' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

Here’s the first part of the refutation of Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s book…by my Husband.

May Allah (SWT) forgive me for any discrepancy that has crept into this refutation! Verily, any good in this report is from Allah (SWT) and any thing erroneous is a result of my own shortfalls.
This is currently in note form and full discussion has not been prepared. However, I will endeavour to be a succinct as possible

This in no way is intended to hinder the late Tahir Mirza Sahib in any way, as he is not with us today to defend his position. However, the response must be known and understood for academic reasons.
On page 8 of the book, Tahir Mirza Sahib who shall be termed TMS throughout this report writes, ‘92 chromosomes; humans would soon be transformed in to giants and the entire process of growth would run amok.’
Mirza Tahir Sahib has made an illogical conclusion of the mechanism of chromosomes

‘Scientifically, Mary could not provide the 46 chromosomes alone; 23 had to come from somewhere else.’ – Actually TMS is again making a scientifically erroneous statement. Cloning, demonstrates that all 46 chromosomes can come from one specimen

On page 9, TMS writes,** ‘… is that God created the extra chromosomes as a supernatural phenomenon of creation.’** Though I agree with this assessment it is nested in the wrong section. This is part of the text that is under the heading ‘The scientific basis of parenthood’. Yet, this argument of supernatural sources, is clearly dogmatic

On page 10 – second paragraph, the line of argumentation is that miracles do not exist, that natural laws are merely coming in to play at given opportunities. TMS suggests that, ‘But so far human knowledge is only at a stage where scientific research has not yet advanced to such a level where positive irrefutable evidence of virgin births in human beings can be produced. However, all sorts of possibilities remain open. At lower orders of life two phenomena are scientifically well established: Hermaphroditism and Parathenogenesis. As such the miraculous birth of Jesus to Mary can be understood to belong to some similar natural but very rare phenomenon, …’

With this in mind TMS introduces the idea of Hermaphrodites. Suggesting that Audzubillah Mary (AS) was in some way a mutated human being, and the mechanism of birth and conception would therefore be very different to what the Qur’an or the Bible say. On page 11 it goes on to suggest that parthenogenesis as being a mode of the birth of Jesus (AS)! – There is no scientific proof of this, nor a mechanism for this to be the case and furthermore the report as quoted of a boy deriving all of his DNA from his mother who only carries X chromosomes is again unscientific. To explain, what does the statement that TMS writes mean?** ‘the remarkable case of three-year old boy whose body is derived in part from an unfertilised egg.’ **Does this mean part of the boy is from an unfertilised egg or that the egg is part unfertilised to produce the boy? And how can either of those be possible anyway? You can either fertilise an egg or not, how can you part fertilise anything

On page 12 TMS writes, ‘Where is the need to search for a supernatural explanation of Jesus’ birth …. When various phenomena, as described above, are observed as a fact of nature, why is it hard to believe that the birth of Jesus Christ was a hidden natural phenomenon, brought out by a special design of God’

Pay good attention to this quote of TMS as this will be used against him later on. However, for the time being, confirm again for yourself that TMS is truly dismissing the miracle as a ‘freak of nature’.
It is also valuable to note that ‘supernatural explanations’ are the modus oper’andi in Islam for all things that are in existence. It is no more or less a miracle of God that we exist in the first place than it is for the oceans to be parted. For this reason hidden natural phenomena and miracles are no different from one another, however, TMS believes them to be and has alerted us to this fact.

Continuing on page 12, TMS asserts, that miracles are** ‘not seen in Islam as unnatural occurrences’, depending on how you define the word natural that is correct, he continues, ‘Otherwise, there would be many questions raised against the wisdom of God. If God created the laws of nature Himself, He should have made some provisions whereby without breaking them, He could bring about desired solutions to a problem.’**

This is clear application of human logic and limitation to God. The laws of nature are for natural things, created by God, to abide by, but why is TMS binding God to the things that God has bound us by. Though there are clear verses that show us emphatically what God does and does not do, and it is true that God is Wise, but this not to lessen the miraculous nature of miracles for humankind. Allah (SWT) should be understood in accordance to Tawhid. The argument for this section rests on the logical fallacy that is being drawn. Why is it necessary for God not to break the laws of nature? And how if God broke the laws of nature would this impinge on His Wisdom? What if the Wisdom or the plan of God was to break His law at a given moment in history for a special case? This question must be answered

More Later inshaAllah…

2

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

Waiting for more.. It looks great :)

3

Re: ’ From Facts to Fiction ’ a Rebuttal.

The actual title of the book “Christianity: A Journey from Facts to Fiction” is about the christian belief in the divinity of Jesus (as). It refutes the idea that he was the son of God. So are you (or your husband) trying to prove that he actually was the son of God?

AQ Mian, har band-wagon par charhna achi ba’at nahin hoti.

B Jamalo
4

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

your husband's name amir by any chance?

5

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

An Example is given on page 13, about magnetism which is a false rationalisation. TMS writes, 'For example, the force of magnetism was not known to man a few thousand years ago. If somebody had contrived a device by which he could levitate things without any apparent cause discernible to the naked eye then, 'Lo, a miracle has happened.'

In this TMS emphatically dismisses the miracle a conjuring trick. What he has failed to realise and why his analogy apart from being conjecture is also wrong is:
1) Miracles according to the Muslim belief are performed by God through prophets, whereas in the example the person 'discovers' a phenomenon and 'contrives' a device and performs 'tricks'.
2) In Islam miracles are understood to have a basis which is two fold; to give evidence that authority of the prophet is Divine and that to protect the given prophet when he is in potential harms way.
3) To date no miracle has been scientifically explainable.
So how it is that TMS is drawing these conclusions? No prophet can be accused of performing the 'illusion of miracles', this is deception and this is not in their nature. No prophet can be accused of discovering a phenomenon and contriving a device from it to allude people to believe it is a miracle. It is true that outward forms of some miracles can be emulated to a degree. For example resuscitation is a scientific phenomenon by pulsating the heart either mechanically or electronically by mouth-to-mouth, pelting the chest or using a defibrillator, however, none of these methods can be said to be the method that Jesus (AS) used to raise the dead. In fact, in many cases he used to order the people to rise and they did. I would like to see a doctor doing this! Emulation of miracle does not therefore lessen the miraculous nature of the miracle.

Abraham (AS) did not use ceramic gel to shield himself from the fire, but Muslims are compelled to believe that Allah (SWT) ordered the fire to cool. Muhammad (AS) did not use nuclear and space technology when splitting the moon; Allah (SWT) ordained it to be so. Muhammad (AS) did not invent time travel to get prophecies of the future and so on.

Miracles are miracles and to use the weak argument that Allah (SWT) would break His natural laws would do this subject an injustice; one should contemplate on the Attributes of Allah (SWT) where He is the Creator and also The Destroyer.

On Page 13 TMS continues, 'A time may therefore come', that 'may', may never come, and Muslims do not base a dogma on a 'maybe'. We need hard evidence … if there is doubt then we should leave it.

The majority of the next few pages deal explicitly with the Christian dogma of atonement. I will not dwell on that as there is plenty from mainstream Islamic sources that is already available on that and nor is it likely that TMS and myself will differ on those issues.

Drawn to certain conclusions however, throughout the text I have been quelled to comment. On page 46 in the first paragraph, "It was the innocent person Jesus the man, without there being any duality in him, who uttered this cry of astonishment and agony",

1) The Biblical verses here are taken as true
2) Contrast the crucifixion with the story of Abraham (AS) who was thrown in the fire and neither Abraham (AS) felt fear nor was he harmed.

In the Bible Jesus (AS) allegedly rebuked God, on the crucifix, is this the nature of a good man, let alone a prophet of God? Yet, because it suits the purpose of the Ahmadiyya philosophical basis, it is kept by TMS. I find it amazing that Jesus (AS) performed miracle after miracle yet, in the time he needed them the most he was slaughtered and ridiculed. The Qur'an clears him of this, and for whatever people say about the gospel of Barnabas, so does that book.

On page 47 TMS also makes inferences that the oils used on the body of the alleged Jesus Christ were ointments, concluding that ointments were used by his followers because they believed he would be delivered from the cross alive. Yet, by claiming they were ointments is where the error has crept in. They were oils, to perfume the body as was the custom; they also preserved the body and kept it going longer.

As can be seen TMS is working a path towards showing that Jesus (AS) was being crucified, but was taken down before crucifixion was complete, to justify what follows.

6

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

Fraudz ..... if you want to know my husband send me a private email and I'll send you his.

7

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

hareem: thanks for sharing.. will certainly look forward to read more and will read the rest that you have put down... great comparision... very nice to read both views. :)

8

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

If any independent minded person takes all the parts which the author of the rebuttal has found objectionable so far and reads the surrounding text, they'll surely find that it is all logical and there is nothing objectionable in it.

9

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

I will not go to any lengths to rebuke this "rebuttal" as i m neither a scholor nor do i feel the need to spend my time in such a useless exercise. As i have already found out from another thread, i could go on for days and not get anything across to u.

I will however say a couple of general things about the style of the person who wrote this supposed "rebuttal".

1. The author of the rebuttal doesn't understand the fundamental purpose of the origional book, which was to show christians and everyone else that the current beliefs held by christians dont stand the test of either logic or statements in their own gospels.

2. Secondly, the author of the rebuttal assumes things from the book which the context doesnt permit him to and puts his own words into the mouth of the origional author. I will try to illustrate these two facts from one of ur posts.

The analogy was used to illustrate the point that somthing that might be seen as extraordinary and hence a miracle at one time might as well be explainable after the human race has advanced and has gained more knowledge of the laws of nature. The origional author in no way said anything contrary to the two highlighted points. The origional author in fact says the very same thing the author of the rebuttal accuses him of failing to realize.

"Those things that appeared to be miracles in the early ages are no longer considered so. Miracles are so, only in relation to man’s knowledge in a specific period of time. When a special exercise of God’s power is displayed, apparently a law is broken. But it is not so; it is a hidden law that was already there and came into operation through God’s command."

Its apparent from this quote, the original author is in agreement with the author of the rebuttal that the miracle is performed by God.

[quote]
3) To date no miracle has been scientifically explainable.
So how it is that TMS is drawing these conclusions? No prophet can be accused of performing the 'illusion of miracles', this is deception and this is not in their nature. No prophet can be accused of discovering a phenomenon and contriving a device from it to allude people to believe it is a miracle. It is true that outward forms of some miracles can be emulated to a degree. For example resuscitation is a scientific phenomenon by pulsating the heart either mechanically or electronically by mouth-to-mouth, pelting the chest or using a defibrillator, however, none of these methods can be said to be the method that Jesus (AS) used to raise the dead. In fact, in many cases he used to order the people to rise and they did. I would like to see a doctor doing this! Emulation of miracle does not therefore lessen the miraculous nature of the miracle.
[/quote]

The original author made neither of those accusations. He used the analogy to illustrate a point as I explained earlier, but he did not claim the analogy to be an exact replica of the miracles of Prophets.

Up to this point, the author of the rebuttal has shown that he draws conclusions from the book, which are untrue.

[quote]
Abraham (AS) did not use ceramic gel to shield himself from the fire, but Muslims are compelled to believe that Allah (SWT) ordered the fire to cool. Muhammad (AS) did not use nuclear and space technology when splitting the moon; Allah (SWT) ordained it to be so. Muhammad (AS) did not invent time travel to get prophecies of the future and so on.
Miracles are miracles and to use the weak argument that Allah (SWT) would break His natural laws would do this subject an injustice; one should contemplate on the Attributes of Allah (SWT) where He is the Creator and also The Destroyer.

On Page 13 TMS continues, 'A time may therefore come', that 'may', may never come, and Muslims do not base a dogma on a 'maybe'. We need hard evidence … if there is doubt then we should leave it.

The majority of the next few pages deal explicitly with the Christian dogma of atonement. I will not dwell on that as there is plenty from mainstream Islamic sources that is already available on that and nor is it likely that TMS and myself will differ on those issues.

Drawn to certain conclusions however, throughout the text I have been quelled to comment. On page 46 in the first paragraph, "It was the innocent person Jesus the man, without there being any duality in him, who uttered this cry of astonishment and agony",

1) The Biblical verses here are taken as true
2) Contrast the crucifixion with the story of Abraham (AS) who was thrown in the fire and neither Abraham (AS) felt fear nor was he harmed.
[/quote]

Here the author of the rebuttal fails to understand the purpose of the origional book. The question is, if one wants to show Christians that their current beliefs can not be the original beliefs of Christianity, what better way is there than to show it to them from their own book. One can show them a hundred ayaat of Qura’an against their views and they can dismiss them with a simple answer that they don’t consider the Qura’an to be a heavenly book. But if one shows the discrepancies between their beliefs and the text they believe in than they can’t just dismiss such an argument. Whether one takes those verses to be true or not is not the point. The adherents of the faith believe them to be true, and as such they have no choice but to acknowledge the conflict between the gospels and their current beliefs.

[quote]
In the Bible Jesus (AS) allegedly rebuked God, on the crucifix, is this the nature of a good man, let alone a prophet of God? Yet, because it suits the purpose of the Ahmadiyya philosophical basis, it is kept by TMS. I find it amazing that Jesus (AS) performed miracle after miracle yet, in the time he needed them the most he was slaughtered and ridiculed. The Qur'an clears him of this, and for whatever people say about the gospel of Barnabas, so does that book.

On page 47 TMS also makes inferences that the oils used on the body of the alleged Jesus Christ were ointments, concluding that ointments were used by his followers because they believed he would be delivered from the cross alive. Yet, by claiming they were ointments is where the error has crept in. They were oils, to perfume the body as was the custom; they also preserved the body and kept it going longer.

As can be seen TMS is working a path towards showing that Jesus (AS) was being crucified, but was taken down before crucifixion was complete, to justify what follows.
[/quote]

Exactly, that’s the question the original author is asking the Christians. Again, the author of the rebuttal fails to understand the purpose of the book, which is in no way to ridicule a noble prophet of Allah, but to try to show Christians that their current view is not only illogical but insulting to that prophet.

10

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

No thats quite allright, its just that I had seen the exact same stuff forwarded to me by my cousin whose friend amir in UK had sent it to him. so I was wondering if he is the same guy. thats it. No introductions needed, but thank you for the offer.

11

Re: ’ From Facts to Fiction ’ a Rebuttal.

hmmm… the exact same stuff u say eh :hmmm:
lets see if it is the same guy.

12

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

^ So what happened next is it the same guy, or is it different guy with same ideas and words. :)

13

Re: ’ From Facts to Fiction ’ a Rebuttal.

That’s what I’m thinking. AQ are you really reading what she’s writing?

14

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

My husband is still typing his notes on the book, so how Fraudz has seen exact thing surprises me. But that is the reason why the remaining report has not been posted yet.
InshaAllah next time within 24 hours.

15

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

On page 63 TMS writes, 'As no state can permit a person who is condemned to death legal cover and protection if he somehow escapes execution, so also under the Roman law, no immunity could be extended to Jesus (AS) beyond the point of crucifixion.' This statement immediately follows what TMS regards the Ahmadiyya standpoint. They believe that crucifixion was attempted and unsuccessful. That Christ had been put upon the crucifix, but had come down injured.

Remember the Qur'an says,
Surah An-Nisa Ayah 157: 'And because of their saying, "We killed Messiah, Isa, son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah," – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For a surety they killed him not.'

Some understand this verse with an attempt to justify the term in English that the word in the Qur'an 'crucified' implies only a complete cruficixion. That Allah (SWT) is saying that 'they didn't kill him, nor did they kill him'. Tautology! Though the Qur'an does confirm statement by repetition tautology is something else. Tautology is a badly constructed sentence. Therefore I cannot believe the statement 'nor was he crucified' can take the meaning of 'crucified to death'. Rather, to me and many others, the verses say, that Jesus (AS) 'was not killed, or even put on to the cross', for in the very next verse it states the actual thing that did happen, Allah (SWT) says that

'But Allah (SWT) raised him up, unto Himself. And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All Wise.'

Some people argue this away, by saying that this verse means that Allah (SWT) raised him up spiritually in rank and honour. However, the question that scholars have asked is that if that is the distinction Allah (SWT) makes, then this is no different to other prophets. That all the prophets were raised in status so to mention this about Jesus (AS) does not justify the exclusivity of the phrase used for Jesus (AS). Also, this verse is used to refute the previous allegation, by Allah (SWT), it would not be much of a refutation if it implies the 'he escaped for his life' – meaning. Also, the refutation would be wrong. An honouring of a person would not be seen in the form of people taunting, ridiculing and injuring him as though he was a criminal. However, TMS writes,

'After a few hours of intense suffering upon the cross, before death could overtake him, he was taken down from the cross in a state of deep coma from which he was revived later on.'

This moves back to my initial quote in this section, about states providing legal protection. Before the reasons for the fallacy of this approach are listed, one needs to clarify a point. Unfortunately, the term 'Tawaffiqa' in contemporary Arabic means, 'a wordly parting' i.e. death. However, the term for death is 'Maut' in Arabic. In the Qur'an the term 'tawaffiqa' has to be something other than death, because elsewhere, the Qur'an rigidly uses the term 'maut' to represent the word. When a person says, 'he has parted from this world', you can assume it to mean 'death', in this day and age. However, in the Qur'an it must take it's literal meaning, due to the method and context it was being used in. And Allah (SWT) Knows Best. This does mean therefore mean that I am alluding to the more difficult idea that Jesus (AS) has ascended physically to Allah (SWT) and is alive. It is difficult only because it doesn't suit the norms of today and for the Ahmadis it contradicts the basis of the Ahmadiyya philosophy.

It does not, however, contradict the power of Allah (SWT) as He is All Powerful as indicated in the verse above. Food for thought!

To respond to this whole scenario, one should note:
As a prophet Jesus (AS) never sought at any time legal protection from the Roman state, so why would it be an issue then?

Jesus (AS) had no worldly possession, so he would have no cause to worry.

There is no evidence, scripturally or otherwise that this survival was the case.

In fact, a whole new story has to be concocted to support the idea of 'failed crucifixion' as opposed to that of 'substituted crucifixion'. I mentioned this earlier, that the gospel of Barnabas is an interesting book. Though the authenticity of it is questionable, however, to the Muslim it is no more or less questionable than the current Bible. Accusations extend to Muslims by the Trinitarian churches that the gospel is a fraud created by Muslims, however, there are things within the gospel that are questionable to us even. Without changing the subject, it is in this gospel that the notion clearly exists that Jesus (AS) was taken. And part of an ongoing and detail Bible study that I am doing there is enough evidence in the current canonical gospels that suggests the 'substitution theory'. In the given chronology the account of the Transfiguration and the Arrest take place at two different times. This may be a topic to take up later on.

On page 64, TMS writes, 'This was the other very strong reason for Jesus to have immigrated from the land of Judea to those foreign lands where the Jews had settled over a period of many centuries' – so where is the evidence of this statement?

Evasion of evidence by TMS is seen on page 64, where he casts the onus on to the people who are asking for the proof. He states as reasoning,

'There are natural phenomena known to man which are universally understood. We know that the life span of man on earth does not extend beyond a hundred and fifty years or so; certainly it is not a thousand years or more.'

Is this true? So what of the ages of the people of the past? Did they not reach many years into the hundreds and thousand and above? But you see he is now approaching an overtly rational audience. Belief in the scripture is now being substituted for what we can fathom and test in our short current lives.

Did you remember what I asked earlier for you to do? Well, in response to this we can use the author's own words, 'when a special exercise of God's power is displayed, apparently a law is broken. But it is not so; actually a hidden law was already there and only came into operation through God's command.' From page 13. TMS used this reasoning to explain the miraculous birth. The same reasoning can be applied for the case of the ascension of Christ (AS).

As for the people who say why is a Muslim rebutting a book created for the Christian audience? The straightforward answer is Muslims should view material as truth and false; there is no alternative truth for a different audience. I saw inaccuracies and weak arguments in this book by TMS and I have made mention to them. Muslims need only have one argument and that should be sufficient for them to portray the truth they have. My intention is also not to create Muslims, that is to be done by Allah (SWT) and their own hearts. I am only mandated to portray a message, inshaAllah. That is what I try to do, and may Allah (SWT) help us all. Ameen.

More to come inshaAllah.

16

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

hareem01 - did u read ahmadjee's message? does your husband understand the purpose of the original book or he is just writing a rebuttal because its by Mirza Tahir Ahmad?

May Allah guide us all on the right path (Ameen).

17

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

My husband will reply to you inshaAllah.....he's very busy now a days.

18

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

{Hareem's husband}

Assalamu'alaikum

For Ahmadjee and Bismah ...
Firstly, I'll reply to the direct question. Do I understand the purpose of the original book? The answer is that of course I do. It was meant for the refutation of the Christian mindset, of their attributing divinity to the person of Jesus Christ (AS).
Am I writing a rebuttal because it's Mirza Tahir Ahmad?: The answer here is no, absolutely not.

There is a lot in the book that I have skipped pass without comment, because the arguments were raised were concrete and completely valid.

The reason why I have written a rebuttal on this book is because the book deserves a rebuttal. Consider it a way of filtering inaccuracy and conjecture from what is fact and substantial. I wonder how many people would have sat down to edit the book. To test it for correctness.

Whether it serves to bring the Christians towards Islam is not the issue. We are not taken to account for how many people we are planning to swoon in to the religion. Our job is not a missionary one! It is of dawah ... believe me there is a great difference.

We must uphold the truth even if it means that the truth is more harder to swallow. We cannot for example deny miracles on the basis that the Christians will have a reason to believe in the alleged deity of Jesus (AS), we must uphold that miracles are true, but reject that they have any bearing on the nature of the prophet. We must be consistent. It doesn't matter who the book was meant for. As Muslims we must be the same with ourselves and with our external audiences. This I believe is the message of Islam.

I would like to recall to you the story of the Jew and the Muslim who approached Muhammad (SAW) about land issues. The ruling was clear and in the favour of the Jew, regardless of his love for his companion he ruled truthfully. I hope this answers your query.

I say Ameen to your du'ah ... May Allah (SWT) truly guide us all.

19

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal.

InshaAllah more of the rebuttal to come within 24 hours.

20

Re: ' From Facts to Fiction ' a Rebuttal. (MIRACLE)

My Dear!

Miracle has always logic behind but may not bee seen or understood at the time or some times for ever .............. as human grow, will vcome up with some one or more logics ........... and that is ok..............
so if some body is defining some thing and beleives that it was a magnetism that was used to levitate some stuff then it fine...............coz
1) it was a miracle for thet era and people of that time ( thats y every Nabi(AS) comes with different Miracle according to era and intilect of people of that time)
2)The One who performed that experiment at that ancient times with out the knowledge of that laws/principles being know to man................ shows His level of knowledge was beyond that time/era
3) Proves his relation ship with some one Special beyond boundries (Allah (swt))

so please take it lightle and smile when some one comes up with a different logic or wording for some thing , just switch the angle to look at...........

Wasalam