Jesus Did Not Preach Christianity

Jesus Christ: Christianity is a cult that I never knew about.

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

Christian apologists love to have a laugh at the Islamic claim that Jesus was a Muslim. Poking fun at that Islamic proposition is a longstanding tradition in the Christian apologetic ministry. The Christian apologist would gleefully say, in misplaced victorious fervour, that “the Islamic or Muslim claim that Jesus was a Muslim is nothing but the ravings of a delusional desert man, who had no clue what he was talking about, which resulted in anachronisms, that is, historical errors, as he went along inventing his cult that he labelled Islam.” Whether Jesus was a Muslim or not is a subject that we will not delve here. That has been discussed in a previous article called ‘Jesus was a Muslim and not a Christian’. What we will discuss in this article is the fact that the above mentioned Christian apologetic argumentation is the psychosis of Christian apologia as it tries to deflect its own insecurities for its own shortcomings, which is symptomatic of what psychologists term ‘psychological projection’.

History bears witness to the obvious reality, that many Christians conveniently pretend to not exist, that Christianity– in its primitive sense –is a first century post-Christ cult whilst orthodox Christianity is really a new religion divorced from its alleged founder, at the very least, by a few hundred years.

Jesus was a religious personality that preached his religious message within the framework of his own religious tradition without intending in any way to start a new religion with a new name; complete with a new set of rules and doctrines. His mission did not envision a global community of Jewish and non-Jewish people. The so called Gentiles (non-Jewish nations) had little to no share in even the crumbs of his ministry (See Matthew 15:26-27; and Matthew 7:6 where Jesus disclaims the ‘goyim’ or gentiles as “dogs and pigs” who have no share in holy and sacred things that he was offering to his own people). The truth of the historical claim that Jesus’ message did not encompass what we call today Christianity is writ large in the Christian Holy Bible for all to see.

“Don’t think that I have come to destroy the law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets. I have not come to destroy their teachings but to do what they said.” (Matthew 5:17; International Children’s Bible)

The Changing Faces of Jesus

Which Jesus do you believe in?

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

Reading the four gospels with a careful eye to detail will reveal to the discerning reader four blatantly different pictures of the “Lord” that, without disingenuous convoluted harmonising tactics of the fundamentalist, underscores the message of Islam that the Christians had hijacked the real Jesus and made him into their own image. Let us sample an example of how Jesus’ image was contrived in the canonical gospels below by ancient, nameless, Christian propagandists.

Did Jesus heal ‘many’ or ‘all’ of them? You decide!

“That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door,The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.” (Mark 1:32-34)

In the Markan version of the incident above, which happens to be the oldest, the sick and the ailing were all brought to Jesus and though many (verse 34) were miraculously healed by Jesus’ touch, not every person was lucky enough to be given that gift. This fact is revealed by Mark’s use of “all” and “many”. According to Mark, although all the sick were brought to Jesus, only ‘many’ of them were healed.


Using Mark as a source, Matthew revamps the story and creates a greater Jesus in his version of the same event.

“When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.” (Matthew 8:16)

The Markan Jesus healed “many” of all the sick that were brought to him and though the average reader may find that amazing, it didn’t sit too well with Matthew as he was writing his own gospel, while cribbing Mark as a source. The Matthean Jesus has him heal literally every sick person that was presented to him. Matthew’s Jesus is clearly a more developed person with greater power. Noting this point, Professor in the Religion department at Carleton University, Dr. Zeba Crook in a debate with Richard Carrier says:

“Here is a summary story in which Mark is summarising all the great things that Jesus has been doing. And Mark tells us that they brought him all who were sick and he healed many. That’s pretty subtle but still, Matthew has a problem with it and he switches the quantities. Very simple, but it clearly has the same effect. Matthew’s Jesus is bigger, better and stronger than Mark’s Jesus” [1]

Which Jesus is your Jesus?


[Atheism TV]. (2014, May 10). Jesus of Nazareth: Man or myth? A discussion with Zeba Crook and Richard Carrier. [Video File]. Retrieved from

Christian scholar and apologists say the Qur’an has been preserved

The Qur’an has been well preserved says conservative Christian scholar

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

Dr. Norman Geisler, who is a highly respected Christian evangelist and notable systematic theologian known for his sought after works in apologetics, says that the Qur’an that Muslims have today has been reliably preserved:
“The fact that the Qur’an has been kept from any textual corruption is another evidence often given by Muslims for the miraculous nature of the Qur’an’s marvelous preservation.” [1]
Notwithstanding Geisler’s view concerning the Qur’an prior to the so called Uthmanic recension, he admits that the Qur’an that Muslims have today is “almost a perfect copy of the original”:
“While it is true that the present Qur’an is a nearly perfect copy of its original, it is not true that this is exactly the way it came from Muhammad.” [2]
As a matter of fact, in the conservative Christian camp, Geisler is not alone in his view that the Qur’an has come down to us unaltered from Uthman’s recension. Echoing Geisler’s sentiment, alleged former Muslim Dr. Abraham Sarker, whose book has been praised by many conservative Christian quarters, states that the Qur’an Muslims refer to today has been faithfully preserved from the original:
“While the Qur’anic version that stands today is a faithful copy of the revision by Uthman, this remaining copy does not exactly reflect Mohammed’s original.” [3]

Memorisation preserved the Qur’an

Memorisation as the primary mode of Qur’anic preservation

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

A small segment of over 20, 000 memorisers of the Qur’an gathered together for a ceremony to officiate The National Association of Institutions of Qur’anic Memorisation by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak at the Federal Territory Mosque in Kuala Lumpur on the 20th of February 2016

Muslims throughout the ages have long insisted that the preservation of their holy book is unlike any other — through the memory of its believers and reciters. Whereas other historical books were retained through the passage of time in writing, the Qur’an stands as a unique literary text that is preserved primarily through the memory of Muslims known as the ‘huffadh'(memorisers of the Qur’an). Though the writing of the Qur’an began early on, even in the time of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w., at its inception, the Qur’an was first memorised by the first ‘hafidh’ (singular of ‘huffadh’), the Prophet s.a.w. himself. Those who attended to the Prophet s.a.w., received the revelation from the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. and retained it in their own memories and they in turn taught what they had heard and remembered to those that attended to them and so that has been the manner by which the Qur’an has been traditionally preserved.

Is God One Person or Three Persons?

The Human Mind says NO to the Trinity: God is a [single] person says Trinitarian mathematician Professor John Lennox

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

Muslims, Jews and Christian Unitarians strongly insist that God is absolutely One. He is a Single Person. Christian Trinitarians depart from that doctrine and teach instead that God is THREE Persons. However, it is a fact that is clearer than crystal that the biblical record contains no passage that identifies God as Three Persons. With well over 6700 instances of the singular pronoun that is used by God in the first person (“I,” “Me,” “Mine,” “Myself”) and of Him in the second and third person (“You,” “Him,” “His,” “Himself”), the biblical record begins and ends with the presumption that God is only one person.

A couple of days ago I watched the Oxford Mathematician Professor John Lennox and the Oxford biologist Professor Richard Dawkins duke it out in a debate that they had on the question ‘Has Science Buried God?’ It was my third time watching the debate. This time round, I noticed something interesting. Whenever Lennox, who is a brilliant and respected mathematician at one of the most prestigious universities in the world and is also incidentally a Christian apologist respected in Christian apologetic circles, refers to God, he inadvertently spoke of Him as One Person and not Three Persons. This is in complete contradiction to standard Trinitarian doctrine, which he believes in as a Trinitarian Christian. According to standard Trinitarian doctrine, God is Three Persons and not One Person. The fact that Lennox, as a mathematician, could not resist but subconsciously affirm the unitarian view of God shows that if the human being does not purposefully pressure the brain into consciously saying “Three Personsin one God” when speaking of God, what naturally comes out is “God is one Person.”

As my skills with the computer are very limited, I enlisted our brother Yahya Snow‘s help (as he is very savvy with video editing) to put together the video with the relevant clips of instances in the debate where Lennox referred to God as a [single] Person. Yahya has done a wonderful job and we ask Allah’s blessings to accompany him in all his endeavours. The finished product can be seen in the attached video below.

John makes Jesus teach blasphemy

Biblical Jesus taught a heresy

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCoLLT

One of the verses that Trinitarians commonly use to prove Jesus’ divinity is John 14:9 which has Jesus saying, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” Accordingly, the Trinitarians contend that when taken literally what the verse shows is that Jesus is God like the Father is God. But is that really the meaning that one may glean from the verse when it is taken literally? When taken literally, what the verse actually says is that Jesus is, in fact, the Father. The verse says if a person sees Jesus then he has seen the Father and that can only mean that seeing Jesus means seeing the Father which must naturally mean that Jesus is actually the Father. Perhaps a simple analogy will illustrate the point clearer. James says, “If you have seen me then you have seen the chief of police.” What James is claiming, should we take his statement literally, is that he is as a matter of fact the chief of police because to see him means seeing the chief of police. What the statement certainly cannot mean when taken literally is that James is claiming to be a human being with a human nature. Likewise, when Jesus says seeing him equals seeing the Father, it cannot mean that he is claiming to have the essence of godhood but that he is actually the Father. As Jesus is claiming to be the Father here, according to standard Trinitarian theology, he is, in fact, committing a grievous ancient heresy forwarded by Sebellius called Patripassianism or Monarchianism or Sebellianism or Modalism. Patripassianism is a concept that stood in opposition to Trinitarianism in which the three persons of the godhead were thought to be just one person that reveals himself in three different modes. To confuse any of the persons of the Trinity with each other is to commit this modalistic heresy and apparently Jesus in John 14:9 does precisely that.

The verse in question has been used as the primary proof textby modalists since the time of Sebellius and Praxeas to prove their theology.

“Whoso hath seen me hath seen the Father also;”…
6. Yesterday we commanded it to your consideration, beloved, and said that the sentences of the Evangelist John, in which he narrates to us what he learned from the Lord, had not required to be discussed, were that possible, except the inventions of heretics had compelled us. Yesterday, then, we briefly intimated to you, beloved, that there are heretics who are called Patripassianism, or Sebellians after their founder: these say that the same is the Father who is the Son; the names different, but the person one. When He wills, say they, He is Father; when He wills, He is Son: still He is one.” [1]

Religion is not the source of terrorism

Western Academia Versus “Imam” Tawhidi Jahili

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

A self-proclaimed “Muslim leader” named Tawhidi has been making rounds on Australian media with scandalous and controversial remarks with which he lambaste Islam and Muslims. He claims to represent Muslims but takes every opportunity to deliver hate-filled sound bites against Muslims and Islam. He is fast becoming a household name for those predisposed to Islamophobia. And Australian media seem to love his TV presence.

Little is actually known about this individual and what his background really is. He decorates himself with the title ‘Imam’, but hardly anyone in his locality knows who he is or recognises his religious standing in the community. As a matter of fact, on 2nd March of this year, the Australian National Imams Council or ANIC put out an official statement that Tawhidi has no recognition as a religious leader anywhere in Australia and the organisation states unambiguously that “ANIC states clearly that this individual, is not a recognised Imam, Sheikh or Muslim leader.” [1] With such an obscure background and zero accessible credentials, no thinking person should take Tawhidi seriously, especially when he forwards outrageous claims that are without substantiation.

“Indonesia was invaded by Muslims”

In a latest fit of rant, Tawhidi, out of his own volition, let the cat out of the bag. Just a few days ago, on national Australian TV, in his unbridled excitement to put all the blame he could muster on Muslims and Islam for the recent Manchester violence and similar other terrorist acts in recent times, Tawhidi said the following:

“These are not something I’m imagining. These are facts. We’ve had many wars. How did Islam spread from Saudi Arabia down to Indonesia and Bosnia. All spread by the sword.” [2]

A little knowledge can be dangerous but the above quote from the horse’s mouth reveals a deep-seated incompetence that must be taken as foolproof certificate of Tawhidi’s unreliability as a source of information for Islam. A small child, having studied world history, would be able to correct Tawhidi’s serious blunder in claiming that Islam came down all the way from “Saudi Arabia to Indonesia by the sword.” It is a matter of incontrovertible fact that Islam reached the shores of Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and the rest of Southeast Asia many centuries ago through trade missions by Arab and Indian traders and Muslim missionary work. No Muslim army from anywhere in the world reached Southeast Asia to colonise or convert anyone to the religion. This serious error that Tawhidi made publicly, which he has yet to retract, is sufficient reason to discredit him as a reliable commentator on Islam. It takes a whole new level of foolishness to completely revamp Islamic history and fabricate a whole new obscurantist narrative for one’s own agenda. But Tawhidi managed to do just that in front of millions and remains completely oblivious to the amount of rancid beans he has actually spilled. He has successfully, out of his own ignorance, and without much assistance from Muslims, discredited himself.

“Islamic scriptures cause terrorism”