8/4/2019 Some Answers to Bassam Zawadi's Comments http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/some-answers-to-bassam-zawadis-comments 1/21 Some Answers to Bassam Zawadi's comments By Dallas M. Roark, Ph.D. This article is a rebuttal to Zawadi's ‘Rebuttal to Dallas M. Roark's Article "Rebuttal to Bassam Zawadi: On the value of questioning and other things"’ My first article referred to in the following is available here; Zawadi’s reply to my article may be found here. Dallas M. Roark said (in his first article): I was trying to avoid lots of questions about the truth of the Qur'an such as whether the sun sets in a puddle of mud, or whether one wing of the fly has an antidote for the other wing, or the fictions quoted in the Qur'an about the youths who slept for 300 years, and other historical errors in the Qur'an, etc. You remember that Deedat slandered the death and resurrection of Jesus calling it the "cruci-fiction." Deedat was trying to make a historical verified event of the crucifixion a fiction. Muslims seek to make verifiable fictions into fact. Zawadi responds:http://www.call-to- monotheism.com/sun_setting_in_murky_water___by_hesham_azmy_ www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/hadiths-of-the-fly-bacteriophages/ http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/ http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_arguments_for_the_resurrectionDMR replies:For a refutation to the "sun setting a muddly pool" issue, see this article. Regarding the flies, you can read a rebuttal on this bogus science here. So many of the Islamic sources supporting this silly idea are drawn from the same source. They begin "Only in modern times was it discovered that the common fly carried parasitic pathogens for many diseases including malaria, typhoid fever, cholera, and others. It was also discovered that the fly carried parasitic bacteriophagic fungi capable of fighting the germs of all these diseases." To begin, malaria is not spread by the fly but the mosquito. The people who are writing these things are living in a bubble reading their own propaganda. Consider the splitting of the moon, "Ibn Kathir reports that Muhammad would recite sura 54, as well as sura 50, "during major gatherings and occasions because they contain Allah's promises and warnings, and
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
For a refutation to the "sun setting a muddly pool" issue, see this article.
Regarding the flies, you can read a rebuttal on this bogus science here. So many of the
Islamic sources supporting this silly idea are drawn from the same source. They begin "Only
in modern times was it discovered that the common fly carried parasitic pathogens for many
diseases including malaria, typhoid fever, cholera, and others. It was also discovered that the
fly carried parasitic bacteriophagic fungi capable of fighting the germs of all these diseases."
To begin, malaria is not spread by the fly but the mosquito. The people who are writing these
things are living in a bubble reading their own propaganda.
Consider the splitting of the moon,
"Ibn Kathir reports that Muhammad would recite sura 54, as well as sura 50, "during majorgatherings and occasions because they contain Allah's promises and warnings, and
information about the origin of creation, Resurrection, Tawhid [the oneness of Allah], the
affirmation of prophethood, and so forth among the great objectives." Sura 54 takes its name
from its first verse, which refers to the splitting of the moon – a miracle that, according to a
hadith, took place during Muhammad’s lifetime. As the Muslims looked agog at the moon
split into two parts, Muhammad cried, "Witness, witness (this miracle)."
Some modern-day Muslims, however, claim that this verse constituted a prophecy that was
fulfilled during Neil Armstrong’s moon landing in 1969, when the astronauts dug up a bit of
the lunar soil and brought it back – although, despite their imaginative forays into
numerology in connection with this claim, it is more than a stretch to consider that gathering
of a small amount of soil as amounting to a splitting of the moon." (Source)
Regarding your final link, most of the articles posted there are drawn from an Infidels site
that focuses on the resurrection and only one on the death of Jesus. Even that one does not
deal with the death but on whether Jesus existed or not. It is ironic that you post an article
questioning whether Jesus existed or not) when the Qur’an has no problems with the
existence of Jesus. The article is NEW TESTAMENT ANALYSIS THE HISTORICALREFERENCES TO JESUS; A Scholarly Analysis (here, check the concluding statements)
Where are the Muslim scholars? You have disdain for the infidels but you use them
uncritically.
This article contradicts the Qur’an, or the Qur’an contradicts your article. Which one do you
prefer? Where is your consistency? If one were to use the arguments that this man uses to
reject the credibility of the early documents against the Quran and the hadiths, this would
annihilate Islamic scholarship. What can one really believe about the Qur’an when so much
of it has been abrogated by later "revelations? What can you believe when so many hadiths
are fictions?
Dallas M. Roark said (in the first rebuttal)
There are all kinds of questions that Muslims have been discouraged from asking.
Forbidding any question to be asked opens the door to forbidding lots of questions. There are
reasonable answers that a child can understand in dealing with "who created Allah?" When
you don't allow questions to be asked you force doubt into the sub-conscious and it doesn't go
away.
The history of Islam has been one of anti-intellectualism. Islam inherited a vast body of
information from the Greeks, but eventually did little with it. The answer is found in the
educational system of early and later Islam.
Very early in the history of Islam knowledge was divided into two categories: 1) "Islamic
science which included the study of the Qur'an, the traditions of the Prophet, legal knowledge
(fiqh), theology (kaalam), poetry, and the Arabic language." 2) the natural sciences which
were called the foreign sciences. As time went on the natural sciences were viewed as "a
tainted enterprise." (Toby Huff, The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China, and the
West, Cambridge U. Press, 1995, p. 68. All quotes following are from Huff as well.)
People who were at risk because of their studies in the natural sciences concealed their
interests because they would be considered an impious person. (p. 69) The people who
studied the Islamic sciences periodically denounced those who were studying the natural
sciences.
The madrasas began to appear in the 11th century and were schools of Islamic sciences andrejected the natural sciences. Religious scholars regarded the natural sciences with suspicion.
Moreover, the educational system favored rote memory rather than critical thinking. When a
student had memorized, or copied, or read the manuscripts available from his professor he
was given an ijaza, an approval to teach others the same content.
It was presumed that memorized statements were true and could be learned without any
process of thinking about the truth or falsehood of the statements.
Within the medieval Islamic intellectual life was the sharp distinction between the elite and
the novice. The elite believed that the ordinary citizens, the commoners, were not capable of understanding the higher truths of philosophy or the Scripture. Averroes maintained that "a
believer will know that to discuss those (philosophical) questions openly is forbidden by the
Holy Law." (p. 82)
The conclusion of the matter is that reason was to be rejected for submission to Islamic law.
There could be no criticism of Mohammed, the Qur'an, or the whole complex of Islamic
science. In contrast, the West was influenced by the idea that man is created in the image of
God and is therefore rational, and thereby can gain truth, a knowledge of good and evil by
rational means. Man has a conscience in which he can make judgments and arrive at the truth.
Islam did not develop a sense of conscience as the Greeks did, and as the New Testament
taught, and therefore submission was the only path one could take.
"The greatest philosophical thinkers in Arabic-Islamic civilization after al-Ghazali never
failed to cast doubt on the powers of human reason and to disparage the virtues of
demonstrative logic; they insisted instead on the priority of faith (fideism) or on the
unsurpassed authority of tradition (the Sharia and the Sunna). Reason for the orthodox was
little more than common sense, and there was no acknowledgement of the idea that reason
could reach new truths unaided by revelation. Innovation, in matters or religion, was
equivalent to heresy:" (p. 117)
A general conclusion about knowledge in the Arabic-Islamic world is summed up as follows:"The madrasas were closed to the teaching of science and philosophy, and official Islamic
law, fiqh, denied that all men had reason in the Greek and Platonic sense. Nor did Islamic
jurisprudence have any place for the idea of conscience, that inner moral agency that could
guide the actor in moral dilemmas. Moreover, there was no room for organized skepticism
within Islamic thought." (p. 233)
Zawadi responds:
What nonsense! Visit http://www.muslimheritgage.com/ [sic] and see the Muslim
contributions to this world. Also read this article http://www.call-to-
monotheism.com/how_the_islamic_faith_encourages_worldly_advancement__by_sheikh_muhammad_saalih_al_munajjid and see how Islam encourages worldly advancement.
You have said nothing that refutes my comments. Where are the Muslim scientists today?
What are the Muslim achievements today? Arab translators brought Aristotle and other
Greeks to the culture of their times, but there was little advancement apart from math and
astronomy to calculate the times for prayer, and medicine, which built upon the Greeks. Inspite of that Islamic culture was influenced by erroneous ideas about reproduction which
came from Mohammed. You can check an excellent article by your old friend, Sam
Shamoun. He draws on the work of William Campbell, MD.
You have been living in a bubble reading your own propaganda.
Check out any non-Muslim history of science. Take a look at Huff’s book, it is thoroughly
documented.
Dallas M. Roark said:
The lack of progress in many ways relates to the model of Mohammed in one of the hadiths.
It claimed that "the worst things are those that are novelties, every novelty is an innovation,
every innovation is an error and every error leads to Hell-fire: In its extreme form this
principle has meant the rejection of every idea and amenity not known in Western Arabic in
the time of Mohammed and his companions, and it has been used by successive generations
of ultra-conservatives to oppose tables, sieves, coffee and tobacco, printing-presses, and
artillery, telephones, wireless, and votes for women." (p. 234)
Zawadi responds:
This is so absurd. Every scholar has understood the Prophet's statement regarding innovation
to be referring to innovations in religious practices, not innovations in worldly matters. What
a disastrous way of taking the Prophet's statement out of context and abusing its meaning!
DMR replies You have given justification for not doing anything about the terrible abuse of
women in Islam. Mohammed declared that women are not as intelligent as men. So do what
the Taliban are doing and blowing up or burning down schools for girls. Read the headlines
about the honor killing of young girls who are innocent of any sin suspected by their fathers.
There are so many different abuses of women from female circumcision, honor killings,
forced marriage, child marriages, etc. you claim that Mohammed admits of no innovation inreligious practices.
Not only has there been little "innovation" in science nor has there been innovation in
women’s position. Islam is still controlled by 7 thcentury Islamic thinking.
Dallas M. Roark said:
The fact that there are million upon millions of Muslim today and only 8 have won Nobel
prizes in the sciences as compared to nearly 200 Jewish winners reflects upon the issue of the
kinds of knowledge that is not taught, nor asked, nor discussed in the Muslim educationalsystem.
So I doubt the truthfulnesss of your statement that "Muslims are not only encouraged but
obligated to seek knowledge and how can this be done besides asking questions....." The
history of Islam would not validate that statement.
Zawadi responds:
First of all, just because Muslims don't practice what their religion teaches that doesn't mean
that it is Islam's fault. Millions of Muslims today drink alcohol and deal with interest despite
Islam's clear and stern warnings against doing so. Do we blame Islam for this or the sinning
Muslims? The latter obviously.
Does Dallas really want us to judge religions based upon the people instead of what the
scriptures actually teach? Would he really want me to do that with his faith? Should we go
ahead and blame the Dark Ages on Christianity? Should we blame Christianity because many
early Christians believed in a flat earth? Should we blame Christianity for attempting to kill
the ideas of people like Galileo (*)?
Come on Dallas let's not sink to this poor quality of argumentation please.
DMR replies:
Speaking of poor quality of argumentation, as you have just demonstrated, you have diverted
from the real point of education. I made the point that the Islamic educational system is at
fault which comes from the history of Islam and its leadership. The man who drinks alcohol
is on his own, the lack of quality education is due to the centuries of avoiding the sciences
because Islam inherently has a negative attitude toward the natural sciences and science in
general. If the people of Islam cannot get a good education it is not their fault, but Islam’s
negative attitude toward science in general.
The fact is that modern science rose in the Christian west because there was openness to
follow the truth wherever it led. Islam did not allow that then and does not now. I would
recommend that you read a good non-Muslim book on the rise of modern science. It will be
an illuminating experience. You need to think outside the bubble.
Dallas M. Roark said:
You have raised the question about the nearness and farness of God. I don't think you areaware of your problem in your statement. You say, "Orthodox Muslims don't believe that
Allah is everywhere in His essence. Rather He is outside the universe." If he is outside the
universe how can he be "nearer than his jugular vein." Is he or is he not outside the universe?
Zawadi responds:
Simple, He is near to us with His knowledge. That is the orthodox Muslim position.
DMR replies: You are seeking to evade the question. If God is out the universe, he cannot be
near you in his knowledge. You may know all the facts about Napoleon but knowledge does
not bring him near. If God is outside the universe as you claim, then he cannot be nearer thanthe jugular vein. If he is near the jugular vein, he cannot be outside the Universe as you say.
This is where I have to chuckle. For a Trinitarian who believes that 1+1+1 equals 1 to accuse
others (especially Muslims) for not having rationally thought about their concept of God must
have a lot of nerve. We challenge Dallas to rationally defend his concept of God and show
anything irrational about the Islamic concept of God.
DMR replies: While you are chuckling, let’s change the math concept: 1x1x1=1. The
personality of God is not reduced to a math formula. The greatest insult to God is to ignore
what He has revealed about himself. Now concerning the irrationality of the Islamic concept
of God, let’s look at some of the issues.
The irrationality of the concept of Allah in Islam kept it from developing modern science.
Alfred North Whitehead in his Science and the Modern World describes one of the
ingredients of science being "the inexpugnable belief that every details occurrence can be
correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying generalprinciples. What is the source of this belief? "...there seems but one source for its origin. It
must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the
personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was
supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith
in rationality."
In contrast, in the Muslim world thinkers did not embrace the well-ordered universe concept.
Instead, the Ash’arite view of man and nature was based on Islamic atomism (known as
occasionalism). Occasionalism rejected cause and effect in the cosmos and "believed that
there were a continuous flux of moments, recreated each instant, but with a habitual pattern
of continuity, knowledge of which was planted in the believer’s mind by G od."
God holds the world together moment by moment by his personal will. What God has willed
is then acquired by the mind of man and this lies back of the idea of predestination in which
God wills the actions of people.
The theology of women in the Qur’an in comparison with the theology of women in the New
Testament is sub-human. For Mohammed to slander women by saying that they are not as
intelligent as men is to demean them, to exploit them. The theology for women in the New
Testament is that men, women, slave or free, Jew and Greek, are all one in Christ.
Dallas M. Roark said:
You claim I have distorted Muslim beliefs and you argue that Allah does not break his
promise (Surah 3:9) What are some of these promises? Consider the fact that Allah sends
people astray-Allah has already decided who is going to paradise and who is not.
In spite of your good works, obedience, trying to live right, it has already been determined
whether you are going to paradise or not. You can't change the situation. All your good works
Perhaps it should be said that you are distorting Muslim beliefs. You are emphasizing the role
of good works without regard to the more serious issue of predestination. The apparent
emphasis of freedom in doing good works is over-ruled by the decision of Allah who has
already decided on who will be admitted to paradise. So which promise is true? If this sura is
true, then the conclusion of the matter is that you can do nothing about your destiny.
"Already have We urged unto hell many of the jinn and humankind, having hearts wherewith
they understand not, and having eyes wherewith they see not, and having ears wherewith they
hear not. These are as the cattle - nay, but they are worse! These are the neglectful." 7:179
(Pickthall-in the following also.)
"And whomsoever it is Allah's will to guide, He expandeth his bosom unto the Surrender, and
whomsoever it is His Will to send astray, He maketh his bosom close and narrow as if he
were engaged in sheer ascent. Thus Allah layeth ignominy upon those who believe not."
6:125
"He whom Allah leadeth, he indeed is led aright, while he whom Allah sendeth astray - theyindeed are losers." 7:178
"Those whom Allah sendeth astray, there is no guide for them. He leaveth them to wander
blindly on in their contumacy." 7:186
"Had Allah willed He could have made you (all) one nation, but He sendeth whom He will
astray and guideth whom He will, and ye will indeed be asked of what ye used to do". 16:93
And he whom Allah guideth, he is led aright; while, as for him whom He sendeth astray, for
them thou wilt find no protecting friends beside Him, and We shall assemble them on the
Day of Resurrection on their faces, blind, dumb and deaf; their habitation will be hell;
whenever it abateth, We increase the flame for them." 17:97
"Is he, the evil of whose deeds is made fairseeming unto him so that he deemeth it good,
(other than Satan's dupe)? Allah verily sendeth whom He will astray, and guideth whom He
will; so let not thy soul expire in sighings for them. Lo! Allah is Aware of what they do!"
35:8
"Thus Allah sendeth astray whom He will, and whom He will He guideth. None knoweth the
hosts of thy Lord save Him. This is naught else than a Reminder unto mortals". 74:31
"And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the
best of schemers." 3:54
What are the possibilities that it is you who has been led astray by Allah? What are the
possibilities that you have been led astray in believing that saying prayers 5 times a day,
observing Ramadan, giving alms, doing jihad, etc are going to bring you to paradise? What
are the possibilities that you may have been led astray in accepting this religion?
Mohammed raised the questions concerning himself.
34:50 Say: 'If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss; if I am guided, it is by what myLord reveals to me. He is All-hearing, Ever-nigh.' (Arberry)
DMR replies: You argue for free-will and say that people can believe or not believe in thefirst set of suras, but you have obviously ignored the Islamic mandate to deny people real
freedom when the options are believe, be a dhimmi, or die. When Muslims confront people
with force where is your concept of freedom? It is an illusion.
Now concerning your article, it is very interesting that all the verses you quoted were not
verses that I quoted. You did not respond to the verses I quoted.
This points up one of the problem in the Qur’an. On the one hand there is the will of Allah in
which he has decreed what is the future of men and jinn, and on the other is the issue of free
will. Mohammed could not put it all together. If the will of Allah means anything as
expressed in the Qur’an, it is unchangeable. It has already been decided in the will of Allah
before creation. If not, the will of Allah does not mean anything. Allah is making it up as he
goes. Your good works emphasis is based on denial of Allah’s will.
Dallas M. Roark said:
Consider the statement of Mohammed in 34:50. If Mohammed has been led astray it is not
really his own loss. This is a contradiction. If Mohammed has been led astray think of all the
millions of people who have submitted because of him. Their loss is on his shoulders, is it
DMR Replies: Your response to Katz seems to confirm Katz’s view rather than rebut it. You
wrote:
"The verse is not saying that if Muhammad (peace be upon him) were to be led astray, thenhe would be the only one affected by his mis-guidance. The verse is saying that if
Muhammad (peace be upon him) were to be led astray, IT WOULD BE BECAUSE OF
HIMSELF. He would have erred due to his own loss in being able to follow the straight
path."
If Mohammed were lead astray and it was because of himself the issue is still there. How
many millions of peoples have been led astray because of him? You have admitted thatMohammed would not be the only one affected by his being lead astray.
Dallas M. Roark said:
For more on the role of Allah as a deceiver of both believers and unbelievers, consult this
I am afraid that you are reading into the passage. The verse says:
"By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise,
you have believed in vain."
Paul is putting on a condition for one to be saved by the Gospel. That condition is that one
holds firmly onto it. Clearly there is no point for saying such a thing if it is not possible for a
true believer to let go of it. If the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints were true then it
would have been enough for Paul to say (or something similar):
"By this gospel you are saved, once you have firmly embraced the word I preached to you.
Otherwise, you have believed in vain."
According to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (which appears that Dallas holds
to) once one has become truly regenerate, he will never apostatize. Once he has embraced thegospel he will never let go of it. There is no "ifs" about the matter. However, Paul's statement
fits perfectly well with the doctrine of conditional preservation of the saints, which states that
there must be a condition for one to be saved and that is the condition that Paul put:
if you hold firmly to the word.
Furthermore, the author of Hebrews makes it crystal clear that those who were truly
regenerate could apostatize:
Hebrews 6:4-8
"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift
and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and
the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them
again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to
open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth
vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if
it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being
burned."
Calvinists and other proponents of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints have had togo to desperate measures in reconciling the above passage with their doctrine.
Even if Dallas does not agree that the doctrine of conditional preservation of the saints
(which many well respected evangelicals such as Dr. William Lane Craig adhere to) is
Biblical, he surely can't go to the extreme by condemning it to be irrational. If he does, then
we ask him to carefully lay out for us why this belief is objectively (we don't want Dalla's
personal feelings, opinions and logic) irrational.
DMR replies: There are two ideas that you need to consider in dealing with these passages.
First, is the issue of whether the person has really had an encounter with Christ. All we can
ever know is the statement that a person says he has made a commitment to Christ. No onecan judge the quality of another’s depth of commitment and faith. There are many who are
cultural Christians. (The same could be said of Muslims. You do not know the quality of their
commitment. All you can have is, that they say they are Muslims.) The history of the Church
has shown that some people lapsed in their commitment in times of persecution. The martyrs
of the church were committed in a life or death situation. They did not deny.
Second, the writer of Hebrews is not issuing a dogmatic statement but a pastoral one.
I have known people to harden their hearts for years against repenting and returning to Jesus.
It seemed impossible to have them return, but eventually they did. However, some never do.
Dallas M. Roark said:
You think it to be arrogance to claim that one is going to heaven. It would be arrogance for
the Christian to claim that he is going to heaven based on his own good works and religiosity.
But that is not the case. The Christian claim of going to heaven is based on what Christ hasdone for us, not on what we do. This is one of the major differences between Christianity and
Islam. The Christian gospel, or good news, is that Jesus, the Son of God, has done something
for us that we could not do. His death and resurrection for us is his accomplishment. We have
little to accomplish-only to accept it. When you are given a gift you accept it, you don't pay
for it. The gift is not wages earned.
Zawadi responds:
This is all assuming that Christianity is true to begin with. Anyone can make up a false
religion that sounds attractive to the people by making it easy for them to practice (how
difficult is it to just lay back and accept "Jesus's sacrificial gift"?). Dallas has to stop begging
the question that his religion is true and start proving it.
DMR replies: Your comment applies equally to Islam. Anyone can make up a false religion.
What proof do you have that Mohammed was a true prophet? Just because he claimed it?
You have a problem in accepting evidence. Your evidence is what the Qur’an says. When it
contradicts history and science you accept it unquestioning. Even when the Qur’an affirms
the reliability of the New Testament you claim that it has been corrupted. Even when the
crucifixion of Jesus is affirmed by history before the Qur’an, you accept the view of Mohammed because he claimed to be speaking for Allah. Maybe Allah did not know the
history before Mohammed?
It is difficult for you to deal with history. When there are over 500,000 hadiths that were
forged and Muslim scholars regard only about 2400 of them as real, how do separate truth
from falsehood? What evidence do you have that Islam is true?
Dallas M. Roark said:
You are focusing on winning paradise by your actions.
Believing in Jesus was to accept Him as Savior. They did not do anything to seek his
approval as you are doing for your God.
Zawadi responds:
I don't know what Dallas means when he says that I seek God's approval to be a Muslim.
DMR replies: The point I was trying to make is that a person comes to Jesus and acceptsHim as Savior because one cannot win God’s approval by good works. There are people who
ignore the Gospel and conclude that their good works will get them into heaven. They are
their own savior.
By your good works you are claiming that you will be good enough to merit paradise. You
are claiming to be your own savior by your good works. In that sense you are claiming
Allah’s approval on your life.
Dallas M. Roark said:
They received Him as one accepts a gift.
Zawadi responds:
I also believe that Allah's blessing me with the guidance of Islam is a gift. So what is the
difference?
DMR replies: The big difference is that a Christian receives Jesus into one’s life, that is a
real person, and not just guidance. The Christian receives both the person and the guidance.
Dallas M. Roark said:
Religion is the human attempt to win the favor of whatever deity is accepted. Christians don't
do that. They receive God's gift.
Zawadi responds:
It appears that Dallas is giving a definition to religion that is unbiblical. The Bible clearly
recognizes that Christianity is a religion:
1 Timothy 5:4
4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their
religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and
widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
Or does Dallas want to suggest that the New Testament's usage of the word "religion" is out
of date and we must accept his definition?
DMR replies: First, "religion" .is used in these passages that is different than the sociological
usage.
The word religion comes from the Latin, religio, and is not in the New Testament. There are
two Greek words that are used. One is (James 1:17) which relates to godly living.
The other word υβω means to show piety or your commitment to God. While some
translator make use of the word "religion" it is not in the New Testament. These words do not
refer to an organized "religion" in the modern sense of the term. James is declaring that a
believer will look after orphans and widows. This is rather interesting that you raise this
question. What kind of treatment happens to widows who lose their husbands in Islam?
Prostitution is a common alternative in many Muslim cultures, is it not?
In sociological studies "religion" is used to compare various traditions. In this context
religion is what people do to try to find God and please Him. In this sense Christianity is not
a "religion" in that God cannot be found by humans, but God has revealed Himself in Jesus,
the Son of God.
Or, to put it another way, God has come seeking mankind.
Dallas M. Roark said:
Christians accept the favor of God rather than trying to win it themselves.
Zawadi responds:
Dallas misrepresents the Islamic position regarding salvation. He is trying to give everyone
the impression that Muslims believe that they earn paradise through works, which anyone
with a speck of dust of knowledge of basic Islamic theology knows is not true. Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) made it clear that we don't enter paradise based on our
works:
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 7, Book 70, Number 577
Narrated Abu Huraira:
I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The good deeds of any person will not make him enter
Paradise." (i.e., None can enter Paradise through his good deeds.) They (the Prophet's
companions) said, "Not even you, O Allah's Apostle?" He said, "Not even myself, unless
Allah bestows His favor and mercy on me." So be moderate in your religious deeds and do
the deeds that are within your ability: and none of you should wish for death, for if he is agood doer, he may increase his good deeds, and if he is an evil doer, he may repent to Allah."
The Prophet said, "Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and receive good news
because one's good deeds will NOT make him enter Paradise." They asked, "Even you, OAllah's Apostle?" He said, "Even I, unless and until Allah bestows His pardon and Mercy on
me."
In another narration we read:
Angel Jibrail (alayhis salam) told RasulAllah (salAllahu alayhi wasalam) the following
incident about a man in the past who worshipped Allah Ta'ala continuously for 500 years. He
was granted a shelter on top of a mountain that was surrounded by salty water. However,
Allah caused a stream of sweet water to flow through the mountain for that individual. The
man would drink from this water and use it to make ablution. Allah Ta'ala also raised a
pomegranate tree from which the man would eat one fruit every day.
One day, this person supplicated to Allah that, "Oh Allah, bring my death while I am in the
state of prostration." Allah accepted this dua of his. Whenever Jibrail (alayhis salam) came
down to the Earth, he found this man prostrating to Allah. Jibrail (alayhis salam) said that on
the day of Judgement, Allah will tell the angels to take this individual to Paradise through His
mercy. However, this man will insist that he should enter paradise through the good deeds
that he had performed.
Then, Allah will tell the angels to compare his good deeds with the blessings that were given
to him in the world. It will be seen that 500 years of his worship does not even equal to the
gift of eye sight that was given to him by Allah. The angels will be asked to take him towards
the hell fire. Then the man will plead, "Oh Allah! Enter me into Paradise only through Your
mercy." At that point, the following discussion will take place between Allah and that man.
Allah: Oh my servant, who created you?
The worshipper: Oh Allah, You have created me.
Allah: Were you created because of the good deeds you have done or because of My mercy?
The worshipper: Because of Your mercy.
Allah: Who granted you the ability to worship for 500 years?
The worshipper: Oh the Almighty! You have granted me that ability.
Allah: Who placed you on the mountain surrounded by the ocean? Who caused a stream of
sweet water to flow in between the salty water? Who caused a pomegranate tree to grow for
you? Who granted you death while in the state of prostration?
The worshipper: Oh the Sustainer of the Worlds! You have done all of these.
Also, congregational prayer has practical benefits. During a congregational prayer, Muslims
stand side by side close to one another. This strengthens the bond between the Muslims and is
a practical way of eradicating racism.
DMR replies:
Since there are many Muslims who do not know Arabic what gives meaning to them in a
prayer they do not understand. There are so many things that nullify prayers in Islam such as
the presence of a woman, a dog, or passing gas. I am sure that in a crowd of hundreds of
people there are going to be men passing gas simply by bending over in a prostrate position.
Volume 9, Book 86, Number 86: Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Allah does not accept prayer of anyone of you if he does Hadath (passes
wind) till he performs the ablution (anew)."
So many people of various nationalities have memorized the Qur’an in Arabic but they do not
understand it. Is the Qur’an magic? Now, Christians memorize Scripture in their own
language which they understand and because of its knowledge they are helped. I cannot see
reciting anything in a language you do not understand.
Zawadi responded:
You wrote: "The rest of Dalla's (sic) statements are just empty words of preaching. He
continues to beg the question that Christianity is true and that we should follow it simply
because it appears to be easier than following Islam."
DMR replies:
Your concluding remark is typical of Muslim apologists that I have read.
If you cannot refute them, ridicule what they have to say. Your claim about "empty words of
preaching" is to demean the great truth of the Gospel that I mentioned. The words of Jesus
that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life is not my preaching, but his claim. You can ignore
it, but only to your own loss.
Zawadi responds:
What is Dallas talking about? He has not provided one shred of evidence throughout his
previous article or this one regarding Christianity being true. To just simply present your faith
is not evidence for your faith. I can do the same thing and present Islam, however that is not
evidence for Islam.
DMR replies: You have returned again to the issue of evidence. Unfortunately, you have
dismissed history because it contradicts the Qur’an, you have dismissed science because it
contradicts the Qur’an, you have dismissed the New Testament because it contradicts theQur’an, you have dismissed the person of Jesus as the Son of God because it contradicts the