The “Mirror Image” Syndrome

Just as an image formed on a plane mirror is a duplication or reflection of the object placed directly opposite its surface, there is also a dangerous condition that can affect Christians contending for the faith which can make them start to reflect what they are contending against.

A person opposed to a set of errors can also develop signs of errors: becoming dishonest, hateful and rigid. I call it the “Mirror Image Syndrome.”

When this syndrome affects a cult expert, he can take on the very cultic mindsets he is standing against – exclusivism, elitism and tyranny of thoughts.

Sometimes it’s baffling how a person would seem to stand on an impressive edifice of Christian scholarship only for you to realise that his intellectual integrity is actually in the pits.

The more famous and influential a Christian figure is, the more they need to be held accountable for what they say or write in public, especially, if their agenda is more important to them than truth.

Previously, I used Rebecca Brown and Daniel Yoder as examples of how spiritual warfare can devolve into spiritual quackery when integrity is lacking. I will be using another popular Christian author to highlight the blighting effects of the Mirror Image Syndrome.

For five decades, Chick Publications, the organization founded by Jack Chick, has published hundreds of illustrated gospel tracts in different languages, along with many Christian articles, comics, books and videos on issues like abortion, homosexuality, false religions, evolution and Bible versions.

Fittingly, Dr. Rebecca Brown once worked for Mr. Chick. In her words, “Jack Chick is one of the kindest and most honest and Godly men I have ever met. He taught me many valuable things in the Lord’s work” [1]

In the May/June 2016 Battle Cry article, we are also told that:

Many parents write to Chick Publications, grateful for the unwavering stand for the Truth in the tracts and books.”

Since 2003, I have feasted on many Chick materials. They influenced my early Christian walk and I believed every word in their materials as truth.

But when I began to double check things for myself, I started to question some of the “facts” being disseminated by Chick’s ministry said to be “standing for the Truth”:

1. The testimony comic series of ex-Jesuit priest, Alberto Rivera (1935-1997) drew much ire to Chick’s ministry when it was published.

Whether his testimony was genuine or fraudulent is still debatable. He gave dates and names of places and presented his ID card and papers. To an extent, he also defended himself before his critics.

Notwithstanding, there were several glaring errors and outright embellishments in his stories which cast much doubt on the veracity of his claims.

In the Double Cross, after he had left the monastery with his sister, the Mother Superior said with a frown:

“He is damned forever! The Virgin will take care of this Father Rivera. He is another Judas that has sold out our Holy Father, the Pope.”

How did Rivera know she said this?

Later, a Vatican priest asks his fellow, “Would Father Rivera go to the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormons?” the other priest replies, “Never! He’s a real Christian and he knows about their false teachings.” [2]

Rivera wasn’t present there, so how did he know they said this?

Was he also suggesting that Catholic leaders don’t consider themselves to be real Christians but secretly admit that Protestants are?

Either Rivera or Chick was putting words into these people’s mouths to further an agenda.

2. The series spent more ink spreading Jesuit hysteria and instilling mistrust in readers than presenting the gospel to Catholics.

Alberto alleged that Kathryn Khulman was a Catholic “undercover agent” sent to the Pentecostals; Jim Jones was “another undercover Jesuit” who sacrificed his flock to fulfill his oath [3] and Fidel Castro was also a “well trained Jesuit under oath.” [4]

No credible evidence was presented to back up these accusations. The reader is simply asked to take Rivera’s word for it because he purportedly knew some centuries-old, “hot secrets” of the Vatican.

3. The Alberto comics are laced with Vatican conspiracy theories, wild enough to make Dan Brown green with envy.

Rivera claims the Nazi and Communist parties, the KKK, Illuminati, Masonry, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormonism, Christian Science, Unity cults and Islam were all founded and developed by the Catholic Church or Jesuits. [5]

Again, no evidence of these claims was given. While I agree that Catholicism is an aberrant religious system with a bloody history, to blame it for every other cult and social or political plague on earth is tabloid sensationalism and sheer inanity.

Satan has been creating false religions long before the Vatican came on the scene and he doesn’t need it to create a newer one today. Christians who wish to reach Catholics with the truth should not use these materials.

4. Chick’s Statement of Faith on their website says:

[W]e believe God in His Singular providential care has KEPT HIS WORD all through the ages, right down to the present day as found in the King James Version. We consider this version our final and absolute authority, above and beyond all other authorities on earth.”

This is “KJV Onlyism” in its strictest form. Its chief flaw is the silence on which Bible version was God’s Word “all through the ages” before the 17th century when the KJV emerged.

Their fully illustrated book, Did the Catholic Church Give us the Bible? tries to give the reader a “chain” of preservation:

In a valley in the Alps was a people that God used to translate His preserved words into Latin. These people were called the ‘Vaudois.’ They lived in the Piedmont Valley of the Alps, at the northwest corner of Italy, east of France. In about 120 AD some got saved, and went to Antioch to receive God’s words.” [6]

Where did they get this piece of information from? No citation or reference was provided there. Why? Because the statement is a lie.

The Vaudois (or Waldenses) were followers of Peter Waldo (1140-1205 AD). How could they have existed a millennium before Waldo was born? If the Vaudois didn’t exist at that time, to assert they went to Antioch to receive an Italian Bible is pure fabrication.

5. In order to cover up the fact that the KJV came from a Greek text by Desiderius Erasmus, a Catholic priest, the book says:

God chose Erasmus as His vessel to shine the light of the Gospel during the hellish Dark Ages … Erasmus was God’s undercover agent! By day he was a faithful Roman Catholic serving the pope, working diligently in the libraries. But at night he wrote tracts that ridiculed the Catholic system… This was a dangerous game. But Erasmus played it because he utterly despised the devilish pope.” [7]

A footnote said: “Much of the information in this section comes from the excellent research of Gail Riplinger’s In Awe of Thy Word (2003), Chapter 27.”

The term “excellent research” is meant to psyche the unwary reader. In fact, Gail Riplinger’s research is as “excellent” or reliable as National Enquirer, TMZ or any other gossip tabloid.

While Erasmus attacked the corruption and immorality among the clergy, he was a real Catholic.

Erasmus was “a devoted worshipper of St. Anne” and he wrote “a collection of prayers to the Holy Virgin.” He believed in the Eucharist and upheld papal authority.

He pledged to always be “a faithful subject of the Holy See” and wrote: “Christ I know; Luther I know not. The Roman Church I know, and death will not part me from it till the Church departs from Christ.” [8]

He never recanted his beliefs

If Chick and Daniels cared more about truth, their information should have come from Erasmus’ original works instead of a secondary work of a KJV Onlyist fraud.

By the way, if being an “undercover agent” was evil for Jim Jones or Kathryn Khulman, why was it acceptable for Erasmus?

6. This Give Us The Bible book – typical of Chick materials – devotes several pages to conspiracies and poisoning the well.

On page 137 is a cartoon of a Christian reading the NIV Bible and Satan holding his head saying: “Haw haw! GOTCHA!” The heading says “CHRISTIANS NOW READ HIS BIBLE!”

This is meant to instill fear into readers to think those who read a modern Bible version are under Satan’s grip.

Page 125 shows a chart linking the NIV Bible to its Zondervan publisher (formerly owned by Harper Collins Inc.) and this links to the Satanic Bible and the News Corporation owned by Rupert Murdoch, a Catholic knight. This is guilt by association.

It was intended to link the NIV with “Catholic Church” or “The Satanic Bible” in the reader’s mind. If only the authors knew that Zondervan has published KJV Bibles, they would have probably refrained from such emotional manipulation in their book.

In the absence of solid facts to bolster their arguments, the authors resorted to inflaming emotions.

7. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines fiction as “something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically an invented story.” It’s also called a fable or fabrication.

For instance, if a person today writes a story about Abraham in Ur, imputing words to the characters in the story, he has written a work of fiction.

In the illustrated book published by Chick Publications, Babylon Religion, the first chapter gives us a detailed account of before and after the Flood, including the words and thoughts of the characters. On page 16, Satan soliloquized:

One of Noah’s sons has got to be the weakest link. I’ll find him and make him serve me!” He tells Cush: “Look, Cush, you don’t need this pressure. You’re a man. GO BUILD YOUR OWN CITY!” So Cush “built the tower of Babel … to unify the people under one religion.” [9]

When you compare this with Genesis 10:8-10 you can easily see that Chick and Daniels wrote from their own imaginations.

We are told: “Nimrod had hated Shem and all followers of God Almighty so he started to persecute them with the help of his secret police … Nimrod and his wife demanded human sacrifices, which were devoured by him and his priests.” [10]

On page 34 Shem charged: “Nimrod is pure evil! He must be stopped once and for all!” Then “he came to Babylon and with righteous anger sliced Nimrod into pieces. Everyone was caught off-guard. The priests went into hiding and his [Nimrod’s] false religion came to a standstill.”

There is no biblical or extra-biblical evidence that:

(a) Nimrod had a wife, much less Semiramis.

(b) Nimrod started a religion or was worshipped as a god.

(c) Shem had followers much less were persecuted.

(d) Shem murdered Nimrod.

In fact, there is no historical record of Nimrod; only a strong possibility that he is the same as the legendary Gilgamesh.

8. On page 40, Satan tells Nimrod’s widow, “Stick with me, Semiramis, and I will make you the Queen of heaven!” Holding up her baby to the Babylonians, Semiramis says: “Behold Nimrod, your slain and risen god!” (p. 41).

In reality, there is no trace of Semiramis in Sumerian or Babylonian records. The only Semiramis (which is a Greek name) known in history is Queen Sammu-ramat, wife of Samshi-Adad V of Assyria who ruled approximately 824-811 B.C.

A Babylonian priest, Berossus, (c. 3rd century B.C.) in his Babyloniaca, lists the kings of Babylon and makes a reference to Semiramis ruling in Assyria – not Babylon – after 812 BC. This date matches the period the historical Sammu-ramat lived. [11]

This proves Nimrod and Semiramis didn’t live in the same century. There is a gap of more than 1000 years between them.

No reference work – whether it’s the Encyclopedia Britannica, Jewish Encyclopedia or the World Book Encyclopedia – places Nimrod and Semiramis as contemporaries, let alone as a couple.

Page 52 says: “Ancient and modern writings are clear that Tammuz and Semiramis got married.”

False. Tammuz was a Sumerian deity. He is never described as a real person and never mentioned as the husband or son of Semiramis in any standard reference work.

Semiramis was not worshipped as a goddess and she is not Ishtar, Astarte or Inanna because these deities predate her. Even Daniels and Chick quote a work on page 198 saying:

The goddess Ashera was probably the oldest [Canaanite goddess]. As early as 1750 BC a Sumerian inscription refers to her as the wife of Anu, who can be identified as El, the father god of the Canaanite pantheon…” [12]

This disproves their basic theory on page 82 that “All goddesses were made from one woman [Semiramis].” These deities have been worshipped for centuries before Semiramis. All pagan goddesses are demons, not geographical mutations of a dead Assyrian queen!

Page 53 tells us: “As ‘Asshur’ Tammuz rode north and built four cities, including Nineveh.”

A footnote gives Genesis 10:11-12 as reference but vs. 22 says this Asshur was one of “the children of Shem”!

The dramas between Semiramis and Tammuz illustrated between pages 52-59, were based on nothing but “ancient myths!” I remember been disappointed when I first read this book, because I had expected a scholarly work.

How sad that Mr Chick who has attacked the myths and fables of Catholicism, Mormonism and Paganism has resorted to the same.

Personally, I will think twice before I allow my name be put on a Christian book filled with lies, shoddy research and “tales [Gr. mythos] artfully spurn” by pagans (2 Pet. 1:16). A soldier of the cross would rather starve than profit on falsehood.

I know some of my readers will say, “But his works have brought many people to Christ.” I’m not disputing that, but we must not become so naive that we lose our understanding of Scripture’s warning:

“Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying…” (1 Tim. 1:4)

As Christians, we must not lose sight of the Biblical standard of honesty and integrity of character and we also need to watch out for this syndrome in our lives.

Notes

[1] Rebecca Brown and Rev. Daniel Yoder, Standing on the Rock, Solid Rock Enterprises, 2002, p. 64.

[2] Double Cross, Chick publications, 1981, pp. 9-11.

[3] Double p. 27

[4] The Godfathers, Chick, 1982, 31.

[5] Godfathers p. 4, 31; The Force (1983), p. 25; The Prophet (1988), pp. 12-23.

[6] David Daniels and Jack Chick, Did the Catholic Church Give us the Bible? Chick, 2005, p. 40.

[7] Did the Catholic Church, p. 67.

[8] Anthony Froud, Life and Letters of Erasmus, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1894 pp. 86, 279, 261.

[9] David Daniels and Jack Chick, Babylon Religion, Chick, 2006, pp. 20-21.

[10] Babylon Religion, pp. 32-33.

[11] “Berossus and Babylonian Eschatology” Iraq, 38.2 (Autumn 1976:171-173) p. 172.

[12] Anne Baring and Cashford Jules, Myth of the Goddess, Penguin Books, 1991, p. 454.

Advertisements

Was The Reformation a Runaway Train?

Disinformation is an intentional spread of false or inaccurate information designed to discredit a conflicting information or support false conclusions. Catholicism has perfected this tactic to a tee. As a result, the Protestant Reformation has been caricatured and the Reformers demonized. Rome portrays the Reformation as a runaway train, inspired by wanton lust, arrogance and self-independence in order to justify her apostasy and falsehoods.

Today, a number of well-researched books and Christian websites have cleared up much of the disinformation Catholics are being fed with by Rome’s legatees. But let’s take a look at some examples:

“The Roman Catholic Church was the only Christian Church in existence prior to the Reformation, therefore, if it went into apostasy, then Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church failed”

There are several false assumptions wrapped up in this one sentence. First, what is today called the “the Roman Catholic Church” was not a monolithic system that sprang up from Christ’s apostles (like Athena from Zeus’ skull) retaining a doctrinal continuity for 2,000 years. It was a gradual invasion and taking root of false doctrines all through the centuries that gave rise to it. It took much time and circumstances – often the influence of pagan ideas – for Roman Catholicism to emerge into what it is:

“The magnificent conception of a Catholic church bound together in one organization, one faith, one ritual could hardly have been realized by imagination alone, without the aid of time and circumstances” (James Thompson, Edgar Nathaniel Johnson. An Introduction to Medieval Europe, W. W. Norton & co., 1937, 46).

This is why ancient catholicity and modern Roman Catholicism are as different as chalk and cheese. The fact is, not all Christian churches were part of the Latin church even in the 4th century. The Edict of the Emperors Gratian, Valentinan II and Theodosius of February 27, 380 shows this:

“We order those who follow this doctrine to receive the title of Catholic Christians, but others we judge to be mad and raving and worthy of incurring the disgrace of heretical teaching, nor are their assemblies to receive the name of churches. They are to be punished not only by Divine retribution but also by our own measures, which we have decided in accord with Divine inspiration” (Sidney Ehler and John Morrall, Church and State Through the Centuries, Burns & Cates, 1954, 7).

Even though what these early writings meant by “catholic” is far different from what Roman Catholicism espouses, yet it’s clear that it was because of the “heretics” outside it that the Inquisition was brought up. Bishop Alvaro Palayo, an official of the Curia, also made a reference to these Christians about 300 years before the Reformation:

“Considering the Papal court has filled the whole Church with simony, and the consequent corruption of religion, it is natural enough the heretics should call the Church the Whore” (De Planct Eccl. ii. 28 cited by Ignaz von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council, London, 1858, 185).

Martin Luther also said: “We are not the first to declare the papacy to be the kingdom of Antichrist, since for many years before us so many and such great men (whose number is large and whose memory is eternal) have undertaken to express the same thing so clearly and plainly” (Ewald Plass, What Luther Says, Vol. 1, 36)

When Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail over His church, He was referring to the revelation of Himself which Peter expressed (Matt. 16:18). The gates of hades are powerless against the church as long as she believes and confesses this truth. This is based on Christ’s faithfulness, not an alleged “charism of infallibility.” Jesus was referring to the Church, His Body (all true Believers) in that passage, not an institution.

Roman Catholicism is a departure from Christ and the faith “once handed down” by its denial of the sufficiency of Scripture, the sufficiency of Christ and His sacrifice. So, the promise in Matthew no longer applies to it (Jude 3). The apostasy of the Roman church became full-blown at the council of Trent (16th century) where it codified its false doctrines.

Notably, the Council of Trent wasn’t a linear continuation of the Latin or Medieval church. In fact, the Western church before Trent was more pluralistic in doctrine than the Roman church between Trent and Vatican I. Therefore, one can say there were Christians in the Roman system and outside of it through the centuries. These were the ones who constituted the true Church, not the religious institution.

The only “Christian” groups outside the Catholic Church before the Reformation were heretical. The Albigenses were Manicheans (Dualists) who practiced mass suicide and sexual immorality

In Catholic lingo, a “heresy” is any deviation from a doctrine defined by the Church. Apparently, these Christian movements were judged as heretics, not on the basis of their writings in contrast with Scripture, but for their disagreement with the Roman church (Rome positions itself as the standard of orthodoxy).

For instance, Priscillian, the Bishop of Avila, was falsely accused of “heresy,” immorality and witchcraft and beheaded (along with 6 others) in 385 A. D. whereas 7 of the works he wrote to refute these charges have been discovered in the library of the University of Wurzburg, Germany.

In the same vein, most of the sources accusing the Albigenses of heinous crimes are Catholic works, which may not be reliable. Even when one examines some of them, certain truths still emerge. James Capelli, a 13th century Franciscan lector in Milan wrote:

“The rumors of the fornication which is said to prevail among them is most false. For it is true that once a month either by day or by night, in order to avoid gossip by the people, men and women meet together, not, as some lyingly say, for purposes of fornication, but that they may hear preaching … They are wrongfully wounded in popular rumor by malicious charges of blasphemy from those who say that they commit many shameful and horrid acts of which they are innocent” (Walter Wakefield and Austin Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages, University of Michigan Library, 1991, 305).

Surprisingly, Catholic inquisitors wrote that Albigenses “were condemned for speculations.” Their trial showed they believed “a Christian church ought to consist of only good people … [that] the church ought not to persecute any, even the wicked; the law of Moses was no rule for Christians; there was no need for priests, especially of wicked ones; the sacraments and orders, and ceremonies of the church of Rome were futile, expensive, oppressive, and wicked…” (William Jones, The History of the Christian Church, New York, 1824, 455)

Apart from the Albigenses, there were also the Waldenses, Bogomils and Poor men of Lyons whose few surviving writings showed they were “heretics” to Rome only. Two notable works: History of the Evangelical Churches of Piedmont (1648) by Samuel Morland and An Inquiry into the History and Theology of the Ancient Valdenses and Albigenses (1838) by George Fabler, drew on works dating back to the 13th century indicating that the beliefs of these pre-Reformation groups were similar to those of Evangelicals today.

“It is now clearly known that the Paulicans were not Manicheans” says a historian, “the same thing may probably be said of the Albigenses.” He added, “The Roman Catholic Church sought diligently for excuses to persecute. Even Luther was declared by the Synod of Sens to be a Manichean. The Archbishop Usher says that the charges of Manicheanism on the Albigensian sect is evidently false” (John Christian, The Glorious Recovery of the Vaudois, London, 1857, 1 xvii).

The Reformation was just a revolt from the mystic from Wittenberg (Martin Luther), the logical orthodox from Geneva (John Calvin) and the heterodox rationalist from Zurich (Ulrich Zwingli)

This is a disinformation. The Reformation was not a “revolt” by any means, since the Reformers stood for the same truths that many within and without the Roman church all through the centuries stood for.

Archbishop Agobard of Lyons (779-840) spoke against image worship and the church’s unbiblical liturgies and practices. Bishop Claudius (8th century) rejected Catholic traditions, saints and relic veneration. Peter of Bruys (12th century) spoke against Catholic dogmas and left the priesthood; he was killed for it.

Henry of Lausanne, a monk, who exposed the errors of Rome was arrested in 1148; he died in prison. Berengar of Tours opposed transubstantiation based on Scripture, the church fathers and reason; he was excommunicated.

Men like Jan Hus, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale and Wessel Gansfort stood for the supremacy of Scripture long before the Reformation. Contrary to what Catholics are made to believe, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were neither loons nor buffoons. They proved their cases by appealing to the church fathers, church councils and reason.

When Luther posted his 95 theses at the door of the church of Wittenberg, he still adhered to some Catholic doctrines (e.g purgatory, Mariolatry etc). His intention was to reform the church from within, not to leave it. But when the Roman church couldn’t prove its ideas from Scripture, but instead excommunicated Luther at the Diet of Worms, he had to leave.

Other lesser-known Reformers were Nicolaus von Amsdorf, Henry van Zutphen, Propst Jakob, Johann Esch, Heinrich Voes and Hess Kaspar. Most of them were killed for disagreeing with Rome. Catholics may have sank too deep to question the tyrannical system of Rome that crushes every voice of dissent, nevertheless, the Reformation was God’s plan to call His people out of an apostate religious system.

The Protestant church was started by King Henry VIII who wasn’t allowed to take an extra wife by the Pope

This remark is quite revealing, though not in the way Catholics intend. Henry VIII was a staunch Catholic who wrote a polemic Assertion of the Seven Sacraments Against Martin Luther (which earned him the title ‘Defender of the Faith’ from the Pope). In 16th century England, the Catholic church was not in the good books of the common people. The priests were immoral; the church owned about a fifth of all property in England and levied heavy taxes on the people.

Then the King wanted an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry the more beautiful and perhaps more fertile Anne Boleyn. But Pope Clement VII, pressured by Catherine’s nephew, Emperor Charles V, refused to grant Henry’s wish. This prompted Henry VIII to break with Rome and declare himself head of England’s Catholic Church. This decision was supported by the House of Commons (since popular sentiment against Rome was already high).

“Henry was now the sole judge of what, in religion and politics, the English people were to believe” wrote a historian. “Since his theology was still Catholic in every respect except the papal power, he made it a principle to persecute impartially Protestant critics of Catholic dogma, and Catholic critics of his ecclesiastical supremacy” (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Simon & Schuster, 1950, VI, 529).

It was during Henry VIII’s time that Tyndale was burned at stake for translating the Bible into English. Henry died in 1547 leaving “a large sum to pay for Masses for the repose of his soul” (Ibid, 577). Contrary to what Catholics are told, he wasn’t a Protestant!

Allah, Satan and the Quran

There are several areas in which the Satan talked about in the Quran match that of the Bible. But there are also some divergent areas which will be mentioned here.

“And when we said to the angels, ‘Bow down and worship Adam’ then worshipped they all, save Eblis. He refused and swell with pride, and became one of the unbelievers” (Q 2:34)

If this refusal of Satan to bow to Adam was what made him accursed and evil, it definitely leads to a quicksand. In Sura 7:12, Iblis said his refusal to bow was because he was created “from fire” while Adam was created “from clay.” Now, if Allah considered Adam – created from clay – worthy of worship by angels, that means Jesus the Uncreated Word of Allah is more worthy of worship.

By rejecting the Deity of Christ, either the Quran badly contradicts itself or Allah is inconsistent by commanding his angels to commit the sin of shirk (creature worship). By implication, Muslims who refuse to bow to Jesus are on the side of Iblis.

It must be noted that the command to bow to Adam was “to the angels,” not the jinns. In Islam, Satan is one of the jinn created from “smokeless flames of fire” (Q 15:27), not an angel, yet he was being cursed for not bowing. It makes no sense.

This is like a teacher who walks into a classroom consisting of Asian and Hispanic students and orders all the Asian students to stand up. Then queries a Hispanic student “Why are you not standing up? You are rebellious and you must be punished!” Of course, we would conclude that this teacher is being unfair, unjust and even racist. Yet we are being asked to accept such illogicality and injustice coming from a divine revelation.

“But the devil whispered to him. Said he, ‘O Adam! Shall I guide thee to the tree of immortality, and a kingdom that shall not wane” (20:120)

The writer of the Quran obviously had a second hand knowledge of the Torah. Adam and Eve already had immortality and the garden of Eden was theirs until they sinned, so they couldn’t have been tempted with a “tree of immortality” or “a kingdom.”

In the real Biblical account, Satan tempted Eve, not Adam. He led her to eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil by questioning God’s word, promising her wisdom and divinity. While Eve was deceived, Adam knowingly disobeyed (Gen. 3:1-5, 2Cor. 11:3).

“And most certainly I will lead them astray and excite in them vain desires, and bid them so that they shall slit the ears of cattle, and most certainly I will bid them so that they alter Allah’s creation; and whoever takes the Shaitan for a guardian rather than Allah he indeed shall suffer manifest loss.” (4:119)

Though Muslims want us to believe all the words in the Quran were written by Allah in heaven, the presence of Satan’s direct statements in the book indicates that either Allah at times talked as Satan or Satan was one of Allah’s alter egos.

For instance, Allah says: “Verily, I shall fill hell with the jinn and mankind together” (11:119). That is not God speaking (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). In Sura 38:78-81, after Allah cursed Iblis, he appealed for a respite (temporary break) from the curse, which Allah granted until judgement day. Then Satan said: “by thy power, I will put them all in the wrong way” (v. 82).

In other words, Allah and Satan are in a sort of mutual cooperation to allow mankind (especially non-Muslims) be deceived. Not divine by any means. In another place, Muhammad met a group of jinn at the desert of Taif:

It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened (to the Quran). They said: ‘We have really heard a wonderful recital. It gives guidance to the Right, and we have believed therein. We shall not join (in worship) any (gods) with our Lord. And Exalted is the Majesty of our Lord. He has taken neither a wife nor a son” (Sura 72:1-3).

Was it Allah speaking here or Muhammad? If it was Allah, that means Allah was telling Muhammad about what Muhammad himself experienced at Taif! Notice that these spirits spoke the same way Muslims speak in the physical plane.

Now, if following Satan leads to eternal loss and his plan is to lead people astray, why should the words of his fellow jinn (demons) be taken as reliable? Why should their claims about the Quran or Islam be taken as truth? Are these not ploys to achieve their agenda?

Why listen to creatures who – according to Islam – specialise in eating excreta to tell us what recital is “wonderful?” Muslims say there are good and bad jinn, but how did they come to know that? As Christians, one main proof they are all evil is their denial of the Sonship of Jesus thus making God a liar (1 Jn. 5:10).

“Verily! He [Satan] has no power over those who believe and put their trust only in their Lord (Allah). His power is only over those who obey and follow him (Satan), and those who join partners with him (Allah) [i.e those who are Mushrikin – polytheists].” (16:99-100)

Muslims love this passage because it somehow convinces them that anyone outside Islam must be under Satan’s control. This is a deception. Before the battle of Uhud, Muhammad prophesied victory but the Muslim army was defeated by the Meccans and Muhammad had his teeth knocked out. The reason:

Satan made their acts seem alluring to them and said [to the Muslims] ‘No one among men can overcome you this day while I am near you.'” (Q 8:48)

Wait a minute, I thought Allah was the one near the Muslims, promising them victory over the Meccans? In vs. 43, Allah said he made Muhammad see his foes as few in number whereas they were many and 5 verses later, we are told it’s Satan who actually deceived the Muslims. Isn’t Allah just another name for Satan? After all, the Allah the Meccan pagans worshipped was the same Allah Muhammad claimed to speak for?

In Sura 6:68, Muhammad was told: “And if Satan causes you to forget then after the remembrance sit not you in the company of those people who are the wrong doers.” But in the hadith, Muhammad said “It is a bad thing that some of you say ‘I have forgotten such and such verse of the Quran.’ For truly I have been caused by Allah to forget it.” (Bukhari 4:61:550)

So as Satan was making him to forget his verses, Allah too was doing the same. Whether Allah and Satan both work towards the same goal or they are the same being in disguise, it’s clear that Satan’s power over Muslims is equivalent to that of Allah. The hadiths also said:

“Magic was working on Allah’s Apostle so that he used to think he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not.” (Bukhari 7:660)

This spell apparently lasted for a year. If Muhammad, the “special prophet” of Allah himself, was not immune to occult spells, then it’s ridiculous for Muslims to believe they are not under Satan’s claws.

And it (the Qur’an) is not the word of the outcast Satan” (81:25)

Muslims quote this to “prove” that Muhammad couldn’t have received his Quranic messages from the Devil because a certain verse of a certain chapter of it says so. Did Muhammad himself deny the possibility of a satanic input in his recitations?

And if an evil whisper come to you from Satan, then seek refuge with Allah…” (7:200)

Say: I seek refuge with the Lord and cherisher of mankind, the king (or ruler) of mankind, The God of mankind, From the mischief of the Whisperer (Satan) who withdraws after he has whispers, Who whispers into the hearts of mankind, and from the jinn and men.” (Q 114:1-5)

These verses make it crystal clear that Muhammad was hearing “whispers” from Satan, jinn and some men in his mind that made him seek refuge with Allah in fear (notice that he didn’t qualify the jinns, he knew they were all evil). This explains why his recitations were incoherent and inconsistent. The “satanic verses” is a case in point.

Early Islamic historians like Tabari, Ibn Sa’ad and Yahya point out that Sura 53:19 had undergone certain changes after it was first recited. In it, Muhammad had favourably acknowledged the Meccan pagan goddesses mentioned there – Allat, Al-Uzza and Manat as “the exalted Gharaniq [a high flying bird] whose intercession is approved” (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulallah, 165-166).

Because Muhammad had previously preached against the other pagan gods in the Kaaba, the Meccans were glad that he “has spoken of [their] gods in splendid fashion.” They even prostrated with him in worship (Kitab al-Tabaqat, 1:237).

When the Muslims in Abyssinia heard that Muhammad had back-pedalled into polytheism, they were angry. Muhammad had to do a damage control. He claimed “angel Gabriel” had given him a new verse to replace the previous one he recited from Satan. To justify his flip flop, Allah is quoted saying:

Never did We send a Messenger or a Prophet before you but when he did recite the revelation or narrated or spoke, Shaitan (Satan) threw (some falsehood) in it. But Allah abolishes that which Shaitan (Satan) throws in. Then Allah establishes His revelations…” (Q 22:52)

So every prophet that had ever arisen must have had some lies mixed in with their words too for Muhammad’s falsehood to sound legitimate! Subhanallah! Under the Law of Moses, a prophet who spoke in the name of false gods as Muhammad did was under a death sentence (Deut. 13:1, 5).

On a side note, if Satan could so freely speak through Muhammad, what makes Muslims so sure that his recitations weren’t entirely satanic verses? How do they know for certain that the Quran is not a deceptive “flowery discourse” inspired by jinn and evil men? How do they differentiate the truth from the lies? Everything is accepted based on blind belief.

As Christians, we see the Quran as a deception inspired by the Father of lies because it contradicts God’s Word of Truth, the Bible (Gal. 1:8).

Now, let us journey into the Hadiths to see what they also tell us about the Islamic Satan.