More Groans for Shabir Ally

Shabir Ally could provide no greater proof of his deceptive and dishonest handling of sources than what he did to my own words during the Q&A section of his debate with my colleague David Wood (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvBB8b4VF6M). After referring to the following hadiths,

Chapter 8: THROWING OF NON-BELIEVERS IN HELL-FIRE FOR BELIEVERS AS DIVINE GRACE AND MERCY

Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your RESCUE from Hell-Fire. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6665 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=037&translator=2&start=0&number=6665)

Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit IN HIS STEAD a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. ‘Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6666)

Abu Burda reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with AS HEAVY SINS AS A MOUNTAIN, and Allah would FORGIVE THEM and He would PLACE IN THEIR STEAD the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah’s Apostle? I said: Yes. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6668)

Superiority of the believers in the Oneness of Allah and the punishment of the Jews and Christians

8) Narrated Abu Musa: Allah’s Messenger said: On the Day of Resurrection, my Ummah (nation) will be gathered into three groups. One sort will enter Paradise without rendering an account (of their deeds). Another sort will be reckoned an easy account and admitted into Paradise. Yet another sort will come bearing on their backs heaps of sins like great mountains. Allah will ask the angels though He knows best about them: Who are these people? They will reply: They are humble slaves of yours. He will say: Unload the sins from them and put the same over the Jews and Christians: then let the humble slaves get into Paradise by virtue of My Mercy.

(This Hadith IS SOUND and mentioned in Mustadrak of Hakim). (110 Hadith Qudsi (Sacred Hadith), translated by Syed Masood-ul-Hasan, revision and commentaries by Ibrahim m. Kunna [Darussalam Publishers and Distributors], pp. 19-20; capital and underline emphasis ours)

I asked Ally whether he is able to reconcile the justice of THIS perverted concept of substitutionary atonement without throwing his sources under the bus. Ally did as I predicted, since he ended up calling into question the veracity of Sahih Muslim, despite the fact that Islam’s greatest scholars have claimed this to be a collection of narrations whose authenticity have been rigorously authenticated. In fact, some of the Muslim scholars have even gone as far as to argue that in some respect Sahih Muslim is actually superior to the hadith collection of Sahih al-Bukhari!(1)

“… Although Sahih al-Bukhari is the most reliable collection of Ahadith, however, Sahih Muslim has certain aspects of superiority. Imam Muslim adhered strictly to most of the principles of the Science of Hadith which were somehow at some places ignored by his teacher Imam Bukhari. Imam Muslim accepted for his collection only such Ahadith which had been transmitted with an unbroken chain of reliable narrators, free from all defects and were in perfect harmony with the narrations of other narrators. He has recorded only those ahadith which were transmitted at least by two different transmitters from two different Companions. Imam Bukhari has sometimes used the Kunyah (surname) of the narrators and sometimes their names. Imam Muslim avoided this confusion. Imam Muslim is also particular in pointing out the slightest difference in the text of the narrations. Imam Bukhari has fragmented most of the Ahadith and presented the portions under different chapters, while Imam Muslim presented them as a whole narration. So, the works of both Imams provide different approaches for the scholars and readers of Ahadith.” (The Translation of the Meanings of Summarized Sahih Muslim, Publisher’s Note, Volume 1, p. ii; bold emphasis ours)

And:

“Imam Muslim compiled many books and treatises on Hadith, the most important of his works is the compilation of the Hadith collection Al-Jami‘ As-Sahih, which is famous by the name of Sahih Muslim. Some scholars of Hadith opine that in some respects IT IS THE BEST AND MOST AUTHENTIC COLLECTION of Ahadith. Imam Muslim laboriously collected 300,000 Ahadith, but after critical study, he selected only 4,000 Ahadith for this collection…

“Many students learned the Science of Hadith from Imam Muslim. Those who became famous and occupied a prominent position are: Abu Hatim Razi, Musa bin Harun, Ahmad bin Salamah, Abu ‘Isa Tirmidhi, Abu Bakr bin Khuzaimah, Abu ‘Awanah and Hafiz Dhahbi.” (Ibid., p. v; bold and capital emphasis ours).

This means that these traditions thoroughly met Imam Muslim’s stringent criteria of authenticity, which also indicates that this renowned hadith scholar was fully convinced that these were actual statements uttered by Muhammad. Therefore, Ally is going to have to do a lot more than to simply brush aside these traditions on the grounds that they somehow contradict the Quran, since the fact still remains that according to the very strict criteria employed by Imam Muslim they are genuine sayings of the historical Muhammad (that is, as far as Islamic historiography and hadith criticism are concerned). As such, these narrations are still binding upon Sunni Muslims which Ally claims to be.

He then proceeded to go on a tirade against the Christian concept of atonement, which is nothing more than a red herring on his part. To make matters worse, he even had the audacity to twist my own words. Note what he said:

“And where is the justice in any system of justice? YOU YOURSELF SAID ITS KIND OF A PERVERTED JUSTICE IF ONE PERSON SUFFERS IN THE PLACE OF ANOTHER.”

Did you just catch what he did? He falsely accused me of saying that it is a perversion of justice for one person to suffer in the place of another, WHEN THAT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT I SAID, since I began my question my plainly telling Ally that the Quran NOWHERE denies the possibility of a person bearing the sins of another, but rather denies that a sinful person who is burdened with his own sins is able to do so. I then said that this then opens the door for Jesus doing so since he is without sin, and therefore without any burdens.

It is clear that my words were directed to Muhammad’s travesty of the doctrine of atonement, NOT TO THE CONCEPT OF ATONEMENT IN GENERAL. As anyone hearing the exchange can personally verify, I was condemning Muhammad’s teaching that Allah would torture Jews and Christians in hell as a ransom for all the wickedness and sins committed by Muslims as a perversion, since this means that Allah is punishing Jews and Christians for their own sins AND THE SINS OF MUHAMMADANS! Now that is truly despicable and perverted!

In fact, even a convert to Islam named Paul Williams could see that Ally deliberately twisted my words since he left the following comments to a youtube video produced by another shameless deceiver name YahyaSnow where he claims that I ended up embarrassing myself since Ally took my own words and turned them against me (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVlL7vjphpk&lc=z12bhhc41wndcftek23hc1fijuiudfvvn):

Pcc B 19 hours ago

that’s not quite fair on Sam. When he refers to ‘perverted concept of substitutionary atonement’ HE IS SPEAKING OF THE ISLAMIC REJECTION OF IT – not his own view. I don’t think Sam misspoke here (Capital emphasis ours)

In light of the foregoing, can there be any doubt left that Ally is indeed a liar and deceiver who has no shame in twisting and perverting the statements of scholars and apologists in order to score cheap debate points? What makes this rather unfortunate for Ally is that he thinks he can get away with his gross perversion and misquotation of people, but not any longer since we will continue to call him out on any and all lies and deliberate manhandling of any source he references anytime he opens his mouth.

So Ally, you have been forewarned!

Endnotes

(1) To better appreciate this comparison with Sahih Al-Bukhari, note what the English translator states concerning this great collection:

It has been UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that Imam Bukhari’s work is the most authentic of all the other works in Hadith literature PUT TOGETHER. The authenticity of Al-Bukhari’s work is such that the religious learned scholars of Islam said concerning him: “The most authentic book after the Book of Allah (i.e., Al-Qur’an) is Sahih Al-Bukhari.”… Before he recorded each Hadith he would make ablution and offer two Rak’at prayer and supplicate his Lord (Allah). Many religious scholars of Islam tried to find fault in the great remarkable collection- Sahih Al-Bukhari, BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS. It is for this reason, they UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that the most authentic book after the Book of Allah IS Sahih Al-Bukhari. (Translation of the Meanings of Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Formerly Director, University Hospital, Islamic University, Al-Madina Al-Munawwara (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), [Dar-us-Salam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh-Saudi Arabia, July, 1997], Volume 1, pp. 18-19; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Note that these are the very sources that Ally has no qualms throwing under the bus whenever they prove too damaging to his position. This is precisely why I accused Ally of preaching Hislam, e.g., his version of Islam, as opposed to actual Islam, since he presents an Islam that doesn’t exist in reality and which isn’t anchored in its primary sources. Rather Ally’s Hislam only exists in his own imagination and wishful thinking.

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/29/more-groans-for-shabir-ally/ 

IHS

A Critique of Shabir Ally’s Debate Tactics Pt. 1b

We proceed with our exposition of some of the tactics which Ally employs in his debates and supposed dialogues https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/29/a-critique-of-shabir-allys-debate-tactics-pt-1a/.

Ally’s Contradictions and Inconsistencies

When the late Dr. Nabeel Qureshi asked Ally in the cross-examination section of their debate whether he would agree that the pre-Pauline hymns cited by Paul and Mark’s Gospel portray Jesus as Yahweh, Ally responded by saying,

“I wouldn’t agree that either Paul or Mark presents Jesus as Yahweh. Paul, despite what he says about Jesus and raising Jesus to a high status, which Muslims would not accept it, Paul stopped short of making Jesus Yahweh. For example, 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 24 shows that in the final end game, Jesus is going to return all power to God who gave it to him in the first place. And Christ will be subjected to God so that God will be all and all, which means that you do not have three co-equal and co-eternal beings. You have God who is greatest and Jesus who is under God; that’s why Paul could say in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 verse 3, that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.”

Ally went on to further assert that,

“Mark as well does not present Jesus as Yahweh, even though there are some passages which as you mentioned about preparing the way of the Lord, which might tease the boundaries a little bit. But that’s different from Mark coming out and saying, ‘O, looks like Jesus is actually Yahweh.’ Mark is actually very clear, when he quotes Jesus in chapter 12 verse number 29, Jesus repeating the same Shema Yisrael, saying that there is only one God, the God of Israel. And then the man who asked Jesus about this says, ‘You are right teacher! There is only one God and besides him there is no other.’ So the ‘him’ is somebody else other than Jesus, and then Jesus praised the man for having such deep insight. So it’s clear from Mark’s Gospel, that Jesus is not Yahweh. Mark chapter 13 verse 32 shows that Jesus does not know where the hour will occur.”

And in his debate with Jonathan McLatchie, Ally reiterated his claim by arguing that Paul did not ascribe the word theos, i.e. “God”, to Jesus, or identify him as Yahweh:

“Some of our friends think that the NT somehow declares that Jesus is God; so now let’s look at the NT. And before I do, let’s say something about the development of ideas as an introduction to reading the NT. In the intertestamental period, that is the period between the Old and the New Testament [sic], people began to speculate, perhaps there is an intermediary between God and man. God – the philosophers said – is so unchangeable and so remote, that he does not deal with a changeable world directly. But he deals with the world through some kind of intermediary; that could be like the divine mind or the Logos of God, his reason, or his Sophia, his wisdom. Maybe he doesn’t create the world directly, he creates through an intermediary. But that was an idea, but it did not lead the Jews to worship something other, or someone other than Yahweh.

“Now in the NT we have some developments. Some people now begin to think of Jesus as that intermediary. We have in one of St. Paul’s writings that Jesus is that agent through which God created the world, so that here we have the agent idea. But Paul does not attribute to Jesus the title theos, which in Greek would mean God; Paul always distinguishes between God and Jesus. He’s granting Jesus a lofty status as Creator of the world, but still as an intermediary between the ultimate Creator God and the world. So he is an intermediary, BUT NOT YAHWEH HIMSELF. So this is why when Paul would speak of Jesus, he would speak of Jesus in a very exalted language, and some of our Christian friends would say, ‘See, that means God!’” (Emphasis ours)

Ally then went on to make the following argument:

“Now when Paul and other writers are speaking about God, they sometimes take OT passages where Yahweh is mentioned, and they start, in a tantalizing way, putting it in such a manner that when our Christian friends read it now, they’re thinking, ‘Oh, it looks like Jesus is that Yahweh!’ But what needs to be distinguished very clearly is the usage of ‘the Lord’–which is ambiguous, and vague and more general–and a reference to ‘the Lord God,’ the ultimate God; and Paul does make that distinction. We have to be aware of this. So when we read Paul’s writings, whose writings are the earliest that we have of the NT, we should keep that distinction in mind.”

“If we keep that distinction then when we go to John’s Gospel we understand what is happening. For John’s Gospel as well, there’s the ultimate God, the only true God according to John chapter 17, verse number 3. Jesus looks up into heaven, he’s praying, and he’s saying ‘this is eternal life that they may know you as the only true God, and Jesus your messenger as Christ.’ So he’s distinguishing between himself and the true God. It is true that John’s Gospel also uses the term God to refer to Jesus, but not the ultimate God. John’s Gospel begins, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine’… is the best translation because the word used there in Greek is theos, which means ‘God.’ But it can mean ‘a god,’ as opposed to ho theos, which means definitely ‘the God.’ Now one can argue it the other way and say that its grammatical necessary for John to put it in this way for what he wanted to say at this point. However, because the point is disputed and the grammarians are arguing it both ways, I want to ask you if John definitely wanted to say that Jesus is the ultimate God why would he put the matter in such a manner, that people would dispute over it and they would not be able to come to a definite and unified conclusion about this? He should state it somewhere very plainly. But what he is stating plainly is that Jesus has a God!

“So even if you can call Jesus God this is a kind of an intermediary God. It’s not something that Muslims will accept to be sure, we do not accept intermediary gods; but we should be clear what John is saying. What John is saying is neither acceptable to Muslims nor to Trinitarians, because John does not have this concept of the Trinity. The Trinity requires that there are three eternal Persons who are eternally co-equal, and according to John, Jesus is not coequal with the ultimate God. That is why John in chapter 20, verse 17 has Jesus saying to his disciple Miriam Magdalene, ‘Tell my brothers that I am ascending to my God and your God, My Father and your Father.’ So Jesus has a God according to this. This passage is important because some of our friends say that Jesus was not known to be God during his lifetime; it is the resurrection from the dead that proved that he conquered death, and therefore that he is God. But that now, we have Jesus saying this, according to the Christian narrative, after the resurrection from the dead, and he still has a God. So even though John’s Gospel is referring to Jesus as, in a way, as a theos, he is referring to Jesus as a begotten God; so there is an ultimate God and there is a begotten one according to this Gospel.”

Suffice it to say, we will thoroughly refute all of these assertions in this series of rebuttals. At this point we would like to simply point out how Ally has no qualms with contradicting himself, even in the very same debate!

For instance, it must have slipped Ally’s mind what he previously stated to Qureshi in his opening statements:

“Two streams of teaching. On the one hand there is Paul, and hence we find in the NT statements about… Paul saying for example THAT GOD CAME DOWN, HUMBLED HIMSELF, BECAME JESUS – Philippians chapter 2, the Carmen Christi that Nabeel spoke about. 1 Corinthians chapter 8, verse number 6, Paul takes the Shema Yisrael AND HE MAKES TWO PERSONS OUT OF THAT ONE. In the Shema Yisrael there was only one Lord God. Now Paul makes it one Lord AND one God – one Lord Jesus, one God the Father; he splits them. So we know the hydrant collider has split the atom recently, now Paul did a splitting way back when. But Paul is representing one particular view here.” (Emphasis ours)

Notice how Ally admits that Paul identifies Christ as the Yahweh whom Deuteronomy 6:4 says is one, and also acknowledges that the Apostle taught that Jesus is God that came down and humbled himself.

Ally must have also forgotten the third question he had asked Dr. James R. White during the cross-examination period of their debate in Pretoria, South Africa:

“Now you cited the Carmen Christi from Philippians chapter 2 where Paul IS OBVIOUSLY REFERRING TO THE BOOK OF ISAIAH CHAPTER 45. Now are you aware that Paul HAS ACTUALLY TAKEN A REFERENCE TO YAHWEH AND THEN MADE THAT A REFERENCE TO JESUS, and so he has in fact here modified the original belief in one God Yahweh, AND NOW HE HAS MADE JESUS THIS YAHWEH? And if Jesus is this Yahweh then how could Yahweh be Father, Son and Holy Ghost, because in that case Jesus is not part of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? You have Yahweh who is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and then you have Jesus. Explain that.” (Did the Earliest Followers of Jesus Believe in His Deity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDmiTGmjqwA; emphasis ours)

It must have further slipped Ally’s mind the answer he gave to Dr. White when the latter cross-examined him:

“Now in Paul using this hymn, and representing Jesus in this way, we can see that he has actually departed from the OT, because he has taken an OT passage that referred to Yahweh and he has made that refer to Jesus. He is now departing from that original commandment which says you shall have no other god but Yahweh. Clearly Jesus was a human being, and the book of Numbers chapter 23 verse 19, it says God is not a man and not the son of man. So if Jesus is a man to all appearances, well then, you cannot take him to be god, he cannot be Yahweh, he is not Yahweh. And by taking him to be somehow Yahweh, AS PAUL IS NOW DOING IN HIS LETTER, even in a tantalizing way, Paul is actually departing from the OT scripture.”

So according to Ally, the blessed Apostle of the risen Lord not only identifies Jesus as Yahweh, but also applied the following monotheistic passage about Yahweh,

“For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” Isaiah 45:18-23

To the worship that every creature must render to Christ in acknowledgment of his being the Lord whom God the Father exalted above all creation!

“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:9-11

Now which Ally should we believe? The one who denies that the Apostles and earliest disciples identified Jesus as Yahweh God, even when they applied OT Yahweh texts to Christ? Or should we go with the Ally who candidly admits that Paul and the early Christians who composed hymns which the Apostle included in his writings, such as the Carmen Christi, all believed and worshiped Jesus as Yahweh and as the God who came down and humbled himself to become a man?

More importantly, what does this say about Ally’s willingness to blatantly contradict himself, even within the same debate? Doesn’t this prove that Ally has no problem with being inconsistent, in fact deceptive, if and when it helps him win a debate? And yet what does this say about Islam itself when its very own faithful adherents and apologists have to resort to lying and trickery in order to convince people to become Muslims?

Finally, should it really come as a shock that Ally would be so inconsistent when the Quran describes Allah as a conniver and trickster who changes his mind and contradicts himself, just as the following articles and rebuttals prove?

Contradictions in the Qur’an (https://answeringislam.net/Quran/Contra/index.html)

Abrogation? (https://answeringislam.net/Quran/Contra/qi019.html)

Allah as a Deceiver (https://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/allah_deceiver.htm)

Allah – The Greatest Deceiver of them All (https://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/allah_best_deceiver.htm)

After all, the kind of deity you worship and serve will often impact the kind of person you end up becoming.

Therefore, since Allah boasts about being the best of all deceivers who doesn’t mind or hesitate to use lies and schemes to get his way and/or to accomplish his purposes, then why should it surprise us that Ally would resort to employing the very same kind of tactics that his own deity uses in order to win debates?

It seems that in Islam the ends do justify the means.

There is more to come in the next segment of our examination https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2017/08/11/a-critique-of-shabir-allys-debate-tactics-pt-2a/.

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/29/a-critique-of-shabir-allys-debate-tactics-pt-1b/ 

IHS

A Critique of Shabir Ally’s Debate Tactics Pt. 1a

Here begins a series of articles where we highlight and respond to some of Shabir Ally’s arguments and objections that he has been raising in some of his recent debates concerning the blessed and glorious Trinity versus his version of Islamic Unitarianism. We will be addressing certain specific claims Ally made in his debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWpqqqZn7Kg) with Dr. Nabeel Qureshi, titled “What is God Really Like: Tawhid or Trinity?”.

We will also raise up some of the points Ally made in his debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay-1WOtrCBs) on this very same subject with another Christian apologist named Jonathan McLatchie, which took place on August 16 2015.

It is important that the readers watch both these debates beforehand, since this will help them better understand and follow along with our responses to Ally’s claims.

Exposing Ally’s Distortions and Misrepresentations

In the debate with McLatchie, Ally misrepresented Justin Martyr as saying that Christians also worshiped angels along with God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is apparent that Ally was merely parroting the argument made by Bart Ehrman who made the same exact claim in his most recent book dealing with the Deity of Christ:

“There is some question, in fact, about whether Justin can rightly be thought of as embracing a doctrine of the Trinity. He does not talk yet about the three divine beings, Father, Son, and Spirit, as being all equal and the ‘three’ being ‘one.’ He does say that God is worshiped first, the Son second, and the prophetic Spirit third (1 Apology 1.13). But this again seems to suggest a hierarchy of divinity, with God at the top and the others in lower places beneath him; and elsewhere Justin claims that God alone is ‘unchanging and eternal’ and the Son is subordinate to the Father (1 Apology 13). So too he indicates that Christians worship God, the Son, angels, and the Spirit–clearly not a Trinitarian view (1 Apology 13). If nothing else, one cay say that Justin represents a development toward the orthodox Christological and Trinitarian paradoxes.” (How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish preacher from Galilee [HarperOne, Hardcover edition: 2014], 9. Ortho-Paradoxes on the Road to Nicea, p. 334)

Suffice it to say that this is a gross misreading of Justin on the part of Ehrman, since a careful look at the context shows that Justin WAS NOT suggesting that Christians worship angels along with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit:

Chapter 6. Charge of atheism refuted

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught. (Justin Martyr, First Apology http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm; underline emphasis ours)

It is quite evident that Justin wasn’t listing angels as objects of Christian worship. Rather, as the context shows Justin’s point was that Christ wasn’t the only one who came from God to teach Christians their faith, since God also sent angels for that very purpose.

That Justin did not think for a moment that it was acceptable for believers to worship anyone other than God is brought out clearly by his repeated emphasis that Christians worship God ALONE:

“And with regard to our not swearing at all, and always speaking the truth, He enjoined as follows: Swear not at all; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these comes of evil. Matthew 5:34, 27 And that we ought to worship God ALONE, He thus persuaded us: The greatest commandment is, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve, with all your heart, and with all your strength, the Lord God that made you. Mark 12:30 And when a certain man came to Him and said, Good Master, He answered and said, There is none good but God only, who made all things. Matthew 19:6, 17 And let those who are not found living as He taught, be understood to be no Christians, even though they profess with the lip the precepts of Christ; for not those who make profession, but those who do the works, shall be saved, according to His word…” (Ibid., Chapter 16. Concerning patience and swearing; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

And:

Chapter 17. Christ taught civil obedience

And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Cæsar; and He answered, Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear? And they said, Cæsar’s. And again He answered them, Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. Whence to God ALONE we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment. But if you pay no regard to our prayers and frank explanations, we shall suffer no loss, since we believe (or rather, indeed, are persuaded) that every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed, and will render account according to the power he has received from God, as Christ intimated when He said, To whom God has given more, of him shall more be required. Luke 12:48 (Ibid.; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Justin even quotes the words of Jesus to this effect:

“… For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spoke to Him, ‘You are my Son: this day have I begotten You,’ is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, ‘Worship me;’ and Christ answered him, ‘Get behind me, Satan: you shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.’ Matthew 4:9-10…” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter 103. The Pharisees are the bulls: the roaring lion is Herod or the devil http://newadvent.org/fathers/01287.htm; bold and underline emphasis ours)

At the same time, however, this blessed martyr of the risen Lord does affirm that all true believers also worship the Son and the Holy Spirit, just as Ehrman himself admitted. Note, also, the following references from Justin’s writings:

Chapter 13. Christians serve God rationally

What sober-minded man, then, will not acknowledge that we are not atheists, worshipping as we do the Maker of this universe, and declaring, as we have been taught, that He has no need of streams of blood and libations and incense; whom we praise to the utmost of our power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied, as we have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns for our creation, and for all the means of health, and for the various qualities of the different kinds of things, and for the changes of the seasons; and to present before Him petitions for our existing again in incorruption through faith in Him. Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that WE REASONABLY WORSHIP HIM, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, AND THE PROPHETIC SPIRIT in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed. (First Apology; capital and underline emphasis ours)

“… Whatever things were rightly said among all men, are the property of us Christians. For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing…” (Justin Martyr, Second Apology, Chapter 13. How the Word has been in all men http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0127.htm)

“… Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.” (Dialogue, Chapter 106. Christ’s resurrection is foretold in the conclusion of the Psalm; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Justin: But if you knew, Trypho, who He is that is called at one time the Angel of great counsel, and a Man by Ezekiel, and like the Son of man by Daniel, and a Child by Isaiah, and Christ and God to be worshipped by David, and Christ and a Stone by many, and Wisdom by Solomon, and Joseph and Judah and a Star by Moses, and the East by Zechariah, and the Suffering One and Jacob and Israel by Isaiah again, and a Rod, and Flower, and Corner-Stone, and Son of God, you would not have blasphemed Him who has now come, and been born, and suffered, and ascended to heaven; who shall also come again, and then your twelve tribes shall mourn. For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God… (Ibid., Chapter 126. The various names of Christ according to both natures. It is shown that He is God, and appeared to the patriarchs http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01289.htm; underline emphasis ours)

Ehrman helps us to see why Justin and the Christians whom he represented had no qualms about worshiping the Lord Jesus along with the Father:

“There are two principal ways that Justin understands Christ as a divine being, both of which harken back to earlier views we have already explored. Justin develops these views in more sophisticated ways than seen in the New Testament itself. He saw Christ both as the preincarnate Angel of the Lord and as the Logos (Word) of God made flesh…

“In several places throughout his writings Justin speaks of Christ as the Angel of the Lord who appeared in the Old Testament. In Chapter 2 we saw that there is some ambiguity in the famous passage of Moses and the burning bush: the ‘Angel of the Lord’ speaks with Moses, but then the narrative shifts to indicate that in fact it is ‘the Lord’ who is speaking with him. Justin is keen to explain this textual conundrum in Christological terms. The reason this divine figure is both the Angel of the Lord and the Lord, at the same time, is that it is not God the Father who is there in the bush, but it is Christ, WHO IS FULLY DIVINE. First Justin establishes that this angel IS NO MERE ANGEL, BUT GOD: ‘Do you not see that He whom Moses speaks of as an Angel who conversed with him from the fiery bush is the same who, BEING GOD, signifies to Moses that He is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob?’ (Dialogue 59). But then he argues that this ‘God’ could not have been God the Father: ‘No one with even the slightest intelligence would dare assert that the Creator and Father of all things left His supercelestial realms to make himself visible in a little spot on earth’ (Dialogue 60). And so who was this God? It was Christ, the angel who later was to become human.

“Christ was also one of the three angels who appeared to Abraham at the oaks of Mamre in Genesis 18, another passage we have considered. Because this ‘angel’ is also a ‘man’ but is called ‘the Lord,’ it is clear to Justin: ‘There exists and is mentioned in Scriptures ANOTHER GOD AND LORD under the Creator of all things who is called an Angel.’ This one ‘appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and is called God, [and] is distinct from God, the Creator; distinct, that is, in number, but not in mind’ (Dialogue 56). These patriarchs did not see God the Father but ‘God the Son … His angel’ (Dialogue 127).

“God the Son, then, is the one to whom God the Father is speaking in the Old Testament when he says, ‘Let us make humankind in our own image’ (Gen. 1:26); he is the one to whom God speaks in the psalms when he says, ‘Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever’ (Ps. 45:6); and he is the one to whom the text refers when it says ‘The LORD says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand …”’ (Ps. 110:1).” (How Jesus Became God, pp. 331-332; bold and capital emphasis ours)

And:

“For Justin, Christ was not only the Angel of the Lord, however; he was also the Word (Logos) of God who became human. It appears clear that Justin was influenced by the Christology found in the Gospel of John, a book that he rarely, if ever, actually quotes, surprisingly enough. But Justin’s Logos Christology is more advanced and philosophically developed than that found in the Fourth Gospel…

“Justin was especially concerned to deal with the question of whether Christ is in any sense a being distinct from God the Father, and if so, how one is to imagine the relationship of Christ, the incarnate Word, to God the Father himself. In one place Justin considers Christ as the Word in relation to words we ourselves use. When we speak a word, in some sense that word has an existence independent of us (as we discover when someone misunderstands a word we have spoken); on the other hand, the word we utter owes its existence entirely to us, since we are the ones who utter the word. The Logos of God is like that: IT COMES FORTH FROM GOD, and so belongs entirely to God, but it takes on its own kind of existence once it comes forth.

“In another place Justin likens Christ’s relationship to God to a fire that is used to start another fire. The second fire exists independently of the first, but it could not have come into existence without the other. Moreover, when it is started, the new fire does not diminish anything of the first fire, making it less than it was to begin with. The first fire is just the same as it was before. But the second fire is just as fully fire as the first. And that’s how it is with God and Christ. CHRIST CAME FORTH FROM GOD, and became his own being, and yet God was not diminished in the slightest when that happened (Dialogue 61). Thus Justin stresses that Christ is a separate being from God and is ‘numerically distinct from the Father’ (Dialogue 129); BUT CHRIST IS AT THE SAME TIME FULLY GOD.” (Ibid., pp. 332-334; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Hence, for Justin the risen Lord was none other than the very Messenger of God and Jehovah God Almighty himself that appeared to the OT patriarchs and prophets. No wonder Justin could speak of Christians worshiping Jesus alongside God the Father, since to them Christ was no mere creature but the Father’s eternal Logos/Word who proceeded from God’s own Being, and was therefore just as much God as the Father is. The same holds true for the Holy Spirit, whom Justin agrees is also worshiped together with the Father and the Son.

And since Justin clearly taught that God alone is to be worshiped this means that, for both himself and orthodox believers, the Son and the Spirit are two divine Persons who fully share in the very essence of God himself.

Here is a summation that helps bring out the logical ramifications of Justin’s statements concerning Christian worship:

1. Justin Martyr (and all true Christians) believed that God alone is to be worshiped.

2. Justin Martyr (along with all true believers) worship(ped) the Father, Son and Spirit.

3. This, therefore, shows that both Justin and orthodox Christians believed that the Father, Son and Spirit were/are all fully and truly God in nature.

It is rather unfortunate that Ally didn’t bother to check out Ehrman’s reference in order to see for himself whether the latter accurately represented Justin’s views on this matter. It seems that Ally will blindly accept any opinion that is critical of the Holy Bible and Christianity, so long as it helps him to attack and undermine the Christian faith. And yet when it comes to his own religion, Ally will never take what an author says for granted, specifically when that individual is questioning the truth claims of Islam. Rather, Ally will personally check out the assertions made by a given authority for himself, in order to make sure that the person in question hasn’t misunderstood or misrepresented what the Islamic corpus actually teaches.

Such blatant inconsistency is truly disturbing to say the least.

With the foregoing in perspective we are ready to proceed to the next part in our series https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/29/a-critique-of-shabir-allys-debate-tactics-pt-1b/.

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/29/a-critique-of-shabir-allys-debate-tactics-pt-1a/ 

IHS