Wednesday, 12 July 2017

Re: “Suicide Bombings and Islam: An Apologist’s Guide” Hate video exposed/refuted !

In this episode we analyze a video called “Suicide Bombings and Islam: An Apologist’s Guide”, where someone argues that terrorism and suicide bombing are motivated and justified by Islam. Unfortunately for him, the evidence points to the contrary. 

Wednesday, 5 July 2017

The teachings of the Prophet Muhammad VS Jesus

This is a brief comparison between Prophet Muhammad according to Quran and Sunnah and the Christians' depiction of Prophet Jesus according to the anonymous bible authors whose books were canonized in 367.  The only aim of this article is to expose the lies of the haters among Christ worshipers who demean Prophet Muhammad.

Why were they sent ?

  • Prophet Muhammad was sent as a mercy to the worlds. 

God has sent His last Messenger as a manifestation of His grace to all mankind. He takes them by the hand to show them divine guidance. It is only those who are ready to receive such guidance that benefit by it, but God’s grace is bestowed on believers and unbelievers alike.
قال تعالى ( وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِّلْعَالَمِينَ )الأنبياء107
"And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds."

The code of living given to us through the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is one that ensures the happiness of all mankind, and which will lead to the highest level of perfection humanity can attain. Muhammad’s message was given to mankind at a time when it attained its full mental maturity. Hence, it is a book open to all minds across all generations. It includes the unchangeable fundamentals of human life, and it is ready to meet changing needs that are known only to the One who created man, and who knows His creation well. He is most kind and aware of all things.
This book sets out the principles and the framework of a permanent code for an ever-renewing human life, leaving to human beings the task of deducing detailed rules necessary for organizing their relations as life progresses. It is also up to human beings to determine the methods and the means of implementation, according to their different situations and circumstances, without conflict with the principles of the permanent code.

  • Jesus came not for peace but for divisions.
The Bible says

يقول يسوع في انجيل لوقا الاصحاح 12 العدد 51

"أتظنون إني جئت لأعطي سلاما على الأرض كلا أقول لكم بل انقساما"
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

What do they teach about other Prophets of God ? 

Thursday, 29 June 2017

Quran 98:6 Are the disblievers the worst creatures ?

Holy Qur’an teaches us that the created human being, if he seeks slavation, should not consider himself totally free/independent to disobey his maker. He should have belief in his heart that he is obedient and servant of the most Potent and Powerful Lord, God Almighty, Who has created him and all those things which have been scattering around him. And everything has been running according to His prescribed laws. One of the basic teachings of Islam is that God does not have a favorable opinion of those who knowingly deny His right to be worshiped alone (as He alone is responsible for our creation, our sustenance, and our judgement) and reject any of His messengers.

Out of creatures, the human beings are seen most arrogant and rebellious. Some of them are those; who do not accept that law; which He has prescribed for the humankind; and want to choose their own way.It is commanded that the worst people on the earth are those; who do not believe in Allah (God) Almighty and deny His Revelations, and there is no hope that they will believe in future. Obviously, those people; who do not believe in God Almighty; they cannot be faithful to their covenant. Moreover, whenever they get opportunity, break their treaty. These are the people who are the worst in entire creatures of God Almighty.

8:55  Verily, the vilest creatures in the sight of God are those who are bent on denying the truth and therefore do not believe.

In the present instance, it should be noted, the particle fa at the beginning of the phrase fa-hum Ia yu'minun has the meaning of "and therefore" ("and therefore they do not believe"): thus showing that lack of belief in spiritual verities is a consequence of one's being "bent on denying the truth". Expressed in positive terms, this amounts to the statement that belief in any ethical proposition depends on one's readiness to consider it on its merits and to admit the truth of whatever one's mind judges to be in conformity with other-empirically or intuitively established-truths. As regards the expression alladhina kafaru, the use of the past tense is meant here, as so often in the Qur’an, to stress the element of intention, and is, therefore, consistently rendered by me - wherever the context warrants it - as "those who are bent on denying the truth" (see also surah 2, note 6).  Similarly, the vilest citizens in your city are those who are bent on violating the traffic rules, those who do not believe in the laws of the land. Those who drink and drive make hell for themselves and for others.

98:6.  Those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the idolaters will be in the Fire of Hell, abiding therein. They are the worst of creatures.
In this ayah the reference to those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book is to those later ones who rejected the clear evidence, that is, the messengership of the Holy Prophet (sas) when it came to them. Therefore, as they rejected the complete and perfect message that had come to them, they made themselves deserving of punishment, and for this reason they were called the worst of creation because they deliberately refused to benefit from the Messenger of Allah and the clear evidence he brought. Instead they increased in unbelief and polytheism. So who can doubt that they truly earned the description of the worst of creatures? Without doubt, by their own evil deeds they made themselves asfala safilin (the lowest of the low).

In the former verses, it was mentioned that the people of the Book and the polytheists were waiting for clear evidence to be sent by Allah, but when it came they were dispersed and everyone went his separate way.
In the following verses, from the point of Faith in truth, people are divided into two groups believers and disbelievers, and then the fate of each is pointed out.
At first it says:
"Surely those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of Hell, therein dwelling forever, they are the worst of all creatures.”
The term /kafaru/ ‘they disbelieved', here refers to their blasphemy rather than their being Muslim, otherwise their previous infidelity was not a new matter.
The phrase
“They are the worst of all creatures"
is a startling statement which shows that among all the living and non-living creatures there is nothing worse than those who left the right path and went astray after the truth became clear and the argument and reason became complete.
This is, in fact, like that which is mentioned in Surah Anfal, No. 8, verse 22:
"For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are the deaf and the dumb. Those who understand not”.
Or similar still, to what Surah A'raf, No. 7, verse 179 says after referring to the people of Hell with the same characteristics:
“...they are like cattle, nay more misguided: for they are heedless (of warning)”.
There is also a point in the current verse which goes beyond these matters, because it introduces them as
“The worst of all creatures",
and this is, indeed, a statement of evidence for their perpetual stay in the fire of Hell.
And why not! They were the worst of all creatures, because all the means of salvation were being prepared for them, but they refused it intentionally, due to their pride, deceit and enmity.
In this verse, again, the phrase 'the People of Book' is mentioned prior to 'polytheists' perhaps for the reason that they had heavenly Books and learned men among them and also possessed some signs and information about the Prophet of Islam which were clearly mentioned in their Books. Therefore, their rejection was more hideous and indecent. 

Those who disbelieved after receiving clear proof are the worst creatures of all, while those who believe and do good deeds are the best. Hence the two receive totally different rewards. Since clear evidence was given to them formerly in their own religions through their own prophets, and since clear evidence was given to them again, full of life, in the form of a messenger from God reciting pure revelations, and offering them a clear and simple faith, then the true path becomes very clear. So does the destiny of unbelievers, as also that of believers.
Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the last messenger, and Islam, which he preached, the final message. Messengers from God came successively every time corruption spread in human life. Their objective was to make mankind return to righteousness. Those who deviated from the right path had one chance after another to correct their behaviour. But now that God had willed to close His messages to earth by this final, comprehensive, perfect and accomplished message, then the last chance was also given. This entailed either the adoption of faith leading to salvation, or the denial of faith ending in destruction. For disbelief now is an established evidence of unlimited evil, while accepting the faith is proof of goodness which goes to its absolute end.

Here is a brief note on the etiquette  of the wise person towards his creator:

Tuesday, 20 June 2017

Kitman and its significance in Islam !

Let's check the dictionary for the definition of this word:

كتمان [عامة] concealment
كتمان [مالية] Non - disclosure; Nondisclosure; Secrecy
كِتْمان [طبية] confidentiality
كتمان [سياسية] concealing, concealment
كتمان الخيانة [قانونية] Misprision of treason
بالكتمان الشديد [سياسية] The negotiation is still shrouded in great secrecy
كتمان الشهادة [مالية] ‎Non - disclosure
كتمان الشهادة ‏ [اسلامية] Withholding testimony
كتمان وقائع [قانونية] Disguise of facts
عدم كتمان السر [قانونية] Breach of secrecy
We find that this word used, Islamically, to describe who withhold his testimony, which is forbidden in Islam.


  • Keeping affairs secret is recommended to avoid envy

ll perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, and that Muhammad, sallAllahu 'alayhi wa sallam, is His Slave and Messenger.

Regarding urging people to be secretive about their affairs, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him,  said: 
استعينوا على إنجاح الحوائج بالكتمان ، فإن كل ذي نعمة محسود
Resort to secrecy for the fulfillment and success of your needs for, verily, every one who has a blessing is envied.” [reported by At-Tabaraani, Abu Nu'aym, and Al-Bayhaqi in Ash-Shu‘ab; narrated by Mu'aath] [Al-Albaani graded it Saheeh (sound)]
Allaah Knows best
  • What is the meaning of kitman from the Islamic perspective? 


This answer was kindly provided by brother Ahmad Sa`d, a member of "Islam online Ask About Islam (AAI) Editorial Staff"

"In reality, the word kitman comes from the verb katama, which means to hide, to conceal.
As it appears from the different English equivalents of the word, it touches on so many aspects - some of which are good and others are bad. 

Starting with the good aspects, we can say that a good type of kitman (concealment or hiding) is when you hide things still in process till they are complete. In our life, we may meet people who look with a malevolent eye to what we have, who are jealous that we have this and that, who are envious that we are blessed with this and that. Driven by their envy, hatred and dark intentions, they may plot for us or weave some traps. In order to be saved from their traps, we should keep hush-hush on things that are still in preparation. To this type of hiding, kitman is the best policy. In this regard, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, says in the hadith: “Seek fulfillment for things you want to finish in kitman.” استعينوا على إنجاح الحوائج بالكتمان ، فإن كل ذي نعمة محسود
He himself gave the best example of such a type in the early days of Islam. When the number of Muslims was still small and the community was still weak, there was a big need for concealment or secret call (kitman) so as to save the cause of da`wah (inviting people to Islam) from the fierce enemies.When migrating to Madinah, no one was aware of the time of the Prophet’s departure from Makkah except two individuals - his Companion and fellow traveler Abu Bakr, and their guide Ibn Urayqit. Of course, it helped them a lot to get saved from the traps of the pagans. 

Kitman is of much greater importance when we realize that it is a type of trust. When one discloses some of his secrets to you and asks you to keep them secret from others, then it is your duty to keep them secret as required by that person. Even between the two spouses, they have to practice kitman, i.e. they are in no way allowed to talk to others about the details or generalities of their conjugal life or intimate relations. Kitman may extend to cover the secrets of the whole state at the time of war and peace where a person who is loyal to his people cannot divulge to anyone or tell the enemy about his country’s affairs. 

Now, let’s turn to the bad type of kitman, namely, withholding or hiding. An example of this type is the image of a person whom Allah has gifted with knowledge so as to benefit people with it. However, such a person practices the kitman of knowledge by hiding it. To such type of people the Prophet hints in one of his hadiths in which he states that their knowledge will be like a bridle for them in Hell. 

Another ignominy of ignominies is that type of people whom Allah gives wealth and properties. Yet, they practice kitman of money, by withholding zakah and not offering charity. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, warns them: “Whomever Allah gives money but refrains from paying the zakah on it. This money will turn into a big snake, on the Day of Judgment, which will seize him by cheeks saying, ‘I am your money, I am your treasure’” Stinginess is thus a type of kitman, as is clear from the above. Hoarding goods and forcing people to buy them at high prices is also a type of kitman which should never be the trait of a Muslim.
The word, in its pure sense of a word, never stops to generate new meanings. It echoes in the mind and gives life to images hidden in the back corridors of the memory. But this is language, words from words."

God knows best !

Monday, 12 June 2017

Refuting " Myths of Muhammad:The Meccans were the First to Break Their Hudaibiya Treaty with Muhammad"

1- Muslims violated the treaty by refusing to send believing women back !

The Hudaybeya treaty was at the end signed stipulating that both sides will cease fighting, and if any of the Quraysh’s men were coming over to the Muslims, they had to send them back. And if a Muslim man came to the Quraysh’s side, they would not be sent back to Muhammed. In this, all parties agreed.
As the evidence shows, the Quraysh specified in the treaty that it was binding on men only. Women were not part of this. 

This was very evident too in  Abu Dawud Hadith 2, #2759, we find that the agreement of the treaty was in regards to men. Women were not part of this.
 "...Suhail then said: And that a MAN WILL NOT COME TO YOU FROM US, even if HE follows your religion, without you sending him back to us..."
وَعَلَى أَنَّهُ لاَ يَأْتِيكَ مِنَّا رَجُلٌ وَإِنْ كَانَ عَلَى دِينِكَ إِلاَّ رَدَدْتَهُ إِلَيْنَا
 Bare in mind that the incident of Umm Kulthum and treaty happened hours or days from each other. This is one of the reasons the Quraysh did not make a big fuss because the treaty agreement specified men only. They continued the treaty agreement for nearly two years. If the Quraysh did believe that the Prophet (p) broke the treaty, they would not have continued the treaty agreement for two years until the incident of Banu Bakr, and Banu Khuza’a tribe occurred. (Source 1, Source 2)

2- Muslims were murdering Meccans after the treaty signing and prior to the revenge killings between the allied tribes! 

The "Muslims" referred to here have a story:
When the Prophet (ﷺ) returned to Medina, Abu Basir, a new Muslim convert from Quraish came to him. The Infidels sent in his pursuit two men who said (to the Prophet (ﷺ) ), "Abide by the promise you gave us." So, the Prophet (ﷺ) handed him over to them. They took him out (of the City) till they reached Dhul-Hulaifa where they dismounted to eat some dates they had with them. Abu Basir said to one of them, "By Allah, O so-and-so, I see you have a fine sword." The other drew it out (of the scabbard) and said, "By Allah, it is very fine and I have tried it many times." Abu Basir said, "Let me have a look at it." When the other gave it to him, he hit him with it till he died, and his companion ran away till he came to Medina and entered the Mosque running. When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saw him he said, "This man appears to have been frightened." When he reached the Prophet (ﷺ) he said, "My companion has been murdered and I would have been murdered too." Abu Basir came and said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), by Allah, Allah has made you fulfill your obligations by your returning me to them (i.e. the Infidels), but Allah has saved me from them." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Woe to his mother! what excellent war kindler he would be, should he only have supporters." When Abu Basir heard that he understood that the Prophet (ﷺ) would return him to them again, so he set off till he reached the seashore.
 However, Islamophobes like to deceive the readers, as usual !

3- Muslims can break their oaths and make expiations !

We need to understand this in light of the other Hadith which condemn someone who breaks his word.
"The signs of the hypocrite are three: when he speaks he lies, when he promises he breaks his promise and when he is entrusted he betrays the trust." (Bukhari and Muslim)
Now you see it is not permissible for me to make an oath to someone and then break it. For example, lets say that I promised someone that I will definitely sell my car to him for 5,000 dollars and I gave him my word that I would not sell it to someone else. However, someone comes and offers me 6,000 dollars for the car. I can't go and say that the situation is better so I can break my oath.

You also have to understand the context of the Hadith. The reason why the Prophet gave the oath in the first place was because he did not have the means of providing the individual with any means of conveyance. However, then the Prophet did have the means after the war booty came and therefore the whole situation changed and therefore gave the means of conveyance to the people. This was for the benefit of everyone.

There are similar hadith regarding this issue and here is the commentary on them.......
The essence of all these Hadith is that if one comes to realize that, after taking an oath, his oath was wrong, then he must break the oaths. For instance, if one has taken an oath that he will drink alcohol, it will be obligatory for him to break his oath. Or if one takes an oath to not to do a thing which is desirable, or taken an oath to do something which is not desirable, then it will be desirable for him to break the oath. Similarly, if one takes an oath to not to do something permissible then the act of breaking the oath will also come in the category of permissible. 
The expiation of an oath is necessary. This can be done by means of feeding ten poor persons, or by providing clothes to a similar number of persons, or by setting a slave free. If one does not have the capacity to do any of the three acts, then he should observe fast for three days. (Riyad-us-Saliheen, Commentary of Hadith no. 1716,1717 and 1718, p1273)

So the Hadith needs to be understood properly. This does not give anyone the write to break an agreement between himself and another person.(Source)

Allah knows best !

Sunday, 11 June 2017

Did Lady Khadija, Prophet Muhammad's wife, tested Angel Gabriel's revelations ?

Some sources quote the following story:

Testing by Khadija

Ibn Ishaq recorded that when the spirit came another time, Khadija tested him:
Isma`il b. Abu Hakim, a freedman of the family of al-Zubayr, told me on Khadija's authority that she said to the apostle of God, 'O son of my uncle, are you able to tell me about your visitant, when he comes to you?" He replied that he could, and she asked him to tell her when he came. So when Gabriel came to him, as he was wont, the apostle said to Khadija, 'This is Gabriel who has just come to me.' `Get up, O son of my uncle,' she said, `and sit by my left thigh.' The apostle did so, and she said, `Can you see him?' `Yes,' he said. She said, `Then turn around and sit on my right thigh.' He did so, and she said, `Can you see him?' When he said that he could she asked him to move and sit in her lap. When he had done this she again asked if he could see him, and when he said yes, she disclosed her form "tahassarat" and cast aside her veil while the apostle was sitting in her lap. Then she said, `Can you see him?' And he replied, `No.' She said, `O son of my uncle, rejoice and be of good heart, by God he is an angel and not a satan.' (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, tr. Guillaume, 1967, p. 107)
She was covering her face, "tahassarat" means to expose her face. The thought is that an angel respects a woman's modesty, while devils don't.

Chain of narration examined: 

The chain of narration is severed. Isma`il b. Abu Hakim didn't hier from the mother of the believers, Khadija. She died 3 years before Hijrah while he died 130 H. Another chain of narration says that Fatimah bint Hussein heard the story from Khadija, however she didn't hear from her either so, the chain is cut

الرواية هي من سيرة ابن هشام و هي ضعيفة سندا لعلة الانقطاع بين اسماعيل بن ابي حكيم و بين ام المؤمنين خديجة رضي الله عنها . فاسماعيل بن ابي حكيم توفي سنة 130 هجرية و اما خديجة رضي الله عنها فتوفيت في السنة العاشرة من البعثة اي 3 قبل الهجرة :
This is Imam Albani's comments saying the chain of narration is severed:

.أولاً : يحيى بن سليمان بن نضلة المديني فيه كلام من جهة حفظه ، قال ابن
عدي (7/2710) :
"قال ابن خراش : لا يسوى فلساً . (قال ابن عدي) : يروي عن مالك وأهل
المدينة أحاديث [عامتها] مستقيمة" .
وقال ابن أبي حاتم (4/2/154) عن أبيه :
"شيخ ، حدث أياماً ثم توفي" .
ويعني أنه في المرتبة الثالثة عنده ؛ أي : يكتب حديثه وينظر فيه ؛ أي : أنه
يستشهد به ؛ لأنه قبل المرتبة الرابعة وهي من قيل فيه : متروك الحديث ، أو
كذاب ، ونحو ذلك .
ولما ذكره ابن حبان في "الثقات " (9/269) قال :
"يخطئ ويهم " .
قلت : فمثله لا يحتج بحديثه ؛ إذا لم يتابع كما يفيده قول الطبراني عقبه :
"تفرد به يحيى بن سليمان " .
فكيف به وقد خولف ، وهو قولي :
ثانياً : فقال ابن إسحاق في "السيرة" (1/257) ومن طريقه الطبري في
"التاريخ " (1/208) ، وكذا البيهقي في "الدلائل " (2/151 - 152) : وحدثني
إسماعيل بن أبي حكيم مولى آل الزبير : أنه حدثه عن خديجة رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا ...
الحديث نحوه . قال ابن إسحاق : وقد حدثت عبد الله بن حسن هذا الحديث ؛
فقال : قد سمعت أمي فاطمة بنت حسين تحدث بهذا الحديث عن خديجة ،
إلا أني سمعتها تقول :
أدخلتْ رسول الله صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بينها وبين درعها ؛ فذهب عند ذلك جبريل ، فقالت
لرسول الله صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : إن هذا لملك وما هو بشيطان .
قلت : وهذا أصح من الأول ، رجاله ثقات ، ولكنه منقطع من الوجهين ؛ فإن
إسماعيل بن أبي حكيم ؛ ثقة من السادسة عند الحافظ ؛ فهو تابع تابعي ، وفاطمة
بنت حسين ؛ فهي تابعية لم تدرك خديجة رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا ، وقد أشار شيخ الإسلام
ابن تيمية إلى ضعف الحديث في رسالته "لباس المرأة في الصلاة"
سلسلة الأحاديث الضعيفة" رواية 6097
The story also contradicts the authentic one mentioned in Saheeh Albukhari'
.....Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, "Cover me! Cover me!" They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, "I fear that something may happen to me." Khadija replied, "Never! By Allah, Allah will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your kith and kin, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guests generously and assist the deserving calamity-afflicted ones." Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal.... (Sahih Bukhari)
 About Ibn Ishaq and similar books:
These books contain some strange or awkward narrations which are not considered authentic, even by those who narrated them. So, these books are not authoritative because they contain many reports with incomplete chains of narration. Such history books at his time did not pay attention to tracing the chain of transmitters for their stories. Ibn Is’haaq’s specialty was history/seerah therefore he was abandoned by the scholars of hadeeth (such as Bukhari and Muslim) when it came to narrating hadeeth and a reason for this might be because he might include those weaker/severed narrations while he narrated the hadeeth.
And Allah knows best

Monday, 20 February 2017

Re: Brigitte Gabriel:A Brief History of Islam (1400 shocking years of Islam in 5 min, the undeniable truth) refuted -Part 2

Brigitte Gabriel claimed: 
"Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) started borrowing a lot from the old testament, to make his religion more palpable to the Jews: To make it a lot similar. This is why you saw a lot of similarities between Judaism and Islam. For example: Jews don't eat pigs, Muslims don't eat pigs. Jews pray few times a day, Muslims pray few times a day. Jews fast on Yon-Kipper, Muslims fast on Ramadan."
The simple fact that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was illiterate, actually refutes her whole notion. However, let's examine this in more details:

Many critics allege that Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) learnt quran and/or adapted it from previous scriptures or revelations. This has been refuted by muslims; See this refutation by Zakir Naik, but now we will focus only on some points:
It is true that the Prophet did have religious discussions with the Jews but they took place in Madinah more than 13 years after the revelation of the Qur’an had started. The allegation that these Jews  were the source is perverse, since in these discussions Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was performing the roles of a teacher and of a preacher while inviting them to embrace Islam and pointing out that they had deviated from their true teachings of Monotheism. Several of these Jews later embraced Islam.
All historical records available show that Muhummad (pbuh) had made only three trips outside Makkah before his Prophethood:
At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Madinah.
Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria.
At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria.
It is highly imaginary to assume that the Qur’an resulted from the occasional chats and meetings with the Christians or Jews from any of the above three trips.


The day-to-day life of the Prophet was an open book for all to see. In fact a revelation came asking people to give the Prophet (pbuh) privacy in his own home. If the Prophet had been meeting people who told him what to say as a revelation from God, this would not have been hidden for very long.
The extremely prominent Quraish nobles who followed the Prophet and accepted Islam were wise and intelligent men who would have easily noticed anything suspicious about the way in which the Prophet brought the revelations to them - more so since the Prophetic mission lasted 23 years.


The enemies of the Prophet kept a close watch on him in order to find proof for their claim that he was a liar - they could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had a secret rendezvous with particular Jews.
It is inconceivable that any human author of the Qur’an would have accepted a situation in which he received no credit whatsoever for originating the Qur’an.
Thus, historically and logically it cannot be established that there was a human source for the Qur’an.


The theory that Muhummad (pbuh) authored the Qur’an or copied from other sources can be disproved by the single historical fact that he was illiterate.
Allah testifies Himself in the Qur’an
In Surah Al-Ankabut chapter no.29 verse 48
"And thou was not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: in that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted."
[Al-Qur’an 29:48]
Allah (swt) knew that many would doubt the authenticity of the Qur’an and would ascribe it to Prophet Muhummad (pbuh). Therefore Allah in His Divine Wisdom chose the last and final Messenger to be an ‘Ummi’, i.e. unlettered, so that the talkers of vanity would not then have the slightest justification to doubt the Prophet. The accusation of his enemies that he had copied the Qur’an from other sources and rehashed it all in a beautiful language might have carried some weight, but even this flimsy pretence has been deprived to the unbeliever and the cynic.
Allah reconfirms in the Qur’an in Surah Al A’raf chapter 7 verse 157:
"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) in the Law and the Gospel"
The prophecy of coming of the unlettered Prophet (pbuh) is also mentioned in the Bible in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12.
"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned."
[Isaiah 29:12]
The Qur’an testifies in no less than four different places that the Prophet (pbuh) was illiterate. It is also mentioned in Surah A’raf chapter 7 verse 158 and in Surah Al-Jumu’a chapter 62 verse 2.


Similarities between the Qur’an and the Bible does not necessarily mean that the former has been copied from the latter. In fact it gives evidence that both of them are based on a common third source; all divine revelations came from the same source - the one universal God. No matter what human changes were introduced into some of these Judeo-Christian and other older religious scriptures that had distorted their originality, there are some areas that have remained free from distortion and thus are common to many religions.
It is true that there are some similar parallels between the Qur’an and the Bible but this is not sufficient to accuse Muhummad (pbuh) of compiling or copying from the Bible. The same logic would then also be applicable to teachings of Christianity and Judaism and thus one could wrongly claim that Jesus (pbuh) was not a genuine Prophet (God forbid) and that he simply copied from the Old Testament.
The similarities between the two signify a common source that is one true God and the continuation of the basic message of monotheism and not that the later prophets have plagiarised from the previous prophets.
If someone copies during an examination he will surely not write in the answer sheet that he has copied from his neighbour or Mr. XYZ. Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) gave due respect and credit to all the previous prophets (pbut). The Qur’an also mentions the various revelations given by Almighty God to different prophets.


Four revelations of Allah (swt) are mentioned by name in the Qur’an: the Taurah, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the Qur’an.
Taurah, the revelation i.e. the Wahi given to Moosa (a. s.) i.e. Moses (pbuh).
Zaboor, the revelation i.e. the Wahi given to Dawood (a.s.) i.e. David (pbuh).
Injeel, the revelation i.e. the Wahi given to Isa (A.S.) ie. Jesus (pbuh).
‘Al-Qur’an’, the last and final Wahi i.e. revelation given to the last and final Messenger Muhammad (pbuh).
It is an article of faith for every Muslim to believe in all the Prophets of God and all revelations of God. However, the present day Bible has the first five books of the Old Testament attributed to Moses and the Psalms attributed to David. Moreover the New Testament or the four Gospels of the New Testament are not the Taurah, the Zaboor or the Injeel, which the Qur’an refers to. These books of the present day Bible may partly contain the word of God but these books are certainly not the exact, accurate and complete revelations given to the prophets.
The Qur’an presents all the different prophets of Allah as belonging to one single brotherhood; all had a similar prophetic mission and the same basic message. Because of this, the fundamental teachings of the major faiths cannot be contradictory, even if there has been a considerable passage of time between the different prophetic missions, because the source of these missions was one: Almighty God, Allah. This is why the Qur’an says that the differences which exist between various religions are not the responsibility of the prophets, but of the followers of these prophets who forgot part of what they had been taught, and furthermore, misinterpreted and changed the scriptures. The Qur’an cannot therefore be seen as a scripture which competes with the teachings of Moses, Jesus and the other prophets. On the contrary, it confirms, completes and perfects the messages that they brought to their people.
Another name for the Qur’an is the ‘The Furqan’ which means the criteria to judge the right from the wrong, and it is on the basis of the Qur’an that we can decipher which part of the previous scriptures can be considered to be the word of God.


These evidences are sufficient to conclude that the Qur’an was not copied from the Bible, but that the Qur’an is the Furqaan - ‘the Criteria’ to judge right from wrong and it should be used to decipher which portion of the Bible may be considered as the Word of God.
The Qur’an itself testifies in Surah Sajda chapter 32 verse 1 to 3
Alif Laam Meem.
(This is) the revelation of the Book in which there is no doubt – from the Lord of the Worlds.
Or do they say, ‘He has forged it’? Nay, it is the Truth from thy Lord, that thou mayest admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee: in order that they may receive guidance." [Al-Qur’an 32:1-3]

More palatable to Jews ?!

Quran clearly states those who die while not believing that “There is no true god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger (Prophet) of God” or are not Muslim will lose Paradise forever and will be sent to Hellfire, as God has said:
" And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him and he will be one of the losers in the Hereafter. " (Quran, 3:85)
And as He has said:
" Those who have disbelieved and died in disbelief, the earth full of gold would not be accepted from any of them if it were offered as a ransom.  They will have a painful punishment, and they will have no helpers. " (Quran, 3:91)

God is very clear in this aspect.

Saturday, 18 February 2017

Re: Brigitte Gabriel:A Brief History of Islam (1400 shocking years of Islam in 5 min, the undeniable truth) refuted -Part 1

Brigitte Gabriel claimed: 
"He (Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him) started preaching in his own city Mecca. He tried to recruit sons and followers to spread his religion and he tried for twelve years and failed. And after twelve years he was only able to recruit his immediate family and friends. So he decided if I go to Medina, which was the Jewish hub of Arabia, the business hub where the Jews lived: If I go there and preach my religion to them if they respect me that will buy me respect and stature with my own people who will then respect me."
The truth is that the Prophet and his people were tortured, murdered and eventually they were forcefully exiled out of Makkah. Even when the Muslims settled to get on with their lives they were still hunted down to be killed just for abandoning their former polytheistic faith:
Having fully perceived that Muhammad (Peace be upon him) could never be desisted from his Call, Quraish, in a desperate attempt to quell the tidal wave of the Call, resorted to other cheap means acting from base motives:
  1. Scoffing, degrading, ridiculing, belying and laughter-instigating cheap manners, all of which levelled at the new converts in general, and the person of Muhammad (Peace be upon him) in particular, with the aim of dragging the spirit of despair into their morale, and slackening their ardent zealotry. They used to denounce the Prophet (Peace be upon him) as a man possessed by a jinn, or an insane person:
And they say: O you [Muhammad (Peace be upon him) ] to whom the Dhikr (the Qur'an) has been sent down! Verily, you are a mad man. [15:6]

or a liar practising witchcraft,

And they (Arab pagans) wonder that a warner [Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) ] has come to them from among themselves! And the disbelievers say: This [Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) ] is a sorcerer, a liar. [38:4].

Their eyes would also look at the good man as if they would eat him up ' , or trip him up, or disturb him from the position of stability or firmness. They used all sorts of terms of abuse madman' or one possessed by an evil spirit', and so on:

And verily, those who disbelieve would almost make you slip with their eyes through hatreds when they hear the Reminder (the Qur'an), and they say: Verily, he [Muhammad (Peace be upon him) ] is a madman! [68:51]

Amongst the early converts, there was a group who had unfortunately no strong clan at their back to support them. These innocent souls were ridiculed and jeered in season and out of season. Referring to such people, the highbrow Quraish aristocrats used repeatedly to ask the Prophet (Peace be upon him), with jest and scorn:

Allah has favoured from amongst us? [6:53]

And Allah said:

Does not Allah know best those who are grateful? [6:53]

The wicked used to laugh at the righteous in many ways:
  1. They would inwardly laugh at their Faith, because they felt themselves so superior.
  2. In public places, when the righteous passed, they used to insult and wink at them,
  3. In their own houses, they would run them down.
  4. Whenever and wherever they saw them, they reproached and called them fools who had lost their way. In the Hereafter, all these tricks and falsehoods will be shown for what they are, and the tables will be reversed. Allâh had said:

Verily! (During the worldly life) those who committed crimes used to laugh at those who believed; and whenever they passed by them, used to wink one to another (in mockery); and when they returned to their own people, they would return jesting; and when they saw them, they said: Verily! These have indeed gone astry!' But they (disbelievers, sinners) had not been sent as watchers over them (the believers). [83:29-33]

  1. Distorting Muhammad's teachings, evoking ambiguities, circulating false propaganda; forging groundless allegations concerning his doctrines, person and character, and going to excess in such a manner in order to screen off any scope of sound contemplation from the public. With respect to the Qur'an, they used to allege that it was:
Tales of the ancients, which he [Muhammad (Peace be upon him) ] has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon. [25:5]

The iniquitous went on ceaselessly inculcating in people's ears that the Qur'an was not a true Revelation:

This (the Qur'an) is nothing but a lie that he [Muhammad (Peace be upon him) ] has invented, and others have helped him at it. [25:4]

The wicked would also attribute to men of Allâh just such motives and springs of action as they themselves would be guilty of in such circumstances. The pagans and those who were hostile to the revelation of Allâh and Islam, could not understand how such wonderful verses could flow from the tongue of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) without having someone to teach, and claimed:

It is only a human being who teaches him. [16:103]

They also raised another baseless and superficial objection:

Why does this Messenger [Muhammad (Peace be upon him) ] eat food and walk about in the markets (like ourselves)? [25:7]

They were sadly ignorant and painfully at fault for they could not perceive that a teacher for mankind is one who shares their nature, mingles intheir life, is acquainted with their doings, and sympathises with their joys and sorrows.
The Noble Qur'an has vehemently refuted their charges and allegations and has explained that the utterances of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) are the Revelations of the Lord and their nature and contents provide a bold challenge to those who attribute his Prophetic expressions to some base origin, at times to the mental throes of a dreaming reformer, at others to the effusion of a frenzied poet or the incoherent drivelling of an insane man.
  1. Contrasting the Qur'an with the mythology of the ancients in order to distract people's interests from Allâh's Words. Once An-Nadr bin Harith addressed the Quraishites in the following manner: O Quraish! You have experienced an unprecedented phenomenon before which you have so far been desperately helpless. Muhammad (Peace be upon him) grew up here among you and always proved to be highly obliging, the most truthful and trustworthy young man. However, later on when he reached manhood, he began to preach a new faith alien to your society, and opposed to your liking so you began to denounce him at a time as a sorcerer, at another as a soothsayer, a poet, or even an insane man. I swear by Allâh he is not anyone of those. He is not interested in blowing on knots as magicians are, nor do his words belong to the world of soothsaying; he is not a poet either, for his mentality is not that of a rambler, nor is he insane because he has never been witnessed to develop any sort of hallucinations or insinuations peculiar to madmen. O people of Quraish, it is really a serious issue and I recommend that you reconsider your attitude.
It is narrated that An-Nadr, at a later stage, headed for Heerah where he got conversant with the traditions of the kings of Persia and the accounts of people like Rustum and Asphandiar, and then returned to Makkah. Here he would always shadow the Messenger's steps in whatever audiences the later held to preach the new faith and to caution people against Allâh's wrath. An-Nadr would directly follow the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and narrate to the same audience long tales about those people of Persia. He would then always append his talk with a question cunningly inquiring if he did not outdo Muhammad (Peace be upon him). Ibn Abbas (May Allah be pleased with him) related that An-Nadr used to purchase songstresses who would through their bodily charms and songs entice away from Islam anyone developing the least attachment to the Prophet (Peace be upon him); in this regard, Allâh says:
And of mankind is he who purchases idle talks (i.e. music, singing, etc.) to mislead (men) from the Path of Allâh. [31:6]
  1. In a fresh attempt to dissuade Muhammad (Peace be upon him) from his principled stand, Quraish invited him to compromise on his teachings and come to terms with their pre-Islamic practices in such a way that he quits some of his religion and the polytheists do the same. Allâh, the All-High says:
They wish that you should compromise (in religion out of courtesy) with them, so they (too) would compromise with you. [68:9].

On the authority of Ibn Jareer and At-Tabarani, the idolaters offered that Muhammad (Peace be upon him) worship their gods for a year, and they worship his Lord for a year. In another version, they said: If you accept our gods, we would worship yours. Ibn Ishaq related that Al-Aswad bin Al-Muttalib, Al-Waleed bin Al-Mugheerah, Omaiyah bin Khalaf and Al-As bin Wa'il As-Sahmy, a constellation of influential polytheists, intercepted the Prophet (Peace be upon him) while he was circumambulating in the Holy Sanctuary, and offered him to worship that they worshipped, and they worship that he worshipped so that, according to them, both parties would reach a common denominator. They added Should the Lord you worship prove to be better than ours, then it will be so much better for us, but if our gods proved to be better than yours, then you would have benefit from it. Allâh, the Exalted, was decisive on the spot and revealed the following Chapter:

Say: O Al-Kâfirûn (disbelievers in Allâh, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in His Messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, in Al-Qadar, etc.)! I worship not that which you worship, nor will you worship that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping, nor will you worship that which I worship. To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism).(Safy Arrahman, the sealed nectar)

The failed plot:

Now that all the schemes and conspiracof Quraish had failed, they resorted to their old practices of persecution and inflicting tortures on the Muslims in a more serious and brutal manner than ever before. They also began to nurse the idea of killing the Prophet (Peace be upon him). In fact, contrary to their expectations, this new method and this very idea served indirectly to consolidate the Call to Islam and support it with the conversion of two staunch and mighty heroes of Makkah, i.e. Hamzah bin 'Abdul-Muttalib and 'Umar bin Al-Khattab (May Allah be pleased with him). 


Six Madinese who embraced Islam in the pilgrimage season in the eleventh year of Prophethood. They promised to communicate the Message of Islam to their townsfolk. 

 The following year, on the occasion of the pilgrimage, there came a group of twelve disciples ready to acknowledge Muhammad as their Prophet. They avowed their faith in Muhammad (Peace be upon him) as a Prophet and swore: “We will not worship any one but one Allah; we will not steal; neither will we commit adultery, nor kill our children; we will not utter slander, intentionally forging falsehood and we will not disobey you in any just matter.” When they had taken the pledge, Muhammad (Peace be upon him) said: “He who carries it out, Allâh will reward him; and who neglects anything and is afflicted in this world, it may prove redemption for him in the Hereafter; and if the sin remains hidden from the eyes of the men and no grief comes to him, then his affair is with Allâh. He may forgive him or He may not.” 


 After the Pledge (in the form of an oath had been taken) the Prophet (Peace be upon him) sent to Yathrib (Madinah) Mus‘ab bin ‘Umair Al-‘Abdari, (May Allah be pleased with him) the first Muslim ‘ambassador’ to teach the people there the doctrines of Islam, give them practical guidance and make attempts at propagating the Islam among those who still professed polytheism. 

The Second ‘Aqabah Pledge

The next year, thirteenth of Prophethood, June 622 A.D., during the pilgrimage season, over seventy converts from Madinah came in the trail of their polytheist people to perform the rituals of pilgrimage in Makkah. The oft-repeated question amongst them was “Isn’t it high time we protect Muhammad instead of leaving him forsaken, deserted and stumbling in the hillocks of Makkah?” 

So, we have examined why Prophet Muhammad migrated to Madinah with God's permission and the circumstances that surrounded this event.

Tuesday, 7 February 2017

Mudejar: Spanish Muslim community

Mudejar, Spanish Mudéjar, (from Arabic mudajjan, “permitted to remain”),الـ موديخار/ الـمُدجَّـنون " any of the Muslims who remained in Spain after the Reconquista, or Christian reconquest, of the Iberian Peninsula (11th–15th century). 
In return for the payment of a poll tax, the Mudejars—most of whom converted to Islam after the Arab invasion of Spain in the 8th century—were a protected minority, allowed to retain their own religion, language, and customs. With leaders assigned by the local Christian princes, they formed separate communities and quarters in larger towns, where they were subject to their own Muslim laws.
The Mudejars were highly skilled craftsmen who created an extremely successful mixture of Arabic and Spanish artistic elements. The Mudejar style is marked by the frequent use of the horseshoe arch and the vault, and it distinguishes the church and palace architecture of Toledo, Córdoba, Sevilla (Seville), and Valencia. The Mudejar hand is also evident in the ornamentation of wood and ivory, metalwork, ceramics, and textiles; and their lustre pottery is second only to that of the Chinese.
By the 13th century, the Mudejars, especially those in the kingdom of Castile, had abandoned Arabic for the Castilian spoken by their Christian neighbours. They continued to write in Arabic, however, giving rise to their characteristic aljamiado literature.
Although valued for their artistic and economic contributions, the Mudejars faced increasing difficulties as Christian princes strengthened their grip on Spain, imposing an intolerable tax burden on the Mudejars and demanding forced labour and military service from them. The Mudejars also were expected to wear distinctive clothing and by the 14th century were forbidden to pray in public. When Granada, the last Muslim stronghold in Spain, fell in 1492, the situation of the Mudejars deteriorated even more rapidly. They were now forced to leave the country or convert to Christianity. Those who stayed and accepted baptism, the Moriscos (Spanish: “Little Moors”), often did not truly convert and practiced their Islamic faith secretly. Christian authorities continued to persecute them, and by 1614 the last of an estimated 3,000,000 Spanish Muslims had been expelled from the peninsula.

SHARIAH-The Islamic Law

What is ‘SHARIAH’?
Well Shariah is the Islamic Law. It is the religious legal system that governs the political,social,economical, and moral duties of faithful Muslims.The sources of Islam on which all beliefs, principles and rulings are based are represented by the two Revelations: the Qur’an and Sunnah. This is what is implied by Islam being a divinely-revealed religion: its pillars are based on infallible texts that were sent down from heaven, which are represented in the verses of the Holy Qur’an and the texts of the saheeh Prophetic Sunnah. From these two sources the scholars derived other principles on which rulings may be based. Some scholars called them the sources of sharee’ah or the sources of Islamic legislation. They are: ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus) and qiyaas (analogy). Imam al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: No one has any right whatsoever to say that something is halaal or haraam except on the basis of knowledge, and the basis of knowledge is a text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah, or ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus) or qiyaas (analogy).
But, Unfortunately the term Shariah gets people excited. And as soon as the term Shariah is mentioned People’s imagination  goes to hands and heads getting chopped off. Thanks to Media!
Time for Education
Out of the 6236 verses of the Quran, less than 9% are about law or legal issues.When analysing a typical work of Islamic “law”, we can see that 65% of it is not even “law,” instead it is personal custom and devotion.If we took the 35% of Islamic legal compendiums dealing with contracts, family law, and state power as a derived from the Quran, that would be only 2.45% of the Quran. Only 5% of those works deals with issues of state power, which if one claimed was being drawn from the Quran directly would account for only 0.35% of the verses of the Quran.
So don’t fall into propaganda. Learn and educate yourself by directly going to Islamic Sources and not to any Polemical and Orientalists works.
Addendum: These charts were created after analyzing the number of verses on law, approximated by most classical scholars to be 500 in number, then comparing those on a granular basis to the overall number of verse 6236. The percentages for the categories used, other than law and related topics, are approximations due to the overlap in topics. The categories themselves are taken from Ibn Ashour’s introduction to his al-Tahrir wal-Tanweer, an extensive exegesis of the Quran. The categories used in the second slide are found in almost every standard work of Islamic law (fiqh) and the percentages here are approximations based on chapter length and topical coverage in those works as a whole.

Wednesday, 25 January 2017

The Incoherence of William Lane Craig


William Lane Craig is without a doubt one of the top representatives for Christianity alive today. With countless debates against renowned opponents, he does a very good job thrashing the atheists who debate him. Dr.Craig’s primary argument against atheists for the existence of God is what he calls the “Kalam Cosmological Argument” (KCA for short from now onwards).

The KCA in Dr.Craig's words:
P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C1. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

In this topic I will attempt to show why the KCA is incompatible with the Christian conception of God. This is because the KCA reaches conclusions that fundamentally contradict the Christian faith. Most significantly the conclusion that God is changeless.

The KCA and the Changelessness of God

One of the conclusions that follows from the KCA is that God is changeless. This is mainly because the KCA depends on the fact that the world changes in order to prove that the world began to exist (which is the second premise of the argument). Three reasons for the emergence of all changes will be briefly listed below:

-1- “Change” necessitates a new beginning. For a being that exists, "change" means a transition from one state (state-1) to another (state-2). When state-1 terminates, state-2 emerges. According to the first premise of the KCA, everything that emerges into existence is created. And since state-2 began to exist, state-2 is created. Thus to claim that God changes, is to claim that God is attributed with states that come and go. Those emerging states would be (according to the KCA) created. For the claimant, this means that God is at least in part created.

-2- It’s impossible for an infinity to come to an end, and the past ends with the present moment. From this we can know that the number of events (or changes) in the past is finite. As such there was a “first event” that emerged into existence. According to the first premise of the KCA, this first event would be in need of a Creator since it began to exist. If this creator was another event then it would not solve the problems of contingency, but would only push the goalposts back a step and extend the problem (this creator-event would itself be contingent upon a prior creator since it began to exist). Therefore the true Creator cannot be an event.

-3- Because a changing being accepts a multiplicity of states (either state-1 or state-2… etc.) then those states do not exist necessarily in of themselves. The first state terminated (it is succeeded by its non-existence) and the second began to exist (it is preceded by its non-existence). Therefore to claim that God changes, is to claim that He is attributed with states that do not exist necessarily. This by extension means God Himself does not exist necessarily. What follows from such a claim is that God is created.

In short, it would be hypocritical to claim that the world is emergent because it changes, but to then turn around and maintain that God is both eternal and changing. For this reason, one of the most fundamental conclusions of the KCA is that God is changeless.

The Incompatibility of Christianity

Dr.Craig understands that the KCA necessitates a changeless Creator, so the above is not the point of contention.

We find Dr.Craig writing in his article on the KCA: “Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless

And in the same article he writes: "But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless"

concluding his article with: “Ghazali’s cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.

However, the changelessness of God is very problematic for Christianity since Christians believe in an incarnation. So despite Dr.Craig’s admission that God is changeless, we find him preaching that the changeless Creator changed into a man, who walked and talked with the humans on earth, ate, slept, died and was resurrected.

How does Dr.Craig resolve this obvious contradiction between the KCA and Christianity? He does this by proposing that the changeless Creator entered time after creating time, and could since then change. Dr.Craig says in 1:07 of this video: “God is timeless without creation, and He is temporal since the moment of creation. So the decision to create on God’s part, is a decision to enter into time…

And in the article he claims: “His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.

Unfortunately Dr.Craig’s response does not solve anything. Dr.Craig argues that God must enter into time for God to change. However, this “entry into time” (which is supposedly the prerequisite to change) is itself an emergent temporal event. After all, a transition from timelessness to temporality is a change. So you’re still left with the exact same problem; the changing changeless Creator. In other words, since “entry to time” is a change, what Dr.Craig’s response boils down to is that “the changeless God must change before He can change” and that’s begging the question if anything at all.


The only way to maintain the KCA, is to believe that God is absolutely changeless. This is impossible on the Christian worldview, since Christians believe in the incarnation. So if Dr. William Lane Craig is consistent, he would either abandon the KCA or abandon his Christianity.