Jay Smith reveals how Christian missionaries pretend to be Muslims by adopting Islamic names, maintain Islamic appearances (beard, hijab, etc.), join Mosques, pray like Muslims, and blend in with Muslims everywhere in the world to convert Muslims to Christianity by deceit. This is deeply immoral and reveals the true fraudulent nature of these zealots.
Categories: Christian extremism, Evil, Islam, Islamophobia, Missionaries
Blogging Theology 
I don’t blame Jay Smith or his friends, their Lord and saviour Paul commands Christians like him to lie and deceive non-Christians to further their faith:
“Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. TO THE JEWS I BECAME LIKE A JEW, TO WIN THE JEWS. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), SO AS TO WIN THOSE UNDER THE LAW. To those not having the law I BECAME LIKE ONE NOT HAVING THE LAW (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.” – 1 Corinthians 9:19-23
Early church fathers used the above verse to say that lying is allowed:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/28/1-corinthians-9-apostle-pauls-missionary-deception-taqiyya/
LikeLiked by 4 people
good points
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would be glad to borrow this material for my blog, but sadly it doesn’t reveal how the Quran and Hadith stand to this sort of deceit for the sake of winning new convertions.Maybe someone here could think of such verses? Apart from the famous Hadith about 3 kinds of allowed lies.
LikeLike
Such deception as practiced by Jay Smith and his followers is not permitted in Islam.
LikeLiked by 2 people
With the name of Allah
Salam Roman,
There is a sahih hadith about the importance of truthfulness and the danger of lying (hence a sin) in general.
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
LikeLike
In the Name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful.
It does not surprise me at all. As one who has been in counter missionary da’wah organizations for years I have witnessed this deceitful method happens in my country as well, the most populous muslim nation in the word: Indonesia, and it has been documented by many counter missionary islamic organizations.
One of the most devilish method includes marrying potential conversion (mostly muslim women) in Islamic tradition then after few years after having kids the missionary men revert back to christianity leaving the women have no choice became dependent on their husbands having no income but to follow their husband faith.
I often wonder what motivates this hyper-zealotry other than the work of satan..
LikeLiked by 4 people
Eric, just a heads up.You may be seeing Smith again!
Smith is not retiring. He’s giving up on Europe and is now looking to train loal Christians in Africa and Indonesia to be like him. I heard this on the latest interview on Premier.
LikeLike
We also have organisation to counter missionaries, God Willing we are ready,..
LikeLiked by 2 people
This means that we need to train an equal or greater amount of Muslims on how to respond with counter-arguments, debate Initiative and techniques, dawah. and studies in modern Biblical criticism techniques. I believe this is as important now as it ever was, I am sure you will agree.
I think it would be beneficial to take some of the best Muslim apologetics, Muslim arguments, and techniques learned from bloggingtheology and gather them clearly into book form or website, which can be used as an easy to access source for training and educating new and old Muslims who are engaged n the field of Dawah and Islamic apologetics. Has this ever been discussed?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Muslim da’wah organisation here already have that sort of counter missionary activism. Theologicallly we are winning in arguments but the deceitful methods which we need more focus on, we should raise awareness that missionaries use money, posing as Muslims, befriending unsuspecting vulnerable not knowledgeable and economically weak Muslims..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neil Littlejohn comes to mind
LikeLiked by 3 people
Burhanuddin,
Exactly what I was thinking. I question whether or not Littlejohn was ever truly a genuine sincere Muslim. But I leave that between him and Allah.
And why does it seem like everything about Christianity is a fraud. In order to convince people of their innovated theology, they pile fraud upon fraud, deceit upon deceit. Maybe it is because without resorting to such deception and fraud, no one would ever believe such nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
i am assuming you mean infiltration unit
LikeLike
Ibn Issam
Maybe you should learn about Christians who are not involved in Anti-Islamic polemics. Only focusing on the negative will inevitably sour your perspective. The Qur’an mentions the most honorable of the Christians are the monks. Why not learn about them as a good place to start?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Patrice,
You are right, and I agree that there are many good Christians I grew up around Christians and still have many Christian friends and have conversed with many good Christian people over the course of my life. I never want to lose sight of that.
But I am talking here about Christian theology, and even those good Christians who are not involved in Anti-Islamic polemics are still buying into and even peddling a lot of the fraud and deceit that comes part and parcel with the innovated doctrines of the Paulinian Trinitarian church as well as other denominations that have innovated doctrines just as much or more. Yes there are many good Christians, but then again Paul said Good deeds are like filthy rags, so are these Christians good BECAUSE of their religion, or are they good IN SPITE of their religion?
It is bad theology that I dislike, not people and I am able to separate those two things. But thanks for the reminder, as it is never my intention to negatively influence anyone on this blog against other people of faith and religion. We are all just seekers of truth. .
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jay Smith has no shame.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He is a charlatan
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Paul for posting the video, for all Christians and Non Christian if you are interested, visit the YouTube channel TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL, they have been covering more topics that might interest you all!
Jesus The Final Judge Refuted! Sam Shamoun Vs. David Wood https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hDs4knxwE8
HONOR KILLINGS (apostate, women, family members etc.) in the BIBLE – According to David Wood !! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx5BC8kUoSc
Jay Smith’s God of BIBLE, JESUS vs Sarah Foster !! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fomLqkwbRuw
Honest Christian (Catholic) Testifying Truth About BIBLE(MURDER, RAPE, SLAVERY) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuERaY5DwE
Bible Vs Prophet Jeremiah! DILEMMA for Christian apologists David Wood, Sam Shamoun, Jay Smith etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OM3TatVBIQ
Trinity exposed as Polytheism by Christian Preacher/Apologist! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODe5KTbONTg
How many Gods are there in Trinity according to Christian apologist Nabeel Qureshi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQq0ajEk-v0
Alcohol allowed or forbidden in the bible? Steven Crowder Vs Gordon Klingenschmitt, Pastor Steve Gaines, Jack Van Impe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXMr29JcW2o
birth of Jesus and Son of God…… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te8i36-B4ek
LikeLiked by 2 people
this is why every single mosque in every single country should start teaching ARABIC FOR FREE.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. Knowledge in Arabic, especially classical Arabic is absolutely fundamental for us.
LikeLike
It seems that most of you who have commented so far think Jay Smith approves of these methods.
He does NOT. He has spoken out very clearly against the deceptive methods!
The video is misleading because Jay Smith does not agree with the C-5 or C-6 levels of contextualization, which are actually not Biblical contextualization, but they are taking contextualization too far into syncretism (mixing Islam with Christianity) and deceptive. C-2 to C-4 levels are just respecting their customs and learning the language in order to communicate and create understanding and explaining what the Bible teaches clearly. it is respecting customs that are not violations of conscience for a Christian to do. Proper “contextualization” C-2 , C-3, and C-4 levels, only means to get the gospel into the language of the people so that they can understand what the meaning of it is, in their own language and culture.
The video cuts from 2 different parts of Jay’s lectures – the video puts part of what he was saying is Wrong with the C-6 level (he was not endorsing it; rather exposing it) and then it skips to another part of his lecture where he talks about his seminary training and learning the “antecedent” (what came before – a C-4 level) of the C-5 and C-6 levels, or what is commonly known as “the insider’s movement”. Jay was explaining after trying a kind of contextualization ( more like a C-4 level) in West Africa, he realized the part of it was wrong, and gave the Muslims the wrong impression; and Jay Smith repented of that and changed his method and that is why he then later started the methods of honest debate and did up front and honest apologetics and polemics with Islam and comparison methods at speaker’s corner.
He does not endorse those methods; but the way the video is cut without context, and by the way the comments so far are going, it seems like you think Jay approves of the deceptive methods. He does not. I was at a seminar and sat next to him in 2009 where we were both invited to come of the one these seminars because we were both highly critical of this method and we were outspoken against these methods. Since we were critical of them, they invited us, thinking that they would win us over – they did not. They are wrong and unBiblical and we both have spoken out against these deceptive methods.
Only some missionaries do these methods; and both Jay and I agree that these methods are wrong. The wrong level of a C-5 or C-6 level are wrong and deceptive.
The passage in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 does not teach that one can be deceptive. See this part:
(though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), = means I still have to be faithful to obey God and His word and law and live under the commands and principles of Christ. It also means that we should not be ashamed of the hard doctrines of the Deity of Christ, the death of Christ, and the Trinity – to seek to explain them in an honest and respectful way to Muslims.
Some of the missionaries are avoiding these doctrines and using the Qur’an more than using the NT. That is not right.
Since Paul is a Jew, he can be respectful around the Jews and follow certain laws and customs and explain that they actually point to Jesus the Messiah. The sacrifices, the feasts were things that pointed to the Messiah Jesus. Acts 21 was an example of that – of being sensitive to the feelings of the unbelieving Jews.
All the passage is saying is to love people and find out where they are coming from and listen to them and learn their language and culture so that we can have honest conversation in explaining the gospel.
The 1 Cor. 9 passage does not endorse lying or acting like you accept all things about another culture or religion. It is just saying don’t be rude or put up unnecessary stumbling blocks to others, like eating pork or drinking wine in front of a Muslim would be very rude or serving pork or wine if they come to your home is offensive.
It means being sensitive to cultural norms like taking your shoes at the door of a home and if you are in their culture, obeying those kinds of cultural customs out of respect for the Muslims.
since it up on the internet, in order to understand what he is saying, one would have to listen to the entire lecture, and I think there is more than one. I think this is the one where the Muslims got the clips from.
LikeLike
I have watched both the videos and have found the video of ‘Truth Shall Prevail’ excellent, manifest and honest. The video makers haven’t taken parts of the ”legacy” video out of context or manipulated it.
“Contextualization or “Insider movement” or “Tenet camouflage” can never be justified by saying “respecting their customs and learning the language in order to communicate …etc.”
Learning the language of people in order to propagate can be acceptable, and there is no scrutiny for that. BUT that is not what the “INSIDER MOVEMENT” is about or what Jay Smith did or other Christian Missionaries are doing. An honest Christian preacher WOULDN’T change HIS NAME TO ARABIC, GROW BEARD LIKE MUSLIMS, and PRAY LIKE MUSLIMS IN THE MOSQUES but rather they would just be Christians openly preaching the bible! This is an extremely evil method and a crime which should be highly scrutinized and this video has done a perfect job in doing so!
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Ken, you mentioned “Acts 21 was an example of that – of being sensitive to the feelings of the unbelieving Jews.”
James was the one who instructed Paul to do it as a demonstration that he himself(i.e. Paul) walked orderly in the law.(See Acts 21:24) Are you saying that James is an example of an “unbelieving Jew” or was he simply someone who did not comprehend the message the way Paul did?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good question!
LikeLike
No; James is obviously a believing Jew and his concern from verse 20-24 is about the believing Jews who are zealous for the law, yes.
But he was concerned about the greater Jewish community also – both unbelievers and believers. (verse 27 – “the Jews from Asia” and the following context shows the reaction of the unbelieving Jews. “seeing them in the temple” – they were exposed to the unbelieving community also.
LikeLike
James was a Torah observant Jew.
LikeLike
Yes, but he agreed with Peter and Paul that Gentiles (non-Jews) are not required to be circumcised or become Jews culturally, eat the same foods, etc. as a way to earn salvation. (Acts 15:1-30, especially verses 13-19.)
LikeLike
sorry, I thought Jay was invited to that conference, but, after listening to more of the video above, he rather had to “force” his way to come to it because he wanted to honestly critique it.
I was invited to it though, because I was already highly critical and outspoken against those methods.
I hope that clarifies.
LikeLike
around minute 56, Jay Smith made an excellent point about Acts 21 ( he said Acts 15, but he meant what happened in Acts 21 and later). He said, “read the rest of the chapter” – the Jews beat him up, and arrested him and it let to apostle Paul’s arrest and going to Rome – chapters 22-28. So, it is historical on what happened, but it shows that Paul should have been more up front in the first place.
God used the incident to get Paul arrested, explain the gospel to the Jews, and to get him to be taken to Rome.
see more on this here, where I address the Acts 21 passage.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/answering-questions-about-acts-2117-26/
LikeLike
sarahimr2015 –
And Jay realized that was wrong, (at the beginning after he was in Senegal for a while fresh out of seminary) because he noticed he was communicating something different than what he intended.
He repented of that and that is why he changed to the method of apologetics and polemics at Speaker’s corner for so many years.
Jay’s whole point is that method is wrong and he realized it; and is warning of SOME who are still doing that kind of thing.
LikeLike
“Since Paul is a Jew, he can be respectful around the Jews and follow certain laws and customs and explain that they actually point to Jesus the Messiah. The sacrifices, the feasts were things that pointed to the Messiah Jesus. Acts 21 was an example of that – of being sensitive to the feelings of the unbelieving Jews.”
imagine this :
paul in his mind has an intermediary which u christians think is yhwh incarnate.
jews are offering their animals to yhwh
paul goes to these jews and offers sacrifices to yhwh but does not reveal to the jews that yhwh sacrificed himself and offered himself to himself
if paul does not reveal this, and plays like a jew, then paul is tricking them. it is guile. it is fooling . it is playing along .
imagine this :
paul is calling to yhwh directly in jewish places of worship. paul is in congregation and saying “yhwh our god is one god ” and making direct prayers to yhwh , but in his heart he is thinking of the middle man /another yhwh , but he does not reveal this in jewish places of worship and plays along with the crowds
paul again is tricking them . fooling them. and pretending to be a jew who needs no intermediary between himself and yhwh.
LikeLike
Because OT Judaism was true and the first revelations before the NT, and all the OT points to the NT, there is a sense that Paul and the apostles in the book of Acts in a transition time while the temple is still standing and the book of Hebrews has not been revealed yet, there is a sense that Paul can do those things without any deception at all.
he was following James’ advice to give a good testimony for the unbelieving Jews.
But Jay’s point is that he should have just up front preached the gospel – the NT meaning of those OT sacrifices, etc.
Acts is historical narrative – it records what happened. It is not commands or principles (though sometimes does teach principles) – but here, according to Jay (and he may be right), Paul made a mistake; but God used his mistake to get him arrested and be sent to Rome and gives occasion for the rest of the historical narrative from Acts 21 to Acts 28.
but again, I Cor. 9:19-23 does not teach deception.
It means being kind and sensitive to other cultural norms where others are coming from.
The great application of that is learning someone’s language and culture in order to communicate the truth in love to them.
LikeLike
“Acts is historical narrative – it records what happened.” Not according to historians
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Not according to SOME historicans.”
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (15 March 1851 – 20 April 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament. Although Ramsay was educated in the Tübingen school of thought (founded by F. C. Baur) which doubted the reliability of the New Testament, his extensive archaeological and historical studies convinced him of the historical accuracy of the New Testament.[1] (especially the book of Acts)
1. “I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader [i.e., the reliability of the book of Acts]. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth. In fact, beginning with the fixed idea that the work was essentially a second-century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first-century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations.” Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 1904, Putnam and Sons, p.8.
LikeLike
lol over a century ago!
LikeLike
so?
the Qur’an is over 14 centuries ago.
LikeLike
You should cite a current historian to back up your claim that Acts is a totally accurate and reliable historical work.
LikeLike
Truth never changes. He is a good example of a former liberal who bought the Tubigen school theory, then actually visited Asia Minor and the places in Acts and studied the Greek and history deeper and changed his mind. Great example.
LikeLike
Bad example. Out dated scholarship. Today we know far more about ancient history. Acts comes off badly.
LikeLike
Yet you use some texts for Acts for your own biased polemics against Christianity. Inconsistent and disingenuous, seeing how you argue for both having your cake and eat it too. You always argue for both ways, but each one cancels out the other. inconsistent and not intellectual.
LikeLike
Ken calm down, you are getting hyperventilated. You made a claim that the book of Acts is completely reliable as history. And you know what? On my very own blog I had the temerity to point out – which is perfectly true – that today’s historians have a pretty dim view of Acts’s historical reliability. You then accuse ME of inconsistency and lacking in intelligence.
Grow up Ken.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“mists” dim view = ??
what is “mists” ?
LikeLike
I am totally calm, so I don’t know what you are talking about.
LikeLike
Michael Kruger and Andreas Kostenberger are updated scholarship.
Read their books.
And Dan Wallace and James White and D. A. Carson and Darrel Bock (massive commentaries on Luke and Acts), etc.
LikeLike
Michael Kruger and Andreas Kostenberger and their book, “The Heresy of Orthodoxy” is good. They are 2 top scholars.
I went to seminary with Andreas Kostenberger – he is a genius – he made 100’s on all Hebrew and Greek tests. he was amazing, and later went to get Phd. and then has become one of the top believing NT scholars of today.
Michael Kruger is one of the best believing scholars also.
see his “canon foder” website:
http://michaeljkruger.com/
LikeLike
The Tubigen school means the philosophy/paradigm of F. C. Bauer, which is the same one that Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels and James Tabor and all the others that you use have been influenced by (all the same basic thinking) have re-freshed for modern audiences.
LikeLike
“so I gladly make my defense. 11 You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12 My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city. 13 And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me. 14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, 15 and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 16 So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.”
so this liar seems to have been worshipping in the jewish places of worship and pretending to be saying ”
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”
while @ same time thinking in his heart “one ” means 3 and their is mediator and this mediator was yhwh who became animal sacrifice.
paul was very crafty and tricky person.
he was playing a game of interception.
LikeLike
“Because OT Judaism was true and the first revelations before the NT,
and all the OT points to the NT, there is a sense that Paul and the apostles in the book of Acts in a transition time while the temple is still standing and the book of Hebrews has not been revealed yet, there is a sense that Paul can do those things without any deception at all.”
“all ot points to nt” thats where paul derives his “sacrificed” god from, he twists ot verses. so since he had revealation of his twisted interpretations, he still pretended to play along with the jews in synagogue services? this is trick, guile and deceit.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on sarahimrblog and commented:
How deceitful are these christian missionaries, I wonder for how many years they have been practicing this and how far they have gone!
LikeLike
Phil Pharshal details this method in his book “Muslim Evangelism: Contemporary Approaches to Contextualization”. Every Muslim Da-ee should read it to know the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you have a link?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with Muslims on this. It’s not that they pretend to be Muslims, it’s that they think an appropriate form of contextualisation allows Christ believing former Muslims to stay inside their “Islamic culture” so to speak.
I don’t think that is true from a Christian or Muslim perspective.
LikeLike
Rather Ironic : The video up loaders are claiming Jay is using deciet : Yet when you watch the whole video of Jay speaking originally you see who is deceiving
LikeLike
dreadful spelling
LikeLike
I don’t even think his anecdote in the beginning was true. They rose through the ranks to a level just below imam? Islam has ranks? And imam is one of them??
12 years I’ve been a Muslim, and this is news to me…
Lies within lies. The writer of Inception would be proud.
LikeLike
I also find this statement is hilarious. Whatever jsmith told his audience that’s almost certainly a bogus. Islam Mosque dont works that way. Mosque may have a resident Imam (rawaatib) for leading prayer but there is no concept as 2nd Imam in command ?? Anybody can lead congregational prayer based on their Quranic memorization and accuracy of the recitation..
LikeLiked by 2 people
What motivated Paul to lie and to deceive and manipulate and con Jews to get them to believe in Jesus Christ? As someone lying and intentionally tricking people into faith in Christ, why did he decide to hold on to his fraudulent scheme even though, “Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked. I spent a night and a day in the open sea. In my frequent journeys, I have been in danger from rivers and from bandits, in danger from my countrymen and from the Gentiles, in danger in the city and the country, in danger on the sea and among false brothers,…in labor and toil and often without sleep, in hunger and thirst and often without food, in cold and exposure.…Apart from these external trials, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.…being tortured, beaten, and imprisoned? He could have stopped.
LikeLike
Ken, I agree with you that Jay Smith has moved on from those tactics and has criticised those BUT what is apparent is that Smith left those tactics and is now criticises those methods simply because he did not get the desired result. As soon as he realised Muslims in Africa were not understanding hs message through the heavy contextualisation apporach he gave up on it.
Crucially he did not give up on it and nor does he criticise it based on the fact it is deceptive. His problem with it centres around the lack of desired results.
I think that is quite telling.
BTW how come you were invited to the conference?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was invited, because I was very vocal against those methods. I was questioning and criticizing them for years. They were trying to convince me.
I felt like I was the only one who cared about Biblical doctrine in my particular circle.
I don’t think Jay gave up on it because of lack of results; he gave up on it because he noticed the Muslims misunderstood him – the Muslims noticed his external behavior – beard, clothing, etc. and assumed he had become a Muslim.
But even that “antecedent” (what came before) contextualized method ( a C-4 level – a much milder form of what later became the C-5 or C-6 or “insider’s movement” level of contextualization) – even then, a person is suppossed to explain their believe in Jesus as the Word of God, who was the eternal sacrifice, and use New Testament verses.
LikeLike
So these deceptive missionary tactics are still going on Ken?
LikeLike
Unfortunately, they still exist. but I am not a part of any of those circles ( I never was in my area, but in larger conferences was exposed to what others were doing in the Muslim world, and so I questioned it) and so I don’t know much as far as how the criticism has been able to help improve these types of outreaches.
I think others have criticized the methods, much as I have, and may have helped improve some of what people are doing.
Islamic cultures are external cultures in the sense of dress and appearance – for the most part. Some areas require certain dress and modesty. (even a foreigner in many areas has to dress like the nationals do.)
The key for the western Christian worker is to be willing to be honest and speak up about his faith in Jesus (as you have seen me do here, use “Isa Al Masih” – I see nothing wrong with that, as that is the language in certain areas, and be willing to explain who He really is from a NT perspective) as the eternal Word who always existed (John 1:1-5; Philippians 2:5-8), became a human, died as an eternal sacrifice on the cross, rose from the dead, etc. and not avoiding things like the Deity of Christ and the Trinity forever.
Some are taught to totally avoid the doctrine of the Trinity and the word Trinity completely, and only agree with Monotheism. I think that is wrong and one cannot do that forever. The issue is that the Muslim (even many of you here), still accuses Trinitarianism as “3 gods”, when the doctrine declares “one God in 3 persons”.
One of the biggest problems with the C-5 level of contextualization is using the Qur’an only for a while and re-interpreting verses with a Christian interpretation and avoiding phrases like “Son of God” and calling God “Our Father” and avoiding the cross. Just the word “cross” in many areas is a negative word and makes Muslims think of the “crusades”, and that is unfortunate.
The word “Christian” in some areas, like Morocco, on a street level meaning, means “a French tourist who does not wear a bra” – those western missionaries are trying to avoid those wrong mis-understandings. Other places in the Muslim world, the word “Christian” means the “pig eaters”, “wine drinker”, “adulterers” (from American movies, TV shows, etc.) “idolaters” (statues of Mary), pagans ( 3 gods, misunderstanding of the Trinity).
In many ways, they are trying to explain in a slow and nice way that those misunderstandings are wrong.
LikeLike
Muslims Beware! Beware!! Beware!!!
Christian missionaries could not convert more Muslims from evangelizing outside Islam. They think they can win Muslim souls to Christ if they pretend to be Muslims or ex-Muslims and lie like Nabeel Quraish is doing. After all, Paul of Tarsus did that deception to the Jews and Christians think once they save a soul to Christ, it does not matter the method because Paul of Tarsus did it.
The Christians are now creating sites as Islamic sites with professional looks and has aqeedah, seerah, fiq, hadith etc. explained to the whims and caprice of Christian missionaries if one closely examine the explanation.
Most Muslim countries who have let their scholars examine these sites have blocked them and examples are
http://www.convertstoislam.org/
http://www.thequran.com/
http://www.aboutislam.com/
http://www.allahassurance.com/
Source: https://islamgreatreligion.wordpress.com/fake-anti-islamic-sites/
The Christian missionaries are everywhere in the Islamic domain pretending to be Muslims and trying to distort Islam to their whims and caprice.
They do visit us here on this blog pretending to be Muslims and trying to be fair and arguing for us to accept Dr. James White, Jay Smith, Nabeel Quraish etc. interpretation of Quran and hadith. If an unsuspecting Muslim agrees, then hooray, the Christian will say. “You see, the Muslims are ignorant, they agreed with Dr. James White” That alone is a boost for them to keep trying to distort our religion in pretending they are Muslims.
So, beware if one comes here and say he is a Muslim with a Muslim site but telling us to agree with Jay Smith, Nabeel Quraish, Dr. James White etc. distortions. Look at the Islamic interpretation and explanation and please do not look at Dr. James Whites explanation because the Muslim has a site with aqeedah, fiq, seerah etc. He might be a Christian missionary. Do not let the Muslim confuse you. Stay on your ground and challenge him on what you know and what you were taught.
Some of the deceptive “Muslims” do frequent here right on this blog so beware and challenge any one who says Dr. James White is right on a hadith. Do not give in, re-research and challenge the Muslim because he might not be a Muslim but a Christian missionary.
Allah will always protect Islam to continue to grow and we must beware not to fall into the fake Muslims.
Thanks.
LikeLike
I and primaquran
He is a Muslim I believe
He has a good website but I can see some distortions of Islam and I am standing on my ground. People can judge.
——————————————————————–
primaquran
November 27, 2016 at 3:07 pm
“Intellect” Allot of what you are posting is just non arguments.
You may also want to look at the following verse which helps explain part of what you believe.
“Every human being is bound to taste death, [and] in the end unto Us shall all be brought back.” (Holy Qur’an 29:57) -So this verse is talking about a future gathering -Day of Judgement.
You said:
“No. The verse is talking about “death” and day of resurrection/judgement.
A human being dies and he ceases to exist and in the day of resurrection, Allah’s power resurrects the dead and brings the dead back to life and into existence.”
I think you need to look at what I said above that it helps explain ‘part of what you believe’.
Your not arguing against my points. I would have no problem believing that a soul created can be destroyed.
I have no problem with believing that Allah (swt) can resurrect the bodies and joy the soul to the bodies.
I found it very interesting that you did not engage with any of the oral traditions in the link provided. Not a single one of them.
I admire that you attempt to engage with people like Ken Temple, however, you need to make sure that you have cogent arguments. Insh’Allah we all learn.
“Killed in the cause of Allah? I rest my case. Those people are killed according to the verse. Is it not so? So, they are dead as the verse said. They can be resurrected and cool of in heaven and it does not mean they did not cease to exist as human beings by dying and tasting death.”
“Killed in the cause of Allah? I rest my case.” Unfortunately you may believe that you are finished with the verses of Allah (swt) but they are not finished with you… in fact if you would be so kind as to read on it refutes you soundly …
“who are KILLED in the way of Allah, “They are dead.” Rather they are ALIVE.” Allah (swt) refuted you not me.
“And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah , “They are dead.” Rather, they are alive, but you perceive [it] not.” (Holy Qur’an 2:154)
“KILLED in the cause of Allah as DEAD, Rather, they are ALIVE.”
Allah (swt) refuted you not me.
“And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision,” (Holy Qur’an 3:169)
So be careful to rest your case when Allah (swt) has more to say to you.
“Prophet Mohammed met dead prophets in heaven. They did die and anyone agreed to that and it means they ceased to exist. Allah resurrected them to see prophet Mohammed did not mean they did not die and ceased to exist.”
Which is it intellect? Did the Blessed Messenger (saw) meet dead prophets in heaven or resurrected prophets?
“They did die and ANYONE AGREED to that and it means they ceased to exist.” Did that same ‘ANYONE’ agree that these prophets were resurrected from the dead, re-united in soul and body just for the purpose of prayer?
If Allah (swt) resurrected them just for the sake of the Blessed Messenger (saw) leading them in prayer , where are they now? What happened to them after they were lead in prayer? Be careful now ‘Intellect’ because you are giving very powerful arguments to the Christians.
Do you know there is a much easier and consistent explanation than avoiding questions and refusing to answer points? The easier explanation and one agreed upon by everyone I know (until you came along) is that people die (their flesh and blood bodies die) and the soul lives on in an intermediate state between this life and the next life. That such belief does not preclude the that souls are not internal and can be destroyed, or that Allah (swt) has power over all things and can destroy everything in existence (including souls).
I mean I am assuming (again I never met a Muslim like you) I am assuming you believe in angels? I am assuming that angels have a life and an existence that does not include flesh and blood bodies.
I hope that you will spend some time in reflection before making hasty comments.
——————————————————————-
Salaam
In Islam, when someone is dead it means cease to exist as the video indicates, everything cease to exist except Allah. The Angel of death cease to exist and everything cease to exist except Allah.
You are confused on when Allah says the dead are alive. Muslims I know never confused about that at all, for we do believe and Allah keep saying after death you will questioned in the grave and various instances where other prophets have reported seeing other prophets. They are indeed dead but resurrected. The question in grave is resurrection to question. Allah can resurrect the dead at anytime He wants and it does not mean the dead did not die. No Muslim has problem with this except you alone primaquran. Dr. Yasir Qadhi and ALL Muslims agree the dead is resurrected or getting the soul back and unite with the body for the person to be questioned or seen by other prophets.
The soul alone cannot hear, see, eat and so a human being ceases to exist when he dies. That is all Muslim explanation not a Christian explanation about the soul please.
We know angel exist and Jinn/Demons/Demonic beings/UFo etc. exist and they are not human beings but Angelic beings, demonic beings etc. and Jesus used to separate the jinns/demons from the body of humans. These beings can see us and can hear us but we cannot hear them. So the angels, jins/demons etc. are not SOULS. They are not and they do die and ceases to exist.
The resurrection in the grave is to be asked some questions is just for that purpose and resurrection to see other prophets is just for that purpose and it does not mean the prophets or a dead in grave is not dead.
All, all Muslims believed what I said to you except you alone. No Muslim in the whole world would believe when Allah said those who fought for Allah are alive means those did not die. The alive means God resurrected them again.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
we know God has created barrier/ separation/ wall between living and the dead. this is clearly written in the Quran. we never hear a narration where sahabah is in medina and he calls out to a dead saint buried somewhere in mecca. we never hear in the quran that God provided super hearing to souls who are in barzak.
LikeLike
“The God-man died, but death only affects the biological human body and its chemical functions. the soul / spirit and Deity separated from the body at death. then Jesus raised Himself from the dead, (john 10:18), proving He was God in the flesh.”
notice the absurdity here completely demolishes the idea of incarnation. you see like a human being. does god need to take on human eyes to see like a human? does he need to take on human ears to hear like human? if “god can do anything” then he can experience human weakness without wearing puppet mask. so this means the soul/spirit “god the son” was fully experiencing human weakness in his invisible divine nature. this logically implies “god the son” suffered and died like mortals. like the psalms says, “you will DIE like mortals”
LikeLike
edward August 4, 2015
if god is dwelling in flesh is that a possession or an incarnation? if god “became flesh” then god became physical and took on physical properties, right? if evangelicals say that god added a human nature to himself then god must have increased himself in learning, growing in wisdom and not knowing things. so god is plugged into both natures.
why do evangelicals deceive people by saying ” oh no, this is not the divine nature, but human nature”
but they plug god into both natures.
Bart
Bart August 5, 2015
That would be a possession. *Becoming* flesh is an incarnation.
LikeLike
primaquran
You said;
But I have never heard anyone among the Muslims (and I have encountered some strange believes) argue that the soul dies immediately upon death of the body as ‘intellect’ as argued.
I say;
I am talking about human being and not soul/spirit. I said the human being cease to exist when he dies. I am not talking about the soul, I am not talking about the soul please. Do not put words in my mouth. I said a human being ceases to exist when he dies. I did not say soul.
The soul/spirit can be wherever God wants but the soul/spirit is not a human being. So I did not say what you attributed to me. Show me where I said that.
What I said about the soul/spirit is that it is not a human being by itself. If it exists, it is not a human being that exist but a soul/spirit.e
I provided a video from Islamic narrations, that says all souls/spirit will taste death and everything cease to exist except Allah alone. If Allah was alone and created everything, why cant he destroy and create everything?
The angels carrying the throne of Allah will die and cease to exist and the angel of death will die and ceases to exist and before that all the spirits like the jinn/demons, human beings etc. are dead when the horn/trumpet is blown.
Allah will speak and no one will answer because nothing exist or everything ceases to exist. Allah will resurrect the dead and that is why we have the day of resurrection in Judaism/Christianity and Islam.
If everyone is alive why the need to resurrect them/us?
Death means not alive
Resurrection means back to life.
The prophet met dead prophets who were resurrected for that purpose and a soul is put back to the dead or the dead is resurrected in the grave for that purpose of questioning and the soul is with Allah. The soul is not a human being.
Where are the prophets? Dead. They are dead. Where are those who were KILLED, KILLED, KILLED in the cause of Allah? Dead, they are dead. Allah resurrected them and He Allah sees them Alive but Allah said we do not perceive that because they are dead. Every Muslim believe they dead and no Muslim in this world will say those who were killed never died but believed they were resurrected when Allah said they were Alive.
Thanks.
LikeLike