I really dislike seeing Christians use double standards in their arguments against Muslim texts (Quran and Ahadith) i.e. using one standard to attack Islamic texts all the while not applying the same standard to their own text (the Bible). Jonathan McLatchie is amongst those Christians who does this. Perhaps he is just unaware of what exactly is in his Bible.
McLatchie seemingly borrowed two arguments from a well known internet Christian Islamophobe who has a history of purveying hoaxes and googled lies in his attacks against Islam.
McLatchie also offered a bit of mockery – admittedly he toned it down in comparison to the person whom he may have got the arguments from. Nevertheless, nobody wants to see the other mocking his opponents text. Jonathan would do well to stop mocking other people’s religions.
So what were Jonathan McLatchie’s two arguments concerning hygiene? Jonathan presented the Hadith of the Fly and those on water purity. He styles these as ‘blunders’ of Prophet Muhammad p and mockingly writes ‘I, for one, certainly would not want to follow Muhammad’s hygiene advice’.
Sahih Al-Bukhari 537: “Narrated Abu Huraira: The prophet said “If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease.””
Sunan Abu Dawud 67: “I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him): Water is brought for you from the well of Buda’ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual cloths and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.”
Sunan Ibn Majah 520: “It was narrated that Jabir bin Abdullah said: “We came to a pond in which there was the carcass of a donkey, so we refrained from using the water until the Messenger of Allah came to us and said: ‘Water is not made impure by anything.’ Then we drank from it and gave it to our animals to drink, and we carried some with us.””
We have already explained these via video and text. There are perfectly reasonable explanations for these Ahadith. Jonathan clearly does not research whether the material he is copying from Islamophobes has been refuted previously or not.
However, this is not a post to cover old ground. This is a post to appeal for consistency and highlight Jonathan’s (as well as his source’s) flawed methodology.
Jonathan McLatchie, if consistent will reject his Bible and write ‘he will not take hygiene advice from Jesus’. IF consistent. I always find this interesting, Christians of Jonathan’s ilk claim to have the Holy Spirit guiding them in Scripture yet they operate a standard when discussing other people’s faiths which upon application on the Bible ends up attacking the Bible. I’m not sure if Jonathan’s intention was to refute himself and his belief that the Holy Spirit guides him in Scripture – he did precisely that!
Here are some texts that I simply showcase for the purpose of highlighting Jonathan’s lack of consistency. I’m not mocking and nor am I attacking Christian Scripture.
Keep in mind all these texts are believed to be from Jesus (p) according to Jonathan as Jonathan believes in something called a Trinity in which he believes there are three persons in one Godhead (one of these persons is Jesus p according to Trinitarians)
1. Jonathan, if consistent would claim Jesus did not offer hygienic advice with regards to the treatment of people with skin ailments. According to Trinitarians like McLatchie Jesus p taught people to sprinkle bird blood on people suffering from leprosy, sores, swellings, rashes and for defiling skin diseases (various diseases affecting the skin). Refer to Leviticus 14: 1-7 and 14:54-57.
To add to this Leviticus 14:25 teaches smearing the blood of an animal on a person’s ear, thumb and on their toe.
Jonathan McLatchie has a problem here as sprinkling blood on a person is not seen as hygienic or safe practice and nor would it be seen as a cure for a skin ailment – if consistent he will reject the Bible.
2. Jonathan, if consistent would claim Jesus p did not offer hygienic advice concerning mould removal in one’s house. According to Trinitarians Jesus p taught people a purification ritual involving the sprinkling of bird blood around a house successfully treated for mould.
Jonathan McLatchie has a problem here as sprinkling blood of any kind (never mind of a bird) in one’s house is not seen as a hygienic practice – if consistent he will reject the Bible.
3. Jonathan, if consistent would believes Jesus initially asked a group of people to bake bread using human faeces and then later changed the order to the use of animal faeces in the stead of human faeces. Ezekiel 4:14-15. This seems to be some sort of symbolic defilement.
Jonathan McLatchie, if consistent will call this instruction, which he believes is from Jesus p unhygienic.
4. Jonathan McLatchie believes Jesus taught a woman whose husband has died to spit in the face of the brother of the deceased husband if he refuses to marry her (see Deut 25:5-9). I’m sure Jonathan considers spitting in somebody’s face as unhygienic.
Again, if he operates the same standard here as he does when he copies arguments from Islamophobes to attack Islam, he will reject the Bible.
5. Just to round it off I want to add some food for thought on this 5th point. A man who never met Jesus p, Paul of Tarsus, abolished circumcision (Galatians 5). Circumcision is more hygienic and aids with cleanliness and disease prevention. Jonathan McLatchie, will say Paul, offered unhygienic advice (which oddly he believe was inspired by Jesus – although Jesus was circumcised). However, that’s not the matter at hand in this post.
In sum, Jonathan McLatchie, if consistent will reject the Bible based on his method of handling Islamic texts. If he’s not going to do that then he may retract this line of argumentation (this will remove him from hypocrisy – I’d recommend this option) or alternatively he has another option in remaining in hypocrisy and continue offering such argumentation all the while knowing he is being inconsistent.
The choice is his.
What is evident is the desperation of Christian apologists to grab any old argument to attack Islam, so much so that they don’t even think them through critically.