Quote from Abu Al-‘Aliyah about Salat of Allah.

Does Allah pray? – Addressing a common Missionary argument.

So I just spent the last 2 weeks preparing a 85 plus powerpoint lecture about the subject of “Does Allah pray?” And in it I approach the topic from almost every angle possible. But in reality the only reason I’m doing this is because our Missionary friends don’t really understand the concept of the Salaf and the weight to which the statements of the first 3 generations hold on our religion. But in all honesty any Muslim with a mustard seed of knowledge will know that this one quote will destroy the argument that the Salat of Allah means anything other than that Allah mentioning the person in high regard.

So the narration I’m about to present is from a man named:

أبو العالية: رفيع بن مهران

Abu al-’Aaliyah Rafeea’h bin Mahraan.

So who is Abu al-’Aaliyah?

He is a scholar of Islam who learned under the companions of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He was born during the lifetime of the prophet Muhammad (saws) but since he was young he didn’t manage to become Muslim until the Califate of Abu Bakr.

So he’s considered from the التابعين Tabi’een, meaning those that met the companions of the prophet Muhammad (saws). And this isn’t just an average person, this man met everyone from the great companions for example:

قال أبو عمرو الداني : أخذ أبو العالية القراءة عرضا عن أبي ، وزيد ، وابن عباس.

“It is narrated from Abu ‘Amro ad-Daani: Abu Al-’Aaliyah took his recitation (of the Quran) from Ubai (ibn Ka’ib), and Zaid, and Ibn Abaas.

عن حفصة بنت سيرين ، قالت : قال لي أبو العالية : قرأت القرآن على عمر – رضي الله عنه- ثلاث مرار

It was narrated from Hafsah bint Sireen who said: Abu Al-’Aaliyah told me: “I recited the Quran to ‘Umar (ra) three times.

قال أبو بكر بن أبي داود : وليس أحد بعد الصحابة أعلم بالقرآن من أبي العالية

Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud said: There is no one after the Sahabah more knowledgeable about the Quran than Abu Al-’Aaliyah.

Suffice it to say Abu Al-’Aaliyah is the most credible source of Tafsir for the Quran after a direct quote from either the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or the companions. So what does he says about the verse?

عن أبي العالية في قوله: (إن الله وملائكته يصلون على النبي)

It was narrated from Abu al-’Aaliyah about the verse:

قال : صلاة الله – عز وجل عليه – ثناؤه عليه،

For which he said: Allah’s Salat (means) speaking highly of him.

وصلاة الملائكة عليه الدعاء، ( أي يدعون للناس ويستغفرون لهم )

And the Salat of the Angels is that they make Du’ah for him.
(Meaning they pray and (ask Allah) to forgive them.)

الألباني( صحيح ) أنظر: فضل الصلاة على النبي [1 / 79 ].

[And this narration was authenticated by Shaykh Al-Albani as Saheeh]

Now let me be honest, this is a mic drop type of quote. If a person cannot understand the weight of this statement, then there is no hope for them. They simply don’t understand how religion and narrations work. So you’re better off first teaching them the fundamentals of Hadeeth, and the status of the Sahabah before you touch upon these subjects.

Hope this helps everyone who faces this argument in the future. And inshallah I should be releasing my first lecture in about a week, so be on the look out for that as well.

Jizak Allah Khair.

Does Allah Pray? Part 1

Missionaries have began presenting a new lie against Islam claiming that the Salat mentioned in verse 33:56 is the same type of Salat that Muslims do (Which translates as Prayer in english.) In this video I break down the Missionaries argument and provide the quickest answer to this doubt. A quote from the famous 2nd generation Islamic Scholar (Tabi’ee) Abu Al-Aliyah. If you’d like the full quote you can get it from our Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/simplyseerah…

Top 10 Sexist Quotes From Men of the Church

Today we find that many Christians have this type of Superiority complex when it comes to other nations and religions. But the reality is that the West evolved from Secular ideas rather than Biblical ones. Things like women’s rights, and equality were never really considered something which correlates with the Bible. Actually quite the opposite. For this reason, I wanted to share with our viewers the Top 10 Historic quotes we have from famous Church Fathers and Reformers. These were men who had, throughout the course of History, help shape Christianity into the religion it is today.

Number 10:

John Knox: (Scottish clergyman and Protestant Reformer, 16th century)

“The Woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man . . .  Nature I say, paints [women] further to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble and foolish: and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment [or, leadership].”

The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.

Number 9:

John Calvin: (French theologian, pastor and Protestant Reformer, 1509-1564)

On the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to women rather than to men: “I consider this was done by way of reproach, because they [the men] had been so tardy and sluggish to believe. And indeed, they deserve not only to have women for their teachers, but even oxen and asses. . .  . Yet it pleased the Lord, by means of those weak and contemptible vessels, to give display of his power.”

Commentary on the Gospel of John (John 20) 

“On this account, all women are born that they may acknowledge themselves as inferior in consequence to the superiority of the male sex.”

Commentary on 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11) 

Number 8:

Martin Luther: (German priest, theologian and Protestant Reformer, 16th century)

“For a woman seems to be a creature somewhat different from man, in that she has dissimilar members, a varied form and a mind weaker than man. Although Eve was a most excellent and beautiful creature, like unto Adam in reference to the image of God, that is with respect to righteousness, wisdom and salvation, yet she was a woman. For as the sun is more glorious than the moon, though the moon is a most glorious body, so woman, though she was a most beautiful work of God, yet she did not equal the glory of the male creature.”

Commentary on Genesis, Chapter 2, Part V, 27b. 

Number 7:

Thomas Aquinas: (Doctor of the church, 13th century

“But a woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man . . .”

Summa Theologica, Volume 1, Question 92, Article 1, Objection 2.

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.”

Summa Theologica, Vol. I, Q. 92, Art. 1, Reply to objection 1.

Number 6:

Augustine: (Bishop of Hippo, Doctor of the Church and Latin Father, 354-430)

“I don’t see what sort of help a woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If a woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?”

“. . . the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.”

On the Trinity, Book 12 7.10 

Number 5:

Jerome: (Priest, Theologian, Doctor of the Church and Latin Father, 4th-5th centuries)

“The Woman is the root of all evil.”

Number 4:

Clement of Alexandria: (Theologian and Greek Father, 2nd century)

“Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman. . . . the consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame.”

Paedagogus (The Instructor) Book 2, 33.2 (?)

Origen: (Theologian and Greek Father, 2nd-3rd centuries)

“Men should not sit and listen to a woman . . . even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since it came from the mouth of a woman.”

Fragments on 1 Corinthians

Tertullian: (The Father of Latin Christianity, 155-245)

”And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die. And do you think about adorning yourself over and above your tunics of skins?”

De Cultu Feminarium (On the Apparel of Women)

Chrysostom: (Archbishop of Constantinople and Doctor of the Church,  4th century 

“God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of life into two parts, and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matter to the woman.”

The Kind of Women who ought to be taken as Wives 

Aaron Hernandez’s Suicide is no different than a Suicide Bomber. (According to Christianity)

img22497622

At 3:03 am on Wednesday, former New England Patriots super star Aaron J. Hernandez was found hanging in his cell by one of the correction officers at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, where he was serving a life sentence for murder.  On his head, a law enforcement officer mentioned, was scrawled the words “John 3: 16” a very well known passage which reads:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Now the question everyone must wonder is “Why did Hernandez choose specifically this passage as his last will and testament?”  Well, it’s quite clear that in doing so he’s making a statement that he believed his actions (or sin), wouldn’t have merited him to receive God’s wrath.

But what does Christianity say about this?

According to Robert L. Deffinbaugh, a pastor at Bible Chapel in Richardson Texas, Hernandez’s actions were not enough to make him fall from God’s grace.  He says:

“Suicide is sin. God forbids murder (Exodus 20:13) and taking one’s own life is murder.”

He then goes on to say:

“While suicide is [a] sin, it is not the unpardonable sin. The only unpardonable sin is attributing the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit in Jesus to Satan (Mark 3:20-30).”

Now I’ve listened to a number of debates where Christian Apologists try to argue that not having Guaranteed Salvation is what leads many Muslims to negative things like Terrorism and Murder, yet interestingly enough, here we see almost the exact same concept being played out in the opposite direction.  Here, we observe an individual committing one of the most grievous sins (i.e. suicide) and in the process leaves for us clear indication as to why he wasn’t’ prevented from this action.

John 3: 16 (i.e. that he believes he’ll be saved no matter what.)

So this takes me now to the title of this article, “Aaron Hernandez’s suicide is no different than a Suicide Bomber.”  Why do I say this?  Well, the first reason is because as stated by Pastor Robert above, “Suicide is Murder.”  So whether Christians want to admit it or not, in their god’s eyes, Hernandez killing himself was no different than if he had killed someone else.

That’s the first problem.  The second problem here is the clear consequence of having a Theology where the concept of salvation is guaranteed.  If our Christian friends stopped and thought about it I’m sure they’d realize all the horrible consequences that could arise when someone doesn’t fear God’s wrath.  Christians, Muslims and Jews alike all argue these concepts when addressing Atheists and their lack of any concrete moral laws.  So if we were to go down the Theological Rabbit hole of guaranteed salvation, in theory, if Hernandez or any other Christian were to go on a murderous rampage ending with a Suicide Bombing, then according to Christian Theology they would all still be saved and guaranteed paradise.

Now I know that using such a tragedy to make this point might seem a little insensitive, but bare in mind that in the field of Apologitics we Muslims have seen Christian Islamophobes almost foam a the mouth every time an Islamic Terrorist attack took place, with many jumping for joy at the occasion to be able to throw a few more cheap shots at the Muslim community.

So it might seem like I’m being hypocritical here, but trust me I’m not.  Instead of exploiting tragedies to gain a fake sense of Moral Superiority like many Islamophobes do with Terrorism, what I’m doing is using an incident to wake Christians up to the reality of their own position in the discussion.  (i.e. instead of propping me up, I’m bringing them down into the real world.  Which is needed if we’re ever going to be able to have a real fruitful discussion about our faiths.)

So to conclude, the reality is that both religions can be misused and misinterpreted.  And from the Theological perspective both beliefs, be it Guaranteed Salvation or Salvation based upon works, can have positives and negative consequences.  And in the field of Apologetics, anyone could spin the other person’s Theology to prove that it possibly had some influence in the crimes committed by their adherents.

For example we could argue that had Hernandez been a Muslim, he would have never committed suicide in first place.  This is because Islam teaches that killing oneself out of distress will merit God’s wrath, and such a person would have to enter hell for some time as a punishment.  Later though, if he believed in Tawheed (i.e. Monotheism), then he would eventually be removed from hell and be able to enter Paradise.

The point I’m trying to make is that a religion which has rewards and consequences based upon acts can create a lot of positives and prevent a lot of negatives things within a society.  And clearly there is a reason why God warns us in the Old Testament and the Quran that if we do sinful actions, then we’ll be punished, and if we do good actions, then we’ll be rewarded in this life and in the next.  Allah says in the Quran:

“And he who comes before Him as a believer having done righteous deeds, exalted ranks are for such people, evergreen gardens beneath which streams flow. They shall abide therein forever and this shall be the reward of those that keep themselves pure.” (20:75-76)

Written by Abu Ayoub

Nabeel Qureshi and Faith Healers

In this Podcast Ijaz Ahmed, Yahya Snow and Abu Ayoub discuss Nabeel Qureshi’s past few Vlogs about his struggles with Cancer.  On a number of occasions Nabeel has indicated that he either went, or was visited by Faith Healing Churches.  So in this Podcast we discuss what does Nabeel’s actions mean Theologically and can there be some type of consiquences when it comes to his reputation with the wider Christian community.  At the end brother Abu Ayoub give’s some sincere advice to Nabeel and prays that he has a speedy recovery, and comes to realize the errors of his ways.

A Brief Insight into the New Testament’s Prototyping

The New Testament of today is described as follows regarding the NA28 GNT:

“The intention of this edition lies not in reproducing the “oldest text” presented in the oldest manuscript but in reconstructing the text of the hypothetical master copy from which all manuscripts derive, a text the editors refer to as the initial text.”1

We should therefore understand the New Testament not to be the word of God, but the hypothetical reconstruction of the “word of God”, a prototype, a possibility of what the reconstruction of the initial text may have looked like. When one examines the earliest manuscripts, we quickly find a trend that cannot be sidelined or ignored, the earliest witnesses place us in the late 2nd to 4th centuries CE:

new-testament-diagram-final-1.png

The graph above concisely breaks down what books of the New Testament have as their earliest surviving (extant) witnesses. It also conveniently breaks down the New Testament into its genres and text types. The vast majority of manuscripts are from the 3rd century CE, meaning that the reconstructed prototypes give us a picture of what these completed texts may have looked like during or beyond the 3rd century CE. What is most notable, is that one of the earliest surviving sources attests to 9 books. That does not bode well for multiple attestation. Other books find their earliest witnesses in the 4th century including 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 2 John and 3 John. These all indicate an intermediate or initial text projected into the 3rd century, some may say the 2nd century. Scholars have long noticed this trend of a later developed text, with one notable scholar explicitly stating:

Our critical editions do not present us with the text that was current in 150, 120 or 100—much less in 80 CE.2

Regarding new methods and changes in the NA28, a 2016 publication by the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society confirms the following:

The application of the CBGM resulted in 34 changes to the main text of
the Catholic Epistles and a slight increase in the number of passages marked as
uncertain. In most cases the changes are of minor significance for interpretation
or translation, but in several cases the changes should not be ignored. At the
difficult variation in Jude 5, for example, the text now reads that it was “Jesus”
(Ἰησοῦς) who once saved a people from Egypt instead of “the Lord” (ὁ κύριος). In
another important change, 2 Pet 3:10 now prints a reading that is not found in any
known Greek witness. Where the previous edition read that the last days would
mean that the earth and all that is in it “will be found” or perhaps “exposed” (εὑρεθήσεται), the text now reads the opposite: the earth and all that is in it “will not
be found” (οὑχ εὑρεθήσεται). The latter reading sits much easier with the surrounding context, but is only attested in a few Coptic and Syriac manuscripts.3

What the data, methods and current status of New Testament Textual Criticism indicates is that we have a text that is much later than is traditionally espoused. The stemmata indicate we currently have reconstructions of a textual form between the late 2nd to 4th centuries CE. There is now an increase in uncertainty regarding the variant units, in other words confidence has been lost in several cases. In other cases we find texts that affect theology or which textual critics indicate are important changes which are labelled as “difficult”, the consequences of which cannot and “should not be ignored”.

We also see in the aforementioned quote that texts now essentially teach the opposite of what they once said! All exegeses commentating on the previous reading have now been rendered invalid by a text reading in the opposite direction altogether. In one other notable case, we also now find a reading in the text that has no manuscript support whatsoever among any known Greek witnesses. All of these trends do not paint a good picture for the state of the New Testament’s reliability. The text of the New Testament today, is not the text known to those at any other time in the past, which brings into doubt their salvation. If  believing in scripture is a criterion for salvation, and the text believed then is not the text now, can we say those in the past truly believed in and embraced the “living word of God”? If the text that penetrated them for guidance is not the text of today, then does it matter at all what the New Testament says?4

Article Taken from: CallingChristians.com

Sources:

1 – Trobisch, David. A User’s Guide to the Nestle-Aland 28 Greek New Testament. 9th ed. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 10.

2 – Petersen, William Lawrence., and Jan Krans. Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen. (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 410.

3 – Gurry, Peter J. How Your Greek NT Is Changing: A Simple Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM). Vol. 59. Series 4. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2016, 684-685.

The title of this journal’s essay should not be ignored. The text of the New Testament is indeed changing, to say otherwise is to ignore the very existence of the critical editions.

4 – Hebrews 4:12.

Many commentators have said that the Bible is the living word of God, a scripture that penetrates us spiritually and guides us. If that is the case, then if the text changes, we have to ask, what form of the text is actually the living word of God? If an edition previously caused spiritual changes but is now changed, does that invalidate its spiritual guidance or does it indicate that the changes are wrong and the edition is correct? It’s a dilemma either way, which definitely brings into severe doubt the ideas of scripture, salvation and the work of a living word of God among Christian believers.