Reviewing "Boil and Eat Your Son"
Addressing More Muslim Miscomprehensions About Christianity

This particular article is more or less a continuation of the discussion concerning the "99 Digital Binary Questions" by Mushtaq Tariq, which have earlier been discussed and corrected in-depth. Though the original article by Mr. Tariq is actually an attempted rebuttal to a work by another Christian author, Ms. Sajita "Sherly" Isaac, Mr. Tariq has been somewhat insistent that I address this particular article of his. Thus, to spare my inbox further deluge, I shall proceed with answering this request. Mr. Tariq's original article, entitled "Boil and Eat Your Son" may be found here. As with the previous rebuttal to Mr. Tariq, his text is in red, and mine is typical black.

Please note that large portions of Mr. Tariq's page has not been rebutted because they did not directly pertain to any issue of contention. Much of his article seems to be devoted to attempts at bragging about some sort of "defeat" he believes he has inflicted upon Ms. Isaac, and as such, was not deemed by myself to require address. The portions which were relevant areas of dispute between Christianity and Islam are singled out and discussed in great detail below.

(4-b) KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: Just like your Mathematics must be strong enough for your good sense and concepts of Science and Engineering, similarly, your knowledge of History must be strong enough for arguing over religion. Here Sajita has written her book "Is Jesus God?" and I have written my book "The knowledge knows the God." For book of Sajita, Sajita didn't prove first authenticity of Bible and its verses, but rather supposed that it is a divine revelation and then she began to refer from Biblical verses. Therefore, work of Sajita is CLAIM, not PROOF. Her book is full of statements of merely persuasions, but not from statements of rational proof. (She has tried to be "logical and rational" with examples. I shall reply correct logic behind her these wrong examples at the end of this mail.) Therefore, her book is useless for those readers who don't believe in authenticity of Bible. On the other hand, consider the titles of chapters of my book, "Evidence of Bible, Mathematics, Science, Ethics, History, Light, etc." So my book is useful for those who believe in knowledge i.e. Holy Scriptures, Mathematics, Science, Ethics, History etc. i.e. Sajita's book is useful for Christians only, on the other hand, my book is useful for both Christians and Non-Christians. My book provides knowledge to verify Quran against corruptions in Christianity and Bible.

There are several preliminary comments that should be made at this point, as Mr. Tariq's statements above afford the opportunity to address some overarching issues with respect to Islam's interaction with opposing viewpoints. First and foremost among these is the tendency on the part of Muslims to utilise terms which are commonly used among Western audiences, but which are invested with a different meaning than those commonly understood in the Western tradition. The difference in connotation as understood by Muslims vis-à-vis Westerners is largely the result of differing paradigms held by the two groups. An example would be the use of the term "peace" (Arabic slm root), a word commonly used by Muslims when speaking to Western audiences. The denotation of the term "peace" is as "an absence of conflict". However, Westerns connote into this idea the notion of disparate groups living in toleration towards one another. The Islamic connotation of "peace", however, carries with it the absence of disparate groups, and in Islamic theology and tradition, this peace has usually been sought by the subjugation or extirpation of non-Muslim populations. Hence, when a Westerner envisions "world peace", he or she sees all the nations of the world, regardless of race, religion, or other divisions, living in accord. One steeped in the Islamic paradigm, however, sees a world in which there are no non-Muslims, or at least where non-Muslims are permanently subjugated to the Islamic ummah. This ultimate goal is usually in mind when a Muslim states that Islam is a "religion of peace". The term is used, and the connotation is incorrectly understood by the Westerner, who then (wrongly) believes that the Islamic paradigm shares the same ultimate goals as the Western paradigm.

Muslims typically try to encourage this misunderstanding by claiming that Islam is tolerant. Indeed, I noted above that the Western ideal of peace involves "toleration", by which is meant the overlooking of differences such that disparate groups can live side by side without open conflict. The term "tolerance" is another word invested by Muslims with different meaning than it is by Westerners. From the Western view, Islam is most intolerant, since it's whole history is characterised by the subjugation, murder, rape, and pillaging of non-Muslim groups. Indeed, Islam has been and continues to be highly imperialistic. The Muslim connotation of "tolerance" is that Islam allows conquered populations to continue to exist, in the state of dhimmitude, instead of being killed outright or forcibly converted. Hence, while the same word is used, the meaning between cultures is obviously quite different.

We can see the same sort of thing occurring in statements such as Mr. Tariq's above. Mr. Tariq rolls out a pretty little list of words that will sound nice to Westerners steeped in the Enlightenment tradition: knowledge, logical, rational, mathematics, science, ethics, etc. What needs to be understood, though, is that these terms are invested by Muslim apologists with meanings different from how they are commonly understood in the West. The Islamic paradigm concerning things like "logic" and "rationality" boil to down to one simple idea - what is Islamic automatically fits these definitions, what is not Islamic fails to meet the standard for consideration. Anyone who rejects Islam or Islamic views concerning the issues is de facto not exercising logic or rationality, regardless of the means by which that person reaches their conclusions. Frithjof Schuon, who was not hostile to Islam, noted this curious attitude among Muslims,

"The intellectual - and thereby the rational - foundation of Islam results in the average Muslim having a curious tendency to believe that non-Muslims either know that Islam is the truth and reject it out of pure obstinacy, or else are simply ignorant of it and can be converted by elementary explanations; that anyone should be able to oppose Islam with a good conscience quite exceeds the Muslim's imagination, precisely because Islam coincides in his mind with the irresistible logic of things."1
The notion that one might oppose Islam on the basis of rational, logical, and evidentiary grounds is an idea that exists completely outside the traditional Islamic paradigm.

What this means is that when a Muslim uses terms such as these, he implicitly means "that which defends or supports Islam". Logic is not really logic unless it conforms to Islamic theology. Science is not really science unless it supports the Qur'an and the sunnat. Rationality is not really rationality unless it leads one towards Islam. This is why Muslim apologists will proclaim that Islam is the only "logical" belief system, even though many of the beliefs and traditions of Islam fail to conform to standards of formal logic, and can even be said to exist as a result of the grossest superstition. This is also why Muslims will argue that "science" and the Qur'an are in complete accord, despite the many contradictions to empirical science which can be found in that book. Having seen neither Ms. Isaac's nor Mr. Tariq's books, I cannot comment specifically on them. However, the general tone and direction of Mr. Tariq's comments lead me to suspect that he is applying these Islamic definitions to the discussion.

Now I shall proceed to address the next paragraph, which provides us with a fertile field full of Islamic distinctives that need to be examined.

Bible never existed in English at time of any Prophet, not even Muhummad. English developed in 1066!. Quran has been in Arabic since times of Muhummad and all over the world Muslims recite and memorize it word by word with correct pronunciation of the original language in which it was revealed.

This particular argument of Mr. Tariq's rests on two general Muslim contentions - the illegitimacy of translation, and the immutability of the Arabic Qur'an. Let us examine these two arguments in greater detail.

First, let us look at this idea of the illegitimacy of translation. Orthodox Islam contends that the Qur'an cannot be translated into any other language in a true and complete manner. Gibb explains this belief,

"Muslim orthodoxy has generally been opposed to the translation of the Koran even into other Islamic languages, although the Arabic text is sometimes accompanied by interlinear translations in Turkish, Persian, Urdu, and so forth. This attitude is supported by theological reasoning which is quite self-consistent but possibly rationalizes to some extent objections derived from rather different considerations, for the Koran is essentially untranslatable, in the same way that great poetry is untranslatable..."2
Gibb explicitly mentions one of the considerations that creates aversion to Quranic translation for many Muslims, which is their view that the Qur'an, in addition to being revelation from Allah, is the most sublime work of poetry in the language of Allah, Arabic. For the Qur'an to be rendered into another language than Arabic, many would believe, would destroy, or at least damage, the poetic perfection which the Qur'an is understood by Muslims to have.

Related to this is the more rigourously theological objection to Quranic translation, one which also rests upon the perception that Arabic is "the language of heaven", the perfect tongue in which Allah sent down his last (and thought to be perfect) revelation. It is believed by orthodox Islamic thought that to translate the Qur'an from Arabic into any other language inevitably results in the destruction of the Qur'an's perfection. By the very act of translation, man introduces corruption through the adulteration of his own understandings and interpretations into the Quranic text. A representative example of this view can be found on this site, which says,

"Please keep in mind all ANY translation (interpretation) of the Qur'an will most definitely contain errors. "In its natural language (Classical Arabic), the Qur'an is the direct Word of Allah (the One True Almighty God) to humankind through the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). "Any translation of the Qur'an no longer retains that 'official' and perfect Divine status, however it can be tremendously helpful to beginning students wanting to learn more about Islam."

Hence, though the Qur'an has been translated into numerous languages, these translations are not viewed as being "true" Qur'ans. They are most often understood by Muslims to be commentarian in nature, designed more for the purpose of drawing in non-Muslims through (imperfect) Qur'ans in their own languages.

This view in the perfection only of the Arabic Qur'an suffers from several drawbacks. It essentially acts to further the aspect of Arabian imperialism inherent in Islam from its beginnings. If any non-Arab Muslims want to learn what the Qur'an "really" says, then they must learn Arabic. They do not have the "real" Qur'an in their own language, they must learn the language of the Arab overlords to become full and complete members of the Islamic ummah. The practical result of these objections to translation is that millions of Muslims the world over, who hear the Qur'an recited in Arabic in their mosques, are left completely in the dark as to what the Qur'an is "really" saying.

This objection on the part of Mr. Tariq, then, becomes intelligible. Mr. Tariq argues that, because the Bible has been translated into English (and so many other languages, we can assume by extension), that it *must* be corrupt. The Bible in English must therefore, according to Mr. Tariq, be corrupt in comparison to the Qur'an which (supposedly) has remained unchanged in its original language since its first appearance.

The view that translation necessarily corrupts the text being translated is not feasible, however. First, it is logically inconsistent in that it deems one treatment of the text by man (translation) to be out of bounds, but yet does not similarly reject another and similar treatment of the text by man, this being transmission. Translation is to be avoided because of the inevitable mistakes and interpretations made by the mortals doing the translation. Yet, the act of transmission can very well also result in mistakes (and often outright purposeful alterations) in the daughter manuscripts, something which is demonstrably true for BOTH the Bible and the Qur'an, which will be explored below.

Likewise, the Islamic belief against translation fails formal logic on the grounds that the argument relies upon a converse accident (aka "hasty generalisation" fallacy). This fallacy entails the application of a generalisation made from observing a small data set and applying conclusions to a much larger data set of which the small set is only a part. Muslims do this because they assume that because the act of translation might (in some cases) result in systematic corruption of the meaning of a text, through whatever means, that this means that ALL translations MUST necessarily result in said corruption. This is logically fallacious.

It also does injustice to the charactre of God to suppose that He would reveal a holy text in one language, and yet fail to make provision for its preservation when translated into other languages. The Islamic view presupposes a failure on the part of God to protect and preserve His Word. It also limits the applicability of the text, and results in a presumed prejudice on the part of God in that people who do not speak the language of revelation are on an unequal footing with those who do. The Bible repeatedly affirms the promise that God has and will continue to preserve His Word, and the Bible also affirms that God is no respecter of persons, but freely offers the grace of salvation to all people, regardless of race, nation, or geographical location, promised in His Word. As such, the Bible has been widely and actively translated, and when the preserved underlying original language text sets are utilised in a scholarly and diligent manner, result in translations, in whatever language, which are faithful to the Word in the original language. The Qur'an, by the argument of Islamic theology itself, cannot ever make this same sort of claim. Hence, those Muslims who know Arabic are on a higher level of accessibility than those who do not, as stated earlier.

Now, concerning the preservation of the Biblical texts, we see that this has indeed occurred throughout the history of man's treatment of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts, those found in the Qumran cache, the Dead Sea Scrolls, give a strong testimony to the preservation of the Masoretic Hebrew texts. Indeed, the Isaiah scroll, dated to around 250 BC, is virtually identical with the present Masoretic texts, including that used to translate the King James version of the Bible in English. This is just one example of the Hebrew Masoretic tradition which demonstrates a near flawless preservation as far back as the extant manuscript library goes. This preservation was achieved by God working through His people to preserve the text through transmission, word for word, even down to the very jots and tittles3.

Though the Greek manuscript tradition for the New Testament has seen the introduction of greater divergence of reading among individual manuscripts, the same general argument for preservation can be made. Muslims will often try to point to differences between individual Greek New Testament manuscripts, and use this as evidence for corruption of the Bible. However, this again represents the same sort of logical flaw as was noted above in their arguments against translation - the converse accident fallacy. Muslims assume that because some texts may differ from the body of the rest at any particular verse, this necessarily means that ALL the manuscripts, the ENTIRE manuscriptual tradition, is corrupted. However, this is a fallacious argument that does not follow.

Indeed, the variance between individual manuscripts which, overall, results in the division of the manuscriptual evidence into two general bodies (the Byzantine and the "eclectic - the so-called Alexandrian, Western, Caesarian, etc. texts), instead of detracting from the authenticity and preservation of the Bible, actually go towards AFFIRMING the preservation of the New Testament scriptures. The very fact that there are differing readings at certain points between individual manuscripts allows Christian scholars to categorise, trace, and eliminate spurious readings through the science of textual criticism when this science is applied evenly and all the evidences are taken into account. If 20 manuscripts read one way in John 1:1, and one or two manuscripts read another way, then it can be understood that the reading found in the 20 manuscripts is likely the correct reading. The fact that there is variation helps to determine which reading is correct. Likewise, the evidence of other early versions, of the quotations from patristic writers, etc. which all show what the early Biblical texts said provide a means of determining which alternative reading in individual manuscripts is correct (for example, when ALL the evidences are taken into account, we can see that the Johannine Comma is preserved Scripture). When applied in an even-handed manner, the science of textual criticism is a powerful means of demonstrating the preservation of the New Testament. Through this process, the original readings of the original autographic New Testament texts can be determined at each and every point. And indeed, this process shows that the texts underlying the King James are preserved, and thus give a text from which a preserved and perfect text in English can be (and was) translated.

This Muslim obsession with differences between individual Biblical manuscripts as supposed "evidence" of Biblical corruption brings us to the second major contention in the Muslim treatment of scriptural texts - which is their claim to the immutability of the Qur'an. Orthodox Islam teaches that the present Arabic text of the Qur'an is perfectly preserved and has not changed a whit since it was originally given to Muhammed by Allah. A typical example of this sort of claim is,

"So well has it (the Qur'an) been preserved both in memory and in writing, that the Arabic text we have today is identical to the text as it was revealed to the Prophet. Not even a single letter has yielded to corruption during the passage of the centuries. And so it will remain forever, by the consent of Allah."4

Maududi also represents this orthodoxy,

"Muslims are the only fortunate people in the world today who have with them the Word of God completely preserved, free from interpolation and precisely in the same wording in which it was revealed to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him)."5

Implicit in this claim to immutability (which, so far, seems to be little different from the Biblical preservation I argued for above) is the notion that this immutability extends to each and every transcribed copy of the Arabic text of the Qur'an. This, then, explains why Muslims find it so fascinating that individual Biblical manuscripts differ in readings, and why they believe this to be evidence for corruption of the Biblical revelation as a whole, rather than just of individual copies.

Now, that each and every Quranic manuscript made down through the years has not retained the same exact readings as either the original(s) nor the present day Arabic text is so obvious from the evidence as not to bear dissent. The Samarkand codex, an early Quranic manuscript dating from late 8th century, shows numerous differences in readings from the present day Arabic Qur'an6. Likewise, the Sana'a manuscripts, a cache of extremely early Quranic leaves discovered in a Yemeni mosque, demonstrate notable differences in reading from today's "standard" Arabic Qur'an. Evidence, much of it gleaned from early Muslim writings, abounds concerning early alternate versions of the Qur'an, such as that of ibn Mas'ud and ibn Ka'b. Gilchrist has presented superb evidence detailing variant readings between the Mas'ud Qur'an and the Zaid text (which is believed to be that used today)7. Other evidences also indicate early variance in Quranic readings. For instance, Michael Cook shows us that the Arabic Quranic inscriptions appearing on many early coins from the Umayyad period (i.e. official state documents, more or less) show readings which differ from the standard Arabic Qur'an of today8. Quite clearly, the Arabic Qur'an HAS had manuscripts and other transcriptions which were different from the official and accepted version of today. The Qur'an DOES have a textual history, despite the fact that Muslims do not want to admit it. This issue is discussed in much greater detail here.

The fact that the Qur'an has a textual tradition, however, does not mean that it can be approached in the same way that the Biblical textual tradition can. This is because of the fundamentally different history which is noted for the two texts. The Bible has undergone a more or less straightforward process of copying and recopying. The errors in transcription can be traced back through daughter manuscripts, and signal events such as outside influences (destruction of texts, introduction of heretical alterations, etc.) can be discerned and more or less inferred from what the body of texts as a whole shows us. The textual history of the Bible, with all its vagarities, is itself a testimony to authenticity of the Bible and its treatment by man. The same cannot be said for the Qur'an. Muslim historiography records that the early variant readings of the Qur'an, including those discussed above, were arbitrarily culled by the Caliph Uthman in his efforts to establish a single standard and uniform text for the Muslim ummah. This event itself may be mytho-historical. First-hand evidence from writers such as Leo the Isaurian and John of Damascus shows that in their time (mid-8th century), only a few surat of the Qur'an appear to have been known; the others were probably added later. The story of Uthman's culling of the manuscripts is likely a redaction of the act of a later Islamic leader back to Uthman, a move meant to lend support to the action by associating it with a respected and revered Companion of Mohammed (a move which was quite common in the hadithic tradition).

At any rate, the Islamic story itself records the destruction of the variant Quranic readings, and this is a move which, ultimately, condemns the Qur'an to a perpetual lack of assurance as to the true authenticity of its text. With the Bible, Christians can look back on the textual history, and can dismiss those readings which are not supported by the texts or by other evidences of their authenticity. The Muslim cannot do the same with the Qur'an. The Muslim has no body of manuscriptual evidence to look back upon to see if today's Arabic Qur'an really is the same as the originals. All the Muslim has (according to his own history, mind you) is the one text that a particular man chose from among many, established with the force of legality, and preserved while he ordered the destruction of all others. The Muslim has no objective way of judging whether his Qur'an today even is the "real thing". Indeed, as was noted above, there were alternative readings in other versions which can never now be objectively investigated. The readings in Mas'ud may have been those of the original Quranic manuscripts - there is no way to say yea or nay on the matter.

Yet, the possibility that today's Arabic Qur'an has readings that differ from the original can indeed be considered, at least in one instance, to be likely. The Muslim hadithic tradition records the following story about the recitations of Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, one of the Companions of Mohammed, and a man reputed to have memorised the complete set of recitations received by Mohammed,

"Narrated Ibrahim: "The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abi Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: "Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited: 'By the male and the female.' Abu Ad-Darda said, "I testify that I heard me Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:-- 'And by Him Who created male and female.' But by Allah, I will not follow them."9
This story is very significant. In it, we see that this Companion, this man who memorised all of Mohammed's recitations, had taught a certain recitation of a Quranic passage, one reputed to have been heard from the mouth of Mohammed himself. Yet, this recitation of Surah 92:3 heard from the mouth of Mohammed is NOT the one that appears in the present Arabic Qur'an. Indeed, the reading that appears in the Qur'an today is the one which is considered to be the counterfeit in the hadithic story! Hence, the Muslim tradition, perhaps inadvertently, testifies to the corruption of the Qur'an, to the changing of a reading from the original to that which is NOW in the Qur'an. Now, the typical orthodox Muslim who believes the immutability of the Qur'an as dogma may wish to ignore this and blindly accept that the Qur'an has never changed, but he has NO FIRM BASIS for actually doing so. Uthman (or whoever) destroyed as much evidence of variant readings as possible, this artificially codifying a text which now appears wrong, if Sahih Bukhari is to be taken seriously in the Islamic tradition (as it has been historically, Bukhari is one of the most widely accepted collections of ahadith). This destruction removes, perhaps forever, the option for the Muslim to actually find out which reading in Surah 92:3 is the correct one.

Hence, though Muslims like Mr. Tariq will argue dogmatically for both the corruption of the Bible and the immutability of the Qur'an, the opposite seems to be the case for both. The Bible, despite its long history of transcription and changes in individual manuscripts, it's relatively "uncontrolled" propagation, has remained remarkably, indeed miraculously, preserved across the sum total of its manuscripts, translations, and evidences. The Qur'an, which was artificially systematised, ends up still having early evidences show differences in readings (i.e., the job was not done thoroughly enough!), and even ends up being cast into doubt, at least in one point, by that very effort at ruthless codification.

The Islam became Official State Religion in the life of Muhummad when he conquered Makkah in 630A.D. on the other hand, Christianity became official State Religion in 313A.D (in fourth century) when Roman Emperor Constantine the Great saw a sign of cross in his dream, therefore, Christianity became first time official religion of state and its Holy Books were officially preserved. But up to that time, three centuries long Age of Persecution, Christians had lost or damaged many many parts of their Holy Scriptures and religious teachings. (in this long age of Persecution, a large number of sects prevailed and it was not clear which one was OK.) Proof is that alleged original texts of Bible are only decoration of some museums, they are never printed and distributed, because Christians know that they are different from those translations of translations of translations, which are running in this world.

This particular set of argumentation is based upon several false premises. The first of these is the belief that Islam became the official state religion instituted by Mohammed. As has been shown elsewhere, it is unlikely that any such person as Mohammed even existed, at least in the role and with the grandiose scope which Islam attributes to him. Indeed, the archaeological and other evidences increasingly suggest that Islam, far from being a revelation from any god, was instead a religion that developed out of an indeterminate native Arab monotheism that was in turn evolved out of earlier pagan henotheistic systems from across the Arabian peninsula.

The second false premise is that of the implied preservation of the Qur'an, an issue which was dealt with above, and which I shall refrain from belabouring further.

The third false premise is that which is built upon the claim that the Bible was not preserved until the fourth century AD. What the actual evidences of patristic quotations, papyri, and other early witnesses demonstrate is that the Biblical text has been remarkably preserved for as far back as we can go, which in many cases is well into the 1st century AD. The issue of variability among individual manuscripts was also discussed above, as was the ability which textual criticism gives to Christians to be able to accurately determine the original and authentic revelation from God. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I will direct the reader here for a more in-depth discussion of the case for Biblical preservation. Examination of the quotations of the Bible used by patristic writers in the first three centuries of Christianity shows that they relied largely upon a text tradition not dissimilar from the text underlying the King James of today.

Now I shall like to explain the question "Is Jesus God?" in the light of History in this way:

What follows is a somewhat non-sequitur and irrelevant relation of some points in Christian history. What Mr. Tariq intends with these, I'm still not fully sure.

1-Jesus was born without a human father from Mary, as Prophet Adam was also born without a father. (4 A.D)
2-Jesus has called himself "Son of Man" 60 times in Bible. He was pointed out as a Prophet many times in Bible. He asked to worship one God and give up idols. (30-33A.D)

Apparently, Mr. Tariq thinks this point will somehow "prove" that Jesus never claimed deity for Himself. Mr. Tariq appears to be unknowledgeable of the fact that "Son of Man" is a Messianic title, and one which actually would have been understood as a title of exaltation that would have pointed to Jesus Christ as holding the same glory as God.

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14)

Far from being some sort of "admission" that Christ was only a man, the programmatic title "Son of Man" applied to Christ, especially as a self-referent, indicated that Christ was to be exalted far above any man, to a position of dominion and power applicable only to God Himself. Thus, "Son of Man" indicates both Christ's coming rulership and His Messianic role. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the Tanakh indicates that the Messiah would actually BE God Himself - only God could fulfill all the roles the Messiah was to fill, and the Messiah was to share the same reputation and glory as God.

3-St.Paul (who never saw Christ) says in his 14 letters, which are included in Bible: Lord Jesus Christ is Son of God. (40-60 A.D)

Actually, Paul himself testifies to his direct contact with and calling from the Lord Jesus Christ in Acts 22 and Acts 26. It is obvious from the testimony of Scripture that the other apostles accepted Paul's claims and authority as an apostle, for even Peter was withstood by Paul at one point and corrected for an error on his part (Galatians 2:11-21).

An examination of Scripture also shows that not only Paul, but also the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, taught that Jesus is the Son of God (John 3:18, John 5:25, John 9:35-37, John 10:36).

4-Three centuries long Age of Persecution: Christian Holy books were officially burnt and prohibited.
5-Constantine the Great (313A.D): saw a sign of Cross in his dream and accepted Christianity making it official faith.
6-No clear and preserved teachings of Christianity: Constantine asked to arrange official Church Council.
4-Is Jesus God? (325 Nicaea Council) NO>Lucian, Paul of Samosta, Unitarianism, Paulicians.
4-a) YES>Not fully God>Ebionites and Arius.
4-b) YES>Fully God I- Christ and God are same, II-Christ and God are different.
5-Christ and God are same>Sabellians, Patripassians.
6-Christ and God are different>
6-a)Christ is one in one (Monophysitism=Armenian, Coptic and Jacobite Church)
6-b)Christ is two in one (451 Chalcedon Council)
6-c)Christ is two in two (Nestorian Church)
7-Christ is two in one: i.e 1 person, two natures, one is divine other is human.
7-a)Christ has two natures 1 will (Monothelitism=624A.D)
7-b)Christ has 2 natures 2 wills (680 Constantinople Council)
8-Is Jesus Christ daily killed, eaten and drunk in Lords Supper? Should image of Jesus be worshipped?
8-a) YES: Roman Catholic Church
8-b) NO: Protestant Church (1517)

The rest of this list is irrelevant. Mr. Tariq apparently thinks that by pointing our the existance of various heretical groups and councils, that this somehow "discredits" the true Gospel. That, of course, is illogical. Would Mr. Tariq agree that the existence of apostates from Islam, and the presence of grossly deviant sects in Islam such as the Nation of Islam (UFO cult/black supremacy group) and the Sufis (mystical sect, considered to be heterodox by the Sunni majority), discredits his own beliefs? It is unlikely he would agree to that, so why does he think that merely pointing to Ebionites or Sabellians is somehow going to refute Christianity? The presence of these groups shows only one thing - that many, many people throughout history have rejected what the Bible actually says, instead choosing their own peculiar theological inventions.

Were Christian's beliefs invented after centuries Jesus left the earth? Former Catholic Nun and British Author of "A History of God" Karen Armstrong confirms it in the Introduction of her book.

One wonders why Mr. Tariq would make such easily refutable statements such as this. Has he not done even a superficial investigation into the subject of which he writes? It is enough to ask, if these beliefs of Christians were "invented centuries after Jesus left the earth", how is it that we find abundant evidence for each and every doctrine to which Muslims object, in the writings of a multitude of early Christian writers from the 1st and 2nd centuries, long before Constantine or any of the councils which Mr. Tariq cites? How does he explain the Letter of Barnabas (AD 74) saying...

"And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, 'Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,' understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men"10

...thus affirming the doctrines of Christ's participation in the Godhead and as the Creator? How does he explain the Shepherd of Hermas' statement which also points to Christ as a participant in creation and existing before the world began11? Indeed, how does Mr. Tariq account for the fact that a fragment of the Gospel of Matthew known as the Huleatt fragment, dated to 50 AD, in its reading of 26:10 says (in place of "Jesus"), "God, aware of this, said to them....."? If Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. originated centuries after Christ, as Mr. Tariq asserts, then why do first century writings, including fragments of a Biblical manuscript itself, so obviously and explicitly testify to these beliefs being held among Christians even in the FIRST GENERATION of the faith? Once again, we see Mr. Tariq's assertions and hand-waving being refuted by simple facts.

All mankind believe in Mathematics, but all mankind doesn't believe in Bible. See Chapter of my book "Evidence of Mathematics" . I have proven that Mathematics is the friend of Islamic Monotheism, but an enemy to Christian Trinity or Tri-unity.

As has been noted elsewhere, the typical Islamic argument along this line does not even address what Christians actually believe, and thus is invalid. See CARM's demolition of the typical Muslim objection to the Trinity. Also, see my page that demonstrates that the very nature of the created world around us testified to the Triune nature of God.


In start of her book, Sajita has given a wrong example of Sacrifice of Jesus Christ to misguide herself and the reader. I think that the misconception due to this wrong example is the base and foundation of her entire book. So if this example is proved wrong, then entire book of Sajita automatically proves to be wrong. Here is her example as follows:

If Jesus is God then why He needed to come down to this world and give His life? He could have done it sitting on His throne.. Yes, it is true that He could have done this sitting on His throne but It was LOVE that brought Him down. He could not see us going into hell fire. He could not see us perishing in our sins. Think about this for a moment, imagine yourself to be sitting on a chair and reading newspaper. Your son is playing nearby but somehow, he fell down in fire. You are hearing his scream for help. Do you think that you can sit quietly and say, "son try to come out of the fire by yourself. Work hard, work hard!!" No, I am sure, you will jump from your seat and even risking the danger of getting yourself burnt you will try to save your child and will try to rescue him as soon as possible from the burning fire. Jesus did the same thing on the cruel cross. When He saw that we are incapable of coming out of our sins by ourselves He came down in the form of a man and died on our behalf so that we may never face hellfire but could live with Him in peace and joy..

The example given by Sajita is wrong due to following reasons:
1-She has assumed that playing son fells down in to fire due to original sin of Adam. Of course this is wrong, because you cannot prove that your son was playing due to original sin of Adam and this play caused him to fell him down into fire.
2-In this example, a father wishes to save his innocent son from fire, whereas in Christianity Father God kills his own innocent Son to save sinful mankind. Therefore this example is totally different and irrelevant upon the situation on which Sajita wants to paste it.
3-In example of Sajita, son fells into fire without his intention because he doesn't know about fire. On the other hand, according to Bible and Quran, Adam had been warned about eating prohibited tree and he had understood it well.
4-In Sajita's example, father runs and gets burns while saving him, then father is suffering, not son. Whereas in Christianity, Son is suffering whereas dracula father enjoys blood of his own son.
5- If the child fells into fire, then he is called neither criminal nor sinful. On the other hand, if a father LOVES his slaves so much that he allows death of his innocent son to forgive their a small mistake, then father is criminal as well as sinner. Therefore, Christians believe in this doctrine because for Christians, distinction between LOVE and CRUELTY + STUPIDITY has removed. Just like distinction between 1 and 3 removed, distinction between beyond understanding and against understanding removed. For American Christians fighting in Iraq, distinction between military and civil targets has removed. In Iraq War American and British Christians sacrificed their lives for Greater Israel, and thus they were used as muscles and spoons of those Israeli Jews who believe Jesus a Bastard (God forbid!).
6-Even if we assume that this example is correct, then it lacks one role. In this example, there are only two actors, father and son only. Whereas, in Christianity, there are at least three actors, father, son and sinful Adam + mankind. So this example doesn't represent real situation.
7-The correct example is : Suppose that you are very rich and owner of thousands of gardens. There are thousands of slaves work in your Gardens. Now two slaves eat the fruit of a tree without your permission. Will you kill your innocent son to forgive your slaves?
If your answer is YES, then you are stupid and cruel.
If your answer is NO, then Christian's God is stupid and cruel.
If you allow the grandsons of your slaves to kill your son to forgive ALL slaves, then Christian's God is STUPID and CRUEL.
If your Son voluntarily offers his own death to forgive your slaves, then your Son is STUPID and you are CRUEL.
"They (here Sajita) assign to God that which they dislike for themselves, and their tongues assert the falsehood that the better things will be theirs, no doubt for them is the fire, and they will be first to be hastened on into it, and left there be neglected.
(Quran: Surah 16 Verse 62)

I am unsure of whether the text attributed to Ms. Isaac contains her own words or is a summation of them provided by Mr. Tariq himself. Regardless, they do not contain a full or accurate illustration of the Christian Gospel, hence Mr. Tariq's response immediately starts off on a shaky foundation. This aside, it is apparent that Mr. Tariq's response, even to what was given, is wholly inadequate. His critique largely consists of simple assertion of his own opinions without any sort of logical or evidential support. He merely tells us he disagrees with Ms. Isaac's example, and then proceeds to fill in the rest of his allotted copy space with gratuitous ad hominem and anti-Semitic ramblings. These are not arguments, and I will not be dignifying them with any sort of a detailed response.

Instead, I will point out the typical Muslim failings in the area of understanding the Christian doctrine of Christ's vicarious atonement. Rather than retreading an already beaten path, click here to see an in-depth discussion of the failures of Mr. Tariq's criticisms of this doctrine.


In this section of his critique, Mr. Tariq attempts to point to several passages from the Bible and use them to show how the Bible teaches things that are abhorrent and wicked. In doing so, however, Mr. Tariq has had to resort to taking these passages completely out of any and all context, whether textual, theological, or factual. He gives these passages meanings and teachings which are completely at odds with what they say and teach in context. Hence, he is guilty of twisting Scripture forcibly removing verses from their surroundings so that he can invent his own meaning, and then try to give the Bible a black eye through his innovations.

This methodology, of course, is completely illegitimate as a means of exegesis. But to make what I am saying clearer to the reader, and to set a guiding tone for the following section, I want to provide an illustration of the sort of twisting Mr. Tariq applies, only this one directed at the Qur'an.

In Surah 6 of the Qur'an, we find this ayah about Abraham,

"When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said: "This is my Lord." But when the moon set, He said: "unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray." (al-Qur'an 6:77)

Now, if we were to utilise Mr. Tariq's exegetical methodology, we would look at this verse and say, "Aha! This proves that Allah is a moon god! See, it's right there in the Qur'an! The Qur'an admits it! Abraham calls the moon his lord, and he seems to be fearful of going astray after the moon sets and he no longer has its guidance!".

Of course, this is complete nonsense. When we look at this passage in its greater context, throughout the surah, we see quite a different story unfold. Actually, the passage is about Abraham chastising his family for idol worship, and Abraham sets out to discover who the true and only God is. First he sees a star, considers that it might be God, but then rejects it after it sets. Likewise with the moon (our ayah) and the sun. Finally, Abraham comes to the conclusion that worshipping these things is "giving partners" (shirk) to Allah, and he worships Allah only.

The full story is far different from the out-of-context snapshot which would be garnered from ripping 6:77 out of its place in the fabric of this narrative. This, however, is quite analogous to what Mr. Tariq has done with the verses from the Bible which he challenges below. He pulls them completely out of their natural setting, ignoring any and all of the theological context which might be garnered elsewhere and be used in interpreting what these verses mean and do not mean in the light of what the rest of Scripture says. He then applies his own "spin" to them to bias his reader towards accepting his decontextualisation. In short, he has used the text dishonestly. As can be seen below, most of his efforts are so improbable as to border on the unbelievable.

From the example explained above, it is proved that First part of Triune God is blood thirsty dracula of blood of his own son, who is also "fully" God in every respect.
So Can Bible provide us further evidence for dracula nature of Christian's God?
Answer is Yes, here a very few example of it in Bible:
--Happy To Kill Children against the stones. (Psalms 137:9, KJV)
--Blessing on any one who Kills Children against the stones. (Psalms 137:9, Jerusalem Bible)
Ask a Christian friend whether he or she should feel happy to dash a child against the rocks. Your friend will most likely stare at you in horror, much less believe this idea exists in their sacred Bible.
Many Churches have found this verse quite embarrassing. It gives no wonder why priests, Jews, and Christians alike, who quote from Psalms 137, always leaving out this last verse.
(See also Isaiah 13:16; Hosea 13-16)

Even at this very first attempt by Mr. Tariq to cast aspersions against the Bible, we can see that it is obvious that he has *not* taken the time to do any sort of contextual study as to whether these verses even say what he puts across that they are saying. Indeed, I find myself doubting that Mr. Tariq has even read the rest of this short psalm at all. Let us look at Psalm 137,

"1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. 2 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. 3 For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. 4 How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange land? 5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. 6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy. 7 Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof. 8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137)

We can see from a contextual reading of this psalm that Mr. Tariq is completely misrepresenting what the verse says. Far from commanding Christians (or Israel, under the Old Testament dispensation) to happily kill children by flinging them against rocks, it is instead a prophecy about the destruction of Babylon. Just as the Babylonians had been a cruel race who razed the cities and killed the children of those whom they conquered, so would this fate in turn befall them, as a just punishment for their own wickedness. Just as the Babylonians had taken cruel and perverse pleasure in killing the children of those they conquered, so would the ones who conquered the Babylonians in turn (which would have been the Medo-Persians).

I have never heard of anyone, Christian or Jew, "leaving out" the last verse of Psalm 137. Mr. Tariq seems to be pulling this charge from out of thin air. The reason a Christian who were to be asked about "happily killing children" would be perplexed is likely because what this verse says is nothing at all like how Mr. Tariq portrays it. Who is the reader to believe? What the verse itself says, in its natural context? Or Mr. Tariq, who apparently is under the impression that the whole of Christianity somehow failed to notice or was trying to "hide" this verse until he stumbled upon it. The choice should not be a difficult one.

--Kill All Unbelievers including friends or family if they fail to change their beliefs. (Deuteronomy 13:5-9)
Why anyone today would accept these words?, much less allow them to exist in a sacred book goes against the nature of any tolerant and loving people.

Mr. Tariq, who claims to know so much about Christian theology and doctrine, is ignorant even of the basics of New Testament Christianity. The examples and laws concerning national, theocratic Israel in the Old Testament, are not binding upon Christians in this dispensation. While verses such as this may point the Christian to an understanding of God's desire for holiness and faithfulness in His people, this verse in no wise serves as a "commandment" to Christians to kill anyone who is an unbeliever.

At the risk of sounding tu quoque, I would point out that, as a Muslim, Mr. Tariq is in no position to criticise ANY other religion for any perceived violence or intolerance. Let us look at a small sampling of Islam's own teachings in this regard, from its own writings, all of which are in context:

"Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." (al-Qur'an, 9:5)

"So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)." (al-Qur'an, 8:39)

"If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned." (al-Qur'an 8:57)

"Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’" (al-Qur'an, 8:7)

"The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption, making mischief in the land [those who refuse to surrender to Islam] is murder, execution, crucifixion, the cutting off of hands and feet on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned. That is their degradation and disgrace in this world. And a great torment of an awful doom awaits them in the hereafter. Except for those who repent (and become Muslims) before you overpower them and they fall into your control." (al-Qur'an, 5:33)

"The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’"12

"We carried Ka’b’s head and brought it to Muhammad during the night. We saluted him as he stood praying and told him that we had slain Allah’s enemy. When he came out to us we cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been assassinated and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’"13

"The Jews were made to come down, and Allah’s Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men."14

This is a small sampling of what Islam's religious texts have to say about dealing with non-Muslims or those who apostatise from Islam. Now, when we look at these Islamic texts versus what Deuteronomy 13:5-9 says, we can immediately see a big difference. The passage in Deuteronomy, first of all, is *not* commanding believers to just go out and kill unbelievers, even though this is how Mr. Tariq has mistakenly portrayed it. Rather, it is only when an Israelite was secretly trying to entice one of his or her brethren to turn from God and to idols, an act which, considering the implications of SPIRITUAL DEATH for one who rejects God, could be considered tantamount to attempted murder on the part of the enticer. For an Israelite to "turn in" someone trying to entice him to idolatry would, for all intents and purposes, be a form of self-defence, since he would be protecting himself (and others) from the fires of hell, as well as the judicial penalties against idolatry under the Israelite theocracy. Far from being an offensive and bloodthirsty measure, this portion of the law would actually be *defensive*, self-preservatory, and would (in theory) work to PROTECT and SPARE the lives of a larger number of Israelites. And as ought to be obvious to anyone familiar with the Law in the Pentateuch, this penalty was NOT to be carried out against other nations.

Now, contrast this with the verses from the Qur'an and the ahadith which we saw above (and which are only a TINY PORTION of the corpus of similar sentiments expressed in the Muslims writings). We see that these writings encourage and command Muslims to ACTIVELY seek out to kill anyone not Muslim. These verses command Muslims to engage in OFFENSIVE hostilities against anyone who does not follow their religion. These Quranic and hadithic verses do not merely prescribe a judicial, state-administered death penalty for idolatry, they command Muslims to make war on anyone and everyone else, regardless of who or where the non-Muslims may be. Indeed, many more passages in the Muslim writings, which I refrained from putting up here, positively seem to revel in cutting off heads, cutting open the stomachs of enemies, murdering anyone who has something a Muslim wants, and enslaving and raping women who Muslims desire. Whereas the Deuteronomic law under contention is a self-preservatory measure designed to protect and preserve social order and religious purity under the Israelite theocracy, the Muslim writings such as the Qur'an and the ahadith do nothing more than motivate those who are truly faithful to them to wicked deeds of lust, murder, and hate.

Needless to say, however, since Christians do not live under the theocratic dispensation, trying to argue this portion of the law against Christianity is entirely moot anywise. The New Testament tells us how Christians are to act in their dealings with non-Christians:

"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." (II Timothy 2:24-26)

"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men." (Titus 3:1-2)

"Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:" (I Corinthians 10:32)

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12)

And so forth. Christians are commanded by the Bible to seek to win the lost, not kill them, unlike what Islam's writing teach Muslims. Christians are commanded by the Bible to reason with disbelievers, witness to them of the truth, pray for them, and be a testimony of godly living to the world at large. Nowhere does the Bible command or give the example to Christians to kill unbelievers, rape their women, steal their goods, etc., something that manifestly CANNOT be said for Islam.

Hence, if Mr. Tariq wants to pull another set of verses out of context and try to spin to them a meaning which the passage itself does not contain, that is his choice. However, he must admit that he is a hypocrite since his own writings, in context, condemn him for what he would condemn others about.

--Slaughter Of Innocents men, women, and Children in every city. (Deuteronomy 2:34) & (Deuteronomy 3:6-7)
Such words helped give justification to medieval Crusaders who slaughtered men, women, and children along their way to Jerusalem and stole the spoils of the cities. Christian forces massacred every one on conquest of Jerusalem in 1099, but when Muslims conquered Jerusalem, they didn't harm any one. Even today, many Christian military men use Scripture to justify their actions. If any soldier harbors doubt about killing his fellow humans, he need only consult a military chaplain or read the Bible to calm their worries. Even George Bush, with Billy Graham beside him, proclaimed the Gulf War as "moral". Such moral wars result in thousands of "utterly destroyed" innocent men, women, and children.
(For a few more examples [but not all] see also Deuteronomy 3:3, 7:2, 20:16-17, 25:19; Joshua 6:21, 8:26, 10-28-40; Numbers 31:17-18; I Samuel 15:3; Isaiah 13:16; and Hosea 13:16)

I normally tend to stay away from the realm of politics on Study to Answer.Net since that field is not really within the arena of subjects which I deal with. However, for this particular discussion, I can make an exception, since this paragraph above is fraught with exactly the sort of hypocrisy and falsehood that so characterises the Muslim mindset and worldview. As such, it will serve perfectly the purpose of this whole article, which is to present some general observations about the attitudes and miscomprehensions of Muslims.

In the Muslim's own eyes, everything Islam does is *automatically* spotless white and morally pure. The Muslim world is noticeably lacking in that sort of introspection and self-questioning which has for so long characterised the Western world and the Judeo-Christian worldview that underpins much of Western civilisation. Conversely, anything a non-Muslim does is *automatically* done with evil intentions and ghastly motivations. Islam's view of itself vis-à-vis non-Muslims is a curious mix of braggadocious superiority complex and neurotic victimology. Muslims will often accuse non-Muslims of wickedness because of actions done which are much less egregious than those perpetrated by the Muslims themselves. We shall see that these blinders are on firmly in Mr. Tariq's assessments above.

Let us begin with the actual crux of the contention at this point - which is the claim that Deuteronomy 2:34, 3:6-7, and verses like them somehow "command" or "justify" atrocities in war. The first thing that becomes obvious when reading these verses is that they do not actually "command" or "justify" anything. They merely are included in a recounting of Israel's history up to the point of their entry into the Promised Land. As such, these verses can no more logically be considered a justification for committing atrocities in war than would a recounting of battles in any other history book. They are an historical account of victories given to Israel in battle and the typical events that went along with those victories - events which were no different from the way any other ancient people conducted battles and the aftermath. Indeed, the whole concept of limiting the effects of war, of ameliorating the calamities that afflict women and children during war time, only came about once Bible Christianity became a worldwide force through the expansion of Protestant Western European power. This can still be seen today in the conflict between the "Christian" West and radical Islam. Whereas the Muslim terrorists and suicide bombers in Iraq actively target civilians to produce maximum casualties (including bombing schools, hospitals, and funeral processions), the Americans and their allies in Iraq have scrupulously sought to avoid civilian casualties, even to the point of putting American soldiers at greater risk so as to avoid bombing or fighting in civilian areas.

And herein we see Mr. Tariq's hypocrisy on this matter. While decrying so-called "Christian" atrocities, supposedly based upon passages like these from the Bible, Mr. Tariq would have us ignore the vast corpus of COMMANDS given in his religion's writings to go out and kill, rape, rob, and oppress the infidels. While all Mr. Tariq can point to in the Bible to claim that it "justifies" atrocities is an out-of-context account of an historical event, having no moral or operational mandate attached to it, the Muslim writings contain explicit commandments such as this,

"If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned." (al-Qur'an 8:57)

This aside, let us look at some of the other issues brought up in Mr. Tariq's statements. First, we need to discuss the Crusades in some detail. The Crusades were a set of historical events which have become an absolute fixation in the mind of Islam. They are the lens through which Muslims have come to view all their dealings with the West. The Crusades, unfortunately, have also become somewhat mythologised by Muslims, who reinvent history to fit their own propagandistic purposes.

The first and foremost statement that needs to be understood about the Crusades, before anything else is said about them, is that they were not a Christian endeavour. They were a Roman Catholic adventure conducted at the behest of the pope (whose office is not found in the Bible) using methods which were decidedly unbiblical and actually opposed to the conduct which Christians are to exhibit (see II Corinthians 10:3-4, Ephesians 6:12). Roman Catholicism is not a Christian religion, and contains a set of traditions and theologies which are quite at odds with the fundamentals of the biblical Christian faith. Muslims need to clearly understand the difference between Roman Catholics and Bible Christians, and this is a distinction which Muslims, whether out of ignorance or for convenience, fail to make. However, the blame for the Crusades cannot be laid at the feet of true Christianity or true Christians.

Now, to deal with the historical failings of the Muslim views concerning the Crusades. Though it is now the vogue among Muslims to portray the Crusades as savage offensives against peace-loving Muslim people in the Middle East, this view is far from the facts. Indeed, until around the middle of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire's official position, taught to all Ottoman students in the schools, was that the Crusades were a great victory and triumph for Islam, which had defeated and expelled minor barbarian incursions from the west. The Muslims of the Middle East were hardly "peace-loving". Indeed, lest we forget, the very reason why the Middle East was in the hands of the Muslims in the first place was because of a series of offensive religious wars waged BY Muslims against the various Catholic peoples of Asia Minor, Palestine, and North Africa.

And it is this understanding that is necessary for seeing why the Crusades occurred in the first place. The Crusades, first and foremost, were a DEFENSIVE war. They were not fought by an expansionistic, imperialistic Christendom, but rather a Christendom which was at that time shrinking, being slowly but surely overwhelmed by the advancing Islamic empires. As Thomas Madden has written,

"Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world. While the Arabs were busy in the seventh through the tenth centuries winning an opulent and sophisticated empire, Europe was defending itself against outside invaders and then digging out from the mess they left behind. Only in the eleventh century were Europeans able to take much notice of the East. The event that led to the crusades was the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The Christian emperor in Constantinople, faced with the loss of half of his empire, appealed for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He got it. More than he wanted, in fact.

Pope Urban II called the First Crusade in 1095. Despite modern laments about medieval colonialism, the crusade's real purpose was to turn back Muslim conquests and restore formerly Christian lands to Christian control. The entire history of the crusades is one of Western reaction to Muslim advances. The crusades were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy. As it happened, the First Crusade was amazingly, almost miraculously, successful. The crusaders marched hundreds of miles deep into enemy territory and recaptured not only the lost cities of Nicaea and Antioch, but in 1099 Jerusalem itself.

Thus, the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. If the Muslims had not waged offensive war and continued in their plans to conquer the known world, the Crusades would never have happened. Thus, in a sense, blame for the Crusades lies at the feet of the Muslims themselves, and it is doubtful, lacking the impetus provided by Alexius' appeal and Pope Urban's oration, that it would ever have occurred in the first place to the petty feudal nobles of Western Europe to even go adventuring thousands of miles away from home. And what of Mr. Tariq's contention that the Bible was somehow an impetus for the Crusaders to go pillaging across the Levant? Well, there is no real evidence that the Crusaders or those calling for crusade relied on the Bible as justification. For example, when we look at the actual text of Pope Urban II's call for crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095, we see exactly three references to passages from the Bible: two of them from the Gospel of Matthew, one of them from the Gospel of Luke, and none of them in any way used in the actual call to crusade - all are used to reprove the "Christians" for being blind and careless. There is nothing which in any way suggests that Urban pointed to the Bible to justify or encourage the crusading. Instead, he lays out the political situation as it existed at that time, and warns that unless the Muslim aggression is stopped, more "Christians" will be conquered and enslaved.

We see Mr. Tariq pointing to the barbaric behaviour of the Crusaders when they took Jerusalem in 1099. And well he ought, for these Catholic warlords were most definitely barbaric. But, so were the Muslims. Mr. Tariq states, "but when Muslims conquered Jerusalem, they didn't harm any one." This claim is most certainly not true. The Muslims were just as savage and brutal in the fighting during the Crusades as were the Crusaders. For instance, when the Muslims retook Antioch, they slaughtered 16,000 people in the streets and sold another 100,000 into slavery. Likewise, when the Crusader garrison at Caesaria, 2000 men, surrendered to the Muslims on the sworn promise that they would be spared, the Muslims broke their promise and instead executed them all. Indeed, one of the series of events which "lead up" to the Crusades and likely made the westerners amenable to aiding Byzantium in the first place was the maltreatment and murder of "Christian" pilgrims to sites in the Holy Land in the 1070s. For Mr. Tariq to claim that the Muslims took Jerusalem without harming anyone, and his apparent attempts to portray Islam as a spotless and pure victim in the tawdry affair of the Crusades, is astounding in its mendacity. Islam bears as much complicity in the violence of the Crusades as the Europeans do, both in terms of methodology and in root cause. Indeed, Islam's march across the Middle East and North Africa in the centuries preceding the Crusades was drenched in the blood of thousands, possibly millions, of native peoples who were slaughtered and pillaged as the Arabs made their way from Egypt to Spain in the 8th century. Just as the Crusaders bear great reproach and responsibility for their conduct, so do the Muslims.

And this point about the historic Muslim brutality and violence as they expanded out from the Levant in the 8th century and onward is important to remember. There is a good and strong argument to be made that the example of Islam's behaviour in war and expansion was what taught the Catholic Europeans to do the same. In other words, Islam was the schoolmaster in religiously motivated violence, and the Catholic Europeans the pupils absorbing the lesson from the masters. Jacques Ellul, a scholar who has studied the theology of both Christianity and Islam, has noted the impetus which Islamic "holy war" gave to the rise of this concept in medieval Europe. As part of a more general argument concerning the influence which Muslim theology and philosophy had on the Western statecraft and religion in the early medieval period, Ellul notes the following about the rise of the "holy war" concept in Christendom,

"In tandem with this great importance of the political power there is, of course, the importance and glorification of war as a means of spreading the faith. Such war is a duty for all Muslims. Islam has to become universal. The true faith, not the power, has to be taken to every people by every means, including by military force. This makes the political power important, for it is warlike by nature. The two things are closely related. The political head wages war on behalf of the faith. He is thus the religious head, and as the sole representative of God he must fight to extend Islam. This enormous importance of war has been totally obliterated today in intellectual circles that admire Islam and want to take it afresh as a model. War is inherent in Islam. It is inscribed in its teaching. It is a fact of its civilization and also a religious fact; the two cannot be separated. It is coherent with its conception of the Dhar al ahrb, that the whole world is destined to become Muslim by Arab conquests. The proof of all this is not just theological; it is historical: hardly has the Islamic faith been preached when an immediate military conquest begins. From 632 to 651, in the twenty years after the death of the prophet, we have a lightning war of conquest with the invasion of Egypt and Cyrenaica to the west, Arabia in the center, Armenia, Syria, and Persia to the east. In the following century all North Africa and Spain are taken over, along with India and Turkey to the east. The conquests are not achieved by sanctity, but by war.

For three centuries Christianity spread by preaching, kindliness, example, morality, and encouragement of the poor. When the empire became Christian, war was hardly tolerated by the Christians. Even when waged by a Christian emperor it was a dubious business and was assessed unfavorably. It was often condemned. Christians were accused of undermining the political force and military might of the empire from within. In practice Christians would remain critical of war until the flamboyant image of the holy war came on the scene. In other words, no matter what atrocities have been committed in wars waged by so-called Christian nations, war has always been in essential contradiction to the gospel. Christians have always been more or less aware of this. They have judged war and questioned it.

In Islam, on the contrary, war was always just and constituted a sacred duty. The war that was meant to convert infidels was just and legitimate, for, as Muslim thinking repeats, Islam is the only religion that conforms perfectly to nature. In a natural state we would all be Muslims. If we are not, it is because we have been led astray and diverted from the true faith. In making war to force people to become Muslims the faithful are bringing them back to their true nature. Q.E.D. Furthermore, a war of this kind is a jihad, a holy war. Let us make no mistake, the word jihad has two complementary senses. It may denote a spiritual war that is moral and inward. Muslims have to wage this war within themselves in the fight against demons and evil forces, in the effort to achieve better obedience to God's will, in the struggle for perfect submission. But at the same time and in a wholly consistent way the jihad is also the war against external demons. To spread the faith, it is necessary to destroy false religions. This war, then, is always a religious war, a holy war."15

Hence, it is recognised that the Gospel of Christ and war are not complementary, and Ellul rightly notes that true Christians have always been at least skeptical about war, even while recognising that a legitimate need on the part of the state may exist for war. Conversely, it is also observed that the teachings of Islam are wholly consistent with a perpetual war state. The concept of "holy war" in medieval Europe rose as a result of the influence of Islamic philosophical and theological ideas, and from the direct example of the Muslims themselves, whose dealings in North Africa and Spain were readily observable to the "Christians" of the day.

None of this should be interpreted as seeking to justify the Crusaders in their warfare or their atrocities - indeed, the Catholic Europeans indulged in a great evil when they conducted themselves to war in the Levant during the Crusades. The point still needs to be understood, however, that without the input of Muslim aggression, Muslim atrocities, and Muslim theological/philosophical ideas, the Crusades would likely not have occurred.

Let us then explore the third general topic in Mr. Tariq's statement, which is his implied argument that modern day American soldiers (many, perhaps most of whom may not even BE true Christians...) are like the Crusaders, and seek to justify from the Bible wars which the Muslims do not like. This charge is, as well, tedious at best. From the mention of President Bush, it can reasonably be inferred that Mr. Tariq has the current war in Iraq in mind when trying to make his connexion.

Let it first be pointed out that the image of the war in Iraq, like much else on the modern Middle Eastern political scene, has been the victim of a lot of "spin" on the part of Muslims. Muslim news agencies such as al-Jazeera and al-Manar routinely invent facts and figures, which are then broadcast to a largely uncritical Muslim public who believe virtually any and every outlandish falsehood that they see on their television screens. As such, Muslim ideas of what is going on in Iraq can be said to be based on fantasy, not reality. Of course, this is aided and abetted by left-leaning Western outlets as well. One example is the claim, which appeared in the British medical journal The Lancet, that since the beginning of the war, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, mostly by coalition forces. Tim Worstall has examined this claim, however, and found it to be based upon statistical myth-making. As Worstall shows, this claim is built on a completely statistical foundation, meaning that it only "in theory" may be correct, and has no real basis in any sort of fact. Yet, Arab and left-wing Western news agencies repeated the figure over and over uncritically, and without informing their readers that the number was derived solely from a mathematical exercise. Nevermind that the more likely figure for civilian deaths since the war began is not even a tenth of the Lancet's figure, and that these have mostly resulted from the Muslim terrorists who are actively targeting Iraqi civilians.

Indeed, Mr. Tariq and other Muslims seem like they would be happier if 25 million of their fellow Muslims were still living with the daily spectre of rape rooms and being thrown into plastic shredders by Saddam Hussein's thugs. Many Muslims, apparently, are not as interested in defending or supporting fellow Muslims as they are opposing anything done by America or the West. America, in the course of three short years, has freed fifty million Muslims from the brutal domination of the Baathists and the Taliban, and has given these people freedom - freedom which the Iraqis and Afghans themselves have shown they wanted, by their enthusiasm to participate in elections despite rabid Islamofascist opposition.

If any good has come out of this war in Iraq, if there is anything for which I praise God, it is that little Iraqi girls like the one above no longer have to fear a future which might include one of Uday Hussein's rape rooms. That alone, the liberation of the people in Iraq from such brutal tyranny, makes the sacrifices which Americans have made worthwhile. Those who oppose the war, those like Mr. Tariq and other Muslims who try to make political and propagandistic hay out of the conflict in Iraq, would rather have had the Iraqi people continue to be ground under the iron bootheel of oppression than be free to make their own choices and live their lives in peace and freedom

And this brings us to the point about the use of American military force to achieve these ends. Mr. Tariq would have us believe that any use of force by the American military is morally equivalent to the conduct of the Crusaders a millennium ago. This, of course, is nonsense. The Crusaders went out to kill people and enslave them, much as the Muslims do even today. America and her allies went to Afghanistan and Iraq to free millions from tyranny, while also providing for the defence of America herself. War is a dirty business, but not going to war is often a dirtier business, if it allows a people to be exposed to continued oppression or attack by an enemy. America was threatened and attacked by Muslim fanatics on September 11, 2001. America responded by destroying the regime in Afghanistan which harboured those terrorists, which was a legitimate use of force for self-defence.

Self-defence is not immoral. The United States went to Iraq because of a credible threat assessment which indicated that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction which could and probably would have been given to terrorist groups for use against American targets. As it turns out, this belief was most assuredly correct. Even the New York Times has recently admitted, in a roundabout way, that Saddam did indeed possess WMD capabilities. Of course, you have the sarin-laced artillery shells (sarin is a nerve gas) found in Iraq last year. You also have the mustard gas-laden mortar shells found last year. And then there were the satellite photos showing convoys of trucks crossing into Syria from Iraq in the weeks before and during the war - trucks which most likely were carrying the bulk of Saddam's WMDs and equipment to his fellow Baathists in Syria. The sum total of the evidence, regardless of how the news media wants to spin it, shows that the Iraqi Baathist regime had WMD capabilities and were engaged in trying to further develop them. It also shows that Saddam's regime supported terrorist groups, which also made it a threat to the USA and her allies. As such, the United States of America was morally justified in terminating a threat to the American people - a process of preemption which has been recognised as proper and legitimate all the way back to the days of Thucydides.

Hence, Mr. Tariq's spin-mongering of this issue, and of the supposed immorality of American military action, is completely moot. Indeed, we see that American military force projection is far different in intent and process from that which has characterised Islamic warmaking. Muslim warmaking ALWAYS has the aspect of jihad, of conflict with non-Muslims to subjugate or exterminate those who do not worship Allah. Even in the great earth-shaking secular conflicts of the 20th century, this aspect was foremost for Muslim participants. In World War I, the Turkish Empire declared a jihad against the Allies as part of their effort to stir up support for the war. In World War II, Muslims in the Middle East openly sided with the Nazis and lent religious support to the Nazi program in the Middle East against the British and French. The error on Mr. Tariq's part arises when he projects this Islamic view of warmaking onto outside groups, such as the Americans in Iraq. He and other Muslims thus interpret the American presence there as being a "holy war" fought by Americans at the behest of their clergy, just as Muslims have traditionally been motivated to smite the infidel by their own ulamas and imams, with the stamp of approval from the Qur'an and the ahadith. The problem is cultural projection on the part of Muslims, rather than any real moral failing on the part of the American leadership.

--Slay Old And Young children, and women (Ezekiel 9:5-6)
These phrases should give warning to anyone (Mushtaq) who knows a person (Sajita) who believes every word in the Bible. For what sense of moral reasoning should we allow ourselves to admire such Biblical verses?

This passage is also taken completely out of its context. It is not commanding Christians (or Jews, for that matter) to go out and slay women and children. Rather, it is part of a vision which Ezekiel had of coming judgment against Jerusalem that the LORD was going to allow to happen to Israel, as punishment for their apostasy and idolatry. It was a prediction that God was going to allow Jerusalem to be taken and punished by a foreign invader. Indeed, this prophetic vision was fulfilled when the Babylonians conquered the city in 597 BC and slaughtered many of its inhabitants. To understand this passage as some sort of commandment to kill women and children, as Mr. Tariq portrays, is so grossly erroneous as to defy imagination.

--Utter Destruction of all the places where people worship other gods.(Deuteronomy 12:2-3)
The Lord, here commands the destruction. There appears not a shred of religious tolerance here!
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own-- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."
--Albert Einstein
(For other examples of utter destructions, see Numbers 21:2; Deuteronomy 3:6-7, 7:2, 13:15, 20:17, Judges 21:11, II Chronicles 20:23; I Kings 20-42; Isaiah 11:15, 15:3,9,18; Jeremiah 12:17, 25-9, 50:21, 26, 51:3; Daniel 11;44; Amos 9:8)

My response to this whole objection would be to ask, "So what?" In theocratic Israel, God was to be the only Deity worshipped. It is only natural that the destruction of pagan centres of worship should follow from this. I'm at a loss to see why Mr. Tariq would be offended by this, considering that Islam's behaviour is exactly the same. Would anyone care to try to find a church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia? Indeed, if Mr. Tariq wishes to quibble about religious tolerance, he should re-examine his own religion first before casting stones at anyone else's.

Of course, we should (again) note that this area of theocratic enforcement applied only to Israel during the theocracy, and does not apply to Christians today. Once again, Mr. Tariq confuses things found in the Old Testament that applied specifically to the Israelite theocratic regime with those things that apply to Christians in the present dispensation.

As for Mr. Tariq's quotation from Albert Einstein (who may have been a genius in physics, but who was a bit "slow" in matters of theology), I again ask the question, "So what?" This is Einstein's personal opinion, of no more real importance to the issues being discussed in this article than the outcome of last night's ball game. Indeed, if Mr. Tariq really believes what Einstein says in the quote, then he is himself an apostate from Islam (for he will have denied the judgment at the last day, which all Muslims must accept). As we have seen from the commandment to kill apostates from Islam that appears in the Muslim traditions, Mr. Tariq would have bigger problems than my refuting his articles.

--Boil and Eat Your Son. (II Kings 6:288-29)
This dreadful example goes against human nature. Hopefully readers of the Bible who might one day experience a famine will not subvert their natural instinct for this kind of horrific example in Scripture.
May I suggest that if you cannot control your belief to eat your children, sacrifice your priest (i.e, SAJITA) and eat her instead; that way you gain far more protein for you and your children, and when you say grace, you'll have someone to really thank for your food.

--Eat Your Children(Deuteronomy 28:53,,57) & (II Kings 6:28-29)
Here we have the horrific calling for cannibalism. It comes even more barbaric considering it calls for the devouring of their own sons and daughters.
Hardly anyone today accepts cannibalism, yet many fundamentalist Christians would have us believe that cannibalism or some other depravity will result if we choose not to believe in God or to choose another god.

Only the most grossly negligent reader of the text would see in these passages a "calling for cannibalism". In Deuteronomy 28, Moses in his sermon predicts the horrible consequences of continued rebellion against God by Israel, one of which is that the Israelites would be reduced to such a state of destitution and want that to preserve their own lives, they would even eat their own children. This prediction came true in the events of the Ben-Hadad's siege of Samaria, during which the famine in the city became so great that the people were reduced to eating first the heads of donkeys, and finally, their own children. Horrible, yes, but not commanded by God, only prophesied. Once again, we see Mr. Tariq confusing the relation of an historical event with a *commandment*. Indeed, if anything, these passages ought to be a warning to people not to turn from God and fall under judgment to such a point as happened to Samaria.

Concerning depravity as the result of choosing to reject God and worship other gods, Mr. Tariq has little room to quibble with this observably true notion. After all, his own Qur'an also alludes to it in Surah 8:21-23,

"Nor be like those who say, "We hear," but listen not: For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are the deaf and the dumb,- those who understand not. If Allah had found in them any good. He would indeed have made them listen: (As it is), if He had made them listen, they would but have turned back and declined (Faith)."

The Qur'an says that those who will not listen to truth, those who "decline faith", are like beasts, degraded and fallen away from what Allah intends for them to be. The Bible also teaches this in Romans 1:21-32,

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

While not relegating those who reject God to the status of "beasts", the Bible does indicate that rejecting God causes people to fall deeper and deeper into sin until all depravity becomes acceptable to them. And history bears this out time and time again in the customs and traditions of pagan societies. The Hindus, who worship millions of false gods, bow to cows, drink their urine, burnt their women in the sati ritual, and even today maintain a rigid caste system which forces millions of sudras and Dalit on the "low end" of the caste hierarchy to live in utter degradation. The ancient Greeks accepted homosexuality as positive and beneficial, despite the manifest degradation which accompanies its practice. The Canaanites burnt their children in sacrifice, and the ancient Celts would sacrifice humans to appease their false gods. Even in today's world, missionaries deal with tribes in the jungles whose people have so regressed that they wear no clothing and bow down to stones and trees, worshipping the spirits they suppose to reside therein. At the risk of sounding "ethnocentric", I suggest that the reason these societies entered such depths of wickedness is because of the continued rejection of God, who has left a witness to Himself in the very creation of the world. It is notable that modern Western society, which is largely rejecting God and following the error of evolutionism, is also seeing a rise in all manner of wickedness and degradation among those who refuse to acknowledge God.

--Human Sacrifice (Exodus 22:29)
This verse refers to human sacrifice which many primitive cultures practices.
In the Canaanite world the Molech cult practiced human sacrifice and many scholars equate Yahweh with the Molech god. Explicit references to Molech appear in Leviticus 18:21, 20:2-5; Jeremiah 32:35 and II Kings 23:10. Fortunately, few people believe in sacrificing humans to gods these days.

Mr. Tariq apparently failed to notice that all of these passages that he cites are condemning the various practices associated with the cult of Molech. Has Mr. Tariq even *read* the passages, and if so, how on earth can he rationally think that passages which condemn pagan practices like human sacrifice are *supporting* them? Mr. Tariq is completely inverting logic here. And if he wishes to criticise the Bible because it merely mentions the Molech cult, and say that this is some sort of support *for* this cult, them will Mr. Tariq be willing to accept likewise that because the Qur'an mentions the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars, that the Qur'an therefore *supports* these pagan worships?

Concerning his statement, "many scholars equate Yahweh with the Molech god", this is simply false. No modern scholar of any repute would affirm this statement. Indeed, most modern scholars in the fields of ANE history and anthropology accept that the Israelite "Yahwism" (as they call it) was very different from the pagan systems of Israel's neighbours, and that the "Yahwists" (what we would call faithful Israelites, from a Biblical viewpoint) clearly separated Jehovah from the pagan gods. Of course there was the problem of idolatry in Israel, and the concurrent attempt by the idolators to syncretise Jehovah with various pagan deities, but this was something which was completely at odds with both the word of scripture and the practice of those who wished the pure worship of God. The worship and theology of Yahweh was, as most modern scholars would agree, markedly different from that of the pagan systems around Israel, and the syncretism of the worship of God with false gods was something that was introduced at a later date, not something which was originally part of Israel's religious system.

Jesus Will Kill Children. (Revelation 2:22-23)

When read in context, this passage is speaking of "children" in a figurative sense, as referring to someone who is a follower of a false teacher in the church at Thyatira. Indeed, the literary device of referring to a follower of someone as a "child" is common in the New Testament. We see the term applied by the Lord Jesus to His disciples (as "children", figuratively, of Himself) in Mark 10:24, to Christians as God's children (emphasising the theological idea of adoption into the family of God) in Romans 8:16-17, Ephesians 5:8, etc., and also to those who follow satan's leading into a life of sin as being satan's "children" in I John 3:10. Hence, this passage is hardly saying that Jesus is going to be going around assassinating little children on the playground.

Now, what is Jesus doing in this passage? He is exercising His right and just position as judge upon those in one of His churches who are corrupting and perverting that church away from the true Gospel. However, before Mr. Tariq can convince us that this is somehow "evil" on the part of Jesus to do, he first must explain to us why Jesus does not have the right to execute judgment on His own body (again, speaking figuratively) as He sees fit. So, Jesus judges those who pervert His churches. Scary? Yes, or it *ought* to be to those doing it. Wrong? Certainly not.


As we have seen that in (5-a), First part of Christian Triune God is Dracula and blood thirsty of his own innocent Son. In (5-b) we witnessed very few examples of the dracula nature of Christian's God. Now here is last thing left to confirm that God of Bible is really a Dracula without any doubt. It is known to every one that a Dracula doesn't believe in ethics and spiritual things, instead a dracula believes in immoral things. Let us confirm it too:

There is available for downloading a software KJV Bible "Bible Seeker" on Internet. It takes less than 10 Mb on your Computer. This digital Bible can search five (05) words from Bible with "all" or "any" options. So you can easily see with this software how many times a word was used in Bible? And in which Chapter and which verse. You can also download it from Internet.Go to website and Download to install free e-Bible seeker (KJV). Word "Harlot" exists 48 times in Bible "Nakedness" exists 43 times. "Trinity" exists 0 times , "Christianity" exists 0 times. in KJV Bible.Why????
Answer: Word "Harlot" is 48 times more mentionable than Word "Trinity" in Bible.
Word "Nakedness" is 43 times more mentionable than Word "Christianity".
"The nakedness of a Harlot is ( 48 + 43 ) times more important than Trinity in Christianity, for Christian Dracula God of Bible."
I believe Sajita can easily give me her comments upon this simple statistical data.

I will trust to the native intelligence of the reader to see the ludicrous nature of Mr. Tariq's argument at this point. He has provided his readers with absolutely no context in any of the places where these words are used (in fact, nearly all uses of these words are negative/condemnatory). As has been discussed elsewhere Muslims, including Mr. Tariq himself, demonstrate little to no understanding of systematic theology, which is why we see him trying to build an argument on the appearance or lack thereof of a word in an English translation of the Bible, rather than trying to see if the actual concept itself is taught in the text. All he is doing is trying to go for the "shock value" of words like "harlot" and "naked" to make an argument against the Bible which his researching and argumentative abilities are not capable of making. And to top it off, Mr. Tariq's "argument" is easily turned back upon him. If we look in the Qur'an, we see that the name "Mohammed" appears only once. Yet, the words "naked" or "nakedness" appears six times. Also, the word "slave" appears in the Qur'an 30 times. The words "harlot", "prostitution", and "whoredom" appear once each, giving the concept a total number of three appearances. And the word "partners" (i.e. false gods that are associated with Allah or that are worshipped instead of Allah) appears 77 times. By Mr. Tariq's logic, the Qur'an considers prostitution to be three times more important than the prophet of Islam, nudity to be six times more important, slavery to be 30 times more important, and idolatry 77 times more important.

Obviously this is nonsense, and I hope the reader can clearly see that such lines of argumentation as Mr. Tariq has provided are built upon shaky logic and ignorance of the text.

This closes my assessment of Mr. Tariq's essay, "Boil and Eat Your Son". I hope and pray that my responses have served to aid the reader in understanding in greater detail some of the differences between Muslim and Christian belief and practice, as well as to demonstrate some of the errors of Muslim criticisms of Christianity and the Bible.

End Notes

(1) - F. Schoun, Stations of Wisdom, p. 64, note #1
(2) - H.A.R. Gibb, Modern Trends in Islam, pp. 3-4
(3) - e.g. see D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, pp. 24-25 for a short synopsis of the excruciatingly exact methodology employed by the Hebrew Masoretes in transmitting the Hebrew manuscripts of the Scriptures.
(4) - The Holy Qur'an, English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary, King Fahd Holy Qur'an Printing Complex, p. v
(5) - S. Abul A'la Maududi, Fundamentals of Islam, p. 17
(6) - O.E. Sherif and M.A. Elhennawy, “Preserving and Protecting the Qur’an”, published at
(7) - see J. Gilchrist, Jam' al-Qur'an: The Codification of the Quranic Text, Ch.3
(8) - M. Cook, Muhammed, p. 74
(9) - Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. IV, p.441-442
(10) - Epistle of Barnabas, 5
(11) - Shepherd of Hermas, 12
(12) - Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. IV, Bk. 54, #487
(13) - Sahih al-Tabari, Vol. VII, #97
(14) - Ibn Ishaq, Sirat 'ul-Rasul, #464
(15) - J. Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity, pp. 100-101