Q&A

Q: A lady interested in Islam is reading the Quran. Whilst doing so she came across verses that say the following:
• Allah has sealed the hearts of the disbelievers so they will not believe
• If God so willed he could have guided the entire creation.
• God decides everything.
Does this mean that human beings have no choice?

A:
Think of the following example. A teacher is testing his students. He calls them to his desk one by one. In his hand is a clipboard with a page for each student. As each student approaches they sit in front of the teacher. The teacher asks them twenty multiple choice questions. As they answer either A,B,C or D the teacher writes down the answer they gave for each question. For example, John is called. The teacher asks him question one, he answers D. The teacher writes down D on John's page at number. And so on for the rest of the questions.

Let us ask ourselves the following.
1) when marking the exams, who's answers are written on the page, John's or the teachers? It is John's answer, even though the teacher wrote it.
2) If the teacher wanted, when John gave the incorrect answer, could the teacher not have written the correct answer?
3) Since the teacher is writing John's answer, will we say John has no choice in the answer? No. The teacher is writing in accordance with what John said.

Similarly, God is in absolute control of every single thing that occurs. If He wanted, he could turn every sinner into a good doer. Yet he allows us to make our own choices, although always by His permission. This is the answer to most of your questions.

As for the verses which say that God blocked the heart of certain people. This is only after they have chosen to be stubborn and obstinate. In 61:5 God says, when they deviated, then He caused them to continue being deviated.

28th February 2024

Many people continue spreading the misinformation that the word Moulana can only be used for Allah because Allah uses it as a descriptive word for Himself in the Quran. This is a response to clear that up

Was the earth created first or the skies?

Question:
In the Quran, in 2:29, it says that the earth was created before the heavens. But in 79:27-32 it says the earth was created after. Isn’t this a contradiction?

Answer:
Let us look at the two sets of verses.

He is the One Who created everything in the earth for you. Then He turned towards the heaven, forming it into seven heavens. And He has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of all things. (2:29)

Which is harder to create: you or the sky? He built it, raising it high and forming it flawlessly.He dimmed its night, and brought forth its daylight.As for the earth, He spread it out as well, bringing forth its water and pastures and setting the mountains firmly ˹upon it˺ (79:27-32)

When the verses are translated correctly, there is no contradiction. In the first set of verses it is evident that the heavens were perfected after the creation of the earth. In the second set of verses, there is no sequence mentioned. Rather Allah is enumerating the things He has done in no particular order. Why people confuse this, is because of the phraseology used. In verse 30, Allah uses the words bada thaalika which are translated correctly as “as well” but literally it means after that. Therefore, based on this very literal translation, people often think it saying the earth was spread out after that (meaning the heavens) and thereby come up with the objection.

However, in the arabic language, this term, ba’da thaalik, when used in a list of enumerating bounties or qualities, is preponderantly understood as “in addition to” or “over and above that”. Like if you were to tell your child, i paid for your school fees, on top of that i paid for tuition after school. The same term, ba’da thaalik, would be used but it would not imply anything chronological.

This same usage is found elsewhere in the Quran. In chapter 68 we read the following description of a disbeliever.

And do not obey the despicable, vain oath-taker, slanderer, gossip-monger, withholder of good, transgressor, evildoer, brute, and—on top of all that—an illegitimate child.

In the above verses, the exact same phrase, ba’da thaalika, is used and it is apparent to everyone that it means “on top of that” or “in addition to”. It cannot mean that he became an illegitimate child after all of those other qualities.

It is thus clear that there is no contradiction whatsoever, and only a lack of understanding of the nuance of the Arabic language

Are the Prophets sinless?

Question:

I truly want to live a life that is most pleasing, most honouring to God above anything else. So in view of this I want to ask if you can help me to better understand the view of Islam on how to live such a life:

1. What must I do to have 100% full confidence that God will grant me access to His eternal presence in the Day of Judgement?
2. On the internet I find mixed opinions on whether the prophets have lived sinless lives. Some say they did commit sin but that it is excusable because of the circumstances. Some say they did not commit sin but only made mistakes. Is there a difference between sin, moral failures, and mistakes in Islam?
3. I have committed some really horrible sins in my life. What can I do to obtain peace and full confidence that God will forgive me for those sins.
4. In the Day of Judgement, will God measure me based on how I lived compared to the lives of other people (the requirement of my life being more acceptable to Him than that of most other people), or will He measure me against the example of pureness that was set by the prophets, or will He measure me to a standard of complete and full obedience and holiness?

I will greatly appreciate your guidance and wisdom on these questions please. Thank you so much for your time, teachings, and all the readings you’ve sent me.

Have a wonderful afternoon.

Answer:

I want to begin by commending you for these thoughtful and insightful questions that should really be the worry and concern of every human being till he/she finds the answers.

Question 1:

The first thing to do, in order to attain this type of certainty, is to ensure that we have certainty in the words of God. That we truly believe the Quran is the word of God and that God will always fulfill His promises as He has stated in His book. Without this initial certainty, we cannot then be certain of what God will do.

Secondly, in Islam, God has promised that His eternal pleasure is reserved for those who
1. Accept Him as the only being worthy of worship (and by corollary accept all His prophets)
2. Try their best to do good deeds and refrain from evil deeds
3. Seek forgiveness whenever they err (which must happen)

This is clearly and explicitly mentioned by God in the Quran and since we know the Quran is from Him, we have 100 percent confidence that if we try our best in these regards we will attain His happiness.

It also depends what you mean by full confidence. Can we ever know that we will never change our minds and go back to a life of sin or leave God? No, because we don't know the future. When we say we are 100% certain we will attain bliss we mean that if we try our best in doing good and seeking forgiveness when we err, we are 100 percent sure of attaining Gods happiness.

Note: We must remember that God is not expecting us to always follow the correct path and not to make mistakes. He rather wants us to try our best and He will do the rest.

As God says, if my servant comes to me walking I go to him running.

Question 2:
In Islam, scholars are quite clear on the idea that prophets do not commit sins in the sense of doing things that are accepted as being bad by their entire nation and are explicitly prohibited by their law code. So like stealing, fornication etc. However, even they are humans, and it is possible that whilst they didn't break the explicit law of God, they still chose a course of action that was not the most preferable. So there is a difference between a sin, which is the breaking of the explicit law of God and a mistake, which may not be a sin.

At times, when they do this, God may reprimand them and they ask for forgiveness, even though this wasn't a sin. This is because they are specially chosen by God and are subject to a higher criteria. This is like when a stranger makes a comment that is insensitive about us as opposed to when our close friend does something like that. We may overlook the stranger but not the friend because he is expected to know not to say things like that. Similarly, if our own child were to do something wrong we would get more angry than if it was another child because our own child is special to us.

There is a saying of Islamic Scholars, "the good deeds of the pious are the sins of those who are very close to God".

What this means is that those who are considered pious would be reading Quran and praying etc but even whilst doing that, they could become negligent and think of other things etc. However, God does not take them to task for this. When it comes to His special servants however, God may take them to task for such lapses due to their high rank although they too will be pardoned if they repent.

Question 3:
In Islam, based on what we have learnt from the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet ﷺ, a person who has committed even the most horrendous of crimes can be redeemed. In 39:53, God says:

Say, ˹O Prophet, that Allah says,˺ “O My servants who have exceeded the limits against their souls! Do not lose hope in Allah’s mercy, for Allah certainly forgives all sins. He is indeed the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

There are four conditions which ensure that a person can know he has been forgiven:

1. To sincerely repent
2. To get himself out of the sin
3. He truly regrets his actions
4. He firmly intends never to do it again

Once these conditions are met, we can be sure that God will forgive us but God also advises that we further emphasize this

1st February 2024

A question was received from a Christian wherein he brought forth a hadith that allegedly showed that Nabi (SAW) could not stop his death.

Answer:
Nabi ﷺ is not the controller of the world. He is the greatest messenger but not God. He is a human being who we try to emulate. He taught us true monotheism, which is that only God decides, as in this story.

However, when Jesus, who you believe is God, becomes incapable, then that is a big issue.
Jesus cannot do miracles in this story because of people's unbelief. He can't get them to believe, nor can he do all his miracles.

Then Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his own household is a prophet without honor.” So He could not perform any miracles there, except to lay His hands on a few of the sick and heal them. And He was amazed at their unbelief. (Mark 6:4-6)

Here Jesus is unable to tell that the fig tree doesn't have fruit until he gets there.

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
(Mark 11:12-14)

Human beings do not have the ability to control the universe and so the story about the prophet Muhammad ﷺ makes sense. How do these stories about Jesus make sense if you believe he is God?

Was the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) influenced by a satan called abyad?

(A brother watched a video wherein a Christian read a narration from Tafsir Qurtubi that appeared to say a devil called abyad frequented the prophet saw. According to Arabian folklore this devil is the lord of Monday. The speaker in question then quoted a biography of the prophet SAW called the sealed nectar wherein it says the revelation began on a monday, trying to impute that thsi revelation must have come from this devil abyad. Since this was over a whatsapp conversation and not a formal question, the answer was brief.)

In essence there are two main points to note that debunk the entire video. The first is that there is no authentic narration regarding abyad. The author, qurtubi, mentions this himself although the person in the video obviously left that out. The second is that there is huge difference of opinion as to when the prophet SAW actually began receiving revelation. Monday is just one view. In the end there appears to be no substance to this claim.

As to why this narration appeared in the books of tafsir in the first place, we should understand that some tafsirs were attempting to gather every single narration possible with the chain and present such that a person with knowledge of chains of narration could make out which one is authentic and which isn't. Secondly, many of them mentioned it in order to rebut it.

10th March 2023

A question was posed by a muslim brother regarding the permissibility of an interfaith activity that took place.

Question:
👆Salaaams , are we permitted to participate in this type of event ?
Are we imitating the disbelievers and Christians in taking photos and this going into newspapers, etc ?

Does this constitute an interfaith event ?

Can I please have your views , Jzk
Muslim lady can be seen in this photo on far left wearing Palestinian scarf posing in photo with candles lit... is this allowed ? As lighting of candles for prayer is a part of the Christian prayer.

Answer:

Short Answer:

So long as the gathering is
1- not based on the premise that all religions are correct
2- does not include mixed prayer sessions or participation in a form of worship of another religion.
3- is free from other haraam acts

It will be permissible technically. But due to the confusion around the word interfaith, would be best to weigh up the pros and cons.
The lighting of the candles is considered part of the religious experience in many churches and thus it is impermissible for a Muslim to participate in the actual candle lighting process in a church setting. Anything like that should be strictly avoided.

As for posing for photos and dress, then even if a Muslim lady were to be dressed as per shariah, it is hard to see how it would be permissible to pose for photos with non Muslim men. Islam emphasizes modesty.

Find below a link to an article explaining interfaith in more detail.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kaBJ9pAqCm2gQvUa9AF9XkjdK4cpyVl0/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=109909878999856919632&rtpof=true&sd=true

A student of Daarul Uloom Newcastle wanted a brief explanation of who the Zionists are

Since the Jews were expelled from Jerusalem after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 136 CE they settled in different parts of the world. During this period they often faced persecution at the hands of the rulers of the empires within which they resided and on many occasions were forced to relocate. However, not once during this time did they give a call to go and take the land of Palestine. This was because in the Talmud it stated that they were not to return to the Holy land until the Messiah came. From the 1700s we see those who were against the Jews voice their opinion that the Jews cannot survive with other people and should be made to live on their own. This antisemtic idea appealed to a small group of Jews living in the 1800s who were being persecuted in Russia and Europe. Since the term Jew had become an ethnic connotation rather than a religious one, most of these so-called Jews who felt the need for their own state were actually atheists. One of them, Theodore Hertzl, began actively campaigning for a Jewish homeland and convened the first zionist congress in 1897.

Zionism stemmed from the word Zion which is a hill in the land of palestine and has come to refer to the entire land. Zionism does not have a specific ideology. It began as a movement to establish a Jewish homeland and nation not necessarily in Palestine and then started to refer to the idea that the Jews have a right to live in Palestine even if it means kicking out those who lived there as the zionists did in 1948.

Question:

New Testament scholars often talk about the Q document, claimed to be the source of the four gospels. What is the Q document and can we read it today?

The interfaith incertitude
The issue of interfaith has become one of controversy recently, particularly in a South African context. One of the factors exacerbating the situation is the use of the word “interfaith” itself with its different meanings. Perhaps a clarification of how different people are using this word can help us come to a better understanding of where everyone stands بإذن الله.
Linguistically, interfaith simply means “relating to or involving different religions or members of different religions”. Thus, it can be any interaction whether that is a dinner, a discussion a debate or even a war. When used in the context of interfaith dialogue it can have two meanings.
Meaning one:
To foster co-operation between faiths so they can work together for good in the communities they live in. In the last century or so, interfaith dialogues have been an on-going phenomenon. The motivation behind them, as officially stated on almost all interfaith organisations’ websites, is this definition. Muslim scholars from around the world have understood it like this and thus participated in them. It is also understood to be distinct from syncretism which is the amalgamation of different religions into one.
Meaning two:
To meet under the understanding that all religions are correct and can lead to salvation. Or to try and unite all religions into one. This usage is much less common and is not understood when used unrestrictedly in the international sphere.
The problem:
Anyone who subscribes to the second meaning is subscribing to a view that entails disbelief in Islam. This view should rightly be spoken about and criticized depending upon its prevalence. Participating in interfaith in the first meaning is debateable. Some might feel it to be permissible and even needed in certain communities whilst others may feel it can open the door to weakening one’s belief and so it is impermissible. It is however, not kufr. The issue that is arising is when Ulama are speaking against interfaith in the second meaning, people are under the impression that all forms of interfaith are kufr and can be likened to Akbar’s syncretic Din-e-ilahi, whereas most of the usage of the word interfaith entails the first meeting. Unless this meaning is clarified and both understandings given their own respective rulings, mass confusion will ensue. Below are some senior Ulama who have signed or participated in an interfaith gathering, in the first meaning.

• Mufti Taqi Uthmani

Mufti Taqi is also one of the 138 signatories on the common word initiative.

• Moulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani
Moulana was the keynote speaker at a conference that discussed how to engage in interfaith organised by the Islamic Fiqh Academy India.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cA-LiKmGqdFWzkscFCTrTdgg37pdE8ea

• Deoband Madrasa and Jamiatul Ulama Hind

https://clarionindia.net/religious-leaders-call-for-peace-communal-harmony-in-deoband/

• Moulana Arshad Madani
The son of Moulana Husain Ahmad Madani participating in an interfaith dialogue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLCNMUxJCwM

The point of the above is not to change anyone’s stance. It’s simply to show that the usual usage of interfaith is not one that entails acceptance of the truth of another faith. Secondly, many senior scholars have seen the need for it. Even if someone disagrees, he surely cannot act as though the matter was so clear cut that the mere mention of the word entails the deviation of an entire book or group regardless of what they meant by it.

Question: Where did the term Palestine come from and are they descendant from the Philistines of the Bible?

Answer:

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
From my humble understanding, the philistines were a group that lived during the time of the Children of Israel and who the earlier prophets were originally asked to fight as per the Bible. Eventually this group disappeared, however people, such as the Greeks and later the Romans, began referring to the area as Palestine or something similar probably due to the Philistines who lived there. Thus the area and people living in it came to be called Palestine and Palestinians respectively, not because they necessarily descended from the Philistines, but because the area became known as Palestine because people were familiar with the Philistines.

That being said, it is possible that they are descendants. DNA tests may possibly prove that.

Open to correction
Jazakallah khayra

14/04/2024

A brother was giving Dawah to a Christian who presented him with a lengthy message trying to show why Jesus never said I am God or worship me. Find below his message and our response.

His message:

I have been asked this in the very same formulation many times before. I hope this response brings out some of the issues I think are important in this regard.
N O W H E R E does Jesus say "I am God, worship me." Suppose a man does indeed come up to you and does says, "I am God, worship me." Would you believe him? Would you worship him? The immediate reaction of any decent monotheistic believer would be to call the person making such a claim an impostor and a blasphemer. If that is your reaction too, then why would you demand something from Jesus which you aren't going to accept anyway? Most would declare insane anybody who would make such a statement. Jesus knows about this natural reaction as well as anybody else and saw no reason to make his claims in such a foolish way. But he did make the claim in indirect ways and those are just as clear. Maybe you are cautious and open and don't want to completely dismiss such a claim ... after all, saying that God is not able to come and appear in the form of a man does restrict his power, and you believe in an all powerful God, ... but you would at least demand conclusive proof for such a claim, wouldn't you? After all, if you do worship somebody who is not God you are guilty of idolatory. But refusing to worship God when he demands so is just as great a sin. What matters in the end is not the existence of this literal statement, but whether there is clear evidence that he is indeed God, no matter in which form he issued the claim. If there is clear proof for his divine identity, then you have to worship Him even if the wording of his commands is not precisely the way you may think they should be. We cannot prescribe for God how he has to reveal himself before we accept it. For example, in the Gospel according to John, (speaking of eternal life) Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies." (John 11:25). He makes the offer of eternal life conditional on faith in his own person. This would be blasphemous for anybody other than God. This is an incredible claim. Does he give any evidence for his authority to make such claims? The record gives many details of what happened at this particular day, but at the end we read, "When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, `Lazarus, come out!' The dead mean came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, `Take off the grave clothes and let him go.'" (John 11:43-44). When you read the Gospels carefully you will find that consistently * Jesus talks like he is God, * Jesus acts like he is God, * Jesus gives evidence for claiming this authority rightfully by performing miraculous signs. After 3 years with his disciples we read how one of them asks Jesus and wants to be "shown the Father (God)". Jesus answered, "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. ... Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves." (John 14:10-11). Jesus expected the disciples and the people around him to recognise his true nature and identity from his words which are only appropriate for God to speak and from his deeds. Jesus does give enough proof and then lets you draw your own conclusions. Everybody could make the claim to be God. And many have made claims to be (a) god throughout history. Only the true God can give true evidence for it and if you have the evidence there is no need for the explicit command to worship anymore. The statement "I am God" adds nothing of substance to the question regarding his identity. His real identity is established by the proof he gives, not by claims each and everybody can make. After he has given the evidence, there is no more need for the statement. Those who are open for the truth will recognise the evidence, those who ignore the evidence won't be convinced either if he adds this specific statement you seem to demand from him. And if you have recognized his true identity, worshiping him is only proper and will nearly be an "automatic" response. I know this is an incredible thought, it is unbelievable. That is why it took even the disciples themselves such a long time to really understand it. They have really only started to comprehended the meaning of it all after Jesus' own death and resurrection, after they meet the risen Lord. In the Gospel according to John, end of chapter 20, and the Gospel according to Matthew, end of chapter 28, we read how Jesus receives worship and affims this. Even though he never demands the worship, he accepts it and confirms it as proper. You claim: N O W H E R E Jesus says "I am God, worship me." and understand this as NOwhere Jesus says "I am God, worship me." and you are right when taking it the literalistic way. He never says these very words. But he makes his claims very clear in many other ways. Open your eyes and you will see that the right way to read this statement is Now HERE Jesus says "I am God ..."

Response:

So just as a response to the points mentioned, I'd like to mention the following:

Obviously if a random person comes up to you and says I am God you are not going to believe him. But why did he not tell even his disciples who knew him and trusted him?

Interestingly, as you said, any decent monotheist would find this absurd, worshipping a human, especially knowing what the OT says about worshipping only the one true God who is not described as a triune being and is said to be "not a man that he should lie nor the son of man that he should repent" Numbers 23:19.

So the question remains, why did God not reveal His true triune nature of 3 coequal, co-eternal persons? Why did He never tell His chosen people to worship all three? What about the rest of humanity? Why was the Messiah expected to be a man, a great man but a man?

And then the man who comes doesn't say anything explicitly. In fact he says things that contradict this (according to the Gospels). He says the father is greater than I (John 14:28), of my own self I can do nothing (John 5:30), he says he is not the one true God (John 17:3), he says that he has a God (John 20 17).

When people ask him what they should do to enter heaven he says keep the commandments and doesn't say believe I am God or believe I am going to die for you sins (Mathew 19:16 to 20).

When someone asks him which is the most important (or first) commandnment he says the Shema, hear o Israel the Lord thy God is one God (Mark 12:29). This, to any Jew, meant worship only the Lord of Israel who is not Jesus. This is actively preaching against the truth from a Christian worldview.

These people who heard him say these things only, the people in the cities who heard and saw him once or twice, would never have believed he was God. He never made an effort to tell them this. Why? Was it not important?

Further, the Trinity is actively preached against when Jesus says that not even the Son knows the last hour.(Mark 13:32) This breaks the coequal belief in the Trinity.

Even the disciples after his ascension, when preaching to people, did not call him God. Peter said, Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God with wonders miracles and signs (Acts 2:22). When did he explain that he meant only his human nature by there's also his godly nature? He didn't of course.

We know the disciples were preaching Christianity to the Jews. They were still following the Mosaic law in the temple precincts, see Acts 21. The Jews were upset that Paul said the law is not applicable, do you think they would have allowed people to worship other beings inside their temple?

So even up to the time of the disciples we have what appears to be clear attestation of his lack of divinity.

The earlier church fathers themselves like Justin Martyr clearly had a subordinationist position, they believed the Son was lower than the Father. It took until the year 325 in the Council of Nicea for people to vote Jesus as equal to the Father. The vote was still split 50/50. After this council there were Arian councils that said the Son is below the Father. The Council of Constantinople in 381 sealed the deal and included the Holy Spirit as well. This is something rarely discussed, where did the Holy Spirit come from in terms of divinity?

Considering the above, the fact that all the prophets spoke about only one God, the fact that Jesus emphasized one God, the fact that the disciples didn't seem to recognize him as God, the fact that the earliest Christians didn't believe he was God, considering that the Trinity is a logical impossibility, how then can anyone be expected to believe this and be taken to task for not doing so when all the evidence is against it?

Why take the risk of committed polytheism? Simply believe what all the prophets believed and you'll be safe.

The second issue I'd like to point out is the following:

Of course we will believe whatever God has revealed, so long as we know it is definitely from Him.

This is far from the case with the Gospels. The Gospels are anonymous accounts of Jesus life that exhibit multiple variances whilst using themselves as sources (Mathew and Mark from Luke).

The issues with the reliability of the Gospels are as follows:

1. Unknown authors
2. Unknown chain of narration
3. Errors
4. Contradictions
5. The manuscript record is weak. Many bible verses which were believed to be the word of God for centuries have been expunged.
6. Who decided on the four Gospels out of the many other Gospels that existed like the gospels of Peter, Thomas and Mary?
7. Nowhere do the authors say they're inspired, they appear to say the opposite (beginning of Luke)

As for the alleged proofs that Jesus showed he was God, these are either insertions from unknown authors (like John 1:1) or are clearly just showing extra reverence for him and in no way put him on the same level as the Father.

For example, in order to gain salvation, all nations had to believe and obey their respective prophet. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ also said that whoever believes in him (and consequently the message he brought) will enter heaven.

Miraculous signs are a feature of the prophets, like Moses, Joshua etc. They in no way imply divinity. The example cited of bringing someone back to life is something that was done by the prophets Elijah and Elisha respectively (1 Kings 17:17 and 2 Kings 4:18). Peter and Paul do the same in Acts.

John 14:10 and 11 speaks about Jesus telling his disciples he is in the Father and vice versa. Later on in verse twenty he says that the disciples are in him. Does this imply their divinity? Of course not. It simply implies they are serving his cause and he, Jesus, who is a prophet serves the Father. Verse 28 clearly says the Father is greater than I. Verse 1 shows a separation between himself and God. There is nothing to suggest in these passages that he is equal to the Father.

From a scholarly perspective, John has the highest christology and is therefore quoted most frequently by Christians in this debate.

Yet in fact John, whoever the real author may be, tells you the purpose of writing his gospel- so that you may believe Jesus is the Messiah (who Jews believed is not God) and that he is the Son of God, a term used for people throughout the Old Testament who are not God.

This is mentioned immediately after the incident of doubting Thomas and shows that even the author of John did not take that as a sign that Jesus is equal to the Father.

The idea that they worshipped him as one worships the one true God in Mathew 28 is against the grain of what the author of Mathew is saying.

Firstly, the word proskuno means to pay homage and can also mean to worship. It is used in the Gospels to mean paying homage (Mathew 18:26).

Secondly, why would seeing him alive automatically mean he is the one true God?? What is the logic there? It could show his great power and thus they pay homage to this great feat, but dying certainly isn't a known feature of the one true God.

Thirdly, this act of "worship" also takes place in Mathew 14. This again after a miracle which is a sign of a prophet. If so, it must mean people knew early on, yet the disciples are confused right till the end as you rightly pointed out.

All of this contradicts the fact that the disciples were monotheistic worshipping with the Jews in the temple.

That's it for now.

29th December 2023

A Daee was having trouble with a Christian missionary and forwarded the video he received to be responded to.

Good day Farouk. Trust you are well. In response to your post "sincere advice to every Christian ". Having read through the article it is very clear to me that the Jesus in the Quran is not the same as the Jesus in the Bible. For one thing the Quran does not give the meaning of Messiah and Jesus which we have in the Bible. I am hoping that the videos below will clarify the differences.

The videos made claims like:

The trinity is proven from the Bible, even the Old Testament

Jesus forgave sins so he is God

Q: A brother phoned and asked the following question: According to the four gospels and all of the churches that spread far and wide, Jesus referred to himself as the son of God. How is this possible if he is not the Son of God?

Answer:

A lot of confusion creeps into dialogues between Christians and Muslims due to the multiple purposes that the word son has been employed for. In the doctrine of the Trinity, the son is one of the three persons of the Trinity. Yet this doctrine was only formulated centuries after Jesus. In the Old Testament and the Gospels we find reference to Jesus and many others being the sons of God. This is simply a term used for someone close to God, who God had favoured and in no way is to be taken literally.
“Son of God” in the Hebrew Bible is used metaphorically (God is the father, human beings are his children), and this usage continued in postbiblical Jewish literature. The Jewish people in general could be called “sons of God,” and the singular “son of God” could be applied to individuals who were especially close to God.”[1]
This meaning of son is different to the one used in the formation of the Trinity where son is used to mean one who proceeds from and is of the same essence as his father. If this meaning is taken then to be a son of God would be to be from his essence and to then be divine. The Quran contains both usages and it is obviously the trinitarian usage that is severely criticized in the Quran. Let’s look at the verses.
19:90-91
"Whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder, and the mountains fall in ruins. That men should ascribe a son to the Most Gracious. It is not befitting for the Majesty of the Beneficent that He should take a son.”
18:4
"And to warn those who say, " Allah has taken a son."”
9:30
"The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?”
These verses are severely criticizing those who say God has a son and intend by that that there is someone who is born from Him, shares in His qualities like a child does with his father, and therefore is divine or even those who may say that God has a literal child (نعوذ بِاللَّهِ). This is the meaning intended by Christians when they talk of a Trinity but it is certainly not intended in the Bible as we will see.
5:18
"But the Jews and the Christians say, "We are the children of Allah and His beloved." Say, "Then why does He punish you for your sins?" Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the [final] destination.”
In this verse Allah rebukes the Jews and Christians, not for claiming to be divine, but for claiming to be so close to God at a time when they had deviated from His teachings. In this verse, being a child of God signifies being close to Him. This is the meaning it is used for in the Old Testament and the Gospels. Let us look at a range of verses that speak about the children of God to get an idea of who this term included. We've already seen that David was the begotten son of God. No one in the Jewish or Christian world took that to mean he was divine. They understood it as his closeness to God.
Exodus 4:22
“Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son,”
Israel is referring to Jacob.
Jeremiah 31:9
“I am Israel’s father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son.”
Luke 3:38
“the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”
This verse is from the lineage of Jesus. If any one was going to be called the literal[2] son of God it would be Adam since in the verse son is used literally multiple times in that same verse all the way to him.
Mathew 5:9
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”
Matthew 5:48
“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Jesus is telling others that their father is God
Romans 8:14
“For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God”

[1] Theological Views of st. paul the apostle (no date) Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Paul-the-Apostle/Theological-views (Accessed: April 6, 2023).
[2] Literal here meaning where the child shares the qualities of the father and not something involving human conception and childbirth.

Did God deceive people regarding the Crucifixion from an Islamic Standpoint

Question 1: Does 4:157 mean that God deceived people?

Answer:
Let us examine and unpack this question. Firstly, it is important to understand that the substitution theory is one of the Muslim theories regarding 4:157-158. There are other views like the swoon theory which posits that Jesus went on the cross but was taken down alive. However, all Muslim scholars agree that Jesus was not killed on the cross. The details of the how are not part of Islamic Theology as such. Does this make God a deceiver? Was there some deception involved? Many scholars who hold to the substitution theory do not believe that someone was made to look like Christ by God. They simply believe that there was a confusion and the Romans crucified the wrong man, perhaps Simon of Cyrene. Now can this be deception from God? Doesn't this happen everyday? People see someone and think it is someone else. It happens to me every now and then and has happened famously in the past for assassinations and arrests. This doesn't mean God deceived the people, only that their senses were unable to grasp the reality. How many people see a mirage in the desert thinking it is water only to get there and find nothing? Did God deceive them? Think about hallucinations that are well documented. The fact that God allows something to happen which results in us getting false information about reality does not result in a blameworthy deception otherwise God would be a deceiver in all religions then as people are constantly being deceived by their senses.

In fact, doesn't God cause events which make people who are on false religions think they are correct? How else do we explain the sightings of the angel Moroni to Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism) and all the other miracles attributing to religious figures that Muslims and Christians consider false? Even more ubiquitous than this, is when God allows prayers to seem as though they are answered from those following false religions and gives them prosperity, knowing it would delude them into thinking they are upon truth? How would a Christian explain the fact that companions of the Prophet Muhammad saw the moon split when he pointed at it? I'm sure the Christian would think they were deceived, but who was the deceiver?

Interestingly the Bible quite explicitly tells us that God can deceive in the ways mentioned above. See the following verses,
"And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
"One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' " 'By what means?' the LORD asked." 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. " 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.' (2 Kings 22:20-22)
Also,
"Then I said, "Ah, Sovereign LORD, how completely you have deceived this people and Jerusalem by saying, 'You will have peace,' when the sword is at our throats." Jeremiah 4:10.

The matter is resolved by understanding deception as follows. Firstly, according to many theologians, God's acts are not subject to ethical judgments because He is the King of Kings. But even amongst those who say His actions are, this type of deception will only be worthy of criticism if:

1. It is such that this deception results in them being taken to task on Judgement Day
2. And if they were not given the ability to discern the truth from falsehood by their God given abilities.

If both of these are not found, it will not be something blameworthy. So if God deceived a person in the desert into thinking there was an oasis, this will not be blameworthy deception unless he takes him to task for being deceived. If God sends false prophets to deceive, and takes those who fall for them to task, this too will not be blameworthy if He gave them the ability to recognise the truth.

In the case of Jesus' alleged crucifixion, and Islamic scholars through the ages have discussed this, there was no blame on any disciples or companions of disciples if they heard news that Jesus was crucified and believed it. Simply believing that he was crucified is not something they will be taken to task for. As for people who live after the Quran was revealed, and they have been exposed to it, they can be taken to task for still believing in it when God has said otherwise.

Question 2: Does Christianity arising mean Jesus was a failed prophet in the Islamic paradigm?

We need to first realise that in Islam especially, all prophets are the chosen people of God. Thus, they all carried out their duties as they ought to. Some prophets like Noah, preached and preached and yet very few accepted. Yet he is not regarded as a failed prophet. He delivered the message as was his job, the peoples acceptance is on their head. Take Lot for example, he was unable to stop his people from their wretched actions, yet he is not considered a failure. What about Jeremiah and Ezekiel who tried so hard to get their people to give up their evil ways but were not "successful" in that regard. This does not mean they are failures at all. This reflects a failure on the part of the people.

In the case of Jesus, he was quite successful. He had many disciples who all believed in One God and followed the law together with its spirit. It was only after Pauline Christianity came to dominate that his true message was lost. This happened to all the prophets of God prior to him. Decades or centuries after them, there people were deviated into worshipping false Gods. And yet this definitely does not mean Jesus or any of them were failed prophets. Also, in the Islamic paradigm Jesus is set to return and set the record straight on the many matters he has been misrepresented in.

Question 3: Is there another interpretation of 4:157 that can better accord with the historical facts? Could it be understood just like 3:169?

There's a few things to unpack regarding this. Firstly, there is a very sparse historical record regarding Jesus' life. So there are no confirmed eye-witness testimonies. The four gospels are actually anonymous and do not claim to be written by disciples. In fact if you read Luke, he seems to be telling you that he went about asking secondary sources. Only the Gospel of John alludes to a disciple being involved, but then too he isnt said to be the author. In any case, there are many Gospels outside the New Testament that explicitly claim to be written by disciples like the Gospel of Peter, Thomas and Mary, yet no Christian believes what's in there. Many of those were forgeries. Beyond the Gospels, there is only Paul who we can have no certainty regarding, especially considering he never really met Jesus apart from a possible hallucination. The extra biblical record is rather weak as well. From the first 150 years there is only Tacitus and Josephus. These historians never met Jesus and probably never met anyone who knew him either. They were going on what was commonly believed and so they wrote it down. The Josephus quote is widely thought to be a forgery, though not by all scholars. Whilst it is true that most scholars do believe Jesus was crucified, that is only because due to the generally sparse historical record from antiquity, a low bar was set for evidence required to prove something.

4:157 does not only say that Jesus was not killed. It says ولكن شبه لهم which, no matter what translation you take, refers to the fact that although he wasn't crucified, people thought he was. Therefore, the Quranic narrative is not just that Jesus was not crucified, it is that he was not crucified but people thought he was. Now every single piece of historical evidence only proves that some people living after Jesus thought he was crucified, and not that he was actually crucified because we have no confirmed eye witness accounts. Thus the historical record does not really go against the standard interpretation of 4:157.

As for 3:169. This simply is stating that those who have been killed in the way of God are still alive, although in another, perhaps more complete sense. It does not negate the fact that they did taste death, which was the soul leaving the body. In Islamic theology, after death, the souls continue to live in the grave, although their level of life is not of the same level as those who died in the way of God. Therefore this verse does play into our understanding of Jesus, in that when he does die, he will still be alive in a different sense. However, it says nothing about whether he was crucified or not. That is clearly stated in 4:157 where it is negated. Besides, in other verses of the Quran God says he protected Jesus, for example 5:110.
Even the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament and the one Satan applies to Jesus when he tests him implies that God will save him.

Question 4:
There are two hypotheses on the table:

H1: Jesus died by crucifixion.

H2: Jesus did not die by crucifixion, but Allah tricked people to believe so.

My question is on what basis should an objective evaluator accept H2 over H1?

Answer:
As with any two hypotheses, we look at the evidence that supports each one. We also try to be charitable an accurately portray both views. So for example, I could say, what sounds more plausible

H1: God sent his messengers to teach the worship of one God from the inception of humanity, taught the chosen people about One God, but then at the time of Jesus decided to change all that and reveal that its actually 3 persons in one being.

H2: God was consistent and so were His messengers, however others altered the message of Jesus as they did other prophets.

Notice the way I phrased H1 was to make it sound more absurd than it is. A Christian would probably phrase it differently and not speak about God suddenly changing etc. Yet even in this case, the outward sensibility of the statement in and of itself is of no consequence. The real decider will be the evidence to support each hypothesis. If God said that statement is true, then thay would be what we would believe and if He supported statement two that would what we would believe. Similiar with your question. Wherever the evidence points we follow.

However, there is one extra consideration that is paramount in these discussions. What counts as evidence. So too Christians, the Bible counts as evidence but not to atheists. Therefore this will result in them reaching different conclusions. I'll give two examples.

Number 1: The historicity of the Exodus

According to secular historians, the story of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt across the Red Sea to the Sinai and the subsequent wandering the desert for 40 years of almost 2 million people is not a historically verifiable truth. In light of the archeological records, the population statistics and ancient Egyptian history, this story cannot be verified and is implausible and should not be believed. This is a logical conclusion for those who do not accept the Bible or the Quran. However for those Christians who believe the Bible is the word of God, they have evidence that shows that it did happen. That evidence is the fact that God said it did in the Bible. So too Muslims believe it because God said it in the Quran and God is all knowing. The issue then is of what is considered evidence and what isn't. It is upto the Christian to show the atheist that the Bible is from God and if the Atheist accepts that he will accept the exodus. Think about the parable between this and whether Jesus was crucified or not, I will elaborate on it a little later.

Example 2: Did the human species evolve from prior species?

According to atheists, based on the fossil evidence, the DNA and other biological factors, human beings seem to obviously be evolved from prior humanoid creatures. However, those who accept the Bible or the Quran have an extra source of evidence which tells them that although it seems like that biologically, we have direct explicit statements from God telling us Adam was created and not evolved. Therefore, with this extra source of knowledge they will differ with the atheist. The correct belief will depend on whether these Holy Books are really from God. If they are, then the belief of Adam being created and not evolved would be true.

Having understood these examples, let's move on to the question you cited.
H1: Jesus was crucified
H2: Jesus was not, but people came to believe he was.

Now, if an objective evaluator believes that the Quran is from God, then regardless of the archeological or historical evidence, they will believe that Jesus was not crucified, just like the Christian would for the exodus and the wandering. The question then becomes, can we prove that the Quran is divine and preserved? The answer to that is emphatically yes. There are many miracles in the Quran which will prove to the objective evaluator that it is from God. Together with this, it's preservation is impeccable. Thus based on this, an objective evaluator would accept it as being from God and then therefore accept that Jesus was not crucified.

However, what about the person who hasn't yet accepted the Quran or the Bible. For this person, even then, there is no solid evidence either way. There is only evidence, as discussed before, that people thought he was crucified.

For the person who accepts the Gospel as being divinely inspired, he or she would obviously believe Jesus was crucified. However, there is too much of evidence against the reliability of the New Testament to allow a neutral observer to believe that it is verbatim the inspired word of God. There are too many contradictions, mistakes and historical errors.

In essence then, the argument boils down to what counts as evidence and what doesn't.

I just want to reiterate the point that Islam does not expect people who didn't receive the Quran to believe that Jesus was not crucified. If they believed that because of what they heard, and they didn't receive contradictory information, then so be it. Many prophets were actually killed by their people so there is nothing inherently impossible about this. However, when one believes that a death was needed for God to forgive, or that God is one being made up of three persons then this is an issue that they could be taken to task for.

Response to Sam Shamouns video on Quran 4 171

10th November 2023
(A brother was sent a video wherein an infamous christian apologist claims that the Quran says Jesus is more than a man or divine because of 4 171)

Before getting into the response it helps to recognise the Christian speaker in question. He is someone who is known to be quite insulting and without any real academic standing. Thus he will not debate any qualified Muslim debater of which there are many. Rather you will see him talking to people who claim to be Muslim and using arguments that have been debunked ad nauseum by Muslims for the last few centuries. This video is no different.

Verse 171 of Surah 4 is actually there to show the Christians that Jesus is not God. That is why it clearly says "Verily the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary is only a messenger". It also states that the only God is Allah and that the trinity is completely false. Yet Christians will ignore all that and focus, as in this video, on one part of the verse.

That part is the one where Allah ﷻ says that Esa (عليه السلام) is a word cast from Allah and a soul from Him. The Christian methodology is to assume that this must mean he is somehow not human because he is the word and spirit of God. Let us examine that claim.

Quran 3:8 details the way we as Muslims interpret the Quran. Allah ﷻ says that within the Quran there are verses that are extremely clear and can only be interpreted in one way. And then there are others that require a scholar to explain. The first type should be the go-to verses and the second type should be understood in light of the first.

In the case at hand we have multiple, explicit verses clearly stating Jesus is a prophet and not God such as 5:75. In 5 72 Allah ﷻ even says that the one who says Jesus is God has committed kufr. In 3 47 Allah ﷻ clearly explains that He created Esa (عليه السلام). The verses go on and on. These are clear explicit verses that teach us that Jesus is a human being and a messenger and not God.

Let's now go to the more complex part that the video was bringing up. Allah ﷻ states that Jesus is a soul from him. What this means is that since Jesus was conceived with no father, but only through the action of Allah, he is called a soul from Allah. In reality we are all souls from Allah. In fact this term is even used for Adam (عليه السلام) 15 29, wherein Allah ﷻ says he blew into Adam (عليه السلام) His soul. The fact that he calls it "His soul" does not mean it is a part of Allah. It is similar to how we say baytullah, the house of Allah. This in no way implies that Allah lives in it or anything of the sort. Just that it belongs to Him. Even though, in reality, every house belongs to him, the masaajid are even more so because no one else stays there. In a very similar manner, even though we are all technically a soul from Allah, because in the case of Adam and Esa (عليه السلام) there was no human intervention, this term was used for them.
And yes, we all existed as souls before our human bodies. The Quran discusses this in 7 172.

I hope from the above it becomes clear not only how ignorant these Christians are, but rather how disingenuous they are. The responses to these objections are found all over the internet, yet they pretend as though it is something they've come up with.

The last issue is with respect to Esa (عليه السلام) being called the a word from Allah. As we know from the Quran, Allah ﷻ creates via the word kun (be), in 2:118 and many other places. Generally when Allah creates something, for example a fruit from a tree, there are natural processes behind it as well. However in the case of Esa (عليه السلام) there was no father and so it was purely the act of creation of Allah, therefore he is called a word (kun) from Allah. In reality we are all words from God, but in our case there were natural processes involved, like the coming together of our parents. This is a common theme in Quran and Hadith, wherein a person is given a special title although it can apply to others as well. Think of Musa (عليه السلام) who is called kaleemulllah, the one who spoke to Allah. All the ambiya communicated with Allah ﷻ. But because Musa (عليه السلام) did so without an intermediary, this became his title. The same applies to Esa (عليه السلام) in the case of Kalima (word) and to him and Adam (عليه السلام) for ruh (soul).

This was actually the summarized answer, but here's a summary of it.

1. The Quran explicitly states in many places that Jesus is not God but rather a human. These verses are explicit.
2. The verse in question denies his divinity as well.
3. We all existed as souls before our bodies.
4. Adam (عليه السلام) is also called a soul from Allah. It just means that he has no father and mother.
5. Esa (عليه السلام) is called the word because his creation was due purely to the word kun and not due to any natural processes.
6. Almost all Christian objections are weak and devoid of any real substances

(As an after thought, it would also be nice to mention that the bible claims that Mechisedek had no beginning or end, no father or mother(Hebrews 7:3). Do christians think he is divine?)

Explanation to questions raised by Christian to Brother Yaseen from Ballito
Preliminary points

1. I must commend the brother for searching for the truth and doing some research on his own. However, it is quite surprising that when Christians claim to undertake an "objective" study of the Bible, they all somehow come to the same incorrect conclusions using assumptions that have been debunked 100s of times on the internet. A true objective reading of the Quran using the resources at hand would definitely not lead to these conclusions. 
2. When it comes to interpreting the Quran, one of the rules which is mentioned by the Quran itself in 3:7 is that the Quran consists of two types of verses. The first are those that are explicit and unambiguously clear. The meaning cannot be contested. These verses are called Muhkam and form the foundation of beliefs. Then they are verses that are not so easy to understand and require study and thought. These verses are understood in light of the Muhkam/clear verses. The wrong methodology, as outlined by the Quran, is to take only the second group of verses and give one interpretation and ignore the clear Muhkam verses. This is exactly what happens when Christians try to prove the divinity of Christ from the Quran.
3. This idea that you can use the Quran to prove Christianity generally stems from the missionary understanding that instead of criticizing their book, you should rather use it to guide them. The only problem is, to do so you have to distort many verses and ignore others.
Specific points
Below are the main points the brother raised with the proper explanation
Point 1:
Many of the messages centred around the idea that Jesus is called the word of God in the Quran, and God creates with the word, therefore Jesus is part of the act of creation.
Response:
In order to understand these verses, we must first look at the muhkam clear verses, see what they say and interpret it in this light. The Quran is crystal clear that there is only one God who is eternal, and Jesus is not that God. 
See the following verses: 
Quran 5:75: This verse is absolutely clear that Jesus cannot be God, but he is a messenger just like all the messengers who passed before. He would require food, an argument that he cannot be God. This one verse alone should be sufficient to tell anyone that Jesus is not God according to the Quran.
 The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. ˹Many˺ messengers had ˹come and˺ gone before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They both ate food. See how We make the signs clear to them, yet see how they are deluded ˹from the truth˺!

Quran 5 17 and 5:72: These verses explicitly state that it is disbelief to say Jesus is God. The arguments brought forth in the same verses show without doubt that Jesus was not God, nor did he ask to be worshipped as per the Quran.

Indeed those who said: 'Christ, the son of Mary, he is indeed God', disbelieved. Say (O Muhammad!): 'Who could have overruled Allah had He so willed to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, and his mother, and all those who are on earth?'

And surely they disbelieved when they said: 'Christ, the son of Mary, is indeed God'; whereas Christ had said: 'Children of Israel! Serve Allah, Who is your Lord and my Lord. ' Allah has forbidden Paradise to those who associate anything with Him in His divinity and their refuge shall be the Fire.

There are many more verses like this. But these are sufficient. Clear explicitly verses that show that Jesus is not God nor is he to worshipped and it is a great blasphemy to say this. This is the Quranic position, and you can see more examples of this in 4:171 where God clearly differentiates between Himself and messengers and puts Jesus in the messengers category. You can also see 3:47 which indicates that Jesus is a created being. In addition to this, in 5:116 to 117, we see that Jesus will actually be questioned by God and he will explicitly deny that he ever said that anyone must worship him. The Quran even denies that Jesus should be called the son of God due to the incorrect connotations associated with it 9:30.
These are clear unambiguous verses which leave no room for interpretation. Now that that is set in stone, let us look at the verses in question and put them into perspective.
Now let's look at the claim at hand. The first premise is that God creates with the word. We should note from the onset that this idea of logos/wisdom of God is not found in the Quran. Thus, when the Quran talks about the words or word of Allah, it's simply referring to something He said or one of his decrees and commandments. In the case of creating, the Quran states that God simply says be and whatever He wants to create is created. Many understood this to simply be a metaphor for the ease with which God creates. However, even when taken literally, it doesn't mean that there is an entity called the word of God which He uses to create. It only means that he says the word be and then creation occurs. Jesus is never said to be the word be (kun), because there is no association between the two. 
It is a false analogy to say God says the word kun(be) when He creates. Jesus Is called word. Therefore, God and Jesus create. That argument does not follow. The word of God is used for multiple different meanings in different places.
The pronouncement of hell for disbelievers is called the word of God (40:6). Does that mean He creates with it? The statement of tawḥīd (monotheism) is called the word (43:28). This doesn't mean God creates with it. The word Kalima (word) is used over twenty times and in none of those instances can it be said that God creates with that kalima. God creates by saying the word kun. That doesn’t mean that every word of God is now part of the act of creation. Nor does it have anything to do with Jesus. This line of reasoning is false. 
Let's examine more reasons why this does not show the divinity of Jesus. In verse 4:171, Jesus is called word of God. However, note the following. 
In the very same verse, he is stated not to be God but a messenger. In 3:45 it doesn't say he is THE word of God. It says he is A word from God. If you take Christian logic, there must be many other beings who are divine and create as well as Jesus is simply said to be one of the words of God.
So, what does it mean to say Jesus is a word from God? It simply means that Jesus was created using the word and with no worldly causation of mother and father. Thus, he is called the word in the sense that he was created with the word alone and not via natural causes. In reality we are all created with the word but we also had natural causation involved unlike Jesus, so he was specifically called this. This is similar to Moses who is called "the one who spoke to God" or Abraham who is called “the friend of God” whereas other prophets also spoke to God and were close to God but because these prophets had done so in a standout way, they were called this. 
The Quran is trying to show Christians that they can still hold onto some of their views, but they must align it with the proper belief of pure monotheism. 
As for John 1:1. These words were not stated by Jesus. None of the other gospels call him this in this manner. But most importantly, this idea, which we have no idea who said (because the Gospel of John like all the other gospels is anonymous), is basically an acceptance an interpretation of Greek Philosophy based on the concept of the Logos as explained by Philo of Alexandria, a hellenized Jew. These Greek teachings are foreign to the pure message of Jesus. Philo conceived of the logos or word/wisdom of God as a something that is the creative force of God. The Quran is trying to remove this distorted meaning and assert a purer, monotheistic meaning.

Point 2
The idea that Jesus is the spirit of God shows divinity. 
Response
This is much like the previous point. Once we know the Quran is clear that there is only one God and this does not include Jesus, then it is much easier to interpret these. When it comes to spirit, then we see this term is not only used for Jesus in the Quran. It is also used for Adam when God says that he blew His soul/spirit into Adam. This is no way implied divinity. Everything that belongs to God is called God's. So, when the Quran says His soul, it means a soul that belongs to Him which He placed into Adam. Similarly, Jesus was given a soul (ruh) in a miraculous way, and he is thus called the ruh from God. The ruh of God is also how Gabriel, a created being, is described in the Quran. So again, there are really no divine implications here, but simply terms that encapsulate the miraculous birth of Jesus.

Point 3:
The Quran uses plural for God, therefore is he one but many. 
Response:
This is simply a misunderstanding of the Arabic language. In Arabic, in order to show honour, a plural pronoun is used for one person. This continues to today in Arab newspapers where the king will be called they or he will refer to himself as we. It is only to show honour and has no implications of multiplicity. This is well known to anyone who has studied Arabic. 
As for the Old Testament, the same could be said for the Hebrew language (see Ben ezra on Genesis 1:26), however, here's the issue. If God used the plural pronoun for himself, why did Jews and Rabbis through the ages deny that God included a multiplicity? They interpreted this to mean that God was communicating with his council of angels or something of the like. You can see the most famous commentator of the Bible, Rashi, explaining that it refers to the angels who were also created in Gods image. This is supported by the Talmud. 

The only way this could ever refer to multiple persons is if someone already had this preconceived idea and then searched for some backing for it in the scriptures. No one would ever come away from scriptures thinking this and that is why no Jews nor any Muslims ever believed that God was one being with three persons.
Point 4:
The Qurans negation of three gods in 5:73 does not apply to Christians because they believe in One god.
Response:
Here is the verse:
Those who say, “Allah is one in a Trinity,” have certainly fallen into disbelief. There is only One God. If they do not stop saying this, those who disbelieve among them will be afflicted with a painful punishment.
The literal meaning of the bolded part is: “Allah is the third of three”.
Note that nowhere does it say three Gods or three separate beings. This is because the Christians never claimed that. Now if we assume the Quran was saying that Christians must stop saying three Gods, which Christians were saying that? It would make no sense. That’s why the Quran here just says do not say God is part of a trinity and in 4:171, “Do not say three”, leaving it general. Because whether you say three beings or three persons, this is against monotheism and the Quran. Christians say they believe in one God but then say
The father is fully God
The son is fully God
The holy spirit is fully God
All of the above three are distinct from each other.
This can only mean there are three Gods. This is what the Quran is refuting because it is indeed a great travesty for anyone to associate a partner with God even if they claim it is monotheism.
Point 5:
Jesus is mentioned far more than Muḥammad in the Quran and is more than just a messenger because he performed miracles and will return.
Response:
This is a common misconception, that the Quran refers more to Jesus than Muḥammad. This is true only if we only consider third person references. However, the Prophet Muḥammad is the addressee of the Quran. He is referred to hundreds of times. Sometimes by O Prophet, sometimes by O messenger and many times by the second person pronoun. The Quran focuses in many places on his life and importance, although without taking his name because it is understood. So, of what relevance is it to say his name is mentioned less than Jesus’ when he is referred to hundreds of times and a major part of the Quran centres around accepting him??
Secondly, according to the Quran, the prophet did perform miracles, the primary one being the Quran (see 2:23 and 24). Quran 38:13 makes it clear that when the people of Makkah received a sign, they mocked it or didn’t take it seriously, meaning they were given miracles. Also, according to 17:1 he was taken in one night from Makkah to Jerusalem. What Christians use to say the prophet didn’t do miracles are verses like this:
But they say, Why are not signs sent down to him from his Lord? Say, The signs are only with Allāh, and I am only a clear warner. Qur'an 29:50
They reason that the Quraysh were using the fact that he did no miracles as a proof against him. However, this fails to take into account the backdrop of this statement. The prophet had produced the Quran which was miraculous and had done other miracles. However, they kept making demands, like turn this mountain to gold etc etc. They were doing this out of spite and as a joke, so of course the Prophet did not acquiesce. Then they said why can’t he do the miracles. To understand this backdrop read the following verses 17:90 to 93.
In any case, the ḥadīth literature, which is where the details are found, report multiple miracles of the Prophet ﷺ such as mass feeding from a small dish, causing stones to praise God in Arabic, causing a tree trunk to come to life, having clouds follow him to shade him, making his pursuer sink into the ground etc. These are all only by the permission of God. Just like Moses in the Quran. The Quran details many of Moses’ miracles. Does this mean he divine as well? Of course not. This inconsistent reasoning can produce any outcome it is expected to.
The Quran is clear that Jesus is a messenger. It primarily describes him as a messenger and the messiah (The messiah in Jewish thought was never meant to be part of a trinity!). It uses the same wording for him and the Prophet Muḥammad.
The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. ˹Many˺ messengers had ˹come and˺ gone before him. (5:75)
Muḥammad is no more than a messenger; other messengers have gone before him. (3:144)
But the issue is this. Why would God hide his true triune nature away from man and make it so confusing and unclear in scripture, in the Old Testament, New Testament and the Quran? But on top of that, why would He punish you for not believing in the trinity when it is never explained clearly, when the opposite is mentioned in scripture and when Abraham and Moses never believed in it?
Point 6:
A reference to Deuteronomy 6:4 and Quran chapter 112.
Response:
These verses prove the point exactly. God describes Himself as One, never three in one. In addition to these verses, God says in the Old Testament
God is not a human that he should lie. Numbers 23:19
For I am God, not a man. Hosea 11:9
Why would God teach us clearly that He isn’t a human and then ask us to believe Jesus is God?
Point 7:
Jesus confirms that he can only do what the Father tells him therefore the fact that Quran says he needs Gods permission doesn’t go against the Bible.
Response:
This is correct! The Quran and the Gospels do not teach that Jesus is equal to God. Jesus constantly emphasises his need for God and his inability to do anything without God. See John 14:18, “The Father is greater than I” or John 5:30 ‘I can of my ownself do nothing”. Christians will say that this refers to Jesus’ human nature only. However, where in the Gospel did he explain this concept of two natures in one that Christians believe in? Nowhere. People who heard Jesus saying these words would only believe one thing, he was a messenger and servant of God. This is proven by the Gospel of Luke, when Jesus comes in disguise to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, he asks them what has happened, they say, “(we are discussing) about Jesus of Nazareth, he was a Prophet”. Even at this late stage, after his alleged death, his own disciples knew him as a messenger and not God. Acts 2:22 says, "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”. Even after being taken up to heaven his disciples were still preaching that he was a man, not God.
Jesus clearly says he is not God in John 17:3.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
As is obvious from this, the only true God excludes Jesus.
In Mark 12:28 and 29:
“One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one”
Think about it, a Jewish man is asking which is the most important commandment. Jews did not understand God as being composed of multiple persons. Jesus reiterates the Shema. This would mean to the onlookers that he was confirming Jewish belief which was not the trinity. Why would Jesus confuse his people and lead them astray. If the trinity was true, he should have said it.
Point 8:
• According to the Quran you can read the Bible
• The Quran tells the Prophet to read the Bible
• The Quran says that Muslims must believe in the revelation to all the Prophets.
Response:
The third point is 100 percent true. Muslims must believe in all the revelations to the Prophets. However, this does not mean we believe in the entire Bible. We believe in the original revelation Moses and Jesus, some of which is recorded in the Bible. See below the Islamic position:
• Islam affirms the original revelation to Moses (called the Tawrāh which means laws) and the original revelation to Jesus (called the Injīl which means good news) and Muslims believe in these.
• Islam affirms that the actual original revealed scripture of the Jews was eventually partially corrupted.
• Islam affirms that the actual revelation to Jesus was added to and even possibly changed.
• Islam affirms that you can still find remnants of the original Tawrāh embedded in the Old Testament (OT).
• Islam affirms that you can still find at least part of the original revelation to Jesus within the four gospels.
As for the second point, the verse is not asking the Prophet to read the Bible. Look carefully, it is saying he should ask those who read the scriptures, referring to the Jews who had accepted Islam. Beyond that, another important point to note is that the verse is not telling any Muslim, certainly not the Prophet ﷺ to actually go and ask the people of the Book (who have accepted Islam). Rather it is phrased as a conditional, “IF you are in doubt then go ask”. We already know that the Prophet ﷺ and the believers were not in doubt as is clearly stated in many verses and traditions. (2:285; 49:15; 7:158;42:15). So why make a conditional sentence predicated on something we already know is not true? Simple for anyone who is familiar with the Qurʾān. It is a rhetorical device, similar to if you were to tell someone, “I am the number one ranked player, you can ask anyone”. This doesn’t mean that you are asking them to go around asking people. It’s simply to emphasise that you are number one. Similarly, here the Qurʾān is certainly not literally asking anyone to do this. The Qurʾān is a proof in and of itself as stated in multiple places in the Qurʾān and doesn’t rely on anything else (2:2;2:24). This is explained by early commentators of the Qurʾān like al-Ṭabarī.
With respect to the first point, I would say as Muslims it is okay to read the Bible. But we are not told to do so anywhere in the Quran. We do not require it as we have the Quran which is a watcher over all the previous scriptures as per 5:48.

A Muslim brother saw a post from a Christian which attacked the supernatural incidents we as muslims believe in claiming they were absurd like the Miraaj etc.

Answer:

What is there to respond to in this? He is just insulting. We should try and target those who are making real objections. Otherwise it's just going to be a fight and a waste of our time.

But nevertheless, let's talk about funny stories in the bible
The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people," Matthew 27:52
Here so many people wake up from the dead. Is this the Walking Dead?

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

A Prophet prays for bears to kill young children

Don't throw stones in glass houses.

(One of the Muftis from The Jamiat ul Ulama Gauteng participated in the Wits Dawah week. He was asked a question about Jesus which he referred to me. The answer is rather brief)

Question:

One interesting question I have to continue the conversation is this:

According to Jesus himself, why did God send Jesus? What did Jesus say his purpose and mission was?

Answer:
The purpose of Jesus

As per Islam (which we accept is from God so is true and conveys to us the words of Jesus in many cases)
1. He was sent as a messenger to the children of Israel(3:49). Being a messenger entails that you call the people to repent and reform their ways. He also emphasized monotheism(5:72) and keeping the Mosaic law in its true essence(3:50)
2. The Jews had strayed(5:13) and so he came to correct their false notions and bring them back to the truth, clear up certain differences(43:63) they had and ease the law of Moses(3:50)
3. He gave glad tidings of a messenger to come after him. (61:6)

According to the Gospels (Which are 4 separate accounts that are written by men who err and often contradict each other)

1. Came as a prophet(6:4), and a man with miracles.
2. Called people to repentance (13:5) and joined them with the father(God)(Luke 19:10)(John 6:38)
3. Told people that a new prophet was coming(Mathew 21:33-41)
4. Preached monotheism (John 17:3)
5. As for the two places in Mark where it says he came to die for the sins of many. There are multiple issues with that. The first is that Luke, who copies from Mark verbatim and has it in from of him as he is writing his gospel, omits those parts. So he is clearly against that idea. Luke and likewise acts do not preach that Jesus died in lieu of sins but rather that by his sacrifice people may recognize the truth (See James Tabor). In addition to this, nowhere in the gospels does Jesus teach anyone to believe in his death and resurrection in order to be saved. Rather he tells them to keep the commandments. And also that the most important commandment is hear o Israel, the lord thy god is one god.

18th September 2023

A Xhosa revert was trying to convince his friend to accept Islam. The friend objected by saying that Islam has nothing to do with Africans and so they should not accept it.