Click here for previous session

Pythagoras summarized the risk of speaking one’s mind in such a circumstance:

“To tell of God among men of prejudicial opinion is not safe.” Unitarians throughout
history noted that Jesus himself predicted, “They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. And these
things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me” (John 16:2­3).

The establishment of Trinitarian doctrine by the inquisitor’s chamber, fire, sword
and the headman’s axe does not threaten us today. Instead of the horrors of the past, we are now faced with a variety of emotionally provocative justifications, coupled with a systematic avoidance of relevant issues.

Disarmed as they now are, much of the modern Christian world follows the example of Myser of Nicholas, a bishop at the Council of Nicaea who boxed his own ears whenever Arius spoke. Some would suggest the response of Trinitarians to Unitarian challenges is not much different today. Clergy tend to avoid debate and cloak their theology in a mantle of emotionally charged, manipulative oratory, embroidered with the glitter of self­righteousness.

Some are swayed by the sanctimonious presentation and parroted sectarian lines;
others are not. More than a few God­fearing people tire of such psychological ploys, and seek to reexamine the unfounded tenets of the past in the light of modern knowledge and
open­minded analysis.

To this end, let us now consider the relevant issues one by one.

Continueyour name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart
from me, you who practice lawlessness!’”
This passage clearly predicts a time when Jesus will disown seemingly pious
“followers,” despite their impressive prophecies, wonders, and exorcisms. Why?
Because, as Jesus said, they practiced “lawlessness.” These are the followers who, despite
their miracles of ministry, disregarded “the Law.” What law? God’s law, of course—the
Old Testament Law Jesus upheld. The same Old Testament Law Paul negated. The same
Paul from whom Trinitarian theology took root. The same Trinitarian theology founded
largely upon non­biblical sources.
“Hey, wait a minute,” the reader may say. “Who did Jesus say he would disown,
and why?”
Let’s take a closer look.

Continue reading

Click here for previous session

Slaughtering for other than Allah

Allah the Exalted said: “Say: Verily my prayer, my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allah, the Lord of the
worlds. He has no partner. And of this I have been commanded, and I am the first of the Muslims.” (6:162,163)

Allah the Exalted also said: “Therefore turn in prayer to your Lord and sacrifice (to Him only)”. (108:2)

Muslim reports that Ali bin Abi Talib (May Allah be pleased with him) said: “Allah’s Messenger (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) informed me about
four Judgments (of Allah):

(1) Allah’s curse is upon the one who slaughters (devoting his sacrifice) to anything other than Allah;

(2) Allah’s curse is upon the one who curses his own parents;

(3) Allah’s curse is upon the one who shelters an heretic (who has brought a Bid’ah in religion);

(4) Allah’s curse is upon the one who alters the landmarks (who changes boundary
lines).”

Ahmad reports that Tariq bin Shihab narrated that Allah’s Messenger (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said: “A man entered Paradise because of a fly, and a man entered Hell-fire because of a fly.” They (the Companions) asked, “How was that possible O Messenger of Allah?” He said, “Two men passed by the people who had an idol by which they would not allow anyone to pass without
making sacrifice to it. They ordered one man to make a sacrifice. He said, ‘I have nothing to present as an offering.’ The people told him, ‘Sacrifice something, even if it be a fly.’ So he presented a fly (to their idol). They opened the way for him, and thus he entered the Hell-fire.

They said to the other man, ‘Sacrifice something.’ He said, ‘I will never sacrifice anything to any other than Allah, Most Majestic and Glorious.’ So they struck his throat and killed him; and he, therefore, entered Paradise.” (Ahmad)

Important Points

1) Explanation of the verse: “Verily my prayer, my sacrifice…” (6:162)

2) Explanation of the verse: “Therefore turn in prayer to your Lord and sacrifice to Him only.” (108:2) 

3) The beginning of the principle of cursing from those who sacrifice to other than Allah.

4) Curse is upon those who curse their parents (by cursing other parents and, in turn, the latter curses his parents).

5) Cursed is the person who shelters the heretic (Muhdith) in religion that is, he innovates something that is necessarily only Allah’s right to do and he seeks shelter with someone who assists him in it.

6) Curse upon him who unjustly alters the landmark, i.e. the boundaries that differentiate one person’s land from his neighbour’s, and changes those borders to encroach upon that land or obstruct it.

7) The difference between a specific curse and a curse upon the disobedients and rebels in general.

8) The tremendous story of the fly.

9) The person who presented a fly to the idol went to Hell though not intending to do such an act (beforehand). Indeed, he did it to save himself from the threat of idolaters.

10) Knowing the extent of how hated Shirk is to the hearts of the believers seeing how the man was patient in facing execution and he did not give in to their demand in spite of the fact that they only demanded an external act from him.

11) The man who went to Hell-fire was a Muslim. If he would have been a disbeliever (Kafir), the Prophet (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) a would not have said: “He went to Hell merely for a fly.”

12) This is a confirmation of the Hadith “Paradise is closer to you than the laces of your shoes and the Hell-fire is likewise”.

13) The action of the heart is aimed, even among the idol worshippers.

Continue reading

Click here for previous session

Examples can be taken from the life of Arius, but with the caution that, with rare
exception, few books about Arius remain, other than those written by his enemies.

Consequently, most authors’ opinions betray an unkind prejudice, and the only objective
course is to examine his pure teachings.
Perhaps one of the earliest Arian arguments is that if Jesus was the “son of God,”
then there must have been a time when he did not exist. If Jesus was created of the
Father, then there must have been a time when the Eternal Father preceded the later­
created Jesus. Hence, the Creator and His creation are not the same, and Jesus cannot be
considered a partner in God­head.
Arius held that if Jesus truly did say, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28),
then equating Jesus with God is to deny the Bible. Arius suggested that if anything is
evident from the teachings of Jesus, it is that he affirmed his own humanity and the
inviolability of divine unity.  When Trinitarian clergy claimed Jesus was “of the essence of God,” Arius and
Trinitarian Christians alike objected, for “from the essence” and “of one essence” are
materialist expressions, Sabellian
in origin, not encountered in scripture, and are
contrary to church authority (since the expression originated at a council at Antioch in
269 CE).

When the Catholic Church subsequently asserted that Jesus was “of God,” the Arians responded that the Bible describes all people as being “of God” in the verse,
“Now all things are of God …” (2 Corinthians 5:18—see also 1 Corinthians 8:6).

Forced to correct themselves, the church then asserted that Jesus Christ “is not a creature,
but the power and eternal image of the Father and true God.”54 The Arian response that
the Bible describes all men as “the image and glory of God” (1 Corinthians 11:7) left the
Church confounded. 55 In the words of British theologian Henry Melvill Gwatkin, “The
longer the debate went on, the clearer it became that the meaning of Scripture could not
be defined without going outside Scripture for words to define it.”

To adopt such a
methodology is to propose that man can explain revelation better than The Source of
revelation Himself.
So the arguments started and so they have continued to the present day. After
failing to win through rational argument, the Trinitarian Church violently suppressed
dissension to the point where entire populations were terrorized into conformity. In the
process, the church failed to address the issues. As Castillo, one of the followers of the
sixteenth­century theologian Servetus, commented, “To burn a man is not to prove a
doctrine.” The church can reduce a man to ashes but can only eliminate his arguments
through intelligent rebuttal. Typical of those who lack the ability to substantiate their
beliefs but who possess the power of oppression, violent response has been the historical
reflex against those who challenged Trinitarian creed. That this oppression existed in the
vacuum of reasonable justification weakens, rather than strengthens, the institution.

As John Toland commented, “This conduct, on the contrary, will make them suspect all to be a cheat and imposture, because men will naturally cry out when they are touched in a
tender part … no man will be angry at a question who’s able to answer it.…”

In the words of H. G. Wells, “They were intolerant of questions or dissent, not because they
were sure of their faith, but because they were not. They wanted conformity for reasons
of policy. By the thirteenth century the church was evidently already morbidly anxious
about the gnawing doubts that might presently lay the whole structure of its pretensions
in ruins.”

continue reading……

Click here for previous session

Whoever seeks Blessing through a tree,
a Stone, or the like

Allah the Most Exalted said: “Have you then considered AI-Lat and Al-‘Uzza (the two idols of the pagan Arabs).” And Manat (another idol of the pagan Arabs), the other third?
(53:19,20)

At- Tirmidhi reported and declared as Sahih (sound), that Abu Waqid Al-Laithi (May Allah be pleased with him) said: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) on the campaign to Hunain while we had just left disbelief (Kufr) for Islam. The Mushrikin had a Sidra (lote-tree) that they would stay there and hang their arms on, called Dhat Anwat. When we passed a Sidra, we asked, “0 Messenger of Allah, won’t you make for us another Dhat Anwat just like their Dhat Anwat?” Allah’s Messenger (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said, “Allahu Akbar (Allah is the Most Great)! By the One (Allah) Who holds my soul in His Hand, verily these are the ways of earlier nations, you have said exactly as Bani Israel said to
Musa (May Allah be pleased with him): ‘Make for us a god just as their gods.’ “He said: ” ‘Verily you are a people who know not.’ (7:138) Certainly you will follow the ways of those who went before you.”

Important issues of the Chapter

1) Explanation of the verse (Surah An-Najm 53:19,20).

2) The nature of the matter requested by the companions (May Allah be pleased with him) (regarding a tree similar to Dhat-Anwat).

3) In fact they (Companions (May Allah be pleased with him)) did not act upon it.

4) Their intention was to become closer to Allah by their act as they thought He would like it.

5) If the Companions (May Allah be pleased with him) were unaware of the nature of their intended act, it stands to reason that other than they (of much lesser status) are more likely to fall into ignorance.

6) For the Companions (May Allah be pleased with him) is the reward of good deeds and the promise of forgiveness that is not for others.

7) The Prophet (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) did not excuse them but denied by saying: “Allahu Akbar, these are ways and you would follow those who came before you”- thereby expressing the weightiness of the matter by these three things.

8) This is a major issue which is intended, that the Prophet (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) informed them that their request was like that of Banu Israel when they asked Musa (May Allah be pleased with him) “Make for us a god.”

9) The negation of this act is of the meanings of “There is no true God except Allah”, which being subtle and hidden, was not perceived by them.

10) Swearing made by the Prophet (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) upon the ruling and he did not swear except for a beneficial purpose.

11) Shirk is of two types, i.e. major and minor because the Companions were not turned apostates due to their request. 

12) Their submission that “we had just left disbelief,” tells us that other Companions (May Allah be pleased with him) were not unaware of the matter.

13) The saying of Allahu Akbar to express surprise. It contradicts those who consider it undesirable (Makruh).

14) To put an end to all possible ways leading to Shirk (polytheism).

15) Prohibition of any resemblance with the people of ignorance (disbelievers).

16) A teacher can become unhappy over his students (for the sake of any goodness) while educating.

17) The general tendency of mankind has been expressed by the Prophet (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) by saying: “These are the ways”.

18) It is one of the signs of the Prophethood that the events occurred accordingly as he informed.

19) In every place where Allah has censured the Jews and Christians in the Qur’an, He has also warned us against those deeds.

20) The Companions (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) knew this principle that worships were based on direct commandment. It therefore, becomes a reminder concerning questions pertinent to the grave. The question (to be asked of the dead) “Who is your Lord”?
is clear. The second question “Who is your Prophet?” depends on the information of the Prophet (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) regarding unseen. But the third question “Which is your religion” is related to their (the Jews) request (from Musa (May Allah be pleased with him)). “Make for us a god”.

21) That the ways of the People of the Book are condemned as those of polytheists.

22) The one who has moved from falsehood (i.e. became Muslim) and get accustomed to certain beliefs or habits is not totally safe from having remnants of these habits as is evidenced in their (the Companions) words “and we had just left disbelief (Kufr).”

continue reading…..

Click here for previous session

And under this new decree, the executions certainly did not
slacken. Men in the highest and the humblest positions were daily and
hourly dragged to the stake. Alva, in a single letter to Phillip, coolly
estimated the number of executions which were to take place immediately
after the expiration of holy week, at “eight hundred heads.” Many a
citizen, convicted of a hundred thousand florins and of no other crime, saw
himself suddenly tied to a horse’s tail, with his hands fastened behind him,
and so dragged to the gallows. But although wealth was an unpardonable
sin, poverty proved rarely a protection. Reasons sufficient could always be
found for dooming the starveling labourer as well as the opulent burgher.
To avoid the disturbances created in the streets by the frequent harangues
or exhortations addressed to the bystanders by the victims on the way to
the scaffold, a new gag was invented. The tongue of each prisoner was
screwed into an iron ring, and then seared with a hot iron. The swelling
and inflammation which were the immediate result, prevented the tongue from slipping through the ring, and of course effectually precluded all
possibility of speech.

Only a decade earlier Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain,
recommended that “all [Netherlanders] who remained obstinate in their errors were
burned alive, and those who were admitted to penitence were beheaded.”

So even the
penitent were not to be spared.
The above list catalogs individuals once regarded by the Catholic Church as the
most notorious of heretics and by Unitarian Christians as the greatest of martyrs to the
revival of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Some of the Unitarians mentioned above were
associated with movements of such significance as to have swept across countries, but in
all cases the Trinitarian Church eventually dominated through the combination of
superior force, inferior tolerance, and willingness to sacrifice fellow man to the cause of
religious purification.
Although they use the same book for guidance, Unitarian and Trinitarian
Christianity could hardly differ more in their methodology. Trinitarian Christianity
condemns anything that conflicts with derived doctrine, whereas Unitarian Christianity
condemns anything that conflicts with scriptural evidence. The conflict between these
two standards lies at the heart of the debate. The church succeeded in killing off
dissenting individuals, but failed to suppress the thoughts and fierce passions they
expressed. Far greater success would have been achieved had the church provided
rational and conclusive rebuttal to the challenges, and established their authority through intellectual superiority rather than through tyranny. However, church history documents
nearly two millennia of failure to overthrow the arguments of the Unitarians, much to the discredit of the Trinitarians.

continue reading