Response to James Annaswamy.

04:31 Posted by Ijaz Ahmad
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

James, as expected has begun his first “rebuttal” with the fallacies of ad hominem and character assassination. Rather than address the topics at hand,
he has decided to mock, insult and berate the character of his opponent:

[where my opponents begs for help for they are well aware that they cannot defend their faith being honest and truthful and the only way to do so for them is to go dishonest , make the full use of his deceiving instincts thereby making an impression upon the readers that they have owned their opponent in debate.]

How does this contribute to a discussion?Of what intellectual use is this statement? This sounds more like an appeal to pity and an appeal to emotion, both of which are also fallacies. We are kindly asking our opponent, that if he cannot contain his emotions or keep his “cool”, that he should try to calm himself down in anyway before writing insults in what is supposed to be a treatise on his faith.

One of the common characteristics of someone who is inept to reply, refute or rebuke is to deny. Denial is a means of simple brushing over, ignoring and or simply refusing to answer an opponents argument by way of negating it, such as what James has done below:

[My response :- This is the nothing but a failed attempt to gain the appreciation of the readers which is full of deceit and dishonesty.]

I understand that he could not reply, so he merely denied the argument. Jame’s weak intellect has only allowed him to do this much, however denial is not an answer and we hope in his next response that instead of denying what we say, that he can, you know, actually respond to our premises.

The next argument was faith and works and faith alone. However James’ as usual, starts of with a few insults:


[this is not the truth rather their inability to grasp or to comprehend]

[they won’t be able to stand if they may not remain dishonest and deceitful]

This form of attack, is really petulant for a person who claims to be guided by God, one can only hope he ceases with the personal attacks, but as the response goes along, it only degenerates into more childish rants, for which we apologize for those who had to read those things.

How does Jame’s begin his next response? With a form of exegesis, called eisegesis, uniformly
rejected by Christendom:

[but since I am doing a debate and my readers will also read me , therefore its quite necessary to present before them an exegesis of the issue raised by my opponents.]

Eisegesis is defined as:

“eisegesis - The interpretation of a word or passage by reading into it one's own ideas.”

This is a problem, because it appeals to the fallacy of reading between the lines and allows one to deviate from the creeds established by the ecumenical councils. One can check CARM for a little exposition on the inanity of those who appeal to such a lowly tactic.
[http://carm.org/dictionary-eisegesis]

He then goes on to demonstrate that faith is only needed to justify righteousness, from Bereishit 15:

[So here we can see that Abraham was justified only by having faith in the promise. The key factor is the justification or being considered as righteous AND THAT HAPPENED BY FAITH ONLY AS FAITH ONLY LED HIM TO DO THE WORKS OR TO OBEY THE LORD SINCE HE SHOWED HIS FAITH ON GOD’S PROMISE.]

I don’t see the relevance of this. In fact, if he is trying to show that Abraham had faith in God and God counted that as righteousness, how is this a response to our argument? Our argument was that the doctrine of faith and works is what counts.

So you can have faith, which was demonstrated above. We have no problem with faith. So why is James trying so hard to show where people had faith in the Pentateuch? We know they had faith, we accept that, because we too are commanded to have Iman {faith}, Qur’an Surah 2, Ayats 2 to 5. So I don’t see why my opponent is desperate for an argument, especially in an area we agree upon.

Perhaps he is so caught up in the idea he has to attack everything we say, that he also has to attack what we agree upon. That is indeed a shameful way of discourse.

Jame’s then goes on to prove our point again, which negates his previous argument about faith. In his aforementioned argument, he was demonstrating that Abraham was justified by his faith and now he shows that Abraham was justified by faith and works by quoting the epistle of James:

[“Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says,“Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”]

So we thank him for demonstrating that Abraham was justified by both faith and by works. However James went on to confuse himself yet again, by referencing Hebrews 11:17-19, where it contradicts James 2. So we ask, is James’ correct or is Hebrews’ correct?  One says the opposite of the other. We await his response.


He then went on to references Exodus 19:6, of which I had informed him, where he again confuses himself and recants on his previous argument and accepts that faith and works, function hand in hand:

[Mere having faith that we are the chosen ones so do as whatsoever we may wish could not have been the case for them]

So again, he contradicts his very first argument which was:

[“So if He may wish to lead the humans to Himself, then definitely He will choose only one path because He cannot be of the double standards being Most Holy in nature ..”]

Yet we see James clearly demonstrating two different doctrines of forgiveness and sin, especially in light of faith and works or by mere faith, which he admits in his own God’s revelation could not have been the case. James has concluded this aspect of the debate by basically writing four pages of self contradictory statements, to finally conclude that mere faith was not sufficient for the Israelites. Which fully proves his aforementioned statement to be wrong, as he said faith was enough.

James then went on to make this assertion:

[Likewise if one may accept Lord Jesus as his/her Lord and Savior by faith yet doesn’t obey the commandments of Him such as love your neighbor, do not commit adultery , murder, fornication etc , so he/she cannot be justified before God. And Lord Jesus Christ too says]

We thank him for this, this pretty much sums up our argument. That one cannot declare to have faith and yet not practise that faith. However since we agree, then James will automatically have to disagree and write 200 words about why we’re wrong, even though we’ve agreed with him.

He demonstrates this by ending his argument with this:

[My opponents have utterly failed in grasping the biblical things properly and that’s the reason being ignorant alleged such a false thing, that’s what it seems unto me .]

Notice the insults? I suspect that his doctrine may not be faith and works, or faith through works, but rather faith through petulant insults. Now, James goes on to contradict his claim, at first he says that works are required:
[But these people although being the believers in Lord did miracles in Jesus’ s name but did not obey the commandment which is the requirement.]

Commandments here, means works, so James is saying that works are a requirement, but then he contradicts himself by stating:

[Hence you cannot say that work is also involved in salvation which is an instantaneous process ]

If work is not involved in salvation, then why did he make the claim it was a requirement? He really needs to stop contradicting and rescinding on his points here. The inconsistency of James’ arguments are astounding.

He even went on to emphasize the major importance of works in faith:

[James is not talking about the salvation that comes through believing (faith) in Christ instead he is saying that you cannot be justified by faith mere if you know to do good yet you are not doing so and is violating the commandment of Mark 12:31]

He continues to travel back and forth between his views, continuing the internal contradictions within his argument, only to arrive at conclusions which are far beyond what his premises indicate.

In logical terms, James proves our arguments for us, by contradicting himself and this is termed, “proof by contradiction”, in this case there is no argument from silence as James himself pretty much supplies all the evidence we needed.James continues his nonsensical rants, by somehow trying to make it seem I've overlooked an important part of his argument, a hadith he says which supposedly refutes me:

[More over it’s a deliberate move of your’s to skip that hadith which talks about every man being a sinner since that was an obstacle in your path to say your things.]

It wasn't a deliberate move to ignore the hadith, I just don't see how the hadith adds to, or supports the validity of your argument. What is the assertion that James is trying to present?

"That we inherit sin".

However let's look at the hadith, which he is desperate to say, supports this claim:

[“The Prophet Hazrat Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
All the sons of Adam are sinners, but the best of sinners are those who repent often. [سنن الترمذي : 2423] “] 

Where does this hadith state then all men are born with sin? Nowhere. So I don't see how James can claim this supports his argument. I'll leave him to appeal to the fallacy of reading between the lines to interject his own concepts and ideas into the hadith. What the hadith states however, is that all men sin. Which is true. Baani Adam, or the Children of Adam alayhi as salaam, who are all of mankind, are sinners and we accept that, because we all have sinned. However nowhere does it support my opponent's argument.

In fact his use of this hadith is akin to that of a drunk man leaning on a poll, it supports him, but it does not illuminate him. For if it illuminated him, then he'd realise it was only supporting his own concepts and beliefs, but not the actual cited data.James' then goes on to show his weak literacy skills.

Some might laugh at this, but I request that my opponent possibly take a few classes from a vocational school so that he can develop basic comprehension skills. For some reason he is of the belief that this statement:

[“Islam does not state that man carries sin from birth.”]

Is the same as this statement:

[“but that man is prone to, or has the innate affinity towards doing evil or fulfilling one's nafs {desires}”]

If you don't believe me, he himself has said so:

[There doesn’t seems unto me any difference between the two parts of their statement which I splitted.]

I am not sure if my opponent is trying to be funny or if he has honestly not been able to comprehend that which was clearly expounded upon. I therefore pose to him, the following questions to help alleviate this comprehension dilemma:

(1) Is sin innate?
(2) Is the sinful nature innate?

Those two questions should clarify my opponents lack of critical thinking abilities, or so I can only hope.James then goes on to make this claim of the Qur'an:

[And if a man who although doesn’t sin yet his nafs (desires) are inclined towards doing sins, he is a sinner as what Qur’an (12:53) tells us because Joseph did not absolve him from being guilty what if he did not sin.]

Let's see what Qur'an Surah 12, Ayah 53 states:

"And I do not acquit myself. Indeed, the soul is a persistent enjoiner of evil, except those upon which my Lord has mercy. Indeed, my Lord is Forgiving and Merciful."

I do not see where this ayah says that the soul is always sinful. Again, my opponent has appealed to the fallacy of reading between the lines, also known as faulty exegesis or eisegesis.

He is trying to convey his beliefs, ideas and doctrines upon an ayah of the Qur'an. This is indeed intellectual fraud, as nowhere does the Qur'an say in ayah 53 that the person is sinful. Rather is says, the soul persists in enjoining upon evil.

النَّفْسَ لأَمَّارَةٌ بِالسُّوءِ إِلاَّ مَا رَحِمَ رَبِّى

(Verily, the (human) self is inclined to evil, except when my Lord bestows His mercy (upon whom He wills).) whom Allah the Exalted wills to grant them immunity.

Inclined to evil, not evil in itself. However, as usual, I suspect that James' lackluster abilities will leave him impaired when trying to denote the difference.

Somehow, James has then gone off into a tangent:

[this was the issue that I raised to reject Islam but my opponent could not meet the flaw (on Allah of Qur’an not being merciful and just at the same time unlike the God of the Holy Bible) in their faith so far.]

What does he mean that Allah's mercy is not just? He clarifies later on:

[Allah of Qur’an only forgives when someone repents i.e he shows his nature of being merciful but the justice part he forgets whereas the God of the Holy Bible fulfills both the attributes of being GOD.]

What is this "justice" that the Christian God requires?

[He punished the sin in Christ’s body who was the innocent lamb of God and through that pardoned us or the mankind if we may believe on Jesus’s sacrificial death on the cross.]

Look at this! I believe that James is ignorant of the word, "mercy" and its meaning. He claims that God is merciful, or his God is a merciful God because it punishes and by punishing it is just. That is a contradiction. Mercy means that one is absolved from that sin. Therefore if one is absolved from the sin, why is there a need to punish? That is not merciful, but wrathful.

Now, I had asked James several questions, for which he has tried, quite laughably to respond to, here are his responses and mines:

My question:
(1) Was blood sacrifice the only means of forgiveness of sins or has the God
of the OT lied in Job 36:10?

His response:

[No sirs, that’s not the case which you guys thinks.........There isn’t any mention of sacrifice here because its only written that God commands the people to repent...........but how the forgiveness can be attained isn’t mentioned.]

Now, I'm not sure if he was drunk from the communion wine, but at first he says blood sacrifice is not the only means of forgiveness:

[No sirs, that’s not the case]

Well that refutes your doctrine. If there were other means of forgiveness, then Jesus did not need to die. By admitting that sacrifice was not needed, you have just negated the need for the sacrifice of your God. Well done.

Yet, James now goes on to contradict himself:

[There isn’t any mention of sacrifice here because its only written that God commands the people to repent]

There is no need to sacrifice, because instead they have repented, I agree with what he has said here, but then if they are repenting, they must be repenting from sin. You don't repent from anything but a sin. However James must be ignorant of this because he goes on to state that they were not repenting due to sin to attain forgiveness:

[but how the forgiveness can be attained isn’t mentioned.]

Yet, wasn't it mentioned by James himself? They can be forgiven by repenting. You repent from sin, so that you earn......?

You earn....?

Forgiveness.

My question:
(2) If God sent Jesus to die for the sins of the world, then why will most of
the world go to hell [Matthew 7:13]? Does that not mean that Jesus' sacrifice
was inadequate to recompense for all of mankind's ill doings?

Now, his answer was funny. I myself took a few minutes to clear my giggles before I continued with my response, he tried to deflect and I must say, it may have been the most inane response I have ever seen in my lifetime. He tried to equate the sacrifice of a God for all sins, with the belief that Muhammad {saw} who was a mercy for the world, was really only a mercy for those who accepted the deen of Islam.

However, this is a strawman. These are two completely different doctrines. What does it mean that Muhammad {saw} was a mercy for the world? It means, what the Qur'an says it means:

Say: "It is for those who believe, a guide and a healing. And as for those who disbelieve, there is heaviness in their ears, and it is blindness for them. They are those who are called from a place far away.'' - Qur'an Surah 41, Ayah 44.

Even the Qur'an in the very second Surah responds to this:

"This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -" Quran Surah 2, Ayah 2.

So Muhammad {saw} was sent as a mercy to the world, for those who intend to accept guidance. Whereas the Bible, makes a wholly different claim:

[and to wait for his son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.] 1 Thessolonians 1:10.

For whom is Jesus rescuing?

[For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit] 1 Peter 3:18.

So Christ died for all sins, once, for all sins. The sins of the unrighteous, i.e. the disbelievers. Whereas in Islam, Muhammad {saw} was sent as a mercy for those who sought guidance. Which is where the problem lies and for which my opponent has lost the argument.

If Jesus died for all sins and only a few make it, was his sacrifice worthless? He has yet to properly answer. Rather he chose to deflect upon a totally different doctrine. Let's hope that this time around, he can reply.

My question:
(3) Why does God say He will judge us by deeds in the Bible [2 Corinthians
5:10, Revelation 20:13] if Jesus salvaged us from our sins?

Well, I'm not sure what his response was trying to demonstrate. All he did was quote the passages, and then say that they talk about saints:

[The reference of 2 Corinthians is speaking of the saints and not about the disbelievers for the believers too shall be judged for the works what they did for the Lord on earth.]

Thank you Captain Obvious, I believe we do know what the verses are speaking of, especially since I cited them. Thanks for, reciting them and then telling me what they are speaking of, even after you quoted them. Redundancy, look it up.

Well he did answer or perhaps tried to answer my question:

[for the believers too shall be judged for the works what they did for the Lord on earth]

Which again, leads me to ask my original question. Why is God judging believers for their works, if by faith, you claimed, is all they needed?

It also contradicts this statement about works, which he stated earlier:

[Hence you cannot say that work is also involved in salvation which is an instantaneous process ]

Not only does he like contradicting himself, but the question remains unanswered, if Jesus absolved your sins due to death, why are you still being judged? If you have salvation, i.e. freedom from sin and the punishment of sin, what is the use of your judgement?

My question:
(4) If salvation means, "to be free from sin and the punishment from sin",
then why is the world still sinning, why do Christians still sin. Since they
sin, does that mean they do not have salvation, taken in light of the very
definition of the term?

Again, I'm not sure if he's trying to be funny, or if he just doesn't grasp the English language, I said:

[salvation means, "to be free from sin and the punishment from sin"]

For which he replied:

[Salvation in the Christian faith actually means to be freed from the punishment of sins or forgiveness of the sins]

Does anyone else actually see a difference? I don't. So where is the issue here, for him trying to redefine the term, but only to end up, restating what I said? Kind of, redundant yet again. However, he does add something to this statement:

[which comes from believing on Lord Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death for the sins of the humanity.]

Yet the Bible contradicts him, a man was saved for merely believing that Jesus existed, no requirement of belief in death:

[“He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the master (κύριος) Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."] - Acts 16:30-31

Simple belief in Jesus, there is no requirement for the belief of the death of a God to be saved. In fact this is repeated elsewhere in the Bible:

[“And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.' Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”] -
Acts 2:21-22

Merely calling on the name of the Lord, is sufficient to be saved, no belief in the death of a God is required. So why is James contradicting his Bible? Does he not know what it says? Again, he evades answering my question, by claiming that Christians can sin, but they have to repent:

[Therefore if a Christian believer may honestly confess his sins after being unfortunate of felling prey to sin and seeks pardon, then he gets forgiven of his sins but he doesn’t looses his salvation unless he may cease to repent but it doesn’t mean that he may keep sinning again and again] Besides contradicting the previous two verses, of which I have quoted, it seems as if a Christian can lose his salvation if he sins, if he doesn't repent.

This is circular reasoning at its best in Christian doctrine:

(1) Jesus died for your sins. i.e. you now have salvation.
(2) You sinned.
(3) You have to repent.

So if you repent, what are you repenting for, if Jesus' death already absolved that sin?

If the sin can make you lose being free from sin, then you don't have permanent salvation, do you?

My question:
(5) Where does it say in the Bible that one has to merely believe in the death
and resurrection and crucifixion of Jesus to gain heaven as evidence from
the Bible demonstrates merely believing that Jesus existed is sufficient for
salvation [Acts 16:10-31, Acts 15:10-11].

For once he has answered, with:[“If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” Romans (10:9)]

Yet, this presents a problem, if the Bible says this, that you can gain heaven by mere faith, then why does James emphasize that works are also needed?

[Likewise if one may accept Lord Jesus as his/her Lord and Savior by faith yet doesn’t obey the commandments of Him such as love your neighbor, do not commit adultery , murder, fornication etc , so he/she cannot be justified before God. And Lord Jesus Christ too says]

How does he reconcile his contradicting statements in lieu of the writings of the Bible? As he said, it is unavoidable that one would sin in a previous quote.

My question:
(6) If Jesus died for the sins of the world and this is the ultimate form of
Salvation, then why can't Jesus' blood recompense/ absolve/ forgive the sin of
Mark 3:28-29, his blood sacrifice was a failure as it could not account for all
sins.

This was his answer:

[Forgiveness of sins is only the result of the mercy and love of Almighty for us that He Himself devised a way for us to be pardoned for our sins.] 

I don't think he understands the problem of this, if Jesus died for all sins:

[For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit] 1 Peter 3:18.

So is God of the Bible lying here? Did he die for all sins or not?

Now this part is just hilarious, James is trying to defend his sin of insulting others:[I did it in order to make you guys experience that how do it feels when you gets insulted by someone....]

Do you know what the Bible says about insulting others?

[Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.] - Matthew 5:11

We Muslims are blessed when James insults us and says evil things against us because of our discussions about Jesus! So don't stop the insults James, I've already highlighted a number of times where James just couldn't hold his hand from abusing us. Well done James, you are really showing your true colours as a Christian.

Yet James continues to disobey the Bible and his faith:

[I do hate gays and lesbians]

The Bible on the other hand says:

[“But I tell you, love your enemies...........’] - Matthew 5:43.

What a poor example of a Christian you are.

PART 2:

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I'm not sure how James' intellectual capacity works, but I'm pretty sure that you deflect, when you answer a question.....with a question. He tried really hard to depart from common sense and reasoning and forewent critical thinking, to instead, change the topic of discussing my premise all together. In any case let's examine his questions: 

(1) The ayah states:

"Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith."

So James is saying, that God should not judge a person by his intentions. So if a Christian is forced by gunpoint to insult the Holy Spirit, does that mean your God is not merciful enough to know the person is being forced? 

(2) Simple, see Genesis 12:11-20. Did God punish Abraham? 

(3) See Judges 16:23-31, Numbers 31 and was Abraham, the father of the Israelites, a coward according to you, attesting to Genesis 12:11-20? 

(4) Where does it say what you claimed in Qur'an 5:87?

"O you who have believed, do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors."

I don't see where God allows people to sin here, instead God says the opposite as indicated.Also how is it sinful to have a marriage? Sahih Al Bukhari  Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13 speaks about temporary marriage, marriage whether temporary or otherwise is marriage nonetheless. Do you have a problem with marriage?

(5) I don't see how this is contradictory, you can't force the faith upon anyone, but you can fight those who fight you. Are you saying we can't fight those who made agreements with us (9:1) and then broke them by attacking us?

As it is shown in the Bible, your God did force people to believe:

[Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.] - Deuteronomy 17:12So are you saying, the God of the Bible erred? 

(6) Same as the ones in Numbers 31:35."and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man."Problem? This is known as the relativist fallacy:

The Relativist Fallacy is committed when a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

  1. Claim X is presented.
  2. Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
  3. Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.

(7) Same as:

[They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.] - 2 Chronicles 15:12-13


[Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."] - Deuteronomy 13:13-19

Again, relativist fallacy.

(8) Same as above, see (7).

(9) What is their to justify? I don't see a problem, with a woman divorcing someone and remarrying. Is there something wrong with marrying a divorced woman?

(10) What is the problem here? On one end, if the Muslims have a treaty, Qur'an Surah 9, Ayah 4 commands us to stay true to that treaty. This is a covenant, an agreement with another party.However, if you have no treaty with someone and they are fighting you, then why, when you have the upperhand against your persecutors, decide then to start a treaty. Do you go into the middle of the battlefield and ask everyone for hugs and kisses to make a treaty? In Qur'an Surah 2, Ayats 190-194, we have to fight them until the persecution and oppression stops.

(11) Opportunists? Or do you not call this, using your reasoning, i.e. a wise man realises his situation and acts accordingly, just as Paul did:

[To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.] - 1 Corinthians 9:20.Now James goes on to make a point, that makes no sense:

[So if this is the case, how come he be offended if someone may blaspheme him yet also do a drama (Qur’an 6:108) ?]

You mean like this?

[One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men.  During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name.  So the man was brought to Moses for judgment.  His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan.  They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear.  Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head.  Then let the entire community stone him to death.  Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished.  Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel.  Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die.] - Leviticus 24:10-16

Also, what drama do you see here?

"And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them about what they used to do." Qur'an Surah 6, Ayah 108.

Now James is a really lowly character, let's examine his next point:

[My opponents seems to be utter ignorant of the case here. First of all there wasn’t any kind of doctrinal disputes among the apostles.]

Let me make it clear, that James does not know what the word doctrine means as he demonstrates here. Now James creates  a straw man and wrote about 300 words attacking this:

[With all the above 6 points, its well established that there wasn’t any contention pertaining to the gospel or the message of Jesus Christ among the apostles as what my opponents alleged.]

If there was no contention or difference, then what do these verses say from Galations 2?

[When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.] - Verse 11.

[For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.] - Verse 12.

[The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.] - Verse 13.

[When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?] - Verse 14.

[know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.] - Verse 16.

So if there was no point of contention:

(1) Why did Paul oppose Peter to his face? You do know what the word, "oppose" means, no?

(2) If there was no disagreement, why did the apostles who were alive, act in one way towards one people and in secret another way? Isn't that hypocrisy?

(3) If Paul says the Jews joined the disciples in hypocrisy, isn't he saying the disciples were hypocrites?

(4) If Paul says Barnabus was lead astray, does that mean that Paul agreed with Barnabus or was there a point of difference/ contention?

(5) If they did not act in line with the Gospel, does that mean Paul agreed with them or not? If he did, then why did he say they were acting out of line?

(6) If they disciples acted not in line with the truth of the Gospel, then what Gospel were they following?

(7) Why did Paul have a need to teach them about their doctrine, which they were supposed to know already, see verse 16.James then goes on to state:

[Adam Clarke is only informing about the opinions of few people on the epistle of James]

He has quoted and cited the father of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther. Are you saying Martin Luther was wrong?

[yet my opponents somehow are making a failed attempt to prove that Paul and James contradict with each other saying that Paul taught justification by faith alone whereas James teaches both works and faith]

Which is what most of Christianity has been debating for many centuries:

[We now come to a part of this epistle which has appeared to some eminent men to contradict other portions of the Divine records.] - Adam Clarke Commentary, Ibid.

[Learned men have spent much time in striving to reconcile these two writers, and to show that St. Paul and St. James perfectly accord; one teaching the pure doctrine, the other guarding men against the abuse of it.] - Ibid.

[Another reason taken from an absurdity: if such a faith were the true faith by means of which we are justified, the demons would be justified, for they have that, but nonetheless they tremble and are not justified, therefore neither is that faith a true faith.] - Geneva Study Bible, Ibid.

[It seems hardly likely but that James had seen Paul's Epistles, considering that he uses the same phrases and examples (compare Jas 2:21, 23, 25, with Ro 4:3; Heb 11:17, 31; and Jas 2:14, 24, with Ro 3:28; Ga 2:16). Whether James individually designed it or not, the Holy Spirit by him combats not Paul, but those who abuse Paul's doctrine. The teaching of both alike is inspired, and is therefore to be received without wresting of words.] -
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Jamieson & Fausset & Brown, James 2.

Again, if James did not disagree with Paul, why did Paul accuse James of not following the right doctrine in Galations 2:12, 14, 16.

Questions and Answers.

James has said:

[Yes, we the Christians according to our faith have submitted our wills to the will of Almighty God and that is the very reason we have accepted the salvation that the heavenly Father bestows upon us through Jesus Christ.]

If that is so, if you have accepted God's will, then why hasn't God assured you of Salvation in Matthew 7:21? You claimed that you will not always be able to do his will:

[Therefore if a Christian believer may honestly confess his sins after being unfortunate of felling prey to sin and seeks pardon, then he gets forgiven of his sins but he doesn’t looses his salvation unless he may cease to repent but it doesn’t mean that he may keep sinning again and again]

Even to the extent that you can lose Salvation.

He also denied to answer a question:

[Its really hilarious that a muslim is asking such a stupid question.]

Again: If Jesus was a Jew, why are you a Christian? I don't see what the Qur'an calling Jews and Christians has to do with you choosing to follow a faith, please be relevant.

James also denied to answer, the question: Who are the authors of the Bible, by claiming it was stupid:

[A muslim if asks this question, then he is actually exhibiting his utter hypocrisy since his own book, the Qur’an is anonymous.] 

We would like to inform our ignorant friend, that saying something is stupid and denying to answer it, is not an academic answer. His continuing to do so, is due to his inability to properly answer the questions posed to him. If he cannot answer questions, rather than calling them stupid, then we acknowledge his own inanity.The Qur'an is from Allah, it is not a mystery for us. Whether you disbelieve in Allah or not, everyone knows who Muslims believe the Qur'an is from, i.e. Allah.

[And with the truth We have sent the Qur'an down, and with the truth it has descended. And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a bringer of good tidings and a warner.] - Qur'an 17:105. 

He has also failed to answer the chronological problems in the Bible, instead he has opted to say this:

[And not the least, the 4 canonical gospels are in agreement with each other on the basic fundamental creeds of the Christian faith such as Jesus being the Son of God, his miracles , virgin birth ,death and resurrection of Him .]

Sir, please answer the following claims which you ignored:

1: In Matthew 4:5-8 the Devil took Jesus to the pinnacle and then to
the mountain, while in Luke 4:5-9 he took him to the mountain and then
the pinnacle.

2: In Matt. 21:12-19 Jesus cleansed the temple and later
cursed the fig tree, while in Mark 11:13-15 he cursed the fig tree and later
cleansed the temple.

3: In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine
and later called Levi (Matt. 9:9), while in Luke 5:27-28 Jesus called Levi and
later caused devils to enter swine (Luke 8:26-33).

4: In Mark 1:12-13 Jesus was tempted in the wilderness and later John was arrested (Mark
6:17-18), while in Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later Jesus was tempted in the
wilderness (Luke 4:1-13).

5: In Mark 2:13-17 Matthew was called by Jesus and later the tempest was calmed (Mark 4:35-40), while in Matt. 8:18, 23-27 the tempest was calmed and later Matthew was called (Matt. 9:9-17).

6: In Matt. 8:1-4 Jesus cleansed the leper and later healed Peter's mother-in-law
(Matt. 8:14-15), while in Mark 1:29-31 Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and
later cleansed the leper (Mark 1:40-44).

Ignoring them is not answering them.

[Its really pathetic that the muslims have to rely on the science to prove the authenticity of their book and that’s the reason they apply the same standards on the Holy Bible as well.]

Sir, please clarify about the scientific errors in the Bible, I'll give you one example:

[God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.] -  Numbers 23:22.

James said:

[What does sacrifice means actually ? In this realm , it is pertaining to the shedding of blood and being killed weather it’s the lamb as prescribed in the Mosaic law or Christ Himself who was destined to be a vicarious sacrifice i.e the sacrifice of his life and shedding of his blood for the atonement which was accomplished.]

According to the Mosaic law, if something comes back to life, is the sacrifice valid? What to the mitzvot say? Also, since Jesus' flesh was not burnt, the sacrifice is void:

[To burn meat of the holy sacrifice that has remained over] - Leviticus 7:17.

James then goes on to try and defend the pornography of the Bible by saying it was figurative:

[The passages like Ezekiel 23 is spoken in the figurative sense ]

Figurative or not, it is pornography! James then goes on to defend the pornography: 

[Our creator has created us and if that’s the case which can be confirmed by experiences of the various females found on the internet, then applying the same logic on Ezekiel 23 doesn’t creates any problem rather there is a need for you muslims to shun the hypocrisy of your’s and narrow mindedness as well.]

According to James:
  • The pornography if the Bible is confirmed by the pornography of females on the internet.
  • Applying the logic of female sex stories on the internet can confirm that God has created us.
  • It is narrow minded to dislike pornography.
  • Only hypocrites deny pornography.

[Its in a sarcastic manner that is spoken by God yet its totally an allegory.] - God is a comedian according to James. God is sarcastic in the scripture!

[Rest of the others are mere the historical narrations but no where do the God of the Holy Bible condoned rape, incest etc] - If the God of the Bible doesn't condone rape, then what is he condoning here:

[If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.] - Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

Marry your rapist! Looks like YHWH fully endorses rape. Also, if the God of the Bible didn't endorse incest, why did he not punish the daughters of Lot in Genesis 19:30-38? The question clearly begs itself.

He then goes on to try to show in someway that the Prophet {saw} used bad language by using this as a citation:

[Hadith - Mishkat Al-Masabih, Vol. 2, p. 1021]

Sir, please provide a proper citation. Author. Book date. Publisher etc. He then went on to make one of the weirdest claims I have ever seen:

[And Qur’an 21:91 and 66:12 talks about the Vagina of the blessed among the ladies (Mary)]

However the point is in neither is the word vagina mentioned. However through common sense you know what is being spoken of, whereas the Bible explicitly mentions those terms in a fully sexual manner, whereas the Qur'an does not, there is no equivalent to the kind of perverted detail the Bible entails.

James then copy pasted an entire article on the topic of monogenes. I don't think in a debate, you should wholesale copy paste entire articles on monogenes, especially from the inept and pseudo scholar of James White, who is known for his erratic and poor discourse skills.

Rather, I'll reply to what James himself as written:

[Yet I would like to issue a challenge to you to prove unto me that GOD HAD SEX WITH MARY FROM ANYWHERE IN THE SCRIPRURES AND BEGAT JESUS SINCE YOU ALLEGED SO.]

The very word begotten denotes one of two meanings:

(1) Sexually reproduced.
(2) Created.

So was your God created or sexually reproduced?The word begotten is derived from Strong's Greek Lexicon, #G3439:
μονογενής
monogenēs
mon-og-en-ace
From G3441 and G1096; only born, that is, sole: - only (begotten, child).

Then James' went on to claim:

[Again this is a hilarious statement. Yet if the word Christian or Nasara is found in your very scripture , then actually you are not qualified to ask such a question]

Sir, the word Christian and Jew is also found in yours, but that is not the question which was asked. Diverting and deflecting is a common tactic of ignorant people, can you be honest for a change? The Qur'an is the only book to mention the faith which its followers adhere to. Does the Bible mention the faith of Christianity or no? The question was simple.

As for this statement:

[You need to bring forth your proofs either from Judaism or Christianity in support of your this very belief of your’s which must be scripturally justified but there isn’t such a case. Hence this cannot be anything else except the blind belief.]

What? I don't think you understand the question. The question was clearly asking, if the Bible is the word of God, why is it nowhere mentioned in the Bible that the Bible is the word of God?

Out of practically nowhere, James then appeals to the fallacy of affirming the antecedent: 

 [The Qur’an authenticates the scriptures which the Jews and Christians have at the time of Mohammad , the prophet of Islam as the uncorrupted Torah and the Injeel (Gospel) least there will arise a question that why do then the Allah of Qur’an is recommending these so called corrupted scriptures to be used by the Jews and Christians for the resolution of their disputes.]

 First he makes the claim that the Qur'an authenticates the Masoretic text, Septuagint, Codex Vindobonensis and that Codex Monacensis, are verified by the Qur'an. Would he please demonstrate where either are mentioned in the Qur'an. I'll wait for him to do so.The Scripture was corrupted indeed, see Qur'an Surah 2, Ayah 79, however it does not mean that remnants of truth still existed in them, for example, we agree with Mark 12:29, or Devarim 4:2. However we'd disagree with Ezekiel 23, or 1 Corinthians 9:20. What this is called, that James is appealing to, is termed the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. I'll denote it, using set logic:If X is a set and (x, y and z) are predicates of said set, then, James asserts that if x is true to X then y and z are true. Likewise, if x is false, then y and z are false. This is a fallacy and he should not appeal to it in the least. Please fix your argument and correct yourself James. This is pathetic.


[And still Allah is honoring these corrupted books ?] - How is Allah honoring these canons and codices for whose names are not mentioned in the Qur'an? Please expound this point.

[Now why would the prophet of Islam would make such a kind of honorable remarks and actions for a corrupted book that he honored it by placing it upon the pillow on which he was sitting and saying that its revealed by God ?] - This is laughable:

  1. Where did Muhammad {saw} say honorable words in the hadith you quoted about the book?
  2. If he respected the scripture of the Jews in front of them, is that accepting their validity?
  3. If someone denies you are truthful, but doesn't insult you, does that mean they accept you or honour you? Likewise answer this in light of the previous question.

[But however this seems and proves to be a logical fallacy i.e what they say because you cannot take the chewing gum which has been contaminated by falling from your hands (as soon as you about to take it in your mouth) on the mud and take it in your mouth and chew saying Oh..its tastes nice] - What logical fallacy is it? What I see is that you're appealing to a logical fallacy:

If X is a set and (x, y and z) are predicates of said set, then, James asserts that if x is true to X then y and z are true. Likewise, if x is false, then y and z are false. This is a fallacy and he should not appeal to it in the least. Please fix your argument and correct yourself James. This is pathetic.


[So in that manner, the Qur’an discredits itself and the prophet of Islam as well to be authentic by addressing Jesus as the Messiah] - Fallacy of Affirming the Antecedent. Sir, how does the Qur'an discredit itself by saying Isa {as} is the Messiah? It discredits itself by stating the truth? I am ashamed that you would deny the truth of Jesus' Messiah-ship because the Qur'an is the only scripture to confirm it!

[So there is still a problem with Qur’an for it contradicts history and alleges that Moses lived after his death when he supposedly said to the Children of Israel to remember God’s favor when He made you kings.]It's only a problem if you don't use contextual analysis of scripture:
(made you kings) `Abdur-Razzaq recorded that Ibn `Abbas commented: "Having a servant, a wife and a house.'' In his Mustadrak, Al-Hakim recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "A wife and a servant, and, a

وَءَاتَـكُمْ مَّا لَمْ يُؤْتِ أَحَداً مِّن الْعَـلَمِينَ

(and gave you what He had not given to any other among the nations (`Alamin).) means, during their time.'' Al-Hakim said, "Sahih according to the criteria of the Two Sahihs, but they did not collect it.'' Qatadah said, "They were the first people to take servants.'' and that is what it means.

To be King like. To have servants like kings have. This is confirmed by the dictionary, as a King is someone who is:

[a ruler or chief] - thefreedictionary.com/kingRuler or Chief, i.e. someone is subservient to such a person, such as a King.

Therefore your argument against the Qur'an's use of this term is baseless and clearly ignorant of the meaning of such terms. However should we turn out attention to the Bible, there are many historical and easily observed  inaccuracies:

[All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;] - Leviticus 11:20-21.

[Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.] - Isaiah 30:26.

[Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;] - Matthew 4:8.

wa Allahu Alam.



James has 48 hrs to give his last rebuttal and after which we will be giving our last rebuttal. Followed by conclusion (300 words), and then question and answering session from audience.....
Reactions: 
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 Response to "Response to James Annaswamy."

  1. Awake Mulims Said,

    great response admins.... Good job.

    Posted on 23 August 2011 at 07:18

     

Post a Comment