Christian Apologetics

God, Laws of Logic, Christianity, Truth and Other World Religions

What is Logic?

Logic is the process of proper inference. It is the system of thinking properly–of arriving at proper conclusions. It is the process of proper thinking based upon principles that govern the validity of arguments.

The first law of logic is the Law of Identity. It states that something is what it is and is not what it is not. For example, a rock is a rock and not a frog.

The second law of logic is the Law of Non-Contradiction. This means that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. In other words, two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

The third law of logic is the Law of Excluded Middle, which says that a statement is either true or false. “We are here” is a true statement. “The planet Mars is in my pocket” is not a true statement.

Law of Identity

The Law of Identity is the first of the three new laws of classical logic. It states that an object is what it is and is not what it is not. In other words, A = A. It is one of the three classical laws of logic. The other two are the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle.

Law of Non-Contradiction

The Law of non-contradiction is one of the basic laws in classical logic. It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. For example, the chair in my living room, right now, cannot be made of wood and not made of wood at the same time. In the law of non-contradiction, where we have a set of statements about a subject, we cannot have any of the statements in that set negate the truth of any other statement in that same set. For example, we have a set of two statements about Judas. 1) Judas hanged himself. 2) Judas fell down, and his bowels spilled out. Neither statement about Judas contradicts the other. That is, neither statement makes the other impossible because neither excludes the possibility of the other. The statements can be harmonized by stating: Judas hanged himself, then his body fell down, and his bowels spilled out.

In order to make the set of statements contradictory, we would have something like: 1) Judas hanged himself. 2) Judas did not hang himself. Since either statement excludes the possibility of the other, we would then have a contradiction since both could not be true. However, to say that Judas hanged himself and Judas fell are not contradictory since both could occur.

Law of Excluded Middle

The Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) is one of the three basic laws in classical . It says that “Statements are either true or false.” Or as have some put it, “A statement is true, or its negation is true.” Some reject this law and assert that there is a third option, namely, that the truth or falsity of the statement can be unknown. But, it would seem that being unknown does not negate the proposition that the statement is either true or false. It just means its truth or falseness is not known.

The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God

This is an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God using the Laws of Logic, also referred to as Logical Absolutes. The oversimplified argument, which is expanded in outline form below, goes as follows: Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature–are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different–not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God. Furthermore, if there are only two options to account for something, i.e., God and no God, and one of them is negated, then by default the other position is validated. Therefore, part of the argument is that the atheist position cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes from its worldview.

1. Logical Absolutes

1. Law of Identity

1. Something is what it is and isn’t what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.

2. For example, a cloud is a cloud–not a rock. A fish is a fish–not a car.

2. Law of Non-Contradiction

1. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.

2. For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.

3. Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)

1. A statement is either true or false without a middle ground.

2. “I am alive” is either true or false. “You are pregnant” is either true or false.

1. Note one: “This statement is false” is not a valid statement (not logically true) since it is self-refuting and is dealt with by the Law of Non-contradiction. Therefore, it does not fall under the LEM category since it is a self-contradiction.

2. Note two: If we were to ignore note one, then there is a possible paradox here. The sentence “this statement is false” does not fit this Law since if it is true, then it is false. Paradoxes occur only when we have absolutes. Nevertheless, the LEM is valid except for the paradoxical statement cited.

3. Note three: If we again ignore note one and admit a paradox, then we must acknowledge that paradoxes exist only within the realm of absolutes.

2. Logical absolutes are truth statements such as:

1. That which exists has attributes and a nature.

1. A cloud exists and has the attributes of whiteness, vapor, etc. It has the nature of water and air.

2. A rock is hard, heavy, and is composed of its rock material (granite, marble, sediment, etc.).

2. Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.

1. It cannot be true to state that a rock is not a rock.

3. Something cannot bring itself into existence.

1. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it has to have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it has attributes, then it already has existence. If something does not exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions. Therefore, something cannot bring itself into existence.

4. Truth is not self-contradictory.

1. It could not be true that you are reading this and not reading this at the same time in the same sense. It is either true or false that you are reading this.

5. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are absolutely true. They are not subjectively true; that is, they are not sometimes true and sometimes false, depending on preference or situation. Otherwise, they would not be absolute.

3. Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourse.

1. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known.

2. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then no rational discourse can occur.

1. For example, I could say that a square is a circle (violating the law of identity), or that I am and am not alive in the same sense at the same time (violating the law of non-contradiction).

2. But no one would expect to have a rational conversation with someone who spoke in contradictory statements.

3. If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that something can contradict itself, which would make truth unknowable and rational discourse impossible. But, saying that something can contradict itself can’t be true.

4. But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this), then we can conclude that logical statements are true. Otherwise, we would not be able to rationally discuss or know truth.

5. If they are not the basis of rational discourse, then we cannot know truth or error since the laws that govern rationality are not absolute. This would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.

4. Logical Absolutes are transcendent.

1. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space.

1. They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we travel a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true.

2. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time.

1. They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we travel a billion years in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true.

3. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. That is, they are not the product of human thinking.

1. People’s minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.

2. If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be so per the previous point.

5. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.

1. Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.

2. Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.

3. Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.

1. If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.

2. If they were properties of the universe, then they could be measured the same way heat, motion, mass, etc., are measured. Since they cannot be measured, they are not properties of the universe.

4. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.

1. For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot bring itself into existence and that if A=B and B=C, then A=C. The condition of the universe does not effect these truths.

2. For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.

3. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.

6. Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.

1. Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, it seems proper to say that Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature since Logical Absolutes are truth statements about Logical things.

1. If you disagree that Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature, then please explain what they are if not conceptual realities.

2. If you cannot determine what they are, then how can you logically assert that they are not conceptual realities since logic is a process of the mind and logical absolutes are truth statements which are also products of the mind? Expanded: Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature, or they are not.

2. If they are conceptual by nature, then they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence.

1. If they are dependent on the physical universe for their existence, then are they said to be properties of the universe the same way that red is a property of an apple?

2. If Logical Absolutes are said to be properties of the universe, then can they be measured the same way that other properties of the universe can be measured? If they cannot, then how are they properties of the physical universe?

3. If they are not properties of the universe and they are of the mind, then it seems proper to say that they are conceptual by nature, and that they depend on mind for their existence.

3. If they are not conceptual by nature, then:

1. What is their nature?

2. If it is denied that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or not conceptual, then this is impossible because “conceptual or not conceptual” entails all possible options. Either Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature or they are not.

3. If they are not conceptual by nature, then what are they? If it is not known what they are, then how can it be said what they are not since, it seems fair to say, that knowing what something is not also entails knowing something about what it is?

1. For example, I know what water is. If someone says that a piece of wood is water by nature, I would say that it is not. If someone says that a frying pan is water by nature, I would say it is not. If someone were to say to me that a “flursist” (a word I just made up that represents an unknown thing) is by nature hard, how then can I rationally deny such a claim by saying “I don’t know what a flursist is, but I know it isn’t hard”? The response would be, “Since you don’t know what it is, how do you know what it is not?” Is the response correct or not correct?

7. Thoughts reflect the mind

1. A person’s thoughts are the product of that person’s mind.

2. A mind that is irrational will produce irrational thoughts.

3. A mind that is rational will produce rational thoughts.

4. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts.

5. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.

6. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space; and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.

8. Objections Answered

1. Logical Absolutes are the result of natural existence.

1. In what sense are they the result of natural existence? How do conceptual absolutes form as a result of the existence of matter?

2. How does one chemical state of the physical brain that leads to another physical state of the physical brain produce Logical Absolutes that are not dependent upon the physical brain for their validity?

3. If they are a part of natural existence (the universe), then they would cease to exist if the universe ceased.

1. This has not been proven to be true.

2. It implies that logic is a property of physical matter, but this is addressed in point 5 above.

2. Logical Absolutes simply exist.

1. This is begging the question by saying they exist because they exist and does not provide an explanation for their existence. Simply saying they exist is not an answer.

3. Logical Absolutes are axioms

1. An axiom is a truth that is self-evident. To say that Logical Absolutes are axioms is to beg the question by saying they are simply self-evident truths because they are self-evident truths and fails to account for their existence.

4. Logical Absolutes are conventions.

1. A convention, in this context, is an agreed upon principle. But since people differ on what is and is not true, then logical absolutes cannot be the product of human minds and therefore are not human conventions, that is, of human agreements.

2. This would mean that logical absolutes were invented as a result of an agreement by a sufficient number of people. But this would mean that logical absolutes are a product of human minds, which cannot be the case since human minds differ and are often contradictory. Furthermore, the nature of logical absolutes is that they transcend space and time (not dependent on space and time for their validity) and are absolute (they don’t change) by nature. Therefore, they could not be the product of human minds which are finite and not absolute.

3. This would mean that if people later disagreed on what was a Logical Absolute, then the absolutes would change based on “vote,” and they would not then be absolute.

5. Logical Absolutes are eternal.

1. What is meant by stating they are eternal?

2. If a person says that logical absolutes have always existed, then how is it they could exist without a mind (if the person denies the existence of an absolute and transcendent mind)? After all, logic is a process of the mind.

6. Logical Absolutes are uncaused.

1. Since the nature of logic is conceptual and logical absolutes form the framework of this conceptual upon which logical processes are based, it would seem logical to conclude that the only way logical absolutes could be uncaused is if there was an uncaused and absolute mind authoring them.

7. Logical Absolutes are self-authenticating.

1. This means that logical absolutes validate themselves. While this is true, it does not explain their existence.

2. It is begging the question. It just says they are because they are.

8. Logical Absolutes are like rules of chess, which are not absolute and transcendent.

1. The rules of chess are human inventions since Chess is a game invented by people. In fact, the rules of chess have changed over the years, but logical absolutes have not. So, comparing the rules of chess to logical absolutes is invalid.

9. There are different kinds of logic.

1. Saying there are different kinds of logic does not explain the existence of logical absolutes.

2. In different systems of logic, there must be undergirding, foundational principles upon which those systems are based. How are those foundational principles accounted for? The same issue applies to them as it does to Logical Absolutes in classical logic.

10. “Logical absolutes need no transcendental existence: saying ‘they would be true even if matter didn’t exist’ is irrelevant because we’re concerned with their existence–not their logical validity. Saying ‘the idea of a car would still exist even if matter didn’t exist’ doesn’t imply that your car is transcendental (reductio ad absurdum).”

1. Why do logical absolutes need no transcendental existence? Simply saying they don’t need a transcendental existence doesn’t make it so nor does it account for their existence.

2. Also, why is it irrelevant to say they would be true even if matter didn’t exist? On the contrary, it is precisely relevant to the discussion since we’re dealing with the nature of logical absolutes which are conceptual realities–not physical ones.

3. The illustration that a car would still exist if matter did not exist is illogical. By definition, a car is made of matter; and if matter did not exist, a car could not logically exist. By contrast, logical absolutes are not made of matter. The objection is invalid.

11. “Logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds. They are constructs in our minds (i.e., brains), and we use them to carry out computations via neural networks, silicon networks, etc., suggested by the fact that logic–like language–is learned–not inbuilt (balls in your court to demonstrate an independent existence or problem with this).” ( . . . continued in next objection . . . )

1. How do you know that logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds? Saying so doesn’t make it so. This is precisely one of the points about the nature of logical absolutes; namely, that they are a process of the mind but are not dependent upon human bodies because human minds contradict each other and are also self-contradictory. This would preclude our minds from being the authors of what is logically absolute. Furthermore, if they are constructions of our minds, then all I have to do is claim victory in any argument because that is how I construct my logical abstractions. But, of course, you wouldn’t accept this as being valid. Therefore, this demonstrates that your assertion is incorrect.

2. How can an atheist logically claim that one chemical state in the brain which leads to another state necessitates proper logical inference? It seems quite unlikely and without proof of some sort saying that Logical Absolutes are abstractions of (human) minds doesn’t account for them.

12. (continued from previous objection . . . ) “Logical absolutes are absolute and not because of some special quality but because we judge them using logic. Therefore, their absoluteness doesn’t arise from any special ontological quality (category error on your part).”

1. You are begging the question. You use logic to demonstrate that logical absolutes are absolute. You are not giving a rational reason for their existence. Instead, you assume their existence and argue accordingly.

2. Furthermore, when you presuppose the validity of logical absolutes to demonstrate they are absolute, you contradict your statement in your previous objection about them being constructs of human minds. They cannot be constructs of human minds because human minds contradict each other and themselves where Logical Absolutes do not.

3. Where is the category mistake? The nature of logical absolutes is that they are conceptual. This is something I have brought out before so that their categories do not get mixed. The nature of logical absolutes is exactly relevant to the question.

13. continued from previous objection . . . ) “Logical absolutes can be accurately described as conventions in communication. The fact that they are widely employed does not imply anything transcendental, any more than the wide employment of the word “lolly” as something small and yummy implies that the word “lolly” is transcendental (non sequitor).”

1. Saying that they are “widely employed does not imply anything transcendental” is inaccurate. Something that is transcendental, as in logical absolutes, would naturally be widely employed because they are valid and transcendent; otherwise, they wouldn’t be universally used. You have recognized that they are widely used, but they are because they are transcendent. They do not become transcendent because they are widely used.

2. This still does not account for the existence of logical absolutes.

14. (continued from previous objection . . . ) “Logical processes are clearly carried out by material constructs, usually neural or electrical. They do this without any known “input” or “guidance” from anything transcendental, which makes you wonder why anything transcendental is needed in the equation at all (reality check).”

1. You haven’t defined “material construct” or what you mean by neural or electrical (constructs). If you mean a computer or something of that kind, this doesn’t help you because humans designed them using logic. If you mean that they are the process of the human brain, you still haven’t solved the problem of their existence; since the implication would be that if our minds do not exist, logical absolutes would not exist either. But this would mean that logical absolutes were not absolute but dependent upon human minds. Again, the problem would be that human minds are different and contradict each other. Therefore, logical absolutes, which are not contradictory, cannot be the product of minds that are contradictory.

2. As stated above how does one establish that one chemical state in the brain which leads to another state necessitates proper logical inference? Asserting it doesn’t make it so, and concluding that chemical reactions lead to logical inferences has not yet been established to be true or even that it could be at all.

3. You don’t have to know the input or understand the guidance from anything transcendental for the transcendentals to be true.

15. “Logic is one of those characteristics that any healthy human ‘has.’ It’s not free to vary from one person to the next for the same kind of reason that ‘number of eyes’ is a value that doesn’t vary between healthy humans.”

1. Saying that logic is something that everyone “has” does not explain its existence. Essentially, this is begging the question stating that something exists because it exists.

2. The analogy of “eyes” is a category mistake. Eyes are organs. Different organisms have different kinds of eyes and different numbers of eyes. Logic is consistent and independent of biological structures.

16. Logic is the result of the semantics of the language which we have chosen: a statement is a theorem of logic if and only if it is valid in all conceivable worlds. If the language is trivalent (true/indetermined/false), tertium non datur is invalid. Uniformity of the universe can be rationally expected in a non-theistic universe. If there is no one around with the transcendental power to change it, why should the behavior of the universe tomorrow differ from its behavior today?

1. “Semantics of the language.” Semantics deals with the study of the meaning of words, their development, changes in meaning, and the interpretation of words, etc. But semantics by nature deals with the changing meaning of words and the often subjective nature of language and its structures. To say the absolutes of logic are a result of the use of the subjective meanings of words is problematic. How do you derive logical absolutes from the non-absolute semantic structures of non-absolute languages? Furthermore, simply asserting that logic is a result of the semantics of the language does not explain the transcendent nature of logic. Remember, the TAG argument asserts that Logical Absolutes are independent of human existence–reasons given at the beginning of the paper. Since language, in this context, is a result of human existence, the argument would suggest that logic came into existence when language came into existence. But this would invalidate the nature of logical absolutes and their transcendent characteristics. Therefore, this objection is invalid.

2. If logic is the result of language, then logic came into existence with language. This cannot be for the reasons stated above.

3. If logic is the result of language and since language rules change, then can we conclude that the laws of logic would also change? If so, then the laws of logic are not laws; they are not absolute.

4. Saying that “a statement is a theorem of logic” does not account for logic but presupposes the existence of logic. This is begging the question.

9. Only two options

1. If we have only two possible options by which we can explain something and one of those options is removed, by default the other option is verified since it is impossible to negate both of the only two existing options.

2. God either exists or does not exist. There is no third option.

3. If the no-god position, atheism, clearly fails to account for Logical Absolutes from its perspective, then it is negated, and the other option is verified.

4. Atheism cannot account for the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, namely, the existence of logical absolutes. Therefore, it is invalidated as a viable option for accounting for them and the only other option, God exists, is validated.

Now let’s read Laws of Logic and Religions:

Hunduism: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:

The problem with Hinduism is that it offers no true foundation for salvation nor the preconditions for intelligibility. The founder of Hinduism is said to be unknown but ancient jewish documents attests that the 330 million Hindu gods were originated & inspired by angelic beings who rebelled against Yahweh. This isn’t quite a surprise as there are numerous testimonial evidence of former Hindus & others who were possessed by the kundalini spirit and was casted out of them in the name of Jesus Christ. Scripture speaks of a counterfeit holy spirit (2 Corin. 11:3).

Hinduism & the Laws of Logic: Hinduism cannot account for laws of logic. There cannot be a single set of laws of logic if there is more than one god. If there’s more than one god then truth will result to subjectivism since there would be more than one set of laws of logic. So Hinduism fails to account for the precondition of the single set of laws of logic in our reality. Also polytheistic religions cannot account for the diversity and unity of the laws of logic since polytheistic gods are diversity only. Since Hinduism affirms Monism (i.e., all is one) and denies differentiation or true distinctions, there are no contradictions and hence no law of non-contradiction. This therefore disqualifies Hinduism from being a valid precondition for the laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction. This also applies to and refutes the other world religions which affirms monism, New Age, Christian Science, Hare Krishna etc.

Hinduism & Moral Absolutes: Since in Hinduism Brahma, which accounts for the world, is not a person but an impersonal principle, it fails as a precondition for the obligation we all feel to abide by moral absolutes. Again, obligation to be moral only makes sense if we are in personal relationship with an absolute, truly personal being. Since Brahma is not a personal being, Hinduism fails as a precondition for the obligation men feel to be moral. This criticism can also be leveled against Taoism and its absolute principle called Taidi which means “Great Energy.” It is impersonal. The same can be said about the principle called Mana behind the gods of animism. Moreover, Brahma is said to be “beyond good and evil” (John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, [Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1994], p. 213) and thus fails as the source of absolute morality we assume and live by. Moreover, since Hinduism affirms that all is one, this would mean that Brahma is directly responsible for all the evil in the world.

Hinduism also fails to account for the uniformity of nature. Hinduism have impersonal principles (Brahma) which do not control and sustain nature, instead of a sovereign all-controlling God like in Christianity. For, in order for the universe to be uniform it must be guided, sustained and not chaotic, unpredictable, nebulous and irrational. Moreover, Hinduism, unlike Christianity, does not account for why all men depend on the uniformity of nature day to day.

Hinduism falls into the same if not similar inconsistencies as it cannot account for moral ethics, laws of Logic, let alone reality.

Two problems always exists within these religions – the need for unity and diversity (only Christianity can account for both). Pantheism (the belief that everything is God) for example, gives an answer for the need of unity, but none for diversity.

In other words, everything is completely “One”. There is no diversity. In this impersonal worldview, they’re no distinctions (ex: right and wrong; true and false; A and Non-A; Hinduism and anti-hinduism, etc) In Vedantic Hinduism, all plurality is illusion. So, 2+2=4 wouldnt necessarily be true, since it is considered an illusionary statement.

If some Hindus believe that all is “One” and plurality is illusionary, than why would they flee from a house that’s on fire? 🔥 or a lion attack? Why should hindus worry about lions or pain if these are considered illusions?

Under this worldview, Evil is also an illusion. Hinduism lacks a universal moral standard. If everything is “Maya” (illusionary), then there can be no evil. A hindu cannot claim that acts of rape, murder, or genocide are truly evil. In fact, a Hindu can lie about something and claim that his/her Lying is just an illusion.

In a nutshell, Hinduism cannot account for reality, since all is one, creating an illusionary worldview, which cannot make sense without distinctions. Since one cannot make distinctions, and all is an illusion, Hinduism in itself is an illusion that leads to irrational worldview and makes knowledge impossible.

Buddhism: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:

In order for Buddhism to be the true worldview or religion it must be able to justify the entire web of preconditions of intelligibility which are so fundamental for human intelligible experience. If Buddhism cannot provide a justification for at least one of the preconditions then it cannot justify the rest of the preconditions since they are all interrelated and operate within the web together in unity. Which would mean that the whole of Buddhism is a false belief system. The preconditions of intelligibility are:

1 Laws of logic 

2 Existence of Truth 

3. Meanings Behind Words 

4. The One and the Many / Diversity & Unity 

5. Ethics 

6. Uniformity of nature 

7. Reliability of the senses 

8. Validity of reasoning 

9. Existence of the self 

10. Time.

The laws of logic are universal, absolute, eternal & unchanging truths that exists in our reality. However Buddhism teaches that all things are impermanent and do not hold together at all (See: “The Teaching of Buddha” [Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, 1966] 298). Since the laws of logic are unchanging and not impermanent, Buddhism fails to provide a justification for the laws of logic, which makes Buddhism a false religion by default. Buddhism teaches belief in reincarnation, as you cannot derive unchanging laws of logic in a reincarnation system where things are constantly changing, evolving or devolving. God’s revelation says every good thing (which includes logic) comes from the Triune God (James 1:17, Romans 11:36).

Buddhism also cannot provide a justification for the existence of the self. We live our lives presupposing our existence and have knowledge of it, but Buddhism denies the existence of the soul and teaches that personal self is an illusion (See: Walpola Rahula, “What the Buddha Taught: Revised and Expanded Edition with Texts from Suttas and Dhammapada” [Grove Press, 2007] Kindle Edition, Chapter 6). There is no “I” or “you” even now. Since Buddhism teaches the personal self is an illusion, then this would mean that the validity of one’s reasoning and meanings behind words are illusions as well.

Buddhism & Moral Absolutes: Buddhism also cannot account for ethics since Buddhism teaches that there is no moral right and wrong, it’s all illusory (See: “The Teaching of Buddha” [Bukkyo Dendo Kyoki, 1996] 62). However this contradicts valid human experience, as we do not live our lives as if morals are subjective. When on the news we hear about a brutal murder, child molestation or some other heinous act, we don’t say “although this seems wrong it’s just an illusion.” No, we indignantly object to the act and demand that justice ought to be done. Buddhism is somewhat atheistic and hence it does not give us a basis for where objective, moral absolutes come from. Lastly, Buddhism has no personal absolute which is needed to account for the obligation men feel to abide by moral absolutes.

Buddhism & Laws of Logic: Buddhism denies the existence of the soul while also teaching reincarnation. This is an internal contradiction. What is reincarnated? Thus, by breaking laws of logic it fails as a precondition for laws of logic. Moreover, Buddhism teaches reality is just an illusion. If a world view claims reality (which would include laws of logic) is just an illusion then the laws of logic do not exist and can’t be accounted for by such a world view. Lastly, Buddhism has no absolute diversity and unity which is needed to account for the diversity in unity of the absolute set of laws of logic.

Buddhism & Objective Truth: Buddhism teaches that knowledge comes from out and within.

“Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real” – Gautama Buddha

Buddha teaches that truth is relative and you have to find out for yourself what is truth. But if truth is up to the individual then any claims that refutes the worldview of Buddhism could not be wrong. If you believe like Buddha that truth is subjective then is it absolutely true that truth is subjective? Claiming that truth is subjective is making an absolute truth claim. Buddhism refutes itself.

So based on the Buddhist worldview, any arguments a Buddhist presents would ultimately be meaningless since they are simply illusions, thus any arguments for Buddhism ought to be rejected on its own terms. Buddhists are living by blind faith. Christians have a justification for us having knowledge of our existence since God’s revelation says we were created in His image (Genesis 1:26-27).

At the end of the day, there’s no good reason to be a Buddhist at the point since it cannot justify the entire web of the preconditions for intelligibility which are so fundamental in making sense of our day to day life.

Islam: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:

In order for Islam to be the true worldview or religion it has to be able to provide a justification for the ENTIRE WEB of preconditions of intelligibility since these preconditions operate together in unity and are so fundamental and necessary for human intelligible experience. The preconditions of intelligibility are: 

1 Laws of logic 

2 Existence of Truth 

3. Meanings Behind Words 

4. The One and the Many / Diversity & Unity 

5. Ethics 

6. Uniformity of nature 

7. Reliability of the senses 

8. Validity of reasoning 

9. Existence of the self 

10. Time.

If Islam cannot justify at least one of these preconditions then it cannot justify the rest of the preconditions. The whole web would fall apart, which means that Islam cannot be true.

Islam & Moral Absolutes: The precondition for the obligation we all feel to be moral must be both absolute and personal since morals are absolute and obligation to be moral only makes sense in interpersonal relationships. Thus, a personal, absolute being is required. The Islamic god, Allah, however is not truly personal. While the members of the Christian Trinity enjoyed eternal communion and relationship (meaning they have been eternally personal), the Islamic god is Unitarian and has not had relationship for eternity. Therefore, Allah fails as the truly personal precondition of the obligation we all feel to be moral. Hence, unlike YHWH, we are left with an impersonal god in Islam who fails to be the absolute and truly personal precondition to make sense of the obligation we all feel to be moral.

Islam & the Laws of Logic: In order for the Islamic god to qualify as the eternally logical precondition who accounts for the laws of logic, he (and his alleged divine book), must show themselves to be logical. If they violate the laws of logic through irreconcilable contradiction then they violate the law of non-contradiction and show Allah is not the source of the laws of logic upon which his nature is based. Do the “infallible” religious texts of Islam have irreconcilable contradictions? Consider how on the one hand the Koran and “inspired prophet” Muhammad affirm the validity of the Old and New Testament’s of the Bible (Koran 4:136; 7:157; Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4434; Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, [Oxford University Press, 1995]), while on the other hand it contradicts the Bible’s clear teachings on original sin, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, justification being by faith, the deity of Jesus etc. Another contradiction is that while Koran 88:6 says the only food for those in hell will be bitter dari, Koran 69:36 says the only food for the wicked in hell will be pus from their wounds. Since the Koran (which is allegedly from Allah) violates the law of non-contradiction, this means the false Islamic god’s nature is not logical and hence he is not the source of the laws of logic.

Muslims believe in a unitarian god known as Allah and believes the Quran is the word of God. If Allah is the basis for the laws of logic then he must show himself to be logical. In the Quran, the word of Allah mistakenly made a strawman fallacy on the view of the Trinity by claiming that Christians worship three gods (See: Surah 4:171; 5:73). It also makes the strawman that Christians believe Mary is a god and is a member of the Trinity (See: Surah 5:116; 5:17; Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Surah 4:171). Since committing a strawman fallacy is a violation of the laws of logic, Allah cannot be the source of the laws of logic. And since Islam can’t account for the laws of logic, Islam have torn the entire web of preconditions of intelligibility, which means the entire Islamic faith is destroyed. This is how serious and devastating these preconditions are.

Even even if a Muslim tries to slither around this issue they still have a problem. Allah is only a unitarian god, so his nature is unity alone. Laws of logic presupposes the existence of diversity and unity, which is another precondition. Ex. There are different laws of logic (diversity) but they are all interdependent as one (unity). The reality of diversity and unity are eternal. You cannot have unity without diversity or diversity without unity. Allah cannot be the basis for the eternality of diversity and unity since Allah’s nature is only unity.

Islam & the Possibility of Knowledge: The Koran and hadith literature, upon which the Islamic world view is based, are not texts which offer relevant epistemic, philosophical discourses. The Bible on the other hand, does. Instead, what is contained in the Koran are merely 114 chapters of petty stories, warnings to obey Allah and Muhammad and a skewed Islamized version of history. The hadith literature contains the actions of Muhammad as well as his extra-Koranic sayings, yet no hadith even deals with the issue of the justification of knowledge through “Allah.” Since these many volumes of sources do not even touch on this issue (though they make sure to cover all they can, including answering how many rocks a Muslim should use to clean himself after going to the bathroom), we can be confident the author of these sources did not have a justification for knowledge.

Only the Trinity can account for this. This means it is logically impossible for Allah to exist.

Allah also cannot account for ethics, since ethics assumes interpersonal relationships. While the members of the Christian Trinity had eternal communion and interpersonal relationships, Allah is a unitarian god and has not had interpersonal relationships for eternity.

This is clear evidence that the Islamic faith is reduced to absurdity and that Muhammad tried to limit God to his own understanding, not realizing that by limiting God to his own understanding, the preconditions of intelligibility (that are so fundamental) poses a serious problem to the whole of Islam.

Judaism: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:

Judaism, the Laws of Logic & Moral Absolutes: If Judaism is true then that means the God of Judaism lied when he said the Messiah would come before the destruction of the Second Temple (Daniel 9:26) which occurred in A.D. 70. If the God of Judaism is a liar then he contradicted himself since he stated he does not lie (Numbers 23:19). If he contradicted himself then he violated the law of non-contradiction and thus his nature is not logical and the laws of logic cannot be grounded in his eternal nature. Moreover, if he is a liar (an immoral characteristic) then moral absolutes are not based on his eternal nature. Thus, he fails as the source for moral absolutes. Moreover, since those who believe in Judaism affirm Unitarianism, this world view suffers from the same difficulty Islam does. That is, the God of Judaism is not truly personal. While the members of the Christian Trinity enjoyed eternal communion and relationship (meaning they are truly personal), the God of Judaism is Unitarian and has not had relationship for eternity. Therefore, the God of Judaism fails as the truly personal precondition for the obligation we all feel to be moral. Moreover, if the God of Judaism is not personal or triune, one can also conclude that he is not love in nature since love requires at least a second person for it to express itself.

Deism: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:

Deism & the Uniformity of Nature: Deism suffers from the same difficulty as Orthodox Judaism. That is, there is a god who set the world on its course and then withdrew from it. However, again, due to the nature of the world’s utterly complex uniformity (which was unknown to the founders of deism in the 17th century), a totally sovereign God is required to sustain the movement of atoms, the moving parts in atoms (i.e., electrons), as well as the movement and vibrations of particles in gasses, liquids and solids. Due to Deism’s absence of providence, it fails as a valid precondition to make human experience on this issue intelligible. Moreover, Deism does not explain why all men assume day-to-day that nature will be uniform.

Deism & Moral Absolutes: If a god created the world and then withdrew from it then the fact men know right from wrong is inexplicable. If the deistic god does not write the works of his law on the hearts of men at their birth (since he is not around) then man’s knowledge of good and evil is unaccounted for.

Deism & Knowledge: Deism can not account for the fact that all men know God exists from birth, being the basis for trusting in their mental faculties and a non-chaotic universe as being able to bring them to true knowledge. One Deist source says “Deism is knowledge of God based on the application of our reason. . .” However, people assume God in order to reason and come to knowledge. Deism has it backwards. People do not reason in order to come to the conclusion that God exists. Knowledge of God is innate. This proves Deism fails as the precondition for knowledge.

Deism & Human Dignity: Deism fails to explain why men attribute dignity or value to other men the way they do. In Deism men are not in a god’s image, nor are they viewed by all men as being accountable and owned by a god. Thus, Deism does not account for humans attributing dignity and value to other humans.

Mormonism: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:

Mormonism & Moral Absolutes: The Mormon god is an exalted man of flesh and blood (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). He is not eternal, nor is he absolute. Thus, he fails as the absolute personal, precondition for the obligation men feel to be moral.

Mormonism & Laws of Logic: Since the Mormon god is not eternal, and has not always been the supreme being of the universe (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) that means he can’t account for invariant (i.e., unchanging) laws of logic. If they are not based on an unchanging eternal nature, their invariance today is inexplicable. Mormonism teaches polytheism: the belief in many gods. But there cannot be a single laws of logic if there is more than one god. Thus, Mormonism fails for the preconditions of laws of logic.

Jehovah Witnesses: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:

Jehovah’s Witnesses & Moral Absolutes: Since this cult denies the Trinity, their god is not truly personal. Moreover, since those who believe in Jehovah’s Witness Religion affirm Unitarianism, this world view suffers from the same difficulty Islam does. That is, the god of this cult is not truly personal and cannot account for interpersonal relationships. While the members of the Christian Trinity enjoyed eternal communion and interpersonal relationship, the god of Jehovah’s Witnesses is Unitarian and has not had relationship for eternity. He cannot relate to humanity in a truly personal manner because there is no such interpersonal relationship within his own absolute essence. Thus, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have a truly personal God required to account for the obligation all men feel to abide by absolute morality.

Jehovah’s Witnesses & Laws of Logic: Since this cult believes in a unitarian god, their god is unity only. Therefore the god of Jehovah’s Witnesses fails to account for the diversity in unity of laws of logic (3 in 1) since diversity in unity is not based on his nature. According to the god of Jehovah’s witnesses, the Watchtower Society takes the role of “the prophet of God” (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1972, p. 197). However, the Watchtower claimed 1925 would be the end of the world (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1923, p. 106). The Watchtower then admitted its organization was wrong and 1925 was based on the inflated imaginations of Watchtower Society members (Watchtower, 1926, p. 232). This is a serious contradiction. Either the Watchtower is a true prophet and makes true prophecy, or it is a false prophet and makes false prophecy. Since this world view violates the laws of logic, it fails as a precondition for the laws of logic to be true. How can their god inspire prophets to make false prophecy violating the law of non-contradiction, if the laws of logic are based on his eternal unchanging nature?

Greek Polytheistic Paganism: Failure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:

Greek Polytheistic Paganism & Moral Absolutes: Although gods in paganism can be personal, none of them are absolute. They all have different responsibilities and roles in regards to the world. Thus, paganism fails to provide a personal and absolute source required to make sense of the obligation men feel to abide by moral absolutes. Zeus, the so-called father of gods and humans, for example is said to be finite and had a birth. He is not said to be in absolute control of everything. This critique can also be leveled against animism, other forms of Hinduism, ancient Roman paganism, Shinto, and ancient Egyptian polytheism. Moreover, the gods of Greek paganism were extremely immoral according to Aristides (Aristides, Apol. 13.8). They engaged in theft, adultery, and homosexuality etc. Thus, absolute morality can not be based on their natures.

Greek Polytheistic Paganism & Laws of Logic: In Greek Paganism the Dioscuri brothers (twin gods) were honored and exalted as moral helpers of mankind. Yet they were beings who were said to have ravished the already married daughters of Leucippus. This is a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction in Greek paganism. Either they are moral, noble and exalted helpers of mankind who deserve respect, or they are not since they are rapists of already married females. If a world view violates the laws of logic it can not be the basis for the laws of logic. Even if an individual tries to find a “correct” answer to this, they still have a problem. The fact that no gods in greek polytheistic paganism are absolute and that polytheistic gods are diversity only, they cannot account for the Diversity in Unity of the absolute laws of logic. Also like I’ve said before, there cannot be a single set of laws of logic if there’s more than one god. Thus Paganism fails to provide for the preconditions for the laws of logic and all other aspects of reality.

The Flying Spaghetti MonsterFailure of False Religion to provide for the preconditions for intelligibility:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster! When the atheist worldview is reduced to absurdity and shown to not account for valid human experience, the atheist often says: “Although you say Christianity accounts for reality, I can just as easily say green aliens from Mars, or Santa Claus account for it.” However, green aliens from Mars being the source of the universe is not an actual worldview. Second, if the atheist wants to posit green aliens from Mars as the valid precondition for intelligibility, he needs to actually tell us about this worldview in depth. He needs to explain this world view’s anthropology, epistemology, view of creation etc., in order that we can test it internally and see if it accounts for reality. Atheists always fail to do this when raising this argument. Thus, their argument does not have any actual force. Moreover, even if they did invent and fully explain such an imaginary worldview, the fact that they do not actually believe it but are just raising it to try to stump Christians shows it is not a meaningful worldview to consider. Christianity has actually been affirmed and believed for 2000 years and is not some off the cuff response to a transcendental argument.

Michael R. Butler offers a refutation of this objection: Suppose a basketball player, say Michael Jordan, beats every worthy opponent in one-on-one basketball games. He can justifiably claim to be the best individual basketball player in the world. Suppose further that another jealous (and peevish) basketball player who was previously trounced by Jordan resents that he (Jordan) has titled himself ‘the best player in the world.’ His comeback is, ‘just because you have beat every current player does not mean that there is not another one coming who is better than you.’ Jordan’s response can be anticipated; ‘bring on my next opponent.’ The theoretical possibility that there may be another player better than Jordan is not a concern to him. In the world of basketball, it is the one who is actually the best player, and not who is possibly the best player, that is of importance. What matters are actual worldviews, not possible worldviews.

Christianity provides for the preconditions for intelligibility:

Christianity & Moral Absolutes: Christianity accounts for moral absolutes since morals are based on God’s eternal nature or character (Lev. 19:1-2; 1 Peter 1:16). It also accounts for why men know right from wrong and live and speak as though morality is absolute even though atheism cannot justify such behavior. This is because God writes the works of His Law on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15), though men do rebel and suppress or distort their knowledge of good and evil at times. God is the absolute and personal (God must be triune in order to be personal, communicative, and love in nature) Creator who is responsible for the personal obligation men feel to abide by moral absolutes. Christian theism accounts for why we feel and live as though humans have dignity or value since it affirms all men know God (Psalms 19:1; Romans 1:17-23), that men are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26), and that they belong to God and are accountable to God Proverbs 16:4; Romans 11:36; Revelation 4:11.

Christianity & the Laws of Logic: Christianity accounts for the immaterial nature of the laws of logic since we do not claim all that exists in the universe is matter, and by noting they are unchanging, eternal expressions of the attributes of the unchanging (2 Timothy 2:13), eternal God, and a reflection of His thinking. This is deduced from the fact that all knowledge and wisdom comes from God (Prov. 1:7; 9:10; Col. 2:3). The Bible affirms God does not contradict Himself (2 Corinthians 1:18) and it is impossible for Him to lie (Hebrews 6:18). This is because the law of non-contradiction is part of His nature. Scripture affirms the laws of logic which reflect God’s nature Exodus 3:14; Matthew 12:30; Luke 6:43.

Christianity & our reasoning/senses, and the possibility of knowledge: Christianity explains why we all assume reason is a valid tool since we all know the God who provided us with a logical, orderly universe where trusting the mental activities in our head actually makes sense (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). It accounts for our trust in empirical learning by explaining all men know the God (Psalms 19:1; Romans 1:17-23) who created men to know things through observation (Exodus 4:11; Proverbs 20:12), and that all men trust in God to sustain the viability of the senses. Lastly, it accounts for the possibility of knowledge by noting all men know God (Psalms 19:1; Romans 1:17-23), provided us with and sustains our universe (Genesis 8:22; Psalms 103:19; 104:2; Isaiah 40:26; Jeremiah 31:35; Amos 8:9) which is conducive for knowledge (i.e., an orderly, guided, non-chaotic, rational universe where probability and possibility, which are required for knowledge, actually make sense). This is why Proverbs 1:7 and Colossians 2:3 affirm one must start with God in order to account for knowledge. As scripture says, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). “[I]n whom [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). As Charles Hodge once said, “All that the scriptures teach concerning the external world accords with the facts of experience.”

Some Questions on Laws of Logic:

Question: How does this world have one set of laws of logic. Every human experiences every situation in a million different ways and come up with a million different solutions. Nature is different no matter where u go on earth. All cultures live different lives with different beliefs, and most members of most society’s are subjectively happy. What are these set rules of nature? And how what is your internal logic for all the hypocrisy in the bible, I am not hating on christianity but u all most see the many flaws in it?

Answer: If there is more than one set of laws of logic then communication would be impossible and truth would reduce to relativistic preferences. Laws of logic are objective and aren’t dependent upon the human mind. If you study logic you’d know there’s only one law of non-contradiction (one of the laws of logic) that exist, not millions or billions of laws of non-contradiction. Biblical revelation is true due to the impossibility of the contrary. Without it you can’t make sense of anything, including logic and induction. 

Question: How would you defend it against polytheistic religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism?

Answer: Easy. Polytheistic gods can’t account for both the diversity and unity of the preconditions for intelligibility, since polytheistic gods are diversity only. They don’t have a universal nature to account for universal things like induction, morals, and logic. Also if there’s more than one god then there would be many sets of laws of logic, which is absurd. Who’s logic should we follow? In our reality we only have one set of laws of logic, which shows that polytheism is false.

John 14:6: Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

God bless you all!

Soli Deo Gloria!!

Related Articles:

The Ultimate Proof Of Christianity: The Transcendental Argument For The Existence Of The God Of Scripture

If you don’t presuppose the God of Christianity as your ultimate starting point, you have no foundation for the paradigm of preconditions that are necessary for human intelligible experience. In the end it’s either Jesus Christ or absurdity.

Christian Theology, Doctrine

What is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

The glorious gospel. Friends, Gospel means the good news. But first I want to start with the bad news. The key to understanding the gospel is to know why it’s good news. To do that, we must start with the bad news. The Old Testament Law was given to Israel during the time of Moses (Deuteronomy 5:1). The Law can be thought of as a measuring stick, and sin is anything that falls short of “perfect” according to that standard. The righteous requirement of the Law is so stringent that no human being could possibly follow it perfectly, in letter or in spirit. Despite our “goodness” or “badness” relative to each other, we are all in the same spiritual boat—we have sinned, and the punishment for sin is death, i.e. separation from God, the source of life (Romans 3:23). In order for us to go to heaven, God’s dwelling place and the realm of life and light, sin must be somehow removed or paid for. The Law established the fact that cleansing from sin can only happen through the bloody sacrifice of an innocent life (Hebrews 9:22).

The gospel involves Jesus’ death on the cross as the sin offering to fulfill the Law’s righteous requirement (Romans 8:3–4; Hebrews 10:5–10). Under the Law, animal sacrifices were offered year after year as a reminder of sin and a symbol of the coming sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:3–4). When Christ offered Himself at Calvary, that symbol became a reality for all who would believe (Hebrews 10:11–18). The work of atonement is finished now, and that’s good news.

The gospel also involves Jesus’ resurrection on the third day. “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Romans 4:25). The fact that Jesus conquered sin and death (sin’s penalty) is good news, indeed. The fact that He offers to share that victory with us is the greatest news of all (John 14:19).

The elements of the gospel are clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3–6, a key passage concerning the good news of God: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living.” Notice, first, that Paul “received” the gospel and then “passed it on”; this is a divine message, not a man-made invention. Second, the gospel is “of first importance.” Everywhere the apostles went, they preached the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Third, the message of the gospel is accompanied by proofs: Christ died for our sins (proved by His burial), and He rose again the third day (proved by the eyewitnesses). Fourth, all this was done “according to the Scriptures”; the theme of the whole Bible is the salvation of mankind through Christ. The Bible is the gospel.

“I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile” (Romans 1:16). The gospel is a bold message, and we are not ashamed of proclaiming it. It is a powerfulmessage, because it is God’s good news. It is a saving message, the only thing that can truly reform the human heart. It is a universal message, for Jews and Gentiles both. And the gospel is received by faith; salvation is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8–9).

The gospel is the good news that God loves the world enough to give His only Son to die for our sin (John 3:16). The gospel is good news because our salvation and eternal life and home in heaven are guaranteed through Christ (John 14:1–4). “He has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you” (1 Peter 1:3–4).

The gospel is good news when we understand that we do not (and cannot) earn our salvation; the work of redemption and justification is complete, having been finished on the cross (John 19:30). Jesus is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2). The gospel is the good news that we, who were once enemies of God, have been reconciled by the blood of Christ and adopted into the family of God (Romans 5:10; John 1:12). “See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!” (1 John 3:1). The gospel is the good news that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1).

To reject the gospel is to embrace the bad news. Condemnation before God is the result of a lack of faith in the Son of God, God’s only provision for salvation. “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:17–18). God has given a doomed world good news.

We all have sinned, we can’t save ourselves, not our good works also because our good works are like filthy rags in front of God(Isaiah 64:6) only God can save us. And none is righteous and if none is righteous then how can we seek God. Let use illustration: If your child is drowning in water then will you send you your servants or will you come to save him. Of course you will come. The same in this. We are all drowning and in Christianity God came to save us.


Romans 3:10-12: 10: as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”

Romans 3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Ephesians 2:8-9: 8: For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Romans 5:8: God demonstrates His love, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

1 John 4:8: God is love.

2 Corinthians 5:17: Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

I will leave a video here, please check this out: What is the Gospel of Jesus Christ-

God bless you all!!

Soli Deo Gloria!!

Christian Apologetics, Islam

Muhammad was a Sex Addict

Sahih al-Bukhari, Number 5068: Narrated Anas: The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.

Sahih al-Bukhari, Number 5215: Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet used to pass by (have sexual relation with) all his wives in one night, and at that time he had nine wives.

Sahih al-Bukhari, Number 268: Narrated Qatada: Anas bin Malik said, “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet the strength for it?” Anas replied, “We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men).” And Sa’id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

Chapter 2: Recommendation to the one who sees a woman and is attracted to her, to go to his wife or slave woman and have intercourse with her:
Sahih Muslim Book 8, Hadith 3240:
Jabir reported that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them:The woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart.

Notice three things about these passages. First, Muhammad had at least nine wives at one time, even though Surah 4, verse 3 of the Qur’an limits Muslim men to four wives. If the Qur’an limits men to four wives, why did Muhammad have at least nine wives at one time? Well, Muhammad received a special revelation (Surah 33, verse 50 of the Qur’an), giving him, and him alone, the right to break the four-wife limit. How convenient.

Second, Muhammad would have sex with at least nine women and girls in one day, even though he was more than 50 years old. Today, we would call him a “sex addict.” Isn’t it interesting that a sex addict who claimed to be a prophet conveniently received a revelation giving him more sexual partners than anyone else?

Third, how did Muhammad’s followers know that he was having sex with all of his wives in one day? How did they know he wasn’t simply chatting with his wives? It seems that the prophet of Islam must have been bragging about all the sex he was having, so much so that his followers could in turn brag about him having the sexual strength of thirty men.

And notice the Hadith’s(Sahih Muslim Book 8, Hadith 3240) Chapter heading. Again, this is about Muhammad, history’s greatest moral example. being sexually aroused by a woman and then running to Zaynab to quote, fulfill his desire. Notice that a man can run to home either to his wife or to his slave girl. Yes, Islam allows men to save to have sex slaves. Muhammad and his followers bought, owned, sold and traded slaves, and they had sex with them.

Our Muslim friends tell us that Islam is a religion of modesty. A closer look shows that Islam is a religion whose supreme role model was a sex addict who built a religion around his sexual desires and constantly bragged about his sexual exploits with women, a prepubescent girl, and his slave-girls. So much for modesty.

Related Articles:


Rape in Islam

Islam Permits Slavery



Muhammad: The White Prophet with Black Slaves

The Islamic View of Black Slaves


Qur’an, Hadith and Scholars:Women

Women in Islam – From Islam’s Sources

Qur’an, Hadith and Scholars: Beauty and Makeup

(Pt.1/3) Allah Takes Orders From A Man – The Origins Of Hijab

(Pt.2/3) Sex Segregation in Islam

(Pt.3/3) Health Effects of Islamic Dress

“Sheepgate: The Case of the Qur’an’s Missing Verses on Breastfeeding Adults.”


Zaid, Zaynab and Muhammad

Muhammad, Zaid and Zaynab Revisited

Bethel, Christian Theology, Doctrine

Is Bethel A Cult?



Part 1: Beware Of Bethel: The Hyper-Charismatic Cult

Part 2: Bethel And Grave Socking

Part 3: Jenn Johnson – Holy Spirit is like a Sneaky Blue Genie

Part 4: God is not in Control – Bill Johnson

Part 5: Bethel And Kundalini Spirit

Part 6: Bill Johnson Hanging With Todd White

Part 7: Bill Johnson & Kenosis Heresy

Part 8: Bethel’s Amanda Lindsey Cook reveals why she went silent, what she learned during difficult season

Part 9: Bethel & Tarot Cards

Part 10: Is it Ok for a Christian listen to Bethel, Elevation, Jesus Culture, Hillsong Songs, those songs that are theologically correct?

Part 11: Resources


I know there are many brothers and sisters in Christ who covered this topic. Then why I am covering this? Well, because people like Bill Johnson, Todd White and many other Pastors like Bill and Todd are leading people away with their heretical teachings. As you are going to read and watch(because there are some videos also), the information will not be new(maybe for some) but I just put heretical teachings what Bethel Teaches in a list. God Bless You!

So, let’s start. “IS BETHEL A CULT? -SHORT ANSWER – YES. Long Answer:


Part 1: Beware Of Bethel: The Hyper-Charismatic Cult


Part 2: Bethel And Grave Soaking

Bethel Worship – Kundalini – Grave Soaking – New Age Teaching:


Part 3: Jenn Johnson – Holy Spirit is like a Sneaky Blue Genie

Jenn Johnson – Holy Spirit is like a Sneaky Blue Genie:

But what does the Bible say about the Holy Spirit:

Remember when Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit? God struck him and his wife. (Acts 5)

God is not your genie. God is Holy. (Isaiah 6).


Part 4: God is not in Control – Bill Johnson

God is in charge but He is not in control. He has left us in control. -Bill Johnson

If you think that I am lying. Well, you can check Kris Vallotton bc this tweet is coming from him:

But what the Bible say:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. – Romans 3:28

Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand. – Proverbs 19:21

The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps. – Proverbs 16:9

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will – Ephesians 1:11


Part 5: Bethel And Kundalini Spirit

Bethel Worship – Kundalini – Grave Soaking – New Age Teaching:

Wretched: A Fire Tunnel Party:


Part 6: Bill Johnson Hanging With Todd White

Now, we all agree and know that Bill Johnson himself is an heretic. I would say this is just one more evidence that says Bill Johnson is a heretic. His association with false teachers like Todd White, a Charlatan. Yes, Todd White is a Charlatan.

Watch this short clip from the American Gospel: Christ Alone Movie: Leg Lengthening – American Gospel: Christ Alone:

As for Bill Johnson associating with Todd White(heretic). Watch this 34 min video that also talks about Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Todd White, etc.:

Red Flags About Todd White (featuring Bill Johnson, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, and Heidi Baker):

From Bethel Church and Christianity from Facebook:

And here you can watch this video: Todd White – The Rock Solid Ministry of Kenneth Copeland

How anyone can watch this and come away defending White, or especially Copeland, blows me away, but also reminds me that there are those in the Church who are not the church, but the enemy has “taken captive to do his will.” (2 Tim. 2:26)

They are blind to the truth; “blinded by the god of this age.”
But “even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.”
(2 Cor. 4:3,4)

And the only thing that will break through and remove the “scales” from their eyes, like Paul who was called Saul, is the #Gospel.

“The GOSPEL is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.” (Romans 1:16)

Let’s keep sharing Truth and remember that God IS saving people out of the deception, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, who is “the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father,” but by Christ.



Part 7: Bill Johnson & Kenosis Heresy

“Jesus performed miracles, wonders and signs, as a man in right relationship to God, not as God. If He performed miracles because He was God, then they would be unattainable for us. But if he did them as a man, I am responsible to pursue His lifestyle”.
– Bill Johnson, When Heaven Invades Earth, pg 29.

(Key words: “But if…”)

You can check Brother Nick’s article on Dangers of Bethel which is a follow up of Episode 080:

Dangers of Bethel

From speak.gospel.truth from Instagram

You can watch the video here: Bethel’s pastor and false teacher #BillJohnson teaching kenosis doctrine

Bethel’s pastor and false teacher #BillJohnson teaching kenosis doctrine

“The kenosis theory states that Jesus gave up some of His divine attributes while He was a man here on earth. These attributes were omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Christ did this voluntarily so that He could function as a man in order to fulfill the work of redemption. This view was first introduced in the late 1800s in Germany with Gottfried Thomasius (1802-75), a Lutheran theologian.

The kenosis theory states that Jesus gave up some of His divine attributes while He was a man here on earth. These attributes were omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Christ did this voluntarily so that He could function as a man in order to fulfill the work of redemption. This view was first introduced in the late 1800s in Germany with Gottfried Thomasius (1802-75), a Lutheran theologian.
Phil. 2:5-8 does not teach that Jesus gave up any of His divine attributes since it says nothing of those attributes. Instead, it is speaking of His humility that moved him, according to the will of the Father, to leave His majestic state in heaven and enter into the humble position of human nature.

it were true, then it would mean that Jesus was not fully divine. If Jesus was not fully divine, then His atoning work would not be sufficient to atone for the sins of the world.

The correct doctrine is the Hypostatic Union–that Jesus is both fully God and fully man (Col. 2:9) and did not give up any divine attributes while as a man on earth.” ~Matt Slick •
Neutrality with the secular worldview is enmity towards God!


Part 8: Bethel’s Amanda Lindsey Cook reveals why she went silent, what she learned during difficult season

Amanda Cook, a prominent Bethel worship leader and recording artist (known for “You Make me Brave”)recently sat down with The Christian Post for an interview about her new album House on a Hill. The questions were fairly simple but through Amanda’s answers, a picture emerges of a god that fits more with Pantheism and the god of the New Age than the God of the Bible. Her musings show that she does not know the one true God of Christianity. As Amanda is a prominent writer of Bethel worship songs, consider the god she is writing about and singing to. How can anyone with a clear conscience use these songs written to a pagan god in their own Sunday worship services? I highlighted statements made that are of concern in the article. What do you think of these statements?

Feel free to read the full article in context here – Bethel’s Amanda Lindsey Cook reveals why she went silent, what she learned during difficult season:

You can check more information about Bethel/NAR on account. Although these photos are coming from Bethel And Church Christianity Facebook account but I took it from Nick ( IG Bethel/NAR Stories(as you saw in the above photos). And Part 2 & Part 4 information on Bethel are coming from “Story Hghlights.” And as I said, you can check more information about Bethel/NAR on Instagram account “Story Highlights” which you can see here: Bethel/NAR


Part 9: Bethel & Tarot Cards

Bethel Promotes “Prophetic Uno” Card Reading Exercise

This is NOT satire-this is a real FaceBook post from the Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry:


This seems to be a combination of the Holy Ghost Hokey Pokey, the Christalignment Tarot Cards and the Bethel Board
Source: Bethel Promotes “Prophetic Uno” Card Reading Exercise

The Following articles is coming from Fighting For The Faith’s Website:

Christalignment Bethel Fortune-Telling New Age Naked with Jesus Extravaganza!

Last year we made a big deal about the Australian organization called “Christalignment” and its pagan practices covered in a sugary Christian coating. Well, there’s more.

Thanks to the Encounter Gospel of Christalignment, one lady had an encounter where “Jesus” petted her while she was completely naked. Here’s the latest Fighting for the Faith video on this topic.

F4F | “Christian” Tarot Cards and Fortune Telling:

Christalignment is a very small group that was briefly scolded by Bethel Super Apostle, Kris Vallotton, who thought the idea of “Christian tarot cards” was “insane” and whoever was doing this needed to “repent and stop the craziness…”


Kris Vallotton removed his post the next day and did a 180 degree flip flop-he endorsed his new Christalignment friends, while he also attempted to blame the “fake news media” for creating the problem (you know, his post on his Facebook page). Read about the whole story here: Kris Vallotton RUNS From His Own Facebook Post!!

Bethel Church is one of the biggest, most influential churches in the world, and they support the New Age Fortune-Telling “ministry” of Christalignment 100%.

Here’s a post where Christalignment is welcoming the “lovely Bethel crew:”

Lovely Bethel Crew.jpg

The Bethel team “rocked it” at the Christalignment booth:


Jenny Hodge is the mother of Bethel missionary, Ben Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald is the director of Awakening Australia, which had Christalignment as a supporting ministry (and Bill Johnson as a featured speaker).


Here are some photos from the Hodge’s Facebook account to show people the ministry work of Christalignment:

Screen Shot 2019-01-29 at 8.04.43 PM copy.jpg
Screen Shot 2019-01-29 at 8.07.44 PM copy.jpg
Screen Shot 2019-01-29 at 8.06.45 PM copy.jpg
Screen Shot 2019-02-05 at 8.12.29 PM copy.jpg

Here’s a promotional video where a Christalignment worker explains what services they offer:


To hear a very detailed (and disturbing!) interview with Jenn Hodges, check out this recent podcast:

Christalignment | New Age, Occult and Jesus | Interview With Jenny:

The Christalignment team is convinced that their sort of “undercover” approach to ministry is the only way to reach the non-Christian world. While it is a great goal to reach unbelievers with the Gospel message of Jesus Christ, it does not do any good if they never hear the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. The foundational message of Jesus dying for the redemption of guilty sinners seems to be completely missing from the Christalignment “gospel.” In video after video, people who have an “encounter” in a “Destiny Reading” are always “at peace with who they are,” or they “feel encouraged to continue on the path they’re on.” What is the point of reaching people just so they can continue believing the same thing they believed all along?

We encourage everyone to go out and preach the Gospel, but it only matters if it really is the Gospel.

“God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” — Romans 5:8

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” — John 3:16-17

“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.” — 1 Peter 2:24-25

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.” — Romans 3:23-25

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” — 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

Here are some more articles on this important topic:

Kris Vallotton and Bethel Cannot Escape Link to New Age Occultism

Topless Dancing at Christalignment “Workshop”-Does Kris Vallotton Approve?

10 Reasons Why You Should RUN AWAY From Bethel Redding

Bethel Church Tells Witch that She’s “On the Right Path” and “God is So Proud of Her!”

Cindy Jacobs Explains Her Psychic Ability as “Spiritual Reading”

The Hypnotic Worship “Encounter Gospel” of Bethel & the NAR Explained

MESSED UP CHURCH: Encounter Evangelism Exposé:

Source: Christalignment Bethel Fortune-Telling New Age Naked with Jesus Extravaganza!


Part 10: Is it Ok for a Christian listen to Bethel, Elevation, Jesus Culture, Hillsong Songs, those songs that are theologically correct?

No. Why should we want to listen those songs that are coming from false teachers.

But for more in depth, you can listen to Episode 080 and One post where you can listen 2 Brothers in Christ respectfully debate this issue.

But I would to add one more thing on this topic:

From (Facebook):

In many respects, I am utterly sick and tired of this subject. I have discussed this topic more times than I can count, and even had a debate on it (link at the bottom of this post) so that it could close the discussion on my show. I have read messages upon messages from individuals who were sucked into the teachings of Bethel via their music and I have read through the mission statement of Bethel Music that says they seek to export both music and teachings. Music is powerful, it really is, and if music does what Bill Johnson says, if they intend music to teach, and to impart teachings, than there is even MORE reason to not play their songs. It should have been enough to point out that the Bible specifically tells us have NOTHING to do with false teachers. It should have been enough for us to recognize that music wasn’t some magical exception when it says have nothing to do with them. That should have been enough to keep us away. But here we have, yet again, a bright neon sign saying, “this is what we intend with our music, to impart teachings”.

Not all of the conversations I have had have been easy, and the most important ones have been heartbreaking, but there has been fruit nonetheless. I received one email from a pastor the other week whose entire congregation is changing from a NAR affiliated church to a reformed church. How humbled I was to find that my material aided them in that transition. I have been humbled over the responses to my debate and episodes on this subject especially when I am, truly, sick of the subject. While I am tired, God shows me that it has not been for nothing. The joy of those messages from various pastors and congregants who said that they have stopped giving these teachers a platform in their bible studies and worship services, it is absolutely amazing.

This is all to say to anyone reading this: the nonsense that comes out of these word of faith preachers or the NAR is not Christianity. It just isn’t. These people like Johnson, Osteen, Furtick, Meyer, etc, they are good at marketing. At the business models. At entertaining. Creating** experiences. That isn’t Christianity.

This is all to say. We need to be biblical, and we need to keep standing up for biblical truth even when it’s hard. Even when it feels hopeless. Why? Because biblical Christianity always swims against the current. That is one thing that never seems to change.


For more, you can check if it is ok “For a Christian to listen to Bethel, Elevation, Jesus Culture, Hillsong Songs, those songs that are theologically correct?”

Resources Below:

Ep. 080 – Special Guest Mike Clark on the Dangers of Bethel

Should we use Bethel, Hillsong, or Jesus Culture for Worship? (debate)

Should Your Church Sing Jesus Culture & Bethel Music? By Costi Hinn

Hillsong Church Exposed

Elevation Church & Steven Furtick Exposed

False Teachers


Part 11: Resources

Here are some videos & articles that expose Bethel Church and tells us what really Bethel Church really is:

VIDEO: Part 1 – Bethel and The New Age

VIDEO: EXCLUSIVE: Defecting From Bethel

VIDEO: Defecting From Bethel: Part 2 (Exclusive)

VIDEO: Ex-Bethel Student Tells All: Lindsay Davis Testimony

VIDEO: Bethel Church: Incorporating New Age Mysticism, Spirit Guides, Auras, Angels, Revival,Healing Energy

VIDEO: Bethel Church and Bill Johnson Exposed

VIDEO: Evaluating Bethel and Bill Johnson – Prosperity, healing, and more

VIDEO – NAR/Bethel with Theology Nights: Nick from Christ is the Cure – NAR and Bethel

ARTICLE: The Hypnotic Worship “Encounter Gospel” of Bethel & the NAR Explained

ARTICLE: 10 Reasons Why You Should RUN AWAY From Bethel Redding

ARTICLE: Bill Johnson: The Presence of God or Demons in Church?

ARTICLE: Christalignment Bethel Fortune-Telling New Age Naked with Jesus Extravaganza!

ARTICLE: Bethel Promotes “Prophetic Uno” Card Reading Exercise

You can check Brother Nick’s article on Dangers of Bethel which is a follow up of Episode 080

Christ Is The Cure: Ep. 080 – Special Guest Mike Clark on the Dangers of Bethel

Christ Is The Cure: Dangers of Bethel

Christ Is The Cure: Ep. 096 – Not Again, Really? (NAR) and Bethel – the Final Hoorah

You can check more information about Bethel/NAR on account. These photos are coming from on his ( “Story Highlights” which you can see here: Bethel/NAR

And here you can check everything about the Bethel. Nick’s article on Bethel, Conversation Mike Clark, etc.: Category: Bethel

Should we use Bethel, Hillsong, or Jesus Culture for Worship? (debate)

Should Your Church Sing Jesus Culture & Bethel Music? By Costi Hinn

VIDEO: Hillsong Church Exposed

VIDEO: Elevation Church & Steven Furtick Exposed

ARTICLE: False Teachers


Book 1: Defining Deception: Freeing the Church from the Mystical-Miracle Movement

Description: The global movement of mystical-miracle enthusiasts have put a modern face on historical heresies. Men and women posing as prophets and apostles make millions preying on the sick, poor, and emotionally fragile. Behind a veil of glamour, many self-proclaimed pastors mask their spiritual abuse with claims of special power from the Holy Spirit. Defining Deception pulls back the curtain to reveal the truth behind this lucrative industry. Written with a unique blend of theology, history, and personal experience, Costi Hinn and Anthony Wood have lovingly, yet sternly, exposed the mystical-miracle fraud in the hope that Christians will unite against those who have turned Jesus into a commodity. It is also a call to all Christians of good faith to help those trapped by these corrupt leaders rediscover the biblical Gospel of Christ. Every Christian is called to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 3) even when it’s controversial—Defining Deception will equip Christians to do just that.

And you check the Book Review that was done by Nick Campbell of Defining Deception

Book 2: God, Greed, and the (Prosperity) Gospel: How Truth Overwhelms a Life Built on Lies

Description: Millions desperate for hope and solutions are enticed by the promise of the prosperity gospel – that God will do whatever they need with just a little faith and a financial gift. All the while, prosperity preachers exploit the poor and the needy to stockpile their riches. What can followers of the true gospel do to combat the deception?

Through a remarkable and fascinating journey, Costi Hinn went from a next-generation prosperity preacher to the first to abandon the family faith and share the true gospel. Nephew of the world-famous televangelist, Benny Hinn, Costi had a front-row seat to the inner workings and theology of the prosperity gospel. But as Costi’s faith deepened, so did his questions about prosperity teaching. As the deceptions in his past were exposed, Costi came face to face with the hypocrisy and devastation caused by his belief system, and the overwhelming truth about the real Jesus Christ.

This captivating look into the daily lives of one of the world’s leading prosperity dynasties offers a thoughtful perspective on the perils of greed, the power of the true gospel, and hope for the future of the global church. Through real-life stories, Costi challenges and equips readers to be living lights pointing the way to the true gospel and the saving grace of Christ. God, Greed, and the (Prosperity) Gospel will bolster your faith and encourage your own journey toward the Truth.

Following is a quote from Costi Hinn’s Book:

“Any religion that says you need to do good works, give enough money, or speak enough positive declarations to unlock God’s saving grace or abundant blessings on your life is a false religion.” – Costi Hinn, God, Greed, and the (Prosperity) Gospel

You can check the Book Review that was done by Tim Challies here: God, Greed, and the Prosperity Gospel

Documentary 1: American Gospel: Christ Alone


If you’d like to buy or rent the full film, please click “WATCH IT NOW” on the top menu(ON AMERICAN GOSPEL’S WEBSITE:

Here you can see the 1 hour movie:

American Gospel: Christ Alone (1 Hour Version):

Description: “American Gospel: Christ Alone” is a feature documentary that is 2 hours and 20 minutes in duration. The following is the first 40 minutes of the film, followed by testimony from viewers.

For more information please visit

Note: In March 2019, Lindsay (the BSSM student) was asked to leave BSSM for publicly speaking against Bethel’s doctrine & leadership on her personal Facebook page.


“This is the best clarifying juxtaposition of truth and prosperity preaching I know of. I pray millions of people around the world will watch this for the glory of Christ and his Good News.” – John Piper

“The great strength of the film is that it’s not only a negative examination of the Word of Faith movement, but also a very positive and helpful examination of biblical truth. Those who watch it will not only be convinced that the prosperity gospel is evil, but they will also know exactly why it is so evil.”– Tim Challies

“American Gospel: Christ Alone is thoughtful, compelling, and, most importantly, God honoring.” – John Ellis​

“I think suffering Christians will discover an unexpected balm in this film as they are reminded of
the true hope provided in Christ Jesus.” – Reagan Rose

Follow American Gospel on Social Media:


Documentary 2: American Gospel: Christ Crucified

American Gospel: Christ Crucified (Teaser):

Documentary 3: Word of Faith Teachers Debunked (documentary):

Description: Word of faith group exposed. Are you or someone you know a follower of the likes of Joel Osteen, Kenneth Hagin, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, or T. D. Jakes etc? This film takes a responsible look at the major doctrines which separate this movement from historic biblical Christianity. Its origins and errors are documented with evidence and fact. Pray for the repentance and salvation of the false teachers critiqued in this film as well as those who follow them.


Section 1.) Are we little gods? 6:39

Section 2.) Preaching a Different Jesus 1:06:10

Section 3.) Declaring Health, Wealth, and Happiness 01:58:24

Section 4.) Questionable Origins of the Movement 2:45:00



Special Thanks to Apologia Studios, The Cultish Show, Lindsay Davis, Bethel Church and Christianity, Speak.Gospel.Truth, Chris Rosebrough of Fighting For The Faith, Brad Webber of Theology Nights, Nick Campbell of Christ Is The Cure, Todd Friel of Wretched Radio, American Gospel & Keith Thompson of Exegetical Apologetics for their work to expose Bethel Church.

You can follow these brothers and sisters on Social Media:

Apologia Studios: Facebook , Twitter , Instagram

The Cultish Show: Facebook, Instagram

Lindsay Davis: Instagram

Bethel Church And Christianity: Facebook, Instagram

Chris Rosebrough of Fighting For The Faith: Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

Brad Weber of Theology Nights: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Website, Youtube, iTunes, Spotify

Nick Campbell of Christ Is The Cure: Facebook, Instagram, Website, iTunes, Spotify

Todd Friel of Wretched Radio: Website, Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, Twitter


Speak.Gospel.Truth: Instagram

Keith Thompson of Exegetical Apologetics: Website, Youtube, Facebook


Christian Apologetics

Christian Apologetics Youtube Channels, Websites In Hindi Language

Following is a list of Christian Apologetics Youtube Channels, Websites In Hindi Language



VIDEO: Glory Apologetics Intro:

VIDEO: Christian apologist VOCAB MALONE interviews Bro. FRANCIS of GloryApologetics:



YOUTUBE(Main Page):

YOUTUBE(Regional Page) – GA Regional:

VIDEO: Welcome to our New Channel – GA Regional:








VIDEO: Ek Nayi Shuruat – एक नयी शुरुआत:

Description: Aapkey farmaish par Sakshi apologetics sirf aur sirf humarey Hindi bolney waley bhai aur behen kay liye naya channel launch kiya hai. Zaroor isey like, share aur subscribe karein. Channel ka link hai:

आपके फरमाइश पर हमने सिर्फ हिंदी वीडियोस के लिए एक नया चैनल लांच किया है. हमारे सब सिर्फ और सिर्फ हिंदी वीडियोस आपको इस चैनल पर मिलेंगे. चैनल को ज़रूर सब्सक्राइब, शेयर और लिखे करें. चैनल का लिंक है








My goal for you is to be envisioned as you engage this site to be equipped so you can export what you have learned to others so the name of Christ can be exalted in your life and the lives of your friends.

The most effective way you can accomplish this good goal is through the daily reflection of this site’s content over an extended period. Let these gospel-centered resources settle into your soul. With time, patience, and diligence you can experience long-term, satisfying, practical change in your life.

Personal change does not happen quickly, but it does happen. It will require perseverance on your part. I have developed these resources with you in mind. They were ignited in the crucible of suffering and worked out over the last thirty years. A few weeks on this site has proven to be practically transformative to thousands of people.

Not sure how I ran into your site, but so glad I did. You inspire me to serve Our Lord and to want to follow closely after His desire for my life. I can see your gift to help an abundance of people to clearly find paths in this life to shine brightly for God’s glory. Thank you for sharing, and God bless you. – Sharyon

Thank you for all your hard work in producing these podcasts and articles. Your work has truly changed my life. – Darren

I recently learned about your ministry and website from a friend. And I have told my friends as well. Your work is brilliant. I’m grateful for you and appreciate you more than you will ever know. I will remember you in prayer regularly. May God richly bless you and yours always. Thank you! – Kim

For several years I have read your articles, printed them off to give to others that I counsel in my church. I have been helped personally in many ways and appreciate how relevant the articles are to so many peoples’ situations. The webinars are very helpful! Thank you. – Barbara

I am thankful the Lord has seen fit to flip the suffering in my life to something that has become beautiful. I find no greater joy than to know the Lord is using this work for His glory and your benefit. That outcome brings great satisfaction to my soul. MORE YOU CAN READ HERE


Meet Our Team










2. Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation


Biblical Christian Counselling – Ed Welch:

Peter Saunders, CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, interviews Ed Welch of CCEF (Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation) about Christian counselling, scripture’s relevance for helping people with the many issues of life, and how his own personal struggle with anxiety has affected his faith and ministry. Ed brings over thirty years of experience as a counsellor and author of many books and articles on the topic of biblical counselling.


Each of us has personal and interpersonal struggles. Jesus Christ knows those struggles, cares about strugglers, and enters in. We see him bring about significant change in people’s lives every day. This passion for Christ’s relevance in counseling is our heritage and heartbeat.

What We Do


Our counselors seek to walk​ ​alongside ​​struggling and suffering people with humility, love, and biblical wisdom. We also offer support and mentoring through consultation to ministry leaders and counselors to help them better serve those in their care.LEARN MORE


Our authors produce books, booklets, and other training materials that are rooted in Scripture, practical, and accessible to individuals and churches. We publish the Journal of Biblical Counseling three times a year, and our website provides a wide array of additional resources including articles, blogs, podcasts and other audio and video resources.LEARN MORE


Our annual national conference is a unique opportunity for people to enjoy robust teaching on an important counseling topic, and to connect and worship with hundreds of like-minded people around the world. Our faculty and counselors also speak at other seminars, events, and conferences upon request.LEARN MORE


Our fully online program allows students from all ​over the world to delve into a wide range of courses on biblical counseling. Whether for personal edification, to be equipped in formal or informal ministry, or to pursue a career in counseling, our courses offer rich content and meaningful opportunities to connect with others for a transformative learning experience.LEARN MORE

Beliefs, History, & Model of Care:









3. Association of Certified Biblical Counselors


Helping People: A Message from Stuart Scott:

For information about ACBC training events, visit

ABOUT Association of Certified Biblical Counselors (ACBC)

For 40 years, the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors (ACBC) has been certifying biblical counselors to ensure doctrinal integrity and to promote excellence in biblical counseling.

Who We Serve: Pastors and Disciple-makers

All pastors, professors, and other Christian servants who desire to be trained in their gospel-responsibility to be disciple-makers.

What We Offer: Certification and Training

We offer a comprehensive biblical counseling certification program that is rigorous, but attainable by even the busiest pastor. The biblical counseling certification phases include

We also offer annual and regional conferences as well as certification for centers desiring to become an ACBC-certified training center.

Our Theological Position


Who is ACBC?

In 1976 Dr. Jay Adams founded the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors (NANC) with the desire that the organization and its rigorous certification process would become the backbone of the biblical counseling movement. Today the organization is now known as the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors (ACBC) and is the oldest and largest biblical counseling organization in the world. The training and certification of ACBC counselors is recognized worldwide with over 1,700 counselors in 30 countries that speak 30 languages with these numbers growing yearly.  ACBC also has over 60 certified training centers ranging from seminaries to churches.

Why Should I Pursue Certification in Biblical Counseling?

Many individuals today will say they do biblical counseling, but it is not enough to do something in name only. Biblical counselors need to actually counsel biblically. ACBC comes alongside individuals to train and verify that they are faithfully ministering the Word of God in the counseling room.

No one would go to a heart surgeon who has not endured years of rigorous training and who is not a board certified cardiologist. The care of souls is much more important work with eternal ramifications; biblical counselors need to ensure that they are equipped for the task by being trained by the most faithful biblical counselors. ACBC accomplishes the goal of training men and women to be excellent counselors by a three phase certification process.

How do I know training is for me?
















Christian Apologetics, Christian Theology, Doctrine

No One Is Good But God – Does This Mean Jesus Wasn’t God?

Sami Zaatari: “If Jesus is God one would expect him to admit he is good in the sense that God is good, meaning perfect. However when we read the Bible we see that Jesus denies being good in the sense that God is good which is perfect.”

The above mentioned argument which I just quoted is deemed by many to be the “home runner” in terms of disproving the deity (God-nature) of Jesus of Nazareth. And unfortunately for us, it really is one of the few arguments brought forth by the opposing party that gets our people shaking in their boots.

Although many may feel enclosed and shackled by this issue, the sensation of which results from the lack of any satisfactory answer, I am here to tell you that there is something people are missing about the passage. Jesus told us that he will give us a mouth that none of our adversaries can refute.

This article is here to serve as a contributor towards that truth and help equip the Christian community against such statements, to the glory of God.

“And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'” And he said to him, ‘Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.’ And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, ‘You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.'” – Mark 10:17-21 (ESV)

The truth is, there are actually two simple responses to this apparent dilemma.

1. Jesus corrected him to prevent false doctrine about man’s nature.

When we read the event in question, many people tend to turn a blind eye to the context, and that is, who really was this rich young ruler? Well, by reading the contents of the story, one can easily conclude that this individual was NOT a regular ...

When we read the event in question, many people tend to turn a blind eye to the context, and that is, who really was this rich young ruler? Well, by reading the contents of the story, one can easily conclude that this individual was NOT a regular follower of the messiah to begin with.

This truth is displayed within Christ’s order to follow him. This same word, “follow”, was used in the initial sections of Matthew’s gospel to call the sons of Zebedee and Andrew and Peter to leave everything behind and follow Christ by taking upon themselves the role of fishers of men.


The reason why Jesus uttered such a statement is because they were not yet followers of the Nazarene. I mean, you don’t tell someone to follow you if they are already following you. So again, what we see is that this man was not a regular adherent of the messiah and hence most probably not aware of his divinity. He was not around Christ long enough to be the recipient of his teachings which touched on his true identity.

So, in the eyes of this ruler, Jesus was nothing more or less than a human being. In light of this, we can safely assume that the answer Jesus provided to this man was in relation to his beliefs about him (that Christ was merely a man).

If Christ were to leave his statement uncorrected, then this individual would be roaming around the streets of Israel while harbouring a false doctrine that human beings are or can reach a state of goodness or righteousness. Such a belief would stand in complete disharmony to what Jesus taught:

“If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him.” – Matthew 7:11

“But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.” – John 2:24-25

What these show us is that humanity is by nature wicked and sinful. So all Jesus was doing here was preventing this man from being the vessel of a false belief that would of arose if his statement wasn’t addressed. At the least, it might lead the person to believe that all people are intrinsically good.

At the most, it might lead the person to believe that all people are both good and God at the same time. We know historically that gnosticism and mysticism arose as explanations for the ministry of Jesus, so Jesus was clarifying to him that only God is good and not man.

Since this person had no frame of reference for who he was really speaking to, Jesus would have to first outline that he is the Messiah, THEN demonstrate this to him, THEN explain how he is also God, THEN answer his question about what he must do to inherit eternal life. There is no reason to think Jesus would prefer this style of ministry when asked a simple and straight-forward question by a stranger.

2. Jesus claimed to be good during his ministry

Now the second answer to the argument is actually quite ironic. Who would think that one of the most prominent arguments used against the divinity of Jesus was actually a moment in history where Jesus was attempting to lead this man’s comprehension to his divine nature?

As we know from the story, Jesus told this individual that no one is good but God. Yet when we read the gospels, we see that Jesus did in fact paint himself with the dye of righteousness. He claimed that he really WAS “good”. Here are a few examples:


“And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.” – John 8:29

Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? – John 8:46

So what the above passages are demonstrating to us is that Jesus DID in fact call himself good. He also claimed to be one who continuously walked in line with the Lord’s moral precepts and one who is without sin or blemish.

So what is Jesus doing here? First he tells him that no one is good but God, yet throughout his earthly ministry he tells people that he is “good” and without sin. The following is the point Jesus was trying to get across:


This whole question which flowed from the lips of the savior was a means to shift this man’s understanding of Jesus’ identity from merely manhood, to divinity. Jesus didn’t deny that he was good, he simply asked a question saying why do you call me good if only God is good? This question was intended to allude to his divinity.

John Gill (23 November 1697 – 14 October 1771) was an English Baptist pastor, biblical scholar, and theologian. He writes concerning this passage:

“Why callest thou me good? This is said, not as denying that he was good, or as being angry with him for calling him so, but in order to lead this young man to a true knowledge of him, and his goodness, and even of his proper deity”

Matthew Poole (1624–1679) was an English theologian. This was his answer concerning the relevant argument;



Jesus’ response prevented him from jumping to the conclusion that all men are somehow morally good beings or aspects of God (Jewish Mysticism and Gnosticism) while at the same time attempting to spark reflection within the questioner: “If I am calling Jesus good, and there is none good but God, then who does this make Jesus?”

Since he affirms he is “good” in other places throughout his ministry, we know that Jesus wasn’t denying his own goodness. Jesus was helping the man see that only God could be called “good”, and if Jesus himself could be called “good” as well, then Jesus must be God.

Contrariwise to being an objection to his deity, this passage is a strong argument FOR his deity.

Link of this article:

Christian Apologetics

Beat your Wives or “Separate from Them”? (Qur’an 4:34)

This article analyzes the apologetic claim that the Qur’an (surah 4:34) does not tell men “to beat them (i.e. their wives),” but rather to “separate from them” or to “strike them out.”

(Pictured above) Qur'an verse 4:34 in Arabic script

(Pictured above) Qur’an verse 4:34 in Arabic script.
According to the majority of Qur’anic translators and the Arabic lexicon[1], the Arabic phrase Idri-boo-hunna which appears in Qur’an 4:34 (highlighted in blue) means “beat them”.

This article was written by non-Muslim Arabs in response to the strange translation of the verb darb (meaning “hit” “beat” or “strike”) that has been presented on a few websites which claim to have “modern” translations of the Qur’an.[2]

There is no argument made here against progressive thinking, this is something that should be encouraged. The objection and the need to respond lay in the fact that, rarely, are these arguments used in an attempt to “reform” Islam. It is only logical to conclude that you cannot reform something if you deny there was ever a problem with it to begin with.

These apologetic arguments are clearly directed at non-Muslims who are ignorant of Islam, as any Muslim who has an adequate command of the Arabic language or is familiar with the hadith and tafsir text related to this issue, will find the claim being presented to be ridiculous.

An example of this can be found in the case of Laleh Bakhtiar, an American Muslim apologist. She too has incorporated this error into her “translation” of the Qur’an, a translation which the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) refused to sell in their bookstore.

The fact that Islamic scholars and followers of mainstream Islam in general reject these claims so easily leave them with only one use, and that is to use as misinformation against valid criticism of Islam.

Apologetic Claim
The following verse (4:34) does not mean “to beat them,” but rather to “separate from them” or to “strike them out.””Men are overseers over women, by reason of that wherewith Allah hath made one of them excel over another, and by reason of that which they expend of their substance. Wherefore righteous women are obedient, and are watchers in husbands absence by the aid and protection of Allah. And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand.” [3]
Quran 4:34

Agreed-Upon Translations
As we can see below, almost all Qur’anic translators have translated the term as “beat them”.

Yusuf Ali:“….As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).” [4]

Pickthal:“…As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.” [4]

Shakir:“…and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” [4]

Al-Hilali & Mohsin Khan:“….As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.” [4]

Dr. T.B. Irving:“…Admonish those women whose surliness you fear, and leave them alone in their beds, and [even] beat them [if necessary]. If they obey you, do not seek any way [to proceed] against them. God is Sublime, Great.” [5]

Muhammad Sarwar:“…Admonish women who disobey (God’s laws), do not sleep with them and beat them. If they obey (the laws of God), do not try to find fault in them. God is High and Supreme.” [4]

Rashad Khalifa:“….If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.” [6]

Abdul-Majid Daryabadi:“…And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand.” [3]

E.H. Palmer:“…But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bedchambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then do not seek a way against them; verily, God is high and great.” [7]

Muhammad Ayub Khan:“…And those whose rebellion you fear, admonish them and leave them alone in the beds, and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; God is surely High, Great.”

Ahmed Raza Khan:“…the women from whom you fear disobedience, (at first) advise them and (then) do not cohabit with them, and (lastly) beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek to do injustice to them; indeed Allah is Supreme, Great.” [8]

Hassan Qaribullah & Ahmad Darwish:“…Those from whom you fear rebelliousness, admonish them and desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness). Then, if they obey you, do not look for any way against them. Allah is High, Great.” [4]

Mahmud Y. Zayid:“…and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” [9]

Muhammad Asad:“…And as for those woolen whose ill-will” you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them and if thereupon…” [4]

Qur’anic Meanings
Apologists attempt to back up their claim that darb does not mean “to beat them” (i.e. their wives) in verse 4:34 by providing us with several other verses in the Qur’an which contain the word darb, being used to describe an action other than “to beat” or “to strike” (which are both very similar in Arabic):

1. To travel, to get out: See Quran 3:156; Quran 4:101; Quran 38:44; Quran 73:20; Quran 2:273

2. To strike: See Quran 2:60,Quran 2:73; Quran 7:160; Quran 8:12; Quran 20:77; Quran 24:31; Quran 26:63; Quran 37:93; Quran 47:4

3. To beat: Quran 8:50; See Quran 47:27

4. To set up: Quran 43:58; See Quran 57:113

5. To give examples: See Quran 14:24, Quran 14:45; Quran 16:75, Quran 16:76, Quran 16:112; Quran 18:32, Quran 18:45; Quran 24:35; Quran 30:28, Quran 30:58; Quran 36:78; Quran 39:27, Quran 39:29; Quran 43:17; Quran 59:21; Quran 66:10, Quran 66:11

6. To take away, to ignore: See Quran 43:5

7. To condemn: See Quran 2:61

8. To seal, to draw over: See Quran 18:11

9. To cover: See Quran 24:31

10. To explain: See Quran 13:17

Evidently, they have searched through the Qur’an for any verses which contain a derivative of the verb darb and then have compared their meanings, concluding that there are ten different meanings for the verb darb and something other than “to beat” can be applied to verse 4:34. Each of these differing usages of the verb darb will be thoroughly analyzed through the verses supporting them.

Once you have studied all those verses, you will find that they do not effect the interpretation of verse 4:34 whatsoever, and that the verb darb was indeed correctly understood and translated as “beat”.

In fact, all the other verses presented which contain darb are actually using the term figuratively. For example, “hit the sky” is a figurative expression; nothing can literally “hit” or “crash” with layers of gases, it is meant to be understood as “fly high through” the sky. These Muslims will claim that this is a “different meaning” for the word “hit.” So when someone says “I’ll hit you,” in actuality they meant “I’ll fly high through you.”

Yes, shockingly, this is their “logic”. We will go through each of the usages in this list, and prove that none of them alter the meaning of the word darb when used against a woman (the wife).

Comparison with English Usages
First of all, there is a very important concept that needs to be understood: The meaning of many verbs differ according to the objects they are applied to. Using the word “hit” in English as an example, which also means darb, we will do exactly as the apologists have done, and will extract ten different meanings from the verb “hit.”

Ten Meanings for “Hit”
The ten meanings are as follows (note that the nouns in the brackets are the objects to be hit):

1. Go through (Road)
2. Click (Mouse)
3. Drink (Bottle)
4. Land (Target)
5. Reach (Market)
6. Press (Brakes)
7. Go (Beach)
8  Fulfil (Spot)
9. Demonstrate (Streets)
10. Win (Jackpot)

1. When someone “hits the road,” it means he “departed” or “went through the road.” It surely doesn’t mean he got a hammer and hit the road. Does “hit the woman” mean “go through the woman”?

2. When someone says they will “hit the Mouse,” they mean to say they will “click on the mouse.” Does “hit the woman” mean “click on the woman”?

3. When someone says they’ll “hit the bottle,” what they really mean is, they’ll “drink the bottle” or “drink alcohol heavily.” Does “hit the woman” mean “drink the woman”?

4. When a darts player “hits the target,” he didn’t get the dart board and break it, he simply shot the dart and it “landed on the target.” Does “hit the woman” mean “land on the woman”?

5. When an author’s book “hits the market,” it means the book “reaches the market.” Does “hit the woman” mean “reach the woman”?

6. When someone says they’ll “hit the brakes,” it doesn’t mean they’ll break the braking pedal, but rather it mean they’ll “press on the brakes” to stop the car. Does “hit the woman” mean “press on the woman”?

7. When a family “hits the beach,” they didn’t fall from the 11th floor and “crash” into the beach, but they “went to the beach.” Does “hit the woman” mean “go to the woman”?

8. When someone says its fine but it didn’t “hit the spot,” they mean to say its fine but didn’t fulfill their needs. Does “hit the woman” mean “woman fulfilled my needs”?

9. When someone says the activists “hit the streets,” it means the activists “demonstrated in the streets.” Does “hit the woman” mean “demonstrate to the woman”?

10. When someone says they “hit the jackpot” it actually means they “won the jackpot.” Does “hit the woman” mean “win the woman”?

As you can clearly see, each of those sentences require a different interpretation of the word “hit”, which is applied accordingly to the object used in combination with it. With all these supposedly “different meanings” of the word “hit” in mind, what is your understanding of the sentence “I will hit my woman?”

It still has no other meaning than “I will beat my woman.”‘ The difference between, for example, “hit the road” and “hit the woman”, is the object to be hit, and not the meaning of “hit” itself.

Apologist logic
This is the “logic” used by apologists to defend the Qur’an:

Maybe a new device, with the name of “Xiner” will be around, and “hitting the Xiner” will mean “powering-on the Xiner.”

1. “Hit the Xiner” means “power-on the Xiner”

2. Both statements “hit the woman” and “hit the Xiner” use the word “hit”

3. Therefore, “hit the woman” can also mean “power-on the woman” or “energize the woman”
The above, clearly demonstrates the irrationality of this reasoning. The meaning of “hit” depends on the object to be hit. The sentence “hit the Xiner” does not, under any circumstance, change or add a new meaning to the word “hit”. This is a non-sequitur argument. The repetition of the word “hit” in the two phrases does not make a connection between them, as each one is being used in a different expression, and its meaning is only correctly understood from its own context, and not the other’s. Therefore the conclusion reached is irrelevant.

The problem here is that they derive the meaning of darb from a “packaged” expression. The whole expression is what gives it meaning; breaking up an expression and deriving new meanings from its verb is not a logical thing to do. If they see this as logical, then they must agree “I’ll hit my woman” in English also has ten different possible interpretations (Go through, Drink, Click, Land….etc). It should be understood that:

1. When the object named “road” is hit, the whole statement means “go”.

2. When the object named “Xiner” is hit, the whole statement means “power-on the Xiner”.

3. When the object named “woman” is hit, the whole statement means “beat the woman”.
The ten interpretations that have been given for the word hit, are in fact very similar to those which apologists have provided from the Qur’an as “different meanings of the word darb.”

The only way for “hit” to have multiple meanings in verse 4:34 is if it has been used more than once, against a human being, with different interpretations; for example, when “hit the woman” is found in the Qur’an to mean both “beat her” and to “abandon her,” which is not the case.

Taking this into account, verses referring to hitting only parts of a human will not do the job sufficiently, as it can be claimed that when the Qur’an says “hit your feet” it simply means to “start walking”; thus verses mentioning the hitting of “ears” and “necks” will be dismissed. Although most of them do support the meaning “beat”, the verses which mention hitting a whole human-being will be our only guide.

What has been explained here, can also be applied in Arabic, as even the expression “hit the road” is found in Arabic as “hit in the land”, which means to “travel through the land.” One of the most frequent Arabic expressions is also to “hit an example,” which means to “give an example.” So now, with this understanding, we can delve into the real work.

Most of the verses containing the ten different meanings which have been given by the apologists are using the verb darb (hit) not against human beings, but rather “hitting the land,” “hitting an example,” “hitting the truth”… etc. While in the few verses that darb was used against a human being, it meant to “beat” or “strike,” which confirms our understanding of the use of darb in verse 4:34.

What will be discussed now is how the meaning of darb is not altered by its different interpretations in the given verses. We will present the transliteration, and word-by-word literal translation of the statement in Bold in each verse, which is the place where darb (hit) and its object (i.e. Land) are used; and above each verse you’ll find the name of the object being hit. For example, if we encounter a phrase such as “hit an example,” we will literally translate it as is, not as “give an example” like the standard Qur’anic translations. Although this translation may sound strange, it will make the object to be hit, easily identifiable for the non-Arabic speakers.

We translated all the verses for no other reason than to show that each time “darb” is used and has a different meaning than to “beat,” it is not against a human being, but against other material and non-material objects. And each and every time it is used against a human, it had no other meaning than to “beat”.

Please Note:

1. The verses which mention hitting a whole human body will have their title in red.

2. We will skip the meanings of number 2 [to strike] and number 3 [to beat] that are provided by the Islamic sites, as they already confirm that women are beaten, and they will be discussed at the end, once we are finished with meaning number 10.

3. You do not have to go through all of the verses covered. You can simply read the first verse in each of the eleven sections and the ones with a red title. The reason why all of the verses have been refuted, is to make the argument against these “modern translations” complete and comprehensive.

Meaning number 1: To travel, to get out
Verse: 3.156 Object: Land

O ye who believe! Be not like the Unbelievers, who say of their brethren, when they are traveling through the Earth or engaged in fighting: “If they had stayed with us, they would not have died, or been slain.” This that Allah may make it a cause of sighs and regrets in their hearts. It is Allah that gives Life and Death, and Allah sees well all that ye do.

Transliteration:Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la takoonoo kaallatheena kafaroo waqaloo li-ikhwanihim itha daraboo fee al-ardi aw kanoo ghuzzan law kanoo AAindana ma matoo wama qutiloo liyajAAala Allahu thalika hasratan fee quloobihim waAllahu yuhyee wayumeetu waAllahu bima taAAmaloona baseerun
Quran 3:156

daraboo is derived from darab, meaning “hit“. Fee literally means “in“. Al-Ardi means “the land“. Thus, the whole statement daraboo fee al-ardi says “hit in the land” meaning something like “hit the road”, which doesn’t give a new meaning for “hit” (darab) at all.

Also, there was never something like “hit in the sea” or “hit in the city” to mean go through them. “Hit” gives that meaning only when it is against “land.” It’s a known expression.

Verse: 4.101 Object: Land

When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.

Transliteration:Wa-itha darabtum fee al-ardi falaysa AAalaykum junahun an taqsuroo mina aIssalati in khiftum an yaftinakumu allatheena kafaroo inna alkafireena kanoo lakum AAaduwwan mubeenan
Quran 4:101

darabtum fee al-ardi literally meaning “you (plural) hit in the land

Verse: 38.44 Object: Grass

And take in thy hand a little grass, and strike therewith: and break not (thy oath).” Truly We found him full of patience and constancy. How excellent in Our service! ever did he turn (to Us)!

Transliteration:Wakhuth biyadika dighthan faidrib bihi wala tahnath inna wajadnahu sabiran niAAma alAAabdu innahu awwabun
Quran 38:44

biyadika dighthan faidrib bihi literally meaning “take in your hand a little grass, and strike therewith

Verse: 73.20 Object: Land

Thy Lord doth know that thou standest forth (to prayer) nigh two-thirds of the night, or half the night, or a third of the night, and so doth a party of those with thee. But Allah doth appoint night and day in due measure He knoweth that ye are unable to keep count thereof. So He hath turned to you (in mercy): read ye, therefore, of the Qur’an as much as may be easy for you. He knoweth that there may be (some) among you in ill-health; others traveling through the land, seeking of Allah’s bounty; yet others fighting in Allah’s Cause, read ye, therefore, as much of the Qur’an as may be easy (for you); and establish regular Prayer and give regular Charity; and loan to Allah a Beautiful Loan. And whatever good ye send forth for your souls ye shall find it in Allah’s Presence,- yea, better and greater, in Reward and seek ye the Grace of Allah: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Transliteration:Inna rabbaka yaAAlamu annaka taqoomu adna min thuluthayi allayli wanisfahu wathuluthahu wata-ifatun mina allatheena maAAaka waAllahu yuqaddiru allayla waalnnahara AAalima an lan tuhsoohu fataba AAalaykum faiqraoo ma tayassara mina alqur-ani AAalima an sayakoonu minkum marda waakharoona yadriboona fee al-ardiyabtaghoona min fadli Allahi waakharoona yuqatiloona fee sabeeli Allahi faiqraoo ma tayassara minhu waaqeemoo alssalata waatoo alzzakata waaqridoo Allaha qardan hasanan wama tuqaddimoo li-anfusikum min khayrin tajidoohu AAinda Allahi huwa khayran waaAAthama ajran waistaghfiroo Allaha inna Allaha ghafoorun raheemun
Quran 73:20

yadriboona fee al-ardi literally meaning “they hit in the land.”

Verse: 2.273 Object: Land

(Charity is) for those in need, who, in Allah’s cause are restricted (from travel), and cannot move about in the land, seeking (For trade or work): the ignorant man thinks, because of their modesty, that they are free from want. Thou shalt know them by their (Unfailing) mark: They beg not importunately from all the sundry. And whatever of good ye give, be assured Allah knoweth it well.

Transliteration:Lilfuqara-i allatheena ohsiroo fee sabeeli Allahi la yastateeAAoona darban fee al-ardi yahsabuhumu aljahilu aghniyaa mina aIttaAAaffufi taAArifuhum biseemahum la yas-aloona aInnasa ilhafan wama tunfiqoo min khayrin fa-inna Allaha bihi AAaleemun
Quran 2:273

darban fee al-ardi literally meaning “a hit in the land.”

Meaning number 2 and number 3
As mentioned earlier, these will be skipped, as the interpretations provided by the Islamic sites (“to beat” and “to strike”) already confirm that women are beaten, and will be discussed further at the end.

Meaning number 4: To set up
Verse: 43.58 Object: Example

And they say: are our gods better, or is he? They mention him not to thee save for disputation. Aye! they are a people contentious..

Transliteration:Waqaloo aalihatuna khayrun am huwa ma daraboohu laka illa jadalan bal hum qawmun khasimoona
Quran 43:58

ma daraboohu laka literally meaning “what they have hit for you.” The thing that is hit here is, from its previous verse Quran 43:57, is an example.

Verse: 57.13 Object: Wall

One Day will the Hypocrites- men and women – say to the Believers: “Wait for us! Let us borrow (a Light) from your Light!” It will be said: “Turn ye back to your rear! then seek a Light (where ye can)! So a wall will be put up betwixt them, with a gate therein. Within it will be Mercy throughout, and without it, all alongside, will be (Wrath and) Punishment!

Transliteration:Yawma yaqoolu lmunafiqoona waalmunafiqatu lillatheena amanoo on uroona naqtabis min noorikum qeela irjiAAoo waraakum failtamisoo nooran faduriba baynahum bisoorin lahu babun batinuhu feehi aIrrahmatu wathahiruhu min qibalihi alAAathabu
Quran 57:13

faduriba baynahum bisoorin literally meaning “a wall was hit between them” which is understood as “a wall was stroke between them.”

Meaning number 5: To give examples
Verse: 14.24 Object: Example

Seest thou not how Allah sets forth a parable? – A goodly word like a goodly tree, whose root is firmly fixed, and its branches (reach) to the heavens,- of its Lord. So Allah sets forth parables for men, in order that they may receive admonition.

Transliteration:Alam tara kayfa daraba Allahu mathalan kalimatan tayyibatan kashajaratin tayyibatin asluha thabitun wafarAAuha fee aIssama
Quran 14:24

daraba Allahu mathalan literally meaning “Allah hit an example“, which is a well known and frequently used expression meaning “give an example.” It is important to mention that darab is used to mean “give” only when the object given is an example.

Verse: 14.45 Object: Example

“And ye dwelt in the dwellings of men who wronged their own souls; ye were clearly shown how We dealt with them; and We put forth (many) parables in your behoof!”

Transliteration:Wasakantum fee masakini allatheena thalamoo anfusahum watabayyana lakum kayfa faAAalna bihim wadarabna lakumu al-amthala
Quran 14:45

wadarabna lakumu al-amthala literally meaning “we hit for you the example.”

Verse: 16.75 Object: Example

Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah. But most of them understand not.

Transliteration:Daraba Allahu mathalan AAabdan mamlookan la yaqdiru AAala shay-in waman razaqnahu minna rizqan hasanan fahuwa yunfiqu minhu sirran wajahran hal yastawoona alhamdu lillahi bal aktharuhum la yaAAlamoona
Quran 16:75

Daraba Allahu mathalan literally meaning “Allah has hit an example.”

Verse: 16.76 Object: Example

Allah sets forth (another) Parable of two men: one of them dumb, with no power of any sort; a wearisome burden is he to his master; whichever way be directs him, he brings no good: is such a man equal with one who commands Justice, and is on a Straight Way?

Transliteration:Wadaraba Allahu mathalan rajulayni ahaduhuma abkamu la yaqdiru AAala shay-in wahuwa kallun AAala mawlahu aynama yuwajjihhu la ya/ti bikhayrin hal yastawee huwa waman ya/muru bialAAadli wahuwa AAala siratin mustaqeemin
Quran 16:76

Wadaraba Allahu mathalan literally meaning “And Allah has hit an example.”

Verse: 16.112 Object: Example

Allah sets forth a Parable: a city enjoying security and quiet, abundantly supplied with sustenance from every place: Yet was it ungrateful for the favours of Allah: so Allah made it taste of hunger and terror (in extremes) (closing in on it) like a garment (from every side), because of the (evil) which (its people) wrought.

Transliteration:Wadaraba Allahu mathalan qaryatan kanat aminatan mutma-innatan ya/teeha rizquha raghadan min kulli makanin fakafarat bi-anAAumi Allahi faathaqaha Allahu libasa aljooAAi waalkhawfi bima kanoo yasnaAAoona
Quran 16:112

Wadaraba Allahu mathalan literally meaning “And Allah has hit an example.”

Verse: 18.32 Object: Example 

Set forth to them the parable of two men: for one of them We provided two gardens of grape-vines and surrounded them with date palms; in between the two We placed corn-fields.

Transliteration:Waidrib lahum mathalan rajulayni jaAAalna li-ahadihima jannatayni min aAAnabin wahafafnahuma binakhlin wajaAAalna baynahuma zarAAan
Quran 18:32

Waidrib lahum mathalan literally meaning “and you, hit for them an example.”

Verse: 18.45 Object: Example

Set forth to them the similitude of the life of this world: It is like the rain which we send down from the skies: the earth’s vegetation absorbs it, but soon it becomes dry stubble, which the winds do scatter: it is (only) Allah who prevails over all things.

Transliteration:Waidrib lahum mathala alhayati aIddunya kama-in anzalnahu mina aIssama-i faikhtalata bihi nabatu al-ardi faasbaha hasheeman tathroohu aIrriyahu wakana Allahu AAala kulli shay-in muqtadiran
Quran 18:45

Waidrib lahum mathala literally meaning “and hits for them an example.

Verse: 24.35 Object: Example

Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.

Transliteration:Allahu nooru aIssamawati waal-ardi mathalu noorihi kamishkatin feeha misbahun almisbahu fee zujajatin aIzzujajatu kaannaha kawkabun durriyyun yooqadu min shajaratin mubarakatin zaytoonatin la sharqiyyatin wala gharbiyyatin yakadu zaytuha yudee-o walaw lam tamsas-hu narun noorun AAala noorin yahdee Allahu linoorihi man yashao wayadribu Allahu al-amthala liInnasi waA ahu bikulli shay-in AAaleemun
Quran 24:35

wayadribu Allahu al-amthala literally meaning “And Allah hits the examples.

Verse: 30.28 Object: Example

He does propound to you a similitude from your own (experience): do ye have partners among those whom your right hands possess, to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you? O ye fear them as ye fear each other? Thus do we explain the Signs in detail to a people that understand.

Transliteration:Daraba lakum mathalan min anfusikum hal lakum mimma malakat aymanukum min shurakaa fee ma razaqnakum faantum feehi sawaon takhafoonahum kakheefatikum anfusakum kathalika nufassilu al- ayati liqawmin yaAAqiloona
Quran 30:28

Daraba lakum mathalan literally meaning “hit an example for you.

Verse: 30.58 Object: Example

verily We have propounded for men, in this Qur’an every kind of Parable: But if thou bring to them any Sign, the Unbelievers are sure to say, “Ye do nothing but talk vanities.”

Transliteration:Walaqad darabna liInnasi fee hatha alqur-ani min kulli mathalin wala-in ji/tahum bi-ayatin layaqoolanna allatheena kafaroo in antum illa mubtiloona
Quran 30:58

darabna liInnasi fee hatha alqur-ani min kulli mathalin literally meaning “We have hit in this Quran for every example for the people.

Verse: 39.27 Object: Example

We have put forth for men, in this Qur’an every kind of Parable, in order that they may receive admonition.

Transliteration:Walaqad darabna liInnasi fee hatha alqur-ani min kulli mathalin laAAallahum yatathakkaroona
Quran 39:27

Walaqad darabna liInnasi fee hatha alqur-ani min kulli mathalin literally meaning “And we have hit in this Quran from every example for the people.

Verse: 39.29 Object: Example

Allah puts forth a Parable a man belonging to many partners at variance with each other, and a man belonging entirely to one master: are those two equal in comparison? Praise be to Allah! but most of them have no knowledge.

Transliteration:Daraba Allahu mathalan rajulan feehi shurakao mutashakisoona warajulan salaman lirajulin hal yastawiyani mathalan alhamdu lillahi bal aktharuhum la yaAAlamoona
Quran 39:29

Daraba Allahu mathalan literally meaning “Allah hit an example.

Verse: 43.17 Object: Example

When news is brought to one of them of (the birth of) what he sets up as a likeness to (Allah) Most Gracious, his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief!

Transliteration:Wa-itha bushshira ahaduhum bima daraba liIrrahmani mathalan thalla wajhuhu muswaddan wahuwa katheemun
Quran 43:17

bima daraba liIrrahmani mathalan literally meaning “in the examples hit by the Merciful.

Verse: 59.21 Object: Example

Had We sent down this Qur’an on a mountain, verily, thou wouldst have seen it humble itself and cleave asunder for fear of Allah. Such are the similitudes which We propound to men, that they may reflect.

Transliteration:Law anzalna hatha alqur-ana AAala jabalin laraaytahu khashiAAan mutasaddiAAan min khashyati Allahi watilka al-amthalu nadribuha liInnasi laAAallahum yatafakkaroona
Quran 59:21

watilka al-amthalu nadribuha liInnasi literally meaning “and these are the examples that we hit for the people.

Verse: 66.10 Object: Example

Allah sets forth, for an example to the Unbelievers, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lut: they were (respectively) under two of our righteous servants, but they were false to their (husbands), and they profited nothing before Allah on their account, but were told: “Enter ye the Fire along with (others) that enter!”

Transliteration:Daraba Allahu mathalan lillatheena kafaroo imraata noohin waimraata lootin kanata tahta AAabdayni min AAibadina salihayni fakhanatahuma falam yughniya AAanhuma mina Allahi shay-an waqeela odkhula aInnara maAAa aIddakhileena
Quran 66:10

Daraba Allahu mathalan literally meaning “Allah has hit an example.

Verse: 66.11 Object: Example

And Allah sets forth, as an example to those who believe the wife of Pharaoh: Behold she said: “O my Lord! Build for me, in nearness to Thee, a mansion in the Garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those that do wrong”

Transliteration:Wadaraba Allahu mathalan lillatheena amanoo imraata firAAawna ith qalat rabbi ibni lee AAindaka baytan fee aljannati wanajjinee min firAAawna waAAamalihi wanajjinee mina alqawmi aIththalimeena
Quran 66:11

Wadaraba Allahu mathalan literally meaning “And Allah has hit an example.

Meaning number 6: To take away, to ignore

Verse: 43.5 Object: Admonition

Shall We then take away from you the Admonition because ye are a people extravagant?

Transliteration:Afanadribu AAankumu aIththikra safhan an kuntum qawman musrifeena
Quran 43:5

Afanadribu AAankumu aIththikra literally meaning “shall we hit the admonition from you.” Again, this is a known expression.

Meaning number 7: To condemn

Verse: 26.1 Object: Humiliation

And remember ye said: “O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions.” He said: “Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!” They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.

Transliteration:Wa-ith qultum ya moosa lan nasbira AAala taAAamin wahidin faodAAu lana rabbaka yukhrij lana mimma tunbitu al-ardu min baqliha waqiththa-iha wafoomiha waAAadasiha wabasaliha qala atastabdiloona allathee huwa adna bia athee huwa khayrun ihbitoo misran fa-inna lakum ma saaltum waduribat AAalayhimu aIththillatuwaalmaskanatu wabaoo bighadabin mina Allahi thalika bi- annahum kanoo yakfuroona bi-ayati Allahi wayaqtuloona aInnabiyyeena bighayri alhaqqi thalika bima AAasaw wakanoo yaAAtadoona
Quran 26:1

waduribat AAalayhimu aIththillatu literally meaning “and the humiliation was hit on him.” The humiliation is what was hit, not Moses himself.

Meaning number 8: To seal, to draw over

Verse: 18.11 :Over the ears

Then We draw (a veil) over their ears, for a number of years, in the Cave, (so that they heard not):

Transliteration:Fadarabna AAala athanihim fee alkahfi sineena AAadadan
Quran 18:11

Fadarabna AAala athanihim literally meaning “we have hit over their ears,” which is a common expression in Arabic that means “we will make your ears hear nothing.” Just like “hit your feet” can mean “start walking.” What was hit here was the ears, not the people themselves.

Meaning number 9: To cover

Verse: 24.31 Object: Veils and Feet

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.

Transliteration:Waqul lilmu/minati yaghdudna min absarihinna wayahfathna furoojahunna wala yubdeena zeenatahunna illa mathahara minha walyadribna bikhumurihinna AAala juyoobihinna wala yubdeena zeenatahunna illa libuAAoolatihinna aw aba-ihinna aw aba-i buAAoolatihinna awthabna-ihinna aw abna-i buAAoolatihinna aw ikhwanihinna aw banee ikhwanihinna aw banee akhawatihinna aw nisa- ihinna aw ma malakat aymanuhunna awi aIttabiAAeena ghayri olee al-irbati mina aIrrijali awi aIttifli allatheena lam ya haroo AAala AAawrati aInnisa-i wala yadribna bi-arjulihinna liyuAAlama ma yukhfeena min zeenatihinna watooboo ila Allahi jameeAAan ayyuha almu/minoona laAAallakum tuflihoona
Quran 24:31

This verse mentions the verb darb twice. In the first occurrence, it says walyadribna bikhumurihinna AAala juyoobihinna literally meaning “and they should hit their veils over their bosoms,” which also does not reflect that the word darb means “cover” as has been alleged. If it were, then it should be written as such: “and they should hit themselves with their veils over their bosoms.”

In the second occurrence, wala yadribna bi-arjulihinna literally means “they should not hit their feet;” and here “hit” is meant literally as “hit” or “strike.”

Meaning number 10: To explain

Verse: 13.17 Object: Truth and Vanity

He sends down water from the skies, and the channels flow, each according to its measure: But the torrent bears away to foam that mounts up to the surface. Even so, from that (ore) which they heat in the fire, to make ornaments or utensils therewith, there is a scum likewise. Thus doth Allah (by parables) show forth Truth and Vanity. For the scum disappears like forth cast out; while that which is for the good of mankind remains on the earth. Thus doth Allah set forth parables.

Transliteration:Anzala mina aIssama-i maan fasalat awdiyatun biqadariha faihtamala aIssaylu zabadan rabiyan wamimma yooqidoona AAalayhi fee aInnari ibtighaa hilyatin aw mataAAin zabadun mithluhu kathalika yadribu Allahu alhaqqa waalbatila faamma aIzzabadu fayathhabu jufaan waamma ma yanfaAAu aInnasa fayamkuthu fee al-ardi kathalika yadribu Allahu al-amthala
Quran 13:17

Another two instances of “darb” here: yadribu Allahu alhaqqa waalbatila literally meaning “Allah hits the truth and the vanity,” as in “Allahs explains the truth and the vanity.”

yadribu Allahu al-amthala literally means “Allah hits an example.

Meaning number 2 and 3 Examined

All the verses that were given by the Islamic site so far, which were intended to show that darab has a meaning other than “beat” or “strike,” have not used darab against a human being. Thus, they are irrelevant to this discussion.

Again, when someone says “I’ll hit my woman,” it does not have any other meaning than to say “I’ll beat her” Despite all the other meanings it can have when used against otherobjects, its use against this specific object (i.e. the human body) remains unchanged.

As has been mentioned earlier, the only way for darab to have multipile meanings in verse 4:34 is if it has been used more than once, against a human being, with different interpretations; for example, when “hit the woman” is found in the Qur’an to mean both “beat her” and to “abandon her,”. Thankfully [for the truth], there are a few verses in the Quran which use darab against humans, that have also been given by the Islamic site themselves, and we shall examine them in the next two sections.

Meaning number 2: To strike

Verse: 2.60 Object: Rock

And remember Moses prayed for water for his people; We said: “Strike the rock with thy staff.” Then gushed forth therefrom twelve springs. Each group knew its own place for water. So eat and drink of the sustenance provided by Allah, and do no evil nor mischief on the (face of the) earth.

Transliteration:Wa-ithi istasqa moosa liqawmihi faqulna idrib biAAasaka alhajara fainfajarat minhu ithnata AAashrata AAaynan qad AAalima kullu onasin mashrabahum kuloo waishraboo min rizqi Allahi wala taAAthaw fee al-ardi mufsideena
Quran 2:60

idrib biAAasaka alhajara literally meaning “hit the rock.

Verse: 2.73 Object: Human

So We said: “Strike him (the dead man) with a piece of it (the cow).” Thus Allah brings the dead to life and shows you His Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) so that you may understand.

Transliteration:Faqulna idriboohu bibaAAdiha kathalika yuhyee Allahu almawta wayureekum ayatihi laAAallakum taAAqiloona
Quran 2:73

idriboohu bibaAAdiha literally means “beat him with part of her.” The one to be beaten is the dead man [a whole human], which is the equivalent of the wife [a whole human] who is to be beaten as instructed in verse 4:34. The only possible meaning here for darab is “strike” or “beat.” The mysterious translation of “separate from them” that was used instead of “beat” in 4:34 cannot be applied here, as the cow and the man were definitely not connected in any way to be “separated.” On this occasion, the Islamic site also agrees with this understanding of the word darab. This verse confirms for us, that when you are told to darab a man, it means to strike or beat them. Thus, it is logical to conclude that darab against a woman will also mean to “strike” or “beat” them, not “separate”.

Verse: 7.160 Object: Rock

We divided them into twelve tribes or nations. We directed Moses by inspiration, when his (thirsty) people asked him for water: “Strike the rock with thy staff”: out of it there gushed forth twelve springs: Each group knew its own place for water. We gave them the shade of clouds, and sent down to them manna and quails, (saying): “Eat of the good things We have provided for you”: (but they rebelled); to Us they did no harm, but they harmed their own souls.

Transliteration:WaqattaAAnahumu ithnatay AAashrata asbatan omaman waawhayna ila moosa ithi istasqahu qawmuhu ani idrib biAAasaka alhajara fainbajasat minhu ithnata AAashrata AAaynan qad AAalima kullu ona_sin mashrabahum wa allaln a AAalayhimu algham_a_ma waanzalna AAalayhimu almanna waalssalwa’ kuloo min -tayyib’ati ma’ razaqna’kum wama’ alamoon a wal a kin k a noo anfusahum ya limoona
Quran 7:160

idrib biAAasaka alhajara literally meaning “hit the rock.

Verse: 8.12 Object: Human Necks

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

Transliteration:Ith yooh ee rabbuka il a almal a -ikati annee maAAakum fathabbitoo alla_th eena a manoo saolqee fee quloobi allat_h eena kafaroo aIrruAAba faidriboo fawqa al-aAAnaqi waidriboo minhum kulla bananin
Quran 8:12

faidriboo fawqa al-aAAnaqi waidriboo minhum kulla bananin literally meaning “hit over the necks and hit from them all their fingers.” The first “hit” means “beat” and the second means “cut-off.” Both objects here are not whole bodies, but only parts (necks and fingers), and I don’t think the “modern liberal Muslims” would like to use this either, since the first is the correct meaning they reject in verse 4:34, and the second (“cut off”) is no softer than “beat.”

Verse: 20.77 Object: Road

We sent an inspiration to Moses: “Travel by night with My servants, and strike a dry path for them through the sea, without fear of being overtaken (by Pharaoh) and without (any other) fear.”

Transliteration:Walaqad aw’hayn’a ila’ moos’a an asri biAAib’adee faid’rib lahum -tareeqan fee albah’ri yabasan l’a takhafu darakan wala takhsha
Quran 20:77

faid’rib lahum -tareeqan literally meaning “so hit a road for them.

Verse: 24.31 Object: Feet and Veil

This verse is a repeat and has already been discussed under the section 9 – To cover.

Verse: 26:63 Object: Sea

Then We told Moses by inspiration: “Strike the sea with thy rod.” So it divided, and each separate part became like the huge, firm mass of a mountain.

Transliteration:Faawhayna ila moosa aniidrib biAAasaka albahra fainfalaqa faka_na kullu firqin kaalt_t awdi alAAa eemi
Quran 26:63

aniidrib biAAasaka albahra literally meaning “to hit with your stick the sea.

Verse: 37.93 Object: Human

Then did he turn upon them, striking (them) with the right hand.

Transliteration:Faragha AAalayhim darban bialyameeni
Quran 37:93

This is a great example. Here, darban bialyameeni literally means “hit them [people] with the right [hand].” According to this verse, when verb daraban is applied to humans, it means “beat” or “strike.” It cannot be translated as “separate them from your right hand,” as that is utterly ridiculous. The Islamic site in question, also agrees that darab here means “strike.”

Verse: 47.4 Object: Human Necks

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

Transliteration:Fa-itha laqeetumu allatheena kafaroo fadarba aIrriqabi hatta itha athkhantumoohum fashuddooalwathaqa fa-imma mannan baAAdu wa-imma fidaan hatta tadaAAa alharbu awzaraha thalika walaw yash a o All a hu lainta_s ara minhum wala kin liyabluwa baAA d akum bibaAA d in waaa th eena qutiloo fee sabeeli All a hi falan yu d illa aAAm a lahum
Quran 47:4

fadarba aIrriqabi literally meaning “the hit of the necks.” as in “beaten on their necks,” and the Islamic site once again agrees.

Meaning number 3: To beat

Verse: 8.50 Object: Human Faces

If thou couldst see, when the angels take the souls of the Unbelievers (at death), (How) they smite their faces and their backs, (saying): “Taste the penalty of the blazing Fire-

Transliteration:Walaw tara ith yatawaffa allatheena kafaroo almala-ikatu yadriboona wujoohahum waadbarahum wathooqoo AAathaba alhareeqi
Quran 8:50

yadriboona wujoohahum literally meaning “hit their faces,” which is translated by the Islamic site as “beat their faces.”

Verse: 47.27 Object: Human Faces

But how (will it be) when the angels take their souls at death, and smite their faces and their backs?

Transliteration:Fakayfa itha tawaffat-humu almala-ikatu yadriboona wujoohahum waadbarahum
Quran 47:27

yadriboona wujoohahum literally meaning “hit their faces.” Also translated correctly by the Islamic site, Just like the previous verses.

Comparing the Two Terms

Beat them and leave them are different phrases in Arabic. The arabic word idribohunna driven from the root word Darab does not have any other meaning than Beat when it comes to mean “Yadreb Ahadan” = Hit someone. Idriboohunna (أضربوهن) means beat them (for female plural). Adriboo Anhunna (اضربوا عنهن) is the one that means abandon or leave them. According to the Arabic lexicon.:

Qur’an 4:34 says Idriboohunna[10] أضربوهن not Adribu Anhunna اضربوا عنهن

Qur’an 4:34 says Idriboohunna[10] أضربوهن not Adribu Anhunna اضربوا عنهن. These two phrases have different meanings.


All the verses that contain darb against a human are understood to mean “beat” or “strike” that human, by their context, and this is agreed upon by these obscure “modern” translations. Why then do they consider verse 4:34 to be a special case and translate “darb” to mean “separate from them”?

If the apologists are to be believed, their arguments only prove the extreme vagueness of the Qur’an, to the extent that the credibility and works of its finest scholars are called into question. And that the Arabic language is deficient, in the sense that it could not present the Qur’an’s teachings in a clear and understandable manner.

1. ↑ Jump up to:1.0 1.1 Arabic Lexicon (page in Arabic language)

2. Jump up↑ Such as and

3. ↑ Jump up to:3.0 3.1 Quran 4 the World – Quran 4:34 (Daryabadi)

4. ↑ Jump up to:4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Islam Awakened – Qur’an 4:34

5. Jump up↑ The Koran – English Translation by T.B Irving

6. Jump up↑ – Quran 4:34 (Khalifa)

7. Jump up↑ Quran Browser – Quran 4:34

8. Jump up↑ Multimedia Quran – Quran 4:34 (Raza Khan)

9. Jump up↑ Quran 4:34 – Zayid

10. Jump up↑ The use of “Idriboohunna” in verse 4:34 has been confirmed by Errors in English Translations of the Quran (From the Introduction of Quran: a Reformist Translation, Brainbow Press) which itself is attempting to use the “leave them” apologetic that is refuted on this page.


Christian Apologetics

If Anyone Slew a Person (Qur’an 5:32)

This article analyzes the Qur’anic verse 5:32 and the definition of “Mischief” in Islam.

This article analyzes the Qur'anic verse 5:32 and the definition of "Mischief" in Islam


Many websites[1][2][3] and public figures[4][5] have claimed that the following verse appears in the Qur’an, and that it denounces killing and equates the slaying of one human life to that of genocide against the entirety of mankind.

“If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.” – Qur’an

However, this verse cannot be found in any printed copy of the Qur’an, regardless of whether or not it is in the original Arabic or in one of its many English translations. The reason for this is simple: the verse in question does not exist.

Qur’an 5:32

What is actually presented by apologists is a distorted, out-of-context and misleading paraphrasing of the following verse:

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. – Quran 5:32


Its Context

The preceding verses 5:27-31 talk about the Jewish story of Cain and Abel. Abel offered animal sacrifice to Allah and Abel offered crops. Allah liked the animal sacrifice, but he rejected the crops, so Cain got angry and killed Abel [6]. Then comes the verse 5:32, beginning with “for that reason” or “on that account” (مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ, min ajli dhaalika), meaning “for the reason Cain killed Abel” [7]. Then the verse describes a decree given to “the Children of Israel” i.e. the Jews who, according to Islam, received an earlier set of scriptures. Incidentally, the Qur’an here is mistakingly referencing a very human rabbinical commentary found in the Talmud[8] as if it had been a decree in the words of Allah.

The next two verses explain how the principle should be applied by Muslims, particularly regarding the caveat about those who cause mischief (‘fasadin’, which appears both in verse 32 and verse 33 and was an Arabic word defined in dictionaries as corruption, unrighteousness, disorder, disturbance [9]). What is often presented as being a purely peaceful message, at the same time includes a warning:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. – Quran 5:33-34

Scope of the principle

The principle in verse 5:32 seems to refer to the killing and saving of not just believers, but any person (‘nafsan’, which means a soul) who is not excluded by the exceptions. Nevertheless, the highly respected Qur’anic exegesis of Ibn Kathir contains evidence that it wasn’t universally interpreted in that way, with some hadith narrations that restrict the principle to the killing of a believer, while other narrations use a more general formulation like the Qur’anic verse.

For 5:32 he cites the early Qur’anic commentator and Tabi’un, Sayid ibn Jubayr (who lived at the time of Prophet Muhammad, and was a companion of Aisha):

…..Sa’id bin Jubayr said, “He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.” – Human Beings Should Respect the Sanctity of Other Human Beings, Tafsir Ibn Kathir

He also cites another Tabi’un and commentator of the Qur’an, Mujahid ibn Jabr (a student of Ibn Abbas; a paternal cousin of Muhammad) while commenting on verse 5:32:

In addition, Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A’raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah, He who kills a believing soul intentionally, Allah makes the Fire of Hell his abode, He will become angry with him, and curse him, and has prepared a tremendous punishment for him, equal to if he had killed all people, his punishment will still be the same. – Human Beings Should Respect the Sanctity of Other Human Beings, Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Muslim scholars consider Mujahid ibn Jabr to be a narrator of the highest reliability.[10]

Ibn Abbas is also cited by ibn Kathir for this verse, giving the more general opinion, that it refers to the killing of a “soul that Allah has forbidden killing”. Being a companion of Muhammad, Ibn Abbas was present around the time these verses were revealed. Together with ibn Jabr, he went through the Qur’an thirty times and memorised the meanings.

Uthman is also recorded in ibn Kathir’s tafsir to have paraphrased the verse as applying to all people. This refers to the siege of Uthman’s house by a Muslim delegation who had intercepted a letter from him calling for their execution. He convinces an ally not to fight the besiegers by citing verse 5:32.

Al-A’mash and others said that Abu Salih said that Abu Hurayrah said, “I entered on ‘Uthman when he was under siege in his house and said, ‘I came to give you my support. Now, it is good to fight (defending you) O Leader of the Faithful!’ He said, ‘O Abu Hurayrah! Does it please you that you kill all people, including me’ I said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘If you kill one man, it is as if you killed all people. Therefore, go back with my permission for you to leave. May you receive your reward and be saved from burden.’ So I went back and did not fight. – Human Beings Should Respect the Sanctity of Other Human Beings, Tafsir Ibn Kathir

The Meaning of “Mischief” (fasadin)

The Qur’an describes the punishments for those who “wage war against Allah and his messenger” and strive for “mischief” in the Land as execution, crucifixion, the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land. Definitions of these groups can be found in hadiths, tafsirs, and even other Qur’an verses.

It is fairly obvious that the polytheists were one such group meant by the phrase “those who wage war against Allah and his messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land”. A hadith graded hasan by al-Albani in Sunan Abu Dawud confirms this:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The verse “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite side or exile from the land…most merciful” was revealed about polytheists. If any of them repents before they are arrested, it does not prevent from inflicting on him the prescribed punishment which he deserves.  – Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4359

The tafsirs for verses 5:32-33 provide wide definitions and examples of what is meant by “war against Allah and his messenger” and “mischief”, as well as pointing to a specific incident of murder narrated in sahih hadiths.

Retribution for murder is one of the caveats in verse 5:32 for which the peaceful principle does not apply. Some of the punishments prescribed in verse 5:33 are ordered by Muhammad after the following murder incident narrated in sahih hadiths and cited in tafsirs for these verses:

Narrated Abu Qilaba: Anas said, “Some people of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet (ﷺ) early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in ‘Al-Harra’ and when they asked for water, no water was given to them.” Abu Qilaba said, “Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle.” – Sahih Bukhari 1:4:234

In al-Suyuti’s Tafsir al-Jalalayn, the following commentary is found in relation to this incident and Qur’an verse 5:33:

The following was revealed when the ‘Arniyyūn came to Medina suffering from some illness and the Prophet s gave them permission to go and drink from the camels’ urine and milk. Once they felt well they slew the Prophet’s shepherd and stole the herd of camels Truly the only requital of those who fight against God and His Messenger by fighting against Muslims and hasten about the earth to do corruption there by waylaying is that they shall be slaughtered or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides that is their right hands and left feet or be banished from the land the aw ‘or’ is used to indicate the separate application of each of the cases listed; thus death is for those that have only killed; crucifixion is for those that have killed and stolen property; the cutting off of limbs on opposite sides is for those that have stolen property but have not killed; while banishment is for those that pose a threat — this was stated by Ibn ‘Abbās and is the opinion of al-Shāfi‘ī; the more sound of his al-Shāfi‘ī’s two opinions is that crucifixion should be for three days after the death of the killer or it is also said shortly before he is killed; with banishment are included similar punishments such as imprisonment and the like. That mentioned requital is a degradation a humiliation for them in this world; and in the Hereafter theirs will be a great chastisement namely the chastisement of the Fire. – Tafsir al-Jalalayn on verse 5:33

Besides this specific incident, the tafsirs interpret “mischief” (the Arabic word fasadin in verses 5:32 and 33) and even “waging war on Allah and his Messenger” in an alarmingly wide manner. In ibn Kathir’s tafsir, the definition of “Mischief” according to Islam is explained in the context of Quran 2:11:

(“Do not make mischief on the earth”), that is disbelief and acts of disobedience. Abu Ja’far said that Ar-Rabi’ bin Anas said that Abu Al-‘Aliyah said that Allah’s statement, (And when it is said to them: “Do not make mischief on the earth,”), means, “Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is disobeying Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, or commands that Allah be disobeyed, he has committed mischief on the earth. Peace on both the earth and in the heavens is ensured (and earned) through obedience (to Allah).” Ar-Rabi’ bin Anas and Qatadah said similarly.

In relation to verse 5:33 Ibn Kathir says:

(The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.) ‘Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil. – Tafsir Ibn Kathir on verse 5:33

In the Tafsir attributed to ibn Abbas (date and true author unknown):

(For that) because Cain wrongfully killed Abel (cause We decreed for the Children of Israel) in the Torah (that whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter) i.e. premeditatedly (or corruption in the earth) or because of idolatry, (it shall be as if be had killed all mankind) – Tafsir Ibn Abbas on verse 5:32

In the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, by al-Suyuti, the following commentary is found in relation to Qur’an verse 5:32. It covers much broader categories of people than the commentary regarding the specific punishments in 5:33 quoted from it above:

Because of that, which Cain did, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, slain, or for, other than, corruption, committed, in the land, in the way of unbelief, fornication or waylaying and the like, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, by refraining from slaying, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind — Ibn ‘Abbās said [that the above is meant] in the sense of violating and protecting its [a soul’s] sanctity [respectively]. Our messengers have already come to them, that is, to the Children of Israel, with clear proofs, miracles, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land, overstepping the bounds through disbelief, killing and the like. – Tafsir al-Jalalayn on verse 5:32

These broader definitions found in the tafsirs seem intended to accommodate the Islamic death penalties for married adulterers and apostates found in hadiths. At the same time, a broader understanding of what constitutes ‘mischief’ in Islam is found even within the Qur’an, whether or not this was the intention in verses 5:32 and 33. See verse 3:63, for example, where those who merely dispute Islam are mischief makers:

The Truth (comes) from Allah alone; so be not of those who doubt. If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: “Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!” This is the true account: There is no god except Allah; and Allah-He is indeed the Exalted in Power, the Wise. But if they turn back, Allah hath full knowledge of those who do mischief. – Quran 3:60-63

According to Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the world’s most quoted independent Islamic jurist:

Surah al-Ma’idah (5:33) says: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle is that they should be murdered or crucified.” According to Abi Kulaba’s narration this verse means the apostates. And many hadiths, not only one or two, but many, narrated by a number of Muhammad’s companions state that any apostate should be killed.

So what is first offered as the height of moral teachings found in the Qur’an, was widely understood as compatible with violent intolerance elsewhere within Islam.

The Worth of a Non-Believer

According to sahih hadith, Muhammad said the life of a non-Muslim is not sacred:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik,

“O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.” – Sahih Bukhari 1:8:387, See Also: Sahih Bukhari 1:2:24

The prominent scholar Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE) regarded Muhammad’s command in the above hadith as applying to those who fought against the Muslims.

Muhammad also gave the verdict (fatwa) that a Muslim can not be killed for killing a non-Muslim.

Narrated Abu Juhaifa: I asked ‘Ali “Do you have anything Divine literature besides what is in the Qur’an?” Or, as Uyaina once said, “Apart from what the people have?” ‘Ali said, “By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Quran and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah’s Book which He may endow a man, with and what is written in this sheet of paper.” I asked, “What is on this paper?” He replied, “The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever).” – Sahih Bukhari 9:83:50, See Also: Sahih Bukhari 1:3:111, and Sahih Bukhari 4:52:283

The majority of Muslim scholars held this view, while a minority (the Hanafi school of jurisprudence) believed that a Muslim can be killed if he kills a non-Muslim Dhimmi who is under the “protection” of the Islamic community.[11][12]

The lack of Qisas for killing a non-Muslim does not necessarily contradict the principle in Qur’an verse 5:32, and murder of both Muslims and non-Muslims is a punishable crime in predominantly Muslim countries around the world today. At the same time, the death penalty for apostasy still exists on the lawbooks of some of these countries.

Parallelism: Sanhedrin 37a

Rabbinical commentary

Talmudic Mishnah

For thus we find in the case of Cain, who killed his brother, that it is written: the bloods of thy brother cry unto me: not the blood of thy brother, but the bloods of thy brother, is said — i.e., his blood and the blood of his [potential] descendants. (alternatively, the bloods of thy brother, teaches that his blood was splashed over trees and stones.) For this reason was man created alone, to teach thee that whosoever destroys a single soul of israel, scripture imputes [guilt] to him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a single soul of israel, scripture ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world. Furthermore, [he was created alone] for the sake of peace among men, that one might not say to his fellow, ‘my father was greater than thine, and that the minim might not say, there are many ruling powers in heaven; –Talmud: Sanhedrin 37a

Qur’anic Verse

“Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. – Quran 5:32

The salient points are:

▪ a. The Qur’an itself admits to the borrowing, with the phrase, ‘We decreed (katabnā) for the Children of Israel…’

This word katabnā كَتَبْنَا is from the same Arabic root as kitāb, meaning book, as in ‘People of the Book’, and the verb katabā literally means he wrote. It is used a few verses later (wakatabnā) in Quran 5:45 regarding some things that are certainly in the written Torah, and in another example Quran 7:145 it is used for Allah writing on the stone tablets. Lane’s Lexicon includes ‘prescribed’, ‘ordained’ among its definitions for this verb [1], though it is likely that this usage arose from royal decrees and legal rulings being written down. In some other verses exactly the same word is translated ‘We have written’. It is quite obvious that the author believed that this ‘decree’ was in the law book of the Jews, the written Torah.

▪ b. The Sanhedrin parallel is not in the Torah as it is merely a rabbinical commentary on Cain’s murder of Abel, derived from the use of the plural, “bloods”, in Genesis 4:10. It is a Mishnayot – a teaching of a Jewish sage. Thus, it cannot be of divine origin.

▪ c. The Qur’anic verse relates to the story of Cain’s murder of Abel Quran 5:27-31, as does the Sanhedrin parallel.

Un-Islamic activities include things like

The Islamic understanding of fasad is committing practices or activities that are considered to be un-Islamic.

Un-Islamic activities include things like:

Drinking alcohol,

Eating pork,

Denying that Mohammed was a prophet,

Denying that Allah is God,

Believing that Jesus was crucified,

Teaching non Islamic ideas ( like evolution),

Listening to music,

Making/watching films,

Not complying with Islamic dress code,


Celebrating Christmas,

Mixed parties… etc

If you think of it you will find that Fasad actually describes what is largely considered as a normal life style in the non Muslim World. Therefore, according to the verse 5:32, killing non Muslims is OK, and has been excluded from the above decree.

In short, verse 5:32 prohibits killing Muslims (only) unless for revenge.

And that is the most peaceful verse in the Quran!


Verse 5:32 starts with: because of that, we decreed upon the children of Israel… suggesting that the decree was to the Jews, not Muslims, which may tempt some to use this part to invalidate the verse. However, Muslims would argue that the decree was to the Jews when they were Muslims, therefore applies to also to all Muslims.


In this instance, as in many others, it is the apologists, not the skeptics, who are misinterpreting verses and quoting them out of context. A simple reading of the verse and those that surround it makes this clear.[13]

In the Islamic world, those who propagate their non-Islamic faiths or publicly criticize Islam are often harassed, imprisoned and even executed by their communities or their governments, under laws against “spreading disorder [mischief] through the land” and apostasy.

If verse 5:32 means what some apologists claim it to mean, why are they so reluctant to quote the verse accurately and in context rather than presenting a misleading paraphrasing of what they wished the verse had said? Furthermore, why are moderates unable to silence fellow Muslims on an intellectual level by using that very verse?

They are unable to because their claim is false, and (as proven by the actions of many)[14] anyone who is familiar with the Qur’an already knows this.


1. Jacob Bender, “Jewish-Muslim Dialogue and the Value of Peace”, The American Muslim, July 19, 2007

2. Arsalan Iftikhar, “Murder has no religion”, CNN, November 9, 2009 (refutation to Arsalan Iftikhar’s piece: Murder Has A Religion)

3. “Islamophobia”, Wisdom Today, June 8, 2009

4. Andrew G. Bostom, “Keith Ellison’s Taqiyya”, American Thinker, March 13, 2011

5. “TRANSCRIPT: Remarks of President Obama in Cairo”, Fox News, June 4, 2009

6. Tafsir Al-Jalalayn 5:27

7. “Because of that which Cain did We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul…” – Tafsir Al-Jalalayn 5:32

8. Talmud Sanhedrin 37a- “For this reason was man created alone, to teach thee that whosoever destroys a single soul of Israel, scripture imputes [guilt] to him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, scripture ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world.” – It explains why Man was created only 1 (Adam), while animals were created in masses.

9. فَسَادٍ fasadin – Lane’s Lexicon Book I page 2396

10. “….Mujahid ibn Jabr, Abu al-Hajjaj al-Makhzumi is one of the major commentators of Qur’an among the Tâbi’în and of the highest rank in reliability among hadith narrators (thiqa)….” – Sh. G. F. Haddad – Mujahid (d. 102) – LivingIslam, April 4, 2000.

11. “Killing a Muslim in punishment for killing a non-Muslim”, Islamweb, Fatwa No.92261, August 1, 2006.

12. Fatawa: Killing a Muslim for a Non-Muslim – Islamic Science University of Malaysia, November 6, 2003

13. See this( related Tumblr post by the Artistic Atheist for an informative discussion concerning the context of verse 5:32 and verse 3:151 (the “cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers” verse).

14. For example, on the 20th of July, following the 7/7 terrorist attacks on London, Islamic cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed publicly stated “I condemn the killing of innocent people.” only to be secretly recorded by an undercover reporter for the Sunday Times explaining two days later “Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar.”

One of his followers, Islamic preacher Anjem Choudary, also explained in a BBC interview “when we [Muslims] say ‘innocent people’ we mean ‘Muslims’. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam. As far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God.” Ref: Daniel Pipes – Can Infidels be Innocents? –, August 7, 2005