Skip navigation

Category Archives: Islam

A Muslim friend recently told me that the coming of Islam is prophesied in the Bible, specifically in Deuteronomy 33:2

And Moses said, “The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints:  from his right hand went a fiery law for them.”

My friend told me that the three mountains in this verse represent three revelations: that Mt. Sinai represents the law given to Moses, Mt. Seir the Gospel given to Jesus and that Mt. Paran represents Islam because Mt. Paran is located near Mecca.

My friend is incorrect in his thesis for a number of reasons. The first of these is that Mt. Seir does not represent the Gospel or Jesus. For my friend’s chronological prophetic interpretation of this verse to be correct, and for Mt. Paran to represent Islam, then Mt Seir must represent Jesus or His Gospel. If Mt. Seir does not represent Jesus, then the chronology is broken and Mt. Paran cannot represent Islam.

Mt. Seir Does Not Represent Jesus Or The Gospel.

While it is true that Mt. Sinai represents the Mosaic covenant, Mt. Seir does not represent the Gospel. Biblically, Mt. Seir represents the nation of Edom. The Edomites are the descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob. Jacob’s descendants became the nation of Israel.

The Biblical data that ties Seir to Edom is immense, straightforward and incontrovertible. The first mention of Seir states that Seir is place where Esau and his descendants went to dwell after Esau parted from Jacob.

Esau dwelt in the hill country of Seir; Esau is Edom. These are the descendants of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir. (Genesis 36:8)

Mt Seir represents Edom. It does not represent Jesus.

Edomites,The Enemies Of God, Cannot Possibly Represent Jesus, The Son Of God

The Bible says that Jesus is God. John 1:1-14 and Revelation 22:13-16 alone make this abundantly clear.

The Edomites on the other hand are continuously described in the Old Testament as being the enemies of God’s people and of God Himself. There is an enormous amount of scripture which describes how Edom is opposed to God, His people and His purposes, how God is opposed to Edom and how Edom will certainly be destroyed by the judgement of God.

Jesus cannot oppose or destroy himself.

Jesus cannot be represented by His enemies.

Hence Mt. Seir cannot represent Jesus.

(See ‘Edom, The Enemies Of God’, below, for more detail on Edom)

Paran Does Not Represent Islam Or Mecca

In the Bible, Mt. Paran is associated with Teman, which is a region within Edom. Paran is not associated with Mecca.

The Book of Habbakuk associates Mt.Paran with Teman. The Books of Jeremiah and Obadiah associate Teman with Edom. Hence Paran is located in Edom, not Mecca.

God came from Teman,
the Holy One from Mount Paran
– Habbakuk 3:3

That Teman is a region with Edom is seen from Jeremiah 49:1. Jeremiah uses Teman as a synonym for the nation of Edom, the part representing the whole. The prophet Obadiah does the same (see Obadiah 1:9).

Concerning Edom. Thus says the LORD of hosts:
Is there no more wisdom in Teman,
has counsel perished from the prudent,
is their wisdom gone?
– Jeremiah 49:1

Since The Bible locates Paran in Edom, Paran cannot be associated with Mecca and therefore does not represent Islam.

For the record, Edom was located on the southern borders of Judah (southern Israel), the Dead Sea and Southern Jordan (ancient Moab). It also extended into the Negev. Edom is nowhere near Mecca.

Further Reasons Why Deuteronomy 33:2 Does Not Refer To Islam

The above discussion shows conclusively that Deuteronomy 33:2 does not refer to Islam. The interpretation relies on a chronology which associates Jesus with Seir and Islam with Paran. But the Bible does not associate Jesus with Seir. The chronology and therefore the interpretation thus fails. Apart from this, The Bible associates Paran with Edom, not Mecca.

In the following section I will present some further reasons why Deuteronomy 33:2 does not refer to Islam.

First, the time reference of Deuteronomy 33:2 is the past, not the future.

For the Muslim interpretation of Deut. 33:2 to be correct, it must refer to the future. But it does not. The verse looks back to an event in the past, namely The Lord giving the law to Moses at Sinai.  The Muslim interpretation of Deut. 33:2 is thus flatly illogical. It cannot refer to Islam.

Secondly, the immediate context of the verse is historical and not the future. Muslims and Christians alike hold to the principle of interpretation of scripture within context. To understand a single verse within Deuteronomy it is necessary in the first instance to read the verses immediately around it and then the entire chapter in which the verse is situated.

So it is that the verses immediately following verse 2 describe the subject matter of verse 2. The covenant describes in v.2 is the law that Moses gave us (v.4) (not any other covenant or covenants) and the people blessed by the covenant are the assembly of Jacob (v.4), otherwise known as the tribes of Israel (v.5)

Thus the plain and obvious context of Deuteronomy 33:2 is Moses, Israel and the Jews; not Mohammed, Mecca and the Muslims.

Edom, The Enemies Of God

This section provides some more detail about how the Bible presents Edom as the enemies of God.

The Bible continuously describes how Edom opposes both God and His people, Israel, how Edom opposes God’s plans and attempts to hinder His work, and states that Edom hates and rejects God Himself.

Edom’s hostility to Israel is first seen on Israel’s journey to the Promised Land after God delivers the Israelites from Egypt. .Israel seek passage through the land of Edom to Canaan, but Edom deny them, presenting an armed force in doing so, thus forcing Israel into a circuitous route around their borders (Numbers 20:14-21).

The Lord’s anger against Edom here is not merely that they inconvenienced Israel but that they denied Israel the rights of family. Since Edom is descended from Esau, Jacob’s brother, and Israel is descended from Jacob, then Israel and Edom were brothers in the sight of God and all Middle Easterners. So Edom should have, and was obliged to, provide support for Israel instead of opposition. This is a serious family insult and very sinful by the standards of Middle Eastern culture.

The motive for Edom’s opposition to Israel was resentment and jealousy because Esau, the older brother of Jacob, had been bypassed by God who delivered Esau’s rights as firstborn son, as well as ownership of God’s covenental promises to Abraham, to Jacob. In jealousy, Edom now sought revenge on Israel by attempting to deny them the fulfillment of those promises, specifically the promise of land given by God to Abraham. In short, Edom was attempting to hinder God’s work and purposes by opposing Israel’s pilgrimage to the promised land of Canaan.

Edom, in opposing God’s purposes, made himself the enemy of God.

Edom’s jealousy of Israel continued even after Israel was established in the land of Canaan. When Israel was attacked, Edom allowed his brother nation to be plundered, indeed, went down to plunder Israel himself and cheered on the enemies of Israel as they destroyed his brother in bloody warfare. Edom hoped to gain from the destruction of Israel by becoming the eventual possessor of the Promised Land for himself.

“Because you said, `These two nations [the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel] and these two countries shall be mine, and we will take possession of them ,’—although the LORD was there—therefore, as I live, says the Lord GOD, I will deal with you according to the anger and envy which you showed because of your hatred against them. (Ezekiel 35:10-11)

It is sad to discover that Edom’s hatred of Israel became a hatred of The Lord Himself. Edom came to hate God because God had favoured Jacob over Esau.

 And you magnified yourselves against me with your mouth, and multiplied your words against me; I heard it. Thus says the Lord GOD: (Ezekiel 35:13)

Edom has made himself an enemy of God’s people and of God Himself. Consequently Edom will be judged

As you rejoiced over the inheritance of the house of Israel, because it was desolate, so I will deal with you; you shall be desolate, Mount Seir, and all Edom, all of it. (Ezekiel 35:15)

Edom is quite simply the nation with which the Lord is angry for ever. Edom’s judgement is certain and irrevocable.:

If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins, the LORD of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, till they are called the wicked country, the people with whom the LORD is angry for ever (Malachi 1:4)

Seir does not represent Jesus or His Gospel

Seir is the home of the Edomites, the descendants of Esau, who are enemies of God, His purposes and His people, and who stand under God’s decree of judgement.

Carland Shreds Her Credibility On National TV

During ABC’s broadcast of Q&A, ‘Live From Melbourne’ 26-March-2009 , Susan Carland, an Australian-born Anglo Muslim and wife of Waleed Aly, former president of the Islamic Council Of Victoria, was asked about the ‘rejectionist’ stance of the Muslim community i.e. that Islam prohibits Muslims from integrating into any non-Muslim society.

Andrew Bolt drew Ms. Carland’s attention to an interview of hers with Malaysia’s Star newspaper in which Ms Carland commented that converts to Islam are pressured to immediately dispense with non-Muslim friends and are bombarded with all manner of regulations to which they are told must immediately adhere.

Ms. Carland responded that those Muslims applying such pressure are in the minority of Muslims, while Andrew Bolt disagreed saying Ms. Carland herself referred to a normative rejectionist, separatist attitude amongst mainstream Muslims.

Ms. Carland then said that Bolt had probably read a badly translated version of her interview.

Unfortunately for Ms. Carland’s credibility, the Star newspaper is an English language newspaper. Bolt was not reading a translation, he was reading the article in English as it was originally published.

Here are Ms. Carland’s comments from the Q&A transcript:

ANDREW BOLT: […] There’s specifically something in the community itself, as well, and I think, to be honest, you mentioned this yourself in an interview with the Malaysian Star Newspaper only a couple of years ago, where you said within the community, being a new convert from Christianity, you face the calls, from within the community, you shouldn’t do this and you shouldn’t do that and you shouldn’t make friends with people who weren’t Muslim and you should withdraw from society and everything that was haram and you said this was a problem for you and I think that’s an acknowledgement there is, in fact, a problem within the Muslim community, a rejectionist strand, which is what makes this different.


SUSAN CARLAND: The quick response would be absolutely there are people, a very small minority of people, within the Muslim community that are reluctant to engage with the wider community, but this is more…

ANDREW BOLT: You put it as a majority in this interview and, excuse me, I just read it again.

SUSAN CARLAND: I said the majority of Muslims reject friendships with…well, I’m afraid that that…


SUSAN CARLAND: Well, I’m afraid that’s just not correct.

ANDREW BOLT: Well, you said it there and you…

SUSAN CARLAND: Maybe your translation from the Malay is not…

ANDREW BOLT: It was an English language newspaper.

Islam Is Embarassed About Itself

Ms. Carland’s reflexive use of ‘translation difficulties’ is a typical Muslim strategy for deflecting inquiry by non-Muslims into embarassing aspects of Islam such as its treatment of women, death penalty for converting out of Islam and its anti-historical assertions of ‘fact’ e.g. that Alexander The Great was a Muslim prophet.

Here is an example of Sheikh Hilaly Of Lakemba appealing to ‘translation difficulties’ over a sermon he gave in Lebanon in 2004 praising the September 11 massacre and Jihad in general.

Bolt caught Carland on the hop with his reference to her Star interview, and Carland being unwilling to admit that she herself, a Muslim, had criticised the mainstream Muslim rejectionist attitude to non-Muslim society, she reflexively reached for the old canard ‘translation difficulties’ as a means of deflecting criticism of Islam.

Muslims like Ms. Carland are aware that the truth about Islam is generally unpalatable to Western minds, hence she attempted to conceal the truth about Islam, in this case its rejection of conformity to generally accepted Westen norms. This concealment of truth about Islam in defence of Islam is known as Taqqiya and is a standard Islamic practice.

It is an insidious philosphy indeed that permits concealment and distortion of its own beliefs in order to make it acceptable to others.

Islam is embarassed about itself.

Carland’s Star Interview

Here is an excerpt from Carland’s interview in the Malaysian Star newspaper.

Speaking at a dinner talk during a conference organised by the Muslim Professionals Forum and the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry, Carland, who was named Australian Muslim of the Year in 2004, was brutally honest about the treatment of converts at the hands of “born” Muslims.

“Lifting the Veil” (as her talk was aptly titled), what she had to say certainly made many cringe.

Barely have the last words of the shahada (proclamation of faith) left the lips of new converts, she said, they find themselves bombarded with rules to adhere to.

The list of unreasonable pressures on converts includes telling converts to leave their so-called haram jobs immediately, even if the person had no other source of income.

The newbies are asked to give up hobbies like painting, photography, dancing or playing instruments. They’re advised to move out and sever ties with their kafir (infidel) family and non-Muslim friends, while female converts are urged to get married as soon as possible.

They are often expected to give up their own cultures and take on Arab, sub-continental, Malay or other cultures because these are deemed to be more “Islamic”.

Carland, a lecturer at Monash University in Melbourne, described these demands as not only unreasonable but also “very dangerous”.

To summarize Carland, the mainstream Muslim community, in her experience, bombards new converts with reams of regulations trying to force them to sever ties with friends and family, drop their hobbies, give up their only source of income and abandon their own culture, Carland describes this as ‘unreasonable’ and ‘very dangerous’.

She then lied to Bolt on ABC’s Q&A on two counts, saying that only a minority in the Muslim community were unreasonable when in fact she had described the mainsteam attitude and that in any case Bolt was labouring under a badly translated version of her interview from the Malay, whereas the Star is in fact an English-language newspaper.

Carland On The Muslim Community’s Attitude To Converts

In her Star interview, Carland went on to strongly criticise the Muslim community’s attitude to converts, saying that they were made to feel inferior and that they were degraded, insulted, ignored, shouted at and excluded and that their reputation was often impugned by gossip in order to control their behaviour.

From her interview again:

Carland also takes the Muslim community to task […] converts were often made to feel inferior by those born Muslims

A practising Muslim herself for years, she finds it maddening whenever “born” Muslims ask her to recite verses from the Quran to prove that she is really one, and knows enough to pray.

Such encounters are degrading and condescending. How would anyone here feel if I were to ask her to recite some Quranic verses for me to prove her Muslim-ness? Obviously it would be quite insulting.”

Female converts report being shouted out, criticised and, worse, simply ignored by both other women and men, the first time they nervously enter a mosque. Often they report leaving in tears,” she disclosed.


As for the lot of women, she told how gossip was often used, successfully, to control them.

Carland On Islam And Youth

The general misery of the Muslim existence is epitomised by Carland in the attitudes of Muslims toward their youth:

Often the only interaction young people seem to have with the religion is being told what they cannot do. Don’t listen to music – it’s haram. Don’t have a boyfriend – it’s haram. Stop showing your hair – haram, haram, haram.

“You don’t have to just sit in your room and recite the Quran and that is the sole existence of your life. You can still come out and have a good time, within a certain framework.”

Carland On The Anti-Intellectual Nature Of Islam

In further comments, Carland admits that intellectual inquiry is unwelcome within Islam. The normal questions of converts are ignored and they are made to feel that some things should not be mentioned – a message which Carland herself has learned by the evidence of her attempt to deny to Bolt that she ever made these comments in the first place.

Converts often have a challenging mind, which is one of the factors that made them Muslims in the first place. Sometimes, having someone listen could be the last thing that helps these people hold on, she said.

“Sometimes just being able to say some things and getting them out is enough. Hopefully they will come out the other side with their faith stronger than ever.

In Favour Of Carland

In Carland’s favour, she does not endorse the general attitudes of Muslims that she discussed with the Star newspaper and she wants those things to change.

However, her inability to be truthful about Muslim attitudes to non-Muslim society and her reflexive use of ‘bad translation’ as a mechanism for deflecting inquiry and criticism of Islam shows she has learned rather too well how to be a ‘good Muslim’.

Carland cannot be trusted on Islam.


Carland’s defence of Islam through deceit is an example of Taqqiya, or what the geat Islamic theologian Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali called (to paraphrase) ‘to achieve a praiseworthy aim through lying’

Quoting the Imam Ghazali via Islam Watch:

“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.

When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

For those unaware, ‘Reliance Of The Traveller’ is an Islamic text of unimpeachable authority and has been ceritified by Al-Azhar University of Cairo, simply the greatest centre of learning in the Islamic world, kind of an Islamic Oxford or Cambridge, but devoted to Qu’ranic understanding.

The full article in Islamic Watch Understanding Taqiyya ― Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah includes an example of Keyser Trad employing Taqqiya.

Muslims are free to abandon promises and go back on their words whenever circumstances change and a praiseworthy objective presents itself. This is from the example of Mohammed himself. Of course, the defence of Islam is a praiseworthy objective:

Bukhari Vol 5: 668 “Narrated Zahdam:
So I went to the Prophet and said, “O Allah’s Apostle ! You took an oath that you would not give us anything to ride, but you have given us.” He said, “Yes, for if I take an oath and later I see a better solution than that, I act on the later and gave the expiation of that oath”

Here is another informative article on Taqiyya, “‘Taqiyya’: How Islamic Extremists Deceive The West” located here.

It includes another example of Taqiyya by Keyser Trad, spokesperson for Sheikh Hilaly of the Lakemba Mosque and, at that time, Mufti Of Australian Muslims.

Some quotes by Muslim theologians on Taqqiya from this latter article follow. Feel free to Google:

“Al Taqiyya is with the tongue only; not the heart. A believer can make any statement as long as the ‘heart is comfortable …”; “God gave the believers freedom of movement by takiyya; therefore conceal thyself …”; “Takiyya is a cloak for the believer: he who has no religion has no takiyya, associate your opponents only outwardly and oppose them inwardly”.

Related terms include: protection of the secret (hifz-al sirr), secrecy (katm or kitman), deception (making something ambiguous) and hiding the real state of one’s convictions (talbis). Early Muslim sects, the Najadt and the Kharjites, referred to particular regions outside their communities as “the abode of dissimulation” (dar al taqiyya).

Allah Himself Lies

In fact Allah himself lies on purpose to Muslims, for their own good to achieve praiseworthy aims. Here is Allah’s own admission of the fact of lying via Mohammed in the Qu’ran 8:43:

Remember in thy dream God showed them to thee as few: if He had shown them to thee as many, ye would surely have been discouraged, and ye would surely have disputed in (your) decision; but God saved (you): for He knoweth well the (secrets) of (all) hearts.

Carland lies to defend Islam. This is accepted practice in Islam as one would expect from a religion whose God itself lies.

Fatima Al-Mutairi was killed by her family for becoming a Christian. Here is the
poem she wrote and published on the Internet while locked in her room by her brother waiting for her family to decide her fate.

And We For the Sake of Christ All Things Bear

by Fatima Al-Mutairi

May the Lord Jesus guide you, Oh Muslims
And enlighten your hearts that you might love others

The forum does not revile the Master of the prophets
It is for the display of truth, and for you it was revealed
This is the truth which you do not know

What we profess are the words of the Master of the prophets
We do not worship the cross, and we are not possessed
We worship the Lord Jesus, the Light of the worlds

We left Mohammed, and we do not follow in his path
We followed Jesus Christ, the Clear Truth

Truly, we love our homeland, and we are not traitors
We take pride that we are Saudi citizens
How could we betray our homeland, our dear people?
How could we, when for death – for Saudi Arabia—we stand ready?
The homeland of my grandfathers, their glories, and odes— for it I am writing
And we say, “We are proud, proud, proud to be Saudis”

We chose our way, the way of the rightly guided
And every man is free to choose any religion
Be content to leave us to ourselves to be believers in Jesus
Let us live in grace before our time comes

There are tears on my cheek, and Oh! the heart is sad
To those who become Christians, how you are so cruel!
And the Messiah says, “Blessed are the Persecuted”
And we for the sake of Christ all things bear

What is it to you that we are infidels?
You do not enter our graves, as if with us buried

Enough – your swords do not concern me, not evil nor disgrace
Your threats do not trouble me, and we are not afraid
And by God, I am unto death a Christian—Verily
I cry for what passed by, of a sad life

I was far from the Lord Jesus for many years
Oh History record! and bear witness, Oh Witnesses!
We are Christians – in the path of Christ we tread

Take from me this word, and note it well
You see, Jesus is my Lord, and He is the Best of protectors
I advise you to pity yourself, to clap your hands in mourning
See your look of ugly hatred

Man is brother to man, Oh learned ones
Where is the humanity, the love, and where are you?

As to my last words, I pray to the Lord of the worlds
Jesus the Messiah, the Light of Clear Guidance
That He change notions, and set the scales of justice aright
And that He spread Love among you, Oh Muslims

Such A Religion Cannot Come From God

The martyred poet gives an insight into the allegations against her and to the
attitudes of Saudi Muslims in general toward Jesus, Christians and Christianity.

Her question, and mine, is ‘why does Islam need to kill those who convert to
other faiths’. It is hard to believe that such a religion could ever come from God.

The allegations against Fatimah are that she became a follower Christian (this is enough for death), but also, concomitant to this, that she worships the cross, reviles Mohammed, that she is possessed and that she is a national traitor to Saudi Arabia (her longest stanza).

Of course all that is fabrication, mere window dressing, gilding the lily of her real and only crime which is that she was once a Muslim and is now a follower of Jesus.

In the Hadith of Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57, authoritative for all Muslims:

Narrated ‘Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

Wikipedia says on Apostasy In Islam:

The four major Sunni Madh’hab (schools of Islamic jurisprudence) and the Twelver Shi’a Jafari madhab agree that a sane adult male apostate must be executed. They differ on the punishment for a female apostate – some schools calling for death and others for imprisonment.

This is why converts to the path of Jesus in Saudi Arabia pray the conversion prayer with their own hands around their throat, symbolic of the Sharia penalty, decapitation, should they be arrested for the ‘crime’ of Apostasy. They know that their faith is a death sentence, as Fatima did (‘swords’)

I met an ex-Muslim. He told me His sister said ‘We should kill you’. So, his family know what Islam decrees. They just had the fundamental humanity to ignore it.

‘And every man is free to choose any religion’.

Fatima is amazed and shocked, as I am, that the Muslim faith is so totalitarian that it cannot tolerate any conversion. ‘What is it to you that we are infidels’.

She tries to reason with her family from the Qu’ran that diversity of faith is permitted by referring to Quran 2:256 “There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way.” – in her words ‘And every man is free to choose any religion’.

Fatima may not have realised that Surah 2 was revealed in the early part of Mahammed’s career when he was militarily weak. No such option was permitted by Muhammad once he had power over the destiny of subjugated populations.

But Fatima certainly did realised she would be killed, hence her martydom poem, published on the Internet.

See here, here and here

What The Learned Do Not Know

Fatima, in Jesus, has discovered that God is love and a good portion of her poem is a prayer for Muslims to recognise and admit that love is absent fom Islam. She notes, in her own family, the cruelty they visit on her, their looks of ‘ugly hatred’ and their ‘threats’, their general malice, for which she advises they ‘pity’ and ‘mourn’ for themselves.

Fatima’s wish for Muslims, the thought she leaves them with even as they kill her, is that they too experience the love that is from God of which they have no experience.

I pray to the Lord of the worlds
Jesus the Messiah, the Light of Clear Guidance
That He change notions, and set the scales of justice aright
And that He spread Love among you, Oh Muslims

Fatima’s father is an Iman. It is to him specifically, amongst the ranks of the learned in general, that she instructs in the elementary truths of humanity and chides for moral blindness.

Man is brother to man, Oh learned ones
Where is the humanity, the love, and where are you?


I enjoyed Fatima’s expressions of the spirituality of Jesus in Islamic phraseology e.g ‘Best Of Protectors’, ‘Light of Clear Guidance’, ‘for you it was revealed’, ‘bear witness oh witnesses’.

I hope that her martyrdom poem achieves her prayerful intent, the illumination of many in darkness.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.