christians is: If Jesus was God incarnate, which means God entered his creation, was subject to physical laws, and was killed - then he ceased to be God the moment he entered the creation. If they killed God, who was running the universe?

Might I say that this is one of those typical arguments Dawkins would also use, but to "prove" that there generally is no God, since Jesus could not have possibly been God. But just because Christians have it totally wrong, it doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It would be like trying to prove that God doesn't exist, just because some tribe in the Amazonas jungle worships a big round stone as God. In other words, the wrong concept of God doesn't eliminate His existence.

And so, by pointing out errors in the Bible, absurdities or simply cut, forgeries [5], Dawkins thinks he will "push" people to atheism, but he is only having the opposite effect. I for one, already know that the Bible has been changed, edited, corrupted, etc, as do ALL Muslims. That is only one more argument for me that the Qur'an is indeed the Word of God, since these claims were in the Qur'an 1400 years before Dawkins and biblical textual criticism.

Another point Dawkins would like to raise is that, simply put, the more religious you are, the dumber you are, thus only "the not so smart" people really believe in God. [6] I would argue the opposite: The smarter you are, the more will you be able to understand God. There are of course those who are very smart, or think they are very smart, but don't believe in God (Dawkins included) for several reasons, arrogance not excluded. Since God is beyond time and space, he knew what would people like Dawkins do:

For he thought and he plotted; And woe to him! How he plotted! Yea, Woe to him; How he plotted! Then he looked round; Then he frowned and he scowled; Then he turned back and was haughty; Then said he: "This is nothing but magic, derived from of old. This is nothing but the word of a mortal!" [7]

By the way, following these verses is the one verse where number 19 is mentioned. Would like to see how Dawkins would explain the 19 based mathematical system in the Qur'an. Coincidence? Yeah, right.

Another front, where Dawkins likes to fight, since he is a biologist, is the origin of life. He brings an example of how the first "sparkle" of life started, saying that, the first thing to start life must have been a DNA or more probably an RNA molecule. He answers his own question of "Where did the first molecule come from" with a convenient mathematical probability example:

It has been estimated that there are between 1 billion and 30 billion planets in our galaxy, and about 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Knocking a few noughts off for reasons of ordinary prudence, a billion billion is a conservative estimate of the number of available planets in the universe. Now, suppose the origin of life, the spontaneous arising of something equivalent to DNA, really was a quite staggeringly improbable event. Suppose it was so improbable as to occur on only one in a billion planets . . . even with such absurdly long odds, life will still have arisen on a billion planets - of which Earth, of course, is one. [8]

Note something interesting in his claim? "The SPONTANEOUS arising of DNA".
If life can really arise "spontaneously", how come we don't see it happen every day? For example, a biologist is looking through microscope into a drop of clean water, and "POOF!" all of a sudden a DNA molecule pops up!

Do not worry: A random horse will never "pop into being" in your living room

It reminds me of a remark Dr. William Lane Craig made in a debate with Peter Slezak that, if things can simply pop into existence without a cause and out of nothing, "then why is no one worried that, while he is watching the debate, a random horse will just pop into being in his living room, defiling his carpet?" [9]

Although this idea of the anthropic principle sounds really really absurd, that would seem to be Dawkins' main argument to explain not only the origin of life, but the universe also. Dawkins simply states that the universe exists because we exist, or, to put it another way, the universe conveniently decided to pop into being out of itself, and the fact that we are here, discussing this, is the proof that it happened just like that. It simply could not have happened differently. Got it? No?

Well, let us see what does he say about the role of God in the creation: First, Dawkins states that any being capable of creating a highly complex universe would have to be even more complex - therefore highly improbable, so, since the existence of God is highly improbable, he does not exist!
Wow ...

OK, let me see: Dawkins, ERRONEOUSLY gives God the attributes of his own creation: in other words, the existence of a being in our universe which would be even more complex than the universe itself is highly improbable. He asks "How do they cope with the argument that any God capable of designing a universe, carefully and foresightfully tuned to lead to our evolution, must be a supremely complex and improbable entity who needs an even bigger explanation than the one he is supposed to provide?" [10]

I ask, why would you even try to explain God, who is outside space time, with his laws which are inside it? The space time laws are only valid for everything which is part and within universe, not for a being which is not subject to those laws.

By using complex thought formulas like the ones above, Dawkins is trying to "impress" us - a kind of proof that they (the atheists) actually study and research, and don't take things for granted - contrary to this, he claims, Christianity and Islam, both require unquestioned faith from their followers. Now this is, at least in case of Islam, outright false! The very first verses revealed to Muhammad from God where the commands to "Read/Learn". Throughout the Qur'an there are a multitude of verses where God encourages us to question and research as opposed to blind faith. Let me just bring you some of those verses:

Have they never learned to think for them selves? God has not created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them without [an inner] truth and a term set [by Him]: and yet, behold, there are many people who stubbornly deny the truth that they are destined to meet their Sustainer! [11]

Had We bestowed this Qur’an from on high upon a mountain, thou wouldst indeed see it humbling itself, breaking asunder for awe of God. And [all] such parables We propound unto men, so that they might [learn to] think. [12]

And so, the parable of those who are bent on denying the truth is that of the beast which hears the shepherd's cry, and hears in it nothing but the sound of a voice and a call. Deaf are they, and dumb, and blind: for they do not use their reason. [13]

Verily, the vilest of all creatures in the sight of God are those deaf, those dumb ones who do not use their reason. [14]

Finally, what evidence does Dawkins offer in his book against God's existence apart from "theories", conjecture, "probability principles"? None. Here is a verse for him in this regard:

Behold, as for those who call God’s messages in question without having any evidence, therefore in their hearts is nothing but overweening self-con ceit, which they will never be able to satisfy: seek thou, then, refuge with God - for, verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-seeing! [15]

As a book, "The God Delusion" might seem interesting to someone who never read God's Revelation, but to anyone else it just leaves the taste of a cheap writ. The only one really deluded seems to be the author.

Nay, who is there that can help you, (even as) an army, besides (Allah) Most Merciful? In nothing but delusion are the Unbelievers. [16]



Footnotes:

1. Dawkins, Richard; The God Delusion, Page 1. [back]

2. "Trinity". Britannica encyclopaedia of world religions. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2006. [back]

3. H. Benson et al., 'Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients', American Heart Journal 151: 4, 2006, 934-42. [back]

4. Dawkins, Richard; The God Delusion, Page 64. [back]

5. Ibid, Page 93-97. [back]

6. Ibid, Page 102-103. [back]

7. Qur'an, 74:18-25. [back]

8. Dawkins, Richard; The God Delusion, Page 137-138. [back]

9. "Atheism vs Christianity", Sydney Town Hall, 27 August, 2002. [back]

10. Dawkins, Richard; The God Delusion, Page 167. [back]

11. Qur'an, 30:8.] [back]

12. Qur'an, 59:21.]  [back]

13. Qur'an, 2:171. [back]

14. Qur'an, 8:22. [back]

15. Qur'an, 40:56.]  [back]

16. Qur'an, 67:20.] [back]]]>