Saudi Arabia: 80-Year-Old Muslim Marries 11-Year-Old Child

Now where on earth would a Muslim get the idea that it's perfectly acceptable for an elderly man to have sex with a child? News of a Saudi octogenarian marrying an eleven-year-old girl has outraged human rights activists amid calls on the government to regulate the marriage of underage girls, local media reported Saturday. The Saudi National Human Rights Commission formed a committee to investigate the marriage, which activists consider a flagrant violation of human and children rights, the Saudi newspaper al-Riyadh said. The marriage registrar, who was widely criticized since he agreed to seal the marriage contract knowing the girl's age, absolved himself of any blame. "There is no law that prohibits the marriage of a girl under 18," he told the paper. "Plus, I summoned the girl and she declared her consent and signed the contract." . . . The groom expressed his surprise at how the media leveled harsh criticism against him and his family for marrying the girl. "It is very simple. We didn't do anything wrong. It is a valid contract that meets all the conditions for marriage. What's the point of all this fuss?" The groom has three other wives, all much younger, and they all have kids. Read More.

View article...

Not in the Name of Islam? (Majed Moughni and other Muslims Rally against Terrorism)

 

On January 8th, 2010, Muslims and their non-Muslim friends gathered in Detroit, Michigan, to protest terrorism in the name of Islam. Majed Moughni, the event's organizer, predicted that thousands of Muslims would join together and condemn violence committed by Muslim terrorists. Unfortunately, Muslims aren't quite that disturbed by terrorism. Perhaps the Muslims who refused to condemn terrorism had some of the following Islamic passages in mind: Qur'an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Qur'an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination. Qur'an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement. Qur'an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). Qur'an 47:35—Be not weary and fainthearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds. Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah's Messenger said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me." Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah. Sahih al-Bukhari 2785—Narrated Abu Hurairah: A man came to Allah's Messenger and said, "Guide me to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Sahih al-Bukhari 2787—Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Case into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty." Sahih al-Bukhari 2796—Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it." Sahih al-Bukhari 2797—Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Prophet said, . . . "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred." Sahih al-Bukhari 2810—Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them is in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e., Allah's religion of Islamic Monotheism) be superior, is in Allah's Cause." Sunan An-Nasa'i 3099—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: "Whoever dies without having fought or having thought of fighting, he dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy." Sunan Ibn Majah 2763—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever meets Allah with no mark on him (as a result of fighting) in His cause, he will meet Him with a deficiency." Sunan Ibn Majah 2794—It was narrated that Amr bin Abasah said: "I came to the Prophet and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?' He said: '(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.'"

View article...

An Open Debate Challenge to Yahya Snow

 

Muslim Yahya Snow promotes several videos on his site that attack the Trinity and the deity of Christ. He also finds occasion to attack these doctrines when the subject at hand has nothing to do with them. These are sufficient reasons by themselves to openly challenge Yahya to a written debate on either one or both of these topics. A further reason for such a challenge arises from the fact that Yahya thinks it is appropriate to censor people's comments, as in the following post (*), even though I did little more in the combox than direct people to a link where they could view the entire debate on the Trinity in the Old Testament between brother Sam Shamoun and Muslim Farhan Qureshi, a debate that Yahya provides a severely edited version of on his blog. This edited version consists only of Farhan's opening statement and completely excises what Brother Sam said in that debate. Yahya also only provides Farhan's opening presentation in his debate on the deity of Christ with brother Nabeel Qureshi (*). (Nota Bene: Yahya's actions should not be thought of as reflecting negatively on Farhan Qureshi.) By accepting this debate challenge Yahya will have the opportunity to prove that he believes in the public defensibility of his (anti-)position, something his actions heretofore do not evince. It will give him the opportunity of demonstrating that the Trinity and deity of Christ are not taught in the Old Testament, and that such a demonstration does not require making sure that the Muslim side is the only one being heard. Accordingly, here is my proposal for these two topics, both in the form of an interrogative: Is the Trinity Taught in the Old Testament? 2,500 word opening statements 2,000 word rebuttals 1,500 word counter-rebuttals 1,000 word closing statements Is the Deity of Christ Taught in the Old Testament? 2,500 word opening statements 2,000 word rebuttals 1,500 word counter-rebuttals 1,000 word closing statements Should Yahya accept this challenge: 1) Each installment shall be posted on our respective blogs, mine on Answering Muslims and Yahya's on The Facts About Islam. 2) Each installment shall be posted at a pre-agreed time that is convenient to both of us (i.e. not before or after). For example: Opening Statements: 8pm on 1/15/10 Rebuttals: 8pm on 2/1/10 Counter Rebuttals: 8pm 2/15/10 Final Remarks: 8pm 3/1/10 3) Each installment shall include a link to the opening, rebuttal, counter-rebuttal, and final remarks of the other. 4) Each installment shall be limited to the agreed upon word-limit, which shall include footnotes. Any violation of these rules will constitute a breach of the debate agreement and will result in forfeiture. For example, if one or the other of us fail to provide a link, do not post at the pre-agreed time, or go beyond the word limit, then such will be deemed an act of self-disqualification. The same would go of course if either one of us fail to respond at all. Since Yahya has been banned from this blog for reason of bad conduct, he can post his acceptance at his blog. Exact details can be worked out in the comments section. ***It has come to my attention that the ban on Yahya may have been lifted. Since I have been busy the past little while and have only popped in periodically, I do not know. If that is the case, the details can be worked out right here.***

View article...

Reply to Abdullah Kunde on Various Issues

 

I noticed a number of arguments being brought up by Abdullah Kunde as a reply to Sunil. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=189095653198387790 Again as usual when we read Muslim argumentation for Islam or against the Christian faith, we quickly discover the high number of inconsistencies, and I intend to assess some of these here; not because I intend to attack Kunde personally or single him out to expose him publically but rather because these lines of arguments are so frequently used in modern islamic apologetics: Kunde wrote: 1) Muslims/Qur'an does not attempt to follow earlier revelations or prophets. a) This is absolutely false. The Qur'an, in multiple instances, asks Christians and Jews to look to what is still contained within their books for guidance towards the Qur'an and Islam. Hogan replies: I assume you are referring to the Gospel in Muhammad's time! But can you then explain what the Gospel was in Muhammad's time and what did it still contain? Could you please elaborate on this? In the sixth and seventh century we know that Christians utilized the 'Four Gospels', hence based upon your wording here, the book of the Christians or the Gospel would be the 'Four Gospels', which Christians commonly referred to as 'the Gospel' and which would contained doctrines and narratives such as Jesus' death and resurrection, which clearly contradict the Qur'an. But now comes the real puzzle, because later in your replay to Sunil you state that the Gospels are not reliable. I find your view of these matters highly inconsistent; firstly your phrase 'what is still contained within their books' and secondly that these books are unreliable, and thirdly that Jews and Christians are still to seek their guidance. This third claim (that Jews and Christians are to look to what is still contained) is indeed confirmed by the Qur'an: "Say, O people of the book! You are not founded on anything until you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord" (Sura 5:68-71) But you forgot to mention the third faction, the Qur'an encourages even Muslims and Muhammad to believe in and to consult the content of these previous writings: Be courteous when you argue with People of the Book except with those among them who do evil. Say: " We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one". (Sura 29:46) "If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU" (Sura 10:94). "O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and his Messenger, and the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO HIS MESSENGER, AND the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO THOSE BEFORE (HIM). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His BOOKS, His messengers, and the day of judgement, hath gone fare astray" (Sura 4:136) I would assume if the author of the Qur'an believed the Gospel to be corrupted, he would have worded these passages quite differently and have revealed passages that explicitly confirmed the corruption of the Gospel (Injeel), yet such passages are no where to be found in the Qur'an. The author of the Qur'an was either a deceiver or just plain ignorant! If as you assume that these previous revelations are no longer reliable, why are the Christians, the Jews and the muslims asked to seek guidance from these books, and if it only refers to specific passages in these books which are devoid of corruption, where does the Qur'an differentiate explicitely between these corrupted passages and the intact passages? I ask this question in particular since I would assume that this matter would demand explicit reference in the Qur'an, if this indeed was the author's view. Kunde continues: In fact, we see in the Gospels a clear and progressive steering away from the earlier message. In Mark (12:29) we find Jesus saying the greatest commandment is "Hear, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.", yet in the parallel passage in Matthew (23:36) states: "Love God with all your heart, soul and mind." Why? Possibly developing Christian theology? Hogan replies: No this is not developing Christian theology, the phrase of Jesus in Matthew 22: 36-37 (not 23: 36) is taken from Deuteronomy 6: 5 which records the phrase of Jesus in Matthew 22 and that of Jesus in Mark 12: 29-30; in fact both phrases are from Deuteronomy 6: 5, which makes it likely that Jesus quoted both of them, but Matthew simply omits the first part. It puzzles me how this is steering away from an earlier message, could you please elaborate on this? Kunde seems to think that this is Matthew removing the focus of worshipping one God. All I can do is, is to encourage Kunde to read through Matthew, is this really the context of Matthew? Can you elaborate on, based upon the enterity of Matthew's Gospel that Matthew's omission of one single phrase reveals that Matthew is attempting to change the theology? Furthermore, if this was the case then you would have to admit that the Qur'an is also steering away from the previous revelations and a development in theology. The Qur'an indeed claims to be united with the previous revelation, but a comparison of the contents of these writings reveals that the Qur'an is the book that deviates. Kunde continues: 2)All the disciples/followers of Jesus were also mislead by the fake crucifixion. a) This is only if you assume the Gospel accounts are accurate, which I do not, and as I argue, it is completely reasonable to question the validity of them (at the very least). Hogan replies: Again I find your conclusion highly inconsistent Firstly, the Gospels are according to the Gospels not revelations they are the transmitted testimony of the eyewitnesses. The disciples are commanded to transmit Jesus sayings (Matthew 28: 20) and the narrative (Luke 24: 45-48) (Acts 1: 8). Luke 24: 48 and Acts 1: 8 confirms that the disciples were commanded to be witnesses. In the Gospel of John 15: 26-27 Jesus says: 'When the Counsellor comes, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning'. Having been with Jesus from the beginning and be elected was to be a fundamental and authoritative witness, and this was indeed vital as we see from the selection of Matthias to join the category of the twelve (Acts 1: 23-26). What am I saying here: I am saying that the Gospels are eyewitness testimony of the apostles and their transmission of the Gospel account and the sayings of Jesus, not revelation. Hence the Gospel is a witness of those who were commanded by Jesus to transmit this information. Indeed the Qur'an seems to confirm this When Jesus found unbelief on their part, he said: 'who will be my helpers to (the work of ) Allah?' Said the disciples: 'We are Allah's helpers: we believe in Allah and do you bear witness that we are Muslims. Our Lord! We believe in what you have revealed, and we follow the messenger, then write us down among those who bear witness' (3: 53-4) If the disciples of Jesus failed, and they must have if the Gospel suffered the corruption you are proposing, then the Qur'an is conveying a false picture of these followers of Jesus as being superior and victorious and doing the work of Allah: O you who believe! Be you helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to his disciples, "who will be my helpers (to the work) Allah?" Said the disiciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" Then a portion of the children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: but we gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed (Sura 6: 14) I will make those who follow you superior to those who reject the faith to the day of resurrection (Sura 3: 55) Kunde continuous: 3)What Paul did isn't deception. a)I'm pretty sure I didn't say, "Paul lied", but I did say something along the lines of deception. I was asked a similar question on the night to which I replied: "If it were modern times, would Paul come into a mosque and pray as we pray, etc, in order to present Christianity? Thats what it seems he did. Hogan replies: This is exaggerating the matter, I doubt Paul would have recognised any resemblance between Islam and first century Judaism! Paul would not have bowed toward a Gentile city like Mecca and a pagan shrine with a black stone kissed by its followers, I guess Paul would have recognised such practice as paganism. Paul at least realised that parts of Judaism and the religion of Israel was part of the progressive revelation of Yahweh, which Islam is not. This is why Paul and early Christians did not view it problematic to enter the temple or a synagogue; I don't think they would have been equally sympatetic with a mosque. Kunde continues: You do realise that by being a 'Gentile to the Gentiles' that means he possibly worshiped their gods while with them? Do you think God needs to be presented in this way?" Hogan replies: You are in fact misrepresenting the passage here, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9: 20-22: 'To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the Law I became like one under the Law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the Law. To those not having the Law I became like one not having the Law (though I am not free from God's Law but under the Law of Christ), so as to win those not having the Law'. It never says Paul became like a Gentile or that he adopted Gentile pagan practice. All the passage points is that Paul did not practice the Mosaic while in the presence of those not having this Law. Yet he emphasises that he is not free from the Law; meaning the Law of Christ, e.g. the Sermon on the Mountain and the Gospel information. I am amazed how you even read the possibility of pagan worship into this context. Kunde continues: If you say 'yes', thats a very interesting belief system. Hogan replies: I also find it interesting that the Qur'an refers to the previous revelations as intact despite the rejection of its doctrine; is that misleading or was the author of the Qur'an so human that he failed to consider the content of these previous revelations?

View article...

Debunking the claim that the Quran Predicts Modern Science: The Qur’an and the World of Atoms

Does the Qur'an Predict the Sub-atomic world and particles? This is the claim of certain Islamic apologists, such as Mustafa Mlivo, Muhammad Assaid and Zakir Naik among others: Mustafa Mlivo, Quran and Science , The Qur'an prior to Science and Civilisation; see: http://www.preciousheart.net/Main_Archives/Links_Folder/SUPER_List_Islam.htm And Muhammad Assadi, in his book: The Unifying Theory of Everything: Koran and Nature's Testimony; see http://www.amazon.com/Unifying-Theory-Everything-Natures-Testimony/dp/0595129048 And Zakir Naik; see http://www.scribd.com/doc/18926563/Quran-and-Modern-Science-EnglishBy-Dr-Zakir-Naik These among others claim that the Qur'an is miraculous in its prediction of the sub atomic world (that is sub atomic particles). Let's assess the claim: The particular Qur'anic (Sura 34: 3) passages reads: '...by him who knows the unseen,—from who is not hidden the least little atom in the heavens or on earth; nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in the record of perspicuous ' See also Sura 10: 61: 'He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom's weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that...' Firstly we need to consider that there is a debate whether the Qur'an is literally referring to atoms or insects or possibly dust. But let us for a moment assume that the Qur'an does refer to atoms and the sub-atomic particles, are we then correct to presume that this reference is miraculous or is possible that the Qur'an only makes a lucky guess or even that sub-atomic particles were already a common idea flourishing in the time of Muhammad? The theory of atoms was founded by Leucippus (440 BC) and Democritus (432 BC), who proposed that atoms constituted and composed everything in existence even heaven and earth. The theory perceived the atoms as physical particles, which are in constant motion; being indivisible, indestructible and infinite in number and varieties. All this is slightly correct indeed, expect of course that the number of atoms and their varieties are infinite. Indeed the early atomists predicted a range of up-to-date details, such as Democritus' 'moving at random', which according to Russel in his book: 'History of Western Philosophy' suggests denotes the kinetic theory of gasses; and furthermore the collisions of atoms which collected them and formed vortices and later material bodies (Russell, 82-84); all this was in agreement with the latter theory of Lucretius (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p. 185). Yet Democritus and many early atomists seem to have committed the fallacy of considering atoms to contain no void, which made them impenetrable and indivisible (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 88). This error excluded the existing reality of e.g. the neutrons, protons and electrons, and the newly proposed theory of the quarks. That is of course unless we move Democritus' understanding as a theory of the Quark world and what preceded it. Hence according to certain Muslim writers, e.g. Mlivo and Muhammad Assadi and Zakir Naik, this suggests that the Qur'an solely gets the information right and must therefore be of divine origin. However, there are serious flaws within this Muslim proposition. Its primary failure is the failure to grasp that atomic science developed through the centuries. The emphatic claim of Democritus, that atoms were the first cause-particles which could not be further divided appears to be slightly diminishing at the time of Lucretius (approximately 50 BC); Lucretius seems to refer to new ideas in his time which suggests that atoms could be divided (at least he alludes to ideas quite different from those presupposed by Democritus); Lucretius writes in 50 BC: 'It is with a mass of such parts, solidly jammed together in order, that matter is filled up. Since they cannot exist by themselves, they must stick together in a mass from which they cannot by any means be prized loose. The atoms therefore are absolutely solid and unalloyed, consisting of a mass of least parts tightly packed together. They are not compounds formed by the coalescence of their parts, but bodies of absolute and everlasting solidity. To these nature allows no loss or diminution, but guards them as seeds for things. If there are no such least parts, even the smallest bodies will consist of an infinite number of parts, since they can always be halved and their halves halved again' (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe 45)? What are these least parts of which the atoms consist? And how about the opposite position, but otherwise proposed impossibility, that atoms can be halved and halved again? This idea seems to have been raised 600 years prior to Islam. And there are further indications, that even the Epicurean's postulated particles smaller than atoms. Epicurean theory theorized that our body throws off thin films, which travel to touch the soul-atoms to create sensation; if these were considered to operate between atoms, then we might assume they are smaller (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 255). If however, atoms are the principle of matter and thus life, why is it that the Qur'an, being a divine revelation does not provide further insight into the world of atoms or quantum? Why is the Qur'an making no reference to atoms in relation to compounds or the combination of atoms to form a greater mass, as was expounded upon by Lucretius more 600 years prior to Islam (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p.41); Lucretius writes: 'At that time the sun's bright disc was not to be seen here, soaring loft and lavishing light, nor the stars that crowd the far-flung firmament, nor sea nor sky, nor earth, nor air nor anything in the likeness of things we know nothing but a hurricane raging in a newly congregated mass of atoms of every sort' (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184). This completely refutes Zakir Naik in his debate with William Campbell, in which he admitted the similarity between Qur'anic and Greek science but then claimed that Qur'anic science is more specific and even corrects Greek science. The Qur'an does not explain that the atoms are the fundamental building blocks and existed prior to cosmological expansion and the accretion of the earth, nor does it describe their existence as prior to the galactic dimension the pre-stellar material existed. Lucretius' description of a primordial congregated mass of atoms in the writings of Lucretius is fairly accurate and presents an idea that is much more advanced and explicit than the Qur'anic simple reference to the world of atoms and lesser matter. Lucretius continues: '...they (the atoms) began, in fact, to separate the heights of heaven from the earth, to single out the sea as a receptacle for water detached from the mass and to set apart the fires of pure and isolated ether. In the first place all the particles of earth, because they were heavy and intertangled, collected in the middle and took up the undermost stations. The more closely they cohered and clung together, the more they squeezed out the atoms that went to the making of sea and stars, sun and moon and the outer walls of the great world' (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184-5)? While Lucretius' postulate is outdated and contains a number of flaws, it does reveal a much more advanced insight into the atomic world than the Qur'an does and some details actually predicts modern science. If the Qur'an is a miracle due to its reference to atoms and smaller matter, then certainly a number of Greek philosophers and indeed the atheist Lucretius were divinely inspired. What is much more logical however is that the Qur'an simply describes the ideas that were flourishing within its time and era; unfortunately for the Muslim position is the fact that these pre-Islamic sources provide a much more advanced and accurate picture of the atomic world than the Qur'an.

View article...

Response to Yahya Snow's article: Jesus has Muslim Brothers, Sisters and Mothers

On 22 September Yahya Snow posted on his blog a thread assessing from an Islamic perspective a phrase of Jesus from Mark 3: 35. Yahya attempted to prove that Jesus' teaching by nature includes those who adhere to the Islamic and Qur'anic teaching, since Muslims who adhere to Islamic teaching naturally do the will of God.   In this rebuttal I intend to respond to Yahya Snow's assessment of the passage in Mark and a number of additional related points, which he raised on his blog.   Yahya's post and the related topic can be read on these two threads on his blog: 'The Facts about Islam'   On 22 September Yahya Snow posted on his blog a thread assessing from an Islamic perspective a phrase of Jesus from Mark 3: 35. Yahya attempted to prove that Jesus' teaching by nature includes those who adhere to the Islamic and Qur'anic teaching, since Muslims who adhere to Islamic teaching naturally do the will of God.   In this rebuttal I intend to respond to Yahya Snow's assessment of the passage in Mark and a number of additional related points, which he raised on his blog.   Yahya's post and the related topic can be read on these two threads on his blog: 'The Facts about Islam'   http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesus-has-muslim-brothers-sisters-and.html http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2009/12/become-muslim-if-you-love-jesus.html   Yahya Snow wrote:   'The Bible Confirms: Muslims are the Brothers and Sisters (and Mothers) of Jesus by Yahya Snow This may come as a surprise to those who are unaware of the contents of the Bible as well as unaware of whom the Muslims are but rest assured it comes as no surprise to those who are familiar with Prophetic Monotheism. In order to explain the title let us look into the statement attributed to Jesus within the Gospel of Mark (3:35). Herein Jesus teaches us that his brothers, sisters and mothers are those who follow the Will of God. Mark 3:35 says "For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother." The uninformed may ask; how does this relate to the Muslims? Well, the word "Muslim" simply means one who has submitted to the Will of God, so we come to know that "whoever does the Will of God" is a Muslim. Thus we realise that Jesus is referring to Muslims in this passage so we should pass on these glad tidings to the Muslims as Muslims are indeed the brothers, sisters and mothers of Jesus'.   Hogan Elijah Hagbard responds:   Now let's assess Yahya's interpretation of Mark 3: 35:   Yahya presumes that Jesus' wording in Mark 3: 35: 'for whoever does the will of God, he is my brother, sister and mother' establishes the Muslim claim that Jesus was a Muslim and that every Muslim is joined into the original religion of Jesus.   Yet, as I will pinpoint in this rebuttal, such a use of this passage is neither fair to its Markan context; neither does it do justice to the teaching of the Qur'an itself.   First and most we need to clarify that basing this particular debate on Mark's Gospel may nevertheless prove futile since Mark's Gospel is not a teaching Gospel but primarily a narrative Gospel. Hence if the Gospel of Mark is the earliest and the most reliable, as Yahya assumes, it simply eliminates the claim of the Qur'an that the original Gospel was a revelatory book of from heaven, it rather seems that the earliest writing focused much more on the narrative part.   However, let's consider from the teachings of Jesus in Mark whether a Muslim can adhere to the teachings of the Qur'an and still do the will of God according to the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.   An excellent example is Jesus teaching on divorce. In Mark 10: 11-12 Jesus says:   'Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another women commits adultery with her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery with here'   Yet in the Qur'an we find its author conveying to his readers a very different regulation:   'And if ye wish to exchange one wife for another and ye have given unto one of them a sum of money, take nothing from it' (Sura 4: 20)   And if he hath divorced here (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she hath wedded another husband. Then if the (other husband) divorces her it is not sin for both of them that they come together again if they consider that they are able to observe the limits of Allah (Sura 2: 230).   According to the teaching of Jesus in Mark, if someone was to adhere to this teaching in Qur'an he would be categorized an adulterer; hence adhering to the teaching conveyed by the author of the Qur'an is not abiding by the will of God according to Jesus.   Another example if Jesus' prediction of his own death in Mark 8: 31:   'He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and teachers of the Law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about these this and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter: "Get behind me, Satan!" he said: "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."'   Now I here am getting slightly puzzle about the Muslim interpretation of our scripture here! The Gospels clearly teach that Jesus died physically, while the Qur'an openly denies the death of Jesus (Sura 4: 157). Yet in Mark 8: 31 Jesus clearly describes his death as the will of God.   Hence my question to Yahya and other Muslims at this point is: How can you do the will of God in heaven (based upon Mark 3: 35) if you openly reject the 'things of God'?   Notice here that Jesus even refers to Peter as Satan, since Peter had the audacity to oppose the will of God in heaven in terms of Jesus' death and crucifixion.   In case of Yahya's interpretation of Mark 3: 35, anyone who holds to the Muslim position and rejects the death of Jesus hardly describes a follower of Jesus; hence the faithful follower of the Qur'an is according to Jesus teaching in Mark not adhering to the will of God nor is he the Mother, brother or sister of Jesus, but rather as we read in Mark 8: 31 a devil or someone who represents the cause of Satan.   Hence considering Yahya's conclusion of Mark 3: 35 in its proper context we find that quite the opposite conclusion is more bearing and accurate.   The flipside of the matter is also worth consideration, that is: Peter changed and embraced the will of God in terms of Jesus death; which means that Peter is no longer a representative of the devil---This same option is left open for every Muslim who wants to embark unto the true path of God.   There were also a number of other points raised by Yahya, which I feel we need to respond to.   Yahya Snow wrote: We should also acknowledge that this verse is from the Gospel of Mark, this Gospel is thought to be the most reliable of the four as it is the earliest but it is also clear that even this Gospel has been adulterated (or changed) by the scribes; this is seen through the footnotes in the NIV Bible (indicating manuscript differences) especially the last ten verses of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-19) which are forged additions by a scribe(s). There are a number of fallacies within this paragraph of Yahya.   Firstly he assumes that Mark being the earliest Gospel presumes that Mark is the more reliable of the four. Now Mark is indeed an early Gospel, if we consider the writings of Eusebius, Mark was written in Rome and was brought by Mark to Alexandria fairly early, possibly AD 45-50. I say this because the first bishop of Alexandria was Anniasus who came after Mark and became a bishop in the eight year of the emperor Nero, prior to the persecution (Eusebius, The History of the Church, Book 2, 15, 24). In that case Mark' Gospel might have been written only 15-20 years after the ascension of Jesus. I am fully aware that many scholars date Mark 60-65, however, the earliest data we possess suggests 50 AD or a date even earlier.   However, Yahya is correct Mark is a reliable Gospel, in fact Mark's Gospel proves to be a devastating problem for those seek to undermine the Christian faith.   I have spent months studying the nature, order, style and origins of Mark, and it is an incredible piece of literature based upon a dictation, which according to the early Christians was an oral transmission passed on from the apostle Peter to his disciple Mark.   Yahya claims that the gospel has been adulterated. This is quite an exaggerated and unattested claim. You only come anywhere such a possibility if you adhere strictly to the individual theories of source critics; yet these methods are conjecture only and if Yahya is to consider these claims he needs to reject Jesus' miracles (after all one can only consider e.g. Koester and others who saw the supernatural aspect of Jesus as that very adulteration)   Yet there are good evidences that Mark has been well preserved. How do we know that? There are a number of pointers, both logical, historical and textual. Firstly, Mark's Gospel is not very good literal piece of reading material, the author or its source had good but limited Greek, but knew Aramaic well, this is very obvious from the text and does not render it a very professional piece of literature. Furthermore, the text is written as sermon, lively and wordy and repetitive, etc; the grammatical side is also an issue.   Now try to ask yourself, does that render Mark unreliable or reliable?   Think of it this way, the very reason why the Gospel of Mark has been preserved in this style without any proper amendment or textual polishing reveals that later Christians knowing this transmission to be conveyed by an apostle were unwilling to make any necessary polishing or amendments; they preserved it in its original style and order. This refutes the allegation that Mark has suffered corruption. If Christians intended to corrupt Mark either to elevate Jesus Christ or some other doctrine they would also amend the literary style of the writing---yet they didn't.   As to the variants caused by later scribes (which Yahya refers to), we are now moving from a speculative field of study into the field of textual criticism, yet the picture Yahya is presenting is a serious misinterpretation of this field of study and even a misinterpretation of e.g. Ehrman and Metgzer (whose books I love dearly).   I do not mind do an extensive debate on this in a later post, but the so called variants found in the Markan apparatus does not reveal the type of corruption so often exclaimed by the Muslims. The typical variants are typical scribal errors caused by faulty hearing or tiredness. These are typical categorized as spelling mistakes, grammatical mistakes, omitted words or sentences, or repeated words or sentences. If the reader wants to studies these issues may I recommend: Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1987) and Bart D. Ehrman Misquoting Jesus.   Interestingly changes were made even of theological nature, yes! You will find the explanation of these in the books cited above.   However since a Muslim is bringing these up we need to consider them in that context. Some errors are indeed of theological significant such as certain corruptions of words in Luke's Gospel mainly to protect the doctrine of the virgin birth (some local scribes sought to remove any wording in the three first chapters of Luke in Luke which were revealing any parental link between Jesus and his adoptive father Joseph; these passages despite the clear teaching of the virgin birth in Luke were potential lines misused by certain heretics who rejected the virgin birth, hence some scribes in their best intention, changed the wording 'parents' to Mary and Joseph).   Now before Muslim exclaim that this is sign that the Bible was changed, he has to consider firstly, that these were local not overall changes. Furthermore, they were detected and do not appear in the majority mainstream manuscripts nor in the Bible we read today (as far as I know). In fact early Christian successors were trained to detect such changes both in the written and oral transmission.   Furthermore, if the Muslim wants to push this matter, that is, if the local corruption of the text to support the teaching of Jesus' virgin birth was an original fabrication, would that would not refute the reliability of the Qur'an as well since the Qur'an refers to this the virgin birth as factional (this is why Muslims ought to do their homework before they use textual criticism as a method of questioning the Bible).   In fact textual criticism does not support the Muslim view, on the contrary it confirms the accuracy and preservation of the New Testament manuscripts:   Ehrman writes:   'Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognised and corrected. Christian scribes often made mistakes simply because they were tired or inattentive...In spite of the remarkable differences among our manuscripts, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the oldest form of the words of the New Testament with a reasonable (though not 100 percent accuracy) (Barth Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battle for the Scripture and Faith We Never Knew, pp. 220-21).   Ehrman agrees in his later book Misquoting Jesus:   'For my part however, I continue to think that even if we cannot be 100 percent certain...that it is at least possible to get back to the oldest and earliest stage of the manuscript tradition...This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote' (Barth Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p. 62)   This backfires upon the Muslim use of textual criticism. While the Muslim focuses on these minor textual issues, which generally are of no significance and typically a local deviation, the fact is that textual criticism has only managed to support the fact that the New Testament was well preserved. If textual criticism is utilized by the Muslim to point out our ignorance of a tiny portion of the New Testament text, then the Muslim also needs to recognise that the majority of the New Testament text has been proven intact and preserved by the methods and discovery of textual criticism; hence if we apply e.g. Ehrman, then the New Testament writings are fairly reliable and consequently the Qur'an needs to be rejected based upon historical investigation. This is why textual criticism backfires against the Islamic religion.   As to Yahya's reference to the end of Mark 16, it hardly renders any support to the modern Muslim position either. Muslims tend to postulate that because the passage was not part of the remaining Mark or the original Mark, it renders entire Mark as a document of corruption. However, this is overstating a matter in which Muslim apologists lack even the most basic insight. The bottom line is: it does not render the passage as non-canonical or even secondary to the rest of Mark just because the passage is not Markan, this is often the typical misunderstanding of the common reader including some scholars.   We have to understand firstly that Mark's Gospel is Peter's own personal transmission of a two-genre Gospel tradition, which was common type of transmission in those days.   However, based upon the Triple-tradition it is obvious that Peter is not simply conveying an entirely different tradition, he is handing over to Mark his own personal transmission of a fixed oral transmission. This was also a common practice, yet a free transmission would naturally vanish due to the fixed transmission, unless of course the free transmission was written down and Mark was indeed written down; a free apostolic transmission (Mark's Gospel) was therefore preserved with the fixed transmission. This fixed transmission is what you find when you start comparing the three synoptic gospels.   What am I saying here? I am saying that in 50-60 AD Mark's Gospel, due to the presence of the apostles and the oral transmission, would still be rated as secondary. Who cared if the end was missing? The Christians at this time were reciting the entire Gospel in its two genres and the end of it (found in Mark 16, which Mark summarizes), orally and under the control of eyewitnesses anyway.   So where did the end come of Mark originate? There is one explanation only: if we consider the role of succession and transmission in first century Christianity, the end of Mark came from the oral transmission, hence it is as authoritative and apostolic in nature as the rest of Mark.   Yahya Snow further elaborates: 'As a side note, this verse from the Gospel of Mark does reinforce the view that the followers of Jesus thought of Jesus as a Prophet rather than God as God would not declare people to be his mothers, sisters or brothers. It also shows that Jesus did not view himself to be God as this is not a statement one would expect of God but one would have expected a statement like this from a Prophet, hence Jesus thought himself as a Prophet.'   I think Yahya is misunderstanding the two natures of Jesus, the divine and the human; this is very typical Muslim fallacy. Jesus looks at his followers here as those who follow his teaching and example, hence in his human dimension it is fair to say that they have a close connection. Notice however, that the point is metaphorical, whether Jesus is God or not, the language is still metaphorical; they are not naturally the family of the human Jesus or divine Jesus anyway. This argument is totally futile.   Yet Yahya somehow derives from this that his followers must from, language such as this, have understood Jesus to have been anything but divine. However, this is not the picture we get from Mark's Gospel at all. The reader of Mark is on the contrary introduced to Jesus as someone who in his very nature is extraordinary. In Mark chapter 1 God announced no less than twice in the Old Testament prophets his coming (the prophets Isaiah and Malachi). Isaiah in Isaiah 40:3-5 predicts the coming of John the Baptist who prepares the way for the Lord; this Lord is no one else but Jesus Christ. From Malachi we have another interesting description, a messenger who is preparing the way for the Lord who comes to his temple. It is interesting that this same individual is also the messenger of the covenant; what is this but God revealed in an inferior form (Malachi 3: 1). This same Lord and messenger who comes to the temple will also refine and judge the world (verse 2).   In Mark 1: 4-8 John confirms: 1) that he is the prophet who made way for this Lord and messenger of the covenant (now why would God send a human prophet to make the way for a human prophet? The answer lies in the passage itself: this is not a prophet arising among the people, but the Lord arriving in a inferior form); 2) that this Lord is much superior and powerful than John the Baptist himself, even to the extent that John is not worthy of untying the Lord's sandals (why would a human prophet sense such inferiority because another human prophet?).   What is of greater significant is John's statement that Jesus is the one who will baptise with the Holy Spirit, a privilege and ability not ascribed to human agents and which according to the Old Testament prophets is the ability and eschatological action ascribed to God only.   Hence my question is: does this Jesus depict just a human being?   Obviously not. Hence the Gospel of Mark refutes Yahya's conclusion that the disciples of Jesus were unaware of his true nature. There was certainly a time of ignorance, and when Jesus utilized the family metaphor in Mark 3: 35 they were probably still ignorant, but initially as Mark chapter One reveals they were enlightened about the true nature of the one who metaphorically described them as brothers, sisters and mothers.   Yet to remain in this category, as we have seen from the Gospel of Mark requires quite the opposite of what Yahya presumes it would take to make a metaphorical family member of Jesus.

View article...

Response to Yahya Snow's article: Jesus has Muslim Brothers, Sisters and Mothers

On 22 September Yahya Snow posted on his blog a thread assessing from an Islamic perspective a phrase of Jesus from Mark 3: 35. Yahya attempted to prove that Jesus' teaching by nature includes those who adhere to the Islamic and Qur'anic teaching, since Muslims who adhere to Islamic teaching naturally do the will of God.   In this rebuttal I intend to respond to Yahya Snow's assessment of the passage in Mark and a number of additional related points, which he raised on his blog.   Yahya's post and the related topic can be read on these two threads on his blog: 'The Facts about Islam'   http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesus-has-muslim-brothers-sisters-and.html   http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2009/12/become-muslim-if-you-love-jesus.html   Yahya Snow wrote:   'The Bible Confirms: Muslims are the Brothers and Sisters (and Mothers) of Jesus by Yahya Snow This may come as a surprise to those who are unaware of the contents of the Bible as well as unaware of whom the Muslims are but rest assured it comes as no surprise to those who are familiar with Prophetic Monotheism. In order to explain the title let us look into the statement attributed to Jesus within the Gospel of Mark (3:35). Herein Jesus teaches us that his brothers, sisters and mothers are those who follow the Will of God. Mark 3:35 says "For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother." The uninformed may ask; how does this relate to the Muslims? Well, the word "Muslim" simply means one who has submitted to the Will of God, so we come to know that "whoever does the Will of God" is a Muslim. Thus we realise that Jesus is referring to Muslims in this passage so we should pass on these glad tidings to the Muslims as Muslims are indeed the brothers, sisters and mothers of Jesus'.   Hogan Elijah Hagbard responds:   Now let's assess Yahya's interpretation of Mark 3: 35:   Yahya presumes that Jesus' wording in Mark 3: 35: 'for whoever does the will of God, he is my brother, sister and mother' establishes the Muslim claim that Jesus was a Muslim and that every Muslim is joined into the original religion of Jesus.   Yet, as I will pinpoint in this rebuttal, such a use of this passage is neither fair to its Markan context; neither does it do justice to the teaching of the Qur'an itself.   First and most we need to clarify that basing this particular debate on Mark's Gospel may nevertheless prove futile since Mark's Gospel is not a teaching Gospel but primarily a narrative Gospel. Hence if the Gospel of Mark is the earliest and the most reliable, as Yahya assumes, it simply eliminates the claim of the Qur'an that the original Gospel was a revelatory book of from heaven, it rather seems that the earliest writing focused much more on the narrative part.   However, let's consider from the teachings of Jesus in Mark whether a Muslim can adhere to the teachings of the Qur'an and still do the will of God according to the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.   An excellent example is Jesus teaching on divorce. In Mark 10: 11-12 Jesus says:   'Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another women commits adultery with her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery with here'   Yet in the Qur'an we find its author conveying to his readers a very different regulation:   'And if ye wish to exchange one wife for another and ye have given unto one of them a sum of money, take nothing from it' (Sura 4: 20)   And if he hath divorced here (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she hath wedded another husband. Then if the (other husband) divorces her it is not sin for both of them that they come together again if they consider that they are able to observe the limits of Allah (Sura 2: 230).   According to the teaching of Jesus in Mark, if someone was to adhere to this teaching in Qur'an he would be categorized an adulterer; hence adhering to the teaching conveyed by the author of the Qur'an is not abiding by the will of God according to Jesus.   Another example if Jesus' prediction of his own death in Mark 8: 31:   'He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and teachers of the Law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about these this and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter: "Get behind me, Satan!" he said: "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."'   Now I here am getting slightly puzzle about the Muslim interpretation of our scripture here! The Gospels clearly teach that Jesus died physically, while the Qur'an openly denies the death of Jesus (Sura 4: 157). Yet in Mark 8: 31 Jesus clearly describes his death as the will of God.   Hence my question to Yahya and other Muslims at this point is: How can you do the will of God in heaven (based upon Mark 3: 35) if you openly reject the 'things of God'?   Notice here that Jesus even refers to Peter as Satan, since Peter had the audacity to oppose the will of God in heaven in terms of Jesus' death and crucifixion.   In case of Yahya's interpretation of Mark 3: 35, anyone who holds to the Muslim position and rejects the death of Jesus hardly describes a follower of Jesus; hence the faithful follower of the Qur'an is according to Jesus teaching in Mark not adhering to the will of God nor is he the Mother, brother or sister of Jesus, but rather as we read in Mark 8: 31 a devil or someone who represents the cause of Satan.   Hence considering Yahya's conclusion of Mark 3: 35 in its proper context we find that quite the opposite conclusion is more bearing and accurate.   The flipside of the matter is also worth consideration, that is: Peter changed and embraced the will of God in terms of Jesus death; which means that Peter is no longer a representative of the devil---This same option is left open for every Muslim who wants to embark unto the true path of God.   There were also a number of other points raised by Yahya, which I feel we need to respond to   Yahya Snow wrote: We should also acknowledge that this verse is from the Gospel of Mark, this Gospel is thought to be the most reliable of the four as it is the earliest but it is also clear that even this Gospel has been adulterated (or changed) by the scribes; this is seen through the footnotes in the NIV Bible (indicating manuscript differences) especially the last ten verses of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-19) which are forged additions by a scribe(s). There are a number of fallacies within this paragraph of Yahya.   Firstly he assumes that Mark being the earliest Gospel presumes that Mark is the more reliable of the four. Now Mark is indeed an early Gospel, if we consider the writings of Eusebius, Mark was written in Rome and was brought by Mark to Alexandria fairly early, possibly AD 45-50. I say this because the first bishop of Alexandria was Anniasus who came after Mark and became a bishop in the eight year of the emperor Nero, prior to the persecution (Eusebius, The History of the Church, Book 2, 15, 24). In that case Mark' Gospel might have been written only 15-20 years after the ascension of Jesus. I am fully aware that many scholars date Mark 60-65, however, the earliest data we possess suggests 50 AD or a date even earlier.   However, Yahya is correct Mark is a reliable Gospel, in fact Mark's Gospel proves to be a devastating problem for those seek to undermine the Christian faith.   I have spent months studying the nature, order, style and origins of Mark, and it is an incredible piece of literature based upon a dictation, which according to the early Christians was an oral transmission passed on from the apostle Peter to his disciple Mark.   Yahya claims that the gospel has been adulterated. This is quite an exaggerated and unattested claim. You only come anywhere such a possibility if you adhere strictly to the individual theories of source critics; yet these methods are conjecture only and if Yahya is to consider these claims he needs to reject Jesus' miracles (after all one can only consider e.g. Koester and others who saw the supernatural aspect of Jesus as that very adulteration)   Yet there are good evidences that Mark has been well preserved. How do we know that? There are a number of pointers, both logical, historical and textual. Firstly, Mark's Gospel is not very good literal piece of reading material, the author or its source had good but limited Greek, but knew Aramaic well, this is very obvious from the text and does not render it a very professional piece of literature. Furthermore, the text is written as sermon, lively and wordy and repetitive, etc; the grammatical side is also an issue.   Now try to ask yourself, does that render Mark unreliable or reliable?   Think of it this way, the very reason why the Gospel of Mark has been preserved in this style without any proper amendment or textual polishing reveals that later Christians knowing this transmission to be conveyed by an apostle were unwilling to make any necessary polishing or amendments; they preserved it in its original style and order. This refutes the allegation that Mark has suffered corruption. If Christians intended to corrupt Mark either to elevate Jesus Christ or some other doctrine they would also amend the literary style of the writing---yet they didn't.   As to the variants caused by later scribes (which Yahya refers to), we are now moving from a speculative field of study into the field of textual criticism, yet the picture Yahya is presenting is a serious misinterpretation of this field of study and even a misinterpretation of e.g. Ehrman and Metgzer (whose books I love dearly).   I do not mind do an extensive debate on this in a later post, but the so called variants found in the Markan apparatus does not reveal the type of corruption so often exclaimed by the Muslims. The typical variants are typical scribal errors caused by faulty hearing or tiredness. These are typical categorized as spelling mistakes, grammatical mistakes, omitted words or sentences, or repeated words or sentences. If the reader wants to studies these issues may I recommend: Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1987) and Bart D. Ehrman Misquoting Jesus.   Interestingly changes were made even of theological nature, yes! You will find the explanation of these in the books cited above.   However since a Muslim is bringing these up we need to consider them in that context. Some errors are indeed of theological significant such as certain corruptions of words in Luke's Gospel mainly to protect the doctrine of the virgin birth (some local scribes sought to remove any wording in the three first chapters of Luke in Luke which were revealing any parental link between Jesus and his adoptive father Joseph; these passages despite the clear teaching of the virgin birth in Luke were potential lines misused by certain heretics who rejected the virgin birth, hence some scribes in their best intention, changed the wording 'parents' to Mary and Joseph).   Now before Muslim exclaim that this is sign that the Bible was changed, he has to consider firstly, that these were local not overall changes. Furthermore, they were detected and do not appear in the majority mainstream manuscripts nor in the Bible we read today (as far as I know). In fact early Christian successors were trained to detect such changes both in the written and oral transmission.   Furthermore, if the Muslim wants to push this matter, that is, if the local corruption of the text to support the teaching of Jesus' virgin birth was an original fabrication, would that would not refute the reliability of the Qur'an as well since the Qur'an refers to this the virgin birth as factional (this is why Muslims ought to do their homework before they use textual criticism as a method of questioning the Bible).   In fact textual criticism does not support the Muslim view, on the contrary it confirms the accuracy and preservation of the New Testament manuscripts:   Ehrman writes:   'Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognised and corrected. Christian scribes often made mistakes simply because they were tired or inattentive...In spite of the remarkable differences among our manuscripts, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the oldest form of the words of the New Testament with a reasonable (though not 100 percent accuracy) (Barth Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battle for the Scripture and Faith We Never Knew, pp. 220-21).   Ehrman agrees in his later book Misquoting Jesus:   'For my part however, I continue to think that even if we cannot be 100 percent certain...that it is at least possible to get back to the oldest and earliest stage of the manuscript tradition...This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote' (Barth Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p. 62)   This backfires upon the Muslim use of textual criticism. While the Muslim focuses on these minor textual issues, which generally are of no significance and typically a local deviation, the fact is that textual criticism has only managed to support the fact that the New Testament was well preserved. If textual criticism is utilized by the Muslim to point out our ignorance of a tiny portion of the New Testament text, then the Muslim also needs to recognise that the majority of the New Testament text has been proven intact and preserved by the methods and discovery of textual criticism; hence if we apply e.g. Ehrman, then the New Testament writings are fairly reliable and consequently the Qur'an needs to be rejected based upon historical investigation. This is why textual criticism backfires against the Islamic religion.   As to Yahya's reference to the end of Mark 16, it hardly renders any support to the modern Muslim position either. Muslims tend to postulate that because the passage was not part of the remaining Mark or the original Mark, it renders entire Mark as a document of corruption. However, this is overstating a matter in which Muslim apologists lack even the most basic insight. The bottom line is: it does not render the passage as non-canonical or even secondary to the rest of Mark just because the passage is not Markan, this is often the typical misunderstanding of the common reader including some scholars.   We have to understand firstly that Mark's Gospel is Peter's own personal transmission of a two-genre Gospel tradition, which was common type of transmission in those days.   However, based upon the Triple-tradition it is obvious that Peter is not simply conveying an entirely different tradition, he is handing over to Mark his own personal transmission of a fixed oral transmission. This was also a common practice, yet a free transmission would naturally vanish due to the fixed transmission, unless of course the free transmission was written down and Mark was indeed written down; a free apostolic transmission (Mark's Gospel) was therefore preserved with the fixed transmission. This fixed transmission is what you find when you start comparing the three synoptic gospels.   What am I saying here? I am saying that in 50-60 AD Mark's Gospel, due to the presence of the apostles and the oral transmission, would still be rated as secondary. Who cared if the end was missing? The Christians at this time were reciting the entire Gospel in its two genres and the end of it (found in Mark 16, which Mark summarizes), orally and under the control of eyewitnesses anyway.   So where did the end come of Mark originate? There is one explanation only: if we consider the role of succession and transmission in first century Christianity, the end of Mark came from the oral transmission, hence it is as authoritative and apostolic in nature as the rest of Mark.   Yahya Snow further elaborates: 'As a side note, this verse from the Gospel of Mark does reinforce the view that the followers of Jesus thought of Jesus as a Prophet rather than God as God would not declare people to be his mothers, sisters or brothers. It also shows that Jesus did not view himself to be God as this is not a statement one would expect of God but one would have expected a statement like this from a Prophet, hence Jesus thought himself as a Prophet.'   I think Yahya is misunderstanding the two natures of Jesus, the divine and the human; this is very typical Muslim fallacy. Jesus looks at his followers here as those who follow his teaching and example, hence in his human dimension it is fair to say that they have a close connection. Notice however, that the point is metaphorical, whether Jesus is God or not, the language is still metaphorical; they are not naturally the family of the human Jesus or divine Jesus anyway. This argument is totally futile.   Yet Yahya somehow derives from this that his followers must from, language such as this, have understood Jesus to have been anything but divine. However, this is not the picture we get from Mark's Gospel at all. The reader of Mark is on the contrary introduced to Jesus as someone who in his very nature is extraordinary. In Mark chapter 1 God announced no less than twice in the Old Testament prophets his coming (the prophets Isaiah and Malachi). Isaiah in Isaiah 40:3-5 predicts the coming of John the Baptist who prepares the way for the Lord; this Lord is no one else but Jesus Christ. From Malachi we have another interesting description, a messenger who is preparing the way for the Lord who comes to his temple. It is interesting that this same individual is also the messenger of the covenant; what is this but God revealed in an inferior form (Malachi 3: 1). This same Lord and messenger who comes to the temple will also refine and judge the world (verse 2).   In Mark 1: 4-8 John confirms: 1) that he is the prophet who made way for this Lord and messenger of the covenant (now why would God send a human prophet to make the way for a human prophet? The answer lies in the passage itself: this is not a prophet arising among the people, but the Lord arriving in a inferior form); 2) that this Lord is much superior and powerful than John the Baptist himself, even to the extent that John is not worthy of untying the Lord's sandals (why would a human prophet sense such inferiority because another human prophet?).   What is of greater significant is John's statement that Jesus is the one who will baptise with the Holy Spirit, a privilege and ability not ascribed to human agents and which according to the Old Testament prophets is the ability and eschatological action ascribed to God only.   Hence my question is: does this Jesus depict just a human being?   Obviously not. Hence the Gospel of Mark refutes Yahya's conclusion that the disciples of Jesus were unaware of his true nature. There was certainly a time of ignorance, and when Jesus utilized the family metaphor in Mark 3: 35 they were probably still ignorant, but initially as Mark chapter One reveals they were enlightened about the true nature of the one who metaphorically described them as brothers, sisters and mothers.   Yet to remain in this category, as we have seen from the Gospel of Mark requires quite the opposite of what Yahya presumes it would take to make a metaphorical family member of Jesus.

View article...