The Criterion of Embarrassment is an oft-used historical tool by those who seek to authenticate and validate the New Testament Gospels insofar as they are understood as historical literature. However, a thoughtful review of this historical tool in light of the Gospel attributed to Luke presents with it a convincing counter-argument to the usefulness and authority of this tool. The role of women in antiquity, especially those in the Graeco-Roman period within Jerusalem and its surrounding area presents with it a complexity that is not always readily understood or consistent.
Women are revered and respected in the Hebrew Bible’s narratives, Jerusalem itself has had a woman ruler in the century previous to the time of Jesus the Christ.The presuppositional understanding then that the testimony of the women at the tomb were taken to be less authoritative and thus embarrassing for the Gospel authors to include due to their sex ignores the intra-Gospel narrative framework attributed to Luke and the normative gender standards during the first century of the common era.
Alternatively, the paper can be read on Academia.edu or downloaded here.
and God knows best.
Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, Death, Feminism, History, Jesus, Scholarship, The Gospel of Jesus
Blogging Theology 
Speaking of women, in the true ending of Mark, how did the other disciples know if the women didn’t tell anything to anyone? And how did Mark himself know……..?
LikeLike
Its a mystery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
the women said nothing to anyone because they were too afraid. the “good news” was not powerful enough to take over their fear. they ran away scared.
if mark made up the empty tomb, then he does not need the women to tell and neither does he need guards to guard the tomb.
mark says clearly in his ending that the women did not tell anyone anything :
he would not have ended his narrative like that if
1. he knew that they went on to report
2. peter checked out the tomb
3. jesus was standing near the tomb as unrecognized person.
it seems that the only ending available to matthew and luke was the one where the women run away scared.
what we see in mark is
1. the last thing peter does is deny and lie
2. the last thing the women do is run away scared.
LikeLike
Your reconciliation of the whole story is comparable to the fabrication of the 12 verses, which was used to rectify this inconsistency in Mark. What you have claimed is found nowhere in Mark, do you agree on that fact ?
LikeLike
apologizes , jumped the gun…..I think I may have been on mobile or was half-focused when i wrote my previous reply, lol
LikeLike
quote :
And how did Mark himself know……..?
here is interesting reply :
Mark is written in the 3rd person omniscient and implies no such thing. It does not claim to be based on any personal accounts, it’s just revealed, like OT scripture. There are several scenes in Mark for which there could have been no witnesses at all, including the temptations, the prayer at Gethsemane and the trial before the Sanhedrin. Mark even claims to know what people were thinking “in their hearts” in 2:6. Mark is not supposed to be read as a memoir but as revelation and he is revealing the tomb as a secret to his audience. It would make no sense to end his Gospel the way he did if he meant to imply the women later told anybody and the fact that all of the other gospels are forced to independently invent their own contradictory endings shows that there could not have been any strong oral tradition about even by the time Luke and John were being written around the turn of the 1st Century. As soon as they lose Mark as a guideline, they fly off in different directions, and ll of them drop any indication that the women were afraid to tell anybody
//////////
As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” (Mark 16:5-7)
note that even in matthew the message is to head to galilee, not stay in jerusalem.
again strong implies that peter did not visit the tomb like he does in the last two gospels.
LikeLike
i am not reconciling anything. what are you saying ?
LikeLike
“What you have claimed is found nowhere in Mark, do you agree on that fact ?”
i agree that mark has no reappearances in his story. how is it possible that this guy told us stuff which no one was a witness to , but did not include the appearances of jesus? he has his jesus going back and forth to different locations , but the post resurrected jesus appearances in different locations were not important to mention? does this mean that marks informant told mark that jesus DID not make REAPPEARANCE?
if mark knew that peter WENT to the tomb and if peter was marks informant, how is it POSSIBLE mark ends his story like this :
So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid
quote :
In general in Greek and specifically for “Mark” (author) the double negative is used for emphasis. So here, a better translation would be, “They did not tell anyone. Yes, I mean “anyone”
USING markan language as evidence to prove that the women did not report
quote :
In GMark is an often repeated grammatical construction with the sense of
– not … except
– nothing … except
– no one … except
A few examples
2:26 how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but (εἰ μὴ) the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”
5:37 And he allowed no one to follow him except (εἰ μὴ) Peter and James and John the brother of James.
6:4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except (εἰ μὴ) in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.
6:5 And he could do no mighty work there, except (εἰ μὴ) that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.
6:8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except (εἰ μὴ) a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts—
9:8 And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them but (εἰ μὴ) Jesus only.
9:9 And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until (εἰ μὴ ὅταν) the Son of Man had risen from the dead.
9:29 And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but (εἰ μὴ) prayer.
10:18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except (εἰ μὴ) God alone.
11:13 And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but (εἰ μὴ) leaves,
13:32 But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but (εἰ μὴ) only the Father.
3) So, what do you think?
If Mark wished to say that the women said nothing to anyone except Peter and the other disciples, how would he have written it?
A – And they said nothing to anyone
or
B – And they said nothing to anyone except (εἰ μὴ) Peter and the other disciples
LikeLike
does this mean that marks informant told mark that jesus DID not make REAPPEARANCE?
correction
does this mean that marks informant told mark that jesus DID not make REAPPEARANCE for OTHERS to see?
LikeLike
Ijaz,
Your article is very scholarly, well written, and offers an interesting thesis.
I believe I follow your argument and understand your conclusion. I think that you are saying that since the Lukan narrative portrays the women as authoritative and reliable, this undermines the idea that their testimony at the tomb would have been seen as embarrassing (i.e. meeting the criterion of embarrassment). If such is the case, then the criterion is irrelevant and the testimony of the women at the tomb is rendered unreliable and/or invalidated.
Is that an accurate brief understanding of your article, or can you summarize better just to make it easier for us to digest?
Thanks for your work!!!
LikeLike
That’s exactly what I was arguing, though I do admit it’s not made as a clear link between them until the final paragraph.
Jazakallaahu Khayran for your feedback!
LikeLike
why would luke require that male witnesses confirm the empty tomb?
edit: just realized now that peter running to the tomb was a later insertion.
quote :
So Luke redacted the message at the tomb, otherwise the disciples would have been depicted as running off to Galilee (fifty miles from Jerusalem) to see Jesus who had gone on there before them, as Mark (and Matthew) say.
quote :
In Mark, ostensibly the earliest, the story goes that the disciples ‘all left him and fled’ in the garden. A young man following Jesus’s captors was seized and escaped naked. Peter is afraid to admit to knowing Jesus. While at Jesus’s crucifixion, only women are mentioned, “And there were also women looking on from afar.” “And Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Joses were looking on where Jesus was laid.” Any subsequent empty tomb story would therefore be limited to women, since we are told in the earliest Gospel that the men fled.
In Matthew, ‘all the disciples left him and fled,’ adding at the crucifixion that ‘many women were looking on from a distance.’ And when Joseph sealed Jesus’s grave, “Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the grave.” Only women again.
Luke is the first to omit that the disciples all fled at Jesus’s arrest. But he does note that it was “the women [who] followed after, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid,” i.e., women again, who saw where Jesus was buried. [Luke 24:12 about ‘Peter running to the tomb’ is a later insertion that does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.]
John, the last Gospel written, bursts this mold open. The women are no longer watching the crucifixion ‘at a distance’ as in Mark and Matthew, but ‘they were standing by the cross of Jesus,’ and now there is also at least one man with them. This is a necessary redaction, since John has two men race each other to the tomb once Mary Magdalene tells the disciples it is empty, and they couldn’t run there unless they knew where it was, and they couldn’t know unless they had attended the crucifixion, which John says they did.
end quote
LikeLike
It’s embarrasing to think Satan revealed the Koran to you aswell…
LikeLike
Satan is the father of all lies. It’s no wonder your pathetic Bible is full of pagan myths and self-contradictory nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
when the jews bound jesus, they should have said :
But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house. (Mk. 3:27; Mt. 12:29; Lk. 11:21-22)
well, what if the strongman went on holiday ? or what if one sneaked past ? but anyway, when they BOUND him, they plundered him, but you christians ended up worshiping a FINITE creature. your house has plundered and jesus himself says he does not come to bring peace but fire and division. your house is SMASHED . plundered. .
LikeLike
If Satan revealed the Qur’an he would not have included verses like the following:
“O mankind! Eat of that which is lawful and good on the earth, and follow not the footsteps of Shaytan (Satan). Verily, he is to you an open enemy.” Surah Al-Baqarah (2:168)
However, if Satan wanted to mislead untold numbers down through the ages, he would have “inspired” unknown authors to write books which deified a human being, and directed the uneducated masses to worship a simple man rather than the one true God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a said, time to come home Paul.
LikeLike
He’s already home. Just because he is being censured by some Muslims for speaking the truth about some misguided brothers does not mean he needs to go back to your man-worshiping cult. The falsehood of Christianity does not change just because brother Paul is facing a backlash from some Muslims for his courage.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I call on brother Ijaz to not censure brother Paul’s posts. It is not the right thing to do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is a terrible thing to do!
LikeLike
Walaikum salam brother Ijaz.
Thank you for responding and for your time, I appreciate it, and I’m sure the other brothers feel the same.
MashaAllah for this we admire you like we admire brother Paul. We are one.
If that post is not permitted due to maybe an inaccuracy or a slight misunderstanding, fair enough, that may or may not be acceptable.
But can we have a similar post by Paul addressing the same issue of how we should represent ourselves when facing the situations like last Sunday? And can we have a meeting regarding this? After all it is relevant with the current situation. Love to all of you brothers. United.
Jazakallah khair.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ijaz, in my opinion it is unwise to withhold br. Paul post on the very blog he had setup and made it prominent without his consultation. He has the right to give Naseeha on other brothers and more if you love your Muslim brothers what you love for yourself, and you hate for them what you hate for yourself, then you advise them.
Our Prophet (pbuh) said :
Come to think of it, it is actually a form of da’wah to make it public as it shows to others wonderful example how we muslims remind each other that we should be just and patience to those who hate us. I think Br Paul here is doing himself a self critic (as a muslim) thus not necessarily a ta’eer / embarrassment to others. Also those who may have disagreement can always communicate their reasons in the post, we may never come to an agreement but both view are equally accomodated in a respectful manner.
May Allah Azza wa Jal unite us in the pursuit of truth, and guide us to the right path.
LikeLiked by 3 people
wtf
LikeLike
Judging from Paul’s comment it seems what Ijaz did wasn’t nice at all…i think we should hear what Ijaz has to say as well before coming to a conclusion about this situation…eh?
LikeLike
I’ve been very nice about it all to be honest. I just happen to disagree on a specific post’s publication when arbitration should firstly be done with the brothers he disagrees with. The public isn’t privy to the information we are and so it’s pretty pointless for the public to choose sides in any way.
It is from Islam that people leave things that do not concern then.
LikeLike
First of all Mr Ijaz, i wasn’t choosing sides, i just said that (read carefully) “JUDGING FROM PAUL’S COMMENT…” it seems what you did wasn’t nice…i wasn’t accusing you, it was just talking about the conclusion i came after reading Paul’s comments…
Then obviously in order to tell everyone to be fair instead of judging you i said that we should hear your side of the story as well….
LikeLike
I know it doesn’t concern me so sorry, sorry for asking everyone to be fair with you as well…
LikeLike
Re-read my comment brother, I wasn’t reproaching you, just giving everyone general advice, that they should leave the matter as it does not involve/ concern them and allow the ones it does concern, to have it sorted out.
No ill will in my comment, hope you understand, and yes, I would prefer if the public doesn’t choose sides, it is for the better.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ijaz, aight, my apologies then…
LikeLike
No worries, I can understand everyone’s good intentions behind their posts, hope you are well my friend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah i’m fine…thanks for asking 👍
LikeLike
I agree with the other comments. It is unwise to delete your article and block you from writing new ones.
If you’ve been witness to misconduct from Muslims and consider that you have advised them about it but to no avail, then you are entitled to point it out.
There are videos that show the person that I shall not name here insulting, making threats of violence and getting physical with others. It’s not easy to show self-restraint in the face of all the anti-Muslim provocation in the park. But if one can’t do it, then it’s a mistake for him to be in the frontline facing EDL types and perhaps to be in Speakers Corner in the first place.
LikeLike
Just a heads up, his article was not deleted and he isn’t blocked from writing new ones. I’m not sure where this misinformation has come from, but we should not resort to fake news.
LikeLike
Ijaz I just sent you a message on CC, please respond to it, at your earliest convenience
LikeLiked by 1 person
Salam aleikum,
“his article was not deleted”
Well, two of his postings which I read did disappear: page not found.
https://bloggingtheology.net/2018/03/20/speakers-corner/
https://bloggingtheology.net/2018/03/20/dear-readers/
“I’m not sure where this misinformation has come from”
In a comment not far above yours Paul writes that his article was taken down and that he is blocked from writing on this blog.
LikeLike
wa alaykumus salaam,
That’s because they’re both private, I wouldn’t delete the brother’s work because I disagreed with it.
Br. Paul is not blocked, he’s still very much an author, for the public to verify this, just look at the list of authors on the right-side of the blog.
Hope that clarifies my remarks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the clarification.
Insha’a Allah this is nothing longtime friends such as yourselves can’t work out over a phonecall.
LikeLike
Ijaz Ahmed, Paul Williams, Yahya Snow, Mansur Ahmed and the rest of us are really defending Islam against it’s enemies. May Allah protect us to continue working as a team and seek refuge from Satan, the cursed one. Ameen.
With regards to the disagreements being discussed, I will say we are all humans and will sometimes disagree but it does not mean we fight or stop talking to each other as it is against Islam. Paul Williams and Ijaz Ahmed spoke and I know(confident), hope and pray they have settled their differences and moved on.
I, and brother Abdullah is it 123 or so, always crash on sunni and shite, because to me shite’s are better than Donald Trump and the Zionist but he thinks otherwise, but we write our opinions and peace of mind but at the end of day, brother Abdullah is still and will still be my Sunni brother. I am not shia and will never ever be a shia, in sha Allah but they are my brothers against those who will not say “La illaha illa la, Mohammadu Rasullah”. Most shia’s believe in this and so are my brothers.
Brother Paul, Adnan Rashid, Yahya Snow etc. did not agree on certain things some time ago but have patched up things and are still working as a team against detractors of Islam.
I got my comment deleted here because it offended Sam Shamoun, who keeps insulting us, our prophet, and our deen and to the extent of blaming Allah and Muslims on why Allah did not cure Muslims. Sam Shamoun has forgotten his big stomach that was not cured by his lord Jesus Christ. It was deleted probably in good faith. I did not contest but I thought it must not be deleted. I do not have any authority to contest but Paul Williams started this blog just like how Steve Jobs started apple, left and came back. He does not control it but must have some respect like Steve Jobs had when he left Apple and came back. He must be consulted before the deletion. That is my opinion.
This is not a problem because humans do disagree. I am in the middle because I did not know what the woman said that made the Muslims angry. It is wrong for a Muslim to start aggression, says the Quran. Muslims must have stayed far away from Tommy Robinson and his gang at the SC. Starting hostilities against them is un Islamic.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ijaz Ahmed
It is ok. You have patched up things with brother Paul. Please disregard all the comments and work with Paul and the rest of us in the name of Allah. Do not let any comment distract your wonderful effort of defending Islam.
People will always disagree and that is human nature. Allah does not want any escalation. The best thing to do is to patch and move on. This is not a problem. Good websites and blogging sites needs censorship at times.
Thanks.
LikeLike
I thought this was your blog, Paul.
Hiding things is not good, Ijaz.
I appreciate Paul’s calling out some Muslims when they do wrong.
LikeLike
Nothing is being hidden, I appreciate when Paul has rightfully rebuked some Muslims for their behaviour in his recent article here:
https://bloggingtheology.net/2018/03/19/humiliating-a-woman-at-speakers-corner/
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, why did Paul complain about the other article (or 2 (?) that you put into private mode?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ijaz,
I pray that you and Paul have come to an agreement and remain as brothers.
I think it is good to give Naseeha to Muslims as Paul W. seems to be attempting to do. But…..
I also think that such Naseeha should be should always be qualified within the context. In this case the context of the anti-Muslim antagonism and provocations in the park last weekend, being the instigating cause of misbehavior on the part of some Muslims. This does not excuse errors on the part of some Muslims but provides greater understanding of the situation for those who were not there.
In the face of non-Muslim wrongdoers, Muslims should always remember these words of wisdom:
“They are not our teachers!” ~ Sheikh Omar Mukhtar
LikeLike
Ijaz is telling a lie when he claims that “Nothing is being hidden”
My articles have been taken down – ie hidden from view.
LikeLike
Paul,
You are not barred from posting anything. Your role is the same, you are an author, you can write and publish articles.
You have ended contact with me, but I am happy to see Eric posting. If you had posted the same article, there would be no issue.
Kind Regards,
Br. Ijaz.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul WIlliam
I have followed this site for a while before I started posting – you are also guilty of blocking people who bring up issues that are difficult for you and your followers to answer. You also delete comments that show islam to be the false religion that it is.
Can you really complain with a straight face that others are doing this to you? It almost makes me want to believe in karma.
LikeLike
You have always had rights to publish on the website. The only caveat was last night when you decided to untruthfully speak about me and your posts would have had to be approved by another author, of which there are over a dozen. No one else chose to do so. What does that say?
You have always had the ability to write and publish, with one exception last night. You claimed falsely that you were banned, that is a lie, you claimed falsely that the website was hijacked, that is a lie, you claimed I took down your libelous article because I thought it was “bad”, that is a lie, we had almost 3 hours of phone calls yesterday leading up to that article, and to reduce the reasoning for the article not being published is morally reprehensible.
I think it’s autocratic to believe one can post whatever they want, without regard for personal vendettas, agendas, and without regard for arbitration in personal matters.
My job as administrator is to ensure the integrity of the website and its publications, including those involving the various du’aat that we work with internationally.
Unlike yourself, I have never deleted my account on a whim, nor have I deleted the website because of an argument with someone else. You do not determine who runs or manages the website, I believe that is autocratic behaviour, you’re an author, not the administrator.
If you do continue your dishonest and hateful behaviour towards me, I cannot ensure that you will continue to be a part of the website. Should you find the need for recourse, you can contact me privately.
Kind Regards,
Br. Ijaz.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I, for one, enjoy reading articles and contributions from BOTH of you, Ijaz, and Paul W., Please reconcile and continue to work with each other for the betterment of the blog and project.
LikeLike
You have always had rights to publish on the website. The only caveat was last night when you decided to untruthfully speak about me and your posts would have had to be approved by another author, of which there are over a dozen. No one else chose to do so. What does that say?
You have always had the ability to write and publish, with one exception last night. You claimed falsely that you were banned, that is a lie, you claimed falsely that the website was hijacked, that is a lie, you claimed I took down your libelous article because I thought it was “bad”, that is a lie, we had almost 3 hours of phone calls yesterday leading up to that article, and to reduce the reasoning for the article not being published is morally reprehensible.
I think it’s autocratic to believe one can post whatever they want, without regard for personal vendettas, agendas, and without regard for arbitration in personal matters.
My job as administrator is to ensure the integrity of the website and its publications, including those involving the various du’aat that we work with internationally.
Unlike yourself, I have never deleted my account on a whim, nor have I deleted the website because of an argument with someone else. You do not determine who runs or manages the website, I believe that is autocratic behaviour, you’re an author, not the administrator.
If you do continue your dishonest and hateful behaviour towards me, I cannot ensure that you will continue to be a part of the website. Should you find the need for recourse, you can contact me privately.
Kind Regards,
Br. Ijaz.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is autocratic behaviour to determine who is welcomed and not welcomed. There is no need to behave this way Br. Paul. Kindly calm down.
It is my position to ensure the integrity of the website, the website mind you, which I own. You did not invite me, kindly correct yourself, you gave up, planned to delete the website and I paid to keep it online while ensuring (I have now the screenshots from that conversation) where you totally and completely gave up control willingly and intentionally, then requested I delete your account which I did by your order.
You do not determine what is negotiable or not.
If you could kindly take your own advice, that would be appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Br. Ijaz.
LikeLike
It is autocratic behaviour to determine who is welcomed and not welcomed. There is no need to behave this way Br. Paul. Kindly calm down.
It is my position to ensure the integrity of the website, the website mind you, which I own. You did not invite me, kindly correct yourself, you gave up, planned to delete the website and I paid to keep it online while ensuring (I have now the screenshots from that conversation) where you totally and completely gave up control willingly and intentionally, then requested I delete your account which I did by your order.
You do not determine what is negotiable or not.
If you could kindly take your own advice, that would be appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Br. Ijaz.
LikeLiked by 1 person
wow.
LikeLike
Brothers Paul and Ijaz, please try to resolve your differences. You are brothers in Islam. You should not let this issue drive you apart. This is exactly what the Islamophobes want. Please remember the hadith of the Prophet. It is not permissible for two brothers to not talk to each other for more than 3 days. You must try to reconcile your differences, inshaAllah.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are no differences to resolve, Br. Paul knows very well that I agree there was violence by both sides at the park, and that’s why we have two posts up by him on this very topic. I have not yet said a bad word about him, yet he has chosen to make some very untruthful claims about me, attacking my character and things of the sort. I cannot allow that to continue and he knows this.
Regards,
Br. Ijaz.
LikeLike
I agree with the above statement, please reconcile your differences.
Both Paul and Ijaz contribute greatly to the blog, and the dynamic would not be the same without either one.
LikeLike
He’s gone off on an insulting tirade, when he calms down and reaches out to me, we’ll see. All of this drama because I disagreed with one article! Now he’s saying it’s because I don’t believe there was violence at the park on Sunday, yet I’m the one that approved several of his posts on that very subject.
I am not sure why he is behaving this way, but I do forgive him, and Allah knows best.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m unsure what to make of this. On the one hand, I have been on the receiving end of a certain measure of hypocrisy and even creative, misleading spins on posts I’ve made here, where Paul had decided to make some unflattering edits/omissions (not only Paul, I might add). On the other hand, I was able to briefly read the posts he’d made which are now gone – I can’t see what was intrinsicly wrong with them. He was critical of the behaviour of a small minority of people at Speaker’s Corner. He was trying to defend Muslims from kneejerk reactionaries.
LikeLike
I am trying not to further escalate the disagreement with Br. Paul by writing things here that give away any personal details that the post is about who it was meant to attack. I don’t want to further comment on it, but Br. Paul can gladly let everyone know what led up to my decision and then his reaction to it. I leave it in the hands of God.
Kind Regards,
Br. Ijaz.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Salam and greetings to brother Ijaz and the decision-makers of this website.
This reply is not related to this post but it is related to this website in general and addressed to Ijaz and anyone else who influences the decisions of this website.
This is an enquiry and as one of the readers and supporters of Blogging Theology I would like reassurance and confirmation on what is really going on.
There hasn’t been a post published by our brother Paul Williams for a while now. It feels unusual and awkward that all of sudden we have this absence of post from our amazing brother Paul.
Brother Ijaz, please tell us what is going on?
Is our brother Paul restricted from publishing any post here since yesterday?
People like myself do not want to be left in the dark here. So please update us if there is or if there isn’t a restriction for our brother Paul.
I strongly believe I do not just speak for myself on this matter. Just to remind you that one of the key reason why many of us enjoy Blogging Theology and why we lend our voice here is mainly because of the quality and contribution of our brother Paul for this website.
I will continue to repeat my enquiries (if you don’t mind) on every post until there is a satisfied explanation and reassurance and reason that everything is ok between the brothers here at Blogging Theology. And with all due respect to the owner or owners of this website, if there is no satisfactory reply then I will continue to a next step to voice my concerns and I will do my campaign to stop any wrongdoing against brother Paul. But I really do hope it doesn’t get to that next stage. I really do.
Thank you in advance if you reply to this.
Jazakallahu khair.
LikeLike
wa ‘alaykumus salaam,
Br. Paul has not since submitted any posts for publication since his tirade yesterday. He has blocked several members of the website who have asked him to calm down.
It is interesting that you have such a love for Br. Paul, but did not notice when he deleted his account three times over the last year and few months. I have checked our inbox and during that period of silence by Br. Paul, we received no emails from you. It is from Islam that we leave that which does not concern us, Br. Paul has an ongoing dispute with several major du’aat and scholars who have tried to reasonably speak with him following Sunday’s events at the Park. While I can understand your interest, it is not from Islam to make that which is private, public, while arbitration by senior members of the community is ongoing.
Lastly, we indicated in a blog post how and where we can be contacted for further information on the libelous series of posts published yesterday. Br. Paul agreed to my moderation of his account, following him deleting them and attempting to do the same to the website, which you also claimed to love above. If you wish that I break my oath agreed to with him, then for the sake of Allah, I cannot do so.
Lastly, I would remind you against spamming, and should you decide to do so, and members complain, your commenting privileges may be suspended, as has been the case when Br. Paul was actively posting I did the same with his approval.
For further information, you can contact us as follows:
bloggingtheology@gmail.com
Kind Regards,
Br. Ijaz.
LikeLike
Br. Ali,
As per the threat in your last paragraph, fear Allah, if you would seek to harm your brothers and their da’wah because of a personal disagreement, then such behaviour is not from the Deen that we all belong to. I have indeed, only received one complaint about your spamming the comment in 4 other articles, as per my previous comment I have already informed you of the consequences of doing so, I do not wish to suspend your commenting privileges, but consider this a heads up. We must be fair in our dealings with each other and allow for arbitration between those who disagree to take place before assuming sides or becoming a White Knight for someone. Please consult a Qadhi on what you have intended in your threat, and always remember to fear Allah, as we do.
Kind Regards,
Br. Ijaz Ahmad.
LikeLike
Thank you brother Ijaz for replying, thanks
I appreciate it, I really do. And please do not assume I have made any threats to anyone in the last paragraph. I will respectfully put that down to misunderstanding. Benefit of doubts on such serious things will be good for both of us and all.
If I say I will campaign for someone that is absolutely fine. To defend anyone innocent is a legitimate thing and I just want to make sure Paul is fine, and no one, including Paul and yourself and others are neglected or undermined, that is my concern. Defending someone and campaigning for someone innocent or decent is not a threat.
I will like to apologise for my spam approach, that I raise my hand and say it’s my bad, but again, my concern is for the safety and well being of Paul for this website.
Now as a reader, I would not have found this blog without brother Paul Williams.
Also I do not want to get involved in any dispute between senior figures. What does become my concern as a reader of this blog is that one of the major figures like Br Paul is not restricted or is not undermined or hurt by a fellow Muslim. Now since you are not doing that, that is great. Fantastic. I hope you know where I am coming from. That has been clarified.
And I do not want to be a bystander just in any case a convert brother has been undermined or hurt by a fellow Muslim. Whether online or in the real world, you would not tolerate me (no matter how high or low my social status) to undermine a convert or revert brother in faith. And you will have every right to question me if you suspect or question (wrongly or rightly) if I am doing such a thing, even if I was innocent. It is for clarification purposes, that is all. This is not to you personally brother Ijaz, whether we like it or not, in these Islamophobic hostiles times in modern era, the last thing we would want would be to divide ourselves and discourage or turn away the brothers and sisters who have embraced Islam. There have even been situations where people have converted to Islam and have turned away and left Islam having been demoralised by fellow Muslims because of hostility, Beaucracy, strictness and lack of appreciation. And fellow Muslims have been complicit in the process. Brothers like Paul, like many other brothers and sisters who have embraced Islam recently or otherwise, are branded “Traitors” by the communities they once belong to, even in current times I have seen such as thing aimed towards Paul. The last thing we would want is to not allow and welcome these fellow faithfuls as family. Yes its true that first and foremost and always Allah guides whom he wills but that doesnt mean we dont remind each other of our duties regardless of our social status, we are equal in the judgement to One God.
Also alongside the great writers of the blog (including yourself, Eric, others) Paul is one of the great writers and contributers. So as a reader, I want to keep the best contributers going if the writers choose to do so.
In a free country like Britain we as readers, consumers, viewers, audience etc on various platforms and mediums can suggest, complain, compliments for channels, stations, websites etc.
Even the state broadcasters like BBC (for all their good and bad) permit this. It doesnt make us as consumers, customers, audience etc disrupt senior management order to have that right, according to our national laws, we dont live in a dictatorship therefore there are rights customers and consumers are permitted to in a free country.
I may disagree with you on a very few things but most things we are one and nevertheless you have given me time, effort, consideration openly and for that you deserve nothing but my full appreciation and big thanks for your time and effort.
Hope we can all unite for the good…
Jazakallahu khair.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also next time I see brother Paul, I will make my suggestions and advice to him hoping he will give me that right like the way you mashaAllah have given me that right. Please dont think im critical of you and not him.
I don’t think one is wrong and other is right, I think you are both equal in your differences and both deserve credit and discredit equally for this.
Hope you understand and I thank you for giving me privileges to respond in these blogs, I truly appreciate it.
I havent met you in person but im sure if I did I will respect you as much as I respect brother Paul.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Salaam, I had flue last week, so I couldn’t follow with the blog.
What has happened?! Is there a problem between brothers Ijaz and Paul?
I remind my bothers of these teachings of Islam
“And tell My servants to say that which is best. Indeed, Satan induces [dissension] among them. Indeed Satan is ever, to mankind, a clear enemy.” QT
bn ‘Umar (May Allah bepleased with them) reported:
Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim. So he should not oppress him nor should he hand him over to (his satan or to his self which is inclined to evil). Whoever fulfills the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs; whoever removes the troubles of his brother, Allah will remove one of his troubles on the Day of Resurrection; and whoever covers up the fault of a Muslim, Allah will cover up his fault on the Day of Resurrection”. [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].
If we can solve this issue, I’m glad to help.
LikeLike
flu*
LikeLike